In Which We Find the CRI Making Stuff Up Again To Try To Scare People
Seriously — they are actually PAYING money for their bullshit. And the new bullshit is today’s amateurish hand-wringing about Delaware’s debt situation and how apparently this is supposed to be a sword of Damocles for state Democrats by the CRI’s resident economist. An economist who apparently aspires to be the local version of the Laffer curve guy.
It is hard to know where to start, but let’s start with the obvious. There is not one single claim here that has been sourced to anything you can trace or check. Not a single number cited or claim made gets a reference to where you may be able to find that statistic in its original context. (There’s nothing with better references on their website, either) As most of the readers of this blog already know — this is a typical wingnut tactic. Just throw numbers and claims out there and try to make them the CW. It isn’t too hard to do — especially since any media outlet who may be inclined to explore this further will do so from the frame of this article (when will this bring down Democrats) vs whether this data is as dire as it is made out to be and what would that mean to the rest of us. Horserace vs information you can really use. If you pay attention to the local media, listen for this. If you hear them having on about Delaware’s debt being a problem for Democrats, you will have seen first hand how wingnuts get their media frames into circulation.
But let’s look at this:
First, Delaware residents are not paying the real bill for the runaway state and local government spending that has occurred over the past decade. Delaware exports 44 percent of its state and local tax burden, ranking fifth among all the states in being able to successfully shift the state and local tax burden out of state.
This isn’t even especially deft — scare people about not paying the bills for government, then tell them that the state does a pretty damn fine job of getting non-residents to pay alot of money into the system. *boggle* I have no idea where he got the ranking from, but I’m guessing that the tax shift data came from here.
Or how about this:
In addition, the state of Delaware has held taxes down by running up debt. Over the last decade, Delaware has gone from the middle of the pack on debt per capita to the fifth-highest among all states. State debt has doubled over the past seven years.
Did you catch the trick here? Comparison of a decade of debt-per-capita data to *seven years* of state debt increases. Bullshit and no references to where this data comes from again. Not to mention this glosses over what may have happened to state bonding activity over the years of the recession. There are states who reached their legal limits, some states pulled back significantly on bond activity for awhile, and part of ARRA is a subsidized Build America Bond that states can issue (and Delaware did). Plus (and I’m not completely certain of this), Delaware seems pretty disciplined about using bond revenues for capital expenditures (or in refinancing capital) rather than operational ones.
Or this:
Not to mention the fact that local property taxes are kept low because public education is funded primarily at the state level. Delaware has the third-lowest property taxes as a percentage of median home value among all the states.
So it is a *problem* that local property taxes are kept low? Or maybe he meant to say that the property taxes are artificially low, since there may not have been a reassessment in living memory. (Hyperbole) But also think about the housing bubble bust that we continue to feel the effects of and you have to wonder how much of a reassement could we have managed that wouldn’t have damaged governments more than they already were.
But, wait, there’s more!
Counter to that, the voter participation rate for government employees is typically high. AFSCME and the teachers union have been very involved in this election cycle in Delaware.
The voter participation rate for the teabaggers was very high this year too. As were the likely Chamber of Commerce types (add your repub-leaning group here). So the fact that people who belong to a union are exercising their franchise is supposed to be scary while belligerent teabaggers and their funders are not is meant to be scary to the folks who still think that ACORN stole elections.
He goes on to predict that taxes will go up because some of the tax advantages will dry up and because the stimulus goes away. He is right that the stimulus goes away and some of the advantages may dry up — but certainly not all of them — but it also means that there are likely some opportunities here too. Stapleford wants you to know that the Dodd-Frank banking regulation will also mean decreased revenues for Delaware, without ever citing *how* that might happen. Just the standard issue wingnut talk radio declaration that it will happen. What Stapleford does NOT do, however, is predict that the prices of everything will increase some and nor does he point to the magic talisman that will protect the State from having to pay any of those increased costs. Especially health care costs.
