If you’re looking to get into journalism for anything you can get out of it, you should question yourself. In the time I’ve spent studying journalism, I’ve found that why you do something is as important as what you do, and that only when you submit yourself to some intellectually honest scrutiny can you hope to find any purpose in your line of work.
Many secular journalists have the wrong motivation for entering their chosen field. When you, as a student, let someone know that you are studying journalism, many react with, “Oh, so I’ll see you on TV!” People think of the celebrity personalities of CNN and Fox News when they think of journalists — they envision reporters standing in front of the camera in expensive suits, interviewing famous celebrities or political figures.
But that’s not reality for the majority of journalists.
Anyone seeking to enter the industry for the fame and recognition journalists occasionally receive will likely be disenchanted. The typical online reader will spend an average of only a few seconds skimming any story. The reporter, who may have spent hours reporting and writing, rarely has the satisfaction of knowing that even one person thoughtfully read his entire piece and seldom receives credit or congratulations for his work.
To get into journalism, you need to have a clear idea of why what you are doing is important, otherwise you will become discouraged. Journalists are notoriously overworked and underpaid. Because of this, the most successful writers are the ones who are passionate about their work. Your enthusiasm, however, should not be directed at gaining fame and celebrity. Such journalists will be disappointed.
The lack of clear vision and purpose often leads to cynicism in the newsroom, which is dangerous in a country where truth is relative. Journalists become lazy — sometimes they are some of the laziest people in the world — letting sloppy writing or slanted reporting go unnoticed because, hey, the truth doesn’t matter anyway. It is very easy for a journalist to get by doing the bare minimum when he doesn’t feel like he is striving to fulfill a higher calling. After all, there’s no immediate reward for doing an outstanding job. All that matters is getting the story in on deadline. The pressures of the job and low incentive for going above and beyond can quickly turn the most idealistic young reporter into a lazy and skeptical hack.
So what is the higher calling? Maybe it’s that journalism is invaluable for the continued existence of a free society. It is true: those in power need someone to hold them accountable. Historically, journalists have often been the only ones standing between the planet’s evil and power hungry villains and their evil goals. Journalists are seekers of justice and defenders of America’s voiceless weak.
It can make you proud to be a journalist — to know that you are one of the few, underappreciated champions of liberty that saves the day in the end, using only the power of the pen and his mind as weapons. Where would we be without the Woodwards and Bernsteins of journalism? Journalists provide the information that people need to make informed decisions about how they will be governed. Ideally, they do this in a fair and objective way so that readers always get both sides of the story, driving them back to your publication time and again for their news. And, if you’re lucky, you turn out an Eliot Spitzer every once in a while.
Still. All this expanding of our “mental maps” — and for what? Sure, we would like to see conservatism in America preserved with the help of good journalism by hardworking reporters, but far too many Christians fall into the trap of believing that any one of our planets problems can be solved politically. We can see some of the side-effects of this mentality in the Bush presidency: a lot of Christians thought, “We have our guy in office,” and they grew complacent, joining in with our materialistic culture on a binge of consumerism while the important battles of the culture war were lost.
The higher calling can’t really be saving our conservative heritage. Inside, we can all affirm that journalism is indeed necessary for a well-informed public in a democracy, but if you look at the actual results of what Christian journalists have achieved in America you will be disillusioned. The higher calling can’t be political.
Saying that Christians make the mistake of fighting all their battles politically is the same as saying they rely too much on reason and not enough on faith. If a Christian journalist wants to make a difference, then his ultimate purpose is spiritual in nature, not political. Jesus set the example. When he came to earth, he spent his time with the poor, caring for the sick. Jesus wasn’t concerned with the social injustices and violations of God-given human liberty carried out by the Roman government of his day. He was concerned with the accumulation of dust on the feet of his disciples. If there was ever one man who had the power to right all the wrongs of society, be perfectly objective, to have perfect information, to completely fill in the blanks in everyone’s mental maps, it was Jesus — but he got down on his hands and knees and washed his disciples' feet.
That’s not to say that the political battles aren’t worth fighting. Some people are called to politics, some to journalism. Jesus was a carpenter. We don’t have exactly the same vocation on earth that Jesus did. But we should imitate him in the way he went about achieving his goals. Jesus stooped down and made himself nothing so that we could become something. That is the example we want to follow.
A Christian journalist should be a humble public servant. That’s where you find satisfaction, and, in the paradoxical fashion that seems to characterize our universe, it’s also where you gain all the extras that the rest of the world is chasing after.
The difference between a secular journalist and a Christian one is an inner choice. A Christian journalist goes about his job in basically the same way that anyone else would, but his motivating passion comes from another source — the desire to be a servant. For this reason, humility is key. Unlike most other professions, everything a journalist does is subject to public scrutiny, which is usually ruthless. Journalists are attacked publicly, and even in the context of the newsroom they receive regular correction from their coworkers. Going into the job with humility makes all the difference.
That’s one way that Christians can be better journalists than their secular counterparts. Christians recognize that their purpose is one of service to the reader. Journalists aren’t the “media elite.”
An attitude of service gives new meaning to tired words like “objectivity” and “fairness.” For secular journalists, these things don’t have much meaning beyond their utility in selling newspapers. In the end, however, it doesn’t matter how fair your story was as long as it kept the viewers interested, hence the rise of Bill O’Reily. In post-modern America, the loss of objective truth makes meaningful Lincoln-Douglas-style debate pointless. Our nationally televised presidential debates are watered down to two-minute sound bites. A candidate can get away with saying as little as he wants, provided he doesn’t sweat too much on TV.
The application of a biblical worldview to journalism, however, counteracts the negative effects of the TV age on the industry. Objectivity and fairness are ideals worth striving for because Christians believe that there is always a right answer somewhere, even if neither side has it at the moment. For a Christian, objectivity is about more than which side of the debate received more air time — it is the opposite of “subjectivity,” implying that real truth is at stake.
Christian journalists can even have a fuller understanding of the issues due to the eternal perspective they gain from the Word of God. Christians understand the reality of man’s sinful nature. That doesn’t make Christians experts, but it does help to put what the experts are saying into context. Societal problems like divorce, abortion, and homosexuality can’t be explained or solved by secular journalists — they are just statistics, and it is becoming increasingly rare for these issues even to be seen as “problems.” The Christian journalist, in this example, has a higher understanding of the nature of the family and its place in society, making it possible to distinguish disorder from order.
Bringing a biblical worldview to journalism, however, should feel different than using a sledge hammer. Christian journalists let the facts speak for themselves. Part of the reason why so many Christian commentators can’t find a message that resonates with their secular audience is that they spend too much time putting their own spin on the story, ignoring the powerful influence that simple truth-telling can have.
If we believe, as Christians, that we can know truth and it does actually “set you free,” then our journalism should only require that we convey it as accurately as we can. In the end, people don’t want to hear a writer’s opinion. Skillful writing lays all the pieces of the puzzle on the table for readers to assemble themselves. If you, as a reporter, have made the effort to collect all the pieces and present them to your audience, they will have no trouble arriving at the complete picture. Christians can be better journalists than secular reporters because the Word of God reveals eternal truth that places all journalistic concepts, including objectivity, fairness, and the anecdotes of our society, into a broader context.
But the day-to-day work of a Christian journalist is not that much different from that of a secular journalist. The methodology each reporter uses is the same. Secular reporters still cling to the ideal of objectivity and acknowledge their own failure to reach it in every piece. Even in a post-modern society, journalists still do believe in the truth and that it is worth finding. The fact that we did have the Watergate story is evidence of that. Some secular journalists are so committed to finding the truth that they will risk their lives for it. The difference, therefore, can’t be found in the journalist’s passion for finding and telling the truth. The difference between a Christian journalist and a secular one is in the heart of the individual.
We have read a lot about the ultimate purpose of Christians in journalism — that our role in life is to tell the truth. This is true, but it is only part of the complete picture. God is truth and journalists, as truth-tellers, are constantly seeking after the fullest representation of a reality that is defined by him. Thus, to the extent that we are successful in finding truth, we find God. This is what allows many secular journalists to be so successful and valuable in their work, and it is also why saying that the ultimate purpose of a Christian journalist is to be a truth-teller is only half the story.
The fact is that journalists in the secular community can report just as well as Christians. As Christians, we have the ultimate source of truth in the Word of God, but that doesn’t always make us better journalists. There are many reasons why a biblical worldview can contribute to a Christian journalist’s work, giving him perhaps greater potential than his secular counterpart, but it would be arrogant to presume that this is always the case. Christians are fallible just like everyone else, and a biblical worldview does not guarantee better journalism.
Christian journalists understand the world’s disorder in a context that few others have: we understand the sinfulness of man and the need for redemption through Christ. But how often do Christian journalists make use of this knowledge in the newsroom? During the Puritan era, a writer could attribute the cause of a murder to the perpetrator’s sinfulness and chalk it up to moral weakness, calling upon the community to publicly repent. In today’s news industry, however, there is no place to describe murders and suicides in the same terms used by our predecessors.
This same calling to pursue and expound biblical truth still exists for today’s journalists, but how can a similar interplay of faith and reason exist in a relativistic, modern newsroom? The difference is often subtle. To the secular reporter, the latest murder-suicide is a terrible tragedy that cannot be explained except by the killer’s violent family background, poor education, or some other environmental factor. The Christian, however, recognizes the event for what it really is — a sin resulting from the personal moral failing of an individual who ought to be held personally accountable.
A proper understanding of human nature through a biblical worldview can be applied in the journalistic context to any topic that a reporter covers. The current worldwide economic crisis is a perfect example: few are willing to admit that the economic collapse is the result of irresponsible policies combined with a materialistic society that is unwilling and unable to govern itself, thus power must be centralized in the banks and in government. Christian journalists should be the ones to recognize the fallen state of man in every area of life.
Ultimately, our biblical worldview allows us to recognize that, although our efforts to contribute to the well-being of society may bear little fruit, nothing is outside the sovereignty of God. You learn to accept that as a student and as an intern. In college or at the entry-level position, there is very little a journalist can do that has a direct impact. You’re lucky if anyone reads your story.
When I entered into the journalism program in college I was mainly interested in the field because I had to pick something and I thought I might be a good writer. It also seemed like that was where all the fun people were at, but I had no dreams of being a reporter growing up. I soon learned that journalism isn’t the place for people who aren’t passionate about it. The constant deadlines of my internships helped to push me to think about why I was doing what I was doing and find a reason to keep going.
The reason came in service to others. I learned the lesson that hard work pays off, when you give your boss an exceptional story and put out the extra effort. The journalist doesn’t get anything out of it, except a byline. One of the best things you can do as a Christian in the newsroom is simply to live as a Christian, striving to serve the people in your office. Christians also need the humility to recognize that everyone in the newsroom thinks differently and that some of them are better at it. My boss at the local newspaper didn’t believe the same things I did about God, but she could definitely write a better lead than I could.
But I like to think that I made a difference in that newsroom because I made a conscious decision that I would be a servant to all, to be all things to all people, no matter how difficult the job could be. We are called to love one another, and that’s something that applies to every Christian whether you are a journalist or not. Love, through service, is the ultimate fruit of the interaction between faith and reason. To the extent that you can do that, you are fulfilling the highest calling and purpose of a Christian journalist.
If you want to be a journalist, and if you want to make a difference, then you absolutely have to grasp this truth. In all the debate over how our Christian faith ought to interact with human reason, and how we ought to carry that forward into whatever walk in life we are called to, Christians have forgotten that the answer has already been spelled out for us:
“Though I speak with the tongues of men and of angels, but have not love, I have become sounding brass or a clanging cymbal. And though I have the gift of prophecy, and understand all mysteries and all knowledge, and though I have all faith, so that I could remove mountains, but have not love, I am nothing. And though I bestow all my goods to feed the poor, and though I give my body to be burned, but have not love, it profits me nothing” (1 Corinthians 13:1).
Our words will fail and our journalistic abilities will disappoint. Graduating from college as young Christian journalists, as we are stepping closer to maturity and beginning to “put away childish things,” it should be reassuring to know that our calling is greater than merely becoming the next byline in the paper or anchor on TV.
The journalists who can apply this to their work are often the most effective and well-respected in their field. When asked how being a Christian had affected his journalism, Fred Barnes once said, more or less, “It didn’t.” He meant, of course, that being a Christian doesn’t change the conventions of the industry — one’s faith doesn’t make the lead the bottom graph or un-invert the inverted pyramid. And it doesn’t mean that the writer may now inject opinion into the story. A Christian journalist writes and reports in much the same way as any other reporter, but his drive is different. The purpose is service, in imitation of Jesus.
Thursday, July 30, 2009
Obama Administration Drops "War on Terror" Rhetoric
In March, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton acknowledged that the Obama administration has stopped using the phrase “war on terror,” favoring instead “overseas contingency operation.” Clinton did not explain why the phrase was dropped, but the event is an important indication of the president’s stance on the war and may mark a turning point in the struggle against radical Islam.
During the week of March 25, the government agency that reviews the public statements of administration officials before dissemination informed employees of the U.S. Defense Department in an E-mail that “This administration prefers to avoid using the term ‘long war’ or ‘global war on terror.’ Please use ‘Overseas Contingency Operation.’”
Clinton said, “The administration has stopped using the phrase and I think that speaks for itself.”
The change in rhetoric was noted by commentators. Reza Aslan, writing for the Washington Times, noted that the change is important because the “war on terror” was more ideological than actual. While there has been a very real struggle in Afghanistan, Iraq, and other locations, the war on terror was explained from the start as a conflict of ideologies. Aslan wrote, “It is a rhetorical war, one fought more constructively with words and ideas than with guns and bombs.”
After the Sept. 11, 2001 terrorist attacks, President Bush introduced the U.S. to an unprecedented foreign policy doctrine of pursuing terrorists and their supporters in whatever country they might be found, but the phrase war on terror was always problematic for his administration. Critics argue that the phrase was never meant to describe a war on terrorism per se, otherwise the conflict would have involved dozens of other countries.
Bush first used the phrase “war on terror” nine days after Sept. 11 in an emergency address to Congress. “Our war on terror begins with Al-Qaeda, but it does not end there,” he said. “It will not end until every terrorist group of global reach has been found, stopped, and defeated.”
The war on terror led by the Bush administration targeted a specific kind of terrorism employed by Islamic extremists, which allowed it to include people who were not directly involved in the Sept. 11 attacks. The war on terror was directed at any Muslim group that used terrorism as a tactic.
Opponents say the Bush doctrine assumed that such Muslim groups were a united enemy with a common agenda and ideology. Aslan wrote, “The Bush administration seemed to be making a blatant statement that the war on terror was, in fact, ‘a war against Islam.’”
Many in the Muslim world believe that U.S. goals in the region are hostile to Islam. In a 2009 WorldPublicOpinion.org poll, large majorities ranging from 62 percent in Indonesia to 87 percent in Egypt said they believe that the United States seeks “to weaken and divide the Islamic world.” In a 2007 poll from the same source, nearly two-thirds of respondents said they believe that the purpose of the war on terror is to “spread Christianity in the region” of the Middle East.
In nearly all nations polled more than seven in 10 say they disapprove of attacks on American civilians, but large majorities simultaneously endorse the Al Qaeda’s goal to push the U.S. and its military bases out of all Islamic countries, including 87 percent of Egyptians, 64 percent of Indonesians, and 60 percent of Pakistanis. Across eight Muslim publics on average, 66 percent said that U.S. naval bases in the Persian Gulf are a bad idea; only 13 percent called it a good idea.
Steven Kull, director of WorldPublicOpinion.org, commented, “The U.S. faces a conundrum. U.S. efforts to fight terrorism with an expanded military presence in Muslim countries appear to have elicited a backlash and to have bred some sympathy for al Qaeda, even as most reject its terrorist methods.”
The U.S. has lost popularity in non-Muslim countries as well. A 2008 BBC World Service survey of 23 countries, including Russia, Australia, Pakistan, Turkey, France, Germany, Britain, the U.S., China and Mexico, found that nearly 60 percent of respondents said the war on terror had either no effect or made Al Qaeda stronger. Forty-nine percent said that neither side was winning, while only 22 percent believed that the U.S. had gained the upper hand.
Under the Bush administration, the battle for global popularity seems to have been lost, especially in the Muslim world. Obama’s foreign policy so far is intended to reverse the Bush doctrine, fundamentally changing the mission of the U.S. military in Iraq: end the war. The new change in rhetoric by the Obama administration signals that the new president will take steps to reverse that defeat, seeking to win the hearts of Muslims.
But this hasn’t happened so far. Time recently reported that the Taliban is winning the propaganda war in Afghanistan. After Afghan President Hamid Karzai’s office announced that it would begin holding peace talks with the Taliban, the militants dismissed the announcement as an attempt to make the Taliban appear divided.
According to a report from the International Crisis Group, a think tank that monitors conflicts, the Taliban has successfully tapped into Afghan nationalism by exploiting the policy failures of the Kabul government and its international supporters, resulting in weakened public support for nation-building, even though few support the Taliban.
The dilemma in Afghanistan might seem to legitimize President Bush’s often-criticized style of dealing with enemy combatants—radical groups like the Taliban are not interested in negotiating with the U.S. or its allies. But the lack of popular support for the U.S. in the Muslim world also suggests that the new administration would be wise to carefully evaluate its rhetoric, since public opinion can be a decisive factor in war.
Simply switching from “war on terror” to “overseas contingency operation” might not be enough for the Obama administration to win over the Muslim world. One Indian columnist recently wrote that Obama’s administration has sent mixed signals on the war on terror and is “clearly torn between realists and the extreme left of the Democratic Party.” Secretary of State Clinton recently infuriated Pakistanis by telling a congressional hearing that the Islamabad government had “abdicating to the Taliban and to the extremists” in a dangerous situation.
Declaring “war” on an issue has been part of U.S. political language since the 1960s when President Lyndon Johnson declared a war on poverty in 1964 and President Richard Nixon launched a war on drugs in 1969.
According to some legal experts, however, the combined term “war on terror” is much more problematic, and the new approach by Obama’s administration might be a key to precisely defining “international terrorism.” Terrorism rhetoric has been used by governments for many years seeking to suppress opposition and avoid international scrutiny. Since the Sept. 11, 2009 attacks the term “terrorist” has been used by governments such as China and Russia to stifle dissent in Tibet and Chechnya, respectively.
Noah Bialostozky, an attorney in New York who serves on the United Nations Law Committee of the International Law Association, recently argued in the Christian Science Monitor that the term terrorism is not useful without a definitive meaning, noting that there are 12 different definitions of the word in various international treaties.
The new U.S. approach in Afghanistan could help restrict the use of the term “war on terror” and hopefully be a step toward undoing some of the damage it has done. Bialostozky wrote, “The indiscriminate use of ‘terrorist’ not only has been devastating to groups to whom the label has been unfairly attached, but it also has damaged efforts to isolate those who deserve international condemnation as terrorists.”
While the rhetoric has changed, however, many foreign policies have stayed the same under Obama, in Afghanistan and elsewhere, according Mark McKinnon, a former Bush media adviser. “At the end of the day,” McKinnon noted, “this administration won’t be judged on the rhetoric but really on the results and what progress they make.”
During the week of March 25, the government agency that reviews the public statements of administration officials before dissemination informed employees of the U.S. Defense Department in an E-mail that “This administration prefers to avoid using the term ‘long war’ or ‘global war on terror.’ Please use ‘Overseas Contingency Operation.’”
Clinton said, “The administration has stopped using the phrase and I think that speaks for itself.”
The change in rhetoric was noted by commentators. Reza Aslan, writing for the Washington Times, noted that the change is important because the “war on terror” was more ideological than actual. While there has been a very real struggle in Afghanistan, Iraq, and other locations, the war on terror was explained from the start as a conflict of ideologies. Aslan wrote, “It is a rhetorical war, one fought more constructively with words and ideas than with guns and bombs.”
After the Sept. 11, 2001 terrorist attacks, President Bush introduced the U.S. to an unprecedented foreign policy doctrine of pursuing terrorists and their supporters in whatever country they might be found, but the phrase war on terror was always problematic for his administration. Critics argue that the phrase was never meant to describe a war on terrorism per se, otherwise the conflict would have involved dozens of other countries.
Bush first used the phrase “war on terror” nine days after Sept. 11 in an emergency address to Congress. “Our war on terror begins with Al-Qaeda, but it does not end there,” he said. “It will not end until every terrorist group of global reach has been found, stopped, and defeated.”
The war on terror led by the Bush administration targeted a specific kind of terrorism employed by Islamic extremists, which allowed it to include people who were not directly involved in the Sept. 11 attacks. The war on terror was directed at any Muslim group that used terrorism as a tactic.
Opponents say the Bush doctrine assumed that such Muslim groups were a united enemy with a common agenda and ideology. Aslan wrote, “The Bush administration seemed to be making a blatant statement that the war on terror was, in fact, ‘a war against Islam.’”
Many in the Muslim world believe that U.S. goals in the region are hostile to Islam. In a 2009 WorldPublicOpinion.org poll, large majorities ranging from 62 percent in Indonesia to 87 percent in Egypt said they believe that the United States seeks “to weaken and divide the Islamic world.” In a 2007 poll from the same source, nearly two-thirds of respondents said they believe that the purpose of the war on terror is to “spread Christianity in the region” of the Middle East.
In nearly all nations polled more than seven in 10 say they disapprove of attacks on American civilians, but large majorities simultaneously endorse the Al Qaeda’s goal to push the U.S. and its military bases out of all Islamic countries, including 87 percent of Egyptians, 64 percent of Indonesians, and 60 percent of Pakistanis. Across eight Muslim publics on average, 66 percent said that U.S. naval bases in the Persian Gulf are a bad idea; only 13 percent called it a good idea.
Steven Kull, director of WorldPublicOpinion.org, commented, “The U.S. faces a conundrum. U.S. efforts to fight terrorism with an expanded military presence in Muslim countries appear to have elicited a backlash and to have bred some sympathy for al Qaeda, even as most reject its terrorist methods.”
The U.S. has lost popularity in non-Muslim countries as well. A 2008 BBC World Service survey of 23 countries, including Russia, Australia, Pakistan, Turkey, France, Germany, Britain, the U.S., China and Mexico, found that nearly 60 percent of respondents said the war on terror had either no effect or made Al Qaeda stronger. Forty-nine percent said that neither side was winning, while only 22 percent believed that the U.S. had gained the upper hand.
Under the Bush administration, the battle for global popularity seems to have been lost, especially in the Muslim world. Obama’s foreign policy so far is intended to reverse the Bush doctrine, fundamentally changing the mission of the U.S. military in Iraq: end the war. The new change in rhetoric by the Obama administration signals that the new president will take steps to reverse that defeat, seeking to win the hearts of Muslims.
But this hasn’t happened so far. Time recently reported that the Taliban is winning the propaganda war in Afghanistan. After Afghan President Hamid Karzai’s office announced that it would begin holding peace talks with the Taliban, the militants dismissed the announcement as an attempt to make the Taliban appear divided.
According to a report from the International Crisis Group, a think tank that monitors conflicts, the Taliban has successfully tapped into Afghan nationalism by exploiting the policy failures of the Kabul government and its international supporters, resulting in weakened public support for nation-building, even though few support the Taliban.
The dilemma in Afghanistan might seem to legitimize President Bush’s often-criticized style of dealing with enemy combatants—radical groups like the Taliban are not interested in negotiating with the U.S. or its allies. But the lack of popular support for the U.S. in the Muslim world also suggests that the new administration would be wise to carefully evaluate its rhetoric, since public opinion can be a decisive factor in war.
Simply switching from “war on terror” to “overseas contingency operation” might not be enough for the Obama administration to win over the Muslim world. One Indian columnist recently wrote that Obama’s administration has sent mixed signals on the war on terror and is “clearly torn between realists and the extreme left of the Democratic Party.” Secretary of State Clinton recently infuriated Pakistanis by telling a congressional hearing that the Islamabad government had “abdicating to the Taliban and to the extremists” in a dangerous situation.
Declaring “war” on an issue has been part of U.S. political language since the 1960s when President Lyndon Johnson declared a war on poverty in 1964 and President Richard Nixon launched a war on drugs in 1969.
According to some legal experts, however, the combined term “war on terror” is much more problematic, and the new approach by Obama’s administration might be a key to precisely defining “international terrorism.” Terrorism rhetoric has been used by governments for many years seeking to suppress opposition and avoid international scrutiny. Since the Sept. 11, 2009 attacks the term “terrorist” has been used by governments such as China and Russia to stifle dissent in Tibet and Chechnya, respectively.
Noah Bialostozky, an attorney in New York who serves on the United Nations Law Committee of the International Law Association, recently argued in the Christian Science Monitor that the term terrorism is not useful without a definitive meaning, noting that there are 12 different definitions of the word in various international treaties.
The new U.S. approach in Afghanistan could help restrict the use of the term “war on terror” and hopefully be a step toward undoing some of the damage it has done. Bialostozky wrote, “The indiscriminate use of ‘terrorist’ not only has been devastating to groups to whom the label has been unfairly attached, but it also has damaged efforts to isolate those who deserve international condemnation as terrorists.”
While the rhetoric has changed, however, many foreign policies have stayed the same under Obama, in Afghanistan and elsewhere, according Mark McKinnon, a former Bush media adviser. “At the end of the day,” McKinnon noted, “this administration won’t be judged on the rhetoric but really on the results and what progress they make.”
American Public Earns "D Minus" On Economic Knowledge
If the American public were being graded on its knowledge of basic facts pertaining to the current financial situation, we would be getting a “D minus.”
A recent “News IQ” survey by the Pew Research Center, conducted March 26-29, asked 1,003 adults a series of 12 multiple choice questions about current events and people in the news, and respondents answered an average of 7.4 questions correctly—that’s about 62 percent. Even so, Pew concluded that the American public was “reasonably well-informed” about basic facts pertaining to the current economic situation.
About 83 percent knew that government bailout money is aimed at getting banks to lend more money, not less money, and 71 percent correctly identified China as the foreign country holding the most U.S. government debt.
More Americans knew the current unemployment rate than the current level of the Dow Jones Industrial Average, with 53 percent correctly estimating the unemployment rate at about 8 percent and only 40 percent correctly estimating the level of the Dow at about 8,000.
The economy is an admittedly confusing issue for many Americans. Before taking the Pew survey, people were asked to rate their understanding of the economic situation and the government’s economic policies. Roughly 49 percent said they understood the current situation and government policies fairly well, 20 percent said not too well, and 7 percent said not at all.
About 24 percent said they understood the current situation and government policies very well. The Pew survey results, however, indicate otherwise—only 6 percent got a perfect score by answering all 12 questions right. Still, a large majority (71 percent) answered at least half the questions correctly.
A recent “News IQ” survey by the Pew Research Center, conducted March 26-29, asked 1,003 adults a series of 12 multiple choice questions about current events and people in the news, and respondents answered an average of 7.4 questions correctly—that’s about 62 percent. Even so, Pew concluded that the American public was “reasonably well-informed” about basic facts pertaining to the current economic situation.
About 83 percent knew that government bailout money is aimed at getting banks to lend more money, not less money, and 71 percent correctly identified China as the foreign country holding the most U.S. government debt.
More Americans knew the current unemployment rate than the current level of the Dow Jones Industrial Average, with 53 percent correctly estimating the unemployment rate at about 8 percent and only 40 percent correctly estimating the level of the Dow at about 8,000.
The economy is an admittedly confusing issue for many Americans. Before taking the Pew survey, people were asked to rate their understanding of the economic situation and the government’s economic policies. Roughly 49 percent said they understood the current situation and government policies fairly well, 20 percent said not too well, and 7 percent said not at all.
About 24 percent said they understood the current situation and government policies very well. The Pew survey results, however, indicate otherwise—only 6 percent got a perfect score by answering all 12 questions right. Still, a large majority (71 percent) answered at least half the questions correctly.
Saturday, March 28, 2009
Nuclear Energy Industry Looks for "Rebirth"
Now that the meltdown at Three Mile Island has faded from memory, the nuclear industry is claiming that the incident was actually a success because the radiation was contained. Following the 30-year anniversary of the disaster, some suggest that lessons learned have poised the energy industry for a nuclear rebirth.
The energy industry has been wary of nuclear power since the early morning of March 28, 1979, when water pumps failed in the Unit 2 reactor at the Three Mile Island nuclear plant along the Susquehanna River near Harrisburg, Pa., melting the radioactive fuel rods in the core and leaking radiation into the surrounding environment.
As radiation spread into local communities, regulators scrambled to place monitoring equipment and the governor of Pennsylvania eventually ordered the evacuation of pregnant women and children. The accident crippled the nuclear industry, costing over $100 billion and burning the fear of “meltdown” into the national consciousness. No more nuclear plants were ordered in the United States following the accident and none started after 1974 were completed.
The nuclear industry, however, says that it has learned from its mistakes and will place a sharper focus on safety, noting that reactors can generate electricity without the carbon emissions produced by coal-fired generators. The Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) has applications from 17 companies to build 26 reactors—including a PPL proposal to build a plant in Berwick, Pa., near its Susquehanna plant.
Although no new nuclear plants have been constructed, the industry has spent $4 billion and created 15,000 jobs as part of a ramp-up over the last few years. The cost of building a nuclear plant has risen from a projected $4 billion to $5 billion a year ago to $6 billion to $8 billion now.
The NRC, which oversees the nation’s 104 civilian nuclear power plants, is reviewing proposals to construct new reactors. The industry has asked Congress to guarantee loans to pay for the construction costs. The estimated time from proposal to construction is 15 to 20 years. Experts in the industry expect the construction of six to eight new plants.
In Senate testimony this week, NRC Chairman Dale Klein emphasized his agency’s actions since the accident to tighten safety regulations. Industry leaders note that nuclear plants have operated for 20 million hours since the 1979 accident without an emergency of that magnitude. Nuclear plant designed have been strengthened, control room monitors have improved, and operators are given “what if” emergency training. Other plant protection plans were enacted to ensure against terrorist attacks, following Sept. 11, 2001.
The Obama administration has not been overly optimistic about nuclear energy, but he and his advisers say they support it. “I believe in nuclear power as a central part of our energy mix,” Energy Secretary Steven Chu recently told Congress. However, a push to include tens of billions of dollars in insurance for new nuclear reactors failed during the stimulus debate. The Obama administration also decided this month against storing nuclear waste at the Yucca Mountain facility in Nevada. Next week, the Senate Energy Committee will begin debating a bill that will decide whether nuclear power will be treated as a renewable energy source—it is currently not considered renewable, and would not be part of the Democrat’s proposed “Renewable Electricity Standard.”
Opponents say that those hoping for a nuclear renaissance are overlooking some obvious problems. The NRC fact sheet on the Three Mile Island incident acknowledges that the accident released a significant amount of radiation. According to the NRC, 10 million curies of radiation escaped the reactor’s core (1 curie = 37 billion radioactive atoms), but independent nuclear engineers have estimated that up to 150 million curies might have escaped.
The severity of the accident, and the government’s inability to evaluate the situation, illustrate some of the dangers of nuclear power. A 1997 study found that lung cancer and leukemia rates downwind from Three Mile Island were two to ten times higher than cancer rates upwind of the accident. Commentators point out that, although the industry would like to sell reactors as clean and safe, nuclear power can be dangerous and deadly.
The energy industry has been wary of nuclear power since the early morning of March 28, 1979, when water pumps failed in the Unit 2 reactor at the Three Mile Island nuclear plant along the Susquehanna River near Harrisburg, Pa., melting the radioactive fuel rods in the core and leaking radiation into the surrounding environment.
As radiation spread into local communities, regulators scrambled to place monitoring equipment and the governor of Pennsylvania eventually ordered the evacuation of pregnant women and children. The accident crippled the nuclear industry, costing over $100 billion and burning the fear of “meltdown” into the national consciousness. No more nuclear plants were ordered in the United States following the accident and none started after 1974 were completed.
The nuclear industry, however, says that it has learned from its mistakes and will place a sharper focus on safety, noting that reactors can generate electricity without the carbon emissions produced by coal-fired generators. The Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) has applications from 17 companies to build 26 reactors—including a PPL proposal to build a plant in Berwick, Pa., near its Susquehanna plant.
Although no new nuclear plants have been constructed, the industry has spent $4 billion and created 15,000 jobs as part of a ramp-up over the last few years. The cost of building a nuclear plant has risen from a projected $4 billion to $5 billion a year ago to $6 billion to $8 billion now.
The NRC, which oversees the nation’s 104 civilian nuclear power plants, is reviewing proposals to construct new reactors. The industry has asked Congress to guarantee loans to pay for the construction costs. The estimated time from proposal to construction is 15 to 20 years. Experts in the industry expect the construction of six to eight new plants.
In Senate testimony this week, NRC Chairman Dale Klein emphasized his agency’s actions since the accident to tighten safety regulations. Industry leaders note that nuclear plants have operated for 20 million hours since the 1979 accident without an emergency of that magnitude. Nuclear plant designed have been strengthened, control room monitors have improved, and operators are given “what if” emergency training. Other plant protection plans were enacted to ensure against terrorist attacks, following Sept. 11, 2001.
The Obama administration has not been overly optimistic about nuclear energy, but he and his advisers say they support it. “I believe in nuclear power as a central part of our energy mix,” Energy Secretary Steven Chu recently told Congress. However, a push to include tens of billions of dollars in insurance for new nuclear reactors failed during the stimulus debate. The Obama administration also decided this month against storing nuclear waste at the Yucca Mountain facility in Nevada. Next week, the Senate Energy Committee will begin debating a bill that will decide whether nuclear power will be treated as a renewable energy source—it is currently not considered renewable, and would not be part of the Democrat’s proposed “Renewable Electricity Standard.”
Opponents say that those hoping for a nuclear renaissance are overlooking some obvious problems. The NRC fact sheet on the Three Mile Island incident acknowledges that the accident released a significant amount of radiation. According to the NRC, 10 million curies of radiation escaped the reactor’s core (1 curie = 37 billion radioactive atoms), but independent nuclear engineers have estimated that up to 150 million curies might have escaped.
The severity of the accident, and the government’s inability to evaluate the situation, illustrate some of the dangers of nuclear power. A 1997 study found that lung cancer and leukemia rates downwind from Three Mile Island were two to ten times higher than cancer rates upwind of the accident. Commentators point out that, although the industry would like to sell reactors as clean and safe, nuclear power can be dangerous and deadly.
More Conservative GOP May Hurt Specter in Pa.
An increasingly conservative GOP in Pennsylvania could hurt Sen. Arlen Specter’s (R., Pa.) chances for re-election in 2010. The state has trended Democrat in recent elections, and the party has a 1.2 million statewide advantage in voter registrations. Last year, 239,000 Republicans switched parties, and a recent poll indicates that most of these defectors are moderates – voters who have historically comprised the core of Specter’s support. Specter will likely face a strong challenge from former Rep. Pat Toomey, a conservative popular with the more conservative GOP electorate in Pennsylvania.
Specter has long had a rocky relationship with the conservative wing of the GOP. The latest flare-up stems from his support of the stimulus. He was one of only three Republican senators – and the only one up for re-election in 2010 – to back it.
Specter has long had a rocky relationship with the conservative wing of the GOP. The latest flare-up stems from his support of the stimulus. He was one of only three Republican senators – and the only one up for re-election in 2010 – to back it.
Few Pa. Legislators Using State Car Fleet
Fewer Pennsylvania legislators are driving taxpayer-subsidized vehicles. Pennsylvania and California are the only states that offer legislators subsidized cars. In the House, 82 of 203 members drive fleet cars, and so do 18 of 49 sitting senators. Besides a base salary of $78,315, lawmakers also get up to $158 to cover meal and lodging expenses each day they show up to work in the Capitol, a pension program, and health benefits.
Wednesday, March 25, 2009
Obama Administration Creates Soaring Deficits
Obama’s budget would produce $9.3 trillion in deficits over the next decade, more than four times the amount for Republican George W. Bush’s presidency. This new Congressional Budget Office figure is $2.3 trillion worse than the deficit predicted by Obama’s administration last month. The White House said the deficit will be down to $533 billion by 2013. According to some, this is unlikely to happen, since the stimulus package included health care and other spending that will create permanent new federal spending. Some experts say the 10-year cost of Obama’s health care initiative will be twice the projected cost of $634 billion.
Pa. State Rep. Seeks to Legalize Medical Use of Marijuana
State Rep. Mark Cohen announced on Mar. 20 that he hoped to introduce a bill next month to legalize the medical use of marijuana in
U.S. Supreme Court to Rule on "Hillary: The Movie"
The U.S. Supreme Court will decide whether “Hillary: The Movie” should be considered a political ad. The 90-minute anti-Clinton film was shown in eight theaters during the 2008 Democratic primary season, and its creators, Citizens United, wanted to run ads in key primary states and show the movie on cable television’s video-on-demand. Federal courts ruled that the ads would violate the McCain-Feingold law, which revised the nation’s campaign finance laws, and judges called “Hillary” an attack ad. The case may settle the question of whether the government can regulate a politically charged film as a campaign ad.
Monday, March 23, 2009
Economic Uncertainty Scares Off Foreign Investors
President Obama has stated that international investors should have “absolute confidence” in the safety of U.S. government debt, but many foreign leaders are beginning to worry. Foreigners withdrew funds from American assets in record amounts in January—except for China, which increased its load of U.S. debt.
Net foreign capital outflows reached a record $148.9 billion in January, in contrast to $86.2 billion in inflows in December, according to the Wall Street Journal.
The cost of insuring against a U.S. default has risen by about 60 percent since the end of last year. Even Chinese Premier Wen Jiabao recently said he was “definitely a little bit worried” about Beijing’s U.S. holdings. China is the largest foreign creditor to the U.S. government, with total holdings of $739.6 billion, according to data from the Treasury Department.
Some are concerned that new levels of government intervention and micromanagement in the economy might scare off more investors. Writing for the National Review, Mark Steyn noted that investors will be dubious about putting their money into the U.S. when legal contracts can be annulled by “ex post facto” laws, as in the case of the AIG executive bonuses scandal.
“The investor class invests in jurisdictions where the rules are clear and stable,” wrote Steyn. “Right now, Washington is telling the planet: In our America, there are no rules.”
Furthermore, the Obama administration has announced that it will call for increased government oversight of executive pay at all banks, Wall Street firms, and possibly other companies as part of a sweeping plan to reform financial regulation.
These reforms come as a reaction to AIG’s $165 million in bonuses paid using bailout funds as part of a previously existing and legally binding contract—a sum that amounts to only 1/18,500 of the $3.1 trillion federal budget.
Net foreign capital outflows reached a record $148.9 billion in January, in contrast to $86.2 billion in inflows in December, according to the Wall Street Journal.
The cost of insuring against a U.S. default has risen by about 60 percent since the end of last year. Even Chinese Premier Wen Jiabao recently said he was “definitely a little bit worried” about Beijing’s U.S. holdings. China is the largest foreign creditor to the U.S. government, with total holdings of $739.6 billion, according to data from the Treasury Department.
Some are concerned that new levels of government intervention and micromanagement in the economy might scare off more investors. Writing for the National Review, Mark Steyn noted that investors will be dubious about putting their money into the U.S. when legal contracts can be annulled by “ex post facto” laws, as in the case of the AIG executive bonuses scandal.
“The investor class invests in jurisdictions where the rules are clear and stable,” wrote Steyn. “Right now, Washington is telling the planet: In our America, there are no rules.”
Furthermore, the Obama administration has announced that it will call for increased government oversight of executive pay at all banks, Wall Street firms, and possibly other companies as part of a sweeping plan to reform financial regulation.
These reforms come as a reaction to AIG’s $165 million in bonuses paid using bailout funds as part of a previously existing and legally binding contract—a sum that amounts to only 1/18,500 of the $3.1 trillion federal budget.
Wednesday, March 18, 2009
Obama Will Raise Revenue With New Climate Change Laws
President Obama announced Thursday that he would like to raise more than half a trillion dollars by 2020 from new climate-change laws. A top White House economic advisor told Senate staff that a proposed cap and trade system could raise “two-to-three times” the administration’s existing $646 billion revenue estimate for the next eight years, according to Dow Jones Newswires.
In his 2010 budget proposal, Obama plans to raise these funds by capping carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gas emissions and auctioning off the right to emit greenhouse gases, aiming to cut carbon dioxide emissions 14 percent by 2020 and 83 percent by 2050.
The deputy director of the White House National Economic Council, Jason Furman, told Senate staff that “the cap and trade system could actually generate between roughly $1.3 trillion and $1.9 trillion between fiscal years 2012 and 2019.” Dow Jones reported that five people at the meeting confirmed the statement.
This would be the largest revenue measure in U.S. history – at least twice as large as the largest to date, the $107 billion (in 2007 dollars) tax to pay for WWII. The White House claims that this new tax revenue would be dedicated to tax relief, but more than 42 percent of tax cuts in the Obama budget go to people who don’t pay taxes.
Senior officials said the $646 billion in estimated government revenues is based on an emission price of around $20 a ton for emissions, a number that could rise. Climate analysts predict a higher range of emission prices, which would change the burden on power industries.
In his 2010 budget proposal, Obama plans to raise these funds by capping carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gas emissions and auctioning off the right to emit greenhouse gases, aiming to cut carbon dioxide emissions 14 percent by 2020 and 83 percent by 2050.
The deputy director of the White House National Economic Council, Jason Furman, told Senate staff that “the cap and trade system could actually generate between roughly $1.3 trillion and $1.9 trillion between fiscal years 2012 and 2019.” Dow Jones reported that five people at the meeting confirmed the statement.
This would be the largest revenue measure in U.S. history – at least twice as large as the largest to date, the $107 billion (in 2007 dollars) tax to pay for WWII. The White House claims that this new tax revenue would be dedicated to tax relief, but more than 42 percent of tax cuts in the Obama budget go to people who don’t pay taxes.
Senior officials said the $646 billion in estimated government revenues is based on an emission price of around $20 a ton for emissions, a number that could rise. Climate analysts predict a higher range of emission prices, which would change the burden on power industries.
Sunday, March 8, 2009
Appointee to National Intelligence Council Has Ties to Saudi Arabia, China
Obama’s administration is pushing to appoint Chas Freeman as the chairman of the National Intelligence Council, despite the fact that he previously effectively worked for the Saudis and Chinese. Freeman, a former diplomat, was ambassador to Saudi Arabia from 1989 to 1992 and is now the president of the Middle East Policy Council, a non-profit anti-Israel group funded by the Saudi government.
A growing number of critics say that Freeman is too entangled with foreign interests to maintain an impartial stance in his new position. Freeman was appointed by Director of National Intelligence Dennis Blair, not Obama, and his job does not require Senate confirmation. However, he is drawing some of the toughest criticisms directed at an appointee yet, on issues far deeper than failure to pay one’s taxes.
Freeman has a record of supporting Saudi Arabia and has made statements perceived as favoring Hamas while claiming that the U.S. relationship with Israel has hurt peace in the region, stating that the U.S. “abandoned the role of Middle East peacemaker to back Israel's efforts to pacify its captive and increasingly ghettoized Arab populations.”
In 2006, Freeman told the Saudi-U.S. Relations Information Service that the Middle East Policy Council could not exist without “the generosity of [Saudi] King Abdullah bin Abdulaziz.” In 2007, Prince Alwaleed bin Talal bin Abdulaziz al-Saud donated another $1 million to Freeman’s organization (but was rejected by Mayor Rudi Giuliani after Sept. 11).
Before becoming ambassador to Saudi Arabia, Freeman served in China where he was a member of the international advisory board of the China National Offshore Oil Corporation (CNOOC), a major oil company owned by the Chinese government which makes business deals designed to expand China’s worldwide influence and has also been accused of multiple human rights violations.
Freeman—nominated for America’s top intelligence analysis job—sits on the board of CNOOC, which in 2005 tried to purchase the ninth largest oil firm in the U.S. while he was a member. The merger was stopped by bipartisan congressional opposition due to concern that it would be a threat to America’s national security. Freeman has been quoted in the media supporting Chinese policies and once wrote an article praising communist Chinese leader Mao Zedong.
A ranking Republican on the House Intelligence Committee, Michigan Rep. Pete Hoekstra, has stated that he wants Freeman to withdraw his name from the nomination. On Thursday, the inspector general for the director of national intelligence agreed to requests from lawmakers to examine Freeman’s controversial foreign ties concerning Israel, Saudi Arabia, China, and U.S. foreign policy.
A growing number of critics say that Freeman is too entangled with foreign interests to maintain an impartial stance in his new position. Freeman was appointed by Director of National Intelligence Dennis Blair, not Obama, and his job does not require Senate confirmation. However, he is drawing some of the toughest criticisms directed at an appointee yet, on issues far deeper than failure to pay one’s taxes.
Freeman has a record of supporting Saudi Arabia and has made statements perceived as favoring Hamas while claiming that the U.S. relationship with Israel has hurt peace in the region, stating that the U.S. “abandoned the role of Middle East peacemaker to back Israel's efforts to pacify its captive and increasingly ghettoized Arab populations.”
In 2006, Freeman told the Saudi-U.S. Relations Information Service that the Middle East Policy Council could not exist without “the generosity of [Saudi] King Abdullah bin Abdulaziz.” In 2007, Prince Alwaleed bin Talal bin Abdulaziz al-Saud donated another $1 million to Freeman’s organization (but was rejected by Mayor Rudi Giuliani after Sept. 11).
Before becoming ambassador to Saudi Arabia, Freeman served in China where he was a member of the international advisory board of the China National Offshore Oil Corporation (CNOOC), a major oil company owned by the Chinese government which makes business deals designed to expand China’s worldwide influence and has also been accused of multiple human rights violations.
Freeman—nominated for America’s top intelligence analysis job—sits on the board of CNOOC, which in 2005 tried to purchase the ninth largest oil firm in the U.S. while he was a member. The merger was stopped by bipartisan congressional opposition due to concern that it would be a threat to America’s national security. Freeman has been quoted in the media supporting Chinese policies and once wrote an article praising communist Chinese leader Mao Zedong.
A ranking Republican on the House Intelligence Committee, Michigan Rep. Pete Hoekstra, has stated that he wants Freeman to withdraw his name from the nomination. On Thursday, the inspector general for the director of national intelligence agreed to requests from lawmakers to examine Freeman’s controversial foreign ties concerning Israel, Saudi Arabia, China, and U.S. foreign policy.
Sunday, February 22, 2009
Obama's Weekly Address
In his weekly address, President Obama announced that the economic stimulus bill—officially known as the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act—will have an impact on taxpayers by April 1, making it the quickest and broadest tax cut in history.
The Treasury Department has directed its employees to reduce the amount of taxes withheld from paychecks. A typical family will now start keeping an extra $65 each month.
According to Obama, 95 percent of all working families will get a tax cut, in keeping with a campaign promise. The $400 credit for individuals, and $800 for couples, will be handed out over the rest of the year. Most workers will have an extra $13 per week in take-home pay.
Opponents will argue that an extra $65 a month will not make much of a difference, given the cost of recent government expenditures. Since December 2007, the federal government has spent $7.2 trillion on bailouts, and that number is rapidly approaching the $8 trillion mark. To put it in perspective, $8 trillion is 57 percent of the U.S.’s $14 trillion Gross Domestic Product (GDP).
The projected 2010 – 2017 budget deficit of the Obama administration including the stimulus bill is $8.4 trillion. Obama has promised to take on the nation’s massive debt. On Monday, the President will hold a fiscal summit to discuss the trillion-dollar national debt and plans for fiscal responsibility.
The Obama administration conceived of the stimulus plan as an emergency lifeline to save the nation during a crisis, but governors around the country aren’t so sure that the plan will stabilize the economy and create jobs.
South Carolina Gov. Mark Sanford has criticized the plan, stating that it will only deepen the nation’s debt without stimulating the economy. Gov. Bobby Jindal of Louisiana announced Friday that he would reject part of the stimulus plan aimed at expanding state unemployment insurance coverage. No other governor has rejected stimulus funding.
The Treasury Department has directed its employees to reduce the amount of taxes withheld from paychecks. A typical family will now start keeping an extra $65 each month.
According to Obama, 95 percent of all working families will get a tax cut, in keeping with a campaign promise. The $400 credit for individuals, and $800 for couples, will be handed out over the rest of the year. Most workers will have an extra $13 per week in take-home pay.
Opponents will argue that an extra $65 a month will not make much of a difference, given the cost of recent government expenditures. Since December 2007, the federal government has spent $7.2 trillion on bailouts, and that number is rapidly approaching the $8 trillion mark. To put it in perspective, $8 trillion is 57 percent of the U.S.’s $14 trillion Gross Domestic Product (GDP).
The projected 2010 – 2017 budget deficit of the Obama administration including the stimulus bill is $8.4 trillion. Obama has promised to take on the nation’s massive debt. On Monday, the President will hold a fiscal summit to discuss the trillion-dollar national debt and plans for fiscal responsibility.
The Obama administration conceived of the stimulus plan as an emergency lifeline to save the nation during a crisis, but governors around the country aren’t so sure that the plan will stabilize the economy and create jobs.
South Carolina Gov. Mark Sanford has criticized the plan, stating that it will only deepen the nation’s debt without stimulating the economy. Gov. Bobby Jindal of Louisiana announced Friday that he would reject part of the stimulus plan aimed at expanding state unemployment insurance coverage. No other governor has rejected stimulus funding.
Obama's Administration Amasses Huge Deficit Early On
President Obama recently criticized Republicans as the “folks who presided over a doubling of the national debt,” but the cost of Tuesday’s bank bailout alone equals about 75 percent of the total $3.35 trillion in deficits amassed by the Bush administration between 2002 and 2009.
The projected 2010 – 2017 budget deficit of the Obama administration including the stimulus bill is $8.4 trillion—2.5 times the size of President Bush’s deficit over an equivalent period.
The $2.25 trillion bailout announced by Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner on Tuesday dwarfs the $787 billion stimulus bill. A central part of the bailout plan involves spending up to $1 trillion to purchase toxic assets, and last week some estimated that the total cost could top $3 – 4 trillion.
Senator Richard Shelby (R-Al.), the top Republican on the Senate Banking Committee, said on Wednesday that Geithner “wasted” the Senate’s time by omitting details from the bailout plan. The plan’s lack of specifics caused financial markets to tank, sending the Dow Jones industrial average plunging by 382 points Tuesday.
Obama has scheduled a “fiscal-responsibility summit” for Feb. 23 and will unveil a budget blueprint three days later, designed to pressure politicians to address the country’s rising debt.
On Friday the president defended the cost of the stimulus plan, but he recognized the need to think in the long term. “We’re going to have to have fiscal discipline,” he said. “We are not going to be able to perpetually finance the levels of debt that the federal government is currently carrying.”
The projected 2010 – 2017 budget deficit of the Obama administration including the stimulus bill is $8.4 trillion—2.5 times the size of President Bush’s deficit over an equivalent period.
The $2.25 trillion bailout announced by Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner on Tuesday dwarfs the $787 billion stimulus bill. A central part of the bailout plan involves spending up to $1 trillion to purchase toxic assets, and last week some estimated that the total cost could top $3 – 4 trillion.
Senator Richard Shelby (R-Al.), the top Republican on the Senate Banking Committee, said on Wednesday that Geithner “wasted” the Senate’s time by omitting details from the bailout plan. The plan’s lack of specifics caused financial markets to tank, sending the Dow Jones industrial average plunging by 382 points Tuesday.
Obama has scheduled a “fiscal-responsibility summit” for Feb. 23 and will unveil a budget blueprint three days later, designed to pressure politicians to address the country’s rising debt.
On Friday the president defended the cost of the stimulus plan, but he recognized the need to think in the long term. “We’re going to have to have fiscal discipline,” he said. “We are not going to be able to perpetually finance the levels of debt that the federal government is currently carrying.”
Democrats Signal Possible Bank Nationalization
Leading Democrats have signaled further government aid to failing banks in the near future, possibly including increased nationalization.
Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner will outline the Obama administration’s new proposal to aid the banking sector in a speech at noon on Monday. After a three-day retreat with a briefing from Geithner, Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) indicated on Saturday that lawmakers will place strict requirements on any new aid to banks.
Obama administration officials say they have rejected nationalizing institutions by taking large ownership stakes, and Geithner has previously stated that he wants to avoid completely nationalizing banks, if possible.
To some extent, however, nationalization has already happened. Taxpayers are now the biggest shareholders in Bank of America, with about 6 percent of the stock, and in Citigroup, with 7.8 percent, according to the New York Times.
The cost could increase if the government sets up a “bad bank” to pay for these banks’ most toxic assets, which could cost hundreds of billions of dollars.
Sources told the Wall Street Journal in January that such a bailout could cost $2 trillion. Senator Chuck Schumer later revealed that the government might have to pay $3 to $4 trillion to private banks to take bad debt off their hands.
Despite the cost, not all lawmakers are opposed to such a scheme. “Well, whatever you want to call it,” said Pelosi in January. “If we are strengthening them, then the American people should get some of the upside of that strengthening. Some people call that nationalization.”
Adam S. Posen, the deputy director of the Peterson Institute for International Economics, told the New York Times that Obama and Geithner will have to “bite the bullet” on the issue of nationalization. We have yet to see exactly what that will look like.
Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner will outline the Obama administration’s new proposal to aid the banking sector in a speech at noon on Monday. After a three-day retreat with a briefing from Geithner, Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) indicated on Saturday that lawmakers will place strict requirements on any new aid to banks.
Obama administration officials say they have rejected nationalizing institutions by taking large ownership stakes, and Geithner has previously stated that he wants to avoid completely nationalizing banks, if possible.
To some extent, however, nationalization has already happened. Taxpayers are now the biggest shareholders in Bank of America, with about 6 percent of the stock, and in Citigroup, with 7.8 percent, according to the New York Times.
The cost could increase if the government sets up a “bad bank” to pay for these banks’ most toxic assets, which could cost hundreds of billions of dollars.
Sources told the Wall Street Journal in January that such a bailout could cost $2 trillion. Senator Chuck Schumer later revealed that the government might have to pay $3 to $4 trillion to private banks to take bad debt off their hands.
Despite the cost, not all lawmakers are opposed to such a scheme. “Well, whatever you want to call it,” said Pelosi in January. “If we are strengthening them, then the American people should get some of the upside of that strengthening. Some people call that nationalization.”
Adam S. Posen, the deputy director of the Peterson Institute for International Economics, told the New York Times that Obama and Geithner will have to “bite the bullet” on the issue of nationalization. We have yet to see exactly what that will look like.
STD Prevention in Stimulus Bill
President Obama urged members of the GOP to put aside party politics on the economy this week. Behind the scenes, however, Obama’s party put money for STD prevention into the stimulus bill.
The House voted this week to include $335 million for STD prevention in its bill. The Senate, however, upped the ante to $400 million in STD spending on page 138 of the 438-page measure. Nancy Pelosi, Speaker of the House, tried to explain how STD prevention was vital to stimulating the economy on CBS this week, but she stumbled over her words.
News of the House funds drew criticism from Republicans who said the money did not belong in an $819 billion bill designed to help the economy.
“Senate big spenders will never be underbid in wasting tax dollars. But how in the world does STD research create jobs? Wait. ... Don’t answer that I don't want to know,” said Wesley Denton, an aide to Sen. Jim DeMint, South Carolina Republican.
The bill, which passed in the House by a 244-188 vote Wednesday evening, also allocated $75 million for smoking cessation and $870 million to prepare for a pandemic influenza outbreak.
The House voted this week to include $335 million for STD prevention in its bill. The Senate, however, upped the ante to $400 million in STD spending on page 138 of the 438-page measure. Nancy Pelosi, Speaker of the House, tried to explain how STD prevention was vital to stimulating the economy on CBS this week, but she stumbled over her words.
News of the House funds drew criticism from Republicans who said the money did not belong in an $819 billion bill designed to help the economy.
“Senate big spenders will never be underbid in wasting tax dollars. But how in the world does STD research create jobs? Wait. ... Don’t answer that I don't want to know,” said Wesley Denton, an aide to Sen. Jim DeMint, South Carolina Republican.
The bill, which passed in the House by a 244-188 vote Wednesday evening, also allocated $75 million for smoking cessation and $870 million to prepare for a pandemic influenza outbreak.
Obama Expands State Children’s Health Insurance Program (SCHIP)
Despite tough talk for lobbyists in Washington, Congress is working on a bill that will benefit a powerful lobby—the hospital industry. A bill designed to reauthorize the State Children’s Health Insurance Program (SCHIP) is intended to provide health coverage for children, but it includes a section that bans physicians from owning hospitals.
This section of SCHIP, supported by lobbyists for major hospital groups, would effectively put an end to specialty hospitals, which are a source of competition. These medical centers focus on specific areas of the body or diseases and often provide higher quality care than general hospitals. There are over 200 specialty hospitals in the United States, out of about 6,000 hospitals overall.
During his election campaign, Obama vowed to expand access to health care, suggesting a national health insurance exchange for those who can’t get insurance thorough employer plans. Under Obama’s plan, larger employers that don’t offer employee health benefits will pay a tax to help fund federal coverage.
The expansion of SCHIP is a pillar of Obama’s plan that would provide health coverage for children whose parents are ensured but don’t qualify for Medicare. On Wednesday the House moved to expand coverage to 4 million more children, and the Senate will address the issue next week.
The expansion bill passed in the House would cost $32 billion over four and a half years, funded by a new 61 cent cigarette tax.
Opponents of the ban argue that it is foolish for Congress to consider destroying a medical industry that provides over 55,000 jobs nationally in a time when unemployment is high and quality health care is hard to come by.
http://www.forbes.com/businessinthebeltway/2009/01/15/obama-hospitals-schip-biz-healthcare-cz_dw_0115schip.html
http://www.modernhealthcare.com/article/20090123/REG/301239978
http://www.forbes.com/forbes/2008/0310/086.html
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/01/20/AR2009012001310.html
This section of SCHIP, supported by lobbyists for major hospital groups, would effectively put an end to specialty hospitals, which are a source of competition. These medical centers focus on specific areas of the body or diseases and often provide higher quality care than general hospitals. There are over 200 specialty hospitals in the United States, out of about 6,000 hospitals overall.
During his election campaign, Obama vowed to expand access to health care, suggesting a national health insurance exchange for those who can’t get insurance thorough employer plans. Under Obama’s plan, larger employers that don’t offer employee health benefits will pay a tax to help fund federal coverage.
The expansion of SCHIP is a pillar of Obama’s plan that would provide health coverage for children whose parents are ensured but don’t qualify for Medicare. On Wednesday the House moved to expand coverage to 4 million more children, and the Senate will address the issue next week.
The expansion bill passed in the House would cost $32 billion over four and a half years, funded by a new 61 cent cigarette tax.
Opponents of the ban argue that it is foolish for Congress to consider destroying a medical industry that provides over 55,000 jobs nationally in a time when unemployment is high and quality health care is hard to come by.
http://www.forbes.com/businessinthebeltway/2009/01/15/obama-hospitals-schip-biz-healthcare-cz_dw_0115schip.html
http://www.modernhealthcare.com/article/20090123/REG/301239978
http://www.forbes.com/forbes/2008/0310/086.html
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/01/20/AR2009012001310.html
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)