Larry Kudlow writes that it's time for the President to start debunking Howard Dean. To which I say, "Right wing crank, debunk thyself." [link]
Kudlow issues a rousing call-to-arms for the "Bushies" (his term, not mine) to counter Dean's popularity after a "shocking" Zogby poll showed Dean leading Sen. John Kerry 38% to 17% in New Hampshire. The tone of his call-to-arms suggests that maybe the Republicans are afraid of Dean (notwithstanding Karl Rove's supposed encouragement that "Yeah, that's the one we want). After all, Kudlow doesn't demean Dean with the "unelectable" crap, but rather, derides him as a "Ted Kennedyesque" liberal who must be stopped.
So what is a Bushie to do? Kudlow's response is to try to discredit Dean on the issues. So I say, let's discredit Kudlow, shall we?
Point 1: The Liberal Media Rehash
Kudlow says that there is clearly a media bias against President Bush because the day after Dr. Dean's "successful" rally in Bryant Park, the New York Times ran a large color photo of Dr. Dean above the fold, while a story about President Bush's speech to the VFW convention ran below the Dean story, and had no picture.
First, let's deal in some basic facts: President Bush did not address the VFW convention in San Antonio; he addressed the American Legion convention in St. Louis. [link] It's a minor point, but I think that it's not too much to expect a writer for the National Review to get these kinds of basic facts right.
Second, although the New York Times has a national audience, it's still a New York newspaper. Arguably, the Dean event was more "newsworthy" to a New York audience than the President's speech. For one thing, the Dean event took place in New York City, practically within spitting distance of the Times' offices, while the President's speech took place in San Antonio (if you are inclined to listen to Kudlow) or St. Louis (if you are inclined to listen to the truth). But more importantly, the Dean story just sounds more newsworthy on its face: in 9-candidate primary field, one candidate gets 10,000 New Yorkers to turn out at 8:30 on a Tuesday night in August, five months before the first primary vote will be cast in two states that aren't New York, and fifteen months before the general election. In comparison, the President, who speaks to lots of groups about lots of things, gave a speech in which he defended his policy in Iraq.
Not only that, but it's not like the Times buried the Bush story among the death notices on page B14 -- they did put it on the front page of the paper, which suggests the relative importance the Times' editors placed on the story.
Finally, Kudlow's criticism is selective, based on my admittedly unscientific glance at today's paper. To paraphrase Kudlow, this morning, "the New York Times saw fit to run a huge frontpage story with a color picture of the [President]. Meanwhile, a story on [the Democratic candidates speeches on Labor Day] — where [they] emphasized [their differences with the President] — was placed [on Page A21]."
Put it all together -- a newsworthy local event gets top coverage, but the President's speech at a convention also gets prominent page 1 coverage the same day, with similar, but opposite, treatment of the same politicians on another day -- and I don't see the media bias.
But let's not get bogged down in this -- after all, it's hardly Kudlow's main point.
Point 2 -- The Economy, it is a Changing
One of Kudlow's main points is that the economy is improving, but that Bush's advisors haven't been proactive in promoting it. To give his argument gravitas, he cites the Congressional Budget Office projections on the deficit:
But the new Congressional Budget Office estimates show a huge drop in projected deficits beginning in 2005 and extending for the next eight years. By 2010 the deficit is projected to be less than 2 percent of GDP. By 2013 the CBO estimates a $211 billion surplus.
Sounds like good news, right? Well, after the VFW/American Legion mixup, I thought I should check some of Kudlow's facts. So I went to the CBO report that Kudlow is citing to (at least I think it's the same report, since he doesn't bother to reference his sources). [link] Know what I found? That Kudlow is lying with statistics. Can you imagine?
Let me explain. The CBO does indeed predict that deficits will decline from their peak in 2004 and that we will have a surplus starting in 2012. So Kudlow's statements are correct, right? Well, not exactly. Here are some of the caveats that the CBO points out in its report.
