An Open Letter to ABC about the Presidential Debate

We the undersigned deplore the conduct of ABC's George Stephanopoulos and Charles Gibson at the Democratic Presidential debate on April 16. The debate was a revolting descent into tabloid journalism and a gross disservice to Americans concerned about the great issues facing the nation and the world. This is not the first Democratic or Republican presidential debate to emphasize gotcha questions over real discussion. However, it is, so far, the worst.

For 53 minutes, we heard no question about public policy from either moderator. ABC seemed less interested in provoking serious discussion than in trying to generate cheap shot sound-bites for later rebroadcast. The questions asked by Mr. Stephanopoulos and Mr. Gibson were a disgrace, and the subsequent attempts to justify them by claiming that they reflect citizens' interest are an insult to the intelligence of those citizens and ABC's viewers. Many thousands of those viewers have already written to ABC to express their outrage.

The moderators' occasional later forays into substance were nearly as bad. Mr. Gibson's claim that the government can raise revenues by cutting capital gains tax is grossly at odds with what taxation experts believe. Both candidates tried, repeatedly, to bring debate back to the real problems faced by ordinary Americans. Neither moderator allowed them to do this.

We're at a crucial moment in our country's history, facing war, a terrorism threat, recession, and a range of big domestic challenges. Large majorities of our fellow Americans tell pollsters they're deeply worried about the country's direction. In such a context, journalists moderating a debate--who are, after all, entrusted with free public airwaves--have a particular responsibility to push and engage the candidates in serious debate about these matters. Tough, probing questions on these issues clearly serve the public interest. Demands that candidates make pledges about a future no one can predict or excessive emphasis on tangential "character" issues do not. This applies to candidates of both parties.

Neither Mr. Gibson nor Mr. Stephanopoulos lived up to these responsibilities. In the words of Tom Shales of the Washington Post, Mr. Gibson and Mr. Stephanopoulos turned in "shoddy, despicable performances." As Greg Mitchell of Editor and Publisher, describes it, the debate was a "travesty." We hope that the public uproar over ABC's miserable showing will encourage a return to serious journalism in debates between the Democratic and Republican nominees this fall. Anything less would be a betrayal of the basic responsibilities that journalists owe to their public.

Spencer Ackerman, The Washington Independent
Thomas Adcock, New York Law Journal
Eric Alterman, City University of New York
Dean Baker, The American Prospect Online
Steven Benen, The Carpetbagger Report
Julie Bergman Sender, Balcony Films
Ari Berman, The Nation
Brian Beutler, The Media Consortium
Michael Bérubé, Crooked Timber, Penn. State University
Joel Bleifuss, In These Times
Sam Boyd, The American Prospect
Will Bunch, Philadelphia Daily News
Lakshmi Chaudry, In These Times
Michael Cohen, The New America Foundation
Lark Corbeil, Public News Service
Brad DeLong, Brad DeLong's Semi-Daily Journal and UC Berkeley
Adam Doster, In These Times
Kevin Drum, The Washington Monthly
Gerald Dworkin, UC Davis
Henry Farrell, Crooked Timber,George Washington University
James Galbraith, University of Texas at Austin
Todd Gitlin, Columbia University, TPM Cafe
Merrill Goozner (formerly Chicago Tribune)
Ilan Goldenberg, The National Security Network
Arthur Goldhammer, Harvard University
Robert Greenwald, Brave New Films
Chris Hayes, The Nation
Don Hazen, Alternet
James Johnson, University of Rochester
Michael Kazin, Georgetown University
Ed Kilgore, The Democratic Strategist
Charlie Kireker, Air America Media
Richard Kim, The Nation
Ezra Klein, The American Prospect
Mark Kleiman, The Reality Based Community, UCLA
Ralph Luker, Cliopatria
Scott McLemee, Inside Higher Ed
Ari Melber, The Nation
Luke Mitchell, Harper's Magazine
Rick Perlstein, Campaign for America's Future
Katha Pollit, The Nation
Joy-Ann Reid, The South Florida Times
David Roberts, Grist
Thomas Schaller, Columnist, The Baltimore Sun
Adele Stan, The Media Consortium
Jonathan Stein, Mother Jones Magazine
Rinku Sen, ColorLines Magazine
Matthew Shugart, UC San Diego
Matt Steinglass, Deutsche Presse-Agentur
Mark Thoma, The Economist's View
Michael Tomasky, The Guardian
Cenk Uygur, The Young Turks
Tracy Van Slyke, The Media Consortium
J. Harry Wray, DePaul University
Kai Wright, The Root
Matthew Yglesias, The Atlantic Monthly

[Update: In case there is any confusion, I should have made clear that the letter is a group effort.]

Comments

[billyblog]

Great letter, Mark.

[Patricia Shannon]

Great letter. I couldn't watch this debate, but from the evidence of the news I do hear and read, I would think just about anybody in the MSM news business should feel deeply embarrassed to admit what they do for a living.

[robertdfeinman]

Candidates share part of the blame by allowing themselves to be used this way. They could refuse to participate if certain conditions aren't to their liking. For example, they could insist that the moderators not be media figures, or they could insist that all questions come from the audience or a pre-selected panel.

Furthermore they know how to deflect questions - they do this for a living.
Q. "You don't wear a flag pin"
A. "Speaking of flags reminds me of my health policy..."

The only winners in the current money race are the media and campaign consultants. If we want to see better elections we have to go to publicly funded elections. How to do this in the face of resistance from the Supreme Court is an interesting question. The court seems to think that money = votes and that corporations are people.

Big money is not only corrupting our regulatory system, health system and policy priorities, but the basic foundations of democracy.

[Frank Levy]

Right on.

[Callahan]

Lou Dobbs had similar comments about the "debate".

Our elekshun sistum is a joke, but an expensive one.

[BAWDYSCOT]

Mr. Feinman,

I agree 100%; one of the worst Supreme Court decisions of the last century to make corporations on par with citizens.

But c'mon folks, it is TeeeeeeVeeeeee. It's Entertainment. Maybe these things should be on the radio. I realized the farce with one of the Republican debates, the one at the Reagan Library. Ron Paul barely got a chance to say anything. Regardless of what you think of Dr. Paul, you have to admit he should have gotten a chance to state his case.

[ddt]

excellent

that "debate" was a disgrace. the candidates were clearly uncomfortable and I don't blame them.

[hari]

After watching MSNBC debates, subjecting HRC to start first with each q's, and so on, I found this one a very sad commentary on American media and 2008 Election Politics. If this is the way you wish to go down declining and falling from grace, as Greatest Power in 21 Century, I certainly would kill the format of this type of debate enterprise once and for all times! None of the debates, so far, have facilitated in better understanding of the profile of the candidate(s). For the sovereign electorate this is what I would call a disservice by the media pundits - for their own bloody ego.

