All errors should be reported to

Friday, April 28, 2017

New York Times devises a new way to look foolish

The New York Times does not like President Trump's tax plan, and uses its "news" pages to promote this opinion as if it were fact.

Rather poorly, I may add.

From the New York Times:
Economists Fear Trump’s Tax Plan Only Heightens a ‘Mountain of Debt
The (pardon the expression) money quote:
“We’ve only done the rough numbers, but this looks like a tax cut of a magnitude of about $5 trillion,” said Maya MacGuineas, president of the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget, a bipartisan advocacy organization for fiscal responsibility. “That is simply unimaginable given our fiscal situation and the size of the deficit, which is already the worst since World War II.”
Not mentioned in the story is Barack Obama added $9 trillion to the national debt.

Trump's "$5 trillion" is actually a 44% reduction.

I liked this from the Fake News story:
Or as Steven M. Rosenthal, a business tax expert and senior fellow at the Urban-Brookings Tax Policy Center, put it: “Mr. Trump’s plan basically is tax cuts for everyone. Real reform, with revenue neutrality, is difficult. There are winners and losers, but Trump apparently just wants winners.”
Well, if the New York Times insists on siding with the losers, who am I to judge?

I am a Cleveland Browns fan, after all.

Of course, if we are so worried about running up the debt, maybe we should stop spending more than the government takes in.

The original, "Trump the Press" chronicled and mocked how the media missed Trump's nomination.

It is available on Kindle, and in paperback.
Then came "Trump the Establishment," covering the election, which again the media missed.

It is available on Kindle, and in paperback.

Autographed copies of both books are available by writing me at

Please follow me on Twitter.

Friend me on Facebook.


  1. These people are absolute economics morons. Trump is going to implement a cut in the tax *rate.* Such cuts historically have increased overall tax revenue. Further, and give me an f'n break, but since when has the media developed such an intense interest in spending and the budget? I think it dates back to early Nov 2016. these are not the sharpest crayons in the shed.

  2. It is nice to see that the Left cares about deficits again.

    1. They only do it to see how many suckers the can get to react in their favor on the right. There are always quite a few. You'll probably see some concern trolling here by you know who.

  3. When Trump proves invulnerable, the frustrated Left will start turning on itself like Mugsy and Bugsy.

    "I dunno how youse done it, BUT I KNOWS YOU DONE IT!"

  4. The NYT sells to mostly NY residents who all think they are all there is of importance and smarts in the world( yes they do). What it doesn't like is the non deductable NYS taxes in the Trump plan because their subscribers may figure somewhere else is a better place to live, a growing number too, yes sir. Nothing else.

  5. Yeah, but don't forget that there are a good many "Republicans" in Congress that would oppose the tax plan too, most likely citing "THE DEFICIT" don't you know.

  6. I suggest President Trump use "Washington speak" to claim a proposed 44% reduction in the national debt in the same way government does with base line budgeting! Mike A.

    1. Yep. It's easy to declare "savings" when the budget "cuts" are from a rising baseline. Word games, when increased spending is falsely labelled savings. This is government accounting for you, fraud pure and simple. If a company did the same thing, the feds would sue the company and indict the execs for fraud.

  7. The leftist media will care about spending, debt, and deficit until the next dimmocrat is back in the WH (which is never I hope).

  8. Your memory is fading, Mr. Serber. If you recall, Obama can be credited/blamed for the stimulus spending in 2009 (~$1T), and maybe a little bit for the tax cuts that he proposed for the working class. But the rest of the $9T debt from the last 8 years is from Congress-passed budgets (and the deficits were reduced each year.) So... how is this "44% reduction" an actual argument? It's crazy math.