Craig Harrington

Author ››› Craig Harrington
  • WSJ Falsely Labels Puerto Ricans As “Refugees” In Their Own Country

    Puerto Ricans Are Full American Citizens

    Blog ››› ››› CRAIG HARRINGTON

    The Wall Street Journal issued a dire warning that the unfolding debt crisis in Puerto Rico could create an “exodus” of “Puerto Rican refugees” to the United States who would vote for Democrats and soak up public benefits -- completely ignoring their status as American citizens, with every right to live and work in whatever part of the country they wish.

    On May 2, The New York Times reported that the government of Puerto Rico defaulted on $399 million of a scheduled debt payment of $422 million owed to creditors and bondholders. According to the Times, the government in San Juan has already severely cut public services for millions of the island’s residents, but it is still unable to make up the revenue shortfall created by a prolonged recession that has sapped the Puerto Rican economy. Puerto Rico will be unable to repay its obligations without an act of Congress allowing the island to restructure its debt.

    In a May 2 editorial, The Wall Street Journal urged necessary congressional action to help Puerto Rico write-down and restructure its debt obligations, but it did so only to avoid “anarchy and a back-door bailout” that would result in “tens of thousands of Puerto Ricans flee[ing] to the mainland where they will land on the U.S. public dole.” The Journal said the debt crisis could result in an “exodus” of “Puerto Rican refugees” moving to another part of the United States and voting in federal elections. The paper speculated that if the Republican-controlled Congress did not assist the island, Puerto Rican votes would go “to the Democrats for years to come” (emphasis added):

    A new report by the Instituto de Estadísticas de Puerto Rico shows the island’s population exodus is accelerating with a net 64,000 Puerto Ricans moving to the U.S. in 2014. Most are young people—the median age is 29 and income is $13,000—seeking a better life. While many will eventually find jobs in the U.S., their incomes will at least initially be low enough to qualify for Medicaid, food stamps and public housing. Their kids will attend public schools.

    The Puerto Rican refugees will also be able to vote. In 2014, Florida (23,297) was the top destination for Puerto Ricans followed by Texas (5,019) and Pennsylvania (4,304). Virginia (1,664) and Ohio (1,553) ranked ninth and tenth. President Obama won Florida by about 74,000 votes in 2012—there are more than one million Puerto Ricans living in the state—and 537 votes decided the 2000 presidential election.

    A congressional default would relegate the island to economic paralysis, and Florida and Puerto Rican voters to the Democrats for years to come.

    The editorial board’s decision to slur millions of American citizens as “refugees” is irresponsible.

    Puerto Ricans moving to another part of the United States are not “refugees”; they are American citizens, and have been granted formal American citizenship since March 2, 1917. The full rights of citizenship were later extended to “All persons born in Puerto Rico on or after April 11, 1899.” If some residents of Puerto Rico choose to move throughout the United States in search of better economic opportunities for themselves and their families, they have every right to do so.

    Millions of Puerto Ricans are suffering from the island's confluence of corporate greed and bureaucratic mismanagement, as explained by the Huffington Post. HBO's Last Week Tonight has also exposed the precarious circumstances created by Puerto Rico’s status as a U.S. territory, rather than a fully incorporated state, and highlighted the importance of helping Puerto Rico restructure its debt.

    The Journal’s fearmongering about so-called “Puerto Rican refugees” fits the standard right-wing media trope about the supposed threat presented by immigrants and refugees. Right-wing outlets often worry that refugees will soak up government resources, and that Democrats will use government entitlement programs to curry favor with Spanish-speaking immigrants. But the Journal’s decision to paint Puerto Ricans as refugees -- rather than the American citizens they are -- may set a new low for conservatives.

