April 27, 2010
It's Official -- Higher Health Care Costs
Recently, the actuaries at the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS), the agency that runs the giant entitlement programs, released its analysis of the new health care law. The AP reports that "White House officials have repeatedly complained that such analyses have been too pessimistic and lowball the law's potential to achieve savings," but the official CMS analysis reinforces several of Heritage's predictions regarding Obamacare.
Some highlights of the CMS report:
-- Mandates Without Impact. Writes CMS, "For many individuals, the penalty amounts for not having insurance coverage were not sufficiently large to have a sizable impact on the coverage decision" (p. 7). Concerning employers, "the penalties would not be a substantial deterrent to dropping or forgoing coverage" (p. 7). So these provisions will do little to achieve their purpose (i.e., to encourage individuals to carry coverage and employers to offer it).
-- If You Like it, You May Still Lose It: CMS reports that about 14 million Americans will end up losing their current employer-sponsored coverage. Though many will instead receive coverage in the exchange, this shows that instead of encouraging employers to offer coverage, new law creates incentives to dump the responsibility of their employees' health care onto taxpayers.
-- Increase Medicare Solvency? Don't [Double] Count on It. Estimated savings for Medicare Part A would be substantial enough to extend the program's solvency to 2029 — under prior law, funds would be exhausted by 2017. However, CMS writes, "In practice, the improved HI financing cannot be simultaneously used to finance other Federal outlays (such as the coverage expansions) and to extend the trust fund…" (p. 9). Savings from Medicare will fund newly created programs — not reduce the program's future unfunded liabilities.
-- Medicare Savings (If They Occur) Mean Bad News for Seniors. Medicare hospital payments will grow at a slower rate than the cost of providing services, such that "… providers for whom Medicare constitutes a substantive portion of their business could find it difficult to remain profitable and, absent legislative intervention [think "doc fix"], might end their participation in the program (possibly jeopardizing access to care for beneficiaries)" (p. 10). As far as changes for Medicare Advantage enrollees, CMS reports that "new provisions will generally reduce MA rebates to plans and thereby result in less generous benefit packages … in 2017 … enrollment in MA plans will be lower by about 50 percent …" (p. 11).
-- New Federal Programs Born to Be Bailed Out. The CLASS Program will offer long-term care insurance, but enrollees will pay premiums (which are, by the way, counted as an offset to the overall cost of the bill) for five years before benefits are attainable. This program is doomed from the get-go: CMS reports that "… voluntary, unsubsidized, and non-underwritten insurance programs such as CLASS face a significant risk of failure as a result of adverse selection by participants … there is a very serious risk that the problem of adverse selection will make the CLASS program unsustainable" (p. 15).
-- Bending the Spending Curve UP? CMS reports that under new law, overall national health expenditures will increase by $311 billion. This is the net result of increases in coverage and decreased spending from reductions to Medicare and due to the excise tax on Cadillac insurance plans. Expect this figure to rise if Congress indefinitely postpones unsustainable Medicare cuts (again, think "doc fix") and yields to political pressure to ax the Cadillac tax, both of which will likely happen. Comparative Effectiveness may have a small effect on reducing the growth of health care costs, but, writes CMS, "We show a negligible financial impact over the next 10 years for the other provisions intended to help control future health care cost growth" (p. 13).
Bottom Line: A health care law that will be costly to taxpayers, burden businesses, and create more problems than it solves. Follow the side effects of Obamacare here.
RECENT ENTRIES
Congress Regulates Themselves Out of Coverage
Share Today's Side Effects Myspace Digg Linkdin
YouTube Kindle Flickr Support our work by becoming a member with your gift of $25 or more.
The Heritage Foundation 214 Massachusetts Avenue, NE Washington, DC 20002-4999 Call us at (202) 546-4400 Add morningbell@heritage.org to your address book
to ensure that you receive emails from us.
Tuesday, April 27, 2010
Fwd: It’s Official -- Higher Health Care Costs
Fwd: MRC Alert: CBS Again Focuses on Victims in Arizona: 'Many Feel the Sting of Racism in New Law'
A daily compilation edited by Brent H. Baker, CyberAlert items are drawn from daily BiasAlert posts and distributed by the Media Research Center's News Analysis Division, the leader since 1987 in documenting, exposing and neutralizing liberal media bias.
Tracking Liberal Media Bias Since 1996
Tuesday April 27, 2010 @ 08:58 AM EDT1. CBS Again Focuses on Victims in Arizona: 'Many Feel the Sting of Racism in New Law'
For the second consecutive weeknight, the CBS Evening News on Monday framed Arizona's new anti-illegal immigrant bill around the fears and charges of its supposed victims. With "ANGER & ANXIETY" on screen below video of signs hostile to the new law ("LAND OF THE FREE! REALLY?" and a Swastika sign with "Achtung! Papers Please"), Katie Couric teased: "Anger in Arizona against a new law allowing police to make you prove you're in the country legally" – followed by a man who impugned supporters: "They're just focusing on us because we're brown." Couric soon set up CBS's story by relaying how "opponents say it will lead to racial profiling." John Blackstone presented arguments in favor of the law, but delivered his story through the eyes of sympathetic, if misinformed, people who see themselves as victims.
2. Lauer Confronts AZ Sheriff Joe Arpaio: Will Tough Immigration Law Affect 'Image of Your State?'
NBC's Matt Lauer, on Monday's Today show, confronted Maricopa County, Arizona Sheriff Joe Arpaio with a cartoon that depicted a man being arrested for buying nachos, as the Today co-anchor pressed Arpaio about that state's enforcement of illegal immigration laws: "Are you worried that it affects the image of your state?" Throughout the interview Lauer peppered the sheriff with questions about "racial profiling" and "civil rights violations" and questioned if the new policy will "distract law enforcement" and "take valuable resources away from cracking down on more serious crimes."
3. ABC's Bill Weir to Sheriff Joe Arpaio: Will You 'Grab People on Street Corners?'
ABC's weekend coverage of a tough immigration bill in Arizona focused mostly on the anger and outrage against it, minimizing supporters of the legislation. Talking to Sheriff Joe Arpaio, a fierce critic of illegals, Good Morning America co-host Bill Weir on Sunday berated, "But with this new law, will you ramp it up?...Will you grab people on street corners? I mean, what will you do with this new law?"
