The always informative Ezra Klein decided to enlighten everyone today about the supposed ridiculousness of Rick Perry’s comparison between Social Security and Ponzi Schemes.  Klein explains that there are several key differences between the two that make them unmistakably different.  The post is meant to marginalize Rick Perry as an uninformed candidate who made a horrible error by comparing Social Security and Ponzi schemes.  What Klein fails to realize is that most individuals have the comprehension to realize that the distinctions he references are essentially meaningless.

The chart that Klein cites the following differences between Social Security and Ponzi Schemes:

1)      Government runs Social Security and can print money to pay it out, while those who run Ponzi Schemes cannot print money. What this fails to acknowledge is that printing money has serious consequences such as inflation and devaluation of currency.  This means that while government might always technically be able to pay out the amounts owed, that money could become worthless through its actions.  What good is getting a check for a thousand dollars if that can only buy 100 dollars worth of product after the government prints too much money?

2)      Participants are informed where their benefits come from and the fraud is unintentional with Social Security. Both these points are irrelevant because the problem with both Ponzi schemes and Social Security is that the money will run out eventually, not that it comes from a different source.  When we cannot afford to send seniors their checks in a few decades, I doubt it will be a huge comfort to them that the fraud was not intentional.

3)      The chart points out that only those participating in a Ponzi scheme pay into it, while Social Security is taken from “every American that works”. Those are the same exact thing because Social Security is a Ponzi scheme on a larger scale, one that includes most Americans.

4)      Social Security is “supervised” by an administrator making $200,000, while Ponzi schemes are supervised by someone who steals millions. First, there is a lot more than one administrator associated with Social Security.  Second, the administrator’s job in recent years has been focused on the technical aspects of Social Security, not ensuring its future viability.  The people who run Ponzi Schemes, like Bernie Maddoff, have an interest in keeping it going for as long as possible, therefore their actions are rarely purposely intended to destroy the scheme.  No matter how much the supervisor of both makes, the problem with both is that those paying in will eventually not see a return.

5)      The rates of return for Ponzi schemes tend to be large, while Social Security promises modest returns. This is no longer necessarily true because as average life spans grow, Social Security is forced to pay out more money for longer periods.  Furthermore, Ponzi schemes usually have no problem paying out their promised rates until there is a downturn or lack of new investors.   The growth of people being paid in comparison to those contributing is the problem with both Social Security and other Ponzi schemes.

6)      Social Security is invested in treasury bonds, while many other Ponzi schemes do not invest in anything. The reason most Ponzi schemes do not invest in similar safe investments is they need their capital to be liquid to make payments.  Social Security operates at a larger scale and the government can move funds from other places to cover, but this does not affect the similar structure in both.

7)      The chart next points out that congress can adjust Social Security, while only the schemer can adjust a Ponzi scheme. What Klein and the person producing the chart fail to realize is that in the case of Social Security, Congress and the government ARE the schemers.  Congress was the one who created a failing system and made the impossible promises in the first place so they are unlikely to want to make the necessary changes.

8)      Social Security has been around since 1935, while the original Ponzi scheme lasted 200 days. This is hardly a real distinction as I have already acknowledged that Social Security is on a much larger scale than the average Ponzi Scheme, although there have been others that lasted for years.  Essentially this is just a testament to the fact that government is much better at creating schemes than most criminals.

Ezra Klein makes one last distinction of his own by claiming that Ponzi schemes tend to be unreliable, while Social Security has been sending out checks for 70 years.  Klein fails to realize that until the scheme runs out of money, almost all Ponzi schemes are reliable and profitable for the early investors.  Those investors consistently get paid the returns they are promised for long periods before the scheme is discovered.  The real difference is that Social Security has already been exposed early on.  We know that in the current form, it will run out of money and become unaffordable; it is just a question of when.  Ezra Klein thought he was embarrassing Rick Perry by ridiculing Perry’s comparison, but as usual he embarrassed himself.

Also check out two other excellent posts about the subject:

From @Jimmiebjr: http://www.sundriesshack.com/2011/08/29/venn-youve-got-it-ezra-klein-youve-got-it/

& From @Diggrbiii: http://www.therightsphere.com/2011/08/no-really-social-security-is-a-ponzi-scheme/

