NewsBusters is holding a 5th anniversary happy hour in Washington, and you're invited! Click here for details.

Stop the Presses: AP's Crutsinger Puts Out a Well-Written Deficit Report, With a Stunning Admission

Photo of Tom Blumer.
  • Bookmark and Share

APlogo0409

In his coverage of yesterday's Monthly Treasury Statement from Uncle Sam, the Associated Press's Martin Crutsinger, who I have criticized frequently for cruddy reporting, especially on federal finances, did a pretty good job reporting key facts and conveying very real concerns that are brewing over the country's current fiscal path.

In the process, he made a stunning admission about the economy's situation that has to be seen to be believed.

I find myself concerned that the previous paragraphs might cause Mr. Crutsinger to get called into a closed-door meeting where he gets asked what in the world is going on. If that happens, I have an agenda item he can bring up. I'll get to that later.

Crutsinger's only serious error was his final paragraph's mischaracterization of deficit trends during the Bush administration.

Anyway, here are key paragraphs from Crutsinger's mostly un-cruddy report (bold after title is mine):

Story Continues Below Ad ↓

December budget deficit sets record

The federal budget deficit hit an all-time high for the month of December, and the red ink for the first three months of the current budget year is rising at a more rapid pace than last year's record clip.

The massive tide of red ink, reflecting the continued fallout from a deep recession and a severe financial crisis, highlights the challenge facing President Barack Obama as he pledges to get control of runaway deficits.

The Treasury Department said Wednesday that the deficit last month totaled $91.85 billion, the largest December deficit on record. The figure was in line with economists' expectations.

For the first three months of the current budget year, which began on Oct. 1, the deficit totaled $388.51 billion, 16.8 percent higher than the $332.49 billion imbalance recorded during the same period a year ago.

Last year's deficit surged to $1.42 trillion, more than three times the record of the previous year, an imbalance of $454.8 billion set in 2008.

.... The Obama administration is projecting that this year's deficit will climb even higher to $1.5 trillion, which would be 5.6 percent higher than the 2009 deficit.

.... economists warn that the government's financing costs will begin rising sharply once the recovery begins and the Fed starts raising rates to make sure inflation does not get out of control.

Foreign governments, including China, the largest holder of U.S. Treasury securities, have also expressed concerns about the outlook for deficit reduction in coming years.

.... While the administration is pledging to work to improve that deficit outlook, private economists wonder whether Obama will be able to break the political gridlock that has prevented a significant attack on the deficits even before the recession made them worse.

The "once the recovery begins" phrase I bolded above is a mind-blower. Crutsinger is telling us, despite what his colleague Jeannine Aversa recently wrote about the economy's "rebound," that the recovery hasn't begun. Pass the smelling salts.

Sure, we're supposedly into the seventh month of economic growth since the recession as normal people define it ended with the positive growth that occurred during the third quarter of 2008. But that 2.2% annualized growth was largely driven by government spending and government tax breaks. Though those items are probably still heavily influencing more recent growth, the financing constraints Crutsinger cites could render that administration strategy unsustainable in short order.

The AP reporter's last paragraph about the lack of a "significant attack on the deficits" is factually incorrect:

  • In the wake of 2001's sort-of recession (as normal people define a recession, there never was one) and the financial impact of the 9/11 terrorist attacks, the administration promised that it would cut the deficit, estimated to be over $500 billion at the time of that promise, in half by the time the president left office.
  • Thanks primarily to the income- and investment-related tax cuts of 2003, which grew federal receipts by over 40% in next four years, the Bush administration was able to keep that promise despite insufficient spending restraint three years early, as fiscal 2006's reported deficit was $250 billion. Fiscal 2007, reflecting the fiscal priorities of the final session of the Republican-controlled Congress in 2006, came in with a reported deficit of $162 billion.
  • The government was on track to do even better in subsequent years, but it's clear in retrospect that the Democratic takeover of Congress after the 2006 elections ended any hope of further improvement.

Crutsinger is wrong to claim that there was no "significant attack on the deficits" during the Bush administration.

