Conservative bias in the media

I've always found the claim that the "mainstream" media is biased to be absurdly off the mark. In fact, it is just the opposite, with the mainstream media continually producing "balanced" pieces that select equal numbers of examples from both sides regardless of the actual number of each (for example, climate science experts), and often entirely ignoring the progressive political wing. If you need an overwhelming example of the latter, just compare the attention that Paul Ryan's annual budget proposals receive relative to those put forth by the Congressional Progressive Caucus, which consists mainly of the more liberal third of the Democratic House delegation. According to a simple Google search, Ryan's budget has about 650 times as many hits as the CPC's "The Peoples' Budget", and even several times the 25 million hits one gets for "President's budget". Clearly, in this matter, the Republican budget proposal gets far, far more attention than those produced by the progressive wing, and even several times more than the formal and very centrist compromise budget put forth by the president himself! Admittedly, some of that attention is deservedly negative, but politically the ensuing conversation is a substantial net positive for Republicans.

What could possibly be the explanation for the vast discrepancy in media attention? It is certainly not because the Ryan budget is more realistic. If adopted, it would be by far the most right-wing budget of any advanced nation, and is unprecedented on many levels. It is also a complete fantasy in terms of how it works, with budget balance only achieved through heroic growth assumptions, budgetary gimmicks, and enormous cuts to anti-poverty programs and domestic spending that are both cruel, stupid, and unfair. Indeed, the poor would bear some 69% or more of the budget balancing directly. In contrast, the CPC's budget is very European-like in terms of spending and taxation, spreads the pain around evenly, and balances the budget in a reasonable time frame under realistic assumptions. The President's budget would actually be considered quite conservative by world standards and while failing to achieve budgetary balance, is realistic with respect to what is actually politically possible.

So the media in this case is clearly ignoring the actual left entirely, lionizing the right wing, and putting up a milquetoast centrist compromise as the left pole. This obviously distorts the debate and continually drags it to the right - something completely inconsistent with the theory that the mainstream media is liberally biased.

Red Up, Blue All The Way Down

This is an updated version of a post I originally wrote in March.

I've produced four different graphs below, all showing the same data but with slightly different adjustments. All data is calendar years, not fiscal years. Amazingly, the increase in our debt in Q3 of 2013 was less than $9 billion, in part due to the Treasury's efforts to avoid hitting the debt ceiling. The four graphs are:

1: Quarterly deficits vs GDP
2: Quarterly deficits, nominal
3: Quarterly deficits, inflation adjusted
4: Quarterly deficits, inflation adjusted per citizen

It's a lot of data, but the trend is rather obvious - vote Republican if you love exploding deficits, and Democratic if you love balanced budgets. This general trend holds true not only for the years on the graph, but all the way back to the post-war era. The last Republican president to oversee a reduction in the deficit was Eisenhower. The last Democratic president to oversee an indisputable rise in the deficit was FDR, and I think he deserves a pass due to WWII. Carter is the odd man out here. The deficit was largely unchanged during his term in office and whether it was a slight increase or a slight decrease depends on your measure. Also note that our projected deficit going forward is consistent with it approximately halving from its current level by the time Obama leaves office.

So when members of one particular party gripe about "fiscal responsibility", just show them these graphs, and remind them of how they have less than zero credibility on the matter.

Similar data can be found at AngryBearBlog here.

 

Retirement Account Caps

One policy that I have been advocating over the last year has been a lifetime cap on government-sponsored retirement accounts such as 401k's or IRAs. I first developed this idea in response to reports that Mitt Romney has at least $20 million and as much as $100 million or more stuffed away in his tax-free accounts, despite contribution limits of around $20,000 per year. There are a number of speculations as to how he pulled this off, but a simple cap on lifetime holdings in your tax-free accounts would cut off any of the loopholes which Romney and other rich people are abusing.

It appears the gods are listening, as the president has included this idea in his soon-to-be-released new budget, using almost the exact same lifetime cap (around $3 million with inflation adjustment) that I had been advocating.

