Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Heritage Foundation wants you to stop laughing at it

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » General Discussion: Presidency Donate to DU
 
ProSense Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-06-11 01:05 PM
Original message
Heritage Foundation wants you to stop laughing at it
HERITAGE FOUNDATION WANTS YOU TO STOP LAUGHING AT IT....

One of the right's leading think tanks isn't having a good week.

After widespread criticism that its analysis of Paul Ryan's budget was optimistic to the point of absurdity, an author of the Heritage Foundation is admitting to reporters that his numbers may have been a tad off. But he firmly lays the blame at the feet of the CBO, the independent analyst tasked with evaluating the impact of congressional legislation on the budget, for any of his errors.

The most glaring number was Heritage's unemployment projection, which they saw dropping to 6.4% in 2012 and an unprecedented 2.8% in 2021. In an interview with Slate's Dave Weigel, the director of the Heritage Foundation's Center for Data Analysis, William Beach, admitted his study's figures might strain belief.

"Am I comfortable with a 2.8 unemployment rate?" asked Beach. "It's pretty low. The model's predicting a low unemployment rate -- that's how to take it. The thing is that the model stops in 2022. If it had continued into 2022-2031, then the unemployment rate would start to rise again."

I suppose it's at least somewhat encouraging that Heritage is embarrassed by the ridicule and its own impossible-to-believe projections, but it's worth noting that Heritage ran a report yesterday, defending its analysis of the Republican plan. Today, if you visit the exact same page on the Heritage site, the most absurd results have simply been removed.

This, of course, only leads to more ridicule, not less. As Paul Krugman put it:

I mean, really, guys -- this is all over the blogosphere; did you really think you could get away with pretending it was never there?

But this does bring back memories: during the Social Security debate, Cato tried to expunge all evidence that it had ever used the word "privatization", when it was easy to show that its project was originally the Project on Social Security Privatization.

Anyway, you now know what kind of people we're dealing with.

<...>


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
hobbit709 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-06-11 01:09 PM
Response to Original message
1. If they don't want us to laugh at them
then they shouldn't pull WAG numbers out of their clown asses.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
louis-t Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-06-11 01:10 PM
Response to Original message
2. 2.8% is possible......
If 8% of us starve to death.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
phantom power Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-06-11 01:19 PM
Response to Original message
3. If one does not want to be laughed at in public, one should not say stupid things in public.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LongTomH Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-06-11 01:21 PM
Response to Original message
4. The Heritage Foundation: "A Wretched Hive of Scum and Villainy!"
Right, Obi-Wan?

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
daa Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-06-11 01:24 PM
Response to Original message
5. Right 3.5% unemployment by 2015 with more tax cuts for the rich
It hasn't worked the first decade of this century so let's try it again.
We are laughing, just like Dow 36,000.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
toddwv Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-06-11 01:38 PM
Response to Original message
6. If you want a REALLY good laugh...
just read their analysis of the Bush 2001 budget. The major flaw in their analysis was that the herd of unicorns didn't show up with huge bags of money as was apparently expected.

http://origin.heritage.org/Research/Reports/2001/04/The...

Specifically, the results suggest that the plan would:

Reduce federal tax revenue by $1.1 trillion from FY 2002 to FY 2011. This would be the largest amount of tax relief in 20 years, and the share of GDP taken by federal taxes would fall from 20.7 percent in FY 2001 to 19.0 percent in FY 2011.
Produce positive economic "feedback" for the Treasury. Static estimates that do not account for the tax relief's influence on the economy suggest that President Bush's plan would decrease revenues to the federal Treasury by $1.7 trillion over 11 years.24 However, a dynamic analysis using the WEFA model suggests that, because the tax relief would increase economic growth and employment, the larger tax base would generate $583 billion in tax revenue that is unaccounted for in a static analysis (see Chart 3). In other words, when the proposed tax relief's effect on economic performance is taken into account, the actual loss to the Treasury is just 66.1 percent of the purely static reduction in tax revenues over 11 years.

Increase federal net interest payments by $272 billion from FY 2002 to FY 2011. Total federal spending would rise by $303 billion because of the higher interest payments and slightly higher inflation adjustments to other federal spending.
Reduce the federal surplus by $1.4 trillion from FY 2002 to FY 2011. Even with higher spending, the total surplus would be $4.2 trillion from FY 2002 to FY 2011. Moreover, because employment and payroll tax revenue will rise, the Social Security surplus would increase by $85 billion and the Medicare Part A surplus would increase by $39 billion, making more resources available over the next 10 years to reform those programs.

Effectively pay off the federal debt. The Bush plan would decrease federal debt to the lowest possible level at which it could be redeemed--$818 billion in FY 2011 (see Chart 4).25 From FY 2001 to FY 2011, federal debt as a percentage of GDP would decline from 30.5 percent to just 4.7 percent under the plan.

Accumulate $1.8 trillion in uncommitted funds.26 Without any tax relief, the federal Treasury will accumulate $3.2 trillion in excess taxes and interest.27 With the substantial tax relief contemplated by the Bush plan, this amount would decline by $1.4 trillion (see Chart 4). The remaining funds would have to be invested with banks and the Federal Reserve or in some other private-sector asset, or used to reform Social Security and reduce payroll taxes.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
yellowcanine Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-06-11 03:26 PM
Response to Original message
7. "But he firmly lays the blame at the feet of the CBO,..." Ok, since it is done "firmly".
ALL RIGHTY THEN! :rofl:

How is that "party of personal responsibility" meme working out for you, Willie?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
11 Bravo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-06-11 03:41 PM
Response to Original message
8. If they would prefer that we refrain from laughing, maybe they should exit the clown car ...
Edited on Wed Apr-06-11 03:41 PM by 11 Bravo
remove the funny nose and over-sized feet, and realize that their most vocal supporters (Bachmann, Palin, et al) are howlingly, knee-slappingly, funny!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
tanyev Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-06-11 05:31 PM
Response to Original message
9. Then they need to stop making it so darn easy.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
quaker bill Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-07-11 06:57 AM
Response to Original message
10. Accuracy is not the point
The point is to put the numbers out there, so Fox News can say "some people say" that this budget will.... Even if debunked entirely Fox, Rush and the other RW propogandists will use it for years.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Fri Jul 11th 2014, 05:53 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » General Discussion: Presidency Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC