A fresh article from the Washington Post titled ‘Getting a photo ID so you can vote is easy. Unless you’re poor, black, Latino or elderly’ purports to establish that voter ID laws are inherently discriminatory against minorities. Towards that end, the bulk of the article presents the hardship stories of three prospective voters who struggled to obtain a state-issued I.D (all seniors, incidentally, ages 65, 72, and 85). Another insinuation? These are all voters Republicans would love to keep away from the voting booth. The article essentially parrots the Left’s case against ID laws, that requiring an I.D is a particular affront to minorities. Why? How little do liberals think of minorities that they honestly believe something as simple as obtaining an I.D can be too much for minorities to handle?
Based on the content of John Kerry's Friday commencement speech at Northeastern University, one might have expected that those in attendance threw away their passports after the event ended.
That's because the Obama administration's Secretary of State told those in attendance: "You’re about to graduate into a complex and borderless world." Kerry's extraordinarily dense, naive and dangerous contention — the key soundbite of his speech — was ignored in coverage of his address at the Associated Press, Reuters, and almost everywhere else.
The press is protecting Democratic frontrunner Hillary Clinton from the true extent of the blowback over her expressed desire to see coal miners lose their jobs and her bogus attempt to "apologize" for what she said.
Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich, appearing on Fox & Friends Thursday morning, identified a larger truth about Mrs. Clinton's callous disregard for workers and their families — people about whose well-being her party claims to be concerned:
New York magazine’s Jonathan Chait admires Bernie Sanders’s willingness (eagerness?) to raise taxes so as to “finance the kind of social benefits American liberals would prefer.” That’s why Chait is disappointed that Sanders opposes Philadelphia’s proposed three-cents-per-ounce tax on sugar-sweetened drinks, revenue from which would fund citywide pre-kindergarten and other programs.
In a Tuesday post, Chait wrote that Sanders “has received justifiable credit for breaking the taboo on middle-class taxation and asking just why it is that Americans must be denied public services taken for granted elsewhere…But where does this leave his opposition to the soda tax? His position is strange and ironic because taxes on specifically defined, unhealthy goods has long been the loophole through which Democrats escape the pressure of their own no-taxes-on-the-middle-class vise…What’s more, the proceeds of the soda tax finance a vital liberal social goal (in this case, early education).”
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."
There’s a crucial difference between the Loch Ness Monster and any Republican health-care-reform plan worthy of the name: Nessie almost certainly does not exist, but the GOP plan cannot exist. That, essentially, was the message of a Monday blog post by New York magazine’s Chait.
“It is impossible to design a health-care plan that is both consistent with conservative ideology and acceptable to the broader public,” asserted Chait. “People who can’t afford health insurance are either unusually sick…unusually poor…or both…You can cover poor people by giving them money. And you can cover sick people by requiring insurers to sell plans to people regardless of age or preexisting conditions. Obamacare uses both of these methods. But Republicans oppose spending more money on the poor, and they oppose regulation, which means they don’t want to do either of them.”
On Tuesday, shortly after Governor Jerry Brown signed California's $15-an-hour minimum wage legislation, the Associated Press's Michael R. Blood and Don Thompson called the move "a victory for those struggling on the margins of the economy and the politically powerful unions that pushed it."
As seen in a NewsBusters post on March 31, it's definitely a win for union members whose wages are set at a multiple of the state's minimum wage. But it's not a "victory" for "struggling" workers who will lose their jobs or not be able to become employed at the higher rate. The AP pair would only concede that "the overall goal of helping the working poor might be lessened if some employers cut jobs or, worse, leave the state." Forget the "if" on employers cutting jobs, guys. That's because, as Jeb Graham at Investor's Business Daily reported on Friday (HT Hot Air), two states which have only raised their minimums to just over $10 have already seen seasonally adjusted job losses (bolds are mine):
Appearing as a guest on Thursday's CNN Newsroom with Brooke Baldwin, PBS host Tavis Smiley claimed that GOP candidates Donald Trump and Ted Cruz are "running segregated campaigns" as he asserted that they are "not campaigning to my community." After repeating his claim that Trump has been a "racial arsonist," he declared that the Republican Party has been "self-sabotaging," and additionally attached to the GOP the words "anti-American," "Orwellian," and "Shakespearean."
Conservatives have objected in droves to a remark President Obama made this past week during his visit to Argentina. Addressing a gathering of young adults, Obama said, “In the past there’s been a sharp division…between capitalist and communist or socialist…but I think for your generation, you should be practical and just choose from what works.”
The right’s hostile response, contended The Washington Monthly's David Atkins in a Saturday post, is indicative of its longstanding “failure to acknowledge policy realities…The leadership and media organs of the conservative movement remain obsessed with promoting ideology over practicality so much that [Obama’s comment] somehow becomes a fundamental betrayal.” Long ago, wrote Atkins, “capitalism won the war of ideas and appropriately so—but that doesn’t mean it’s a perfect system. Modern Republicans have totally lost sight of that fact.”
These days, one of the biggest meta-debates in politics concerns apportioning blame for the staying power of the Donald Trump circus. How much of Trump’s popularity is attributable to, say, the mainstream media? To conservative talk radio? In a Sunday post, The Washington Monthly’s Martin Longman pointed the finger at Republicans and absolved President Obama.
Apropos of Trump’s economically dislocated blue-collar backers, Longman maintained that Obama has “done what he could for them, and it’s been considerable,” whereas Republicans “have ignored them…[A] population that makes up the core of the Republican base has been committing suicide, overdosing on opioids, and drinking itself to death at a rate comparable to the AIDS epidemic. And the Republicans not only spent zero time trying to help them during the Bush and Obama years, they didn’t even seem to know that this was happening to them.”
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.