Here are the facts: The federal deficit is "down sharply"...
WASHINGTON - The deficit for the first five months of the budget year is down sharply from a year ago as the growth in government tax collections continues to outpace growth in spending.
...and "down sharply" means more than 25 percent over last year.
The Treasury Department reported that the deficit from October through February totaled $162.2 billion, down 25.5 percent from the same period last year.
The federal deficit was up 0.6 percent to $120 billion in February...
That improvement came even though the deficit in February hit $120 billion, up 0.6 percent from last February's deficit of $119.2 billion.
...but that's normal for this time of year as the numbers get skewed up because the government is sending out more money in the form of tax refunds to earlier tax filers.
One factor that contributes to higher deficits in February are the refund payments the Internal Revenue Service is mailing out during the month to people who have filed early tax returns. The February 2006 imbalance was the largest monthly deficit for that year.
...add this little tidbit to the story:
The $248.2 billion deficit for 2006 was the smallest deficit in four years and down significantly from the all-time high...
And you end up with an article that suggests that the federal deficit is down more than 25% from last year, and is around the smallest number in 4 years, despite seeing a slight increase that is standard for this time of year due to IRS refund disbursements. So how does MSM choose to headline the story?
"Deficit grows to $120B in February"
Focus on the negative, ignore the positive, and hope most people won't read past the headline. It's a tried and true formula... and they're obviously sticking to it.
Editor at Large
Comments Policy
Gee I wish I could use that
March 12, 2007 - 23:42 ET by radiofitz34Gee I wish I could use that MSM new math when I do my tax returns.
I'm taking bets on the federa
March 13, 2007 - 09:52 ET by dscottI'm taking bets on the federal deficit final number for 2006, my estimate is 357 Billion. That's 100 Billion less than 2005 and at that pace (3 years) a balanced budget in 2009. Just in time for the Dems to not extend the expiring tax cuts and crash the economy. Hey, we got to have some mess to clean up, the Dems excel at creating problems.
“The object of life is not to be on the side of the majority but to escape finding oneself in the ranks of the insane.” – Marcus Aurelius
I detect a severe threat to
March 13, 2007 - 09:56 ET by sarcasmoI detect a severe threat to US port-security...
JMR
I hear you on that. But p
March 13, 2007 - 11:25 ET by dscottI hear you on that, it would takes thousands upon thousands of new TSA employees to inspect every one of those containers coming into the country. In other words, a massive expansion of the Federal payroll, i.e. a make-work jobs program.
But pay attention to line item 19 so you know where the increasing expenditure of money is occurring. The growth of line item 19 accounts for the entire deficit all by itself from 2000 until now. The cost for the GWOT is chump change in comparison.
“The object of life is not to be on the side of the majority but to escape finding oneself in the ranks of the insane.” – Marcus Aurelius
Actually, I was making an o
March 13, 2007 - 11:36 ET by sarcasmoActually, I was making an obscure tacked-on gambling legislation joke (trying, without success in the case of this one, to get that one to die the death of 1000 cuts, I guess). I'm not very good at reading government graphs with lots of huge numbers (in part because they depress me so...) but I think we might agree on this.
JMR
To a certain extent I agree w
March 13, 2007 - 11:52 ET by dscottTo a certain extent I agree with Ron Paul on entitlements gobbling up the Federal Budget. But I totally disagree on his take on Medicare Part D, the 40% of the economy prediction is as outlandish as Al Gore's prediction of the oceans rising 20 ft. From what I have read, the costs are coming down on this program to many people's surprise due to competition, which was how the program was designed, btw-that's why Sen Drunk Ted Hickup Kennedy is totally against the program. If the drunk is against it, something must be going right, not just philosophically. The fact is those drugs would have been purchased by seniors anyway regardless of Medicare, so this mistates the health care issue in that 40% is actually what the health care industry as a whole will be in relation to the economy many years down the line as the whole country continues to age.
btw-if Ron Paul can't even get this one right, then it's no wonder he isn't on the 2008 radar screen.
