The Los Angeles Times reported Sen. Mitch McConnell's criticism of Democrats' potential use of the reconciliation process to pass health-care reform without noting that he repeatedly voted in favor of using reconciliation to pass the Bush tax cuts.
We gotta say the $100 million 'story' gave us a headache right from the get-go.
To recap: in a largely symbolic move aimed at reducing administrative costs, Obama urged his cabinet members to cut $100 million from their budgets. The GOP immediately pounced, mocking the White House's plan by stressing it would do little or nothing to reduce the federal deficit. (Hint: it wasn't designed to.) The press quickly piled on.
Laying on the attitude quite thick, the WH press corps mocked the WH for trying so save a measly $100 million by pretending that the symbolic effort to reduce administrative costs somehow represented Obama's entire initiative to save money. It didn't, but the press, egged on by the GOP, played dumb.
Watching the CBS Evening News, Andrew Tyndall made a great point about how Katie Couric's broadcast couldn't decide, within the span of just a few minutes and back-to-back Beltway reports, whether $100 million was a laughably small number (i.e. the Obama initiative), or whether it was a scandalously large amount of money.
The Evening News last night dutifully aired the Obama $100 million story, complete with the angle that, compared to the entire federal budget, it was a comically small amount of money to try to save. But then, in the very next report, CBS touted as a big deal news that Rep. Jack Murth (D-PA) supports $31 million worth of earmarks for ten companies that supported him at election time. Suddenly, that minuscule fraction of the total federal budget was breaking news.
So come on Couric, where does CBS Evening News stand? Is $100m saved so small that it demands a story? Or is $31m appropriated so large that it demands another?
Loading the player reg...
The Washington Post again reported GOP criticism of the Democrats' potential use of the reconciliation process to pass health-care and education bills without noting that Republicans repeatedly voted in favor of using reconciliation as a method to pass President Bush's tax cut bills.
The Washington Times falsely claimed in an editorial that President Obama "reneged" on campaign promises to eliminate earmarks and increase defense spending. In fact, Obama did not promise to eliminate earmarks, and he did propose a budget increasing defense spending.
Several media figures and outlets have uncritically repeated or failed to challenge the discredited GOP talking point that President Obama's cap-and-trade proposal would cost the average U.S. household more than $3,000 per year.
Loading the player reg...
On America's Newsroom, on-screen text falsely claimed that President Obama's $3.6 trillion FY 2010 budget is "4x bigger than Bush's costliest plan." In fact, President Bush submitted a $3.1 trillion budget for FY 2009 and a $2.9 trillion budget for FY 2008.
It was just a week ago that the Beltway press was breathlessly warning that the Obama administration was going to face a bloody civil war within the Democratic Party as the White House tried to get its budget passed. Just like the press had predicted in February that the White House would face a bloody civil war trying to get its stimulus package passed. That warfare never materialized though. And so far, neither has the ugly budgetary battle.
Please note the Congressional happenings yesterday, as reported by Bloomberg News report:
President Barack Obama got a pair of wins on Capitol Hill as the House and Senate approved drafts of his 2010 budget plan that largely adhere to the administration's priorities.
And this from the WashPost:
Congressional Democrats overwhelmingly embraced President Obama's ambitious and expensive agenda for the nation yesterday, endorsing a $3.5 trillion spending plan that sets the stage for the president to pursue his most far-reaching priorities.
Television news hosts have repeatedly hosted Republican members of Congress who have attacked President Obama's budget, but those media figures have failed to ask these officials about their support of various legislation that contributed to the more than $2 trillion increase in the publicly held debt under President Bush.
Following the release of President Obama's proposal for the fiscal year 2010 budget, media figures and outlets have promoted a number of myths and falsehoods related to the proposal.
The Washington Post reported Sen. Arlen Specter's criticism of Democrats' potential use of the reconciliation process to pass health-care reform without noting that he repeatedly voted in favor of using reconciliation as a method to pass President Bush's tax cut bills.
Fox News again aired "FOXfact[s]" about the House Republican budget that were nearly identical to portions of an op-ed Rep. Paul Ryan published in that day's Wall Street Journal.
While interviewing Rep. Paul Ryan, Fox News aired "FOXfact[s]" purporting to describe facts about the House Republican budget. However, all of the seven on-screen "FOXfact[s]" were nearly identical to portions of an op-ed Ryan published in that day's Wall Street Journal.