It suddenly became clear that Hillary Clinton and her advisors intend to run a negative presidential campaign -- not negative about other candidates, but about the U.S. economy.
Rational discussion of the Senate immigration bill is being stifled and befuddled by a few misused words and phrases that generate irrational anger and very little understanding.
In a recent New York Times column, Paul Krugman frets that we are in a "New Gilded Age" because "every available measure of income concentration shows that we've gone back to levels of inequality not seen since the 1920s."
Economist Alan Blinder wrote in The Washington Post that "offshoring of service jobs from rich countries such as the United States to poor countries such as India may pose major problems for tens of millions of American workers over the coming decades.
George Tenet made patently ridiculous claims about WMD in Iraq, while serving as CIA director, and was eventually fired. Former Deputy Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz made patently ridiculous claims about WMD in Iraq and was promoted to president of the World Bank.
When tax policy in most countries is as close to optimal as Hong Kong's, I will gladly stop mentioning supply-side economics.
wo French economists, Thomas Piketty and Emmanuel Saez, can count on a flood of publicity every time they release a new estimate of the share of U.S. income supposedly received by the top 1 percent. Even veteran Washington Post columnist Robert Samuelson approached their latest "astonishing" estimates as unquestionable scripture.
A recent Gallup poll found that only 41 percent of respondents approved of Bush's handling of the economy, compared to 55 percent who disapproved.
Lou Uchitelle of The New York Times has made a career of writing passionately about the plight of laid-off workers. This is not a challenging journalistic mission.
Former Office of Management and Budget (OMB) Director David Stockman, whom I worked with in the 1981 Reagan administration transition team, has gotten himself involved in a legal tussle with the Justice Department.
When it comes to economic news, the press tends to be biased toward exaggeration and sensationalism. If some event isn't a "scandal," then it must be a "crisis."
New York Sen. Chuck Schumer and a half-dozen freshman legislators, reports the Los Angeles Times, "want to add tax credits and deductions to benefit narrow groups of largely middle-class constituents.
During the euphoric high-tech boom of the 1990s, America Online offered my daughter a thousand stock options to recruit her away from another firm.
The market's drop of about 3 percent on Tuesday was comparatively trivial and brief, yet it too provoked some overwrought reactions from the press, and from perpetual bears.
Reporters compiling lists of where candidates stand on the issues could simplify the process by asking where candidates stand on issues in which a presidential decision might actually be involved.
When Jack Kennedy ran for president, there was a great deal of fussing and fuming about his being Catholic. In a June 1960 Roper poll, 35 percent objected to a Catholic president.
President Bush recently announced that inequality has "been rising for more than 25 years." But what did the president mean by inequality? And when, during that 25- year period, was inequality rising?
Since President Bush's State of the Union Address quickly garnered a generous share of criticism, it seems more useful to take a look at the economic comments offered in rebuttal by Virginia's new Democratic senator, Jim Webb.
A year-end AP-AOL News Poll found 89 percent of Americans optimistic about their own family's living standards, but less so about the fate of strangers. That is perfectly understandable.
The New York Times headline -- "Tax Cuts Offer Most for Very Rich" -- said it all. That claim was uncritically repeated by CNN, posted on Brad DeLong's blog and so on. But was it true?