In a hypocrisy sure to outrage, just as Attorney General Eric Holder gets ready to attend a ceremony to honor fallen police officers, the Obama administration is proposing to cut almost in half a program that provides benefits to the families left behind.
So much for the more loving, more caring president "we've been waiting for." So, wouldn't you think the Old Media would be braying at the hypocrisy here? Wouldn't you rather think that the Old Media would be up in arms about this one? Isn't this typically the type of story that would get them motivated to get their high dudgeon on? Guess not because it is nearly invisible in the media today.
Of the very few reporting on this, the Associated Press reported on May 7 that the president's proposed budget calls for cuts in the Public Safety Officer's Death Benefits Program. Obama wants to cut $50 million from the program, the budget to fall from $110 million to $60 million.
Apparently Obama imagines that his ascension to the White House will heal the tortured minds those criminal miscreants and cop-killers that might be lurking around out there because according to the reasoning offered to cut program funds, Obama claims that the number of on-the-job police killings is supposed to drop.
Justice Department budget documents say the reduction is being made because "claims are anticipated to decrease" because the number of officers killed in the line of duty has been decreasing.
The director of a police survivors group begs to differ, however. They have found that police officers killed on duty have gone up 21 percent over last year's numbers already.
But, let's consider how this story would be reported if it were Bush proposing to cut survivor's benefits like this. Who cannot imagine that the media would be falling all over itself to scold Bush if he should have been the one to propose such steep cuts to benefits for the families of our fallen police officers?
It would have been ginned up into a firestorm of outrage against a president Bush, wouldn't it?
Yet, for Obama, mums the word.
Imagine that?
Editor at Large
Comments Policy
WTH... Outrage is the
May 8, 2009 - 02:00 ET by bigtimerWTH...
Outrage is the only word I can use at the moment.
Yeah, he's saving us 17 Billion alright...always at the expense of nobody the msm is going to look into...unless like you say...this whole situation was reversed...we all know where this would go.
Btw...I'm including this cost he supposedly cut into that 17 Billion with a "B" he saved all of us peons from paying.
There would be a firestorm indeed over this.
Hey...but is the National Day of Prayer...just ask O.
Doubling down on stupid is not a particularly good idea. ~Andrew Breitbart
Hay volunteer, and you get to cover your OWN a$$
May 8, 2009 - 02:14 ET by upcountrywaterNo one is forcing cops to be cops, so screw em.
Just like the all volunteer Army..hay you volunteered so pay your own healthcare...
The OAF is one Sick Puppy..
Reagan VS 0bama
But, let's consider how
May 8, 2009 - 02:47 ET by RagamuffinMore masturbation from NewsBusters.
They gave Bush a pass when he cut $1.5 billion in funding for military housing.
They gave him a pass when he cut combat pay from $225 to $150 a month.
They gave him a pass when he opposed allowing National Guardsmen access to the Pentagon's health insurance program.
They gave him a pass when he didn't attend any funerals for soldiers from Iraq and Afghanistan.
They gave him a pass when he cut 540 staff from the Veterans Benefits Administration.
They gave him a pass in 2003 when he threatened to veto a bill that would allow veterans to collect disability benefits and pensions simultaneously.
They gave him a pass when he threatened to veto a bill that would double the death benefits of soldiers killed in action.
And even worse, so did you.
Of course
May 8, 2009 - 03:10 ET by Warner Todd HustonThe problem with your little reply there is that the media DIDN'T give Bush "a pass" on those things at all.
Be sure and visit my home blog PubliusForum.com.
No, they didn't
May 8, 2009 - 07:00 ET by motherbeltThe problem here is that they want to tout reductions in the rate of increase as "cuts."
When Bush did it, they railed against it as if he were gutting the program. Now when they do it, they pat themselves on the back for making the "hard choices."
They are not really cutting anything.
