Appearing as a panel member on Friday's Inside Washington on PBS, Politico's Evan Thomas – formerly of Newsweek – took a jab at Senate Republican Leader Mitch Mcconnell, suggesting that he is normally not a "good guy," during a discussion of the Kentucky Republican's role in reaching a deal with Democrats to extend the payroll tax cut by two months. (Video below)

After panel member Margaret Carlson of Bloomberg News asserted that it was difficult to see the point of why House Republicans were trying to hold out for a longer-term payroll tax cut extension, host Gordon Peterson turned to Evan Thomas and observed: "But Mitch McConnell rode in the white horse, Evan, it looks like."

Thomas responded: "And when Mitch McConnell is the good guy, you know how bad things have gotten…"

Below is video of the relevant portion of the Friday, December 23, Inside Washington on PBS

Late Friday afternoon, Todd Shields at Bloomberg News broke a story about some guy, who happens to be an Obama and Democratic Party donor (but not disclosed), against whom the Securities and Exchange Commission is formally considering an enforcement action (also not disclosed, though it was noted at the New York Times's Dealbook Blog five hours before Shields's report), whose "wireless service caused interference to 75 percent of global-positioning system receivers examined in a U.S. government test." Though it generated a fair amount of center-right blog discussion over the weekend, the establishment press largely ignored the stunning result.

Earlier this evening, Shields and Alan Levin reported even more troubling info (as carried at the San Francisco Chronicle; bolds are mine throughout this post):

---

Falcone's LightSquared Disrupts Plane Safety Gear in Testing

Philip Falcone's LightSquared service disrupted airplane safety equipment in U.S. tests of the proposed wireless network, government officials said.

Signals from LightSquared equipment caused "interference with a flight safety system designed to warn pilots of approaching terrain," according a statement from the Defense and Transportation departments distributed today by e-mail.

The safety gear relies on the global-positioning system. U.S. officials are testing for interference with GPS devices as they consider whether to let LightSquared operate its network. The service would let clients such as Best Buy Co. offer cheaper wireless services and products, LightSquared Chief Executive Officer Sanjiv Ahuja said in a Dec. 9 interview.

… LightSquared's effect on the air-safety system was the subject of a separate analysis by the Federal Aviation Administration, according to today's statement.

… The safety system displays any terrain or man-made obstruction in the path of an aircraft. If a plane flies too close to danger, the system sounds increasingly dire warnings urging a pilot to "Pull up!"

These devices have been required on turbine-powered aircraft since 2005 and are credited with nearly eliminating crashes in which pilots hit the ground in darkness or bad weather, according to the FAA. The system uses GPS to determine a plane's position, which it matches against a worldwide database of terrain, radio towers, buildings and airports.

Once again, Shields failed to report that Falcone is a heavy Obama and Democratic Party donor, or the existence of the SEC's consideration of enforcement action against Falcone, described thusly by the Times:

The Securities and Exchange Commission is putting Philip A. Falcone on alert.

Mr. Falcone, a hedge fund manager, received a Wells Notice from the commission on Thursday, according to a filing made by his firm, Harbinger Capital Partners. The agency typically sends those notices when it is considering an enforcement action against someone. Omar Asali and Robin Roger, two Harbinger board members, also received the notices.

The notices stem from possible "violations of the federal securities laws' anti-fraud provisions in connection with matters previously disclosed and an additional matter regarding the circumstances and disclosure related to agreements with certain fund investors," according to the filing.

Although the filing does not specify charges or allegations, the notice is likely related to a disclosure Harbinger made to investors. In April, the firm said it was being investigated for possible market manipulation in the trading of undisclosed debt securities from 2006 to 2008. Mr. Falcone has also been investigated over whether a $113 million personal loan he made to himself, using his firm’s funds, was disclosed to investors in a timely manner.

Such trivial matters are not news at all at most establishment press outlets, including the Essential Global News Network known as the Associated Press. A search on Falcone's last name at the AP's main national site comes up empty, and Lightsquared's name is mentioned only in passing in an unrelated AP article about Clearwire.

