In effort to keep up with the times and their actions it has been suggested that the Republican Party change its name from the Grand Old Party to the Grand Old Party of Hypocrites.
After using their minions to pummel Sen. John Kerry last fall with questionable accusations that apparently had a small, but effective, impact on the voting public (enough to win Ohio, Iowa, and New Mexico) the GOPH is now upset that the Democrats and turned the table on them and may have a a small, but effective, impact on the Foreign Relations Committee (enough to change votes in Ohio, Nebraska, and Rhode Island) which could send John Bolton's nomination down to defeat.
Of course, the GOPH would say that the situations are very different, and they probably are. For example, most of the Swift Vets accusations have proven untrue, yet on Bolton most of the accusations have not been disproved. (For extra hypocrisy credit, read White House press secretary Scott McClellan's refusal to disprove the allegations, only saying that they are "unsubstantiated allegations." Probably just a bunch of Democrats complaining, I'm sure.
On Friday, the Washington Post reported that former secretary of state Colin L. Powell has weighed in on the matter.
"On two occasions, he has let it be known that the Bolton nomination is a bad one, to put it mildly," a Democratic congressional aide said.
In addition, the Los Angeles Times reported that A former U.S. ambassador to South Korea said yesterday that John R. Bolton, President Bush's choice for U.N. ambassador, might have misled the Senate Foreign Relations Committee about a provocative and controversial 2003 speech on North Korea.
One might wonder why the White House is sticking by Bolton and why they would want him around. But considering the cast of characters at the White House (Bush, Cheney, Rice), Bolton is just another crybaby who believes in the mantra "it's my way or the highway." The idea that one is working for the general good is unimaginable to these people.
Friday, April 22, 2005
Thursday, April 21, 2005
Character assassination is wrong, unless we're doing it
In two episodes this week, the White House and GOP House leadership decried the attacking of members of their party by Democrats, which is ironic considering they, and their minions, had no problem doing so during the 2004 election.
The ultimate expression of hypocrisy was made by House Majority Leader Tom DeLay who complained "Democrats have made clear that their only agenda is the politics of personal destruction and the criminalization of politics.
Last fall E.J. Dionne Jr. pointed out the ridiculousness of this argument when DeLay first made it, noting the origins of the comment. "We must stop the politics of personal destruction," [President Bill] Clinton said in December 1998 after the House impeachment vote that DeLay had rammed through.
One could say what's good for the goose is good for the gander but apparently the GOP does not agree. The White House, stung by the fact a Republican member of Congress found both his conscious and backbone at the same time and threatened to not support the nomination of John Bolton for U.N. Ambassador, found it necessary to have spokesman Scott McClellan proclaim that the allegations are "trumped-up" and part of an "ugly" campaign to destroy Bolton's character.
Ohio Republican Sen. George Voinovich set the delay in the vote on Bolton in motion after listening to a long presentation by Democrats regarding problems with Bolton. Too often Bush has succeeded because his supporters had closed their minds to differing information. Unable to apply earplugs and blinders to the GOP committee members, the Republicans, who outnumbered Democrats 10-8, looked at the possibility of a 9-9 vote, or even worse 7-11 if both Sen. Lincoln Chafee and Sen. Chuck Hagel joined together to vote their conscience.
Perhaps the GOP is worried that at long last, given enough information, Americans will say enough is enough and turn against the GOP.
The ultimate expression of hypocrisy was made by House Majority Leader Tom DeLay who complained "Democrats have made clear that their only agenda is the politics of personal destruction and the criminalization of politics.
Last fall E.J. Dionne Jr. pointed out the ridiculousness of this argument when DeLay first made it, noting the origins of the comment. "We must stop the politics of personal destruction," [President Bill] Clinton said in December 1998 after the House impeachment vote that DeLay had rammed through.
One could say what's good for the goose is good for the gander but apparently the GOP does not agree. The White House, stung by the fact a Republican member of Congress found both his conscious and backbone at the same time and threatened to not support the nomination of John Bolton for U.N. Ambassador, found it necessary to have spokesman Scott McClellan proclaim that the allegations are "trumped-up" and part of an "ugly" campaign to destroy Bolton's character.
Ohio Republican Sen. George Voinovich set the delay in the vote on Bolton in motion after listening to a long presentation by Democrats regarding problems with Bolton. Too often Bush has succeeded because his supporters had closed their minds to differing information. Unable to apply earplugs and blinders to the GOP committee members, the Republicans, who outnumbered Democrats 10-8, looked at the possibility of a 9-9 vote, or even worse 7-11 if both Sen. Lincoln Chafee and Sen. Chuck Hagel joined together to vote their conscience.
Perhaps the GOP is worried that at long last, given enough information, Americans will say enough is enough and turn against the GOP.
Tuesday, April 19, 2005
Don't treat us like we treat you
Following years of crushing politicians and others for sport, the news media has now found itself getting a dose of its own medicine, and it doesn't like it.
On Monday Howard Kurtz's column (When Blogs Bite Back) was a collection of news media mainly complaining about the email they receive regarding their work. Granted it is a lot easier to send a nasty email than a letter, or write a blog, but has the world changed that much or is it just easier to scream today?
If the public's reaction has become nastier, the increasingly caustic nature of online criticism is the result of the Rushification or Coulterization of the Internet. Rush, Coulter and others have attacked politicians and others and today many bloggers are merely following the example of Hate Radio, except their target is now the media.
And now Time magazine has chosen Coulter to be its poster girl for this week's issue. Too often the punditocracy thinks its neat to feature people like Coulter and Limbaugh, no matter the damage they are doing to the public discourse. And people like Kurtz, after promoting Limbaugh (He's so mainstream that those right-wingers Tom Brokaw and Tim Russert had him on their Election Night coverage) don't understand why there's a problem.
So when will Michael Moore become a fixture as a election night commentator on the major networks?
If reporters don’t like being questioned by bloggers perhaps they should stop giving them so much ammunition. From the Post’s John Harris “Mr. Bush Catches a Washington Break,” to Jane Hall’s Columbia Journalism Review article showing how the press trashed Al Gore in 2000, to Mark Halperin’s criticism that the press shouldn’t ARTIFICALLY hold both campaigns equally accountable, to Dan Fromkin recent criticism of the press pool questions of Bush on Air Force One, readers are left with the impression that even journalists think there’s something wrong with today’s coverage.
Everyone is going to occasionally make factual mistakes. But the bigger problem is the approach one takes to the story, who is quoted, who is not, what stories are covered and which aren’t.
Now there’s no need for ugliness in reviewing this but the blogosphere is a reflection of today’s political environment, which in large part was created by another new media – talk radio.
On Monday Howard Kurtz's column (When Blogs Bite Back) was a collection of news media mainly complaining about the email they receive regarding their work. Granted it is a lot easier to send a nasty email than a letter, or write a blog, but has the world changed that much or is it just easier to scream today?
If the public's reaction has become nastier, the increasingly caustic nature of online criticism is the result of the Rushification or Coulterization of the Internet. Rush, Coulter and others have attacked politicians and others and today many bloggers are merely following the example of Hate Radio, except their target is now the media.
And now Time magazine has chosen Coulter to be its poster girl for this week's issue. Too often the punditocracy thinks its neat to feature people like Coulter and Limbaugh, no matter the damage they are doing to the public discourse. And people like Kurtz, after promoting Limbaugh (He's so mainstream that those right-wingers Tom Brokaw and Tim Russert had him on their Election Night coverage) don't understand why there's a problem.
