White House Under Fire for Projections on Jobs
By David Stoudt
The New York Times
Wednesday 18 February 2004
WASHINGTON, Feb. 18 — The White House found itself under fire on the economy today, one day
after two members of President Bush's cabinet seemed to back away from the administration's earlier
prediction that 2.6 million jobs would be created this year.
The president himself declined to answer directly today when he was asked whether he thought the
economy would indeed add that many jobs, as the White House Council of Economic Advisers
predicted in its annual report just last week.
"I think the economy's growing, and I think it's going to get stronger," Mr. Bush replied at a brief
question-answer session with reporters. He called again for permanent tax cuts and for changes in the
tax code that he said would stimulate business and general spending.
Democrats were quick to seize on the apparent uncertainty. "Apparently George Bush is the only
person left in the country who actually believes the far-fetched promises he's peddling," Senator John
F. Kerry of Massachusetts, the front-runner for his party's nomination for president, said in a
statement.
Mr. Bush's chief spokesman was besieged with questions on the issue at the regular White House
news briefing today. Asked whether the White House stood behind the predictions of its economic
council, the spokesman, Scott McClellan, said that "people can debate the numbers all they want."
"The president is focused on acting on policies to create as robust an environment for job creation
as possible so that we can help those who are hurting because they are looking for work and cannot
find a job," Mr. McClellan went on.
The White House's embarrassment was set off on Tuesday, when Treasury Secretary John W.
Snow and Commerce Secretary Donald L. Evans declined to embrace the 2.6 million figure. "I think we
are going to create a lot of jobs; how many I don't know," Mr. Snow said as he and Mr. Evans toured
Washington State and Oregon.
Mr. Evans, too, sounded wary of predictions, cautioning listeners that economic forecasts have an
inherent margin of error.
But the cabinet officials' remarks did not exactly resonate politically, because the areas they were
touring have been hit hard by unemployment. Perhaps more important, it put Mr. Snow and Mr. Evans,
at least for the moment, in the position of seeming to dispute projections made by the president's own
team of economic advisers.
At the White House, Mr. McClellan tried to steer the talk away from numbers. "There are a lot of
good indications about the direction the economy is moving, but there is more to do, and the president
is focused on acting to create as robust an environment as possible," he said.
When he was asked whether it might have been a mistake for the White House to predict 2.6
million new jobs, given the importance of the economy this election year, Mr. McClellan said a report
from the Council of Economic Advisers comes out every year.
"This is our annual economic report that is based on the economic modeling done by our
economists," he said. "And it's based on that snapshot at that point in time."
At another point, Mr. McClellan said Mr. Bush was "interested in the actual number of jobs being
created" and "interested in making sure that everybody who is looking for a job can find one."
But by the time Mr. McClellan spoke, Democrats had already taken advantage of the mixed
messages from the administration.
"When it comes to the economy, the ship of state and its commander are wobbly," said Senator
Charles E. Schumer of New York. "The White House is totally at sea. It says outsourcing is good and
now they're trying to back off. Its annual economic report said it planned 2.6 million jobs by the end of
the year and now they won't stand by it. It's time for the president to clear up these contradictions,
take charge and set a direction for our nation's economy."
And Representative Rahm Emanuel of Illinois, a former adviser to President Bill Clinton, said
President Bush "faces a credibility gap with his own economic team that's as wide as the employment
gap for millions of American workers."
The latest misunderstanding came not many days after the chairman of the Council of Economic
Advisers, Gregory Mankiw, seemed to imply that "outsourcing" of American jobs overseas was not
necessarily ruinous. Mr. Mankiw himself acknowledged later that his remarks were, at best, politically
tone-deaf.
Go to Original
National Debt Tops $7 Trillion for First Time
By Reuters
Wednesday 18 February 2004
Record high mark may be hot topic during election year
WASHINGTON - The U.S. government’s national debt — the accumulation of past budget shortfalls
— totaled more than $7 trillion for the first time as of Tuesday, according to a Treasury Department
report.
In its daily financial statement released Wednesday, the Treasury said the U.S. debt subject to a
congressionally set limit totaled $7.015 trillion, up from $6.983 trillion Friday. The government was
closed Monday for the Presidents Day holiday.
While passing the $7 trillion mark itself has little practical significance, not unlike a car’s odometer
rolling over, it may signal some tough political times for President Bush’s administration on fiscal
policy.
The government debt ceiling stands only a few hundred billion dollars ahead at $7.384 trillion, and
the Treasury would need Congress’s blessing to borrow beyond that. Treasury officials say they expect
the limit to be hit sometime between June and October.
And in this election year, Democrats may also use the $7 trillion figure to assail Bush’s tax policy
and the federal deficits on his watch. Budget shortfalls are met by borrowing. In 2003, the federal
budget gap was a record $374.25 billion and a larger one is expected this fiscal year. Bush blames the
deficits on a sluggish economy and needed spending on security and defense.
Rep. Baron Hill of Indiana, part of a centrist group of Democrats said, "It is simply immoral to run a
national debt exceeding $7 trillion, every penny of which our children and grandchildren will be
responsible for paying back."
A Treasury spokeswoman said there was "no special significance" to the number.
The last time that debt subject to the limit passed a trillion-dollar milestone was on June 28, 2002,
according to Treasury records.
To give some idea of the size of the debt, U.S. gross domestic product -- the sum of goods and
services produced inside the United States -- totaled about $11 trillion at the end of 2003, according to
the Commerce Department.
The debt includes that held by investors and Treasury securities in trust funds for government
programs such as Social Security and Medicare.
-------
CC |