“The object of life is not to be on the side of the majority but to escape finding oneself in the ranks of the insane.” – Marcus Aurelius
Wait a second, it's not Dr.
March 13, 2007 - 12:02 ET by sarcasmoWait a second, it's not Dr. Paul saying "40%," it's instead Dr. Paul quoting the National Taxpayer's Union saying that. Are you saying that the NTU is wrong on that number?? If so, might you have any citations of contrary numbers? And I thought Teddy and W. appeared at the original Medicare press conference as buddies when this passed, am I having another "senior moment"?
JMR
The National Taxpayers Union
March 13, 2007 - 12:26 ET by dscottThe National Taxpayers Union reports that Medicare will consume nearly 40% of the nation’s GDP after several decades because of the new drug benefit. That’s not 40% of federal revenues, or 40% of federal spending, but rather 40 % of the nation’s entire private sector output!
I believe Mr. Paul has mistated what the NTU actually said:
“The object of life is not to be on the side of the majority but to escape finding oneself in the ranks of the insane.” – Marcus Aurelius
Politicians have been trying to add a prescription drug plan to the Medicare program for several years. However, their likely success in making prescription drugs universally available to seniors could wind up sending our fragile economy out of the recovery room and straight into the Emergency Room.
Medicare already faces financial uncertainty, and adding a new $400 billion entitlement onto the existing program will only worsen its doubtful condition. Analysis of three different cost scenarios illustrates that the fiscal effects of the prescription drug proposal would place unsustainable pressure on the federal budget, as well as U.S. taxpayers, eventually consuming up to 37 percent of our Gross Domestic Product (GDP).
It's not Medicare Part D that will consume 37% of the GDP but Medicare as a whole. And yes, Part D will help that along. So this is a gross overstatement. Note, this was written in 2003.
Dr. Paul's article only men
March 13, 2007 - 12:34 ET by sarcasmoDr. Paul's article only mentions Medicare itself, and not "Part D." I think he's possibly-wrong on the 37 vs 40 percent issue, but he's right on the general disaster that's NOT being reported by the news media because old people (naturally) like the initial effects of something that's gonna bankrupt their grandkids, IMO, the same way heroin users enjoy their first dose. And Dr. Paul's article is from 2007, so it's a safe assumption things are 3% worse from a spending POV. (If he's right, might you agree with the possibility that I'm right about the mediabias against libertarian ideas issue?)
JMR
Well it goes without saying t
March 13, 2007 - 12:48 ET by dscottWell it goes without saying that the MSM is biased, if they treat rank and file Repubs like the cloven footed devil, then Libertarians are nothing more than his minions of anarchy. LOL
But the other point is he is dealing with old info. from 2003 citing these numbers.
“The object of life is not to be on the side of the majority but to escape finding oneself in the ranks of the insane.” – Marcus Aurelius
Chances are, those are the
March 13, 2007 - 12:52 ET by sarcasmoChances are, those are the newest numbers the-NTU-not-him could get, IMO, but considering other spending, do you really believe things have gotten better on Hillarycare-light? I sure don't...I instead believe in my spending's-like-heroin analogy, only the geezers getting high right now won't be experiencing the withdrawal symptoms their kids & grandkids are headed-for later, if Dr. Paul and I are correct.
JMR
Here is your contrary number
March 13, 2007 - 12:35 ET by dscottHere is your contrary number btw.
Independent estimates for the Medicare Part D prescription drug benefit for the FY 2008 budget cycle show that net Medicare costs are 30 percent less -- $189 billion lower -- than were originally predicted when the benefit was created in 2003, HHS Secretary Mike Leavitt announced today. In addition, based on strong, competitive bids by health care plans for 2007, average monthly premiums will be approximately $22 for beneficiaries, down from $23 in 2006, if enrollees remain in their current plans. The initial estimate for 2006 premiums was $37.
"Our new estimates provide clear evidence that consumer choice is working," Secretary Leavitt said. "Government interference will result in fewer choices and less consumer satisfaction. Actuaries have told us that government interference will not lead to lower drug prices either."
