Budget Journamalism from the Washington Post (Brendan Nyhan Gets Baited-and-Switched)

Brendan Nyhan is amazed to find a real journalist--William Branigin--covering the budget for the Washington Post. But it's a flash in the pan that soon disappears:

Brendan Nyhan: Post commits journalism on Bush tax/budget plans: Democrats have long derided Bush's deficit-cutting boasts, saying he routinely ignores the huge debt that the federal government has accumulated since he was inaugurated in January 2001. From a record surplus of $237 billion in fiscal 2000 under President Bill Clinton, the budget began slipping into deficit under Bush, in part because of a sluggish economy, falling tax revenue, the impact of the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks and the war in Iraq.

But after reaching a record $413 billion in 2004, the budget deficit dropped to $248 billion in the 2006 fiscal year that ended Sept. 30, thanks largely to higher tax receipts from corporations and individuals.

The claim that the federal budget deficit has been cut in half stems from the administration's original projection of a $512 billion deficit for 2004, a number that critics have said was inflated, especially since the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) was forecasting $477 billion at the time.

Some economists also have charged that Bush has claimed unwarranted credit for his tax cuts, which they say have cost the Treasury more in lost revenue than has been gained from their economic stimulus effect.

According to Alan D. Viard, a former Bush White House economist who joined the American Enterprise Institute, "Federal revenue is lower today than it would have been without the tax cuts. There's really no dispute among economists about that."

Viard said in October there was "no evidence" that Bush's tax cuts come anywhere close to paying for themselves, a conclusion shared by economists at the Treasury Department and the nonpartisan CBO, Washington Post staff writer Lori Montgomery reported.

The Congressional Research Service has estimated that economic growth fueled by the tax cuts is likely to generate revenue worth about 7 percent of their total cost, which amounts to about $1.1 trillion since 2001...

But, alas, the act of journamalism was only temporary. If you click on Brendan's link or search the Post's website, you find that the story is gone. It has been replaced: journalism to journamalism. Somebody decided the Post's readers needed to be protected from learning about the estimates of CBO, about the consensus of economists, and about the fact that the Bushies highballed their forecast to make it easier to cut it in half.

Now we see a different story--with no quotes from real economists, with no quotes from budget analysts outside the Heritage Foundation, with un-fact-checked quotes from Bush's budget director, and with no challenge to Bush's claim that the tax cuts have raised revenue--by the obsequious Peter Baker http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/01/03/AR2007010300235_pf.html.

I have a hard time understanding why anyone pays for the Post today. I find it difficult to conceive how it can last a decade.

Comments

[howard]

prof, i agree that the story that "disappeared" is a real story, but i, for one, am tired of hearing about the "impact" of 9/11 as a source of budget deficit.

we had a recession already going on on 9/11, and it ended on 9/30. the economy started growing on 10/1.

now, admittedly, bush starting spending wildly on defense with no real strategy in place as an outcome of 9/11, but there was nothing to prevent him from paying for that by cutting unnecessary defense programs or increasing tax revenues.

but the idea that the story should disappear? i'll be very curious to see if it reappears at some point, and what, if anything, our representative at the post, deborah howell, has to say about it....

[pgl]

I just blasted GWB's oped focusing in part on looking at the unified deficit v. the general fund deficit. I know, I know - this one has been my passion. But why can't the WaPo writings just once recognize there has been no reduction in the general fund deficit? Oh wait - Dean Baker has answered my query as he notes the WaPo jihad against Socia Security. Yes - it al makes sense now!

[sglover]

My informal survey, taken while commuting on the DC Metro system, tells me that Post readership is way, way down. By about a 10 to 1 margin, most people seem to be reading the "Express" -- itself a dumbed-down paper from the WaPo corporation, handed out gratis by guys posted at every Metro station. Something tells me that this is not a long-term winning strategy.

[looj]

i read the post, but it certainly isn't something i'd pay for. the nytimes for that matter, as far as their political coverage. they're both just so spotty.

i remember reading this article when it appeared and was surprised that it was as good as it was. that said, which you can't tell from the way nyhan quotes it, the refutations of the bush numbers are much farther down the piece. in fact, with a 2 page web article, the first page is generally pro-bush, while the second was reality-based.

i was also dismayed that branigin a) didn't mention that the CBO has to make estimates assuming current law, meaning that they have to assume the tax cuts expire, which deflates the deficit numbers, and b) didn't mention that the iraq war has been funded by emergency supplementals, thereby keeping it out of these budget numbers (correct?).

i guess we'll take what we can get...oh wait, not if the post takes it back. print edition anyone?