"To the Editor:

"Re 'Our So-Called Boom,' by Paul Krugman (column, Dec. 30):

"Mr. Krugman tells the tale of two recoveries — one for the rich, and one for the majority of the population — behind the Commerce Department figures hailed as harbingers for good times ahead.

"The truth is that Americans shopping at the low-priced chains are also finding it difficult to buy food for their children. The administration's own figures show 35 million Americans, including 13 million children, lived in homes that struggled to put food on the table last year, a one-year increase of 1.7 million people.

"The growth of hunger and poverty in our nation is the reality behind the headlines of rising corporate profits. A political road map out of this economic divide could begin with policies that support the greatest good for the growing number of Americans with the greatest need. The first stop on the road map should be focused on our hungry children.

"DAVID BECKMANN
Washington, Dec. 30, 2003
The writer is president of Bread for the World."

"Mr. Okrent:

"I doubt you hear too much about the sports columns, but Chris Broussard's 'Inside the NBA' column today on page 2 bears some scrutiny on a small but telling issue.

"In his ruminations about how poorly things are going in Indiana under first-year coach Rick Carlisle, he states that the offense has been slowed (and apparently suffered) because the Pacers scoring average dropped from 96.8 points a game last year to 88.8 points per game this year, "better" -- as Mr. Broussard notes -- "than only seven teams in the league." Mr. Broussard goes on to note that Indiana's defense "has actually declined," despite Carlisle's focus on defense. He proves this point by noting that the Pacers' opponents are shooting 43.5 percent this year -- up from 42.8 percent last year.

"If this were a fair comparison on this year to last, wouldn't have Mr. Broussard compared defensive points allowed this year, compared to last year -- just as he did when making his point on offense? If he had done so, he would have noted that the Pacers are giving up 84.7 points a game this year -- down from the more than 93 points a game they gave up last year. This is far from the 'decline' that Mr. Broussard alleges. In fact, only two teams in the NBA are giving up fewer points per game than the Pacers, which Mr. Broussard fails to note. This information is readily available in most daily newspapers and on the Internet.

"I would appreciate a response on your thoughts on this matter. Again, it is a small -- but troubling -- issue. It speaks to the credibility of columnists, the sports section and the entire newspaper when the Times selectively uses statistics in such a way."

"In response to readers' comments, I've tediously gone through all 382 of Mr. Krugman's Times columns, looking for 'harsh criticisms . . directed against Democrats', but have been simply unable to find a column which consists mainly of substantive and unambiguous criticism directed at Bill Clinton or Al Gore or Terry McAuliffe or Tom Daschle or Al Sharpton or Howard Dean or Gray Davis or any other Democrat. That distinguishes Mr. Krugman from fellow left-leaning pundits such as Maureen Dowd, Frank Rich, Bob Herbert, Michael Kinsley, Thomas Oliphant, Mary McGrory, Helen Thomas, and even Robert Scheer and Molly Ivins, all of whom have found occasions to substantively criticize their own party in only the last couple of years... Mr. Krugman is clearly a gifted economist and writer, but for whatever reason, his columns have scrupulously observed party boundaries, finding unlimited time to discuss Thomas White and Trent Lott but no time at all for Marc Rich or Al Sharpton."

Huh? "For whatever reason"? Perhaps Waight was too busy with final year-end rankings to have read Krugman's first column of the new year, in which the reason is given with great clarity (Krugman being such a gifted economist and writer, you know). According to Krugman, "a Democrat shouldn't say anything that could be construed as a statement that Mr. Bush is preferable to his rival." Democrats should make no "attacks that could, and quite possibly will, be used verbatim in Bush campaign ads."

In others words, Krugman's literary partisanship is a literal and precise reflection of his political partisanship. His columns are stump speeches. He wants to see Bush defeated, and doesn't particularly care which Democrat does it, or precisely what that Democrat does or believes. Krugman, being such a gifted economist, is simply doing what economists are trained to do: think "at the margin."

I never fail to be amazed by the kid-gloves treatment that Krugman continues to get from most media critics, even one like Waight who possesses the hard, irrefutable quantitative evidence of Krugman's over-the-top partisanship. Such critics always seem to have to throw in an obligatory homage to Krugman's credentials ("gifted economist and writer" and the like -- when, in fact, almost none of these critics is in any position at all to judge Krugman's gifts as an economist; it's just something they read somewhere, and it's their notion of "fairness" to repeat meaningless slogans that give their own judgments a superficial appearance of balance). And such critics are never willing to come right out and say that Krugman's over-reaching partisanship is out-and-out electioneering (there's always a qualifier: "for whatever reason").

Posted by Donald L. Luskin at 12:47 PM | link    

Posted by Donald L. Luskin at 3:03 AM | link