And while he is waiting for the tax burden to increase here, he certainly does not recommend any additional exercises the state can do to reduce costs even further. If someone was listening to me, I would spend more time taking a look at the work the state does that ought to be done by counties or municipalities — or in the places where that work overlaps. I mean, why does DelDOT have to do (or fund) so much of the snow plowing on non-DelDOT maintained roads? School systems do collect some portion of property taxes — telling them that the state contribution to budgets is holding at 2008 levels and they have to get the rest otherwise seems reasonable to me. There are local governments thinking about downsizing — how about helping them get there?
Which isn’t to say that this year’s budget isn’t another minefield, because it is. And Democrats should be On Notice here to navigate this minefield carefully. This is the year to make the tough decisions, because we all know all bets are off in 2012.
But of course, Stapleford’s piece isn’t about policy or even providing voters with any data that you can use to make decisions about your government. It is about trying to set up a Dems In Trouble storyline in the media, while pretending that none of these problems would even be in existence in the repubs were in control of state government. Nobody here will fall this this bullshit, but be on the lookout for the usual media suspects who *will*.
ps. I’m sure I spent way more time on this post — just looking for data! — than Stapleford did writing his BS. I, however, just gave up part of my Sunday afternoon for this with no possibility of participation in the Wingnut Welfare League. Amazing how much money conservatives have thrown out there to make sure that people are well and thoroughly lied to.
Cassandra, you are wrestling with a pig and now you need a shower. They have a whole network of these taxfoundations and taxinstitutes and taxpayerpolicyinstitutes that exist only to generate fake numbers to drive commentary like CRI’s. CRI itself is part of that network (SPN). If you go look at their numbers and work them according to the very census data that they claim they are using, their numbers never check out.
Awesome article. Mongo enjoys a thorough de-bunking of rethug talking points.
The Caesar Rodney Institute is to economic reality what fantasy football is to the eventual super-bowl championship. It is an exercise in bombast and fantasy intended to raise a framework of phony issues and false assumptions that will distract from real debate and dilute legitimate discourse. Before John Stapleford auditioned for his role as the CRI Chief Economic Policy Advisor he self-titled as an economist for “Moodys” financial group. I believe his self appointed nitch was actually “economic analyst for Moody’s.com. I don’t know if the “.com” had any connection with the actual Moody’s Investment firm but it would show some major fundamental theoretical flaws if a legitimate investment firm stood behind some of Mr. Stapleford’s previous stances. Quite frankly, his misrepresentation of the economic reality of solar, wind and other renewable energy resources as not cost-competitive and his persistent mis-analysis of other pertinent economic data seems to indicate a trend to unreliable conclusions that represent a less than objective bias against reality. Stapleford’s position that Solar and Wind Power cannot compete in the free market juxtaposes the truth of the matter that those two renewable generating capacities are among the very few that are not dependent on paying for or consuming any fuel resource to generate electricity. Therefore those two generating capacities are among the few that can honestly guarantee price/cost stability to the consumer and energy generator. His is such a foolish logic that reasonable people might question his qualifications as an “economist”
John Kowalko
Excellent blogging, Cassandra!
Glad to see this, Cass. This piece frosted my shorts as soon as I read it, and for the same reason you cited: Where’s the data? Economists are supposed to work from carefully vetted sets of data, and both his math and his results are supposed to be something others can replicate — that’s why they call it “the dismal science.” Stapleford isn’t doing science — he’s sucking his thumb.
Stapleford cites very little data, and most of what he does cite isn’t numerical, it’s relational (fifth-highest this, etc.) Who cares where we rank in terms of the amount of revenue that comes from sources other than taxation? The important thing is whether that’s sustainable. People in a position to know tell me it’s not, but Stapleford never engages in that discussion — telling me he’s more interested in fear-mongering (or, if you’re a Repug, cheerleading) than informing.
Nobody will ever mistake the editorial page editors at the News Journal for intellectuals, but this is a disgrace. I’d call it a data dump, but there isn’t any — it’s a verbiage dump.
