The epitome of disingenuous journalism.

I have no problem watching a show presenting ideas with which I disagree.  But I am on the lookout for bad logic, bad procedure, lying and disingenuousness.  Greta Van Susteren nabs some pretty influential guests (whatever you may think of their policies), and one would think the show would be informative for that reason.  I don't watch it all the time, so I will not make a general statement about the show.  But I've begun to notice a pattern of disingenuousness that this clip from December 4 takes to an extreme.  First, instead of asking her guest, Rick Santorum, his opinion of POTUS' fiscal cliff offer, she asks Santorum to argue in favor of the deal.  This is a classic straw man--of course Santorum is not going to give the strongest version of the argument (he likely doesn't know it).  So, knocking it over should be a piece of cake.  A conversation regarding Santorum's position would have been interesting and informative--asking him to defend it is a cheap attempt and the trappings of fairness.  In addition, Van Susteren had the chance to correct Santorum on an obvious error.  When he discussed filibuster reform, he claimed that POTUS wanted to "change the rules of the senate to make 51 votes all that is necessary to pass a bill in the US senate."  Regardless of how you feel about filibuster reform, this would not represent a change--this is the current rule in the senate.  The filibuster is the exception to that rule.  Again, a discussion as to why Santorum is not in favor of filibuster reform would have been interesting--but not if it is firmly founded on a falsehood.

Mitch McConnell, worst negotiator ever!

As I've noted many times in recent weeks, the debt ceiling is a chimera.  Actually, it's not just a chimera, it's a chimera that was created by the US and that legislators are using to scare the public.  POTUS and Tim Geithner have now inserted the debt ceiling into the fiscal cliff talks.  The response of Greta Van Susteren and Sarah Palin was to compare such an eventuality as giving debt ceiling responsibility to POTUS to giving him a limitless credit card.  This was an incredibly uninformed response, but neither here nor there since neither of these women is a policy maker or legislator.  However, this week Mitch McConnell chimed in with the same (false) analogy:

The analogy is, of course, demonstrably false, and we should assume that McConnell knows it's false.  So why would he make such a claim?  It's part of the pissing contest over the fiscal cliff.  It simply looks bad to give your opponent anything, no matter how insignificant.  This is a terrible tactic for negotiating.  If you have something entirely meaningless (both to yourself and in itself) that someone else wants, and for which someone else will give you something in exchange, you take that deal--that is a successful negotiation.  What McConnell is doing is more akin to throwing a tantrum.

Obama says US economy "poised to take off".

POTUS has been making claims that the US economy is poised to take off.  Meantime, Michelle Malkin of Twitchy.com and others on Twitter are calling the statement laughable.

While the economy may not take off, it seems it is indeed poised to do so if the deficit is any indication.  The deficit is shrinking at the fastest rate since WWII.

I am not attributing this fact to Obama or the WH.  Nevertheless, this seems like a good position from which to take off.  I have no doubt that Congress and POTUS can find a way to screw this up, but calling the statement laughable is a little disingenuous.

(Incidentally, consumer confidence and business spending are both up).

"Fair share" revisited.

Robert Reich makes an interesting case for raising taxes on the wealthy.  Nevertheless, he includes that terribly vacuous argument that the rich should "pay their fair share".  This is indeed true (true of all citizens, in fact).  However, you cannot make such an argument without defining what you mean by "fair share"--Quantity?  Percentage?  Capacity?  Otherwise, this argument has no meaning whatsoever.

Marginal Tax Rates Explained (in part).

Small businesses and those on the lower end of the wealthy (those making around $250,000) seem to have found a way to make it through the fiscal cliff and Obamacare.  If the cliff is avoided by raising taxes on those who make over $250,000, these top earners and small businesses will simply make sure they do not earn more than $249,000 in a year.  After all, after you pass the magic number, your tax rate goes up, right?  Sort of.  A marginal tax rate doesn't quite work that way.  After an earner passes $250,000, his or her tax rate goes up, but only on what he or she has earned beyond $250,000.  That is, if you make $260,000 in a year, only $10,000 of that will be taxed at a higher rate.  Thus, if you try and keep your income below that magic number, you're only screwing yourself.  If you're going to invite a small business expert on your show, this is one of the things he should know--and if you are going to play the journalist on your show, you should call him out if he doesn't know this basic fact.

More info here, and here.

(This is not an endorsement for raising taxes).

The deficit is shrinking.

The deficit is shrinking at a really fast pace.  In the last three years the deficit has gone from 10% of GDP to 7%.  Here are the various charts that are floating around. (Continued below).

This is good news, certainly.  But it doesn't mean that all our problems are solved.  As Slate's Matthew Yglesias points out, the deficit reduction is not a matter of successful economic policy by the Obama administration, but is, at least in part, "the flipside of the huge increases in the deficit that were associated with the recession."  And Mother Jones points out that a deficit that is too small can be just as dangerous as a deficit which is too big.  So, the upshot is that the conversation about the fiscal cliff need not include the question of the size of the deficit. 

Klingons need saving too!

I've noted previously that several economic and political analysts suggest that 'fiscal cliff' is a misnomer.  Some are now suggesting that we should be talking, instead, about an 'austerity bomb'.  What is intended by this is that, if the Bush tax cuts are allowed to expire, then the budget will simply be too small to pay for all the programs currently in place.  As I understand it, if the Bush tax cuts are allowed to expire, there will  be an automatic series of cuts, including significant cuts to the defense budget.  Defense hawks are worried that this could cripple national security.  Not necessarily:

(Full article).

