NYT's New Respect for GOP's Ryan for 'Deftness in Pacifying Rebellious Conservatives'...and for Big Spending Hike

By Clay Waters | December 19, 2015 | 8:02 PM EST

The lead story in Saturday's New York Times heaped praiseupon the passage of a package of spending increases and tax breaks: “Avoiding Rancor, Congress Passes A Fiscal Package -- $1.8 Trillion Measure – Spending Rise and New Tax Breaks Suggest End of Austerity.”

Conservative activists hated the budget deal shepherded through Congress by fledgling House Speaker Paul Ryan, which passed easily (316-113) but with disproportionate Democratic support -- 166 Democrats and 150 Republicans voting in favor, 95 Republicans and 18 Democrats voting against.

Reporter David Herszenhorn habitually spews “far-right” and “hard-right” labels at congressional conservatives, but this big-spending budget earned Ryan some strange new respect with Herszenhorn praising his “deftness in pacifying rebellious conservatives.” A copy editor gave Ryan a pat on the back in a text box: “A successful effort by Republicans to show that they can govern effectively.”

An online subhead underlined the tilt: “After a period of belt-tightening in Washington, the measure provides a notable spending increase and tax breaks worth more than $620 billion.”

After years of dysfunction and abysmal public approval ratings, a chastened, even beaten-down Congress on Friday passed a $1.8 trillion package of spending and tax cuts with remarkably little rancor.

The sweeping deal was the product of a convergence of forces: Speaker Paul D. Ryan’s deftness in pacifying rebellious conservatives, the recognition by Republicans that a government shutdown could cripple them in the races for the White House and Senate and a recovering economy that helped end an era of austerity.

....

In concrete, and personal terms, the approval of the legislation capped several weeks of early successes for Mr. Ryan, perhaps the most notable being how he has calmed the restive caucus that ousted Mr. Boehner as the House speaker. After ushering through major highway and education bills that had lingered on the congressional agenda for months, Mr. Ryan, who is the former chairman of the tax-writing Ways and Means Committee, pushed through the major tax-break package that many Democrats opposed.

The idea that a present-day federal budget is a victim of “austerity” is a reality-defying proclamation the Times has made on many occasions, usually keyed to feckless GOP threats to slice a bit off budget that run into the trillions of dollars.

That's what happened in early 2013,as the perils of mandatory federal spending cuts known as sequestration led the New York Times' with a proposed 2.4% cut in annual federal spending labeled "austerity" and ushered in headlines warning that "Poor May Be Hit Particularly Hard."

A March 3, 2013 lead story by Jackie Calmes forecast a "new round of austerity" and predicted reduced economic growth: "Cuts To Achieve Goal For Deficit, But Toll Is High – $4 Trillion In 10 Years – No 'Grand Bargain,' and a Drag on Jobs and Economic Growth."

The Times' front page of February 27, 2013 featured another lament for the supposed new "austerity" encompassing the nation, from economics reporter (and enthusiastic Keynesian) Binyamin Appelbaum, "As Budget Cuts Loom, Austerity Has Killed Off Government Jobs." An accompanying graphic with text insisted "Austerity Is Already Here."

A February 23, 2013 story by Michael Cooper during the sequestration battle warned: "Fear of U.S. Cuts Grows In States Where Aid Flows – Recovery Seen At Risk – Wide Impact Looms on Jobs, Tax Revenue, and Schools." The next day the paper followed up: “Cuts of even larger size are scheduled to take effect every year over the next 10, signaling an era of government austerity.”

During the 2012 presidential campaign, the paper greeted Texas Gov. Rick Perry’s flat-tax plan with predictable hostility. Richard Oppel Jr. saw it “requiring drastically austere federal budgets,” of the sort the country hadn’t seen since...President Bill Clinton, actually, as he indirectly explained:

The plan also proposes reducing the scope of the federal government by requiring drastically austere federal budgets -- compared with what exists now -- that spend no more than 18 percent of the nation’s gross domestic product...it would mark the lowest level of spending relative to G.D.P. since the mid-1960s, though rising tax receipts during the roaring economy of a dozen years ago temporarily brought the level close to 18 percent.

In other words, Perry’s plan proposed a return to the “drastically austere federal budgets” of the Clinton administration: In 1999, federal spending amounted to 18.5% of gross domestic product, compared to around 24% in 2012.