Charlie Baker’s campaign manager, Tim O’Brien, was on the Callie Crossley show on WGBH radio this afternoon. He got to say whatever he wanted pretty much without challenge or contradiction, so it was an interesting snapshot of the Baker campaign strategy. And that strategy seems quite straightforward: say stuff that is basically untrue, specifically with respect to the economy, and hope that people start to believe it. Fascinating.
Here are three talking points that O’Brien rattled off during the show (I will link to the audio when it is available; for now, I am paraphrasing):
Massachusetts is losing jobs
Wrong! MA is actually gaining jobs. Since the beginning of this year, MA has added roughly 45,000 jobs, the vast majority in the private sector. MA’s unemployment rate has dropped steadily over the same period, and remains below the national rate.
Massachusetts rated 40th in the cost of doing business
Technically true, but wildly misleading. O’Brien is presumably referring to the CNBC rankings that came out last week, in which MA does indeed rate approximately 40th (39th, to be precise) in the “cost of doing business.” With respect to Massachusetts, that metric appears to have been based primarily on high rents, high utility costs, and high wages. There’s no indication from CNBC’s reporting that it was based on high taxes – which makes sense, given that MA’s tax burden is relatively low.
Of course, what O’Brien didn’t mention is that MA was ranked 5th in the nation in the overall purpose of the CNBC ratings, namely, to determine which states are the “top states for business.” Funny that he wouldn’t bother to add that little tidbit of context.
People are leaving Massachusetts
Wrong! Actually, for the first time in two decades (a time period that notably include many years of Republican governors), more people are coming into MA than are leaving.
You know what would be awesome? If, when folks like Tim O’Brien say these things in public, they get called out. It’s fine to shill for your candidate, but you shouldn’t get to say stuff that’s not true while doing it.
And Tim Murray was a straight shooter on RKO today?
Some of us didn’t hear Tim Murray today. Tell us what he said, and why it wasn’t true.
Whatever Tim Murray may have said on RKO is not relevant to the content of this post, which concerns only Tim O’Brien and the non-facts he asserted on the radio today. If you’ve got a problem with the content of my post, let’s hear it; otherwise, write your own post.
A softball comment like that, dashed off like a feckless amateur?
<
p>The incisive pen and keen mind of Mr. Whelan can surely match David’s evisceration of the increasingly enfeebled Baker campaign (thrashing about like a fish on a line, each spastic leap weaker and weaker).
<
p>What have you got?
<
p>link
<
p>Labor force is up only 3400 jobs, .09% increase. Truly, a jobless recovery.
<
p>Employment since June 2009 is down, from 3,181,100 to 3,166,300. Unemployed is up since june from 294,200 to 312,300.
<
p>All from the original poster’s very own links.
<
p>Jobs are down since the beginning of Patrick’s term, down from a year ago.
<
p>
No one is claiming that the jobs problem is solved — obviously, an unemployment rate hovering around 9% is a lot higher than anyone wants it to be. But the point is that, with the economy finally inching toward a recovery, MA is heading in the right direction, and faster than the rest of the country. 2010 so far has been a good year – thousands of jobs added, unemployment rate dropping. I trust that you don’t dispute that.
<
p>Yes, there are fewer jobs now than before the biggest economic calamity since 1929. I can’t say I find that a shocker, nor can I blame Governor Patrick for it.
Them: Massachusetts is losing jobs.
<
p>You: Wrong, Massachusetts is actually gaining jobs.
<
p>Right answer: Massachusetts has lost jobs over the past year, and has experienced less than a 1% increase in jobs in 2010. An upward trend to be sure, but since the Governor’s Plan was announced in March, 2009, Massachusetts has in fact, lost jobs.
<
p>—
<
p>Them: Massachusetts rated 40th in the cost of doing business
<
p>You: True.
<
p>That settles that.
<
p>—
<
p>Them: People are leaving Massachusetts
<
p>You: Wrong! Actually, for the first time in two decades (a time period that notably include many years of Republican governors), more people are coming into MA than are leaving.
<
p>Actually: Your response doesn’t disprove his statement or make it false. In fact, according to your link, it’s true, people are leaving Massachusetts. As it happens, 3600 more people moved in, than out. A political success! 3600 people! That’s .05% of the population, … and just embarassing to boast about.
<
p>Then, if you actually look at the data, you see the largest outflow was to Florida. 68,000 people perhaps setting up a residence in Florida to avoid the higher Massachusetts taxes.
<
p>
Can you support that with data, rather than assertion? Maybe they want to live in FL for the weather, or some other reason.
Look, there are three options
* up
* same
* down
<
p>Where Baker claimed down, in reality it has gone up. You come along and point out that it’s really up a very small amount and therefore should count as zero.
<
p>Bah. Up is up. Up a little bit? Still up.
<
p>Ok, if you want to get picky, let’s do that.
