Minority data shows a grim future for the GOP

Brookings: "America Reaches Its Demographic Tipping Point":
This is an interesting article:

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...
Minorities now comprise at least 40 percent of infants in more than half of all states, with the white share of infants declining in all of them, with the exception of the District of Columbia. Especially large minority gains occurred in New England states, Connecticut, Rhode Island and Massachusetts, as well as rapidly growing states like Florida, Nevada and Georgia...

Hispanics are a large part of this dispersion. They comprise more than half of all infants in California, Texas, and New Mexico and are the largest source of births in Nevada and Arizona. Among minority births, they contribute the most in 26 states, including Midwest states like Wisconsin, Minnesota, Kansas, Nebraska, and Iowa. Blacks represent the largest minority in 17 states– all in the South except for Michigan, Missouri, Ohio, and Pennsylvania...
As America’s younger population becomes more diverse and spreads to broader parts of the country, we need forward looking political and civic leaders to bridge race-generational divides that are already fuelling issues like immigration and our ongoing budget battles over revenue and government spending choices.

This needs to be a wake up call for Republicans. Although the GOP has been making gains among young white voters, their popularity among blacks has remained minuscule. It was 6% in 2008 and 8% in 2011. The black population is growing in southern states, the GOP stronghold. Merely presenting black candidates does not work. They need to actually figure out how to communicate and sell their ideas, something that might no go well when they protest the 1964 Civil Rights Movement (for whatever reason) or attempt to remove social programs minorities rely upon.
Although the GOP fares a bit better with Hispanics at 22% favorable ratings, their popularity is shrinking. It is down 6% since 2008. This likely due to the fact that Republicans focus more on restricting illegal immigration than they do to comprehensive immigration reform. This doesn't seem likely to change anytime soon within the GOP. In fact, the problem seems to be getting worse.

So far this hasn't translated into a growing share of Democratic voters. 2% fewer Americans call themselves Democrats since 1990, while 3% fewer consider themselves Republicans. Independent voters have seen a rise. However, these Independent voters have the ability to swing most elections.

What does this tell us? 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.

Weely Roundup - Fact Checks, Rational Conservatism, Perry's Blunders, End of CSA, Minecraft (8/21/11-8/27/11)

I have decided to attempt a weekly roundup of some of my favorite Facebook posts for the last week. I understand I do 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 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. At the very least, most of them won't be as long as this first one. In the future I am thinking of keeping these down to 10 (minus support links).
Note: Some of these articles/posts may be more than a week old. I'm including them here because I linked to them on Facebook this week.


Rick Perry is becoming the new Bachmann:
Texas Gvoernor Rick Perry, who officially entered the 2012 Presidential Race recently (Despite the fact that he said he would definitely not run for president in 2012), has been trash talking Obama, the Fed, and Liberalism quite a bit lately. However, he often does not get his facts straight. Michelle Bachmann has been criticized for playing fast and loose with the facts. Now it seems as though Perry wants to take her place as the Candidate divorced from reality:

Fact Checker: "Fact checking Rick Perry’s announcement speech":
Once again, more examples of Rick Perry playing fast and loose with the facts, although not quite as patently false as other times.

"On a blended basis, we would rate this as a Two Pinocchio speech, similar to many of the other announcement speeches — a mishmash of high-flying rhetoric and facts sometimes tethered uncertainly to the truth."

Fact Checker: "Rick Perry’s claim that Obama has ‘killed more jobs’ than any other president":
"We gave Romney one Pinocchio because his statement lacked context even though it was technically accurate. Judging from Perry’s statements in his first week as a candidate, he doesn’t seem to care all that much about even technical accuracy; he just shoots from the hip."
As a caveat to this, the Fact Checker was corrected for a mistake he made on a similar post regarding his definition of job creation:
"The Post Fact Checker Gless Kessler writes yesterday: “By the standard definition of job creation during a presidency, [Obama] is on track to be the first president to have negative job growth in the modern era.”
This is all arbitrary and stupid, since boom/bust periods and presidential administrations don’t magically align their cycles like Smith College roommates....