So when will Michael Moore become a fixture as a election night commentator on the major networks?
If reporters don’t like being questioned by bloggers perhaps they should stop giving them so much ammunition. From the Post’s John Harris “Mr. Bush Catches a Washington Break,” to Jane Hall’s Columbia Journalism Review article showing how the press trashed Al Gore in 2000, to Mark Halperin’s criticism that the press shouldn’t ARTIFICALLY hold both campaigns equally accountable, to Dan Fromkin recent criticism of the press pool questions of Bush on Air Force One, readers are left with the impression that even journalists think there’s something wrong with today’s coverage.
Everyone is going to occasionally make factual mistakes. But the bigger problem is the approach one takes to the story, who is quoted, who is not, what stories are covered and which aren’t.
Now there’s no need for ugliness in reviewing this but the blogosphere is a reflection of today’s political environment, which in large part was created by another new media – talk radio.
Friday, April 15, 2005
Beware of the Tax Day Lies
There's an old line about "Beware, the Tax Man Cometh." Actually a better line might be "Beware, the Press Cometh with Tax Misrepresentations. Expect a series of stories on the AMT and high taxes, but little on things like Republican policies make taxes so high, are those paying the most in taxes get the largest share of income and so forth.
So to help everyone out, return to 2004 for Elephant Lies week-long look at the U.S. tax situation. The following are only snippet. For more, read the full version:
April 12 - In the April issue of SmartMoney (a Wall Street Journal publication) several families taxes are reviewed, such as the family from Missouri who under the AMT will pay 15.7% of their 182,300 adjusted gross income to the feds. Another family makes $90,000 finds themselves paying 9.2%. How are these people paying these amounts? Numerous exemptions bring their level well below the 21.4% paid by the top 10% of Americans (those making over $92,000 in 2001)
April 13 - The Tax Foundation shows that the top 25% saw their tax payments increase from 17.5% to 18% of income from 1984 to 2001, yet that group's share of overall income went from 57.5% to 65.2%. So for a small increase in taxes they got a huge increase in the overall share of U.S. income.
April 14 - What many people don't understand is that different parts of income are taxed at different levels. People understand that there are different tax rates on different income levels (10%, 15%, 25%, 28%, 33%, 35%), but conservatives have deceived the public into thinking that if they earn over a certain amount ALL of their income will be taxed at the higher level. In reality, different parts of a person's income are taxed at the different levels. For example, for singles, currently taxable income (AGI minus deductions) up to $7,000 is taxed at 10%, income from $7,001 to $28,400 is taxed at 15%, and so forth. For a complete listing of rates see Yahoo's tax center.
April 15 - When Reagan took office the national debt was around $930 billion dollars. When he left it was $2.6 TRILLION, a 280% increase. For comparison, the debt was around $4 trillion when Bill Clinton took office and around $5.6 when he left, a 40% increase over eight years. Today the debt is $7.1 trillion, a $1.5 trillion increase in THREE years. Most of the increase during Clinton's term was left over from Bush I, which was a hangover from Reagan. In Clinton's final THREE years the debt only increased by $260 billion or 4.8%.
So to help everyone out, return to 2004 for Elephant Lies week-long look at the U.S. tax situation. The following are only snippet. For more, read the full version:
April 12 - In the April issue of SmartMoney (a Wall Street Journal publication) several families taxes are reviewed, such as the family from Missouri who under the AMT will pay 15.7% of their 182,300 adjusted gross income to the feds. Another family makes $90,000 finds themselves paying 9.2%. How are these people paying these amounts? Numerous exemptions bring their level well below the 21.4% paid by the top 10% of Americans (those making over $92,000 in 2001)
April 13 - The Tax Foundation shows that the top 25% saw their tax payments increase from 17.5% to 18% of income from 1984 to 2001, yet that group's share of overall income went from 57.5% to 65.2%. So for a small increase in taxes they got a huge increase in the overall share of U.S. income.
April 14 - What many people don't understand is that different parts of income are taxed at different levels. People understand that there are different tax rates on different income levels (10%, 15%, 25%, 28%, 33%, 35%), but conservatives have deceived the public into thinking that if they earn over a certain amount ALL of their income will be taxed at the higher level. In reality, different parts of a person's income are taxed at the different levels. For example, for singles, currently taxable income (AGI minus deductions) up to $7,000 is taxed at 10%, income from $7,001 to $28,400 is taxed at 15%, and so forth. For a complete listing of rates see Yahoo's tax center.
April 15 - When Reagan took office the national debt was around $930 billion dollars. When he left it was $2.6 TRILLION, a 280% increase. For comparison, the debt was around $4 trillion when Bill Clinton took office and around $5.6 when he left, a 40% increase over eight years. Today the debt is $7.1 trillion, a $1.5 trillion increase in THREE years. Most of the increase during Clinton's term was left over from Bush I, which was a hangover from Reagan. In Clinton's final THREE years the debt only increased by $260 billion or 4.8%.
Thursday, April 14, 2005
No Respect
If anyone wonders why the Mainstream Media is suffering from a loss of respect, one only has to look at the actions of the White House typists during a recent meeting with George Bush on Air Force One.
Among the questions posed by the press in the 47 minute interview, which revolved heavily around the recent funeral for Pope John Paul II, were: What are your plans this weekend? Had you ever been to a Latin mass before; I imagine you've been to an English mass? Did he (Pope) speak English? What has it been like spending time with the former Presidents for three days?
To be fair, among the seven invited to ask questions was Bill Sammon from the Washington Times, best known for his hatchet job reporting on Al Gore's 2000 Presidential campaign. However the rest of the group included representatives of the Associated Press, Reuters, Bloomberg, Newsweek, NBC and ABC.
While the interview got a lot of positive spin and there were a few semi-tough questions, at least one press observer, Dan Froomkin of the Washington Post, figured out the typists missed the boat.
Entirely missing, by contrast, were any questions about whether he thinks it's okay to eject dissenters from his public events, or what his exit strategy is for Iraq, or what effect the latest reports on flawed intelligence have on his doctrine of preemptive war -- or even why, at the pope's funeral, he wouldn't shake hands with his adversaries.
There are some signs that Bush may chat with the press more in his second term. But why not? Apparently he doesn't have to worry about the White House lap dogs asking tough questions.
Among the questions posed by the press in the 47 minute interview, which revolved heavily around the recent funeral for Pope John Paul II, were: What are your plans this weekend? Had you ever been to a Latin mass before; I imagine you've been to an English mass? Did he (Pope) speak English? What has it been like spending time with the former Presidents for three days?
To be fair, among the seven invited to ask questions was Bill Sammon from the Washington Times, best known for his hatchet job reporting on Al Gore's 2000 Presidential campaign. However the rest of the group included representatives of the Associated Press, Reuters, Bloomberg, Newsweek, NBC and ABC.
While the interview got a lot of positive spin and there were a few semi-tough questions, at least one press observer, Dan Froomkin of the Washington Post, figured out the typists missed the boat.
Entirely missing, by contrast, were any questions about whether he thinks it's okay to eject dissenters from his public events, or what his exit strategy is for Iraq, or what effect the latest reports on flawed intelligence have on his doctrine of preemptive war -- or even why, at the pope's funeral, he wouldn't shake hands with his adversaries.
