Home Store In Memoriam Deborah Newsletter Forum Topics Blogfeed Blogroll Facebook MySpace Contact Us About

'Dayside's' Jerrick Has Trouble with Budget Surplus Concept

Reported by Judy - June 20, 2006

Apparently it has been so long since the federal government ran a surplus, that Fox New's Mike Jerrick does not even know how to refer to one.

Jerrick, co-host of "Dayside," was comparing the state of the federal budget under President Clinton with that under George Bush, with the goal of touting Bush's economic policies as huge successes.

Jerrick noted that under Clinton, the "federal deficit was at $236 billion, the plus side" and that the federal deficit under Bush now is at $300 billion "in the minus."

Huh? A deficit on "the plus side"?

Ellis Henican, a columnist for Newsday and a Democrat, caught Jerrick's trick. "We call that first one a surplus, by the way," he said.

Sensing Jerrick's inability to tell the difference between a surplus and deficit, Henican tried to simplify matters for him. "When Bush came, there was the most gian surpluses we'd ever had. He spent all of it and dug is into a deep hole," he said, adding that now "the hole is a little shallower" than it was a few years ago.

Henican was supposed to be debating Rich Lowry, editor of the National Review, but what's to debate? Bush blew the surplus, dug the nation into a deep hole, and thinks he deserves praise for not being as far in the red as he was a few years ago.

Lowry repeated the same old tired GOP talking points about fighting wars and the economy in a downturn because of corporate criminals, and how the Bush tax cuts made the economy expand.

But even Republicans aren't buying that line anymore, as Saturday's "Cavuto on Business" featured an admission by Republican Ben Stein that the nation is in a crisis and should raise taxes to get the deficit under control.

Jerrick kept trying to help Lowry out, noting that the federal deficit was $512 billion in 2004, but now is in the lower $300 billion range "so he is cutting way into it."

Henican kept his message simple: "Big surplus, huge deficits. Which ones do you prefer?"

Lowry was so desperate to make Bush look good that he tried to blame Democrats for the level of spending. Note to Lowry: Republicans control both houses of Congress, the White House and the Judiciary. Anything that happens is their fault. That's what it means to be "in control." Why can't Republicans show some individual responsibility and admit that controlling spending is up to them? You know, the kind of individual responsibility they're always expecting desperately poor people to demonstrate.

Henican just kept making his simple point: "High surplus, deep deficit." Which one do you prefer?

Got that Jerrick?

Post a comment

Remember Me?

We welcome your opinions and viewpoints. Comments must remain civil, on-topic and must not violate any copyright or other laws. We reserve the right to delete any comments we deem inappropriate or non-constructive to the discussion for any reason, and to block any commenter for repeated violations.

Your email address is required to post, but it will not be published on the site.