I don't live in my mothers basement!!!

anymore.


Ta-Nehisi Coates:
The problem with "traditional media"

I'm with Matt. I just don't have much sympathy of people working at big newspapers whining about the netroots attacking them. Reporters--if they're doing their job--spend their lives bringing scrutiny to other people. There's something weak about complaining when someone does the same to you. Matt points to this particularly egregious quote by Richard Cohen:

"I used to get a lot more on the right," said columnist Richard Cohen, who broke with liberals when he supported the Iraq war. More recently, the left has picked apart columns that are perceived as being favorable to John McCain.

"If you're a little bit critical of Barack Obama, you get really a pie of vilification right in the face," Cohen said, adding that his liberal critics "were born too late, because they would have been great communists."

Dude, you get paid to state your opinion. Why do you care what some D&D-playing, popcorn eating, living in his mother's basement blogger is saying? I mean really. These guys want the megaphone, and then not the criticism. All power. No responsibility.

--------------
Jim Nichols
A Speculative Fiction
www.JimNichols4.com

Social Security

Part of the reason the public is misinformed about social security... "its not going to be around when we need it..." is the media does not do its job.

Outsource to Dean Baker:
The Washington Post War On Social Security Continues

The Post yet again is complaining that politicians who are unwilling to deal with a Social Security shortfall that is first projected to hit in 2049, when John McCain will be 113 years old. To try to makes it case sound more compelling it refers to the date 2018 when the Social Security trustees project that tax revenues will first be inadequate to meet benefit payments.

Of course 2018 is completely irrelevant to the finances of the program. At that point the program is projected to have accumulated more than $5 trillion in government bonds. But the Post wants to scare readers to advance their Social Security agenda so they trot out 2018 as though it is a date that anyone needs to worry about.

The positive side of this story is that Social Security's finances look much better than the Post's. If it keeps making up scare stories about Social Security, perhaps the date of its demise will be hastened.

--------------
Jim Nichols
A Speculative Fiction
www.JimNichols4.com

Its outsource day to Brad Delong...

Thomas Sowell Is the Stupidest Man Alive

Someday the writers of National Review will realize that the incompetence of their economic coverage is one reason for the shredding of their own professional reputations. But that day is not yet.

Thomas Sowell

Thomas Sowell on Obama on National Review Online: The question, incidentally, was why Senator Obama was advocating a higher capital-gains tax rate when experience has shown that the government typically collected more revenue from a lower capital-gains tax rate than from a higher rate.... Economists may say that higher capital-gains tax rates can translate into lower levels of economic activity and fewer jobs, but Obama will leave that kind of analysis to the economists...

Congressional Budget Office:

Congressional Budget Office: Because taxes are paid on realized rather than accrued capital gains, taxpayers have a great deal of control over when they pay their capital gains taxes. By choosing to hold on to an asset, a taxpayer defers the tax. The incentive to do that -- even when it might otherwise be financially desirable to sell an asset -- is known as the lock-in effect. As a consequence of that incentive, the level of the tax rate can substantially influence when asset holders realize their gains, as can be seen particularly clearly when tax rates change.... For instance, the Tax Reform Act of 1986 boosted capital gains tax rates effective at the beginning of 1987. Anticipating that increase, investors realized a huge amount of gains in 1986. Then, in 1987, realizations fell by almost as much, returning to a level comparable to that before the tax increase.... The sensitivity of realizations to gains tax rates raises the possibility that a cut in the rate could so increase realizations... in the short run.... [A] stock of accumulated gains may be realized shortly after the rate is cut, but once that accumulation is "unlocked," the stock of accrued gains is smaller and realizations cannot continue at as fast a rate as they did initially.... The potentially large difference between the long- and short-term sensitivity of realizations to tax rates can mislead observers into assuming a greater permanent responsiveness than actually exists...

Justin Fox:

"Serious" economists and capital gains taxes - The Curious Capitalist - Justin Fox - Economy - Markets - Business - TIME: on this particular topic I tend to rely on professors at fancy universities who have served in the current Bush administration, because I figure it's hard to dismiss their verdict as political. The current consensus of this crowd is pretty well reflected in a 2004 paper by Greg Mankiw, the former chairman of Bush's Council of Economic Advisers, and Matthew Weinzierl, which concluded that "for standard parameter values, half of a capital tax cut is self-financing." That means half of the tax cut is not self-financing--so the overall result of the cut is a revenue loss. And those "standard parameter values" include spending cuts to make up for the revenue loss from the tax cuts. If you simply do as the Bush administration has done, and make no commensurate spending cuts, you get less than half of the tax cut back...

