Right-wing media are rushing to put a negative spin on newly released jobs numbers showing a drop in the unemployment rate and a net increase in jobs by parroting the discredited claim that government data show that "1.2 million people dropped out of the labor force" last month. In fact, as economic experts have explained, that number reflected an increase in population from 2010 Census figures and is not the result of how many people "dropped out" of the labor force last month.

After The Labor Department Reported January Employment Growth

Labor Department: Employment Rose By 243,000 Jobs In January And Unemployment Dropped To 8.3 Percent. From the Bureau of Labor Statistics:

Total nonfarm payroll employment rose by 243,000 in January, and the unemployment rate decreased to 8.3 percent, the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics reported today. Job growth was widespread in the private sector, with large employment gains in professional and business services, leisure and hospitality, and manufacturing. Government employment changed little over the month.

[...]

The unemployment rate declined by 0.2 percentage point in January to 8.3 percent; the rate has fallen by 0.8 point since August. [Bureau of Labor Statistics, 2/3/12]

NY Times: Two Million Jobs Added In Past Year. The New York Times' Economix blog reported that "[o]ver the last 12 months, the economy added nearly two million jobs, more than in any similar period since early 2007." [The New York Times, Economix, 2/3/12]

Financial Blog Zero Hedge Dismissed Employment Growth With Dubious Claim That "1.2 Million People Dropped Out Of The Labor Force"

Zero Hedge: "1.2 Million People Dropped Out Of The Labor Force In One Month!" A post on economics and finance blog Zero Hedge claimed that the Bureau of Labor Statistics report estimated that "1.2 million people dropped out of the labor force" in January. [Zero Hedge, 2/3/12]

But Experts Argue That The 1.2 Million Number Is Based On A Misreading Of The Jobs Report

Economic Journalist Barry Ritholtz: "The Fact Is 1 Million People Did Not Drop Out Of The Labor Force In January 2012." Economic journalist and Washington Post columnist Barry Ritholtz explained that those who are claiming that 1.2 million people dropped out of the labor force in January are misreading the Labor Department's jobs report:

So today following an otherwise pretty darn good jobs report, we get the usual perma-pessimists at Zero Hedge and Rick Santelli over at CNBC proclaiming that the report showed a drop of over 1 million people from the labor force in one month. Of course, as ususal, both Santelli and Zero Hedge have a real reading comprehension problem and completely missed that this million+ people isn't some new January phenomenon, but a result of the BLS using the 2010 census data to have more accurate data. In other words, the changes in the Household Survey to the various measures had taken place over the years prior to 2010, but for simplicity's sake, the BLS incorporates these changes into one month (which they clearly point out).

[...]

[T]he fact is 1 million people did not drop out of the labor force in January 2012. [The Big Picture, 2/3/12]

WSJ: Population Growth Didn't Affect Unemployment Rate. In a post analyzing the jobs report numbers, The Wall Street Journal's Real Time Economics blog explained:

Today's jobs report carries good news on both fronts. The unemployment rate fell, and the employment-population ratio rose. That means the improvement in the labor market is real -- people actually found jobs.

The employment gain wasn't immediately obvious to some observers because of a quirk in this month's report. Every January, the Labor Department readjusts its data to account for changes in the population. The tweaks are especially significant in years like this one that take into account a new decennial census.

This year, the population adjustment makes it look like the employment-population ratio didn't change from December to January. In reality, the ratio improved by 0.3 percentage points. The gains were just masked by the population adjustments.

Here's what happened: According to the Census Bureau, the civilian population grew by 1.5 million people in 2011. But the growth wasn't distributed evenly. Most of the growth came among people 55 and older and, to a lesser degree, by people 16-24 years old. Both groups are less likely to work than people in their mid-20s to early 50s. So the share of the population that's working is actually lower than previously believed. Taking that into account, the employment-population ratio went up. The unemployment rate wasn't affected.

"There was not a big increase in discouraged workers," economist Betsey Stevenson commented on Twitter. "What happened was Census found a bunch of old people we had assumed died." [The Wall Street Journal, 2/3/12]

Time: "The Labor Force Numbers Stayed Essentially The Same." Time reporter Massimo Calabresi wrote:

Some Obama opponents are struggling to find a cloud in the silver lining of January's jobs numbers, which estimated that there was a 243,000-job boost and a big drop in the unemployment rate, from 8.5% to 8.3%, last month. Their biggest gripe focuses on the size of the labor force: As the unemployment rate has trended down over the last few months, anti-Obama commentators have argued that the official percentage for those without jobs is deceptive because the Bureau of Labor Statistics doesn't count those who have stopped looking for work. In Friday's report, they found a sharp increase in that group: More than 1.2 million people joined the non-job seeking pool of working-age Americans last month.

[...]

The demographic adjustments had no effect on the unemployment rate, says Mary Bowler, the resident expert in these matters at the BLS. And when it comes to labor force estimates, the steep jump in the number of those not seeking work came entirely from the census adjustment, which added 1.25 million people to that group. If you take out the census adjustment, the labor force numbers stayed essentially the same, as reflected by the labor force participation rate of 63.7%. In other words, the spike in the number of people no longer looking for work is entirely the result of some people at the Labor Department adding numbers to their spread sheets rather than an actual observed shift anywhere in the real economy. [Time, 2/3/12]

Right-Wing Media Jumped On The Discredited Figure To Dismiss Jobs Report As "Corrupt"

Rush Limbaugh Cited The 1.2 Million Number To Argue That The Jobs Report Is "Corrupt." On his radio show, Rush Limbaugh cited Zero Hedge and claimed that "1.2 million people dropped out of the labor force in one month" to argue that the jobs numbers report is as "corrupt as it can be." [Premiere Radio Networks, The Rush Limbaugh Show, 2/3/12]

Sean Hannity Repeated The 1.2 Million Falsehood To Claim Lower Unemployment Rate Is "Phony." On his radio show, Sean Hannity stated: "It appears that the people not in the labor force exploded by an unprecedented record 1.2 million and that's not a typo. In other words, 1.2 million people dropped out of the labor force in one month." He then explained that what this shows is that the unemployment rate is a "phony number." Hannity added: "This jobs report has limited good news but phony numbers all around it." [Premiere Radio Networks, The Sean Hannity Show, 2/3/12]

Fox Nation Highlighted Limbaugh's Charge That Unemployment Rate Number Is "Corrupt." Fox Nation amplified Limbaugh's criticism of the jobs report using the headline: "Rush Slams 'Corrupt' Obama Jobs Stats":

[Fox Nation, 2/3/12]

Drudge: "Record 1.2M Fall Out Of Labor Force." The Drudge Report highlighted the misleading claim that 1.2 million people dropped out of the labor force:

[Drudge Report, 2/3/12]

Following the controversy surrounding Susan G. Komen for the Cure's initial announcement that it would end its relationship with Planned Parenthood, right-wing media have tried to downplay Planned Parenthood's efforts to fight cancer, claiming that Planned Parenthood doesn't provide mammograms and does "nothing to prevent breast cancer." But this ignores the numerous cancer-related services Planned Parenthood annually provides to women -- including more than 1.5 million cancer screenings and preventative services in 2010 -- such as breast exams, mammogram referrals, and screenings for other types of cancer; moreover, contrary to right-wing claims, some Planned Parenthood clinics do indeed provide mammograms.

"They Don't Even Do Mammograms": Right-Wing Media Downplay Planned Parenthood's Efforts To Fight Cancer

Fox's Sandy Rios: Planned Parenthood Does "Nothing To Prevent Breast Cancer. They Don't Even Do Mammograms." On the February 2 edition of Fox News' America Live, host Megyn Kelly discussed Komen's decision to end Planned Parenthood funding with Fox News contributors Sandy Rios and Jehmu Greene. Rios claimed: "I think it's a fabulous decision. ... They do nothing to prevent breast cancer. They don't even do mammograms." Rios also added, "They're taking money from Susan G. Komen under false pretenses." [Fox News, America Live, 2/2/12]

Weekly Standard: Planned Parenthood "L[ied] About Providing Mammograms." A February 2 Weekly Standard post claimed that Planned Parenthood's president has "falsely claim[ed] on national television that the group provides mammograms." From the post:

Last spring, Planned Parenthood president Cecile Richards went on CNN and claimed that if Congress cut off funding to Planned Parenthood "millions of women are going to lose access, not to abortion services, to basic family planning, you know, mammograms." But as pro-life activist Lila Rose documented in a video, Planned Parenthood does not provide mammograms.

This story is worth recalling in light of the news this week that the Susan G. Komen foundation, one of the nation's largest breast cancer charities, has cut off funding (more than $600,000) to Planned Parenthood. Cecile Richards wrote that the foundation's decision to "end its support of lifesaving breast cancer screening at Planned Parenthood health centers comes as a blow to women across America."

[...]

Now obviously Planned Parenthood's role as America's largest abortion practitioner seems to be a significant factor in Komen's decision. Many Americans who would like to fund breast cancer research without lining the pockets of abortionists have pushed Komen to end its Planned Parenthood grants in recent years.

But why does Planned Parenthood feel entitled to a private charity's donations, especially considering the fact that Planned Parenthood's president falsely claims on national television that the group provides mammograms? Isn't Komen free to give its money to organizations that do more than provide mammogram "referrals" and breast cancer screenings? [The Weekly Standard,

[Planned Parenthood Action Fund, 1/31/12, via Twitter]

Planned Parenthood: "Low-Income Women" Are At "Immediate Risk" If Komen Ends Planned Parenthood Funding. In a response to Komen's decision on its website, Planned Parenthood stated:

At immediate risk are low-income women, many located in rural and underserved communities, served by 19 Planned Parenthood programs funded by the Komen Foundation. This funding has enabled designated Planned Parenthood health centers to provide women with breast health education, screenings, and referrals for mammograms -- lifesaving care for women where Planned Parenthood is their only source of health care. [PlannedParenthood.org, accessed

[PlannedParenthood.org, Affilate Services Summary, accessed 2/3/12]

Contrary To Claims, Some PPFA Clinics Indeed Provide Mammograms -- Thanks To Grants From Komen

As Of March 2011, Texas Planned Parenthood Clinics Did Offer Mammograms -- "Through Grants From The ... Susan G. Komen Foundation." In a March 2011 statement to Media Matters, Felicia Chase Goodman, CEO of Planned Parenthood of Central Texas, said:

Planned Parenthood of Central Texas is proud to provide comprehensive breast cancer screening for our patients, including mammography when needed. Through grants from the Central Texas affiliate of the Susan G. Komen Foundation and our participation in the Breast and Cervical Cancer Screening (BCCS) program (through the Texas Department of State Health Services), PPCT provides referrals and pays for mammograms and diagnostic follow up treatment for our patients at area radiology and surgical clinics.  

Through these grants, in 2010 PPCT patients received 609 screening mammograms and 125 diagnostic mammograms; breast cancer was detected in 20 women. For most of these patients, Planned Parenthood is their only healthcare provider. 

Through our participation in the BCCS program, patients who are diagnosed with breast or cervical cancer can be enrolled in the Medicaid for Breast and Cervical Cancer (MBCC) program, which ensures that they receive the necessary treatment to fight cancer. [Media Matters, 3/31/11]

Waco, TX, Planned Parenthood Has Provided More Than 2,000 Mammograms Since 2001. From a Waco, TX, Planned Parenthood Newsletter:

In 2009 we provided 487 mammograms and 162 diagnostic follow-up procedures for our patients. Since this program began in 2001, we have provided 2,683 mammograms to low-income women. [Waco Planned Parenthood, Spring/Summer 2010]

Texas Department Of State Health Services Lists Planned Parenthood Clinics As Breast Cancer Service Providers.  The Texas Department of State Health Services includes Planned Parenthood of Central Texas in Waco in its list of Breast and Cervical Cancer Services providers. [Breast & Cervical Cancer Services Clinic Locator, accessed 2/2/12]

Tucson, AZ, Planned Parenthood Hosted "Free Mobile Mammography Clinic." From Planned Parenthood's Website:

Planned Parenthood Arizona will host a free mobile mammography clinic, supported by Pink365. Mammography has proven to be the single most beneficial tool in detecting early and treatable cancer. The goal of screening exams, such as mammograms, is to find cancers early before it has a chance to grow and treatment works best. [PlannedParenthood.org, 8/07/09]

This Is Nothing New: Right-Wing Media Have Long Pushed Smears And Falsehoods About Planned Parenthood

For right-wing smears and falsehoods about Planned Parenthood, SEE HERE.

President Obama recently outlined his proposal that would give millions of homeowners a chance to save thousands of dollars annually by refinancing their mortgages at a lower interest rate even if their homes are currently underwater. The right-wing media immediately went on the attack, claiming that Obama's mortgage relief plan is a political stunt being used to "pander" to voters during an election year.

Obama Announces Mortgage Relief Plan To Deal With "Massive" Housing Problem

AP: Obama Proposal Would Create "An Annual Savings Of About $3,000 For The Average Borrower." From a February 1 Associated Press article:

President Barack Obama called on Congress Wednesday to make it easier for millions of additional homeowners to refinance their mortgages at lower interest rates even if they owe more than their homes are worth. He conceded that his administration's housing plans so far have not lived up to their promise.

Calling the housing problem "massive in size and in scope," Obama detailed a proposal he outlined in his State of the Union speech last week, tackling an issue of vital concern in states key to his re-election.

"This housing crisis struck right at the heart of what it means to be middle class in America: our homes," Obama said, speaking at a northern Virginia community center.

Obama's proposal would give homeowners with privately held mortgages a shot at record low rates though a new government program, for an annual savings of about $3,000 for the average borrower.

The program is the latest administration effort to help homeowners in the face of a massive number of foreclosures and plunging house values that have left millions of borrowers owing more than their homes are worth. The administration plan aims to ease the way toward refinancing for borrowers, who despite good credit have been unable to take advantage of lower rates because they are underwater on their loans or because banks fear they will be left taking losses.

[...]

The administration estimates that 3.5 million borrowers with privately-held mortgages have high enough interest rates that they would have incentive to refinance under the new plan. That's in addition to 11 million borrowers who have Fannie- or Freddie-guaranteed loans who could be eligible for refinancing under the administration's proposed changes.

About 11 million Americans -- roughly 1 in 4 with a mortgage -- are underwater, according to CoreLogic, a real estate data firm.

Half of all U.S. mortgages -- about 30 million home loans -- are owned by nongovernment lenders.

The new administration plan would permit homeowners to refinance their mortgages into loans backed by the Federal Housing Administration. To qualify, borrowers with privately held mortgages would have to have no more than one delinquency in the six months preceding refinancing. Their loans would have to fall within the mortgage limits set by the FHA in their home counties. [Associated Press, 2/1/12]

Obama's Proposal Would Also Give Relief To Renters And Homeowners Looking For Work. From a White House fact sheet on Obama's plan:

• First Pilot Sale to Transition Foreclosed Property into Rental Housing to Help Stabilize Neighborhoods and Improve Home Prices: The FHFA, in conjunction with Treasury and HUD, is announcing a pilot sale of foreclosed properties to be transitioned into rental housing.

• Moving the Market to Provide a Full Year of Forbearance for Borrowers Looking for Work: Following the Administration's lead, major banks and the GSEs are now providing up to 12 months of forbearance to unemployed borrowers.

• Pursuing a Joint Investigation into Mortgage Origination and Servicing Abuses: This effort marshals new resources to investigate misconduct that contributed to the financial crisis under the leadership of federal and state co-chairs.

• Rehabilitating Neighborhoods and Reducing Foreclosures: In addition to the steps outlined above, the Administration is expanding eligibility for HAMP to reduce additional foreclosures, increasing incentives for modifications that help borrowers rebuild equity, and is proposing to put people back to work rehabilitating neighborhoods through Project Rebuild. [WhiteHouse.gov, 2/1/12]

Right-Wing Media Suggest Obama's Plan Is A Charade Designed To Gain Votes 

Malkin: Obama Is Re-Inflating The Housing Bubble To "Pander In An Election Year." In a February 1 post on her blog, Michelle Malkin criticized President Obama for outlining his mortgage relief plan saying he was "re-inflating the housing bubble to pander in an election year." From the post:

Ugh. We're back to this again. Yes, President Obama's re-inflating the housing bubble to pander in an election year. Foreclosure avoidance is now a civil right. Long-term consequences be damned.

Obama is outlining a proposal to allow millions more homeowners to refinance their mortgages at lower interest rates even if they owe more than their homes are worth. The White House says the average borrower could save about $3,000 annually.

His first mortgage-mod program was fraud-ridden and failed. So, of course, he's doubling down.

Obama has also promised today to send a homeowner "bill of rights" to Congress.

Maybe he should try abiding by the original one first.

***

Over the past several years, I've written extensively about the bipartisan housing entitlement culture and the death of the stigma of default. I repeat:

Property-value preservation is not a civil right.

The truth is: Nobody wants to swallow tough truths. They just want their candy. [Michelle Malkin, 2/1/12]

Limbaugh Falsely Claims Obama Will Refinance Everybody's Loans. "All You Have To Do Is Promise To Vote For Him." From the February 1 edition of The Rush Limbaugh Show:

RUSH LIMBAUGH: So what do we do now, folks? That's the question. Everybody wants to know what do we do now? And what we do now is what we should be doing all along. I'll give you an example.

[...]

Obama's on TV this morning. He was in Falls Church, Virginia, doing a campaign speech. And in this appearance he announced yet another plan to bail out people who are underwater in their houses. This -- I don't know what this is, HARP 2, HARP 3. We alluded to this a few weeks ago where Obama was going to take people that were underwater and basically refinance their mortgages and have a monthly payment max out at something like six or seven hundred dollars. It's essentially, not quite forgive everybody's mortgage, but the effort was to make them think that was going to happen. That's the reason, one of the many reasons, Obama's out there saying, "Vote for me" today. 

We predicted this a few weeks ago, and I think -- I'm sure I was the first to predict it. He's promising the government will refinance everybody's loans. No credit checks. No credit checks, no proof of anything. All you have to do is promise to vote for him. And that's implied. That is understood. I mean that's the whole point of it. So how do you fight this? What do we do? The only thing that has ever had a chance from the first days of this election, this campaign, has been to make it about Obama. Every day, in every which way possible, on issues, on Obama's record, on the things he can't defend. That's what needs to happen. That's what our chance is. Our team: not all that good. You know it, and I know it. They're just not. [Premiere Radio Networks, The Rush Limbaugh Show, 2/1/12] 

Hot Air's Morrissey: Obama Is "Vote Mining Among Underwater Middle-Class Homeowners." From a February 1 post on the right-wing blog Hot Air by Ed Morrissey:

Jim Pethokoukis argued last week that this is Obama's attempt to buy some middle-class support.  Republicans may stop it for its new fees on lenders, which will supposedly fund the costs, but certainly not the risks involved in this shell game, but that would also be useful for Obama in vote mining among underwater middle-class homeowners -- in fact, it might be more useful than passage.  (Republicans could pass it with a provision approving the Keystone XL pipeline and dare Obama to veto it, too.)  Its passage will only extend the problem for most of these homeowners, transfer risk from private lenders to taxpayers in many cases, and do nothing to create conditions in which demand rises for housing that would solve the valuation issue. [Hot Air, 2/1/12]

National Review Online: Obama's Mortgage Relief Plan Is To "Serve The Progressive Election-Year Narrative." From a February 1 blog post by Sam Staley at National Review Online:

Sorting out the housing market will indeed be a long-term process. But the long-term solution is bringing the market back into balance after it was thrown out of whack in a not insignificant way by an "ownership society" myth, propagated and subsidized by both Republican and Democratic administrations. And the new housing-finance bureaucracy will struggle against its contradictory missions of making sure households don't buy houses they can't afford (reducing demand) and by making it easier and more straightforward to secure loans (increasing demand). Creating stability in the housing market won't be aided by the new bureaucracy created to rule over the mortgage industry, although it serves the progressive election-year narrative that it's the government that must ride in on a shining white horse to save the common person from the evil bankers. [National Review Online, 2/1/12]

Morrissey: Obama Is Trying "To Buy A Few Votes At The Expense Of Taxpayers And Banks." From Morrissey's post on Hot Air on January 25:

Being underwater on a mortgage is a tough economic position, but no tougher than people who invest in other assets and end up having less value than what they invested.  If homeowners find themselves in this position, they can keep paying the mortgage and eventually get above water on equity while continuing to live in their homes, which isn't ideal but certainly isn't an emergency that warrants picking the pockets of other taxpayers.  It also won't do anything to prevent or minimize foreclosures, which is one of the actual problems in the housing market.  This is nothing more than a bald attempt to buy a few votes at the expense of taxpayers and banks, and it will exacerbate the very problems it purports to address.  Game-changer?  More like an overtime period. [Hot Air, 1/25/12]

However, Economists Say Streamlined Mortgage Refinancing Would Benefit The Economy

Economist Mark Zandi: "There Is No Better Way To Quickly Buoy Hard-Pressed Homeowners Than Helping Them" Refinance At Current Rates. In a January 24 blog post on the Washington Post website, Mark Zandi, chief economist at Moody's Analytics, explained the economic benefits of President Obama's refinancing plan:

The president proposed to allow "every responsible homeowners" the chance to more easily refinance, a savings of about $3,000 annually.

There is no better way to quickly buoy hard-pressed homeowners than helping them take advantage of the currently record low fixed mortgage rates and significantly reduce their monthly mortgage payments.

[...]

Over 30 million homeowners are current on their mortgages and could profitably refinance at the current mortgage rate, which now average less than 4 percent for a 30-year fixed rate. The macroeconomic benefit could be significant. If, say, half refinance in the next six months, then this would save homeowners over $20 billion in mortgage payments this year and double that next year. Homeowners' extra cash will quickly find its way into the economy.

It is important to note that while homeowners will have more cash to spend, investors in these mortgages will receive less interest income. This dilutes the economic benefit of facilitating more refinancing, but only modestly. The biggest mortgage investors include the Federal Reserve (through quantitative easing), Fannie and Freddie, and foreign investors. All mortgage investors are probably a bit surprised they haven't already been refinanced out of their investments. [Washington Post, 1/24/12]

Economist Dean Baker: Obama's Mortgage Refinancing Plan Will "Benefit Communities And The Economy By Limiting The Blight Of Foreclosure And Giving Consumers More Money To Spend." In an email to Media Matters, Dean Baker, co-director of the Center for Economic and Policy Research, stated:

[T]he main thrust of the Obama housing plan is just common sense. It is trying to set up a structure so that underwater homeowners will be able to refinance at low interest rates just like anyone else. This is the sort of support for the housing market that the government has always provided. This can mean the difference for millions of homeowners between keeping and losing their homes. It will also benefit communities and the economy by limiting the blight of foreclosure and giving consumers more money to spend. And, it will be done at very little cost to the government. 

The system will not be perfect, but if perfection is the standard for an acceptable policy, then we would never do anything. [Email to Media Matters, 2/1/12]

Former Bush Economic Adviser: Streamlining Mortgage Refinancing "May Benefit Up To 30 Million Borrowers" And "Possible Savings Of $70 Billion Per Year In Lower Mortgage Payments." Glenn Hubbard, former chairman of President George W. Bush's Council of Economic Advisors, outlined the current problems for borrowers under the status quo and explained the economic benefits of increased access to mortgage refinancing in a report titled "Streamlined Refinancings for up to 30 Million Borrowers": 

Frictions in the mortgage market have restricted the ability of tens of millions of borrowers from refinancing their mortgages, hampering monetary policy, slowing the economic recovery, and leading to excessive numbers of foreclosures. We propose a streamlined refinancing program that may benefit up to 30 million borrowers with government-backed mortgages, leading to possible savings of $70 billion per year in lower mortgage payments. [GlennHubbard.net, 9/1/11]

Executive Director Of UNC-Chapel Hill's Center For Community Capital: Obama Plan Would "Reduc[e] Losses For Investors ... And Increase Consumer Spending." In an email to Media Matters, Janneke Ratcliffe, the executive director of the Center for Community Capital at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, wrote:

There is growing evidence that these measures -- reduced monthly payments and relief from negative equity -- are effective at reducing foreclosures. Unfortunately, many responsible borrowers can't take advantage of today's low rates, and others can't qualify for relief from eroded house values, simply because their loan is owned by the wrong investor or serviced by the wrong servicer.

This plan would offer a refinancing option to millions of underwater homeowners who are current on privately-held mortgages but cannot refinance because of negative equity. The new program would make it easier for the one to two-and-a-half million homeowners that don't have Fannie or Freddie loans but are otherwise eligible for HARP refinancing to lower their monthly housing payments. The proposed changes to the HARP rules would increase competition among services and help more borrowers with Fannie- and Freddie-backed loans to take advantage of lower rates. And the revamped incentives for principal reduction through HAMP should help more of the 12 million underwater borrowers in the U.S. today, more than a quarter of which are already falling behind on their mortgage payments, restructure their loans to reflect current market values.

If implemented, with adequate takeup, these restructurings would yield substantial ripple effects in the form of easing downward pressure on house values, reducing losses for investors and taxpayer-backed mortgage entities, and increased consumer spending. [Email to Media Matters, 2/2/12]

CAP's Associate Director For Financial Markets Policy: Obama's Housing Plan Would "Put More Money In The Hands Of The Average Household." David Min, the associate director for financial markets policy at the Center for American Progress, told Media Matters that if Obama's housing plan were to pass Congress, it "would definitely help the housing market."  Min also stated that the plan would "put more money in the hands of the average household by allowing them to refinance their mortgage rate into the lower rates available today" and "help struggling homeowners by providing them with principal reductions." [Email to Media Matters, 2/2/12]

Yglesias: "Obama's Mass Refinancing Plan Could Boost The Economy." In an article headlined "Obama's Mass Refinancing Plan Could Boost the Economy," Matthew Yglesias, Slate's business and economics correspondent, explained how Obama's mortgage refinancing plan would benefit the economy if implemented:

Has the Obama administration finally hit on a job-creation idea that could be a game-changer? It's not clear how big an overall impact it would have, but the new proposal on mortgage refinancing could -- if implemented -- break a long-standing deadlock in the housing finance market and provide a significant boost to a "recovery winter" scenario.

One major channel through which the kind of low interest rates prevailing today normally help spur economic recovery is that people refinance their mortgages which increases the amount of money they have free to direct toward other things. Indeed, I myself am currently going through the process of refinancing my mortgage. It should end up saving me a few hundred bucks a month plus reducing the life of the loan by a year. Unfortunately, many people currently can't refinance their loans because their mortgage is "underwater." What they owe is more than what the house is worth. This becomes a bit of a recursive issue. Unless economic activity (and therefore incomes) revive, it's difficult for house prices to do anything other than go down. But the low house prices are impeding refinancing--one of the main tools we rely on to boost economic activity. [Slate, 2/1/12]

Obama's Previous Mortgage Relief Plans Have Been Attacked By The Right-Wing Media In The Past

Fox's Tantaros: Obama's Mortgage Plan Is "Purely A Political Stunt." In October 2011, Obama put forward a plan to assist homeowners who are underwater on their mortgages. The right-wing media went on the attack. For instance, during the October 25 edition of Fox News' America's Newsroom, co-host Bill Hemmer asked Fox News contributor Andrea Tantaros, "How vulnerable is this president on the issue of housing going into an election year?" Tantaros replied that Obama is "very vulnerable" and later said that "his plan is purely a political stunt." [Fox News, America's Newsroom, 10/25/11, via Media Matters]

Fox Regular Morici: Obama's Plan Is "A Re-Election Ploy." On the October 25 edition of Fox News' Fox & Friends, co-host Steve Doocy interviewed economist and professor Peter Morici about Obama's mortgage relief plan. Doocy said, "You know, the president is trying to not only keep people in their houses, but to try to keep him in the White House as well with this." Morici agreed, saying, "This is really a re-election ploy, because it's going to create new problems down the road." [Fox News, Fox & Friends, 10/25/11, via Media Matters]

Krauthammer: "[Obama] Knows That This Is A Farce." On the October 24 edition of Fox News' Special Report, Fox News contributor Charles Krauthammer said of Obama's plan, "But Obama is not here about fixing stuff. This is all about framing the debate. This is an appearance of motion. ... He knows that this is a farce." Fox Nation later hyped Krauthammer's commentary in an October 24 post. [Fox News, Special Report, 10/24/11, via Fox Nation]

Dobbs: Obama's New Plan To Help Homeowners Is "Offering Up ... Bribes" So He Can "Get Re-Elected." On the October 24 edition of Fox News' America Live, host Megyn Kelly discussed Obama's plan with Fox Business host Lou Dobbs. Dobbs attacked Obama's plan, saying it was "one of the most irresponsible initiatives [Obama] could take" and later claiming that Obama is "offering up billions -- hundreds of billions of dollars in bribes" so that he can "get re-elected." [Fox News, America Live, 10/24/11, via Media Matters]

Sean Hannity pushed the myth that President Obama has made the economy worse, arguing that you could not "make the case" that it has improved during Obama's watch. In fact, when Obama took office, he inherited an economy that was shrinking faster than it had in 50 years and that had lost 2 million jobs in 3 months; by contrast, the economy is now growing and added 1.9 million private sector jobs last year.

Hannity's Challenge: "How Do You Make The Case" That The Economy Has Improved

Hannity: "You Cannot Make The Case With A Straight Face That This Economy Has Gotten Better Under This President." Discussing the 2012 presidential election, Fox News' Sean Hannity claimed, "You cannot make the case with a straight face that this economy has gotten better under this president. You can't make it anymore." [Fox News, Hannity, 2/1/12]

This Is How You Make The Case That The Economy Has Improved

THEN: The Economy Was Contracting By Nearly 9 Percent. The Bureau of Economic Analysis estimated that gross domestic product declined by 8.9 percent during the fourth quarter of 2008 -- the final quarter before President Obama took office. According to IHS Global Insight, GDP decline at the end of 2008 "represents the worst single-quarter decline in GDP since the 10.4 percent drop in the first quarter of 1958." [IHS Global Insight, 7/29/11]

NOW: The Economy Is Growing. In its initial estimate of economic growth during the fourth quarter of 2011, the Bureau of Economic Analysis estimated that gross domestic product increased by 2.8 percent. [Bureau of Economic Analysis, 1/27/12]

THEN: The Economy Lost 2 Million Jobs In Three Months. According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, employment decreased by 802,000 jobs in November 2008, 619,000 jobs in December 2008, and 820,000 jobs in January 2009 -- a total of 2.2 million jobs in three months. [Bureau of Labor Statistics, accessed 2/1/12]

NOW: The Economy Added 1.9 Million Private Sector Jobs Last Year. According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, private sector employment increased by 1.9 million jobs in 2011. [Bureau of Labor Statistics, 1/6/12]

CNN: "Since Job Growth Resumed, The Economy Has Added About 3 Million Jobs." CNN.com reported:

The U.S. economy created about 2 million private-sector jobs in 2011, according to the BLS -- a figure comparable to 2005, when 1.9 million jobs were created. And since job growth resumed, the economy has added about 3 million jobs. [CNN.com, 1/25/12]

After the British tabloid Daily Mail published a flawed article that distorted climate research to claim we could be "heading for a mini ice age," conservative media followed suit. In fact, the study did not project a decline in global temperatures.

Scientists: Solar Fluctuations Won't Offset Global Warming

Met Office: Reduction In Solar Output "Insufficient To Offset" Global Warming. Announcing the new research, the Met Office stated that a reduction in solar output "will not substantially delay expected increases in global temperatures caused by greenhouse gases":

New research has found that solar output is likely to reduce over the next 90 years but that will not substantially delay expected increases in global temperatures caused by greenhouse gases.

Carried out by the Met Office and the University of Reading, the study establishes the most likely changes in the Sun's activity and looks at how this could affect near-surface temperatures on Earth.

It found that the most likely outcome was that the Sun's output would decrease up to 2100, but this would only cause a reduction in global temperatures of 0.08 °C. This compares to an expected warming of about 2.5 °C over the same period due to greenhouse gases (according to the IPCC's B2 scenario for greenhouse gas emissions that does not involve efforts to mitigate emissions).

[...]

The study also showed that if solar output reduced below that seen in the Maunder Minimum - a period between 1645 and 1715 when solar activity was at its lowest observed level - the global temperature reduction would be 0.13C.

Peter Stott, who also worked on the research for the Met Office, said: "Our findings suggest that a reduction of solar activity to levels not seen in hundreds of years would be insufficient to offset the dominant influence of greenhouse gases on global temperatures in the 21st Century." [Met Office,

[Real Climate, 6/19/11]

Scientists Dispute Whether Grand Solar Minimum Will Occur. Wired explained that while some scientists think a solar minimum might happen again, this is disputed and would nevertheless have an "insignificant" impact on our climate:

The possibility of imminent solar dormancy was raised by reports from the ongoing American Astronomical Society meeting of fading sunspots and dips in the sun's magnetic patterns. Those are considered portents of solar inactivity, suggesting that the next solar minimum -- a natural downturn in activity -- would be especially pronounced, perhaps lasting for decades.

When that last happened, between the mid-17th and early 18th centuries, northern Europe experienced a period of unusually cold weather. Known as the Maunder Minimum, or more conversationally as the Little Ice Age, it's a period historicized by accounts of ice skating on the Thames and seasonal inns built on Baltic Sea ice.

Press accounts of the new solar reports played up the Maunder Minimum angle, hinting that it might happen again. Some even implied that global warming might be counteracted.

In fact, the meaning of the latest sunspot reports is still being debated, as Andrew Revkin at Dot Earth has chronicled. But even if they really do portend a decades-long solar lull, studies already point to a minimal effect on climate.

Most Little Ice Age cooling appears to have been the result of coincidentally high volcanic activity that cloaked Earth in sunlight-blocking soot. As for the sun, a study published in 2001 in Science found that reduced solar activity produced a cooling effect of about 0.5 degrees Fahrenheit. In other estimates, the cooling is even more insignificant. [Wired, 6/15/11]

Led By Daily Mail, Conservative Media Distort Research To Claim Earth Is Cooling

Daily Mail: "The Figures Suggest We Could Even Be Heading For A Mini Ice Age." Quoting several contrarian "experts," the Daily Mail claimed that new data released by the Met Office and the University of East Anglia Climatic Research Unit "suggest that we could even be heading for a mini ice age":

The figures suggest that we could even be heading for a mini ice age to rival the 70-year temperature drop that saw frost fairs held on the Thames in the 17th Century.

[...]

Meanwhile, leading climate scientists yesterday told The Mail on Sunday that, after emitting unusually high levels of energy throughout the 20th Century, the sun is now heading towards a 'grand minimum' in its output, threatening cold summers, bitter winters and a shortening of the season available for growing food. [Daily Mail, 1/29/12]

FoxNews.com: Solar Minimum "Will Cause Temperatures To Fall, Scientists Say." Pivoting off the flawed Daily Mail article, FoxNews.com claimed: "The debate over global warming may be heating up again amid new scientific evidence that the sun's activity is cooling down -- which will cause temperatures to fall on planet Earth, scientists say." The FoxNews.com article was titled, "With sun's activity set to diminish, is global cooling coming?" [FoxNews.com, 1/31/12]

Erickson: "According To The Climate Record ... It May Be Getting Colder." On his radio show, CNN contributor Erick Erickson claimed that "most of the climate models when you actually delve into it and talk to a lot of the scientists -- the skeptics and the non-skeptics alike" -- "they all kind of point out the same thing, that the sun, you would think would have a big effect on climate, but a lot of the climate models discount the effect the sun has to the extent that it probably does have." Erickson further claimed that "according to the climate record, from not the skeptics but from the actual global warming community, the world has not really warmed since 1997 and in fact it may be getting colder." [WSB, The Erick Erickson Show, 1/30/12]

Loesch: Earth Is "More Likely Heading To A Mini Ice Age."At times reading aloud from a blog post by Jim Hoft, which quoted the Daily Mail article, CNN contributor Dana Loesch said on her radio show:

"The latest temperature data shows" that really the "planet hasn't warmed in the last 15 years" and is more likely "heading to a mini ice age. The figures suggest that we could even be heading" for this "to rival the 70-year temperature drop that saw frost fairs held on the Thames" since the 17th Century.

[...]

Unbelievable. Science, huh? Facts, right? [KFTK, The Dana Show, 1/30/12] [Gateway Pundit, 1/29/12]

Daily Mail's Misinformation Has Been Furthered By Others In Conservative Media. [Washington Times, 1/31/12] [Newsmax, 1/30/12] [WND.com, 1/29/12] [BigGovernment, 1/30/12] [Powerline, 1/30/12] [The Right Sphere, 1/29/12] [American Thinker, 1/29/12]

Conservative Media Attempt To Use 12 Years Of Data To Refute Long-Term Trend

Daily Mail: University Data "Confirms That The Rising Trend In World Temperatures Ended In 1997." The Daily Mail claimed that new data released by the Met Office and the University of East Anglia Climatic Research Unit "confirms that the rising trend in world temperatures ended in 1997." This claim was echoed by Erickson and Loesch:

The supposed 'consensus' on man-made global warming is facing an inconvenient challenge after the release of new temperature data showing the planet has not warmed for the past 15 years.

The figures suggest that we could even be heading for a mini ice age to rival the 70-year temperature drop that saw frost fairs held on the Thames in the 17th Century.

Based on readings from more than 30,000 measuring stations, the data was issued last week without fanfare by the Met Office and the University of East Anglia Climatic Research Unit. It confirms that the rising trend in world temperatures ended in 1997. [Daily Mail, 1/29/12]

Met Office: 'No Warming' Claim Is "Entirely Misleading." The Met Office took the reportedly unusual step of responding to the Daily Mail article, which it said contained "numerous errors" and did not "fully include the answers we gave him." The Met Office said the argument that there has been no warming in the last 15 years is "entirely misleading." [Met Office, 1/29/12]

The Last Decade Was The Warmest On Record. Discovery News reported on November 29:

Thirteen of the warmest years recorded have occurred within the last decade and a half, the UN's World Meteorological Organization said on Tuesday.

[...]

The 2002-2011 period equals 2001-2010 as the warmest decade since 1850, the report said.

2011 ranks as the 10th warmest year since 1850, when accurate measurements began.

This was true despite a La Nina event -- one of the strongest in 60 years -- that developed in the tropical Pacific in the second half of 2010 and continued until May 2011. [Discovery News, 11/19/12]

The following chart from NOAA shows decadal averages since the beginning of the instrumental temperature record:

[NOAA, accessed 8/26/11]

Independent Temperature Study: We Can't Make Conclusions About Long-Term Trends Based On "Periods As Short As 13 to 15 Years." The Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature project, which independently verified the long-term warming trend in land temperature data, concluded:

Some people draw a line segment covering the period 1998 to 2010 and argue that we confirm no temperature change in that period. However, if you did that same exercise back in 1995, and drew a horizontal line through the data for 1980 to 1995, you might have falsely concluded that global warming had stopped back then. This exercise simply shows that the decadal fluctuations are too large to allow us to make decisive conclusions about long term trends based on close examination of periods as short as 13 to 15 years. [Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature, accessed 1/30/12]

 Conservative Media Repeatedly Promote Tabloid's Climate Misinformation

Following Another False Mail Article, Conservative Media Previously Claimed "Climate Scientists Predict Mini-Ice Age." On January 10, 2010, the Mail on Sunday -- the sister paper of the Daily Mail -- ran an article by David Rose headlined, "The mini ice age starts here."  Rose claimed that climate scientist Mojib Latif's work "refutes" the view "that the big chill was merely short-term 'weather' that had nothing to do with 'climate', which was still warming." That day, popular conservative blogger Jim Hoft claimed "climate scientists warned" of a "mini ice age." The next day, Fox Nation linked to Hoft's post with the headline "Now Climate Scientists Predict Mini-Ice Age" and FoxNews.com wrote an article that claimed that Latif "says we're in for 30 years of cooler temperatures -- a mini ice age, he calls it." Latif responded that the Mail had misused his research and that he predicts "nothing that would constitute a little ice age." Sean Hannity later distorted Latif's work on his Fox News show, as did Cal Thomas in his Washington Examiner column.  [Media Matters, 1/12/10] [Media Matters, 1/13/10] [Media Matters, 1/14/10]

After Mail Distorted Climate Scientist's Quote, Conservative Media Followed. On February 14, 2010, the Daily Mail distorted a BBC interview with climate scientist Dr. Phil Jones. Jones explained that while there was a positive warming trend from 1995 to 2009 it was not statistically significant at the "95% significance level," although it was "quite close." Jones added, "Achieving statistical significance in scientific terms is much more likely for longer periods, and much less likely for shorter periods." The Daily Mail published an article titled "Climategate U-turn as scientist at centre of row admits: There has been no global warming since 1995." That same day The Daily Caller and Jim Hoft promoted the Mail's distortion. The next day, Fox News' Peter Johnson Jr. adopted the Mail's language and further distorted Jones' quote saying "Talk about a U-Turn, that whole global warming thing may have never existed. What a key scientist is now saying that could debunk the whole theory." The next week, George Will used Phil Jones' claims to suggest that there has been an "absence of warming." [Media Matters, 2/15/10] [Media Matters, 2/15/10] [Media Matters, 2/22/10]

Right-wing media have applauded Susan G. Komen for the Cure's decision to stop providing funds to Planned Parenthood. But Komen's decision could affect access to breast cancer screenings and other cancer-related services for thousands of women, as the Komen funds have allowed Planned Parenthood to provide 170,000 breast exams and 6,400 mammogram referrals in the past five years.

Komen Announces It Is Ending Partnership With Planned Parenthood

LA Times: Komen "Said Tuesday That It Was Halting All Partnerships With Planned Parenthood Affiliates." From a February 1 Los Angeles Times article:

In what looks to be a break between two organizations dedicated to women's health, a national breast cancer awareness group said it would stop providing funds to Planned Parenthood centers for breast cancer examinations and other breast health services.

Susan G. Komen for the Cure, a leader in fundraising for breast cancer research and famous worldwide for its iconic pink ribbon, said Tuesday that it was halting all partnerships with Planned Parenthood affiliates because of recently adopted criteria that forbid it from funding any organization under government investigation. [The Los Angeles Times,

[Planned Parenthood Action Fund, 1/31/12, via Twitter]

Planned Parenthood: "Planned Parenthood Doctors And Nurses Provide Nearly 750,000 Breast Cancer Screenings Annually." In a January 31 press release responding to Komen's decision, Planned Parenthood noted that its health centers "provide nearly 750,000 breast cancer screenings annually." From the press release:

Over the past five years, Planned Parenthood health centers with Komen program funding have provided nearly 170,000 clinical breast exams out of the more than four million clinical breast exams performed nationwide at Planned Parenthood health centers, as well as more than 6,400 mammogram referrals out of 70,000 mammogram referrals. Anti-choice groups in America have repeatedly threatened the Susan G. Komen for the Cure Foundation for partnering with Planned Parenthood to provide these lifesaving cancer screenings.

Planned Parenthood's quality, accessibility and affordability make it a leader in identifying breast cancer early when there is the best chance of successful treatment. Nationwide, Planned Parenthood doctors and nurses provide nearly 750,000 breast cancer screenings annually, offering risk assessments, breast exams, breast health information and education, and diagnostic and surgical referrals. [Planned Parenthood,

[Fox Nation,

[Erick Erickson, Twitter feed, 4/8/11]

Huckabee: "I'm Not A Fan Of Planned Parenthood. I Think It's 'Planned Barren-hood,' For The Most Part." On the April 9, 2011, edition of Fox & Friends, then-Fox News contributor Mike Huckabee falsely claimed that Planned Parenthood is "primarily an abortion provider," saying, "Look, I'm not a fan of Planned Parenthood. I think it's 'planned barren-hood,' for the most part. And I don't appreciate the fact that they are primarily an abortion provider, even though they claim to be about women's health." [Fox News, Fox & Friends, 4/9/11, via Media Matters]

Fox News personalities have repeated numerous falsehoods about activist Saul Alinsky, including that he was a "Marxist" and that he dedicated his book Rules for Radicals "to Lucifer." Fox has used this false image of Alinsky to attack President Obama and other progressives.

Fox Portrays Alinsky As A "Socialist," Claims He "Admired" Lenin And Marx

Varney: Alinsky "Was A Socialist." From Fox News' America Live:

MEGYN KELLY (anchor): Stu, who is Saul Alinsky?

STUART VARNEY (Fox Business host): OK. Born in Chicago. He was a socialist. He essentially established an aggressive strategy and aggressive tactics for America's hard left. Published a book in 1971 which became something of a textbook for community organizers. It was called Rules for Radicals. He favored direct action, confrontation, an aggressive presentation of the socialist, hard-left position. [Fox News, America Live, 1/24/12]

O'Reilly: Alinsky Was "In The Great Tradition Of Karl Marx, Lenin ... He Even Said He Admired Those Men." From Fox News' The O'Reilly Factor:

BILL O'REILLY (host): Look, Saul Alinsky, you know, for people who are involved in political science -- there he is -- this guy, you know, is in the great tradition of Karl Marx, Lenin --

ALAN COLMES (Fox News contributor): Not really.

O'REIILLY: -- people -- well, he even said he admired those men, OK? He said it in his writings, that he admired them and that he didn't respect private property rights. He thought that everybody should be guaranteed a certain style of life, and he worked toward that in a very aggressive way. [Fox News, The O'Reilly Factor, 1/24/12]

Fact: Alinsky Was Not "A Marxist Or Communist Or Socialist"

Biographer: Alinsky "Is Routinely Labeled As A Marxist Or Communist Or Socialist, None Of Which He Was." From a May 2010 article by Sanford D. Horwitt for "Just Books," a review published by New York University Law School's Brennan Center for Justice:

Alinsky's name and Rules for Radicals are a daily presence on the Internet, especially in Tea Party blogs and, periodically, on Rush Limbaugh's and Glenn Beck's web sites. For most of these commentators, Alinsky is caricatured as a dark, sinister force whose spirit comes alive late at night in the Oval office. He is routinely labeled as a Marxist or Communist or Socialist, none of which he was. [BrennanCenter.org, 5/12/10]

Communists Attacked Alinsky For Advocating American Intervention In World War II. From a 1972 Playboy interview with Alinsky:

PLAYBOY: What was your own relationship with the Communist Party?

