DAMN IT KRUGMAN!!!!!!!! why is everyone hiding the true Bush deficit?

[ulTRAX]

On Charlie Rose last night Paul Krugman said the Bush deficit was some 400 Billion. Why is he understating it? So does Kerry.

The mid-October CBO estimate for the FY04 deficit was about 568 Billion... that's the ON-BUDGET revenue deficit. Krugman was citing the UNIFIED budget which has about a 416 Billion deficit. This gives Bush credit for about 150 billion that's actually being BORROWED from various federal trust funds. They are treating a LOAN as revenue.

Why do Democrats and some Kerry supporters like Krugman refuse to expose the TRUE extent of Bush's fiscal irresponsibility?

Maybe the easiest way to see though this smoke & mirrors of on and off budgets is to just look at the debt figures which are close to the correct on-budget deficit figures. Here's the FY04 debt from http://www.publicdebt.treas.gov/cgi-bin/cg...~www/opdpen.cgi

09/30/2004 $7,379,052,696,330.32
10/01/2003 $6,804,504,127,055.70

Bush has run up some $574.5 BILLION in new debt for FY04... and some 1.7 TRILLION in less than 4 years.

So why can't the Democrats just say so?

[Cary]

1. Great point.

I think part of the Republican strategy is to stretch the rubber band as much as possible so that it doesn't go so far to the center when the pendulum swings the other way. Hence we have a phenonoma where everybody seems to love Ronald Reagan.

I lived through the Reagan years. He wasn't so great.

[Orangepeel]

2. why don't you write Krugman and ask him?

I'm not trying to be a smart ass. I really think that you should ask him. He's a smart guy. If you get in touch with him, he'll either listen to you or give you a reason why he doesn't agree. (but he may be hard to reach directly because of all the hate mail and threats he gets)

[ProfessorPlum]

4. Yeah, there must be some reason

Krugman wouldn't paint it better than that without a reason. He has no reason to sugarcoat it for Bush.

[ulTRAX]

6. one would think that...... but then

One would think that Krugman would use the correct figures that show the extent of Bush's fiscal irresponsibility. But then why didn't Kerry? In the latter case I think it's because he, too, is counting on the fudged numbers in his budget plan. It's easier to claim he's going to cut the deficit in half if the deficit he's talking about is 150 billion less than the REAL revenue deficit.

[ulTRAX]

5. actually I was.....

this is just the draft of the letter where I got all my facts together.

[MostlyLurks]

3. Dynamics of the sound bite

Let's say they did tout the $568 figure. Then the BFEE could come out and say "Oh, he's exagerrating, it's only 400 because of blah blah blah" and then obfuscate the whole issue by making it a tit-for-tat he said-she said situation. And before you know it, we're debating who was *right* rather than *how much the deficit actually is*.

By using the lower figure, there's really no room for the Bushies to argue it - notice how (as far as I can recall) they have not once disputed the deficit numbers. Instead, they try to deflect it with other budgetary stats that they feel support their side of the issue.

That's my suspicion anyway.

[ulTRAX]

7. the deficit is the deficit....... why play games?

We can play games or explain to the American People just how irresponsible Bush has been. If the on/off/unified budgets are seen as complicated.... the amount of new Bush debt for FY04... some 574 BILLION is not at all complicated.

Yet no one uses that number either.

[MostlyLurks]

13. I disagree...

It sucks that we have to play the game, but it is what it is. He has to play the game because he wants to win - can't win it if you don't play it.

For example, does the figure 87 million ring a bell? How many undecideds or Repubs do you know that actually understand the real story there? And it's all because the American people cannot be "explained to" via the media.

Kerry already has the rep. as a guy who can't "talk a straight line"; how would it look if he launched into some explanation about the use of loans as revenue and....ZZZZZZ....oh, pardon me, I'm the average American voter and I dozed off for a moment there.

And frankly, I don't see that this is a huge difference anyway - when Kerry talks, it's usually in vaguely defined "biggest deficit in history" type terms, which is all he needs. Using the number itself is difficult because he could say "Oh the deficit is X billion dollars" but if somebody didn't know that was the largest in history, it kind of washes out.

As for Krugman, I think he *should* use that figure because he's preaching to the choir largely, and we need to know and understand it. But for a pol. trying to "talk to the back of the house", generalities and figures that can't be made into split hairs are always best.

Peace.

Mostly.

[ulTRAX]

14. go visual

MostlyLurks wrote: "It sucks that we have to play the game, but it is what it is. He has to play the game because he wants to win - can't win it if you don't play it."

Sure he could win. If Kerry use the correct figures and made the deficits less abstract he'd shock the hell out of even some Bush voters.

