The Washington Times--for no reasons other than ignorance, incompetence, and malevolence--slimes the career staff of the Commerce Department's Bureau of Economic Analysis. The accusation is that the BEA falsely inflated economic growth estimates in 2000 to try to elect Al Gore.
The only shred of reality in the piece is from Deputy BEA Director Brent Moulton, who is allowed to point out--briefly--that the differences betweent he preliminary and the revised GDP numbers for 2000 are not unusually large, and then hustled off stage.
I want to see Larry Lindsey, Paul O'Neill, and Don Evans out there in no less than 24 hours defending the--enormous--honor and professionalism of their staff against the mendacious Washington Times. Our statistical services do a very good job with much less money to spend than they ought to have. And since the yahoos who run the Washington Times don't understand this, it is the business of cabinet members and assistants to the president to tell them.
Posted by DeLong at August 12, 2002 06:27 AM | TrackbackThe Clintonistas' economic reality gap -- The Washington Times
...the falsely reported surging profits from the second half of 1998 through the first half of 2000 fueled the soaring stock market. This, in turn, generated wealth, which financed greater consumption. It also encouraged the massive overinvestment, which, given the rapidly deteriorating economy evidenced by the downwardly revised growth figures for 2000, probably prevented the economy from falling into recession during a presidential election year... there can be no doubt that the supreme beneficiary of these conveniently timed false profit reports was none other than President Clinton's designated successor: Al Gore.
Brad, this is an EDITORIAL, not a piece of news reporting. Nonsensical grandstanding is a part of the genre.
There's another thread on your blog pointing out issues with another Times, where the line between editorials and "news" or "analysis" can seem somewhat blurred.
Which is worse? Publishing absurdities and labelling them as one's opinion? Or calling it "news"?
Posted by: George Zachar on August 12, 2002 06:44 AMthe interesting thing is, if our friend Mr Kaus decides to miss this open goal of an opportunity to show that he isn't a rhinoceros, one will be able to conclude that he doesn't care about being one.
Posted by: Daniel Davies on August 12, 2002 06:59 AMThis follows a previous Novak column on the same topic which got little play until now. Here is a link to it:
http://www.townhall.com/columnists/robertnovak/rn20020808.shtml
Novak goes out of his way to make accusations without making any serious enough that he can't back out of claiming they were just "questions."
The other problem is that no one brings up the fact that the BEA estimates are based on corporate supplied data. So when corporations are forced to restate earnings, the BEA would adjust its estimates. And I do remember there being talk of corporations needing to restate earning over that time period. So in essence the blame is trying to be shifted from poorly run corporations to the BEA.
And George, yes its just an editoral but that does not mean that the BEA should not be defended against baseless accusations. Defending one's workers is something management should do.
And Daniel, I have been waiting since the 8th to see if Kaus will defend the BEA.
Posted by: Rob on August 12, 2002 08:36 AMann coulter: "slander" - "liberals are savagely cruel bigots who hate ordinary Americans and lie for sport" - there is a need to laugh at such as coulter and the washington times [reverend moon - folks] - why do more
dear george - the idea of an educated person reading the washington times rather than the new york times is laughable [tinged with sadness]
daniel - i tried to read kaus "once" - kaus does not even try to write carefully - why should i bother to compare such a writer with you or delong or friedman?
Posted by: on August 12, 2002 08:37 AMDoes the following qualify as "sliming" the O.M.B.?
>> The O.M.B. reacted angrily, and published a letter in The Times attacking me. It attributed the misstatement to "error," and declared that it had been "retracted." Was it? <<
Posted by: Patrick R. Sullivan on August 12, 2002 08:40 AMdear george - the idea of an educated person reading the washington times rather than the new york times is laughable [tinged with sadness]
An educated person, with a need for diversity of policy analysis inputs, should read both, regardless of which way one leans politically.
What is distressing IMHO is folks posting to a board like this without providing any clues about themselves, such as a name or an email address.
Posted by: George Zachar on August 12, 2002 08:53 AMGeorge: I'm pretty sure that the anonymous poster is the same person as "Cluster_User@brown.edu", who I would urge to get a webmail address of some sort, because it is impossible to reply to his/her emails at the moment!
Posted by: Daniel Davies on August 12, 2002 09:09 AMYes, I wasted some time trying to back into his/her address on the Brown.edu server a while ago.
Posted by: George Zachar on August 12, 2002 09:37 AMAnd George, yes its just an editoral but that does not mean that the BEA should not be defended against baseless accusations. Defending one's workers is something management should do.
Re-re-reading the screed, nowhere are the BEA's employees accused of anything except processing data that has been proven inaccurate.
The writer's rage seems directed at the confluence of events that worked, transiently and at the margin, to perhaps boost the fortunes of an opposition presidential candidate.
I hope people will go and actually read the editorial. Contrary
to DeLong's assertion much of the editorial is simple statements
of fact. Also counter to Brad DeLong's assertion the Washington
Time's editorial does not blame the BEA, it notes the magnitude
and direction of the errors and contrasts them with past errors.
Obviously given those errors and their pattern one might wonder
just what was going on at BEA, but the Times does not accuse. But
apparently for Brad DeLong simply listing the numbers BEA reported
amounts to "ignorance, incompetence, and malevolence."
In fact, basically the only editorial part of this editorial
was the last line, quote: "there can be no doubt that the supreme
beneficiary of these conveniently timed false profit reports was
none other than President Clinton's designated successor: Al Gore."
Even here what's to be questioned? Really. The reports were false
and the direction was of a nature to benefit Gore.
Yet, merely listing the facts and then saying that is clearly
enough to send DeLong ballistic. My God, imagine applying the same
standard to Brad DeLong's writings!?
Well, there's the title: "The Clintonistas' economic reality gap"
Then this:
'There is no evidence that Clintonistas infiltrated the BEA to produce these colossally false profit reports. At the same time, there can be no doubt that the supreme beneficiary of these conveniently timed false profit reports was none other than President Clinton's designated successor: Al Gore.'
They come right up to the line of suggesting the BEA cooked the numbers ("conveniently timed"). I suppose it's an improvement over accusing Hillary of killing Vince Foster, though.
Posted by: Jason McCullough on August 12, 2002 02:35 PMHmm... Don't the good folks at S&P tabulate earnings of companies included in their indexes independently?
Posted by: Nikolai Chuvakhin on August 12, 2002 02:47 PM"There is no evidence that the Bushies infiltrated the CIA and FBI to suppress these easy-to-read warnings of impending terrorist attack. At the same time, there can be no doubt that the supreme beneficiary of the conveniently timed attacks was none other than President Bush, now given the status of war leader."
Of course no reasonable person would "go ballistic" over such a comment.
The column doesn't match de Long's characterization of it.
Posted by: Robin Roberts on August 13, 2002 01:29 PM