Unemployment in the White House

For the last few years, the denizens of the once-adversarial press have been on extended sabbatical with little to do but sing the praises of the current occupant of the White House. In the long political campaign that led to the 2008 presidential election, the American press did little to vet the aspiring Senator from Illinois. They ignored many of the questions that should have been asked of a man vying for leadership of the world’s most powerful economy (for now), and the most powerful military (also for now). They failed to ask many of the questions that are now being raised by the American people, many of whom feel they have been sold a bill of goods with Mr Obama. Indeed, Mr Obama’s birth certificate and his college transcripts seem to be the only information not yet available on Wiki Leaks.

In failing to report any “news” about Mr Obama, the American press has turned its back on competition for those prizes they value most: the back-slapping notoriety among their peers and prizes such as those issued by the Pulitzer Board for “excellence in Journalism.” For years the American press would figuratively crawl over broken glass to “get the story.” What they really sought was the product of winning the old prizes: the fawning acclamation of their peers, and some bargaining power at their next salary negotiation. But why would the watchdogs of democracy cease their quest for those prizes?

Members of the American press could not overlook the historic significance of the first viable African-American presidential candidate. Mr Obama fit their template for the correct candidate for them to support. He was a liberal; he “cared” for the working man; he was not a cowboy; his name was not Bush, and he was black. Well, he sort of fit the template. Their template did not include a man who is so completely ideological that he cannot conceive of changing his policies, even in the face of overwhelming evidence that his program is failing and is continuing to impede the economic recovery. The template does not go so far as to include a man whose role models include dedicated Marxists and violent terrorists, or does it? But he was in the ball park, he was not George Bush, and he was African-American.

In a year that has seen the imposition of the Obama Health Care monstrosity, coupled with a destroyed housing market and soaring unemployment (black unemployment continues to rise, from 16.3% in 2009 to 17.3% in 2010) and a new war in Libya, and the price of gasoline at the pump threatening to surpass $5.00 per gallon, what was the watchdog media to report? The Pulitzer Prizes are still being awarded, but alas, not for the vital reportage we need.

The 2010 Pulitzer Prize for Investigative Journalism went to a writer at the Sarasota, Florida Herald-Tribune for a hard-hitting and timely investigation of property insurance in Florida. Runners up for the once-prestigious award were the New York Times for a dashing expose of medical radiation errors that led to some patient injuries and to the Chicago Tribune for a story on the deaths of 13 residents of a home for disabled children. Hmmm.

Those were all interesting and important subjects in their own communities. But one wonders in this year of rage in the Middle East and stagnation in the American economy if there might have been some other subjects the members of the adversary press might have addressed. We have a Senate that has not passed a budget for several years, and the press wants to know why republicans want to lower taxes on the rich. We have a president who has incurred more debt in his two years in office than all previous presidents from George Washington to George W. Bush combined, and the press reports breathlessly about the White House Easter Egg Hunt. We have a president who routinely turns his back on U.S. allies while apologizing and bowing to tyrants and dictators all over the world, and the watch dogs are sleeping.

And yet, there are grumblings from the somnolent American media. Some are noticing that something is terribly wrong with this occupant of the White House. DeWayne Wickham, a columnist for USA Today and founding member and former President of the National Association of Black Journalists has criticized Mr Obama for his lack of action on Black unemployment. Mr Wickham faults Mr Obama for failing to keep his campaign promise to reduce unemployment in the black community. See Mr Wickham’s column from USA Today at: http://dewaynewickham.blogspot.com/

The important question in Mr Wickham’s discourse, though, is not the resolution of black unemployment, though that is important, but whether the flood gates of honest reporting will be opened if a renowned black journalist leads the way by criticizing Mr Obama first. With that permission granted, will the derelict, negligent American media return to their typewriters and get to work? Or will they simply collect their unemployment checks and wait for the next republican administration to take office before resuming the chase for the prize?

Howie Carr Wisecrack

Howie Carr, Boston Herald columnist and Boston radio talk show host had an interesting remark concerning President Obama on a recent radio show.

Carr was discussing the Mainstream Media’s absolute lack of interest in reporting any stories critical to the historic president. Referring to Mr. Obama’s next book, Carr suggested that the title of it be, “Base on Balls, A Life of Intentional Passes.”

Obama's Economic Illiteracy

President Obama’s speech this week on the looming budget crisis correctly described the calamity we face as a nation as a result of the staggering, and rapidly increasing, national debt. Then, Mr Obama ruined any credibility he may have had by blaming everyone else in the room for the problem, despite the fact that he is personally responsible for doubling the nation debt in his own brief tenure in the White House.

Mr Obama then thoroughly trashed the serious and thoughtful plan presented by Congressman Paul Ryan (R-WI) to reduce spending and the national debt, incorrectly accusing the republicans of abandoning the elderly, the poor and the children. While that is a pretty standard democrat response to any plan, on any subject, presented by any republican, it is demonstrably false. Mr Obama went on to outline his plan that would continue all entitlement programs forever, while magically saving four trillion dollars in the next 12 years.

The problem is that the dilema so accurately described by Mr Obama in his opening remarks is real, and will not go away by wishing it away. In this area, unlike other areas where Mr Obama has enjoyed success, a good speech will do nothing to ease the problem. What is required is action; and Mr Obama’s proposal is nothing more than to continue to accelerate towards the cliff. He is like a man returning to a burning building holding a gas can.

Mr Obama’s statement of the problem followed by his intention to simply go ahead on his current spending plan is nothing less than dereliction of duty. It is irresponsible, immature and verges on criminal negligence. Likewise, the Senate has refused to seriously consider reductions in spending that have to be made. It is not like there is an alternative; spending must be reduced. But, like Mr Obama, his allies in the congress have been accusing republican attempts at fiscal restraint as abandoning the elderly, the poor, and the children, none of whom could possibly survive without the largess of their fellow taxpayers.

Where can we go to find expenditures to eliminate and thus reduce spending? Everywhere! The Heritage Foundation has identified more than $300 billion dollars in savings that could be made today by eliminating or reducing the spending on a variety of programs from all over the federal leviathan. They have suggested saving $60 billion in unspent stimulus funds, $45 billion by devolving the Federal Highway Program to the states, $15 billion in farm subsidies, $8 billion by returning educational Pell Grants to 2009 levels, $6.5 billion in reduced energy subsidies, and $1.9 billion by privatizing Amtrak, and many others. A personal favorite of my own is a savings of $300 million by returning the House and Senate budgets to the 2009 level of only $2.2 billion!

All of these programs, and literally hundreds of others funded by the federal government would be fine, even noble expenditures for a government that enjoyed huge surpluses in federal revenue. If we actually had the money, we’d all like to fund Pell Grants and provide subsidies to farmers. But the government of the United States is broke. We don’t have the money. We are borrowing from the Chinese and printing money just to keep up with the level of federal spending.

If we do not have the money, what responsible individual actually advocates continuing to spend what we do not have on marginal or even silly programs like the $2 billion we spend on the Foreign Agriculture Service? Much of the federal budget is wasted on unnecessary and wasteful expenditures on programs that just don’t matter and just don’t deserve to receive tax money from taxpayers, living and yet unborn. Chasing these recipients from the federal trough will take leadership and courage to do what is right for the American people. Unfortunately, we must endure nearly two more years of this incompetent president, who is neither a leader nor courageous.