SwiftVets.com

[shawa]

I have limited understanding of Economic Theory, but my husband
who is a Professor of Economics and Finance tells me this is exactly
what he expected. TAX CUTS WORK!!
All the Libs screaming and handwringing about the huge deficit was hogwash. The deficit is
simply a "projection" of government spending vs. tax revenue income over the next ten years
(assuming tax revenues remain STATIC at today's figures for 10 yrs.)
Bush's strategy is right.
Tax cuts=more spending=more jobs and business profits=higher tax
revenues to the Treasury.
Ergo, the projected budget deficit is reduced.

What is interesting is the silence of the media in reporting good news!!
This Treasury Report came out over a week ago .
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
From National Review:

January 13, 2005, 2:20 p.m.
Psst, the Deficit’s Shrinking
Why won’t anyone say it?

Here’s one story you won’t find on tomorrow’s front pages: “The U.S. Budget Deficit Is Shrinking Rapidly.” The headline would be accurate, but the mainstream media is much more interested in talking down this booming economy than telling it like it is.

This week’s Treasury report on the nation’s finances for December shows a year-to-date fiscal 2005 deficit that is already $11 billion less than last year’s. In the first three months of the fiscal year that began last October, cash outlays by the federal government increased by 6.1 percent while tax collections grew by 10.5 percent. When more money comes in than goes out, the deficit shrinks.

At this pace, the 2005 deficit is on track to drop to $355 billion from $413 billion in fiscal year 2004. As a fraction of projected gross domestic product, the new-year deficit will descend to 2.9 percent compared with last year’s deficit share of 3.6 percent.

Wire reports are loaded these days with accounts of an expanded trade gap (driven mostly by slower exports to stagnant European and Japanese economies, along with higher oil imports from the peak in energy prices). But there’s not a single report I can find that mentions the sizable narrowing in U.S. fiscal accounts. Behind this really big budget story is the even-bigger story: The explosion in tax revenues has been prompted by the tax-cut-led economic growth of the past eighteen months.

With 50 percent cash-bonus expensing for the purchase of plant and equipment, productivity-driven corporate profits ranging around 20 percent have generated a 45 percent rise in business taxes. At lower income-tax rates, employment gains of roughly 2.5 million are throwing off more than 6 percent in payroll-tax receipts. Personal tax revenues are rising at a near 9 percent pace.

Meanwhile, in the wake of strong stock market advances over the last two years, non-withheld revenues from individuals — including investor dividends and capital gains that are now taxed at only 15 percent — have jumped by over 14 percent.

Following the Clinton cap-gains tax cut and savings expansion bill of 1997, investment-related tax collections led to bull-market budget surpluses in the pre-9/11 period of 1997-2001. However, despite the flood of new revenues, this year’s federal budget is still overspending. Domestic spending on non-entitlement programs (excluding homeland defense) is rising at a 4.1 percent rate. That’s more than twice the pace of core inflation. But this may be changing.

According to the Washington Post, the Bush budget totals planned for fiscal year 2006 may be essentially unchanged from the totals for fiscal year 2005 (excluding defense and homeland security). According to reporter Jonathan Weisman, the administration’s first really tough budget request (due out next month) “would freeze most spending on agriculture, veterans and science, slash or eliminate dozens of federal programs, and force more costs, from Medicaid to housing, onto state and local governments.”

The rapid growth of federal health care and other entitlements would also be slowed markedly. Though the numbers are not yet available, this sounds a bit like Ronald Reagan’s tax-cutting budget of 1981. In addition to reducing the top personal tax rate to 50 percent from 70 percent, the Gipper proposed budget cuts that would be worth nearly $100 billion in today’s dollars.

Of course, the political screaming over the forthcoming budget has already begun. A passel of Democrats and at least one Republican, Sen. Craig Thomas of Wyoming, have written a protest letter to Josh Bolten, director of the Office of Management and Budget. Former-Gov. John Engler of Michigan, a Republican and the current president of the National Association of Manufacturers, has pledged to fight the elimination of various protectionist subsidies to his member firms.

However, Sen. Judd Gregg, the New Hampshire Republican who is the current chair of the upper chamber’s budget committee and a long-time Bush ally, is set to support the administration’s new budget discipline. This includes, by the way, Bush’s plan to reduce Social Security benefits by replacing wage indexing with a price-level formula and extending the retirement age — one or the other, or both — in return for personal saving accounts.

By the way, Treasury Secretary John Snow just completed a Wall Street tour where leading bond traders told him not to sweat the transitional costs for personal accounts. The traders said that an additional $100 billion a year over the next decade for transitional financing will be easily manageable. “A rounding error,” one senior trader told Snow.

A supply-side tax-reform movement, a shrinking budget deficit, newfound spending discipline, and a determination to confound conventional wisdom by reforming Social Security has George W. Bush’s second term off to a roaring start — even before he is officially sworn in.

— Larry Kudlow, NRO’s Economics Editor, is host with Jim Cramer of CNBC’s Kudlow & Cramer and author of the daily web blog, Kudlow’s Money Politic$.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

http://www.nationalreview.com/kudlow/kudlow200501131420.asp

[AMOS]

It's somethiing about a "trickle down theory".

Now, if we could adopt the APT tax system, things would really get interesting.

APTTAX.com is the website. http://www.APTTAX.com

[gmez2001]

Been preaching this GREAT economy to everyone I know for months.

Sweet little deal for Kerry being elected into a GW produced booming economy. Silky Pony knew dam- well where the economy was headed,"if I can only make it my accomplishment".
_________________
Tin Can Gunline Vietnam
2nd generation Navy

[coldwarvet]

Great news! How will the liberals spin this?

Option #1 Discredit the good news
Option #2 Take credit for the good news
Option #3 Figure out how to turn good news into bad news
Option #4 Ignore it

The old media will go for option #4
Then the old media will be scooped once again by the new media who will give credit where credit is due. Then the old media will do #1, #2 and #3 because they can't even get on the same page any more. Then one of the accomplices will resort to fabricating documents to undermine the accomplishments of the Bush administration.

CWV
_________________
Defender of the honor of those in harms way keeping us out of harms way.

"Peace is our Profession"
Strategic Air Command - Motto

USAF 75-79 Security Police

[srmorton]

It has worked every time it's tried - first by the "real" JFK, then by
Reagan, and now by GWB. The Dems know this - they have just been
trying to convince the public that tax cuts favor the rich and increase the
deficit for the last 20 years. The only way that they have been able to
do so is with the co-operation of the MSM which is now being side-stepped
by talk radio and the internet. Thank goodness!

BTW, "Silky Pony" was Laura Ingraham's nickname for John Edwards,
not John Kerry. It so aptly described his "Breck Girl" hairstyle. John
Kerry(AKA "Lurch") has hair with a more "organized" appearance.
_________________
Susan R. Morton

[shawa]

You got it, CWV.

Bet ole Danny Boy has someone cranking out some 'doom and gloom'

docs right now. Then he will verify their authenticity because he got them

from an "unimpeachable" source (the name of whom he cannot reveal).