The Associated Press injected an editorial comment into the news... again. A few days ago, the AP issued a piece headlined Senate Republicans block heating aid bill, in which the AP made it seem as if Republicans don't care about "the poor" and are only interested in mere political partisanship. This report featured quotes showing how wonderful and caring the Democrats are but not a single quote from any Republican to explain their stance. It also clearly discounted the GOP position while positively spinning the Democratic position.
The story concerns the GOP's blocking of a Senate Democrat bill to double the Federal aid to "the poor" to subsidize their heating and air-conditioning bills. First of all, I wasn't aware that it was Constitutionally mandated that "the poor" get free air-conditioning, but that is another story. The editorializing comes in with the second paragraph.
Although a dozen Senate Republicans support the measure, most voted with GOP leaders who would rather spend the time trumpeting their call to expand offshore oil drilling before Congress takes six weeks off for vacation and the presidential nominating conventions.
What's with this offhanded "GOP leaders who would rather spend the time trumpeting their call to expand offshore oil drilling" business? If that isn't editorializing, what is?
This report also reported the hand wringing of "Indenependent" Bernie Sanders of Vermont -- who nearly always supports the Democrat Party line -- to the effect that the GOP is filled with meanies.
"Do we vote to keep the old, the sick and kids alive when the weather gets cold or very, very hot, or do we spend money on people who make huge campaign contributions? That is part of what this debate is about."
Nice populist blather.
And where is the GOP response to all this populist moralizing? How did the AP explain the GOP position in a fair and balanced way?
Well... they didn't.
The story is entirely flavored to paint Republicans as mean to the poor, uncaring about the people, and interested only in cheap political partisanship.
And that, folks, is the AP way.
(H/T NRO Media Blog)
Editor at Large
Comments Policy
Bernie got his talking
July 28, 2008 - 22:43 ET by bigtimerBernie got his talking points from Fearless Leader Reid ....they think they are gonna' run on these type of things instead of drilling and being independent here...
I watched the Senate all day today while they were in...I posted and put a link on OT...
Let the AP put this anyway they want, they will anyway..the dems are making a huge mistake this time...and I am smiling just thinking about it.
"America isn't the problem...America is the solution." ~ Rush Limbaugh
It may be populist blather, as you say
July 28, 2008 - 23:01 ET by sarcasmoBut that door was opened, if not permanently knocked off its hinges, by the various socialist bailouts we've already seen this year. I didn't find said socialist bank bailouts of irresponsible executives any more Constitutionally mandated than conservatives find "free" air conditioning for the poor, but that's yet another story.
JMR
The tax & spend drug war looks racist in the real world.
Right on...
July 28, 2008 - 23:13 ET by Warner Todd Huston"I cannot undertake to lay my finger on that article of the Constitution which granted a right to Congress of expending, on objects of benevolence, the money of their constituents...." --James Madison (known as the Father of the Constitution)
"I cannot find any authority in the Constitution for public charity, [such spending] would be contrary to the letter and the spirit of the Constitution and subversive to the whole theory upon which the Union of these States is founded." --President Franklin Pierce
"I feel obliged to withhold my approval of the plan to indulge in benevolent and charitable sentiment through the appropriation of public funds. .. I find no warrant for such an appropriation in the Constitution." --President Grover Cleveland
Welcome to the Libertarian Party, Warner.
July 28, 2008 - 23:35 ET by R D HelmLOL-And its about time, too. :-)
The truth is insensitive. - Neal Boortz
WTH: I'm sorry to say,
July 29, 2008 - 06:34 ET by KillgraveWTH:
I'm sorry to say, the so-called "journalists" would only dismiss these quoates as coming from "dead white males". These pearls of wisdom mean absolutely nothing to them.
Sadly
July 29, 2008 - 07:47 ET by Warner Todd HustonSadly, you are likely right.
Promote the general welfare
July 29, 2008 - 11:48 ET by CobraMan"I cannot find any authority in the Constitution for public charity"
I don't think he and others were looking very hard. All they had to do was read the preamble to the Constitution and they would see that the Constitution was ordained and established in part to “promote the general Welfare,” amongst other things. Wouldn’t this mean that Congress can, and should, spend money to help the needy in times of strife?
Not that I think that Congress is doing a very good job at managing our tax revenue, especially with their endless (and highly political) subsidies, but I don't have a problem with the government spending a small percentage of our tax dollars on helping those in need.
