A journalistic shill tries to rescue Scott McClellan at the February 18 White House press briefing. From the transcript:
Q Scott, when you talk about the unemployment -- or the jobs being created, is that based on the payroll survey, or the household survey? Because there's -- because of the tax cuts, there's been a tremendous increase in the number of entrepreneurs that have started their own businesses, and those numbers aren't reflected in the payroll survey.
Anyone know who this shill is?
The payroll survey's estimates of new businesses have been running high, not low, since the start of the Bush administration (which, quite frankly, surprises me). It's very hard to argue that the payroll survey has been significantly understating the impact of new businesses on payroll employment over the past three years. (This surprises me too, because I would have expected new businesses to play a role, albeit not a dominant role, in reconciling the differences between the payroll and the household survey.)
The household survey keeps track of the self-employed. The estimated number of self-employed today is 9,477,000. The estimated number of self-employed reported in March of 2001 at the last business cycle peak was 9,374,000. The two numbers are not strictly comparable: subtracting the March 2001 number from today's number produces an overestimate of the change in the number of the self-employed.
The estimated change in the number of self-employed between March 2001 and today is less than 103,000--a tiny number compared to the 2.6 million shrinkage in payroll employment.
Posted by DeLong at February 18, 2004 04:47 PM | TrackBackPress Briefing by Scott Mcclellan
the James S. Brady Briefing Room12:36 P.M. EST
MR. McCLELLAN: Good afternoon, everybody. We have a big turnouttoday. I will go straight to questions. Steve....
Q Scott, does the White House stand behind its report issuedjust nine days ago, the Economic Report, there will be 2.6 million newjobs created this year?
MR. McCLELLAN: I think we went through a little bit of thisearlier today. I think that people can debate the numbers all theywant; the President is focused on acting on policies to create asrobust an environment for job creation as possible so that we can helpthose who are hurting because they are looking for work and cannot finda job.
The President is encouraged by the direction the economy ismoving. It is growing strong -- or growing stronger, I should say --it is strong and growing stronger. There have been more than 366,000new jobs created in the last five months. The unemployment ratecontinues to decline. It is now the lowest point -- at the lowestpoint it has been in two years, and it is below the average of the'70s, '80s, and '90s. Certainly, productivity continues to be high,and people's disposable incomes are up. There are a lot of goodindications about the direction the economy is moving.
But there is more to do. And the President is focused on acting tocreate as robust an environment as possible. That means acting on hissix-point plan for strengthening our economy even more. We live in achanging economy right now, John, and the President has put forward aplan that will help create as robust an environment for job creation aspossible. It will help retrain workers who have lost their jobs tomeet the jobs of the 21st century -- these jobs that are high-paid,high-skill jobs. And so that's where the President's focus is on.
Q Well, you say this is a changing economy, and you also saidearlier that this report was based on economic data that is now threemonths old. So would it be wrong for the Democrats, later this year --if you don't meet this 2.6 million forecast of jobs -- would it bewrong for them to beat you on the head about it?
MR. McCLELLAN: It would be wrong for people to raise taxes at thispoint in our economy. And there are some -- (laughter) -- well,there are some that are advocating letting the tax cuts that thePresident worked to pass expire. And what that would be doing israising taxes on small businesses. Small businesses are the economicengine for our economy and they're at the foundation of creating astrong and growing economy. It would raise taxes, if they let thesetax cuts expire, on moms and dads who are trying to raise a family. Itwould raise taxes on married couples by restoring the marriagepenalty.
Q When you dismissed the premise of John's question by saying,people can debate the numbers, let's be realistic here, the debate isgoing on between your Council of Economic Advisors and TreasurySecretary John Snow. Are there people here in this White House whonever believed that forecast?
MR. McCLELLAN: Look, John, I think that the Council of EconomicAdvisors puts out an annual report on the economy; it's the President'sEconomic Report. And they do that every year. They've been doing itfor some 20 years now. That's based on economic modeling and the datathat is available at that point in time. The President is interestedin the actual number of jobs being created, and the President isinterested in making sure that everybody who is looking for a job canfind one. That's where the President's focus is.