There are some signs that Bush may chat with the press more in his second term. But why not? Apparently he doesn't have to worry about the White House lap dogs asking tough questions.
Wednesday, April 13, 2005
Who Cares What You Think
With the nomination John Bolton to be the U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations, George W. Bush has decided to tell America and the world that he doesn't care what they think.
How else could one explain Bush's actions? After the numerous investigations into the problems with America's intelligence community and how wrong they were on Iraq, why would one nominate an individual who attempted to bully intelligence analysts?
The idea that Bush must be thinking "Screw you" comes to mind.
Possibly Bush doesn't appreciate being shown that he ginned up a war in Iraq on fake evidence. His defenders say the world is better off without Saddam. That's true but will anyone believe the U.S. when confronting Iran or North Korea. Countries that poise an ACTUAL danger to the world.
During the confirmation hearings, Senator Joseph R. Biden Jr., a member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, said Mr. Bolton's record would undercut any American attempt to warn the United Nations of Iran's or North Korea's suspected weapons programs.
And it's not like the administration should be surprised by any of this. According to the New York Times, Committee Chairman Senator Richard G. Lugar of Indiana, told Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice not to nominate Bolton as deputy secretary of state because he could not be confirmed.
But now, if Sen. Lincoln Chaffee rolls over and votes to approve Mr. Bolton, can the world take him or the U.S. government seriously? Perhaps the best the U.S. can hope for is that the world will investigate what he says and determine what is believable. The worst case is they automatically disbelieve everything we say.
Screw You America & The World.
How else could one explain Bush's actions? After the numerous investigations into the problems with America's intelligence community and how wrong they were on Iraq, why would one nominate an individual who attempted to bully intelligence analysts?
The idea that Bush must be thinking "Screw you" comes to mind.
Possibly Bush doesn't appreciate being shown that he ginned up a war in Iraq on fake evidence. His defenders say the world is better off without Saddam. That's true but will anyone believe the U.S. when confronting Iran or North Korea. Countries that poise an ACTUAL danger to the world.
During the confirmation hearings, Senator Joseph R. Biden Jr., a member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, said Mr. Bolton's record would undercut any American attempt to warn the United Nations of Iran's or North Korea's suspected weapons programs.
And it's not like the administration should be surprised by any of this. According to the New York Times, Committee Chairman Senator Richard G. Lugar of Indiana, told Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice not to nominate Bolton as deputy secretary of state because he could not be confirmed.
But now, if Sen. Lincoln Chaffee rolls over and votes to approve Mr. Bolton, can the world take him or the U.S. government seriously? Perhaps the best the U.S. can hope for is that the world will investigate what he says and determine what is believable. The worst case is they automatically disbelieve everything we say.
Screw You America & The World.
Thursday, April 07, 2005
If the Schiavo memo was authentic...
In a blow to right wing bloggers, the legal counsel to Sen. Mel Martinez (R-Fla.) admitted yesterday that he was the author of a memo citing the political advantage to Republicans of intervening in the case of Terri Schiavo, according to the Washington Post.
Rightwing bloggers questioned the authenticity of the memo, comparing it to the unauthenticated CBS documents about Bush's National Guard service.
In attempting to limit the potential harm the GOP memo could do, bloggers attacked the media, questioning whether the memo was authentic, how many people saw it, and so forth.
When it first appeared, Cliff Kincaid of the conservative Accuracy in Media wrote The memo may have been written by some Republican somewhere. But there's no independent evidence at this point that it was authorized by a Republican Senator or written by a top Republican staffer.
The Right now can narrowly claim it wasn't authorized or written by a top staffer as Sen. Martinez wasn't a big fish. However, isn't the real question, just like with the Bush memos, whether there a bigger story waiting to be found?
Kincaid asked the right question - Didn't we learn anything from Memogate? In Memogate bloggers and the media only examined the authenticity of the memo, not whether the overall story was accurate. This time the bloggers attacked the memo (which turned out to be authentic) AND also the story, which may have been more of a molehill rather than a mountain.
Why not look at both on the SUBJECT of the CBS story? The memo was only a part of the story. Perhaps no one really wants to admit that if the Schiavo memo was authentic then maybe there was more to the claims of Bush not completing his military duty.
Rightwing bloggers questioned the authenticity of the memo, comparing it to the unauthenticated CBS documents about Bush's National Guard service.
In attempting to limit the potential harm the GOP memo could do, bloggers attacked the media, questioning whether the memo was authentic, how many people saw it, and so forth.
When it first appeared, Cliff Kincaid of the conservative Accuracy in Media wrote The memo may have been written by some Republican somewhere. But there's no independent evidence at this point that it was authorized by a Republican Senator or written by a top Republican staffer.
The Right now can narrowly claim it wasn't authorized or written by a top staffer as Sen. Martinez wasn't a big fish. However, isn't the real question, just like with the Bush memos, whether there a bigger story waiting to be found?
Kincaid asked the right question - Didn't we learn anything from Memogate? In Memogate bloggers and the media only examined the authenticity of the memo, not whether the overall story was accurate. This time the bloggers attacked the memo (which turned out to be authentic) AND also the story, which may have been more of a molehill rather than a mountain.
Why not look at both on the SUBJECT of the CBS story? The memo was only a part of the story. Perhaps no one really wants to admit that if the Schiavo memo was authentic then maybe there was more to the claims of Bush not completing his military duty.
Tuesday, April 05, 2005
I Shave
I seem to recall an old Doonesbury cartoon from the Nixon era where a member of the media asks the an administration official what he does after looking in the mirror and thinking of all the lies he will be tell.
"I shave," said the character.
One has to wonder if that is a daily occurrence on the Right. A recent controversy is the blogger's attempt to prove that a memo supposedly given to Republican senators by an unknown group was faked and probably the result of Democrats.
Fred Barnes of the Standard told the Washington Post that the reporting of the memo was unfair but not unsurprising, since "the press is much tougher on Republicans." The sound you just heard may have been Al Gore, unmercifully and unfairly targeted by the media in 2000, falling out of his chair in shock.
Right. Excuse me but the reason Bush was able to limit his loss in the 2000 Presidential election to only a half million votes was the media's dishonest "War On Gore." If Florida was counted fairly, Gore wins not only the popular vote, but also the electoral college, 292 to 246, a significant win. To believe the media played no role in influencing Al Gore's vote total is to suspend belief, which is what many on the Right do on a daily basis.
Those on the right believe they are looking at another memogate like they had with Dan Rather. And I'm sure they are hoping for the same outcome. You know, investigate whether the media should have checked if a memo was legit, not whether the story was legit.
Afterall what's the story? In the CBS's case was it that Bush might have shirked his military obligation or that there was a questionable memo that alleged Bush shirked his duty? Hmm, lets see. There is one common ideal (investigate whether there is truth to the story), or check and see if the documents are accurate? Why not both?
"I shave," said the character.
One has to wonder if that is a daily occurrence on the Right. A recent controversy is the blogger's attempt to prove that a memo supposedly given to Republican senators by an unknown group was faked and probably the result of Democrats.
Fred Barnes of the Standard told the Washington Post that the reporting of the memo was unfair but not unsurprising, since "the press is much tougher on Republicans." The sound you just heard may have been Al Gore, unmercifully and unfairly targeted by the media in 2000, falling out of his chair in shock.
