But he should have asked some follow-up questions. As regular readers know, I am quite critical of most "mainstream" journalists. (For an example, see this post.)
But I had a good experience with one local journalist, KOMO Radio's Charlie Harger. He interviewed me about President Bush's decision to commute Scooter Libby's sentence, and I thought his questions were well-chosen and fair. (I listened to some of what he had asked a leftist on the other side of the issue, and thought his questions to her were reasonable, too.) All in all, he struck me a solid professional, and a journalist who was trying hard to get a difficult story right.
I was not sure which side of the issue he was on, or even if he was on one side, after listening to the two interviews. Not knowing which side a journalist is on happens less often than I would like.
So when I heard that Harger would be interviewing Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama, I made a point of listening, because I wanted to see if Harger would do as good a job with Obama, as he had with me.
Let me start by conceding that it is not a fair comparison. I put no limits on my time, and we discussed a single, narrow subject. Obama gave Harger less than five minutes to discuss almost anything about his presidential campaign.
Even so, the interview, which you can listen to here, was not bad. With the exception that I noted in the first sentence.
Harger began by asking about the big Obama crowd, which I suppose was an inevitable question, and about superdelegates deciding the nomination. But then he asked how Obama was going to pay for all his promises, which is a fundamental question that every candidate should be asked. Obama replied that he would pay for them by ending programs that didn't work and by closing tax loopholes, which he estimated at one trillion dollars. And this is where Harger should have asked his first follow up questions. There are two obvious follow-up questions, which programs and which loopholes. (One could also ask which programs he has worked to close since he became a US senator.) I doubt that Obama would be able to tell us many programs that he wanted to close, and I am certain that his claim on loopholes is false.
But you need not rely on my word on the loopholes. Obama made this trillion dollar loophole claim in a recent debate, and FactCheck, a nonpartisan group, looked at it. Here's what they say
Obama used a misleading figure to show how easily he could pay for his health care plan and proposed tax cuts for the elderly and for persons making under $75,000 a year:
Obama: We've got a trillion dollars worth of corporate tax loopholes and tax havens, and I've said I will close those.
Actually, the Treasury Department estimated last July that eliminating every major corporate tax preference on the books would yield $1.2 trillion — but over a 10-year period, not in a single year. Furthermore, some of the largest amounts came from items such as tax credits to encourage low-income housing ($55 billion), tax-free bonds for state and local governments ($135 billion), employee stock ownership plans ($23 billion) and tax-free interest on life insurance savings ($30 billion). These popular provisions don't benefit the businesses so much as they do others. We doubt Obama means to end low-income housing credits or force state governments to start paying higher interest rates on their borrowings. He would be more accurate to say, "We've got about $120 billion a year worth of corporate tax loopholes, and I'll close some of those."
You can see why a follow-up question was needed. Because if Obama had said that, almost everyone would realize that he had no plan to pay for all his promises, at least no plan that he was willing to share with us.
Next, Harger asked Obama a softer question, how we could believe that Obama would actually do what he was promising to do, unlike all the other politicians. (Digression: Many will not believe this, but politicians are better at keeping promises than most people think. For instance, a study of national party platforms found that winning parties kept almost four out of five of their promises.) Obama appealed to the "trajectory" of his life. He was vague, but he seemed to be saying that he would keep his promises because, in the past, he had not always taken the job with the biggest bucks. That's probably true, but what it means has different interpretations. Someone with a cynical view of Obama — and you can put me in that group — would note that Obama's choices can almost all be explained by saying that he wants political power more than money.
Someone with a less cynical view might still wonder what, if anything, good motives had to do with Obama's ability to do what he is promising to do. If we were looking for an NBA point guard, we wouldn't choose a man who told us he loved the game; we would choose a man who had proved — with actual achievements — that he could run a team at least as well as most current NBA point guards.
The interview ended with some chit-chat about babies, which should have been skipped, though I understand why it is on Harger's mind. (He mentioned during the interview that his wife is expecting a baby, their first.)
Cross posted at Jim Miller on Politics.
(During the interview, Obama said something that some will find inspiring, but I find annoying. He said that if we get special interests out of the way, there is "no problem we can't solve, as Americans". Anyone who took a high school geometry class should know that we won't be able to square the circle. And those who read any decent newspaper will know that getting special interests out of the way, will not enable us to find a counterexample to Fermat's last theorem. And it is not hard to think of many, many other problems that we Americans can not solve, even if we get all the special interests out of the way.
Finally, let me wish Harger and his wife all the best.)
Posted by Jim Miller at February 11, 2008 09:36 AM | Email ThisI suppose you could characterise any money left over after the tax man gets his cut as a "loophole".
Q. How will we pay for the Obama plan?
A. The Obama plan will realize tremendous
savings within the health care system to help
finance the plan. The additional revenue needed to fund the up-front investments in
technology and to help people who cannot afford health insurance is more than covered
by allowing the Bush tax cuts to expire for people making more than $250,000 per year,
as they are scheduled to do.
