By the Numbers: CBO Stats that the Left Won't Like

Yossi Gestetner
The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) is out with new numbers today regarding economic growth and budget issues for the years to come. The Left's take-away of all this (illustrated here, here and here) is that the Obama/Republican tax cut is pushing the 2011 deficit to a record $1.5 trillion.

Claiming that tax cuts "cost" money, is similar to someone claiming that Wall Mart - in net - is losing revenue by having low prices. The fact however is that lower prices spur growth as seen by the size and success of Wall Mart. Setting aside this common sense argument, is it worthy to note that the Fiscal Year (FY) 2011 deficit excluding the "cost" of the tax cuts, is expected to be $1.1 trillion. How bad is this? Combining all four budget deficits before Obama became president (ending with FY 2008) totaled $1.1 trillion. So spare me the crocodile tears, my fellow Dems.

Here are some other CBO numbers that the tax-cut-to-blame-for-deficit reports may have missed:

The CBO projections are based on the assumptions, between others, that "sharp reductions in Medicare's payment rates for physicians' services take effect as scheduled at the end of 2011." These cuts as part of ObamaCare "savings" were to take place in early 2010, yet the Democrats pushed it back to the end of 2011, which means - as I wrote here on American Thinker - large parts of the ObamaCare savings are already out the window, yet Dems shamelessly still repeat the old CBO savings numbers.

The unemployment rate at the end of 2012 - presidential election time - is expected to stand at 8.2%. This is higher than the 7.8% of the month Obama became president, and higher than the Obama staff Stimulus projections which called for the Rate to be now 7% and down to 5% at the end of 2012.

Gross Domestic Product (GDP, economic) growth year over year, is expected to be 3.1% in 2011, and another 2.8% the following year. By contrast, President Reagan at the same time of his tenure, following the then-worst economic downturn since the Great Depression, had GDP growth of 7.2 in 1983 and 4.1 percent the following year.

With economic projections expected to be so weak in the next two years, it is unclear to me why Republicans would want to take credit for it, instead of hammering Obama for producing such a weak economy despite all his stimulus, spending and investments.

Contact: yossi@yossigestetner.com


The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) is out with new numbers today regarding economic growth and budget issues for the years to come. The Left's take-away of all this (illustrated here, here and here) is that the Obama/Republican tax cut is pushing the 2011 deficit to a record $1.5 trillion.

Claiming that tax cuts "cost" money, is similar to someone claiming that Wall Mart - in net - is losing revenue by having low prices. The fact however is that lower prices spur growth as seen by the size and success of Wall Mart. Setting aside this common sense argument, is it worthy to note that the Fiscal Year (FY) 2011 deficit excluding the "cost" of the tax cuts, is expected to be $1.1 trillion. How bad is this? Combining all four budget deficits before Obama became president (ending with FY 2008) totaled $1.1 trillion. So spare me the crocodile tears, my fellow Dems.

Here are some other CBO numbers that the tax-cut-to-blame-for-deficit reports may have missed:

The CBO projections are based on the assumptions, between others, that "sharp reductions in Medicare's payment rates for physicians' services take effect as scheduled at the end of 2011." These cuts as part of ObamaCare "savings" were to take place in early 2010, yet the Democrats pushed it back to the end of 2011, which means - as I wrote here on American Thinker - large parts of the ObamaCare savings are already out the window, yet Dems shamelessly still repeat the old CBO savings numbers.

The unemployment rate at the end of 2012 - presidential election time - is expected to stand at 8.2%. This is higher than the 7.8% of the month Obama became president, and higher than the Obama staff Stimulus projections which called for the Rate to be now 7% and down to 5% at the end of 2012.

Gross Domestic Product (GDP, economic) growth year over year, is expected to be 3.1% in 2011, and another 2.8% the following year. By contrast, President Reagan at the same time of his tenure, following the then-worst economic downturn since the Great Depression, had GDP growth of 7.2 in 1983 and 4.1 percent the following year.

With economic projections expected to be so weak in the next two years, it is unclear to me why Republicans would want to take credit for it, instead of hammering Obama for producing such a weak economy despite all his stimulus, spending and investments.

Contact: yossi@yossigestetner.com