Your attack on Stapleford is laughable and consistent with your general attacks on ideas you don’t like. It’s always the sign of a losing argument when it resorts to outrageous insults.
If you want to ask where’s the source data, that’s a fine question to ask, but Stapleford is a pretty reputable economist and the News-Journal typically doesn’t run articles with a lot of footnotes, so while it’s fair to ask for the source data, it’s not fair at all to attack him for failing to include it in a News-Journal article where space was at a premium and the paper typically doesn’t include footnotes.
Assuming CRI posts the sources on its website, you’ll only find other insults to hurdle, but no one puts their sources in an op ed piece in the News-Journal.
Get a life.
All of sudden, Stapleton is everywhere. He was also quoted in a piece saying solar energy would never be viable but we should subsidize nuclear energy.
Where is “Six gun Lee” ???? This guy makes him look competent!
This fraud Stapleford figured out how to get on the wingnut gravey train years ago through global warming denial.
Assuming CRI posts the sources on its website, you’ll only find other insults to hurdle, but no one puts their sources in an op ed piece in the News-Journal.
And, of course, they *don’t* put up any sources on their website (at least they don’t have any up there today). And a parenthetical reference to data sources would be plenty. No one needs footnotes and it isn’t as though the NJ would have objected to that kind of reference. But the real problem here is that our man Publius here *can’t* defend any of the bullshit. He is here huffing and puffing because we just don’t take the word of people working for his team uncritically. Message for you, Publius — deficient close reading skills is *why* you are a repub, ok?
Now here is another take on ranking states on their debt load — Forbes took a run at this a few months back. Their assessment of Delaware is that we’re 26th for debt problems, with Illinois being the worst case (#50) and Utah being the best case (#1). even this is something of a head scratcher as you look at it — a number of these states have heftier unfunded pension obligations than we do and yet they get a better score on having less of the debt that they just can’t walk away from. But the lesson is that with enough data, you can get the story you want. Which is apparently the raison d’etre for the CRI.
One more thing — have you noticed anything about this conversation? Go over the the NJ to see the comments, because they have the same problem.
This fool Stapleford’s sheer dishonesty about this subject means that everyone is discussing whether his premises are correct. No one is having the discussion — a worthy one– about what this debt means for taxpayers. And since most of us pay taxes here and we vote, which discussion would give you a place to have a conversation with your reps about this?
Why does the News Journal quote this guy over and over again, then? Why does he get to be the economist quoted on every story instead of somebody else?
If he was really that bad, then they wouldn’t quote him, right? Because if he was actually this partisan, they would have to find somebody else because the outrage would be really loud.
Wouldn’t it?
Oh great. Someone who thinks that everything in the paper is True.
The News Journal quotes Stapleford over and over again because they’ve been doing it since Pete du Pont was governor. When they notice they’ve been relying too much on Stapleford, they call Pete’s economics mentor, Eleanor Craig.
Seems like liberals should make sure they have a go-to person of their own then and hold the paper responsible for balance in quotes.
We have plenty. The problem is the so called liberal media never calls the liberal economists. Could it be because the liberal media has never been liberal??
” Stapleford isn’t doing science — he’s sucking his thumb.”
Thanks for the concise summation Geezer!
Mediawatch: Exactly, except backwards. They trotted out Stapleford (Google him sometime for his background in Christian economics) because Ellie Craig was getting ready to go out to pasture.
BTW, I have checked with some well-place GOPers and have no reason to disbelieve them on this: CRI’s funding is almost entirely from out-of-state. Christine O’Donnell isn’t the only evidence that national right-wingnuts have targeted Delaware for a takeover.
Who are the liberal economists?
For starters, Paul Krugman, Robert Reich, Dean Baker, Robert Kuttner.
Seems like liberals should make sure they have a go-to person of their own then and hold the paper responsible for balance in quotes.
