This page was last updated on July 27, 2012.
Eye Chart for GOP Apologists; Progressives for Obama; July 23, 2012.
You may have read some Democrats up for election/re-election are distancing themselves from President Obama by not attending the Democrat convention. Though claiming the reason has nothing to do with Mr. Obama, House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) said, “I’m not encouraging anyone to go to the convention, having nothing to do with anything except I think they should stay home, campaign in their districts, use their financial and political resources to help them win their election.” Sure. I mention this only because Progressives for Obama now wants to be called Progressive America Rising. I’m sure the name-change has nothing to do with wanting distance from Mr. Obama in case he loses – and the USA wins – in November.
Carl Davidson posted the subject graphic, then on his Facebook wall wrote, “One Graphic, 10,000 Words. Makes you want to put it up in front of the pro-GOP pundits, and make them explain it on camera.” Progressives for Obama apparently lifted this graphic from a 2011 editorial (“How the Deficit Got This Big”) in The New York Times.
If a pundit – whether a lefty or righty – values his reputation, the first thing he should do is ask for the graphic’s supporting documentation showing who prepared the graphic and for whom, data sources (Simply saying “I got it from Bob” doesn’t count.), assumptions, calculations, etc. Back in college when we submitted homework and tests, we had to show all the work used to get an answer, not just the answer itself. Further, we had to derive any equation we used to prove we understood the underlying mechanics, physics, etc. and why the equation applied to a given problem. This process is also SOP in business, research, and so on. The burden of proof is on the person/group making the assertion. Arguing for or against an undocumented analysis, proposal, etc. is a waste of time. In this case I found the apparent source isn’t even a “news” story. As noted above, the source of the graphic is a lefty editorial in a lefty publication that used a lefty think tank (Center on Budget and Policy Priorities) as one of its sources. If that doesn’t get a pundit’s – whether lefty or righty – “spidey sense” tingling, he’s in the wrong business.
Even without the above questions answered, however, flaws jump out. “Bush tax cuts” is one example. First, Mr. Bush and Congress cut tax RATES, not taxes. Before the subprime loan economic mess began to kick in, tax revenue peaked at $2.6 trillion in 2007, an increase of $577 billion (29%) since 2001. By the end of fiscal year 2007 (the last before the recession), the deficit was down to $161 billion. The Obama administration provides these figures on the White House website in “Table 1.1—Summary of Receipts, Outlays, and Surpluses or Deficits (-): 1789–2017.” It’s in the “Historical Tables” area of the Office of Management & Budget section.
Second, tax-rate cuts are not a “new cost” – or a cost of any kind - unless you believe the fruit of a family’s labor really belongs to the government and it’s up to the government to determine how much your family is allowed to keep. This position in the graphic is consistent with Mr. Obama’s. In a campaign speech on April 13, 2011, Mr. Obama referred to tax-rate cuts as “spending in the tax code” and “tax expenditures.”
In Peace, Friendship, Community, Cooperation, and Solidarity. <g>
© 2004-2012 Robert W. Cox, all rights reserved.