Right. Excuse me but the reason Bush was able to limit his loss in the 2000 Presidential election to only a half million votes was the media's dishonest "War On Gore." If Florida was counted fairly, Gore wins not only the popular vote, but also the electoral college, 292 to 246, a significant win. To believe the media played no role in influencing Al Gore's vote total is to suspend belief, which is what many on the Right do on a daily basis.
Those on the right believe they are looking at another memogate like they had with Dan Rather. And I'm sure they are hoping for the same outcome. You know, investigate whether the media should have checked if a memo was legit, not whether the story was legit.
Afterall what's the story? In the CBS's case was it that Bush might have shirked his military obligation or that there was a questionable memo that alleged Bush shirked his duty? Hmm, lets see. There is one common ideal (investigate whether there is truth to the story), or check and see if the documents are accurate? Why not both?
Sunday, April 03, 2005
Where is the Outrage in America?
During the 1996 presidential election Sen. Bob Dole used to ask "Where is the outrage in America?" because he didn't think voters we getting upset enough about minor issues like Al Gore going to a Buddhist temple and some staffer reviewing FBI files.
After the recent release of the intelligence report one really has to ask "Where is the outrage in America?" But perhaps the bigger question should be "Who Gets Held to Account?"
On a recent on-line chat in the Washington Post, intelligence reporter Dana Priest responded to a question asking if anyone would be held responsible
Dana Priest: Well, President Bush gave George Tenet the Medal of Freedom. And the voters gave President Bush another term. SecDef Rumsfeld is in perfect standing with the president. His deputy is moving on to head the World Bank. The head of the other large intel agency, the National Security Agency (does eavesdropping) is becoming Negroponte's deputy. That leaves only the worker bees.
Surely, one might think, someone higher will be held accountable. Don't bet on it. Mark Silva wrote in the Chicago Tribune: "Bush has long refused to assign specific blame for intelligence failures to himself or top aides. What is not clear is whether Americans will accept this in the face of this latest, unusually scathing report.
But how can anyone blame Bush if he was everyone was united in giving him bad news so there must not have been any dissenting views. Um, well that's not how things went.
Dafna Linzer and Barton Gellman wrote in The Washington Post that it's not like no one spoke up. "Up until the days before U.S. troops entered Iraqi territory that March, the intelligence community was inundated with evidence that undermined virtually all charges it had made against Iraq, the report said."
Dole's had another good question that fits much more today than in 1996 - When will the voters start to focus?
When indeed.
After the recent release of the intelligence report one really has to ask "Where is the outrage in America?" But perhaps the bigger question should be "Who Gets Held to Account?"
On a recent on-line chat in the Washington Post, intelligence reporter Dana Priest responded to a question asking if anyone would be held responsible
Dana Priest: Well, President Bush gave George Tenet the Medal of Freedom. And the voters gave President Bush another term. SecDef Rumsfeld is in perfect standing with the president. His deputy is moving on to head the World Bank. The head of the other large intel agency, the National Security Agency (does eavesdropping) is becoming Negroponte's deputy. That leaves only the worker bees.
Surely, one might think, someone higher will be held accountable. Don't bet on it. Mark Silva wrote in the Chicago Tribune: "Bush has long refused to assign specific blame for intelligence failures to himself or top aides. What is not clear is whether Americans will accept this in the face of this latest, unusually scathing report.
But how can anyone blame Bush if he was everyone was united in giving him bad news so there must not have been any dissenting views. Um, well that's not how things went.
Dafna Linzer and Barton Gellman wrote in The Washington Post that it's not like no one spoke up. "Up until the days before U.S. troops entered Iraqi territory that March, the intelligence community was inundated with evidence that undermined virtually all charges it had made against Iraq, the report said."
Dole's had another good question that fits much more today than in 1996 - When will the voters start to focus?
When indeed.
Thursday, March 24, 2005
They really don't get it
Last week must have been defend the media week at the Washington Post. In addition to Dana Milbank's piece saying the media plays fair, on March 15 media critic Howard Kurtz, in John Kerry, Media Critic, continued the fantasy. After reading the piece you come away believing that they really don't get it.
Kurtz said Major news organizations tried--not hard enough, in my view--to fact-check the charges and countercharges by both sides. Sometimes journalists were slow--as on the Swift Boat charges--to undertake this work. Most networks aired the candidates' attack ads with only a minimum of truth-squadding. The bogus Kerry Intern rumor spread like wildfire. But there was at least an attempt to hold both sides accountable.
...Hold both sides accountable. Again with the moral equivalence. No respectable news organization would continually equate murder with jaywalking, however in politics its more than acceptable. As Mark Halperin of ABC News pointed out last fall that the Bush attacks on Kerry involve distortions and taking things out of context in a way that goes beyond what Kerry has done
Too many in the media believe that they can not compare candidate's actions so that a small distortion is the same as a series of blatant lies, or that as Kurtz apparently believes, Al Franken is little different than Rush Limbaugh.
Kerry pointed out that "there's a subculture and a sub-media that talks and keeps things going for entertainment purposes rather than for the flow of information. And that has a profound impact and undermines what we call the mainstream media of the country. And so the decision-making ability of the American electorate has been profoundly impacted as a consequence of that."
The Daily Howler recently pointed out that this subculture results in two Americas, that Cable viewers live in one America, newspaper readers in another. And that's the problem. People like Kurtz look at the print media and pronouce fairness abounds. The rest of us look at cable TV and are unsurprised that, as Kerry said, 77 percent of the people who voted for him [Bush] believed that Saddam Hussein was responsible for 9/11.
Kerry said the problem was that the media didn't act as an arbitrator of what was accurate, i.e. examining the issues and point out the facts and also who was lying. The press at times attempted to say what was accurate, but it was beyond them to investigate the dishonest statements on cable. And they wonder why many have lost respect for the media.
They just don't get it.
Kurtz said Major news organizations tried--not hard enough, in my view--to fact-check the charges and countercharges by both sides. Sometimes journalists were slow--as on the Swift Boat charges--to undertake this work. Most networks aired the candidates' attack ads with only a minimum of truth-squadding. The bogus Kerry Intern rumor spread like wildfire. But there was at least an attempt to hold both sides accountable.
...Hold both sides accountable. Again with the moral equivalence. No respectable news organization would continually equate murder with jaywalking, however in politics its more than acceptable. As Mark Halperin of ABC News pointed out last fall that the Bush attacks on Kerry involve distortions and taking things out of context in a way that goes beyond what Kerry has done
Too many in the media believe that they can not compare candidate's actions so that a small distortion is the same as a series of blatant lies, or that as Kurtz apparently believes, Al Franken is little different than Rush Limbaugh.
Kerry pointed out that "there's a subculture and a sub-media that talks and keeps things going for entertainment purposes rather than for the flow of information. And that has a profound impact and undermines what we call the mainstream media of the country. And so the decision-making ability of the American electorate has been profoundly impacted as a consequence of that."
The Daily Howler recently pointed out that this subculture results in two Americas, that Cable viewers live in one America, newspaper readers in another. And that's the problem. People like Kurtz look at the print media and pronouce fairness abounds. The rest of us look at cable TV and are unsurprised that, as Kerry said, 77 percent of the people who voted for him [Bush] believed that Saddam Hussein was responsible for 9/11.
