Fascinating White House Analysis of the Republican Fiscal Cliff Proposal

Here's a link to an Official White House analysis of the Republican proposal on the Fiscal Cliff.  The Republicans propose to cap tax deductions at $25K.  The White House analysis concludes that this would raise revenues by $1 Trillion, but only if the deduction limit applies to all taxpayers, not just the rich.  Excluding those making less than $250K from the cap lowers the revenue to $800 Billion.  Exactly what I'm hearing the Republicans claim.  (Note: These numbers are over 10 years)

The analysis argues that this cap should be phased in over a few years to lessen disruptions.  Sounds fine, and I agree.  Though I don't think the Democrat's proposal to revert to pre-Bush tax rates will be "phased in".  Hypocrites.  Anyway, assuming a gradual phase in to make the changes more "fair" limits revenue to $650 Billion.  Sounds very reasonable.

I find section 3 of the article most fascinating.  They argue, quite correctly, that capping deductions will reduce charitable giving.  They estimate $10 Billion a year less to charities.  Since I believe that the revenue numbers are over 10 years, to compare apples to apples this number then becomes a $100 Billion decrease in charitable giving.  The analysis assumes that we don't really want this, and that therefore charitable gifts will not be capped.  With this assumption, revenues decrease to $450 Billion.

See something wrong here?  In order to support $100 Billion in charitable giving, the analysis proposes to give up $200 Billion in revenue.  This makes no sense.  I suspect that the numbers and assumptions are flawed, but, if true, this is no reason to "uncap" charitable giving.

The Fiscal Cliff talks should be more transparent

One frustrating part of the current "fiscal cliff" talks is that I can't really tell what's being proposed.  Both sides are being coy, because they don't want to get called out for actually proposing any real solutions like raising tax revenues or cutting entitlements.

For example, Geitner's / Obama's first proposal included 1.6 trillion in tax increases, plus at least 50 billion in additional spending, with the proposal to "somehow" find 400 billion in savings in Medicare at some unspecified later time.  If you really think a Democratic administration will find and implement 400 billion in savings in Medicare, I've got a bridge in Brooklyn to sell you.  This proposal isn't serious or specific.  The New York Times, hardly a right-wing bastion, calls it "loaded with Democratic priorities and short on detailed spending cuts".  It points out that the proposed tax increases go beyond what the Democratic Senate approved, such as taxing capital gains at regular rates and potential increases the Estate Tax.  Some of the "savings" Obama is trumpeting include "savings" from the military withdraws from Iraq and Afghanistan.  Nobody was planning to spend any money to stay there, so it's hard to count that as savings.

From what I can tell, the Republican counter-proposal calls for 800 billion in enhanced tax revenues, through unspecified cuts in deductions.  As an aside, I like the Economist's proposal (loosely based upon one of Romney's few good proposals) to skirt the issue of targeting any particular deductions, which will draw way too much controversy from special interests, by just limiting deductions to $50,000 total a year.  About 300 billion of these possible savings are investigated by Paul Krugman.  And his ideological opposite, the National Review, is calling for the negotiations to be held in public.

I agree.  Let's have the negotiations be, at least more public so both parties will be more accountable for what will happen.  Now, it seems painfully obvious to me.  On the revenue side, any 5th grader could look at the situation and say "o.k., 800 billion in enhancements through less deductions, 800 billion in tax increases".  Unfortunately, our Congress isn't that smart, nor apparently is Obama very serious about fixing our fiscal problems.

Just how big is our deficit?

The official number for US Federal debt is around $16 Trillion dollars, which is around 100% of GDP.  That's getting up there.  The highest previous number was around 120% at the very end of World War II.  This is the official value of bonds owed by the U.S. Government.

