Wish I'd said that meets come on Matt tell us what you really think

One way to think about conservative ideology formation in America is that many prominent conservative writers, such as National Review’s Jonah Goldberg, are kind of dim-witted and thus need to come up with principles that allow them to write about diverse issues without having any insight into anything.

Constituents Jeer Rep. Dan Lungren’s (R-CA) Support Of Bush Tax Cuts For The Rich

At a town hall last Wednesday attended by ThinkProgress, Rep. Dan Lungren (R-CA) was asked why he supports the Bush tax cuts for the wealthy since America has lost millions of jobs since its passage. When Lungren deflected, saying that everyone benefits from the Bush tax cuts and that Obama supported extending them, , several people began jeering him. Lungren, who at one point threatened to leave the Carmichael town hall, said he doesn’t know of any economists who support raising taxes during a recession.

Lungren should have been asked why leaders of his caucus want to increase taxes during a recession. He defines allowing a temporary tax cut to expire as a tax increase. Paul Ryan definitely argued against extending the payroll tax holiday. Other prominent Republican congressmen have gone mealy mouthed when asked, but, as far as I know, no Republican has endorsed not increasing the payroll tax during a recession.

If they have any problem with raising a tax not paid by rich people during this recession, now would be a great time to tell us.

Also the bit about Bush's tax cuts helping everyone first assumes that deficits never create any problems (so why not just eliminate all taxes) and second feebly attempts to mislead those who might have forgotten that the question was about the Bush tax cuts for the rich (the one's whose extension Obama opposed) not about the Bush tax cuts which apply to non rich people too (whose extension Obama supported). His claim about Obama is false as stated. He could only have made a true claim by distinguishing the cuts for the rich alone from the cuts for non rich people too. Obviously he'd rather pretend to be unable to understand plain English than do that.

Basically he took the Molotovian approach and interpreting "for the rich" as an assertion that Bush tax cuts were all strictly for the rich and not as a qualifier. To clarify my violation of Goodwinsky's law, the other case of such a dodge was the claim Stalin's foreign ministry made about the correct way to interpret the Yalta treaty.

Kevin Williamson managed to get links from almost all the guys I really wish would link to me by arguing tthat Perry's rejection of science doesn't matter (and besides the liberals he doesn't quote by name do it too so there). I don't know who Williamson is, so I decided that he is a genuinely amazingly remarkably stupid person.

That's what makes the fact that he was one of few linkers who didn't fall for the Krugman Google+ hoax so depressing.

I still think that he is an idiot. However, there seems to be lots of worse idiots out there.

Opinion leaders share opinions on Washington Post opinion leaders


Mark Sumner

George Will spent last week moaning about how Kennedy lost the Cold War and this week making comparisons between Chris Christie and Woodrow Wilson. Has anyone done a Turing Test on Will's writing lately? I do believe this stuff is being cranked out by tacking together random urls from Wikipedia with a handful of javaScript. This is one step from gibberish -- and not always one step in the right direction.

Jon Chait

Reading a Charles Krauthammer column used to be a challenging exercise. To be sure, it frequently involved sophistry, but the deception was always clever. You read through the column nodding your head until the conclusion, and you'd have to read through it a second time to discover the trick, like a condition which was possibly true in the third paragraph had become necessarily true by the seventh. It was like having your money taken by a skilled three card monte artist. But those days are long gone, and now Krauthammer just hits you ever the head and takes your wallet.

Come on Mark and Jon tell us what you really think.

Bring back Ballance all is forgiven.

I have accused the Washington Post and, especially, the www.washingtonpost.com headline person(s) of Ballance, but I really wish they would make their hatred of Rick Perry a little less obvious.

Perry’s ‘Texas miracle’ helped by government

Michael A. Fletcher 9:23 PM ET

The federal government’s role in the state’s prosperity contrasts with the “go-it-alone” image cultivated by Texas Gov. Rick Perry, who credits lack of government interference with fostering a business-friendly environment.

Call em like you see em sure, but please please look at something other than Rick Perry before you make me puke.

The Cyberdog Wrote These Posts

The Cyberdog devoured Paul Krugman's comments and won't allow comments on two of his posts.

So here they are.

How can we convince S&P to downgrade stock ?

Krugman is surprised that people say that S&P downgrade had a big effect, since the price of the downgraded securities has increased. It turns out that their evaluation of Treasury securities matters for stock prices and not the prices of Treasury securities. This is a parody of post hoc ergo propter hoc. It oculd be worse, at least the timing is right even if the signs are wrong.

I am reminded of assessments of the effects of QEII. The policy consisted of buying 7 year Treasury notes. Their price went down. To me that suggests that the policy didn't work. But some (e.g. Martin Feldstein) decided that one should look at the price of stock to determine the effect of purchases of 7 year notes. He isn't quite at the level of the people Krugman denounces, because he was casual about the timing. It was enough that two things happened in the same half year to convince him.

Krugman notes that the words "British economist John Maynard Keynes" are used without any reference to the writings (or speaches) of British economist John Maynard Keynes.

Mike Shedlock blames Keynes for over generous pensions, over large defence bailouts and, coddling bankers (we alll know how much Keynes liked bankers). This is quite funny. I propose a rule. How about requiring that assertions about the beliefs and proposals of John Maynard Keynes be based on quotes of Keynes.

Sad to say, I was pretty sure that Krugman wouldn't totally appreciate the comment by the time I read all the way down to "Comments are no longer being accepted." Krugman does not discuss Keynes. Instead he discusses "the Keynesian model" and goes on to explain

Keynesianism, in particular, is not about chanting “big government good”. It’s about viewing recessions through the lens of an economic model under which temporary increases in government spending can, under certain circumstances, help reduce unemployment. Indeed, not all recessions call for fiscal stimulus; it’s the special conditions of the liquidity trap that make it essential now

That's not Keynes. Keynes mentioned the liquidity trap twice in "The General Theory of Employment Interest and Money" but it was not at all central to his theory. I have no trouble identifying the leader of the school of thought whose doctrine is monetary policy except when in a liquidity trap then use fiscal policy" -- Paul Krugman. "It all depends on whether we are in a liquidity trap" is Krugmanian not Keynesian. I mean Keynes didn't even get to any mention of nominal quantities until after the chapter entitled "The General Theory Restated."

New Frontiers of Spam

I received an e-mail with the wonderfully paranoid subject header

"Re: The Federal Reserve Cartel: Freemasons and The House of Rothschild - by Dean Henderson"

(note the Re: which means "this is spam")

It turned out to be a teaser for this message

"Anybody need a kombucha scoby? I got some. Free to a good home."

What is a kombucha scoby ? Hmm it sounds zoogleal.

I have no idea how one can separate people from their money by offering paranoid Rothschild haters a free kombucha scoby. I will investigate further (that's it get people to investigate further -- reach through their monitors and eat their brainnss).

OK goes to a site about "John Biggs" who claims to be a journalist and hawks watches. Clearly either he is a spammer or can't manage internet security. Either way his claim " After spending four years as an IT programmer, I switched gears and became a full-time journalist" does not convince me.

Technology and Economic Transformation

Old Economy: everyone is employed taking in each other's laundry

New technology: washing machines -- will we all be unemployed

Services to the rescue: in particular financial services

New Economy: Everyone takes in everyone else's money laundering.

I was talking to myself about Iowa because I saw a dumb film about a small town guy in the big city of Cedar Rapids (including the obligatory fancy wedding reception with a cake with a little sugar statue of the bride and of the other bride because ha ha Iowa has gay marriage unlike California).

I said to myself (I am patronizing and pedantic with myself when I'm not blogging) Iowa is a farm state. That doesn't mean most people are farmers but if you look at the Iowa current account most of the money flowing in is in exchange for corn and stuff (or is Federal subsidies). Then I wondered if that is true or if more flows in in exchange for financial services. What is the gross flow of interstate financial services in the USA ? Anyone doubt it is larger than GDP ?

By the way, the film was about FIRE -- in particular a convention of insurance agents. I think the it was made on a bet -- that sounds like the most boring thing in the world -- can we make a film about it with sex and violence ? Sure you can.

I'm not telling you the title, not because I fear you will buy tickets to the film (which I liked) but because it was just what was on channel 4 of UA9688 IAD to FCO.

Following Krugman

Another economist's front lawn
(Krugman was first to implement this blogging strategy )

Today's Washington Post False claim on a point of fact

Terri Rupar wrote

House Majority Whip Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.), the party's vote counter, began his talk by showing a clip from the movie, "The Town", trying to forge a sense of unity among the independent-minded caucus.
One character asks his friend: "I need your help. I can't tell you what it is. You can never ask me about it later."

"Whose car are we gonna take," the character says.

Brian Beutler comments

A couple things. First, that's not the complete movie quote. Here's the complete quote:

Doug MacRay: I need your help. I can't tell you what it is, you can never ask me about it later, and we're gonna hurt some people.
James Coughlin: ...Whose car we takin'?

Second, having rallied their troops with the clip of a scene of two guys agreeing to a revenge attack, the man who rises to the moment for GOP leaders is...Rep. Allen West.

It's not clear if House Republicans fed an edited script to the Post, if the Post omitted the "hurt some people," line themselves, or if GOP leadership actually edited the clip itself when it was screened.

In any of the three cases the Post's reporting is inaccurate. The least bad would be case three in which, to report the facts correctly, the Post would have to have written "by showing an [edited clip] clip from the movie." To be OK the post should have explained that the clip was edited to remove the explicit reference to criminal violence. The

This article by Dan Balz (which I think is supposed to be news) perfectly illustrates how the Washington Post has gone terribly wrong.

Similar plans, similar goals, but no deal


"It’s clear why there is no deal" is the headline on www.washingtonpost.com.

The article is perfectly Ballanced. It treats Obama and Boehner identically, but the key point is that the content of proposed bills is not mentioned at all. It is an analysis of a policy debate with no mention of policy.

The key sentence " Only when it is shown that neither Boehner’s nor Reid’s plan can get out of Congress can real negotiations for a compromise begin" shows that Ballz has decided that policy has no place in a discussion of why there is no agreement.

Reid's plan is not a "compromise" it is a complete 100% concession to all of the Republican's demands. However, just because it is the current position of the leading congressional Democrat, "a true compromise" must be somewhere between it and the Republicans' current proposal.

Balz didn't write the headline, but it is a fine headline. It is clear to everyone why there is no deal -- collectively Republicans won't take yes for an answer. None is willing to compromise or even appear to compromise. Many are unwilling to vote to increase the debt ceiling. No matter how completely Democrats surrender, give in and cave, some Democratic Representatives will have to vote for a debt ceiling increase. Therefore Boehner will appear to have compromised. Therefore he won't be speaker long.

The Post's rule that one must never admit that one party deserves all of the blame is absolutely rigid. That reporting have some connection with reality is a lower priority.

It had to happen. Ezra Klein (now supervising 3 others) is beginning to note false claims of facts in Washington Post news stories.

...Lori Montgomery reports that “counting money not spent on wars that the nation is already planning to end is widely viewed as a budget gimmick, and House GOP leaders have been reluctant to include it as savings.”

There’s some truth to this argument, as I’ll explain in a minute. But the GOP is trying to have it both ways. Boehner uses the Congressional Budget Office’s deficit estimates. He doesn’t subtract trillions because he doesn’t believe the agency’s war-spending estimates are faulty. Nor do I remember him calling the savings from Paul Ryan’s budget — which Boehner voted for — fake.But the Congressional Budget Office counts trillions in war spending in its budget baseline, and Ryan’s budget cut a trillion dollars from the Iraq and Afghanistan wars.

Montgomery's claim is false. Republicans are not reluctant to count such savings when it is convenient for them. Their current refusal to count them shows that they have no respect for the truth and are psychopathic liars.

Also Montgomery has no respect for the truth and is willing to report lies without mentioning that they are lies.

I'd say the struggle is joined. I expect Klein to end up fired like Froomkin, but he was just promoted.

I might add that Montgomery made an editorial comment in a news story. She did not source her claim that "counting money not spent on wars that the nation is already planning to end is widely viewed as a budget gimmick." I think she has chosen to state her own opinion as news. Notably she did no such thing when Republicans counted such savings.

I don't know about her. She could be a smart unscrupulous partisan Republican. It is more likely that she is ignorant and determined to achieve Ballance. Either way her conduct is outrageous.

I have been typing this in comments various places. I think that Obama does not really want a grand compromise and just wants to convince the very serious villager people that he tried to give them what they want and Republicans wouldn't let him.

I think this hypothesis gets some support from the agreed fact that Obama's proposed tax increases changed from 800 B to 1.2 T from Thursday to Friday. The administration's explanation is based on the gang of six and getting to 50 in the Senate and stuff. I like the think the issue was that there was a risk of Boehner saying yes.

It is true that Boehner was making crazy proposals such as "Boehner, for instance, wanted further cuts to Medicaid, a trigger that would repeal the individual mandate and the Independent Payment Advisory Board if the entitlement cuts didn’t come through"

There is no possible justification for the proposed elimination of the new powers of the IPAB. The declared aim is to cut entitlement spending. The new more powerful IPAB would do that. The deal is that if the Democrats don't agree to new cuts, then the old cuts will be repealed.

The Republicans who campaigned as defenders of Medicare and now present themselves as defunders of Medicare can't manage to avoid contradicting themselves. But I would have thought that they would manage to avoid contradicting themselves in one proposal.

It is totally clear that the house Republican caucus views the question of us vs them -- they couldn't make it clearer that they don't give a damn about the deficit or health care or anything and are against anything Obama supports.

Ballance's last stand

Dan Balz writes what I'm sure he considers a very hard hitting column about what's wrong with the debt ceiling negotiations. He concludes the problem is the House Republican Caucus

But it’s clear that House Republicans are the principal obstacle to any grand bargain that includes substantial new revenue. Their rigid opposition runs contrary to public opinion,

But the impressive thing is that even when assigning blame, Balz feels the need to assert a false equivalence. Actually I'm not sure he felt anything. I think it is likely that he does this without thinking or imagining that there is an alternative. He wrote

Republican opposition to tax increases is an article of faith for the party, but many GOP lawmakers, particularly the freshman who came in with the support of the tea party movement, are more rigidly opposed than ever. Similarly, many Democrats, who have won elections attacking Republicans over Social Security and Medicare, remain strongly opposed to cuts in those programs.

He could also have written

Republican opposition to tax increases is an article of faith for the party, but many GOP lawmakers, particularly the freshman who came in with the support of the tea party movement, are more rigidly opposed than ever. Similarly, many Republicans, who have won elections attacking Democrats over Medicare, remain strongly determined to cut that program and eliminate it if possible.

The last campaign wasn't so long ago. Balz knows perfectly well that Republicans claimed that the PPACA cut Medicare benefits (when they didn't suggest that it established death panels). He also knows that the public disagrees with the Republicans on taxes and he must know that the public strongly agrees with the Democrats on Medicare and Social Security. What is the justification for the word "similarly." Why did Balz type that word ? It is not needed. It is not true. Did he even consider the possibility of not claiming that two things which are fundamentally different are similar ?

Notice one asymmetry. Republicans have "faith" Democrats' support for Medicare and Social Security must be based on political calculation. The possibility that people actually sincerely think that cutting those programs is a bad idea is not conceivable even though the vast majority of people in the USA sincerely think that cutting those programs is a bad idea.



Also

Negotiators have just days to show progress, with the onus on the speaker to show that he can cajole his colleagues into accepting a plan that can pass the Senate.

At only two syllables "onus" un-punches above its weight. Is Balz saying that Boehner has that responsibility -- that if he doesn't have the cojones to cajole he is in the wrong -- or is he going horse race and saying that if his caucus causes default he will suffer politically ? Does Balz even distinguish his preferences from those of the voters in his own mind.

He is enthusiastic about proposed cuts to Medicare, Social Security and Medicare. On those issues he doesn't mention public opinion, which doesn't count since the public don't agree with the very serious people.


I honestly suspect that we are watching Obama play 11-dimensional chess, which involved the sacrifice of "principle" (a knight of course) and "telling the truth about what he thinks of spending cuts when in a liquidity trap" (have to call it a pawn although the truth about economics isn't even a pawn in his game). He has managed to get the Republicans to do the one thing which villagers won't forgive -- turn down a chance to cut Medicare and Social Security. The Republicans have betrayed the entitleds' anti entitlement crusade. This will not be forgotten.

On the other hand, the public will have to forgive Obama's spinelessness as the alternative is worse.

In the country of the blind, the one eyed 11-dimensional chess player is re-elected.

I was right and Stiglitz and Krugman were wrong. Mike Konczal was wrong too. He sent me back to this post

Astute readers will notice that the action of government officials using public funding sources to provide makeshift backstops for losses of the banking sector to clear the balance sheets of toxic assets to “unlock the frozen credit market”, without having to go to Congress for funding, was also a central feature of Geithner’s PPIP plan, with FDIC stepping up to the plate once the GSEs went bust.

In fact FDIC didn't step up to the plate. For all I know, Geithner might have secretly dreamed of using the PPIP to make the FDIC bear risk and, ex ante, transfer tens of billions to shore up private banks. But the PPIP didn't force the FDIC to do anything. The FDIC kept a veto and used it.

To be fair, one might say that the FDIC stepped up to the plate but didn't swing at any sucker pitches and walked.

