October 15, 2003


Budget Deficit Shrinks Due to Strengthening Economy (JOHN D. MCKINNON, October 15, 2003, The Wall Street Journal)

The strengthening economy is helping to hold the federal budget deficit a bit narrower than the soaring level officials projected during the summer.

When the Treasury Department tallies up final figures later this month, it is expected to show a federal budget deficit between $370 billion and $380 billion for the fiscal year that ended Sept. 30. That is still a huge shortfall and far wider than the previous record deficit of $290 billion set in 1992. But it is substantially narrower than the $455 billion the White House predicted a few months ago.

It is also the first bit of good news the Bush administration has had on the budget front in some time. Democrats dismissed the difference as a drop in the bucket, but some economists said that if the trend continues, it could point the way to more decent budget news in mid to late 2004, just as voters are beginning to focus on the election and President Bush's track record on the economy.

CREEP should pump some ad dollars into the District of Columbia and see if they can run the table.

Posted by Orrin Judd at October 15, 2003 12:33 PM

"Run the table"?

I rather he stand for some significant changes and programs and win with about 350 electoral votesand a firm congressional majority that will implement them. Why repeat the mistakes of the past?

Posted by: Raoul Ortega at October 15, 2003 4:06 PM

Hey, I donated some bucks to the original CREEP, and your idea sounds good!

Posted by: John J. Coupal at October 15, 2003 6:40 PM

To those who understood that the bulk of the increase in the deficit was due to the slowing economy it was inevitable that the deficit would decline as the economy improved (assuming spending held in check). Like the improving economy this will accrue to Bush and the GOP's benefit and remove another issue for the Dems.

Posted by: AWW at October 15, 2003 8:38 PM

Kudos to Raoul. I might be mistake, but I think even you yourselves on this blog took Reagan to task for shooting for 50 states rather than focusing on getting more Republicans in Congress.

I like the thought, but Bush strikes me as one of the most non-grandstanding guys around. He'll shoot for Congressional seats. Who cares about the District and Vermont?

Posted by: Andrew X at October 15, 2003 9:50 PM

Andrew - agree with you that Bush seems to focus on beefing up congressional majorities rather than win all 50. Which makes the recruitment problems the GOP has had for Senate races more puzzling.

Posted by: AWW at October 15, 2003 11:23 PM

He'll win Vermont easy.

Posted by: OJ at October 16, 2003 12:33 AM

Breathlessly announcing new financial "records" based on nominal dollars is just plumb ignorant, whether it be the deficit, movie grosses, political fundraising, or profits.

Posted by: Michael Herdegen at October 16, 2003 6:24 AM