Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Clinton-cooked books?
TownHall.com ^ | Thursday, August 8, 2002 | by Robert Novak

Posted on 08/07/2002 9:09:53 PM PDT by JohnHuang2

WASHINGTON -- The Commerce Department's painful report last week that the national economy is worse than anticipated obscured the document's startling revelation. Hidden in the morass of statistics, there is proof that the Clinton administration grossly overestimated the strength of the economy leading up to the 2000 election. Did the federal government join Enron and WorldCom in cooking the books?

Through all of President Clinton's last two years in office, the announced level of before-tax profits was at least 10 percent too high -- a discrepancy rising close to 30 percent during the last presidential campaign. Most startling, the Commerce Department in 2000 showed the economy on an upswing through most of the election year while in fact it was declining.

Although a political motive for Democratic cooking of the government's books is there, nobody -- including Bush administration officials -- alleges specific wrongdoing. Nor is there any evidence. Estimation in 2000 was conducted by career public servants who are doing the same jobs today (working under a highly political Democrat in the Commerce Department). Nevertheless, such discrepancy in earnings statements by corporate executives today would warrant a congressional subpoena.

The Commerce Department's Bureau of Economic Analysis quarterly estimates before-tax profits of domestic non- financial corporations, releasing the information the last week of the month following the quarter. Revised figures last week showed profits were really lower by 10.7 percent, 12.2 percent, 15.2 percent and 18 percent for the four quarters of 1999. In 2000, this gap became a chasm. The revised quarterly profits for the election year are lower than the announced figures by 23.3 percent, 25.9 percent, 29.9 percent and 28.2 percent.

Most startling, original estimates showed a generally rising profit outlook for the two years preceding the election. Starting with $503.7 billion in the last quarter of 1998, the quarterly estimates rose steadily to $543.8 billion in the fourth quarter of 1999 and then took off in the first two quarters of 2000 to $574.9 billion and $606.6 billion, leveling off to $602.9 billion in the third quarter (before falling to $527.3 billion in the fourth quarter after the election).

Last week's revised returns reflect not only different numbers but a different trend (starting at a much lower level of $473 billion). Profits actually fell through much of 2000, dropping from $449.7 billion to $422.4 billion for the second half (before slipping to $372.8 billion).

How could there be this big of a discrepancy? How could the government have reported steadily rising profits when they actually peaked in 1998?

"The gap is a bit larger than usual, but not really out of line," Brent Moulton, associate director at the Bureau of Economic Analysis, told me. Moulton, who was in charge of both the old figures and the new revision, said the problem was the two-year delay in obtaining corporate tax returns (reflecting changes in telecommunications and business services).

Moulton's boss in 1999-2000 was one of the Clinton administration's most politically astute economists: Under Secretary of Commerce Rob Shapiro, a pioneer "New Democrat" and early friend and supporter of Bill Clinton. I asked him flatly: "Did you cook the books?" Shapiro laughed it off, asserting that the Bureau of Economic Analysis is "the most non-political, non-partisan agency in the government."

That begs the question of whether the bureau's very political, very partisan management chief should have known the bureaucrats were on the wrong track. "No," said Shapiro, "2000 looked very good to us." He dismissed the early reports as "an econometric projection based on estimates."

The result: headlines in 2000 spewing false information of corporate profits growing at 25 percent, bolstering the stock market and holding up the state of the economy as the election approached. That is the underpinning for the Democratic myth that a growing and vibrant American economy has been sabotaged by President Bush's tax cut ("We lost the opportunity for long-term economic growth," says House Minority Leader Richard Gephardt).

If the government's books were not purposely cooked in the same way as corporate accounts, there still remains the question of how the government could be so wrong. The Bureau of Economic Analysis may well be free of partisan tilt, but its incompetence can cast a long political shadow.


TOPICS: Business/Economy; Editorial; Government; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS:
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-54 last
To: supercat
The unemployment statistics are lies when they don't count all the unemployment like the chronic welfare users. Bush should put into place a new and honest way of reporting those numbers, all they need to do is report the percent of families and people with full time jobs & benefits, those working part-time & no benefits, those not working. Also report the reliance on government programs like WIC and Food stamps, CHIPS, when many work but "need" food stamps, the economy isn't that good.
41 posted on 08/08/2002 5:56:08 AM PDT by FITZ
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: JohnHuang2
Although a political motive for Democratic cooking of the government's books is there, nobody -- including Bush administration officials -- alleges specific wrongdoing. Nor is there any evidence.

I'm all for outing Clinton's malfeasance, but this is a little much, isn't it?