A quibble: without offsetting spending cuts, you get less than zero of the tax cut back. The dynamic revenue loss is greater than the static revenue loss.

--------------
Jim Nichols
A Speculative Fiction
www.JimNichols4.com

right wing politico's who can't count or represent policy

Does the Washington Post Corporation List Its Opinion Pages as a Contibution to the McCain Campaign?

Yesterday it printed an editorial that implied (incorrectly) that U.S. corporations face a higher tax burden than their competitors in other wealthy countries. Today it has a column by Amity Shlaes that is a diatribe against all the economic damage the Democrats will do.

While much of the column is just random ranting against Democratic policies, the column does include the assertion that the Democrats want to eliminate the cap on the Social Security payroll tax, "an effective increase in the top marginal tax rate of 6.2 percent, or for some 12.4 percent, all by itself." The problem with this charge is that no one of any prominence in the Democratic party is proposing removing the cap on the payroll tax.

Senator Obama has called for imposing a tax of 2-4 percent on income over $250,000. This would affect only about one-fifth as many people as would be affected by removing the cap on the tax and the maximum impact would be less than one-third as large as Ms. Shlaes suggests.

Columnists are supposed to have considerable leeway in expressing their views, but they should not be allowed to attribute positions to their opponents which they do not hold.

--------------
Jim Nichols
A Speculative Fiction
www.JimNichols4.com

the way the world is... not the way they say...

To contend conservatives is to take on the way people think the world is. As if up is down and down is up. They spread disinformation so effectively... they are masters of message and media spotlight... Beat the Press notes something commonly found--unfortunately in this case... the media--of supper high corporate tax rates....

Washington Post Misleads Readers to Push for Lower Corporate Tax Rates

The Washington Post editorial page has no qualms about making up data to further its agenda. Last December, when it wanted to attack the Democratic presidential candidates for their criticisms of NAFTA, the Post told readers that Mexico's GDP had quadrupled since 1987. In fact, the actual growth during this period was about 83 percent, according to the IMF. Most newspapers might feel embarrassment about using such a blatant misrepresentation to push its preferred policies, but not the Post.

Today, the preferred policy is further reductions in corporate income taxes. To advance this agenda the Post tells readers that, "U.S. companies operating abroad already labor under a bigger tax burden than most foreign competitors."

That's not what the OECD says. Data from the OECD show that in the average member country corporate taxes are equal to about 3.5 percent of GDP. In the United States, corporate taxes have generally been between and 1.5 percent and 2.5 percent of GDP over the last two decades, according to the Congressional Budget Office (Table F-4).

--------------
Jim Nichols
A Speculative Fiction
www.JimNichols4.com

to the question of changing ones mind, political expediency, and other question we like to talk about politically...

McCain's performance was less consistent than Obama's. This fact cannot be disputed in the critical, unbiased mind. I wonder at the primary cause for McCain's change in performance from "maverick critic of the Bush administration" to supporting Bush-policy 95%. Is this action a simple change of mind, an indication of political ambition, or a combination of the two scenarios? My inquiry is of a strictly personal nature, and not of true political concern; as it relates to neither your motivation for this post nor my final decision come this November. What are your thoughts to my question?

I avoid mind-reading... (thats a response that I stole from economist dean baker and philosopher David Pacini). Baker criticizes news articles when they discuss politics from the question of personal beliefs and personal political philosophy.

These are things these leaders and decision makers may or may not hold but there is no way to verify. How can we trust a journalist who is only seeing certain aspects of candidates and elected officials? Plus they only interact in certain way and politicos are aware they are interacting with a reporter--there is no such thing as off the record.

I flip the question around as something that might be interesting in an abstract way. But I tend to focus those kinds of discussions to philosophers, artists, and other cultural animals. Politics should be serious discussions since it is serious life or death issues at stake. I don't like the cult of personality that the media and voters fixate on.

I always respond by pointing to this negative tendency within out political culture.

They can't read minds can they? No, they can report on the facts, the policies, the positions, contributors, x...y...z...

