You Can Lead A Reporter to Water, But You Can't Make Him Call It A Spending Increase
They just can't help themselves! In a live Q&A session today, a reader asked Washington Post Congressional reporter Paul Kane a question that's been on our minds for days now. "I keep hearing the term 'budget cuts,' but the defense budget isn't being cut at all," the reader writes. "Money is being redirected to other defense priorities, but the overall budget is increasing by 4%.... So why is it that certain pols are allowed to spout this inane lie with impunity."
Kane didn't respond to that question, but he did explain that Gates is trying to spend money more wisely...albeit amid a four percent budget cut that's not actually happening.
If I spend $100,000 a year, and I spend it on a whole bunch of garbage -- CDs from stupid American Idol contestants, trips to Atlantic City, etc. -- it's a whole lot better for me if I reorient my budget to spend my money on a downpayment for a new house at a cutrate deal, as well as Springsteen CDs (instead of Idol folks) and trips of value to see friends and family. I might still spend $96,000, but I've spent it a lot more wisely.That's what Gates is trying to do.
Ummm. Ok. I'm as big a Springsteen fan as anybody. But if we're sticking with this analogy, then the idea is that Gates is buying so many Springsteen CDs this year that he's actually increasing his annual spending to $104,000. A four percent growth, as the reader noted. At about $20 a pop, that's a lot of copies of Nebraska--which may or may not be worth it, but, to quote Kane, that's what Gates is trying to do.
Late update: Not to pile on Paul Kane here, but I want to highlight an exchange that occurred earlier in the web chat. The same questioner I quoted above initially asked his or her question a little bit differently: "I keep hearing the GOP gasbags and their media enablers decrying those HUGE defense budget cuts. But I'd like to echo Jon Stewart, 'On what planet is a four percent spending increase a huge cut?!?'"
Kane dismissed this out of hand: "your entire premise is wrong."
This is not at all a partisan issue. You have to understand this is a totally parochial issue, for Dems and Rs. You'll see Dems on the Hill going to the mat to save their defense programs just as much as the Rs. In fact, given their ties to the president, the stakes will be higher for congressional Dems to save their defense projects.
In fact, the premise of the question is perfectly legitimate. And Kane's response is a perfectly legitimate response...to an entirely different, and unasked, question.
If you take a look back at our coverage of this skirmish, you'll notice the two phenomena--the one described by the questioner, and the one Kane alludes to in his answer--overlap each other. Democrats and Republicans alike are criticizing Gates for threatening to kill programs in their districts, but, for the most part, only Republicans are mischaracterizing the entire plan at the same time.
Take a look for yourself, if you like. It's a pretty striking pattern. You'll find plenty of Democrats--from Blue Dogs to Chris Dodd--criticizing particular cuts. But almost none of them are construing the Gates plan as an overall soft-on-defense spending cut. That effort belongs to Republicans--and they've enjoyed plenty of help in the last couple days from the mainstream media.


















I'm really starting to think some of these people are just too dumb to understand the difference. They hear it once from a Republican politician and it's locked into their brain and nothing can change it. Then, when they hear someone try to explain it to them, they just think THAT person is the one trying to pull some financial on them.
They keep saying it's a cut because they actually believe it's a cut!
April 9, 2009 3:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
I used to think they had been taken over by the pod people from Invasion of the Body Snatchers, but I think sheer stupidness is probably a more plausible explanation.
April 9, 2009 3:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
Bingo. Reporters generally ARE stupid. Trust me. I used to be one.
April 9, 2009 3:48 PM | Reply | Permalink
Right. As important as GOOD journalism is, and as revered as the truly great investigative journalists and commentators should be; numerically, aren't most journalism majors basically English + sociology majors. By which I mean soft subjects with enormous leeway for either brilliance or intellectually laziness, with the latter being far more common.
Then you have the for-profit media industry, which incentivizes sexed up headlines and has incredibly neurotic and outmoded standards for factual reporting vs editorializing, which nobody adherers to, with the false premise only serving to confuse the two. While a blogger like josh clearly delineates the facts, his opinion, and often plays devil's advocate as well. Which is actually far more rigorous reporting.
Personally, I'm glad some newspapers are failing. My local papers in San Francisco have always been pretty dreadful with a very low signal to noise ratio. The vast majority is simultaneously redundant and lowest common denominator.