4. ABC: 'Mostly Peaceful' Immigration Protests vs. 'Very Ugly' Tea Party Rallies
On Saturday's Good Morning America, reporter Mike Von Fremd downplayed the violence of protesters against Arizona's new immigration law. He spun, "Riot police were called in to try and control demonstrators protesting outside the capital. Most were peaceful. A handful threw bottles at police and were arrested." Yet, ABC derided March's Tea Party rallies as "very ugly."
5. 'Mostly Peacefully' Means 'Somewhat Violently' at the New York Times
NYT reporter Randal Archibold describes a demonstration involving advocates for illegal immigrants: "As hundreds of demonstrators massed, mostly peacefully, at the capitol plaza..." There were actually three arrests at the rally, two for assaults on police, and video clips show chaos and water bottles flying through the air. Can you imagine the coverage if this had been a Tea Party rally?
6. MSNBC News Flash: Arizona Law 'Makes it a Crime to be Illegal Immigrant'
During the Monday 12PM ET hour of live coverage on MSNBC, anchor Contessa Brewer described the "firestorm" over a newly passed immigration law in Arizona and fretted: "does this lead to a situation where neighbors are turning in neighbors or families turning against families?" Later in the segment, a headline on screen read: "Law Makes it a Crime to be Illegal Immigrant." Brewer later quoted current Homeland Security Secretary and former Arizona Governor Janet Napolitano: "she would veto these kinds of bills because she said – she thought it was important for police to be doing actual police work, that they are not immigration enforcement officers."
7. Matthews Urges James Cameron to Trash 'Dangerous' Global Warming Deniers in 'Right Wing Media'
Chris Matthews spent an entire segment of Monday's Hardball sucking up to director James Cameron as the MSNBC host prodded the "Avatar" director to trash those in the "right wing media" who deny global warming, like Glenn Beck, as "very dangerous to this country." Cameron, who was on to plug the DVD version (coming soon to a landfill near you) of his pro-greenie fantasy flick, warned the Earth was being imperiled by not only the United States but also a rising middle class in places like India and China, and urged viewers to combat the "professional deniers" like Beck who are thwarting his fight against the "clear and present danger" of climate change.
8. CBS's Smith: 'Will Anyone in GOP Break Ranks' on Financial Reform?
t the top of Monday's CBS Early Show, co-host Harry Smith referenced a possible Senate vote on the Democrats' financial reform bill and proclaimed: "Showdown in the Senate. Democrats are scrambling to get enough votes. Will anyone in the GOP break ranks?" It was just the latest example of a week of CBS coverage pressuring Republicans to sign on to the controversial legislation. n a later report, correspondent Nancy Cordes explained: "both parties say they are for reform and they are deep in negotiations over it....But without a deal, many, if not all, Senate Republicans plan to vote 'no' today, blocking a floor debate on the bill." A headline on screen read: "Financial Reform Showdown; Will Anyone in GOP Break Ranks?"
CBS Again Focuses on Victims in Arizona: 'Many Feel the Sting of Racism in New Law'
For the second consecutive weeknight, the CBS Evening News on Monday framed Arizona's new anti-illegal immigrant bill around the fears and charges of its supposed victims. With "ANGER & ANXIETY" on screen below video of signs hostile to the new law ("LAND OF THE FREE! REALLY?" and a Swastika sign with "Achtung! Papers Please"), Katie Couric teased: "Anger in Arizona against a new law allowing police to make you prove you're in the country legally" – followed by a man who impugned supporters: "They're just focusing on us because we're brown."
Couric soon set up CBS's story by relaying how "opponents say it will lead to racial profiling" as she didn't pass judgment on their vandalism when she reported "some of those opponents vandalized the state capitol building, smearing re-fried beans in the shape of swastikas on the windows." (Talk about fulfilling a stereotype)
John Blackstone presented arguments in favor of the law, but delivered his story through the eyes of sympathetic, if misinformed, people who see themselves as victims. "Kym Rivera brought her children to a demonstration today against Arizona's new immigration law. Her husband, born in El Salvador was sworn in as a citizen last October," but "she fears he'll become a suspect when police are searching for illegal immigrants under the new law." She baselessly asserted: "He worries he'll be asked to leave this country because he was not born here. That he'll be separated from his children, from his wife of 15 years."
Blackstoned moved on to "19-year-old Junior Perez," the same guy in the opening tease, who "has heard the assurances that the law is aimed only at illegal immigrants. He's not convinced," and, corroborating his fear, Blackstone insisted that "in a state where more than 30 percent of the population is Hispanic, many feel the sting of racism in the new law." Perez charged: "They're just focusing on us because we're brown. So, it's just devastating."
My BiasAlert item on Friday's CBS newscast, "CBS Frames Arizona's Anti-Illegal Alien Law Through Eyes of Opponents: 'Veto Racism,'" recounted:
From the Monday, April 26 CBS Evening News:Arizona's new law hardly earned a friendly reception Friday night from any of the network newscasts, but CBS went the furthest in presenting it from the perspective of its "victims" as anchor Katie Couric, over video of "Veto Racism" and "Stop the Hate" signs, teased: "Tonight, Arizona's controversial new immigration law. Police will now be able to make anyone they choose prove they're here illegally. It triggers demonstrations by both sides and a warning from President Obama." (Presumably, she meant "prove they're here legally.")
Reporter Bill Whitaker suddenly found wisdom in the Catholic Church, plastering "mean-spirited" on screen: "In Los Angeles, Cardinal Roger Mahony, head of the country's largest Catholic archdiocese, called the law 'mean-spirited' and compared it to Nazi repression. Today at a ceremony for new citizens, President Obama criticized Arizona's actions."
CBSNews.com online version of this story.KATIE COURIC: Turning now to Arizona's controversial new immigration law which empowers the police to stop and ask anyone for documents to prove they're in the country legally. Opponents say it will lead to racial profiling. Today, some of those opponents vandalized the state capitol building, smearing re-fried beans in the shape of swastikas on the windows. From Phoenix, here's John Blackstone.
JOHN BLACKSTONE: Kym Rivera brought her children to a demonstration today against Arizona's new immigration law. Her husband, born in El Salvador was sworn in as a citizen last October.
RIVERA: He became a citizen of the United States. That's their dream.
BLACKSTONE: But she fears he'll become a suspect when police are searching for illegal immigrants under the new law.
