The NYT is comparatively restrained compared to the Washington Post which seems to be on a crusade against both Sanders and Trump. Here's their latest
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2016/02/18/top-democratic-economists-just-launched-a-blistering-attack-on-bernie-sanders/ Unfortunately, the mainstream economists (and the Post) have a point on this latest one. Sanders appears to have blundered into a self-inflicted wound by highlighting a dubious economic analysis that predicts 5% GDP growth rates. Why, Bernie, why? -raghu. On Wed, Feb 17, 2016 at 3:55 PM, Robert Naiman <nai...@justforeignpolicy.org > wrote: > > http://fair.org/home/nyt-rounds-up-left-leaning-economists-for-a-unicorn-hunt/ > > ---------- Forwarded message ---------- > From: FAIR <f...@fair.org> > Date: Wed, Feb 17, 2016 at 1:42 PM > Subject: NYT Rounds Up 'Left-Leaning Economists' for a Unicorn Hunt > To: nai...@justforeignpolicy.org > > > Is this email not displaying correctly? > View it in your browser > <http://us10.campaign-archive1.com/?u=8c573daa3ad72f4a095505b58&id=04eb46bfa0&e=a5b8fb6b33>. > > > <http://fair.us10.list-manage.com/track/click?u=8c573daa3ad72f4a095505b58&id=8dbca6fb3f&e=a5b8fb6b33> > > NYT Rounds Up 'Left-Leaning Economists' for a Unicorn Hunt > [image: NYT: Left-Leaning Economists Question Cost of Bernie Sanders’s > Plans (photo: Isaac Brekken/NYT)] > <http://fair.us10.list-manage.com/track/click?u=8c573daa3ad72f4a095505b58&id=af2cae0910&e=a5b8fb6b33> > > *To be fair, as a New York Times reporter, Jackie Calmes probably doesn’t > meet many left-leaning economists, so she may not be sure what they look > like. (photo: Isaac Brekken/NYT)* > > With Hillary Clinton ramping up her attacks on Bernie Sanders as a > budget-buster—in the February 11 debate > <http://fair.us10.list-manage1.com/track/click?u=8c573daa3ad72f4a095505b58&id=ce0a2596b7&e=a5b8fb6b33>, > she claimed his proposals would increase the size of government by 40 > percent—the *New York Times* (2/15/16 > <http://fair.us10.list-manage.com/track/click?u=8c573daa3ad72f4a095505b58&id=efafb22e40&e=a5b8fb6b33>) > offered a well-timed intervention in support of her efforts: “Left-Leaning > Economists Question Cost of Bernie Sanders’ Plans.” > > While the “left-leaning” is no doubt meant to suggest critiques from those > who would be inclined to sympathize with Sanders, all the quoted economists > have ties to the Democratic establishment. So slight is their leftward lean > that it would require very sensitive equipment to measure. > > Opinion pieces critical of Sanders often begin with a pledge of allegiance > to his “impracticality.” This story, by *Times* reporter Jackie Calmes, > is an “objective,” newsy version of that: > > With his expansive plans to increase the size and role of government, > Senator Bernie Sanders has provoked a debate not only with his Democratic > rival for president, Hillary Clinton, but also with liberal-leaning > economists who share his goals but question his numbers and political > realism. > > Though Sanders wants to increase federal spending on infrastructure, > college tuition and childcare, as well as other programs, the bulk of his > proposed increase would be for establishing a single-payer healthcare > system, and that’s what Calmes’ piece focuses on. It would replace the > current mix of multiple forms of public insurance (Medicare, Medicaid, > state and local programs) and private insurance with a unitary federal > system, much like what Canada has. It would not nationalize doctors and > hospitals, as in Britain; only the payment side would be socialized. > Sanders refers to it as Medicare for All, which is a simplification, but > close enough for politics. > > The liberal-leaning economists that Calmes rounds up suggest that Clinton > may have been too modest in her accusation that Sanders wants to jack up > the size of government by 40 percent. No, Calmes warns that “the increase > could exceed 50 percent, some experts suggest, based on an analysis by a > respected health economist that Mr. Sanders’ single-payer health plan could > cost twice what the senator…asserts.” > > As if that wasn’t scary enough, Calmes turns to mockery: “Alluding to one > progressive analyst’s criticism of the Sanders agenda as ‘puppies and > rainbows,’ Mr. Goolsbee said that after his and others’ further study, > ‘they’ve evolved into magic flying puppies with winning Lotto tickets tied > to their collars.’” > [image: Detail from The Unicorn Defends Itself (The Cloisters)] > <http://fair.us10.list-manage1.com/track/click?u=8c573daa3ad72f4a095505b58&id=46a19bdc8d&e=a5b8fb6b33> > > *Paul Krugman illustrated his column (2/16/16 > <http://fair.us10.list-manage1.com/track/click?u=8c573daa3ad72f4a095505b58&id=4ed6703d67&e=a5b8fb6b33>) > with an image of this tapestry. If in his metaphor a single-payer > healthcare system is a unicorn, then presumably the people poking it with > spears are establishment journalists.* > > The theme of magic was further developed in a piece by *New York Times* > op-ed columnist Paul Krugman, “My Magic Unicorn” (2/16/16 > <http://fair.us10.list-manage1.com/track/click?u=8c573daa3ad72f4a095505b58&id=919d79c659&e=a5b8fb6b33>), > in which the word “unicorn” appears six times (not counting the headline). > Krugman’s column, which denounces Sanders’ proposals as hopelessly > unrealistic, refers to Calmes’ news story for support, a news story that > itself reads like an op-ed in disguise. > > The “Mr. Goolsbee” quoted in the story is Austan Goolsbee, who was a > long-time adviser to Barack Obama before he became president, and then > served on Obama’s Council of Economic Advisers. (During the 2008 campaign, > Goolsbee was reported as having assured the Canadian government that > Obama’s anti-NAFTA talk was “more reflective of political maneuvering than > policy”—*New York Times*, 3/4/08 > <http://fair.us10.list-manage2.com/track/click?u=8c573daa3ad72f4a095505b58&id=524a68331c&e=a5b8fb6b33>.) > Now Goolsbee teaches economics at the University of Chicago’s business > school and is a consultant to hedge funds. A very left-leaning resume there. > > And the “progressive analyst” who came up with the “puppies and rainbows” > line is Ezra Klein, who in mid-January wrote a harshly disparaging piece, > “Bernie Sanders’s Single-Payer Plan Isn’t a Plan at All,” on the website he > co-founded, *Vox* (1/17/16 > <http://fair.us10.list-manage.com/track/click?u=8c573daa3ad72f4a095505b58&id=2d8370a47a&e=a5b8fb6b33>). > How times change: As long-time FAIR contributor Seth Ackerman showed in an > incisive analysis (*Jacobin*, 1/25/16 > <http://fair.us10.list-manage.com/track/click?u=8c573daa3ad72f4a095505b58&id=e5af09bc54&e=a5b8fb6b33>), > Klein was once a strong proponent of a single-payer scheme. > > In a 2007 piece for the *American Prospect* (4/22/07 > <http://fair.us10.list-manage.com/track/click?u=8c573daa3ad72f4a095505b58&id=1651835e1f&e=a5b8fb6b33> > )*, *Klein explored what he called “the best healthcare systems in the > world,” including Canada’s, looking for lessons for the US. (Krugman liked > the piece enough to put it on a 2012 syllabus > <http://fair.us10.list-manage.com/track/click?u=8c573daa3ad72f4a095505b58&id=2a05b72e09&e=a5b8fb6b33> > for a Princeton class on the welfare state.) Klein’s conclusion, expressed > in his opening sentence, was that while medicine is hard, health insurance > is simple: We should emulate these other systems that achieve both > universal coverage and cost control, like those of Canada, France, Germany > and the UK. Though he now holds Sanders’ advocacy of single-payer in > disdain, Klein specifically praised Canada’s single-payer system, citing a > 2003 paper by Steffie Wooldhandler, Terry Campbell and David Himmelstein in > the *New England Journal of Medicine* (8/21/03 > <http://fair.us10.list-manage.com/track/click?u=8c573daa3ad72f4a095505b58&id=8598b3d15b&e=a5b8fb6b33>) > that found that administrative costs were over three times as high in the > US than in Canada, mainly because of the inefficiencies of private health > insurance. Eliminate private insurance and you enjoy hundreds of billions > in savings. > > The “respected” health care economist—it’s funny how journalists stick > that handle in front of some names and not others—that Calmes cites is > Kenneth Thorpe of Emory University, who, as she discloses, “advised the > Clintons in the 1990s.” > Indeed he did; he served in Bill’s cabinet where, according to his Emory > faculty bio > <http://fair.us10.list-manage2.com/track/click?u=8c573daa3ad72f4a095505b58&id=ca87fa0aa6&e=a5b8fb6b33>, > he “coordinated all financial estimates and program impacts of President > Clinton’s healthcare reform proposals for the White House.” > > Sanders has proposed > <http://fair.us10.list-manage.com/track/click?u=8c573daa3ad72f4a095505b58&id=ba9b27fbdc&e=a5b8fb6b33> > paying for his single-payer health insurance program mainly by raising > taxes on the rich and imposing a 6.2 percent payroll tax on employers and a > 2.2 percent income tax on households (while fully exempting lower-income > households and partly exempting middle-income ones from the tax). Those tax > increases would replace current spending on private insurance, so it would > be very wrong to call them new spending. > > Thorpe’s paper > <http://fair.us10.list-manage.com/track/click?u=8c573daa3ad72f4a095505b58&id=ebfb2705ae&e=a5b8fb6b33> > argues that Sanders underestimates the cost of his single-payer health > insurance scheme by close to half. More realistic assumptions would require > substantial tax increases across the board and result in lower wages for > the presently uninsured as employers compensate for the new payroll tax. > Frightening, if true, and Calmes and her headline writer frame the article > to persuade us that it is. > > Woolhandler and Himmelstein, authors of the 2003 article on administrative > costs that Ezra Klein used to like, are not persuaded by Thorpe. In a > *Huffington > Post* piece (1/29/16 > <http://fair.us10.list-manage.com/track/click?u=8c573daa3ad72f4a095505b58&id=a102b8e0fb&e=a5b8fb6b33>), > they find his estimates of administrative savings from a shift to a > single-payer system too low and his assumptions of an increase in demand > for healthcare too high. He ignores the cost of tax breaks that would > disappear under single-payer and assumes no savings on drugs and medical > devices, despite the government’s strong bargaining position as the > exclusive purchaser. (Calmes alludes to their critique in the piece with a > single sentence: “Mr. Thorpe and Sanders aides and allies have been > battling online.” The words “battling online” link to the > Woolhandler/Himmelstein piece; a print reader would be totally in the dark.) > > As Woolhandler and Himmelstein point out, in earlier studies—one > <http://fair.us10.list-manage.com/track/click?u=8c573daa3ad72f4a095505b58&id=6d4ced32e4&e=a5b8fb6b33> > done for the state of Missouri, and another > <http://fair.us10.list-manage1.com/track/click?u=8c573daa3ad72f4a095505b58&id=ed51c17098&e=a5b8fb6b33> > for the National Coalition on Health Care—Thorpe projected large savings > from single-payer reform. Now this former Clinton adviser finds the > opposite. > > There’s a political angle to Calmes’ piece as well, which she uses > longtime Democratic economist Henry Aaron to deliver. (Aaron is a fellow at > the Brookings Institution, a think tank that a congressional staffer once > described to me as “a graveyard for conservative Democrats.”) Aaron calls > the idea of single-payer a “fairy tale” in the current political climate. > Citing the testimony of “other economists in a ‘lefty chat group’ he joins > online,” Aaron believes that were Sanders elected, he’d destroy his > political capital by fighting such a doomed