WEDNESDAY, OCTOBER 9, 2024
Bill Whitaker gets it wrong: Yesterday afternoon, we said that Bill Whitaker got something right when he interviewed Candidate Harris for 60 Minutes.
He asked her the world's most obvious question—a question about border policy over the bulk of the past four years. Because the candidate kept failing to answer his question, he asked it three separate times.
In our view, Whitaker got that right. Today, we focus on a puzzling matter when he seems to have gotten it wrong.
We refer to a question Whitaker posed several times about Harris's budget proposals. Below, we highlight the question to which we refer. Unless there's something we don't understand, we'd say that he's getting it wrong.
Warning! Socratic method ahead:
WHITAKER (10/7/24): You want to expand the child tax credit.
HARRIS: Yes, I do.
WHITAKER: You want to give tax breaks to first-time home buyers.
HARRIS: Yes.
WHITAKER: And people starting small businesses.
HARRIS: Correct.
WHITAKER: But it is estimated by the nonpartisan Committee for A Responsible Federal Budget that your economic plan would add $3 trillion to the federal deficit over the next decade. How are you gonna pay for that?
HARRIS: OK, so the other economists that have reviewed my plan versus my opponent and determined that my economic plan would strengthen America's economy. His would weaken it.
WHITAKER: But—
HARRIS: My plan, Bill, if you don't mind, my plan is about saying that when you invest in small businesses, you invest in the middle class, and you strengthen America's economy. Small businesses are part of the backbone of America's economy.
WHITAKER: But— But pardon me, Madame Vice President. I— the— The question was, how are you going to pay for it?
HARRIS: Well, one of the things is I'm gonna make sure that the richest among us, who can afford it, pay their fair share in taxes. It is not right that teachers and nurses and firefighters are paying a higher tax rate than billionaires and the biggest corporations.
WHITAKER: But—but—
HARRIS: And I plan on making that fair.
WHITAKER: But we're dealing with the real world here...
"We're dealing with the real world here," the triumphant newsman said. The comment has been widely cited as a telling putdown of Harris.
What was "wrong" with Whitaker's question? Let's start with what he got right:
It's true! According to the Committee for A Responsible Federal Budget, Candidate Harris's economic proposals would add $3.5 trillion to the national debt over the next ten years.
You can see that organization's report right here. For the record, Whitaker didn't mention the second part of that same report:
According to that same report, Candidate Trump's budget proposals would add more than twice as much—$7.5 trillion—to the national debt over those same ten years! Candidate Harris will add to the debt, but Candidate Trump will add to the debt a lot more.
That said, Whitaker's question dealt with Harris's proposals. In the face of the committee's projection, he wanted to know "how she planned to pay for it"—how she planned to pay for that $3.5 trillion in additional debt.
Is there something we're missing here? The answer to the question is simple—just like Candidate Trump, she isn't planning "to pay for it!" Just like Candidate Trump, she's planning to accept additional debt.
She isn't planning to balance the budget—to produce ten years of balanced budgets. Instead, she's proposing an array of plans knowing they'll add to the federal debt. Candidate Trump is doing the same thing, except to a larger extent.
Now for a quick bit of background:
As of 1999, the federal government was running annual budget surpluses—and the OMB and the CBO were projecting federal surpluses as far as the eye could see. For twenty months, the entire 2000 campaign turned on a basic question:
What did the four major candidates—Gore and Bradley, Bush and McCain—plan to do with the large federal surpluses which would be rolling in?
The current situation is different. The federal government is running large annual deficits, and neither candidate has proposed the kinds of plans which would balance the annual budget.
According to that committee's report, each candidate's budget proposals will continue to produce substantial deficits, thereby adding to the national debt.
"How are you going to pay for it?" Whitaker strangely asked. In fact, she isn't planning "to pay for it!" Neither is Candidate Trump!
Whitaker seemed to be confused by the logic of the situation. For obvious reasons, Candidate Harris may not have wanted to help him get straightened out.
Our major journalists are frequently bollixed by such elementary matters. The woods are lovely, dark and deep, but we aren't a nation of intellectual giants, as our press corps often makes clear.
Neither hopeful is "going to pay for it!" Insistent though he wanted to be, it looked like the sputtering scribe who kept saying "But" perhaps didn't quite understand!
Harris did say she was going to pay for it. She said (1) rich people and corporations would pay higher taxes to offset it, and (2) a stronger economy and middle class would offset it. Those are both reasonable approaches. Saying that Harris somehow evaded his question is a lie.
ReplyDeleteHere's how Harris 'somehow' evaded his question:
DeleteHer response was contradicted by the economists Somerby cited, whose opinion should take precedence over a candidate offering a voter-pleasing proposal.
Saying someone has lied when they haven't makes one a liar.
Somerby did lie when he said that she evaded the question. I found her answers entirely satisfactory.
DeleteSo she didn't evade the question of how she would pay for her proposals, she just put forth a payment plan that will not in fact pay for them.
DeleteI take your point.