Kerry said the problem was that the media didn't act as an arbitrator of what was accurate, i.e. examining the issues and point out the facts and also who was lying. The press at times attempted to say what was accurate, but it was beyond them to investigate the dishonest statements on cable. And they wonder why many have lost respect for the media.
They just don't get it.
Tuesday, March 22, 2005
They just don't get it
When Massachusetts Gov. Michael Dukakis ran for president in 1988 against the first George Bush, he appeared on Nightline and after an unimpressive response, host Ted Koppel said "I still don't think you get it."
Anyone reading Dana Milbank's March 20th column, My Bias for Mainstream News, which tried to explain how the mainstream media is fair, probably came away thinking "I still don't think you get it."
Just look at what Milbank wrote: Partisans on the left and right have formed cottage industries devoted to discrediting what they dismissively call the "mainstream media" -- the networks, daily newspapers and newsmagazines. Their goal: to steer readers and viewers toward ideologically driven outlets that will confirm their own views and protect them from disagreeable facts.
Perhaps on the right but not on the left. Rather than pushing people away from the MSM, the left's goal has been to shine a light on mistakes on mistakes in hopes that this would help improve the reporting by the mainstream media.
Milbank mentions a survey conducted before the 2004 election that found that 72 percent of Bush's supporters believed that, at the time of the U.S. invasion, Iraq had stockpiles of weapons of mass destruction and that 75 percent believed that Iraq either gave al Qaeda "substantial support" or was directly involved in the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks.
Milbank did point out that It's fine to argue about the merits of the Iraq war, but these views are just plain wrong. However he loses it when he writes Many on the left harbor their own fantasies that they consider fact -- about how Bush knew of 9/11 in advance, or how he was coached during one of the presidential debates via a transmitter between his shoulder blades.
The problem is there are few on the left who truly believe those exact claims. Many may be cynics and believe there is truth to these claims. For example, some might believe, based on the Aug. 6 PDB, Bush might have listened enough to be aware that a memo that says Bin Laden Determined to Strike in the US, meant that there could be a terrorist strike in the US in the near future. Does that mean all on the left believe that Bush knew in advance of 9/11 or just that he and Rice knew that Bin Laden would try to strike the US?
To compare 75 percent of Bush supporters believed in the Iraq - al Qaeda connection to an unknown percent having cynical views on 9/11 attacks is ridiculous. To often the press falls victim to this moral equivalence comparison. Last fall ABC News' political director Mark Halperin tried to buck the trend, writing in an internal memo that although both President Bush and Sen. John Kerry distorted the truth, the Bush team went way beyond what Kerry did.
As such, "though both sides need to be held accountable, it doesn't mean we reflexively and artificially hold both sides equally' accountable when the facts don't warrant that."
It's too bad Milbank didn't get the memo. Anyone reading, watching or listening to right wing rants comes to the conclusion that they are much more over the edge. Unfortunately too many in the media have swallowed the idea that they shouldn't differentiate between political murder and political jaywalking. To them it's all the same.
Apparently they just don't get it.
Anyone reading Dana Milbank's March 20th column, My Bias for Mainstream News, which tried to explain how the mainstream media is fair, probably came away thinking "I still don't think you get it."
Just look at what Milbank wrote: Partisans on the left and right have formed cottage industries devoted to discrediting what they dismissively call the "mainstream media" -- the networks, daily newspapers and newsmagazines. Their goal: to steer readers and viewers toward ideologically driven outlets that will confirm their own views and protect them from disagreeable facts.
Perhaps on the right but not on the left. Rather than pushing people away from the MSM, the left's goal has been to shine a light on mistakes on mistakes in hopes that this would help improve the reporting by the mainstream media.
Milbank mentions a survey conducted before the 2004 election that found that 72 percent of Bush's supporters believed that, at the time of the U.S. invasion, Iraq had stockpiles of weapons of mass destruction and that 75 percent believed that Iraq either gave al Qaeda "substantial support" or was directly involved in the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks.
Milbank did point out that It's fine to argue about the merits of the Iraq war, but these views are just plain wrong. However he loses it when he writes Many on the left harbor their own fantasies that they consider fact -- about how Bush knew of 9/11 in advance, or how he was coached during one of the presidential debates via a transmitter between his shoulder blades.
The problem is there are few on the left who truly believe those exact claims. Many may be cynics and believe there is truth to these claims. For example, some might believe, based on the Aug. 6 PDB, Bush might have listened enough to be aware that a memo that says Bin Laden Determined to Strike in the US, meant that there could be a terrorist strike in the US in the near future. Does that mean all on the left believe that Bush knew in advance of 9/11 or just that he and Rice knew that Bin Laden would try to strike the US?
To compare 75 percent of Bush supporters believed in the Iraq - al Qaeda connection to an unknown percent having cynical views on 9/11 attacks is ridiculous. To often the press falls victim to this moral equivalence comparison. Last fall ABC News' political director Mark Halperin tried to buck the trend, writing in an internal memo that although both President Bush and Sen. John Kerry distorted the truth, the Bush team went way beyond what Kerry did.
As such, "though both sides need to be held accountable, it doesn't mean we reflexively and artificially hold both sides equally' accountable when the facts don't warrant that."
It's too bad Milbank didn't get the memo. Anyone reading, watching or listening to right wing rants comes to the conclusion that they are much more over the edge. Unfortunately too many in the media have swallowed the idea that they shouldn't differentiate between political murder and political jaywalking. To them it's all the same.
Apparently they just don't get it.
Thursday, March 10, 2005
Where Did that News Scoop Go? To the MSM's Memory Hole
In a recent National Review column, Jonah Goldberg asked whatever happened to the story on the massive cache of explosives that American forces failed to secure after the fall of Saddam Hussein. Goldberg sniffs that "in the final week of the presidential campaign it was The Most Important Story on Earth."
Goldberg notes that The (New York) Times has not run a single story about the al-Qaqaa story since November 1. Nada, bupkis, zilch. So what happened to the story?
Well, the answer is pretty damn simple. Kerry lost the election and that meant the media could go back to its On Bended Knee mode, i.e. not caring about issues. No longer did the media feel obligated to give a half-hearted effort to look into allegations about the Bush administration. No, it was back to typing up administration press releases.
And since the MSM has an attention span of about 30 seconds, Goldberg knew he could regurgitate this story to feed the GOP's daily "Outrage Machine." Knowing he wouldn't be challenged, Goldberg complains that the Times "first broadside" didn't mention that The weapons might have been removed before the invasion.
No, perhaps it wasn't mentioned in the "first broadside." But what Goldberg CONVENIENTLY neglects to mention is that video taken by KSTP of St Paul, Minnesota in mid-April 2003 SUPPORTED the Times' report that the tons of explosives missing from a munitions installation in Iraq were looted AFTER the US invasion and occupation of Iraq.
As the AP reported, A videotape shot by a Minnesota television crew traveling with United States troops in Iraq when they first opened the bunkers at the Al-Qaqaa munitions base nine days after the fall of Saddam Hussein shows what appeared to be high explosives still in barrels and bearing the markings of the International Atomic Energy Agency.
But look at Goldberg's column. Is there any mention of what KSTP found. Of course not!