I am an Immigrant.  I came to America legally at the age of 2 and have never looked back.  It is for that reason that illegal immigration bothers me more than most.  It is not because I do not want others to enjoy the freedoms and opportunities that are only available  in America, but because there are millions of people who are waiting and praying for the opportunity to come here legally.  People often spend years waiting on special lists for a chance to immigrate here and start a new life.  The process for those people could be exponentially expedited if we didn’t have millions of illegal immigrants coming across our border every year and soaking up the resources necessarily to approve legal immigration.  That is why Obama’s attempt at backdoor amnesty this week is even more troubling.  The left likes to conflate legal (which almost no one opposes) and illegal immigration, thereby allowing them to paint opponents of illegal’s as racists and anti-immigrant.  Everyone has witnessed this strategy as recently as the debate over the Arizona immigration law.  Think about this; the justice department sued Arizona for enforcing our country’s immigration laws, but has yet to take any action against the dozens of major sanctuary cities across the country openly defying our laws.  MSNBC runs daily commercials advocating for illegal immigrants and comparing them to the legal (key distinction) immigrants that built this country.  If Obama or liberals really cared about immigrants or equal opportunity then they could easily raise the number of visas granted abroad, while also not subverting our nation’s laws.  What Obama is doing instead is choosing to not enforce laws that he does not like, a clear violation of his constitutional duties as president (not that those mean a lot to him).

`               To the left, this is purely a political game. They purposely seek to prevent border enforcement and legitimize those that would skip the line and come here illegally.  This strategy is politically beneficial because it allows liberals to tar their opponents and stabilize a solid majority vote in the Hispanic community.  The use of race as a tool in securing a voting block is nothing new for liberals, but conservatives must fight back if we intend to prevent it from occurring.  That means confronting the issue head on and making a point of reaching out to immigrant communities and explaining to them that they are being used in a political game.  Conservatives should always emphasize their support for legal immigration and ask why are liberals so hostile to it?  We should point out that the people being hurt the most by the promotion illegal immigration are individuals from the very same countries and with the same race who are stuck on a list trying to come here the right way.  Finally, we should stop letting the left set the terms of debate.  It is not a question of separating families or dealing with the people here, it is a question of maintaining our sovereignty and giving our laws meaning.  Immigration is a key part of America, but so are our laws.  Conservatives support both, while liberals choose to diminish them for political gain. It is about time we stop taking the smears and expose this reality.

The NYT printed an Op-Ed from Warren Buffett today that proclaimed the “super-rich” don’t pay their fair share of taxes.  Buffett bases his opinion on his own tax bill, which was only 17.4% of his taxable income.  This class warfare hit piece is being lauded by the media and is being described by some as courageous, sacrificial and fair.  I have some other words that I believe are fitting; dishonest, void of reason, and baseless nonsense.  While class warfare might sound good, it hurts all Americans at the end of the day.  The reality is that Buffett is a billionaire investor, so he can make money no matter what the state of the economy, but the millions of Americans who are unemployed and struggling to pay their bills do not have that luxury.  Buffett has done some courageous and sacrificial things, including very generous donations to charity, but offering up the hard-earned money of others takes neither courage nor sacrifice.  If Buffett truly believes he did not pay enough in taxes last year, he can freely write a check to the Federal Treasury.  Instead, Buffett is suggesting others should pay more in a way that most economists understand would be detrimental to the already fragile economy.

There are so many things wrong with Buffett’s point of view that it is hard to know where to start, but let’s begin with the purpose of taxes.  Taxes are there so the Federal government can pay for the benefits it conveys on its citizens.  Just because someone has more money, does not mean the government is entitled to it.  While Buffett harps on the rich for not sharing in the sacrifice, the reality is that right now a small percentage of the population is paying most of our tax bill.  In fact, the top 10% pay 70% of the federal income taxes in this country.  On the other hand, 47% of Americans paid no income taxes last year, where is their shared sacrifice? Do they not benefit from our system at all?

The super-rich, like Buffett, have accountants that will always find loopholes or ways to move their money to lower their tax bill, so raising tax rates doesn’t really affect them in the way Buffett suggests.  Instead it is the job creators and indirectly the middle class that will be stuck with the higher bill.  Buffet specifically complains about the low rates that investors pay, but fails to acknowledge that there is a reason for that.  The reason is that most investors take risks in investing, which is why they pay a lower tax rate on that money.  Unlike direct income, there is a chance that investments can lose money either now or in the future.  If we increase taxes on those investments, which have the potential for losses, then it discourages necessary investment and prevents companies from getting the capital they need for growth.  Also he suggests raising taxes on those making over a million dollars, once again avoiding facts.  The reality is that many small businesses file individual tax returns and would be the ones affected by higher rates.  These businesses don’t have the accountants that Mr. Buffett does so their tax bill will go up, which will inevitably lead them to choose to raise prices on their customers or fire workers at a time of extremely high unemployment.  That is the realistic result of Mr. Buffett’s selfless proposals.  Higher taxes hurt the middle class the most, which is why even Obama’s own debt commission suggested lowering and flattening the tax rates (with a top rate of only 23%).  An even greater reality that Buffett avoids is that raising tax rates won’t generate the extra government revenue that Buffet suggests we need (I believe we have a problem of spending, not revenue, but that is a separate discussion).   Even when income tax rates were ate 70% or above, the government never collected above 21% of GDP.   In fact, record tax revenues were collected following the 2003 Bush Tax Cut that those like Buffett love to complain about.  When rates go up, investment goes down and the economy shrinks.  If the government needs more money, the best way to get it is to create jobs and fix the economy, not stifle growth with regulations and further tax burdens.

If Mr. Buffett really wants to help the economy, he should start spending and creating jobs (perhaps buy a new house since he has lived in the same one since 1957?) or he can visit Pay.Gov, either way he should start focusing on his own choices and stop propagandizing our nations tax policy.

In recent days there has been a huge debate breaking out between conservatives who disagree over the right path forward in the debt limit debate.  That is a separate discussion which I won’t engage in here, but it has put many conservatives who I strongly respect and usually agree with on different sides of an issue.  Most of us understand that this is a disagreement over strategy, not principal (although it is an important one to debate).  However, some of us have become very frustrated by the name calling and distortion that has dominated the last few days.  Usually this tactic is limited to Liberals, but I have seen it extensively on our side this week.   A lot of these insults are directed at John Boehner and the House Republicans for supposedly caving with their new plan.  I understand part of the strategy is to keep the pressure on to force the best deal possible, but not everyone reading these debates understand that. Some of the Republicans that would fit into the “caving” group this week include Paul Ryan and Allen West, two of our best political figures.  These insults could cost some great Republicans very real votes and elections in 2012. Afterwards, when Liberal Democrats are in power and our country is in the crapper, who are we going to blame?   I have noticed it has now become almost accepted in some circles that John Boehner is somehow not a conservative.  This assertion has no credibility in facts or reality.  While his rhetoric might not always be as fiery as even I would like, Boehner is the one who has been going to the White House daily telling the president he will not give in on tax raises or fake cuts.  John Boehner became Speaker of The House in 2011.  Despite the 2010 election being historic, we only control ½ of the legislature and none of the executive branch.  Yet some are demanding that Boehner act like we have super majorities and the presidency.  This anti-Republican paranoia is dividing us for no reason and ensuring continued Liberal success.  I am not saying we cannot criticize or disagree, but at the end of the day we have to be able to distinguish our enemies and allies. In reality, John Boehner has been one of the most effective congressional leaders in our history.  In just a short period, John Boehner and the House Republicans have done the following things:

-          Passed the Ryan Budget

-          Passed CCBA

-          Voted to limit funding for Planned Parenthood

-          Banned  earmarks

-          Passed the first real budget cuts since the 1990’s

-          Passed a bill to stop EPA regulation of Green House emissions

-          Repealed Obamacare

-          Prevented Democrats from passing huge tax increases that would have further hindered our economy.

Many of these votes got unanimous support from the House Republicans.  How many Speakers could consistently deliver that?  Of course many of them meant very little in real world results because Obama controls the WH and Democrats control the Senate.  Similarly, any bill that we pass now will likely not have most of the things that we desire.  However, these actions by the House Republicans clearly highlight the path forward after 2012 and they took political courage.

The House Republicans are facing off against a Democratic Senate and the most left wing president in American history on a daily basis.  They are not only fighting them at a huge disadvantage and with a media that has an evident bias, but they are actually winning by any standard.  Are they perfect or have they accomplished everything I want them too? Of course not.  However, they have accomplished a lot and for that they deserve praise and not scorn.  Republicans like Paul Ryan have taken great political risks in order to do what is right and put the country first and it’s time we start rewarding them for it.  The grass roots movements are vital to defining and expanding conservatism, but the Republicans that are now in control in Washington (at least in the house) are our friends and not our enemies.  That is not to diminish the people who are opposing the current plan, who are also doing vital work, but I for one salute Speaker Boehner, Paul Ryan, Eric Cantor, Allen West and others for fighting for our country’s future.  They truly are heroes of the conservative movement.

While most of us were celebrating Independence Day and praising the greatness of our nation, some individuals on the Far Left decided that this was the proper day to insult and diminish this country.  There is nothing wrong with acknowledging that our country has flaws, but focusing on those flaws (especially on the 4^th of July) displays an unjustified disdain for such a prosperous and uniquely free country.  Throughout the day, I noticed many Liberals bashing any reference to how great America is and American Exceptionalism, but what really caught my eye was an article that was posted by @Shoq on twitter (someone who is often characterized as one of the top online thinkers on the left):

“A True Independence Day: Debunking The GOP’s American Exceptionalism (by @rmuse) http://j.mp/mBWz8v#p2 #tcot”

The link proceeds to an article supposedly debunking American Exceptionalism.  I will now try to address a few of the points the article makes by quoting it and adding commentary afterward.

