Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Stockman Scott's Political Debate Porch -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: laura_bush who wrote (24229)	8/5/2003 12:11:24 AM
From: stockman_scott	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 89467

Everything Is Political _________________________________ By PAUL KRUGMAN OP-ED COLUMNIST THE NEW YORK TIMES August 5, 2003 The agency's analysts find that they are no longer helping to formulate policy; instead, their job is to rationalize decisions that have already been made. And more and more, they find that they are expected to play up evidence, however weak, that seems to support the administration's case, while suppressing evidence that doesn't. Am I describing the C.I.A.? The E.P.A.? The National Institutes of Health? Actually, I'm talking about the Treasury Department, but the ambiguity is no coincidence. Across the board, the Bush administration has politicized policy analysis. Whether the subject is stem cells or global warming, budget deficits or weapons of mass destruction, government agencies are under intense pressure to say what the White House wants to hear. And the long-term consequences are likely to be dire. Traditionally the Treasury, like the C.I.A., stands somewhat above the political fray. Externally, it is supposed to provide objective data that Congress and the public can use to evaluate administration proposals. Internally, long-serving Treasury analysts traditionally ride herd on political appointees, warning them when their proposals are ill conceived or irresponsible. But under the Bush administration the Treasury takes its marching orders from White House political operatives. As The New Republic points out, when John Snow meets with Karl Rove, the meetings take place in Mr. Rove's office. To the general public, the most obvious consequence of this subservience has been Treasury's meek acquiescence in an economic policy that hasn't produced any jobs, but has produced a $450 billion deficit. Insiders, however, are if anything even more dismayed by the erosion of Treasury's intellectual integrity — an erosion exemplified by its denial and deception on the subject of tax cuts. Here's the story: Treasury has an elaborate computer model designed to evaluate who benefits and who loses from any proposed change in tax laws. For example, the model can be used to estimate how much families in the middle of the income distribution will gain from a tax cut, or the share of that tax cut that goes to the top 1 percent of families. In the 1990's the results of such analyses were routinely made public. But since George W. Bush came into power, the department has suppressed most of that information, releasing only partial, misleading tables. The purpose of this suppression, of course, is to conceal the extent to which Mr. Bush's tax cuts concentrate their bounty on families with very high incomes. In a stinging recent article in Tax Notes, the veteran tax analyst Martin Sullivan writes of the debate over the 2001 cut that "Treasury's analysis was so embarrassingly poor and so biased, we thought we had seen the last of its kind." But worse was to come. For his June 22 interview with Howard Dean, Tim Russert asked the Treasury Department to prepare examples showing how repealing the Bush tax cuts would affect ordinary families. Presumably Mr. Russert thought Treasury would provide a representative selection — that is, like many in the media, he doesn't yet understand the extent to which Treasury has become an arm of the White House political machine. In any case, the examples Treasury provided to Mr. Russert and others in the media were wildly unrepresentative. To give you a sense: the Treasury's example of a "lower income" elderly household was one receiving $2,000 a year in dividend income. In fact, only about one elderly household in four receives any dividend income, and only one in eight receives as much as $2,000. Not surprisingly, the "Russert families" gained far more from the Bush tax cuts than a representative sample. As Mr. Sullivan put it, "If this continues, the Treasury's Office of Tax Policy may have to change its name to the Office of Tax Propaganda." As I've said, this is only one example of a broad pattern. Still, why does politicized analysis matter? One answer is that it undermines democracy: how can Congress or the public make informed votes if both are fed distorted information? And even if you aren't bothered by an administration that systematically misleads the public, you ought to be worried about the decisions of an administration that systematically misleads itself. A leader who is told only what he wants to hear is all too likely to make bad decisions about the economy, the environment and beyond. nytimes.com

To: laura_bush who wrote (24229)	8/5/2003 7:13:04 AM
From: stockman_scott	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 89467

Dems vs. GOP: Best Weapons Are the Facts by Walter Williams Published on Monday, August 4, 2003 by Long Island (NY) Newsday Next month, progressive Democrats will open a new think tank, the American Majority Institute, that has an expected yearly operating budget of at least $10 million. This level of support means the institute can challenge the conservative Republican policy shops that in recent years have been much more heavily funded and have clobbered their Democratic counterparts in selling ideas to the public. The key question is whether the new institute has to emulate the Republicans from President George W. Bush on down in using deceptive information to mislead American citizens about their policies. Its decision whether to employ such chicanery goes to the fundamental democratic issue of informed consent. But it makes sense for the institute to emulate the conservative policy shops in three ways. First, a big annual budget is needed in the face of the well-funded array of right-of-center think tanks. Second, aggressively pushing the message is essential. John Podesta, former White House chief of staff for Bill Clinton and the institute's president, has noted that most Democratic policy shops "don't have the communications muscle and focus that is important in influencing pubic opinion." Third, the American Majority Institute should hire staffers who write well and have good media connections. Also needed is quality control by a cadre of policy analysts with state-of-the-art research techniques. The latter can vet questionable Republican claims and ensure that the American Majority Institute's data and arguments are valid. Now comes the hard part. The American Majority Institute must avoid the temptation to spin its arguments by pushing the available information too far and engaging in trickery to justify a claim. In the first place, a primary means of attacking the Republicans will be to expose the dishonesty of their cooked information and deceptive commentary. That is best done when the accuser's claims rest on sound data and honest analysis. The second reason is that informed consent by the American people is essential to a viable democratic system. Efforts by Republican politicians and public policy shops to purposely dupe citizens on major policy issues have undermined the foundation of the nation envisioned by the founding fathers. It's no use trying to finesse the shameful cowardice of the Democrats during most of the Bush presidency. The biggest problem for the new institute and the party is not finding honest numbers, but finding the courage to use them. The Republicans have been zealots without regard to veracity or consistency. Yet, the Democrats have been fearful of taking on the popular president and the partisan think tanks that have supported his distorted claims. These unscrupulous practices also can be the Republicans' Achilles heel. Exposing the dishonesty, however, requires that the American Majority Institute attack the Republicans with a hard-nosed relentlessness. It should use the available honest numbers to expose the legerdemain on the tax cuts for the wealthy and other clear policy deception. Now that the Democrats have challenged the Bush administration's deception on the missing weapons of mass destruction in Iraq - and drawn blood - hard-hitting critiques of the fraud in other Bush policies can be reinforcing. Continued Democratic timidity will fail. Nor are Democrats likely to out-spin the Republicans. Forceful use of honest data is the best option. The Democrats have a mother lode of reliable information that shows the pattern of calculated deception of the Bush administration. It is a rare opportunity that can be used effectively by a tough think tank that is scrupulous in analyzing and packaging data and commentary that can help Democrats in attacking the Bush administration. When sound numbers support a strong case, the American Majority Institute should go for the jugular. The attack on Republican politicians and think tanks must be unrelenting in exposing deceptive information and dishonest analysis. Be partisan and be honest - it is not an oxymoron. Such an effort can serve the interests of the Democratic Party and the public. Fighting deception with deception to win the presidency and Congress makes a mockery of the critical concept of having an informed electorate. Both the Democrats and the Republicans need to recognize this basic point: For a nation that aspires to lead the Mideast toward democracy, lying to the American people about major policies is the antithesis of constitutional democracy. ____________________ Walter Williams, a professor emeritus of public affairs at the University of Washington, is the author, most recently, of "Reaganism and the Death of Representative Democracy." Copyright © 2003, Newsday, Inc. commondreams.org