Tag Archives: congressional

Media Nearly Silent as ObamaCare Proponents Drop Deficit, Cost Savings Claims

It has now been five days since Politico’s Ben Smith published a powerpoint presentation created by an amalgamation of powerful left wing interest groups, conceding that two of the central arguments for passing ObamaCare – that it will lower the deficit and will reduce health care costs – have failed. For a group of organizations integral to the passage of the law, that was a stunning admission. And yet, the mainstream press is nearly silent on the issue. Searches on Nexis and Google News reveal no coverage from the major television networks, the cable news channels (with the exception of Fox), the New York Times, the Los Angeles Times, USA Today, NPR, PBS, or Newsweek. To their credit, Time Magazine and the Washington Post published a blog post each on the revelation. Even while discussing ObamaCare and its potential effects on the deficit and health care costs, some media outlets managed to avoid any mention of a fact Democrats now seem to be conceding: “the White House’s first and most aggressive sales pitch have essentially failed,” as Smith notes. The powerpoint, created by an umbrella organization called the Herndon Alliance – which includes left-wing power brokers such as the SEIU, MoveOn, La Raza, and the Center for American Progress – specifically instructs those still trying to sell ObamaCare to the American public to avoid claiming “the law will reduce costs and deficits.” Of course those paying attention already knew that. Even the White House’s own Medicare Actuary has acknowledged that ObamaCare will increase, not reduce, the amount the nation spends on health care over the law’s first 10 years. Optimistic projections beyond the 10 year window “may be unrealistic,” the Actuary stated ( pdf ). Not only will the bill raise the amount the nation as a whole spends on health care, it will also raise individual Americans’ insurance premiums, according to the Congressional Budget Office . Senate Democratic Whip Dick Durbin concurred with that assessment . Neither will the law reduce the federal deficit. Once one strips away all of the accounting tricks and budgetary gimmicks, one finds, in the words of the New York Times’s Douglas Holtz-Eakin, “The health care reform legislation would raise, not lower, federal deficits, by $562 billion.” So the liberal organization’s admission that controlling costs and trimming the deficits are rhetorical dead ends when it comes to selling ObamaCare is hardly a surprise. To say otherwise would contradict the facts, and Americans are not stupid. The group also recommended that ObamaCare’s remaining proponents stop trying to sell the law as an undeniable success. Instead, the presentation suggests they tell skeptical voters that “The law is not perfect, but it does good things and helps many people. Now we’ll work to improve it.” (Emphasis in the original.) Byron York explains the significance of Herdon’s recommendations: It’s a stunning about-face for a party that saw national health care as its signature accomplishment. “This is the first time we’ve seen from Democrats that they clearly understand they have a serious problem in terms of selling this legislation,” says Republican pollster David Winston. The reluctance to defend Obamacare as a cost-cutter and deficit-reducer is particularly telling. Wasn’t that the No. 1 reason for passing the bill in the first place? “This legislation will … lower costs for families and for businesses and for the federal government, reducing our deficit by over $1 trillion in the next two decades,” President Obama said when he signed the bill into law on March 23. Now, Democrats are throwing that argument out the window… The story might be even worse than that for Democrats. Everyone knows the public’s top issue is the economy. It has been since before Obama took office. So when the president and Democratic congressional leadership devoted a year to passing national health care, Republicans charged they were ignoring the public’s wishes. Now, when Democrats admit that Obamacare won’t cut costs or reduce deficits, they open themselves up to a more serious charge: they spent a year working on something that will actually cost jobs and make things worse. The liberal interest group coalition’s recommendations speak volumes about the political and policy failures of the administration and the Democratic Party’s congressional leadership. And yet virtually all major media players are silent on the admission. Democrats are making a key shift in strategy in their efforts to sell ObamaCare to a skeptical public, but if you get your news from most of the nation’s major news outlets, you are most likely unaware of that fact, or its implications for the policy.

