CBO and the Stimulus

“Not helping matters is a report from the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) that came out Tuesday, which shows that only 38% of the $350 billion in appropriated funds — which includes $274 billion for infrastructure investments — would make their way into the economy within two years of enactment.”
-Jay Newton Small
.
“Here’s what he has to say about the unofficial Congressional Budget Office analysis that has become the center of a controversy over just how quickly the money from Barack Obama’s stimulus plan would be spent–and a subject of much chat among our Swampland commenters today.”
.
First off, why did Time report that there was a report from the CBO released last tuesday, when you’re saying ‘unofficial’ CBO analysis. Did JNS misreport? And WHOSE analysis are you speaking of?
.
Secondly, the controversy about WHAT the non existing report said is only part of it, the bigger part is that you in the media reflexively took what the GOP gave you and ran with it without ever doing and due diligence. Karen?

JNS is the Republican Party’s playtoy! Says JNS: I don’t have time for no damn reseach, just please give me something to put my byline on. So very Small!!!!!

Cincy: What was leaked–at least in reading what Scott wrote, which I trust, knowing his knowledge of the Hill–would seem to be a preliminary version of an ongoing CBO analysis. However, I was not leaked this document, so I don’t know and am simply speculating.
.
I try to avoid speculation, however, and am offering you an expert’s analysis. I hope that is of value to you.
.
As I think I have explained to you before, I am not a media critic. I will happily answer any questions you may have about my own work.

Thanks, Karen. It’s good to know someone cares more about accuracy than about partisan sound bites/talking points.

Hey, I’m just glad to see someone post about this. Thanks KT!

Thanks K Teezie
.
You might want to quote this part in your post though.
.

As for CBO, I find their efforts with respect to this package disconcerting. The Constitution delegated the making of budget policy to Congress. When the Congressional Budget Act was passed 35 years ago, CBO was established not for the purpose of transferring that responsibility from Congress to a team of experts but for informing the congressional deliberations with philosophically neutral, well-informed, and fact-based analysis—analysis based on a continuous and thorough vetting of all relevant information and points of view.
.
While CBO is certainly “where the action is in federal budgeting,” as it boasts on its website, I am not convinced that they have met the standard for analysis that should be expected of them. The incoming director needs to carefully review these projections and insure that CBO protects its reputation for quality and objectivity.

SG:

I decided not to quote any of it, because I want people to read the whole thing. Otherwise, they just jump on the excerpts. And it’s not that long.
.
I thought this sentence was interesting, though:
.
But what is clear from the leaked analysis (and will probably be evident in the official version soon to be available) is that the watch word of this stimulus effort—“shovel ready,” meaning ready to be spent now—does not correspond to any key on the keyboards connected to CBO computers

KT… can you please ask Jay to respond, then? Just send her a little email saying there are some pretty peeved commenters who just watched the media regurgitate GOP talking points (based on the leak of only part of the CBO report) for the past few days. We’d love a reckoning of how that might’ve happened. And she’s a good choice to get the answer from, since she was also one who did it.

Thanks for the link, KT!
.
“In the end, spending forecasts are subject to most of the uncertainties contained in weather forecasts, economic forecasts, and even Super Bowl predictions”
.
That part makes me wish Nate Silver worked for the CBO.

KT, don’t take it personally. I and many others here believe if we don’t hold your collective feet to the fires, we’ll continue to get bad journalism of the type that leads people to support wars and other catastrophic policies that we have to live with here in the real world.

Cincy: Please feel free to hold my feet to any fire that I write. (Not sure that metaphor works, but whatever. I’m going home now.)

Agree with cincinnatus. The media monolith (especially TV, but see also TIME, AP, The New York Times and WaPo) is already on its way to helping kill public support for the stimulus, using GOP-supplied sexed-up-and-misleading talking points about birth control and partial CBO findings. Then not doing their journalistic best to get to the bottom of the story to find out what’s true and what’s not.

Warning: Past performance does not guarantee future results!
.
It would appear that aside from the issue of the document being leaked and misrepresented, the methodoloy itself is rather suspect. It not an uncommon error in many contexts, extrapolating forward using historical data without accounting for the changing conditions that affect your forecast and aren;t included in your dataset. It’s so common that probably fully 1/3 of all boneheaded business decisions are caused by some form of the problem.
.
No wonder the Republicans have latched on to it. It’s boardroom SOP!