[acerimusdux]

Very nice letter (and and impressive group of signees.)

I'm glad this was mentioned "Mr. Gibson's claim that the government can raise revenues by cutting capital gains tax is grossly at odds with what taxation experts believe."

I was disappointed that Obama didn't smack that one down.

The right answer to:

"MR. GIBSON: But history shows that when you drop the capital gains tax, the revenues go up."

is:

DEMOCRATIC CANDIDATE: No it doesn't.

[RW]

Bravo!

And amen.

[spencer]

I'm Spencer England at Angry Bear.

You may add my name.

[Tom]

Great debate! George and Charlie asked all the right questions, given that we already know the candidates policy positions--they seek to diminish the individual and augment the state. What's in question is Obama's and Hillary's character, and that's why the questions were appropriate. Thankfully, as is typical of the Democratic Party, the Democrats are on a path to nominate the least competent, most morally repugnant candidate, which, somehow, describes both Obama and Clinton.

[Rolando Illych Baysharam]

I like to add my name to this wonderful email.

[Joe]

Rolando,
are you famous enough?

[Bernard Yomtov]

I agree with Robert Feinman's comment.

Wouldn't it be great for one or both of the candidates to just respond to the silliness by saying,

"I've talked about this trivial matter repeatedly, and will not do so again. If you have serious questions I'll be glad to address them. If not, I'm going to leave and use the rest of the ninety minutes for a much-needed nap."

[acerimusdux]

Tom:

Are you auditioning to be an ABC debate moderator?

[Mark Thoma]

In case there is any confusion, I should have made clear that the letter is a group effort.

[donna]

We can haz real debates, Plz?

Kthxbai.

[RW]

I see Tom as more a NewsMax kinda guy, possibly with semi-regular postings at Little Green Footballs on the side. Not that corporate media would mind him necessarily, look at Chris Matthews after all, but they generally take their Kool-Aid a little more sweet I think.

[Barkley Rosser]

Mark,

Maybe it is too late, but feel free to add my name as
J. Barkley Rosser, Jr. Econospeak and James Madison University.

Barkley

[Chuck Roast]

I didn't watch...I had to put air in my tires.
But you can add my name to the list anyway.

[Joy]

Maybe we could cut out the neuron-challenged media talking heads and let the candidates address each other? Kind of like real debates?

[Callahan]

This just in: Robert Reich endorses Barak Obama for president:"I believe that Barack Obama should be elected President of the United States".

[RH Potfry]

Thank God average people elect Presidents and not this list of self-important whiners.

[jkh]

Excellent letter.

Obama had the intelligence and good judgment to make the same point himself well into the debate.

The abc stage set design seemed to be something out of the 1950's, completely lacking in vitality or imagination. The revoltingly pathetic performance of the two journalists partly reflects the datedness of the network culture that they work in.

[2slugbaits]

I watched the first hour or so, then my wife and son wanted to watch "Ghosthunters" over on the SciFi channel. I think they made the right decision.

[ECONOMISTA NON GRATA]

I found the letter way too charitable. George Stephanopoulos and Charles Gibson are idiots and they should be treated as such.

Best regards,

Econolicious

[tasij]

are these people really journalists? I never hard of any of them, Who really care what these undersigns think, if they were really good they would be the ones asking the questions, instead of Charile and George.

[Joe]

You are certainly right are certainly right that the debate was frivolous and reflected poorly on American Democracy. I also agree that the debate was an insult to the intelligence of U.S. citizens and ABC viewers.

However, when I see something I don't like provided, my first thought isn't necessarily to blame the supplier. The ultimate cause of drugs on the street, prostitution, soap operas, and E! is the large group of people who demand them. Demand (and the preferences of the ABC audience) was responsible for the direction of this debate. The pseudo-intellectual journalists who run the major media in the U.S. do not report about 'tabloid' stories because this is what they really care about. They do so, because this is what they American people care about. Alex Tabarrok rightly points out the revealed preference of Americans who after a week of especially tabloid-like politics made this debate the most watched of the campaign.

I suppose, the debate moderators could be more paternalistic, and steer the debate towards the EITC, gains from trade, Federal Reserve policy, or other such fascinating topics. Of course, fewer people would watch, and those who would, likely have already long made up their minds. The number of us who would enjoy a good policy debate is small, and the number who would be influenced by it is extremely small (Alternatively, a stupid policy debate about anti-gay, anti-immigrant, and anti-trade candidates might be popular but not particularly healthy). But, most voters do seem to care about the personal backgrounds of candidates. My impression is that this is especially true for marginal (usually uninformed) voters, who are the people the candidates most want to reach.

Remember, the candidates aren't innocent would-be public policy wonks. Personal background is what all three major candidates run on – hope, military, and political experience right? So, not surprisingly, the theme of the debate was personal issues. But, this isn't ultimately the candidates fault either. They respond to incentives and we tend to get the candidates we deserve running the types of campaigns that influence us (or at least the 'marginal voters' amongst us). The people who do care about the issues almost certainly know who they're going to vote for. And I honestly doubt they are watching for a stimulating policy discussion (who would want to listen to politicians for that?). They too are mostly just watching for that 'gotcha' moment that will change the campaign.

So, this is not a great situation and the writers of this letter are rightfully upset. I personally would like the Presidential debates to sound like some sort of Friedman-Galbraith debate. But unfortunately the incentives are not there in our democracy for candidates to campaign that way, and it is not really the media's fault that they are not. Blame the American people who seem to enjoy and are influenced by this stuff.

[bob]

You guys catch Olberman last night ?

He played clips of Steph on Hannitys show. Hannity tells him to ask a certain question and Steph sez I'm taking notes.

Then sure enough they show Steph asking Hannity's question in the debate.

Liberal media huh.

Why is anybody surprised about the ABC debate. Thats the network that pushes round the clock right wing hate radio.

[NLS]

There's not much mention of Stephanopoulos's Clinton affiliation. A minimally informed viewer would've noticed this in the first five seconds of the debate. I guess if it's OK to have someone that was a senior political adviser to the Bill Clinton's 1992 U.S. presidential campaign and later became his communications director then I guess I could see how he should've been the moderator.

[Karl Neumann]

George Stephanopoulos and Charles Gibson proofed that they are not more than tabloid paparazzi influenced by Stephanopoulos service for the Clintons.

[Francois]

"If we want to see better elections we have to go to publicly funded elections. How to do this in the face of resistance from the Supreme Court is an interesting question. The court seems to think that money = votes and that corporations are people."

How?

The next President ought to expand the number of Justices to 17, enough to drown the ideological circus this current edition of the SC. It's been done before, and ought to be done again.

