-
Carney Goes Birther on Major Garrett
May 22, 2013 | 7 comments
-
Ray Manzarek, R.I.P.
May 20, 2013 | 1 comment
-
Thoughts on The Tornado in Moore, Oklahoma
May 20, 2013 | 1 comment
-
Alan O’Day, R.I.P.
May 20, 2013 | 3 comments
-
Elijah Harper, R.I.P.
May 18, 2013 | 1 comment
The Spectacle Blog
Joe Nocera of The New York Times continues to relentlessly beat the “blame the Tea Party” drum:
On the other hand, I also found myself nodding in agreement as I read S.&P.’s analysis. The downgrade, after all, was less about economics than politics. S.&P. was frightened by the same thing that has scared most Americans: the spectacle of an unyielding minority of Tea Party Republicans ready to push the country into default rather than accept even modest tax increases to help bring down the deficit. “The effectiveness, stability, and predictability of American policy-making and political institutions have weakened at a time of ongoing fiscal and economic challenges,” wrote S.&.P. in its downgrade report. Who can disagree?
Well, I for one disagree.
First of all, when Nocera was writing the phrase “an unyielding minority of Tea Party Republicans ready to push the country into default” I wonder if he forgot that he had written one paragraph earlier, “From an economic standpoint, the likelihood of a U.S. default is nil.” If the likelihood of the U.S. defaulting on its obligations is nil then how can Tea Party Republicans have possibly been in a position to push the country into default?
Second, what about the 95 House Democrats who voted against raising the debt ceiling? Why doesn’t Nocera accuse them of pushing the country into default? Well, if Nocera did, he wouldn’t be in the employ of The New York Times now would he?
Third, Nocera might want to read a little more diligently because the S&P report makes no mention of the Tea Party. Nor was S&P frightened by the refusal of Tea Party Republicans to accept modest tax increases:
Standard & Poor’s takes no position on the mix of spending and revenue measures that Congress and the Administration might conclude is appropriate for putting the U.S.’s finances on sustainable footing.
It is also well worth noting that S&P was also unsatisfied with the Budget Control Act because “the plan envisions only minor policy changes on Medicare and little change in other entitlements, the containment of which we and most other independent observers regard as key to long-term fiscal sustainability.”
Well, perhaps if the Senate and President Obama had accepted Paul Ryan’s budget proposals which would have addressed Medicare we would have staved off this crisis. Last May, Nocera interviewed Ryan and came off less than impressed. While ceding the need to reform Medicare, Nocera chided Ryan’s budget for “its radical vision for turning Medicare into, essentially, a do-it-yourself voucher program.” It should come as no surprise that Nocera does not offer an alternative to the Ryan Plan. After all, when Ryan told Nocera, “We’re heading towards a debt crisis. I don’t want to be on the wrong side of history,” Nocera wrote, “I was not won over.”
Speaking of the Democrat controlled Senate, the last I checked it has been 833 days (and counting) since that austere, deliberative body passed a budget. But they get a pass from Nocera just like the House Democrats who voted against raising the debt ceiling.
As for President Obama, Nocera seems content to follow in his footsteps by blaming George W. Bush. He asks, “Has any president in American history left behind as much lasting damange as George W. Bush? In addition to two unfinished wars, he also set us on the path to our current financial mess.”
Now I suppose we shouldn’t expect much from Nocera. After all, this is the same man who earlier this month accused “suicide vest” wearing Tea Party Republicans of having “waged jihad on the American people.”
But may I remind Joe Nocera that Barack Obama has presided over the Oval Office for 932 days. At what point in his presidency does Nocera think Obama bears any responsibility for the two unfinished wars and current financial mess of which he speaks? He might as well say February 30th because all Nocera has to offer is nonsense.
