The Washington Post used a headline to help conceal the efforts of Republicans to cut Social Security and Medicare, telling readers that:
“some in GOP urge lawmakers to back tax hikes for changes in safety-net programs.”
Of course the Republicans actually want cuts to these programs, not random changes. The piece itself also refers to “changes” in these programs. Newspapers are supposed to be trying to inform readers of what politicians are doing, not helping them advance an unpopular agenda (polls consistently show that cuts to these programs are even opposed by the vast majority of Republicans) by concealing its impact from readers.
The piece also failed to point out that several of the statements from Republicans quoted in the article did not make sense. For example, it quotes David Camp, the chairman of the Ways and Means Committee telling readers:
“But House Ways and Means Committee Chairman Dave Camp (R-Mich.) said he was reluctant to draft such a plan unless the White House agreed to a tax-revenue target well below the $1.6 trillion Obama has demanded over the next decade.
“‘Despite dancing in the end zone, which he’s doing, he keeps moving the goal posts. His revenue number keeps changing,’ Camp said. ‘There is a point that the economy can only sustain so much revenue being taken out of it.'”
It would have been worth pointing out to readers that President Obama has not moved the goal post one iota. The deficit reduction proposal put forward by Morgan Stanley director Erskine Bowles and former Senator Alan Simpson, the co-chairs of President Obama’s deficit commission, called for $1.8 trillion in additional revenue. (It assumes a return to the Clinton era tax rates as part of its baseline and then added on $1 trillion in revenue over a decade.)
This report was widely praised by many Republicans at the time and continues to be praised by many Republicans even now. This means that when Mr. Camp accuses President Obama of moving the goal posts, the chairman of the Ways and Means committee is either completely ignorant of the budget debate that has taken place over the last two years or is not being honest. Since many readers may be less familiar with the history of the budget debate it would have been useful to point out this fact in the article.
The piece also includes a misleading quote from Rep. Thomas J. Rooney (R-Fla.):
“If there are truly real entitlement reforms that are going to preserve Social Security and Medicare for generations to come, it’s going to be very difficult for me to oppose” higher rates for the rich.”
Actually, if nothing is done the Congressional Budget Office projects that Social Security can pay full scheduled benefits through the year 2034 and close to 80 percent of scheduled benefits for the rest of the century. Most Republican plans would cut Social Security payments by a comparable or larger amount so it is difficult to know what Mr. Rooney means by “preserve” in this context.
In the case of Medicare, the program is projected to be able to pay full benefits through the year 2024. The cost controls put in place by the Affordable Care Act pushed this date out from 2016 and reduced the long-term projected shortfall by more than two-thirds. This would have been helpful information to provide to readers.
Correction: An earlier version put the date when CBO projects that Social Security will first face a shortfall as 2035. Thanks to Robert Salzberg for calling this to my attention.
The Washington Post used a headline to help conceal the efforts of Republicans to cut Social Security and Medicare, telling readers that:
“some in GOP urge lawmakers to back tax hikes for changes in safety-net programs.”
Of course the Republicans actually want cuts to these programs, not random changes. The piece itself also refers to “changes” in these programs. Newspapers are supposed to be trying to inform readers of what politicians are doing, not helping them advance an unpopular agenda (polls consistently show that cuts to these programs are even opposed by the vast majority of Republicans) by concealing its impact from readers.
The piece also failed to point out that several of the statements from Republicans quoted in the article did not make sense. For example, it quotes David Camp, the chairman of the Ways and Means Committee telling readers:
“But House Ways and Means Committee Chairman Dave Camp (R-Mich.) said he was reluctant to draft such a plan unless the White House agreed to a tax-revenue target well below the $1.6 trillion Obama has demanded over the next decade.
“‘Despite dancing in the end zone, which he’s doing, he keeps moving the goal posts. His revenue number keeps changing,’ Camp said. ‘There is a point that the economy can only sustain so much revenue being taken out of it.'”
It would have been worth pointing out to readers that President Obama has not moved the goal post one iota. The deficit reduction proposal put forward by Morgan Stanley director Erskine Bowles and former Senator Alan Simpson, the co-chairs of President Obama’s deficit commission, called for $1.8 trillion in additional revenue. (It assumes a return to the Clinton era tax rates as part of its baseline and then added on $1 trillion in revenue over a decade.)