Here is the original post:
Media Nearly Silent as ObamaCare Proponents Drop Deficit, Cost Savings Claims

Al Gore Complains about Global Warming Media Coverage; Blasts The Wall Street Journal on ClimateGate

No matter what happens, even surrounding his personal life or his pet cause global warming, former Vice President Al Gore just isn’t going away. During an Aug. 10 conference call , Gore launched into a critique of the media’s recent coverage of ClimateGate, specifically blogs, talk radio and “biased right-wing media.” “Well I believe Mark Twain often gets the credit for the saying … that a lie runs around the world before the truth gets its boots on,” Gore said. “Now I’m not sure that’s the real reason for it, but there is a sad but undeniable truth that those who wanted to try sewing confusion used an echo chamber from blogs and talk show hosts and biased right-wing media to promulgate the distortions of the paid skeptics and professional deniers who tried to undermine the evidence.” Gore, who earlier during the call said he all but given up on cap-and-trade legislation being passed this Congress ( audio here ), alluded to a handful of “formal inquiries” that he argued cleared the science of any doubt that may have been caused by the leaked e-mails from ClimateGate, despite the questionable circumstances surrounding these inquiries . “There have been of course multiple, formal inquiries, all of which have dispelled the falsehoods that go under the title of ‘ClimateGate,'” Gore continued. “The three separate inquiries conducted not only cleared the scientists and the organizations involved, but strongly reaffirmed the basic assertions that they have been making.” But this time the former vice president named names. He went after The Wall Street Journal for its coverage of ClimateGate, even though the daily newspaper was one of the few outlets covering the scandal with much vigor. “I’ll give you one example – The Wall Street Journal wrote upwards of 30 editorials and news stories during the time about the story of the University of East Anglia broke and not a single one of them presented the side of the science. There are many other examples as you know.” In recent months, Gore has had his own public relations problem with media coverage surrounding his personal life, including a divorce and allegations sexual misconduct , which he was later cleared of by Portland, Ore. authorities. But to combat the media, which he alleges has been working against him on global warming, he urged his supporters to send letters to the editor, demand equal time and write op-eds. “It is our responsibility to demand that reporters, editors and all journalists report the truth,” he said. “It is only through consistent and constant pressure from us demanding equal time in local and national media that we will get the truth out. And that is why it’s so critical to write letters to the editor, to post comments online, to draft and write op-eds that share your point of view and use the facts and spread them far and wide. Only when the media hear from enough of us will they change their habits and print the truth about these scientific facts.” A 2008 Business & Media Institute study disputes the idea that Gore’s cause of climate change alarmism has faced an uphill battle as far public relations goes. Over the years, it showed the alarmists have outnumbered the skeptics in airtime, a trend that has been occurring over the years.

Read the original here:
Al Gore Complains about Global Warming Media Coverage; Blasts The Wall Street Journal on ClimateGate

Spike Lee Fans at the Pentagon?

