Late Friday afternoon, the Treasury Department published the official report on the U.S. budget deficit for the most recent fiscal year: $1.089 trillion. While that's obviously still a very large budget shortfall, the deficit is $200 billion smaller than it was last year, and is nearly $300 billion smaller than when President Obama took office.
To add a little historical context to this, over the last four decades, only two presidents have reduced the deficit this much, this quickly: Bill Clinton and Barack Obama.
Despite this fact, the new Washington Post/ABC News poll shows President Obama leading Mitt Romney on every major policy area except one: deficit reduction. It's an advantage the Republican is eager to exploit.
Aside from Tuesday's pivotal town hall debate in New York, Republican presidential nominee Mitt Romney will use the upcoming week to focus on the issues of debt and deficits.
Polls show voters trust Romney over President Barack Obama on the question of who would better handle the national debt, one reason the Romney campaign has launched a new television ad attacking the president on the issue. Romney will also deliver a speech on government spending this Friday.
The Romney campaign circulated talking points to campaign surrogates and allies on Sunday evening, which were provided to CNN by a GOP source who did not want to be identified providing confidential campaign material to the media.
The talking points are fairly predictable. Did you know that Romney/Ryan believes, "Getting our fiscal house in order is more than an economic imperative -- it's a moral imperative. Americans deserve a president who will secure a future for our children that doesn't leave them buried in debt." It's a lovely sentiment.
But there are a few problems to keep in mind before Romney wraps himself in a Ross Perot-like cloak of fiscal responsibility.
First, Obama, whether the public realizes it or not, has a record he can brag about when it comes to deficit reduction -- very few presidents in American history can boast about having inherited a massive deficit, then cutting it by nearly a fourth in just one term.
Second, while Romney's correct to note that the existing budget shortfall is still quite large, it's worth appreciating the fact that the main drivers of the remaining deficit are Republican policies. Indeed, Romney's own running mate was largely responsible for creating the mess Obama is trying to clean up.
But perhaps most important is the detail that's gone largely forgotten: Romney doesn't have a deficit-reduction plan. It simply doesn't exist. If you go to the Romney/Ryan "issues" page, you'll see 29 links. One mentions "spending," but there are no references to "deficit" or "debt."
If one looks hard enough, there is a "Romney Plan For Deficit Reduction" on the campaign's website, but the entirety of the plan is literally just 208 words long. (For contrast, note that President Obama published a plan of his own over a year ago. It's 80 pages.)
Making matters worse, Romney's ridiculously thin, 208-word plan actually includes provisions that would make the deficit worse, not better, such as destroying the Affordable Care Act.
I realize that with the economy improving and unemployment falling, the deficit is starting to look like an appealing issue to Romney. But with just three weeks remaining in the race, the Republican has absolutely nothing credible to say on the subject, and he's up against a president who has one of the more impressive deficit-reduction records in recent history.
Leave a Comment:
It's hard to wrap my head around all the details that might be involved in a real analysis of this, but here is a rough framework:
Ryan can claim, perhaps truthfully in part, that it was GOP budget cutting in the House that lead to this reduction in the deficit.
It was also partially caused by GOP intransigence to do anything of real importance, except for not passing any and all White House and Senate proposals that included spending a little money for a payback in jobs, and improved economic health overall.
The net result is that we have created fewer jobs than we could have, which might have otherwise provided the tax revenue to bring down the deficit further.
The circumstances have been reduced, for those of us who still have circumstances. - Margaret Atwood, The Handmaids Tale
Or, we could look at the whole story:
Year
Deficit (in millions)
2001 $ (128,236)
2002 $ 157,758
2003 $ 377,585
2004 $ 412,727
2005 $ 318,346
2006 $ 248,181
2007 $ 160,701
2008 $ 458,553
2009 $ 1,412,688
2010 $ 1,293,489
2011 $ 1,299,595
2012 $ 1,326,948 (est.)
Tom, instead of picking numbers out of thin air, why don't you cite the source when you post something like this. These numbers are ridiculous.
Please cite the source.
Arguing that Obama cut the deficit is going to be a hard sell. First most people don't know the difference between a deficit and the National Debt. Second, Republicans start with the premise that the 2009 budget is Obama's even though it was passed in 2008. Third, the 2009 deficit was compounded by the economic stimulus. Fourth, using the 2009 deficit as a starting point, it should be easy to decrease it.
