Despite Democrats' railing against President Bush's economic policies, revenues keep pouring into the nation's coffers. It's gotten so bad that the CBO is revising its forecast for this year's budget deficit again. If their prediction becomes fact, Democrats will have a tough time telling voters that 'the rich aren't paying their fair share.' Here's the grisly details of CBO's revision:
Thanks largely to economic growth spurred by the Bush tax cuts, the federal deficit continues to shrink significantly.Last year's budget deficit came in at $247.7 billion. In fact, if CBO's forecast is accurate, it will mean that the annual budget deficit will have been cut by almost $160 billion in two years. The budget deficit for 2005 was $318.7 billion.The Congressional Budget Office announced last week that the deficit for the fiscal year that ends Sept. 30 will be about $158 billion, well below the $250 billion recorded the previous year.
If that trend continues through FY2008, it isn't inconceivable to think that the budget deficit could drop into the $75 billion range. I'm not predicting that because I'll leave the economic forecasting to King. That said, I certainly can't say that it's an unachievable accomplishment, either.
There are some things that could reverse this trend. Here are two things that the LVRJ cites that would have a dramatic effect on the deficit:
In addition to uncertainty over the current credit crunch and the wildly fluctuating stock market, the Democratic Congress has threatened to let the Bush tax cuts expire in 2010, which could undermine the economic progress the country has enjoyed in recent years.I'd be lying if I said that the Democrats' agenda was the only thing that stands in the way of a rosy economic picture. That said, I'd really be lying if I said that the policies listed wouldn't have a dramatic, negative effect on the economy and therefore the deficit. Letting the Bush tax cuts expire would undoubtedly have a negative effect on the deficit because they'd endanger derail us from our current path of economic growth. It's that simple.Too, the Democratic presidential candidates all seek to impose their own, expensive version of socialized medicine on taxpayers.
This helps set 2008 up as a year to debate whether we want to raise taxes and stall out our economic growth or whether we want to keep in place the policies that are leading to a balanced budget while we're fighting a war.
For that matter, it's a time when we can debate whether we want an administration that will aggressively but legally surveil terrorist communications or whether we'll put the judicial branch in charge of terrorist surveillance programs.
If the 2008 election focuses on prosperity through tax cuts, national security and a stable Iraq, then Democrats will face a difficult challenge.