  • Fox & Friends Follows Conservative Playbook To Spin GDP Report, Mislead On Obama’s Economic Record

    Blog ››› ››› CRAIG HARRINGTON

    On the April 29 edition of Fox News’ Fox & Friends, Fox Business host Stuart Varney joined co-hosts Ainsley Earhardt, Brian Kilmeade, and Steve Doocy for a segment slamming President Obama’s record on the economy. The segment was a response to Obama’s recent interview with The New York Times, during which the president discussed how markedly the economy has improved since 2008 and what he hopes will be his economic legacy. The segment seemed to unwittingly mirror the right-wing playbook for downplaying positive economic gains during Democratic administrations by relying on false conservative talking points to dismiss economic growth and tout failed tax policies:

    Fox’s 3 Percent Growth Target Is Arbitrary And Ignores American History

    The segment opened with Kilmeade and Varney making the false claim that Obama is “the only U.S. president who could not deliver a single year of three percent growth.” It is not clear why Fox News is fixated on growing the economy at an average rate of three percent annually. Regardless, Kilmeade’s claim that Obama is “the only” president not to clear that bar is false.

    According to data from the Bureau of Economic Analysis (BEA), which only has consistent annual data from 1930 to the present, Republican president Herbert Hoover didn’t just fail to hit three percent growth, he failed to hit zero percent growth. The economy contracted at a rate of -8.5 percent in 1930, -6.4 percent in 1931, a staggering -12.9 percent in 1932, and -1.3 percent in 1933. The contraction in 1933 may have been greater, had Franklin Delano Roosevelt not replaced Hoover in the White House in March of that year, initiating substantial government stimulus projects known as the New Deal. Reliable GDP estimates prior to 1930 are difficult to find, but those data that are available show four consecutive Republican presidents overseeing economic growth of less than 2 percent from 1871 to 1885. Over the course of the next 45 years the economy swung wildly between boom and bust cycles, including several deep depressions, before the Great Depression and FDR’s subsequent creation of oversight mechanisms that work to maintain relative economic stability.

    Varney Consistently Misleads On The Economy

    Fox Business host Stuart Varney is supposed to be a serious voice for analysis and expertise at the network, but Varney is a serial minformer, who creates confusion on economic issues.

    In November 2014, Varney predicted that a Republican takeover of the Senate would usher in an era of “3 to 4 percent” growth, which he now complains hasn’t happened. The economy grew at a 2.4 percent pace in 2014, and continued to grow at a rate of 2.4 percent after the GOP took over complete control of Congress in 2015. Yesterday, when the Commerce Department figures were first released, Varney wondered if the economy growing at a slightly slower rate than experts had predicted was proof that we are “sliding toward recession” -- his comments came just moments after an actual economist was on CNBC debunking the idea.

    In the past week, Varney has attacked impoverished children for soaking up too many government benefits and watched idly as an economist easily debunked conservative demands for more tax cuts and deregulation to spur the economy. Since the start of the year Varney has been an unceasing source of misinformation on the minimum wage, has misled on the funding structures of public-sector unions, has lamented a proposal to pay people for the hours they work, and has attacked “ridiculous” anti-poverty programs that help struggling families and save taxpayers money.

    Fox News Follows The Conservative Misinformation Script To Perfection

    In an April 28 blog post, Washington Post columnist Paul Waldman explained how Republicans mislead the American public about the health of the economy by ignoring positive economic trends. The focus of Waldman’s comparison was the “objective reality” of progress and areas for improvement specified by Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton and the “laughable fantasy” of “an absolute (economic) nightmare” outlined by Republican front-runner Donald Trump, but it could have just as easily been any of the personalities at Fox News. This April 29 Fox & Friends segment that mislead on GDP is one very good example.

    In Waldman’s piece, he hit Trump for pretending tax cuts are the solution to economic growth -- they are actually a proven failure. Varney often repeats this same tax cut talking point at Fox. When Earhardt asked on Fox & Friends “what is the reason for these bad numbers” on the economy, Varney slammed “massive regulation, constant government borrowing” and “overspending to raise the debt” -- exactly the talking points for which Waldman hit Trump the day before.

  • Wash. Post Debunks Right-Wing Myth That The Gender Wage Gap Results From Women's Choices

    New Research Shows The Gender Pay Gap Is Widening For College Graduates

    Blog ››› ››› CRAIG HARRINGTON

    The Washington Post highlighted new research demonstrating that pay disparities between men and women “start earlier in their careers than frequently assumed and have significantly widened” among college graduates in the past year. The research debunks a claim frequently promoted by right-wing media outlets that the obvious pay discrimination faced by millions of American women is the result of their personal and professional choices.

    In an April 28 post for The Washington Post's Wonkblog, reporter Danielle Paquette highlighted research from the Economic Policy Institute (EPI) and American Association of University Women (AAUW) demonstrating that pay disparities between men and women start as soon as students graduate from college, persist regardless of chosen career fields, and are actually worse for college graduates than for women with only a high school education. The research stands as yet more evidence against the misleading claim frequently pushed by conservative media outlets that the gender pay gap, if it exists at all, is actually the fault of women who pursue less lucrative professions and forgo career opportunities to have children and raise a family.

    From The Washington Post (emphasis added):

    Pay disparities between men and women start earlier in their careers than frequently assumed and have significantly widened for young workers in the past year, according to a report from the Economic Policy Institute.

    Paychecks for young female college graduates are about 79 percent as large as those of their male peers, the think tank found -- a serious drop from 84 percent last year.

    The sudden change follows a more gradual shift. In 2000, women ages 21 to 24 with college degrees earned 92 percent of their male counterparts’ wages on average, which was unchanged from 1990.

    Regardless of their education, young women typically earn less money than young men in the United States. Female high-school graduates, ages 21 to 24, now earn an average of 92 cents for every dollar paid to their male counterparts.

    [...]

    Some have argued that the wage gap, at any stage of a woman’s life, starts with her choices. Women are more likely than men to scale back at work when they start a family, for instance. (Employers are also more likely to reward fathers and penalize mothers.) But EPI's data shows that the gender wage gap cracks open right after college graduation, well before decisions like maternity leave can affect women’s earnings.

    [...]

    A 2015 AAUW report of workers one year out of college found considerable pay differences between men and women in the same career fields.

    Women who majored in business, for example, earned an average of $38,000, while men bagged just more than $45,000. In engineering, computer and information sciences fields, young female graduates earned between 77 and 88 percent of what their male colleagues made.

    Across all fields, after controlling for major, occupation and grade-point average, the report found women still earned 7 percent less than men.

  • STUDY: Cable And Broadcast News Try To Cover The Economy Without Economists

    Economists Made Up 1 Percent Of Guests In The First Quarter Of 2016, While Shows Focused On Campaigns, Inequality

    ››› ››› CRAIG HARRINGTON & ALEX MORASH

    Expertise from economists was almost completely absent from television news coverage of the economy in the first quarter of 2016, which focused largely on the tax and economic policy platforms of this year’s presidential candidates. Coverage of economic inequality spiked during the period -- tying an all-time high -- driven in part by messaging from candidates on both sides of the aisle, but gender diversity in guests during economic news segments remained low.

  • Media, Experts Slam Ted Cruz’s Promise Of 5 Percent Economic Growth

    Proposed Tax Cuts Have Proved To Not Stimulate Economic Growth, Suggested Return To The Gold Standard Is Simply “Dangerous”

    ››› ››› CRAIG HARRINGTON

    Republican presidential hopeful Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX) promised that if he was elected, his administration would oversee economic growth in excess of 5 percent a year stemming from reduced regulations, tax cuts for high-income earners and corporations, a balanced federal budget, and a return to the gold standard. Journalists and experts were quick to criticize Cruz’s economic growth target, which exceeds by 1 percentage point a proposal by former Republican candidate Jeb Bush that was roundly mocked as “nonsense” and “impossible” last summer.

