Finally, the Journal eliminated a critical word from the Democrats’ press release — “2004.” The Democrats were clear that they were talking about a particular point in time, while the Journal made it sound as though the analysis applied to all time. The corporate provisions of the 2002 tax cut expire after 2004, so the extreme numbers focused on by the Democrats settle down considerably in 2005 and thereafter.
He also relays the content of a discussion he had with CBO staff:
This week I spoke with several senior staff members at the Congressional Budget Office. “Stunned” is how they feel about what the media has done with their report. “Frustrated" is how they feel about the media’s utter lack of willingness to let the report’s authors tell the story about what the report really says.
See? You don't need all that fancy book learnin'--just come on over and let ol' D.S. tell you what's what. Bring your friends. Stay awhile.
p.s.--I would also like to point out that my post predates Luskin's article by two days. Not bad, considering he's a chief investment officer for an investment research firm, who can get the CBO on the phone and I can barely make change. Am I gloating? Hell, yeah! I admire the hell out of some of these guys who write on the web and what they do. I just beat everybody (as far as I know) to the punch. This will almost certainly never happen again, so just shut up and give me my damn moment.
p.p.s.--Except for The Insurrectionist, who left a comment backing me up because he knows a sharp argument when he reads it. Well, an argument, anyway.