And the usual random dishonesty.
Being a Brand Name in the Village goes a long way. For years now, George Will has not only been just another right-wing hack, but doesn't even write particularly well to boot. But he's managed to position himself as not just a responsible, mainstream conservative, but an exceedingly intelligent and erudite member of the breed as well. So no matter how dishonest he is, and how poorly he writes, his column in the Washington Post, his presence on the Sunday talk shows, and his influential position in the Village are in no danger.
So he can write a column that is little more than "Liberal academics at University A bug me, which reminds me of something derogatory about the Obama Administration that I'll pretend is true, which leads me to this bogus argument against the health care bill (which allows me to show off my deficit-hawk credentials that gathered dust during the Bush Administraton) that in turn reminds me of an incredibly bogus argument against unspecified advocates of an additional stimulus bill," and he's still one of the preeminent voices in our national discourse. Great work if you can get it.
Along Will's random walk, two items are of particular note: his bogus claim about funding health care reform from Medicare cuts, and his claim that an additional stimulus would actually be a third, rather than a second, stimulus is somehow a devastating argument against stimulus supporters.
So here's Will on the first point:
But speaking of unfunded medical entitlements: The furrowed Washington brows that currently express faux puzzlement about how the health-care entitlement -- aka "reform" -- will be paid for are theatrical. There is no mystery. The new entitlement will be paid for, to a significant extent, the way much of government is paid for -- by borrowing from China.
Republicans are operatic when they pretend to take seriously, in order to wax indignant about, the Democrats' professed plan to partially pay for Sen. Max Baucus's version of reform by cutting at least $400 billion from Medicare. Supporters of the Baucus bill are guilty of many things but not, regarding such cuts, of sincerity. Congress regularly vows to make Medicare cuts, and as regularly defers them.
Nice try, George, but it helps to know the facts - or admit to the facts you surely must know, one or the other. Unthanks to George W. Bush, there's a rather substantial amount of Medicare expenses that aren't translating into Medicare benefits. Due to the program misnamed "Medicare Advantage," we taxpayers are subsidizing private firms to the tune of, yes, hundreds of billions per decade to compete with Medicare. Obama, Baucus, etc. are simply suggesting we remove the subsidies, and let them compete on an even footing. If they can manage that, great; if not, seniors enrolled in MA will go back into the regular Medicare program, which won't experience any cut in benefits.
So from the point of view of both the taxpayers and Medicare recipients, this is free money: we can save money without cutting benefits. The only losers would be the companies that we're subsidizing to compete with Medicare.
If Will doesn't know this fact at this late point in the discussion, he's got no business influencing anyone's opinion because he's freakin' ignorant. And if he does know about Medicare Advantage but is conveniently skipping past it, then he's a liar.
And then there's Will on the stimulus:
But the number from which Washington flinches is...3.
Many Democrats believe that rising unemployment means the nation needs a "second" stimulus -- but one they could call something other than a stimulus because it would be the third. The first was passed in February 2008, two months after the recession began. Its $168 billion tax rebate failed to stimulate because overleveraged Americans perversely saved much of it.
This is, of course, a pile of steaming bullshit, absent the naming of the "many Democrats" advocating a second stimulus, and whether they thought the first stimulus was large enough to do any good, or whether they expected the zero'th stimulus (the appropriate numeration of Bush's deservedly forgotten 'stimulus' bill) to be at all useful. Certainly saddling stimulus advocates with Summers' claims regarding the first stimulus, as Will does, is completely dishonest unless either Summers is one of those advocates, or if those advocates agreed with Summers at the time about the likely potency of the first stimulus.
But that's not true. The Administration seems to have little interest in another round of stimulus. The loudest second-stimulus advocates I hear are people like Krugman and DeLong, who were quite clear at the time that the first Obama stimulus was way too small, and that there was every reason to expect most of the paltry Bush stimulus to be saved rather than spent. Bringing up the Bush stimulus isn't the least bit inconvenient to advocates of more stimulus. Rather, it's inconvenient to those who would urge a significant portion of any additional stimulus to be devoted to tax cuts and rebates, rather than direct Federal spending or aid to states in the throes of major budget cuts.
Finally, Will claims that the purpose of such a stimulus "would be, primarily designed to save a few dozen jobs -- those of Democratic members of the House and Senate." Which is why Congress is working day and night on an additional stimulus bill.
Oh, wait a minute - they aren't. The main proponents of more stimulus are, alas, outside of government entirely.
So shorter Will: guys like Krugman are desperately trying to convince a Democratic Congress to implement a second stimulus in order to keep a few more Democrats in Congress, but the Democratic Congress itself seems oddly uninterested
Yeah, that makes a lot of sense.
And of course, the consequences of high unemployment on the lives of the men and women out of work, and on their families, is beneath Will's notice entirely. As far as he's concerned, they don't even exist; tthis is all about Washington, and what happens in the provinces only has meaning as it affects the power games inside the Beltway.
So in addition to being an extremely dishonest person and a terrible writer, Will is a morally repulsive human being.
We knew that already. But I honestly wish he wouldn't pile up the evidence quite so high and deep, so quickly.