The “standard definition” cited by Kessler is a link to this WSJ 2009 analysis, showing that job creation under George W. Bush was the worst under any president since WWII.... there is so rarely any very significant change in employment from month to month, and never has there been a very large change in the month a new president was inaugurated.
Until, of course, January 2009.
In the four transitions before 2001, job growth from December-January ranged between 0.24% and 0.3%.  In 2001, it was close to zero.  But during January 2009, the U.S. economy shed more jobs – 820,000– than in any month since WWII, and 0.61% of all jobs....
So the “standard definition” Kessler cites is fundamentally incorrect because of the dates used...
It’s also fundamentally flawed because it doesn’t take into account population growth.... A fair assessment of job creation has to incorporate population growth. A much better assessment of job creation is the change in employment as a share of the population, the employment ratio.  Using that measure, half of the previous 10 presidents saw the employment situation decline during their tenures. This should not come as a surprise; hearing that Obama would be the first president in history with bad job creation numbers should raise a red flag about the qualify of the analysis." (emphasis added)

Fact Check: "FactChecking Perry":

"In his announcement speech, Perry said the U.S. cannot afford four more years of "rising energy dependence on nations that intend us harm." But U.S. reliance on foreign oil has dropped under President Barack Obama, and it is expected to decline again this year...
Perry also incorrectly claimed in his speech that Obama's economic policies "have given us record debt." U.S. public debt as a percentage of the nation's economy is at its highest level since World War II, but not at a record high...
Last November, Perry exaggerated the financial problems of the Social Security system...
Also in November, Perry exaggerated how much Texas' share of Medicaid costs would increase as a result of the new federal health care law. Perry said the new law would cost Texas "$27 billion more, over and above what we’re already paying over the next 10 years... the federal government will pay most of the extra cost... The total Medicaid cost for the state would be $4.5 billion — but that's only 5.1 percent more, or $219 million, than it would have been without the new law."

Paul Krugman: "The Texas Unmiracle": 
Although this article isn't a "fact check" of Rick Perry, it does make a few good points clearing up Perry's various claims to fame about job creation in Texas:

"the Texas miracle is a myth, and more broadly that Texan experience offers no useful lessons on how to restore national full employment. It's true that Texas entered recession a bit later than the rest of America, mainly because the state's still energy-heavy economy was buoyed by high oil prices through the first half of 2008.
So where does the notion of a Texas miracle come from? Mainly from widespread misunderstanding of the economic effects of population growth.
For this much is true about Texas: It has, for many decades, had much faster population growth than the rest of America -- about twice as fast since 1990. Several factors underlie this rapid population growth: a high birth rate, immigration from Mexico, and inward migration of Americans from other states... the high rate of population growth translates into above-average job growth through a couple of channels. Many of the people moving to Texas... bring purchasing power that leads to greater local employment...
What Texas shows is that a state offering cheap labor and, less important, weak regulation can attract jobs from other states. I believe that the appropriate response to this insight is ''Well, duh.'' The point is that arguing from this experience that depressing wages and dismantling regulation in America as a whole would create more jobs... involves a fallacy of composition: every state can't lure jobs away from every other state.
In fact, at a national level lower wages would almost certainly lead to fewer jobs -- because they would leave working Americans even less able to cope with the overhang of debt left behind by the housing bubble, an overhang that is at the heart of our economic problem."(emphasis added)

Herb Silverman: "Science is not democratic":

Although this article is not a "fact check" of Perry, it points out the absurdity of Rick Perry's comment, "In Texas, we teach both creationism and evolution. I figure you're smart enough to figure out which one is right." 

"Apparently, Perry’s theory of science teaching is to tell children they are smart enough to figure out what is right and what is made up. Here are other scientific questions to ask small children: When you walk around, does the earth look flat or round? When you look at the sun in the morning and evening, does it look like the sun is moving around the earth or that the earth is moving around the sun at approximately 67,000 mph? Never mind the scientific consensus, you’re smart enough to just know...
We don’t take polls asking people if they “believe” in gravity, though the theory of evolution is better understood by scientists than is the theory of gravity...
...we are becoming one nation undereducated. "

Fact Checks:
This week, my favorite posts have been from the Washington Post Fact Checker, Glenn Kessler.

Fact Checker: "Obama’s denial that Biden called tea party activists ‘terrorists’":  
The evidence to suggest that Biden called TEA Party-ers "terrorists" is sketchy at best.

"On balance, then, we are going to give President Obama a rare Geppetto [pass] for his denial that Biden uttered those words. There is no firm evidence to believe Biden did" 

 Also note what George W. Bush’s former Treasury Secretary, Paul H. O’Neill said:

“The people who are threatening not to pass the debt ceiling are our version of al-Qaeda terrorists. Really. They’re really putting our whole society at risk by threatening to round up 50 percent of the members of the Congress, who are loony, who would put our credit at risk.”

