Conservative economics maintains that recovery is best accomplished at the local level by private enterprise, without government interference.
By this premise, New Jersey Shore towns and businesses should be left alone to recover as they may, with only their own resources to support redevelopment efforts. However, the fury of the storm has destroyed much of the shoreline and many of the homes and businesses based there. Lower Manhattan is flooded, and nearly a hundred homes in other boroughs were destroyed by fire. There is widespread destruction in Pennsylvania, Maryland and Delaware, as well as heavy snowstorm damage in West Virginia and other states.
Nevertheless, recovery efforts should be done at the local level, say the conservatives. And ideally, recovery should be delegated to private enterprise. There is no need or rationale for a federal coordinating agency.
Reality check: Localities and states do not have resources sufficient to handle the extent of the devastation, and competition in the private sector will allocate resources only to those with the money to pay. Not to mention a lack of coordination. No money, no help. Go away.
The federal government can and should step in to help coordinate and assist relief efforts, since only a larger agency has the resources and the funds needed to do so.
And amid all the destruction, here's a positive note. Many thousands of workers will get jobs clearing, repairing, renovating and rebuilding the areas where Hurricane Sandy struck. Cooperation and coordination is needed among local, state and federal authorities, along with private contractors to recover from the storm.
Hurricane Sandy was one of the most ill of ill winds. But recovery can bring a good lesson.
Laissez-faire economics doesn't cut it.
MESSY METAPHORS -- "The Boardwalk has been washed away," said the TV reporter as the camera showed a pile of lumber. Had the Boardwalk really been "washed away," there would be no pile of lumber to view.
The streets "are inundated by sand." Except that sand buries. Only water can inundate.
Wednesday, October 31, 2012
"Pants on Fire"
Last week we noted that reporters have an obligation to bring out Truth and expose Falsehood. This brought a comment that "matters of opinion and identifying the 'big lie' should be left to editors, commentators and columnists."
Yesterday, Page One of the New York Times reported on a Romney ad that said Chrysler "is going to begin producing Jeeps in China ... leaving the misleading impression that the move would come at the expense of jobs here." The reporters also noted that recent Romney statements "stretch or ignore the facts."
The story was immediately followed by denunciations from two major auto executives. "Jeep production will not be moved from the United States to China. It is inaccurate to suggest anything different," said Chrysler executive Sergio Marchionne. And General Motors spokesman Greg Martin called the ad "cynical campaign politics at its worst," according to the Times report.
Moreover, it quoted a Romney spokesman as defending the ad for speaking truth: Jeeps are not currently made in China (technically true) and soon will be. (Perhaps. Or perhaps not.) But to suggest that a certain firm will do so, and as a direct result of Washington bailout policies toward the auto industry, earned the ad a "pants on fire" designation from fact checkers.
The position from here is firm: Reporters have an obligation to bring out Truth and expose Falsehood. Stretch the facts too far, and that, too, will go on Page One.
Yesterday, Page One of the New York Times reported on a Romney ad that said Chrysler "is going to begin producing Jeeps in China ... leaving the misleading impression that the move would come at the expense of jobs here." The reporters also noted that recent Romney statements "stretch or ignore the facts."
The story was immediately followed by denunciations from two major auto executives. "Jeep production will not be moved from the United States to China. It is inaccurate to suggest anything different," said Chrysler executive Sergio Marchionne. And General Motors spokesman Greg Martin called the ad "cynical campaign politics at its worst," according to the Times report.
Moreover, it quoted a Romney spokesman as defending the ad for speaking truth: Jeeps are not currently made in China (technically true) and soon will be. (Perhaps. Or perhaps not.) But to suggest that a certain firm will do so, and as a direct result of Washington bailout policies toward the auto industry, earned the ad a "pants on fire" designation from fact checkers.
The position from here is firm: Reporters have an obligation to bring out Truth and expose Falsehood. Stretch the facts too far, and that, too, will go on Page One.
Tuesday, October 30, 2012
Thoughts From The Rim
Some think ill of me because I speak my mind.
I think less of me if I do not.
History is written by selecting facts that best support a predetermined viewpoint.