ALINSKY: I knew plenty of Communists in those days, and I worked with them on a number of projects. Back in the Thirties, the Communists did a hell of a lot of good work; they were in the vanguard of the labor movement and they played an important role in aiding blacks and Okies and Southern sharecroppers. Anybody who tells you he was active in progressive causes in those days and never worked with the Reds is a goddamn liar. Their platform stood for all the right things, and unlike many liberals, they were willing to put their bodies on the line. Without the Communists, for example, I doubt the C.I.O. could have won all the battles it did. I was also sympathetic to Russia in those days, not because I admired Stalin or the Soviet system but because it seemed to be the only country willing to stand up to Hitler. I was in charge of a big part of fund raising for the International Brigade and in that capacity I worked in close alliance with the Communist Party.

When the Nazi-Soviet Pact came, though, and I refused to toe the party line and urged support for England and for American intervention in the war, the party turned on me tooth and nail. Chicago Reds plastered the Back of the Yards with big posters featuring a caricature of me with a snarling, slavering fanged mouth and wild eyes, labeled, "This is the face of a warmonger." But there were too many Poles, Czechs, Lithuanians and Latvians in the area for that tactic to go over very well. Actually, the greatest weakness of the party was its slavish parroting of the Moscow line. It could have been much more effective if it had adopted a relatively independent stance, like the western European parties do today. But all in all, and despite my own fights with them, I think the Communists of the Thirties deserve a lot of credit for the struggles they led or participated in. Today the party is just a shadow of the past, but in the Depression it was a positive force for social change. A lot of its leaders and organizers were jerks, of course, but objectively the party in those days was on the right side and did considerable good. [Playboy, March 1972]

Alinsky: "Dogma, Whatever Form It Takes, Is The Ultimate Enemy Of Human Freedom." From the Playboy interview:

PLAYBOY: Did you consider becoming a party member prior to the Nazi-Soviet Pact?

ALINSKY: Not at any time. I've never joined any organization -- not even the ones I've organized myself. I prize my own independence too much. And philosophically, I could never accept any rigid dogma or ideology, whether it's Christianity or Marxism. One of the most important things in life is what Judge Learned Hand described as "that ever-gnawing inner doubt as to whether you're right." If you don't have that, if you think you've got an inside track to absolute truth, you become doctrinaire, humorless and intellectually constipated. The greatest crimes in history have been perpetrated by such religious and political and racial fanatics, from the persecutions of the Inquisition on down to Communist purges and Nazi genocide. The great atomic physicist Niels Bohr summed it up pretty well when he said, "Every sentence I utter must be understood not as an affirmation, but as a question." Nobody owns the truth, and dogma, whatever form it takes, is the ultimate enemy of human freedom.

Now, this doesn't mean that I'm rudderless; I think I have a much keener sense of direction and purpose than the true believer with his rigid ideology, because I'm free to be loose, resilient and independent, able to respond to any situation as it arises without getting trapped by articles of faith. My only fixed truth is a belief in people, a conviction that if people have the opportunity to act freely and the power to control their own destinies, they'll generally reach the right decisions. The only alternative to that belief is rule by an elite, whether it's a Communist bureaucracy or our own present-day corporate establishment. You should never have an ideology more specific than that of the founding fathers: "For the general welfare." That's where I parted company with the Communists in the Thirties, and that's where I stay parted from them today. [Playboy, March 1972]

Alinsky Disparaged Lenin And Those Who Quote "Mao, Castro, And Che Guevara." From Rules for Radicals:

What is the alternative to working "inside" the system? A mess of rhetorical garbage about "Burn the system down!" Yippie yells of "Do it!" or "Do your thing." What else? Bombs? Sniping? Silence when police are killed and screams of "murdering fascist pigs" when others are killed? Attacking and baiting the police? Public suicide? "Power comes out of the barrel of a gun!" is an absurd rallying cry when the other side has all the guns. Lenin was a pragmatist; when he returned to what was then Petrograd from exile, he said that the Bolsheviks stood for getting power through the ballot but would reconsider after they got the guns! Spouting quotes from Mao, Castro, and Che Guevara, which are as germane to our highly technological, computerized, cybernetic, nuclear-powered, mass media society as a stagecoach on a jet runway at Kennedy airport? [Saul Alinsky, Rules for Radicals, Pages xx-xxi]

Biographer: For Alinsky, "Communists Were Trouble That His Community Organizations Could Do Without." From Horwitt's biography of Alinsky, Let Them Call Me Rebel:

Alinsky's own attitude toward communists had changed over the years. In the late 1930s, before the Soviet-German nonaggression pact, Alinsky had been enthusiastic about a United Front strategy, and in the Back of the Yards he had worked amicably enough with the occasional communist. After the war, during the purges of left-wing unions and in the McCarthy period, he was disgusted by the professional Red baiters, spoke out against them frequently, and extended his sympathy and, occasionally, a helping hand to witch-hunt victims whom he knew. Still, he had little patience and sympathy for the relatively few communists he continued to encounter. To be sure, he didn't give more than a scintilla of psychic energy to them, and to the extent he thought about them at all, he held to a very strong stereotype: they were quarrelsome, rigid, dour, humorless. In any event, he thought that to be a communist in the United States was pointless at best and perverse and destructive at worst. In short, communists were trouble that his community organizations could do without. Within an organization, they were apt to be trouble because they were obsessed with pushing ideologically pure issues and otherwise manipulating the agenda for their own narrow interests. They were also trouble, especially if they occupied visible leadership roles, because they made the organization vulnerable to outside attack. In short, he did not like them, did not need them, and as a general matter, wanted them quietly moved out of his community organizations. [Sanford D. Horwitt, Let Them Call Me Rebel: Saul Alinsky: His Life and Legacy, Page 395]

Monica Crowley Falsely Claims Alinsky "Dedicated" Rules For Radicals "To Lucifer"

Crowley: "Alinsky Wrote Rules For Radicals in '71 And Dedicated It To Lucifer." From Fox News' The O'Reilly Factor:

MONICA CROWLEY (Fox News contributor): OK, first of all, let's keep in mind who Saul Alinsky was and how he directly influenced Barack Obama. Saul Alinsky wrote Rules for Radicals in '71 and dedicated it to Lucifer. He was the godfather of the leftist --

O'REILLY: The devil.

CROWLEY: Yes, Satan.

O'REILLY: He wasn't Lucifer --

CROWLEY: I'm not making it up.

O'REILLY: OK.

CROWLEY: Lucifer.

O'REILLY: It wasn't Lucifer Schwartz.

CROWLEY: No.

O'REILLY: It was just "Lucifer."

ALAN COLMES (Fox News contributor): I don't think Lucifer is a Jewish name.

CROWLEY: No, it wasn't Murray Lucifer Schwartz, no. [Fox News, The O'Reilly Factor, 1/24/12]

Fact: Alinsky Dedicated Rules For Radicals "To Irene." Rules for Radicals begins with "personal acknowledgments" to four people:

It is followed by a dedication: "To Irene":

[Saul Alinsky, Rules for Radicals, Pages v, vii, via Media Matters]

"Lucifer" Is Mentioned As A Warning In A Quote Attributed To Alinsky. A subsequent page contains quotes from Rabbi Hillel and Thomas Paine, as well as another quote attributed to Alinsky:

Lest we forget at least an over-the-shoulder acknowledgment to the very first radical from all our legends, mythology, and history (and who is to know where mythology leaves off and history begins -- or which is which), the first radical known to man who rebelled against the establishment and did it so effectively that he at least won his own kingdom -- Lucifer.

[Saul Alinsky, Rules for Radicals, Page ix, via Media Matters]

Glenn Beck promoted the falsehood about Rules for Radicals' dedication on his Fox News show.

Varney Falsely Suggests Alinsky's Community Organizing Style Was "Beat 'Em Up"

Varney: Unlike Alinsky, Obama Advocated That Community Organizing Be "More Cooperative, Organize Locally For Self-Help." From America Live:

KELLY: He came up -- he didn't grow up, but he came up -- when he became a professional man in Chicago, he is a noted community organizer. You heard the White House spokesman acknowledge that and say it's all been well documented. But some of President Obama's biographers have said that he is a lot more conciliatory in his approach than Saul Alinsky was. So while they have a lot in common on paper, is there any evidence that they have the same sort of radical philosophy?

VARNEY: Well, in 1988, then-citizen Obama published an essay in which it was all about after Saul Alinsky, how to organize in the state of Illinois. It was much more conciliatory. It was none of the confrontation, beat 'em up, occupy -- none of that aggression. It was indeed more conciliatory, it was more cooperative, organize locally for self-help. That's a very different tactic strategy and style from the Alinsky, hard-left go get 'em.

KELLY: Trying to empower those without power.

VARNEY: Yes. [Fox News, America Live, 1/24/12]

Varney: "The President Backs Occupy Wall Street. That's A Kind Of Alinsky-Style Tactic, Is It Not? Occupy, Take Control, Demand, Be Aggressive." From America Live:

KELLY: So, I mean, is this a talking point by Newt Gingrich that may sort of tap into folks on the far right who don't like President Obama, or are there legitimate parallels between these two men that should concern some folks?

VARNEY: There are legitimate parallels, bearing in mind President Obama's background as a community organizer in Chicago, where Saul Alinsky was a community organizer and wrote the textbook on community organization. For example, the president backs Occupy Wall Street. That's a kind of Alinsky-style tactic, is it not? Occupy, take control, demand, be aggressive. How about wealth redistribution? That's a key Alinsky element in his strategy in his tactics, wealth redistribution. That kind of thing links President Obama with the Alinsky message. [Fox News, America Live, 1/24/12]

Kelly Notes Biographer Said "Alinsky Was Not A Bomb-Throwing Radical By Any Means." From America Live:

KELLY: But there may be an influence, in your view, but there's not a direct mentor-mentee, passing the torch down the line in Chicago politics kind of thing.

VARNEY: No. It's not like President Obama reads the book, goes out and says, "Occupy, demonstrate, confront, be aggressive." Not quite that. It's the influence, as opposed to the direct translation of tactics.

KELLY: This is from an Alinsky biographer who came out and said that Alinsky was not a bomb-throwing radical by any means. Others have said he's not as controversial as, you know, folks like Newt Gingrich would have you believe. But there is a real question about how closely Obama read him or is affiliated with him.

VARNEY: There is. Alinsky says the have-nots should take away the power of the haves. It's that expression "take it away," it that aggression that goes to the core of the argument. [Fox News, America Live, 1/24/12]

Fact: Alinsky Rejected Violence, Advocated Working Within The System

Alinsky: "Go Home, Organize, Build Power And At The Next Convention, You Be The Delegates." From Rules for Radicals:

In the midst of the gassing and violence by the Chicago Police and National Guard during the 1968 Democratic Convention many students asked me, "Do you still believe we should try to work inside our system?"

These were students who had been with Eugene McCarthy in New Hampshire and followed him across the country. Some had been with Robert Kennedy when he was shot and killed in Los Angeles. Many of the tears that were shed in Chicago were not from gas. "Mr. Alinsky, we fought in primary after primary and the people voted no on Vietnam. Look at that convention. They're not paying any attention to the vote. Look at your police and the army. You still want us to work in the system?"

It hurt me to see the American army with bayonets advancing on American boys and girls. But the answer I gave to the young radicals seemed to me the only realistic one: "Do one of three things. One, go and find a wailing wall and feel sorry for yourselves. Two, go psycho and start bombing -- but this will only swing people to the right. Three, learn a lesson. Go home, organize, build power and at the next convention, you be the delegates." [Saul Alinsky, Rules for Radicals, Page xxiii (emphasis in original)]

Biographer: Alinsky "Was Not a Bomb-Throwing Radical By Any Means." From the Chicago Tribune:

Alinsky's tactics included tying up bank teller lines with volunteers repeatedly exchanging a $100 bill for pennies and vice versa as a way to protest banking institutions, said John Kretzmann, professor at Northwestern University's School of Education and Social Policy. Another involved Alinsky's followers threatening to occupy all the bathrooms at O'Hare International Airport for an entire day. The threat alone granted Alinsky a meeting with then-Mayor Richard J. Daley, Kretzmann said.

"Newt realizes this is just an act, saying Alinsky is a dangerous radical. Gingrich is enough of a historian to know what Alinsky was about," Horwitt said. "This is something that he is feeding to a part of the conservative right. (Alinsky) was not a bomb-throwing radical by any means." [Chicago Tribune, 1/24/12]

Alinsky: "To The Organizer, Compromise Is A Key And Beautiful Word." From Rules for Radicals:

Compromise is another word that carries shades of weakness, vacillation, betrayal of ideals, surrender of moral principles. In the old culture, when virginity was a virtue, one referred to a woman's being "compromised." The word is generally regarded as ethically unsavory and ugly.

But to the organizer, compromise is a key and beautiful word. It is always present in the pragmatics of operation. It is making the deal, getting that vital breather, usually the victory. If you start with nothing, demand 100 percent, then compromise for 30 percent, you're 30 percent ahead. [Saul Alinsky, Rules for Radicals, Page 59 (emphasis in original)]

Right-Wing Media Have Long Invoked Alinsky To Fearmonger About Obama, Progressives

National Review: "Obama Is Still Every Inch The Alinskyite Organizer." Stanley Kurtz, wrote at National Review's The Corner blog: "Obama is still every inch the Alinskyite organizer. He talks about uniting, even as he deliberately polarizes. He moves incrementally toward radical left goals, but never owns up to his ideology. Instead, he tries to work indirectly, by way of the constituencies he seeks to manipulate." [The Corner, National Review Online, 8/3/11]

Beck: Videos Of Mob Violence = Alinsky. Glenn Beck said of flash mobs that steal from stores: "I'm pretty sure Saul Alinsky talked about this in his book -- you know, the one that mentions Lucifer as the first rebel? Yeah. He mentioned this as a way of overwhelming the system." [Fox News, Glenn Beck, 6/27/11]

Beck: Alinsky Came Up With "Blueprint" For Today's "Progressive Nightmare." Beck said on his Fox News show: "The man who came up with the blueprint for the progressive nightmare that we are witnessing today is Saul Alinsky." [Fox News, Glenn Beck, 3/21/11]

Limbaugh Asks If Obama Has Ever Had An Idea Not Found In The Communist Manifesto Or Rules For Radicals. Rush Limbaugh said of Obama on his radio show: "Has he ever had an original idea -- by that, I mean something not found in The Communist Manifesto? Has he? Has he simply had an idea not found in Saul Alinsky's Rules for Radicals?" [Premiere Radio Networks, The Rush Limbaugh Show, 1/25/11]

Ted Nugent: Obama's "Saul Alinsky And The Smoke-And-Mirrors Communist Agenda" Hides An Anti-Gun Record. Appearing on Beck's radio show, Ted Nugent said that Obama "learned so well from Saul Alinsky and the smoke-and-mirrors communist agenda" to hide that he is "the master of deception" on the issue of gun rights. [Premiere Radio Networks, The Glenn Beck Program, 4/1/10]

Beck Calls Obama And Dems "Ruthless, Morally Bankrupt, Ends-Justify-The-Means Saul Alinsky-Ites." Beck said that Obama and the Democrats are "ruthless, morally bankrupt, ends-justify-the-means Saul Alinsky-ites who will do anything, include eat their own, to get what they want." [Fox News, Glenn Beck, 3/22/10]

Beck's Two Steps In "Che Indoctrination" Of Schoolkids -- First, The T-Shirt; Then, Read Them Saul Alinsky. On his Fox News program, Beck stated: "This is the second step in the Che indoctrination. First, you get the kids in the T-shirt, and then you read them Saul Alinsky in school, recommended by the president." [Fox News, Glenn Beck, 2/1/10]

Crowley Suggests Obama Wants Americans To Be Killed In Order To Fulfill Alinsky Agenda. On The O'Reilly Factor, Monica Crowley called Alinsky "a radical who believed in the radical remaking of America by shattering its very foundations," adding, "I believe that President Obama has taken that to heart to the extent where over the last year, we have seen him apologize for the United States relentlessly." When O'Reilly responded, "He can't want Americans to be killed," Crowley said: "Well, how else do you explain his incredibly flaccid reactions to these kinds of attacks against the United States?" [Fox News, The O'Reilly Factor, 1/5/10]

Luntz Likened Clinton's Praise Of Alinsky In Her Senior Thesis To Praise Of "People From Germany In The 1930s And 40s." Republican pollster Frank Luntz said of Hillary Clinton's college thesis on Alinsky: "In the language she uses she holds him up almost like an icon. ... I don't know how to say this, but that's like holding up some of the people from Germany in the 1930s and '40s." [Fox News, Hannity & Colmes, 3/5/07, via Media Matters]

Fox News contributor Juan Williams recently wrote that "[t]he language of GOP racial politics is heavy on euphemisms that allow the speaker to deny any responsibility for the racial content of his message," citing such phrases as "entitlement society," "food stamp president," and "amnesty" for undocumented immigrants. But this language is not contained to GOP candidates; Williams' colleagues at Fox News routinely employ or echo these "racial code words."

Williams Notes GOP Employs "Code Words" To Deny "Responsibility For ... Racial Content"

Williams: "Code Words" Such As "Food Stamp President" Are Used By GOP To Deny "Responsibility For The Racial Content" Of Their Message. In a January 30 column in The Hill, Fox News contributor Juan Williams noted that GOP politicians use "code words" to "deny any responsibility for the racial content" of their message. Williams cited phrases such as "entitlement society," "food stamp president," and "amnesty" as examples of "[t]he language of GOP racial politics." From The Hill:

Race is always a trigger in politics, but now a third of the nation are people of color -- and their numbers are growing. With those minorities solidly in the Democratic camp and behind the first black president, the scene is set for a bonanza of racial politics.

The language of GOP racial politics is heavy on euphemisms that allow the speaker to deny any responsibility for the racial content of his message. The code words in this game are "entitlement society" -- as used by Mitt Romney -- and "poor work ethic" and "food stamp president" -- as used by Newt Gingrich. References to a lack of respect for the "Founding Fathers" and the "Constitution" also make certain ears perk up by demonizing anyone supposedly threatening core "old-fashioned American values."

The code also extends to attacks on legal immigrants, always carefully lumped in with illegal immigrants, as people seeking "amnesty" and taking jobs from Americans. 

But the code sometimes breaks down. [The Hill, 1/30/12]

Not Just The GOP Candidates: Williams' Colleagues At Fox Regularly Employ Or Echo These "Racial Code Words"

"FOOD STAMP PRESIDENT"

Eric Bolling Echoed Gingrich: Obama "Is The Food Stamp President." On the January 17 edition of Fox News' The Five, co-host Eric Bolling echoed statements made by GOP presidential candidate Newt Gingrich, saying of President Obama:

BOLLING: But he is the food stamp president. There I have no problem with this. Can I? Can I -- allow me, and I'll shut up the rest of the block. Obama has presided -- presided over the biggest expansion in food stamp usage, in numbers: in pure dollar amount, it went from $60 billion to an $83 billion program -- the fourth-largest entitlement program in America. Under Obama, it's exploded. Why can't he be -- and by the way, food stamps, there are more white people on food stamps than black people. So it's not a racial issue. [Fox News, The Five, 1/17/12, via Media Matters]

Dick Morris: "Newt Is Right. ... Obama Has Basically Put Everybody In The Country On Welfare." On the January 18 edition of Fox News' Hannity, Fox News contributor Dick Morris stated:

MORRIS: Newt is totally right. When Obama took office, there were 32 million people on food stamps. Now, there are 46 million. What Obama has done is, under Clinton, he cut the welfare rolls in half, and now Obama has basically put everybody in the country on welfare. [Fox News, Hannity, 1/18/12, via Media Matters]

Sean Hannity: "He Is The Food Stamp President. Look At The Numbers, They Speak For Themselves." Fox News host Sean Hannity pointed to increased food stamp usage to label Obama the "food stamp president," saying: "He is the food stamp president. Look at the numbers, they speak for themselves -- 32 million to 46 million, 12 million increase. Obama's policies have resulted in a lot more people being on food stamps. What's the problem?" [Fox News, Hannity, 1/18/12, via Media Matters]

Tucker Carlson: "More People Have Joined The Food Stamps Program Under Obama Than Any Other President." On Hannity, Fox News contributor Tucker Carlson praised Gingrich for the "great job" he did explaining why he thinks Obama is the "food stamp president," adding: "And more people have joined the food stamp program under Obama than any other president." [Fox News, Hannity, 1/17/12, via Media Matters]

Monica Crowley: Record Food Stamp Usage Is "A Direct Result Of The Obama Administration's Policies." On Fox News' America Live, Fox News contributor Monica Crowley argued:

CROWLEY: At this point, what Newt is saying is that this administration took a bad economy and made it so much worse, with policies that have really oppressed job creation, suppressed economic growth, to the point where people cannot find jobs. And also, you know, one thing he didn't say, which is the extension of unemployment benefits to 99 weeks and so on.

You know how the situation in America, Megyn, where you have record numbers of people not just on food stamps, 46 million, but record numbers of people on at least one or more social welfare programs, and that's a direct result of the Obama administration's policies. [Fox News, America Live, 1/18/12, via Media Matters]

"ENTITLEMENT SOCIETY"

O'Reilly: "The Campaign Is Really All About An Entitlement Society Versus A Self-Reliant One." On the January 6 edition of Fox News' The O'Reilly Factor, host Bill O'Reilly noted a decrease in the December unemployment rate but claimed: "Talking Points believes the American economy is improving slightly, but the big picture is federal spending and regulation, not decimal points on unemployment. As we said last night, the campaign is really all about an entitlement society versus a self-reliant one. And the struggle will be intense." [Fox News, The O'Reilly Factor, 1/6/12, via Media Matters]

O'Reilly: Obama, Dems Want "America To Become An Entitlement State." On the July 18, 2011, edition of The O'Reilly Factor, O'Reilly claimed:

O'REILLY: On one side, President Obama, the Democratic Party, want America to become an entitlement state that compels social justice, financially supporting Americans who can't or won't support themselves. On the other side, Republicans want a lean mean economic machine. The GOP doesn't much care about providing money to those who have not. The party wants to drastically cut government spending and promote private business to bolster the economy. [Fox News, The O'Reilly Factor, 7/18/11 via Media Matters]

Fox Business Unveiled Theme Of "Entitlement Nation: Makers Vs. Takers." Fox Business' website introduced the network's "week-long theme of 'Entitlement Nation: Makers vs. Takers' " on May 20, 2011, featuring the following graphic:

[FoxBusiness.com, 5/20/11]

"AMNESTY"

Guilfoyle: DREAM Act "Encourages People To Essentially Seek An Amnesty." On the November 23, 2010, edition of Fox News' The O'Reilly Factor, Fox News' Kimberly Guilfoyle claimed that the DREAM Act "incentivizes illegality and encourages people to essentially seek an amnesty by saying, 'Sure, I'm going to be in the military.'" [Fox News, The O'Reilly Factor, 11/23/10, via Media Matters]

Malkin Called DREAM Act "Reckless Illegal Alien Amnesty." On the December 2, 2010, edition of Fox News' Fox & Friends, Fox News contributor Michelle Malkin said: "There are so many political payoffs that are currently in the pipeline. Foremost among them, Harry Reid trying to ram through this very unpopular, expensive, and reckless illegal alien amnesty DREAM Act." [Fox News, Fox & Friends,12/2/10, via Media Matters]

Dobbs Claimed Obama's Border Efforts Are A "Foundation" For "Unconditional Amnesty."  On the August 9, 2010, edition of Fox News' America Live, guest and Fox Business host Lou Dobbs called a pending border security bill "a modest border security piece of legislation," and claimed "it would give [the Obama administration] the foundation to say, we did something about border security ... and then move ahead and have their way on the issue of unconditional amnesty." Dobbs later claimed that "we are not seeing a commitment to actual detention and apprehension." [Media Matters, 8/30/10]

Fox Nation Relabeled Immigration Bill "Amnesty Bill." In a July 9, 2009, post, Fox Nation linked to an Associated Press article about an upcoming immigration bill under the headline, "Schumer: Amnesty Bill Ready by Labor Day." The original AP headline was, "Schumer: Immigration bill to be ready by Labor Day." [Fox Nation, 7/9/09, via Media Matters]

Kelly: "A Group Of Republican Senators ... Are Demanding To Know If The Administration Plans To Grant Amnesty To 11 Million Illegals." On the July 27, 2010, edition of America Live, host Megyn Kelly said, "A group of Republican senators -- a dozen, to be exact -- are now demanding to know if the administration plans to grant amnesty to 11 million illegals here in the United States." [Fox News, America Live, 7/27/10, via Media Matters]

Fox News figures have been hyping the bankruptcy filing of high-tech battery manufacturer Ener1, blaming President Obama for its financial problems and claiming the case is "another Solyndra," referring to a solar panel company that went bankrupt last year. But experts have said the case is "no Solyndra," and in blaming Obama for Ener1's bankruptcy, Fox is ignoring a history of GOP support for the company -- including from Indiana Gov. Mitch Daniels, to whom Fox recently gave lavish praise.

Fox Hypes Ener1 Bankruptcy Filings As "Another Solyndra" For Obama

Kilmeade: "This Sounds Like Solyndra"; Varney: "It's A Major Embarrassment For The President's Green Energy Policy."  On the January 27 edition of Fox News' Fox & Friends, the co-hosts discussed Ener1's bankruptcy with guest and Fox Business host Stuart Varney. Co-host Brian Kilmeade said to Varney, "This sounds like Solyndra," and Varney replied, "It's another major embarrassment for the president's green energy policy." From the broadcast:

KILMEADE: Ener1 was given millions in stimulus dollars -- now it's bankrupt. The company's CEO citing insufficient customer demand. Stuart Varney is here. Stuart, this sounds like Solyndra.

VARNEY: It's another major embarrassment for the president's green energy policy. Solyndra, Beacon Power, and now Ener1. And by the way, Vice President Biden, in that same speech, went on later to refer to it as "Enron 1." ... So an embarrassment for President Obama's green energy policy, another couple of gaffes from Vice President Biden. The place is bankrupt.

[...]

VARNEY: Well, look, Ener1 is a child of the stimulus program. It got $118 million in grants, not loans, grants, to go forward. It is now bankrupt. It was supposed to employ 1,400 people by 2013. It doesn't. It employs 350.

[...]

VARNEY: It's another example of the government picking winners with our money. Unfortunately, they're losers, and we lose our money. [Fox News, Fox & Friends, 1/27/12]

MacCallum Calls Ener1 "Another Solyndra." On the January 27 edition of America's Newsroom, co-host Martha MacCallum introduced a segment on Ener1 by saying, "So it looks like we may have another Solyndra on our hands." She then discussed the company's bankruptcy with Varney. From the show:

MacCALLUM: So it looks like we may have another Solyndra on our hands. A third American energy company filing for bankruptcy after getting federally-backed funds from the Energy Department through the White House. Now, this time it is called Ener1, the parent company of an electric car battery maker. Seems that electric car battery sales have not been so hot. They received a $118 million grant back in 2009. Just last year, Vice President Biden praised the company when he was there touring their facility.

[...]

VARNEY: Well, obviously, this was an embarrassment for Vice President Biden. Not just [calling the company "Enron 1"] but promoting a company which got government money which went bankrupt within a year. It's also a very big disappointment for President Obama's green energy policy. As you said there, Martha, Ener1 makes batteries for plug-in cars. Very little demand for those batteries. The company is now bankrupt. It got a $118 million grant, not a loan -- it got a grant of $118 million. Spent about $55 million of it, and now it is in Chapter 11. It's not going away completely. It'll stay in business, protected from its creditors. This thing is not going to expand, and a lot of money, taxpayer money, is gone.

MacCALLUM: That's an unfortunate growing list of those energy companies. [Fox News, America's Newsroom, 1/27/12]

Fox's Kelly: Ener1 Bankruptcy Is Part Of "The High-Profile Failure Of A Couple Of [Green Technology] Firms, One Of Which ... Is Called Solyndra." On the January 27 edition of Fox News' America Live, host Megyn Kelly led a segment about Ener1's bankruptcy by saying, "This is the latest controversy over federal efforts to fund green technology companies, and the high-profile failure of a couple of these firms, one of which, of course you've heard of, is called Solyndra." From the broadcast:

KELLY: Well, the White House is taking questions today about an electric car battery company that just filed for bankruptcy after it got more than a hundred million dollars of taxpayer money. This is the latest controversy over federal efforts to fund green technology companies, and the high-profile failure of a couple of these firms, one of which, of course you've heard of, called Solyndra. Trace Gallagher is here with more on the latest company. Trace?

TRACE GALLAGHER (Fox News correspondent): Megyn, this is called Ener1, and as you said, this a company that makes electric batteries for electric cars. The Department of Energy gave Ener1 a $118 million grant. And depending on how this Chapter 11 bankruptcy restructuring goes, taxpayers could get some of that money back, could get it all back, then again they may lose that money. Critics are saying this kind of points to whether or not the Obama administration is doing its homework when it comes to investing in these types of companies. At the State of the Union address last year, the president pointed out this country [sic] as exactly the type that we should be investing in. One day after that speech, almost exactly one year ago today, the vice president visited the Ener1 plant in Greenfield, Indiana. The vice president was there, again, touting Ener1. [Fox News, America Live, 1/27/12]

Bolling: Ener1 Is "The Latest Green Mistake By The Obama Administration" And "Is Being Called Solyndra Two Or Is It Solyndra Three"? On the January 27 broadcast of Fox News' The Five, co-host Eric Bolling began the show by airing a clip of Obama admitting in an ABC interview that he makes mistakes, then went on to attack Obama for the bankruptcy of Ener1:

BOLLING: The top story tonight: the mistake maker-in-chief, President Obama and I can finally agree on something. Take a listen.

[begin video clip]

DIANE SAWYER (host, ABC's World News): You don't second guess yourself?

OBAMA: I second guess myself constantly. Look, I make a mistake, you know, every hour, every day. You know, there are always things that you're learning on the job, and I have no doubt that I'm a better president now than the day I took office, just because, you get more experience.

[end video clip]

BOLLING: I wonder if this is what the president was talking about.

[...]

BOLLING: That was VP Biden at Ener1. One year ago, the latest green mistake by the Obama administration, this one is being called Solyndra two or is it Solyndra three, whatever. The problem is when Obama makes a mistake, it costs taxpayers billions. [Fox News, The Five, 1/27/12, via Nexis]

But Experts Say Ener1 Is "No Solyndra" ...

Battery Industry Expert: "Ener1 Is No Solyndra." In a January 28 post on the blog The Energy Collective, James Greenberger, executive director of a trade association for advanced batteries, wrote that "the near future" "of Ener1 ... looks far different than that of Solyndra following its bankruptcy" and concluded, "This is no failure." From Greenberger's post:

This past Thursday the bad news coming out of Ener1 seemed to culminate in the filing of a Chapter 11 bankruptcy petition in the United States Bankruptcy Court in the Southern District of New York.

[...]

What was announced on Thursday was, however, not the worst (unless you happened to be a common stockholder of Ener1) and may even be grounds for some optimism.  The filing on Thursday was a "prepack", indicating that the major creditors of Ener1 have gotten together and agreed on a plan for Ener1 going forward.  Those creditors, including Liberty Harbor Special Investments of New York, Itochu Corp. of Tokyo and Goldman Sach's Palmetto State Credit Union of Florida, will exchange their debt for all of the stock of Ener1.  Trade creditors and employees will be paid in full.  Operations at EnerDel in Indianapolis will continue.  And most important, and most intriguingly, $81 million of new money will be invested in Ener1, according to the company's press release.

The future, or at least the near future, of Ener1, therefore, looks far different than that of Solyndra following its bankruptcy.  Operations at EnerDel will continue.  The technology and know-how that the $110 million DOE stimulus grants funded appears to remain intact.   The market has not rejected that technology.

[...]

By all accounts [Ener1's] technology and knowledge base appears secure and about to be doubled-down upon by $81 million of new investment.  This is no failure. [The Energy Collective, 1/28/12, emphasis added]

CNNMoney: "Unlike Bankrupt Solyndra ... Ener1 Promised Its Business Will Proceed As Usual." A January 26 CNNMoney article stated that "[u]nlike bankrupt Solynda ... Ener1 promised its business will proceed as usual." It went on to note, "The company said the 'voluntarily initiated' bankruptcy filing won't impact any of its subsidiaries, including EnerDel," the division that received a government grant. From the article:

Electric car battery maker Ener1 filed for bankruptcy Thursday, three years after receiving a $118.5 million grant from the U.S. government.

Ener1 (HEVV), which makes a variety of energy storage devices under different subsidiaries, is the parent company of EnerDel, the car battery division that received the government grant to help build a manufacturing plant in Indianapolis.

Unlike bankrupt Solyndra, the advanced solar panel maker that became a lightning rod for critics of Obama's stimulus spending when it closed its factory and liquidated, Ener1 promised its business will proceed as usual.

The company said the "voluntarily initiated" bankruptcy filing won't impact any of its subsidiaries, including EnerDel.

"The restructuring will not adversely impact their employees, customers and suppliers," the company said in a press release, noting there will be no layoffs as a result of the action.

The company blamed the bankruptcy on a slower than expected demand for electric vehicles.

Analysts have also said any electric car battery maker faces stiff competition from Asian firms, which are largely considered to be well ahead of the curve due to their long experience making batteries for electronics. Ener1 was thought to offer one of the best chances for an American company to compete in this field.

The company said that's still the case, and that the restructuring will allow it to reduce its debt and free up $81 million for capital spending. [CNNMoney.com, 1/26/12]

Reuters: Ener1 "Expects To Emerge From Chapter 11 Within 45 Days ... [Ener1 Says] No Jobs [Will] Be Lost Because Of The Filing." From a January 26 Reuters article:

Ener1 has $73.9 million of assets and $90.5 million of debts, according to its bankruptcy petition.

It filed a "prepackaged" reorganization plan that it said has support from enough creditors, and expects to emerge from Chapter 11 within 45 days.

It said the plan would slash long-term debt, provide up to $81 million of new equity financing, and allow it to honor its commitments, which it said include the provision of backup storage systems for the 2014 Winter Olympics.

Unsecured creditors would be paid in full, but holders of its 186.9 million shares would receive nothing, Ener1 said. No jobs would be lost because of the filing, it added.

Jen Stutsman, an Energy Department spokeswoman, called the bankruptcy "unfortunate," but said the proposed equity infusion "demonstrates that the technology has merit." [Reuters, 1/26/12]

Grist's David Roberts: "Substantively, Ener1's Restructuring Means Very Little." From a January 27 post on Grist:

You'll recall that ever since the Solyndra faux scandal, the right has been on the hunt for a "new Solyndra," another company that received help from the Dept. of Energy and subsequently went under. For a while the New Solyndra was going to be Fisker Automotive, for a while SunPower, but those attempts sank like a stone.

The latest candidate is lithium battery company Ener1, Inc., which just declared Chapter 11 bankruptcy as part of a long-term debt restructuring deal. Ener1′s subsidiary EnerDel received a $118.5 million grant as part of the stimulus bill. Rep. Cliff Stearns, the GOP's Solyndra point man, has a characteristically melodramatic statement out on it.

Substantively, Ener1′s restructuring means very little. As DOE spokesperson Damien LaVera pointed out, "This is one of 30 new advanced battery and electric vehicle component plants that the administration has invested in across the country." What matters is the success of the broad portfolio, and more important, the success of the industries and innovations the support is meant to stimulate. Of course there will be failures and setbacks along the way. In fact, Congress itself expected the DOE loan guarantee program to have a much higher failure rate than it has actually had; it set aside $2.4 billion in anticipation. That's the nature of supporting cutting-edge companies. [Grist, 1/27/12]

Green Car Reports: "Ener1 Files For Bankruptcy, But Isn't Dead." A January 30 post on High Gear Media's Green Car Reports site analyzed Ener1's financial history, then concluded that "unlike Solyndra and some other much-publicized green energy firms, Ener1's story doesn't look like it will end just yet." From the post:

But the real story of what happened to Ener1 goes beyond political posturing and back to the firm's connections with Norwegian electric automaker Think, maker of the diminutive two-seat Think City.

When Ener1 became the official supplier of battery packs to Think Global, Think had already been bankrupt twice before. 

[...]

Shortly after Ener1 became official battery supplier for the Think, it was hit with the news that Think was in dire financial crisis. To help out and secure its own future, Ener1 helped provide the majority of funds in a $5.69 million bridge loan to Think.

For better or worse, Ener1 became an investor in a firm whose business it relied on to survive, a symbiotic relationship which would eventually prove catastrophic.

[...]

By the time Think entered its third bankruptcy in June last year, Ener1 owned 48 percent of the firm, and was forced to write off over $73 million in losses and accounts receivable against Think.

At that point, Ener1's house of cards started to fall down, with its shares entering free-fall as the stock market reacted to its Think-inherited debt.

[...]

But unlike Solyndra and some other much-publicized green energy firms, Ener1's story doesn't look like it will end just yet. 

According to TheEnergyCollective, Ener1's Chapter 11 paperwork included details of how major creditors of Ener1 are already planning to write-off Ener1's debts against them in exchange for Ener1 shares. 

At that point, trade creditors and employees will be paid, Ener1's EnerDel facility in Indianapolis will continue to operate, and an additional $81 million of private investment will be given to the company. 

Ener1 may have inherited Think's debt, but it appears it has also inherited its abilities to rise again from the ashes of insolvency. [Green Car Reports, 1/30/12]

... And Fox Erased Ener1's GOP Support, Including That Of Gov. Mitch Daniels ...

Ener1 Press Release Notes "Bipartisan Cooperation By Senators Lugar and Bayh, and Gov. Daniels." In its August 2010 press release announcing the $118 million grant from the Energy Department, Ener1 credited GOP Gov. Mitch Daniels of Indiana for helping to secure its funding, along with then-Sen. Evan Bayh (D-IN) and Sen. Dick Lugar (R-IN):

Economic growth is not a Democratic or Republican issue. This effort has been a model of bi-partisan cooperation by Senators Richard Lugar and Evan Bayh, and by Governor Mitch Daniels," [EnerDel CEO Ulrik] Grape said. "Their support has been tremendously important." [Ener1 Press Release, 8/5/10]

USA Today: Former Ener1 CEO Said That "No Single Individual Has Been More Important To Us Than Gov. Mitch Daniels." A January 27 USA Today article, titled, "Obama critic backed bankrupt clean energy firm," noted that Daniels had "championed" Ener1 and quoted a former Ener1 CEO as saying, "No single individual has been more important to us than Gov. Mitch Daniels." From the article:

Daniels, a former budget director in the George W. Bush administration, has backed Ener1 for several years. Ener1 has also received support from Sens. Richard Lugar, a Republican, and former Sen. Evan Bayh, a Democrat, who wrote a joint letter to Energy Sec. Stephen Chu in June 2009 backing the DOE grant.

Daniels, however, has stood out among lawmakers in his backing of the company.

"No single individual has been more important to us than Gov. Mitch Daniels, our advocate in chief in Washington and on missions abroad," said former Ener1 CEO Charles Gassenheimer at a 2010 event to announce the joint venture with the Chinese auto parts company.

Jake Oakman, a spokesman for Daniels, said on Friday that the governor had no comment about the bankruptcy. [USA Today, 1/27/12]

Grist: "Latest Clean Energy Faux Scandal Engulfs GOP Spokesman Mitch Daniels" And Other GOP IN Politicians. The January 27 Grist post described the support for Ener1 and its EnerDel division from several GOP Indiana politicians, including Daniels, Lugar, and Rep. Dan Burton. From the post:

In a shocking turn of events, Republicans have turned on the very man they chose to speak for them this week in response to Obama's State of the Union address -- Indiana Gov. Mitch Daniels. He is taking a drubbing in the conservosphere, but what's most peculiar about the scandal that threatens to engulf him is that Republicans don't seem aware that they're attacking him.

[...]

Sen. Richard Lugar (R-Ind.) was a key advocate for EnerDel. He visited its factory in 2008 and said, "Fostering research for advanced batteries should receive high priority as part of our nation's effort to develop a diversity of energy sources." Here he is acknowledging the risks but saying that companies like EnerDel represent the future:

[...]

Lugar and Sen. Evan Bayh (D-Ind.) sent a letter to energy secretary Steven Chu in 2009 that cites EnerDel's application for a loan under the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007, as well as its more recent application for funding under the stimulus bill, and says, "We add our individual voices to urge its favorable consideration." Egg on their face!

Of course everyone knows Lugar's a big RINO. What's perhaps more surprising is the heretofore undetected socialism hiding in the heart of hyper-conservative Rep. Dan Burton (R-Ind.), who in 2007 called EnerDel "the wave of the future ... cutting edge technology [that] will help relieve our dependency on foreign oil." Here he is bragging on the company's DOE partnership. Whoopsy.

[...]

Hm ... anyone else? Oh yes, here's one. In 2008, the "Indiana Economic Development Corporation offered EnerDel up to $7.125 million in performance-based tax credits and up to $58,000 in training grants." Those tax credits were unveiled by none other than Indiana Gov. Mitch Daniels ...

[...]

Fox News is not going to be happy about this. [Grist, 1/27/12]

HuffPo: Daniels' Administration Granted Ener1 Over $7 Million In Tax Credits And "Praised It Effusively." In a January 26 article, The Huffington Post reported that Ener1 received "extensive aid" from Daniels, noting that his administration "granted the firm ... more than $7 million in tax credits." From the article:

Ener1 got a $118 million grant from the federal government in 2009. But it also got extensive aid from the Indiana Republican governor who delivered the GOP response to Obama's Tuesday address -- Gov. Mitch Daniels.

Daniels' administration granted the firm, which makes its batteries in Indiana, more than $7 million in tax credits, and praised it effusively.

"Eight hundred fifty jobs of any kind is great news," Daniels said at the time, in August 2008. "When those jobs are in a technology of tomorrow, like electric cars, it offers the prospect of even bigger news to follow. Indiana has what it takes to lead this automotive revolution and today is step one." [Huffington Post, 1/26/12]

Bloomberg Businessweek: "Ener1's Grant Application Received Bipartisan Support From Indiana Lawmakers" And Ener1 Received Millions In Grants "Under The George W. Bush Administration." A January 26 Bloomberg Businessweek article noted that the Ener1 grants received "bipartisan support from Indiana lawmakers" and went on to state that "the company got a $6.5 million Energy Department advanced-battery grant and a $4 million Defense Department research and development contract under the George W. Bush administration." [Bloomberg Businessweek, 1/26/12]

... Whom Fox Figures Fawned Over After His SOTU Response

Chris Wallace On Daniels: "A Star Is Born." During Fox Broadcasting's January 24 State of the Union coverage, Fox News Sunday host Chris Wallace said that Daniels' response to President Obama's address was a "strong speech" and that "some of these responses from Republicans and Democrats fall flat; some of them, like [Daniels'], you'd say a star is born." Wallace concluded: "I think some people are going to be looking at that speech and saying, 'Why isn't he running for president?' " [Fox Broadcasting Co.'s State of the Union coverage, 1/24/12, via Media Matters]

For more examples of Fox figures fawning over Daniels, SEE HERE.

After reportedly rejecting a climate change essay by 255 members of the National Academy of Sciences in 2010, the Wall Street Journal has published a flawed op-ed by 16 scientists and engineers instructing public officials not to fight manmade global warming. But most of these individuals do not actually conduct climate research, and their credibility is further undermined by the misleading and unscientific arguments presented in the op-ed.

WSJ Publishes Op-Ed By 16 Scientists -- But Most Of Them Don't Actually Conduct Climate Research

WSJ Op-Ed Vaguely Argues Against Doing "Something Dramatic" About Climate Change. The Journal published a January 27 op-ed signed by 16 scientists and engineers, many retired, titled "No Need to Panic About Global Warming." The op-ed directs candidates for public office not to do "something dramatic" to address man-made climate change. It then offers several fallacies -- such as 'plants love CO2' -- to dismiss the serious threats posed by climate change, compares climate scientists to Soviet scientists who "condemned to death" dissenting biologists in the 1940s, and suggests that scientists are concerned about climate change because they want "government funding for academic research and a reason for government bureaucracies to grow." Without offering any evidence, the op-ed also claims that a "growing number of distinguished scientists and engineers" believe governments should not take action on climate change. [Wall Street Journal, 1/27/12]

Most Of The Scientists Who Signed The Op-Ed Do Not Actually Publish Peer-Reviewed Climate Research. Of the 16 scientists who signed the op-ed, no more than 4 have published peer-reviewed research related to climate change, according to the Scopus database. While they may be prominent in their own fields, their credibility on the science of global warming is not comparable to that of researchers who specialize in this area. For instance, Jan Breslow is a physician, Burt Rutan is a retired airplane designer, Harrison Schmitt is a retired astronaut and former Republican politician, and Edward David is a retired electrical engineer, among others whose expertise lies elsewhere. 

But the most amazing and telling evidence of the bias of the Wall Street Journal in this field is the fact that 255 members of the United States National Academy of Sciences wrote a comparable (but scientifically accurate) essay on the realities of climate change and on the need for improved and serious public debate around the issue, offered it to the Wall Street Journal, and were turned down. [Forbes.com, 1/27/12]

Six Of The Scientists Have Been Linked To Fossil Fuel Interests. Roger Cohen and Edward David are both former employees of ExxonMobil. William Happer is the Chairman of the Board for the George C. Marshall Institute, which has received funding from Exxon. Rodney Nichols is also on the boards of the George Marshall Institute and the Manhattan Institute, which has been funded by Exxon and the Koch Foundations. Harrison Schmitt was the Chairman Emeritus of the Annapolis Center for Science-Based Public Policy, which was funded by oil refiners and electric utilities in the 1990s, according to a Wall Street Journal report (via Nexis). Richard Lindzen also served on the Economic Advisory Council of the Center, was funded by ExxonMobil through the 2000s.

