CEPR - Center for Economic and Policy Research


En Español

Em Português

Other Languages

Home Publications Blogs Beat the Press

Beat the Press

 facebook_logo  Subscribe by E-mail  

The Impact of the Budget Deal for Those Who Don't Carry Around the Budget in Their Pocket Print
Monday, 01 August 2011 04:22

Many readers of the NYT and Post may not have a good sense of how much $2.4 trillion in cuts over the next decade is. Unfortunately, the major news outlets do not consider it their responsibility to tell us.

The government is projected to spend $46 trillion over the next 10 years. This means that the proposed cuts are a bit more than 5 percent of projected spending. However, large categories of the budget are protected. More than $27 trillion of projected spending goes to Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid and interest. If these areas escape largely untouched, the projected cuts would be around 13 percent of the remaining portion of the budget.

In fact, since some other areas of the budget, like unemployment insurance, are also likely to be largely protected, the cuts to the remaining portion of the budget will be even larger.

The government is projected to spend $7.8 trillion on the military over the next decade. If this area is largely protected, then most of the cuts would likely come from the $6.7 trillion of spending on the domestic discretionary portion of the budget. This is the portion that includes spending on infrastructure, education, research, and other areas that are considered investment.

Another Front Page Editorial at the Washington Post Print
Monday, 01 August 2011 03:58

The budget deal has them really excited at Fox on 15th. It told readers:

"At several points, Obama and Boehner held out hope they could agree on a far-reaching bipartisan plan to tame the soaring national debt once and for all by raising taxes and cutting health and retirement spending. But House Republicans repeatedly walked away from the bargaining table, refusing to raise taxes. In the end, policymakers were left with a far more modest achievement that does little more than resolve the immediate crisis."

Wow, maybe the Washington Post could share with us the mechanism for taming "the soaring nation debt once and for all." The reason the debt is soaring (serious newspapers reserve such terms for the opinion pages) is that incompetent economists allowed an $8 trillion housing bubble to grow out of control so that when it crashed it wrecked the economy. Does the Post know a mechanism that will require that the Fed and Treasury are staffed by competent people? Its readers would love to hear about it.

Gretchen Morgenson Is Right: Bankers Have No Shame Print
Sunday, 31 July 2011 21:22

Following the collapse of the housing bubble and the resulting financial meltdown, there was widespread agreement that securitzers should be forced to keep "skin in the game," meaning a stake in the mortgages they issued. Dodd-Frank included a requirement to this effect.

While many were arguing for a 10 or even 20 percent stake, the rules that came out from regulators is that they have to keep just 5 percent. Furthermore, the regulators exempted traditional 20-percent-down mortgages that have low risk of the fault. Banks need keep no skin in the game on those.

Naturally the banks are acting like this 5 percent stake will be the end of the world. They are yelling that this will exclude large numbers of people from the market. If bankers could do arithmetic (the evidence suggests otherwise), then they would know that this claim is absurd on its face.

The bank will still be getting a return on the 5 percent stake. They will just get a slightly lower return than if they could sell it. Let's assume that the return on this 5 percent stake is 40 basis points less than if they could sell it. That comes to 2 basis points or 0.02 percentage points for the mortgage as a whole. Is this going to result in large numbers of people being frozen out of the housing market?

Give me a break, this is garbage and Gretchen Morgensen was right to call them on it.

With All the Excitement Around the Pending Debt Ceiling Deal Fox on 15th (a.k.a. the Washington Post) Gives Up All Pretext of Objectivity Print
Sunday, 31 July 2011 16:44

The prospect of cutting Social Security and Medicare benefits really excites the folks who put out the Washington Post. That's why the paper, which completely missed the record share of corporate profits in GDP reported by the Commerce Department on Friday, referred to the desire of Republicans to have a constitutional amendment to "keep future sessions of Congress in line."

A real newspaper would have referred to Republican efforts to keep Congress from spending money. But the Post can't keep its enthusiasm for cuts from dripping all over its reporting. Therefore it just tells readers -- in the news section -- that Congress has been out of line.

