Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

UNCLE SAM IN HOCK: Treasury Needs $1 Billion to Cover Shortfall
Sierra Times ^ | 04. 29. 02 | Associated Press

Posted on 04/30/2002 9:15:37 AM PDT by hattend

UNCLE SAM IN HOCK:
Treasury Needs $1 Billion to Cover Shortfall
Associated Press
Published 04. 29. 02 at 17:13 Sierra Time

WASHINGTON — The government, in a sharp reversal of earlier borrowing plans, said Monday that it plans to tap $1 billion from the credit markets this quarter to compensate for lower-than-expected income-tax payments and to cover the cost of this year's economic stimulus package. The Treasury Department projected in January that it would actually retire a big chunk of the national debt — $89 billion — rather than increase its borrowing in the April-June quarter.

"The stimulus package enacted in March accounts for one-fourth of the increase in borrowing," the Treasury said. "The remaining change is due primarily to lower-than-expected 2001 tax receipts received in April and early May."

It marked the first time since 1995 that the government needed to borrow in the April-June quarter. That quarter is generally flush with cash because of a flood of income tax payments flowing in Treasury's coffers.

"Forecast errors of this magnitude are not surprising given total expected revenues for the year of $2 trillion," a Treasury spokeswoman said. "Cash flows are highly volatile following the April 15 tax date."

The likely sources of forecast errors in tax receipts are: lower wage income; lower capital gains income; lower corporate taxes; or lower lower interest income, she said.

Treasury officials said the need to borrow in the April-June reflects a short-term cash squeeze and doesn't signal a long-term move from budget surplus to deficit.

Budget experts predict the United States will record a deficit for this entire fiscal year, which has not happened since 1997.

The Bush administration has blamed the return of deficits on a recession that began in March 2001 and the costs of waging war in Afghanistan and battling terrorism at home. But Democrats said it was the 10-year, $1.35 trillion tax cut that Bush pushed through Congress in the spring for the budget's likely return to red ink.

Disappointing tax collections mean this year's federal deficit could soar to $100 billion or beyond, private and government analysts recently estimated.

G. William Hoagland, GOP staff director of the Senate Budget Committee, last week said he was projecting that the government would collect about $891 billion in individual income taxes this fiscal year.

That is down from the $950 billion that congressional and White House analysts expected — which is nearly half the $2 trillion in overall revenue the government pockets each year.

For all of fiscal 2001, which ended Sept. 30, the government had a budget surplus of $127 billion, about half the previous year's record total of $237 billion. It was the first time since 1992 that the government's balance sheet did not show an improvement.

Treasury also said Monday that it expects to borrow $55 billion in the July-September quarter.


TOPICS: Business/Economy; Government; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: deficit; governmentborrowing; taxes; taxreform
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-32 next last
Since "spending cuts" does not exist in a politician's vocabulary look for increased pressure to repeal the tax cuts (puny as it was)
1 posted on 04/30/2002 9:15:38 AM PDT by hattend
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: rohry; Dukie; arete; billy_bob_bob
ping
2 posted on 04/30/2002 9:23:13 AM PDT by Tauzero
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: hattend
As I understand it, there are now more people working for the government (as teachers, police officers, bureaucrats, soldiers, elected officials, DEA agents, IRS agents, INS agents, Treasury department agents, etc. etc. etc. etc. etc. etc. etc. etc. etc. etc. etc. etc. etc.) than there are working in the private sector. Now consider that these people all get to vote. Hmmmm. What possible problem could result from that? It reminds me of the old definition of democracy as being "three wolves and a sheep voting on what to have for dinner".

There is a word that I would like to acquaint government workers with. That word is "layoff". How about a %10 "reduction in force" for the government payroll? Just think of the cost savings!

3 posted on 04/30/2002 9:29:38 AM PDT by Billy_bob_bob
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: hattend;Action America;taxman;*taxreform
Consumption is more stable than income - if you're looking for stability. Hence a tax on consumption would be more predictable than an income tax.

Eliminating the income tax and IRS and implementing a national retail sales tax would also re-patriate a lot of $... and bring in a ton more.

Find out about the national retail sales tax bill that's in Congress as we speak.

4 posted on 04/30/2002 9:29:42 AM PDT by Principled
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Tauzero
Look for the reinstatement of the 30 year bond...
5 posted on 04/30/2002 9:31:23 AM PDT by rohry
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: hattend
...which is nearly half the $2 trillion in overall revenue the government pockets each year.

Interesting choice of words.

Other choices:
steal
make disappear
waste
remove from the private sector
pass to other nations as a form of global socialization

make up your own...but "pockets" is very apt. Must be because Bush is the president. Clinton/Gore wouldn't even get a story like this out of the AP. It would have been spiked.

