The Bush Administration Clown Show

Yes, it is George W. Bush once again in the center ring with the funny nose and the big shoes:

President Bush Discusses the Economy and Budget: THE PRESIDENT: Thank you all. Please be seated. Good afternoon. Thanks for coming to the White House. In 2004, I made a promise to the American people, we would cut the federal budget deficit in half over five years. Today I'm pleased to report that we have achieved this goal, and we've done it three years ahead of schedule.

This morning my administration released the budget numbers for fiscal 2006. These budget numbers are not just estimates; these are the actual results for the fiscal year that ended February the 30th.* [sic] These numbers show that the budget deficit has been reduced to $248 billion and is down to just 1.9 percent of the economy...

Should we say that the 2004 budget deficit was $412.7 billion, and that half of that would be $206.3 billion--not $248 billion? Should we say that the fiscal year ends in September, not February? Should we say that February never has 30 days? Should we say that February never had--not even before Julius Caesar--30 days?

Comments

[BJ Terry]

I'm going to guess that by cut in half he meant cut in half as a percentage of GDP. I'm going to further guess that by "the fiscal year that ended February 30th" he meant the four quarters ended in February. The Feb. 30th thing is just a ruse to keep liberals underestimating him, he's actually a brilliant, technocratic economist and strategist.

Of course, I don't have number, proof, or anything else to back up these suppositions, but its all possible.

BJ Terry

[hroch]

Is this excuse for a leader high on dope, retarded, or just _fucking_ stupid?

[VinylVenus]

IIRC, hasn't this fraudulent administration covertly adjusted nearly every periodic report, from jobs created to past reports on the deficits???

What a circus!!!

Naomi

[Civil Servant]

BJ Terry is right that the Administration has been considering their 'promise' to cut the deficit in half in terms of 'percentage of GDP'. The February 30th thing was simply a mistake, though.

[rea]

February 30th = never . . .

[kharris]

Has Stan Collender gotten around to listing all the gaping holes in the new budget figures yet? Unified budget. On budget vs off budget (Iraq, Afghanistan, hurricane relief). As I understand it, the indebtedness of the federal government rose at a record (nominal) pace in fiscal 2006. The budget figure Bush announced is ex-this and ex-that. Niet waar?

[pgl]

It's that fuzzy math thing. Now for some real math - CalculatedRisk points out that the General Fund deficit for FYE 9/30/2006 was $574 billion. OK, it was $595 billion for FYE 9/30/2004. So let's see, 574 divided by 595. Whoops, I've lost my calculaor, so maybe I should trust the proposition that 574 divided by 595 = 0.5. HONEY - why did our 6-year old just start screaming daddy is an idiot?

[Ginger Yellow]

Should we say that of course they reached the milestone 3 years ahead of schedule? The whole point is that Bush's tax cuts and spending increases are structured so that the deficit spirals from 2009.

[Euthydemos in Athens, GA]

Even if it was half, wasn't it half of the gigantic budget deficit that he created?

So what he's really saying is "We are only spending as much as one-half of a drunken sailor." or "We are only driving to the poor house half as fast as we were when I started driving us there."

"Good News! I've only mortgaged half of your future!"

[Anon]

http://ap.lancasteronline.com/4/medicare_payment_skip

WASHINGTON (AP) - Many health care providers will have to make do next month without a government paycheck or two. The Bush administration says it will not make any Medicare reimbursements to hospitals, doctors and scores of other providers during the last nine days of the current budget year, from Sept. 22-30. Congress ordered the hold.

By delaying payments, the government moves $5.2 billion in Medicare expenses to next year's budget, rather than the current one.

[Big Al]

Just to be picky, the original Julian calendar had 30 days in February, before Augustus amended it, every fourth year.

[Ken Houghton]

Uh, guys, as a percent of GDP, it's a true CF.

pgl's spot-on for one key aspect; if you take out that pre-funding we've been doing since 1983 (at The Maestro's suggestion), only an idiot or a Reuters reporter would believe him.

[me]

I wonder if he is going to pay the medicare doctors and hospitals this month?

[Dantae]

If this is referring to Bush’s press conference earlier this week, he clearly said “September the 30th.” Where did the February 30th quote come from?

