Seemingly intractable fiscal problems indicate that national institutions are failing us, be it government or media. It is a truism that whenever a nation has apparently unsolvable economic problems, these are only visible evidence of underlying political problems. This has been true for Greece, Argentina and Italy for many decades, for Japan over the past 30 years and for our nation over the past 12.
Here polls show that large majorities of the general public do not like large budget deficits and a rising national debt. Yet the same polls show that people don’t want the sort of tax increases or spending cuts necessary to get rid of the deficits they hate.
In December, a Marist/McClatchy poll of Republicans showed majorities who opposed every hypothetical spending cut presented, including a 68-26 percent opposition to any Medicare cuts and 66-33 percent against Medicaid reductions. Yet most elected Republicans argue the deficit should be closed through spending cuts alone. Other polls show majorities in both parties favor raising taxes on the rich, but oppose anything that really would make a dent in deficit, like returning all income tax rates to the levels in effect from 1994 to 2001.
One may well say, “so the public is badly informed, what else is new?” True, but it is also the case that the media are not doing a very good job of informing the public on fiscal issues.
And then there are arguments that perpetuate confusion rather than reduce it. A case in point is the syndicated political cartoon by Michael Ramirez printed on the editorial page of the Pioneer Press on Thursday, Feb. 28. It was simple, showing one pie representing the 2007 federal budget, with total spending of $2.7 trillion and a deficit of $161 billion. A second larger pie for 2013 has $3.8 trillion in spending and a deficit of $901 billion. Parenthetically, it notes that 2007 was the last year Republicans controlled both houses of Congress.
There are two problems with the cartoon. The first is that the core of the cartoon is post hoc fallacy reasoning that would get an F in any logic class. The implicit message is that because Republicans lost control of both houses of Congress, the result is higher deficits. But if one looks at actual data, that argument is hard to sustain.
Which leads us to the second problem — the facts. Consider the following: Congressional Budget Office tables show that outlays for Social Security will be $239.7 billion higher in 2013 than in 2007.
There has been no change in eligibility criteria or benefit formulas; the increase is due only to demographics and inflation. To keep spending at 2007 levels, the monthly payment to every current beneficiary would need to be cut by 29 percent.
Does anyone think that a continued Republican majority in Congress would have passed such a cut? Has Ramirez ever drawn a cartoon calling for such a cut?
The same could be asked about a $154.8 billion increase in Medicare, an extra $18.1 billion in SSI payments to the permanently disabled and an increase of $67.3 billion in veterans benefits.
None of these result from new spending initiatives pushed through congress by Democrats over the opposition of Republicans.
They largely stem from payments authorized by long-standing legislation with some badly-needed veteran’s services the only exception.
Yes, many Republicans favor the Paul Ryan plan to convert Medicare to a voucher program. That might lower future spending over the long run.
But would Ryan or any other Republican really support a 30 percent cut right now to reduce outlays to those of the golden days when Republicans controlled Congress?
Medicaid is much less popular than Medicare. You could cut the deficit by $92 billion if you returned Medicaid spending to 2007 levels. But how would that 32 percent cut affect the many rural Minnesota counties in which 75 percent or more of nursing home residents are paid for by Medicaid?
Then there’s defense spending.
We could save $150 billion with the 21 percent cut in defense outlays to return us to 2007 levels. Is it credible to argue, as the cartoon implies, that we would not have had this increase if Republicans were still in control?
Unemployment benefits are up by $42 billion over 2007, but are less than half of the peak hit in 2010.
Benefits are now paid under the policies followed for three decades, the statutory 26 weeks plus extensions to a total of 52 weeks in high-unemployment areas.
This was the practice in the preceding four recessions, none of which were as severe as this one. Who calls for a change from that?
We could save the $40 billion in increased transportation spending over 2007, but that would return us to the practice of collecting taxes on motor fuels and airlines tickets, but then not spending the money, so that surpluses in the transportation “trust funds” would continue to camouflage red ink elsewhere.
Is it logical or fair to cite this one cartoon as evidence of systemic failure by our nation’s media? Perhaps not. But there’s no doubt that Ramirez’s aim was to influence people’s opinions, and perhaps how they vote.
There’s also no doubt the media play a vital role in a democracy.
There usually are some good arguments on both sides of any public policy issue. There usually are pundits and cartoonists expressing those good arguments. But there also are op-eds and cartoons that simply express ignorance and muddled thinking. And here’s where media lose credibility with thoughtful readers on both sides of the political aisle.
Editors have every right to consider editorial cartoons that are provocative. But at a time when our society as a whole needs greater insights, we are collectively worse off when newsprint is wasted disseminating poorly informed and poorly thought out arguments.