How many of you listen to NPR? I’m guessing more than a few of you rely on the nonprofit outlet for a lot of information about what’s happening in the world, particularly the United States. Perhaps you glean much of what’s happening in American politics from this traditionally “liberal”, supposedly unbiased, reasoned, centered news source.
I too listen to public radio, mostly while in the car running my kids here or there, to daycare or school. And I appreciate the availability and accessibility of good quality information about current events. But I don’t rely solely on NPR, in part because it’s helpful to get one’s information from variety of sources and perspectives, and also because NPR is susceptible to the same pitfalls that plague other major media outlets in their coverage of US politics.
Exhibit A is a recent article about the budget released by the Biden administration this week. Here’s a link.
https://www.npr.org/2023/03/09/1161967948/biden-is-using-his-budget-as-a-cudgel-in-the-debt-ceiling-fight-and-for-2024
The original title for this article is spelled out in the URL, ‘Biden is using his budget as a cudgel in the debt ceiling fight - and for 2024.’ And herein lies the first problem with this article. Its focus is on the “fight” between the president and his opponents, rather than on the content of the budget he released and what it would mean if adopted by Congress.
Of course, the article is quick to point out, the president’s budget is not law, and unless the president’s party controls both houses of Congress it is unlikely to be adopted, certainly not in its entirety. While true, the article’s tone on this point is interesting. “Presidential budget proposals are almost always dead on arrival.” “It’s not gonna happen, it’s a campaign document.”
I’m not sure what the point being made is here. Should Biden not release a budget? (He’s required to do so by law, actually.) Is this not a newsworthy event? Then why is NPR covering it (and every other outlet, I might add). It seems to me that putting forth a budget is a helpful way of presenting a president’s platform; the set of policy objectives and priorities they believe should be put in place to govern the country.
The person they quote to make this odd point is a representative of the Concord Coalition, an organization dedicated to the eradication of the national debt. In other words, a group who hold the most extremely conservative position on fiscal policy possible; there should be no deficit and no debt. Ok, so a person who essentially doesn’t believe in the validity of the national debt is dismissive about the president’s plan to fund the operations of the federal government.
What about people who are less extreme on this subject? They aren’t quoted in the article because there are no other sources consulted (aside from Biden’s plan and his comments about it, and a reference to a single comment from the opposition, Kevin McCarthy. So all we have is a guy who disagrees with the concept of federal debt. Does he have an opinion about the budget proposal otherwise? Hard to say.
I’m not sure about you, but when I read this introduction I was left with the impression that the author of this article (and the source they quote) believe it’s a waste of time for Biden to release his budget and that the proposals it contains are not worth seriously entertaining. But then of course the article goes on to explore some of those proposals anyway.
As an interesting aside, the Concord Coalition’s website describes an exercise they like to do with school children to illustrate the national debt and how it works, it’s called The Penny Game.
In the game, the point is to draw a correlation between the federal budget and that of one’s own household, or even one’s own piggy bank, as the case may be. But this is a false equivalency at best. In fact, household budgets are constrained entirely by revenues. Whereas the federal budget is constrained only by Congress and what it’s willing to decide to pay for. There is literally no physical limit to the money it decides to spend. The Federal Reserve can simply type a number into its computer system and generate any necessary funds.
Of course, the game doesn’t seek to illustrate this discrepancy. They apparently want kids to think that the federal government is run by a bunch of people who don’t understand basic budgetary constraints. This is both misleading and simply not true. And it also doesn’t accurately reflect the reality of the federal deficit and debt. When we run a deficit, that means we are “spending” (investing) more money into the economy than we are removing from it (through taxes, etc.). When we “balance the budget” we are spending the same amount we take in. Reducing the national debt would require taking in more than we spend. None of these are inherently problematic, they are simply policy decisions.
Back to the subject at hand. The backdrop of this particular presidential budget is the conspicuous absence of a similar set of stated priorities from Biden’s sparring partners, the Republican Party. They have yet to release a budget proposal, and we’ll see whether they actually do that or not. But they have given some idea of their priorities through other announcements and public statements.
When you break down the differences in the two approaches to funding our federal government’s activities there are some key items that stand out. The Democrats are interested in raising taxes on wealthy people (people earning more than $400,000 per year, whereas the Republicans are not willing to entertain any tax increases. In fact they achieved a significant reduction in taxes, especially on the wealthy, under the former president, and are not interested in seeing those reductions rolled back.
