National Debt

Who can forget when the media spent endless days of outrage hyperventilating that Republicans would “shutdown the government” in 2013? Well the media had quite the opposite reaction Monday when Democrats threatened to do the same thing, not even two months into Trump’s presidency.    

After giving President Ronald Reagan a subtle nod this earlier week, ABC decided to more directly address his presidency two days later on their hit comedy Last Man Standing.

On Saturday, President Donald Trump tweeted that "The media has not reported that the National Debt in my first month went down by $12 billion vs a $200 billion increase in Obama first mo." Demonstrating that "fact checking" by the partisan press is a sick joke which has instead turned into a vehicle to make cheap political points, Politifact rated Trump's utterly true statement "Mostly False."

On Tuesday morning's MSNBC Live, Louise Mensch, though she claims to be a conservative, put forth what I suspect will be the left's core economic argument if the economy improves under Donald Trump. That argument: The economy is "fantastic" already, and Trump will have had nothing to do with whatever economic improvements over what is already "fantastic" we might see.

There are predictable signs that after eight years of giving the problem inadequate attention and occasional ridicule, the business press has decided that federal budget deficits and the national debt are going to start to matter again. Gosh, I wonder why? The Associated Press's Christopher Rugaber was relatively subtle about it in a report on Uncle Sam's December and year-to-date budget deficits…

Broadcast networks barely covered the skyrocketing national debt in the past year, but spent far more time on toy animals called Hatchimals. ABC and NBC gave the toy sensation three times more coverage than the debt. As of Jan. 9, the United States’ national debt was nearly $20 trillion ($19,955,343,885,377.73), according to the Treasury Department. The rising debt, according to multiple sources…

If you believe the Obama administration, the Hillary Clinton campaign and their apparatchiks in the press — and as we've learned during the past several weeks, all three work assiduously to sing from the same hymnal — the economy we've seen during the presidency of Barack Obama has been one of slow but still acceptable recovery and (yes, this word has been frequently used) "durable" expansion.

The federal government's fiscal year ended on September 30. As has been the administration's habit for years with news that might draw negative attention, the Treasury Department conveniently released its year-end Monthly Budget Review Friday afternoon to minimize the discussion of its grim news.

Many writers on the left and beat journalists in the establishment press contend that Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump and running mate Mike Pence tell lies so often that it's virtually impossible to keep up with all of them. If that's so, why, with all those "obvious" falsehoods out there, did two Los Angeles Times reporters have to label an absolutely true statement by Pence about…

On Thursday, Federal Reserve Chairman Janet Yellen suggested in a videoconference call, as translated into plain English by the Wall Street Journal, that "there could be benefits to allowing the central bank to buy stocks as a way to boost the economy in a downturn."

It's a safe prediction that there will be renewed interest in the federal government's perilous financial situation if the country elects someone not named Hillary Clinton as its next president in November. One reason why this prediction is so safe is how little interest there has been in even covering today's news about Uncle Sam's troubling June surplus of only $6.3 billion. The Associated…

Hillary Clinton’s proposal to spend $350 billion on “affordable” tuition may have been outrageous, but at least it provoked some poignant comments on the pitfalls of big government.

For one New York Times columnist, democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton hasn’t been revolutionary enough in her economic policies. Times columnist Eduardo Porter complained that Clinton’s economic plan, which included “only $1.1 trillion” in new tax hikes and $275 million in infrastructure spending, was just a “careful collection of tweaks and prods.”