Fox Nation Hypocrisy Over IRS Tax Code

This last summer, when Fox Nation pitched a bitch about Media Matters supposedly violating IRS tax law, I wondered if they had expressed similar outrage when churches (who are also 501(c)(3) Tax Exempt) had explicitly endorsed political candidates, in clear violation of IRS tax law. Turns out, when "Project Fair Play" 2010 came around, Fox Nation showed support:

Nearly 100 pastors across the country took part in Pulpit Freedom Sunday today, an in-your-face challenge to what the government says can and cannot be said in church. The pastors, along with the Scottsdale, Ariz.-based nonprofit Alliance Defense Fund, planned today's event as a reaction to a law stating that churches are not allowed to support politicians from the pulpit, according to the ADF. The growing trend is a challenge to the IRS from the churches, and may jeopardize their all-important tax-exempt status. But some pastors and church leaders said they are willing to defy the law to defend their right to freedom of speech. Pastor Dan Fisher from Trinity Baptist Church in Yukon, Okla., who took part in today's challenge, said should be allowed to discuss politics with their congregation. Separation of church and state is not in the Constitution, but the government uses tax exemption as a means to enforce that notion, he added. "The crowd applauded, and said it was wonderful," Fisher said of his sermon this morning. "I can't say that everyone was happy, but no one came up to me to complain." Federal tax law, established in 1954, prohibits churches and tax exempt entities from endorsing or opposing political candidates. (emphasis mine)

Never mind the misleading rhetoric about "Separation of church and state" not being in the Constitution (a fallacy). Given how much rage was seen from Fox Nation over Media Matters (despite the incredible shakiness of their claim), one would expect similar outrage to what amounts to a clear violation of tax law. But this is Fox News we are talking about. So why would anyone be surprised at the hypocrisy. Let's see what happens this year...

Update 9-29-11: The details of what a church could actually lose are detailed in the "IRS tax Guide for Churches and Religious Organizations:"

"When it participates in political campaign activity, a church or religious organization jeopardizes both its tax-exempt status under IRC section 501(c)(3) and its eligibility to receive tax-deductible contributions. In addition, it may become subject to an excise tax on its political expenditures."

Nobel Laureate Economist Peter Diamond On The Need For Both Fiscal AND Monetary Stimulus

Peter Diamond discusses a few things :

• Economic projections deal with significant uncertainty. The job of policy makers is to compare projections over a wide variety of possibilities and design policy on best projections of the time.
• Monetary Policy doesn't work instantly ("the long invariable lag").
• The labor market has to be factored into BOTH of the Fed's mandates.
• The fed cannot control the labor market. It can only influence into the direction that seems best at a given time
• There is no broader crisis, or long term trend, for why the employment population is so low today. It is the result of the economic crisis.
• This recent economic crisis cannot be represented by just one individual model.
• This recent economic crisis combined both a banking and housing market failure to create something significantly different from a standard cyclical recession. The Economy will not bounce back quickly.
• We need to focus on projects such as infrastructure spending because we have an abundance of capital, interest rates are low, and we do get a Keynesian multiplier out of it.
• The government needs to find out what it needs to be spending more on and figure out to what extent that will help us out of this economic crisis.
• The slow level at which infrastructure spending will be implemented is not a problem since all forecasts say it will take a long time to get out of this economic crises anyway.
• Obama's first priority should be fiscal stimulus for jobs
• There should be less focus on stimulus size (relative to time frame) and more focus on what Washington does with the stimulus
• We need better education, worker training, and Research & Defense Spending. The government has been cutting back on R&D spending. Yet technology drives increased wealth in the country.
• Most, but not all, of our low employment is attributable to low aggregate demand, resulting in the need for both fiscal and monetary stimulus.
• Our goal right now should be to make the economy less vulnerable to a double dip recession
• Austerity is a long run problem, not a short term one. The level of public debt is comfortably below the level it has been historically for the bond market to push up interest rates
• Policies need to have a long run effect of reducing debt growth
• Austerity TODAY will make the economy MORE vulnerable to a double dip recession, which would significantly reduce tax revenue, thereby exacerbating the problem of austerity anyway
• Cutting back the number of teachers in public schools at a time when we need to improve education is not going in the right direction

He Also discusses his nomination to the Federal Reserve's board of governors, as well as his Nobel Prize in Economics.
Video from Greg Mankiw's Blog.

Income Inequality Shows Up In Taxes (that fun 70% figure)

Ive been meaning to post on this for quite some time, but never got around to it. However, it looks like Chris Hayes seems to have already done essentially what I was going to do:



As Chris Hays points out, the fact that the richest 10% pay over 70% of income taxes doesn't necessarily suggest the rich are over-taxed. He mentions other taxes that are not factored into the analysis (but misses the Corporate Tax). However, he mentions that another cause of this income tax phenomenon could also be income inequality. His simple model makes this point rather well. I will use another more dramatic model later in this post. However, it seems that Chris also had another argument to make: The US is "Inequalistan."

Now for my model. Let's take a fictitious 2 person country where one poor person makes $10 a day while the other rich person makes $950 a day. Let us also say there is a regressive-style tax rate where the rich person pays only 10% of their income in taxes while the poor person pays 50%.

The poor person would contribute $5 to daily income tax revenue.

The rich person would contribute $95 to daily income tax revenue.

Since total daily income taxes would equal $100, that means the rich person would contribute 95% of income tax revenue, despite the fact that they are taxed at a much lower rate than the poor person! Do you think the rich person could make the case he is over-taxed by saying he is responsible for 95% of the tax revenue?

Unlike Hayes, I was not trying to make the last point that my fictitious country is actually any real country. My point was to show that the rich paying the lion's share of income taxes does not necessarily mean the rich are over-taxed. I did this with a simple counter example, extreme enough to make the point painfully obvious. Now we may never see any example this extreme in real life. However, this example does point out that one should not come to abrupt conclusions about statistics where the outcome is affected by more than one variable.

Is the left really as anti-science as the right?

It is no secret that conservative mainstream political discourse includes quite a bit of anti-science rhetoric. However, is that also true on the left? Although there are plenty of liberal cases of anti-science, I have a few questions about any one of them:

1. Do a significant number of liberals support it?
2. Is it endorsed by liberal politicians?
3. Is it even part of popular political discourse on the left?

As Chris Mooney points out, the answer to all three of these questions seems to be no. A few things to note about this article. Chris Mooney points out a few examples of anti-science on the left that could potentially be candidates for "Yes" answers to these questions:

2) Nuclear power–this is a pretty good one, because for a long time the left really was anti-nuclear. However, I don’t think that is the case today, and in fact, President Obama’s administration is pretty much pro-nuclear. And again, the author makes no case that nuke opponents are factually wrong about, say, the risk of low-dose radiation. (Although some of them are.)