  • TV News Ignores Historic Findings That Uninsured Rate Drops To “Record Low”

    Broadcast And Cable News Fail To Inform Viewers About Major Obamacare Success Story

    ››› ››› ALEX MORASH & CRAIG HARRINGTON

    According to an April 7 update to the Gallup-Healthways Well-Being Index for the first quarter of 2016, the uninsured rate among American adults dropped to 11.0 percent -- the lowest rate of uninsurance in the 8-year history of the poll. The uninsured rate has dropped over 6 percentage points since the third quarter of 2013, the last recording period before the individual mandate provision of the Affordable Care Act (ACA) or "Obamacare" went into effect in October 2013. A Media Matters review found that none of the major television outlets reported on Gallup’s historic findings.

  • Myths & Facts: The Gender Pay Gap And Need For Equal Pay

    Right-Wing Media Still Refuse To Acknowledge The Gender Pay Gap

    ››› ››› CRAIG HARRINGTON

    Equal Pay Day “symbolizes how far into the year women must work to earn what men earned in the previous year,” according to the National Committee on Pay Equity. Despite efforts toward equitable pay in the United States over the past several decades, American women still face a considerable gap in pay when compared to their male counterparts. Rather than acknowledging the overwhelming evidence that American women are still paid less than men for the same work, conservative media have promoted myths and misinformation that obscure the truth about pay disparities.

  • "Entitlement Nation Run Amok”: Fox’s Andrew Napolitano Peddles Lies About The Minimum Wage

    Blog ››› ››› ALEX MORASH & CRAIG HARRINGTON

    Fox News’ misinformation campaign against the minimum wage has shifted into high gear following the passage of statewide increases in California and New York. The network is now hyping worries from senior judicial analyst Andrew Napolitano that a $15 minimum wage is a subversive attempt to “bribe the poor for votes,” which will result in dramatic price increases and job losses while driving more low-wage workers onto public assistance programs.

    In an April 6 op-ed published by the right-wing Washington Times, Napolitano suggested that politicians are raising the minimum wage to $15 per hour “to win the votes of those they promised to help” while claiming that increased wages would have drastic negative economic consequences. On the April 7 edition of Fox News’ Fox & Friends, Napolitano claimed that raising the minimum wage would result in price increases that put necessities beyond the reach of low-wage workers, destroy jobs, and expand reliance on public assistance. Later that morning, Napolitano appeared on Fox Business’ Varney & Co. and claimed that “poor people will lose their jobs because they simply are not worth” a $15 wage. From Fox & Friends:

    CLAIM: Minimum Wage Increases Will Result In Job Losses, Price Inflation

    Counter to Napolitano’s claim that raising the minimum wage would lead to dramatic price increases, researchers at Purdue University concluded in a July 2015 report that increasing the minimum wage of fast-food workers to $15 per hour would result in only a 4.3 percent increase in restaurant prices. According to The Economist’s Big Mac Index, a 4.3 percent increase in the cost of a Big Mac in the United States would be roughly 22 cents. Researchers at Cornell University found that raising the regular and tipped minimum wages for workers in the restaurant and hospitality industries has "not had large or reliable effects" on the number of people working in the industry and price increases have not been large enough to “dramatically affect overall demand." Right-wing media have a long history of claiming that minimum wages destroy jobs and inflate prices, but the overwhelming majority of economic research shows no such relationship.

    CLAIM: Minimum Wage Work Isn’t Worth $15 Per Hour

    Napolitano’s poor-shaming stance on the supposedly lesser value of low-skilled and low-income workers mirrors similar comments from Fox Business host Charles Payne, who on multiple occasions has slammed minimum wage increases as rewarding and encouraging "mediocrity." In fact, according to ThinkProgress, a $15-per-hour minimum wage would not even be a living wage in many states, including California or New York -- workers today already need to make closer to $22 per hour. Furthermore, according to a report from the Center for Economic and Policy Research (CEPR), minimum wage workers have been undervalued for decades; if the federal minimum wage had kept up with increasing worker productivity since the 1970s, it would have reached $21.72 per hour by 2012.

