Talking Back to the Lady in Grey
One of the principal pleasures of cyberspace, at least for this little boy? Talking back. This morning, let’s take a look at the lead editorial in the New York Times, “Time for a Real Debate on Taxes.”
THE GREY LADY: Americans need to hear a serious debate about how the country can meet the twin fiscal challenges of supporting the weak economy now and taming the budget deficit as things improve. That debate is not happening in Washington, and it is certainly not happening on the campaign trail.
ME: Balderdash. Earlier this summer, Republicans in the House published an alternative budget based on—yes, indeed—the twin fiscal challenges of promoting economic growth while containing the deficit. The numbers all fit neatly together. How did the Republicans do it? By containing spending, not raising taxes. Cong. Paul Ryan has put forward a detailed plan for promoting economic growth and taming the deficit—again, without raising taxes. And one Republican candidate after another out on the campaign trail has addressed the deficit, calling for adjustments in entitlement programs, the repeal of ObamaCare, and other spending cuts.
If a tree falls in a forest and nobody’s there to hear it, does it make a noise? Beats me. But when a Republican advances an argument that the New York Times refuses to cover, the Republican has still advanced an argument.
THE GREY LADY: The Republicans are insisting on extending each and every one of the tax cuts forever. It is impossible to square that demand with their calls to reduce the deficit, so they do not even try.
ME: What’s the intensive form of “balderdash?” “Balderdashier?” Whatever. Extending the tax cuts is wholly consistent with bringing down the deficit, just as long as the federal government does what Republicans—and, if the polls are accurate, most Americans—insist upon. To quote Gov. Haley Barbour—and I can remember this quotation precisely, because it consists of just two words: “Cut spending.”
THE GREY LADY: President Obama is right when he says the country cannot afford to extend all of the tax cuts.
ME: Stop right there. “The country” cannot afford tax cuts? I can afford tax cuts. The editors of the Times can afford tax cuts. Businesses of every size, shape and stripe can afford tax cuts. The only entity that would have trouble with tax cuts is the federal government. Since when, exactly, does it make sense to speak of the federal government as “the country?” The federal government represents one specific set of entities or institutions set up to serve the country, not to subsume it. Jeepers. Have the Times editors even read the Constitution?
THE GREY LADY: He [President Obama] wants to let the tax cuts expire on the top 2 to 3 percent of American households (couples making more than $250,000 a year, individuals making more than $200,000) and permanently extend them for everyone else. The problem is that a permanent extension of the so-called middle-class tax cuts is also unaffordable.
ME: This is Keynesiansm in a pure—I almost said archaic—form. The trouble with Keynesianism? The last several decades of American history. In the nineteen-seventies, Keynesian policies brought us stagflation. Then, in the nineteen-eighties, anti-Keynesian, free market policies—including, notably, tax cuts—brought us an economic expansion that lasted for a quarter of a century. You may argue that this or that aspect of Reagan’s policies proved mistaken. You may argue, in particular, over various excesses that developed, particularly in the financial markets. What you may not do is pretend that the free market policies and economic growth of the last 25 years simply never took place. Unless, of course, you’re an editor at the New York Times.
And they call us Neanderthal.
Ricochet being a place where you may indeed beat a dead horse, feel free to add a few blows of your own.
- Comment (17)
- · Quote
- · UnfollowFollow (1)
Comments :
Jul '10
Re: Talking Back to the Lady in Grey
Peter, why do you torture yourself reading the Times?
Come on, pal, you know exactly what the Times' position will be on every single issue.
Why get ink on your fingertips?
Jun '10
Re: Talking Back to the Lady in Grey
Peter: Great comments. Two additional thoughts:
I believe the intensive form of "balderdash" is abbreviated "B.S." (I haven't checked Fowler's, but am pretty sure that's correct).
And your point about the "country" not being able to afford tax cuts is a great example of the reflexive way liberals think. In their minds (wait! in their collective "mind"), there are no individuals, small businesses, or any other independent elements that are less than some abstract, collective agglomeration. They love things like "the public interest" and "the general will," terms that suggest that there is some collective super-mind that only they can understand (does that make them modern-day Gnostics?), and whose interest always trumps everything else.
They need to spend a few hours reading Hayek and Frank Meyer.
Re: Talking Back to the Lady in Grey
Ah, Kenneth. There are mornings when the caffeine in my coffee isn't quite enough. I also need to raise my blood pressure
Re: Talking Back to the Lady in Grey
tabula rasa: In [liberals'] minds (wait! in their collective "mind"), there are no individuals, small businesses, or any other independent elements that are less than some abstract, collective agglomeration. They love things like "the public interest" and "the general will," terms that suggest that there is some collective super-mind that only they can understand (does that make them modern-day Gnostics?), and whose interest always trumps everything else.
They need to spend a few hours reading Hayek and Frank Meyer. · Aug 24 at 10:36am
Well and truly put. I first noticed this point back in the old days. Whereas the liberals kept talking about "aggregate demand," I realized, Ronald Reagan kept talking about ordinary Americans, trying make ends meet, start small businesses, and save for college tuition. And that was no mere rhetorical ploy. When Reagan thought about the economy, he didn't see abstractions. He saw people.
Jul '10
Re: Talking Back to the Lady in Grey
A truly wonderful reflection of the angry bewilderment we all feel when confornted by the Grey Lady and her liliputian minions.
My pet peeve with all this is the stubborn liberal refusal to admit that the Bush Tax Cuts actually resulted in increased federal revenues. See here for specifics:
http://www.americanthinker.com/2010/03/lying_about_bushs_tax_cuts.html
But then, if they were to admit that, they would have zero masking ideas left with which to disguise their tired instinctual imperative to control as much of our lives as possible.
And, of course, it would mean that not extending the tax cuts would actually be less "affordable". Admitting that would make their heads explode.
Jul '10
Re: Talking Back to the Lady in Grey
It's the language that always gets me.
The country cannot afford tax cuts. You've already covered the use of the word country, but what gets me is:
Afford? This isn't an expenditure of money.
I can't afford a Ferrari 458 Italia. That means I do not have the money in my bank account to purchase said vehicle, nor can I borrow the money in advance to pay for it.
The U.S. government does not have to purchase a tax cut.
By framing their argument this way, they can avoid the topic of that wonderful quote by Governor Barbour: "Cut Spending."
Jul '10
Re: Talking Back to the Lady in Grey
My favorite gem:
Which is NYT code for "Americans need to shut up and listen while we tell you how the country should be run."
A serious debate? Don't make me laugh. That's the last thing the Times wants. If they did, of course, they would engage with the arguments of people like Rep. Ryan instead of ignoring them or dismissing them with a sniff and a sneer.
And by the way, there has been a serious debate going on: the Tea Party movement on the side of limited government and personal liberty versus the usual Big Government/Tax and Spend coalition. The Times has simply chosen not to take this particular debate seriously.
Jun '10
Re: Talking Back to the Lady in Grey
In any group of our primitive ancestors, you know there were better smarter hunters, that brought back more ibex than anyone else. Maybe it's because they were better naturalists, who could predict where the herds were at any given time. If one of those "smarter" hunters gathered together a group of hunters under his direction, some to scare the herd toward a natural bottleneck, and some to wait at the bottleneck to easily harvest game, he might take a larger share of the group's wealth, for sharing his skill. Even in a primitive society like that, they would not see him as the problem. Rather, he was their blessing. But today, American Progressives would see him as the problem, and want to punish him for having a greater success relative to his peers.
May '10
Re: Talking Back to the Lady in Grey
Who can argue with the logic of the anti-Times statements? We have our own Minnesota columnist who somehow keeps a job at James Lileks' newspaper by devoting 100% of her time- there is no indication that she does anything else whatever- to pleading for tax increases.
But what I particularly love here is that our own Peter has become the Designated Ricochet Fisker!
More fisking!
Jun '10
Re: Talking Back to the Lady in Grey
Isn't that at the core of his greatness? Where the liberals see mass, anonymous ranks of "the people" moving forward to some perfect utopian future, Reagan saw individual men and women trying to make a living, raise their kids, and make decent lives in a good (but decidedly imperfect) country. Fantasy versus reality. Utopianism versus the tragic view of life.
Edited on Aug 24, 2010 at 11:24amMay '10
Re: Talking Back to the Lady in Grey
When dealing with print media you must remember certain rules:
The New York Times is read by people who think they run the country
The Huffington Post is read by people who think they ought to run the country
The Washington Post is read by people who actually do run the country
People is read by the wives of the people who run the country
The Wall Street Journal is read by people who own the country
The Daily Worker is read by people who think the country ought to be run by another country and
World Net Daily is read by people who think it is
(An Americanized version of the classic rant by the Hon. James Hacker of Yes, Prime Minister)
Re: Talking Back to the Lady in Grey
May I just say that I love you guys? And Patrick Shanahan sees and raises me: Yup. The Bush tax cuts did indeed increase revenue.
Oh, one more note. My interview with Haley Barbour will go up on Monday. (I'll be sure to post a link.) You're going to love Haley on the budget--just love him.
Jun '10
Re: Talking Back to the Lady in Grey
Peter: And we love you too. Time for a big cyberspace group hug.
But then we need to get back to our no. 1 job: saving the world one Ricochet member at a time.
May '10
Re: Talking Back to the Lady in Grey
I'm waiting for the day Peter says "may I just say" and somebody says no. In jest, natch. Cause nobody would actually do that (well, maybe Bill Maher). Heck, he doesn't have to ask permission.
Re: Talking Back to the Lady in Grey
Kennedy, you should hear my telephone conversations with, let us say, Rob Long or Bill McGurn. Me: "May I just say?" Rob: "No." Bill McGurn (continuing to speak as if I'd never said a word): "Can you believe what Bob Herbert wrote this morning?"
Which is--if I may just say--a big part of the reason I love you guys.
May '10
Re: Talking Back to the Lady in Grey
Book on my shelf (well, on a stack in the living room; moving) called As a Gentleman Would Say. A charming quirk, which carries the danger of making you readily identifiable.
Re: Talking Back to the Lady in Grey
We listen, Peter, I promise. Well, I'm not sure I'd call it listening. The opposite of talking isn't listening. The opposite of talking is waiting.