On August 22, 1996, President Bill Clinton signed the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Act, aka "welfare reform," into law. Writeups today at USA Today and in the Washington Post would make readers believe that credit for this accomplishment belongs entirely to Bill Clinton, and that it was his advocacy that brought it all about. The truth is that "ending welfare as we know it" was a 1992 Clinton presidential campaign promise which languished in inactivity until 1996. The promise would have remained a long-forgotten slogan if it hadn't been for the persistence of the Republican-dominated Congress and the looming 1996 presidential election. That combination forced Clinton's hand — against his will.
It’s almost as if “Net Neutrality” is a Leftist safe word - to be uttered when the free market growing freely causes them too much discomfort.
Few things demonstrate the insular Media-Government Bubble better than this:
House Speaker Paul Ryan and House Republicans have released a comprehensive plan to tackle poverty in America, but so far Univision and Telemundo have studiously ignored covering the proposal. The country’s top two Spanish-language television networks have failed to devote any coverage to the House Republican majority’s initiative, which aims to encourage work, improve education and tailor welfare to the needs of individuals.
As the Washington Free Beacon reported today (confirmed here in a chart published two weeks ago), the number of Americans enrolled in the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), traditionally known as Food Stamps, dropped below 45 million for the first time in almost five years (actually, 57 months) in January.
This is hardly cause for cheer, and does nothing to change the fact that in the vast majority of states, the Food Stamp program has been fundamentally transformed during the past eight years into a guaranteed income program. But to former longtime Washington Post reporter Eric Pianin, who has toiled at The Fiscal Times web site during the past six years, it was cause to go after House-led budget "cuts" and efforts at structural reform in an April 14 report riddled with laziness, errors and bias.
Here is what presidential aspirant Sen. Bernie Sanders said: "I believe that health care is a right of all people." President Barack Obama declared that health care "should be a right for every American." The United States Conference of Catholic Bishops: "Every person has a right to adequate health care." President Franklin D. Roosevelt, in his January 1944 message to Congress, called for "the right to adequate medical care and the opportunity to achieve and enjoy good health."
Since the economy finally began consistently regaining jobs in early 2010, the establishment press has had a consistent, predictable and annoying reporting (and non-reporting) pattern.
It starts with the Friday morning jobs report from the Bureau of Labor Statistics at or near the beginning of the month. Virtually without fail, it has spit out positive and sometimes even very positive seasonally adjusted increases in overall payroll employment (one small exception: the Census hiring season in mid-2010). Later that day, or in some cases a week later, but in either case in the late afternoon when most reporters are thinking about their weekends instead of their jobs, the USDA releases its report on enrollment in the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), aka Food Stamps. If you didn't know that the economy was adding jobs, the Food Stamp figures would lead you to believe that it wasn't. Somehow, this is never news.
It appears that there's an effort underway to expand the definition of "deniers" beyond the realm of climate change/"global warming."
Ideally, in leftists' minds, a "denier" would be "anyone who doesn't accept leftist dogma without reservations." That definition would apparently extend to anything relating to the economy, if Associated Press White House reporter and dedicated Barack Obama groupie (yes, I mean "groupie") Darlene Superville had her way. Her story's headline, as she covered President Obama's remembrance of the wonders of the "Recovery Act" — formally known as the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 and informally known as the "stimulus plan — directly targeted those who dare to disagree with Obama, and even attempted to concoct another phony version of "consensus" clearly intended to eventually stifle historians' dissent:
Appearing as a guest on Wednesday's CNN Tonight, liberal CNN political commentator Marc Lamont Hill provided a glimpse at the caricature of Democrats having over the top expectations of what government can accomplish in improving their lives as he recommended that black voters in South Carolina, when deciding between Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders, should "think beyond a limited sort of political imagination" and "say, 'Who has the capacity to make our dreams come true?'"
Ronald Reagan’s admirers called him the Great Communicator, but to his detractors he was more like the Great Demonizer, crystallizing hostility toward groups ranging from the poor to left-wing protesters at UC Berkeley. In a Sunday post, Esquire's Pierce argued that Donald Trump has a similar talent for focusing outrage, and because of it, he’s attracting the same kind of supporters that Reagan did.
Appearing as a guest on Wednesday's CNN Newsroom with Carol Costello, liberal CNN political commentator Marc Lamont Hill advised that Democratic presidential candidate Bernie Sanders needs to show a "vision to combat white supremacy" and "talk to our racial pain" if he wishes to win black voters. The Morehouse College professor also hit Hillary Clinton from the far left as he declared that "the Clintons have been terrible to black people" because of President Bill Clinton's support for the 1994 crime bill.
As CNN's Chris Cuomo on Friday hosted a debate between the left and the far left over whether "progressive" Democrats should embrace Hillary Clinton as one of them, liberal CNN political commentator Sally Kohn absurdly claimed that the reason the word "liberalism" became "tainted" was because former President Bill Clinton went to the right on gay rights and welfare reform. This in spite of the fact that Bill Clinton himself had already been running from the word "liberal" since the beginning of his first presidential campaign because of failed liberal Democratic presidential candidates like Michael Dukakis and Walter Mondale.
In trying to explain the current situation in Venezuela, the Washington Post's Matt O'Brien, in a post at the paper's Wonkblog, also inadvertently identified two reasons why authoritarian socialist tyrants like Huge Chavez and Nicolas Maduro are able to achieve and retain power.
The formula is simple: When you first gain power, garner international and media goodwill by giving stuff away, like housing and gasoline. That wlll earn you props from the likes of O'Brien and liberals everywhere who have come to believe that doing so "is a good idea in general." Meanwhile, you can work in the background to overturn whatever checks and balances your country's political system might have. If the populace finally figures out what you're really up to and rises up in opposition, they can't stop you — even if your party gets blown out in elections and takes over what has become, thanks to you, an impotent legislature.