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 And Their Columnists

After my last post entitled: "The Deficit – One Big Hoax or a Looming Catastrophe?" which I did not find easy to write and I imagine my readers did not find easy to read, because it was in many ways counter-intuitive and because it was heavy on statistics, I want to spend this post covering a subject that is much easier to grasp, and while not within the “conventioanal wisdom” may not be quite so counterintuitive.

I have over the past weeks and month railed at the media in general and their columnists in particular, in part because in my opinion they have been unfairly maligning our President, but to a larger extent, because they have been short on facts and long on rhetoric. I have particularly been chagrined when they use misleading or downright false facts to malign our President.

For example in my post entitled: "The Trojan Horse" I took Krugman to task for criticizing President Obama for not sufficiently attacking former President Bush, when:

1.) It would have made more sense to himself attack the former President and
2.) More important, the criticism had no basis in fact, since as one Right wing blog had pointed out, Obama had been doing just that.

Now I find myself even further outraged by a columns in the New York Times by Tom Friedman, entitled: “The Whole Truth and Nothing But”.

I just wish Mr. Friedman heeded his own advice. Mr. Freidman decries that, “democracies have… been telling lies.” Yes, the politicians have been telling a lot of lies, and as I wrote in a letter to my local newspaper some time ago:

After the attempted assassination of Congresswomen, Gabrielle Giffords, there was an outcry for greater civility. Our need is not for greater civility, but for truth telling. The endless outrageous lies spread by Fox and so many other outlets, by e-mail and on the web, must be exposed for what they are.

But I wish the lying were confined to Fox and the Right. Mr. Friedman after calling for avoiding lies promptly goes on to tell a whopper. He tells us:

But no American politician dares utter the word ‘sacrifice.’

I had an immediate reaction to this. Is Mr. Friedman lying, or has he been simply living on another planet? Whichever is the truth, such nonsense should never find itself in print in the pages of the prestigious New York Times.

I was sure I heard our President talk about “shared sacrifice” over and over again. Could my memory be playing tricks on me? So I went to Google and put in “Obama on shared sacrifice.” Guess What?

1,410,000 hits popped up. The first “Obama urges ‘shared sacrifice’ on debt,” and one after another along the same line.

Now I am not accusing Mr. Friedman with deliberately lying. I have read Mr. Freidman’s books “Beirut to Jerusalem” and the “World is Flat”. They are excellent books. But what other explanation can there be? Maybe he is just too busy to bother with the facts before meeting his deadline for his next column, which must be exactly one newspaper column long. If is a little shorter they can put in a filler, quoting in large letters something in the column. But God forbid it should be too long! That is pretty constraining if one really means to say something meaningful, instead of something that people can be impressed with if they don’t think about it too long.

I don’t know what Thomas Friedman’s salary at the New York Times is, but in addition to his column he hits the lecture circuit, he goes on TV shows, he writes books, so much so, that he earns $2 million annually.

I don’t think he makes that kind of a salary from the New York Times. So he throws something together, and who cares if it has one iota of truth in it, as long as it makes good copy.

But that is not the only nonsense this well credentialed man turns out. He advocates a Third Party. Now what a third party would do for, or that mater to, our political system, he doesn’t say. We have had third parties many times. They have always succeeded in doing the opposite of what they were intended to do. The Green Party, headed by Ralph Nader, was instrumental in electing George W. Bush. Ross W. Perot who was much more closely aligned with the Republican Party than to the Democratic Party, was instrumental in electing Bill Clinton.

The time may come, if we ever have a system where a majority is needed to win an election, that a third party might be a viable vehicle. But until then, they are a threat to the principles they profess to support.

But Friedman, instead of pointing out that we have a choice between a moderate, even a conservative party in many ways in the Democratic Party and a Radical Right wing party, intent on rule or ruin, rides his hobby horse. And not just now: In April 2006, in May 2006, in June 2006 and in March 2010.

Now in July 2011 Friedman has a new idea:

President Obama should dump the Democrats and run as an independent, which he is, at heart, anyway (and) If President Obama wants to run with John Boehner that would be fine

Spare me!!!

It seems to me that if Friedman has nothing intelligent to write about he should give up his column. But that wouldn’t work. How would he then get his speaking engagements and his book sales? What would happen to his $2 million-plus income?

And who would take his place? Frank Bruni, who for years was the Times Food critic, has now magically become an expert on the political scene and gives us this pearl of wisdom.

Instead of talking about how smart politicians are or aren’t, we should have an infinitely more useful, meaningful conversation about whether we share and respect their values and whether they have shown themselves to be effective. Someone who rates high on both counts is someone to rally unreservedly around. Right now, neither Perry nor Obama fits that double bill.

I am sure glad to hear that he equates Rick Perry with Obama.

Or John Nocera who told it like it is when he wrote: “For now, the Tea Party Republicans can put aside their suicide vests," couldn’t take the heat when some objected to his telling it the way it is and four days later wrote: “That anger reached its apex on Tuesday, when I wrote a column comparing the Tea Party Republicans to terrorists. The words I chose were intemperate and offensive to many, and I’ve been roundly criticized. I was a hypocrite, the critics said, for using such language when on other occasions I’ve called for a more civil politics. In the cool light of day, I agree with them. I apologize.”

Who are these pundits who write for the Times? We have had Democrats called “traitors for losing China,” “for being soft on Communism” and “for being soft on crime.” Obama has been called “Un-American”, his birth has been questioned, even though his birth certificate has been available on the web since day one, he has been called a socialist, a communist, and a fascist. Kerry had his heroism impugned, and Gore was called a liar and worse, even though nothing he said was even an exaggeration. See: "The Media II - Falsehoods about Gore." But Nocera apologizes for telling it like it is.

I will keep reading the New York Times. But I will do so with a grain of salt and I urge my readers to do the same.

With this I leave for Russia, but when I return I will tackle the thorny issues of Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid, which require some badly needed truth telling.