Redefining "balanced budget" (3/16)

By Bryan Keefer

As part of the public relations campaign for their budget plan, some House Republicans are launching an attempt to redefine the meaning of the phrase "balanced budget".

The $2.1 trillion budget passed by the House Budget Committee last week includes a $46 billion deficit for the next fiscal year. However, the committee excluded the cost of the $43 million economic stimulus package recently signed into law. It also used budget projections from the White House’s Office of Management and Budget, rather than the Congressional Budget Office (CBO). Using CBO revenue projections would add roughly $20 billion to next year’s deficit, according to the Washington Times.

Despite the fact that the budget will be in deficit regardless of which set of predictions is used, Speaker of the House Dennis Hastert (R-IL) suggested in a press conference that the plan represented "a wartime balanced budget". Rep. John Shadegg (R-AZ) claimed that "We are balancing this budget, with the exception of something to help the economy" — despite the fact that the cost of the stimulus package was already excluded. And on Tuesday, House Budget Committee Chairman Jim Nussle (R-IA) suggested "We have a balanced budget were it not for 9/11".

All of these phrases are designed to obscure the fact that the budget will be several billion dollars in deficit this year. There is a legitimate debate to be had over budget priorities, and the value of deficit spending. This rhetoric, however, is an attempt to avoid that debate.

One can only hope the coming budget debate contains more substance than phony "balanced budget" claims.

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

Related links:
-Bush budget trickery (Brendan Nyhan, 2/5/02)
-The New Math: Fudging the Numbers in the Economic Blame Game (Bryan Keefer, 1/28/02)

3/16/2002 05:15:28 PM EST |

A myth dies slowly (3/15)

The New York Times corrects itself: No Clinton White House Lay-over
By Brendan Nyhan
[First published on Salon.com (Salon Premium subscription required)]

The New York Times finally issued a correction Friday to Alison Mitchell's Feb. 1 story that repeated the myth that Kenneth Lay stayed in the Lincoln Bedroom during the Clinton White House. Note the claim that an "editing lapse" caused the delay:

"An article on Feb. 1 about a Democratic television commercial that attacked Elizabeth Dole for having attended a fund-raiser given by Kenneth L. Lay, the former chairman of Enron, misstated a connection between him and President Bill Clinton. While they played golf together, records reviewed by a Clinton spokesman show that Mr. Lay did not stay overnight in the Clinton White House. A reader's e-mail reported the error to The Times a few weeks ago; this correction was delayed by an editing lapse."

I first reported this error in a March 4 post. By Tuesday, the Times still had not issued the correction that Mitchell told me she submitted on March 7, which I noted here. More than a week later -- and more than a month after the error originally appeared -- the nation's "paper of record" has finally corrected itself.

[This post was exclusively available on Salon.com for two days to members of Salon Premium, which requires a paid subscription. We hope that you'll join Premium through our affiliate link (also posted in the "Currently on Spinsanity" box) for immediate access to our newest work and to all the other good stuff on Salon.]

3/15/2002 06:24:57 PM EST |

Paul Harvey repeats McCaslin misinformation (3/14)

By Brendan Nyhan

Radio host Paul Harvey read Tuesday's Washington Times story by John McCaslin on the air today, repeating McCaslin's false implication that Ken Lay stayed in the Clinton White House eleven times. After reading the story, Harvey said, "This is the Clinton White House they're talking about." Though McCaslin retracted the claim yesterday, the myth has gained new strength as the result of his irresponsible error. In this case, it has now been widely disseminated (yet again) through Harvey's extensive syndication network.

For more information on the Ken Lay myth:
-Another bedroom farce, part 2 (Brendan Nyhan, 3/12/02)
-NY Times also duped by Ken Lay/Lincoln Bedroom myth (Brendan Nyhan, 3/4/02)
-An update on the Ken Lay/Lincoln Bedroom myth (Brendan Nyhan, 2/28/02)
-Another bedroom farce (Brendan Nyhan, 2/21/02)

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

3/14/2002 06:35:37 PM EST |

A note from the editors (3/13)

By Ben, Bryan and Brendan

Our first month with Salon has been a turning point for the site. Now that our one month introductory period is over, our articles on Salon (starting with Ben's column below) will be available exclusively to members of Salon Premium, which requires a paid subscription, for two days before they become available on our site. (Of course, we'll continue to post original articles directly to the site too.) We hope that you'll join through our affiliate link below (also posted in the "Currently on Spinsanity" box) for immediate access to our newest work and to all the other good stuff on Salon. A subscription costs $30 for one year or $50 for two years.

Join Salon Premium today!

