IN PRAISE OF THE WORST ONE PERCENT! Casting herself as Alonsos booster, Tavernise extends a long, hoary tradition: // link // print // previous // next //
WEDNESDAY, DECEMBER 8, 2010
The problem extends to us and our tribe: Did Obama strike a good budget deal? Thats a matter of judgment, of coursebut many Democrats are angry. In this mornings New York Times, David Herszenhorn quotes two concerned Dem solons:
Landrieu and Feinstein both seem concerned about the fiscal implications of continuing lower tax rates for the wealthy. Herszenhorn calls Landrieu out, noting that she voted for these lower tax rates back in 2001.
Of course, Feinstein voted for the Bush tax cuts too (click here). But that was then! This is now.
(Dems who supported the 2001 tax cuts: Breaux, Carnahan, Cleland, Feinstein, Johnson, Kohl, Landrieu, Lincoln, Miller, Nelson of Nebraska, Torricelli. Akaka and Bingaman voted present. Five others didnt vote.)
In fairness, things were different in 2001, when Landrieu and Feinstein both voted aye on Bushs Big Fat Expiring Tax Cuts. At the time, budget surpluses were being projected as far as the eye could see; the thoughtful president sold these cuts as a way to unload all that cash. Senate Democrats who fought the plan immediately signaled that they will use their new majority status to possibly delay or repeal parts of it, the Washington Post reported, on the day after the vote. They said the bill has hidden costs that will ultimately force the nation to begin running deficits again.
Ultimately arrived rather fast.
Are Landrieu and Feinstein sincere in their current concerns about all that new deficit spending? On last evenings Last Word, Lawrence ODonnell said Landrieu was just playing Bayou State politics, showing that she will defy Obama in every possible way. We have no idea of thats true, but the nonsense surrounding this whole shebang does include our own tribe.
Is Feinstein sincere in her stated concern about that new trillion in deficits? (Over two years.) We dont know, but Obama has been proposing a plan which involved $3.2 trillion in new deficits over the next ten years. (That would be the cost of extending the bulk of the Bush tax cuts, which Obama has always favored, as opposed to returning to Clintons tax rates.) Last night, on The One True Liberal Channel, loud noxious hosts loudly complained about all the new deficit spending, though theyd never said a word about Obamas own deficit-laden proposal. But this has been the norm among our rather unintelligent tribe. Here was Joan Walsh, reacting to the new budget deal in yesterdays Salon:
Over the past year, liberals have pretended that the tax cuts for the rich are budget-busters, a rather silly but mandated bit of analysis. Yesterday, before the new deal was struck, Katrina vanden Heuvel played the same card in the Washington Post:
In vanden Heuvels simplistic construction, tax cuts for the top end are really our problem, as opposed to all that right-wing tripe. But those tax cuts would have created $700 billion in additional debt over the next ten years. In truth, thats a relative drop in the bucket when compared to our overall deficit picture, or when compared to the $3.2 trillion in additional debt created by extending the other tax cuts, which liberals have widely supported. But we liberals have tended to play the fool about this, even on our One True Liberal Channel, where loud screeching hosts were concerned last night about $900 billion in new deficits. The bulk of that spending had been proposed by Obama all along, without a word from their lips.
That said, it will be a struggle to shake clarity out of what has occurred. For one example, we were puzzled by Robert Reichs fiery reaction in Salon:
Reich is shocked, shocked by that $900 billion in deficit spending! He says it is an abomination. It makes a mockery of deficit reductionunlike the $3.2 trillion in new deficit spending good liberals have all been supporting. Beyond that, Reichs claim that the lions share of that $900 billion will go to the very rich seems to be flatly falseor, at best, grossly misleading.
Whatever one thinks of the provisions Reich describes, will the lions share of that $900 billion go to the very rich? Pretty much not, if were sticking with English. In this mornings New York Times, David Kocieniewski says this: At least a quarter of the tax savings will go to the wealthiest 1 percent of the population. Or if its Ezra Klein you trust, heres how he limned it for KeithO:
Its hard to credit Reichs claim after reviewing those numbers, though we dont understand some of that either. Rather than try to clarify, KO hurried right along, leaving himself plenty of time for subsequent screeching and very loud yelling. Earlier, Klein had seen the glass well more than half full, offering this upbeat account on his blog at the Post:
Klein omitted one part of the deal in that postthe estimated $300 billion for the middle-class tax cuts. That said, wed guess theres a bit of enthusiasm in evidence there, although we arent really sure. But enthusiasm was widely observed on liberal cable last night.
A lot of screeching and yelling followed the announcement of yesterdays budget deal. This included high-minded complaints from Democratic solons who voted for this mess in the first place. For today, well offer two suggestions:
In many venues, you will encounter more heat than light in the coming days. Be careful. (More tomorrow.)
