Last week, President Obama sat down with George Stephanopoulos, and when the discussion turned to the national debt, the president shared a simple fact: "We don't have an immediate crisis."
For reasons unclear, the comment was not well received by Republicans and many in the media, with some suggesting a bipartisan debt-reduction agreement may be dependent, at least in part, on Obama saying the opposite.
But then a funny thing happened. House Budget Committee Chairman Paul Ryan (R-Wis.) unveiled his budget plan, and it also conceded there is no immediate debt crisis. Yesterday, House Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) made the same concession to Martha Raddatz.
RADDATZ: Is [Obama] right that we don't have an immediate crisis?
BOEHNER: We do not have an immediate debt crisis, but we all know that we have one looming.
Moments later Raddatz clarified further, asking, "So you agree with the president on that?" The Speaker added, "Yes."
This is not to say Boehner and Obama are on the same page when it comes to fiscal issues -- in general, they're very far apart -- but for all the handwringing last week about the president saying there is no debt crisis, it seems to be one of the few areas of bipartisan agreement. Obama, Boehner, and Ryan are all saying roughly the same thing about the nature and the timeframe of the challenge: there may be dangers on the horizon, but as of right now, the so-called "crisis" doesn't exist.
And at this point, any area of bipartisan consensus in the fiscal debate is welcome.
The problem comes when we consider what the two sides want to do next.
I should note, of course, that the idea that there's a "looming" crisis is itself problematic -- there's very little evidence to suggest there's an actual problem anywhere on the horizon. Interest rates are low, inflation is low, and it's never been easier for the United States to borrow at will. If we look for indicators of a genuine crisis in the near future -- Boehner told ABC "nobody knows" how long the nation has before there's a real problem -- we generally come up empty.
But if policymakers in both parties insist on addressing fiscal issues anyway, they're going to have to compromise. What kind of deal is the House Speaker prepared to consider? One in which the White House gives him everything he wants.
"The president got his tax hikes on January the 1st. The talk about raising revenue is over."
Told that Obama is offering entitlement reforms as part of a compromise, Boehner didn't care.
This is neither new nor surprising, but it does put this talk of an alleged "crisis" in an interesting light. According to the Speaker of the House, there's a "looming" debt crisis which will cause the nation real harm. And according to the Speaker of the House, he and his party aren't willing to compromise to address this crisis before is strikes.
This leads to two possibilities: either Boehner doesn't really believe there's a "looming" debt crisis, or believes the threat to the nation's wellbeing is real and he just doesn't much care about preventing it.
I'd love to know which of these two is accurate, but for now, we can only speculate.
Leave a Comment:
Short term stimulus - long term debt reduction.
The effort to do the long term debt reduction will be much much easier if we first get the economy improving - create jobs and make it possible for a worker to make a living wage.
In the past, we have been good at short term stimulus (reference all previous recessions - standard procedure) but tend to be really bad at long term debt reduction.
That might make perfect sense to normal people, but shoot... aren't there untold legions of economists who think we should pursue austerity measures? I mean, it says so right there on the Newsmax.com.
Oh. Right. Nevermind.
Why are you assuming this recession is like the others? This is a debt driven recession. The prevalent frame of mind is to save(hoard). See "Japan".
The only other comparable depression in the last century was the Great Depression, and we didn't do all that well then on the stimulus either. Roosevelt got off to a good start, much as Obama did, but (like Obama) blew it after re-election: he turned to fiscal consolidation, tried to balance the budget in 1937, and sent the economy straight into a second dip.
Assuming we elect a Republican in 2016, we can follow up with Part III of that program and get the economy roaring again with a major war.
Rochester12 actually, no, there are not. 90% if economists say that austerity measures do not work in these circumstances, as is evidenced in Europe and elsewhere. Austerity in the United States however is even worse because it means cutting most programs from people who need it and giving money to people who do not and who caused the problem in the first place. It is Republicans who are claiming that economists say this but always fail to produce the actual economist saying it.
Carlo, does your browser not render sarcasm tags?
Haha. Thank you, D.C. And now we need a :facepalm: tag.
"This is a debt driven recession."
This is a GOP driven recession because the GOP refuses to govern. They vote against and filibuster even their own ideas rather then let anything good happen under Obama. And a huge part of the debt was created by GOP championed deregulation and unnecessary and poorly run wars.
Not to mention republicans have been refusing to pay for their debt every since Reagan made the US the #1 world borrowing nation after 40 years of the US being the Worlds #1 lending country. But hey republicans and their trolls will continue to claim they have the countries best interests at heart and any day now the wealth will come trickling down out of the Grand Cayman island banks.
Actually no... this recession has nothing to do with the debt, it never did, it does, however, have everything to do with the massive income gap, greed and lack of regulation on Wall Street, and the hoarding of billions of dollars by the wealthy (instead of reinvesting).
The way out of the recession is stimulus spending... put people to work fixing our decaying infrastructure. Put money back into the states so they can rehire teacher, police, firemen, rangers. When people are working they spend money and pay taxes which creates demand so business hire more people and they in turn buy things, spend money and pay taxes. And then guess what... then there's no debt problem because the government doesn't have to spend as much on programs and they get more money in taxes. Funny how that works!
This is not a debt driven recession; it is an income inequality recession. Too much money is being hoarded by too few very wealthy individuals and corporations. Too much money is tied up in fixed assets. In that respect this recession is like the Great Depression when most of the money ended up in bank vaults in the accounts of a few very wealthy individuals -- according to none other than Milton Friedman. The only thing that kept us out of another Great Depression was such programs as SS, unemployment insurance, and other social programs put into place during the Great Depression. My SS check kept coming and I kept spending.
There was a young man on one of the MSNBC programs last week, I forget which, who was considering running for Congress in a part of Virginia where most of the people work for the government. He kept saying that the government was taking money out of the economy. He did not seem to realize that the government puts money back into the economy. Those wealthy individuals and corporations that are putting money in off shore accounts or into the stock market are the ones hoarding it and keeping it out of the economy. When the government taxes it and spends it on such things as infrastructure or social programs, that money goes back into the economy.
"tend to be really bad at long term debt reduction"
Yep. It was impossible to get an actual budget surplus during the Clinton administration. Dick Cheney actually talked about a "surplus crisis" before the Iraq war. The government had too much money and didn't know what to do with it. Just 11 years ago.
Excuse me bflynch, but the federal government is not empowered to
REDISTRIBUTE the incomes of the wealthy to the poor. That has never been the goal or end of any
part of the U.S. Constitution. So your
idea of correcting "income inequality" with federal spending is WAAAY
off base.
If you are perpetually poor, then it is not someone else’s
fault...it's your fault! Things happen
and problems arise...but if you are consistently ending up in tough times, then
you've got to start looking at yourself and the decisions you made (or didn't
make). Stop blaming someone else. You are capable of getting yourself out of
the mess you created for yourself! But
you have to want that level of responsibility.
Unfortunately, liberal democrats, all too often, encourage you to
sit back and relax while they take care of you.
The money they are putting back into the economy (into the hands of the
perpetually increasing unemployable class) must first be taken out of the
economy (out of the hands of the perpetually shrinking employable class). With each generation, the problem grows
bigger and bigger. Soon there will not
be enough employed people working hard enough to provide enough for the
unemployed.
They'll be too many "takers", not enough
"makers". But the liberal
democrat party will be as strong as ever.
That's their recipe for growth...more poor unemployed voters.
bbeat: You need to try this new incredible medical breakthrough surgery, it's called a Talkingpointectomy. It will cleanse your entire soul, you will be so regular you will never blow out another o-ring...
bbeat, unfortunately the federal government does have the power and is currently redistributing the wealth...not per individual but from rich states to poor states. Look at the figures for dollars received vs. dollars spent by state and you will see who are the takers...ironically most taker states are republican whose residents wholeheartedly agree with your inputs but fail to realize they are the beneficiary of this socialist behavior. Maybe we should cap federal spending by state to less than 100% and let the local governments decide how to make up the difference. Might be a good wake-up call...
To add some actual numbers to my previous comment:
18 states give more in federal taxes than they receive in federal spending. The Makers. 32 states receive more in federal spending than they pay in federal taxes. The Takers.
In the last election. 20 Taker states went to Romney with 12 going to Obama. 4 Maker states went to Romney with 14 going to Obama. Seems the liberals do not mind sharing the wealth even if it benefits conservatives...
Can't cite it but I understood that thanks to deficit spending EVERY state receives more Federal spending than is paid by its residents (and businesses) in Federal taxes. We are all 'takers'. If you can cite a reliable source as to which states do pay more Federal tax, vs receive, please do so.
Bacon...do a google search of "federal spending by state" and you will find multiple sources. The one I referenced compiled data from 1990 thru 2009. It provides total dollars in vs total spent and represents it as a percent of GDP which I then converted into an easier number. For every dollar from my state, we received 1.54 back.
In Other News, Obama and Boner agree that today is Monday.
What to call "tomorrow' is in dispute. Some say it will be "Tuesday", while others want to call it "the day after Monday".
Obama agrees to leave the country, will ask what the Israelis call it.
If you give a crap about using facts and reason to improve our lives, please stop calling him "Boner". That kind of "cleverness" is the bailiwick of the Tea Party folks holding the signs that say "Keep Gum't Out My Medicare!"
Thx.
For some, this is New Year's Eve, March 24, 2012.(Old Style)
Politicians....perpetually campaigning for re-election....staying in power is all they think about or care about...it is how they line their pockets
Politicians....perpetually campaigning for re-election....staying in power is all they think about or care about...it is how they line their pockets
So 70k per man woman and child isn't a problem and hard working people paying taxes that go towards paying the interest on the debt isn't a problem either.
President Obama and Mr. Boehner would you and your fancy friends please take on the interest payments for us so we don't have to work about a month per year to pay for you and your predecessors horrendous book keeping?
No problem now that the middle class just got their taxes raises a few thousand and in states like Illinois the public service takes are being put on local communities as the their taxes will increase five times over. To add the millions politicians are making legal immigrants will only encourage millions more to come to America costing the middle class to suffer and there will only be the rich and the poor.
fruz: Cheer up ole fella... this is America... some ferener might hear ya gripin and all en wanna take yer slot... just sayin...
Boehner and Ryan will no doubt walk back these statements before the end of the week.
"This leads to two possibilities" - Terribly biased as there is a third possibility. That there IS a debt crisis looming but that by cutting the gov't in half through reduced spending we thereby avoid the crisis.
Or, a fourth possibility. You cut government spending in half, cause a depression which greatly increases the debt to GDP ratio, and, thereby, generate an immediate debt crisis.
Or that by raising revenues to cover our expenditures we'll avoid both the debt and the expense of cleaning up all of the corpses in the streets.
Unfortunately, both of those statements are very short-sighted. Yes, in the short term you may avoid a debt crisis but in the long term you do realize that govt produces nothing? So, you will take from the Producers to give to the Looters simply so that people can maintain their jobs? Eventually, that model will fail. ....just ask the Soviet Union. I find it strange that people complain about Fat Cat capitalists all of the time when some of the best Fat Cat jobs, even within the middle class, are govt jobs.
Lovely, mindless, sound bite. Says /me, looking out a window at a public street with two fire hydrants visible. Not to mention schools, water and sewer systems, the airport a couple of miles away that is probably where the plane I can see is headed towards.
Pardon me while I check the weather forecast, brought to us by the National Weather Service (which has done amazing things for agriculture, construction trades, and the general public) based on satellites put up by, among other contributors, NASA.
And never mind the Internet that we're using to have this silly conversation (developed by DARPA and initially deployed by publicly-funded university programs.)
I love this argument that the govt does this that or the other. Heard it many times. Unfortunately, for every govt program that it described here, I could probably find at least 3 documented, gross inefficiencies within that org that the private sector could eliminate and do better. I am not saying that we should do away with govt all-together. I am simply saying that it is way too fat.
Ridiculous comments that have nothing to do with debt.
The simple facts are
- the national debt has risen every year for several decades under the control of Democrats and Republicans
- there is no plan for a balanced budget
- our national debt is 70% to 80% of GDP depending on how you measure it
- most economists predicts rising healthcare costs will crowd out most spending by the Federal government in the future
- Part of our debt is the $4 trillion dollars in cash taken from social security, so that people who paid that $4 trillion will have to pay for it AGAIN by future income taxes or borrowing to pay back the social security trust
- The Federal reserve is pumping money into the system. Once (I make an assumption the economy may actually grow again) the economy grows, interest rates will eventually rise making debt interest payments go up in future budgets
- The deficit is so large today, that raising taxes to Bush era on those making under $400K a year will not even cut it in half.
