Friday, May 30, 2003
PAUL “CHOMSKY” KRUGMAN
For further proof that the Howell Raines’ era at the New York Times is a disaster, read today’s paranoid rambling by—who else?—Paul Krugman.
Krugman further demonstrates his tenuous grip on reality by comparing the War Against Saddam with the movie Wag the Dog. Supposedly the administration used fictional justifications to sell the war for the purpose of yielding great political dividends for Bush. And what were these “fictional justifications”? Funny you should ask:
The war was justified to the public by links between Saddam and Al Qaeda, and Iraq's possession of weapons of mass destruction. No evidence of the Qaeda link has ever surfaced, and no W.M.D.'s that could have posed any threat to the U.S. or its allies have been found.
The only serious response to the charge of “no evidence of the Qaeda link” is “HUH!?!?” How about the capture of an al Qaeda terrorist in Baghdad on April 28? Or the capture Iraqi offical Farouk Hijazi who has admitted that he met with Osama bin Laden in 1994 (and may have met with him in 1998)? For more on those links, see this article by Stephen Hayes.
As for WMDs, Krugman might consider taking a look at the news stories about the two mobile bio-labs that have been discovered. Or other stories showing that of the 1000 potential WMD sites, only the “most likely”—about 100—have been searched thus far.
On the other hand, perhaps we shouldn’t expect Krugman to do much searching for such newspaper articles. After all, he doesn’t dig too far into the articles that he does read. Consider his encapsulation of a recent BBC article:
This week a senior British intelligence official told the BBC that under pressure from Downing Street, a dossier on Iraqi weapons had been "transformed" to make it "sexier" — uncorroborated material from a suspect source was added to make the threat appear imminent.
However, as the excellent blog PowerLine notes (thanks to Henry Hanks), it’s not much of a story. The anonymous intelligence official cited by the BBC only complains about the intelligence report’s statement that Iraq’s “weapons of mass destruction were ready for use within 45 minutes.” Krugman, not surprisingly, completely ignores the part of the story that shows most of the intelligence report was substantiated:
"Most things in the dossier were double source but that was single source and we believe that the source was wrong."
He said "most people in intelligence" were unhappy about the changes because they "didn't reflect the considered view they were putting forward".
But the official said he was convinced that Iraq had programme to produce weapons of mass destruction, and felt it was 30% likely there was a biological weapons programme.
He said some evidence had been "downplayed" by chief UN weapons inspector Hans Blix.
The most ironic part of Krugman’s column is his contention that Americans’ approval of President Bush is due to “cognitive dissonance.” Hmmm…let’s see here: A Princeton professor who can’t accept the fact that a president he loathes is popular because of strong leadership on foreign policy, so he omits some facts and distorts others to “prove” that the president’s foreign policy is akin to a B movie. Cognitive dissonance indeed.
. . .
Thursday, May 29, 2003
CONSERVATIVES SHOULDN'T PLAY THE DEFICIT GAME
Why we always lose.
. . .
IF I WERE AN AFRICAN-AMERICAN…
I was watching Hannity and Colmes interview Nate Holden, an African-American member of the Los Angles City Council, last night. Holden was defending a recent law passed by the City Council which asks companies doing business in L.A. to reveal if they ever made money from slavery.
If I was an African-American youth growing up in the inner-city, I’d be very proud of a leader like Holden. I mean, of all the problems I’d be facing, the most pressing would be not knowing whether Southern Pacific Railroad was ever involved in the slave trade.
. . .
TAX CUTS DON’T HELP THE ECONOMY
I know this because the Des Moines Register editorial page said so:
There are good reasons to revise state and federal income taxes. Giving the economy a boost isn't one of them.
The most pervasive canard in today's politics is the notion that tax cuts automatically spur economic growth. It has become the modern version of the emperor's marvelous new clothes. No one dares to blurt out the obvious, but to anyone who opens their eyes and looks around - like the little boy who noticed the emperor's exposed posterior - it's plainly not true.