I shall now don my asbestos suit, so flame away.
Promote the general welfare
July 29, 2008 - 11:59 ET by bassndudeThat has no reference to the monetary compensation of the general public, but, simply means for the goverment to keep out of the way and let the people pursue their life, liberty and happiness. Welfare is not a the system they call welfare today. The preamble is a brief on what the Constitution is to do.
Save a SeAL, club a liberal!!
General welfare is not free
July 29, 2008 - 12:21 ET by CobraManThe preamble also speaks of the need to “establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to our Posterity and ourselves.” None of this can be done without spending tax revenue. Life in America doesn’t work that way. If it’s ok to spend tax revenue to provide for the common defense and to establish justice(law enforce and the military), for an example, then it's reasonable to allow for the government to spend money in “charitable” endeavors like providing needed assistance in order to provide for the common welfare. The key, of course, is NEEDED assistance. Most of the “assistance” programs offered by government isn’t really needed to promote general welfare and is done for political reasons.
If you do some research you
July 29, 2008 - 20:47 ET by Dan The Man 2If you do some research you will find that the founders never envisioned spending money for welfare. They believed in one doing for themselves and charity in the form of the church and individuals stepping in to help. No government handouts for the citizens.
Nuke em til they glow then shoot em in the dark.
BTW
July 29, 2008 - 12:38 ET by CobraManBTW, the preamble is not a "brief on what the Constitution is to do,” as you put it. It is a statement detailing the reason why the Constitution was created. This is why the preamble begins with "We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union" and ends with "do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America" instead of beginning with "We the people of the United States of America, in order to limit the government," and ending with "and this is all that the Constitution allows."
Sarc,
July 28, 2008 - 23:17 ET by RESTLESS 1What makes you think that conservatives agree with the bank bailouts? I certainly don't.
"This
liberal would be all about socialize -- uh, uh, would be about
basically taking over and the government running all of your companies."-Maxine Waters 2008
...I don't either...or
July 28, 2008 - 23:22 ET by bigtimer...I don't either...or Freddie and Fannie...or the people responsible for their own contracts they sign...on and on...
"America isn't the problem...America is the solution." ~ Rush Limbaugh
Well, it wasn't a libertarian
July 28, 2008 - 23:23 ET by sarcasmoWho signed the socialist bailout legislation, and the only libertarians there (Paul & Coburn) voted against it. Did "conservatives"?? I think it's time for them to own a mistake, so I'm "helping."
JMR
The tax & spend drug war looks racist in the real world.
So, because Bush signs some
July 28, 2008 - 23:26 ET by RESTLESS 1So, because Bush signs some stupid legislation, I am automatically for it? Bush is no conservative. He was just better than the alternatives in 2000 and 2004. I have made this point before.
"This
liberal would be all about socialize -- uh, uh, would be about
basically taking over and the government running all of your companies."-Maxine Waters 2008
When did I say you were for it?
July 28, 2008 - 23:28 ET by sarcasmoI said I was gonna make conservatives "own" a mistake the too-few libertarians up there obviously didn't make. And that's exactly what I did. Methinks thou dost protest too much...
JMR
The tax & spend drug war looks racist in the real world.
When you post conservatives
July 28, 2008 - 23:45 ET by RESTLESS 1When you post conservatives as opposed to "conservatives", I assume you mean all of us. You didn't say "some" conservatives.
Look, I agree that the libertarians voted correctly on bailouts. The funny thing is, Congress' approval ratings are so low because niether side is doing what their constituents want them to do.
"This
liberal would be all about socialize -- uh, uh, would be about
basically taking over and the government running all of your companies."-Maxine Waters 2008
I figured "conservatives" it applied to
July 29, 2008 - 05:32 ET by sarcasmoWould just know. ;) Don't make me bring out the David Nolan quote about libertarians & balls, again...
JMR
The tax & spend drug war looks racist in the real world.
No Charity at Gunpoint!
July 28, 2008 - 23:09 ET by dodecahedronThe government provides services through taxation. Taxation is money collected from citizens at gunpoint. If you don't believe me, try not paying taxes for a few years and see who comes to your door.
This program is charity for the poor. Citizens should not be forced to provide charity to the poor at gunpoint.
