Remember those "economists" who signed a letter urging the state to raise taxes? It turns out the Washington Policy Center discovered:
...that nearly half of letter signers, eleven of 28, are not economists. The non-economists include:
* an associate professor of public health administration
* a sustainable systems analyst
* an assistant professor of social work
* a research associate in sustainable agriculture
* a public policy researcher
* two historians
* four professors of public affairs
Oops.
Posted by Eric Earling at February 24, 2009 12:09 PM | Email ThisThe depravity of most Democrats is alarming. I assume those fakirs are Democrats; that is the Democrat M.O.
Posted by: swatter on February 24, 2009 12:17 PMFacts can be so damned inconvenient.
Posted by: Hinton on February 24, 2009 12:31 PMPfft. Same goes for right-wingnuts, including those who are supposed to be informing us on policy:
Recently a group of economists affiliated with the Cato Institute ran an ad in the New York Times opposing the Obama's stimulus plan. As chair of my department I tried to arrange a public debate between one of the signatories and a proponent of fiscal stimulus -- thinking that would be a timely and lively session. But the signatory, a fully accredited university macroeconomist, declined the opportunity for public defense of his position on the grounds that "all I know on this issue I got from Greg Mankiw's blog -- I really am not equipped to debate this with anyone."
Posted by: demo_kid on February 24, 2009 12:38 PMSorry, Eric... you and the WPC lose credibility on that one.
Posted by: demo_kid on February 24, 2009 12:41 PMWas that a triple negative that you just posted? Clearly, we can add english major to economics major for your resume.
Posted by: The dude on February 24, 2009 12:51 PMThe actual press release by the Washington State Budget and Policy Center says that the letter was signed by "over 20 leading economists and public policy experts". Clearly, this does not mean all signers were economists. Certainly, the largest number were economists and the rest were experts of various sorts in other areas of public policy.
Posted by: Richard Pope on February 24, 2009 01:10 PM@11: Can't refute my argument, eh? Too bad.
Posted by: demo_kid on February 24, 2009 01:12 PMRs are stereotyped as tax cutters and reducing services.
Ds are stereotyped (including Ahnold) are tax and spenders.
Believe it or not, services the government should never have gotten involved in, but are now necessary, are already hurting financially. Go back to the days when government was commerce and law enforcement? Sure, I would like that but that time passed a 100 years ago.
Posted by: swatter on February 24, 2009 01:13 PMI read the Wall Street Journal at a Holiday Inn Express last night, therefore I am an economist.
That sums up demo_kid's argument.
Cant you follow my logic? I used your elegant prose prominetly displayed @ # 7. Allow me to clarify: just cause you're not capable of not making sense of my sentence structure doesn't mean you're not incapable of missing my point. See how clear that is?
Posted by: The dude on February 24, 2009 01:33 PMAgain, similar to what the definition of 'is' is. :)
First, you can study tax policy and economics and not be in an economics department. Case in point I noted above, and that was the first one I checked.
Second, you're quite okay with the fact that a chemistry professor trots out the Oregon Petition, when many of those so-called "experts" have little to nothing to do with climate change research (including the head of the initiative himself). Why don't you go through that and tell me how many of those sods are qualified to talk about atmospheric science?
Sheesh. I'm not the one "impermeable to logic" here.
Posted by: demo_kid on February 24, 2009 02:08 PMIf they did, I think the voters would have kept them in office.
Posted by: BA on February 24, 2009 02:48 PMIs it because he's not supporting YOUR opinion, or is it because he's not an economist?
Posted by: Shanghai Dan on February 24, 2009 02:50 PMYou are completely correct; is it any surprise that those who's entire life consists of sucking on the public teat believe that the teat needs to be bigger?
Of more interest than how many had formal degrees in economics (apparently 15 of them), would be how many work in the private, FOR profit sector. My guess would be less than 2.
IMHO, if you've never run a business, or never managed a budget and staff in private industry for at least 5 years, you are simply unqualified to make ANY intelligent statement about actual, real world markets and economics.
Posted by: Shanghai Dan on February 24, 2009 02:54 PMThe unnecessary waste of a trillion dollars in political payoffs will do nothing to help us out of this mess... in fact the CBO says it will hurt the recovery.
I guess they're just not interested in staying on the payroll as much as the idiots supporting more economy-killing tax increases.
Posted by: hinton on February 24, 2009 04:35 PMJust because they 'study' economics doesn't cut it.
They misrepresented themselves as economists when they are not.
I farm and have animals. I give them shots, treat their medical issues. I am not about to sign some document as DaveH, Veterinarian.
The mistake was made by a political blogger for the Tacoma News Tribune, who referred to all the signers as "economists" on a political blog on the TNT website that relatively few people read.
