tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-46446041504193030862024-03-21T07:17:19.784-07:00Content In RealityThis blog focuses on a variety of subjects including skepticism, science, philosophy, economics, and politics. Although I tend to ague from a liberal (and naturalist) perspective, I understand that reality itself does not have a political preference. Everyone is entitled to their own opinions, but not their own facts.KnocksvilleEhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08423194549982565593noreply@blogger.comBlogger82125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4644604150419303086.post-65890092940489829452014-11-10T20:00:00.000-08:002014-11-10T20:04:49.086-08:00The Biggest Problem With College Football<span style="background-color: white; color: #141823; font-family: Helvetica, Arial, 'lucida grande', tahoma, verdana, arial, sans-serif; font-size: 14px; line-height: 19.3199996948242px;">Bleacher Report recently posted an article entitled "</span><span style="color: #141823; font-family: Helvetica, Arial, lucida grande, tahoma, verdana, arial, sans-serif;"><span style="font-size: 14px; line-height: 19.3199996948242px;"><a href="http://bleacherreport.com/articles/2262567-how-would-florida-state-fare-if-2014-noles-played-in-sec">How Would Florida State Fare If 2014 'Noles Played in SEC?</a>". Yeah, t</span></span><span style="background-color: white; color: #141823; font-family: Helvetica, Arial, 'lucida grande', tahoma, verdana, arial, sans-serif; font-size: 14px; line-height: 19.3199996948242px;">his is the kinda crap that makes it clear you need a full playoff in the FBS. This article presents us with pretty much all that is wrong in how college football currently determines its national champions. First they focus pretty much entirely on what the computer rankings say about defense, ignoring the fact that Florida Sate has a better offense than all but 1 SEC team (And possibly better than that given that Winston sat one game). Further, they forget that those same stats show the ACC is nothing more than a <a href="http://bleacherreport.com/articles/2254759-college-football-conference-power-rankings-post-week-10/page/11">small step behind the SEC</a> in conference strength</span><span style="background-color: white; color: #141823; font-family: Helvetica, Arial, 'lucida grande', tahoma, verdana, arial, sans-serif; font-size: 14px; line-height: 19.3199996948242px;">. In addition, Florida State plays a MUCH tougher </span><span class="text_exposed_show" style="background-color: white; color: #141823; display: inline; font-family: Helvetica, Arial, 'lucida grande', tahoma, verdana, arial, sans-serif; font-size: 14px; line-height: 19.3199996948242px;">non-conference schedule than almost any SEC team (How many play two Power 5 teams, let alone ONE one in their 4 non-conference games). </span><br />
<span class="text_exposed_show" style="background-color: white; color: #141823; display: inline; font-family: Helvetica, Arial, 'lucida grande', tahoma, verdana, arial, sans-serif; font-size: 14px; line-height: 19.3199996948242px;"><br /></span>
<span class="text_exposed_show" style="background-color: white; color: #141823; display: inline; font-family: Helvetica, Arial, 'lucida grande', tahoma, verdana, arial, sans-serif; font-size: 14px; line-height: 19.3199996948242px;">They say that since 4 teams are ranked higher in the computer rankings Florida State would have already had 2 losses (and we know the higher ranked teams always win, like when <a href="http://espn.go.com/ncf/recap?id=400548346">#47 Texas A&M beat #5 Auburn</a>, or when <a href="http://espn.go.com/ncf/recap?id=400548348">#41 Florida blew out #13 Georgia</a>). And they commit the worst of all sins in sports (the transitive fallacy) when they compare Georgia's game against Clemson to <span style="line-height: 19.3199996948242px;">Florida Sate's </span>game (without Winston) against a <b>much </b>improved Clemson. Hey, didn't the team that just took down Auburn <a href="http://www.sbnation.com/college-football/2014/11/1/7143245/texas-a-m-ulm-bad-game-whoa-boy">almost lose to ULM</a> last week (So Auburn and ULM must be of a similar skill set)? Further (and this cannot be stated NEARLY enough), these computer rankings have a <b>significant </b>amount of uncertainty. CFB teams play far too few non-conference games for these computers to get nearly enough data to compare teams from different conferences. And most of those games come at the beginning of the season, meaning any data from those games is practically worthless by the end of the season. College level athletes are far from consistent. Coaches make changes. Players get injured. Young athletes improve their game. Some teams get lucky breaks (<a href="http://scores.espn.go.com/ncf/recap?gameId=400547856">Auburn v. KState</a> and <a href="http://espn.go.com/blog/bigten/post/_/id/106486/melvin-gordon-had-hip-injury-vs-lsu">LSU v. Wisconsin</a>). Any ranking system that fails to account for this should be taken with a huge grain of salt (which is, realistically, all of them). Humans cannot factor all this in. And if computers cannot rely on this to compare teams from different conferences, what else what can they rely on? This is why we absolutely need a larger playoff with automatic bids by Power 5 conferences. And it is also why this "what if Team A played in Conference B" bullshit should be dismissed as the uninformed speculative garbage that it is.</span>KnocksvilleEhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08423194549982565593noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4644604150419303086.post-54403112822572215652013-10-03T19:03:00.001-07:002013-10-03T19:08:17.928-07:00GOP Derp Shows Over National Park Service Closures<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="http://www.blogger.com/blogger.g?blogID=4644604150419303086" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img alt="" border="0" height="210" src="" style="cursor: move;" width="530" /></a></div>
<span class="userContent">You know how <a href="http://www.politico.com/story/2013/10/wwii-memorial-rand-paul-97708.html">all these Republicans</a> are trying to say
the WWII memorial was closed by the Obama Administration to make the
shutdown worse? </span><br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
"<i>Paul also accused Democrats of stopping funding and rejecting Republican proposals because “they think it’s a parlor game.” </i>"</blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
"<i>“We’re trying to fund government and they’re trying to stop any
funding because they think it’s a parlor game and they’ll win
politically, but they’re not willing to negotiate and I think that’s an
untenable position,” Paul said</i>."</blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
"<i>Meanwhile, at a Senate Judiciary Committee hearing on Wednesday, Sen.
Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa) also suggested that the closure of the memorial
was a kind of theater aimed at dramatizing the shutdown for the public</i>."</blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
"<i>“There were barricades around something that 24/7, 365 I could” visit
on previous occasions, Grassley said. “The show of putting barriers
around because of the shutdown and spending all the money to do it …
causes me to be a little cynical.”</i>"</blockquote>
<div style="background-color: white; border: medium none; color: black; overflow: hidden; text-align: left; text-decoration: none;">
One GOP Congressman even <a href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/10/03/congressman-park-ranger-memorial_n_4037524.html">went so far as to harass park ranger for doing her job</a>, a job she had to do because of his vote:</div>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<div style="background-color: white; border: medium none; color: black; overflow: hidden; text-align: left; text-decoration: none;">
"<i>"How do you look at them and ... deny them access?" said Neugebauer. He,
with most House Republicans, had voted early Sunday morning to pass a
funding measure that would delay the Affordable Care Act, a vote that
set up a showdown with the Senate and President Barack Obama. With the
parties unable to agree on how to fund the federal government,
non-essential government functions shut down Tuesday.</i>"</div>
</blockquote>
<span class="userContent">Well here is the <a href="http://www.wbir.com/story/news/nation/2013/10/01/mississippi-veterans-defy-shutdown-to-visit-wwii-monument/2903193/">context</a> they won't mention:</span><br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<span class="userContent"> "<i>The federal government shutdown that began at midnight <b>did not</b><span class="text_exposed_show"><b>
exempt the National Park Service</b>. The National Mall and Memorial's <b>330
employees</b> are furloughed. Only three employees are exempt: the chief of
maintenance, the deputy superintendent and the project manager who is
overseeing the repairs to the Washington Monument, Johnson said. The
repairs we continue through the shutdown since Congress had already
approved the money for it, she said.</span></i></span>"<br />
<span class="userContent"><span class="text_exposed_show"> </span></span><br />
<span class="userContent"><span class="text_exposed_show"> "<i>Park Service employees
came to work Tuesday to erect the barriers and turn off the fountains.
It will take them through tomorrow to fully close all the federal parks
and sites under their jurisdiction, Johnson said. <b>After that, no
maintenance people or park rangers are permitted to work</b>, she said.
Johnson was working off the clock on Monday afternoon.</i>"</span></span></blockquote>
And yes, <a href="http://www.npr.org/2013/10/03/228719015/national-parks-close-as-other-public-lands-stay-open">there is a reason</a> why all National Park Service ites are closed:<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
"<i>National parks exist because they are <b>protecting irreplaceable
resources</b>," says Joan Anzelmo, a former national park superintendent and
spokeswoman for the Coalition of National Park Service Retirees.</i>" </blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
"<i>Anzelmo
says "<b>extraordinary natural resources, priceless historic artifacts and
archaeology" are threatened when left unattended during the shutdown</b>.</i>" </blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
"<i>"There
would be vandalism and theft," she adds. "There would be <b>destruction</b> in
some places. There would be <b>animals that are poached</b>."</i>" </blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
"<i>At Zion, Batrus worries about the 10,000 American and foreign tourists in the park this time of year.</i>" </blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
"<i>"Allowing
10,000 people to come in and do whatever they want in the park ...
would really be <b>risking the resources" and the safety of visitors</b>.</i>" </blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
"<i>Many
may not appreciate the dangers that some activities present in the
park, such as the <b>risk of flash floods</b> in Zion's narrow and popular
canyons.</i>" </blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
"<i>"Without a budget we're <b>not able to explain to people
some of the dangers</b> of going into certain areas so you don't have the
safety messages," Batrus asserts.</i>" </blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
"<i>Backcountry camping and risky
canyon hikes in Zion <b>require permits and safety briefings</b> that are <b>not
available</b> during the shutdown.</i>"</blockquote>
KnocksvilleEhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08423194549982565593noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4644604150419303086.post-7026134258348287442013-10-03T19:01:00.002-07:002013-10-03T19:06:12.029-07:00If Republicans Win This Shutdown Fight, It Will Be Bad For Everyone<div style="text-align: center;">
<img alt="" class="spotlight" height="350" src="https://scontent-a-dfw.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ash3/1380215_405976816170881_1073807953_n.png" width="530" /> </div>
<br />
Jonathan Bernstein <a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/plum-line/wp/2013/10/03/republicans-have-no-idea-why-theyve-shut-down-the-government/">has a question</a> he thinks reporters should be asking Republicans today:<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
"<i>Why are you against passing a clean CR </i>[Continuing Resolution]<i> and reopening the government?</i>"</blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
"<i>That’s pretty basic stuff — and something that many House
Republicans, in the third day of a shutdown, seem to have no idea how to
answer.</i>"</blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
...</blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
"<i>Either way, what Republicans have been up to since about Saturday night
has been stumbling from one Fox-ready talking point to the next, while
moving farther and farther from actually having any idea of what,
specifically, they believe is worth shutting the government down over.
And don’t forget: <a href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/10/01/house-republicans-clean-cr_n_4024755.html?1380659209">20 Republicans now publicly support the clean CR</a>
that would reopen the government, and reports have it that anywhere
from 100 to some 180 privately would be happy to see that result, even
if they are too fraidy-cat to vote that way.</i>"</blockquote>
<span class="userContent">I like this line of questioning, and I do indeed think the media should be hammering Republican congressmen on this. <br /> <br /> But I also have an idea for another question reporters should ask the GOP: If Democrats give in to Republican demands, will <span class="text_exposed_show">Republicans do this again during the next shutdown fight? <br /> <br /> Here is why this question is important:<br /> </span></span><br />
<ul>
<li><span class="userContent"><span class="text_exposed_show">
The GOP has been <a href="http://www.motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2013/09/public-blames-republicans-government-shutdown">PUBLICLY</a> <a href="http://thehill.com/homenews/senate/294371-reid-ryan-spar-over-budget-conference">planning</a> <a href="http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2013/09/house-gops-legislative-strike.html">to</a> <a href="http://maddowblog.msnbc.com/_news/2013/10/01/20771365-why-the-gop-cant-avoid-responsibility?lite">use</a> the threat of a shutdown
to push for concessions from Democrats ever since the House and Senate
passed budget resolutions this Spring. </span></span></li>
</ul>
<ul>
<li><span class="userContent"><span class="text_exposed_show"> Democrats ARE NOT asking for concessions from Republicans. However, Republicans ARE asking for concessions from Democrats. </span></span></li>
</ul>
<ul>
<li><span class="userContent"><span class="text_exposed_show"> Republicans have a <a href="http://maddowblog.msnbc.com/_news/2013/09/24/20675882-a-debt-ceiling-ransom-note-takes-shape?lite">long list</a> of potential concessions they could demand from Democrats. </span></span></li>
</ul>
<ul>
<li><span class="userContent"><span class="text_exposed_show"> If the government passes a clean CR (a Dem win), this government-by-crisis strategy will be a failure. If the government passes a CR
with ANY Democrat concessions (a GOP win), this government-by-crisis
strategy will be a success. </span></span></li>
</ul>
<span class="userContent"><span class="text_exposed_show"> <br /> So the question stands: If the GOP
gets the concessions it wants, what will be it's motivation to allow
future CRs to pass without also demanding more concessions? Why would
they abandon such a successful strategy?<br /><br />And make no mistake, this strategy is <a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2013/10/03/how-a-debt-ceiling-fight-hurts-the-economy-in-six-charts/">terrible</a> <a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2013/10/03/the-scariest-paragraph-about-the-debt-ceiling-youll-read-today/">for</a> <a href="http://www.newsblur.com/site/188695/kevin-drum-mother-jones">everybody</a>, regardless of your political affiliation.</span></span><br />
<span class="userContent"><span class="text_exposed_show"><br /></span></span>
<span class="userContent"><span class="text_exposed_show"><b>Further Reads:</b></span></span><br />
<br />
<span class="userContent"><span class="text_exposed_show"><a href="http://www.motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2013/10/president-obama-has-had-enough">Kevin Drum: "President Obama Has Had Enough"</a></span></span><br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
"<span class="userContent"><i>I think Obama is right. Conservatives are
basically trying to invent a new Constitution because they don't like
the way the current one works, and they're doing it by threatening the
equivalent of nuclear war if they don't get their way. There's simply no
way that any president can give in to that.</i>"</span></blockquote>
<span class="userContent"><span class="text_exposed_show"><a href="https://twitter.com/MichaelSLinden/status/385891087610413056">Michael Linden: "<i>Since the GOP took control of Congress, NIH funding is down 13%. Pretty galling to hear GOP members use it as a political prop now.</i>"</a></span></span><br />
<br />
<a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/monkey-cage/wp/2013/10/03/political-polarization-of-the-american-public-continues-to-rise-or-does-it/"><span class="userContent"><span class="text_exposed_show">John Sides: "Political polarization of the American public continues to rise. Or does it?"</span></span></a><br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<span class="userContent">"<i>To many, President Obama's first term and the
2012 campaign seemed only to polarize Americans further. But once you
take the design of the survey into account, the new ANES data do not
support that conclusion.</i>"</span></blockquote>
KnocksvilleEhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08423194549982565593noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4644604150419303086.post-28007597146585049302013-09-30T20:02:00.000-07:002013-10-02T20:42:56.574-07:00The Mainstream Media Falls For Absurd GOP Rhetoric<h4>
Always leave it to the media to feed the false balance monster:</h4>
<br />
<a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/in-shutdown-blame-game-democrats-and-republicans-united-its-the-other-sides-fault/2013/09/30/759b136e-29e6-11e3-97a3-ff2758228523_story.html">Washington Post: "In shutdown blame game, Democrats and Republicans united: It’s the other side’s fault"</a><br />
<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<i>"Even before the midnight deadline for a government shutdown, the
players were already staking out their positions in the battle to come:
the fight over who was at fault."</i>
<br />
<i><a data-xslt="_http" href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/transcript-president-obamas-sept-30-remarks-on-looming-government-shutdown/2013/09/30/87437ea6-2a10-11e3-b139-029811dbb57f_story.html"></a></i></blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<i><a data-xslt="_http" href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/transcript-president-obamas-sept-30-remarks-on-looming-government-shutdown/2013/09/30/87437ea6-2a10-11e3-b139-029811dbb57f_story.html">"President Obama argued</a>
that Republicans were to blame for using a budget bill as a means of
extortion to roll back health-care reform. No, the GOP shot back, it was
Obama and <a data-xslt="_http" href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/harry-m-reid-d-nev/gIQA8MlN9O_topic.html">Senate Majority Leader Harry M. Reid (D-Nev.)</a> who were responsible for refusing to negotiate."</i></blockquote>
<br />
It seriously doesn't take much scrutiny to see just how patently absurd this is. Both sides want to pass a Continuing Resolution to fund the government through the rest of the year. However, the GOP wants to add language to delay or defund a key law passed by the Democrats a few years back. The GOP is calling this a compromise since they originally wanted to repeal the whole law. I am just curious as to what practical definition of "compromise" this falls under. Let's ignore for a moment the fact that either of these options would effectively <a href="http://contentinreality.blogspot.com/2013/09/no-obamacare-will-not-be-delayed-or.html">sabotage Obamacare</a>, meaning it would be a repealed anyway<b>*</b>. I see what Republicans <strike>both</strike> get <strike>and sacrifice</strike> in this supposed compromise. I also see what Democrats sacrifice. But I seriously have no clue what Democrats are getting. This is a necessary component of compromise to keep the word from being utterly meaningless. For example, it isn't a compromise for <a href="http://www.motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2013/09/i-think-republicans-are-confused-about-word-compromise">a thief to steal my TV set instead of my car</a>. <br />
<br />
What is even more absurd about this whole thing is the Democrats have already <a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/plum-line/wp/2013/09/20/have-democrats-already-lost-on-the-budget/">compromised on the CR's spending levels</a>. I just seriously cannot understand how some in the media are so gullible to such obvious political spin. Democrats have a reasonable argument for why Republicans are to blame. But Republicans have nothing short of absurdities to justify blaming Democrats. <a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/wp/2013/09/30/poll-just-one-in-four-approve-of-republicans-handling-of-government-shutdown-standoff/">The scary thing about this is that around half the country is still buying it</a>. It isn't bias to point the finger at the culprit. It is objectivity. <br />
<br />
<br />
<span style="font-size: x-small;"><b>*Republicans have not exactly kept this motivation secret, describing the efforts as the "<a href="http://www.dontfundobamacare.com/"><i>last opportunity we're going to have to stop Obamacare</i></a>" and a way to "<i><a href="http://www.politico.com/story/2013/09/house-gop-budget-strategy-government-shutdown-97496.html">stop the president’s health care law</a></i>."</b></span><br />
<br />
<br />
<b>Update 10/2/13</b>: Judd Legum also captures the <a href="https://twitter.com/JuddLegum/status/385468973971951616">absurdity</a> of the GOP and mainstream media's definition of "compromise."<br />
<br />
<h3>
Further Reads:</h3>
<h3>
</h3>
<a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/plum-line/wp/2013/09/30/the-morning-plum-for-gop-a-refresher-on-the-meaning-of-the-word-compromise/">Greg Sargent: "For GOP, a refresher on the meaning of the word `compromise’"</a><br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<i>"<span class="userContent">In the “compromise” scenario Republicans are
insisting on, then, only one side — Democrats — would be making
concessions, and Republicans wouldn’t be giving up anything. Folks
inclined to blame “both sides” for what’s happening here need to reckon
with this basic imbalance."</span></i></blockquote>
<br />
<a href="http://www.motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2013/09/obamacare-fight-starts-tomorrow">Kevin Drum: "The Obamacare Fight Starts Tomorrow"</a><br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<i><span class="userContent">"For the past year or so, Obamacare has been
the perfect foil for every corporation in America that's done something
unpopular with its benefits package."</span></i></blockquote>
<br />
<span class="userContent"><a href="http://www.motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2013/09/public-blames-republicans-government-shutdown">Kevin Drum: "Here's Why the Public Blames Republicans for an Imminent Government Shutdown"</a></span><br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<i><span class="userContent"><span class="userContent">"This is why the public is likely to blame
Republicans for a government shutdown: because Republicans have been
very clear all along that they were deliberately stringing out the
budget process so they could use a shutdown as leverage for <span class="text_exposed_show">their demands."</span></span></span></i></blockquote>
<span class="userContent"><span class="userContent"><span class="text_exposed_show">I don't share Drum's optimism the public will figure it out, at least not when most of the mainstream media seems to have largely ignored this extremely relevant piece of context...</span></span></span><br />
<br />
<a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2013/09/30/dont-forget-what-the-shutdown-is-really-about/"><span class="userContent">Ezra Klein: "Don’t forget what the shutdown is really about"</span></a><br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<i>"<span class="userContent">imagine if the Republican Party had won the
2012 election and Senate Democrats threatened to breach the debt ceiling
and cause a financial crisis unless Republicans added a public option
to Obamacare. Does anyone think a President Mitt Romney would find that
position reasonable? Does anyone think that position would be
reasonable."</span></i></blockquote>
<br />
<span class="userContent"><a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2013/09/30/john-boehners-plan-c-hurts-congress-hurts-taxpayers-fixes-nothing/">Ezra Klein: "John Boehner’s ‘Plan C’ hurts Congress, hurts taxpayers, fixes nothing"</a> </span><br />
<br />
<span class="userContent">This "Plan C" is politics at its worst. It's something that sounds good, but is still a terrible and utterly illogical idea.<br /> </span><br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<span class="userContent"> <i>"The idea behind this amendment, as Vitter explains it, is that Congress should live in the same health-care system its fo<span class="text_exposed_show">isting
on everyone else. But that's not what the amendment does. Obamacare
doesn't force large employers to dissolve their health insurance
arrangements and send their employees to the marketplaces. Congress is
creating a worse version of Obamacare and applying it only to itself."</span></i></span></blockquote>
<br />
<a href="http://www.slate.com/blogs/weigel/2013/09/30/no_democrats_never_really_held_the_debt_limit_hostage.html">David Weigel: "No, Democrats Never Really Held the Debt Limit Hostage"</a><br />
<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<i>"To recap: Raising the debt limit always been unpopular, and tough to
explain to voters. A few times, Democrats balked at raising it for a few
days to make a point, then caved in. Many more times, they've just
voted for the damn thing. John Boehner's Republicans have only ever
agreed to raise the debt limit if they won major policy concessions from
the president. <a href="http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2013/09/your-false-equivalence-guide-to-the-days-ahead/280062/" target="_blank">Both parties don't do it.</a> One party does it."</i></blockquote>
<br />
<a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/plum-line/wp/2013/09/30/john-boehner-doesnt-have-to-let-the-tea-party-paralyze-whole-government/">Greg Sargent: "John Boehner doesn’t have to let the Tea Party paralyze whole government"</a><br />
<br />
<a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/monkey-cage/wp/2013/09/29/republicans-and-democrats-are-treating-the-2012-election-like-a-mandate-theyre-both-wrong/">John Sides: "Republicans and Democrats are treating the 2012 election like a mandate. They’re both wrong."</a><br />
<br />KnocksvilleEhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08423194549982565593noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4644604150419303086.post-81097864598619588642013-09-24T19:15:00.000-07:002013-09-24T19:15:22.404-07:00No, Obamacare Will Not Be Delayed or DefundedThe newest GOP hostage taking strategy in the continuing resolution and debt ceiling fights is to try and <a href="http://www.politico.com/story/2013/09/house-gop-obamacare-cr-97299.html">add language delaying Obamacare and/or the individual mandate</a>. What is truly startling about this is just how unbelievably unlikely it is these strategies will ever succeed in delaying either. Before these bills can succeed, they must be approved by the Democrat-controlled Senate and signed by the President. However, this will almost certainly never happen. <a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2013/09/24/what-republicans-dont-understand-about-the-politics-of-obamacare/">Ezra Klein</a> and <a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2013/09/24/heres-why-obama-wont-delay-the-individual-mandate/">Sarah Kliff</a> from The Washington Post's Wonkblog explain why <span style="font-size: x-small;">(I will skip the whole "he will never do this to the signature achievement of his presidency" because it is just too obvious)</span>:<br />
<br />
<h3>
Why Senate Democrats will not delay the implementation of Obamacare or the individual mandate:</h3>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
Klein: "<i>Democrats point out that Obamacare's implementation schedule wasn't an
accident. It was <b>purposefully designed to begin in an off-year</b>. That way
there would be <b>a year to work out the worst kinks</b>, and by the time of
the actual election, Democrats could <b>point to millions of people getting
insurance</b>, running ad after ad highlighting constituents who now have
coverage. If implementation didn't begin until October 2014, <b>all voters
would know about Obamacare would be the early glitches</b>, as insurance
coverage wouldn't begin until January 1, 2015.</i>"</blockquote>
<br />
<h3>
Why Obama will not delay the implementation of Obamacare or the individual mandate:</h3>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
Kliff: "<i>A delay to the individual mandate – or the entire law – would also have a
giant ripple effect throughout health-care industries, who have <b>spent
the past three years preparing for a 2014 launch</b>. They've spent millions
on marketing and outreach, writing business plans that hinge on a
significant expansion of the health insurance market next year.</i>"</blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
"<i>This is especially true for health insurance companies, which decided
months ago the prices they would charge consumers on the marketplaces.
<b>Those prices assumed that the law would have an individual mandate</b>.
Insurers would have likely set different prices if they didn't think the
requirement to carry coverage would be in effect.</i>"</blockquote>
<br />
<h3>
How the individual mandate is different from other parts of the law that have been delayed:</h3>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
Kliff: "<i>all the delays so far do have one thing in common: They erased
political headaches for the law while barely denting the number of
people that the health overhaul will cover in 2014. The delays
Republicans are asking for now would cause major political and
substantive headaches for the law while <b>sharply reducing the number of
people it covers</b>.</i>"
</blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<div dir="ltr">
"<i>The Congressional Budget Office estimates that, without an individual mandate, <a href="http://cbo.gov/sites/default/files/cbofiles/attachments/hr2668_2.pdf">11 million</a> fewer people would gain coverage next year.</i>"</div>
</blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<div dir="ltr">
"<i>That would happen for two reasons. First, fewer people
would buy health insurance coverage without a federal law requiring them
to do so. Second, the people who signed up would likely be sicker
people, who really thought they would use the coverage. That would <b>cause
premiums to spike</b>, making the market a tougher sell for healthy people.</i>"</div>
</blockquote>
<br />
<h3>
How the individual mandate is different from the employer mandate:</h3>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
Kliff: "<i>The individual and employer mandates often get lumped together as
similar policies. They do, after all, both have the word mandate in
their name – and both require certain entities to buy health insurance
coverage. In practice though, they're significantly different. <b>The
individual mandate is a lynchpin policy, one that makes the rest of the
Affordable Care Act work by bringing millions more people in the
health-care system who don't currently buy coverage</b>.</i>"</blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
"<i><b>The employer mandate, by contrast, is more of an extra nudge</b>, aimed
at encouraging companies to keep doing something <b>they already do right
now</b>.</i>"</blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
"<i>The Congressional Budget Office estimates that with its </i>[the employer mandate's]<i> delay, a
h<b>alf-million</b> fewer people gain coverage in 2014. This has a lot to do
with the fact that <b>most big employers already offer insurance right now,
with no requirement to do so</b>.</i>" </blockquote>
<br />
Make no mistake. A delay of Obamacare and/or the individual mandate is a political and practical impossibility. Delaying the individual mandate in particular would cause insurance rates to spike and insurance companies to flee the exchanges. It wouldn't just be a disaster for insurance companies, but also for the millions of currently uninsured people expected to gain coverage in 2013 <span style="font-size: x-small;">(If Democrats are looking for a simple way to explain why they won't delay the individual mandate, try starting there)</span>.KnocksvilleEhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08423194549982565593noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4644604150419303086.post-63208719149833879422013-05-13T10:32:00.002-07:002013-05-15T18:05:33.163-07:00Important Context On State's Objections to Benghazi Talking Points<h4>
Recently uncovered emails sent by Victoria Nuland about the CIA talking points are not as incriminating as some would have you believe.
</h4>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><img align="bottom" border="0" height="266" src="http://www.washingtonpost.com/rf/image_606w/2010-2019/WashingtonPost/2012/09/12/Foreign/Images/2012-09-12T004406Z_01_EF13_RTRIDSP_3_LIBYA-US-EMBASSY-DEATH.jpg?uuid=Nr24WPydEeGxUyGFCalU4Q" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;" width="400" /></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;"><span class="imgfull width-606"><span class="caption">The U.S. “diplomatic post” in Benghazi in flames after the attack of Sept. 11, 2012.
