In this century Mexico has had the slowest per capita GDP growth of any country in Latin America. It has made almost no progress in reducing poverty and it is plagued by drug gangs and corruption. But Thomas Friedman sees a Mexico that doesn’t show up in the data:
“In India, people ask you about China, and, in China, people ask you about India: Which country will become the more dominant economic power in the 21st century? I now have the answer: Mexico.”
How does he come to this conclusion? Well one of the big factors in Friedman’s story is that wages for workers in Mexico are falling behind wages elsewhere:
“with massive cheap natural gas finds, and rising wage and transportation costs in China, and it is no surprise that Mexico now is taking manufacturing market share back from Asia.”
While Mexico might not do well by standard economic measures, Friedman points out that it does very well when it comes to signing trade agreements;
“Mexico has signed 44 free trade agreements — more than any country in the world — which, according to The Financial Times, is more than twice as many as China and four times more than Brazil.”
In this same vein, Friedman excitedly quotes the Financial Times:
“Today, Mexico exports more manufactured products than the rest of Latin America put together.”
Let’s assume this is true. Much of what Mexico exports are products like cars where it imports most of the parts. These are then assembled in Mexico and exported back to the United States. This assembly doesn’t add much to Mexico’s economy, but if for some reason you think that exports by themselves are a measure of economic success, you can score big through this route.
After telling readers that people in Mexico use Twitter, Friedman then comments that U.S. companies are investing more in Mexico, “which is one reason Mexico grew last year at 3.9 percent.” Friedman apparently doesn’t realize that 3.9 percent was not an especially rapid growth rate for Latin America last year.
Just to ensure a regional balance, Friedman managed to overstate the cost of the war in Afghanistan by a factor of three by telling readers that:
“We do $1.5 billion a day in trade with Mexico, and we spend $1 billion a day in Afghanistan. Not smart.”
Yes, the war in Afghanistan may not be smart, but CBO puts the price tag at less than $100 billion in 2013.
Anyhow, it is easy to see why the NYT runs Thomas Friedman’s columns. He gives you all sorts of information that you would never find anywhere else.
In this century Mexico has had the slowest per capita GDP growth of any country in Latin America. It has made almost no progress in reducing poverty and it is plagued by drug gangs and corruption. But Thomas Friedman sees a Mexico that doesn’t show up in the data:
“In India, people ask you about China, and, in China, people ask you about India: Which country will become the more dominant economic power in the 21st century? I now have the answer: Mexico.”
How does he come to this conclusion? Well one of the big factors in Friedman’s story is that wages for workers in Mexico are falling behind wages elsewhere:
“with massive cheap natural gas finds, and rising wage and transportation costs in China, and it is no surprise that Mexico now is taking manufacturing market share back from Asia.”
While Mexico might not do well by standard economic measures, Friedman points out that it does very well when it comes to signing trade agreements;
“Mexico has signed 44 free trade agreements — more than any country in the world — which, according to The Financial Times, is more than twice as many as China and four times more than Brazil.”
In this same vein, Friedman excitedly quotes the Financial Times:
“Today, Mexico exports more manufactured products than the rest of Latin America put together.”
Let’s assume this is true. Much of what Mexico exports are products like cars where it imports most of the parts. These are then assembled in Mexico and exported back to the United States. This assembly doesn’t add much to Mexico’s economy, but if for some reason you think that exports by themselves are a measure of economic success, you can score big through this route.
After telling readers that people in Mexico use Twitter, Friedman then comments that U.S. companies are investing more in Mexico, “which is one reason Mexico grew last year at 3.9 percent.” Friedman apparently doesn’t realize that 3.9 percent was not an especially rapid growth rate for Latin America last year.
Just to ensure a regional balance, Friedman managed to overstate the cost of the war in Afghanistan by a factor of three by telling readers that:
“We do $1.5 billion a day in trade with Mexico, and we spend $1 billion a day in Afghanistan. Not smart.”
Yes, the war in Afghanistan may not be smart, but CBO puts the price tag at less than $100 billion in 2013.
Anyhow, it is easy to see why the NYT runs Thomas Friedman’s columns. He gives you all sorts of information that you would never find anywhere else.