We can't read minds can we? Its not meant to be condescending to the question since I do think its interesting. But I'm up to my ears in serious politics and most of my interactions with voters have to do with petty issues that are of no importance. Its a very sad state of affairs... and it explains how we've ended up with the corruption and apathy that we now have. We reap what we sow... no?

they can't read minds. I think this is part of my issue with individualizing candidates. I don't comprehend at all the "I vote for the best person." "I like him as a person"

This individualization and personification... has nothing to do with political policy or leadership. Conservatives are often passionate--Liberals can do so as well--about personal politics.

Hell I know the name of Clinton's cat--socks...

why in the world do I need to know that...

we want people discussing political differences. When the news media and political junkies talk about someones political philosophy as the instigator or certain decisions we confuse what we are talking about... as well as what we are capable of knowing.

I'd be intrigued to have philosophical discussions with these people. But that's neither here nor there when it comes to leadership and policy decisions.

I get--whats a good word--frustrated when we talk about candidates doing things for philosophical or political expediency. Talk about the context of verifiable facts; people will infer what they will. But its like the race question... Obama has no need to respond to it. He's a sucker cause he keeps responding which is what McCain wants.

I don't think this speaks to the voters as people who only care about petty stuff. I just think they know there is no point in caring about the important stuff... its driven into them by the media, the two major political parties--who need each other to play the devil, and core gropus who enjoy the status quo while they bemoan the apathy and corruption. When one profits and enjoys the perks of the status quo... one will do and say anything to make it stay the way it is.

The only solution... organize, participate, and never give in...

--------------
Jim Nichols
A Speculative Fiction
www.JimNichols4.com

John McCain... more of the same...

WSJ forgets to mention that fact...

Summary: The Wall Street Journal reported that the RNC "made note of Sen. Obama's party-line votes. During the 109th Congress, which was in session in 2005-2006, Sen. Obama voted along party lines 97% of the time. Sen. McCain voted with his party 81% of the time, according to Congressional Quarterly." But in citing only the CQ 2005-2006 "party unity" scores provided by the RNC, the Journal failed to note that according to a 2008 CQ study, McCain voted in support of the Bush administration's position 95 percent of the time in 2007, making McCain the administration's most reliable supporter in the Senate that year.


In an August 13 Wall Street Journal article, Elizabeth Holmes and Amy Chozick reported that the Republican National Committee (RNC) "criticized" Sen. Barack Obama "for, in its view, his lack of bipartisan accomplishments." The article continued: "They made note of Sen. Obama's party-line votes. During the 109th Congress, which was in session in 2005-2006, Sen. Obama voted along party lines 97% of the time. Sen. McCain voted with his party 81% of the time, according to Congressional Quarterly." But in citing only the Congressional Quarterly 2005-2006 "party unity" scores provided by the RNC, Holmes and Chozick failed to note that according to a 2008 Congressional Quarterly study, McCain voted in support of the Bush administration's position 95 percent of the time in 2007, making McCain the administration's most reliable supporter in the Senate that year. Indeed, in a January 13 article (accessed via Nexis), CQ reported that "McCain's 95 percent support [for Bush] score for last year was the highest in the chamber." Moreover, CQ also found that McCain has voted with Bush 90 percent of the time over the seven-and-a-half years of Bush's presidency.

In addition, discussing the establishment of "Republicans for Obama," Holmes and Chozick wrote: "Despite Sen. McCain's bipartisan activity, including on campaign finance and immigration, the Republicans behind the Obama support group express dismay with how his candidacy has evolved." But in citing immigration as an example of McCain's "bipartisan activity," Holmes and Chozick did not note that, under pressure from the Republican base, McCain reversed himself on a key component of immigration reform, now saying that "we've got to secure the borders first" -- a position at odds with his prior assertion that border security could not be disaggregated from other aspects of comprehensive immigration reform without being rendered ineffective. McCain further stated during the January 30 Republican presidential debate that he would not vote for the comprehensive reform bill he co-sponsored with Sen. Edward M. Kennedy (D-MA) if it came to a vote on the Senate floor.

From the August 13 Journal article:

Sen. McCain echoed the same sentiment in his opening statements. "I know Americans are tired of the partisanship," he said before opening the floor up to questions. "I have a record of reaching across the aisle, reaching across the aisle and working with my friends, whether it be Joe Lieberman or Ted Kennedy."

