Monthly Treasury Statement Comes in as a Clunker
As I expected on March 6, February’s Monthly Treasury Statement came in showing a huge monthly deficit:
Receipts are not keeping pace. Since April 2007 was an alltime record collections month that will not be duplicated this year, I expect that year-to-date collections will be less than the previous year two months from now.
Meanwhile, spending is stuck on stupid, and is the primary why February’s deficit was so high. Double-digit increases aren’t sustainable, even in the best of economies.
This causes me to remind you of BizzyBlog’s accountability assignment in the wake of the 2006 elections:
Almost any fiscal measures passed by the new Congress when it convenes in January, unless they are retroactive, will not have any effect on the economy until the next fiscal year that begins in October 2007 (except for tax increases, which would in all likelihood cause a negative reaction in the stock market and the investment community). Therefore, almost any economic good news that is reported until the end of September, 2007 should properly be attributed to actions taken by Congress and the President in 2006 and previous years.
It follows that responsibility for the results in the 12 months that will end on September 30, 2008 will be shared by Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, and George W. Bush. So far, the three of them aren’t doing too well, and the first two want to spend more (lots more), and tax more (which won’t bring about the collection increases expected). Yikes.
The fact that receipts have either not risen or stayed the same but actually dropped means a negative GDP performance. IMO, receipts are based on GDP. The MSM got it’s wish. But like all wishing, be careful what you ask for because you just might get it. Our consolation prize might be the NYT going belly up and of course Air America 2.0 will go bust in October in any event.
Since W is not going to be president in 2009, I don’t believe the Dem formula of bad economic news is going to help them like they think. It may have helped Clinton when he ran against George Sr. however, this time around, there is no personification in the form of a POTUS to run against.
By the way I wonder what Tracey is thinking about the Bears Sterns buy out. Who else is going to have to go down in order to write off those mortgage derivatives?
Comment by dscott — March 17, 2008 @ 9:45 am