The other day NPR did some solid man-on-the-street reporting, and found—as we have found in our ongoing Town Hall series—the public is disconnected from Washington politics. Reporter Andrea Seabrook visited Cincinnati and asked those whom she met about their opinion of Congress. It was hardly shocking to learn it was not very high.
Danny Korman, a small businessman who runs a general store, seemed to defy the conventional wisdom about how all small business owners want tax relief. Said Korman: “What we really need to be doing is increasing revenue so that we’re generating more economic activity.” Why, that’s what Paul Krugman has been arguing.
Korman pushed back when Seabrook asked whether a tax hike would affect him. “It would affect me,” he said. “I’m just not convinced that that’s the real argument. As a retail store, we’re very dependent on people walking into our store and purchasing goods.” It was more important that people have money to spend than getting a tax break. In other words, Korman said he needs customers more than he needs tax relief. “There’s a major disconnect of what the public wants, and what the lawmakers are actually passing laws for,” he told Seabrook. “They’re not listening to the public. That’s the problem.”
When asked about Congress, a man named Bill Bellman told Seabrook: “There’s nothing good to say. The current Congress, I think, has just decided they’re not going to do anything, and hope that a Republican wins the next election and they can do what they want.” Bellman said he wanted a leader in government—a non-partisan person who will do the right things. He mentioned cleaning up the economy, but NPR didn’t tell listeners what he meant by that. That might have been a nice addition to the story.
Scott Yeagle amplified the point saying that neither party wants the other to succeed. And Tim Jones told NPR that “we’re paying them a lot of money, but they’re not doing their job.”
The NPR piece reminded me of the book Exit, Voice, and Loyalty, a staple from political science literature, which describes the processes buyers—or voters, for that matter—go through when they become dissatisfied with a product or a service, including that provided by the government. The NPR segment and our Town Halls show voters are unhappy. The scientific polls show that, too.
The next man-on-the-street interviews should give us a glimpse of whether these disconnected voters are remaining loyal, whether they’re voicing discontent to make enough politicians listen, or whether they’ve had enough and plan to exit from the political process in November. Those are the next questions to ask on the street.
How absolutely positively fortuitous that NPR managed to find the highly coveted “small business owner” who agrees with their left of center take on current events. And what better place than a rust belt/apple pie town like Cincinnati to gauge the pulse of middle America.
However, its interesting that 350.org managed to quote the same Dan Korman back in August when it was running a pro Obama anti chamber hit piece:
Quite the contrary, says Dan Korman, a restaurant owner in Cincinnati, Ohio, “The US Chamber claimed to represent small business last week when it pushed Obama to let smog pollution slide. Small business owners don’t like smog, our families don’t like breathing smog, and the climate can’t handle any more of it.”
I mean, even with the thousands of small businesses in Cincinnati, the odds must be pretty damn high that both 350.org and NPR would find the EXACT same liberal businessman to tell them what they wanted to hear, right?
#1 Posted by Mike H, CJR on Thu 8 Dec 2011 at 03:55 PM
Major media organizations are notorious for going to the same 'man in the street' for pre-fabricated quotes that happen to be consistent with the whatever talking points the Democrats are promoting. CJR gets taken again!
#2 Posted by Mark Richard, CJR on Thu 8 Dec 2011 at 04:49 PM
Nice catch, Mike...
Typical liberal hackery.
#3 Posted by padikiller, CJR on Thu 8 Dec 2011 at 06:27 PM
Whether or not Dan Korman is a overly vocal business man or filthy liberals have only one man on their man on the street evil Rolodex, the guy isn't saying anything radical.
It's what surveys have been saying for awhile now:
http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/09/14/whats-holding-back-small-businesses/
Even the weird ones which treat consumer confidence and consumer demand as unrelated issues show consumer issues dominating "big government" ones, and that's with the conservative blowhard machine working full thrust on "Obama's a socialist trying to raise your taxes, double your health care costs, change your credit system, and steal your children for his blood pudding a la mode".
People are worried about sales in an environment in which 9% unemployment is normal, banks screw their customers, people are paying off debt, and states are firing - not hiring. And the battle the federal reserve is stuck on is inflation while the federal government is stuck on deficits and debt.
So yeah, in spite of huge pressure pushing debate in the wrong directions, most businesses get we have a demand problem.