And oh, by the way, Goldberg isn't the only one wondering what happened. to the story. But questions posed on this issue to the Washington Post's Howard Kurtz Media Backtalk go unanswered. Why? Perhaps rather than being an indication that the Times got the story wrong, the more likely answer is that the MSM doesn't want to upset the Bush administration.
Afterall, remember how Houston Chronicle reporter Bennett Roth was chastised by the administration for asking a question press secretary Ari Fleischer deemed off limits. As Ari put told Roth, it was "noted in the building that I had asked the question." Vice-president Dick Cheney took the strategy one step further and banned New York Times reporters from travelling with him during the campaign.
Perhaps Goldberg, satisfied the press won't actually look into the story, now gets to bash the MSM and he makes it look like the MSM picks on conservatives rather than the truth, which is that most of the time the MSM is a faithful GOP soldier.
Goldberg notes that The (New York) Times has not run a single story about the al-Qaqaa story since November 1. Nada, bupkis, zilch. So what happened to the story?
Well, the answer is pretty damn simple. Kerry lost the election and that meant the media could go back to its On Bended Knee mode, i.e. not caring about issues. No longer did the media feel obligated to give a half-hearted effort to look into allegations about the Bush administration. No, it was back to typing up administration press releases.
And since the MSM has an attention span of about 30 seconds, Goldberg knew he could regurgitate this story to feed the GOP's daily "Outrage Machine." Knowing he wouldn't be challenged, Goldberg complains that the Times "first broadside" didn't mention that The weapons might have been removed before the invasion.
No, perhaps it wasn't mentioned in the "first broadside." But what Goldberg CONVENIENTLY neglects to mention is that video taken by KSTP of St Paul, Minnesota in mid-April 2003 SUPPORTED the Times' report that the tons of explosives missing from a munitions installation in Iraq were looted AFTER the US invasion and occupation of Iraq.
As the AP reported, A videotape shot by a Minnesota television crew traveling with United States troops in Iraq when they first opened the bunkers at the Al-Qaqaa munitions base nine days after the fall of Saddam Hussein shows what appeared to be high explosives still in barrels and bearing the markings of the International Atomic Energy Agency.
But look at Goldberg's column. Is there any mention of what KSTP found. Of course not!
And oh, by the way, Goldberg isn't the only one wondering what happened. to the story. But questions posed on this issue to the Washington Post's Howard Kurtz Media Backtalk go unanswered. Why? Perhaps rather than being an indication that the Times got the story wrong, the more likely answer is that the MSM doesn't want to upset the Bush administration.
Afterall, remember how Houston Chronicle reporter Bennett Roth was chastised by the administration for asking a question press secretary Ari Fleischer deemed off limits. As Ari put told Roth, it was "noted in the building that I had asked the question." Vice-president Dick Cheney took the strategy one step further and banned New York Times reporters from travelling with him during the campaign.
Perhaps Goldberg, satisfied the press won't actually look into the story, now gets to bash the MSM and he makes it look like the MSM picks on conservatives rather than the truth, which is that most of the time the MSM is a faithful GOP soldier.
Tuesday, March 01, 2005
Million Dollar Outrage
The shallowness of conservatives' complaints against modern society and its extreme dependency on the Outrage Machine to stay in power was on display on Sunday at the 77th Annual Academy Awards show where Million Dollar Baby collected several Oscars.
Prior to the announcement of Oscar nominations, conservatives signaled that they would be outraged if Fahrenheit 9/11 (winner of the People's Choice Award as Favorite Movie) received nominations. When Fahrenheit 9/11 was left off the list of Oscar nominees, many on the right breathed a sigh of relief and possibly stopped listening to the Outrage Machine.
And without the Outrage Machine serving as a thought minder, people are able to think for themselves and make decisions on their own. As a result people I knew, who last fall had bought into the Outrage Machine, went to Million Dollar Baby with an open mind and ended up liking the movie.
Not knowing they should be outraged by the movie, they weren't, and if fact considered those who brought up the Outrage Machine talking points to be out of touch with reality. Without the thought minders telling them that they should be outraged they weren't. Given the freedom to think for themselves, they thought and weren't outraged.
This is both encouraging and discouraging. Knowing that the conservatives’ hold on power relies on making people outraged against their will shows the weakness of conservatives’ arguments. However conservatives, through talk radio and talk TV, has built an extensive Outrage Machine that, when running, is difficult to counter.
Prior to the announcement of Oscar nominations, conservatives signaled that they would be outraged if Fahrenheit 9/11 (winner of the People's Choice Award as Favorite Movie) received nominations. When Fahrenheit 9/11 was left off the list of Oscar nominees, many on the right breathed a sigh of relief and possibly stopped listening to the Outrage Machine.
And without the Outrage Machine serving as a thought minder, people are able to think for themselves and make decisions on their own. As a result people I knew, who last fall had bought into the Outrage Machine, went to Million Dollar Baby with an open mind and ended up liking the movie.
Not knowing they should be outraged by the movie, they weren't, and if fact considered those who brought up the Outrage Machine talking points to be out of touch with reality. Without the thought minders telling them that they should be outraged they weren't. Given the freedom to think for themselves, they thought and weren't outraged.
This is both encouraging and discouraging. Knowing that the conservatives’ hold on power relies on making people outraged against their will shows the weakness of conservatives’ arguments. However conservatives, through talk radio and talk TV, has built an extensive Outrage Machine that, when running, is difficult to counter.
Monday, February 28, 2005
On Bended Knees
If anyone doubts that the Mainstream Media (MSM) has given up the fight to remain relevant, the February 25 Lou Dobbs Tonight show erased those doubts.
Rather than being a forum to bring news and information to the public, the show became a propaganda vehicle for the GOP. Substituting for Lou Dobbs was Kitty Pilgrim and she interviewed Charlie Jarvis, Chairman & CEO of USA NEXT.
USA Today reported that USA Next is the group that plans an initial $10 million campaign accusing AARP of a "shameful record of liberal activism," including backing gay marriage. USA Next had an Internet ad last week that asserted AARP supports gay marriage. It included a picture of two men kissing at what appeared to be their wedding over the words, "The real AARP agenda."
Laughable as it may seem that people would believe such nonsense, many of those involved in the USA Next campaign are alumni of the Swift Boat ad campaign which used lies and distortions to hurt John Kerry's presidential campaign and may have provided the key difference in Bush tiny win in Ohio which put him over the top.
So on Lou Dobbs, with a chance to challenge the ads, Kitty gave up and instead asked the following "tough question."
Let me ask you a tough one, though. Some of the your consultants advised the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth. That turned into a very, very ugly fight. Do you anticipate this becoming as vituperative as that previous problem?
Not 'while your Kerry ads were successful, they were discredited, and will that hurt the effectiveness of the new ads?'
Not 'why is you ad untruthful?'
Not even 'are you going to make this discussion as ugly as the presidential campaign?'
Instead it was - will this be 'vituperative,' like anyone is going to know what that means (containing or characterized by verbal abuse).
After turning the show over to Jarvis Kitty closed with Well, we encourage energetic debate on this program certainly.
We encourage energetic debate? Not on this day.
Rather than being a forum to bring news and information to the public, the show became a propaganda vehicle for the GOP. Substituting for Lou Dobbs was Kitty Pilgrim and she interviewed Charlie Jarvis, Chairman & CEO of USA NEXT.
