60 Minutes' one-sided, GOP-friendly report on state budgets
December 20, 2010 11:16 am ET by Jamison Foser Did Chris Cristie's speechwriters script this CBS report on state budget deficits? It certainly reads that way.
In 2,600 words about state deficits, you won't find the phrase "tax cuts." Instead, CBS adopts the Republican framing that deficits are all about spending -- frequently with loaded phrasing like "gold-plated retirement and health care packages." And throughout the report, CBS allows Christie, New Jersey's Republican governor, to launch attacks on unions and make unsupported claims about budget problems, all without ever challenging his assertions and without including substantive disagreement from Christie critics.
CBS quotes Christie declaring: "We have a benefit problem. ... It's not an income problem from the state. It's a benefit problem. And so we gotta change those benefits." No contrary view is included.
This is a GOP mantra at all levels. And yet it simply defies reason. When a recession hits, tax revenues go down. That's axiomatic. And it's a revenue problem. No ifs, ands, or buts. This is not a matter of opinion that needs to be balanced. Christie is lying. Furthermore, while state expenses do go up during a recession, due to increased needs, this is not due to increased hourly pay for workers. It's due to more services being needed.
Media Matters continues:
Then there's this passage:
Then there's New Jersey. It has the highest taxes in the country, a $10 billion deficit and a depressed economy when first-year Governor Chris Christie took office. But after looking at the books, he decided to walk away from a long-planned and much-needed project with New York and the federal government to build a rail tunnel into Manhattan. It would have helped the economy and given employment to 6,000 construction workers.
Gov. Christie acknowledged that's a lot of jobs. "I canceled it. I mean, listen, the bottom line is I don't have the money. And you know what? I can't pay people for those jobs if I don't have the money to pay them. Where am I getting the money? I don't have it. I literally don't have it."
You'd never know from CBS's handling of the tunnel that there are people, like Nobel Prize-winning economist Paul Krugman, who argue that the tunnel would have had a stimulative effect on the economy, and that killing it was therefore shortsighted, as a stimulated economy produces more tax revenue. No, CBS simply presented Christie's opposition to the tunnel as gospel.
I've written about this before. It's actually blatant proof that Christie, as a conservative, no longer believes in investing in America. It's just that simple. The American people, OTOH, support public investment overwhelmingly. 80% in favor in one poll I cited.
More:
And here's how CBS addressed New Jersey's pension problems:
It's also the truth that some of the responsibility for New Jersey's pension woes lie at the doorstep of the governor's mansion. Christie and his predecessors have failed to contribute to the state's share of its pension obligation in 13 of the last 17 years, one of the reasons the fund is going broke. Christie says it's ancient history.
"We spent too much on everything. We spent too much. We spent money we didn't have. We borrowed money just crazily. The credit cards maxed out, and it's over. It's over. We now have to get to the business of climbin' out of the hole. We've been diggin' it for a decade or more. We've gotta climb now, and a climb is harder. Gotta do it," he said.
You'd never know from CBS' report that a big part of the reason that "Christie and his predecessors" failed to make required contributions to the pension fund is that they decided to use the money for tax cuts instead. (Like I said, the CBS report takes the GOP-friendly stance that deficits are all about spending, not revenue.)
Ancient history? Then why is he so eager to change employment agreements and benefit packages that come from the same time period, or even earlier? Aren't they "ancient history", too?
Last night on 60 Minutes, Steve Kroft's segment correctly noted that many of our state and local governments are struggling to close looming budget gaps. But his one-sided report failed to identify the root causes of this crisis, or barely recognize the sacrifices that public employees have made to help to address these deficits since our financial system nearly collapsed more than two years ago. During these difficult times, public employees have helped bring budgets back into balance by sacrificing pay and benefits. However, the 60 Minutes report relied too heavily on testimony by New Jersey Governor Chris Christie which falsely blamed public employees and unions for the fiscal challenges that have arisen because of the irresponsible behavior of Wall Street and Christie's predecessors.
Exit question: Why is it that a media watchdog group functions more like a media outlet than a network news show does?
Progressives rejoiced when Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid announced this week that the final Senate health care bill would include a public option. The announcement was a major victory for left-wing Democrats.
Better yet, it would be a public option without a trigger. Earlier proposals called for a triggered public option which would only take effect if private insurers failed to bring down costs on their own. Under the opt-out compromise, the public option would come on line automatically (albeit not until 2013), but states would later have the option of quitting.