Caveat #1: CBO estimate is made "under the assumption (mandated by statute) that current laws and policies remain the same". In other words, the CBO is predicting that if Congress does nothing between now and 2012, we'll have a budget surplus. (Insert your own joke here)
Caveat #2: As a result of CBO Caveat #1, "CBO's baseline projections show deficits that diminish and then give way to surpluses near the end of the 2004-2013 period--under the assumption that no policy changes occur. In particular, the baseline assumes that the major tax provisions of the Economic Growth and Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2001 (EGTRRA) will expire as scheduled in 2010." In other words, in order to have a surplus starting in 2012, the Republicans would have to let the Bush tax cuts expire and not reauthorize them. Yep, that means that to get a surplus, the Republicans would have to reinstate the dreaded "death tax". Anyone want to take bets that EGTRRA won't be reauthorized?
Caveat #3: Still related to CBO Caveat #1, "the baseline does not include possible policy changes such as the introduction of a prescription drug benefit for Medicare beneficiaries." In other words, even though we know that some kind of prescription drug benefit reform is coming, the CBO can't take it into account, and Larry Kudlow won't think about it either.
Caveat #4: In order to get to Kudlow's projected surplus of $211 billion 2013, you have to include the Social Security surplus and the net cash flows of the Postal Service (I swear, I didn't make that up), which comprise the "off-budget surplus" (as opposed to the "on-budget deficits). For the record, the off-budget surplus is not something within the control of the President or the Congress, whereas the on-budget deficit is. So, if you look just at the on-budget deficit numbers, you see that the deficits are predicted to exceed $100 million even in 2013.
And last, but certainly not least, Caveat #5: "Actual budget totals...will almost certainly differ from those baseline projections. By statute, CBO's baseline must estimate the future paths of federal revenues and spending under current laws and policies. The baseline is therefore not intended to be a prediction of future budgetary outcomes; instead, it is meant to serve as a neutral benchmark that lawmakers can use to measure the effects of proposed changes to taxes and spending."
Now, here are some things that the CBO said that Larrry Kudlow didn't see fit to tell us about:
CBO Finding #1: Although Kudlow says that the projected surplus in 2013 is $211 billion, that number is misleading because it is only the "gross" amount. According to the CBO, "[d]eficits are projected to total $1.4 trillion between 2004 and 2008; the following five years show a small net surplus of less than $50 billion." (emphasis added)
CBO Finding #2: After 13 years, revenues as a percentage of GDP will still be less than when President Clinton left office, again, assuming that Bush's tax cuts are allowed to expire in 2010: Revenues have slid from a peak of 20.8 percent of GDP in 2000 to 16.5 percent this year and are anticipated to drop again next year, to 16.2 percent. From that point on, the trend reverses, as projected economic growth pushes revenues in the baseline up from 17.4 percent of GDP in 2005 to 18.7 percent in 2010. Under current laws and policies, revenues are projected to climb more rapidly thereafter because of the expiration of EGTRRA, reaching 20.5 percent of GDP in 2013.
CBO Finding #3: This one speaks for itself: "Since CBO last issued baseline projections in March, the budget outlook has worsened substantially. Half a year ago, CBO estimated that the deficit for 2003 would total $246 billion, the deficit for 2004 would decline slightly to $200 billion, and the cumulative total for the 2004-2013 period would be a surplus of $891 billion. Now, CBO's estimate for this year's deficit has risen by $155 billion and for next year's by $280 billion. For the 10-year period from 2004 through 2013, projected deficits have increased and projected surpluses have decreased by a total of nearly $2.3 trillion."
CBO Finding #4: This one also speaks for itself: "CBO does not anticipate a quick reduction in the unemployment rate from its current level...CBO expects that the unemployment rate will average 6.2 percent for calendar years 2003 and 2004. In part, the sustained high rate of unemployment reflects caution on the part of employers, who--if they follow recent patterns--are not likely to resume hiring immediately as demand begins to grow. In part, it also reflects the likelihood that people who have been discouraged in their job searches by the economic weakness of the past few years are now likely to resume them--and be tallied among the unemployed."
