New Posts Coming This Summer

Well I am finally done with classes for a while so I think it is time to start posting again. My plan is to start posting on a weekly basis, although this is not written in stone. I have a few posts started I've been working on and hopefully I should have them out in the next few weeks. Among these are:

• David Frum suggests that working class individuals shouldn't be so quick to embrace Obama's new Immigration Policy. Does he have a point? 
• I am going to look at the healthcare systems of the top countries in the conservative Heritage Foundation's Index of Economic Freedom. How do they compare to ObamaCare? Is socialized medicine really a threat to individual freedom, as well as the free market in general?
• I am going to write a defense of what has been colorfully called "Slacktivism." Is it generally a good thing? Does it breed laziness? Or is criticism of slacktivism just pretentious?
• I am going to find out just how consistent Politifact.com is about using net job figures, verses other figures, when deciding ratings.
• I may also list some things to remember about fact checking sites (or media altogether) when trying to detect bias.

In addition to these posts, I will include a list of a few articles I think may be worth reading from the previous week. These will usually be unrelated to the post itself. It is mostly my attempt to resurrect a simplified version of my old "Weekly Roundup" articles.

Weekly Roundup
 

Politifact: Is the NRA right that Obama is 'coming for our guns'?

"Gun talk has been almost anathema at the White House. Obama signed a bill in 2009 that allows people to carry loaded guns into most national parks; in 2011, he largely avoided a discussion -- to the anger of many activists -- about strengthening gun laws following the shooting of Arizona Rep. Gabrielle Giffords. Obama received a failing grade from the nation’s preeminent gun control group, the Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence."

So why again is the NRA campaigning so fiercely against Obama? It can't be because he is a liberal now could it...? 


FactCheck.org: Why the Truth Still Matters

"If unpleasant truths would get candidates elected, they would state them frankly. But they seldom do that, because so few of us in the public want to hear unpleasant truths. Stating such things is considered a gaffe.

Furthermore, humans naturally filter out evidence that weighs against what they want to believe. It’s called “confirmation bias,” and we all have it. So candidates tell us what we want to hear."

This is exactly why we need non-partisan fact checking operations.
Another thing I noticed that is worth pointing out:

"the federal government accounted for 43.6 percent of all U.S. health care spending in 2009, before the law [ObamaCare] was signed, and government actuaries predict that in 2015, when the law [ObamaCare] is fully effective, that will rise to 47.4 percent. What’s more, much or most of that 3.8 percentage point increase would have happened anyway as the postwar baby boom generation reaches age 65 and goes on Medicare. So the law is no “takeover.” Rather, it’s a modest, incremental change in the existing system."(emphasis mine)

Tom Smerling: Glimmer of hope? A conservative tackles climate change.

Conservative Professor Jonathan Adler makes the case for action to combat climate change in accordance with conservative principles. This is the kind of conversation we should be getting from the right.

“This is of particular concern because these effects will be most severe in those nations that are both least able to adapt and least responsible for contributing to the concentration of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. 

It is a well established principle in the Anglo-American legal tradition that one does not have the right to use one’s own property in a manner that causes harm to one’s neighbor. . . 

My argument is that the same general principles that lead libertarians and conservatives to call for greater protection of property rights should lead them to call for greater attention to the most likely effects of climate change.

I believe the United States should adopt a revenue-neutral carbon tax, much like that suggested by NASA’s James Hansen. . . [and] that is fully rebated to taxpayers on a per capita basis. This would, in effect, shift the incidence of federal taxes away from income and labor and onto energy consumption and offset some of the potential regressivity of a carbon tax. For conservatives who have long supported shifting from an income tax to a sales or consumption tax, and oppose increasing the federal tax burden, this should be a no brainer."

The carbon tax solution has actually been embraced by more conservatives than you may realize, including Romney adviser Gregory Mankiw.

Paul Krugman: Still A Phantom Menace"
 
Although this recession continues to surprise Economists of all stripes, none have been more off-target than Austrians.

David Frum: Why Americans Hate Politics

"The Democratic message is shaping up as: "The Republicans/the Fed/the Europeans wrecked the recovery, and we weren't smart enough or tough enough to stop them. Vote us."

The Republican message: "Obama could not fix the mess we made. Vote us.""

Paul Krugman: Reagan, Obama, Recovery

"So, more than four years ago I predicted a very slow recovery. Why? Because recessions like those of 1990-91, 2001, and 2007-2009 have very different origins from recessions like 1974-75 or the double-dip recession of 1979-82." (emphasis mine)

David Frum agrees:

"Yet in almost every way, today's economic problems are exactly the opposite of those of 30 years ago. 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 to-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." (emphasis mine)

AP: Obama a socialist? Many scoff, but claim persists

"...to many historians and political scientists - and to actual socialists as well - the persistent claim that Obama is a socialist lacks credence."

