Do Conservatives Ever Tell the Truth?

Yes, but not for long.  Mark Thoma shoots down the conservative think tank site that caught the Wall Street Journal, a paper I no longer subscribe to, in a lie and immediately reversed itself for “editorial reasons.”  There is no truth in conservative ideology when intellectual dishonesty of this sort is the rule.

“The Disappearing Tax Foundation Blog Post”:

I recently noted a post from The Tax Foundation accusing the Wall Street Journal editorial page of of ‘a textbook example of how to lie with statistics.’

Bruce Bartlett points to a Tax Foundation article that accuses the WSJs editorial page of ‘a textbook example of how to lie with statistics.’: The Wall Street Journals Misleading Income Chart. When the Tax Foundation questions someones reliability, you know a line has been crossed.

Brendan Nyhan notes today that the Tax Foundation post has been taken down [cached copy]:

… At this point, youre probably wondering why this post doesnt contain any links to the Tax Foundation website. The reason is that this sort of intra-movement criticism has a short shelf life — so short that the post had already vanished by this morning. Scott Hodge, the president of the Tax Foundation, confirmed that the post had been removed: ‘we withdrew the post for editorial and content reasons.’ He did not elaborate further.

Then, later, he does elaborate further — that is, if we never got around to it qualifies as elaboration:

Update 5/16 4:51 PM [EST]: More from Hodge via email:

Like all organizations we have an editorial process. The piece was posted before I could edit it. I thought it needed revision and editing. We never got around to posting a satisfactory version. Its a moot point now.

Leaving the original post up, and then doing a follow-up post explaining the problem with the first post (which has not yet been explained other than someone thought ‘it needed revision and editing’) would have been a more honest approach.

Either the editorial process is so bad that false claims appear on the site that are later removed without explanation — not a very encouraging sign for the site — or the post was removed because it told the truth. In any case, my statement that the Tax Foundations reliability is questionable is certainly validated by this episode.

(Via Economist’s View (Mark Thoma).)

I Feel Like A Black Republican, Too

TNC, quotes a commenter named David White who must have been channeling me.

I Feel Like A Black Republican:

You know, normally something this stupid wouldn’t bother me, but this story really gets under my skin. If they can try to paint Common as a ‘dangerous black man,’ what black man is immune? If they think Common is vile, then I know they have no use for my black ass. Common is beyond the pale, Michelle Obama hates whitey, Eric Holder is protecting the New Black Panther Party, Shirley Sherrod is discriminating against white farmers, Barack Obama is giving reparations to black people? Conservatives, do you realize how stupid this sounds to black people?

…But shit like this is what prevents me from even getting to the point where I’d give their policies a fair hearing. And I know there are some Republicans and conservatives here, and I say that you have no chance of getting any kind of support from black voters as long as the leaders of your party are pulling these kinds of stunts.

(Via Ta-Nehisi Coates :: The Atlantic.)

Faux News is Complete Bull!@#$

Jon Stewart ethers Faux News:

The Daily Show With Jon Stewart Mon – Thurs 11p / 10c
Tone Def Poetry Jam – Lyrics Controversy
www.thedailyshow.com
Daily Show Full Episodes Political Humor & Satire Blog The Daily Show on Facebook
The Daily Show With Jon Stewart Mon – Thurs 11p / 10c
Tone Def Poetry Jam – Lyrics Controversy
www.thedailyshow.com
Daily Show Full Episodes Political Humor & Satire Blog The Daily Show on Facebook

Healthcare is not a Normal Good

Freakonomics » New Freakonomics Podcast: Does College Still Matter? And Other FREAK-y Questions Answered.

[Healthcare] is virtually the only part of the economy where I can go out and get any service I want—cancer treatment, open heart surgery, have a wart removed, whatever it is—and I pay $3 for it or $5 for it or nothing, even if it costs $50,000 or $100,000.  I mean, imagine if you had the same situation with automobiles.  Where I could show up at the car dealership and I could say, ‘I want the Mercedes for free.’  Well, people say, ‘You can’t have the Mercedes for free.  You have to pay $50,000 for it.’  You say, ‘Why not, I have an inalienable right to free healthcare.  Right?  Why don’t I have an inalienable right to a free Mercedes?’

I love Levitt and Dubner, but here they lose their way.  They miss an important moral dimension to the argument over healthcare.  The best response was in the comments from “Miichael[sic?]”

To extend your Mercedes analogy, what usually happens is that you are told by your personal Car Expert that you need a Mercedes or you will die. You can’t afford one, and your Car Insurer says they won’t pay for one. So you walk. And you die.

Cutting Down the Forest But Keeping the Trees

Cutting Government Spending May Be Popular But There Is Little Appetite For Cutting Specific Government Programs:

“Cutting government spending often sounds like a good idea to many people, and it is a popular rallying cry for many Republicans and Conservatives, but a new Harris Poll underlines how difficult it is. When shown a list of 20 areas of federal government spending, a majority of the public supports cutting only six of them and these do not include the big ticket items that comprise most of the federal budget. Furthermore large majorities oppose cutting Social Security or federal health care programs, which many economists believe are increasing at unsustainable rates…

These results prompt two thoughts. The first is that the big picture – cutting government spending, in general – looks very different than the more detailed picture – cutting specific programs. Many people seem to want to cut down the forest but to keep the trees. The second is that this is not 1980, when President Reagan came to power. At that time there was a much greater appetite for cutting many government programs than there is today. Furthermore it should be noted that, in spite of his rhetoric, Ronald Reagan had great difficulty cutting government spending.”

