The Wall Street Journal editorial board has come out in favor of eliminating aggregate campaign donation limits in federal elections, falsely claiming that the Founders didn't intend such contributions to be closely regulated.
On October 8, the Supreme Court will hear oral arguments in McCutcheon v. FEC, a case that has been called "the next Citizen's United" because a ruling in favor of the Republican plaintiffs will allow billionaire donors to flood federal elections with even more cash. By disregarding long-established precedent, Citizens United has already made it easier for corporations to indirectly support conservative candidates and redistricting campaigns that have secured seats in Congress for Republicans. McCutcheon could do the same for individual donors contributing to the candidates directly, a possibility for institutional corruption that the Founders specifically warned against when drafting the U.S. Constitution.
But that didn't stop the WSJ from incorrectly claiming barely regulated election donations were what the Founders always had in mind. From the October 6 editorial:
The Supreme Court re-opens for business this week, and one of its first cases is a splendid opportunity to restore the First Amendment as a bulwark of free political speech. The result in McCutcheon v. FEC will likely hang on whether Chief Justice John Roberts has the courage of his constitutional convictions[...]
Alabama businessman Shaun McCutcheon and the Republican National Committee are challenging limits on the total amount of money a person can contribute to multiple candidates and political parties. In the 2011-2012 election cycle, Mr. McCutcheon donated $1,776 to each of 15 candidates as well as sums to the RNC and other political party committees. Though his donations were all below the legal limits to individual candidates and political parties, he was prevented by the aggregate limits from making the donations he wished.
Donors are currently limited to contributing $5,200 to a candidate for each election cycle ($2,600 each for the primary and general election). But they are barred from exceeding overall ceilings of $48,600 for direct contributions to candidates and $74,600 to non-candidate political committees. So though a contributor might give $1,000 to 48 candidates, further donations violate federal law, even if they are well below the $2,600 threshold per candidate.
The left is already warning [Roberts] in the media, much as they did so successfully last year in advance of his salvaging of ObamaCare. They will denounce a ruling they don't like as "activist" though it would merely restore the First Amendment's central role in protecting free political speech. ... [P]olitical participation is more heavily regulated today than are video games and pornography. That is not what the Founders intended.
The WSJ's editorial board echoes the same arguments as McCutcheon and the Republican National Committee (RNC) - that limits on campaign contributions are a form of unconstitutional censorship of political speech, a radical departure from decades-old campaign finance law. In truth, this argument represents a fundamental misunderstanding of First Amendment law and the original intent of the Founders, something that the conservative justices on the Court say guides their interpretation of the Constitution. Those who call themselves originalists should take note that the Founders never intended the First Amendment to systematically allow a small number of wealthy donors to control American politics.
The mania for false equivalence and the pox-on-both-houses reflex among media types are in full effect now that government operations have shut down and people are looking for someone to blame. It's so strong, in fact, that reporters and pundits who recognize the hopeless and irresponsible intransigence of congressional Republicans nonetheless lay an equal (or perhaps greater) measure of blame at the feet of the president for failing to wheedle and cajole people who won't be wheedled or cajoled. It makes little sense, but sacrifices must be made when trying to force objectivity or, in the case of the Wall Street Journal editorial board, frantically deflect blame from the GOP.
Just this morning, during a segment on who to blame for the government shut down, CNN's Ashleigh Banfield hotly objected to Democratic strategist Paul Begala's accusation of false equivalence, arguing that she was just as hard on Democrats as she was on Republicans -- which was precisely Begala's point:
But what of this argument that Obama could end this stand-off with the Republicans in Congress and get the government back up and running if he would just try to compromise? It's a bad argument on the merits, since Republicans aren't actually seeking a compromise: they're trying to force Obama into giving ground while they give up nothing, as they already support funding the government. But even if Obama did try to negotiate, that's no guarantee the House Republicans would respond rationally. We know this because the one of the last times Obama negotiated with Republicans during a fiscal crisis, the so-called "fiscal cliff," he offered real concessions and compromises and John Boehner and the House Republicans still refused to work with him.
