Media bias is a subject that is tossed around these days more often than a Frisbee on a California beach. Many people, especially politicians, have a hard time defining the term, but they certainly will vouch they know it when they see it. They argue that it must be bias if doesn't fit their political or world view.
However, real bias usually is harder to detect. The prejudice that pervades today's mainstream media flows mainly from the decision about what qualifies as news. Those editorial judgements, made behind the scenes, are reflected in the selection of what stories are assigned for coverage.
Once editors decide what merits coverage, reporters are given instructions on pursuing a predetermined news angle. After stories are written or videoed, they are reviewed and edited for display in print or broadcast. Then another set of editors decides placement, directing where the story runs in a newscast or print publication.
Reporters often are blamed for news bias because their faces or names appear next to the coverage. But the editors pull the strings. Reporters are mere puppets dangled about by editors who are making judgements every day about what to cover, how to report it, and where to display it.
With that as a primer, here's a personal story that better illustrates how bias reflects an editor's judgement. Once while working at The Dallas Times-Herald, yours truly was given an assignment to produce a story about car-pooling. At that time, circa 1970, car-pooling was catching on in a handful of big cities in the country.
Like a good reporter should, I conducted interviews with a myriad of sources, including corporate spokesmen, city transportation agencies, state highway department officials and the chamber of commerce. What I found was that no company, save for Texas Instruments, had shown any interest in car-pooling. It was virtually non-existent in Dallas except for two vans operated by TI.
When I turned in my article, the news editor blew a gasket. "This isn't the story I wanted," he bellowed. "I want a story showing how car-pooling is growing in Dallas. It's good for the city."
I went back to my desk, sufficiently chastened. I dug out my notes and rewrote the story, emphasising that only one company was backing car-pooling, but it was surely a trend. I used the same set of facts and just ignored those that did not support the notion that car-pooling was going to save Dallas' traffic clogged freeways. The editor loved it so much it ran on the front page.
Although this episode happened decades ago, editors and journalists are employing the same tactic today. Closely examine most articles and reports and you will be able to spot how "selective facts" are chosen to make a point or advance an agenda. From the media's viewpoint, that isn't bias as along as the report is factual. However,leaving out facts and choosing only quotes and sources in support of a viewpoint, fails the test of being fair and balanced.
The best way to illustrate today's media bias is by listing some recent examples. In some cases, editors ignored the same news they once covered with gusto. In other instances, editors elected to use select facts to change the tenor of the reporting. Their choices have neutered the media's once proud journalism standards.
Here are just a few examples to illustrate the point:
1. BANK FAILURES: When a few California banks went under during President Bush's final year in office, the major broadcast networks showed long times of depositors waiting to withdraw their money from the institutions. The scene was described as reminiscent of The Great Depression. For perspective, there have been only two years since 1934 when no U.S. banks failed. Both years (2005 & 2006) occurred during the Bush Administration. Bank failures this year are on pace to break all previous records. Already, 103 banks have shuttered their doors. Have you seen any pictures of long lines of anxious bank customers on the television news? Of course not. The media has decided the country wants to see the economy recover and therefore doesn't need to be reminded of impending disaster. The news "narrative" has changed to showing and reporting facts and sources that support that agenda. No one could argue that a new record in bank closures does not merit news coverage.
2. AFGHAN WAR: During President Bush's two terms, the number of Americans killed or wounded in action in Iraq and Afghanistan ran on the front pages of most newspapers. The broadcast news followed suit, often with graphic footage of the unloading of flag draped caskets as a grim reminder of the war's toll. Each milestone reached in war dead became a new headline. During Bush's eight years there were 630 Americans killed in Afghanistan. In less than two years of his presidency, Barack Obama has presided over a war toll that now stands at 577. Have you seen front page charts showing the rising number of soldiers killed? Where are those flag-draped casket photos? The media has obviously decided that Americans no longer care about the killing of young men and women in uniform. Their narrative calls for stories that show the war is winding down to a successful conclusion.
3. HOME FORECLOSURES: During the last fading light of the Bush Administration, the media covered home foreclosures as if every American would soon be homeless. Interviews dominated the news with sobbing single mothers and minority families thrown out of their homes because they couldn't make the payments. Many claimed they were duped by greedy mortgage companies. In yet another irony, home foreclosures continue to spike with hardly any coverage. There is the odd mention of the percentage of mortgages under water, but there have been no snapshots of vans parked outside the domiciles of homeowners who are moving out of homes that they can no longer afford. No homeowner tears are being shown on the nightly news. Judging from the coverage, one would assume foreclosures are no longer a problem for the country. Yet the country has experienced 26 consecutive months of year-over-year increases in home foreclosures. Home foreclosures among the most credit-worthy borrowers have risen an alarming 425 percent (yes, 425%) since January 2008, according to Lender Processing Services, a mortgage data firm. Wouldn't you think that merited a few teary eyed homeowners pouring out their heart about their bad luck?
4. PROTEST: During the Bush Administration, Democrats and the media championed dissent as a sign of the First Amendment right of every American to speak out on the country's ills. Overnight, protesters gained celebrity status, such as Cindy Sheehan, a mother of a slain U.S. solider, who camped out near Bush's Crawford ranch. Pictures of protest placards with unflattering images of President Bush were served up in print photos and on television. There was even the famous footage of the Iraqi journalist throwing his shoe at President Bush during a news conference. No less an authority that Hillary Clinton claimed disagreement with a president was a holy exercise of American patriotism. Protest seemed like a great American ideal until the Tea Party came along. Then the media decided protest was a bad thing after all. Noisy citizens with signs were called Nazis, racists and kooks. The tenor of the coverage went from fawning to frightful. The media began snooping for dirt on protesters, particularly after Democrats and the President were critical of the dissent. Today Tea Party protests go largely unreported, although often the numbers of people involved far exceed the "mass" demonstrations aimed at Bush's administration.
Is it any wonder that surveys show the public distrusts the media almost as much as politicians? For decades, the media has sold its soul to promote ideas, causes and viewpoints instead of using its resources to inform and educate the public.
As a result, the media industry has suffered crippling declines in viewership and readership. Captains of media conglomerates complain that people just don't read newspapers and consume news broadcasts like they once did. They point the finger of blame at the Internet and an uneducated, dumbed-down public who does not care about what's happening in their country.
Nothing could be further from the truth. The news media needs to quit looking elsewhere for scapegoats. Today's media have become the enemy of truth, accuracy, balance and fairness. They have dug themselves a deep credibility hole that threatens to bury the industry in a grave they will never escape.
Wednesday, July 28, 2010
Sunday, July 25, 2010
Ditch the Census
This year's U.S. Census already is the most expensive in the nation's history, even adjusting for inflation. Estimates for the total price tag are about $14.5 billion. That works out to be about $46.93 for every man, woman and child in the country, based on a projected population count of 308 million.
Even those bloated billion dollar figures are suspect. The non-partisan Government Accountability Office called the cost estimates "not reliable because it lacks adequate documentation." As if that wasn't damning enough, it added that the figures were "not comprehensive, accurate or credible." In other words, the estimates are meaningless.
In its summary, the GAO said without improvements, the Census Bureau's ability to manage its operations will be "hampered" and Congress' efforts to oversee the process will be "constrained." No kidding.
For some perspective, consider that the first U.S. Census in 1790 was conducted at a total cost of $44,377 or about 1.13 cents per person. That headcount was done entirely on horseback as census takers when house-to-house. With computers and sophisticated digital resources at its disposal, today's Census Bureau could not even approach that kind of efficiency.
There are some apologists who would argue that times have changed. The population is more spread out across the country. There are millions more people to count than the 3.9 million who were tallied in the 1790 census. Even acknowledging those facts, does not account for the wide disparity in costs.
In fact, figures for the latest census in 2000 underscore the point. The cost of the national count that year was $4.5 billion or $15.99 a person. In a decade, the cost has more than tripled. By comparison, the cost of the 2000 census was less than twice the figure for the 1990 population count ($2.4 billion and $10.02 a person).
One reason, albeit not the major one, the costs have escalated is the amount of information collected. Those early census were designed to count people. Today's modern census reaches for more details, including ethnicity and home ownership. Followup questions to a select sample are even more intrusive. Is all that data really necessary?