Also Konczal was and is very right that the GSE bailout cost a ton, because the GSE's were used to covertly bail out private entities. For some reason they bought a lot of toxic waste at prices no one else was willing to pay at the time when Paulson was desperate to bail out banks and dealing with a recalcitrant congress. A good move I guess (I think he saved the world economy) but not evidence that the government sponsoring was the source of problems -- rather it was key to a painful but necessary solution.

The Usual

Mike Konczal quotes Matt Yglesias and I lose it as always.

I think very very highly of both of them.

First, you note that we won't be in a liquidity trap forever (the qualifier "in a moving economy" is key and "moving" does not mean "with growing GDP" but "with a non trivially positive federal funds rate").

I will discuss Yglesias as quoted here (I haven't clicked that link) and other things of his I read a while ago. I note that he does not deal with the issue of a liquidity trap *at all*. In particular he assumes that a higher inflation target implies higher inflation. This is not necessarily true. I can certainly imagine a world in which the Fed can't convince people that it will drive unemployment below the NAIRU when we reach it (probably after current FOMC members' terms are over) and in which it is both true and believed by investors that the FED can't do anything except manipulate short term safe interest rates. In that world, a higher declared inflation target would have no effect. An analogy might make things clear and, anyway, is fun. My inflation target is 5%. This target has not saved the economy. No one cares hat I want inflation to be, because I can't get the inflation I want. Do people really believe that the FOMC can ? If you answer yes, explain why ?

Money sitting around depends critically on what one means by money. It does not refer to retained earnings of firms which are not invested in fixed capital. That wealth is lying around, but it isn't in the form of money. They hold bonds, so what matters is the real interest rate not the inflation rate. Notably, medium term real interest rates haven't moved since Bernanke mentioned QE2 at Jackson Hole and increased for months starting when actual purchases of 7 year notes began.

The cost of holding money as opposed to other assets is the nominal interest rate. Yglesias proposes a higher federal funds rate (same real rate given higher inflation). This is a very odd form of expansionary monetary policy (I mean backwards). Wouldn't it be better to stay at the 0 bound, achieve inflation somehow, and have a lower real interest rate ? I mean Yglesias's plan for expansionary monetary policy is called contractionary monetary policy by everyone else. To stop money from lying around one needs a positive nominal interest rate. I don't think higher interest rates are what the economy needs.

The argument about mortgages is valid. It is not simple.
Many mortgages are ARMs (and especially many underwater mortgages) but many are fixed rate mortgages. I think the key question is why don't people with fixed rate mortgages refinance ? My guess is that a lot of it is unsophisticated sluggishness. But if people aren't sophisticated, they won't understand that they should base their consumption decisions on the spread between interest rates on TIPS and nominal Treasury securities will they ? I sure don't.

The people who's spending will be increased by inflation are people who are forward looking but can't refinance, because their mortgage is underwater or loaning to them was silly to begin with or their incomes have tanked. So you need people who are much much more sophisticated than average (so they look at real interest rates) *and* made huge mistakes. There are lots of such people, but not lots compared to US population.

With actual inflation slowly slowly mortgages will resurface (cease to be underwater). House prices rise with the general price level other things equal. That will help. Significantly in 2020 or so.

I think that Yglesias noted that monetary policy is very important, affects the distribution of wealth, was set for over a decade by a very hard core Randian and is ignored by progressives (basically by progressives who remember the 70s). So he studied it. But it is, as you note, tricky right now. It is hard to leave boring knowledge just sitting around waiting for the end of the liquidity trap. But it is also reality based.

Ballance all time winner

The column is pure fantasy. Both sides share the blame, because Jeff Greenfield chose to write fiction. I am not exaggerating. His article is set in the future.

I don't think it is possible to satirize Greenfield. I can't imagine a more devastating illustration of the utter intellectual depravity of radical centrism.

Ballance In a Cramped Spot

Surely, I thought, Dana Milbank can't fit ballance into a column denouncing Karl Rove

"Stephen Colbert, Karl Rove and the mockery of campaign finance"

I am so naive

"The corporate cash tends to come from a small number of private businesses owned by extreme liberals or conservatives looking to elect like-minded candidates."

OK Dana name the extreme liberals. I think the standard for being an extreme liberal is to donate to Democrats. Maybe also to be denounced by Glenn Beck. I'm pretty sure he is thinking of George Soros who was an enthusiastic supporter of the most rapid possible transition towards capitalism in his native ex-Austro-Hungarian empire. Opposing Bush is enough to be a dangerous lefty if one is needed to achieve Ballance.

