That once great American monolith, Microsoft, is looking more each year like a corporation living off its former reputation for innovation and growth. The Redmond, Washington, software icon keeps stumbling while its competitors lap the slow-footed corporate Gulliver.
This is a business colossus that regularly racked up average revenue growth of 36 percent through the 1990's as it dominated the manufacturing and licensing of computing software. Those days have faded along with the its market share. In its latest fiscal year, Microsoft struggled to increase revenues by a single digit, delivering only eight percent growth.
While Microsoft rebounded last year with Windows 7, not much else has gone right for the firm. It has found it nearly impossible to stretch beyond its legacy business to take advantage of the growth in the Internet and related web services.
As just one example, the firm's search engine Bing has chalked up $560 million in losses, despite its marketing agreement with Yahoo. Their deal was supposed to boost both firm's fortunes in the battle with Goggle. However, the 10-year agreement seems to be sapping the company's energy and its cash horde.
In its latest quarterly earnings report, Microsoft highlighted its sole product winner outside its software: Xbox games and subscriptions. That division posted a 55 percent revenue gain.
Other departments in the company did not fare as well, including the golden goose, Windows operating systems. Revenues were down 30 percent. That should sound alarm bells for shareholders, although the company tried to tamp down disappointment by pawning off the poor results on an adjustment for Windows 7 upgrade coupons. Whatever.
Microsoft missed the music boom with Zune, which was trounced by Apple's Ipod. While Apple boldly pushed into mobile phones and operating systems, Microsoft couldn't make up its mind how to enter the market. In today's sizzling tablet computer segment, Microsoft has no entry and no prospects. What makes this so damning is the company was first to market a tablet PC in 2001, yet bungled the features, design and marketing.
In the Internet browser wars, Microsoft is the current market leader with its Explorer, but its share has been slowly eroded over the years. Mozilla's Firefox is in second place and gaining ground. Goggle's Chrome and Apple's Safari are threatening to become bigger players. Microsoft's lead is in jeopardy.
Of course, Microsoft's mother of all failures was its much ballyhooed Vista product. Hailed as a breakthrough operating system, Vista bombed in the market. The poorly conceived system was a glitch nightmare that was delivered three years late. After a lukewarm market reception, Vista morphed into Windows 7.
Failure hasn't stopped Microsoft from chasing markets in hopes of catching up with the competition. With much fanfare, Microsoft recently signaled that it has set its sights on becoming the premier developer of apps for smartphones. The giggles on Wall Street surely could be heard all the way in Redmond.
Apple currently has a stranglehold on the app market with a 82.7 percent global share. Research In Motion (RIM) is a distant second with 7.7 percent share. Microsoft's market share doesn't even rise to a single percentage point.
With CEO Steve Ballmer steering the Microsoft ship, this has become an all too familiar theme. The bigger the promise the larger the disappointment. Under Ballmer, uneven execution, marketing malaise and lack of innovation have tarnished its reputation.
Microsoft is a once great company that has mortgaged its future with one costly blunder after another. Perhaps, as Apple did, it is time for Microsoft to recall its founder to restore its lustre. Now that he is no longer the world's richest man, Bill Gates might find drawing a chief executive's paycheck will help both he and Microsoft regain their No. 1 status.
Wednesday, March 16, 2011
Sunday, March 13, 2011
Social Media Scoops Network TV Coverage
In the midst of the tumultuous unrest in Egypt, millions of people around the world turned to social media to follow the fast moving news developments. They tracked the unfolding drama on a host of Internet sites offering often dramatic original coverage not found in traditional news media.
Social media also played a key role in fueling the simmering revolt. As one Cairo activist recounted, "We use Facebook to schedule the protests, Twitter to coordinate, and YouTube to tell the world."
This same theme has been repeated in recent weeks as budding revolutions have sprung up throughout the Middle East. Not too many years ago, the mainstream news media, particularly U. S. network television, would have dominated coverage of the events because of its immediacy and pervasiveness.
However, mainstream television has lost most of its edge in those two critical areas. Social media is far more accessible, a blending of technology and human interaction, that stretches as far as the reach of the Internet's global tentacles.
The range of social media is only eclipsed by its burgeoning mass appeal. Social media usage increased a staggering 100 percent in 2010. As one measure of this tidal wave, social media now accounts for 22 percent of the time people spend online and its growing.