Rather than properly criticized the TNT political blogger for making this mistake, Eric Earling instead implicitly impugns the integrity of the Washington State Budget and Policy Center, who authored the letter and its press releases. Basically something approaching "false light" defamation. Not something anyone could or would sue over, but certainly a lack of intellectual honesty.
Posted by: Richard Pope on February 24, 2009 04:58 PMThe mistake was made by a political blogger for the Tacoma News Tribune, who referred to all the signers as "economists" on a political blog on the TNT website that relatively few people read.
Rather than properly criticized the TNT political blogger for making this mistake, Eric Earling instead implicitly impugns the integrity of the Washington State Budget and Policy Center, who authored the letter and its press releases. Basically something approaching "false light" defamation. Not something anyone could or would sue over, but certainly a lack of intellectual honesty.
Posted by: Richard Pope on February 24, 2009 04:58 PMWhat if the state adopted a tax increase and those who pay the taxes simply followed the example of Tom Daschle, Tim Geithner, Charles Rangal, and the unknown number of liberal elitists who cheat like hell to avoid their tax obligations?
Can you imagine what would happen if the top 25% of earners just said no to being robbed so Barrack and Christine can give their money to their voters?
Posted by: Reality on February 24, 2009 05:09 PMThey have a vested interest in tax increases. Do they not?
Posted by: Bill Cruchon on February 24, 2009 05:36 PMjust cause you're not capable of not making sense of my sentence structure doesn't mean you're not incapable of missing my point. See how clear that is? -Posted by The dude at February 24, 2009 01:33 PM
Hysterical...thanks for the laugh.
Richard Pope using the words "intellectual honesty" in a disparaging manner is somewhat amusing considering his past history. You're hardly in a position to judge that characteristic in others, Richard.
Posted by: Rick D. on February 24, 2009 06:06 PM"Although both cuts in government spending and tax increases have the potential to slow economic growth, cutting government spending would likely have the most immediate impact by directly reducing consumption. Tax increases are less problematic because individual consumers, especially those with higher-incomes, are unlikely to reduce consumption by the full amount of the tax increase.(emphasis added) "
This myth has been propagated by the leftards for decades now even though it has been proven wrong time and again. A Good article from the folks at The Heritage foundation covers it pretty succinctly with plenty of citations to back it up. Well worth the time reading it either side of the issue you happen to fall on.
Who knows, after reading it, you may even qualify to pen your name as a "leading economist" in future WA state budget and policy center joint letters to State leaders.
"The social work professor listed on there, for example, *specifically* studies taxes. "
Yeah and I got a janitor that *specifically* studies rocket science too!
So under Demented Kid's thesis, I can pontificate on Climate Science because even though my degree is not in climate science (it is the hard sciences), I too can be a climate expert.
Posted by: pbj on February 24, 2009 07:22 PM@ 60 ~ if anyone comes off as patronizing it's "that one"......you had to like Jindal referencing the "volcano monitoring" in the swindle-us bill and his line that Gov't should be more concerned with the "eruption" of federal spending.:)
Another effective Jindal speaking the reality of individuals having the capacity to create rather than platitudes from the POTUS on what big Government can provide you "chattering classes" (to quote UpChuck Schumer D-NY).
If he cleans up the corruption in LA, he'll have good credentials.
Posted by: KS on February 24, 2009 08:31 PMBut, at Geoff Simpson's recommendation a couple years ago, I have looked at the State services and have found there are few that can be cut without destroying people's lives. How we got to where we are providing so many services outside basic government, I may not like it, but it is there.
I always like to think we can cut government 15-20% max and still maintain the basic services. This would still upset greatly 50% of the voters, so this, too, is an ideal that won't be realized. So, I say 10%, which is what the legislators used to do in the old days.
Posted by: swatter on February 25, 2009 07:26 AMYou can be an idealist and tilt at windmills and try to slay the size of Government, but it's just not going to happen.
Swatter's right - we're stuck with what we got. He's quite conservative, but he's also a realist (as am I). We're stuck with what we got simply because half the country wants a big Federal government. Until that mindset is changed, we're not going to make headway into cutting the size of the Feds - there simply isn't the political muscle to do what I - and am sure Swatter - believe really needs to happen.
Rather than waste our time with a Sisyphean effort, what we CAN do is slow the growth of Government. A concerted effort by Conservatives to limit the growth of Government to inflation plus population growth. That should be plenty. Do not cut a single program, nor lay off a single Federal employee. Let it all stand, and let it grow by a rate proportional to the cost: inflation plus population growth.
The key here is that the GDP historically (over the last 80 years) grows FASTER than that rate. And since the receipts of the Federal Government are pretty much a consistent 20% of GDP (see Hauser's Law), that means receipts will grow faster than the the spending of the Government.
In 6 years, we grow out of the deficit - we start into surpluses. Then hold that for a few decades, and the national debt is gone (20 years of a 2.5% of GDP budget surplus kills the $10 trillion debt).
THIS is a realistic plan to start limiting Federal government, and to eliminate the deficit and address the debt. What can the Slavers complain about? There isn't a single program being eliminated, and not a single Federal employee laid off. In fact, those programs are INCREASING spending each year by a rate consistent with the expenses incurred by each and every American.
This plan can work, and it's quite realistic and pragmatic.
Posted by: Shanghai Dan on February 25, 2009 08:16 AMDo you have the same opinion of the HEAD OF THE IPCC, Dr.Rajendra Pachauri? If you research his bio, you will see that he has a BS in Industrial Engineering, a Ph.D. in Industrial Engineering, and a Ph.D. in Economics. He has worked for several Rail companies in a managerial capacity, worked for 3 years for an Oil company, but has no formal training in climate scinece whatsoever. (see bio link below)
http://www.climatescience.gov/Library/bios/pachauri.htm
Can I assume you will now be renouncing the IPCC, since their head has no formal training in climatology?
Furthermore, Dr. hypocrite Pachauri does not believe that India should be required to control their emissions.
"New Delhi, July 8 (IANS) R.K. Pachauri, head of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), Tuesday slammed developed countries for asking India and China to cut greenhouse gas emissions while they themselves had not taken strong steps to cut down pollution. "India can not be held for any emission control. They (developed countries) should get off the back of India and China," Pachauri told reporters here.
"We are an expanding economy. How can we levy a cap when millions are living with deprivation? To impose any cap (on India) at a time when others (industrialised countries) are saying that they will reach the 1990 level of emission by 2025 is hazardous," Pachauri said."
http://www.thaindian.com/newsportal/enviornment/get-off-indias-back-pachauri-tells-developed-nations_10069142.html
So your esteemed leader of the self-proclaimed "AGW Watchdog (IPCC)" is both unqualified and a hypocrite when it comes to climatology.
Rather typical of the far left.
BTW, a chemistry professor is eminently more qualified to speak about atmospheric sciences than an economist or industrial engineer. (But then you knew that didn't you. You just don't have any intellectual honesty about you, demo_kid.)
Go ahead, tilt at your windmills. The way to slay the beast is to first STOP FEEDING IT. Then you can work on killing it. To try to go for the kill-stroke immediately is insanity.
Posted by: Shanghai Dan on February 25, 2009 04:26 PMNobody is talking about a kill-stroke immediately. However, your buddy swatter wants to pay increase Taxes and increase the Feeding of the Monster, something you've never spoke against. I'm for reducing Government not, destroying it. Your use of this Ridiculous Claim against me is a typical tactic of the Liberals in smearing their adversaries. You and swatter have a lot of Liberal Blood in your veins. Your disingenuous retort proves it.
As a side note: I have agreed with your comments in the past. My opinion of you was of respect. That respect has been reduced with your last post.
Posted by: Daniel on February 25, 2009 05:31 PMI really don't care what you think of me; my ego does not rise and fall with Internet forums.
That said, I think you're missing the point swatter and I are talking about. You turn a ship by first starting to heave to port or starboard. Starve the beast. Do it in a way that is essentially politically impossible to oppose.
There is strategic discussion (ultimately greatly reduce the size of Government) and tactical discussion (how to go about that in a series of actions). Swatter and I are discussing tactics here.
If you go forth and say "we'll let Government increase by the rate of inflation and population growth, so every existing program is intact and can provide the same service it does now" you completely defang the Slavery Party's prime weapon of "it's for the CHILDREN!" type rants. You're not advocating ANYTHING like that.
And in a matter of a few years, you will have a budget surplus. You can start paying down the debt.
And when the debt drops down to less than the Federal budget, you can start cutting the budget, too...
To win the war, you have to win the battles first. This is a tactic to win the first battle - essentially "stop" the growth of the Federal budget relative to GDP. Begin the turn of the ship.
Posted by: Shanghai Dan on February 25, 2009 10:23 PMI guess you are incapable of understanding the difference between strategic and tactical decisions. Read up why Rommel lost North Africa - it wasn't a crushing blow from the Allies, it was a lack of supply lines that destroyed him.
The way to defeat the Slavers and ultimately tame the beast that is Government is not in a straight-up head-to-head battle over the role/size of Government. It is to cut off its ability to keep growing so fast. Begin starving it and it will shrink.
I'm done with this, if you can't understand this thinking, then what's the use...
Posted by: Shanghai Dan on February 26, 2009 09:39 AMI know about Rommel. It was the Allies that cut off his supply lines. It was the Allies that put pressure on other fronts that starved Rommel of manpower as well.
Read your own words. What did Rommel in? CUTTING HIS SUPPLY LINES. That is what we must do with the Federal Government.
Understand now? I don't know what else can be said...
Posted by: Shanghai Dan on February 26, 2009 07:12 PM