(Daily+Censored) A disgruntled Pentagon spokesman, Geoff Morrell, recently vented about WikiLeaks’s behemoth bequest to the media of 70,000 classified documents. Morrell told the Associated Press: “If doing the right thing is not good enough for them, then we will figure out what alternatives we have to compel them to do the right thing.” I thought at once of Spike Lee’s film, “Do the Right Thing,” in which the owner of a Brooklyn pizzeria that has only Italian movie stars on its “Wall of Fame” is reprimanded by one of his black patrons for not including an African-American. All hell breaks out when the shop owner refuses to post a picture of a black celebrity on his wall. One wonders who the Pentagon might feature on its Wall of Fame—Osama bin Laden? Its appeal, on Thursday, to WikiLeaks to “do the right thing” and hand over, or permanently delete, whatever classified documents remain in its possession is based on voiced concern by Defense Secretary Robert Gates, Admiral McMullen, and others in intelligence that these leaks jeopardize the safety of our troops in Afghanistan as they contain the names of Afghan informants. Of course, it’s not just safety, but morale others piped in. After all, it’s not exactly good for morale to find out that your government is concealing the real number of civilian casualties in Afghanistan nor is it good not just for the troops, but for national morale to learn that Pakistani spies are lunching with Taliban leaders. In the end, it’s a real game changer to find out that all fire may be friendly fire, so the Pentagon wants accountability, and possible criminal liability, from WikiLeaks for their disclosures of secret But, WikiLeaks is not the first to endanger covert intelligence operatives. Where is the Pentagon’s lust for holding those accountable who leaked the identity of an undercover CIA agent, Valerie Plame-Wilson? Was it good for the morale of intelligence agents to know that their identities, and their lives, have been politicized? Why is it that the congressional subpoena of Karl Rove was allowed to slip through the cracks? How is it that Rove, and those for whom he provided cover, managed to escape prosecution? Does the executive branch have lifetime immunity from criminal misconduct? More to the point, placing the media spotlight on WikiLeaks, and its Australian founder, Julian Assange, provides effective cover for other news of potentially graver consequence. For instance, we now know, from an AP exclusive report, that a handful of so-called high value detainees were brought to Guantanamo Bay in 2003 ” years earlier than previously disclosed then “whisked” into secret overseas prisons deliberately so that they would be deprived of access to attorneys. As a prominent lawyer tells the AP: “This was all just a shell game to hide detainees from the courts.” And, speaking of shell games, all this Pentagon and media focus on WikiLeaks’ transgressions has managed to keep people from asking whatever happened to nearly $9 billion in Iraqi funds for which the U.S. Defense Department is unable to account. In a recent audit of how DoD money has been spent, the U.S. Special Investigator for Iraq Reconstruction according to AP, now says that “over 95 percent of $9.1 billion in Iraqi oil money tapped by the U.S. for rebuilding the war-ravaged nation” has yet to be located. These funds are separate and distinct from more than $50 billion Congress appropriated for rebuilding that country. Why is there no outrage over what amounts to a slush fund for independent contractors, oil companies, and war manufacturers? WikiLeaks has graciously offered to let the Pentagon review, and redact, more than 10,000 documents that they now have in their possession. The Pentagon doesn’t appear to be the least bit moved by their offer. Ostensibly, doing the right thing for the Pentagon means destroying any evidence of misconduct, and adding yet another unwitting shill, Julian Assange, to ts Wall of Fame. http://dailycensored.com/2010/08/06/spike-lee-fans-at-the-pentagon/?utm_source=f… :+Dailycensored+(Daily+Censored) added by: treewolf39

Raise My Taxes, Mr. President!

We can’t afford the Bush cuts anymore. For the last few months, we have heard powerful, passionate arguments about the need to cut America’s massive budget deficit. Republican senators have claimed that we are in danger of permanently crippling the economy. Conservative economists and pundits warn of a Greece-like crisis, when America can borrow only at exorbitant interest rates. So when an opportunity presents itself to cut those deficits by about a third—more than $300 billion!—permanently and relatively easily, you would think that these very people would be in the lead. Far from it. The Bush tax cuts remain the single largest cause of America’s structural deficit—that is, the deficit not caused by the collapse in tax revenues when the economy goes into recession. The Bush administration inherited budget surpluses from the Clinton administration. What turned these into deficits, even before the recession? There were three fundamental new costs—the tax cuts, the prescription-drug bill, and post-9/11 security spending (including the Iraq and Afghanistan wars). Of these the tax cuts were by far the largest, adding up to $2.3 trillion over 10 years. According to the Congressional Budget Office, nearly half the cost of all legislation enacted from 2001 to 2007 can be attributed to the tax cuts. Those cuts are set to expire this year. The Republicans say they want to keep them all, even for those making more than $250,000 a year (less than 3 percent of Americans). They say that higher taxes will hurt the recovery. But for months now they have been arguing that the chief threat to the economy is our gargantuan debt and deficit. That’s what’s scaring consumers, creditors, and businesses. Given a chance to address those fears by getting serious about deficit reduction, though, they run away. Look by contrast at British Prime Minister David Cameron, a genuine fiscal conservative. To deal with his country’s deficit, which in structural terms is not so different from America’s, he concluded that he would have to raise taxes as well as cut spending. added by: TimALoftis