This report was widely praised by many Republicans at the time and continues to be praised by many Republicans even now. This means that when Mr. Camp accuses President Obama of moving the goal posts, the chairman of the Ways and Means committee is either completely ignorant of the budget debate that has taken place over the last two years or is not being honest. Since many readers may be less familiar with the history of the budget debate it would have been useful to point out this fact in the article.
The piece also includes a misleading quote from Rep. Thomas J. Rooney (R-Fla.):
“If there are truly real entitlement reforms that are going to preserve Social Security and Medicare for generations to come, it’s going to be very difficult for me to oppose” higher rates for the rich.”
Actually, if nothing is done the Congressional Budget Office projects that Social Security can pay full scheduled benefits through the year 2034 and close to 80 percent of scheduled benefits for the rest of the century. Most Republican plans would cut Social Security payments by a comparable or larger amount so it is difficult to know what Mr. Rooney means by “preserve” in this context.
In the case of Medicare, the program is projected to be able to pay full benefits through the year 2024. The cost controls put in place by the Affordable Care Act pushed this date out from 2016 and reduced the long-term projected shortfall by more than two-thirds. This would have been helpful information to provide to readers.
Correction: An earlier version put the date when CBO projects that Social Security will first face a shortfall as 2035. Thanks to Robert Salzberg for calling this to my attention.
Read More Leer más Join the discussion Participa en la discusión
Fans of reality will note that the immediate threat to the economy is the prospect of a sharp increase in taxes and cut in spending that will begin in the new year. How does this look like a “debt crisis?”A debt crisis is when no investors will buy your debt.
The Post has to tone down the scare tactics in its push to cut Social Security and Medicare. It’s slipping behind Fox News and the National Inquirer in the credibility category.
[Thanks to Michael Cushman for calling my attention to this one.]
Fans of reality will note that the immediate threat to the economy is the prospect of a sharp increase in taxes and cut in spending that will begin in the new year. How does this look like a “debt crisis?”A debt crisis is when no investors will buy your debt.
The Post has to tone down the scare tactics in its push to cut Social Security and Medicare. It’s slipping behind Fox News and the National Inquirer in the credibility category.
[Thanks to Michael Cushman for calling my attention to this one.]
Read More Leer más Join the discussion Participa en la discusión
The Washington Post is notorious for getting numbers terribly wrong when it comes to trade. It once ran a lead editorial touting the wonders of NAFTA that claimed Mexico’s GDP had quadrupled from 1987 to 2007. According to the IMF the number was 83 percent. But the Post is willing to toss numbers, logic, and arithmetic to the wind when it comes to pushing the trade agreements that have been on the political agenda in recent years.
Hence we have Post columnist David Ignatius telling us this morning that:
“What’s appealing in particular about the trans-Atlantic initiative [a Europe-U.S. trade agreement] is that it could be a big job creator for economies on both continents that are still recovering from the effects of the recession. …
“I like the idea of an “economic NATO” because it addresses fiscal problems through growth and expansion. The alternative “austerity pill” advocated by conservative Germans (and some American budget-cutters) is doomed to fail. Big, new spending initiatives are not a realistic growth strategy, either, given debt worries on both continents. To many economists, it’s a no-brainer: Expanded trade offers the best path to new jobs, markets and investment opportunities.”
There we go, we can cut the deficit and still produce jobs because of the wonders of increased trade.
Sounds great, let’s check the numbers.
Later in the piece Ignatius tells us about a study that projects that a 50 percent reduction in non-tariff barriers (an ambitious target) would produce gains for the U.S. of $53 billion annually. Abolishing all tariffs would increase annual GDP by $82 billion. This gives us a total gain in GDP of $135 billion, a bit less than 0.9 percent of GDP. Note that this is likely an overstatement of actual gains because we will probably not reach these targets. Also the spending on adjustment measures, which accompany almost every trade agreement, would subtract from these projected gains.
But let’s just take Igantius’ gain of 0.9 percent of GDP at face value. If there is good progress and a deal is concluded relatively quickly, the changes will likely be phased in over a period of time, with the projected gains lagging the reduction in tariff and non-tariff barriers as the economy takes time to respond. Let’s assume the whole process takes ten years. This means that Ignatius’ trade deal will increase growth over the next decade by an average of 0.09 percent a year.
