To: Kenneth E. Phillipps who wrote (500715 ) 11/29/2003 9:26:18 PM From: Johannes Pilch Read Replies (2) | Respond to of 769667 DAN CRIPPEN: We are now in this ten-year projection because precisely people are trying to play with the rules. Up until '95 we did five-year projections, not ten. Every time the timeline was set, the budget line, people would draft legislation so that it was effective just beyond. BARRY ANDERSON: Good, you've got it up to $5.8 trillion. PAUL SOLMAN: So projections go out a decade, while everyone understands that they're most probably off target. BARRY ANDERSON: For 200 years, we forecasted not ten years out, not five years out, but only 18 months out. You look at the private forecasters; they're really not doing too much more than that right now. I know the Congress needs estimates that go out ten years and we will supply them. But we make no bones about it that there is an awful lot of uncertainty about what our projections are ten years hence. pbs.org house.gov Depressed? Confused? It gets worse. A less-frequently noticed caveat to the CBO surplus estimates is one that CBO--to its credit--has been quite willing to emphasize: their surplus projections have a pretty good probability of being completely wrong. ctj.org Yet CBO itself, joined by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) and Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan, has stressed that the surplus projections are highly uncertain. Even without tax cuts or any other changes in budget policy, there is a noticeable chance the government will run deficits outside of Social Security and Medicare, rather than surpluses. Based on its own track record, CBO concludes that "the estimated surpluses could be off in one direction or the other, on average, by about $52 billion in 2001, $120 billion in 2002, and $412 billion in 2006." cbpp.org gmu.edu That leftists are so gullible as to think Clinton actually left office leaving anything but a paper phantom explains why they whine so fervently about "lies" they cannot prove.