Hot Air's Ed Morrissey provided background the press has totally ignored on Saturday (links were in original):

If that was all there was to this story, then this would just be another commercial venture that struck out, with little interest outside the tech fields involved.  However, the overwhelming failure of LightSquared’s test puts allegations from last summer in a new light.  In September, four-star Air Force General William Shelton accused the White House of pressuring him in August to change his Congressional testimony to make his assessment of LightSquared more favorable.  Another Congressional witness told Eli Lake that the White House had “offered guidance” on how to testify favorably towards LightSquared.

Why is this important?  Philip Falcone is a big donor to the Democratic Party, and he has billions of dollars at stake in LightSquared’s approval.  Also, Obama himself was an investor in LightSquared at one point, as were or are a number of his associates.  The resounding failure in this test makes it look like the White House pressured witnesses to back off of exposing LightSquared’s product as exactly the kind of dangerous problem that critics had maintained all along — with the intent to mislead Congress into moving forward with LightSquared’s government contracts.

Is this administration really going to ultimately green-light LightSquared, thereby disrupting the GPS system, and even risking the safety of air travel, in the name of granting favors to a corrupt crony? We may be witnessing a high-tech "All My Sons" scenario conducted in broad daylight.

Is the press, including Bloomberg, which is negligently sticking to the technical details without addressing the corruption — something which certainly would not be happening if a Republican or conservative were in the White House — really going to look the other way while all of this happens? If so, why do they bother coming to work every day?

Cross-posted at BizzyBlog.com.

Primarily designed or operated for the purpose of, has only limited purpose or use other than, or is marketed by its operator or another acting in concert with that operator for use in, offering goods or services in a manner that engages in, enables, or facilitates [theft of U.S. property].

Brought to you by OutloudOpinion.com

Waters is in line to take over from Frank on the powerful Financial Services Committee when he retires next year. On financial issues, the California liberal is even left of Frank, who was the chief architect of the disastrous banking overhaul bill bearing his name.

“As the next most senior member of the committee, I hope to use my experience to continue and expand his work in the committee,” Waters said. “I will continue to champion practical regulations.”

by OutloudOpinion.com For more Podcasts visit www.outloudopinion.com

Readers participating in the real world will be quite surprised to learn that, according to Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, "It's very clear that private-sector jobs have been doing just fine."

At The Hill's Floor Action blog, reporter Pete Kasperowicz, writing as if the world began in early 2010, supported Reid's contention: "Private-sector jobs have increased over the last 19 months, while government jobs have lagged." I hope both gentlemen don't mind if, after excerpting a few paragraphs from Pete K's report, we look at some real numbers after the jump.

Here is the excerpt, which includes a "Blame Bush" sighting:

Reid signals government jobs must take priority over private-sector jobs

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) on Wednesday indicated Congress needs to worry about government jobs more than private-sector jobs, and that this is why Senate Democrats are pushing a bill aimed at shoring up teachers and first-responders.

"It's very clear that private-sector jobs have been doing just fine; it's the public-sector jobs where we've lost huge numbers, and that's what this legislation is all about," Reid said on the Senate floor.

… Reid reiterated his emphasis on creating government jobs by saying Democrats are looking to "put hundreds of thousands of people back to work teaching children, have more police patrolling our streets, firefighters fighting our fires, doing the rescue work that they do so well … that's our priority."

… Private-sector jobs have increased over the last 19 months, while government jobs have lagged. They've also seen cuts in several states that are struggling to balanced their books.

… Democrats who support the bill have said it would help save 400,000 teacher jobs and thousands of first-responder jobs that have either been cut or could soon be cut. Reid said Wednesday that these layoffs are "rooted in the last administration," but did not explain further.

Now let's look at the data (all figures are seasonally adjusted):

From its January 2008 peak to February 2010, private-sector employment fell by over 8.8 million. Since then, 2.58 million jobs have been added. Even before considering population growth in the meantime, over 6.2 million jobs haven't come back yet. Reid's suggestion that "private-sector jobs have been doing just fine" is delusional. Excuse me for believing that reporter Pete K would have dug back a bit further if a Republican or conservative had made a statement similar to Reid's.

Meanwhile, federal government employment growth began very shortly after September 2007, which "just so happens" to be when the budget year associated with the final session of Congress under Republican control ended. Federal employment is up by 238,000 in the past four years. Maybe those jobs could have been given to local first-responders.