Appearing on MSNBC's Morning Joe just days before the looming deadline for a federal government shutdown, Politico's Mike Allen was assessing the politics of the controversy and predicting which Beltway players would get tagged with the blame for the intentional legislative debacle. Despite the fact that Republicans were refusing to fund the government if the White House balked at the demand to essentially repeal its 2010 health care law, Allen suggested President Obama would be the real political loser.
Why Obama? Because he's more famous than the GOP congressional leaders whose actions are causing the impasse.
"A lot of people in the country don't know John Boehner. There's no one in the world who doesn't know Barack Obama," Allen explained. "So when Washington is not working, it's going off the rails in a very visible way, a way that is vivid and touches people, that's not good ultimately for the president."
That's an awfully tenuous path to blame Obama for the Republicans' proudly obstructionist strategy to stop funding the government.
Yet so it goes within portions of the Beltway press corps who are straining to include Democrats in the shutdown blame game; to make sure "both sides" are targeted for tsk-tsk scoldings about "Washington dysfunction," and that the Republicans' truly radical nature remains casually ignored. This media act is getting old. And this media act may be emboldening the Republicans' extreme behavior.
Note that unlike the government shutdowns during the Clinton administration, this one was not prompted by a budgetary disagreement between the two parties. It was provoked by the GOP's unheard of demand that in order to vote for government spending they agree is necessary, the White House had to strip away funding for its health care law. Also note that the looming showdown over the debt ceiling represents another orchestrated crisis in which the GOP is making unprecedented demands on the president in exchange for their votes for a policy they say they support. Both cases illustrate the folly of trying to blame the White House for failing to engage with Republicans, who have embraced a path of purposefully unsolvable confrontations.
What's been clear for years is that the press clings to its preferred storyline: When Republicans obstruct Obama's agenda, the president's to blame for not changing the GOP's unprecedented behavior. In other words, "both sides" are to blame for the GOP's radical actions and the epic gridlock it produces.
The media lesson for Republicans? There's very little political downside to pushing extremism if the press is going to give the party a pass.
Media figures have attempted to place blame equally on Republicans and Democrats for a possible government shutdown. Congressional experts, however, overwhelmingly blame the GOP's extreme stance, and polling shows a lack of support for House Republicans' agenda.
Let's stipulate that there isn't actually a disagreement between Republicans and Democrats over whether to fund the government beyond 11:59:59 p.m. on September 30. Both sides want government operations to continue, which is why both sides have put forward spending bills to pay for government operations. The sticking point is the Republican insistence that government funding be paired with delays or outright defunding of the Affordable Care Act ("Obamacare"), which has been the law for three years now and survived both a Supreme Court challenge and a presidential election.
The Wall Street Journal editorial board, taking measure of this toxic political dynamic, recognizes that congressional Republicans, led (in both houses) by Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX), are pursuing a strategy that is unlikely to succeed, politically dangerous, and contrary to the will of American voters. And yet, they lay an equal measure of blame for the looming shutdown on President Obama, explaining that it's the president's fault for not negotiating with the GOP.
From the Journal's September 30 editorial, headline "An Obama-Cruz Shutdown":
We've criticized GOP Senator Ted Cruz for his strategy to make defunding ObamaCare a requirement of funding the rest of government. He and his allies know that Mr. Obama can never agree to that, and even millions of Americans who oppose ObamaCare don't agree with his shutdown ultimatum. It risks political damage for the House and Senate GOP in 2014 even as Mr. Cruz builds his email list for 2016.
Yet it takes two to tangle, and Mr. Obama is as much to blame for the partisan pileup as Mr. Cruz. This is a President who is eager to negotiate with dubiously elected Iranian mullahs but can't abide compromise with duly elected leaders of Congress. He refuses to negotiate at all over an increase in the federal debt limit, claiming this has never happened. Like so much that Mr. Obama says, he knows this is false. His own staff suggested the spending sequester during the 2011 debt debate, and Democratic Congresses have used the debt limit to extract concessions from Republican Presidents.