April 9, 2009 4:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
Not to get off-topic, but as an English major myself, I have to dispute your characterization of English majors. If you majored in English at my alma mater, intellecutal laziness wouldn't have gotten you very far (and certainly not very good grades).
April 9, 2009 4:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yeah, the journalism majors are usually lost in heady world of upper division English courses.
April 9, 2009 6:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'm a former journalist also, but I don't regard most reporters as stupid. Under-informed, perhaps, but normally not stupid. The problem is that reporters are expected by their audience to be experts on anything they write about, but that's not possible. They are generalists; they know a little bit about a lot of things, but usually are experts on nothing and are catching up and learning on the fly. That's obvious when you listen to the questions they ask on a topic of which you may have extensive knowledge. It's no wonder that people think journalists are stupid. That in no way excuses bias, or an inability to suppress personal opinions as a professional journalist should.
April 10, 2009 10:31 AM | Reply | Permalink
I read that adjusting for inflation it's actually 2% increase. What were the rates of increase in previous years?
April 9, 2009 3:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
Defense spending since 1980 in constant 2000 dollars. Assuming the link works, of course.
April 9, 2009 3:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
Uh oh, we've entered 'calculus-land'.
It's an increase, but a decrease in the rate of increase? So our velocity's going up, but our acceleration's going down?
April 9, 2009 3:58 PM | Reply | Permalink
Your math talk represents exactly the emotional/sentiment issues at play. People get attached to expectation values as if they were real immediate values. When expectations get cut, they feel the pain. It doesn't matter that they are being offered other expectations in return, while might be more valuable (or at least priced higher).
April 9, 2009 4:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
You know, I think you're right. That's exactly what's going on here.
April 9, 2009 5:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
pardon the typo, while s/b which
This also applies to much of the financial crisis in a similar "psycho" if less psychological way. People projected rents (cash flows from mortgages or bonds etc) into the future, and then "assetized" those rents. This is the same thing as mistaking a position for a velocity, or a velocity for an acceleration, to put it in math/physics terms.
By assetizing the rents, people made future commitments over which they had insufficient, or in some cases, no control. This is the realm of both legit insurance (where statistical control can be maintained in principle but evidently wasn't in practice) and gambling whether legal or not.
What normally happens when cash flows decrease is that the investors just don't get as much return. But by packing the cash flows as if assets, and then selling those, the secondary (derivative) asset fails completely in some cases. All the secondary principal is lost.
This rips off those investors, while the frontline instruments squeak by with reduced cash flows or take over the nominally real collateral (the house etc.).
April 9, 2009 6:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
Stocks are like this too. They are priced based on forecasts and people's expectations. If the quarterly report numbers are up, but less than investors expected, then investors get miffed.
April 10, 2009 12:25 PM | Reply | Permalink
There is a similar psychology there.
But what I'm describing is like investors not just being miffed, but having already spent the yet unearned money, or having contracted to spend it without an escape clause. Then they take a realized loss instead of just getting less cash flow. And if they cannot pay the difference they are bankrupt. At 30:1 leverage it only took 3.5% to do that.
April 10, 2009 1:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
Is 30:1 leverage common for defense entities? That kind of leverage sounds extremely risky to the point of being foolish--but I do not know the norms of the defense business.
April 10, 2009 1:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
I don't get why you are asking about defense contractors and their stocks. I was talking generally about what helped kill Bear Stearns and Lehman Bros in the context of your comment.
I see no reason why hedge funds etc. would not invest in "defense stocks", and hedge funds do use leverage, tho' not always that high. But I read somewhere that about 1000 hedge funds closed in 2008, so I think my point is sound.
April 10, 2009 2:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
That's a great way to think about it, and the calculus analogy is so fitting it's crazy. Particularly the fact that now "derivitive" has dual-etymology. I think they were originally named because they were derived from other assets. But put in the terms above, they can easily be described as the first derivative of the income stream. Nifty.
April 10, 2009 1:40 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'm not sure if 'dirivitive' is supposed to be different from 'derivative', the dual-usage term I'm familiar with.
But yes, the slope, or first derivative, of a line is indeed derived from the points of the line. Maybe that makes some derivatives "tangential products", but some financial derivatives might also get that name because they usually involved Time Value, as in Futures and Options in the exchange traded market sense. That time value has a sense of 'derivative' in the math sense as well as in the sense of "came from".