However, Niall Ferguson argues that these bond debts do not reflect the unfunded liabilities of promises made to support future entitlements such as Social Security and Medicare.  According to this article, the net present value (NPV) of these federal liabilities is $200 Trillion.  (States are on the hook for $38 Trillion)  Attempting to verify these figures, a Google search finds other values for federal liability of:

• $45 trillion, 
• $73 trillion ( in this excellent long PDF from BusinessWeek 2010), 
• $128 trillion (Seeking Alpha, the article says "8x official debt").  
• $75 trillion (Bill Gross, PIMCO manager)
• $120 trillion  (CATO institute, libertarian/conservative think tank)
• $100 trillion (Christian Science Monitor quoting Bill Gross)
• "over $60 trillion" (in 2010)
• $61.6 trillion (USA Today)
• $39 trillion for Medicare alone, and that is "substantially understated"
• $110 trillion

Now, many (but not all) of these are from more conservative sites who would be prone to overestimate the problem.  Nor do they give details of where the numbers came from.  But, taking a middle ground, it looks like the federal unfunded liability is very roughly $100 trillion.  This does not include states and municipalities.  Like Stockton CA, which is going bankrupt.  

One way to look at this problem is that, with a GDP of $16 trillion, it would take over six years of all of our GDP to "fund" this liability.  Another way is to figure cost per person.  There are about 313 million residents in the USA.  To pay for the federal unfunded liabilities, that would be $319,488 each.  Now the average net worth for an entire household (not an individual) is $77,000.  The average household is, very roughly, 2.5.  So, the average net worth for each US resident is about $30,000.  So the entire net worth of all residents in the USA is less than 10% of the federal liability.

Even if you take a low estimate of the liability (USA Today's $61 trillion), that is still about $200,000 per person.  A lot.  It's very clear that Congress must make serious, serious cuts to entitlements, such as future Medicare and Social Security benefits.

Why I hate the Yankees

A recent SweetSpot Blog post by David Schoenfield has the "Five worst umpiring calls in history".  The calls are all from playoff or World Series games due to their impact on important games.  You'll notice that three of the five calls, that's 60% of the worst calls in history, benefited the Yankees.  (And no calls harmed them).  These include:

#5 Mauer's Fair Ball being called Foul in the 2009 ALDS, where it was fair by several inches.  Note that one of Schoenfield's colleagues, Jim Caple, called this the second worst blown call.  The umpire (Phil Cuzzi)  was standing only 20 feet from where the ball landed, with a clear view, and with the specific duty of calling such plays.

#4 Reggie Jackson interfering with a double-play throw in the 1978 World Series.

#1 Jeffrey Maier interfering with Derek Jeter's fly ball in the 1996 ALCS.  Should have been an out, instead it was called a home run. Maier reached over the wall at least a foot, and the outfielder, Tarasco, immediately complained.  It wasn't even close.  And, in the interviews on the video link, Andy Petitte admits that it was a turning point in the series.


Now, all of these calls happened where?  In Yankee Stadium.  And, seriously, what do you think the odds are the three of the five worst calls in history "just happened" to benefit the Yankees?

Blown Call in Tiger - Red Sox game

A blown strike three call (see excellent recap here) helped the Red Sox to a 7-4 victory over the Tigers.  Both the home plate and first base umpire missed the clear fact that the catcher, Gerald Laird caught the ball.  There is also little evidence that the ball was even foul tipped, rendering the whole issue of whether it was caught moot.

Thought I am in favor of more instant replay in baseball (I think giving managers a single red flag, similar to football, would be a great idea) this quick judgement call is probably not a good argument for replay.  Instead, give Mike Aviles credit for arguing first that he tipped the ball, and that Laird failed to catch it.  Especially when Aviles probably knew that he was, er, stretching the truth.

The solution is up to the players to "police" Aviles for stretching the limits.  Verlander is pitching for Detroit tonight, and he throws 100 MPH.  Aviles should not dig in at the plate.