“Here’s what he has to say about the unofficial Congressional Budget Office analysis”
.
Having just read Mr. Lilly’s piece, it is as I expected. Karen, why in your estimation did your colleagues run wild w/ the GOP’s analysis without ever questioning it’s methods or at least raising the possibility that they were just playing political games. Most of the reporting I’ve read/heard treated this story as if there was a definite report, and that it said exactly what the GOP said it said. You are the first person in the media to use the word ‘analysis’ in regard to this story.

K Tizzle
.
I understand what you mean, but I also realize that a lot of folks will never click the link if they don’t get their beak wet. I guess its a fine line so I am not saying your way is wrong. But I can almost guarantee you that some outraged commenter is going to come here and go off about the non existent CBO report without ever clicking on the link and realizing that you are providing an opinion of a person you respect that actually agrees with most of us.
.
Now here is the thing, and I know you don’t particularly believe that talking heads have that much effect on the populous, but seriously that flawed half assed effort at an unofficial CBO report has infected like a virus all manner of journalism including print and Tee Vee and its hard to unring that bell. One of the only ways for it to happen is for some of the outlets that unleashed it in the first place to come out and correct themselves. Thats why most of us wanted someone to acknowledge the truth. Not necessarily trying to put you on the spot of being a media critic or putting your coworkers on blast but when none of them will respond what exactly are we to do?

Cincy: What was leaked–at least in reading what Scott wrote, which I trust, knowing his knowledge of the Hill–would seem to be a preliminary version of an ongoing CBO analysis. However, I was not leaked this document, so I don’t know and am simply speculating.
.
I try to avoid speculation, however, and am offering you an expert’s analysis. I hope that is of value to you.
.
As I think I have explained to you before, I am not a media critic. I will happily answer any questions you may have about my own work.

Karen,
This document is on Huffingtonpost. Do you only read things ‘leaked’ to you?
As an expert you might want to report on why the GOP is leaking false info to a willing press. This is the political story. sorry you are so busy coveing Blago to report on important stories.

OT: Sounds like our good Repugs at work:
‘
http://news.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=09/01/26/1846209
‘
I wasn’t able to verify whether it was, in fact, Repugs, but it has their stink. I’ll retract the snark if I’m wrong.

Geitner got confirmed btw

KT — I thank you for at least responding to cincy’s inquiry. However, I don’t know that declaring that you are not a media critic is a viable excuse to ignore the media’s role as pawn on the GOP chess board. Where is your personal outrage for being duped once again by the right. Paraphrasing here: all it takes for evil to flourish is for good men to do nothing.
.
In my profession I have a code of ethics that while not a legal requirement is followed by most of us anyway so that our industry maintains credibility. And credibility is central to the bottom line. Perhaps, you should consider that journalism’s decline has run somewhat parallel to a loss of credibility with the public perhaps a “not my job” attitude is a tad self defeating. Just a thought…

And to add to what dfh just said, would you be just as willing to run w/ something leaked to you by a Democrat? Also, if I’d been used like this I’d be a little pissed…but it just rolls of your back
.

Camera Phone Predator Alert Act
Sponsored by…..drumroll……Rep. Peter King [R, NY-3], co-sponsor Rep. Thaddeus McCotter [R, MI-11]

linkage:
http://www.opencongress.org/bill/110-h3488/show

“I’m not a media critic” sounds an awful lot like:
“Don’t blame me! EEEEEYYYYYYYEEEEEEEEEEEE didn’t do it!”
-Krusty the Clown

Journalists today sound a lot like bad waiters at restaurants: “I’m sorry sir, you’re not in my section.” Who cares if you did it, or not. KT, aren’t you incensed that your colleagues aren’t doing their jobs or that the GOP took TIME (and others) out for a spin? How embarrassing — not only for them, but for you and others who work for TIME!

That part makes me wish Nate Silver worked for the CBO.
.
joyomama, great suggestion.
.
And it’s perfectly fair for KT not to want to be a media critic. That’s not her job.

