RSSFederal Surpluses and Deficits 1968 – 2007
When the government collects more in taxes during a year than it spends, there is said to be a budget surplus for that year. When the government spends more than it collects, there is said to be a budget deficit for that year. During the past 40 years, there have been five budget surpluses—a small one in 1969 and four from 1998 thru 2001. The cumulative totals of the surpluses and deficits comprise the national debt.
4 Responses to “Federal Surpluses and Deficits 1968 – 2007”
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
June 16th, 2008 at 9:59 pm
Great to have Mr. Perot back with the facts. Can we get anybody on the campaign’s to show the numbers! As a voter, it is just nice to hear what each candidate will do, as they always promise more of the same. I would like to see them show the facts, state their position then show the data on where they see the chart going. Then we can evaluate whether they know what they are doing. (must verify the math!)
Keep this up.
Regards,
Rusty
June 29th, 2008 at 11:53 am
It would be very helpful to add in the items that normal businesses would have to count as liabilities but the politicians in Washington DC keep “off budget”. It would also be very helpful to view the deficit as a portion of our national GDP so we can determine how burdened we actually are compared to the size of our economy.
Keep up the good work.
September 15th, 2008 at 4:51 pm
This chart, I assume, is of commingled budget funds, Federal Funds (general funds) and those of the Trust Funds. If a citizen wanted to take Washington at its word and face value, then the citizen would feel “Trust Funds” and their surpluses are for dedicated single purposes like Social Security & Medicare, for example. Commingling Federal Funds and Trust Funds and then “lump charting” their meanings are counter productive. Trust Fund surpluses should be handled with “fiduciary” management and surpluses invested to reduce future tax needs and handle inevitable heavier demands, i.e., when Baby Boomers start to retire. That’s a far cry from how Washington in fact handles them. They “loot” all Trust Fund surpluses for general fund needs. If you commingle the funds and chart them… citizens can’t possibly think of alternative models to handling the Trust Funds. They assume the surpluses SHOULD be embezzled out of the Trust Funds. Not healthy. Not productive. Awful management.
Look no further than CalPERS, The California Public Employees Retirement System, for a public Trust Fund model example that is NOT flawed. It is stellar successful. Provides both Healthcare and Pension benefits. Social Security, for example, depends 100% on paycheck deductions for its income and is drowning in a sea of red ink and unfunded future mandates & liabilities. CalPERS Trust Fund generates 80% of its income from Return on Investments, only 20% required to be from paycheck deductions. It has $250 Billion in productive assets, NOT worthless IOU’s. Produce charts that offer the possibilities of solutions. Commingling funds, charting them, does not help in this endeavor.
Federal Funds (general funds) was able to eek out single solitary year $1 Billion surplus in 2000, a relative ant on an elephant’s back compared to today’s $9.6 TRILLION National Debt. Looking at the chart above would lead a citizen to think we had very meaningful surpluses for four years, 1997-2000! Hardly the case at all. Very misleading and serves the public negatively. Commingled fund charts mask the true extent and severity of ills in Federal Fund (general fund) management by Washington. In a few years, those ills will be dwarfed by Trust Fund ills. A runaway train of all sorts of ills going on, one fund leapfrogging the other in tems of more severe ills. It’s a sick, sick budgetary train we have engineered for us.
May 19th, 2010 at 9:46 pm
This article says that the surplus is a myth.
The claim is generally made that Clinton had a surplus of $69 billion in FY1998, $123 billion in FY1999 and $230 billion in FY2000
Notice that while the public debt went down in each of those four years, the intragovernmental holdings went up each year by a far greater amount–and, in turn, the total national debt (which is public debt + intragovernmental holdings) went up. Therein lies the discrepancy.
http://www.craigsteiner.us/articles/16