Speaking of local education, employment grew by 290,000 from January 2005 to September 2008, and has since fallen back to where it was. That would seem to be a terrible development, but the fact is that public school enrollment in 2010 was virtually the same as it was in 2005. Thus, the crying need for hundreds of thousands more teachers above the ones we already have is unconvincing — even before looking at which states might be avoiding teacher layoff's (e.g., Wisconsin) and which ones are having to do so.

Suffice it to say that Pete Kasperowicz's coverage at the Hill was particularly pathetic.

Cross-posted at BizzyBlog.com.

If you only read Thursday's coverage of Bank of America's decision to impose a $5 monthly debit card fee by Associated Press Personal Finance Writer Candice Choi, you would have no idea that last year's "Dodd–Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act" triggered BofA's decision. The legislation gave the Federal Reserve the power to limit debit card interchange fees. The Fed's limit — 21 cents plus 0.5% of each purchase transaction — basically cut the banks' fees by about half from their pre-Dodd-Frank level. CardHub.com estimates that the cap will reduce banks' fee income by $9.4 billion annually.

Ms. Choi only cited the existence of "a new rule" in her opening paragraph. She then waited until the ninth paragraph to vaguely cite the existence of "a regulation." It hardly seems accidental that most news consumers who didn't follow the fee fight a year ago will probably have the impression that banks are driving the fee increases, as the following excerpt will demonstrate (bolds are mine):

---

More bad news for bank customers: Debit card fees

Bank of America will start charging debit-card users $5 a month to pay for purchases. The move comes as the cards increasingly replace cash and as banks look for ways to offset the loss of revenue from a new rule that will limit how much they can collect from merchants.

Paying to use a debit card was unheard of before this year and is still a novel concept for many consumers. But several banks have recently introduced or started testing debit card fees. That's in addition to the spate of other unwelcome changes checking account customers have seen in the past year. Bank of America will begin charging the fee early next year.

… Customers will only be charged the fee if they use their debit cards for purchases in any given month, said Anne Pace, a Bank of America spokeswoman. Those who only use their cards at ATMs won't have to pay.

The debit card fee is just the latest twist in the rapidly evolving market for checking accounts.

A study by Bankrate.com this week found that just 45 percent of checking accounts are now free with no strings attached, down from 65 percent last year and 76 percent in 2009.

… The changes come ahead of a regulation that goes into effect next month.

Starting Oct. 1, the regulation will cap the fees that banks can collect from merchants whenever customers swipe their debit cards.

… There is no similar cap on the merchant fees that banks can collect when customers use their credit cards, however. That means many banks are increasingly encouraging customers to reach for their credit cards, in hopes of reversing a trend toward debit card usage in the past several years.

Ms. Choi never identified what law drove the need for the fee (Dodd-Frank), who championed it (President Barack Obama), who passed the law (the Democratic Congress led by House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid), which Senator pushed for the fee cap (Illinois Democrat Dick Durbin, who of course is claiming the new fees aren't his fault), or who issued the rule (the Fed).

There's room for discussion as to whether capping merchant fees for debit-card transactions has merit. But there's no good excuse for Ms. Choi's failure to report how the cap came about and who's responsible. I suppose she may claim that she's "only" a personal finance writer and not a political reporter, but that doesn't cut it. As written, it could have been the American Bankers Association and not the federal government which imposed the rule. Choi's writeup enables those who passed the legislation and issued the rule to partially avoid accountability for what they've done, and would seem to betray a belief on her part that readers would not be pleased with them if they knew.

Free checking is starting to disappear, and fee fever is growing. Why it's happening — because of so-called "consumer" legislation — is news, Candice.

Cross-posted at BizzyBlog.com.

Two out of three CBS local affiliate political reporters featured on Thursday's Early Show bluntly stated that President Obama faces "major uphill battle" in recapturing key states for the 2012 election. Anchor Chris Wragge noted the "all-time low" approval rating for the President, while an Ohio journalist highlighted how a Democratic strategist thought Obama was "feeling more Carter than Clinton."