That's why I say people can debate the numbers all they want, butthe President is going to be looking at the actual numbers of jobsbeing created. And the number of jobs being created is growing. Thenumber is up. New jobs are being created. The economy is certainlymoving in the right direction. And my point to John was that the lastthing we need to do right now is raise taxes. And we need to focus onthe policy decisions that are being made here in Washington, D.C. tocreate as robust an environment for job creation as possible. Andthat's where the debate ought to be focused.
Q But it would appear, though, that people very high up in thisadministration didn't have a whole lot of faith in the forecast of thereport that went up to Congress just a week ago in terms of the jobcreation numbers.
MR. McCLELLAN: Again, it's an annual economic report that is putout by the administration based on the economic modeling and the datathat's available at that point in time.
Q Can you answer the specific question, though? Was thisreport -- was the prediction of this many jobs, 2.6 million jobs,vetted prior to publication by the entire economic team?
MR. McCLELLAN: It's an annual report, David. It goes through theusual -- it goes through the usual --
Q That's not the question. Was it or was it not vetted by theentire economic team?
MR. McCLELLAN: It's an annual report. It goes through the usual--
Q So you don't know, or it was, or it wasn't?
MR. McCLELLAN: Can I get -- can I finish that sentence?
Q When you answer the question. Let's hear it. What's theanswer?
MR. McCLELLAN: The answer was, it is an annual economic report andit goes through the normal vetting process. And if you would let meget to that, I would answer your question.
Q -- the full economic team vetted the prediction --
MR. McCLELLAN: It's an annual economic report. It's thePresident's Economic Report. But again, the President --
Q Just say yes or no --
MR. McCLELLAN: -- it goes through the normal -- it goes throughthe normal vetting process.
Q So the answer is, yes. I'm not done yet, I've got anotherone.
MR. McCLELLAN: Okay.
Q Why -- if you're suggesting that people will debate thenumbers, that's kind of a backhanded way to say, oh, who cares aboutthe numbers. Well, apparently, the President's top economic advisorsdo, because that's why they wrote a very large report and sent it toCongress. So why was the prediction made in the first place, if thePresident and you and his Treasury Secretary were going to just backaway from it?
MR. McCLELLAN: Well, one, I disagree with the premise of the wayyou stated that. This is the annual Economic Report of the Presidentand the economic modeling is done this way every year. It's been donethis way for 20-some years.
Q So why not -- why aren't you standing behind it?
MR. McCLELLAN: I think what the President stands behind is thepolicies that he is implementing, the policies that he is advocating.That's what's important.
Q That's not in dispute. The number is the question.
MR. McCLELLAN: I know, but the President's concern is on thenumber of jobs being created --
Q My question is, why was the prediction made --
MR. McCLELLAN: -- and the President's focus is on making sure thatpeople who are hurting because they cannot find work have a job.That's where the President's focus is.
Q Then why predict a number? Why was the number predicted?Why was the number predicted? You can't get away with not -- justanswer the question. Why was that number predicted?
MR. McCLELLAN: I've been asked this, and I've asked -- I've beenasked, and I've answered.
Q No, you have not answered. And everybody watching knows youhaven't answered.
MR. McCLELLAN: I disagree....
Q Can I go back to the jobs issue for a moment?
MR. McCLELLAN: Sure.
Q We've been talking about whether or not the CEA forecast ofadding 2.6 million jobs is correct. But actually what CEA forecast wasthat the average number of jobs in 2004 would be 2.6 million higherthan in 2003, which for reasons I won't bore everyone with implies arate of growth in jobs well beyond the, roughly, 200,000 a month thatwould be implied by a 2.6 million rise in jobs. The bottom line hereis that the CEA is forecasting, at a minimum, about 300,000 jobs amonth will be created. Do you stand by that?
MR. McCLELLAN: Economists do economic modeling. That's theEconomic Report of the President. Let me be very clear here, though.This President is focused on what we are doing to create as robust anenvironment as possible for job creation -- not in crunching numbers.He's looking at the actual numbers that are coming in, the actualnumbers that are being created, and looking to make sure we're doingeverything we can to keep our economy moving in the right direction andcreate more jobs.
