fiscal 2009 budget
I am happy to say that I know Dean Baker, read his blog Beat The Press almost daily, and constantly learn from and am amused by his posts about how the media misreports economic news. If you haven''t already bookmarked Dean's blog, stop reading this now and get that done.
(Okay, enough sucking up.)
But Dean and many other economists missed something important last week when they insisted last week that the nominal all-time high fiscal 2009 deficit projected by the Bush administration in its midsession review was not important and dismissed out-of-hand the reporting of that as a record.
They're right, of course. The deficit as a percent of GDP is the meaningful number in terms of its economic impact.
Starting tomorrow, that is, when the Bush budget is released, my work and professional life turn into a shambles for a month or so. Because of that, I always try to spend a bit more time with my Beautiful and Talented Wife (The BTW) in the days leading up to the budget being sent to Congress. As a result, my posts have been a bit "unscheduled" the past two weeks.
I could blame it on The BTW, but that wouldn't quite be right. The truth is that, when it comes to The BTW or Capital Gains and Games, it's absolutely no contest.
You're reading the headline correctly. One very senior and presumably highly influential person at the Pentagon -- Admiral Michael Mullen, chairman of the Joint Chiefs, wants annual U.S. defense spending to increase by about 1 percent of GNP, or roughly $130 billion, a year.