Not Laffing

Mathew Yglesias notes the press's failure to challenge false statements about tax-cuts made by Giuliani in the GOP debate:

Laffer Press Roundup, by Mathew Yglesias: Here's an interesting test case for the press. It seems that at yesterday's GOP debate, Rudy Giuliani derided the idea that higher taxes raise revenues as a "Democratic, liberal" assumption and put forward his alternative view that you generate revenue by lowering tax rates. This is a stunning confession of total ignorance of tax policy and economics by the GOP front runner. So how did the press cover it? Chris Cilizza at the Fix lives down to my expectations by totally ignoring the fact that Giuliani is incorrect:

"There is a liberal Democratic assumption that if you raise taxes, you raise more money," said Giuliani to huge applause from the crowd assembled at Drake University.

Michael Shear in The Washington Post's page A1 story also doesn't care about the merits of the issue:

Former New York mayor Rudolph W. Giuliani sparked loud applause when he declared that "the knee-jerk liberal Democratic reaction -- raise taxes to get money -- very often is a very big mistake."...

Nor does Stephen Braun of The Los Angeles Times care at all whether or not GOP tax policy makes sense:

Referring to last week's devastating bridge collapse in Minneapolis, the GOP rivals found common ground in insisting that increased private investment from cutting taxes would provide more money to repair the nation's failing infrastructure. ...

Mike Glover at the AP doesn't seem to mention the issue at all.

Adam Nagourney at The New York Times, by contrast, doesn't go nearly as far as I'd like, but does way better than his colleagues at the major papers. Here he is on the NYT political blog:

Mr. Giuliani proceeded to explain that when he was mayor of New York he had cut taxes, and that those tax cuts had produced revenues that allowed him to finance bridge reconstruction. (Actually, there’s a good argument that it was the stock market boom in New York that brought all that money into the city’s coffers, but we’ll let that pass for now).

And here he is teamed up with Michael Cooper in the print edition:

Mr. Giuliani said that as mayor of New York, he had increased revenues to pay for bridge and road repair by cutting taxes, thereby jolting the economy, and that he would do the same thing as president. The city’s treasury in that period was flush largely with revenues produced by the stock-market boom of the late 1990s.

It'd be nice to see reporters go further than Nagourney does here, but improvements at the margin deserve recognition and the Times is doing a much better job than the Post here.

Even Nagourney's "we’ll let that pass for now" is inadequate. Any reporter who thinks there's a debate about whether cutting taxes has increased tax revenues has not been paying attention and has no business covering economics. Let's take a cue from Paul Krugman and ask what the press should have asked, what does this say about Giuliani's character? First, I disagree with the characterization of his statements as ignorant. I don't believe he is ignorant about this topic, so that is no excuse (and if he were ignorant, i.e. if he has not bothered to find out about the consequences of tax cuts by now, that would tell us a lot too.)  He noted that he is aware of the evidence, but chooses to portray it as a "liberal Democratic assumption" even though it is nothing of the sort (see Andrew Samwick and Greg Mankiw's statements about this, both of whom served under Bush in the Council of Economic Advisers, or any reputable conservative economist for that matter, or this recent CBO report).

What this tells us is that just like George Bush in the run-up to the Iraq war, Giuliani is not an honest broker. He is willing to tell people what they want to hear in spite of compelling evidence to the contrary, and to surround himself with people who will not challenge him when he uses misleading statements to push a policy. He has no problem using dishonest statements to sell policy. There's a lot to be gleaned about his character from his willingness to engage in this type of dishonest salesmanship, a style of leadership that led us into our current predicament, and it's disappointing to see the press not even bother to make the connections.

Comments

[howard]

it's not, of course, just giuliani.

every political party has its sacred cows, and the gop sacred cow is "tax cuts uber alles" because they always "work." this is a theological position, not an analytical one, and anyone who wants the gop nomination must swear allegiance to it.

are people like romney and giuliani intelligent enough to know better? certainly, but they're cynical enough not to care (fred thompson, of course, isn't intelligent enough to know better, and neither are many of the members of the gop congressional delegation).

