Tag Archives: News

President Obama’s Ulterior Motive

Monday, July 20, 2009

In the vernacular of magic it’s called “prestidigitation,” literally “sleight of hand.” It’s all about distraction. Look here, not there.

Six months into his Presidency, someone needs to tell President Obama that he can stop running for office. He needs to stop campaigning and start managing the government. The problem is, campaigning is what he does best, and may be all he knows how to do.

Lately, President Obama has been all over the place campaigning for Congress to pass healthcare reform legislation by the August break – almost without regard for the effectiveness of that legislation or its costs. Not that healthcare reform – and universal healthcare, in particular – isn’t way overdue. It is. The problem is his obsessive concern about the timing of the legislation, as if getting it done according to his frankly arbitrary schedule is more important than the quality and affordability of the program Congress passes.

So why is he pressing so hard? Without a doubt, it’s because he sincerely believes that it’s important legislation and that he’s doing his best, however ineptly, to make it happen. But why be in such a hurry and so persistently high profile in his appeals to Congress and the American people? One explanation is that his campaign for healthcare reform has the benefit of distracting us from his Administration’s embarrassingly incompetent handling of the economy and the $787 billion of stimulus money Congress approved at his request. Five months since he demanded these funds on an emergency basis, only $90 billion has been spent, much of which is still in what they call “the pipeline,” and we all know what that means.

And then there are the billions and billions of dollars he’s wasted bailing out some of our major financial companies and buying General Motors.

Clearly, these are things he doesn’t want to talk about. The economy’s a mess and he’s done precious little about it while putting us even deeper into debt in the process.

Fiscal and program management are not something he’s good at. Talking, yes. He’s an exceptionally good speaker delivering very well written material. Unfortunately, his performance as President has been disappointing, to say the least, although entirely consistent with what you would expect from someone with his minimal management experience. It took the head of the Congressional Budget Office to point out that his Administration’s healthcare proposal doesn’t make financial sense, a conclusion which he does not dispute. Shouldn’t his advisors have worked through the economics of their own program more carefully first, before submitting it for Congressional review and approval? Why hasn’t he been able to spend $697 billion of the $787 billion of stimulus money Congress approved? Shouldn’t the latter be his highest priority?

Well, let’s see… He can’t talk about his performance over his first 6 months office because he hasn’t accomplished anything, and he doesn’t know what to do about the economy except wait for it to recover on its own and then take credit for it. And he doesn’t want to talk about the additional troops he’s pouring into Afghanistan. So what does that leave, but to distract us by scolding Congress and campaigning directly to the American people to prove he’s on top of healthcare reform? (On top of a badly flawed program that needs more work than anyone should reasonably expect Congress to accomplish in the next 10 days?)

The question is, given the record of his Presidency to date, why should we believe his emergency healthcare legislation will be any better conceived, cost effective and well managed than his program for economic recovery?

Let’s hope he’s learning from his mistakes. In the meantime, when President Obama talks about this, maybe we should be taking a closer look at that.

-wf


Site Meter

Where is Walter now that we need him?

Saturday, July 18, 2009

I write occasionally about the media, about its role in making the news instead of just reporting it. It is a time, especially in television news, marked by an hysteria for ratings in which what they choose not to report can be more important, more influential by its omission, than what they do. It is an age of communications technology in which everything counts. It’s way too easy, even inadvertently, not to mention on purpose, to affect public opinion beyond what a fair and straightforward presentation of the facts would accomplish.

Walter Cronkite once said,

“It’s the journalists’ job, should be our motto, to tell people what they need to know. Scandal sheets tell them what they think they want to know. That’s not our job. It is our job to determine what’s important in the daily news and make sure it’s communicated so people understand its importance.”

The Devil, as usual, is in the details. It’s that part about determining what’s important that demands a level of integrity, an honesty and open mindedness which may be too much to expect from even the best nowadays. At the very least, Walter Cronkite leaves us with standards by which we can measure his successors.

Reporting should be about telling the people “what they need to know, not what they want to know,” as he put it even more succinctly in another interview.