Seems a bit hypocritical for conservative to complain...

Fact Checker: "Michele Bachmann’s too-good-to-be-true stat on federal workers":
The major raises in federal pay came from Bush. Obama, on the oher hand has had both the smallest pay increase since 1975 and an actual freezing of government pay. This is another fail for Michelle Bachmann.


Fact Check: "Obama’s Canadian-American Bus":
Actually, the Bus was purchased from a Tennessee bus-conversion company who got the bus from Canada. The bus was thought to be the only one with the required specs. It's 1/2 to 2/3 American made, by cost. I wonder if the Republican presidential nominee will turn down his/her own Canadian-American bus? My dad also pointed out:

The only American-owned company that builds over-the-road buses is Motor Coach Industries (MCI), based in Schaumburg, Illinois, and that company was actually founded in Winnipeg, Canada. GM and Flxible used to be the two big intercity bus manufacturers, but their operations were sold and subsequently discontinued. Gillig Corporation of Hayward, California, is the only American-owned company making transit buses.

Fact Check: "Front Group Claims EPA Threatens 7 Million Jobs":
Industry studies that donb't undergo thorough peer-review should always raise red flags.

"[The group] also answered our questions about the source of the ad's claim that 7 million jobs would be "at risk" because of the EPA's proposal. The basis turns out to be an economic study produced by the Manufacturers Alliance and financed by the National Association of Manufacturers and the American Petroleum Institute...
...the industry study's projection of 7 million lost jobs is disputed. Laurie Johnson, chief economist for the Natural Resources Defense Council, calls the study "junk analysis" and states: "No serious economist would consider this study valid." She also asked Professor Richard B. Howarth of Dartmouth College to evaluate it. Howarth called the industry study "fundamentally flawed, resting on an analytical framework that is scientifically unsound." He said it would rate a grade of "incomplete" if handed in as an undergraduate honors project." (emphasis added)

Eric Levine: "The Weekly Standard still thinks long division is a good substitute for critical thinking [Defending the Truth-O-Meter] ":
In my current Edition of Defending The Truth-O-Meter, I take on a rebuttal from The Weekly Standard against a Politifact Ruling. You may have seen a few politicians claim the Stimulus cost taxpayers $278,000 per job. Politifact Texas attempted to explain why this was inaccurate, yet TWS didn't understand. So i take a shot at explaining it to them.


Rational Conservatism (Surprisingly not an Oxymoron)
Rcently I have become a fan of the FrumForum. This site gives me a chance to get a conservative perspective from a source that seems to care at least a bit about reality. David Frum is Republican of the Reagan era. He has very little patience with today's modern Tea Party movement. He is quick to criticize the movement and it's ideas. He yearns for the day that Republicans return to the days of Reagan, when they actually had a positive relationship with reality yet still held true to Conservative ideals. If you are a conservative, I highly recommend reading his posts. I also suggest Liberals read these posts as well so that they can understand that one can be conservative AND rational. I may not agree with everything he says. But we do have common ground. Anyone interested should first listen to this interview from Discover columnist Chris Mooney.

David Frum: "Can Romney Believe What He Says?"
David Frum has often appeared to support Mitt Romney. However, he spends this article criticizing Romney for pledging  "himself to policies that will squeeze jobs in the near term, at least according to conventional economic theory." He looks at four possible reasons for why Romney would do this, but none seem likely. His first possible explanation is the most interesting:

"1) Romney has become a true believer in the “confidence” theory of job creation. Unemployment remains high (according to this theory) because big government and loose money detract from business confidence. By cutting spending and tightening money, we can restore confidence and inspire business to hire again. This theory has been endorsed by many Republicans including Speaker Boehner. Maybe Romney has joined the crowd?
Problem with Answer 1: Romney just seems too damn smart to believe something so at odds with reality."

David Frum: "Huntsman 2016?" 
Even the most moderate candidate for the Republican Party is more concerned with cleaning up after the crisis is over than actually ending the crisis itself. ...though Jon Hunstman seems to be the only Republican with even a half-way serious plan.

