My friend and co-blogger (at Market Correction) Andy Morriss sent this letter yesterday to the Wall Street Journal:
Sirs,
The inaccuracies in your story on the stimulus plan (“Congress
Strikes $789 Billion Stimulus Deal,” Feb. 12) begin with the first
sentence, that claims the bill will “spark an infrastructure boom” and
include such howlers as terming this porkfest an “economic rescue package,”
claiming it “tilt[s] federal assistance toward the poor,” and “shower[s]”
tax relief on “individuals and businesses.” Have your reporters
been smoking with Michael Phelps? Even tonight, hours after your story was
printed, members of Congress don’t have copies of the bill. How did your
reporter obtain a copy, master the intricacies, and do the economic analysis to
discover that the net effect of what your own newspaper has reported is a bill
packed with special interest favors and idiotic projects like a Museum of
Organized Crime in Las Vegas is tilted toward the poor? Do they get a discount
admission at the museum? If I want sloppy work, I get that from the federal government.
I expect more careful reporting from the Journal. Next time, please do more
than reprint press releases from Nancy Pelosi’s office.
Professor, Institute for Government and Public Affairs
University of Illinois
Share
{ 17 comments }
As reasonable as the WSJ's editorial page normally is-its reporting suffers from the same addled thinking of most of the MSM.
I suspect that these criticisms fell on deaf ears, unfortunately.
A Museum of Organized Crime? The stimulus deal should be Exhibit A. It's getting more and more difficult to differentiate between the MSM and the Onion.
This letter points out an obvious truth–the reporter could not possibly have read the document on which he's reporting. As obvious as this is, it's a point so easily missed to anyone that reads the story unless someone comes along and says 'hey, wait a minute' and then suddenly the reader says 'oh yeah!'
This is a fantastic post and letter, and precisely serves the greatest function of the blogosphere.
It is amazing to see some of the things that remain in this bill. Like this item:
http://tinyurl.com/czjteg
Looks like I need to start reading Andy's blog.
Sorry, that URL didn't get to the interesting part of the bill. Try this one:
http://tinyurl.com/cafeStimulus
I often complain about the economic illiteracy of the press (and the public), but I am increasingly amazed at how ignorant the public is about the quality of what they read or hear in the MSM. Morris is revealing only the tip of the iceberg with his critique.
Speaking of the press, where are they on this side of the story:
"By the way, I was thinking more about this.
The smartest thing Obama could have done during the Inauguration would have been to set by example “Intelligent economic policy” starting with this Inauguration. A simple hosting, with catering and bars, for a limited audience, in one of the larger rooms of the White House with cameras for the American public to review following by attending one party would have cost less than $1M.
He could have scored significant points for doing what any rational CEO would do when money is tight in an organization (reduce costs) and so many American’s are struggling simply to put groceries on the table. It would have made a great story and been very positively presented. It could have been a stellar example of real change.
What was the name of that CEO a few years back that hosted a “Greek like party” costing his investors and shareholders millions of dollars that became an example of bad corporate behavior. Didn’t he get busted for such “lavish” behavior?
Why isn’t the press all over the waste?
The security costs would have been minimal, handled by WH Secret Service, and Americans could have view it with a simple technologies called television and the Internet. Everyone would have deeply respected Obama for keeping costs down and he would have set a good example for all to follow. Instead, he left the door open for more abusive and irresponsible behavior across America and he lead by example.
Now he is in no position to criticize U.S. CEOs, bankers, or Wall Street for other lavish expenses such as travel by private Jet or corporate parties at Five Star Resorts. The abuses will continue and with our “bail out monies”.
I wonder how many hundreds of thousands of people that paid taxes, collected by of the Department of Treasure, did it take to pay for that event?
I don’t mind paying taxes for our troops, good programs but I darn sure don’t wish to waste my hard earn labors (taxes) on lavish parties for anyone. Obama’s change was that no change was returned as in cents. He costs us an addition $136M over the Bush event.
Keep that in mind when you fill out your tax return this year."
Remember if you don't give it to them, they can't squander it.
Actually, none of the costs of the inauguration were borne by the taxpayers. The point about setting an example stands.
It's a breath of fresh air to hear criticism of unfounded analysis.
After reading that blog, Don, I have to say, I have no idea how you guys do it. I was exhausted after just reading the tenth one, never mind what it must take to make painfully obvious corrections day after day.
Keep up the great work, especially that Toyota/credit piece.
As I once wrote "If we can prevent the Government from wasting the labor of the people under the pretense of caring for them, they must become happy".
MHodak,
Actually you're wrong, fully 3/4 of that inauguration was borne by the tax payers.
I may not be exact with my 3/4, but, I know it was by far and away the majority came from taxpayer funding.
I believe the concert events preceding the inauguration was what was mainly covered by the private donations. It's probably safe to say the taxpayers had to cover some security costs for it though.
MHodak
Actually estimates are around $100 million paid for by the tax payers. If you go back to the original post on this blog about the price of the inaguration, I give a better breakdown of cost's and who paid for what.
Some information about the inauguration "festivities:"
http://www.opensecrets.org/pres08/inaug.php
{"I expect more careful reporting from the Journal. Next time, please do more than reprint press releases from Nancy Pelosi’s office."
Andrew P. Morriss}
:::::
"Reporters are faced with the daily choice of painstakingly researching stories…. or writing whatever people tell them.
Both approaches pay the same. "
(— Scott Adams)
"Actually, none of the costs of the inauguration were borne by the taxpayers. The point about setting an example stands."
you are wrong about the taxpayers and of the private donations, at least $8 million was contributed by Citibank, a recipient of taxpayer dollars a short two weeks before.