Conservatives are no strangers to anti-science about nuclear power. However their false statements generally come from the other extreme.

3) Vaccines–polling data suggests that distrust of vaccines is rather bipartisan, but I actually agree with the author in suspecting those data aren’t that good and that this is more of a left wing thing. But of course, liberal journalists like myself, and liberal commentators, have pretty much chased vaccine denial out of the realm of polite discourse. We’ve held our own accountable and really, you cannot defend this view any more without being pilloried.

I'm surprised Chris Mooney didn't point to his recent work on Bachmann's false allegations against the Gardasil vaccine. Make no mistake. Anti-vaxers are alive and well in the mainstream right.

GOP Sacrificing Economy To Oust Obama

David Frum recently took note of a recent letter from the GOP to the Fed:

"We have serious concerns that further intervention by the Federal Reserve could exacerbate current problems or further harm the U.S. economy. Such steps may erode the already weakened U.S. dollar or promote more borrowing by overleveraged consumers."

As Frum points out:

"We are living through the most rapid deleveraging of the American consumer since the 1930s... The markets see deflation and depression, not inflation. Yet ironically this non-existent and much dreaded inflation is exactly the remedy we need to lighten the load of consumer debt."

He later asks:

"As is, we’re looking at a continued economic slump, more unemployment, and more deleveraging via continuing catastrophic consumer default on mortgages, car loans, credit cards, and student aid. And now the GOP leadership is urging that the Federal Reserve make the catastrophe worse? To what end?"

Could it be that Republicans are against such measures? In another article, Frum points out Republicans had exactly the opposite conclusion during early 90s:

"if conservative journalists could write so feelingly about the need to inject credit during the downturn of 1990-1991, how is that they have arrived at exactly the opposite policy conclusions during the much more severe downturn and deleveraging of 2009-2011? The need for monetary ease seems even greater this time than last – and yet the policy recommendation has been utterly reversed. What’s changed?"

As Joe Nocera of the New York Times explains:

"if the great conservative economist [Milton Friedman] were alive today, he would be leading the charge for quantitative easing."(emphasis mine)

There a a few possibilities for the answer to this question. One of the the most probable seems to be that Republicans have undergone a massive chance in ideology. However, when one of the most prominent leaders in the GOP say their number one priority is to make Obama a one-term president, it is hard to conclude this is not a major factor behind any otherwise crazy-sounding position. Nothing can sink an incumbent worse than a recession.

On Ending/Lowering Corporate Taxes

Lately there has been a bit of a stir over Rep. Louie Gohmert's proposal to eliminate corporate taxes as a single solution to fixing the economy:

Republican Congressman Louie Gohmert of Texas introduced legislation to the House of Representatives on Wednesday that would drop the corporate tax rate to all the way down to zero.

It should be noted that lowering or removing the corporate tax is actually a bi-partisan idea. Moreover, as Harvard Economist Robert Barro pointed out:

"the inefficiency is magnified here because of double taxation: the income is taxed when corporations make profits and again when owners receive dividends or capital gains"

However, unlike Barro, I do not think Austerity will save the economy:

"Although advanced economies need medium-run fiscal consolidation, slamming on the brakes too quickly will hurt incomes and job prospects"

And unlike Gohmert, I do not think lowering the corporate tax rate is sufficient to get us out of the recession

"Corporations are already sitting on trillions in cash, so cutting their taxes would likely do very little to help the economy,"

Nonetheless, it is definitely something that should be included in any serious jobs bill as it is sure to help increase business investments once demand has increased to the point where businesses actually want to invest again:

According to a 2008 study by the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, “Corporate taxes are found to be most harmful for growth.” Tax reform that reduced the burden on capital income and shifted it toward consumption would improve prospects for long-run growth and, in so doing, encourage greater investment today.

Tea Party Debate Fact Fail

Politifact has rated a few of the comments on the CNN / Tea Party Express GOP debate from 9-12-11:

Mitt Romney led the attacks on the Republican frontrunner, Texas Gov. Rick Perry, by saying that Perry didn't support the retirement program. "In writing his book, Gov. Perry pointed out that … by any measure Social Security has been a failure," Romney said. We checked Perry's book and found Romney was right. We rated the claim True.

Romney found much of his ammunition from Fed Up!, the book Perry published last year. Romney said that Perry said in the book that Social Security "is unconstitutional." We found that while Perry never exactly used those words, he came pretty close. We rated Romney's claim Mostly True.

Perry, asked about his comment likening Social Security to a Ponzi scheme, replied, "It has been called a Ponzi scheme by many people before me."

But when we asked experts about the structure of a Ponzi scheme and the funding of Social Security, the analogy does not hold up. So we rated Perry's claim False.

... 

When the conversation turned to jobs, Perry repeated a claim of many critics that the economic stimulus has created "zero jobs." We rated that Pants on Fire. The stimulus may not have created enough jobs to offset other losses, but most economists say it did add some jobs. (We even interviewed a man who attributed his new job to the stimulus.)
...

Romney and Rep. Michele Bachmann took aim at the health care law passed last year, claiming it took $500 billion out of Medicare. Bachmann said that President Barack Obama "stole over $500 billion out of Medicare to switch it to Obamacare." She has a point that cost-savings from Medicare were used to offset the cost of the rest of the law, but she misleads when she says the money was stolen. We rated her statement Mostly False.

Notice the return of a few doozies from their success in 2010:
They are still trying to pin Obama as a man who wants to rob Medicare of its funding. Of course nobody doubts this is a winning strategy. No truth needed.
Update 9-14-11: The Washington Post Fact Cheker pointed out something else about this claim:

In fact, in the House Republican budget this year, lawmakers repealed the Obama health-care law but retained all but $10 billion of the nearly $500 billion in Medicare savings, suggesting the actual policies enacted to achieve these spending reductions were not that objectionable to GOP lawmakers. (emphasis mine)

Republicans have decided to skip any conversation about the details of the stimulus and its effects on the economy. Instead they just repeat the demonstrably false claim that it didn't create a single job. Republicans have gone beyond the point of just calling it a failure. Now they feel they must continue to lie. Only problem, these lies are gunna take the market down with them.
Update 9-14-11: In the Fact Checker article mentioned above, Glen Kessler noted "A recent review of nine different studies on the stimulus bill found that six studies concluded the stimulus had “a significant, positive effect on employment and growth,” and three said the effect was “either quite small or impossible to detect.” "(emphasis mine)

One great point of the night was that Mitt Romney seemed to be constructing Obama's campaign for him. When you attack a program loved by 75% of the population, you may just as well plan on keeping your job in Texas.