3/12/2002 08:13:58 PM EST |

Pickering's race war (3/13)

A judicial nomination comes under fire -- and we all get slimed
By Ben Fritz
[First published on Salon.com]

President Bush's nomination of Charles Pickering to the U.S. Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals will probably be defeated this week in the Senate Judiciary Committee, but it is likely only a prelude to nastier fights over judicial nominations in the future. With an NAACP director saying the nomination "opens a gateway of horror" and Sen. Orrin Hatch, R-Utah, countering by accusing "extreme left Washington special-interest groups" of engaging in a "lynching," the nomination debate is clearly no longer about Pickering's qualifications.

Instead, it's about which side can best take advantage of the country's troubled racial history. Which side has played the race card to the greatest effect? You be the judge.

[This column was exclusively available for two days to members of Salon Premium, which requires a paid subscription. It is now freely available on our site. We hope that you'll join Premium through our affiliate link (also posted in the "Currently on Spinsanity" box) for immediate access to our newest work and to all the other good stuff on Salon.]

3/12/2002 08:05:47 PM EST |

Another bedroom farce, Part 2 (3/12)

Possibly the biggest political myth of the year just keeps on growing
By Brendan Nyhan
[First published on Salon.com]

In a previous article, we helped expose the myth that Ken Lay stayed overnight in the Lincoln Bedroom of the Clinton White House, which has been repeated in a long list of publications and TV shows since January. But this one appears to be dying a slow death.

John McCaslin repeats a version of the claim Tuesday in his Inside the Beltway column for the Washington Times, claiming vaguely that "Enron's chairman did meet with the president and the vice president in the Oval Office." Which president is he referring to? He doesn't say, exactly, instead stating that "[t]he Enron chairman stayed at the White House 11 times." Lay never spent the night at the Clinton White House (he did stay there during the George H.W. Bush presidency), but McCaslin suggests otherwise later, calling Clinton "Enron's host."

His own newspaper made almost the exact same mistake just a few weeks ago, yet even after retracting the claim about Lay's Clinton sleepover it still published McCaslin's piece. Contacted through e-mail, McCaslin admitted the error, saying that the offending sentence has been removed from the online version of the column and that a correction will run Wednesday.

Meanwhile, after a reader tipped us off that the New York Times also disseminated the claim in a Feb. 1 story, I contacted Times reporter Alison Mitchell on March 4, who said on March 7 that she had submitted a correction to her editors. However, the Times has yet to run a correction, even though it notes errors as small as spelling mistakes every day.

The Washington Times is hopefully going to come clean (again). When will the New York Times?

[This post was featured exclusively on Salon.com for two days.]

3/12/2002 07:54:24 PM EST |

Letters to the editors (3/10)

By Brendan Nyhan

To the editors -

I'm a subscriber and big fan. I appreciated the recent pieces Bryan and Brendan did on Lott's equation of Daschle's mild criticism of the war with "dividing our country while we are united" and other related barbs.

I think it might be interesting to note that the Republican leadership was not nearly as concerned about the effects of criticism on an active military campaign during the Kosovo crisis in early 1999. At that time, the lack of a clear "exit strategy" was questioned publicly by many GOP congressmen, and their right to dissent with the President and his policies was vigorously defended.

You might also remember that 15 Republicans and 2 Democrats even sued Clinton to stop the Yugoslavian campaign at that time: "Seventeen congressmen file suit against Clinton to end war".

There is a widely circulated quote from Trent Lott claiming that Congress could "support the troops without supporting the President," but I have not yet been able to get the source.

I hope that you will consider pointing out these statements as dissenters against Bush's policies are attacked. Good luck in your continued endeavors to clarify the truth in our political debate.

Tom Oliviero

Tom -

Thanks for the kind words. You were one of several readers to email us regarding Lott's previous statements, and we want to be clear about why we did not bring them up. In short, we don't criticize alleged hypocrisy. It's not really our concern. On a practical level, if we did, we'd never write about anything else. Moreover, what Lott said is harmful to open debate because it irrationally delegitimizes dissent. Hypocrisy doesn't make his statements any more or less damaging to open debate. After an early experiment with criticism of hypocrisy , we realized that it was essentially a political argument (people are allowed to change their minds) and that it was more important for us to exclusively focus on our mission of exposing manipulation, dissembling and irrationalism.

Best-
Brendan

To write a letter to the editors, email letters@spinsanity.org. We reserve the right to edit all letters for clarity and brevity, but we will not alter your meaning in any way.

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

Related links:
-Bully brigade (Brendan Nyhan, 3/4/02)
-Quieting the homefront (Bryan Keefer, 3/1/02)

3/10/2002 05:53:38 PM 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