RIVERA: He worries he'll be asked to leave this country because he was not born here. That he'll be separated from his children, from his wife of 15 years. Why should my husband worry?
BLACKSTONE: He shouldn't worry, says Steve Montenegro, himself an immigrant from El Salvador and now a member of the state legislature. Montenegro voted for the controversial immigration law which he says opponents are distorting.
STATE REP STEVE MONTENEGRO: That it that it is a race issue, an anti-Hispanic and anti-immigrant bill and that couldn't be farther from the truth.
BLACKSTONE: What the bill does, he says, is give police another tool to fight crime that comes with the flood across the border.
MONTENEGRO: It's going crazy here and the federal government has time and again failed tremendously to protect itself citizens and secure the border.
BLACKSTONE: Arizona Senator John McCain echoed that when he responded to criticism of the state law in Washington.
SENATOR JOHN McCAIN ON SENATE FLOOR: If you don't like the bill, the legislation that the legislature passed and the governor signed in Arizona, then carry out the federal responsibilities which are to secure the border.
BLACKSTONE: 19-year-old Junior Perez has heard the assurances that the law is aimed only at illegal immigrants. He's not convinced.
JUNIOR PEREZ: If I'm a citizen or not, I'm always going to be Mexican.
BLACKSTONE: He is a citizen, born in Arizona. His parents legal immigrants from Mexico. In a state where more than 30 percent of the population is Hispanic, many feel the sting of racism in the new law.
PEREZ: They're just focusing on us because we're brown. So, it's just devastating.
BLACKSTONE: While opponents of the law promise to continue demonstrating, the battle moves into the court. Legal challenges will be based under the argument that under the Constitution only the federal government has the right to control immigration. John Blackstone, CBS News, Phoenix.
— Brent Baker is Vice President for Research and Publications at the Media Research Center. Click here to follow him on Twitter.
Lauer Confronts AZ Sheriff Joe Arpaio: Will Tough Immigration Law Affect 'Image of Your State?'
NBC's Matt Lauer, on Monday's Today show, confronted Maricopa County, Arizona Sheriff Joe Arpaio with a cartoon that depicted a man being arrested for buying nachos, as the Today co-anchor pressed Arpaio about that state's enforcement of illegal immigration laws: "Are you worried that it affects the image of your state?" Throughout the interview Lauer peppered the sheriff with questions about "racial profiling" and "civil rights violations" and questioned if the new policy will "distract law enforcement" and "take valuable resources away from cracking down on more serious crimes." [audio available here]
The following is a complete transcript of the segment at it was aired on the April 26 Today show:
MATT LAUER: Now to that controversial new law in Arizona that allows police to demand to see documentation from anyone they suspect to be in this country illegally. It's the toughest anti-immigration law ever. Thousands of protesters took to the streets in Phoenix on Sunday, arguing it amounts to racial profiling. And they called on President Obama to help overturn it. Joe Arpaio is the sheriff in Maricopa County, Arizona. He is known as America's toughest sheriff for his crackdowns on illegal immigration and petty crime. Sheriff Arpaio, it's good to see you. Good morning.—Geoffrey Dickens is the senior news analyst at the Media Research Center.
[On screen headline: "Border Patrol, Is Arizona Immigration Law Too Tough?"]
SHERIFF JOE ARPAIO: Thank you.
LAUER: Let, let me give you the results of a recent poll. 70 percent of those people asked said they are in favor of the tough new immigration bill but, get this, 53 percent of those same people said they worry that it could lead to civil rights violations. Are they worrying for nothing?
ARPAIO: Yeah. You know, 60 days into the Obama administration, he sent his Justice Department down to the Phoenix area to investigate me for alleged racial profiling. It's been a year-and-a-half and nothing has happened. So, we know how to enforce the illegal immigration laws without racial profiling.
LAUER: Well you know, but this law does demand, in some cases, that law enforcement officials do everything within their power to determine if someone is in this country illegally. Why won't that result in, in law enforcement officials walking up to people on the street, questioning them simply because of their appearance, because they appear to be Hispanic?
ARPAIO: Well, first of all, that's not going to happen. I know they, pursuant to their duties. They're not gonna go on a street corner and grab people because they look like they're from another country. We haven't been doing that for the past three years, and I know law enforcement officers will not do that. That's hype. Those are the critics. Some politicians use that as an excuse because they don't like law enforcement enforcing illegal immigration laws.
LAUER: Is it going to distract law enforcement, though, and take valuable resources away from cracking down on more serious crimes?
APRAIO: Well you know, we have a lot of 8,000 to 10,000 in jail. People booked into our jails. 50 percent are misdemeanors. So that's another fallacy where law enforcement and some politicians say that's going to affect their operations, they only go after violent criminals. Law enforcement goes after everybody that violates the law, or they should.
LAUER: Critics are having a field day with this, Sheriff Arpaio, as you know. Some are calling for a business boycott of the state of Arizona. The Homeland Security Secretary, used to be the governor of Arizona, says she doesn't like this, this bill. Editorial cartoons are making fun of it. Here's one where a guy goes up to a fast food counter and orders nachos and is immediately surrounded by police for probable cause. Are you worried that it affects the image of your state?
ARPAIO: No. I think more people will move here since when we raid private businesses and arrest illegal aliens working there with the majority with phony identification, we're making more job openings by getting rid of those that are here illegally and maybe people here that are legal will be able to find a job. We do have an economic problem across our nation, including the Phoenix area.
LAUER: Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio. Sheriff Arpaio thank you for joining us this morning. I appreciate it.
ARPAIO: Thank you.
ABC's Bill Weir to Sheriff Joe Arpaio: Will You 'Grab People on Street Corners?'
ABC's weekend coverage of a tough immigration bill in Arizona focused mostly on the anger and outrage against it, minimizing supporters of the legislation. Talking to Sheriff Joe Arpaio, a fierce critic of illegals, Good Morning America co-host Bill Weir on Sunday berated, "But with this new law, will you ramp it up?...Will you grab people on street corners? I mean, what will you do with this new law?" [Audio available here.]
He also challenged Arpaio about his own fight against illegal immigration and derided, "...How is it possible to enforce these sorts of laws without sweeping up innocent citizens in the process?"
On Saturday's GMA, reporter Mike Von Fremd filed a report on the law, which instructs the police to stop anyone suspected of being illegal. The segment featured Eleanor Pelta of the American Immigration Lawyers Association, President Obama and a Hispanic man from Arizona. All opposed the legislation. Only Governor Jan Brewer was highlighted in defense of the bill.
