Ring of Conservative Sites Ring of Conservative Sites
JOIN!

[ Prev | Skip Prev | Prev 5 | List |
Rand | Next 5 | Skip Next | Next ]

Wednesday, July 13, 2005

Reduced Deficit Reported By the NYT- Fire That Reporter!

The NYT has reported today that the deficit has decreased for 2005 due to increased tax revenues of $100 billion. Reporter Edmund Andrews did his NYT best to downplay the effect of the supply-side tax cuts by Bush. He even referred to the “plunge in revenue when the market bubble burst” in 2001. Treating any facet of the recession as due to reasons’ other than GW’s presence in the White House is dangerous for a NYT reporter. That error may mean his job.

However, Andrews was able to report “good news” (for the NYT though not for the country).

He advises:

But many independent analysts cautioned that the improvement, though notable, could prove
ephemeral and that it did little to eliminate much bigger fiscal problems just over the horizon. "Lawmakers who allow themselves to be lulled into thinking that the economy is growing its way out of the deficit," wrote Edward McKelvey, an economist at Goldman Sachs in New York, "are unlikely to support the painful measures needed to reach a more lasting solution."

For one thing, analysts note, federal spending has continued to climb rapidly, about 7 percent this year. Despite cutbacks in many domestic programs, spending has surged for the war in Iraq as well as in certain benefit programs providing health coverage.

Then Andrews made a cardinal sin. He sought a quote from a supply-side ally, Ben Bernanke, Chairman of the President’s Council of Economic Advisors. The loquacious Bernanke apparently only told Andrews, “We need to wait for more data”. Thus, it is “too early” to credit supply-side economics. I wonder what caused the increase in revenue besides the tax cuts.

Andrews messed up a second time by citing positive (for the country) data. The deficit is now at 3% of GNP, one half point lower than it has been the past 3 years. The 3% is “less than in many West European countries that have been hobbled by slow growth and the heavy cost of supporting social welfare programs”. That is a second demerit for Mr. Andrews. How could he mention the poor showing of the European economy? Andrews even mentions the “much bigger problem is the impending retirement of baby boomers, with the oldest in that group eligible for Social Security payments starting in 2008.” That is a NYT 3rd strike.

If Andrews remains at the NYT after such a failed (that is, somewhat objective) report, I may have to renew my subscription for weekend delivery.

1 Comments:

At 1:08 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Best regards from NY! »

 

Post a Comment

<< Home

Ring of Conservative Sites Ring of Conservative Sites
JOIN!

[ Prev | Skip Prev | Prev 5 | List |
Rand | Next 5 | Skip Next | Next ]