Dubya insists the economy is on a "rising path."
Aside from debating whether or not that's true -- I mean, since we fell to below-trend growth in the second quarter, I would certainly hope we're on a "rising path" out of that ditch -- I took note of the construction of the lede paragraph of the AP story:
"GRAND RAPIDS, Mich. - The federal deficit is at a record high and economic growth has slowed, but President Bush is insisting on the campaign trail that the U.S. economy is on a "rising path.""
I don't recall noticing the writer, Deb Reichmann, before, but it's nice to see she's presenting the facts in such a way. I imagine she'll be greeted with howls about the "liberal media," but having seen some of the other AP stories written about Bush and Kerry in this campaign season, I think the liberals were due to get a little help.
Further down in the story, Bush lays this turd:
"Since last August, Americans have started work at more than 1.5 million new jobs, many of them in high-growth, high-paying industries."
First, someone ought to let him know that 1.5 million jobs in 11 months is not enough to keep up with the natural rate of growth in the labor force. Not that he'd care.
Secondly, what does he mean when he says "many" of these paltry new jobs are in high-paying industries. If he has stats, he ought to just present them. It sounds more authoritative. I mean, he's willing to throw around "1.5 million" in reference to jobs, which is about like bragging you've got a two-inch penis.
On second thought, I guess if he did reveal the number of jobs actually created in "high-paying" industries, reporters would have an easy time dividing 1.5 million by that number and realizing it's a very small percentage. They're too lazy to go back and put that 1.5 million in context, so he's safe throwing that around.
Further down, he also unleashes this laugher:
"Because of my policy of strengthening the economy while enforcing spending discipline in Washington, we remain on pace to reduce the deficit by half in the next five years."
When on earth has he enforced spending discipline? What has he vetoed or forcibly trimmed down? Certainly not the "health-care reform" bill or scores of other pork-laden appropriations bills. Just go ask somebody at the Cato Institute about what a disciplinarian Bush is.
Just when I was starting to like this Deb person, she writes this:
"Democrats view the statistics differently. They say the budget shortfall is the third consecutive — and ever-growing — deficit posted on Bush's watch, following four annual surpluses in a row under President Clinton."
Why on earth, Deb, is it necessary to say that "Democrats say" this is so? It's a plain fact, one a ten-year-old could look up on the internet. Here, I'll help: http://www.cbo.gov/showdoc.cfm?index=1821&sequence=0#table1
In table one, look at the "total." That's the total deficit or surplus in each year. We don't need the Democrats to point out to us what the surpluses were in 1998-2001 or what the deficits have been since.
Saturday, July 31, 2004
Friday, July 30, 2004
CNN is very proud of itself
Jim Walton memo to CNN staff:
"Congratulations and sincere thanks to all involved in our election coverage. The coverage we provided was spectacular - on-line, on-air, and with our affiliates. Whether through the innovative use of technology or simply the foresight to request space on the convention floor for an anchor platform, Princell Hair, Jane Maxwell and David Bohrman led the network's effort to create a unique viewing experience and Mitch Gelman led a cutting-edge team with our on-line efforts.
"Looking at the total programming and technology package, no other news organization covering the Democratic convention came close to providing what we did this past week -- fast paced, informative, technologically rich and up-close coverage of this important political event. As always, our true distinction was in the quality of our reporting.
"The experience of our political anchors and reporters and the expertise of our political unit led by Tom Hannon is second-to-none. My sincere thanks to everyone who contributed to our convention coverage for a job well done.
"All of these efforts have paid off and our viewers have responded. We have been the most-watched primetime cable news network this past week. Additionally, CNN.com had the most users of all news organization websites.
"I thank all those involved for their hard work and time away from their families. You can be proud of what you have accomplished. I certainly am. "
Yes, indeedy, you should be very, very proud of subjecting the American viewing public to a steady stream of GOP talking points, the mindless bleatings of such vegetable life as Wolf Blitzer, Judy Woodruff, Bill Schneider and Jeff Greenfield, and that convention-floor anchor platform, which gave every delegate in Boston the opportunity to make some sort of amusing hand or body gestures for the camera.
To be fair, the late-night stuff with Larry King did offer some interesting nuggets, such as last night's battle between Jon Cusack and Tucker Carlson.
