JONATHAN CHAIT SEPTEMBER 8, 2011
-
Read Later
READ LATERAvailable only to subscribers. SUBSCRIBE TODAY
-
Listen
ARTICLE AUDIO
- Font Size
Before I get to commenting on President Obama's speech tonight, I should note this ridiculous "fact check" piece by the Associated Press:
President Barack Obama's promise Thursday that everything in his jobs plan will be paid for rests on highly iffy propositions.
It will only be paid for if a committee he can't control does his bidding, if Congress puts that into law and if leaders in the future — the ones who will feel the fiscal pinch of his proposals — don't roll it back.
Is this serious? That criticism can be made of any proposal to offset the cost of tax cuts or spending. Indeed, it's a criticism that could be made of any plan of any kind. Obviously the plan won't be paid for if Congress refuses to pay for it. By the same token, the plan won't pass at all if Congress refuses to pass it. And any long-term savings plan, or any long-term plan of any kind, would be undermined if Congress decides to reverse it.
People like me have been saying for years that reporters should stop simply quoting claims by politicians and start evaluating the truth of those claims. It's good they're trying. But the next step is to start hiring reporters who know how to do that.
14 comments
Where were the "fact check" gestapo when the pubes were in the WH and controlled Congress? Oh yeah, cowering in the corner. The GOP would have beat the daylights out of them if the press actually did their jobs.
- tmmats
September 8, 2011 at 8:33pm
The speech was ok because it was forceful. However, Obama needs to follow it up with more forceful speeches and determination to keep the Republicans on the defensive.
- arnon
September 8, 2011 at 8:48pm
Unless I misunderstood the "pay for it concept," it seemed like the President was saying he was going to pay for it by having the supercommittee find the money and I assume he will follow up with suggestions on how they should do that. It's true that the President can't pay for anything by himself, but the hard choices as to what the cut are being hidden. This has been going on for some time now -- making cuts without saying exactly what is being cut to avoid the backlash. Although this is not as reckless as Bush, who just cut taxes without cutting anything and paid no attention whatsoever to deficits. Nor is it as shortsighted as Reagan, who, at first cut taxes expecting revenues to increase and then increased taxes.
- Nusholtz
September 8, 2011 at 8:56pm
The notion of Jon Chait becoming an employee of New York Magazine rests on highly iffy propositions. It will only happen if he decides to leave his TNR post, if the other magazine offers a contract, if he signs the contract, and if he is not then immediately fired by the New York editors.
- Konstantin
September 8, 2011 at 9:20pm
I can one up that fact check - unless Obama personally has $447 Billion in his bank account he can NEVER say it's paid for, I don't care how much Visa will raise his card limit or how much Joe Biden owes him. I need to see a bank balance before he can claim it's paid for.
- Attrill
September 8, 2011 at 9:24pm
The Republicans have been yammering that Obama has never offered a definite plan, even though it is not the job of the president to write legislation. It seems this time he will offer both the jobs bill and the deficit committee plan. Whether they go anywhere is another thing.
- polijunky
September 8, 2011 at 9:47pm
The first question should be: is it WORTH paying for? As posted in somewhat greater detail on Cohn's blog, by the numbers previously published by economists that understand Keynesian theory (Krugman, DeLong, Johnston, etc), the amount of stimulus requested by BHO (about $450B) is less than half that needed (about $1T) to be rather sure that the economy will recover.And has uneeded tax breaks for business .. Same problem BHO had two years ago...two little, this time also too late, and already negotiates away Medicare cuts. I agree with Krugman that the proposal is 2-3 times more/better than I anticipated. Paul is more impressed with exceeding low expectations than I am. And I disagree on the political soundness of aiming low for a proposal that will never pass.-- then negotiating down from there. You really think BHO will do otherwise? I'd like to take your bets on that.. even odds, PT Barnum style.
- drofnats1
September 9, 2011 at 9:46am
I am on the Obama side of the aisle, but I think Factchecker's observation is completely valid. Obama's proposal is not instrinsically paid for. Congress could pass it "right away," and it will not be paid for unless a series of highly unlikely events occur. It's more akin to saying that Chait will move to New York Magazine if the moon turns to blood. Now, I don't really care whether its paid for if it is implemented "right away." But if its implementation will be contingent are Congress passing some grand deficit reduction plan, then it is worthless, and is no more than political posturing. Dhurtado
- NR143296
September 9, 2011 at 12:41pm
contingent ON Congress passing ...
- NR143296
September 9, 2011 at 12:43pm
From Cohn's overview, it looks like half of the plan consists of tax cuts. According to conservatives, tax cuts pay for themselves! Therefore, we have to come up with only half the money. You're welcome, America.
- frippo
September 9, 2011 at 12:43pm
Dhur.. Can't realists agree this is political posturing on all sides? And if you're going to posture, how about proposing something that would really work and call it what it is: a Keynesian stimulus. And begin to educate voters on the science of economics---as opposed to seeing if you can spin what appears to be one ideology (Whatever is BHO's economic incoherent gemisch) versus another economc ideology (Repub incoheren economic gemisch that is sort of Hooverian, but really anything BHO doesn't want or would be helped by). The last two years suggest Repubs can spin better than BHO, so long as both are spouting incoherent economic BS.
- drofnats1
September 9, 2011 at 12:50pm
I could not agree with you more drof. Even if its just political posturing (because we know nothing Obama proposes will be enacted), the proposal should be intellectually honest, and Obama should at least make the effort to persuade voters of its merit. I would only quibble with you on the suggestion that Obama should invoke Keynes or the word "stimulus." Those are just names that close minds. There is nothing dishonest about simply describing the components of the proposal in functional terms, without invoking labels that make people stop listening. I do think Obama needs to make the point (if he indeed believes it) that temporary deficits are inevitable if we are going to address the recessed economy. Dhurtado
- NR143296
September 9, 2011 at 1:21pm
Dhur. I understand your point.. The problem as I see it is that Economics has become a science in the last v70 years, with testable data that fit Keynes/Hicks models. And none other. The near-religous dogma has it that debt is bad and gov't cant create jobs. I don't know how you begin to educate the publuc otherwise unless you begin to give the theory and the data. It's not difficult stuff. It's kinda like in 1611, To counter Pope Urban VIII, do you not talk about round earths and heliocentric solar systems according to Copernican theory b/c that's unpopular??
- drofnats1
September 9, 2011 at 3:56pm
I'm saying go ahead and talk about round earths and heliocentric solar systems, but just don't invoke the name of Copernicus if that will cause people not to listen. That's how stupid people are, unfortunately. But I don't want to get bogged down on that point. I agree that Obama needs to explain economic theory and that worrying about deficit reduction in a recession is folly. Dhurtado
- NR143296
September 9, 2011 at 11:02pm