A Wall Street Journal op-ed by a photographer and blogger attacked the credibility of a major report on the state of climate change by distorting the caution and breadth of research that undergirds the work of the group preparing to release it, the United Nations' Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).
The op-ed, published Wednesday under Donna Laframboise's byline, suggested a 2010 review of the procedures for IPCC reports was an indication that the media should not listen to the panel when it says that "'science' has spoken." Laframboise noted that one respondent to a questionnaire included in the review said that some of the 450 lead authors, 800 contributing authors and more than 2,500 reviewers have "insufficient scientific competence." However, she did not mention that the IPCC itself asked the InterAcademy Council (IAC) to carry out the review, or that the IAC stated that it was "pleased that so many of our report's recommendations were adopted" by the organization for its upcoming report. Furthermore, the IAC said the IPCC's recommendations "are well supported by the scientific evidence."
While Laframboise went on to criticize the IPCC for occasionally relying on non-peer-reviewed sources, a standard bugbear, the same review defended that practice, stating that doing otherwise "would require the IPCC to ignore some valuable information" and that the review procedures for such literature were "adequate." The IAC review found that 84 percent of the references cited in the primary scientific assessment report of the IPCC were peer-reviewed scientific literature.
Laframboise also alleged that five authors (out of hundreds) from the last report had conflicts of interest because they had written reports or were employed by environmental groups. She offered no evidence that those authors' scientific credentials are in any way deficient, and neglected to concede the point that some lead authors have also been connected to oil companies or other fossil fuel interests. Laframboise did not mention that one of the IPCC guidelines taken on after the IAC review was a conflict of interest policy covering "all individuals directly involved in the preparation of IPCC reports," including authors and review editors.
The Wall Street Journal debunked several of what it labeled "myths" about renewable energy on Monday. But the paper itself has promoted several of these myths in the past, obscuring the promising growth of renewable energy as prices rapidly decline.
According to Wall Street Journal reporter Keith Johnson, "[o]ld ideas die hard" when it comes to renewable energy. He went on to debunk "six myths about renewable energy" that he said stemmed from "outdated facts and assumptions." Three of these myths, as follows, have been pushed by the Wall Street Journal:
The Wall Street Journal has called the potential of wind and solar power "trivial" in an editorial and has published an op-ed by Jay Lehr of the Heartland Institute that claimed "[p]hysical limitations will keep this energy source a niche provider of U.S. electricity needs."
But as Johnson reported, the scale of the U.S. electricity supply is so great that our current renewable energy mix, which has accounted for 14 percent of U.S. electricity production so far this year (mostly from hydropower), is greater than some countries' total electricity capacity -- far from trivial.
And as this Wall Street Journal chart shows, renewable sources are on a rapid upward trend, particularly from wind power:
The Wall Street Journal pushed the false notion that unions are irrelevant and workers have no interest in joining them, all while ignoring the impact an anti-union state law has had on membership numbers.
On September 18, the WSJ editorial board continued its pretense that union membership decline is due to the unpopularity of collective bargaining, as opposed to the impact of Republican anti-labor legislation. From the September 18 editorial:
One of 2011's biggest political stories was the conflagration in Wisconsin over Governor Scott Walker's plans to reform the state's relationship with public employee unions. Two years later the fires have ebbed. Reason? Many union members are deciding there's little point in belonging to a union.
Witness the city of Kenosha. This month the Kenosha Education Association was decertified after it missed a deadline in the certification process, eliminating its ability to bargain for wages. That was the latest in a series of similar decisions by teachers-union members to jettison union representation. In 2011 and 2012, some 13% of 207 Wisconsin school districts and 39 municipal and state units were decertified.
A spokeswoman for the Wisconsin Education Association Council, the state affiliate of the NEA, said recently, "It seems like the majority of our affiliates in the state aren't seeking recertification, so I don't think the [Kenosha union] is an outlier or unique."
That's a remarkable repudiation of union representation in a state long considered a stronghold. The Milwaukee Journal Sentinel reported that since Mr. Walker's union reforms became law, state unions have lost tens of thousands of members, as workers opt to drop out of the union.
But the teachers union in Kenosha (the KEA) was not decertified because the majority of the teachers decided to "jettison" the union. In fact, the union says there was no recertification election at all and "[t]he union exists with or without a recertification vote."
The Wall Street Journal editorial board suggested that the decline in union membership over the last 30 years is due to lack of employee interest, but ignored the impact of aggressively anti-labor "right-to-work" laws and a string of pro-business Supreme Court decisions.
The WSJ claimed that the overall decrease in union membership is indicative of the irrelevance of unionism in the modern workplace. From the September 16 editorial:
The promise of joining a union has always been that it will deliver better pay, benefits and job security. That proposition long ago stopped being true for most workers, and now even the AFL-CIO is tacitly admitting its loss of relevance in the private American workplace. At last week's annual convention in Los Angeles, labor delegates voted to expand AFL-CIO membership, inviting even non-union members to join their flagging consortium.
[A]s dues-paying membership declines, the AFL-CIO is essentially trying to attract the equivalent of donations from the larger public. Send in whatever "dues" payments the AFL-CIO requires for membership, and in return you get--what exactly? At least if you donate during one of those PBS pledge drives, you get a tote bag and maybe a CD of Yanni at the Acropolis. It isn't clear what non-union members will get for their cash, other than the pleasure of knowing they've helped AFL-CIO chief Rich Trumka stay in a better class of hotel. Will he throw in a T-shirt?
What the WSJ neglects to mention is a series of anti-union and pro-business Supreme Court decisions over the last 20 years that have drastically reduced union organizers' ability to communicate directly with workers, provided extra protection to employers who try to aggressively prevent unionization in the workplace, and have obstructed access to justice for victims of labor law abuses. These decisions have eroded unions' ability to engage in meaningful communication with potential members, protect themselves from illegal labor practices, and have generally contributed to the reduction in membership numbers.
The Wall Street Journal promoted Republican revisionist history portraying previous debt ceiling negotiations as bipartisan, ignoring the Republican obstructionism that led to the 2011 debt ceiling crisis.
If Congress is unable to raise the U.S. debt ceiling -- which allows Congress to pay for past spending -- much of the government will shut down by October 1, and by mid-October, the Treasury Department will lose the ability to pay its debts, thereby hurting the economy. Divisions among House Republicans have stalled efforts to pass the necessary legislation, with many insisting on significant cuts to government spending and delaying President Obama's health care law.
On September 12, the Journal reported Speaker of the House John Boehner's response to the administration's refusal to negotiate on these "nonstarter" proposals, claiming it was a departure from "decades" of previous negotiations that found "bipartisan solutions":
Congress faces a deadline in mid-October to pass legislation that would raise the debt limit. Mr. Obama has said he would refuse to negotiate with Republicans on terms for raising the borrowing limit and that Congress must allow the Treasury to pay for spending already approved by lawmakers.
But Mr. Boehner (R., Ohio) told reporters Thursday that stance was a departure from numerous precedents, in which the White House and Congress agreed to budget changes in exchange for a debt-limit increase.
"For decades, the White House, the Congress have used the debt limit to find bipartisan solutions on the deficit and the debt," Mr. Boehner said, alluding to deficit-reduction deals passed under former presidents Bill Clinton and George H.W. Bush, among others. "So, President Obama is going to have to deal with this, as well."
