Special report: No need to know! PART 2—BARTLETT’S QUOTATION (permalink): The federal budget lies at the heart of current American politics.

A “debt limit” battle is underway. If it isn’t resolved in the next few weeks, it may trigger a serious crisis. Beyond that, a massive fight is unfolding about future federal spending. As such, the federal budget lies at the heart of current American politics.

Unless you read our biggest newspapers, in which case you see little attempt to explain these issues at all.

Do you live in a rational world, as the western world has long claimed? Actually no, you do not. Just consider Bruce Bartlett’s quotation.

Bartlett was quoted by David Leonhardt in last Wednesday’s New York Times. Leonhardt, this year’s Pulitzer winner, was writing about current efforts “to get the deficit under control.” Midway through his column, he crafted a catchy distinction:

LEONHARDT (6/22/11): Eventually, the country will have to confront the deficit we have, rather than the deficit we imagine. The one we imagine is a deficit caused by waste, fraud, abuse, foreign aid, oil industry subsidies and vague out-of-control spending. The one we have is caused by the world's highest health costs (by far), the world's largest military (by far), a Social Security program built when most people died by 70—and to pay for it all, the lowest tax rates in decades.

To put it in budgetary terms, the deficit we imagine comes largely from discretionary spending. The one we have comes partly from discretionary spending but mostly from everything else: tax rates, Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security.

What’s really causing our federal deficits? Not the things we imagine, Leonhardt said. In this passage, he draws on a well-known fact: We the people are often quite clueless about the federal budget. We the people imagine a world in which waste/fraud/abuse and foreign aid cause our federal deficits.

That’s the world we imagine. But in the world which really exists, the deficit doesn’t stem from those causes. As he continued, Leonhardt quoted Bartlett as he explained where the actual deficit comes from—the actual federal deficit, not the one we imagine:

LEONHARDT (continuing directly): To put it in budgetary terms, the deficit we imagine comes largely from discretionary spending. The one we have comes partly from discretionary spending but mostly from everything else: tax rates, Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security.

Taxes may be the toughest issue politically, but the mechanics of raising taxes are not all that difficult. As the 1990s demonstrated, the economy can grow rapidly even after a modest tax increase. As the last decade showed, a big tax cut doesn't necessarily prevent mediocre growth.

Bruce Bartlett, a former Treasury Department official, has pointed out on The New York Times's Economix blog that average federal tax rates are ''lower for most taxpayers than they have been since the 1960s.'' The government could raise about $60 billion a year by letting the high-end Bush tax cuts lapse and tens of billions more by reducing tax breaks for companies and individuals.

In that passage, Bartlett explains one of the actual sources of the actual federal deficit. Several thoughts passed through our heads.

First, a question, the same one we posed yesterday: Assuming that Bartlett and Leonhardt are right, how many voters actually know that average federal tax rates are “lower for most taxpayers than they have been since the 1960s?” We would guess that few voters know this fact—and that almost no voters could discuss this fact with any sophistication or detailed information. (For ourselves, we could not. By the way, how many is “most” here?) Beyond that, we would guess that very few liberals would know where to go to gain such detailed information.

How have federal tax rates changed through the years? (This would include effective tax rates, in which we adjust for deductions.) Where would you go to find such information—to share information with a friend who may not be inclined to vote as you do? For ourselves, we can’t really say. We’ll guess that you can’t either.

(By way of contrast, do you know where to go to get current batting averages? We could take you to such a site in one or two clicks. We’d have you there in ten seconds.)

We would guess that very few people have any real knowledge about those changed federal tax rates. This brings us to our second observation: Please note where Leonhardt got Bartlett’s quotation. Bartlett’s quote comes from “The New York Times's Economix blog,” a part of our greatest newspaper.

Question: How many people ever look at that blog, as compared to the number of folk who look at the Times’ front page? Second question: If we live in a rational world, and if we are facing a series of crises, why in the world isn’t such information being skillfully frisked right on the Times front page?

Question: At this point, shouldn’t well-informed people know basic facts about our federal tax rates? Given the role that is played in the current debates by the issue of federal taxes, shouldn’t well-informed people know about the ways these rates have changed down through the years? We would say the obvious answer is yes. But you will see this topic explored on the Times’ front page about the time the cow jumps the moon.

Even at this time of fiscal crisis, the game isn’t played that way! Information plays almost no role in the way our big newspapers function, as we will note in more detail over the next two days.

How hapless are the public discussions conducted by our greatest newspapers? Consider another point from Leonhardt’s piece—a point Leonhardt made early on. In these, his opening paragraphs, Leonhardt explains a troubling fact about the ongoing debt discussions. “I’m guessing you haven’t heard about” this, Leonhardt safely says:

LEONHARDT: Republicans say they won't raise taxes. Democrats are reluctant to cut Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid. So discretionary spending—the roughly 35 percent of government that includes other social programs and the military—will have to be a big part of any deal in coming weeks to raise the debt ceiling.

But there is a little problem with discretionary spending.

According to the government's official forecasts, discretionary spending is already slated to shrink significantly. Military spending will fall by 25 percent, as a share of the economy, over the next decade. Domestic programs will shrink even more, and by 2021 they will account for their smallest share of the economy since the 1950s.

I'm guessing you haven't heard of these plans, however. That's probably because plans is a bit of an exaggeration. Assumptions is a better word: per Congress's orders, the baseline budget numbers unrealistically assume that future discretionary spending will grow only with inflation, rather than with population growth and economic growth, too.

As a result, Vice President Joe Biden, Republican leaders and the other deficit negotiators not only have to cut discretionary spending to make progress. They have to cut it even more than the Congressional Budget Office, the keeper of the official numbers, already assumes that spending will be cut.

Ouch! As Biden and now Obama try to cut discretionary spending, they are hacking away at a baseline which already assumes large cuts!

“I'm guessing you haven't heard” this, Leonhardt mordantly writes. That would rank as the world’s safest guess. You live in a world where the biggest newspapers never get around to discussing such facts, except in the occasional cite by the occasional Pulitzer winner in a stand-alone weekly column. The Times will discuss a fact like that in a front-page report about the time the cow returns from the moon. That fact is light-years beyond the horizon of the things which get discussed in our most important news pages. That fact is very basic. But it’s a hundred times too complex for the Times news pages.

How many voters understand the way those federal tax rates have changed? Trust us—no one can explain such facts, and no one knows where to find them. But then, you live in a Potemkin political culture, a culture which stages Potemkin discussions when things get discussed at all.

Almost nothing gets discussed in our most important news pages. The results of this broken political culture can now be seen all around.

Tomorrow: Outlook gives it a try!

Friday: A list of (ignored) basic topics