View all comments (22) | Leave a comment
More Blog Posts by Aaron Goldstein
http://spectator.org/blog/2011/08/09/nonsense-from-nocera
Follow us:
ADVERTISEMENT
The Spectacle Blog
Former IRS Commissioner Refused to Say That Targeting Conservative Groups is Wrong
Benjamin Brophy | 2:27PM
SPONSORED LINKS
FLASHBACK TO: 1995
-
Pope Culture
A man of faith in a godless age is hitting Americans where it hurts.
-
Why the GOP Does Not, Like, Totally Suck
Mr. and Mrs. American Spectator Reader, let P.J. O’Rourke talk sense to your kids.
-
Dames at Sea
-
In the Absence of Guns
In Britain, defending your property can get you life.
-
The Metaphysical Martini
-
Counting the Costs of Clintonism
The debacle of this president’s administration is both a cause and a symptom of the decline of American values. Unless Congress impeaches him, that decline will go on unchecked. An eminent jurist surveys the damage and assesses the chances for the recovery of our culture.
-
Chuck McHagel
It won’t take long for conservatives to scratch this presidential wannabe off their 2008 scorecard.
-
The Legacy of Old John and Mother Fresh-Roasted
-
It’s the Best Time of the Year
The American Christmas, like the songs that celebrate it, makes room for everybody under the rainbow. Is that why so many people seem to be hostile to it?
-
The Bush Crack-Up
Was the President done in by the economy, or by the politics of the economy?
Clip of the Day
ADVERTISEMENT
DRed| 8.9.11 @ 1:04PM
Compared with previous projections, our revised base case scenario now assumes that the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts, due to expire by the end of 2012,
remain in place. We have changed our assumption on this because the majority of Republicans in Congress continue to resist any measure that would raise revenues, a position we believe Congress reinforced by passing the act.
Our revised upside scenario--which, other things being equal, we view as consistent with the outlook on the 'AA+' long-term rating being revised to stable--retains these same macroeconomic assumptions. In addition, it incorporates $950 billion of new revenues on the assumption that the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts for high earners lapse from 2013 onwards, as the Administration is advocating.
Occam's Tool| 8.9.11 @ 1:07PM
Nothing like reducing investment capital to stimulate the economy. I can't wait for November 7, 2012---here's to President Elect Perry or Bachmann!
A. Doer| 8.9.11 @ 1:13PM
Third, Nocera might want to read a little more diligently because the S&P report makes no mention of the Tea Party.
No, they just said this:
We lowered our long-term rating on the U.S. because we believe that the prolonged controversy over raising the statutory debt ceiling and the related fiscal policy debate indicate that further near-term progress containing the growth in public spending, especially on entitlements, or on reaching an agreement on raising revenues is less likely than we previously assumed and will remain a contentious and fitful process.
The Democrats are the ones who are making it difficult to cut entitlements. The Republicans are the ones making it difficult to "raise revenues," i.e., increase taxes.
You go on to say:
Nor was S&P frightened by the refusal of Tea Party Republicans to accept modest tax increases:
"Standard & Poor's takes no position on the mix of spending and revenue measures that Congress and the Administration might conclude is appropriate for putting the U.S.'s finances on sustainable footing."
They say explicitly that part of the problem, and part of the rationale for the downgrade, is that progress is unlikely on "reaching an agreement on raising revenues."
How can you read what they wrote about this, and conclude that they weren't concerned about the refusal of the Tea Party Republicans to consider even modest tax increases? They say the opposite of that in the first paragraph of their rationale.
Aaron Goldstein| 8.9.11 @ 1:33PM
But governments can raise revenues without necessarily raising taxes on income.
DRed| 8.9.11 @ 1:46PM
What governments can do and what S&P wrote are two entirely separate things. What you said directly contradicts what S&P actually wrote. They may well be wrong, but they are most definitely concerned by the refusal of republicans to raise taxes.
Conservative Bob| 8.9.11 @ 1:43PM
S-P-E-N-D-I-N-G C-U-T-S
The deal had no real cuts. Real cuts defined as actual reduction in the amount of money spent.
