Finger-pointing, which the White House and Congress seem to enjoy, especially concerning spending or budget cuts, does not show Americans any form of responsibility or concern for Main Street USA.
It is a childish activity that does not result in any viable product. Ever.
The only end products of this adolescent behavior are minutes of airtime or inches of press and seeing themselves on prime time.
Politicians of all sizes, shapes and political affiliations are too much engaged in the blame game.
Few are willing to cut spending, especially in areas where the federal government should not be allocating dollars in the first place or to make cuts in their own backyard.
Not to mention the full elimination of earmarks. Each citizen should not have to contribute to an individual community walking path or the like that is attached to a piece of legislation to buy a vote.
Congress and the White House should lead by example.
Each member must begin making cuts in their own house. They have far too many benefits, expense accounts, overseas trips, staff and perks that are paid by taxpayers.
That is where representatives of the people should have started if they were truly serious about handling an economy that the Congressional Budget Office reports faces a $1.5 trillion budget deficit for 2011.
If the newly elected members of Congress (Nov 2010) really believed in cutting the size and shape of government they would have done so when they assumed office and slashed their own individual office budgets (pay freezes, hiring freezes, cuting perks, cutting travel expenses, eliminating waste, etc.).
That would be leading by example.
That would be the only valid time the president, a member of the Senate or House of Representatives could point fingers, telling their colleagues that they must do the same.
Those who occupy seats on Capitol Hill are not some sacred anointed masters. They are elected officials who are servants of the people, though it appears that none truly remember this, if they knew it in the first place.
Servants of the people.
Perhaps each and every one of them should intently and earnestly study the writings of our Founding Fathers and learn what it means to serve.
Over For Now.
Main Street One
Showing posts with label Democrats. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Democrats. Show all posts
Tuesday, July 12, 2011
Saturday, April 9, 2011
Real Budget Negotiations--or Just More Pork
As a budget compromise occurred on Capitol Hill late Friday night, just before the looming "government shutdown," one wonders what kind of deals were made between President Obama, Senate leader Reid and Speaker Boehner.
In other words, "Where's the pork?"
While claiming an overall $38.5 billion budget cut, "forged amid bluster and tough bargaining" (according to The Associated Press), there was a report that Boehner was able to keep something that was dear to him in tact, allowing students in Washington DC to use "federally funded vouchers" to attend private schools.
Federally funded vouchers?
That certainly means Main Street USA residents get to pick up the tab for DC students to attend a private school.
Where do elected representatives get the idea that this kind of expense using taxpayer dollars is appropriate?
It is just as bad as an item in the disastrous national healthcare reform bill where all Americans will be contributing their money to build walking parks in certain communities. That pork bought certain votes in order to pass the trillion dollar piece of legislation.
Is it possible that those persons who have been elected to serve in the best interests of their constituents have lost sight of those best interests? Allowing any special interest fluff to remain in a budget already filled to the brim with waste is criminal.
Earmarks have cost this country dearly. They should be illegal.
It certainly seems as if Democrats, Republicans, Independents, and any who hold a public office or position (elected or appointed), have forgotten exactly who signs their paycheck. It is, after all, coming directly out of the pocket of each and every taxpaying citizen in the country.
And, as a final note, Harry Reid called this budget work "historic." Historic would actually be when not one earmark gets tacked on to any piece of legislation coming from the Senate and House of Representatives.
Over For Now.
Main Street One
In other words, "Where's the pork?"
While claiming an overall $38.5 billion budget cut, "forged amid bluster and tough bargaining" (according to The Associated Press), there was a report that Boehner was able to keep something that was dear to him in tact, allowing students in Washington DC to use "federally funded vouchers" to attend private schools.
Federally funded vouchers?
That certainly means Main Street USA residents get to pick up the tab for DC students to attend a private school.
Where do elected representatives get the idea that this kind of expense using taxpayer dollars is appropriate?
It is just as bad as an item in the disastrous national healthcare reform bill where all Americans will be contributing their money to build walking parks in certain communities. That pork bought certain votes in order to pass the trillion dollar piece of legislation.
