TRUMP’S BUDGET: THE OTHER SIDE OF THE STORY

For days mainstream media have been gleefully bashing Donald Trump’s proposed budget as a heartless, mindless exercise in placating the alt.right at the expense of everyone else.

Is it?

I’m no expert on budgets and can’t say I know for sure.  But there very definitely is another side to this story.  And, as I find over and over again, the most valuable purveyor of that other side is Investors Business Daily (IBD).

Please click here to read its complete editorial on the Trump budget.  But in the meanwhile, here are a few highlights:

Trump’s budget plan proposes to balance the federal budget in 10 years and do so entirely through spending restraint. That alone is enough to raise the hackles of the Washington, D.C., swamp creatures. But critics have other complaints. The main ones:

It relies on unrealistic economic projections. Critics say Trump’s budget numbers rest on a rosy scenario of future economic growth. The New York Times describes the economic forecast — in its news story — as “wildly optimistic.”

Are they?

It’s true that numbers in Trump’s economic forecast are rosier than in other long-term forecasts. But that’s because Trump expects his policies to increase economic growth.

Even so, Trump’s forecast is hardly “wild.” In fact, it assumes that annual GDP growth doesn’t reach 3% until 2021, and never exceeds it after that. Over the next five years, Trump forecasts GDP growth to average a modest 2.8% a year.

Contrast these projections with the eight budgets Obama put out. In his first budget, Obama forecast GDP growth of 4% in 2011 and 4.6% in 2012. (Actual results: 1.6% and 2.2%). In all his budgets, the five-year GDP growth forecasts averaged 3.3%.

Yet somehow we don’t recall budget experts gnashing their teeth about Obama’s “wildly optimistic” growth forecasts.

There is more.  Much, much more.  That is why I strongly urge you to use the link and read every word.

The important thing here is to understand that there are two sides to this issue.  But – in keeping with where media “neutrality” has descended in recent years – most folks are getting only one of the sides:  guess which one?

This will give you the other side.  You might still not know which is the more credible of the two (if either have credibility, that is).  But, at the very least, you will have a more complete basis for deciding.

I would hope that’s worth something.

2 Comments

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *