DT Fine Art

  • Archives
  • Categories
  • Archive for May 9th, 2012

    Dear media: Stop playing along with fake controversies

    Wednesday, May 9th, 2012

    Posted at 11:49 AM ET, 04/13/2012



    Dear media: Stop playing along with fake controversies
    By Jonathan Bernstein

    Greg already flagged a brutally bad New York Times story about the Hilary Rosen flap earlier this morning, pointing out that the Times totally butchered Rosen’s (non-) involvement in Barack Obama’s campaign. He’s right — but that only scrapes the surface of what a bad job this story does with the phony controversy that broke out when Rosen said something stupid on CNN on Wednesday.

    Let’s start with the headline: “Collision Over Roles of Women Sets Off Combative Debate Along the Trail.” Huh? That never happened. There was no “collision over roles of women,” and especially not “along the trail,” which is to say, in the context of the campaign. What actually happened is that one TV talking head, to be sure someone there to represent the Democrats, said something foolish which was immediately pounced on by Mitt Romney’s campaign…and by the Obama campaign as well. No collision. No debate.

    The article took the entire “controversy” (as framed by Republicans) at face value:

    The campaign for the White House spilled into the politics of motherhood on Thursday as a combative back-and-forth involving a Democratic strategist and Mitt Romney’s wife quickly revived a deeper, decades-old cultural debate about the roles of women in and out of the workplace.

    Again: that never happened, at least not within the campaign’s context. Did some people use Rosen’s words as an excuse to wallow in a “decades-old cultural debate”? Sure. But no one who speaks for the Obama campaign or the Democratic Party in any meaningful capacity took the “objectionable” side of that debate. No officials from the Obama campaign or the Democratic Party said anything about stay-at-home moms that attracted criticism. And when one lone Democrat did say something, the Obama campaign and the larger Democratic Party network condemned it and said exactly the same things that the Romney campaign said. There was no campaign disagreement. Anyone who only read the Times story would have come away believing that there was an actual presidential campaign dispute over stay-at-home moms.

    Here’s the bottom line. We’re going to have these manufactured controversies throughout the campaign. Both sides know how to take an awkward remark and turn it into a huge flap, regardless of whether there’s anything real behind it. Hey, editors and reporters: don’t fall for it! No one is really offended; there’s no there there, and you shouldn’t be afraid to say so. It’s fine to report what the campaigns are up to, but whether it’s Etch-a-Sketch or this one or the next dozen that are going to follow, there’s absolutely no excuse for taking this stuff at face value.

    By Jonathan Bernstein
     | 
    11:49 AM ET, 04/13/2012


    Personal Post

    Next:
    Obama comes out, and makes history

    House holding line on spending Helland: House is holding line on spending

    Wednesday, May 9th, 2012

    The legislative session is in overtime as the House and Senate continue heated negotiations regarding the budget and property taxes.

    My constituents frequently ask me an obvious question, ?Why can?t you just get along and make a deal?? The answer is that the state budget is complicated, and the decisions we make ? even on small details of the budget ? can have a significant impact on the budget and the state?s economy. This year, the disagreement boils down to a pretty simple fact: Senate Democrats want to spend more money than House Republicans.

    House Republicans are dedicated to reducing spending and balancing our state?s budget. From day one, we have said that we will not spend more than ongoing revenue. Families and businesses understand clearly that balancing the budget means spending less than what you take in. We should hold our government to the same standard.

    Last year we waited until June to make sure we balanced the budget and we were successful in negotiating a budget that spent 93 percent of ongoing revenue. This was a massive step toward achieving fiscal accountability.

    This session we find ourselves locked in a similar fight. We will continue to set budget priorities that reflect the values of our constituents. We will stick to the principles we took to voters in 2010 and hold the line on spending less than ongoing revenue.

    There has been a lot of discussion about the ending balance from last year?s budget. For the first time in years, we spent less than we took in and there was money left over at the end of the fiscal year. This is because the budget included one-time money. Some of these funds were not ongoing revenue.

    Using this money to fund expenses that are ongoing is a poor budget practice that got the state into serious financial problems. Rest assured that I will continue to fight hard to make sure these one-time monies are used for taxpayer relief and one time expenses.

    As we work to resolve the budget, we are also negotiating a plan for property tax relief. Along with Ways and Means Committee Chairman Tom Sands, I have been fighting the last two years for meaningful property tax relief for all classes of properties without the massive tax shift other plans would create. I believe that in order to reach an agreement, some concessions must be made. I am confident that a final agreement will be reached, and it will represent a significant step forward.

    The legislative session is in overtime as the House and Senate continue heated negotiations regarding the budget and property taxes.

    My constituents frequently ask me an obvious question, ?Why can?t you just get along and make a deal?? The answer is that the state budget is complicated, and the decisions we make ? even on small details of the budget ? can have a significant impact on the budget and the state?s economy. This year, the disagreement boils down to a pretty simple fact: Senate Democrats want to spend more money than House Republicans.

    House Republicans are dedicated to reducing spending and balancing our state?s budget. From day one, we have said that we will not spend more than ongoing revenue. Families and businesses understand clearly that balancing the budget means spending less than what you take in. We should hold our government to the same standard.

    Last year we waited until June to make sure we balanced the budget and we were successful in negotiating a budget that spent 93 percent of ongoing revenue. This was a massive step toward achieving fiscal accountability.

    This session we find ourselves locked in a similar fight. We will continue to set budget priorities that reflect the values of our constituents. We will stick to the principles we took to voters in 2010 and hold the line on spending less than ongoing revenue.

    There has been a lot of discussion about the ending balance from last year?s budget. For the first time in years, we spent less than we took in and there was money left over. This is because the budget included one-time money. Some of these funds were not ongoing revenue.

    Using this money to fund expenses that are ongoing is a poor budget practice that got the state into serious financial problems. Rest assured that I will continue to fight hard to make sure these one-time monies are used for taxpayer relief and one time expenses.

    As we work to resolve the budget, we are also negotiating a plan for property tax relief. Along with Ways and Means Committee Chairman Tom Sands, I have been fighting the last two years for meaningful property tax relief for all classes of properties without the massive tax shift other plans would create. I believe that in order to reach an agreement, some concessions must be made. I am confident that a final agreement will be reached, and it will represent a significant step forward.