Everybody knows that poilticians like to fudge budget numbers.
Specifcially, they use optimistic projections and intellectual sleight
of hands to make their initiatives look better. Whether it's tax cuts
or new spending programs, they offer all kinds of benefits and yet,
magically, manage not to cost that much money.
politicians are more honest than others. A lot more. To take one easy
example, Bill Clinton and his advisers may have over-estimated the
savings the administration's ill-fated health care plan might have
yielded. But they never pulled the kind of intellectual shenanigans
that the Bush Administration did with its tax cut, the Medicare drug
plan, or the cost of the Iraq War.
Now history is repeating itself. All three of the
remaining presidential candidates have put forward ambitious plans for their would-be presidencies.
With Clinton and Obama, the ambition lies primarily with their new spending proposals,
chief among them universal health insurance. In McCain's case, the
ambition consists primarily of reducing taxess, starting with the
preservation of the Bush tax cuts. And while all three candidates
promise simultaneously to reduce the deficit, it's almost certainly true that all
three candidates are over-promising. There probably isn't enough
money to fund all of Clinton and Obama's spending if they're serious
about deficit reduction, just as there probably isn't enough money to
fund McCain's tax cuts if he's serious about reducing the deficit.
But there's a huge difference in how far off they are. According to a group of budget analysts cited in Sunday's New York Times,
McCain's plan could add $5.7 trillion to the national debt over the
next decade. Clinton and Obama's plan would add about a third as much.
Clinton and Obama can probably achieve most of their goals
either by trimming (rather than ditching) some proposals, finding a
politically acceptable way to raise a few taxes, or letting the deficit
grow at a moderate rate. (Or, most likely, some combination of the three.) McCain, by contrast, is
going to have to jettison some of his ideas altogether. Either he'll have to let go of those tax cuts or he'll have to let the deficit explode.
arguably, a very important distinction--one about which the voters
should know, as it says a lot about the candidates' honesty and ability
to govern. The Times deserves great credit for highlighting it.
I suspect many readers of the Sunday Times didn't grasp this distinction. In fact, I suspect many came away with the
very opposite impression about the candidates--i.e., that they're all equally irresponsible. The reason is the story's headline, "3 CANDIDATES WITH THREE FINANCIAL PLANS, BUT ONE DEFICIT," and the first two paragarphs, which read as follows:
The Republican and Democratic presidential candidates differ
strikingly in their approaches to taxes and spending, but their fiscal
plans have at least one thing in common: each could significantly swell
the budget deficit and increase the national debt by trillions of
dollars, according to tax and budget experts.
The reasons reflect the ideological leanings of the candidates,
with Senator John McCain proposing tax cuts that go beyond President
Bush’s and the Democrats advocating programs costing hundreds of
billions of dollars. But for fiscal experts concerned with the deficit,
both approaches are worrisome.
"One deficit." "One thing in common." "Both approaches are worrisome." It's not until the fifth pargarph that the story gets around to
informing readers that one candidate, McCain, is making promises that are wildly more unrealistic than
It's just one article, of course, but it's also
indicative of a broader phenomenon in campaign coverage: Journalists
trying so hard to seem even-handed that they end up distorting reality.
I have no idea whether it was the reporters or editors who chose to
frame this particular story this way. Either way, though, it was a poor, if all too typical, decision.