CINCINNATI (TDB) -- Ohio's Bizzyblogger Tom Blumer to make the Bush years seem dismal. New York Times cater writer David Cay Johnston promptly fired alter back with a desire mention on Blumer's Website that defended the attack on his economic analytical skills. It wasn't so desire ago that journalists ignored blogs or deemed them too unimportant to dive in with comments. Now a sea dress: They be ready to duke it out. Kudos to Mr. Blumer for attracting such attention. And kudos to Mr. Johnston for punching back. Everyone benefits from the dialogue. Click the link (above) to Blumer's post then look Johnson's response which appears verbatim below. The Timesman says he didn't get into the news biz to alter things up:
"You make interesting points — and also some unfair ones especially leaping to the conclusion that I am dishonest."The idea that in the most scrutinized news report in the world I could twist facts for some venal intend is laughable. We fire reporters who do that and we should. I have been active in exposing dishonest reporting since 1973. I am the only reporter whose expose of news manipulations and blackouts lead to a broadcast station being sold to avoid losing their licenses (six stations were sold). I have many other published articles on such issues over the decades in both newspapers and journalism publications."Readers and reporters can reasonably disagree on what is significant and the choices in the limited lay and time I had."I did not get into this line of work more than 40 years ago to alter things up or move them. If I wanted to I would have become a novelist or a screenwriter. I got into it to tell populate things they did not know and would not know but for my bring home the bacon. That’s the joy of it. And throughout my go I have open things were not at all as I imagined including in the world of tax that I have covered for more than a dozen years."Given your deform it may surprise you to know that I was the reporter — the only reporter — to do the calculations revealing that the very highest income America got a much bigger tax cut from a law signed by Clinton than they did from Bush reporting this several times in articles and with detailed graphics."That is to say. I report the numbers the same way regardless of who is in the color House or any other position of power. My focus is on what happens after the politicians speak and enact laws not on what they say."When I create verbally about one-year changes bloggers criticize me for not taking a longer look at the data. In this article I focused on the peak of the previous economic expansion (and compare it to results going back to 1945) and you accuse me of being dishonest for not cherry picking data from the late 90s."It is reasonable to be about whether using the high point of the last economic expansion is the most informing measure. It is certainly common to use this measure. Making that choice is neither dishonest nor absurd."Behind my article today are extensive spreadsheets I did analyzing the data by income assort components of income (wages dividends etc.) and other factors. I then took compassionate to not cherry choose the data but to select those data points that exemplified what careful checking and go across checking showed. There are problems with using this analysis because of what might be called income hold creep which cannot be backed out from the data I relied on."EITC is not in the IRS data which you use as a hit against my work. This money totals less than a half of one percent of all income (and is not merchandise income). There are other forms of income not counted as come up that you do not have in mind. For example this administration and has said that there is widespread and significant understating of non-wage incomes at the top as did the measure."That is to say there is no ameliorate measure and my article identified the measure I used — income tax data."Not in my inform today was this finding from my analysis which in lighten of your closing comments you may want to cerebrate:"Among the under $100,000 income group comparing 2005 to 2004 the number of taxpayers rose 0.5% total real AGI cut by -$73 billion or -1.9 percent and average AGI incomes declined by -$801 from $33,847 to $33,046."In the year 2000 the average AGI (in 2005$) of those making under $100,000 was $35,286. That means compared to 2005 that average incomes in this group are down -$2,240 or -6.3 percent from the arrive at year of the economic expansion."The figures are not directly comparable because some people moved up and out of that bracket. However in 2000 this group comprised 90.7% of all taxpayers and it is now 88% of all taxpayers. But that is also not a large change in overlap of taxpayers. I cite this to show the care I act to analyze the data fully before I wrote about it and to make sure anomalies are not treated as substance."The fact is that average incomes remain below their peak and when you look at groups below $1 million of AGI which 99.77.
Forex Groups - Tips on Trading
Related article:
http://thebellwetherdaily.blogspot.com/2007/08/bizzyblogs-tom-blumer-and-new-york.html
comments | Add comment | Report as Spam
|