The Deficit – One Big Hoax (Part VI)

In my last twelve posts I departed from my discussion of the deficit in order to focus on the columnists of the media and the media in general, with special emphasis on the New York Times.

However, it is now time to return to the subject of the deficit, the last part of which was posted on July 30. I suggest that you re-read it and if you can possibly find the time read all its parts. You can find the last post here and that post will give you links to all the others.

At the end of my last post on this subject I said:

Next time: What can and should we do about the deficit and the imminent insolvency of Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid? Where can we and should we cut?

I will address this here, but before I do so let me return to the subject of this series, namely The Deficit – One Big Hoax. I called it a hoax, not because I don’t think that it is a serious problem, I believe that it is, but because the Republican Party is using it as a hoax to justify its primary aim, which is to destroy all that we have built over the last half century and even before. To not only repeal the Presidents greatest achievement in passing Health Insurance Reform, but to repeal Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, and even to destroy the agencies that safeguard our health and our well being, including the minimum wage and occupational safety, and I kid thee not, if they can get away with it, our system of free public education.

Their lack of concern with the deficit can easily be seen in that not one of their proposed “reforms” decreases the deficit. The Ryan plan, which has passed the House with almost unanimous Republican support (four Republicans voted against it and no Democrats voted for it) would, according to Representative Paul Ryan himself, add $6 trillion to the national debt over ten years as reported by the Economist, hardly a left wing source, and as far as I can find nowhere else in the media.

The same goes for all the proposals for “tax reform” touted by the Republican Presidential candidates. Whether we are talking about the famous (or infamous) 9/9/9 plan or the newly touted flat tax plan of Rick Perry, each one would increase the deficit that they are so ostensibly worried about that they threatened to put the country into default. Yet the media, not even the so-called liberal media, has bothered to point this out. E. J. Dionne Jr. writing in the Washington Post said:

What struck me about Rick Perry’s unveiling of his flat tax proposal is how little attention most of the coverage paid to the massive increase in the deficit it would cause – or the enormous cuts it would require… But the will-o’-the-wisp quality of the Washington conversation is underscored by the fact that when anyone proposed new and temporary spending to boost job growth a couple of months ago the avatars of the conventional wisdom kept asking, “But what about the deficit?” But when Perry proposes his big tax cuts, such questions are nowhere to be heard – except in the 10th paragraph of some news stories. (And that includes Dionne’s own Washington Post’s news reports.)

It is in that sense that it is a hoax, but one that our media fails to call attention to.

But as I have said, while the deficit in the short run, is of secondary importance, while job creation and our infrastructure are of immediate concern, and the two are related, we cannot afford to have only a short-term outlook. The long-term economic future of this country depends on our having the infrastructure to compete. As just one example that has not been discussed, but that is of vital importance is the enlargement of our ports, particularly the port of New Orleans. The Panama Canal is being enlarged to accommodate the larger vessels of the future, but the Port of New Orleans, and our other ports, do not have the capacity to accommodate such vessels. The sooner we address such problems, the better for the future of our economy, and the deficit, which ultimately will be controlled by a robust economy.

But at the same time there is enormous wasteful spending by our government. To the extent that we address such spending, we will reduce our deficit and free up money to do the things that need to be done.

We keep being told that the elephant in the room is entitlement spending and this is true, but in my view this should be addressed, not as a budget issue, but as a sustainability issue.

According to the Social Security Administration (I urge the reader to read this report in full.):

Projected long-run program costs for both Medicare and Social Security are not sustainable under currently scheduled financing, and will require legislative modifications if disruptive consequences for beneficiaries and taxpayers are to be avoided. The long-run financial challenges facing Social Security and Medicare should be addressed soon. If action is taken sooner rather than later, more options and more time will be available to phase in changes so that those affected have adequate time to prepare. Earlier action will also afford elected officials with a greater opportunity to minimize adverse impacts on vulnerable populations, including lower-income workers and those who are already substantially dependent on program benefits.

Both Social Security and Medicare, the two largest federal programs, face substantial cost growth in the upcoming decades due to factors that include population aging as well as the growth in expenditures per beneficiary. Through the mid-2030s, due to the large baby-boom generation entering retirement and lower-birth-rate generations entering employment, population aging is the largest single factor contributing to cost growth in the two programs. Thereafter, the continued rapid growth in health care cost per beneficiary becomes the larger factor.

I intend to discuss this vital issue at length at a future time but allow me to here at least begin a discussion of wasteful spending and I will not attempt to address this in the order of importance, but rather as issues come to my mind. Following this model I address first the so-called Drug War.