Charles Blow is a partisan hack - absurd NYT Editorial

Charles Blow complains about a Republican "super PAC" that would bring up Obama's relationship with Rev. Jeremiah Wright Jr.  He goes on to disparage Romney:

Romney used to be a pragmatic, right-leaning centrist. That was until he checked his principles and previous positions at the door so that he could cavort with the Tea Party.

Finally, buried around paragraph 15, Blow mentions that "Romney rightly repudiated it."  If you read that article, the plans by the PAC to bring up Wright were published in the Thursday NY Times, and, that same day, Romney clearly stated “I repudiate that effort" and “I think it’s the wrong course for a PAC or a campaign.”

So Romney shows some character by repudiating a partisan attack on Obama.  Yet Blow hides this fact, and instead uses the episode to claim that Romney lacks principles.  What would he want Romney to do?  Blow is a partisan hack.

Many of the comments miss the point that Romney repudiated the effort.  Apparently Blow the hack did a good job of hiding that.

Fantasy Baseball Verdict: Points Leagues are far superior to Rotisserie

I've been playing in a relatively "fun", non-competitive Head to Head Points (H2H Points) fantasy baseball league for a few years now.  It's a "points league", where players get points for things they do.  Our points are pretty standard.  For a batter, one point per base earned on a hit (so a triple is 3 points), 1 point for a walk, 1 for a steal.  Also, one point for the more traditional categories of run scored and RBI.  I find it completely reasonable and fairly sabremetric.  A single followed by a steal is worth 2 points, same as a double - makes sense, right?  While it doesn't directly track OPS, it more or less does.  Note that a home run is worth 6 points, and a stolen base only 1.  One could argue about that 6:1 ratio, but, in real baseball, a home run is clearly worth much more than a stolen base.  Pitchers gain points per out recorded, and an extra point per strikeout.  They lose points for giving up a hit or a walk, and two points per earned run.  A win or save is worth 5 points, a loss is -5.  Less sabremetric than the hitting, but pretty reasonable, since wins, which are partly out of that pitcher's control, are relatively unimportant.

Most leagues set limits on the number of games pitchers can start, and the number of "moves" (switching players) a manager can do per week.  Our league has a pretty standard limit of 12 starts per week, and a fairly low limit of 5 moves per week.  In a ten team league it's hard to find great starting pitching for your 12 starts, so one is constantly working to find good starting pitching.  Just like real baseball.  Closers and relievers are less important than starters, just like (for the most part) real baseball.  With a limit of 5 moves per week, teams cannot be constantly bouncing players back and forth, like real baseball.

Also, we have weekly "head to head" matches.  You are matched up with one other team, and most points for that week wins.  Then you move on.  This brings excitement that builds through the week as you track your progress, and often feverishly follow your players on Sunday.  One year I had Dallas Braden's perfect game give me a come from behind victory.  There is a weekly scoreboard with spaces to "chat" or "talk smack" at each other if you want to be social.  Then, whether you got slaughtered, or barely eeked out a victory, you move on to the next game.  Much like real baseball.  Some teams get unlucky and lose a lot of close matches, or lucky and win a lot, just like real baseball.  A good (but not great) team can get hot at the end of the year and make a big run through the playoffs, just like real baseball.

All in all, I know that H2H Points is still a game and not completely realistic.  But it at least "feels" fairly realistic.

This year, a friend invited me to help him with his Rotisserie 5x5 league.  This is the more "standard" fantasy league.  It's interesting, but I find the experience pales in comparison to points.  First, you are accumulating stats over the entire year, not weekly.  So it's hard to know when to get excited.  There is no weekly scoreboard or central place to chat.  If somebody runs up a huge lead, you are unlikely to make a comeback in the last month.

I find the scoring semi-absurd.  Your hitters are ranked by runs scored, home runs, RBI, stolen bases and batting average.  These are all ancient, non-sabremetric stats.  Batting average is far inferior to OPS as a way to measure hitting.  Runs scored and RBI have more to do with what your teammates did, not what you did.   In this system, a stolen base is just as important as a home run!  And a single and a stolen base is twice as good as a double.  Clearly wrong.  A patient batter drawing walks, running up the opposing pitcher's pitch count, is worthless.

Pitchers are rated by Strikeouts, Wins, Saves, ERA and WHIP.  At least the system is better than for hitters.  But the big emphasis on wins and saves distorts things horribly.  In our draft, there was a big run on closers, and Grant Balfour was taken number 122.  Now, he's a decent closer for my beloved Oakland As, but no sane person would rate him the 122th best player in baseball with a lifetime WAR of 5.  Few would rate him as the 250th best player in baseball.

The steals thing is absurd too.  Dee Gordon is a star player in Rotiserie due to his speed and steals.  In reality, he's a replacement lever player with a WAR at 0.  The very fact that the expert fantasy columnists even mention Dee Gordon or Juan Pierre as "good players to get" proves the distorted system.

Added 8 May 2012.  More evidence that Dee Gordon is a bad player.  Also here.

This league has a fairly low maximum of 180 games started for the year.  So, managers are gaming the system by looking for wins (and saves) from non-starting pitchers, i.e., late inning relievers.  Aroldis Chapman is a superb example of the pitcher you'd be looking for.  Now he's a great pitcher, pitching in high leverage situations, but he is there for his wins.  And, for the most part, his wins do not come from his skill.  They come from his teammates scoring runs off the other team's pitcher.  And they are fairly random.  Every week the Hardball Times has a column "THT Awards" documenting pitchers who undeservedly miss out on wins, or undeservedly gain wins.  Wins are partly due to pitcher skill, and largely a crap shoot.

This league allows for infinite moves.  So teams are constantly "streaming" in pitchers.  Some of our teams have zero starting pitchers on their roster.  Zip, zero, nada.  Completely unrealistic.  Now, I do some streaming in the points league.  But most of the expert picks for streaming in pitchers is really about picking their opponent.  Many picked Phillip Humber vs. the Mariners.  Not because Humber can be mistaken for Justin Verlander, but because Humber is a pretty good pitcher and the Mariners can't hit very well.  In effect, in streaming, you are often choosing your opponent.  Now, correct me if I'm wrong, but in real baseball you don't get to pick your opponents!  In effect, the fantasy teams are constantly calling up starters for one game, then sending them back to the minors in between.  Real teams can't do this.

With infinite moves, managers will swap players on a daily basis depending on matchups.  Or, if one team has the day off and another has a double header, they will swap for a hitter who will get more at bats.  Not very realistic.

I find that Rotiserie is much more "how to game the system" than "how to pick and follow good baseball players".  And, as you read the expert columnists and daily picks (Hardball Times also has a good column, the "Daily Grind", for ideas on streaming in players) I think you'll see that is the case too.  

Fantasy Baseball 2012 Starts

Our Head-to-head points league had it's draft yesterday.  We use standard ESPN points, with the exceptions that strikeouts do not count -1 against a hitter, but errors do.  And a blown save is only -2, not -5.  So the player rankings are significantly different than the more typical "rotissery" 5x5 league.  I did a lot of practice mock drafts beforehand, and a lot of that effort was wasted because the points and ranking are so completely different.  But it got me familiar with the draft application so that I only hit the wrong key once.  Note that our league allows up to 12 starts per week, so having six, or even more, good starters is one of my strategies.  I tend to devalue relievers.

A few of us had glitches with the rankings in the draft application.  In my case, catchers were all listed at absurdly high numbers, e.g. Buster Posey was listed at some number in the 3000s.  Fortunately, my strategy was to pretty much ignore catchers unless they fell really low.  So I changed it to "ignore catchers completely" and pick up one in the last round.  Our rosters have 27 players, so we had 27 rounds.

My thoughts and comments round to round.  At least one of the teams, the Peregrine Falcons, missed the emails about the draft and she was represented by the computer "auto-picks".  And I think the Ewoks and Nerds may have been also computerized.  If so, the computer did a pretty good job for those two.  And you can submit your own ranking and strategy for the picks, which perhaps they did.

My thoughts and comments.  I had pick #2, too early for my taste.  Since it is a "snake" draft, that means that in alternating rounds I have the 2nd and the 9th pick.  My good friend, Dan Quill, (SF Marauders, he's a big Giants fan) had pick #1 (and then #10) so a lot of times we were competing for the same players.  PLayer #3, the Peregrine Falcons, was on my "other side" in some picks.  I based many of my picks on the ESPN projections for 2012, with some hunches and "I just like the player" thrown in.  As for SS, I had decided on either Tulo or "whomever looks decent sometime later on".

Round 1:  Dan picked Pujols, leaving me a tough call between Bautista and Cabrera (who rate very closely in the projections) but Bautista has the flexibility to play 3B and OF.  I figured I'd pick up a 1B much later in the draft, especially when three more (Cabrera, AGon, and Votto) went quickly.

Round 2: Andover Underdogs start the run on elite pitchers with Verlander, followed quickly by Halladay and Kershaw.  I'm seeing Prince Fielder fall down towards me.  Maybe?  The Falcons, picking before me, had the option of Longoria or Fielder.  They already had Miguel Cabrera, who will theoretically play 3B, so I figured they would take Fielder, in which case I'd have a really tough call - double up on 3B with Longoria (not a bad move, but a bit weird) or pick a pitcher.  But the Falcons took Longoria and I very happily picked Fielder as an unexpected offering at 1B.  As in round 1, a lot of top OF and 2B are picked.

Round 3: I was thinking King Felix or Lincecum, but SF Marauders of course picked Lincecum so I took Felix.  Lots of other elite pitchers (Lee, Weaver, Hamels) go.  IMO, Displaced Braves Fan gets a good deal on Curtis Granderson at #27.

Round 4,5: I was looking at Greinke and a 2B here.  I saw that Dan needed a 2B, and since I prefer Zobrist to Uggla (again, positional flexibility) I went with him.  I was pretty sure Dan would pick Uggla and Panda, which he did.  So, in round 5, I got Greinke.

Round 6,7: I wanted either Price or Shields, but I was scrolling down the list to find Matt Moore and mainly Bumgarner, who I wanted to grab before Dan.  When it came my time to pick, I messed up and picked Matt Moore instead of Shields.  Well, maybe Moore will live up to the hype!  If so, I'm a lucky genius.  If not, well, it's all for fun.  Round 7 I took Mark Reynolds, who scores very well in our system.  remember, Ks do not count against a batter!  I'm feeling real solid at the corners.  By now a lot of the top OF are gone so I figured if all else fails Reynolds can play 3B for me and I move Bautista to OF.

Round 8,9: Just in time, I pluck Bumgarner from the grasping fingers of the evil SF Marauders!  However, he grabs Chris Young, my planned pick for round 9 to start filling in the OF.  The other OF are unappealing (objectively, maybe I should take Heyward or Werth here, but they both have burned me in the past) so I pick another young and promising SP, Daniel Hudson, bringing me to five good SP.

Round 10,11: I was eyeing Nick Swisher, Neil Walker, Ackley, and Scutaro.  In round 10 I picked Ackley because he might become OF eligible (flexibility + covers the OF).  Dan, for the second time, grabs "my" OF, Swisher.  So I fill in SS (which was starting to get thin) with Scutaro, who I'm hoping has a good year at Coors.

Round 12,13: I was eyeing Gio Gonzales (I like the guy) and Carlos Lee.  Picked Gio, so of course Dan picks Lee.  To show we really do think alike, he then gets a good deal on Neil Walker.  Once again, the immediate OF offerings are bleak (Melky Cabrera was the best of a bad lot), so I pick yet another good pitcher, Anibel Sanchez.  I'm up to 7 good SP.

Round 14,15: I was eyeing Beltran, Carlos Pena (he also scores well in our system), Logan Morrison and Jeff Francoeur.  Picked Beltran, Dan picked Pena.  Which was probably good for me, forced me to pick another OF, Morrison.  I like the guy.

Round 16,17:  Jaime Garcia had fallen pretty far by my ratings.  Also looking at Torii Hunter, Josh Willingham, and Andrew Bailey.  But Torii plays for the Angels, ick.  So picked Garcia.  Dan picked Torii.  In round 17 I probably should have picked Josh Willingham for OF.  But, in a bit of frustration and a possible reach, picked Jesus Montero.  If he can hit or catch he will be a good pick at 17, if he can do both he will be a great pick.

Round 18,19: Finish off the outfield with a couple of borderline players with upside and downside, Kubel and Rasmus.  Hopefully one will pan out.  Pickings are getting thin, and lots of "borderline" pitchers like Lilly and McCarthy are going as the others fill their rosters.  Braves Fan picks Alex Rios which could be a great pick.

Round 20,21: Joe Nathan as my 1st closer.  He will get lots of chances in Texas.  Lucas Duda for 1B/OF.  Flexibility again.  But was also considering Austin Jackson and Moustakis.  In retrospect, I might have been better with Austin Jackson.

Round 22,23: I can barely recognize some of the names.  :-)  Since I'm an As fan, and still a bit dubious about my OF, I pick Yoenis Cespedes.  Then Derek Holland.  I like the guy, and I think he's a great value pick in round 23.  I now have 9 SP, so will have some flexibility to trade one.

Round 24,25: Kendrys Morales, Addison Reed.  These are my "fun" shoot for the stars picks.  Was also considering Sean Rodriquez as utility infielder, since Scutaro is my only SS.  But Scoot will become SS/2B so he could become my utility guy.  And utility guys are pretty easy to pick up on the waiver wire.

Round 26,27: Steven Drew as backup SS, though looks like he may start on the DL.  And, finally, a catcher, Russel Martin.

Is free contraception a core constitutional issue?

I've seen a lot of letters and editorials that are just plain ignorantly wrong about the contraception issue.  Today's San Mateo Daily Journal had two.

In a letter, Jorg Aadahl writes that "religious zealots ... (want to) deny women access to contraceptives." as part of a "war on women".  In case you missed it, Jorg then repeats that they are "trying to deny others the right to plan for their own families" and that this is a "war on women's rights".

In an editorial, Michelle Durand writes that, under a potential President Santorum, aspirin would "be the only contraception available", and, repeating the "war" analogy, "reproductive rights are in the crosshairs" and decries "attacks on women’s rights"

Nobody is proposing to outlaw contraceptives!.  Catholic bishops, and their supporters, just don't want to be forced to pay to provide free coverage, on moral grounds.  Women will still be able to obtain contraceptives, just like most Catholic women do today.  The letter and editorial are pure political posturing.

I have to believe that these writers know this, but are harping on a political point.  Why not, Obama is using the issue to woo women voters.

For the record, I think the Catholic position on contraception is silly, and their justifications for it unconvincing.  But  that doesn't matter.  I don't get to decide which religious position is "right", nor does the US Government, unless it has a "compelling interest".  See also the RFRA, which applies to Federal laws.  It clarifies that "A compelling interest relates directly with core constitutional issues."  Now, I'm not on the Supreme Court, but it's hard to imagine that free contraception is a core constitutional issue.

For those on the left who are knowingly, unconstitutionally bashing religion to woo women voters, I say shame.  And for women voters who buy into their argument, shame on them too.

Was this a "victory" for Gay Rights?

The Ninth Circuit Court overturned California's Prop 8, which banned gay "marriage".  For the record, though I lean conservative on fiscal issues, I am for Gay Marriage.  Ideally, I think the state should get out of the "Marriage" issue completely, that is a religious term, but that barn door has been open too long to be closed.  So, as a fallback, I am for Gay Marriage.  Should I be cheering?