(Esam Omran Al-Fetori/Reuters, copied from the Washington Post)
</span></span></td></tr>
</tbody></table>
</div>
<br />
<i>Update 5/15/13: When I originally wrote this article, I relied on interpretations of an email exchange by The White House, State Department, and CIA. These interpretations came from CBS News, ABC News, and The Weekly Standard. However, the White House has now <a href="http://thelead.blogs.cnn.com/2013/05/15/white-house-releases-100-pages-of-benghazi-e-mails/?hpt=hp_t2">released to CNN</a> a series of <a href="http://www.cnn.com/interactive/2013/05/politics/white-house-benghazi-emails/index.html">100 emails</a>, including the aforementioned email exchange. Essentially, it looks as though the actual emails <a href="http://mediamatters.org/blog/2013/05/15/new-talking-point-revelations-should-end-bengha/194092">effectively debunk</a> the theory that the Obama Administration intentionally mislead the American people about the nature of the Benghazi attacks. I have added updates explaining the differences as they apply to this post.</i><br />
<br />
On Monday, May 10th, ABC News released an <a href="http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2013/05/exclusive-benghazi-talking-points-underwent-12-revisions-scrubbed-of-terror-references/">Exclusive Report</a> on <a href="http://abcnews.go.com/images/Politics/Benghazi%20Talking%20Points%20Timeline.pdf">changes to the CIA Talking Points</a> provided to congress shortly after the September 11th, 2012 attacks in Benghazi. Contrary to a <a href="http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2012/10/white-house-responds-to-release-of-real-time-emails-about-benghazi-attack/">previous assertion by White House Press Secretary Jay Carney</a>, it appears as though the State Department and White House were heavily involved in the re-writing of those talking points:
<br />
<blockquote>
<span style="font-family: "Trebuchet MS",sans-serif;">"White House emails reviewed by ABC News suggest the edits were made with extensive input from the State Department. The edits included requests from the State Department that references to the Al Qaeda-affiliated group Ansar al-Sharia be deleted as well references to CIA warnings about terrorist threats in Benghazi in the months preceding the attack."</span> (ABC News Exclusive Report)</blockquote>
The gut reaction to this news may be that Republicans were right all along suggesting the <a href="http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/1209/30/sotu.01.html">administration engaged in a cover up, hiding the fact that Benghazi was a pre-planned terrorist attack, for political reasons</a>.<br />
<br />
But gut reactions can be very misleading. The addition of some context, as well as attention to detail, provide a few challenges to this reaction (Although there are many issues to explore with these revelations, this post will focus exclusively on State Department Spokesman Victoria Nuland's objections to the CIA's talking points).<br />
<br />
<h3>
Victoria Nulan's Smoking Gun?</h3>
<br />
One of the most contentious aspects to these revelations is a specific objection by Victoria Nuland to the initial references to al Qa'ida, as well as previous warnings by the CIA. <a href="http://www.weeklystandard.com/articles/benghazi-talking-points_720543.html?page=2">The original Weekly Standard column</a> gave a somewhat oversimplified account of these objections:
<br />
<blockquote>
<span style="font-family: "Trebuchet MS",sans-serif;">"The talking points were first distributed to officials in the interagency vetting process at 6:52 p.m. on Friday. Less than an hour later, at 7:39 p.m., an individual identified in the House report only as a “senior State Department official” responded to raise “serious concerns” about the draft. That official, whom The Weekly Standard has confirmed was State Department spokesman Victoria Nuland, worried that members of Congress would use the talking points to criticize the State Department for “not paying attention to Agency warnings.”"</span></blockquote>
A smoking gun right? Well, not so fast. Before we explore this in detail, it may be prudent to point out a somewhat obvious fact: Emails often lack context. Most of the time, when someone writes an email, they are not actively thinking that those emails are going to one day become public. As a result, being careful to provide appropriate context is not always a common priority. When viewing "leaked emails," don't be surprised if you find a few <a href="http://www.skepticalscience.com/Climategate-hide-the-decline.html">"hide the decline"</a> instances. In addition, a closer inspection of the talking points, as well as her specific reactions should provide some insight.<br />
<br />
The first thing to note is what exactly Victoria Nuland was objecting to. Here is the version of the talking points Nuland saw at 6:52 pm:
<br />
<blockquote>
<ul>
<li><span style="font-family: "Trebuchet MS",sans-serif;">The currently available information suggests that the demonstrations in Benghazi were spontaneously inspired by the protests at the U.S. Embassy in Cairo and evolved into a direct assault against the U.S. Consulate and subsequently its annex. This assessment may change as additional information is collected and analyzed and currently available information continues to be evaluated. On 10 September we notified Embassy Cairo of social media reports calling for a demonstration and encouraging jihadists to break into the Embassy. </span></li>
<span style="font-family: "Trebuchet MS",sans-serif;">
</span></ul>
</blockquote>
<blockquote>
<ul>
<li><span style="font-family: "Trebuchet MS",sans-serif;">The investigation is ongoing as to who is responsible for the violence, although the crowd almost certainly was a mix of individuals. We do know that Islamic extremists participated in the violent demonstrations. </span></li>
</ul>
</blockquote>
<blockquote>
<ul>
<li><span style="font-family: "Trebuchet MS",sans-serif;">Initial press reporting linked the attack to Ansar al-Sharia. The group has since released a statement that its leadership did not order the attacks, but did not deny that some of its members were involved. Ansar al-Sharia's Facebook page aims to spread Sharia in Libya and emphasizes the need for jihad to counter what it views as false interpretations of Islam, according to an open source study. </span></li>
</ul>
</blockquote>
<blockquote>
<ul>
<li><span style="font-family: "Trebuchet MS",sans-serif;">The wide availability of weapons and experienced fighters in Libya almost certainly contribute to the lethality of the attacks. </span></li>
</ul>
</blockquote>
<blockquote>
<ul>
<li><span style="font-family: "Trebuchet MS",sans-serif;">The Agency has produced numerous pieces on the threat of extremists linked to al-Qa'ida in Benghazi and eastern Libya. These noted that, since April, there have been at least five other attacks against foreign interests in Benghazi by unidentified assailants, including the June attack against the British Ambassador's convoy. We cannot rule out the individuals has previously surveilled the U.S. facilities, also contributing to the efficacy of the attacks. </span></li>
</ul>
</blockquote>
<blockquote>
<ul><span style="font-family: "Trebuchet MS",sans-serif;">
</span>
<li><span style="font-family: "Trebuchet MS",sans-serif;">The U.S. Government is working w/ Libyan authorities and intelligence partners in an effort to help bring to justice those responsible for the deaths of U.S. citizens.</span></li>
</ul>
</blockquote>
Luckily, CBS News provided <a href="http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-250_162-57583988/emails-reveal-a-flurry-of-changes-to-benghazi-talking-points/">a much more detailed account</a> of Nuland's response:
<br />
<blockquote>
<span style="font-family: "Trebuchet MS",sans-serif;">7:39 p.m. email: State Department spokeswoman Victoria Nuland expressed the most sweeping concerns. "I have serious concerns about all parts highlighted below in arming members of Congress with information to start making assertions to the media that we ourselves are not making because we don't want to prejudice the investigation... Why do we want the Hill to be fingering [al-Qaeda linked] Ansar al-Sharia when we aren't doing that ourselves until we have investigation results? And the penultimate point is a paragraph talking about all the previous warnings provided by the Agency [CIA] about al-Qaeda's presence and activities of al-Qaeda...[which] could be abused by members of Congress to fault the State Department for not paying attention... so why would we want to cede that, either?"</span></blockquote>
<i>Update 5/15/13: The interpretation of Nulan's email differs slightly from the <a href="http://i.cdn.turner.com/cnn/interactive/2013/05/politics/white-house-benghazi-emails/white-house-benghazi-emails.pdf#page=37">actual email</a>. However, none of the differences appear substantial, although the final sentence is significantly less verbose than its interpretation. </i><br />
<br />
Notice that her objections are two-fold:<br />
<ol>
<li>Her objections to the mention of al-Qa'ida links are based on a fear of prejudicing the FBI investigation. Nuland herself was <a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/fact-checker/post/an-alternative-explanation-for-the-benghazi-talking-points-bureaucratic-knife-fight/2013/05/10/22a8df5c-b98d-11e2-b94c-b684dda07add_blog.html">constrained</a> from mentioning this information in her daily press briefings. Given this fact, it is no surprise why she questions why the CIA would give congress information she was not herself allowed to divulge yet. However, as CBS News points out, A facilitator of the email threads mentions the FBI did not voice any major concerns. Yet despite this, the following version of the talking points, released at 8:59pm, removes the third talking point discussing the link to Ansar al-Sharia. Since the CIA originally removed the strongest reference to <i>"Islamic extremists with ties to al-Qa'ida"</i> during internal distribution, the only mention remaining of a terrorist group possibly being involved is the 5th talking point. It is not yet clear why this talking point was removed. It is possible there was a miscommunication somewhere that led the FBI to mistakenly approve the talking point about Ansar al-Sharia. Perhaps they changed their mind for security reasons.<br /><br /><i>Update 5/15/13: According to the <a href="http://i.cdn.turner.com/cnn/interactive/2013/05/politics/white-house-benghazi-emails/white-house-benghazi-emails.pdf#page=37">original email</a>, when Nuland received the response about the FBI not having any major concerns, that email already includes the updated talking points. This means that we can rule out the possibility that Nuland had anything to do with the removal of that talking point beyond her conserns about prejudicing the investigation. It may be the case CBS meant to convey this point with <a href="http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-250_162-57583988/emails-reveal-a-flurry-of-changes-to-benghazi-talking-points/">their interpretation</a>. However, CBS's use of the word "they" was slightly ambiguous.</i> <br /><br />
Either way, this case proves that some discussions were happening outside of the email thread, which means that readers should be very mindful of the context behind the emails. It is also interesting to note that the mention of terrorist groups in the 5th talking point were kept. However, it can also be noted that this specifically talks about <b>past events</b> and at best vaguely implies a link between the aforementioned terrorist groups and the Benghazi attacks. If there was a grey area over what would or would not have prejudiced the FBI investigation, it is possible this may have fallen into the latter category. Either way, the bottom line is that Nuland's objections to these terrorist references have <b>virtually nothing</b> to do with politics.</li>
<li>Her last objection deals <b>exclusively </b>with the 5th talking point. Her worry that the talking point could be <i>"abused by members of Congress to fault the State Department for not paying attention</i>" does sound quite political and pretty incriminating. However, as mentioned before when reading leaked emails, one should always be mindful of context. There are a few facts that need to be examined before coming to any conclusion about Nuland's objection. I will dedicate the rest of this post to exploring these facts and what relevance they have to Nuland's objection. </li>
</ol>
<br />
<h3>
Throwing The State Department Under The Bus </h3>
<br />
First and foremost, we should observe that the first talking point mentions the attack took place at two places, a State Department consulate and CIA annex. However, it has since been revealed that the "consulate" in question was not actually a consulate, but a CIA compound. <a href="http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2013/05/10/in-benghazi-cia-trusted-local-militia-that-melted-away.html">Eli Lake of The Daily Beast explains</a>:
<br />
<blockquote>
<span style="font-family: "Trebuchet MS",sans-serif;">"The CIA’s role in the Benghazi facility’s security was part of an arrangement with the State Department, according to a November 1 Wall Street Journal story that first disclosed several details about the true nature of the U.S. mission in Benghazi. That piece also said 23 of the 30 people evacuated from the Benghazi compound on the evening of the attack were CIA officers using State Department cover. <b>Other U.S. officials confirmed this to The Daily Beast. “The Benghazi compound was a U.S. intelligence station with State Department cover,” one U.S. official said."</b>"</span> (emphasis mine)</blockquote>
Ambassador Stevens was merely visiting the compound at the time of the attack. Tragically, he was in the wrong place at the wrong time. However, given the secretive nature of the mission, administration officials could not reveal this at the time.<br />
<h3>
</h3>
With that in mind, let's take a second look at that 5th talking point in more detail:<br />
<blockquote>
<span style="font-family: "Trebuchet MS",sans-serif;"><b>The Agency has produced
numerous pieces on the threat of extremists linked to al-Qa'ida in
Benghazi and eastern Libya.</b> These noted that, since April, there have
been at least five other attacks against foreign interests in Benghazi
by unidentified assailants, including the June attack against the
British Ambassador's convoy. We cannot rule out the individuals has
previously surveilled the U.S. facilities, also contributing to the
efficacy of the attacks.</span>(emphasis mine)</blockquote>
If we pair the emphasized parts with the first talking point, mentioning the attack was <i>"a direct assault against the <b>U.S. Consulate</b> and subsequently <b>its</b> annex,"</i> it is clear the CIA was putting the blame for any screw-ups on the State Department.<br />
<br />
As <a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/fact-checker/post/an-alternative-explanation-for-the-benghazi-talking-points-bureaucratic-knife-fight/2013/05/10/22a8df5c-b98d-11e2-b94c-b684dda07add_blog.html">Glenn Kessler explains</a>, this is no trivial matter:
<br />
<blockquote>
<span style="font-family: "Trebuchet MS",sans-serif;">"The clear implication is that State screwed up, <b>even though internally, it was known that this was a CIA operation</b>. State Department spokeswoman Victoria Nuland especially objects to the reference to previous warnings, saying it “could be abused by members [of Congress] to beat up the State Department for not paying attention to warnings.”"</span></blockquote>
Essentially, Victoria Nuland objects to the CIA throwing the State Department under the bus for what is arguably a CIA screw-up. Is this completely innocent? Well, it is a bit too early to tell until more information comes out about the US Mission in Benghazi. Either way, it is far from the smoking gun some <a href="http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/05/10/benghazi-talking-points-reportedly-revised-12-times-official-concerned-would/">sensationalist headlines</a> make it out to be.<br />
<br />
<i>Update 5/15/13 from CNN:</i><br />
<blockquote>
<i><span style="font-family: "Trebuchet MS",sans-serif;">"Senior administration officials say that <b>long before the CIA heard
concerns from the State Department</b> about warnings being put in the
talking points, CIA Deputy Director Mike Morell <b>advocated for removing
the warnings</b> out, since he felt the talking points should focus on what
happened in Benghazi on September 11, rather than the previous six
months.
<b>He also felt it was unprofessional and unfair for the CIA to cite its own warnings to the State Department, officials said."</b></span> (emphasis mine)</i></blockquote>
<br />
<h3>
Subsequent Revisions</h3>
<br />
As mentioned earlier, the following version of the talking points, released at 8:59pm, removed
the third talking point discussing the link to Ansar al-Sharia. The Weekly Standard column mentioned that, despite this and other small changes, Nuland was still unhappy. However, The Weekly Standard fails to mention the obvious reason why this is. Despite Nuland's arguably justified objection to the 5th talking point (you know, the one where the CIA throws the State Department under the bus), it <b>still remained</b> in the 8:59pm revision of the talking points, only with one minor revision. Again, context matters!<br />
<br />
<h3>
Misleading Journalism</h3>
<br />
Clearly all we can tell from these details that Nuland voiced two separate concerns about two separate aspects of the talking points. Her objection to the inclusion of references to terrorist organizations had to do with her current understanding of what information could and could not be divulged to the public. This was generally apolitical. However, her objection to the CIA throwing the State Department under the bus was in fact political, although arguably justified and essentially unrelated to any mentions of terrorist organizations. The only reference to terrorists scrubbed as a result of this objection was entirely incidental. So Nuland's objection provides no further evidence of the popular GOP conspiracy that the Obama Administration covered up uncomfortable details about the Benghazi attack due to the election. Be skeptical of sensationalist stories that suggest otherwise.<br />
<br />KnocksvilleEhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08423194549982565593noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4644604150419303086.post-90631512347443082552012-12-22T18:25:00.001-08:002012-12-22T18:25:34.822-08:00The Downside of Rating Systems In Political Fact Checking<div style="text-align: center;">
<img alt="http://www.marketplace.org/sites/default/files/styles/primary-image-610x340/public/list-truth-chalkboard.jpg" class="decoded" height="222" src="http://www.marketplace.org/sites/default/files/styles/primary-image-610x340/public/list-truth-chalkboard.jpg" width="400" /> </div>
<br />
In his <a href="http://factcheck.org/2012/12/firefighters-fact-checking-and-american-journalism/">farewell message</a> to fans of political fact checking, departing <a href="http://factcheck.org/">FactCheck.org</a> director Brooks Jackson reflects on the growth of the <a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/erik-wemple/post/fact-checking-makes-voters-harder-to-fool/2012/11/07/4336fe98-2919-11e2-96b6-8e6a7524553f_blog.html">fact checking industry</a>, the merits of fact checking, criticisms of fact checkers, and various legitimate pitfalls made by various fact-checking sites. Among the pitfalls he discussed, the one that most caught my eye dealt with the ratings systems fact checkers use so often:<br />
<blockquote>
<i>Rating statements with devices such as “truth-o-meters” or “Pinocchios” are popular with readers, and successful attention-grabbers. But such ratings are by their nature subjective — the difference between one or two “Pinocchios” is a matter of personal judgment, and debatable. Some statements are clearly true, and some provably false, but there’s no agreed method for determining the precise degree of mendacity in any statement that falls somewhere in between. Rating systems have also led to embarrassment. A senator who said a “majority” of Americans are conservative was rated “mostly true” (and later “half true”) even though the statement was false. The story cited a poll showing only 40 percent of Americans rated themselves conservative. That’s more than said they were moderate (35 percent) or liberal (21 percent) but still far from a majority. The senator had a point, but stated it incorrectly, thereby exaggerating. A simple “truth-o-meter” had no suitable category for that. Our approach would have been to say that it was false. But we would also note that the senator would have been correct to say Americans are more likely to call themselves conservative than moderate, or liberal, when given those three choices.
</i>
</blockquote>
While I disagree that ratings systems are entirely subjective (most have <a href="http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2011/feb/21/principles-truth-o-meter/">specific</a> <a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/fact-checker/post/about-the-fact-checker/2011/12/05/gIQAa0FBYO_blog.html#pinocchio">rules</a> for each category), I do agree that the organization of categories is not rigorous. There are obviously statements that do not easily fit into any given category. Furthermore, these rating systems can be a distraction, giving the reader an incentive to merely look at the rating and ignore the actual fact checking. Although I do understand not everyone has time to read an tire article over every claim that has been checked, simple summaries (such as the ones used by FactCheck.org) at least give the reader a basic idea as to what was right and/or wrong with the checked claim. I will admit ratings systems have doubtless contributed to the rising popularity of fact checking. But it isn't clear whether or not they actually do more harm than good.<br />
<br />
In addition to discussing the pitfalls of fact checking, Jackson also made some very good points about the actual purpose of fact checking in political discourse:<br />
<blockquote>
<i>"Complaining that fact-checkers failed to stop politicians from lying is like complaining that a firefighter failed to prevent an arsonist from starting a fire.</i> </blockquote>
<blockquote>
<i>Furthermore, it seems to me that anyone who asks the very political operatives behind the 2012 falsehoods to rate our performance is pretty much interviewing the arsonists about the merits of the firefighters. We don’t write to impress politicians or their hirelings. We write to help the voters — and we don’t expect to get an invitation to dinners at the White House.
We can’t stop politicians from trying to bamboozle voters. But we can make voters harder to fool."</i> </blockquote>
Indeed there is an extremely important role for fact checkers to play in political discourse. And Jackson sums it up quite nicely. Scientific skepticism, which fact checkers apply to politics, has a role in nearly every aspect of life, including politics. In this spirit I thank Mr. Jackson for the quality work both he and his team have done over the past nine years. FactCheck.org is my favorite fact checking site and I wish him the best of luck in the future!
KnocksvilleEhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08423194549982565593noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4644604150419303086.post-10957176871632065622012-12-11T16:42:00.003-08:002012-12-11T16:48:22.717-08:00A Balanced Budget Ammendment Is A Terrible Idea<div style="text-align: center;">
<img alt="http://conservativenewjersey.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/07/balanced-budget.jpg" class="decoded" src="http://conservativenewjersey.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/07/balanced-budget.jpg" /> </div>
<br />
Bobby Jindal <a href="http://www.politico.com/story/2012/12/bobby-jindal-opinion-fiscal-cliff-diving-84647_Page2.html">attempts</a> to make the case for a federal balanced budget amendment:
<br />
<blockquote>
<i>"A federal balanced budget amendment. States have balanced budget laws, small businesses have to balance their budgets, and families have to do the same. This is an idea that is supported by virtually every American who does not live in the 202 area code. It’s common sense. It is also laughed at in Washington. When you mention the BBA as a solution, they roll their eyes and write you off as a non-serious person. But the American public is dead serious about it, and they should be.</i>"</blockquote>
A federal balanced budget amendment is one of the most <a href="http://www.aim.org/on-target-blog/cnn-poll-americans-like-balanced-budget-amendment/">popular</a> horrible ide<span style="font-size: small;">as in political discourse today</span>.
You simply cannot compare personal budgets, business budgets, or even state budgets
to national budgets in this way. People and businesses can balance their budgets because
in doing so they don't also jeopardize their incomes <span style="font-size: x-small;">(unlike the government,
as can be seen <a href="http://2012.talkingpointsmemo.com/2012/08/paul-ryan-slams-defense-sequester-he-voted-for.php">very clearly</a> from the <a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2012/11/09/the-fiscal-cliff-is-an-austerity-crisis/">austerity crisis</a>/fiscal cliff)</span>. State
governments can balance their budgets because they can always count on the
federal government to both make up the shortfall. Calling a balanced budget "common
sense" shows just how ridiculous the idea of "common sense" can be when applied to counter intuitive fields like this. Americans who are
calling for a balanced budget do not truly understand what they are doing.
This is evidenced by the fact that so many Americans are so <a href="http://voices.washingtonpost.com/fact-checker/2011/03/four_pinocchios_for_the_americ.html">completely ignorant</a> of what is actually in the federal budget. This leaves conservative pundit David Frum to <a href="http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2012/12/06/bobby-jindal-dives-the-shark.html">ponder</a> a hypothetical question:
<br />
<blockquote>
<i>"It would be wonderful to hear Gov. Jindal identify the specific cuts he
would have made during the nadir of the recession, <b>when revenues as a share
of GDP were around 15%</b>, the lowest since the Second World War. At that
point, cutting PBS and foreign aid won't get you to 15%. At 15%, you have
to <b>slash entitlements</b> (can't do that!) and the <b>Department of Defense</b> (good
luck getting southern senators on board with that!)."</i></blockquote>
Frum also notes that conservatives can still be conservative without going
to such absurd lengths:
<br />
<blockquote>
<i>"Yes, Washington is too bloated. Yes, Washington is trying to do too many
things it should leave to private citizens and state governments. Yes,
Washington should be aiming to leave the federal government's share of GDP
near the historical norm of 18-20 percent. And yes, <b>I too am concerned by
Ezra Klein's <a href="http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-12-05/the-misguided-18-percent-budget-solution.html">warning</a> that 18 percent won't be able to pay for our existing
and future obligations</b>. We have to address these problems, and as
conservatives, we must work to restrain the federal government from
consuming an ever larger share of the gross domestic product.</i> </blockquote>
<blockquote>
<i>
But you don't win elections by promising to cut benefits, retard growth, and
<b>paralyze government when it is needed most</b> -- during the depths of
recessions. That's a terrible electoral strategy, but it's also horrible
leadership from a party elite. Gov. Jindal can unload all the populist
rhetoric he'd like, but he's as elite as anyone in Washington, DC, and that
role comes with obligations."</i></blockquote>
No doubt the left has quite a few bad ideas as well. But that does not
excuse the right from avoiding the most important responsibilities expected of an
elected politician:
<br />
<blockquote>
<i>"Endorsing a balanced budget amendment, laughing off the uncertainty of
messing with the debt ceiling, and deriding efforts to keep our nation
functioning is an abdication of those responsibilities. I hope we see better
in the future from Gov. Jindal."</i></blockquote>
<br />
<br />KnocksvilleEhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08423194549982565593noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4644604150419303086.post-17588850475952413732012-11-05T22:45:00.003-08:002012-11-06T06:08:31.460-08:00Punditfulls of Predictions!<a href="http://www.270towin.com/2012_election_predictions.php?mapid=bjxr"></a><br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhbx6girmCqwhqkMhl6rNt2u5vSUiim_dYJvnn16yHnca3QA_r-eid0c_RSLwSWa3vxZ0nnOsiSFd2GTn_3gGDU86MqiPbho3JGIu22GPAjwoBJ7VEOKi8IvhSsqFnJH9JdX6vGpnM2-HY/s1600/MyElectionPrediction2012.PNG" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="294" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhbx6girmCqwhqkMhl6rNt2u5vSUiim_dYJvnn16yHnca3QA_r-eid0c_RSLwSWa3vxZ0nnOsiSFd2GTn_3gGDU86MqiPbho3JGIu22GPAjwoBJ7VEOKi8IvhSsqFnJH9JdX6vGpnM2-HY/s400/MyElectionPrediction2012.PNG" width="400" /></a></div>
<br />
<div style="text-align: center;">
<b>My Election Prediction 2012 (<a href="http://www.270towin.com/2012_election_predictions.php?mapid=bjxr">270toWin</a>)</b><br />
<div style="text-align: left;">
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<a href="http://www.blogger.com/blogger.g?blogID=4644604150419303086" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"></a><br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
During the primaries, I remember telling a friend of mine that if Romney was nominated, this election would look a lot like 2004.Turns out the similarities are <a href="http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2012/president/obama_vs_romney_compared_to_bush_vs_kerry.html">striking</a>. However, one of the most comical similarities is the denialism. In 2004, we had sites like the <a href="http://www.thedemocraticstrategist.org/donkeyrising/2004/10/">Donkey Rising Blog</a> trying to explain away Bush's favorable numbers in the polls. Today we have sites like <a href="http://unskewedpolls.com/all_11_swing_states_unskewed.cfm">UnSkewed Polls</a> doing the same thing to Obama's poll numbers, sometimes even projecting Romney will win in a <a href="http://www.examiner.com/article/mitt-romney-52-percent-342-electoral-votes-projected-at-unskewedpolls-com?CID=obinsite">near-landslide</a>! However, the methods used to come up with these numbers are <a href="http://contentinreality.blogspot.com/2012/11/busting-romney-fauxmentum-myths.html">deeply</a> <a href="http://contentinreality.blogspot.com/2012/09/are-election-polls-oversampling.html">flawed</a>. But that hasn't stopped a number of pundits from giving <a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/ezra-klein/wp/2012/11/05/pundit-accountability-the-official-2012-election-prediction-thread/">similarly absurd projections</a>:</div>
<ul>
<li>Michael Barone, The Examiner: <a href="http://washingtonexaminer.com/barone-going-out-on-a-limb-romney-beats-obama-handily/article/2512470#.UJgplW_A9yy">Romney 315, Obama 223</a>. </li>
<li>George Will, The Washington Post: <a href="http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2012/11/04/george_will_predicts_romney_wins_big_321-217.html">Romney 321, Obama 217</a>.</li>
<li>James Pethokoukis: <a href="http://www.aei-ideas.org/2012/11/my-2012-electoral-vote-map-and-popular-vote-predictions/">Romney 301, Obama 227.</a></li>
<li>Dick Morris, FoxNews: <a href="http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2012/11/05/dick_morris_stands_by_prediction_romney_will_win_325_electoral_votes.html">Romney 325, Obama 213.</a></li>
<li>Jim Cramer, CNBC: <a href="http://wizbangblog.com/2012/11/05/cnbcs-jim-cramer-is-even-crazier-than-he-appears-on-tv/">Obama 440, Romney 98</a>.</li>
<li>Dean Chambers, UnskewedPolls.com: <a href="http://www.examiner.com/article/mitt-romney-likely-election-day-victory-indicated-by-latest-polls?cid=db_articles">Romney 311, Obama 227</a>. </li>
</ul>
</div>
</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Every one of these pundits is predicting a highly unlikely result. Other than Jim Cramer, each one predicts Romney picking up over 300 Electoral votes, meaning Obama would pick up at most 238 electoral votes. According to the <a href="http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2012/president/2012_elections_electoral_college_map.html">RCP averages</a>, this means the polls would have to be off by up to 4 points in some states! In the <a href="http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com/">FiveThirtyEight model</a>, such a thing would be historically unprecedented to an incredible degree! However, unlike Cramer's prediction, the FiveThirtyEight model at least holds this as a possibility, albeit an incredibly small one. One has to wonder why so many pundits are risking their credibility with such unbelievably unlikely predictions. Of course, one would also have to underestimate the level of <a href="http://mediamatters.org/blog/2012/11/05/the-pre-election-push-to-delegitimize-a-potenti/191149">cognitive dissonance some of these pundits have</a>, as well as their fans.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
I have to confess. Over the last couple of months, I have grown an unhealthy obsession with the polls. I have made trips to <a href="http://www.realclearpolitics.com/elections/">RealClearPolitics</a>, <a href="http://elections.huffingtonpost.com/2012/romney-vs-obama-electoral-map">Pollster</a>, and <a href="http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com/">FiveThirtyEight</a> a regular habit. When I wake up in the morning to take the puppy out, I check the <a href="https://mmicdata.rand.org/alp/?page=election">Rand Corporation's Daily Poll</a>. Throughout the day, I check RCP for updates to the <a href="http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=2&cad=rja&sqi=2&ved=0CDUQjBAwAQ&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.rasmussenreports.com%2Fpublic_content%2Farchive%2F2012_presidential_election_matchups2&ei=GpmYUMG3K47RqwH2sYHgAg&usg=AFQjCNFzO34nrocz2B7873yYnbTn4IEzwQ&sig2=0jCPcnOA8Ves0_4mIL21CQ">Rasmussen poll</a>, the <a href="http://www.gallup.com/poll/157817/election-2012-likely-voters-trial-heat-obama-romney.aspx">Gallup Poll</a>, <a href="http://news.investors.com/special-report/508415-ibdtipp-poll.aspx">Investor's Business Daily</a>, and <a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/polls/index.html">ABC/Washington Post</a>, as well as up to date averages of the state polls. I also make regular trips to <a href="http://elections.huffingtonpost.com/pollster/2012-general-election-romney-vs-obama">Pollster</a> to check on polls RCP doesn't factor in. I understand that you cannot cherry pick polls, that you have to account for house effects, and that you have to look at both the the national and state polls to get a clear picture of the race. As a result, I have mostly taken a break from blogging, preferring to post whatever thoughts I may have on Facebook rather than this blog, likely to the utter annoyance of all my friends. So before the election concludes tomorrow (<a href="http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/comment/2012/11/election-recount-mechanics.html">hopefully</a>), I thought I would put my own projection on the table (on the top of this page). Some explanations:</div>
<ul><a href="http://www.blogger.com/blogger.g?blogID=4644604150419303086" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"></a><a href="http://www.blogger.com/blogger.g?blogID=4644604150419303086" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"></a>
<li>Pennsylvania and Michigan: Despite Romney's recent <a href="http://firstread.nbcnews.com/_news/2012/11/04/14926196-romneys-pennsylvania-reach-foreshadows-election-outcome?lite">play on Pennsylvania</a>, the chances of him winning the state are <a href="http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/11/04/nov-3-romneys-reason-to-play-for-pennsylvania/">extremely low</a>: FiveThirtyEight gives Obama a 99% chance of taking the state. Other than the <b>extremely</b> right-leaning <a href="http://triblive.com/politics/politicalheadlines/2878015-74/romney-percent-poll-state-obama-pennsylvania-president-lee-presidential-voters#axzz2BCil7kLj">Susquehanna Poll</a>, the most Romney-favorable polls still give Obama a <a href="http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2012/president/pa/pennsylvania_romney_vs_obama-1891.html">comfortable 3 point lead</a>. As Nate Silver has explained, this state is also incredibly <a href="http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/05/21/swing-voters-and-elastic-states/">inelastic</a>, meaning there are rarely very many voters who will wait til the last minute to make a choice. In Michigan, the only poll giving Romney any chance is the Baydoun/Foster poll. Although this poll is classified as a Democratic pollster, its numbers in Michigan have been <a href="http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2012/president/mi/michigan_romney_vs_obama-1811.html">extremely favorable to Romney</a>, meaning it has a larger than normal <a href="http://www.pollster.com/blogs/how_pollsters_affect_poll_resu.php?nr=1">house effect</a>. Nate Silver gives Obama a 100% chance of winning the state and Romney has not seriously contested it.</li>
<li>Nevada: Although <a href="http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/nv/nevada_mccain_vs_obama-252.html">RCP only gives Obama a 2.8 percent lead here</a>, Nevada polls have consistently underrated Democrats for the elections in <a href="http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/nv/nevada_mccain_vs_obama-252.html">2008</a> and <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Senate_election_in_Nevada,_2010">2010</a>, by large margins. Given the <a href="http://www.latinodecisions.com/blog/2012/10/23/why-pollsters-missed-the-latino-vote-2012-edition/">issues among pollsters with the Latino vot</a>e, as well as <a href="http://www.theatlanticwire.com/politics/2012/10/what-we-know-about-obama-and-romneys-ground-games/58348/#">Harry Reid's superior ground game in the state</a>, I doubt 2012 will be any different. Nate Silver also has Obama at a 94% chance of winning Nevada.</li>
<li>Wisconsin and Ohio: Both of these states show small but persistent Obama leads. And neither state show any poll with a Romney lead. RCP has Obama up <a href="http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2012/president/oh/ohio_romney_vs_obama-1860.html">2.9 points in Ohio</a> and <a href="http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2012/president/wi/wisconsin_romney_vs_obama-1871.html">4.2 points in Wisconsin</a>. The distribution in Ohio has been very tight, despite the large number of polls conducted in the state. Wisconsin's distribution has been less so but it has also shown better numbers for Obama in its more Obama-favorable polls. However, both the polls showing strong Obama leads have been incredibly volatile over the course of this campaign. Nonetheless, Nate Silver gives Obama a 92% chance of carrying Ohio and a 97% chance of carrying Wisconsin. </li>
<li>Iowa and New Hampshire: Both of these states have had very sporadic polling. But Obama is still favored in both. RCP has Obama up <a href="http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2012/president/ia/iowa_romney_vs_obama-1922.html">2.4 points in Iowa</a> and <a href="http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2012/president/nh/new_hampshire_romney_vs_obama-2030.html">2.0 points in New Hampshire</a>. In addition, only two polls give Romney a lead in Iowa and none give him a lead in New Hampshire. The two polls that give Romney a lead in Iowa tend to have very Romney-favorable results, and their leads are only a point. At least one Romney-favorable poll also gives Obama a 4 point lead in Iowa. In addition, Iowa's only local poll gives Obama one of his best leads. The situation is similar in New Hampshire. Nate silver gives Obama a 86% chance of winning Iowa and an 86% chance of winning New Hampshire.</li>
<li>Virginia and Colorado: Both of these states appear to be toss-ups, although Nate Silver marked them both as "Likely Obama" today. According to RCP, Obama has a 0.3% lead in Virginia and a 1.5% lead in Colorado. However, there are still a few polls giving Romney slight leads in each state. Although early voting in Colorado seems to be favoring Mitt Romney, Democrats have been <a href="http://kdvr.com/2012/11/05/gop-early-voting-lead-down-to-2-percent-in-colorado/">closing the gap</a> <span style="font-size: x-small;">(we should see the final results of early voting tomorrow morning)</span>. Some polls that have asked about early voting <a href="http://americanresearchgroup.com/pres2012/CO12.html">show</a> that Obama is expected to do better on election day than he has in early voting. Others show he is expected <a href="http://www.denverpost.com/breakingnews/ci_21914514/poll-obama-romney-still-essentially-tied-colorado">to do worse</a> but may get better results tomorrow morning. But this may not matter. <a href="http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2012/11/04/obamas-lead-in-early-voting-smaller-than-in-2008/1682259/">In 2008, Obama barely edged out McCain in early voting, yet still won the state by 8.6 percentage points</a>, meaning historically the early voting trend may not be unprecedented in Colorado given that Obama will likely not win by 8.6 percentage points anyway. For the purposes of my projection, I predict Obama will carry Colorado, mainly because of the polls. Virginia is very close nationally, and it is hard to come by good <a href="http://www.sbe.virginia.gov/sbe_csv/STATS/">early voting statistics</a> for the state. Their only local poll has also been extremely volatile. Given Nate Silver's projection, as well as the RCP average, I give Obama the slight edge in the state. <b>Update 11/6/12: Wow, I cannot believe I didn't notice this until now. I fell for the fallacy of equating registration advantage with candidate advantage in Colorado. I took a look at <a href="http://www.publicpolicypolling.com/pdf/2011/PPP_Release_CONV_1105.pdf">whatever</a> <a href="http://onsightpublicaffairs.com/media/wp-content/uploads/2012/11/KR-CO-Tracking-Poll-November-2-4-Presidential-Results.pdf">polls</a> <a href="http://lakeresearch.com/news/USA/LRP_Public_Colorado_Toplines_110512.pdf">I could</a> and noticed that Democrats do not have the identity advantage in Colorado that they do in other states. It appears as though, although Democrats and Republicans seem tied in terms of party identity, Republicans hold a 2-3 point registration advantage over Democrats in these polls, suggesting Obama is leading big with both registered and identified Independents. Indeed PPP's cross-tabs suggest as much. As a result, it is entirely possible, even likely, that Obama is still winning the early vote in Colorado, even though registered Republicans are ahead.</b></li>
<li>Florida: On the surface, this state appears to be even more of a toss-up than other states. RCP has <a href="http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2012/president/fl/florida_romney_vs_obama-1883.html">Romney up 1.5 points</a>, but FiveThirtyEight has Obama up 0.2 percentage points. In addition, this is a state where the inaccuracies in <a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/plum-line/post/why-romney-is-losing-latinos-by-a-historic-margin/2012/11/05/3208665c-2761-11e2-ac64-5d52a2c5953e_blog.html">polling the Latino vote</a> should make the final outcome more Obama-favorable than the polls suggest. However, the local polls are Romney's strongest polls, and local polls should be given more weight. As a result, I would buck the FiveThirtyEight model<span style="font-size: x-small;"> (just barely) </span>and give Florida to Romney.</li>
<li>North Carolina: RCP gives <a href="http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2012/president/nc/north_carolina_romney_vs_obama-1784.html">Romney a 3.0 point lead</a> in this state and Nate Silver gives Romney a 72% chance of winning the state. Obama does have a <a href="ftp://www.app.sboe.state.nc.us/enrs/">significant lead in early voting</a>, but the polls for North Carolina reflect the polls of Ohio, but in Romney's favor. Given the razor thin margin Obama won this state by in 2008, I seriously doubt Obama will win this state again in 2012.</li>
</ul>
<span style="font-size: x-small;">Notice I rarely mentioned ground games. It is extremely hard to predict what kind of an effect a strong ground game will have on the election. Nevada is the obvious exception</span><br />
<br />
So my final electoral vote prediction is <b>Obama at 303 electoral votes and Romney at 235 electoral votes</b>. I would expect the election to swing anywhere from Obama winning 281-257 to Obama winning 332-206. So let's see what happens!<br />
<br />
<span style="font-size: x-small;"><b>Note: for early voting results, see <a href="http://elections.gmu.edu/early_vote_2012.html">here</a>.</b></span>KnocksvilleEhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08423194549982565593noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4644604150419303086.post-48799328554024227782012-11-01T23:03:00.003-07:002012-11-05T18:06:08.907-08:00Busting The Romney Fauxmentum Myths<div style="text-align: center;">
</div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
</div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<img alt="http://i2.cdn.turner.com/cnn/dam/assets/121023030536-24-debate-gi-1022-horizontal-gallery.jpg" class="decoded" height="225" src="http://i2.cdn.turner.com/cnn/dam/assets/121023030536-24-debate-gi-1022-horizontal-gallery.jpg" width="400" /></div>
<br />
<br />
Those crazy polls are lying to us! At least that's what many pundits would have you believe. The polls tell that at the national level, the race is statistically tied (<a href="http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2012/president/us/general_election_romney_vs_obama-1171.html">RCP Obama+0.1</a>, <a href="http://elections.huffingtonpost.com/pollster/2012-general-election-romney-vs-obama">Pollster Romney +0.1</a>, <a href="http://polltracker.talkingpointsmemo.com/">TPM Obama +1.4</a>. Yet state polls suggest a <a href="http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/11/01/oct-31-obamas-electoral-college-firewall-holding-in-polls/">slight but persistent Obama lead</a>. Serious election forecasters <a href="http://www.motherjones.com/mojo/2012/11/election-predictors-obama-romney">all predict an Obama win</a>, although with slightly different levels of uncertainty. But for many pundits, their gut tells them <a href="http://unskewedpolls.com/">something else</a>. For many of them, Obama is such a terrible president they just cannot fathom the idea that not only is Romney not projected to beat Obama in a landslide, he isn't even projected to win at all! Yet they feel as though Romney has had some kind of momentum coming out of the Denver debate, meaning he should be <a href="http://www.theatlanticwire.com/politics/2012/11/karl-roves-prediction-vs-karl-roves-map/58607/">poised</a> to <a href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/steve-lombardo/election-monitor-5-days-t_b_2058155.html?utm_hp_ref=@pollster">win</a>. To them, there must be something wrong with both the <a href="http://www.theatlanticwire.com/politics/2012/10/people-who-cant-do-math-are-so-mad-nate-silver/58460/#">forecasters</a> and the polls. However, in the last few days HuffPost pollster has done an exceptional job busting a few of the more common myths coming from these pundits:<br />
<br />
<h3>
<b>Myth: Polls are oversampling Democrats, making it look as though Obama is doing better than he really is.</b></h3>
<a href="http://contentinreality.blogspot.com/2012/09/are-election-polls-oversampling.html">I touched a bit on this claim</a> back in September when it seemed as if pollsters and forecasters left it largely untouched. Since then, we have seen a few <a href="http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/09/29/poll-averages-have-no-history-of-consistent-partisan-bias/">tackle this issue</a>. However, it seems to persist <a href="http://www.mittromney.com/blog/state-ohio-presidential-campaign">even</a> <a href="http://numbersmuncher.wordpress.com/2012/10/16/some-key-numbers-from-recent-ohio-polls/">today</a>, along with the observation that those polls which are "oversampling" Democrats also show Romney winning the Independent vote, often by <a href="http://americanresearchgroup.com/pres2012/OH12.html">large margins</a>. Nowadays the focus on Ohio, which is no surprise given that it is the state <a href="http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/10/23/oct-22-ohio-has-50-50-chance-of-deciding-election/">most likely to decide the election</a>. Now it is true there are polls giving Democrats up to an 8 point lead in Ohio. And it is true many of those same polls also show Romney winning the independent vote by large margins. And it is likely going to be the case that exit polls won't show Democrats with an 8 point lead among party identity either. In my last post, I pointed this out, but did not speculate as to why this is the case, and why we should still expect Obama to win by the same margins the polls predict. However, I suspected Romney's popularity among Independents was actually related, suggesting that Romney supporters were more often identifying as Independents than Obama supporters, boosting Romney's support among Independents as well as the Democrat party identification advantage. Today, Pollster blogger Nick Gourevitch <a href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/nick-gourevitch/romney-lead-with-independents_b_2058290.html?utm_hp_ref=@pollster">confirmed this suspicion</a>:
<br />
<blockquote>
<i>...in recent Ohio polling, <b>Romney's lead with Independents is inversely correlated with Democratic party identification advantage</b>.</i> </blockquote>
<blockquote>
<i>
What does this mean? It means that polls with larger Democratic party identification advantages are showing bigger leads for Romney with Independents. And vice versa.