“However, a brief perusal of the state of the nation reveals that America is exceptional, but only for having the greatest military in the world; otherwise, there really is nothing exceptionally good about this country.”

So the record amounts in charity that Americans give every year, not to mention enormous totals in government aid to developing nations is not “exceptionally good”?  Freeing Iraqi and Afghani people from murderous and oppressive regimes was not “exceptionally good”?  Record funding of the fight against Aids and other diseases in third world countries is not “exceptionally good”?  I could go on and on about the enormous list of things that this country does that most would consider aspects of our exceptionally good nature, but the far left seems blind to these things.

“American exceptionalism is a cause for shame and embarrassment to any decent human being who cares about freedom and equality.”

Then consider me non-decent because I am neither ashamed nor embarrassed, in fact I am proud of this country.  The freedom that exists here is unmatched anywhere else, but of course the left has created a new definition of freedom that suits their goals.

“There are myriad examples of Republican policies that target women, gays, and the poor with scripturally-based discrimination that belies the fact that Americans enjoy unparalleled equality.”

First, obviously this is a complete lie about what Republican policies do.  Second, this is a common misconception that the left creates. We do not support equality in this country, but liberty.  The two are diametrically opposed.  America allows everyone to have an opportunity to prosper (I can attest to this as someone from an immigrant family that came here with nothing), but by no means assures everyone an equal result.  Equality assumes that people have no choices and the only places that have had near equality are dictatorial regimes where almost everyone besides the government has ended up equally poor (The leftist blueprint).

“In America, there are a minimum of 8 times as many people in prison than the closest country”

Of course the author fails to note that we have a significantly larger population than most countries or consider the possibility that this is in fact a credit to our justice system.  If people are actually committing crimes, then what is so bad about them getting a just punishment?  Furthermore, the United States does not lock up people for holding certain political views or certain speech like many of the countries that this author unfavorably compares us to.

“When Bill Clinton left office, there was a budget surplus that was squandered on tax cuts for the wealthy and two unnecessary wars, but Republicans have always preferred to spend money on bombs and bullets than programs to educate and feed the poor.”

When Bill Clinton left office, we were in the early stages of a downturn caused by the internet bubble bursting, which only got worse when we were hit by the terrorist attacks of September 11^th.  It is clear that the surplus from the previous year would have evaporated shortly with or without these aspects of Republican policy.  Second, some would argue that those wars were not completely unnecessary and are part of the reason we have not had another serious attack in over a decade.  Thirdly, tax cuts are not expenditures (thus cannot be squandered) as the money does not belong to the government, but instead to the people who earned it (Not to mention the economic growth, increased tax revenue and job growth those cuts created).  Finally, the author might want to look at budgets during the Bush years, where he will notice that spending on Education and Poverty programs both increased continuously.  However, I do enjoy the straw man that the author built here in order to pretend Republicans are choosing one cost over another. By that standard liberals who support funding Planned Parenthood prefer spending money on Abortions rather than programs to educate and feed the poor (see how that works?).

“In budget talks, Republicans refuse to reduce military spending when the country is drowning in debt and                           a huge percentage of the population is losing their homes and starving.”

In fact, it was a Republican named Allen West who proposed and passed a recent bipartisan bill to cut wasteful defense spending.  On the other hand, it was Democrats who refused to give up funding for Planned Parenthood in budget talks while “a huge percentage of the population is losing their homes and starving”.

“Michele Bachmann, a presidential candidate, advocates and encourages Minnesotans to be “armed and dangerous” to reject federal laws that do not benefit the oil industry as well as a lie that President Obama is overtaxing the public.”

This was a lie that was started by Paul Krugman of the NYT and the left continues to use.  If you bother looking at the full quote, Bachmann was referring to being “armed and dangerous” with KNOWLEDGE regarding Obama’s Cape and Trade proposals, which ironically would  most egregiously hurt poor people, the very ones liberals claim to care about.  As for the authors constant chirping about gun violence, if he is so concerned then maybe he should ask the Obama administration to not sell guns to criminals?

“The reasons America is exceptional are shameful and do not represent what is supposed to be the greatest country on Earth. In fact, Americans have very little to be proud of”

That is what the far left really believes. This is not a partisan issue, but an ideological one.  Bill Clinton once remarked that “there is nothing wrong with America that cannot be cured by what is right with America”, well now is the time for Democrats who believe that to stand up to the people on their side who do not. These Leftists are almost proud of their contempt for America, as if disregarding all of the great things about this country somehow gives them some superior insight; it does not.  The truth is that America is an exceptional nation that is still the shining beacon on a hill. This is still the country that does the most good across the world and whose citizens enjoy unparalleled liberty.  These are things that every American should be proud of.  There are millions of immigrants that pray to come here and enjoy those liberties.  On the same account, there are many countries that already employ many of the policies that these individuals on the Far Left promote.  My suggestion to them is if they don’t like it here or are not proud of this country then they should make room for those that would be.  God Bless America.

Everyone knows about the classic game of chicken, usually in the form of two cars driving towards each other until one side turns and loses. That situation is a perfect analogy to the current debt limit negotiations in congress. Usually a game of chicken is for fun or reputation, but in this case the future of the country may be at stake. Our country is facing a financial catastrophe due in large part to the enormous debt we have accumulated. Just a few days ago the Congressional Budget Office released a report predicting a debt explosion whereby the national debt will exceed our whole economy by 2021. This debt will lead to more joblessness, devaluation of the dollar and higher poverty. That is the realistic path we are on and the path from which Democrats refuse to change course. Instead during negotiations to raise the debt ceiling, Democrats are suggestingmore spending and more debt. In most other professions, someone that disconnected from reality would likely be sent to see a psychiatrist, but in politics this is just another day at the office. These politicians refuse to accept basic economic facts and obviously did not learn from the first failed stimulus that they forced on America.

Yesterday, news came out that the main Republican negotiators withdrew from talks because they refuse to compromise on the idea of raising taxes during a recession. This was clearly the right move. Even the head of the non-partisan CBO admitted that raising tax rates would slow economic growth, at a time of already lagging growth and high unemployment. The Democrat plan is increased debt, slower growth and more taxes. It is a plan that America and Americans cannot afford right now. For that reason, the Republicans are doing the right thing by not negotiating with false choices. The Democrats are hoping Republicans will get scared of being blamed for the issues that will arise with the debt ceiling not being raised and thus cave to their demands. Republicans must realize that turning of the road first might be the safer short term political play (though in the current climate that may not even be true), but it will ensure disaster for the country and constituents they serve. We can compromise about the size of cuts or exactly how to reform certain programs, but we cannot compromise on the fact that we need cuts and limited taxes. Furthermore, as the election of 2010 showed, the American people are on the Republican side of this issue as long as they are able to explain their position. In this game of chicken, Republicans are essentially driving a hummer and the Democrats are coming at them with a tiny hybrid (likely one of the ones we are forcing GM to make and no one wants to actually buy). There is no reason to fear them, instead Republicans should stay the course and get something done on behalf of the people they represent. Make Obama (who has been too pre-occupied with improving his handicap to directly participate in negotiations) and the Democrats decide whether they are going to turn or risk crashing into our hummer. The Democrats and President Obama have made it obvious that they have no intention of doing the right thing by themselves in the debt crisis, so the Republicans must force them into it. If Republicans hold firm and stay the course, they will not only win this game of chicken, but they will also save America in the process.

Cross Posted on Chris of Rights: http://www.chrisofrights.com/2011/06/political-chicken-game-republicans-must.html

One of the most important issues related to our economy is taxes and what the impact of various tax policies will have on our country. While Republicans often have facts to support their tax plans, they often lose the tax debate because they allow the media and Democrats to frame the conversation. Unfortunately, perception is often more important than reality in politics and the debate over taxes is no exception. Republicans have to reframe the debate and focus on a few key points. (Key Points that Republicans should use have been italicized)

1) The money that is counted for future tax revenue DOES NOT belong to the government; it belongs to the people who earned it. The reason we have taxes is to pay for what the government needs to do, not just for the sake of getting government as much money as possible. Liberals often say that tax cuts are creating bigger deficits (often adding that the purpose of which is to give money back to the rich). Well reality is that the money already belongs to those people, they earned it and government does not have an inherent right to it. If government were an individual, that would be like saying that since someone doesn’t come to your door and give you a thousand dollars tomorrow, they are somehow taking away a thousand dollars from you. In those terms the liberal framing makes no sense.

2) Staying on the idea that tax cuts create deficits, liberals are constantly touting the idea that somehow only tax raises lead to increased revenues. This is false and should be pointed out as a lie every time a Republican discusses taxes. Tax cuts grow the economy and create jobs by bringing about investment. Even though government is taking a smaller percentage of the GDP pie with lower rates, it becomes a much bigger pie. Revenues have gone up following every major recent tax cut (including Bush’s) and yet liberals/the media willfully ignore this fact in order to promote their false premise. Democrats have two responses to this point, both requiring a suspension of reality. First, they point to the Bush tax cuts and the recession that we are now in. Well the Bush tax cuts were finalized in 2003, so they willfully ignore the 4 years of job growth and economic prosperity following the cuts to assign blame for the current crisis. In fact, the same people now defending Obama’s record were attacking Bush for his job growth when unemployment was at 5%. This is the same false framing that Obama now uses with the economy by claiming that despite the poor recovery his administration turned it around as displayed by limited job and GDP growth. Recessions always end eventually, so doing nothing would have resulted in GDP and job growth anyways, but the current poor numbers actually show Obama’s policies have predictably hindered a more effective recovery. Second, they point to the Clinton years and the high tax rates as evidence that those rates are ideal. What they fail to consider about the Clinton years was it was a period of innovation and growing technology & housing bubbles. This was the very time when the internet and computers began to take over our lives and thus create whole new industries; almost nothing government could do at the time would screw up the economy. Higher tax rates stifle innovation, investment and growth, but those things were impossible to stop in the 1990’s. America thrived in those years despite government policy, not because of it. Furthermore, Republicans should always point out that every major accomplishment (surpluses, welfare reform etc.) Clinton is touted for was done by Republicans and opposed by Democrats (now taking credit).