42 posted on 08/08/2002 5:57:14 AM PDT by RedWing9
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: JohnHuang2
The Commerce Department's painful report last week that the national economy is worse than anticipated obscured the document's startling revelation. Hidden in the morass of statistics, there is proof that the Clinton administration grossly overestimated the strength of the economy leading up to the 2000 election. Did the federal government join Enron and WorldCom in cooking the books?

Well, Jimmy Carter ran the money printing presses at full speed in an attempt to bolster the economy. Clinton just did the easier thing and lied about the state of the economy, knowing that when the truth came out, it would be during the succeeding administration and could either a. in the case of Gore, continue to be covered up or b. in the case of Bush, be blamed on him as either the effect of Bush policies or partisan politics. Given the kind of people that Clinton stocked the Commerce Department with, that should have been the first place, well, one of the first places, for mass firings of all non-career people, sequestering of records, and initiating of a meticulous post-mortem by people trained in fraud investigation (I'm also thinking of Cuomo's tenure under which millions upon millions of dollars simply disappeared).
43 posted on 08/08/2002 5:58:24 AM PDT by aruanan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

BTTT
44 posted on 08/08/2002 6:27:50 AM PDT by SW6906
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: JohnHuang2
Did the federal government join Enron and WorldCom in cooking the books?

Anyone here ever heard of "social security"?

45 posted on 08/08/2002 7:09:01 AM PDT by Sloth
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: JohnHuang2
If the GNP was exaggerated in 1999 and 2000, can we be sure that it in fact did fall in the first three quarters of 2001?
46 posted on 08/08/2002 11:26:09 AM PDT by aristeides
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: aristeides
I can see it all now. A new book written anonimously by the press called "Saving Private Billy."
47 posted on 08/08/2002 12:35:08 PM PDT by FloridaGeezer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies]

To: Henchster
bump!
48 posted on 08/08/2002 7:00:34 PM PDT by JPJones
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: Henchster
The eight horrible years of Clinton teamed up with the liberal media will take thirty years to reverse.

A CNBC anchor was actually asking a Bush advisor about a tax hike today.

49 posted on 08/08/2002 7:07:58 PM PDT by alrea
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: JohnHuang2
Notice how very, very quiet the media's been since the Labor Dept. last Wednesday released revised figures on GDP through '01, showing Bush inherented a full-blown recession.

Bush and Cheney knew the truth, no doubt about that. In the spring of 2000, during the campaign, Bush was cautioning the nation that the economy was not all it was cracked up to be. He was accused by Democrats and portrayed in the media as being a negative nay-sayer. But he knew the truth and was going on the record about it.

50 posted on 08/08/2002 7:45:34 PM PDT by randita
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: Texas Mom
Rush was telling us "The surplus is on paper only." It's a projected surplus. just like Enron.

Interestingly enough, Rush today was also talking about the Cooked Enron and Worldcom books, and brought up the fact that those companies paid TAXES on all that inflated, non existent revenue.

He wondered if the IRS was going to be refunding monies back to the shareholders? A Snowballs chance in Hell was the considered analysis.

51 posted on 08/09/2002 1:53:36 PM PDT by AFreeBird
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: FloridaGeezer
I can see it all now. A new book written anonimously by the press called "Saving Private Billy."

The better title would be: "Saving Billy's Privates"

52 posted on 08/09/2002 1:57:28 PM PDT by AFreeBird
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 47 | View Replies]

To: JohnHuang2
Sorry to say this, but dear ol' Uncle Sam has been cooking the books for a long time. The GAO's formulae for figuring out the budget conforms to WAG.
53 posted on 08/09/2002 2:01:37 PM PDT by PsyOp
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: JohnHuang2
"The Commerce Department's Bureau of Economic Analysis estimates before-tax profits of domestic nonfinancial corporations quarterly. Revised figures last week showed profits were really lower by 10.7 percent, 12.2 percent, 15.2 percent and 18 percent for the four quarters of 1999. In 2000, this gap became a chasm. The revised quarterly profits for the election year are lower than the announced figures by 23.3 percent, 25.9 percent, 29.9 percent and 28.2 percent.

And, this data is the same data that is used to make projections as to the future surplus to the treasury.

So, all of the talk about the future surplus was total BullS##t, and all the crowing about the tax cut cutting into a non-existent future surplus is all Bulls##t, and the Bush administration macro-economic impact of the ten year tax reduction is all based on Bulls##t.

So, now as we overspend our budget, sometime during the next six years, the republicans will need to rescind a large portion of the tax reduction, and Bush will take the blame.

Folks, we have finally found the clinton legacy!

54 posted on 08/09/2002 2:11:40 PM PDT by aShepard
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-54 last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson