Home > The Economy > The fiscal cliff and baby killing doctors

The fiscal cliff and baby killing doctors

from Dean Baker

Extreme opponents of abortion sometimes refer to obstetricians who perform abortions as “baby killing doctors.” The media do not adopt this language in their coverage of the debate over abortion, and instead use more neutral language.

Unfortunately the media do not feel the same need for objectivity elsewhere. Many of the country’s most important news outlets openly embrace the agenda of the rich and powerful, allowing this agenda to color its coverage of major economic issues. 

This is perhaps nowhere better demonstrated than in its coverage of the current budget standoff between President Obama and Congress, which the media routinely describe as the “fiscal cliff.” This terminology seriously misrepresents the nature of the budget dispute as everyone in the debate acknowledges. There is no “cliff” currently facing the budget or the economy.

If there is no deal reached this year then on January 1, daily tax withholdings will rise by average of about $4 per person. Any money actually deducted from pay checks will be refunded if a deal is subsequently reached that returns tax rates to 2012 levels. Government spending probably won’t change at the start of the new year since President Obama has considerable discretion over the flow of spending. No one can think that this modest increase in tax withholdings would plunge the economy into a recession, but the Wall Street types seeking to dismantle Social Security and Medicare have used their enormous wealth and their allies in the media to generate precisely this fear across the country.

One way in which they have pushed this recession fear has been to misuse projections from the Congressional Budget Office (CBO). CBO’s projections show that if higher tax rates and lower spending are left in place for the whole year then it will substantially slow growth and push the economy into a recession.

However, these projections explicitly assume that we go a whole year without reaching a deal. They say nothing about what happens if we get a deal by the second or third week of January. Even a Washington Post editor should be sharp enough to understand this distinction, nonetheless many stories have appeared that imply the recession projections apply to missing the January 1 deadline.

The other deception that the Wall Street types have used to push their Social Security and Medicare cutting agenda is to claim that the markets are demanding that these programs be cut. This sort of assertion, which is treated as a fundamental truth by the Washington insider crowd, has the wonderful feature that it cannot possibly be contradicted by evidence.

Of course none of us knows exactly what will trouble the financial markets or how much it will matter to the economy if something does trouble the markets. (As a factual matter, even a sustained drop in the stock market has a limited effect on the economy and short-term fluctuations have almost no impact.) This means that when the Wall Street types or their designated spokespeople make authoritative sounding claims that the markets will be upset if we don’t cut Social Security or Medicare as part of a budget deal, there is no direct way to refute them. After all, it is possible that they will be right.

If economic reporters did their job they would be looking for evidence to support these assertions about financial markets. They could start by looking at the track records of those issuing the warnings. If they did examine the track records of people with organizations like the Campaign to Fix the Debt and other deficit hawks, they would tell their audiences that these “experts” have the distinction of being almost 100 percent wrong on just about all their economic predictions over the last five years.

This crew has been predicting that large budget deficits would cause interest rates to skyrocket ever since President Obama’s first stimulus almost four years ago. Many also predicted inflation would explode. Of course none of them warned of the housing bubble; they were running around the country yelling about the budget deficits even when the deficits were small enough that the debt to GDP ratio was actually declining.

In short, major national news outlets have adopted wholesale the agenda of a Wall Street elite that displays zero evidence of any understanding of what drives the economy. Their assertions that the markets will panic without a budget deal that cuts Social Security and Medicare has no apparent foundation in reality. It is just a threat that they have concocted to advance their agenda. Now that would make for a very good news story.

See article on original website

About these ads
Categories: The Economy
  1. Bruce E. Woych
    December 5, 2012 at 3:29 pm

    http://economy.money.cnn.com/2

    “We now think of the “fiscal cliff” as a more specific term referring to
    the Bush tax cuts expiring on December 31 and the sequester on
    January 2. Bernanke thrust that meaning of the term into the public eye
    on February 29, 2012,
    when he spoke before the House Committee on Financial Services:…

    http://economy.money.cnn.com/2

    Considering the psychology of the market and the impact of a term used by a central figure in the economy, it is difficult to say whether Bernanke’s use of this term (see the article @ the link) was intended to sway the Committee or the Markets themselves. One way or the other the intentional use of the term “Fiscal Cliff” was quickly politicized and mounted by media for affect & effects (aka: manipulation).

  2. Jorge Buzaglo
    December 5, 2012 at 4:37 pm

    Progressives would find help from Adam Smith himself for an economically and socially highly healthy military/security cutting agenda.
    ”The whole, or almost the whole public revenue, is in most countries employed in maintaining unproductive hands. Such are the people who compose a numerous and splendid court, a great ecclesiastical establishment, great fleets and armies, who in time of peace produce nothing, and in time of war acquire nothing which can compensate the expence of maintaining them, even while the war lasts. Such people, as they themselves produce nothing, are all maintained by the produce of other men’s labour. When multiplied, therefore, to an unnecessary number, they may […] consume so great a share of this produce, as not to live a sufficiency for maintaining the productive labourers.
    [… A]ll the frugality and good conduct of individuals may not be able to compensate the waste and degradation of produce occasioned by this violent and forced encroachment.” Adam Smith, The Wealth of Nations, p. 437 in Bantam Classic Edition, 2003.

    In the US, military expenditure is about half of the federal budget. Military-related expenditure is more than one trillion dollars according to some estimations.

  1. No trackbacks yet.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 10,694 other followers