Here's my agenda item for the possible meeting into which Mr. Crutsinger may be called for his excessive honesty and accuracy: After his dress-down, Martin should ask his superiors for permission to tell readers how much the national debt went up during the periods covered. If he had done this work in his most recent effort, he would have found, using this Treasury Department tool, that:

  • During December, the national debt went from $12.11 trillion to $12.31 trillion an increase of roughly $200 billion, which is about $108 billion greater than December's reported deficit of $92 billion.
  • During the first fiscal quarter, the national debt went from $11.91 trillion to $12.31 trillion an increase of $400 billion, which is about $11 billion greater than the first quarter's reported deficit of $389 billion.

He could then go on to briefly explain why the differences occurred. The nearly indecipherable accounting for the Troubled Asset Relief Program plus factors I cited several years ago would come into play.

Better yet, Martin should probably just do this without asking. Given that the info might be seen as unfavorable to the current administration, AP boss Tom Curley and Co. would probably say no.

Cross-posted at BizzyBlog.com.

—Tom Blumer is president of a training and development company in Mason, Ohio, and is a contributing editor to NewsBusters

NewsBusters is turning 5. Enter our free t-shirt contest to help us celebrate!


Comments Policy

All comments are owned by whoever posted them and are subject to our terms of use. They should not be assumed to represent the views of NewsBusters.

Viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

not that the majority

of us that aren't intellectually challenged didn't know this, but it's actually interesting to know that someone has finally decided to put it out there.

This might be cause to celebrate... nah, not yet.  Crutsinger may not have a job after this.  I guess he didn't get the WH memo on his blackberry like the media nutjobs do telling them what to say, do and print! 

"A few years ago, this guy would have been getting us coffee." - Bill Clinton in 2008 from "Game Change"

I guess the light has finally gone on?

When Obama and the Dems were ripping up the seats and the wheelehouse to use for fuel it wasn't a problem. When they started on the deck planks some started to sound the alarm. Now that they are heading toward the sidewall and the keel with chainsaws and axes, the AP finally decides that maybe everything is not sunshine and roses.

Throw 'da bums out!!!

Before it's too late. 

Duh!

What a shame that we have to be surprised at a little decent reporting from the AP. Goes to show you what bad shape( financially and morally) we are in. As far as the economy is concerned, I believe many a household couple sitting at the kitchen table could do a better job than our "economists"and other "professionals". Of course, that's mainly because they have their family's interest at heart. The selfish, corrupt bums who run our nation today think only of gaining more power and stealing more dough for themselves. Their convuluted crap is based on what it will do for them, not for the nation.* Sad.

 * Look at that idiot woman who is running in Massachusetts. Every time she opens her mouth I cringe. She's already lying about what she heard, said and saw. Yet she may be elected. Are Americans really that stupid, ignorant, and apathetic? 

P.S. Dennis Miller hit the nail on the head when he implied that we need an average, everyday person to lead the country. Throw the rest of the creeps out.

 

NEVER,NEVER trust a "liberal"

Re Creeps

Hopefully the nation's experience with the Bamster will turn us against the Northeastern ruling elite that got us in this mess, and better yet, perhaps against the scourge of lawyers in our government. They need to be scoured from DC like anthrax was from the buildings attacked in 2001.

Economic Ponderings

 post scrubbed 

If an unborn child cannot trust you, why should I,?? 

No significant attack on deficits during the Bush admin.

Mr. Blumer,

I respect you very much, but I'm afraid I don't agree with this statement you made:

Crutsinger is wrong to claim that there was no "significant attack on the deficits" during the Bush administration.

Bush gave us fiscal conservatives the finger during his two terms in my unqualified opinion. I'd be interested in your thoughts.

CG, I disagree.

Bush gave us the finger with both hands.

-Dave

When liberty is taken away by force it can be restored by force. When it is relinquished voluntarily by default it can never be recovered. -Dorothy Thompson

 

Absolutely Perfect!

Absolutely Perfect!

The attack was on the revenue side ....

.... and mostly not the spending side.

Stats on spending increases are here. Note that the GOP didn't get spending religion (sort of) until the FY 2007 budget they passed in 2006, their last year in power, where year-over-year spending went up only 2.8%. 

Too little, too late.

In mid-late 2007, based on the trends at the time, the reported deficit was two years and one small across-the-board tax cut away from getting to zero. The real increase in the national debt is another story.

Thank you

I'll check out the link. Thank you very much.

Well, I'd rather you not be ...

... so cranky. :-->

Viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.