However, the Republicans are very adamant that the national deficit and debt are problematic, and that we need to reduce them (somehow they fail to explain why these things are so urgently dire, and yet the entire news media seems to have accepted this concept as given, without any further examination. As such, I submit to you a question: Is the national debt a serious problem? If so, why?). Since they aren’t willing to raise revenues, the only other option is to cut spending. And since they aren’t willing to cut defense spending, and they have stated that they won’t touch medicare or social security (at least in the short term), the only option from their perspective is to cut other federal spending.
What other spending, you ask? Well, what’s left? Basically healthcare (think their goal of repealing the Affordable Care Act, think their desired roll back of the Inflation Reduction Acts provisions that allow medicare to negotiate lower prescription drug costs…wait, doesn’t that save the government money? Yes, they want to get rid of it anyway…Why? Oh, because it means certain companies can’t make as much money off of sick people who need medication. Wait, you mean the Republicans are more interested in protecting the profitability of certain companies than they are in, say, protecting the ability of average citizens to afford critical medical care? Huh.).
Also things like environmental protections (or investments in clean energy, anyone?). Social programs like support for housing, food assistance, education. Basically anything that the federal government does that isn’t defense they would like to get rid of or reduce. But they’ve graciously decided not to touch social security or medicare (for now), realizing the political expediency of that position no doubt.
However, the article mentions none of this. It does not attempt to contrast Biden’s proposal with the stated positions of the Republicans. Instead, it suggests that the president’s budget is “grist for the debt ceiling debate.” In case you didn’t know, the ‘debt ceiling debate’ is a handy little euphemism for the fact that the Republicans are threatening to allow the US to default on its debt, thereby destroying its financial credibility, undermining the entire global economy and sending the entire country toward certain economic doom. All they ask is that the White House agree to their desired spending cuts.
This kind of brinksmanship, whether authentically undertaken or not, is in my opinion in the poorest of faith. Were the roles reversed, not only would the Democrats not be threatening the financial ruin of the country in order to force the other side to meet their demands, but if they did, the Republicans would treat it like a terrorist plot to destroy the country (and honestly that’s a pretty good characterization of what they’re doing now).
The financial stability of the country and everyone in it, and by extension the rest of the world given the influence of the US economy, is not a valid bargaining chip. It’s the demand made by a suicide bomber. And does anyone really think the Republicans are willing to make the ultimate sacrifice for their policy objectives? If they truly are willing, then they are way more unhinged than anyone should be in a position of power.
But the article doesn’t address any of this either. It simply suggests that the ‘debt ceiling debate’ is some sort of legitimate argument between two equally valid participants, and that Biden is somehow willingly engaging in said debate by issuing his budget proposal. Neither are true. Biden has clearly stated he is not willing to negotiate with terrorists in this respect (i.e. he is not willing to accept the possibility of defaulting on our debt as a consequence to his willingness or unwillingness to concede the Republicans’ demands).
My ultimate point here is that there is so much more going on than the article makes clear. It diminishes the most important aspects of the situation, portraying the president’s budget as a nearly value-less political tool. It implies that “both sides” of the “debt ceiling debate” are equally valid and that we will all eagerly await the Republicans’ forthcoming platform. It completely fails to describe the stakes of this false debate, being waged entirely by one side.
Like so much of political reporting these days, the article depicts a “battle” being fought within a larger “war” between the two political parties. Everything is a fight or a contest, and nothing about the proposals in the budget are treated as legitimate policy ideas. They are merely ammunition for the political cannons being fired back and forth; the general public the fodder caught in the midst.
Look, I just want to be informed. You know? I want to know the real stakes of the game. I want to know the true implications of the positions being taken by each side, so that I can make informed decisions at the ballot box. That’s the role the media is supposed to play in a functioning democracy. Instead, they spend all their time trying to gin up a make-believe fight and conjure click-baity titles to get us to tune into the latest outrage.
Now, all this said, at least the NPR article attempted to explain some of the content of the budget. They actually outlined some of the significant items for readers. Fox’s coverage of this subject? Their article shockingly failed to describe any of the proposal’s policy ideas. Instead it embraced its incredibly obnoxious title: “Biden’s budget mentions fentanyl twice, ‘queer’ 7 times.”
Right, distract them with culture war bullshit and they won’t pay attention to the fact that the policies being proposed would help most of them and they’d probably support them if they were framed differently. “Biden wants to do EQUALITY, as if that’s a real thing.”
Like I said, at least NPR sort of tried to inform us. They just failed by giving into their profit incentive and their ongoing defense against allegations of their liberal bias. Stay tuned for the next salvo.