The jubilation was short-lived. Alex Koppelman of Salon explains:
Progressives didn't even get 24 hours to celebrate the victory they won in getting Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid to include a version of the public option in his health care reform bill. The celebration was cut off Tuesday afternoon with the news that Sen. Joe Lieberman, I-Conn., will vote with Senate Republicans to filibuster the legislation.
The Democrats have 60 Senate votes. If they all vote for cloture, a procedural motion to stop debate, the Republicans can't filibuster the bill. The Senators who vote for cloture can still vote against the bill. Reid's strategy for passing the bill was to get all Democrats to vote for cloture and let them vote their conscience on the actual bill. Even without Lieberman, Democrats have the votes to pass the bill by majority vote if they can avoid a filibuster.
Health care is the most important domestic policy initiative of the Obama administration. Would Joe Lieberman really torpedo reform? The Senate leadership thinks Reid is bluffing, according to Steve Benen at the Washington Monthly.
I understand the argument. Lieberman loves attention and power. By threatening to join the Republican filibuster, he gets both-Democrats have to scramble to make him happy, since there's no margin for error in putting together 60 votes. Lieberman gets to feel very important for the next several weeks by making this threat less than 24 hours after Harry Reid stated his intentions, but that doesn't necessarily mean he wants to be known forever as The Senator Who Killed Health Care Reform.
I find it very easy to believe, however, that Lieberman is capable of doing just that. He left himself some wiggle room, but not when it comes to the public option-he's against it, no matter what, even with all of the compromises thrown in.
In other words, if this is all a ploy for leverage, why would Lieberman open by swearing that he won't support a bill with a public option? You'd think he'd just say he was keeping his options open and force Reid to make him a counter-offer. Reid has already decided that the public option is politically non-negotiable. He's afraid that the base won't come out for the 2012 elections if they don't get what they want. Benen speculates that Lieberman wants to be the Senator Who Killed Health Care because he wants to drum up massive Republican support for his 2012 reelection bid. On this theory, Lieberman is joining Rep. Joe "You Lie!" Wilson (R-SC) and Balloon Dad in the quest to make bank on ridiculous publicity stunts.
Senator Olympia Snowe (R-Maine) says that she will side with the Republicans to filibuster the bill "if she has to," as Evan McMorris-Santoro reports for TPM. Snowe was the only Republican to vote for the Finance Committee's health care bill.
Reid must walk a fine line. The administration really can't afford to alienate organized labor before the 2012 elections. Newly elected AFL-CIO President Ricahrd Trumka continues to push for his three core demands for health care reform: a public option, a mechanism to make employers pay their fair share, and no taxes on health care benefits. Last week, AFSCME President Gerald McEntee said that his union would oppose legislation that taxed benefits, but Trumka hasn't gone that far, as David Moberg reports at Working In These Times.
Finally, in other health-related news, Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA), the division of the Labor Department that oversees workplace safety, has issued a sweeping new report condemning Nevada's state-level OSHA program. As I report for Working in These Times, the investigators found that NOSHA inspectors were being pressured by their superiors to write up employers on lesser charges, even when their repeat offenses killed workers.
This post features links to the best independent, progressive reporting about health care by members of The Media Consortium. It is free to reprint. Visit the Pulse for a complete list of articles on health care reform, or follow us on Twitter. And for the best progressive reporting on critical economy, environment, health care and immigration issues, check out The Audit, The Mulch, and The Diaspora. This is a project of The Media Consortium, a network of leading independent media outlets.
We've grown accustomed to recognizing astroturfing on the right. A corporate lobbyist sends letters to congress members forging the signatures and letterhead of local grassroots groups. Oil corporations create front groups to generate town-hall presence against legislation that could slow climate change. Health insurance companies fund "grassroots" activists to speak for them. Fox News encourages and exaggerates support for whatever the Republican Party tells it is needed. Astroturf is a good name for all of this because it is grassroots flipped upside down. It's people being organized to rally in demand of exactly what Republican congress members want them to demand.
But what about astroturfing on the left? How do we feel about that? Here's an example.
Hi friends. Today was a hot beautiful day here in the peninsula (midwest Bay Area, California). I'd imagine it got up to 100F which is a little hot for the garden. I took some photos today I'd like to share.
