A Balanced Budget and Budget Surpluses...

Back to the It's the Economy Stupid Page

I keep hearing all this noise about Congress passing a "balanced budget" or attempting to get a "balanced budget amendment" added to the Constitution. The latest news in that vein is the spending of the "budget surplus." Clinton did a photo op the other day with a check showing a surplus of $150 billion dollars, and reportedly everyone is wondering how we will do with the windfall.

Certainly most, if not all, Newsmax readers are able to see through this sham and the election rhetoric associated with these items.

First of all, it is mathematically impossible to balance the budget. The government is a net borrower. That means that they borrow every dollar that they spend. Think about that for a minute. If you had to borrow every dollar that you spend how could you possibly ever get out of debt? You can't repay borrowed money with more borrowed money and ever get out from underneath the debt and neither can the government. Don't forget that the lender is also charging interest on each of those borrowed dollars.

Now you're thinking, but don't we pay a lot of money in taxes to pay for the expenses of the government?

The annual budget of the federal government is around $1.6 trillion per year. In 1995, and in each subsequent year since then, the interest on the national debt has been greater than all of the revenues received by the federal government.

Since 1995 the entire annual expenditures of the federal government is deficit spending. In the first 4 years of the Clinton administration the deficit has increased an average of 735 billion dollars per year for a first term total of approximately $2.940 trillion. And, since 1995, that annual deficit rate has almost doubled because the government can no longer even pay the interest on the debt. Now, how do you get from that reality to a balanced budget?

Now let's deal with the illusion of a budget surplus. Your idea of a budget surplus and the government's are two separate and very distinctive things.

If you take in $4,000 per month and your expenses are $3,000 per month, you would have a $1,000 surplus of discretionary funds to spend or save. This is how most people think of a surplus.

Politicians, however, are always twisting things around to suit their political ambitions and to misinform or deceive the public. So, their definition of a surplus is, naturally, twisted.

The federal budget, as noted, is about $1.6trillion per year. As an example, let's say that when the budget is finally finished and approved it only comes out to $1.45 trillion for the year. That means they only need to borrow $1.45 trillion instead of $1.6 trillion. And that $150 billion dollars, which isn't borrowed, is what the government calls a surplus.

They did not spend 150 billion less than they took in, but they have decided to try to convince us that they are really great leaders because we have...a "budget surplus."

Why doesn't the news anchor or the editor of your local newspaper make you aware of these things? Why are they not exposing this fraud for what it is? I read recently that most news organizations get about 90% of all of their information from government sources.

You all rememeber how to tell when politicians are lying, don't you? Yes, that's right, their lips are moving. If you are prudent, you will extend that bit of wisdom to almost all major news sources as well.

Greg Hobbs was an air traffic controller for six years, served our country in Vietnam, and currently owns a software company specializing in Y2K Compliance. Send your comments to: ghobbs@primenet.com. Greg Hobbs published this article on Newsmax.com October 14, 1999. It is copyrighted by Newsmax.