I can think of no area where we have done more damage to our economy and to our society than in this area.

The incredible thing is that it should have been obvious from our experience with prohibition. While I am sure that differences between them can be found, the results in the two cases are so parallel that it is an inescapable comparison.

In addition, there is an incredible agreement across the political spectrum on its wrong-headedness. The people who have spoken out against it include: Milton Friedman, the supply side economist, Walter Cronkite, the beloved journalist, George Shultz, Secretary of State in the Reagan Administration, Walter F. Buckley, Jr. founder of the Right Wing National Review, and Jimmy Carter the 39th President of the United States. For the exact quotes from these people, see below. To enlarge for legibility click on it.

Once again, in order to limit the post to a reasonable length, I will defer further discussion to the next post.

Comments on this and other posts are invited and should be sent to es628@columbia.edu.

The Media – A PPS on a Postscript On A Final Comment

On October 17th I posted a critical essay from the New York Times headed "The Media – A Postscript On A Final Comment" and called attention to the unreliable nature of its reporting. I particularly called attention to its screaming headlines which have no support in actual facts or statistics and are based entirely on anecdotal quotes cherry picked to support the conclusion, frequently erroneous, that the Times chooses to put forth.

Most particularly I quoted from an article in the New York Times with the headline “Romney Beating Obama in a Fight for Wall St. Cash."

The reason that I felt the need to distribute this PPS is because the Times is exposed even further by a headline in the Washington Post reading "Obama still flush with cash from financial sector despite frosty relations."

Only the Washington Post gives real figures from the FEC final report and explains that while there are fewer Obama contributors from Wall Street, the ones that are giving are contributing larger amounts so that the total take for the Obama campaign is substantially greater than last year and substantially greater than Romney and greater than the whole Republican field.

I make no comment here on whether the continuing support from Wall Street is good or bad. I only focus here on accuracy of reporting and the Times shows itself inaccurate and unreliable.

I urge my readers to continues to read the New York Times but to take its reporting with a grain of salt and to always look for the facts in the article which support, or as is too often the case, do not support the conclusion of the headline or the thrust of the article.

I have not monitored the Washington Post sufficiently to reach a conclusion as to whether, or not the Post is more reliable than the Times, but the facts I have uncovered here are nevertheless instructive.

The Media – A Postscript On A Final Comment

When I wrote my post entitled: "The Media – A Final Comment" I had intended to leave this subject and move onto others that I believe need to have more light shined upon them. However, since then the Times has once again offended what I consider to be fundamental tenants of good journalism, and I cannot, or at least will not, be silent.

On the front page of a recent edition of the New York Times Sunday Review there appeared the eye-catching headline "Small Donors Are Slow to Return to the Obama Fold." That immediately struck me as rather bad news for the Obama reelection campaign. I wondered how bad that news was – how did it compare with small donor contributions of the 2008 campaign. I started to read the article, but than I paused – I remembered that the FEC quarterly campaign contributions reports were due on October 15. The Times article appeared on September 25, three weeks before the figures might become available. Did the Times get insider information that allowed it to jump the gun?

I read the article with great interest looking for the figures. There weren’t any! I waited until today to see if the figures released on October 25th would support the Times' allegation. A search of the web and of the Times shows no figures that would support that screaming headline.

What was there in the article that prompted the conclusion about small donors supporting or rather not supporting Obama? Did the Times conduct its own poll? No! The whole article, with its sensational headline was based on a few anecdotal quotes.

A man from Arizona, a Mr. Alasadi said:

When I was pro-Obama in 2008, I was thinking of him as a leader who could face the challenges that we were tackling,... Now I am seeing him as just an opportunistic politician.

Nadine Kurland, 62, of Falling Waters, W.Va., is quoted as saying:

I have been very disappointed in the president, he has not stood up to the Republicans.

After some more quotes like this and some concessionary positive quotes like:

I am happy with him, ... I just feel like the Congress is completely obstructing him.

The Times concedes:

Aides to Mr. Obama said the campaign was well ahead of its 2008 benchmarks. That year, Mr. Obama did not reach one million total donors until February, about a month after he won the Iowa caucuses.

A campaign spokesman said that the number of people who had given more than once to Mr. Obama this year and the number of people who had contributed for the first time were both higher than his total number of donors at the same point in 2007

...which seems to completely contradict the headline and the theme of the story.

So how do we get the sensational headline, which ends up being repeated by the media echo chamber, so that we find the Huffington Post quoting the Times article. As far as I can tell, the headline came first. Then the quotes were sought to support the conclusion.

