To: i-node who wrote (687256 ) 12/6/2012 9:54:34 AM From: Alighieri Respond to The 2006 tax revenues were not substantially far from levels projected before the Bush tax cuts. Despite estimates that the tax cuts would reduce 2006 revenues by $188 billion, they came in just $58 billion below the pre-tax cut revenue level projected in January 2000.[7] Economic and technical revisions ($3.8 trillion or 33 percent of the swing). Most of these arose from CBO’s early 2001 budget projections understandably not anticipating two recessions and two major stock market corrections over the decade. The 2001 and 2003 tax cuts ($1.7 trillion or 14 percent). These tax cuts receive most of the blame for the lost surplus, but are responsible for just one-seventh of it. [2] And the tax cuts for “the rich”—those earning more than $250,000 annually—account for just 4 percent of the saving. The 2009 stimulus ($0.7 trillion or 6 percent). The stimulus plays a significant role in the 2009 through 2011 budget deficits, but a small role in the overall deficits over the decade. Other new spending ($3.7 trillion or 32 percent). Defense spending accounts for $2 trillion, other discretionary spending for $700 billion, and new entitlement spending for $1 trillion. The largest entitlement expansions came from the new Medicare drug entitlement, financial bailouts, farm subsidies, and refundable tax credits. [3] New net interest costs ($1.4 trillion or 12 percent). Instead of the federal government paying off the entire national debt by 2009 as the CBO had projected in 2001, rising debt meant steeply rising net interest costs. Other tax cuts ($0.4 trillion or 3 percent). This includes the 2008 tax rebates, annual tax extension packages, and the patches to the alternative minimum tax (AMT). [4] [5] President Bush’s spending increases played a much larger role in the budget deficits. after the Democrats won control of Congress. [6]
