Funny With Numbers: AP's Crutsinger Minimizes Federal Spending Level, Avoids the Term 'Tax Increase' (See Update)
Sadly, one could write a term paper identifying and correcting the clever misstatements and obfuscations contained in Martin Crutsinger's Sunday report (since updated; original is still present here) for the Associated Press on the impending submission of the President's 2012 budget by the White House's Office of Management and Budget.
Lacking such space, I'll concentrate on what I believe are the two worst examples, both of which are present in his opening paragraph. Crutsinger significantly misleads about the total spending the administration is proposing for fiscal 2012, and fails to call a tax increase by its proper name, i.e., a tax increase.
That first paragraph reads as follows:
President Barack Obama will send Congress on Monday a $3 trillion-plus budget for 2012 that promises $1.1 trillion in deficit reduction over the next decade by freezing many domestic programs for five years, trimming military spending and limiting tax deductions for the wealthy.
The obvious question is: "$3 trillion plus what, Martin?" A reasonable reader would believe that the "plus" part would be somewhat small. I would ordinarily expect that amount to be less than $100 billion; beyond that point, it should be described as "$3.1 trillion."
The real number is almost undoubtedly north of $3.5 trillion.
That's because the January 2011 projection from the Congressional Budget Office indicated that it expects fiscal 2012 spending to come in at $3.655 trillion:
The reductions in anticipated spending OMB proposes, per Crutsinger's paragraph, amount to $1.1 trillion over 10 years, or an average of $110 billion a year. If OMB's projected impact on fiscal 2012 is 10% of the total (my guess is that it's less, because the Washington game is to push as much spending reduction as possible into far-off years), the $110 billion result would leave spending at $3.545 trillion. Only in AP-Land is it acceptable to round a number that is closer to $4 trillion down to "$3 trillion-plus."
Obviously, the idea of "limiting tax deductions for the wealthy" is simply a "tax increase" by a fancier name. Later in the report, Crutsinger cites an anonymous source who "said (that) one-third of the $1.1 trillion in deficit reduction the administration is projecting over the next decade would come from additional revenue with the bulk of that reflecting the limitations on tax deductions by the wealthy." Again, note the failure to use the phrase tax i-i-i-i ... increases.
But wait a minute. If the mix of deficit reduction is 1/3 tax increases and 2/3 spending reductions, then the $110 billion reduction in spending estimated above is really only about $75 billion, leaving spending closer to $3.6 trillion (actually, $3.58 trillion). You can see why I make such a fuss over "$3 trillion-plus."
I'll have to stop here, or this will turn into a term paper. It would appear that any adequately disclosed federal fiscal truth that comes out of the AP in the coming weeks will occur only by accident.
Cross-posted at BizzyBlog.com.
_____________________________________________
UPDATE: For possible inclusion in the "We Get Results" file, the original AP link above has now been updated for today's White House budget submission.
Marty Crutsinger's headline: "Obama sends Congress $3.73 trillion budget."
The first sentence: "President Barack Obama sent Congress a $3.73 trillion budget Monday that holds out the prospect of eventually bringing deficits under control through spending cuts and tax increases."
Wow, he even wrote "tax increases." That's much better, Marty -- but you still didn't get it right when it mattered most.
- Tom Blumer's blog
- Login to post comments
Comments
Jack Lew, Director OMB for obama
Submitted by ThisnThat on Mon, 02/14/2011 - 8:45am.
on Fox & Friends this morning: "This budget puts us on the road to sustainability.We inherited a bad situation, that obama's budget is fixing".
And what did Jack Lew highlight as part of the nation's spending cuts? The Defense budget, of course. Cut the military; and bankrupt the country. obama's version of hope and change.
But the biggest problem I had with this pipsqueak was his "we inherited" line. They're still at it -- they don't have a clue, and the buck stopped with the previous administration.
__________
“Didn't win the Medal of Honor? Didn't even serve? Then lie about it. We'll support you." — 9th Circuit Court
Democarat vs Republican Budget Silliness
Submitted by acaiguana on Mon, 02/14/2011 - 9:16am.
Here's the deal.
Cut the size and scope and amount of money for the government.
Cut out entire Departments and Programs.
Cut the government workforce by 25%.
Fix Medicare and Medicaid and Social Security by a) increasing the Retirement Age and b) increasing the 'lid' on contribution incomes and c) allowing a 50% self-investment of current funds contributed by individuals.
