DC Press Corps Spins Itself Silly Over Sanders' Specifics
Published on
Thursday, April 07, 2016
by
Fairness and Accuracy In Reporting (FAIR)
DC Press Corps Spins Itself Silly Over Sanders' Specifics
by
Dean Baker
(Photo: Gage Skidmore/flickr/cc)
The Washington press corps has gone into one of its great feeding frenzies
over Bernie Sanders' interview with New York Daily News. Sanders avoided
specific answers to many of the questions posed, which the DC gang are
convinced shows a lack of the knowledge necessary to be president.
Among the frenzied were the Washington Post's Chris Cillizza, The Atlantic's
David Graham and Vanity Fair's Tina Nguyen, with CNN's Dylan Byers telling
about it all. Having read the transcript of the interview, I would say that
I certainly would have liked to see more specificity in Sanders' answers,
but I'm an economist. And some of the complaints are just silly.
When asked how he would break up the big banks, Sanders said he would leave
that up to the banks. That's exactly the right answer. The government
doesn't know the most efficient way to break up JP Morgan; JP Morgan does.
If the point is to downsize the banks, the way to do it is to give them a
size cap and let them figure out the best way to reconfigure themselves to
get under it.
The same applies to Sanders not knowing the specific statute for prosecuting
banks for their actions in the housing bubble. Knowingly passing off
fraudulent mortgages in a mortgage-backed security is fraud. Could the
Justice Department prove this case against high-level bank executives? Who
knows, but they obviously didn't try.
And the fact that Sanders didn't know the specific statute-who cares? How
many people know the specific statute for someone who puts a bullet in
someone's head? That's murder, and if a candidate for office doesn't know
the exact title and specifics of her state murder statute, it hardly seems
like a big issue.
"The DC press corps that goes nuts because Bernie Sanders doesn't know the
name of the statute under which he would prosecute bank fraud thinks a guy
who calls for eliminating most of the federal government is a great budget
wonk."
There is a very interesting contrast in media coverage of House Speaker Paul
Ryan. In Washington policy circles, Ryan is treated as a serious budget
wonk. How many reporters have written about the fact this serious budget
wonk has repeatedly proposed eliminating most of the federal government?
This was not an offhand gaffe that Ryan made when caught in a bad moment;
this was in his budgets that he pushed through as chair of the House Budget
Committee.
This fact can be found in the Congressional Budget Office's (CBO) analysis
of Ryan's budget (page 16, Table 2). The analysis shows Ryan's budget
shrinking everything other than Social Security and Medicare and other
healthcare programs to 3.5 percent of GDP by 2050. This is roughly the
current size of the military budget, which Ryan has indicated he wants to
increase. That leaves zero for everything else.
Included in everything else is the Justice Department, the National Park
System, the State Department, the Department of Education, the Food and Drug
Administration, Food Stamps, the National Institutes of Health and just
about everything else that the government does. Just to be clear, CBO did
this analysis under Ryan's supervision. He never indicated any displeasure
with its assessment. In fact, he boasted about the fact that CBO showed his
budget paying off the national debt.
So there you have it. The DC press corps that goes nuts because Bernie
Sanders doesn't know the name of the statute under which he would prosecute
bank fraud thinks a guy who calls for eliminating most of the federal
government is a great budget wonk.
C 2016 Fairness and Accuracy In Reporting (FAIR)
Dean Baker
Dean Baker is the co-director of the Center for Economic and Policy Research
(CEPR). He is
Skip to main content
//
. DONATE
. SIGN UP FOR NEWSLETTER
Thursday, April 7, 2016
. Home
. World
. U.S.
. Canada
. Climate
. War & Peace
. Economy
. Rights
. Solutions
. Election 2016
DC Press Corps Spins Itself Silly Over Sanders' Specifics
Published on
Thursday, April 07, 2016
by
Fairness and Accuracy In Reporting (FAIR)
DC Press Corps Spins Itself Silly Over Sanders' Specifics
by
Dean Baker
. 10 Comments
.
. (Photo: Gage Skidmore/flickr/cc)
. The Washington press corps has gone into one of its great feeding
frenzies over Bernie Sanders' interview with New York Daily News. Sanders
avoided specific answers to many of the questions posed, which the DC gang
are convinced shows a lack of the knowledge necessary to be president.
. Among the frenzied were the Washington Post's Chris Cillizza, The
Atlantic's David Graham and Vanity Fair's Tina Nguyen, with CNN's Dylan
Byers telling about it all. Having read the transcript of the interview, I
would say that I certainly would have liked to see more specificity in
Sanders' answers, but I'm an economist. And some of the complaints are just
silly.
. When asked how he would break up the big banks, Sanders said he
would leave that up to the banks. That's exactly the right answer. The
government doesn't know the most efficient way to break up JP Morgan; JP
Morgan does. If the point is to downsize the banks, the way to do it is to
give them a size cap and let them figure out the best way to reconfigure
themselves to get under it.
. The same applies to Sanders not knowing the specific statute for
prosecuting banks for their actions in the housing bubble. Knowingly passing
off fraudulent mortgages in a mortgage-backed security is fraud. Could the
Justice Department prove this case against high-level bank executives? Who
knows, but they obviously didn't try.
And the fact that Sanders didn't know the specific statute-who cares? How
many people know the specific statute for someone who puts a bullet in
someone's head? That's murder, and if a candidate for office doesn't know
the exact title and specifics of her state murder statute, it hardly seems
like a big issue.
"The DC press corps that goes nuts because Bernie Sanders doesn't know the
name of the statute under which he would prosecute bank fraud thinks a guy
who calls for eliminating most of the federal government is a great budget
wonk."
There is a very interesting contrast in media coverage of House Speaker Paul
Ryan. In Washington policy circles, Ryan is treated as a serious budget
wonk. How many reporters have written about the fact this serious budget
wonk has repeatedly proposed eliminating most of the federal government?
This was not an offhand gaffe that Ryan made when caught in a bad moment;
this was in his budgets that he pushed through as chair of the House Budget
Committee.
This fact can be found in the Congressional Budget Office's (CBO) analysis
of Ryan's budget (page 16, Table 2). The analysis shows Ryan's budget
shrinking everything other than Social Security and Medicare and other
healthcare programs to 3.5 percent of GDP by 2050. This is roughly the
current size of the military budget, which Ryan has indicated he wants to
increase. That leaves zero for everything else.
Included in everything else is the Justice Department, the National Park
System, the State Department, the Department of Education, the Food and Drug
Administration, Food Stamps, the National Institutes of Health and just
about everything else that the government does. Just to be clear, CBO did
this analysis under Ryan's supervision. He never indicated any displeasure
with its assessment. In fact, he boasted about the fact that CBO showed his
budget paying off the national debt.
So there you have it. The DC press corps that goes nuts because Bernie
Sanders doesn't know the name of the statute under which he would prosecute
bank fraud thinks a guy who calls for eliminating most of the federal
government is a great budget wonk.
C 2016 Fairness and Accuracy In Reporting (FAIR)
Dean Baker is the co-director of the Center for Economic and Policy Research
(CEPR). He is
