Disappearing surplus my ass. Here's the latest
CBO projections for the surplus NOT COUNTING
Social Security, AFTER the tax cut:
2001 -9 (i.e., deficit not counting SS)
2002 2
2003 -18
2004 - 3
2005 21 (hello)
2006 47
2007 78
2008 106
2009 147
2010 184
2011 283
Take a ruler and draw that trend.
Note that this continues, onward and upward,
even after the Baby Boom retires, and after
2017 it is net of any transfers required to redeem
debts to the Trust Fund for payment of benefits.
Now our comrades from UKC/Mizoo will point out
that macro imbalances will blow this out of the
water and require massive deficit spending.
Whether that is true or not, however, is a
different matter. The surplus debate is a
debate about what the Gov should plan on doing,
looking foward beyond next year in the realms of
taxing and spending. Projected deficits are
God's way of telling the Congress, you can't
do anything. The converse should be taken as
a signal to do the opposite. Otherwise there
is never a good time to practice fiscal
activism.
mbs
>Also, the story says Treasury bonds are getting scarcer because "current
>projections" say the national debt will be virtually retired by 2010, but
>doesn't explain how this can be on the new, new, disappearing surplus
>current projections. ...
Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED] & http://bellarmine.lmu.edu/~jdevine