[robertdfeinman]

Haven't many of us been arguing for a long time now that the libertarian/free market/Norquist type of economic (and social) analysis is purely "faith based"?

The only question is do the leaders really "believe" it or are they hypocrites? The followers, of course believe what their leaders tell them - this is the fundamental characteristic of the right wing authoritarian personality type.

Giuliani and those like him can be described as having a "social dominant orientation" personality. One of principal characteristics for this type is that all they care about is getting ahead. They will say and do anything to promote their personal advancement. Henry Frankfort goes into this type (but not from a psychological point of view) in his book "On Bullshit". The key aspect is that truth is just not a factor, if it works then use it, if it doesn't then discard it.

This has to be differentiated from liars. Liars know what the truth is, but chose not to express it. BS-er's don't care.

When this personality type becomes extreme you end up with sociopaths. One can spend a lot of time rebutting the false claims made by such individuals, but it will not have any effect on them. Whether it will have an effect on their followers is another question.

Personally the best I think one can hope for is to highlight contradictions and to emphasize that this person can't be trusted. Trust is very important to the RWA's. If the lose faith in the leader they quickly move on to someone else.

[Bruce Wilder]

As the Republican Party has transmuted from the pro-business, WASP Ascendancy Party into the authoritarian Party, the Party's leadership has also transitioned to social-dominance. Leading authoritarians is so easy and undemanding, that it is fundamentally corrupting. Giuliani doesn't care about the truth, because he doesn't have to.

Right-wing authoritarians may care about trust, as rdf says, but they are far too trusting and easy to fool. Resentment is a driving emotion with the authoritarian base of the Republican Party, and resentment -- the perverse opposite of admiration -- loves a fake.

McCain is actually handicapped by being a genuine war hero. Mitt Romney and Fred Thompson are even bigger and more obvious fakes than Rudy Giuliani.

I tend to think the Achilles heel for the Republicans with regard to their authoritarian base is the fact that right-wing authoritarian followers are egalitarians, with a sharp sense of justice.

I think Barack Obama is frightening to Republicans, because he is not culturally black -- Hilary can beat him among black voters -- and he is really good at talking in religious and traditional rhetorical frames that appeal to the sharp sense of justice and the egalitarian aspirations of right-wing authoritarians.

The problem outlined in the post, however, was not right-wing authoritarians, per se, but the role of the Media as facilitators of Republican propaganda vis a vis low-information voters.

There are not enough real authoritarians in the United States to win even a low turnout election. Republicans have to get a pass on the bullsh*t that they pass onto their authoritarian followers from both the Media and from the Democrats who manage to get a Media platform, while having plenty of opportunities for poisoning the well of public knowledge with false cliches and narratives.

It is the complacency of the Media reporters, anchors and pundits, and their willing stenography on behalf of the Republican National Committee that determines the outcome of elections. And, the appeals made to authoritarian subsets (often in the form of dog whistles closer to the election when the low-information voters start paying attention) are only important to the extent that they are left out of the narratives trusted pundits and commentators will make to the low-information voters.

[robertdfeinman]

Bruce:
It think it might be useful to consider if those who work for the major media outlets have been self-selecting themselves. If you are an I.F. Stone type coming out of school are you even going to apply for a job at a conservative newspaper or the typical TV station?

This type of person wants to be a muckraker and there is no market for their work. Notice that there are a few (liberal) outlets such as "The Nation" which actually do investigative reporting, but on the other side magazines like "National Review" spend most of their time on opinion and soft news like interviewing sympathetic public figures.

Wouldn't it be natural for authoritarian followers to go to work for authoritarian media firms? Large media firms are now all public institutions and the quirks of the owners (Murdoch being the apparent exception) can no longer be tolerated. They need too attract advertising dollars and if they become to anti-corporate or reveal to much of the dirty side of the economy the advertisers will retaliate. So they become centrist and timid.

It will be interesting to see if the blogosphere (or whatever replaces it) will have enough influence to shape public opinion.

[Bruce Wilder]

"It think it might be useful to consider if those who work for the major media outlets have been self-selecting themselves."