fight. > > I’m familiar with this line of argument from a liberal chat group I used > to hang out with online (it takes its off-the-record secrecy with great > seriousness)—it may be the same one, but I can’t tell for sure. It goes > like this: The right so dominates the present scene that one can do nothing > but play defense, hoping to salvage what remains of social spending but > never daring to ask for more. Political capital, in this account, can only > dwindle when put to work; unlike other forms of capital, it never pays > returns. The right never thought that way when it was plotting its > ascendancy from the 1950s through the 1970s. > > Calmes gave the last word to Thorpe, who concludes from a failed attempt > to bring single-payer to Vermont that it would be unworkable on a national > scale. Vermont’s plan wasn’t really single-payer; providers would still > have had to contend with multiple payers, thereby limiting administrative > savings, and the state would have little bargaining power with drug and > device manufacturers. The experience of a small state in a big country is > hardly conclusive. > > What might be more persuasive is the experience of our northern neighbor, > a country very much like ours. Canada covers almost all its population at a > cost of 10.2 percent of GDP. Even after Obamacare, about a tenth of the US > population is uninsured, but that incomplete coverage costs us > <http://fair.us10.list-manage.com/track/click?u=8c573daa3ad72f4a095505b58&id=1afc19a30b&e=a5b8fb6b33> > 16.4 percent of GDP. > > Britain’s system costs 8.9 percent of GDP, a little over half what we pay. > Both countries have longer life expectancies than we do. But we should be > afraid of the unicorns. > ------------------------------ > > *Doug Henwood is the editor of Left Business Observer > <http://fair.us10.list-manage.com/track/click?u=8c573daa3ad72f4a095505b58&id=0bda95443f&e=a5b8fb6b33>.* > > *You can send a message to the New York Times at lett...@nytimes.com > <lett...@nytimes.com>, or write to public editor Margaret Sullivan at > pub...@nytimes.com <pub...@nytimes.com> (Twitter:@NYTimes > <http://fair.us10.list-manage.com/track/click?u=8c573daa3ad72f4a095505b58&id=f6dd4fcc75&e=a5b8fb6b33> > or @Sulliview > <http://fair.us10.list-manage.com/track/click?u=8c573daa3ad72f4a095505b58&id=5181216e96&e=a5b8fb6b33>). > Please remember that respectful communication is the most effective.* > > Subscribe: iTunes | Android > <http://fair.us10.list-manage.com/track/click?u=8c573daa3ad72f4a095505b58&id=ca326e8def&e=a5b8fb6b33> > | RSS > <http://fair.us10.list-manage.com/track/click?u=8c573daa3ad72f4a095505b58&id=27997b5174&e=a5b8fb6b33> > > *Read the original post here > <http://fair.us10.list-manage2.com/track/click?u=8c573daa3ad72f4a095505b58&id=d497940581&e=a5b8fb6b33>.* > FAIR's Website > <http://fair.us10.list-manage.com/track/click?u=8c573daa3ad72f4a095505b58&id=bd9181d5d2&e=a5b8fb6b33> > > FAIR counts on your support to do this work — please donate today > <http://fair.us10.list-manage.com/track/click?u=8c573daa3ad72f4a095505b58&id=5a12b8b16e&e=a5b8fb6b33> > . > > Follow on Twitter | Friend on Facebook <#-632926334_874524157_> | Forward > to a Friend > <http://us10.forward-to-friend.com/forward?u=8c573daa3ad72f4a095505b58&id=04eb46bfa0&e=a5b8fb6b33> > > > *Copyright © 2016 Fairness & Accuracy In Reporting, All rights reserved.* > You are receiving this email because you signed up for email alerts from > Fairness & Accuracy In Reporting. > *Our mailing address is:* > Fairness & Accuracy In Reporting > 124 W. 30th Street, Suite 201 > New York, NY 10001 > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > pen-l mailing list > pen-l@lists.csuchico.edu > https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/pen-l > >
_______________________________________________ pen-l mailing list pen-l@lists.csuchico.edu https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/pen-l