The following chart is a slight adjustment of a chart posted by @numbersmuncher last week showing party identification spreads vs. the vote among Independents in recent Ohio polls where this data is published. The chart below is sorted by Democratic party identification advantage -- so the polls with the greatest Democratic margins are up top and the polls with the lowest margins are at the bottom:<br />
</i><br />
<div style="text-align: center;">
<i><img alt="2012-11-01-Nov1Chart1.png" height="339" src="http://images.huffingtonpost.com/2012-11-01-Nov1Chart1.png" width="400" /> </i></div>
<i>
A quick glance at the chart above clearly shows this inverse correlation. <b>Romney's biggest leads with Independents (except the one Suffolk poll) all come in polls where the Democratic party identification is largest</b>. And the math backs up what the eye sees -- the correlation coefficient between the Independent vote and the party identification advantage is -0.61. While the correlation is by no means perfect (there are many other variables that impact these numbers), the trend clearly exists.</i> (emphasis mine) </blockquote>
This shouldn't be too hard to understand. The first thing you should note is that there doesn't seem to be practically any correlation between Obama's lead and party ID advantages (with the exception of one Rasmussen Poll, which can be better <a href="http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/09/19/obamas-lead-looks-stronger-in-polls-that-include-cellphones/">explained by other factors</a>). This suggests that the proportion of Romney and Obama supporters remains approximately the same throughout each poll, despite party ID advantages. Some polls such as CNN, U of Cincinnati, and Rasmussen are more likely to show Romney supporters identifying as Republicans and/or Obama supporters identifying as Independents than ARG, Time, or CBS/Quinnipac, which show approximately the opposite. As a result, the apparent Democratic ID advantage, as well as the Romney advantage among Independents, can best be explained by how a poll determines party identification. Remember that there is a substantial <a href="http://www.people-press.org/2012/08/03/party-affiliation-and-election-polls/">difference between party registration and party identification</a>. It may also be interesting to note that the <a href="http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/2010/04/use-of-likely-voter-model-does-not.html">Republican-leaning</a> Rasmussen poll gives Obama some of his best numbers with Independents.Yet why do these polls show such different results for party ID? Nick Gourevitch explains:
<br />
<blockquote>
<i>This can happen for a number of reasons. Pollsters use different questions and methodologies. Live interview polls and automated polls produce different party identification distributions (ones that are also different from in-person Election Day exit polls). Pollsters ask party identification in different ways. Some use three-point scales, others five-point scales and others seven-point scales. Some push "leaners" and some don't. Question ordering also matters - especially for pollsters who put party identification at the end of their survey. If you have a survey with a bunch of questions on social issues, it might cause more people to identify as Democrats in a socially liberal state, but might cause more people to identify as Republicans in a more socially conservative state.</i></blockquote>
However, why is it that most of these polls show Democrat party identification so much higher than Republican party identification? Pollster Thomas M. Holbrook <a href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/thomas-m-holbrook/a-partisan-advantage-for-_b_2052850.html?utm_hp_ref=@pollster">finds something</a> that should give us a clue:
<br />
<blockquote>
<i>"One way of assessing the relative value of party for each of the candidates is by looking at rates of party affiliation in the electorate... These data show that <b>the Democrats have held an affiliation advantage throughout the 2012 campaign</b>, one that has ebbed and flowed a little bit and now stands at approximately six percentage points.</i> </blockquote>
<blockquote>
<i>...</i> </blockquote>
<blockquote>
<i><b>throughout this campaign period the Democratic Party has been viewed more positively than the Republican Party. </b> In fact, there is not a single poll in this series in which the Republican party registered a net positive rating, and not a single case in which the net Republican rating was higher than the net Democrat rating. The average net rating for the Republican Party in this series is -13, whereas the average for the Democratic Party is +.3." </i> (emphasis mine)</blockquote>
This could explain why Romney supporters are more likely to identify as Independents this election. No doubt many of these self-described Independents identified as Republicans back during the 2010 elections. Yet throughout 2011, Republican party favorability <a href="http://polltracker.talkingpointsmemo.com/contests/republican-party-favorability-us">dropped drastically</a>, recovering some but not all in 2012. At the end of 2010, Republicans held a net favorability rating of -2.4. Today that number has fallen to -8.3. Democrats on the other hand, have seen <a href="http://polltracker.talkingpointsmemo.com/contests/democratic-party-favorability-us">very little change</a> since the end of 2010. Democrats held a net favorability of ~1.4 points <span style="font-size: x-small;">(can't see exactly)</span>. Today that number has slipped barely to -1.5, barely even statistically significant, and about half the drop seen by Republicans.<br />
<br />
<i>Update 11/5/12: I just found this <a href="http://www.tnr.com/blog/electionate/107813/no-the-polls-arent-oversampling-democrats#">article</a> essentially confirming this suspicion. Actually most polls seem to indicate there are <b>fewer voters identifying as Democrats</b> now than in the 2008 exit polls, instead shifting to Independents. However, the drop is <b>much larger with Republicans</b>. This means that more Republicans than Democrats have shifted to thinking of themselves as Independents, causing Independents as a whole to be more conservative and Democrats to have a large identity advantage.<b> </b></i><br />
<br />
All of this should show how wrongheaded attempts to "unskew" polls really are. Unless independents are adjusted along with party ID, you actually end up oversampling Romney supporters! <br />
<br />
<h3>
<b>Myth: Undecideds will break toward Romney because he is the challenger.</b></h3>
<br />
While it is true that Obama's lead nationally and in state's like Ohio aren't large enough to put Obama's numbers over 50%, the "<a href="http://www.pollingreport.com/incumbent.htm">Incumbent Rule</a>," which states that undecideds generally break towards the challenger, may be less of a factor than <a href="http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204846304578090820229096046.html?mod=WSJ_Opinion_LEADTop">some would have you believe</a>. Pollster blogger Mark Blumenthal <a href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/11/01/2012-polls-incumbent-rule_n_2061595.html?utm_hp_ref=@pollster">explains</a>:
<br />
<blockquote>
<i>"When <a href="http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/10/11/incumbents-polling-below-50-often-win-re-election-despite-conventional-wisdom/">The New York Times' Nate Silver examined polls from 1998 to 2009</a>, he found no evidence that "the majority of the undecided vote broke against the incumbents." His advice: "Focus on the margin between the candidates, just as you might instinctively do.</i>"</blockquote>
In addition, he found little evidence this year will be an exception. This weekend, we will see the release of Pew's final survey report, which should shed more light on this question.<br />
<br />
<b><i>I will continue to update this posts as new information arrives... </i></b>KnocksvilleEhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08423194549982565593noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4644604150419303086.post-88130916578682910462012-09-19T21:43:00.002-07:002012-09-19T21:43:49.195-07:00Are Election Polls Oversampling Democrats? Not Really.<div style="text-align: center;">
<img src="http://www.currenttrends2012.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/06/vote-button-can-paid-search-buy-presidential-election1-300x298.jpg" /> </div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
As of right now, Obama leads Romney by 2.9 points nationally, according to <a href="http://www.realclearpolitics.com/elections/">RealClearPolitics</a>. And his lead among swing states is even higher. Thanks to <a href="http://www.foxnews.com/politics/interactive/2012/09/19/obama-favored-over-romney-among-likely-voters-in-ohio/">Fox News</a> and <a href="http://msnbcmedia.msn.com/i/MSNBC/Sections/A_Politics/_Today_Stories_Teases/ohio_poll_september.pdf">NBC/WSJ/Marist</a>, Obama leads by 4.8 points in Ohio, possibly the most important swing state in the election. His lead is also at 4.7 points in <a href="http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2012/president/va/virginia_romney_vs_obama-1774.html">Virginia</a>, and 2.0 points in <a href="http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2012/president/fl/florida_romney_vs_obama-1883.html">Florida</a>. Thanks to polling like this, <a href="http://www.intrade.com/v4/markets/?eventId=84326">Intrade</a> has Obama's chances of winning at 67.4%. </div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
However, some Republicans are skeptical of this lead, arguing these polls tend to <a href="http://www.theblaze.com/stories/this-graph-shows-why-obama-is-ahead-in-the-polls/">oversample Democrats</a> in order to make it look as though Obama's lead is actually much smaller than it appears. Attempts to "unskew" these polls <a href="http://www.examiner.com/article/barack-obama-leads-five-percent-heavily-skewed-democracy-corps-poll">have resulted in Romney leads of 9%</a>! So it is a legitimate question to ask, have these polls been oversampling Democrats in order to make Obama look stronger than Romney, perhaps in order to create some kind of self-fulfilled prophecy?</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
No doubt conservative "skeptics" of the mainstream media would be quick to answer with a resounding "YES!" Could you have any more proof of a liberal media bias? Of course, the truly skeptical mind would probably see a few red flags first. </div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<a href="http://www.nationalreview.com/campaign-spot/309347/why-are-so-many-pollsters-oversampling-democrats%23#">Jim Geraghty at the National Review's Number-Cruncher</a> raises one such red flag:</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<blockquote>
<i><b>Starting in 1992, EVERY Pew poll appears to lean to one direction — always towards the Democrat, and by an average of more than 5 percentage points. Worse this is a reflection of the “final” poll which even the Democratic firm, Public Policy Polling, usually gets right."</b></i> (emphasis not mine)</blockquote>
</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
After listing the final polls for <a href="http://www.people-press.org/files/legacy-questionnaires/7-12-12%20Political%20topline%20for%20release.pdf">Pew</a> for the 1988-2008 presidential elections, the Number-Cruncher wonders why Pew doesn't try to adjust their numbers? Actually, the answer to this is rather simple. The numbers he used were for <i>Registered Voters</i> (RV), not <i>Likely Voters</i> (LV). In fact, LV models are actually used to <i>better predict</i> the outcome of an election since not all registered voters actually vote. <a href="http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/09/18/sept-17-electoral-college-may-not-help-obama/">Nate Silver at FiveThirtyEight points out</a> that, when choosing between polls of LVs verses RVs, always go with the former. This may not necessarily be the case early on, before the conventions. But it is definitely the case now. As a result, out of the 7 polls included in the RCP average, 6 are LV polls. In fact, if we are to look at Pew's results for their final LV polls, they actually are quite <a href="http://www.people-press.org/2012/08/03/party-affiliation-and-election-polls/">accurate</a>:</div>
<ul style="text-align: justify;">
<li>2008 error: D-1 <span style="font-size: x-small;">(Republican numbers were accurate but Democrat numbers off by 1)</span></li>
<li>2004 error: 0</li>
<li>2000 error: R+2</li>
<li>1996 error: D+6</li>
</ul>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Other than 1996, their recent track record has been very good, with only small errors of 0-2 points favoring Republicans. </div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
In fact, many of the most heavily criticized polls do <a href="http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/11/04/rasmussen-polls-were-biased-and-inaccurate-quinnipiac-surveyusa-performed-strongly/">extremely well at predicting the vote</a>. This prompts the obvious question: so why are people saying there is a problem? </div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Despite the fact that many of these critiques point to RV polls, LV polls often show a stronger Democrat presence than Republican:</div>
<ul style="text-align: justify;">
<li><a href="http://surveys.ap.org/data/GfK/AP-GfK%20Poll%20September%202012%20Topline_1st%20release.pdf">9/13-17/12 AP/GfK</a>: Democrats+1</li>
<li><a href="http://www.people-press.org/files/legacy-pdf/09-19-12%20Political%20release.pdf">9/12-16/12 Pew</a>: Democrats+7 (unweighted, so likely less for the actual results)</li>
<li><a href="http://msnbcmedia.msn.com/i/MSNBC/Sections/A_Politics/_Today_Stories_Teases/September_WSJ_NBC_Poll.pdf">9/12-16/12 NBC/WSJ</a>: Democrats+5</li>
<li><a href="http://www.monmouth.edu/assets/0/84/159/2147483694/31a5695e-db0d-4272-b292-b9640f4ff7fb.pdf">9/13-16/12 Monmouth/SurveyUSA/Braun</a>: Democrats+4</li>
</ul>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Note: I did not Include Rasmussen because I do not have access to their numbers</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
In recent elections, <a href="http://www.people-press.org/2012/08/03/party-affiliation-and-election-polls/">party turnout has swung</a> from a tie between Democrats and Republicans in 2004 and 2010, to a 7 point lead for Democrats in 2008, which was an unprecedented year for Democrat voter turnout. So it may be a stretch to assume Democrats will turnout in numbers like the Pew poll suggests.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
So why is this the case? Some conservatives have <a href="http://www.theblaze.com/stories/this-graph-shows-why-obama-is-ahead-in-the-polls/">speculated</a> pollsters may be oversampling to try and replicate the unusual 2008 voter turnout among Democrats. However <a href="http://reason.com/poll/2012/09/18/are-public-opinion-polls-exaggerating-ob">Emily Perkins of reason.com</a> finds there is little support for this theory:
</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<blockquote>
<i>It is hard to say whether pollsters are in fact relying too heavily on 2008 partisan turnout, because it is extraordinarily difficult to track down how these pollsters define likely voters.</i> </blockquote>
<blockquote>
<i>According to Chris Jackson at Ipsos-Reuters, “most research organizations use a combination of prior voting behavior, interest in the election and self-report likelihood to vote to categorize likely voters. ...Some pollsters also use ‘voter lists’ or commercial lists of people who voted in the last election instead of screening these individuals from the population.”</i> </blockquote>
<blockquote>
<i>Rasmussen gives a vague explanation here, “The questions involve voting history, interest in the current campaign, and likely voting intentions. Rasmussen Reports determines its partisan weighting targets through a dynamic weighting system that takes into account the state’s voting history, national trends, and recent polling in a particular state or geographic area.”</i> </blockquote>
<blockquote>
<i>ABC News explains, they “develop a range of ‘likely voter’ models, employing elements such as self-reported voter registration, intention to vote, attention to the race, past voting, age, respondents’ knowledge of their polling places, and political party identification.”</i> </blockquote>
<blockquote>
<i>As Huffington Post’s Mark Blumenthal reports, “CNN has published no explanation of how they select likely voters.”</i> (emphasis mine)</blockquote>
</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
In addition, there is little reason for polls to adjust their samples to fit 2008 at all. <a href="http://www.people-press.org/2012/08/03/party-affiliation-and-election-polls/">Pew explains</a>:
</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<blockquote>
<i>"While all of our surveys are statistically adjusted to represent the
proper proportion of Americans in different regions of the country;
younger and older Americans; whites, African Americans and Hispanics;
and even the correct share of adults who rely on cell phones as opposed
to landline phones, these are all known, and relatively stable,
characteristics of the population that can be verified off of U.S.
Census Bureau data or other high quality government data sources.</i>" </blockquote>
<blockquote>
<i>"Party identification is another thing entirely. Most fundamentally, it
is an attitude, not a demographic. To put it simply, party
identification is one of the aspects of public opinion that our surveys
are trying to measure, not something that we know ahead of time like the
share of adults who are African American, female, or who live in the
South"</i> </blockquote>
<blockquote>
... </blockquote>
<blockquote>
<i>In effect, standardizing, smoothing, or otherwise tinkering with the balance of party identification in a survey is tantamount to saying we know how well each candidate is doing before the survey is conducted."</i></blockquote>
</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
In other words, while pollsters may adjust party identification in LV models to reflect the fact that not all registered voters actually vote, there is little they may do to adjust party turnout for surveys in general (RV, All), other than assign weights due to census factors. Since the appearance of Democrat oversampling is stronger in other surveys than LVs, there is little reason to think the LV adjustments would be responsible for the appearance of Democrat oversampling. This means that the appearance of Democrat oversampling may only exist because more voters actually consider themselves Democrats at the time the polls are conducted.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Now it is highly unlikely we will have the same composition of voters once election time comes around. However this is not all that much of a problem since party identification, unlike registration, changes during the election season. Pew explains:
</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<blockquote>
<i>"Particularly in an election cycle, the balance of party identification in surveys will ebb and flow with candidate fortunes, as it should, since the candidates themselves are the defining figureheads of those partisan labels."</i></blockquote>
</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
This "ebb and flow" can be drastic. <a href="http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/archive/mood_of_america_archive/partisan_trends/summary_of_party_affiliation">Rasmussen measured party identification</a> in July 2012 with a 1 point advantage for Republicans and again in August 2012 with a 4 point advantage for Republicans. <a href="http://www.gallup.com/poll/15370/party-affiliation.aspx">Gallup saw an even larger bounce</a> from Nov 7-9 2008, where Democrats outnumbered Republicans by 5 points, to Nov 13-16 2008, where Democrats outnumbered Republicans by 13 points. That is an 8 point change in a few weeks! From Aug 20-22 2012, Gallup measured a 3 point lead for Democrats. A few weeks later, from Sep 6-9, that lead extended to 8 points. So there is even less reason to try and adjust polling since it will adjust itself if necessary anyway. Pollsters that do try and adjust based on party identification risk skewing the results to show a situation not reflective of the country as a whole.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
So we are left with one more question: Why do the results of party identification differ so much between polls? Other than sampling error, this can be explained by differences in methodology. <a href="http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/09/19/obamas-lead-looks-stronger-in-polls-that-include-cellphones/">Nate Silver explains</a> one such difference:
</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<blockquote>
<i>"Although there are exceptions on either side, like the Gallup national tracking poll, for the most part Mr. Obama seems to be getting stronger results in polls that use live interviewers and that include cellphones in their samples — enough to suggest that he has a clear advantage in the race.</i> </blockquote>
<blockquote>
<i>In the polls that use an automated dialing method (“robopolls”) or which exclude cellphones, Mr. Obama’s bounce has been much harder to discern, and the race looks considerably closer."</i></blockquote>
</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
And there is good reason why this is the case:
</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<blockquote>
<i>"These results are consistent with some past research. Roughly one third of American households rely solely on mobile phones and do not have landlines, meaning they will simply be excluded by polls that call landlines only. Potential voters who rely on cellphones belong to more Democratic-leaning demographic groups than those which don’t, and there is reasonably strong empirical evidence that the failure to include them in polls can bias the results against Democrats, even after demographic weightings are applied."</i></blockquote>
</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
PEW has <a href="http://pewresearch.org/pubs/901/cell-phones-polling-election-2008">confirmed this trend</a> in the past. And Nate Silver has <a href="http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/09/19/obamas-lead-looks-stronger-in-polls-that-include-cellphones/">confirmed this is the case for the 2012 election</a> as well:</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<blockquote>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<img alt="" height="563" id="100000001793264" src="http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/2012/09/19/us/politics/fivethirtyeight-0919-celltest/fivethirtyeight-0919-celltest-blog480.png" width="480" /></div>
</blockquote>
<br />
<br />
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Since Rasmussen <a href="http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/2010/01/rasmussen-teabaggers-and-type-ii-error.html">uses only landlines</a>, and others like Fox News, NBC, WSJ, and Quinnipac use a mixture of landlines and cellphones, it is easy to see why Rasmussen tends to poll a larger sample of Republicans than Democrats, and thus also tends to <a href="http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/2010/04/use-of-likely-voter-model-does-not.html">poll to the right of other polls</a> as well. This effect has become <a href="http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/2010/04/use-of-likely-voter-model-does-not.html">more pronounced</a> over the last few years, leading to <a href="http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/11/04/rasmussen-polls-were-biased-and-inaccurate-quinnipiac-surveyusa-performed-strongly/">a decline in Rasmussen's ability to predict election results</a>.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
So, to answer the question originally posed in this article, any appearance of party oversampling is likely caused by one party being better represented in the population at a given time than another. And since these polls look at party identification, not registration, we should expect this to change over time, meaning we don't necessarily expect to see the exact same party identification distribution on election day. However, poor sampling methodology that may bias one party over another, such as ignoring cellphones when sampling, is likely a better explanation for the appearance of bias in one poll or another.</div>
<br />
<br />KnocksvilleEhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08423194549982565593noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4644604150419303086.post-57388549476817130042012-09-06T17:39:00.001-07:002012-09-06T17:47:23.651-07:00Why Are The Washington Post Wonkbloggers Repeating A Romney Campaign Falsehood About Medicare?<div style="text-align: center;">
<img alt="" height="306" src="http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/ezra-klein/files/2012/08/Medicare-Cuts.jpg" title="Medicare Cuts" width="400" /> </div>
<br />
The Washington Post’s WONKBLOG has <a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/ezra-klein/wp/2012/08/30/the-true-the-false-and-the-misleading-grading-paul-ryans-convention-speech/">been</a> <a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/ezra-klein/wp/2012/09/04/paul-ryans-medicare-claims-vs-his-auto-bailout-claims/">repeating</a> the Romney Campaign's falsehood about Obamacare and Medicare. From their <a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/ezra-klein/wp/2012/09/06/bill-clinton-said-many-many-things-about-medicare-last-night-heres-how-his-facts-check-out/">fact check</a> of Bill Clinton's 2012 DNC Speech:
<br />
<blockquote>
<blockquote>
<i>FALSE: [Clinton:]“Both Governor Romney and Congressman Ryan attacked the president for allegedly robbing Medicare of $716 billion. That’s the same attack they leveled against the Congress in 2010, and they got a lot of votes on it. But it’s not true.”</i></blockquote>
<i>The Affordable Care Act did indeed cut Medicare spending by $716 billion, as the Congressional Budget Office wrote in a July 24 report. It does that by reducing payments to Medicare hospitals and doctors, essentially ratcheting down the amount they receive when they see a patient.</i> </blockquote>
<blockquote>
<i>...these Medicare cuts do indeed exist.</i></blockquote>
However, all three major fact checkers have come to pretty much the opposite conclusion:<br />
<ul>
<li>FactCheck.org (<a href="http://factcheck.org/2012/08/medicares-piggy-bank/">here</a>, <a href="http://factcheck.org/2012/08/a-campaign-full-of-mediscare/">here</a>, and <a href="http://factcheck.org/2012/08/ryans-vp-spin/">here</a>) </li>
<li>Washington Post Fact Checker (<a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/fact-checker/post/answering-readers-questions-about-medicare/2012/08/27/ded01852-f099-11e1-892d-bc92fee603a7_blog.html">here</a> and <a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/fact-checker/post/fact-checking-the-gop-conventions-second-night/2012/08/30/128cbe9e-f260-11e1-adc6-87dfa8eff430_blog.html">here</a>)</li>
<li>Politifact.com (<a href="http://www.politifact.com/ohio/statements/2012/aug/24/jim-renacci/jim-renacci-says-betty-sutton-democrats-gutted-med/">here</a>, <a href="http://www.politifact.com/florida/statements/2012/aug/20/mitt-romney/romney-says-obama-cuts-716-medicare-pay-obamacare/">here</a>, <a href="http://www.politifact.com/new-jersey/statements/2012/aug/19/national-republican-congressional-committee/house-democrats-support-gutting-medicare-more-700-/">here</a>, and <a href="http://www.politifact.com/new-jersey/statements/2012/aug/03/scott-garrett/scott-garrett-claims-affordable-care-act-raidts-me/">here</a>):
</li>
</ul>
In my <a href="http://contentinreality.blogspot.com/2012/08/no-paul-ryan-payroll-taxes-are-not.html">post on Ryan’s Medicare claim</a>, I explained why this is the case using the findings of both FactCheck and The Washington Post Fact Checker <span style="font-size: x-small;">(PolitiFact did an exceptionally poor job explaining the problem)</span>:<br />
<br />
<blockquote>
<i>"Medicare payroll taxes go to pay for Medicare Part A. What revenue is
left over goes into the Medicare Hospital Insurance trust fund. And that
fund goes to finance shortfalls in Medicare Part A. As of late, there
is not enough revenue coming from payroll taxes to cover hospital
insurance for medicare beneficiaries. As a result, the trust fund is
being drained and will eventually be empty, meaning Medicare Part A will
become insolvent. To help mitigate the problem, the Affordable Coverage
Act slows the amount of money coming out of the trust fund via reduced
payments to hospitals. Obama can get away with those reduced payments to
hospitals largely without causing them to drop out of the program
because of <a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/ezra-klein/wp/2012/08/14/romneys-right-obamacare-cuts-medicare-by-716-billion-heres-how/">a deal he stuck with hospitals</a>, promising new patients through the ACA, more than making up for the lost revenue. This saved money <b>stays in the trust fund </b>(although it can be loaned out, more on that later)</i><i>.
It does not go to cover the uninsured not currently in Medicare. In
addition, Obama increases the revenue coming into the trust fund via a
0.9 percent tax "<i>on earnings above $200,000 for single taxpayers or $250,000 for married couples.</i>"<br />
<br />
The savings from Medicare that actually go into Obamacare come from Medicare Parts B, C, and D, and <b>only </b>from funds that come <b>from congress</b> <span style="font-size: xx-small;">(income taxes, corporate taxes, etc...)</span> to cover outlays. This accounts <a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/ezra-klein/wp/2012/08/14/romneys-right-obamacare-cuts-medicare-by-716-billion-heres-how/%20">for approximately 2/3</a>
of $716 Billion in slowed medicare growth. Obama decreases the growth
of money congress spends on Medicare from general revenue using the
Independent Payment Advisory Board, which is incredibly limited in what it can target."</i></blockquote>
<blockquote>
<i>...a bill can both reduce the deficit and not be "paid for." This is
because some of the revenue that comes in goes "into savings" instead of
being used to pay the bills. And just like a bank uses savings accounts
to make loans, so too can this Medicare money "in savings" be loaned
out to pay for other programs. FactCheck explains:</i></blockquote>
<blockquote>
<blockquote>
<i>"What happens in government accounting is that after Treasury issues a
bond that it will have to pay later, it can spend the money it received
on other things. And it often does, whether that’s coverage expansion,
as called for in the health care law, <b>or any number of things</b>. The Romney spokesman said it was “a shell game.”"</i> </blockquote>
<blockquote>
<i>But that <b>doesn’t mean</b> that the Medicare trust fund will be
slashed or its “piggy bank” “robbed” or “raided,” or any other claim
we’d put firmly in the category of “senior scare.”</i> (emphasis mine)</blockquote>
</blockquote>
<blockquote>
<i>Romney does have a point in essentially calling this an accounting
trick. And he could spend time making that claim instead of a
demonstrably false one. You can argue over whether or not the CBO was
therefore wrong to say the ACA cuts the deficit.
But you cannot say payroll taxes are going toward the ACA anymore than
you can say your personal savings in the bank are going toward someone
else's loan. Just like those savings are still legally yours, so are the
trust funds still legally Medicare's. Any money that is borrowed from
the fund has to be paid back.</i></blockquote>
<br />
I am not quite sure why the Wonkbloggers are doing this. And I can find no explanation as to why they keep coming to the exact opposite conclusion as these major independent fact checkers, including the Washington Post’s own Glenn Kessler. Could It be the double counting? Romney could certainly say Obamacare isn’t paid for, or that it adds to the debt (but not deficit). However, as Glenn Kessler <a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/fact-checker/post/sebelius-and-double-counting-of-medicare-savings/2011/03/11/ABeOaUR_blog.html">has noted</a>, that would open Republicans (including his own VP Pick) to criticisms of hypocrisy since those claims can be leveled at nearly any deficit reduction plan, including many of the GOP's own.
KnocksvilleEhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08423194549982565593noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4644604150419303086.post-84158770810457586012012-08-26T12:37:00.003-07:002012-09-06T17:37:38.066-07:00No Paul Ryan, Payroll Taxes Are NOT Going Towards ObamaCare<h3>
<b>Paul Ryan has been LYING about Obamacare and payroll taxes.</b></h3>
<br />
<div style="text-align: center;">
<img alt="Paul Ryan Republican vice presidential candidate U.S. Rep. Paul Ryan (R-WI) speaks at a campaign event at Miami University on August 15, 2012 in Oxford, Ohio. Ryan is campaigning in the battleground state of Ohio after being named as the vice presidental candidate last week by Republican presidential hopeful Mitt Romney." height="420" id="currentPic" src="http://www1.pictures.zimbio.com/gi/Paul+Ryan+Republican+Vice+Presidential+Candidate+WZJSf8vGF73l.jpg" title="Republican Vice Presidential Candidate Paul Ryan Campaigns In Ohio" width="640" /> </div>
<br />
During a campaign stop at Miami University in Ohio, Paul Ryan made the claim that payroll taxes will now be used to fund the Affordable Care Act:
<br />
<blockquote>
<i>"Ryan slightly reframed the attack by arguing that Obamacare is effectively taking hundreds of billions from payroll taxes. “Take a look at your paycheck next time. Look at that line on your paycheck that [reads] payroll taxes," Ryan said. "<b>You see our payroll taxes from our paychecks are supposed to go to two programs--Social Security and Medicare period. Now because of Obamacare they’re also going to pay for Obamacare</b>." The crowd booed."</i> (emphasis mine)</blockquote>
One problem with this: It is completely false. And the Romney campaign knows it.<br />
<br />
Earlier this week, <a href="http://factcheck.org/2012/08/a-campaign-full-of-mediscare/">FactCheck.org released</a> probably the <b>best article</b> on Mediscare claims since they began resurfacing after the Ryan VP pick. This article is an <b>absolute must read</b> for anyone wanting to understand how Medicare works, as well as what Romney, Ryan, and Obama each plan to do about Medicare's fiscal problems. The article begins with explaining the troubles Medicare faces down the road, mainly focusing on insolvency <span style="font-size: x-small;">(which is <b>different</b> from bankruptcy)</span>. The article then summarizes the history of Medicare, as well as the different "Parts" of Medicare <span style="font-size: x-small;">(A,B,C, and D)</span>. Understanding this is crucial for understanding the Ryan, Romney, and Obama Medicare plans <span style="font-size: x-small;">(Obama has already passed his plan as part of the ACA). <span style="font-size: small;">Here is a basic summary of what each Part of Medicare covers</span></span>:<br />
<ul>
<li><b>Medicare Part A: </b>Hospital insurance</li>
<li><b>Medicare Part B:</b> Insurance for doctor visits</li>
<li><b>Medicare Part C (Medicare Advnatage):</b> Combines both Part A and B but uses a private insurer.</li>
<li><b>Medicare Part D:</b> Prescription Drugs</li>
</ul>
The article also debunks the claims from both the Obama and Romney campaigns about how each candidate plans to cut benefits and push the cost of healthcare further onto seniors. I will not spend any time in this post talking about whether or not either campaign's arguments hold water <span style="font-size: x-small;">(See my previous <a href="http://contentinreality.blogspot.com/2012/08/debunking-romney-part-3-medicare-claims.html">post and Roundup</a> from last week for that)</span>. This post will be dedicated to understanding why Paul Ryan is lying about payroll taxes going to fund the Affordable Care Act <span style="font-size: x-small;">(Obamacare, PPACA, ACA)</span>. <br />
<br />
One area where FactCheck's article falls a bit short is on explaining why Paul Ryan's claim mentioned above is wrong. The article is a bit vague and inconclusive. However, a <a href="http://www.mittromney.com/news/press/2012/08/paul-ryan-mitt-romney-and-i-will-stop-president-obamas-raid-medicare">campaign speech by Paul Ryan</a> finally motivated FactCheck to <a href="http://factcheck.org/2012/08/medicares-piggy-bank/">get more detailed and help explain</a> specifically why Paul Ryan's claim is wrong <span style="font-size: x-small;">(the article also debunks Medicare bankruptcy claims)</span>. This article is another <b>absolute must read</b>. I will summarize and expand here:<br />
<br />
Medicare payroll taxes go to pay for Medicare Part A. What revenue is left over goes into the Medicare Hospital Insurance trust fund. And that fund goes to finance shortfalls in Medicare Part A. As of late, there is not enough revenue coming from payroll taxes to cover hospital insurance for medicare beneficiaries. As a result, the trust fund is being drained and will eventually be empty, meaning Medicare Part A will become insolvent. To help mitigate the problem, the Affordable Coverage Act slows the amount of money coming out of the trust fund via reduced payments to hospitals. Obama can get away with those reduced payments to hospitals largely without causing them to drop out of the program because of <a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/ezra-klein/wp/2012/08/14/romneys-right-obamacare-cuts-medicare-by-716-billion-heres-how/">a deal he stuck with hospitals</a>, promising new patients through the ACA, more than making up for the lost revenue. This saved money <b>stays in the trust fund </b>(although it can be loaned out, more on that later).<sup>3</sup> It does not go to cover the uninsured not currently in Medicare. In addition, Obama increases the revenue coming into the trust fund via a 0.9 percent tax "<i>on earnings above $200,000 for single taxpayers or $250,000 for married couples.</i>"<br />
<br />
The savings from Medicare that actually go into Obamacare come from Medicare Parts B, C, and D, and <b>only </b>from funds that come <b>from congress</b> <span style="font-size: x-small;">(income taxes, corporate taxes, etc...)</span> to cover outlays. This accounts <a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/ezra-klein/wp/2012/08/14/romneys-right-obamacare-cuts-medicare-by-716-billion-heres-how/%20">for approximately 2/3</a> of $716 Billion in slowed medicare growth. Obama decreases the growth of money congress spends on Medicare from general revenue using the Independent Payment Advisory Board, which is incredibly limited<sup>1</sup> in what it can target.<br />
<br />
So it should be pretty clear Paul Ryan's claim is false. But remember I accused Ryan of more than just telling him a falsehood. I accused him of lying, meaning he knew what he was saying was false. What is my evidence? Besides Ryan's work on the medicare program <span style="font-size: x-small;">(meaning he should know this Medicare 101 knowledge)</span> and acceptance of Obama's ACA Medicare savings <span style="font-size: x-small;">(he should know what he is accepting)</span>, when FactCheck asked Romney's campaign about their claims, the campaign responded this way:
<br />
<blockquote>
<i>"When we asked the campaign how it could argue that Obama’s spending reductions didn’t extend the life of the trust fund, a spokesman replied that it didn’t extend the fund “unless the administration is ready to admit their law blows a huge hole in our deficit.”"</i></blockquote>
So essentially they are accusing Obama of double counting the savings from hospital insurance. If that money has to be put into the trust fund, it can't also cover the non-Medicare related Obamacare expenses. Fact Check explains <span style="font-size: x-small;">(from their original article</span>):
<br />
<blockquote>
<i>"The fact is that CBO and the guardians of the hospital trust fund say Obama’s health care law does both extend the life of the trust fund and reduce the deficit, but can’t be also counted as paying for the law’s added spending."</i></blockquote>
This may sound a bit confusing. It essentially comes from the fact that a bill can both reduce the deficit and not be "paid for." This is because some of the revenue that comes in goes "into savings" instead of being used to pay the bills. And just like a bank uses savings accounts to make loans, so too can this Medicare money "in savings" be loaned out to pay for other programs.<sup>2</sup> FactCheck explains:
<br />
<blockquote>
<i>"What happens in government accounting is that after Treasury issues a bond that it will have to pay later, it can spend the money it received on other things. And it often does, whether that’s coverage expansion, as called for in the health care law, <b>or any number of things</b>. The Romney spokesman said it was “a shell game.”"</i> </blockquote>
<blockquote>
<i>But that <b>doesn’t mean</b> that the Medicare trust fund will be slashed or its “piggy bank” “robbed” or “raided,” or any other claim we’d put firmly in the category of “senior scare.”</i> (emphasis mine)</blockquote>
Romney does have a point in essentially calling this an accounting trick. And he could spend time making that claim instead of a demonstrably false one. You can argue over whether or not the CBO was therefore wrong to say the ACA cuts the deficit <b>(see Update 8/28/12)</b>. But you cannot say payroll taxes are going toward the ACA anymore than you can say your personal savings in the bank are going toward someone else's loan. Just like those savings are still legally yours, so are the trust funds still legally Medicare's. Any money that is borrowed from the fund has to be paid back. The Romney campaign knows this and it is reasonable to assume Ryan does as well. So he knows payroll taxes will not fund the ACA, yet he still makes that claim. It is a lie.<br />
<br />
<b><span style="font-size: x-small;"><sup>1</sup> Most of what the IPAB targets is the extra money paid into Medicare Advantage </span><span style="font-size: x-small;">(Part C,except for hospital insurance), making costs from the expensive program fall into line with traditional Medicare. You can argue this will indirectly affect benefits, but the program is forbidden from directly cutting benefits. Romney and Ryan, on the other hand, give congress practically unlimited power to save money however they desire, including through benefits </span><span style="font-size: x-small;">(and <a href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/08/14/congress-approval-rating-all-time-low-gallup-poll_n_1777207.html">we all trust congress</a>, don't we).
As <a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/ezra-klein/wp/2012/08/13/the-white-houses-medicare-plan-isnt-that-hard-to-find/">Ezra Klein</a> and others have repeatedly noted, ObamaCare and Ryan's plan call for approximately the same-sized reductions in future medicare growth. The difference is in how it is implemented.
Without a doubt though, Romney's plan to avoid the $716 in slowed growth is the worst. It will actually <a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/ezra-klein/wp/2012/08/16/medicare-trustees-repealing-obamacare-cuts-would-hasten-insolvency/">hasten insolvency</a>.</span></b><br />
<br />
<br />
<b>Update 8/28/12:</b><br />
<br />
For the last few weeks, the Washington Post Fact Checker has been on vacation. So he as not been posting fact checks on this issue since the Ryan VP pick. Today he finally posted a <a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/fact-checker/post/answering-readers-questions-about-medicare/2012/08/27/ded01852-f099-11e1-892d-bc92fee603a7_blog.html">response to readers' questions</a> on Medicare Cuts, bankruptcy, and cost shifting. Overall, the post was not all that impressive compared to FactCheck's posts. However, he did link to an old <a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/fact-checker/post/sebelius-and-double-counting-of-medicare-savings/2011/03/11/ABeOaUR_blog.html">article</a> talking about the "double counting" issue mentioned above. This article is another <b>absolute must read</b> for anyone interested in this issue. It turns out <b>double counting has been an acceptable practice for both parties</b> for the last few decades. That's right, <b>Republicans use this as well</b>:
<br />
<blockquote>
<i>"When President Bill Clinton signed the Balanced Budget Act of 1997, then House Speaker Newt Gingrich (R-Ga.) was one of the speakers. “On Medicare, we came together and we saved the system for at least a decade,” he declared. How could he make this claim? Through the same double-counting that Republican now decry.
The</i> </blockquote>
<blockquote>
<i>Fact Checker especially frowns on hypocrisy, and <b>Republicans should acknowledge that they have gladly played this game before</b>, including under President George W. Bush."</i> (emphasis mine)</blockquote>
However, playing the "you did it too" game is not a good excuse for doing something potentially harmful. But it does turn out this practice isn't really that bad, since it increases <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_public_debt#Public_and_government_accounts">gross debt without increasing public debt</a>. The Fact Checker explains:
<br />
<blockquote>
<i>"Some argue that the increase in the gross debt is evidence of double-counting but the CBO has said that focusing on the health care law’s impact on the gross debt <b>is not very illuminating</b>: “That measure of debt conveys <b>little information</b> about the federal government’s future financial burdens and has <b>little economic meaning</b>.” </i>(emphasis mine)</blockquote>
This may explain why the Romney campaign has avoided this line of argument and instead chosen a demonstrably false line of argument. He would be open to criticisms that both parties do this and could put the reputation Reputation of congressional Republicans in 1997 in jeopardy. It is much easier to tell a simple lie.<br />
<br />
Note: Just to head off a potential criticism, Ryan cannot say that he was talking about Medicare funds being loaned Obamacare when he said payroll taxes were being used to fund Obamacare. If he had meant it in this way, he would <b>have to admit</b> payroll taxes also fund national defense, congressional pay, the war on drugs, and most any program funded by congress through general revenue. However, his statement started by claiming that payroll taxes <b>only</b> fund Medicare and Social Security. So either way, he was lying.<br />
<br />
<span style="font-size: x-small;"><b><sup>2</sup> I reworded this to make it clearer. It used to say "<i>However, as with any "savings account", that money is available for other uses when it's not being spent</i>"</b></span><br />
<br />
<b><span style="font-size: x-small;"><sup>3</sup> I added the qualifier in parenthesis to make it clear that this money can still be loaned out, even if it still belongs to the trust fund. It has to be paid back. </span></b><br />
<div style="text-align: center;">
</div>
<h2 style="text-align: center;">
<span style="font-size: x-large;"><b>The Roundup
</b></span></h2>
Best Thing to Happen to The Internet Since Al Gore! ... Here is a cat singing the theme from <i>Game of Thrones</i> <span style="font-size: x-small;">(Thanks to <a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/ezra-klein/wp/2012/08/22/cat-sings-game-of-thrones-theme-song/">The Washington Post</a>)</span>:<br />
<div style="text-align: center;">
<iframe allowfullscreen="allowfullscreen" frameborder="0" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/vEg4SEch27w" width="560"></iframe>
</div>
<br />
Yet another reason to subscribe to <a href="http://feeds.washingtonpost.com/rss/rss_ezra-klein">Ezra Klein's RSS</a>...<br />
<br />
<span style="font-size: large;"><a href="http://www.skepticblog.org/2012/08/20/nocebo-nonsense/">Steven Novella: Nocebo Nonsense</a></span>
<br />
<blockquote>
<i>"Chopra’s article was inspired by a New York Times article by researchers into nocebo effects. The researchers, however, make very different points from Chopra. They review the scientific evidence, which is pretty clear. People will report negative side effects even when taking placebos. If they are warned about a particular side effect, they are more likely to report that one. Again – there is no reason to think this is anything other than <b>subjective reporting</b>. Stress is the one factor that can cause real physiological consequences, and therefore illnesses that significantly respond to stress (like heart disease) can be affected by anxiety or hopefulness. <b>This is not true, however, of most diseases</b>."</i> (emhpasis mine)</blockquote>
<span style="font-size: large;"><a href="http://scienceprogress.org/2012/08/the-solyndra-standard/">The Solyndra Standard</a></span><br />
A MUST READ on the GOP's hypocrisy in the Solyndra case. Stephen Lacey puts the case in context:
<br />
<blockquote>
<i>"And here’s the really astonishing disconnect: While supporting tens of thousands of jobs, the loan guarantee program is expected to cost <b>$2 billion less than Congress budgeted for</b>, according to an analysis from Herb Allison, John McCain’s former National Finance Chairman.</i> </blockquote>
<blockquote>
<i>Meanwhile, amidst the Solyndra saga, we <b>casually accept a $300 million aircraft failure</b> without batting an eye. No outrage. No sustained political campaign. It’s just another day testing our military toys.</i> </blockquote>
<blockquote>
<i>Why? Because we don’t often see programs like this as a “failure” in the political arena. We would never use one failure as an excuse to abandon investment in new technologies. Most politicians accept losses in military R&D expenditures because the long-term gains are potentially so important for national defense and for eventually developing technologies for civilian use.</i> </blockquote>
<blockquote>
<i>We should always strive to make programs as efficient and cost-effective as possible. But a few bankrupt clean energy companies representing <b>a fraction</b> of the program’s budgeted cost is <b>no excuse for abandoning federal investments in clean energy</b> — a strategically important sector that is becoming one of the <b>largest drivers</b> of business this century."</i> (emphasis mine)</blockquote>
<br />
<span style="font-size: large;"><a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/ezra-klein/wp/2012/08/24/will-the-feds-efforts-to-boost-the-economy-only-benefit-the-wealthiest/">Will the Fed’s efforts to boost the economy only benefit the wealthiest?</a></span><br />
Thanks
to the inaction of congress, quantitative easing may be one of the last
options to help stimulate the economy. It effectively lowers the value
of debt using inflation, which could help tackle the crippling
deleveraging that is keeping consumer demand down and slowing the
recovery (particularly in the <a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/ezra-klein/wp/2012/08/20/the-best-case-against-the-obama-administration/">housing market</a>). But there is a price. That price is increased income inequality.<br />
<br />
<span style="font-size: large;"><a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/ezra-klein/wp/2012/08/21/great-hyperinflation-episodes-in-history-and-what-they-tell-us-about-the-fed/">Great hyperinflation episodes in history — and what they tell us about the Fed</a></span>
<br />
A MUST READ:<br />
A look at historical cases of hyperinflation point to why it is absurd to suggest it will happen in the US any time soon:
<br />
<blockquote>
<i>"<b>none</b> of the most severe instances of
hyperinflation appear to be triggered by a central bank simply trying to
inject money into a basically intact economy in order to reduce the
unemployment rate."</i> (emphasis mine) </blockquote>
<br />
<span style="font-size: large;"><a href="http://www.nationaljournal.com/energy/conservative-group-plans-to-push-republicans-toward-action-on-climate-cleaner-energy-20120819">Conservative Group Plans to Push Republicans Toward Action on Climate, Cleaner Energy</a></span>
<br />
<blockquote>
<i>"Leading members of the Christian Coalition and the Young Republicans on Monday will launch nationwide the Young Conservatives for Energy Reform, a grassroots group aimed at engaging Republicans on the goals of cutting oil use, backing alternative energy and clean-air regulations, and fighting climate change."</i></blockquote>
Can these groups pull the GOP away from the propaganda of the fossil fuel industry?
<br />
<span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-size: large;"><a href="http://www.economist.com/blogs/democracyinamerica/2012/08/politics-and-philosophy-racism?fsrc=scn%2Ftw_ec%2Fgrand_racist_party_">The politics and philosophy of racism</a></span><br />
Two points:<br />
<ol>
<li>Turns out racists aren't necessarily more likely to be republican than democrat. </li>
<li> Libertarianism will not sure racism for essentially the same reason free markets work: individual cases of racism are "<i>spontaneous orders—of phenomena that are the product of human action, but not of human design</i>" </li>
</ol>
<br />
<div style="text-align: center;">
<img alt="http://i.imgur.com/Swf4k.png" height="640" src="http://i.imgur.com/Swf4k.png" width="576" /> </div>
<br />
<br />
<span style="font-size: large;"><a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/ezra-klein/wp/2012/08/23/wonkbook-want-some-gloomy-news-about-2013/">2013 may be the year of Austerity. Isn't that what the GOP wanted so badly back in 2010?</a></span>
<br />
<br />
<span style="font-size: large;"><a href="http://www.motherjones.com/mojo/2012/08/poll-republicans-really-dont-like-arabs-muslims">Poll: Republicans Really Aren't Big Fans of Arabs or Muslims</a></span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-size: large;"><a href="http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2012/08/23/violence-in-israel.html">Brutal Attack On Palestinian Met With Near-Universal Rebuke among Israelis</a></span>
<br />
<br />
<span style="font-size: large;"><a href="http://www.advisorone.com/2012/08/23/a-bold-new-direction?page=3">On the Progressive Consumption Tax</a> <a href="http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2012/08/23/thanks-for-the-feedback.html">and What it means for people like Romney</a>.</span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-size: large;"><a href="http://www.marketplace.org/topics/wealth-poverty/pay-day/does-minimum-wage-hurt-poor">Very good story about the debate over the minimum wage.</a></span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-size: large;"><a href="http://www.motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2012/08/quote-day-early-voting-bad-idea-because-it-makes-it-easier-blacks-vote">Quote of the Day: Early Voting a Bad Idea Because it Makes it Easier for Blacks to Vote</a></span>
<br />
<br />
<span style="font-size: large;"><a href="http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2012/08/22/independent-voters.html">NPR debunks the myth of the "independent voter".</a></span><br />
<br />
<br />KnocksvilleEhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08423194549982565593noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4644604150419303086.post-51948559048273304472012-08-26T12:20:00.001-07:002012-08-28T21:11:37.332-07:00The Roundup: Abortion Edition<div style="text-align: center;">
<img alt="http://a.abcnews.go.com/images/Politics/ap_todd_akin_jt_120819_wmain.jpg" height="360" src="http://a.abcnews.go.com/images/Politics/ap_todd_akin_jt_120819_wmain.jpg" width="640" /><span style="font-size: large;"> </span></div>
<br />
<span style="font-size: large;"><a href="http://delong.typepad.com/sdj/2012/08/todd-akin-doubles-down-if-she-gets-pregnant-it-wasnt-really-rape-im-on-the-same-page-as-paul-ryan-and-the-other-republic.html">Todd Akin is taking the GOP down with him.</a></span><span style="font-size: large;"> </span><br />
<span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-size: large;"><a href="http://www.motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2012/08/yes-plenty-republicans-want-ban-all-abortions-full-stop">Yes, Plenty of Republicans Want to Ban All Abortions, Full Stop</a></span><br />
The
Todd Akin incident reminds us that this election could easily decide
the future of a woman's right to choose. Multiple states have attempted
to pass bills that could effectively ban all abortions if Roe v Wade was
overturned <span style="font-size: x-small;">(thanks to a
conservative appointee from a Romney administration and the inevitable GOP controlled senate)</span>.<br />
<br />
<span style="font-size: large;"><a href="http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2012/aug/17/ultraviolet/womens-group-says-paul-ryan-would-outlaw-vitro-fer/">PolitiFact: Women's group says Paul Ryan would "outlaw in vitro fertilization”</a></span>
<br />
<blockquote>
<i>"UltraViolet has a point that the bill Ryan backed
could significantly alter the way in vitro fertilization is practiced.
However, the group exaggerates when it says the bill in question would
"outlaw in vitro fertilization." The bill doesn
’t outlaw the procedure directly -- whatever impact it has would likely
require action by states, which many states may be unwilling to
undertake. And while the bill likely outlaws specific practices that
have historically been considered important for practicing in vitro
fertilization, it would not ban the procedure itself."</i></blockquote>
<span style="font-size: large;"><a href="http://factcheck.org/2012/08/another-abortion-falsehood-from-obamas-truth-team/">FactCheck: Another Abortion Falsehood from Obama’s ‘Truth Team’</a></span><br />
Some clarification on the 2012 GOP platform on abortion:
<br />
<blockquote>
<i>"It’s true that Romney has voiced support for the
2008 platform’s call for an unspecified “Human Life Amendment” to the
Constitution, and the language approved by the party’s platfor
m committee for 2012 is identical. But that’s a far cry from advocating
an abortion ban that would apply in cases of rape or incest."</i></blockquote>
And
it turns out that we have been to careless over speculation that these
Human Life Amendments will ban abortions in the cases of rape and
incest:
<br />
<blockquote>
<i>"As we’ve said before, there have been numerous
versions of human life amendments proposed over the years, some of which
include exceptions for rape and incest and some of which don’t. For
details, see our July 31 item, “Falsifying Romney’s Abortion Stance,
Again.” Most of these amendments didn’t get out of committee."</i></blockquote>
However, the speculation is not entirely unfounded:
<br />
<blockquote>
<i>"Furthermore, Romney’s chosen running mate, Paul
Ryan, opposes exceptions for rape or incest. And it would be accurate to
say that the GOP platform calls for a constitutional amendment that
would leave states free to adopt abortion bans without exceptions."</i></blockquote>
So Red States would be screwed still....<br />
<br />
However, as Suzy Khimm of The Washington Post finds, it may also be the case that <a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/ezra-klein/wp/2012/08/23/do-party-platforms-really-matter/">none of this matters</a>. <br />
<blockquote>
<i>"But
do party platforms even matter? Much of the political science research
suggests not — at least when it comes to the candidates’ own views and
actions. “The nominee is not necessarily constrained by the formal
platform. They can agree with whatever bits and pieces and ignore the
rest,” says John Sides, a political science professor at George
Washington University."</i></blockquote>
<br />
<span style="font-size: large;"><a href="http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2012/08/rapist-seeks-child-custody-shauna-prewitt">Imagine You Were Raped. Got Pregnant. Then Your Rapist Sought Custody.</a></span>
<br />
<blockquote>
<i>"The debate over Rep. Todd Akin's widely condemned comments on "legitimate rape" has largely centered on abortion and Republican efforts to outlaw the procedure, even in cases of rape. But the controversy has also uncovered a little-discuss
ed issue: When some rape victims do choose to give birth to a child conceived through sexual assault, they find that the legal door is left wide open for their victimization to continue. It sounds unfathomable, but in many states the law makes it possible for rapists to assert their parental rights and use custody proceedings as a weapon against their victims."</i></blockquote>
<span style="font-size: large;"><a href="http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=160014002">The Doctor behind Akin's offensive unscientific statements</a></span><br />
<b><br /></b>
<b>Update 8/27/12:</b><br />
<br />
<span style="font-size: large;"><a href="http://www.motherjones.com/mojo/2012/08/weekly-standard-defends-ryan-redefining-rape">The Weekly Standard Defends Ryan on Redefining Rape</a></span>
<br />
<blockquote>
<i>"More broadly, the "they only intended to exclude statutory rape" defense misses the point. <b>Most serious abortion foes oppose the rape exception—full stop.</b> It's no surprise that the abortion rights opponents who wrote H.R. 3 didn't foresee
that simply narrowing the rape exception—a move far short of their preferred position—might provoke more controversy than opposing the rape exception itself."</i> </blockquote>
<blockquote>
<i>...</i> </blockquote>
<blockquote>
<i>"While I was reporting out the forcible rape story last year, one of the sources I called, a very accomplished woman, told me she had been a victim of statutory rape as a young teenager. Decades later, she nearly broke down about it on the phone while talking to a stranger. <b>Should she have been denied the option of a Medicaid-funded abortion because her rape wasn't rapey enough?</b>"</i> (emphasis mine)</blockquote>
KnocksvilleEhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08423194549982565593noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4644604150419303086.post-71988981318929681432012-08-26T12:18:00.000-07:002012-08-27T18:48:53.459-07:00The Roundup: Failed Criticisms of Obama Edition<div style="text-align: center;">
<img alt="" class="spotlight" height="479" src="https://sphotos-b.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-snc7/303581_359158214161193_116533278_n.jpg" style="height: 452px; width: 603px;" width="640" /><span style="font-size: large;"> </span></div>
<br />
<span style="font-size: large;"><a href="http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2012/08/a-full-factcheck-of-niall-fergusons-very-bad-argument-against-obama/261306/">A Full Fact-Check of Niall Ferguson's Very Bad Argument Against Obama</a></span><br />
A MUST READ:<br />
Matthew O'Brien's <b>EPIC takedown</b>
on Niall Ferguson's fact-challenged criticisms of Obama, as well as
Fergusen's doubling down of those same fact-challenged criticisms.
<br />
<blockquote>
<i>"In the world as Ferguson describes it, Obama is a
big-spending, weak-kneed liberal who can't get the economy turned
around. Think Jimmy Carter on steroids. But the world is not as Ferguson
describes it. A fact-checked version of the world Ferguson describes
reveals a completely different narrative -- a muddy picture of the past
four years, where Obama has sometimes cast himself as a stimulator, a
deficit hawk, a health care liberal and conservative reformer all at
once. And it's a world where the economy is getting better, albeit
slowly.</i> </blockquote>
<blockquote>
<i>
It would have been worthwhile for Ferguson to explain why Obama doesn't
deserve re-election in this real world we actually live in. Instead, we
got an exercise in Ferguson's specialty -- counterfactual history."</i></blockquote>
More on this article <a href="http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2012/08/as-a-harvard-alum-i-apologize/261308/">here</a>, <a href="http://www.motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2012/08/niall-ferguson-finally-renders-me-speechless">her</a>e, <a href="http://delong.typepad.com/sdj/2012/08/dylan-beers-niall-ferguson-lies-yet-again.html">here</a>, and <a href="http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2012/08/21/china.html">here</a>.<br />
<br />
<span style="font-size: large;"><a href="http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/08/21/kinds-of-wrong/">Paul Krugman: Kinds Of Wrong</a></span>
<br />
Within this analysis lies an important point about different
types of wrongness in terms of discourse. The diagnosis may be related
to subjective claims. It may be related to objective claims too far
above the head of the average person. Finally, it could be the kind of
easily verifiable wrongness common in Niall Ferguson's column. It is
this last one that is the most troubling. It is also where Paul Krugman
directs his attention in this post.<br />
<br />
<span style="font-size: large;"><a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/ezra-klein/wp/2012/08/20/the-worst-case-against-the-obama-administration/">Ezra Klein: The worst case against the Obama administration</a></span><br />
A MUST READ on the failure of predictions made by Ferguson/WSJ/Ryan:<br />
<blockquote>
<i>"Whatever you believe about Obama’s policies, the Ferguson/WSJ/Ryan
theory has <b>clearly failed in its main predictions</b>, and it’s worrying to
see that this hasn’t led to a more serious effort to <b>rethink its
premises</b>. After all, Romney and Ryan
might well win this election, and it would be nice if the people they
were listening to were pushing them to fix what’s actually gone wrong
rather than what they wish had gone wrong."</i> (emphasis mine)</blockquote>
<span style="font-size: large;"><a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/ezra-klein/wp/2012/08/23/debates-dont-lead-to-deals/">Debates don’t lead to deals</a></span><br />
The
sad truth about this election is that this big "debate" is trivial.
This election will come down to a small number of minimally informed
swing voters in a few battleground states. If Obama wins, we will look
forward to two years of nothing happening since congress will be GOP
controlled. If Romney wins, we may face disaster as the GOP pushes its
ideology through and makes many of this country's worst problems even
worse. An Obama win is about avoiding that kind of catastrophe and
avoiding a dangerous change to the supreme court.<br />
<br />
<span style="font-size: large;"><a href="http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/08/23/saving-serious-ryan/">Paul Krugman: Saving Serious Ryan</a></span>
<br />
<blockquote>
<i>"So Ryan gamed the system: he got CBO to produce a
report which looks to those who don’t actually read it like a
validation of his numbers, when in fact he prevented any actual scoring
of his proposals. If you think otherwise, you’ve been snookered."</i></blockquote>
<span style="font-size: large;"><a href="http://www.motherjones.com/mojo/2012/08/paul-ryan-mitt-romney-tampa-fema">What Would Romney-Ryan Mean for FEMA?</a></span>
<br />
<blockquote>
<i>"Just as Ryan's proposed Medicare expenditure
would fail to keep up with rising medical costs, the GOP ticket's likely
cuts to disaster management and weather forecasting budgets would come
at a time in which, fueled by climate change, natu
ral disasters are becoming increasingly more potent and expensive. There
were 14 billion-dollar disasters in the United States in 2011—the most
on record. For the GOP in Tampa, Hurricane Isaac isn't just a nuisance;
it's the elephant in the room."</i></blockquote>
<b>Update 8/27/12: </b><br />
<br />
<span style="font-size: large;"><a href="http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2012/08/the-age-of-niallism-ferguson-and-the-post-fact-world/261395/">The Age of Niallism: Ferguson and the Post-Fact World</a></span><br />
Nial Ferguson continues to defend his reality-free article criticizing Obama:
<br />
<blockquote>
<i>"Let's try a counterfactual. Say Ferguson hadn't made his big errors about Obamacare. Then his smaller errors of omission would not seem quite so serious -- or deliberate. But Ferguson did make his big errors. <b>And he defends these omissions
with more elisions</b>. It makes it impossible not to read his entire piece as an <b>effort to deceive</b>. Ferguson should consider what kind of grade he would give an undergraduate who turned in a paper that treated facts and counter-arguments so cavalierly."</i> (emphasis mine)</blockquote>
KnocksvilleEhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08423194549982565593noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4644604150419303086.post-141425201083201852012-08-26T12:17:00.002-07:002013-09-24T19:17:41.217-07:00The Roundup: Election Edition<br /><div style="text-align: center;">
<img alt="" class="spotlight" src="https://sphotos-a.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ash4/400484_489296604431196_734610499_n.jpg" style="height: 412px; width: 550px;" /><span style="font-size: large;"> </span></div>
<br />
<span style="font-size: large;"><a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/plum-line/post/the-morning-plum-no-romney-and-ryan-dont-really-want-a-great-debate/2012/08/21/821297d0-eb7a-11e1-9ddc-340d5efb1e9c_blog.html">Greg Sargent: The Morning Plum: No, Romney and Ryan don’t really want a `great debate’</a></span>
<br />
<blockquote>
<i>"Romney wants to repeal the unpopular Obamacare,
and promises he’d do something for some people with preexisting
conditions — because replacing it with nothing would be even more
unpopular. Romney says he’d get rid of Wall Street reform, and vows to
replace it with unspecified “common sense” regulations — because
replacing reform with nothing is also a political nonstarter. Romney
says he’d cut whole agencies to make government more efficient and
cost-effective, <b>but won’t say which ones</b>; and Ryan won’t explain
in meaningful detail how he’d achieve the draconian spending cuts
necessary to make his numbers work — because when <b>the talk turns to specifics, suddenly cutting government is politically very difficult indeed</b>,
and gutting social programs would be very unpopular. Romney and Ryan
won’t say how they’d pay for their tax cuts — because they <b>must be paid for by hiking the middle class’s tax burden or exploding the deficit</b>, neither of which is politically palatable."</i> (emphasis mine)</blockquote>
When asked about cutting the size of government, most people are conservatives. When you <a href="http://www.marketplace.org/topics/elections/attitude-check/do-americans-concerns-match-paul-ryans">get into asking about the specifics</a>, the leftward shift is incredible!<br />
<br />
<br />
<span style="font-size: large;"><a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/ezra-klein/wp/2012/08/21/obamas-money-gap-incompetence-incumbency-or-meaningless/">Ezra Klein: Obama’s money gap: Incompetence, incumbency or meaningless?</a></span><br />
Romney
is currently outspending Obama 2 to 1, partly because of Obama's
negative attitude toward wall street. However, there seems to be little
if any effect on the polls. The country already largely feels like they
know Obama. So negative a
advertising will <a href="http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-false-claims-20120811,0,4345018.story">only do so much to hurt him</a>.
Romney would theoretically be better off running on his own strengths
rather than attack Obama. But those strengths in the most important
areas (jobs, budget) are quite suspect to say the least.<br />
<br />
<span style="font-size: large;"><a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/ezra-klein/wp/2012/08/22/the-real-romney-ryan-budgets-cuts-arent-to-medicare-theyre-to-programs-for-the-poor/">Ezra Klein: The real Romney-Ryan budgets cuts aren’t to Medicare. They’re to programs for the poor.</a></span>
<br />
<blockquote>
<i>"And so, if you look at Ryan’s specific cuts, most
of them are programs for poor people. In fact, the Center for Budget
and Policy Priorities estimates that <b>more than six of every 10 dollar</b>s Ryan cuts from the federal budget is <b>coming from programs for the poor</b>"</i> (emphasis mine)</blockquote>
And Romney's is MUCH worse!<br />
<br />
<span style="font-size: large;"><a href="http://www.motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2012/08/no-republicans-have-not-suddenly-developed-love-policy-wonkery">No, Republicans Have Not Suddenly Developed a Love of Policy Wonkery</a></span>
<br />
<blockquote>
<i>"Conservatives are excited about Ryan because he's a true believer, not because they've developed a sudden love of budget wonkery. They would have been equally ecstatic about Bobby Jindal or Marco Rubio, and they're breathing a sigh of rel
ief that Romney didn't pick Rob Portman or Tim Pawlenty, both of whom are plenty serious policy wonks but don't have quite the right-wing fire in their eyes that the other guys do."</i></blockquote>
<span style="font-size: large;"><a href="http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2012/08/23/desperate-measures-paul-ryan-tries-to-revive-the-death-panel-canard.html">Desperate Measures: Paul Ryan Tries To Revive the “Death Panel” Canard</a></span><br />
Spreading malicious lies about ObamaCare in 2010 helped bolster Republicans to take over the house in 2011. Only problem, Obama is campaigning now and, even though he is behind in spending (for the last month or so), he has money in the cof
fers to help keep him from falling too far behind. And he has the incmbant advantage, meaning attacks against him are much less effective. So he has the means to dispel this misinformation campaign (and the sad truth: start some of his own)
<br />
<blockquote>
<i>"But even if seniors like the first Gen Xer on a presidential ticket personally, the Pew poll shows that they dislike Ryan’s plan even more than their younger counterparts.</i> </blockquote>
<blockquote>
<i>This points to an information vacuum, which is why death panels are back, and why this campaign is only going to get uglier from here."</i></blockquote>
<span style="font-size: large;"><a href="http://www.motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2012/08/republicans-wanted-culture-war-now-theyre-getting-it">Republicans Wanted a Culture War, Now They're Getting It</a></span>
<br />
<img align="right" alt="" class="image image-_original" src="http://www.motherjones.com/files/images/blog_abortion_states_2011.jpg" style="border: 1px solid black; margin: 20px 20px 15px 30px;" /> <br />
<blockquote>
<i>"If conservatives do indeed want a "truce" on issues like abortion, that's fine with me: let them start observing one. Leave Planned Parenthood the hell alone. Stop pushing for laws that challenge Roe v. Wade. Shut down all your ultrasounds
. Tell Bob Vander Plaats to stop trying to run pro-marriage-equality judges off the Iowa Supreme Court. Take all those dog whistles about "respect for life" and "constitutional originalism" out of your platforms and speeches. Promise us you won't put unholy pressure on a President Romney to ensure the next new member of the Supreme Court will vote to turn abortion policy back to the states or even protect zygotes under the 14th Amendment."</i></blockquote>
<span style="font-size: large;"><a href="http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/08/23/nobody-cares-about-the-deficit/">Paul Krugman: Nobody Cares About the Deficit</a></span>
<br />
<blockquote>
<i>"If the right was at all consistent, it would be denouncing the CBO report for failing to take into account the impact of a lower deficit in deterring the invisible bond vigilantes and encouraging the confidence fairy."</i></blockquote>
<span style="font-size: large;"><a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/ezra-klein/wp/2012/08/23/five-things-to-know-about-mitt-romneys-energy-plan/">Five things to know about Mitt Romney’s energy plan</a> </span><br />
Five points on Romney's energy plan:<br />
<ol>
<li>North American energy independence is already expected to largely happen by 2020, regardless of who is in the white house </li>
<li>Romney's refusal to accept Obama's fuel-efficiency standards will make his
plan more difficult. </li>
<li>Energy independence will not significantly lower prices since oil is still traded in world markets (exhibit A: Canada) </li>
<li>Although energy independence may have gross job gains (likely much smaller than what Romney has predicted), the net effect will likely be insignificant. </li>
<li>Romney does not tackle environmental concerns (global warming, fracking, oil spills), which may mean "public concern over fracking could stymie gas development."