Wragge turned to David Crabtree of WRAL-TV in Raleigh, North Carolina; Jim Heath of CBS affiliate WBNS in Columbus, Ohio; and Sam Brock from WTVR in Richmond, Virginia for their takes on the President's recent stops in their states following his jobs bill speech to Congress earlier in September. Crabtree reported on the positive reaction from those who attended Mr. Obama's speech in North Carolina, but then outlined that the Democrat faces several challenges in the months ahead:

DAVID CRABTREE, POLITICAL REPORTER, WRAL-TV: …[T]he President has a major uphill battle in this state, trying to convince voters to convince their Republican members of Congress to vote for this jobs bill. Right now, the lines appear to be drawn, with the Republicans saying they are not going to do that. So, while it was received well in this campaign here stop in North Carolina, there's still a lot more work to be done for the President to recapture this state. He did win four years ago by 14,000 votes. But his disapproval rating in North Carolina today is at least at 53%. He's got a lot more work to be done.

The CBS anchor then turned to Heath and asked, "What are the independent voters telling you about the President's visit there?" Heath detailed a more stark picture of the situation on the ground for the chief executive in the Buckeye State, even making a slight reference to the "hope and change" slogan from the 2008 campaign:

HEATH: Chris, the first thing I noticed: the last time the President was in Ohio- he was at the Ohio State University- 30,000 people were there- this week, 3,000. So, the mood, everything seems to be a little bit different, as we head into 2012.

I spoke to some unemployed folks right after his speech, and one young lady, in particular…said that she had strongly supported the President in 2008, still liked him as a person, but she made the comment, after three years, you can't promise people jobs and not deliver. So, she's about to give up hope.

The economy, as always in the swing state of Ohio, is going to be key, Chris. And I had one Democratic strategist tell me a few weeks ago that the third year of the Obama administration is feeling more Carter than Clinton. If that holds throughout 2012, it'd be very difficult for any incumbent, regardless of party, to win swing state Ohio.

Brock gave a slightly positive take on Obama's overall prospects in Virginia, stating that "for Mr. Obama, this has been his third trip to central Virginia in just the last year, the second time he's been to Richmond….he went to the University of Richmond- and this is interesting- because the University of Richmond is…an elite private institution. Mr. Obama could have gone the route of the main big city school in downtown Richmond. He bypassed that, and he still had a very positive reception at the University of Richmond."

The full transcript of the segment from Thursday's Early Show, which began four minutes into the 7 am Eastern hour:

CHRIS WRAGGE: In the past week, President Obama has given five speeches in three states, pushing Congress to pass his jobs bill. At a dinner last night in Washington, the President once again sang the praises of his $447 billion package.

PRESIDENT BARACK OBAMA (from speech to the National Congressional Hispanic Caucus Institute): A jobs bill that puts Americans back to work, a balanced approach to pay for it that will lower our deficit in the long run- these are the steps Congress needs to take right now, to put our country on a stronger footing.

WRAGGE: But getting it through Congress looks to be uphill battle. And meanwhile, according to a new Bloomberg News national poll, the President's job approval rating is at 45%, an all-time low.

So, this morning, we're asking political reporters from the three states he's visited, what do the voters think of the President's jobs plan. We'll begin with veteran political reporter David Crabtree from our Raleigh, North Carolina affiliate, WRAL-TV. David, good morning. What's the reaction to yesterday's speech there?

DAVID CRABTREE, POLITICAL REPORTER, WRAL-TV: Chris, good morning to you. The reaction to the speech was positive by those who were there. These are people who had waited in line for two and a half hours, just to get tickets to the event; waited in line another two hours to get inside; and then, two more hours to hear the President's speech. It was his crowd.

However, beyond that, the President has a major uphill battle in this state, trying to convince voters to convince their Republican members of Congress to vote for this jobs bill. Right now, the lines appear to be drawn, with the Republicans saying they are not going to do that. So, while it was received well in this campaign here stop in North Carolina, there's still a lot more work to be done for the President to recapture this state. He did win four years ago by 14,000 votes. But his disapproval rating in North Carolina today is at least at 53%. He's got a lot more work to be done. Chris?

WRAGGE: All right. David Crabtree in Raleigh for us- David, thank you very much. Now, let's go to Jim Heath of our Columbus, Ohio affiliate, WBNS and ONN-TV. Jim, what are the independent voters telling you about the President's visit there?

