September 19, 2005
NOWHERE NEAR AS PROFLIGATE AS REAGAN:
Reconstruction tab poses risks: Spending likely to spur economy but swell deficit (William Neikirk, September 18, 2005, Chicago Tribune)
In fiscal 2006, the deficit could reach $400 billion once again as a result of Katrina spending, said Robert Reischauer, head of the Urban Institute and a former director of the Congressional Budget Office. After that, he said, federal money going to New Orleans will begin to taper off and reduce pressure on the deficit.But Riedl said he expects the deficit to take a leap in the next few years, rising to a record $500billion in 2008. He cited the cost of repealing the alternative minimum tax, a levy that will increasingly hit middle-class Americans, along with paying for new spending already built into the budget, such as the Medicare prescription drug program and the Iraq war. The continuing conflict and rebuilding costs in Iraq eventually will total $300 billion to $600 billion, he predicted.
Relatively speaking, Bush isn't the biggest-spending president since World War II. The deficit totaled 7.2 percent of gross domestic product in 1946 under Harry Truman and 6 percent in 1983 under Ronald Reagan.
The red ink is 2.7 percent of GDP this year and could rise to 3.5 percent next year, Riedl said. Bush's budget this year totals about 20 percent of GDP, compared with Reagan's 23.5 percent in 1983, the highest percentage since World War II.
And what did the free-spending Ronald Reagan give us other than the end of the Cold War and twenty plus years of economic growth? Posted by Orrin Judd at September 19, 2005 10:06 AM
Reagan also raised taxes.
Posted by: creeper at September 19, 2005 10:32 AMTo his eternal shame.
Posted by: oj at September 19, 2005 10:39 AMWasn't the end of the world, as it turned out.
Posted by: creeper at September 19, 2005 10:45 AMJust meant W had to cut them all over again.
Posted by: oj at September 19, 2005 10:49 AMIf the Fed budget deficit is $ 500 billion in '08, that would likely be only around 3.75% of '08's GNP.
Posted by: Michael Herdegen![[TypeKey Profile Page]](http://brothersjuddblog.com/nav-commenters.gif)
at September 19, 2005 10:53 AM
What are, 150 dead Marines, Alex?
Posted by: Rick Perlstein at September 19, 2005 12:31 PMReal classy Rick
Bush should use the Katrina spending as the cover the GOP needs to cut other spending. Money to rebuild the Gulf Coast should take priority over money to build bridges to nowhere, shrimp farms in Arizona, and so forth.
Posted by: AWW at September 19, 2005 12:55 PMMr. Perlstein:
The 'maturity' of leftist insanity?
Posted by: jim hamlen at September 19, 2005 2:21 PMDo you know what bush't best friend in the world want him to do?..that friend is fox and he wants one million more mexicans living in and around good old new orleans, so it to can become the great new city of mexico and with all this reconstruction money coming right into mexico.
Posted by: Fred Dawes at September 19, 2005 2:41 PM
oh yes to rebuild new orleans will be 800 billion and get over it that will only be the start.
Question - where did the $200BN number come from? Was it from the administration or is another case where the media grabbed a number (like the 10K dead in NO) and ran with it. As far as I know Bush has asked for $60BN for Katrina.
Posted by: AWW at September 19, 2005 2:55 PMAWW:
Come now, the rules of the game require that you decide that one particular meaningless number means the end of conservatism but another means a return to Coolidgism.
Posted by: oj at September 19, 2005 3:12 PMFred:
One of the biggest reasons that New Orleans was dying even before the storm was the lack of Mexicans to revitalize it.
Posted by: oj at September 19, 2005 3:14 PMReagan gave Latin America lot of dead bodies; maybe some of you guys should look into that. Bush is gonna have to step his act up if he wants to compete in the 'murdered the most brown-skinned peoples' category of presidential achievement. I think Nixon still has Reagan beat, though.
Posted by: at September 19, 2005 4:05 PMAnon:
How about LBJ?
Or James K. Polk?
Or just maybe Fidel? Ya think?
Posted by: jim hamlen at September 19, 2005 4:26 PMBecause Castro remains in power no American president can be said to have killed enough of them, though Reagan gets huge points for democratizing the rest of Latin America.
Posted by: oj at September 19, 2005 4:27 PMActually, the right answer is probably the Duvaliers and Aristede, but much of the left has somehow fallen in love with the bug-eyed little monster in recent years. What about Anon?
Posted by: ratbert at September 19, 2005 4:30 PMCome on Rick, ease up on Reagan. Dead Marines are the only kind you are happy with.
Posted by: Bob at September 20, 2005 9:32 AM