[P O'Neill]

If you think that's the only clown show element in the transcript, keep reading. Apparently thanks to tax cuts, cotton undershirts are no longer stealing our precious bodily fluids. Really.

[tedb]

Dantae, You are mistaken. Try following the link at the top of this thread to the White House web site. There you will find the transcript and a link to listen to the audio. He clearly says "February 30." The transcript includes "sic" and an asterisk pointing to a footnote that simply says "September 30." Given this White House's record of rewriting history, perhaps we should give them credit for not covering up Bush's mistake.

[ilsm]

Some years ago, to hold down fiscal year expenditures they held the usual end of month military paycheck for Sept until Oct 1.

Ever since the GI's are paid on the first of the month.

I think that was reagan although it could have been GHW Bush at the helm.

[ken melvin]

driechmann@ap.org

[Adj]

hroch, What only the right side skews it numbers to their favor..... get serious.
Funny how no one recalls that our great fellatio receiver of a president pushed & passed the largest tax increase in the history of these United States. I guess if your a lazy ass bum with no want to find a job Clinton was the "best ever!"..... thanks but no thanks we have to many lazy people, and there is no need to encourage them with giving away our hard earned money.

[Ryan]

Why does everyone hate tax increases?

[pete]

everyone hates tax increases because they increase everyone's taxes, but when it's time for a tax cut, most people don't qualify

[pete]

or, they all get a big fat $300 dollar check! which is a pittance compared to what that top 10% get

[mwg]

I hate it when the Left skews numbers, too. Thing is, the Right is much better at it.

And why is it that most of us were doing better under Clinton than under Bush, despite that awful tax increase?

[Robert 'Groby' Blum]

Hm. Let me compare. Tax increase plus fellatio on one side of the equation.

On the other side, giant deficits. More than half a million dead people in Iraq. NK out of control. "No child gets a dime".

I think our current president should get more fellatio and less politics.

[H-Bob]

When Bush said he was going to cut the deficit in half, he didn't have the qualifier "as a percentage of GDP" !

[Teabag Smithwick]

Ah, give it up folks. You know the Chinese will rule the world in the next hundred years. Follow the Ho-Chi-Min trial suckers!

[Rich Gibson]

Adi,

With respect: Bush has not lowered taxes, he has moved them to the future.

That might make sense, but these are not actual tax cuts.

[stickboy]

Apparently we are going by 18th Century Swiss calendars?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/February_30

[KoWT]

Will someone please give Bush a blowjob

so ken melvin will back impeaching him

[Salted Peanut Lover]

If costs for the bogus war in Iraq are off budget, all aWol's talk about halving it is fraudulent. Each and everyone reporting on this fraud must mention this on the air.

[Michael Brown]

Bush's poorly articulated message is really only meant to confuse the Joe Lunchbox's of this nation.

The prototypical layman in this country doesn't understand the difference between a budget deficit and the national debt. Too many people will hear Bush’s message and think, “Oh, look, that national debt thing is cut in half now…”

It’s no secret that every time Bush opens his mouth he sounds like an uneducated cretin. However, what’s worse is that he is continually and purposely spreading misinformation and half truths at the same time. It is really quite pathetic.

[Warren]

Bush's voodoo economic report read a whole lot like declarations made by the Chinese Communist Party during the manic days of the Cultural Revolution and Mao's Great Leap Forward. How f**ked up are Americans who believe a word this idiot says? I can't believe he's from the same state that produced learned and esteemed politicians like Kinky Friedman.

[CalD]

"I'm going to guess that by cut in half he meant cut in half as a percentage of GDP."

(Posted by: BJ Terry | October 11, 2006 at 10:44 PM)

$248 Billion would be about half of the inflated deficit number the administration projected at the beginning of 2004 -- so that they could say in the fall that the deficit turned out to be lower than expected. It's a game they play every year. No one outside the Republican base has actually fallen for it, but the base does love it when they go on Fox News and say "See! The tax cuts are working!" And it's not like it costs them anything extra just to make up a number.

