Martin Crutsinger: Propaganda Czar

So I am reading the news this weekend and I come across this so-called 'report' by Martin Crutsinger. It is one of those Q&A items that ostensibly provides a quick summary of major issues. In this case, the issues are the budget deficit and the national debt.

Propaganda
What is your first clue that this is a propaganda piece? He blames the deficit on the military activity in Afghanistan and Iraq. "Then the government's budget picture darkened even further after the 2001 terrorist attacks as government spending was increased to pay for wars in Afghanistan and Iraq." Now, where is the evidence to support this? Couldn't we just as easily blame any spending for the deficit?

But, he doesn't really get going until the end of his article:

What is the deficit outlook going forward?
Economists say it is OK to run massive deficits to stabilize the banking system and get the economy growing again. But they are fearful that the administration and Congress will not do enough to get future deficits under control, despite Obama's pledge to cut the deficit in half by the end of his first term in office. They warn that the administration and Congress need to get more serious about attacking future deficits once the economic crisis is past. They argue that the only way that can be done is through some combination of spending cuts and tax increases to placate foreign investors.

"Economists say..." Which ones? When? Isn't there another opinion? And Martin, how many economists are saying it is a bad idea?

What Martin Didn't Tell You
Martin's bias is showing. In fact -- there is huge disagreement by economists with his assertion that it is "OK to run massive deficits..." to wit:

...we do not believe that more government spending is a way to improve economic performance. More government spending by Hoover and Roosevelt did not pull the United States economy out of the Great Depression in the 1930s. More government spending did not solve Japan's "lost decade" in the 1990s. As such, it is a triumph of hope over experience to believe that more government spending will help the U.S. today. To improve the economy, policy makers should focus on reforms that remove impediments to work, saving, investment and production. Lower tax rates and a reduction in the burden of government are the best ways of using fiscal policy to boost growth.

Over three hundred economists signed that letter. Martin's fallacious characterization of "Economists" is giving his 'report' a credibility hit to the first degree. Is it no wonder that Martin Crutsinger's rap sheet over at NewsBusters.org is a mile long?

You and I know propaganda when we see it... the harm comes from robotic repetition of propaganda (like that from Martin Crutsinger) by the talking heads -- it placates the hoi-polloi into taking this propaganda as gospel. It is anything but gospel... it is in fact, just lies.

Moreover, I am of the opinion that the out-of-control spending by the government is the number one contemporary issue. The only cure for that ill is the will of the people to change the system. A propaganda-placated public will not act, or perhaps will only act when it is too late.

Opinion Round Up on Martin
Aside from the hundred-odd stories at NewsBusters.org that point to Mr. Crutsinger as the number one shill in the media, here is a roundup of my contemporaries in the blogosphere, their independent observations:

Wolf Howling says Crutsinger is spinning for the President
Slate29: Martin Crutsinger From The AP Failed Math Class
According to MediaMatters, Mr. Crutsinger is not just an Obama Administration shill, he's just lazy.
1115.org agrees: AP REPORTER MARTIN CRUTSINGER IS NOTHING MORE THAN A STENOGRAPHER

He is so good at repeating crap, we might as well nominate Crutzinger for Propaganda Czar.

Martin Crutsinger I Presume?

If you agree, head over to NewsCred and give him a thumbs down.