Is This Just Blatant Spin from The Wall Street Journal Editorial Page?

REVIEW & OUTLOOK

The Spending Boom

If you want to know how Washington is different from the rest of America, or even from normal human aspiration, consider its reaction to yesterday's major economic news.

Out in the productive part of the country, the big story was the buoyant capital goods report for July. The 1% rise in durable goods orders, following 2.6% growth in June, suggests that the long-awaited rebound in business spending may finally be here. This is -- dare we whisper it -- good news.

But inside the land of spin and spenders, the big story was the increase, to $480 billion, in the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) estimate of the 2004 federal budget deficit. "We've got a grave problem on our hands," intoned South Carolina's John Spratt, the ranking Democrat on the House Budget Committee. The Democratic Presidential candidates joined this chorus of economic gloom, while ignoring the good business spending news.

That's politics, we know. But allow us to draw a couple of points from the CBO update that you won't be reading elsewhere. One is that "the economy now seems poised for a more sustained recovery," with CBO estimating growth of nearly 4% in 2004. Because of that growth, moreover, "the recent surge in federal budget deficits will peak in 2004." That's right, if growth continues even at the CBO estimate of 3.3% a year from 2005-2008, federal revenues will begin to rise again and deficits will fall through the rest of the decade, just as they always do amid prosperity.

What this tells us is that President Bush's decision to use fiscal policy (tax cuts) to promote growth has been the right priority. And it seems to be paying off now in accelerating business purchases. This is crucial to restoring vibrant growth because the economy has had to survive on the hardy consumer since the stock and tech bubbles burst in 2000. This was also one of the explicit goals of Mr. Bush's dividend and marginal income-tax rate cut proposals.


Updated August 27, 2003

http://online.wsj.com/article/0,,SB106194510249657800,00.html?mod=opinion%255Fmain%255Freview%255Fand%255Foutlooks

you'll know that all that they put out is blatant spin, their editorial page is disgusting.

the news pages are terrific and usually contradict what the editorial pages say. For instance, a few weeks ago, the editorial page had a piece where it said "The Coalition Grows," whereas the news pages had an article saying how more countries refused to send troops.

"editorial page":) I don't care if the rest of it is good, that disgusts me so much that I won't touch the rest, it makes me feel dirty all over:)

I think it's good because it focuses almost solely on financial stuff. That's why I got an online subscription, which also gives me access to Barrons.

that spews that kind of venomous sh*t regularly in any part of it's publication:) Just my philosophy, if you want to subscribe, more power to ya, but if you know the editorial page is blatant pro-whistle ass spin, then don't expect them to suddenly come around and "see the light" and actually write something with some truth to it:)

It's just a good source of information about business and the economy.

over guns.But I'm not a millionaire investor and don't subscribe to the WSJ, so I don't count.

BTW, cut this down to copyright size-OK? Don't want to get DU in trouble, the WSJ is nasty enough to sue us.

they'll do whatever it takes to make Bush look good.

I watched that CBO report on C-Span, and this is not the outlook that was painted. My suggestion is that you watch a re-run or get a transcript.

blatant spin. It has been notoriously hard-right conservative ever since I first read it back in the 1970s.

The news articles are highly regarded, though. Mystery writer Sara Paretsky once said that she read the WSJ for ideas for her novels about official corruption and conspiracies because the news articles are "the people who run this country telling one another the truth."

If you ever want to see a real clusterfuck on television, check out their editorial board sit-down on CNBC on Friday nights called "Louis Rukeyser's Wall Street."

If these people were anywhere else in America besides Wall Street people would nervously laugh at them and dismiss them as completely loony.

As I've said here before, they don't get it. They don't know what they are talking about once they get off of financial reporting.

--if there was a 2.6% increase in durable goods order in June, but only a 1% increase in July, doesn't that mean things are on the decline again?

Silly me, not being a WSJ editor I can't see how a decline makes for a "buoyant" report.

The CBO forecast shows the deficit will eventually shrink IF the projected growth rates are achieved. What you will not read on the WSJ editorial page, however, is that the IMF just criticized the US govt. for basing its budget on "unrealistic" expectations of growth.

Also, they fail to note that shrinking deficits are also dependent on all of the sunsets built into the tax cuts actually taking place as scheduled. And no new tax cuts, including no additional AMT relief.

I know politics is politics, but it begins to stretch my imagination to understand how intelligent conservatives manage to believe this administrations' load of crap.

They may as well close their doors today. They know it's a bunch of bull.

