EMAIL SIGN UP!
Most Popular This Week
- One American Who Isn't For Sale
- Edward Snowden: Saving Us from the United Stasi of America
- Major Loss to Organic Farmers as Court Rules in Favor of Monsanto
- The Judicial Lynching of Bradley Manning
- Remembering Satyajit Ray’s Hirok Rajar Deshe: On Edward Snowden, Resistance and Inverted Totalitarianism
Popular content
Today's Top News
Media Blackout: Progressive Budget vs. Paul Ryan (Again)
Last year Republican Rep. Paul Ryan presented a budget plan that was, according to one analysis, full of "dubious assertions, questionable assumptions and fishy figures." But Ryan's brand of budget austerity makes the media swoon–hence we saw coverage (FAIR Media Advisory, 4/12/11) of Ryan's "piercing blue eyes" that dubbed him "a PowerPoint fanatic with an almost unsettling fluency in the fine print of massive budget documents."
Ryan's budget was never going to be adopted, but its release was widely covered across the corporate media. He was given credit for presenting a plan to reduce government deficits, even though his plan didn't really do much of that.
At the same time, the Congressional Progressive Caucus released its People's Budget, which raised taxes on the wealthy, slashed military spending, enacted a public option in healthcare and a Wall Street speculation tax–and unlike Ryan's plan, actually balanced the budget. It got almost no media attention. The most prominent story may have been the attack by Washington Post columnist Dana Milbank (4/13/11), who mocked the "starry-eyed" progressives for, among other things, being poorly dressed and coming up with a name for their plan that "conveyed an unhelpful association with 'the people's republic' and other socialist undertakings."
A year later, we're seeing the very same thing. Paul Ryan has a new budget proposal that looks similar to his last budget. As economist Dean Baker put it:
House Budget Committee Chairman Paul Ryan did a great public service when he released his budget last week. By throwing a piece of total garbage on the table and pretending it is a real budget plan, he allowed us to see who in Washington is serious about the budget and who just says things that will push their agenda.
The corporate media have rushed to cover the garbage. And yesterday the Progressive Caucus released its "Budget for All" plan. And the media reaction so far? According to my search of the Nexis news database, it's exactly one article, by Bay Area News Group reporter Josh Richman (3/26/12).
It's a good one, though–in that it presents the debate in a way that is almost unheard of in the rest of the press: "Two vastly different visions of how the government should spend its money were introduced in Congress this past week."
Richman writes that "most of the national buzz" went to the Ryan plan–then goes on to describe the Progressive Caucus budget clearly:
It not only would end the Bush-era tax cuts, but also create new tax brackets for millionaires and billionaires in keeping with the "Buffett rule." Named after multibillionaire Warren Buffett–who's pushing the agenda–the rule posits that the nation's richest shouldn't pay a lower percentage of income in taxes than less-affluent Americans. It ends what critics call "corporate welfare" for fossil-fuel industries, includes public funding of election campaigns and provides more aid to homeowners facing foreclosure.
Richman adds:
Representatives of Ryan's budget committee didn't return emails or a phone call seeking comment on Honda's budget plan.
The piece closes with this quote from Rep. Mike Honda, who is on the Progressive Caucus' budget task-force: "If people knew what the choices were, I think they'd say, 'Jesus, the progressive caucus budget looks pretty good.' "
Sadly, most people never will–because the media won't report the choice in the first place.
Comments
Note: Disqus 2012 is best viewed on an up to date browser. Click here for information. Instructions for how to sign up to comment can be viewed here. Our Comment Policy can be viewed here. Please follow the guidelines. Note to Readers: Spam Filter May Capture Legitimate Comments...
12 Comments so far
Show AllThis is why Clinton's deregulation of media (restricted to a small group of owners) has proven a key facilitator of the dominant evils of our times.
Did the public know other than the LIE that Saddam was behind 911, and thus Iraq had to be attacked?
Did the public learn about a saner approach to health care through the mechanism of single payer? Or was it only "gifted" with disingenuous propaganda linking such a program with dark, dangerous "socialism?"
Does the public really understand the nature (of) and pervasiveness of Derivatives and Swaps, and how Wall Street engineered the economic collapse of 2008? Does it have any inkling of how many trillions were poured into the accounts of those behind this filthy heist?
Note that today, in the FACE of so much climate chaos, LESS people believe in global warming due to massive disinformation campaigns aired across TV & radio.
These serious dis-information campaigns pass for "news" in our Captured society. It's a wonder that many people STILL manage to see through the dense webs of deception that have been put in place by those who study human behavior (relative to specific buzz words and frames) and appreciate expert titles bestowed upon them by PR firms. THEY get the pulpits first and foremost. And their message, naturally, is amenable to the interests of the 1%. Just as political candidates must whore themselves to the big money interests to get funding for their campaigns, media leverages access on the basis of who can PAY to play.
The public's airwaves were sold off to the highest bidder.. and the result is a nation left to ignorance and illusions.
Only The Truth shall set them free... and there's precious little of that allowed in the MSM.
Practice painting nice colorful signs. My last two; "Medicare for All, very Smart" ... "Medicare Makes Money, Social Security, too." A nice thing about signs is talking to people out there with you.
Very well said Siouxrose and I ditto everything you said and I just got thru contacting abc, cbs, nbc telling them the above in condensed version and asking why and answering why: the owners benefit from mass confusion and dummied down electorate as they are the 1%.
Thanks, where do we start: taking our public airwaves back or getting the money out of politics.
Good comment Siouxrose!
Very good analysis, Siouxrose!
Fucking rtdrury will blame libs for this, but I will pre-empt him by calling him an idiot beforehand.
You can see how your representative voted on the Budget for All at:
http://clerk.house.gov/floorsummary/floor.aspx
Scroll down to 12:12:33 and click on roll no. 148 to see the roll call for the Honda Amendment.
No surprise to me, my centrist Democrat, Rick Larsen of Washington, voted against it. Oh well. I'm voting Green instead of for him this year. I'll do a write in since we have a top two and it's a sure thing it will only be Larsen and some GOP idiot on the ballot.
Consider writing in None of the Above. Modern fully functional democracy will include that check box as a matter of form and only the people will implement it.
My Rep voted yes, John Olver. He's retiring this year.
I don't have a representative in Congress. He represents the Have-mores.
I am, however, impressed that 78 Congresspersons signed on to the Honda Amendment. I would have thought that number to be much smaller.
LibWingofLibWing
Thanks for the link to this year's "Budget for All" -- it's déjà vu all over again with the Honda Amendment:
The Roll Call Vote: Ayes 78 – Noes 346 – Not Voting 7
Ayes
Republicans -- 0
Democrats -- 78
Noes
Republicans -- 239
Democrats -- 107
Not Voting -- 7 (5 Democrats/2 Republicans)
The "Budget for All" is almost identical to the "People's Budget" that was introduced last year on April 15, 2011 by Rep. Raul Grijalva (D-AZ) and met virtually the same fate, to wit:
Final Vote Results For Roll Call 274
http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2011/roll274.xml
H Con Res 34 Recorded Vote 15-Apr-2011 11:35
Author(s) Grijalva of Arizona Substitute Amendment No.
QUESTION: On Agreeing to the Amendment
The Roll Call Vote: Ayes 77 – Noes 347 – Not Voting 8
Ayes
Republicans: 0
Democrats: 77
Noes
Republicans -- 239
Democrats – 108
Not Voting -- 8 (7 Democrats/1 Republican)
Plus ça change?
The Democrats just keep doing the same things over and over and over again -- do they actually expect a different result? Or is this lame election-year kabuki now so deeply embedded in their DNA that they can't help themselves?
I noticed that Rep. Jim McDermott (D-WA) voted "Aye" on the Honda Amendment. just as he did last year on the Grijavla Amendment -- but, alas, he also voted for two out of three NAFTA style free-trade agreements last year -- South Korea and Panama -- and, of course, he voted for Obamacare (despite singing the virtues of single-payer and a "robust" public option) and makes the rounds of the liberal "progressive" talk-radio shows (Ed Schultz and Thom Hartmann) and occasionally on MSNBC trying to tell us that the Obamacare mandate is the best thing since sliced bread and trying to make us believe that smelly sow's ear is really a silk purse.
It's sad, because McDermott was such a fierce opponent of Bush's wars and abuses of power -- so much so that the GOPers called him "Baghdad Jim" -- but he remains completely silent about Obama's "surge" and failed occupation in Afghanistan and the ruinous drone wars and targeted assassinations in Pakistan and Yemen and Somalia and elsewhere that result in horrific civilian deaths.
What a disappointment -- I now call him Free-Market McMandate!
With a few exceptions in local races, Green is the only way to vote in Washington State these days.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~