Is it possible that those persons who have been elected to serve in the best interests of their constituents have lost sight of those best interests? Allowing any special interest fluff to remain in a budget already filled to the brim with waste is criminal.
Earmarks have cost this country dearly. They should be illegal.
It certainly seems as if Democrats, Republicans, Independents, and any who hold a public office or position (elected or appointed), have forgotten exactly who signs their paycheck. It is, after all, coming directly out of the pocket of each and every taxpaying citizen in the country.
And, as a final note, Harry Reid called this budget work "historic." Historic would actually be when not one earmark gets tacked on to any piece of legislation coming from the Senate and House of Representatives.
Over For Now.
Main Street One
Sunday, April 3, 2011
Congress Must Lead By Example
There is a lot of ink, talk and webline space devoted to the White House/Congress budget wars. And, rightfully so.
The United States is in much too far in debt, and projected to be so for years.
Why is it so hard for Congress to understand that to lead they must do so by example.
The amount of taxpayer money spent (read: out of the pockets of Main Street USA citizens) to maintain the lifestyle they have been accustomed to is obscene.
Folks on Capitol Hill have become used to too many staff, exorbitant expense accounts, lavish (in this blogger's opinion) foreign travel (to accomplish what exactly?), and benefit and retirement plans that dwarf anything seen in the private sector.
Thus, as a very first step to balancing a budget, Democrats and Republicans (and Independents) should take the proverbial ax to their own house. Not just tiny gestures but meaningful reduction of waste.
Eliminate all foreign travel at taxpayer expense. If someone in Congress feels that they really must visit another country and observe first-hand the circumstances then they should put the tab on their personal credit card. They are, afterall, quite well-paid by any standard.
Make an across-the-board (huge) slash in "office expenses." Large and small businesses alike must do this when running in red ink or risk going out of business. Congress seems to lose sight of this fact. Their solution is simply voting to increase the amount of "legal" national debt and move on, spending as they go.
And, sorry to say this, but staff reductions are a must. Elected representatives need to get back to reality of what it means to work, not have others do their work for them.
While it is probably not the case every day, taxpayers should not be paying for the likes of this:
Members of Congress (and the White House) must lead by example by tightening their oversize (elastic) belts and show (prove to) all Americans that they are serious about cutting costs and saving money.
And one last point: elected officials should not be paid one cent for any days they spend campaigning to be re-elected. Every day away from the Hill should be docked from their paycheck. Period.
Who will be the first brave elected (or appointed) soul to stand up and declare that government waste must end and lead by example.
Over For Now.
Main Street One
The United States is in much too far in debt, and projected to be so for years.
Why is it so hard for Congress to understand that to lead they must do so by example.
The amount of taxpayer money spent (read: out of the pockets of Main Street USA citizens) to maintain the lifestyle they have been accustomed to is obscene.
Folks on Capitol Hill have become used to too many staff, exorbitant expense accounts, lavish (in this blogger's opinion) foreign travel (to accomplish what exactly?), and benefit and retirement plans that dwarf anything seen in the private sector.
Thus, as a very first step to balancing a budget, Democrats and Republicans (and Independents) should take the proverbial ax to their own house. Not just tiny gestures but meaningful reduction of waste.
Eliminate all foreign travel at taxpayer expense. If someone in Congress feels that they really must visit another country and observe first-hand the circumstances then they should put the tab on their personal credit card. They are, afterall, quite well-paid by any standard.
Make an across-the-board (huge) slash in "office expenses." Large and small businesses alike must do this when running in red ink or risk going out of business. Congress seems to lose sight of this fact. Their solution is simply voting to increase the amount of "legal" national debt and move on, spending as they go.
And, sorry to say this, but staff reductions are a must. Elected representatives need to get back to reality of what it means to work, not have others do their work for them.
While it is probably not the case every day, taxpayers should not be paying for the likes of this:
And one last point: elected officials should not be paid one cent for any days they spend campaigning to be re-elected. Every day away from the Hill should be docked from their paycheck. Period.
Who will be the first brave elected (or appointed) soul to stand up and declare that government waste must end and lead by example.
Over For Now.
Main Street One
Wednesday, February 2, 2011
The Affordable Care Act & The Constitution
The stage is set for the Supreme Court to become involved, whether they wish to or not, in the decision of whether or not forcing citizens of Main Street USA to purchase health insurance is unconstitutional.
While there certainly is debate centered around other portions of the incredibly massive piece of porked-out legislation, the rulings of two Federal judges that Congress has overstepped its authority by relying upon the Commerce Clause of the United States Constitution (while two others ruled the opposite) all but guarantees the highest court's involvement.
Simply put, the Commerce Clause (Article I) grants Congress the power to "...regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states, and with the Indian tribes."
Throughout the decades the Supreme Court has used that particular clause very very broadly, including rulings on Depression-era farm quotas as well as bans on racial discrimination in the 1960s.
This Main Streeter finds it extremely difficult to fathom exactly how racial discrimination fits into the Commerce Clause. Whether one is Democrat, Republican or Independent, how could it be that human beings are considered as commerce?
In reality, the court used this clause because a company that was discriminating earned a majority of it's revenue through interstate commerce. That still seems a stretch when, in fact, the country was founded in the belief that all people are created equal. Consider that the 14th Amendement (1868) guarantees equal protection under the law and racial discrimination would quality as something which is not equal. It seems, therefore, that the 14th Amendment offers a quite superior legal standing to ban racial discrimination.
In an attempt to determine what may or may not have been included in the thoughts and intentions of our Founding Fathers regarding the Commerce Clause, the reference used was the American Dictionary of the English Language, by Noah Webster, 1828.
It was thought that perhaps by using a dictionary from that time period there could be some light shed on the issue at hand today (and perhaps even some of those earlier court decisions that do not quite seem to fit).
The definition of Commerce is: "In a general sense, an interchange or mutual change of goods, wares, productions, or property of any kind, between nations or individuals, either by barter, or by purchase and sale; trade; traffick." It further defines inland commerce as: "...the trade of commodities between citizens of the same nation."
Turning a page, the definition of Commodity is: "...anything that is useful, but particularly in commerce, including everything movable that is bought and sold, goods, wares, merchandise, produce of land and manufactures. Unless perhaps animals may be excepted, the word includes all the movables which are objects of commerce."
Based upon the above definitions, which were used by those responsible for writing and implementing the Constitution it seems clear that mandating that a citizen of the United States purchase health insurance through the vehicle known as the Affordable Care Act is, indeed, unconstitutional.
It really is not even debatable.
That, coupled with the actual wording of the Article in question ("regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states, and with the Indian tribes"), indicates that Article I gives absolutely NO power to Congress to force citizens (i.e., individuals) to purchase anything.
Undoubtedly someone will be called upon, when all is said and done and attorneys for both sides have voiced their last convincing words, to write a decision. And that document will more than likely be scores and scores of pages, when, in fact, it boils down to just a couple.
And, as a last thought, allowing Capitol Hill to mandate what an individual must purchase opens the door for future edicts by those elected representatives who are supposed to be serving the interests of Americans, not dictating them.
Over For Now.
Main Street One
While there certainly is debate centered around other portions of the incredibly massive piece of porked-out legislation, the rulings of two Federal judges that Congress has overstepped its authority by relying upon the Commerce Clause of the United States Constitution (while two others ruled the opposite) all but guarantees the highest court's involvement.
Simply put, the Commerce Clause (Article I) grants Congress the power to "...regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states, and with the Indian tribes."
Throughout the decades the Supreme Court has used that particular clause very very broadly, including rulings on Depression-era farm quotas as well as bans on racial discrimination in the 1960s.
This Main Streeter finds it extremely difficult to fathom exactly how racial discrimination fits into the Commerce Clause. Whether one is Democrat, Republican or Independent, how could it be that human beings are considered as commerce?
