The 2013 federal deficit was “only” $680 billion

posted at 2:41 pm on November 6, 2013 by Steve Eggleston

This got lost in all the Obamacare exchange shuffle, but the federal government posted a $680 billion deficit in fiscal year 2013:

The U.S. government’s budget deficit dropped sharply in fiscal 2013, pushed to its lowest level in five years by record revenues and modestly lower spending.

For the fiscal year that ended on Sept. 30, the deficit was $680 billion, or 4.1% of gross domestic product, the Treasury Department reported late Wednesday. That is the smallest annual shortfall since the $459 billion gap posted in 2008, and 38% below the fiscal 2012 deficit….

The deficit has fallen mostly due to increased revenues, as well as slightly lower government spending reflecting the across-the-board budget cuts known as the sequester.

Let’s take a closer look at that. On the tax revenue side, the federal government took in $2.774 trillion, which shattered the old record of $2.568 trillion set in 2007 and was $324 billion more than was raked in last year. That $2.774 trillion would have been more than enough to cover spending for any year prior to 2008.

Even though that was a record, it still fell short of expectations. The Congressional Budget Office estimated in May that receipts for FY2013 would be $2.813 trillion thanks to all the tax hikes that kicked in at the beginning of the calendar year. That didn’t exactly pan out as expected, at least by those who don’t believe the Laffer Curve exists.

In terms of GDP, the 16.7% of GDP taken by the federal government was a bit below the 60-year average of 17.3% between 1948 and 2007, but still within the ballpark of ranges over the 60 years prior to the Great Recession.

Thanks solely to the sequester, spending was reduced to $3.454 trillion in 2013, a drop of $83 billion from 2012 and $149 billion from 2011′s record $3.603 trillion. Even so,, not only was it $472 billion more than the pre-Obama record of $2.983 trillion in 2008, the 20.8% of GDP spent by the federal government was nearly 2 full percentage points higher than the 60-year pre-Great Recession average of 18.9% and higher than any year between 1992 and 2008.

The resulting $680 billion deficit is the fifth-highest nominal-dollar deficit in history, behind only the four previous deficits run up by President Barack Obama and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid. In terms of the percentage of GDP it represents, the 4.1% of GDP deficit for 2013 is more than 2 1/2 times greater than the 60-year pre-Great Recession average of 1.6%, and higher than any year between 1992 and 2008.


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Okay, all that being said, at least it got us… Wait. What did it get us again?

BKeyser on November 6, 2013 at 2:45 PM

That’s a meaningless figure. The federal government was using a shell game to hide all the deficit spending in the months leading up the end of the fiscal year. That’s why in October, the debt increased by over $400 billion when they could no longer keep up that charade(coupled with the hike in the debt ceiling). Which means that the deficit for 2014 is gonna be much higher.

Doughboy on November 6, 2013 at 2:46 PM

Okay, all that being said, at least it got us… Wait. What did it get us again?

BKeyser on November 6, 2013 at 2:45 PM

4 more years of Obama.

Gatsu on November 6, 2013 at 2:47 PM

I had the sub-heading nailed before I read it.

DanMan on November 6, 2013 at 2:47 PM

Cut in half!

El_Terrible on November 6, 2013 at 2:47 PM

HAPPY DAYS ARE HERE AGAIN!

sandee on November 6, 2013 at 2:50 PM

How about an amendment to restrict spending to no more than 1% greater than the previous year’s revenue.

WashJeff on November 6, 2013 at 2:51 PM

That is the smallest annual shortfall since the $459 billion gap posted in 2008 BY BOOOOOOOSH!</blockquote>

Remember when that number was evil?

mankai on November 6, 2013 at 2:52 PM

Well, obviously we’re saved.

Not.

trigon on November 6, 2013 at 2:53 PM

record revenues

Really? “Record” revenues? Or would that be BECAUSE OF LAST YEAR’S TAX INCREASE?

GarandFan on November 6, 2013 at 2:53 PM

Promise kept.

1.2T in his first year, down to .68T.

Rejoice! I guess we can say that if we liked our deficit, we could keep our deficit.

BobMbx on November 6, 2013 at 2:54 PM

What’s this ‘was’ stuff?

It’s November. It ain’t ‘was’ until January.

Further, anyone who takes the government’s numbers at face value needs some help.

chimney sweep on November 6, 2013 at 2:54 PM

Okay, all that being said, at least it got us… Wait. What did it get us again?

BKeyser on November 6, 2013 at 2:45 PM

4 more years of Obama.

Gatsu on November 6, 2013 at 2:47 PM

Gatsu nailed it.

Steve Eggleston on November 6, 2013 at 2:55 PM

How about an amendment to restrict spending to no more than 1% greater than the previous year’s revenue.

WashJeff on November 6, 2013 at 2:51 PM

How about an amendment that says you can’t spend what you don’t have?

