Dingbat Kabuki! (Yet Another Why-Oh-Why Can't We Have a Better Press Corps? Edition)

Jonathan Weisman of the Washington Post is on the front page getting the story... umm... not quite right:

House GOP Leaders Set to Cut Spending: Leadership Shake-Up Spurred Policy Shift. By Jonathan Weisman: House Republican leaders have moved from balking at big cuts in Medicaid and other programs to embracing them, driven by pent-up anger from fiscal conservatives concerned about runaway spending and the leadership's own weakening hold on power. Beginning this week, the House GOP lawmakers will take steps to cut as much as $50 billion from the fiscal 2006 budget for health care for the poor, food stamps and farm supports, as well as considering across-the-board cuts in other programs...

But if you read to the end of the article--and if you understand budget concepts and reporting conventions--you can see that Weisman's announcement that the House Leadership has changed course and wants a new "cut... $50 billion from the fiscal 2006 budget" is... strange. It seems that Speaker "Hastert... announce[d] that... cuts to entitlement programs such as Medicaid, food stamps and farm supports would be raised from $35 billion to $50 billion." So its a $15 billion change in direction--not $50. And it's not in the fiscal year 2006 budget. The original $35 that has been topped-off to $50 are cumulative "entitlement cuts over five years"--originally $7 and now $10 in each of the next five years.

So we're not talking about a $50 billion cut relative to baseline in entitlement spending for fiscal year 2006. We're talking about a $3 billion cut.

But everyone--well, everyone except those of us who actually care about responsible fiscal policy--happy to sell this a $50 billion cut?

Five reasons:

1. The Republican House leadership wants this to seem like a big deal. They want to appear fiscally responsible. They want the base not to be made at them. They will be grateful if Jonathan reports it as $50 billion in FY 2006 rather than $3 billion.
2. The conservative Republican House members who believe in smaller government want this to seem like a big deal: they have been powerless, and think that if they can appear powerful they will become powerful. They too will be grateful if Jonathan reports that they were able to pressure Hastert and company into a $50 billion change-of-direction in 2006 rather than a $3 billion change-of-direction.
3. The Democrats will be happy too: a $50 billion cut in food stamps and Medicaid in FY 2006 is a very effective base-energizing talking point.
4. It's hard to convince one's editors that a $3-billion-in-FY-2006 change-of-direction is worth putting on the front page. It's much easier to convince one's editors that a $50-billion-in-FY-2006 change-of-direction deserves placement on page 1.

And the readers of the Post? People who might care whether the number is $3 or $50 billion? People who might want to know what the relevant scale is--that $3 billion is 0.6% of the $500 billion annual deficit (excluding the Social Security surplus), is 0.04% of the $8 trillion gross federal debt? They're not in the picture.

Yes, it's DINGBAT KABUKI!!!

---

Make no mistake: this is the kind of reporting that the Washington Post likes. Let's turn over the mike to its editors:

Jonathan Weisman Moves to National

After a terrific three-year run in Financial, Jonathan Weisman will join the National staff covering the House of Representatives. Jonathan's timing is perfect. He's inheriting a beat with so many great running story lines -- from the plight of Tom Delay to the frayed relations between the White House and congressional Republicans to the coming midterm elections -- that he should have little trouble making an early mark. Jonathan is a terrific, tireless reporter with a long history of bringing home scoops and setting the agenda on his beat, two traits he promises to bring to his new assignment.

He also comes with a deep familiarity of the Hill, earned from covering economic policy issues, from budgeting to taxation to Social Security and Medicare, for many years. Before joining The Post, Jonathan worked for USA Today, where he covered economic policy, then defense issues after Sept. 11. His reporting career has included coverage of the Clinton White House, the 2000 presidential campaign and major congressional issues for The Baltimore Sun, as well as more detailed tax, energy and transportation coverage for Congressional Quarterly. For five years, he wrote about science, energy and nuclear weapons issues for The Oakland Tribune in California.

Jonathan will move quickly into his new role, while helping us keep current on economic policy issues until Jill Dutt can find his replacement.

Readers of the Post beware...

Comments

[Captain Video]

Nevertheless, the fact is that it is medicaid and food stamps that are being cut, instead of undoing some of the tax cuts for the rich. I hope the Democrats have the sense to use this to paint the Republicans as reverse Robin Hoods, taking from the poor to give to the rich.

THERE IS A CLASS WAR GOING ON, AND THE RICH ARE WINNING.

[Matt]

Cripes. It really is in the last paragraph of the story (not counting the 'amusing summary quote' at the end). I think the editors must be innumerate. $50 billion, $15 billion, $3 billion... what's the diff.

[hack]

Get that man a job at Slate!

[Cal]

Boy, the Prof. really doesn't like Weisman. He's been on him for years.

[I'm affirmatively trying not to. But it's sitting out there on page A1 of the _Post_ this morning... and it's embarrassing...]

Did you guys cross paths back in the day when you worked in the Clinton Admin? There is so much bad reporting out there, but you stick on this guy like a dog on the bone.

[anne]

Nicely nicely analyzed :) But, to temper Brad DeLong a little. To the extent that conservatives do set budget cuts, the cuts will come out of social benefit programs that are most important for those who can scarcely fight the proposals. Eroding programs such as Medicaid, worries me considerably. But, but, this sort of deceptive reporting is simply intolerable.

