Facts?

As noted at the outset, the point of this blog is to point out how the Oklahoman uses its letters section to push standard right wing lies. The beauty of this strategy is that while the paper's editorials and syndicated opinion columns all generally adhere to journalistic standards wherein things like lies and smears are frowned upon, there are no such standards when it comes to letters to the editor. Thus, letters that smear progressive politicians and their ideas with baseless claims ("They're socialists!") or make factually challenged assertions ("The only way to balance the budget is to cut taxes on the rich!") are run and actually gain some legitimacy from appearing in print. Yet the editors are absolved of any charges of a lapse in journalistic standards for pushing blatant lies because, of course, these are just the opinions of their readership.

A great example of this comes in this letter from Tim Abram of Norman. The headline (obviously written by the editors) immediate raises red flags: No argument: We have a spending problem.

Anyone who is actually familiar with what's been happening to the US budget for the last 5 years knows that this isn't true. But the plutocrats who own the Oklahoman definitely don't want you to know that, and so they-- like their brethren in AM talk radio-- push lies saying the opposite in the hopes that the dupes who follow them will believe it.

Mr. Abram begins:

I'm thankful that U.S. House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., and Minority Whip Steny Hoyer, D-Md., set the record straight stating that the United States doesn't have a spending problem. They both said we have a “budget deficit problem.” Translation: We don't get enough of the taxpayers' money to spend as Congress sees fit. One of Pelosi's comments was, “It is almost a false argument to say we have a spending problem.” If I recall correctly, four years ago President Barack Obama pledged to cut the federal budget in half by the end of his first term.

It is still amazing that the Oklahoman runs these letters. Sarcasm has its place and is routinely used in casual conversation. However, in a 250 word letter, such rhetorical devices are difficult to pull off with any real effect. Indeed, after initially sarcastically mocking the (actually correct) statements of Pelosi and Hoyer, he launches into a series of unconnected and nonsensical attacks against the them. The point of the sarcasm is lost. Why even use it? And more importantly, why run such an inarticulate letter? Let's break down his attacks point by point:

1) They both said we have a “budget deficit problem.” Translation: We don't get enough of the taxpayers' money to spend as Congress sees fit.

Actually, the process of setting a budget is slightly more complex than that, but such things aside, we might ask: who does Mr. think should be setting the budget? Him? Isn't the point of a representative government that we, you know, elect people to manage the government for us? We can address the merits of Mr. Abram's snark below, but first,

2) One of Pelosi's comments was, “It is almost a false argument to say we have a spending problem.” If I recall correctly, four years ago President Barack Obama pledged to cut the federal budget in half by the end of his first term.

Not surprisingly, Mr. Abram is challenged when it comes to forming a logical argument. To rebut Pelosi's claim that "It is almost a false argument to say we have a spending problem," he comes back with a comment that the president made about cutting the budget in half? Bit of a non-sequitur, no? Particularly since Obama pledged to cut the deficit in half. Even if Mr. Abram is too stupid to know the difference, the deficit isn't the same thing as the budget. Cutting the budget in half would be disastrous for the country. Do the editors of the Oklahoman even bother to proofread this shit, or do they just run any letter that attacks Democrats?

In any event, Mr. Abram continues:

Fact: He's incurred more debt than all presidents combined! He also lied about the cost of Obamacare and how it wouldn't affect your current health insurance plan or the doctor you see. Fact: Obamacare is now estimated to cost almost three times the initial estimate. Before Obamacare's passage, Pelosi said Congress would “have to pass it to find out what is in the bill.” I guess we know what's in it now!

Notice the slight of hand in the first "fact" Mr. Abram presents us with. He laments the growing debt, but fails to note how it happens. He implies, based on his earlier comments, that it simply must come from excess spending (note, again, the Oklahoman's propagandistic headline). But the reality is much different. In fact, the bulk of our debt has come from a) ridiculously low taxes (particularly on the wealthy); b) the economic downturn that has led to lower tax revenue; and c) increased spending on our social safety net such as foodstamps and unemployment benefits. As Paul Krugman notes,

The truth is that the budget deficits of the past four years were mainly a temporary consequence of the financial crisis, which sent the economy into a tailspin — and which, therefore, led both to low tax receipts and to a rise in unemployment benefits and other government expenses.

Throw in a few unfunded wars and it's not hard to see where this stuff is coming from. Yet people like Mr. Abram-- people who are completely uninformed and utterly and willfully ignorant-- assume that any deficit must come from massive increases in spending.

Regarding the second "fact" that Mr. Abram makes: it is clear that this just isn't true, either. Indeed:

CBO and JCT now estimate that the insurance coverage provisions of the ACA
will have a net cost of just under $1.1 trillion over the 2012–2021 period—about
$50 billion less than the agencies’ March 2011 estimate for that 10-year period.

So, yeah. Even if you want to quibble with the numbers here and there, it is clear that the Affordable Care Act isn't going to "cost almost three times the initial estimate." Such assertions are baseless lies. But the Oklahoman is happy to repeat them since it pushes their own agenda.

Also, aside from things like forcing private insurance companies to cover you regardless of pre-existing conditions, where is the evidence that the ACA is going to affect one's private insurance plan? Or what doctor you see?? He makes it sound quite dire, but he makes no specifics. Indeed, a basic look around suggests that Mr. Abram is just-- as usual-- making things up to spread fear about the ACA. Something the Oklahoman wants to push.

Mr. Abram concludes:

If Congress truly wants to reduce our spending and our deficit — which it doesn't — there are “billions” of opportunities. Sen. Tom Coburn, R-Muskogee, has produced a list of wasteful spending every year, listing millions upon millions of wasteful or duplicative (unnecessary) programs that can be cut. Unfortunately, it would mean that somebody's ox would get gored. So nothing ever gets done.

Note again the logical sleight of hand here. For Mr. Abram our spending and the deficit go hand in hand; revenue is never an issue. This, despite the fact that tax rates are at all time lows. Indeed, contra the Oklahoman, we don't have a spending problem, we have a revenue problem:

It's hard to have a functioning government and a balanced budget when you don't fund the government but still want things like a massive military, viable infrastructure, and an educated population that is reasonably safe from harm.

People like Mr. Abram are deluded into thinking that the government is wasting loads of money-- so much that if Congress would just listen to Tom Coburn, our deficit problems would be solved. Too bad that he is too stupid to see that even if we followed all of Dr. Coburn's wishes and cut every project he deemed "wasteful" (why he gets to judge such things is unclear), it would be but a drop in the budget bucket. Indeed, spending on non-defense discretionary items is nearing all-time lows.

As usual, the Oklahoman is all too happy to run letters filled with lies and half-truths to further its agenda. It is totally unethical, but the editors of the Oklahoman clearly con't care about that.