ABC’s Klein Adopts Euphemism ‘Investments’ to Refer to Obama Spending Proposals
On the January 23 World News Sunday, ABC News Senior Washington Editor Rick Klein used President Obama’s euphemism for spending as "investments" as he and anchor Dan Harris discussed how Republicans will likely respond to Tuesday’s State of the Union Address. Although the setup piece by correspondent David Kerley did allude to Obama’s word choice to call his plan "cut and invest" as having significance, noting that it "worries Republicans," after the piece had ended, Klein twice used the term "investments" as if it were straight, nonpartisan terminology. Klein:
But when you get down to the policy, the President talking about the targeted new investments, that is going to be such a tough sell in the current environment. Republicans are busy preparing long lists of budget cuts. That's going to be their focus. So, regardless of what the applause looks like on Tuesday night, it's going to be very difficult for the President to get any Republican support for any even very targeted new investments.
Kerley’s report had played a soundbite of House Majority Leader Eric Cantor’s skeptical response to the term "invest":
DAVID KERLEY: President Obama will stride into the House promising to cut spending and invest in the future. "Cut and invest," they call it. Which worries Republicans.
ERIC CANTOR, HOUSE MAJORITY LEADER: We want to cut and grow. Because when we hear "invest" from anyone in Washington, to me, that means more spending.
Below is a complete transcript of Kerley’s report, followed by the segment with Klein from the January 23 World News Sunday on ABC:
DAN HARRIS: And, as we all know, the shooting of Gabby Giffords set off cries for more civility in Washington. But today, top Republicans were making it clear as politely as possible that some of the ideas that President Obama plans to propose in Tuesday night's State of the Union Address are unacceptable to them. David Kerley is in Washington tonight.
DAVID KERLEY: President Obama will stride into the House promising to cut spending and invest in the future. "Cut and invest," they call it. Which worries Republicans.
ERIC CANTOR, HOUSE MAJORITY LEADER: We want to cut and grow. Because when we hear "invest" from anyone in Washington, to me, that means more spending.
KERLEY: And Republicans question if the President will cut enough.
MITCH MCCONNELL, SENATE MINORITY LEADER: I'm happy that the President's pivoting. We all know why. But it is kind of a trust but verify moment. Let's see if he's really willing to do it.
KERLEY: Even with high unemployment, President Obama is much higher in the polls than he was just weeks ago. His charm offensive with business, appointments of business-friendly staff and a productive lame duck session have put him on a roll. And Republicans know it.
SENATOR JOHN MCCAIN (R-AZ) CLIP #1: I think the President has already changed a great deal.
MCCAIN CLIP #2: He's going to be talking about cutting spending. That's what the message of the November election was.
KERLEY: Moving to the center, talking about cutting spending, creating jobs, is working.
DAVID GERGEN, POLITICAL ANALYST: The State of the Union is an enormous opportunity for him to continue this rebound, this comeback. He's got a chance now to really provide a theme for his presidency for the last two years.
KERLEY: After President Obama proclaims-
PRESIDENT BARACK OBAMA: Our union is strong.
KERLEY: -expect a theme he's mentioned at least eight times in the past five days.
OBAMA CLIP #1: We are competitive.
OBAMA CLIP #2: Global competition.
OBAMA CLIP #3: Even more competitive.
KERLEY: And he will use that other word, "investing," when he talks about education and research. Civility will be a big part of this speech, and that call for Republicans and Democrats to sit together, a date night of sorts, is gaining some momentum. Already, there are 60 members who will be red and blue couples, bipartisan partners, but the top Republican in the Senate, Mitch McConnell, says he will not take part. Now, there could be some awkward moments, Dan. What's going to happen when the Democrat stands up to applaud and the Republican they're sitting next to sits on their hands? It will be something interesting to watch.
HARRIS: Indeed. David Kerley, thank you. We want to talk more about this with Rick Klein, who’s our senior Washington editor. Rick, this whole date night thing, is it empty symbolism or substantive symbolism?
RICK KLEIN: I don't see a single policy implication to the choice of seat-mates. I think it is symbolic, but it’s a symbol and a new look that the White House would much rather talk about than the fact that President Obama is going to have a Republican House Speaker over his shoulder for the first time. But when you get down to the policy, the President talking about the targeted new investments, that is going to be such a tough sell in the current environment. Republicans are busy preparing long lists of budget cuts. That's going to be their focus. So, regardless of what the applause looks like on Tuesday night, it's going to be very difficult for the President to get any Republican support for any even very targeted new investments.
HARRIS: Lots going on, and it could end up being one of the more interesting State of the Unions we've seen in some time. Rick Klein, thank you.
- Brad Wilmouth's blog
- Login to post comments















Comments
Yeah - when a short-sighted
Submitted by Slyrr on Mon, 01/24/2011 - 12:35am.
Yeah - when a short-sighted moron who earns only $20,000 a year decides to rack up $500,000 of credit card debt, he's 'investing'.