On the larger scale, beware complaints about all that shocking new deficit spending! Darling Rachel has loved to complain that the tax cuts for the rich (totaling $700 billion over ten years) would blow a hole in the budget. Truth to tell, that has always been a fatuous claim; given the scale of unfolding problems, that $700 billion is pretty much a drop in the bucket. But this pleasing claim has been widely offered by our increasingly low-IQ tribe. Our tribe has made little effort to put that figure in a larger perspective. Its more fun for the tribe when we dont.
Talk-show conservatives have played the fool for decades now. Whatever one thinks of this budget proposal, our tribe has been rapidly catching up. Thats bad for the national interest.
PART 3IN PRAISE OF THE WORST ONE PERCENT (permalink): An unfortunate tradition has held for the past forty years: Things can get remarkably silly when major journalists decide to promote favored big-city school systems.
This tradition has been in place for decades. Consider a three-part series from the Baltimore Sun in early 1980.
At the time, cities like Baltimore were trying to improve the image of their school systems, hoping to stop middle-class flight to the suburbs (flight by whites and blacks). Sometimes, local newspapers would adopt the booster role, apparently trying to help.
That may be why [Name Withheld], a smart, decent guy and a good journalist, wrote his three-part series in the Sun, entitled Schools That Work.
For three straight days, the pieces appeared, praising sixteen Baltimore schools. But by normal standards, a bunch of these Baltimore schools didnt work; some of these schools just werent working at all. Incomparably, we wrote the following letter, which the Sun published:
Gack! The Baltimore Sun had been praising schools which scored in the worst one percent! To its credit, the Sun stepped up to the plate and published our incomparable letter. But as early as 1980, that series helped show how silly things can get when journalists play the booster roles in support of favored schoolsor in support of favored school systems, favored principals or favored administrators.
Or, as has happened in recent years, in support of favored types of reform.
Last week, the New York Times played that booster role in support of Andres Alonso, who became superintendent of Baltimores schools in 2007. Nothing we say here is meant as criticism of Alonso, who didnt write last weeks clownish report. But that report, by Sabrina Tavernise, continued a long and gruesome tradition in which journalists mislead or deceive the public about the workings of low-income schools.
Such schools deserve our competent attention. They wont get it if our understanding is shaped by foolish portraits like the one Tavernise wrought.
As weve noted, Tavernises high-profile report was a masterwork of propaganda. It follows a very familiar old script, in which a charismatic principal (or superintendent) enters a floundering school (or school system) and magically turns things around. Unfortunately, Tavernise presented no data intended to show that proficiency rates have gotten better during Alonsos short tenure in Baltimore. But right from her opening paragraph, she gave the impression that this has occurred, as weve noted in the past few days.
How silly can things get when journalists cast themselves in this booster role? In addition to the problems weve already noted, consider what happened when Tavernise decide to pimp Alonsos brilliant judgment concerning suspension of students. At our nations biggest newspaper, nonsense like this is now thrown at us rubes when favored school systemsor favored types of reformcome into play:
Here, as in several other areas, were simply asked to assume that Alonsos change in practice represents an improvement. (Warning: As with drop-out and graduation rates, number of suspensions can be a tricky statistic.) Were 26,000 suspensions too many? Are 10,000 suspensions more sensiblemore conducive to the school systems ultimate success? There is no way a New York Times writer, or reader, can really judge such a matter. (We note that Tavernise went back six years to get that higher number.) That said, ironists chuckled as Tavernise continued along, moving directly to her foolish account of Alonsos infallible judgment when it comes to school closings. We mentioned this nonsense in yesterdays piecebut note where the whole thing led:
Question: Might this school be open today if someone had suspended (or expelled) the students who were setting those fires? Would Delgado perhaps have been able to teach if a couple of kids had been bounced from that school? If they got their mediation somewhere else? Theres no way to answer these questions, of course. But the analysts chuckled darkly as Tavernise ran these items together, not seeming to see the possible inter-connectionnot seeming to see how hard it is to judge these kinds of decisions.
Are children reading and doing math better because of Alonsos reforms? Throughout her long piece, Tavernise makes no such claimalthough her readers may not have noticed, so heavily does she fawn over Alonsos judgment and his alleged results. All through her piece, Tavernise seems to vouch for Alonsos judgment, even in matters where she has no way of knowing if such judgments have been good, bad or indifferent. Few are arguing with his results, she says in her third paragraphalthough she produces no data, none at all, designed to show that kids are actually reading better since Alonso came on board.
Fewer children are being suspended. But are these children reading better, doing math better? Tavernise offers no clue.
Nothing we say is meant as a criticism of Alonso, who didnt write this pitiful, boosterish piece. For ourselves, we would guess that some of his reforms and judgments have been good, and that others possibly havent; we would also guess there are major types of reform he hasnt considered or tried. But since Tavernise offers no data showing gains in proficiency rates, why is she pimping Alonso so hard? Why is he getting such favorable treatment? Why is she such an undisguised booster?
The answer is clear at one early point. A key name comes in here: Joel Klein.
Tomorrowpart 4: Why pre-favor Alonso? And some lessons learned