Scientists Behind The Op-Ed Have Made Some Colorful Claims.

Vocal Minority Of "Experts" Also Denies Second-Hand Smoke Risks, HIV-AIDS Link

Tobacco Industry Recruited Scientists To Obscure Health Effects Of Second-Hand Smoke. From a 2009 article in the European Journal of Public Health:

Denialism is a process that employs some or all of five characteristic elements in a concerted way. The first is the identification of conspiracies. When the overwhelming body of scientific opinion believes that something is true, it is argued that this is not because those scientists have independently studied the evidence and reached the same conclusion. It is because they have engaged in a complex and secretive conspiracy. The peer review process is seen as a tool by which the conspirators suppress dissent, rather than as a means of weeding out papers and grant applications unsupported by evidence or lacking logical thought.

[...]

The second is the use of fake experts. These are individuals who purport to be experts in a particular area but whose views are entirely inconsistent with established knowledge. They have been used extensively by the tobacco industry since 1974, when a senior executive with R J Reynolds devised a system to score scientists working on tobacco in relation to the extent to which they were supportive of the industry's position. The industry embraced this concept enthusiastically in the 1980s when a senior executive from Philip Morris developed a strategy to recruit such scientists (referring to them as 'Whitecoats') to help counteract the growing evidence on the harmful effects of second-hand smoke. This activity was largely undertaken through front organizations whose links with the tobacco industry were concealed, but under the direction of law firms acting on behalf of the tobacco industry. In some countries, such as Germany, the industry created complex and influential networks, allowing it to delay the implementation of tobacco control policies for many years. [European Journal of Public Health, January 2009]

Those Who Deny Link Between HIV And AIDS Also Claim To Have Scientists On Their Side. From a July 2009 New Scientist report:

The origins of the AIDS denialism movement can be traced back to 1987, four years after the discovery of HIV. Peter Duesberg was then a renowned researcher at the University of California, Berkeley, who had shown that some cancers were triggered by retroviruses. In March that year, Duesberg performed an about-face, publishing an article in which he questioned his original finding that retroviruses caused cancer, and also whether HIV (another retrovirus, although not one that he had studied) caused AIDS.

At the time, HIV science was in its infancy, and Duesberg was not the only mainstream scientist to speculate whether AIDS was actually caused by lifestyle factors such as taking drugs, for example. Indeed, New Scientist published Duesberg's manifesto of dissent in 1988.

"Duesberg did get laypeople's attention, and they, in turn, got him scientific attention," says University of California sociologist, Steven Epstein, author of Impure Science, a book on AIDS research. "Credibility was cycled back and forth."

As the clinical and epidemiological evidence linking HIV with AIDS accrued, however, support for denialism among mainstream scientists fell away. In the mid-1990s came the clincher. Cocktails of ART [antiretroviral therapy] were found to halt the replication of HIV and reverse and prevent the development of AIDS. By the end of 1996, doctors in the west were witnessing the "Lazarus effect": AIDS patients who had been mortally ill were rising from their beds, putting on jackets and ties, and reporting for work.

[...]

Denialism in the west continued to limp along, attracting a following of conspiracy theorists, attention seekers, peddlers of pseudoscience and HIV patients in denial. The movement's leaders vary in their credibility. Duesberg's most vocal supporter is David Rasnick, a former biochemist who makes much of his research background, as he once studied a group of enzymes called proteases. HIV possesses a protease enzyme, and protease inhibitors represent a key class of ART drugs. However Rasnick only worked on rat proteases, never on HIV's.

Then there is Henry Bauer, a retired chemistry and life sciences professor at Virginia State University in Petersburg, who edits the Journal of Scientific Exploration. This publishes research on such topics as alien abductions and telepathy. Before dabbling in virology, Bauer was a leading authority on the existence of the Loch Ness monster. [New Scientist, 7/31/09]

Anti-Vaccine Movement Also Supported By "'Contrary' Expertise." From a May 2009 article in PLoS Biology:

Until the summer of 2005, Sharon Kaufman had never paid much attention to the shifting theories blaming vaccines for a surge in reported cases of autism. Kaufman, a medical anthropologist at the University of California, San Francisco, knew that the leading health institutions in the United States had reviewed the body of evidence, and that they found no reason to think vaccines had anything to do with autism. But when she read that scientists and public officials who commented on the studies routinely endured malevolent emails, abusive phone calls, and even death threats, she took notice.

[...]

Kaufman thinks the problem is more immediate than bridging the gap between lay and expert understanding of risk. Parents treated theoretical risk as fact even as scientists tested, and ultimately rejected, the possibility that thimerosal might harm children. Thinking the institutions that were supposed to protect them from risk failed, Kaufman says, people now do their own research. But instead of leading to more certainty, she explains, "collecting more information actually increases doubt."

With the explosion of "contrary" expertise online, Kaufman says, "many parents see even the most respected vaccine experts' perspective on the issue as just one more opinion." The bulk of antivaccination Web sites present themselves as legitimate sources of scientific information, using pseudoscientific claims and emotional appeals, according to a 2002 study in Archives of Disease in Childhood. Making matters worse, the study found, nearly all sites adopted an "us versus them" approach, casting doctors and scientists as either "willing conspirators cashing in on the vaccine 'fraud' or pawns of a shadowy vaccine combine." Parents' intuitive views about vaccines were elevated above "cold, analytical science." Accounts of children "maimed or killed by vaccines" were common--a finding that may help explain why those who advocate immunization receive death threats. [Public Library of Science, May 2009]

Op-Ed Tries To Use 10 Years Of Data To Refute Long-Term Trend

WSJ Op-Ed Misleadingly Cites "Lack Of Global Warming For Well Over 10 Years Now." The Wall Street Journal op-ed argues that policymakers shouldn't be concerned about global warming. It claims: "Perhaps the most inconvenient fact is the lack of global warming for well over 10 years now." [Wall Street Journal, 1/27/12]

Independent Temperature Study: We Can't Make Conclusions About Long-Term Trends Based On "Periods As Short As 13 to 15 Years." From the Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature project, which independently verified the long-term warming trend in land temperature data:

Some people draw a line segment covering the period 1998 to 2010 and argue that we confirm no temperature change in that period. However, if you did that same exercise back in 1995, and drew a horizontal line through the data for 1980 to 1995, you might have falsely concluded that global warming had stopped back then. This exercise simply shows that the decadal fluctuations are too large to allow us to make decisive conclusions about long term trends based on close examination of periods as short as 13 to 15 years. [Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature Study, accessed 1/30/12]

The Last Decade Was The Warmest On Record. Discovery News reported on November 29:

Thirteen of the warmest years recorded have occurred within the last decade and a half, the UN's World Meteorological Organization said on Tuesday.

[...]

The 2002-2011 period equals 2001-2010 as the warmest decade since 1850, the report said.

2011 ranks as the 10th warmest year since 1850, when accurate measurements began.

This was true despite a La Nina event -- one of the strongest in 60 years -- that developed in the tropical Pacific in the second half of 2010 and continued until May 2011. [Discovery News, 11/19/12]

The following chart from NOAA shows decadal averages since the beginning of the instrumental temperature record:

[NOAA, accessed 8/26/11]

The following chart from Skeptical Science shows the perils of cherry-picking the temperature data:

[SkepticalScience.com, 11/5/11]

Yale Economist: Op-Ed Includes "Complete Mischaracterization Of My Work"

WSJ Op-Ed Cited William Nordhaus To Argue Against Government Action On Climate. From the Wall Street Journal op-ed:

Even if one accepts the inflated climate forecasts of the IPCC, aggressive greenhouse-gas control policies are not justified economically.

A recent study of a wide variety of policy options by Yale economist William Nordhaus showed that nearly the highest benefit-to-cost ratio is achieved for a policy that allows 50 more years of economic growth unimpeded by greenhouse gas controls. [Wall Street Journal, 1/27/12]

Nordhaus: "This Is A Complete Mischaracterization Of My Work." Nordhaus stated via email:

This is a complete mischaracterization of my work. I have repeatedly called for restraints on CO2 and other GHG emissions. The most beneficial policies are ones with a modest near-term and sharply rising carbon price. The weasel word is "nearly," which allows them to make an inaccurate and misleading statement. [Email exchange, 1/27/12]

Op-ed Argues That Higher CO2 Levels Benefit Plants

WSJ Op-Ed Argues That CO2 Benefits Plants. From the Wall Street Journal op-ed:

The fact is that CO2 is not a pollutant. CO2 is a colorless and odorless gas, exhaled at high concentrations by each of us, and a key component of the biosphere's life cycle. Plants do so much better with more CO2 that greenhouse operators often increase the CO2 concentrations by factors of three or four to get better growth. This is no surprise since plants and animals evolved when CO2 concentrations were about 10 times larger than they are today. Better plant varieties, chemical fertilizers and agricultural management contributed to the great increase in agricultural yields of the past century, but part of the increase almost certainly came from additional CO2 in the atmosphere. [Wall Street Journal, 1/27/11]

Skeptical Science: This Argument Relies On The Fallacy Of Exclusion. A Skeptical Science post explains:

A quick look at the science behind this argument demonstrates its inherent weaknesses. In closed, controlled environments, like greenhouses and plant nurseries, an increase in CO2 does indeed spur plant growth. However, the globe is not a controlled environment, and it's incredible sensitivity to a variety of factors is something that is often taken for granted when such narrow arguments are proffered. A rise in CO2 levels is not the only consequence of climate change, and it is these other effects that have had and will have more abiding adverse effects on plant growth around the world.

While CO2 is an important element that stimulates plant growth, the planet's flora requires a cocktail of elements to maintain its health. Arguably the most important of these elements is water. With the global increase in temperature caused by the various factors affecting our climate's balance, increased evaporation means decreased soil moisture. Another effect of global climate change is erratic precipitation patterns. This causes extreme weather in certain geographic locations only sporadically, with overall, balanced rainfall drastically reduced.

[...]

[A]t its most basic level, the CO2 plant food argument rests on a simple logical fallacy--the fallacy of exclusion, which focuses on one cause-and-effect (in this case, more CO2 means more plants) to the exclusion of all other cause-and-effect chains. [Skeptical Science, 7/1/2010]

IPCC: Rising Temps. Will Put "20-30% Of Plant And Animal Species At Risk Of Extinction." The IPCC's 4th Assessment Report concludes:

Approximately 20-30% of plant and animal species assessed so far are likely to be at increased risk of extinction if increases in global average temperature exceed 1.5-2.5°C.

For increase in global average temperature exceeding 1.5-2.5°C and in concomitant atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations, there are projected to be major changes in ecosystem structure and function, species; ecological interactions, and species; geographical ranges, with predominantly negative consequences for biodiversity, and ecosystem goods and services e.g., water and food supply. [IPCC 4th Assessment Report, Summary for Policymakers, 2007]

National Research Council: Effects Of Climate Change "Pose Significant Risks To Both Human And Ecological Systems." From a 2010 report by the National Research Council:

Scientific evidence that the Earth is warming is now overwhelming. There is also a multitude of evidence that this warming results primarily from human activities, especially burning fossil fuels and other activities that release heat-trapping greenhouse gases (GHGs) into the atmosphere. Projections of future climate change indicate that Earth will continue to warm unless significant and sustained actions are taken to limit emissions of GHGs. Increasing temperatures and GHG concentrations are driving a multitude of related and interacting changes in the Earth system, including decreases in the amounts of ice stored in mountain glaciers and polar regions, increases in sea level, changes in ocean chemistry, and changes in the frequency and intensity of heat waves, precipitation events, and droughts. These changes in turn pose significant risks to both human and ecological systems. Although the details of how the future impacts of climate change will unfold are not as well understood as the basic causes and mechanisms of climate change, we can reasonably expect that the consequences of climate change will be more severe if actions are not taken to limit its magnitude and adapt to its impacts. [National Research Council, 2010]

WSJ Op-Ed Whitewashes Infamous Climate Research Paper

Op-Ed Claims 2003 Paper In Climate Research Was "Factually Correct." From the Wall Street Journal op-ed:

Although the number of publicly dissenting scientists is growing, many young scientists furtively say that while they also have serious doubts about the global-warming message, they are afraid to speak up for fear of not being promoted--or worse. They have good reason to worry. In 2003, Dr. Chris de Freitas, the editor of the journal Climate Research, dared to publish a peer-reviewed article with the politically incorrect (but factually correct) conclusion that the recent warming is not unusual in the context of climate changes over the past thousand years. The international warming establishment quickly mounted a determined campaign to have Dr. de Freitas removed from his editorial job and fired from his university position. Fortunately, Dr. de Freitas was able to keep his university job. [Wall Street Journal, 1/27/11]

In Fact, The Climate Research Editors And Publisher Conceded That The Paper Should Not Have Been Published. The op-ed refers to a 2003 paper by Willie Soon and Sallie Baliunas that was published in the journal Climate Research. The New York Times reported on August 5, 2003, that the Soon-Baliunas paper "has been heavily criticized by many scientists, including several of the journal editors. The editors said last week that whether or not the conclusions were correct, the analysis was deeply flawed." The Times further noted that the "publisher of the journal, Dr. Otto Kinne, and an editor who recently became editor in chief, Dr. Hans von Storch, both said that in retrospect the paper should not have been published as written" and that von Storch resigned, "saying he disagreed with the peer-review policies."  [New York Times, 8/5/03]

2003 Paper Was Partially Funded By The American Petroleum Institute. The Wall Street Journal op-ed accuses climate scientists of skewing their research in order to secure funding from the government, stating "a good place to start is the old question 'cui bono?' Or the modern update, 'Follow the money.'" It then goes on to discuss the 2003 Soon-Baliunas paper without noting that the study "was in part underwritten by $53,000 from the American Petroleum Institute, the voice of the oil industry," as reported by the Times. In addition, both Soon and Baliunas were employed by the George Marshall Institute. [New York Times, 8/5/03]

WSJ Ramping Up Climate Change Misinformation

Two Days Before Scientists' Op-Ed, WSJ Published Column Denying Evidence Of Harmful Climate Change. On January 25, Wall Street Journal editorial writer Holman Jenkins, Jr. published a column falsely claiming that "the evidence has thus far eluded the tens of billions spent on climate science" and "the known relationship between carbon and climate doesn't actually indicate a big reason to worry." [Wall Street Journal, 1/25/12]

Despite a long history of scapegoating lower-income families and those in need, media conservatives continuously attack President Obama's proposals by shouting "class warfare." In fact, the majority of Americans support reforms that would address systematic inequality.

Right-Wing Media Drum Beat: Obama Engages In "Class Warfare"

Limbaugh: "Fairness" Is "A Code Word For Class Warfare." Reacting to President Obama's State of the Union address, Rush Limbaugh criticized Obama for discussing "fairness" during the State of the Union address, saying: "That's a code word for class warfare." [Premiere Radio Networks, The Rush Limbaugh Show, 1/26/2012]

Click here for more examples of right-wing media accusing Obama of "class warfare" in his State of the Union address

Fox Blasted Obama's Speech On Inequality By Accusing Him Of "Class Warfare." Fox News figures responded to Obama's December 6, 2011, speech on inequality in American by accusing him of engaging in class warfare. [Media Matters, 12/6/11]

Click here for more examples of right-wing media claiming that Obama engages in class warfare

But It's Media Conservatives Who Regularly Attack Lower-Income Americans And Those In Need

Fox & Friends Called For Tax Hike On The Poor. During the January 25 edition of Fox & Friends, co-hosts Gretchen Carlson, Brian Kilmeade, and Steve Doocy advocated for raising income taxes on the poor:

CARLSON: I think, so when the president says "fair share" there's a couple points here, and earlier last hour I said maybe there should be a disclaimer underneath, which is the reason that we're putting up this graphic for you. Because if in fact you're paying tax on ordinary income, and you're in the highest tax bracket, then you're paying 30-some percent. But then if you take that money that you've already paid taxes on, and you go and invest and you make a profit, a long-term profit, more than a year of investment, then you pay another 15% on top of that. And by the way, with the "fair share" argument, 47% of Americans don't pay federal income tax.

KILMEADE: That didn't get into the State of the Union.

CARLSON: But that didn't get into it, but that is also part of the fair share. So if we are going to be fair to everyone, should those people then starting paying at least something?

DOOCY: Kick in a buck, kick in something!

KILMEADE: And in many cases some are getting refunds on money they haven't earned, They go beyond the money they earned for the year come April, so that's where a lot of that tax money's going. [Fox News, Fox & Friends, 1/25/12]

Fox Business Pitted The "Takers" Of "Government Handouts" Against The "Makers." After a National Bureau of Economic Research study concluded that social safety net programs, including Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid, were highly effective at keeping people out of poverty, Fox Business launched a week-long series pitting the "takers" of "government handouts" against the "makers" in the economy. [Media Matters,5/24/11]

Fox Business Scolded Poor People For Not Being Ashamed Of Their Poverty. During the May 19 edition of Fox Business' Varney & Co., host Stuart Varney attacked anti-poverty programs as evidence that the U.S. now has an "entitlement mentality." Fox commentator Charles Payne then scolded people in poverty for not being "embarrassed" about needing public assistance:

PAYNE: Krystal [Ball], there's no doubt that these are good programs. I think the real narrative here, though, is that people aren't embarrassed by it. People aren't ashamed by it. In other words, the there was a time when people were embarrassed to be on food stamps; there was a time when people were embarrassed to be on unemployment for six months, let alone demanding to be on it for more than two years.

I think that's what Stu is trying to say, is that, when the president says Wall Street is at fault, so, you are entitled to get anything that you want from the government, because it's not really your fault. No longer is the man being told to look in the mirror and cast down a judgment on himself; it's someone else's fault. So food stamps, unemployment, all of this stuff, is something that they probably earned in some indirect way. [Fox Business, Varney & Co., 5/19/11, via Media Matters]

Fox's Stuart Varney On Low-Income Americans: "Many Of Them Have Things -- What They Lack Is The Richness Of Spirit." During the August 25 edition of Fox Business' Varney & Co. at Night, host Stuart Varney hyped a Heritage Foundation study showing that many Americans in poverty own appliances, saying: "The image we have of poor people as starving and living in squalor really is not accurate. Many of them have things -- what they lack is the richness of spirit. That's my opinion." [Fox Business, Varney & Co. at Night, 8/25/11, via Media Matters]

Right-Wing Media Routinely Attack Low-Income Americans As "Lazy" Or "Having Poor Work Habits." In a July 2010 post at The American Spectator, conservative pundit and frequent Fox News guest Ben Stein wrote: "The people who have been laid off and cannot find work are generally people with poor work habits and poor personalities." A month later, Stein repeated his attack, writing:

[A]s I noted before, in my small circle of friends, anyone who has good work skills and a decent personality can get a job. I am not talking about the national scene. Just my little world. The chronic complainers and the malcontents and the unrealistic are the ones who cannot find work they want. The people who really want to work can get work. It might not be great work, but it's work. [The American Spectator, 7/19/10, 8/27/10, via Media Matters]

Fox Nation And Wash. Times On Occupy Wall Street And Its Demands: "Don't Feed The Lazy." A November 18, 2011, op-ed in The Washington Times, titled, "Don't feed the lazy," which was hyped by Fox Nation, claimed that "Occupy Wall Street's demands undermine real compassion." The op-ed stated:

It is interesting to note that according to the Bible, one of the criteria for receiving aid was a willingness to work. Entitlement was not an option. The Apostle Paul wrote, "For even when we were with you, we would give you this command: If anyone is not willing to work, let him not eat."

Paul is not being cruel or heartless in this passage. He is expressing a truth that those who are able but unwilling to work should be disqualified from receiving charitable help, thereby allowing their natural need for food to drive their effort to work. This is a profound and often overlooked financial principle.

[...]

Attitudes toward poverty, debt and entitlement make reaching common ground with those in the Occupy Wall Street movement difficult. Compared to many around the world, they live in relative comfort, with access to food, shelter and liberty. But rather than embracing equal opportunity, they seem to clamor for equal outcomes.

[...]

Perhaps it is time for the Occupy Wall Street movement to reflect on the words of Paul: "If anyone is not willing to work, let him not eat." [The Washington Times, 11/18/11; Fox Nation, 11/21/11]

Moreover, Warren Buffett Has Admitted That It's "The Rich Class That's Making War"

Warren Buffett On CNN: "There Has Been Class Warfare For The Last 20 Years, And My Class Has Won." From CNN Correspondent Alison Kosik's September 30, 2011, interview with investor Warren Buffett:

KOSIK: Mr. Buffett, let's talk taxes for a moment. You know, you have been very outspoken about millionaires, about the uber-rich paying their fair share of taxes. But since, you know, since the portion of their taxes really isn't going to make a huge dent in the deficit, are you happy seeing your suggestion, this new Buffet rule, becoming more of a basis of a political battle that really -- that really has turned into class warfare?

BUFFETT: Well, no, actually, there has been class warfare going on for the last 20 years, and my class has won. We are the ones that got our tax rates reduced dramatically. [CNN, 9/30/11]

Buffett: "There Has Been Class Warfare Waged, And My Class Has Won." In a November 2011 interview with Business Wire CEO Cathy Baron Tamraz, Buffett again said, "Through the tax code, there has been class warfare waged, and my class has won," adding, "It's been a rout." Huffington Post reported:

The billionaire investor, cited as the third-richest person in the world by Forbes, said in an interview with the CEO of BusinessWire -- a unit of Buffett's own conglomerate Berkshire Hathaway that publishes press releases -- that while there have been improvements in some areas of the economy, many others haven't fared so well.

Winners, Buffett says, include corporations, who have seen good equity returns, as well as the wealthiest American citizens. The losers? The housing market and average American worker.

"Through the tax code, there has been class warfare waged, and my class has won," Buffett told Business Wire CEO Cathy Baron Tamraz at a luncheon in honor of the company's 50th anniversary. "It's been a rout." [Huffington Post, 11/15/11]

Gates: "People Like Myself" Aren't "Paying As Much As They Should." In a January 25 interview with the BBC, Bill Gates said, "Right now, I don't feel like people like myself are paying as much as they should":

GATES: Well the United States has a huge budget deficit, so taxes are going to have to go up. And I certainly agree that they should go up more on the rich than everyone else. That's just justice.

BBC HOST: Is that a message you think that works with other people as wealthy as yourself, or is it just a small circle of friends -- yourself, Warren Buffet, a few others.

GATES: Well, I hope we can solve that deficit problem with a sense of shared sacrifice -- where everybody would feel like they're doing their part. And right now, I don't feel like people like myself are paying as much as we should. [Think Progress, 1/25/12]

And Most Americans Support Policies That Would Increase Taxes On Millionaires

Study: Millionaires Support Raising Taxes On The Rich. The Wall Street Journal reported on a Spectrem Group survey which found that 68 percent of millionaires support raising taxes on those who earn $1 million or more per year:

Warren Buffett isn't the only rich guy who wants to higher taxes on the rich.

