USG delayed farm trade report over deficit forecast

rforno

I'm not sure we're going to be able to trust economic reports coming from the USG these days....are we heading down the path of China, whose government economic data we absolutely knew was manipulated?

https://www.politico.com/news/2025/06/04/trump-officials-farm-product-trade-deficit-forecast-00382549

Per Politico:

Trump administration officials delayed and redacted a government forecast because it predicts an increase in the nation’s trade deficit in farm goods later this year, according to two people familiar with the matter.

The numbers run counter to President Donald Trump’s messaging that his economic policies, including tariffs, will reduce U.S. trade imbalances. The politically inconvenient data prompted administration officials to block publication of the written analysis normally attached to the report because they disliked what it said about the deficit.

< - >

“The report was hung up in internal clearance process and was not finalized in time for its typical deadline,” said USDA spokesperson Alec Varsamis in a statement. “Given this report is not statutory as with many other reports USDA does, the Department is undergoing a review of all of its non-statutory reports, including this one, to determine next steps.” [Rick: I call BS on this, it's a standing report that everyone knows when it will come out and there's no excuse for it to be 'hung up' in process - this is a very weak excuse imo.]

It’s not clear when or if the written analysis portion will be released.

< - >

Republicans used the quarterly report’s rising trade deficit projections during the Biden administration to accuse then-Secretary Tom Vilsack of not doing enough to promote U.S. farm exports. Agriculture secretaries historically have used the forecasts to promote policy initiatives.

< - >

msf

are we heading down the path of China, whose government economic data we absolutely knew was manipulated?

The numbers are still accurate, at least for now.

The published report, released Monday but dated May 29, includes numbers that are unchanged from how they would’ve read in the unredacted report

It's not as though someone pulled out a Sharpie and marked up the data. Oh, yeah ...

JD_co

Let's be honest, most of us are not surprised to hear that the regime is manipulating publicly issued financial reports.


“Trump administration officials delayed and redacted a government forecast because it predicts an increase in the nation’s trade deficit in farm goods later this year,“ Politico reports.


In a disturbing pattern, not much will come of this little cover-up. The propaganda sh*t-show will continue unabated, and the public will be misled.

kings53man

Higher trade deficit means we are import more, this means more tariff (import tax) collected by the Government. Good-very-good.

catch22

@kings53man
You, I, everyone will be paying for that (import tax). So, one is really paying the government an additional pass through tax. I'll thank you in advance; and don't forget to start watching the prices at Walmart and other stores, eh?

Old_Joe

@kings53man- OK, "collected by the government"... I'm with you.

Ummm... next question: Paid by who?

Ummm... Answer: the American people. That would include you, yes? Be sure to let us know how things are going at Walmart.

Anna

Many people of means have hoped for a switch from income based federal taxation to consumption based taxation. This would not bode well with the majority of American people since the majority are working class who spend most of their income on consumption while people of means spend only a small fraction of their income on consumption. Tariffs, with their promise of generating/replacing taxes from income with taxes from "elsewhere", are easier to sell to the unaware than sales taxes. It's all a slight-of-tongue trick with the language of who "elsewhere" is and how a "tariff" differs from a sales tax. When people come to understand it may be too late. Hopefully the workers will still be entitled to union representation and be powerful enough to demand that wages rise to the level of covering the sales taxes, now called tariffs. Otherwise, consider your decendents being used to replace the immigrant worker class in America and increased poverty that is ignored and not subsidized by taxes. I imagine that, if EITC weren't really a subsidy to low wage businesses, they would be on the chopping block too.

I wonder how high tariffs need to go to eliminate the top three or four income tax brackets? (or vastly broaden the bands, which is harder to guess)

Found it! I knew G.Bush's Tax Commission had an estimate of the flat tax type rate. Here it is:
Simple, Fair, and Pro-Growth: Proposals to Fix America’s Tax System
Report of the President’s Advisory Panel on Federal Tax Reform November 2005

The Treasury Department estimated that a Flat Tax imposed on a broad consumption
tax base would require a 21 percent tax rate to preserve revenue neutrality.

By the way - Chapter 9 of the report estimates that the replacement with a retail sales tax would be 22% and has graphs showing the replacement increasing taxes on lower incomes while reducing taxes on higher incomes. Other scheme, such as VAT, are also discussed in the report.

Another edit for 2005 perspective:

In 2005, 2.1539T in revenues, and 2.4722T in expenditures

Table 1.3—SUMMARY OF RECEIPTS, OUTLAYS, AND SURPLUSES OR DEFICITS (–) IN CURRENT DOLLARS, CONSTANT (FY 2000) DOLLARS, AND
AS PERCENTAGES OF GDP: 1940–2011

catch22

Hi @Anna Thank you for your time and effort with the information.

Crash

Ditto!