The Arizona senator's comments were supported by the Republican National Committee, which criticized the Illinois senator for, in its view, his lack of bipartisan accomplishments. They made note of Sen. Obama's party-line votes. During the 109th Congress, which was in session in 2005-2006, Sen. Obama voted along party lines 97% of the time. Sen. McCain voted with his party 81% of the time, according to Congressional Quarterly.

Despite Sen. McCain's bipartisan activity, including on campaign finance and immigration, the Republicans behind the Obama support group express dismay with how his candidacy has evolved.

Mr. [Lincoln] Chafee said that he supported Sen. McCain on a number of issues while he was in the Senate but said he's seen a sharp change. "It's a different John McCain," Mr. Chafee said, pointing to the candidate's reversal from previous stances to support offshore drilling and Bush tax cuts. "Seeing the two different John McCains is a fracture in his credibility."

--------------
Jim Nichols
A Speculative Fiction
www.JimNichols4.com

something to reflect on now that we are in the midst of Iraq 2008

Media Coverage: A View from the Ground

--------------
Jim Nichols
A Speculative Fiction
www.JimNichols4.com

Bill Moyers addresses NCMR 2008

on Chavez and condemnation...

Civil liberties have been generally protected, even the harshest critics who are at all serious concede Some of the harshest criticism in the West concerns the government's refusal to renew the license of RCTV (which now broadcasts only on cable). I agreed that it was wrong. I also agreed with Western commentary that "it couldn't happen here." For very good reasons. It couldn't happen here because if there had been a military coup in the US that overthrew the government, disbanded Congress and the Supreme Court and every other democratic institution, and then was reversed by a popular uprising, and if CBS, say, had publicly supported the coup and gros sly distorted what was happening so as to facilitate it, then CBS wouldn't have had its license revoked 5 years later. Rather, the owners and managers would have long ago been in prison or probably would have received the death sentence. It's fair to criticize violations of rights by an official enemy, but there should be some limits on hypocrisy.

good point

Trying to catch up to a busy economist...

I'm going to throw all of Dean Bakers recent posts into one post cause they are all really good.

First he hits on the changes that the Congress is trying to make so that bankruptcy judges will be able to rewrite the terms of mortgage loans for people. In his post Changing Bankruptcy Rules and the Sanctity of Contracts he says

The banks are very upset over the possibility that Congress may change the law to allow bankruptcy judges to rewrite the terms of mortgage loans as they can other loans when a person declares bankruptcy. Naturally they are pulling out all the stops in making their case. The Washington Post quotes a Bush administration spokesperson saying that the proposed change "is interfering with contracts."

This is an interesting charge to come from the Bush administration and to be associated with the banks. Those old enough to remember may recall the bankruptcy reform of 2005. This bill altered the enforcement of loans in the opposite direction, making it easier for lenders to collect from debtors. It was applied to loans that had already been contracted not just future debt yet to be incurred, in that sense, it interfered with contracts.

Clearly, neither the Bush administration nor the banks, both of whom eagerly supported the bankruptcy reform bill, have any principled objection to interfering with contracts. Their objection seems to be based more on whom the interference is favoring. The reporters covering this issue should have provided readers with this background.

He then moves on to energy spending in his post Energy Spending and Taxes: One Year, Ten Years, Who Cares? he points out something many people don't know about gas prices

In the short-term, supply is almost entirely fixed. This means that the tax increase will come almost entirely out of producers' profits.

We finally end back where we started on the mortgage crisis. This time in his post Arithmetic on Mortgage Bailouts he talks about whether homeowners will benefit from these bailout plans...

There are two questions that will determine whether these homeowners will benefit. First, whether they will accumulate equity and second, how much they will pay in housing costs in their current home as opposed to renting elsewhere.

The numbers imply that most homeowners are almost certain to lose from the bailouts that are supposed to help them. House prices are falling rapidly due to a deflating housing bubble. Since most moderate income homeowners will only be in their home a relatively short period of time, it is very unlikely that they will be there long enough to pay down enough of their mortgage to offset the plunge in prices. In other words, most of the subprime mortgage holders are likely to sell their home owing money to the bank.