BobMbx on November 6, 2013 at 2:55 PM

“If you like your deficits, we are determined to keep our deficits. Period”

Pedophile and Barky

hillsoftx on November 6, 2013 at 2:55 PM

Promise kept.

1.2T 1.4T in his first year, down to .68T.

Rejoice! I guess we can say that if we liked our deficit, we could keep our deficit.

BobMbx on November 6, 2013 at 2:54 PM

I toyed with mentioning that the inaudible asterisk Obama applied to his “if you like your plan/doctor, you can keep your plan/doctor” also applied to his “I’ll have the deficit in my first term” campaign pledge from 2008.

Steve Eggleston on November 6, 2013 at 2:57 PM

What’s this ‘was’ stuff?

It’s November. It ain’t ‘was’ until January.

Further, anyone who takes the government’s numbers at face value needs some help.

chimney sweep on November 6, 2013 at 2:54 PM

The feds operate on a fiscal year that is different than a calendar year, running from October of the prior year to September of the current year. FY2013, for example, began on October 1, 2012 and ended on September 30, 2013.

That’s why there was a 17% shutdown the first 17 days of October – there were (virtually) no discretionary appropriations passed and signed for FY2014.

Steve Eggleston on November 6, 2013 at 2:59 PM

Related Question:

How much has been added to the debt since the limit was increased. IT_Guy was posting about the backlog of debt every day during the showdown, and Drudge ran something the other day about this.

Does anyone have details?

blink on November 6, 2013 at 2:58 PM

That will likely be the topic of a post this weekend.

Steve Eggleston on November 6, 2013 at 3:01 PM

Related Question:

How much has been added to the debt since the limit was increased. IT_Guy was posting about the backlog of debt every day during the showdown, and Drudge ran something the other day about this.

Does anyone have details?

blink on November 6, 2013 at 2:58 PM

I’ve seen several figures. Apparently it went up by over $200 billion in a single day right after the shutdown ended. And since then it’s increased by over $400 billion. So Obama would be wise to not brag too much about the deficit “only” reaching $680 billion for 2013, because it’s liable to be much bigger next year.

Doughboy on November 6, 2013 at 3:01 PM

Really? “Record” revenues? Or would that be BECAUSE OF LAST YEAR’S TAX INCREASE?

GarandFan on November 6, 2013 at 2:53 PM

I’ll repeat myself for effect (emphasis added):

Even though that was a record, it still fell short of expectations. The Congressional Budget Office estimated in May that receipts for FY2013 would be $2.813 trillion thanks to all the tax hikes that kicked in at the beginning of the calendar year. That didn’t exactly pan out as expected, at least by those who don’t believe the Laffer Curve exists.

Steve Eggleston on November 6, 2013 at 3:02 PM

How much has been added to the debt since the limit was increased. IT_Guy was posting about the backlog of debt every day during the showdown, and Drudge ran something the other day about this.

Does anyone have details?

blink on November 6, 2013 at 2:58 PM

Sit down and grab something sturdy, this is going to hurt:

Presently, there is no statutory debt limit. The government is allowed to spend whatever it wants until Jan/Feb.

Sleep tight.

BobMbx on November 6, 2013 at 3:03 PM

Why do I have the suspicion that the GDP calculation is being changed so that it is larger on paper? It makes it look like there is more economic growth for one and two, it makes deficits quoted as a percentage of GDP look lower.

Wigglesworth on November 6, 2013 at 3:03 PM

WRONG, WRONG, WRONG!!

We borrowed $450 billion in the last two weeks of October that would have been borrowed in the year.

$680 billion + $450 billion = 1,130 billion.

It was another trillion plus deficit under Obama, 5 straight 1,000 billion plus deficits in a row.

Cloward-Piven bitchez!

jukin3 on November 6, 2013 at 3:05 PM

I’ve seen several figures. Apparently it went up by over $200 billion in a single day right after the shutdown ended. And since then it’s increased by over $400 billion. So Obama would be wise to not brag too much about the deficit “only” reaching $680 billion for 2013, because it’s liable to be much bigger next year.

Doughboy on November 6, 2013 at 3:01 PM

Thanks to the cycle of credit card sprees in between bouts of having to “underfund” (or more-correctly, put “off-the-books” IOUs instead of “on-the-books” IOUs) into the federal employees’ retirement funds, the deficits have become decoupled from the official measures of debt.

Steve Eggleston on November 6, 2013 at 3:06 PM

The resulting $680 billion deficit is the fifth-highest nominal-dollar deficit in history, behind only the four previous deficits run up by President Barack Obama and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid. In terms of the percentage of GDP it represents, the 4.1% of GDP deficit for 2013 is more than 2 1/2 times greater than the 60-year pre-Great Recession average of 1.6%, and higher than any year between 1992 and 2008.

Not quite right…

Barack Obama is responsible for 5 of the 6 largest annual budget deficits in US history….

