I really don't have time to track everything said on CNN and every other network, read every publication that does national news and still report news on my own, so I don't know if "class warfare" is being used every 10 seconds on tv. I suspect not, as it's a loaded term.
Bacon is right; "class warfare" is a loaded (and selectively applied) term. But whether he has noticed or not, the phrase has made its way into quite a few news reports -- and not just those on cable news and in the Politico.
For example, here's a recent Washington Post headline: "Mortgage-Aid Tiff May Portend a New Wave of Class War." That article hyped "the potential for a new wave of class warfare as the president unveils economic plans that reward some people, often at the expense of others."
Another example: on Sunday, the Post will run a column by Jackson Diehl, deputy editor of the paper's editorial board. In the column, which is already available online, Diehl argues that Obama's policies "allow" Republicans to call them "class warfare":
"If anything, Obama has raised the stakes by proposing no funding source other than higher taxes on wealthy Americans, allowing Republicans to raise the cries of 'socialism' and 'class warfare.'"
Point being: Bacon is right that reporters shouldn't use the term "class warfare" -- but they're doing it, even if he hasn't noticed.
The Park Center for Independent Media, run by FAIR founder Jeff Cohen, is honoring Glenn Greenwald and Amy Goodman:
The Park Center for Independent Media (PCIM) at Ithaca College has announced that its first annual Izzy Award for special achievement in independent media will be shared this year by two pillars of independent journalism: blogger Glenn Greenwald and "Democracy Now!" host/executive producer Amy Goodman.
The Izzy Award is named after the legendary dissident journalist Isidor Feinstein "Izzy" Stone, who launched his muckraking newsletter "I.F. Stone's Weekly" in 1953 during the height of the McCarthy witch hunts. Stone, who died in 1989, exposed government deceit and corruption while championing civil liberties, racial justice and international diplomacy.
Citing their "pathbreaking journalistic courage and persistence in confronting conventional wisdom, official deception and controversial issues," the judges chose the two winners because "the intrepid spirit of Izzy Stone is alive and thriving in the tireless daily efforts of Amy Goodman and Glenn Greenwald."
Wednesday's online headline from CNBC's incessant Street cheerleader, Larry Kudlow:
"Recovery Indicators Are Being Ignored"
This afternoon's headline from WSJ.com:
"Recession Job Losses Top Four Million"
The Journal lead:
The U.S. economy continues to hemorrhage jobs at monthly rates not seen in six decades, a government report showed, signaling that there's still no end in sight to the severe recession that has already cost the U.S. over four million jobs.
But yes, by all means listen to Kudlow.
Specifically, for the team of top notch reporters who are trying to cover the most complex and challenging economic story of our lifetime. And by most accounts they're doing a good job staying on top of the constantly changing crisis.
The embarrassing part is when they open up the opinion pages of their own newspaper and see the editorials about the economy that read like they were penned by pledging members of the Young Republicans club.
Like the Journal's attempt to blame Obama for the downturn in the stock market. Only a fool would make that case. (i.e. Slumping housing prices in December and January were Obama's fault? Okay.....) But that's what the Journal proudly did this week:
As 2009 opened, three weeks before Barack Obama took office, the Dow Jones Industrial Average closed at 9034 on January 2, its highest level since the autumn panic. Yesterday the Dow fell another 4.24% to 6763, for an overall decline of 25% in two months and to its lowest level since 1997. The dismaying message here is that President Obama's policies have become part of the economy's problem.
Over at NPR, Dick Meyer makes what should be this glaringly obvious point:
The idea of blaming one person for the downfall of the economy with a gross domestic product of about $14 trillion, powered by 300 million people and engaged in complex global commerce is nuts — whether that person is Bush, Obama, Alan Greenspan, Bernard Madoff, Osama bin Laden or the editors of opinions at The Wall Street Journal.
And if the Journal wants to toss around numbers to play the stock market blame game, Meyer notes [emphasis added]:
The rather more substantial fall came when the Dow was hovering around 14,000 in October 2007 and then tanked to 7552 on Nov. 20, 2008? That would mean, using the nastiest numbers, that the Dow fell about 46.5 percent on President Bush's watch. So far during the Obama administration, the Dow has dropped 15 percent.
This is getting tiresome:
This weekend I will be appearing on DC 50's Weekend News with Chris Core in Washington, DC. Jason Mattera from Young America's Foundation and I were paired up for a discussion about Rush Limbaugh's influence within the conservative movement. The show will air on channel 50 in Washington, DC on Saturday at 6:30pm and Sunday at 4pm. If you live in the DC area, tune in to check it out. We'll also try to post a clip of the segment here on County Fair after the program airs.
The Service Employees International Union (SEIU) has a challenge for Bill O'Reilly:
This week Bill O'Reilly launched a baseless attack on members of the Service Employees International Union. O'Reilly smeared our 2 million hardworking men and women as "socialists" and "far-left extremists" trying to bring down "our capitalistic system."