They might say "Wow, that sucks!" But at least they'll say "Wow!" -Duff Goldman, the Ace of Cakes
The reporting here makes it
May 8, 2009 - 12:39 ET by goldbarThe reporting here makes it sound like individual benefits are being cut. It's the program being cut based of officers who may be killed in the line of duty. NO ONE'S individual benefit will be cut. Bush's veteran's cuts were real. Veterans were charged extra for meals, phone use and faced early discharge when they were in dire need of rehabilitation.
From your beloved Fox News:
A Justice Department finance spokeswoman told FOX News that the proposed cut is a false statistic because the program requires "mandatory funding," which means the money is automatically paid to all the families of slain officers.
now the truth comes out
May 8, 2009 - 13:39 ET by RagamuffinA shoddy original post. These details totally derail the "point" Huston was getting at.
mb and others he didn't cut
May 8, 2009 - 20:34 ET by bigtimermb and others he didn't cut a danged thing...this has always made my mad as to how the msm reported this issue.
Doubling down on stupid is not a particularly good idea. ~Andrew Breitbart
Whoa! He replies with CAPS!
May 8, 2009 - 08:10 ET by RagamuffinWhoa! He replies with CAPS! However could I possibly respond to another baseless assertion with no proof?
Get Your Facts Straight!
May 8, 2009 - 07:01 ET by GeneralAlMr. Ragamuffin, Every one of those veto threats were over the pork your Communist Dems had put into those bills through the amendment process! Unlike Comrade Harry, and Commissar Nancy, the Republican leadership allowed amendments to come to both floors for votes, but why should a flaming liberal Communist like yourself let the truth get in the way of you vile hatred? Would you dare make these claims to me if we were one on one? I doubt it! You are probably one of those low lifes that make obscene phone calls and sends out hate mail to people you cannot defeat! Send me some Mister and I'll search you down and whip your sorry butt in public view!
Every one of those veto
May 8, 2009 - 08:12 ET by RagamuffinSo the conservatives come out the closet and admit they don't support the troops.
Why do you hate America?
Why do you hate America
May 8, 2009 - 20:08 ET by general companySpoken just like a hypocritical a$$wipe.
We saw you at the Gathering of Eagles, we saw you defending the Military on campus, we saw you defending our Boarder patrol, we saw you defending these Officers. You are the worst this Country has to offer.
I wish they could all be selective in who they defended
My Gov. thinks I am dangerous, so be careful
"Television is a freak show" Bernie Goldberg
I wish they could all be
May 8, 2009 - 21:47 ET by RagamuffinI wish they could all be selective in who they defended
And you hate Americans too.
I love the folks
May 9, 2009 - 00:56 ET by general companyYou hate all that protects your sorry slimmy butt. You are not worthy of their blood. I will add my name to the list of folks that wish to see you in person. But we all know your cowardence will prevent this. Right, coward
My Gov. thinks I am dangerous, so be careful
"Television is a freak show" Bernie Goldberg
§ GC....Slow Down...
May 9, 2009 - 01:03 ET by TheSterHAVE SOME DIP!!!!
Hehehehehee....
Sup!
Ster.
“I'm not drunk, all right. I just have a speech impediment ... and a stomach virus ... and an inner ear infection.”
--Brian the dog from Family Guy
Sorry,
May 9, 2009 - 01:10 ET by general companyBut I am serious, that scumbag deserves a personal confrontation. I am more then willing to make his dreams come true. I am currently in AR be in MO tomorrow then MS the day after, see I dont mind, these are my dates. All he needs to do is tell me when and where. But he is a coward, so it will never happen.
Right coward?
My Gov. thinks I am dangerous, so be careful
"Television is a freak show" Bernie Goldberg
Truly Pathetic
May 8, 2009 - 07:16 ET by EddieWalkerI've noticed a trend with Obama supporters. When they are confronted with a fact of another terrible deed, or incompetent screw up by him, they attack George Bush. Usually it's a lie or a perceived lie that doesn't stand up to debate, but if they make the accusastion, then it doesn't matter what Obama does. To me, this is just pathetic. If you have to lie or deflect what Obama does, then there is a problem.