The much better argument is that Obama inherited a mess and Romney wants to return to those policies, all of which compounding the deficit problems.
This is why a party, like the Democrats, must continually educate the people it is purporting to lead. The ideas of deficits and debt are not difficult.
The hardest idea to sell, but should be sold, is that the deficits and debt, are, right now, mid-to-long term problems, not pressing issues right now. The biggest problem is unemployment of which the Republicans have stood in the way of addressing.
Arguing the truth is a hard sell?
What's happening to the country?
Also, if you think it's easy to decrease the deficit, then you should run for President and show us all how easy it is.
:)
...
Arguing the truth is a hard sell?
What's happening to the country?...
- Rush Limbaugh ? -
Also shutup *
*Most frequently understood quote from exclusive , altitudinous right wing , nose bleed circles .
It is emotionally satisfying and more significantly , easy to remember . It goes without saying (enough can be said without going) . Recomendations for first aid applications (please note) perfection is achievable but its acquisition most understandable with a swift , desirable , boot or slipper athwart the keister included , free .
The wisdoms collected from our dear friends of the right that are including "Also" is a gift to us from , almost .
If walking around toun saying , "Also Shutup" , please note this may indicate graduation from Wax on , Wax off , magna some cloudy .
Thank you ...
:)
It's only a hard sell because we keep saying it's a hard sell, instead of selling it. Republicans usually have an advantage when it comes to deficits and defense because of baseless tough talk that proves even a hard sell is easy if you sell it hard. Given the factual realities on how much better Democrats and President Obama have been on both counts and jobs, if we uniformly went after this with a little more conviction this would be a landslide. When it comes to protecting our children from the burden of an ever-growing deficit this President’s specific proposal cuts $4 trillion from the deficit including $1.7 trillion of balanced government spending cuts that have already been enacted. Mitt Romney has proposed $5 trillion increased spending through tax cuts that favor top income earners and $2 trillion increased defense spending that the military isn't asking for, without offering any specifics on how he or our children will pay for it. I'm tired of hearing Republicans talk about not burdening our children with debt, when Democrats are the only ones who actually work to make sure this doesn't happen.
The reason the truth is a hard sell is it takes more words than a sound-bite lie. And the attention span of the average American is short, indeed. Add to that the fact that, as mentioned by someone here already, most Americans have no clue that deficit and debt are not the same thing. Or what each means.
Maybe a simple analogy could be used, like using an example of someone whose job was exported and they're now working for low wages. They can't afford living expenses so they're borrowing on a credit card, more than they make. Living at a deficit. And their debt keeps growing because they have to borrow to live. Due to tax cuts and tax evasion by the top 2% and the loss of millions of middle class jobs, the government isn't taking in enough to cover operating expenses and is having to borrow, adding to the debt AND the payments on it.
Here's the only question you have to ask a wingnut about who is responsible for the deficits and debt:
Name the Obama policies that are responsible for the additional debt during the last nearly four years.
They can't. The deficits and debt is the result of reduced revenue caused by the Great Recession (whose direct cause is the result of 30+ years of failed conservative economic and "market" policies), and increased safety net spending required by the Great Recession to help the most vulnerable and those most affected by the Republican-policy-caused Great Recession. Period.
You speak (type) the truth.
The problem is, they can. They'll be lying of course but they can name Obama policies that added debt. They just have to say "Obama did *this* and now our children will suffer from the crippling debt!" and all the tin-foil hatters will nod their heads.
Then you call them out on their lies. You look them straight in the face, and you call them liars. Then you proceed to do the easy arithmetic. It is not difficult. CBPP updated their well-known graphs:
Downturn and Legacy of Bush Policies Drive Large Current Deficits — Center on Budget and Policy Priorities
Every Democrat should carry around the three graphs in this study. And read and understand the details. They should take these charts on the shows, to their campaign rallies, and shove them in the faces of our technically incompetent media. And if any wingnut challenges them, challenge the wingnut to state precisely what is wrong. They won't be able to. Heritage tried two years ago and was shot down with days.
After you're done doing the arithmetic for them, call them liars again.
There is an old term in the intelligence community for stuff like this: Blowback. You create a crisis (intended or not) through your actions and try to keep the public ignorant of the cause, maintain plausible deniability and if possible blame someone else. If you can do that you can then move in as someone who rather conveniently has a solution.