As far as immediacy, social networking has virtually millions of news correspondents armed with mobile phones and video cameras who are disseminating photos, news and commentary instantaneously as events unfold. Even with all its millions of dollars in high-tech equipment and human resources, the bloated network television news bureaus are often scooped by social media.
For instance, during the Egyptian crisis, the hidebound news organizations often ran amateur video of protests or quoted commentary posted on Twitter because their own camera people and correspondents could not keep pace with the fast breaking events. Walter Cronkite must be doing somersaults in his grave.
The bureaucratic organizations of network television outlets hamstring their ability to move as quickly as breaking events. In contrast to the traditional media's centralized production and dissemination model, social media's decentralization allows it to reach the masses faster with fresher content.
Yet most in the mainstream media look down their pointy noses at social media. The network news moguls sniff and scold social media for being unprofessional, inaccurate, biased and dishonest. The problem is those same things have been documented about today's mainstream media.
Reporters and editors in recent years have been fired at the New York Times, Washington Post and USA Today for duping readers with fabricated stories. Network television has been prone to the same kind of shabby reporting, but usually glosses over its mistakes rather than offering a public airing of its dirty laundry.
If you need further proof of social media's rise as a news source, the devastating earthquake and tsunami in Japan provide clear evidence. Some of the most compelling video footage that has surfaced was captured on mobile phones by ordinary citizens, running rings around that country's vibrant television news industry.
The future looks even brighter for social media. Internet forums, web blogs, interactive networks, podcasts and other forms of social media are multiplying daily. In stark contrast, the lumbering American television networks are shrinking as they reduce force, lower operating costs and trim the amount of air time devoted to news.
As a result, the gap between social media and mainstream media will continue to widen. That means millions more people will increasingly rely on social media, such as Facebook, Twitter, YouTube, My Space and others, for their news. If current trends continue, it will doom television network news to irrelevance.
Social media also played a key role in fueling the simmering revolt. As one Cairo activist recounted, "We use Facebook to schedule the protests, Twitter to coordinate, and YouTube to tell the world."
This same theme has been repeated in recent weeks as budding revolutions have sprung up throughout the Middle East. Not too many years ago, the mainstream news media, particularly U. S. network television, would have dominated coverage of the events because of its immediacy and pervasiveness.
However, mainstream television has lost most of its edge in those two critical areas. Social media is far more accessible, a blending of technology and human interaction, that stretches as far as the reach of the Internet's global tentacles.
The range of social media is only eclipsed by its burgeoning mass appeal. Social media usage increased a staggering 100 percent in 2010. As one measure of this tidal wave, social media now accounts for 22 percent of the time people spend online and its growing.
As far as immediacy, social networking has virtually millions of news correspondents armed with mobile phones and video cameras who are disseminating photos, news and commentary instantaneously as events unfold. Even with all its millions of dollars in high-tech equipment and human resources, the bloated network television news bureaus are often scooped by social media.
For instance, during the Egyptian crisis, the hidebound news organizations often ran amateur video of protests or quoted commentary posted on Twitter because their own camera people and correspondents could not keep pace with the fast breaking events. Walter Cronkite must be doing somersaults in his grave.
The bureaucratic organizations of network television outlets hamstring their ability to move as quickly as breaking events. In contrast to the traditional media's centralized production and dissemination model, social media's decentralization allows it to reach the masses faster with fresher content.
Yet most in the mainstream media look down their pointy noses at social media. The network news moguls sniff and scold social media for being unprofessional, inaccurate, biased and dishonest. The problem is those same things have been documented about today's mainstream media.
Reporters and editors in recent years have been fired at the New York Times, Washington Post and USA Today for duping readers with fabricated stories. Network television has been prone to the same kind of shabby reporting, but usually glosses over its mistakes rather than offering a public airing of its dirty laundry.
If you need further proof of social media's rise as a news source, the devastating earthquake and tsunami in Japan provide clear evidence. Some of the most compelling video footage that has surfaced was captured on mobile phones by ordinary citizens, running rings around that country's vibrant television news industry.
The future looks even brighter for social media. Internet forums, web blogs, interactive networks, podcasts and other forms of social media are multiplying daily. In stark contrast, the lumbering American television networks are shrinking as they reduce force, lower operating costs and trim the amount of air time devoted to news.