Cooking With Gallup, Per RedState: Generic Congressional Poll Changes Sample Base, Improves Dems’ Standing

There are lots of creative ways to generate an artificial sense of momentum for a foundering political party. Based on information provided at its own report, it appears that the Gallup polling organization may have come up with a new one. Gallup didn’t merely play with percentage of Democrats, Republicans, and Independents between poll dates. In the case of a generic Congressional poll done on July 12-18, the organization switched to a significantly different sampling base. Whereas previous efforts on the topic sample registered voters, the July 12-18 poll sampled all adults. RedState’s Neil Stevens notes that in the transition, what was a one-point generic ballot lead for Democrats a week earlier using registered voters  zoomed to six points in the July 12-18 tabulation of “all adults.” Stevens posted on this yesterday (HT HyScience ), and benchmarked the latest poll to one done from May 24-30 (bolds are mine): Remember on June 2 when Republicans took a big lead in the Gallup generic ballot? I used it to project conservatively a 45 seat Republican gain in the House. This was a poll of registered voters, according to Gallup’s Survey Methods notes: Results are based on telephone interviews conducted May 24-30, 2010, with a random sample of 1,594 registered voters , aged 18 and older, living in all 50 U.S. states and the District of Columbia, selected using a random-digit-dial sampling technique. But now on July 19 that Democrats are showing a big lead, despite the fact that Gallup’s pretty graph now is titled Candidate Preferences in 2010 Congressional Elections, Among Registered Voters, the sampling is different: Results are based on telephone interviews conducted as part of Gallup Daily tracking July 12-18, 2010, with a random sample of 1,535 adults , aged 18 and older, living in all 50 U.S. states and the District of Columbia, selected using random-digit-dial sampling. Catch the difference? The Republicans lead with a sample of Registered Voters, but the Democrats lead with a sample of Adults. Someone who trusted Gallup’s pretty, but lying, picture would never have noticed. It is terribly dishonest for Gallup to string together two different polls as one series, as Gallup does not only in their graphs, but in their write-ups as well. Assuming all is as Stevens details, poll cooking doesn’t get much more blatant than this. I suppose it’s conceivable that Gallup’s disclosure is in error, but in the current political and economic environment, it’s more than a little hard to take that Democrats have achieved significant generic Congressional ballot gains in the past week. Gallup’s post implies that the improvement occurred because “the U.S. Senate passed a major financial reform bill touted as reining in Wall Street.” Paraphrasing tennis great John McEnroe in one of his less than perfect moments : They cannot be serious. It will be interesting, and telling, to see if Gallup sticks with the much less predictive “all adults” metric in future reports on the topic, switches back to registered voters, and/or quietly flushes its latest effort down the memory hole at some future point. Cross-posted at BizzyBlog.com .

See the original post here:
Cooking With Gallup, Per RedState: Generic Congressional Poll Changes Sample Base, Improves Dems’ Standing