And CNN was no more asinine than MSNBC, where Tweety seemed to dig nightly for new levels of foaming incompetence, with the water-headed Howard Fineman riding shotgun. These two made Joe Scarborough and Andrea Mitchell seem almost dignified.
Fox News, of course, doesn't actually count as a "news organization." Anything journalistically credible that happened on Fox was purely accidental.
That leaves PBS, which was dull as dishwater, with its roundtable of soft-spoken professors and benign, middle-brow talking heads Mark Shields and David Brooks. But it was also consistently fair-minded and more often than not insightful.
"Congratulations and sincere thanks to all involved in our election coverage. The coverage we provided was spectacular - on-line, on-air, and with our affiliates. Whether through the innovative use of technology or simply the foresight to request space on the convention floor for an anchor platform, Princell Hair, Jane Maxwell and David Bohrman led the network's effort to create a unique viewing experience and Mitch Gelman led a cutting-edge team with our on-line efforts.
"Looking at the total programming and technology package, no other news organization covering the Democratic convention came close to providing what we did this past week -- fast paced, informative, technologically rich and up-close coverage of this important political event. As always, our true distinction was in the quality of our reporting.
"The experience of our political anchors and reporters and the expertise of our political unit led by Tom Hannon is second-to-none. My sincere thanks to everyone who contributed to our convention coverage for a job well done.
"All of these efforts have paid off and our viewers have responded. We have been the most-watched primetime cable news network this past week. Additionally, CNN.com had the most users of all news organization websites.
"I thank all those involved for their hard work and time away from their families. You can be proud of what you have accomplished. I certainly am. "
Yes, indeedy, you should be very, very proud of subjecting the American viewing public to a steady stream of GOP talking points, the mindless bleatings of such vegetable life as Wolf Blitzer, Judy Woodruff, Bill Schneider and Jeff Greenfield, and that convention-floor anchor platform, which gave every delegate in Boston the opportunity to make some sort of amusing hand or body gestures for the camera.
To be fair, the late-night stuff with Larry King did offer some interesting nuggets, such as last night's battle between Jon Cusack and Tucker Carlson.
And CNN was no more asinine than MSNBC, where Tweety seemed to dig nightly for new levels of foaming incompetence, with the water-headed Howard Fineman riding shotgun. These two made Joe Scarborough and Andrea Mitchell seem almost dignified.
Fox News, of course, doesn't actually count as a "news organization." Anything journalistically credible that happened on Fox was purely accidental.
That leaves PBS, which was dull as dishwater, with its roundtable of soft-spoken professors and benign, middle-brow talking heads Mark Shields and David Brooks. But it was also consistently fair-minded and more often than not insightful.
Today's economic data
2Q GDP growth was surprisingly weak, at a 3 percent annualized rate.
For now, this can be explained away by high oil prices, which Greenspan and his fellow optimists dismiss as a temporary thing.
Well, guess what, folks: the price of oil is higher today than it was at the height of its May/June spike. Will this spike have an even worse effect on the economy than the last one?
One reason to think it might not is that gasoline prices haven't gone back above $2 a gallon, which would be a real damper on consumer spending.
But gas is still at about $1.90 a gallon, which is still far higher than it was at the beginning of the year. That 10-cent difference doesn't seem likely to do much to encourage more consumer spending.
But here is the real kick in the head about this report: 2Q GDP from 2001 was revised sharply, dramatically upward, so that suddenly we no longer live in a world in which there were three consecutive quarters of negative GDP growth in 2001.
In other words, according to the way some people define a recession, there was no recession in 2001.
The NBER, at least, still says there was a recession, and in fact they've talked about revising at least the starting date of the recession, to move it back into 2000.
New leadership at the NBER cycle dating committee has been inclined to use monthly GDP data, created by Macroeconomic Advisors, in setting its business cycle dates. I'll have to try to find out what that data says about the second quarter.
Anyway, this is all a bunch of semantic hoo-ha. Everybody knows there was a recession in 2001. Even with the helpful revisions, there were at least three down quarters of GDP growth between late 2000 and late 2001. Everybody knows how bad the job market was, and that's the sector of the economy given the most weight by the NBER in setting cycles in the past, and it's the one that matters most to most people.
