Mediaboss Marketing

President Trumps first proposed budget was released today, to howls of outrage from the left. The New York Times issued an email breaking news alert:

The Timess claim that Trumps budget assumes improbable economic growth was mild compared to the reaction from most of the liberal commentariat. Slate, for example, initially headlined The Trump budget forecasts 3 percent growth for 10 years, is insane, but then backed off to Trumps Growth Forecasts Are the Budgetary Equivalent of Putting Your Fingers in Your Ears and Yelling, Na Na Na Na Na.

Yes, Trumps budget projects 3% annual GDP growth. That used to be considered the norm, with 4%, on average, the target. Now liberals think such budget assumptions are insane, or, more mildly, improbable.

At times like this, I like to ask: What did Barack Obama do?

Heh. As it happens, I have already written about this. In March 2015, I compared Obamas budget projections to what actually happened:

Is 2.2% an acceptable rate of economic growth? No, but dont take my word for it. By the Obama administrations own standards, it has been a failure.

President Obama submitted his proposed budget for FY 2011 in February 2010. Its tone was triumphalist. Obama had the good fortune to take office in the wake of a financial collapse and a recession, and his budget predicted robust economic growth in the years to come. Table S-1 set out, among other things, the administrations projections of GDP in future years. Here they are, in billions of dollars, along with my calculation of the projected growth rate:

2012 16,203

2013 17,182 = 6%

2014 18,139 = 5.6%

2015 19,190 = 5.8%

2016 20,163 = 5%

The federal fiscal year runs from October to October, so it is not exactly coextensive with the calendar year, but that discrepancy is immaterial for this purpose. As you can see, the Obama administration expected its policies to produce GDP growth of 5% to 6% in 2014, far more than the 2.2% actually experienced, as well as the 3.1% attained in 2013.

As time went by, Obamas economists realized that the administrations policies were not producing the growth they had expected. Thus, in February 2012, when the administration released its proposed budget for FY 2013, its projections were revised as follows:

FY 2012 15,602

FY 2013 16,335 = 4.7%

FY 2014 17,156 = 5%

FY 2015 18,178 = 6%

FY 2016 19,261 = 6%

Note that the projection for FY 2013 was revised downward by $847 billion. Still, prosperity was just around the corner, as the administration still expected growth in 2014 to be 5% to 6%, with robust growth thereafter.

Two years later, the numbers had changed again. When the presidents FY 2015 budget was released in March 2014, these were the predicted GDP numbers:

FY 2013 16,619

FY 2014 17,332 = 4.3%

FY 2015 18,219 = 5.1%

FY 2016 19,181 = 5.3%

FY 2017 20,199 = 5.3%

But even then, just one year ago, the Obama administration predicted that economic growth in 2014 would be 4.3% or greatertwice the actual number. The administrations current projection for FY 2015 is nearly $1 trillion lower than what it expected in 2010. That is around $3,000 per person.

So dont take my word for it: the Obama administration is an economic failure, judged by its own criteria. Its policies have achieved only a fraction of the economic growth that the administration confidently predicted when it took office.

Through the whole Obama administration, there was never a prediction of GDP growth as low as 3%the level that liberals now deem improbable if not insane. In 2011, did the New York Times write that Obamas budget projection of 6% GDP growthexactly twice the prediction embodied in Trumps proposed budgetwas improbable? Just kidding.

With reasonable government policies, 3% growth is eminently obtainable. It is nowhere near what the Reagan administration achieved. Which is why the Democrats are determined to drive Trump out of office before his pro-growth policies (on repatriation, for example) can be implemented. A pro-growth administration would expose the Obama years for the economic fiasco that they were.

Read the original:
Trump's Budget Assumes Reasonable GDP Growth, Liberals Go Ballistic - Power Line (blog)

By Froma Harrop

"Rising to the bait" is a fishing term. Anglers lure fish hiding in the deep by positioning bait on or near the surface. Fish that rise to the bait usually end up on someone's dinner plate.

Conservative groups routinely try this technique on college liberals. Their lure is an inflammatory right-wing speaker. The catch comes in duping liberals to act badly as censors of free speech or, even better, violently. The public sees them as spoiled college kids.

Why else would Berkeley College Republicans invite the likes of Milo Yiannopoulos to speak on their famously left-leaning University of California campus?

Taking their cue in a play their enemies wrote, the offended ones made a big deal out of this cartoonish character. The cameras caught "protesters," some wearing masks, in full rampage. They trashed the campus before heading off into downtown Berkeley to smash some windows. (By the way, who exactly were these people hiding their identities?)

Over at the State University of New York at Buffalo, agitated students all but shut down a speech by Robert Spencer, an alleged Islamophobe. Spencer's claim to fame is his controversial Jihad Watch website.

Behind many such speaking engagements is a group called Young America's Foundation. And behind Young America's Foundation are the Koch brothers, Richard and Helen DeVos and other very rich financiers of the right. Their agenda relies on discrediting anyone to their left.

Frankly, I don't care enough about Ann Coulter to even dislike her. But the left seems determined to revive her career.

Coulter's scheduled speech at Berkeley was canceled after protests raised security concerns. It should surprise no one that the foundation was picking up her $20,000 speaking fee. College Republicans and the foundation are now suing Berkeley for allegedly violating Coulter's First Amendment rights.

What should smart lefties do? Three things.

One is develop a very thick skin. Many of you are unable to distinguish between merely provocative and totally offensive. You can simplify by dropping such distinctions. Both kinds of speech are protected. If right-wingers choose to invite promoters of disgusting views, let them own it.

Two is to understand this about the opinion business: Success can come from drawing a positive response or a negative one. Failure is no response. Thus, the most effective way to block an obvious attempt to bait you is to swim away. Don't petition. Don't attend.

Wit, meanwhile, makes for a great offense. As the writers at "Saturday Night Live" have taught us, mockery is a more fearsome weapon than raw rage.

Three, when campus conservatives book speakers custom-designed to enrage you, try this clever tactic: Host a sensible conservative to give a talk at the same time. The growing ranks of anti-Trump conservatives offer a pool of highly promising candidates.

Such speakers would draw audience and attention away from the flamethrower across campus. Finding common ground is good for the civic culture, and joining forces enhances power. Importantly, you would come off as open-minded and also be open-minded. We'd all do well to listen more to opinions contrary to our own.

Resist the flashing lures. The choice for campus liberals comes down to this: Either you frustrate those who would provoke you or you become their dinner.

Froma Harrop (fharrop@gmail.com) is a syndicated columnist and a former member of The Providence Journal's editorial board. She can be followed on Twitter: @FromaHarrop.

See more here:
Froma Harrop: Conservatives bait college liberals - The Providence Journal

The midterm elections are still nearly a year and a half away, and the political dynamics could yet change, but we shouldnt ignore the fact that history and the current environment are merging together for a potentially great set of elections for Democrats in November 2018.

The presidents party has lost House seats in 18 of the last 20 midterm elections, and its lost an average of 33 seats in those 18 elections. Democrats need to gain 24 seats in order to take back the majority.

President Donald Trumps job approval rating is slumping at 40 percent, according to the latest RealClearPolitics average, while 55 percent disapprove of the job he is going. Thats not good news for GOP candidates, consideringthatmidterms are often a referendum on the presidents performance and Trumps name wont appear on the ballot.

And Democrats also appear to have an edge in enthusiasm. From protest marches after inauguration to confrontational town halls with GOP members, Democratic candidates are overperforming in special elections. And with a 30-year-old former Capitol Hill staffer raising over $20 million in just a few months, Democrats are anxious for the next fight.

Of course, there is plenty of time for the political climate to change, but our Inside Elections ratings need to reflect the reality that Democrats have more takeover opportunities than if this was shaping up to be a status quo election, or certainly more opportunities than ifHillary Clintonhad been in the White House.

Weve changed our ratings in 19 races, including adding nine GOP-held seats to the list of competitive races and dropping one Democratic seat (Rep. Brad Schneider of Illinois 10th District) after the Republicans best potential candidate declined to run.

That means Republicans are now defending 39 seats on the list of competitive races compared to just 14 currently held by Democrats. That disparity isnt as large as prior to the 2010 elections when Democrats were defending 100 competitive seats and Republicans just nine, but just as its possible for the Republicans electoral prospects to improve, they could also get much worse.

Once again, there is plenty of time between now and November 2018. Well crown two Stanley Cup champions, the Washington Nationals can win two World Series, there will be two new NBA Champions, and the Seattle Seahawks will hoist another Lombardi trophy between now and the midterm elections.

For now, time should not be an excuse to ignore the fact that history and the current political dynamic favorsDemocrats and are good reasons to watch the fight for the House. For more detailed analysis of over 100 districts, check out the May 19 issue of Inside Elections.

Get breaking news alerts and more from Roll Call on your iPhone or your Android.

Continue reading here:
19 House Races Shift Toward Democrats - Roll Call

New York Times

Stipend Scandal Fuels Divide Among New York's Democratic State Senators New York Times The chamber was split, 31-31, between Democrats and Republicans, until this Harlem seat the tiebreaker was captured on Tuesday by a Democrat, Brian Benjamin, a 40-year-old affordable housing developer. But because of a coalition between ... and more »

Continue reading here:
Stipend Scandal Fuels Divide Among New York's Democratic State Senators - New York Times

Common Dreams

Don't Like Betsy DeVos? Blame the Democrats. Common Dreams Prodded by grassroots activists and what's left of teachers' unions, Democrats went all out to defeat DeVos. George Miller, the former congressman from California, slammed her plan to create a $20 billion school choice program that would underwrite ... and more »

Originally posted here:
Don't Like Betsy DeVos? Blame the Democrats. - Common Dreams