While it would be nice to see this boost to growth, that is not really important enough to change anyone’s forecasts. In fact, even in retrospect we can’t even estimate GDP growth to this degree of accuracy. By comparison, the Congressional Budget Office’s projections show that the tax increases and spending cuts associated with the end of year fiscal dispute will reduce GDP by close to 4.0 percent, or roughly 40 times the impact of Ignatius’s trade deal.
In short, the potential gains from these sorts of trade deals are swamped by the macroeconomic impact of the budget. It is unfortunate that Ignatius and his friends at the Post may not like budget deficits as a way of boosting demand, but they are not even in the right ballpark when they are talking about their latest trade deal.
Of course this does not mean that a Europe-U.S. trade deal would be a bad idea. If trade could bring the pay of U.S. doctors down to European levels (@$100,000 a year as opposed to $250,000 a year) it would save us close to $100 billion annually on our health care bill. The gains might be 2 or 3 times as large if lawyers, dentists and other highly paid professionals were also subjected to international competition. Unfortunately, our trade policy is so dominated by protectionists that it is unlikely that reducing protection for these professionals will even be on the agenda.
Anyhow, if the editors at the Post had any knowledge of arithmetic they would not allow a column that suggested that the modest potential gains from a trade agreement were a substitute for macroeconomic stimulus. But hey, it’s the Post.
The Washington Post is notorious for getting numbers terribly wrong when it comes to trade. It once ran a lead editorial touting the wonders of NAFTA that claimed Mexico’s GDP had quadrupled from 1987 to 2007. According to the IMF the number was 83 percent. But the Post is willing to toss numbers, logic, and arithmetic to the wind when it comes to pushing the trade agreements that have been on the political agenda in recent years.
Hence we have Post columnist David Ignatius telling us this morning that:
“What’s appealing in particular about the trans-Atlantic initiative [a Europe-U.S. trade agreement] is that it could be a big job creator for economies on both continents that are still recovering from the effects of the recession. …
“I like the idea of an “economic NATO” because it addresses fiscal problems through growth and expansion. The alternative “austerity pill” advocated by conservative Germans (and some American budget-cutters) is doomed to fail. Big, new spending initiatives are not a realistic growth strategy, either, given debt worries on both continents. To many economists, it’s a no-brainer: Expanded trade offers the best path to new jobs, markets and investment opportunities.”
There we go, we can cut the deficit and still produce jobs because of the wonders of increased trade.
Sounds great, let’s check the numbers.
Later in the piece Ignatius tells us about a study that projects that a 50 percent reduction in non-tariff barriers (an ambitious target) would produce gains for the U.S. of $53 billion annually. Abolishing all tariffs would increase annual GDP by $82 billion. This gives us a total gain in GDP of $135 billion, a bit less than 0.9 percent of GDP. Note that this is likely an overstatement of actual gains because we will probably not reach these targets. Also the spending on adjustment measures, which accompany almost every trade agreement, would subtract from these projected gains.
But let’s just take Igantius’ gain of 0.9 percent of GDP at face value. If there is good progress and a deal is concluded relatively quickly, the changes will likely be phased in over a period of time, with the projected gains lagging the reduction in tariff and non-tariff barriers as the economy takes time to respond. Let’s assume the whole process takes ten years. This means that Ignatius’ trade deal will increase growth over the next decade by an average of 0.09 percent a year.
While it would be nice to see this boost to growth, that is not really important enough to change anyone’s forecasts. In fact, even in retrospect we can’t even estimate GDP growth to this degree of accuracy. By comparison, the Congressional Budget Office’s projections show that the tax increases and spending cuts associated with the end of year fiscal dispute will reduce GDP by close to 4.0 percent, or roughly 40 times the impact of Ignatius’s trade deal.
In short, the potential gains from these sorts of trade deals are swamped by the macroeconomic impact of the budget. It is unfortunate that Ignatius and his friends at the Post may not like budget deficits as a way of boosting demand, but they are not even in the right ballpark when they are talking about their latest trade deal.
Of course this does not mean that a Europe-U.S. trade deal would be a bad idea. If trade could bring the pay of U.S. doctors down to European levels (@$100,000 a year as opposed to $250,000 a year) it would save us close to $100 billion annually on our health care bill. The gains might be 2 or 3 times as large if lawyers, dentists and other highly paid professionals were also subjected to international competition. Unfortunately, our trade policy is so dominated by protectionists that it is unlikely that reducing protection for these professionals will even be on the agenda.