</li>
</ol>
<span style="font-size: large;"><a href="http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2012/08/24/why_the_weak_economy_doesnt_doom_obama.html">Why the Weak Economy Doesn't Doom Obama</a></span>
<br />
<blockquote>
<i>"So think of it this way. In 1980, <b>Jimmy Carter didn't have an argument</b> for re-election that appealed very far beyond the Democratic base. Similarly, in 1984, Walter Mondale simply didn't have much of an argument for getting rid of Ronald
Reagan. The Republicans didn't have a good argument for holding on to power in 2006, nor did the Democrats in 2010. The elections reflect that.</i> </blockquote>
<blockquote>
<i>This year, Barack Obama <b>has an argument</b> -- he didn't inherit the mess, and the economy is slowly expanding. That's an argument that is probably good enough to get him to 46 or 47 percent of the vote. Similarly, Mitt Romney has a pretty good argument for electing a new president, one that will shore up his base and Republican-leaning independents. Thus, we should probably expect what we're presently seeing in the polls: a close race, to be decided by <b>a relatively small slice of the electorate</b>."</i> (emphasis mine)</blockquote>
<span style="font-size: large;"><a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/ezra-klein/wp/2012/08/24/the-gop-has-picked-the-wrong-time-to-rediscover-gold/">Ezra Klein: The GOP has picked the wrong time to rediscover gold</a></span>
<br />
When people think of returning to the gold standard, they think of it as a way of controlling inflation. However, it actually does precisely the opposite. Gold prices are tied to demand across global markets, meaning inflation would be tied to the whims of gold buyers and the fed would lose its ability to control it.
<br />
<blockquote>
<i>"Unlike 1981, in other words, when the gold standard made a kind of superficial sense as a response to our problems, 2012 is a moment when a gold standard would clearly have worsened our problems. Dramatically. As Eichengreen concludes, the idea’s “proponents paint the gold standard as a guarantee of financial stability; in practice, it would be precisely the opposite.”</i></blockquote>
<br />
<span style="font-size: large;"><a href="http://newhampshire.watchdog.org/10903/nh-towns-often-stuck-presidential-campaign-bills/">Not reimbursing towns for expenses dealing with presidential incumbent campaigns is common for BOTH PARTIES.</a></span> KnocksvilleEhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08423194549982565593noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4644604150419303086.post-62464904428157452002012-08-21T16:39:00.003-07:002013-01-12T19:45:53.750-08:00Healthcare for Freedom Lovers<h3>
Socialized healthcare in the Heritage Foundation's Index of Economic Freedom Top 10.</h3>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<br />
<img alt="http://cpaprotectplus.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/children_health_care.jpg" src="http://cpaprotectplus.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/children_health_care.jpg" /></div>
<br />
<span class="commentBody">Amidst the abundant rhetoric surrounding the passage of the Affordable Care Act, one message seems to be incredibly popular among those on the right, <a href="http://www.cbsnews.com/2100-250_162-5174417.html">socialized healthcare is unsustainable socialism</a>. Indeed this idea is not new. Ronald Reagan once <a href="http://lonelyconservative.com/2009/08/ronald-reagans-warning-about-socialized-medicine-video-and-complete-transcript/">claimed</a> socialized medicine was a <i>"</i></span><i>short step to all the rest of socialism</i><span class="commentBody"><i>."</i> The bottom line is simple: If America wants to continue being a free nation, <a href="http://www.usnews.com/debate-club/should-the-supreme-court-overturn-obamas-healthcare-law/rick-santorum-obamacare-means-unlimited-government">it must reject</a> the idea of socialized healthcare. </span><br />
<br />
<span class="commentBody">Yet today, <a href="http://www.globalissues.org/article/774/health-care-around-the-world">nearly all wealthy nations provide some form of socialized healthcare</a>. Are all these countries on their way to socialism? Are they even close? To answer this question, I decided to take a look at the top countries on the conservative Heritage Foundation's 2012 <a href="http://www.heritage.org/index/default">Index of Economic Freedom</a>. The United States currently ranks number 10. <span style="font-size: small;"><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Index_of_Economic_Freedom">It has fluctuated since the creation of the index in 1995, once achieving a rank as high as 4</a>. At least some of this fall has been <a href="http://www.heritage.org/index/country/unitedstates">attributed</a> to the ACA:</span></span><br />
<blockquote>
<i>"A 2010 health care bill that greatly expanded the central government’s reach has been under challenge in the courts"</i></blockquote>
<span class="commentBody">Naturally, since the United States was dinged for government involvement in healthcare (its socialized healthcare program), I was curious just how the 9 countries above fared on the issue of government involvement in the healthcare system. </span><br />
<span class="commentBody"><br /></span>
<span class="commentBody">Indeed every country listed in the top 10 <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universal_health_coverage_by_country">contains some form of socialized medicine</a> (except for the United States, until recently). However, their methods of implementation are different. Singapore has compulsory savings and price controls resulting in a largely <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Health_care_in_Singapore">private system</a>. Canada has a <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Health_care_in_Canada">hybrid system</a> of public and private insurance and hospitals. New Zealand is <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Health_care_in_New_Zealand">almost completely public</a>. One of the best ways to gauge government involvement in healthcare is to find out just how much of the total healthcare spending in a given country comes from the government: </span><span class="commentBody"><b> </b></span><br />
<ol>
<li><b><span class="commentBody">Hong Kong:<sup>1</sup></span></b><span class="commentBody"> The <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_hospitals_in_Hong_Kong">overwhelming</a> <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Health_in_Hong_Kong">majority</a> of Hospitals in Hong Kong are public, managed by the Hospital Authority. In 2007, the government accounted for <a href="http://www.wpro.who.int/countries/hkg/10HOKpro2011_finaldraft.pdf">49.9% of all healthcare spending</a>.</span></li>
<li><span class="commentBody"><b>Singapore: </b>In 2010, the government accounted for <a href="http://www.who.int/gho/countries/sgp/en/">36.3% of all healthcare spending</a>. Since 1995, this number has been as low as 29.8 in 2007 and as high as 54.1 in 1998.<b> </b></span></li>
<li><span class="commentBody"><b>Australia: </b>In 2010, the government accounted for <a href="http://www.who.int/gho/countries/aus/en/">68% of all healthcare spending</a>. This number has stayed fairly constant, never dipping below 65% GDP since 1995.</span></li>
<li><span class="commentBody"><b>New Zealand: </b>In 2010 the government accounted for <a href="http://www.who.int/gho/countries/nzl/en/">83.2% of all healthcare spending</a>.</span><span class="commentBody">This number has stayed fairly constant, never dipping below 77% GDP since 1995.</span></li>
<li><span class="commentBody"><b>Switzerland: </b></span><span class="commentBody">In 2010 the government accounted for <a href="http://www.who.int/gho/countries/che/en/">59% of all healthcare spending</a>. </span><span class="commentBody">This number has stayed fairly constant, never dipping below 53% GDP since 1995.</span></li>
<li><span class="commentBody"><b>Canada: </b></span><span class="commentBody">In 2010 the government accounted for <a href="http://www.who.int/gho/countries/can/en/">70.5% of all healthcare spending</a>. </span><span class="commentBody">This number has stayed fairly constant, never dipping below 69% GDP since 1995.</span></li>
<li><span class="commentBody"><b>Chile: </b></span><span class="commentBody">In 2010 the government accounted for <a href="http://www.who.int/gho/countries/chl/en/">48.2% of all healthcare spending</a>. </span><span class="commentBody">Since 1995, this number has been as low as 36.6 in 1996. 2010 is the highest year since then.</span></li>
<li><span class="commentBody"><b>Mauritius</b></span><span class="commentBody"><b>: </b></span><span class="commentBody">In 2010 the government accounted for <a href="http://www.who.int/gho/countries/mus/en/">41.7% of all healthcare spending</a>. </span><span class="commentBody">Since 1995, this number has been as low as 33.9 in 2007 and as high as 54.7 in 1995, 1998, and 2004.</span></li>
<li><span class="commentBody"><b>Ireland</b></span><span class="commentBody"><b>: </b></span><span class="commentBody">In 2010 the government accounted for <a href="http://www.who.int/gho/countries/irl/en/">69.2% of all healthcare spending</a>. That year was the lowest on record. Between the years of 1995 and 2009, </span><span class="commentBody">this number has been as low as 71.5% in 1996 and as high as 77.4 in 2004.</span></li>
<li><span class="commentBody"><b>United States:</b> </span><span class="commentBody">In 2010 the government accounted for <a href="http://www.who.int/gho/countries/usa/en/">53.1% of all healthcare spending</a>. That year was the highest on record. </span><span class="commentBody">Between the years of 1995 and 2010, </span><span class="commentBody">this number has been as low as 43.1% in 1999 and as high as 47.7% in 2004.</span><span class="commentBody"> In addition, separate estimates predict a </span><a href="http://www.factcheck.org/2011/11/government-run-nonsense/">3.8 percentage point increase</a><b><sup>2</sup></b> by 2015 as a result of the ACA and future Medicare beneficiaries. </li>
</ol>
<span style="font-size: x-small;"><b><sup>1</sup> I could not find the standard WHO format statistics on healthcare spending for Hong Kong. I instead used an available WHO profile with data from 2007. </b></span><br />
<br />
<b><span style="font-size: x-small;"><sup>2</sup> Remember that all these numbers are statistics and are thus subject to a margin of error. As a result, some estimates are going to be slightly different from others. The 3.8 percentage point number comes from a study with slightly different estimates for government healthcare contributions.</span></b><br />
<br />
And which of these countries appeared to have been dinged by Heritage Foundation for having too much government involvement in healthcare? Other than the US, just two: <a href="http://www.heritage.org/index/country/singapore">Singapore</a> and <a href="http://www.heritage.org/index/country/canada">Canada</a>. Nothing on Australia, New Zealand, Switzerland, or Ireland, four countries where the government contributed significantly more to healthcare than the US<span style="font-size: small;">. </span>Nothing on Hong Kong or Chile either, two countries that contributed approximately the same amount as the US to healthcare. In fact, the country with the lowest government contribution to healthcare was one of the few dinged for it. <br />
<br />
Of the 9 countries that ranked above the United States, only two countries' governments contributed significantly less to healthcare than the US. And of the countries that contributed as much or more, only one was dinged for that fact. So it sounds like the government's role in healthcare is much less a factor for measuring freedom than many conservatives like to imagine. In general, this index is very subjective in nature <span style="font-size: x-small;">(is the recent excess in government spending really a sign of a lack of freedom, or the <a href="http://www.suntimes.com/business/7191801-420/fact-check-recession-is-culprit-in-high-us-debt.html">automatic reaction to the recession that was a product of pre-existing programs</a>)</span>, so there is only so much that one can conclude from this analysis. However, there is one thing that <i>can</i> be concluded: Socialized healthcare does not keep these countries from being free, even in the eyes of conservatives. So why can't they say the same for the United States?<br />
<br />
<b>UPDATE 1/12/2013: </b>Think Progress <a href="http://thinkprogress.org/health/2013/01/11/1429241/conservative-think-tank-ranks-government-run-health-care-as-compatible-with-freedom/">expands</a> on this a bit. KnocksvilleEhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08423194549982565593noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4644604150419303086.post-16204296289093325562012-08-20T19:03:00.002-07:002012-08-26T11:38:48.034-07:00Debunking Romney (Part 3): Medicare Claims<div style="text-align: center;">
<img alt="Photo" class="scaledImageFitWidth img" height="403" src="https://sphotos-b.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ash3/c0.0.403.403/p403x403/562953_10152053855375217_1736353500_n.jpg" width="403" /><span style="font-size: large;"> </span></div>
<i>This post is part three of a three part series debunking a few central
claims </i><i>that have been made by the Romney campaign this year</i><i>. The first part deals with Romnay's
tax policies, the recent Tax Policy Center <a href="http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/UploadedPDF/1001628-Base-Broadening-Tax-Reform.pdf">study</a>, and Romney's response to that study. The second part deals with the <a href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/08/02/mitt-romney-jobs_n_1734520.html">white paper</a> </i><i>Romney's advisers wrote to attempt to justify his plan</i><i>. Finally, the third part deals with Romney's recent <a href="http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-18563_162-57494197/romneys-$716b-medicare-cut-attack-is-dubious/">Medicare</a> <a href="http://www.forbes.com/sites/aroy/2012/08/13/yes-obamacare-cuts-medicare-more-than-president-romney-would/">claims</a>, as well as his impossible promises on the subject.</i> <span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span><br />
<br />
<a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/ezra-klein/wp/2012/08/13/the-white-houses-medicare-plan-isnt-that-hard-to-find/">From Ezra Klein of The Washington Post</a>:
<br />
<blockquote>
<i>
I’ve got a modest proposal: You’re not allowed to demand a “serious
conversation” over Medicare unless you can answer these three questions:
</i></blockquote>
<blockquote>
<i>1) Mitt Romney says that “unlike
the current president who has cut Medicare funding by $700 billion. We
will preserve and protect Medicare.” What happens to those cuts in the
Ryan budget? </i></blockquote>
<blockquote>
<i>2) What is the growth rate of Medicare under the Ryan budget? </i></blockquote>
<blockquote>
<i>3) What is the growth rate of Medicare under the Obama budget?</i> </blockquote>
<blockquote>
<i>The answers to these questions are, in order, <b>“it keeps them,” “GDP+0.5%,” and “GDP+0.5%.”</b> </i></blockquote>
<blockquote>
<i>Let’s
be very clear on what that means: Ryan’s budget — which Romney has
endorsed — keeps Obama’s cuts to Medicare, and both Ryan and Obama
envision the same long-term spending path for Medicare. The difference
between the two campaigns is not in <b>how much</b> they cut Medicare, but in <b>how</b> they cut Medicare.</i> </blockquote>
<blockquote>
<i>...</i> </blockquote>
<blockquote>
<i>These
plans get at the basic disagreement between Democrats and Republicans
on Medicare. Democrats believe the best way to reform Medicare is to
leave the program intact but vastly strengthen its ability to pay for
quality. Republicans believe the best way to reform Medicare is to
fracture the system between private plans and traditional Medicare and
let competition do its work.</i> </blockquote>
<blockquote>
<i>... </i></blockquote>
<blockquote>
<i>But it’s simply <b>a conservative myth that the White House hasn’t put forward a Medicare reform plan</b>.
What that line really means is that White House hasn’t put forward some
variant of Ryan’s plan, which in many Republican circles, has come
to be seen as the only policy change that counts as “entitlement
reform.”</i></blockquote>
<blockquote>
<i><b>But Obama’s plan is,
without doubt, far more detailed than anything Romney has put forward,
and Republicans are well aware of its existence</b>."</i> (emphasis mine)</blockquote>
Ironically, Romney has <a href="http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&ved=0CBkQqQIwAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.cbsnews.com%2F8301-18563_162-57494197%2Fromneys-%24716b-medicare-cut-attack-is-dubious%2F&ei=BXMsUKiKJsTgyQHm7YHIDw&usg=AFQjCNEvvvrfHF45PIPm3h4m8_I8eCpV8w&sig2=RIyPSn5NlkFiw4RNtGTOMg">attacked</a>
Obama for these cuts to Medicare growth. It should be noted that, of
all the ways Medicare growth can be cut under Obama's plan, there is one
area that is protected: <a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/ezra-klein/wp/2012/08/14/romneys-right-obamacare-cuts-medicare-by-716-billion-heres-how/?tid=pm_business_pop">benefits</a>:
<br />
<blockquote>
<i>"It’s worth noting that there’s one area these cuts don’t touch: <b>Medicare benefits</b>.
The Affordable Care Act rolls back payment rates for hospitals and
insurers. It does not, however, change the basket of benefits that
patients have access to.</i>" (emphasis mine)</blockquote>
In the time since this article appeared, Romney has <a href="http://www.forbes.com/sites/aroy/2012/08/13/yes-obamacare-cuts-medicare-more-than-president-romney-would/">declared</a> he will not keep Obama's cuts to future Medicare growth, despite the fact that these cuts would <a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/ezra-klein/wp/2012/08/16/medicare-trustees-repealing-obamacare-cuts-would-hasten-insolvency/">keep the Medicare trust fund solvent through 2024</a> <span style="font-size: x-small;">(without them, they could lose<a href="http://www.beckershospitalreview.com/racs-/-icd-9-/-icd-10/5-points-to-know-on-the-2012-medicare-trustees-report.html"> solvency as soon as 2016</a>)</span>. However, this will also make his budget promises practically <b>impossible</b>. Ezra Klein explains:
<br />
<blockquote>
<i>"Consider what Romney has promised. <b>By 2016, he says federal spending will be below 20 percent of GDP</b>,
and at least 4 percent of that will be defense spending. At that point,
he will cap federal spending at 20 percent of GDP, meaning it can never
rise above that level.</i> </blockquote>
<blockquote>
<i>All that’s hard enough. <b>Romney will have to cut federal spending by between $6 and $7 trillion over the next decade to hit those targets.</b> As my colleague Suzy Khimm has detailed, those budget promises already <b>require cuts far in excess of what even Paul Ryan’s budget proposes</b>.</i> </blockquote>
<blockquote>
<i>
But Ryan’s budget includes more than $700 billion in Medicare cuts over the next decade, <b>Romney’s budget won’t.</b>
And Romney promises that there will be no other changes to Social
Security or Medicare for those over 55, which means neither program can
be cut for the next 10 years. But once you add up Medicare, Social
Security and defense and <b>you’ve got more than half of the federal budget</b>. So Romney is going to make <b>the largest spending cuts in history</b> while protecting or increasing spending on more than half of the budget."</i> </blockquote>
<blockquote>
<i>...</i> </blockquote>
<blockquote>
<i>"Consider
what the Romney campaign, then, is saying: If Romney is elected, then
by his third year in office, every single federal program that is not
Medicare, Social Security, or defense, <b>will be cut, on average, by 40 percent</b>.
That means Medicaid, infrastructure, education, food safety, road
safety, the postal service, basic research, foreign aid, housing
subsidies, food stamps, the Census, Pell grants, the Patent and
Trademark Office, the FDA — all of it has to be cut by, on average, 40
percent. If Romney tried to protect any particular priority, it would
mean all the others have to be cut by more than 40 percent.</i> </blockquote>
<blockquote>
<b><i>That’s
not even remotely plausible. The consequences would be catastrophic.
The outcry would be deafening. And Romney has shown no stomach for
selling such severe cuts.</i> </b></blockquote>
<blockquote>
<i>...</i> </blockquote>
<blockquote>
<i>And yet Romney, <b>who has never released the specific cuts that would make his numbers add up</b>,
repeatedly touts it on the campaign trail, and the media dutifully
reports his promises to cut federal spending by more than $500 billion
in 2016, and in fact <b>to balance the budget by the end of his second
term, which would require far larger cuts than what I’ve outlined here,
despite the fact that everyone basically knows these cuts aren’t
credible and will never happen</b>.</i> </blockquote>
<blockquote>
<i>
I’m not sure what alternative there is, exactly, except to say, as clearly as possible, <b>Romney’s budget plan is a fantasy</b>, and it will never happen."</i> (emphasis mine)</blockquote>
But what about Ryan's plan. Isn't it supposed to be a bipartisan option? To answer this question, <a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/ezra-klein/wp/2012/08/14/sen-wyden-romneys-plan-hurts-the-poorest-and-most-vulnerable-seniors/">Ezra Klein interviewed Sen. Wyden (D-OR)</a>, then man for whom the "bipartisan" label is referring to:
<br />
<blockquote>
<i>"Ron Wyden: My view is that the policies that were adopted by the Republican House majority and the Romney campaign <b>do not preserve the Medicare guarantee</b>. And that’s what the [Ryan/Wyden] white paper was all about. It was a set of options for improving on the existing Medicare system with <b>public and private choices</b>, beefing up consumer protection, adopting a new way to control costs and put Medicare on a budget so you can protect the guarantee.</i> </blockquote>
<blockquote>
<i>
Probably the two most significant specific differences between what Governor Romney is talking about and the white paper is, first, that the Romney campaign and the governor would repeal the Affordable Care Act. <b>To lay a foundation for putting together a program to protect the guarantee and protect the budget, you need the changes the Affordable Care Act makes to Medicare, like bundled payments and moving the system towards pay-for-quality. Without it, you can’t move to premium support</b>.</i> </blockquote>
<blockquote>
<i>The second difference is that the Romney approach completely pulls the rug out from under the poorest and most vulnerable seniors. In the white paper, protections for so-called dual eligibles, the people in both Medicare and Medicaid, are bulletproof. There’s no way to throw them under the bus. <b>Gov. Romney says he’d block grant the Medicaid program and push those cuts onto the people, which would do enormous harm to those people whose protection was at the center of the white paper</b>."</i> (emphasis mine)</blockquote>
Indeed there has been little attention to Ryan's proposals for cutting government healthcare spending outside of Medicare. And these cuts are <a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/ezra-klein/wp/2012/08/16/how-much-obama-and-ryan-would-spend-on-health-care-in-one-graph/">no small thing</a>. For instance, Sen Wyden mentions Ryan's Medicaid cuts, which <a href="http://news.yahoo.com/other-paul-ryan-plan-800b-medicaid-cuts-071209801--finance.html">total $800 Billion</a>. Of course there will be impacts:
<br />
<blockquote>
<i>"The Urban Institute estimates that between 14 million and 27 million people would lose coverage because of Ryan's spending restrictions."</i></blockquote>
No wonder this plan isn't really bipartisan. So you have the presidential candidate passing off a nearly impossible solution as serious budget talk, and you have his VP proposing draconian right wing measures and calling them bipartisan. Both are accusing Obama of having no plan for Medicare reform, yet Obama has the most <a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/ezra-klein/wp/2012/08/06/the-massive-policy-gap-between-obama-and-romney/">serious and detailed plan of all three</a>. And then they attack him for the plan they claim he does not have! What is going on?! Some <a href="http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2012/08/tammy-baldwin-wisconsin-senate">conservative</a> pundits actually possess the cognitive dissonance to buy into this. But will the American people?<br />
<br />
<h2 style="font-weight: normal; text-align: center;">
<b><span style="font-size: x-large;">The Roundup: </span></b></h2>
<h2 style="font-weight: normal; text-align: center;">
<b><span style="font-size: large;">Mediscare Edition </span></b></h2>
<span style="font-size: large;"><a href="http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-08-20/private-market-tooth-fairy-can-t-cut-medicare-cost.html">Private-Market Tooth Fairy Can’t Cut Medicare Cost</a></span>
<br />
<blockquote>
<i>"The bottom line is that, if anything, Medicare Advantage bids are <b>above, not below, traditional Medicare</b> -- once you do the analysis <b>correctly</b>, on an apples-to-apples basis. So regardless of whether you use the CBO analysis of Ryan 1.0, or
the evidence to date with Medicare Advantage to analyze Ryan 2.0, the conclusion is the same.</i> <br />
<br /></blockquote>
<blockquote>
<i>We don’t want to put all our chips down on the health-care competition tooth fairy."</i></blockquote>
And yes, he notes that the CBO analysis is of Ryans 2011 plan:
<br />
<blockquote>
<i>"I focused on the 2011 plan because that is the only one that CBO has evaluated in terms of total, not just federal, cost.</i> <br />
<br /></blockquote>
<blockquote>
<i>The difference in the new version of the
Ryan plan is that traditional Medicare would coexist with private plans.
To suggest that this would change everything is to <b>make an odd argument</b>: Moving entirely to private competition would not generate big savings, but moving partially would."</i></blockquote>
<span style="font-size: large;"><a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/plum-line/post/the-morning-plum-romney-and-ryan-muddy-the-medicare-waters/2012/08/17/c082208a-e855-11e1-936a-b801f1abab19_blog.html">The Morning Plum: Romney and Ryan muddy the Medicare waters</a></span><br />
Great read!<br />
Greg
Sargent goes over the various back and forth blows from the Obama and
Romney campaign. Both campaigns think they will carry the medicare
message. However, Democrats may need to explain whats really going on
here between both campaigns' plans for Medicare:
<br />
<blockquote>
<i>"The difference is <b>not over whether to do something</b> about Medicare over the long haul; it’s over <b>how to do it</b>. The true nature of this difference is what Romney’s strategy is designed to obscure"</i> (emphasis mine)</blockquote>
<span style="font-size: large;"><a href="http://www.motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2012/08/paul-ryan-and-problem-competitive-bidding">Paul Ryan and the Problem With Competitive Bidding</a></span>
<br />
<blockquote>
"<i>Private corporations all rely on competitive bidding, and it<b> just hasn't done much to hold down costs</b>. That's because the real source of America's high medical costs is the fact that <b>we simply pay more than other countries for everything we get</b>:
more for doctors, more for procedures, more for hospital stays, more
for drugs, and — yes — more for insurance. If you really want to hold
down costs, you have to hold down costs at the source, and Paul Ryan's
Medicare plan has no mechanisms for doing this. It relies solely on
competitive bidding, and there's very little chance that this alone can
keep Medicare costs from outpacing his "fallback" growth cap. It's a
near certainty that his growth cap will be the real mechanism for
reining in costs."</i></blockquote>
<span style="font-size: large;"><a href="http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2012/aug/16/barack-obama/does-paul-ryan-want-turn-medicare-voucher-program/">PolitiFact: Do Mitt Romney and Paul Ryan want to turn Medicare into a voucher program?</a></span><br />
After bitching about the 2011 lie of the year, democrats are finally getting it together and making accurate statements about Ryan's Medicare plan:
<br />
<blockquote>
<i>We agree that in the world of policy wonks, there are distinctions between "vouchers" and "premium support," having to do with the type of inflation adjustment used and the degree of marketplace regulation imposed. Compared with his original plan, Ryan’s most recent plan does move closer to fitting the definition of pure premium support. But substantively, it’s still somewhere in between the two approaches.</i> </blockquote>
<blockquote>
<i><b>But the Romney-Ryan approach pretty much matches the dictionary definition of "a form or check indicating a credit against future purchases or expenditures."</b> We think that describes the general way Ryan's plan would work. For a political discussion aimed at voters rather than policy wonks, we think Obama’s use of the term "voucher" is close enough to earn it a rating of <b>Mostly True</b>.</i> (emphasis mine)<b></b></blockquote>
<span style="font-size: large;"><a href="http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2012/08/16/generational-war.html">David Frum: Paul Ryan Declares Generational War</a></span><br />
Paul Ryan's criticism of Obamacare and the $700 billion in Medicare savings essentially amounts to a generational war:
<br />
<blockquote>
<i>"The talking point isn't even about changing Medicare, its about keeping the entitlements for the old, and not spending any of that money on the young. You could title this speech: Entitlements for Me, Not for Thee. Spending money on 'deserving' old people is good, spending on anyone else is a waste."</i></blockquote>
<span style="font-size: large;"><a href="http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2012/aug/15/stephanie-cutter/ryans-plan-includes-700-billion-medicare-cuts-says/">PolitiFact: Ryan's plan includes $700 billion in Medicare "cuts," says Stephanie Cutter</a></span>
<br />
<blockquote>
<i>"Cutter said that Romney attacked Obama for cutting $700 billion out of Medicare, but "Paul Ryan protected those cuts in his budget." Again, with this item we are <b>not addressing whether they are cuts, but simply whether she is correctly characterizing Ryan's plan.</b></i> </blockquote>
<blockquote>
<i>Cutter is correct that<b> the Ryan budget plan included cost savings that were part of the future health care law</b>. Just recently, the Romney campaign backed away from that play, saying Romney’s plan would restore the spending that the health law is set to curtail, such as extra funding for private insurers under the Medicare Advantage plan."</i> (emphasis mine)</blockquote>
As PolitiFact has <a href="http://www.politifact.com/florida/statements/2012/aug/09/american-commitment/tv-ad-says-bill-nelson-supported-cutting-medicare-/">noted before</a>, these are not technically cuts. The reason they assigned a "true" rating is because it is of no consequence to cutter's speech. Cutter is essentially saying that what people are protesting in the Obama law, these "cuts," are preserved in the Ryan plan. So they should not criticize Obama for it without also criticizing Ryan.
<br />
<br />
<span style="font-size: large;"><a href="http://www.motherjones.com/mojo/2012/08/utah-mia-love-obamacare-romney">Romney's Health Care Plan Freaks Out Utah Republicans</a></span>
<br />
<blockquote>
<i>"When asked what they thought should be done to fix health care, Love and McCain offered up an unintentional <b>endorsement of some of the very laws that they've been campaigning angrily against</b> for the past two years, Obamacare and the federal stimulus package."</i> (emphasis mine)</blockquote>
<span style="font-size: large;"><a href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/08/16/mitt-romney-paul-ryan-medicare_n_1789480.html?1345132458">Mitt Romney: Paul Ryan Medicare Plan And Mine Are The Same, 'If Not Identical' </a></span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-size: large;"><a href="http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2012/08/17/thanks-for-the-feedback.html">A possible unintended consequence of the Ryan plan?</a></span>
<br />
<br />
<b>Update 8/21/12:</b><br />
<br />
<span style="font-size: large;"><a href="http://www.tnr.com/blog/plank/106324/cutler-chernew-medicare-study-ryan-voucher-premium-support-competition">David Cutler: Hey Republicans! Stop Misusing My Medicare Study!</a></span>
<br />
Supporters for the Ryan/Romney Medicare plan misrepresent a study on the effects of premium support healthcare systems.
<br />
<br />
<span style="font-size: large;"><a href="http://www.motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2012/08/david-brooks-badly-misrepresents-romneyryan-medicare-plan">David Brooks Badly Misrepresents the Romney/Ryan Medicare Plan</a></span><br />
<span style="font-size: large;"> </span>
<br />
<b>Update 8/26/12:</b><br />
<br />
<span style="font-size: large;"><a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/ezra-klein/wp/2012/08/24/the-problem-with-romneys-medicare-chart-its-not-true/">Ezra Klein: The problem with Romney’s Medicare chart: It’s not true</a></span>
<br />
<blockquote>
<i>"You could take one of two views on this. You could say that Ryan’s and Obama’s plans put Medicare on a sustainable fiscal path, while Romney’s doesn’t, because that’s pretty much what the CBO will say, and they’re the folks who judge these
things. Or you could say that none of the plans really make Medicare solvent — that they’re all just theory and prayer. What you <b>can’t say</b> is that Romney has released a plan that makes Medicare solvent."</i> (emphasis mine)</blockquote>
KnocksvilleEhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08423194549982565593noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4644604150419303086.post-59603322523605580292012-08-20T17:09:00.001-07:002012-08-20T17:09:06.452-07:00Is Natural Gas A Free-Market Solution to CO2 Emissions?<div style="text-align: center;">
<img alt="Hydraulic Fracturing" height="259" src="http://eponline.com/portals/%7E/media/ENV/eponline/Portals/hydraulic%20fracturing2_short.ashx" width="500" /> </div>
<br />
<a href="http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5g-c_axVz4nUEynciJf1JIKCFBE%20sw?docId=99af4c44e1a9427aba2b5bbffcbf5db2">From the AP</a>:
We have gotten lucky. The cheap price of natural gas has resulted in a
free-market-caused reduction in CO2 emissions for the US:
<br />
<blockquote>
<i>"the U.S. Energy Information Agency, a part of the Energy Department, said
this month that energy related U.S. CO2 emissions for the first four months
of this year fell to about 1992 levels."</i> </blockquote>
<blockquote>
<i>...</i> </blockquote>
<blockquote>
<i>"The boom in gas production has come about largely because of hydraulic
fracturing, or fracking. Large volumes of water, plus sand and chemicals,
are injected to break shale rock apart and free the gas."</i></blockquote>
This has surprised a number of climate scientists, including Michael Mann
<br />
<blockquote>
<i>"Michael Mann, director of the Earth System Science Center at Penn State
University, said the shift away from coal is reason for "cautious optimism"
about potential ways to deal with climate change. He said it demonstrates
that "ultimately people follow their wallets" on global warming."</i> </blockquote>
<blockquote>
<i>...</i> </blockquote>
<blockquote>
<i>"Mann called it "ironic" that the shift from coal to gas has helped bring
the U.S. closer to meeting some of the greenhouse gas targets in the 1997
Kyoto treaty on global warming, which the United States never ratified."</i></blockquote>
However, this is not a long term solution:
<br />
<blockquote>
<i>"while natural gas burns cleaner than coal, it still emits some CO2. And
drilling has its own environmental consequences, which are not yet fully
understood."</i> </blockquote>
<blockquote>
<i>...</i> </blockquote>
<blockquote>
<i>" leaks of methane from natural gas wells could be pushing the U.S. over the
Kyoto target for that gas."</i></blockquote>
<blockquote>
<i>"Environmentalists say that the fluids [from hydraulic fracturing] can
pollute underground drinking water supplies and that methane leaks from
drilling cause serious air pollution and also contribute to global warming.
