The public’s assessment of the accuracy of news stories is now at its lowest level in more than two decades of Pew Research surveys, and Americans’ views of media bias and independence now match previous lows.
Just 29% of Americans say that news organizations generally get the facts straight, while 63% say that news stories are often inaccurate. In the initial survey in this series about the news media’s performance in 1985, 55% said news stories were accurate while 34% said they were inaccurate. That percentage had fallen sharply by the late 1990s and has remained low over the last decade.
Similarly, only about a quarter (26%) now say that news organizations are careful that their reporting is not politically biased, compared with 60% who say news organizations are politically biased. And the percentages saying that news organizations are independent of powerful people and organizations (20%) or are willing to admit their mistakes (21%) now also match all-time lows.
Republicans continue to be highly critical of the news media in nearly all respects. However, much of the growth in negative attitudes toward the news media over the last two years is driven by increasingly unfavorable evaluations by Democrats. On several measures, Democratic criticism of the news media has grown by double-digits since 2007. Today, most Democrats (59%) say that the reports of news organizations are often inaccurate; just 43% said this two years ago. Democrats are also now more likely than they were in 2007 to identify favoritism in the media: Two-thirds (67%) say the press tends to favor one side rather than to treat all sides fairly, up from 54%. And while just a third of Democrats (33%) say news organizations are “too critical of America,” that reflects a 10-point increase since 2007.
The partisan gaps in several of these opinions, which had widened considerably over the past decade, have narrowed.
The president’s chief economic adviser warned Friday that the nation’s unemployment rate could stay “unacceptably high” for years to come — a situation that would seriously complicate Barack Obama’s ability to convince Americans that he’s beating back the recession.
“The level of unemployment is unacceptably high,” National Economic Council Director Larry Summers said Friday. “And will, by all forecasts, remain unacceptably high for a number of years.”
Summers’ comments came in a briefing with reporters ahead of Obama’s speech in New York City on Monday, marking the one-year anniversary of the collapse of Lehman Brothers, an event widely regarded as having created a panic that caused the global economic meltdown.
After making a spectacle by saying that the health care bill would NOT cover illegal aliens in spite of a Congressional Research Service Report that states otherwise (LINK) and in spite of Democrats blocking all attempts to insert language determining of those receiving benefits were citizens; now President Obama says that we should just make illegal aliens legal.
President Obama said this week that his health care plan won’t cover illegal immigrants, but argued that’s all the more reason to legalize them and ensure they eventually do get coverage.
He also staked out a position that anyone in the country legally should be covered – a major break with the 1996 welfare reform bill, which limited most federal public assistance programs only to citizens and longtime immigrants.
“Even though I do not believe we can extend coverage to those who are here illegally, I also don’t simply believe we can simply ignore the fact that our immigration system is broken,” Mr. Obama said Wednesday evening in a speech to the Congressional Hispanic Caucus Institute. “That’s why I strongly support making sure folks who are here legally have access to affordable, quality health insurance under this plan, just like everybody else.
Mr. Obama added, “If anything, this debate underscores the necessity of passing comprehensive immigration reform and resolving the issue of 12 million undocumented people living and working in this country once and for all.”
Republicans said that amounts to an amnesty, calling it a backdoor effort to make sure current illegal immigrants get health care.
[Editor's Note - So what the Democrats are saying is that if Joe Biden were president the Tea Parties would not be protesting the wasteful spending, the corrupt pork earmarks for corporate lobbying clients, the porkulus bills, the government take over of health care and the banks etc? So I ask, was it racist when they opposed HillaryCare in 1994?
Is anyone who criticizes Michael Steele (a black American), the head of the Republican Party a racist? By this standard the entire DNC is racist. Yup thats it, anyone who criticizes any Republican is a racist because they just can't take it that the leader of the Republican Party is a black man.]
The Media Research Center provides this segment from ABC News. This is one of the most irresponsible pieces I have ever seen. ABC takes short clips and runs them together with a false narrative and cry racism. This just isn’t propaganda its bad propaganda because most people see right through this.
This whole idea that pointing out socialist and/or corporatist (corporatism is the economics of fascism in the strict academic sense) policies and corruption is racist is rather silly, especially from a political science perspective.
Charles Krauthammer responds to this nonsense from the NYT, Maureen Dowd and ABC quite correctly:
Indeed, the entire point at hurling the racism charge when substantive arguments are against you is to put the mark of the beast on someone and try to either shut them up, or make others afraid to listen to you in fear that they may be called a racist too. ABC and the rest of the elite media culture have gone from the watchdogs for the people to the watchdogs of the Democrat Party. With Obama as president, the elite media has abandoned the whole idea that it is to have a somewhat adversarial and skeptical view of government.
Every bloggers friend Gateway Pundit has this picture that he posts on his web site from time to time and in this case it is warranted.