A new survey from Spectrem Group found that 68% of millionaires (those with investments of $1 million or more)  support raising taxes on those with $1 million or more in income. Fully 61% of those with net worths of $5 million or more support the tax on million-plus earners. [The Wall Street Journal, 10/27/11]

CBS/NY Times Poll: Most Americans Say Investment Income Should Be Taxed At Same Rate As Earned Income. A CBS/New York Times poll found that a majority of Americans support taxing capital gains and dividends at the same rate as work income. From the article headlined: "Most Americans agree with 'Buffett rule' Concept":

The government taxes income earned through investments at a lower tax rate income earned from working, but half of Americans think that should change, according to a new CBS News/New York Times poll.

[...]

[Fifty-two] percent of Americans say that capital gains and dividends should be taxed at the same rate as income earned from work because the current policy increases the federal deficit and is unfair to people who don't have money to invest, according to the poll. Thirty-six percent approve of the current policy of taxing capital gains at a lower rate because it encourages investment and helps the economy.

[CBS News, 1/24/12]

National Journal Poll: Most Americans Supported Democratic Surtax Proposal. In its October 2011 poll, National Journal found that "a whopping 68 percent of adults support the Democratic surtax" on those earning more than $1 million annually:

Those surveyed were asked about a possible 5 percent surtax on those earning more than $1 million annually. The idea got considerable discussion earlier this fall when Congress considered President Obama's jobs package. Senate Republicans united against the bill and were joined by some Democrats, making it impossible for the measure to pass in a chamber where 60-vote majorities have become the norm because of filibustering. Still, a whopping 68 percent of adults support the Democratic surtax to pay for the cost of their jobs plan. [National Journal, 10/19/11]

SEIU Poll: Nearly Three Quarters Of Americans Support Tax Increases On Wealthy. In September, 2011, Talking Points Memo reported on a Daily Kos/SEIU poll which found that an overwhelming majority of respondents support the "Buffett Rule":

In the first public polling available on the so-called "Buffett Rule" specifically -- the proposal to raise taxes on millionaires advocated by billionaire investor Warren Buffett -- Daily Kos/SEIU's weekly "State of the Nation" survey asked the following: Do you support or oppose ensuring that people who make over a million dollars a year pay the same percentage of taxes or more on their total income as those who make less than a million dollars a year?

The answer wasn't close. 73 percent supported the idea, versus 16 percent who did not, and 11 percent who were unsure. The poll was of 1,000 registered voters. [Talking Points Memo, 9/27/11]

Fox figures have suggested that President Obama is anti-Catholic or anti-religion following the administration's recent decision requiring church-affiliated organizations to provide health insurance plans that cover contraceptives for women. But polling has shown that a majority of Catholics have said that insurance policies should cover contraceptives; moreover, the Obama administration has repeatedly engaged the faith-based community -- including Catholic leaders -- and has directed millions in funding to religious groups. This follow's Fox's long history of portraying Obama as hostile toward religion.

Obama Admin. Reaffirms Health Care Insurers Must Cover Contraception

NYT: "Obama Reaffirms Insurers Must Cover Contraception." From a January 20 article in The New York Times:

The Obama administration said Friday that most health insurance plans must cover contraceptives for women free of charge, and it rejected a broad exemption sought by the Roman Catholic Church for insurance provided to employees of Catholic hospitals, colleges and charities.

Federal officials said they would give such church-affiliated organizations one additional year -- until Aug. 1, 2013 -- to comply with the requirement. Most other employers and insurers must comply by this Aug. 1.

Leaders of the Roman Catholic Church had personally appealed to President Obama to grant the broad exemption. He made the final decision on the issue after hearing from them, as well as from family planning advocates, scientific experts and members of Congress, administration officials said.

The rule takes a big step to remove cost as a barrier to birth control, a longtime goal of advocates for women's rights and experts on women's health.

[...]

Catholic bishops issued a statement saying they would fight the "edict" from the government.

"In effect, the president is saying we have a year to figure out how to violate our consciences," said Archbishop Timothy M. Dolan of New York, the president of the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops.

[...]

The rule includes an exemption for certain "religious employers," including houses of worship. But church groups said the exemption was so narrow that it was almost meaningless. A religious employer cannot qualify for the exemption if it employs or serves large numbers of people of a different faith, as many Catholic hospitals, universities and social service agencies do.

[...]

The 2010 health care law says insurers must cover "preventive health services" and cannot charge for them.

The new rule interprets this mandate. It requires coverage of the full range of contraceptive methods approved by the Food and Drug Administration. Among the drugs and devices that must be covered are emergency contraceptives including pills known as ella and Plan B. The rule also requires coverage of sterilization procedures for women without co-payments or deductibles. [The New York Times, 1/20/12]

Fox Reacts To Ruling By Painting Obama As Anti-Catholic

Fox Panelists Use Contraception Regulation To Advance Obama Anti-Catholic Smear. On the January 25 edition of Fox Business' Follow the Money, host Eric Bolling and a panel of guests attacked Obama over the regulation. Radio host Doug Giles said, "Well, here's where goofy Christians who voted for Obama ... [now] get fish slapped with the reality of what it means when his policies are implemented." Radio host Lars Larson said the regulation is "stealing people's individual liberties." [Fox Business, Follow the Money, 1/25/12, via Media Matters]

Doocy: With Birth Control Rules, "Is [Obama] Provoking An Unnecessary War With America's Religious Leaders?" On the January 25 broadcast of Fox News' Fox & Friends, co-host Steve Doocy teased an upcoming segment about the birth control regulation by saying: "The president orders religious institutions to cover birth control in their health plans. Is he provoking an unnecessary war with America's religious leaders? Up next, the bishop leading the plan to fight back against President Obama." On-screen text beneath footage of Obama read, "Religious war." [Fox News, Fox & Friends, 1/25/12, via Media Matters]

Fox's Guilfoyle: Contraception Regulation Part Of Obama's Alleged "War Against Religion" And "War Against The Catholic Church." During the January 24 edition of Fox News' The O'Reilly Factor, Fox News host Kimberly Guilfoyle claimed that the contraception regulation was part of Obama's "war against religion" and "war against the Catholic Church." From the broadcast:  

BILL O'REILLY (host): Catholic Church --

GUILFOYLE: Yes.

O'REILLY: Obama administration --

GUILFOYLE: Yes.

O'REILLY: What's the beef?

GUILFOYLE: Well, this part of the whole allegation of the war against religion, the war against the Catholic Church. This has the U.S. Bishops, the Cardinals, the Vatican very upset about this. They have been battling with the Obama administration over this specific rule. [Fox News, The O'Reilly Factor, 1/24/11, via Media Matters]

Johnson: "Why is President Obama Picking On [Catholics] This Way?" Discussing the ruling on the January 23 edition of Fox News' Fox & Friends, Fox News legal analyst Peter Johnson Jr. claimed that Catholics might ask, "Why is President Obama picking on us in this way?" From the broadcast:

DOOCY: OK, so the Catholic Church is being told you got to provide contraceptives, sterilization, and Plan B.

JOHNSON: Yeah, President Obama, after meeting with the bishops and after speaking allegedly with Cardinal Designate [Timothy] Dolan, the new cardinal from New York, has said that the federal government is going to demand that Catholic universities, Catholic social service agencies, Catholic institutions other than churches provide drugs that induce abortions, provide sterilizations, provide contraceptions free, really in violation of Catholic faith and, really, other organizations and other religious organizations, it violates their faiths. Some orthodox Jewish organizations, some evangelical groups have also objected. ... So on one hand, you're saying, well, can we keep faith but can we keep adherence of the law, and you're asking us to choose.

DOOCY: You can't do both.

JOHNSON: Well, it's a violation of the United States Constitution, and there will be a whole raft of lawsuits based on this incursion. And in an election year, a lot of Catholic voters are going to say why is the federal government doing this to us? Why is President Obama picking on us in this way? [Fox News, Fox & Friends, 1/23/12]

Fox's Tantaros: The Obama Administration Has Been "Beating Up On Catholics For A Long Time." During the January 9 edition of Fox News' Happening Now, Fox News contributor Andrea Tantaros claimed that the Obama administration has been "beating up on Catholics for a long time." After a clip of presidential candidate Newt Gingrich speaking at a debate was aired, co-host Jon Scott said: 

SCOTT: Newt Gingrich winning a lot of applause there. The question that we didn't hear was George Stephanopoulos, Andrea, asking whether the state should be allowed to ban contraceptives. What do you think about that whole issue?

TANTAROS:  Well, first of all, the fact that the head of the Clinton attack machine, George Stephanopoulos, is moderating a GOP debate, to me seems ridiculous. And this question about contraception, this is the new media "gotcha" question, right? They're bombarding Rick Santorum with this question, and I would encourage the GOP not to take the debate on this one. The Supreme Court already ruled on this in Griswold v. Connecticut. They said that states can't do this. And that's what the candidates should say.

Really, George Stephanopoulos asking about contraception when we still have high unemployment -- it's absolutely ridiculous. And the point about the Obama administration -- they have been cutting services to the Catholic Church and have been beating up on Catholics for a long time. The Catholic Church does a lot of good behind the scenes. They do a lot of good out there on the streets, and they have cut funding, just because they don't agree with their beliefs, some of those beliefs, which I would point out, the administration espouses itself, like gay marriage. [Fox News, Happening Now, 1/9/12, via Media Matters]

But Contrary To Suggestion That Ruling Is Anti-Catholic, Poll Shows Catholics Support Insurance Coverage For Contraception

Catholics For Choice Poll Found "63 Percent Of American Catholics" Said Insurance Policies Should Cover "Contraception, Such As Birth Control Pills." According to a 2009 poll conducted for Catholics for Choice, 63 percent of American Catholics said that "health insurance policies -- whether they are private or government -- should cover ... contraception, such as birth control pills."

[Belden Russonello & Stewart, September 2009]

And Several Catholic Groups Found "Silver Lining" In HHS Ruling

Catholic United's Executive Director: "There Is A Silver Lining In Today's Ruling. Increased Access To Contraceptive Services Will Dramatically Reduce The Abortion Rate In America." James Salt, executive director of the group Catholics United, issued this statement in response to the contraception ruling:

Although we recognize the authority of Catholic teaching on the issue of contraception, we also acknowledge that there is a silver lining in today's ruling. Increased access to contraceptive services will dramatically reduce the abortion rate in America. Reducing abortion should be a goal recognized by both sides of this highly polarized debate. Furthermore, we look forward to working with the administration in finding a win-win solution that will both meet the medical needs of women while protecting the religious liberty of Catholic institutions. [Catholics United, 1/20/12]

Catholic Democrats President Whelan: "These New Regulations ... Will Certainly Help Reduce The Number Of Unintended Pregnancies" And "Decrease The Incidence Of Abortion." Dr. Patrick Whelan, president of Catholic Democrats, issued a statement on the HHS ruling that noted, "These new regulations, providing for greater access to contraception, will certainly help reduce the number of unintended pregnancies across the country, and correspondingly are likely to further decrease the incidence of abortion." From Whelan's statement:

As a physician and pediatric specialist, I know that news of the HHS regulations today means that more women will have access to the kind of health care that has been denied to millions over the years because of the high cost. Over 50% of girls and women who use contraceptives take them for reasons other than the prevention of pregnancy. Since the beginning of his first presidential campaign in 2007, President Obama has emphasized the importance of preventing unintended pregnancy as the most moral approach to solving the abortion problem. These new regulations, providing for greater access to contraception, will certainly help reduce the number of unintended pregnancies across the country, and correspondingly are likely to further decrease the incidence of abortion.

It's well-established that over 50% of pregnancies in the U.S. are unintended. Along with other measures incorporated into the Affordable Care Act, these new regulations are part of a concerted effort to support women and to help them avoid unintended pregnancy. Our study of expanded healthcare access in Massachusetts after 2006, published in the New England Journal of Medicine in March 2010, showed that access to healthcare (and contraception) is associated with a significant further reduction in the rate of abortions.

President Obama has grappled with the deep moral dimensions of these important questions, and I think his determination to help decrease unintended pregnancies is among the chief reasons that he supported these new HHS regulations. Having interviewed Catholic priests who worked with President Obama as a community organizer, funded by the US Bishops' Campaign for Human Development, I know the President cares deeply about Catholic sensibilities. This Administration has expanded faith-based initiatives through its White House Office of Faith Based and Community Partnerships, and has provided record funding for Catholic efforts such as Catholic Charities -- over $500 million in 2010.

As a Catholic, I am aware that some Catholics will hear this news with mixed or negative emotions, including many bishops. At the same time, we know Catholic women, and by extension their families, use oral contraception at the same rate as the overall population. For over half a century, since the issuance of Humanae Vitae, Catholics and Catholic theologians have taken issue with the Church's teaching on birth control.

It is our hope that both the Administration and the U.S. Bishops' Conference can come together over the next 18 months to develop policies-perhaps following the "Hawaii model"-- that better address the conscience rights of religious institutions while allowing women access to contraceptives without cost. Ultimately, the HHS regulations put the decision of whether or not to use contraceptives at the discretion of each individual woman and her informed conscience, and this is the ultimate test of religious liberty and the protection of conscience. [Catholic Democrats, accessed 1/26/12]

Fox Has Previously Portrayed Obama And His Administration As Anti-Religion And Anti-Christian

Fox Hyped Perry Ad Accusing Obama Of Waging A "War On Religion." After former GOP presidential candidate Rick Perry released a television ad in December promising to "end Obama's war on religion," Fox News figures hyped the ad. Host Bill O'Reilly said during his Fox News show that Perry's "Hail Mary" ad was "a smart move," while co-host Bill Hemmer said on America's Newsroom that "some would say" Perry's ad is "powerful." During a broadcast of Hannity, Fox News contributor Tucker Carlson said, while discussing the Perry ad, that the Obama administration doesn't "hate religion. They hate traditional Christianity." [Media Matters, 12/12/11]

Fox News Contributor Used Artificial "Christmas Tree Tax" Outrage To Imply Obama Was Displaying "Contempt For Christianity." In a November 12, 2011, column on Newsmax.com, Fox News contributor Tammy Bruce used outrage over an alleged "Christmas tree tax" to claim that Obama was displaying "contempt for Christianity" by levying a tax on Christians that she said was rooted in Muslim tradition.

Fox Launched Attack On Obama's Lack Of Easter Proclamation. Fox News figures, as well as Fox Nation, attacked Obama in April 2011 for not issuing a presidential proclamation about Easter. On Hannity, Nancy Pfotenhauer, a Republican strategist, called it "a mistake ... it leaves people thinking that he is either hostile or indifferent."

Gretchen Carlson: "Some People" Say Obama Discussing God "Was Disingenuous Coming From A President Who Does Not Go To Church On A Regular Basis." On the June 16, 2010, edition of Fox & Friends, after airing a video clip of Obama invoking God during his speech on the BP oil spill, co-host Gretchen Carlson said, "Did you find it at all disingenuous -- because some people are analyzing that this morning and saying it was disingenuous coming from a president who does not go to church on a regular basis." [Fox News, Fox & Friends, 6/16/10]

On Fox, S.E. Cupp Claimed "Liberal Media" Has A "Comrade" In The WH To "Back Up Their Secular Agenda." The April 28, 2010, edition of Fox News' Hannity featured a segment that claimed to show, as on-screen text read, "the liberal media's bias against Christianity." Conservative commentator and radio show host S.E. Cupp said: "It's the first time [the media] have had a comrade and ally in the White House to back up their secular agenda. This is a guy who is very uncomfortable with public worship. He's always elevating atheism to the level of Christianity and Judaism and Islam." [Fox News, Hannity, 4/28/10]

But Obama Administration Has Engaged Faith-Based Communities And Directed Millions In Stimulus Funds To Religious Groups

Obama Administration Established The First Advisory Council On Faith-Based And Neighborhood Partnerships. Obama established the White House's first Advisory Council On Faith-Based And Neighborhood Partnerships. The council is comprised of 25 religious and secular leaders, including seven leaders from Catholic organizations. In a March 2010 report, the advisory council issued 64 recommendations "for changes in policies, programs, and practices that affect the delivery of services by" faith-based and neighborhood organizations. [White House, accessed 1/26/12; Advisory Council report, March 2010]

Obama Hosted First Ever Easter Prayer Breakfast And Made Tradition Annual. In April 2010, Obama hosted an Easter Prayer Breakfast for "Christian leaders from across the country." He hosted the breakfast again in April 2011; as a blog post on the Christian Broadcasting Network's (CBN) site noted:

Today President Obama welcomed a room full, an East Room full, to be exact, of Christian leaders for an Easter Prayer Breakfast.

The tradition began last year, when President Obama hosted the very first breakfast of this kind at the White House.

"I'm going to make it annual, why not?" Obama said, smiling. "The Easter Egg Roll, that's well established."

The President welcomed the faith leaders saying some have been extraordinary influences in his life. [White House, 4/6/10; CBN.com, 4/19/11] 

Obama Administration Defended National Day Of Prayer In Court. In April 2010, a U.S. District judge in Wisconsin ruled that the annual National Day of Prayer, established in 1952, was unconstitutional. The Obama administration appealed the decision, and in April 2011, a federal appeals court overturned the ruling. Describing the Obama administration's decision to appeal the decision, CBN News chief political correspondent David Brody wrote in an April 2010 post on CBN's website:

The Obama administration is appealing the ruling by a federal judge that decided the National Day of Prayer is unconstitutional.

You can read the Department of Justice notice to the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals below but let's be very clear here. President Obama is a defendant in this case. Hey, conservative Christians how does that grab ya?

[...]

Look, let me ask you a question. Is there going to be any conservative Christian leader and/or group that applaud the president here? I mean this administration DID NOT HAVE to appeal this decision. You can make the argument that it's a no-brainer to appeal it but it wasn't a given. And let me just add that my guess is many conservative Christians probably were skeptical that the administration would appeal it in the first place. So many of his critics are out to get this President on the faith issue. You would think when he steps to the plate and does the "right thing" in their eyes they would give him kudos. Not that the President needs kudos from his critics but if the kudos are not forthcoming it may speak to the hypocrisy issue a little bit yes?

Look, either way the bottom line is this: Barack Obama, the President of the United States is defending prayer in the federal court system. That bit of news should not be lost on anyone. Will the press releases commending the administration for doing so follow? I would suspect that if George Bush was President the releases would be flowing. Conservative Christians may not see eye to eye with the President on many issues but isn't holding hands on this appropriate? [CBN.com, 4/22/10]

Recovery Act Directed Millions Of Dollars To Faith-Based Groups. In a December 2010 article headlined, "Obama's stimulus pours millions into faith-based groups," Politico found in an analysis of Recovery Act spending that "at least $140 million in stimulus money has gone to faith-based groups, the result of an unpublicized White House decision to spend government money, where legal, supporting religiously inspired nonprofit groups." Politico further reported: 

In an aggressive attempt at outreach, federal agencies, in conference calls and online seminars, instructed faith-based groups on how to apply for the grants, and federal officials sometimes stepped in when the state officials who distribute the money were reluctant to spend it on groups associated with churches and other religious establishments.

"Part of our job is to ensure that there's a level playing field -- we don't encourage anyone to favor faith-based groups over other organizations, but we do want to ensure that there's no discrimination against faith-based organizations," said Joshua DuBois, who heads the White House Office of Faith-Based and Neighborhood Partnerships, which Bush created and President Barack Obama renamed and expanded. [Politico, 12/3/10] 

Catholic Charities President On Obama Administration's Funding Of Religious Groups: Obama "Took What President Bush Did And Has Expanded It." From the December 2010 Politico article:

Some conservative critics remain. Jim Towey, one of the heads of the faith-based office in the Bush years, told POLITICO he believed the programs would very likely favor groups that backed Obama's policies and said that with large federal programs like Head Start, even Bush had been able to direct only "a nickel on the dollar" to faith-based groups.

Other observers, though, see more continuity with Bush's program. Obama's approach to spending government money on faith-based initiatives has been "almost entirely identical" to the Bush policy, said Robert Tuttle, a professor of law and religion at The George Washington University.

Religious groups that have received federal funds -- some of which have clashed with the administration on other policy fronts -- say the stimulus package embodies the White House's understanding of their role in the social safety net.

Obama "took what President Bush did and has expanded it," said the Rev. Larry Snyder,  president of Catholic Charities USA, whose agencies received about $50 million from the stimulus, he said.

Some of the funding to Catholic Charities came as the White House bitterly battled the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops on health care reform, which the bishops said would lead to government-funded abortion and fiercely opposed, and the charity group sought to hold a middle ground between backing the bill and opposing the abortion-related measures.

Snyder, who sits on the White House's Faith Advisory Council, said that debate never spilled over. [Politico, 12/3/10]

Conservative media have misrepresented the results of Chevy Volt crash tests, claiming the batteries "blow up" and are a "fire trap," and suggesting that fires have occurred spontaneously during use. In fact, fires only occurred after crash tests and regulators concluded an inquiry after finding that Volts are just as safe as conventional cars.

Regulators Concluded Inquiry After Finding Volts Are Just As Safe As Conventional Cars

Battery Fire Happened Weeks After Pole Crash Test And Rollover Test. From the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration's description of the test:

During an NCAP [New Car Assessment Program] oblique side pole impact test conducted by NHTSA in May 2011, the pole struck and deformed the sill plate under the driver's door at a location where there is a structural member. The lateral member displaced inward, pierced the HV battery enclosure and battery, and caused a battery coolant leak. Thereafter, the Agency conducted a rollover test (the rollover test consists of four 90-degree rotate-and-hold movements about the vehicle's longitudinal axis). In that test, the HV battery and electronics were exposed to coolant that leaked as a result of the crash. The vehicle fire that occurred three weeks later and the additional testing NHTSA conducted are discussed in a report titled "2011 Chevrolet Volt Battery Fire Incident Report" a copy of which is available in the public file. The report indicates that intrusion induced coolant leakage, and subsequent rollover that saturates electronic components, were the only test conditions which resulted in a subject vehicle HV battery fire. [NHTSA, 1/26/12]

CNN: "No Fires Were Reported In Cars That People Were Actually Driving." CNN's Erin Burnett made clear that fires had only occurred in crash tests, not real-life scenarios:

ERIN BURNETT: Investigators did not find a safety defect. They also supported GM's fix, which reinforces the structure surrounding the battery. No fires were reported in cars that people were actually driving. This came from crash tests. [CNN, Out Front with Erin Burnett, 1/20/12]

NHTSA Did Not Drain Battery After Crash, As GM Protocols Require. From an Associated Press report:

General Motors spokesman Greg Martin said the test did not follow procedures developed by GM engineers for handling the Volt after a crash. The engineers tested the Volt's battery pack for more than 300,000 hours to come up with the procedures, which include discharge and disposal of the battery pack, he said.

"Had those protocols been followed after this test, this incident would not have occurred," he said.

[...]

After the crash test, NHTSA found a coolant leak and moved the damaged Volt to a back lot, where it was exposed to the elements, said Rob Peterson, a GM spokesman who specializes in electric cars. Exposure to the weather caused the coolant to crystalize, and that, combined with the remaining charge in the battery, were factors, he said.

