About us Login Get email updates
Research
Print

Wash. Post's Shear reported Democrats criticized McCain's budget plan, but not that nonpartisan analysts dispute its projections

July 09, 2008 3:15 pm ET
image

SUMMARY: In an article on Sen. John McCain's proposed plan to balance the budget by 2013, The Washington Post's Michael Shear reported that "Democrats immediately criticized McCain, asserting that his promise is unrealistic, given his stated goals of tax cuts and other government spending." In fact, several economists and nonpartisan analysts have also criticized McCain's plan, reportedly saying that McCain's proposal for numerous tax cuts would bloat the deficit or require huge spending cuts.

17 Comments

In a July 8 Washington Post article headlined "McCain Says He Would Balance Budget by 2013," staff writer Michael D. Shear reported that "Democrats immediately criticized McCain, asserting that his promise is unrealistic, given his stated goals of tax cuts and other government spending." But criticism of McCain's budget plan is not confined to Democrats, as other media outlets noted in reporting on McCain's plan. In contrast to the Post, The New York Times, The Wall Street Journal, the Associated Press, and the Los Angeles Times all included in their reports the view of fiscal analysts, who said that McCain's plan to balance the budget in four years is unlikely. Moreover, as Media Matters for America previously noted, several economists and nonpartisan analysts have reportedly said that McCain's proposal for numerous tax cuts would bloat the deficit or require huge spending cuts.

In a New York Times article headlined "Skepticism on McCain Plan to Balance Budget by 2013," Robert Pear reported that "economists and fiscal experts" said that "[t]he package of spending and tax cuts proposed by Senator John McCain is unlikely to achieve his goal of balancing the federal budget by 2013." Similarly, The Wall Street Journal reported (subscription required): "Though aides said he pledged to balance the budget within four years, the campaign didn't say how he plans to do this, beyond cutting pork, which many analysts and government watchdogs say is unlikely to get him there."

The AP's Charles Babington and Liz Sidoti wrote that "McCain has given mixed signals in recent months over whether he would make it a priority to balance the budget within four years, a goal that most economists consider to be at odds with McCain's call for continued tax cuts." Similarly, the Los Angeles Times' Maeve Reston and Louise Roug reported that "McCain's pledge also defied skepticism among fiscal analysts over whether he could balance the budget even within eight years. ... Many say his proposed expansion of President Bush's tax cuts would put that goal out of reach."

As Media Matters documented, media analyses of McCain's economic plan have noted that economists and nonpartisan analysts say that McCain's proposals will require massive spending cuts or will increase the deficit. Further, the Tax Policy Center -- a joint venture of the Urban Institute and the Brookings Institution that describes itself as "made up of nationally recognized experts in tax, budget, and social policy" -- estimates that McCain's proposals would cost "about $5.7 trillion over ten years if they could be enacted immediately," or $5.4 trillion if "they don't take effect until October 2009." According to the center, "Cuts this size would pare government back to levels not seen since the Eisenhower administration. In FY 2012, tax revenues would be reduced by about $550 billion compared with current law (with the tax cuts expired). That is roughly equal to CBO's baseline projection for all nondefense discretionary spending." The report concluded:

These estimates make one thing clear. Senator McCain plans a radical downsizing of government. Slashing pork, earmarks, and underperforming programs would offset only a fraction of the revenues. Cuts the size of those he proposes will require slashing discretionary spending and entitlements, and probably even reining in defense spending. Small wonder he has backed away from his earlier pledge to balance the budget -- meaning that these tax cuts, like the ones signed by President Bush, will be paid for by our children.

From Shear's July 8 Washington Post article:

McCain has said he would control the deficit with economic growth and by reducing wasteful spending in the military and in discretionary programs.

Democrats immediately criticized McCain, asserting that his promise is unrealistic, given his stated goals of tax cuts and other government spending. Sen. Barack Obama accused his rival of peddling tired economic policies.

"John McCain's policies are essentially a repeat, a regurgitation of what we've been hearing from the Republican Party over the last two decades, maybe three," he said. "It's part of the reason that we're in the situation that we find ourselves in right now."

Expand All Expand 1st Level Collapse All Add Comment
    • Author by NiceguyEddie (July 09, 2008 3:22 pm ET)
         
      Any idiot should be able to see the flaws in McCain's plans.
      Report Abuse
      • Author by wzwriter (July 09, 2008 3:31 pm ET)
           

        Any idiot should be able to see the flaws in McCain's plans.

        With the exception of such known idiots as Jeff Christie, Sean Insanity, M. Rotten Levin, Michael "Silly" Savage......

        Report Abuse
        • Author by NiceguyEddie (July 09, 2008 3:36 pm ET)
             

          OK.  I exagerated.  Not ANY idiot apparently.  Most Democratic idiots are just smart enough to see it, while most Republican idiots aren't.  (How's that for fair and balanced?) ;)

          Report Abuse
      • Author by mikerhyner8202 (July 10, 2008 1:01 am ET)
           

        The Tax Policy Center that MMFA touted for support behind McCains shortfalls also does not fully suppot Obama's projections.