However, the real cost driver for the rising census expense can be laid at the feet of the Obama Administration. The President and his henchmen decided to use the current Census as a political tool. Thousands of temporary workers have been added to the payrolls to dress up the unemployment numbers. Reports have circulated about workers being "hired", trained and sent home. Other news accounts suggest workers were recycled through the same training several times to enable the Census Bureau to continue to keep the individual on the payroll, even though no work was being done.
Without such chicanery, unemployment would have reached double digits by now. Democrats were determined to avoid crossing that threshold at all costs, including using the U.S. Census to game the numbers.
That's another reason that it is time to end the charade. Once the current population count is completed, Washington needs to pull the plug on the decennial U.S. Census. It makes no economic sense to continue this costly exercise.
Federal and state governments already have boat loads of information on citizens. It exists in data bases maintained by agencies from the federal Internal Revenue Service to the state Department of Motor Vehicles. Mine the available data. Estimate a population headcount and then be done with it.
Does it really matter of the count is off by say a million or so people? Some politicians have argued for years that the current method under counts some groups of people. If that's the case, then no one can argue that an estimate based on available government data could be any worse and it certainly could done at a lower cost.
Even those bloated billion dollar figures are suspect. The non-partisan Government Accountability Office called the cost estimates "not reliable because it lacks adequate documentation." As if that wasn't damning enough, it added that the figures were "not comprehensive, accurate or credible." In other words, the estimates are meaningless.
In its summary, the GAO said without improvements, the Census Bureau's ability to manage its operations will be "hampered" and Congress' efforts to oversee the process will be "constrained." No kidding.
For some perspective, consider that the first U.S. Census in 1790 was conducted at a total cost of $44,377 or about 1.13 cents per person. That headcount was done entirely on horseback as census takers when house-to-house. With computers and sophisticated digital resources at its disposal, today's Census Bureau could not even approach that kind of efficiency.
There are some apologists who would argue that times have changed. The population is more spread out across the country. There are millions more people to count than the 3.9 million who were tallied in the 1790 census. Even acknowledging those facts, does not account for the wide disparity in costs.
In fact, figures for the latest census in 2000 underscore the point. The cost of the national count that year was $4.5 billion or $15.99 a person. In a decade, the cost has more than tripled. By comparison, the cost of the 2000 census was less than twice the figure for the 1990 population count ($2.4 billion and $10.02 a person).
One reason, albeit not the major one, the costs have escalated is the amount of information collected. Those early census were designed to count people. Today's modern census reaches for more details, including ethnicity and home ownership. Followup questions to a select sample are even more intrusive. Is all that data really necessary?
However, the real cost driver for the rising census expense can be laid at the feet of the Obama Administration. The President and his henchmen decided to use the current Census as a political tool. Thousands of temporary workers have been added to the payrolls to dress up the unemployment numbers. Reports have circulated about workers being "hired", trained and sent home. Other news accounts suggest workers were recycled through the same training several times to enable the Census Bureau to continue to keep the individual on the payroll, even though no work was being done.
Without such chicanery, unemployment would have reached double digits by now. Democrats were determined to avoid crossing that threshold at all costs, including using the U.S. Census to game the numbers.
That's another reason that it is time to end the charade. Once the current population count is completed, Washington needs to pull the plug on the decennial U.S. Census. It makes no economic sense to continue this costly exercise.
Federal and state governments already have boat loads of information on citizens. It exists in data bases maintained by agencies from the federal Internal Revenue Service to the state Department of Motor Vehicles. Mine the available data. Estimate a population headcount and then be done with it.
Does it really matter of the count is off by say a million or so people? Some politicians have argued for years that the current method under counts some groups of people. If that's the case, then no one can argue that an estimate based on available government data could be any worse and it certainly could done at a lower cost.
Friday, July 23, 2010
Vodoo Economics
Of all the ludicrous claims voiced by Democrats, the latest boast about jobless payments stimulating the economy merits special recognition for its utter lack of intellectual honesty.
When legislation to extend unemployment benefits reached a stalemate in Congress last week, the Democrats went on the offensive. They painted Republicans as a party that cares not a wit for the downtrodden because the GOP was insisting on budget cuts to pay for the extension. President Obama weighed in, calling the GOP tactics shameful. That gained sufficient traction in the media to compel a few cowardly Republicans to end their attempts to block passage of the measure.
Once the bill was signed into law, Democrats began crowing about how the measure was really about "economic stimulus". House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, only two heartbeats removed from the Presidency, used those exact words in defending the billions added to the federal deficit as a result of the legislation. Ohio Democrat Sherrod Brown chimed in, calling the extension "the smart thing to do for our economy".
The logic behind such assertions rests on thin ice. Under the Democrats' reasoning, once employment benefits are restored, these out-of-work citizens will become consumers again. Their spending will pump more money into the Obama Recession Economy. Only an economic illiterate would believe such a flimsy hoax. Democrats obviously think most Americans are Dumb and Dumber.
First of all, the benefits fall far short of what most people need just to meet their monthly rent. Jobless payments will average $309 a week for the nearly five million people whose 26 weeks of benefits had expired. Imagine all the consumption and economic pump priming that kind of money will buy. After paying for rent, utilities and food, there can't be much left over on an income of $1,235 a month. Therefore, it is sheer folly to suggest that the benefits will somehow lift the country out of the recession.
Secondly, economists have pointed out that the total benefits to be paid out represent less than one-quarter of one percent of the economy. In other words, its impact can hardly even be measured, much less felt. Yet according to Democrats, the billions of dollars paid in benefits is the smartest thing to do for our sickly economy. Really? If that's true, the Democrats' actions are a sad admission that they have no idea how to rebuild America's economic engine.
Thirdly, every dollar paid in jobless benefits is one dollar less that another American has in his pocket. The government took the money from taxpayers to give to the unemployed. When one taxpayer has less money and another gains income at that person's expense, then the net-net economic impact is zilch. Only an economic moron would claim that the economy was boosted by a transference of wealth.
Furthermore, one could argue that the taxpayer would have spent the $309 on discretionary goods and services that actually would benefit the economy, instead of using it for the essentials. This is not to suggest that the unemployed should be stripped of benefits. But it illustrates how it is an egregious lie to argue that giving taxpayer handouts to the jobless actually boosts the economy.
Of course, no one in the media ever points out any of this. Instead, they repeat the words uttered by Democrat politicians without a ounce of fact checking.
Speaker Pelosi and her minions have done nothing to create more employment opportunities for out-of-work Americans who are forced to accept government largess. The sad fact is Democrats and President Obama don't understand government's role in putting more people back to work.
If the Democrats really wanted to help the jobless, they would reduce taxes on every business, create incentives for corporate investment, open the credit spigot for small firms and reduce regulations across the board. Instead, they are patting themselves on the back for extending jobless payments.
That should give every American pause to consider whether the current Washington crowd should be entrusted with reviving the moribund economy.
When legislation to extend unemployment benefits reached a stalemate in Congress last week, the Democrats went on the offensive. They painted Republicans as a party that cares not a wit for the downtrodden because the GOP was insisting on budget cuts to pay for the extension. President Obama weighed in, calling the GOP tactics shameful. That gained sufficient traction in the media to compel a few cowardly Republicans to end their attempts to block passage of the measure.
Once the bill was signed into law, Democrats began crowing about how the measure was really about "economic stimulus". House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, only two heartbeats removed from the Presidency, used those exact words in defending the billions added to the federal deficit as a result of the legislation. Ohio Democrat Sherrod Brown chimed in, calling the extension "the smart thing to do for our economy".
The logic behind such assertions rests on thin ice. Under the Democrats' reasoning, once employment benefits are restored, these out-of-work citizens will become consumers again. Their spending will pump more money into the Obama Recession Economy. Only an economic illiterate would believe such a flimsy hoax. Democrats obviously think most Americans are Dumb and Dumber.
First of all, the benefits fall far short of what most people need just to meet their monthly rent. Jobless payments will average $309 a week for the nearly five million people whose 26 weeks of benefits had expired. Imagine all the consumption and economic pump priming that kind of money will buy. After paying for rent, utilities and food, there can't be much left over on an income of $1,235 a month. Therefore, it is sheer folly to suggest that the benefits will somehow lift the country out of the recession.
Secondly, economists have pointed out that the total benefits to be paid out represent less than one-quarter of one percent of the economy. In other words, its impact can hardly even be measured, much less felt. Yet according to Democrats, the billions of dollars paid in benefits is the smartest thing to do for our sickly economy. Really? If that's true, the Democrats' actions are a sad admission that they have no idea how to rebuild America's economic engine.
