• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

What happened to the surplus?

Puppycow

Penultimate Amazing
Joined
Jan 9, 2003
Messages
32,005
Location
Yokohama, Japan
Remember the surplus? Back in 2001, the last budget of the Clinton administration?

Here's what happened to it:

AppropsTable.jpg


To blame it all on "out of control spending" when tax revenue went from 19.5% of GDP to 14.8% of GDP is simply not true. In fact, the non-defense discretionary budget, which is the only part of the budget the politicians ever consider cutting, hasn't risen at all, in ten years.

Two wars, the Bush tax cuts, and Bush's Medicare Part D pretty much account for all of it.

If tax revenue were 19.5% of GDP rather than 14.8%, that would be another $695 billion, or roughly half of the deficit.
 


Two things jump out at me from this table.

First, taking it at face value, it shows an increase of approximately 35% in spending, and a decrease of approximately 18% in revenues. Or to put it in absolute terms, it shows an increase in spending of $935 billion, with a decrease in revenue of only $496 billion.

So, contrary to what you claim this table shows, what it really shows is that between increased spending, and decreased revenue, that it is the increased spending that is the bigger problem, by aproximately a factor of two.


Second is the asterisk next to the number for “Discretionary: Security” for 2001, which references a footnote that reads “Adjusted for inflation, but not population growth”. Why is only this number adjusted, and what effect does this have on the comparison to the corresponding 2011 number? Specifically, by adjusting the 2001 “Discretionary: Security” number for inflation would make that number larger than without such an adjustment, making the increase of the 2011 number over the 2001 number less than what would be shown without this adjustment. Not making the same adjustment for the other 2001 numbers would result in those increases appearing to be proportionally larger, compared to how they would appear of the same adjustment had been made. This certainly creates an impression to anyone who is paying enough attention to notice this detail, that the numbers have been dishonestly tampered with in order to support a conclusion that, if presented honestly, the numbers would not have supported.
 
Last edited:
So, contrary to what you claim this table shows, what it really shows is that between increased spending, and decreased revenue, that it is the increased spending that is the bigger problem, by aproximately a factor of two.
That isn't contrary to what he said. It's just rewording what he said. He expressed the tax cuts as half the deficit as opposed to your wording that the deficit is twice the tax cut.
 
Shouldn't we expect both spending and revenue to increase over a 10 year period? Why didn't revenue increase?
 
I wonder where those numbers came from.

According to the Citizen's Guide to the Federal Budget: Fiscal Year 2001
total Expenditures was the Federal Government will spend over $1.8 trillion and have a surplus of $184 billion in 2001,

2011 budget spending is 3.69 trillion. And the increase all came from defense and mandatory spending. Discretionary spending remained the same?
 
What happened to it?

George Bush happened.....

Worst president ever?
 
Second is the asterisk next to the number for “Discretionary: Security” for 2001, which references a footnote that reads “Adjusted for inflation, but not population growth”. Why is only this number adjusted, and what effect does this have on the comparison to the corresponding 2011 number?
According to the link (which I'm accepting at face value) all the other numbers in the column are adjusted for both inflation and population growth. That number presumably isn't adjusted for population growth because they assume the cost of defense isn't proportional to population, but items like Medicare are proportional to population.

The population has grown by about 10% over that decade. If that number were adjusted by 10% it would lower the spending increase by 49 billion dollars. Lower, but not enough to change the conclusion.

OTOH, if they hadn't adjusted the other numbers in the column they could have made the problem look worse by 200 billion dollars.

This all assumes the numbers and text at the link are accurate.
 
Why does one need to adjust for population at all? You have receipts; you have outlays. Whether the population is 5 million or half a billion, I don't see what bearing that has on whether/how much outlays are greater than receipts.
 
Shouldn't we expect both spending and revenue to increase over a 10 year period? Why didn't revenue increase?
Maybe because supply-side and piddle-down ecconomic theory is the greatest pile of crap that anybody ever sold to a government since Lysenko was alive.
 
So, contrary to what you claim this table shows, what it really shows is that between increased spending, and decreased revenue, that it is the increased spending that is the bigger problem, by aproximately a factor of two.

No. We had to spend the money, supposedly, because somebody had a gun to our heads and had to be put down.

There was no justification for giving useless gits like the Koch bothers a tax cut at a time like that. Only a drooling moron cuts taxes in a time of war.
 
Why does one need to adjust for population at all? You have receipts; you have outlays. Whether the population is 5 million or half a billion, I don't see what bearing that has on whether/how much outlays are greater than receipts.
Because a lot of the costs (SSA and Medicare for example) are roughly proportional to population.
 
That isn't contrary to what he said. It's just rewording what he said. He expressed the tax cuts as half the deficit as opposed to your wording that the deficit is twice the tax cut.


No. The increase in spending is about twice the reduction in revenue. Decreased revenue only accounts for a third of the increased deficit, with increased spending accounting for two thirds.

The problem is spending.


And reduced revenues don't necessarily mean “tax cuts”. In case you hadn't noticed, the economy is in terrible shape right now, having been greatly aggravated by a rash of wasteful, fraudulent “stimulus” plans that Obama put into effect shortly after he took office. As these took place in 2009 and 2010, they wouldn't show up among the spending in 2011. Similar tables for those years would surely show a much greater ration of increased spending versus reduced revenue, than this table shows.