Refusing to see danger is more hazardous than ignorance.
Clean coal is an oxymoron.
Winning campaign debates does not win over Congress.
The only poll that matters is the one on Election Day.
Headline: Romney, Ryan focus on storm relief.
News item: Christie to accept federal aid.
Comment: So much for the feds keeping hands off.
I think less of me if I do not.
History is written by selecting facts that best support a predetermined viewpoint.
Refusing to see danger is more hazardous than ignorance.
Clean coal is an oxymoron.
Winning campaign debates does not win over Congress.
The only poll that matters is the one on Election Day.
Headline: Romney, Ryan focus on storm relief.
News item: Christie to accept federal aid.
Comment: So much for the feds keeping hands off.
Blinders
"The country as a whole was hurt by the stimulus, despite the observed effects of the spending." -- Letter to the New York Times.
Let's see. That translates to: Government spending helped stimulate the economy, but the economy was hurt by government spending to help stimulate the economy.
It is true that government borrowing to stimulate the economy can "crowd out" private sector borrowing, but if the private sector is not borrowing, they are by definition not being crowded out.
A job is a job is a job, whether the paycheck comes from a private firm or from government. It sounds good to say, "Cut government payrolls" and to say "We need jobs" and that "The private sector will supply jobs."
But cutting a government payroll means putting people out of work, which contravenes the need for jobs. Yes, the private sector eventually will supply jobs. But when? In a couple of years, when the economy recovers on its own?
The 19th Century notion that left alone, in the long run the economic body will heal itself, is long outdated. But it's still here. A job for food, clothing and shelter is needed now, not in three years time.
And since when did the private sector employ teachers, police and firefighters? Road and bridge construction workers are employed by firms under contract to government.
In a crisis, someone must act. It matters not who. If private investors will not, government must.
Let's see. That translates to: Government spending helped stimulate the economy, but the economy was hurt by government spending to help stimulate the economy.
It is true that government borrowing to stimulate the economy can "crowd out" private sector borrowing, but if the private sector is not borrowing, they are by definition not being crowded out.
A job is a job is a job, whether the paycheck comes from a private firm or from government. It sounds good to say, "Cut government payrolls" and to say "We need jobs" and that "The private sector will supply jobs."
But cutting a government payroll means putting people out of work, which contravenes the need for jobs. Yes, the private sector eventually will supply jobs. But when? In a couple of years, when the economy recovers on its own?
The 19th Century notion that left alone, in the long run the economic body will heal itself, is long outdated. But it's still here. A job for food, clothing and shelter is needed now, not in three years time.
And since when did the private sector employ teachers, police and firefighters? Road and bridge construction workers are employed by firms under contract to government.
In a crisis, someone must act. It matters not who. If private investors will not, government must.
Monday, October 29, 2012
Image Control
Generalizations are like sponges. They're full of holes, yet they hold water.
Some Republicans tend not to like reporters and avoid dealing with them. Why? Because they can't control the questions and often don't know the answers. Result: Embarrassment.
Example: President Barack Obama has appeared for an extensive one-on-one with NBC's Brian Williams. Candidate Mitt Romney has ignored repeated requests for a similar interview. (Williams noted his request on-air.)
Example 2: Both Obamas have appeared with ABC's Barbara Walters and all the ladies of The View. The Romneys have not responded to similar requests. (Walters repeated her request on-air.)
Example 3: Remember Sarah Palin's encounter with ABC's Katie Couric?
Example 4: Public appearances are carefully stage-managed, with only the faithful allowed admittance. Questions from the press covering the event are banned or ignored.
Granted, both sides do it, but that does not make it OK. In any case, consider which side is more likely to respond to questions.
Later, after the event, professional spinners are deployed to redefine, clarify, expand and explain what the candidate "really meant to say."
That's not good enough. Voters are entitled to hear directly from the candidate what the candidate says and means.
Otherwise, all is image, spin and marketing. Like selling soap.
Reporters are obligated to ask questions. Non-answers can be just as revealing as detailed responses.
Candidates and corporate executives believe that if reporters are not advocates for their positions, they are therefore adversaries, to be treated accordingly.