Thirdly, every dollar paid in jobless benefits is one dollar less that another American has in his pocket. The government took the money from taxpayers to give to the unemployed. When one taxpayer has less money and another gains income at that person's expense, then the net-net economic impact is zilch. Only an economic moron would claim that the economy was boosted by a transference of wealth.
Furthermore, one could argue that the taxpayer would have spent the $309 on discretionary goods and services that actually would benefit the economy, instead of using it for the essentials. This is not to suggest that the unemployed should be stripped of benefits. But it illustrates how it is an egregious lie to argue that giving taxpayer handouts to the jobless actually boosts the economy.
Of course, no one in the media ever points out any of this. Instead, they repeat the words uttered by Democrat politicians without a ounce of fact checking.
Speaker Pelosi and her minions have done nothing to create more employment opportunities for out-of-work Americans who are forced to accept government largess. The sad fact is Democrats and President Obama don't understand government's role in putting more people back to work.
If the Democrats really wanted to help the jobless, they would reduce taxes on every business, create incentives for corporate investment, open the credit spigot for small firms and reduce regulations across the board. Instead, they are patting themselves on the back for extending jobless payments.
That should give every American pause to consider whether the current Washington crowd should be entrusted with reviving the moribund economy.
Wednesday, July 21, 2010
Factoids That You Can Use
Spending on advertising keeps rising, but traditional media's share of the multi-billion dollar pie is shrinking. According to ZenithOptimedia, global ad sales are expected to reach $447.5 billion this year. The research firm predicts spending on mobile advertising to grow 43.2 percent by 2012. Social media advertising expenditures are forecast to climb 30.2 percent during the same period. Meanwhile, the Internet will continue to command a higher share of every advertising dollar spent. Researchers estimate the Internet will garner 17 percent of all ad spending or about $82.7 billion by 2012. Those gains in mobile, social media and the Internet come at the expense of newspapers. In 1987, newspapers accounted for 40.6 percent of all advertising expenditures. By 2012, the print media's share will slip to 19.2 percent, according to forecasters. Is it any wonder that newspapers are going out of business at alarming rates? Yet the media industry continues to soldier on as though nothing has changed. The funeral dirge has begun for the newspaper industry, but the corpse remains in denial.
Tuesday, July 20, 2010
Letters From O.H. Bama
Dear Joe:
As my wing man and vice president of the entire U.S.A. (except for a few of those racist Red States), I got a request for you. Could you please shut your pie hole? Just when I thought you had learned to avoid microphones, you show up on television babbling about how the Democrats are going to shock the world by winning the mid-term elections. Are you taking political advice from Rod Blagojevich? Come on, Joe, help me here.
I tell you what would be a shocker: keeping your job after 2012. The only reason you've survived this long is because the first daughters enjoy watching you fetch their Frisbees on the White House lawn. But don't push your luck. First dog Bo has been practicing up and he's getting pretty good at it. And the girls don't have to water Bo's hair to make it grow.
Your latest blunder is one in a long string of verbal miscues. Your feet spend more time in your mouth than they do in your shoes. The First Lady thinks you should make one of those info-commercials for a new product. She suggests naming it Joe's Gaffe-O-Matic. It slices and dices sentences rendering every communication unintelligible.
In the event you think I'm being too harsh, consider some of these doozies you've uttered since we've been America's Top Duo. I've culled the list to include my personal Top Five gaffes:
1. "...the plan does nothing to tackle the number-one job facing the middle class. And it happens to be, as Barack says, a three-letter word: jobs. J-O-B-S. Jobs," on the campaign trail in Ohio.
2. "His mom lived in Long Island for ten years or so. God rest her soul. And, although, she's...wait, your mom's still alive. Your dad passed. God bless her soul!" consoling the Irish Prime Minister.
3. "If we do everything right, if we do it with absolute certainty, there's still a 30% chance we're going to get it wrong," at the annual House Democratic caucus.
4. "Jill and I had the great honor of standing on that stage, looking across at one of the great justices, Justice Stewart," referring to Justice John Paul Stevens.
5. "When the stock market crashed, Franklin D. Roosevelt got on the television and didn't just talk about it, you know, the princes of greed. He said, 'Look, here's what happened," in a CBS interview, apparently unaware that FDR wasn't president in 1929 and there were no television sets in American homes.
Well, I think you get my drift, Joe. This may be one of those teachable moments I'm so fond of. I have this theory that your gaffes may have been caused by a botched hair transplant surgery. One of those plug holes must have hit brain tissue. I'd get it checked out, if I were you.
Some in our party have suggested you go into hiding until after the next presidential election. Find some place no one ever goes. Locate a spot that even I don't know exists. Have you considered just hanging out in your office?
If that doesn't work out, then perhaps you could roam around the halls of some hospital. Stick your head into the rooms with really sick people. You never know. You could catch a sore throat and lose your voice. Wouldn't that be a lucky break for us?
Despite my admonitions, you have nothing to fear. I would never dump you from the ticket. I mean you really are good for me. Standing next to you, even I sound like I know what I'm talking about. That's good enough for me, Joe.
In fact, in your honor, I have an idea for next year's Earth Day celebration. I'll invite every child in America to come to the White House and plant a hair plug on the top of your head.
Tired of following behind you with a pooper scoop,
O.H. Bama
As my wing man and vice president of the entire U.S.A. (except for a few of those racist Red States), I got a request for you. Could you please shut your pie hole? Just when I thought you had learned to avoid microphones, you show up on television babbling about how the Democrats are going to shock the world by winning the mid-term elections. Are you taking political advice from Rod Blagojevich? Come on, Joe, help me here.
I tell you what would be a shocker: keeping your job after 2012. The only reason you've survived this long is because the first daughters enjoy watching you fetch their Frisbees on the White House lawn. But don't push your luck. First dog Bo has been practicing up and he's getting pretty good at it. And the girls don't have to water Bo's hair to make it grow.
Your latest blunder is one in a long string of verbal miscues. Your feet spend more time in your mouth than they do in your shoes. The First Lady thinks you should make one of those info-commercials for a new product. She suggests naming it Joe's Gaffe-O-Matic. It slices and dices sentences rendering every communication unintelligible.
In the event you think I'm being too harsh, consider some of these doozies you've uttered since we've been America's Top Duo. I've culled the list to include my personal Top Five gaffes:
1. "...the plan does nothing to tackle the number-one job facing the middle class. And it happens to be, as Barack says, a three-letter word: jobs. J-O-B-S. Jobs," on the campaign trail in Ohio.
2. "His mom lived in Long Island for ten years or so. God rest her soul. And, although, she's...wait, your mom's still alive. Your dad passed. God bless her soul!" consoling the Irish Prime Minister.
3. "If we do everything right, if we do it with absolute certainty, there's still a 30% chance we're going to get it wrong," at the annual House Democratic caucus.
4. "Jill and I had the great honor of standing on that stage, looking across at one of the great justices, Justice Stewart," referring to Justice John Paul Stevens.
5. "When the stock market crashed, Franklin D. Roosevelt got on the television and didn't just talk about it, you know, the princes of greed. He said, 'Look, here's what happened," in a CBS interview, apparently unaware that FDR wasn't president in 1929 and there were no television sets in American homes.
Well, I think you get my drift, Joe. This may be one of those teachable moments I'm so fond of. I have this theory that your gaffes may have been caused by a botched hair transplant surgery. One of those plug holes must have hit brain tissue. I'd get it checked out, if I were you.
Some in our party have suggested you go into hiding until after the next presidential election. Find some place no one ever goes. Locate a spot that even I don't know exists. Have you considered just hanging out in your office?
If that doesn't work out, then perhaps you could roam around the halls of some hospital. Stick your head into the rooms with really sick people. You never know. You could catch a sore throat and lose your voice. Wouldn't that be a lucky break for us?
Despite my admonitions, you have nothing to fear. I would never dump you from the ticket. I mean you really are good for me. Standing next to you, even I sound like I know what I'm talking about. That's good enough for me, Joe.
In fact, in your honor, I have an idea for next year's Earth Day celebration. I'll invite every child in America to come to the White House and plant a hair plug on the top of your head.
Tired of following behind you with a pooper scoop,
O.H. Bama
Sunday, July 18, 2010
What's Behind Antennagate
At first glance, the dust-up about the antenna issues surrounding the new IPhone 4 appears to be all about a serious design gaff on Apple's part. However, it really has more to do with the media and Google. The two have joined forces in an attempt to tar Apple's image. Meanwhile, a third ally, the federal government, may be about ready to jump into the breech.
This tidy drama began shortly after the introduction of the new smartphone. A few customers--no one knows the exact number--experienced signal issues which caused reception problems. At first, the blame was placed on a certain way consumers held the phone. Then accounts began circulating that the problems went deeper. After initially being hailed as a game-changing smartphone, The Four quickly became embroiled in controversey.
The media and the blog-a-sphere pounced. Press accounts painted a dire picture of Apple's antenna problems. Some suggested a product recall. Consumer Reports refused to recommend it. Apple's stock plummeted, shaving off $16 billion in market value. Hysteria was rampant. It forced Apple's CEO Steve Jobs to hold a news conference last week to address the issue, something he was surely loathed to do.
Jobs dubbed the whole affair, "Antennagate." He promised users free plastic "bumper" cases that would prevent a user's fingers from covering the antenna. The media wasn't satisfied. They characterized Jobs as "defiant" and "defensive." Apple was accused of being "secretive" in the handling of the whole affair. To these eyes, the media's reaction was overblown.
An analyst for Envioneering Group agrees. He has been trying unsuccessfully to replicate the signal problems on several of the new IPhone 4 models. His conclusion is that there is no science to support the reported antenna problems. "It may be just under 1% of the phones have the issue, less than 1 out of 100," he concludes.
But "Antennagate" is not about reality. There are other reasons that help explain the media's response. The business press, especially, has not taken kindly to the way Apple has chosen to eschew a cozy relationship with the media. Apple shrouds its announcements in secrecy and keeps the media in the dark so that the company can control the news about its new products. That chaps the media. They want unfettered access, especially when it's a high-profile company like Apple. Jobs doesn't play that game. As a result, there is a hate-hate relationship between Apple and journalists.
Moreover, when a publication or reporter prints unflattering reports about Apple, the CEO reverts to attack mode. Jobs doesn't sit back and let the media bash his company or its products. That's why the media should have expected Jobs to come out swinging last week at his hastily called news conference. He didn't disappoint.
Jobs lectured the audience, claiming the press and its competitors were trying to "tear down" Apple. He pointed out that antenna issues were common with most wireless phones. He even showed dramatic video to support his claim. Jobs capped off the event by saying the whole affair was "overblown." He called one media account of the antenna problems a "total crock." Jobs is absolutely correct.
First off, handsets have always had antenna issues since the inception of the wireless industry. True, manufacturers have gotten better over the years at addressing the problem. However, today's miniature models, when compared to the early bricks with huge antennas, are not designed for maximum signal strength. Network providers, like AT&T, often shoulder the blame, but handsets should share at least half of the responsibility for weak reception. There never has been a wireless handset sold that doesn't experience problems with dropped calls and weak signals.
If this is true, then why the media circus? Apple's competitors are feeding the media frenzy in hopes of destroying the image the IPhone has earned in the marketplace. The more doubt the competition can create, the better its chances to overtake Apple in the smartphone category. The company that stands to gain the most by Apple's misfortunes is Goggle, a relative newcomer to the smartphone market. The Mountain View, California, Goliath casts a big shadow over this whole episode.
Google has a lot at stake in this drama. The company's latest smartphone, the Droid X manufactured by Motorola and powered by the Google Android operating system, is flying off the shelves. In the race for market share, Droid is closing the gap with IPhone. Billions of dollars are riding on the outcome of this fierce competition.
Despite its carefully nurtured image, Google isn't above undertaking a stealth campaign to sink its competition. Behind the scenes, Goggle is prompting tech analysts, financial researchers and product evaluators to pile on. They are using their extensive contacts to prod the media frenzy that appears unlikely to abate any time soon. Unlike Apple, the folks at Goggle have cultivated a lovable image in the media, which has produced fawning coverage for a company intent on destroying competition.
That's why it was no surprise when Sen. Charles Schumer, a Democrat from New York, wrote an open letter last week to Jobs, urging him to be clearer with the public on the antenna problem. He called the "bumper" case offered by Jobs an "insufficient" solution. It would be wise for tech followers and Apple to take heed.
During the last presidential campaign, Google's managers and employees donated a reported $803,000 to President Obama's campaign. In addition, Google's CEO and other executives forked over another $25,000 each to help pay for the inaugural event. As a result, Google got a seat at the Washington table. A handful of ex-Google managers have joined the Obama administration. The most visible is Andrew McLaughlin, who serves as deputy chief technology officer for the administration. He is in a position to shape policy that impacts Google and its rivals.
Therefore, Schumer's outburst should not be dismissed as mere political grandstanding. He is tight with the Obama administration. You don't have to be a conspiracy theorist to wonder if perhaps Schumer was goaded into action by someone in the administration. A congressional hearing is the last thing Jobs and Apple need at this point. Even worse, regulators, such as the Federal Trade Commission, could step in and demand that Apple do more than offer a free "bumper" case.
With all the negative publicity enveloping the IPhone 4, you'd expect sales to tank. However, just the opposite has happened. Jobs said Apple has sold more than three million units since its introduction three weeks ago. The handset is on pace to break all previous smartphone sales records. Most stores that were contacted are quoting three-to-four week delivery time frames for the IPhone 4. Young people, in particular, are enraptured by the FaceTime video calling feature. Obviously, consumers aren't buying the smear campaign against Apple.
But don't expect the uproar to die down. The media smell Apple-red blood. New press accounts surfaced over the weekend about challenges faced by Apple's glass supplier. The report hinted there would be increasing delays in fulfilling IPhone 4 orders. The news heaped more negative publicity on Apple's new phone.
Apple must face the facts. This is an attack like none other that it has ever experienced. It is time to take off the gloves and go after Google. The Droid X is not without its problems, including a finicky touchscreen. If it waits too long, Jobs may find Apple looking up at Google's market share position in the smartphone category.
This tidy drama began shortly after the introduction of the new smartphone. A few customers--no one knows the exact number--experienced signal issues which caused reception problems. At first, the blame was placed on a certain way consumers held the phone. Then accounts began circulating that the problems went deeper. After initially being hailed as a game-changing smartphone, The Four quickly became embroiled in controversey.
The media and the blog-a-sphere pounced. Press accounts painted a dire picture of Apple's antenna problems. Some suggested a product recall. Consumer Reports refused to recommend it. Apple's stock plummeted, shaving off $16 billion in market value. Hysteria was rampant. It forced Apple's CEO Steve Jobs to hold a news conference last week to address the issue, something he was surely loathed to do.
Jobs dubbed the whole affair, "Antennagate." He promised users free plastic "bumper" cases that would prevent a user's fingers from covering the antenna. The media wasn't satisfied. They characterized Jobs as "defiant" and "defensive." Apple was accused of being "secretive" in the handling of the whole affair. To these eyes, the media's reaction was overblown.
An analyst for Envioneering Group agrees. He has been trying unsuccessfully to replicate the signal problems on several of the new IPhone 4 models. His conclusion is that there is no science to support the reported antenna problems. "It may be just under 1% of the phones have the issue, less than 1 out of 100," he concludes.
But "Antennagate" is not about reality. There are other reasons that help explain the media's response. The business press, especially, has not taken kindly to the way Apple has chosen to eschew a cozy relationship with the media. Apple shrouds its announcements in secrecy and keeps the media in the dark so that the company can control the news about its new products. That chaps the media. They want unfettered access, especially when it's a high-profile company like Apple. Jobs doesn't play that game. As a result, there is a hate-hate relationship between Apple and journalists.
Moreover, when a publication or reporter prints unflattering reports about Apple, the CEO reverts to attack mode. Jobs doesn't sit back and let the media bash his company or its products. That's why the media should have expected Jobs to come out swinging last week at his hastily called news conference. He didn't disappoint.
Jobs lectured the audience, claiming the press and its competitors were trying to "tear down" Apple. He pointed out that antenna issues were common with most wireless phones. He even showed dramatic video to support his claim. Jobs capped off the event by saying the whole affair was "overblown." He called one media account of the antenna problems a "total crock." Jobs is absolutely correct.
First off, handsets have always had antenna issues since the inception of the wireless industry. True, manufacturers have gotten better over the years at addressing the problem. However, today's miniature models, when compared to the early bricks with huge antennas, are not designed for maximum signal strength. Network providers, like AT&T, often shoulder the blame, but handsets should share at least half of the responsibility for weak reception. There never has been a wireless handset sold that doesn't experience problems with dropped calls and weak signals.