Read More Leer más Join the discussion Participa en la discusión
The Washington Post gave us one of its classics, an opinion piece that struggled with the dilemma of the proper pricing of cancer drugs. While the piece tells readers how the prices of these drugs are bankrupting families, it never once mentions why the prices are so high. The word “patent” does not appear in the column. Of course without patent monopolies most cancer drugs could be easily copied and sold as low-priced generics.
Drugs are expensive to develop, but once they have been developed the cost of producing another dose is almost always very low. In the economists’ dream world, cancer drugs would sell at their cheap marginal cost.
Of course we would need an alternative mechanism for financing the research. Such alternatives do exist. We could have direct public funding similar to the $30 billion that we spend each year to finance research at National Institutes of Health. (That funding could even go through private drug companies, as long as all the research was fully public.)
We could also go the route of a patent buyout system, where patents would be purchased by the government and then put in the public domain. This method has been suggested by Nobel Laureate Joe Stiglitz and actually proposed in a bill by Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders. Unfortunately it is difficult to get information on such proposals in Washington.
The Washington Post gave us one of its classics, an opinion piece that struggled with the dilemma of the proper pricing of cancer drugs. While the piece tells readers how the prices of these drugs are bankrupting families, it never once mentions why the prices are so high. The word “patent” does not appear in the column. Of course without patent monopolies most cancer drugs could be easily copied and sold as low-priced generics.
Drugs are expensive to develop, but once they have been developed the cost of producing another dose is almost always very low. In the economists’ dream world, cancer drugs would sell at their cheap marginal cost.
Of course we would need an alternative mechanism for financing the research. Such alternatives do exist. We could have direct public funding similar to the $30 billion that we spend each year to finance research at National Institutes of Health. (That funding could even go through private drug companies, as long as all the research was fully public.)
We could also go the route of a patent buyout system, where patents would be purchased by the government and then put in the public domain. This method has been suggested by Nobel Laureate Joe Stiglitz and actually proposed in a bill by Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders. Unfortunately it is difficult to get information on such proposals in Washington.
Read More Leer más Join the discussion Participa en la discusión
Ezra Klein tells us that both sides are badly confused about the issues at stake in the sequester. (The piece is more appropriately headlined in the print version, “Why both sides are misreading the budget battle.”)
Klein explains that tax expenditures, like the mortgage interest deduction and the deduction for state and local income taxes, are really forms of spending. He says that the problem is that Republicans are just failing to understand this fact:
“No one has worked harder to disabuse Republicans of this misconception than top Republican economists. Harvard’s Martin Feldstein, who served as President Ronald Reagan’s chief economist, says “the distinction between spending cuts and revenue increases breaks down if one considers tax expenditures.” Former Federal Reserve chairman Alan Greenspan says they should be ‘viewed as cuts in outlays rather than a reduction in revenues.’ Greg Mankiw, who led President George W. Bush’s Council of Economic Advisers, calls them “stealth spending implemented through the tax code.”
Ezra Klein tells us that both sides are badly confused about the issues at stake in the sequester. (The piece is more appropriately headlined in the print version, “Why both sides are misreading the budget battle.”)
Klein explains that tax expenditures, like the mortgage interest deduction and the deduction for state and local income taxes, are really forms of spending. He says that the problem is that Republicans are just failing to understand this fact:
“No one has worked harder to disabuse Republicans of this misconception than top Republican economists. Harvard’s Martin Feldstein, who served as President Ronald Reagan’s chief economist, says “the distinction between spending cuts and revenue increases breaks down if one considers tax expenditures.” Former Federal Reserve chairman Alan Greenspan says they should be ‘viewed as cuts in outlays rather than a reduction in revenues.’ Greg Mankiw, who led President George W. Bush’s Council of Economic Advisers, calls them “stealth spending implemented through the tax code.”
Read More Leer más Join the discussion Participa en la discusión
Wow, you’ve got to give those economists credit. As Neil Irwin tells us, they figured out that the Fed’s bond purchases affect the budget. Of course they put it on the negative side, noting that the Fed stands to lose money when it sells off its bonds at a loss later in the decade if interest rates rise as projected.
There are two important points that are worth pointing out on this one. First, the Fed does not have to sell off the bonds. It can simply hold its bonds until maturity as those of us who are a few years ahead of mainstream economists pointed out a while back.