         "And both candidates may be overoptimistic in their revenue targets for closing tax loopholes—Obama probably more than McCain. "

        Report Abuse
        • Author by BillJ-MN (July 10, 2008 8:42 am ET)
             

          I notice you didn't actually link to the article from which you quoted.  That's probably because, while critical of both candidates, it is rougher on McCain.  We see this immediately before the line you posted:

          Senator Obama's proposals would raise $300 billion, an increase of 2 percent, and Senator McCain's proposals lose $1.0 trillion (if fully phased-in and permanent), a decrease of roughly 2 percent. Senator McCain has stressed that deficits should be closed by spending cuts, but policies he identifies, such as limiting earmarks, would offset only part of the revenue losses attributable to his tax plan.

          A little before that we see:

          Furthermore, as in the case of President Bush's tax cuts, the true cost of McCain's policies may be masked by phase-ins and sunsets (scheduled expiration dates) that reduce the estimated revenue costs. If his policies were fully phased in and permanent, the ten-year cost would rise to $4.0 trillion, or about 11 percent of total revenues.

          It's also followed by this:

          Senator McCain's tax cuts would primarily benefit those with very high incomes, almost all of whom would receive large tax cuts that would, on average, raise their after-tax incomes by more than twice the average for all households. Many fewer households at the bottom of the income distribution would get tax cuts and those whose taxes fall would, on average, see their after-tax income rise much less.

          And this:

          [Under McCain's plan] the larger future deficits would reduce and could completely offset any positive effect. In contrast, Senator Obama's proposed new tax credits could encourage desirable behavior, particularly if the childless EITC and payroll tax rebate encourage additional labor supply among childless low-income individuals.

          I guess I can see why you didn't want to link to the actual article.

          Report Abuse
          • Author by mikerhyner8202 (July 11, 2008 1:17 am ET)
               

            The article was criticle to BOTH canidates. The point being; MMFA choose again to display only one side.

             Please feel free to read the WHOLE article.

            LINK

            Report Abuse
    • Author by wolf kotenberg (July 09, 2008 3:26 pm ET)
         
      McCain needs to be challenged on the facts. He seems to think he is president now, appears to ignore Congress is a part of this government,  and making statements about the economy as if the last 8 years of debt don't exist.
      Report Abuse
      • Author by NiceguyEddie (July 09, 2008 4:18 pm ET)
           
        Everyone knows that nonpartisan analysis has a liberal bias. ;)
        Report Abuse
    • Author by IRONY 101 (July 09, 2008 3:27 pm ET)
         
      Jeez, give McCain a break...he's already said he doesn't know much about the economy. How can you blame him for a faulty plan that he borrowed from someone else? They're not his ideas...blame the fool who came up with the plan.   ;>)
      Report Abuse
      • Author by wolf kotenberg (July 09, 2008 3:46 pm ET)
           
        Phil Gramm ?
        Report Abuse
      • Author by historygeek001 (July 09, 2008 3:59 pm ET)
           
        Just wait--McSame will change his mind about it again soon.  Given enough time, I'm sure he'll cover every possible option.
        Report Abuse
    • Author by Wonderkitty (July 09, 2008 4:21 pm ET)
         

      Okay, so I'm raising my absolutely-rock-bottom-presidency-standards:

      1: High school competition level public speaking skills.

      2: Checkbook balancing level math skills.

      -Income + spending = debt

      I'm pretty sure there are elementary school students who could figure out that equation.

      Report Abuse
      • Author by historygeek001 (July 09, 2008 5:30 pm ET)
           

        I'm sure Republicans would come up with something like:

        -Income+Debt /(Infield Fly Rule - Tuesday Martini Lunch) ^X(Turnips) * (number of wombats currently on White House lawn) + 9/11 - (average annual rainfall in Amazon Basin) = Spend Whatever They Want

        Report Abuse
        • Author by snoopy (July 09, 2008 6:05 pm ET)
             

          Naw, that's too complicated for them. I propose this in its place:

          yours = mine

          Report Abuse
    • Author by eweston8542983 (July 09, 2008 5:30 pm ET)
         
      They'd just be called elitests.
      Report Abuse
    • Author by cArn (July 09, 2008 7:16 pm ET)
         
      So instead of trying to research the merits of the Dem's accusation and find reliable sources that can either back them up or refute them, they turn it into a game of he says\she says. Typical.
      Report Abuse
    • Author by dave (July 09, 2008 9:29 pm ET)
         

      ...or require huge spending cuts.

       I'm all for that. 25 percent across the board ought to do it. Let these nitwits know its OUR money they are spending.

      Report Abuse

my.MediaMatters.org

Login  Sign Up

Push Back

Phone calls, emails and letters from the public do make a difference. Remember that to be effective you must be polite, and professional. Express your specific concerns regarding that particular news report or commentary, and indicate what you would like the media outlet to do differently in the future.

  • The Washington Post
    The Washington Post
    The Washington Post
    1150 15th St. NW
    Washington, DC 20071