If this is true, then why the media circus? Apple's competitors are feeding the media frenzy in hopes of destroying the image the IPhone has earned in the marketplace. The more doubt the competition can create, the better its chances to overtake Apple in the smartphone category. The company that stands to gain the most by Apple's misfortunes is Goggle, a relative newcomer to the smartphone market. The Mountain View, California, Goliath casts a big shadow over this whole episode.
Google has a lot at stake in this drama. The company's latest smartphone, the Droid X manufactured by Motorola and powered by the Google Android operating system, is flying off the shelves. In the race for market share, Droid is closing the gap with IPhone. Billions of dollars are riding on the outcome of this fierce competition.
Despite its carefully nurtured image, Google isn't above undertaking a stealth campaign to sink its competition. Behind the scenes, Goggle is prompting tech analysts, financial researchers and product evaluators to pile on. They are using their extensive contacts to prod the media frenzy that appears unlikely to abate any time soon. Unlike Apple, the folks at Goggle have cultivated a lovable image in the media, which has produced fawning coverage for a company intent on destroying competition.
That's why it was no surprise when Sen. Charles Schumer, a Democrat from New York, wrote an open letter last week to Jobs, urging him to be clearer with the public on the antenna problem. He called the "bumper" case offered by Jobs an "insufficient" solution. It would be wise for tech followers and Apple to take heed.
During the last presidential campaign, Google's managers and employees donated a reported $803,000 to President Obama's campaign. In addition, Google's CEO and other executives forked over another $25,000 each to help pay for the inaugural event. As a result, Google got a seat at the Washington table. A handful of ex-Google managers have joined the Obama administration. The most visible is Andrew McLaughlin, who serves as deputy chief technology officer for the administration. He is in a position to shape policy that impacts Google and its rivals.
Therefore, Schumer's outburst should not be dismissed as mere political grandstanding. He is tight with the Obama administration. You don't have to be a conspiracy theorist to wonder if perhaps Schumer was goaded into action by someone in the administration. A congressional hearing is the last thing Jobs and Apple need at this point. Even worse, regulators, such as the Federal Trade Commission, could step in and demand that Apple do more than offer a free "bumper" case.
With all the negative publicity enveloping the IPhone 4, you'd expect sales to tank. However, just the opposite has happened. Jobs said Apple has sold more than three million units since its introduction three weeks ago. The handset is on pace to break all previous smartphone sales records. Most stores that were contacted are quoting three-to-four week delivery time frames for the IPhone 4. Young people, in particular, are enraptured by the FaceTime video calling feature. Obviously, consumers aren't buying the smear campaign against Apple.
But don't expect the uproar to die down. The media smell Apple-red blood. New press accounts surfaced over the weekend about challenges faced by Apple's glass supplier. The report hinted there would be increasing delays in fulfilling IPhone 4 orders. The news heaped more negative publicity on Apple's new phone.
Apple must face the facts. This is an attack like none other that it has ever experienced. It is time to take off the gloves and go after Google. The Droid X is not without its problems, including a finicky touchscreen. If it waits too long, Jobs may find Apple looking up at Google's market share position in the smartphone category.
Tuesday, July 13, 2010
Obama's Ten Big Lies
If President Obama were a wooden puppet, his nose would be longer than Pinocchio's olfactory organ. His administration and his accomplices in the Democrat Party have told one whooper after another since the president's was sworn into office. Exposing the lies is the role once played by the news media, but a compliant press has repeated the untruths without bothering to challenge the claims. Here are just a few of the big lies:
1. Lie: Republicans and President Bush are to be blamed for the record deficits. The facts say otherwise. The year 2006 was the last time that the Republicans controlled both houses of Congress and the presidency. The budget deficit that year totaled $161 billion. That's not exactly chump change. However, the Democrat controlled Congress and President Obama ended 2009 with a $1.09 trillion budget deficit. That's nearly ten times worse than the Republicans did. Projections call for the current federal budget year to end with a $1.3 trillion deficit. That's nearly $2.5 trillion in red ink over a two-year budget cycle. It dwarfs the deficit spending in the Bush years.
2. Lie: Bush and the Republicans' persided over the the highest number of bank failures since the Great Depression. In the last year of President Bush's second term, 25 banks failed. In Obama's first year in office, a total of 140 banks went belly up, despite massive bailouts and regulatory interference. So far this year, there have been 90 bank failures. At the current pace, 2010 will be a recording-setting year for bank failures. Not only are more banks failing, but scores are being added each month to the FDIC's watch list.
3. Lie: President Obama and Democrats have created and saved millions of jobs. When President Obama was sworn in as president in January of 2009, the unemployment rate was 7.7 percent. The latest Bureau of Labor statistics show that unemployment ended June at 9.5 percent. The number of long-term unemployed (27+ weeks) has increased dramatically over the same period, growing by 33 percent. There are more unemployed and fewer jobs for people looking for work. The numbers don't lie.
4. Lie: The country needs another stimulus package to jump start the economy. This untruth is made even more odious because the government has spent only 53 percent of the original $787 billion stimulus package approved a year ago. According to its own figures, the government has doled out $420 billion as of the end of June. Although the figures are readily available on the government's website, no news media outlet has bothered to check to find out what has happened to the remaining $367 billion. It seems a tad disingenuous to be asking for increased spending on stimulus packages when the government is sitting on billions of dollars that were supposed to help "bring us back from the brink."
5. Lie: President Obama has arrested the rate of home foreclosures with government programs.. In President Bush's last year in office, about 750,000to 1,000,000 homes were repossessed. Since Obama took office, foreclosures have skyrocketed, despite a failed plan to help homeowners avoid bankruptcy. Home foreclosures rose 60 percent in February of this year. It marked the 26th consecutive month of year-over-year monthly increases in foreclosures. Property owners were unable to unload their homes, despite the largest drop in home prices in 20 years. Most real estate experts predict foreclosures will continue to grow in the coming months as $460 billion of adjustable rate mortgages readjust.
6. Lie: Arizona's new law is an example of states taking federal matters into their own hands. Arizona's law, in fact, mimics the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1965 passed by Congress. Federal law makes it illegal for non-nationals to enter or attempt to enter the United States. The federal act also prohibits people from eluding inspection by enforcement officials. Arizona's law does the same thing. Meanwhile there are 22 cities in the country that have adopted ordinances instructing police "not to cooperate" with federal officials in the apprehension of illegals. Some cities have gone so far as to forbid law enforcement as well as businesses from asking people about their immigration status. These so-called "sanctuary cities" include, Austin, San Francisco, Houston and Portland. The attorney general has been silent on these municipalities' circumvention of federal law.
7. Lie: President Bush's tax cuts hurt the middle class and benefit the rich. Under Bush's plan, a family of four earning $50,000 incurs no income tax liability after taking the standard deduction and child tax credit. Every year since 2002, the number of people paying no taxes has risen. In 2008, 36.3 percent of the people who filed tax returns paid no taxes, a record. That percentage equates to 51.6 million people who contributed no money to the federal government. Another telling statistic: Nearly 60 percent of taxpayers in the bottom 20 percent of earners moved to a higher bracket in the Bush years. What about the rich? Nearly 40 percent of taxpayers in the top 20 percent moved down. The Bush tax cuts are set to expire in December.
8. Lie: President Obama pledged not to sign health care reform legislation unless the cost was less than $1 trillion over 10 years. Long after the hoopla over the legislation faded from the front pages of newspapers, the corrupt Congressional Budget Office issued a revised estimate of the cost of the legislation. The latest guesstimate is the price tag will easily top a staggering $1 trillion. The original estimate was $940 billion. Once the implementation begins for health care reform, most experts think the cost will approach $2 trillion.
9. Lie: The border has never been more secure than it is now. In the last year of the Bush administration, more than 792,000 illegals were apprehended by law enforcement. Eighty-eight percent of those were Mexican nationals. The number included 97,000 people with criminal records. The Department of Homeland Security has not published comparable figures for 2009. President Obama claims apprehensions have dropped 54 percent from 2005 to 2009. This does not mean the border is better guarded. It may signal that fewer illegals are entering the country because the United States' has fewer jobs. However, it is clear that kidnappings, drug seizures and arrests are all increasing. In one year, kidnappings in Phoenix have jumped 40 percent. The city now ranks second in the world in reported kidnappings. Drug seizures have risen 40 percent since 2006 along the border. Arrests of illegals crossing the Mexican border into Arizona have climbed six percent from last October to this April. The border is neither safe nor secure.
