Don’t mistake careful critique of data for a partisan low blow

In his Aug. 11 article about think tanks (“Thinking big, but on whose dime? And to what end?” Page A1) Bryan Bender unfairly characterized me as engaging in attacks that were “partisan” and less than “high-minded” during a debate over immigration reform. He used as evidence my description of a Heritage Foundation report as “astonishing” and “riddled with methodological errors, and . . . when you correct these methodological errors you reverse [the] result.”

Bender failed to mention that I was critiquing Heritage’s widely discredited claim that proposed bipartisan immigration reform would increase the federal deficit by $6.3 trillion over 50 years. My research, by contrast, implied that it would reduce the deficit by $200 billion the first decade and more in succeeding decades.


He also failed to inform readers that the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office subsequently calculated that immigration reform would reduce the deficit by $197 billion the first decade and $700 billion more the second decade, consistent with my findings. Conducting rigorous, careful research and pointing out errors of analysis by others, as I did, is neither low-minded nor partisan.

Robert G. Lynch

Silver Spring, Md.

The writer is a professor of economics at Washington College.

Loading comments...
Real journalists. Real journalism. Subscribe to The Boston Globe today.
We hope you've enjoyed your free articles.
Continue reading by subscribing to Globe.com for just 99¢.
 Already a member? Log in Home
Subscriber Log In

We hope you've enjoyed your 5 free articles'

Stay informed with unlimited access to Boston’s trusted news source.

  • High-quality journalism from the region’s largest newsroom
  • Convenient access across all of your devices
  • Today’s Headlines daily newsletter
  • Subscriber-only access to exclusive offers, events, contests, eBooks, and more
  • Less than 25¢ a week
Marketing image of BostonGlobe.com
Marketing image of BostonGlobe.com