Doing an AP Doubletake
The old saying that it isn’t news to find out that a dog bit a man, that it’s only news when a man bites a dog seems oddly appropriate in discussing this AP article. Here’s what makes it newsworthy:
President Barack Obama had it both ways Monday when he promoted his stimulus plan in Indiana. He bragged about getting Congress to produce a package with no pork, yet boasted it will do good things for a Hoosier highway and a downtown overpass, just the kind of local projects lawmakers lard into big spending bills.
Obama’s sales pitch on the enormous package he wants Congress to make law has sizzle as well as steak. He’s projecting job creation numbers that may be impossible to verify and glossing over some ethical problems that bedeviled his team.
This is typical Obama chutzpah. President Obama is perfectly willing to tell people whatever they’re hoping to hear. What President Obama says frequently doesn’t connect with reality.
Here’s a set of questions I’d like President Obama to answer:
What’s the difference between coding into law the building of a highway and airdropping an earmark mandating the building of that same highway?
What set of economic principles are you using when putting this bill together?
Did Democrats like Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid use these principles or did they just appropriate tons of money for piles of political payoffs and pork-barrel projects?
Considering the fact that the banking crisis poses a greater threat to the economy than does spending, why didn’t you tackle TARP II first?
President Obama, you’ve said that the policies of the past eight years have put us in this crisis. Is it your belief that tax cuts caused this recession or is it your belief that the Fannie/Freddie crisis is the reason for the flailing economy? Explain why you believe what you believe.
There isn’t a chance that he’ll give a straight answer to any of those questions. He can’t. Each of these questions highlights one of the multitude of inefficiencies in this legislation.
These are the types of questions that the Agenda Media should ask but won’t. Is that because they’re too busy genuflecting in his presence?
Check out this part of the AP article:
OBAMA: “I’ve appointed hundreds of people, all of whom are outstanding Americans who are doing a great job. There are a couple who had problems before they came into my administration, in terms of their taxes…I made a mistake…I don’t want to send the signal that there are two sets of rules.”
He added: “Everybody will acknowledge that we have set up the highest standard ever for lobbyists not working in the administration.”
THE FACTS: Two of his appointees, former Senate Democratic leader Tom Daschle for secretary of health and human services and Nancy Killefer as his chief compliance officer, dropped out after reports they had not paid a portion of their taxes.
Obama previously acknowledged he “screwed up” in making it seem to Americans that there is one set of tax compliance rules for VIPs and another set for everyone else. Yet his choice for treasury secretary, Timothy Geithner, hung in and achieved the post despite having belatedly paid $34,000 to the IRS, an agency Geithner now oversees.
That could leave the perception that there is one set of rules for Geithner and another set for everyone else.
On lobbyists, Obama has in fact established tough new rules barring them from working for his administration. But the ban is not absolute.
William J. Lynn III, tapped to be the No. 2 official at the Defense Department, recently lobbied for military contractor Raytheon. William Corr, chosen as deputy secretary at Health and Human Services, has lobbied as an anti-tobacco advocate. And Geithner’s choice for chief of staff, Mark Patterson, is an ex-lobbyist from Goldman Sachs.
Exposing President Obama’s hypocrisies isn’t something that we expect from the AP. Nonetheless, it’s intellectually dishonest to not highlight when they do what reporters are supposed to do.
Technorati Tags: Pork, Stimulus, Earmarks, Tim Geithner, Tom Daschle, Nancy Killefer, Ethics, Economy, President Obama, Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, Tax Cuts
Cross-posted at LetFreedomRingBlog
February 10th, 2009 at 9:48 am
The mime used to be, “Bush lied, people died.” Now we can start miming, “O lied, children died.”
Just like the first mime, it won’t make any difference if it is true or not, has any relevance or not, or can or should be hung on O or not; the important thing is it is short, doesn’t take any thinking, and fits right into the inability of libs to form any kind of coherent thought of their own.
February 10th, 2009 at 10:49 am
From “The Chosen One’s” mouth today: “It’s a little hard for me to take criticism from folks about this recovery package after they’ve presided over a doubling of the national debt,” Obama said.
He’s almost right, you know. It was Republicans (including the prez) who allowed the spending and debt to soar as it did in the last eight years.
Because they were acting exactly like fiscal donkeys. That’s the part he left out, and exactly the reason his pork payoff bill won’t work.
And the news keeps talking about the “tax cuts.” What tax cuts? About the only “cuts” I’ve seen in the bill are massive transfers of wealth.
February 10th, 2009 at 2:15 pm
Obama to Wall St: You WILL take this 900 Billion and growing bailout if I have to jam it down your throat, and you WILL recover.
Wall Street: SELLL!
What if we had a bailout and nobody took the money?
February 14th, 2009 at 9:02 pm
From AFP: “Much of the debate has focused on whether readers, accustomed to getting news for free online, will be ready to pay for quality journalism.”
With painfully few exceptions, most Americans are waiting impatiently for newspapers in general in this country to start with that “quality journalism.” When the papers start delivering it again, maybe people will be willing to pay for it again.