If tax cuts invariably caused economic growth, Iowa would be reveling in the boom brought about by the hefty state income-tax cuts enacted in the late 1990s.
If tax cuts were always the right medicine for the national economy, there would be jobs galore due to the tax cuts of 2001.
Actually, Iowa experienced a pretty decent spurt of growth following the tax cut of 1998, and most of the Bush tax cut of 2001 wasn’t scheduled to take effect until 2004, 2005, and 2006. That’s the purpose of the new Bush tax cut: to speed it up. While I’m on the subject, did an economic boom follow the tax cuts of Ronald Reagan, John F. Kennedy, and Calvin Coolidge? No? Okay, guess I was mistaken.
If the definition of insanity is doing the same thing over again and expecting a different result . . . well, here we are again with tax cuts on the top of the agenda and advocates claiming they will cause economic growth.
And if the definition of “distortion” is selective use of the facts and evidence, then we’ll find a picture of the Register editorialists next to the word in the dictionary.
In Iowa, a reform of the state income tax is one of the prices that tax-cut true believers are demanding in exchange for passage of the Iowa Values Fund, a needed economic-development initiative. The trouble is, the proposal is not merely tax reform. It would produce a sizable income-tax cut that could force additional reductions in education, in environmental improvements, in medical assistance and other public services by which the quality of life in Iowa is measured.
The emperor's tailors are spinning the invisible thread again. The cut is put forward in the name of economic development.
Quality of life, huh? Well, Iowa already has one of the top education systems in the country, Vilsack increased health-care for kids in his first few years in office, and we also have very low crime rate. Through a program called Vision Iowa we’ve also spent about $250 million over the last five years on the arts and cultural amenities that the Register editorialists think are so crucial to economic growth. Why, based on the factors the Register thinks contribute to economic growth, Iowa should be the economic wonder of the Midwest!
Perhaps the fact that it’s not would give the Register some pause before proposing more of the same. I’m joking, of course:
The goal should be neither high taxes nor low taxes but smart taxes and smart spending. Let's return to the old idea that the best way to create growth is to spend public money efficiently and wisely on things that facilitate economic activity.
They’ve got one thing right: it’s definitely an old idea.
That's no liberal nostrum. It is one of the founding principles of American conservatism. Early conservatives advocated raising taxes to pay off debt and to finance "internal improvements" - roads, canals, harbors - to strengthen the national economy. Republican Abraham Lincoln pushed for building the transcontinental railroad and the endowment of land-grant colleges. Republican Teddy Roosevelt built the Panama Canal. Republican Dwight Eisenhower inspired the Interstate highway system.
Oh, please. The Iowa Values Fund is not about spending money on public improvements. It’s about spending money on favored businesses and trying to pick economic winners and losers. I don’t remember reading about Lincoln, Roosevelt, or Eisenhower proposing that.
Such initiatives are smart spending of public money and the best kind of economic policy. They provide a boost in the short term by immediately putting people to work building things and helping others. In the long term, they take the national economy to a new level when those things that are built - the highways, railroads, airports, hospitals, schools, research labs and more - help everyone be more productive.
Really? Where’s the evidence for that? Perhaps the Register should take a look at some of the papers written on government spending and economic growth for the Joint Committee on Economics. But then, why bother? If the Register says it is a good idea, then it must be true. So let’s raise taxes in this country by $1 trillion. That would create 20 million new jobs each paying $50,000. Since I know that tax cuts don’t work, and tax increases for smart government spending does (because the Register said so) I’m sure this would be a great idea.
. . .
REKHA BASU, FIGHTING FOR YOUR FREE SPEECH
In another one of her incisive columns, Rekha Basu laments the supposed decline of diverse media viewpoints due to media consolidation:
So in San Francisco, you can tune in to a talk-radio host sitting in Baltimore, commenting on San Francisco news as if he were there. And in Minneapolis, the "local" overnight deejay is actually coming to you from Rockville, Md., under a different name. Those are a couple of examples offered by Washington Post columnist Marc Fisher. He's writing a book about radio in America and chronicling the changes since 1996, when deregulation by Congress allowed one company, Clear Channel Communications, to increase its ownership from 40 to 1,200 commercial radio stations, just over 10 percent of the total. Fisher writes that the company also has unprecedented influence over popular music because of its role in concert promotion and outdoor advertising. There are other examples. In many cities, a single company controls a majority of radio advertising revenue and makes most of the programming decisions.
