WashPost Notes Deficit's Drop, But Reuters Gives More Context

Photo of Ken Shepherd.
By Ken Shepherd (Bio | Archive)
July 11, 2007 - 13:59 ET

The Washington Post today reported how the White House expects the federal budget deficit to shrink, but placed it in a five-paragraph story below the fold on page A6. Yet a Reuters story on the same development noted something that the Washington Post's Lori Montgomery left out of her story. The new White House figure of $205 billion "is still higher than many private forecasts, which have pegged the deficit at around $150 billion."

What's more, Post reporter Montgomery included a reference to President Bush crediting his tax cuts with the revenue surge, but added "that has been challenged by many economists." Montgomery failed to name any such economist, much less his/her rationale. After all, if tax revenue is growing at unexpected rates following tax cuts, are there many economists who actually expect tax revenues to roll in at a faster pace when levied at their pre-Bush tax cut levels?



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.

Economists...please sound off

July 11, 2007 - 14:19 ET by LionKing

"...included a reference to President Bush crediting his tax cuts with the revenue surge, but added 'that has been challenged by many economists.' "

I would love to hear from some economists. I would also like someone to identify when a nation has ever been taxed into prosperity.

If conservatives are RIGHT, then liberals must be WRONG.
Thompson/Rice

Not the tiny Pridnestrovie

July 11, 2007 - 14:23 ET by sarcasmo

Not the tiny Pridnestrovie region of Moldova, which is starting to sound like a hell of a nice place to at-least visit, tax-wise!
JMR

Not so fast Sarc, did you r

July 11, 2007 - 14:28 ET by MightyMouth

Not so fast Sarc, did you read the "addendum"?

Excerpt: "It also is not exactly a role model of democracy, since the boss of the
country recently won 103 percent of the vote in one region."

"There are two types of people in this country; those who provide freedom and those who enjoy it." MM says...

True. My hope would be that

July 11, 2007 - 14:30 ET by sarcasmo

True. My hope would be that the mobsters in charge would understand that they've stumbled upon the right way to run a state, if they just get rid of a few MORE laws! :) But simple, low taxes are clearly a fiscally good start, aren't they?
JMR

Excellent link, sarc

July 11, 2007 - 14:28 ET by LionKing

A flat tax would be an improvement, but a consumption tax would be the best.

Anything simpler/lower/flat

July 11, 2007 - 14:33 ET by sarcasmo

Anything simpler/lower/flatter would be nice, but nothing would be best, hence my preferred Presidential candidate. :)
JMR

Huh?Really?

July 11, 2007 - 17:34 ET by Roger the Shrubber

Huh?

Really?

Here's a few facts:The new de

July 11, 2007 - 14:27 ET by BeanMan

Here's a few facts:

  1. The new deficit is around $200B
  2. The new Federal budget is $2.5 Trillion
  3. The new deficit is .1% of the total budgtet
  4. The Fed took in $2.3 Trillion in revenues last year (more scheduled this year)

There are some in our Senate and House who think $2.5 Trillion just isn't enough!!!!

inspired

July 11, 2007 - 14:52 ET by LionKing

With these numbers, I am again inspired to share my alternate to the Federal Income Tax...

Each state would be responsible for supporting the Federal Budget. The responsibility would be based on the number of Representatives the state has.

For Example, Wyoming would be responsible for 1/435 of the 2.5 Trillion or about 5.75 Billion. Each state could then determine how to raise these funds. The Fed would have to live under a balanced budget. Representatives would be more accountable to their own states.

If conservatives are RIGHT, then liberals must be WRONG.
Thompson/Rice