10. Lie: President Obama is not anti-business. The administration's first 18 months in power are replete with examples of laws designed to increase government regulation, raise taxes and crimp investment. For the sake of brevity, just consider one aspect of Obama's attack on business. With the expiration of the Bush tax cuts and new Medicare taxes on investment income in the Health Care Reform Act, the top effective tax rate on dividends in the U.S. will zoom to 68 percent in 2011. That will make it the highest among all industrialized nations. This double tax on corporate profits discourages capital investment, which in turn, negatively impacts job growth. Still unconvinced? Forture 500 firms are sitting on a record $2 trillion cash horde, reluctant to expand or invest in their businesses because of the uncertainty created by Obama's tax and spend agenda.
Unchecked by a vigilant media, there is no end in sight to the president's lack of truth telling. At least it's becoming easier to spot the lies. If the president's lips are moving, it's a good bet a falsehood is about to escape.
1. Lie: Republicans and President Bush are to be blamed for the record deficits. The facts say otherwise. The year 2006 was the last time that the Republicans controlled both houses of Congress and the presidency. The budget deficit that year totaled $161 billion. That's not exactly chump change. However, the Democrat controlled Congress and President Obama ended 2009 with a $1.09 trillion budget deficit. That's nearly ten times worse than the Republicans did. Projections call for the current federal budget year to end with a $1.3 trillion deficit. That's nearly $2.5 trillion in red ink over a two-year budget cycle. It dwarfs the deficit spending in the Bush years.
2. Lie: Bush and the Republicans' persided over the the highest number of bank failures since the Great Depression. In the last year of President Bush's second term, 25 banks failed. In Obama's first year in office, a total of 140 banks went belly up, despite massive bailouts and regulatory interference. So far this year, there have been 90 bank failures. At the current pace, 2010 will be a recording-setting year for bank failures. Not only are more banks failing, but scores are being added each month to the FDIC's watch list.
3. Lie: President Obama and Democrats have created and saved millions of jobs. When President Obama was sworn in as president in January of 2009, the unemployment rate was 7.7 percent. The latest Bureau of Labor statistics show that unemployment ended June at 9.5 percent. The number of long-term unemployed (27+ weeks) has increased dramatically over the same period, growing by 33 percent. There are more unemployed and fewer jobs for people looking for work. The numbers don't lie.
4. Lie: The country needs another stimulus package to jump start the economy. This untruth is made even more odious because the government has spent only 53 percent of the original $787 billion stimulus package approved a year ago. According to its own figures, the government has doled out $420 billion as of the end of June. Although the figures are readily available on the government's website, no news media outlet has bothered to check to find out what has happened to the remaining $367 billion. It seems a tad disingenuous to be asking for increased spending on stimulus packages when the government is sitting on billions of dollars that were supposed to help "bring us back from the brink."
5. Lie: President Obama has arrested the rate of home foreclosures with government programs.. In President Bush's last year in office, about 750,000to 1,000,000 homes were repossessed. Since Obama took office, foreclosures have skyrocketed, despite a failed plan to help homeowners avoid bankruptcy. Home foreclosures rose 60 percent in February of this year. It marked the 26th consecutive month of year-over-year monthly increases in foreclosures. Property owners were unable to unload their homes, despite the largest drop in home prices in 20 years. Most real estate experts predict foreclosures will continue to grow in the coming months as $460 billion of adjustable rate mortgages readjust.
6. Lie: Arizona's new law is an example of states taking federal matters into their own hands. Arizona's law, in fact, mimics the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1965 passed by Congress. Federal law makes it illegal for non-nationals to enter or attempt to enter the United States. The federal act also prohibits people from eluding inspection by enforcement officials. Arizona's law does the same thing. Meanwhile there are 22 cities in the country that have adopted ordinances instructing police "not to cooperate" with federal officials in the apprehension of illegals. Some cities have gone so far as to forbid law enforcement as well as businesses from asking people about their immigration status. These so-called "sanctuary cities" include, Austin, San Francisco, Houston and Portland. The attorney general has been silent on these municipalities' circumvention of federal law.
7. Lie: President Bush's tax cuts hurt the middle class and benefit the rich. Under Bush's plan, a family of four earning $50,000 incurs no income tax liability after taking the standard deduction and child tax credit. Every year since 2002, the number of people paying no taxes has risen. In 2008, 36.3 percent of the people who filed tax returns paid no taxes, a record. That percentage equates to 51.6 million people who contributed no money to the federal government. Another telling statistic: Nearly 60 percent of taxpayers in the bottom 20 percent of earners moved to a higher bracket in the Bush years. What about the rich? Nearly 40 percent of taxpayers in the top 20 percent moved down. The Bush tax cuts are set to expire in December.
8. Lie: President Obama pledged not to sign health care reform legislation unless the cost was less than $1 trillion over 10 years. Long after the hoopla over the legislation faded from the front pages of newspapers, the corrupt Congressional Budget Office issued a revised estimate of the cost of the legislation. The latest guesstimate is the price tag will easily top a staggering $1 trillion. The original estimate was $940 billion. Once the implementation begins for health care reform, most experts think the cost will approach $2 trillion.
9. Lie: The border has never been more secure than it is now. In the last year of the Bush administration, more than 792,000 illegals were apprehended by law enforcement. Eighty-eight percent of those were Mexican nationals. The number included 97,000 people with criminal records. The Department of Homeland Security has not published comparable figures for 2009. President Obama claims apprehensions have dropped 54 percent from 2005 to 2009. This does not mean the border is better guarded. It may signal that fewer illegals are entering the country because the United States' has fewer jobs. However, it is clear that kidnappings, drug seizures and arrests are all increasing. In one year, kidnappings in Phoenix have jumped 40 percent. The city now ranks second in the world in reported kidnappings. Drug seizures have risen 40 percent since 2006 along the border. Arrests of illegals crossing the Mexican border into Arizona have climbed six percent from last October to this April. The border is neither safe nor secure.
10. Lie: President Obama is not anti-business. The administration's first 18 months in power are replete with examples of laws designed to increase government regulation, raise taxes and crimp investment. For the sake of brevity, just consider one aspect of Obama's attack on business. With the expiration of the Bush tax cuts and new Medicare taxes on investment income in the Health Care Reform Act, the top effective tax rate on dividends in the U.S. will zoom to 68 percent in 2011. That will make it the highest among all industrialized nations. This double tax on corporate profits discourages capital investment, which in turn, negatively impacts job growth. Still unconvinced? Forture 500 firms are sitting on a record $2 trillion cash horde, reluctant to expand or invest in their businesses because of the uncertainty created by Obama's tax and spend agenda.
Unchecked by a vigilant media, there is no end in sight to the president's lack of truth telling. At least it's becoming easier to spot the lies. If the president's lips are moving, it's a good bet a falsehood is about to escape.
Friday, July 9, 2010
Factoids You Can Use
If you want your son or daughter to grow up to be a millionaire, the path to wealth is paved with a career as an application developer for smart phones. According to industry figures, there are now 225,000 apps available for the IPhone. More than 50 million IPhone handsets have been sold and the number is surging, thanks to the introduction of the latest model, dubbed The Four. With that many handsets, the app business has become a $4.1 billion gold rush. There were seven billion downloads of apps on the IPhone in 2009. That's just a drop in the bucket compared to some forecasts. By 2012, app downloads are expected to skyrocket to 50 billion. Revenues are anticipated to grow to $17.5 billion during that year, according to at least one industry follower. As a result of the rise in app revenue, some developers have become overnight millionaires. Forget that career advice about becoming a doctor, lawyer or Wall Street mogul. Teach your kids to grow up to be app developers.
Obama Loses Touch With Economic Reality
While President Obama preaches the need for more economic stimulus, his counterparts in Europe are in full retreat from this failed policy. Germany, the United Kingdom and France have made cutting bloated government deficits their top priority to address economic recovery. National leaders in these countries have done a turnabout in facing economic reality. Yet Obama continues to cling to the notion that government spending is the best way to elevate the country out of the recession.
The stark contrast between competing policies was on full display when Obama urged the G20 nations at the recent economic summit to continue government pump priming. His words were greeted with icy silence. His audience included most of the European economic powers who are suffering from years of social spending that has saddled their countries with deficits as far as the eye can see.