I’m going to just throw this out here, but mayhap KT feels a need to maintain a degree of separation to remain objective. Just spit ballin’. Obviously, KT does a much better job of speaking for herself.

Be it her job t’ be thinkin’?
.
Like, “Shiver me timbers, all me mateys be reportin’ information from a CBO report, but me hearties o’er in th’ Swampland be a sayin’ no such report be existin’ – an’ they be providin’ linkages t’ more information supportin’ their fact-findin! Avast! Per’aps it be in me best interests t’ determin whether this be jest another case o’ wood rot!”
.
Be tha’ askin too much o’ someone who’s supposed t’ be a journalist, not jest a blasted teletype machine a spittin’ out whate’er comes down th’ wire?
.
KT done lost all th’ wind out o’ her sails on this one fer me, buckos.

KT,

Just continue to try to separate yourself from the floatsam at TIME that call themselves journalists.

81 times in 6 days.
.
http://thinkprogress.org/2009/01/26/report-cbo-tv/

KT:
.
You and I have disagreed many times as to the definition of “media critic”, so I will confine my remarks to:
.
Thank you so much for this post. It’s very important to link to the actual CBO analysis in its complete form, so that we can form our own judgments (and then write about them). It is an excellent gesture on your part, and you should be applauded for this effort. Thanks again for not playing the part of oppo email stenographer.

KT: thanks for posting the link to the CAP commentary.

Now if the rest of us can spread it around, maybe we can head off some of the bollensheister being spread around by others who shall remain nameless (Jay Newton Small, et. al)

…wait a second…I’ll just link to the report/blog here, since apparently Scott Lilly did not bother to link to it in his piece (Jesus Christ!).

Why this crap matters:

“After the AP first wrote up the “report,” the rest of the media piled on the story. In a new analysis, ThinkProgress has found that since the AP’s report last Tuesday, the CBO report has been cited at least 81 times on Fox News, CNN, MSNBC, CNBC, the Sunday shows and the network newscasts in order raise questions about Obama’s recovery plan.”

http://thinkprogress.org/2009/01/26/report-cbo-tv/

But K.T.’s not a media critic, so I guess that’s that.

“However, I was not leaked this document, so I don’t know and am simply speculating.”
.
KT-And apparently JNS was speculating too. I think you know political speculation is not journalism, it’s filler. So get with JNS and clean that up. Thanks.

As usual the republicans just cannot help but lie about things. Instead of concrete arguments or new ideas they cling to their failed ones and lie to sabotage the stimulus.
Party before country. And they call themselves patriotic. right.

Ok. The Washington Post has picked up Bill Kristol now. Time, NY Times, and now the Post have given him gigs. Again, it’s not that he is conservative, he is lazy, doesn’t fact check, and is often spectacularly wrong.
.
Safire was great at the Times. Brooks does some good work. Do the print papers have to take turns w/ Kristol? Sheesh.

OK, just so that this isn’t lost in my poor commentary re: link/no link:
.
Thank you Karen Tumulty. You have responded to overwhelming commenter request with respect to politics being played with portions of this CBO analysis, and for that you deserve our gratitude and admiration.

That Think Progress piece I linked to (above) has a pretty good precis of the the material JNS and others used as source material (obliged by the GOP Oppo Squad?), here’s a key graph, for those who don’t have the energy link through to the article KT referenced:

“… the CBO ‘ran a small portion of an earlier version of the stimulus plan through a computer program that uses a standard formula’ to determine how quickly money will be spent. As Center for American Progress Senior Fellow Scott Lily notes, even that CBO analysis is based ‘almost entirely on a review of historical data on program performance,’ which likely applies ‘less during an economic crisis like the one we currently face.’ OMB Director Peter Orszag says that 75 percent of the stimulus plan ‘will be spent over the next year and a half.’

I often wonder if journalists are like professional athletes. Do they just put on a happy face when the criticisms are flying at them and or their fellow journos just to mask the fact that they really do care and it does really matter to them? Or do they seriously just not give a sh!t when they and or their co workers put out a bullsh!t product?

John Conyers is fast becoming my favorite Congressman.
.
http://tpmmuckraker.talkingpointsmemo.com/2009/01/conyers_to_rove_time_to_talk_about_us_attorneys.php
.