The problem with that is that Democrats, if they had the damn balls and intelligence, could demolish any attempt by the Republicans to avoid blame. That they don't just tells us what either spineless asswholes are dictating the messaging or what idiots we have at combating liars and bullies. Either way, the political cowardice, impotence, and incompetence is just maddening.
That nails it , in a very simple way ....... I hate to be overly critical , , but if dems do not see where they get it wrong , the party will just keep floundering , obama and every dem should have been nailing that line the last 2 years , 2 sentences ..... this was the 12 trillion in debt the gop ran up till 2009 when ,,,,,,,,,," I" , (obama) took office , and we must now some how pay it off folks ...
Keeping THAT part of the debt completely separate from what the dems have produced since then
Instead , obama did not want to offend the gopt baggers to much , and he stopped hitting them over the head with it in 2010 , the debate was just another reflection of that tactic ," I WANT TO WORK TOGETHER ON ALL THIS " , and obama was destroyed for it
The dems need a pit bull , not a poodle leading them , I love obama , but talking conciliatory to a nation of hate filled racists is not just a waste of time , it is a losing position
May i copy and past this info and past it else were...? DisgustedWithItAll
Believe or not, wiki nails this one, and these are the points Obama should have made before in such clear language:
"With projected receipts less than projected outlays, the budget proposed by President Bush predicts a net deficit of approximately $400 billion dollars, adding to a United States governmental debt of about $11.4 trillion. The actual spending signed into law in the final bill was increased by over $400 billion. And actual tax receipts totaled approximately $2.1 trillion, $600 billion less than the $2.7 trillion expected. The actual deficit in 2009 was $1.4 trillion.[3]'
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2009_United_States_federal_budget
Obama owns 400 billion of the 2009 deficit (basically, the first year of the stimulus package) The rest was either already projected by the Bush budget, or came about as a result of the revenue shortfalls from the economy that Obama inheirited that first year.
Thanks for the link.
It would help a lot if there were links to the basis for the other factual claims made about Mitt's Mendacity.
People with whom I am speaking want facts, reliable facts, more than my saying "Mitt is lying about that."
Help.
You can tell them that even a Romney campaign advisor admits that the Republican budget proposal for the past two years has had the exact same 716 billion Medicare cuts in the Obama budget.
" It’s true that Ryan’s budgets in 2011 and 2012 preserved Obamacare’s cuts to Medicare."
http://www.forbes.com/sites/aroy/2012/08/30/yes-paul-ryan-spoke-the-truth-about-obamas-fiscal-record/
He then goes on to theorize that involved making the Medicare program MORE solvent. Strangely though Republicans have yet to articulate that cutting the Pentagon's budget makes them more solvent!
Also, as everybody else above is forgetting; Willard has already stated in public that a trillion in budget cuts will be off the table in his first year, to avoid the country going back into a recession from the government not spending money. The country is projected to gain 12 million new jobs, regardless of who the new president is.
Lee, you have to spend the time bookmarking and reading link after link. It's also a good idea to review the GOP/Fox links for an alternate view of reality. It helps frame your arguments and stunts the lazy responses from those I suspect you engage in debates with.
I would tell them to take responsibility for their own (political life) and look this stuff up themselves!
@oddduck35
You are right, but I was arguing with my friend this morning and what she gets on Fox, she believes. She thinks the main stream media is slanted, but does not think her source could be slanted. She thinks that the uemployment numbers are not real. I think most people do not have time or make time to seek the truth. I spend my lunch hour and evening time reading and seeking what I believe may be the truth.
It scares me that people would rather watch their reality shows than spend brain power on truth. I use to believe evertyhing that the TV news reported. Now I question what they say. I lost my respect for Tom Brokaw this weekend when on Meet The Press he stated that Obama is going to have to deal with this 1.1T deficit, without saying that it had come down. Seemed very one sided the way he said it. I already do not like MTP, I just watch to see what others are saying. I think that the Dems on the show should be getting lessons from this blog and TRMS, because they are not bringing up points that the blog and RM have discussed.
We are Homer Simpson:
Woman: Another bag of potato chips, Mr. Talmidge?
Homer: Also, I think I'm getting a bed sore. What do you have to do to get turned round here (she begins turning him). Hey, what's Lucky hooked up to?