So Kudlow's point, that even the non-partisan CBO agrees that Bush's economic policies are good for the economy, turns out to be based on so many assumptions that it's meaningless. Nevertheless, Kudlow confidently states that "the CBO underscores the point that slumping economic growth is the largest source of the problem and recovering growth is the largest source of the solution." I'm not sure where he gets that interpretation, but one more quote from the CBO ought to tell you whether the CBO agrees with Kudlow's interpretation: "CBO estimates that current tax and spending policies would produce steadily declining deficits after 2004, which would change to surpluses for 2012 and 2013 -- largely because of increases in revenues from the scheduled expiration of the major tax-cut provisions enacted in 2001." (emphasis added). In other words, growth isn't the solution -- the expiration of the Bush tax cuts is.
Point 3 -- Ted Kennedy Giveth, Ted Kennedy Taketh Away
Kudlow suggests that on health care and prescription drugs, it makes sense to link Gov. Dean with Sen. Edward Kennedy. Specifically, Kudlow says: "Linking Dean to Sen. Kennedy mades sense -- not only on health care but also on taxes and war. The Vermont liberal is very much in Kennedy's far-out orbit."
This is the same Ted Kennedy who helped Bush pass his education initiative in 2001 [link] and who helped Bush push a prescription drug plan earlier this summer, right? [link] Ted Kennedy signs on to two of the Bush campaign's signature issues for 2004, but yet has a "far out orbit"? Sounds inconsistent to me...
Point 4 -- Pot Calls Kettle Black
By far the kicker of Kudlow's article is this statement: "As for foreign policy, Dean would destroy American credibility for at least the next fifty years..." Right, because the Bush foreign policy has so clearly enhanced American credibility. Let's see...unilaterally pulling out of the Kyoto Accords, unilaterally pulling out of the international war crimes criminal court, unilaterally pulling out of the ABM treaty, mischaracterizing and distorting intelligence data to justify a war in Iraq, denigrating NATO allies...and the list goes on.
* * *
I'd like to be able to ignore the likes of Larry Kudlow, but when conservatives lie, I'm with Al Franken -- the only way to respond with truth. More later.
Kudlow issues a rousing call-to-arms for the "Bushies" (his term, not mine) to counter Dean's popularity after a "shocking" Zogby poll showed Dean leading Sen. John Kerry 38% to 17% in New Hampshire. The tone of his call-to-arms suggests that maybe the Republicans are afraid of Dean (notwithstanding Karl Rove's supposed encouragement that "Yeah, that's the one we want). After all, Kudlow doesn't demean Dean with the "unelectable" crap, but rather, derides him as a "Ted Kennedyesque" liberal who must be stopped.
So what is a Bushie to do? Kudlow's response is to try to discredit Dean on the issues. So I say, let's discredit Kudlow, shall we?
Point 1: The Liberal Media Rehash
Kudlow says that there is clearly a media bias against President Bush because the day after Dr. Dean's "successful" rally in Bryant Park, the New York Times ran a large color photo of Dr. Dean above the fold, while a story about President Bush's speech to the VFW convention ran below the Dean story, and had no picture.
First, let's deal in some basic facts: President Bush did not address the VFW convention in San Antonio; he addressed the American Legion convention in St. Louis. [link] It's a minor point, but I think that it's not too much to expect a writer for the National Review to get these kinds of basic facts right.
Second, although the New York Times has a national audience, it's still a New York newspaper. Arguably, the Dean event was more "newsworthy" to a New York audience than the President's speech. For one thing, the Dean event took place in New York City, practically within spitting distance of the Times' offices, while the President's speech took place in San Antonio (if you are inclined to listen to Kudlow) or St. Louis (if you are inclined to listen to the truth). But more importantly, the Dean story just sounds more newsworthy on its face: in 9-candidate primary field, one candidate gets 10,000 New Yorkers to turn out at 8:30 on a Tuesday night in August, five months before the first primary vote will be cast in two states that aren't New York, and fifteen months before the general election. In comparison, the President, who speaks to lots of groups about lots of things, gave a speech in which he defended his policy in Iraq.