And what has been the right's latest silver bullet?

"When President Barack Obama's re-election campaign unveiled its new slogan, some conservative critics were quick to pounce. "Forward," they asserted, is a word long associated with Europe's radical left."

So I'm assuming the same can be said of Republican Governor Scott Walker:

"Scott Walker: Moving Wisconsin Forward"

That crazy Bolshevik!

AP: FACT CHECK: Looming tax hike not the biggest ever

"...the tax increases would pale in comparison to those imposed to help finance World War II. Before the 1940s, the individual income tax applied to only a small percentage of the population. By the end of war, the income tax was levied on most working people, with a top tax rate of 94 percent on income above $200,000." (emphasis mine)

And my favorite part:

"House Republicans have passed a budget for next year - which Romney has embraced - that would raise just $7 billion less in taxes than Obama's budget in 2013. That's the equivalent of a rounding error, when you're talking about revenues of $2.7 trillion." (emphasis mine)

FactCheck.org: Romney’s Solar Flareout

An ad from the Romney campaign strains facts to make its point that federal grants and loans to green-energy companies were improperly steered to Obama’s political backers, and that federal money was wasted on failing companies that are now laying off employees.

• It claims the “inspector general said contracts were steered to ‘friends and family.’ ” But that’s not exactly what the inspector general said. And in the year since he said he was investigating such alleged “schemes,” no public charges have been made, at least not yet. 

• The ad highlights the struggles — company losses, nose-diving stock and layoffs — at several companies that received substantial Department of Energy loans and grants. The ad fails to note, however, that most of the layoffs at those companies were overseas, or that the projects backed by DOE are largely moving along as planned. An independent review of the DOE program says its failure rate has been better than anticipated. 

• The ad uses an inflated figure from a partisan source to quantify loans and grants that went to Obama donors. (emphasis mine)

Paul Krugman: We Don’t Need No Education

Conservatives love to pretend that there are vast armies of government bureaucrats doing who knows what; in reality, a majority of government workers are employed providing either education (teachers) or public protection (police officers and firefighters). (emphasis mine)

WP Fact Checker: A wrong-headed question on ‘Obamacare’

"...cutbacks in federal government spending — precisely what Republicans such as Romney have demanded — led to the closure of the Nemschoff facility in Iowa, not the health care law.

"As for that Chamber of Commerce survey, we suggest that Obama skip reading that. This is yet another one of those online surveys from which you can draw virtually no broader conclusions.

"As the American Association for Public Opinion Research warns: “Surveys based on self-selected volunteers do not have that sort of known relationship to the target population and are subject to unknown, non-measurable biases. Even if opt-in surveys are based on probability samples drawn from very large pools of volunteers, their results still suffer from unknown biases stemming from the fact that the pool has no knowable relationships with the full target population.”" (emphasis mine)

John Avlon: Jeb vs. Grover: Battle for GOP's soul

"In pursuit of a reality check, take a look at this quote: "We're going to close the unproductive tax loopholes that have allowed some of the truly wealthy to avoid paying their fair share. In theory, some of those loopholes were understandable, but in practice they sometimes made it possible for millionaires to pay nothing, while a bus driver was paying 10% of his salary, and that's crazy. It's time we stopped it."

That might sound straight out of President Barack Obama "Buffett Tax" playbook -- which conservatives routinely attack as "class warfare" -- but in fact it is the sainted Reagan speaking in 1985."

Bruce Bartlett: Why Ronald Reagan Would Not Lead Today’s GOP

Gavin Baker: Obama Plans to Further Harness Technology for Government Transparency
 
Politifact.com: In Context: 'The private sector is doing fine'
 
Yahoo News: Top conservative says read my lips: Don’t sign ‘no new tax’ pledge
 
Michael Tomasky on Obama’s Gaffe and How His Campaign Lost Its Groove
 
Michael Stafford: Why I Gave Up On Being a Republican David Frum: The "Wealth Creators" Are Winning

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

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

Eyewitness testimony is UNreliable

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


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

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

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

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

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

Eric Levine: "Obama versus Romney on Jobs":

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

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

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

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

Skeptical science also explains the situation.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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


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


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

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

On human memory...

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

On "reverse-aging"...

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

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

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

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

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

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


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


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


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


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


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


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

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

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


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


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


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


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

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

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


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


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


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


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

Paul Krugman: "Eric and Irene":

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

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


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

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

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

The Weekly Standard still thinks long division is a good substitute for critical thinking [Defending the Truth-O-Meter] .

