Local Newspapers Parrot Misinformation by Liberal Families USA

By Lyndsi Thomas | April 30, 2008 - 18:19 ET

Families USA is at it again and as usual the liberal media are dutifully parroting their rhetoric.

The liberal, pro-universal healthcare advocacy group recently released a report attacking President Bush’s budget proposal for Medicaid. In the report, Families USA Director Ron Pollack asserted that Bush’s proposed budget decreases funding for Medicaid. Like last time, Families USA has released state-specific studies showing that Bush’s supposed Medicaid cuts would cause the individual state to lose so many jobs and so much money. Local newspapers took the bait.

There’s just one problem: President Bush’s 2009 budget proposal does not cut funding for Medicaid. In fact it calls for an increase in Medicaid spending by $12 to $13 million as compared to the expected spending for 2008. The decrease in the president’s budget proposal is not really a decrease at all. What the president is proposing amounts to a slightly smaller annual average growth rate for Medicaid spending (7.1 percent) than the projected annual average growth rate of 7.4 percent over the next five years. (More information here).

But instead of doing some simple number crunching to check Families USA rhetoric against the facts, local newspapers have already started relaying this misinformation while practically peddling Families USA as nonideological.

In the Democratic Convention host state of Colorado, an April 22 story in the Denver Business Journal claimed that “Colorado's health care system could lose $787 million in Medicaid funds for five years if proposed regulations from President George W. Bush go into effect.” This story also promoted freshman Sen. Ken Salazar (D-Colo.), whom it quotes as saying the “cuts” would "devastate, or frankly jeopardize, Denver General Hospital.” The Journal described Families USA merely as a “Washington, D.C.-based advocacy group.”

In New York, the headline of an April 24 story by the Buffalo News claimed “New York health agencies may lose $1.5 billion in federal aid.” The story referred to Families USA as a “nonpartisan advocacy group” yet points fingers at “conservative Republicans” in the Senate for causing problems in regards to passing a one-year moratorium on Bush’s proposal which the House passed Wednesday with veto-proof margins.

In Sen. Barack Obama’s home state of Illinois, the title of a story in the Champaign News-Gazette reads “Report: Bush Plan Threatens Jobs.” Writer Debra Pressey claimed, “Illinois stands to lose thousands of jobs and more than $1 billion in business if the Bush administration succeeds in cutting a big chunk of federal Medicaid funding from each state, according to a new report released Wednesday.”

NewsBusters has recently reported on the tendency of newspapers to ignore the liberal leanings of Families USA while promoting the organization’s reports. Recently, even more local newspapers are reporting on the last state-specific reports released by Families USA which claims that a lack of health insurance is costing a particular state a certain number of lives each day. The title of an April 24 story by the Citizen-Times of Asheville, NC, claimed, “Lack of health coverage a matter of life and death for North Carolinians.” The article referred to Families USA as “the national organization for health care consumers.”

Comments Policy

All comments are owned by whoever posted them and are subject to our terms of use. They should not be assumed to represent the views of NewsBusters.

Viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

Hey, I was going to give my

Hey, I was going to give my kid an increase in his allowance from $20 to $30, but I couldn't afford it, so I only increased it to $25. I guess that means I cut his allowance by $5, right?

It doesn't matter how many times you say an increase in the rate of growth is not a cut, they just don't get it. Well, they do, but they won't let facts get in the way of a good story.

Families USA...with such an all-American sounding name, that's a nonpartisan, citizens' advocacy group, right?

Of course it is.

"We're the media and we

"We're the media and we will not let facts get in the way of our BDS"

"Forget change, I want improvement!"

Presidential Election Year

This is the media shifting into a higher gear to help a Dimicrat get elected to the white house. Expect to see Hill-rod or Barry use this misinformation very soon.

The figures that you quote

The figures that you quote here are incorrect,"In fact it calls for an increase in Medicaid spending by $12 to $13 million as compared to the expected spending for 2008."  The president's budget calls for an increase in Medicaid spending by $12 to $13 billion . . .  That's billions not millions.

First of all, I am always amazed about the small number of comments that are made regarding these kinds of economic posts on this blog.  The fact that we as taxpayers are paying $200+ billions of dollars for other people's medical care is alarming in itself.  This isn't that much less than we spend on our military to defend our nation. 

That this program is growing at over 7% a year which is over three times the rate of inflation is grotesque.  

Nevertheless, this just doesn't seem to bother anyone.  I think that it is outrageous.   It is runaway government programs that are taxing all of us into the poor house.  This program, in particular, will eventually destroy the medical sector of our economy. 

By the way, I have another gross government program that is on going.  You know all of the talk about how the last two quarters of GDP growth has slowed to a crawl and that net employment is almost at a standstill.  Well, the latter may be true regarding the private sector, but it isn't true about our government.  Over this last quarter, the state and federal governments have been adding jobs!  You think that our government during lean times would tighten their belt as we do.  No, nothing doing!

When you come down to it,

When you come down to it, everything is relative, even the worth of the dollars in your pocket. Limiting the growth of funding for a program to a level below the projected growth of costs is essentially a cut. Especially if you are changing something that has already been projected or planned for.

wasted tax revenue

To believe this statement I would have to believe that no one in a leadership position at any of these funded programs has any business management experience or training. I understand what you are trying to say but to operate a department/business with that type of mentality is asinine at least and corrupt at worst. Corrupt because this type of thinking in business invites corruption and promotes a slothful attitude among workers. Asinine, because it presumes the earning of increased revenue without increase the expectation of increased results. I realize we are talking government programs but if the expectation is to never improve but to continually be rewarded with more revenue (our tax money) then the program will continually be less efficient and find new ways to use their entire budget even if means wasting the revenue, hiring more people then needed or giving raises to those who have done nothing to earn increased compensation.

No, only a cut is a cut.

A reduction in the rate of increase is just that, and it's a different animal. Only a cut is a cut. You're trying to defend decades of news media dishonesty which got me started as a media critic, and it's not working any better for you than it did for the news media back in the '80s, when I first started winning this argument with media-defenders. Do you understand that for some of us, Reagan (despite his libertarian words around election-time) did NOT do nearly enough to shrink what was then a big government and is now an obese government?? Why not describe fiscal issues honestly???
JMR

PS Your point about the greenish fiat toilet paper we now call "money" despite the harsh lessons of papermoney-history is true for the toilet paper, but not true of real forms of money. Read Greenspan's pre-Fed words on gold for an explanation. When an essay lasts that long & still rings true, there's a reason.

The tax & spend drug war looks racist in the real world.

cleverpig, that's true, but

cleverpig, it's true they may have already planned for the money, but the difference here is only .3% : a growth of 7.1% as opposed to 7.4%

And the complaints also omit the following which is included in the Heritage Foundation's report, linked to in the second paragraph of the posting:

The President's budget recommends a variety of small but sensible policy changes to achieve these needed savings. . (emphasis added)