Although Ryan, the top Republican on the House Budget Committee, praised some aspects of the budget, he also ripped into accounting methods - like budgeting for high initial war costs that demonstrate a savings later.
"So you assume in your budget that we're going to have a surge in 10 years [in Iraq], even though a surge, by definition, is up, then back down," Ryan said, pressing Orszag. "To go back, $1.6 trillion of these savings is because you are saying we are not going to have a surge for 10 years, we are going to ramp it down," he continued. Orszag replied: "About a trillion-and-a-half dollars is because the war ends more quickly under this budget then we think the alternative would have been." NY Post On Mar 3, 8:50 am, Kamakazee <[email protected]> wrote: > Depends on which party you're in!! With a Dem president, the Reps > would squeal it's misguided and disingenous to inflate hopes based on > promises. I disagree with this premise and think that it's the job of > the president to do exactly that. > > My ponit in the post above isn't that he's building hopes, it's almost > the opposite; taking credit for certain things by first inflating the > severity of the current situation which thereafter inflates any > progress made in that regard. > > Hope is great but don't lie to get there. > > On Mar 3, 8:02 am, xi <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > In my opinion, nowadays and since one year ago more or less, many > > predictions are wishes that do not pass a reality check. > > > I am not an American, therefore I have no right to judge whether that > > is politically correct or not. But I can make a question. Did you > > ponder that CCI (Consumer Confidence Index) is just 25? Do you ponder > > the high social and politic risk that it means? > > > The Conference Board told that "The Index now stands at 25.0 > > (1985=100), down from 37.4 in January. The Present Situation Index > > declined to 21.2 from 29.7 last month." (*). In other words, the > > situation is mostly sustained based on hope, rather than on facts. > > Under these circumstances is politically correct that a politician > > tries to sustain that hope? > > > Of course, those are just politic questions related to US domestic > > issues that only Americans can ponder. > > > Peace and best wishes. > > > Xi > > > (*) > > See:http://groups.google.es/group/world-thread/browse_thread/thread/33391... > > and http://www.conference-board.org/economics/ConsumerConfidence.cfm > > > On 3 mar, 14:31, Kamakazee <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > And ya read it here first.... > > > > "Winding down the war in Iraq > > > Assumptions: Obama is planning to pull a large number of combat troops > > > out of Iraq by the end of August 2010. > > > > The White House estimates the troop withdrawal, even as operations in > > > Afghanistan continue, will preserve $1.5 trillion over 10 years that > > > would otherwise be spent. > > > > Reality check: The real savings, some say, is actually going to be > > > less since the administration was measuring its proposals against a > > > baseline that assumes the country would spend what it currently spends > > > in Iraq for each of the next 10 years. " > > > > In full: > > > > Reality check on Obama's deficit plan > > > The administration laid out several key approaches to whittling down > > > U.S. debt. Whether they pan out as the president hopes is a question > > > mark > > > > NEW YORK (CNNMoney.com) -- President Obama won't submit a formal 2010 > > > budget request to Congress until next month. But the head-knocking on > > > the Hill over fiscal priorities begins in earnest this week. > > > > Starting on Tuesday, White House budget director Peter Orszag, > > > Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner and Federal Reserve Chairman Ben > > > Bernanke will all be testifying before Congressional committees about > > > the budget. > > > > A main question will be whether Obama's proposals can reduce the > > > deficit as much as the administration estimates they will: $2 trillion > > > over 10 years. > > > > Orszag bases that deficit-reduction estimate on four main factors: > > > economic recovery, collecting more revenue from high-income taxpayers, > > > curbing corporate tax breaks and winding down the war in Iraq. > > > > Given how unprecedented the downturn has been and the uncertainties in > > > the geopolitical situation, several of the factors the administration > > > is relying on to deliver its deficit-reduction promises are far from > > > guaranteed. > > > > Banking on economic recovery > > > The assumptions: The economy will start its recovery in 2010, with > > > 3.2% growth in gross domestic product (vs. a 1.2% drop this year). GDP > > > will grow 4.0% in 2011 and 4.6% in 2012. > > > > Reality check: The White House's GDP estimates, while roughly in line > > > with those projected by the Federal Reserve, are higher than average. > > > Some say the administration is being too optimistic. > > > > But Orszag says larger-than-average increases isn't unusual. > > > > "As you emerge [from a very deep recession] the economy temporarily > > > grows faster than normal just because your starting point is so low," > > > he told CNN. > > > > Economic recovery can help reduce the deficit by reducing the > > > government's need to borrow money to fund its efforts. That's because > > > tax revenue starts to rise as more employers start hiring and boost > > > production, while demand for government services and benefits such as > > > unemployment insurance falls as more people