Yes, He Accused Them, But Did It Happen?

One could drive oneself insane blogging this all the time, but I genuinely think that every single person involved in covering politics for a major newspaper needs to take some time to think about the possibilities that their articles, as written, reduce the level of informedness in the population. Say, for example, you didn't follow American politics or public policy at all. You'd probably have no opinion as to whether or not the Democratic congress is plotting the largest tax increase in American history. Then you read Peter Baker's Washington Post article:

Appearing before cameras at the Treasury Department alongside his economic team, the president vowed to veto spending bills that exceed his targets, and he accused Democrats of plotting the largest tax increase in history to fund an additional $205 billion in discretionary spending over five years. . . .

Democrats quickly returned fire, noting that Bush inherited a surplus that turned into a deficit and that he never vetoed a spending bill during the six years that Republicans controlled Capitol Hill, even as the budget grew by 50 percent.

Now, based on this, one would probably conclude that Democrats are, in fact, planning the largest tax increase in American history. One certainly would not conclude that what Democrats are proposing is that tax legislation that Bush himself proposed years ago be allowed to proceed in the manner that Bush proposed, and that all of the arguments about affordability that Bush made, when proposing this tax legislation back in the day, were founded on the premise that the legislation would operate as proposed, complete with a phase out and so forth.

It's barely worth mentioning because this happens all the time, but it's necessary to mention precisely because it happens all the time. Baker's article is by no means a bad one relative to the prevailing standards of the day, but even so it does more to assist the powers that be in their effort to mislead people than it does to help people understand what the powers that be are doing.

Comments

Baker's article is by no means a bad one relative to the prevailing standards of the day, but even so it does more to assist the powers that be in their effort to mislead people than it does to help people understand what the powers that be are doing.

That's because, for the corproate media, "assist[ing] the powers that be in their effort to mislead people" rather than "help[ing] people understand what the powers that be are doing" is prevailing standards of the day.

And yes, the Democrats need to point out -- since no one else will do it for them -- that if the sunset of Bush's tax cuts are the "largest tax increase in American history," it's one that Bush himself proposed and signed into law.

Sheesh.

Posted by Gregory | August 9, 2007 9:23 AM

Matt's right, but at the same time this would be really terrible time for Dems to fight over the semantics of whether letting tax cuts expire counts as a tax hike.

Surely the case against Bush here is way simpler than that--Bush wants to cut funding for children's health care so that he can extend tax cuts for the wealthy.

Posted by Consumatopia | August 9, 2007 10:02 AM

This is where Brad DeLong's campaign to hang the last Sulzberger in the entrails of the last Graham starts to feel like it makes sense.

Posted by Delicious Pundit | August 9, 2007 10:21 AM

I agree with Consumatopia that this is effectively a "clever" semantic argument. If the Bush tax cuts expire, tax rates go up. People pay higher taxes. That's a tax hike. It may be justified, but it's a tax hike.

Posted by Pithlord | August 9, 2007 10:33 AM

Look at it this way. Suppose a Republican Congress allowed a spending program of which you approved to expire after it had been in place for the better part of a decade. What would you think of a Republican who argued that the program hadn't really been cut?

Posted by Pithlord | August 9, 2007 10:42 AM

Someone needs to point out, the next time the Republicans try to make an issue of the Democrats "not doing anything" since they regained control of Congress - that the tax cuts were passed as a temprorary measure only through legislative trickery (via the Budget Reconciliation process, whereby a strict majority vote [filibuster-proof] vote is enabled only by making the measure temporary) - and that the Republicans controlled Cogress for years without making the tax cuts permanent. Probably the number one issue of the Republicans behind war/terror, and a oft-stated highly visible goal of President Bush for years - yet they GOP couldn't get it done.

That should be pointed out - and often.

Posted by Ethel-to-Tilly | August 9, 2007 10:47 AM

If Bush now says that he always wanted the tax cuts to be permanent, then the bill was passed under false pretences. They should have been costed as permanent. But our political reporter class is too busy reading Slate to get Facebook revelations about candidate offspring.

Posted by P O'Neill | August 9, 2007 11:37 AM

Of course President Bush is declaring that the exact law he proposed and signed, exactly as he proposed it with sunsetting provisions 9whichis how President Bush's projection of a balanced budget by 2010 were made) is not what he proposed.

And, of course, every single REpublican will remember it that way as well.

Posted by Philadelphia Steve | August 9, 2007 12:59 PM

Why not just call this tax increase "Bush's idea" and say he's flip-flopping, which he is? Why not call Bush's original bill "a bill that proposed the largest tax increase in history"? Karl Rove had it right-- the "flip-flopping" charge is very effective because it's important to approach the world consistently. Bush did not here (or rather, he approached it with the consistent intent to lower taxes while hiding the effects on the budget). That lack of elementary consistency on this issue is a huge problem for Bush. The Democrats should exploit that.

I agree with Matt's point but it's the Democrats' job to be making these points. They have a megaphone now, because they control Congress. They should use it wisely.

Posted by mk | August 9, 2007 2:33 PM

Look at it this way. Suppose a Republican Congress allowed a spending program of which you approved to expire after it had been in place for the better part of a decade. What would you think of a Republican who argued that the program hadn't really been cut?

Assuming the Democrats had made a big point of poo-pooing criticism of the expense of the program by pointing to estimates of its cost impact which included the assumption that its sunset clause would become reality, then I think I would say "too fucking bad, liars"

Posted by crayz | August 9, 2007 3:04 PM