"federal revenues will begin to rise again and deficits will fall through the rest of the decade"

This is only true if * and the Repukes don't get their way on making the tax cuts permanent. CBO assessments of increased revenue are based on tax break sunsets. Oh, no Medicare drug bennie, and a bogus supplimental number are included for good measure. Spratt did a good job on C-Span yesterday witht his hokum.

Where the CBO report projects an optimistic growth rate of 4% (Is it a realistic estimate? Who can say?), the WSJ is all in favor of it. But when the same report reaches some unpleasant conclusions, suddenly it's not worth the paper it's printed on. Is that it?

Odd how all those tax cuts the last two years haven't worked at all. But this time for sure! (See Bullwinkle and Attempts to Pull a Rabbit Out of his Hat.)

http://www.truthout.org/docs_01/01.24G.Spratt.CBO.htm

CBO'S JANUARY BASELINE
STATEMENT OF CONGRESSMAN JOHN SPRATT
RANKING DEMOCRAT, HOUSE BUDGET COMMITTEE

"A month ago, President Bush said that his Administration had "brought sorely needed fiscal discipline to Washington." Today, the Congressional Budget Office reports that $4 trillion of the ten-year surplus has vanished. Last January, CBO projected a surplus of $359 billion for Fiscal Year 2003. This January, CBO projects a $14 billion deficit-a reversal of almost $400 billion in one year, the greatest one-year reversal in our nation's history. If this is fiscal discipline, it has a strange bottom line.

"The Republican budget has broken the bipartisan commitment to save the Social Security Trust Fund surplus. War, recession, and tax cuts have overtaken the budget. Adhering to this budget, in the face of this report, is not fiscal discipline; it's fiscal denial."

"CBO's report confirms concerns about the Republican budget that Democrats have raised for an entire year:

"1. Read my lips: No more surpluses. In one year, $4 trillion of the unified surplus has vanished, and the on-budget surplus has become an on-budget deficit.

"At the beginning of last year, CBO projected a surplus of $2.0 trillion over the five-year period 2002-2006. Now CBO expects unified budget deficits in 2002 and 2003, and a cumulative surplus of just $0.25 trillion - a decline of 88 percent."

"At the beginning of last year, CBO projected a surplus of $5.629 trillion over the ten years 2002-2011. Now, CBO expects a cumulative surplus of just $1.602 trillion - a reduction of 72 percent.

"At the beginning of the year, CBO projected an on-budget surplus of $3.12 trillion over the ten year period 2002-2011. Now CBO expects an on-budget deficit of $845 billion over the same period.

"2. Over the next decade, the single largest reason for the vanishing surplus is the tax cut.

the buoyant capital goods reports may not survive exchange rate changes and resulting export decreases - current exchange rate is hurting EU and Japan - with Germany in recession. So if we put the rest of the world under, do we benefit?

The CBO is saying that 04 will grow in the high 3% range - the WSJ's near 4% - and the CBO rosie out years (7 years of continuing deficits - ending only because all those tax cuts sunset - if you really believe the GOP would let that happen) growth rates are 3.3% - a rate that a Clinton might achieved - but never a Bush - and just barely a Reagan or a Carter. So the joy is we bleed less and less each year to 2010 with the no new job Bush economy - oh joy!

How the hell this tells us that Bush's decision to use Tax Cuts (fiscal policy) to promote growth has been the right priority is for those beyond my level of pay to understand.

Economist Brian Wesbury does indeed predict third-quarter growth in the 5% range - but he has yet to be close. I'm sticking with 3%.

CBO points out that in fiscal 2003 non-defense discretionary spending will rise a remarkable 8.5%, or $33 billion, mostly for education, health care and transportation - we bail out airlines, have a little job growth from roads, have more poor folks so higher medicaid, and fund no child left behind at 50% of what Bush promised. "Anyone who argues that the war on terror is crowding out domestic spending should be laughed out of the room" is a bit of bull shit. I wonder how Homeland Security is being funded?

The dig at a new Medicare entitlement for prescription drugs for seniors is no problem - the GOP controll all parts of gov - but are trying to divert all monies for drugs into the cost of a tax cut called Medical Savings Accounts where much of that tax cut flows back to insurance companies as overhead and profit - a standard compassionate GOP approach. Pity that anything not for the rich is "butter" that should be cut in favor of guns in these post 9/11 times. We ALL must make sacrifices in these trying times!

:-)

Every word on the WSJ editorial page is blatant spin.

along with Faux, Newsmax and Townhall, I would say the lean to the right is definate.