Though there would at first blush seem to be the possibility that this could help the White House, I think it could actually hurt. They would probably want us to continue to believe that there was a recession, and that it started in the Clinton White House, and that Bush pulled us out of it.
Otherwise, if there was no recession, then that could make Bush's subsequent stewardship of the economy seem worse. After all, he would then have one less excuse for the net job loss during his first term.
For now, this can be explained away by high oil prices, which Greenspan and his fellow optimists dismiss as a temporary thing.
Well, guess what, folks: the price of oil is higher today than it was at the height of its May/June spike. Will this spike have an even worse effect on the economy than the last one?
One reason to think it might not is that gasoline prices haven't gone back above $2 a gallon, which would be a real damper on consumer spending.
But gas is still at about $1.90 a gallon, which is still far higher than it was at the beginning of the year. That 10-cent difference doesn't seem likely to do much to encourage more consumer spending.
But here is the real kick in the head about this report: 2Q GDP from 2001 was revised sharply, dramatically upward, so that suddenly we no longer live in a world in which there were three consecutive quarters of negative GDP growth in 2001.
In other words, according to the way some people define a recession, there was no recession in 2001.
The NBER, at least, still says there was a recession, and in fact they've talked about revising at least the starting date of the recession, to move it back into 2000.
New leadership at the NBER cycle dating committee has been inclined to use monthly GDP data, created by Macroeconomic Advisors, in setting its business cycle dates. I'll have to try to find out what that data says about the second quarter.
Anyway, this is all a bunch of semantic hoo-ha. Everybody knows there was a recession in 2001. Even with the helpful revisions, there were at least three down quarters of GDP growth between late 2000 and late 2001. Everybody knows how bad the job market was, and that's the sector of the economy given the most weight by the NBER in setting cycles in the past, and it's the one that matters most to most people.
Though there would at first blush seem to be the possibility that this could help the White House, I think it could actually hurt. They would probably want us to continue to believe that there was a recession, and that it started in the Clinton White House, and that Bush pulled us out of it.
Otherwise, if there was no recession, then that could make Bush's subsequent stewardship of the economy seem worse. After all, he would then have one less excuse for the net job loss during his first term.
Well, shut my mouth.
He did all right. He actually did all right.
And I owe an apology to Shrum (or I would, if he were reading); that speech wasn't half bad.
It was a shame, as Joe Scarborough noted last night, that he had to rush through it so much. But he had to get in under the 11 PM wire -- though Tom Brokaw declared on MSNBC last night that the affiliates would not have cut away from Kerry if he'd gone long.
Also, the domestic policy section sort of dragged.
Another minor point: he sure did sweat. I don't blame him for that, and I don't think it was too big of a deal. The future Mrs. Capt. Willard didn't think so, anyway.
I did think there was one sour note, and it came late in the speech:
"I want to address these next words directly to President George W. Bush. In the weeks ahead let's be optimists, not just opponents. Let's build unity in the American family, not angry division. Let's honor this nation's diversity. Let's respect one another. And let's never misuse for political purposes the most precious document in American history, the Constitution of the United States."
OK, first of all, this is, as Stephanopoulos said last night, a disingenuous request. Kerry had in this very speech blasted Bush in a way that would seem designed to inspire "angry division," at least at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue:
"As president, I will restore trust and credibility to the White House."
This statement had me and the future Mrs. Capt. Willard positively agape. There was other stuff in the speech that confronted Bush head-on, but nothing as brutally effective as this. It's not only red meat for the convention floor, but also a sign for the rest of the country that this guy has the brass balls necessary to take on al Qaeda.
The "let's be optimists" challenge is a hollow one. He should -- and sometimes did -- let his words and actions express optimism in more subtle ways, as Barack Obama did the other night. All this "I'm an optimist" talk, if it's pushed too far, starts to sound like denial.
And I know I'm dim, but what does the Constitution have to do with it?
Edited to add: Duh. Andrew Sullivan lets me know that this is about the gay-marriage amendment. How soon I forget.
Sullivan, by the way, really liked that part, while feeling the stuff about how Kerry would handle terrorism and the war in Iraq was a little too fuzzy.