Riiiight. SEIU members responded to O'Reilly by inviting the "news" man to walk a day in their shoes and find out what it's like to work in a real job.
Since Bill O'Reilly is so sure that SEIU is bent on destroying the very fabric of our society, it'd be nice for him to meet some of our members and see who makes up our union.
Do you think Bill O'Reilly could even last 10 minutes in the shoes of one of these hard-working Americans? Now is your chance to find out. Tell Bill O'Reilly to walk a day in the shoes of an SEIU member before he slams hardworking people.
Andrew Malcolm, who used to work for Laura Bush, blogs politics at the Times and types up inanities with numbing regularity. Today he mocks the homeless -- or at least the very poor of Washington, D.C. -- while taking a swipe at Michelle Obama's volunteer work.
The point of his pointless item was that Obama put in some time at a soup kitchen not far from the White House, but that one of the men in line pulled out a cell phone to snap a photo of the first lady.
Malcolm, suddenly on the beat as a poverty cop, demands:
If this unidentified meal recipient is too poor to buy his own food, how does he afford a cellphone? And if he is homeless, where do they send the cellphone bills?
And by the way, the soup kitchen Obama volunteered at is privately funded, which means it's nobody's business who it serves or doesn't serve. But media elite Malcolm, sitting in some comfortable office, demands answers about just how poor the poor people are who are lined up for free food in the nation's capital.
UPDATE: Right-wing bloggers think the item's funny: Ha-ha, poor people don't have phones!!
UPDATE: Writes Tbogg:
Later Malcolm will review older pictures from the last Republican Depression That FDR Was Responsible For and wonder why all the poor guys begging for bread were wearing such spiffy suits and nice hats.
Married to the GOP talking point about how Obama's gutting the economy and ruining Wall Street, the Beltway press remains borderline hysterical about the fact that Obama hasn't fixed everything already. Americans, though, aren't quite so irrational.
Here's Klein today in The Note perfectly parroting the GOP line (that's pretty much his job description):
On a political level, how long can the president muster the public support for his prescriptions, without tangible evidence that they're working?
If Klein bothered to read polling data, that exact question has already been answered. But we fear Klein and the rest of the press aren't going to like the results.
As Nate Silver at FiveThirtyEight recently highlighted, the latest NBC/WSJ poll found that a strong majority of Americans (66 percent) won't begin to assign to Obama responsibility for the performance of the economy until 2010, and 43 percent won't until 2011.
The press ought to just take a deep breath before assigning blame. But with conservatives pushing their it's-Obama's-fault line of attack, we doubt journalists will be able to resist.
Daniel Gross, business columnist for Newsweek and author of Slate.com's Moneybox column, debunks claims by Larry Kudlow, Michael Gerson (and countless others) that Barack Obama is waging class war on the rich:
It's hard to overstate how absurd these claims are. First, let's talk about the "massive increase in progressivity" that Gerson deplores. It consists largely (but not exclusively) of returning marginal tax rates to their levels of 2001, before Gerson and the epically incompetent Bush administration of which he was a part got their hands on the reins of power.
[W]e know from recent experience that marginal tax rates of 36 percent and 39 percent aren't wealth killers. I was around in the 1990s, when tax rates were at that level, and when capital gains and dividend taxes were significantly higher than they are today. And I seem to remember that we had a stock market boom, a broad rise in incomes (with the wealthy benefitting handily), and strong economic growth.
Finally, there has been a near total absence of discussion of what higher rates will mean in the real world. Say you're a CNBC anchor, or a Washington Post columnist with a seat at the Council on Foreign Relations, or a dentist, and you managed to cobble together $350,000 a year in income. You're doing quite well. If you subtract deductions for state and property taxes, mortgage interest and charitable deductions, and other deductions, the amount on which tax rates are calculated might total $300,000. What would happen if the marginal rate on the portion of your income above $250,000 were to rise from 33 percent to 36 percent? Under the old regime, you'd pay $16,500 in federal taxes on that amount. Under the new one, you'd pay $18,000. The difference is $1,500 per year, or $4.10 per day. Obviously, the numbers rise as you make more. But is $4.10 a day bleeding the rich, a war on the wealthy, a killer of innovation and enterprise? That dentist eager to slash her income from $320,000 to $250,000 would avoid the pain of paying an extra $2,100 in federal taxes. But she'd also deprive herself of an additional $70,000 in income!
Can she, or we, really be that stupid?
Gross also makes a point too often overlooked: "this return to 2001's tax rates was actually part of the Bush tax plan. The Republicans who controlled the White House and the Republicans who controlled the Congress earlier this decade decreed that all the tax cuts they passed would sunset in 2010."
Read the whole thing; it -- along with this column from Michael Hiltzik of the LA Times -- is a rare sensible and factual take on Obama's budget proposals in the midst of a lot of media hyperventilation about "class war."