If the Fed were to go this route, it could reach its targets for restricting money supply expansion by raising reserve requirements. This shouldn’t be that hard a concept to understand, the option appears in every intro textbook. While changing the base of reserves, rather than the money multiplier by changing the reserve requirement, is the preferred manner for the conduct of monetary policy, a set of higher reserve requirements scheduled long in advance should not be too disruptive to the banking system. We did use to have much higher reserve requirements. Also, China’s central bank routinely uses reserve requirement changes to conduct its monetary policy.
The other point that should jump out at folks is that the projected drop in bond prices, which is the reason that the Fed is projected to lose money, presents a great opportunity for the government to reduce its debt burden. The idea is that long-term bonds issued at the current low interest rates will sell at sharp discounts later in the decade, if interest rates rise as projected.
These discounted prices will give the government the opportunity to reduce its debt by hundreds of billions of dollars — perhaps more than $1 trillion — simply by buying these bonds back at lower prices. Such a move would be utterly pointless since it would not change the country’s interest burden at all, but since we currently live in a political environment where the debt to GDP ratio is an object of worship, this would be a great way to appease that god. It sure beats big cuts to Social Security and Medicare.
There is one other point about this piece that is worth noting. It tells readers:
“The great risk is that the political blowback from those losses would endanger the Fed’s independence.”
While the Fed deserves points for trying to boost the economy in the wake of the downturn it is hard to argue that the country has been well-served by an independent Fed. Greenspan at least looked the other way as the housing bubble grew to ever more dangerous proportions. Arguably, he even sought to fuel its growth as a way to recover from the collapse of the stock bubble.
The result has been incredibly disastrous with millions of lives being ruined by unemployment and the country likely to lose more than $7 trillion in output from the downturn. Could we really have done worse with a Fed that was more responsive to Congress? Perhaps, but it doesn’t seem like we have much to lose here.
Note — slight edits were made to an earlier verison.
Wow, you’ve got to give those economists credit. As Neil Irwin tells us, they figured out that the Fed’s bond purchases affect the budget. Of course they put it on the negative side, noting that the Fed stands to lose money when it sells off its bonds at a loss later in the decade if interest rates rise as projected.
There are two important points that are worth pointing out on this one. First, the Fed does not have to sell off the bonds. It can simply hold its bonds until maturity as those of us who are a few years ahead of mainstream economists pointed out a while back.
If the Fed were to go this route, it could reach its targets for restricting money supply expansion by raising reserve requirements. This shouldn’t be that hard a concept to understand, the option appears in every intro textbook. While changing the base of reserves, rather than the money multiplier by changing the reserve requirement, is the preferred manner for the conduct of monetary policy, a set of higher reserve requirements scheduled long in advance should not be too disruptive to the banking system. We did use to have much higher reserve requirements. Also, China’s central bank routinely uses reserve requirement changes to conduct its monetary policy.
The other point that should jump out at folks is that the projected drop in bond prices, which is the reason that the Fed is projected to lose money, presents a great opportunity for the government to reduce its debt burden. The idea is that long-term bonds issued at the current low interest rates will sell at sharp discounts later in the decade, if interest rates rise as projected.
These discounted prices will give the government the opportunity to reduce its debt by hundreds of billions of dollars — perhaps more than $1 trillion — simply by buying these bonds back at lower prices. Such a move would be utterly pointless since it would not change the country’s interest burden at all, but since we currently live in a political environment where the debt to GDP ratio is an object of worship, this would be a great way to appease that god. It sure beats big cuts to Social Security and Medicare.
There is one other point about this piece that is worth noting. It tells readers:
“The great risk is that the political blowback from those losses would endanger the Fed’s independence.”
While the Fed deserves points for trying to boost the economy in the wake of the downturn it is hard to argue that the country has been well-served by an independent Fed. Greenspan at least looked the other way as the housing bubble grew to ever more dangerous proportions. Arguably, he even sought to fuel its growth as a way to recover from the collapse of the stock bubble.
The result has been incredibly disastrous with millions of lives being ruined by unemployment and the country likely to lose more than $7 trillion in output from the downturn. Could we really have done worse with a Fed that was more responsive to Congress? Perhaps, but it doesn’t seem like we have much to lose here.
Note — slight edits were made to an earlier verison.
Read More Leer más Join the discussion Participa en la discusión
That seems the obvious response to the comment by Federal Reserve Governor Jerome Powell on the prospect of the United States government facing a debt crisis:
“We don’t know where the tipping point is, but wherever it is, we’re getting closer to it.”
