A Second Look Rotating Header Image

February 8th, 2009:

A Second Look: Media Matters: Fundamentally flawed stimulus coverage

Media Matters for America wrote:

Media Matters: Fundamentally flawed stimulus coverage


From: Media Matters for America [action@mediamatters.org]
Sent: Friday, February 06, 2009 7:43 PM
To: tomc2322
Subject: Media Matters: Fundamentally flawed stimulus coverage

Fundamentally flawed stimulus coverage

by Jamison Foser

If there’s one fact that should be made clear in every news report about the stimulus package working its way through Congress, it is this: Government spending is stimulative.

That’s a basic principle of economics, and understanding it is essential to assessing any stimulus package. So it should be an underlying premise of the media’s coverage of the stimulus debate. Unfortunately, that hasn’t been the case. Indeed, reporters routinely suggest that spending is not stimulative.

Economist Dean Baker, co-director of the Center for Economic and Policy Research, explains: “Spending that is not stimulus is like cash that is not money. Spending is stimulus, spending is stimulus. Any spending will generate jobs. It is that simple. … Any reporter who does not understand this fact has no business reporting on the economy.”

(emphasis mine)

Letting a contract to cut the grass around the mall is spending and spending is stimulus. It creates an immediate impact in the form of jobs. It gets money moving again. But to hear the Repugs tell it, spending to cut grass is wasteful. Right now, with our situation the way it is, there is no such thing as wasteful spending. The immediate impact is jobs but it is a lot more than that.

Jobs, rather the income from jobs, buys goods and services. Defense spending buys goods. Republicans argue tax cuts is a faster way to inject cash into markets so Joe the Plumber can work again. You can see that with a 2.6 million job loss, there is much less income to rescue from taxes, and consequently much less taxes rebated. It’s that simple. Hiring workers can start tomorrow if a contractor is notified that his contract with the government has been doubled.

Unfortunately, many of the reporters who have shaped the stimulus debate don’t seem to understand that.

ABC’s Charles Gibson portrayed spending and stimulus as opposing concepts in a question to President Obama: “And as you know, there’s a lot of people in the public, a lot of members of Congress who think this is pork-stuffed and that it really doesn’t stimulate. A lot of people have said it’s a spending bill and not a stimulus.”

President Obama said that spending is stimulus, stimulus is spending.

The more you listen to FOX News the more misinformed you become.

,,,,,,,

Share

Economists Agree Time Is of the Essence for Stimulus – washingtonpost.com

via Economists Agree Time Is of the Essence for Stimulus – washingtonpost.com.

Washington Post Staff Writers
Sunday, February 8, 2009; Page A01

“This is a seismic shift in the role of government in our society,” said Allen Sinai, chief global economist for Decision Economics.

(snip)

While economists remain divided on the role of government generally, an overwhelming number from both parties are saying that a government stimulus package — even a flawed one — is urgently needed to help prevent a steeper slide in the economy.

(emphasis mine)

The flawed part is the right-wing insistence on tax cuts. Upper middle class and above will save their tax cuts or use them to pay down debt, a result contrary to the aim of the stimulus. Payroll tax cuts for the lower middle class and below will be spent but it won’t provide the immediate jolt that a large infrastructure outlay would give. Payroll tax cuts of a few dollars per week is just a weak dribble and won’t do enough to help businesses sell their products quickly. Spending on projects on the other hand immediately creates jobs.

Joseph Stiglitz, a Nobel Prize-winning economist at Columbia University and former chief economist at the World Bank, said that the stimulus package was “probably too little, especially given that it is badly designed [and] we haven’t yet fixed the mortgage problem so the financial sector is likely to continue bleeding.”

Stiglitz said that most households would save rather than spend the money from tax cuts and that the business tax cuts were not closely enough linked to new investments. He said that while plans for infrastructure spending were flawed, it was “unlikely to be wasted as badly as the private financial market has wasted resources in last five years.”

I’m not with him in the comparison of what has happened with the financial market and spending for infrastructure. It’s apples to oranges. Oversight of infrastructure construction is inherently embedded within codes and compelled periodic inspection whereas oversight of investment banking has been deregulated and left up to the investment bankers on some sort of vague honor system.

Saving money, i.e. not spending,  as a result of tax cuts is the argument’s downfall, its fatal flaw.

Share

A Second Look: Will Ferrell on George Bush – No President Needs This Kind of Exposure – NYTimes.com

via Will Ferrell on George Bush – No President Needs This Kind of Exposure – NYTimes.com.

Penis size

In a rare moment of candor, Washington insiders discuss their penis sizes

So far six audience members have stormed out midperformance of the Broadway show “You’re Welcome America. A Final Night with George W Bush,” the comedian Will Ferrell’s lampooning of the 43rd president, according to those keeping count at the Cort Theater. But they haven’t been leaving after a particular Ferrell quip.

They’ve been standing up, instead, after the projection of a supersize photo on the backdrop of the stage. A photo of a penis. Specifically, as Mr. Ferrell (who plays President Bush) leads the audience to believe, the president’s penis. Except that’s not quite right.

“It’s an anonymous but age-appropriate public domain Internet penis,” said Adam McKay, the play’s director. “We went on the Web and got a penis.”

I wonder if those same folks would have walked out if they had projected a giant photo of Laura Bush’s vulva, age-appropriate of course, instead.

I don’t mind a little profanity but I have a problem with comedians who can’t be funny unless every other word is fuck, or they have to be over-the-top vulgar like Robin Williams. Williams is lauded for his impromptu genius but he has a perverted streak in him a mile wide.

Could Ferris take this show on the road? How will the picture of a giant penis play in Peoria? Not so good I think.

Share
You are protected by wp-dephorm: