WEDNESDAY: It's easy to report the GOP bill...

WEDNESDAY, JUNE 4, 2025 

...and Andrew Duehren has done it: It's been several decades since we declared that some reporter was, in fact, "the man."

Way back then, it was Glenn Kessler of the Washington Post. He went on to become that newspaper's long-standing Fact-Checker. 

On this very day, we're stunned by the clarity of a report in the New York Times. On the basis of that clear exposition, we're prepared to announce that Andrew Duehren, formerly of the Wall Street Journal, joins Kessler as "the man."

Duehren's report s deals with a pair of entities which are not the same thing. (Neither one is an "object.") We refer to the entities known as "deficit" and "debt." 

In the process, we're also referring to a distinct pair of terms which have come to be used almost interchangeably

The deficit isn't the debt! In fact, they're very different "abstract objects," though you'd have a hard time knowing that from the slapdash way the current GOP budget bill is being reported all over the mainstream press, cable news included.

What's the likely shape of the fiscal future if the GOP budget bill passes in something like its current form? In his new report for the Times, Duehren makes it look easy—which, just to be perfectly honest, it pretty much basically is:

Republican Policy Bill Would Add $2.4 Trillion to Debt, Budget Office Says

The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office said Wednesday that the broad Republican bill to cut taxes and slash some federal programs would add $2.4 trillion to the already soaring national debt over the next decade, in an analysis that was all but certain to inflame concerns that President Trump’s domestic agenda would lead to excessive government borrowing.

[...]

The United States government currently has roughly $29 trillion in public debt, and C.B.O. had previously forecast that it would grow by roughly $21 trillion over the next decade, reaching nearly $50 trillion in 2034, as a growing share of Americans take advantage of government retirement support. With a roughly $3.8 trillion tax cut at its core, the Republican bill had long been expected to significantly add to that debt and make a precarious situation worse.

We're not completely in love with that headline. But let's take a look at the text of Duehren's report:

Duehren is reporting basic numbers from the CBO. These involve the CBO's (imperfect) projections for "the next decade," a time frame he quickly reports.

In the second paragraph we have posted—the fourth paragraph of his report—Duehren offers the basic background information. This information is constantly being omitted in mainstream press reports. 

This is extremely basic information. It's amazingly easy to state. It should never be left out:

The United States government currently has roughly $29 trillion in public debt. The CBO has previously forecast that it would grow by roughly $21 trillion over the next decade, reaching nearly $50 trillion in 2034.

It isn't hard to report those facts. Those facts should never be left out. 

When the CBO estimates that provisions of the proposed budget bill will "add $2.4 trillion to the already soaring national debt," they're saying that it will add an additional $2.4 trillion to that presupposed $50 trillion in debt. That additional $2.4 trillion in debt will be added onto that presupposed $50 trillion.

Fo our money, Duehren could have spelled that last part out even more clearly. That said, a graphic between his first and second paragraphs makes this fandango remarkably clear, especially as judged by modern press corps standards.

Let's run through this again:

We already have a $29 trillion national debt. According to CBO projections, that will rise to $50 trillion by the year 2034.

The GOP bill in its current form would add an additional $2.4 trillion to that presupposed $50 trillion in debt. It isn't hard to lay this out. Our journalists infrequently do.

(As we noted last week, Paul Krugman has said that this situation is "unsustainable." We don't plan to argue with him!)

Here's the part you can't leave out if you're telling this story:

We already have a $29 trillion national debt. According to CBO projections, that will rise to $50 trillion by the year 2034, even if the GOP bill doesn't pass.

These journalists today! They omit that part of the tale all the time! Announcing himself to be "the man," Duehren gets it right!

For extra credit only: What would the Democrats propose with respect to those existing debt projections?

We haven't seen a word about that. Neither, we'll guess, have you.

56 comments:


  1. Cut federal taxes more, and cut federal spending much more. Simple as that.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Ifn's u r a simpleton.

      Delete
    2. 3:23 - Could you explain, simply, how cutting federal taxes -- thereby decreasing federal revenue -- will reduce the deficit?

      Delete
    3. Whoa, DG. If you don't immediately understand how "cut federal taxes more, and cut federal spending much more" reduces the federal deficit, you have got to be seriously dumb. Like a typical idiot-Democrat.

      Delete
    4. Seriously. If you don't know the deficit goes down when you patiently explain that every single Republican voter is a bigot, I'm not sure what to tell you.