First, float names of potential candidates known to be perceived as ultra leftists. That would, of course, be totally unacceptable to Republicans and Blue Dog Dems. Push very hard, then, after a bruising battle, withdraw and propose left-leaning candidates that will be seen as moderates. In a word, do exactly what Bush did to get the Justices we need for this country. Of course, make sure they have an extensive record of disagreeing with the concept of $$ = votes. After all, if money is free speech, no money is silence. That is democracy?

Bush should not be entitled to leave his legacy by proxy of this Supreme Court.

[Alicia]

Where were you all when the media was only trashing Clinton with their "revolting tabloid journalism"?

[Francois]

Bob,

I could not see Suppa Keith yesterday; thanks for the reminder.

I just watched it: the InHannity-Stephanopoulos moment is astonishing.

As for the HEAVY insistence on taxes from Gibson, I can only conclude that he is telling the candidates that he does not want HIS taxes to raise.

The MSM is librul? Yeah right! Remember that their owners are wingnuts.

[Jack]

This open letter completely misses the point of the moderators questions and why they were needful. As was explained on "Special Report" on Fox News, Obama is an "unknown quantity," which means we have to find out if he is a black supremacist (Rev. Wright) or a closet Marxist ("bitterness"=false consciousness). Until we get these questions of character cleared up to everyone's satisfaction, meaning never, we cannot allow candidates to enter into debates about substantive policy issues. It is obvious that the American people are too stupid to know or care about policy issues anyway, so that's just as well.

[Brooks]

kudos on that one. Shameful conduct by the ABC moderators.

[NLS]

"Special Report" on Fox News? Ah yes, the Bastion of journalistic excellence!

[Patricia Shannon]

Jack,
We need to know if you are a member of the NRA or the RNC before we know whether to pay attention to you.

[Dickeylee]

The point made up-thread about the tax questions nails it. These talking heads are all multi-millionaires. Hell, Charlie and George have multi-million $$ yearly salaries, along with all the other beautiful people on the TV every night.
So here's a question that didn't get asked, "Senator, why did you release your joint tax returns, instead of just your personal return like Sen McCain? His wife's millions won't be released to the public to protect their children. So why do you hate your own children so that you want to damage or harm them by releasing your joint returns?
Why is the MSM letting McCain slide on this one? Could you imagine the firestorm that would be raging still if Bill and Hill filed separately? And only HRC's return was released?
The MSM is corrupt, and the talking heads are corrupt.

[JWF]

What a retarded letter. You people are a joke

[John Freeland]

To those who claim Obama to be an "unknown quantity," I'd suggest they read his book "Dreams from My Father." Published in 1994 long before he became a famous politician, he wrote it himself. I'm nearly finished with the book and am very impressed with his "voice" that he expresses so effectively in his writing. This is a good person, from what I gather, and one I'd like to see elected president.

[BJ Feng]

You simply cannot have a meaningful policy discussion with the format of these debates. They are geared for quick soundbites, not detailed discussion about the merits of a particular policy. There is absolutely no way a person can provide a meaningful and decent answer to, "How would you change the health care system" in 90 seconds. We're left with broad platitudes and taglines without any substance or detail.

While channel surfing, I recently found an re-enactment of the Douglas-Lincoln debates back in 1860. I was shocked at the detail and genuine thought expressed in those debates. That's because the format gave each candidate a lot of time to discuss and explain the nuances of their proposal, and attack the nuances of his opponent. I believe each candidate had a 30 or 60 minute opening, followed by one or two 15 or 30 minute rebuttals and responses to rebuttals.

What we have to demand is that each candidate be given at least 5 minutes per question, with 3 minutes more time for the other candidate to rebut, and then a final response from the candidate. That would provide better answers and allow candidates to clarify their differences in policy. I don't know how this rapid fire questioning format started, or why no one will set up a debate with fewer questions, but more time and discussion.

Maybe because the candidates don't want the longer format? It's easy to say, I want to help the American people, but harder to propose a detailed plan that will work and can survive criticism. Maybe candidates don't want to provide details on purpose.

candidate: "I want America to be energy independent".
moderator: "How?"
candidate: "By advocating the use of alternative energies like ethanol and encouraging investment in green, renewable energies...blah blah blah"
moderator: "And what about the actual energy efficiency of ethanol and the strain to both the environment and food supplies? And how much more would these energies cost to produce?"
candidate: "Uh, next question please, I only have 90 seconds worth of memorized spiel, let's not dwell on the negatives".

[K]

The questions were about character, which is CRUCIAL to a Presidential candidate. That Obama has not had to hace these questions until now is quite telling. The media could scarcely fawn over him more.

Obama has branded himself as above normal politics, yet has now been shown to be as out of touch (clinging to religion out of bitterness?), unattached to the truth (Distortions on McCain, handgun ban), and opportunistic (Rezko, Ayres) as anyone else.

He's toast.

[RW]

K: One could point out that your comment was not only incoherent but also out of touch, unattached to the truth and opportunistic but, well, what would be the point.

[K]

RW: I am happy to debate, but you make no point yourself, which is in and of itself a tactic mastered by Obama (great rhetoric, nothing of substance).

Nevertheless, hace = face, above.

[Jim]

Thank you, skinny tall young twit and short wide old twit, for spelling out why we should choose either of you.

[ken]

Most of the signatories of that letter are nothing but tabloid bloggers themselves. It is too funny to see them accusing the hosts of the ABC debate of delving into territory they wallow in on a daily basis.

But if the same questions were directed at Clinton you could be sure the letter would proclaim all honor to the noble jurnalists who willing face the wrath of the CLINTONS in order to uncover some perceived evil she committed.

The internet is a great place in that it reveals the petty shallowness of the so called intellectuals of the left.

[Clover]

Thank you for putting my thoughts into words. Loud and clear! Bravo!

[Clover]

Bravo to the intellectual intelligent writers of the letter. Not Ken (above).

[BAWDYSCOT]

I remember hearing a story on NPR a couple of years ago about how rapt audiences were in Lincoln's time(and earlier)to speeches and debates that lasted for hours. It would be hard in this day and age for people to act this way but in a sense this is a sad commentary.

[Barkley Rosser]

Jack,

So, "meaning never" means that you will never accept anything that is found, or that because of something about BHO you will never be satisfied with what you hear, or he is such a sneaky Christian-Muslim-terrorist-non-flag-lapel-pin-wearer that it will be impossible to discern the truth about him?

Bawdyscot,

Hang it up with this useless and irrelevant nostalgia. "Good old days of Lincoln-Douglas>" Right, they're dead and gone, so forget it.

Mark T.,

So, by "collective" you mean that if you were not invited by whoever organized this letter originally, your signing on remains relegated to the comments on this blog?

