Hey, Mikey likes it!

Our current political debate seems to have one area of agreement: We are in a “post-truth” era.  That seems to be where the agreement ends.  So why?  How can public figures get away with telling lies that have  clearly been debunked?

Indulge me while I provide my answer: It’s the misuse of assertions and assessments.  Now you might be saying, “what’s the difference?”  Read on.

When we speak we make a social commitment.  We may not know it but for the most part the listener hears it.  In the case of an assertion we commit to provide evidence in the form of facts.  In the case of an assessment, which is really an opinion, we commit to validate it with the opinion of a recognized authority.

Here’s some examples: I assert that I’m five feet and ten inches tall.  I can provide evidence with a measuring tape.  I assess that my oil paintings are valuable.  I need to have that assessment confirmed by a recognized art expert to be valid.  Otherwise it’s just my opinion.

The mischief starts when I state assessments as assertions.  In other words, when I act as though my opinions are facts about “true” reality.  Unless of course, I’m an authority, which I’m not.  That why this column is titled My Spin.

The political application?  Paul Ryan was asked by Fox News commentator, Chris Wallace, to provide evidence for his assertion that the Republican tax plan was revenue neutral.  Ryan’s response?  “I don’t have time to explain my tax plan.”

Here’s the actual exchange:

WALLACE: So how much would it cost?

RYAN: It’s revenue neutral…

WALLACE: No, no, I’m just talking about cuts. We’ll get to the deductions, but the cut in tax rates.

RYAN: The cut in tax rates is lowering all Americans’ tax rates by 20 percent.

WALLACE: Right, how much does will that cost?

RYAN: It’s revenue neutral.

[...]

WALLACE: But I have to point out, you haven’t given me the math.

RYAN: No, but you…well, I don’t have the time. It would take me too long to go through all of the math. 

So Mr. Ryan has made an assessment into an assertion without providing the evidence.  But he still might say his assessment is valid.  But that’s not the case.  I went to the authority; the Congressional Budget Office website.  Here are excerpts from what I found there:

“With significantly lower revenues and higher outlays, debt would reach 87 percent of GDP by 2020, CBO projects. After that, the growing imbalance between revenues and noninterest spending, combined with spiraling interest payments, would swiftly push debt to unsustainable levels. Debt as a share of GDP would exceed its historical peak of 109 percent by 2025 and would reach 185 percent in 2035.”

It seems to me that the most important part of Mr. Ryan’s plan is the missing revenue needed to service the debt.

Here’s what the CBO said about that:  “The proposal would also set revenues on a path that would cause them to rise from 15 percent of GDP in 2010 to 18 percent in 2022 and 19 percent in 2030 and beyond.”  So far so good.  But wait, it went to say, “ No specifications were provided to CBO of the particular revenue provisions that might generate that path.”

This all reminds me of the Life cereal commercial from several years ago.  There are two little boys at the breakfast table.  One says, “what’s this stuff?”  The other, “I don’t know, let’s give to Mikey.  He won’t like it.”  Of course, their littlest brother Mikey gobbles it up.

We never see or taste the cereal but are expected to believe in the assessment of a little boy.  I guess you could say that the little boy is an authority.  But if he’s trying to win an election, I would treat that assessment with a great deal of suspicion.

Robert DeFilippis