(Via Harris Interactive.)

When will we be adults about this?

GOP Is Blowing It by Pandering to Tea Party

GOP Is Blowing It by Pandering to Tea Party:

“So why is it that I have been disdainful of the Tea Party from its first manifestation in early 2009? The main reason is that so many of its members simply don’t know what they are talking about; they seem to think that strong opinions are a substitute for facts, research and analysis. Consequently, many Tea Party members hold views on various topics that are, frankly, nuts, and these views have been embraced by some Republican voters as well.”

(Via Capital Gains and Games | Washington, Wall Street and Everything ….)

Precisely.  I have nothing but contempt for Tea Party politics which to date, as far as I can tell, have been a foul mixture of screaming, hate, stupidity and anger which are neither reasonable nor respectable.  You can’t govern that way, nor do you deserve to.

It’s Not About the Deficit

It’s Not About the Deficit:

Kevin Drum:

Whos Being Serious Here?, by Kevin Drum: Paul Ryan has taken to asking if President Obama is ‘an Erskine Bowles Democrat or a Nancy Pelosi Democrat?’ Well, if this is the best that Bowles can do, I guess it makes Obamas choice a lot easier:

….Mr. Bowles had harsh words for fellow Democrats. He dismissed the idea that raising taxes alone might help erase the deficit, saying ‘raising taxes doesnt do a dern thing’ to address health care costs that are projected to be a big driver of future fiscal problems.

If theres anything that could be called a wonkish consensus on the left, its this: we should eliminate the Bush tax cuts in a couple of years when the economy has recovered, and we need to rein in the long-term growth of healthcare costs. Its true that taxes dont address healthcare costs, but its just sophistry on Bowles part to put it like that. Taxes do address the medium-term deficit, and thats important. Quite separately, PPACA makes a start on holding down healthcare costs and thus addressing the long-term deficit, and I hardly know anyone on the left who doesnt agree that more needs to be done.

Jon Chait has more on this, including a more detailed takedown of Bowles own proposals for healthcare, which are almost laughably inadequate.

I think we make a mistake by talking about this as though the goal of Republicans is actually deficit reduction. Its not, the goal is a reduction in the size of government and once you understand that, its clear why Republicans will not support tax increases of any kind. Theyd rather cut taxes now (and argue its about jobs or long-run growth rather than ideology), and increase the deficit even more because they still believe the beast can be starved. Anything that increases the pressure to reduce spending will be embraced, anything such as a tax increase that might allow the government to grow larger will be opposed. Logic about the best way to close the deficit wont win this argument because it has little to do with the deficit itself.

(Via Economist’s View (Mark Thoma).)

Facts Are Stubborn Things

Each of us tends to think we see things as they are, that we are objective. But this is not the case. We see the world, not as it is, but as we are— or, as we are conditioned to see it. When we open our mouths to describe what we see, we in effect describe ourselves, our perceptions, our paradigms. When other people disagree with us, we immediately think something is wrong with them. But, as the demonstration shows, sincere, clearheaded people see things differently, each looking through the unique lens of experience.

This does not mean that there are no facts. In the demonstration, two individuals who initially have been influenced by different conditioning pictures look at the third picture together. They are now both looking at the same identical facts— black lines and white spaces— and they would both acknowledge these as facts. But each person’s interpretation of these facts represents prior experiences, and the facts have no meaning whatsoever apart from the interpretation.

The more aware we are of our basic paradigms, maps, or assumptions, and the extent to which we have been influenced by our experience, the more we can take responsibility for those paradigms, examine them, test them against reality, listen to others and be open to their perceptions, thereby getting a larger picture and a far more objective view. [emphasis mine]

The Seven Habits of Highly Effective People by Stephen R. Covey

Indeed. That is who I decide to be: a person of integrity who takes responsibility for himself with a firm grasp of reality. It is not easy and Lord knows I fail probably more often than I’d care to admit. (Anger is a powerful drug.) If you have ever had a passionate discussion on politics or religion with someone, this difficulty should be apparent. As responsible adults we can overcome this. (You must if you wish to be an effective person by Covey’s lights.)

But in my debates and passionate discussions over the years, I’ve witnessed many people who make no attempt to develop a more objective worldview. People project their fears and hatreds onto one another. I can’t tell how many times I’ve been told what I believe or don’t, what shows I watch, what blogs I read, that I’m an atheistic Jesus freak with a capitalistic communist political outlook. None of which have even a hint of reality. It’s very true that people that become shrill and say these things to me are indeed showing who they are rather than the world as it is.

Continue reading “Facts Are Stubborn Things”

The Racism of Frame

Wow.

Ta-Nehisi Coates on The Racism of Frame:

On Friday I joked on twitter, the other day, that biggest problem with attempting to write smart is that you end up attracting people who really are smart. And sometimes they write in to tell you you’re wrong. And sometimes, In such cases, your forced to acknowledge their point.

Continue reading “The Racism of Frame”

Political Illusions

Political Illusions:

Tyler Cowen writes a column that is both good and bad. It is good for what it says: it debunks fiscal illusions. It is bad for what it does not say, and for what it does not say it tends to deepen our political illusions. You see, for some reason Tyler Cowen does not mention the obvious solution at the ballot box to the very real fiscal illusion problems he writes about. If we simply stopped electing Republicans–if we simply elected presidents who would choose policies designed by the technocrats of the Clinton and Obama administrations and elected senators and representatives who voted for them–we would be absolutely fine.

Continue reading “Political Illusions”

%d bloggers like this: