Media Bias

NOEL SHEPPARD: Is Liberal Media Bias a Greater Threat Than Terrorism or Recession? appears at the Fox Forum. The mainstream media is shamelessly biased in their reporting of news. I thought it was telling that when Obama was a member of the U.S. Senate he voted for the current (Bush) budget and then after becoming president pushed for the almost 800 billion dollar stimulus package and an additional 410 billion in spending. Yet the media, for the most part, allows to go unchallenged the claim that Bush is to blame for debt.

Rep. Lamar Smith, a Republican from Texas, is forming the Media Fairness Caucus in an effort to balance the coverage of news and provide Americans with stories the mainstream media either underplays or will not report.

Housing Relief?

Dick Morris provides free newsletters to those interested. In a recent one the homeowner mortgage debacle was analyzed. Obama has a plan to provide some homeowners with assistance but as always in politics the details are very telling. The important details lie in who is covered by relief programs and who would be excluded. Those excluded would fall into at least one of three categories.

One group excluded from relief would be those whose mortgages exceed the value of their homes. Another group are homeowners whose mortgage payments are at or in excess of 31 percent of their incomes. The final group would be those whose income is $200,000 per year or more.

So what could be wrong with excluding those in the circumstances described? Plenty. It is probably unwise to continue the bailout mania be it on behalf of large corporations or individuals. It is grounded in a free lunch mentality that would have us believe increasing benefits to working class Americans can come at the expense of the rich. But a family with a $200,000 income living in a large city like New York is hardly wealthy. Moreover according to the newsletter from this income group ($200,000 and over) comes one-third of the spending which drives the American economy. Designating that group as the burden bearers is likely to crimp the real stimulus- consumer spending.

But the relief program would exclude many low income people as well. Those with lower incomes (possibly brought about by job losses) could be impacted by the 31 percent rule. Then there are those who are unable to pay mortgages that should not have been granted in the first place. Many mortgages were approved because during the Clinton administration Fannie and Freedie were told not to insist on mortage down payments. Not a sound business practice and one that backfired on the nation as well as on low income people.

Where is the Politics of Hope?

Officeholders intent on changing destructive and wasteful government spending face an uphill battle. A 410 billion dollar spending bill is before Congress. Tom Coburn (R-Oklahoma) and others have attempted to remove earmark spending from the bill and are meeting resistance.

An article in The Washington Post Democrats Stop Effort To Remove Earmarks reveals the seriousness of the problem. Incredibly the article reveals that 10 million in funding, for clients of a disbanded lobbying firm was approved by the Senate. Worse yet the lobbying firm is the object of a federal investigation for fraud connected with contributions to members of Congress. I wonder how the members of Congress, alleged to have accepted money from the lobbying firm, voted on this. The whole seedy mess is merely touched on by the linked article. We need more of this type of reporting. Way to go Paul Kane.

The Futility of Corporate Welfare

Letting Companies Fail Creates Jobs is a timely piece given the bailout mania which afflicts the USA. Propping up failed companies is economically counterproductive. There is historic evidence, as the linked blog reference to futile British efforts to support carmaker British Leyland, testify. The market is a better guiding force for efficient use of resources. The reason is that those who drive market forces have a vested interest in utilizing resources efficiently. Their own financial welfare depends on it.

UAW Abuses

The UAW's Money-Squandering Corruptocracy is a Michelle Malkin article about the UAW and their mismangement of union funds. Michelle reports on the squandering of tens of millions of dollars worth of union dues on unwise investments and extravagancies. When taxpayers are having to subsidize uncompetitive Detriot carmakers the least we can expect is that both car companies and the UAW, which represents workers, will tighten their belts and do their share of sacrificing. The fact that quid pro quos are not made a condition of funding is very disturbing. Those of us paying taxes deserve more than what our lawmakers and the beneficiaries of bailouts are offering.

Current Events

Obama Upsets French, Arabs is an article written by Rachel Marsden. The article contains this informative remark:

Government regulations mandating things like environmental controls as a result of liberal pet-cause lobbying have accounted for 1/3 of US vehicle price increases, according to a study at the University of California, Davis. Another study by the Brookings Institution found that regulatory costs are absorbed by the manufacturers. Meanwhile, foreign auto companies are allowed to slap high tariffs on competing foreign imports. It really isn’t Bush’s mess to fix.

Information like this highlights the hidden costs of environmental policies. Is the environmental impact of regulations worth the price of multi-billion dollar taxpayer bailouts or bankruptcy? Are most people even aware of the downside?



New reporting has become blatently politicized. O’Reilly Alone Reports Gay Attack on Christians is a Culture and Media Institute article which shows the bias. The content of the article speaks for itself. The actions described are disturbing yet newsworthy. So why is the mainstream media ignoring these events?

Debating

Amanda Carpenter wrote Biden Tells 14 Lies During VP Debate. You can check the specific instances at the linked article. The post debate analytical spin by Obama supporters points out how effective truth distorting can be. Spinsters argued that Sarah Palin did not answer specific points made by Biden. It is difficult to counter a lie in a debate when the subject matter is complex and evidence for lying may require some digging. A good counter strategy entails identifying offending statements as lies but lies may not be obvious or provable without some researching.

What this says about debates is instructive. We need not assume at the close of a debate that unanswered points were either incontrovertible or that a debater was unaware of a refutation. The unawareness may pertain only to the exact data needed to point out the untruth of an opponent's claims.

An Unrealized Dream

Forty Years Later is another Viewpoint gem which makes some excellent points. Quoting:

I'd like to, but I'm afraid that King's dream is pretty much moribund. The dream was, in part, that someday his children would be "judged by the content of their character and not the color of their skin." The dream was that we would live in a color-blind society where people would look past one's race and pigment to one's values and achievement. Unfortunately, modern liberalism has made that all but impossible.

The importance of race is made evident in the paperwork Americans fill out. In order to fulfill quotas institutions need to be aware of the ethnicity and religious affiliation of those with whom they conduct transactions. This indicates that as long as this practice is in effect the color of one's skin will remain a relevant factor in determining how one is judged. "None of your business" is an appropriate response to insidious inquiries about one's ethnic or racial identity. But that kind of response could very well bring about an adverse reaction to any associated benefit.

Affirmative action, race-based scholarships, minority set-asides, race-norming, school busing, welfare, etc. were all attempts to compensate blacks - a kind of reparations - for the abominations of the past, but whatever they accomplished for black people in general, they surely stoked white resentments and pushed further into the distance the day when skin color doesn't matter.

They do the above but they do more than that. They are intrinsically at variance with the very principles they purport to uphold. There is no differentiation within minorities between the privilaged and the disadvantaged. The sons and daughters of wealthy, privilaged people of color are numbered among the disadvantaged while poor, uneducated whites are considered advantaged. According to what value system does that make sense? One in which historic events, impacting people now deceased, should determine how we treat those connected to the historic abuse only by their skin color? Sounds like, contrary to Dr. King's words, skin color rather than character continues to be the most important fact in America.

Moreover, the Democratic party has exploited race since the 1960s by instilling in blacks a kind of plantation mentality.

The linked article goes into details. Doing for others that which they are able to do for themselves is a subtle form of personal sabotage. African-American intellectuals like Thomas Sowell have pointed this out more eloquently. I would emphasize something I believe is extremely pernicious to the welfare of America in general and to African-Americans in particular. That being social welfare policies which encourage single parent families. The family is the foundation of any society and any society which weakens that institution condemns itself to the resulting sorrows that are sure to follow.

If it's About the Children then Why Doesn't the Money Get to Them?

President Bush's veto of an SCHIP funding bill led to the predictable charges that he and his fellow Republicans are callous to the plight of children. That in turn resulted in some blog responses that revelaed an important feature of SCHIP. SCHIP stands for the States Children's Health Insurance Program but do not allow yourself to believe that funds marked for SCHIP end up funding health insurance for children. If you decide to believe that then you mmight have an emotionally satisfying feeling that coincides with your view of Bush and republicans but the funding part of the belief would not necessarily accord with the facts. Michells Malkin's blog entry, Democrat poster-child abuse, the nutroots’ pushback, and the continued campaign to silence the Right, contains this informative bit of data courtesy of the United States government:

"According to the states’ budget projections, 13 will spend more than 44 percent of their SCHIP funds in 2008 on people who are neither children nor pregnant women.

