On Wed, 22 Aug 2001, Max Sawicky wrote:
> Current estimates by the Congressional Budget Office of the 10-year
> budget surplus, after netting out the tax cut, are $3.968 trillion.
> If you want to try and hoodwink the public and subtract Social
> Security Trust Fund surpluses, it's $1.484 trillion. If you want to
> try even harder and subtract Medicare surpluses, it's $1.087 trillion.
Besides dividing by 10, what is the cover story in today's FT not counting in the last paragraph below so that they come out with zero? Is the phrase "debt reduction" a trick -- do they mean pledges *besides* those associated with SS and Medicare, as if those were somehow sacrosanct too? (To make their figures jibe with yours, those would have to be independent pledges of debt reduction of over a 100bn to 150bn a year. That would really be masochism. And dishonesty.)
<quote>
The US economic slowdown and tax rebates have sharply reduced this year's US federal budget surplus, the White House conceded yesterday.
It's Office of Management and Budget said it expected a budget surplus of $158bn for 2001. Although that is the second largest surplus in US history, it is well below last year's record $237bn and a far cry from the record $281bn the administration predicted four months ago.
In addition, the surplus woudl shrink to $1bn if fund pledged by both Democrats and Republicans to Social Security and debt reduction were subtracted. If the pledges are to be taken seriously, it mans this year's available surplus has essentially gone.
<unquote>
> I've a forthcoming article in The Progressive Populist on all this.
> I'll post a link when it's up.
Looking forward to it.
Michael
__________________________________________________________________________ Michael Pollak................New York City..............mpollak at panix.com