This
is my last post and I want to thank Jim and Justin [Miller, of the Atlantic web team] for the wonderful
opportunity to be a guest blogger. It has been a fun gig, but quite
frankly I am running out of steam. But life is an interplay of chance
and necessity, and serendipity has just offered up a chance for a final
blast.
For
several years now, I have been in a analytical battle with an official
in the Department of Defense over the question of whether Republicans or
Democrats are better for the economy.
Newk
A. Mineshaftgap is the pseudonym of a senior career official in the
Pentagon, with a civilian rank comparable to that of a general in the military. He must remain anonymous for policy reasons -- to
borrow from the insightful reasoning used by President Merkin Muffley in
Dr. Strangelove, Minesthaftgap cannot get into a policy fight, because he
works in the 'the war room.'
I
can tell you this: Newk has a PhD in physics, but he is not a geek. In
fact, he is a bit of polymath, with wide ranging interests, including
nuclear weapons, ballistic missile defense, battleship and tank design,
global warming and carbon default swaps, economics, and the development
of metrics for measuring the quality of medical doctors. I
have known Newk for about 20 years and consider him to be a good and
most interesting friend with solid if somewhat eccentric instincts.
Politically, I would categorize Newk as an independent with libertarian
biases.
So, as my last blast, let me offer the following link
[PDF] to Newk's latest report on whether Republicans or Democrats are better
for the economy. For a knuckle dragger from the Pentagon, his
conclusions might surprise you.
___
[JF note: Here's one sample from the paper, a chart on overall economic performance during post-World War II presidencies. Click for larger and more legible version. The percentage figures -- eg, 'Clinton (62.5%)' -- are weighted calculations of how much control Democrats had of government policy during a given Administration. One hundred percent means that the Democrats controlled the White House and both Houses of Congress through the entirety of an Administration, as was the case for both John Kennedy and Jimmy Carter. Zero percent (which did not occur in this period) would mean complete Republican control of the White House, the Senate, and the House. A party gets 50% for holding the White House, and 25% for control of each House of Congress, pro-rated for years of control. For further details, check the paper, where you'll see many other explanations of how economic well-being should be assessed. Very interesting conclusions indeed.
Later today I'll expand on my thanks to Chuck Spinney and his guest colleagues this week, and I'll introduce the next week's guest crew.]
"
Newk's analysis has two major flaws. First, in my opinion the presidency should not be weighted at 50%. On some issues, yes, but on economic policy the congress has the "power of the purse" so there should be a 34/33/33 split.
ReplyDeleteSecond, even though he includes weighted measures for congress, he presents his findings by presidential term. A better methodology would track the data in 2-year increments that coincide with congressional terms.
Even though Newk doesn't provide his data and assumptions to be tested, I performed by own analysis to see if I could duplicate his results. With the two changes above, I came to the exact opposite results. In fact, Republicans are demonstrably better at managing the economy.
If Newk is truly a "senior analyst" at the Pentagon, he fully understands the bias he inserted by presenting his results by presidential administration.