Update 9-14-11: Fackcheck also checked the debate:

• "Bachmann said an executive order signed by Perry would have "forced" young girls to take a "potentially dangerous drug." But federal government regulators declared the drug a "safe and effective vaccine" to prevent a sexually transmitted disease that could lead to cervical cancer. Also, the order allowed parents to opt-out.
• Romney falsely accused Perry of misquoting him on Social Security. Perry correctly characterized a section of Romney's book in which Romney compared the federal government's management of Social Security to a banker who steals from his client's trust fund.
• Huntsman falsely claimed that Romney's book labeled Social Security "a fraud." Romney wrote that Americans have been "defrauded" because of the way the program has been managed, but he did not call it a "fraud."
• Santorum claimed Pennsylvania voters in 1994 rewarded his "courage to tell them the truth" about Social Security. But, as Santorum himself acknowledged at the time, he nearly lost that election after his opponent unearthed a video tape of the Republican discussing the need to raise the eligibility age for Social Security.
• Cain claimed county government retirees in Galveston, Texas, make "at least 50 percent more than they would ever get out of Social Security" because the county opted out of Social Security. But that's only for initial benefits, and those retirees do not get annual cost-of-living adjustments. Also, not all retirees get such a high initial benefit. 
• Perry cherry-picked job creation numbers when he boasted of creating 1 million jobs as governor "while the current resident of the White House is overseeing the loss of 2.5 million jobs." Texas has increased jobs by 1 million during Perry's tenure, but only 95,600 have come since Obama has been president."

Update 9-14-11: The GOP is becoming the party of the anti-corporate anti-vaxers.

Weely Roundup - Eyewitness Testimony, Strong Currency Problems, Fair Taxes, and Portal-Mario (4/4/11-9/10/11)

Welcome to another edition of my Weekly Roundup, a collection of some of my favorite Facebook posts from this last week. I understand I post a lot of things Facebook and, for anyone who is interested but doesn't have the time to read them all, this will give them a chance to see what I consider to be the most important. I will also get a chance to elaborate a bit more on certain posts. I will try to do this on a weekly basis but we will see if it works out. I am busy with school so I may not get a chance to do this every week.

Eyewitness testimony is UNreliable

NPR: "Reliability Of Eyewitness Testimony Under Scrutiny":
Yet more evidence of the unreliability of eyewitness testimony. It turns out that, contrary to the opinion of the Supreme Court, witness certainty can be a very good indicator of the unreliability of an individuals eyewitness testimony.
Just how aware are you?
More on the unreliability of eyewitness testimony


Damn that economy!
What seems to be the biggest issue of the day? First Switzerland showed us that having a strong currency can actually make you quite weak. Paul Krugman complained about the changing political discussion in Washington. David Brooks challenged some uses government spending meant to "fix the economy." Finally, I took a look at a few articles dealing with the economic plans of both Obama and Romney.

NPR: "Switzerland: Too Strong For Its Own Good":
Conservatives often speak of the evils of inflation, mainly accusing inflation of destroying people's savings. However, there is another side to inflation. Harvard Economist Ken Rogoff has previously pointed out that inflation can ease the burden of household debt, a major factor in our current recession/contraction. Now Switzerland is showing the world that a strong currency can also hurt a country by reducing demand for exports. In the US this would surely exacerbate our already large trade deficit as well as reduce demand for US products overseas, which is currently around one tenth of our GDP (exports are nearly half of Swiss GDP).

Skeptoid: "Wi-Fi, Smart Meters, and Other Radio Bogeymen":
Brian Dunning takes on the claim that radio waves can be harmful. As the World Health Organization classifies them, one should take an equal amount of precaution with coffee and the earth's gravitational field (good luck on that one!)

Paul Krugman: "The Fatal Distraction":
Krugman makes the case he's been making on his blog for quite some time, only now in a concise manner in an op-ed. The focus on Austerity (in the short term) is demonstrably crippling the economy. Conservative theories about regulation and tax fears are unfounded. Consumer demand is down and savings are up. How much more evidence to they need?
Krugman points out where he thinks the stimulus was inadequate, also noting the dramatic increase in consumer savings.
Krugman also shows that there is currently a de facto policy of austerity.

David Brooks "Where The Jobs Aren't":
David Brooks challenges the perceived efficiency of the government attempting to directly create private sector jobs. I do not agree with much of what he says. However it is an interesting read.
On the success of renewable energy
On the calculations of cost per job analysis of government spending on jobs
On The effectiveness of capital gains taxes
The overall effectiveness of government spending

Eric Levine: "Obama versus Romney on Jobs":

"Recently, both Obama and Romney have basically given what may turn out to be competing economic plans in 2012 (As of the date of this post, I have yet to see a serious economic plan from Rick Perry). Obama released his plan during a speech on Thursday night (9-8-11). Mitt Romney has already released his plan on his website. This post is a collection of a few articles on those plans."

Fodder for climate skeptics
Of course I cannot go a week without posting at least a few articles on climate change. NASA explained a dip in sea level rise that will surely show up on a few climate skeptic blogs. I summarized the ongoing controversy over the Spencer paper. Finally, Skeptical Science released a booklet detailing an often uncovered effect of climate change.

NASA: "NASA Satellites Detect Pothole on Road to Higher Seas":
NASA comments on the recent temporary decrease in global sea levels. It is due to La Nina, not due to the "end of global warming."

"while 2010 began with a sizable El Niño, by year's end, it was replaced by one of the strongest La Niñas in recent memory. This sudden shift in the Pacific changed rainfall patterns all across the globe... So where does all that extra water in Brazil and Australia come from? You guessed it--the ocean... [Sea] level drops such as this one cannot last, and over the long-run, the trend remains solidly up."

Skeptical science also explains the situation.

Eric Levine: "Climate Change "Skeptics" Climax Too Early... Again":

"Yet another story of climate change "skeptics" getting excited about something that turns out to be nothing. Here is a summary of the latest story in the ongoing novel of climate-change-skeptic-sensationalism..."

Skeptical Science: "OA not OK: Booklet available":
With all the media attention given to global warming, we often forget that more dangers exist from climate change other than just rising temperatures.

"In July and August 2011 we posted a long series to introduce the chemistry of ocean acidification. We have lightly edited and compiled the posts into a booklet."

Political differences abound
Politics! Dear Gawd when will it stop! Ezra Klein took a look at a possible case of Republican hypocrisy. Gregory Mankiw cleared up a liberal misconception about taxes and the rich. I reviewed Paul Krugman's answer to Barry Goldwater's book. Politifact took a look at tax loopholes for outsourcing. Finally, Jed Graham covered an "ingenious" plan to fix Social Security.