I mean, this is an important debate going on in this nation, andthere's a clear choice. Some people -- some people want to turn backand take actions that would raise taxes on people, at a time when oureconomy is really starting to grow strong.
Q Okay, well, on that point, the President's advisors have, atvarious times, made very specific predictions about the number of jobsthat would be created by the very policies that you are continuing toadvocate right now, specifically the tax cuts. Those projections havenot come to pass.
MR. McCLELLAN: Well, you're talking about some original proposalsthat were proposed, and then you have to look at what was actuallypassed.
Q They were changed only minimally from what was originallyproposed. Why should we believe that these projections are any better,or reflecting better the impact of these policies, than your previousprojections?
MR. McCLELLAN: I think when you say what should you believe, Ithink you should focus on what policy decisions the President is makingto create more jobs in this country. It's important that we continueto act to create as many jobs as possible in this country, and thatmeans creating a robust environment for job creation. That's where thePresident's focus is on. Like I said, we can debate the numbers allyou want here, or we can look at the number crunchers. Economists doeconomic modeling, them make forecasts. There are blue-chips outthere, there are a number of different economists out there withdifferent interpretations. And it's based on assumptions --
Q The question is, why --
MR. McCLELLAN: -- it's based on assumptions at that point intime.
Q -- how can you sell these policies as creating jobs when, infact, they haven't?
MR. McCLELLAN: I disagree --
Q Or at least not to the degree that you previously projected.
MR. McCLELLAN: Oh, no, disagree. Well, one, let's have adiscussion about that, because you have to look at the fact that we arein a changing economy right now. I talked about that when John rosethis issue. You have productivity growth at very high levels thesedays. And that's a good thing, because it means increased livingstandards; it means more -- it means higher pay for workers, so theyhave more money at their disposal.
And in this changing economy, we have an economy that is strong andgrowing stronger. But because productivity growth is so high, you'renot seeing the same kind of job numbers that you would expect at thislevel of GDP. And so that's why --
Q But that's not what --
MR. McCLELLAN: No, that's why the President put forward asix-point plan to create an even more robust environment for jobcreation. That's why he's called on Congress to pass comprehensiveenergy legislation. That's why he's called on Congress to address therising cost of health care. That's why he's called on Congress to passmedical liability reform. That's why he's called on Congress tocontinue to act to promote free trade with a level playing field.
Q And do you think that will create more jobs this year?
MR. McCLELLAN: It will create an even more robust environment forjob creation when Congress acts on those measures. Absolutely. Butlet me dispute -- you said jobs weren't being created. Jobs are beingcreated. There's 366,000 new jobs over the last five months that havebeen created.
Q What I said was that jobs aren't being created at the levelthat you were projecting when you were advocating the passage of thesepolicies.
MR. McCLELLAN: Well, again, what was originally proposed versuswhat actually passed.
Q Scott, just a quick follow-up on that. As Dick mentioned, itdoes project basically at least 300,000 jobs a month. You, yourself,just mentioned that there are a lot of economists out there who haveprojections; the blue-chip forecasters is one that is often cited.They're averaging 166,000 a month. The top ten of the blue-chipforecasters are averaging 225,000 a month. What does the White Houseknow to project over 300,000 -- a minimum of 300,000 --
MR. McCLELLAN: We had a briefing on the Economic Report when thatwas put out, with our economists there to answer your questions --
Q Why are you so much more optimistic?
MR. McCLELLAN: -- and I think they answered the questions at thattime.
Q Why are you so much more optimistic, Scott?
MR. McCLELLAN: I've already addressed this question.
Go ahead.
Q Just to go back to this number. This is a report that notonly was put out by the President's economists, but it was signed bythe President of the United States, this report. So, obviously, hesupported the concept of projecting 2.6 million jobs over the nextyear. You're not -- you still have not said that the President standsby that.
MR. McCLELLAN: I said it was the Economic Report of the President,and that the modeling that is done in those reports is done by oureconomists over in the Council of Economic Advisors. They do thisevery year. They've done it for some 20 years, in every administrationbefore us over those 20 years.
Q So, looking back -- let's say we get to October and Novemberon this past year, 2004, and if that projection is not fulfilled, howwould that not be a failure of this administration?
