Why Is The New York Times Touting Paul Ryan’s Fiscal Credibility?

http://mediamatters.org/blog/201101190012

Why Is The New York Times Touting Paul Ryan’s Fiscal Credibility?

January 19, 2011 11:00 am ET by Jamison Foser


In a New York Times “news analysis” about the debate over health care reform, reporters David Herszenhorn and Robert Pear quote five politicians and one nonpartisan team of budget experts. In doing so, Herszenhorn and Pear included a statement about the credibility of only one of the six sources -- and it wasn’t the nonpartisan team of budget experts. It was Wisconsin Republican Paul Ryan.

The Times reporters identified President Obama, House Majority Leader Eric Cantor, House Committee On Small Business chair Sam Graves and Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz only by name and title; the Congressional Budget Office was described simply as “nonpartisan.” But Ryan … for some reason, Herszenhorn and Pear decided to tout Ryan’s credibility:

snip//

So why do Herszenhorn and Pear think Ryan -- and Ryan alone -- is worthy of being declared a “respected voice on fiscal issues”? Is it just because Ryan wants to end Medicare as we know it and privatize Social Security?

Is that what the New York Times thinks justifies singling Ryan out for praise -- his support for budget-busting tax cuts and wars, along with proposals to dismantle the social safety net?

The New York Times should consider the possibility that part of the reason why the nation faces large deficits is that news organizations like the New York Times praise the fiscal responsibility of politicians who support massive increases in the deficit.

AKA the Wall St crowd.

They sold out to them years ago (which was why they actively promoted the Iraq invasion).

http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/07/30/dont-know-much-about-economics/

Don’t Know Much About Economics

Hoo boy. I missed this; but Yglesias points out that in Ezra Klein’s interview with Paul Ryan, Ryan says that the way to increase lending is to raise interest rates:



I don’t even know where to start with this. What does Ryan think the fed funds rate is? (It’s the rate at which banks lend each other money overnight, usually to help meet reserve requirements.) He obviously doesn’t know the the Fed funds rate basically equals the return on federal paper, so that raising that rate would make banks more, not less, likely to stay with that federal paper. I’m sure someone will try to come up with a reason why Ryan is being smart here, but the truth is that he’s stone-cold ignorant.

Now, he wouldn’t be the only ignorant member of Congress. But wait — my colleague David Brooks tells me, this very morning, that


So this is the smartest Republican Congress has to offer?

Of course, Ryan’s idea of fiscal reform is to run huge deficits for decades, but claim that it’s all OK because we’ll cut spending 40 years from now; and he throws a hissy fit when people challenge his numbers, or call privatization by its real name.

But hey, he’s intellectually ambitious.

Update: And sure enough, Ryan tries to cover himself; see the addendum at the end of Ezra’s interview. But he’s faking it: there’s no way to go from what he now claims he was saying to the words he actually said. So he’s both ignorant and dishonest, which we already knew from the way he tried to deny that privatizing Social Security was actually, um, privatizing Social Security.

through him; what excuse does the NYT have?

As I have said---Ryan is disingenuous but most of what he says it not exactly incorrect. Just needs to be clarified. Much like the way some posts on DU are. However, due to his political leaning and his position in politics he uses it to his advantage.

The Times speaks to credibility as Snooki speaks to chastity.

As Newt Gingrich speaks to marital fidelity or family values.

As John Boehner speaks to sobriety or honesty.

As the RNC speaks to conservatism or fiscal responsibility.

I actually had a back forth email argument with him over the affordable housing fund. That exchange could not say anything of his political leanings, but it did at least in my opinion, show that he will craft facts to the "story" that he was then interested in.

The actual details are boring, but to be fair having said that I need to explain. I emailed him because he had a long article - nearly half a page long on the affordable housing trust. In the article he was highlighting Reed, who led the effort on that writing that provision when the banking committee included it in the bill. He was arguing that he would be a good choice for VP. I actually LIKED Reed and thought he would be an excellent choice, but was mystified why he so distorted the history of that provision.

The truth was it was something that John Kerry had introduced in multiple Congresses, going from about 4 to finally 23 co-sponsors before the Banking Committee agreed to take that bill as a part of the 2008 banking bill. Reed and Dodd both were co-sponsors of the 2008 version of the bill that was sent to the banking committee. In the article Herenzenhorn credited Reed with being the person who had fought for this for the past 10 years - when, in fact, he was not even an original sponsor. (He in effect conflated Kerry's and Reed's work attributing it all to Reed.

His reply was that many people are involved on any bill and you can't name all of them. I replied that this is, of course was true, but given that Shelby, Dodd, Reed and I think two other Senators were credited - you would think the SPONSOR of the bill through 4 Congresses should be mentioned. He responded explaining that the point was to focus on Reed showing that he had more than just his excellent military background and that he would be a good choice - and that was the point of the article. I responded that as he mentioned so many others he could have with a simple parenthetical phrase have mentioned the bill was sponsored by Kerry - and that would take nothing away from the work that Reed did - and it would give Kerry the credit he deserved for the legislation. (I admit that I hit him with the NYT using a new just for Kerry rule in 2004 crediting him only if he was the first named sponsor on a piece of legislation - and then arguing he had little. They did just the opposite with every other candidate in 2004 and 2008. Here, he was the main sponsor - and at least 5 other people were given the credit. )

His response was to say I was a partisan (absolutely true and I am proud of that - and it doesn't change that Kerry was the sponsor as the various Senate records I linked to showed) and that he was an "impartial journalist". I wish I could say I dropped it there - as his retreat to claiming status showed he could not argue on the merits, but I didn't - I sent the email change to the NYT public editor, who never responded.

Now, nothing here were extremely negative - he was pushing Reed, who is a good liberal Democrat and he said nothing (good or bad) about Kerry. My problem was that he was driven by an agenda that was not explaining a fairly noncontroversial, mostly unknown provision in a Senate bill and he was willing to put into the "paper of record" a history of that fund that distorted the history.

I always have the urge to clarify his statements. He just takes the worst aspects and magnifies them without keeping them in a balanced outlook. However, most economists do that depending on what their political affiliation is. It's only in a scholastic setting do they stay neutral.