If you want to give money to the poor, that should be your choice. You should not be forced by the government to take food out of your own family's mouths to provide charity for other families.
Politicians and the media need to remember that taxes are not THEIR MONEY to do with as they please. It is OUR MONEY that they have collected at gunpoint. They need to use it wisely for the benefit of all.
And when gas is $10 a gallon...
July 28, 2008 - 23:21 ET by Parker1227...because the Dems think that producing more oil is evil, they will demand that poor people get free gasoline too.
Vote Democratic if you want $10 a gallon gas!
Thanks for the campaign slogan Harry and Nancy. You two will not be allowed to change the subject. You are willing to make all Americans poor in the name of Al Gore enviro-insanity and you will pay the political price.
Yes indeed, the AP is
July 29, 2008 - 08:11 ET by dscottYes indeed, the AP is shilling and covering for the Dem Party once again. The AP is obfuscating the fact that it was the Dems drilling ban that drove up food, oil and gas prices hurting the poor and elderly. So now they want to further harm the economy by taking more tax money from taxpayers to offset the high energy and food prices they caused with their drilling ban. In not repealing their stupidity (I'm being nice because to say otherwise is to say they deliberately conspired with Al Gore to commit fraud) the Dems increased inflation and lowered the standard of living for the most vulnerable people in our society and the poor around the world. Such generous people. <sarcasm> Yeah, that's a solution!
Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid, starving the poor one gallon of ethanol at a time. Fill your tank with E85 and cull a village.
Well, right off the bat
July 28, 2008 - 23:24 ET by ConservativeRexWell, right off the bat you know AP is not telliing the truth when they try to make it seem like the left cares about poor folks. Are they crazy? The left cares about rich folks. They want to be just like 'em, they envy the hell out of wealthy people. Do you think the Hollywood crowd is poor? Or trial lawyers? Nope. Fact is, the left hates the poor and middle class. Why if they weren't careful the poor and middle class would end up living next to them, and they couldn't have that in West LA, or Manhatten or God forbid, Hollywood!
In the tank..
July 28, 2008 - 23:41 ET by ScrapironThe ASS ociated Pr Ass is in the tank for Hussein O. Who would have thought that. Next they'll be accusing republican (again) of being big spenders while the dhimmi's are atttempting to spend billions of dollars of your money to buy votes. The dhimmi bill was a pre-payment for votes in Nov. They could care less about anyone other than themselves.
Old, Retired and glad of it.
The AP is at it AGAIN.
July 29, 2008 - 06:30 ET by KillgraveThe AP is at it AGAIN. There is STILL another example which just popped up:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080728/ap_on_go_co/senate_showdown
I'm seriously at a loss here. Don't these "journalists" know the difference between writing a straight news piece, and writing an editorial? Do they even teach this in journalism any more?
Short answer is, no.
July 29, 2008 - 07:26 ET by c5thenMost 'journalists' coming out of the colleges today are taught that they have to make their stories personal and about feelings, not just cold facts. They are so indoctrinated into the liberal/socialist world-view that they do not even realize that there might be another point-of-view to their stories. The main premis to all their wrong-headed idiology seems to be that it's "Governments job to take care of 'the people'. Everything flows from that flawed premis.
The day that "politician" became a career choice is the day we started losing the Republic. Let's get it back! Alan Keyes '08.
Dingy Harry is a real piece
July 29, 2008 - 07:48 ET by motherbeltDingy Harry is a real piece of work.
"Next time you see someone in a wheelchair at home, explain to them about how you voted against moving forward on something that may get them out of that wheelchair," (emphasis added)
What would Democrats do without the hammer of "guilt"?
Obama's theme song
Just saw this as well
July 29, 2008 - 10:03 ET by YahooWatcherYou have to love the "Advancing America's Priorities Act" naming of the legislation. America's priorities have been in the toilet since the 70's. Anything Harry Reid is trying to push through isn't going to help.
Want to increase money in the pockets of the poor?
July 29, 2008 - 08:40 ET by CapedConservativeCapedConservative
1. Eliminate cigarette taxes... that is simply a poor tax anyway.
2. Outlaw the lottery in any form...
3. Reverse the SS tax so it STARTS at $100K of ALL income (not just wages) and continues on up with no upper limit.
#1 and #2 hit the poor the hardest, by far. SS tax is an extremely regressive tax. If not the suggestion, then lower the rate but remove the cap.