Woman: It's a respirator. It breathes for him.
Homer: And here I am using my own lungs like a sucker. And how come everyone has a bed pan and I have to walk all the way over there!
Woman: You mean there?
(the toilet is right next to him)
This statement from Willard is ridiculous. He took a bailout as head of the Olympic commission. He has bankrupted companies at Bain, took the tax breaks, shipped tax paying jobs overseas, and the fired employees unemployment had to be paid, as well as other benefits. Willard always lies when he cites the budget deficits under O. I guess lying doesn't matter to Willard; he doesn't embarrass himself to himself. Remember, the math does not lie, and Willard can't count........
CONTRAST CONTRAST!!
What is it going to take to get Obama to make a real CONTRAST between him and Romney and the Republican machine behind him. Doesn't Over 700,000 lost jobs a month to over 100,000 jobs gained a month enough or using more troops in hot war areas compared to using drones and having great success with them. Spending Billions more than the military wants and none of it being used for support and care for our troops who have come home and suffering the effects of war compared to the slimming down our military to a more efficient modern force with support and compassionate treatment of our courageous warriors coming home. Come on. Make the contrast so Americans can have a clear choice. PLEASE SHOW THE TRUE RESULTS!!!!
This is what the Republican machine produced in the 8 years prior to Obama.
These comments were taken from only one site in 2008. (CNN Money)
• Crude hit an all-time high of $147.27 a barrel
• Credit markets frozen
• General Motors (GM, Fortune 500) lost 31% Thursday and Ford Motor (F, Fortune 500) fell 21%. (That’s stock holder equity losses.)
• People who thought they had access to money didn't have money and they had to sell something," he said. "So it started with forced selling and it's turned into a panic
• S&P 500 down 41.9%.
• We are in a free fall right now" said Phil Orlando, chief equity market strategist at Federated Investors.
• Over the last seven sessions, the Dow has lost 2,271 points, or 20.1%. Since hitting an all-time high of 14,164.53 one year ago today, the Dow has lost 39.4%.
• Markets tanked Thursday - with the Dow falling nearly 700 points during the session - as panicked investors dumped stocks across the board.
• Ford cut its North American workforce by about 33,000 people and it’s share holders lost 48.4% of their equity. GM was worse.
What is it like today? What a CONTRAST right. Really!!!
The Dow Jones Industrial Average
October 9, 2007 - 14164 - New all time high on the Dow
July 2, 2008 - 11215 - Dow closes more than 20% below its Oct. 2007 high
March 9, 2009 - 6547 - Dow closes at post 1997 low - 53.8% below its Oct. 2007 high.
Oct. 11, 2012 - 13326 - TODAY
HELLO WAKE UP! I definitely do not want to go back.!!!
Yep, it's pretty frustrating to watch Democrats never point out the obvious in a clear fashion. It's really close to not taking your own side in a fight.
@Disgusted.. your posts above are good. But
"not taking your own side in fight."
is freaking great and dead on.
I'm not sure why it's so hard to show that the GOP just has a hard time with math. Is there any mathematical prediction put forth by the GOP that has turned out to be correct? Anything? The majority of voters remember Jan 20, 2001 to Jan 19, 2009, and it wasn't pretty. The GOP has tried their best to make -10+0=4 and then blame somebody else when the math doesn't work. Why anyone would want to hand the keys over to the architecht's largely responsible for the remnants of today's problems is beyond me. Quick analogy: If I'm sober, why would I let a drunk driver drive me home?
Re: fiscal cliff....Any chance we can change the term millionaires (when referring to taxing the wealthy) to monthly millionaires? I don't think the public at large really wants to mess with the poor millionaires. I have about one million $ worth of real estate (at least when things improve again), but I do not make a million dollars a month. This little change will help simplify things for the average Jane/Joe
I have a question for Gov. Romney which I hope someone asks him at a debate:
Gov. Romney, if polls are right and history is any lesson, what do you plan to do if the Democrats keep the Senate and win the House by a single seat, and then announce they won't do a single thing to let you pass a single bill, like Mitch McConnell and John Boehner and Eric Cantor vowed to do when the president took office in 2009? What is your plan to get anything done in Washington if the Democrats pull the same garbage of making you a one-term president by not allowing you any victory whatsoever in your first two years of office?
With all the possible questions Gov. Romney has prepared a memorized answer for, I'll bet this one eluded him.