David Frum bashes the Wall Street Journal:
David took note of the Wall Street Journal's recent attempts to bash the Fed. David Frum clears up the misinformation created by the Wall Street Journal in a series of posts. Here are a few I've linked from this series (don't know if that's all of them):
"Time to Downgrade the Journal’s Editorial Page": The WSJ continually has to make up pseudo-facts in order to continue promoting their idea of "sound money," despite how much it hampers near-term job creation.
"The Journal’s Memory Hole": Frum continues to point out the Wall Street Journal's pseudo-facts and revisionist history about this recession. He again points out the soulless bitching of those in favor of "tight money," as millions of Americans are currently out of work.
"Nice Central Bank You Have Here"

David Frum: "America's imagined inflation problem":
Why are Republicans still so concerned with inflation (let alone Hyper Inflation)? They are either delusional or they are trying to ensure the price of Gold continues to rise. If that is their plan, if is failing. The price of Gold finally fell this week.

Climate Change and Scientific Philosophy:
Skeptical Science: "Settled Science - Humans are Raising CO2 Levels":
This article gives a simplified rundown as to how we know increasing atmospheric CO2 levels are man-made (with links to more sophisticated detailed explanations). This article is a must-read for any layman interested in the science of climate change. I would also highly suggest this site as a standard resource when investigating the science of climate change.

The Economist: "We have a winner: British Columbia’s carbon tax woos sceptics":
From Greg Mankiw's Blog:
British Columbia has successfully instituted a Carbon Tax. The economy is still doing quite well and the public loves it. Maybe we can learn from them. For example, we could fund a cut to the payroll tax and/or corporate tax. We could also fund tax cuts for green energy in order to obtain a revenue neutral Carbon Tax.

The Intersection: "Michael Mann Cleared Again":

"Yet another organization, this time the National Science Foundation, has cleared climate scientist Michael Mann of wrongdoing (here is a pdf of the report closeout memorandum)...
The NSF also studied the university emails related to “climategate” and found “nothing contained in them evidenced research misconduct within the definition in the NSF Research Misconduct Regulation.”

Cosmic Variance: "What Can We Know About The World Without Looking At It?":
Physicist Sean M Carroll explains a common problem with Theologians think when dealing with God and Cosmology:

"Believing that something must be true about the world because you can’t imagine otherwise is, five hundred years into the Age of Science, not a recommended strategy for acquiring reliable knowledge. It goes back to the classic conflict of rationalism vs. empiricism. “Rationalism” sounds good — who doesn’t want to be rational? But the idea behind it is that we can reach true conclusions about the world by reason alone. We don’t ever have to leave the comfort of our living room; we can just sit around, sharing some single-malt Scotch and fine cigars, thinking really hard about the universe, and thereby achieve some real understanding. Empiricism, on the other hand, says that we should try to imagine all possible ways the world should be, and then actually go out and look at it to decide which way it really is...
But the intellectual history of the past five centuries has spoken loud and clear: the dream of rationalism is a false one. The right way to attain knowledge about the universe is ultimately empirical: we formulate all the hypotheses we can, and test them against data...
The temptation of rationalism can be a hard one to resist. We human beings are not blank slates; not only do we come equipped with informal heuristics for making sense of the world we see, but we have strong desires about how the world should operate. Intellectual honesty demands that we put those desires aside, and accept the world for what it actually is, whatever that may turn out to be."(emphasis added)

Note: A great site dealing with modern Rationality (informed by Empiricism) is the site Less Wrong. 

Common Sense Atheism: "Why I Don’t Care about Atheism vs. Theism Arguments Anymore":
This used to be one of my favorite sites dealing with the topic of Atheism/Naturalism vs Theism. Luke Muehlhauser (a.k.a Lukeprog) has created a great resource for anyone tired of the sloppy arguments from Dawkins or Comfort. He instead promoted Martin, Carrier, Loftus, Dawes, Craig, Swinburne, Plantinga, Copan and other sophisticated philosophers/historians. He provided a great reading list (as well as an easier version) for anyone seriously interested in the subject. His two podcasts were intellectually stimulating and entertaining. He didn't just merely attack theists for being irrational. Instead he actually engaged their arguments, admitting where he was wrong, and ultimately arguing his case for Metaphysical Naturalism.
However, in this recent article, Luke decides he no longer cares about these arguments anymore:

"The reason I’m an atheist isn’t because of the argument from evil or from unbelief or from inconsistent revelations or anything. No, the reason I’m an atheist is because theism drastically fails Solomonoff induction.
If I want to pull somebody away from magical thinking, I don’t need to mention atheism. Instead, I teach them Kolmogorov complexity and Bayesian updating. I show them the many ways our minds trick us. I show them the detailed neuroscience of human decision-making. I show them that we can see (in the brain) a behavior being selected up to 10 seconds before a person is consciously aware of ‘making’ that decision. I explain timelessness.
And if they have time to consume enough math and science, then The God Question just fades away as not even a question worth talking about."

