Special report: Still amazed after all these years! - Part 3 continues from the key board of the incomprable Bob Somersby and his mordant chuckling staff of elven prophets

PART 3—QUICKLY, YOU BAIL (permalink): For unknown reasons, the editors of the New York Times were “amazed” by the composition of the recent debt limit deal.

We know—it’s just a figure of speech. But the editors used it two separate times, saying how amazed they were by the fact that the debt limit deal included nothing but spending cuts. Beyond that, they seemed amazed by an obvious fact—“rationality” ain’t in command:

NEW YORK TIMES EDITORIAL (8/7/11): Under the terms of the ill-conceived debt agreement, Congress has to propose another $1.5 trillion in deficit reduction measures by December. Just to ensure that rationality does not have a chance, Republican leaders said they would not put anyone on the deficit-cutting “super-committee” who might entertain the idea of raising taxes.

A week later and we are even more amazed by the failure of Mr. Obama and the Democratic leadership to stand up to this intransigence. If they do not start pushing back, with the same ferocity, the results will be disastrous.

The next round of deficit reduction can’t be restricted to spending cuts, the editors quite sensibly said. Soon, they even noted an oft-ignored fact about the way we got here:

“Asserting that deficits can be tamed with spending cuts alone ignores that the Bush tax cuts—costing $1.8 trillion from 2002 to 2009—are a big reason we got into this deep hole.”

On its news pages, the New York Times has made little attempt to explain the role played by the Bush tax cuts in creating the current deficits. In fairness, current federal deficits approach that $1.8 trillion figure on an annual basis; the Bush tax cuts, all by themselves, did not create this mess. But in a world where few things ever get explained, we’re willing to settle for dollops.

The editors were quite correct when they called attention to our current tax regimen. And land o Goshen! As they continued, they engaged in some shocking conduct.

First, they cited a basic fact—a basic fact which is rarely cited. Then, the editors seemed to make a highly shocking proposal. They seemed to make their shocking proposal in big bold-faced capital letters:

NEW YORK TIMES EDITORIAL: Here is the bottom line. There is no economically sensible or politically honest way to address the deficit without also increasing revenues and reforming the tax code. The major challenges are these:

LET THE BUSH CUTS EXPIRE Mr. Obama vowed to let the high-end tax cuts (for people making more than $250,000) expire in 2010. But in a preview of the debt fight, he agreed to extend the cuts for two more years when Republicans held unemployment benefits and other measures hostage.

Letting all of the cuts expire at the end of 2012 would save $3.8 trillion over the next decade. Letting the tax cuts expire for those making more than $250,000 would save $700 billion. That would make a real dent in the $2.4 trillion in total deficit reduction envisioned in the debt limit deal.

A sensible and fair approach would be to let the high-end tax cuts expire as scheduled, but keep the other tax cuts for another year. That would keep more cash in the hands of people most likely to spend it and prop up consumer demand while the economy is weak.

Good lord! Did it really happen? The editors cited a basic fact, a basic fact which is rarely cited: Letting all the Bush tax cuts expire would save $3.8 trillion over the next decade! They shrank from stating a second fact. All by itself, this would approach the $4 trillion in deficit cuts which has become our nation’s Holy Grail!

That’s right: If we returned to the Clinton tax rates, the current debt crisis would pretty much end! The editors shrank from stating this basic fact. But in bold caps, they seemed to make a daring proposal: LET THE BUSH TAX CUTS EXPIRE.

Let the Bush tax cuts expire, the fiery editors seemed to say. In a more detailed manner, they went on to say the following: “A sensible and fair approach would be to let the high-end tax cuts expire as scheduled, but keep the other tax cuts for another year.”

Good lord! Had they really said it? Had the editors really proposed that all the Bush tax cuts should expire? It certainly looked like they had done so! Once again, just take a look at those big bold capital letters!

But actually no, the editors hadn’t made that daring proposal. Instantly, they bailed on their own apparent proposal; just like that, they took it back, as you can see if you simply read the rest of their editorial. Those big bold caps were big and bold—but the editors at the New York Times aren’t. No sooner had they proposed their idea than they started speed-walking it back.

Would it be a good idea to return to the Clinton tax rates? We’re not sure; like you, we’ve rarely seen this notion debated. But if you want to understand why spending cuts keep winning out in our budget debates—if you want to understand why the editors shouldn’t be so “amazed” by such outcomes—we’ll suggest that you come back tomorrow, when we’ll sadly walk you through the next things the editors said.

Should the editors be amazed when spending cuts rule our budget debates? Why would anyone be amazed? For the past forty years, that result has been built into the DNA of our national pseudo-debate.

We thought that fact was made quite clear in the rest of the eds’ editorial.

Tomorrow: Taking it back