3) The media will constantly frame the problem as one of revenues and not spending, but that just isn’t the case. In fact they will often demand that Republicans agree to tax raises for the sake of bipartisanship, but fail to press Democrats on spending cuts (the actual source of the problem). The fact is that tax revenues at any rates have never exceeded 21% of GDP, but spending is currently closer to 24-25% of GDP. The only real solution is to focus on cutting spending, not raising revenues at the expense of jobs and the economy.

4) Keeping tax rates at the current level is not a “tax cut”, but a prevention of a tax raise. The economy already depends on and has adapted to current levels, so raising these levels is a tax hike that will limit growth and jobs at a time when we need them most.

5) Many small businesses file individual tax returns and would be hurt by any tax hikes, which would cost us jobs we cannot afford to lose. Furthermore, the “rich” often have lawyers/accountants to limit their tax liability. Tax raises actually limit investment, thus hurting the middle and lower classes that depend on investment for jobs. It is those people that liberal policies hurt the most.

In summation, Republicans should constantly emphasize that their tax policies mean the best of both worlds: People get to keep more of their own money, real job growth and the government takes in the revenue it needs to perform its objectives. The facts and history back up our arguments, so please do not allow the media and perception to lose us the debate.

One of the biggest revelations to have come out of the controversy over Rep. Weiner and his picture tweet is the evident prejudices that many journalists apply to their reporting. A great example of this came to light when Howard Kurtz proclaimed via Twitter that Democrats are treated no differently than Republicans by the media during a sex scandal. Comically, two of Kurtz’s examples were John Edwards and Bill Clinton, figures that the media specifically covered for and did not report on until the story was forced upon them. In the current scandal, some journalists have decided that their job should focus on acquitting Rep. Weiner of any wrongdoing, instead of seeing where the story actually takes them. There has been no bigger culprit in this than Mediaite.com in my opinion. In their very first post on the subject, Mediaite scolded Andrew Breitbart and the Big Site’s for their reporting on the story by claiming it showed they did not have to abide by normal “journalistic standards”. Mediaite reporter Tommy Christopher would later continuously refer too many of the actions of bloggers and reporters involved (especially ones connected to Breitbart) as practicing “yellow” journalism. The major irony of these accusations is the continuous violations of “journalistic standards” that those Mediaite reporters have engaged in throughout this story. Through these violations, Mediaite has show that they have chosen a side in the story and they believe everyone else will be, as Mediaite Managing Editor Colby Hall tweeted, “on the wrong side of history”.

Some examples of these violations follow:

1) In their first post, Frances Martel wrote several clearly baseless statements such as that this story was “a reminder that Andrew Breitbart’s editors and writers do not aim to abide by accepted journalistic standards.” Of course Mediaite could point to nothing in the original story that violates those standards (except a gripe about a byline that clearly referred to the editorial board). Mediaite rightfully changed their story and took out some of the most unfair accusations. However, they did not update the post to reflect that changes had been made. Journalistic Standards?

2) Mediaite spent half the article talking about Andrew Breitbart (including his unrelated past) and not the Weiner story itself. This of course gave the crazies in the liberal blogosphere the idea that Breitbart was somehow to blame for Weiner’s account sending the picture or otherwise that it was a hoax perpetrated by Breitbart. If Mediaite, CNN, or anyone else had been the first to report the tweet, would they expect Dan Abrams or Ted Turner to be half the story? I think not. Journalistic Standards?

3) In Mediaite’s next post on the story, Colby Hall actually suggests serious questions that should be asked of all the sides, but then exposes which side he is on. Instead of just referencing the idea of questions to ask about a hacking, he builds up a whole defense based on wild guesses. For example he asks why only one follower RT’ed the Weiner tweet. If he had done some basic investigation he would have figured out that tweets that start with a handle (as Weiner’s did) only appear on you timeline if you follow both people (which I doubt many people were). Hall goes on to imply that the likely hacker suspect should be @patriotusa76 based on much less evidence than there is against Weiner. Hall did this without even making an attempt to contact Patriotusa76 (who was more than willing to answer questions from me or anyone else). Does that meet Journalistic Standards?