I would not call the selection pressures, which put Maureen Dowd and Gail Collins on the N.Y. Times op-ed page, or Tim Russert and Brian Williams at the top of NBC, "self"-selection. I think there are a lot of pressures, including the ability to attract and hold audience, but certainly not limited to that factor or even dominated by that factor.

Corporate advertisers are buying our media for us, and giving it to us "free" in exchange for little slivers of our attention. "Consumer" sovereignty in this case amounts to advertiser sovereignty, compounded by the sovereignty of anonymous corporate managers, which amounts to a double-whammy in favor of the outlook, worldview and preferences of corporate executives as a class.

I don't think you have to look further than the struggles of liberal talk radio or the dearth of liberal voices on television public affairs and news programming, to realize that the existence of an audience is not market incentive enough to overcome the bias put in place by organizing media around conglomerate corporate ownership and advertiser-funding.

People, who are going to make their careers as journalists and pundits have to make their peace with the opportunities afforded them to advance in a system overseen by entrepreneurs, managers and advertisers, who have a tendency to adopt a reactionary agenda in favor of their own class interests.

And, I don't think it is all just a matter of journalists or pundits responding to subtle pressures from gaggles of anonymous corporate suits. Richard Mellon Scaife funded entrepreneurial journalism and owns a newspaper in Pittsburgh; Sun Myung Moon owns the influential Washington Times; Rupert Murdoch has been known to take a personal interest, going so far as to subsidize the Weekly Standard and the New York Post. Jack Welch, at G.E., according to Bob Somerby, chose the gang of northeastern Irish Catholic men, who make up the top ranks at NBC/MSNBC news. The Mars family, among other major advertisers, not-so-secretly blacklists television programming it doesn't like.

For journalists, the differential career paths of, say, an Ashleigh Banfield (immensely talented, intelligent, critical, underemployed) and Tim Russert (lazy, ignorant, fat blow-hard) are object lessons. Still, I wouldn't call reading such cautionary tales for what they are, "self"selection.

The Progressive movement's response in the early 20th century to the emergence of the business corporation as a dominating employer of educated people was to rely on the Professions, as gatekeepers to reputation and ethics. Journalism was gradually raised as a profession, and the institutions of Journalism as a profession rail against the failing conventions of mainstream media journalism. "Editor & Publisher" and the Columbia Journalism Review are pretty critical, but I doubt that multimillionaire Katie Couric loses much sleep over arched eyebrows, anymore than she pays much attention to liberal scolds like FAIR or Media Matters or the Daily Howler.

Working journalists, by the available evidence, are more likely to long for a link by the Drudge Report or Instapundit.

Having news gathering organizations with substantial resources, which are not advertiser-funded, would be of enormous help. But, it cannot just be news Media. News media are embedded in an ecology that extends to think tanks and academia, and it is that larger ecology that shapes the consensus reality manufactured for public discourse.

The Democratic Party and progressive movements, more broadly, lack the institutional organization to select their own leaders and spokespeople in the world of broadcast Media. CNN selects Paul Begala and Donna Brazile for their conservatism and for their weaknesses as advocates; I have nothing particular against Alan Colmes, but need I say more? Of the major public affairs programs, only George S. at ABC chooses meticulously balanced panels (and he, of course, is the only Democrat running such a program). Time Magazine presents Joe Klein as a "liberal", but, of course, Klein's job is to subvert and undermine progressive politicians and policies at every turn. I know for a fact that Bill "Chevron" Keller complains at least twice a week about his paper's most popular and influential columnist, and its not about a lack of reader interest.

[bakho]

Maybe Bruce Bartlett can speak up about the current group of clowns as atonement for not writing in 2000 that he though Bush was dishonest.

Keep asking the question, "Are they stupid, dishonest or both?"

[robertdfeinman]

Bruce:
I have no basic quarrel with your analysis, but by "self selection" I meant that the muckraking personality types just don't into journalism to begin with.

By the way you left out the Blethen family, owners of the Seattle Times. They seem to be the only ones out of the gang of 18 who are actively using their media holdings as a personal platform for espousing policies which are for their own economic benefit.

