Michelle Malkin » Reminder: 2013/2014 Budget Projections From Same Administration That Underestimated 2012 Deficits by 138 Percent

Reminder: 2013/2014 Budget Projections From Same Administration That Underestimated 2012 Deficits by 138 Percent

By Doug Powers • February 14, 2012 09:52 AM

**Written by Doug Powers

The Obama budget was released yesterday, and the administration predicted that the deficit in fiscal 2013 would fall to $901 billion.

Before taking that estimate to the bank, so to speak, it’s probably a good idea to see how on-target the administration has been with previous deficit projections:

In February 2009, Obama submitted his first budget to Congress. It boldly predicted that the federal deficit would decrease dramatically during Obama’s term, dropping from an estimated $1.841 trillion in fiscal 2009 to $557.4 billion in fiscal 2012.

However, in the fiscal 2013 budget that Obama submitted to Congress today, the White House is predicting that the federal deficit for fiscal 2012 will not be $557.4 billion after all. Instead, the White House says, it will be $1.3269 trillion.

That means Obama’s fiscal 2010 budget proposal missed on its fiscal 2012 deficit prediction by $769.5 billion — an error of 138 percent.

As Harry Doyle might say…

CNS notes that if the White House were to be off 138 percent in their 2014 budget deficit prediction of $667.8 billion, the real deficit number would be almost $1.6 trillion.

This Associated Press story says the White House has enlisted some “familiar phantoms” to make their numbers work. Actually I feel kind of silly mentioning any of this because I’m sure the Truth Team would have pointed these things out before too long.

**Written by Doug Powers

Twitter @ThePowersThatBe

~ For the latest breaking news, be sure to join Michelle's e-mail list ~

Posted in: Barack Obama,Politics

Printer Friendly

comments (105)

See what others have said

Note from Michelle: This section is for comments from michellemalkin.com's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that I agree with or endorse any particular comment just because I let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with my terms of use may lose his or her posting privilege.

Comments

« Older Comments

#101

On February 15th, 2012 at 11:59 am, MyrmidoNOT said:

Hmmm… If deficits don’t matter, why would we need to raise taxes?

(Hats off to Gutfeld, on The Five.)

So, where do we ‘start’ the cutting (of deficits AND spending)?
#102

On February 15th, 2012 at 12:29 pm, paperino said:

Come on Michelle ! It was just a rounding error !!
#103

On February 15th, 2012 at 1:16 pm, hawkeye54 said:

Hmmm… If deficits don’t matter, why would we need to raise taxes?

Well, right now it’s the most convenient way to get more of our money, which is what they want, without resorting to taking it at gunpoint, which I’m sure is something some in our government would resort to if they could.
#104

On February 15th, 2012 at 8:33 pm, Blackstone said:

without resorting to taking it at gunpoint

That was sarcasm, right?
#105

On February 15th, 2012 at 10:11 pm, rocketman said:

***
HI FIRST_SKIRT–#98. I broke my good civilian glasses in Army Basic Training–prone firing position and a heavy recoil M-14 rifle with too short a stock for a 6 ft. tall troop. Built to be “user friendly” for a 5 ft. tall Korean soldier.
***
The official “coke bottle bottom” G.I. glasses they gave me were so bad that I could no longer hit the 400 and 500 meter targets at the rifle range. A crash “care package” pair of glasses from my family fixed the marxmanship problem.
***
And no woman with a rational mind wanted to date an E-1 private making $78 bucks a month! Glasses or not–most girls wanted someone who could support them in the lifestyle they had become accustomed to! Except for the “girls” that outweighed me 2 to 1. They looked like bears that had been shaved, wigged, lipsticked, and powdered up. Thank Heavens for beer and booze! And the proximity of the Mexican border. Real “vision improvers!”.
***
John Bibb
***