I would argue that all three measures vastly overstate what surpluses are likely to be. In 1997, Congress approved the Balanced Budget Act, which dramatically cut federal spending through 2002. CBO's rosy scenario assumes Congress will adhere to the strict 1997 limits on federal spending. If defense spending was spared from cuts, as seems likely, then all other programs would have to be reduced by 40 percent by 2010. Congress is not likely to cut Head Start or law enforcement funding nearly in half.
Recent history proves it.
To think Congress will refrain from using these gimmicks in the future is a fantasy. The surplus projections are also unrealistic because they are based on there being no changes to current law. CBO's projections assume no tax cuts, no emergency spending, no natural disasters, no new military deployments, and no new programs requiring additional spending through 2010. In other words, they assume Congress will do nothing for the next decade. The past two years have seen Congress providing billions in relief for unanticipated events like the collapse in farm prices and natural disasters like the hurricanes in the Carolinas and Central America.