DO YOU UNDERSTAND! Do you understand those budget plans? Here at THE HOWLER, we dont: // link // print // previous // next //
MONDAY, APRIL 25, 2011
Our biggest stars creeping Maddowism: Its bad for children and other living things when the liberal worlds Most Valuable Player starts creeping toward a species of Maddowism.
Thats what happens today, at the end of Paul Krugmans otherwise important new column.
In todays column, Krugman asserts the foolishness, and apparent bad faith, in Paul Ryans tax proposals. This is Krugmans account of the Ryan tax plan:
Pure crapola, Krugman says. He then describes the historically low rate of taxation under which we Americans labor.
Before long, Krugman describes the one budget plan which really moves us toward balance. Its the plan of the Congressional Progressive Caucus, which is projected to yield a balanced budget by 2021. The plans calls for substantially higher taxes on the wealthy, Krugman saysbut it would also modestly raise taxes even on middle-income families. Beyond that, its spending cuts are mostly focused on defense.
Having described the progressive plan, Krugman raises a question: Why arent we hearing more about this particular budget plan? And alas! Krugman gives a vague, and sweeping, and unintelligent answeran answer which made the analysts cry, so much did it resemble a version of Low Maddowism:
Krugman asks a reasonable question. His answer just flat isnt smart.
Why isnt the progressive budget getting Ryan-level attention? Krugman offers only one answer, an answer which is sweeping and vague: The progressive plan isnt getting a lot of attention because many if not most self-proclaimed deficit hawks are basically phonies. But who is Krugman talking about? Is he talking about journalists? Is he talking about experts at major think tanks? Is he talking about office-holders in the two major parties? Just last Friday afternoon, Krugman himself apologized for having ignored the progressive proposal (click here). Was Krugman himself part of the problem as of last Friday at noon?
Krugmans sweeping answer this morning just isnt very smart. It resembles the silly, sweeping claims Maddow now churns most nights on her eponymous programsweeping claims about the Beltway or the Beltway press. Almost surely, Krugman nails part of the answer to his questionalthough its very unclear who hes talking about. But there are other, blatantly obvious reasons for the lower degree of attention devoted to the progressive plan. What is gained when our smartest player makes a sweeping claim which just plain flat isnt smart?
Why has Ryans plan gotten more attention? Duh! To all intents and purposes, Ryans plan is the official proposal of one of the two major parties! Presumably, that explains why Krugman himself has paid much more attention to Ryans plan than to the progressive proposal. Presumably, that explains why Krugman himself had said nothing about the progressive plan before last Friday. (Ive been remiss in not calling attention to the budget proposal from the Congressional Progressive Caucus.)
Wed offer another obvious reason for the lower degree of attention:
The progressive plan proposes levels of taxation which may make perfect sense. But those levels of taxation lie well outside prevailing frameworks in our political discourseframeworks which have guided the American debate over the few decades. Again: Those levels of taxation may make perfect sense. But career liberals and career progressives have largely sat out this discussion over the course of the past thirty years. For that reasonbecause of our own sides massive lethargythe progressive proposals will sound like tablets brought down from Mars to many mainstream observers.
Does the progressive proposal make good sense? We will assume it doesbut it has been a good many years since Americans heard such proposals. (Whens the last time you read a serious evaluation of levels of taxation like those found in this plan?) And lets be clear: This is the obvious fault of the career liberal world. But rather than make such an ugly remark, Krugman prefers to play the Maddow role, offering a claim so sweeping and vague that its hard to know who hes talking about. It isnt good for progressive interests when our smartest star argues this way.
In closing, might we offer another possible reason for the low level of attention paid to the progressive plan? It would go something like this:
Last Tuesday, Katrina vanden Heuvel posted this column at the Washington Post. (It didnt appear in the hard-copy paper.) In fiery fashion, vanden Heuvel praised the greatness of the progressive plan:
We were eager to learn about this proposalbut vanden Heuvel never got past that vague description of its contents. In standard fashion, vanden Heuvel said the plan promotes a progressive tax policy but she forgot to say what that policy is.
Luckily, vanden Heuvels column included a link under Peoples Budget. We clicked it, and came to this piece in the Huffington Post. The piece is written by Reps. Honda and Grijalvabut their piece doesnt exactly explain the proposed tax policy either. Example: Our budget heeds America's call to end the Bush Tax Cuts and the estate tax and create fair tax brackets for millionaires and billionaires. But what are those fair tax brackets? Like vanden Heuvels column before it, the piece didnt say.
(By the way: Does the progressive plan really call to end the estate tax? Thats what the Honda-Grijalva piece still says as of today.)
Luckily, the Honda/Grijalva piece included a link under Congressional Progressive Budget Proposal. It took us to this very brief post, which simply swims in jargonized language and doesnt mention taxes at all.
