NBC’s Andrea Mitchell was bummed out yesterday on her show, Andrea Mitchell Reports, when Melody Barnes, director of the White House Domestic Policy Council, announced the five-year discretionary spending freeze. Apparently Barnes’s words did not sit well with Mitchell, who thought the administration should be tougher on the contributions entitlements make to the deficit. Said Mitchell:
I think you’ve just made some news in talking about the Pentagon freeze and, as well, the five-year discretionary spending freeze, but we all know you’ve got to do what Willie Sutton did, you’ve got to, you know you rob a bank because that’s where it is, that’s where the money is, and you’ve got to deal with Social Security, Medicare, and huge entitlement growth if you’re really going to get spending cuts and that’s not addressing any of that.
When Barnes responded that the president had established his deficit commission to examine such questions, Mitchell said the president has yet to say what he thinks of those recommendations that did call for cuts in Medicare and Social Security. Last night Obama acknowledged the work of the Simpson-Bowles commission, saying that he did not agree with all of its proposals but that “they made important progress,” and that their conclusion is to tackle the deficit and cut excessive spending wherever we find it. Obama wrapped his words in a lot of vagueness. There was a lot of wiggle room in what he said, and his words could be interpreted different ways.
We don’t know if his comments were good enough for Mitchell. But that shouldn’t matter. Prominent television journalists shouldn’t use their positions to glibly counsel policymakers about complicated matters. That’s a no-no, and her comments crossed the line.
I'm glad you called Mitchell on that, and I wish others would do the same. These political reporters come to believe that they are policy experts -- based on no qualifications whatsoever -- and feel free to insert their opinion on policy matters all the time. And then they wonder why the public holds them in low esteem, as documented by trend data going back 20 years.
The most ludicrous example I've seen yet was the spectacle of Cokie Roberts debating Paul Krugman on economic policy.
#1 Posted by James, CJR on Wed 26 Jan 2011 at 01:02 PM
Agreed. Journalists should maintain the appearance of unbiased messengers, which means never doubting or criticizing govt policy. That's what makes America's "free and independent" press so great.
#2 Posted by Dan A., CJR on Wed 26 Jan 2011 at 01:51 PM
Mitchell put her economic ignorance on full display by suggesting that Social Security is a factor in the budget deficit. The fact is that SS runs in the black because it has a huge Trust Fund that has been built over the years by excess FICA funds. That the government has been using the Trust Fund moneys to "balance" its budget each year doesn't make the SS program a part of the budget problem any more than China's large holdings of Treasury notes. All Treasury note holders have been lending money to the government and helping to keep the budget afloat. Mitchell has bought into the ignorant position that the lender is responsible for the debts of the borrower.
#3 Posted by Jack, CJR on Wed 26 Jan 2011 at 06:51 PM
Please help me understand, as it seems there is glaring inconsistency in two recent Lieberman critiques.
Today we find criticism of the tone Andrea Mitchell takes with Melody Barnes to dare "glibly counsel policymakers about complicated matters" such as entitlement spending.
Yet from Monday we find high praise for David Gregory's more harsh yet equally glib effort to counsel Eric Cantor that he does "not have a serious alternative" on health care entitlements.
At its core, what was so different about the two approaches? You rate Gregory's as required reading for journalists on how to push interviewees with follow-up questions, while Mitchell's pressing was a no-no that crossed the line.
I thought both reporters did a fine job given their positions as talk-show hosts holding those in power to account, so I am curious why you see them as opposing examples.
#4 Posted by Art L., CJR on Wed 26 Jan 2011 at 07:07 PM
Art L.
There's a big difference in the two articles Trudy wrote. In the David Gregory shout-out she quoted parts of the interview and commented on the fact that Eric Cantor would not answer the questions but kept dancing around them. The point in that story was the David Gregory held his own trying to get Cantor to respond to the questions which he consistently would not do.
In the Andrea Mitchell piece, she is pointing out that Mitchell tried to insert her solution(s) to the problems and also was not up to speed on what had already been addressed by Obama regarding recommendations of his deficit commission concerning spending cuts which included Social Security, etc.
Two different ballgames.
#5 Posted by dianne, CJR on Wed 26 Jan 2011 at 07:57 PM
It should be pointed out that the reason why Andrea Mitchell (ahem.. Mrs Alan Greenspan..ahem) thinks she has a relevant contribution to make is that she gets to hear very important bankers talk at her dinner table.
