An argument for questioning the credibility of anyone associated with the previous socialist regime when they talk with the MSM.
The Amazing Trumpkin?
Guess which economic forecaster accurately predicted growth in 2017.
President Donald Trump speaks in the East Room of the White House on Tuesday. PHOTO: JOSHUA ROBERTS/BLOOMBERG NEWS
By
James Freeman
Feb. 22, 2018 12:42 p.m. ET
412 COMMENTS
On Wednesday the White House released the annual Economic Report of the President. No surprise, Democrats like Jason Furman, who served as the top economic adviser in the Obama White House, say President Trump’s economic forecasts are much too optimistic. Mr. Trump says that his tax cuts and deregulation will restore robust growth and Mr. Furman calls the Trump growth estimates “absurd.”
The national press corps, which spends a good deal of time cataloging every inaccurate statement from Mr. Trump, may be particularly receptive to the Furman message. But as they dig into this issue, they ought to give some credit where it’s due.
Specifically, reporters may want to consult Table S-9 in the economic report Mr. Trump released last May. The press will note that the President and his economic team predicted 2.3% real economic growth for the calendar year 2017.
Based on the current reading from the Commerce Department released last month, the Trump forecast was right on the money.
Like all such government numbers, this reading on U.S. GDP is scheduled to go through potential revisions, so we’ll have to wait and see if the Trump call stands up. But from all the data available at this point, the rookie and his advisers have a solid read on the economy.
As for Mr. Furman, he’s right to note that our economy needs immigrants to return to its vibrant growth. But he’s already proven he doesn’t understand the impact of heavy taxes and regulation. As Larry Lindsey described in the Journal in 2016, Mr. Furman and his predecessors who oversaw economic forecasts in the Obama White House routinely expected their policies to work much better than they did:
The average annual growth rate from 2010-16 (again assuming 2% real growth for 2016) was 2.1%. The administration’s multiyear forecasts averaged a 71% overestimate from this figure. Compounding growth at 3.6% annually means a 28% larger economy after seven years. Compounding at only 2.1% means 15.7% growth. If the administration’s growth projections were accurate, the GDP would be about $1.8 trillion larger. That’s roughly $6,000 for every man, woman and child in the U.S.
If not absurd, the Obama forecasts were certainly far off target.
***
A Break from Bernie
Are Democrats slowing their roll toward single-payer health care? A number of the party’s leading potential candidates for the 2020 presidential nomination have endorsed socialist Sen. Bernie Sanders’ plan to destroy private health insurance. But now it seems that at least a few Democrats are starting to wonder whether it’s politically savvy to prohibit nearly all American patients from keeping their health plans.
Today in the New York Times, David Leonhardt correctly notes that the Sanders plan “would eliminate employer-provided insurance in favor of a single federal system.” Such wrenching change is not exactly what voters are seeking, to say the least, and some Democrats are now considering an alternative proposal. Mr. Leonhardt says the new plan would transition people into a government system over time—and he even claims the transition would be “voluntary.” In contrast, Mr. Sanders would immediately ban competitive options.
According to Mr. Leonhardt:
Substantively, the Sanders approach has a huge advantage: simplicity. But the experience of the last 25 years — across both Bill Clinton’s and Barack Obama’s presidencies — shows the dreadful politics of pushing people out of their current insurance plan. That’s why Obama promised, “If you like your plan, you can keep it.” And why he got in so much trouble when the promise proved false.
In fact, Mr. Leonhardt doesn’t think that putting more patients under the control of government bureaucrats should even be a top priority for leftists. He writes:
I still favor more modest health care proposals to sweeping, ambitious plans, for reasons of realpolitik. The next time the United States has a government interested in improving most Americans’ lives, that government is going to have to choose a small number of big priorities. And I think the top priorities should be areas where Obama made significantly less progress than he did on health coverage — like climate change, income inequality, universal preschool or immigration.
The Sanders system may become even more radioactive politically when voters figure out that, along with eliminating private insurance, it would also ban most public plans as well. The Sanders proposal is styled as “Medicare for All,” but as Chris Jacobs has written in these pages, it is more accurately described as “Medicare for None.”
