CNR board member gets critical

Members of the Board of Advisors of the Center for New Revenue do not necessarily agree with the Center’s actions.  Here’s an example.

I signed a letter urging Congress not to cut taxes for the most fortunate again.  Paul Gallis (Ph.D. History, Brown), a long-time Board Member, wrote:

“Was it written by committee?  Ask for a pass at re-writing if you’re displeased with what’s been produced.  In its present state, it wouldn’t be attractive to an editorial page, so whoever put work into the piece is unlikely to see any results.  You can be sufficiently diplomatic in asking for a last look at it.  Otherwise, there’s no use putting any effort at all into a piece that makes points that are worth a wider readership, but is laboriously written.”

I responded: “Ask to rewrite?  You seem to think the Center for New Revenue has clout. This came from a national umbrella committee that no doubt had to listen to a lot of insistent voices.  They wouldn’t take a rewrite from Ernest Hemingway.”

Dr. Gallis wrote back:

“Then they are sad and pathetic.  But I don’t like Hemingway’s writing anyway.

“It would seem worthwhile making the point to Mr. National Umbrella that what he/she/it writes could be improved with some editing if Mr. NU wants the piece published.  My guess is it won’t be seen in any publication with wide distributorship due to its clunky, wordy prose, which is too bad because some good points are made.”

It’s not just style.

The letter says, “Its $1.9 trillion cost, according to the Congressional Budget Office (CBO), will vastly enlarge the federal debt and be used as an excuse for conservatives to enact deep cuts to Social Security.”

Well, no. The CBO doesn’t say “deep cuts,” I’m pretty sure. But the sentence reads only that way. This would be better: “Its $1.9 trillion cost will be used as an excuse by conservatives to enact deep cuts to Social Security, and, according to the Congressional Budget Office (CBO), will vastly enlarge the federal debt.

“Its $1.9 trillion cost, according to the Congressional Budget Office (CBO), will vastly enlarge the federal debt. That puts Social Security on the chopping block, just where ideological conservatives want it.”

Dr. Gallis did not fully understand, I suppose, that other groups and people have signed this letter.  I think it’s too late to go back to them all with a rewrite.

Comments welcomed.

Advertisements

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

w

Connecting to %s