Big deficits bring dose of gloom to tax cut debate: As the economic outlook changes, Bush's plans have reignited feud between hawks and doves. Deborah McGregor reports London edition

President George W. Bush's latest tax cut package has re-ignited the feud between deficit hawks and doves in Washington. Most private sector economists now project a record deficit for next year of $350bn (£219bn). Beyond that, deficits are expected to swell, their size dependent on unpredictab...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published inThe Financial times (London ed.)
Main Author McGregor, Deborah
Format Newspaper Article
LanguageEnglish
Published London (UK) The Financial Times Limited 15.01.2003
Subjects
Budget deficits
Economic growth
Federal budget
GDP
Government Budgets
Government News
Gross Domestic Product
Tax cuts
Taxation
Americas
United States > US
Pacific Rim
North America
Online AccessGet full text

Cover

More Information
Summary:President George W. Bush's latest tax cut package has re-ignited the feud between deficit hawks and doves in Washington. Most private sector economists now project a record deficit for next year of $350bn (£219bn). Beyond that, deficits are expected to swell, their size dependent on unpredictable factors ranging from whether the nation goes to war to how successful the White House is in persuading Congress to enact its proposals for further tax cuts. Democrats are having none of it. They view the return to deficits as an opportunity to drive home with the public their claim to be the party of fiscal responsibility. Kent Conrad, the North Dakota Democrat who was the former Senate budget committee chairman, has blasted Republicans for returning the nation to deficits that stretch "as far as the eye can see". As the chief economist of the president's Council of Economic Advisers, Mr [Douglas Holtz-Eakin] was immediately hailed for his support for what is known in budget lexicon as "dynamic scoring". Put simply, it reflects a fervent hope that future deficits can be held at bay by assuming tax cuts have a greater impact than traditionally assumed on economic growth.
ISSN:0307-1766