The Journal failed to note that Boehner's rosy painting of history hid the unprecedented crisis of August 2011 caused by Republican obstructionism. Raising the debt ceiling had been a routine procedure until then, when Republicans held the economy hostage by threatening not to support any increase without equal amounts of spending cuts. Economists at the time cautioned that failing to raise the debt ceiling would be catastrophic for the U.S. and world economies, and a June 2011 letter to congressional leaders signed by 235 prominent economists warned:
Failure to increase the debt limit sufficiently to accommodate existing U.S. laws and obligations also could undermine trust in the full faith and credit of the United States government, with potentially grave long-term consequences. This loss of trust could translate into higher interest rates not only for the federal government, but also for U.S. businesses and consumers, causing all to pay higher prices for credit. Economic growth and jobs would suffer as a result.
Obama ultimately signed a bill that averted the crisis, ending the "bitter partisan stalemate that had threatened to plunge the nation into default and destabilize the world economy."
The Wall Street Journal hyped the misleading claim that D.C.'s living wage bill would result in job losses when economic research shows that living wage laws result in little to no employment loss.
In a September 12 article, the Journal reported that Washington D.C. Mayor Vincent Gray vetoed a bill that would require large retailers in the District to pay higher, "living" wages of $12.50 per hour to employees, after Wal-Mart threatened to cancel plans to open six new stores in the area. The D.C. city council can override the veto, and plans to vote September 17.
The Journal's report noted growing "frustration with stagnant wages" in cities across the country, but uncritically promoted the claim that higher wages for D.C. workers would lead to job losses. The Journal quoted Gray claiming that the bill would be a "job-killer," and cited economist David Neumark saying "some job loss is bound to occur when a 'living wage' is imposed."
In fact, considerable economic evidence shows living wage bills and raising the minimum wage have little to no effect on employment.
In a March 2011 report, the Center for Economic and Policy Research (CEPR) concluded that wage increases are more likely to have a positive effect on employment. The Center for American Progress Action Fund found a growing consensus among economists and academics that raising wages results in higher pay without job loss, even during periods of recession. Finally, the Economic Policy Institute conducted a comprehensive analysis of how living wage laws affected businesses, finding "there have been either no or only small employment losses as a result of adopting living wages."
Furthermore, some economists have found that the presence of Wal-Mart stores is linked to higher poverty rates and that the opening of a new Wal-Mart can reduce employment, replacing approximately 1.4 workers in other retail outlets.
The Wall Street Journal's Bret Stephens used the possibility of military intervention in Syria to rewrite the history of the Iraq war, falsely claiming the Bush administration's case against Iraq was supported by solid evidence.
Stephens, the Journal's foreign-affairs columnist and deputy editorial page editor for international opinion pages, criticized the Obama administration's case for intervention in Syria by comparing it to Bush's decision to invade Iraq, which he claimed was made based on "highly detailed" intelligence revealing weapons of mass destruction. Stephens claimed the "testimony of U.N. inspectors like Hans Blix" supported the Bush administration's case for war, and accusations that the Bush administration lied were "libel" and "cheap slander":
Then there's the intel. In London the other day, Mr. Kerry invited the public to examine the administration's evidence of Assad's use of chemical weapons, posted on whitehouse.gov. The "dossier" consists of a 1,455-word document heavy on blanket assertions such as "we assess with high confidence" and "we have a body of information," and "we have identified one hundred videos."
By contrast, the Bush administration made a highly detailed case on Iraqi WMD, including show-and-tells by Colin Powell at the Security Council. It also relied on the testimony of U.N. inspectors like Hans Blix, who reported in January 2003 that "there are strong indications that Iraq produced more anthrax than it declared," that his inspectors had found "indications that the [nerve agent VX] was weaponized," and that Iraq had "circumvented the restrictions" on the import of missile parts.
The case the Bush administration assembled on Iraqi WMD was far stronger than what the Obama administration has offered on Syria. And while I have few doubts that the case against Assad is solid, it shouldn't shock Democrats that the White House's "trust us" approach isn't winning converts. When you've spent years peddling the libel that the Bush administration lied about Iraq, don't be shocked when your goose gets cooked in the same foul sauce.