MostlyLurks wrote: "For example, does the figure 87 million ring a bell? How many undecideds or Repubs do you know that actually understand the real story there? And it's all because the American people cannot be "explained to" via the media."

I waited and waited for Kerry to explain the 87 Billion vote in the debates... and he didn't. So whose fault is that?

MostlyLurks wrote: ...when Kerry talks, it's usually in vaguely defined "biggest deficit in history" type terms, which is all he needs. Using the number itself is difficult because he could say "Oh the deficit is X billion dollars" but if somebody didn't know that was the largest in history, it kind of washes out."

"Record deficit" is too abstract. But if Kerry put out a graphic that 568 Billion in tightly packed $1's would cover a football field to the height 430' he'd make a better point. The 1.7 Trillion Bush debt would be a skyscraper of cash some 1300' tall. See this site for what I mean: http://www.crunchweb.net/87billion

[MostlyLurks]

15. I think it was a considered choice not to use the figure.

I just think the simpler the better, and if he introduced "one" deficit number and the Bushies can introduce "a different" value, it will only serve confuse the real issue, which is out of control debt.

As it stands, I think he hammered Bush on the deficit issue - the right had no way to attack, debunk or address the deficit argument - and throwing out a different number would only have given the other side something to argue about, which would have muddied the issue.

The basic idea, I think, was "Accept what your enemy says and kill him with it".

As for the 87 billion, I agree: it was totally Kerry's botch to not explain it when he had several clear opportunities to do so anytime Bush mentioned it in the debates.

I guess we'll have to agree to disagree and, in the end, hope a wonkish argument like this won't matter when the results are finally tallied. ;)

[ulTRAX]

16. there's the election and then there's long-term strategy

MostlyLurks wrote: "As it stands, I think he hammered Bush on the deficit issue - the right had no way to attack, debunk or address the deficit argument - and throwing out a different number would only have given the other side something to argue about, which would have muddied the issue."

There was no reason for Bush to really worry about Kerry's choice to use the 415 Billion figure.... Bush was getting a free ride for 150 billion of lost revenue. Oh well. But leaving this election aside... I doubt that the Democrats plan to EVER educate the public on this issue. In which case they lose a key opportunity to counter the Big Lie of the Tax Cut Psychos: that there's no such thing as irresponsible tax cuts... it's all a free lunch. Democrats are missing the chance to expose the Right's plans to strangle the beast by sabotaging revenues.

Since Reagan the Right has used fiscal irresponsibility as a political weapon. If there's ever going to be any hope for a Democratic agenda, the revenue picture has to improve and the debt paid down. The way to do that is to have started inoculating the public back in 1982 to make them immune to such fiscal insanity and never stop driving home that message. I just don't see that happening and not using the correct budget numbers in this election is just more proof the Democrats don't get it.

[MostlyLurks]

17. Oh, OK, well that's apples and oranges then

I thought we were talking from a strictly campaign oriented sense of things.

[ulTRAX]

8. HERE'S THE SOURCE FOR THE CBO NUMBERS

According to http://www.cbo.gov/showdoc.cfm?index=5897&sequence=0
the preliminary estimate for the FY04 deficit is 415 Billion. This "unified budget" deficit.

According to a CBO report in September
http://www.cbo.gov/showdoc.cfm?index=5773&sequence=1&from=0
some 153 Billion was borrowed from Off-Budget surpluses. This should NOT be counted as revenue since it must be repaid to the various trust funds the money was borrowed from.... and the only way to pay it back is with on-budget revenues.

This means a reasonable estimate for the TRUE FY04 deficit in on-budget revenues is 568 BILLION. CBO was to firm up the numbers later in the month. I haven't found those yet.

[Robert Oak]

9. gov statistics need to be reformed in general

I have no idea why they do this...

but there are so many numbers now not accurate. unemployment, budget,
trade and so on.

I'm hoping that the Internet makes everything much more transparent
and "democratizes" the Interaction between gov and the people.

Statistics is probably the number one area where citizens need to get
active. It's too complex for most Americans.

Thx for pointing this out BTW.

[Hong Kong Cavalier]

10. Again?

:eyes:

[Zuni]

11. Krugman is no Bush shill

The commonly referenced figure is 416 Billion, so he might want to keep it simple and unconfusing for his audience

[ulTRAX]

12. I know Krugman is no shill

This is a decision that Kerry was made from the beginning. I don't know about Krugman.

We know it's 416 now.... but it's been estimated higher over the course of the FY. The press may be lazy.... but they also report what Kerry is saying. He EASILY could have been using the on-budget deficit figures a year ago. The press would then have to had explained why there were 2 numbers. It's a bit confusing but it's not rocket science. All someone needs is some Ross Perot pie charts.

Bush handed Kerry a killer issue and a decision was made to used fudged numbers.