***
The Amazing Trumpkin?
Guess which economic forecaster accurately predicted growth in 2017.
President Donald Trump speaks in the East Room of the White House on Tuesday. PHOTO: JOSHUA ROBERTS/BLOOMBERG NEWS
By
James Freeman
Feb. 22, 2018 12:42 p.m. ET
412 COMMENTS
On Wednesday the White House released the annual Economic Report of the President. No surprise, Democrats like Jason Furman, who served as the top economic adviser in the Obama White House, say President Trump’s economic forecasts are much too optimistic. Mr. Trump says that his tax cuts and deregulation will restore robust growth and Mr. Furman calls the Trump growth estimates “absurd.”
The national press corps, which spends a good deal of time cataloging every inaccurate statement from Mr. Trump, may be particularly receptive to the Furman message. But as they dig into this issue, they ought to give some credit where it’s due.
Specifically, reporters may want to consult Table S-9 in the economic report Mr. Trump released last May. The press will note that the President and his economic team predicted 2.3% real economic growth for the calendar year 2017.
Based on the current reading from the Commerce Department released last month, the Trump forecast was right on the money.
Like all such government numbers, this reading on U.S. GDP is scheduled to go through potential revisions, so we’ll have to wait and see if the Trump call stands up. But from all the data available at this point, the rookie and his advisers have a solid read on the economy.
As for Mr. Furman, he’s right to note that our economy needs immigrants to return to its vibrant growth. But he’s already proven he doesn’t understand the impact of heavy taxes and regulation. As Larry Lindsey described in the Journal in 2016, Mr. Furman and his predecessors who oversaw economic forecasts in the Obama White House routinely expected their policies to work much better than they did:
The average annual growth rate from 2010-16 (again assuming 2% real growth for 2016) was 2.1%. The administration’s multiyear forecasts averaged a 71% overestimate from this figure. Compounding growth at 3.6% annually means a 28% larger economy after seven years. Compounding at only 2.1% means 15.7% growth. If the administration’s growth projections were accurate, the GDP would be about $1.8 trillion larger. That’s roughly $6,000 for every man, woman and child in the U.S.
If not absurd, the Obama forecasts were certainly far off target.
***
A Break from Bernie
Are Democrats slowing their roll toward single-payer health care? A number of the party’s leading potential candidates for the 2020 presidential nomination have endorsed socialist Sen. Bernie Sanders’ plan to destroy private health insurance. But now it seems that at least a few Democrats are starting to wonder whether it’s politically savvy to prohibit nearly all American patients from keeping their health plans.
Today in the New York Times, David Leonhardt correctly notes that the Sanders plan “would eliminate employer-provided insurance in favor of a single federal system.” Such wrenching change is not exactly what voters are seeking, to say the least, and some Democrats are now considering an alternative proposal. Mr. Leonhardt says the new plan would transition people into a government system over time—and he even claims the transition would be “voluntary.” In contrast, Mr. Sanders would immediately ban competitive options.
According to Mr. Leonhardt:
Substantively, the Sanders approach has a huge advantage: simplicity. But the experience of the last 25 years — across both Bill Clinton’s and Barack Obama’s presidencies — shows the dreadful politics of pushing people out of their current insurance plan. That’s why Obama promised, “If you like your plan, you can keep it.” And why he got in so much trouble when the promise proved false.
In fact, Mr. Leonhardt doesn’t think that putting more patients under the control of government bureaucrats should even be a top priority for leftists. He writes:
I still favor more modest health care proposals to sweeping, ambitious plans, for reasons of realpolitik. The next time the United States has a government interested in improving most Americans’ lives, that government is going to have to choose a small number of big priorities. And I think the top priorities should be areas where Obama made significantly less progress than he did on health coverage — like climate change, income inequality, universal preschool or immigration.
The Sanders system may become even more radioactive politically when voters figure out that, along with eliminating private insurance, it would also ban most public plans as well. The Sanders proposal is styled as “Medicare for All,” but as Chris Jacobs has written in these pages, it is more accurately described as “Medicare for None.”
***