Needless to say, the concern seems more than a bit silly given the problem of unemployment facing the country and the fact that both interest rates and the interest burden of the debt are near post-war lows.
But hey, at least worrying about the debt keeps these economists employed and off the streets. We can think of it as being like Keynes tongue in cheek proposal to bury pound notes and then let people dig them up. It might be pointless activity, but in a badly depressed economy it still can create jobs and increase output.
That seems the obvious response to the comment by Federal Reserve Governor Jerome Powell on the prospect of the United States government facing a debt crisis:
“We don’t know where the tipping point is, but wherever it is, we’re getting closer to it.”
Needless to say, the concern seems more than a bit silly given the problem of unemployment facing the country and the fact that both interest rates and the interest burden of the debt are near post-war lows.
But hey, at least worrying about the debt keeps these economists employed and off the streets. We can think of it as being like Keynes tongue in cheek proposal to bury pound notes and then let people dig them up. It might be pointless activity, but in a badly depressed economy it still can create jobs and increase output.
Read More Leer más Join the discussion Participa en la discusión
The Washington Post once again showed why it is known as “Fox on 15th Street” when it reported on a group of small business owners urging that Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid be protected from cuts. At one point the piece refers to plans for “overhauling the nation’s revenue-bleeding entitlement system.”
“Revenue-bleeding” does not appear to be the official name for the programs in question. Most newspapers would try to constrain their enthusiasm for cuts to Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid and leave phrases like “revenue-bleeding” for the opinion pages.
The piece also includes the inaccurate assertion that:
“Once again, the hour is growing late for elected officials to strike a deal to avoid a potentially catastrophic blow to the economy, as the $1.2 trillion round of automatic spending cuts known as ‘sequestration’ is scheduled to commence at the end of the month.”
It is not clear what is meant by “catastrophic.” Any deficit reduction of the sort that the Post routinely advocates will slow growth and increase unemployment. The sequester cuts are no different in this respect, however the Post has usually urged these cuts and praised others for pushing such cuts. It is striking that it now seems to treat it as a fact that deficit reduction would be catastrophic.
The paper also includes an assertion from a small business owner that:
““Economists agree that sequestration would send us back into recession.”
Actually, almost no economists would claim that the sequester cuts would lead to a recession, although they would slow growth by between 0.6-0.8 percentage points in 2013.
The Washington Post once again showed why it is known as “Fox on 15th Street” when it reported on a group of small business owners urging that Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid be protected from cuts. At one point the piece refers to plans for “overhauling the nation’s revenue-bleeding entitlement system.”
“Revenue-bleeding” does not appear to be the official name for the programs in question. Most newspapers would try to constrain their enthusiasm for cuts to Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid and leave phrases like “revenue-bleeding” for the opinion pages.
The piece also includes the inaccurate assertion that:
“Once again, the hour is growing late for elected officials to strike a deal to avoid a potentially catastrophic blow to the economy, as the $1.2 trillion round of automatic spending cuts known as ‘sequestration’ is scheduled to commence at the end of the month.”
It is not clear what is meant by “catastrophic.” Any deficit reduction of the sort that the Post routinely advocates will slow growth and increase unemployment. The sequester cuts are no different in this respect, however the Post has usually urged these cuts and praised others for pushing such cuts. It is striking that it now seems to treat it as a fact that deficit reduction would be catastrophic.
The paper also includes an assertion from a small business owner that:
““Economists agree that sequestration would send us back into recession.”
Actually, almost no economists would claim that the sequester cuts would lead to a recession, although they would slow growth by between 0.6-0.8 percentage points in 2013.
Read More Leer más Join the discussion Participa en la discusión
A NYT article reporting on the fact that banks are proving much more willing to forgive debt on second mortgages than first mortgages highlighted the case of Danette Rivera, a 38-year-old single mother, who had $115,000 of second mortgage debt forgiven and is facing foreclosure by Bank of America over unpaid debt on a first mortgage. The piece told readers:
“The bank, citing customer privacy concerns, declined to comment.”
It would have been helpful to remind readers that Bank of America has no privacy concerns in discussing its general policy on debt forgiveness. While the bank should rightly have refused to discuss the specifics of Ms. Rivera’s case, it certainly could have discussed its normal practice in dealing with underwater homeowners in cases where they hold both the first and second mortgage. (It’s not clear whether that was the case in this situation.)
