Apr 06, 2010
The role of George W. Bush's tax cuts in the current federal deficit
is tremendous. Their role in corporate media's current round of deficit
obsession, however, is tenuous at best. Sometimes acknowledged in
editorials or op-eds, the cuts generally only make it into news reports
as assertions from the White House or Democrats, rather than established
and relevant economic fact.
Elite papers lately issue near daily alarms on
the deficit --"gargantuan," "unprecedented," "unimaginable a few years
ago." Virtually all accounts speak portentously of the costs of benefit
programs like Social Security, often described as "the main causes for
expanding federal spending and deficits" (Washington
Post, 3/1/10) or "the major factor behind projections of
unsustainably high deficits" (New York Times,
1/26/10) -- and sometimes, dismayingly, as "goodies" (New York Times, 2/7/10).
But even the most discerning reader might not suspect that, as the
Center on Budget and Policy Priorities explains (2/17/10), "just two
policies dating from the Bush administration -- tax cuts and the wars in
Iraq and Afghanistan...will account for almost $7 trillion in deficits
in 2009 through 2019," impacts that "easily dwarf the stimulus and
financial rescues."
A December 14, 2009 piece in the Washington
Post identified the current brouhaha as a strategy of
"Republicans seeking to make growing federal deficits a focal point of
the 2010 elections." That awareness is missing from most Post reporting on the subject, which still
has room for such things as Alan Simpson's lament (2/17/10): "How did we
get to a point in America where you get to a certain age in life,
regardless of net worth or income, and you're 'entitled'? The word
itself is killing us."
When mention of Bush-era contributions to the present deficit occurs,
it's most often in comments from presumably interested parties like
Obama (Washington Post, 2/2/10) or
White House budget director Peter Orszag (Washington
Post, 2/1/10). Meanwhile, references to the need to curtail the
White House's "lavish aspirations" (Washington
Post, 1/26/10) or "the massive federal entitlement
programs -- including Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security -- that threaten
to drive the nation's debt to levels not seen since World War II" (Washington Post, 1/20/10) are in the
reporter's own voice.
The New York Times is
aware that a debate on the deficit that omits mention of Bush's cuts is
disingenuous, as editorials like "The Truth About the Deficit" (2/7/10)
attest. This knowledge remains hermetically sealed in the paper's
editorial department, however, and MIA where it might be useful-for
instance, following a statement about how "a deficit at $1.6 trillion"
is a strong reason why "leading Republicans ...argued that Mr. Obama could
hardly claim credit for improvements in the economy" (New York Times, 2/18/10).
A January 27 Times piece ended with
the phrase, "considering much of the nation's debt is the result of
spending and tax cuts during the years up to 2007 when Republicans
controlled both the White House and Congress." To date, no articles have
begun that way.
Join Us: News for people demanding a better world
Common Dreams is powered by optimists who believe in the power of informed and engaged citizens to ignite and enact change to make the world a better place. We're hundreds of thousands strong, but every single supporter makes the difference. Your contribution supports this bold media model—free, independent, and dedicated to reporting the facts every day. Stand with us in the fight for economic equality, social justice, human rights, and a more sustainable future. As a people-powered nonprofit news outlet, we cover the issues the corporate media never will. Join with us today! |
© 2023 Fairness and Accuracy In Reporting (FAIR)
Janine Jackson
Janine Jackson is Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting (FAIR) program director and producer/co-host of FAIR's syndicated radio show CounterSpin. She contributes frequently to FAIR's magazine, Extra! and co-edited "The FAIR Reader: An Extra! Review of Press and Politics in the '90s" (2019).
The role of George W. Bush's tax cuts in the current federal deficit
is tremendous. Their role in corporate media's current round of deficit
obsession, however, is tenuous at best. Sometimes acknowledged in
editorials or op-eds, the cuts generally only make it into news reports
as assertions from the White House or Democrats, rather than established
and relevant economic fact.
Elite papers lately issue near daily alarms on
the deficit --"gargantuan," "unprecedented," "unimaginable a few years
ago." Virtually all accounts speak portentously of the costs of benefit
programs like Social Security, often described as "the main causes for
expanding federal spending and deficits" (Washington
Post, 3/1/10) or "the major factor behind projections of
unsustainably high deficits" (New York Times,
1/26/10) -- and sometimes, dismayingly, as "goodies" (New York Times, 2/7/10).
But even the most discerning reader might not suspect that, as the
Center on Budget and Policy Priorities explains (2/17/10), "just two
policies dating from the Bush administration -- tax cuts and the wars in
Iraq and Afghanistan...will account for almost $7 trillion in deficits
in 2009 through 2019," impacts that "easily dwarf the stimulus and
financial rescues."
A December 14, 2009 piece in the Washington
Post identified the current brouhaha as a strategy of
"Republicans seeking to make growing federal deficits a focal point of
the 2010 elections." That awareness is missing from most Post reporting on the subject, which still
has room for such things as Alan Simpson's lament (2/17/10): "How did we
get to a point in America where you get to a certain age in life,
regardless of net worth or income, and you're 'entitled'? The word
itself is killing us."
