The Czar Hypocrisy, contd ...
Since the furor over Van Jones that was ginned-up last week by Michelle Malkin and Glenn Beck was sooooo important that Politico feels the need to make the entire concept of czars a BIG deal, I thought I would continue my thoughts from my previous posting on the czar hypocrisy where we see media outlets like Politico dutifully transcribing GOP talking points to try to nail the Obama WH.
Naturally, there was NO outrage by Republicans during the Bush years where there were actually MORE czars and most were not people who were confirmed by the Senate. Click this link to see the List of U.S. executive branch czars in our country's history.
But in typical GOP 2009 fashion, here is Cantor throwing a hissy fit over czars. Naturally, Cantor and the GOP leadership found nooooo problem with things like czars, deficits or bank bailouts under a Republican president.
We have a serious problem with the media in this country today. And Politico's egregiously incorrect stories are simply repeating falsehoods from GOP talking points memos (more czars than ever before & not confirmed by the Senate).
That is a lazy excuse for "journalism" and very dangerous.
C'mon - this is just typical of the party that's not in power. You're right that Republicans didn't express outrage in the Bush era. But it wasn't their job to do so. It was the Democrats job, and they did a very good job of it. Just like a Redsox fan's 2nd favorite team is whoever is playing the Yankees, the Democrats during the Bush years were against anything that Bush was supporting. That's politics. But Democrats have really short memories of how much they protested everything that Bush did.
September 6, 2009 2:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
MiddleClassBill - that is an incredibly jaded position to take and the attitude in which I am calling out the DC beltway press on here.
It is fair to say it is the job of the opposition party to raise such issues.
However, you cannot escape the hypocrisy. It is what it is.
Politics does not have to be this way. If unconfirmed czars, deficit spending and bailouts are bad if a Dem does it, then they are just as bad when a Republican does it.
September 6, 2009 2:58 PM | Reply | Permalink
Not really. Because the degree to which they are done must also be considered. Bush used more czars than Obama so the fact that they both used czars shouldn't be criticized equally. Same with the deficit - yes they both have run deficits, but Obama's deficits relative to the size of the economy are so much bigger that it's OK to be concerned about his deficits even if you didn't complain about Bush's.
September 6, 2009 7:57 PM | Reply | Permalink
Oh, now I get it Bill, thanks for clearing that up!
Simply put, the budget deficit by the Bush admin (all the while hiding the costs of the wars OUT of the budget) was okie-dokie by Repubs because it hadn't quite crossed that magical threshold as, what, a percentage of GDP?
But, hey, now we're all doomed to extinction because those silly Dems didn't realize that you can run deficits up until that magical threshold set by conservatives.
LOL! I do recall the conservative hero Dick Cheney stating that deficit spending is no biggie ...
September 6, 2009 11:25 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'm not sure what magical threshold you're talking about. What I'm saying is that the deficit for the next 10 years is going to be a lot bigger than the deficits we've had over the past 10 years. Same thing for our national debt. That's all according to the CBO, not just me saying it. The average deficit every year for the next 10 years will be close to $1 trillion per year. This compares to average actual deficits (including Iraq) from 2000-2008 that were around $300-400 billion.
September 7, 2009 7:17 AM | Reply | Permalink
The largest drivers of those projections originate from Bush's corporate tax cuts, wars and other bad policies. BTW, those are projections assuming all things being equal and on the same trajectory. They're meant for planning purposes. The govt would never allow deficits to become 75% of GDP. You need to understand this to understand economics.
http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/2009/08/deficit_numbers.html
September 7, 2009 12:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
Deficits as big as 75% of GDP? That must be a typo. Did you mean national debt? I'm sure you didn't mean deficits because 75% of GDP for a deficit is pretty silly.
Assuming you mean debt, could you explain why the government wouldn't let the debt get to 75% of GDP?
But the article you link is pretty humorous. If Bush's policies were so bad, then why is Obama continuing them? If Bush wasn't spending properly, then you should cut those programs and replace it with spending you approve. Obama's own budget, according to the CBO, is projected to add more to the public debt from 2010 thru 2016 compared to Bush's spending through 2008. (I'm leaving out 2009 since that increased debt can be tied to both of them).
I'm fine assigning Bush with some of the blame for the 2009 and even 2010 deficits. But the deficits still explode after 2010. Obama's deficit in 2012 is $658 billion and grows to over $1 trillion by 2018. Good luck trying to blame Bush for those numbers.
September 7, 2009 2:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
yes, I meant DEBT as % of GDP. The govt would not allow that to happen because of the effect it would have on the dollar and those countries that own our debt.