find work. > > > > Should the economy take longer to recover than forecast by the White > > > House, however, the deficit will be reduced by something less than > > > promised. > > > > Last week, the government reported that the nation's economic slide > > > during the last three months of 2008 was even sharper than expected. > > > Gross domestic product fell at an annual rate of 6.2%, its worst > > > decline in 26 years. > > > > Some economic news, though, has surprised to the upside. Consumer > > > spending rose more than expected in January after declining for six > > > consecutive months. > > > > Raising taxes on high-income filers > > > The assumptions: Reduce the deficit by $637 billion over 10 years by > > > letting the Bush tax cuts expire in 2011 for singles making more than > > > $200,000 and couples making more than $250,000. > > > > Reality check: Letting the tax cuts expire has a good chance of > > > happening. But the savings that achieves could be undercut if two > > > other revenue raising efforts don't pan out. > > > > Already, some leading Democrats -- including Senate Budget Chairman > > > Kent Conrad, D-N.D., and Senate Finance Chairman Max Baucus, D-Mont. > > > -- have questioned Obama's plan to limit itemized deductions on high- > > > income filers. > > > > Obama hopes to raise $318 billion over 10 years with this provision > > > and use it to help pay for his new health reform fund. > > > > Separately, he wants to make permanent his signature credit for low- > > > and middle-income families and fund it by requiring companies to pay > > > for the amount of carbon emissions they produce. He estimates a cap > > > and trade program, which is the subject of much debate, would raise > > > $646 billion. > > > > If either or both of these revenue raisers don't pan out, the > > > administration will have to propose other ways to help pay for his new > > > initiatives or risk further increasing the deficit. > > > > "The key to the budget is whether they stick to that pledge [to pay > > > for their new proposals] because they have the potential to add > > > enormously to the deficit if they're not paid for," said Bob Bixby, > > > director of the Concord Coalition, a deficit watchdog group. > > > > Curbing corporate tax breaks > > > Assumptions: Raise $354 billion by changing a variety of corporate tax > > > provisions, including repealing some tax benefits for oil and gas > > > companies. > > > > Reality check: The biggest piece of it -- estimated to raise $210 > > > billion -- is a vaguely worded item called "international enforcement, > > > reform deferral and other tax reform policies." > > > > Analysts expect that a significant chunk of that $210 billion will > > > come from a change to current policy that lets U.S.-based companies > > > defer tax payments on their foreign subsidiaries' profits until they > > > bring the money back to the United States. > > > > How the rule is changed will affect how much revenue may be raised. > > > And corporate resistance to it will be stiff. > > > > "We don't know where members [of Congress] will fall after a very > > > powerful lobbying effort," said Dan Clifton, the head of policy > > > research at Strategas Research PartnersClifton. > > > > Lawmakers' positions will be driven in part by the the economic > > > interests of their states. Sen. Barbara Boxer, D-Calif., has sponsored > > > bipartisan amendments to make it less costly for companies to > > > repatriate earnings. A number of California-based technology companies > > > have large portions of their business based abroad, Clifton said. > > > > Winding down the war in Iraq > > > Assumptions: Obama is planning to pull a large number of combat troops > > > out of Iraq by the end of August 2010. > > > > The White House estimates the troop withdrawal, even as operations in > > > Afghanistan continue, will preserve $1.5 trillion over 10 years that > > > would otherwise be spent. > > > > Reality check: The real savings, some say, is actually going to be > > > less since the administration was measuring its proposals against a > > > baseline that assumes the country would spend what it currently spends > > > in Iraq for each of the next 10 years. > > > > That's the way budget baselines are normally constructed, said Josh > > > Gordon, policy director at the Concord Coalition. But, he added, no > > > one was expecting U.S. involvement in Iraq to continue at current > > > levels for the next 10 years. > > > > It's also not clear how much more money will be needed to fund > > > military efforts in Afghanistan. Currently the budget request has > > > assumed $50 billion a year as a place holder. Any more than that would > > > negate the savings realized from the Iraq withdrawal. > > > >http://money.cnn.com/2009/03/03/news/economy/deficit_promises_perils/... > > > > On Mar 2, 3:37 pm, Kamakazee <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > The gimps on the left have been very quick to point out that Bush > > > > kept > > > > most of the spending for the Iraq war "off budget" (note, social > > > > security is treated similiarily) and that with Obama's budgeting > > > > processes we enter some sort of new day of righteous fiscal > > > > accounting...... Not so. > > > > > First and foremost, Obama's spent more in his first 30 days or so- Hide > > > > quoted text - > > - Show quoted text -... > > read more » --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "World-thread" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/world-thread?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