Right — so now we are back to dueling propaganda and then I’d ask you what would you *know* after reading the He Say She Say coverage? The people with the valuable space (print and otherwise) are the practitioners here. You’d think that they’d want to leave their readers or viewers with information they can actually use, not one more exercise in tribalism.
To be fair, this Stapleford was published on the Editorial Page, which has different standards, but you’d think that folks in the media would want to know about *reputable* economists first — not necessarily those with the right tribal markings.
So to balance out Stapleford, the News Journal should call Paul Krugman and Robert Reich to talk about the economic impact of solar power in Delaware?
So why are you balancing these guys? Why don’t you just talk to people who will pretty much play it straight based on the data? That has the likely benefit of expanding the pool of folks available to comment.
I’m genuinely interested in an answer to that.
The He Said, She Said way of covering issues is the problem, not the solution. As Cassandra said, why don’t we start by giving the facts, even if the facts support the liberal argument. I know, strange concept.
Cassandra,
“No one needs footnotes and it isn’t as though the NJ would have objected to that kind of reference. But the real problem here is that our man Publius here *can’t* defend any of the bullshit. He is here huffing and puffing because we just don’t take the word of people working for his team uncritically. Message for you, Publius — deficient close reading skills is *why* you are a repub, ok?”
So, you don’t like my comments and start insulting me. I guess that’s what substitutes for reasoning here. If you don’t like the message, shoot the messenger. I’m not “defending” Stapleford’s “bullshit,” because what attack did you make that was worth refuting???? Stapleford was insulted and called names because he didn’t post his sources, and my point simply was that just because he didn’t include his sources in a NJ op-ed piece is no reason to attack the man.
Incidentally, how many Krugman NY Times articles include all his sources for all his statistics? I guess we should ignore all his columns as well.
As to some of the “substantive” arguments that the original post makes, suggesting that a doubling of the per capita debt is okay because “Delaware seems pretty disciplined about using bond revenues for capital expenditures (or in refinancing capital) rather than operational ones”; I think this brilliant observation misses the point entirely. Debt ultimately needs to be paid back, and if we’ve doubled our bond debt in seven years, that’s still problematic whether it was used for capital or operational expenses.
The original poster also obviously doesn’t understand the property tax system and its relationship to reassessment. Let me see if I can make it easy for you. Property taxes collected are a function of the tax rate multiplied by the tax base. If we reassess property, the overall base will go up; however, and here’s the tricky part where you have to think things through, the rate goes down as part of any reassessment so that the overall revenue raised remains approximately the same. As a rule of thumb, about one-third of properties see an increase in their tax bills, one-third a decrease, and one-third the same. However, a reassessment will not dramatically increase tax revenues. Go read the Delaware Code if you don’t believe me.
Finally, I love the suggestion that one way to reduce the tax burden would be for the state to tell school districts that it is going to hold the state contribution/funding level to 2008 levels: “School systems do collect some portion of property taxes — telling them that the state contribution to budgets is holding at 2008 levels and they have to get the rest otherwise seems reasonable to me.” All that means is that if school districts need to account for higher costs and more students then, guess what, they’ll have to raise school taxes rather than the General Assembly raising taxes (or otherwise finding the revenue). The overall tax burden would remain the same.
Anyway, it’s not as though John Stapleford is inaccessible. Rather than make all sorts of outrageous claims, why not just email him and ask him for his sources. Every good economist knows that when he quotes statistics, he needs to be able to back them up. Rather than whine, whine, whine, go to the source (pun intended).
Stapleford was insulted and called names because he didn’t post his sources, and my point simply was that just because he didn’t include his sources in a NJ op-ed piece is no reason to attack the man.
