The Treasury Department released the official deficit numbers today and March came in at an unbelievable $188,153,000,000.
In one month alone, we've overspent by $188 billion!
Using the Treasury's numbers, here is a graph of the deficits the U.S. has run for fiscal year 2011:
For the first 6 months of fiscal year 2011, Obama and the Democrats (remember, the FY 2011 budget was the responsibility of the previous, Democratically controlled Congress) have overspent by $829 billion.
Now the question is, what to do?
The left would have you believe that eliminating the "Bush Tax Cuts", officially known as EGTRRA and JGTRRA, would be the holy grail of deficit reduction and thus, little to no budget cutting would be necessary.
Let's take a look at that assertion. The left argues that:
On the other hand, if the Bush-era tax cuts were eliminated and tax rates reverted to their 2000 levels, it would generate enough revenue to trim the deficit by $3.7 trillion over the next decade, according to government projections. Link
These numbers represent the repeal of all of Bush's tax cuts. So, in essence, over a ten year period, revenue is expected to increase by $370 billion per year according to this estimate.
The CBO also looked at what revenue would be if the Bush tax cuts expired, but their predictions of increased revenues aren't as rosy.
According the left, raising taxes is the answer to our deficit problems. Yet, using their numbers and those of the CBO, neither the $400 billion figure or those provided by the CBO begin to balance the budget.
Just remember, President Obama's own budget predictions foresee $5.4 trillion in deficit spending through FY 2016. Using the left's most optimistic revenue projections following the repeal of the Bush tax cuts, the government would still have a deficit of over $3 trillion.
Even with the Bush tax cuts eliminated, that nation still faces trillions of dollars of deficits.
Logically, if reverting to Clinton era tax levels does not balance the budget, there is only one thing left to do and that is reduce the size of government.
Unfortunately, if one considers the demagogic wails that the Democrats produced over a mere $38.5 billion in cuts last week, only a cataclysmic economic event, such as national bankruptcy or a reduction in our credit worthiness will force them to face that fact that as a nation, we do not have a revenue problem, but rather a spending addiction.
Article comments
1 - Glenn Contrarian
I suggest you look at your own numbers again - you point out Obama's budget predictions show the deficit as $5.4T over the next FIVE years - that averages out to a little under $1.09T per year...which is already significantly LESS than what the deficit is now.
And THEN if it is knocked down to the $3T you quoted, that averages out to $600 billion per year...which is about HALF of what the deficit is right now...and his proposal is far more effective than anything proposed by the Right.
Compare that to Ron Paul's proposed budget which shows neither any additional source of revenue nor does it even touch the hideously overblown defense budget, but just gutting America's social safety net while giving even MORE tax breaks to Big Business. Despite all his claims, his budget would NOT decrease the deficit one whit. You don't balance a household's budget by slashing the breadwinner's income.
2 - RJ
Ron Paul proposed a budget?
3 - Is It Easter Yet?
Probably just another typo, RJ.
Read "Rand" for "Ron;"
read "Defense Cuts: $47,500,000,000. (6.5%) and Homeland Security Cuts: $23,765,000,000. (43%)" for "nor does it even touch the hideously overblown defense budget."
Paul stuck his neck out at CPAC by declaring, "The most important thing that our government does is our national defense, absolutely. But you cannot say that the doubling of the military budget in the last ten years has all been spent wisely and there's not any waste in it."
4 - RJ
Oh, okay. Yeah, Rand Paul proposed something like that.
5 - Glenn Contrarian
Sorry - RAND Paul. Same difference.
6 - Is It Easter Yet?
Glenn, to correct your error thoroughly, you need to say "sorry" for misrepresenting Rand Paul's position on defense spending.
Rand and Ron are two individuals with similar, but not identical positions. Ron is older and wiser, and he doesn't have to back-pedal as much as his son has recently because he (and this is wisdom for ALL of us) lets his words be few.