As a result, the gap between social media and mainstream media will continue to widen. That means millions more people will increasingly rely on social media, such as Facebook, Twitter, YouTube, My Space and others, for their news. If current trends continue, it will doom television network news to irrelevance.
Wednesday, March 9, 2011
Factoids That You Can Use
Public employee unions have unleashed a flurry of protests to parry efforts by some states to restrict collective bargaining in an attempt to close yawning deficits. While the union bosses are focused on this front, states and municipalities continue to erode the union's power by reducing payrolls, which will have a more profound impact. For example, in February government payrolls shrunk by 30,000 people, including 12,000 state workers and 18,000 local government employees. States and localities have shaved an astounding 459,000 government jobs since public employment peaked in 2008. Those kind of steep reductions will reduce the total amount of dues paid by workers, crimping the union's ability to dole out millions of dollars in campaign contributions to their shills in the Democratic Party. Not surprisingly, while states and cities are trimming payrolls, the federal government is going in the opposite direction. Since the recession began, the feds have added 99,000 people.
Sunday, March 6, 2011
American Foreign Policy Naivete
From Egypt to Tunisia and across the Middle East, uprisings that have toppled authoritarian governments have been cheered by the Obama Administration as a sign that democracy is taking root in that area of the world.
This assessment by the President and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton tragically underscores their own naivete as well as the failure of the administration's foreign policy to deal with reality.
Here is a reality check for the President and Secretary Clinton. There are only two real democracies in the Middle East. One is Israel. The other is Iraq, where thousands of U.S. troops still maintain a presence to protect this fragile democracy.
If history is any lesson, when authoritarian governments are toppled in the Middle East, after a brief flirtation with democracy the power vacuum is quickly filled by often worst despots. Exhibit A is Iran. When the Shah of Iran was disposed in 1978 by the Iranian Revolution, a new Islamic form of government was ushered in. With the election of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad in 2005, Iran has withdrawn from the world and imposed increasingly harsh restrictions on free expression and dissent.
A far worse example of Mideast unrest gone haywire is what's happened in Lebanon. After the same kind of popular demonstrations several years ago, Lebanon leader Saad Hariri was forced to form a coalition government with the terrorist group, Hezbollah. That uneasy power sharing agreement ended in January when Hezbollah seized power and ousted Hariri.
The current protests sweeping the Middle East are no coincidence, despite the president's claims to the contrary. He and his policy makers believe the wave of unrest has been the result of a domino effect that began in Egypt and has awakened democratic populists in other countries. Those who subscribe to this theory surely also believe in the Tooth Fairy.
There are sinister forces at work behind the scenes. For example, there is no question the Muslim Brotherhood was at the least a player in the campaign to topple Hosni Mubarak in Egypt. In Yemen, protest are continuing against pro-American president Ali Abdul, who has battled Muslim rebels intent on removing him from office. No question Hamas and Hezbollah have both been surreptitiously organizing throughout the Middle East, including in countries now rocked with turmoil.
What these groups have in common is they want to establish a Muslim theocracy in their countries, governed by religious leaders, who do not recognize Israel's right to exist. That is the government template Iran uses today.
Therefore, it is naive at best to suggest that democracy is on the minds of those taking part in opposition protests. The flag-waving people in the streets may want something they call freedom, but it is not an open and robust democracy modeled after the United States.
Beyond the naivete, the Obama Administration has also shown it is ill prepared to deal with fast-breaking world events. The President dallied once protests heated up in Egypt. He couldn't make up his mind which side he supported until the inevitable outcome became apparent. Then he switched sides and left Mubarak dangling.
By comparison, the president refused to back the popular uprising in Iran in 2009. Back then he called on parities to resolve their issues through political debate, dooming the opposition's reform campaign to certain death. Apparently, Obama prefers Ahamadinejad to Mubarak.
Throughout the Middle East, the administration has also sent an unintended message to our allies. Our friends cannot count on the president's backing. Decades worth of military support and generous foreign aid will dry up at the first sign of trouble.
This cut and run strategy may seem appropriate to liberal policy makers because in most cases our Middle East allies have been sheiks or dictators who abuse their power. However, other U.S. supporters in the region will notice that our allegiance counts for next to nothing. Why should our allies risk backing the U.S. when they know that we will take our guns and money and flee at the first sign of protest?