When mention of Bush-era contributions to the present deficit occurs,
it's most often in comments from presumably interested parties like
Obama (Washington Post, 2/2/10) or
White House budget director Peter Orszag (Washington
Post, 2/1/10). Meanwhile, references to the need to curtail the
White House's "lavish aspirations" (Washington
Post, 1/26/10) or "the massive federal entitlement
programs -- including Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security -- that threaten
to drive the nation's debt to levels not seen since World War II" (Washington Post, 1/20/10) are in the
reporter's own voice.
The New York Times is
aware that a debate on the deficit that omits mention of Bush's cuts is
disingenuous, as editorials like "The Truth About the Deficit" (2/7/10)
attest. This knowledge remains hermetically sealed in the paper's
editorial department, however, and MIA where it might be useful-for
instance, following a statement about how "a deficit at $1.6 trillion"
is a strong reason why "leading Republicans ...argued that Mr. Obama could
hardly claim credit for improvements in the economy" (New York Times, 2/18/10).
A January 27 Times piece ended with
the phrase, "considering much of the nation's debt is the result of
spending and tax cuts during the years up to 2007 when Republicans
controlled both the White House and Congress." To date, no articles have
begun that way.
Janine Jackson
Janine Jackson is Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting (FAIR) program director and producer/co-host of FAIR's syndicated radio show CounterSpin. She contributes frequently to FAIR's magazine, Extra! and co-edited "The FAIR Reader: An Extra! Review of Press and Politics in the '90s" (2019).
The role of George W. Bush's tax cuts in the current federal deficit
is tremendous. Their role in corporate media's current round of deficit
obsession, however, is tenuous at best. Sometimes acknowledged in
editorials or op-eds, the cuts generally only make it into news reports
as assertions from the White House or Democrats, rather than established
and relevant economic fact.
Elite papers lately issue near daily alarms on
the deficit --"gargantuan," "unprecedented," "unimaginable a few years
ago." Virtually all accounts speak portentously of the costs of benefit
programs like Social Security, often described as "the main causes for
expanding federal spending and deficits" (Washington
Post, 3/1/10) or "the major factor behind projections of
unsustainably high deficits" (New York Times,
1/26/10) -- and sometimes, dismayingly, as "goodies" (New York Times, 2/7/10).
But even the most discerning reader might not suspect that, as the
Center on Budget and Policy Priorities explains (2/17/10), "just two
policies dating from the Bush administration -- tax cuts and the wars in
Iraq and Afghanistan...will account for almost $7 trillion in deficits
in 2009 through 2019," impacts that "easily dwarf the stimulus and
financial rescues."
A December 14, 2009 piece in the Washington
Post identified the current brouhaha as a strategy of
"Republicans seeking to make growing federal deficits a focal point of
the 2010 elections." That awareness is missing from most Post reporting on the subject, which still
has room for such things as Alan Simpson's lament (2/17/10): "How did we
get to a point in America where you get to a certain age in life,
regardless of net worth or income, and you're 'entitled'? The word
itself is killing us."
When mention of Bush-era contributions to the present deficit occurs,
it's most often in comments from presumably interested parties like
Obama (Washington Post, 2/2/10) or
White House budget director Peter Orszag (Washington
Post, 2/1/10). Meanwhile, references to the need to curtail the
White House's "lavish aspirations" (Washington
Post, 1/26/10) or "the massive federal entitlement
programs -- including Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security -- that threaten
to drive the nation's debt to levels not seen since World War II" (Washington Post, 1/20/10) are in the
reporter's own voice.
The New York Times is
aware that a debate on the deficit that omits mention of Bush's cuts is
disingenuous, as editorials like "The Truth About the Deficit" (2/7/10)
attest. This knowledge remains hermetically sealed in the paper's
editorial department, however, and MIA where it might be useful-for
instance, following a statement about how "a deficit at $1.6 trillion"
is a strong reason why "leading Republicans ...argued that Mr. Obama could
hardly claim credit for improvements in the economy" (New York Times, 2/18/10).
A January 27 Times piece ended with
the phrase, "considering much of the nation's debt is the result of
spending and tax cuts during the years up to 2007 when Republicans
controlled both the White House and Congress." To date, no articles have
begun that way.
We've had enough. The 1% own and operate the corporate media. They are doing everything they can to defend the status quo, squash dissent and protect the wealthy and the powerful. The Common Dreams media model is different. We cover the news that matters to the 99%. Our mission? To inform. To inspire. To ignite change for the common good. How? Nonprofit. Independent. Reader-supported. Free to read. Free to republish. Free to share. With no advertising. No paywalls. No selling of your data. Thousands of small donations fund our newsroom and allow us to continue publishing. Can you chip in? We can't do it without you. Thank you.