Anyhow, if the editors at the Post had any knowledge of arithmetic they would not allow a column that suggested that the modest potential gains from a trade agreement were a substitute for macroeconomic stimulus. But hey, it’s the Post.
Read More Leer más Join the discussion Participa en la discusión
Politicians often try to obscure unpopular proposals in euphemisms. Reporters are not supposed to help them in this effort.
The NYT failed badly in this respect when it told readers:
“Republicans would demand deep concessions on spending and changes to Medicare and Social Security as a price to raise the debt ceiling a few weeks later.”
Of course the Republicans are pushing for cuts to Medicare and Social Security, not generic “changes.” They want the government to pay less money and for beneficiaries to get less money. The NYT should be pointing out this fact, not helping Republicans to conceal an agenda that polls consistently show is hugely unpopular even among Republican voters.
The piece also likely confused readers when it told readers that if Congress takes no action on the estate tax:
“estate taxes would rise to Clinton-era levels, with inheritances over $1 million taxed at 55 percent.”
The 55 percent tax rate would only apply to the portion of the estate over $1 million. The vast majority of estates that would be subject to this tax would only be slightly over $1 million, which would mean that even if nothing is done, the amount of tax liability they would face would be quite limited. Since most people have difficulty understanding the concept of a marginal tax rate, it is likely that many readers would think that the whole estate would be taxed at this 55 percent rate if they exceeded $1 million.
Politicians often try to obscure unpopular proposals in euphemisms. Reporters are not supposed to help them in this effort.
The NYT failed badly in this respect when it told readers:
“Republicans would demand deep concessions on spending and changes to Medicare and Social Security as a price to raise the debt ceiling a few weeks later.”
Of course the Republicans are pushing for cuts to Medicare and Social Security, not generic “changes.” They want the government to pay less money and for beneficiaries to get less money. The NYT should be pointing out this fact, not helping Republicans to conceal an agenda that polls consistently show is hugely unpopular even among Republican voters.
The piece also likely confused readers when it told readers that if Congress takes no action on the estate tax:
“estate taxes would rise to Clinton-era levels, with inheritances over $1 million taxed at 55 percent.”
The 55 percent tax rate would only apply to the portion of the estate over $1 million. The vast majority of estates that would be subject to this tax would only be slightly over $1 million, which would mean that even if nothing is done, the amount of tax liability they would face would be quite limited. Since most people have difficulty understanding the concept of a marginal tax rate, it is likely that many readers would think that the whole estate would be taxed at this 55 percent rate if they exceeded $1 million.
Read More Leer más Join the discussion Participa en la discusión
The NYT’s reporting on the finances of public pensions has been extremely partisan, giving extensive coverage to those who want to exaggerate the funds’ liabilities (e.g. here and here). It continued in this vein today when it made a big issue of an alleged conflict of interest of a Rhode Island judge in a case involving Rhode Island’s pension systems.
The alleged conflict is that the judge has several close relatives including her mother and son, who would potentially be affected by cuts to the state’s pensions. While it is understandable that opponents of public sector pensions would make such arguments, it is routine for judges to rule in cases where they have comparable or larger conflicts of interests. For example, if a judge was ruling on eminent domain (the ability of the government to seize property without the consent of the property owner) or on the issue of uncompensated takings (measures that reduce the value of property, such as building restrictions), any judge who owned property would have a direct stake in the outcome.
According to the standard that makes the headline in this article, the conflict would be an issue if the judge had close family members who were property owners. Such alleged conflicts are usually not cause for major articles in the NYT.
The NYT’s reporting on the finances of public pensions has been extremely partisan, giving extensive coverage to those who want to exaggerate the funds’ liabilities (e.g. here and here). It continued in this vein today when it made a big issue of an alleged conflict of interest of a Rhode Island judge in a case involving Rhode Island’s pension systems.
The alleged conflict is that the judge has several close relatives including her mother and son, who would potentially be affected by cuts to the state’s pensions. While it is understandable that opponents of public sector pensions would make such arguments, it is routine for judges to rule in cases where they have comparable or larger conflicts of interests. For example, if a judge was ruling on eminent domain (the ability of the government to seize property without the consent of the property owner) or on the issue of uncompensated takings (measures that reduce the value of property, such as building restrictions), any judge who owned property would have a direct stake in the outcome.
According to the standard that makes the headline in this article, the conflict would be an issue if the judge had close family members who were property owners. Such alleged conflicts are usually not cause for major articles in the NYT.
