- Al Sharpton, Trayvon Martin’s parents rally against Fla. ‘stand your ground’ law
- Hillary Clinton campaign got illicit funds from D.C. scandal figure
- Obama administration backs off plan to cut prescription-drug program
- Tickets linked to stolen passports purchased by Iranian middleman
- More than 3,500 police planned for Boston Marathon
- Ottawa day care suspends 2-year-old for ‘outside’ cheese sandwich
- Liam Neeson tells NYC mayor to ‘man up’ in horse carriage fight
- Real-life Dr. Doolittle to reveal how to talk to animals
- Climate change could bring back smallpox, researchers say
- Shoe-bomb witness to speak from London at N.Y. trial
Woe is us
“All of the media have pounced on the Bush administration’s desire to ‘cut’ spending on a few programs, focusing on how some small spending adjustments will hurt the poor, but none more so than CBS on Monday night,” the Media Research Center’s Brent Baker writes at www.mediaresearch.org.
“Lee Cowan devoted a full story to how ‘the proposed cuts hit the heartland like a mountain of unwanted news, from the soy bean fields of Iowa … to large cities like Minneapolis, where block grant programs help the homeless and the hungry.’ Cowan, who failed to cite a single proposed budget number, showcased complaints from food bank and health-care workers and, led into a sound bite from the unlabeled Robert Greenstein of the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, by stressing how ‘critics charge the people these cuts hit the hardest tend to have the weakest political voice.’
“Not CBS nor any network story on Monday night pointed out how minimal the proposed cuts really are,” Mr. Baker said. “Chris Edwards, director of tax policy studies at the Cato Institute, observed on the group’s Web site: ‘The budget proposes to cut 150 programs, but the fine print shows that these cuts will only reduce 2006 spending by 0.8 percent.’” See: www.cato.org.
“The morning shows on Monday reflected how network journalists paint cuts as undesirable, referring to ‘severe cutbacks,’ ‘steep cuts’ and to how the budget will ‘slash spending.’”
The passion gap
“President Bush will succeed in his Social Security changes because he has skillfully drafted them in such a way that the only voters who are affected support his proposal — while the ones who oppose it won’t be affected by it,” New York Post columnist Dick Morris writes.
“Pollster Scott Rasmussen reports that support for private investment skews dramatically by age group. Those aged 18 to 29 back it by 65 percent to 22 percent. Thirtysomething voters support it by 63-28; those in their 40s, 59-30.
“But voters between the ages of 50 and 64 oppose the private-investment option by 49-41, and those over 65, by 63-27.
“So the only voters who oppose private investment are those whom the reforms won’t touch. Those for whom the changes are real, generally support them.” Mr. Morris said.
“So Bush has succeeded in anesthetizing the Social Security debate: His proposed changes will stir passion only in the breasts of ideologues of each stripe, but not in the voters most affected.
“Which means his program is likely to pass despite dire Democratic warnings.”
Party of the past
Taxpayers must pay the freight for over-budget train projects
- Kim Jong-un calls for execution of 33 Christians
- Senate Democrats, Republicans spar over restoring unemployment benefits
- Depth, distance reduce impact of California quake
- Mitch McConnell on beating tea party: 'We are going to crush them'
- Sharyl Attkisson resigns from CBS after months of talks
- Atheists sue to remove 'Ground Zero Cross' from 9/11 museum
- New faces finding ways to win on the PGA Tour
- U.S. pilot scares off Iranians with 'Top Gun'-worthy stunt: 'You really ought to go home'
- Prosecutors: Gray had firsthand knowledge of 'shadow campaign'
- DHS accused of holding U.S. citizen at airport, using emails to pry into her sex life
Pope Francis meets his 'mini-me'
Celebrity deaths in 2014
Winter storm hits states — again