I couldn’t agree more and wonder whether today’s news editors and media executives get the point.

-wf

Recent postings about the media…
“Preoccupation with Palin”, posted July 13, 2009.
“Michael Jackson: Is anybody really this popular?”, posted July 7, 2009.


Site Meter

Quote of the Day: 1,000+ pages and counting.*

Friday, July 17, 2009

Excerpted from the Wall Street Journal’s article by Greg Hitt, “Budget Blow for Health Plan”, July 17, 2009.

“We do not see the sort of fundamental changes that would be necessary to reduce the trajectory of federal health spending by a significant amount,” Douglas Elmendorf, director of the Congressional Budget Office, told the Senate Budget Committee. “On the contrary, the legislation significantly expands the federal responsibility for health-care costs,” he added.

Who do the President and Congressional Democrats think they’re kidding? Apparently, not Mr. Elmendorf.

By the way, regarding the President’s resistance to the notion that employer-paid healthcare insurance benefits should be taxed to help pay for the costs of universal health insurance… None of us needs additional taxes, to be sure, but fair is fair and we need to be practical. We need to keep mind that people who purchase their own healthcare insurance are paying for that coverage with after-tax dollars. Medical insurance isn’t tax free for them. Why should it be for people with employer-provided coverage?

*See also “Occam’s Law of Program Uselessness: The effectiveness of any government program varies inversely with the number of pages on which it is written” which was posted on the WordFeeder on Wednesday, July 15, 2009.

-wf


Site Meter

President Obama’s Hurricane Katrina

Friday, July 17, 2009

Running for President is one thing. President Obama is a superb campaigner with an exceptional campaign management team. Managing the government is something else altogether.

Rightly so, President Bush was lambasted for his slow and horribly inept response to the devastation caused by hurricane Katrina on New Orleans and in other communities throughout the region. What’s stunning is that President Obama – clearly President Bush’s intellectual superior – has proven himself no better, and perhaps worse at delivering government support in a crisis of much greater magnitude.

Despite his popularity and majority ownership of Congress, despite his stated need for a stimulus package on an emergency basis, here we are, 154 days since the stimulus package was passed by Congress on February 13, 2009, 5 months later and the Obama Administration has so far managed to spend only $90 billion of the total $787 billion approved – and much of that $90 billion has yet to hit the street, is still categorized as being “in the pipeline.”

The stimulus package was never necessary or appropriate. The way the money would have been spent wasn’t the most effective use of those funds to blunt a serious downturn and facilitate recovery. We didn’t have the money, and the economy is recovering on its own without it. That having been said, there’s just no excuse for President Obama’s not having spent the money Congress approved. He’s in charge. It’s his fault.

Please, save me from one more speech where a politician accepts responsibility for his or her failures. I don’t want an apology. It’s the last thing the American people and the economy need. What I want is for him to step up to his teleprompters, tell us they’ve missed the window of opportunity they had when the bill was first passed and cancel the stimulus package. “That’s it. It’s too late. We’re not going to spend the remaining $687 billion as originally planned. I’m sure we can find something else to do with it. Sorry, I blew it.” (That last sentence is optional.)

Better yet, let’s deliver the $697 billion directly to those consumers who have been hurt the most by the recession and who will put these dollars out there in the economy where they need to be, immediately.

Suggested reading… “Occam’s Economics: A simple, back-of-the envelope plan to regenerate consumer spending – immediately.” which I posted Thursday morning, July 8.

-wf


Site Meter

Occam’s Law of Program Uselessness: The effectiveness of any government program varies inversely with the number of pages on which it is written.

Wednesday, July 15, 2009

My apologies to Mr. Occam for my shameless rip off of his exceptional work. In his honor, I’ll be brief.

Depending upon the source, the Constitution of the United States has fewer than 7,000 words, including all 27 amendments. The original document was handwritten on 4 large sheets of parchment and had approximately 4,800 words. These are rough numbers. I’ve never counted them myself.

In terms of modern technology, assuming 250 typed words per page, the entire Constitution can be printed on fewer than 28 8½” by 11” sheets of cheap, 20lb copier paper from Staples.