A NYT article reporting on the fact that banks are proving much more willing to forgive debt on second mortgages than first mortgages highlighted the case of Danette Rivera, a 38-year-old single mother, who had $115,000 of second mortgage debt forgiven and is facing foreclosure by Bank of America over unpaid debt on a first mortgage. The piece told readers:
“The bank, citing customer privacy concerns, declined to comment.”
It would have been helpful to remind readers that Bank of America has no privacy concerns in discussing its general policy on debt forgiveness. While the bank should rightly have refused to discuss the specifics of Ms. Rivera’s case, it certainly could have discussed its normal practice in dealing with underwater homeowners in cases where they hold both the first and second mortgage. (It’s not clear whether that was the case in this situation.)
Read More Leer más Join the discussion Participa en la discusión
David Brooks is unhappy that:
“Voters disdain the G.O.P. because they think Republicans are mindless antigovernment fanatics who can’t distinguish good government programs from bad ones. Sequestration is a fanatically mindless piece of legislation that can’t distinguish good government programs from bad ones. Sequestration carefully spares programs like Medicare and Social Security that actually contribute to the debt problem. Sequestration will cause maximum political disgust for a trivial amount of budget savings.”
While voters may well end up being appalled by many of the Republicans’ mean-spirited budget cuts on poor and helpless people, it is hard to believe that they would be happy if the Republicans tried to cut Social Security and Medicare. These are both programs that enjoy overwhelming support among Republicans as well as Democrats.
Brooks later gives his recommendation:
“In a normal country, the politicians would try some new moves. For example, if they agreed to further means test Medicare they could save a lot of money. Democrats would be hitting the rich.”
Brooks’ proposed solution also would produce a trivial amount of savings unless he manages to hugely redefine “rich.” While rich people do makes lots of money, and therefore it is possible to get considerable amounts of revenue by taxing them, they don’t get much more in Medicare and Social Security benefits than anyone else.
When it came to repealing tax cuts, the cutoff for those who would pay higher rates was set at $400,000. If this same cutoff for being “rich” was applied to seniors, it would include less than one-quarter of one percent of people receiving benefits under these programs. That means the most we could save by taking away their benefits altogether would be a quarter of one percent of the cost of these programs. Since high income seniors already pay for a substantial portion of their Medicare benefit, the savings would be even less. The savings would be somewhat higher than one quarter of one percent on the Social Security side since the benefits of high income earners tend to be higher than average.
The only way to achieve substantial savings in these programs through means-testing would be if we applied means testing to people with income around $50,000-$60,000 a year. This would be a major redefinition of “rich.” (That’s one way to make more rich people.)
David Brooks is unhappy that:
“Voters disdain the G.O.P. because they think Republicans are mindless antigovernment fanatics who can’t distinguish good government programs from bad ones. Sequestration is a fanatically mindless piece of legislation that can’t distinguish good government programs from bad ones. Sequestration carefully spares programs like Medicare and Social Security that actually contribute to the debt problem. Sequestration will cause maximum political disgust for a trivial amount of budget savings.”
While voters may well end up being appalled by many of the Republicans’ mean-spirited budget cuts on poor and helpless people, it is hard to believe that they would be happy if the Republicans tried to cut Social Security and Medicare. These are both programs that enjoy overwhelming support among Republicans as well as Democrats.
Brooks later gives his recommendation:
“In a normal country, the politicians would try some new moves. For example, if they agreed to further means test Medicare they could save a lot of money. Democrats would be hitting the rich.”
Brooks’ proposed solution also would produce a trivial amount of savings unless he manages to hugely redefine “rich.” While rich people do makes lots of money, and therefore it is possible to get considerable amounts of revenue by taxing them, they don’t get much more in Medicare and Social Security benefits than anyone else.
When it came to repealing tax cuts, the cutoff for those who would pay higher rates was set at $400,000. If this same cutoff for being “rich” was applied to seniors, it would include less than one-quarter of one percent of people receiving benefits under these programs. That means the most we could save by taking away their benefits altogether would be a quarter of one percent of the cost of these programs. Since high income seniors already pay for a substantial portion of their Medicare benefit, the savings would be even less. The savings would be somewhat higher than one quarter of one percent on the Social Security side since the benefits of high income earners tend to be higher than average.