      Delete
    5. 12:42 - You’re just avoiding the question, aren’t you? The question had nothing to do with cutting spending, which of course will reduce the deficit. The question is, and remains: How does cutting taxes reduce the deficit?

      Delete
  2. Trump is a genius. Crashing USA bonds.will collapse the Global economy and we will finally be able to kill billions of useless poor people. Winning!!!

    ReplyDelete
  3. Media should have been panicked about the debt for the last several years, but they didn't want to embarrass the Dem in the White House. Well, better late than never.

    BTW the debt and deficit are caused primarily by actual spending, not just by budgets. We need to take seriously Musk's complaint that the Big Beautiful Bill doesn't cut spending enough. It's cognitively dissonant to deplore the high debt but oppose spending cuts.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "Revenue" is just a big word elitists use to make Right-wingers look stupid when discussing economics.

      Delete
    2. Former actuary, my ass.

      Delete
    3. David in Cal,
      I went to a bunch of Right-wing blogs, and posted your "facts" about the Trump Presidency being great for black people.
      After being called a "libtard", they banned me.

      Delete
    4. Reminder that David is a bigot, not a math wizard.

      Delete
    5. The Democratic Party is dead, until they get with the program and call the USA a shit hole country, that can't even afford to help its own people.

      Delete
    6. “Reagan proved that deficits don't matter. We won the mid-term elections, this is our due." -- Dick Cheney

      Delete
    7. DiC - Federal debt was not a problem when real interest rates were below zero. (The federal government should have borrowed even more when people were, in effect, paying it to hold their money.) The current problem -- the unsustainability of the debt -- is a function of the fiscal stimulus (Trump and Biden) needed to pull us out of the Covid recession. The stimulus got the economy running hot (thank God!); the hot economy spiked inflation; the Fed then raised interest rates to cool the economy and contain inflation. Since interest rates are now (in real terms) positive, we now have to deal with the problem of rapidly rising interest payments on the debt.

      In short, this is a new problem. Republicans have complete power. We'll see how they handle it.

      Delete
    8. George - Yes and No. You're right that "Federal debt was not a problem when real interest rates were below zero" However, we were going to continue to run deficits, so that addition debt was not going to be paid back. It was totally predictable that the additional debt would still be there when interest rates were no longer low.

      Delete
    9. However, we were going to continue to run deficits due to Raygun, Shrub, and the Felons massive tax cuts for the wealthy and corporations. Many historians belive shrub was the first leader of an empire to cut taxes during a war. Remarkable record these hateful dullards have.

      Delete
    10. 9:55 Exactly. Shrub and his crony congressman were rebuked for this by Clinton. Of course Laffer curve Reaganomics has been a sad joke for the decades that Republicans have paid homage to it. It provided cover for their never ending quest to shovel money to the wealthy; they had a graph to point at that made it look like there was science behind it. Even this week the pitiful Mike Johnson declared that the tax cuts proposed for the bill they want to pass will stimulate the economy and lower the debt, despite this never previously happening, and contradicting the CBO. It's a tired lie that only die hard MAGAs swallow hook line and sinker.

      Delete
    11. David in Cal,
      The answer to an economy running too hot and spiking inflation, is for the government to tax the money out of the economy.
      It would have been a much better way to fight inflation (as would anti-trust/ anti-monopoly enforcement), but because workers had leverage over employers, the Fed raised interest rates instead.
      Ignorance of the law (of economics) is no excuse.

      Delete
    12. @10:37 - I am not sure I understand you. Are you saying that a good way to fight inflation is to raise taxes in order to throw the country into a recession? It is true that inflation generally is lower during a recession although Carter did manage to accomplish stagflation.

      Delete
    13. 11:43 Tariffs=Taxes distributed inequitably to those whose expenditures are a higher percentage of their income. A highly regressive tax. You understand this, no? Taxing capital gains as income (as an example), for the 1% who make the majority of their money via real estate or equities is far less regressive, and fair, as was explained years ago by Warren Buffet, using his secretary's tax burden c/w his, as an example. Your brilliant leader and his party would like to simultaneously decrease revenue by taxing the wealthy less, and increase taxes disproportionately on the middle and lower income earners via tariffs., Having voted for this 2.4 trillion dollar fiasco, you are complicit. As has been seen for the past 60+ years, the economy under Democratic administrations fares far better than under Republican ones, in terms of virtually all parameters. You live in a cult that has no grounding in simple economics as is born out historically.