What I find truly disturbing about the article is that he'll take away benifits from those who searve our country with honor, but he'll give Acorn 9 billion dollars for comunity organizing. Whatever that is.
I call it the "But Bush..." defense
May 8, 2009 - 08:04 ET by myron243On a submarine vets forum I frequent we have a forum set up to discuss things politic. We call it the Political Pigpen. And there is one felllow in particular you can count on. "But Bush...", "where were you conservatives when Bush...". And of course 99% of his posts are replies. It seems as though he has no original thoughts or opinions.
I call it the "But
May 8, 2009 - 08:14 ET by RagamuffinDid you read the original post? Half it was masturbatory conjectures about Bush and how he would be mistreated in the same situation.
How about YOU read the ENTIRE post
May 8, 2009 - 08:41 ET by SickofLibsWhat about the "other half" of the post? The one with the facts?
Justice projects that claims are anticipated to decrease, while cops killed on duty is actually up 21% this year, so far. (unless you want to float the idea that the police survivor's group quoted are just a bunch of liars)
Please excuse the caps.
Wouldnt matter
May 8, 2009 - 20:15 ET by general companyThis is what we have to suffer, scummy little bugs that want to suck the life out of all that is good. It is a shame that trash like this must also be defended by those they despise.
My Gov. thinks I am dangerous, so be careful
"Television is a freak show" Bernie Goldberg
Yes I did. But apparently you can't follow a thread.
May 8, 2009 - 11:21 ET by myron243I wasn't responding to the original post. I was responding to the post by EddieWalker the first sentence of which states "I've noticed a trend with Obama supporters. When they are confronted
with a fact of another terrible deed, or incompetent screw up by him,
they attack George Bush." I agree with EddieWalker.
Oh Eddie...
May 8, 2009 - 14:42 ET by boomerconYOU know what that is...same as "the one" (yes, THAT one)...in order to actually get out and "organize the community" one must walk the streets.
Hence: he's a STREET WALKER!
...a rose by another name is still a rose!
always was. Always will be. only thing that changes is the clientele.
I loved their excuse:
May 8, 2009 - 11:33 ET by kg"We don't expect as many slain officers this year."
It's all the love that is out there now.
"DumbAssity of Dope"
Masturbation? I bet you
May 8, 2009 - 06:35 ET by George S PattonMasturbation? I bet you spend hours doing it while looking at obama's picture.
George S.
May 8, 2009 - 07:07 ET by GeneralAlYou have to be endowed with a device to accomplish the afore mentioned habit! This creature obviously has an advanced case of Cranial Rectal Insertion and Penial Cerbral Disfunction!
I'm offended
May 8, 2009 - 08:17 ET by RagamuffinI realize it's hard to stay on subject when I post truths you wish to deny, but if you're going to veer of and make personal attacks against me, please use more wit and imagination.
Your offended my
May 8, 2009 - 20:18 ET by general companymy a$$, little bugs like you have no feelings. Your word are proof. You deserve nothing, since you respect no-one
My Gov. thinks I am dangerous, so be careful
"Television is a freak show" Bernie Goldberg
Oligarchs
May 8, 2009 - 07:05 ET by nadadhimmiThe important thing here is that Jamie Gorelick, Franklyn Raines, and the rest of the Fannie and Freddie execs get their millions in bonuses. The little people really don't matter much now do they? The definition of an Oligarchy is a small group of people that conduct a business or Nation for their own personal benifit and that is EXACTLY what we have allowed to occur. VOTE OUT ALL ENCUMBANTS. And do it every 6 yrs.
Two things here-
May 8, 2009 - 07:14 ET by BKeyserFirst, if this were important to the MSM, they'd be calling the Police "First Responders." That should be a clue as to the nature of this cut- it draws a line between overbearing police and the poor criminals that kill them.