The only way to achieve substantial savings in these programs through means-testing would be if we applied means testing to people with income around $50,000-$60,000 a year. This would be a major redefinition of “rich.” (That’s one way to make more rich people.)
Read More Leer más Join the discussion Participa en la discusión
The Washington Post ran a major PR piece for the Trans-Pacific Partnership, headlining an article with the possibility that Japan might join the pact, “Japan’s economic turmoil may provide an opening for the U.S.” As the article points out, Japan’s trade barriers to U.S. exports are already very low. It is unlikely that the Trans-Pacific Partnership will increase U.S. exports to any substantial extent.
Towards the end of the article the Post tells readers;
“With similar talks underway between the United States and the European Union, the administration hopes it can shape global intellectual property, Internet commerce and other policies in ways that work to the advantage of U.S. companies.”
This seems the main point of the trade agreement. In this sense it is misleading to tout an “opening for the U.S.” as the Post does in the headline. This appears to be a deal designed to increase the profits of U.S. corporations. There is likely to be little, if any, gain for ordinary people in the United States.
In fact, if U.S. corporations increase their profits from patents, royalties and other items in Japan and elsewhere, it could lead to job loss in the United States. If the U.S. companies get more money from abroad from these payments then it will lead to a rise in the dollar. That would reduce other exports from the United States and increase imports, thereby reducing employment in the manufacturing sector.
This piece also repeatedly refers to the deal as a “free-trade” agreement. This is wrong. An agreement that increases patent and copyright protection, which this pact would, is going in the opposite direction of free-trade, which would reduce such protectionist barriers. The Post could have saved space and increased the accuracy of the article by leaving out the word “free.”
The Washington Post ran a major PR piece for the Trans-Pacific Partnership, headlining an article with the possibility that Japan might join the pact, “Japan’s economic turmoil may provide an opening for the U.S.” As the article points out, Japan’s trade barriers to U.S. exports are already very low. It is unlikely that the Trans-Pacific Partnership will increase U.S. exports to any substantial extent.
Towards the end of the article the Post tells readers;
“With similar talks underway between the United States and the European Union, the administration hopes it can shape global intellectual property, Internet commerce and other policies in ways that work to the advantage of U.S. companies.”
This seems the main point of the trade agreement. In this sense it is misleading to tout an “opening for the U.S.” as the Post does in the headline. This appears to be a deal designed to increase the profits of U.S. corporations. There is likely to be little, if any, gain for ordinary people in the United States.
In fact, if U.S. corporations increase their profits from patents, royalties and other items in Japan and elsewhere, it could lead to job loss in the United States. If the U.S. companies get more money from abroad from these payments then it will lead to a rise in the dollar. That would reduce other exports from the United States and increase imports, thereby reducing employment in the manufacturing sector.
This piece also repeatedly refers to the deal as a “free-trade” agreement. This is wrong. An agreement that increases patent and copyright protection, which this pact would, is going in the opposite direction of free-trade, which would reduce such protectionist barriers. The Post could have saved space and increased the accuracy of the article by leaving out the word “free.”
Read More Leer más Join the discussion Participa en la discusión
In an article on the impact of the sequester on the Defense Department the Post told readers:
“The $46 billion dent to the Pentagon’s fiscal 2013 budget, long considered by the brass as nothing more than a political pawn, has taken on an air of inevitability, forcing commanders across the military to plan for painful reductions and argue that American lives and livelihoods are hanging in the balance” [emphasis added].
A real newspaper would of course reserve the adjective “painful” for the opinion pages. Any budget cut will lead to job loss and displacement. However the Post is not in the habit of applying the term “painful” when budget cuts take place outside of the military.
In an article on the impact of the sequester on the Defense Department the Post told readers:
“The $46 billion dent to the Pentagon’s fiscal 2013 budget, long considered by the brass as nothing more than a political pawn, has taken on an air of inevitability, forcing commanders across the military to plan for painful reductions and argue that American lives and livelihoods are hanging in the balance” [emphasis added].
A real newspaper would of course reserve the adjective “painful” for the opinion pages. Any budget cut will lead to job loss and displacement. However the Post is not in the habit of applying the term “painful” when budget cuts take place outside of the military.
Read More Leer más Join the discussion Participa en la discusión