We are spending over $1 Trillion (the 2010 number of the Year Award Winning Number) each and every year more than we can afford.
Stop that.
Stop it.
And these are not 'simplistic' solutions. This is reality. We cannot afford this Socialist and Intrusive and Job killing government.
ACA
...
Quoted from: 'Acaiguana notes from the Underground' (Soon to be at theaters near you)
Too Late now
Submitted by Mr_Priest on Mon, 02/14/2011 - 11:03am.
Went to the story and it's already been changed to reflect the true numbers. Nothing like sending the story out over the wires so it can be picked up and reprinted in its original form complete with distortions and making a correction at a later date so you can say, “See I corrected my story”. “I can’t help it if everyone printed my original story already….
"The trouble with quotes on the internet is you never know if they are genuine" —Abraham Lincoln
Yes, his new report has the budget number, but ...
Submitted by Tom Blumer on Mon, 02/14/2011 - 1:14pm.
... that's because the doc has been released.
The original can still be found here (for now).
Your take is dead-on. Crutsinger knows full well that most newspapers and AM broadcasters carried his "$3 trillion-plus" figure and not the far more damning $3.73 tril.
Deficit Reality
Submitted by howe71 on Mon, 02/14/2011 - 11:22am.
While the Democratic leaders blamed Bush for all the financial woes for the past eight years, Obama, Pelsi and Reid stealthfully passed several trillion dollar bills with almost a democratic partisan vote. WE THE PEOPLE were well aware of the criminal disregard for the will of the people, but corrective action could not begin before 2 Nov 2010. Most of these liberal progressive socialist democrats still do not get it. Its one thing to make a huge mistake and pass a bad piece of legislation like Obamacare and its quite another to persist in the failure to recognize the destruction to our economy from a new entitlement that adds at least 40 million new people to the healthcare rolls when Medicare, Medicaid and social security are swiftly moving toward insolvency. Spreading the wealth on the scale that Obamanomics does, is a bad idea in a free market system but especially during a recession. There is no question that changes must be made to provide social services for people who need help to get out of poverty, but the entitlement system has become an addiction to encourage failure and it creates a climate of deviveness because people all of a sudden think it's a constitutional right for someone else to pay the bills. Chain stores like White Castle and MacDonalds stated that Obamacare will force them to reverse restaurant expansion and cut millions of jobs. The HHS Czar has already issued over 500 waivers for U. S. Business's and Unions that have requested relief from the crushing financial burden that Obamacare creates. The medicaid expansion by Obamacare will bankrupt 19 states within two years of implementation unless states pass laws to stop the Obamacre provisions which are unaffordable, which means half of medicaid qualified people will never get needed medical help because there won't be a doctot that will accept medicaid patients and the state won't have the money to pay for it. It will be back to the emergency room for the people caught in this spread the weath Ponzi Scheme being perpetrated on the American people. Calif and New York are already broke and wanting a bailout, so all you kind patriots, please put off that new car or appliance purchase and retirement until we help all the people who are living beyond their means to pay their house and car payments and throw in a few more months of unemployment benefits for good measure. We live in the best country in the world with the best healthcare in the world, why do we want hope and change for a system that needs minor tweaks. Think about it, its not about hope and change its about power and control.
This has always been the plan*
Submitted by cajun2 on Mon, 02/14/2011 - 12:16pm.
Van Jones said we need to "nudge" the economy, Obama says "transformation of our country" and he said in order to "redistribute wealth" into a "global economy" energy costs would have to "necessarily skyrocket". Well guys, the dominoes are beginning to fall
A serious question for y'all:
Submitted by Grumpy in Arizona on Mon, 02/14/2011 - 1:31pm.
I don’t know (which is why I’m asking) but what would happen if in the future we replaced the Social Security Tax with a system where an individuals SS tax went into guaranteed government savings bonds… collectible upon retirement (with it being fully assignable to ones heirs)? Would that not “save” SS and be more beneficial to the individual and decrease the long-term debt?
It would never work
Submitted by Blonde on Mon, 02/14/2011 - 1:36pm.
Taking away the politicians' piggy bank. NOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!
Handy Reference Guide to Obama's Gaffes and Goofs ~ Currently Numbering 200 (and Counting)
Blonde, Your right!
Submitted by Grumpy in Arizona on Mon, 02/14/2011 - 1:48pm.
Now that I think about it, actually letting people get their own money back is just soooo non-European! :o)