JIM HEATH, POLITICAL REPORTER, WBNS-TV/ONN-TV: Chris, the first thing I noticed: the last time the President was in Ohio- he was at the Ohio State University- 30,000 people were there- this week, 3,000. So, the mood, everything seems to be a little bit different, as we head into 2012.

I spoke to some unemployed folks right after his speech, and one young lady, in particular- very interesting. She said that she had strongly supported the President in 2008, still liked him as a person, but she made the comment, after three years, you can't promise people jobs and not deliver. So, she's about to give up hope.

The economy, as always in the swing state of Ohio, is going to be key, Chris. And I had one Democratic strategist tell me a few weeks ago that the third year of the Obama administration is feeling more Carter than Clinton. If that holds throughout 2012, it'd be very difficult for any incumbent, regardless of party, to win swing state Ohio.

WRAGGE: All right. Jim Heath in Columbus, Ohio- Jim, thank you. Two down, one more to go- let's go to Sam Brock at CBS affiliate WTVR in Richmond, Virginia, where President Obama made his first trip after his jobs speech to Congress a week ago. Sam, good morning. Now, why is Virginia so important to the President right now?

SAM BROCK, POLITICAL REPORTER, WTVR: Chris, good morning. This is a state that has voted for the Republican candidate for 40 years- that is, until 2008. So if there is any question, any shred of doubt, as to how important Virginia is, look no further than the last few days. President Obama came to the University of Richmond, spoke about his jobs speech on Friday. And, not to be outdone, Texas Governor Rick Perry, the GOP front-runner, came out yesterday and he campaigned with his buddy, Virginia Governor Bob McDonnell.

Now, for Mr. Obama, this has been his third trip to central Virginia in just the last year, the second time he's been to Richmond. This past visit, he targeted the district of Congressman Eric Cantor, the majority leader. So possibly, a counter-punch there for Mr. Obama. Now, as far as where he spoke, he went to the University of Richmond- and this is interesting- because the University of Richmond is located in an affluent community. It is an elite private institution. Mr. Obama could have gone the route of the main big city school in downtown Richmond. He bypassed that, and he still had a very positive reception at the University of Richmond.

WRAGGE: All right. Sam Brock in Richmond for us this morning- Sam, thank you very much.

On Tuesday, The Washington Post's Felicia Sonmez noted how MSNBC's Tamron Hall moderated the recent Congressional Black Caucus town hall where Rep. Andre Carson smeared the Tea Party by accusing them of wanting to bring back Jim Crow laws and endorsing the lynching of blacks. Former Obama aide turned NBC employee Joy-Ann Reid also attended the CBC event, but omitted Rep. Carson's attack from her report.

During the August 22 town hall in Miami, Carson, a leader within the liberal Congressional Black Caucus from Indiana, actually apologized to Hall in the midst of his inflammatory remarks against the Tea Party:

REP. ANDRE CARSON, (D), INDIANA: Some of these folks in Congress right now would love to see us as second-class citizens. (audience members reply, "Yes!") Some of them in Congress right now of this Tea Party would love to see you and me- I'm sorry, Tamron- hanging on a tree. (audience members reply, "Yes!") Some of them right now in Congress are comfortable with where we were 50 and 60 years ago.

Hall anchored her 2 pm Eastern hour program from Miami on both August 22 and August 23, but as the 23rd was also the day East Coast earthquake struck, she covered the aftermath of that tremor for the entire hour, mentioning the CBC event only in passing. She hasn't mentioned it on-air since that day.

In addition to Hall, the RealMReynolds blog on Wednesday pointed out that Reid, the anchor's colleague in the NBC family (as managing editor for TheGrio.com), live-Tweeted the CBC town hall. The former Obama 2008 campaign press aide, who bashed Republican presidential candidate Michele Bachmann as "crazy" and "loopy" earlier in August, and defended Newsweek's "queen of rage" cover of the Indiana congresswoman, actually highlighted Rep. Carson's lynching attack against the Tea Party in a Tweet (while admitting she didn't know his name), but neglected to mention it in her report on TheGrio.com. She did mention other attendees attacks on the conservative grassroots movements, including Rep. Frederica Wilson ("the enemy is the Tea Party"), Jesse Jackson (who, like Carson, likened the Tea Party to segregationists), and Rep. Alcee Hastings.