In reality, the court used this clause because a company that was discriminating earned a majority of it's revenue through interstate commerce. That still seems a stretch when, in fact, the country was founded in the belief that all people are created equal. Consider that the 14th Amendement (1868) guarantees equal protection under the law and racial discrimination would quality as something which is not equal. It seems, therefore, that the 14th Amendment offers a quite superior legal standing to ban racial discrimination.
In an attempt to determine what may or may not have been included in the thoughts and intentions of our Founding Fathers regarding the Commerce Clause, the reference used was the American Dictionary of the English Language, by Noah Webster, 1828.
It was thought that perhaps by using a dictionary from that time period there could be some light shed on the issue at hand today (and perhaps even some of those earlier court decisions that do not quite seem to fit).
The definition of Commerce is: "In a general sense, an interchange or mutual change of goods, wares, productions, or property of any kind, between nations or individuals, either by barter, or by purchase and sale; trade; traffick." It further defines inland commerce as: "...the trade of commodities between citizens of the same nation."
Turning a page, the definition of Commodity is: "...anything that is useful, but particularly in commerce, including everything movable that is bought and sold, goods, wares, merchandise, produce of land and manufactures. Unless perhaps animals may be excepted, the word includes all the movables which are objects of commerce."
Based upon the above definitions, which were used by those responsible for writing and implementing the Constitution it seems clear that mandating that a citizen of the United States purchase health insurance through the vehicle known as the Affordable Care Act is, indeed, unconstitutional.
It really is not even debatable.
That, coupled with the actual wording of the Article in question ("regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states, and with the Indian tribes"), indicates that Article I gives absolutely NO power to Congress to force citizens (i.e., individuals) to purchase anything.
Undoubtedly someone will be called upon, when all is said and done and attorneys for both sides have voiced their last convincing words, to write a decision. And that document will more than likely be scores and scores of pages, when, in fact, it boils down to just a couple.
And, as a last thought, allowing Capitol Hill to mandate what an individual must purchase opens the door for future edicts by those elected representatives who are supposed to be serving the interests of Americans, not dictating them.
Over For Now.
Main Street One
Wednesday, January 26, 2011
What's Another $1.5 Trillion ? ? ?
Per The Associated Press, the Congressional Budget Office today projects another $1.5 Trillion budget deficit for our Federal Government, i.e., Main Street USA. (That is the equivalent of spending $1.5 million dollars each and every day for one million days.)
In realistic terms those on Capitol Hill will be borrowing 40 cents for every one dollar they want to spend.
And that $1.5 Trillion will bring our national debt close to the $14.3 Trillion allowed by law.
Not that nearing the debt ceiling has ever bothered Congress or the White House, regardless of who is in power, in office, etc.
Whenever the debt reaches that number allowed by law, they have almost always just amended the law and raised the glass ceiling.
Too bad those of us living on Main Street cannot do that - just write a letter to the credit card companies and tell them (i.e., change the law or rule) that our credit limit was just raised another ten thousand or so.
Politicians should learn, through looking at the past with clear 20-20 vision, that they need to let American business get on with it. There is really very little Congress can do to stimulate the economy compared to business.
The reason for a lot of prosperity in the 1990's was due, in very big measure, to the dotcom boom, not to anyone sitting in Washington D.C., just as the recession experienced following that high tide was caused by the dotcom collapse.
That boom in the 90's also set the stage for a lot of state budget woes as their income kept going up and so followed their next year's budget. However, the bust that followed caught many states with their proverbial pants down and they have never recovered, especially in the wake of the economic collapse of 2008.
While Republicans speak of all manner of budget cuts to assist in the problem, it will take more than that, as they cannot realistically cut the budget by thirty or forty percent, which is about what it would take to balance a one year budget, let alone make a dent in the existing deficit.
Perhaps each and every elected official (Democrat, Indpendent, Republican) needs to start at home.
How much of their office budget can (and should) be cut? Probably a good amount.
How many perks should they do away with that taxpayers foot on their behalf? Probably in the billions when it is all added together.
Congress should quit mandating what Main Street must do and mandate on themselves first.
Set a good example at your home state office as well as your digs on Capitol Hill.
Over For Now.