We can't have it both ways. Backing undemocratic regimes makes the U.S. appear too willing to compromise our values. But far worse is running away from our allies, no matter how shabby. This strategy will leave our country friendless in a world increasingly populated by enemies who want to destroy us.
This assessment by the President and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton tragically underscores their own naivete as well as the failure of the administration's foreign policy to deal with reality.
Here is a reality check for the President and Secretary Clinton. There are only two real democracies in the Middle East. One is Israel. The other is Iraq, where thousands of U.S. troops still maintain a presence to protect this fragile democracy.
If history is any lesson, when authoritarian governments are toppled in the Middle East, after a brief flirtation with democracy the power vacuum is quickly filled by often worst despots. Exhibit A is Iran. When the Shah of Iran was disposed in 1978 by the Iranian Revolution, a new Islamic form of government was ushered in. With the election of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad in 2005, Iran has withdrawn from the world and imposed increasingly harsh restrictions on free expression and dissent.
A far worse example of Mideast unrest gone haywire is what's happened in Lebanon. After the same kind of popular demonstrations several years ago, Lebanon leader Saad Hariri was forced to form a coalition government with the terrorist group, Hezbollah. That uneasy power sharing agreement ended in January when Hezbollah seized power and ousted Hariri.
The current protests sweeping the Middle East are no coincidence, despite the president's claims to the contrary. He and his policy makers believe the wave of unrest has been the result of a domino effect that began in Egypt and has awakened democratic populists in other countries. Those who subscribe to this theory surely also believe in the Tooth Fairy.
There are sinister forces at work behind the scenes. For example, there is no question the Muslim Brotherhood was at the least a player in the campaign to topple Hosni Mubarak in Egypt. In Yemen, protest are continuing against pro-American president Ali Abdul, who has battled Muslim rebels intent on removing him from office. No question Hamas and Hezbollah have both been surreptitiously organizing throughout the Middle East, including in countries now rocked with turmoil.
What these groups have in common is they want to establish a Muslim theocracy in their countries, governed by religious leaders, who do not recognize Israel's right to exist. That is the government template Iran uses today.
Therefore, it is naive at best to suggest that democracy is on the minds of those taking part in opposition protests. The flag-waving people in the streets may want something they call freedom, but it is not an open and robust democracy modeled after the United States.
Beyond the naivete, the Obama Administration has also shown it is ill prepared to deal with fast-breaking world events. The President dallied once protests heated up in Egypt. He couldn't make up his mind which side he supported until the inevitable outcome became apparent. Then he switched sides and left Mubarak dangling.
By comparison, the president refused to back the popular uprising in Iran in 2009. Back then he called on parities to resolve their issues through political debate, dooming the opposition's reform campaign to certain death. Apparently, Obama prefers Ahamadinejad to Mubarak.
Throughout the Middle East, the administration has also sent an unintended message to our allies. Our friends cannot count on the president's backing. Decades worth of military support and generous foreign aid will dry up at the first sign of trouble.
This cut and run strategy may seem appropriate to liberal policy makers because in most cases our Middle East allies have been sheiks or dictators who abuse their power. However, other U.S. supporters in the region will notice that our allegiance counts for next to nothing. Why should our allies risk backing the U.S. when they know that we will take our guns and money and flee at the first sign of protest?
We can't have it both ways. Backing undemocratic regimes makes the U.S. appear too willing to compromise our values. But far worse is running away from our allies, no matter how shabby. This strategy will leave our country friendless in a world increasingly populated by enemies who want to destroy us.
Saturday, March 5, 2011
Don't Be Fooled By Jobless Numbers
Once again the mainstream media is trumpeting jobless numbers that show the economy picked up steam last month, making Democrats practically giddy. However, as with previous figures released by the Labor Department, the data falls woefully short of painting a true picture of the nation's employment.
In the latest figures, the bureau pegged unemployment at 8.9 percent in February. That was down from 9.0 percent in January and marked the most favorable reading since April of 2009. Democrats and their surrogates on Wall Street and in academia pointed to the numbers as proof the economy is roaring back.
White House economist Austan Goolsbee had the audacity to claim the government authored jobs report offered proof that President Obama's policies were working to revive the moribund economy.
