Whatever happened to those dastardly budget deficits?

The state Legislative Analyst's Office says that Gov. Brown's projections were too pessimistic and that California should expect $2.8 billion more in tax revenue than what the administration was estimating. Meanwhile, the federal budget deficit, which topped out at $1.4 trillion in 2009, is expected to drop this year to $642 billion, or just 4 percent of GDP (well within safe limits). Long-term spending is still a problem, especially when it comes to entitlements, but it's not a short-term crisis. So what cleared the clouds? From Time magazine's Christopher Matthews:

Basically, the change can be explained by a combination of a recovering housing market -- which has improved the finances of government-owned Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac -- combined with a better-than-expected economy overall, which is boosting corporate and personal income tax revenues. This economic improvement is happening despite higher taxes and budget cuts enacted as part of the fiscal cliff deal reached in December, and the sequestration-related budget cuts that went into effect recently. This change is yet another vindication of economists and commentators who argued that large budget deficits are the natural outgrowth of effective economic policy in the wake of a severe recession. Economic recession reduces employment and corporate profits, lowering tax revenues. At the same time, safety net programs like unemployment insurance and food stamps must spend more to accommodate the larger number of people who need them.

This is stuff you learn in an introductory economics class - government is needed a lot more in bad times than in good times. With the economy getting better, albeit slowly, that reliance not only is starting to recede, but it's being replaced by more money coming in. Good news, but not all that surprising news. And yet, for five or so years, really going back to the financial crisis, debate out of Washington has focused on those dastardly deficit numbers and how they would destroy the country. Bloomberg's Josh Barro nails it:

[House Speaker] John Boehner doesn't really care about the public debt, as he made clear when he repeatedly supported debt-expanding measures under a Republican president. What Boehner and House Republicans really want are excuses to cut federal spending, particularly on programs such as Medicaid and food stamps that support low-income Americans. But those cuts are unpopular, so Republicans frame fiscal debate to make such cuts appear necessary to avoid disaster. If you can't borrow or tax more, and can't cut old-age entitlements or the military, which command the majority of federal spending, you're not left with many options but to soak the poor.

So where has the media been during this week's stunning recalculations? Well, mostly covering the Washington pseudo-scandals (this week's Congressional hearings have been farcical). Check out the amount of time that CBS, ABC, and NBC have spent on the revised deficit projections: A grand total of 0.00 minutes. Fiscal matters make for boring television unless somebody - usually a Republican - yells "crisis."