That's hardly freedom of speech.
Actually, yes it is. The First Amendment says “Congress shall pass no law.” It doesn’t say anything about media companies making programming decisions.
She continues:
As it is, America's long, proud tradition of a media free from government interference is subtly undermined when a prominent longtime Republican Party media man like Roger Ailes heads Fox News, where you'll seldom hear a credible view critical of Republican or Bush policy.
Yep freedom of the press has gone right out the window because Roger Ailes runs (with Karl Rove whispering in his ear, of course) FoxNews, a cable news station. I guess the independence of CBS, NBC, ABC, CNN, MSNBC, the New York Times, Washington Post, Los Angeles Times, Time, Newsweek, and U.S. News and World Report is going down the tubes too.
Does it also mean that the Des Moines Register will lose its independence soon too? And will it mean Basu will have to look for another job? GO ROGER AILES!
. . .
Wednesday, May 28, 2003
FOR THE GRANDCHILDREN
In some of his recent columns, Des Moines Register columnist David Yepsen has been beating up on Dave Stanley of Iowans for Tax Relief for Stanley’s opposition to the Iowa Values Fund (IVF). (Full disclosure: Stanley is my boss.)
Yepsen’s rhetoric has been cheap, to say the least. For example, in this column Yepsen states:
Some zealots are starting to say that doing nothing is better than this package. Shame on them for putting their narrow self-interest above the public interest.
So those opposed to the IVF are “zealots” who put their “self-interest above the public interest.” Of course, those who are opposed to the IVF might say that they don’t want the state government to make a $800 million mistake—something that’s clearly in the “public interest.” But Yepsen has become so blinded by the arguments in favor of the IVF that such obvious thoughts don’t occur to him.
Indeed, he likes the IVF so much that he took infantile pot shots at Stanley in a previous column by implying that Stanley didn’t care about his grandchildren:
Late last Wednesday, 75-year-old Republican state Representative Effie Boggess of Villisca rose to speak on the noisy floor of the Iowa House. Everyone likes Effie. She's warm-hearted, doesn't say much and never shouts. She reminds many of us of our grandmothers - those wise, salt-of-the-earth Iowa women who helped make us what we are today.
Which is probably why the chamber grew quiet. (You didn't interrupt your grandmother very often, did you?) People listened as she endorsed Democratic Gov. Tom Vilsack's Iowa Values Fund, a bill that makes development grants, funds research projects, trains workers and builds rural schools.
But rather than go through a bunch of complex economic justifications, Effie talked a language most Iowans understand all too well. She talked about her children and her grandchildren.
"We have seven children," she said. "Two of them are in Iowa. How much longer they'll stay here, we don't know. We have 17 grandchildren. Only three are in Iowa. Two of them are at Iowa State, and whether they'll stay after they graduate, I don't know."
Yepsen concluded by saying:
Republican state senators will have to decide whom they are for: Effie's grandkids or Dave Stanley.
In response I wrote the following letter to the editor, which the Register did not print:
In his column “Give All Our Grandchildren a Brighter Future – In Iowa,” David Yepsen resorts to the tired rhetorical trick of promoting an ineffective government policy by using images of children to tug at our heartstrings. He quotes State Senator Effie Boggess to the effect that she supports the Iowa Values Fund out of concern for her grandchildren. He juxtaposes this against David Stanley who opposes the Iowa Values Fund. By implication, Mr. Stanley isn’t concerned about his grandchildren
Well, I had dinner with Mr. Stanley last Friday night (May 2), and I can reassure Iowans that Mr. Stanley talked often and glowingly about his grandkids. Given that, why would Mr. Stanley oppose the Iowa Values Fund?