Main Street One
In realistic terms those on Capitol Hill will be borrowing 40 cents for every one dollar they want to spend.
And that $1.5 Trillion will bring our national debt close to the $14.3 Trillion allowed by law.
Not that nearing the debt ceiling has ever bothered Congress or the White House, regardless of who is in power, in office, etc.
Whenever the debt reaches that number allowed by law, they have almost always just amended the law and raised the glass ceiling.
Too bad those of us living on Main Street cannot do that - just write a letter to the credit card companies and tell them (i.e., change the law or rule) that our credit limit was just raised another ten thousand or so.
Politicians should learn, through looking at the past with clear 20-20 vision, that they need to let American business get on with it. There is really very little Congress can do to stimulate the economy compared to business.
The reason for a lot of prosperity in the 1990's was due, in very big measure, to the dotcom boom, not to anyone sitting in Washington D.C., just as the recession experienced following that high tide was caused by the dotcom collapse.
That boom in the 90's also set the stage for a lot of state budget woes as their income kept going up and so followed their next year's budget. However, the bust that followed caught many states with their proverbial pants down and they have never recovered, especially in the wake of the economic collapse of 2008.
While Republicans speak of all manner of budget cuts to assist in the problem, it will take more than that, as they cannot realistically cut the budget by thirty or forty percent, which is about what it would take to balance a one year budget, let alone make a dent in the existing deficit.
Perhaps each and every elected official (Democrat, Indpendent, Republican) needs to start at home.
How much of their office budget can (and should) be cut? Probably a good amount.
How many perks should they do away with that taxpayers foot on their behalf? Probably in the billions when it is all added together.
Congress should quit mandating what Main Street must do and mandate on themselves first.
Set a good example at your home state office as well as your digs on Capitol Hill.
Over For Now.
Main Street One
Wednesday, June 30, 2010
Who Is Out Of Touch
Associated Press reports that President Obama states Republicans are "out of touch with the daily problems of Americans."
That statement is probably true.
However, that statement is also misleading as Democrats are also out of touch.
There are many citizens of Main Street USA who are not satisfied with T.A.R.P. (the Troubled Asset Relief Program), and for good reason.
Our elected officials voted to borrow from the Federal Reserve Bank (read Central Bank, read not at all associated with the Federal Government) three quarters of a trillion dollars to halt a financial melt-down and pump energy into the economy.
The results are not stellar.
And, when payments are made from the firms that borrowed from our government (i.e., taxpayers) instead of paying that money to the Central Bank those residents of Capitol Hill spend it again.
Thus, interest on that huge debt continues to mount.
And while the stock market has come back to its pre-crash level, much of the economy has not improved, as evidenced by various recent reports.
Politicians need to wake up and smell the roses and the coffee.
Americans are sick and tired of business-as-usual in Washington DC.
Quit buying votes via pork and earmarks and practice honorable statesmanship.
Quit blaming others for problems and work on solutions without finger-pointing and accusations that do not result in a product to better the economy and jobless rate.
And, elected officials need to keep their own house clean, especially when there are those who attack businesses with various allegations that may or may not be true.
Over For Now.
Main Street One
That statement is probably true.
However, that statement is also misleading as Democrats are also out of touch.
There are many citizens of Main Street USA who are not satisfied with T.A.R.P. (the Troubled Asset Relief Program), and for good reason.
Our elected officials voted to borrow from the Federal Reserve Bank (read Central Bank, read not at all associated with the Federal Government) three quarters of a trillion dollars to halt a financial melt-down and pump energy into the economy.
The results are not stellar.
And, when payments are made from the firms that borrowed from our government (i.e., taxpayers) instead of paying that money to the Central Bank those residents of Capitol Hill spend it again.
Thus, interest on that huge debt continues to mount.
And while the stock market has come back to its pre-crash level, much of the economy has not improved, as evidenced by various recent reports.
Politicians need to wake up and smell the roses and the coffee.
Americans are sick and tired of business-as-usual in Washington DC.
Quit buying votes via pork and earmarks and practice honorable statesmanship.
