« Twitter roundup | Main | Why I'm excited about the David Leonhardt era »

August 15, 2011

Comments

Some insight into Administration priorities is provided by none other than the New York Times:

Administration officials, frustrated by the intransigence of House Republicans, have increasingly concluded that the best thing Mr. Obama can do for the economy may be winning a second term, with a mandate to advance his ideas on deficit reduction, entitlement changes, housing policy and other issues.
The country is very blessed. We have a President who is so concerned about unemployment that he's willing to do whatever it takes to save one person's job--his own.

Brendan's first item seems illogical. The first sentence of the cite says:

"[Perry is] running in part to restore the respect of the military to its civilian leaders.

Brendan thereupon criticizes Perry because:

"the priority is that the military respects civilian leadership, not the converse."

Perry is advocating exactly what Brendan says he wants -- military respect of civilian leadership ---- so why is Brendan complaining?

I think Brendan's and Ben Smith's convoluted reasoning goes like this: By calling for the military to respect the Presidency, Perry is implying that they don't respect the current President. Smith claims that Perry is thus validating military doubts about civilian leadership. That's illogical. Pointing out a problem doesn't imply approval, especially when the rest of the comment explicitly expresses disapproval. Smith even acknowledges that Perry's observation is correct, referring to a "discontent with Obama that's common among soldiers"

Calling Perry's comment a validation of something he deplores is as illogical as saying that deploring racism validates racism or deploring low economic growth validates low economic growth.

It's easy to criticize a column if one is allowed to misrepresent what it says. The central point Bush and Warsh's WSJ article is that the federal government ought to have a unified economic approach, rather than hodge-podge of separate programs. They mention some examples of the ad hoc approach: checks in the mail to spur spending, Cash for clunkers to move auto inventories, fast trains and faster Internet, mortgage modification programs and fleeting tax credits. Chait snarks about various points, but he doesn't really argue that an ad hoc economic approach is a good idea.

Chait says,

On the long-run deficit, President Obama favors a fiscal adjustment based on a mix of spending cuts and higher revenue, ideally through a tax reform that produces lower rates. Republicans believe that a fiscal adjustment is only desirable if it consists entirely of spending cuts.

I know that this is the way the popular media are presenting the situation, but it's not quite accurate. In fact, neither Obaman nor the Repulicans are making proposals that would fix the long-run deficit. A more accurate re-statement might be:

President Obama and Republicans agree that fixing the long-term deficit is out of the question. Obama favors a fiscal adjustment based on a mix of spending cuts and higher revenue, ideally through a tax reform that produces lower rates. Republicans believe that a fiscal adjustment is only desirable if it consists entirely of spending cuts. However, both sides agree that any spending cuts or revenue increases must be insignificant in relation to the actual size of the deficit.

A walk down memory lane with Jonathan Chait.

Brendan predicts: Bachmann straw poll win likely to flush out more GOP elites who oppose her candidacy. Sure enough, here's James Taranto with the ultimate insult:
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424053111903480904576510271119903298.html?mod=WSJ_Opinion_MIDDLETopOpinion

Ezra Klein meets Garrison Keilor:

That said, it’s hard to see how Perry could scale up these successes nationwide. It’s one thing for a single state’s population to grow at a faster-than-average rate by siphoning people from elsewhere, but how do you do that for the United States as a whole?
Klein is right. If Perry can't make every state above average, what good is he?

Re: Bert and Ernie. The Broadway show Avenue Q is more or less an adult spin-off of the Sesame Street muppets. In that show, two best friend male muppets are clearly based on Bert and Ernie. Late in the show, one of them discovers that he's gay. The show explores his and his friend's reaction.

Bert and Ernie gay? Really?

A modest compromise: How about instead of petitioning for Bert and Ernie to get married, why not have the creators at Sesame Street introduce two new puppets of the same gender living together in a relationship?

Can we then get on with life?

The comments to this entry are closed.