Sorry but Mitt does not need to have a memorized answer, he just makes them up as he goes along. Mitt would say that President Obama would not work with the Congress. He would work with Congress and they would get things done.
If the liar gets caught in a lie or a uncomfortable question. You just keep lying, ignore the facts of the question and the sheep will believe you.
But, I do think it is a good question. If you read old books or letters in history, the public would not let people and politicians get away with lying. But then again, the could rely on the newspapers to print the truth.
"Thanks for asking. If that unlikely scenario plays out, I'll do what I did as governor, and seek common ground across the aisle. We all want the same thing... prosperity and growth. You all keep asking me for details, but then you challenge me to get anything done with the other party. That's called compromise. I know we haven't seen it in quite a while, but I'm certain we can remember again." - Hypothetical resonse by M.R.
What a bold-faced lie.. Deficit per year, in billions:
2002 - $157.8
2003 - $377.6
2004 - $413
2005 - $318
2006 - $248
2007 - $161
2008 - $459
2009 - $1413 (Obama was the president for 8 out of 12 months in fiscal year 2009. Obama's stimulus applies here in fiscal year 2009, so Rachel is lying about this being Bush's deficit)
2010 - $1294
2011 - $1299
2012 - $1100
Not only is she lying about 2009, she is also ignoring the fact that Obama has already in just 2010 and 2011 racked up more debt than Bush did in years 2001 - 2008.
Notice that in years 2002 - 2008 deficit averaged $305 billion (that's not counting the Clinton surplus from 2001). Now if we ignore the Bush/Obama year of 2009, Obama presidency has brought us and average deficit increase of $1,230 billion dollars per year for years 2010, 2011, and 2012.
Ever hear about "Identity Theft", it takes years and big bucks to get back to normal, GWB and Co. stole this countries credit card, and now we are paying for HIS THEFT!!!!
Are you blind to the facts?
2002-2008 (Bush) - Average deficit 305 billion per year
2010-2012 (Obama) - Average Deficit of 1,230 billion - four times higher than Bush.
The budget for 2009 would have been passed in 2008. Fiscal year 2009 started Oct. 1 2008 and ended Sept. 30 2009.
So the deficit was created under Bush along with putting 2 wars on credit cards and the worst financial collapse since the Great Depression.
The deficit carries over, Obama did not create the deficit.
These are facts.
Sure it carries over.. but the point is, before the 2008 financial crisis, Bush deficit never went above $459 billion per year, and averaged $305 billion for years 2002-2008.
On the other hand Obama has spent over a $1,000 billion (2010 -1.3 trillion, 2011- 1.1 trillion, and 2012 - 1.1 trillion) on that proverbial credit card every year he has been President.
Sahil,
Did see the link below that The Other Jim has in #16.1?
This information from the treasury is not matching up with your numbers.
Where did you get your numbers?
Just looking for correct information, thanks.
I see the difference you are talking about. I got my numbers off of http://www.davemanuel.com/history-of-deficits-and-surpluses-in-the-united-states.php
I guess I could have looked for a more legit source, but his charts looked very neat. Perhaps one talks about federal spending debt and other total debt? Not exactly 100% on this now.
I never thought we had a 1.9 trillion deficit, and according to the 16.1 link that's what we got in Fiscal year 2009. But according to http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/federal_deficit_chart.html the 2009 deficit spending was 1.4 trillion - just as I posted in my original comment.
It has to be some terminology difference there - different numbers included and excluded..
But my original point is that it's silly to make a chart that shows only 2009 deficit spending as the benchmark, when that deficit is two to three times higher than just a couple years before and included emergency spending for the financial crisis.
The "great deficit cutting," that this blog post tries to spin, is actually deficit spending that is way higher than it has ever been in years prior..
Found a gov source with figures closer to mine (actually identical to my numbers, so this must have been the source for the website that I got it from):
2001 128,236 (surplus)
2002 -157,758
2003 -377,585
2004 -412,727
2005 -318,346
2006 -248,181
2007 -160,701
2008 -458,553
2009 -1,412,688
2010 -1,293,489
2011 -1,299,595
2012 -1,326,948
http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/Historicals - Table 1.1
Mitt Romney and "His" own this country, now he is just trying to make it legitimate,,,
mr. robert gibbs, need you to be explaining stuff. as soon he started talking, i lost the nice and simple reason you gave about the deceit. i am a dem. lord help us if we do not do a better job for voters. why is it so hard to tell the facts. forget about the spin
I just -- laboriously, I should mention -- ran the numbers, going back to Eisenhower, on the year-to-year deficit. Yes, it has been decreasing under Obama, and it also decreased under Bill Clinton, as determined by the annual deficit during the first and last years of each term. The last Republican president to achieve a decrease in the annual deficit during his term? Dwight D. Eisenhower.