The strange, narrow basis for the ruling really concerns me.  And it seems unfair to both sides of the argument.

The appeals panel's majority said Tuesday that Proposition 8 must be invalidated because California's existing laws related to domestic partnerships already give gay couples the same state rights as opposite-sex couples. So in effect, they said, Proposition 8 took away the significant designation of "marriage" while leaving in place all of marriage's legal rights and responsibilities.

So, because California was liberal/generous/open enough to offer a fully equal legal status for domestic partnerships, the ruling says that it must also allow these to be called "marriage".  Imagine yourself as a religious conservative opposing this decision.  Your only logical conclusion is that you should never have been "nice" enough to give any ground and allow domestic partnerships.  Next time a minority group wants "just a few" more rights, screw them, because, as proved by the 9th Circuit Court, it really is a slippery slope.  This decision will rally and harden conservative opposition.  I don't know if any conservative states still prohibit domestic partnerships, but, if there are, the chance of gays obtaining that right just went way down.  Or, if their domestic partnership laws aren't quite equal to marriage rights, they will darned tooting remain unequal, otherwise these "liberal judges" will force them to allow marriage.

The Obama administration is already in a fight with Catholic institutions, attempting to force them to provide contraception coverage.  So, a religious conservative can easily imagine their church, mosque or synagogue being forced to perform a gay marriage.  While I support Gay Marriage, forcing others, against their conscience, to perform the ceremony is a violation of religious liberty and the First Amendment.

And, if I were Gay, I'd be worried by this decision.  The right to "marry" is based upon a very narrow legalistic interpretation of existing laws, not a fundamental right of equality.  And, in any case, it came through the courts, not through acceptance of the general population.  Which ultimately should be the goal, even if that will take time.  And, IMO, this decision pushed that acceptance further into the future.

ADA Shows that America is more polarized, and who is causing it

Americans for Democratic Action, a liberal advocacy group, rates House and Senate members for how well they vote for liberal interests.  All perfectly fine.  A recent study and explanation can be found here.  The graphs (also below) clearly shows more polarization.

So, who is causing this polarization?  Both the Democrats (blue) and Republicans (red) are voting more "in lockstep", as shown by the narrowing bands of color.

However, liberal papers like the New York Times constantly complain of the Republicans moving to the "far right", to the "extreme".  Are they?  From the picture, it appears that they may be moving slightly to the right (down).  However, in comparison, what is immensely clear is that the Democrats are moving strongly to the left (up).

So, according to a liberal advocacy group, and their data, it is not the Republicans, but the Democrats who are moving to the extremes.

Wow, it's not even November, and New York Times is in full frothing at the mouth mode

Check out today's New York Times editorial, calling Newt Gingrich a lying racist.  I'm sorry, it's one of those things where I understand the individual words and sentences, but not the meaning of anything they are trying to say.

...Mr. Gingrich has made racial resentment an integral part of his platform...presenting African-Americans with the great revelation that they should prefer paychecks to federal handouts. 

Is "great revelation" praise, or sarcasm?  If it is meant as praise, the section is self-contradictory, because where is the racial resentment?  And, if is it sarcasm (as I suspect), it means that the editorial writers are seriously proposing that federal handouts are preferable to paychecks.  In conclusion, this section literally makes no sense.

Newt blames Obama for putting lots of people on food stamps (SNAP).  Now, one could legitimately argue that it was Bush's policies, globalization, and/or the financial crisis that really caused this, not Obama.  But, to my great surprise, the NYT does not blame Bush or Wall Street for this,  Instead, they quibble.

The fact is that Mr. Obama has “put” no one on food stamps. People apply for food assistance...because they’re poor or out of work...

Puhleese.  Presidents get praised or blamed for job creation, inflation, whatever all the time.  Even if they have little to do with it.  Imagine the following argument in an editorial:  "Obama/Bush has not 'put' anybody on unemployment.  People apply for unemployment when they get fired..."  I can't.

