1/11 Brendan: Blurring lines in the surplus debate

Politicos are once again doing their best to confuse the public about the causes of the deteriorating federal budget outlook.

As I argued last month, the recession is the primary cause of the federal budget going into deficit in the current fiscal year. A new Senate Budget Committee analysis shows that 2/3 of the decline in the expected 2002 surplus is attributable to the recession. But over the ten-year budget horizon, the analysis shows that 45% of the $3.7 trillion decline in the projected surplus is attributable to the tax cut supported by President Bush (36% is the result of the slowing economy and 19% is due to higher government spending).

These facts seem relatively straightforward. Yet, in Washington, both sides are trying to deceive the public by blaming one cause to the exclusion of the other.

In his recent speech criticizing President Bush's fiscal and economic policy, Democratic Senate Majority Leader Tom Daschle used this tactic to attack the tax cut unfairly. Daschle noted the deterioration of the short term budget outlook, with projected deficits until at least 2004 and an increased federal debt limit. He then linked these facts to the tax cut, confusing the short and long term causes of the decline of the surplus:

There are those who say the reason the surplus deteriorated so quickly is the attacks on America and the war against terrorism. Clearly, September 11th was a major blow to our economy... But September 11th and the war aren't the only reasons the surplus is nearly gone. They're not even the biggest reasons. The biggest reason is the tax cut. In May, the Congressional Budget Office reported a 10-year budget surplus of $5.6 trillion. By the end of the year, $3.7 trillion was gone. Nearly half of that was a direct result of the tax cut. The tax cut was by far the largest factor.

Unfortunately, the response from pundits has been little better. Writing in the Washington Times, Donald Lambro condemns Daschle's "utterly dishonest argument... that the Bush tax cut are erasing projected surpluses," failing to acknowledge the obvious truth that Daschle is right about the long term effects of the tax cut (indeed, Bush argued for returning the surplus to the people).

Rush Limbaugh, also writing in yesterday's Washington Times, quotes Daschle saying the tax cut is the "biggest reason" for reduced surpluses, then says, simply, "[h]e's wrong." Limbaugh's proof? "The top marginal tax rate will be reduced from 39.6 percent to 35 percent, beginning in fiscal 2006. This has nothing to do with unmet fiscal 2002 revenue predictions." As is obvious from the quotation of Daschle's speech above, Limbaugh is engaging in willful deception. Daschle clearly addressed the ten-year effect of the tax cut and, moreover, the reduction in the top tax rate is not the only backloaded provision of the legislation.

Finally, Bruce Bartlett, a frequent Washington Times contributor, simply defines away Daschle's argument in the New York Times, saying that "[l]ast summer's budget estimates ... incorporated the effects of the tax cut" and therefore "any deterioration in the surplus must necessarily be due to other factors" - namely, the recession. This does not disprove Daschle's point, however. The changes in the Senate Budget Committee estimates are largely due to the effects of the recession and increased spending (particularly since September 11), but the tax cut is still the largest factor in the overall decline of the surplus from its peak at a projected $5.6 trillion.

Sadly, neither Daschle nor any of these pundits explain the facts clearly. The tactics of modern political rhetoric are based on such willful deception of the public, a problem that is compounded by a press corps which fails to clearly establish the facts under debate.

[Email this to a friend]     [Subscribe to our email list]

Related links:
-Daschle and Bush spin debate on stimulus (Ben Fritz, 1/8/02)
-More of the economic blame game (Brendan Nyhan, 12/07/01)

1/11/2002 07:41:47 AM EST |

1/9 - Bryan: Sowell blames educational system for Walker and Bishop

In his latest column, Thomas Sowell blames America's education system for the actions of John Walker and Charles Bishop through a series of vague generalizations, faulty reasoning, and one glaring false example.

Sowell begins his column by bringing in Walker and Bishop as examples of what he refers to in his conclusion as "homegrown enemies within." Sowell argues that there is an "anti-American bias [in] our own education establishment" and that such education is "brainwashing of whole generations of young Americans . . ."

Sowell's argument is an example of how some pundits attempt to shoehorn current events into preconceived political frameworks. Nowhere does he bother to fill in the specifics of how Walker and Bishop were allegedly warped by the educational system. Instead, he simply asserts that our educational system is biased, then asks "Do you wonder that some of the young succumb - some tragically?" without providing any details of exactly how Walker and Bishop fit his argument. Indeed, the differing educational experiences of the boys (Walker at an alternative school in Marin, California, Bishop at a public high school in Tampa Florida) provide no obvious connections in terms of educational "brainwashing."

Sowell further fails to explain exactly how such a biased educational system could produce so many people who support the current military actions and so few like Walker and Bishop - indeed, he notes that "[m]ost Americans today of course remain loyal and patriotic." Overall, the column completely fails to establish a causal link between American schools and Walker and Bishop's actions.

Adding insult to injury, Sowell also repeats the myth that "A former President of the United States [Bill Clinton] has depicted the terrorist attacks as somehow due to slavery and past wars of conquest against the Indians." As evidence that education is biased, Sowell claims "he was applauded at one of our most prestigious universities for saying it." As I showed in detail in a previous column, this allegation is patently false (Sowell has repeated the charge several times, including syndicated columns from November 15 and November 30). Recycling such a blatantly false claim in support of a new argument is disreputable twice over.

As some other pundits have used the details of John Walker's life to advance their agendas, so Sowell uses Bishop and Walker to advance his own. His column stands as a shining example of how some pundits constantly wedge current events into weakly conceived ideological vehicles bearing little relationship to the facts.

[Email this to a friend]     [Subscribe to our email list]

Related links:
-The John Walker Attack on Liberalism (Ben Fritz, 12/17/01)
-The Washington Times keeps the Clinton spin rolling (Bryan Keefer, 11/29/01)
-Clinton Speaks, Pundits Spin: The Washington Times and the Spread of a Media Myth (Bryan Keefer, 11/19/01)

1/9/2002 08:16:34 PM EST |

1/8 Ben: Daschle and Bush spin debate on stimulus

In the growing debate over economic stimulus and the return of budget deficits, Senate Majority Leader Tom Daschle and President Bush have been spinning the issue by avoiding specifics, both on policy and in the labels they use.

The exchanges between the two began last Friday when Daschle gave a speech on economic policy in which he attacked the tax cut supported by President Bush was signed into law last spring. Daschle said the tax cut has contributed to the ongoing recession by raising long-term interest rates and has "put [the nation] in an unnecessary fiscal bind at the worst possible time."

If Daschle thinks the tax cut was irresponsible, surely he must advocate repealing some of it. Despite his comments, though, the Senate Majority Leader has not explicitly taken such a position in an apparent attempt to avoid Republican attacks. In fact, he called on Bush to make that difficult decision, stating, "I am asking the President today to submit to Congress not simply a one-year budget proposal, but a long-term plan to restore economic growth. We need a plan to return to fiscal discipline..."

Thus, even though his statements clearly imply that that tax cut should be repealed at least in part, Daschle has evaded that position. When criticized for this by Republicans, he issued a statement in which he said, "Let me be clear, I proposed short-term tax cuts to create jobs and generate investment and long-term fiscal discipline, not tax increases." Such evasions are disingenuous, as Daschle is trying to take credit for the alleged mistakes of the Republican tax bill, without proposing a specific fix.

Also tricky, however, have been Republican efforts to label Daschle's attacks a call to raise taxes. In a town hall meeting on Saturday, President Bush said, "There's going to be people who say, we can't have the tax cut go through anymore. That's a tax raise. And I challenge their economics, when they say raising taxes will help the country recover. Not over my dead body will they raise your taxes."

Bush's logic in implying that rescinding future tax cuts is in fact a raise is questionable at best. Although some might argue doing so can have a similar impact on the economy if citizens have already acted in expectation that the Bush tax cuts will take place, the phrase "tax raise" implies in many people's minds that taxes will go up from where they are today. And neither Daschle nor any other prominent Democrat has made such a proposal, explicitly or implicitly.

The debate over taxes and the economy would be a much healthier one if Senator Daschle were more honest about just what he means by "a plan to restore fiscal discipline" and if President Bush used a more honest description of Daschle's implicit proposal than "a tax raise."

[Email this to a friend]     [Subscribe to our email list]

Related links:
-Pre-Empting Debate on Economic Stimulus (Ben Fritz, 11/12)
-New tax cut dissembling from Bush administration (Ben Fritz, 11/13)
-Wilentz's tax illogic (Brendan Nyhan, 9/2)
-Bush tax cut costs $1.35 trillion … no, $1.8 trillion (Ben Fritz, 6/21)
-Recycling Rhetoric: Media Coverage of the Bush Tax Cut (Ben Fritz, 5/29)

1/8/2002 02:12:18 AM EST |

This website is copyright (c) 2001-2005 by Ben Fritz, Bryan Keefer and Brendan Nyhan. Please send letters to the editor for publication to letters@spinsanity.org and private questions or comments to feedback@spinsanity.org.

Comments by YACCS