<
p>First, however, my non-ideological point: the jobs recovery has been horrible and continues, nationwide, and Massachusetts is no exception. And second, when a candidate says we have lost, or we are losing jobs, it’s a supportable statement.
<
p>Let’s look at the seasonally adjusted labor force:
<
p>April, 2010 – 3,488.2 million
May, 2010 – 3,486.2 million
June, 2010 – 3,478.7 million (est)
<
p>From May 2010 to June 2010; from April 2010 to May 2010; since the governor’s inaugeration; from 12 months ago, WE HAVE LOST JOBS.
<
p>True or False? I fully expect the original poster to retreat to his nuance, and measure from some random point in December or Groundhog’s day, but that’s not the point. The point is that he has accused the candidate of lying when the candidate said “we losing jobs”. What say you?
<
p>BLS link
OK, you were the one who wanted to do the one-year look back. Let’s do that, based on your link.
<
p>Seasonally adjusted labor force:
June 2009: 3,475.3
June 2010: 3,478.7
<
p>Woohoo! Labor force has grown!
<
p>Same dataset:
<
p>Unemployed:
April 2010: 321.5
May 2010: 320.3
June 2010: 312.3
<
p>Woohoo! Unemployment has dropped! (Yes, the June 2009 unemployment is lower – but everyone knows that the unemployment rate was lower a year ago.)
<
p>What was your point again? Mine continues to be that this year, every month, jobs have been created, according to the state’s numbers. You haven’t refuted that one yet.
<
p>From that same BLS link.
<
p>Massachusetts
<
p>April, 2010 – 3166.7 employed
May, 2010 – 3165.9 employed
<
p>April to May. Down. Refuted.
Here’s my point again, emphasis added this time for EZ comprehension.
<
p>
<
p>So first, let’s agree that on that point, I’m right. Number of jobs in MA each month in 2010, according to the state:
<
p>January 2010: 3137.6
February 2010: 3141.6
March 2010: 3147.9
April 2010: 3166.6
May 2010: 3181.8
June 2010: 3182.3
<
p>Terrific – my original point stands unrefuted. Now, why are the BLS numbers so different? Good question – I’d like to know too. Though I would respectfully point out that you omitted June 2010 from your little dataset, which show an increase from May.
<
p>April 2010 (BLS): 3166.7
May 2010 (BLS): 3165.9
June 2010 (BLS): 3166.4
Either point out specifics of what Tim Murray prevaricated about, or apologize.
<
p>Thanks.
I plan on asking anybody who posts about job losses or gains about it. And sorry, Deval and Timmy are not credible sources. They have both been inconsistent.
I’ve got links for every fact asserted in my post. If you’re going to question the state’s job numbers, well, sorry, but that’s unreasonable, unless you know of another reliable source.
Based on your link, these statements appear true:
<
p>-There are fewer people employed in June, 2010 than 1 year ago.
<
p>-There are more people unemployed now than 1 year ago.
<
p>-There are fewer people employed and more people unemployed now than when Governor Patrick took office.
<
p>True?
Um, yeah, and did you notice that there were some rather significant economic events that occurred during that timeframe?
<
p>I mean, come on Nick. You have to at least try.
Take credit, not blame.
<
p>How about during the past year? Employed down. Unemployed up.
to ignore national trends, aren’t you? For you, it’s all about what’s happening in Massachusetts, and the context of the wider world be damned.
<
p>That is an exceedingly silly way of looking at economic data. Let me try to help.
<
p>
<
p>OK – peak employment was December 2007. Then we went into recession, which was dramatically accelerated by the near-total economic collapse in mid-late 2008. That takes us to this very interesting chart which you have probably seen before, but it’s important for present purposes:
<
p>
<
p>See the bottom of that nasty red line? That shows you how long the current recession (which I trust you’ll agree is not Deval Patrick’s fault) took to bottom out. It’s right at about 24-25 months, i.e. two years or so, i.e. December 2009-January 2010 . The idea, see, is that once we’ve bottomed out from the recession, we start coming back. So it makes sense to look at job growth from that point, rather than at some point during the downswing, wouldn’t you say?
<
p>And if you do that, you get to the numbers that I discussed in my post.
You expound on alleged non-truths, which upon analysis are in fact true, or debateable. Then, wave your hands around to show why one analysis is better than another, or this starting point better than that one, all the while ignoring the fact that the statements are true or debateable.
<
p>Just to accumulate some ‘truths’ in one place for future reference:
<
p>- There are fewer jobs now than a year ago, two years ago or three years ago.
<
p>- There are more unemployed people in Massachusetts than a year ago, two years ago or three years ago.
<
p>- The state has recently lost marginal fewer people to immigration than it gained. Why? Well, You are just determined to ignore national trends, aren’t you? For you, it’s all about what’s happening in Massachusetts, and the context of the wider world be damned. Actually, migration just tends to slow during recessions.
<
p>- Massachusetts is ranked 40th in the cost of doing business according to some media list, but 5th best according to same list.