No attacks — just a detailed critique of fresh bit of idiocy from the professional conservatives in this state that appeared in the NJ. Once again. And much of that critique was around how insensible it all was, largely to invoke another tax scare.
suggesting that a doubling of the per capita debt is okay
I’m right here, sport, and you can ask me what I meant here. And I was not suggesting that a doubling of debt is OK. I am saying that no one knows if the debt really doubled, because I have no idea where his dataset comes from. And some portion of Delaware’s bond rating comes from its ability to pay back its debts. We are no where near default mode yet and some of the debt is about recapitalizing older debt to get a better interest rate.
As a rule of thumb, about one-third of properties see an increase in their tax bills, one-third a decrease, and one-third the same.
This probably would not have been true in the bubble period, but since your close reading skills still fail you, I wasn’t recommending a reassessment. I *was* pointing out that Stapleford seemed to think that low property taxes was a fault somehow. Which seems at odds with the whole low tax philosophy that these CRI employees are supposed to have.
The overall tax burden would remain the same.
Maybe. That depends on alot. Some school districts may actually be able to get more money from their residents than others, increasing the overall tax burden for those residents. But it does hand over more responsibility to school systems than they have now, right? And with more responsibility may actually come better thinking about how to spend tax dollars.
The only person in this thing making outrageous claims here is Stapleford, who should know better than to just cite numbers and relationships to numbers without telling people how to see those datasets for themselves. You can tell that you don’ read Krugman, because he does source his numbers. And he follows up in his blog with questions people pose about those numbers or their relationships to other data. It is one of the reasons why he is so popular. Much like blogging, if you put something out there that you can’t back up, then be prepared to be beaten up over it by people who want to see how you got there.
But we can tell that his intended audience was you, Publius, since you have no problem whatsoever accepting at face value a bunch of half truths ONLY because you know Stapleford is one of your tribe.
Right now, the coverage is only “he said.”
Because Stapleford is the go-to economist for the paper.
Unless they get another option and a strong argument for switching.
In which case this newspaper is guilty of whatever passes for malpractice in their business, right? Because at minimum they ought to be looking for opportunities for even the fake balance, meaning that it is the NJ who should be in the business of adding the balance to their rolodexes. And as for switching — I would think that the NJ would have all of the incentives here to NOT look like they don’t take their business seriously. Turning to an ideologically driven economist for an economic opinion gets ideology — NOT economics — printed in the paper. *I* would be embarrassed to have this happen under my name routinely, so would definitely do the work of adding someone to my rolodex who will do economics on demand — NOT ideology.
“my point simply was that just because he didn’t include his sources in a NJ op-ed piece is no reason to attack the man.”
I’m attacking his work. Amid the total absence of economic analysis in the article, it wouldn’t have taken more than three lines to cite his sources. He doesn’t because he doesn’t do the research. Check his “analyses” on the CRI site — no data there, either, except for state rankings from various sources. No primary analysis to be seen.
“if we’ve doubled our bond debt in seven years, that’s still problematic whether it was used for capital or operational expenses.”
No, what’s problematic is that Stapleford and CRI say they’re being used for operational expenses without offering any evidence of this. If you check the CRI site, there are two headlines alleging this. Both link to the same “analysis,” which consists of less than one page. Again, the data is presented with virtually no context.
He isn’t a “pretty reputable economist.” If you check his research, both for CRI and anywhere else, he’s a joke.
Now how about you deal with the issues raised instead of attacking the people who insult your “pretty reputable economist.” See if you can figure out the flaws in his reasoning — or are you just another joker using the name “Publius” when he hasn’t earned the right?
People are gradually learning to be skeptical of pretty much anything associated with CRI. If you would like an economic statement with an actual reference, how about, “The highest rating assigned to the state’s general obligation debt is based on strong financial management characteristics and a history of maintaining ample budgetary reserves throughout recent economic cycles,” Moody’s wrote in its report on Delaware. Generally when the agencies do rate a government entity, they make some sort of statement to justify their position. Delaware now has had 12 consecutive AAA bond ratings by each of the three major rating entities. It is a shame that some people for pure partisan political reasons will make statements that undermine what is clearly a record of fiscal responsibility that we should all celebrate.