[pgl]

I posted on Rudy's BS right after he made this statement. OK Big Media Matt is good but can an Angrybear get some respect?

[Mark Thoma]

pgl

The link that says "See Mankiw and Samwick" goes to your post...

[Dave M.]

Thoma says..”What this tells us is that just like George Bush in the run-up to the Iraq war, Giuliani is not an honest broker. “”

Oh please. Spare me the typical left-wing propaganda about the Iraq war. Let’s review the facts.
1.There have been over 300 mass graves discovered and verified from Saddam's systematic slaughter. Many reports of people being put in shredders and children being tortured in front of their parents.
2. Had a terrorist training facility called Salman Pak which was verified by the ISG and Gen. Brooks. This never gets mentioned in the media.
3. Saddam violated 17 UN resolutions, culminating in 1441, as well as 689 and 678. In reality, this Iraq war was a continuation of the prior one because saddam never lived up to the terms of the ceasefire.
4. Routinely shot at our fighter planes in the no-fly zone.
5. Paid 25K to each Palestinian suicide bomber's family.
6. All democrats in Congress had access to the same intelligence as the White House, and those democrats voted for war. Deal with it, don’t lie about it.
7.If there was ever a country that was similar to being run by Mafia gangsters, it was Iraq with Saddam and his sons and his henchmen. As an American, I am proud to say that we took the initiative and rid the world of a monster. Some people on the left side of the aisle are
seemingly fine with watching international slaughter and doing nothing about it.
----------------------------------------------
robertdfeinman says...””Haven't many of us been arguing for a long time now that the libertarian/free market/Norquist type of economic (and social) analysis is purely "faith based"?””

No, it’s more like “fact-based”. Shouldn’t it be clear to everyone that government is the worst provider of services? Hasn’t communism proven that? There’s no incentive for innovation without a profit motive from the individual. Competition among private enterprise creates wonderful new inventions and lower prices. Surely you leftists can realize that?
-----------------------------------------------
“”The followers, of course believe what their leaders tell them - this is the fundamental characteristic of the right wing authoritarian personality type.””

Oh yes, yet another version of “conservatives are stupid lemmings” diatribe. Meanwhile, I can’t seem to find any left-wing liberal who can engage in intelligent debate on this blog. All they do is engage in ad hominem attacks. So much for your theory.

“”Giuliani and those like him can be described as having a "social dominant orientation" personality. One of principal characteristics for this type is that all they care about is getting ahead. They will say and do anything to promote their personal advancement. “”

Sounds like the Clintons!

“”When this personality type becomes extreme you end up with sociopaths. One can spend a lot of time rebutting the false claims made by such individuals, but it will not have any effect on them.””

Hmmm. Since I am rebutting many false claims on this blog made by liberals, does that make you guys sociopaths? Meanwhile, the facts are that the Liberalism/Socialism nanny state isn't far from Marxism/Communism which has historically has led to mass murder. So what does that tell us about liberal leftists? It tells us that they have the potential for being dangerous people and must be watched.

robertdfeinman says...”” Large media firms are now all public institutions and the quirks of the owners (Murdoch being the apparent exception) can no longer be tolerated.””

Yes, I can no longer tolerate the NY Times which is a certified liberal left-wing paper. The Sulzberger ownership is destroying the paper.
-------------------------------------
Bruce Wilder says... “”Of the major public affairs programs, only George S. at ABC chooses meticulously balanced panels (and he, of course, is the only Democrat running such a program).””

Ahem, time for a fact check! Tim Russert worked for a democrat, (from wikipedia…”Before joining NBC News, Russert served as counselor in New York Governor Mario Cuomo's office in Albany in 1983 to 1984 and was chief of staff to Democratic Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan from 1977 to 1982”,) so did Chris Matthews (wikipedia…” Matthews has worked for four Democratic politicians. He was a presidential speechwriter for four years during the administration of Jimmy Carter. “

[Bruce Wilder]

Well, Dave M., as is often the case in political debates, a lot depends on what you mean by, "is". My definition includes the present tense and correspondence with reality as it exists. YMMV

[robertdfeinman]

Bruce:
It is a rare day when a true RWA takes the time to respond we should encourage them when they do.