By comparison, the proposed healthcare plan from House Democrats has over 1,000 pages.

I rest my case.

-wf


Site Meter

Preoccupation with Palin

Monday, July 13, 2009

How desperate can the media be that this morning’s Today show* allocated an entire segment, not just to the subject of why Governor Palin resigned – which is old news already – but to a live, in-studio interview with Levi Johnston to find out what the biological, but otherwise absentee father of her daughter’s child thinks about it?

Not to be critical of Mr. Johnston, far from it, but he’s hardly a reliable, unbiased source on the subject. Does anyone really care what he thinks? (By the way, that question – “Does anyone really care what he thinks?” – is the one that usually occurs to me whenever I hear someone interviewing Karl Rove, so Levi shouldn’t think I’m singling him out.)

Once again it raises an interesting question about the news: Is it the chicken or the egg? Is it that people care so much about Sarah Palin – who I like for the freshness she brings to politics – or is it that people in the media is fixated on her story for reasons having to do with their own points of view?

The media is supposed to tell the stories of our time in proportion, not just to levels of public interest, but to their importance which, admittedly, is hard to judge. What they’re not supposed to do is make the news, advertently interjecting their own opinions by virtue of what and how they present it. Keep us informed, to be sure, but do it objectively.

Today’s media, television news in particular, is so all pervasive, so constantly on in the background, that it’s hard for editors and reporters to tell any story without allowing the process to be influenced by their own thinking. Every decision they make, however grand, subtle or even subconscious, counts. Air time is everything. The nuances and duration of exposure can be career making or breaking. Add to the inherent power of electronic media the demands of competition and profit-making, it’s a miracle the media isn’t completely out of control.

One thing’s for sure, it can’t be easy being a journalist nowadays.

*See the video
“Fame went to Palin’s head,” Levi Johnston says
.

-wf


Site Meter

Michael Jackson: Is anybody really this popular?

Tuesday, July 7, 2009

Of course not. Michael Jackson’s remarkable talents and popularity as a pop star notwithstanding, his celebrity since his death, culminating with today’s memorial service at the Staples Center in Los Angeles, is all about the media – with the music industry deserving honorable mention for the huge profits which those who have a financial interest in the Jackson legacy stand to earn.

Make no mistake about it. A billion people world-wide did not call the television and other media and demand wall-to-wall coverage of Michael Jackson since he died. Just the opposite.

People are watching TV all the time, myself included. It’s the Muzak, if you know what I’m talking about, the ambient sound of our times. Something interesting happens, and we perk up and pay attention. That whatever’s happening involves good music with which many of us can identify, not to mention a free concert, makes it all that more compelling. The more weird, sometimes, the better. (Are they really going to bring Michael Jackson’s coffin to the Staples Center?) But if we didn’t have a TV on in the background, if we had anything better to do or that required our undivided attention… Well, it’s only TV, and we can catch the highlights later on the news, and buy the CD if we’re really interested.

Just because some marketing company puts your face or product up on a really big sign at Times Square doesn’t mean that the thousands and thousands of people a day who walked or drove by came there to see it.

Yes, I find it annoying when otherwise world class interviewers like Matt Lauer and others talk about the Michael Jackson phenomenon as if it were real, as if it would exist independently of the extraordinary coverage the media is giving it. The media helped elect Barack Obama, and is certainly doing more than it should to create the Legend of Michael Jackson. I wonder who or what they have in store for us next?

In an industry where relatively few people are in charge of so much coverage, and in which even fewer set the pace for the others, is there reason to be concerned about our view of the events they broadcast, not to mention the ones they don’t?

It’s difficult, sometimes, to keep things in perspective – and next to impossible to know much about what the media isn’t covering, however important.

-wf


Site Meter

Note to soon-to-be ex-Governor Mark Sanford:

Wednesday, July 1, 2009

Just because someone asks you a question doesn’t mean you have to answer it. Please be quiet. You’re interrupting wall-to-wall Michael Jackson coverage.

Thank you.

-wf


Site Meter