So she gets to parrot what she's heard very important bankers say.
The Willie Sutton quote is from Ben Bernanke, I believe:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/12/03/bernanke-channels-willie_n_378963.html
And Mrs Greenspan has made her thoughts on social security known before; I believe around last year's state of the union, coincidentally:
http://www.balloon-juice.com/2009/01/20/get-ready-to-sacrifice-proles/
They're such sweet sociopaths.
#6 Posted by Thimbles, CJR on Wed 26 Jan 2011 at 11:02 PM
Oh, and to remind Mrs. Greenspan where the money really is:
http://voices.washingtonpost.com/ezra-klein/2010/08/how_to_fix_social_security_in.html
#7 Posted by Thimbles, CJR on Wed 26 Jan 2011 at 11:06 PM
A piece on the different tunes (depending on the time, place, and party in charge) Mr. Greenspan sings:
http://www.salon.com/technology/how_the_world_works/2010/06/18/alan_greenspan_hot_tub_time_machine/index.html
#8 Posted by Thimbles, CJR on Thu 27 Jan 2011 at 12:16 AM
I, too, am puzzled by this criticism. Isn't a reporter supposed to press the interviewee when they are blathering talking points and avoiding the elephant in the room? It's fact, not opinion, that the majority of our deficit problem is connected to entitlements, though the argument that SS does not have as big a role as health spending/Medicare/Medicaid is valid.
The worse thing a reporter could do is simple read his prepared questions and not follow up when someone is dancing the side step.
http://www.NewsCommonsense.com
#9 Posted by Bob Griendling, CJR on Thu 27 Jan 2011 at 04:17 PM
What's fact is that entitlements have generated a profit for the government and that the deficit would have been much worse had half of federal revenue not been coming out of the capped tax of the under $100,000 bracket.
Medicare is a deficit problem - in the near future. Social Security might be a deficit problem - in a hundred years or so. The deficit problem now is that the top marginal tax rate should be 65%:
http://www.angrybearblog.com/2010/12/top-marginal-income-tax-rate-should-be.html
but half of the political duopoly has gone to fiscal lala land:
http://blogs.ft.com/martin-wolf-exchange/2010/07/25/the-political-genius-of-supply-side-economics/
and so you can't even rescind the Bush Budget Busting tax cuts. "Tax cuts are economic stimulus!"
Yeah, and only the worst kind of economic stimulus. Unless you fix the broken economic dogma, you aren't going to fix the deficit problem. Clinton tried and it worked, until the next batch of Republican idiots "gave all the money back" and blew up the economy.
Deficit control is a sucker's game in which tax cuts are never counted while any spending of social import is often double counted. (We call this Cut-go these days)
And anytime this sucker's game is played, a Greenspan seems to be at the table. (He's the guy who fixed social security, remember? He knows "where the money is" because he and Reagan put it there.)
You know, the same Greenspan who said "But continuing to run surpluses beyond the point at which we reach zero or near-zero federal debt brings to center stage the critical longer-term fiscal policy issue of whether the federal government should accumulate large quantities of private (more technically nonfederal) assets. At zero debt, the continuing unified budget surpluses currently projected imply a major accumulation of private assets by the federal government. This development should factor materially into the policies you and the Administration choose to pursue.
I believe, as I have noted in the past, that the federal government should eschew private asset accumulation because it would be exceptionally difficult to insulate the government's investment decisions from political pressures. Thus, over time, having the federal government hold significant amounts of private assets would risk sub-optimal performance by our capital markets, diminished economic efficiency, and lower overall standards of living than would be achieved otherwise."
Therefore we should pass trillion dollar tax cuts because the government who runs with surpluses, rather than debt, may choose to invest surpluses in private assets and that would be bad.
Unless it's good, like when Greenspan supported the private account scheme for social security in 2005.
There are some nasty nasty snakes in these grasses.
#10 Posted by Thimbles, CJR on Thu 27 Jan 2011 at 07:18 PM
Written around the time of the tax cuts:
http://www.nytimes.com/2001/02/14/opinion/reckonings-doing-the-wrong-thing.html
#11 Posted by Thimbles, CJR on Thu 27 Jan 2011 at 09:42 PM
And, from the article, this lesson:
"Again and again he was offered the opportunity to say something that would help rein in runaway tax-cutting; each time he evaded the question, often replying by reading from his own previous testimony. He declared once again that he was speaking only for himself, thus granting himself leeway to pronounce on subjects far afield of his role as Federal Reserve chairman. But when pressed on the crucial question of whether the huge tax cuts that now seem inevitable are too large, he said it was inappropriate for him to comment on particular proposals.