This is great news, and a great policy. Tax-free accounts for the middle class are a good way to assist people in saving for retirements. However, these accounts should not be tax dodges for the wealthy, and there is no reason we should be subsidizing tens or even hundreds of millions of dollars worth of savings. Hopefully this policy makes it through the budget talks, as it is more than needed and more than fair.

Red Up, Blue Down...with a time lag

A few people have asked me what my deficit graph looks like when it is modified to include congressional control. So I have recolored it, with red being Republican control of the Presidency, House, and Senate, blue being full Democratic control of all three, and pink and purple,  representing Republicans or Democrats holding any two of the three, respectively.

This isn't as clear cut as the presidential chart, which simply showed upward trends every time Republicans captured the presidency, and flat or declining deficits under Democratic presidents. So how can we interpret this new chart? If you look carefully, you can break this chart down into six regions

1: A more or less flat region pre-Reagan, under mostly or full Democratic control

2: A huge rise during a period of Republican dominance. Note that this was during an economic boom, which normally will bring down deficits. A deficit increase during a boom is indicitive of highly irresponsible fiscal behavior.

3: Another period of relative deficit calm under full or partial Democratic dominance, with a downward trend at the end

4: Another period of partial Republican control, where deficits indeed fell during a boom but then rose again during a relatively modest slowdown.

5: A period of full Republican control, where defcits were stubbornly high despite an economic strong period. Again, this is highly indicative of fiscal irresponsibility

6: A period of full or partial Democratic control, early in which an absolute economic bomb went off, sending the deficit into the stratosphere, followed by gradual recovery despite a weak economy

There is only one area on this chart that reflects remotely well on Republicans, which is the late Clinton era. Deficits were brought down, though much of this was a natural consequence of the end of the cold war plus an economic boom, and very little due to the painful process of spending cuts and tax increases. Also note that this was largely illusiory, and deficits bounced back to their previous levels after the tech-bubble pop. In contrast, there are two regions that look awful for Republicans - the Reagan budget disaster and the Bush era, both of which saw high deficits despite a strong economy.

As for Democrats, deficits have been stable or declining every time they had partial or full control, with one exception - the epic bust of 2008. A lot comes down to how you assign blame for this. Is it plausible to blame it on the 110th congress, where Democrats seized control of both the House and Senate after four years of Republicans having full control of the government. Not really. The housing bubble was already at its peak, Wall Street had already placed its trillions upon trillions of dollars worth of bets, the wars already launched, the tax cuts already enacted. The bills adopted by the 110th were all run-of-the-mill spending bills until the economic bomb burst half way through their second year.  To the extent you can blame the economy on the government, it is clearly Bush and his two Republican congresses that own the majority of what happened shortly after they were removed from power.

Alternatively, you can look at the chart another way. Every time Republicans gain power, deficits start rising a few years later. For Democrats, it is the reverse. Please vote accordingly.

Red Up, Blue Down...

Updated on 10/14/2013 to include Q3 2013 data.

I've produced four different graphs below, all showing the same data but with slightly different adjustments.

1: Quarterly deficits vs GDP
2: Quarterly deficits, inflation adjusted, per citizen
3: Quarterly deficits, inflation adjusted
4: Quarterly deficits, nominal

It's a lot of data, but the trend is rather obvious - vote Republican if you love exploding deficits. This general trend holds true not only for the years on the graph, but all the way back to the post-war era. The last Republican president to oversee a reduction in the deficit was Eisenhower. The last Democratic president to oversee an indisputable rise in the deficit was FDR, and I think he deserves a pass due to WWII. Carter is the odd man out here. The deficit was largely unchanged during his term in office and whether it was a slight increase or a slight decrease depends on your measure. Also note that our projected deficit going forward is consistent with it approximately halving from its current level by the time Obama leaves office.

So when members of one particular party gripe about "fiscal responsibility", just show them these graphs, and remind them of how they have less than zero credibility on the matter.

Similar data can be found at AngryBearBlog here.