Leaders in France and Germany joined together in calling for tougher European Union rules to prevent further economic chaos fueled by deficit spending. France went one step further, signaling that it may consider amending its constitution to make budget discipline a mandate for future French governments. That is unprecedented for a country that has prided itself in building generous social programs.
Not to be outdone, the UK government has ordered budget cuts of as much as 40 percent in some departments in order to slash a deficit running 11 percent of the country's economic output. The proposed spending reductions would be the deepest since World War II. Projections are that 610,000 government jobs will be lopped off.
Surveying the European economic landscape, the EU's central Bank President Jean-Claude Trichet said that government austerity drives aimed at deficit reductions will stimulate economic recovery. He added that "structural reforms" were fundamental to the growth potential for Europe.
These sobering economic maneuvers have been lost on President Obama. In a signature move for his administration, the President has treated the issue of runaway deficits as something of an academic exercise. His lone action has been to form a panel to study the problem and make recommendations. In a nod to politics, he ordered the panel to present its findings after the November elections.
Yet the United States actually faces a more acute deficit crisis than most of its European neighbors. The nation's deficit currently represents 11 percent of its total annual economic output, the same as the United Kingdom. Germany and France both have deficits that are smaller, as measured as a percentage of economic output. Even debt-saddled Greece comes in at 8.7 percent, according to figures from the International Monetary Fund and the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development.
Meanwhile, the President and his party continue to ignore warnings about deficit spending. In a show of political arrogance, last week the house Democrats used procedural trickery to pass a non-existent $1.12 trillion budget deal. Instead of calling for a vote on a congressional budget resolution, Democrats attached a document to an emergency war supplement bill in deeming approval of the new budget. News coverage of the event was virtually non-existent.
Facing a record deficit and a tidal wave of debt, Obama's minions are taking the low road. The nation's total debt now stands at a staggering $13 trillion and counting. Budget deficits are growing at the fastest clip since World War II as the administration continues to refuse to accept responsibility for its reckless spending. In case you haven't heard, it's all former President Bush's fault.
Now some economists are talking about the dreaded "double dip" impact on the American recovery. The term suggests that there is a risk of dipping back into a recession after the economy had begun to claw its way back. This has prompted calls by some in Congress for the Son of Stimulus. This assumption underscores the absurdity of the administration and its supporters in the economic community.
The truth is the economy remains in a recession. It has never left this territory. Any cursory examination of economic numbers shows nothing much has changed in bank failures, housing foreclosures and unemployment since the recession began. In fact, in many ways, things have gotten worse.
Failure to recognize this truth imperils the country's future. More government spending will not cure America's economic ills. Fiscal responsibility is the only way for the nation to rise above its current economic malaise and to put it on the long path back to stability.
Don't take my word for it. Just ask Europe's leading economic powers.
The stark contrast between competing policies was on full display when Obama urged the G20 nations at the recent economic summit to continue government pump priming. His words were greeted with icy silence. His audience included most of the European economic powers who are suffering from years of social spending that has saddled their countries with deficits as far as the eye can see.
Leaders in France and Germany joined together in calling for tougher European Union rules to prevent further economic chaos fueled by deficit spending. France went one step further, signaling that it may consider amending its constitution to make budget discipline a mandate for future French governments. That is unprecedented for a country that has prided itself in building generous social programs.
Not to be outdone, the UK government has ordered budget cuts of as much as 40 percent in some departments in order to slash a deficit running 11 percent of the country's economic output. The proposed spending reductions would be the deepest since World War II. Projections are that 610,000 government jobs will be lopped off.
Surveying the European economic landscape, the EU's central Bank President Jean-Claude Trichet said that government austerity drives aimed at deficit reductions will stimulate economic recovery. He added that "structural reforms" were fundamental to the growth potential for Europe.
These sobering economic maneuvers have been lost on President Obama. In a signature move for his administration, the President has treated the issue of runaway deficits as something of an academic exercise. His lone action has been to form a panel to study the problem and make recommendations. In a nod to politics, he ordered the panel to present its findings after the November elections.
Yet the United States actually faces a more acute deficit crisis than most of its European neighbors. The nation's deficit currently represents 11 percent of its total annual economic output, the same as the United Kingdom. Germany and France both have deficits that are smaller, as measured as a percentage of economic output. Even debt-saddled Greece comes in at 8.7 percent, according to figures from the International Monetary Fund and the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development.
Meanwhile, the President and his party continue to ignore warnings about deficit spending. In a show of political arrogance, last week the house Democrats used procedural trickery to pass a non-existent $1.12 trillion budget deal. Instead of calling for a vote on a congressional budget resolution, Democrats attached a document to an emergency war supplement bill in deeming approval of the new budget. News coverage of the event was virtually non-existent.
Facing a record deficit and a tidal wave of debt, Obama's minions are taking the low road. The nation's total debt now stands at a staggering $13 trillion and counting. Budget deficits are growing at the fastest clip since World War II as the administration continues to refuse to accept responsibility for its reckless spending. In case you haven't heard, it's all former President Bush's fault.
Now some economists are talking about the dreaded "double dip" impact on the American recovery. The term suggests that there is a risk of dipping back into a recession after the economy had begun to claw its way back. This has prompted calls by some in Congress for the Son of Stimulus. This assumption underscores the absurdity of the administration and its supporters in the economic community.
The truth is the economy remains in a recession. It has never left this territory. Any cursory examination of economic numbers shows nothing much has changed in bank failures, housing foreclosures and unemployment since the recession began. In fact, in many ways, things have gotten worse.
Failure to recognize this truth imperils the country's future. More government spending will not cure America's economic ills. Fiscal responsibility is the only way for the nation to rise above its current economic malaise and to put it on the long path back to stability.
Don't take my word for it. Just ask Europe's leading economic powers.
Friday, July 2, 2010
Kagan vs. Miers: A saga of two would-be Supremes
With a seat on the Supreme Court all but assured for Elena Kagan, it is instructive to compare her nomination with that of Harriet Miers five years ago. Under any unbiased reading, there are obviously two sets of standards for consideration of associate justice candidates. In addition, the hearings are little more than well reheased performances that offer nothing in the way of insight into a nominee's judicial philosophy. This travesty has rendered meaningless the ritual of Senate confirmation hearings.
While Kagan's nomination sails through the Senate with tacit GOP support, Miers was forced to withdraw after those within Bush's own party bowed to Beltway media pressure. While Democrats will defend their own to the bitter end, Republicans have a sorry history of cutting bait at the first sign of negative press. It is why the GOP has remained a minority party for most of its history.
Harken back to the hearings for Miers in 2005. Critics on both sides of the aisle pointed out that she had never served as a judge, had close ties to the President and lacked a clear record on issues likely to be considered by the high court. Those exact same things are also true of Elena Kagan. But the Democrats stood their ground.
The media and Democrats have championed Kagan as a thoughtful, open-minded, imminently qualified nominee, with a sterling legal resume. An objective examination of her record belies that characterization. Here are just a few examples of her documented views:
1. In a 1996 White House document penned by Kagan, she compared the National Rifle Association to the Ku Klux Klan. She said both were "bad guy" organizations.
2. In an article in the University of Chicago Law Review, Kagan argued that government has the right to restrict free speech. She claimed that free speech could be "harmful" and as a result could be restricted.
3. In 2003, Kagan sent an email calling the military's "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy a "moral injustice of the first order." What makes this even more instructive is that Kagan served as President Clinton's Associate White House Counsel when the administration promulgated the very policy she said she "abhorred."
Of course, during her hearings Kagan tiptoed all around these and other issues. The same person who called previous nomination hearings "a vapid and hollow charade" displayed by her answers that she can obfuscate with the best. Apparently, being vapid and hollow is perfectly acceptable if you're the one being cross-examined by Senators.
Her carefully scripted answers to Senators' questions brought back memories of Justice Sonia Sotomayor's performance in the same venue. In a repartee with senators, she declared that the Second Amendment right to bear arms was "settled law," yet in the first court test of her tenure the associate justice voted with the minority in opposing that very precedent. It's further evidence the hearings are meaningless.
A side-by-side comparison of the careers of Kagan and Miers shows more similarities than differences. Both clerked with judges after law school. Kagan managed the law school at Harvard. Miers managed a large law firm in Dallas. Yet Miers was criticized for having managerial and not judicial experience. The same was not said of Kagan.