I'm not saying it isn't bad news, just noticing the little "spin" AP puts on it.

6 posted on 04/30/2002 9:36:48 AM PDT by hattend
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

Comment #7 Removed by Moderator

To: Billy_bob_bob
There is a word that I would like to acquaint government workers with. That word is "layoff". How about a %10 "reduction in force" for the government payroll? Just think of the cost savings!

No disagreement from me. They forced the military to work with nearly 65% manning when I was in.

I don't see why the federal workforce couldn't be trimmed that much as well. How many people are employed in each Senate and House office alone? Ten or more? At $40K+ per person? Cut the staff in half and you could save over 20 million bucks a year in salary....then close there offices down. Overhead would probably gets you another 20 mill a year. That's 40 million a year in saving in just the legislative offices...imagine taking a look at the whole branch!

Just preaching to the choir, I know, I know.

8 posted on 04/30/2002 9:46:54 AM PDT by hattend
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: hattend
Not bad, but I'm thinking more like an "across-the-board" reduction of %10. Since our president has adopted a "corporate" model for his administration, I'm suggesting that the CEO of this company (George W. Bush) should announce to all of his "vice-presidents" (government agencies) that they are to implement a %10 reduction in head count as a cost cutting measure designed to give added value to their shareholders (us citizens, remember us?)

Anyway, just a thought. I know it's as likely as snow in July, but what the heck.

9 posted on 04/30/2002 9:50:59 AM PDT by Billy_bob_bob
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: hattend
WASHINGTON — The government, in a sharp reversal of earlier borrowing plans, said Monday that it plans to tap $1 billion from the credit markets this quarter to compensate for lower-than-expected income-tax payments and to cover the cost of this year's economic stimulus package.

They need to get there before California rolls in asking for a loan over 10 Billion. I am sure Wall Street would prefer to loan money to us here in California rather than Wahington!! /sarcasm

10 posted on 04/30/2002 9:51:55 AM PDT by Ernest_at_the_Beach
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Billy_bob_bob
Great Idea Billy! Let's start by laying off the entire staff of the DEA, or better yet, let's just Downsize the budget for the War on Drugs, to, let's say ZERO.

BTW, what is the current budget for this WoD?

11 posted on 04/30/2002 9:52:10 AM PDT by Lord_Baltar
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

Comment #12 Removed by Moderator

To: Lord_Baltar
I mean seriously, since Dubya wants the US to be a Corporate Enterprise, how many corporations would keep floating a failed R&D project like the WoD?
13 posted on 04/30/2002 9:54:12 AM PDT by Lord_Baltar
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

Comment #14 Removed by Moderator

To: citizenY2K
As much as Clinton soiled the office of the presidency, I would have to disagree. The President (large P...Clinton didn't rate) needs AF1. It also serves as a mobile command post.

Make the congress critters fly the airlines though. I know Hillary uses private jets...her SUV ran over a guy on their way onto the ramp.

15 posted on 04/30/2002 9:59:33 AM PDT by hattend
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: Lord_Baltar
how many corporations would keep floating a failed R&D project like the WoD?

I agree. How many indeed? BTW, we should cut Bush some slack. He is only trying to run the United States just like he ran Arbusto Energy.
16 posted on 04/30/2002 10:07:44 AM PDT by gear
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: Billy_bob_bob
10% reduction in workforce is the usual amount for a company when the budget is tight. (Often it's 10%, then another 10%, and so forth.) No reason the government couldn't manage that. The first people they could lay off would be the masseures at the Congressional fitness center.
17 posted on 04/30/2002 10:13:09 AM PDT by MEGoody
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: MEGoody
The first people they could lay off would be the masseures at the Congressional fitness center.

What, the ruling class elite give up some of their princely perks? The "elected" nobility who lead the great unwashed masses must be pampered and protected. After all, they are entitled.

Richard W.

18 posted on 04/30/2002 10:25:31 AM PDT by arete
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: gear
Didn't Arbusto have to be bailed out?
19 posted on 04/30/2002 10:59:42 AM PDT by Lord_Baltar
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: Lord_Baltar
Hmm. I did a quick search about Arbusto to check. Apparently, Arbusto merged with Spectrum 7 Energy Corp back in 1984 to stay afloat...This is odd. I didn't know OBL's brother, Salem, was a big inversot in the company (Arbusto, that is). Maybe I was thinking of some other company. What other business experience did he have? I would mention the Texas Rangers but Bush traded away Sammy Sosa :(.
20 posted on 04/30/2002 11:19:41 AM PDT by gear
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-32 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson