Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Misinformation at the Times (Powerline takes apart Tom Friedman's piece)
Powerline ^ | 12/26/04

Posted on 12/26/2004 6:19:34 PM PST by Cableguy

 

The New York Times' web site says that today's most emailed article was Tom Friedman's column titled Sunday News Quiz. Friedman writes:

I'll give you 10 news stories from the past few weeks and you tell me what they all have in common.

Friedman than recapitulates, in a sentence or two, ten recent news stories, all of which are intended to reflect badly the Bush administration; the general theme--reminiscent of leftism of the 60s and 70s--is that there is plenty of money for defense, while social programs are being cut. Friedman concludes:

So what is the common denominator of all these news stories? Wait, wait, don't tell me. I want to tell you. The common denominator is a country with a totally contradictory and messed-up set of priorities.

There is a fundamental problem, however, with Friedman's attempt to show that our national priorities are wrong. The news stories he cites are largely either false, or mischaracterized by him. Let's take them one at a time.

"1. The report that Colin Powell told President Bush a few weeks ago that we do not have enough troops in Iraq and that we don't control the terrain." There isn't space to recap the entire Iraq debate here, but suffice it to say: the commanders on the ground say we have enough troops. And if Friedman thinks our army is too small, why does he go on to say that the defense budget is too large?

"2. The report that the Pentagon's $10 billion-a-year effort to build an antimissile shield, and have a basic ground-based version in place by the end of this year, ran into difficulty two weeks ago when the first test in almost two years failed because the interceptor missile didn't take off." Friedman mischaracterizes the aborted test, apparently relying on an incorrect Reuters report which we debunked here.

"3. The report that the Bush-Republican budget for 2005 contained a $100 million cut in federal funding to the National Science Foundation." This one I think is true; the cut represents a 1.9% decline.

"4. The report that at a time when young Americans are competing head to head with young Chinese, Indians and Eastern Europeans more than ever, the Bush team is trimming support for the Pell grant program, which helps poor and working-class young Americans get a higher education." Friedman apparently fell for the false report in the Washington Post which we debunked here, and missed the Post's correction.

"5. The report this month that children in Asian countries once again surpassed U.S. fourth graders and eighth graders in the latest Trends in International Mathematics and Science Study. (U.S. eighth graders did improve their scores from four years ago, but U.S. fourth graders remained stagnant.)" The TIMSS data show that American 8th graders are above average in mathematics and well above average in science. It's true that kids in several Asian countries outperform American students, but Asian-American students likewise outperform their peers here, for reasons that have nothing to do with school funding. To the extent that Friedman's main complaint is that we aren't spending enough on education, see the charts below.

"6. The report this month that the Bush administration has reduced America's contribution to global food aid programs intended to help the world's hungry feed themselves." This refers to the U.N.'s Millenium Project. In light of what we now know about the U.N. under Kofi Annan's leadership, is it unreasonable to question whether lavishly funding the U.N.'s programs is the best way to spend our taxpayers' money?

"7. The report that U.S. military spending this year is running at about $450 billion." And a good thing it is.

"8. The report that Donald Rumsfeld was confronted by troops in Iraq about the fact that they did not have enough armor on their vehicles and were having to scrounge for makeshift armor to protect themselves." Another hoax, as we pointed out here and here.

"9. The report that among President Bush's top priorities in his second term is to simplify the tax code and to make the sweeping tax cuts from his first term permanent." This is the bottom line, of course: Friedman wants higher taxes; like most people who work for the Times, and unlike nearly all reputable economists--I'm excluding Paul Krugman here--he thinks high taxes are per se good.

"10. The report that the U.S. dollar continued to hover near record lows against the euro." Which is a good thing if you're an American exporter, and a bad thing if you're an American importer. Note that Friedman and others at the Times will fight the Bush administration's efforts to balance the budget tooth and nail, even though reducing the deficit would tend to support the dollar's value.

So, while some of what Friedman says is true, much of it is simply misinformation. But let's make a more fundamental point: Friedman's key contention is that America's priorities are out of whack because we are not spending enough money on education and foreign aid. This claim is absurd. Let's look at education spending first. Check out the actual data from the Department of Education. The U.S. spends more per capita on secondary education than any country except Switzerland:

oecd.gif

Expenditures for primary and secondary education have doubled since 1990:

expend.gif

Are there problems with our education system? Sure, but they have nothing to do with "priorities" as Friedman means the term; i.e., budgetary priorities. Our problem stems from the fact that we put the welfare of administrators and teachers' unions above that of students. But on this topic, Friedman has nothing to say, and his newspaper bitterly opposes the only practical solution on the table, school choice.

Friedman's second criticism of America's priorities is that we don't spend enough on foreign aid. Here, like most liberals, he falls into the trap of equating "spending" with "government spending." What is unique about America is that most contributions to foreign countries come from individual citizens and churches, not from the federal government:

Gauging national generosity solely by government giving ignores new economic realities. Until a decade ago, most international resources flowing into developing countries came from governments. But in 1992, foreign direct investment and financial markets took off in emerging economies. For the first time, developing countries were attracting the kind of private capital that creates and sustains development. As financial flows went private, so did foreign assistance. While ODA stagnated, private giving skyrocketed.

Europeans and the Japanese continue to give primarily through their governments, but the OECD's outdated measure fails to take into account how Americans now give abroad. In 2000, the last year for which comparative figures are available, U.S. ODA totaled $9.9 billion. This figure includes the budgets of the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) and the Peace Corps, contributions to the World Bank, and some State and Defense Department humanitarian assistance. Together, these programs account for just over one-sixth of total U.S. assistance -- public and private -- to developing countries. Private giving makes up more than 60 percent. The remainder -- $12.7 billion in 2000 -- is government aid that, although not within ODA guidelines, is still foreign assistance. This includes aid to Israel, Russia, the Central Asian Republics, and central and eastern European nations and support for the National Endowment for Democracy and international organizations such as the International Monetary Fund.

Friedman concludes: "If we were actually having a serious national debate, this is what we would be discussing, but alas, 9/11 has been deftly exploited to choke any debate." Actually, Tom, there is a debate going on. The New York Times just isn't part of it, because it operates at too low a level of information to be useful to knowledgeable news consumers.



TOPICS: Foreign Affairs; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: friedman; hoaxes; libmyths; myths; newyorktimes; tomfriedman
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-37 last
To: Cableguy

Excellent article, thanks for sharing the info!


21 posted on 12/26/2004 8:45:46 PM PST by FlashBack (Faith will not make our path easy, but it will give us strength for the Journey.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Cableguy
"The news stories he cites are largely either false,..."

Isn't this normal at the Jayson Blair Slimes?
22 posted on 12/26/2004 8:51:54 PM PST by leprechaun9
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Cableguy

"Actually, Tom, there is a debate going on. The New York Times just isn't part of it, because it operates at too low a level of information to be useful to knowledgeable news consumers."

Oooooh! That one will leave a mark!


23 posted on 12/26/2004 8:56:19 PM PST by CyberAnt (Where are the dem supporters? - try the trash cans in back of the abortion clinics.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Mo1

Thanks for the ping!

Wow, what a great example #4 is for "foot in the mouth"! How ignorant can they get! when any tiniest bit of false info is presented, and without checking the source, asking questions, or any such references, the democrats such as Corzine, will go histerical and roar at the Bush Administration with big accusations about it and technically tell them the way it really should be. (if I worded that correctly enough)

And when they find out about the truth...are any appologies even mentioned? no, because they don't want to admit that they were wrong in the first place...


24 posted on 12/26/2004 9:00:10 PM PST by Skylus (the gun is no more responsible for killing people than the spoon is for making Rosie O'Donnell fat)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: Skylus
And when they find out about the truth...are any appologies even mentioned? no, because they don't want to admit that they were wrong in the first place...

But they don't have a problem demanding that President Bush apologize and say he made mistakes

25 posted on 12/26/2004 9:03:23 PM PST by Mo1 (Should be called Oil for Fraud and not Oil for Food)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: Mo1

No kidding...What a corrupted society we live in today... :(


26 posted on 12/26/2004 9:07:29 PM PST by Skylus (the gun is no more responsible for killing people than the spoon is for making Rosie O'Donnell fat)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: Brilliant
He certainly has no insight into anything. He has a gift for "realizing" the obvious, as well as those things which are simply not true. He doesn't seem to have any grasp of not-so-obvious realities.

Thomas Friedman
Master of the Obvious

27 posted on 12/26/2004 9:11:00 PM PST by okie01 (The Mainstream Media: IGNORANCE ON PARADE)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Cableguy
"10. The report that the U.S. dollar continued to hover near record lows against the euro." Which is a good thing if you're an American exporter, and a bad thing if you're an American importer.

In the long run, imports and exports must equal each other. It is exports that pay for imports, and vice versa. When we decide to increase our exports, we are, in fact, deciding to increase our imports.

An American exporter sells his goods to a European importer and is paid in euros. The American exporter cannot use the euros to pay his workers, or his overhead, or his rent, or his mortgage, or his daily food, or his movie tickets. For these he needs dollars. So the euros are of no use to him unless he uses them himself to buy European goods directly from a European exporter, or sells his euros for dollars at the going exchange rate to an American importer, who will then use them to buy European goods. Whichever he does, the transaction cannot be completed until the American goods he exported are paid for by an equal value in European imports. [paraphrased from "Economics in One Lesson" by Henry Hazlitt].

