Perhaps the most urgent problem is identified by un-identified analysts at Macroeconomic Advisers who are quoted as saying, in unison I suppose, "The debt ceiling, the sequester, and the expiring budget resolution comprise a three-pack of uncertainties that in the near term is bad for the economy."
Or perhaps the most urgent problem is the inaction of Congress in the face of the fact that "most financial experts agree that...the nation's debt could most likely be controlled for at least the next decade by making a series of relatively moderate policy changes." Now that is a wishy-washy unattributed statement if I ever read one, based on inclusion of "most," "most," "at least," and "relatively moderate."
A little investigation revealed that it is The State that is responsible for much of the problem with this article since its version edited the Los Angeles Times original to exclude the names of two of the experts, Roberton Williams of The Tax Policy Center and Mark Zandi of Moody's Analytics. I'm not sure how Lee and Puzzanghera got from those two names to claiming agreement among "most experts," but maybe that is what Williams and Zandi said. Or maybe Lee and Puzzanghera are just followers of Paul Krugman.
But here is the bottom line: It is not the debt per se nor the spending per se nor the economy per se that is the biggest problem or is most "dire." The biggest problem is the inability or unwillingness of Congress to deal with all these issues in order to avoid what even Puzzanghera and Lee write will be serious trouble "10 or 20 years down the road," by making "relatively modest policy changes" now to get the federal income/outgo and the economy back on track.
It's tough being a skeptical observer, having to worry about how many Americans just saw that silly headline in the paper this morning and immediately stopped being concerned and wrote off all the fiscal responsibility advocates as irrelevant.
I failed to put the links in originally: L.A.Times
Can't find it on The State website, but here is what it looked like:
Tweet
Follow @dkw2020
Darryl, Thanks for your comments on that article and for digging into it. I noticed it too and found it so full of generalities that it did not have any merit. I didn't realize that the original article at least had a few "experts", of the type you can see a dozen of or so a day on CNBC - each with a different opinion.
ReplyDeleteHeadline readers who agree with the philosophy expressed will probably congratulate themselves on being correct without reading the article. It will just confirm their belief that those of us who are concerned about the debt are uncaring paranoids.
I've noticed that the The State runs articles in that general place in the paper that, to me, are pure opinion and belong in the opinion pages rather than news sections. But I fear that is what the news has become - just opinion.
Bob Schowalter
I believe many in congress are in denial that there is a spending problem. They only see it as a revenue problem easily corrected by income redistribution. This narrative has the lamestream media complicit in keeping it alive. Seems like the FED is monitizing our debt with QE3++ which is generational theft. The inflation that is sure to come will steal the value of lifetime of savings from seniors.
ReplyDeleteLow information voters will only read the headlines "US Debt Woes Not So Dire..." and continue to elect people to congress who don't have the knowlege or backbone to lead us out of the financial crisis ahead.
Nick Grabar
The article does well at documenting that some employed journalists don't think that we are living in a present doomsday economic crisis. Indeed, our uncompromising political polarization is our biggest trouble. No members of congress at the far edges of leadership can get there way without a fast and certain political train wreck.
ReplyDelete