NHTSA did not drain the battery of energy as called for under GM's crash procedures. But at the time, GM had not told the agency of its protocols, Peterson said. NHTSA normally drains fuel from gasoline-powered cars after crash tests, he said. [Associated Press, 11/11/11, via MSNBC.com]

GM Knows Via OnStar About Any Crash Significant Enough To Compromise The Battery. The Detroit Free Press reported:

Chevrolet dealers have sold about 6,000 Volts, all of which are equipped with the OnStar emergency notification system, said GM spokesman Greg Martin.

"There have been no reports of comparable incidences in the field," GM said in a statement. "With Onstar, GM knows in real time about any crash significant enough to potentially compromise battery integrity."

Since July, GM has implemented a process with first responders that includes depowering of the battery after a severe crash. [Detroit Free Press, 11/26/11]

GM Provided A Fix To Volt Owners. Automotive News reported:

The agency [NHTSA] said that modifications intended to reinforce the Volt's 435-pound lithium-ion battery pack that General Motors announced on Jan. 5 should "reduce the potential" of the pack catching fire in the days or weeks following a crash.

[...]

Company executives [at GM] say the voluntary fix will make the car "safer" by reinforcing the steel surrounding the battery pack to prevent it from being punctured during a crash. It also will add a sensor to the battery pack to monitor coolant leaks.
GM is asking its 8,000 Volt customers to visit their Chevy dealership to have the work done. Dealers will be ready to perform the work starting in February, GM said. [Automotive News, 1/20/12]

NHTSA Concluded Investigation After Finding "No Discernible Defect Trend." Wired's Autopia blog reported:

Federal regulators have closed their investigation into the Chevrolet Volt, saying they are satisfied with the steps General Motors has taken to protect the car's lithium-ion battery and minimize the risk of a fire in the days and weeks after a severe crash.

The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration posted an explanation and summary of its inquiry on Friday and announced the conclusion of the investigation it launched Nov. 25.

"The agency's investigation has concluded that no discernible defect trend exists and that the vehicle modifications recently developed by General Motors reduce the potential for battery intrusion resulting from side impacts," the feds said in a statement.

The statement adds, "Based on the available data, NHTSA does not believe that Chevy Volts or other electric vehicles pose a greater risk of fire than gasoline-powered vehicles."

The findings vindicate General Motors, which always argued the Chevrolet Volt is safe, and electric vehicle advocates who argued that the inquiry was much ado about very little. [Wired, Autopia, 1/20/12]

Auto Analyst: "The Fire Concerns Are More Media Hype Than Problem ... The Volt Is Very Safe." The Washington Times reported:

Peter DeLorenzo, a Detroit-based auto analyst who has driven the vehicle, says the fire concerns are more media hype than problem for GM.

"Let's be realistic. These battery fires happened after severe crashes; it's not fender benders," Mr. DeLorenzo said. "It has nothing to do with Volts spontaneously combusting somewhere. Unfortunately, in this 24/7 instant-media-connection era we live in, all people will take away is Volts catching fire. They don't read beyond that. I think the Volt is very safe, and the technology is very safe." [The Washington Times, 12/4/11]

Around 250,000 Conventional Cars Catch Fire In Real-Life Every Year. Brad Plumer wrote on The Washington Post's WonkBlog:

[E]lectric cars have recently had to endure panicky headlines over safety, after three separate Volt batteries caught fire in crash tests. On the technical merits, this wasn't a huge worry: The batteries caught fire days or weeks after extreme crash testing in the laboratory, and even then the fires only broke out because post-crash procedures weren't followed. As MSNBC's Dan Carney snarks, "The lesson here is to get out of a crashed car within a few days, and be sure to turn off the lights when exiting." There was also the little-noted fact that, as government statistics show (PDF), some 250,000 gas-powered vehicles catch fire in real-life settings every year. [Washington Post's WonkBlog, 1/9/12]

Conservative Media: The Volt Is "Killing People" By "Catching Fire"

O'Reilly And Dobbs Suggest Volts Spontaneously "Catch Fire." On The O'Reilly Factor, Lou Dobbs said the Volt "doesn't work" because "it doesn't go fast and go far on electricity. What happens is it catches fire ... This is considered a negative when we're trying to move an automobile." O'Reilly then repeatedly said that the Volts "catch fire" without mentioning that the fire only happened during a crash test. [Fox News, The O'Reilly Factor, 1/6/12]

Fox's Cavuto: Electric Car Owners Are "Killing People With Batteries That Blow Up." On Neil Cavuto's Fox Business show, he said the Volt is "a plug-in that blows up. The battery heats up. It's killing people. It's maiming them. Children are afraid. Animals avoid it. Puppies don't want to go anywhere near it." Cavuto later criticized electric car owners for "killing people with batteries that blow up." [Fox Business, Cavuto, 12/8/11, via Nexis]

BigGovernment: Volt "Has A Tendency To Catch On Fire While Sitting In The Garages" Of Its Owners. From a post at Andrew Breitbart's BigGovernment.com:

To date, Obama has spent approximately $3,000,000,000.00 subsidizing Volts. And what have the American people gotten in return? A car that only a handful of people want and that has a tendency to catch on fire while sitting in the garages of the few purchasers Obama's been able to scrounge up. [BigGovernment, 12/22/11]

Fox Business Guest Suggests Volts "Blow Up" In Real-Life. From Fox Business' The Willis Report:

MATT MCCALL, PENN FINANCIAL: Nobody's buying these Volts! That's the only good thing. You know, six people had their engine blow up because only six people bought the darn Volt. [Fox Business, The Willis Report, 12/7/11]

Gateway Pundit Blog: Volt Is A "Fire Trap." In a blog post at Gateway Pundit titled "Volt Fire Trap Is WORST Product Of The Year," Andrea Ryan wrote, "Guess what?  If it catches fire it's probably not going to sell well." Ryan then posted this picture of a car on fire -- presumably a conventional car that caught on fire in real-life conditions:

[Gateway Pundit, 1/4/12]

Some Mainstream Outlets Have Also Misled On Crash Test Fires

Wash. Post Editorial Misled Readers About Crash Test Fires. In a recent editorial, The Washington Post said that "the Volt brand is suffering from news that some of its batteries burst into flames after government road tests." However, the fires occurred after crash tests. [Media Matters, 1/5/12]

CBS: "Fires Have Been Breaking Out In" Chevy Volts. In a December 7 news brief, CBS suggested that the fires were spontaneously breaking out or had been observed in real-life:

ASHLEY MORRISON: Well, GM thinks it knows-- knows why fires have been breaking out in its electric Chevy Volts. The auto makers say coolant leaks may be to blame for causing electrical shorts. The government is investigating, but the Transportation Department says the vehicle is safe to drive. GM is offering refunds to dissatisfied customers. [CBS, CBS Morning News, 12/7/11, via Nexis]

Conservative Media Baselessly Accuse Regulators Of "Favoritism"

House Republicans Accuse Regulators Of Hiding Fire For Months For Political Reasons. The New York Times reported: "House Republicans accused the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration on Wednesday of trying to keep secret a battery fire in a Chevy Volt out of fear of damaging the value of the government's investment in the car's manufacturer, General Motors, and jeopardizing President Obama's re-election prospects." [New York Times, 1/25/12]

Fox's Asman: "Call Us Conspiratorial, But" NHTSA "Backed Off" Volt Investigation Due To "Favoritism." On his Fox Business show, David Asman said:

ASMAN: You might think a company coming out of bankruptcy would want to reconsider pushing something nobody wants, but GM is fully committed to continuing with the Volt line. Why? Call us conspiratorial, but we still think there' a government connection. Just look at the way that the Chevy Volt skirted by regulators over its battery fires. U.S. federal safety inspectors just decided to drop its investigations after some heavy-duty government testing. We think it's good that the government regulators backed off, but when was the last time this administration backed off any regulatory fight? If this had been any other car model would the super regulators at the Traffic Safety Administration have backed off? We doubt it.

Favoritism? Absolutely. The point is there is no payoff to the Volt unless the government, which is still the biggest single owner of GM, is going to do everything possible to help it continue, even if there is no final payoff in the marketplace. [Fox Business, Power and Money, 1/23/12, via Nexis]

Cavuto Suggests Administration Glossed Over Volt Problems Because It Supports The Technology. From Cavuto's Fox Business show:

CAVUTO: You know what's interesting too, I mean, we got into these investigations. They want to start on when we knew the Volt was such a problem (INAUDIBLE) vehicle and exactly what we did about it. But it follows the theme where even if we know there are problems we gloss them over. The administration and others who are supporting this technology gloss them over to the degree that they were going in and out of legality here.

[...]

REP. DARRELL ISSA: Right now we have some of the facts and it doesn't look good but our committee has an obligation to make sure we get it fully -

CAVUTO: When you say it doesn't look good though, congressman, by that and I have heard from others and maybe you just can't confirm this one way or the other because it is silly, that almost from the get go government authorities knew and maybe GM itself acknowledge that there were these battery issues. That it was unreliable and you couldn't get the same readings out of them, either in the cold with affected mileage and wore out very quickly or under duress conditions when heat, when it could potentially ignite.

In other words, a lot of that was kept from not only those who would ultimately buy the car but from those who were endorsing the car, the taxpayer money to support that technology.

ISSA: We believe that is true. [Fox Business, Cavuto, 1/17/12, via Nexis]

In Fact, NHTSA Was Gathering More Evidence

NHTSA Rarely Opens Investigation After One Incident And No Real-Life Incidents. Detroit News reported:

NHTSA said it rarely opens an investigation after just one incident.

"Because the Volt incident involved a potential risk in newly emerging technology, NHTSA proceeded to open this investigation based only upon the results of limited test data and without waiting for data from real-world incidents," Strickland's letter said. [Detroit News, 1/14/12, via Nexis]

NHTSA: It Would Have Been Irresponsible To Announce Fire Without More Information. The New York Times reported:

''You wait six months before you start an investigation, and two weeks after you start an investigation the secretary says it's fine, and you think that's normal?'' he asked David L. Strickland, the administrator of the safety agency.

Mr. Strickland said it took time to determine that the Volt's battery was responsible for the fire, which occurred three weeks after a side-impact crash test in May and happened when no one was around to see it. And it took weeks to reproduce the event, he said. If his agency had to disclose every allegation of safety problems, it would make 40,000 such disclosures a year, he said.

''It is irresponsible, and frankly illegal, for us to tell the public there is something wrong with the car if we don't know what it is,'' Mr. Strickland said. ''I don't disclose to the public anything we find that we don't have proof is a risk to safety.''

[...]

Mr. Strickland of the highway traffic agency said most investigations were started after calls to the agency's phone hot line, warranty claims or accidents, but there were none of those in the case of the Volt's battery. And the fire burned three cars when no one was around to see; it took time to establish that the fire originated in the Volt and wasn't arson, he said. [New York Times, 1/25/12]

Detroit Free Press: "Issa Has Offered No Evidence That NHTSA ... Suppressed" Evidence. From a Detroit Free Press editorial:

California Republican Darrell Issa, who chairs the House Oversight Committee, is miffed that NHTSA didn't mention the battery fire when he held hearings earlier this fall to determine whether higher fuel economy standards are encouraging automakers or the federal agencies who oversee them to cut corners on safety. But Issa has offered no evidence that NHTSA, which first brought the test results to light last November, suppressed them to boost the Volt's so-far disappointing sales. [Detroit Free Press, 12/11/11]

Conservative Commentator: These Claims Are Simply "Hysteria." Frank Beckmann, a radio talk show host and climate change contrarian, wrote in an op-ed at The Detroit News:

The [Volt crash test] events sparked nationwide hyperventilation, none worse than that of U.S. Rep, Jim Jordan, R-Ohio, who wants to investigate because these reports of Volt fires "indicate important safety information may have been omitted in testimony before our committee just a few weeks ago."

Lost on the congressman is the reality that investigators still aren't sure exactly what happened in these extreme NHTSA tests, and that he and his legion of elected second guessers would become even more apoplectic if GM or government officials appeared to testify with less than complete information. [Detroit News, 12/16/11] [WJR, The Frank Beckmann Show, 2009, via YouTube] [WJR, accessed 1/25/12]

NY Times Business Columnist: "I Haven't Seen Any Evidence That The Agency Acted In Anything But A Professional And Independent Way." Business columnist James B. Stewart wrote:

[S]ome Republican congressmen questioned whether the Obama administration had concealed the results. And conspiracy theorists and others have taken to the Internet to argue that the agency has been too soft on G.M. and has a motive to soft-pedal or even distort the results because of the government's ownership stake.

Safety Research and Strategies, a Massachusetts consulting firm, claimed the government's Volt crash report was little more than a ''sales pitch'' for the plug-in hybrid vehicle.

Others have suggested that the agency was too tough, even if subliminally, in an effort to forestall any perception of a conflict, and that the danger of a Volt catching fire was remote.

Car and Driver magazine noted that the Volt's batteries caught fire three weeks and one week after the crash tests, and said that ''if you ask us, even just one day is plenty of time to safely exit a vehicle that's in peril of burning.'' The magazine noted that no Volts had caught fire in the real world and that only three safety complaints showed up in the government's database for all of 2010 and 2011, none involving fire hazards. ''No vehicle is completely and infallibly safe,'' the magazine said. The risk of fire following a crash in an electric car also appears to be vastly less than in a conventional gas-powered vehicle.

Tim Massad, assistant Treasury secretary for financial stability, told me this week that Treasury, which oversees the government's investment, ''is not G.M. or Chrysler's regulator and has no involvement with N.H.T.S.A.'' I haven't seen any evidence that the agency acted in anything but a professional and independent manner with respect to the Volt, but the controversy illustrates why even appearances of a conflict need to be avoided. [New York Times, 1/13/12]

Fox News contributor Stephen Hayes claimed that it's "nonsense" for the Obama administration to argue that it "didn't really appreciate the depths of the problems the country faced when we came into office." In fact, measures of the recession in 2009 understated its depth, and subsequent revisions of economic data have shown that the downturn was indeed worse than it appeared at the time.

Hayes Says Argument That The Recession Was Worse Than It Appeared Is "Nonsense," "Revisionist History"

Hayes On Administration Claims: "There's Some Revisionist History Going On." From Fox News' America Live:

JON SCOTT (co-host): So, hope and change takes eight years, or at the very minimum, four. Is that the argument?

HAYES: Yeah, I think that's their argument. Look, I don't -- it's not a totally honest argument, to be candid about it. I mean, if you look back, they're saying well, we didn't really appreciate the depths of the problems that the country faced when we came into office. That's total nonsense. They did appreciate the depths of the problems, and they were talking about it at the time as the potential for the next Great Depression.  So there's some revisionist history going on. [Fox News, Happening Now, 1/26/2012]

Revised GDP Figures Showed That The '07-'09 Recession Was Far Worse Than Previously Recognized

McClatchy: Economic Data Revisions Show That "The Great Recession, Already The Worst Downturn Since The 1930s, Was Even More Damaging Than Previously Recognized." In the summer of 2011 the Bureau of Economic Analysis released revisions to its estimates of the economy from 2008-2010. McClatchy reported:

BEA also unveiled its annual revision of economic data back to 2008. The revision found that in 2008 the economy actually contracted rather than eking out a tiny gain as initially reported, and 2009 growth was almost a full percentage point slower than estimated earlier.

The quarterly percentage change in real gross domestic product was revised down for six of the 12 quarters reviewed. That means the Great Recession, already the worst downturn since the 1930s, was even more damaging that previously recognized. [McClatchy, 7/29/11]

AP: "The 2007-2009 Recession ... Was Even Worse Than Previously Thought." The Associated Press reported:

The 2007-2009 recession, already in the record books as the worst in the 66 years since the end of World War II, was even worse than previously thought.

From the start of the recession at the end of 2007 to the end in June of 2009, the U.S. economy shrank 5.1 percent. That is 1 percentage point worse than the previous estimate that the recession reduced total output during that period by 4.1 percent.

The new estimates emerged from the annual revision of economic data prepared by the Commerce Department's Bureau of Economic Analysis and released Friday.

Among the previous 10 postwar recessions, output in only two dropped by more 3 percent. In the 1957-58 recession, the economy contracted 3.7 percent. And during the 1973-1975 downturn, the economy fell 3.2 percent from the start of the recession to the end. [Associated Press, 7/29/11]

Wash. Post: Moody's Chief Economist Mark Zandi Said Revised Data Shows The Recession Was Much More Severe Than Thought. The Washington Post reported: "As Moody's chief economist Mark Zandi told me this morning, the revisions suggest that the recession following the financial crisis was much, much more severe than we'd thought--the economy actually shrank at a 8.9 percent annual rate the fourth quarter of 2008 and 6.7 percent in the first quarter of 2009 (earlier estimates had shown a smaller, 5.9 percent annualized drop across the two quarters)." [The Washington Post, 7/29/11]

Dean Baker: Revisions Show That "The Post-Lehman Plunge Is Even Sharper Than Had Previously Been Reported." Dean Baker, co-director of the Center for Economic and Policy Research, said of the revisions:

The annual revisions in this report show a somewhat different picture of the recession. Most importantly, the post-Lehman plunge is even sharper than had previously been reported. The economy shrank at a 7.8 percent annual rate in the fourth quarter of 2008 and first quarter of 2009 compared with a previously reported 5.9 percent annual rate. The decline in the second quarter was just 0.7 percent, followed by growth in the third quarter of 1.7 percent, suggesting that the stimulus was effective in turning the quarter around. The downward revision to the first-quarter data coupled with the revision of the fourth-quarter growth to 2.3 percent from 3.1 percent suggests that the winding down of the stimulus has seriously dampened growth. [Center for Economic and Policy Research, GDP Bytes, 7/29/11]

IHS Global Insight: Revisions "Deepened The Recession Substantially." An IHS Global Insight report on the revised GDP figures noted:

The big surprises were in the historical revisions. These deepened the recession substantially. The fourth quarter of 2008, right after the Lehman failure, now shows an 8.9% annual rate of decline in GDP (previously 6.8%), and now represents the worst single-quarter decline in GDP since the 10.4% drop in the first quarter of 1958, exceeding the 7.9% decline in the second quarter of 1980. The revisions then made the initial rebound a bit faster (with growth running just below 4% in the first and second quarters of 2010), but then showed the recovery losing momentum over the second half of 2010 and tailing away to just 0.4% in the first quarter of 2011 (previously 1.9%) and 1.3% in the second. Although the second quarter was disappointing, the revisions mean that it actually shows stronger growth than the first. [IHS Global Insight, 7/29/11]

CBS treated claims from Newt Gingrich and Mitt Romney that the tax cuts they have proposed would increase federal tax revenue as an open question. In fact, the myth that tax cuts increase revenues has been flatly rejected by economists across the ideological spectrum, including Romney adviser and former George W. Bush chief economist Gregory Mankiw and several others who served in the Bush administration.

CBS Presents Question Of Tax Cuts Increasing Revenue As He Said/She Said

CBS Airs Gingrich Claim That By Lowering Taxes His Plan Will Increase Tax Revenues. From the January 25 edition of CBS Evening News:

DEAN REYNOLDS (correspondent): Gingrich is convinced that reducing or eliminating all these taxes will actually raise revenues for the government by stimulating investment and expanding business.

REYNOLDS [video clip]: If you lowered taxes, you're going to increase revenues?

GINGRICH [video clip]: Sure. Which we know worked. When we cut the capital gains tax in the 90s, the revenue went up dramatically. When we cut taxes in the 80s, we had an explosion of 16 million new jobs. [CBS, CBS Evening News, 1/25/12]

CBS' Pelley Points To Report That GOP Tax Plan Would Increase Deficit, Then Says The Candidates Argue Cutting Taxes Actually Increases Revenue. From the January 25 edition of CBS Evening News:

SCOTT PELLEY (anchor): We wondered if the federal deficit might increase under the Romney and Gingrich plans, so we talked to the nonpartisan Tax Policy Center in Washington. It estimates that if the Bush tax cuts stay in place, the Romney plan would add $180 billion to the deficit in the year 2015. The Gingrich plan would add $850 billion that year. But remember, the candidates argue that cutting taxes would create so many businesses and jobs that ultimately there would be more tax revenue, not less. [CBS, CBS Evening News, 1/25/12]

For previous examples of the media promoting the myth that tax cuts increase tax revenues, see here, here, here, here, here, here, and here.

But Even Romney Adviser Mankiw Says Neither Capital Gains Nor Income Tax Cuts Increase Revenues ...

Bush CEA Chair Mankiw: Claim That Broad-Based Income Tax Cuts Increase Revenue Is Not "Credible," Capital Income Tax Cuts Also Don't Pay For Themselves. Economist Greg Mankiw, who also served as chair of the Bush Council of Economic Advisers (CEA), wrote on his blog on July 2, 2007:

I used the phrase "charlatans and cranks" in the first edition of my principles textbook to describe some of the economic advisers to Ronald Reagan, who told him that broad-based income tax cuts would have such large supply-side effects that the tax cuts would raise tax revenue. I did not find such a claim credible, based on the available evidence. I never have, and I still don't.

[...]

My other work has remained consistent with this view. In a paper on dynamic scoring, written while I was working at the White House, Matthew Weinzierl and I estimated that a broad-based income tax cut (applying to both capital and labor income) would recoup only about a quarter of the lost revenue through supply-side growth effects. For a cut in capital income taxes, the feedback is larger--about 50 percent--but still well under 100 percent. A chapter on dynamic scoring in the 2004 Economic Report of the President says about the the [sic] same thing. [Greg Mankiw, 7/2/07]

Mankiw's 2005 Paper: "In Almost All Cases, Tax Cuts Are Partly Self-Financing." In their 2005 paper, "Dynamic Scoring: A Back-of-the-Envelope Guide," Mankiw and Harvard University economist Matthew Weinzierl sought to answer the question, "To what extent does a tax cut pay for itself?" and concluded:

In all of the models considered here, the dynamic response of the economy to tax changes is too large to be ignored. In almost all cases, tax cuts are partly self-financing. This is especially true for cuts in capital income taxes. [Dynamic Scoring: A Back-of-the-Envelope Guide, 12/12/05]

Mankiw Is A "Top Economic Adviser" To Romney. On January 19, National Journal reported:

Romney issued a 59-point economic plan with fanfare last September. The platform contradicts landmark findings on monetary and housing policies published in 2011 by his top two economic advisers: Glenn Hubbard, the dean of Columbia University's business school; and N. Gregory Mankiw, a Harvard University professor and the author of the nation's most widely used college economics textbook. [National Journal, 1/19/12]

... As Do A Who's Who Of George W. Bush Administration Economic Officials ...

Bush-Appointed Federal Reserve Chair Bernanke: "I Don't Think That As A General Rule Tax Cuts Pay For Themselves." In his April 27, 2006, testimony before the Joint Economic Committee, Federal Reserve chairman Ben Bernanke had the following exchange:

SEN. JACK REED (D-RI): Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you for your testimony today. And just in line with the question about the effect of tax cuts, the former chairman of the Council of Economic Advisors, Greg Mankiw, wrote in his macroeconomic textbook that there is no credible evidence that tax cuts pay for themselves and that an economists [sic] who makes such a claim is -- quote -- "a snake oil salesman who is trying to sell a miracle cure." Do you agree with that?