First I'd like to start with a request for your help. My friend Martin is taking a well deserved vacation with the family. He needs (and I would love to see) a few crossposts over to his site the Progressive Electorate. It's focused on elections, politicians and issues. Please come on by and crosspost something you've written, either recently, or something you wish had gotten more attention. There is no 3 paragraph rule so your diaries can be a link and a comment. It would be amazing if we could leave a nice little present at the Progressive Electorate in the form of ten to fifteen crossposts.
Here's a tiny rose I took a picture of, as I skillfully maneuvered the camera to avoid the thorns.
I have now lost two posts about the Las Vegas caucus to my evil browser, so this one is going to be a picture tour. I'll just say, for all the whining about caucuses - and they are problematic in many ways - the ones in Las Vegas were just awesome. Cocktail waitresses, cooks, maids, nightclub PR flacks, pipe fitters, random Las Vegans all came together in the Wynn casino on the strip in a gaudy ballroom to pick a President, and it was... exactly like Iowa. It was raucous, cheerful, and exciting, as that video above shows. People are all the same, and when they are empowered it's just wonderful to observe.
These two guys are holding signs that say 'I support the union I support Hillary', the union being the Culinary Workers whose leadership endorsed Obama. The signs were paid for by the Clinton campaign, which outworked and out-organized Obama.
My full picture set is here, or you can follow me on the flip for a guided tour.
In 2004, it can be argued that IAFF's endorsement of John Kerry provided him with the manpower and support he needed to win Iowa (and as a result the nomination).
(Jeff Haynes, AFP)
Remember that if you're interested in my writing on Iowa, you can get it via e-mail if you subscribe to OpenLeft.com e-mail in the top right-hand corner.
All of the back and forth about the race in Iowa aside, it's important to note what progressive infrastructure exists there, because without progressive infrastructure, it would be a lot easier for candidates to campaign in Iowa without ever really saying anything that matters. With progressive organizing, we can at least get the presidential candidates to face important questions.
One of the interesting things that always happens in relation to the Democratic caucuses is that progressive issue groups always end up doing some organizing to try to push their set of issues into the campaign. Over the last 25 years, I've seen a wide range of these kinds of campaigns, with tactics ranging from TV ads to candidate forums to getting issue resolutions passed in the precinct caucuses on caucus night. This year, I'm helping groups working on Darfur and global poverty issues, as well as a group (the Center for Community Change) working on domestic poverty issues organize Iowa campaigns. CCC, along with Iowa Citizens for Community Improvement (ICCI) is planning a 5,000-person forum on poverty issues on December 1, which the way things are going, could end up two weeks before the caucuses, so it will likely be a very big deal. Many other groups, state and national, will do the same. National groups can succeed if they are linked with a strong Iowa organization, but the process of actually breaking through on any given issue is very challenging, and many efforts don't succeed.
In terms of local infrastructure, labor is the place to start, as with many other states. When I moved to Iowa in the early 1980s, Iowa had the strongest labor movement in the country for a right to work state. A few years before, in the late 1970s, the UAW had 45,000 members, the Machinists had 25,000 and several other unions were strong as well. (And in Iowa, those were big numbers.) The manufacturing crisis of the late '70s and early '80s decimated those numbers, but labor in Iowa still had clout and good leadership. A quarter of a century later, the manufacturing unions are weaker, although AFSCME, and SEIU to a lesser extent, have picked up some of the slack.
-Iowa Independent is an interesting collaboration between journalists and bloggers, and is affiliated with the Center for Independent Media, a national group that has helped these kinds of blogs start in several states. While they obviously are not as much of a progressive blog (as their name suggests), I like their work. I think it's the go-to place for coverage on issues in Iowa other than the presidential caucuses, which makes it a better place to go to understand politics overall in the state. Chris Woods, ever the presence among Iowa blogs, also does work over there.
-Blog for Iowa does good work on progressive infrastructure overall in Iowa, and has useful tools like an Iowa congressional scorecard and links to grassroots groups in the state.
Even when you combine labor, ICAN, ICCI, the internet organizations and the blogs that are in Iowa, it doesn't add up to as much as I would like in terms of progressive activity. However, there is a base to build on, and I hope the Iowans reading along will add their thoughts as to how progressives can have the biggest impact on the caucuses. Also, am I missing any key groups that the OpenLeft.com community should have on its radar screen?
STATE BLOGS