Von Fremd also described it as a "sweeping anti-immigration" law, rather than anti-illegal immigration.
On Friday's World News, ABC 's Von Fremd again featured Pelta, who mocked, "Well, certainly, [the bill] resonates of a 'let-me-see-your-papers' environment." At least on that day's program, the show also touted John McCain's support of cracking down on illegal immigration.
A segment by correspondent Clayton Sandell on Saturday's World News followed a similar pattern. He observed that the Bishop of Los Angeles assailed the legislation as "Nazism." Conservative senatorial candidate J.D. Hayworth appeared briefly in a clip, but the show mostly focused on liberal complaints, such as those of Obama and of Phoenix's Democratic Mayor Phil Gordon.
On Saturday's GMA, Weir talked to Gordon and wondered if the Mayor would even enforce the law: "But, if this is still hung up in a lawsuit in some form in August, what will you tell your police chief who is essentially under orders to enforce this?"
In fairness, he did twice press Gordon on what his "fix" for the problem was. Weir also pointed out, "And the supporters of this, they'll point to the fact that a rancher was murdered near the border by a suspected smuggler just last month. And there some 460,000 illegal immigrants in your state."
Clearly, however, ABC's initial coverage of the bill has been slanted towards those who angrily oppose the legislation, allowing those who support it to be portrayed as fringe.
A transcript of Weir's interview with Sheriff Joe Arpaio on the April 25 GMA, which aired at 8:34am EDT, follows:
BILL WEIR: Now, to the battle over the toughest illegal immigration law in the land. Last night saw another vigil to protest this new law in Arizona which gives police power to stop anyone suspicious, demand proof of citizenship. There were protests Friday. More expected today. But, one man who is solidly behind this sort of enforcement and used it to reach international renowned as America's toughest sheriff. Maricopa County's Joe Arpaio. He joins us from Phoenix. Sheriff, thanks for being with us. Good morning.—Scott Whitlock is a news analyst for the Media Research Center. Click here to follow him on Twitter.
SHERIFF JOE ARPAIO: Good morning.
WEIR: Good morning. The mayor of Phoenix was our guest here yesterday. And he says this law is going to drive a dangerous wedge between police and the lawful Hispanic citizens of your county. Here's what he had to say.
PHOENIX MAYOR PHIL GORDON: It's just hateful and spiteful and is going to make the state and city much less safe than safe.
WEIR: Your response?
JOE ARPAIO: Well, you know, he's been after me for three years. We've been enforcing the illegal immigration law with illegal immigration law. 38,000, we investigated and detained. No problems, except with the Justice Department. The mayor went to the Justice Department two years ago. They've launched an investigation against me and my officers about a year and a half ago. Nothing has happened on this alleged racial profile. So, they can talk and do everything they want. We're enforcing the laws, and I'm very comfortable with it.
WEIR: But, as you know, there have been several lawsuits, one in particular, Julio Mora, a U.S. citizen, and his father, a 30-year legal resident. They claim your deputies stopped them for no good reason, held them handcuffed for three hours. The merits of this particular case aside, how is it possible to enforce these sorts of laws without sweeping up innocent citizens in the process?
ARPAIO: I'm not going to comment on that law. It's a frivolous lawsuit. We'll see what happens. Our people are well trained. We act on reasonable suspicion. We act on probable cause and I'm very, very comfortable on how we operate and how law enforcement will operate under this new law.
WEIR: When we followed you over the years, you seemed to defend the actions of your officers, only pulling over speeders or those who violate traffic laws. You do have a lot of traffic stops. But with this new law, will you ramp it up? Will you- will you grab people on street corners? I mean, what will you do with this new law?
ARPAIO: Well, you know, we don't go on street corners and round up people and we won't do it under this new law, unless we have probable cause. We will continue our operations, nothing will change, we have been enforcing two other new state laws and federal laws. We're well trained. The Homeland Security trained 100 of my deputies. Of course, because of political reasons they took the authority away. But it doesn't matter. We've been training our deputies to enforce all of the federal and state illegal immigration laws.
ABC: 'Mostly Peaceful' Immigration Protests vs. 'Very Ugly' Tea Party Rallies
On Saturday's Good Morning America, reporter Mike Von Fremd downplayed the violence of protesters against Arizona's new immigration law. He spun, "Riot police were called in to try and control demonstrators protesting outside the capital. Most were peaceful. A handful threw bottles at police and were arrested." Yet, ABC derided March's Tea Party rallies as "very ugly," despite the fact that there were no arrests.
In contrast, on March 20, World News host David Muir scolded, "Protesters against the [health care] plan gathered on the streets of the capital where late today we learned words shouted turned very ugly, reports of racial and homophobic slurs, one protester actually spitting on a Congressman." Continuing to fret over those opposed the bill, he complained, "Late word from Washington tonight about just how ugly the crowds gathered outside the Longworth office building have become."
If Tea Party protesters had thrown bottles at members of Congress or police officers -- or anyone else, for that matter -- it seems unlikely that ABC would have described them as "mostly peaceful."
Over on NBC's Today show on Saturday, Telemundo's Jose Diaz Balart reported from the scene: "Tensions were high outside the Capitol. Four protesters were arrested." On CBS's Early Show, co-host Chris Wragge made only a quick reference to the protests: "On Friday, there were protests against the bill outside the state capitol in Phoenix."
—Scott Whitlock is a news analyst for the Media Research Center. Click here to follow him on Twitter.
'Mostly Peacefully' Means 'Somewhat Violently' at the New York Times
The New York Times sometimes takes its politically correct blandishments to humorous extremes, as in Randal Archibold's lead story Saturday, "Arizona Enacts Stringent Law On Immigration." Check the curious way Archibold referred to a protest against Arizona's new anti-immigration law:
As hundreds of demonstrators massed, mostly peacefully, at the capitol plaza, the governor, speaking at a state building a few miles away, said the law "represents another tool for our state to use as we work to solve a crisis we did not create and the federal government has refused to fix."
Achibold didn't go into why he felt obliged to include the modifier "mostly." For that, one had to check out a local report filed Friday night that included details the Times left out:
Three people were arrested during the immigration rally at the state capitol Friday afternoon.
Two were arrested after they were seen throwing water bottles at police, according to a news release from the Arizona Department of Public Safety, the state police agency.