Not so fast. As this scribe has pointed out before, the government's Labor Department uses outdated methodology to calculate its monthly numbers. This skews the data rendering it practically useless in determining the real unemployment situation.
The independent Gallup polling organization's unemployment data offers a more sobering assessment of the nation's economy. The pollster's data pegged unemployment at 10 percent in mid-February. (Note: Gallup figures for the end of February have not been released.) Gallup's January unemployment number was 9.8 percent. Clearly, unemployment is not improving as the government contends.
But that's not even the worst news. Underemployment has soared to a whopping 19.6 percent. This statistic combines unemployment with the number of part-time workers who want full-time employment.
In its report on the economy, Gallup had this somber warning. "Jobs remain the key to getting the U.S. economy moving, and mid-February underemployment results suggest little or no progress is being made in that regard," the report concluded.
Even the Labor Department's monthly summary contained troubling news. Buried in the otherwise glowing account was this nugget: the participation rate in the labor force is stuck at its lowest point since the mid-1980's.For those unfamiliar with the participation rate, this key barometer measures the percentage of adults who have jobs or are seeking them. In February, the bureau estimated the labor force participation rate was 64.2 percent.
There is another way to look at this number. In the current economy, about 25.8 percent of adults are either not working or not trying to find a job. Even the President's hand-picked economist Goolsbee would find it difficult to gloss over this finding.
It is time for the administration to level with Americans on the economy. Despite trillions in bailouts, stimulus spending and worthless earmarks, the American economic engine remains stalled.
Obama-nomics have been an utter failure. If America is to regain its economic footing, Republicans must chart a new course designed to rev-up the engine of prosperity, which will lead to real job growth.
In the latest figures, the bureau pegged unemployment at 8.9 percent in February. That was down from 9.0 percent in January and marked the most favorable reading since April of 2009. Democrats and their surrogates on Wall Street and in academia pointed to the numbers as proof the economy is roaring back.
White House economist Austan Goolsbee had the audacity to claim the government authored jobs report offered proof that President Obama's policies were working to revive the moribund economy.
Not so fast. As this scribe has pointed out before, the government's Labor Department uses outdated methodology to calculate its monthly numbers. This skews the data rendering it practically useless in determining the real unemployment situation.
The independent Gallup polling organization's unemployment data offers a more sobering assessment of the nation's economy. The pollster's data pegged unemployment at 10 percent in mid-February. (Note: Gallup figures for the end of February have not been released.) Gallup's January unemployment number was 9.8 percent. Clearly, unemployment is not improving as the government contends.
But that's not even the worst news. Underemployment has soared to a whopping 19.6 percent. This statistic combines unemployment with the number of part-time workers who want full-time employment.
In its report on the economy, Gallup had this somber warning. "Jobs remain the key to getting the U.S. economy moving, and mid-February underemployment results suggest little or no progress is being made in that regard," the report concluded.
Even the Labor Department's monthly summary contained troubling news. Buried in the otherwise glowing account was this nugget: the participation rate in the labor force is stuck at its lowest point since the mid-1980's.For those unfamiliar with the participation rate, this key barometer measures the percentage of adults who have jobs or are seeking them. In February, the bureau estimated the labor force participation rate was 64.2 percent.
There is another way to look at this number. In the current economy, about 25.8 percent of adults are either not working or not trying to find a job. Even the President's hand-picked economist Goolsbee would find it difficult to gloss over this finding.
It is time for the administration to level with Americans on the economy. Despite trillions in bailouts, stimulus spending and worthless earmarks, the American economic engine remains stalled.
Obama-nomics have been an utter failure. If America is to regain its economic footing, Republicans must chart a new course designed to rev-up the engine of prosperity, which will lead to real job growth.
Thursday, March 3, 2011
Budget Battle: Dems Set Traps
With each continuing federal budget resolution, the Democrats and Republicans are inching closer to an unavoidable political Armageddon that will determine how serious both sides are about slicing the balooning national deficit.
Democrats are spoiling for a showdown that will result in the Republicans forcing a government shutdown. Nothing would please Democrats more. They believe the move would backfire on Republicans, leading to a public outcry that would compel the opposition to scrap its efforts to shave billions from the federal budget.
Democrats have history on their side. The last time this happened under President Clinton the Republicans took a beating in the media, which forced an epic retreat while handing the Democrats a political victory.