    CLAIM: Minimum Wage Increases Will Expand Dependence On Welfare

    Napolitano falsely claimed that increasing the minimum wage would drive more low-income Americans into poverty by destroying opportunities for employment, and that it would result in an increased reliance on public assistance programs. On the contrary, according to research by the Center for American Progress (CAP) on an abandoned 2014 proposal to raise the federal minimum wage from $7.25 to $10.10 per hour by July 2016, the wage increase could have decreased reliance on the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), also known as “food stamps,” by $4.6 billion annually. In February 2014, the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) estimated that a $10.10 federal minimum wage would lift 900,000 Americans out of poverty while injecting billions of dollars into the consumer economy. A December 2013 study from the Economic Policy Institute (EPI) similarly found that the modest wage increase would have directly or indirectly lifted wages for nearly 30 million American workers. Conservative media personalities like Napolitano frequently bemoan the supposed ill effects of raising the minimum wage, completely ignoring the heavy public cost that historically low minimum wages across the country already carry. An October 2013 report by the University of California, Berkeley Labor Center found that low wages in the fast-food industry alone cost taxpayers $7 billion annually by increasing the strain on public assistance.

    CLAIM: Minimum Wage Increases Are A Means of “Buying Votes”

    Napolitano’s claim that minimum wage increases are a political tool meant to curry favor and “bribe the poor for votes” is a common right-wing media theme. Fox News personalities, often led by Fox Business host Stuart Varneyfrequently claim that Democrats support policies aimed at alleviating poverty only as a means of “buying votes.” For years, Fox has claimed that the Lifeline program -- a Reagan-era telecommunications subsidy for low-income families -- was a Democratic plot to “bribe” and “enslave” American voters. In fact, tens of millions of Americans across the political spectrum rely on these vital programs, and Republican politicians are actually more likely than their Democratic counterparts to represent constituents who use food stamps -- a program that low-income families would be less reliant on if minimum wages were increased.

  • US News Promotes "Deeply Flawed" Analysis To Claim Minimum Wage Increases Could Hurt Low-Wage Workers

    Dozens Of Studies Have Shown A Negligible Relationship Between Minimum Wage Increases And Employment

    Blog ››› ››› CRAIG HARRINGTON

    U.S. News & World Report published a lengthy interview with an economist whose research purports to show a link between minimum wage increases and job losses as part of a feature intended to answer whether "a higher minimum wage [would] help or hurt workers." The economist the magazine solely relied on for its investigation of the minimum wage has been criticized for producing "deeply flawed" research in the past that goes against the overwhelming preponderance of economic research around the minimum wage.

    Just days prior to the publication of the interview, the Los Angeles Times reported on a tentative deal between California lawmakers and minimum wage advocates that would raise the state's minimum wage to $15 per hour in 2022.

    On March 28, U.S. News published excerpts from an interview between reporter Andrew Soergel and economics professor Jeff Clemens in which the two attempted to shed light on the fraught partisan argument over the merits of local, state, and federal efforts to raise the minimum wage -- which currently stands at just $7.25 per hour at the federal level. Unfortunately for readers, what was actually presented was a one-sided conversation pushing myths commonly parroted by right-wing media, which blame minimum wage increases for job losses, teenage unemployment, service automation, and economic stagnation. From U.S. News (emphasis added):

    So which side is right? That depends almost entirely on the perception of the problem with the domestic labor market, says Jeff Clemens, an assistant professor of economics at the University of California, San Diego and a faculty research fellow at the National Bureau of Economic Research.

    If you believe employers are squeezing more and more output from their payrolls without fair compensation, then a minimum wage hike would be for you. But if you believe technological advances and low-skill, low-wage competition from overseas have limited the number of minimum wage jobs in the U.S. and prevented employers from doling out raises, then a minimum wage bump might not make sense and could ultimately hurt low-skill workers' employment opportunities.