[wjd123]

I don't think an open letter of this sort is a very practical way of getting the media to change it ways. I take it the letter was meant as an attempt to get people in the media to ask questions that will give viewers a greater understanding of the issues.

The question then becomes a practical one. How best to accomplish this objective. The signers want people to listen to their complaint about the debate and then have readers call or write ABC and say "me too." If that's their goal it would call for getting maximum publicity.

We hope that the public uproar over ABC's miserable showing will encourage a return to serious journalism in debates between the Democratic and Republican nominees this fall. Anything less would be a betrayal of the basic responsibilities that journalists owe to their public.

Most people don't know who any of these signers are. Viewers of the debate are never going to read this letter, and if they did who here believes it would motivate them to call or write to ABC? "Just another letter in which some unknown elitist are ranting," would probably be the impression of most veiwers if they ever saw or bothered to read the letter.

Viewers don't know who the signers are but ABC does: they're mostly economist. ABC's initial reaction might be "why are these economist sticking their nose into our business."

That brings us back to the very practical question of how economist can get ABC to improve its coverage. I think the answer lies here:

The moderators' occasional later forays into substance were nearly as bad. Mr. Gibson's claim that the government can raise revenues by cutting capital gains tax is grossly at odds with what taxation experts believe....--Open Letter

To effect change these economist should raise a coordinated stink over Mr. Gibson not knowing his economics and misleading viewers. This might get Mr. Gibson to reply, or get ABC's economic analyst to vent, more carefully, the way questions are asked. This should pay real dividens in the future.

For instance, the candidates will be asked where they are going to get the money for their programs. One clear statement by these economist as to why "cutting capital gains tax is grossly at odds with what taxation experts believe," would go further in making some stations take more care in allowing anchors and candidates to make unquestioned economic assumptions.

First, economist focusing on anchors' questions would make it less likely that viewers would get the wrong impression about economic matters in the first place since questions and assertions by anchors would be more closely vetted. At least with those media anchors that don't want to mislead their viewers because of their own economic presumptions.

Second, a simple coordinated explanation by economist would make it harder for candidates to make assertions about a tax that goes unquestioned--"When ABC's Gibson made this same assertion during the debate economist from all over the nation complained that he was wrong. (One short, clear, coordinated, statement by these economist as to why Gibson was wrong is necessary here.) Why do you believe that they are wrong? Just how will cutting capital gains raise revenues?"

As a practical matter I believe by proceeding in this manner--economist co-ordinating their objections to misleading economic statements and focusing their indignation on those who make them--would have more effect on the media asking better questions than a broad based open letter which seems rather unfocused as to its audience.

[Mark Thoma]

Barkley:

Just getting back to this. There was a distribution list, and we used a Wiki/email to write the letter, and once it was finalized the Wiki was closed.

I wish I'd been around earlier, maybe we could have started a list of people who wanted to support the letter and added them here at least, but I'm guessing it's too late now to get much of a response along those lines.

[Brooks]

Gibson and Stephanopolous were disgraceful with their "tabloid" type questions (to use Eugene Robinson's apt descriptor) for almost half the debate.

And Gibson insisting -- twice -- that capital gains tax cuts generate higher revenues, and insisting that the candidates respond based on that false premise, is just outrageous. Is it too much to ask that a moderator check with an expert on some matter -- in this case a...ya' know...an ECONOMIST -- before insisting on some "fact" and demanding a response based on that "fact"??!! (Cap gains tax cuts can increase revenues in the short term due to the unlocking effect as more appreciated assets are sold and gains realized, but even conservative economist Greg Mankiw (former Chairman of W Bush's Council of Economic Advisors, advisor to the Romney campaign) estimated that the ultimate revenue feedback is only 50%). Mankiw said:

"In a paper on dynamic scoring, written while I was working at the White House, Matthew Weinzierl and I estimated that a broad-based income tax cut (applying to both capital and labor income) would recoup only about a quarter of the lost revenue through supply-side growth effects. For a cut in capital income taxes, the feedback is larger--about 50 percent--but still well under 100 percent. A chapter on dynamic scoring in the 2004 Economic Report of the President says about the the same thing." http://gregmankiw.blogspot.com/2007/07/on-charlatons-and-cranks.html

Did you hear that, Charlie Gibson? A revenue-feedback of only 50%, "well under 100 percent", does not equal increased revenues. Do your f--king homework!

[BJ Feng]

Democrats have nothing to complain about, the Republican debates were just as bad if not worse. Moderators asked candidates about their faith in God, which has nothing to do with policy and has no bearing on if they would make a good President or not.

Furthermore, the very questions themselves were biased and loaded with liberal preconceptions. "What are you going to do to help this single mother get a better job?". That already assumes it is the Federal government's responsibility to provide single mothers with better jobs in the first place. All the questions were about what new programs candidates could come up with, and how to spend more tax money.

Liberals dominate the media and the makeup of the moderators. I'd love to see some conservative moderators get a chance to ask questions from a different point of view. How would Obama or Clinton respond to the following questions?

"What are some the ineffective and wasteful government programs you would cut, or do no such programs exist?"

"The top 1% of wage earners paid 39.38% of the total federal income taxes collected in 2005, while the bottom 50% paid just 3.07%, yet both of you state that the rich aren't paying their fair share. What percentage would the top 1% need to pay for you to deem it a fair share?"

stats from
http://www.taxfoundation.org/taxfreedomday/

"In 2008, Americans will work 74 days to afford their federal taxes and 39 more days to pay state and local taxes. Meanwhile, buying food requires 35 days of work, clothing 13 days, and housing 60 days. Other major categories are health and medical care (50 days), transportation (29 days), and recreation (21 days). How do you propose to lessen the incredible tax burden Americans face?"

http://www.cagw.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=11350

"In 2007, Congress earmarked a record number of projects into 12 appropriation bills totaling $17.2 billion, including money for hops research, the Lobster Institute in Maine, the Montana Sheep Institute. and the renovation and transformation of the historic Post Office in Las Vegas. Senator McCain has pledged not to use earmarks, but both of you continue to do so, do you believe the previously mentioned earmarks are a good use of Federal money?"

"The United States has one of the highest corporate tax rates in the developed world. What would you do to make the United States more competitive with other nations?"

Of course these are loaded questions, but the current line of questioning is just as loaded. Of course, we will never hear these questions asked because the moderators are all liberal and would never think to ask such questions.

[BJ Feng]

This is the actual exchange from Gibson to Obama...

MR. GIBSON: You have however said you would favor an increase in the capital gains tax. As a matter of fact, you said on CNBC, and I quote, "I certainly would not go above what existed under Bill Clinton, which was 28 percent."

It's now 15 percent. That's almost a doubling if you went to 28 percent. But actually Bill Clinton in 1997 signed legislation that dropped the capital gains tax to 20 percent.

And George Bush has taken it down to 15 percent.

And in each instance, when the rate dropped, revenues from the tax increased. The government took in more money. And in the 1980s, when the tax was increased to 28 percent, the revenues went down. So why raise it at all, especially given the fact that 100 million people in this country own stock and would be affected?

SENATOR OBAMA: Well, Charlie, what I've said is that I would look at raising the capital gains tax for purposes of fairness. We saw an article today which showed that the top 50 hedge fund managers made $29 billion last year -- $29 billion for 50 individuals. And part of what has happened is that those who are able to work the stock market and amass huge fortunes on capital gains are paying a lower tax rate than their secretaries. That's not fair.

And what I want is not oppressive taxation. I want businesses to thrive and I want people to be rewarded for their success. But what I also want to make sure is that our tax system is fair and that we are able to finance health care for Americans who currently don't have it and that we're able to invest in our infrastructure and invest in our schools.

Gibson made a statement of fact, that revenues increased after every tax rate decrease. This is not a matter of opinion or view, it is just an accurate statement of historical events. Like, "After Stalingrad, the Germans were never able to mount a successful major offensive on the Eastern Front".

A good rebuttal letter should explain why the revenue increase could not possibly be related to the tax rate decrease. And explain the real factors for the revenue increase in each case.

Unless I'm mistaken, lowering the capital gains tax rate increases the return on capital for investors. That should stimulate investment and capital formation creating a larger tax base.

[hari]

This Open Letter is a bit too late in the game. The damage was done earlier when the conscience of the obejctors didn't find a window of opportunity - until Barack came under the lens. There's no way he is going to get a *free ride* even if the whole Blogosphere goes protesting and whatnot. Politics is for sure a *contact* sport; and, if you can't take it - stop crying.

[ken melvin]

Thanks Hari. Methinks Barak is more ronnie than bill.

[Trudy]

Amen.

Unfreakingbelievable, this debate. I couldn't believe my eyes and ears as I watched it. ANY shred of respect I might have had for Gibson (and Stephanopolous) is gone forever. With the issues that face this country and the world right now, this is the s#*t they ask about?

My outrage is unbounded. And I'm a Republican.

[LinusK]

Great letter. The maliciousness (or was it partisan stupidity) was so obvious, blatant and unending that my 15 year old was outraged.But, and here is an interesting off take, he came away with a better understanding of what is EXACTLY wrong with our present political system.

The focus on narrow and often partisan narrative has tainted the thought space that defines us as a nation and its people.

It is also heartening that Barak Obama has focused on this narrowness and vacuity as the EXACT problem that we need to deal with. This is what he has been saying for a long time now, this is the point that he made during the debate. This ability to spot the real and substantive issues, to bring them out in open and to offer solutions that deal with them; this is the ability that is Barak's strongest ticket to be the President of the United States. This is probably the strongest reason that his presidency should be supported.

[Jesme]

In effect, we have here a bunch of "journalists" demanding that certain questions not be asked of presidential candidates. Think about that. It's got to be about the most absurd open letter ever.

Never mind that such "petty" questions are routinely asked of Republican candidates, and nobody minds a bit. Look at the furor over Bush's National Guard service two decades earlier, or the outrage over his DUI arrest. Nobody in his right mind suggested that these were irrelevant questions. So how is it irrelevant to ask a presidential candidate about hanging with a guy who's proud of trying to blow up Americans in terrorist attacks? If Bush had hung out with somebody who'd planted bombs at abortion clinics, I think we might all want to know about it.

Besides, the only reason anybody's complaining is that Obama did a rotten job of answering these questions. Too bad. If you want to be president, you'd better be ready to answer every sort of question, period. If you can't handle it, stick to teaching law.

[Sean]

The ONLY reason anyone is complaining is because Obama was asked tough, relevant questions that he didn't answer well. Period.

The media is so in the tank for Obama that it pains them to watch their Messiah's numerous and devastating flaws exposed.

I guarantee you that every one of these "journalists" would gleefully ask President Bush or Senator McCain ANY question that damaged either of them in a presidential campaign.

[Jean]

Someone at Alex Tabbaroks' place stated (and I am paraphrasing) 'but Charlie Gibson has been one of the best moderators in this election cycle, he gave the REPUBLICANS (my emphasis) all the time they needed to answer the great questions they asked'. Okay, maybe he didn't say 'great questions', but he did say 'all the time they needed'. I haven't watched any of these debacles, they are too embarrassing. But if CG did a great job on the R debates and a crummy job on the D debate? Hmmmm...and then George apparently gets his talking points from faux news. Sounds like a very slanted Fairness Doctrine (if only!) to me.

There is only one real way to vote in this country. With your wallet. Don't support advertisers who support stuff you don't like. And hopefully, join a group who feels like you do or form a group to increase your power.

I am interested in the blogospheres' influence in this election. Some blogs are supporting candidates monetarily, call in campaigns for or against policies, etc. How influential is a letter like this?

[roger rainey]

Bwahahahahahaha We have here a glaring double standard. It is very instructive to see this split on the left side of the blogosphere confirming many of the things the right side has been saying for quite some time. Do I have to go look up what each of you wrote about macaca to demonstrate it?

[anne]

There is a peculiar sort of rottenness, not to mention idiocy, to making a joke of an ethnic or racial slur.

[anne]

Do I have to look up a fool's prejudiced comments?

[Syaloch]

BJ Feng:

A good rebuttal letter should explain why the revenue increase could not possibly be related to the tax rate decrease. And explain the real factors for the revenue increase in each case.

They could do that with a simple graph like this.

For a more detailed explanation, they might point them to a report like this one from the CBO, which concludes that "the relationship of realizations and receipts to gains tax rates is neither predictable nor obvious."

[jalrin]

I think Jack is being sarcastic.

Dr. Thoma,

would you mind if I forwarded your excellent complaint to my local ABC affiliate (their license renewal is coming up and if they freak that might get ABC's attention)?

[Mike]

Funny I don't seem to recall the Nation having any problems writing about Bush's "character issues" re his National Guard service.

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&safe=off&client=firefox-a&rls=org.mozilla%3Aen-US%3Aofficial&hs=ByI&q=site%3Awww.thenation.com+bush+air+national+guard+service+&btnG=Search

What a bunch of crybabies. This is why you will get rolled, once again, in November.

[MnemonicMike]

Heh. Where were the complaints about "character issues" when GWB's service in the ANG was a daily, month-long headliner in the liberal media. Sort of like when Clinton went to war in Bosnia with no UN approval and there wasn't a peep out of the so-called "anti-war" crowd. All this current hurrah does is reinforce the idea that liberals are hypocrites. Smug one.