For contrast, here is some RESPONSIBLE media coverage of the first Tea Party events back in March:
UPDATE – GOP Chairman Michael Steele responds rather brilliantly in the face of NBC’s Andrea Mitchell who was trying desperately to best him:
UPDATE II – Glenn Beck responds. Beck points out that NBC’s Brian Williams said that the 9.12 Tea Party was a “violent crowd”. There were no arrests at the event…not one.
Beck continues and shows how NBC is even doctoring and misrepresenting video to make a racist charge against protesters.
While NBC doctored the video and told you that the man with the gun was a racist white man. The raw video clearly shows the man is black. Come to find out he is part of a public awareness group that wears guns openly at events to educate people on the states open carry law.
UPDATE III- Gary Bauer speaks on the issue (Via The Anchoress):
Bauer noted that when Obama was inaugurated, he had an approval rating of 75 percent. Yet, today, his approval rating is in the neighborhood of 50 percent. If racism is the explanation, Bauer wondered aloud, are we to believe that the quarter of the electorate that seems to have abandoned President Obama just discovered that he is black?
As Bauer made his argument, it was obvious that he was speaking directly to the reporters present. He went further by asking the crowd the question (and this is from memory so it may not be exact), “If a party were to run a candidate who was black, Asian, or hispanic and who was pro-life, in favor of free markets, traditional morality, and strong national defense, would you support that candidate?” The crowd erupted in massive, enthusiastic applause. Bauer joked with the crowd and the reporters present, “I can’t wait to run home and see that positive reaction from the crowd toward racial diversity played on CBS, NBC, and ABC!” Of course, the enthusiastic reaction in favor of a candidate of color who is also a conservative doesn’t fit the press narrative and the audience reaction would never be played on the news. Bauer knew that. The crowd knew that. And so did the press.
UPDATE IV - The B-Cast news program did a special on how the elite media is dishonestly portraying the protests as “racist” LINK.
UPDATE II – Representative Pete Hoekstra told Newsmax that this “new intelligence” that Hillary spoke of has not been shared with the Intelligence Committee in Congress. Normally a big change in foreign policy such as this is shared with the committee well before hand. Is anyone surprised?
Eastern European countries have been among America’s strongest allies. They sent troops and equipment to Iraq when many other countries would not. They have erected statues of Ronald Reagan as their new role model for freedom since throwing off the chains of Soviet tyranny.
I am old enough to remember how angry the far left was when we “evil conservatives” in both parties brought the Soviet Empire to its knees. I was there and saw it first hand.
I have also been fortunate enough to get to know some students from Eastern Europe that have come to study at IUSB and Notre Dame. They are amazing people. I have a special place in my heart for Eastern Europeans. I like their culture. I like their deep appreciation for freedom. I appreciate their good nature and straight forward thinking. Poland and The Czech Republic wanted those defense systems and deserve them. While Western Europe talks the talk about being American Allies, Eastern Europe has walked the walk.
It is no secret that this writer has been very concerned about the actions of the Obama Administration, but this is the first act that has caused me genuine outrage. First Obama threw Georgia under the bus, now this.
Those who have been paying attention to Russian and European politics knows that Putin is evil and must be resisted.
The left said that Bush was alienating our allies, while ignoring the fact that Western European people were tossing out anti-American governments and electing pro-American ones. Where are they now?
PRAGUE – President Barack Obama has decided to scrap plans for a U.S. missile defense shield in the Czech Republic and Poland that had deeply angered Russia, the Czech prime minister confirmed Thursday.
NATO’s new chief hailed the move as “a positive step” and a Russian analyst said Obama’s decision will increase the chances that Russia will cooperate more closely with the United States in the dispute over Iran’s nuclear program.
Premier Jan Fischer told reporters that Obama phoned him overnight to say that “his government is pulling out of plans to build a missile defense radar on Czech territory.”
“The same happened with Poland. Poland was informed in the same way about this intention,” Fischer said.
He said Obama assured him that the “strategic cooperation” between the Czech Republic and the U.S. would continue, and that Washington considers the Czechs among its closest allies.
In Poland, officials declined to confirm Fischer’s remarks, saying they were waiting for a formal announcement from Washington.
The plan, proposed by the Bush administration, aimed to defend the United States and its European allies against a possible missile attack from Iran or elsewhere in the Middle East. In all, 10 interceptor rockets were to have been stationed in Poland and a radar system based in the Czech Republic.
And…
“The United States is reckoning that by rejecting the missile-defense system or putting it off to the far future, Russia will be inclined together with the United States to take a harder line on sanctions against Iran,” he said.
Czechs and Poles, along with some other Eastern Europeans, have complained of what many perceive as neglect by the Obama administration.
That, in turn, has prompted a U.S. diplomatic effort to reassure the countries that America — which helped liberate them from decades of communist-era isolation and helped bring them into NATO — still values them as friends and partners.
The decision to scrap the plan will have future consequences for U.S. relations with eastern Europe.