Ezra Klein: "Why did the GOP turn against stimulus? Ask a psychologist.":

"The bottom line is this: Until quite recently, both parties supported the idea that you combat bad economies with stimulus spending. Now, during an extremely bad economy, the Republican Party has completely abandoned that position."

Greg Mankiw: "Fair Taxes? Depends What You Mean by ‘Fair’ ": Harvard Economist Greg Mankiw points out that, although some billionaires like Warren Buffet can write their way out of a hefty dose of taxes, most millionaires still pay a larger percentage of their incomes in taxes (30%+) than do most Americans. Whether or not this is fair is mostly a philosophical question. Politifact also points out that the "Warren Buffet" phenomena only really applies to the "mega rich." The highest income earners still pay the lion's share of taxes. David Frum also points out that a much better "sacrifice" for the rich to make would be supporting inflation as a method to help the economy recover.

Eric Levine: "Book Review: Krugman's Rallying Cry to Liberals":

I just finished Paul Krugman's 2007 book, The Conscience of a Liberal. I actually liked this book much more than I initially expected. It is a very entertaining and mostly easy read (I actually listened to the audible audio book). Paul Krugman details America's transition from the "Long Gilded Age" (pre-New Deal) to the "Great Contraction" (post New Deal til 1980s) when America's income distribution became more egalitarian. He then details the switch back, starting in the late 1970s, when the top income earners saw large gains in real income while mid and lower income earners saw only modest gains, if any at all. This was due primarily to the growth of "Movement Conservatism." He then makes the case that it is now (back in 2007) possible to once again to work towards closing the income gap.

Politifact: "Did Republicans oppose closing corporate tax loopholes for outsourcing?":

"The SEIU is correct that Republicans did fight against Democratic plans to close tax loopholes on multinational corporations.... The link between the multinationals' tax status and their outsourcing of jobs is not direct, and that's an important distinction."

Jed Graham: "AARP Sees ‘A Better Way To Approach (Social Security) Benefit Changes’":
The AARP has long been thought of as the group that opposes practically every proposed solution to the problems of Social Security. This is mainly due to the fact that they do not want any changes to hit current retirees. It is also due to the fact that most of these plans also "cut the safety net where it needs to be strongest — in very old age." However, John Rother of the AARP has now embraced a plan that should help fix the problems with social security, as well as increase worker efficiency.


Can they really do that?!
So long as they don't sell it for money..

kottke: "A Super Mario Bros version of Portal?!":
Yes, this is an actual game being developed - it is not a mod of any existing one.

Republican Delusions In Front of Holy Reagan

Political debates tend to be great forums for spreading misinformation. Of course, the September 7th, 2011 Republican debate at the Reagan Library was no exception. Three major fact checking sources have already taken aim at a few of the claims given during the Republican debates:

• Fact Checker: "Fact checking the GOP debate at the Reagan library"
• Politifact: "Fact-checking the Reagan Library debate"
• FactCheck: "FactChecking the Reagan Debate"

In addition to these, I thought I would share a bit more, as well as highlight a few major points.

Perry blew it

As conservative blogger David Frum put it "The revelation from the Republican presidential debate: Rick Perry and his team utterly failed to prepare answers to utterly predictable questions":

1. "Perry’s Social Security answer delivered President Obama the perfect clip for a 2012 negative ad"
2. “military adventurism”
3. Perry's performance was "Nervous, irritable, stuttering, floundering"
4. Perry failed to explain away the lousy statistic about health insurance coverage in his state.
5. "How could a Texas governor be unready to talk about immigration?"

Utterly unimpressive.... I can only hope it hurts is image solely with non-Republicans.
Of course the most memorable part of the night was when Rick Perry referred to Social Security as a "Ponzi Scheme". For a moment, let us set aside the fact that this may not sit well with the 75% of Americans who support Social Security. Politifact has already tackled this claim quite often in the past and found it to be incredibly misleading at best. This comment also motivated Glenn Kessler to write "A primer on Social Security"


Bachmann misses the market crash

Michelle Bachmann made an interesting comment during the debate:

Don't forget the day that President Obama took office, gasoline was $1.79 a gallon. It's entirely possible for us to get back to inexpensive energy.

Politifact rated the statement True. Of course they also pointed out how little the president can do about gas prices:

"Other than lip service, there is little any president or member of Congress can do about the price of gas, since 70 percent of the cost of a gallon is determined by the cost of crude oil," said John B. Townsend II, a spokesman for the mid-Atlantic region of the American Automobile Association... (emphasis mine)

So, although the statement is technically true, the context in which it was given (that it was Obama's fault and she can fix the problem), is almost entirely false.
However, what seemed to be left out of the analysis is that the reason gasoline prices were at $1.79 when Obama took office is almost entirely due to the fact that much of the world was falling into a deep recession, significantly lowering the demand for gasoline. There is little evidence that increased drilling would have nearly the effect on gasoline prices that Bachmann predicts. The only realistic way to get gasoline prices THAT low during a Bachmann presidency would be another massive recession (which may not be all that unlikely during a Republican presidency). Does Bachmann want that?

Perry gets it spectacularly wrong on Galileo

During the debate, Rick Perry made an interesting remark about climate change and Galileo:

“The idea that we would put Americans’ economy in jeopardy based on scientific theory that’s not settled yet to me is just — is nonsense. I mean, it — I mean, and I told somebody, I said, just because you have a group of scientists that have stood up and said, here is the fact — Galileo got outvoted for a spell.”

Henry Fountain of the New York Times dove right onto this statement (with some help from historian Thomas Mayer):

Galileo, whose astronomical observations confirmed the Copernican theory that the Earth revolved around the Sun, was basing his assertions on empirical knowledge and faced opposition from the Roman Catholic Church, which supported the Ptolemaic view of an Earth-centered universe.

Mr. Perry, by contrast, has said repeatedly that he does not believe the empirical evidence compiled by scientists in support of climate change, but that he does adhere to faith-based principles.(emphasis mine)

In other words, Perry got it spectacularly wrong. Galileo was not a "maverick" among scientists. Scientists often agreed with him. His real opposition was from the Church. And that was mostly due to disobedience, as well as his attempt to fit the Copernican model of the solar system to the bible.

Update 9-12-11: Chris Mooney brings up a few more points on the Perry/Galileo comment.