And second, I'd like to see a better explanation than "anticipated decrease in the number of claims", obviously. It just seems so arbitrary and probably won't make the editing room floor. My guess is this 17 billion dollar number will be long forgotten and grossly under-reportedby the time they pass the final budget with 17 billion dollars in increases in lieu of cuts.
The Cuts
May 8, 2009 - 07:19 ET by GeneralAlWhy doesn't President Rham Emmanuel tell the Teleprompter Messiah to cut the FIVE BILLION he is giving to ACCORN [Assocition of Communist Crooks Organizing Reprobate Numbskulls!]? Its because the TPM has such a disdain for the military and law enforcement! He has this I am a victim because of my race enigma. Well, I'm a victim because of my race too! The difference is there is not one program for us victimized white folks because that would be "racist!" The Obamessiah is so incompetent that I doubt he could manage a sunglass kiosk in a shopping mall! Yet he is constantly touted as so smart and so competent! When he is out of office in 2013, the press will not be able to critisize any one after the slobbering love fest they've had with this clown!
Easily answered
May 8, 2009 - 08:24 ET by RagamuffinSimple.
Because Obama isn't giving ACORN 5 billion.
Protect a politician???
May 8, 2009 - 07:38 ET by ScrapironWhy would a police officer or Fire/Rescue member risk their life to save a politician? As a 15 year member of a volunteer Fire/Rescue department and working closely with the police I could now care less if a politician is killed or their family burned in the middle of the night. I can surely manage to get lost when responding to 'any' politicians home. Anyone who finds out someone is planning to kill one of the communist P'sOS in congress would be a fool to report it. A police officer who steps between a crazed killer and a politician (or reports a planned terrorist attack against them) should be sent to an insane asylum. I put every democrat in the same class as O'Dumbo and Peeloshi, proven liars and anti-americans. When will the trials and execution of the traitors start? If I come up on a crashed/burning vehicle with any democrat sticker on it I will sit and watch them die. No need to risk my life, O'Dumbo said so.
It's finally nice to see some of the "fiscal responsibility"...
May 8, 2009 - 07:43 ET by JohnMcGrew...that we've been hearing about from the Obama Administration. This must be part of that massive $100-million in cuts that he asked his staff to come up with. Now he's virtually certain to have the budget balanced by 2012.
Where's the beef?
May 8, 2009 - 07:56 ET by bluefeetbrewsWTH, I get your point- this is an emotionally charged subject that would probably be covered much differently if Bush proposed the cut. The lingering question in my mind is why is this fund a federal concern? Covering US Marshals, FBI, etc. I can understand. But covering state and local police...I would just as soon kick programs like this to the states.
No slam on you or your post, just my 2 cents.
Consider this
May 8, 2009 - 08:27 ET by RagamuffinAround here, the point is to slam Obama/liberals, not to think things through. For all we know, that's part of the plan.
What????
May 8, 2009 - 09:03 ET by SickofLibsDuh - and here I thought this was a Pro-Liberal/Macramé site.
That explains the recent dearth of macramé posts.
But...
May 8, 2009 - 11:20 ET by Warner Todd Huston...But when Obama was in office none of you extremist, lefties thought things through...
Be sure and visit my home blog PubliusForum.com.
Some egg for your face
May 8, 2009 - 11:52 ET by RagamuffinHere, let me do something called "research":
So it looks unlikely that ONE family will see reduced benefits despite the "cuts" you take umbrage over.
Why did you note the scary sounding "21% increase" in officer deaths but not note the 50 year low in deaths? Because that would have clued readers in that the decreased budget would still be sufficient?
It looks to me like not one family with go without the death benefits, which means this change to the budget doesn't deserve any "media outrage," which is all you wanted anyway.
As I said, it seems the point of this site is simply to slam Obama, the facts be damned.
50 lashes to your copy editor for calling the "Public Safety Officers Death Benefits Program" the "Public Safety Officer's Death Benefits Program." Wait, what am I thinking, a fact checker on NewsBusters? HAHAHAHAHA.