[NayNay]

I must've missed the Open Letter to CBS when they aired their questionable report from Dan Rather on CBS. Anyone got a copy of it?

[NayNay]

You remember, the "60 Minutes" report with the memos from President Bush's National Guard commander? I really need that letter so I can put it in my thesis about media bias.....anyone got a copy? Didn't Dan Rather and CBS host a few national Presidental debates as well...darn, where is that letter?

[Brooks]

BJ Feng,

Re: "Unless I'm mistaken, lowering the capital gains tax rate increases the return on capital for investors. That should stimulate investment and capital formation creating a larger tax base."

Yes, but the question is whether or not the tax base would increase ENOUGH to compensate for the lower RATE. It's the same algebra as for any tax rate cut. And as I've pointed out above, even conservative economist Greg Mankiw estimates only a 50% revenue feedback effect. Now, I have to assume he was referring to a cut within some range of rates, since an absolute statement like that would make little sense, but I assume he was talking about rates that existed prior to the 2003 tax cuts or at least more generally to rates in that neighborhood.

Re: "A good rebuttal letter should explain why the revenue increase could not possibly be related to the tax rate decrease. And explain the real factors for the revenue increase in each case."

You are setting an inappropriately high bar and assigning burden of proof with some bias. Even if, arguendo, we have a couple of anecdotal observations of correlation, that does not establish a strong likelihood of a reliable correlation and causation. More data points, selected without bias, would build a case for the burden of proof being on those who deny causation, but I don't think you or Charlie Gibson have presented such a case. And we should also be informed by economic theory, and algebra combined with behavioral insight (i.e., breakeven growth needed for tax base growth to offset the rate cut vs. the increase in incentive from higher after-tax ROI).

[roger rainey]

Oh, anne, your partiality is showing in assuming a nonsense word like macaca was racist in the first place. Why the media outrage over a nonsense maybe-racist word like macaca, but pure apologetics over Obama's very clear statement accusing others of racism without any proof? Isn't an unsubstantiated allegation of racism against a class of people of a different color racism itself? Look, we have all learned that reasoning with liberals is useless, since they are all so well-schooled in by-any-means, speak-truth-to-power, moral-equivalence doublespeak, so I won't belabor this. However, it is very illuminating to see Hillary supporters complaining of the same thing that conservatives have been complaining of for eons. The media can no longer claim that it is just a bunch of right wing freaks complaining about a media double standard.

[anne]

There is accidental racial offense, easily corrected, and there is the characteristic of intentional racism which is to be sure to show just how intentional a racial offense is.

Notice then the intentional racism, notice the lie as a mask to show off the racism.

[anne]

Notice me belaboring the racism and belaboring the lying as a mask to show off the racism. I am a fine belabor-er-er.

[Cory]

Funny how none of these journalists were outrages when people jumped all over Bush regarding his National Guard service. I guess character only matters in a presidential election when it suits your own partisan interests. Journalists should not be pro-Obama activists. All of the above "journalists" who signed the open letter are behaving completely unethically!

[Isabelle]

Sooooooooo, per this journalistic bunch of marxists freaks, I guess "we the people" have NO right to know the true CHARACTER of ANY candidate who is vying for the position of PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES. We are not talking about a secretarial postion here!!!!!!

I thought ABC was wonderful. They obviously cared about the US and the people's interests.

At a minimum, we should want a PRESIDENT who absolutely loves this country. The Obama's have exhibited (in word and deed) OTHERWISE. Multiple examples prevail as to close, anti-American affiliations/alliances/friendships (Madhmi Aci, friend of Saddam...a leading supplier of arms; Reverend Jeremiah Wright + Farrakhan; Rashid Khalidi, Obama's 2004 fundraiser), and of course, the home-grown terrorist, Mr. Ayres! Mrs. Obama is/has been very verbacious as to her resentment and dislike of our country, thus, a rehash of her disgraceful spews is not necessary.

Folks, THINKING is a prerequisite to rational decision making. Be very circumspect when you cast your vote now and in November!!!!!!!!! THANK YOU ABC!!!!!!! The people appreciate your conscientious endeavors on our behalf!

[anne]

"Sooooooooo, per this journalistic bunch of Marxist freaks...."

Simply notice the language, notice the echoing, notice the infectious viciousness. Notice the way in which race and religion are played. Soooooooooo, do I have enough oooooooooo's?

Oscar, how much do you vov us? Me, I am all vov all the time. America, vov. Soooooooooooooo.

[anne]

Vov you, I do.

[bob]

Sounds like a lot of people are still watching the right wing corporate media.

Olberman is the only thing i watch.

Rest of my news comes from the internet.

If somebody is trying to brainwash me I'm not gonna help them.

[Barkley Rosser]

Mark T.,

Oh well. So be it.

B J Feng,

Do please keep in mind that buying stocks is not the same thing as carrying out actual capital investment. So, cutting capital gains taxes does not stimulate real capital investment. It just gives money to the wealthy. And, the revenue gain from such cuts has been shown to be a one-shot job mostly due to people holding off cashing in during the previous year and cashing in sooner but not in the year after. No long run gain in revenue. A con job.

roger rainey,

Offhand, just where and when did Obama accuse others of racism without offering proof?

Regarding Bush and his National Guard service, well, CBS screwed up in their reporting, but chicken hawk leaders who lead the nation into pointless and stupid wars deserve to be shown up for what they are.

More generally, although I would still sign the letter Mark and crew sent if I had the opportunity, I think ABC may have done Obama a service. Although some of the wankers carrying on here think he did not answer well, and I think he might have handled a couple of them better, he handled himself pretty well in the face of a pretty withering fire on a lot of pretty stupid stuff, which, however, clearly will be brought up by the Republicans later. So, he was given a dry run practice in dealing with this nonsense, and came out of it OK. The idiots have done him a favor, or maybe this shows that they really are just part of that sneaky liberal media conspiracy that these folks are constantly hiccuping about, even if has been more conservative than the facts warrant on the war and a lot of other stuff.

BTW, as far as I am concerned the most outrageous question was Stephanopolous's one about Iran where he contradicted the finding of the NIE regarding their lack of a nuclear weapons program. He even had the nerve to say "of course we all know that they have one." On this I was disappointed by the replies of the candidates, neither of whom called him on his misrepresentative b.s., but Hillary's reply was wildly off the wall, putting her to the right of McCain on this.

[anne]

Barkley, please do reference this if a simple matter: "of course we all know that they have one." I do not understand, but this is a lie and if either candidate supported such a comment I would wish to know. Thank you.