Kagan has close personal ties to Obama, including serving as his Solicitor General. She and the President have mutual ties to Harvard. Miers served as White House Deputy Chief of Staff and White House Counsel under President Bush. They both had ties to Texas. No question both judicial nominees would have to plead guilty to being close to their bosses. Apparently, the distinction of being "too" close depends on who is President. Miers' sin was once praising Bush's personal qualities.
Both smashed legal glass ceilings. Kagan was the first female to be named Dean of the Law School at Harvard. Miers was the first female president of the Dallas Bar Association. Both were active in the law schools at their respective universities.
In another coincidence, both suffered failed judicial nominations. Kagan was nominated by President Clinton to the federal appeals court. Her nomination lapsed after the Senate failed to schedule hearings because of tepid support. Of course, Miers withdrew her Supreme Court candidacy to save Bush from suffering a defeat on her nomination.
Democrats like to point out that Kagan actually argued cases before the Supreme Court, something Miers never did. However, that experience came during the past 12 months when she argued six cases before the Supremes. That hardly qualifies as a decisive edge when comparing the two nominees.
However, Miers can one-up Kagan on one count that President Obama has deemed important for Supreme Court nominees. Obama has declared on more than one occasion that "life experiences" are a valued judicial criteria. Miers served a two-year term on the Dallas City Council and chaired the Texas Lottery Commission. Kagan's life experiences have been limited to the sheltered existence within tight academic and legal circles.
But all this appears to be of little consequence to Democrats. They have raised their voices in unison to praise Kagan's nomination. The media has joined the chorus in glorifying Kagan's brilliance, failing to point out her obvious shortcomings. Compare that to what happened to Miers. She was savaged in the media, even called intellectually lacking, a curious charge given her long list of achievements. Interestingly, no women's group protested an accomplished women being deemed too stupid to serve on the court.
Even more disappointing is the reaction of Republicans. After expressing some initial misgivings after the nomination was announced, GOP Senators have acquiesced. They have signaled their support, despite Kagan's thin resume. Their brethren on the other side of the aisle showed no such willingness to compromise when Bush nominated Miers. They mounted a successful campaign to destroy Miers.
It is sad to watch. But that is what happens when the media and Republicans fail to do their jobs, allowing Democrats to run roughshod over the judicial nomination process. As a result, Elena Kagan will surely become the first Supreme Court associate justice in four decades without prior judicial experience. The last was William Rehnquist in 1972.
There are no winners in this tale of two nominees. The losers are the American people who deserve a fair and balanced examination of any high court nominee, regardless of who occupies the White House. Changes should be made to end this sham foisted on an unwary public. Surely, there can be no opposition when a lifetime appointment to the Supreme Court is at stake.
While Kagan's nomination sails through the Senate with tacit GOP support, Miers was forced to withdraw after those within Bush's own party bowed to Beltway media pressure. While Democrats will defend their own to the bitter end, Republicans have a sorry history of cutting bait at the first sign of negative press. It is why the GOP has remained a minority party for most of its history.
Harken back to the hearings for Miers in 2005. Critics on both sides of the aisle pointed out that she had never served as a judge, had close ties to the President and lacked a clear record on issues likely to be considered by the high court. Those exact same things are also true of Elena Kagan. But the Democrats stood their ground.
The media and Democrats have championed Kagan as a thoughtful, open-minded, imminently qualified nominee, with a sterling legal resume. An objective examination of her record belies that characterization. Here are just a few examples of her documented views:
1. In a 1996 White House document penned by Kagan, she compared the National Rifle Association to the Ku Klux Klan. She said both were "bad guy" organizations.
2. In an article in the University of Chicago Law Review, Kagan argued that government has the right to restrict free speech. She claimed that free speech could be "harmful" and as a result could be restricted.
3. In 2003, Kagan sent an email calling the military's "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy a "moral injustice of the first order." What makes this even more instructive is that Kagan served as President Clinton's Associate White House Counsel when the administration promulgated the very policy she said she "abhorred."
Of course, during her hearings Kagan tiptoed all around these and other issues. The same person who called previous nomination hearings "a vapid and hollow charade" displayed by her answers that she can obfuscate with the best. Apparently, being vapid and hollow is perfectly acceptable if you're the one being cross-examined by Senators.
Her carefully scripted answers to Senators' questions brought back memories of Justice Sonia Sotomayor's performance in the same venue. In a repartee with senators, she declared that the Second Amendment right to bear arms was "settled law," yet in the first court test of her tenure the associate justice voted with the minority in opposing that very precedent. It's further evidence the hearings are meaningless.
A side-by-side comparison of the careers of Kagan and Miers shows more similarities than differences. Both clerked with judges after law school. Kagan managed the law school at Harvard. Miers managed a large law firm in Dallas. Yet Miers was criticized for having managerial and not judicial experience. The same was not said of Kagan.
Kagan has close personal ties to Obama, including serving as his Solicitor General. She and the President have mutual ties to Harvard. Miers served as White House Deputy Chief of Staff and White House Counsel under President Bush. They both had ties to Texas. No question both judicial nominees would have to plead guilty to being close to their bosses. Apparently, the distinction of being "too" close depends on who is President. Miers' sin was once praising Bush's personal qualities.
Both smashed legal glass ceilings. Kagan was the first female to be named Dean of the Law School at Harvard. Miers was the first female president of the Dallas Bar Association. Both were active in the law schools at their respective universities.
In another coincidence, both suffered failed judicial nominations. Kagan was nominated by President Clinton to the federal appeals court. Her nomination lapsed after the Senate failed to schedule hearings because of tepid support. Of course, Miers withdrew her Supreme Court candidacy to save Bush from suffering a defeat on her nomination.
Democrats like to point out that Kagan actually argued cases before the Supreme Court, something Miers never did. However, that experience came during the past 12 months when she argued six cases before the Supremes. That hardly qualifies as a decisive edge when comparing the two nominees.
However, Miers can one-up Kagan on one count that President Obama has deemed important for Supreme Court nominees. Obama has declared on more than one occasion that "life experiences" are a valued judicial criteria. Miers served a two-year term on the Dallas City Council and chaired the Texas Lottery Commission. Kagan's life experiences have been limited to the sheltered existence within tight academic and legal circles.
But all this appears to be of little consequence to Democrats. They have raised their voices in unison to praise Kagan's nomination. The media has joined the chorus in glorifying Kagan's brilliance, failing to point out her obvious shortcomings. Compare that to what happened to Miers. She was savaged in the media, even called intellectually lacking, a curious charge given her long list of achievements. Interestingly, no women's group protested an accomplished women being deemed too stupid to serve on the court.
Even more disappointing is the reaction of Republicans. After expressing some initial misgivings after the nomination was announced, GOP Senators have acquiesced. They have signaled their support, despite Kagan's thin resume. Their brethren on the other side of the aisle showed no such willingness to compromise when Bush nominated Miers. They mounted a successful campaign to destroy Miers.
It is sad to watch. But that is what happens when the media and Republicans fail to do their jobs, allowing Democrats to run roughshod over the judicial nomination process. As a result, Elena Kagan will surely become the first Supreme Court associate justice in four decades without prior judicial experience. The last was William Rehnquist in 1972.
There are no winners in this tale of two nominees. The losers are the American people who deserve a fair and balanced examination of any high court nominee, regardless of who occupies the White House. Changes should be made to end this sham foisted on an unwary public. Surely, there can be no opposition when a lifetime appointment to the Supreme Court is at stake.
Thursday, July 1, 2010
Factiods That You Can Use
The Government Accountability Office, the single federal agency that remains independent of Obama Administration influence, released this week the results of its investigation of a $5 billion utilities program for the poor. Under the plan, the needy receive government funding to pay for heating and cooling of their homes. The agency's findings were shocking, even for a colossally inept government that has wasted billions of taxpayer dollars. The agency found evidence that the feds doled out $116 million in fraudulent claims. In fact, 11,000 of the recipients were dead. Other people assumed their identities and bilked the program of $3.9 million. Another 725 recipients were in prison. About 1,100 recipients of the government largess had more income that the maximum allowable, including one wealthy Chicago woman living in a $2 million mansion. Applicants used counterfeit documents, fake addresses and bogus landlords to perpetrate their deception. Program administrations were negligent in checking applicant documentation. The GAO's investigation covered seven states that administered about one-third of the program's funding in 2009. In other words, the real fraud number is much worse. Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius said she was "very disturbed" by the findings. You'd think the madam secretary would have been red-faced enough to order a full investigation. No such luck. After all, the are more millions of dollars where those came from.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)