Harvard history professor Niall Ferguson took a shot at President Obama the other day in Newsweek, and in short order Ferguson was taking incoming fire from his own critics, including Paul Krugman, The Atlantic, and Politico, among others. I’m not an expert in either fiscal or foreign policy, so I’ll not comment there. I will say that if Krugman and The Atlantic missed the mark as badly as Politico’s Dylan Byers did, Ferguson’s wounds should heal quickly.
David Frum has come to Ferguson’s defense on the foreign policy front. This is my defense on the English grammar front.
Here is the relevant part of what Byers wrote at Politico:
So, in order to get himself out of that predicament, Ferguson decides to edit the CBO report to satisfy his own conclusions:
If you are wondering how on earth the CBO was able to conclude that the net effect of the ACA as a whole was to reduce the projected 10-year deficit, the answer has to do with a rather heroic assumption about the way the ACA may reduce the cost of Medicare. Here’s the CBO again:
“CBO’s cost estimate for the legislation noted that it will put into effect a number of policies that might be difficult to sustain over a long period of time. The combination of those policies, prior law regarding payment rates for physicians’ services in Medicare, and other information has led CBO to project that the growth rate of Medicare spending (per beneficiary, adjusted for overall inflation) will drop from about 4 percent per year, which it has averaged for the past two decades, to about 2 percent per year on average for the next two decades. It is unclear whether such a reduction can be achieved …”
Indeed, it is, which is why I wrote what I wrote.
But Ferguson cut the CBO excerpt off mid-sentence and changed the meaning entirely. Here is how that last sentence in the excerpt actually reads:
It is unclear whether such a reduction can be achieved through greater efficiencies in the delivery of healthcare or will instead reduce access to care or the quality of care (relative to the situation under prior law.)
So contrary to what Ferguson leads readers to believe, the CBO report does not state that the reduction is “unclear.” What is “unclear” is whether the reduction will come through greater efficiencies in healthcare delivery or reduced access to care.
So, one more time: The Oxford-trained, Harvard-employed, Newsweek contibutor Niall Ferguson just edited the CBO report to change its meaning.
With all due lack of respect: What are you thinking?
Better question: What was Mr. Byers thinking? I responded to him with the following:
Dylan,
With all due respect, Ferguson’s so-called “selective” edit did not change the meaning of the CBO’s sentence. You did, however.
You wrote, “So contrary to what Ferguson leads the reader to believe, the CBO report does not state that the reduction is ‘unclear.’ What is ‘unclear’ is whether the reduction will come through greater efficiencies in healthcare delivery or reduced access to care.”
Both sentences in that statement are incorrect: 1.) Ferguson’s edited version of the CBO report said “It is unclear whether such a reduction can be achieved” not that the reduction is “unclear.” 2.) Even in its unedited form, the CBO report did not say that it was unclear whether the reduction would come from greater efficiencies OR reduced access to healthcare. No, the CBO said that it was unclear whether the reduction would be ACHIEVED through greater efficiencies. If those efficiencies did not materialize, access to healthcare would be reduced.
Look at it this way: The structure of the CBO sentence in question is not parallel. The verb “achieved” applies only to the first clause and NOT to the second. To see what I mean, let’s remove the first clause:
“It is unclear whether such a reduction can be achieved . . . will instead reduce access to care or the quality of care (relative to the situation under prior law).” Pretty silly sentence if you ask me.
The second clause only makes sense if you excise the verb “can be achieved” as follows: “It is unclear whether such a reduction . . . will instead reduce access to care or the quality of care (relative to the situation under prior law).” In other words, the reduced access to healthcare will be the result of the reduction in Medicare spending rather than the reduction in Medicare spending being the result of reduced access to healthcare.
Thus Ferguson’s edit was not selective at all. According to the CBO, IT IS unclear whether such a reduction can be achieved. The words “through greater efficiencies in the delivery of healthcare” only speak to how that reduction might come.
Me thinks you owe Mr. Ferguson an apology–or at least a correction.
I’ll let you know how Mr. Bryers responds.
UPDATE: Mr. Bryers responded via e-mail, writing:
Hi Gregory,
You’re wrong.
The full sentence: “It is unclear whether such a reduction can be achieved through greater efficiencies in the delivery of healthcare or will instead reduce access to care or the quality of care (relative to the situation under prior law.)”
Break it down: It’s unclear whether A can be achieved through B or will instead reduce C.
As in, “It is unclear whether weight-loss can be achieved through exercise alone or will instead reduce food-intake.” It would be ridiculous to make that mean, “It is unclear whether weight-loss can be achieved.”
Thanks,
D.
I responded in kind, well, the short kind: “Sorry, but you’re still wrong.”
To which he responded:
Gregory,
You agree that there is a reduction?
D.
And dutifully, I replied:
Dylan,
I agree that the CBO projects that the growth rate of Medicare spending will drop (or reduce) from 4% to 2% per year.
Do you agree with the following? And if not, why not?
The second clause only makes sense if you excise the verb “can be achieved” as follows: “It is unclear whether such a reduction . . . will instead reduce access to care or the quality of care (relative to the situation under prior law).” In other words, the reduced access to healthcare will be the result of the reduction in Medicare spending, rather than the reduction in Medicare spending being the result of reduced access to healthcare.
Reduced Medicare spending is, after all, the subject of the verb “reduce” in the CBO sentence I quote above.
Thanks,
Greg
And that’s how things stand at 4:16 PM Mountain Time.
UPDATE (Wed. 8.22 10:22 AM):
Yesterday, Dylan asked:
You agree that there is a reduction?
I responded:
I agree that the CBO projects that the growth rate of Medicare spending will drop (or reduce) from 4% to 2% per year.
Do you agree with the following? And if not, why not?
The second clause only makes sense if you excise the verb “can be achieved” as follows: “It is unclear whether such a reduction . . . will instead reduce access to care or the quality of care (relative to the situation under prior law).” In other words, the reduced access to healthcare will be the result of the reduction in Medicare spending, rather than the reduction in Medicare spending being the result of reduced access to healthcare.
Reduced Medicare spending is, after all, the subject of the verb “reduce” in the CBO sentence I quote above.
A bit later, I read a new post by Byers, one that compared a 2009 CBO statement with the 2011 statement at issue. I quickly wrote Byers:
I just read your “ducks, nitpicks” post in which you virtually concede my argument: The CBO is (was?) unclear whether the reduction can be achieved–yes, the CBO said it more clearly in its 2009 letter, but the bolded quote in the 2011 testimony says essentially the same thing, as I’ve pointed out in my previous e-mail. Seems to me that the bone you want to pick is with the CBO because, I repeat, Ferguson’s quote was fair, ellipsis and all. The CBO–in both quotes–was unsure whether the reduction would be achieved through efficiencies. The possible reduction in care or access to care would be **because** of the reduction in spending.
Spin it as you will, that’s that the CBO says in both bolded quotes in your “ducks, nitpicks” post.
He responded:
Ferguson is suggesting the CBO says there might NOT be a reduction.
And followed up with:
In other words, if you are correct, why did the 2009 CBO say “if so” and “whether”
To which I responded:
Dylan,
You accused Mr. Ferguson of editing the CBO report in “a ridiculous, misleading, ethically questionable way that completely misses the mark” of “chang[ing] the meaning entirely.” And yet, here we are in a two-day e-mail exchange, debating the meaning of the very sentence in question. Ironic, no? I’ll repeat my understanding of the sentence in question one more time.
The short story: In both CBO statements, the first clause is about the HOW of the reduction. The second clause is about the possible EFFECT of any reduction. The CBO statements do not present a case of either/or.
Let’s look at CBO 2011 again–grammatically:
It is unclear whether such a reduction [the object of this sentence] can be achieved through greater efficiencies in the delivery of healthcare.
OR
It is unclear whether such a reduction [the subject or actor in this sentence] will instead reduce access to care or the quality of care (relative to the situation under prior law.)
As I read those two sentences, I see two different concerns on the CBO’s mind: 1.) a question of whether greater efficiencies will lead to a reduction of Medicare spending, and 2.) a concern about the effect of a reduction in Medicare spending–however that reduction comes about. The first is a question of HOW. The second is a concern about EFFECT.
That reading is buttressed by the CBO’s 2009 letter
“It is unclear whether such a reduction in the growth rate could be achieved, and if so [that is, IF it is achieved], whether
1.) it [the reduction–the object of this clause] would be accomplished through greater efficiencies in the delivery of health care
OR [however it’s achieved]
2.) [the reduction–the subject of this clause] would reduce access to care or diminish the quality of care.”
To repeat: In both CBO statements, the first clause is about the HOW of the reduction. The second clause is about the possible EFFECT of any reduction. The are separate issues or concerns.
As you said yourself in your “Nitpicks” post, had Ferguson quoted the 2009 letter, he would have been on firm ground. My analysis says that he was also well within the bounds of a fair reading of the 2011 statement to claim that the CBO was unclear that a “reduction in the growth rate could be achieved.”
Again, if you’ve got a bone to pick, go pick it with the CBO person who wrote those statements. They could have been written more clearly. So yes, I can see where you’re coming from, but it’s a stretch–and frankly unfair–to claim that your reading is the only correct reading and therefore Ferguson “misses the mark,” is “unethical,” and that he “changed the meaning entirely” of the CBO’s statement.
I don’t know Ferguson. Though I lean right, this is not a partisan issue for me. I simply feel that your post was unfair and responded accordingly.
Respectfully,
Greg Taggart
(All emphasis and most of the formatting in the last e-mail above is mine, something I point out to the general reader, but that I did not say in my original e-mail to Byers since he was familiar with the actual statements.)
Update:
Ferguson defends himself.
Comments (0) 
Themocracy