“If the administration approaches us in the future with any request, I would be strongly against it,” said Jan Vidim, a lawmaker with Czech Republic’s conservative Civic Democratic Party, which supported the missile defense plan.
So Obama thinks that if he throws Eastern Europe under the bus that Russia will help us with Iran. Russia has been selling Iran new technology for missiles and air defense systems to help prevent anyone from trying to take out Iran’s nuclear program (LINK). What do you want to bet that Russia changes some of its rhetoric with Iran but does very little in moving its policy towards the Iranian nuclear program.
UPDATE: Poles and Czech’s say they have been betrayed:
WARSAW, Poland – Poles and Czechs voiced deep concern Friday atPresident Barack Obama’s decision to scrap a Bush-era missile defense shield planned for their countries.
“Betrayal! The U.S. sold us to Russia and stabbed us in the back,” the Polish tabloid Fakt declared on its front page.
Polish President Lech Kaczynski said he was concerned that Obama’s new strategy leaves Poland in a dangerous “gray zone” betweenWestern Europe and the old Soviet sphere.
Recent events in the region have rattled nerves throughout central and eastern Europe, a region controlled by Moscowduring the Cold War, including the war last summer between Russia and Georgia and ongoing efforts by Russia to regain influence in Ukraine. A Russian cutoff of gas to Ukraine last winter left many Europeans without heat.
The Bush administration‘s plan would have been “a major step in preventing various disturbing trends in our region of the world,” Kaczynski said in a guest editorial in the daily Fakt and also carried on his presidential Web site.
Our analysis:
The spin from the Obama Administration is that the missile defense system for Eastern Europe was never about Russia it was about Iran. The elite media will pick this up and repeat it but any genuine examiner knows full well that the system was to protect against Russia and Poland. This was obvious but rarely stated and is evidenced by the fact that Russia even threatened military action if missile defense technology was placed in Eastern Europe. On the other hand if it is Russia and the Obama Administration’s goal to only limit and protect against Iran’s missiles than why is Russia selling anti-cruise missile defense systems to Iran? Why has Russia not used it’s influence in Iran to put more pressure on the Iranians to abandon their nuclear weapons program.
Now for the final unspoken truth. Eastern Europe will have to create its own defense pact because the Obama Administration simply cannot be trusted to uphold NATO’s promise of mutual defense after this change in policy. Eastern Europe simply cannot depend on NATO for their security and as a result Eastern Europe may conclude that they will have no choice but to go nuclear themselves.
Liberty & Tyranny on best seller list for 24 weeks.
(CNSNews.com) – Without ever having been reviewed by either the New York Times or the Washington Post, Mark Levin’s Liberty and Tyranny: A Conservative Manifesto has now sold one million copies, according to its publisher, Threshold Editions.
Levin is a nationally syndicated radio host, president of the Landmark Legal Foundation, and served as chief of staff to Atty. Gen. Ed Meese in the Reagan Justice Department.
Liberty and Tyranny has been riding high on non-fiction bestseller lists ever since it was released in late March. It debuted at No. 1 on the New York Times best seller list and has remained in the Top Ten on that list for 24 straight weeks. It is currently No. 7. (Levin’s previous two books, Men in Black: How the Supeme Court is Destroying America and Rescuing Sprite: A Dog Lover’s Story of Joy and Anguish, were also New York Times best sellers.)
Despite Liberty and Tyranny’s tremendous sales and high ranking on the Times’ best seller list, the Times itself has never reviewed the book, only giving it a few blurbs in its ‘Inside the List” feature that runs in the Sunday edition.
The Washington Post has also never reviewed the book.
UPDATE II – ACORN office number five! San Diego ACORN offered to help smuggle the teen sex workers through Mexico! This video was released on the Sean Hannity Show moments ago September 16th 2009.
UPDATE – John Stewart to elite media , “WHERE THE HELL WHERE YOU WHEN TWO KIDS WERE BREAKING THIS STORY?” Hotair.com has the video HERE.
This time it was the San Bernardino office. The previous video’s are HERE and HERE.
It is the same as last time but worse. Prostitution, tax fraud, bank fraud, child sex trafficking….and now death threats and possible admission of pre-meditated murder all on tape.
Gateway Pundit has this picture with a short history of Obama’s involvement with ACORN.
Our article on Obama working as a lawyer for ACORN to sue banks to make them make high risk loans went viral on the net.
To see the full length unabridged San Bernardino video Hotair.com has it HERE.
How can the White House bring together such a cadre of wild extremists? Not only are your organs the property of the state, he says that animals should be able to sue YOU in court.
Sunstien’s upcoming book shows his rejection of the concept of free speech and the “marketplace of ideas” and argues that government should intervene to revoke free speech and censor the internet.
Another question, why are SO many academics in our universities obvious nuts like this man? What attracts such clearly judgment impaired people to academia and why does academia embrace them, at times with the zeal of a defense attorney?
