Pawlenty and the bankruptcy of conventional wisdom

This morning I watch a goo d demonstration of the bankruptcy of the Washington conventional wisdom that often passes for analysis in this country. First, I saw Tim Pawlenty on Fox News Sunday. Governor Pawlenty gave an outstanding interview to Chris Wallace. Wallace was relentless in drilling down on certain parts of the Pawlenty economic plan unveiled this past week. In particular, Pawlenty was asked repeatedly how cutting taxes will allow for a balanced budget. Wallace cited statements by "think tanks" and commentators to the effect that cutting taxes will make the hole in the budget bigger. Pawlenty's answer was simple and clear. His plan calls for cutting taxes and for cutting spending more. He even gave answers as to where the spending cuts would come from. While I cannot say that the plan could be achieved, I can say that it was both clear and easy to understand. I can also say that Pawlenty's description of his plan was the best explanation of it that I have heard since he first proposed it in a speech last week. If Pawlenty could get the plan through, it sounds like it would work.

Following that interview, I tuned into the McLaughlin Group (at least for a while). The first topic covered was Pawlenty's plan. the main issue discussed was whether or not cutting taxes would make the budget deficit worse. Pat Buchanan who is always certain about everything but who also seems to know little, explained Pawlenty's plan as classic Reaganomics and said that the tax cuts would lead to growth which would close the budget deficit. So Buchanan was partly correct, but he left out the entire part of the plan that cuts spending. McLaughlin himself summarized the plan as relying on a balanced budget amendment to the Constitution to achieve spending cuts; he left out the entire part of the plan to make cuts before there is any such amendment. Eleanor Clift was her usual self. She was sure that the plan would not work and that tax increases were needed. I will not go through the rest; suffice to say that not a single commentator on the McLaughlin show actually knew what was in the Pawlenty plan. Nevertheless, they were all prepared to "analyze" the plan on national TV.

The truth is that this is yet another example of the TV commentators talking about economics when they do not even understand the simplest parts of that science. How can they discuss the pros and cons of a plan when they do not even understand the basic proposals in the plan?

The other truth that came from these shows was this: Pawlenty is a much better candidate than has been said by these same commentators. If he gets a few more chances to give a national interview like the one this morning, his support will inevitably rise. It was really well done.