You will note that your list of figs does not add up to $4T. The item you did not list was the so-called "Technical" adjustments.
The main thing is that evidently CBO has done more than figure in the cost of a recession -- they have changed the underlying assumptions of their models too. My spies tell them they feel whipped for going too high last year, so they could be over-correcting now.
It doesn't hurt that both sides of the "debate" have an interest in a reduced surplus number. The Bushies like the tight constraint that is perceived because it helps them squeeze spending they don't like. (There is no harm to anything that can be labeled as necessary for security; that is bulletproof.) The Dem leadership likes it because they can whine about Surplus Paradise Lost.
More on this in a week or so.
mbs
>
>
>
> In cutting the forecast of the 10 year surplus by $4 trillion, from last
> year's forecast of $5.6 to the current forecast of $1.6 trillion, the
> Congressional Budget office allots the blame as follows:
>
> $1,280 billion to the Bush tax cut
> $929 billion to the recession
> $562 billion to increased interest on the national debt
> $550 billion to higher spending
>
> My question is: I could swear Max said the original forecasts included one
> recession occuring over that 10 year period. But the firgures above make
> it look like it was a big surprise to them that a recession would come
> soon after what was already the longest boom in post-war history. And it
> hasn't been a very bad recession either, so far GNP-wise, has it?
>
> So my first impression is that the original forecast had a trillion dollar
> transparent gimmick in it, namely pretending there wouldn't be a recession
> soon. Is this wrong?
>
> Michael
>
> __________________________________________________________________________
> Michael Pollak................New York City..............mpollak at panix.com
>