According to actuaries with the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS), the updated Medicare Part D baseline of payments to Part D plans for the FY 2008 budget cycle has decreased from last summer’s mid-session review numbers by $113 billion over the next ten years (2007 - 2016). Importantly, of the $113 billion reduction, $96 billion is a direct result of competition and significantly lower Part D bids.
"Part D drug plans produced greater-than-expected savings by competing for Medicare beneficiaries and aggressively negotiating with drug companies," said Acting CMS Administrator Leslie V. Norwalk. "Strong, competitive bids and informed beneficiary choices are bringing down premiums yet again. The bottom line from the news today is that beneficiaries are paying less in premiums and taxpayers are seeing billions of dollars in savings."
Before yelling it's the end of the world like Al Gore, check the facts.
“The object of life is not to be on the side of the majority but to escape finding oneself in the ranks of the insane.” – Marcus Aurelius
Your numbers above do not r
March 13, 2007 - 12:46 ET by sarcasmoYour numbers above do not reference any percentage of the US economy, so I fail to see how they've refuted (or even addressed...) the NTU's numbers. Also, please note the source of your numbers is the agency that administers the big government program we're talking about...I'm not the one yelling like Al Gore or the one not checking facts here, but I suspect someone really-wishes he could prove Dr. Paul & the NTU wrong. Sorry, but you have yet to accomplish that...
JMR
Um, the NTU gets it's numbers
March 13, 2007 - 12:52 ET by dscottUm, the NTU gets it's numbers regarding Medicare from these folks in the first place, (except of course what the guestimate on the size of the economy is) so claiming the government is lying about this is like saying the NTU pulled it's numbers from thin air.
“The object of life is not to be on the side of the majority but to escape finding oneself in the ranks of the insane.” – Marcus Aurelius
So how come there's no corr
March 13, 2007 - 12:54 ET by sarcasmoSo how come there's no correlation between what you posted and what the article with the NTU's numbers said? Nothing you quote says anything about percentages of the entire economy, it talks about average individual premiums instead. Here's what the NTU says itself on the subject. Are they (and therefore Dr. Paul, too) wrong, in your opinion?
JMR
You need to read both the 200
March 13, 2007 - 13:58 ET by dscottYou need to read both the 2003 NTU study and the new HHS study. The NTU in 2003 claimed the Part D benefit would cost taxpayers 421 billion over 10 years. Their gripe was and still is: it's too much money we can't afford. However, given the actual performance of the plan that estimate now will be 189 Billion lower or 232 Billion (instead of 421) over 10 years. How often does a government program cost decrease over time instead of increase???? Not often. Medicare Part D is a resounding success as far as government programs go (that's because it was Repub inspired, no thanks to the Dumbocrats, which is why Ted Kennedy is enraged and wants to repeal it).
The big question is this, I believe the orginal premise of prescription drug coverage was: it would be far cheaper to subsidize the drugs to keep people out of the hospital than for Medicare to pay the huge hospital bills due to not getting the proper dosage of prescriptions because seniors couldn't afford it. So as a Libertarian, does being penny wise and pound foolish appeal to your sense of fiscal conservatism? Let us add to this equation, more people are becoming seniors and thus Medicare spending would have increased anyway. Anyway you slice it, Medicare was going to go up, the Part D is an attempt to limit that increase by keeping the seniors out of the hospital through preventive medicine as much as possible.
“The object of life is not to be on the side of the majority but to escape finding oneself in the ranks of the insane.” – Marcus Aurelius
I'm still not sure if you'r
March 13, 2007 - 14:09 ET by sarcasmoI'm still not sure if you're saying the NTU is right or wrong when they claim: "Now, Medicare is expected to exhaust its trust fund by 2018, and experts predict that a triple-digit tax increase, massive borrowing, or substantial cuts in benefits will be needed to bring the program back into balance." It's heartening, if surprising, to see lower than estimated costs for once for any government program, but all the numbers are still above 0, which is what I think the government should spend on this stuff the way I slice it...And even if he's throwing another fit right now, is my memory of Teddy & Bush all buddy-buddy at the signing of this bill, which I'll still-call "Hillarycare Light" if you don't mind, correct as I suspect, or is it a sarcasmo senior moment?
