Eugene Robinson asks "Questions from a ‘Dirty War’"
in this column from this morning's Washington Post.
By now increasing numbers of people are aware and demonstrating some concern for the role the then Jesuit Provincial supervisor played during Argentina's "Dirty War." Robinson puts in bluntly at the beginning of his column:
By now increasing numbers of people are aware and demonstrating some concern for the role the then Jesuit Provincial supervisor played during Argentina's "Dirty War." Robinson puts in bluntly at the beginning of his column:
They are impolite questions, but they must be asked: What did Jorge Mario Bergoglio know, and when did he know it, about Argentina’s brutal “Dirty War” against suspected leftists, in which thousands were tortured and killed? More important, what did the newly chosen Pope Francis do?The link goes to a Post story in which the new Pope's authorized biography argues that he took actions that saved lives. Before returning to Robinson's column, and also in providing some of the context in which he writes, allow me to quote two paragraphs from that story:
But others say Bergoglio’s rise through the Argentine church since then has put him in many positions of power where he could have done more to atone for the sins of Catholic officials who did actively conspire with the dictators. Some priests even worked inside torture centers, and blessed those doing the killing.And now that Argentina is actively putting former dictatorship figures on trial for human rights violations, they say he’s been more concerned about preserving the church’s image than providing evidence that could lead to convictions.Please keep reading.
Krugman: After the Flimflam
begins like this:
It has been a big week for budget documents. In fact, members of Congress have presented not one but two full-fledged, serious proposals for spending and taxes over the next decade.As it happens, and as one discovers by reading Krugman's entire New York Times column, both "full-fledged, serious proposals" are by Democrats, those in the Senate, and those in the Congressional Progressive Caucus.Krugman acknowledges that 3 proposals were presented this week, but the third was not serious, that it was essentially a cruel joke. Krugman reminds us that in 2010 when others were treated Ryan as a serious thinker, he himself described him as The Flimflam Man reminding us today that his proposals were obviously fraudulent:
huge cuts in aid to the poor, but even bigger tax cuts for the rich, with all the assertions of fiscal responsibility resting on claims that he would raise trillions of dollars by closing tax loopholes (which he refused to specify) and cutting discretionary spending (in ways he refused to specify).Krugman describes Ryan more recent proposals as "even flimflammier," supporting that by noting Ryan claims that he can slash the top income tax rate
from 39.6 percent to 25 percent, yet somehow raise 19.1 percent of G.D.P. in revenues — a number we haven’t come close to seeing since the dot-com bubble burst a dozen years ago.I checked that last assertion, and according to The Tax Policy Center the last time revenues were that high was 2001, when they were 19.5% of GDP. For the last 4 years or so revenues have been between 15 an 16% of GDP. Perhaps that is one reason why, as Krugman notes, this time pundits and reporters are greeting Ryan's approach with skepticism and appropriate derision.But that is not what is really important about this column.