…recent history has demonstrated that for FAR too many college administrators and professors the reasoning and purpose of the First Amendment completely escapes them. How is it that one can leave high school having a basic understanding of freedom of speech and then leave graduate school having no ability to grasp the concept whatsoever?
Beck on Sunstien and Lloyd and their stated desire to censor:
But, of course, democrats didn’t bat an eye when Rep. Pete Stark called President Bush a liar on the House floor… Twice… In the same speech.
The Republicans are worried that we can’t pay for insuring an additional 10 million children. They sure don’t care about finding $200 billion to fight the illegal war in Iraq. Where you going to get that money. You gonna tell us lies like you’re telling us today? Is that how you’re going to fund the war. You don’t have enough money to fund the war or children. But you’re going to spend it to blow up innocent people if we can get enough kids to grow old enough for you to send to Iraq to get their heads blown off for the President’s amusement…
…But the President Bush’s statements about children’s health shouldn’t be taken any more seriously than his lies about the war in Iraq. The truth is that Bush just likes to blow things up in Iraq, in the United States, and in Congress.
So where is the outrage at this breaking of the House Rules and decorum hmmmmmm? Did Nancy Pelosi bring up a resolution against this clown? Elite media… hello?
UPDATE II – ACORN office number five! San Diego ACORN offered to help smuggle the teen sex workers through Mexico! This video was released on the Sean Hannity Show moments ago September 16th 2009.
UPDATE – San Bernardino ACORN office sting. Worst yet so far – LINK.
As you all know the Baltimore and Washington DC office of ACORN was caught on hidden camera aiding and conspiring to help others commit prostitution, tax fraud, bank fraud, and child sex trafficking. We covered this story and showed you the video HERE.
Now on Andrew Brietbart’s web site the third video of the New York office sting has been posted and odds are this is just the beginning. The NY Post has a story on the sting HERE.
By the way, ACORN released a statement saying that this sting was tried and FAILED in New York. It looks like they lied.
This recent scam, which was attempted in San Diego, Los Angeles, Miami, New York, Philadelphia to name a few places, had failed for months before the results we’ve all recently seen.
-Bertha Lewis, Chief Organizer, ACORN
UPDATE II – National Park Service: Largest DC event EVER – LINK and LINK.
UPDATE – More video of the crowds and University of Illinois has a method of using area to judge a crowd and estimated 1.7 million.
[Editor's Note - The fact that the UK papers cover American politics and some other domestic news better than our own elite media really is indicative of just how far ethical and professional standards have fallen in the United States.]
UK Daily Mail:
Up to two million march to US Capitol to protest against Obama’s spending in ‘tea-party’ demonstration
Up to two million people marched to the U.S. Capitol today, carrying signs with slogans such as “Obamacare makes me sick” as they protested the president’s health care plan and what they say is out-of-control spending.
The line of protesters spread across Pennsylvania Avenue for blocks, all the way to the capitol, according to the Washington Homeland Security and Emergency Management Agency.
People were chanting “enough, enough” and “We the People.” Others yelled “You lie, you lie!” and “Pelosi has to go,” referring to California congresswoman Nancy Pelosi.
While Barack Obama insists that the idea that ObamaCare will cover illegal immigrants is a “myth,” the CRS points out that the bill does nothing to prevent it. Since HR3200 doesn’t require people to establish citizenship or legal residency before applying to exchanges for health insurance, including the public option, taxpayer money will certainly flow to illegal immigrants:
In what he called the “first myth” being spread by critics of his proposal for a government-run health care system, Obama said they are wrong in claiming illegal immigrants will be covered: “That is not true. Illegal immigrants would not be covered. That idea has not even been on the table.” Obama said.
Well, Mr. President, that idea must have been tucked under a stack of background briefing papers over there in the corner of the table because the Congressional Research Service (CRS) says this about H.R. 3200, the Obamacare bill approved just before the recess by the House Energy and Commerce Committee chaired by Rep. Henry Waxman, D-CA:
“Under H.R. 3200, a ‘Health Insurance Exchange’ would begin operation in 2013 and would offer private plans alongside a public option…H.R. 3200 does not contain any restrictions on noncitzens—whether legally or illegally present, or in the United States temporarily or permanently—participating in the Exchange.”
CRS reports do not get released to the public. CRS offers private analysis to members of Congress on request, but rarely do they see the light of day. However, David Freddoso got his hands on a copy of the 11-page analysis, “Treatment of Non-Citizens in HR3200″ late last night, and confirmed Tapscott’s reading:
In its subsection on health insurance subsidies (known as “affordability credits”), HR 3200 does state, “Nothing in this subtitle shall allow Federal payments for affordability credits on behalf of individuals who are not lawfully present in the United States.” That would seem to solve the problem, but it’s more rhetoric than reality. The bill contains no verification requirement or enforcement process for citizenship or legal residency, as exists for other federal benefit programs. The only verification required for the subsidies pertains to family income. Beyond that, as the CRS report notes, everything is left in the hands of the Health Choices Commissioner.