After reading a few columns from The Weekly Standard, it should come as no shock when they respond to criticism without the first inkling of why they were criticized. In a recent article from The Weekly Standard, conservative author Jeffrey H. Anderson complained:

...the “stimulus” has added or saved just under 2.4 million jobs — whether private or public — at a cost (to date) of $666 billion. That’s a cost to taxpayers of $278,000 per job.   

In other words, the government could simply have cut a $100,000 check to everyone whose employment was allegedly made possible by the “stimulus,” and taxpayers would have come out $427 billion ahead.

This has become a common conservative talking point since 2009. Politifact Texas debunked this claim when it was made by David Dewhurst, correctly pointing out a few things:

"43 percent was spent on tax cuts for individuals and businesses; 19 percent went to state governments, primarily for education and Medicaid; and 13 percent paid for government benefits to individuals such as unemployment and food stamps. The remainder, about 24 percent, was spent on projects such as infrastructure improvement, health information technology and research on renewable energy."

"Any cost-per-job figure pays not just for the worker, but for the material, supplies and that workers’ output — a portion of a road paved, patients treated in a health clinic, goods shipped from a factory floor, railroad tracks laid," the 2009 Associated Press item noted."

Basically, Jeff Anderson acted as though this money was merely spent on wages and benefits, which is made abundantly clear by his suggesting the government could have achieved the same result by just giving "a $100,000 check to everyone whose employment was allegedly made possible by the “stimulus.”" His alternative clearly did not point out the tax breaks, work performed, food to the needy, and research that was  accomplished by the stimulus (although these are tough to quantify). The Weekly Standard decided that, instead of engaging in real critical thinking about the efficacy of the stimulus, they would rather create a one-liner based on pure elementary school long division.


Of course, The Weekly Standard somehow didn't get the message, and instead decided to write a rebuttal for the Politifact article. Once again, The Weekly Standard missed the point entirely.


Jeff Anderson:

Jeff Anderson:
“First, I never said that the $278,000 per job was all spent on salaries or wages. I would never attribute anything close to that degree of efficiency to the federal government.”

It seems as though the Weekly Standard is either purposely ignoring the point of this politifact article, or they are just too hard headed to figure out what appeared to be painfully obvious. First, Politifact already responded to this item: “Then again, this clarification doesn't fit with the blogger's earlier claim that taxpayers would have come out ahead if the government had just cut checks to everyone credited with getting a stimulus-tied job.” So his alternative would make no sense if he meant it covered more than just salary and wages. This would only make sense if the stimulus was just meant to give employers money to hire people to sit around and do nothing. I’m not sure where this guy has worked in the past, but the point of a job is to perform a task and accomplish a goal. And there are costs that go into that. I have a computer, and a cubicle. I work with equipment that cost up to a million dollars apiece. Then there are also administrative costs in training me, not to mention the amount of money spent on materials needed for me to produce goods. That seems to be what he is missing about the stimulus. So if the government had “cut a $100,000 check to everyone whose employment was allegedly made possible by the “stimulus,”” no bridges would have been built, no roads would have been paved, no patients would have been treated, no goods would have been shipped.

“Second, the expenses quoted above were all part of the “economic stimulus,” which, presumably, was intended to stimulate the economy. So either the “stimulus” spurred economic growth or it didn’t. And if it failed to add or save (many) jobs, then it at best stimulated (mostly) jobless growth. It has been a jobless stimulus.”

The mistakes he makes here can be highlighted in his misguided analogy about giving a $100,000 check to everyone whose employment was allegedly made possible by the “stimulus.” More is accomplished than just stimulating the economy, although it is one of the end results.

He also neglects indirect stimulus effects. One of the key components of the stimulus was “Temporary programs to protect the most vulnerable from the deep recession, including increases in food stamps and expansions of unemployment insurance.” This clearly does not directly translate to jobs. However, unemployment insurance and food stamps give people money to spend. This helps slow the decline in the demand for goods and services, which in turn helps slow the decline in the demand for jobs. This is two-fold as it keeps people from starving and also helps avoid job loss. Because this process is indirect, it is very hard to quantify the amount of jobs created or saved as a result of these efforts.

"Third, how does one divvy out (or, as PolitiFact says, “spend”) $286 billion in tax cuts (43 percent of $666 billion) yet still fail to spur much job growth? Likewise, how can $160 billion (24 percent of $666 billion) be spent on “infrastructure improvement, health information technology and research on renewable energy” without spurring much job growth? And why was $127 billion of the “stimulus” (19 percent of $666 billion) spent on teachers or Medicaid?”

