NYT "objectivity" on candidates & the budget

Here's a New York Times lede that annoys me:

3 Candidates With 3 Financial Plans, but One Deficit
By LARRY ROHTER and MICHAEL COOPER

The Republican and Democratic presidential candidates differ strikingly in their approaches to taxes and spending, but their fiscal plans have at least one thing in common: each could significantly swell the budget deficit and increase the national debt by trillions of dollars, according to tax and budget experts.

The reasons reflect the ideological leanings of the candidates, with Senator John McCain proposing tax cuts that go beyond President Bush’s and the Democrats advocating programs costing hundreds of billions of dollars. But for fiscal experts concerned with the deficit, both approaches are worrisome.

In other words, both sides are equally bad. But if you read a few paragraphs into the story, you'll see McCain's plan would be more than three times worse for the federal budget deficit:

Mr. McCain’s plan would appear to result in the biggest jump in the deficit, independent analyses based on Congressional Budget Office figures suggest. A calculation done by the nonpartisan Tax Policy Center in Washington found that his tax and budget plans, if enacted as proposed, would add at least $5.7 trillion to the national debt over the next decade.

Fiscal monitors say it is harder to compute the effect of the Democratic candidates’ measures because they are more intricate. They estimate that, even taking into account that there are some differences between the proposals by Senators Hillary Rodham Clinton and Barack Obama, the impact of either on the deficit would be less than one-third that of the McCain plan.

See All the President's Spin for more on the problems with the conventions of objectivity and "he said," "she said" journalism.

Comments

What is overlooked is that an improved health care system should end up saving money, both for individuals and on a national level.

Many other industrial nations have a national health care program which covers virtually the entire population, achieves better levels of health and is able to do so for significantly less cost than we are able to achieve in the US.