So what should President Obama say when he addresses the country Tuesday night? He could start by apologizing to President Bush for years of cheap slander. He won't.
But Hans Blix told CNN in 2004 that the Bush administration "chose to ignore" his team's concerns about the lack of solid evidence in favor of war, and that prior to the invasion the evidence of WMDs in Iraq was revealed to be "shaky":
"I think it's clear that in March, when the invasion took place, the evidence that had been brought forward was rapidly falling apart," Hans Blix, who oversaw the agency's investigation into whether Iraq had chemical and biological weapons, said on CNN's "Late Edition with Wolf Blitzer."
Blix described the evidence Secretary of State Colin Powell presented to the U.N. Security Council in February 2003 as "shaky," and said he related his opinion to U.S. officials, including national security adviser Condoleezza Rice.
"I think they chose to ignore us," Blix said.
Furthermore, an investigation into the lead up to the Iraq war found that statements President Bush made about Iraq misled the American people and Congress by inaccurately depicting the available intelligence. The 2008 Senate Intelligence Committee's report found that "policymakers' statements" in particular misrepresented the nature of contacts between Iraq and Al Qaeda, and that Bush's allegations "that Iraq and al-Qa'ida had a partnership" were "not substantiated by the intelligence." The report also found that statements by Bush and Vice President Cheney indicating that Saddam Hussein was prepared to give WMDs to terrorists for use against the U.S. "were contradicted by available intelligence information."
While there are serious questions about the wisdom of using military force in Syria, any debate must include the facts -- not the Journal's fanciful rewriting of history.
A Wall Street Journal editorial is mischaracterizing the Department of Justice's attempts to bring Louisiana into compliance with long-standing school desegregation orders as motivated by pro-union biases.
The editorial follows a long line of conservative media attacks against the DOJ's decision to file a lawsuit against Louisiana, asking a federal court to block the state's controversial voucher program. Despite the fact that Republican Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal began issuing vouchers before seeking the required judicial approval, he insists that the DOJ's suit is nothing more than a scheme to advance the interests of teachers unions, a baseless charge the WSJ editorial board continues to repeat.
After accusing Education Secretary Arne Duncan of "plead[ing] ignorance" for refusing to comment on the DOJ lawsuit (neither Duncan nor the Department of Education are parties to the suit), in a September 6 editorial the WSJ went on to suggest that the "real motive" for the suit is a pro-teachers union agenda on the part of the DOJ:
[Jindal] got to the heart of the matter by noting that the real motive for this lawsuit is union politics. The teachers unions have been trying to block the voucher plan by any means possible, but so far they've failed. Bringing in the feds for a desegregation gambit is merely the latest attempt.
Jindal maintains that vouchers represent the next stage of the civil rights struggle by offering minority students at failing schools a "choice," but the DOJ argues that vouchers actually "impeded the desegregation process." More importantly, right-wing media have largely ignored the existence of numerous long-standing court orders that require Louisiana to obtain permission from a federal judge before making any changes to the education system that might negatively impact desegregation efforts.
Instead, right-wing media are accusing the Obama administration of "inhumane" treatment of students of color and comparing Attorney General Eric Holder to infamous former Alabama Gov. George Wallace who sought to illegally maintain segregation in schools. For its part, the WSJ claims that "studies" show that "voucher recipients increase integration by letting minority children escape geographic school boundaries."
The Wall Street Journal completely ignored the lingering effects of fiscal austerity in its synopsis of the catastrophic recession and sluggish recovery witnessed over the past five years.
In an article titled, "Financial Crisis: Lessons of the Rescue, A Drama in Five Acts," the Journal analyzed why the myriad government interventions did not create a dramatic economic turnaround with full employment and rising incomes. From the September 8 article:
Americans could rightly wonder why things are still so bad and ask if anything could be been done differently--some policy pursued, some step avoided--to have eased the prolonged economic pain.
