To the NYT, Bush economic gains are “ephemeral”
The NYT headline is a good one — Sharp Increase in Tax Revenue Will Pare U.S. Deficit — but that’s the only good news to be found in the doom and gloom NYT, when it’s discussing the Bush administration and the economy. The overall, and oft-repeated, theme of the piece is that any gains made today are “ephemeral.” The Times goes out if its way to make its point in several ways, all of them misleading. Is this negativism in the style book?
First, the article focuses on the increase in corporate tax receipts instead of the, twice as large, $105 billion increase, in individual taxes (perhaps to illustrate how “ephemeral” the improvement is, once Dick Cheney’s oil cronies get their way?):
The NYT is shocked and surprised at the strange and unforesseable consequence of growth: the deficit has come down about $100 bilion to perhaps $325 billion. The Grey Lady is so shocked that she starts making things up. Example:
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.”
The Times makes the assertion that analysts say the gains could prove ephemeral, but has no one on the record saying so. Why? Because folks like the fellow from Goldman know that tax revenues will continue to increase. Hence the Times has to satisfy its desire for gloomy Bush news by making the derivative point that if spending increases faster than revenue, deficits will not come down. Duh. The Times helpfully supplies really scary bad news on that score, projecting a horrible future because the news in the present is pretty good:
Other financial hurdles may be down the road. Mr. Bush’s intention to extend his tax cuts indefinitely, and to add new ones, would drain more than $1.4 trillion from government coffers over the next 10 years.
As the Medicare expansion into prescription drugs begins to take effect, the cost is estimated at about $33 billion in 2006, with increases every year after that. In 2015, the annual cost of the program is expected to be about $137 billion.
It is, finally, noteworthy, that the scaremongering just above is all about spending, with no projection of government revenue for that time period. As we discussed six months ago regarding Social Security, the government forecasts that deficits will come down sharply in the next few years. But that would be good news, wouldn’t it?
July 13th, 2005 at 9:52 pm
What was suprising is this story actually made the front page.
Of course the Times must “appear” shocked, they just spent the election cycle gladly selling the democratic party’s lie that this was the worst economy in 75 years….