The NYT Wrongly Asserts That Economists Want to Cut Social Security Print
Sunday, 31 July 2011 14:06

The NYT is starting to do the same sort of editorializing in news stories for which Fox and the Washington Post are famous. It told readers that President Obama had proposed a change in the Social Security cost of living adjustment formula that would reduce scheduled benefits and then adds that this cut was "long sought by economists."

Umm, which economists? All economists? Not this one, or many others with whom I associate. Is there a poll of economists that provides the basis for this assertion? If so, a cite would be in order.

Actually many people, including economists, have suggested that if the point is to have a cost of living adjustment that accurately reflects the cost of living of Social Security beneficiaries then the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) can construct a full cost of living index for people over the age of 65 (or 62). It already has an experimental elderly index, which shows a higher rate of inflation than the index that is currently used for cost of living adjustments.

Economists, and others, who want to see an accurate cost of living adjustment would advocate having the BLS construct a full cost of living index for the elderly. Economists, and others, who want to see Social Security benefits reduced advocate adopting an index that shows a lower rate of inflation, whether or not this accurately represents the cost of living of Social Security beneficiaries.

Conservative Tea Partiers Oppose Cuts to Social Security and Medicare, not Just Liberal Democrats Print
Sunday, 31 July 2011 13:21

The NYT wrote that President Obama risked alienating liberal Democrats with his willingness to cut Social Security and Medicare. While this is true, he also risks alienating voters across the political spectrum.

Polls consistently show that the vast majority of people in every demographic group, including Tea Party Republicans, are opposed to cuts to these programs. The only people who tend to support cuts to Social Security and Medicare are the Wall Street financial types and the elites who do policy work and report it. This NYT piece wrongly implies that cuts to these programs enjoy support beyond this small group. 

People Don't Move for Jobs When There Are No Jobs Print
Sunday, 31 July 2011 10:04

The Wall Street Journal claimed that a main reason that the economy is growing slowly and not creating jobs is that people are not willing to move because they are often underwater in their homes. The evidence that it presents to support this assertion is dubious.

First, it notes that only 2.9 million people moved for a job in 2009 compared to 4.5 million in 1999. There are two major differences between these years. First, the work force was considerably older in 2009 with most of the baby boomers in their 50s and 60s. These workers are much less likely to move than younger workers.

More importantly, the economy lost 5 million jobs in 2009. It created 3 million jobs in 1999. This means that there were many fewer jobs to move for in 2009 than in 1999.

The best evidence that the sort of housing lock discussed in this article is creating a problem would be to show large sections of the country with rapidly rising wages. Offhand, it would be difficult to identify any significant region where this is the case and the article certainly does not identify one. (It does note an employer in South Dakota who complains about being unable to find workers, but it doesn't report the wages he is offering.)

A recent analysis of the Bureau of Labor Statistics Displaced Workers Survey found no evidence that homeowners in states that had seen sharp declines in house prices were any less likely to move to get a new job than other homeowners. It would be useful if articles like this one based its judgments on data instead of anecdotes.

The NYT Wants the U.S. to Have Slower Growth Print
Sunday, 31 July 2011 07:12

That would seem to be the implication of the advice in an article that we should follow Canada's model for dealing with our deficit. According to the NYT, Canada did things right when it decided to get its deficit down in 1994, doing a comprehensive review of its spending.

Since that was almost 20 years ago, we have some basis for assessing how things turned out. According to the OECD's data on productivity growth (the main determinant of living standards), it doesn't seem that Canada has done very well. Its productivity growth has averaged just 1.0 percent annually from 1994 to 2010. This compares to 1.8 percent in the United States. Canada's rate of productivity growth is behind the 1.5 percent rate for Greece and Portugal and even behind the 1.1 percent rate for Japan, although it is better than the 0.7 percent rate for Spain.