      Delete
    14. Meanwhile the 2 trillion dollar goal of savings originally proposed by Musk has been whittled down, as reported by the WSJ to 72 billion in documentable dollars. The WSJ got no response from DOGE representative upon inquiring where over a hundred billion dollars that the Muscrats claimed in savings came from.
      https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=8yRmHoCtTg8
      That is, before a multitude of lawsuits challenging DOGE. What an underwhelming trainwreck.

      Delete
    15. David in Cal,
      I'm not sure if you understand or are just play-acting as an economic moron on the internet to own the libs, either.
      Regardless, , raising taxes reduces spending, which lowers inflation.
      Did you forget that you believed giving tax breaks to Americans would put more money in their pockets? Reminder: It's one of the signature lines of the GOP since at least the Reagan Presidency.
      Conversely, taxing Americans would reduce the amount of money in their pockets. Which would reduce the amount of money they can spend, which lowers inflation, because people with less money wouldn't be willing to pay more for something when they have less.
      If this doesn't help you understand, read an Economics 101 text.

      Delete
    16. 8:43,
      Do you really think the bigot, who play acts as a former actuary, cares about inflation?

      Delete
  4. BTW, Right-wingers don't care about the deficit, their concern is a penny of their taxes might help a black person.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Dems care about the deficit primarily as something useful to criticize Trump. Otherwise they'd have serious proposals to cut the deficit, such as some combination of spending cuts and tax increases that might actually be enacted by Congress.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The money wasted at our borders will more than make-up for any tax breaks we give to the richest 1% of Americans.

      Delete
    2. Somebody trickled down on your deranged cults economic disaster plan. 45 years of this donor class tax cut plan. What a mess. Clearly the Democrats fault for repairing repukes economic wrecking balls. Your cult is exhausting.

      Delete
    3. On the plus side my boys will finally be able to crush the US economy, and take out the global economy. Me and the gang will be in our secure compound while you schmucks fight it out. Love it!

      Delete
    4. Yup, a twofer:

      "Trump’s second-term agenda would increase the deficit by $2.4 trillion over the next decade, according to a new estimate prepared by the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office.

      The CBO also estimates that 10.9 million more people would be without health insurance in 2034 as the result of the House-passed legislation,"

      Crush USBonds, make rich people kings again. Crush the poor Love it man.

      Delete
    5. "Otherwise they'd have serious proposals to cut the deficit, such as some combination of spending cuts and tax increases that might actually be enacted by Congress."

      Yeah? When is this new openness to Democrattic bills supposed to begin in Speaker Johnson's office?

      Delete
    6. When someone fuses their personal identity with a political party, any criticism of that party can feel like a personal attack.

      Delete
    7. As usual you spot bullshit here. As a single example of a Democrat introducing working to save federal money, Ocasio Cortez has introduced bipartisan legislation reigning in some of the health insurers profiting off the taxpayer via upcoding Medicare Advantage schemes that cost billions. The democrat uniformity in opposing tax cuts for billionaire sis another example. You are a forever dishonest troll.

      Delete
    8. spout bullshit

      Delete
  6. Another nanny state Dem crying. Too bad for you Soros bot:

    "Last week, the fiscal lunatics proved they are still running the asylum. The last fit of congressional sanity broke out during the Clinton administration. This week, House Republicans sent the Senate a budget that adds $3.8 trillion to the deficit. Trump’s “Big Beautiful Bill” pairs unfunded tax cuts for the wealthy with a combined $1.1 trillion reduction in spending on programs including Medicaid and SNAP. The math isn’t mathing: Older/wealthier Americans are running up younger/poorer Americans’ credit cards to maintain their lifestyle. One especially offensive provision: a permanent increase in the estate tax exemption to an inflation-indexed $15 million, per person — letting couples pass $30 million to their heirs tax-free while slashing food stamps."

    No double taxation man, (except for sales tax and others that hurt middle class and poor people).I call that Winning!!!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Taxes should not be equated with benefits. Food stamps are a gift to needy people. Estate tax takes money away from people. In other words, food stamps are the government donating money to people, Taxes are people being forced to give money to the government.

      BTW AFAIK the reduction in food stamps is a limitation on what foods can or cannot be purchased with food stamps. AFAIK food stamps are adequate to support a healthy diet.

      Delete
    2. The best thing about denying food to poor children, David, is it will damage them permanently. This will keep the miscreants in their place generation after generation. As God intended. Hopefully with reduced access to healthcare we can kill them young to limit their suffering. Good analysis DiC, obvs you know what is going on. I come here to learn from you. I hope you enjoy that I get just how cruel and unsympathetic you are. It is what we need in difficult times like this. You gotta let the MAGA freak flag fly man!!!