    Clemens' own research suggests the series of minimum wage hikes enacted in the mid-2000s contributed substantially to the number of low-skill jobs lost during and around the Great Recession. But he says there are compelling bodies of evidence on both sides of the spectrum.

    Soergel promoted the interview with a misleading tweet claiming "a lot of research suggests" that raising the minimum wage to $15 per hour "could hurt employment":

    Contrary to Soergel's claim, there is actually very little available research on $15 minimum wage rates, because those wage levels have never before been enacted in the United States. The Fight for $15 movement has successfully pushed some companies in some municipalities to voluntarily lift wages for workers, but $15 wages are not in place yet. On May 1, 2014, the mayor and city council in Seattle, Washington, made history by announcing plans to raise the municipal minimum wage to $15, but that wage level will be phased-in for different employers over the course of three to seven years.

    A 2015 study that does purport to show massive job losses resulting from a $15 minimum wage was issued by the conservative Empire Center for Public Policy. The study, which Media Matters debunked, was criticized by the National Employment Law Project (NELP) and Fiscal Policy Institute (FPI) for using "outdated economics" and for relying on "less sophisticated and less accurate research." One of the studies the Empire Center relied on for its misleading analysis was co-authored by Clemens, and was harshly criticized by labor economist Irv Lefberg as "deeply flawed" and "pure scientific folly" because it attempted to attribute employment changes in the midst of the Great Recession to "a small, gradual increase" of the minimum wage "affecting a small portion of the workforce."

    Clemens is a qualified economist, but his position on the minimum wage is hardly indicative of the economics profession as a whole. For example, an April 2012 report by the University of California, Berkeley's Institute for Research on Labor and Employment (IRLE) found that the change in "employment stock" -- the number of available jobs -- resulting from increased minimum wages is "indistinguishable from zero." In February 2013, economist John Schmitt of the Center for Economic and Policy Research (CEPR) reviewed the findings of dozens of individual studies and meta-analyses of the minimum wage, and concluded that it "has little or no discernible effect on the employment prospects of low-wage workers." One of the meta-studies in CEPR's review was a 2009 peer-reviewed paper by economists Hristos Doucouliagos and T.D. Stanley, which plotted the estimated jobs impact of 1,492 separate calculations contained in 64 distinct studies. The paper found that the overwhelming majority of the "most precise estimates" of positive and negative jobs impacts were "clustered at or near zero":

    The Overwhelming Majority Of Minimum Wage Research Predict Zero Employment Effects

    There is an enormous amount of research demonstrating that the minimum wage has little effect on the job market -- a December 2015 study by researchers at Cornell University argued that with so little evidence to make a case against raising the minimum wage, opponents ought to just "support rather than oppose reasonable increases." There is also additional research demonstrating the positive side-effects of increased wages, including reducing the impact of poverty on low-wage workers. A January 5, 2016, briefing paper from the Economic Policy Institute (EPI) concluded that a phased-in wage increase to $15 per hour in 2021 would boost wages "directly or indirectly" for 3.2 million workers in New York alone. A July 14, 2015, EPI briefing paper found that raising the federal minimum wage to just $12 per hour in 2020 would lift wages for 35 million American workers. An October 2013 study by economists at the University of California, Berkeley and the University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign found that low wages in the fast food industry alone cost taxpayers "nearly $7 billion per year" in increased spending on anti-poverty programs. An April 2015 study by the UC-Berkeley Labor Center found that low wages cost taxpayers nearly $153 billion annually nationwide.

    Media Matters has debunked the right-wing media myth that raising the minimum wage will result in job losses for low-wage workers dozens of times. Nevertheless, the same discredited arguments continue emerging every time the minimum wage is in the news. It would not be surprising to see right-wing outlets turn to Clemens, and only Clemens, for an in-depth feature assailing the minimum wage, but U.S. News' decision to do so is perplexing.