Every proposed cut was characterized as "extreme" or "draconian" or some other such pejorative by the Dems on the left.
Harry or O pronounced every deal that was proposed as DOA or unacceptable. They objected to cuts of millions in a deficit of trillions yet the obstructionists are the TEA party. Right!
The revenue side can be addressed after Real Cuts are passed into law. Every deal that has traded tax hikes for spending cuts has resulted only in higher taxes.
Cut actual spending not the rate of increase in spending then we can talk.
This grand theater of calling reductions in the rate of increase a cut will no longer pass the smell test.
wally| 8.9.11 @ 1:52PM
Amen, CB
A. Doer| 8.9.11 @ 2:01PM
The revenue side can be addressed after Real Cuts are passed into law.
In what world? The Republicans are blocking tax increases while the Democrats are blocking meaningful cuts to entitlements. You're asking for one side to do something that would anger its constituency and please its opponents, in exchange for nothing.
Where does this "real cuts" meme come from anyway? You could have a balanced budget with no "real cuts" in that sense, i.e., with spending increasing year over year rather than decreasing. The economy grows, costs increase, spending increases, and revenues increase too.
Even if Republicans controlled all Congress and the White House they wouldn't make deep cuts like that. There are some ideologues who would gladly commit political suicide in pursuit of a foolish ideal, but they're a minority and will remain a minority. A loud minority is still a minority.
Conservative Bob| 8.9.11 @ 3:02PM
Wanting a government that lives within its means makes someone ideologue?
So what you are saying is all hope is lost?
Lets wait until after Nov of 2012 and see how things lay at that time. I suspect that nothing of substance will pass until then given the current break down of control in DC.
After Nov of 2012 conservative numbers in elected office will increase and then we shall see what is possible.
A. Doer| 8.9.11 @ 3:24PM
Wanting a government that lives within its means makes someone ideologue?
Of course not. Insisting on things that have zero chance of happening in the real world, given the realities of political power and voter demographics, is what makes someone an ideologue. Given a choice between working toward a politically feasible compromise that addresses a real problem, and punting the problem down the road, an ideologue will reject political reality and punt.
Lets wait until after Nov of 2012 and see how things lay at that time. I suspect that nothing of substance will pass until then given the current break down of control in DC. After Nov of 2012 conservative numbers in elected office will increase and then we shall see what is possible.
Clint| 8.9.11 @ 1:47PM
" Rep. Ron Paul, R-Tex., and his son, Sen. Rand Paul, R-Ky., both blasted Tea Party critics on Monday for suggesting that the conservative movement with which they're both linked may have had something to do with America's recent credit downgrade by the ratings agency Standard & Poor's.
The elder Paul, a longtime lawmaker, staunch libertarian, and presidential candidate, decried the allegations as an "attempt to scapegoat" Tea Party lawmakers. He pinned the downgrade on the Washington establishment.
He continued: "We were downgraded because of years of reckless spending, not because concerned Americans demanded we get our finances in order. The Washington establishment has spent us into near default and now a downgrade, and here they are again trying to escape responsibility for their negligence in handling the economy."
"This attempt to scapegoat folks who recognize that our debt is out of control and that we must change course should not be tolerated," he said in a Monday statement. "They are simply demanding that Washington do its job."
Rand Paul, the first-term Kentucky Senator who was elected in 2010 with the support of the Tea Party, argued that blaming the movement for America's economic woes was like "blaming the fireman for fires."
"Blaming the Tea Party for America's debt crisis and downgrade is like blaming the fireman for fires," he said in a statement. "The Tea Party has been fighting for a serious solution that would rescue our finances through immediate spending cuts, spending caps and most importantly, a Balanced Budget Amendment to the Constitution."
