Relevant and even prescient commentary on news, politics and the economy.

Small businesses, tax cuts, and reporting

 I sometimes get the ‘eyes rolling’ reaction from people in my social sphere when I insist that at least linking to  original documents is important, and that someone needs to follow up on what an author says someone else says (as a way to gain traction and authority status for their own writing, such as saying the non-partisan Tax Policy Centers says).  I won’t go into the idea of spin, which involves figuring out intent.  Mine is a caution for readers:

The post is lifted from a note from Daniel Becker in response to a query I sent to him…Dan is a small businessman in the way most of us think of as small business.  (The IRS has a different criterion  of ownership that allows a company like Bechtal at $31 billion to be considered a small business).

Dan Becker’s note:

The Washington Post article is   Obama calls for small business tax breaks.   The article uses the  Tax Policy Center original under the title Temporary Tax Relief to Create Jobs  as the source for the reporting.

The WP article notes:

“The last time the country had a similar proposal to the tax subsidy was during the Carter administration, according to the Tax Policy Center. Research by the Labor Department found that few firms knew about the tax policy, but those that did increased employment notably.”

But from their source it actually notes:

“The last experience the United States had with a credit for incremental employment was with the new jobs credit enacted at the beginning of the Carter Administration in 1977. Evaluations of that credit and how it came about found that most firms were either unaware of the credit or did not respond to it. Research based on a Department of Labor survey found that only 6 percent of firms who knew about the credit said that it prompted them to hire more workers. Firms that were aware of the credit, however, increased employment about 3 percent more than other firms. ”   (bolding is Dan B.’s)

WP had another smoothing over (under the fold):
 

“An incremental jobs credit could be a cost-effective way of raising employment in the short run, the nonpartisan center said in a report this year. The effectiveness of any jobs subsidy depends . . . on how employers perceive its potential benefits when making hiring decisions.”

The actual statement:

In summary, the effect of this proposal on employment is very uncertain. In theory, an incremental jobs credit could be a cost-effective way of raising employment in the short run and some research suggests that the 1977 credit did increase jobs, although the evidence on that is far from conclusive.
The effectiveness of any jobs subsidy depends greatly on both the details of the proposal, still to be finalized, and on how employers perceive its potential benefits when making hiring decisions.

Dan B

(Editorial comment at end of note from Dan Becker….Man! They still want to believe that cutting taxes is actually the same as if the 99% were now getting that $1 trillion of income that is now with the 1%. Just like they believe cutting taxes will increase revenues (sure if you convince the dictator to stop taking a full 90% of all that his people produce, but that’s not US).

Tags: , , , , , Comments (1) | |

Engaging voters in assunptions…

“$1 million per job. That’s what America’s top money man says we’ve spent on stimulus from the Fed alone,” Burnett said on her CNN show “OutFront” on Friday.

These mistakes are particularly noteworthy because Burnett is a business news veteran who also has worked at Goldman Sachs and Citigroup. She was an anchor at CNBC before moving to CNN last year. Burnett also has worked at Bloomberg TV.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/08/31/cnn-erin-burnett-federal-reserve-stimulus_n_1848210.html

Tags: , Comments (4) | |

Substantively misleading reporting on winners in oil manipulations

Yves Smith writes to blast more ‘reporting’. I also follow Angry Bear Robert’s Stochastic Thoughts whom Mark Thoma has recently been linking, who has a unique style for his thoughts, on ‘ballance’ in reporting.

It isn’t until paragraph 14, when cursory readers have already checked out, that we get a mention of who really wins from the continued lack of transparency:

In an initial report in March, the organization said it was concerned prices could be manipulated if traders submit false prices or volumes. Among a list of proposals, the organization said it was considering establishing an industry regulator as well as requiring mandatory reporting of trades…. 

Some traders have been accused in the past of abusing the pricing system, but the number of cases has dropped significantly in recent years. In 2000, U.S. refiner Tosco Corp. sued Arcadia Petroleum, a London-based oil-trading firm, accusing it of manipulating oil prices. Arcadia later settled the suit for an undisclosed sum. 

In 2007, Marathon Oil Corp. agreed to pay $1 million to settle oil-manipulation charges by the Commodity Futures Trading Commission. 

Arcadia and Marathon neither admitted nor denied wrongdoing. 

Now these four paragraphs are the sum total of the mentions of possible and actual abuses by traders. By contrast, the information vendors are the focus of a full eleven paragraphs of the article. The mention of fewer cases of pricing abuses being filed might be taken to mean there is less bad behavior, when it might also be a function of weaker oversight. 

Readers might think I am making overmuch of this story, but it is precisely this sort of objective-sounding but substantively misleading reporting that lulls the public to sleep on important issues. A more vigilant public is less likely to be conned.

Tags: , , Comments (2) | |