USA Today reported that USA Next is the group that plans an initial $10 million campaign accusing AARP of a "shameful record of liberal activism," including backing gay marriage. USA Next had an Internet ad last week that asserted AARP supports gay marriage. It included a picture of two men kissing at what appeared to be their wedding over the words, "The real AARP agenda."
Laughable as it may seem that people would believe such nonsense, many of those involved in the USA Next campaign are alumni of the Swift Boat ad campaign which used lies and distortions to hurt John Kerry's presidential campaign and may have provided the key difference in Bush tiny win in Ohio which put him over the top.
So on Lou Dobbs, with a chance to challenge the ads, Kitty gave up and instead asked the following "tough question."
Let me ask you a tough one, though. Some of the your consultants advised the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth. That turned into a very, very ugly fight. Do you anticipate this becoming as vituperative as that previous problem?
Not 'while your Kerry ads were successful, they were discredited, and will that hurt the effectiveness of the new ads?'
Not 'why is you ad untruthful?'
Not even 'are you going to make this discussion as ugly as the presidential campaign?'
Instead it was - will this be 'vituperative,' like anyone is going to know what that means (containing or characterized by verbal abuse).
After turning the show over to Jarvis Kitty closed with Well, we encourage energetic debate on this program certainly.
We encourage energetic debate? Not on this day.
Friday, February 25, 2005
Chickens Come Home
Stealing the 2000 election U.S. presidential election apparently finally caught up with George W. Bush on Thursday as he figured out he really didn't have a leg to stand on when criticizing other countries' commitment to democracy.
For weeks Bush and the Right had implied that when he got to Russia he was going to give President Vladimir Putin a piece of his mind about upholding democracy. Unfortunately for Bush, foreigners read the news critically and are able to add 2 + 2 together and come up with 4.
As the New York Times pointed out, "While raised, Western concerns about the decline in the development of democracy in Russia were muted after a period in which Mr. Bush heightened expectations with soaring language on the irresistible lure of freedom and democracy."
Using a trick William Safire used to do in his kooky New York Times columns, imagine you're in Vlad's mind as Bush is speaking. Don't you think the 2000 Presidential election crossed Vlad's mind, also how the GOP targets politicians who both support and oppose them, and how Bush avoids public town hall events with people who don't agree with him?
One could imagine ol' Vlad thinking Georgie was quite the hypocrite. Perhaps at that point Georgie looked into Vlad's soul and figured out he needed to shut up, now.
The Times pointed out "some political analysts took the public comments as evidence that Mr. Bush had ceded an opportunity to challenge Mr. Putin forcefully on his increasingly autocratic stand."
How could Bush challenge Putin? He has no moral authority to speak on democracy, a point some had predicted would happen because of the 2000 Florida debacle and Bush taking an office he lost, much like the guy in the Ukraine tried to do.
Bush may believe the 2004 election gave him credibility, but while half of Americans are willing to tolerate a hypocrite, the percentage isn't so high elsewhere.
For weeks Bush and the Right had implied that when he got to Russia he was going to give President Vladimir Putin a piece of his mind about upholding democracy. Unfortunately for Bush, foreigners read the news critically and are able to add 2 + 2 together and come up with 4.
As the New York Times pointed out, "While raised, Western concerns about the decline in the development of democracy in Russia were muted after a period in which Mr. Bush heightened expectations with soaring language on the irresistible lure of freedom and democracy."
Using a trick William Safire used to do in his kooky New York Times columns, imagine you're in Vlad's mind as Bush is speaking. Don't you think the 2000 Presidential election crossed Vlad's mind, also how the GOP targets politicians who both support and oppose them, and how Bush avoids public town hall events with people who don't agree with him?
One could imagine ol' Vlad thinking Georgie was quite the hypocrite. Perhaps at that point Georgie looked into Vlad's soul and figured out he needed to shut up, now.
The Times pointed out "some political analysts took the public comments as evidence that Mr. Bush had ceded an opportunity to challenge Mr. Putin forcefully on his increasingly autocratic stand."
How could Bush challenge Putin? He has no moral authority to speak on democracy, a point some had predicted would happen because of the 2000 Florida debacle and Bush taking an office he lost, much like the guy in the Ukraine tried to do.
Bush may believe the 2004 election gave him credibility, but while half of Americans are willing to tolerate a hypocrite, the percentage isn't so high elsewhere.
Thursday, February 24, 2005
Will the Chickens Come Home to Roost?
Ever since George Bush was awarded the 2000 Presidential election thanks to his brother's efforts in Florida (where Bush "won" by 537 votes despite having nearly 180,000 votes left uncounted), one has wondered if his fraudulent election would ever come back to haunt him.
Luckily for Bush the media has been too willing not to question him personally on this or many other topics. As Dan Froomkin, who writes the White House Briefing for the Washington Post, said in an online discussion It's amazing how he has avoided public confrontation about either the 2000 election or what is increasingly looking like widespread torture of Iraqis at the hands of our troops and spies.
Rather than finally being personally questioned by Americans or the American press, it might be left to those protectors of democracy, the Russians, to finally challenge his legitimacy face to face.
Russian ambassador to the United States, Yuri Ushakov, indicated in response to questions from the New York Times regarding Bush's upcoming trip to Russia and his plans to scold Russian President Vladimir Putin that "there are others who are highly critical of your electoral system."
Bush administration officials suggested that he was referring to such matters as ..... the 2000 presidential election, in which the Supreme Court ruled in favor of Mr. Bush in a recount dispute, effectively securing his victory.
More than four years later this could be the first real pointed questioning Bush has faced about his legitimacy. And as Froomkin pointed out - What irony it would be if Putin brought them up.
Luckily for Bush the media has been too willing not to question him personally on this or many other topics. As Dan Froomkin, who writes the White House Briefing for the Washington Post, said in an online discussion It's amazing how he has avoided public confrontation about either the 2000 election or what is increasingly looking like widespread torture of Iraqis at the hands of our troops and spies.
Rather than finally being personally questioned by Americans or the American press, it might be left to those protectors of democracy, the Russians, to finally challenge his legitimacy face to face.
Russian ambassador to the United States, Yuri Ushakov, indicated in response to questions from the New York Times regarding Bush's upcoming trip to Russia and his plans to scold Russian President Vladimir Putin that "there are others who are highly critical of your electoral system."
Bush administration officials suggested that he was referring to such matters as ..... the 2000 presidential election, in which the Supreme Court ruled in favor of Mr. Bush in a recount dispute, effectively securing his victory.
More than four years later this could be the first real pointed questioning Bush has faced about his legitimacy. And as Froomkin pointed out - What irony it would be if Putin brought them up.
Sunday, February 13, 2005
Magic Asterisk
The recent debates over the future of Social Security makes one wonders if George Bush has finally found Ronald Reagan's magic asterisk.
As David E. Rosenbaum of the New York Times pointed out "The budgets prepared by David A. Stockman, Mr. Reagan's first budget director, adopted what was called a "rosy scenario" - impossibly optimistic predictions about future growth, inflation and interest rates. They also included what was called the "magic asterisk" - a gimmick that allowed for the budgeting of unspecified, and never intended, spending cuts.
Starting in 1983 the Reagan administation began relaying on excess Social Security fund to limit deficits and slow calls for higher taxes. One wonders if in 1986 there had not been the Social Security fund to raid it the tax code revisions would have been different.