On August 23, the day following the town hall, Reid appeared on MSNBC on the Jansing & Co. program, but focused on the jobs fair component of the CBC event, and mentioned the town hall only briefly.

In the broader mainstream media, the Big Three networks have so far punted on Rep. Carson's smear of the Tea Party, ignoring covering the event on their evening news programs on Tuesday and their morning shows on Wednesday.

[H/t: Matthias Reynolds on Twitter]

This is the utter garbage in a Tuesday morning report ("Obama faces tight restraints in crafting jobs plan") the Associated Press's Jim Kuhnhenn expects his wire service's readers, listeners, and viewers to swallow, and its subscribing media outlets to non-skeptically publish and broadcast.

If I were to use my annotated style of taking apart a story, I'd have at least 30 items. Other than his very late segment addressing the worthy recommendations of economist Kevin Hassett, virtually every sentence is a teeth-grinder, and almost every statement by anyone other than Hassett is a forehead-slapper.

Here are my nominees for the top three ridiculous passages in Kuhnhenn's calamity:

(opening sentence)

Hamstrung by budget cuts and a tight debt ceiling, President Barack Obama is preparing a September jobs package with limited tools at his disposal to prime the economy and crank up employment.

Jim, there are no cuts. Spending continues to increase. Any items advertised as "cuts" are only reductions in projected spending per the Congressional Budget Office assuming Congress just sits there and doesn't try to do its job. If you can point to a major budget where actual spending in fiscal 2012 is projected to be less than fiscal 2011 spending — let alone fiscal 2007, before Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid followed by President Obama tore the roof off of anything resembling spending control — I'd like to know what it is. The federal government is on track to spend well over 35% more in fiscal 2011 (about $3.7 trillion) than it did in 2007 (about $2.7 trillion). "Budget cuts"?

(Paragraph 9)

He also has lent support to a proposal to create an "infrastructure bank," a fund that would be seeded by the government but fed by private investment to pay for major road, bridge and other public construction. Even advocates of the plan, however, say that proposal probably would not be in place to generate jobs for about two years.

Then why is he bothering?

(Final paragraph)

"The debt deal doesn't allow any sizable amount of deficit spending or increased spending," he (Lawrence Mishel, president of the liberal Economic Policy Institute) said. "If you 're going to pay for it later, how do you do that when you have a tight amount of debt that you can take on over the next year and a half?"

This is downright pathological. "The debt deal" allowed the national debt to increase by $2.4 trillion over roughly 18 months. That's a $133 billion per month average. That's a "tight amount"? Someone should ask Mishel what he thinks would be "loose."

As for "any sizable amount of deficit spending or increased spending" — Lord, we've run almost $4 trillion in official deficits during the last three fiscal years (fiscal 2009 and 2010 actuals per the Treasury Department, $1.42 trillion and $1.29 trillion; projected fiscal 2011, $1.28 trillion; projected three-year total, $3.99 trillion), while the national debt ballooned by $4.6 trillion from September 30, 2008 through yesterday ($14.625 trillion minus $10.025 trillion. How high would these numbers have to get before they become "sizable"?

Rush's reaction to Kuhnhenn's report during the opening segment of his show today was similar to your truly's, and his ending echoes the point I made in the second paragraph of this post's introduction (bolds are mine):

AP is very concerned here, folks. They're making excuses for Obama, even before he delivers the big jobs speech that's coming up sometime next week. And remember how they used to do that for Bush? Make excuses? Yeah, guess not. In any case, what this AP story boils down to is that the first round of stimulus is drying up, and according to AP, that's why the GDP, economic growth, is down to 1%. Isn't that cool? Economic growth is down, not because of unemployment, not because Obama has targeted the private sector, not because he has shrunk the private sector while growing the government. No, no, no, no. Our economic slowdown is due to the fact that the first stimulus is now drying up.