In any budget showdown, the Democrats hold the magic bullet. As a result of a budget impasse, the administration gets to pick and choose which federal programs will be suspended or slow-tracked until a budget agreement is reached. Under Clinton, the list included national parks, veteran benefits' payments and Social Security checks. Democrats were determined to select the most popular programs and turn off the spigot to deal maximum pain across the body politic.
Even as this is written, Democrats are laying the groundwork for a budget standoff. One Democrat after another has been trotted out to the lapdog media to complain about Draconian budget cuts that will hamper the (non-existent) economic recovery. Included in their statements has been the implicit warning that Republicans want government to grind to a halt to punish America's downtrodden and dependent.
As expected, media reporting of this issue has been one-sided. Story after story has appeared quoting so-called experts about how the cuts will gut clearly beneficial programs. The latest is media coverage on the Republicans' planned cuts in scientific research, which Democrats purport will undermine economic recovery. This falsely assumes the current budget level is appropriate, which the media has no interest in examining.
However, the media has left out one important fact in this budget debate over billions of dollars in government programs. The current standoff would not even be possible, if the overwhelmingly Democrat controlled Congress would have done its job and approved a 2011 budget last year. It was a colossal failure in leadership on the part of Speaker Nancy Pelosi and President Obama. However, the media would never point out the obvious because it remains solid in the Democratic camp.
The dirty little secret is that Democrats wanted no part of approving a budget last year. With voter anger boiling over mounting deficits, Pelosi and Obama dared not unveil a budget that continued the massive spending binge. The pair wanted to get past the elections before showing their cards on the budget. Their strategy obviously backfired because the Democrats suffered huge losses in the mid-term elections despite punting the budget issue into 2011.
Democrats should be made to pay for their shameless political maneuver. Republicans should begin highlighting the Democrats' failure to do its job last year has created this budget mess. There would be no prospect of a government shutdown without the complicity of Democrats. GOP leaders have to underscore that point in every utterance on the budget, placing clear blame at the collective feet of Pelosi and Obama.
In addition, Republicans should be prepared to face a favorite Democrat budget ploy of hauling poor people, handicapped and seniors before the television cameras to weep on cue over planned GOP budget cuts. Its coming as soon as the Republicans shape their final budget.
To beat the Democrats to the punch, the GOP should begin hosting forums of small business people, economists and middle class citizens, highlighting how the current deficits are undercutting the economic recovery. They must get out ahead of this issue because the media will fall in line with Democrats once they unleash their publicity campaign.
Democrats have one other trick up their silk suit sleeves. President Obama has avoided sending a budget to Congress because he wants Republicans to be the first to make a run at cutting entitlement programs. Even the president's own bi-partisan deficit reduction panel recommended slashing the entitlements.
However, expect the president to develop amnesia on this one. Once the GOP does the heavy lifting and begins trimming entitlements such as Social Security, the President will squeal that the cuts will hurt seniors. This will allow him to make saving entitlements a theme of his reelection campaign.
That's why Republicans should insist that the President weigh in on entitlements before the final budget vote. Otherwise, he will get a pass on an issue sure to inflame voter passions on both sides of the debate.
Republicans must avoid the Democrat's clever traps and get this right. Nothing less than the economic security of the country depends on it.
Democrats are spoiling for a showdown that will result in the Republicans forcing a government shutdown. Nothing would please Democrats more. They believe the move would backfire on Republicans, leading to a public outcry that would compel the opposition to scrap its efforts to shave billions from the federal budget.
Democrats have history on their side. The last time this happened under President Clinton the Republicans took a beating in the media, which forced an epic retreat while handing the Democrats a political victory.
In any budget showdown, the Democrats hold the magic bullet. As a result of a budget impasse, the administration gets to pick and choose which federal programs will be suspended or slow-tracked until a budget agreement is reached. Under Clinton, the list included national parks, veteran benefits' payments and Social Security checks. Democrats were determined to select the most popular programs and turn off the spigot to deal maximum pain across the body politic.
Even as this is written, Democrats are laying the groundwork for a budget standoff. One Democrat after another has been trotted out to the lapdog media to complain about Draconian budget cuts that will hamper the (non-existent) economic recovery. Included in their statements has been the implicit warning that Republicans want government to grind to a halt to punish America's downtrodden and dependent.
