[annyokie]

3.4% of GDP, by my reading. Who cares, not me. I'd rather have a small deficit than a large surplus. Surplus means we are getting charged too much.

[HostileTerritory]

A $521 billion deficit dwarfs any surplus we've known in recent years, both in absolute and relative-to-GDP terms. I don't see how you can call this small and $180 billion a "large" surplus.

[HostileTerritory]

GDP in 2003 is 11 trillion dollars. It's not going to go up to more than 11.5 trillion dollars in 2004. Run $521 billion as a percentage of that and tell me what you "read."

[explodingspleen]

Well, if you're talking about the trade deficit, then that is supposed to fluxuate. *Someone* always has to have a surplus. And someone else must always have a deficit. Ideally, you alternate between having a surplus and a deficit, never going to far one way or the other. Unfortunately, at present we only seem to be increasing our deficit.

I think though, that the statisitic refers to the national debt, much of which we "owe" ourselves (think government bonds and whatnot).

[ItisaReligionofPeace]

What?! A deficit means we are being charged too much too! We are spending money like a drunken sailor.

[Ol' Sparky]

$521 billion is not a small deficit. And, the worst of the Bush spending hasn't kicked in yet. The expansion of Medicare will cost future generations trillions.

[Ol' Sparky]

However, Cato's fiscal analyst Veronique de Rugy notes: "The current president easily eclipses his father on federal spending growth." De Rugy and Cato researcher Tad DeHaven calculate that in real, or inflation-adjusted terms, non-defense discretionary outlays will rise about 20.8 percent in George W. Bush's first three years in office (through FY2004). That growth far exceeds the 11.6 percent growth in the first three years of former President Bush's administration. Indeed, the current president's three-year real increase exceeds Jimmy Carter's term (13.8 percent), Ronald Reagan's first term (-13.5 percent), Reagan's second term (-3.2 percent), Bill Clinton's first term (-0.7 percent), and Clinton's second term (8.2 percent). See table for details.

[Ol' Sparky]

http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110004579

The much delayed omnibus appropriations bill for 2004, scheduled for a vote in the Senate this afternoon, looks set to cap the first term of the most profligate Administration since the 1960s.

The bottom line is truly shocking. Passage of the omnibus bill would raise total discretionary spending to more than $900 billion in 2004. By contrast, the eight Clinton-era budgets produced discretionary spending growth from $541 billion 1994 to $649 billion in 2001. Nor can recent increases be blamed on the war. At 18.6%, the increase in non-defense discretionary spending under the 107th Congress (2002-2003) is far and away the biggest in decades.

[Ol' Sparky]

http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110004579

The much delayed omnibus appropriations bill for 2004, scheduled for a vote in the Senate this afternoon, looks set to cap the first term of the most profligate Administration since the 1960s.

The bottom line is truly shocking. Passage of the omnibus bill would raise total discretionary spending to more than $900 billion in 2004. By contrast, the eight Clinton-era budgets produced discretionary spending growth from $541 billion 1994 to $649 billion in 2001. Nor can recent increases be blamed on the war. At 18.6%, the increase in non-defense discretionary spending under the 107th Congress (2002-2003) is far and away the biggest in decades.

[Ol' Sparky]

Jonah Goldberg on Bush:

http://www.nationalreview.com/goldberg/goldberg200401211053.asp

A few quick facts. George W. Bush has:

increased federal spending on education by 60.8 percent;

increased federal spending on labor by 56 percent;

increased federal spending on the interior by 23.4 percent;

increased federal spending on defense by 27.6 percent.

And of course he has:

created a massive department of homeland security;

signed a campaign-finance bill he pretty much said he thought was unconstitutional (thereby violating his oath to uphold, protect, and defend the constitution);

signed the farm bill, which was a non-kosher piñata filled with enough pork to bend space and time;

pushed through a Medicare plan which starts with a price tag of $400 billion but will — according to every expert who studies the issue — go up a gazillion-bajillion dollars over the next decade;

torched Republican — and American — credibility on trade, in both agriculture and steel;

got more people working for the federal government since the end of the Cold War;

not vetoed a single spending — or any other bill, and he has no intention of eliminating a single department;

sold out like a fire sale at Filene's on Title IX, a subject I know a little about because my wife is the foremost expert in the universe on it;

pushed to send more Americans to Mars while inviting a lot more illegal immigrants to hang out here in America.

[NittanyLion]

3.4% of GDP, by my reading. Who cares, not me. I'd rather have a small deficit than a large surplus. Surplus means we are getting charged too much.

The surplus provided much of the impetus for Bush's tax cuts. How do you propose we advocate additional tax cuts now that we're running a $500 billion deficit?

Incidentally, if you're worried bout getting charged too much, you should be looking at the actual dollars you're paying the government - the surplus/deficit could be the reflection of lower revenues OR higher costs. And in fact it's a combination of the two.