House Democrats defeated all attempts in committee to add an enforcement mechanism that would require proof of citizenship or legal residency for those getting subsidies.
Be sure to read it all. If Congress tells us that no money will go to cover illegal aliens, we can show them the CRS report and ask them to stop spreading myths.
This is much more than your typical partisan response. Obama is being so in your face dishonest that pointing out the truth is easy and uncomplicated. If Obama’s spin continues to be this outrageous and dishonest he may prove to be the biggest gift to Republicans since Jimmy Carter and I am not saying that because I oppose this policy, I say it because it is an obvious political reality.
UPDATE V – ACORN office number five! San Diego ACORN offered to help smuggle the teen sex workers through Mexico! This video was released on the Sean Hannity Show moments ago September 16th 2009.
UPDATE IV – San Bernardino ACORN office sting. Worst yet so far – LINK.
UPDATE III – Now the New York office has been caught, same sting – LINK.
UPDATE II –
UPDATE – ACORN has a problem, they are blaming a couple of rogue employees at one office and saying that they are not representative of the organization, but after this startling revelation at the Baltimore ACORN office, it has been revealed that multiple offices engaged in illegal conduct on hidden camera. - LINK
One day after two ACORN officials in Baltimore were fired for offering to help a man and woman posing as a pimp and prostitute to engage in child prostitution and a series of tax crimes, another secretly shot videotape has surfaced that shows the same couple getting similar advice from ACORN officers in Washington.
The newly released videotape, shot on July 25, shows ACORN staffers explaining to the pair how they can hide the woman’s professed work — prostitution — and get a loan that will help them establish a brothel.
James O’Keefe, a 25-year-old independent filmmaker, posed as the pimp while visiting the ACORN office, accompanied by 20-year-old Hannah Giles, who posed as the prostitute. On a videotape provided to FOXNews.com, they are seen receiving guidance to establish the woman as the sole proprietor of a bogus company to mask the nature of her business.
“She’s not going to put on (the loan application) that she’s doing prostitution … she doesn’t have to,” the ACORN staffer says. “You don’t have to sit back and tell people what you do.”
Sarah Palin’s Wall Street Journal Op-Ed is in the previous post HERE.
Politico gets the talking points sent out by the White House:
A source sends on the talking points the White House is circulating to allies in advance of President Obama’s speech, most of them reiterating familiar themes of momentum and security.
But the White House has also chosen specifically to focus on former Alaska Governor Sarah Palin, and evidently to make her the face of the opposition, or to respond to her ability to project herself into the debate. She is the only Republican named in the talking points.
Here’s that section:
On Gov. Palin’s Attacks
Every non-partisan organization that has looked at her claims say they are false. And the ideas in her op-ed are both scary and risky. Eliminating Medicare and giving our seniors vouchers instead is a bad idea that we shouldn’t adopt.
Here is the problem. Changing the way Medicare works with vouchers isn’t getting rid of Medicare at all, it just changes its internal structure so its less bureaucratic and likely more efficient. The White House is spinning hard here. Medicare was 10 times over budget in its first 20 years because it was implemented so poorly and here comes Obama with a Oregon like state health plan for the nation that has been tried and demonstrated to be a disaster. Vouchers on the other hand have worked very will with schools and other programs. In fact in Washington DC the program worked so well and saved so much money that the employee and teachers union got the politicians to kill it because it showed just how bad they were performing.
I’m pleased that the White House is finally responding to Republican health care ideas instead of pretending they don’t exist.[1] But in doing so President Obama should follow his own sound advice and avoid making “wild misrepresentations”.[2] Medicare vouchers would give everyone on Medicare the chance to decide for themselves which health plan to use, rather than leave that decision to government bureaucrats. Such proposals are the kind of health care reform that Republicans stand for: market-oriented, patient-centered, and result-driven.
The White House talking points leave the rest of my arguments unanswered. They don’t respond to the idea that all individuals should get the same tax benefits received by those who get coverage through their employers; that we must reform our tort laws; and that we should allow Americans to buy insurance across state lines. The White House also fails to respond to the Nyce/Schieber study indicating that wages will fall if the government expands coverage without reducing health care inflation rates.
One last thing: after President Obama’s speech tonight, listen for which pundits use the words “false”, “scary”, and “risky” in describing the proposals I put forward. That’s how you’ll be able to tell who the White House counted as “allies” worthy of receiving its talking points. [emphasis ours - Editor]
Our Take- test a voucher program on the uninsured/under-insured first to work any bugs out and then try to fix Medicare so it doesn’t go broke and our seniors can still have a safety net. Doing nothing means certain doom for Medicare and raising enough taxes to fix it as it is now is certain doom for the economy. Does anyone find it amusing that “hope& change” is now arguing for just a whole lot more of the status quo and it is Sarah Palin who is offering up substantive ideas for change?