I totally agree with that. Saying you'll "build alliances" or whatever is not a plan. Whether it's enough to win the election -- which is really Job One at this point -- remains to be seen.
Anyway, it was an effective speech. I had extremely low expectations for Kerry -- see last night's post for proof -- but he exceeded them by a wide, wide margin. I'm not as excited about the speech this morning as I was last night, but it seems he did everything he had to do in this convention, including reassuring the public he can handle the job of president and addressing the major criticisms against him.
Perhaps more importantly, though, he did something else, too: he made himself seem human. I'd seen glimpses of his personality in more intimate settings, such as the 60 Minutes interview with him and Edwards, in which he seemed positively charming. But often in this campaign, particularly on the stump, he'd seemed wooden in the extreme -- more wooden than Al Gore, that paragon of woodenness -- with a grating, immodulated voice and a stubborn inability to get to the point.
Last night, though, he positively -- literally -- glowed. Some of that was sweat, of course, but the sweat was almost endearing. The salute and the "reporting for duty," along with the air-hug of Teresa, were goofy as all get-out, but Americans feel comfortable with goofy. Please see Bush, George W. He had a ready smile, which is actually fairly pleasant, that he flashed fairly often.
Some of the talking heads last night said a candidate's personality isn't as important in this election as it has been in previous elections, that voters don't feel the candidates have to pass some sort of charisma test, such as "Would I have a PBR with this guy?" because the stakes are so much higher now.
They may be right, but I'm not sure. For all the war and terror talk thrown around in Washington and at this convention, I don't think Americans are feeling quite so alarmed that they've turned into a bunch of sober Brookings scholars. You don't have to look far to see evidence that we're still a pretty shallow, easily distracted bunch, for whom image is still very important.
Kerry's not going to make anybody's sexiest-people list or anything, but I think people would probably rather have dinner with him than, say, Al Gore, the guy who won the popular vote in 2000.
Karl Rove would seem to have his work cut out for him.
And I owe an apology to Shrum (or I would, if he were reading); that speech wasn't half bad.
It was a shame, as Joe Scarborough noted last night, that he had to rush through it so much. But he had to get in under the 11 PM wire -- though Tom Brokaw declared on MSNBC last night that the affiliates would not have cut away from Kerry if he'd gone long.
Also, the domestic policy section sort of dragged.
Another minor point: he sure did sweat. I don't blame him for that, and I don't think it was too big of a deal. The future Mrs. Capt. Willard didn't think so, anyway.
I did think there was one sour note, and it came late in the speech:
"I want to address these next words directly to President George W. Bush. In the weeks ahead let's be optimists, not just opponents. Let's build unity in the American family, not angry division. Let's honor this nation's diversity. Let's respect one another. And let's never misuse for political purposes the most precious document in American history, the Constitution of the United States."
OK, first of all, this is, as Stephanopoulos said last night, a disingenuous request. Kerry had in this very speech blasted Bush in a way that would seem designed to inspire "angry division," at least at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue:
"As president, I will restore trust and credibility to the White House."
This statement had me and the future Mrs. Capt. Willard positively agape. There was other stuff in the speech that confronted Bush head-on, but nothing as brutally effective as this. It's not only red meat for the convention floor, but also a sign for the rest of the country that this guy has the brass balls necessary to take on al Qaeda.
The "let's be optimists" challenge is a hollow one. He should -- and sometimes did -- let his words and actions express optimism in more subtle ways, as Barack Obama did the other night. All this "I'm an optimist" talk, if it's pushed too far, starts to sound like denial.
And I know I'm dim, but what does the Constitution have to do with it?
Edited to add: Duh. Andrew Sullivan lets me know that this is about the gay-marriage amendment. How soon I forget.
Sullivan, by the way, really liked that part, while feeling the stuff about how Kerry would handle terrorism and the war in Iraq was a little too fuzzy.
I totally agree with that. Saying you'll "build alliances" or whatever is not a plan. Whether it's enough to win the election -- which is really Job One at this point -- remains to be seen.
Anyway, it was an effective speech. I had extremely low expectations for Kerry -- see last night's post for proof -- but he exceeded them by a wide, wide margin. I'm not as excited about the speech this morning as I was last night, but it seems he did everything he had to do in this convention, including reassuring the public he can handle the job of president and addressing the major criticisms against him.
