Does the Washington Post Deserve to Be Taken Seriously?
The Post rightly beats up on Alan Greenspan for his efforts to worm away from his support for President Bush’s 2001 tax cut. However, they don’t own up to their culpability in accepting the nonsense that Greenspan was selling at the time.
Trivia buffs may recall that Greenspan’s main stated reason for supporting a tax cut was that he was concerned that the projected surpluses were so large that they would lead the government to quickly pay off the national debt. With enormous surpluses projected to continue, the government might then look to buy up private assets (stock and bonds), which Greenspan thought was a bad idea.
The Post says that “in hindsight” this scenario was implausible. WRONG! It was implausible at the time to anyone who understood the economy.
The economy at the time was being driven by a massive stock bubble which was already in the process of deflating. The deflation of the stock bubble meant that the projections of capital gains tax revenue were overstated by more than $600 billion (including interest). The deflation of the stock bubble also virtually guaranteed that the economy would fall into a recession, which would cause a large shift from surpluses to deficits.
Some economists recognized this at the time (including Alan Greenspan). The Post chose to ignore these economists and instead rely on projections that proved to be hugely inaccurate. It should at least have the decency to acknowledge this mistake instead of covering it up with a classic Washington “who could have known?”
No.
This has been another edition of Simple Answers to Simple Questions.
We Democrats will stop telling the truth about you Republicans when you stop lying about us.
September 20, 2007 7:41 AM | Reply | Permalink
But that's just what WaPo does. Look at Iraq. They supported us getting into the mess and then we did, then it went bad, as anyone who wasn't blinded by trying to start a war could have predicted and now they come out and say that staying in the mess, a la Petraeus is the "least bad" option we have.
What they don't say is that people who thought like the WaPo editorial board are responsible for us having only bad choices.
Same's true economically. When the stock bubble deflated we were in good condition, even with an inevitable recession. Imagine heading into a recession with a surplus! With a surplus, the government had numerous options for dealing with the recession. But WaPo and Greenspan didn't fight for those options. Instead a last ditch "Cut taxes, rebate the surplus" strategy was employed. It's a gambit that can only work once. That recession was followed by another bubble which is now over. As with the stock bubble, the real estate bubble seems destined to lead us into very low growth or a recession. What's different than 2000? Instead of heading into a downturn with a surplus, we're headed into a downturn with a deficit. Why? WaPo, Greenspan and people like them.
Yeah, some apologies are in order on the two major issues of the day: Iraq and the economy.
thosethingswesay.blogspot.com
September 20, 2007 7:46 AM | Reply | Permalink
LOL. I was just about to post the same exact response. I stopped taking WaPo seriously a long time ago. It went downhill after Katharine Graham left.
September 20, 2007 8:03 AM | Reply | Permalink
Dan Froomkin is about the only reason I still go to the WahPooh any more.
September 20, 2007 8:26 AM | Reply | Permalink
They have some excellent reporting. Too bad their editorial writers don't seem to read what their reporters write. The same could be said of the Wall Street Journal.
September 20, 2007 9:25 AM | Reply | Permalink
They have some excellent reporting. Too bad their editorial writers don't seem to read what their reporters write.
How could they? Len Downie the idiot buries all of Pincus' shit on page A19 back with the ads for Filene's Basement. The Post sucks.
September 20, 2007 9:29 AM | Reply | Permalink
On September 20, 2007 - 10:46am destor23 said:
But that's just what WaPo does. Look at Iraq. They supported us getting into the mess and then we did, then it went bad, as anyone who wasn't blinded by trying to start a war could have predicted
Does it follow logically that they will instruct democrats to vote for Hillary Clinton?
September 20, 2007 11:14 AM | Reply | Permalink
I take the Post as seriously as the Weekly Standard and the New York Sun. It is, since Fred Hiatt took over the editorial page, a neocon mouthpiece.
Read Colbert King last Saturday on the Walt-Mearsheimer controversy. King admits that he does not spend time thinking about the issue but that does not stop him from mouthing the neocon talking point that the Israel lobby is irrelevant. Additionally, any newspaper that has Richard Cohen has House liberal cannot be taken seriously.(Is Alan Colmes unavailable?)
September 20, 2007 12:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
E.J. Dionne, Jr. was the Post's house liberal last time I read the Post, which was about a year ago. I like E.J. a lot, but he ducked the Iraq issue even as the Krauthammers, Hiatts, Wills, Broders, et al were beating the war drums. A fair mix of op-ed page regulars would feature at least a couple of Josh Marshalls, Glenn Greenwalds, Jim Hightowers or Amy Goodmans, to name just a few among the many articulate, sharp and edgy/aggressive (EJ is the first two of these, but usually not the latter--it's just not his personality) people writing from left of center points of view.
September 20, 2007 12:42 PM | Reply | Permalink
In general, EJ is very good. But I think Cohen has the "predictable liberal" slot and he's cringe worthy.
September 20, 2007 12:49 PM | Reply | Permalink
The WAPO is a stellar example of the atrophied system of "journalism" in the United States. With exceptions becoming more rare with each passing day, the WAPO simply spits out the same bullshit you can read anywhere else.
The lack of insight, depth and/or understanding displayed by way of their work on the part of reporters and editors, their coziness and identification with the wealthy and powerful warp their work so badly that it is almost completely worthless. The subject matter is beside the point because the reporting is so uniformly terrible regardless of the issue or subject matter. The New York Times is no better.
The sad state of "journalism" such as it is in this country today can be directly traced (IMHO) to the corporate ownership of institutions such as WAPO and the attendant philosophy that goes with it. A single penny spent for buying that piece of crap or almost any major daily paper in this country is a penny wasted. Every subscription only encourages their continued toadying to wealth and privelege in order to get ahead. Starve them I say! Get your news on the web and fuck the whole lot of em.
To me, they aren't just bad journalists, but accomplices in every bad act that has taken place in government and public policy in this nation on the federal level. Their failure to do their jobs has damaged the nation and its future. After whoring themselves to the extreme right in the 90's sidetracking the country over a blowjob and then aiding and abetting an illegal and immoral invasion and occupation of Iraq I am done with them all. Call them what you will, but don't call them journalists or patriots.
September 20, 2007 1:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
Tax cuts were appropriate fiscal policy in 2001, because ---
1. the economy was in recession and
2. the U.S. deficit projected by responsible(?) economists (the Dean Baker types) was too low to provide adequate sovereign debt (U.S. Treasuries) to soak up foreign central bank surpluses -- and thus, to maintain the USD as the reserve currency, a benefit to U.S. residents.
The issue wasn't whether there ought to be a tax cut -- a tax cut was sound policy; the issue was whose taxes should be cut.
September 20, 2007 1:31 PM | Reply | Permalink
September 22, 2007 8:12 AM | Reply | Permalink
and if so for how long
September 22, 2007 9:31 AM | Reply | Permalink