The Iowa Values Fund is touted as something that will transform Iowa’s economy. Yet, most of the relevant academic research shows state-government economic development spending has no positive impact on economic growth. Perhaps Mr. Stanley is concerned that the Iowa Values offers a false promise to his grandchildren.
The Iowa Values Fund would also require the state to incur in the neighborhood of $800 million in debt. If paid back over 20 years, that’s an extra $40 million—before interest costs—that Iowa taxpayers will have to bear. So perhaps Mr. Stanley is also concerned about the tax burden his grandchildren will face years from now.
Unfortunately, much of the commentary in favor of the Iowa Values Fund can be best described as thoughtless cheerleading. Mr. Yepsen’s invocation of “grandchildren” is just another example.
And that thoughtless cheerleading looks like it is about to carry the day. The special session of the Iowa Legislature will occur tomorrow, and my sources tell me that the IVF will be approved.
. . .
CONFIDENCE LACKING IN THE MEDIA
From Reuters, Tuesday, May 27, 11:41am:
May Confidence Lacking, Hopes Unmet
From Reuters, Tuesday, May 27, 1:15 am:
May Consumer Confidence Seen Rising
. . .
Tuesday, May 27, 2003
TAX CUTS = BANANA REPUBLIC = GUTTING ENTITLEMENTS
I’m stunned! I’m shocked! I’m awed! Paul Krugman doesn’t like the new Bush tax cut!
As usual, he drags out his tired, worn-out, hysterical themes: America is becoming a “banana republic” and the American people need to “wake up.” On the last one, doesn’t it seem that Krugman is developing considerable contempt for the American public? Because they don’t see what he sees, they need to wake from their dream world. Oh well, typical academic liberalism: you’re for “the people,” you just don’t have to have any respect for them.
Krugman again descends into his increasing paranoia:
It's no secret that right-wing ideologues want to abolish programs Americans take for granted. But not long ago, to suggest that the Bush administration's policies might actually be driven by those ideologues — that the administration was deliberately setting the country up for a fiscal crisis in which popular social programs could be sharply cut — was to be accused of spouting conspiracy theories.
Actually, it’s been common knowledge since the 2000 presidential campaign that Bush wanted to reform Social Security. In fact, Krugman has written about it many times. And Bush’s plans to reform Medicare and Medicaid haven’t exactly been hidden from public view either.
Ah, but, we’re talking about more than just reform, aren’t we? We’re talking about “abolishing” these programs. According to Krugman:
[T]he people now running America aren't conservatives: they're radicals who want to do away with the social and economic system we have, and the fiscal crisis they are concocting may give them the excuse they need.
In other words, when the deficit gets too high, the American people will go along with humungous cuts in entitlement spending. Once again, Krugman shows why he is a professor of economics, and not politics (nor history for that matter).
Let’s review the deficit politics of the 1990s. Social Security was never really target of the deficit hawks. It was left alone, because it is a popular middle-class program, and its primary beneficiaries are the elderly, the demographic group that votes more than any other. Social Security reform came late to the game when President Clinton mentioned it in his 1997 State of the Union Address. And even then, it still wasn’t a part of the 1997 budget agreement.
While we’re at it, remember the GOP’s attempt, under Newt Gingrich, to reform Medicare during the 104th Congress? The Democrats and their willing accomplices in the press accused them of wanting to cut Medicare (it wasn’t a ‘cut”, just a reduction in the rate of growth). The Clinton Administration used the accusation to get reelected, and the GOP lost nine seats in the House in the 1996 election.
Now, Krugman wants us to believe that the Bushies are politically savvy enough to create a fiscal train wreck to justify elimination of these programs, but they’re not savvy enough to read opinion polls or remember very recent history.
Like I said, professor of economics, not politics. And I even have to wonder about the economics, given his recent piece on the “liquidity trap.” But that’s a topic for a little later.
. . .
|
. . .
|