Evidently, "mostly peacefully" means "somewhat violently" at the New York Times.
This local news clip is even more dramatic, showing a police officer being nailed with a water bottle, one of many hurled in the semi-chaotic "march" that the headline terms a "small riot."
It's interesting that, for all the Times' hand-wringing over how the Tea Party movement is potentially inspiring violent acts, there has evidently yet to be a single documented case of violence or arrest at any of the many Tea Party functions. Meanwhile, here are three actual arrests at a single medium-sized rally dominated by left-wingers, and the Times doesn't find the fact worth mentioning.
Archibold followed up on Sunday with a "Woman in the News" profile of Arizona Republican Gov. Jan Brewer, after signing Arizona's tough anti-immigration law: "An Unexpected Governor Takes an Unwavering Course."
One night last week, Grant Woods, the former state attorney general, spent more than an hour on the telephone with Gov. Jan Brewer, a fellow Republican who was considering whether to sign into law the nation's toughest immigration enforcement bill.
The governor listened patiently, Mr. Woods recalled, as he laid out his arguments against the bill: that it would give too much power to the local police to stop people merely suspected of being illegal immigrants and would lead to racial profiling; that some local police officers have been abusive toward immigrants; and that the law could lead to costly legal battles for the state.
When he hung up, Mr. Woods knew he had lost the case. "She really felt that the majority of Arizonans fall on the side of, Let's solve the problem and not worry about the Constitution," he said.
Archibold continued his labeling slant in his coverage of the Arizona legislation, painting proponents of the law as "conservatives" but calling liberal opponents more flattering terms like "civil rights groups."
Ms. Brewer said she had pushed for language that explicitly bars the police from racial profiling, though that failed to mollify civil rights groups who complained that Latino citizens would inevitably be harassed or mistaken for illegal immigrants.
....
He saw that in her decision on the tax increase and to an extent her decision to support the immigration bill, despite the negative attention from national civil rights, religious and immigrant advocacy leaders.
"She is in Arizona running for governor as Republican at a time when Republicans are being controlled by different, conservative factions," he said.
Mary Rose Wilcox, a Democrat who served with her on the Board of Supervisors, said she had warmed to Ms. Brewer when they worked together to improve services to the homeless and the mentally ill.
But, Ms. Wilcox said, political considerations were never far from her mind, and Ms. Brewer kept close score on who was supporting which piece of legislation. She has approved much of the socially conservative legislation, including abortion restrictions, promoted by the Center for Arizona Policy, a conservative research group.
You can follow Times Watch on Twitter.
MSNBC News Flash: Arizona Law 'Makes it a Crime to be Illegal Immigrant'
During the Monday 12PM ET hour of live coverage on MSNBC, anchor Contessa Brewer described the "firestorm" over a newly passed immigration law in Arizona and fretted: "does this lead to a situation where neighbors are turning in neighbors or families turning against families?" Later in the segment, a headline on screen read: "Law Makes it a Crime to be Illegal Immigrant."
Brewer discussed the issue with Democratic Congresswoman Loretta Sanchez and wondered: "Is this an effective way to deal with the problem?" In response, Sanchez declared: "to stop people and say, 'I think you look like an illegal immigrant' and then drag them off to jail is not the way to deal with this issue."
Brewer followed up by quoting current Homeland Security Secretary and former Arizona Governor Janet Napolitano: "she would veto these kinds of bills because she said – she thought it was important for police to be doing actual police work, that they are not immigration enforcement officers." As Brewer made that argument, the headline "Law Makes it a Crime to be Illegal Immigrant" flashed on screen.
Brewer later wondered about the political fallout: "It's forcing the President to address immigration policy. It's forcing Republicans and Democrats to wrangle with it. But what really is driving voters and emotion right now are jobs and the economy. Is this a bad issue politically at this time?" Sanchez replied: "I think this is a great issue politically at this time because, for the future in particular, the Hispanic community, which is a big immigrant community and which, of course, has some of the people who are with the least documents, correct documents, it is going to be the political force for the future in this country."
Here is a full transcript of the segment:
12:03PM—Kyle Drennen is a news analyst at the Media Research Center. You can follow him on Twitter here.
CONTESSA BREWER: And a political and legal firestorm brewing over Arizona's tough new immigration law. At least two Latino activist groups and the mayor of Phoenix are planning lawsuits, saying this could lead to racial profiling.
[ON-SCREEN HEADLINE: Papers Please; Firestorm Over AZ Immigration Law]
Some people are calling it unconstitutional. Among the key provisions in the law, a requirement for police to question anyone they suspect of being an illegal immigrant. And over the weekend, demonstrators staged massive protests against the law. The law also makes it a crime to knowingly conceal, harbor, or shield an illegal immigrant. Essentially, I mean the question is, does this lead to a situation where neighbors are turning in neighbors or families turning against families? California Congresswoman Loretta Sanchez joins me now. Okay, let's take your state, for instance, there is a huge influx of illegal immigrants up and down the coast of California. Is this an effective way to deal with the problem?
LORETTA SANCHEZ: No. Absolutely not. First of all, there are a lot of people in the United States that haven't come over a border. They've actually come and they've either overstayed their visa or they haven't been able to renew their work visa, and they're – or they're in limbo, they're waiting. So they're what we call 'out of status.' And there are a lot of people like this. But to go after them, to stop people and say, 'I think you look like an illegal immigrant' and then drag them off to jail is not the way to deal with this issue. The issue we need to do is to deal with it on a national basis. We need to have a good visa program so that we can let workers who need to come to our country, come here and work, and not worry about hiding some place. And we need to fortify our borders in the correct manner, so that we can let the people we want to come in and keep people from coming in that we don't want.
CONTESSA BREWER: Janet Napolitano says that she – when she was the governor of Arizona, she would veto these kinds of bills because she said – she thought it was important for police to be doing actual police work, that they are not immigration enforcement officers.
[ON-SCREEN HEADLINE: Law Makes it a Crime to be Illegal Immigrant]
SANCHEZ: Absolutely. I mean, there is so much work already at the local level. I mean, think about all the police cuts we've taken, just in this downturn in the economy. The rise of problems with, whether it's rapists, pedophiles, robberies, et cetera. Our local police should be worried about that and the thing that happens, is if a community that is an immigrant community, whether legal or not, thinks that its police force, it's local police force is going to come and drag its people away, they will stop cooperating with police in bringing out the criminals.