Even when adjusted for inflation, the $680.276 billion fiscal 2013 deficit is only exceeded by one pre-Obama deficit–the one the U.S. government ran in 1943, during the height of World War II. That year, the deficit was $54,554,000,000–or $738,367,890,000 in inflation-adjusted 2013 dollars.

To add a little more context, in FY2007, the last budget done by an all Republican leadership (WH / Congress), the annual budget deficit was just $161 billion. We are having months that have bigger deficits than that of the entire FY2007 year.

Let’s also ‘celebrate’ the what Barack Obama has done for the national debt – adding $450B to the national debt ($17.132 trillion total) in just October 2013, and is on pace to add about $8T to the national debt in his 8 years in office.

Obama Debt Irony….’Unpatriotic’

Athos on November 6, 2013 at 3:07 PM

So, assuming the debt service on that 685 billion is at 3%, we get to pay 20.55 billion dollars every year, in perpetuity, for the inexpressible joy of overspending that money this year.

I can’t begin to tell you happy this makes me.

trigon on November 6, 2013 at 3:07 PM

Wrong. We borrowed $450 billion in the last two weeks of October that was put off during FY 2013.

$680 billion + $450 billion = 1,130 billion or 1.1 trillion dollars.

jukin3 on November 6, 2013 at 3:09 PM

how happy

trigon on November 6, 2013 at 3:09 PM

the deficits have become decoupled from the official measures of debt.

Steve Eggleston on November 6, 2013 at 3:06 PM

Accounting practices that would get a corporation fined or individuals in jail if they followed the same practices. I love a government that sets a good example.

WashJeff on November 6, 2013 at 3:09 PM

I used to think that Bush spent like a drunken sailor.

By comparison, Obama spends like a whole ship of drunken sailors.

Bitter Clinger on November 6, 2013 at 3:11 PM

“I’ll have the deficit in my first term” campaign pledge from 2008.

Steve Eggleston on November 6, 2013 at 2:57 PM

“have” or “halve”?
Or just a Freudian slip?…..

dentarthurdent on November 6, 2013 at 3:13 PM

To add a little more context, in FY2007, the last budget done by an all Republican leadership (WH / Congress), the annual budget deficit was just $161 billion. We are having months that have bigger deficits than that of the entire FY2007 year.

Athos on November 6, 2013 at 3:07 PM

And according to Move-On.org (where are they now anyway?), kids were going to start taking jobs because of those deficits. At least there were jobs to be had back then.

WashJeff on November 6, 2013 at 3:14 PM

YAY OBAMA!

Midas on November 6, 2013 at 3:15 PM

Sit down bend over and grab something sturdy, this is going to hurt:
BobMbx on November 6, 2013 at 3:03 PM

FIFY

dentarthurdent on November 6, 2013 at 3:15 PM

Taxes on the rich are just too low!! Booosh tax cuts!!

/my Leftist friends

mankai on November 6, 2013 at 3:18 PM

Sit down bend over and grab something sturdy, this is going to hurt:
BobMbx on November 6, 2013 at 3:03 PM

FIFY

dentarthurdent on November 6, 2013 at 3:15 PM

I think what we’re all collectively experiencing is akin to what David Exckert experienced.
(see Drudge link below)
http://lasvegas.cbslocal.com/2013/11/06/man-claims-he-was-anally-probed-8-times-following-traffic-stop-for-drugs/

dentarthurdent on November 6, 2013 at 3:18 PM

680 billion seconds = 21,548 years

DavidM on November 6, 2013 at 3:18 PM

And according to Move-On.org (where are they now anyway?), kids were going to start taking jobs because of those deficits. At least there were jobs to be had back then.

WashJeff on November 6, 2013 at 3:14 PM

They’re in the middle of changing their name to Organizing for Cankles.

RickB on November 6, 2013 at 3:18 PM

Why do I have the suspicion that the GDP calculation is being changed so that it is larger on paper? It makes it look like there is more economic growth for one and two, it makes deficits quoted as a percentage of GDP look lower.

Wigglesworth on November 6, 2013 at 3:03 PM

Most of the GDP “games” has been in gaming the headline quarter-over-quarter “real” (inflation-adjusted) GDP growth. Namely, the claims (justified, IMHO) are that the implicit price deflator (the GDP equivalent to the Producer and Consumer Price Indexes) used to translate nominal (current-dollar) GDP to real GDP is too low and underestimates inflation. That has the effect of allowing the low nominal GDP growth we’ve had the last few years to be spun as relatively-high real GDP growth.

That reminds me, the advance look at 3rd-quarter GDP is due out at 8:30 am EST tomorrow.

Steve Eggleston on November 6, 2013 at 3:18 PM

“have” or “halve”?
Or just a Freudian slip?…..

dentarthurdent on November 6, 2013 at 3:13 PM

Where’s the “edit comment” button? ;-)

Halve.

Steve Eggleston on November 6, 2013 at 3:19 PM

Simply incorrect – the real number is $400billion+ more than that, which wen unrecognized until October. That said, this year’s figure is going to be astronomical because it will be bad on it’s own, *plus* the $400billion+ that belonged to last year.