The NYT editorial goes to great pains to mention that whites far outnumber blacks receiving SNAP benefits.  Duh!  Whites far outnumber blacks in total.  The relevant number is percentage, which the NYT does not provide.  In any case, why is this relevant?  As quoted by the NYT, Newt said "The fact is that more people have been put on food stamps by Barack Obama than any president...".

The editorial continues

But these are inconvenient details to Mr. Gingrich, who implied that the rise in federal aid was a sad indication of the insufficient work ethic of black Americans.

None of the quotes attributed to Newt in the editorial even mention black Americans.  Even if the NYT Editorial Board now includes Matt Parkman from the Heroes TV series and can read Newt's mind and knows that he is a racist, it is factually incorrect, based upon the quotes presented, to write that Newt said or implied that black Americans have a poor work ethic.  He did nothing of the sort.

Newt then proposes that poor children (not "black children") be employed in jobs such as school janitors.  He cites his daughter doing so and benefiting from the experience.  The editorial responds:

Don’t try to follow any kind of logical thread of why the president wouldn’t want the jobless rate to decrease...

Don't try to follow any kind of logical thread in the editorial, because children don't count in the jobless rate!  But this kind of talk from Newt is "divisive".

For the record, I'm not a big Newt fan.  But this editorial is absurd in its criticisms, which are not supported by a single iota of evidence.

Oh yeah, check out the comments, which are even more wildly hostile and hateful.  I'm just going to mention the first two I saw.  MJR calls the Republican Presidential Debate a "KKK rally".  And has 35 "thumbs up" votes.  Julieanne Wozniak says "Newt is rich white trash...Newt is an odious, possibly narcissistic excuse for a human being, a waste of breathable air."  And earns 43 thumbs up.

Enjoy November.  It's going to be an incredibly hostile and bitter campaign.

A slightly useful Paul Krugman Editorial

A recent Paul Krugman editorial takes Mitt Romney to task for some arguably misleading statements about jobs lost or created by Romney and Obama.  I agree that Obama inherited a mess and it is unfair to count jb losses from, say, February 2009 against him.

Krugman then takes issue with Romney's claim of 100,000 jobs created by Staples, Sports Authority and Dominos.  True, not all the jobs were created under Romney's tenure.  Krugman asks, rhetorically, "Can he claim credit for everything good that has happened to the company in the past 12 years?".  Of course not.  But he can claim credit for some of it, by putting the companies on a good path to growth.  And, let me point out, that the 2000s were an overall bad time for the US economy.  Obama inherited a mess and deserves some credit for starting the economy back on the right track.  But, to be fair, Krugman should give Romney credit for his companies doing well even through the lousy 2000s.  Of course he won't.

The rest of the editorial is more of the recent Krugman sophistry similar to his recent column "well, the debt is not a problem, we owe most of it to ourselves".  And well, if Staples did well, maybe Office Depot didn't, so Romney must take the blame for their job losses.  Sorry, I'm calling B.S. here.  You aren't going to blame your pitcher for lowering the batting average of the other team, are you?  "Sorry Gio, you got us 3 extra wins but that came at the expense of the Baltimore Orioles who had three extra losses.   So, overall wins for the league were equal, no raise for you."  Like that would work...

Krugman then goes into a complete non-sequiter.

"In any case, it makes no sense to look at changes in one company’s work force and say that this measures job creation for America as a whole."

True,  But need I point out the obvious?    Romney wasn't responsible for America as a whole.  Nor did he claim to be.  This is a complete Red Herring, ascribing a ridiculous false argument to your opponent then tearing it down.  Listen to Obama and you'll hear a lot of the same.

Krugman claims that Romney destroyed good jobs.  Maybe Romney did.  Perhaps Krugman, Nobel Prize Laureate economist with access to lots of data and papers, could cite a number?