Bozell Column: The NAACP Cries Racism

Almost from the moment Barack Obama declared he would run for president in 2007, our enraptured media elite has been accusing anyone who would stand in Obama’s way with racism. The question was never whether Obama was ready to govern the country, but whether the country was ready for the historic awesomeness of Obama. Pity the NAACP. We now have a black president, and they must convince (racist) America that there still exists the need for a national association to advance “colored people” in our society. How to do it? Identify and condemn as “racists” anyone or any group opposed to Barack Obama. Apparently you cannot sincerely oppose a crushing tax burden, a useless “stimulus” bill, ObamaCare, or any other element of his socialist agenda without being tagged as a bigot. In case there was any doubt that the NAACP was carrying water for the White House political machine, Michelle Obama appeared before the NAACP convention and insisted there was still persistent racism in America, and the group’s founders would “urge us to increase our intensity” – to fight for President Obama. The merger is so obvious they could now be called the NAA-DNC. Now the NAACP has found its mojo. It is slandering the Tea Party as “racist.” In an article on CNN.com headlined “The Tea Party Must Police Itself,” NAACP chief Benjamin Jealous smeared the entire movement: “The avowed racist David Duke notes that thousands of Tea Party activists have urged him to run for president. When the Tea Party marches by, Duke thinks it’s his fiesta.” Since when did the NAACP – or anyone else, for that matter– give a hoot what David Duke thinks of anything? On its own website, the NAACP continues to rehash all those unproven allegations that “respected members of the Congressional Black Caucus reported that racial epithets were hurled at them as they passed by aWashington, DC health care protest.” But let’s stop calling them “unproven allegations.” Let’s call them what they are: lies. There is no video evidence that this ever occurred, but the NAACP doesn’t care about the evidence in its kangaroo court. They even repeated that “Representative Emanuel Cleaver was spat upon during the incident.” In the real world, Cleaver quickly walked away from his own story when video footage proved it wasn’t true. The NAACP’s video recounting the “racism” of the Tea Party had plenty of objectionable signs suggesting Obama was a fascist and “It’s 1939 Germany all over again.” Someone needs to research the meaning of the word “racism.” It gets better. The NAACP-endorsed video of purportedly racist signs even includes two shots of Confederate flags and “hateful” messages like “We Need a Christian President” and the sitcom catch phrase “What You Talking About, Willis?” A poster imposing Obama’s face with a Mr. T Mohawk hairdo next to the words “Gimme Yo Change” may be odd, but it’s not racist. It sure sounds like there weren’t many racist signs at Tea Party rallies if that’s all they could muster. But “Bush Lied, Thousands Died” – that’s okay. The bigger problem for the NAACP is that it has its very own racists. Andrew Breitbart’s Big Government website revealed video of a NAACP banquet where U.S. Department of Agriculture appointee Shirley Sherrod talked about how she didn’t want to help a white farmer because he should be helped by “his own kind.” The contempt in her voice, in her face, and in the audience’s laughter is unmistakable. So where are all those news outlets which dutifully covered the NAACP’s attacks on the Tea Party now? The network evening news and morning news shows avoided this racist video entirely on the first day. Nevertheless, the cable news networks picked it up, and within hours, Shirley Sherrod had resigned from the Agriculture Department. Sherrod was clearly furious that her racist remarks were exposed. CNN analyst Roland Martin asserted that Sherrod had to go, because with a political appointment, remarks like this ruin the perception that Sherrod would be fair in distributing government help. Sherrod screamed right back at him that he was “clearly from a different world” than the deeply racist world she lived in. The bottom line is not only that Sherrod needed to go – but that the TV elite must stop ignoring this, and stop pretending that black racism and discriminatory attitudes do not exist. If Obama’s election was supposed to heal our race relations, then the media should put this controversy back on his desk and press him to address it.