As a result, Luke has instead dedicated his site to "math and the cognitive science of belief-formation and decision-making." His new slogan reads:

"Atheism is just the beginning;
now it's time to solve the harder questions."

I will have to admit I do find it ironic that, after bashing the new atheists, Luke finally succumbs to a similar line of reasoning about religion.

What? More Politics?
Brookings: "Will Obama Ever Say What He Should About the Jobs Crisis?":
Here, William A. Galston expresses many of the same feelings I have about what direction Washington should be going:
"we became infatuated with financial manipulation at the expense of the real economy. Not only did a rising share of profits go to the financial sector, but also many of our most talented young people were diverted from other careers in the productive sectors of the economy. We focused too much on financial innovations, some of which severely damaged our economy, and not enough on innovations in products and services...
Budget deficits this year and next are much less important than what happens over the next decade. We need a balanced, binding, and enforceable plan to stabilize our debt as a share of the economy within the next ten years, not the next two....
We need pro-savings, pro-investment, pro-growth tax reform...
To win the future, we need to make smart, targeted investments in those areas where the market won’t—in education, basic research, and infrastructure. And to do that, we’ll have to reduce spending in areas less directly related to growth and innovation...." (emphasis added)


Summer Ludwig: "10 Reasons Not To Vote For Ron Paul":
Although I posted this before last week, I thought it would be important to include. Anyone who considers themselves liberal, centrist, or anything other than a right wing nut-job, should not vote for Ron Paul. He is further to the right than any other candidate. I seriously regret ever supporting this wacko!
Many social-libertarians may be attracted to his message due to the fact that he often sounds more dedicated social-libertarian principles than liberals. However, a deeper dig should give liberals and social libertarians pause over whether or not this man supports their priorities or not.

That's It:
Well that wraps it up for my first "Weekly Roundup." However, I'm sure I will have to shrink these articles in the future, significantly. I may also add a few more things as well, such as any new podcasts I think may be worth mentioning. I also think I will wrap these up with a little bit of "brain candy:"

I, along with millions of others, have recently given up significant amounts of our lives playing a game called Minecraft. This "lego game" is amazingly fun and addictive. Right now, it is still in the Beta stage of development. However, a long anticipated "Adventure Update" is soon to appear. Needless to say, almost every player is excited. The new features will fundamentally change many of the aspects of this game, rewarding exploration and combat. So for the Minecraft fans currently reading this, i leave you with ""Revenge" - A Minecraft Parody of Usher's DJ Got Us Fallin' in Love - Crafted Using Noteblocks":


Note: I originally posted the "sped up" version of this video on accident. The original is now posted

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…

I reduced the debt to 60% of GDP in 2018, and kept it at a sustainable level through 2030!

Well, not really... But I did manage to accomplish this task in a Budget Simulator created by the non-partisan Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget. This was a very informative exercise. It allowed me to look at various proposals and see what kind of effect they would have on the projected debt through 2018. As you look through the budget, finding spending to cut and revenue to raise, you get a good sense over what will really help get us out of this debt crisis and what turns out to just be easy campaign one-liners. I would highly encourage everyone to participate in this exercise.

Anyway, when you are done, you get a nice pdf of your results. Below is the printout of my original plan that got the Debt to sustainable levels by 2018:

I may comment on my choices later.

Update 8/18/2011: I have removed my "Conservative Challenge:"

For instance, I even attempted once to follow the Grover Norquist/GOP style plan of all spending cuts and no revenue raisers. Even with draconian spending cuts and extension of the Bush tax cuts, I was still short of my goal by $2.5 trillion! Seeing as how you start off only needing an additional $2 trillion in deficit reduction, I was in a worse position than when I started (since the Bush tax cuts are already assumed to expire in 2012). Because of this, I challenge any conservative out there to successfully come up with a plan that accomplishes the main goal of this simulator, to get down to sustainable levels by 2018!

The reason I removed this is because Conservatives could easily retort by claiming they could cut funding for a whole wide range of programs. The problem with this is that this simulator only deals with plans that have a remote chance of political feasibility. They also deal with plans that aren't likely to crash the US economy. Often politicians love to just come up with bare numbers. Although you obviously can find that much in savings, the programs that would be cut either have little effect on the budget or would likely have adverse economic consequences. 