Instead Republicans relied on excess Social Security taxes to keep the deficit down and to champion irresponsible tax cuts in the new century. While the excess funds helped keep the deficit down, one would have thought that eventually there would come a day when they would have to be paid.
Apparently not. Conservatives are now preaching that there is no trust fund, just paper receipts. But if there is no trust fund, then nothing has to be paid back. In a Feb. 11 column, Dan Froomkin pointed out that Bush is now saying "Social Security's $1.8 trillion trust fund doesn't really exist."
But his best point was "Let's assume that the president really believes that the Social Security trust fund doesn't exist. And let's just forget about the past two decades, during which workers overpaid more than a trillion dollars in payroll taxes. We'll write that off to an unfortunate misunderstanding.Maybe because Bush has found Reagan's magic asterisk?
As David E. Rosenbaum of the New York Times pointed out "The budgets prepared by David A. Stockman, Mr. Reagan's first budget director, adopted what was called a "rosy scenario" - impossibly optimistic predictions about future growth, inflation and interest rates. They also included what was called the "magic asterisk" - a gimmick that allowed for the budgeting of unspecified, and never intended, spending cuts.
Starting in 1983 the Reagan administation began relaying on excess Social Security fund to limit deficits and slow calls for higher taxes. One wonders if in 1986 there had not been the Social Security fund to raid it the tax code revisions would have been different.
Instead Republicans relied on excess Social Security taxes to keep the deficit down and to champion irresponsible tax cuts in the new century. While the excess funds helped keep the deficit down, one would have thought that eventually there would come a day when they would have to be paid.
Apparently not. Conservatives are now preaching that there is no trust fund, just paper receipts. But if there is no trust fund, then nothing has to be paid back. In a Feb. 11 column, Dan Froomkin pointed out that Bush is now saying "Social Security's $1.8 trillion trust fund doesn't really exist."
But his best point was "Let's assume that the president really believes that the Social Security trust fund doesn't exist. And let's just forget about the past two decades, during which workers overpaid more than a trillion dollars in payroll taxes. We'll write that off to an unfortunate misunderstanding.
Tuesday, February 01, 2005
Stealing is Wrong but We Won't Stop
One of the points the Republicans have made in their effort to "reform" Social Security is that the trillion dollars collected above the needs for the program no longer exists.
"There is no cash in the Social Security trust fund, and there never has been any," a paper from the Heritage Foundation claims. Many conservatives go on to claim that in 2018 the Social Security system will no longer be able to cover its bills and will have to use the bonds in the trust fund. However, the government will have to raise taxes to cover those special government bonds issued to the Social Security system, causing great fiscal harm.
But as economist Paul Krugman says. "the only way Social Security gets in trouble is if Congress votes not to honor U.S. government bonds held by Social Security. That's not going to happen. So legally, mechanically, 2018 has no meaning."
Excess Social Security funds helped cover the Reagan and Bush deficits and if the government hadn't been able to take the excess money from the Social Security fund then they would have had to borrow it from other sources and, whether in 2018 or some other time, the government would have had to raise taxes to pay for that borrowing.
But conservatives like to claim there's no money there. If so, doesn't that mean that the government basically took money it wasn't entitled to? Isn't that stealing? And if that's stealing, shouldn't it be stopped today?
Oh, but then the Bush Administration would actually have to admit what Fiscal Failures they have been and it's doubtful they would want to do that. No, the Bush Adminstration will keep taking the extra money but have it's minions claim it's disappearing. That's dishonest or unethical, but then those are words the Bush Administration lives by.
"There is no cash in the Social Security trust fund, and there never has been any," a paper from the Heritage Foundation claims. Many conservatives go on to claim that in 2018 the Social Security system will no longer be able to cover its bills and will have to use the bonds in the trust fund. However, the government will have to raise taxes to cover those special government bonds issued to the Social Security system, causing great fiscal harm.
But as economist Paul Krugman says. "the only way Social Security gets in trouble is if Congress votes not to honor U.S. government bonds held by Social Security. That's not going to happen. So legally, mechanically, 2018 has no meaning."
Excess Social Security funds helped cover the Reagan and Bush deficits and if the government hadn't been able to take the excess money from the Social Security fund then they would have had to borrow it from other sources and, whether in 2018 or some other time, the government would have had to raise taxes to pay for that borrowing.
But conservatives like to claim there's no money there. If so, doesn't that mean that the government basically took money it wasn't entitled to? Isn't that stealing? And if that's stealing, shouldn't it be stopped today?
Oh, but then the Bush Administration would actually have to admit what Fiscal Failures they have been and it's doubtful they would want to do that. No, the Bush Adminstration will keep taking the extra money but have it's minions claim it's disappearing. That's dishonest or unethical, but then those are words the Bush Administration lives by.
Thursday, January 27, 2005
Fiscal Failure
During the 2004 presidential campaign George Bush talked about cutting the deficit in half by the time he left office. With the budget deficit estimates released by the Congressional Budget Office this week, that goal will join others empty promises.
Two weeks ago conservatives like Larry Kudlow were boasting how the deficit was going down this year and complaining that the media was going to ignore this. Unfortunately for Mr. Kudlow the CBO pointed out that while the basic deficit will be $368 billion, below the $412 billion deficit of 2004, additional $80 in war spending will push the deficit to around $450 billion.
The White House, in fuzzy math mode, argues that the $368 billion plus $80 billion extra spending will actually only lead to a $427 deficit. Perhaps there is a magic asterisk that will account for the other $21 billion.
So after turning a surplus in a deficit, Bush is now failing to stem the deficit, which isn't a surprise to any Democrat as they could have told anyone who would be willing to listen that Bush's economic legacy would be turning surpluses into long term deficits. However he was smart enough not to tell people what he really stood for.
Two weeks ago conservatives like Larry Kudlow were boasting how the deficit was going down this year and complaining that the media was going to ignore this. Unfortunately for Mr. Kudlow the CBO pointed out that while the basic deficit will be $368 billion, below the $412 billion deficit of 2004, additional $80 in war spending will push the deficit to around $450 billion.
The White House, in fuzzy math mode, argues that the $368 billion plus $80 billion extra spending will actually only lead to a $427 deficit. Perhaps there is a magic asterisk that will account for the other $21 billion.
So after turning a surplus in a deficit, Bush is now failing to stem the deficit, which isn't a surprise to any Democrat as they could have told anyone who would be willing to listen that Bush's economic legacy would be turning surpluses into long term deficits. However he was smart enough not to tell people what he really stood for.
Monday, January 17, 2005
Mission Accomplished
In an effort to make the world safer the Bush administration attacked Iraq, despited the opposition of several key figures from the 1991 Gulf War. So how has it turned out?
According the Washington Post, Iraq New Terror Breeding Ground, so apparently everything is going just great.
"Iraq has replaced Afghanistan as the training ground for the next generation of "professionalized" terrorists, according to a report released yesterday by the National Intelligence Council, the CIA director's think tank......Before the U.S. invasion, the CIA said Saddam Hussein had only circumstantial ties with several al Qaeda members. ..as instability in Iraq grew after the toppling of Hussein, and resentment toward the United States intensified in the Muslim world, hundreds of foreign terrorists flooded into Iraq across its unguarded borders. They found tons of unprotected weapons caches that, military officials say, they are now using against U.S. troops."
I feel safer, don't you?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)