Also, I wonder where Milbank got his data -- the column mainly stresses that the donations are secret. He asserts that the cash "tends" to come from closely held businesses owned by individuals and not from publicly traded corporations. How does he know that ?

It is hard to criticize liberals in a column about how the Roberts court and Rove have decided that the rich should have more ability to influence elections. So Milbank criticizes some un named and, I assert, fiction extreme leftist billionaires.

The sad thing is that I'm sure Milbank considers this a hard hitting column in which he pulls not punches (for which he will have to pay with several sneer at both your houses columns). I'f fairly sure that the dig at imaginary "extreme liberals" was made half consciously. He knows that conservatives argue that George Soros is a powerful extremist (when they are not asserting that ACORN can steal elections). He knows that the accurate claim that billionaire political extremists are all right wing will be contested (progressive billionaires fight AIDS not the GOP). So he inserted a plainly false claim to avoid debate.

We can't have debate in the Post can we.

Wow ?

The Washington Post has an on-line "poll" which asks

"Do you agree with Democrats who say that Republicans are sabotaging economic recovery for political gain?"

The results as of now are

Yes. 64%
No. 36%

This is in no way a scientific poll, but that is a pretty shocking result (I clicked yes myself).

In an important post Brian Beutler, in effect, asks "who are you and what have you done with Glenn Kessler."

I generally respect Kessler, but I think he refuses to stick to fact checking when he covers the Medicare debate. I also think he should either drop the Pinocchios or apply them consistently*.

The topic is a DSCC advertisement on Republicans and Medicare which Kessler denounced very strongly and awarded the maximum four Pinocchios.

I think that Beutler buries his main point. In a discussion with Beutler, Kessler conceded that one of the claims of fact which he marked as outrageously false is, in fact, true.

As summarized by Beutler, the advert said that " Republicans want 'to take needed health care coverage away from our seniors.'" Beutler notes that the House Budget resolution repeals most of the health care reform bill (keeping most of the Medicare cuts in the bill) and therefore repeals the closing of the Medicare plan D doughnut hole. Thus the Republicans undeniably take health care coverage away from seniors. Clearly the question of whether it is needed is a matter of opinion and firm statements on such questions are perfectly standard in political debate.

According to Beutler who is summarizing a conversation with (I think) Kessler

"The Post mostly grants this, but says it's wrong for Democrats to place so much focus on it. "In any case, it is a stretch to focus on this provision (and a couple of other issues) and then make a sweeping claim that leaves the impression that all seniors would be affected immediately. "

In other words "The Post" concedes that the claim of fact which they denounced as false is true. They argue that the truth is false, because the statement is phrased in a way which could be misinterpreted. It is clear that the phrasing was chosen to convince current Medicare recipients that they would lose more than the Medicare plan D doughnut hole. But phrasing a claim to maximize the effect is not stating a falsehood.

The Post's position is that, while the claim is technically true, that's not what really matters. In other words their fact checking is based on the principal that the truth or falsehood of claims of fact isn't fundamental.

I don't know what is happening. I think that part of what is going on is that Kessler is confusing "inflamatory" and "false." He considers the claim that Republicans voted to take health care coverage away from current recipients bad for the discussion, so it is false even if it is true. I also suspect that he strongly believes that the Medicare budget's growth should be restrained and he is allowing his views on the proper decision to affect his opinions about the accuracy of claims made in the debate.

The good news is that only a few bloggers are paying attention. It is clear that at least two fact checkers (Kessler and someone at Politifact) consider the claim that Republicans are trying to repeal and replace Medicare to be the "death panels" of 2011. It is clear that Democratic operatives don't care what fact checkers write. In this case, I think the operatives are correct on the merits, but, beyond that, I am pleased that they aren't afraid of the Washington Post.




*A large fraction of my problems with Kessler have to do with the, very striking and effective, awarding of Pinocchios. He definitely does not award them consistently. He noted in a fact check of Romney's campaign launching speech that he had awarded 4 Pinocchios to one of Romney's claims, objected to many other claims, and awarded 2 Pinocchios in the end. This just isn't fact checking. Making some true claims and some false claims must be scored as making some false claims. Fact checkers must check which claims to check -- they just can't assess which fraction of total claims of fact made by a person is accurate. Removing two Pinocchios for other claims (many of which Kessler asserted were false) is clearly inconsistent with the whole idea of fact checking and the stated definition of the Pinocchio scale.