After briefly summarizing the Bush and Obama administration's handling of the financial and auto bailouts, the Journal turned its attention to the perceived "failure" of fiscal and monetary stimulus in the wake of the recession.
Mr. Obama won congressional approval of tax cuts and spending increases that, by CBO's latest reckoning, added up to $830 billion over 10 years. The Fed cut short-term interest rates to zero in December 2008 and, nearly five years later, is promising to leave them there for another few years. Figuring that wouldn't be sufficient, it printed, electronically, about $2.8 trillion to buy bonds to push long-term rates down, an unprecedented show of monetary force.
Yet each year for the past few has opened with forecasts that this will be the one that the U.S. economy grows at 3% or better; each year so far has disappointed. CBO estimates that U.S. output of goods and services will be below its potential until 2017. Unemployment remains at levels once seen only in recessions.
In this light, the fiscal and monetary stimulus efforts look like failures, as Republicans frequently observe. Mr. Geithner points to unremitting bad luck: the European sovereign-debt crisis; the disruption following Japan's tsunami and nuclear meltdown.
Top Obama administration and Federal Reserve officials say today they would have preferred more government spending to make up for the shortfall in demand from the private sector.
The WSJ's recollection of economic history failed on two main points: ignoring the economic debate around the stimulus packages, and completely dismissing the lasting effects of Republican-led austerity measures.
First, the article overlooked the fact that the fiscal stimulus programs were likely too small to turn the economy around on their own. The Economic Stimulus Act of 2008 and the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 contributed $152 billion and $831 billion, respectively to recovery efforts. The bulk of that investment went to one-time personal and corporate tax credits, with remaining spending spread out over the next 10 years.
The magnitude of these programs was hotly contested in Washington, but many economists argued that neither stimulus went far enough. Nobel Prize-winning economist Paul Krugman argued in January 2009 in The New York Times that the proposed Obama stimulus, then estimated to be a $775 billion package, was far too small.
Krugman even predicted that the Obama plan might only reduce the unemployment rate to 7.3 percent, where it stands today, a level that "could easily be spun by critics as a failure."
Second, and perhaps more importantly, the WSJ failed to acknowledge that, starting in 2011, the Keynesian interventions installed by both the Bush and Obama administrations were replaced by unprecedented fiscal austerity and budgetary constraint.
The Budget Control Act of 2011 (BCA), the first priority of a newly minted and deficit-scared Republican House majority, installed immediate and future budget cuts that out-weighed the combined Bush and Obama stimulus acts.
According to analysis from the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities (CBPP), the BCA reduced discretionary spending by "more than $1 trillion over the ten years from 2012 through 2021" while also establishing a Joint Select Committee on Deficit Reduction with the mandate to reduce the federal deficit by an additional $1.2 trillion over the same period. When that committee failed to arrive at a legislative solution, automatic spending cuts known as "sequestration" went into effect.
According to further analysis from the CBPP, Congress and the president had already agreed to more than $1.5 trillion in 10-year discretionary budget cuts by November 2012.
The WSJ's lament on the current state of the economy, which it perceives to be mired in perpetuity, made zero mention of these facts. It also fails to recognize what others have come to accept; fiscal austerity and paranoid deficit-constraint is hurting economic growth. The evidence is even more pronounced in Europe, where austerity-driven policymakers faced little progressive economic resistance, and the International Monetary Fund has recommended a reversal of policy to get back on track.
The problem plaguing the American economy is not the failure of stimulus; it is the presence of austerity.
A Wall Street Journal editorial pushed the myth that a Department of Justice lawsuit against credit rating agency Standard & Poor's (S&P) is retaliation for the company downgrading the U.S.'s credit rating, failing to note experts' explanations that the suit is likely a test case that may be used to bolster future action against other credit rating agencies and that the suit predates S&P's downgrade.