For instance, Cutting off the FDA and Medicaid could have drastic effects on a nation's health, which would almost certainly have a severe negative impact on GDP and employment. It is also not certain corporations would actually use the money they save from deregulation to decrease prices, higher more, or just save up the extra revenue. The cutoff from government spending would almost certainly have a drastic effect on consumer demand since millions would likely either lose their source of income (entitlement/subsidy/etc) but also their jobs. This is one possible outcome and generally unacceptable to the overwhelming majority of Americans.



Of course one could argue that taking the government out of the equation could add an entirely new industry for private entrepreneurs to expand, but it's not clear they would be willing to do it given an already unstable climate where consumer demand has likely plummeted. We see this now as many companies are making record profits but not transferring those profits into jobs. Either way, the outcome is uncertain (how will it effect revenues?).

Basically, it seems Conservatives will likely not take the challenge seriously. Many would rather continue to live in a fantasy-like state where drastic cutbacks to federal programs would actually help in this economy.  

My First Politifact Truth-O-Meter Criticism [Defending the Truth-O-Meter]

While I do support the hard work of fact checking sites such as FactCheck.org and Politifact.com, I do understand that the writers are human. As a result, they can and do make mistakes. As part of my "Defending the Truth-O-Meter" series of blog posts (defending non partisan fact checking sites against claims of Bias), I will occasionally post my own personal criticisms of various articles. This is to show that these sites do occasionally make mistakes, even if those mistakes have nothing to do with Bias.
Recently, Politifact posted an article checking a claim from President Obama about the potential effects of a failure to raise the debt ceiling by August 2nd, 2011. I took issue with their rating and wrote them an email:

Politifact,

I am a long time fan and promoter of fact checking sites like Politifact. However, I am not sure you gave a fair rating to Barrack Obama when he said “I cannot guarantee that those [social security] checks go out on August 3rd if we haven't resolved this issue, because there may simply not be the money in the coffers to do it.” You interpreted his statement as saying “Social Security and other federal checks may not go out on Aug. 3 if the debt ceiling is not increased.” You gave him a “half true.” Now based on your interpretation of his statement, it looks as if your rating for this statement was a bit unfair.
For one, you correctly interpreted him as saying these checks MAY not go out. As you say at the end “While it's not a certainty that the Obama administration COULD prioritize cutting checks to seniors, there's a REASONABLE shot that the administration could do it.” I interpret this as you saying it’s probable, but not certain. If Obama had said “There is a small chance that those [social security] checks may not go out in August,” the statement would have warranted a “True.” “May” is not the same as “a small possibility,” but it’s hard to see how this difference is large enough to warrant a “Half True.” This should warrant a “Mostly True.”
Secondly, you checked whether they would go out in August. Obama specifically said August 3rd. A recent NPR article pointed out that the government is supposed to collect $12 Billion in taxes on August 2nd. However, former undersecretary of the Treasury Jay Powell noted that “$23 billion in Social Security payments are supposed to go out on Aug. 3. And there's a really good chance we don't have the cash to pay that." It may be probable these checks will go out sometime in August, but it sounds highly improbable they CAN go out on August 3rd. Seeing as how many of these people may risk late bill payments, this is no trivial matter.
Overall given the fact that Obama did NOT say it was certain Social Security checks would go out in August, he deserves a bit more credit than a “Half True” gives him. Given that he also specified “August 3rd” and not “August in general,” I believe the rating for this article should be upgraded to at least “Mostly True.”

Once again, thank you for the good work. You are a needed voice of reason among misleading political rhetoric.

Sincerely,

Eric

I will post updates as they come.

The Wall Street Journal's Dangerously Misleading Article Over The Debt Ceiling

The Wall Street Journal just released a pretty ridiculous "opinion" article attempting to spin the debt ceiling crisis to favor the right. This is understandable. However, the article would appear to an outsider to be the legitimate educated opinion of this world renown publication. The article, entitled "Debt-Limit Harakiri," has no name attached to it. I'm not sure why that is. However, the word "we" was used, so it sounds as if it is referring to the publication itself. Any help on this would be welcome. However, to someone who does not read their articles regularly, this piece can reasonably be interpreted to reflect the views of the Wall Street Journal itself. And therein lies the problem. This article is filled with nonsense, completely misrepresenting the debate, and ignoring the real harm that can come from a failure to increase the debt ceiling. Although this article focused on Senator McConnell's political game, it made a couple very misleading and often false claims:

Yesterday [Obama] played the Grandma Card, telling CBS that seniors may not get their August retirement checks. Next he'll send home the food inspectors and stop paying the troops.