September 7, 2009 5:19 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'm not sure how you came up with the 75% target. It's already over 80% - national debt is $11.8 trillion and GDP is $14.2 trillion. ANd it's going higher. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_public_debt)
September 7, 2009 7:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
Were you planning to answer my question about why we wouldn't let Debt/GDP go above 70% other than just because we don't want to de-value the dollar? Is Obama just going to reign in his budget and cut all that spending he has in there if GDP doesn't rise to keep us below 70%? I was surprised by the 70% that you offered when we are already above that level. (I guess you were including just the public debt?) Either way, not letting it go higher sounds nice but didn't you notice that Obama's budget shows our debt level significantly increasing by just a few trillion dollars?
Like I said earlier, you can blame Bush for the 2009 deficit and I'll even give you 2010. But afterwards, that's all Obama.
And you don't just have to be a middle class blogger to know this.
Take a read of this article from a Harvard econ professor. http://online.wsj.com/article/SB20001424052970203585004574393110640864526.html#mod=todays_us_opinion
September 8, 2009 5:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
Maybe Bill but I don't recall any democrat complaining about the 36 czars appointed by bush, four more than Obama, mostly because complaining about the nomenclature when every president since FDR used it is stupid. Its just one more example of the intellectual bankruptcy of the republican party.
The level of lies, stupidity and hypocrisy of the republican party today is absolutely overwhelming.
September 6, 2009 3:31 PM | Reply | Permalink
You just have a short memory. When Bush was in office, everything he did was contested.
September 6, 2009 7:54 PM | Reply | Permalink
Not even close to the same thing.
Here, today, we have the right-wing noise machine on CNBC & FoxNews and GOP leaders like Judd Gregg claiming that the deficit is going to enslave your children, ruin the country and destroy capitalism.
Maybe the problem is just that the Dems are not as good at hyberole as the Repubs are?
September 6, 2009 11:27 PM | Reply | Permalink
Sure it is the same thing. We also have the left wing noise machine of MSNBC - they've been attacking Bush for years exactly the same way Fox attacks Obama. And as for CNBC, c'mon - they don't get into politics as much as they do the economy and the markets. And they've got on people with all points of view.
September 7, 2009 7:01 AM | Reply | Permalink
LOL! Comparing MSNBC to FoxNews, calling it a left wing noise machine, is like a high school football team playing the NE Patriots!
Rupert Mudoch's entire News Corp organization puts out right-wing propaganda on Fox News, WSJ editorial pages, Daily News, etc.
Not even close to MSNBC, which also happens to have a conservative commentator in the AM.
September 7, 2009 11:56 AM | Reply | Permalink
So just because of "Morning Joe" you say it's not a close comparison? C'mon - during prime time when most people are watching you have Olberman and Maddow. And on Fox you have O'Reilly and Hannity. Pretty much the same on each extreme.
September 7, 2009 1:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
You missed the point. Comparing MSNBC to the control that News Corp has on the media is nonsense.
MSNBC is a drip of water in the ocean that is the conservative media controlled by News Corp.
September 7, 2009 5:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
MSNBC is a drip in the water? The network that's controlled by GE and Microsoft? Gee, I guess GE and Microsoft are really small companies. No way that their market caps could ever be larger than the mighty News Corp.
I think News Corp's market cap is well under $50 billion compared to $150 billion for GE and over $200 billion for MSFT. But you're right, they're just drips in the water. They only own one major network (NBC) plus two major cable news channels (CNBC and MSNBC) and something called msn.com
Drip, drip, drip, drip...
September 7, 2009 8:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
Wow, that has to be one of the most unbelievably intellectually dishonest responses that I have ever read.
You just took the overall market cap of 2 large corporations that make manufacture software, kitchen appliances, lightbulbs & consumer electronics and compared those to a company whose sole industry is entertainment and news (conflated though those 2 things may be).
Ridiculous. Besides, News Corp is headed by a meglamaniac who is willing to fund non-profitable print publications from his Fox network solely for the purpose of using the editorial pages to spread his right-wing conservative politics & ideals.
To actually compare market cap in the entertainment and news industry, you will have to first find out what % of revenue at GE & Microsoft are actually from MSNBC.
Then compare that to the WHOLE of News Corp.
Then come back to me with your drip, drip, drip.
September 7, 2009 8:29 PM | Reply | Permalink
The % of revenues is not the point. The point is that MSNBC (and CNBC) are both part of very large organizations with deep pockets. Pockets much bigger than Newscorp. You can't compare one of the channels (MSNBC) to the entire Newscorp company. There's a lot more to GE's and MSFT's media biz than just MSNBC. (Ever heard of NBC?) So it's completely misleading to say that MSNBC is just a drip compared to Newscorp. It's not a fair comparison to look at just MSNBC versus ALL of Newscorp. (But since you asked - Newscorp's total revenues last year were $30 billion and GE's media business had $17 billion in revenues. Microsoft doesn't break it out that way but it's also got to be large.)
September 7, 2009 10:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
The magician must keep the audience looking at one thing while he performs the other thing.
So much of this is just a waste of time. But your post points out that MSM is complicit in this chicanery.
Politico pisses me off lately.
September 7, 2009 1:05 AM | Reply | Permalink