MR. McCLELLAN: What we are going to do is continue to focus on thepolicy decisions that are being made here in Washington, D.C. and thepolicies the President is putting forward. This President has acteddecisively to get our economy out of a recession, that he inherited,and get it growing strong. And it's growing stronger at this point.It is moving in the right direction. This is where the debate needs tobe, is on the policy decisions that are being made here in Washington,D.C., and do we continue to act to strengthen this growth even more, sothat we can see more new jobs being created, or do we turn back and seeour economy slow down.
There are some that would advocate letting those tax cuts expire,which means taxes would be raised on working moms and dads trying toraise a family, that taxes would be raised on small business. That'swhere the debate should be.
Q Given the environment that we're in, the politicalenvironment, given the importance of this jobs issue this electionyear, was it a mistake to make that prediction?
MR. McCLELLAN: Again, that's something that's done every year inthe annual Economic Report. I mean, you're trying to get in here toget me to answer questions that are trying to trap me into certainthings. That's not the way --
Q I'm just asking a question --
MR. McCLELLAN: No, I think there are some that are looking forheadlines here --
Q No, we're looking for answers, not headlines.
MR. McCLELLAN: -- the President is focused on what is happening --go ahead.
Q Scott, there is a simple question, very important questionthat will face voters this fall. The President repeatedly speaks tothe fact that when he says something you can take it to the bank. Ifthe President signs a report making a prediction, shouldn't voters holdhim responsible and accountable for that prediction?
MR. McCLELLAN: Again, those are forecasts made by our economistsat a specific point in time, based on the data at that point.Productivity growth can affect those assumptions that are put intothose economic forecasts. So different economists have differentforecasts on the productivity growth. Some think it's going to belower; some think it's going to be higher. But productivity growth --
Q Okay, but shouldn't he be held responsible --
MR. McCLELLAN: -- it's important -- it's important for -- it's agood thing that productivity growth is high. But we also need tocontinue to strengthen the economy even more.
Q My question was about his prediction and whether he should beheld responsible --
MR. McCLELLAN: I think we've been through this issue.
Q Scott, when you talk about the unemployment -- or the jobsbeing created, is that based on the payroll survey, or the householdsurvey? Because there's -- because of the tax cuts, there's been atremendous increase in the number of entrepreneurs that have startedtheir own businesses, and those numbers aren't reflected in the payrollsurvey.
MR. McCLELLAN: That's correct, yes. The household survey isdifferent from the payroll survey. And the household survey showedthat some -- an increase of 496,000 jobs in January alone. So thereare different numbers that you're talking about there. And we can lookat both. But, again, you're getting into -- you're getting into thenumbers here. The numbers that the President is interested in is theactual numbers of jobs being created and the policies that we aretaking to create an even more robust environment for job creation.
Q Can I ask one more question?
MR. McCLELLAN: Yes, go ahead.
Q It's a different subject. The Welfare Reform Act comes upthis year for renewal. Is the President supporting efforts to insertmeaningful work requirements into the bill, where today there is none?
MR. McCLELLAN: We've been advocating passage of the WelfareReauthorization bill for quite some time now. Congress needs to act tostrengthen those work requirements even more and build upon thesuccesses of the original legislation that was passed in the mid-90s.
Q This President has had a number of issues come up over thelast couple of weeks in which his credibility has been questioned --Medicare costs, the budget, Iraq -- even from within your own party.So now you've put out a number that says you -- that your tax plan,your policies will erase all job losses, 2.6 -- it will create 2.6million jobs. You erase all the losses from his first term byNovember. And now you say, well, maybe it will, maybe it won't. Whatare we --
MR. McCLELLAN: I don't think -- I don't think that's what I said,Bob. You're putting words in my mouth. I don't think that's what Isaid. I said that this is our annual Economic Report that is based onthe economic modeling done by our economists. And it's based on thatsnapshot at that point in time, based on the data that is available atthat point.