Not only that, but it's not like the Times buried the Bush story among the death notices on page B14 -- they did put it on the front page of the paper, which suggests the relative importance the Times' editors placed on the story.
Finally, Kudlow's criticism is selective, based on my admittedly unscientific glance at today's paper. To paraphrase Kudlow, this morning, "the New York Times saw fit to run a huge frontpage story with a color picture of the [President]. Meanwhile, a story on [the Democratic candidates speeches on Labor Day] — where [they] emphasized [their differences with the President] — was placed [on Page A21]."
Put it all together -- a newsworthy local event gets top coverage, but the President's speech at a convention also gets prominent page 1 coverage the same day, with similar, but opposite, treatment of the same politicians on another day -- and I don't see the media bias.
But let's not get bogged down in this -- after all, it's hardly Kudlow's main point.
Point 2 -- The Economy, it is a Changing
One of Kudlow's main points is that the economy is improving, but that Bush's advisors haven't been proactive in promoting it. To give his argument gravitas, he cites the Congressional Budget Office projections on the deficit:
But the new Congressional Budget Office estimates show a huge drop in projected deficits beginning in 2005 and extending for the next eight years. By 2010 the deficit is projected to be less than 2 percent of GDP. By 2013 the CBO estimates a $211 billion surplus.
Sounds like good news, right? Well, after the VFW/American Legion mixup, I thought I should check some of Kudlow's facts. So I went to the CBO report that Kudlow is citing to (at least I think it's the same report, since he doesn't bother to reference his sources). [link] Know what I found? That Kudlow is lying with statistics. Can you imagine?
Let me explain. The CBO does indeed predict that deficits will decline from their peak in 2004 and that we will have a surplus starting in 2012. So Kudlow's statements are correct, right? Well, not exactly. Here are some of the caveats that the CBO points out in its report.
Caveat #1: CBO estimate is made "under the assumption (mandated by statute) that current laws and policies remain the same". In other words, the CBO is predicting that if Congress does nothing between now and 2012, we'll have a budget surplus. (Insert your own joke here)
Caveat #2: As a result of CBO Caveat #1, "CBO's baseline projections show deficits that diminish and then give way to surpluses near the end of the 2004-2013 period--under the assumption that no policy changes occur. In particular, the baseline assumes that the major tax provisions of the Economic Growth and Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2001 (EGTRRA) will expire as scheduled in 2010." In other words, in order to have a surplus starting in 2012, the Republicans would have to let the Bush tax cuts expire and not reauthorize them. Yep, that means that to get a surplus, the Republicans would have to reinstate the dreaded "death tax". Anyone want to take bets that EGTRRA won't be reauthorized?
Caveat #3: Still related to CBO Caveat #1, "the baseline does not include possible policy changes such as the introduction of a prescription drug benefit for Medicare beneficiaries." In other words, even though we know that some kind of prescription drug benefit reform is coming, the CBO can't take it into account, and Larry Kudlow won't think about it either.
Caveat #4: In order to get to Kudlow's projected surplus of $211 billion 2013, you have to include the Social Security surplus and the net cash flows of the Postal Service (I swear, I didn't make that up), which comprise the "off-budget surplus" (as opposed to the "on-budget deficits). For the record, the off-budget surplus is not something within the control of the President or the Congress, whereas the on-budget deficit is. So, if you look just at the on-budget deficit numbers, you see that the deficits are predicted to exceed $100 million even in 2013.
And last, but certainly not least, Caveat #5: "Actual budget totals...will almost certainly differ from those baseline projections. By statute, CBO's baseline must estimate the future paths of federal revenues and spending under current laws and policies. The baseline is therefore not intended to be a prediction of future budgetary outcomes; instead, it is meant to serve as a neutral benchmark that lawmakers can use to measure the effects of proposed changes to taxes and spending."