Simpson Bowles vs. Tax Hikes.

In the interest of keeping informed, I am trying to follow all the important news on the so-called fiscal cliff.  Among other things, it is important to note that there is not a chance the US will fall off the fiscal cliff--if the US finds itself crushed at the bottom of it in January of 2013, it is because the Congress willfully drove over that cliff.  All Congress needs to do to avoid such an eventuality is come to an agreement on the Bush Tax Cuts--that is, do their job.  Some are arguing that the Bush cuts should be allowed to expire for the top bracket earners (over $250,000), while others are in favor of the Simpson-Bowles tax reform.  Today, Ezra Klein says, "letting the Bush tax cuts for income over $250,000 expire is Simpson-Bowles style tax reform."  Worth a read.

Obama tax hike will kill small businesses.

I begin with a clarification: this post does not imply that I support a tax hike on those making more than $250,000/year.  Nevertheless, I find it incomprehensible that politicians could lie so brazenly when technology provides the public with ways of uncovering their tall tales. 

There are good arguments against such tax hikes.  There are also bad arguments.  And then there are simple falsehoods.  Here is the full report from factcheck.org.

What exactly is a "fair share"?

With the looming fiscal bump, I've been waiting for this argument to reappear.  The most significant part of the fiscal cliff is the expiration of the Bush tax cuts.  It is clear to anyone with a pulse that some form of renewal of these cuts will have to be made--it is not likely to be bald renewal without significant change, but they will be renewed in one form or another.  Beohner and Obama will have to negotiate the details of which rates will remain the same and which rates will change, which loopholes will be closed and which left open.  Ultimately the argument will only concern the rich (in whatever way you'd like to define 'rich').  POTUS will ask that the rate for individuals making more than $250,000 be increased, and Boehner will have to determine how (actual rate increase, closing loopholes and deductions, raising rates on capital gains).  Even Bill Kristol, of the Weekly Standard, has argued that the GOP should give in here.  What drives me crazy is the vacuous use of the term (not to say concept--since I am claiming it is vacuous) "fair".  The rich must pay their "fair share" it will be argued by the left.  As it turns out, some on the right will make this claim as well.  And it is no doubt true.  The problem is that everyone assumes we all agree as to the meaning of fair, but no one actually defines it.  Some will claim that the rich should pay more because they have more.  Nevertheless, we'd never make the same claim about the cost of an iPad (I'm going to keep hammering away at Apple).  Apple cannot charge a different price depending on how much money you earn--that would be decidedly unfair.  Elizabeth Warren has argued that nobody has become rich on his or her own, that entrepreneurs are dependent on the state and federal highway systems for example.  This is no doubt true--but the rich are paying for these roads just as much as the poor (more even, one might argue).  And those who are paying more do not receive more for their money (the rich don't get to hog the road by virtue of having paid more in taxes).  In the article from which I have taken the paragraph at the beginning of this post, Wick Allison of the American Conservative can only find a meaning for the word fair in a Judeo-Christian morality which seems to be based largely on gut instinct.  But this has no more meaning than Warren's argument.  I am not suggesting that there is no way to make an argument based on fairness--but that argument has not been made yet.  I'd like to hear a solid argument of this sort, or I'd like a different argument altogether--perhaps one based not on fairness but on necessity.

Bill Kristol offers a compromise (sort of).

Conservative pundit and commentator Bill Kristol of the Weekly Standard is encouraging the GOP to compromise on the the Bush tax cuts--one of the most significant elements of the looming fiscal cliff (fiscal slope? fiscal mound?).  Breaking ranks with Grover-Norquist-Republicans, Kristol suggested that the cuts could be allowed to expire for those making over $250,000 (or $500,000 or $1 million).  He seems to acknowledge that the reelection of President Obama (together with the continued Republican control of the House) will require negotiations, conversation and debate.  But notice, he is incapable of simply suggesting what is a very reasonable response to the elections (presidential and congressional) without a dig at the rich Democrats who voted for Obama and "live in Hollywood?".  What does their address have to do with anything?  (Is it even true?)

Watch out for that CLIFF!

Tuesday night brought with it several changes--no, there was no change in the White House; the House is still Republican and the Senate still Democrat.  But the congressional elections were a huge win for women and for doctors.  So now it's time for the legislature to get to work.  First on the agenda is avoiding a natural disaster--not Sandy, not the Nor'easter, but the Fiscal Cliff.  If you're like me, you've seen this phrase in the news often lately and wondered what this proposed precipice problem is all about.  As it turns out, the phrase is only half accurate: the problem is fiscal, but it is not a cliff at all (as Matthew Yglesias explains here).  Indeed, the so-called cliff is simply the expiration of certain fiscal policies including the Bush tax cuts, and which will affect the economic recovery of and slow growth in the US.  How do we avoid such a burden at a time when the US is already suffering a slow recovery in a terrible recession?  Well, congress and the White House need to work together to replace the existing-but-getting-ready-to-expire policies with new ones--or as I like to put it: Speaker Boehner and President Obama need to do their jobs.  In other words, all this fiscal cliff talk is simply the professional politician's version of waiting to write your essay until the night before it is due when you've known about the deadline since the beginning of the semester.