Politically, Sarah Palin is obviously running for president as she is running against him right now for all intensive purposes. Expect Palin to take Obama and the Democrats on point by point with substantive plans and ideas like this one.
Writing in the New York Times last month, President Barack Obama asked that Americans “talk with one another, and not over one another” as our health-care debate moves forward.
I couldn’t agree more. Let’s engage the other side’s arguments, and let’s allow Americans to decide for themselves whether the Democrats’ health-care proposals should become governing law.
Some 45 years ago Ronald Reagan said that “no one in this country should be denied medical care because of a lack of funds.” Each of us knows that we have an obligation to care for the old, the young and the sick. We stand strongest when we stand with the weakest among us.
We also know that our current health-care system too often burdens individuals and businesses—particularly small businesses—with crippling expenses. And we know that allowing government health-care spending to continue at current rates will only add to our ever-expanding deficit.
How can we ensure that those who need medical care receive it while also reducing health-care costs? The answers offered by Democrats in Washington all rest on one principle: that increased government involvement can solve the problem. I fundamentally disagree.
Common sense tells us that the government’s attempts to solve large problems more often create new ones. Common sense also tells us that a top-down, one-size-fits-all plan will not improve the workings of a nationwide health-care system that accounts for one-sixth of our economy. And common sense tells us to be skeptical when President Obama promises that the Democrats’ proposals “will provide more stability and security to every American.”
With all due respect, Americans are used to this kind of sweeping promise from Washington. And we know from long experience that it’s a promise Washington can’t keep.
Let’s talk about specifics. In his Times op-ed, the president argues that the Democrats’ proposals “will finally bring skyrocketing health-care costs under control” by “cutting . . . waste and inefficiency in federal health programs like Medicare and Medicaid and in unwarranted subsidies to insurance companies . . . .”
First, ask yourself whether the government that brought us such “waste and inefficiency” and “unwarranted subsidies” in the first place can be believed when it says that this time it will get things right. The nonpartistan Congressional Budget Office (CBO) doesn’t think so: Its director, Douglas Elmendorf, told the Senate Budget Committee in July that “in the legislation that has been reported we do not see the sort of fundamental changes that would be necessary to reduce the trajectory of federal health spending by a significant amount.”
Now look at one way Mr. Obama wants to eliminate inefficiency and waste: He’s asked Congress to create an Independent Medicare Advisory Council—an unelected, largely unaccountable group of experts charged with containing Medicare costs. In an interview with the New York Times in April, the president suggested that such a group, working outside of “normal political channels,” should guide decisions regarding that “huge driver of cost . . . the chronically ill and those toward the end of their lives . . . .”
Given such statements, is it any wonder that many of the sick and elderly are concerned that the Democrats’ proposals will ultimately lead to rationing of their health care by—dare I say it—death panels? Establishment voices dismissed that phrase, but it rang true for many Americans. Working through “normal political channels,” they made themselves heard, and as a result Congress will likely reject a wrong-headed proposal to authorize end-of-life counseling in this cost-cutting context. But the fact remains that the Democrats’ proposals would still empower unelected bureaucrats to make decisions affecting life or death health-care matters. Such government overreaching is what we’ve come to expect from this administration.
Speaking of government overreaching, how will the Democrats’ proposals affect the deficit? The CBO estimates that the current House proposal not only won’t reduce the deficit but will actually increase it by $239 billion over 10 years. Only in Washington could a plan that adds hundreds of billions to the deficit be hailed as a cost-cutting measure.
The economic effects won’t be limited to abstract deficit numbers; they’ll reach the wallets of everyday Americans. Should the Democrats’ proposals expand health-care coverage while failing to curb health-care inflation rates, smaller paychecks will result. A new study for Watson Wyatt Worldwide by Steven Nyce and Syl Schieber concludes that if the government expands health-care coverage while health-care inflation continues to rise “the higher costs would drive disposable wages downward across most of the earnings spectrum, although the declines would be steepest for lower-earning workers.” Lower wages are the last thing Americans need in these difficult economic times.
Finally, President Obama argues in his op-ed that Democrats’ proposals “will provide every American with some basic consumer protections that will finally hold insurance companies accountable.” Of course consumer protection sounds like a good idea. And it’s true that insurance companies can be unaccountable and unresponsive institutions—much like the federal government. That similarity makes this shift in focus seem like nothing more than an attempt to deflect attention away from the details of the Democrats’ proposals—proposals that will increase our deficit, decrease our paychecks, and increase the power of unaccountable government technocrats.
Instead of poll-driven “solutions,” let’s talk about real health-care reform: market-oriented, patient-centered, and result-driven. As the Cato Institute’s Michael Cannon and others have argued, such policies include giving all individuals the same tax benefits received by those who get coverage through their employers; providing Medicare recipients with vouchers that allow them to purchase their own coverage; reforming tort laws to potentially save billions each year in wasteful spending; and changing costly state regulations to allow people to buy insurance across state lines. Rather than another top-down government plan, let’s give Americans control over their own health care.