So consequently Obama is now desperate for another round of stimulus in order to keep the GDP in positive territory and out of an official recession in an election year. The trouble is that Obama can't spend much without raising the debt ceiling yet again, as AP points out. Hey, it's real problem. We just went through a debt ceiling fight, raising it another two point whatever trillion dollars and we can't go back to it too soon. People didn't want the debt ceiling raised this time. So the AP is wringing its hands and they're all concerned over the restraints poor Obama faces in announcing his jobs program.

… In the middle of three years of failure, you have a major news organization that's making the case for Obama in advance for more of the same, which is going to get us more of the same: smaller private sector, fewer jobs, no salary or wage increases. Utter failure. And yet they are promoting it. They are making the case for it. Well, both. Making the case for it and for him.

But the point is they're saying Obama must up spending to get reelected. How many more votes can he buy? How many more votes can he buy? If this was the way to reelection, he ought to be at 70, 80% in the polls. So I look at this and I chuckle, I laugh, and then I sorta scratch my head because this is a major problem. This story is gonna run in newspapers and on websites all across the country, and a bunch of people (are) gonna read it and think that it's the way it is. I mean it's the height of ignorance, of being uninformed, and journalistic malpractice at the same time.

It isn't journalistic malpractice only if you're in Jim Kuhnhenn's Cave on Planet AP.

Cross-posted at BizzyBlog.com.

To borrow from a certain president's former preacher, the "chickens are coming home to roost" in Social Security's disability program. It's nearly bankrupt, and set to run out of cash by 2017.

In the Associated Press's writeup ("Social Security disability on verge of insolvency") of the situation occasioned by a congressional report repeating the obvious, Stephen Ohlemacher surprisingly and correctly retold a bit of the history which readers should find quite interesting, as it largely explains how the program got out of control (bold is mine):

Congress tried to rein in the disability program in the late 1970s by making it tougher to qualify. The number of people receiving benefits declined for a few years, even during a recession in the early 1980s. Congress, however, reversed course and loosened the criteria, and the rolls were growing again by 1984.

The disability program "got into trouble first because of liberalization of eligibility standards in the 1980s," said Charles Blahous, one of the public trustees who oversee Social Security. "Then it got another shove into bigger trouble during the recent recession."

Today, about 13.6 million people receive disability benefits through Social Security or Supplemental Security Income.

Those of us who were around and tried to pay attention during the early 1980s when a very few entities (The New York Times, the Washington Post, CBS, NBC, ABC, CNN, and three or four wire services) had a virtual stranglehold on national news coverage were led to believe that it was the evil, mean, heartless, cruel, unfeeling, uncaring Reagan administration which on its own initiative was solely responsible for its attempt to trim the disability rolls of people who did not qualify. As Ohlemacher indicates, what really happened was that Team Reagan — silly them — was trying to implement a law which a firmly Democrat-controlled Congress (58-42 in the Senate and 277-158 in the House during 1979-1980) had passed during the final years of Jimmy Carter's presidency.

This is reinforced in a 1992 New York Times item covering a government agreement to reopen over New York State-based cases involving over 200,000 claims (not kidding) involving 1980s disability denials, wherein the Times's Robert Pear chose to do a virtual victory dance in print — and used a Bush 41 slogan to do it (bolds and numbered tags are mine):

U.S. TO RECONSIDER DENIAL OF BENEFITS TO MANY DISABLED

Reversing one of the most widely criticized policies of the Reagan Administration [1], Federal officials have agreed to reopen tens of thousands of cases in which the Government denied benefits to people who said they could not work because of mental or physical disabilities.

… The settlement affects those who were denied benefits at any point in the 11 years since the Reagan Administration began a systematic campaign to purge the Social Security disability rolls. [1] Benefits are supposed to be paid to people who cannot engage in any "substantial gainful activity."

… The Administration said its campaign was required under a 1980 law and was essential to control the cost of the rapidly growing disability program. [2] The Government contended that many beneficiaries were able to work, even though courts later found that thousands were helpless because of severe physical or mental problems.

