INSINUATIONS! How big are Ryans deficit reductions? The Times keeps letting you guess: // link // print // previous // next //
TUESDAY, APRIL 26, 2011
Who is Jacob Weisberg: When Paul Ryans budget plan appeared, Jacob Weisberg, editor of Slate, hurried himself into action. He noted how honest, courageous and brave the honestbrave Ryan had been (click here).
Good God! These were Weisbergs actual headlines: Good Plan! Republican Paul Ryans budget proposal is brave, radical and smart.
But uh-oh! An array of observers noted that Jake didnt have the slightest idea what the fig he was talking about. Last Wednesday, Weisberg relented:
According to Weisberg, he had failed to see that the plan he lavishly praised was actually laughable, absurd. For that reason, he deserved some of the abuse, the essayist nobly said.
Different people had different reactions to Weisbergs retreat. Quite appropriately, Paul Krugman batted Weisberg around, failing to note that Ezra Klein had basically done the same thing (if not a bit more so). At the Washington Monthly, Steve Benen was much more forgiving (click here). But then, its highly unlikely that Krugman will ever be seeking employment at Slate.
(Jonathan Chaits reaction to Weisbergs Folly fell somewhere in the middle. Click this.)
Who the heck is Jacob Weisberg? First, some full disclosure:
As far as we know, Weisberg is a perfectly decent person. In August 2000, at the Democratic Convention, we enjoyed a leisurely lunch with the tyro. You might even call it a brush with greatness; rounding out the foursome was Jonathan Alter, a good decent person, and (we think) the analysts Uncle Walter Shapiro (same judgment). Weisberg never foamed at the mouth or committed egregious offenses. We know of no reason to think that he isnt a perfectly decent guy.
That said, weve been intrigued by Weisberg in the past dozen years. Heres why:
Weisberg hails from ranking stock. He comes from an admirable, high-achieving Chicago family; his mother, Lois Weisberg, was even celebrated in one of Malcolm Gladwells books! From Chicago, he trundled off to Yale, where he was offered a spot in Skull & Bonesby John Kerry, no less! Reportedly, Weisberg turned the spot down to protest the famous clubs exclusion of women.
From Yale (class of 1986), the road led straight uphill. Weisberg attended Oxford as a Rhodes Scholar, then landed at the New Republicand at Vanity Fair, and at a wide array of major publications.
When we lunched with him, he was 36. He had access to a wide array of very high media platforms; he could have made a difference. And since then, what is he best known for? For writing Bushisms, a collection of President Bushs least perfect expressions.
In recent years, he has branched out. He now writes Palinisms too!
What happens to people like this? How did Weisberg become so fatuous? We know its rude to do such things, but lets consider Weisbergs wife, who is also (we would assume) a perfectly good decent person.
Weisberg is married to Deborah Needleman. Today, shes editor of WSJ magazine (click here), the Wall Street Journals chic-chic approach to fashion, design and food. But she made her mark as founding editor of domino, a style magazine centered on the home. The widely-honored mag went under, but not before a publishing breakthrough. Well let the experts explain:
According to Wikipedia, Needleman lives in Manhattan and Garrison, NY, with her husband, Jacob Weisberg.
To state the obvious, theres nothing wrong with any of this. But in your lifetime, American journalism has been savaged by the possibility of fame and financial success, leading to fabulous lifestyles. The potential rewards are simply too great. As a result, the route to fatuity is clear.
Back in the 1990s, Weisberg was said to be very smart. (To read all about it, click here.) Today, he pimps his Palinisms, having grown tired of Bush.
And he rushes off to praise Faire Ryan. He has become extremely dumbextremely dumb by choice.
Luckily, Weisberg lives in two places as he types his tripe about dumbstupid Palin and honestbravenoble Ryan. We dont know what drove Weisbergs decisions in life. But make no mistake: The search for journalistic wealth and fame has savaged progressive interests down through the years. Journalists sell their souls to achieve these rewards, forgetting to tell you that this is the game. Other journalists simply turn dumb in response to these riches.
How dumb was Weisberg by 2004? To read about the horrible work he filed from that years New Hampshire primary, see THE DAILY HOWLER, 1/22/04. (The former feminist was still pimping moronic Naomi Wolf references as he discussed the new candidates clothes!) In that same post, we reviewed a remarkable piece he wrote in October 1999, during Campaign 2000. It was one of the strangest and most influential pieces written in that whole campaignan on-line savaging of Candidate Gore which the whole press corps plagiarized.
These people conspired to get dumb together. In part, your nations current predicament is the plain result. By the way, career liberal heroes are still playing us rubes as they position themselves for those grand rewards.
