Moon of Alabama Brecht quote
Back to Main

January 26, 2005
368 + 80 = 427

– US budget deficit estimated at 368 billion dollars in fiscal 2005

The US government will run a budget deficit of 368 billion dollars in the current fiscal year, excluding costs of wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office(CBO) predicted Tuesday.

– Bush Seeks $80 Bln for Military Operations

President Bush on Tuesday asked for more than $80 billion in new funding for military operations this year in Iraq and Afghanistan, shattering initial cost estimates and pushing the total for both conflicts to nearly $300 billion so far.

– W.House Projects 2005 Deficit at $427 Billion

The White House estimated on Tuesday that the U.S. budget deficit for 2005, including an extra $80 billion for Iraq and Afghanistan operations, will total $427 billion.

Please take note: 368 + 80  = 427

Posted by b on January 26, 2005 at 00:11 UTC | Permalink
Comments

Soon the repups will start blaiming liberals for “sinister mathematics”. Wait and see.

Posted by: A swedish kind of death | Jan 26 2005 0:31 utc | 1

Fuzzy, out. Sinister, in?

Posted by: beq | Jan 26 2005 1:17 utc | 2

The repugs are always blaming liberals. They are in a state of denial that they are ones on the spending spree. The deficit wouldn’t be so bad if defence spending was cut in half.
They need AA classes for addicted spenders.

Posted by: jdp | Jan 26 2005 1:24 utc | 3

A technical note. I believe that the deficit numbers used by CBO and the White House are based on “outlays”, i.e., funds actually spent, checks cashed, etc. The $80 billion request for the war and related activities is based on “budget authority” or “BA”. This is sort of like money in your checking account, not all of which you may have actually spent yet. At least part of the seeming discrepancy in the numbers is that they are probably assuming that not all of the $80 billion in “BA” will actually be “outlayed” in Fiscal Year 2005.
Who cares? Good question. Some people argue that BA is really what should be counted in deficit estimates because whether you spend it today or spend it tomorrow, once its in your account its going to be spent.
But just for the record, these budget debates are tricky enough, and the Bush Administration’s policies are bad enough, without piling on by mixing “apples and oranges”.

Posted by: maxcrat | Jan 26 2005 1:42 utc | 4

Sorry if I was a killjoy above.

Posted by: maxcrat | Jan 26 2005 2:18 utc | 5

Somee $B200 income over expenditure of SocialSecurity will be burned in the general budget too. SoSec will get some paper IOUs for that. These will have to be payed back one day (amendment 14). Funny thing is – they are not counted as budget deficit even though they clearly are.

Posted by: b | Jan 26 2005 6:58 utc | 6

Yes, b…that is a good point. The press almost never includes this in their analysis.

Posted by: maxcrat | Jan 26 2005 11:50 utc | 7

I suppose that the point is to thoroughly confuse everybody with essentially meaningless numbers so that people give up on the topic.
So the “427” figure, if correct, would not refer to the “budget deficit”, but to the net balance of the public administrations, plural, which includes the actual budget deficit, the social security surplus, and the positions of other public funds or administrations.
The “427” number sounds like the “Maastricht rule” number, but it clearly is not the budget deficit.

Posted by: Jérôme | Jan 26 2005 12:32 utc | 8

Most governmental budget estimates I have seen turned out to be too optimistic and/or were manipulated from the beginning. If Bushco announces sth like 430 billion (leaving the technicalities aside), do you think it would be wrong to expect at least 500 billion? (NOT including Bernhard’s social security costs.) They might create bad estimates to start breast-thumping when the worst numbers are not reached – but how many can they fool with this, and how often?

Posted by: teuton | Jan 26 2005 13:29 utc | 9

I suppose that the point is to thoroughly confuse everybody with essentially meaningless numbers so that people give up on the topic.
In other words, if we’re already 368 billion in debt, what’s another 80 billion? The figures are so high they’re meaningless. You’ll chew out a family member for spending an extra $1 on a more expensive brand of toilet paper, but the government throws around billions and people just shrug.

Posted by: kat | Jan 26 2005 15:29 utc | 10

I call it “the trillion dollar war,” not because I know what this number means, but because I think the war itself requires a name that reminds us, and forcibly so, that our lives have been changed in ways that are far beyond our ken. This fact is a hard one to remember–first, because we can’t even begin to imagine it, and second, because the administration has spent every last ounce of its energy trying to tell us that it’s otherwise. When the static is fierce and the truth is strange, only the strongest of signals can break through.

Posted by: alabama | Jan 26 2005 15:47 utc | 11

the point is to thoroughly confuse everybody with essentially meaningless numbers so that people give up on the topic.
“I don’t want educated people. I want oxen.” – A. Somoza (another dictator who engaged his National Guard in mass murder)

Posted by: b real | Jan 26 2005 15:55 utc | 12

Why do the numbers hate America?

Posted by: tom 47 | Jan 26 2005 22:18 utc | 13

pssssst, b real,….congrats on your nups.

Posted by: beq | Jan 26 2005 23:19 utc | 14

🙂

Posted by: b real | Jan 26 2005 23:25 utc | 15

Back to Main