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, threatens economic growth and fiscal stability.



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 Hillary Clinton's Syrian refugee position "misleading" and then fail, as seen in a Friday NewsBusters post, to even try to explain why it was? And why did the Associated Press's Josh Boak, as will be shown after the jump, pretend on Tuesday that Pence's absolutely true claim about the growth of the national debt under President Obama wasn't true?



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 Press, via Martin Crutsinger, devoted three whole paragraphs to the news during the first two hours after its release before lengthening it with the usual static analysis pablum about the presidential candidates' tax plans. A 4:30 p.m. Eastern Time Google News search on "deficit," which encouraged users to "Explore in Depth (9 more articles)," returned only three additional items when I followed that suggestion.



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.”



Philip Bump and the Washington Post have apparently had a couple of pretty bad days. The Post had to endure having to cover, and cover for, an absolutely awful jobs report released Friday morning. That news made their beloved Dear Leader, who had just celebrated the allegedly wonderful economic accomplishments seen during his presidency on Wednesday, look quite foolish. Never fear: By Paragraph 4 of its related story, the Post found an "expert" who claimed that "This just does not square with all the other things we’re seeing in the economy." Actually, the job market has been virtually the only exception to otherwise uniformly weak data since the fourth quarter of last year.

Perhaps partially influenced by the bad jobs news, Bump, who toils at the Post's "The Fix" blog, came completely unhinged in reacting to a Thursday evening retweet by presumptive Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump.



Former Reagan official David Stockman predicted that whoever was elected in 2016 would “inherit a recession.” Stockman, former Director of the Office of Management and Budget for President Ronald Reagan, said on May 25, 2016, that Wall Street would undergo “massive panic and selling.”

 



Democratic presidential frontrunner Hillary Clinton believes we're supposed to be impressed by the idea of putting her husband Bill, in the Associated Press's words, "in charge of revitalizing the economy." Yep, the old "2-for-1" offer from the early 1990s is back.

In 1993, President Bill put First Lady Hill in charge of health care. Fortunately, nothing tangible resulted, but we did get an early lesson in the extremes of Clintonian secrecy and stonewalling. This time, a President Hill would put "First Dude" Bill — as the AP's Lisa Lerer and Catherine Lucey, brazenly stealing Sarah Palin's description of husband Todd while she was Alaska's Governor, prospectively described him on Monday — effectively in charge of the economy. Here's the big problem the press is virtually certain to ignore: Bill Clinton guaranteed in 2012 that the economy under a reelected Barack Obama would not need revitalization by now.



As his final term wanes, the New York Times is making excuses for the economy’s performance under President Obama, with the president himself guiding the way. Economics reporter Andrew Ross Sorkin’s interview of Obama for the cover of the Times Sunday magazine dug in in defense of Obama. The subhead: “Eight years after the financial crisis, unemployment is at 5 percent, deficits are down and G.D.P. is growing. Why do so many voters feel left behind? The president has a theory.” And Sorkin let him unfold the tale without journalistic pushback. And reporter Mark Landler gushed of Obama's self-defense: "Many historians agree."