The second issue is their annual cost of owning compared to renting a comparable unit. As a result of the unprecedented run-up in house sale prices (rents have increased only slightly more than inflation), the ratio of house prices to rents on comparable units (e.g. different houses in the same development) is about 20 to 1. If a homeowner gets a 6 percent mortgage, and has to pay 1 percent of the value in property taxes and another percent in annual maintenance costs, then the cost of owning is 8 percent of the sales prices. This compares to being able to rent at 5 percent of the sales prices. In this scenario, ownership costs are 60 percent more than the cost of renting. (This is likely a conservative estimate, since subprime mortgage holders are not likely to get a 6 percent mortgage.)

For the population as a whole ownership/rent take up 30 percent of their income. The share is higher for low and moderate income families, but even this 30 percent figure would imply that the 60 percent excess housing costs associated with ownership implies paying an amount equal to 16 percent of family income. In other words, keeping moderate income families as owners given current house prices is equivalent to imposing a 16 percentae point surtax on their income. This is not likely to help their financial situation or their ability to move into the middle class.

It would be helpful if reporters occasionally included some simple analysis of this sort in discussing the various bailout proposals being put forward. This would make it clearer to readers who these proposals are likely to benefit.

Protectionism in the NYT's

Economist Dean Baker laments protectionism for health care industry in the NYT's

Just yesterday the NYT editorial board was complaining about the threat of protectionism in discussing Senator Obama and Clinton's trade policies. Today, the editorial board discusses Medicare's financial problems and never once mentions the extent to which this is caused by protectionism.

The basic point is very simple. Every other wealthy country provides high quality health care at a far lower price than in the United States. If we want to lower cost then an obvious way would be to try to take advantage of these lower cost systems. It is easy to develop mechanisms that would allow for Medicare beneficiaries to take advantage of lower cost systems.

The argument for the gains from trade in medical services is exactly the same as the argument for gains from trade in cars and clothes (we can even use the same graph, we just have to relabel the axis), except the benefits are likely to be much larger in the case of medical care. It is inconsistent for the NYT to be so committed to eliminating trade barriers in manufactured goods but willing to tolerate much costly barriers to trade in medical services.

Religion in the media...

more from media matters...

In order to begin to assess how the news media paint the picture of religion in America today, this study measured the extent to which religious leaders, both conservative and progressive, are quoted, mentioned, and interviewed in the news media.

Among the study's key findings:

Combining newspapers and television, conservative religious leaders were quoted, mentioned, or interviewed in news stories 2.8 times as often as were progressive religious leaders.


On television news -- the three major television networks, the three major cable new channels, and PBS -- conservative religious leaders were quoted, mentioned, or interviewed almost 3.8 times as often as progressive leaders.


In major newspapers, conservative religious leaders were quoted, mentioned, or interviewed 2.7 times as often as progressive leaders.

Despite the fact most religious Americans are moderate or progressive, in the news media it is overwhelmingly conservative leaders who are presented as the voice of religion. This represents a particularly meaningful distortion since progressive religious leaders tend to focus on different issues and offer an entirely different perspective than their conservative counterparts.

Gender & Ethnic Diversity on the Sunday Morning Talk Shows

From Media Matters:

Not only are the Sunday morning talk shows on the broadcast networks dominated by conservative opinion and commentary, the four programs -- NBC's Meet the Press, ABC's This Week, CBS' Face the Nation, and Fox Broadcasting Co.'s Fox News Sunday -- feature guest lists that are overwhelmingly white and overwhelmingly male.

Who would have thought?

Yesterday Bush cited two Iraqi bloggers as an example of how peachy things are in Iraq. He quoted them as saying

“Displaced families are returning home, marketplaces are seeing more activity, stores that were long shuttered are now reopening. We feel safer about moving in the city now. Our people want to see this effort succeed. We hope the governments in Baghdad and America do not lose their resolve.”

Well thats good news, right? I mean word "on the ground," the Iraqi "street" is upbeat! Then reporters do their "Liberal" job of asking not just what; but who, when, and why.

As for the writers’ identity, it remained a mystery — until the White House distributed a transcript of the briefing. In a footnote at the end, the administration disclosed that the bloggers were Omar and Mohammed Fadhil, two brothers who are both dentists and who write an English-language blog, IraqTheModel.com, from Baghdad. The White House said their writings had been cited in mainstream news outlets; on March 5, the Fadhil brothers wrote an opinion piece in The Wall Street Journal titled “Notes from Baghdad.”

Oh, yes, and on Dec. 9, 2004, they met in the Oval Office with Mr. Bush.