Not sure if this is about puns or about cleverness above puns!
April 10, 2009 3:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
Ah, it's those damnable derivitives again!
April 9, 2009 5:54 PM | Reply | Permalink
This is what the rightwing does best and they've been doing it for decades. Repeat a lie over and over and over, in a highly focused, coordinated, emphatic manner, and people eventually think it's true, even AFTER it has been debunked! It's a very powerful, dangerous technique.
April 9, 2009 3:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
exactly!
April 9, 2009 3:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yeah, but it's also a great way to completely lose all credibility. Which the GOP has managed to do with about 2/3 of the electorate. The remaining 1/3 in the bottom of the glass, as Colbert said, it's probably backwash.
April 9, 2009 4:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
Which makes you wonder why so many reporters seem to find the backwash so irresistible.
April 9, 2009 5:58 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yes, one favored by Goebbels, Hitler's propaganda minister...and the Republicans have used it masterfully under Rove's tutelage since he (Rove) sat at the knee of Atwater, under Bush I!
April 9, 2009 9:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
Why the post is really beginning to suck, part 4345432.
See also broder, david; cohen, richard; will, george.
But see Robinson, Eugene; Froomkin, Dan; Fisher, Mark; Pearls Before Swine.
April 9, 2009 3:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
Isn't it possible that some of these people are not making "mistakes" or, "misspeaking" but are in fact BEING PAID TO LIE?
It wouldn't be the first time.
April 9, 2009 3:53 PM | Reply | Permalink
It is so nice to see American math skills in action. Apparently this customer service guy got a job as a reporter.
April 9, 2009 3:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
Here's the Washington Times OPPOSING the Obama '10 DoD budget:
"Coming in at $534 billion, it represents a mere 4 percent increase over the previous year, which is an inflation-adjusted flatline, and slightly below 4 percent of gross domestic product."
It's a mere increase! It's the littlest giant!
- - - - -
>
Note to press: The alligator eats the bigger piece.
'10 DoD budget > '09 DoD budget
> > > > > >
April 9, 2009 3:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
Note to press: The alligator eats the bigger piece.
'10 DoD budget > '09 DoD budget
I'm sensing an alligator theme today. . .
April 9, 2009 4:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
Inflation is 0.2% for the last twelve month period (http://www.bls.gov/cpi/)
April 9, 2009 4:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
Brian,
Have you called Paul Kane to see where he's getting that info re the "cuts"?
April 9, 2009 3:57 PM | Reply | Permalink
I live and work in metro ATL and Dr. Toast is spot on. Its not so frightening that they're repeating the lie they heard on the drive in(Boortz/Rush), we're used to that. It's that when you try and show them figures and facts - then YOU become the liar. If one more person send me a link to newsmax.com refuting anything, there will be blood!
The mood around the office is much more contentious now than before the election. I hate to say it, but there is just no middle ground for the southern republican anymore and there was one as recent as 6 months ago. You're either party line all the way or you're a democrat...or worse.
April 9, 2009 4:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
I can feel you. I am a self proclaimed atheist and socialist living in the south.
April 9, 2009 4:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
I feel for you. I'm an agnostic center-left moderate living in the South, which means they percieve me as an atheist socialist.
April 9, 2009 5:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
Agnostic left-progressive living in UT. . .
April 9, 2009 6:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
same here and in NC
April 9, 2009 7:19 PM | Reply | Permalink
I feel for you as well. I am a catholic center-left that lived in the south and now I am bi-coastal living in cali and pa. Basically, I'm very confused.
April 10, 2009 9:01 AM | Reply | Permalink
Interesting. From what I've heard from Virginia Republicans, it's been going on longer than that. About a year and a half ago, a GOP candidate for local office privately mentioned that the local party here was purging anyone who dared to disagree from the ever-more-stringent party line.
April 9, 2009 5:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
The GOP and now the MSM is literally arguing that Up is Down...
April 9, 2009 4:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
Give Republicans credit : They know how to spin things to their liking with these morons in the press MUCH better than the Dems.
April 9, 2009 4:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
MSM reporters are the second dumbest class of citizens.
Pols being the top of this ignoble list!
Americal Idol performers are down the list somewhat!