That is not good journalism and illustrates more than ever that our icon, The New York Times, has clay feet. The editorial page may be liberal, but the news pages are there to draw readers. Sensationalism is the bi-word.

But the Times isn’t satisfied with reporting that the small donor segment has left Obama. Sunday, October 16, sees the headline, “Romney Beating Obama in a Fight for Wall St. Cash" but then concedes:

Mr. Obama continues to dominate Mr. Romney — and the rest of the Republican field — in overall fund-raising. He has raised close to $100 million so far this year for his campaign, three times more than Mr. Romney, as well as $65 million for the Democratic National Committee.

In fact other news reports show the President out-raising all the Republican candidates combined.

But it would be hard to realize this from the New York Times headlines. As far as the headlines of the Times are concerned what we get is small donors aren’t giving to the candidacy of the President. Wall Street donors aren’t giving donations to the candidacy of the President. But the President’s fund raising is greater than all Republicans combined. Well, will the Times tell us where the money is coming from, or does this not make a good headline. Or even worse, does it not fit into the message that has been decided upon without reference to any facts.

Maybe Fox, with its obvious bias, is better than the Times with its deceptive liberalism, or pretended objectivity.

Readers beware!!!! Read critically!!!!

The Media – A Final Comment

Over time I have posted a number of articles critical of the media in general and the New York Times in particular. I don’t want to beat a dead horse, and I certainly don’t want to discourage people from reading the New York Times or the rest of the media.

I personally read the Times for about two hours every morning before turning to the web, where I read portions of the Washington Post, The Economist and Haaretz which are delivered to me free of charge by e-mail. In addition I get countless liberal solicitations to contribute money, sign petitions and send e-mails to my members of Congress. Misstatements are not uncommon in all of these communications, and being retired, I search for truth through Google, though if care is not taken that too can lead to erroneous facts, particularly since Right Wing blogs seem to get priority on what is supposed to be an unbiased search engine. I am not suggesting that Google has a deliberate bias, but rather that for whatever reason, those are the results. But one should be particularly wary about facts that fit ones predilections. Just because they fit our political philosophy, doesn’t mean they are true.

But the New York Times, which is the standard by which all others are supposed to be measured, most frequently draws my ire. And now I am not talking about its columns, or its editorials, but its news articles, and what drew my ire today was one that appeared on the Front page of the Times on October 7, 2011 with the headline: “Some Unemployed Find Fault in Extension of Jobless Benefits." This the Times considers to be such startling news that it makes page one with a colored photograph, no less. Now there are 14 million unemployed in the US and the Times found one person who doesn’t think unemployment insurance should be extended. That is news? And Front Page News at that? Now if they had found a majority feeling that way, that would be news! 10% might be news! But one?

In fairness to the article it goes on to discuss some of the ramifications of unemployment insurance and Republican position on the question. But is that an appropriate lead–in? Or does that sound more like the New York Post or Fox?

Aside of how this reflects on the Times it should send a warning to all as to how a paper, any paper should be read. A headline is frequently misleading! The reporter who writes the article does not write the headline, and so the headline may or may not reflect what the reporter intended the article to convey. It is often misleading!

Many articles in any newspaper try to be balanced, but one view may be in the first part of the article, and the opposite view in the latter part. If you don’t read the continuation, you are likely to get only one view, rather than a balanced one.

Beware of quotes from unnamed sources, something that the Times, and other media indulge in more and more frequently. Sometimes there are legitimate reasons for it, but often the source is unreliable or does not exist. Even where the source is named be skeptical. Remember, how Chalabi was quoted as the authority on all things Iraqi. All wrong!!!

As for unnamed, or even named sources without a pedigree, should be suspect. I remember a time when I became an expert on EZ Pass for the Newark Star Ledger. I had written a Letter to the Editor on this subject and for a long time thereafter, whenever the reporter covering that subject wanted a quote from someone, anyone, he would phone me and ask my opinion. The article would appear as “Emil Scheller a resident of Montclair, NJ expressed the view, “…” Should anyone have cared what that view was?

The New York Times is assumed to be a liberal paper and so when they print a front page article critical of the Obama Administration one tends to give it credence. But it “aint necessarily so”! One article, in November of 2010, so outraged me so much that I made it a point to save it. The headline read “While Warning About Fat, U.S. Pushes Cheese Sales," which it seemed to me to be a pretty hypocritical position for the Administration to take, and I read it with deep misgivings. Guess what? Every single instance cited in the article in support of the headline was one that occurred in the Bush Administration. I wouldn’t have known that if I had read the article only in the print edition, but I was sufficiently bothered by the allegations in the article to go to the web edition, where I could, by the magic of links, find the underlying facts. Every instance cited, but one, was years old and under the Bush Administration.