You really...
May 8, 2009 - 12:23 ET by Warner Todd HustonYou really aren't that bight are you?
This post is about the MEDIA'S reaction here. Not about the cuts. This post is not about whether cuts are good or bad. It's about THE MEDIA'S REACTION.
I have to type in big letters so you can understand. I will type slower so you can "get it."
Now, if you want to talk "cuts" I would have no problem cutting the entire program. Where in the Constitution does it say a cop's family should get paid by the federal government upon his demise on-duty? No where, that's where.
While we are talking cuts, I would also cut the dept. of education completely, most of the agricultural stuff, all welfare, etc., etc. I would also cut the size of every Senator and Congressman's staff at least in half to start with. Get rid of the BATF and probably the NSA, too. And while we are talking "N" agencies, NASA is practically worthless, too. Dump it. In fact, there are dozens and dozens of departments that are unconstitutional, wasteful and wholly unnecessary.
There is nothing I'd like better than to see hundreds of thousands of government works summarily fired, their pensions eliminated and their health care stopped. Maybe they'd have to finally get a real job for the first time, eh?
But, as far as this post goes, you act as if we were all upset at the cuts. That had nothing at all to do with the original post. The efficacy of the cuts were not the issue at all and no judgment was made on whether they were good or bad.
I know things are hard for you extremist, lefties to keep up with, but, I thought I'd help you out a bit nonetheless.
Be sure and visit my home blog PubliusForum.com.
This post is not about
May 8, 2009 - 22:15 ET by RagamuffinWell, that post isn't. Your original post was. You remember where you said:
It's clear by your own words that you were presenting Obama's budget cut as something people the media should be "outraged" about. Now that it's clear that you bungled your spin we all know there is no reason to call for the "outrage" you begged for.
If the post was about the media coverage then you wouldn't have called Obama a hypocrite in your first sentence.
And yet you have the temerity to tell this lie:
If this was anywhere near true you would not have said "So much for the more loving, more caring president 'we've been waiting for'." If the post was about the "media coverage" you would not have used the word "outrage" so many times. You realize your post is still at the top of the page? You tried fooling me, and you failed, miserably.
Ahh, caught red handed you resort to insulting me instead of being a real man and admit you made a mountain out of a molehill. You deserve every penny of Scaife's money for this dishonesty you've presented here.
The simple fact of the matter here is that even your regular readers can see that you're at the point now where you have to compound the dishonesty or admit you have been proven totally and absolutely wrong.
I was right
May 8, 2009 - 22:18 ET by Warner Todd HustonI was right... you aren't too bright. If the whole point was the cuts why then did I keep saying "media" all over the place?
Idiot.
Be sure and visit my home blog PubliusForum.com.
I was right... you aren't
May 9, 2009 - 06:14 ET by RagamuffinBecause you were pulling the typical NewsBusters hyperventilating tactic. You wanted the media to be "outraged", but you picked the wrong story. You picked a story that isn't even really newsworthy, a footnote in budgetary matters at best, as not one family will go without the death benefits provided by that program.
We all know you so completely wrong that you shouldn't have made the post. You messed up so, so badly. And you got your called out on it, like frauds so often are.
And how do you respond? By violating your own site's Terms of Service by lobbing personal insults. Somewhat appropriate as on this very page you've violated any reasonable person's sense of integrity. And honesty. And accuracy. Do you know you are wrong in this myriad of ways? Yes. When is your correction coming? Never. Thus you compound your failures.
You couldn't reply to one point in my post. You have been totally beaten in this argument. Your original post has absolutely no aspect to it that has not been completely debunked, yet you continue to post personal insults as you have been outed as a fraud.
No one here is fooled. Even your (previously) sympathetic audience has seen that you made a major mistake and don't have the moral character to acknowledge it.
A difference
May 9, 2009 - 06:44 ET by Warner Todd HustonThere is a difference between "couldn't" reply and not bothering. I only have a finite amount of time to do things. I chose to spend that time where it is deserving of being spent. You aren't deserving.