BERNANKE: I don't think that as a general rule tax cuts pay for themselves. What I have argued instead is that to the extent the tax cuts produce greater efficiency or greater growth, they will partially offset the losses in revenues. The degree to which that offset occurs depends on how well-designed the tax cut is. [Joint Economic Committee hearing, 4/27/06, emphasis added]

Bush Treasury Secretary Paulson: "As A General Rule, I Don't Believe That Tax Cuts Pay For Themselves." During his June 26, 2006, confirmation hearing before the Senate Finance Committee, Hank Paulson had the following exchange:

SEN. KENT CONRAD (D-ND): Let me just, before I ask you directly what your view is, show you the historical record here, what we have seen since 2000 in terms of the real revenues of the country.

Real revenues in 2000 were over $2 trillion and then we had the massive tax cuts in 2001. We were told that that would generate more revenue; at least some made that claim.

We can see what happens in the real world. We didn't get more revenue. And we had more large tax cuts in 2003. Again, we were told we'd get more revenue and, again, what we saw in the real world is it didn't happen.

I'd ask you, what is your view? Do you believe that tax cuts pay for themselves?

PAULSON: Senator, no. As a general rule, I don't believe that tax cuts pay for themselves.

But I have clearly seen -- and I think some of those people you've quoted would say the same thing -- I've seen that tax cuts change behavior. There's no doubt.

And there's no doubt, I can remember very clearly what it was like running a Wall Street firm in 2001. The bubble had burst. We were in a recession. We'd had the terrorist attack September 11th. And I watched the tax cuts add to consumer confidence, investor confidence, market confidence, CEO confidence, and I watched it change behavior. So there's no doubt about that. [Senate Finance Committee hearing, 6/26/06, via Nexis, emphasis added]

Bush Treasury Secretary Snow Reportedly Acknowledged Tax Reductions Don't Pay For Themselves. In May 2006, Knight-Ridder Newspapers reported of then-Treasury Secretary John Snow:

Treasury Secretary John Snow conceded Tuesday that the much-touted tax cuts for capital gains and dividend income don't drive today's strong economy. Asked by Knight Ridder if the tax reductions paid for themselves, Snow acknowledged that they don't. [Knight-Ridder, 5/21/06, via Nexis]

Bush OMB Director Nussle: "Some Say That [The Tax Cut] Was A Total Loss. Some Say They Totally Pay For Themselves. It's Neither Extreme." In a November 2007 editorial, The Washington Post reported:

TAX CUTS don't pay for themselves. This might sound like dog-bites-man news, except for one thing: This rather unremarkable statement comes from Jim Nussle, the new director of the Office of Management and Budget in an administration whose president is given to saying things like "You cut taxes, and the tax revenues increase" (February 2006) and "We have cut taxes, causing economic growth, which caused there to be this year alone 187 billion more tax dollars coming into the Treasury" (August 2007).

As Mr. Nussle acknowledges, "There are those including myself who ... in the passion of the argument have made statements -- I think I even made a statement once -- that tax relief did pay for itself." In fact, Mr. Nussle said yesterday at a breakfast with reporters sponsored by the Christian Science Monitor, "Some say that [the tax cut] was a total loss. Some say they totally pay for themselves. It's neither extreme." [The Washington Post, 11/15/07]

Bush CEA Chairman Lazear: "As A General Rule, We Do Not Think Tax Cuts Pay For Themselves." During September 2006 testimony before the Senate Budget Committee, then-Council of Economic Advisers chairman Edward Lazear said:

Will the tax cuts pay for themselves? As a general rule, we do not think tax cuts pay for themselves. Certainly, the data presented above do not support this claim. Tax revenues in 2006 appear to have recovered to the level seen at this point in previous business cycles, but this does not make up for the lost revenue during 2003, 2004, and 2005. The tax cuts were a positive step and have contributed to the enhanced economic growth, additional jobs, higher real disposable income, and the low unemployment rates that we currently see today. Our goal is not to maximize the size of government, but to provide revenues to make sure that we can operate those programs that society deems necessary, while at the same time allowing the private sector to take full advantage of its growth potential. [Senate Budget Committee hearing, 9/28/06]

Bush Economic Adviser Samwick: "Tax Cuts Have Not Fueled Record Revenues." In a January 2007 blog post titled, "New Year's Plea," Andrew Samwick, former chief economist for George W. Bush's Council on Economic Advisers, wrote:

You [in the Bush administration] are smart people. You know that the tax cuts have not fueled record revenues. You know what it takes to establish causality. You know that the first order effect of cutting taxes is to lower tax revenues. We all agree that the ultimate reduction in tax revenues can be less than this first order effect, because lower tax rates encourage greater economic activity and thus expand the tax base. No thoughtful person believes that this possible offset more than compensated for the first effect for these tax cuts. Not a single one. [Vox Baby, 1/3/07]

Bush Economic Adviser Viard: "Federal Revenue Is Lower Today Than It Would Have Been Without The Tax Cuts." In an October 2006 article, The Washington Post reported:

"Federal revenue is lower today than it would have been without the tax cuts. There's really no dispute among economists about that," said Alan D. Viard, a former Bush White House economist now at the nonpartisan American Enterprise Institute. "It's logically possible" that a tax cut could spur sufficient economic growth to pay for itself, Viard said. "But there's no evidence that these tax cuts would come anywhere close to that." [The Washington Post, 10/17/06]

Bush Treasury Official Carroll: "We Do Not Think Tax Cuts Pay For Themselves." The Post further reported:

Robert Carroll, deputy assistant Treasury secretary for tax analysis, said neither the president nor anyone else in the administration is claiming that tax cuts alone produced the unexpected surge in revenue. "As a matter of principle, we do not think tax cuts pay for themselves," Carroll said.

But, he said, "we do think good tax policy can lead to important economic benefits. ... The size of the tax base is larger than it would have been without the tax relief." [The Washington Post, 10/17/06]

... And Other Economists From Across The Ideological Spectrum ...

Reagan Chief Economist Feldstein: "It's Not That You Get More Revenue By Lowering Tax Rates, It Is That You Don't Lose As Much." The New York Times reported on March 26, 2008:

While Mr. Laffer insists that tax revenue will rise when tax rates are cut, other supply-siders are less categorical. Martin Feldstein, a Harvard economist who was the first chairman of President Reagan's Council of Economic Advisers and now supports Senator McCain, estimates that a 10 percent tax cut would in fact reduce tax revenue -- but only by 3 to 5 percent.

"It is not that you get more revenue by lowering tax rates, it is that you don't lose as much," he said. [The New York Times, 3/26/08]

The "new" supply siders were much more extravagant in their claims. They projected rapid growth, dramatic increases in tax revenue, a sharp rise in saving, and a relatively painless reduction in inflation. The height of supply side hyperbole was the "Laffer curve" proposition that the tax cut would actually increase tax revenue because it would unleash an enormously depressed supply of effort.

[...]

I have no doubt that the loose talk of the supply side extremists gave fundamentally good policies a bad name and led to quantitative mistakes that not only contributed to subsequent budget deficits but that also made it more difficult to modify policy when those deficits became apparent. [Supply Side Economics: Old Truths And New Claims, January 1986]

Conservative Economist Holtz-Eakin: "No Serious Research Evidence" Suggests Tax Cuts Pay For Themselves." During a 2010 interview, American Action Forum president Douglas Holtz-Eakin, formerly Congressional Budget Office director and an adviser to the McCain 2008 presidential campaign, said:

I have never been in the camp that believes that quote 'tax cuts pay for themselves.' There is no serious research evidence to suggest that. The work we've done on what would happen if you were to sort of raise or lower taxes suggest about a 20 to 30 percent offset, depending on how you do it. And I think that's in the mainstream of the thought. [Think Progress, 8/5/10, emphasis in original]

Krugman: After Reagan's 1981 Tax Cuts, "Revenues Are Permanently Reduced Relative To What They Would Otherwise Have Been." In a July 2010 post on his New York Times blog, Nobel Prize-winning economist Paul Krugman wrote:

[T]he revenue track under Reagan looks a lot like the track under Bush: a drop in revenues, then a resumption of growth, but no return to the previous trend.

This is exactly what you would expect to see if supply-side economics were just plain wrong: revenues are permanently reduced relative to what they would otherwise have been. [The New York Times, 7/15/10]

Clinton Economist Frankel: Reagan and Bush Tax Cuts "Contributed To Record US Budget Deficits." Harvard economist and former Clinton economic adviser Jeffrey Frankel wrote in 2008:

The Laffer Proposition, while theoretically possible under certain conditions, does not apply to US income tax rates: a cut in those rates reduces revenue, precisely as common sense would indicate. As detailed in the paper, this was the outcome of the two big experiments of recent decades: the Reagan tax cuts of 1981-83 and the Bush tax cuts of 2001-03, both of which contributed to record US budget deficits. It is also the conclusion of more systematic scholarly studies based on more extensive data. Finally, it is the view of almost all professional economists, including the illustrious economic advisers to Presidents Reagan and Bush. So thorough is the discrediting of the Laffer Hypothesis, that many deny that these two presidents or their top officials could have ever believed such a thing. But abundant quotes suggest that they did. [Snake-Oil Tax Cuts, 9/8/08]

EPI: Bush Tax Cuts "Added $2.6 Trillion To The Public Debt Over 2001-10." In a September 26, 2011, article, Andrew Fieldhouse of the Economic Policy Institute (EPI) wrote:

A spending-cuts-only approach is regressive in that it forces the brunt of deficit reduction on the backs of poor and working families while ignoring a prime culprit of the budget deficit: the expensive, ineffective, and unfair Bush-era tax cuts. These top-heavy tax cuts added $2.6 trillion to the public debt over 2001-10 and will add $3.8 trillion to deficits over the next decade if fully continued. [EPI, 9/26/11]

Tax Foundation's Prante: "A Stretch" To Claim "Cutting Capital Gains Taxes Raises Tax Revenues." In an April 2008 blog post, the Tax Foundation's Gerald Prante responded as follows to then-ABC World News anchor Charles Gibson's statement that "history shows that when you drop the capital gains tax, the revenues go up":

Gibson's implying that cutting capital gains taxes raises tax revenues by the mere time series correlation he cited was a stretch. Much of the short-run response to changes in the capital gains tax rate are for tax timing purposes. This is a well-known fact, and it is why CBO projects a huge spike in capital gains collections in 2010 (the last year of the scheduled low 15% rate on long-term gains) and thereby also a large decline in 2011 (when the rate on long-term gains is scheduled to revert to 20%) under current law. There is no doubt some revenue feedback will occur over the long-run from lower capital gains tax rates spurring investment, but most estimates would say that we are currently on the left side of the Laffer Curve with respect to capital gains. [Tax Foundation's Tax Policy Blog, 4/17/08]

Bartlett: Revenue Has Been Historically Low Because "Taxes Were Cut In 2001, 2002, 2003, 2004 and 2006." In a July 26, 2011, New York Times blog post, Bruce Bartlett, former policy adviser to Presidents Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush, wrote:

In a previous post, I noted that federal taxes as a share of gross domestic product were at their lowest level in generations. The Congressional Budget Office expects revenue to be just 14.8 percent of G.D.P. this year; the last year it was lower was 1950, when revenue amounted to 14.4 percent of G.D.P.

But revenue has been below 15 percent of G.D.P. since 2009, and the last time we had three years in a row when revenue as a share of G.D.P. was that low was 1941 to 1943.

Revenue has averaged 18 percent of G.D.P. since 1970 and a little more than that in the postwar era. At a similar stage in previous business cycles, two years past the trough, revenue was considerably higher: 18 percent of G.D.P. in 1977 after the 1973-75 recession; 17.3 percent of G.D.P. in 1984 after the 1981-82 recession, and 17.5 percent of G.D.P. in 1993 after the 1990-91 recession. Revenue was markedly lower, however, at this point after the 2001 recession and was just 16.2 percent of G.D.P. in 2003.

The reason, of course, is that taxes were cut in 2001, 2002, 2003, 2004 and 2006. [The New York Times, 7/26/11]

... And Media Outlets And Fact-Checkers

Time: "Tax Cuts Don't Boost Revenues." In a December 2007 article titled, "Tax Cuts Don't Boost Revenues," Time magazine asserted that "economists agree" that the idea that tax cuts raise revenues is "false." From the article:

If there's one thing that Republican politicians agree on, it's that slashing taxes brings the government more money. "You cut taxes, and the tax revenues increase," President Bush said in a speech last year. Keeping taxes low, Vice President Dick Cheney explained in a recent interview, "does produce more revenue for the Federal Government." Presidential candidate John McCain declared in March that "tax cuts ... as we all know, increase revenues." His rival Rudy Giuliani couldn't agree more. "I know that reducing taxes produces more revenues," he intones in a new TV ad.

If there's one thing that economists agree on, it's that these claims are false. We're not talking just ivory-tower lefties. Virtually every economics Ph.D. who has worked in a prominent role in the Bush Administration acknowledges that the tax cuts enacted during the past six years have not paid for themselves--and were never intended to. Harvard professor Greg Mankiw, chairman of Bush's Council of Economic Advisers from 2003 to 2005, even devotes a section of his best-selling economics textbook to debunking the claim that tax cuts increase revenues. [Time, 12/6/07]

The Economist: "No Serious Economist Believes Mr Bush's Tax Cuts Will Pay For Themselves." A January 2006 Economist editorial stated:

A surprising rise in tax revenue last year has pushed this chutzpah even further. Mr Bush last week implied that the supply-side fantasy might hold after all: tax cuts do pay for themselves. "There's a mindset in Washington that says, you cut the taxes, we're going to have less money to spend," he noted contemptuously, before claiming that recent experience suggested otherwise.

Even by the standards of political boosterism, this is extraordinary. No serious economist believes Mr Bush's tax cuts will pay for themselves. A recent study from the Congressional Budget Office suggested that, after ten years, up to one-third of the cost of a 10% cut in income taxes can be recouped from higher economic growth. That fraction may be higher for cuts in taxes on capital alone. But it is nowhere near 100%. [The Economist, 1/12/06]

FactCheck.org: "Revenues Would Have Been Even Higher Without [The Bush Tax Cuts]." FactCheck.org concluded on June 11, 2007, that "it is clear" the Bush tax cuts of 2001 and 2003 "did not 'increase revenues'" as Sen. John McCain had claimed. The post further stated:

The Congressional Budget Office, the Treasury Department, the Joint Committee on Taxation, the White House's Council of Economic Advisers and a former Bush administration economist all say that tax cuts lead to revenues that are lower than they otherwise would have been -- even if they spur some economic growth. [FactCheck.org, 6/11/07]

In what is apparently completely unimportant news to just about everyone except NBC2 in Southwest Florida and Andrew Breitbart, numerous instances of illegal voting by non-citizens have been uncovered. Projecting the problems across the state and into the rest of the nation would seem to indicate that many thousands of people who are registered to vote should never have been allowed to register and are routinely casting ballots illegally.

A Google News search on "Florida vote fraud" (not in quotes) at Google News at 11:00 PM ET indicated that there was a grand total of six stories on this disturbing development. Immediately below the reference to the non-citizen voting news is a link to a Tampa Bay Times editorial posted two days ago which claimed that voter fraud is "a nonexistent problem in this state." Uh huh. What follows are excerpts from each segment (Part 1; Part 2) of Andy Pierrotti's NBC2 report (also look at the TV reports at the links, which differ from the text below):

(From Part 1)

NBC2 Investigates: Voter fraud

Two elections supervisors are taking action after an NBC2 investigation uncovers flawed record keeping and human error allowing people who are not citizens of the United States to vote.

No one knows how widespread this problem is, because county election supervisors have no way to track non-citizens who live here.

So NBC2 did something election officials never thought to do, and found them on our own.

"I vote every year," Hinako Dennett told NBC2.

The Cape Coral resident is not a US citizen, yet she's registered to vote.

NBC2 found Dennett after reviewing her jury excusal form. She told the Clerk of Court she couldn't serve as a juror because she wasn't a U.S. citizen.

We found her name, and nearly a hundred others like her, in the database of Florida registered voters.

... Based on our investigation, both election offices say they'll now request a copy of every jury excusal form where residents say they can't serve because they're not a citizen.

(From Part 2)

Poor record keeping is what's leading to potential fraud in the elections system. And election supervisors say registering non-citizens will continue until they get more help.

Officials we spoke to say non U.S. citizens are voting in Lee and Collier counties.

"If there is a change by one vote and somebody's voted that really has no right to be voting," said Lee County Supervisor of Elections Sharon Harrington.

Nearly 100 registered are now under investigation for possible voter fraud.

"It could change the whole complexion of an election," Harrington said.

We found those 100 people after reviewing jury excusal forms. We compared the names of those who said they couldn't serve because they were not U.S. citizens to those listed on Florida's voter registration rolls.

"I was surprised that there were quite that many," Harrington said.

It would have been nice if Pierrotti had told viewers what the error rate was, i.e., how many jury excusal forms did it take before they got to nearly 100 ineligible voters. 200? 500? 1,000? It would also be nice to know what percentage of registered voters are called for jury duty in any given year, because the chances that there are non-citizens voting who have never been called for jury duty would appear to be quite high, and might possibly be a multiple of the number who were caught through excusal forms.

Depending on the error rate found, projecting the problem across all of Florida could lead one to reasonably believe that there are thousands or perhaps tens of thousands of non-citizens who either registered themselves and are voting illegally, or that others who have posed as them, with or without their knowledge, have registered and are voting on their behalf. It's not a great leap to speculate that the number of illegally registered non-citizens is in the tens to hundreds of thousands nationwide.

But voter fraud "a nonexistent problem in this state." Just ask the Tampa Bay Tribune. What a crock.

Don't expect the rest of the establishment press to notice this disturbing and disconcerting story.

Cross-posted at BizzyBlog.com.

The reaction to January's jobs report shows how tragically our expectations have fallen, especially among some Democrats and their supporters. Their cheerleading isn't just bad policy or bad politics, although it is both of those things. It's also callous and insensitive to the misery of millions.

It's important to keep explaining what needs to be done to end that misery. To do otherwise is to serve, however unintentionally, an insidious agenda from the right that would lower our expectations until these tragic levels of unemployment are seen as the "new normal."

An increase in jobs is a good thing, of course, even if it's far from what's needed. Here's something else that was good about the report: Conservatives keep telling us that manufacturing jobs have moved offshore permanently, but 50,000 of them were created last month. Now we can put that argument to bed and can get to work creating more of them.

Ben Gazzara, star of "Anatomy of a Murder" and "The Killing of a Chinese Bookie" has died at age 81. The actor, who was a favorite of director John Cassavetes, died of pancreatic cancer at Bellevue Hospital Center, his lawyer, Jay Julien, told the New York Times.

He was a contemporary of higher-profile stars Marlon Brando and Rod Steiger and also studied at the famed Actors Studio in Manhattan. He conquered Broadway, originating the role of Brick in "Cat on a Hot Tin Roof," but didn't capitalize on his rising star when Hollywood came calling.

"When I became hot, so to speak, in the theater, I got a lot of offers," he told Charlie Rose in a 1998 interview. "I won't tell you the pictures I turned down because you would say, 'You are a fool.' And I was a fool."

Facebook's IPO filing this week confirmed what we already knew: Facebook makes the vast majority of its money by selling ads on its site.

WASHINGTON -- Members of Congress on Friday questioned why nobody has been prosecuted as part of a criminal investigation of mismanagement at Arlington National Cemetery, nearly three years after reports of problems that included misidentified graves first surfaced in the press.

"We are years into this and to my knowledge not a single person has been punished in any way" for one of the worst scandals in the nearly 150-year history of the cemetery, said Rep. Jim Cooper, D-Tenn., at Friday's hearing.

By Associated Press

LOS ANGELES -- Patricia Disney, who was once married to Walt Disney's late nephew Roy E. Disney and was vice chairwoman of Roy's investment company, died Friday after a long struggle with Alzheimer's disease.

She was 77.

-- The question that needs to be asked about Madonna's "W.E." is why?

Not why would she set out to make a movie to satisfy her obsession with Wallis Simpson, a woman more famous and notorious in her day than Madonna is herself. But why would anyone, after reading the jumbled, rambling script Madonna co-wrote, turn her loose to direct such a mess of pretty pictures and hollow perceptions about the curse of celebrity and the price of true love?

WASHINGTON -- Alyssa Eisenberg just wanted her multiple sclerosis medication that she uses to allay fatigue and help her concentrate.

A member of Occupy Oakland, she had been caught up in last Saturday's police kettling and transferred to the Santa Rita jail. Police refused to let her keep her meds, which she takes a few times a day, she said. Once inside, a guard dismissed her distress, she said, telling her, "It doesn't look like you're having a medical emergency."

Eisenberg, 44, who claims she was arrested without warning, spent 18 hours in the Santa Rita jail. Before her release, the guards told her she could get access to her medication only if a nurse observed her for a few hours, she said, adding that they implied that if she took them up on the offer, her release would be delayed a day.

They may be small, but new smart phones with super Amoled screens have displays equaling big-screen TV's for watching Sunday's Super Bowl, says Peter McCarron of Verizon Wireless.

For the first time, the Super Bowl will be streamed to mobile devices and to computers via the Web.   Verizon Wireless is the exclusive provider of the game which can be seen on Androids, iPhones and the Blackberry.  (It won't stream to tablets over the cellular network.)

BEIRUT — In a barrage of mortar shells, Syrian forces killed 200 people and wounded hundreds in Homs in an offensive that appears to be the bloodiest episode in the nearly 11-month-old uprising, activists said Saturday.

The assault in Homs, which has been one of the main flashpoints of opposition during the uprising, comes as the U.N. Security Council prepares to vote on a draft resolution backing an Arab call for President Bashar Assad to give up power.

Wisconsin Assembly leader Bill Kramer said he's been carrying a concealed weapon during floor sessions, the AP reports.

Kramer, a Republican from Waukesha, said Friday the intense atmosphere of the Wisconsin Capitol made him feel he needed a weapon on the floor.

"Have you been in the Capitol lately?" Kramer said. "The saying is you don't need a gun until you need it. I hope I go to my grave having never fired at anything but a paper target."

In a world of one-night stands, friends with benefits, online dating and coupledom that comes in any number of forms, the sex lives of singles have never been more diverse. Yet stereotypes persist of single women as desperate to settle down and men as commitment-phobic. Dating site Match.com's survey of over 6,000 single American men and women busts these myths wide open.

The website ensured a representative sample by making sure participant demographics mirrored those reflected in U.S. Census data on race, gender, age and other factors. And though Match.com spearheaded the study, the participants were not drawn from the dating service's membership.

Some key findings included evidence that single men defy common male stereotypes, senior citizens still know how to get down, and Democrats and Republicans have a marked difference in sexual proclivities. "The way you vote is gonna play out in the way you behave in the bedroom," said Dr. Helen Fisher, a biological anthropologist from Rutgers University and one of Match.com's scientific consultants.