CC
I like # 3, but since items
July 29, 2008 - 08:49 ET by Free StinkerI like # 3, but since items 1 and 2 involve voluntary behavior, I can not imagine them ever being changed.
I do expect that cigarette will continue to rise.
"They're both doofuses!" --Mark Levin (speaking of Obama and McCain)
I hope you are being
July 29, 2008 - 09:12 ET by dscottI hope you are being sarcastic on #3 because that is patently false. First, the premise of SS is to provide a minimum pension for the elderly of low to middle income so they won't become a burden upon the taxpayer by having to draw Welfare. That was the original intent of the program. Second, the payout of benefits is highly regressive against higher income people not the low income people. Low income people get substancially more payout for the money they put in. Thirdly, your suggestion to lower the rate and remove the cap destroys the system as this converts SS into a Welfare program and not a pension program. People making more than $100k don't need SS at age 65, they are well off enough to take care of themselves. On top of that essentially slapping the SS 12.4% tax on capital gains on top of the existing taxes would cripple the economy by removing all incentive to invest thus driving all such money out of the country. You must be a Democrat, only such a person could conceive of the worst possible government theft of investment capital and then turn around a waste it on more boondoggles and vote buying schemes.
I hope you don't run with the same group people (Obamatons) who believe taxing 401k and IRA is good for the government. Only in liberal lala land would taking more money from the most effective creators of wealth and giving to the least effective producers is good for the country as a whole.
Finally, Government creates problems, it doesn't solve them, and any government solution only compounds the problem or at best covers up the problem by throwing money at it. Embezzling money from the SS trust fund to pay for annual government expenses is just plain wrong, if this was done in a corporation, everyone involved would be arrested. If the money in the SS trust fund had not been stolen by the politcians for their scams, and instead been properly invested, SS would be solvent in perpetuity. But hey, let's listen to the people who stole the money, and accept their solutions of increasing the flood down the money hole by creating more victims of the PONZI scheme.
Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid, starving the poor one gallon of ethanol at a time. Fill your tank with E85 and cull a village.
social security
July 29, 2008 - 09:18 ET by cassratHey Caped Idiot,
Your stupid suggestion (#3) shows that the word "conservative" does NOT apply to you.
Social Security was designed as an insurance program to give poor people an income when they retire. Since it is an insurance program, the people rceiving the benefits are supposed to pay the premiums. If only the higher income earners pay then it is just welfare.
The real answer is the FAIR TAX then the'poor' wouldnt pay any taxes and with the prebate they can even get more money to spend on drugs and lottery tickets.
Never try to teach a Liberal. It wastes your time and irritates the Liberal.
SS was designed as a
July 29, 2008 - 10:11 ET by Dan The Man 2SS was designed as a supplimenty in the very last few years of ones life. It was not designed to be an only income. But with the inevitable expansion of any government program it has ballooned into a gross fat pig of an entitlement. One I most likely will never see. Thank God I do have a pensions and have not paid much SS, only because I worked outside of my regular job. I fear the day though when my pension will be confiscated for the good of the people.
Nuke em til they glow then shoot em in the dark.
Um...
July 29, 2008 - 18:05 ET by Warner Todd HustonThe Supreme Court has repeatedly ruled that SS is NOT an Insurance program. It is welfare. Period. It has nothing to do with a pension OR an Insurance program.
It is and always has been about getting votes and welfare.
It should not exist.
Let's look at the 6 week vacaction part
July 29, 2008 - 09:59 ET by YahooWatcherRemember when GWB was spending too much vacation in Crawford and the MSM was outraged? Now the 9% Congress is going to take 6 weeks off? Way to go, Nancy and Harry.
The idea that liberals are good to the poor is just stupid
July 29, 2008 - 10:16 ET by szampIt’s amazing that they believe that making the poor totally dependent on the government is good. It’s the drug dealer’s strategy. If anyone ever used the welfare money to support his/her progress in life, it was an exception. The majority just settles down and waits for the free money. Why make any extra effort if they can just survive? Letting others do the hard work is much easier. The problem is when the hard workers decide to move away.
The GOP is usually in favor of entrepreneurship, which is the major source of employment for the poor. Liberals are always against any form of entrepreneurship. Everything should be controlled by a big government monopoly. I’ve never seen any government being able to employ its entire population.