Now I have two major problems with this. Why was the Times printing old, years old, news as though it was current news? Was the reporter busy with other things and told to write an article by a short deadline, dug out an old article that had never been printed, up-dated it with one recent example, and he had earned his salary. Did any editor check the citations as I did?

I took the time to write to the author of the article as follows:

I just finished reading your article in the Times of today and am deeply disturbed at its misleading character. Almost everything in the article is old and no longer newsworthy. Most of the material dates back to the Bush Administration and one of the few items from the Obama Administration, dated July 15, 2010 reads, “The NDC commends the 2010 DGAC’s science‐based conclusions that include increasing consumption of nutrient‐dense foods, including low‐fat and fat‐free milk and milk products, decreasing consumption of solid fats and added sugars, and increasing regular physical activity to improve the health of Americans. Higher dairy food consumption is associated with reduced risk of cardiovascular disease, type 2 diabetes, poor bone health and related diseases. Because Americans are consuming only 60% of the recommended amounts of milk and milk products, research supports the committee’s conclusion that efforts are warranted to promote consumption of three servings of low fat and fat free milk and milk products for individuals ages 9 years and older." (Emphasis added).

For the documents cited in the article see here and for the only document issued by the Obama Administration see here.

I never received a reply. I guess I should have written to the Editor, or the Public Editor, but I doubt if it would have made a difference.

Until we the public demand something better and are satisfied with titillation, sensationalism, and superficiality, we will get what we deserve.

What we are most interested in is the Knox murder trial (Foxy Knoxy) – sex and murder- its much more fun, or the Casey Anthony murder trial in the death of her 2-year-old daughter, Caylee, but in the end we get from our media and from our government what we deserve.

In the end – WE HAVE MET THE ENEMY AND THEY ARE US!

The Media And Their Columnists – Discussion

On September 12, 2011 I distributed my last commentary entitled The Media And Their Columnists" which I hope my readers will re-read, for it once again alerts the reader to a subject to which I have been coming back again and again, i.e. that the media in general, and the New York Times in particular, along with their columnists must be read with a jaundiced eye.

On my trip to Russia the difficulty of this was brought home to me when one of my dinner companions exclaimed, “If not the New York Times, then where should I turn for my news?" I have thought about this and I guess the Times can be put in the same category as Democracy. In the words of Winston Churchill, which he gave in a speech to the House of Commons in 1947, “No one pretends that democracy is perfect or all-wise. Indeed, it has been said that democracy is the worst form of government except all those other forms that have been tried from time to time.” The same may be said of our media and particularly the New York Times and its columnists.

As bad as they are, they are better than nothing, and certainly better than what pretends to be news on TV, and I would certainly urge my readers to read and keep informed by the only media we have, but to do so with a jaundiced eye.

Having said the above as a preamble, I want to share with my readers a comment I received from Joe Kerrigan of Iselin, NJ which as well as anything illustrates why the New York Times can be a dangerously deceptive news source, and why reading my postings along with its source material can avoid major misconceptions. Kerrigan wrote:

Enjoyed your column, as always. Suggest that when you speak in absolute terms, you do so with Greater caution or more reflection, a la your reference to Al Gore . He did not invent the Internet. An agency of the federal government did. I believe it is commonly referred to as DARPA.

To which I responded:

(With respect to) …your recommendation that when I am speaking in "absolute terms" I do so with "Greater caution or more reflection, a la (my) reference to Al Gore", I can assure you that I exercise the "Greatest caution", and reflect carefully before I write. If there is one thing that I am meticulous about, it is making absolutely sure that what I state as facts, are facts.

The problem is not with my care, but rather with the care of my readers, who like most others, read carelessly, and often confine their reading to headlines, or at best to the first paragraph or two, making assumptions as to the rest.

Their is also a tendency to look upon the New York Times as the gospel, and so when anyone tries to expose them, to assume that those who would do so must be mistaken, or at least careless.

And so you have allowed yourself to continue to be misled by a superficiality of reading, and never took the time to refer to my blog posting "The Media II - Falsehoods about Gore," which if you had, you would not have been misled. (Article can be accessed by clicking on brown title)

You are quite right that Gore did not invent the Internet. What you overlooked was that this is not where the lie lay. The lie lay in the false and malicious charge that Gore had ever claimed that he did. He had not made such a claim!!!!