And it looks like John Conyers is of the same mind. The House Judiciary chair this afternoon issued a subpoena to Karl Rove to testify before the committee on February 2.
.
Rove had claimed immunity from an earlier Conyers-issued subpoena, citing executive privilege. (The case is currently on appeal.) As a press release accompanying today’s subpoena points out, “[t]hat “absolute immunity” position was supported by then-President Bush, but it has been rejected by U.S. District Judge John Bates and President Obama has previously dismissed the claim as ‘completely misguided.’”

.
snip
.

Said Conyers:

I have said many times that I will carry this investigation forward to its conclusion, whether in Congress or in court, and today’s action is an important step along the way. Change has come to Washington, and I hope Karl Rove is ready for it. After two years of stonewalling, it’s time for him to talk.

This Just In:

TAX EVASION NOW LEGAL IN ALL 57 STATES.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/treasury_secretary

= ROSTY ACCOMPLISHED =

hulagate loses again.
.
BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
.
(pointing)

Worth mentioning, for those of you who don’t remember, the fights over “dynamic scoring,” starting in the 1990s:
.
http://econ161.berkeley.edu/movable_type/archives/001540.html
.
One of the reasons that the CBO (as opposed to OMB) is the gold standard of the estimation business is that they stick with what we know, not what we hope.

.
I don’t think it’s fair to expect KT to publicly call out Jay on her sloppy and inaccurate reporting. I appreciate that she addressed the issue of the non-report with a link to an authoritative analysis. It’s what Jay Newton Small *should* have done before she ran with it.
.
Time Mag *should* require Jay Newton Small to correct her reporting, and if it has already gone to print, to issue a correction. There is no need to go out for blood. I don’t think that Jay Newton Small purposely ran with this deceptive and misleading Republican information. Jay does enough good reporting that we can probably chalk it up to sloppiness and not malevolence. She probably got the Republican email, saw that everyone else was running with it, and thought it was okay, lacking expertise herself on the issue.
.
Let’s hope that she will be more careful in the future when she is handed some information by the republicans, and yes, the dems as well, she will check with independent sources, or the original source, on whether she is writing accurately about it.
.
You go with the journos you have, not the ones you wish you had. And JNS isn’t one the the bad ones.
.

K Tizzle
.
Then how do you explain the fact that the CBO only examined about 40% of the economic stimulus package? I mean they DO know what the other 60% of the package is right?

“I don’t think it’s fair to expect KT to publicly call out Jay on her sloppy and inaccurate reporting.”
.
I agree. You did it rather nicely. No piling on.

Thanks for that link KT.
It directly addresses my question as to why policy shifts aren’t included in the published projections. Knowlege of the methodology is nevertheless important before an unfinished draft is successfully used as a bludgeon to hammer home a lie.
.
As I said one thread back, it appears that distortion by oversimplification is standard procedure and, as everyone keeps carping on, your collegues share some responsibilty for the misdirection.

K-Tum, thanks for picking this up. But I think the real news story remains the republicans using the CBO on-going analysis of a part of the unfinished stimulus package to spread lies about the impact of the whole thing. And the media’s role in uncritically and enthusiastically spreading that lie because, in the process, they actively promoted a false story. As atrios noted earlier today: I’m always amazed at how mainstream journalists never acknowledge that anything they do could possibly have an impact on anything.

Thanks for the link, KT. I have to mention that I am squicked out by your colleagues getting blitzed with Tucker Bounds.

From jarais’ link
.
The tire swinging crew together again!
.

Here are their names: Jill Zuckman, Laura Meckler, Scott Horsely, Tucker Bounds, Juliet Eilperin, Scott Conroy, Sasha Issenberg, Lizzie O’Leary, Mark Salter, Ana Marie Cox, Adam Aigner-Treworgy, Holly Bailey, and Michael Scherer.

.
Really, is anybody surprised?

sg, ya bested me by a minute! Musta been the extra formatting. Tsk.

[...] American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, which should shed some light on the debate that has been raging over the leaked version last week. Overall the CBO estimates that more than two-thirds, 64%, of the [...]

Don’t know if this string is still alive, but here’s an analysis by Somerby (who IS a media critic) about that ostensibly non-existent CBO report:
.
http://www.dailyhowler.com/dh012709.shtml