As expected, media reporting of this issue has been one-sided. Story after story has appeared quoting so-called experts about how the cuts will gut clearly beneficial programs. The latest is media coverage on the Republicans' planned cuts in scientific research, which Democrats purport will undermine economic recovery. This falsely assumes the current budget level is appropriate, which the media has no interest in examining.
However, the media has left out one important fact in this budget debate over billions of dollars in government programs. The current standoff would not even be possible, if the overwhelmingly Democrat controlled Congress would have done its job and approved a 2011 budget last year. It was a colossal failure in leadership on the part of Speaker Nancy Pelosi and President Obama. However, the media would never point out the obvious because it remains solid in the Democratic camp.
The dirty little secret is that Democrats wanted no part of approving a budget last year. With voter anger boiling over mounting deficits, Pelosi and Obama dared not unveil a budget that continued the massive spending binge. The pair wanted to get past the elections before showing their cards on the budget. Their strategy obviously backfired because the Democrats suffered huge losses in the mid-term elections despite punting the budget issue into 2011.
Democrats should be made to pay for their shameless political maneuver. Republicans should begin highlighting the Democrats' failure to do its job last year has created this budget mess. There would be no prospect of a government shutdown without the complicity of Democrats. GOP leaders have to underscore that point in every utterance on the budget, placing clear blame at the collective feet of Pelosi and Obama.
In addition, Republicans should be prepared to face a favorite Democrat budget ploy of hauling poor people, handicapped and seniors before the television cameras to weep on cue over planned GOP budget cuts. Its coming as soon as the Republicans shape their final budget.
To beat the Democrats to the punch, the GOP should begin hosting forums of small business people, economists and middle class citizens, highlighting how the current deficits are undercutting the economic recovery. They must get out ahead of this issue because the media will fall in line with Democrats once they unleash their publicity campaign.
Democrats have one other trick up their silk suit sleeves. President Obama has avoided sending a budget to Congress because he wants Republicans to be the first to make a run at cutting entitlement programs. Even the president's own bi-partisan deficit reduction panel recommended slashing the entitlements.
However, expect the president to develop amnesia on this one. Once the GOP does the heavy lifting and begins trimming entitlements such as Social Security, the President will squeal that the cuts will hurt seniors. This will allow him to make saving entitlements a theme of his reelection campaign.
That's why Republicans should insist that the President weigh in on entitlements before the final budget vote. Otherwise, he will get a pass on an issue sure to inflame voter passions on both sides of the debate.
Republicans must avoid the Democrat's clever traps and get this right. Nothing less than the economic security of the country depends on it.
Tuesday, February 1, 2011
Obama Care's Unhealthy Outlook
While President Obama licks his wounds after a stinging defeat for his health care scheme, Republicans must avoid being lulled into complacency. The GOP should move with haste to dismantle the legislation, capitalizing on the momentum from the district court opinion.
In the event you have been locked in your basement, a federal judge in Florida dealt a mortal blow to the President's ill fated health care overhaul, declaring it unconstitutional. That means the law cannot be implemented unless the court's decision is overturned or the Obama government obtains an injunction.
The decision was the second court ruling to go against the President. Two other district court judges sided with the administration, rejecting challenges aimed at overturning the law's provision that mandates every American obtain health care coverage.
However, this latest ruling trumps the other decisions because it strikes down the law on the basis of constitutionality. It is a devastating blow to the President, who had hoped to be able to withstand Republican efforts aimed at undoing his dream.
Expect the President and his willing accomplices in the Senate and the media to mount a desperate full court press to save Obama Care. They will trot out doctors and patients who will vouch that the end of health care reform will led to greedy insurance companies denying coverage to millions of Americans.
In addition, Harry Reid and his minions in the Senate will try to use hearings to showcase the reasons for keeping health reform. For his part, the President will employ executive fiat to institutionalize the most popular features of health reform in an attempt to force Republicans to "take away" benefits from Americans.
Amidst this political maneuvering, the always unreliable media will ignore a larger issue that could doom health care reform and further embolden Republicans. It goes to the heart of the health care debate.
In recent weeks, the Congressional Budget Office said repealing Obama Care would increase the deficit by $230 billion over the coming decade. The President and his party of "No Spending Is Too Good To Pass Up" bandied the CBO numbers, which were dutifully reported by the compliant media.
