In his State of the Union address last night, President Bush said that next month he will “submit a budget that eliminates the federal deficit within the next five years.” Nevermind, of course, that the five-year goal has little meaning since in two years a new president, doubtless with new budget plans, will be in office. What it does suggest, though, is a further tightening of discretionary spending in the FY08 budget proposal. That could make it even harder for NASA to get much of a budget increase, at a time when it’s more and more difficult for the agency to do everything it’s been tasked to do with its current funding. And even if NASA does buck the trend and get a significant increase, that could make the agency the target of appropriators who want to spend that money on other programs instead. That will make the coming months interesting, but then, when are they not?
Considering the projected deficit for FY07 just came in at $175BN, taking five years to eliminate it is a pretty loping pace.
“CBO, Congress’ nonpartisan budget analyst, said in its updated budget and economic outlook that the fiscal 2007 deficit will fall to $172 billion and the government could go into surplus by 2012.
The new estimate for the fiscal 2007 deficit was significantly below the $247.7 billion budget shortfall registered last year and CBO’s August forecast of a $286 billion deficit this year.”
Do not be fooled by government projections that inflate projections using Enron-like accounting. As a business strategist and CFO, it is difficult to ascertain how the government’s borrowed figures are not represented alongside incomes and expenditures. The actual shortfall not reported is still around $497 billion.
Does that factor in the lowered revenues caused by the recession in the second half of 2007?
“Does that factor in the lowered revenues caused by the recession in the second half of 2007?”
You mean the same recession that has been predicted since 2003? Yes, that included in the calculations.
“The actual shortfall not reported is still around $497 billion.”
Finally, someone actaully admits Clinton never had an actual surplus.
“Finally, someone actaully admits Clinton never had an actual surplus.”
It’s always interesting to see how domestic economic news and reporting on Federal deficits changes when a President from the Democratic party is in office.
Boy do I remember the harping on ‘phony accounting’ and the looming collapse of the nation due to entitlement spending during the run up to the 1992 election. But strangely enough phony accounting was perfectly acceptable eight years later as the media started to celebrate a budget surplus! And compare the reporting on the record high stock market and low unemployment in 1998 (just before the stock crash) to the reporting of the same facts in 2006! Funny how that works, isn’t it?