That’s what readers of Marc Thiessen’s column on the sequester would conclude. Theissen repeatedly touts the report of the Bowles-Simpson commission. Of course there was no report issued by the commission because no report received the necessary majority. The Post’s fact checkers would have quickly caught Thiessen’s error and insist that he correct it, but such is the price of labor discord.
Thiessen’s piece is also striking for the lack of concern for the people will lose their jobs as a result of slower growth that is resulting from his preferred policy. Presumably he does not imagine himself or his friends to be among the people who will lose jobs because of the policies he advocates.
That’s what readers of Marc Thiessen’s column on the sequester would conclude. Theissen repeatedly touts the report of the Bowles-Simpson commission. Of course there was no report issued by the commission because no report received the necessary majority. The Post’s fact checkers would have quickly caught Thiessen’s error and insist that he correct it, but such is the price of labor discord.
Thiessen’s piece is also striking for the lack of concern for the people will lose their jobs as a result of slower growth that is resulting from his preferred policy. Presumably he does not imagine himself or his friends to be among the people who will lose jobs because of the policies he advocates.
Read More Leer más Join the discussion Participa en la discusión
The Washington Post began an article on a meeting of the euro zone finance ministers by telling readers:
“European leaders demanded that euro members press on with budget cuts to end the debt crisis.”
At this point there is overwhelming evidence that the primary effect of the austerity being demanded by the finance ministers is to slow growth and increase unemployment. As a result of the negative impact on output, the budget cuts lead to little improvement in the financial situation of the affected countries.
Since the evidence shows that the ministers’ austerity agenda is not an effective way to deal with the debt crisis it is wrong of the Post to tell readers that this is the motive of the finance ministers. This assertion assumes that the finance ministers have no clue about the actual effect of the policies they advocate. While this may in fact be true, the Post certainly cannot claim to know that the euro zone’s finance ministers are completely clueless about economics.
It would have been more accurate to simply report what the ministers claim, for example writing:
“European leaders demanded that euro members press on with budget cuts ‘to end the debt crisis.'”
This would made have made it clear to readers that the rationale claimed by the finance ministers bears no obvious relation to reality.
The Washington Post began an article on a meeting of the euro zone finance ministers by telling readers:
“European leaders demanded that euro members press on with budget cuts to end the debt crisis.”
At this point there is overwhelming evidence that the primary effect of the austerity being demanded by the finance ministers is to slow growth and increase unemployment. As a result of the negative impact on output, the budget cuts lead to little improvement in the financial situation of the affected countries.
Since the evidence shows that the ministers’ austerity agenda is not an effective way to deal with the debt crisis it is wrong of the Post to tell readers that this is the motive of the finance ministers. This assertion assumes that the finance ministers have no clue about the actual effect of the policies they advocate. While this may in fact be true, the Post certainly cannot claim to know that the euro zone’s finance ministers are completely clueless about economics.
It would have been more accurate to simply report what the ministers claim, for example writing:
“European leaders demanded that euro members press on with budget cuts ‘to end the debt crisis.'”
This would made have made it clear to readers that the rationale claimed by the finance ministers bears no obvious relation to reality.
Read More Leer más Join the discussion Participa en la discusión
The NYT yet again referred to a report of the Bowles-Simpson Commission. There is no report from the Bowles-Simpson Commission because no report received the support of the necessary majority.
All of the sources for this article indicate that they want to see cuts in Social Security and Medicare. This is a position that is opposed by the vast majority of people regardless of their political party or ideology. It would be useful if the NYT did not exclusively present the views of the minority who want to see cuts in these programs in its budget articles.
The NYT yet again referred to a report of the Bowles-Simpson Commission. There is no report from the Bowles-Simpson Commission because no report received the support of the necessary majority.
All of the sources for this article indicate that they want to see cuts in Social Security and Medicare. This is a position that is opposed by the vast majority of people regardless of their political party or ideology. It would be useful if the NYT did not exclusively present the views of the minority who want to see cuts in these programs in its budget articles.
Read More Leer más Join the discussion Participa en la discusión
Read More Leer más Join the discussion Participa en la discusión
It would have been helpful if the NYT had pointed out this fact in an article that included assertions from House Speaker John Boehner that spending is out of control.
“The president got his tax hikes on January the First. The issue here is spending. Spending is out of control.”
In fact, spending as a share of potential GDP is near a 30-year low and is lower than at any point in the Reagan-Bush I administrations. The chart shows federal spending as a share of GDP and as a share of the GDP projected by the Congressional Budget Office in 2008 before it recognized the impact of the collapse of the housing bubble.
Source: Congressional Budget Office.
It would have been helpful to remind readers of the actual path of government spending since many may not have not realized that Boehner was not being truthful.
It would have been helpful if the NYT had pointed out this fact in an article that included assertions from House Speaker John Boehner that spending is out of control.
“The president got his tax hikes on January the First. The issue here is spending. Spending is out of control.”
In fact, spending as a share of potential GDP is near a 30-year low and is lower than at any point in the Reagan-Bush I administrations. The chart shows federal spending as a share of GDP and as a share of the GDP projected by the Congressional Budget Office in 2008 before it recognized the impact of the collapse of the housing bubble.
Source: Congressional Budget Office.
It would have been helpful to remind readers of the actual path of government spending since many may not have not realized that Boehner was not being truthful.
Read More Leer más Join the discussion Participa en la discusión
Read More Leer más Join the discussion Participa en la discusión
It seems pretty obvious to most of us that politicians get elected by appealing to powerful interest groups. They spend enormous amounts of time calling up rich people to ask for campaign donations and speaking to individuals who can help to deliver large numbers of votes. This is hardly a secret.
Yet, the New York Times again tries to tell us that these people are really philosophers, telling readers in a headline:
“Deep philosophical divide underlies the impasse”
in reference to the budget sequester.
The piece explains to readers:
“a step back illuminates roots deeper than the prevailing notion that Washington politicians are simply fools acting for electoral advantage or partisan spite. Republicans don’t seek to grind government to a halt. But they do aim to shrink its size by an amount currently beyond their institutional power in Washington, or popular support in the country, to achieve.
“Democrats don’t seek to cripple the nation with debt. But they do aim to preserve existing government programs without the ability, so far, to set levels of taxation commensurate with their cost.
“At bottom, it is the oldest philosophic battle of the American party system — pitting Democrats’ desire to use government to cushion market outcomes and equalize opportunity against Republicans’ desire to limit government and maximize individual liberty.”
Really, this is a battle of philosophy?
Let’s try an alternative explanation. Let’s assume that Republicans answer to rich people who don’t want to pay a dime more in taxes and would actually prefer to pay many dimes less. Let’s imagine that these people are not stupid and that they understand completely what conservative economists like Greg Mankiw, Martin Feldstein and Alan Greenspan have been telling them for years, tax expenditures are a form of spending. In other words, if we give someone a housing subsidy of $5,000 a year by cutting their taxes by this amount if they buy a home, it is the same thing as if the government sends them a check that says “housing subsidy.”
If we take the philosophy view of this debate then Republicans would be all for eliminating the tax expenditures that mostly go to line the pockets of rich people. On the other hand, if we think this is a debate about whose pockets get lined then Republicans who are opposed to spending would be opposed to eliminating tax expenditures for rich people.
Neither we nor the NYT know which explanation is true. But the NYT explanation requires that the politicians who oppose cuts in tax expenditures and/or their backers are stupid. They may be, or the NYT may just be wrong and badly misinforming its readers.
Thanks to Keane Bhatt for calling this one to my attention.
It seems pretty obvious to most of us that politicians get elected by appealing to powerful interest groups. They spend enormous amounts of time calling up rich people to ask for campaign donations and speaking to individuals who can help to deliver large numbers of votes. This is hardly a secret.
Yet, the New York Times again tries to tell us that these people are really philosophers, telling readers in a headline:
“Deep philosophical divide underlies the impasse”
in reference to the budget sequester.
The piece explains to readers:
“a step back illuminates roots deeper than the prevailing notion that Washington politicians are simply fools acting for electoral advantage or partisan spite. Republicans don’t seek to grind government to a halt. But they do aim to shrink its size by an amount currently beyond their institutional power in Washington, or popular support in the country, to achieve.
“Democrats don’t seek to cripple the nation with debt. But they do aim to preserve existing government programs without the ability, so far, to set levels of taxation commensurate with their cost.
“At bottom, it is the oldest philosophic battle of the American party system — pitting Democrats’ desire to use government to cushion market outcomes and equalize opportunity against Republicans’ desire to limit government and maximize individual liberty.”
Really, this is a battle of philosophy?
Let’s try an alternative explanation. Let’s assume that Republicans answer to rich people who don’t want to pay a dime more in taxes and would actually prefer to pay many dimes less. Let’s imagine that these people are not stupid and that they understand completely what conservative economists like Greg Mankiw, Martin Feldstein and Alan Greenspan have been telling them for years, tax expenditures are a form of spending. In other words, if we give someone a housing subsidy of $5,000 a year by cutting their taxes by this amount if they buy a home, it is the same thing as if the government sends them a check that says “housing subsidy.”
If we take the philosophy view of this debate then Republicans would be all for eliminating the tax expenditures that mostly go to line the pockets of rich people. On the other hand, if we think this is a debate about whose pockets get lined then Republicans who are opposed to spending would be opposed to eliminating tax expenditures for rich people.
Neither we nor the NYT know which explanation is true. But the NYT explanation requires that the politicians who oppose cuts in tax expenditures and/or their backers are stupid. They may be, or the NYT may just be wrong and badly misinforming its readers.
Thanks to Keane Bhatt for calling this one to my attention.
Read More Leer más Join the discussion Participa en la discusión
Read More Leer más Join the discussion Participa en la discusión
A fortune teller who is constantly adjusting his predictions for the future when they are repeatedly falsified by events is likely to lose credibility after a while. Unfortunately the same does not hold true among economists. That is why a Washington Post article on the prospects for future growth treats the varying perspectives among economists as carrying equal weight.
Some of the economists have had their predictions for the economy repeatedly falsified by events, starting with the initial crash which they never thought possible. Some in this camp now insist that we are on a permanently slower growth path. This prediction is a sequel to their earlier prediction that the economy would bounce back quickly even without any special boost from fiscal or monetary policy. There were also many orthodox mainstream economists who, like those at the Congressional Budget Office, also expected the economy to bounce back quickly whether or not there was a boost from government stimulus.
On the other hand, at least some of us Keynesian types saw the housing bubble and yelled at the top of our lungs that it would collapse and bring about a severe recession. We also warned that demand would not bounce back quickly since there was nothing to replace the construction and consumption demand generated by the bubble. And we pointed out that we would not be likely to see deflation since wages are sticky downward.
In all of these predications were we shown right, but in Washington policy debates being shown right counts for little as the Washington Post tells us today.
Thanks to Robert Salzberg for corrected typos.
A fortune teller who is constantly adjusting his predictions for the future when they are repeatedly falsified by events is likely to lose credibility after a while. Unfortunately the same does not hold true among economists. That is why a Washington Post article on the prospects for future growth treats the varying perspectives among economists as carrying equal weight.
Some of the economists have had their predictions for the economy repeatedly falsified by events, starting with the initial crash which they never thought possible. Some in this camp now insist that we are on a permanently slower growth path. This prediction is a sequel to their earlier prediction that the economy would bounce back quickly even without any special boost from fiscal or monetary policy. There were also many orthodox mainstream economists who, like those at the Congressional Budget Office, also expected the economy to bounce back quickly whether or not there was a boost from government stimulus.
On the other hand, at least some of us Keynesian types saw the housing bubble and yelled at the top of our lungs that it would collapse and bring about a severe recession. We also warned that demand would not bounce back quickly since there was nothing to replace the construction and consumption demand generated by the bubble. And we pointed out that we would not be likely to see deflation since wages are sticky downward.
In all of these predications were we shown right, but in Washington policy debates being shown right counts for little as the Washington Post tells us today.
Thanks to Robert Salzberg for corrected typos.
Read More Leer más Join the discussion Participa en la discusión
Michael Gerson is upset that Democrats didn’t want to have a debt clock shown at a hearing of the Senate Finance Committee. He huffs:
“numbers, it turns out, have an offensive ideological bias.”
I’m sympathetic. Right alongside the debt clock we could have the lost output clock. If we use the Congressional Budget Office’s (CBO) measure of potential GDP, this would be rising at the rate of about $3 billion a day or $1 trillion a year. If we used CBO’s 2008 economic projections as the basis for measuring lost output, then the clock would be rising at a rate of more than $5 billion a day, more than $1.6 trillion a year. This of course is a huge understatement since it doesn’t pick up costs like alcoholism, suicides, and family break-ups that are indirect outcomes of unemployment.
Presumably Gerson supports having this lost output clock, right? After all, numbers can’t have an ideological bias.
Gerson’s real complaint is that we haven’t solved problems that may occur in the decade of the 2020s, if it turns out that health care costs are still out of control. If health care costs are under control (as recent data suggest may be the case), then these problems will not exist. Of course the answer to out of control health care costs is to fix the health care system, not run around yelling about budget deficits.
Maybe we can give Gerson a clock measuring the number of ants that have crossed national boundaries anywhere in the world. It wouldn’t really have much to do with anything, but then neither does his beloved debt clock.
Michael Gerson is upset that Democrats didn’t want to have a debt clock shown at a hearing of the Senate Finance Committee. He huffs:
“numbers, it turns out, have an offensive ideological bias.”
I’m sympathetic. Right alongside the debt clock we could have the lost output clock. If we use the Congressional Budget Office’s (CBO) measure of potential GDP, this would be rising at the rate of about $3 billion a day or $1 trillion a year. If we used CBO’s 2008 economic projections as the basis for measuring lost output, then the clock would be rising at a rate of more than $5 billion a day, more than $1.6 trillion a year. This of course is a huge understatement since it doesn’t pick up costs like alcoholism, suicides, and family break-ups that are indirect outcomes of unemployment.
Presumably Gerson supports having this lost output clock, right? After all, numbers can’t have an ideological bias.
Gerson’s real complaint is that we haven’t solved problems that may occur in the decade of the 2020s, if it turns out that health care costs are still out of control. If health care costs are under control (as recent data suggest may be the case), then these problems will not exist. Of course the answer to out of control health care costs is to fix the health care system, not run around yelling about budget deficits.
Maybe we can give Gerson a clock measuring the number of ants that have crossed national boundaries anywhere in the world. It wouldn’t really have much to do with anything, but then neither does his beloved debt clock.
Read More Leer más Join the discussion Participa en la discusión