April 9, 2009 4:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
Two Paul Kane moments for the price of one:
http://www.eschatonblog.com/2009/04/wanker-of-day_09.html
And they wonder why their industry is dying?
John
April 9, 2009 4:31 PM | Reply | Permalink
Can't be too much longer.
April 9, 2009 10:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
Seriously, you think this guy is dumb? He's not and he knows exactly what he's doing. When dealing w/ MSM misinformation, which is all the time now, just ask yourself 'does this misinformation protect the corporate interest?'. In most cases you'll find the answer is 'yes'. It's not about being clueless or living in a bubble or fear of being called unpatriotic...it's all about the corporate agenda.
April 9, 2009 5:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
The only way to make these goobers understand is too make them give you a hundred dollar bill and a five dollar bill...hold them up and say now I'm gonna apply the "Gates defense budget cut" to you $100 dollar bill. Give them the $100 dollar bill back and put the $5 in your pocket. If they still call that a "cut" then ask them for another $105 dollars. If they finally get smart enough to ask that the 4% would be $104 and this is not 'really' a cut just explain the extra dollar was for the lesson.
Taking money out of their hands physically is the only way they will finally get it. But this isn't about "tax cut" confusion at all...it's about demonizing the Obama administration even if they have to lie to do it. To Republicans 'truth' only means if we can make you believe it... then it's true.
April 9, 2009 5:29 PM | Reply | Permalink
It is a budget cut! It was in the Washington Post, so it MUST BE FACT!
April 9, 2009 5:56 PM | Reply | Permalink
Gates said yesterday that he was moving some items that had recently paid for in the supplemental bills into the main Defense Department budget. If true, this budget could well represent a spending decrease, in the sense that, minus the cost of items that have been shifted from supplemental spending bills, the budget has declined.
Part of the problem here is that the true cost of the defense budget has been hidden, both by having some costs hidden in supplemental bills and in other budgets, but also by having necessary budget items (such as replacement parts) deferred.
It'll be easier at the end of the year to make a better judgment as to whether costs are increasing or decreasing.
April 9, 2009 7:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
Why do people continue listening to the GOP? Did they not learn from them being in office and power for 8 years Why do some people like to be made fools out of What idiots!!
April 9, 2009 11:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
The interesting thing is that back in the 90's Newt was the devil for all the "drastic cuts" in spending he proposed. He wanted to "throw grandma down the stairs" and "steal lunches from poor kids" of course those were just reductions in the rate of increase as well. Funny how y'all finally get it now.
April 10, 2009 9:18 AM | Reply | Permalink
Sorry, Sarge, but you are making up the facts. Gingrich's budgets actually did represent real spending cuts. Either go dig up a copy of his budget and look it over, or have the NYT explain it for you: http://www.nytimes.com/1995/06/24/us/a-gingrich-budget-gain.html
April 10, 2009 1:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
Dude, those were "cuts" just like these. Reduction in the rate of growth. Y'all called it a "deep cut" then and want to argue it now.
April 10, 2009 3:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
The extra copies of "Nebraska" would definitely be worth the increase in spending.
April 10, 2009 10:19 AM | Reply | Permalink
But it all worked perfectly! Same as it does every time. Cause now all anybody is arguing about is whether it represents a cut, or not. Nobody is saying "BTW, I think cutting the Defense budget a lot is a good idea". We are workin on a very dangerous mix here; high unemployment, and lots of defense dollars, and a press which can't get anything about the world situation right. I smell a new "greatest generation" coming up!
April 10, 2009 11:43 AM | Reply | Permalink
They're speaking for contractors and other constituencies that are pissed about cutting beloved weapons-toy programs and using "defense cut" as a weapon, so to speak, to fight these cuts. It's weapon systems that are being cut and these guys are arguing "weapons systems = defense." No toys, no defense.
April 10, 2009 7:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'm not sure if 'dirivitive' is supposed to be different from 'derivative', the dual-usage term I'm familiar with.
But yes, the slope, or first derivative, of a line is indeed derived from the points of the line. Maybe that makes some derivatives "tangential products", but some financial derivatives might also get that name because they usually involved Time Value, as in Futures and Options in the exchange traded market sense. That time value has a sense of 'derivative' in the math sense as well as in the sense of "came from".
Not sure if this is about puns or about cleverness above puns!
m65 kamagra
June 6, 2010 7:47 AM | Reply | Permalink