DNC Chair Wasserman Schultz, Math & Economics
posted at 12:25 pm on April 26, 2012 by Dustin Siggins
As a young observer of, and participant in, politics, if often frustrates me when politicians are either sloppy or outright lying with their facts. Tuesday, it was Representative Debbie Wasserman Schultz (D-FL), Chairwoman of the Democratic National Committee, who on CNN’s Starting Point managed to make two statements that boggle the logical mind.
In the first, responding to Will Cain, Wasserman Schultz said the following: “The Republicans, I certainly hope, don’t send the President an extension of the Bush tax cuts, because again they increase the deficit by $700 billion.” A note to Wasserman Schultz: this is the amount the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) says extending the Bush tax cuts for the “wealthy” will increase the amount of debt garnered over a ten-year period, not a one-year period, which is the span of time a single deficit covers. The full extension would “cost,” according to the CBO’s static analyses, $3.8 trillion. Of course, this assumes you count extending current policy as a tax cut, and that you assume extending current tax policy will not bring in more economic growth than the “cost” of keeping the tax rates consistent.
Related, in saying the above, Wasserman Schultz joins many other Members of Congress in not knowing the difference between “debt” and “deficit.” One cannot “add to the deficit” over a multi-year period. One can add to deficits in each of multiple years, yes – but a deficit is the single-year negative difference between one’s incoming and outgoing funds. Debt is the accumulation of deficits. Which is why, on a side note, decreasing the federal deficit should not generally be considered an accomplishment; it simply means Congress messed up less badly than it did in the prior year.
The third error made on Starting Point was this statement: ”We need to make sure we’re not pulling revenue out of the economy. We have to put more revenue into it.” It is one thing to argue that taxing the wealthy would create more efficiency for the economy via deficit reduction, “fairness” and changed economic incentives – this is a legitimate, if wrong, policy viewpoint. However, it is laughable to think that taking money away from earners (who will spend it, save it or invest it) and putting it through the fraudulent and inefficient federal government will add more to economic growth than it takes.
According to her official Member of Congress website, Democratic National Committee Chairwoman Debbie Wasserman Schultz (D-FL) has two degrees in political science. Perhaps she ought to go back and take a few business and math classes. Unless she was just warming up for the thrashing she took from Fox News’ Bret Baier later that night?
Dustin Siggins is an associate producer with The Laura Ingraham Show and co-author with William Beach of The Heritage Foundation on a forthcoming book about the national debt. The opinions expressed are his own.
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
More classes won’t help her, although just a little but of class would go along way.
Forgot point #4 – Letting people keep the money that they have earned does not create government debt – the government overspending does that. That notion is completely idiotic, and we (fiscal conservatives) need to push that type of language out of the political lexicon of the U.S.
Hueydriver on April 26, 2012 at 12:59 PM
It is extraordinarily important for the Romney campaign to patiently but firmly push back and educate the population in simple mathematics. Our government education system has failed, so we conservatives must take up the slack. Here is a boggling tidbit: the approximate deficit of the unvoted/unapproved Obama budget for FYI 2012 is 1.4 trillion dollars. Let’s simplify that to say it is 1400 billion dollars overbudget (1 trillion=1000 billion). Even if you assume NO economic impact from raising taxes among the job creators, look at what Obama’s propsed policies would do. The Buffet Rule would bite out approximately 5-6 billion dollars out of that 1400 billion. Does that make sense? What about the approximately 70 billion from the Bush tax hikes? 75 billion from 1400 billion? Come on Romney and Republicans on TV…GET TO WORK
DrRich on April 26, 2012 at 1:19 PM
”We need to make sure we’re not pulling revenue out of the economy. We have to put more revenue into it.” Well that statement shows just how stupid she is. Where will this money that you HAVE to put into “the economy” come from, if “we’re NOT pulling revenue out of the economy”
Translation: “We’re not gonna take money from anybody, but we do need to put money in the hands of our friends”. What is the “Economy”. Is there a building that houses the “economy” they just haul cash to, in order to make everything better? Do their well degree’d pals in academia, with no REALWORLD experience but good bundlers, know how to “invest” better than I?
With a face like that, talking it of both sides of it isn’t a challenge.
hutch1200 on April 26, 2012 at 2:03 PM
With most on the left, I can’t tell if they’re just flat out lying or stupid. With Debbie Clowner, I’m going with stupid. Remember, the Democrats made her chair of the DNC. They want her to be the face of the Democratic Party.
rbj on April 26, 2012 at 2:39 PM
In the mind of the Left, all of the wealth in the hands of private citizens actually belongs to the government. Leftists such as DWS are mercifully allowing the people to keep some of it. When the people keep too much wealth, well, that creates debt. This is really how they think.
visions on April 26, 2012 at 7:20 PM