So he's going to "find" $50-$65 billion by 'reforming the system', and fund the upfront (which is what? Trillions?) by repealing the tax cuts "on the rich".
There's alot of fantastic sounding promises in the PDF document of his plan on his website, but the finances are noticably deficient.
Eisenhower warned us about the military industrial complex - toilets that cost more than cars and other waste. the sacred cow that is the defense budget, the no-bid contracts, the private contractors making 10X our military doing the same job NEED to go.
Tax cuts for the rich, record budget deficits and corruption - the republicans have ruined our economy again. We need to bring back accountability, transparency (no more pharmaceutical company give-aways and lobbyists writing the law!) and good government. We will easily save trillions this way - and make our coutry stronger.
Posted by: correctnotright on February 11, 2008 10:39 AMHow is he going to unite when he not only hammers Clinton, but he is starting to go after McCain? So, how is he a uniter?
If we thought Clinton got softball questions, this guy is getting 'nerf' ball questions. And I mean that as no disrespect to Harger. The tough questions need to be asked from the Russerts, for starters.
Posted by: swatter on February 11, 2008 10:39 AMHow much does defense take from the federal budget (a constitutional imperative) and how much does HHS spending take (a government candy box, but not constitutionally mandated)?
Let's take the money from the programs with the greater potential for fraud and the far-higher potential for abuse.
Posted by: steve miller on February 11, 2008 10:45 AMIn '06, there was a steady slam, slam, slam from the Democrats on nonsensical issues that blamed Republicans. After months and month of these minor stab wounds without Bush or the Republicans countering, the Democrats took over in '06. I hope we don't see a replay.
Richard Jefferson and MacDermott come to mind as counter responses.
As for cutting programs, perhaps Geoff Simpson of the Wash. State legislature should ask that question. He challenged SP readers for suggestions. We gave them, but he chose to ignore them. He asked exactly what programs should be cut (with his understanding that any program we mentioned he could say it benefited one group or another). What would be Obama's answer to Simpson's question?
Posted by: swatter on February 11, 2008 11:19 AMMe, I'm a special interest of one and all other special interests start from that number. Getting rid of "special interests" is code for letting a politician have complete free reign to do as he/she pleases without repercussion. Maybe he's talking about the special interests he doesn't like. The special interest of "the rich" comes to mind.
I think we need a list of those pesky special interests that he thinks need to be adiosed. Picking winners and losers isn't what government is supposed to be doing.
And an Obama regime would replace them with an FDR-style persecution of the productive and prosperous, as well as earth-shattering record deficits, corruption on the scale of a George Soros and military attrition double that of Bill Clinton.
Certainly nothing Obama has disclosed about his policies belie any of those features. His five-minute interview limit is his principal shield against disclosure of his intentions (the real intentions, not the peace and love and bunny rabbits and 'yes we can' fluff).
Posted by: Insufficiently Sensitive on February 11, 2008 12:07 PMIt's what you'll have left in your pocket when he's done with your paycheck.
Posted by: Johnny on February 11, 2008 12:27 PMThe sad part is that it seems like alot of voters have bought the idea that if we just repeal the tax cuts "on the rich" and close some "tax loopholes" that all of these government giveaways will be paid for. There might be a new oil man in the White House. Snake oil, that is.
Posted by: Palouse on February 11, 2008 12:44 PMYeah let's go back to the days of Jimmy Carter when the Army had to rob parts from three helos just to keep one flying. You may wish to read up on how much we spend for our armed services. It's nothing compared to our other services that give zip back!
You might remember that because the UN is so dang worthless we must send our fighting forces around the world when needed.
If taxes go up "for the rich" then the services the "rich" provide (like everything you spend money on *except* taxes) likewise go up. When they don't then there's less capital for plant and innovation, meaning fewer an lower paying jobs.
BTW, who are "the rich" anyway? The income tax itself was only going to be levied "on the rich" when it was established in 1913. The alternate minimum tax was only supposed to effect "the rich". But now it would hit most people if it wasn't for year-by-year "suspensions" on its enforcement.
Also, $65 billion to nationalise 1/7th of the economy is a joke. It would cost trillions.
I think there would be a lot less support for "Universal Heath Care" if it was named what it really would be: Mandatory Medicaid.
"Special Interest" = "Any group we don't like".
Posted by: Frank Black on February 11, 2008 01:26 PMHey. You left out that we're just like Hitler!!!
Come on. If you're going parrot the nonsense, you gotta go for broke. Friggin' rookie.
Posted by: jimg on February 11, 2008 03:16 PMLet me start by saying that yes, we should elliminate wasteful spending in the DoD. The Marine Corps provides 20% of the nations's combat power for 8 cents on the DoD dollar. That being said, more than 60% of the federal budget every year is ENTITLEMENT spending, meaning the government is OBLIGATED to give that money to anyone ENTITLED to it. The defense budget falls under discretionary spending. Before you start blathering about "body armor" and "protected humvees", neither of which you have ever experienced I'd wager, I had one of the new Interceptor vests in 2002, complete with SAPI plate, which were being fielded first to active duty units, then reserves, then National Guard, which is the normal progression of these things. As for the HMMWV uparmoring project, you have to conider that Armored Recon Patrols in built up areas were definitely not high on the list of missions that system was designed for, and the increase in terms of weight, suspension wear and mobility kills and the reduction in fuel economy complicate that situation. Consider all the man hours to construct, transport, ship, and install these systems, and the fact thnat when the vehicles come back all that armor has to come off... Also consider increased fuel expenditures and new range limitations and the requisite increase in fuel convoy shipments, which results in increased exposure to non-armored tanker trucks (being driven by those evil contractors).
"Eisenhower warned us about the military industrial complex - toilets that cost more than cars and other waste. the sacred cow that is the defense budget, the no-bid contracts, the private contractors making 10X our military doing the same job NEED to go."
Please, STFU. When the US government deploys a military member, it is required to provide all essential services to that member, to include postal, messing facilities, transportation, medical facilities, and accomodations. You can imagine how much that costs. By using contractors for missions that can be accomplished by non-combat personnel, the military frees up the amount of military members available for military specific operations and reduces the amount of money it must spend in personnel costs. Now, is there corruption and overcharging? Sure. But watch when the companies get caught - fines are levied, money is refunded, consequences occur. When the military blows money, no one gets punished.
"Tax cuts for the rich, record budget deficits and corruption - the republicans have ruined our economy again. We need to bring back accountability, transparency (no more pharmaceutical company give-aways and lobbyists writing the law!) and good government. We will easily save trillions this way - and make our coutry stronger"
Okay... 17% of 1 billion is a lot more than 30% of $50,000. The "rich" pay far more of the taxes in this country than you do. Does the tax system need reform? Of course. But please quit with this class warfare crap.
You're making me cringe. Please don't tell them if I ever messed up your order when I was your pizza boy!
If you ask your boy, he may remember it was in 1991 that I introduced him to KVI, and told him about Mike Siegel and Rush Limbaugh.
Believe me, when one owns a house and works 70+ hours a week (like I do) to make that American Dream happen... reality takes over.
By the way, the great thing about my job is I can walk over to people like Kirby Wilbur and John Carlson (even Schram) to make sure I'm asking the tough questions. I think a lot of reporters could do a better (and fairer) job if they were to talk with people on the other side of a given issue prior to doing an interview. I hope that makes sense.
Have Matt drop me a line! I miss that guy.
Posted by: Charlie Harger on February 11, 2008 11:54 PMYou're making me cringe. Please don't tell them if I ever messed up your order when I was your pizza boy!
If you ask your boy, he may remember it was in 1991 that I introduced him to KVI, and told him about Mike Siegel and Rush Limbaugh.
Believe me, when one owns a house and works 70+ hours a week (like I do) to make that American Dream happen... reality takes over.
By the way, the great thing about my job is I can walk over to people like Kirby Wilbur and John Carlson (even Schram) to make sure I'm asking the tough questions. I think a lot of reporters could do a better (and fairer) job if they were to talk with people on the other side of a given issue prior to doing an interview. I hope that makes sense.
Have Matt drop me a line! I miss that guy.
Posted by: Charlie Harger on February 11, 2008 11:55 PM"A vital element in keeping the peace is our military establishment. Our arms must be mighty, ready for instant action, so that no potential aggressor may be tempted to risk his own destruction."
Or,
"Until the latest of our world conflicts, the United States had no armaments industry. American makers of plowshares could, with time and as required, make swords as well. But now we can no longer risk emergency improvisation of national defense; we have been compelled to create a permanent armaments industry of vast proportions."
Sounds a little different now, doesn't it?
Posted by: Shaun on February 12, 2008 08:02 AMDad-
Heres how I get wrangled into another political discussion....
In Charlies defense, I know that a lot of his political rhetoric in high school was a result of trying to get a rise out of those of us of a particular political persuasion, not necessarily because he was a communist..er..leftist, but rather, because Edmonds school distict was just so unchallenging and boring, we had to do something to pass the time. I think that Charlie was an enthusiastic supporter of the enlightened H. Ross Perot during the 1992 election if I remember correctly.
Honestly, it was good to hear Charlies familiar voice the first time I heard him when he did a round with Tim Lawless on the home improvement show. I immediately knew his voice, and now I can't get away from it. The endless voice-overs for mortgage companies and home shows etc. The guy really has a voice for radio, and hopefully he can use his talent to be an objective journalist. I hear Fox news is hiring.
Congratulations Charlie, on the Obama interview. Even though he would never be my choice, no matter what he said, it is good to hear someone ask questions that are not softballs made to make this guy look like JFK. (Should have asked him about the guy on youtube)
Good luck with the upcoming baby, the adventure has just begun, believe me.
Posted by: Matt on February 12, 2008 05:49 PM