Job Spin

No political debate would be complete without a few politicians either taking credit or dishing out blame for job creation (or the lack thereof). Romney, Perry, and Huntsman each had a little share in this sort of fun. Of course, this tends to be an issue mostly with candidates who have previously held (or currently hold) executive positions (presidents/governors/mayors). In this case, all three of these candidates have had experience with such a position. FactCheck took on a few of these claims:

• Romney tried to take credit for reversing the job situation in his state when he assumed office. However, he left out the part where Massachusetts also ranked 47th in the nation in job growth.
• Perry once again attempted to spin his "success" with job creation as governor of Texas. However, he left out quite a few other statistics, ones that would not look so favorable. For instance, while actually being nothing special in regards to unemployment (27th in the nation at 8.4% in July 2011), Texas also has the highest percentage of hourly workers paid at or below minimum wage as well as the highest proportion of medically uninsured people in the nation.
• Huntsman used BLS survey data to support his claim that Utah was #1 in the nation in job growth from Jan 2005 to Aug 2009. However, using payroll data (a preference for most economists), Utah only ranked 4th (notably behind Texas).

Update 9-12-11: The Fact Checker takes a look at the claims of Perry, Romney, and Huntsman about eachother's jobs records.

Recently Republicans have had little trouble divorcing themselves from reality. These Republican debates provide no divergence from this trend.

Obama versus Romney on Jobs

Recently, both Obama and Romney have basically given what may turn out to be competing economic plans in 2012 (As of the date of this post, I have yet to see a serious economic plan from Rick Perry). Obama released his plan during a speech on Thursday night (9-8-11). Mitt Romney has already released his plan on his website. This post is a collection of a few articles on those plans.

Obama's Jobs Bill:

Paul Krugman shared his thoughts on Obama's new jobs bill in a New York Times Op-Ed. It is not as big as Krugman wants and also focuses too heavily on tax cuts. However, it is bold and would surely make significant progress towards ending this financial crisis. However, it is also surely DOA in the house and filibuster-bait in the Senate. Also, Krugman shared his thoughts on Romney's jobs bill, which he described as "as 59 bullet points with nothing there".

Self-proclaimed "Stimulus Skeptic" David Brooks also shared his thoughts on Obama's new jobs bill as well. Due to the real threat of a double dip recession, he conceded that the "president has earned a second date. He’s put together a moderate set of stimulus ideas. His plan may not be enough to jolt prosperity, but it might maintain its current slow growth.


The Brookings Institution has also chimed in on the jobs bill, pointing out how most of the President's proposals are bi-partisan (many coming from the Conservative US Chamber of Commerce). They also applauded Obama for including both short term stimulus and long term deficit reduction in the plan. In addition, they provided a few recommendations for additional bi-partisan plans to aid in recovery. However, they also pointed out that, while the president's speech was eloquent, the jobs bill may not be enough to really heal the economy.


The AP pointed out the challenges of using future deficit reduction to pay for a current plan in an informal "Fact Check." However, as Brookings has pointed out before, such a plan may be the only real viable solution to both the US' economic and fiscal crises. The AP also reiterated the same problem that Krugman pointed out: the plan has little chance of success. As for the last fact check in the article, the AP provided practically no context as to how much of the plan will be dedicated to the proposed national infrastructure bank.


The Washington Post Fact Checker, Glen Kessler, noticed that a lot of the plan seemed a bit too familiar (flashback to 2009). He even ended the article with a fun little quiz.

Update 9-12-11: FactCheck shows that not all of Obama's ideas have had Republican support in the past.


Romney's Economic Plan:

Romney's economic plan gives us a good look at the political limits of what the best Republican economic plan can do. Romney's plan does a good job focusing on long term growth, which is generally a Republican strength. However, as Frum points out, Romney's plan is generally quiet about how to get us out of our current recession. In fact, his ideas will likely exacerbate the problem. This is a major Republican handicap since we will likely be stuck with over 10 million unemployed/underemployed in 2013, when a Republican could potentially take office.

Greg Mankiw, adviser to Presidential candidate Mitt Romney, presented his ideas for recovery. He suggested focusing not just on our short-run problems, but on our long-run problems as well. However, as David Frum and Paul Krugman have already pointed out, Romney's economic plan seems to focus exclusively on long-run issues.

Climate Change "Skeptics" Climax Too Early... Again

Yet another story of climate change "skeptics" getting excited about something that turns out to be nothing. Here is a summary of the latest story in the ongoing novel of climate-change-skeptic-sensationalism:

1. Climate Change "skeptics" manage to get a paper (Spencer & Braswell [2011]) into a peer-reviewed journal.
2. The media touts the paper as a major challenge to Climate Change, despite the fact it's one paper among many opposing papers.
3. The paper then turns out to be highly flawed.
4. Then the editor of said peer-reviewed journal resigns.
5. Finally, another paper (Dessler 2011) is published in another peer reviewed journal debunking the "skeptic's" paper, as well as a few notable arguments from climate change "skeptics" in general.
6. Update 9/8/11: "Skeptics" have responded by creating conspiracy theories as to why Dessler's paper was published so fast. Could it be that the Spencer's paper merely contained popular climate myths that climate scientists have already debunked (see #5)? No, it is much easier for climate "skeptics" to resort to their favorite over-used conspiracy meme. Once again the old conspiracy adage hold true: "Any evidence against a conspiracy is evidence for a conspiracy!" 
7. Update 9/22/11: The journal in question, Remote Sensing, has published a commentary on Spencer's paper, citing a few criticisms also noted by Dessler, including the fact that the model used by Spencer was too simple.

I'll update this page as the story continues.

Weely Roundup - Time, Income Inequality, Green Energy, Texas Jobs, and Hurricane Irene (8/28/11-9/3/11)

Welcome to the second edition of my Weekly Roundup, a collection of some of my favorite Facebook posts for the last week. I understand I post a lot of things Facebook and, for anyone who is interested but doesn't have the time to read them all, this will give them a chance to see what I think are the most important. I will also get a chance to elaborate a bit more on certain posts. I will try to do this on a weekly basis but we will see if it works out. I am busy with school so I may not get a chance to do this every week.


Sciencey kinda stuff
 For my science posts this week, I started off with an interesting post from Sean M Carrol presenting a few facts about time ever one needs to know. Skeptical Science debunks more claims from climate "skeptics" about the negative aspects of renewable energy. I also ensured to post a link to Conway's game of life, a great simulator to help demonstrate that complexity can arise from chaos. Skeptoid takes on a few student questions, including the abuse of the word "information" by creationists. Skeptical Science points out the fallacy in claiming CO2 is just a trace gas and can therefore not have a significant effect on global warming. Finally, Paul Krugman laments the days when at least Mitt Romney actually accepted modern science.


Sean Carroll: "Ten Things Everyone Should Know About Time"
‎Sean Carroll talks time metaphysics, relativity, human experience and memory, aging (even in reverse), complexity, and entropy:
On time metaphysics...

Intuitively we think that the “now” is real, while the past is fixed and in the books, and the future hasn’t yet occurred. But physics teaches us something remarkable: every event in the past and future is implicit in the current moment(emphasis mine)

On human memory...

When you remember an event in the past, your brain uses a very similar technique to imagining the future. The process is less like “replaying a video” than “putting on a play from a script.” If the script is wrong for whatever reason, you can have a false memory that is just as vivid as a true one.(emphasis mine)

On "reverse-aging"...

We all grow old, part of the general trend toward growing disorder. But it’s only the universe as a whole that must increase in entropy, not every individual piece of it.... As one biologist told me: “You and I won’t live forever. But as for our grandkids, I’m not placing any bets.”(emphasis mine)

Skeptical Science: "Michaels Mischief #2: Opposing Climate Solutions":
Climate "skeptic" Patrick Michaels makes some pretty poor errors for someone who posts in a business magazine. These are common errors seen among climate "skeptics" who ignore basic economics 101 in order to make the claim that renewable energy is inefficient:
Michaels claims that solar energy and wind energy markets are not doing so well, despite government subsidies. However:

"The U.S. solar power market grew a record 67% last year [2010], making it the fastest-growing energy sector... The story is similar for the wind industry, which is already rebounding from a brief stall in its growth in 2010"

Michaels complains about Electric Cars and Plug-in Hybrids, criticizing their current price tags. As a result he says they are not the wave of the future. However, this is an obvious economic fallacy:

Michaels seems to believe that for a technology to be "the wave of the future," it must immediately be available at a high "comfort level" and low cost. Perhaps Michaels needs to be reminded that the first cell phone weighed 2 pounds (~1kg), offered just a half-hour of talk time for every recharging, and sold for $3,995. Not quite cheap or comfortable, and yet they were undeniably "the wave of the future."

See the article for more rebuttals to Michaels' ridiculously amateur claims...


John Conway's "Game of Life":
The computer simulation is a great tool for understanding how complexity can arise out of apparent chaos. It shows how a few simple rules can create immensely complex systems. This should help out anyone who seeks an honest understanding of Reductionism and "bottom-up design," which have both become strong pillars of modern physics and biology.


Skeptoid: "Student Questions: Energy Shots and Sunscreen":
This recent episode of Skeptoid deals with some interesting questions sent to him by students. Here he tackles myths about "5-hour energy shots," as well as a common creationist abuse of the word "information" in regards to entropy. Although he does not give the best response to the "information" issue, the first comment on this thread actually does a good job. I even chimed in later. However, he is basically right that Creationists do abuse the term.


Skeptical Science: "CO2 is just a trace gas":
A common claim you may hear from Climate Change "skeptics" is that CO2 makes up a tiny fraction of the atmosphere and therefore shouldn't have any significant impact on temperatures. For example John Coleman has made such a claim before. This article does a great job pointing the fallacy in this idea.
One thing this article does not mention is that this "trace gas" is "the only thing between us and a frozen planet." (see link to John Coleman's statements)


Paul Krugman: "Republicans Against Science":
Even Romney is back-peddling from his once admirable pro-science views. This should give us a hint to his true character. However, anyone who has paid attention to the Wall Street Journal over the past few years knows that it is now increasingly promoting heuristics as a substitute for real critical thinking. Frum presents a few


What About Obama
 All of my favorite posts this week about Obama came from Conservatives. Bruce Bartlett, while criticizing the Obama Administration's plan to extend the Payroll Tax Cut, effectively presents a great argument against Republican calls for low taxes to stimulate the economy. David Frum lists 3 of what he considers to be Obama's biggest Mistakes. Finally, Greg Mankiw congratulates Obama on his nomination of Alan Krueger to chair the CEA.


Bruce Bartlett: "The Case Against a Payroll Tax Cut":
The payroll tax cut is often seen as an effective stimulus idea among politicians from both sides of the political spectrum. It is direct and instantly noticeable. Conventional Macroeconomics states that the extra money that goes back to workers, as a result of this cut, will increase aggregate demand. However, Bartlett gives a four reasons to be skeptical of the theorized effectiveness of this tax cut:

"First, the tax cut only helps those with jobs. While many have low wages and undoubtedly are spending all their additional cash flow, those with the greatest need and most likely to spend any additional income are the unemployed.
Second, the payroll tax cut helps many workers who have no need for it and will only pocket the tax savings.
Third, economic theory and the experience with tax rebates in 2001 and 2008 tell us that people are strongly inclined to save temporary increases in income. People only increase their spending when they perceive an increase in their permanent income.
Fourth, even if one assumes that the cost of employment has declined and employers can somehow capture some of the payroll tax cut, there’s little sign that labor costs are the principal factor holding back hiring....
Another issue is whether the Social Security tax is really a tax at all. A case can be made that it is really part of a worker’s compensation, rather than a reduction of it... ...workers may well view a cut in Social Security taxes as diminishing their future benefits, which may cause them to increase their saving rather than spend the additional cash flow."(emphasis mine)

David Frum: "Obama's three big mistakes":
Frum explains some of what he perceives as Obama's biggest mistakes:
1. Obama let Congressional Democrats Shape the stimulus instead of his own economists.
2. Obama sat by while the fed reacted to unjustified inflationary fears.
3. Toward the public, Obama treated this recession like a normal cyclical recession instead of the financial meltdown it truly was.
Although I fully agree with his second and third criticisms, I only half agree with his first. The individual tax rebates were definitely a poor move. And yes the stimulus was not perfectly designed. However, I have pointed out before that the stimulus actually did a bit better than its critics like to think. I would likely add the caveat that Obama's stimulus was not designed for the right kind of recession. This ties into his 3rd criticism. All it was really meant to do was stop the economy from free-falling. The assumption that the economy would then heal itself was clearly wrong (as this was not a cyclical recession, rather a financial meltdown).
Jared Bernstein critiques Frum.
David Frum responds to Bermstein.


Greg Mankiw: "Alan Krueger to chair CEA":
Former CEA Chairman and Harvard Economist Greg Mankiw commends President Obama on his nomination of Alan Krueger to replace Austan Goolsbee as chair of CEA. He also gives a few comments on the decision. One thing to note is that Krueger specializes in labor economics and not generalized Macroeconomics. We will see how this goes...
Paul Krugman also gives his take on the nomination.


Fact Checks
 This week I posted a great article for Liberals seeking to show how bad income inequality has become. FactCheck posts a comprehensive nonpartisan article looking at the details behind job growth in Texas (a must read for anyone planning on voting in this next election). Politifact points out a few important facts in looking at how the US fares on energy resources. Finally, Politifact once again dispels a popular Democratic myth about the GOP and medicare.


Politifact: "Robert Reich says ratio of corporate profits to wages is highest since before Great Depression":
A significant factor to this has been the recession/financial meltdown. Still, there has been a general trend toward this since the Great Depression.
One note on this: Dan Mitchell with the libertarian CATO institute blames this mainly on "a climate of economic uncertainty, largely thanks to the threat of more taxes and regulations." However, Bruce Bartlett has recently noted that "there’s little sign that labor costs are the principal factor holding back hiring." The real problem is a lack of sales. He notes that in "the latest survey [from the NFIB], 23 percent of businesses said poor sales were their No. 1 problem and only 4 percent cited the cost of labor." Since regulation and taxes primarily effect the cost of labor, there is little reason to consider future taxes and regulation a significant effect.


FactCheck: "Texas-Size Recovery":
Good overall view of the Texas job-growth situation:

"Texas job statistics are a mixed bag. Perry’s supporters and Perry’s detractors select the statistics that suit their spin. Here we'll just lay out a balanced look at the facts — good and bad alike — and leave the spin to others."

Politifact: "Michele Bachmann says U.S. is No. 1 in the world for energy resources":
Although this may be technically true. There are a few very important caveats that make the context in which this fact was cited highly questionable.


Fact Checker: "Biden’s claim that the GOP will ‘eliminate’ Medicare":
At least Obama now uses the caveat "as we know it." This is the Democrats' lie of choice, similar to the Republicans' "Obamacare is a government takeover of the health care industry." Sadly, it is this kind of tactical dishonesty that wins elections nowadays...
Note: Hochul ( "elections" link) skirted the line on the GOP medicare plan


Oh that crazy ole GOP
What would a good Weekly Roundup be without a bit of GOP bashing. Religion news service starts us out by making the case that Bachmann's "joke" about hurricane Irene may be seen as quite serious by a few of her constituents. David Frum asks the question on every one's mind. Krugman bashes Eric Cantor's hostage-taking of Hurricane Irene victims. Finally, I post an article showing more evidence the GOP may be in danger of losing support in the future.


Religion News Service: "Bachmann’s prophecy, joke or not, has lots of company":
Although Bachmann's remark about Hurricane Irene being a message from God was meant only as a joke. There is reason to think a substantial number of white evangelicals just might take it seriously...


David Frum: "Is Perry Dumb?":
Sarah Palin wasn't dumb. She was just ignorant and unqualified. Perry however may be another story...

Paul Krugman: "Eric and Irene":

The primary issue should be the extraordinary nihilism now on display by Mr. Cantor and his colleagues — their willingness to flout all the usual conventions of fair play and, well, decency in order to get what they want.
Not long ago, a political party seeking to change U.S. policy would try to achieve that goal by building popular support for its ideas, then implementing those ideas through legislation. That, after all, is how our political system was designed to work.
But today’s G.O.P. has decided to bypass all that and go for a quicker route. Never mind getting enough votes to pass legislation; it gets what it wants by threatening to hurt America if its demands aren’t met. That’s what happened with the debt-ceiling fight, and now it’s what’s happening over disaster aid. In effect, Mr. Cantor and his allies are threatening to take hurricane victims hostage, using their suffering as a bargaining chip. (emphasis mine)

Steve Landsburg critiques Krugman's blog post on this subject.
Krugman responds to Landsburg.


Eric Levine: "Minority data shows a grim future for the GOP":

"The latest wave of 2010 Census data, released this week, confirms what earlier surveys have strongly hinted: virtually half of recent births in the U.S. are minorities...
Unless the GOP is willing to fundamentally change a few of its sacred views, the party is in severe danger of losing support in the long term."

A little Fun
As most people with an iPhone know, the built in "auto-correct" function can sometimes be a hassle, often creating a few hilarious texts. damnyouautocorrect.com lists quite a few of these. After reading these, whether or not you decide to turn the auto correct on or off is up to you.

Why Science Journals Need To Be So Anal

Recently Professor Wolfgang Wager, editor-in-chief of the Journal "Remote Sensing," resigned from his position due to the publication of a paper by climate "skeptics" Roy Spencer and Danny Braswell. In his resignation statement, he noted

After having become aware of the situation, and studying the various pro and contra arguments, I agree with the critics of the paper. Therefore, I would like to take the responsibility for this editorial decision and, as a result, step down as Editor-in-Chief of the journal Remote Sensing.... (emphasis mine)

He also noted a potential reason for why this particular paper was published:

In hindsight, it is possible to see why the review process of the paper by Spencer and Braswell did not fulfill its aim... the editorial team unintentionally selected three reviewers who probably share some climate sceptic notions of the authors.

I will not go into too much depth over this particular paper, or the editor's subsequent resignation. The websites Skeptical Science (a site that often makes it into my "Weekly Roundups") and RealClimate have created detailed rebuttals of this paper, as well as a post covering Wager's resignation.
Also see my summary.
Instead, the purpose of this post is to explain why it is so important for science journals to be extra careful about papers that claim to "challenge the consensus." Papers of this type need to be reviewed meticulously with a fine-toothed comb. Extra care needs to be taken to ensure these papers are absolutely air tight before they are published, especially when the motives of the authors are clearly not scientific. For instance, Spencer has made it painfully clear that his motives are in fact not scientific, once saying that his job was "to minimize the role of government.”

You often hear criticisms from a variety of consensus-challenging groups, complaining that scientific journals discriminate against consensus-challenging papers.. Often this results in the creation of pseudo-journals, meant to give an unearned impression of legitimacy and authority to these groups.

Is it unwise to believe in the improbable?

You may be wondering why such a double standard does (and should) exist. Well it mostly comes down to basic probability. It is tough for scientists to reach a consensus about anything (Even Climate Change took decades before it was accepted as consensus). As a result, theories that eventually become a scientific consensus tend to have gathered a large quantity of evidence supporting said consensus, including numerous peer reviewed scientific papers. This means that if the challenging paper is correct, all these other experts, observations, and peer reviewed papers are incorrect and/or flawed. This means that the prior probability of the challenging paper being accurate (meaning all other papers are flawed) is much lower than the probability the challenging paper has some kind of fundamental flaw. In other words, the claim that "the consensus is wrong" is an extraordinary claim which requires extraordinary evidence (A Bayesian Concept). This obviously does not mean the challenging paper should be discarded. If the challenging paper turns out to be air tight, then the probability that the consensus is in-fact wrong rises dramatically! This has actually happened quite often before.