The sooner this odious man and his tax-and-spend tyrants are thrown out, the better. I only hope the GOP will have the backbone to put the brakes on Obama's crazed policies of destruction. And that the GOP will have the fortitude to withstand the inevitable onslaught of lies from Obama's media slaves.
Like the leaves from an October tree.
Submitted by NeoKong on Mon, 01/24/2011 - 12:56am.
Another bit of credibility flutters away in the wind.
DAVID KERLEY: President Obama will stride into the House promising to cut spending and invest in the future. "Cut and invest," they call it. Which worries Republicans. Just how much of this must we tolerate...? And just how he managed to work Gabriel Giffords into that story is beyond me.
Funny, because when I invest money it's a voluntary
Submitted by lsudolemite on Mon, 01/24/2011 - 12:55am.
transaction on my part. When the government forcibly takes my money by threat of fines. penalties, liens, or imprisonment, that's coercion, aka taxation.
Clinton-ese: investment = taxes
Submitted by Galvanic on Mon, 01/24/2011 - 1:01am.
At least as far back as his first year in office (and probably his first Presidential campaign), Slick Willie referred to taxes as investments. This was certainly first tried out on focus groups, who found the word more positive.
Other words that the Left loves to throw around include:
moving (or going) forward
social justice
economic justice
stakeholder(s)
pivot
Truth to Power (ugh!)
Taxes = Investment?
Submitted by Jer on Mon, 01/24/2011 - 1:32am.
I don't recall that. Link?
Jer
If private capital is not
Submitted by robert108 on Mon, 01/24/2011 - 1:15am.
If private capital is not risked to make a profit, with penalty for failure, its not an investment, it's just more wasteful spending of taxpayer money that would be better left in the hands of those who earned it.
Right. Lousy investments like...
Submitted by Jer on Mon, 01/24/2011 - 1:40am.
the space program, Interstate Highway system, the Marshall Plan, etc: Complete flops.
Jer
→ Jer
Submitted by Cool Arrow on Mon, 01/24/2011 - 1:55am.
Maybe you've hit upon something.
Since suing the Federal Government is such a tough row to hoe, maybe the Doctors should just accept their positions as employees of the state and allow their fears of malpractice to slip away from them.
Furthermore, Doctors wouldn't have to worry so much about misdiagnosis since the government will be pressing them more to practice on the prevailing hunch than those niggling tests that get in the way of real medicine, huh?
Can't wait.
Those were good investments for the benefit of all, but...
Submitted by Red Jeep on Mon, 01/24/2011 - 9:10am.
... taking money from one class of people to give away to another class of people isn't investing, it is legalized stealing.
Also the space program, the interstate highway program, etc. were not done to insure the re-election of a certain political party.
Obamacare is a vote buying scheme, not an investment. Obamacare is also a power grab.
It is an Apples and Oranges argument that true investments like the space program and the interstate highway program are the same type of investment as Obamacare, welfare and other Democrat vote buying scams.
I didn't say that all govt
Submitted by robert108 on Mon, 01/24/2011 - 9:22am.
I didn't say that all govt spending was bad, I just pointed out that it's not investment. The fact that the private sector has made good, profitable use of all those govt spending programs does not accrue to the govt, but to individual Americans.
Jer
Submitted by dmaley1714 on Mon, 01/24/2011 - 9:33am.
Do have any examples of investments that are less than 40 years old?
Still "investing," Jer!
Submitted by CobraMan on Mon, 01/24/2011 - 1:02pm.
It's interesting that of all the "investments" you're citing, only the "Marshall Plan" actually lead to a REDUCTION of U.S. tax payer "investments." The others, the space program, the Interstate Highway system, and a lot of others that you failed to mention, are all multi-billion dollar a year "investments"that, guess what?, keep GROWING year after year even though Obama himself has mentioned that, especially in the sciences, we are no longer being competitive globally.
So, well over a trillion dollars of taxpayer "investment" into the "space program" in the last 20 years alone and yet we STILL need to "invest" in "sciences and technology" in order to stay competitive? Yea, let's throw even more taxpayer money into apparently unproductive federal scientific research and development. Now that's a GREAT idea!
Here's an idea: Let's increase our "investments" in PRIVATELY FUNDED research and development, also known as capitalism, the same privately funded research and development that lead to the PC, the Cellphone, the Flat Screen TV, the Dishwasher, the Car, the Hair Dryer, the Lightbulb, ect, ect, ect.
The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States. The US Constitution
Unless you're a fetus. The US Supreme Court
Or Anwar al-Awlaki.
So how many military
Submitted by Dan The Man 2 on Mon, 01/24/2011 - 1:31pm.
So how many military investments have we made lately? Those are all military investments.
Investment has been re-defined.
Submitted by sybilll on Mon, 01/24/2011 - 1:37am.
To largesse.
McConnell nailed it
Submitted by Cool Arrow on Mon, 01/24/2011 - 1:40am.