      Delete
    3. Yes Professor David, payroll taxes have nothing to do with benefits and should certainly not be equated with benefits.

      Delete
    4. Across the board tariffs, if enacted, will be inflationary and tax the consumer inequitibly, the middle and lower class suffering the most. A Republican two-fer.

      Delete
    5. @9:46 - The federal government is not denying food to a single poor child. First of all they're still paying for totally adequate amount of food via food stamps. Second, cutting back on charity is different from taking things from people. It's human nature to believe that if one has been receiving a certain amount of charity that one is therefore entitled to keep receiving that amount of charity going forward.

      Delete
    6. 11:38. Federal 30% SNAP cuts would require states to pick up the bill. If not, 48,000 children would be completely off benefits and 1.5 million would see a reduction. Grocery inflation has already cut into the real benefits of this program. The average per family reduction in benefits from a 30% cut as proposed would be $238. You can argue that your tax dollars should not be spent helping the unfortunate as you appear to here. But to suggest that the Republicans proposed 30% cut would not deny food to poor children is your usual bullshit. The more Trump sticks it to the red states, the better, in my view, since they voted him into office, but not at the expense of the neediest while giving tax breaks to billionaires who pay far less as a percent of income than I do. This disparity seem to suit you well, however.

      Delete
    7. Your boss George Soros ripped off so much doing currency speculation, he could easily feed all the poor children in the world, 7:55.

      Let's beg him, will ya? Please Mr. Soros, please, please, please, feed the poor children!

      Delete
    8. I hope Soros takes more money, so that the pathetic loser at 8:41 squeals louder.

      Delete
    9. Yes, Sir, Mr. Soros, fuck them poor children.

      Delete
    10. The money wasted at our borders will more than make-up for any tax breaks we give to the richest 1% of Americans.

      Delete
  7. Of course I'[m glad to see action against antisemitism, but can they really do this? "BREAKING: Trump administration officially notifies left-wing, pro-Palestine Columbia University that they NO LONGER meet national standards for being accredited."

    They were found to have violated federal Civil Rights law."

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. It is about time. Too many pointy headed know it alls with their no nothing collage decree. Shut down all med research, I got my own bug resilience, I don't neel no vascine you dumb libtards. Suck on dis.s.

      Delete
    2. They can do whatever the f--k they want. Do you read the news much? Running roughshod over adversaries and dragging the resistance out in the courts is a tactic Trump has perfected since his tuteledge under the great Roy Cohn.

      Delete
  8. The Department of Education has determined that Columbia University fails to meet accreditation standards.

    “The U.S. Department of Education’s Office for Civil Rights (OCR) today notified Middle States Commission on Higher Education (the Commission) that its member institution, Columbia University, is in violation of federal antidiscrimination laws and therefore fails to meet the standards for accreditation set by the Commission.”

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Looks like Linda McMahon has them in a headlock for the moment but the referees will be called upon as usual to determine whether it is a legal hold. That will take months at least, and if overturned, those months will have inflicted damage on Columbia nonetheless. For that, she and her bosses should be held accountable for damages. Taxpayer money.

      Delete
    2. 8:02: Well done. Linda McMahon as Secretary of Education is an insult to all American citizens. I lived through Reagan's cabinet appointments and they were truly bizarre in some cases, but this carnival funhouse cabinet of Prince Orange Chickenshit is infinitely worse.

      Delete
    3. Racism is a helluva drug.

      Delete
    4. Enjoy your high, Soros-bot.

      Delete
    5. Linda McMahon is 76 and worth $3B. I know most all nimrods here have no idea how really big that number is, but trust me it is a lot. And she is almost as old as old man Trump. Why the fuck would she want to bother fucking with the American Educational System? Seriously, what the fuck drives these nasty ass clueless and ridiculously wealthy and very old nutjobs?

      Delete
  9. “Fox News topped all three broadcast networks during the week of May 26-30. NBC and CBS averaged only 2.4 million average primetime viewers, while CBS earned just 2.3 million. Fox News grabbed 2.7 million.”

    I am shocked by how few people are watching TV.

    ReplyDelete
  10. Speaking of nasty ass clueless and ridiculously wealthy and very old nutjobs, I give you DiC.

    ReplyDelete

OSZAR »