I've been telling people the prior numbers were overly pessimistic, but I haven't written a demonstration.
The key point is this:
> The new surplus numbers have emerged largely because of recent
> data indicating that the recession is fading or over, the
> officials said. This includes last week's report that the
> economy grew at a 1.4 percent annual rate in the final quarter
> of 2001, surpassing an earlier 0.2 percent estimate.
The baseline numbers were sufficiently small that a small lurch could throw the numbers back into the black. Similarly, Bush's spending increases net out to little, so outside of his tax cuts the budget could easily go into surplus for '03. In my piece last summer I noted that for Dems to stake their campaign on this fiscal tidbit was idiotic since it could easily go away, which it now has.
This abstracts from a number of costs in the near future that could play havoc with the five- or ten-year surplus totals, but short term Bush will be able to defend himself from the Dems. They will be reduced to wailing about the long-term numbers, which are volatile as all get-out to begin with, or about the 'stolen' Social Security surplus, which they were quite happy to steal (sic) themselves for spending in prior years. Their most accurate line is that Bush lied (and continues to lie) about balancing the budget exclusive of Soc Sec, though the true economic import of this is zilch.
mbs