The cross-lagged panel model (CLPM) is a widely used technique for examining reciprocal causal effects using longitudinal data. Critics of the CLPM have noted that by failing to account for certain person-level associations, estimates of these causal effects can be biased. Because of this, models that incorporate stable-trait components (e.g., the random-intercept CLPM) have become popular alternatives. Debates about the merits of the CLPM have continued, however, with some researchers arguing that the CLPM is more appropriate than modern alternatives for examining common psychological questions. In this article, I discuss the ways that these defenses of the CLPM fail to acknowledge well-known limitations of the model. I propose some possible sources of confusion regarding these models and provide alternative ways of thinking about the problems with the CLPM. I then show in simulated data that with realistic assumptions, the CLPM is very likely to find spurious cross-lagged effects when they do not exist and can sometimes underestimate these effects when they do exist.