JMR
We are judging the program fr
March 13, 2007 - 14:26 ET by dscottWe are judging the program from two completely different standards. I understand where you are coming from being a Libertarian, but I judge this from the Repub standpoint. There is no disagreement on the 2018 figure as of this moment. However, things do change as was demonstrated by the lowering of the program cost estimates from 2003 to 2006. Just as correlation is not causation, extrapolation is not precognition. We don't know the full extent of what doing to X will do with Y. The judgement is still out on whether providing subsidized Rx to seniors will curb the cost of Medicare in the future. That time will only tell.
“The object of life is not to be on the side of the majority but to escape finding oneself in the ranks of the insane.” – Marcus Aurelius
If you agree with the NTU &
March 13, 2007 - 14:30 ET by sarcasmoIf you agree with the NTU & me on the 2018 figure, then I don't see how Dr. Paul is wrong in his article in any way...The judgement may be out, but we seem to agree that the ship's heading for a shallow reef in about eleven years. If that's not a fiscal emergency, I'm not sure what is...
JMR
Because the premise of our un
March 13, 2007 - 15:41 ET by dscottBecause the premise of our understanding is totally different and therefore requires a difference of approach and expectations to solve the problem. It's like Al Gore saying we need to cut back on energy, his reasons employ a different approach to a solution as mine would. Al says raise fuel taxes and carbon cap, I say it's a national security issue, therefore build nuke power plants, drill more and diversify energy sources.
Medicare has mostly been farmed out to the insurance companies, so all the cost containment that can occur has been done. The Rx program success hasn't plateaued yet. So the free market options are being used effectively.
You can pretend Medicare is not going to go up regardless and then you can cut Rx funding, but you increase hospital costs because seniors who can't afford the Rx have to choose between priorities on a limited budget. Or you can acknowledge Medicare is going to go up regardless of what you do but try to limit it's growth by funding the Rx benefit.
The third option of course is the Libertarian option, dump all the seniors on the ice flow and let them take their chances with the polar bears. Or maybe heed the dire calls of an old population bomb movie, let the old people not be treated after age 65? LOL I know I'm being unfair but, what is the Libertarian option that addresses the issues of seniors when it comes to health insurance/Rx plan?
“The object of life is not to be on the side of the majority but to escape finding oneself in the ranks of the insane.” – Marcus Aurelius
It's a good question. The &
March 13, 2007 - 15:55 ET by sarcasmoIt's a good question. The "libertarian option" would be to let charity slowly-replace (WITHOUT INVOLVEMENT BY GOVERNMENT!!!!) what big government has screwed-up over the years, since that's what was working (like private schools before public schooling was imported from, not-coincidentally, Germany...) before. Alexis DeToqueville(sp) wrote long ago of America's generousity, and it was in an America neither of us would imagine as far as how-small government was back then. Did, back then, and would, in my future, some people unjustly die poor? Yes. Hell, not quite that long ago the greatest American inventor who ever lived, Nikola Tesla (ok, so he wasn't born here, he loved this country!) died in poverty, which is a damn shame beyond ordinary injustice considering just how much he did for the people of this planet. But my point is, government doesn't solve problems, it creates them -- and this includes schooling and health care just like almost-anything else. In my book. Hope I was clear....But for a better look at these issues, see Healing Our World by Dr. Mary Ruwart (another libertarian doctor who'd make a great President of the United States, come to think of it!).
JMR
Only problem with that premis
March 13, 2007 - 16:48 ET by dscottOnly problem with that premise is the health needs of seniors is not the same as the general population. Charity is not going to meet their intensive needs, only continuously improving medical technology is going to make a critical difference there. By medical technology, I'm saying anything that keeps them out of the hospital or nursing home, because once there, that's when the dollar meter starts whizzing faster than you can count. This is especially true where Altzheimers and Demensia are concerned.
“The object of life is not to be on the side of the majority but to escape finding oneself in the ranks of the insane.” – Marcus Aurelius