The liberal world has never come to terms with this blatantly obvious fact. Most likely, we never will. We seem to prefer the tribal life, in which we pretend that these grasping hacks are actually On Our Side.
PART 2INSINUATIONS (permalink): By how much would Paul Ryans budget plan reduce future deficits? How about the competing plan authored by President Obama?
For better or worse, deficit reduction has been the key point in ongoing budget discussions. Each plan is premised on the need to reduce future deficits. But as we noted yesterday, the Washington Post and the New York Times have rarely discussed the amount of deficit reduction involved in the two budget plansor at least, theyve rarely done so in their news reporting.
How strange! If you read the Washington Post, you have occasionally seen this formulation in the budget reporting: 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. (See THE DAILY HOWLER, 4/25/11.)
If you read the New York Times, youve seen those same numbers reportedonce. But for the most part, the Times has made no attempt, in its reporting, to quantify the amount of deficit reduction involved in these two major plans.
In fairness, its hard to know just what would happen in one of these plans were adopted. In various ways, the plans are incomplete; important particulars have not been spelled out. And even if the plans had been presented in full detail, budget projections are always precarious. No one knows what will occur if a certain proposal goes into effect. Experts produce their best estimates.
That said, its amazing to see how little effort the Post and the Times have made with this critical matter. How much would either one of these plans reduce future budget deficits? If you arent grossly confused by now, you simply havent been reading our greatest newspapers!
Much of the apparent confusion stems from insinuations. Consider the Times, which has made little attempt to report the amount of reduction which might result from these plans.
How much would Honest Paul Ryans plan reduce future budget deficits? In its news reporting, the Times hasnt really tried to discuss that question. But on April 6, the papers lead editorial seemed to insinuate grandly. Ryans plan had been released just the day before:
Say what? Do you understand that? According to the editors, spending would drop by $4.3 trillion. Revenues would drop by almost exactly the same amount. The editors didnt explain where these numbers came frombut:
The deficit would be smaller, they said.
Do you understand why that would be true? If spending and revenues drop by the same amount, why would deficits be smaller? We dont understand the logic therebut on the same day, Jackie Calmes presented a different pair of numbers in a front-page news report.
Good for Calmes! In the first sentence cited below, she explains, in murky fashion, part of the ongoing problem. But then, she gives numbers which contradict those of the editors, explaining where one of them came from:
Using a rather polite term of art, Calmes reports that the CBO could not estimate precisely the potential savings (i.e., cuts) which might be produced by Ryan's plan. She then presents two numbers, noting that one of these numbers came from the House GOP itself; she further notes that Ryans tax cuts would somewhat offset his spending cuts. Heres our question: From reading that report, mightnt the average reader assume that the GOP was claiming roughly $1.8 trillion in deficit reduction$5.8 trillion in spending cuts offset by $4 trillion in tax cuts? Thats pretty much what we would have guessed. But if thats the case, why were Times readers soon confronting news reports which said this:
At THE HOWLER, we have no idea. Incidentally, one day before Landlers piece appeared, the editors did it again:
The editors provided those numbers again; they were numbers to keep in mind. By now, the editors seemed to make a bit more sense about the implications of those numbers. The GOP was slashing vital services just to pay for tax cuts, the editors now said.
Again, the grandees failed to explain where their numbers came from. Nor did they explain why readers were seeing different numbers when they read their own papers front page. Two days later, the front page said this:
Heaven help the Average Bloke who subscribes to our greatest newspaper! Thomas was virtually begging readers to assume that the deficit gap would be closed by something like $1.6 trillion.
Two days earlier, in his budget speech, Obama had said this about Ryans proposal: It's a plan that aims to reduce our deficit by $4 trillion over the next 10 years.
Do you understand how much reduction the Ryan plan might produce? In its reporting, the New York Times had made no real attempt to sift through the confusion. Granted, the newspaper cant be asked to provide a perfect quantification. But the paper has made almost no attempt to sift through all this rolling mess.
Meanwhile, the Times has given readers an array of apparent insinuations from which they might happily choose preferred outcomes. Reading the newspapers editors, liberals will say that there is no reduction in Ryans plan at all. From news reports, readers might guess that the reduction would be $1.8 trillion. Or it might be $4 trillion, as Obama pretty much said! ($4.4 trillion, said Landler.)
This is the way our greatest newspaper has floundered and flailed in the past few weeks. Tomorrow, well fumble farther along with this muddleand well present a whole new question. This question will raise a different basic pointanother point we dont understand.
Do you understand this mess? Well take a quick guess: You dont.