Freep the NY Times (My suggestion)

A LOT OF THINGS MORE IMPORTANT THAN TRUTH A new econoblogger, Paul Antler (known as "Dr. A" around the economics department of Roosevelt University) thinks that Paul Krugman "pulls a Maureen Dowd" in his op-ed in today's New York Times. Krugman wrote,

"Most media attention has focused on the child tax credit that wasn't. As in 2001, the administration softened the profile of a tax cut mainly aimed at the wealthy by including a credit for families with children. But at the last minute, a change in wording deprived 12 million children of some or all of that tax credit. 'There are a lot of things that are more important than that,' declared Tom DeLay, the House majority leader. (Maybe he was thinking of the 'Hummer deduction,' which stayed in the bill: business owners may now deduct up to $100,000 for the cost of a vehicle, as long as it weighs at least 6,000 pounds.)"

But Dr. A found Tom DeLay's entire statement in this June 4 story in USA Today. And just as was the case with Krugman's quote from Grover Norquist in today's column, the meaning is precisely the opposite of the impression that Krugman gives.

''There are a lot of other things that are more important than that,'' House Majority Leader Tom DeLay, R-Texas, said of addressing low-income families. ''If it is a part of a bigger bill . . . and can get us some votes over in the Senate, then I'm more than open to it.''

Dr. A: "Doesn't this exclusion of the second part of the quote completely change its meaning? Am I missing something here?" If you agree with Dr. A, drop a note to retrace@nytimes.com.

Oh... and by the way... this was no "last minute" "change in wording," as Krugman asserts (in his previous column, he called it a "last-minute switcheroo"). As Senate Finance Committee chair Charles Grassley pointed out on May 29, before either column was written, "The accelerated refundable child tax credit was not in the President’s original proposal, and it was not in the bill passed by the House of Representatives." The non-inclusion of this Senate provision in the House/Senate conference bill puts it on equal footing with about a hundred of other faces on the law-making room floor.

We reserve the right to publish replies to this email on our website (edited for brevity and clarity) and including your name. Please let us know if you don't want your reply published, or if you would like it published anonymously.

Visit The Conspiracy to Keep You Poor and Stupid on the web at http://www.poorandstupid.com

To: retrace@nytimes.com Dear N.Y. Times Editor,
As a long time subscriber to the New York Times I have been sad witness to recent events that have profoundly impacted the public perception of your editorial staff. May I suggest that, in the interest of repairing damage to the excellent reputation of your newspaper, that you correct a misstatement by Paul Krugman in "Duped and Betrayed", which appeared in yesterday's paper.
Mr. Krugman implied that Tom Delay was against the child tax credit, by writing the quote, "There are a lot of things that are more important than that." However, the full statement of Mr. Delay states a meaning completely opposite than the proposition set forth by Mr. Krugman. Delay went on, "If it is a part of a bigger bill . . . and can get us some votes over in the Senate, then I'm more than open to it."

I feel certain that this was an inadvertent fact checking oversight on the part of your editorial staff. As an avid and interested reader of the New York Times, I think that some statement committing to factual accuracy, even amoung op-ed writers, is in order.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.