But I also read somethere that to make the final number appear that low this year, they had raided the surplus Social Security taxes to the tune of another $250 Billion. And of course if true, that will have to be made up from somewhere once boomers start retiring in earnest, such that the real new debt accumulated this year would be more like half a trillion. Gotta love conservatives.

It's amazing though, how your idea of "good" economic news can change in six short years though. In six short years we managed to get from a $300 Billion *surplus* to a place where a deficit of *only* a quarter of a trillion dollars actually does start to sound pretty good.

[macewan]

the doctor giving him check-ups should be fired as it's quite obvious this man is retarded and clearly not fit for the job

[me]

Delong, what does this mean?

"Your comment has not been posted because we think it might be comment spam. If you believe you have received this message in error, please contact the author of this weblog."

While I enjoy this blog, if you are blocking half the comments it isn't worht reading anymore.

[anne]

http://economistsview.typepad.com/economistsview/2006/10/paul_krugman_wi.html

October 13, 2006

Paul Krugman: Will the Levee Break?
Edited by Mark Thoma

Paul Krugman analyzes the odds of Democrats taking control of the House of Representatives:

NY Times: The conventional wisdom says that the Democrats will take control of the House of Representatives next month, but only by a small margin. I’ve been looking at the numbers, however, and I believe this conventional wisdom is almost all wrong.

Here’s what’s happening: a huge Democratic storm surge is heading toward a high Republican levee. It’s still possible that the surge won’t overtop the levee — that is, the Democrats could fail by a small margin... But if the surge does go over the top, the ... Democrats [will]... probably win big. ...

Unless the Bush administration is keeping Osama bin Laden in a freezer somewhere, a majority of Americans will vote Democratic this year. If Congressional seats were allocated in proportion to popular votes, a Democratic House would be a done deal. But they aren’t...

The key point is that African-Americans, who overwhelmingly vote Democratic, are highly concentrated in a few districts. This means that in close elections many Democratic votes ... simply add to huge majorities in a small number of districts...

My back-of-the-envelope calculations suggest that because of this “geographic gerrymander,” ... the Democrats need as much as a seven-point lead in the overall vote to take control.

No wonder, then, that until a few months ago many political analysts argued that the Republicans would control the House for the foreseeable future, because only a perfect political storm could overcome the G.O.P. structural advantage.

But what’s that howling sound? Every poll taken this month shows the Democrats with a double-digit lead in the generic ballot question... The median Democratic lead is 14 points.

And here’s the thing: because there are many districts that the G.O.P. carried by only moderately large margins in recent elections, a large Democratic surge — one only a bit bigger than that needed to take the House at all — would sweep away many Republicans holding seats normally considered safe. If the actual vote is anything like what the polls now suggest, we’re talking about the Democrats holding a larger majority in the House than the Republicans have held at any point since their 1994 takeover.

So if the Democrats win, they’ll probably have a substantial majority. Whether they’ll be able to keep that majority is another question. But be prepared to wake up less than four weeks from now and learn that everything you’ve been told about American politics — liberalism is dead, whoever controls the South controls Washington, only Republicans know “the way to win” — is wrong. (Are we seeing the birth of a new New Deal coalition, in which the solid Northeast takes the place of the solid South?)

The storm may yet weaken. ... If that happens, will it mean that Republican control is permanent after all?

No. Bear in mind that the G.O.P. isn’t in trouble because of a string of bad luck. The problems that have caused Americans to turn on the party, from the disaster in Iraq to the botched response to Katrina, from the failed attempt to privatize Social Security to the sudden realization by many voters that the self-proclaimed champions of moral values are hypocrites, are deeply rooted in the whole nature of Republican governance. So even if this surge doesn’t overtop the levee, there will be another surge soon.

But the best guess is that the permanent Republican majority will end in a little over three weeks.

[Joe BLow]

"But I also read somewhere that to make the final number appear that low this year, they had raided the surplus Social Security taxes to the tune of another $250 Billion."

not exactly, all the funds collected by the government go into one big pool, whether from FICA, taxes or fees. Then they spend more then they have and issue bonds for the rest. The number of bonds they have to issue is less because they get to use the FICA money.