This is a actually pretty simple concept. If your friend shows you a video of his 21st birthday party, and you know he is currently over 21, then you have little reason to doubt the authenticity of the video. However, if your friend shows you a video of him lifting a full sized car with just his pinky finger, then you have reason to suspect something is amiss with the video. You have reason to check and see if the video contains by special effects technology or optical tricks.

More of the boring same old, same old

In addition to probability, there are also pragmatic reasons for why journals should be initially skeptical of consensus-challenging papers. This mainly has to do with the effects of media sensationalism. Papers that confirm the consensus are not often given much publicity. This is due to the fact that, if a paper merely confirms the consensus, it is likely just one of hundreds or even thousands of papers that do essentially the same thing. Pretty boring stuff for the average person... However, when a paper challenges the consensus, it is by its very nature sensational. Suddenly headlines start popping up saying "Scientists finds evidence against [insert consensus here]" or something to that effect. This is sometimes due to the attempt from media sources to make themselves seem balanced on given issues, even if the preponderance of evidence is amazingly one-sided (such as one would expect when dealing with a consensus). As a result, even if the study is quickly discredited and later removed, there can be lasting (sometimes dangerous) effects on the society at large.

Probably the most famous example of the damaging effects of a bad study came from the British physician Andrew Wakefield. In 1998, he published a paper in the British journal The Lancet, which claimed to provide evidence for a link between the MMR vaccine and autism. Despite the fact that numerous studies contradicted his paper, the discovery that he fudged his numbers, conflicts of interest, and the retraction from 10 of the paper's 12 authors, the damage had already been done. For instance, Ireland experienced a major decline in vaccination rates, as well as a subsequent rise in measles cases. This was largely believed to be caused by the study. The Wakefield paper also provided fuel for the fire to the growing anti-vaccination movement in the US and UK, which has been blamed for hundreds (likely thousands) of preventable deaths in the US alone. Wakefield's paper was not fully retracted until 2010, nearly 12 years after the paper's initial publication.

The case of the Wakefield study provides a grim reminder to scientists of the dangers in allowing anti-consensus papers to be published without extra-rigorous review, especially when personal and political motivations are involved. The results of these studies can be catastrophic, and the discovery of flaws, or even fraud, in a given study can only do so much to mitigate the situation. In addition, these studies can put the credibility of scientists and journals at risk. The Lancet is one of the world's oldest and most respected journals. There is no telling how much damage Wakefield's paper did to their reputation. There is also no telling how many resources were wasted during subsequent studies attempting to reproduce Wakefield's results, as well as in convincing parents it is safe to vaccinate their children. Wakefield's study has also likely hurt the public's perception of scientists and fueled mistrust of mainstream medicine. It is little wonder scientists would want to avoid a repeat of this disaster.

Not All Consensus-Challengers Need Give Up

It should be clear by now why scientists and scientific journals should be hesitant to publish papers that challenge the scientific consensus. The standard peer-review system does work pretty well. However, there are the occasional slip-ups. This is usually not a problem, as these slip ups are rare and mostly inconsequential. However, once journals receive a paper that challenges a strongly held consensus (especially if it also has personal and political ramifications) they have good reason to put extra effort into ensuring no slip-ups occur. Unlike most slip-ups, history shows scientists and journals that slip-ups in consensus-challenging areas can result in disaster, such as in the Wakefield case.

This doesn't mean journals should avoid consensus-challenging papers all together. If they got in the habit of doing that, bad theories may never be replaced with better ones. Science would become stagnant. Current scientific theories do not represent absolute Truth. Such a view is antithetical to science. However, scientists and journals need to be strict about consensus-challenging views due to both the realities of probability and pragmatism. Not all theories are created equal.

Book Review: Krugman's Rallying Cry to Liberals

I just finished Paul Krugman's 2007 book, The Conscience of a Liberal. I actually liked this book much more than I initially expected. It is a very entertaining and mostly easy read (I actually listened to the audible audio book). Paul Krugman details America's transition from the "Long Gilded Age" (pre-New Deal) to the "Great Contraction" (post New Deal til 1980s) when America's income distribution became more egalitarian. He then details the switch back, starting in the late 1970s, when the top income earners saw large gains in real income while mid and lower income earners saw only modest gains, if any at all. This was due primarily to the growth of "Movement Conservatism." He then makes the case that it is now (back in 2007) possible to once again to work towards closing the income gap.

There are a few noteworthy points to make about this book:

1. This book was written back in 2007, before the election of Barrack Obama. It is interesting to see that many of the proposals given by Krugman have been played out these last 4 years, most notably health care reform. However, It is also interesting to note that his most important recommendation for Liberals was largely ignored: At the end of his book, he made the case that partisanship was necessary at the moment. Movement Conservatives will reject Liberal proposals no matter how far to the right Liberals have made them. This turned out to be largely true, as seen with the strong conservative objections to the mostly conservative plan known as "Obamacare." One of the biggest threat to Krugman's vision was the election of Barrack Obama who, despite being personally far to the left, has governed almost center-right. This helps explain why Krugman is currently a major critic of Obama's policies. To a certain degree, Barrack Obama ruined Krugman's plan.
2. This book gives a great sense of the difference between being a Liberal and being a Socialist (in the egalitarian sense). At one point, Krugman shares a statistic that makes this point quite well. He complains that average CEO pay, while once 40 times what the average worker made (during the Great Contraction), is (at the time of writing) over 300 times what the average worker makes. Just how accurate this statistic may be is irrelevant. Krugman has essentially stated that he is fine if CEOs make 40 times what the average worker makes. Given today's numbers Krugman is fine is CEOs make, on average, $1.6 Million a year! Krugman, as a liberal, has no problem with CEOs being millionaires. This is likely not what most people think of as a Socialist opinion.
3. This book contains very little political philosophy or real arguments for Liberalism itself. As a result, it will not persuade any hard core conservatives to move leftward. However, I do not get the impression this book was ever even intended to do that. It was meant more as a rallying cry for Liberals, similar to Barry Goldwater's The Conscience of a Conservative, which helped rally Movement Conservatives to a generation of prosperity. However, this book may convince a few people out there that they ARE actually themselves Liberal. Based on a few of the polls cited in his book, Krugman thinks this includes a substantial amount of the population.

As always, whenever reading a political book such as this, don't ever take the statistics for granted. For example, Krugman cited a questionable study from the World Health Organization about the quality of health care in the US. Make sure to have your skeptical hat on when reading this book, as well as any other "work of non-fiction."

Overall, I would recommend this book to most Liberals and Progressives, as well as any person who generally thinks income inequality in this country is not optimal. I would also recommend this book to Conservatives who want to understand a bit more about Liberalism.

.