#4 Posted by Thimbles, CJR on Thu 8 Dec 2011 at 07:29 PM
Man, I thought I had my Gallup link in there, but this works out since I found a nifty modeled behavior link that looks at the same poll, and has the same conclusions I do, but goes into more detail.
http://modeledbehavior.com/2011/10/24/what-are-businesses-worried-about/
And the federal reserve of new york says in a study there's a demand problem too.
http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/08/16/its-the-aggregate-demand-stupid/
And it's not like they want to, since that undermines their "inflation is the super scariest" kick.
#5 Posted by Thimbles, CJR on Thu 8 Dec 2011 at 07:46 PM
That is a good catch, though, Mike. Dan Korman does seem to be quoted a lot. He's not quoted at Greg Packer levels, but he's quoted a lot all the same. Although I don't know what happened with this piece specifically, I don't doubt that his unique job (owner of a "green" general store) attracts the media. I don't think that Korman's semi-ubiquity invalidates Trudy's overarching point -- I think the media should spend more time talking to ordinary people and less time talking to politicians. But if they're going to do that, they should actually go out in the street and find some random people to talk with, and not just settle for some guy who's quotable and easy to contact. That's what Trudy does when she does her "town hall" pieces... she goes out somewhere and literally just talks to whomever is willing to talk.
#6 Posted by Justin Peters, CJR on Fri 9 Dec 2011 at 12:38 AM
Justin wrote: "That's what Trudy does when she does her "town hall" pieces... she goes out somewhere and literally just talks to whomever is willing to talk."
padikiller responds: Yep... That's what these guys do, too... Only "somewhere" being "green" stores, student union buildings, union halls, etc... And "whomever" being a liberal with an agenda.
#7 Posted by padikiller, CJR on Fri 9 Dec 2011 at 08:10 AM
Justin, I actually appreciate Trudy’s “man on the street” segments, as corny as they might sound. I wasn’t arguing for some sort of conspiracy, just struck by the coincidence.
#8 Posted by Mike H, CJR on Fri 9 Dec 2011 at 09:23 AM
"padikiller responds: Yep... That's what these guys do, too... Only "somewhere" being "green" stores, student union buildings, union halls, etc... And "whomever" being a liberal with an agenda."
Protip: holier than thou works when you're not caught in vns scandals, paid pentagon consultant scandals, coached soldiers for the president scandals, fox news producers leading tea party cheers in front of fox camera scandals, etc...
Republican activists and operatives have managed, if not faked, their press coverage for decades and both fox news and the rest of the media played along.
Partisans from conservative think tanks are often consulted for stories with little to no mention of their pre existing agendas.
So please, spare us the contempt.
#9 Posted by Thimbles, CJR on Fri 9 Dec 2011 at 11:06 AM
Thimbles...
If you can show us a case where some Republican has been repeatedly propped up as "man in the street".. I'll concede the point.
But I don't think you'll be able to do this (and neither does anyone else, including you).
A guy who runs a "vegan green general store" is hardly representative of a typical small business - especially when the guy's clearly an activist.
The truth is out there and it's not especially difficult to find. All anyone has to do is to drive down a mile stretch of the main drag in any city in America and interview the owners of the businesses. The paint store, the Subway franchise, the florist shop, etc.
Anyone who actually does this will find that voice of small business is not reflected in Danny Korman's opinion.
What you will find is that people who actually drive the economy want smaller and cheaper government.
#10 Posted by padikiller, CJR on Fri 9 Dec 2011 at 11:34 AM
"If you can show us a case where some Republican has been repeatedly propped up as "man in the street".. I'll concede the point."
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KrpES1Lk7X4
Didn't take too long either.
"What you will find is that people who actually drive the economy want smaller and cheaper government."
And more customers and less expensive medical costs and less exploitive relationships with banks.
What you'll also find is a whole bunch of people who've been told for 30 years on that government spending and government debt is out of control and that at any moment the world is going to collapse, and they've been told this by people who missed the greatest asset bubble in history based on unregulation and massive criminal and predatory practices.
It's not surprising that people have a view of the macro economy that is skewed to the picture painted by conservatives, but these same people have a view of their local economy that is much different. And that view is "We don't have any sales because people don't have any jobs because people don't have any money because people have a ton of debt on their backs and things like medical care and gas have cost a crap load lately. Nothing is fricken stable and I'm not going to chance losing my money investing in an unstable environment."
Which is why people who claim to be frightened of big government and big deficits and big defaults are buying US treasury bonds at low interest. There are no safer alternatives, and there won't be until the debt problem is solved, which it won't be until the unemployment problem is solved, which it won't be until... oh, shoot. This is one of those chicken and egg issues. And the solution to this is, you tell me.
#11 Posted by Thimbles, CJR on Fri 9 Dec 2011 at 03:16 PM
Nice response, Thimbles, but is your message supposed to be that NPR is really not very different than Fox News?
Judging from their votes - school levy requests are a good indicator - people are rational. They want lighter taxes and they also want lower prices from the institutions you cite. Everyone prefers to have it both ways.
Regarding your comment about people being told for 30 years that government spending is out of control, etc., (the argument actually goes back further, but starting about 30 years ago voters began to agree), there is a crisis right now in western Europe - you know, the western Europe invariably held up as a model for the US - over that very issue. What's more, the biggest state in this country, and one that has been solidly liberal and predominantly Democratic for a generation now, is in a state of perennial fiscal dysfunction because of out-of-control spending and regulation, having eroded its tax base with anti-commercial policies. You and Krugman may have an 'explanation', but you don't have to be very right-wing to believe that in the real world, there are real costs and trade-offs involved in the relation of the public to the private sector, and that quite often the outcome of public sector activity is negative. That's why we have elections - in which the party of more government and taxation has only just held its own over that 30-year period.
It would be a major step forward if Krugman and his apostles found the courage to acknowledge any - any - trade-offs per their policy prescriptions. But there is no down side for anyone except a few shadowy gazillionaires.
#12 Posted by Mark Richard, CJR on Fri 9 Dec 2011 at 05:00 PM
"Nice response, Thimbles, but is your message supposed to be that NPR is really not very different than Fox News?"
No, my message is if such journalistic practices really bothered you, you wouldn't be watching nor defending Fox News where you find much worse. So let's not play too 'holier than thou' over this minor issue of two separate journalists working for two separate enterprises talked about two separate issues with the vegan shop guy from Cincinnati. I can agree that journalists should emulate more of Trudy's style seeking out a variety of people to capture a diverse sample of the public mood, but the whole "typical liberal hackery" "haw haw, libs suck" attitude is a little strong, especially considering the whole glass house nature of the critique.
"Judging from their votes - school levy requests are a good indicator - people are rational. They want lighter taxes and they also want lower prices from the institutions you cite. Everyone prefers to have it both ways."
Actually, from what I've seen, people usually like the trade of higher taxes for better services - the schools being one of the prime examples of this:
http://minnesota.publicradio.org/display/web/2011/11/09/school-district-tax-ballots/
"there is a crisis right now in western Europe - you know, the western Europe invariably held up as a model for the US - over that very issue."
Wrong, the Europe situation is a one currency/ monetary policy problem. The countries that have the Euro are stuck with Germany and France in the driver's seat on economic issues that would normaly be handled by a national central bank. What's good for Spain isn't so good for Germany, so the ECB prefers to do other things which aren't very good for Germany either. Basically by guarding the price stability of the Euro, they've destabilized the peripheral economies within the Euro, which will end up breaking up the Euro if they don't cut out the crap. They have the same debt/bad asset problem as the US, but their fed won't approve stimulus nor the 1.2 trillion dollars at a time the US did to support their banks. The ECB decided to starve the union's way to prosperity.
"What's more, the biggest state in this country, and one that has been solidly liberal and predominantly Democratic for a generation now, is in a state of perennial fiscal dysfunction because of out-of-control spending and regulation, having eroded its tax base with anti-commercial policies"
No California is messy because it has adopted the worst of both conservative and liberal systems, it has cost explosions because of the direct ballot and unions and revenue problems because tax increases require super majorities.
Cheers.
#13 Posted by Thimbles, CJR on Sat 10 Dec 2011 at 12:04 AM
For the record, Thimbles, I don't watch much of Fox News, and never said I had. I probably am exposed to more NPR and NY Times than any other voices.