Summary: I am sick and tired of journalists who should know better (Rachel Maddow in this post) and some commenters here who have no clue that our country is doomed unless we get the national debt under control.
I perfectly well understand that if we could predict that the debt remained at a stable amount of GDP infinitely, then one could easily live with a national debt.
Contrary to anyone's wishes or desires, the FACTS show the national debt as a % of GDP continues to grow, the future shows it will grow higher because of healthcare costs paid by the government, and there is NOT any shred of evidence the controlling elite (i.e Democrats and Republicans) will do anything substantial about it.
Quote:
@TSA - Agreed. Thank you.
@Sessions - Your logic is flawed. Simply because I said that the govt produces nothing does not mean that I meant to eliminate it completely. Like I said it is simply too fat.
"that govt produces nothing" except things we use every day.... as D C Sessions points out.
"Producers to give to the Looters " Looters like Like BP and BOA?
Really, if you're over 14 years old, and think Ayn Rand had anything useful to say, you need to grow up. Otherwise you may start believing complete bunk like the private sector does better than the government, ignoring privatizing ends up costing more with less services.
Has it now? And here I could have sworn we had budget surpluses in FY2000 and FY2001.
The "Looters"? Would that be the people who are looking for work or have been out of work for a year or more because their job was eliminated through no fault of their own? So would you rather just see them starve to death on the streets? Or should they take a job at Wal-Mart so they can not be paid a living wage and still have to rely on food stamps while Wal-Mart gets corporate subsidies and makes billions for its executives?
Runawayfromfacts: Old people tend to get sick, hence the Medicare Program. Old people tend to get left out to die by our capitalistic society that ties in corporate profits to healthcare, hence the Medicare Program. Thats where the rubber hits the road with you liars who want to "cut government in half". Just be honest to the old people and tell them the truth, that your ideaology trumps their well being. If you did that, you would at least get points for honesty...
The problem cannot be fixed until Keynesian Economics is PURGED from the USA. You CANNOT have "fiscal responsibility" and Keynesian Economics at the SAME TIME, because the two are OPPOSITE. Yet you will never hear one of these politicians utter a word about it. They are in Denial, and will only kick the can down the road while they are ENRICHING THEMSELVES, they will leave *US* stuck with the mess when they retire to Switzerland. Bob Burnitt Ellis County Texas
Getting rid of arithmetic might also be necessary.
Keynesian predictions, e.g. Paul Krugman's predictions, have been accurate during this economic crisis. He's been arguing for several years that there wasn't an immediate debt crisis, but there was an immediate unemployment crisis.
Why would we purge the model that works in favor of the "austerity" model that has been totally incorrect?
The complete Keynesian model is counter cyclical. It prescribes tax cuts, and increased public spending to ease recessions. Spending cuts, tax increases and budget surpluses are called for in healthy, or overheated economies. Per Keynes, the Bush tax cuts were too much, too soon.
Naughty, naughty Boehner. Agreeing with any Democrat, especially Obama. The Tea Baggers would love you yanked from that Spearkership chair.
Ok thats it!! I think we all know now that people in DC are smoking that wacky tobacco. There may be no crisis according to them,but why were they spreading a bunch of lies to the opposite.Something is deffinatley wrong in DC.
The way this thinking goes with these two they might decide the sky is not blue anymore its purple.
Its one thing to flip-flop on certain issues,but this is not one to do so. With these statments both Obama and Boehner shoul be told to show America the facts about there being no crisis and not the skewed ones. Until these two prove it to us then we should take it as a false statment and continue believing that there is a crisis!!!
Van, please provide a link to your source of liberal debt, with a comparative link to conservative debt. Thank you.
You do realize that nearly every person in America at some point in their life takes out "debt up to the eyeballs" in the forms of mortgage payments, student loan payments, etc., with the exception of very rich people who don't have to because "Daddy just pays for it all."
Having debt is not a crisis. Having debt, continuing to accrue debt and not be able to manage your debt is a crisis. Stop conflating an issue and making it sound like a ridiculously moronic talking point.
You also realize that Wall Street, who sold really crappy mortgages as super-amazing derivatives with the blessing of the bond-raters who are supposed to be the cops-on-the-street, are what caused the housing collapse, right? And that most of those people are Republicans/Conservatives and not Democrats/Liberals, right? Oh yeah, you don't actually know that...because you don't actually pay attention to anything other than your asinine Ayn Randian talking points.