The industry and many government officials say the practice is safe when
done properly. But there have been cases in which faulty wells did pollute
water, and there is little reliable data about the scale of methane leakage"</i></blockquote>
And what the free market gives, it can also take away:
<br />
<blockquote>
<i>"Coal and energy use are still growing rapidly in other countries,
particularly China, and CO2 levels globally are rising, not falling.
Moreover, changes in the marketplace - a boom in the economy, a fall in coal
prices, a rise in natural gas - could stall or even reverse the shift. For
example, U.S. emissions fell in 2008 and 2009, then rose in 2010 before
falling again last year."</i> </blockquote>
<blockquote>
<i>...</i> </blockquote>
<blockquote>
<i>"Jason Hayes, a spokesman for the American Coal Council, based in
Washington, predicted cheap gas won't last.</i> </blockquote>
<blockquote>
<i>"Coal is going to be here for a long time. Our export markets are growing.
Demand is going up around the world. Even if we decide not to use it,
everybody else wants it," he said."</i>
</blockquote>
So we should be skeptical the market will ultimately provide a solution to
the issue of harmful emissions. This switch was merely luck. People aren't
switching to natural gas because it is cleaner. They are doing it because it
is cheaper. And it does not necessarily have to be the case the cheapest
source of energy is also the cleanest.
And natural gas may also be a double edged sword on the road to better
renewable energies: <br />
<blockquote>
<i>""Installation of new renewable energy facilities has now all but dried up,
unable to compete on a grid now flooded with a low-cost, high-energy fuel,"
two experts from Colorado's Renewable and Sustainable Energy Institute said
in an essay posted this week on Environment360, a Yale University website."</i></blockquote>
However, natural gas may still an excellent short term solution to the
problem:
<br />
<blockquote>
<i>"Even with such questions, public health experts welcome the shift, since it
is reducing air pollution."</i> </blockquote>
<blockquote>
<i>...</i> </blockquote>
<blockquote>
<i>"Power plants that burn coal produce more than 90 times as much sulfur
dioxide, five times as much nitrogen oxide and twice as much carbon dioxide
as those that run on natural gas, according to the Government Accountability
Office, the investigative arm of Congress. Sulfur dioxide causes acid rain
and nitrogen oxides lead to smog."</i> </blockquote>
<blockquote>
<i>...</i> </blockquote>
<blockquote>
<i>"Wind supplied less than 3 percent of the nation's electricity in 2011
according to EIA data, and solar power was far less. Estimates for this year
suggest that coal will account for about 37 percent of the nation's
electricity, natural gas 30 percent, and nuclear about 19 percent."</i> </blockquote>
<blockquote>
<i>...</i> </blockquote>
<blockquote>
<i>"Despite unanswered questions about the environmental effects of drilling,
the gas boom "is actually one of a number of reasons for cautious optimism,"
Mann said. "There's a lot of doom and gloom out there. It is important to
point out that there is still time" to address global warning."</i></blockquote>
In addition, clean and/or renewable energies face fundamental problems if
they want to be the sole provideers of energy in the US. It isn't always
windy. It isn't always sunny. What can we do about nuclear waste? We need
something that will fill in the gaps where clean and/or renewable energies
fail. Natural gas my be that fill.<br />
<br />
For a more thorough analysis, see <a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/ezra-klein/wp/2012/08/20/can-natural-gas-really-help-tackle-global-warming-heres-everything-you-need-to-know/">Brad Plumer's post on Ezra Klein's WONKBLOG</a>. KnocksvilleEhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08423194549982565593noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4644604150419303086.post-29240640728592980532012-08-19T21:43:00.001-07:002014-04-13T00:47:52.319-07:00"You Didn't Build That" Is An Argument For Equal OpportunityRecently I <a href="http://contentinreality.blogspot.com/2012/08/the-hidden-fallacy-behind-criticism-of.html">wrote an article</a> debunking a few fallacies that underlie criticisms of Obama's "You didn't build that" remark. These criticisms had very little to do with taking his quote out of context, as <a href="http://factcheck.org/2012/07/you-didnt-build-that-uncut-and-unedited/">the Romney campaign has frequently done</a>. This article focused more on those who kept the quote in context, yet still got the point wrong:
<br />
<blockquote>
<i>"Essentially, Krauthammer is committing a fallacy by failing to distinguish between <i>necessary</i> and <i>sufficient</i> causes. Obama is saying that the government plays a <i>necessary </i>role in the success of entrepreneurs <span style="font-size: xx-small;">(and in Krauthammer's analogy, so does the post office)</span>. As Krauthammer eluded to earlier,
civil society also plays a <i>necessary </i>role. Yet, this is not a <i>sufficient
</i>role."</i></blockquote>
However, I was also very careful not to argue for any particular proposals:
<br />
<blockquote>
<i>"My purpose in this article is to get the facts straight over what Obama said and what liberals generally mean when talking about this subject. I do not aim to criticize or endorse any solution to the reality observed here. I may do that in a later post."</i></blockquote>
This is essentially that "later post."<br />
<br />
As David Frum <a href="http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2012/07/27/you-didnt-build-that.html">notes</a>, President Obama appeared to only use the point to argue for the restoration of the 1990's Clinton tax rates for high income earners (although that is not <a href="http://www.motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2012/07/getting-it-right-obama-tax-plan">the best way to describe it</a>). Does that mean he is intending to punish high income people for their success, just because luck played a role in that success? Not necessarily. <br />
<br />
I, along with other liberals, do not see a pure equality of opportunity arising out of a libertarian free-market <span style="font-size: x-small;">(where the government plays an absolute minimal role in regulation, mostly insuring mutual non-violence)</span>. Every person was raised by a different family with different incomes and communities. Even under our socialized education system, inequalities abound among schools, both public and private. Humans are not omniscient, meaning there are unforeseen factors beyond everyone's control that can ruin even the most well thought-out plans, as well as lives. Not everyone has access to health insurance. And health is nearly always necessary for success. Free-market-driven opportunity, like any resource, is scarce. And this opportunity does not always discriminate based on individual initiative or intelligence. <br />
<br />
As a result of this fact, we liberals tend to see governments as a mechanism for ensuring equality of opportunity. Governments can fund education, as well as provide healthcare and school lunches. Governments can provide a safety net so a string of bad luck can be overcome. Governments are capable of doing this. And we tend to believe they should.<br />
<br />
However none of this is cheap. Safety nets in particular have helped <a href="http://news.yahoo.com/fact-check-recession-culprit-high-us-debt-170945356.html">contribute to large budget deficits</a> over the last few years. And there is little doubt the United States faces a <a href="http://www.brookings.edu/research/papers/2012/04/10-budget-outlook-gale-auerbach">long term budget crisis</a> down the road. Although the US <a href="http://www.brookings.edu/opinions/2011/0825_obama_jobs_galston.aspx?rssid=LatestFromBrookings">can provide stimulus funds over the short term</a> to help accelerate the recovery, there is little doubt a plan for addressing long term deficits is needed. This plan needs to either cut spending, increase revenues, or both. Within these plans lies a choice. What can the government target? As I just noted, government programs meant to provide an equality of opportunity are expensive. And spending that benefits lower income individuals will probably have that effect. This means that, if we want to help fix our long term budget issues, maintain a strong defense, preserve American initiatives <span style="font-size: x-small;">(ex: research and development)</span>, and avoid the kind of lower and middle class tax increases that may exacerbate the problem, tax increases on the highest tax earners (whether in the form of higher rates or decreased expenditures) need serious consideration. Conservatives may argue that these higher taxes will have the effect of decreasing opportunity since the higher income-earners affected by these tax increases are "wealth creators." Yet the recent <a href="http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2012/06/07/wealth-creators.html">inverse relationship between corporate profits and employment</a> gives us a good reason to doubt this. Essentially, we liberals are not buying it, especially with <a href="http://www.frumforum.com/voters-arent-buying-gops-tax-fairness-talk/">tax rates</a> (as well as <a href="http://www.ctj.org/pdf/taxday2012.pdf">tax progressiveness</a>) so low by historical standards. However, even if we were not justified in being skeptical of these claims, we would still not want to just punish successful people.<br />
<br />
Whether we liberals are justified or not, we see the increase in revenue from high income earners as necessary to help sustain and strengthen the government programs providing opportunity to people who may not have had that opportunity otherwise. There is no need to posit some desire to punish successful people to help explain Obama's call for higher tax rates for the rich. Externals factors, whether you want to call them "luck," are necessary to help determine success. Raising tax rates on high income earners protects the government programs that help provide this luck.<br />
<br />
<h2 style="text-align: center;">
<span style="font-size: x-large;">The Roundup:</span></h2>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<div style="text-align: left;">
<span style="font-size: large;"><a href="http://maddowblog.msnbc.com/_news/2012/08/08/13181825-always-choose-wealthy-parents">Always choose wealthy parents</a></span>
</div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
For the Romney campaign, having "the entrepreneurial spirit" means having wealthy parents:
</div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<blockquote>
"<i>Take a shot, go for it, take a risk, get the education, borrow money if you have to from your parents, start a business</i>" - Romney</blockquote>
</div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
Steve Benen summarizes this gaffe:
</div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<blockquote>
<i>"If you're a young person who can't afford rising college tuition rates and/or don't have the resources to launch a business venture, the GOP's would-be president has some advice for you: choose wealthy parents."</i></blockquote>
</div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
Success is so much easier when you have wealthy parents eh...I know this sounds like a stupid question, but does Romney not realize many people out there do not have wealthy parents? This is no trivial gaffe. This shows a serious disconnect between Romney and the rest of the population who don't have the kind of parents willing and/or able to give them unlimited opportunities.</div>
</div>
<br />
<span style="font-size: large;"><a href="http://freethoughtblogs.com/carrier/archives/2147/">And Then All Hell Breaks Loose…</a> </span><br />
Richard Carrier explains the fall of David Barton:
<br />
<blockquote>
<i>
And then there’s<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Barton_%28author%29"><b> David Barton</b></a>, who has long been the <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Irving"><b>David Irving</b></a>
of the American Christian revisionism movement (those who argue that
this has always been a Christian nation, founded by conservative
Christians writing a Constitution based on the Bible, and praying thanks
to Jesus and whatnot). Barton’s bestselling book <i>The Jefferson Lies</i> was voted “the least credible history book in print” by the <a href="http://hnn.us/articles/what-least-credible-history-book-print"><b>History News Network</b></a> and exposed as bullshit on NPR, and our own <a href="http://freethoughtblogs.com/rodda/"><b>Chris Rodda</b></a> has been instrumental in fact-checking and exposing his distortion and misrepresentation of the facts (and even the <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Barton_%28author%29#.22Unconfirmed_Quotations.22"><b>fabricating of quotes</b></a>).
</i> </blockquote>
<blockquote>
<i>Now even prominent fellows of the fundamentalist Discovery Institute <a href="http://www.worldmag.com/articles/19837"><b>have declared his book</b></a>
full of “embarrassing factual errors, suspiciously selective quotes,
and highly misleading claims.” Yes, you heard that right, even <i>they</i> are now spitting him out of their mouth. Many other conservative Christians <a href="http://www.rightwingwatch.org/category/people/jay-richards"><b>have been piling on</b></a> and <a href="http://www.firstthings.com/blogs/firstthoughts/author/greg-forster/"><b>confirming Barton a fraud</b></a>, and have pretty much washed their hands of him. But the final blow was that <a href="http://www.worldmag.com/webextra/19840"><b>his own publisher</b></a>
just declared his book essentially fraudulent and has pulled
publication. That’s Thomas Nelson, a major Christian publisher. Barton
is still defending himself and has a few lackeys punting for him, but
his ship has well sunk by this point. (You can read up on all this
breaking news as reported by our own <a href="http://freethoughtblogs.com/dispatches/2012/08/10/publisher-pulls-bartons-jefferson-book/"><b>Ed Brayton</b></a>, <a href="http://freethoughtblogs.com/alstefanelli/2012/08/11/david-bartons-book-on-jefferson-gets-pulled-by-publisher-because-its-complete-bullshit-thank-you-chris-rodda/"><b>Al Stefanelli</b></a>, and <a href="http://freethoughtblogs.com/singham/2012/08/13/david-barton-exposed/"><b>Mano Singham</b></a>.)</i></blockquote>
He then follows up with a point on the 2012 election I've been making for a while:
<br />
<blockquote>
<i>"This single factor, <b>who picks the next Supreme Court Justice</b>,
is literally the single most important decision every voter will be
making this November, whether they are aware of it or not. We had all
better vote with that on our conscience."</i> (emphasis mine)</blockquote>
Indeed this point may have been made most eloquently by <a href="http://freeok.org/speakers/eddie-tabash/">Eddie Tabash at FreeOK2012</a>. Sadly I do not have a copy of the video. Please comment if you find one.
<br />
<br />
<span style="font-size: large;"><a href="http://freethoughtblogs.com/camelswithhammers/2011/09/19/the-problematic-use-of-skeptics-in-supernatural-shows/">The Problematic Use of Skeptics in Supernatural Shows</a></span><br />
A MUST-READ on the supernatural-shows' skeptic strawman:
<br />
<blockquote>
<i>"The problem is that skeptics are treated as a
character type which just has a proclivity to doubt even in the teeth of
overwhelming evidence. Rather than being judiciously thinking
people who believe when they see evidence, and who are skeptical merely
of frauds and of the unproven, they are people who remain stubborn
disbelievers despite clear and unavoidable evidence or despite knowing
about similar kinds of realities within their world, etc."</i></blockquote>
<br />
<span style="font-size: large;"><a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/election-day-impersonation-an-impetus-for-voter-id-laws-a-rarity-data-show/2012/08/11/7002911e-df20-11e1-a19c-fcfa365396c8_print.html">Election Day impersonation, an impetus for voter ID laws, a rarity, data show</a>
</span><span style="font-size: large;"> </span><br />
Voter <i>impersonation</i> fraud is
virtually nonexistent. Cases of voter fraud almost never include voter
impersonation fraud (instead they are often voter <i>registration</i>
fraud, which almost never results in actual voting), meaning voter ID
laws do
nothing to solve the problem. And the few cases where voter
impersonation fraud has existed, voter ID laws would still not be
effective (absentee voting, etc...). So <a href="http://contentinreality.blogspot.com/2012/07/whats-wrong-with-voter-id-laws.html">why again</a> are Republicans trying to hard to <a href="http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2012/08/06/despite_polls_romney_camp_sees_opportunity_in_pa_115010.html">enact Voter ID laws</a>?<br />
<br />
<span style="font-size: large;"><a href="http://www.addictinginfo.org/2012/08/18/democratic-members-of-ohio-election-board-removed-for-supporting-voter-rights/">Democratic Members Of Ohio Election Board Removed For Supporting Voter Rights</a> </span><br />
If you compare polls of "all," verses "registered voters" and "likely voters," there is a <a href="http://www.motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2012/08/people-just-dont-mitt-romney-part-34">clear trend</a>.
The former tends to side with democrats significantly more than the
latter. As a result, any attempt to make voting tougher (whether through
voter ID laws, suppression of weekend voting, etc...) is going to favor
republicans. This is no secret. The GOP is fully aware of this and is
also fully aware that Ohio may be the most important swing state in the
election.<br />
<br />
<span style="font-size: large;"><a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2012/07/30/opinion/the-conversion-of-a-climate-change-skeptic.html?">The Conversion of a Climate-Change Skeptic</a></span>
<br />
<br />
Former climate skeptic Richard Muller continues to evolve his stance on climate change:
<br />
<blockquote>
<i>"CALL me a converted skeptic. Three years ago I
identified problems in previous climate studies that, in my mind, threw
doubt on the very existence of
global warming. Last year, following an intensive research effort
involving a dozen scientists, I concluded that global warming was real
and that the prior estimates of the rate of warming were correct. <b>I’m now going a step further: Humans are almost entirely the cause</b>.</i> </blockquote>
<blockquote>
<i>My
total turnaround, in such a short time, is the result of careful and
objective analysis by the Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature project,
which I founded with my daughter Elizabeth. Our results show that the
average temperature of the earth’s land has risen by two and a half
degrees Fahrenheit over the past 250 years, including an increase of one
and a half degrees over the most recent 50 years. Moreover, <b>it appears likely that essentially all of this increase results from the human emission of greenhouse gases.</b></i><b> </b></blockquote>
<blockquote>
<i>These findings are <b>stronger than those of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change</b>, the United Nations group that defines the scientific and diplomatic consensus on global warming."</i> </blockquote>
<blockquote>
<i>...</i> </blockquote>
<blockquote>
<i>"<b>We carefully studied issues raised by skeptics</b>:
biases from urban heating (we duplicated our results using rural data
alone), from data selection (prior groups selected fewer than 20 percent
of the available temperature stations; we used virtually 100 percent),
from poor station quality (we separately analyzed good stations and poor
ones) and from human intervention and data adjustment (our work is
completely automated and hands-off). <b>In our papers we demonstrate that none of these potentially troublesome effects unduly biased our conclusions</b>."</i> (emphasis mine)</blockquote>
Remember this study was partly funded by the libertarian Koch Brothers.
<br />
<br />
<span style="font-size: large;"><a href="http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2012/08/12/electoral-math.html">The GOP's Sobering Electoral Math</a> </span><br />
Although the popular vote is <a href="http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2012/president/us/general_election_romney_vs_obama-1171.html">neck-in-neck</a> (Obama +4.0 as of 8-13-12), there doesn't seem to be nearly as much attention drawn to the fact that Obama has a major <a href="http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2012/president/2012_elections_electoral_college_map.html">electoral lead</a> (237-191, with enough swing states to win easily as of 8-13-12).<br />
<br />
<span style="font-size: large;"><a href="http://www.marketplace.org/topics/economy/commentary/mandatory-extended-vacation-good-economy">Mandatory, extended vacation is good for the economy</a></span>
<br />
<blockquote>
<i>"Americans have less vacation time than workers in any other advanced economy.</i> </blockquote>
<blockquote>
<i>This
is absurd. A mandatory three weeks off would be good for everyone --
including employers. Studies show workers who take time off are more
productive after
their batteries are recharged. They have higher morale, and are less
likely to mentally check out on the job."</i></blockquote>
<br />
<span style="font-size: large;"><a href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/08/17/paul-ryan-gm-federal-funds_n_1799515.html?">Paul Ryan Got Federal Funds To Help With Bush-Era GM Plant Closure He Blames On Obama</a></span>
<br />
<blockquote>
<i>"The attack has already received a fair amount of ridicule because the Janesville, Wis., plant actually closed during the last year of George W. Bush's presidency. What hasn't really been emphasized is whether Ryan clearly knew this and made the charge nonetheless."</i></blockquote>
<br />
<div style="text-align: center;">
<img alt="Photo: (W) Guess which novel influenced Paul Ryan?
Atlas Shrugged, Lord Of The Rings," class="scaledImageFitWidth img" height="403" src="https://sphotos-a.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ash3/c0.0.403.403/p403x403/532995_10151003897626275_1724534691_n.jpg" width="403" /><span style="font-size: large;"> </span></div>
<br />
<span style="font-size: large;"><a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/what-i-built--with-government-help/2012/08/17/ecc86b24-e885-11e1-936a-b801f1abab19_story.html">What I built — with government help</a></span><br />
Good article, although it focuses on government programs that are a bit more constant rather than non-individualism based variables. The difference is explained <a href="http://contentinreality.blogspot.com/2012/08/the-hidden-fallacy-behind-criticism-of.html">here</a>.<br />
<br />
<span style="font-size: large;"><a href="http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/08/18/california-law-barring-parents-from-curing-gay-children-moves-through/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+foxnews%2Fpolitics+%28Internal+-+Politics+-+Text%29&utm_content=My+Yahoo">California law barring parents from 'curing' gay children moves through legislature</a></span><br />
Although the former bill had its issues, the newer bill is very justified. These SOCE treatments are harmful. Although we shouldn't necessarily ban these treatments for consenting adults, it makes sense to ban them for minors legally unable
to consent. SOCE is essentially psychological child abuse. While SOCE supporters point to anecdotes and pseudoscience to support their side, SOCE critics point to legitimate research that shows <a href="http://skeptoid.com/episodes/4265">SOCE is neither effective, nor safe</a>.<br />
<br />
<span style="font-size: large;"><a href="http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/08/19/akin-comments-could-swing-missouri-senate-race/">FiveThirtyEight: Akin Comments Could Swing Missouri Senate Race</a></span>
<br />
<blockquote>
<i>"A paper by Nicholas Chad Long of St. Edward’s University examined the performance of Senate candidates running for re-election between 1974 and 2008 who were involved in various types of controversy.</i> </blockquote>
<blockquote>
<i>Mr. Long identified 21 cases in which the controversy surrounded a public statement the candidate had made. He found that, on average, these candidates received about 5 percent less of the vote than they otherwise would have on Election Day, controlling for other factors. Since most Senate races are two-way contests, losing five percentage points also implies that the opponent gains five percentage points, meaning that <b>the net swing is equal to 10 points</b>."</i> </blockquote>
<blockquote>
<i>...</i> </blockquote>
<blockquote>
<i>"Some Republican activists on social media platforms, perhaps going through a similar calculation, are <a href="https://twitter.com/PatrickRuffini/status/237300834520666113">calling on Mr. Akin to withdraw from the race</a>. An effort to replace a candidate on the ballot would create controversy of its own, potentially including legal challenges. But if the swing against Mr. Akin in the polls is 10 percentage points or more, it might be an avenue Republicans would need to consider if they want to maximize their chances of taking over the seat."</i> (emphasis mine)</blockquote>
<br />
<span style="font-size: large;"><a href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/08/16/charles-negy-reddit-letter-to-students_n_1789406.html">Charles Negy, Professor, Says Students Showed 'Religious Arrogance And Bigotry' In A Letter Later Posted On Reddit </a></span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-size: large;"><a href="http://www.skepticblog.org/2012/08/08/the-eyes-have-it/">Donald Prothero reviews Ivan Schwab’s outstanding book Evolution’s Witness: How Eyes Evolved.</a></span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-size: large;"><a href="http://content.usatoday.com/communities/onpolitics/post/2012/08/paul-ryan-poll-vice-president-mitt-romney-/1">I predicted Romney would see an initial boost in the polls from the Ryan pick. I may be wrong...</a></span><br />
<br />
<a href="http://www.buzzfeed.com/bensmith/romney-picked-ryan-over-advisors-early-doubts"><span style="font-size: large;">Romney Picked Ryan Over Advisers' Early Doubts</span></a><span style="font-size: large;"> </span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-size: large;"><a href="http://factcheck.org/2012/08/romney-hijacks-credibility/">Be
careful of campaign tactics that seek to take partisan words and
attribute them to non-partisan sources. These tactics are very common.</a> </span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-size: large;"><a href="http://factcheck.org/2012/08/pro-romney-super-pac-twists-obamas-words/">Romney continues to take Obama's words out of context. And this is the man who demanded an apology from Obama for dishonesty?</a></span><br />
<br />
<div style="text-align: left;">
<br /></div>
<span style="font-size: large;"><a href="http://well.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/08/01/dieting-vs-exercise-for-weight-loss/?smid=fb-share">For weight loss, studies have shown dieting to be much more effective than exercise.</a></span>KnocksvilleEhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08423194549982565593noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4644604150419303086.post-10085495457860126512012-08-19T21:08:00.003-07:002012-08-27T16:48:57.726-07:00Debunking Romney (Part 2): The Advisers Respond<div style="text-align: center;">
<img height="451" id="il_fi" src="http://go.bloomberg.com/political-capital/files/2012/08/0806-romney-plan-620.jpg" style="padding-bottom: 8px; padding-right: 8px; padding-top: 8px;" width="620" /></div>
<b><span style="font-size: large;"> </span></b><i>This post is part two of a three part series debunking a few central
claims </i><i>that have been made by the Romney campaign this year</i><i>. The first part deals with Romnay's
tax policies, the recent Tax Policy Center <a href="http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/UploadedPDF/1001628-Base-Broadening-Tax-Reform.pdf">study</a>, and Romney's response to that study. The second part deals with the <a href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/08/02/mitt-romney-jobs_n_1734520.html">white paper</a> </i><i>Romney's advisers wrote to attempt to justify his plan</i><i>. Finally, the third part deals with Romney's recent <a href="http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-18563_162-57494197/romneys-$716b-medicare-cut-attack-is-dubious/">Medicare</a> <a href="http://www.forbes.com/sites/aroy/2012/08/13/yes-obamacare-cuts-medicare-more-than-president-romney-would/">claims</a>, as well as his impossible promises on the subject.</i> <br />
<br />
<b><span style="font-size: large;">Romney's economic advisers attempt to defend Romney's Tax and Economic plans:</span></b><br />
<br />
As <a href="http://factcheck.org/2012/08/romneys-impossible-tax-promise/">FactCheck points out</a>, Romney initially tried to defend the plan using other studies before the most recent TPC study emerged:
<br />
<blockquote>
<i>"But, when pressed for specifics, Romney told
Schieffer that he will “go through that process with Congress as to
which of all the different deductions and exemptions” will be eliminated
or reduced. In that interview, he said the National Commission on
Fiscal Responsibility and Reform issued a report in December 2010 that
proved it is “mathematically … possible” to reduce tax rates and reduce
the deficit.</i> </blockquote>
<blockquote>
<i>That’s true — <b>but
Romney failed to note that the commission’s illustrative tax-reform
proposal “taxes capital gains and dividends as ordinary income”</b> (see footnote on page 29), eliminating a tax break that benefits mostly those with high incomes. <b>But
Romney’s tax plan would “[m]aintain current tax rates on interest,
dividends, and capital gains,” taking that option off the table.</b>
Under current law, capital gains (profits on sale of stock or real
estate, for example) are generally taxed at a top rate of 15 percent,
while ordinary earnings from salaries or business are taxed at a top
rate of 35 percent of income over $388,350. (If the Bush-era tax cuts
are allowed to expire, the rate would return to 20 percent.)</i> </blockquote>
<blockquote>
<i>So
how can Romney design a revenue-neutral plan that would cut income tax
rates without disproportionately benefiting the wealthiest, and still
maintain the current low rates on capital gains and dividends? That was
the subject of the Tax Policy Center’s latest report, which immediately
renewed the debate over who would benefit — and who would not — under
Romney’s tax plan."</i> (emphasis mine)</blockquote>
This was just
of the Romney campaign's misrepresentations of various studies to
defend the proposal. In an attempt to put some intellectual weight
behind their ideas, Romney's economic advisers <a href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/08/02/mitt-romney-jobs_n_1734520.html">drafted a white paper</a>
to back them up. In the paper Romney's team combined more
misrepresentations with blatant falsehoods, partisan research, and the ignoring of research they <i>should</i> know about. In addition, many authors of the studies they cite actually <a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/ezra-klein/wp/2012/08/08/economists-to-romney-campaign-thats-not-what-our-research-says/">called out the Romney campaign for misrepresenting their research</a> <span style="font-size: x-small;">(this link is the Ezra Klein source for the bullet list below)</span>. Brad DeLong has taken look at the paper and has <a href="http://delong.typepad.com/sdj/2012/08/things-wrong-with-hassett-hubbard-mankiw-and-taylor-the-romney-program-for-economic-recovery-growth-and-jobs.html">provided a point by point rebuttal</a> of the paper's main arguments. I will summarize and expand here:<br />
<ul>
<li>Romney's team incorrectly calls this recovery the most anemic in recent History. But the Bush recovery was actually <a href="http://www.calculatedriskblog.com/2012/03/public-and-private-sector-payroll-jobs.html">just as slow from the private sector's point</a> of view. The difference is that the downturn Obama inherited was much worse than the one Bush inherited. In addition <a href="http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/07/31/the-secret-of-our-un-success/">austerity has slowed</a> the recovery quite a bit.</li>
<li>Romney's team claims that history has shown this recession should
have experienced a quick recovery. The problem is that they ignore the
fact that history shows the aftermath of <b>financial crises</b> <span style="font-size: x-small;">(a housing bust in this case)</span> tend to
include<a href="http://www.project-syndicate.org/commentary/the-second-great-contraction"> sustained periods of slow recovery</a> (Reinhart and Rogoff 2010). Romney's team <a href="http://gregmankiw.blogspot.com/2011/08/rogoff-on-great-contraction.html">should be familiar with this</a>.In order to bolster their claim, Romney's team used a paper by Bordo and Haubrich (2012). Ezra Klein asked Bordo if the Romney team's interpretation of his paper was correct. Evidently Romney's team got it wrong:</li>
<blockquote>
<i>“This recession is really quite different,” Bordo
said. But he didn’t see government policy as the obvious cause. “We
found that a lot of the difference between what would’ve been predicted
by the normal behavior of recessions and what we observed now is
explained by the collapse of residential investment. Put another way, if
residential investment were what it was in a normal recovery, we would
have recovered already.”</i> </blockquote>
<blockquote>
<i>
That is to say, what Bordo found was fairly consistent with the rest of the literature on this topic: <b>Recessions associated with a housing bust tend to have very slow recoveries. </b>That’s rather <b>different</b>
than the Romney campaign’s interpretation of Bordo’s paper, which is
that the features of this particular recession couldn’t explain the slow
recovery, and thus you had to conclude that “America took a wrong turn
in economic policy in the past three years.”</i> (emphasis mine)</blockquote>
In a later <a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/obama-inconsistent-on-pace-of-economic-recovery/2012/08/14/45533a3c-e627-11e1-936a-b801f1abab19_story.html?hpid=z7">op-ed in the Washington Post</a>, two of Romney's advisers further claimed that if the recession was supposed to be a “Rogoff-Reinhart” slow recovery recession, then stimulus didn't make much sense, since it would be largely ineffective. However, as <a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/ezra-klein/wp/2012/08/16/economists-to-romney-campaign-thats-not-what-our-research-says-part-ii/">Ezra Klein points out</a>, Ken Rogoff was one of the economists Obama <a href="http://s3.documentcloud.org/documents/285065/summers-12-15-08-memo.pdf">consulted</a> about the proper size of the stimulus. Rogoff recommended the stimulus be $1 trillion over two years (larger than the real stimulus):
<blockquote>
<i>"As for Reinhart, I asked her about this for a retrospective I did on the Obama administration’s economic policy. “The initial policy of monetary and fiscal stimulus really made a huge difference,” she told me. “I would tattoo that on my forehead. <b>The output decline we had was peanuts compared to the output decline we would otherwise have had in a crisis like this.</b> That isn’t fully appreciated.”</i> </blockquote>
<blockquote>
<i>Now, it’s true that Reinhart and Rogoff have<b> opposed</b> “<b>indefinitely</b> sustaining aggressive post-crisis fiscal stimulus“ <b>without accompanying deficit reduction</b>. But even in an op-ed making that case, Rogoff was careful to say, “aggressive fiscal stimulus in the run-up to the financial crisis was <b>reasonable</b> as part of an all-out battle to <b>avoid slipping into a depression</b>.”"</i> (emphasis mine)</blockquote>
So both economists have argued that the stimulus was necessary to keep the recession from being worse, even if it wasn't supposed to necessarily accelerate recovery. Perhaps the Romney campaign was confused by this distinction.<br />
</ul>
<ul>
<li>Romney's team makes claims about his <i>mostly non-existent</i> plan that can't be backed up because his plan is <i>mostly non-existent</i>.
The TPC made the most favorable assumptions for Romney's plan. So we
can assume no matter how Romney shapes his plan, the criticisms seen here will still apply.</li>
<li>Romney's team tries to blame the slow recovery on "<i>structural biases against business, financial imbalances, and regulatory choices.</i>"
They also claim this has been happening for multiple decades. Only
Obama has made it worse. Brad DeLong graphs growth in multiple areas and
shows that the real fault lies with government purchases (austerity) and
residential construction (the housing crisis).</li>
</ul>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="http://delong.typepad.com/.a/6a00e551f080038834017743fa027f970d-pi" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img alt="FRED Graph St Louis Fed 1" border="0" height="254" src="http://delong.typepad.com/.a/6a00e551f080038834017743fa027f970d-pi" title="FRED Graph - St. Louis Fed-1.png" width="400" /></a></div>
<ul>
<li>Romney's team tries to blame Obama for his focus on stimulus,
despite the fact that Republicans in congress have kept him from being
able to do any of said stimulus for nearly two years.</li>
<li>Romney's team attempts to argue against the same Keynesian ideas they have already <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/30/business/economy/30view.html">argued for</a> and proven effective. </li>
<li>The paper tries to claim that empirical studies have documented <i>“The negative effect of the administration’s ‘stimulus’ policies</i>." However, Dylan Matthews <a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/ezra-klein/wp/2012/08/08/the-romney-campaign-says-stimulus-doesnt-work-here-are-the-studies-they-left-out/">surveyed the research</a>
and found 13 our of 15 studies actually showed the stimulus had a
positive effect. Of the two studies cited by the Romney team, one was
written by a Romney adviser and the other looked at just the Cash for
Clunkers program. The paper's author, Amir Sufi has called out the
Romney campaign on this distortion. When Ezra Klein asked him about his
view of the stimulus he responded positively.</li>
<blockquote>
<i>"So I asked Sufi what he thought of the stimulus more broadly. “<b>Most of the research is pretty positive on stimulus</b>,”
he said. In particular, he pointed to a paper from Emi Nakamura and Jón
Steinsson that used “cross-sectional data that seems to indicate <b>the fiscal multiplier is quite large</b> when you’re in a recession.”"</i> (emphasis mine)</blockquote>
</ul>
<ul>
<li>Romney's team <a href="http://2012.talkingpointsmemo.com/2012/07/pundits-urge-president-obama-to-back-president-obamas-proposals.php?ref=fpnewsfeed">falsely</a> <a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/ezra-klein/wp/2012/08/13/the-white-houses-medicare-plan-isnt-that-hard-to-find/">claims</a> Obama has avoided tackling long term budget issues. </li>
<li>DeLong claims Romney's team has misrepresented the work of <a href="http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2000734">Baker, Bloom, and Davis </a>(2012) over the role of uncertainty in the slow recovery.