There is less economic activity to tax, so even if the tax rates remained the same, there would be less revenue.
 
No. We had to spend the money, supposedly, because somebody had a gun to our heads and had to be put down.

There was no justification for giving useless gits like the Koch bothers a tax cut at a time like that. Only a drooling moron cuts taxes in a time of war.


You forgot to use the word “drongo”.
 
No. The increase in spending is about twice the reduction in revenue. Decreased revenue only accounts for a third of the increased deficit, with increased spending accounting for two thirds.

The problem is spending.


And reduced revenues don't necessarily mean “tax cuts”. In case you hadn't noticed, the economy is in terrible shape right now, having been greatly aggravated by a rash of wasteful, fraudulent “stimulus” plans that Obama put into effect shortly after he took office. As these took place in 2009 and 2010, they wouldn't show up among the spending in 2011. Similar tables for those years would surely show a much greater ration of increased spending versus reduced revenue, than this table shows.

There is less economic activity to tax, so even if the tax rates remained the same, there would be less revenue.

What does that part of the table that says that the revnue in 2001 were 19.5% of the GDP and only 14.8% of the GDP mean?
 
Remember the surplus? Back in 2001, the last budget of the Clinton administration?

Hate to tell you, there was no surplus.

If you check out the official national debt, you find that it went up during each year of Clinton's term including FY 1999, FY 2000 and FY 2001. Visit http://www.craigsteiner.us/articles/16 . That site links data from http://www.treasurydirect.gov/NP/BPDLogin?application=np , which is a site linked by the US Treasury website at http://www.ustreas.gov , to arrive at the following figures:

YEAR ... NATNL DEBT
-------- ---------------
FY1993 $4.411 trillion
FY1994 $4.692 trillion, deficit = $281 billion
FY1995 $4.973 trillion, deficit = $281 billion
FY1996 $5.225 trillion, deficit = $250 billion
FY1997 $5.413 trillion, deficit = $188 billion
FY1998 $5.526 trillion, deficit = $113 billion
FY1999 $5.656 trillion, deficit = $130 billion
FY2000 $5.674 trillion, deficit = $18 billion
FY2001 $5.807 trillion, deficit = $133 billion

Now how can there have been a surplus when the Treasury Department is telling us the national debt went up every single year? The answer is given at that website and turns out to be … as they say … "smoke and mirrors":

When it is claimed that Clinton paid down the national debt, that is patently false--as can be seen, the national debt went up every single year. What Clinton did do was pay down the public debt--notice that the claimed surplus is relatively close to the decrease in the public debt for those years. But he paid down the public debt by borrowing far more money in the form of intergovernmental holdings (mostly Social Security).


Now granted, the deficit went down to only $18 billion one year, but that was not a surplus. There was no surplus. To claim there was is false. Furthermore, note that Clinton, liar that he was, actually claimed to have generated a surplus totaling $360 billion the last three years in office. Here:

http://archives.cnn.com/2000/ALLPOLITICS/stories/09/27/clinton.surplus/

President Clinton announces another record budget surplus

From CNN White House Correspondent Kelly Wallace

September 27, 2000

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- President Clinton announced Wednesday that the federal budget surplus for fiscal year 2000 amounted to at least $230 billion, making it the largest in U.S. history and topping last year's record surplus of $122.7 billion. ... snip ... the president explained, the $5.7 trillion national debt has been reduced by $360 billion in the last three years -- $223 billion this year alone. This represents, Clinton said, "the largest one-year debt reduction in the history of the United States."


But that's not true. What Clinton did was pay down the public debt, NOT the national debt and there's a difference. He paid down the public debt by borrowing money in the form of intergovernmental holdings ... which is included in the national debt. In essence, he hid the problem. And the democrat-friendly mainstream media helped him do it.

And by the way, as to the reduction in the deficit during Clinton's term, how do you think that came about? You will note that the deficit in FY1994 and FY1995 was $281 billion dollars. The deficit only began to fall in FY1996 and thereafter. Now what was different about the later years from the first two? Well to begin with, republicans took control of Congress away from the democrats in January 1995. So FY1996 was the first year based on republican budgeting. And balancing the budget was the heart of Republican fiscal agenda during that time. Remember the government shutdown in late 1995? That was about balancing the budget and in the end President Clinton folded. Republicans retained control of Congress, even if by a slim margin, until after Clinton left office, which explains why the deficit continued to fall during Clinton's term. Clinton just went along for the ride because he was always good at going whichever way the wind seemed to be blowing at the time. :D
 
I wonder where those numbers came from.


You can get budget numbers from the Office of Management and Budget. You can download historical budget tables in either Excel or PDF format from here.

The OMB's numbers list this for the 2001 fiscal year (figures are in millions of dollars):

Total receipts: 1,991,082
Total outlays: 1,862,846
Total surplus or deficit: 128,236

On-budget receipts: 1,483,563
On-budget outlays: 1,516,008
On-budget surplus or deficit: -32,445

Off-budget receipts: 507,519
Off-budget outlays: 346,838
Off-budget surplus or deficit: 160,681

Since 1977 the U.S. fiscal year starts on Oct. 1st and ends on Sept. 30th. So the 2001 fiscal year ran from Oct. 1, 2000 to Sept. 30, 2001.
 

Back
Top Bottom