Why one year/two years/three years? Why not one month/two months/three months? There are more jobs now than 37 years ago, and that too is irrelevant. Oh, I know — the result! There’s nothing special about the numbers one year ago vs. today. That’s the algebra I method of calculating slope — you take two points far away, and then just calculate
<
p>f(x+dh) – f(x)
————–
dh
<
p>Now, want the advanced method, the (gasp!) calculus way? Shrink dh. After all, there’s no reason to take a long view. So, lets make dh small. To calculate the slope (the rate of gain or loss), let’s shrink dh really really small.
<
p> lim f(x+dh) – f(x)
dh->0 ————–
dh
<
p>Now, this doesn’t quite work because we have discrete data — we don’t have the exact number of jobs at every second of every day. Furthermore, unless you want to call a job “40 hours of work,” jobs are discrete, not continuous. So, the calculus technique doesn’t really work, since the function is discrete on both the x and y axis.
<
p>However, the spirit is to use a small dh. As small as possible. Of course, there’s likely to be noise in the data, as this isn’t a perfect function. One method might be to take a linear or quadratic regression over a smaller number of points, say 5.
<
p>Do that… the slope is positive. There is positive movement.
<
p>
<
p>Want to make a strong argument? Don’t argue that black is white. Argue that it’s not black enough. Argue that the recovery isn’t as good as it could have been were it not for X, Y, or Z (insert standard GOP talking points about taxes, regulations, and government-altered markets).
perhaps the first political argument ever won via calculus. 😉
Except the slope is negative not positive.
<
p>>>>Why one year/two years/three years? Why not one month/two months/three months?>>>
<
p>Bravo! Let’s take 3 months data:
<
p>April, 2010 – 3,488.2 million
May, 2010 – 3,486.2 million
June, 2010 – 3,478.7 million (est)
<
p>Based on the size of the workforce, we are losing jobs. Now, the employed piece of the workforce
<
p>April, 2010 – 3166.7
May, 2010 – 3165.9
June, 2010 – 3166.4
<
p>Ok, since April we have lost jobs.
<
p>Since May, we have gained jobs.
<
p>Them: We are losing jobs
You: LIAR!!!
Me: You, need to back off the coffee. By all recent measures, it’s a jobless recovery, and far worse than the jobless recovery of the early 2000s.
<
p>
Shows job gains although somewhat fewer:
<
p>http://www.bls.gov/eag/eag.ma.htm
<
p>Now: let’s see your data showing job losses – good luck!
Looks like Baker’s campaign manager is just taking his cue from Charlie Baker himself. The media has been calling him out on some of his untruths – check out this post – but it is important to continue to hold Baker accountable for his and his campaign’s tactics.
<
p>Baker’s campaign is based on three issues – taxes, spending, and reform. But the facts don’t support this message for Baker, so he is forced to utter statements that are just not true. Baker has been constantly critical of state spending under Governor Patrick, despite MA Taxpayers study which shows state spending grew twice as fast when Baker was in charge of the state budget. He has taken the infamous “Read my lips, no new taxes” pledge, but raised property taxes 2 of the 3 years he was a selectman in Swampscott. And he neglects to acknowledge the reforms passed by Governor Patrick and the Legislature, while caving to the police unions on flaggers and the Quinn Bill.
<
p>0 for 3 – not a great way to run a campaign.
you think that facts can trump the truthiness of O’Brien’s assertions. For a smart guy, you certainly have a lot to learn.
Don’t misread this as any big support for Charlie Baker but “saying untrue stuff” which as you point out “is technically true”?
two were “untrue,” and one was “technically true but wildly misleading.” So there’s plenty of actually untrue stuff to talk about. And I’d say referring to the CNBC rankings without (a) telling listeners what source he was using, and (b) not mentioning the overall ranking, while “technically true,” only barely passes even that modest threshold.
The first statement could be true based on how wide a scope you use to analyze the job gains/losses. And the third statement is true, but needs further analysis. Just because the net amount went up, doesn’t mean that there weren’t people that left MA. It would be more helpful (but also very difficult) to get some sort of analysis on who has left and who has entered. Wouldn’t it be more helpful if people are leaving to take their businesses elsewhere, or leaving because it’s cold here, or coming to take advantage of the great MA business climate, or coming to leech off of the MA social service offerings while contributing nothing to our state or communities?
<
p>But it’s your second point that I really take issue with. I’ll put aside the many flaws in the MBPC conclusion that MA has a low tax rate by comparing total taxes against just personal income. But even accepting the flawed premise that the MA tax burden is relatively low, you conclude that it was “high rents, high utility costs, and high wages” instead of taxes that caused MA to be 40th. But that fails to consider whether MA has high personal property taxes that drive those high rents, or high utility taxes that drive those high utility costs, or high unemployment and withholding tax burdens that drive up the business costs of paying wages in MA.