January 26, 2010

Budget Deficit to Reach $1.3 Trillion for 2010 - WSJ.com

Budget Deficit to Reach $1.3 Trillion for 2010 - WSJ.com

"WASHINGTON—The U.S. budget deficit will reach $1.3 trillion in fiscal 2010, slightly less than the $1.4 trillion it recorded in fiscal 2009, the Congressional Budget Office said Tuesday.

In its twice annual budget projections, the CBO forecast that the deficit will reach $980 billion in fiscal 2011..."

Insanity reigns in Washington! Republicans started this spending spree, but TeamObama and Congressional cohorts have gleefully carried it on.

Term limits is a policy long overdue. If not term limits, then thinking voters will unelect the current big spenders in 2010.

In an earlier WSJ story we have this:

"One message Massachusetts voters sent last week is concern over runaway federal spending. Republican Senator Tom Coburn of Oklahoma is offering Democrats a chance to show they heard that message.

The Senate is debating a $1.9 trillion increase in the nation's debt limit that would lift Treasury's legal borrowing ceiling to $14.3 trillion. After a $290 billion debt-limit raise last month, this giant new increase is intended to get Democrats past November's election without another reminder to voters of how much debt their spending is piling up.

Mr. Coburn has a better idea: Cut spending to a level that would allow the government to stay beneath the current debt ceiling for a few more months. President Obama promised in his campaign to eliminate "unnecessary redundancy" in government, so Mr. Coburn is calling for at least $20 billion in spending cuts on programs that are duplicated across federal agencies. That's about 4% of non-defense discretionary spending, and Mr. Coburn's amendment identifies at least 640 programs that could be consolidated."



Is anyone listening? TeamObama promises today to freeze some spending. Not sufficient! It's beyond time to cut Federal spending

1 comment:

Steven said...

Many serious economists believe that deficit spending is the only rational policy to adopt during a recesssion in order to avoid a japanese style lost decade. I do not know if that is right or not but to equate Bush's run up of the deficit during a period of time when no economists thought that made sense to Obama's is cutting way more slack that W deserves. The continuation of a policy may be bad but the bulk of the surplus erosion from Clinton to now is the result of the Bush years. I would be a little leary of cutting spending too much in light of the economy right now (which I think might push up unemployment, and further dampen the economic cycle and economic growth which appears to be slowly emerging. It really is a shame that Bush didn't store away more fiscal acorns for the winter.