… to be blamed on the Tea Party, or something, of course.

Midas on November 6, 2013 at 3:20 PM

When the president promised to cut the deficit in half, he meant only if he was never elected.

mankai on November 6, 2013 at 3:20 PM

Spin.

I don’t think my lender will allow me to borrow and not pay back $100,000 this year and be impressed next year when I try to borrow only $68,000 and I’m planning to borrow about $100,000 each year for the next 10 years or so.

All this while my current debt is $1.7 million. And don’t tell anyone, but I’ve promised my kids and their friends a total of $10 million at some point in the future.

freedomfirst on November 6, 2013 at 3:22 PM

Those seeking an “Edit Comment” button most likely were told, during their formative public education years, that spelling didn’t count.

[ducks]

BobMbx on November 6, 2013 at 3:22 PM

I can’t begin to tell you happy this makes me.

trigon on November 6, 2013 at 3:07 PM

I’m Happy. Now can you tell me?

:)

Tsar of Earth on November 6, 2013 at 3:23 PM

freedomfirst on November 6, 2013 at 3:22 PM

Obviously you just need to make your boss give you a raise….

dentarthurdent on November 6, 2013 at 3:27 PM

Simply incorrect – the real number is $400billion+ more than that, which wen unrecognized until October. That said, this year’s figure is going to be astronomical because it will be bad on it’s own, *plus* the $400billion+ that belonged to last year.

… to be blamed on the Tea Party, or something, of course.

Midas on November 6, 2013 at 3:20 PM

As I said above, the debt and the deficit were decoupled, as it were, between mid-May and mid-October, and before that between mid-December and early-February because of the debt ceiling. The deficit spending in those months was financed mainly by putting “off-the-books” IOUs in the federal employees’ retirement funds, and the record $409 billion debt add was due mainly to replacing said “off-the-books” IOUs with on-the-books Treasury securities (with interest).

Steve Eggleston on November 6, 2013 at 3:27 PM

Where’s the “edit comment” button? ;-)

Halve.

Steve Eggleston on November 6, 2013 at 3:19 PM

But I wouldn’t count out the Freudian slip – on 0barky’s part….
He may have actually meant he would have his deficit.

dentarthurdent on November 6, 2013 at 3:28 PM

Those seeking an “Edit Comment” button most likely were told, during their formative public education years, that spelling didn’t count.

[ducks]

BobMbx on November 6, 2013 at 3:22 PM

You obviously never heard of the term “typographical error”. :-)

Steve Eggleston on November 6, 2013 at 3:28 PM

You obviously never heard of the term “typographical error”. :-)

Steve Eggleston on November 6, 2013 at 3:28 PM

We’ve heard of those. But we didn’t think professional bloggers made them…
;)

dentarthurdent on November 6, 2013 at 3:30 PM

That’s a meaningless figure. The federal government was using a shell game to hide all the deficit spending in the months leading up the end of the fiscal year. That’s why in October, the debt increased by over $400 billion when they could no longer keep up that charade(coupled with the hike in the debt ceiling). Which means that the deficit for 2014 is gonna be much higher.

Doughboy on November 6, 2013 at 2:46 PM

Exactly, This is just like when Clinton “balanced” the budget. It is all accounting tricks and moving obligations from one fiscal year to the next. Remember the Federal government got shut down on 30 Sep 13, the end of FY 13 and their were many unpaid bills then. All of those obligations just got moved to FY 2014 and presto! The deficit was only $680 Billion.

Johnnyreb on November 6, 2013 at 3:34 PM

Spin.

I don’t think my lender will allow me to borrow and not pay back $100,000 this year and be impressed next year when I try to borrow only $68,000 and I’m planning to borrow about $100,000 each year for the next 10 years or so.

All this while my current debt is $1.7 million. And don’t tell anyone, but I’ve promised my kids and their friends a total of $10 million at some point in the future.

freedomfirst on November 6, 2013 at 3:22 PM

There’s just a “slight” difference or two between us and the federal government – we not only don’t get to tax as much as can can get away with (which has proven insufficient time and time again), but we don’t get to print money.

Steve Eggleston on November 6, 2013 at 3:37 PM

We’ve heard of those. But we didn’t think professional bloggers made them…
;)

dentarthurdent on November 6, 2013 at 3:30 PM

I’m just a fill-in ;-)

Steve Eggleston on November 6, 2013 at 3:38 PM

Exactly, This is just like when Clinton “balanced” the budget. It is all accounting tricks and moving obligations from one fiscal year to the next. Remember the Federal government got shut down on 30 Sep 13, the end of FY 13 and their were many unpaid bills then. All of those obligations just got moved to FY 2014 and presto! The deficit was only $680 Billion.

