alt.politics.economics

Nospam wrote:
> """
> You're about to hear that the budget deficit is falling. Don't believe it,
> warns Fortune's Allan Sloan. The deficit is much, much bigger than you
> think.
>
> (Fortune Magazine) -- There will be lots of celebrating in Washington next
> month when the Treasury announces that the federal budget deficit for
> fiscal 2007, which ends Sept. 30, will have dropped to a mere $158 billion,
> give or take a few bucks.
>
> That will be $90 billion below the reported 2006 deficit, and will be
> toasted by the White House and Treasury as a great accomplishment.
>
> But I have a nasty little secret for you, folks. If you use realistic
> numbers rather than what I call WAAP -- Washington Accepted Accounting
> Principles -- the real federal deficit for the current fiscal year is more
> than 2 1/2 times the stated deficit.
> """
>
> From:
> /2007/08/31/magazines/fortune/ /
>
> So, the stupid tax cuts are not working to reduce the deficit.
> But "book-cooking" can be employed to "save the day".
>
> Yet another nail in the coffin for the idiotic theory of "supply side".
> That is, "Supply Side Economics" never worked, it was a big lie from the
> beginning. And soon, the bills are due !!!
>
The same fuzzy math created the Clinton surplus that didn't exist.
Borrowing rose during the surplus. Debt was shuffled from public hands
to social security. Which has to be paid to the public in the future.
Take out the Social security part of the social surplus, which is loans
from one agency to another that have to be paid back with interest, and
Clinton never had a surplus.

This is certainly not fuzzy math unique to the Bush, the Democrats, or
the Republicans. Both parties have used it.