Follow this link:
Bozell Column: The NAACP Cries Racism

Earth First! Maine Anti-Wind Power Protest Keeps Green Movement Honest

When Earth First! recently protested a large scale wind farm in northern Maine it raised a few eyebrows around the TreeHugger virtual office. John Laumer worryingly wondered if “the protesters and their supporters thought seriously about climate change before they embarked on the protest. The lynx there are anxious to protect from wind power development need more than wilderness; they need a climate suitable for the eco… Read the full story on TreeHugger

Visit link:
Earth First! Maine Anti-Wind Power Protest Keeps Green Movement Honest

USA Today Cheers Proposed Financial Protection Agency

Don’t be surprised if you open up the June 24 USA Today and find pom poms in the ‘Money’ section. Reporters-turned-cheerleaders Paul Wiseman, Jayne O’Donnell and Christine Dugas wrote a glowing 38-paragraph story about the proposed Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection (BCFP). The story even included a section called “keys to a new agency’s success” with quotes from “experts” at a wide variety of government agencies from the Environmental Protection Agency to the Food and Drug Administration. USA Today’s story began by praising the creation of the EPA in 1970 and the way it hit the ground running by ordered city mayors to clean up their water. They included 10 “expert” voices in favor of government agencies (proposed or current) many of whom were former regulators, against only three voices of opposition – all politicians. “It’s exciting to think about building an agency that could make a real contribution, a real difference in the lives of millions of families,’ Harvard professor Elizabeth Warren told USA Today. Warren “proposed the consumer financial regulator in 2007 and is considered a top candidate to be the agency’s first director,” according to the story. The paper barely mentioned Warren’s pro-regulation history which included compensation limits for large corporations. Warren also chairs the Congressional Oversight Panel that babysits companies bailed out by TARP funds. Only three paragraphs were devoted to opposition to the new government agency. Critics were labeled by USA Today as “Republican” or “financial industry lobbyists.” No economists or academics who oppose additional regulation were consulted. Some of the “keys to success” USA Today offered were “hiring motivated career staffers with diverse talents who will outlast political appointees at the top of the organization” and “making a big splash early on to establish your credibility.” However, William Galston of the liberal Brookings Institute feared that the BCFP would “get their knuckles rapped” if they go to far. “If they make a mistake, it will more likely be on the side of excess. They will go too far and get their knuckles rapped, but I don’t expect them to be asleep at the switch like (BP regulator Minerals Management Service) was,” Galston said. Of course the article failed to mention the past ineffectiveness of government regulators and didn’t mention any details of the Democrat-sponsored “Restoring American Financial Stability Act” other than the proposed BCFP. John Berlau, director of the Center for Investors and Entrepreneurs at the Competitive Enterprise Institute, told the Business & Media Institute the entire bill will have more negative effects on consumers than positive ones. “It will set up a nanny state with unintended consequences,” Berlau said. “You’re punishing the many because of a few stupid people and the costs will just be passed on to consumers.” Brian Johnson, federal affairs manager at Americans for Tax Reform, also criticized the proposal telling BMI that the bill is “one of the first steps towards nationalizing the banking system.” “The BCFP is one of the worst things in this bill,” Johnson said. “They’re operating with a fat budget and can monitor personal transactions and map out grids with purchasing patterns.” This isn’t the first time the media has pulled out its pom poms for liberal reforms or increased financial regulation . Perhaps next time the reporters will save their act for a football halftime show as opposed to a major newspaper. Like this article?   Sign up   for “The Balance Sheet,” BMI’s weekly e-mail newsletter.

Continued here:
USA Today Cheers Proposed Financial Protection Agency

BP Villain Gets Outta Dodge With Tight Security

Filed under: tony hayward After that outburst in the Congressional hearing, BP CEO Tony Hayward finally took the note — people really don’t like him … which explains the heavy security during his exit. Hayward slithered out of the building with the help of a half dozen… Read more

Go here to read the rest:
BP Villain Gets Outta Dodge With Tight Security

Texas congressman "Smokey Joe" Barton apologizes to BP’s Tony Hayward!

As stunned spectators and fellow members of the congressional oversight committee on energy watched, Texas Republican Joe Barton began his opening comments to the congressional hearings this morning into the BP Deepwater Horizon disaster by apologizing to the star witness, BP CEO Tony Hayward. http://looncanada.wordpress.com/2010/06/17/loon-extra-texas-congressman-smokey-j… added by: looncanada