Could we maybe, pretty please, start mentioning things like this? I think Americans understand arithmetic.
hmmmm....budget was balanced under clinton a couple of years ago. we went under with bush, but obama has...what....quadrupled what we owe? he spent nearly a trillion of OUR dollars the day he got in office. stimulus didn't do jack Sh$t
Um... no. At least, not in the world of actual numbers. Perhaps in the world of Fox News numbers, but those are primarily made up.
Look, these are modern times. Information can be had at the click of a button. Go to the Treasury Dept (http://goo.gl/bpLCn) and do just a tiny bit of research. Please. If you're making decisions based on information you're getting from Uncle Norman, who misunderstood something that Sean Hannity (who got it entirely wrong) said on a show, we're in big trouble. The truth is out there, and it doesn't come via e-mail messages in ALL CAPS.
President Obama was constrained by the tax cuts that Bush enacted, a couple of wars, an unpaid-for Medicare benefit, and the recession, which dramatically cut into government receipts. The stimulus, which cost quite a bit less than a trillion dollars, worked as well as a stimulus that small could have worked. (And, to cut Obama some slack, the information at the time severely underestimated the true depth of the recession.) Again, you have to do actual research, using reputable sources, to get this information.
Wait til we set up all these Travel Aide stations across the NATIO for these illiegal immigrants. " Yes sir, will that be two tickets to Europe. Sorry you didn't like your treatment while here in AMERICA. By the way coould you leave a couple of bucks in the jar, We are having some problems withthe airlines and paying for your trip. Next time enter the country through the New Ellis island in the "New" New York and you can stay longer. Don't forget to fill out the questionaire, so that we can make it worse for anyone left. Sweet Jesus, I think i fell asleep on the MAR's lander.....I do believe in Ghost,
I do believe in ghost, I do, I do I do God Bless you Everyone.
So let me get this straight, after Maddow blasts Romney's "6 studies" for using a right-leaning blog post, she uses a post from her OWN blog as a credible source for deficit reduction. And I don't think I'd be stretching truth if I called this a left-leaning blog.
I'm a democrat and I'm absolutely voting for Obama, but this is ridiculous. Hypocrisy much?
These are deficit numbers from FY2009 - FY2013
The deficit has gone down dramatically - a faster reduction than any time (in nominal or adjusted dollars) in United States history, in sharp contrast to the right wing lie that Obama tripled the deficit.
FY2009 $1413 Billion Deficit (1.2 trillion, or 85% of this deficit is Bush)
FY2010 $1294 Billion Deficit
FY2011 $1299 Billion Deficit
FY2012 $1100 Billion Deficit
FY2012 just ended at 1.1 trillion. Obama has reduced the deficit by $313 Billion in 4 years, or $409 Billiion inflation adjusted.
Clinton's first four years the deficit was reduced by $181 Billion, or $283 Billion inflation adjusted.
Clinton's second four years, we saw surpluses, ending at $236.4, an increase of $258.4 billion, or $346 Billion inflation adjusted.
Obama's deficit reduction is even faster than Clinton's, no matter which four years of Clinton you look at.
duplicate
PLEASE SPECIFY THE UNITS USED! Sure, I can read the article here and figure out that it's billions of dollars, but it makes this difficult for me to share with others. Additionally, most people will see this on the Maddow show and at maddowblog.com/thanksgiving, where there is no article to read. I'm afraid this isn't the first time I've seen a graph without units on the show. Don't make me shake my math-teacher finger at you. :-)
Agreed. It should be possible to demo the graph sans the article. But this would also require it to include reference to the source of the data. Yes, in the current context these two pieces of info would be redundant. But that's a small price to pay for a broader efficacy.
Also, and seriously, please-please-please provide a print button/link so that your articles can be printed without all the ads.
Oh, and finally, I thought up the term televangerism.