[ON-SCREEN HEADLINE: Law Requires Police to Question Immigration Status]
BREWER: I should mention the Arizona law makes a provision there and says that if law enforcement think that questioning someone about their immigration status would interfere with an investigation, well then, in that case, they don't have to do it. One more question, let me talk about the politics of this. It's forcing the President to address immigration policy. It's forcing Republicans and Democrats to wrangle with it. But what really is driving voters and emotion right now are jobs and the economy. Is this a bad issue politically at this time?
SANCHEZ: I think this is a great issue politically at this time because, for the future in particular, the Hispanic community, which is a big immigrant community and which, of course, has some of the people who are with the least documents, correct documents, it is going to be the political force for the future in this country. One out of every four Americans is now of Hispanic decent, and soon it will be even a larger population, and we make the difference. Especially in places like Arizona, so I think that to move in a good direction with respect to immigration reform is actually better for this country.
BREWER: Congresswoman Sanchez, it's always a pleasure when you come on. I appreciate your time.
SANCHEZ: Thank you so much, Contessa. Thank you.
Matthews Urges James Cameron to Trash 'Dangerous' Global Warming Deniers in 'Right Wing Media'
Chris Matthews spent an entire segment of Monday's Hardball sucking up to director James Cameron as the MSNBC host prodded the "Avatar" director to trash those in the "right wing media" who deny global warming, like Glenn Beck, as "very dangerous to this country." Cameron, who was on to plug the DVD version (coming soon to a landfill near you) of his pro-greenie fantasy flick, warned the Earth was being imperiled by not only the United States but also a rising middle class in places like India and China, and urged viewers to combat the "professional deniers" like Beck who are thwarting his fight against the "clear and present danger" of climate change. [audio available here]
CHRIS MATTHEWS: I'm worried about the media though. Because now we have a right wing media available. That if you feel like, if you're a business guy for example or a business woman and you want to have a good excuse, a good dodge not to do anything, well you listen to someone on the right like Beck who's willing to come in and say, "Oh you don't have to do anything. These guys are a bunch of tree huggers forget about it."The following is the full segment as it was aired on the April 26 Hardball:
JAMES CAMERON: Right. Yeah.
MATTHEWS: What do you think of Beck's power in that direction, to give people a big excuse slip not to do anything?
CAMERON: Well guys like, like Beck and others and I think we all know-
MATTHEWS: Are they dangerous?
CAMERON: I think they're very dangerous to this country. And I think some day they're gonna have to answer to my children and to your children and their children for the world that they're helping to create right now.
CHRIS MATTHEWS: Chances are if you've been to a movie in the past 20 years it was the work of James Cameron. Just to name a few: "The Terminator," "The Abyss," "True Lies," "Titanic," and now "Avatar." "Avatar is now the highest grossing movie of all-time, earning more than $2.7 billion worldwide and it's now out on DVD and Blu-Ray where it's also, just come out, and also broken all the world's records. James Cameron's concern about protecting the environment, which was such a big part of that movie, is evidenced in that film and it's also echoed in his life. Yesterday he spoke at the Earth Day rally here in Washington on the National Mall and I managed to catch up with him and hook him for the show. James Cameron.—Geoffrey Dickens is the senior news analyst at the Media Research Center.
JAMES CAMERON: Reporting for duty, sir.
MATTHEWS: No, no. I think what struck me about "Avatar" which everybody who's watched it has probably saw, was that there is a stake at some point the piggishness on this planet, the, the use of our resources just gets to the point where you gotta go out and get something else and go out and colonize some other world. Now maybe it's imagined in your movie but your feelings about that, that reality?
CAMERON: Well it's, it's a fantasy. I mean the film is a fantasy but, but it's about a very real reality which is our relationship with nature and how we have, we have this kind of attitude of entitlement that we can take what we need. Historically inn the colonial period, in North and South America, we took what we needed, you know? Or, or we took Australia or we took from what we needed from Africa. Speaking as kind of the way European community just kind of spread out. And we, we've never really backed off that model. We take the resources we needed, need. We take everything. We don't give enough back. And we're, we're crossing over a threshold where the Earth is not gonna be able to sustain us.
MATTHEWS: Why do you think business fights concerns about climate, about energy depletion, about the need to find renewables? Why do they fight it? These people from the oil patch, from Oklahoma especially-
CAMERON: Yeah.
MATTHEWS: -constantly carping and denying.
CAMERON: Sure.
MATTHEWS: People like Glenn Beck-
CAMERON: Sure.
MATTHEWS: -making a living by, by not telling the truth.
CAMERON: If you make your living in oil and the answer is a different answer, a different solution, and, and renewable energy like wind or solar or something like that, you're gonna deny that answer exists or, more probably, you're gonna deny that the problem exists and that's what these kind of professional deniers and skeptics are doing. They're swaying the public dialogue away from this major crisis that's looming.
MATTHEWS: Well the first person I ever heard, who I think has an IQ, like Glenn Beck, and he's obviously smart enough, I heard him on radio a couple years [ago] just denying-
CAMERON: Yeah.
MATTHEWS: -that there's climate. What do you make of that? Just saying it's not true.
CAMERON: Well you know look I think that people are, well people are just in denial in general. You know the public are in denial. And it's getting worse. And in, in a recession economy makes that denial worse. Two years ago according to polls, 50 percent of people believed in climate change and it being caused by, by, you know human activity. Now we're down to 34 percent. So we've gone from half to, to a third. We're going the wrong direction.
MATTHEWS: Yeah.
CAMERON: We should be raising awareness and consciousness on this and really, you know, believing that there's a clear and present danger to our nation, to our children and-
MATTHEWS: Yeah.
CAMERON: -and we're moving the wrong direction.
MATTHEWS: What do you make the decision a couple days ago to just dump it, just shelve it, by people like the Democratic leadership of the Senate. We are going towards an energy, combination energy, climate change bill? Just saying, "Oh we'll put it aside. We're gonna do something else. Immigration."
CAMERON: Well there's always going to be something. It's gonna be health care. It's gonna be immigration. It's gonna be financial reform. There's always gonna be something right in front of us that's more important. But in reality if we don't solve this problem, all of that stuff isn't gonna make any difference. Health care is not gonna help us in a fundamentally unhealthy planet. Financial reform is not gonna help us in a, in a, in a planet where we can't afford to, to live in a, in a healthy way or in even a non-chaotic way.