If the United States had experienced the same productivity growth as Canada over the last 17 years, we would be on average 12.6 percent poorer today. Insofar as the weaker growth can be attributed to Canada's fiscal consolidation we can say that the path advocated by the NYT is equivalent to imposing a 12.6 percentage point income tax increase on the United States.

The article also refers to the surpluses at the end of the Clinton years and the expectation that the United States would pay off its debt. Economists who know national income accounting (an essential part of economics that unfortunately seems little known by economists) did not believe that the United States would pay off its debt.

The large budget surpluses projected by the Congressional Budget Office in the context of continuing trade deficits implied large dissaving by the private sector. (This is an accounting identity -- it must be true.) It was very unlikely that either households would have large negative savings rates, especially as the baby boom cohorts were approaching retirement. And, it was also very unlikely that there would be an enormous investment boom even as the country was sending much of its manufacturing sector overseas.

Therefore, it was easy to predict that we would not see the surpluses that were projected at the end of the Clinton years. Unfortunately, economists never suffer any career consequences for being completely wrong. Therefore most still have not learned the basic national income accounting that is taught in every introductory class.

While the Country Slept: Financial Industry Profits Go Through the Roof Print
Saturday, 30 July 2011 07:54

Okay, the country wasn't exactly sleeping, it was watching the Boehner-Tea Party charade about whether we should default on the national debt. While this process captivated the nation, the Commerce Department released new data on GDP. The pathetic second quarter GDP number, combined with the sharp downward revision to the first quarter got some attention. The 0.8 average growth rate over the first half of the year is well below the 2.5 percent rate needed to keep even with the rate of growth of the labor force. This means that rather than making up ground lost in the recession, we are actually going the wrong way. The economy is falling further below its potential and unemployment is likely to continue to rise.

While this situation got some attention in the news reports, all the accounts I saw completely missed the upward revision to profits. The revised data showed sharply higher profits for both 2009 and 2010. In fact, in the revised data, profits accounted for 23.8 percent of income in the domestic corporate sector in 2010. This is more than a full percentage above the previous peak. Within the corporate sector, the financial industry is the big winner, accounting for 31.7 percent of corporate profits in 2010. This movement in profits is no doubt attributable to all the regulations and taxes imposed by President Obama.

Anyhow, you didn't hear about this from the media because they had to present you with the latest from Tea Party gang, but there are some people who do actually look at economic data.

Robert Samuelson Redefines "Wealthy" Print
Friday, 29 July 2011 16:27

The Washington Post once ran a front page piece questioning whether people who earned $250,000 a year, President Obama's cutoff for his no tax hike pledge, were really rich. However, it also features Robert Samuelson on its opinion page telling readers that seniors with income of $30,000 a year are wealthy. I'm not kidding.

In a piece titled "Why Are We In This Debt Fix? It's the elderly stupid," Samuelson tells readers:

"some elderly live hand-to-mouth; many more are comfortable, and some are wealthy. The Kaiser Family Foundation reports the following for Medicare beneficiaries in 2010: 25 percent had savings and retirement accounts averaging $207,000 or more."

Let's see, we have retirees who have their Social Security checks, plus a stash of $207,000. If someone at age 62 were to take that $207,000 and buy an annuity this money would get them about $15,000 a year. Add in $14,000 from Social Security and they are living the good life on $29,000 a year. And remember, 75 percent of the elderly have less than this.

To be fair, many of the people with $207,000 in savings will be older than 62 so their money will go further, but it is hard to believe that anyone can think of this as a cutoff for being wealthy, or at least anyone other than Robert Samuelson and his colleagues at the Washington Post.

<< Start < Prev 301 302 303 304 305 306 307 308 309 310 Next > End >>

Page 303 of 426

Support this blog, donate
Combined Federal Campaign #79613

About Beat the Press

Dean Baker is co-director of the Center for Economic and Policy Research in Washington, D.C. He is the author of several books, his latest being The End of Loser Liberalism: Making Markets Progressive. Read more about Dean.