Johnnyreb on November 6, 2013 at 3:34 PM

The Clinton-era shell game was that they borrowed and spent the excess money meant for the “trust funds” (such as Social Security and Medicare Part A). That allowed them to run a cash surplus even while the debt increased.

I don’t recall seeing any stories on unpaid bills being left to lapse into FY2014. That is typically a state-level ploy to make the previous budget “balanced”.

Steve Eggleston on November 6, 2013 at 3:42 PM

My big question is how did freezing the debt for a few months effect the deficit. For the 12 month period from 10/31/2012 to 10-31-2013. the Treasury reported the debt increased by 895 billion. If the 680 billion reported is the deficit for a short year than the deficit reported right before the 2014 election will be for a longer year. I doubt if that comparison will please the administration.

FYI You can get official debt totals for any day at http://www.treasurydirect.gov/NP/debt/current

Laurence on November 6, 2013 at 3:56 PM

How do we figure $85 million per month in quantitative easing? Does just printing money and giving it to the already rich to decide what they want to do with it – that should solve everything (lol)

IF WE ARE GOING TO PRINT MONEY IN AN EFFORT TO GIVE THE ECONOMY A BOOST – LET’S MAKE SURE IT IMPROVES THE ECONOMY. Send about $275 a month to EVERY citizen in this country and let THEM do what they will with it. Just imagine a household of 4 would get about $1000 a month in non taxable cash – WOW watch the economy go

Let the Senators and Congressmen stand there and just hand it out – now that’s a real buying votes plan. Do you suppose they would like that? (little humor intended here)

minus200 on November 6, 2013 at 3:58 PM

So what Steve Egg is saying is that Obama reduced the deficit in one year more than any other president in history!

/liberal

gwelf on November 6, 2013 at 4:08 PM

My big question is how did freezing the debt for a few months effect the deficit. For the 12 month period from 10/31/2012 to 10-31-2013. the Treasury reported the debt increased by 895 billion. If the 680 billion reported is the deficit for a short year than the deficit reported right before the 2014 election will be for a longer year. I doubt if that comparison will please the administration.

FYI You can get official debt totals for any day at http://www.treasurydirect.gov/NP/debt/current

Laurence on November 6, 2013 at 3:56 PM

In short, it didn’t. The deficit spending was financed through “extraordinary measures”.

As for the October 2012-October 2013 debt add versus the deficit over that period, we do not yet have the October 2013 deficit number because the October 2013 Monthly Treasury Statement won’t be out until November 13 (the 8th business day after the end of a month). The debt add will be a bit higher than the 12-month deficit because of the effects of the “trust funds”.

It’s not a “short” year – the federal fiscal year has run, since FY1977, October 1 of the prior year to September 30 of the current year.

Steve Eggleston on November 6, 2013 at 4:11 PM

minus200 on November 6, 2013 at 3:58 PM

Don’t get me started on QE ;-)

Steve Eggleston on November 6, 2013 at 4:12 PM

After all of Obama’s campaigning about GW Bush borrowing on his credit card from the National Bank of China, in five years Obama still hasn’t gotten the deficit down to the highest deficit during the GW Bush Administration.

At the National Bank of China, they party on…

Steve Z on November 6, 2013 at 4:16 PM

As I said above, the debt and the deficit were decoupled, as it were, between mid-May and mid-October, and before that between mid-December and early-February because of the debt ceiling. The deficit spending in those months was financed mainly by putting “off-the-books” IOUs in the federal employees’ retirement funds, and the record $409 billion debt add was due mainly to replacing said “off-the-books” IOUs with on-the-books Treasury securities (with interest).

Steve Eggleston on November 6, 2013 at 3:27 PM

I get that – and it’s my point. The deficit was *not* a ‘mere’ $600-something billion – in reality, it was over a trillion, but they fudged it to put $400billion of it in the next fiscal year.

Midas on November 6, 2013 at 4:44 PM

I get that – and it’s my point. The deficit was *not* a ‘mere’ $600-something billion – in reality, it was over a trillion, but they fudged it to put $400billion of it in the next fiscal year.

Midas on November 6, 2013 at 4:44 PM

No – they time-shifted the roughly-$400 billion they couldn’t publicly borrow in FY2013 to FY2014. They did borrow that money in FY2013 from the federal employees’ retirement funds via “extraordinary” measures because that borrowing did not count against the debt ceiling and thus was not publicly disclosed.

I will explain further next week when the October 2013 Monthly Treasury Statement comes out. The deficit will be on the order of $100-$120 billion based on the last 2 years’ deficits of $98 billion (10/2012) and $120 billion (10/2013).

Steve Eggleston on November 6, 2013 at 5:01 PM

We’re so screwed.

CWchangedhisNicagain on November 6, 2013 at 6:06 PM

We’re so screwed.

CWchangedhisNicagain on November 6, 2013 at 6:06 PM

I believe the proper term is “boned”, or at least that’s what Monty over at AoSHQ says in his DOOM series.

Steve Eggleston on November 6, 2013 at 6:13 PM

We’re so screwed.