Read More Leer más Join the discussion Participa en la discusión
Eduardo Porter had a good piece on the plight of low-wage workers and their efforts to organize with unions. He points out that these workers now receive substantial subsidies from the government (e.g. food stamps) because their pay is low.
Eduardo Porter had a good piece on the plight of low-wage workers and their efforts to organize with unions. He points out that these workers now receive substantial subsidies from the government (e.g. food stamps) because their pay is low.
Read More Leer más Join the discussion Participa en la discusión
The NYT had an interesting blog post on the increase in the number of jobs that require college degrees told readers that, “the wage gap between the typical college graduate and those who have completed no more than high school has been growing for the last few decades.”
This is somewhat misleading, as shown in the charts in the source linked to in the piece. The premium for people with just a college degree, compared to those without a college degree, has been almost flat for two decades. Almost all of the increase in the gap during this period has been due to wage growth for those with advanced degrees.
The NYT had an interesting blog post on the increase in the number of jobs that require college degrees told readers that, “the wage gap between the typical college graduate and those who have completed no more than high school has been growing for the last few decades.”
This is somewhat misleading, as shown in the charts in the source linked to in the piece. The premium for people with just a college degree, compared to those without a college degree, has been almost flat for two decades. Almost all of the increase in the gap during this period has been due to wage growth for those with advanced degrees.
Read More Leer más Join the discussion Participa en la discusión
It’s fascinating to read David Brooks’ column today. He boldly argues that Republicans:
“have to acknowledge how badly things are stacked against them. Polls show that large majorities of Americans are inclined to blame Republicans if the country goes off the ‘fiscal cliff.’ The business community, which needs a deal to boost confidence, will turn against them. The national security types and the defense contractors, who hate the prospect of sequestration, will turn against them.
“Moreover a budget stalemate on these terms will confirm every bad Republican stereotype. Republicans will be raising middle-class taxes in order to serve the rich — shafting Sam’s Club to benefit the country club. If Republicans do this, they might as well get Mitt Romney’s “47 percent” comments printed on T-shirts and wear them for the rest of their lives.”
Recognizing their weak position, he says that Republicans should be prepared to allow the top tax rate to rise to 36 or even 37 percent, but in exchange:
“Republicans should also ask for some medium-size entitlement cuts as part of the fiscal cliff down payment. These could fit within the framework Speaker John Boehner sketched out Monday afternoon: chaining Social Security cost-of-living increases to price inflation and increasing the Medicare Part B premium to 35 percent of costs.”
Excuse me, but what planet is David Brooks on? This would be comparable to Japan asking for Hawaii and parts of California as it was negotiating its surrender in World War II.
If nothing happens right now, the top tax rate goes to 39.6 percent on January 1, 2013. Let’s say that again just in case David Brooks is reading. If nothing happens right now, the top tax rate goes to 39.6 percent on January 1, 2013. There is nothing that John Boehner and the Republicans can do to stop this.
Furthermore, President Obama has a mandate to raise the top tax rate to 39.6 percent. Brooks probably missed this, but we just had a lengthy election campaign where taxes on the rich were the central issue. President Obama won.
Incredibly, Brooks’ proposal for “medium size entitlement cuts” would take a much bigger bite out of the income of retirees than his bold concessions on taxes would take out of the income of the rich. The cut to the cost of living adjustment would reduce lifetime benefits of seniors by around 3 percent. For the third of retirees that rely on Social Security for more than 90 percent of their income, this would be a cut in their income more than 2.5 percent.
In addition, Brooks wants to raise Medicare Part B premiums by 10 percentage points of the total cost from 25 percent to 35 percent. With the per person cost projected to average almost $6,000 a year over the next decade, this “medium size entitlement reform” would raise the cost to seniors by $600 a year. This is equal to 3 percent of the income of a senior with an income of $20,000, a figure that is somewhat higher than the median for people over the age of 65.
So Brooks is looking to cut the income net of Medicare expenses for the bottom half of Social Security and Medicare beneficiaries by almost 6 percent. And, his tax increases?
We don’t know exactly how Brooks would change the tax schedules, but let’s assume that the 35 percent bracket goes to 37 percent, Brooks’ higher number. And we’ll raise the 33 percent bracket to 35 percent. For a couple earning $500,000 a year, this would imply an increase in taxes of roughly $7,600 a year or 1.5 percent of their income.
