
Point. Click. Search.
Contents:
Archives:
2011,
2010,
2009,
2008,
2007,
2006,
2005,
2004,
2003,
2002,
2001,
2000,
1999,
1998
|

by Bob Somerby
bobsomerby@hotmail.com
E-mail This Page

A companion site.
|
|
Site maintained by Allegro Web Communications, comments to
Marc. |
|
|  |
Caveat lector
 | RUSH AND SEANS EXCELLENT NONSENSE! Why must Dems craft a Rush-of-the-left? Bruce Bartlett helps to explain it: |
MONDAY, JANUARY 6, 2003
RUSH-OF-THE-LEFT: Helped by our incomparable nagging, E. J. Dionne has become a go-to guy on issues of media bias. On last Saturdays Reliable Sources, he continued to argue the incomparable view that liberal media bias is a thing of the past. Meanwhile, in the wake of last weeks New York Times piece, Fox NewsWatch pundits tried to imagine what a liberal Rush Limbaugh might look like. Here was Neal Gablers assessment:
GABLER: I think it would violate the precepts of liberalism. I mean, what makes Rush Limbaugh work as an entertainment vehicle
is that he has a Manichean vision of the world, he has a very simple message, and he has got a cadre of people who love to hear repetition again and again and again, the same things. If you had those things, you may not have liberalism.
We dont agree with Gablers assessment, although no one would want a Rush-of-the-left who dissembled and spun the way Rush does. What might a Rush-of-the-left really look like? Today, well offer one obvious idea: A Rush-of-the-left would go after Rush. American citizens need to be told when Rush and his ilk are spreading twaddle. The mainstream press has avoided this duty for years. Its time that Dems took up the challenge. Today, an incomparable example:
WHY DEMS MUST LEAD THE FIGHT: Bruce Bartlett was on his game once again (see THE DAILY HOWLER, 2/5/02). In last Wednesdays Washington Times, the conservative economist once again punctured a prime piece of talk-show mythology. Bartlett was making his New Years resolutions. I resolve to do more in the future to correct the economic misinformation that appears in the news pages of major newspapers, he said. Heres the example he picked:
BARTLETT: A good example of this is the myth that the budget deficits of the 1980s resulted from a tricksome would even call it a lieplayed by Ronald Reagan and a group of supply-side economists
Based on something called the Laffer Curve, they are said to have asserted
that there would be such an outpouring of work, investment and economic growth that higher revenues would be collected at lower tax rates.
This whole story is, of course, complete nonsense, Bartlett writes. No one in a position of authority ever said any such thing. Bartlett spells it out further:
BARTLETT: As economist Bill Niskanen wrote in his book, Reaganomics (Oxford University Press, 1988): Supply-side economics does not conclude that a general reduction in tax rates would increase tax revenues, nor did any government economist or budget projection by the Reagan administration ever make that claim.
In defending Reagan, Bartlett notes the obvious (as did Niskanen). As a general rule, its absurd to claim that lower tax rates produce higher revenues. Did any Reaganite ever say different? On that matter, we cannot judge. But in last weeks column, Bartlett makes the obvious point. In almost all instances, lowered tax rates produce lower revenue. Duh! In general, you cant get higher federal revenue by lowering the rates of taxation.
Why is Bartlett due high praise? Because this bit of nonsense is a treasured piece of dim-witted talk-show conservatism. Indeed, Rush has told dittoheads, for years and years, that Reagans lowered 81 tax rates produced higher federal revenue. Others sing the silly song too. Here was Sean Hannity on last Fridays H&C, chatting with Dem consultant Vic Kamber:
HANNITY: The point is that were overtaxed.
KAMBER: Our deficits are getting bigger. Were not getting out of debt in this country. And George Bush is calling for greater tax cuts. Thats baloney, thats ridiculous.
HANNITY: Well, John F. Kennedy knew it, Reagan knew it. Reagan doubled revenues.
All good cons knew what Sean was sayingrevenues doubled under Reagan because he cut those tax rates. But why did revenues grow under Reagan? For the same reason revenues always growdue to population growth, productivity growth and inflation. Sean and Rush keep telling cons that revenues grew because of the cuts. That is sheer nonsense, as Bartlett notesbut how are dittoheads supposed to know that? How are dittoheads supposed to know when Rush and Sean just keep telling them different?
For the record, why must Dems take up this challenge? Because the mainstream press corps would eat live worms in a pit on Survivor before it would challenge Rushs spinning. The relevant quote is Bill Clintons:
CLINTON: They have an increasingly right-wing and bellicose conservative press. And we have an increasingly docile establishment press.
Millions of Americans do believe that lowered tax rates produce higher revenue. They believe it because Rush has said it for yearsand because the mainstream press corps refuses to speak. Democrats need to find new ways to address the dissembling of Rush and his clones. Dittoheads need to know that theyre being deceivedand its time that Dems learned how to tell them.
BARTLETTS BLIND SPOT: Just how silly is the claim that lower tax rates produce higher revenue? Heres a longer passage from Bartlett:
BARTLETT: Supposedly, [Reagan officials] sold Congress and the American people a bill of goods by saying the 1981 tax cut would lose no revenue
[T]hey are said to have asserted
that there would be such an outpouring of work, investment and economic growth that higher revenues would be collected at lower tax rates.
This whole story is, of course, complete nonsense. No one in a position of authority ever said any such thing. And even if they had, how can one possibly believe that a skeptical Congress and a liberal news media would allow anyone to get away with it?
Alas! Even Bartlett buys the myth of a liberal news media. In fact, the liberal news media has allowed talk-show cons to spread this treasured piece of nonsense. Thats how our modern media actually works. Dems have to learn to confront it.
ONE MORE BIT OF STANDARD NONSENSE: Hannity alluded to another bit of Standard Nonsensethe treasured notion that Kennedy was a hero of low tax rates, while Clinton was Mr. Big Tax Man. The reality? Kennedy lowered the marginal rateto 70 percent! Clinton raised itto 39.6! But how does our modern discourse work? Laughing in his listeners faces, Rush makes invidious comparisons between Clinton and Kennedy on this scoreand he never mentions the relevant numbers. Dittoheads deserve to know that theyre being misledand only Dems, with a Rush-of-the-left, will ever be willing to tell them.
TOMORROW: The tomfoolerism has started again. Is John Edwards just another Huey Long?
|