However, after skimming the paper, I'm not 100% sure they have. It is
arguable since Romney's team failed to mention that the largest spikes
in uncertainty had more to do with the debt ceiling fights, recessions,
bailouts, and elections than tax and regulatory policy in general. They
also blame this on "short-termism." However, the biggest spike occurred
as a result of a long term policy debates that occurred during the debt
ceiling fight. John Taylor <span style="font-size: x-small;">(who seems unaware of the complaints from the authors of the studies Romney misrepresented)</span> <a href="http://johnbtaylorsblog.blogspot.com/2012/08/paul-krugman-is-wrong.html">claims</a> this was what Romney's team was talking about, saying "<i>Policy uncertainty is high now for a number of reasons, and reducing it
with a long-term strategy rather than more short-term fixes will
increase economic growth and create jobs.</i>" He may have a point, but
as I have noted before. Obama has been working for long-term policy
solutions. Republican obstructionism has kept this from happening. In
addition, Ezra Klein points Baker, Bloom, and Davis may be attributing
uncertainty to the wrong factors in this paper:</li>
<blockquote>
<i>The larger issue is that, as Baker, Bloom and Davis <b>concede</b>, the <b>biggest driver of economic policy uncertainty is usually a bad economy</b>,
full stop. This past fall, Mark Schweitzer and Scott Shane of the
Cleveland Fed tried to figure out whether Baker, Bloom and Davis were
picking up real effects of uncertainty, or whether the uncertainty
itself was just an outgrowth of a bad economy, and had no further bad
economic effects of its own. Their conclusion was that <b>while
uncertainty does reduce small business hiring and purchases, the weak
economic fundamentals are a much more important factor</b>:</i> (emphasis mine)</blockquote>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<img alt="http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/ezra-klein/files/2012/08/schweitzer_shane.jpg" height="388" src="http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/ezra-klein/files/2012/08/schweitzer_shane.jpg" width="400" /></div>
<blockquote>
<i>The blue line is expected small business hiring under
Schweitzer and Shane’s model, and the brown line expected hiring in the
absence of uncertainty. The models show, the authors conclude,
“statistically significant negative effects of policy uncertainty on
small business owners’ plans to hire and make capital expenditures.” <b>But
they also note that a model that doesn’t take uncertainty into account
explains 79 percent of variation in hiring and 76 percent of variation
in business spending</b>. So while uncertainty can explain some variation in hiring and spending by businesses, <b>other factors (like economy-wide hiring and interest rates) are needed to explain the vast majority of it.</b></i> (emphasis mine) </blockquote>
</ul>
<ul>
<li>Romney's team perpetuates the myth that Obama had the kind of filibuster proof majority needed to tackle their priorities for two years. Try <a href="http://www.motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2010/09/about-filibuster-proof-majority">14 weeks</a>.</li>
<li>Romney's team misrepresents studies to show his tax-reform proposals will increase GDP by .5% to 1% per year. Ezra Klein explains:</li>
<blockquote>
<i>"Of the four studies mentioned, two of them are co-authored by Berkeley economist Alan Auerbach. When I looked deeper into the studies, however, <b>they didn’t seem all that applicable to Romney’s tax plan</b>. The Romney campaign, for instance, was using an estimate from a simulation Auerbach ran in which he replaced the income tax with a consumption tax. If the Romney campaign proposed such a policy, that would be very big news. <b>But they have not proposed such a policy</b>.</i> </blockquote>
<blockquote>
<i>
So I e-mailed Auerbach the relevant quote from the Romney campaign’s paper, and added two questions: “Given what we know and don’t know of the Romney plan, is it reasonable to attach these kinds of dynamic estimates to it? Do you think that reporters like me should assume that the 0.5-1% gdp boost is a reliable base case?”</i> </blockquote>
<blockquote>
<i>His response came quickly. “I did not see the [Romney campaign's] paper, but from your description <b>the basic answer to both of your questions is ‘no’</b>,” he replied. His paper looked at “a much <b>bigger tax change</b> than Romney is proposing.” It also “assumed that all tax changes were <b>revenue-neutral on an annual basis; the size of the Romney tax cuts makes this a questionable assumption.</b>”</i> (emphasis mine)</blockquote>
</ul>
<ul>
<li>Romney's team appears to blame Obama for the fiscal cliff, which was set in motion by a <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Budget_Control_Act_of_2011">bipartisan deal</a> in 2011, a deal the VP pick, Paul Ryan, <a href="http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d112:s.00365:">voted</a> <a href="http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2011/roll690.xml">for</a>. Maybe Romney would have a leg to stand on if he had not been silent <a href="http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2011/08/01/mitt-romney-s-debt-ceiling-statement-makes-him-the-cowardly-candidate.html">practically</a> the entire time while embracing the kind of attitude that led the the deal in the first place. </li>
<li>Romney's team cites partisan research to back up their claims of fiscal consolidation and deregulation.</li>
<li>Romney's team cherry picks research to claim that tax cuts would be more stimulative than spending increases. Macroeconomics is <a href="http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2010/aug/12/rachel-maddow/maddow-claims-spending-more-stimulative-tax-cuts/">very divided on this issue</a>. In addition, the research considers cases where interest rates are far from the Zero Lower Bound, <a href="http://www.economist.com/blogs/freeexchange/2012/01/monetary-policy">unlike today</a>. </li>
<li>Romney's team claims that Romney's policies are similar to the policies used to help fight the recessions of the early 80s and the structural problems of the 70s. The problem is that these were two very <a href="http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/06/11/reagan-obama-recovery/">different</a> recessions. <a href="http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2012/06/07/rip-van-winkle-economics.html">David Frum explains</a>:</li>
<blockquote>
<i>Yet in almost every way, today's economic problems are <b>exactly the opposite of those of 30 years ago</b>. Then we had inflation, today we are struggling against deflation. Then we had weak corporate profits, today corporations are more profitable than ever. Then we had slow productivity growth, today it is high. Then the top individual income-tax rate was 70%. Today it is 36%. Then energy regulations produced energy shortages. Today the removal of banking regulations has produced an abundance of debt</i>.</blockquote>
</ul>
In the end Romney's team produces a list of policy objectives:
<br />
<blockquote>
<i>"The Romney plan will achieve these objectives with four main economic pillars.... reduce federal spending as a share of GDP to 20 percent – its pre-crisis average – by 2016; reduce individual marginal income tax rates across-the-board by 20 percent, while keeping current low tax rates on dividends and capital gains... [r]educe the corporate income tax rate... to 25 percent... broaden the tax base to ensure that tax reform is revenue-neutral;... reduce growth in Social Security and Medicare benefits... block grant the Medicaid program to states; remove regulatory impediments to energy production and innovation... repeal and replace the Dodd-Frank Act and the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act..."</i></blockquote>
And Brad DeLong responds:
<br />
<blockquote>
<i>"DOES NOT FOLLOW: Repealing Dodd-Frank—<b>with not a hint as to what will replace it—does not decrease but increases regulatory uncertainty</b>. Repealing ObamaCare—also with not a hint as to what will replace it—does not decrease but increases regulatory uncertainty, especially as up through the middle of 2009 what we now call ObamaCare was then called RomneyCare, and its biggest booster was Mitt Romney. How can uncertainty fail to be generated by would-be President Romney’s declaration that he opposes RomneyCare and seeks to replace it with something else that he will not reveal?</i> </blockquote>
<blockquote>
<i>
Similarly, <b>Romney has not even the outlines of a plan for how to reduce federal spending to 20% of GDP, or how he could possibly broaden the tax base to keep his tax cuts for the rich revenue-neutral</b>.</i> </blockquote>
<blockquote>
<i>
If you do indeed fear uncertainty about tax and regulatory policy, you need to vote against Romney as you would vote against the plague—and urge everybody you know to vote against Romney, and urge them in the strongest possible terms."</i> (emphasis mine)</blockquote>
More on this plan in part 3.<br />
<br />
As Ezra Klein notes, Romney's plan cannot produce the economic output he envisions because it fails to tackle the most important factor in the slow recovery of the last four years, the housing market:
<br />
<blockquote>
<i>"So, that’s three economists named in the Romney paper, not one of whom would sign on to the interpretation the Romney paper gave to their work.</i> </blockquote>
<blockquote>
<i>There are interesting criticisms of the Obama campaign buried in the work of the economists the Romney campaign cited — the problem is that the Romney campaign doesn’t have the standing to make them.</i> </blockquote>
<blockquote>
<i>Both Sufi and Bordo agree that the housing market was at the core of this recession, and of the sluggish recovery that has succeeded it. So one possible criticisms — which I’m sympathetic to — is that the Obama administration bobbled the single most significant policy question related to the recovery: <b>What to do about housing</b>."</i> (emphasis mine) </blockquote>
Indeed the issue of housing is a complex issue where nobody can seem to agree on a single solution. But there are solutions available, sometimes as relatively simple as high <a href="http://www.project-syndicate.org/commentary/the-second-great-contraction">short term</a> <a href="http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2012/08/15/thanks-for-the-feedback.html">inflation</a> targets. But Romney has no such plan. Ezra Klein continues:<br />
<blockquote>
<i>"<b>Indeed, the Romney campaign doesn’t have a housing policy at all</b>. “Housing” isn’t one of the issues on their Web site. The word is only mentioned twice in their 160-page economic plan. <b>There are no recommendations in this paper</b>. Indeed, Hubbard, one of the authors of this paper and a key adviser to Romney, has advocated a large program to encourage mortgage refinancing in the past, <b>but Romney hasn’t embraced it</b>.</i> </blockquote>
<blockquote>
<i>
Indeed, as Nick Timiraos notes, <b>Romney’s comments on housing have been self-contradictory</b>. At one point, his position was, “Don’t try to stop the foreclosure process. Let it run its course and hit the bottom.” Later, he said, “The idea that somehow this is going to cure itself by itself is probably not real. There’s going to have to be a much more concerted effort to work with the lending institutions and help them take action, which is in their best interest and the best interest of the homeowners.” But the campaign never released a formal policy resolving these tensions."</i> (emphasis mine)</blockquote>
So Romney still cannot escape the conclusions of the TPC paper. And his plans rely on regurgitated Republican talking points that either do not apply to this recession or have been discredited altogether. Romney's team also relies on blatant falsehoods, ignores highly respected
research they should know about, misrepresents other research, cites
unreliable partisan research, and tells blatant lies to support his plan. This is not the level of competency we should expect from a presidential candidate. <br />
<br />
Next we take a look at Romney's plans for medicare, as well as his criticisms of Obama's Medicare policies.<br />
<br />
<b>Update 8/20/12: Ezra Klein expands on the <a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/ezra-klein/wp/2012/08/20/the-best-case-against-the-obama-administration/">problem of the housing market</a>, as well as the Obama administrations failures in that area. It is a MUST READ for anyone curious as to why this recovery has been so anemic. </b><br />
<ul>
</ul>
<h2 style="font-weight: normal; text-align: center;">
<b><span style="font-size: x-large;">The Roundup: </span></b></h2>
<h2 style="font-weight: normal; text-align: center;">
<b><span style="font-size: large;">Romney's Failed Policy Ideas Edition</span></b></h2>
<br />
<span style="font-size: large;"><a href="http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/08/10/culture-of-fraud/">Paul Krugman: Culture Of Fraud</a></span>
<br />
<blockquote>
<i>"The big story of the week among the dismal
science set is the Romney campaign’s white paper on economic policy,
which represents a concerted effort by three economists — Glenn Hubbard,
Greg Mankiw, and John Taylor — to destroy their own reputations. "</i> </blockquote>
<blockquote>
<i>"And
when I talk about destroying reputations, I don’t just mean saying
things I disagree with. I mean flat-out, undeniable professional
malpractice. It’s one thing to make shaky or even demonstrably wrong
arguments. It’s something else to cite the work of other economists,
claiming that it supports your position, when it does no such thing "</i></blockquote>
<br />
<span style="font-size: large;"><a href="http://www.nextnewdeal.net/rortybomb/romneys-failed-unemployment-strategy-and-bizarro-stimulus-paul-ryan">Romney's Failed Unemployment Strategy and the Bizarro Stimulus of Paul Ryan</a></span><br />
Romney
has no serious plans to curb unemployment. He wants to fix the
"structural problems" with the market and hopes the unemployment rate
goes down. Ryan, on the other hand, has embraced the discredited
"bizzaro stimulus" of expansionary austerity (even though Romney has
recently criticized they idea). Neither of the two has embraced real
conservative stimulus ideas. Mike Konczal discusses some of these ideas
while pointing out why Ryan and Romney's ideas will fail if implemented.
<br />
<span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-size: large;"><a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/why-romneys-tax-plan-wont-cut-the-deficit/2012/08/09/37fb2d20-e19c-11e1-a25e-15067bb31849_story.html?wpisrc=nl_wonk">Erskine Bowles: Romney’s tax plan wouldn’t cut the deficit</a></span><br />
Erskine Bowles, who served as chief of staff to President Bill Clinton, was co-chairman of the National Commission on Fiscal Responsibility and Reform. Possibly the most respected deficit hawk on the left, he was a co author of the famous <a href="http://www.fiscalcommission.gov/">Simpson-Bowles commission</a>, which provided a number of recommendations to the president and congress for reducing the debt. Romney has tried to <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2012/08/03/us/politics/obama-mocks-romneys-tax-cut-plan.html">compare his tax reform proposal</a> to that famous plan. However, as Bowles puts it, Romney's plan just doesn't measure up:
<br />
<blockquote>
<i>"This month, Romney said that his tax reform proposal is “very similar to the Simpson-Bowles plan.” How I wish it were. I will be the first to cheer if Romney decides to embrace our plan. Unfortunately, the numbers say otherwise: His refor
m plan leaves too many tax breaks in place and, as a result, does nothing to reduce the debt."</i> </blockquote>
<blockquote>
<i>...</i> </blockquote>
<blockquote>
<i>"Obama hasn’t gone as far in cutting spending, particularly in health care, as is necessary to stabilize the debt at a reasonable level and keep it on a downward path as a percentage of the gross domestic product. <b>But in contrast to Romney, the president — like the “Gang of Six” and other like-minded members of both parties — has embraced the central principle of Simpson-Bowles: that America will turn the corner on its debt only if Republicans and Democrats come together to support a balanced deficit-reduction plan</b>. For the numbers to work, both parties need to put aside partisanship."</i> (emphasis mine)</blockquote>
Note: Ezra Klein also<a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/ezra-klein/wp/2012/08/10/will-erskine-bowles-be-our-next-treasury-secretary/"> argues</a> why Erskine Bowles, <a href="http://www.twylah.com/jonkarl/tweets/73407279239663617">Paul Ryan's "favorite Democrat"</a>, should be chosen as Obama's next Treasury Secretary.<br />
<br />
<span style="font-size: large;"><a href="http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/08/16/whats-in-the-ryan-plan/">Paul Krugman: What’s In The Ryan Plan?</a> </span><br />
Paul Krugman goes through the <a href="http://www.cbo.gov/sites/default/files/cbofiles/ftpdocs/121xx/doc12128/04-05-ryan_letter.pdf">CBO's report on Ryan's 2011 plan</a>:<br />
<blockquote>
<i>"Ryan basically proposes three big things: slashing Medicaid, cutting taxes on corporations and high-income people, and replacing Medicare with a drastically less well funded voucher system. These concrete proposals would, taken together, <b>actually increase the deficit for the first decade and beyond</b>.</i> </blockquote>
<blockquote>
<i>All the claims of major deficit reduction therefore rest on the magic asterisks. In that sense, this isn’t even a plan, it’s <b>just a set of assertions</b>."</i> (emphasis mine)</blockquote>
<b>Update 8/27/12: </b><br />
<br />
<span style="font-size: large;"><a href="http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2012/08/24/housing-bubble.html">David Frum: Are Housing Hawks Wrong?</a></span>
<br />
<blockquote>
<i>Dean Baker of the Center for Economic and Policy Research delivers a strong reproof to those (like me!) who believe that reducing consumer debt is the key to accelerating recovery.</i></blockquote>
KnocksvilleEhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08423194549982565593noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4644604150419303086.post-57280476424688014102012-08-16T22:03:00.000-07:002012-08-16T22:03:16.086-07:00The Roundup: Socialized Healthcare Edition<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/2012/07/13/andrew-coyne-its-time-the-provinces-were-brought-to-account-on-health-care-wait-times/" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img alt="http://media.oregonlive.com/opinion_impact/photo/mapleleafjpg-7e3c91ca9ce4868e.jpg" height="400" src="http://media.oregonlive.com/opinion_impact/photo/mapleleafjpg-7e3c91ca9ce4868e.jpg" width="360" /></a></div>
<span style="font-size: large;"><a href="http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/2012/07/13/andrew-coyne-its-time-the-provinces-were-brought-to-account-on-health-care-wait-times/"><br />Andrew Coyne: It’s time the provinces were brought to account on health-care wait times</a> </span><br />
Andrew Coyne dewlls on the problem of long waiting times in Canada. Such a thing is unacceptable. However, the decision to abolish Canada's public insurance system is more unacceptable.
<br />
<blockquote>
<i>"To be clear, between shortening wait times and abolis
hing the public insurance monopoly, the first is vastly preferable. Insurance markets are tricky things, especially for something like health care where, if you will, the consumer is also the product. Left to themselves, insurance providers would be tempted to refuse coverage to people they think are likely to need it. For their part, consumers might choose not to pay for insurance as long as they were well, only doing so when they get sick."</i></blockquote>
However, wait times are actually <a href="http://theincidentaleconomist.com/wordpress/the-demonization-of-wait-times/">not that bad</a> in <a href="http://theincidentaleconomist.com/wordpress/enough-with-the-wait-times-alrea">most countries</a> with socialized healthcare.<br />
<br />
<br />
<span style="font-size: large;"><a href="http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2012/07/24/victims-without-insurance.html">David Frum: Victims Without Insurance</a></span>
<br />
<blockquote>
<i>"In this charitable country, no doubt funds will be found for Caleb Medley and his family. But what if Caleb hadn't been shot in a spectacular crime? What if he'd just been injured in an ordinary accident or succumbed to an ordinary disease
? The most likely answer is that his hospital would absorb a lot of the cost and find ways to load that cost onto other paying customers - socialized medicine, American-style."</i></blockquote>
<span style="font-size: large;"><a href="http://delong.typepad.com/sdj/2012/07/mitt-romney-calls-for-the-us-to-copy-israels-big-government-single-payer-health-system.html">Mitt Romney Calls for the U.S. to Copy Israel's Big-Government Single-Payer Health System</a></span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-size: large;"><a href="http://www.aarp.org/politics-society/government-elections/info-03-2012/myths-canada-health-care.html">The AARP busts 5 myths about Canada's healthcare system.</a></span><span style="font-size: large;"> </span>KnocksvilleEhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08423194549982565593noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4644604150419303086.post-67281580155383455382012-08-16T22:00:00.004-07:002012-08-19T00:30:09.438-07:00The Roundup: Taxes And Budget Debate Edition<br />
<div style="text-align: center;">
<img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhLsflAvc6VETvo7SR-IIZGD7r1WDnz_cuIe_019UPkTcZrMHQwMZ0ek9-3ehKBkgL-zaxsgbbN9nMg-uwFz5ntBrb10MUQL25Fq4f7Oxl1cEjvI_ey5H_YuGP0mvPrJyA4tb3FHJ-SD64/s1600/CiR.jpg" /><span style="font-size: large;"> </span></div>
<br />
<span style="font-size: large;"><a href="http://www.marketplace.org/topics/business/private-equity-firms-job-creators-or-job-destroyershttp://">Private equity firms: Job creators or job destroyers?</a> </span><br />
The
jury is still out. Why? Maybe because these firms aren't interested in
creating American jobs. So are they afraid of the results?<br />
<br />
<span style="font-size: large;"><a href="http://www.marketplace.org/topics/economy/would-income-tax-hike-hurt-hiring">Would an income tax hike hurt hiring?</a> </span><br />
One
thing not mentioned: A lot of these tax increases only happen on the
portion of their income above $250,000. For a business making $250,001,
only $1 would be affected the the rate increase. So I'm curious where
the concentration of those businesses lie, close to the $250,000 mark or
high enough for the tax increases to be significant.<br />
<br />
<span style="font-size: large;"><a href="http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2012/07/20/balance-sheet-recession.html">David Frum: The Deficit Won't Go Down Till The Private Sector Goes Up</a> </span><br />
Many
economists have been saying large government deficits have come about
as a result of the recession, NOT runaway government growth. The
evidence to back this up is quite strong. Deficits for 2009 were
originally projected to be ~$200 bi
llion... until the recesion hit and deficits were then projeted to be
~$1.2 trillion. The Obama administration raised that to ~$1.4 trillion.
This also further undermines the popular conservative belief that we
need to jump into immediate austerity to fix out budget problem.<br />
<br />
<span style="font-size: large;"><a href="http://www.thefiscaltimes.com/Columns/2012/07/20/Will-Defense-Cuts-Kill-the-Anti-Tax-Pledge.aspx#page1">Bruce Bartlett: Will Defense Cuts Kill the Anti-Tax Pledge?</a></span>
<br />
<blockquote>
<i>"Republicans are between the rock of defense cuts
that they view as unpalatable and the tax pledge hard place. There is no
doubt that Democrats would agree to a tax increase to offset the
defense sequester, but would oppose any other altern
ative except, perhaps, putting off the entire sequester, including
domestic spending cuts, for a year. It’s doubtful that the GOP’s Tea
Party wing would support that."</i></blockquote>
<br />
<span style="font-size: large;"><a href="http://www.motherjones.com/mojo/2012/07/republican-plan-tax-poor">The Republican Plan to Tax the Poor</a></span>
<br />
<blockquote>
<i>"According to CTJ, virtually all of these tax
increases would apply to families making less than $50,000—people for
whom a few hundred dollars can make a huge difference. Unfortunately for
them, the media is focused instead on how Obama's tax increases on
incomes above $250,000 will make life intolerable for rich people."</i></blockquote>
<span style="font-size: large;"><a href="http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/07/27/the-hobbled-recovery/">Paul Krugman: The Hobbled Recovery</a></span>
<br />
<blockquote>
<i>"<b>Business investment has actually gone up a lot</b>; maybe you think it should have gone up even more, but it’s not the heart of the problem. On the other hand, <b>we’ve had a lot of cutbacks in government</b> — mainly at the state and local level, but federal aid could have avoided that.</i> (emphasis mine)</blockquote>
<blockquote>
<i>This isn’t a picture of an economy hobbled by Big Government; it’s a picture of an economy hobbled by premature austerity."</i></blockquote>
<br />
<span style="font-size: large;"><a href="http://www.project-syndicate.org/commentary/hopeless-unemployment">Brad DeLong: Hopeless Unemployment</a></span>
<br />
<blockquote>
<i>"The current balance of probabilities is that two
years from now, the North Atlantic’s principal labor-market failures
will not be demand-side market failures that could be easily remedied by
more aggressive policies to boost economic activity and employment.
Rather, they will be structural market failures of participation that
are not amenable to any straightforward and easily implemented cure."</i></blockquote>
<span style="font-size: large;"><a href="http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/07/31/the-secret-of-our-un-success/">Paul Krugman: The Secret of Our Un-success</a></span>
<br />
<blockquote>
<i>"The Wall Street Journal — yes, the WSJ —
explains: Government Cutbacks Separate This Expansion From Others. Over
at Angry Bear, Spencer shows that private GDP — GDP not including
government spending — has risen almost exactly as fast under
Obama <b>as during the “Bush Boom”</b>; of course, if government
spending hadn’t been falling despite a weak economy, there would have
been more jobs, and private spending would have risen faster."</i> (emphasis mine)</blockquote>
<span style="font-size: large;"><a href="http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/08/01/poles-apart-2/">Paul Krugman: Poles Apart</a></span>
<br />
<blockquote>
<i>"So actually Poland’s success suggests that (a) big government isn’t so bad (b) sometimes its good to debase your currency.
Doesn’t anyone tell Romney to do his homework?"</i></blockquote>
<span style="font-size: large;"><a href="http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/08/01/dooh-nibor/">Paul Krugman: Dooh Nibor</a></span>
<br />
<blockquote>
<i>"The question one might ask is, did TPC – which is
actually painstakingly and painfully nonpartisan – make questionable
assumptions to get its results, so that some other set of assumptions
might portray Romneynomics in a more favorable lig
ht? And the answer is no: TPC actually bent over backwards to literally
give Romney every possible benefit of the doubt.</i> </blockquote>
<blockquote>
<i>...</i> </blockquote>
<blockquote>
<i>So they’re actually giving Romney <b>every possible benefit of the doubt</b> – and still his plan is a redistribution from the middle class to the rich. In practice it would surely be much worse."</i> (emphasis mine)</blockquote>
<a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/fact-checker/post/obamas-new-campaign-ad-on-dueling-budget-plans/2012/08/01/gJQA8pyHQX_blog.html">
<span style="font-size: large;">WP Fact Checker: Obama’s new campaign ad on dueling budget plans</span></a>
<br />
<blockquote>
<i>"Romney’s continued failure to provide enough
specifics about his plans certainly lets the Obama campaign openly
speculate about the impact. The president, by contrast, is required to
present a real budget with actual figures — but as we ha
ve shown, he can still play budget tricks to make the numbers add up. So
even more detail from Romney might not make the budget dispute any
clearer."</i></blockquote>
<br />
<span style="font-size: large;"><a href="http://nymag.com/daily/intel/2012/08/why-washington-accepts-mass-unemployment.html">Why Washington Accepts Mass Unemployment</a> </span><br />
A <b>MUST-READ</b> ON THE POPULAR VIEW OF THE RECESSION AMONG THE WASHINGTON ELITE!
<br />
<blockquote>
<i>"There are signs we’ve hit bottom. Nothing to
worry about here. Why risk the possibility of a small outlay merely to
provide relief to hundreds of thousands of des
perate people? This is such a perfect statement of the way the American
elite has approached the economic crisis. They concede that it is a
problem. But there are other problems, you know."</i></blockquote>
<span style="font-size: large;"><a href="http://factcheck.org/2012/08/does-romney-pay-a-lower-rate-in-taxes-than-you/">FactCheck: Does Romney Pay a Lower Rate in Taxes Than You?</a></span>
<br />
<blockquote>
<i>"“Bottom line,” said Eric Toder co-director of the
Urban-Brookings Tax Policy Center, “if you look at income taxes only,
Obama’s statement is not true for most Americans. <b>If you add in payroll taxes, however, it is probably true for lots of
people</b>.”</i> (emphasis mine)</blockquote>
<blockquote>
<i>No
matter how you slice it, Toder said, Romney’s tax rate is very low for
someone with his level of income. The average income tax rate for the
top 0.1 percent (which is where Romney falls) is 23.6 percent."</i></blockquote>
<br />
<span style="font-size: large;"><a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/ezra-klein/wp/2012/08/02/nine-takeaways-on-romneys-tax-plan/">Nine takeaways on Romney’s tax plan</a> </span><br />
Romney's
tax plan will hopefully become his biggest handicap in this election.
This is the bottom line. Surveys show the American population generally
thinks Romney is more able to handle the debt and deficit than Obama.
Understanding the f
laws with Romney's plans for growth and fiscal reforms should help
Americans doubt Romney's competency on these core issues. It will help
ensure Romney either fixes the problems with his plan (doubtful, since
the problems are fundamental), or loses this election for the right
reasons.<br />
<span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-size: large;"><a href="http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2012/08/09/ngdp-targetting.html">AEI Economics: Better Late Than Never</a> </span><br />
AEI is a bit late to the game, but they are early compared to many Republicans:
<br />
<blockquote>
<i>"In his podcast Pethokoukis asks the most
important question conservatives will have when they hear about this
policy for the fist time: Isn't this just promoti
ng inflation? In response, Sumner clearly explains why short term
inflation is not the same as the Carter-era inflation that many
conservatives fear might repeat itself."</i> (emphasis mine)</blockquote>
<br />
<span style="font-size: large;"><a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/fact-check-social-security-adds-to-budget-deficit/2012/08/10/22d83e4a-e31a-11e1-89f7-76e23a982d06_story.html">FACT CHECK: Social Security adds to budget deficit</a></span><br />
a MUST READ Fact Check on the question of whether social security is adding to the national debt. It is more complex than most people realize.<br />
<br />
Note: Most of our debt does not come from china. Former Sen Judd Gregg has presented a false dichotomy.<br />
<br />
<span style="font-size: large;"><a href="http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-false-claims-20120811,0,4345018.story">Both parties unfazed as ads fail fact-check</a></span><br />
The Obama campaign is finally calling out the Romney campaign for its hypocrisy in their insults to Obama's political ads:
<br />
<blockquote>
<i>""Mitt Romney won the Republican primary only by tearing down each of his opponents with ruthlessly negative campaig
ning," said campaign spokeswoman Lis Smith. "<b>His campaign has questioned whether the president understands what it is to be American, attacked his patriotism, and is currently running an ad that a former president [Clinton] and authors of the welfare-to-work legislation have called a flat-out lie</b>. When the Romney campaign finally reaches the high ground, we look forward to greeting them there.""</i> (emphasis mine)</blockquote>
One interesting thing here is that these negative ads seem to be benefiting Obama much more than Romney:
<br />
<blockquote>
<i>"Political scientist John Geer of Vanderbilt University, who has been testing voter reaction to ads, has found that some of <b>Obama's ads attacking Romney have moved voters. But Romney's attacks, so far, have not</b>.</i> </blockquote>
<blockquote>
<i>"People know what they think of Obama. Their judgments can't easily be moved," he said."</i> (emphasis mine)</blockquote>
In addition, some of these political ads may be relying on fact checker debunkings:
<br />
<blockquote>
<i>"Indeed, with the ad about the cancer death, the Democratic super PAC, Priorities USA Action, appeared to have gone the fact-checkers one better — exploiting attention to the ad's veracity to get free air time for a spot that has not appeared anywhere as a paid commercial. The ad has been replayed extensively on television news segments that have debated it and has been viewed more than half a million times on YouTube. The largest number of views have come from five states — California and four election battlegrounds, Florida, Pennsylvania, Ohio and Virginia, according to Priorities.</i> </blockquote>
<blockquote>
<i>The Democratic super PAC has raised considerably less money than its Republican counterpart, making the free publicity particularly valuable.</i> </blockquote>
<blockquote>
<i>Asked whether the prospect of controversy leading to free publicity was part of the calculation, Paul Begala, senior advisor to Priorities, did not hesitate.</i> </blockquote>
<blockquote>
<i><b>"Absolutely," he said. "We're provocateurs."</b>"</i> (emphasis mine)</blockquote>
<br />
<br />
<span style="font-size: large;"><a href="http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2012/08/overstated-military-budget-cuts-100-billion">The Case of the $100 Billion Error</a></span><sup>1</sup>
<br />
<blockquote>
<i>"Multiple members of Congress have warned that
slashing defense spending by $600 billion would devastate the military,
with Sen. Lindsey Graham this month predicting the cuts would deal "a
death blow to our ability to defend ourselves."</i> </blockquote>
<blockquote>
<i>There's just one problem: <b>The number they cite is wrong</b>.</i> </blockquote>
<blockquote>
<i>The
law triggering the cuts does not slash the military budget by $600
billion. That figure — which has also been widely cited in the media — <b>overstates the amount of military cuts by more than $100 billion.</b>"</i> (emphasis mine)</blockquote>
<br />
<span style="font-size: large;"><a href="http://www.nydailynews.com/opinion/paul-ryan-imaginary-expertise-article-1.1137112">Paul Ryan’s imaginary expertise</a></span><sup>1</sup><br />
Professor
Mark Thoma of the University of Oregon explains how Paul Ryan doesn't
uderstand basic monetary or fiscal policy. His budget makes unre
alistic assumptions which are backed by few details. Is this what we
should expect from the "intellectual leader of the Republican Party."<br />
<br />
<span style="font-size: large;"> <a href="http://www.marketplace.org/topics/wealth-poverty/two-thirds-americans-arent-economically-mobile">"Only
about one-third of American families will surpass their parents in
wealth and income and climb to a new rung on the economic ladder, a new
study out today from The Pew Charitable Trusts concludes."