  • Will CNN Ask GOP Candidates To Explain The Failure Of Trickle-Down Economics?

    New York Magazine Blasted The Media For Failing To Hold GOP Accountable For Disastrous Policy Failures In Kansas And Louisiana

    Blog ››› ››› CRAIG HARRINGTON

    CNN will interview the three remaining Republican candidates, along with the two remaining Democrats, during a 3-hour special town hall event. Will CNN hold the GOP hopefuls accountable for proposing tax and economic policies similar to those that have been "thoroughly discredited" when implemented by Republican-led states?

    In a critical March 18 post in New York magazine's Daily Intelligencer blog titled "The Republican Party Must Answer for What It Did to Kansas and Louisiana," associate editor Eric Levitz blasted Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX), Gov. John Kasich (R-OH), and GOP front-runner Donald Trump for promising to institute tax cuts and budgetary reforms at a national level that have proven to be disastrous for Republican-led states. After outlining the ways that the so-called "red-state model" turned Kansas and Louisiana into failed "real live experiment[s]" of conservative economic policies, Levitz challenged media organizations to hold Republican candidates accountable for supporting those policies (emphasis added):

    Over the course of 12 debates, the Republican presidential candidates were never asked to address the budget problems in Kansas.

    [...]

    When Donald Trump makes a gaffe, reporters confront Republican leaders and demand a response. When the GOP's economic platform decimates two U.S. states, a similar confrontation is in order.

    CNN's March 21 prime-time town halls with the remaining Democratic and Republican presidential hopefuls present a perfect opportunity for the network to hold GOP leaders accountable for the dramatic failures of the "red-state model" in Kansas and Louisiana, while also pressing them on their own economic policy promises that have been derided as "imaginary," "insane," and "fantasy" in the past:

    • According to Politico, Ohio Gov. John Kasich's supposed conservative success with tax cuts in Ohio was boosted by his state accepting the "billions of federal dollars from Obamacare" and raising regressive "sales and cigarette taxes -- levies that hit the pocketbooks of all Ohioans, especially low-income ones." Will CNN hold Kasich accountable for his unsuccessful attempts to spur job creation and economic growth with tax cuts for the rich and budget gimmicks?
    • According to a February 16 analysis from the Tax Policy Center, Ted Cruz's proposed tax cuts would increase the federal budget deficit by $8.6 trillion over ten years. Will CNN press Cruz on his embrace of massive tax cuts that increase the budget deficit and hurt low-income Americans?
    • According to a December 22 analysis from the Tax Policy Center, Donald Trump's proposed tax cuts would increase the federal budget deficit by $9.5 trillion over ten years. In 2014, CNN even criticized Trump for his tax plan that favors the wealthy. During a November 11 segment, CNN's Rana Foroohar criticized what she called the "old-fashioned Republican formula" of "trickle-down" economics and tax cuts for the wealthy for failing to deliver promised economic growth. And during a December 23 segment, CNN's Christine Romans explained that Trump's tax plan creates "a whole category of impossible math" that overwhelmingly benefits the top 0.1 percent of income earners while ballooning the federal budget deficit. So will the network stand by its own reporting and hold Trump accountable for his budget-busting giveaway to the super rich?

    In the lead up to the October 28 Republican presidential debate, Media Matters called on CNBC's debate moderators to hold candidates accountable for their fantasy tax plans. Right-wing media outlets reacted with outrage when CNBC moderator John Harwood correctly pointed out that Sen. Marco Rubio's (R-FL) tax plan provided more relief for the top 1 percent than for the middle-class. Conservatives attacked the country's leading business and financial news network for its supposed "liberal media bias" and pushed to put conservative personalities in charge of all future debates. In response to those complaints, CNN debunked claims of media bias by comparing questions from CNBC debate to similar questions during Fox News' debates.

    With only three Republican presidential candidates still in the race for the nomination, questions remain as to how CNN will respond.