As for the 'holier than thou' attitude, you are (not for the first time) confusing causes and effects. Fox is anathemized as politically biased by the rest of the MSM. Organizations such as the big urban newspapers, the wire services, the weekly newsmagazines, NPR, etc., insist that they have no political agenda, in contrast to Fox, but Mike's 'catch' suggests that MSM reporters and producers use the same methods to shape their narratives that Fox uses. I think Andrea Seabrook and her producers knew exactly the story they were going to file from Cincinnati, and simply sought out voices to support it. Fox's clear bias stands out because it is antagonistic to the normal, urban-bourgeois-liberal framing of the dominant political discourse. Even at that, Fox has asked much tougher questions in interviews and in debates of the GOP candidate lineup than the MSM (particularly '60 Minutes') has asked of Administration officials.
I'll leave it to you to present a rather tortured explanation of the European debt crisis and California's chronic economic problems. Per the Europeans, basically the Germans don't like the idea of working until they are 65 so that Greeks can retire at 55, which was a predictable problem with a centralized authority trying to administer diverse political cultures. As for taxes vs. services, if people like higher taxes in exchange for more money for schools, there is more accurate way to check this than just Minnesota's levy ballot issues, which is to look nationwide. Minnesota is a classically white liberal state which has not voted for a Republican for president since 1972 - longer, even, than Massachusetts or Vermont has gone - so its demographic and policy preferences may not be a good predictor of the country as a whole. (Both Minnesotans offered as presidential candidates in the past half-century, were Democrats and got, respectively, 42% and 41% of the popular national vote.) As for California, it is already one of the most highly taxed states in the country, and you suggest that it needs more taxes and everything's going to be OK. Does anyone really - really - believe that if California could tax even more, its economy would improve? Already Midwestern states are picking off businesses from Illinois after that state's steep tax increases. Even the NY Times is reporting on it. Cuomo in NY finally caved, but fought his own party's tax lust because he knows that NY's competitiveness suffers because of NY taxes and regs, especially on a financial services sector that funds much of the state's social service programs.
#14 Posted by Mark Richard, CJR on Sun 11 Dec 2011 at 12:18 PM
Thimbles, I should add re the taxes vs. services point, that of course people are more inclined to pay higher taxes if they get better services, which is why these matters are better handled at the state and municipality level. But at the federal level, most taxation goes to transfer payments, not into roads, bridges, etc. Most taxes end up being taken out of the taxpayer's pocket and put in someone else's pocket for no rendered service, but out of ideological redistribution politics. This is true I expect in Europe, too - but European nations are more indigenously nationalistic (they may be secular, but they sure get pretty worked up about veils and minarets) in the sense of having shared values and shared history, so an income transfer to a second cousin is not as difficult to sell. There is an opening for some people on the Left to renounce centralized social policy and economics on the part of the public sector in favor of more grassroots administration, but in spite of much rhetoric along those lines, the Left ends up unable to resist the siren call of Washington, where the biggest pot of money in the world (surrounded by people who want some of it) is located.
#15 Posted by Mark Richard, CJR on Sun 11 Dec 2011 at 12:27 PM
Mark Richard: I'm not sure people will "get better services" at the local level, and I don't believe you are correct when you write, "these matters are better handled at the state and municipality level." Where is your proof?
Most state and local governments have weaker ethics laws than our federal government. In most of our states, state legislatures aren't in session for a full calendar year, working as a state senator or state representative is a part time job. So, legislators work in real estate, run car dealerships, or work as ranchers on the side for income. But it get's better, since the ethics laws are so weak at the state level and press coverage of state capitol's so weakened due to media budget cuts, state senators and reps can regularly chair a committee even when that committee has a direct impact on the senator or representative's business interests. Yahtzee!
Another point, the transfer payments you complain about saved our economy from falling into another Great Depression. But for the unemployment insurance and medicaid payments to the states in the 2009 stimulus, millions of US citizens would have suffered needlessly. Millions. You may not want to admit it, but that's the truth.
Automatic stabilizers are a way our federal government counters massive economic downturns. Why do we depend on Washington? Easy, scores of states have to balance their budgets, its in their state constitution. So, states all across the country are cutting back spending, pulling money out of the economy. In our case, making the crash of 2008 and the following recession a national experiment in paradox of thrift. If the US federal government hadn't sent hundreds of billions of dollars to the states, the collapse in our economy orchestrated by the fraud on Wall Street would have devastated main street more than it already has.
