November 14, 2011
A front page Washington Post article told readers:
“Analysts, however, said the United States could risk another downgrade of its credit rating and do further damage to business and consumer confidence if the supercommittee process implodes in a chaotic display of partisan rancor — for example, if a deal is approved by the supercommittee but is killed on the House floor. And analysts are deeply concerned that lawmakers could ‘de-trigger’ the automatic cuts, undoing even the modest steps Congress has so far taken to tame the soaring debt.”
It would be interesting to know who these analysts are so that readers could know if these are the same people who could not see the $8 trillion housing bubble that collapsed and wrecked the economy. It would be also worth knowing if these analysts were among the group who claimed two years ago that large deficits would send interest rates on Treasury bonds soaring. Readers should be told if the experts whom the Post relies upon for its stories are primarily known for their misunderstanding of the economy.
The piece also includes the unsupported assertion that:
“the numbers obscure a larger ideological divide. Democrats are willing to trim spending on health and retirement programs in exchange for an overhaul of the tax code that would generate significantly more revenue, with most of the burden borne by the nation’s wealthiest households.
“Republicans want to overhaul the tax code but lower the top rate from 35 percent to 28 percent and leave preferential rates untouched for capital gains and dividends. Roberton Williams, a senior fellow at the nonpartisan Tax Policy Center, said that approach would almost certainly guarantee lower taxes for the wealthy.”
There is no evidence whatsoever in this statement or elsewhere in the article of any ideological divide. The evidence is that the Republicans are more directly responsive to the demands of the wealthy whereas Democrats feel the need to also be responsive the interests of other segments of the population. If there are ideological issues here, the piece offers no insight as to what they might be.
Comments