Are you beginning to get the picture? We had to click several more times to learn the basics of the progressive tax proposal. (As punishment, well let you click around to learn about it yourselves.) And uh-oh! On Friday night, even Maddow climbed down from earlier standard complaints about the way the Beltway press had been ignoring the progressive plan. In a rare non-propagandistic moment, she told Matt Miller about the way career progressives fight fight fight for their plans:
Miller made the obvious point: The Obama and Ryan plans are the official proposals of the two major parties. Of course theyll get the bulk of attention; on what planet would that be different? But we were most struck by Maddows remark about the lack of outreach by the progressive caucus. Even she hadnt been approached or lobbied about this plan! To our ear, this meant that the Washington Generals were back on the court, where theyve been pretending to play for the past several decades.
Simple story: Our side doesnt play the game hard. Might we even share a secret? On the highest career levels, our side doesnt much seem to care! Our career leaders havent played very hard for the past thirty years; plainly, that is part of the reason why this plan isnt getting covered. No one has bothered creating the frameworks which might make a plan like this seem more mainstream. Rather than discuss this obvious fact, we liberals now sit around complaining (vaguely) about the (unnamed) establishment press, or about (unnamed) deficit hawks.
By the way: As of last Friday night, Miller himself had ignored the progressive budget plan! In his columns for the Post (click here), he too had focused on the Obama and Ryan plans; he had devoted exactly one parenthetical remark to the progressive proposal (text below). But just as Krugman does today, he criticized everyone else for ignoring this plana plan he himself had ignored.
Progressive interests are not advanced when our biggest stars play this way.
Miller squeaks: As of last Friday night, this represented Millers full discussion of the progressive budget plan:
Quite literally, Miller had offered one parenthetical comment about the progressive plan. But so what? Giving Maddows viewers a thrill, he complained about the way the establishment press had been ignoring this plan. They were acting as stenographers to power, he pleasingly said.
Progressive viewers get played for fools when they get handled this way.
PART 1NUMBERS, PLEASE (permalink): Do you understand Obamas budget plan? How about the Ryan plan, the courageoushonestbravesincere plan adopted by House Republicans?
Frankly, we dont understand those plans, not even a little bit. For starters, consider the way these plans have been described by our two of our biggest newspapers.
Last Monday, the Washington Post described the dueling plans in a front-page news report. Zachary Goldfarb discussed the way the plans would reduce future deficits:
Obamas plan would reduce the federal deficit by $4 trillion over 12 yearsor at least, that was its intention. According to Goldfarb, Ryans plan actually would reduce the federal deficit by $4.4 trillion in 10 years. Goldfarbs language is a bit clumsy in certain ways, but this has been the Washington Posts standard account of the way these plans would reduce future deficitsto the extent that the Post has tried to quantify this matter. (In an April 14 front-page report, Lori Montgomery said the same thing, tossing in an additional detail: The House GOP plan would cut deficits by about $4.4 trillion over a decade. Obama proposed to reduce borrowing by $4 trillion over 12 years, including $3 trillion over the next 10 years.)
Obamas budget speech had occurred on April 13.
Obamas plan would reduce federal deficits by $4 trillion over 12 years. Ryans plan would reduce federal deficits by $4.4 trillion over 10 years. So the Washington Post has said. The New York Times has said the same thing in its own reportingto the extent that our greatest newspaper has quantified this matter at all.
On April 14, Mark Landler did the New York Times front-page report about Obamas speech. He used the same numbers the Post has used, though he attributed at least one of these numbers to Obama himself:
Landler correctly quoted Obamas claim about his own plans deficit reduction. The claim that Republicans would reduce future deficits by $4.4 trillion came from somewhere else. (For the relevant text from Obamas speech, see below.)
But uh-oh! Strange as it seems, we can find no other place where the New York Times has tried to report the amount of deficit reduction sought or produced by these plans. An array of contradictory numbers have appeared in various editorials and opinion columns (see THE DAILY HOWLER, 4/18/11). But nowhere has our greatest newspaper attempted to report the amount of deficit reduction contemplated by these plans.
What is the closest the Times has come? On April 18, John Harwood included the following passage in a front-page analysis piece. In context, its fairly clear that the term both sides means Republican and Democratic leaders. Or something like that:
Strange as it seems, that is the closest the Times has come to reporting the amount of deficit reduction proposed by, or likely to occur under, the two major plans.
Well leave this matter right here for todaythough this doesnt even begin to explain the source of our greatest confusion. Tomorrow, well outline an even more potent source of incomprehension. But for today, please note this one striking fact about the way these budget plans have been covered:
These plans are wholly premised on the need for deficit reduction. But in our most important newspaper, there has been virtually no attempt to report the amount of deficit reduction these dueling plans might produce. More than two weeks after Ryans courageoussincerehonest plan appeared, the Times has made almost no attempt to report how much reduction it might achieve. Regarding the Obama plan, the Times has only quoted the big round number used by Obama himself.
How much deficit reduction would be achieved by these dueling plans? Sorry! You live in a very primitive culturea culture whose avatars only pretend to attend to facts and information.
Numbers, please! So the analysts cry. But your culture doesnt run on such fuel.
What Obama said: Regarding those numbers, this is what Obama said in his budget speech:
Thats what Obama said the Ryan plan aims to do. Would either plan achieve its goal? So far, the New York Times has made little attempt to offer any numbers.