CWchangedhisNicagain on November 6, 2013 at 6:06 PM

I believe the proper term is “boned”, or at least that’s what Monty over at AoSHQ says in his DOOM series.

Steve Eggleston on November 6, 2013 at 6:13 PM

We’re all getting the Deming, NM police treatment.
Except the libtards LIKE it.

dentarthurdent on November 6, 2013 at 6:24 PM

I’m just a fill-in ;-)

Steve Eggleston on November 6, 2013 at 3:38 PM

…but adequate!

KOOLAID2 on November 6, 2013 at 7:25 PM

Sit down and grab something sturdy, this is going to hurt:

Presently, there is no statutory debt limit. The government is allowed to spend whatever it wants until Jan/Feb.

Sleep tight.

BobMbx on November 6, 2013 at 3:03 PM

True, but even when there is a statutory debt limit and we hit that limit, that does not stop the Treasury department from continuing to borrow and deficit spend.

Effectively, there really isn’t a debt limit, because when we hit the debt limit, Treasury just plays a shell game, continuing to borrow beyond the limit until the limit is raised.

They just switch from selling Treasury securities to borrowing from other funds (like payments that otherwise would have been deposited in government employee retirement accounts) under the guise of “Extraordinary Measures” until the debt limit is raised, and then they sell a bunch of Treasury securites to repay/”make whole” (with interest) the accounts from which they borrowed.

As provided by Public Law 113-3, the statutory debt limit was suspended by Congress through May 18, 2013. Because Congress has not yet acted to approve normal borrowing authority after May 18, the Treasury Department will begin implementing the standard set of extraordinary measures

By law, the G Fund will be made whole once the debt limit is increased.

By law, the CSRDF and PSRHBF will be made whole once the debt limit is increased.

The $409 billion increase in the reported debt in the month of October really represents the amount of new debt created from May 19th to October 31st (five and a half months, not 1 month).

The closest we came to actually putting a hard limit on our borrowing was October 16, 2013, because Treasury said we werer running out of available “Extraordinary Measures”. If the “Extraordinary Measures” dropped too low and there was not enough revenue coming in to pay a bill, something would have to go unpaid. But there was no reason to default, because there is more than enough revenue coming in to service our debt.

The establishment Republicans, however, were too afraid of the false threat of default, so they caved on October 16th to avoid the Chicken Little “sky is falling on October 17th” claim made by the Democrats.

ITguy on November 6, 2013 at 7:45 PM

For Fiscal Years 1996-2007, Republicans held the majority and increased the total debt by $4 Trillion over the span of 12 years.

For Fiscal Years 2008-2013, Democrats held the majority and increased the total debt by over $8 Trillion over the span of 6 years.

Present Democrat majorities have been deficit spending at more than quadruple the rate of their Republican predecessors.

Republicans held 2+ out of 3 of the House, Senate and Presidency from January 3, 1995 – January 2, 2007. Those Republican majorities passed the FY 1996-2007 budgets, which covered the time span October 1, 1995 – September 30, 2007.

Democrats have held 2+ out of 3 of the House, Senate and Presidency from January 3, 2007 – Present. Those Democrat majorities passed the FY 2008 & 2009 budgets, which covered the time span October 1, 2007 – September 30, 2009, and have passed Continuing Resolutions (rather than the legally-required budgets) since then, covering the time span October 1, 2009 – present.

Let’s look at where the National Debt was on:
September 29, 1995 (FY-end 1995): $4,973,982,900,709.39
September 30, 2007 (FY-end 2007): $9,007,653,372,262.48
October 17, 2013 (First day that included all FY 2013 debt*): $17,075,590,107,963.57

(*) October 17, 2013 was the first day after the debt limit increase, after the “Extraordinary Measures” deficit spending/borrowing that had going on since May 18th were finally “made whole”, such that the debt reported by the Treasury finally included all FY 2013 borrowing.

I repeat:

For Fiscal Years 1996-2007, Republicans held the majority and increased the total debt by $4 Trillion in 12 years.

For Fiscal Years 2008-2013, Democrats held the majority and increased the total debt by more than $8 Trillion in 6 years.

Present Democrat majorities have been deficit spending at more than quadruple the rate of their Republican predecessors.

ITguy on November 6, 2013 at 7:50 PM

Public Law 113-3

Also known as the
No Budget, No Pay Act of 2013

ITguy on November 6, 2013 at 8:10 PM

That is the smallest annual shortfall since the $459 billion gap posted in 2008, and 38% below the fiscal 2012 deficit…

What they don’t tell you is that the six largest budget defiicts in American history have ALL come since the Democrats took control of the House and Senate on January 3, 2007.