This morning on FOX News Sunday, Mitch McConnell said Americans should beware of the President calling "spending" by this new name "investment".
He clairvoyant or he has already been introduced to the President's new paradigm to prosperity.
George Will Calls SOTU a "Pep Rally"
Submitted by Boil It Down on Mon, 01/24/2011 - 2:14am.
I think George is absolutely right and pep rallies require euphemisms. I think Klein only parrots "investment" from the talking points memos. Klein is, after all, one of the important useful idiots.
I hope someone does the work for me and writes a piece on the word counts of the euphemisms and other telling terms. Investing - competing - bipartisan - tone - civility - "I/me references" - "centering references". This SOTU comes at a time when he is in heightened campaign mode. This address will most certainly be primarily about Obama and very little about the State of The Union.
When Obama talks about a stronger union I immediately assume he's talking ab out organized labor, his first love.
more word games?
Submitted by 3strikes on Mon, 01/24/2011 - 3:26am.
Just like "Obama has created or saved an estimated 1.9 million jobs." Really?!
Tea Party House GOP Aiming to Defund the United Nations
Submitted by im41 on Mon, 01/24/2011 - 4:12am.
TIP
Tea Party House GOP Aiming to Defund the United Nations
http://conservativeblogscentral.blogspot.com/2011/01/tea-party-house-gop...
Invest...you hopefully get a pay back...worth investing in Army?
Submitted by jorae on Mon, 01/24/2011 - 6:10am.
From the tax payer side, it would be ....Tax
From the Government side, it would be income
I don't know...saying "investing" in the military seems right...the word was tax before it got to the Treasury...now it is spent ... and hopefully on investing in America...Not in waste like Farm subsities, and Bail out from people who arrive in private planes...It seems we always have money for some ... but never questions how much goes out to no bid contracts and farms subsities...that are corporat owned. How come we got so use to seeing the established rich as deserving our tax dollars? There is something wrong with this picture.
Investments indicate that a capital object is formed
Submitted by TheHistorian on Mon, 01/24/2011 - 6:59am.
Investing can happen in bridges, dams, tanks, rifles, etc.
Investing in people is another name for welfare, paying off pension funds, etc.
The two have very different end results for the taxpayer. The first one is a single or periodic investment. The latter is a continued drain on our economy.
As of today, because President Obama did so much of the second, particularly to his cronies in state and local governments, we have no money for the first. Believing him that he will actually do the first is a "willing suspension of disbelief" to quote the White House Cookie Baker in another discussion.
Dennis Prager
That's An Important Distinction Historian
Submitted by Boil It Down on Mon, 01/24/2011 - 12:18pm.
I'm glad you reminded us of the point that we need to see solid results if it is to be called an investment. Show me the goods, show me value, noble sounding causes are too often like smoke in the wind.
Obama and the Congress have burned their bridges when it comes to proposing any further intangible investments.
Klein said, "...targeted new
Submitted by Kevpot on Mon, 01/24/2011 - 12:26pm.
Klein said,
"...targeted new investments...."
Targeted? That's pretty harsh scary rhetoric.
The Big Problem
Submitted by CobraMan on Mon, 01/24/2011 - 1:27pm.
The Big Problem with Obama's (or any other politician, for that matter) "investment" idea is that the federal government decides who and what will receive the US Taxpayers money in the form of "investments" and that those "investments" are targeted according to political ideology. It's interesting to note that those "investments" are also defined and debated by means of political ideology and that the "results" of those "investments" also vary according to political ideology. It all depend on which party is in power at the time.
For example: Regan's "Star Wars" defense program "investments" were a bad idea, according to the political "experts" in power right now (Missile defense is not a "proven technology," according to Obama, therefor the federal government will not "invest" in it.), while Obama's "Solar Power" or "Green" "investments" are a good idea, according to those same "experts." ( Advanced battery technology is a "good" investment and shall receive federal funding, according to Obama, even though that, too, is an "unproven" technology as those "improved" batteries haven't even been invented yet. And then there's fetal stem-cell research...) Both involved "investments" into science and technology yet one "investment" is better than another due only to political ideology.
Do we REALLY want political ideology to decide what is a "good" or "bad" "investment" of the taxpayers money? If political ideology is involved, and it can't help BUT be involved when politicians control those decisions, then it is automatically a bad investment for all you'll be investing in is political rancor and division.
The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States. The US Constitution
Unless you're a fetus. The US Supreme Court
Or Anwar al-Awlaki.
Investments
Submitted by djaymick on Mon, 01/24/2011 - 1:28pm.
Like the "investment" we made in Brazil to send $2B for oil exploration? Like the "investment" in green jobs that have seen some of the largest recipients going belly up? Like "investments" in education that have produced more drop outs and lower test scores?
Hopefully, Republicans will defund the Brazilian money and keep it for us to do this. Great, union jobs (unfortunately) that reduce our foreign dependence. This one will surely win over both sides of the aisle. However, we will not hear a peep from the liberal environmentalists on this.