Q But your point is that you don't stand behind that number,that number --
MR. McCLELLAN: Some people are putting those words in my mouth. Isaid that this was -- this was the President's Economic Report that isput out every year. So I made that very clear. But let's talk about-- you brought up an important issue. Let me remind you that thisPresident does exactly what he says he is going to do. This Presidentsaid he was going to take steps to strengthen our economy and get itout of a recession. And he advocated the passage of tax cuts, andthose tax cuts are working. He is doing exactly what he said he woulddo. And now he's calling on Congress to take even more steps to createan even more robust environment for job creation. And that's where thefocus ought to be. And that's where his focus is....
There seems to be a bug in this entry:
Parse error: parse error in /Library/WebServer/Documents/movable_type/2004_archives/000318.html on line 160
Posted by: Shadow Wolf on February 18, 2004 04:59 PMyeah
Parse error: parse error in /Library/WebServer/Documents/movable_type/2004_archives/000318.html on line 160
Preznit give him turkee
Posted by: wannabeatrios on February 18, 2004 11:49 PMThe shill wiffed the question and McClellan wiffed the answer. Robert W Bush could do better and is not ashamed to beg for traffic
http://rjwaldmann.blogspot.com
"because of the tax cuts, there's been a tremendous increase in the number of entrepreneurs"
shouldn't he have said:
"because of the JOB LOSSES, there's been a tremendous increase in the number of entrepreneurs"
Yeh, I know one of those new entrepreneurs. I think she made about 1000 dollars last year. I see the other entrepreneurs on the street, dumpster diving. I wonder if they reported as self employed.
Posted by: tstreet on February 19, 2004 06:38 AMDan Froomkin in today's washingtonpost.com identifies the shill as Jeff Gannon from "an outfit you've never heard of called Talon News." He goes on to say that "The Talon News chair in the briefing room, by the way, is one of the issues that led irate Oregon resident Eileen Smith to set up a new weblog yesterday devoted to putting the White House Correspondents Association -- instead of the White House -- in charge of credentialing the White House press."
Molly Ivins had something to say about Talon News on Tuesday:
"My favorite campaign document of recent days is from a conservative email newsletter, Talon (you can't make this stuff up). In the Feb. 13 update, Item One is a nasty piece of gossip about a Democratic contender, whereas Item Three (I swear) is, 'Gutter Politics to Get Uglier: Reacting in part to the relentless questioning of the President's service record, RNC Chairman Ed Gillespie said Wednesday that despite being so early in the campaign season, the Democrats have made clear they intend to run the dirtiest campaign in modern presidential politics.' I think we need a rule calling for at least (SET ITAL) two (END ITAL) paragraphs between spreading nasty gossip and then decrying the spreading of nasty gossip. On television and radio, 24 hours should be required. Standards must be maintained here, team."
Posted by: Vincent Daly on February 19, 2004 07:25 AMThe answer is:
Jeff Gannon, Talon news.http://www.talonnews.com/
Answer provided by WaPo of all places. They also have extensive quotes from Brad. Gannon covers the WH press corps more than the WH. Belly of the beast sort of thing.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/politics/administration/whbriefing/
Posted by: raygunnot on February 19, 2004 08:15 AMTalon News is the outfit behind http://www.GOPUSA.com.
Posted by: Sabbadoo32 on February 19, 2004 09:29 AMTalon news reporters (if you can call them that, I prefer GOP flacks) also make appearances on AM radio dishing out the administration's talking points. They never identify themselves as coming from GOPUSA.
Posted by: Sharon on February 19, 2004 10:20 AMI keep saying this, but it's very striking to me. Recently I've repeatedly been running into "conservatives" who simply ignore or reject economics when it disagrees with them. I think that they're mostly libertarian "Cornocupians" of the Julian Simon / Lomborg traditions, basically saying that there should be no taxes or regulation and that with new technology we're going into a new age of unlimited prosperity. Sort of a conservative cargo cult.
As a leftist I've been bitching about economists forever, but these people are coming from the other side -- economics conflicts with their Utopian optimism by saying that there are SOME constraints.
Posted by: zizka / John Emerson on February 19, 2004 11:31 AMIn the tradition of "adult republicans" I think we have to distinguish between "adult libetarians" and self-proclaimed libertarians who want lots of government for free and have a head-hole pre-dug in the sand in case you point out the basic idiocy of the premise.
Posted by: Faisal Jawdat on February 19, 2004 03:24 PM