4) In connection with the previous post, Tommy Christopher has made a big story out of the fact that Gateway Pundit published a PUBLIC list of individuals who Weiner followed. Christopher explained this is wrong and “yellow” journalism because the girls were and will be harassed. However, interestingly Christopher had no such objections for Mediaite publishing the handle/name of @Patiotusa76, who in turn has been both harassed and threatened. In fact, even the girl most impacted by the whole ordeal, Gennette Cordova, has now said she does not believe PatriotUSA76 was involved and apologizes for his name being mixed in. Mediaite chose to make public accusations against him without even contacting him. Journalistic Standards?

5) One of the questions that arose in the story is why Cordova was one the few non public people Weiner was following on twitter, especially since she was not even a constituent. Tommy Christopher has taken it upon himself to suggest an answer to this on twitter by pointing to instances when Weiner has offered to follow back some of his fans. Neither Cordova nor Weiner have claimed this explanation. Is it a journalist’s job to create and suggest possible explanations for parties involved? Wouldn’t it make more sense to work on getting Weiner or even Cordova to answer this question? They certainly don’t do that for the other side of the story. Journalistic Standards?

6) The worst offenses come in the latest Mediaite post by Tommy Christopher, which ironically focuses on “sloppy reporting” in the Weiner scandal. First, Mr. Christopher cherry pick’s Cordova’s statement to claim it supports the idea that Weiner was hacked; ignoring the very tweet he himself linked (which denies that she has any insight on whether it was a hack) and her later tweet specifically saying she did not think that Patriotusa76 was behind the picture (also included later in the same post). Next, Christopher claims that Weiner is “in the process” of reporting the hack to authorities (which has been one of the biggest criticism’s of Weiner thus far), but he has no actual evidence for this claim. Christopher links the claim to an article about a recent statement where Rep. Weiner claims he is obtaining counsel and considering his next step. Besides the story implications of Weiner obtaining counsel, that is a far leap from being in the process of reporting a hack to authorities and thus resolving one the biggest complaints facing Weiner. This is even more obvious as reports have surfaced that he has yet to do so. As the post continues, Christopher once again decides to step in and invent explanations for the Congressman’s behavior. In response to one of the most damming pieces of evidence, an earlier tweet by Rep. Weiner regarding Seattle time (where Cordova is from), Christopher explains that Weiner may have been referring to the Yankees who had been playing in Seattle earlier. While that may be exactly what the tweet was referring to, shouldn’t a journalist wait to hear that explanation from Rep. Weiner, instead of speculating themselves? The post goes on to once again, without any evidence, imply Patriotusa76 or someone like him is the likely hacker (if only they were this tough on Weiner), of course with the disclaimer that the speculation doesn’t prove he is. Christopher follows up the accusation with the assertion that Patriotusa76 had previously not been available to comment. In fact, according to my discussions with him, no one at Mediaite ever made an attempt to contact him (which would seem an elementary step for any journalist). The denials they printed were responses to questions from others via twitter (the very same people that Christopher implied were practicing “yellow” journalism). Finally, the post ends with the conclusion that the evidence is somehow turning in Rep. Weiner’s favor. Not only do I find that untrue, but it is based on nothing other than the premeditated bias of the author. That is not to say that the evidence is perfect in either direction, but there was no major discovery to warrant a conclusion of “the tide” swinging in favor of Rep. Weiner. Journalistic Standards?

Update: This post has since been updated because it seems the Yankees excuse that it invented does not fit anyways because Weiner is actually a Mets fan.

The saddest part in all of this is that I do not think it is intentional. For example, from my limited interactions with Tommy Christopher I can tell he is a good and authentic guy. Furthermore, he has been capable of doing some excellent reporting in the past when he is has not predetermined his own conclusions on a story. That tells me that this is a problem that can be fixed even among current and liberal journalists, but they must recognize it and want to fix it. I am not a journalist and I do not claim to adhere to these standards, but they do. To be clear, Mediaite is by far not alone in questionable reporting or bias, they were just an easy example to use in this scandal. The truth will eventually come out in the Weiner story but the bigger questions are when will the media stop choosing sides? or at what point will they start adhering to the journalistic standards they preach to others?

Links to all of the referenced posts:

http://www.mediaite.com/online/a-twitter-whodunit-big-government-posts-lewd-photo-claiming-it-to-be-of-rep-anthony-weiner/

http://www.mediaite.com/online/rep-weiner-still-claims-twitter-account-hacked-though-big-questions-still-remain/

http://www.mediaite.com/online/speculation-and-sloppy-reporting-on-both-sides-of-weinergate/

I am very passionate about politics, but there aren’t many issues that I take as seriously as American policy towards Israel. A big part of that is based on my family and history. I am Jewish. Much of my family survived the holocaust, but some did not. I also immigrated to America from the former Soviet Union, where Jews were persecuted on a daily basis. My parents and I were lucky enough to end up in America, but many of my relatives could not make it here. Instead my grandparents and other relatives went to the only other place in the world where Jews know they can live without persecution, Israel. For those reasons I am particularly sensitive to what happens in Israel, and in what ways American policy affects Israel.

The reason I titled this post “I remember” is because I have spent a lot of time in Israel and there is a lot that my memories inform me to that an average observer may not understand. As a young kid, I remember being in Israel during the Gulf War. Saddam Hussein was bombing Israel and I would have to wake up in the middle of the night to put a gas mask on when the sirens went off. At the time Israel could not protect itself or retaliate because the United States feared that if it did then the coalition of Arab states would stop backing U.S. action in Kuwait. Israel went along with this because it had an implicit trust in its bond with America and trusted us to stand by Israel in the future. I remember watching Israeli Prime Ministers being forced by a U.S. push for peace to shake hands with and negotiate with Yasser Arafat, who everyone knew was the godfather of terrorism. The same man who won a noble peace prize and would speak about peace in English, but would then return home and encourage suicide bombings in Arabic. Israel did this because it wanted peace and trusted that America would stand by her if peace could not be made. I remember being in Israel during the second intifada and wanting to go to the pool with my friends, only to have to think twice because of the fear of taking a bus that may be attacked by a suicide bomber. My friends and others who lived there didn’t have that fear. They were used to the risks and horrors of daily terrorism and lived their lives freely and bravely, but I had to adapt to deal with that fear. That intifada was a direct result of the failure of Camp David negotiations and Palestinian leadership believing (rightly based on past negotiations) they could gain more concessions through violence. For years my relatives, friends and a country that I value has been put in danger in the name of peace. For years Palestinians, who have been rejected by the Arab countries, have gained concession after concession from Israel and have in return only demanded more and increased their violence. I also remember 9/11, when most Americans understood for the first time what Israel must continuously deal with. I remember watching Israelis stand up in solidarity with us on that day with the message “Today we are all Americans”. I also remember watching images of Palestinians cheering in the streets that so many of my fellow Americans were brutally murdered. Those are images that I will never forget. I remember these things because they matter. These things tell me that there is a right and wrong, a good and evil, and a reason to pick one side or another. The lives of Americans, Israelis, and free people everywhere depend on us choosing the right sides and understanding these differences.

If Israel had been treated like every other country from the beginning and never forced to give in to violence, never forced to negotiate with terrorists then their likely wouldn’t even be a Palestinian issue and less of terrorism issue. If you don’t believe me, then look at the lack of a Palestinian issue for Jordan after Black September where they treated the Palestinians much more inhumanely than Israel ever has. However, now is too late to look back at what has been done, but instead if we must look to how we can continue to stand for what is right in the future. That is where American politics comes in. Even though I have often disagreed with aspects of our government’s policy towards Israel, there was never any question whether America stood with Israel, until now. I had many complaints and disagreements when Obama ran for president in 2008, but none as clear as my belief that he was anti-Israeli. Obama’s mentor and long time reverend was a clear anti-semite, he surrounded himself with the most anti Israeli foreign policy advisors in the country, and had a long history of association with Pro-Palestinian advocates. Despite all of this evidence, Israel supporters (including most Jews) listened to his empty words of support for Israel and voted for him. As president, Obama has done and said one thing after another to re-enforce the belief that he is not pro-Israeli and yet many in the media will continue to cover for him. He would say at AIPAC that Jerusalem must not be divided, and then a day later tell us that was not what he believes and the media would tell us that is an acceptable position. Just this week he completely shifted U.S. policy in regards to the starting point for negotiations of the borders of a Palestinian state, and yet some try to convince us that is somehow not a shift. Those people should be ashamed of themselves. They are trying to somehow reconcile a supposed support for Israel with support for an anti-Israeli president. Those positions are irreconcilable and it is time for those individuals to choose which side they are on. It is clear Obama sees the world in a very different way than me. To Obama, Israeli concessions are the obstacle to peace, not the fact that the Palestinian government now contains a terrorist group that is dedicated to killing both Israelis and Americans. Unlike me, Obama sees equivalence between the country that stood in solidarity with America after 9/11 and the people who cheered American deaths in the streets. I remember the impact that American policy and terrorism have already had on our strongest ally and its people, and I for one will not be silent in the face of this president’s complete abandonment of Israel. If we do not stand with Israel, then Israel cannot survive and America will be next. This president does not, but I do and I hope the rest of you will as well.

God Bless America