Somerby both siding the deficit is pure BS. Remove the Reagan, Bush Jr., and Trump tax cuts for the rich and corporations; and remove the cap on payroll taxes and the problem is mostly solved.
DeleteI want a new bicycle. My friends asks me how I will pay for it. I say, I will increase my household income because I can use the bike to get to a job. I also say that the cost of bicycles will be reduced after Christmas when there are sales. I have told two ways of paying for that bike, just as Harris explained two ways of coming up with the revenue to afford those encouragements to small businesses and first-time home buyers. The small businesses will pay taxes when they succeed. The home buyers will support a construction industry and also pay property taxes, as the people who buy the homes prosper and pay higher income taxes as well.
ReplyDeleteIn what way did Harris not answer the question? Is Somerby holding out for some explicit phrase, as a kind of gotcha? He does that sometimes, as if he were an autistic person who cannot be anything except excessively literal. Trump, in contrast, cannot argue that his proposals will stimulate the economy.
Wait, is Somerby suggesting that the government provides vital services, and those services are paid by taxes? And if we don’t collect enough taxes, then the government takes on debt? And the government taking on debt is better than citizens taking on private debt, since private debt is a destructive strain on society, whereas government services provide for a stable and productive society? And if we are worried about government debt we merely have to raise taxes on the ultra wealthy that have anyways been getting rich off exploiting labor?
ReplyDeleteHe must be some kind of genius to have uncovered such a system, what a revelation!
Harris could have said, "Mexico will pay for it", but since she's a Democrat the "liberal media" (LO-fucking L) would have called her unserious and said she isn't ready to be President.
ReplyDeleteBob may be right that Trump and Harris intend to pay for their proposals by running up the debt. An alternative explanation might be that they're making wild promises they don't intend to keep.
ReplyDeleteWhether looked at historically, or on comparison to other industrialized nations, taxes in the USA are very low.
DeleteRE: Securing our Southern border
DeleteIn lieu of funding, will you take this (wanking motion)?
"An alternative explanation might be" that a beefed-up IRS's revenue increase plus the billionaire tax will pay for the programs and obviate substantial debt runup.
DeleteWe already know that the Trump tariff (aka 20% tax) will impoverish what's left of the middle class along with starving and eliminating needed programs and services and his millionaire tax cut will blow up the deficit ... AGAIN.
If Congress and a courageous Administration could muster the intestinal fortitude to cut the morbidly-obese defense budget down to size, the programs at risk would be covered and/or improved AND the deficit would be reduced.
Consider this: Social Security, Medicare, Defense, Veterans' Services, government pensions, and interest on our debt use up all of the federal government's projected revenues.
ReplyDeleteAnything else the federal government does requires deficit spending in the absence of new revenues.
Anyone who thinks "cutting waste and fraud" is a legitimate way to balance the budget lacks basic math skill.
You are right, Quaker.
DeleteProfessor Glenn Reynolds has a post about the deficit and what to do about it. He's pretty pessimistic, writing, "That is, I see no way, under current political constraints, to keep the debt from growing to the point at which it is not merely unsustainable, but actually causing fiscal collapse."
Deletehttps://instapundit.substack.com/p/debt-doom-is-coming
8:09 - meh
DeleteThe best way to deal with deficits is to elect Democrats. Deficits go down with democrats and explode with Republicans. That is historically true.
DeleteIf the deficit is to be reduced, only new revenues will do the job. We can't keep pretending that "tax cuts pay for themselves." They don't.
DeleteThat's when the GOP went off the rails and led us down the idiocracy path resulting in the felon. The damn Laffer Curve on a napkin to transfer vast sums of middle and poor peoples wealth to wealthy folks and corporations. Voodoo Economics, they knew they were stealimg money from the middle class and poor. But keep the middle class and poor happy by having a dedicated media telling them, sorry, thanks to woke, black folks and the immigrants ate all your money. Can you feel the trickle coming down?
DeleteI've given up on the idea that the government will control the deficit. We're in a death spiral. Interest on the National Debt will lead to even bigger deficits, a bigger National Debt and even higher interest, leading to bigger deficits, etc.
DeleteOr, an irresponsible government will decide to simply print money without borrowing it. That will lead to inflation far above any we have experienced.
My focus is on how to protect myself and my family against the economic disaster that will befall us.
I wouldn’t be so pessimistic. I think we will be ok if we elect a candidate who has gone bankrupt about half a dozen times and whose acumen with money made it impossible for him to acquire a loan from any legitimate US bank, resorting ultimately to obtaining money from a lender with strong ties to Russian money, and which has a history of being successfully litigated by the US for tax fraud. Did I mention a history of increasing US debt by roughly 8 trillion dollars? What could go wrong?
DeleteIf the question is “How do we pay for it?”, perhaps take a page out of Donald Trump’s formula for financial success. When Trump wins the election , he needs to refriend Michael Cohen and instate him as secretary of the treasury. Then, give him the simple instruction: “Same as it always was.” Because, as Cohen testified, his job included the task of routinely shorting venders that worked with Trump. The federal budget will be much more manageable if contractors with the federal government are not payed for their services. This can include all infrastructure, military and health care providers and contractors, and can even be extended to those relying on Medicare and social security for their income. See Rick Scott about those. Otherwise, Cohen can handle the rest. Just don’t pay. It’s the Trump way.