Perhaps more importantly, though, he did something else, too: he made himself seem human. I'd seen glimpses of his personality in more intimate settings, such as the 60 Minutes interview with him and Edwards, in which he seemed positively charming. But often in this campaign, particularly on the stump, he'd seemed wooden in the extreme -- more wooden than Al Gore, that paragon of woodenness -- with a grating, immodulated voice and a stubborn inability to get to the point.
Last night, though, he positively -- literally -- glowed. Some of that was sweat, of course, but the sweat was almost endearing. The salute and the "reporting for duty," along with the air-hug of Teresa, were goofy as all get-out, but Americans feel comfortable with goofy. Please see Bush, George W. He had a ready smile, which is actually fairly pleasant, that he flashed fairly often.
Some of the talking heads last night said a candidate's personality isn't as important in this election as it has been in previous elections, that voters don't feel the candidates have to pass some sort of charisma test, such as "Would I have a PBR with this guy?" because the stakes are so much higher now.
They may be right, but I'm not sure. For all the war and terror talk thrown around in Washington and at this convention, I don't think Americans are feeling quite so alarmed that they've turned into a bunch of sober Brookings scholars. You don't have to look far to see evidence that we're still a pretty shallow, easily distracted bunch, for whom image is still very important.
Kerry's not going to make anybody's sexiest-people list or anything, but I think people would probably rather have dinner with him than, say, Al Gore, the guy who won the popular vote in 2000.
Karl Rove would seem to have his work cut out for him.
Thursday, July 29, 2004
Ping Bob Shrum
Though I am but a lowly, newbie blogger, I have just a wee bit of advice for you, Mr. Shrum, Your Highness:
If your candidate is a crushing bore, and if said candidate is due to make a prime-time speech on national television, a speech which may very well be the first glimpse many in the voting public will get of said candidate, it might be a good idea to limit said candidate's speech's length to something under, I don't know, say, 50 freaking minutes.
-- Your pal, Capt. Willard
"... while Kerry plans to devote nearly half of his remarks tonight to national security, his advisers say he does not plan to unveil an exit strategy or ambitious, detailed plans to replace the Iraq policy being followed by President Bush."
So, um, what is he going to talk about for nearly 25 minutes?
Oh, now I see: the speech is mostly written by Shrum. That means he'll probably spend 25 minutes twisting himself in florid, snooze-inducing verbal knots.
The horror, the horror.
I'm already nostalgic for Tuesday night. Or even Monday.
But here's a way to make it fun, PBR Street Gang: Take one swig of PBR every time Kerry dully intones some version of the verb "to fight."
Then you'll be drunk, bored and hip. OK, I guess that's not much fun after all. You could get that in Williamsburg without the 50-minute speech.
Carry on.
If your candidate is a crushing bore, and if said candidate is due to make a prime-time speech on national television, a speech which may very well be the first glimpse many in the voting public will get of said candidate, it might be a good idea to limit said candidate's speech's length to something under, I don't know, say, 50 freaking minutes.
-- Your pal, Capt. Willard
"... while Kerry plans to devote nearly half of his remarks tonight to national security, his advisers say he does not plan to unveil an exit strategy or ambitious, detailed plans to replace the Iraq policy being followed by President Bush."
So, um, what is he going to talk about for nearly 25 minutes?
Oh, now I see: the speech is mostly written by Shrum. That means he'll probably spend 25 minutes twisting himself in florid, snooze-inducing verbal knots.
The horror, the horror.
I'm already nostalgic for Tuesday night. Or even Monday.
But here's a way to make it fun, PBR Street Gang: Take one swig of PBR every time Kerry dully intones some version of the verb "to fight."
Then you'll be drunk, bored and hip. OK, I guess that's not much fun after all. You could get that in Williamsburg without the 50-minute speech.
Carry on.
Today's economic data
Employment costs up an acceptable 0.9 percent in the second quarter. Jobless claims up a bit, too, to 345,000.
The bulls will tell you this is consistent with monthly payroll growth above 200,000, and that the meager growth in labor costs will keep the Fed in check. They may be right.
