Category News

Switching to Chained-CPI and How Politicians Spin it

Danny Vinik Leave a comment

I’m getting a bit annoyed at the liberal blogosphere about how they’re spinning the proposal to use chained-CPI for Social Security. Here’s Ezra Klein:

The way we measure inflation right now really does mismeasure inflation. Chained-CPI really is a bit more accurate. But that’s not why we’re considering moving to chained-CPI. If all we wanted to do was correct the technical problem, we could make the correction and then compensate the losers.

But no one ever considers that. The only reason we’re considering moving to chained-CPI because it saves money, and it saves money by cutting Social Security benefits and raising taxes, and it’s a much more regressive approach to cutting Social Security benefits and raising taxes than some of the other options on the table.

The question worth asking, then, is if we want to cut Social Security benefits, why are we talking about chained-CPI, rather than some other approach to cutting benefits that’s perhaps more equitable? The answer is that chained-CPI’s role in correcting inflation measurement error is helpful in distracting people from its role in cutting Social Security benefits. Politicians who are unwilling or unable to offer a persuasive political or policy rationale for cutting Social Security benefits are instead hiding behind a technocratic rationale. We’re not “cutting benefits,” we’re “correcting our inflation measure.”

Emphasis mine. I sympathize with Ezra’s annoyance here. Switching to chained-CPI is being billed as a “technical fix.” If we wanted to implement such a technical fix, we don’t need it to be part of a grand bargain. Social Security benefits should increase with inflation. If we’re using the wrong measure of inflation, then we need to fix that. The reason Republicans are so set on fixing it now is because their ultimate goal is to cut benefits, not to correct the inflation measure. Thus, Ezra’s right when he says:

We’re not “cutting benefits,” we’re “correcting our inflation measure.”

However, Ezra makes the exact same error in the bolded section above. Continue reading “Switching to Chained-CPI and How Politicians Spin it” →

Are Senators Warner and Manchin “Shameless + Untrustworthy?”

Danny Vinik Leave a comment

Here’s a tweet from Time Magazine writer Michael Grunwald:

grunwaldI tweeted with Mr. Grunwald briefly about this and I don’t quite agree. He’s referring to the separate remarks by Senator Mark Warner (D-VA) and Senator Joe Manchin (D-WV) stating that they’ve changed their opinions on gun control and now want stronger regulation.

Grunwald tweeted: “I’m suggesting they’re not really switching their opinion, and people shouldn’t get their hopes up” and “But in our business we don’t have to pretend awful opportunists aren’t awful opportunists. Aurora was shattering too.”

The question comes down to whether you believe Warner and Manchin changed their opinions for political purposes or really had a change of heart. Certainly, none of us knows for sure, but it’s unfair to rule out a change of heart.

Grunwald believes that Virginia Tech, Aurora and every other mass shooting would have been enough to change their minds. The fact that Warner and Manchin are doing so after Friday’s tragic events and now that there is desire for greater gun control demonstrates not a change of hearts, but a politically-motivated decision.

Maybe that’s so, but I’m not so sure.

The reason is: this time is different. It’s sad, but it’s true. The shooting at Newtown has hit people across the country harder than the ones in Aurora and in Oak Creek. Part of it is the sheer number of tragedies this year – there have been 13 shootings with multiple fatalities just in 2012. But it’s more than that.

It’s different from Aurora, Oak Creek and others. This was a targeted attack on the most innocent people in our country in one of the most innocent locations. If an elementary school in a safe town is not safe, nowhere is. That’s not to say that shootings in a movie theater or a temple should not cause widespread outrage and provoke demands for more gun control. But the shooting at Sandy Hood caused an even greater emotional response for the precise reason that it targeted little kids.

That’s what sets Newtown apart from all of the other tragic shootings.

It’s why the petition for the Obama Administration to address gun control has received a record number of signatures. It’s why people everywhere are shaken and demanding new legislation. It may just be why Senators Manchin and Warner have changed their minds.

If it turns out that they are doing so just to gain political points, then Grunwald is right, that is shameless, untrustworthy and revolting. That would be a new low for American politics and I sincerely hope it is not the case. Until I see evidence proving that, I’m willing to give them the benefit of the doubt

 

How the Press Covered Newtown and How We Must Do Better

Danny Vinik 1 Comment

A lot has already been written about how the media covered the Newtown shooting. I want to elaborate a bit.

First off, the interviewing of kids was disgraceful. End of story. Under no circumstances should a journalist ever do that again.

Secondly, the press bungled nearly every fact in this case. I know everyone was trying to get the full story right away, but it was a mess. We need better rules for how to cover these type of things: until a police chief announces the facts, do not speculate. In fact, do not even investigate. Who gets the story first in these types of tragedies is entirely meaningless. The point is to get it correct. That means for journalists on Twitter, on TV, in blog posts or in news stories, until there has been a definitive statement, do not report something as fact and stay away from speculating. Period.

Finally, Forbes Joseph Grenny penned an excellent post on how the media covers mass shootings, just before the tragedy in Connecticut. It’s even more important now:

This week, I watched in horror with most of America, as yet another person unleashed a furry of bullets in a busy Portland, Oregon, mall killing two and injuring others. But my horror was twofold. The first misery came as I heard the names and numbers of victims and thought about the pain they and their families will endure for the rest of their lives. The second dose came as I held my breath, hoping and praying the media wouldn’t amplify the violence.

But they did.

They did exactly what they needed to do to influence the next perpetrator to lock and load.

  1. They named the shooter.
  2. They described his characteristics.
  3. They detailed the crime.
  4. They numbered the victims.
  5. They ranked him against other “successful” attackers.

Public shootings are a contagion. And the media are consistent accomplices in most every one of them.

Grenny is absolutely right here. Who cares what the shooters name is? Let him die or rot in jail anonymously. His characteristics are slightly more important, since we should have a debate on mental health care in America. But no sane person commits such a malicious act. If the shooter wasn’t diagnosed with a mental health disorder before, it’s not because that disorder wasn’t there. We don’t need to know whether it was diagnosed. He had one and it should spur on a national debate on our mental health care policy without needing to dive into his background.

Detailing the crime is slightly more important so as to know how to prevent these in the future. If people weren’t convinced before this week’s attack that we need an assault weapon ban, they should be now. Nevertheless, we should’ve done this eight years ago when the previous law lapsed. Knowing the details of the crime doesn’t change that.

Numbering the victims is inevitable. Same with ranking them. But I agree with Grenny. There is no reason to do this. We can release names and mourn their losses without creating a ranking and scoreboard for other future attacks to see as a challenge.

I’m still nowhere near over this tragic event. I’m still really angry. We need a debate on gun control, mental health care and community values. We need it now.

In the meantime, we also need to learn how to cover these stories better, because as much as I hope to God there never is another one of these, that’s very unlikely to be the case. It’s about time the media (including me and everyone else tweeting) decides to put moral values above the story. It’s time to do anything in our power to stop these from happening again. If that means that the American public learns fewer details about these horrific events, that’s a small price to pay.