In short, Mr. Greenspan defined the rules of the game in a way that allows him to intervene as he likes in the political debate, but to retreat behind the veil of his office whenever anyone tries to hold him accountable for the results of those interventions."
Ben Bernanke appears to have learned well:
"But there are several other obvious options that could make the situation sustainable -- including a transaction tax on Wall Street speculation or a slight tax hike on the wealthiest Americans.
Bernanke talks as if increasing taxes on the wealthy simply isn't an option.
Sen. Jack Reed (D-R.I.) followed Bennett and pointed out that "there's only really two ways you can deflect this deficit, and that's either by cutting expenditures or raising income taxes or other forms of taxes."
Reed asked him if he could think of other ways, but Bernanke returned to entitlement money as the way to balance the budget.
"Willie Sutton robbed banks because that's where the money is, as he put it," Bernanke said. "The money in this case is in entitlements."
There's also money at the very top of the income ladder. Reed asked if Congress would be wise to tax some of it. Full of suggestions when it came to cutting entitlements, Bernanke was suddenly overtaken by a bout of policy modesty.
"Would you take taxes off the table?" Reed asked.
"Those decisions are up to Congress," Bernanke said.
"Well, your predecessor signaled very strongly that the tax cuts in 2000 were appropriate," Reed reminded him.
"I have not done that. I've done my best to leave that authority where it belongs, with the Congress," Bernanke said, just moments after telling Congress to cut entitlement spending."
You are ruled by ideologues.
#12 Posted by Thimbles, CJR on Thu 27 Jan 2011 at 09:53 PM
jack if you think entitlements social security/Medicare/veterans benefits if you think thats not adding to the deficit you have no idea what u are talking about.Also it might be true that Social Security is in the black now its not in the black 15 years from now. I cut Mitchell alot of slack on this.The even in question happened on her cable show Andrea Mitchel reports i think in this forum it was alright to push a little harder to get the guy to admit to what every one else knows is true. If you wanna fix the budget you have to have everything on the table defense, ENTITLEMENTS and discretionary spending. to live this fantasy they we can basically cut spending by 41% and leave anything un- touched is absurd.
#13 Posted by Jay White, CJR on Sun 30 Jan 2011 at 11:09 PM
jack if you think entitlements social security/Medicare/veterans benefits if you think thats not adding to the deficit you have no idea what u are talking about.Also it might be true that Social Security is in the black now its not in the black 15 years from now. I cut Mitchell alot of slack on this.The even in question happened on her cable show Andrea Mitchel reports i think in this forum it was alright to push a little harder to get the guy to admit to what every one else knows is true. If you wanna fix the budget you have to have everything on the table defense, ENTITLEMENTS and discretionary spending. to live this fantasy they we can basically cut spending by 41% and leave anything un- touched is absurd.
#14 Posted by Jay White, CJR on Sun 30 Jan 2011 at 11:10 PM
Sorry Jay. Medicare and Social Security are funded by discrete taxes which have built up surpluses.
They have not added a cent to the deficit and, considering how those surpluses have been used as general revenue, they have reduced the deficits of certain irresponsible tax cutting jerks with an R by their name.
Veterans Affairs is something completely separate based on a promise the people made that those who put their lives on the line protecting their country deserve to be protected by their country in their times of need. If you and yours want to break that promise, a cheap promise considering the cost of the program compared to the costs on the private market, feel free.
I'll let you break the news to the servicemen.
Also, try and use complete words. "You" has three letters. This isn't twitter.
#15 Posted by Thimbles, CJR on Mon 31 Jan 2011 at 12:55 AM
Trudy actually is a policy expert and she's right to call Mitchell out, not because Mitchell is Greenspan's wife and Greenspan made the mess we're in now--though that is true--but because Willie Sutton never said he robbed banks 'cause "that's where the money is."
see: http://www.snopes.com/quotes/sutton.asp
So who actually said those famous words? "The credit," Sutton wrote in his autobiography, "belongs to some enterprising reporter who apparently felt the need to fill out his copy."
#16 Posted by edward ericson jr., CJR on Wed 9 Feb 2011 at 02:28 PM