Quit blaming others for problems and work on solutions without finger-pointing and accusations that do not result in a product to better the economy and jobless rate.
And, elected officials need to keep their own house clean, especially when there are those who attack businesses with various allegations that may or may not be true.
Over For Now.
Main Street One
Monday, March 1, 2010
House Speaker Speaks Up, Defies Polls
Speaker of the House, Nancy Pelosi, on ABC television's "This Week," stated, without any doubt, that if President Obama decides to use the reconciliation method of political maneuvering she will deliver the votes without the support of any Republicans.
Make no mistake, polls also show reform is needed and wanted.
However, poll after poll bring into the open that the majority of Americans do not approve of either of the bills that passed the House of Representatives and the Senate.
The strong-arm tactic that will apparently be used on these earmarked pieces of legislation that will affect 17% of the U.S. economy is not representative of what Americans need or want.
Why won't our elected representatives listen?
It has been voiced by some Democrats that objections regarding the healthcare reform bills are due to mis-information delivered by Republicans.
There probably does exist some of that.
However, Democrats are guilty of the same activity.
Consider that the bills are supposedly going to provide coverage for some 30 million Americans who do not currently have any form of healthcare insurance.
Yet, one third of that total, ten million people, have elected not to carry insurance, despite the fact that they can afford it. These people are exercising their own free will and making their own decisions about what they need and want.
Not if this legislation passes.
They will be forced into obtaining and paying for insurance, or be fined.
This type of political activity, economic ramifications aside, erodes our Bill of Rights.
This type of political activity drastically increases the role of government in the lives of all Americans.
It used to be that when the People speak those who have been elected to follow the will of the People respond to that will.
Evidently, no longer.
As Pelosi stated on ABC TV, "We're here to do the job for the American people -- to get them results that gives them not only health security, but economic security, because the health issue is an economic issue for America's families."
If she truly believed those words, then the Speaker would respond to, and support, the People, Main Street USA. She would champion their cause and scrap the thousands of pages of pork-filled legislation that currently exist and start anew with something meaningful and truly helpful.
Instead of ducking their responsibility on Tort Reform by passing it off to the individual states (which, as previously discussed, would become a national matter in the U.S. Supreme Court), the House and Senate should pass legislation immediately in this area.
Taxpayers do not need to pay for frivolous lawsuits that clog the Court system and, in the end, raise insurance rates each and every time they succeed. That is a double-whammy to the pocketbook of Main Street USA.
One last note.
Most of the articles that appear regarding passage of healthcare reform state that "Obama has the votes to pass reform" the way it is currently written.
Since when did the White House become more important than the collective voice, opinion and will of Main Street USA?
Yes, President Obama, we do need healthcare reform.
But not in the current state as presented.
Eliminate Medicare and Medicaid fraud-NOW.
Stop frivolous lawsuits with Tort Reform-AT ONCE.
Then, and only then, should we move forward with legislation that is significant and does not trample on the Rights of Americans to choose what they need and want.
Over For Now.
Main Street One
Make no mistake, polls also show reform is needed and wanted.
However, poll after poll bring into the open that the majority of Americans do not approve of either of the bills that passed the House of Representatives and the Senate.
The strong-arm tactic that will apparently be used on these earmarked pieces of legislation that will affect 17% of the U.S. economy is not representative of what Americans need or want.
Why won't our elected representatives listen?
It has been voiced by some Democrats that objections regarding the healthcare reform bills are due to mis-information delivered by Republicans.
There probably does exist some of that.
However, Democrats are guilty of the same activity.
Consider that the bills are supposedly going to provide coverage for some 30 million Americans who do not currently have any form of healthcare insurance.
Yet, one third of that total, ten million people, have elected not to carry insurance, despite the fact that they can afford it. These people are exercising their own free will and making their own decisions about what they need and want.
Not if this legislation passes.
They will be forced into obtaining and paying for insurance, or be fined.
This type of political activity, economic ramifications aside, erodes our Bill of Rights.
This type of political activity drastically increases the role of government in the lives of all Americans.