[anne]

Could such a comment have really be made and agreed to, since the comment is not simply wrong but an obvious lie that the least familiarity with the open reports of the International Atomic Energy Agency would confirm? I really do not understand, since such a comment could drive us to a war if accepted as true. I do not understand.

Please confirm such a comment and any response other than immediate denial.

[George Quillivan]

I could not have said this any better than this:

Friday, April 18, 2008 National Review: http://media.nationalreview.com/post/?q=ODY1NTllYTY0NjI5MzczMTgzYmQ2NTc2ZTNhOGExOTE=

Character Issues Weren't "Tangential" When the Story Was Bush's ANG Service [Stephen Spruiell]

A bunch of liberal journalists have written an open letter to ABC to whine about its handling of Wednesday night's debate. "We're at a crucial moment in our country's history," they write. "Large majorities of our fellow Americans tell pollsters they're deeply worried about the country's direction... Tough, probing questions on these issues clearly serve the public interest... excessive emphasis on tangential 'character' issues do not."

The signers include at least seven contributors to The Nation, whose editors never saw anything "tangential" about George W. Bush's Air National Guard service and what that said about his character. A Google search of The Nation's website for stories on that topic yields 72 stories — none of which called on the media to stop focusing on such a tangential character issue.

ABC's critics also continue to insist that the American people don't care about issues like Obama's association with William Ayers or Clinton's lying about her trip to Bosnia, but they undermine their own argument by getting furious with anyone who mentions these topics. They're furious because they know that Americans do care about their president's character, and they know that these stories — if they get too much attention — will hurt their candidate in the fall.

GOOD LUCK IN THE GENERAL ELECTION. It's hard to decide which flawed candidate I'd rather see the Democrat Machine run. Either way ... it makes no difference. The voters are smarter than you Dems think. They will elect McCain - in spite of all his flaws - Conservatives and Republicans will vote him in because he is not a democrat-socialist. When will the stupid-ass dems get this message???

[anne]

Notice the language, notice the language of the gutter, because gutter language is what gutter minds are about. Racial smears, religious smears, lies and gutter language.

[Isabelle]

Sooooooooo, Anne, all you are worried about are how many oooooooooooo's are in my sooooooooooooo. Do you think "we the people" are sooooooooo asinine, stupid, foolish, idiotic, etc. that we would not want to discern the character of ANY candidate running for the office of "PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES". Are you from Iran?????????? Or are you another Marxist????????? Or are you related to Ayers??????

It appears the only problem that you had with my post was sooooooooooooooooooooo! Anne, is your name Michelle?

[Isabelle]

Thank you George Guillivan..........you are a rational thinking voter. Thank you again for your lucid insight.

[anne]

Simply notice the crazed language and understand; interesting the attacks on a woman, that needed to be repeated just to show they were intended. All must be covered, all must be prejudice and prejudiced, from race to religion to gender.

[Isabelle]

Anne, I am soooooooooo sorry. I didn't realize that you are ill. Per your previous statement "simply notice the crazed language and understand; interesting the attacks on a woman, that needed to be repeated just to show they were intended. All must be covered, all must be prejudice and prejudiced, from race to religion to gender."...what the heck could you possibly be referencing?? As to that paragraph, you are a complete wacko. This is a serious subject and you are blubbering about prejudice, race, religion and gender when NO ONE has mentioned and/or condescended either genre. Take a pill or an enema and go rest.

Quite frankly, I am getting v-e-r-y weary with the quick-on-the-draw "gender, race, and religion" card being played so effortlessly: particularly, when the (your) opponent has won the round! Soooooooooooo, drop the unwarranted accusations and GROW UP! Personal attacks and fallacious indictments will just make you appear irrational.

[John Freeland]

From George S.: "Do you think Jeremiah Wright loves America as much as you do?"

What on earth does that have to do with Obama's character?

[RW]

It is even more interesting than that Anne. Notice how it is all about legitimization: The attempt by one party to legitimate an (appropriately coded) slur against women or people of color followed by a second party attempt to legitimate the first party, to portray them as a loyal patriot, eagle-eyed citizen, anything other than the bigot or enslaved tool of the powerful their comments would otherwise suggest them to be, followed by the usual ad homenim denigration of any complaint as mere whining or weakness. It is entirely possible that "Isabelle" and "George" are the same person but even if they were not they are clearly completely interchangeable: It is all a right-wingnut play, there is no real substance any more than there were WMD or an Al-Qaeda connection in Iraq. Do you see?

Do not feed the trolls, let them return to LGF to suckle at the kool-aid teat in peace.

[BJ Feng]

I'm glad there are many people who understand what is going on and how ridiculous this letter really is. Ask a tough question to a Democrat and you're not being a journalist. All the while, the same people demand tougher questions from the press when it comes to Bush or a Republican.

When confronted with examples of this double standard, they have no recourse but to play the same race card and try to deflect attention away from the real issue. That is when you know you have won and the debate is over.

Democrats should be very fearful of the media exposing Obama's ties to questionable characters. Do we want a President who calls a terrorist, an America hating pastor, and a suspected criminal, his friends? Humm, don't we hang out with people who we have things in common with? Yikes, now you know why it's important to enforce a gag order. What if the American people found this out? What would they think?

[OhNoNotAgain]

BJ,

That "America hating pastor" served this country as a Marine and was part of the medical team that took care of our President. I don't suppose that matters for shit anymore, however, since the most "patriotic" in this country (like yourself) seem to be the least likely to do anything in actual service to the country.

And, for the record, a "tough" question is one that actually pertains to the job of being the President of the United States. I suppose had we asked a few more "tough" questions of the current occupant, he probably wouldn't be there, saving us all a whole lot of trouble.

[OhNoNotAgain]

"GOOD LUCK IN THE GENERAL ELECTION. It's hard to decide which flawed candidate I'd rather see the Democrat Machine run. Either way ... it makes no difference. The voters are smarter than you Dems think. They will elect McCain - in spite of all his flaws - Conservatives and Republicans will vote him in because he is not a democrat-socialist."

Hey Georgie, be sure and stop back here to chat during President Obama's inauguration so you can explain to us how McCain ended up with Dole-like numbers.

[Brooks]

BJ Feng,

Re: "Ask a tough question to a Democrat and you're not being a journalist."

That is just absurd. Are you really unable to distinguish between a tough question about a substantive matter of import to the voters (policy position, record, qualifications, etc.) and questions about tabloid, sensationalist nonsense and other assorted baloney?

Listen, I've been critical of some folks here for having an excessively partisan mindset/bias, but you are acting the same way, just from the other "side". Try to be a bit more objective and to apply some common sense and reason.