I’m not sure this really challenges Politifact’s ruling. This has to do with the effectiveness of the stimulus and not his statement about the cost per job of the stimulus. Politifact did not tackle the effectiveness of the stimulus in this article. However, for reference, they have many times before.

Anyway, I’m not sure 2.4-3.6 Million jobs is “not much job growth” This may be subjective. However, if we base this on initial predictions, the stimulus was only projected to create 3 to 4 million Jobs. This means that, at best the stimulus had a 120% success rate. At worst, it had a 60% success rate. So he would either have to create a straw-man claim in which the government projected the creation of more jobs than stated, or he would have to take the worst success rates.

Another way of looking at this is to look at those numbers in context. Current dollar GDP was $13.9 trillion dollars in 2009 and 14.5 trillion dollars in 2010, totaling $28.5 trillion dollars between both years. This $666 billion spent was around 2% of GDP for those years. Given that stimulus spending was so small compared to the total size of the Economy, how much job growth did they expect?

Note: I’m not looking at unemployment because too many factors are involved in this measurement.

“As I wrote in my response to the White House, “This much is clear: Based on an estimate by Obama’s own economists, for every $278,000 in taxpayer-funded “stimulus” money that the Obama administration has spent — whatever it may have spent it on — the “stimulus” has added or saved just one job.” That remains an undeniable fact.”

If he had stuck with just this, then his meaning would be more up to interpretation. It would have been technically true but incredibly misleading. Instead he continues in his original column by saying “the government could simply have cut a $100,000 check to everyone whose employment was allegedly made possible by the “stimulus,”” indicating an essentially equivalent act would merely put money in those people’s hands, just like a salary and benefits would do. Since he added this, it would be very hard for someone to interpret him as meaning job costs and worker output as well.

“A less-widely reported part of my initial post noted that the conclusions of Obama’s economists also showed that the “stimulus” was now shedding jobs. In relation to estimates of what an un-“stimulated” economy would look like, Obama’s economists said that the stimulus had added or saved 2.7 million jobs as of New Year’s Day but only 2.4 million as of July 1, a decline of (to use the report’s exact figure) 288,000 jobs. In other words, over those six months, the economy would have added or saved more jobs without the stimulus than it has with it — according to an estimate from Obama’s economists.

The entire response on this point from PolitiFact (both the Ohio and Texas versions) is to cite Moody’s chief economist Mark Zandi, who told the left-leaning website TPMDC that “the Weekly Standard misinterpreted that data.” That was good enough for PolitiFact… PolitiFact writes, “‘It’s not that ARRA [the stimulus] is now costing the economy jobs, it is that the economy is now creating jobs without ARRA’s help,’ Zandi told TPMDC. ‘This is exactly the objective of fiscal stimulus, namely to end recession and jump-start economic recovery.’”

Zandi’s claim, however, doesn’t square with the numbers provided by Obama’s economists. They show that the gap between the number of jobs with and without the “stimulus” is narrowing. The “stimulated” economy is not “creating jobs without the stimulus’s help” — at least not at the rate that it would have created them had the “stimulus” never been passed.

Put otherwise, if the “stimulus” added or saved 2.7 million jobs through the end of last year versus the number of jobs that would have been added or saved without it — which is exactly what Obama’s economists assert — then it has correspondingly lost, or failed to save, 288,000 jobs since then. In other words, it’s shedding jobs.”

It seems as though he has missed Zandi’s point. As an analogy, let us say I want to buy a new car, but I don’t have the money or credit to do so. Let’s say my father decides to buy me the car by getting the loan and making the payments. At that point I can see he is the reason I have that car. If it weren’t for him, I wouldn’t have that car. Now let’s say I come across some money… for instance let’s say I win the lottery. Now I have the money to officially buy the car from him and make the payments myself. Seeing as how I could at that point have bought one of these cars from the dealership anyway, I can safely say he is no longer the reason I have the car. He is the reason I previously had the car, but not now (although I could still be appreciative of his help). This is essentially the point of what Zandi is saying. It’s not that these jobs went away, it’s that the employers are to the point where the job would have been there anyway at this point. The only difference is that the person with that job would have been a new hire or newly re-hired. They would have been on unemployment this entire time instead of actually holding a job. Now there may be other long term effects from him having a job during that time instead of being unemployed, but there doesn’t seem to be a need to go into that right now. You can argue whether or not the report should present numbers this way, but it is clear the report does not say the Stimulus is "shedding Jobs"

Basically it looks like Jeff Anderson of the Weekly Standard did what many who criticize Politifact do; he missed the whole point of the article. Maybe politifact should have spent more time explaining it. It didn’t seem that hard to figure out. But if you are unwilling to try and understand what someone is saying, no amount of explanation will do…