Good reporters are neither advocates nor adversaries. They ask the tough questions because they need to be asked.
Some Republicans tend not to like reporters and avoid dealing with them. Why? Because they can't control the questions and often don't know the answers. Result: Embarrassment.
Example: President Barack Obama has appeared for an extensive one-on-one with NBC's Brian Williams. Candidate Mitt Romney has ignored repeated requests for a similar interview. (Williams noted his request on-air.)
Example 2: Both Obamas have appeared with ABC's Barbara Walters and all the ladies of The View. The Romneys have not responded to similar requests. (Walters repeated her request on-air.)
Example 3: Remember Sarah Palin's encounter with ABC's Katie Couric?
Example 4: Public appearances are carefully stage-managed, with only the faithful allowed admittance. Questions from the press covering the event are banned or ignored.
Granted, both sides do it, but that does not make it OK. In any case, consider which side is more likely to respond to questions.
Later, after the event, professional spinners are deployed to redefine, clarify, expand and explain what the candidate "really meant to say."
That's not good enough. Voters are entitled to hear directly from the candidate what the candidate says and means.
Otherwise, all is image, spin and marketing. Like selling soap.
Reporters are obligated to ask questions. Non-answers can be just as revealing as detailed responses.
Candidates and corporate executives believe that if reporters are not advocates for their positions, they are therefore adversaries, to be treated accordingly.
Good reporters are neither advocates nor adversaries. They ask the tough questions because they need to be asked.
False Balance
Thousands of scientists point to global warming, and document man's contribution to it.
A handful claim global warming does not exist, and therefore man cannot contribute to what does not exist.
Nonetheless, members of this vocal few are given an outlet for their views every time a story on global warming comes up. This is a false balance, since what little evidence they do provide is overwhelmingly outnumbered by the accumulated documentation of the many.
Moreover, casual observers can remember outdoor ice skating in Northern New Jersey in the winter. It can't be done today, because ponds fail to freeze over long enough to allow skating. These same observers see mockingbirds year-round, and can remember when none were seen north of Virginia.
Does global warming exist? Clearly, the answer is yes. The real question is what part man plays, and what can be done to lessen that contribution.
A handful claim global warming does not exist, and therefore man cannot contribute to what does not exist.
Nonetheless, members of this vocal few are given an outlet for their views every time a story on global warming comes up. This is a false balance, since what little evidence they do provide is overwhelmingly outnumbered by the accumulated documentation of the many.
Moreover, casual observers can remember outdoor ice skating in Northern New Jersey in the winter. It can't be done today, because ponds fail to freeze over long enough to allow skating. These same observers see mockingbirds year-round, and can remember when none were seen north of Virginia.
Does global warming exist? Clearly, the answer is yes. The real question is what part man plays, and what can be done to lessen that contribution.
Sunday, October 28, 2012
News Judgment
COMMENT: "Reporting of information as it happens is the job of reporters. Matters of opinion and identifying the 'big lie' should be left to editors, commentators, and columnists.
"Exposing semi-true statements would deviate from the simple reporting aspect of the job."
RESPONSE: Just because someone says it does not make it worth reporting. Included in that is deciding what information is worth reporting. And if that information is a blatant falsehood, reporters can and should provide additional information showing it to be false.
Reporters have a duty to report fact as well as falsehood, and to provide evidence of their truth or falsity.
Reporting only one side implies advocacy. Reporting two or more sides can lead to a "false balance," when one of the sides is sheer nonsense.
Sometimes, that can be a tough line to walk. But when we are criticized by both sides, we know we're doing our job right.
"Exposing semi-true statements would deviate from the simple reporting aspect of the job."
RESPONSE: Just because someone says it does not make it worth reporting. Included in that is deciding what information is worth reporting. And if that information is a blatant falsehood, reporters can and should provide additional information showing it to be false.
Reporters have a duty to report fact as well as falsehood, and to provide evidence of their truth or falsity.
Reporting only one side implies advocacy. Reporting two or more sides can lead to a "false balance," when one of the sides is sheer nonsense.
Sometimes, that can be a tough line to walk. But when we are criticized by both sides, we know we're doing our job right.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)