[BJ Feng]

I'm only pointing out that similar baloney was asked of Republicans, like if they believed in evolution. That was an actual question during the debates. Others focused on Jesus and the Bible, there were a ridiculous number of such questions, including ones about Mormons and Romney's personal faith. I admit it was inappropriate to call Pastor Wright an America hater, misguided as he is.

And I tried to make a post responding to past comments directed at Gibson's remark, but I quoted too much and it didn't pass the spam filter. To recap, there is an economic theory that explains why revenues would rise if the capital gains tax were cut. The theory's predictions have been observed and confirmed multiple times. So we definitely should be able to say that lowering capital gains taxes has some positive effect on revenue under the conditions our economy operates currently. Not in every circumstance perhaps, but for our current and past circumstances, it is true. Therefore the ball is on your court, those who object have to come up with a better explanation/theory, or show why the theory is invalid and cannot be responsible for the revenue increases. When a theory formed out of our current understanding of the subject makes a prediction that has been witnessed multiple times, then it's up to the detractors to show prove why it is a wrong theory.

[Barkley Rosser]

Feng,

I responded to your remarks about the cap gains tax. Do you wish to reply to them, or just repeat your vapid defense of Gibson's carrying on (I would agree that Obama could have done better in replying; he could have given the arguments that I gave about timing of payments and overall effect [there is not one, it is all timing], and the fact that buying stocks is not "capital investment").

Isabelle,

The excessive use of "!!!!!" and such in comments is almost a sure sign of lack of intelligence and excess of frenzy.

To those who keep saying that critics of the ABC folks are bringing up "the race card." Really? Who did so? The only people I see "bringing it up" are you folks, kind of like the now-silent roger rainey who accused Obama of making unsupported allegations of racism. When? Where? The question must now be asked: why are you all constantly bringing up baseless allegations that others are bringing up "the race card"?

anne,

I do not have the transcript, but Stephanopolous said it and the candidates let him get away with it, with Hillary proposing some sort of defense shield for almost the entire Middle East, presumably against Iran's nonexistent nuclear weapons. The real scandal is the lack of discussion of this. Even a sharp observer like you seems to have missed it, although Rachel Maddow and Pat Buchanan, of all people, caught it and its significance. Bad news.

Oh, and George Quillivan,

Remind me of how ferociously the media hounded John McCain over his repeated remarks that al Qaeda in Iraq is made up of Shi'a. Yes, they went after that one big time. Oh no, I forgot. That is not a flag pin lapel issue, although last I checked (and I met him once), John McCain does not generally wear flag pin lapels. Oh well.

[reason]

Where did all these lunatics come from here?

[reason]

Actually, when I say all, I wonder if they are not all the same person, the style and content show no difference at all.

[boris]

the fact that buying stocks is not "capital investment"

Fact: buying a house rather than building one has no effect on construction economy. What about buying the seller's first house so he can build a new one?

Oversimplification is for dummies.

[Brooks]

BJ Feng,

Here's where we aren't seeing eye-to-eye.

You keep pointing to a couple of observations (essentially a couple of data points) of a correlation and saying that the default assumption should be that there is a reliable correlation and indeed causation, and that therefore the burden of the proof lies with those who question or reject this assumption.

I don't think a couple of conveniently cherry-picked data points suffice to create such a default assumption and burden of proof.

And I have pointed out to you that a prominent, highly credentialed conservative economist, Greg Mankiw, who was Chairman of Bush's Council of Economic Advisors (2003-2005), who is a Harvard professor of economics, and who was a Romney campaign economic advisor (so I'm sure Mankiw would love to make as strong a case as possible for tax cuts, including reaching as strong a conclusion as possible regarding the degree of revenue feedback) HAS analyzed the revenue feedback effect from a cut in the capital gains tax rate and has estimated a revenue feedback effect of only about 50%, noting emphatically that it is "well under 100%".

On his blog, Mankiw writes:
"In a paper on dynamic scoring, written while I was working at the White House, Matthew Weinzierl and I estimated that a broad-based income tax cut (applying to both capital and labor income) would recoup only about a quarter of the lost revenue through supply-side growth effects. For a cut in capital income taxes, the feedback is larger--about 50 percent--but still well under 100 percent. A chapter on dynamic scoring in the 2004 Economic Report of the President says about the the same thing." http://gregmankiw.blogspot.com/2007/07/on-charlatons-and-cranks.html

So where does the burden of proof now lie? You and Charlie Gibson have made anecdotal observations of a couple of data points and reached a conclusion. A conservative economist of Mankiw's stature has analyzed the matter and has reached the opposite conclusion and says it isn't even a close call. What is your default assumption now?

RW says...

Oversimplification is certainly to be avoided but the housing analogy is not a strong one IMO: Buying someones first house does not mean another house will be built, the seller could buy another previously built house, become a renter, leave the country or die. But even the rather modest chance a new house will be built seems larger than the chance that someone selling a piece of stock will then use the funds to actually capitalize a business.

Can it happen, sure, but secondary market transactions are the norm and their net effect is effectively zero once slippage and the house take are factored out: Someone sold something, someone bought it, cash is moved by the seller into some other vehicle just as cash is moved by the buyer out of some vehicle to complete the transaction.*

I used to think that a different treatment of capital gains was appropriate as a recognition of risk but since the risk of losing ones job has gone up and the ability of even the moderately wealthy to hedge market risk has improved I personally no longer believe the distinction is worth the kind of premium it's granted in current tax code. Not that the difference bothers me when I do my taxes mind you but that's my opinion regardless, FWIW.

*I'm assuming no one here needs to be told that there is no such thing as "cash on the sidelines" waiting to be invested since it is obviously already invested or we wouldn't know it was there. Credit is another matter but these days that typically means leverage rather than capitalization.

But that reminds me of one of my more serious pet peeves so pardon me while I indulge it: The source of credit is the same house that is conducting the transaction which creates enormous information asymmetry and conflict of interest; the house has all the information it needs to manipulate spreads, front-run clients, etc. and they use it. Time to separate create a new Glass-Steagall and this time add the investment banks and brokerages to the list of entities that must be walled off from each other.

Other than that I continue to be impressed at the ability of the "tax-cut increases revenues" meme's resistance to the onslaught of logic and facts. Dawkins was right to create the conceptual category of "meme" to accompany that of genes even though I am not always comfortable with the way it is used: Just like genes, there are social memes that survive and even thrive despite their deleterious impact on the species; the tax cutting binge initiated by those infected with that particularly memetic blight has brought this country to the brink of ruin, creating structural deficits of stunning proportion, and there are still those who strenuously argue we haven't gone nearly far enough; astonishing!

Hmmm, I appear to have been carried away here and at the end of a rather unsatisfying thread too -- (it is curious how those infected by the RWA meme (http://tinyurl.com/ys2j6o) do begin to all sound alike though isn't i