MATTHEWS: I gotta get to something that's fascinating. I read that Stephen Hawking-
CAMERON: Smart guy.
MATTHEWS: -obviously one of the smartest people in history. He was talking about alien life, meaning not aliens like we're fighting about with border fights here in America but-
CAMERON: Right, right.
MATTHEWS: -about real aliens over, from another planet. Quote: "We have only, we only have to look at ourselves to see how intelligent life might develop into something we wouldn't want to meet. I imagine they might exist in massive ships having used all the resources from their home planet. If aliens ever visit us, I think it the outcome would be much, as when Christopher Columbus landed in America which didn't turn out very well for the Native Americans." What about the notion that horrific notion that aliens coming here, if we ever meet them there, would be like the ones in your movie? Avaricious and frightening.
CAMERON: I didn't know Stephen Hawking did, did science fiction. But I think he's right on the money. The history of the, of the human race is that any technologically superior nation when it met a technologically inferior – you know kind of guns against bows and arrows – they always took over. They took what they needed. They would, it was either genocide or the population was displaced or it was assimilated in some kind of paternalistic manner.
MATTHEWS: Yeah.
CAMERON: They were, you know, converted to Christianity or whatever it was. And this has been our history. So why would expect aliens be any different?
MATTHEWS: Well he, he puts us with bows and arrows and the aliens with the machine guns.
CAMERON: That's right, that's right. Exactly!
MATTHEWS: But you, in your movie, in "Avatar" at least put us on the side of the advanced weaponry but we end losing the war any way.
CAMERON: We were the bad aliens in "Avatar." I was turning it around. You've seen all these movies where the super advanced aliens come to Earth and they to try to be like us...
MATTHEWS: Yeah. The Orson Welles guys, yeah.
CAMERON: ...take over. Well "Avatar" is just the story turned around. Our main character is trying to blend in and be one of the, one of the, the aliens on their planet. It's just the same story-
MATTHEWS: So, so putting it all together – you have to go – putting it all together the idea that this country is leading the world in the depletion of resources in the world. We use more, we're the most poor sign of any people on the planet. We use up more gas, more everything, compared to our numbers. If the world keeps going in this direction heating up the planet, using up our resources, are we gonna end up on those space ships?
CAMERON: Yeah it's not just us. It's China, it's India, it's in places where the, where the middle class is, is exploding. Everybody is sucking up more power. Populations continuing to grow. You know we're gonna have to do something about it. The, the planet just can't sustain-
MATTHEWS: Do you have your faith, do you have faith in any - I'm gonna let you leave on this. Do you have faith in any political leader who will take the, the, the noise and the heat and perhaps the political defeat that will come from a person who really stands up and defends this planet?
CAMERON: Lisa Jackson at the EPA is standing up. You know she's using the Clean Air Act to go after polluters. But the reality is that, that the leadership in the House and Senate, it doesn't have a strong public mandate right now because the public isn't aware enough of the problem. They gotta, they gotta start critically thinking, denying the deniers, doing their own research, not, not, not going with the rhetoric, not going with the talk radio. Actually learning the issues. And believing what the science community is trying to warn us about and then there will be a public mandate for our leaders to do something. You know, you know on the Hill they don't do anything unless we tell them to do it.
MATTHEWS: I know. I'm worried about the media though. Because now we have a right wing media available. That if you feel like, if you're a business guy for example or a business woman and you want to have a good excuse, a good dodge not to do anything, well you listen to someone on the right like Beck who's willing to come in and say, "Oh you don't have to do anything. These guys are a bunch of tree huggers forget about it."
CAMERON: Right. Yeah.
MATTHEWS: What do you think of Beck's power in that direction, to give people a big excuse slip not to do anything?
CAMERON: Well guys like, like Beck and others and I think we all know-
MATTHEWS: Are they dangerous?
CAMERON: I think they're very dangerous to this country. And I think some day they're gonna have to answer to my children and to your children and their children for the world that they're helping to create right now.
MATTHEWS: Okay. Thank you very much, James Cameron. Congratulations. I've ever seen anything like this in the movies. I've never seen anything like it. You are winning all the awards and you're getting everything. Thank you for coming on.
CAMERON: Alright thanks Chris. A pleasure.
MATTHEWS: James Cameron, the maker of "Avatar" which has just broken all the records again on DVD.
CBS's Smith: 'Will Anyone in GOP Break Ranks' on Financial Reform?
At the top of Monday's CBS Early Show, co-host Harry Smith referenced a possible Senate vote on the Democrats' financial reform bill and proclaimed: "Showdown in the Senate. Democrats are scrambling to get enough votes. Will anyone in the GOP break ranks?" It was just the latest example of a week of CBS coverage pressuring Republicans to sign on to the controversial legislation.
In a later report, correspondent Nancy Cordes explained: "both parties say they are for reform and they are deep in negotiations over it....But without a deal, many, if not all, Senate Republicans plan to vote 'no' today, blocking a floor debate on the bill." That was followed by a clip of Democratic Senator Chris Dodd declaring: "Here we are 17 months after someone broke into our house, in effect, robbed us, and we still haven't even changed the locks on the doors." A headline on screen read: "Financial Reform Showdown; Will Anyone in GOP Break Ranks?"
In his introduction to the report, Smith described the Democratic effort as a "test vote." Cordes pointed out: "this vote that Democrats have called for today could very well fail." She later concluded: "Even if the vote fails today, negotiations will go on and Republicans and Democrats seem confident that a financial reform bill will pass sooner rather than later." However, neither her nor Smith questioned holding the vote or suggested it was political theater to force a deal.
Following Cordes's report, Smith asked Republican Congressman Darrell Issa about GOP objections to the bill: "This legislation is supposed to help prevent big banks from taking risks that ultimately will take down the economy like we saw 18 or 19 months ago. Do you see things in this legislation, as it stands right now, that can do that?" Issa replied by pointing out an obvious flaw in the legislation:
What Republicans are asking for, when you say big banks, you have to realize the biggest bank-like entities involved in this were Freddie [Mac] and Fannie [Mae]....entities that had something to do with, you know, basically a meltdown that began with too many mortgages, many of them bought – bought and encouraged by the federal government.Over the past week, the Early Show failed to note that the government-backed mortgage lenders were not addressed as part of the supposed reform of the financial industry. Even after Issa brought up the subject, Smith dismissed it as a side issue, instead wanting to only focus on the private sector: "In the end, though, those things were turned into derivatives that were traded all over the place, which gave impetus to the market that said this can go on forever."