Here are the top 10 Budget deficits in American history:

1) Dem Majority FY 2009 $1,413 Billion ($1.4 Trillion)
2) Dem Majority FY 2011 $1,300 Billion ($1.3 Trillion)
3) Dem Majority FY 2010 $1,293 Billion ($1.3 Trillion)
4) Dem Majority FY 2012 $1,087 Billion ($1.1 Trillion)
5) Dem Majority FY 2013 $680 Billion
6) Dem Majority FY 2008 $459 Billion
7) Rep Majority FY 2004 $413 Billion
8) Rep Majority FY 2003 $378 Billion
9) Rep Majority FY 2004 $318 Billion
10) Dem Majority FY 1992 $290 Billion

Democrat Majorities hold 7 of the top 10, and all of the top 6.

The linked article tries to make a deficit of $680 Billion sound good, but the last budget passed by a Republican House, Senate, and President (FY 2007) had a deficit of less than $161 Billion. THAT is what then-Senator Obama and his fellow Democrats “inherited” on January 3, 2007.

Democrat Majorities (including then-Senators Obama, Biden, Clinton, and Kerry, along with Senators Reid, Durbin, Schumer, etc. and new Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi) took that deficit and roughly tripled it in their first Fiscal Year (FY 2008), and then roughly tripled it AGAIN in their second Fiscal Year (FY 2009).

Democrats inherited a deficit less than $161 Billion, then made $Trillion deficits their norm, so that a deficit of “only” $680 Billion is supposed to sound good now.

ITguy on November 6, 2013 at 8:20 PM

On the tax revenue side, the federal government took in $2.774 trillion, which shattered the old record of $2.568 trillion set in 2007 and was $324 billion more than was raked in last year. That $2.774 trillion would have been more than enough to cover spending for any year prior to 2008.

That $2.774 trillion would have been more than enough to cover spending for any year prior to when Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, and then-Senators Obama, Biden, Clinton, Kerry, etc. took control of appropriations in FY 2008.

The last appropriations passed by a Republican House, Republican Senate, and signed by President Bush were passed in 2006 for Fiscal Year 2007, and spending in FY 2007 totaled $2,728,686 Million (less than $2.729 Trillion)

So, if the present Democrat pResident, Democrat Senate, and Republican House had limited FY 2013 expenditures to FY 2007 dollar amounts, we would have had a surplus of $45 Billion ($2.774 Trillion – $2.729 Trillion).

A Deficit of $680 Billion doesn’t sound so great anymore, does it?

ITguy on November 6, 2013 at 9:28 PM

http://www.treasurydirect.gov/NP/debt/search?startMonth=09&startDay=30&startYear=2012&endMonth=10&endDay=31&endYear=2013

The Total Public Debt Outstanding reported by the Treasury department at Fiscal Year-end 2012 (9/30/2012) was:
$16,066,241,407,385.89

The Total Public Debt Outstanding reported by the Treasury department seven months later, (4/30/2013) was:
$16,828,845,497,183.90

The Total Public Debt Outstanding reported by the Treasury department five months after that, at Fiscal Year-end 2013 (9/30/2013) was:
$16,738,183,526,697.30

If you didn’t know better, you’d think that our total debt went UP by $763 Billion in the first seven months of FY 2013 and then went DOWN by $91 Billion in the last five months of FY 2013!

(Hint: Our real total debt did not go down in the last 5 months of FY 2013!)

The reason you can’t trust the numbers in the last 5 months of FY 2013 is because the Treasury secretary was playing shell games with “Extraordinary Measures”.

The Total Public Debt Outstanding reported by the Treasury at Fiscal Year-end 2013 (9/30/2013) does not include the borrowing that was done using “Extraordinary Measures” and which did not appear in the Total Public Debt Outstanding reported by the Treasury until October 17, 2013.

Since you really can’t get an accurate comparison by comparing 9/30/2013 to 9/30/2012, let’s compare 10/31/2013 to 10/31/2012…

$17,156,117,102,204.40 on 10/31/2013
$16,261,470,510,720.70 on 10/31/2012
Increase in Total Public Debt Outstanding during the last 12 months =
$894,646,591,483.70
=
$895 Billion (not $680 Billion!)

ITguy on November 6, 2013 at 10:18 PM

Taxes on the rich are just too low!! Booosh tax cuts!!

/my Leftist friends

mankai on November 6, 2013 at 3:18 PM

Ask your leftist friends if tax revenues went down after the passage of the 2003 Bush Tax Cuts.

They are likely to say yes. They believe that the Bush Tax Cuts “cost” us Billions of dollars of tax revenue.

The truth is that revenues went up significantly each year for 4 years, such that FY 2007 revenues were a whopping 44% larger than FY 2003 revenues.

The Laffer Curve in action.

ITguy on November 6, 2013 at 10:28 PM

And according to Move-On.org (where are they now anyway?), kids were going to start taking jobs because of those deficits. At least there were jobs to be had back then.

WashJeff on November 6, 2013 at 3:14 PM

Original “Child’s Pay” ad from MoveOn.org

Keep in mind that what MoveOn.org called “President Bush’s $1 Trillion deficit” was an outright lie.