But here's another way of looking at it, courtesy of Bob Brusca at Fact & Opinion Economics (with some editing and emphasis added by me):
"Benefit costs rose by 1.7%, down from the March quarter’s 2.6% surge, but higher than in each of the two previous quarters.
"The pattern is clear. Benefit costs pressures are increasing. They are up Yr/Yr by 7.3% in Q2 more than the 7% in Q1 and more than the 6.4% in 2003-Q4. This is pressuring firms to push costs back down onto workers or to economize on labor altogether.
"But labor, since it only receives the services and does not bear these costs, is beset by lower wage growth. Private wages and salaries rose by 2.5% Yr/Yr in Q2 compared with 2.6% in Q1 and 3.1% in 2003-Q4.
"This sets the stage for labor conflict, since workers see wages as pressured down and firms see cost pressures rising.
"What it means is that consumer spending is still underpowered by wage trends. While businesses are still under pressure to economize on labor. Job growth should remain weak."
Brusca thinks July's payroll number, due next Friday, will print between 100,000 and 150,000 -- a number far, far below what the Street expects.
Elsewhere on Wall Street, only Bank of America and Argus Research believe the number will be below 200,000. Thirteen other forecasters expect anywhere from 200,000 to 310,000, with a median forecast of 220,000.
I'm betting Brusca, BOA and Argus will be closer to right.
The bulls will tell you this is consistent with monthly payroll growth above 200,000, and that the meager growth in labor costs will keep the Fed in check. They may be right.
But here's another way of looking at it, courtesy of Bob Brusca at Fact & Opinion Economics (with some editing and emphasis added by me):
"Benefit costs rose by 1.7%, down from the March quarter’s 2.6% surge, but higher than in each of the two previous quarters.
"The pattern is clear. Benefit costs pressures are increasing. They are up Yr/Yr by 7.3% in Q2 more than the 7% in Q1 and more than the 6.4% in 2003-Q4. This is pressuring firms to push costs back down onto workers or to economize on labor altogether.
"But labor, since it only receives the services and does not bear these costs, is beset by lower wage growth. Private wages and salaries rose by 2.5% Yr/Yr in Q2 compared with 2.6% in Q1 and 3.1% in 2003-Q4.
"This sets the stage for labor conflict, since workers see wages as pressured down and firms see cost pressures rising.
"What it means is that consumer spending is still underpowered by wage trends. While businesses are still under pressure to economize on labor. Job growth should remain weak."
Brusca thinks July's payroll number, due next Friday, will print between 100,000 and 150,000 -- a number far, far below what the Street expects.
Elsewhere on Wall Street, only Bank of America and Argus Research believe the number will be below 200,000. Thirteen other forecasters expect anywhere from 200,000 to 310,000, with a median forecast of 220,000.
I'm betting Brusca, BOA and Argus will be closer to right.
PBR Street Gang, This is Almighty...
Actually, this is not Almighty at all. This is your Capt. Willard, getting ready to take you up the Nung River for a mission, a real choice mission, and when it's over, you'll never want another.
Actually, scratch that. The phrase "take you up the Nung River" sounds just a wee bit, um, familiar.
I am just one new, anonymous blogger among a plethora of new bloggers, anonymous or otherwise, the number of which must surely grow exponentially by the millisecond, making our "voices" more and more indistinct, until we devour the rhetorical world like self-replicating nanobots, leaving behind only a mass of quivering, gray goo.
But it'll be fun. And my blog's title will make you think of PBR, which will perhaps make you drink a can of PBR, and then you'll be hip and drunk, which is like two great things for the price of one.
L'horreur!
Actually, scratch that. The phrase "take you up the Nung River" sounds just a wee bit, um, familiar.
I am just one new, anonymous blogger among a plethora of new bloggers, anonymous or otherwise, the number of which must surely grow exponentially by the millisecond, making our "voices" more and more indistinct, until we devour the rhetorical world like self-replicating nanobots, leaving behind only a mass of quivering, gray goo.
But it'll be fun. And my blog's title will make you think of PBR, which will perhaps make you drink a can of PBR, and then you'll be hip and drunk, which is like two great things for the price of one.
L'horreur!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)