Michigan tops the list with 71.6 percent of its SCHIP money earmarked for adults who have no kids. In New Mexico, 52.3 percent of the state’s SCHIP dollars will be spent on childless adults.

Source: Department of Health and Human Services/CMS Data"

But why would SCHIP money go to adults who have no children? The answer can be found here. Quoting:

"The State Children's Health Insurance Program (SCHIP) is jointly financed by the Federal and State governments and is administered by the States. Within broad Federal guidelines, each State determines the design of its program, eligibility groups, benefit packages, payment levels for coverage, and administrative and operating procedures. SCHIP provides a capped amount of funds to States on a matching basis for Federal fiscal years (FY) 1998 through 2007. Federal payments under title XXI to States are based on State expenditures under approved plans effective on or after October 1, 1997."

Look at that- jointly financed within broad Federal guidelines allowing each state to determine eligibility groups. Why is that fact not trumpted by those "concerned about the children?" Instead of engaging in political gamesmanship why doesn't the congress ensure that tax dollars intended for children actually benefit children? If they lack the willpower then can critics at least cease the sanctimonious chatter about concern for children? Maybe in an ideal world they would but in an ideal world funds marked for children would get to the children.

Betraying Voters this Quickly?

Newsmax revealed that business as usual remains the byword since Democrats have taken over the reigns of Congress following the elections in the Fall of 2006. Some distressing developments include:

* Paul Pelosi Jr., son of the Speaker of the House, Nancy Pelosi, being hired by InfoUSA at a salary of $180,000 a year to assume the title of vice-president for Strategic Planning while not having to report to work at the company's headquarters in Omaha, Nebraska. In fact, Paul Pelosi was able to retain his real full-time job with Countrywide Loans in California where he is a mortgage loan officer. That's a nice set-up which came about shortly after his mother Nancy Pelosi became Speaker of the House of Representatives. This is the same Nancy Pelosi who promised to change the way business was done in the House to eliminate unethical behavoir including the acceptance of gifts and jobs in exchange for political influence. So much for promises.

* What do we know about InfoUSA? The linked article has some revealing information. From the link (in blue):

"The Iowa attorney general's office, in an investigation that began in 2005, found that InfoUSA sold consumer data to telemarketing criminals who used it to steal money from elderly Americans, sometimes wiping out their life savings.

InfoUSA advertised call lists with titles like "Elderly Opportunity Seekers" or "Suffering Seniors," a compilation of names and phone numbers of people with cancer or Alzheimer's disease. "Oldies but Goodies" was a list of 500,000 gamblers over age 55.

"These people are gullible," the company said in describing the list. "They want to believe that their luck can change."

E-mails show the company continued to sell the lists even though its employees knew their customers were being investigated for fraud that victimized the elderly. InfoUSA has said the lists were aberrations and has said it would not engage in such practices again.

Gupta, 60, is an entrepreneur from India who founded InfoUSA in 1972 and built it into a publicly traded company with reported revenue of $434 million in 2006.

Gupta also considers himself a player in Democratic fundraising circles and stayed in the Lincoln Bedroom when Bill Clinton was in the White House. He gave at least $1 million to the Clinton Library and raised over $200,000 for Hillary Clinton's Senate campaign.

Hillary has also made extensive use of InfoUSA's jet for campaign trips for which she had to reimburse InfoUSA an amount equal to a first class airline ticket. Use of a corporate jet for two hours could be worth $20,000 or more, but under Senate rules Mrs. Clinton may only have to pay the equivalent of the premium ticket."

Bill Clinton has also been paid by InfoUSA as a consultant. How much? $3.3 million for the last five years and some pocket change for travel worth $900,000. If you voted in the Democrats, thinking they were more likely to clean up the ethical morass in Washington, think again.