I would like to point out that the last Republican candidate for president, Mitt Romney, employed a business model that utilized an average 80/20 financing/cash ratio to purchase controlling stakes in the companies his firm was interested in. Bain then proceeded to saddle the purchased firm with this debt. Who knows how to incur debt and charge it to others?
Back in 2008 Randall S. Kroszner gave a speech summarizing research done by the Federal Reserve that demolished the idea that the Community Reinvestment Act had anything to do with the housing collapse.
http://www.federalreserve.gov/newsevents/speech/kroszner20081203a.htm#f3
Van Roberto
If they are the back-bone of this country, why are they demanding to not pay more taxes? If they are the back-bone, why do they sell jobs over-seas? NORMAL people have debt at some point, we all can't pull $100,000 out of our a$$es for a house. With the minimum wage as low as it is, how can you expect that? Why are these millionares/billionares, paying their employees $7.50 a hour when they take home 5 million dollars in bounues. YOU need to open your eyes and realize that the 'backbone' of this country is what is tearing it apart.
Van, you've proven the depth of your intellectual connection to reality with this sentence. I don't come here to read factless, baseless projections of your ill-will. You are henceforth ignored... Have a nice day.
Van Roberto banned, re-reg of multiple accounter willrogerswasright and others.
I do understand these people that think a Republican can win the presidential race, with Florida going blue and texas soon to be blue, the only way they can win is if they steal the election by preventing people from voting or changing the electorate college rules, and make it stick over a Supreme Court decision which will come if any State try to change the rules after 236 years of electorate college, if they try to change it, maybe Democrats should challenge the set numbers of congressional seats, when we started big states had maybe 6 times the population of small states, now California has 40 times the population of Wyoming, maybe we should increase Senators to maybe one for every 1 million people, California will get 55 and Texas 40 or so, and maybe we should increase congresmen from 425 to 1 for every 500k or a total of 600, California will get 116 to 120, then we have a fair election and a fair congress, so let them try to change the electorate college and open the Pandoras box.
Jose, I agree! One day 100+ years ago, the Feds just decided to cap the House members at 435. And you'll never see another State admitted to the Union because that would upset the 100 member Senate. If we had the representation as it is laid out in the U.S. Constitution, Art 1, Sect 2 ("The Number of Representatives shall not exceed one for every thirty Thousand"), think how different things would be today...
Well, for one thing meetings of the House would have to be held by teleconference, or perhaps in a basketball stadium.
Someone I know has credit cards maxed out, doesn't pay house payment (so is going to get evicted), doesn't show up for work sometimes, and feels victimized and entitled to a raise. She manages to have trips, a big screen TV, a nice car, & two expensive dogs. Her parents, in compassion---& ON WAY LESS INCOME, pay her bills so she can start fresh (again) but helping doesn't help so they quit helping...Now she RAGES at them & must learn LIFE LESSONS about resource "stewardship"---HER NAME IS POLITICIAN...(it's so WEARISOME BEING A "MINI-KING"--it MUST be time for another vacation, another raise---or another jet so we can complain about the "PEON'S" pollution and "non-support" .....)
It is informative to reminisce about the presidential election of 1912, which has come to define the ideologies of the national political parties as presently constituted. In that election the Republican Party preferred to field a losing candidate, rather than gamble on one who would "radicalize" its "traditional" (i.e. – conservative) platform. Better to lose the election, regroup and use the lawful mechanisms available in our democracy to obstruct and wait it out until the next election. Doesn't this all sound familiar? ...
Since that time, there can be no mistaking that the Republican Party has remained firmly within the control of an entrenched, affluent, conservative, some say reactionary base, squarely in support of the status quo, in the ensuing century.
Read more at
http://lifeamongtheordinary.blogspot.com/2013/03/conservatism-and-status-quo.html
It's nice to see Boehner be somewhat honest for a change, but the Democrats are making a big mistake if they believe that long term deficit projections, largely due to boomer retirements, should be ignored.
Obama should take the lead on this and press for sensible economies in Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid.