So Brooks is proposing that as a starting offer (he wants bigger cuts on the table in the year ahead) moderate income seniors will see their income drop by 6 percent due to cuts in Social Security and Medicare, while the wealthy will see their income fall by 1.5 percent from tax increases. It’s interesting to think about what he would suggest putting on the table if the Republicans had won the election.
It’s fascinating to read David Brooks’ column today. He boldly argues that Republicans:
“have to acknowledge how badly things are stacked against them. Polls show that large majorities of Americans are inclined to blame Republicans if the country goes off the ‘fiscal cliff.’ The business community, which needs a deal to boost confidence, will turn against them. The national security types and the defense contractors, who hate the prospect of sequestration, will turn against them.
“Moreover a budget stalemate on these terms will confirm every bad Republican stereotype. Republicans will be raising middle-class taxes in order to serve the rich — shafting Sam’s Club to benefit the country club. If Republicans do this, they might as well get Mitt Romney’s “47 percent” comments printed on T-shirts and wear them for the rest of their lives.”
Recognizing their weak position, he says that Republicans should be prepared to allow the top tax rate to rise to 36 or even 37 percent, but in exchange:
“Republicans should also ask for some medium-size entitlement cuts as part of the fiscal cliff down payment. These could fit within the framework Speaker John Boehner sketched out Monday afternoon: chaining Social Security cost-of-living increases to price inflation and increasing the Medicare Part B premium to 35 percent of costs.”
Excuse me, but what planet is David Brooks on? This would be comparable to Japan asking for Hawaii and parts of California as it was negotiating its surrender in World War II.
If nothing happens right now, the top tax rate goes to 39.6 percent on January 1, 2013. Let’s say that again just in case David Brooks is reading. If nothing happens right now, the top tax rate goes to 39.6 percent on January 1, 2013. There is nothing that John Boehner and the Republicans can do to stop this.
Furthermore, President Obama has a mandate to raise the top tax rate to 39.6 percent. Brooks probably missed this, but we just had a lengthy election campaign where taxes on the rich were the central issue. President Obama won.
Incredibly, Brooks’ proposal for “medium size entitlement cuts” would take a much bigger bite out of the income of retirees than his bold concessions on taxes would take out of the income of the rich. The cut to the cost of living adjustment would reduce lifetime benefits of seniors by around 3 percent. For the third of retirees that rely on Social Security for more than 90 percent of their income, this would be a cut in their income more than 2.5 percent.
In addition, Brooks wants to raise Medicare Part B premiums by 10 percentage points of the total cost from 25 percent to 35 percent. With the per person cost projected to average almost $6,000 a year over the next decade, this “medium size entitlement reform” would raise the cost to seniors by $600 a year. This is equal to 3 percent of the income of a senior with an income of $20,000, a figure that is somewhat higher than the median for people over the age of 65.
So Brooks is looking to cut the income net of Medicare expenses for the bottom half of Social Security and Medicare beneficiaries by almost 6 percent. And, his tax increases?
We don’t know exactly how Brooks would change the tax schedules, but let’s assume that the 35 percent bracket goes to 37 percent, Brooks’ higher number. And we’ll raise the 33 percent bracket to 35 percent. For a couple earning $500,000 a year, this would imply an increase in taxes of roughly $7,600 a year or 1.5 percent of their income.
So Brooks is proposing that as a starting offer (he wants bigger cuts on the table in the year ahead) moderate income seniors will see their income drop by 6 percent due to cuts in Social Security and Medicare, while the wealthy will see their income fall by 1.5 percent from tax increases. It’s interesting to think about what he would suggest putting on the table if the Republicans had won the election.
Read More Leer más Join the discussion Participa en la discusión
While it apparently is news to the Washington Post, those who follow politics realize that politicians are not always completely honest in their public statements. That is why it is important never to take what they say entirely face value.
For this reason the Washington Post erred when it reported in a front page story that:
“Republicans were outraged by the president’s proposal [on the budget], calling it a step backward.”
In fact, the Post has no way of knowing whether the Republicans were in fact outraged. It of course helps the Republican’s position enormously to imply that President Obama’s proposal was in fact outrageous. The Post simply should have reported the Republicans claim that they were outraged (e.g. “Republicans claimed to have been outraged by the president’s proposal).
The piece then continues its reporting from the Republican perspective:
“On Monday, Boehner referred to it as the president’s ‘la-la-land offer.’
