When he first proposed them in 2000, Bush predicted that
federal surpluses would cover the cost of tax reductions and major increases in military and other spending.
Timely action would, in the first place, require substantial
federal surpluses (say 2 percent of GDP) and a big leap in the household savings rate (from under 4 percent to over 7 percent of personal income).
More recently, projections of gigantic
federal surpluses, together with a greater need for spending on national defense, mean that the BEA is unlikely to be extended further.
More recently, projections of surging
federal surpluses partly reversed the early 1990s' rate hikes.
Also in the realm of government activity, few things have a bigger impact on the economy and economic policy than the size and direction of
federal surpluses and deficits.
Two years ago, when the prospect of burgeoning
federal surpluses arose, Clinton devised a very clever ploy to hold off Republican tax-cutters.