This is a very real possibility. The government would only get about $12 Billion in taxes on August 2nd and Owe $23 Billion in social security checks the next day! And that doesn't include "Medicare and Medicaid, defense contractors, and federal workers... Within 24 hours, the government would be $20 billion behind" (see link under "real"). Such an important point need hardly be "The Grandma Card."

The reality is that Mr. Obama is trying to present Republicans with a Hobson's choice: Either repudiate their campaign pledge by raising taxes, or take the blame for any economic turmoil and government shutdown as the U.S. nears a debt default.

The "campaign pledge" is to "not compromise." Seeing as how compromise is expected, necessary, and reasonable, it is therefore expected, necessary, and reasonable for Republicans to break this utterly ridiculous campaign pledge. Republicans currently have the deal of a lifetime: a 3-to-1 rate of spending cuts to tax increases! How much more can they expect the other side to compromise if they are themselves unwilling to do so as well!? Even conservative commentators and politicians have criticized Republicans for not taking this deal!

The debt ceiling is going to be increased one way or another, and the only question has been what if anything Republicans could get in return

What more do they want?! They have a damn 3-to-1 deal of spending cuts to tax increases.

We agree with those who say that Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner can cut other federal spending before he allows a technical default on U.S. debt.

Who is saying this?! As far as I can tell, it's just DeMint and Bachmann. This would mean the US would have to pay interest first. In a conversation with FactCheck.org,  Rudolph Penner,  a Republican former CBO director who is now with the liberal-leaning Urban Institute, said "The notion of paying interest first is dumb. Substantively, the revenues left over would not be sufficient to honor all our obligations and we would have to choose between paying beneficiaries of Social Security, Medicare and other entitlement programs, devastating discretionary spending for defense, highways, public safety and other vital programs, or not paying bills for goods and services already delivered to the government."
As FactCheck pointed out, the government would pretty much have to "instantly" cut spending by 34%! If they left Medicare and Social Security alone, that would mean a 53% "instant" cut from the rest of discretionary spending! That's "the active military, military pensions, veterans benefits, judges, prosecutors, highway construction, food stamps, Medicaid services for low- and middle-income workers..."

Of course, the WSJ article does mention this... However they ignore just how extreme these cuts would be. Here is how they put it:

"Instead [Obama] and Mr. Geithner will gradually shut down government services, the more painful the better."

I highlighted the word "gradually" to show just how little they take this seriously. 34-53% reductions cannot reasonably be done gradually! Remember what I pointed out before. What are they going to do about those social security checks they cannot afford? Borrow...oh wait NO! 2 Days is not "gradual" by any reasonable stretch.

One of the last lines really caught my attention:

The Obama Democrats have staged a spending blowout to 24% of GDP and rising, and now they want to find a way to finance it to make it permanent.

There are a couple things wrong with this (reference: budget tables: Dollars, %GDP):
1. He seems to blame this all on "Obama Democrats." However, the 1.4 Trillion dollar deficit from FY 2009, which came as a result of record 3.5 Trillion dollar spending, was largely set in place during the Bush administration 4 months before Obama even took office. This was 25% of GDP, the largest since World War II! It did actually go down to 23.8% of GDP in 2010. As a result, its incredibly misleading to blame it all on "Obama Democrats."
2. They said this was rising, but this is mostly false. It is only projected to rise in 2011 (25.3%). After that, it is projected to decrease every year til 2015 (22.3%), only to rise slightly in 2016 by .3%. So it is exceedingly misleading to say it is "rising."
3. Seeing as how Democrats are agreeing to 3 Trillion dollars in spending cuts over the next decade, it seems hard to believe they want to make spending as a percentage of GDP 24% forever.


Besides the right-wing spin in the article (it is to be expected from an opinion), the ridiculous falsehood/misleading-nature of the "facts" from this article make me seriously question the Wall Street Journal. The dangers associated with misleading the public into being complacent about the debt ceiling are serious! This kind of amateur analysis should not appear to come from the WSJ itself. And if it truly does, Gawd help anyone who relies on that publication!