In return our social security cash is invested in the safest investment around...US Treasury Notes. Special ones, backed by the full faith and credit fo the US of A. Just like T-bills, just like the dollar.

Don't let anyone tell you they are just pieces of paper in a cabinet....tell them to give you the pieces of paper in their wallet and watch them howl.

That said, when social security starts to spend more than it takes in (say 40 years) then those bonds are going to be presented for payment. Then who's gonna howl when then have to raise the money....or cut the payouts!

Anne - jobs are rising in the poorest paid industries, unemployment is low because people have stopped looking, corporate profits are up because the worker's share of income is less. I've got money in the stock market but Bush's overall policies are terrible.

[Joe BLow]

"Delong, what does this mean?

"Your comment has not been posted because we think it might be comment spam. If you
While I enjoy this blog, if you are blocking half the comments it isn't worht reading anymore."

huh....you just deleted the comment by Anne....odd blog habits...

[anne]

As for the reason for such robust profits that profits as a portion of national income have grown to levels not found since the 1920s, the reason is relative labor market weakness. I have written of this before....

No comment of mine has been deleted. Any deletion would have been spam, using the guise of names of those Brad knows. This lovely blog is attacked at times by spammers.

[Captain Video]

Those figures are based on the Unified Budget. This budget treats payments into the Social Security Trust Fund as if it were revenue for the Federal Government to spend that does not have to be repaid, when it is actually money that the Federal Government has to borrow from the Social Security Trust Fund before it can spend it. When this money is borrowed it becomes part of the National Debt and will have to be repaid to the Social Security Trust Fund when the baby boomers retire. The on budget deficit (the deficit in the general fund), which excludes this item, which is not Federal Government revenue, is much larger.

The fact that this point is not widely understood makes the deficit look a lot less bad than it actually is.

[Captain Video]

"In return our social security cash is invested in the safest investment around...US Treasury Notes. Special ones, backed by the full faith and credit fo the US of A. Just like T-bills, just like the dollar."

The problem is that when the Social Security Trust Fund runs a deficit when the baby boomers retire, so that it is time for the Federal Government to repay its debts to the Social Security Trust Fund, this Social Security Truts fund deficit will make the Unified Budget deficit very huge. This is becuase just as the current Social Security surplus reduces the deficit as shown in the Unified Budget below the deficit in the General Fund (on budget items), the Social Security Trust Fund deficit will make the Unified Buget deficit much larger than the deficit in the General Fund.

If the amount paid to the Social Security recipients is reduced, the deficit in the Social Security Trust Fund and therefore the deficit in the Unified Budget will be reduced. This will create a tremendous amount of political pressure to stiff the Social Security recipients. The fact that the securities held by the Social Security Trust Fund are genuine U.S. government debt does not in any way eliminate this particular problem. Unfortunately almost nobody is paying any attention to this.

[Captain Video]

Partial remedies for this problem are, first of all, that the deficit of the Federal Government should not be measured using the Unified Budget, but, rather only the General Fund, so that the public can see how big the real deficit of the Federal Government actually is.
Secondly, the process should be made more transparent by making the following change: Instead of the borrowing from the Social Security Trust Fund being automatic with the issuance of special issues of government securities, which are not marketable, by the Treasury to the Social Security Trust Fund, as is now done,the Social Security System should use its surpluses to buy negotiable U.S. government securities on Wall Street, just as any other investor does. When the Trust Fund runs into deficit later, it should then sell its U.S. government securities on Wall street.

Finally, the Social Security Trust Fund should be invested in a more diversified portfolio of bonds, including corporate bonds. This would not only give the Social Security Trust Fund a higher rate of return, but it would make it more difficult for the federal government to conceal the true size of the deficit. With the high degree of diversification the Social Security Trust Fund could engage in, it could do this safely. As a matter of fact, it could safely invest part of its surpluses in junk bonds, earning a much higher rate of return on this part of the fund.

[Robert]

It's Feb 30th on a FREEP Year.

[anjersmc]

The other day on the radio we had a poll to see who was the dumbest,, Tara Ried or Mr.Bush,, Bush won by a landslide! It's about time he won something that was clear and not fixed! So hands down,, Bush is just an idiot.