It used to be that when the People speak those who have been elected to follow the will of the People respond to that will.
Evidently, no longer.
As Pelosi stated on ABC TV, "We're here to do the job for the American people -- to get them results that gives them not only health security, but economic security, because the health issue is an economic issue for America's families."
If she truly believed those words, then the Speaker would respond to, and support, the People, Main Street USA. She would champion their cause and scrap the thousands of pages of pork-filled legislation that currently exist and start anew with something meaningful and truly helpful.
Instead of ducking their responsibility on Tort Reform by passing it off to the individual states (which, as previously discussed, would become a national matter in the U.S. Supreme Court), the House and Senate should pass legislation immediately in this area.
Taxpayers do not need to pay for frivolous lawsuits that clog the Court system and, in the end, raise insurance rates each and every time they succeed. That is a double-whammy to the pocketbook of Main Street USA.
One last note.
Most of the articles that appear regarding passage of healthcare reform state that "Obama has the votes to pass reform" the way it is currently written.
Since when did the White House become more important than the collective voice, opinion and will of Main Street USA?
Yes, President Obama, we do need healthcare reform.
But not in the current state as presented.
Eliminate Medicare and Medicaid fraud-NOW.
Stop frivolous lawsuits with Tort Reform-AT ONCE.
Then, and only then, should we move forward with legislation that is significant and does not trample on the Rights of Americans to choose what they need and want.
Over For Now.
Main Street One
Tuesday, February 23, 2010
Media & The "News"
One has to wonder at the intentions of the media when a headline such as this appears:
"New senator helps Democrats advance jobs bill"
Such a headline floated across cyberspace from Reuters yesterday evening.
To this Main Streeter, it is just another example of how media try to manipulate truth.
What is true is that Scott Brown, the newly elected Republican Senator from MA, did vote for the jobs bill, proposed and backed, in the main, by Democrats.
What is missing from the headline, one designed to make Senator Brown appear as though he is the lone Republican, is that there were five from the right side who voted for the bill.
Also absent from the headline, there were a couple from the left who voted against the bill.
In the first paragraph of the story it states that Brown "bucked his party." (Let us create a bit of controversy here!)
The article, let alone the first paragraph, does not name the other four Republicans who also "bucked" their party, nor even of the two Dems who, conversely, "bucked" theirs by voting against it.
Why would it be that way?
This example of "news reporting" is an example of sensationalism, media bias, and media trying even harder to push the divide.
All of Main Street USA knows that for major pieces of legislation (in every administration) there is a divide, left vs right. What is not needed by anyone is media sensationalism to try and create a bigger gap.
Maybe Reuters could issue a story showing, for each and every piece of legislation introduced during the past year, how the individual Senators voted so America can see how many of them "buck" their party, based on who introduced the bill in the first place.
Over For Now.
Main Street One
"New senator helps Democrats advance jobs bill"
Such a headline floated across cyberspace from Reuters yesterday evening.
To this Main Streeter, it is just another example of how media try to manipulate truth.
What is true is that Scott Brown, the newly elected Republican Senator from MA, did vote for the jobs bill, proposed and backed, in the main, by Democrats.
What is missing from the headline, one designed to make Senator Brown appear as though he is the lone Republican, is that there were five from the right side who voted for the bill.
Also absent from the headline, there were a couple from the left who voted against the bill.
In the first paragraph of the story it states that Brown "bucked his party." (Let us create a bit of controversy here!)
The article, let alone the first paragraph, does not name the other four Republicans who also "bucked" their party, nor even of the two Dems who, conversely, "bucked" theirs by voting against it.
Why would it be that way?
This example of "news reporting" is an example of sensationalism, media bias, and media trying even harder to push the divide.
All of Main Street USA knows that for major pieces of legislation (in every administration) there is a divide, left vs right. What is not needed by anyone is media sensationalism to try and create a bigger gap.
Maybe Reuters could issue a story showing, for each and every piece of legislation introduced during the past year, how the individual Senators voted so America can see how many of them "buck" their party, based on who introduced the bill in the first place.
Over For Now.
Main Street One
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)