[anne]

The question of like or dislike is of no account. The reporter and editor chose to set an article as though it were approved by the Republican Concressional leadership.

Make it appear that there are significant budget cuts being proposed, when the cuts are meaningless, although if cuts are indeed made make sure it is evident the cuts will be in programs that are the least politically defended. Cut farm supports in Republican country in an election year? Please....

[ilsm]

Why, why will no one cut "defense" or as properly stated national security for rich guys.

Defense is the last worst welfare.

The industry got a couple of new plums recently.

If the F/A 22 were tested in a rigorous manner we would know it is not reliable nor effective enough to justify spending the taxpayers money (never an issue in congress or across the river) much less the reliance on it instead of cheaper proven/fixed airplanes for which there continue no viable threats.

Further, we keep twelve marine amphib groups rolling the seas to fight Tarawa Atoll again and build them a new high tech tilt rotor aircraft which is tested against Vietnam era rather than MH-53 specifications which is far too expensive to operate and cannot do combat maneuvers.

Defense spending is largey supported by a constituency that sustains expenditure while neither the soldier nor the taxpayer pay a role.

Those are the recent waste streams and pale to the waste in Missile Defense; the overall Air Force in general and the Army hiring Boeing to rebuild all mechanized formations in the Guderian mosel over 65 years after it proved fatefully flawed against the Red Army masses of good stuff against the whiz kid few systems the Germans built.

To say nothing of sustaining the twelve largest navies in the world.

There is some real monmey to save in national security.

[wkwillis]

I think what ilsm is saying about "sustaining the twelve largest navies in the world" is that each individual fleet we have is equivalent to the next largest navy. He exagerates. Japan and Britain and France and China and Russia and India have decent fleets, and we could still beat them with one twelfth of our boats because we have such overwhelming technological advantage, but if we cut the number of boats by twelve, we still would be spending the R+D to make that much smaller fleet just as effective.
We could beat every fleet in the world together at half our navy budget, but not at one third.

[pgl]

This is the converse of NRO economic writing. Suppose an economy loses 2 million jobs but then regains 1 million of them. What's the net change? Well the NRO would report it is a 1 million gain.

[Saheli]

Hmm, to stick to the matter at hand:

"and if you understand budget concepts and reporting conventions"

I don't. There are only five grafs in this whole article which actually have numbers in them, as opposed to all the stultifying sturm und drang. Even AFTER Professor DeLong pointed out what the problem was, I could barely slog through the inside baseball to see what he's complaining about. I finally found the bit that has the magic phrase "five years":

"And to suggest that the RSC was reining in a free-spending party was out of bounds. The deficit for 2005 was coming in nearly $100 billion below initial forecasts, they said, and GOP leaders that spring had muscled through Congress a budget blueprint that ordered up $35 billion in entitlement cuts over five years, the first such effort since 1997."

A couple dozen grafs down. Yeah, that's real clear. I mean, I'm pretty political, but couldn't they at least have a side bar NOT talking about all the congressional intrigue crap and just laying out the numbers?

And yes, it's a small $36-10 Billion, but it's still the wrong $6-10 Billion.

[lise]

Of course we could choose to leave Iraq, now that there have been elections, and allow the Iraqis to determine a direction from here. I do wish we would leave.

[RT]

"Before joining The Post, Jonathan worked for USA Today, where he covered economic policy, then defense issues after Sept. 11."

'Nuff said.

[ilsm]

wkwillis,

What does it mean for one fleet to beat another fleet?

The Germans in neither World War competed at sea, effectively.

It took two B-29 sorties to do to Japan what a massive invasion facilitated by the fleet actions would have required.

I was referring to carrier battle groups of which our twelve are unequalled in the world. If you believe a fleet can beat another fleet and it matters you are in with Alfred Thayer Mahan, nineteenth century thoughts on naval war in the industrial age.

As to R&D, a technological lead, if it means anything, only does so when your enemy wants to compete at your strength.

No one in the world is competing in military technology in the same areas as the US.

As a result our R&D approaches the zone of minimal utility.

Is there anyone out there we should fear who has aircraft carriers?

Bin Laden has none nor any of the Islamic world. The PRC is our creditor and has none.

The Soviets built one which was not so good one. It is now scrapped wanting a buyer.

The 'allies' with late industrial age navies built around ATM's cajole that it would be niggardly not to defend the coasts with capitol ships only have little skip carriers.

Nilitary R&D utility approaches zero and the military R&D does almost nothing for scientific undrerstanding.

So why spend so much? To fight foolish nations who need to spend a lot?

[wkwillis]

It's worse than you think. The fleets are only good for fighting people who fight by your rules. The logical way to sink the American navy is to nuke all our cities after we have evacuated them, and then we will spend all the armed force budgets on rehousing people.
Not to mention that we will lose all our spare parts capacity when we lose the cities.

[looj]

since when has the republican leadership of recent memory balked at cutting ANY programs aimed at the poor (i.e. Medicaid and food stamps)? How is this newsworthy? I'd hazard a guess that the farm subsidy cuts fall off the table b/c Lugar's family is going to lose a bundle without them. Remember when we block granted Medicaid? Didn't that provide some indication of the republican plan for poor people?