"While Democrats would like to lay blame on the Tea Party for the current economic failure, it is their President who has failed in leadership, failed to lower unemployment, failed to rescue our economy, failed to prevent a downgrade of our debt, and failed to control spending," he added. "
wally| 8.9.11 @ 1:49PM
Raising taxes is not the answer. No lasting revenue increases- just a blip and done. Cutting selctive taxes (corp and cap gains tax rates, etc.) would provide lasting impact and would also provide incentive for private sector growth.
But at the end of the day its the spending...
JohnD| 8.9.11 @ 1:58PM
S&P should be taken to task for their "gridlock" comment. Someone should ask S&P if we would still have our AAA rating if we were a dictatorship where debt ceilings could be raised by fiat and dissenters summarily executed.
It seems S&P hasn't the temperment or patience for the democratic process, preferring the efficiency of brutal totalitarianism. What "the process" has to do with creditworthiness is beyond me.
Lastly, I understand there are about 12 accredited bond rating agencies, with S&P, Moody's and Fitch being the most well-known. S&P and Egan Jones are the only two to downgrade U.S. debt, while Moddy's has reaffirmed our AAA rating and Fitch has been silent. So if about 10 of the 12 agencies regard us as AAA, doesn't that make S&P and Egan Jones look kind of foolish? Aren't they outliers?
A. Doer| 8.9.11 @ 2:10PM
Someone should ask S&P if we would still have our AAA rating if we were a dictatorship where debt ceilings could be raised by fiat and dissenters summarily executed.
It's fascinating to see the kind of reasoning needed to hold tight to Tea Party memes.
Raising the debt ceiling wasn't the issue. The brinksmanship about raising the debt ceiling was just a symptom of the gridlock at the root of the REAL problem. Besides, most countries don't have a "debt ceiling" at all. It's a silly gimmick that has no teeth because (with some politically suicidal ideologues) nobody wants to hit the debt ceiling.
BD57| 8.9.11 @ 2:31PM
I forget ....
Are the suicidal ideologues the people who want to revise entitlements because we can't possibly raise taxes by enough to afford them in their current form?
Or are they the people who want to raise taxes & leave entitlements alone even though we can't possibly raise taxes by enough to afford the entitlements in their current form?
A. Doer| 8.9.11 @ 2:56PM
Are the suicidal ideologues the people who want to revise entitlements because we can't possibly raise taxes by enough to afford them in their current form?
I was thinking of the ones who refuse to compromise even if what they are demanding would be politically suicidal. People on message boards can talk big talk about slashing entitlements, but if they could get their way it would mean the end of any Republican chances of gains in the next election.
Practically speaking, you can't raise taxes enough to pay for the entitlements going forward, with the expected cost increases and growing number of retirees, but practically speaking you also can't cut entitlements deeply enough (and hope to win elections) to get back to a balanced budget.
Both sides are digging in their heels. Maybe it's going to take another downgrade to get the suicidal ideologues to sit down and act like adults.
Conservative Bob| 8.9.11 @ 3:25PM
Exactly how many hours per year under threat of imprisonment should I be forced to work exclusively for the benefit of others?
If I have no say in the matter, how is that different from slavery or indentured servitude?
How is it compromise when only one side is ever expected to yield?
The demand that one group of Americans work without compensation so that the political class can ‘distribute’ the proceeds of that labor to ensure their continuance in office must end. We have run out of other people’s money to spend.
DRed| 8.9.11 @ 4:28PM
You do have a say in the matter.
A. Doer| 8.9.11 @ 5:00PM
Exactly how many hours per year under threat of imprisonment should I be forced to work exclusively for the benefit of others?
Or a different way of asking it would be, how much are you willing to do for the elderly who can't afford their own retirement costs? If you say "nothing" that's going to sound cold and heartless, so can you at least see your way to providing a nice heavy cardboard box, maybe a box of crackers that they could eat with ketchup packets from McDonalds? Instead of medicare can they at least have some good strong pain killers in case they get cancer or something? If something along those lines seems acceptable to you, and you can get enough people like yourself elected, I think we could get your annual share of working for the benefit of others under threat of imprisonment down to a few minutes to a few hours, depending on how much you earn.
