NPR Lets Ryan Bash Obama’s Spending, Never Asks How Much His Radical Tax Cuts Would Cost
NPR Lets Ryan Bash Obama’s Spending, Never Asks How Much His Radical Tax Cuts Would Cost
Yesterday, House Republicans released their “alternative” to the Obama administration’s budget, which was roundly panned by the press because it included so few numbers or details. The Associated Press called it “a glossy pamphlet short on detail,” while MSNBC’s Contessa Brewer noted that “they sent us some paperwork. It’s got no numbers attached.”
One of the plan’s architects is Rep. Paul Ryan (R-WI), who is crafting the actual budget legislation that Republicans plan to bring to the House floor next week. We’ve noted before that Ryan’s vision for the budget is lots of tax cuts for the wealthy, and little else. NPR interviewed Ryan yesterday, and he predictably launched into a tirade against the Obama administration’s plans:
We think we need to focus on controlling spending and reforming government. We don’t think the answer is to borrow and spend our way to prosperity, so we’re not going to propose all this new spending they’re proposing and that’s going to help us save money and reduce our borrowing costs.
Here’s a golden opportunity for NPR! Having let Ryan air his grievances about Obama’s spending, they could have asked him: “You propose lowering the tax rate on the top three income tax brackets to 25 percent, and having everyone who makes up to $100,000 — and is currently paying 25 percent — pay just 10. You also want to completely eliminate the capital gains tax. Won’t that cost a lot in terms of lost revenue, while making the tax code much more regressive?”
Alas, NPR didn’t bring up any of the radical tax policies that Ryan has put forth, or ask him to defend any part of the Republicans’ plan, including their threat to undo the stimulus. As Rep. Mike Pence (R-IN) demonstrated yesterday, Republicans really have no idea how much their tax cut bonanza will cost. NPR should have at least pushed Ryan a little on this, instead of allowing him to wax poetic about the “need to focus on controlling spending.”
5 Responses to “NPR Lets Ryan Bash Obama’s Spending, Never Asks How Much His Radical Tax Cuts Would Cost”
Register
RSSLogin
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog RollAbout Wonk RoomContact Us
Donate
Another piece of performance art. The GOP’s alternative budget proposal was a whopping 19 pages long. President Obama’s budget proposal comprised 146 pages. Gee, which one do you think was short on details & numbers, much less new ideas???
March 27th, 2009 at 1:50 pmThe party of no ideas got one big softball interview on NPR.
I am often disappointed by NPR’s unwillingness to ask probing questions. A number of their reporters seem to just read press releases and then let guests on to expand on the press release, without the reporter having any grasp on the issues, thus they can’t seem to come up with meaningful questions on the fly.
My boyfriend is a print journalist, and I often teas him because in our day-to-day life his favorite thing to say is “what’s happening?” He is inquisitive at all times.
Seems NRP has lost that edge. BTW, I’m an annual donor to NPR, because as lame as they can sometimes be, they are better than TV news!!!
March 27th, 2009 at 2:09 pmNPR aided the drive to the lowest global common denominator on taxes. Let’s hope they do better on worker pay/benefits and financial regulation.
The state of journalism is very sad. The state of leadership even worse.
March 27th, 2009 at 3:36 pmAs a regular listener of NPR, I would have to agree with snowman. When I listen to an interview on NPR, it often sounds as though they are more interested in making their guest comfortable than in asking probing questions. I’m not advocating ‘gotcha’ journalism. There is too much of that nonsense already. But when a guest makes statements that are patently false, or sticks to talking points instead of answering a question, they need to be called on it.
March 28th, 2009 at 1:35 amThe really delicious irony is that I think the only hint of a decent idea in the ‘Republican Road to Recovery’ might just be mine. And I’m a progressive economic policy wonk with ideas to the left of Paul Krugman.
I’ve been positioning myself as a conservative on Askville, purely because I believe there’s still worth in the conservative viewpoint, and I’m tired of seeing it so entirely represented by unthinking trolls. Someone saw an article I wrote on AIG, in which I suggested that the best answer for AIG, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac was receivership rather than conservatorship and/or continued bailouts. I married it to a slightly more conservative viewpoint by saying that anything too big to fail and too dumb to live needed to be placed into receivership and broken down into bite-sized pieces for nationalization, privatization or liquidation, rather than continuing to be fed by bailouts.
Possibly because I’d been positioning myself as a rational, secular conservative, someone liked the article and contacted me anonymously, claimed to be on Paul Ryan’s staff, and wanted to hear more. Here’s the paragraph that initially interested him/her:
“I would argue that the cleanest solution for AIG is also the cleanest solution for Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, and what Paulson should have done with the latter in the first place. A receiver, not a conservator, should have been put in charge of Fannie and Freddie. A receiver could have wiped out the common and preferred shares, renegotiated or ended unfavorable contracts, created a good bank/bad bank structure for isolating the bad assets, and reduced the losses to taxpayers. While a conservator can keep the companies running, it lacks the authority to change the business model, or to break up or liquidate those companies. When the conservatorship ends, the shareholders will regain control. In other words, it goes right back to being a big, expensive cow of a GSE, the worst of all possible worlds, neither corporate fish nor government fowl, with no actual solution to the ongoing problem of its existence. A receiver could whittle them down, preparing them for one of three possible outcomes: nationalization, privatization or liquidation. It’s not too late to do that much, even now.”
So we started messaging each other around a dozen times a day, talking about how this receivership-and-phasing-out-the-GSEs thing could work. I didn’t believe for one minute that I was really talking to someone on Paul Ryan’s staff, but I’m always happy to talk shop. WaMu got brought up. So did the idea of reviving the Resolution Trust Corporation. So did Sallie Mae.
Now check out pages 16 & 17 of the Republican Road to Recovery:
“The Republican budget ends this failed bailout strategy by refusing to assume additional spending for bailouts. In addition, our plan supports a process to address insolvent institutions that stops throwing good money after bad into failing institutions and places insolvent ones into temporary receivership.” (My, what a clever idea. Doesn’t sound very Republican, does it?) “For insolvent firms, either the FDIC or a Resolution Trust Corporation-type entity would restructure these firms in receivership by selling off their assets and liabilities, reappointing private management, while protecting depositors – a process that builds off of Washington Mutual’s arranged sale last year.” (I feel like I should be charging these people for my time.)
“Republicans also want to ensure that the damage the GSEs have inflicted on our economy and our financial system will never be wrought again. Our plan (whose plan?) phases out the GSEs’ government charter and privatizes them over a reasonable time, following a model similar to that of the successful Sallie Mae privatization a decade ago.”
I feel so used…
Underneath the garbage, underneath the word bubbles and the pictures, there was the seed of an idea I believe to be very workable. I also believe it to be mine. I’m not sure whether to laugh or cringe.
March 30th, 2009 at 1:07 pm