More Pork: Government as Usual

From Earmarking to Phonemarking, an essay by Chuck Colson on 5/29/07 contains these opening paragraphs (in green):

Just four months ago, the new Democratic majority in Congress vowed to curb earmarks and run the cleanest Congress ever. Not everybody believed them, but I for one gave them the benefit of the doubt. No more spinach subsidies, no more “fact-finding” tours to the Caribbean. No more bridges to nowhere.

The new House speaker, Nancy Pelosi, bragged about how transparent the new government was going to be.

How does an experienced politician brag about new changes one moment and then a short time later return to the same old pork barrel policies? Which is more stupid- politicians doing this or voters putting them in office? Surely one with as much experience as Pelosi should have been aware of requirements for true reform. How could she have been surprised or blindsided? Did she make a genuine effort to reform or were we hoodwinked? More from Colson's essay:

As the Post noted, Reid sent a letter to Energy Secretary Samuel Bodman pointing out that the funding bill contained no earmarks. True. But then Reid noted that the legislation set aside $300 million in new money for research in energy efficiency and renewable energy. He suggested that some of this money be used to reverse the administration’s plan to cut its geothermal-energy research program. Reid demanded that the administration fund this program at 2006 levels or higher—something that would benefit Reid’s state of Nevada.

Another Democratic leader whose home turf would benefit from spending policy "reforms." And there is more to this sordid tale:

How about Nancy Pelosi, who was going to lead the charge to clean up Congress? One of the new Democratic reforms demanded that House members certify that neither they nor their spouses have any financial interest in earmarked projects. But here is Pelosi asking for $25 million to improve the San Francisco waterfront. She kept quiet about the fact that her own family owns interests in four buildings near the proposed project.

Is this an ethical violation?

And the king of pork, Congressman John Murtha of Pennsylvania, threatened a Republican for challenging one of Murtha’s earmarks, telling him, “You’ll never get any earmarks now or forever.” And when Congress moved to censure Murtha, it failed on a party-line vote.

This is nothing but blatant, log-rolling, power politics—sickening, in fact. Lawmaking is supposed to be about advancing the common good—not wheeling and dealing in order to hang onto power. I was disgusted when the Republicans got elected to clean up this kind of stuff and didn’t. Now the Democrats are back in power and doing it all over again.

This is disheartening but perhaps Americans are getting what they deserve. Not all of course but those who codone hypocrisy to advance ideological concerns make corruption inevitable.

Pork Barrel as Usual; Backtracking on Promises

A Yahoo news article today entitled 'Democrats hide pet projects from voters' by Andrew Taylor indicates what is wrong with Washington politicians and why Americans get disillusioned with the system. Unfortunately however, Americans rarely hold their actual representives responsible by voting them from office.

The problem is manifesting itself in the form of a failure of Democrats to follow rules they composed as recently as January of this year. The rules were intended to provide greater openness with respect to pork barrel spending. Democrats are misusing legislative procedures to prevent pork barrel expenditures from being effectively challenged until September when bills, already through the Senate-House compromise procedures, cannot be amended. Individual projects- the hallmark of pork- would be home free and the taxpayers will be out to the tune of billions of dollars.

The man responsible for much of this is Rep. David Obey, D-Wis. Obey has offered the weak excuse that Appropriations Committee members and have not had sufficient time for review. How many of us could get away with such time excuses where we work? Then again few of us are as rich and powerful as United States congressmen.

This site explains Obey's influence over appropriations matters. From the site (in blue):

The Committee on Appropriations, which makes funding decisions on every discretionary program in the federal budget. Dave is the Chairman of the Committee. In that capacity, he serves as a member of all twelve Appropriations Subcommittees, listed below:

Agriculture, Rural Development, Food & Drug Admin. and Related Agencies
Defense
Energy and Water Developement
Financial Services and General Government
Homeland Security
Interior, Environment and Related Agencies
Labor, Health and Human Services, Education and Related Agencies
Legislative Branch
Military Construction, Veterans Administration, and Related Agencies
Commerce, Justice, Science, and Related Agencies
State, Foreign Operations, and Related Agencies
Transportation, Housing and Urban Development, and Related Agencies

As Chairman, Dave serves as the spokesman for the House of Representatives on appropriations issues.

Sadly this looks like business as usual from a party that recently promised voters there would be a change of course.