Why must we always attack Medicare, SS and medicaid? Because we really believe that the poor and elderly are to blame for the crisis and they should start paying their fair share like everybody else does. HaHa. Medicare is much cheaper that private insurance and if congress would quit making demands on Medicare it could be even cheaper. To date I have taken very little from Medicare which I have been receiving for 7 years. I pay over $1200 per year for the privilage of having Medicare, Over $100 deducted from my SS check each month. Because I am healthy I don't use that much in services. But I should take a cut in both Medicare and SS because some people don't want to raise any revenues.
To clear up the debt, there has to be income to match outflow. We have a couple choices: raise taxes or cut entitlements.
Raising taxes will affect the rich. Cutting entitlements will not affect the rich.
That is why.
Well, if the Republicans prevent us from paying our bills, that will be an immediate debt crises.
We are all Americans and it is time we started acting like it. We are in the same boat and it is time we all start rowing and in the same direction. Political party and hate tactics play into the hands of the rich who want to keep us divided any way they are able to do so. The race divide has been defeated, so they now are trying any tactic to divide and conquer.
"For every govt program that it described here, I could probably find at least 3 documented, gross inefficiencies within that org that the private sector could eliminate and do better."
Have you ever worked at a large private company? I guarantee the private sector wastes more money every year than the public sector. Especially when you realize that boondoggles like the $70 billion sewage plant in Iraq was actually a Halliburton project, not a government endeavor.
And the $20 million the average CEO gets for firing exactly enough people to net $20 million in annual savings. That's not inefficient at all, is it?
Your comments obviously are generated from a mind that is consumed with hate for anyone of a higher income status than you. So I'm not surprised by the crazy ideas that spring forth from your labyrinth of thought.
FYI - The federal government is the WORST money/budget managing agency of ALL-TIME! They are in charge of budgets and balances that are practically inconceivable to the rest of us. And what do you think is the level or intelligence of your average congressperson or senator? They have no idea what they are doing...but they've got the world's largest slush fund (in their minds) and they only spend time dreaming of ways to spend their portion in a manner that will see fit that they get re-elected.
Obama knew that the Sequester (the reduction in the % of increase in growth that the federal government would have to spend over the next 10 years) would hurt his parties ability to spend money and get re-elected. So he attempted to scare all of us by listing the number of government agencies that would suffer (and in turn would make us suffer). That's all he cares about. Less money in government means less campaign cash.
It is really no more complicated than that.
"Less money in government means less campaign cash."
If this statement is true, why are "small government" conservatives the recipients of such large amounts of "soft" contributions from anonymous donors? And, no, I am not talking about direct campaign contributions. Seems to me, that the Citizens United windfall for conservatives means more government that benefits the contributors, not less government en total.
"Less money in government means less campaign cash."
I guess I should have clarified...
The money spent by government on entitlements has become de-facto
"campaign cash" since it is targeted towards voting blocks that will
turn out en mass to pull the lever for the "Sugar-Daddy" politician.
Don't tell me you think this doesn't happen! The power that they crave is incredible. And the lengths and depths they'll stoop to
get hold of more of it is shocking!
I'd just note that the poorer someone is the less likely they are to vote, especially in off-year elections
2008 voting by income here
http://cdn.theatlantic.com/static/mt/assets/business/assets_c/2012/09/800px-Voter_Turnout_by_Income,_2008_US_Presidential_Election-thumb-615x434-99051.png
The GOP position about an impending debt crisis has always been a made up hoax to resist any offers the President afforded to resolve the "Invented" for convenience debt ceiling they would oppose anyways. Boehner and his "Band of Obstructionists" don't care about viable real common sense solutions, they insist on playing games with the President and the People. They are heartless, ruthless and uncompromising which is a disservice and injustice committed against Americans. Congress should be dissolved, revamped, overhauled, and dismissed for Non-service and failure of duty. Pink Slips please!
I agree Debbor! We could do so much better on our own!!
The debt to GDP ratio at the end of WWII was 120%. What percent of that debt have we retired ? If you said zero you would be correct . Because the government doesn't have to. It's called economics not your pocketbookenomics. Withoout the two trillion wasted in Iraq WE would e in better shape for sure but the US is not in any real difficulty and consider if you will that the world is pouring money into US Bonds at a rate below inflation.(ie. they are paying us to keep their money) Why? because it is the safest place in the world to keep money. What do foreign governments know that US news pundits do not? Apparently a lot.