Democrats have never seriously considered such ideas, instead rushing through their own controversial proposals. After all, they don’t need Republicans to sign on: Democrats control the House, the Senate and the presidency. But if passed, the Democrats’ proposals will significantly alter a large sector of our economy. They will not improve our health care. They will not save us money. And, despite what the president says, they will not “provide more stability and security to every American.”
We often hear such overblown promises from Washington. With first principles in mind and with the facts in hand, tell them that this time we’re not buying it.
We have read the bill and Palin/Demint/Gingrich/Morris etc etc. are quite right about the bill. By the way if ANY professor here at IUSB or Notre Dame would like to debate the IUSB Vision editor on this bill and why the term “Death Panel” may be justified just let us know.
As we said before, by “death panel” it is not as Obama tried to frame the argument as a board that decides what grandmothers to kill or “unplug”…rather it will decide who gets plugged in and who does not.
But I want to hear him defend his bill. I want him to open up the house bill that was passed and actually point to sections…and say it is in there, read it… I don’t want to hear any generalities, I don’t want to hear any more false promises… He needs to defend his plan and not just criticize those of us who are presenting alternatives.
This is truly sickening. It looks like the British National Health Service (NHS) has rationed the hippocratic oath right out of the doctors and nurses themselves.
Doctors left a premature baby to die because he was born two days too early, his devastated mother claimed yesterday.
Sarah Capewell begged them to save her tiny son, who was born just 21 weeks and five days into her pregnancy – almost four months early.
They ignored her pleas and allegedly told her they were following national guidelines that babies born before 22 weeks should not be given medical treatment.
Miss Capewell, 23, said doctors refused to even see her son Jayden, who lived for almost two hours without any medical support.
She said he was breathing unaided, had a strong heartbeat and was even moving his arms and legs, but medics refused to admit him to a special care baby unit.
Miss Capewell is now fighting for a review of the medical guidelines.
Medics allegedly told her that they would have tried to save the baby if he had been born two days later, at 22 weeks.
In fact, the medical guidelines for Health Service hospitals state that babies should not be given intensive care if they are born at less than 23 weeks.
The guidance, drawn up by the Nuffield Council, is not compulsory but advises doctors that medical intervention for very premature children is not in the best interests of the baby, and is not ‘standard practice’.
James Paget Hospital in Norfolk refused to comment on the case but said it was not responsible for setting the guidelines relating to premature births.
A trust spokesman said: ‘Like other acute hospitals, we follow national guidance from the British Association of Perinatal Medicine regarding premature births.’
Again, this video does go a little bit too far but makes an excellent point. The left likes to pick and choose the parts of Darwinism that it likes and the other parts just vanish….
The man in the video above almost has it right. It is the White House that has been pushing the bogus birther story in the media. It is a classic political rope-a-dope move called triangulation meant to make anyone who falls for it looking like a dope.
Of course as we have stated before, the State of Hawaii says that they have seen the real birth certificate and it does exist, but Obama has made it clear that a certified copy of it is NOT to be released. I believe that he is a legal citizen because the State of Hawaii says so.
With that said, and as we have said before, this is a classic John Podesta communications strategy move. It was the White House who refused to give up all sorts of documents that other presidents have, so when people brought it up, here comes the White House Press Sec. Robert Gibbs speaking out on the “birther” issue, paste it on “all Republicans” and call them names. It is a classic straw man who the White House set up and knocked down with false spin to smear Republicans.
If any of you do not believe that political machines will go this far to sway public opinion then you need to take a few good poli-sci classes and read a few books. It was the White House and John Podesta (they admitted it) who created the strategy to target Rush Limbaugh, bring up quotes out of context to use against him and use the media to crown him the head of the Republican Party. They planned this months in advance and said so. Did you believe that Rush Limbaugh said that he hopes that Obama fails and said it for partisan political reasons only? If you fell for this then you fell into Podesta’s spin. What Limbaugh actually said (and we posted the transcripts and video to this very site) is that “if Obama wants to socialize America than I want him to fail. I hope he fails because that is what would be the best for the country.” So all if you do not believe that Obama is trying to socialize America, than you have nothing to worry about from Rush Limbaugh.
I think this video may go a little too far. With that said it makes some very interesting points that can push you right out of your comfort zone.
Some people would freak if they had ANY idea what Bible thumping, greek history reading, philosophy geek, gun-toting radicals most of the Founding Fathers really were. They were literally ready to shoot people over a tax that today we would consider small. They believed that if the government’s thugs pushed too far that it was your duty as an American to resist with force of arms. Jefferson very much believed that if any government went too far and disobeyed the Constitution and as a result the citizens extracted some of the government’s blood as a result that it was a good thing and should happen from time to time. History has become SO white washed and filtered that most people really don’t understand the hearts and minds of the Founders. As much as I admire Jefferson, I don’t think I could be as hard core as he was.