Now, here are some things that the CBO said that Larrry Kudlow didn't see fit to tell us about:
CBO Finding #1: Although Kudlow says that the projected surplus in 2013 is $211 billion, that number is misleading because it is only the "gross" amount. According to the CBO, "[d]eficits are projected to total $1.4 trillion between 2004 and 2008; the following five years show a small net surplus of less than $50 billion." (emphasis added)
CBO Finding #2: After 13 years, revenues as a percentage of GDP will still be less than when President Clinton left office, again, assuming that Bush's tax cuts are allowed to expire in 2010: Revenues have slid from a peak of 20.8 percent of GDP in 2000 to 16.5 percent this year and are anticipated to drop again next year, to 16.2 percent. From that point on, the trend reverses, as projected economic growth pushes revenues in the baseline up from 17.4 percent of GDP in 2005 to 18.7 percent in 2010. Under current laws and policies, revenues are projected to climb more rapidly thereafter because of the expiration of EGTRRA, reaching 20.5 percent of GDP in 2013.
CBO Finding #3: This one speaks for itself: "Since CBO last issued baseline projections in March, the budget outlook has worsened substantially. Half a year ago, CBO estimated that the deficit for 2003 would total $246 billion, the deficit for 2004 would decline slightly to $200 billion, and the cumulative total for the 2004-2013 period would be a surplus of $891 billion. Now, CBO's estimate for this year's deficit has risen by $155 billion and for next year's by $280 billion. For the 10-year period from 2004 through 2013, projected deficits have increased and projected surpluses have decreased by a total of nearly $2.3 trillion."
CBO Finding #4: This one also speaks for itself: "CBO does not anticipate a quick reduction in the unemployment rate from its current level...CBO expects that the unemployment rate will average 6.2 percent for calendar years 2003 and 2004. In part, the sustained high rate of unemployment reflects caution on the part of employers, who--if they follow recent patterns--are not likely to resume hiring immediately as demand begins to grow. In part, it also reflects the likelihood that people who have been discouraged in their job searches by the economic weakness of the past few years are now likely to resume them--and be tallied among the unemployed."
So Kudlow's point, that even the non-partisan CBO agrees that Bush's economic policies are good for the economy, turns out to be based on so many assumptions that it's meaningless. Nevertheless, Kudlow confidently states that "the CBO underscores the point that slumping economic growth is the largest source of the problem and recovering growth is the largest source of the solution." I'm not sure where he gets that interpretation, but one more quote from the CBO ought to tell you whether the CBO agrees with Kudlow's interpretation: "CBO estimates that current tax and spending policies would produce steadily declining deficits after 2004, which would change to surpluses for 2012 and 2013 -- largely because of increases in revenues from the scheduled expiration of the major tax-cut provisions enacted in 2001." (emphasis added). In other words, growth isn't the solution -- the expiration of the Bush tax cuts is.
Point 3 -- Ted Kennedy Giveth, Ted Kennedy Taketh Away
Kudlow suggests that on health care and prescription drugs, it makes sense to link Gov. Dean with Sen. Edward Kennedy. Specifically, Kudlow says: "Linking Dean to Sen. Kennedy mades sense -- not only on health care but also on taxes and war. The Vermont liberal is very much in Kennedy's far-out orbit."
This is the same Ted Kennedy who helped Bush pass his education initiative in 2001 [link] and who helped Bush push a prescription drug plan earlier this summer, right? [link] Ted Kennedy signs on to two of the Bush campaign's signature issues for 2004, but yet has a "far out orbit"? Sounds inconsistent to me...
Point 4 -- Pot Calls Kettle Black
By far the kicker of Kudlow's article is this statement: "As for foreign policy, Dean would destroy American credibility for at least the next fifty years..." Right, because the Bush foreign policy has so clearly enhanced American credibility. Let's see...unilaterally pulling out of the Kyoto Accords, unilaterally pulling out of the international war crimes criminal court, unilaterally pulling out of the ABM treaty, mischaracterizing and distorting intelligence data to justify a war in Iraq, denigrating NATO allies...and the list goes on.
* * *
I'd like to be able to ignore the likes of Larry Kudlow, but when conservatives lie, I'm with Al Franken -- the only way to respond with truth. More later.
posted by Daniel at 7:34 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home