DeleteDavid in Cal,
DeleteYou don't know one Republican Congressperson who you can meet with in their office, and together call defense contractors to carefully explain the deficit and how the federal government won't be purchasing any products or services from them, until we get our fiscal house in order?
What have you been doing with your retired time?
Defense is the real Entitlement spending, which needs to be reduced.
DeleteMy focus is on how to protect myself and my family against the economic disaster that will befall us.
DeleteThat's nice, Dickhead in Cal. Perhaps you can now cut out your pretense that you support trump for any other reason other than he tickles your Id.
By the way, are you a doomsday prepper also?
Harris today said she wants to enact long-term home care as part of Medicare. I think that's a great idea, especially for caregivers of working age, who are largely women. Somerby might ask how she will pay for that. But there are some things the govt does because they are needed. I would pay extra taxes to avoid the worry of how I will be treated when I am elderly. I would love to evade the extremely expensive cost of long-term care insurance these days. I worry about my adult children being derailed should I get a debilitating illness. This is a really important proposal that would be trivialized by having Somerby or David play politics by asking how it would be funded. You do not ask that about important functions of govt, just about the ones you want to derail.
ReplyDeleteIncreased government services will indeed require increased taxes. Politicians do not get elected in this country on such a platform.
DeleteI’m voting for her. Trump’s tariffs would be worse, with no benefit to anyone.
DeleteLooks like we dodged a bullet in FL. Hurricane Milton wind speed, which was at 180 mph, is down to 120 just before making landfall. A 120 mph hurricane is bad, but it's not the storm of the century that some of us were predicting.
ReplyDeleteDiC, still an ill informed idiot.
DeleteThe change in wind intensity was forecast two or three days ago. The storm surge and flooding is what will mess things up.
DeleteYeah the storm surge on the west coast.The dynamic of Trump calling the recovery efforts completely bungled and DeSantis wanting to claim all the credit for them will be interesting.
DeleteI wouldn't be feeling very good about Harris's chances of winning at this point. She's not a great candidate. That's why she was drummed out of the 2020 primary before the likes of Andrew Yang, Tulsi Gabbard, Bernie Sanders and even Marianne Williamson and John Delaney. She's doesn't have what it takes. She is scripted and fake. You can tell her staffers are desperately trying to plot who she can talk to and what for her to say. None of it comes out natural. People can tell. She didn't have to go through this kind of scrutiny when she ran for Senate. I wish her luck. Maybe she can squeak it out. Maybe they have a better October Surprise coming. But the level of skill she possesses is regrettable.
ReplyDeleteFutile gesture.
Delete"the level of skill she possesses is regrettable."
DeleteMaybe, but look who she's running against. Biden won in 2020 holding rallies at outdoor drive-ins. People stayed in their cars. He won by 8 million.
Nikki Haley was scoring in the double digits in the GOP primary this year. After she dropped out of the race!
It's not like she's running against Barack Obama.
Trump is a guy who goes up on stage and starts mumbling about immigrants coming into your kitchen and cutting your throat.
And about how smart he is because his uncle went to MIT. You can't make this stuff up. You don't know whether to vote for him or send for a psych nurse.
She'll do fine.
Problem for the felon vs Harris is he has no idea what he is hollering about, in this terrible country, a failing nation, a nation in decline.
Delete"I wouldn't be feeling very good about Harris's chances of winning at this point."
DeleteOf course not, since you are rooting against her.
Breaking News:
DeleteAnother cosmic reveal of source code to be leaked in upcoming presentation at the Hotel Dehrste. Stay tuned for further deets...
Humans have traditional turned to underqualified, strange women to replace their ineffective, unpopular leaders.
Deletetraditionally
Delete4:10 Unpopular? A Harris poll of Trump’s approval rating when his term was over came in at 31%.
Delete"Humans have traditionally turned to underqualified, strange women to replace their ineffective, unpopular leaders."
DeleteTo which one can only add:
History shows again and again
How Nature points out the folly of men.
In uncertain times, history shows us people naturally turn to inarticulate, awkward women to be their leader.
DeleteUncertain times?
DeleteWho isn't certain that Republican voters don't care about anything but bigotry and white supremacy?
Uncertain, my ass.
Blacks and whites both have always preferred that a strange woman who can't speak normally lead them.
Delete"They're eating the dogs. The people that came in. They're eating the cats."
Delete“How are you going to pay for this?” Ah, the mating call of the Republican longing to get back in office and explode the deficit.
ReplyDeleteIndeed. Then it’s time for another Dick Cheney back of the napkin diagram of the Laffer curve.
DeleteInternet Archive is a data and information aggregator. At best, it's a secondary source with the original source as the proper citation to authority.
ReplyDeleteNo wonder Bob got Cs and Ds in college.