… If the settlement is approved, as lawyers on both sides are recommending, the Government will send out letters offering to re-examine the claims of more than 200,000 people in New York state who have been denied disability benefits since Oct. 1, 1981. [3]

By making substantial concessions in the proposed settlement, Federal officials will avoid a court order that could have been more burdensome and more embarrassing to the Government in this election year. President Bush and the Social Security Commissioner, Gwendolyn S. King, have repeatedly said their policies are "kinder and gentler" than those of the Reagan Administration. [4]

No other aspect of Mr. Reagan's social policy was so widely criticized by Federal judges, governors and members of Congress as his effort to remove people from the disability rolls, often in defiance of court rulings.

… In the past, Social Security officials often asserted that they were bound only by Supreme Court decisions and that they did not have to "acquiesce" in decisions of lower courts if such decisions contradicted their reading of the law. [5]

… Federal judges repeatedly denounced this policy as lawless. [6]

… That represents a big change from the defiant position [7] taken by the Government over the last decade. In 1989, for example, the Justice Department said the executive branch was not subordinate to the judicial branch and was not required to follow statements in circuit court opinions, which are "merely a weather vane, showing which way the wind is blowing." [7]

Notes:

• [1] — As noted, it wasn't Reagan's policy, it was a policy implementation required by a 1980 Carter-Era law (Pear eventually admits that, as quietly as he can). Again, silly Reagan, doing what the Executive Branch is supposed to do — execute the laws Congress passes.
• [2] — See, the law really was passed while Jimmy Carter was president. It's amazing how the "heartless" tag never got applied to him or the Democrat-dominated 96th Congress, isn't it?
• [3] — It seems likely that this action alone, applied countrywide, added hundreds of thousands to the disability roles who had not qualified under rules specified by (yes, I have to mention it again) the Democrat-dominated 96th Congress.
• [4] — Note the obligatory dig, by implication, at Reagan's allegedly unkind, rough administration.
• [5] — This may seem like an unreasonable position for Social Security to have taken, but it emphatically wasn't. Remember, each court ruling involving Social Security benefits was an individual matter and as such was meant only to apply to the individual involved in the matter. To have the results of a ruling apply to everyone, the proper post-ruling procedure would have been for Congress to enact a law applying the ruling to identical or very similar individual circumstances. This is no different from the problem, covered in more detail here, that almost everyone wishing to enforce their Communications Workers of America v. Beck rights in demanding that union dues for political purposes not be withheld must still bring an individual action and see it through the court system before the union has to give in. Why? Because Congress has never passed a law implementing the Beck opinion; only a very few states have done so. Until Congress does, individual litigation is the only available route for enforcing that particular Supreme Court decision. Instead of settling with the State of New York, the Bush administration, if it really wanted things to change, should have run a law through Congress to make those changes. Sadly, this is another example of those in charge taking the easy way out instead of following prescribed constitutional procedures.
• [6] — This only shows that federal judges have lost the proper understanding of their role, and of the constitutional enforceability of their individual rulings. The reason the judges could only denounce what Social Security did and not throw Social Security administrators in jail or hold them in contempt was because, as noted earlier, the courts have no enforcement powers over cases beyond those they have individually decided.
• [7] — The Justice Department's 1989 position may or may not have been "defiant," but it was definitely based on a proper reading of the Constitution's separation of powers.

The AP's Ohlemacher notes the fiscally disastrous results (bold is mine):

Applications are up nearly 50 percent over a decade ago as people with disabilities lose their jobs and can't find new ones in an economy that has shed nearly 7 million jobs.

… Claims for disability benefits typically increase in a bad economy because many disabled people get laid off and can't find a new job. This year, about 3.3 million people are expected to apply for federal disability benefits. That's 700,000 more than in 2008 and 1 million more than a decade ago.

"It's primarily economic desperation," Social Security Commissioner Michael Astrue said in an interview. "People on the margins who get bad news in terms of a layoff and have no other place to go and they take a shot at disability" …

So "disability" for many has devolved into a program for those who discover, once they stop working, that it might be better to find a way to continue not working. Critically, Ohlemacher fails to note another motivation: Getting onto Social Security's disability rolls is a gateway to other federal "entitlements" (food stamps, Section 8 housing, probably free cell phones, etc.).

But the AP writer nevertheless deserves some credit for setting straight just who passed a law trying to get the program under control, and who then got the grief for merely trying to do their job in carrying the law out. Now the chickens, as noted, are coming home to roost.

Cross-posted at BizzyBlog.com.