Now since I can't get you, or for that matter very few of my readers to go to the references, which are available with just a click of the mouse, I will quote from the referenced source:

"Here are the facts:

"In 1989, Gore introduced the National High-Performance Computer Technology Act, a five-year, $1.7 billion program to expand the capacity of the information highway to connect government, industry, and academic institutions. Signed by President Bush in 1991, the bill supported research and development for an improved national computer system, and assisted colleges and libraries in connecting to the new network. In 1989, when few public officials grasped the profound changes that new information technology would bring, Gore saw them plainly. "I genuinely believe that the creation of this nationwide network will create an environment where work stations are common in homes and even small businesses," he told a House committee in the spring of 1989.

"On this basis Gore said in an interview with Wolf Blitzer of CNN, “During my service in the United States Congress, I took the initiative in creating the Internet.” As can be seen, this was entirely true. HE DID NOT SAY HE “INVENTED” THE INTERNET."

But once a lie is spread, it is almost impossible to erase it. The truth never catches up with the lie, particularly when the New York Times is one of the sources and refuses to issue a retraction.

I know that all myth have a life of their own and we live by them. I try to dispel these myths. As you can see from your own reaction, it is not easily done.

As a matter of fact this was not the only lie promulgated by the media in general and the New York Times in particular about Gore, which may well, have cost him his election, a result which has been haunting us long beyond that election, and which is and remains history. It may be that this election set the stage for all that has followed.

The Times and the media also spread lies about what Gore said about Love Canal and the “Superfund.” Please, Please read that posting "The Media II - Falsehoods about Gore" and while you are at it take the time to read: "The Media! (Watergate/Clinton)" and "The Media III - Falsehoods about Kerry."

Unless you read these articles you will be lacking an understanding of the extent to which the media could not and can’t be trusted. The truth can be found, but it takes work and dedication.

But our faith in the New York Times has been so ingrained that Leonard Levenson Esq. of New York responded to my criticism of the Times columnists with:

Do not confuse the opinions of op Ed or other writers for a particular editorial policy of a newspaper. The Times uses writers such as Brooks, Dowd, and Krugman who all have differing views on the economy and Obama. I am not quite as cynical as you are about the motives of all newspapers. Obviously, some tabloids are interested only on increasing circulation or are the mouthpieces for particular interests. I do believe that papers like the Christian Science Monitor, The Washington Post, and The New York Times are altruistically motivated.

I am astonished that you, of all people, are prepared to criticize those that criticize Obama. I say "you of all people" because I identify you as one who is an unyielding advocate of the free exchange of ideas and "let the chips fall where they may.” The Republicans do not need help from Democrats to criticize Obama. The difference is that the Republicans make no sense in the attacks. Democrats are thoughtful and balanced in their criticism and is not a rejection of his ideas but of his methodology. The Republicans are "know-nothing" obstructionists with no intelligent alternatives to most of Obamas very intelligent ideas.

To which I replied:

Do not confuse newspapers editorial policy with their news reporting. The Wall Street Journal has always had a terrible, even slanderous editorial page, but it’s reporting has been sterling. The Times has a good editorial page, but its news pages have become increasingly questionable, and I can give endless examples. But for now let us focus on what I wrote below which I am not sure you read, or at least not carefully. How do you explain Judith Miller who shilled for the Bush Administration in the pages of the Times by publishing selected and distorted facts in support of the Iraq war, or the facts set forth in "The Media II - Falsehoods about Gore" and "The Media III - Falsehoods about Kerry" and in criticizing Krugman et al., I am not doing so not just for opinions but for falsehoods, and I can cite other articles in the Times and other "good newspapers" that are misleading or out and out false.

Yes, I have become cynical but with good reason. In the cited articles about Gore and Kerry I cite both the Times and the Washington Post for misleading and slanderous articles about the Democratic candidates that may well have cost them the election. The Trojan Horse refers not just to Krugman but to just about everybody in the media.

But after all the New York Times carping, along with the rest of the “liberal media” about what a bad deal the President made with Republicans to avoid a default, the Times suddenly discovered the merit therein, writing in their editorial of October 1, 2011:

But that supposed victory has forced many Republicans into an equally tight corner. They are starting to realize that if they remain adamant, the resulting across-the-board cuts will disproportionately affect programs they support, starting with military spending.

The joint committee created by the debt-ceiling agreement is desperately groping behind closed doors for ways to cut at least $1.2 trillion from the federal deficit. Republican leaders want it all to come from spending cuts; Democratic leaders want a mix of cuts and revenue increases. If the two sides cannot agree, there will be automatic cuts, which largely spare social-welfare programs but would severely reduce military and security spending. (Emphasis added)

Better late, then never!!!!!