White House to paint grim fiscal picture: source

Related Topics

President Barack Obama speaks at the GOP House Issues Conference in Baltimore, Maryland, January 29, 2010. REUTERS/Larry Downing

President Barack Obama speaks at the GOP House Issues Conference in Baltimore, Maryland, January 29, 2010.

Credit: Reuters/Larry Downing

WASHINGTON | Sun Jan 31, 2010 9:25pm EST

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The White House will predict a $1.6 trillion U.S. budget deficit in the 2010 fiscal year, a fresh record and the biggest since World War Two as a share of the economy, a congressional source told Reuters on Sunday.

The grim forecast adds to the challenges facing President Barack Obama, who is emphasizing a message of fiscal discipline but is also seeking stimulus measures to boost the struggling economy in the near term.

Obama's budget proposal, which will be released at 10 a.m. EST on Monday, will predict a narrowing of the deficits to $700 billion by fiscal 2013 before they gradually rise back to $1 trillion by the end of the decade, the Capitol Hill source said.

He will submit his spending blueprint for the 2011 fiscal year that begins October 1 and runs through September 30 next year.

Obama is trying to strike a balance between long-term deficit reduction and easing the pain of double-digit unemployment through proposals such as tax credits to encourage business hiring and tax breaks for middle class families.

He is to deliver remarks on the U.S. fiscal situation at 10:45 a.m. EST.

Criticized by Republicans as a big spender, Obama used his State of the Union address last week to tell Americans he would dig the country out of a "massive fiscal hole."

That hole is even deeper than previously believed, according to the estimate by the White House's Office of Management and Budget.

The estimate for the current 2010 fiscal year that ends September 30 is significantly higher than the $1.35 trillion figure forecast by the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office last week.

Despite the difference, both estimates indicate that the deficit will continue to hover near 10 percent of gross domestic product, a level not seen since World War Two, when measured as a percentage of the economy.

Last year, the government posted a $1.4 trillion deficit, equivalent to 9.9 percent of GDP.

THREE-YEAR FREEZE WON'T BE ENOUGH

In his budget, Obama will propose a three-year freeze on some domestic programs to save $20 billion next year and $250 billion over the coming decade.

But that will not be enough to get deficits down permanently to the 3 percent of GDP that most economists consider sustainable.

Deficits are projected to fall as the economy recovers, but they will still average roughly 4.5 percent of GDP over the coming decade, according to the estimate.

Deficits are expected to rise again toward the end of the decade due to the increasing cost of retirement and healthcare programs as the "baby boom" generation retires.

Obama has warned that the burgeoning U.S. debt could unnerve U.S. financial markets, driving up borrowing costs and putting future economic growth at risk.

China, the biggest foreign holder of U.S. Treasuries, has urged the United States to get its fiscal house in order.

The bleak numbers could help build support for a bipartisan commission proposed by the White House that would recommend ways to address the budget problems.

Obama and his fellow Democrats face a growing voter backlash for the aggressive spending measures they have taken to stimulate the economy.

But Democrats point out that most of the fiscal mess has been inherited from the previous administration of Republican George W. Bush, who cut taxes and created an expensive prescription drug-benefit while pursuing wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.

The recession, which began in December 2007, also worsened the fiscal picture by depressing government revenues while forcing up spending on unemployment benefits and other safety-net programs.

The U.S. economy returned to growth last year after the worst downturn since the 1930s.

(Editing by Eric Walsh)

We welcome comments that advance the story through relevant opinion, anecdotes, links and data. If you see a comment that you believe is irrelevant or inappropriate, you can flag it to our editors by using the report abuse links. Views expressed in the comments do not represent those of Reuters. For more information on our comment policy, see http://blogs.reuters.com/fulldisclosure/2010/09/27/toward-a-more-thoughtful-conversation-on-stories/
Comments (18)
HilaryLo wrote:
If Obama wants to fix the deficit, then well-paying jobs need to be created here by curtailing the free-trade madness that is forcing US workers to compete against five-year-old orphans in third-world-countries. Free-trade is why we’re in this mess to begin with. We have the capacity to be self-sufficient with respect to manufactured goods that we build and buy ourselves. Keynesianism works. It is a lie that protecting certain fledgling-industries will cause the world to collapse. That’s just BS the corporations tell us so that they can ram free-trade down our throats. They love free-trade because it forces the entire global working-class to compete for lower and lower wages.

Jan 31, 2010 9:18pm EST  --  Report as abuse
chanceusc wrote:
Additionally, we need to get smart about how we spend. For instance, I am currently a software engineer on a child support system being developed for a state. Every state was mandated to have an electronic system for child support 10 years ago. They were given stipulations and requirements, but ultimately were given free reign to develop and implement the systems themselves.

Rather than having the Federal Government develop 1 system and distribute it to the states, the states demanded that they do it themselves. The Feds chip in a healthy portion of the fees while the states cover the remainder. My particular project, for a small state, is costing the state over a hundred million while larger states are likely more than half a billion or more.

This sort of spending happens on a regular basis and it needs to stop, now. The states need to learn to accept this, forgoing some of their “power” while in turn, passing massive savings on to their residents.

Not only would it save money by sheer man hours (designing the system, building the system, training, maintaining), but they could produce a *much* better product. One that is interconnected and centralized and thus drives down costs even more (much, much more).

Jan 31, 2010 9:42pm EST  --  Report as abuse
tiberian wrote:
Jan 31, 2010 9:50pm EST  --  Report as abuse
This discussion is now closed. We welcome comments on our articles for a limited period after their publication.