Here is a full transcript of the segment:
7:00AM TEASE—Kyle Drennen is a news analyst at the Media Research Center. You can follow him on Twitter here.
HARRY SMITH: Showdown in the Senate. Democrats are scrambling to get enough votes. Will anyone in the GOP break ranks? We'll take you to Capitol Hill.
[ON-SCREEN HEADLINE: Reform Showdown]
7:08AM SEGMENT
SMITH: Now to the showdown in the Senate. Democrats are pressing ahead with a possible test vote on financial reform even though they may not have enough votes. CBS News congressional correspondent Nancy Cordes is in Washington with details and the numbers. Nancy, good morning.
NANCY CORDES: Good morning to you, Harry. That's right, both parties say they are for reform and they are deep in negotiations over it. But they're not there yet, which means this vote that Democrats have called for today could very well fail.
[ON-SCREEN HEADLINE: Financial Reform Showdown; Will Anyone in GOP Break Ranks?]
RICHARD SHELBY: I think we will get a bill. If the Democrats want a bill and will give us some things that we think that are substantive in nature.
CORDES: But without a deal, many, if not all, Senate Republicans plan to vote 'no' today, blocking a floor debate on the bill.
CHRIS DODD: Here we are 17 months after someone broke into our house, in effect, robbed us, and we still haven't even changed the locks on the doors.
CORDES: Republicans think the bill needs to make it clear, failing firms will not be bailed out. And they think that consumer protections and regulations on derivatives in the bill are too onerous.
MITCH MCCONNELL: This is not a situation where anybody I know in the Senate wants no bill to pass, but it is important to pass a good bill.
CORDES: Tomorrow, the CEO of Goldman Sachs will come to Capitol Hill to testify. He'll likely be asked about newly released internal e-mails that show his company profited from the mortgage meltdown. 'Sounds like we will make some serious money,' emailed one employee to another as foreclosures mounted. In another online exchange, one trader told another, 'I'm not so convinced this is a total death spiral. In fact, we may have terrific opportunities.'
LARRY SUMMERS: This underscores what is at the center of the President's vision here. The importance of transparency, the importance of things being in the open.
CORDES: Even if the vote fails today, negotiations will go on and Republicans and Democrats seem confident that a financial reform bill will pass sooner rather than later. Harry.
SMITH: Nancy Cordes on Capitol Hill this morning. Thank you. One of the critics of the financial reform bill is Republican Congressman Darrell Issa of California. He joins us now from Washington. Congressman, good morning.
DARRELL ISSA: Good morning, Harry.
SMITH: This legislation is supposed to help prevent big banks from taking risks that ultimately will take down the economy like we saw 18 or 19 months ago. Do you see things in this legislation, as it stands right now, that can do that?
ISSA: Well, there are some things in this legislation. What Republicans are asking for, when you say big banks, you have to realize the biggest bank-like entities involved in this were Freddie and Fannie. And we're still sitting there with trillions of dollars of underwater loans. So, yes, we want to have reform, but it's clear that a 'no' vote today by 41 Republicans is a 'yes' vote to do more comprehensive reform, more balanced reform, including the other entities that had something to do with, you know, basically a meltdown that began with too many mortgages, many of them bought – bought and encouraged by the federal government.
SMITH: In the end, though, those things were turned into derivatives that were traded all over the place, which gave impetus to the market that said this can go on forever. We'll come back and ask a different question, though. This bailout fund that's sort of looming out there, this sort of idea of putting together about $50 billion, probably paid for by the banks, that would help deconstruct a bank if it came up to the edge and would be on the verge of going out of business, good idea or bad idea?
ISSA: Well, Harry, I think what we have to remember is there already is a fund for banks. What we're talking about here is bank-like entities. And the last thing we need to do is to further confuse what is bank and what isn't a bank. After all, AIG was an insurance company, but AIGFP in England, that did most of these guarantees that went bad, in fact, wasn't even an insurance company by real U.S. standards. So I think what we have to do in financial reform is say what is a bank and it gets one set of rules. Financial institutions get another. And insurance companies, quite frankly, have to be a big part of the new regulation, along with rating agencies that told us things were triple A, when they weren't even triple B.
SMITH: You got that right. Congressman Issa, thank you very much for your time for your time this morning, do appreciate it.
ISSA: My pleasure.
--- # You are currently subscribed to cyber-html as: jayman2124@gmail.com.. # Comments or subscription problems (email): CyberComment@mediaresearch.org # To subscribe to this or other MRC newsletters: MRC newsletter subscriptions # To unsubscribe from this or other MRC newsletters: Unsubscribe from MRC
Fwd: Morning Bell: The Obama Fiscal Responsibility Farce Continues
04/27/2010
The Obama Fiscal Responsibility Farce Continues
Today President Barack Obama's National Commission on Fiscal Responsibility and Reform will convene for the first time at the White House. Tasked with making recommendations to Congress that would put the budget in primary balance by 2015 and "meaningfully improve" our nation's long-term fiscal outlook, the commission meets a little over a month after Congress approved a new $2.5 trillion health care entitlement that the Obama administration now confirms will increase our nation's total health care spending.
This is a now familiar pattern for the White House: first enact record breaking levels of deficit spending, then turn right around and promise austerity sometime in the future. This February, after signing the largest single-year increase in domestic federal spending since World War II, President Obama held a "fiscal responsibility" summit designed to "send a signal that we are serious" about putting the nation on sounder financial footing. The Washington Post's Dana Milbank quipped at the time: "Holding a 'fiscal responsibility summit' at the White House in the middle of a government spending spree is a bit like having an Alcoholics Anonymous meeting at a frat house on homecoming weekend."
The leftist majorities in Congress are no better. Congress has now missed its April 15 deadline for enacting a budget resolution, which is one of the few pieces of legislation that Congress must pass annually. If Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) fails to pass a budget it will be the first time since the 1974 Congressional Budget Act that the House has failed to do so. All over the country, recession-weary families are examining their income and spending, making difficult decisions, and setting family budgets. Yet Congress—despite a $1.5 trillion deficit in 2010 and historic deficits as far as the eye can see—cannot manage to set any budget framework for the next few years.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)