</a></span>
<br />
<br />
<span style="font-size: large;"><a href="http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2012/07/national-federation-independent-businesses">The NFIB is now only representing at most 2% of small businesses.</a></span><br />
<span style="font-size: large;"> </span>
<br />
<span style="font-size: large;"><a href="http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/07/25/zombie-straw-men/">The Tax Foundation is dishonest about income inequality.</a></span><br />
<br />
<a href="http://www.newstatesman.com/blogs/politics/2012/08/exclusive-osbornes-supporters-turn-him">
<span style="font-size: large;">Economists who once supported austerity in the UK are changing their minds</span></a>
<span style="font-size: large;"> </span>
<br />
<br />
<a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2012/07/27/opinion/money-for-nothing.html?">
<span style="font-size: large;">Paul Krugman makes the case that markets are allowing the US to <b>borrow for free</b>, meaning now is the time for short term stimulus and long term austerity.</span></a><br />
<br />
<span style="font-size: large;"><a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2012/07/30/opinion/krugman-crash-of-the-bumblebee.html">Paul
Krugman explains the euro crises: a central currency with no central
government. He then presents potential solutions to the crisis. He Ends
by suggesting the euro should be saved but probably won't.</a></span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-size: large;"><a href="http://www.motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2012/08/mitt-romneys-plan-screw-middle-class">Why
does the middle class let politicians get away with unfavorable tax
plans? They trust politicians just wouldn't do such a thing.</a></span><span style="font-size: large;"> </span>
<br />
<br />
<span style="font-size: large;"><a href="http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2012/07/charts-how-americas-billionaires-get-off-tax-rich-congress">Charts: America Has the World's Luckiest Billionaires</a></span><br />
<span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-size: large;"><a href="http://www.marketplace.org/topics/wealth-poverty/arthur-laffer-income-inequality-raising-taxes">Arthur Laffer on income inequality, raising taxes</a></span><br />
<span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-size: large;"><b> </b><a href="http://www.npr.org/blogs/money/2012/07/19/157047211/six-policies-economists-love-and-politicians-hate">Six Policies Economists Love (And Politicians Hate)</a></span><sup>1</sup><br />
<br />
<b><span style="font-size: x-small;"><sup>1</sup>: Update 8/18/12</span></b> KnocksvilleEhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08423194549982565593noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4644604150419303086.post-7789402786988529792012-08-16T08:48:00.001-07:002012-08-16T08:48:34.773-07:00The Roundup: David Frum And Michael Shermer on Gun Control Editition<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
</div>
<div style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;">
<img alt="map1" class="cq-dd-image" src="http://www.thedailybeast.com/content/dailybeast/articles/2012/07/20/gun-violence/_jcr_content/body/inlineimage.img.503.jpg/1342791220738.cached.jpg" title="map1" /><span style="font-size: large;"> </span></div>
<br />
<br />
<br />
<span style="font-size: large;"><a href="http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2012/07/20/gun-violence.html">America's Gun Violence Map</a> </span><br />
Keep in mind this is correlation, which does not necessarily mean causation. But causation is at least plausible.<br />
<blockquote>
<i>"Firearm deaths are significantly lower in
states with stricter gun control legislation. Though the sample sizes
are small, we
find substantial negative correlations between firearm deaths and states
that ban assault weapons (-.45), require trigger locks (-.42), and
mandate safe storage requirements for guns (-.48)."</i></blockquote>
<br />
<span style="font-size: large;"><a href="http://www.skepticblog.org/2012/07/31/gun-control-and-the-law-of-large-numbers/">Michael Shermer: The Colorado Massacre, Gun Control, and the Law of Large Numbers</a></span>
<br />
<blockquote>
<i>"We do know something for certain, however, and that is that <b>this will happen again…and again and again</b>. The reason is the <b>law of large numbers</b> that I will outline below that are disturbing enough that it really is now time to <b>rethink our gun-control laws to include the prohibition of semi-automatic assault rifles</b> like those Holmes’ allegedly used to murder 12 and wound another 58 in a matter of seconds. Had he not had such weapons—possessing, say, only a pistol purchased for self-defense—<b>the tragedy would surely have been lessened</b>. Thus, even though <b>I am a life-long libertarian</b> who champions freedom in all spheres of life and has previously opposed gun-control measures in principle (I do not personally enjoy hunting or recreational gun shooting), I now believe that <b>the freedom of a few people to own WMMs (Weapons of Mass Murder) conflicts with the freedom of the rest of us to enter the public sphere without the chance of our ultimate freedom of life itself being cut short</b>."</i> (emphasis mine)</blockquote>
He then presents a few figures about psychopathy, violence, murder and comes up with this figure:
<br />
<blockquote>
"this results in <b>a rate of 3.14 Aurora-size mass murders per year in America</b>, which is actually lower than the rate of around a dozen per year that we have been averaging the past half century, depending on what constitutes a mass murder (school-shootings alone that amount to more than one killed in one event happen on average once a year in the U.S.)." (emphasis mine)</blockquote>
Now what can be done? Nobody can really predict these things without some kind of police state:
<br />
<blockquote>
<i>"damage control is the only option we have, if we want to do something about this tragic social problem. And by damage control I mean gun control. Specifically, I mean outlawing all automatic and semi-automatic assault rifles for anyone who is not in law enforcement or the military. <b>When the Second Amendment was written stating that citizens have a right to “keep and bear arms,” rifles took over a minute to load one bullet at a time. The most crazed 18th century American could not possibly commit mass murder because no WMMs existed at the time.</b>"</i> (emphasis mine)</blockquote>
Should this be considered a loss of freedom? Michael Shermer makes a compelling case that it is actually quite the opposite:
<br />
<blockquote>
<i>"The principle of freedom states that all people are free to think, believe, and act as they choose, so long as they do not infringe on the equal freedom of others. But <b>the freedom for me to swing my arm ends at your nose</b>. The freedom for you to own any gun you like is in conflict with my freedom to interact freely with my fellow citizens in public spaces when so many madmen mingle among us. We should ban assault weapons of all kinds. <b>We already disallow private citizens to own nuclear weapons, missiles, grenade launchers, and the like. WMMs that can be secreted into a movie theater should be categorized among those we can no longer tolerate</b>. This is no loss of freedom. It is, in fact, an increase in freedom—the freedom to move about our living spaces without fear of being gunned down in cold blood. "</i> (emphasis mine)</blockquote>
<br />
<a href="http://www.cnn.com/2012/07/23/opinion/frum-guns/index.html">
<span style="font-size: large;">David Frum: Fear drives opposition to gun control</span></a><span style="font-size: large;"> </span><br />
While
opposition to gun control has been increasing, ownership of guns has
been decreasing. In addition, while violent crime has been on a decline
over the past few decades, Americans feel more at risk.
<br />
<blockquote>
<i>"Proponents of gun control are baffled that
horrific massacres such as the one in Aurora, Colorado, do not lead to
stricter gun control."</i> </blockquote>
<blockquote>
<i>"The more
terrifyingly criminal the world looks, the more ineffective law
enforcement seems, the more Americans demand the right to deadly weapons
with which to defend themselves."</i></blockquote>
yet
<br />
<blockquote>
<i>"The police can protect you, and will, and do. And
a gun in the house is not a guarantee of personal security -- it is
instead a standing invitation to family tragedy. The cold dead hands
from which they pry the gun are very unlikely to be the hands of a
heroic minuteman defending home and hearth against intruders. They are
much more likely to be the hands of a troubled adolescent or a clumsy
child."</i></blockquote>
<br />
<span style="font-size: large;"><a href="http://www.cnn.com/2012/07/30/opinion/frum-guns-safer/index.html">David Frum: Do guns make us safer?</a></span>
<br />
<blockquote>
<i>"To be clear: I'm not disputing that guns sometimes save lives. They must. I'm certainly not disputing that the Constitution secures the right of individual gun ownership. It does. I'm questioning the claim that widespread gun ownership mak
es America a safer place. The research supporting that claim is pretty weak -- and is contradicted above all by the plain fact that most other advanced countries have many fewer guns and also many fewer crimes and criminals."</i></blockquote>
<br />
<span style="font-size: large;"><a href="http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2012/07/24/fast-and-furious.html">David Frum: Fast and Furious' Dumb Conspiracy Theory</a></span>
<br />
<blockquote>
<i>"The right-wing theory of the case in the Fast & Furious
scandal is that the Obama administration hoped to generate demand for
gun control in the United States by allowing the export of deadly guns
to Mexico.</i> <br />
<br /></blockquote>
<blockquote>
<i>Yet demand for gun control doe
s not respond even to mass murders inside the United States.</i> <br />
<br /></blockquote>
<blockquote>
<i>
If you were a secret gun-snatcher, would you ever imagine that gun crime inside Mexico would produce a better result?</i> <br />
<br /></blockquote>
<blockquote>
<i>
More plausible conspiracy theories, please."</i></blockquote>
<br />
<span style="font-size: large;"><a href="http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2012/jul/23/gun-control-falsehoods-fact-check/">Politifact: Falsehoods and half-truths in debate on gun control </a> </span><br />
A <b>MUST READ</b> for anyone who desires a reality-based opinion on the Gun Control issue.
<br />
<br />
<span style="font-size: large;"><a href="http://news.yahoo.com/fact-check-treaty-unlikely-curb-us-gun-rights-080553777.html">AP FACT CHECK: Treaty unlikely to curb US gun rights</a> </span><br />
The NRA, as well as other pro-gun groups are on a continual unjustified scare campaign. There is no hope if the leader of the most popular mainstream gun rights organization is a conspiracy obsessed nut job.<br />
<br />
<span style="font-size: large;"><a href="http://factcheck.org/2012/07/gunmans-weapons-already-illegal/">Gunman’s Weapons Already Illegal?</a></span>
<br />
<blockquote>
<i>"So Romney is correct to say that any bombs found at Holmes’ apartment were illegal. But all of the weapons alleged to have been used by Holmes at the movie theater that night — including a controversial semi-automatic rifle once banned by federal law — <b>were obtained legally</b>."</i> (emphasis mine)</blockquote>
<br />
<span style="font-size: large;"><a href="http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2012/jul/25/michael-bloomberg/mayor-michael-bloomberg-says-40-percent-guns-are-s/">Politifact: Mayor Michael Bloomberg says 40 percent of guns are sold without a background check</a></span>
<br />
<blockquote>
<i>"The City of New York commissioned an investigation of Internet gun sales. The report said on 10 websites, it found over 25,000 weapons for sale.The report said that over 60 percent of sellers allowed a purchase to move forward even when th
e alleged buyer said he didn’t believe he would pass a background check."</i></blockquote>
KnocksvilleEhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08423194549982565593noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4644604150419303086.post-70044483352093923852012-08-16T08:45:00.000-07:002012-08-18T12:09:53.911-07:00Debunking Romney (Part 1): Tax Policies<div style="text-align: center;">
<iframe allowfullscreen="allowfullscreen" frameborder="0" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/r1D1jI61ckY" width="560"></iframe>
</div>
<br />
<i>This post is part one of a three part series debunking a few central claims that have been made by the Romney campaign this year. The first part deals with Romnay's tax policies, the recent Tax Policy Center <a href="http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/UploadedPDF/1001628-Base-Broadening-Tax-Reform.pdf">study</a>, and Romney's response to that study. The second part deals with the <a href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/08/02/mitt-romney-jobs_n_1734520.html">white paper</a> Romney's advisers wrote to attempt to justify his plan. Finally, the third part deals with Romney's recent <a href="http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-18563_162-57494197/romneys-$716b-medicare-cut-attack-is-dubious/">Medicare</a> <a href="http://www.forbes.com/sites/aroy/2012/08/13/yes-obamacare-cuts-medicare-more-than-president-romney-would/">claims</a>, as well as his impossible promises on the subject.</i> <br />
<br />
Although the Obama campaign <a href="http://factcheck.org/2012/07/falsifying-romneys-abortion-stance-again/">is</a> <a href="http://factcheck.org/2012/07/bain-still-no-evidence/">no</a> <a href="http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/partnerships/message-machine/">stranger</a> <a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/fact-checker/post/obamas-new-campaign-ad-on-dueling-budget-plans/2012/08/01/gJQA8pyHQX_blog.html">to</a> inaccurate campaign videos, this one was different. This one was <b>actually accurate</b>, <a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/fact-checker/post/a-tough-new-obama-ad-t%20hat----surprise----is-accurate/2012/08/02/gJQAuigQSX_blog.html">receiving a rare "Geppetto"</a> from the Washington Post Fact Checker, indicating its accuracy <span style="font-size: x-small;">(note that this is<a href="http://contentinreality.blogspot.com/2012/08/the-roundup-romneys-bain-edition.html"> the same Fact Checker Romney has relied upon to call out Obama</a> in the past):</span><br />
<blockquote>
<i>"The rest of the ad concerns the <b><a href="http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/UploadedPDF/1001628-Base-Broadening-Tax-Reform.pdf">new study</a> by the Tax Policy Center, which examines whether the numbers add up in Romney’s tax plan as described on his Web site</b>. <a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/fact-checker/post/obamas-new-campaign-ad-on-dueling-budget-plans/2012/08/01/gJQA8pyHQX_blog.html">As we have noted</a>, Romney has not detailed how he would cut tax rates by 20 percent and yet eliminate enough tax loopholes to keep the plan revenue neutral.</i> </blockquote>
<blockquote>
<i><b>The study essentially concludes that, no matter what choices are made, taxes will be lower for the very wealthy while raised for most middle and lower income taxpayers</b>. That’s because there are not enough loopholes to close for the rich — and the real money available to boost revenue would come from getting rid of tax credits that mostly benefit middle-income taxpayers, such as the home mortgage deduction. The study came to this conclusion even<b> after trying to grant every positive assumption to the Romney plan</b>.</i> </blockquote>
<blockquote>
<i>The ad accurately describes the main points of the study, using headlines such as from The Wall Street Journal to underline its points: “Study: Romney’s Tax Plan Hits Middle Class.”"</i> (emphasis mine)</blockquote>
The study by the non partisan Tax Policy Center really hurt Romney's campaign message. It showed that Romney's promise to cut individual income tax rates without either favoring the wealthy or losing revenue is not mathematically possible. FactCheck <a href="http://factcheck.org/2012/08/romneys-impossible-tax-promise/">also agreed</a>:
<br />
<blockquote>
<i>Romney has <b>proposed very specific tax cuts.</b> He would make the Bush-era income tax cuts and capital gains tax cuts permanent, then cut all income tax rates by an additional 20 percent across the board, repeal the Alternative Minimum Tax (which hits primarily upper-income taxpayers), and permanently repeal the estate tax (which currently applies only to estates valued at $5 million or more).</i> </blockquote>
<blockquote>
<i>Romney has said he would offset the loss of personal income tax revenue (estimated at $360 billion a year by the Tax Policy Center) by reducing tax deductions and credits. And he has said he would do this while making sure that those at the top keep paying the “same share of the tax burden they’re paying now.”</i> </blockquote>
<blockquote>
<i><b>But he has steadfastly refused to say which tax preferences would be cut or reduced.</b> He has pointed to the revenue-neutral proposals for rate-cutting put forth by the deficit commission as evidence that what he proposes is possible in theory, <b>but those proposals pay for the cuts largely by taxing capital gains at the higher rates that apply to ordinary income, a measure Romney has specifically ruled out</b>.</i> </blockquote>
<blockquote>
<i>So Romney has failed to produce evidence that what he promises is possible. And we judge that the weight of evidence and expert opinion is clear — <b>it’s not possible</b>.</i> (emphasis mine)</blockquote>
The FactCheck article also does a good job detailing the history of Romney's plan, as well as the study by the TPC. It is well worth a read. <br />
<br />
Romney has predictably rejected the study. The Washington Post Fact checker notes:
<br />
<blockquote>
<i>"The Romney campaign has emphatically rejected the study on several grounds. First, it claims the paper is “biased” because of the involvement of an economist (Adam Looney) who worked on the staff of Obama’s Council of Economic Advisers. Second, it says it ignores “pro-growth elements” of Romney’s plan, such as corporate tax reform and reduced deficits. Finally, it says the study admits it is not really examining Romney’s plan."</i></blockquote>
We will look at each of these justifications for rejection to see if they hold any water.<br />
<br />
<br />
<span style="font-size: large;"><b>Is the paper biased?</b></span><br />
<br />
The Washington Post Fact Checker calls this claim ridiculous:
<br />
<blockquote>
<i>"The charge of bias is pretty ridiculous. Looney, the third name on the paper, was an economist, not a principal, on the CEA and spent six years as an economist at the Federal Reserve Board. The economist positions at the CEA, in fact, are nonpartisan. Indeed, another co-author of the study, <a href="http://www.brookings.edu/experts/galew">William Gale</a>, <b>was an economist for the CEA during the George H.W. Bush administration.</b></i> (emphasis mine)</blockquote>
<a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/ezra-klein/wp/2012/08/04/romney-tax-plan-on-table-debt-collapses-table/">Ezra Klein of The Washington Post continues</a>:<br />
<blockquote>
<i>But
the Tax Policy Center is directed by Donald Marron, who was <b>one of the
principals on George W. Bush’s Council of Economic Advisers</b>.</i> (emphasis mine)</blockquote>
As the Fact Checker notes, there is also a bit of hypocrisy here:<br />
<blockquote>
<i>The Romney campaign would have more credibility to claim bias if it had not <a href="http://livewire.talkingpointsmemo.com/entries/romney-camp-cited-same-think-tank-they-now">approvingly cited</a> the Tax Policy Center as providing “an objective, third-party analysis” when the group critically examined the tax plan of Texas Gov. Rick Perry."</i> <br />
<i><i></i></i></blockquote>
<blockquote>
<i><i>Readers of this column know that we have frequently cited the Tax Policy Center’s work. In a town full of partisans, the group is about as <b>even-handed and nonpartisan as possible</b>. The staff roster consists of serious and credible analysts with experience working in the administrations of <b>both parties</b>.</i></i> (emphasis mine)</blockquote>
<i>
</i>So not only are there economists from both political parties involved in the study, but Romney wants to have it both ways. He wants to cite this think tank when it backs him up, but poison the well when it doesn't.<br />
<br />
In addition, as FactCheck points out, the TPC is not alone in its conclusions:<br />
<blockquote>
<i>"it’s also the conclusion of an expert from the pro-business Tax Foundation, who states that the Tax Policy Center analysis “correctly identified the Romney plan as a tax cut, at least in static terms, that accrues mainly to high-income earners.”"</i></blockquote>
<br />
<span style="font-size: large;"><b>Does the paper ignore Romney's pro-growth elements of his plan?</b></span><br />
<br />
Ezra Klein elaborates on this point:
<br />
<blockquote>
<i>There’s a reason the study ignores those “positive benefits”: Romney has called for a revenue-neutral corporate tax plan that brings the rate down from 35 percent to 25 percent while also promising to balance the budget. He has not said how he will achieve either goal. Until he does, those positive benefits — if they exist — <b>are impossible to calculate</b>.</i> </blockquote>
<blockquote>
<i>If Romney tries to pay for his tax cuts by reducing spending, the results, as the Tax Policy Center notes, would <b>be even more regressive</b>. Romney has promised to increase defense spending and hold benefits steady for the current generation of seniors. The only remaining big spending programs are those that help the poor; that’s where Romney’s cuts would have to be concentrated. Paying for tax cuts for the rich by curtailing programs for the poor is even more of a <b>reverse-Robin Hood</b> act than paying for tax cuts for the rich by cutting the tax expenditures (deductions and the like) of the middle class.</i> (emphasis mine)</blockquote>
Ezra Klein also points out the implausibility of Romney paying for some of his tax cuts with spending cuts:
<br />
<blockquote>
<i>The Center on Budget and Policy Priorities <a href="http://www.cbpp.org/cms/?fa=view&id=3658">produced</a> its own analysis of Romney’s plan, based on an assumption that Romney pays for <b>half of his tax cuts through spending cuts</b>. The conclusion: By 2022, Romney would need to cut all non-defense, non-Social Security programs by 49 percent. <b>That is not plausible</b>, to say the least.</i> (emphasis mine)</blockquote>
Indeed at least one person who agreed with the TPC study argued there would be growth. FactCheck notes:
<br />
<blockquote>
<i>"William McBride of the Tax Foundation, a pro-business nonprofit, writes that reducing the corporate tax rate will spur 1 percent to 2 percent more economic growth.
But McBride also writes that TPC “correctly identified the Romney plan as a tax cut, at least in static terms, that accrues mainly to high-income earners.” That’s not a bad thing, he argues, because the U.S. already has “the most progressive income tax system in the industrialized world,” and it is “well past time to consider the costs and benefits of such an extremely progressive system.”</i></blockquote>
So the <a href="http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/07/25/zombie-straw-men/">conservative</a> Tax Foundation argues that making the tax system less progressive will spur growth. However, there is reason to doubt this. Yes the <b>federal income tax</b> is very progressive. But it is <b>not the only tax</b> faced by US tax payers. When you include <b>all</b> <b>federal, state, and local</b> taxes (which are <b>often regressive</b>), taxes are actually <a href="http://www.ctj.org/pdf/taxday2012.pdf">just barely progressive</a>. This means that, if Romney were to make the federal income tax less progressive, US taxes as a whole may lose their progressiveness altogether!<br />
<br />
In fact, one of the authors of the TPC study points out just how improbable such growth would be under the Romney plan. FactCheck notes:<br />
<blockquote>
<i>"Looney, one of the authors of the Tax Policy Center study, calls that <b>“an implausibly large estimate,”</b> but nevertheless <b>ran the study again assuming that growth rate</b> and an additional 12 million jobs. The result, he told ABC News, is that it would offset only about 15 percent of Romney’s revenue loss from individual tax cuts.</i> </blockquote>
<blockquote>
<i>“Even in that case, there’s<b> still a shift in the tax burden from high-income taxpayers to low- and or middle-income taxpayers</b>,” Looney told ABC News. “It’s smaller, but it would require a <b>net tax increase on the middle class</b>.”"</i> (emphasis mine)</blockquote>
And Looney wasn't alone, Brad DeLong also <a href="http://delong.typepad.com/sdj/2012/08/no-mitt-romney-does-not-believe-in-this-arithmetic-why-do-you-ask-kevin-hassett-and-scraping-the-bottom-of-the-barrel-ed.html">explained</a> how assuming the growth would make up for the shortfall is actually bad arithmetic:
<br />
<blockquote>
<i>1% extra of GDP--if you could get it--taxed at an average rate of 20% is an extra $32 billion/year of tax revenue. $32 billion/year < $85 billion/year. <b>$32 billion/year is less than 2/5 of $85 billion/year</b>.</i> </blockquote>
<blockquote>
<i>This is an arithmetic fail.</i> </blockquote>
<blockquote>
<i>And, of course, if you bust open the <b>long-run</b> deficit further--which Romney does, not just through this tax-cut-for-the-upper-class plan but through the repeal of the efficiency-promoting portions of the Affordable Care Act--<b>you don't boost but slow long-run growth</b>. You increase uncertainty about the future: somebody is ultimately going to pay taxes to pay for government spending, we just don't know who. And in the long-run in which we get out of the slump government borrowing does crowd out private investment and slow growth.</i><sup>1</sup> </blockquote>
<blockquote>
<i>In all likelihood we don't get a growth boost from this plan, we get a growth slowdown. And so the gap that must be closed is not $85 billion/year, but rather more.</i> (emphasis mine)</blockquote>
More on this in Part 2...<br />
<br />
<span style="font-size: x-small;"><sup>1</sup></span><span style="font-size: x-small;">Note: Notice DeLong is talking about long-term deficits, not short term. This is not expansionary austerity it is <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2012/07/27/opinion/money-for-nothing.html?">Keynesian economics</a>.</span><br />
<br />
<br />
<b><span style="font-size: large;">Is the paper not really examining Romney's Plan?</span></b><br />
<br />
The Washington Post Fact Checker notes how odd this accusation really is:
<br />
<blockquote>
<i>"It is also a bit rich for the Romney plan to complain that the paper does not really examine Romney’s plan — or is missing key elements — when <b>the major problem with the plan is that Romney has released precious few details about it</b>. The Tax Policy Center analysis makes clear that a full review is not possible because “certain components of his plan are not specified in sufficient detail.” In other words, if Romney would actually spell out those details, then a full review would be possible."</i> (emphasis mine)</blockquote>
So Romney's only justification for this criticism is that he has made his plan UN-judgeable. Special pleading?<br />
<br />
In addition, as Ezra Klein reminds us, the TPC chose the most unrealistically charitable assumptions for Romney's plan:
<br />
<blockquote>
<i><b>To help Romney</b>, the center did so under the <b>most favorable conditions</b>, which also happen to be <b>wildly unrealistic</b>. The analysts assumed that any cuts to deductions or loopholes would <b>begin with top earners</b>, and that <b>no one earning less than $200,000 would have their deductions reduced until all those earning more than $200,000 had lost all of their deductions and tax preferences first</b>. They assumed, as Romney has promised, that the reforms would spare the portions of the tax code that privilege saving and investment. They even ran a simulation in which they used a model developed, in part, <b>by Greg Mankiw, one of Romney’s economic advisers</b>, that posits “implausibly large growth effects” from tax cuts.</i> </blockquote>
<blockquote>
<i>The numbers <b>never worked out</b>. No matter how hard the Tax Policy Center labored to make Romney’s promises add up, every simulation ended the same way: with a tax increase on the middle class.</i> (emphasis mine)</blockquote>
So it sounds like none of Romney's excuses work to discredit the TPC paper and its implications for Romney's tax policies. You would think this would be a good time to revisit the drawing board. Sadly, Romney instead doubled down on the argument when his economic advisers released a <a href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/08/02/mitt-romney-jobs_n_1734520.html">white paper</a> attempting to justify his plan. I take a look at this plan in n Part 2.<br />
<br />
<b>Update 8/18/12:</b> Mitt Romney further responded to the TPC study in an interview in <a href="http://finance.fortune.cnn.com/2012/08/15/mitt-romney-interview/">Fortune</a>:
<br />
<blockquote>
<i>I indicated as I announced my tax plan that the key principles included the following. First, that high-income people would continue to pay the same share of the tax burden that they do today. And second, that there would be a reduction in taxes paid by middle-income taxpayers. Those are the key principles of my plan that the <b>Tax Policy Center chose to ignore</b>.</i> (emphasis mine)</blockquote>
Ezra Klein <a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/ezra-klein/wp/2012/08/16/mitt-romneys-budget-is-a-fantasy-part-ii/">debunks</a> this assertion:
<br />
<blockquote>
<i>"No, the Tax Policy Center didn’t “ignore” those principles. <b>It tried to test them. And the principles failed.</b></i> </blockquote>
<blockquote>
<i>What’s more, they failed for a <b>comically simple reason</b>. “The total value of the available tax expenditures (once tax expenditures for capital income are excluded) going to high-income taxpayers is <b>smaller than</b> the tax cuts that would accrue to high-income taxpayers, high-income taxpayers must necessarily face a lower net tax burden.”</i> </blockquote>
<blockquote>
<i>That is to say, the tax cuts Romney is promising the rich are larger than the available storehouse of tax breaks Romney can close to pay for them. As such, if the plan is going to be revenue neutral, as Romney has pledged, it is <b>mathematically impossible</b> for it to do anything but shift the tax burden away from the rich."</i> (emphasis mine)</blockquote>
Romney continues:
<br />
<blockquote>
<i>Instead they made various assumptions about what they thought I would do which are not in fact accurate. They made an assumption that I would reduce the home mortgage-interest deduction. I will not do that for middle-income taxpayers, as I have already indicated.</i></blockquote>
However, we have seen that the TPC already took the most favorable assumptions for Romney in its analysis, getting rid of all upper-class tax expenditures before touching middle class ones. So Romney seems to have missed the point. If they take the middle-class home mortgage interest-deduction off the table in their analysis, they will have to replace it with some other middle class tax increase. As we have seen throughout this article, there is simply no other way to make the budget revenue neutral.<br />
<br />
Ezra Klein also notes just this further reinforces the fact that Romney's budget a fantasy:
<br />
<blockquote>
<i>"So let me get this straight. Mitt Romney, who has refused to officially name <b>even one offset</b> for his tax cut, <b>has taken the bulk of the mortgage-interest deduction off the table</b>. In his 10-year deficit-reduction plan, he has refused to name the spending cuts necessary to hit his targets, but he has taken Social Security, Medicare and defense off the table for cuts.</i> </blockquote>
<blockquote>
<i>Tell me again why I’m supposed to believe that this presidential candidate who is systematically ruling out cuts to the most popular spending programs and tax breaks is going to be able to make incredibly unpopular spending cuts and tax changes once in office?"</i> </blockquote>
In a <a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/ezra-klein/wp/2012/08/14/romneys-budget-plan-is-a-fantasy/">previous article</a> <span style="font-size: x-small;">(to be covered more in depth in part 3)</span>, Ezra Klein already explained why Romney's decision to take Social Security, Medicare, and defense spending off the table for cuts makes his budget promises practically impossible. Taking the mortgage-interest deduction for middle class taxpayers off the table makes it even worse.<br />
<br />
In addition, Romney has <a href="http://finance.fortune.cnn.com/2012/08/15/mitt-romney-interview/">attempted to play</a> the "but you are doing it too" game with Obama.<br />
<blockquote>
<i>"Now, interestingly, the same center did an analysis of President Obama’s
tax plan and concluded that he’s <b>raising taxes on the middle-class</b>."</i> (emphasis mine)</blockquote>
<blockquote>
<i>I consider myself something of a connoisseur of the Tax Policy
Center’s reports, and I didn’t remember any showing that result. So I
asked the Romney campaign: What analysis were they referring to? They
pointed me to <a href="http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/numbers/displayatab.cfm?DocID=3305">Table T12-0045</a>, which analyzes President Obama’s 2013 budget request against current policy. Here’s the relevant section:</i> </blockquote>
<blockquote>
<i>
<a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/ezra-klein/files/2012/08/TPC-0045.jpg"><img alt="" class="alignright size-full wp-image-7906" height="188" src="http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/ezra-klein/files/2012/08/TPC-0045.jpg" title="TPC 0045" width="400" /></a></i> </blockquote>
<blockquote>
<i>I
know, lots of numbers. But my fellow TPC-ophiles will notice something
off the bat: Those numbers <b>do not appear</b> <b>to show a middle-class tax
increase</b>. Here’s where to look:</i> </blockquote>
<blockquote>
<i><a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/ezra-klein/files/2012/08/tpc-045-net-box.png"><img alt="" class="alignright size-full wp-image-7907" height="199" src="http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/ezra-klein/files/2012/08/tpc-045-net-box.png" title="tpc 045 net box" width="400" /></a></i> </blockquote>
<blockquote>
<i>The
highlighted boxes show the net tax change for different income
quintiles. For the bottom four quintiles — the bottom 80 percent of the
country — there is, on average, <b>a tax cut, not a tax increase.</b> And I
don’t know where you find the middle class if not in the bottom 80
percent of the income distribution.</i> </blockquote>
<blockquote>
<i>But the Romney campaign clarified that they weren’t looking at those columns. They were looking at these columns:<br />
<a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/ezra-klein/files/2012/08/tpc-045-increase-box.png"><img alt="" class="alignright size-full wp-image-7910" height="199" src="http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/ezra-klein/files/2012/08/tpc-045-increase-box.png" title="tpc 045 increase box" width="400" /></a></i> </blockquote>
<blockquote>
<i>Those
columns show the percentage of tax units (a technical term, but think
“households” and you’re close enough for our purposes) in a given income
group that will see a tax increase under the new plan. As it happens,
under Obama’s plan, a <b>majority</b> of the bottom 80 percent sees <b>no tax
change</b>. A <b>minority</b> of tax units see a <b>small increase</b>. A somewhat <b>smaller
minority</b> see a <b>somewhat larger tax cut</b>. And so, while there’s a tax cut
overall,<b> some households see a tax increase</b>.</i> </blockquote>
<blockquote>
<i>
Because any tax change has winners or losers, we tend to <b>look at
averages</b> when assessing whether a tax plan raises or lowers taxes on an
individual group. The Romney campaign is asking whether <b>anyone</b> in the
group that could be called “the middle class” sees a tax increase, and
some do. <b>If I were Politifact, I’d rate Romney’s claim “mostly false,”</b>
but you can decide for yourself.</i> </blockquote>
<blockquote>
<i>
Now, there’s a separate tax policy table (<a href="http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/numbers/displayatab.cfm?DocID=3309">T12-0049</a>,
for those keeping track) that looks at Obama’s budget <b>a few years down
the road</b> and finds a <b>small tax increase for the fourth quintile</b>. I think
you can fairly say that the 60-80th percentile <b>includes at least some
of “the middle class,</b>” and so <b>if the Romney campaign was pointing to
that table</b>, which perhaps they’ll start doing, I’d say their claim is <b>
mostly true</b>.</i> (emphasis mine)</blockquote>
So Romney may be on to something here <span style="font-size: x-small;">(Is it safe to say he has also dropped the pathetic "biased" accusation towards the TPC?)</span>. Down the road, the highest middle class taxpayers may see a <b>small</b> increase. But, as the Obama campaign noted to Ezra Klein, this is only because of the inclusion of corporate taxes in the TPC analysis. In additionr, these pale in comparison to the increases middle and lower-income taxpayers will see under Romney's plan. If we ignore the revenue neutral aspects of Romney's plan, we get this TPC table:
<br />
<blockquote>
<i><a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/ezra-klein/files/2012/08/TPC-romney-plan.jpg"><img alt="" class="alignright size-full wp-image-7915" height="186" src="http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/ezra-klein/files/2012/08/TPC-romney-plan.jpg" title="TPC romney plan" width="400" /></a></i> </blockquote>
<blockquote>
<i>Romney’s plan is a <b>net tax increase on poorest Americans</b>, as it
permits certain stimulus-related tax breaks to expire. But even in this
version of the plan, which <b>doesn’t include any offsets and increases the
deficit by trillions of dollars</b>, some tax units see an increase.</i> (emphasis mine)</blockquote>
So even without the revenue neutrality, Romney's plan still contains a tax increase on the poorest of Americans. As the TPC points out, once you include attempts to make the plan revenue neutral, you definitely get middle class tax increases, even under the most favorable conditions for Romney. In addition, it should be noted that these "most favorable conditions" are almost completely politically impossible. They include popular tax expenditures <a href="http://www.motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2012/08/mitt-romneys-great-tax-loophole-scam">Republicans have generally never shown even the slightest interest in repealing</a>. So, in order to keep Romney's plan revenue neutral under realistic political conditions, you would need an even larger tax increase on the middle and lower classes. Maybe Romney should remember the old saying "He who lives in a glass house shouldn't throw stones."<br />
<br />
<br />KnocksvilleEhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08423194549982565593noreply@blogger.com0