‘We could have responded in kind, but we decided not to do that,’ Boehner told reporters.
“Instead, Boehner began last week rallying top Republicans around the Bowles framework, which was presented in November 2011 to a special deficit- reduction “supercommittee” of Congress.”
The Post’s discussion implies the Boehner responded to President Obama’s proposal with a compromise position that was reasonable, in contrast to the unreasonable proposal that the president had put on the table. This sort of editorializing is supposed to be left to the opinion sections.
While it apparently is news to the Washington Post, those who follow politics realize that politicians are not always completely honest in their public statements. That is why it is important never to take what they say entirely face value.
For this reason the Washington Post erred when it reported in a front page story that:
“Republicans were outraged by the president’s proposal [on the budget], calling it a step backward.”
In fact, the Post has no way of knowing whether the Republicans were in fact outraged. It of course helps the Republican’s position enormously to imply that President Obama’s proposal was in fact outrageous. The Post simply should have reported the Republicans claim that they were outraged (e.g. “Republicans claimed to have been outraged by the president’s proposal).
The piece then continues its reporting from the Republican perspective:
“On Monday, Boehner referred to it as the president’s ‘la-la-land offer.’
‘We could have responded in kind, but we decided not to do that,’ Boehner told reporters.
“Instead, Boehner began last week rallying top Republicans around the Bowles framework, which was presented in November 2011 to a special deficit- reduction “supercommittee” of Congress.”
The Post’s discussion implies the Boehner responded to President Obama’s proposal with a compromise position that was reasonable, in contrast to the unreasonable proposal that the president had put on the table. This sort of editorializing is supposed to be left to the opinion sections.
Read More Leer más Join the discussion Participa en la discusión
The Washington Post, along with the other Serious People in Washington, is engaged in a full court press to cut Social Security and Medicare. It is prepared to use all the resources of the newspaper to accomplish this end, even if this means ignoring normal journalistic standards.
This explains its front page attack on AARP over its opposition to cuts to Medicare and Social Security. The piece tells readers that AARP, because of its marketing of Medigap insurance, has a conflict of interest in this debate. The argument is that if the age of eligibility for Medicare is raised from 65 to 67, fewer people would qualify for Medicare and therefore fewer people would be able to purchase AARP’s Medigap insurance.
The idea that this presents a conflict of interest for an organization that first and foremost is supposed to be committed to protecting the interest of older people is absurd on its face. Polls consistently show that raising the age of eligibility for Medicare is enormously unpopular. It is especially unpopular for the age groups that comprise AARP’s membership. This is clearly a phony scandal concocted by the Post to punish AARP for opposing its efforts to cut Social Security and Medicare.
It is striking that the financial interests of others involved in this debate are never mentioned in news stories. For example, the Post never mentions that Erskine Bowles has received hundreds of thousands of dollars as a director of Morgan Stanley, the Wall Street investment bank. This could help to explain why proposals to impose a financial speculation tax have never been included in any of the deficit reduction packages that he has put forward.
The Washington Post, along with the other Serious People in Washington, is engaged in a full court press to cut Social Security and Medicare. It is prepared to use all the resources of the newspaper to accomplish this end, even if this means ignoring normal journalistic standards.
This explains its front page attack on AARP over its opposition to cuts to Medicare and Social Security. The piece tells readers that AARP, because of its marketing of Medigap insurance, has a conflict of interest in this debate. The argument is that if the age of eligibility for Medicare is raised from 65 to 67, fewer people would qualify for Medicare and therefore fewer people would be able to purchase AARP’s Medigap insurance.
The idea that this presents a conflict of interest for an organization that first and foremost is supposed to be committed to protecting the interest of older people is absurd on its face. Polls consistently show that raising the age of eligibility for Medicare is enormously unpopular. It is especially unpopular for the age groups that comprise AARP’s membership. This is clearly a phony scandal concocted by the Post to punish AARP for opposing its efforts to cut Social Security and Medicare.
It is striking that the financial interests of others involved in this debate are never mentioned in news stories. For example, the Post never mentions that Erskine Bowles has received hundreds of thousands of dollars as a director of Morgan Stanley, the Wall Street investment bank. This could help to explain why proposals to impose a financial speculation tax have never been included in any of the deficit reduction packages that he has put forward.
Read More Leer más Join the discussion Participa en la discusión