However, no media coverage has been accorded a contrary view, issued by three former CBO executives, Douglas Holtz-Eakin, Joseph Antos and James C. Capretta. The trio accused the CBO of arriving at its numbers by using "budget gimmicks, deceptive accounting and implausible assumptions."
In fact, they went further, predicting about 15 percent of the nation's hospitals would stop seeing Medicare patients in just a few years as a result of the law's implementation. As more provisions of Obama Care are unfurled, the health care system would face mounting solvency issues, according to the former execs' forecast.
With the latest federal court ruling and the exposure of the CBO's bogus accounting, Republicans should unleash an expanded effort to gut Obama Care.
On tap first should be the introduction of legislation in the Senate to rescind Obama Care. Republicans should resort to whatever procedural tactics are needed to force a recalcitrant Reid to allow a vote on the measure.
Then the Republicans need to demand that the Attorney General enforce the federal judge's ruling, preventing the Health and Human Services Department from implementing any provisions of the reform.
If the Attorney General refuses, then Republicans must demand his resignation and call on the President to obey the law and abide by the constitution. This would force a constitutional crisis, leaving the president few options. Of course, Obama could hope the U.S. Supreme Court would side with the administration, but he knows that outcome is remote.
Republicans beware. Americans are watching. Now is the time to end the facade of Obama's health care reform by assigning it to the trash bin of history.
In the event you have been locked in your basement, a federal judge in Florida dealt a mortal blow to the President's ill fated health care overhaul, declaring it unconstitutional. That means the law cannot be implemented unless the court's decision is overturned or the Obama government obtains an injunction.
The decision was the second court ruling to go against the President. Two other district court judges sided with the administration, rejecting challenges aimed at overturning the law's provision that mandates every American obtain health care coverage.
However, this latest ruling trumps the other decisions because it strikes down the law on the basis of constitutionality. It is a devastating blow to the President, who had hoped to be able to withstand Republican efforts aimed at undoing his dream.
Expect the President and his willing accomplices in the Senate and the media to mount a desperate full court press to save Obama Care. They will trot out doctors and patients who will vouch that the end of health care reform will led to greedy insurance companies denying coverage to millions of Americans.
In addition, Harry Reid and his minions in the Senate will try to use hearings to showcase the reasons for keeping health reform. For his part, the President will employ executive fiat to institutionalize the most popular features of health reform in an attempt to force Republicans to "take away" benefits from Americans.
Amidst this political maneuvering, the always unreliable media will ignore a larger issue that could doom health care reform and further embolden Republicans. It goes to the heart of the health care debate.
In recent weeks, the Congressional Budget Office said repealing Obama Care would increase the deficit by $230 billion over the coming decade. The President and his party of "No Spending Is Too Good To Pass Up" bandied the CBO numbers, which were dutifully reported by the compliant media.
However, no media coverage has been accorded a contrary view, issued by three former CBO executives, Douglas Holtz-Eakin, Joseph Antos and James C. Capretta. The trio accused the CBO of arriving at its numbers by using "budget gimmicks, deceptive accounting and implausible assumptions."
In fact, they went further, predicting about 15 percent of the nation's hospitals would stop seeing Medicare patients in just a few years as a result of the law's implementation. As more provisions of Obama Care are unfurled, the health care system would face mounting solvency issues, according to the former execs' forecast.
With the latest federal court ruling and the exposure of the CBO's bogus accounting, Republicans should unleash an expanded effort to gut Obama Care.
On tap first should be the introduction of legislation in the Senate to rescind Obama Care. Republicans should resort to whatever procedural tactics are needed to force a recalcitrant Reid to allow a vote on the measure.
Then the Republicans need to demand that the Attorney General enforce the federal judge's ruling, preventing the Health and Human Services Department from implementing any provisions of the reform.
If the Attorney General refuses, then Republicans must demand his resignation and call on the President to obey the law and abide by the constitution. This would force a constitutional crisis, leaving the president few options. Of course, Obama could hope the U.S. Supreme Court would side with the administration, but he knows that outcome is remote.
Republicans beware. Americans are watching. Now is the time to end the facade of Obama's health care reform by assigning it to the trash bin of history.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)