Be sure and visit my home blog PubliusForum.com.
You have the time to post
May 9, 2009 - 07:02 ET by RagamuffinYou have the time to post misleading items here and personal flames of me, which were obviously provoked by my pointing out your critical error and your fanatical hubris not allowing you to admit you made such a grave and sloppy error.
Again, I will say no one here is fooled. You didn't defend your post because there is no defense. Your original post here is a pointless call for "media outrage" when no cause for such outrage exists. You were too bush shilling to notice the facts were not on your side and now you have earned a reputation as an disingenuous fraud that will last for the rest of your life.
I took what you wrote seriously, I doubt many people who've read what you did here will make that mistake again in the future.
Crying?
May 9, 2009 - 22:12 ET by Warner Todd HustonOh, boo, hoo... personal flames of you, indeed. Grow a pair, pally!
Be sure and visit my home blog PubliusForum.com.
Slamming liberals
May 8, 2009 - 16:32 ET by bluefeetbrewsI don't think that the point of Newsbusters is to slam liberals per se, only the slanted coverage of events that they so often offer. While users comments often slam liberals, they don't necessarily reflect on the point of the site as a whole.
Another item that is not in the website's mission is to think through policy changes or positions of officials. My question was more rhetorical, I guess, since I already know the answer. Your exchanges with WTH have provided some food for thought and I hope that my original question did the same for you.
President Obama - Cut Death Benefits for Police Families BUT
May 8, 2009 - 12:20 ET by Rush FanDon't You Dare cut wages for unionized home healthcare workers.
The Los Angeles Times reports in an article titled U.S. threatens to rescind stimulus money over wage cuts that if California does not rescind the wage reductions approved in February by Gov. Schwarzenegger and state lawmakers then the Obama administration will withhold $6.8 billion in stimulus money.
California lawmakers had made those wage cuts and many others in an effort to forgo bankruptcy. California is $23 billion short of the money it needs to pay its bills over the next year.
When you elect a liberal, you are also electing unions, trial lawyers, and community organizers. Ooops! I forgot to add illegal immigrants and the ACLU.
-------------------------------------------------------------
“Understand something about liberalism. They never stop until they get what they want, and when they get what they want, it's never enough. That's why it's a constant thing to have to oppose them. You can't join forces with them, you can't moderate them, you can't slow them down by joining them, you can't make them like you and have them change their agenda. They have to be stopped.” ~ Rush Limbaugh
This is the second time
May 8, 2009 - 12:09 ET by CamelopardalisThis is the second time Obama has gone after military benefits as a source of cuts (previously with the idea of making military personnel pay for their own healthcare). It is especially ironic considering Michelle Obama's commitment to helping military families. Now that I think about it, I don't think I've seen a single photo-op of her with military wives since her husband inauguration (anyone correct me if I'm wrong).
This Administration is
May 8, 2009 - 13:52 ET by Scuba DudeThis Administration is nothing but scum. They'll give billions to radical groups like ACORN but penny pinch and cut in half the lousy 110 million that is given to the families of brave men and women that protect our society from the criminals and sociopaths?
What the heck is wrong with these people?
"The wrOng ONE was elected"
obama's BEST friends
May 8, 2009 - 14:32 ET by david999obama's BEST friends William Ayers and his wife Bernadette Dorn murdered 5 police officers and security guards and wounded more then a dozen in their bombing and bank robberies. Ayers planned the attacks, others including his wife carried them out.
It was Bernadette Dorn who placed the bomb on the window sill next to an officer inside a San Francisco police station that killed him and wounded many other officers.
Release those photos obama to show what torture is
bloody...
May 8, 2009 - 14:42 ET by katainkentnice to see he has his priorities in order.
If Bush had done this, the lefties would be spinning on their...
May 8, 2009 - 22:29 ET by R D Helm...eyebrows.
-Dave
The statists aren't coming, they are already here.