Stimulating … The Printing Press

Economy, Fascism, Government, Labor, Media, Political Economy, Propaganda

As someone once observed, “They All Lie For Someone.” The Associated Press finally stopped bowing and scraping to The Celestial One, got off its collective duff and did some digging. Note how the NPR begins the report from the White House’s defensive retort, rather than with the meat of the news item. (Bad reporting or a meta-message about what matters?)

“The AP reviewed a sample of federal contracts, not all 9,000 reported to date, and discovered errors in one in six jobs credited to the $787 billion stimulus program — or 5,000 of the 30,000 jobs claimed so far.

Even in its limited review, the AP found job counts that were more than 10 times as high as the actual number of paid positions; jobs credited to the stimulus program that were counted two and sometimes more than four times; and other jobs that were credited to stimulus spending when none was produced.”

More.

If we are to believe the most pessimistic report, this being it, $787 billion was paid in order to create 30,000 minus 5000 jobs. Of course, we know it’s far grimmer than that, as,

“Government consuming what it appropriates, prints or pirates from the nation’s dwindling savings cannot generate plenty; it can only destroy or crowd wealth out.”

Kvetch Cable

Feminism, Gender, Journalism, Left-Liberalism And Progressivisim, Media, Neoconservatism

CNN anchor Campbell Brown tries here to parlay into a CNN advantage a valid point about the Fox News-White House tiff. She does not convince. While MSNBC most certainly does not do neutral news—and Brown and her CNN buddies are not blatantly biased—the CNN message seeps through via a steady stream of soporific, soft-news stories, to say nothing of the reign of the King of Kvetch, Anderson Cooper.

Mercifully, Brown et al. don’t engage in straightforward opinion, but their unadulterated leftism—not to mention hard-core statism—creeps into reports by way of story selection, slant, and facial grimaces. Examples are punishing programs such “Black, Blue, Brown, and plain Bored in America.”

Call it the CNN meta-message.

Nevertheless, this is an interesting interlude:

Over to Brown:

Videotape: Brown: officials have been very public about their feelings about fox news and what they believe fox news is and represents and they made a point of coming out and saying it.

Jarrett: that’s a different issue. What we’re saying is that we want the public to understand what’s going on. When we saw the kind of distortions this summer, particularly directed at seniors, over health care reform, it was really outrageous.

And I think what the president said in his message before congress is we’re going to speak directly to the American people and make sure that they understand the truth.

And so, certainly, if we see somebody distorting the truth, we’re going to call them on the carpet for that. But we don’t want to take our focus away from the core issues that are so important to the American people. Now, when there’s all that chatter and distortion and false information, we have to disseminate — we have to distinguish between truth and fiction.

Brown: so do you think fox news is biased?

Jarrett: well, of course they’re biased. Of course they are.

Brown: do you also think that MSNBC is biased?

Jarrett: well, you know what, this is the thing. I don’t want to — actually, I don’t want to just generalize all fox is biased or another station is biased. I think what we want to do is look at it on a case-by-case basis. And when we see a pattern of distortion, we’re going to be honest about that pattern of distortion.

Brown: but you only see that at fox news. That’s all — that you’ve spoken out about, fox.

Jarrett: what the administration has said very clearly is that we’re going to speak truth to power.

When we saw all the distortions during the course of the summer. When people were coming down to town hall meetings and putting up signs that were scaring seniors to death. When we’ve seen commercials go up on television that were distorting the truth, we’re actually calling everybody out.

This isn’t something that’s directed at fox. We want the American people to have a clear understanding, there’s so much at stake right now. We really don’t have a lot of time for nonsense and distortions.

The American people are also smarter than that. Let them reach their own judgments based on the facts. Let’s just take health care, for example. Reasonable people could differ about the right approach. So let’s have a conversation about that. Let’s not scare people by telling them that things are going to happen that are actually not even on the table. Let’s just talk about the facts. (end clip)

Brown: so, I am stating what I think is the obvious here. Jarrett seems loathe to admit that MSNBC has a bias. And that is where I think the white house loses all credibility on this issue.

Just as fox news leans to the right with their opinionated hosts in primetime, MSNBC leans left. I don’t think anyone at fox or MSNBC would disagree with that. In fact, both fox news and MSNBC are….

The Miracle Of Free Markets

Ann Coulter, Capitalism, Democrats, Free Markets, Government, Healthcare, Uncategorized

Ann Coulter: “There are roughly 1 million examples of the free market doing a better job and the government doing a worse job. In fact, there is only one essential service the government does better: Keeping Dennis Kucinich off the streets.

So, naturally, liberals aren’t sure. In Democratic circles, the jury’s still out on free-market economics. It’s not settled science like global warming or Darwinian evolution. But in the meantime, they’d like to spend trillions of dollars to remake our entire health-care system on a European socialist model.

Sometimes the evidence for the superiority of the free market is hidden in liberals’ own obtuse reporting.

In the past few years, the New York Times has indignantly reported that doctors’ appointments for Botox can be obtained much faster than appointments to check on possibly cancerous moles. The paper’s entire editorial staff was enraged by this preferential treatment for Botox patients, with the exception of a strangely silent Maureen Dowd.

As the Times reported: ‘In some dermatologists’ offices, freer-spending cosmetic patients are given appointments more quickly than medical patients for whom health insurance pays fixed reimbursement fees.’

As the kids say: Duh.

This is the problem with all third-party payor systems – which is already the main problem with health care in America and will become inescapable under universal health care.

Not only do the free-market segments of medicine produce faster appointments and shorter waiting lines, but they also produce more innovation and price drops. Blindly pursuing profits, other companies are working overtime to produce cheaper, better alternatives to Botox. The war on wrinkles is proceeding faster than the war on cancer, declared by President Nixon in 1971.

In 1960, 50 percent of all health-care spending was paid out of pocket directly by the consumer. By 1999, only 15 percent of health-care spending was paid for by the consumer. The government’s share had gone from 24 percent to 46 percent. At the same time, IRS regulations made it a nightmare to obtain private health insurance.

The reason you can’t buy health insurance as easily and cheaply as you can buy car insurance – or a million other products and services available on the free market – is that during World War II, FDR imposed wage and price controls. Employers couldn’t bid for employees
with higher wages, so they bid for them by adding health insurance to the overall compensation package.”

More.

Updated: 'Fannie Med' On The March

Democrats, Fascism, Healthcare, Regulation, Socialism, Uncategorized

Cato’s Michael F. Cannon on Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid’s latest bright idea: “President Obama and his congressional allies want to create yet another government-run health insurance program (call it Fannie Med) to cover yet another segment of the American public (the non-elderly non-poor).

The whole idea that Fannie Med would be an ‘option’ is a ruse.

Like the three ‘public options’ we’ve already got – Medicare, Medicaid, and the State Children’s Health Insurance Program – Fannie Med would drag down the quality of care for publicly and privately insured patients alike. Yet despite offering an inferior product, Fannie Med would still drive private insurers out of business because it would exploit implicit and explicit government subsidies. Pretty soon, Fannie Med will be the only game in town – just ask its architect, Jacob Hacker.

Now the question before us is, ‘Should we allow states to opt out of Fannie Med?’ It seems a good idea: if Fannie Med turns out to be a nightmare, states could avoid it.

But the state opt-out proposal is a ruse within a ruse.

Taxpayers in every state will have to subsidize Fannie Med, either implicitly or explicitly. What state official will say, ‘I don’t care if my constituents are subsidizing Fannie Med, I’m not going to let my constituents get their money back’? State officials are obsessed with maximizing their share of federal dollars. Voters will crucify officials who opt out. Fannie Med supporters know that. They’re counting on it.

A state opt-out provision does not make Fannie Med any more moderate. It is not a concession. It is merely the latest entreaty from the Spider to the Fly.” [End excerpt]

And this from Tom DiLorenzo:

“The only sensible approach to healthcare ‘reform’ would be massive privatization of America’s socialized hospitals, combined with deregulation of the medical professions to introduce more competition, and deregulation of the health-insurance industry. Free-market competition would produce medical ‘miracles’ the likes of which have never been seen, while dramatically lowering the cost of healthcare, just as it has done in every other industry where it is allowed to exist to any large degree.

This is not likely to happen in the United States, which at the moment seems hell-bent on descending into the abyss of socialism. Once some states begin seceding from the new American fascialistic state, however, there will be opportunities to restore healthcare freedom within them.”

Update (Oct. 28): To the erroneous comment below from “Moonbat”: The market NOW in its knee-capped state still delivering abundance and plenty. The consumer/citizen is obvious to what comes as a seemingly effortless result of the Invisible Hand. So good ideas do not win out; ditto liberty.

Milton Friedman spoke about mankind’s oblivion to the abundance of the market with great clarity.

“The aggregated wisdom of men acting freely in the market place accounts for the cornucopia Americans take for granted. This abundance does not preclude affordable health insurance. For six dollars a day, the baying Boobus can purchase pretty comprehensive coverage, no deductibles or screening for pre-existing conditions. The average immoral dolt, however, prefers to spend the meager sum on a six-pack and hope that others will be coerced into covering his care.”