The low value of the dollar vs. the euro is a result of inflation, which is the usual way our government has of trying to pull us out of the "bust" part of the business cycle (the last "boom" was in the 1990s, and, of course, was also caused by inflation). By increasing the quantity of money (either physically or in the form of credit; it doesn't matter), the value of each money unit -- the dollar -- is lowered. If Europe does not inflate as much as the U.S., then the euro will be more valuable compared to the dollar (it takes more dollars to buy one euro than it would without inflation). This means that an American good will sell for fewer euros in a European market than a comparable European good; the European consumer will buy the American good, making it seem as if "exports are good" for the American exporter. Indeed, they are. But what are the consequences of this inflationary policy on everyone else?

If American goods are selling cheaply abroad, foreign goods are selling dearly at home. American consumers are discouraged from buying a European good that they may prefer; or, if they decide to buy the European good anyway, they have fewer dollars left over with which to buy some other good. This means that a sale of something else that could have come into existence is prevented from doing so. If the American consumer opts to buy American, he is, first of all, still paying a higher price than he would if there were no monetary inflation (thus reducing additional purchases he could have made in other industries); second of all, he may, in fact, be buying from a producer who is less efficient than his European competitor. Because of the way it distorts the structure of prices and production, inflation makes it impossible to know this with any certainty; but if true, the American consumer is merely subsidizing the American industry in question; a boon to that industry which it could not have obtained without inflation.

Additionally, while our inflation helps European consumers, it hurts European producers, who, of course, would prefer European consumers to buy European products. What will they do? The last thing they will do is look for more efficient ways to produce the product in question so as to compete effectively with the cheap American good. The first thing they will probably do (being good interventionists) is to demand a tariff on American goods. Suppose they succeed. If so, European consumers will no longer opt for American goods, and it will appear that American exporters are not selling as much. What will the American exporters do? Of course, they will shout "unfair!" at the European tariff policy; they might demand a tariff on European goods as retribution, though that won't help them sell more American goods abroad. The only way they can circumvent the tariff is by convincing the U.S. government to engage in hardball diplomacy ("Remove the tariff . . . or else!"), or by convincing our government to inflate the supply of money even more, thus reducing the value of the dollar even more, thus lowering the price of American goods even more.

Inflation is always a vicious circle, and always requires a maze of legislation to cope with it. That's why politicians like it so much, and that's why it's the official monetary policy of most governments.

28 posted on 12/26/2004 9:39:47 PM PST by rhetor
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Mo1

Mo1, that is such a great essay by Powerline. I'd have missed that and have added it to my media bias file and sent it to friends.


29 posted on 12/27/2004 4:27:00 AM PST by Peach
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: rhetor

What planet do you live on?


30 posted on 12/27/2004 4:41:16 AM PST by rebel_yell2
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: BackInBlack

Yeah, I'm not sure that he ever came right out and said "I agree we should invade Iraq." He came pretty close, though, writing very positive Bush pieces right at the time that Bush was pushing to invade. You'd have thought he would have mentioned that he did not agree with the invasion.


31 posted on 12/27/2004 5:16:34 AM PST by Brilliant
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: Cableguy; neverdem

Good report!

(But the MSM "knows" that it (The Times) is the "only" valid source of news. )

/sarcasm


32 posted on 12/27/2004 5:21:59 AM PST by Robert A Cook PE (I can only donate monthly, but Kerry's ABBCNNBCBS continue to lie every day!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Robert A. Cook, PE

Thanks for the ping. I hope you had a Merry Christmas. Happy New Year!


33 posted on 12/27/2004 7:43:48 AM PST by neverdem (May you be in heaven a half hour before the devil knows that you're dead.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: Cableguy
The legacy media uses old inputs and hackneyed measures to gauge national progress. The New York Times doesn't really have any idea of just how strong the country happens to be.
34 posted on 12/27/2004 7:56:27 AM PST by goldstategop (In Memory Of A Dearly Beloved Friend Who Lives On In My Heart Forever)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: goldstategop

The New York Times:
"Made up news that ain't worth spit."


35 posted on 12/27/2004 8:05:10 AM PST by EternalVigilance (Shaking nine point oh - With a deadly wave goodbye - oh four departed...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: Mo1

No surprise here.


36 posted on 12/27/2004 8:43:53 AM PST by BigSkyFreeper
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: Brilliant

"You'd have thought he would have mentioned that he did not agree with the invasion."

When you're dealing with hair-splitting Clintonites like Friedman, watch your wallet.


37 posted on 12/27/2004 9:35:11 AM PST by BackInBlack ("The act of defending any of the cardinal virtues has today all the exhilaration of a vice.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-37 last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson