Even as US President George W. Bush sets a modest goal of reducing the federal deficit to about US$200 billion by 2009, many budget analysts and economists said they doubt that can be achieved.
Under fire from Democrats as well as conservative Republicans for allowing the deficit to reach more than US$400 billion this year, White House officials say Bush's upcoming budget will hold the growth in domestic discretionary programs to less than 1 percent.
That would amount to a budget cut for many agencies, after adjusting for inflation, and it would be sharp turnaround from the increased spending that Bush has either supported and condoned for the past three years.
But Bush's budget proposal for next year, to be unveiled Feb. 2, is likely to omit several huge costs that would de-rail his projections if they were included.
Administration officials said Bush's budget plan will not include the costs of supporting US troops in Iraq and Afghanistan beyond this year, because administration officials say those costs are unknowable.
But the cost of maintaining 100,000 soldiers in Iraq, which would be a decrease from the current troop levels, have been estimated at about US$50 billion a year. Even a significantly smaller force could cost tens of billions in 2005.
Bush is also unlikely to include the cost of fixing the so-called alternative minimum tax, a set of provisions that will lead to big tax increases for millions of families unless the law is changed.
Some lawmakers in both parties said they want to prevent that from happening, but analysts across the spectrum have said the cost will be more than US$100 billion over the next five years, and more than US$400 billion over the next ten years.
"The budget will cut the deficit in half in five years only on paper and not in the real world, and only by omitting roughly US$200 billion in costs for 2009 that the administration has itself indicated it favors and will request," said Robert Greenstein, director of the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, a liberal research group in Washington.
Meanwhile, Bush will also face enormous difficulties on the spending front. Congressional Republicans are already pushing for a massive increase in spending on highways and mass transit over the next six years.
In a rare display of bipartisanship, House Republicans and Democrats are jointly pushing to spend US$375 billion over the next six years on highway and mass transit, while Senate leaders have proposed US$311 billion.
Fuel taxes are supposed to pay for those projects, but congressional analysts estimated that fuel taxes will at most supply about US$265 billion -- a shortfall that could total US$110 billion.
The good news for the administration is that the economic recovery is now beginning to generate additional tax revenue, after three years of declining revenues.
But forecasters in the administration and in Congress had already been assuming an increase in tax revenues, so the added revenue may do little to offset the cost of extra spending and additional tax cuts that are not in the administration's official proposal.
On Friday, the Pentagon announced that it will seek 7 percent more money next year, or US$401.7 billion. But that increase does not include money for Iraq or Afghanistan, which the administration officials say they will seek in a supplemental request if they need to do so next year.
Administration officials are already looking for ways to squeeze spending in many domestic programs. They are also quietly prodding Republicans in Congress to drop billions of dollars in proposed tax cuts from the energy bill that was narrowly defeated last year.
Bush's Democratic opponents blame some tax cuts passed since 2001 for much of the problem. But conservative critics are fuming that Bush has allowed government spending to soar.
Brian Riedl, a budget analyst at the Heritage Foundation, a conservative research group, estimated that government spending climbed twice as fast under President Bush as under President Bill Clinton, and that only about one-third of that increase came from defense spending and domestic security programs.
On Friday, administration officials whipped out their own numbers to refute the conservatives' criticisms, saying that non-defense discretionary spending -- from parks and museums to the Energy Department -- has grown more slowly in the past three years and will climb only 4 percent this year.
"This president is helping to rein in the growth in government spending by the budgets that we have put forward, and he remains committed to doing that," said Scott McClellan, a White House spokesman.
But even if Bush does hold down the growth of domestic spending, he will have trouble cutting the deficit in half by 2009, and possibly even bigger deficit problems in the five years after that. The reason is that Bush has vowed to make most of his tax cuts permanent, rather than allowing them to expire by the end of this decade.
"It is a tall order, and after five years you have very big hurdles," said Edward McKelvey, an economist at Goldman Sachs, which has predicted that the federal government will run up deficits totalling more than US$5 trillion over the next ten years if Congress makes the tax cuts permanent.
Analysts at the Brookings Institution, a liberal-leaning research organization, predict that the budget deficit will remain above US$400 billion a year for the next five years and climb to US$687 billion a year by 2014.
"There is no doubt they're going to claim the budget meets their goal," said William Gale, a longtime budget expert at Brookings. "The queston is how are they going to pull the rabbit out of the hat."
The Brookings analysis did not assumed that spending will grow more slowly than it has in the past three years, but slightly faster than the rate of inflation. It also assumed that Congress continues all expiring tax provisions and fixes the alternative minimum tax.
Representative James Nussle, an Iowa Republican and chairman of the House Budget Committee, said the core problem is spending rather than tax cuts.
"The deficit is a manifestation of the real problem, like sneezing when a person has the flu," Nussle said. "Spending growth overall is the issue here. If we go home today, you can get very close to cutting the budget deficit in half in five years by doing nothing -- but that means no more war spending, no more supplementals, no more for homeland security."
Nussle has been pressing the administration to include cost estimates for military operations in Iraq in its budget request, and he expressed frustration at the probability that Bush would once again wait until he has to make a supplemental funding request.
"It's time to stop using the excuse of not knowing the future," Nussle said. "We know things we didn't know two years ago. We know the costs of the war. We know we're in a war."
Zhang Yazhou was sitting in the passenger seat of her Tesla Model 3 when she said she heard her father’s panicked voice: The brakes do not work. Approaching a red light, her father swerved around two cars before plowing into a sport utility vehicle and a sedan, and crashing into a large concrete barrier. Stunned, Zhang gazed at the deflating airbag in front of her. She could never have imagined what was to come: Tesla Inc sued her for defamation for complaining publicly about the vehicles brakes — and won. A Chinese court ordered Zhang to pay more than US$23,000 in
Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Co (TSMC, 台積電) yesterday held its first board of directors meeting in the US, at which it did not unveil any new US investments despite mounting tariff threats from US President Donald Trump. Trump has threatened to impose 100 percent tariffs on Taiwan-made chips, prompting market speculation that TSMC might consider boosting its chip capacity in the US or ramping up production of advanced chips such as those using a 2-nanometer technology process at its Arizona fabs ahead of schedule. Speculation also swirled that the chipmaker might consider building its own advanced packaging capacity in the US as part
Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Co (TSMC, 台積電) yesterday said that its investment plan in Arizona is going according to schedule, following a local media report claiming that the company is planning to break ground on its third wafer fab in the US in June. In a statement, TSMC said it does not comment on market speculation, but that its investments in Arizona are proceeding well. TSMC is investing more than US$65 billion in Arizona to build three advanced wafer fabs. The first one has started production using the 4-nanometer (nm) process, while the second one would start mass production using the
US President Donald Trump has threatened to impose up to 100 percent tariffs on Taiwan’s semiconductor exports to the US to encourage chip manufacturers to move their production facilities to the US, but experts are questioning his strategy, warning it could harm industries on both sides. “I’m very confused and surprised that the Trump administration would try and do this,” Bob O’Donnell, chief analyst and founder of TECHnalysis Research in California, said in an interview with the Central News Agency on Wednesday. “It seems to reflect the fact that they don’t understand how the semiconductor industry really works,” O’Donnell said. Economic sanctions would