People like Tyler Cowen like to do hit and run attacks. Yesterday he went on at length defending his god Hayek. He doesn't engage in debate, of course.

[oops]

wow we've found a politician willing to say whatever in order to get elected. let's get rid of that one. he like that other president that lied about why we're going to war. oh wait- that's every president also.

[Dave M.]

Bruse Wilder says..."I think Barack Obama is frightening to Republicans, because he is not culturally black -- Hilary can beat him among black voters -- and he is really good at talking in religious and traditional rhetorical frames that appeal to the sharp sense of justice and the egalitarian aspirations of right-wing authoritarians.""

No. Any Republican doing a modicum amount of due diligence on Barack doesn't fear him at all because his record exposes himself.

First of all, as a supposed champion of the poor, Obama and his wife give little to charity. In 2005, he and his wife made $1.67 million in income and only gave $77,315 to charity for a rate of less than 5%. Contrast this to George and Laura Bush who consistently give over 10% of their income to charity.
Second, he and his wife are ardent supporters of the hideous medical procedure of partial birth abortion, aka infanticide. This gruesome act involves, well, you better find out for yourself, it’s too disgusting for me to detail. In fact, Michelle Obama sent out a fund raising letter in February 2004, saying it was a “legitimate medical procedure”. That is a shocking statement indeed.

Third, despite Barack’s criticism of our current healthcare system, he and his wife cash in on it handsomely. She is a hospital administrator who made the princely sum of $312,962 in 2005. And her background is in law, not hospital management. When the progressives complain about the problems of the current health care system, they usually mention exorbitant executive salaries. Well, they now only have to look in their own back yard for one of the sources of the problem. Oh, BTW, here’s the link for evidence of my claims.

http://www.suntimes.com/news/metro/72374,CST-NWS-obama26.article

Next, Obama’s positions on the issues are startling. Here’s a CBS news article listing his votes in the past.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/01/17/politics/main2369157.shtml

Some highlights…”He voted against requiring medical care for aborted fetuses who survive.”

Wow! I guess he wants universal healthcare for children but just not very young children.

“Voted against letting people argue self-defense in court if charged with violating local weapons bans by using a gun in their home. (2004)”

This would be for using a gun to defend against intruders. That’s a stunning position for Obama to take.

“Obama occasionally supported higher taxes, joining other Democrats in pushing to raise more than 300 taxes and fees on businesses in 2004 to help solve a budget deficit. The increases passed the Senate 30-28. ”

That’s a sure way to kill job creation. Instead of cutting spending, he votes to raise taxes on struggling job-creating entrepreneurs to fix the deficit.

“Helped pass a 5 percent earned-income tax credit for low-income working families in 2000; made the credit permanent in 2003.”

Made that permanent but wouldn’t vote to make this next one permanent…

“Voted against making permanent the repeal of the state’s 5 percent sales tax on gasoline. (2000)”

“Successfully sponsored the Health Care Justice Act, a study of ways to implement a universal health care system statewide. (2004)”

Never mind that socialized health care systems in Canada and England are failing and going private, despite what Michael Moore says. Government health care as in Walter Reed Army hospital type healthcare? No thanks!

“Voted against restrictions on public funding of abortion. (2000) ”

So we the people have to pay for an abortion of a wild, partying teenager that can't literally get off her back?

“Voted against making gang members eligible for the death penalty if they kill someone to help their gang. (2001)”

Oh my! That should really help to quash gang violence.

” Unsuccessfully co-sponsored ban on discrimination based on sexual orientation. The measure became law after Obama was elected to the U.S. Senate. (2003)”

But Obama thinks that dicriminating on race is still OK via affirmative action. The two positions don’t jive.

“Voted against giving tax credits to parents who send their children to private school. (1999)”

Obama is just another liberal who thinks that abortion should be a choice but school choice is not to be a choice. The bleeding heart of liberals sure is selective, isn’t it?