The norm for the world is tyranny of some type or oligarchy and central control. America’s experiment in human freedom, by world standards, is radical libertarian stuff. By OUR standards, having a society that is used to freedom, here the radicals are those who wish to be more like the rest of the world.
So the video asks, “Are Honduran’s more patriotic than we Americans and are they more in line with the ‘spirit of Jefferson’ than we Americans are?” This video makes the case that this may very well be the situation we find ourselves in. The Honduran people did the right thing as they caught their own president red-handed going for a fast version of the “Hugo Chavez take over”.
This video is important to watch, even if you don’t agree it is thought provoking and a bit discomforting, which makes it a good intellectual exercise.
The controversy over President Obama’s speech to the nation’s schoolchildren will likely be over shortly after Obama speaks today at Wakefield High School in Arlington, Virginia. But when President George H.W. Bush delivered a similar speech on October 1, 1991, from Alice Deal Junior High School in Washington DC, the controversy was just beginning. Democrats, then the majority party in Congress, not only denounced Bush’s speech — they also ordered the General Accounting Office to investigate its production and later summoned top Bush administration officials to Capitol Hill for an extensive hearing on the issue.
Unlike the Obama speech, in 1991 most of the controversy came after, not before, the president’s school appearance. The day after Bush spoke, the Washington Post published a front-page story suggesting the speech was carefully staged for the president’s political benefit. “The White House turned a Northwest Washington junior high classroom into a television studio and its students into props,” the Post reported.
With the Post article in hand, Democrats pounced. “The Department of Education should not be producing paid political advertising for the president, it should be helping us to produce smarter students,” said Richard Gephardt, then the House Majority Leader. “And the president should be doing more about education than saying, ‘Lights, camera, action.’”
Democrats did not stop with words. Rep. William Ford, then chairman of the House Education and Labor Committee, ordered the General Accounting Office to investigate the cost and legality of Bush’s appearance. On October 17, 1991, Ford summoned then-Education Secretary Lamar Alexander and other top Bush administration officials to testify at a hearing devoted to the speech. “The hearing this morning is to really examine the expenditure of $26,750 of the Department of Education funds to produce and televise an appearance by President Bush at Alice Deal Junior High School in Washington, DC,” Ford began. “As the chairman of the committee charged with the authorization and implementation of education programs, I am very much interested in the justification, rationale for giving the White House scarce education funds to produce a media event.”
Unfortunately for Ford, the General Accounting Office concluded that the Bush administration had not acted improperly. “The speech itself and the use of the department’s funds to support it, including the cost of the production contract, appear to be legal,” the GAO wrote in a letter to Chairman Ford. “The speech also does not appear to have violated the restrictions on the use of appropriations for publicity and propaganda.”
That didn’t stop Democratic allies from taking their own shots at Bush. The National Education Association denounced the speech, saying it “cannot endorse a president who spends $26,000 of taxpayers’ money on a staged media event at Alice Deal Junior High School in Washington, D.C. — while cutting school lunch funds for our neediest youngsters.”
Lost in all the denouncing and investigating was the fact that Bush’s speech itself, like Obama’s today, was entirely unremarkable. “Block out the kids who think it’s not cool to be smart,” the president told students. “If someone goofs off today, are they cool? Are they still cool years from now, when they’re stuck in a dead end job. Don’t let peer pressure stand between you and your dreams.
China has threatened to stop buying US debt before and keeps moving closer and closer to making good on that threat. Hillary was sent to China to beg them to keep buying our debt.
Cheng Siwei, former vice-chairman of the Standing Committee and now head of China’s green energy drive, said Beijing was dismayed by the Fed’s recourse to “credit easing”.
“We hope there will be a change in monetary policy as soon as they have positive growth again,” he said at the Ambrosetti Workshop, a policy gathering on Lake Como.
“If they keep printing money to buy bonds it will lead to inflation, and after a year or two the dollar will fall hard. Most of our foreign reserves are in US bonds and this is very difficult to change, so we will diversify incremental reserves into euros, yen, and other currencies,” he said.
China’s reserves are more than – $2 trillion, the world’s largest.
~snip
“He who goes borrowing, goes sorrowing,” said Mr Cheng. It was a quote from US founding father Benjamin Franklin.
If our credit rating goes from AAA down to AA it will mean economic armageddon. World creditors have already threatened this against the US because of our bad borrowing and monetary policy. If you don’t understand why that would be armageddon feel free to ask in comments.
Just 29% of Americans say that news organizations generally get the facts straight, while 63% say that news stories are often inaccurate. In the initial survey in this series about the news media’s performance in 1985, 55% said news stories were accurate while 34% said they were inaccurate. That percentage had fallen sharply by the late 1990s and has remained low over the last decade.