If I have no say in the matter, how is that different from slavery or indentured servitude?
Other than your ability to vote for, campaign for and contribute to elected officials you think will best represent your preferences, and your ability to run for office yourself, or to get involved in various organizing activities on behalf of political action groups and other organizations, you are indeed no different from the most wretched of slaves.
Conservative Bob| 8.9.11 @ 7:53PM
Sorry but that is NOT another way of asking the question I posed.
I choose to give to charity. I choose to provide assistance to the less fortunate. I give of my time and my treasure. Institutions exist that are far more effective at actually meeting those needs than is either the state or federal government.
What I give to a charity or a church or directly is my choice.
One is in no way equal or even comparable to the other. The first and most important difference is choice. Helping (at gun point) someone the government defines as in need of assistance is inherently ineffective and inefficient, to say nothing of the at gun point piece. The greater morality and frankly compassion is on the side of the freely given assistance as opposed to that which is compelled. The difference in effectiveness and efficiency favoring the voluntary is significant.
More germane to the overall discussion is that the politician and the administrating agency have no interest in their solutions being either effective or efficient. The more people that can be defined as in “need” the more the future cash flow if the politician and their administrators are assured. Think of the trillions wasted on the War on Poverty, we are surrounded today by the festering product of those good intentions. Think of that same poor down trodden senior you posited in your reply. Let us say they need housing help. The Federal government defines the need and the qualifications and then contracts with an agency to administer the program. Think Acorn.
As to your last neither I nor my children or grandchildren will be a slave to anyone. We have the means and the will to withdraw and defend what we have. Until that time we will work to elect candidates that are conservative.
Conservative Bob| 8.9.11 @ 7:53PM
Sorry but that is NOT another way of asking the question I posed.
I choose to give to charity. I choose to provide assistance to the less fortunate. I give of my time and my treasure. Institutions exist that are far more effective at actually meeting those needs than is either the state or federal government.
What I give to a charity or a church or directly is my choice.
One is in no way equal or even comparable to the other. The first and most important difference is choice. Helping (at gun point) someone the government defines as in need of assistance is inherently ineffective and inefficient, to say nothing of the at gun point piece. The greater morality and frankly compassion is on the side of the freely given assistance as opposed to that which is compelled. The difference in effectiveness and efficiency favoring the voluntary is significant.
More germane to the overall discussion is that the politician and the administrating agency have no interest in their solutions being either effective or efficient. The more people that can be defined as in “need” the more the future cash flow if the politician and their administrators are assured. Think of the trillions wasted on the War on Poverty, we are surrounded today by the festering product of those good intentions. Think of that same poor down trodden senior you posited in your reply. Let us say they need housing help. The Federal government defines the need and the qualifications and then contracts with an agency to administer the program. Think Acorn.
As to your last neither I nor my children or grandchildren will be a slave to anyone. We have the means and the will to withdraw and defend what we have. Until that time we will work to elect candidates that are conservative.
Oldefarte| 8.9.11 @ 4:25PM
These domestic terrorist ilk aka Democrats [and their facilitating MSM] make me want to excrement inside my pants. To think that they're effectively ropagandizing/brainwashing the general public with their partisaned garbage is sickening. If this moron told the TRUTH, he admit that the rating agency downgraded due to the DEMOCRATS' refusal to cooperate in substantial governmental expense reductions needed and thereby forcing the minority Republicans to compromise into the small decreases obtained. But oh no, this puke had to falsify his BS by stating that its the tea parties' fault. This moron may wish to reflect that no tea party was even in existence when some of these governmental expenses were legislated by Democrats [ie the Great Society programs, Affordable Homes, CRA of 1977, Community Action Agencies etc], all of which are still on the government's books and within their expense structure today!!!!!!