The last budget passed by a Republican Congress and President Bush, passed in 2006 for FY 2007, had a deficit UNDER $161 Billion, and which was 61% smaller than the FY 2004 deficit of $413 Billion. President Bush and the Republican Congress had reduced the deficit for three years in a row.

Then Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, and then-Senators Obama, Biden, Clinton, Kerry, etc. took control of Congress and roughly tripled the deficit in a single year (FY 2008), and then roughly tripled the deficit AGAIN the following year (FY 2009). And the majority of appropriations for FY 2009 were not only pased by the Democrat Congress, but held back from Bush so that they could be signed by Obama. Obama signed the Omnibus Appropriations Act of 2009 on March 11, 2009. The majority of FY 2009 spending was due to Obama, Pelosi, and Reid. NOT BUSH.

But you’ll still hear Dems say that Obama “inherited” the FY 2009 deficit.

That is a BIG LIE.

Each and every one of the top 6 largest deficits in the history of the U.S.A. has come while Obama was part of the MAJORITY PARTY in Washington, D.C. (First as Senator, then as pResident.)

The deficit that Obama “inherited” was not the FY 2009 deficit, it was the FY 2007 deficit (which was less than $161 Billion). Every deficit after that featured Obama in the Majority Party, and has his fingerprints on it.

The change in the balance of power was not on January 20, 2009…
…it was on January 3, 2007!

Bush gets too much blame for what the Democrat majority (the Nancy Pelosi House and Harry Reid Senate) did in the last 2 years of his Presidency, just like Bill Clinton gets too much credit for what the Republican majority (Republican House and Senate) did in the last 6 years of his Presidency.

ITguy on November 6, 2013 at 10:50 PM

And according to Move-On.org (where are they now anyway?), kids were going to start taking jobs because of those deficits. At least there were jobs to be had back then.

WashJeff on November 6, 2013 at 3:14 PM

Original “Child’s Pay” ad from MoveOn.org

Keep in mind that what MoveOn.org called “President Bush’s $1 Trillion deficit” was an outright lie.

The last budget passed by a Republican Congress and President Bush, passed in 2006 for FY 2007, had a deficit UNDER $161 Billion, and which was 61% smaller than the FY 2004 deficit of $413 Billion. President Bush and the Republican Congress had reduced the deficit for three years in a row.

Then Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, and then-Senators Obama, Biden, Clinton, Kerry, etc. took control of Congress and roughly tripled the deficit in a single year (FY 2008), and then roughly tripled the deficit AGAIN the following year (FY 2009). And the majority of appropriations for FY 2009 were not only pased by the Democrat Congress, but held back from Bush so that they could be signed by Obama. Obama signed the Omnibus Appropriations Act of 2009 on March 11, 2009. The majority of FY 2009 spending was due to Obama, Pelosi, and Reid. NOT BUSH.

But you’ll still hear Dems say that Obama “inherited” the FY 2009 deficit.

That is a BIG LIE.

Each and every one of the top 6 largest deficits in the history of the U.S.A. has come while Obama was part of the MAJORITY PARTY in Washington, D.C. (First as Senator, then as pResident.)

The deficit that Obama “inherited” was not the FY 2009 deficit, it was the FY 2007 deficit (which was less than $161 Billion). Every deficit after that featured Obama in the Majority Party, and has his fingerprints on it.

The change in the balance of power was not on January 20, 2009…
…it was on January 3, 2007!

Bush gets too much blame for what the Democrat majority (the Nancy Pelosi House and Harry Reid Senate) did in the last 2 years of his Presidency, just like Bill Clinton gets too much credit for what the Republican majority (Republican House and Senate) did in the last 6 years of his Presidency.

ITguy on November 6, 2013 at 10:50 PM
http://hotair.com/archives/2013/11/06/the-2013-federal-deficit-was-only-680-billion/comment-page-1/#comment-7469949

ITguy on November 6, 2013 at 10:51 PM

Steve, if you can, please delete my comment at 10:51 PM above…

ITguy on November 6, 2013 at 10:51 PM

they did not cut any of the deficit, its all a LIE

by FINALLY DOING A NEW BUDGET, instead of continueing resolutions is how they did it.

let me explain, for the last 4 years they have been doing continuing resolutions, which is just continueing the same level of spending based upon a BASE YEAR.
thanks to the dem majorities

so what was the BASE YEAR
it was my friends 2009, the year of the 800 BILLION STIMULUS, of which for each year the dems have been using that 800 BILLION EXTRA to party on and spend, spend spend.

so by having to do a NEW BUDGET FINALLY WITHOUT THAT STIMULUS is how they did it.

SMOKE N MIRRORS SMOKE N MIRRORS.

sniffles1999 on November 7, 2013 at 7:37 AM

ITguy on November 6, 2013 at 10:51 PM

I don’t have that ability. See if AP, Erika or Jazz can zap it.

Steve Eggleston on November 7, 2013 at 7:46 AM