You may want to revisit your faith in state in local government. As it is, they can't fix potholes in our streets or maintain our voting machines.
#16 Posted by MGDub, CJR on Sun 11 Dec 2011 at 10:10 PM
The question of whether schools, police departments, and transportation services are better financed/administered by Washington than by localities is almost a qualitative one and would require a research paper. I'd simply argue that the quality of public education and criminal justice has gotten progressively shoddier, overall, along with the increase in federal participation.
As for the idea that transfer payments saved the economy in 2008-09, let's suppose that a temporary fix did serve that purpose. Any price? Is it possible that the 'fix' stretched out the illness? Economic history is loaded with 'crashes' that were both painful and short. But when the political sector has thrown good money after bad, in the manner of Japan after its 1989 banking crisis, the hard times have lingered longer. One of the problems I have with left-leaning political arguments is that they concede nothing - nothing - in the way of a down-side to their policies, and this is an example. Yes, you can goose up the economy temporarily with Monopoly money, but in the longer run we are not all dead, as Keynes would have it.
I'm not sure exactly on what grounds the people who work in Washington are so much superior to people outside Washington in fixing potholes in our streets or maintaining our voting machines. Superior evolution or something? And, by the way, have you been to Washington DC lately and observed the quality of its municipal services?
#17 Posted by Mark Richard, CJR on Mon 12 Dec 2011 at 12:45 PM
"Organizations such as the big urban newspapers, the wire services, the weekly newsmagazines, NPR, etc., insist that they have no political agenda, in contrast to Fox, but Mike's 'catch' suggests that MSM reporters and producers use the same methods to shape their narratives that Fox uses."
As I said earlier, it's good to get a more diverse sample than that of the veggie dealer down the street, but
A) two instances from two different outfits does not a trend make.
B) this is not a serious misrepresentation of business owner opinion since low demand is either second from the top or the top concern depending on the methodology of your poll.
C) what fox and conservative media does regularily exceeds the worst accusations of liberal media.
D) my objection was not to the critique, which may be valid, but to the tone of the critics which was off the charts in relation to the supposed offense. Padi was the the major offender here.
"Per the Europeans, basically the Germans don't like the idea of working until they are 65 so that Greeks can retire at 55, which was a predictable problem with a centralized authority trying to administer diverse political cultures."
Again, incorrect. What has happened is that the European Union had a loose money policy during the good times and were exposed badly during the crash. The policy that allowed the top American banks to expand their leverage 40 to 1 was actually coined in the EU. Eurpoean, particularily German, banks heavily invested in Spain, Ireland, Iceland, Portugal, Greece and asset booms took place in all those countries (it wasn't that long ago that Greece hosted the Olympics). When these assets collapsed, as did the tax base, these governments all had to prop up their failing economies with something, and it was then that the ECB switched to a tight money policy.
So therefore these governments are left with three bad choices, borrow money on very bad terms, watch the deflationary spiral swirl, or sell public assets in order to generate cash. The problem being is that they still have outstanding debt which the Euro is demanding must be paid to the banks, so the funds generated from public asset sales and expense cuts would not go towards supporting the public's economy.
Furthermore, you have the problem that wages went out of line with the real economy during the good times, which means that the cost of export production is out of line causing the economy to become uncompetitive. The normal process for dealing with this problem is to devalue the currency, bring on some manageable inflation, and allow time to deal with debts denominated in local currency. This relies on having local control of one's currency which none of the troubled members have, one of which has a hate on for inflation due to the Weimar experience. Instead, they have coined a phrase "internal devaluation" which means force government austerity until the private sector collapses at which point wages will follow.
This stuff was pulled in South and Central America regularily and it failed horribly each time, the only thing that's new is that this time it's 1st world neighbors going through it. When it happens, the only way a country escapes is default. But that can't happen in the Euro because banks have bet of CDS's which may provoke a crisis if Greece or Italy does default. The Euro situation is a complex one, made by a complex financial sector and people acting on out of date ideologies.
#18 Posted by Thimbles, CJR on Mon 12 Dec 2011 at 03:36 PM