Flawed AP report opens door to conservative attacks on timing of Obama budget review
SUMMARY: An AP article that omitted relevant information became the basis for an attack by conservative media figures on the Obama administration over the timing of the release of the administration's midsession budget review.
In a July 20 article, the Associated Press stated of the Obama administration's midsession budget review, "The release of the update -- usually scheduled for mid-July -- has been put off until the middle of next month, giving rise to speculation the White House is delaying the bad news at least until Congress leaves town on its August 7 summer recess." The AP article, which was promptly highlighted at the top of the Drudge Report, also quoted a former Bush administration official stating that "this routine report could be a nightmare" and reported that the Obama administration "blame[s] the delay on the fact that this is a transition year between presidencies." However, in the initial version of the article, the AP did not mention, as The New Republic's Noam Scheiber noted, that "while the update generally comes out in mid-July, that's almost never true of the first year of a presidential administration." Indeed, as a subsequent version of the AP article noted, George W. Bush released his first-year review on August 22, 2001, and Bill Clinton released the first midsession budget review of his presidency on September 1, 1993.
In response to the original AP article, Scheiber wrote: "In the absence of dispositive evidence, I'm just not sure how you write a piece accusing Obama of playing politics with the timing of this release when it will likely come earlier than it did during the first year of the two previous administrations."
The AP article soon became fodder for conservative media figures to attack the Obama administration. Sean Hannity asserted during the July 20 edition of his Fox News program that in moving back the release of the budget review, the Obama administration is "purposefully ... hiding these numbers from the American people so they can push their health care agenda." Hannity claimed the timing of the budget release shows that the Obama administration chose to "basically lie to the American people, not be honest and straight with them." During the discussion on Hannity, syndicated columnist Betsy Hart asserted: "[T]his is an outrage, and it's a story that really needs to get out, because imagine if the Bush administration had done something like this because they had some agenda. There would be no way that they would be allowed to get away with it." At no point during the discussion, which also included Fox News contributor Doug Schoen and Vanderbilt University law and political science professor Carol Swain, did any panelist note that the Bush administration did not release its first midsession budget review until August 22.
From the initial version of the July 20 AP article:
The administration's annual midsummer budget update is sure to show higher deficits and unemployment and slower growth than projected in President Barack Obama's budget in February and update in May, and that could complicate his efforts to get his signature health care and global-warming proposals through Congress.
The release of the update -- usually scheduled for mid-July -- has been put off until the middle of next month, giving rise to speculation the White House is delaying the bad news at least until Congress leaves town on its August 7 summer recess.
The administration is pressing for votes before then on its $1 trillion health care initiative, which lawmakers are arguing over how to finance.
The White House budget director, Peter Orszag, said on Sunday that the administration believes the "chances are high" of getting a health care bill by then. But new analyses showing runaway costs are jeopardizing Senate passage.
"Instead of a dream, this routine report could be a nightmare," Tony Fratto, a former Treasury Department official and White House spokesman under President George W. Bush, said of the delayed budget update. "There are some things that can't be escaped."
[...]
If a higher deficit and lower growth numbers are not part of the administration's budget update, that will lead to charges that the White House is manipulating its figures to offer too rosy an outlook -- the same criticism leveled at previous administrations.
The midsession review by the White House's Office of Management and Budget will likely reflect weaker numbers. But where is it?
White House officials say it is now expected in mid-August. They blame the delay on the fact that this is a transition year between presidencies and note that Obama didn't release his full budget until early May -- instead of the first week in February, when he put out just an outline.
Still, the update mainly involves plugging in changes in economic indicators, not revising program-by-program details. And indicators such as unemployment and gross domestic product changes have been public knowledge for some time.
From the July 20 edition of Fox News' Hannity:
HANNITY: And we continue now with our "Great American Panel." All right. So, the White House, literally -- mid-July, usually will readjust the numbers, and they'll take a look and they'll say, "All right, well, we were wrong. The deficit is going to be higher."
Look, they purposefully, Doug, are hiding these numbers from the American people, so they can push their health care agenda and not let the American people know how wrong they were on the stimulus.
SCHOEN: Well, I think they have to, because, politically, if a huge $1.8 trillion deficit number comes out or worse, they're not going to get health care through. So they're taking the only course they can, which is to delay, hide, and obfuscate.
HANNITY: Hang on a second. Hide, obfuscate, manipulate?
SCHOEN: Right. And delay.
HANNITY: And lie -- basically lie to the American people, not be honest and straight with them -- the most transparent administration.
SCHOEN: Well, lying requires saying something. They're just saying nothing, Sean.
HANNITY: OK, you could lie by omission, you know.
SCHOEN: Well --
HANNITY: There is such a thing.
SWAIN: I would agree. And it's all about the ends. It's about the ends.
HANNITY: Justifies the means.
SWAIN: Yes.
HANNITY: Does that bother you? I mean --
SWAIN: It does bother me quite a bit, because I believe that if we -- that health care should be reformed, and that to reform it in a responsible manner we need more information.
HANNITY: Yeah.
SWAIN: And it should not be rushed through. We should have careful deliberation.
HANNITY: You know, but here's the point I'll ask you, Betsy, is they were so wrong on the stimulus. You know, so wrong on revenue projections, so wrong -- unemployment won't go above 8 percent, now it's 9.5 percent.
HART: Again, they overpromised; they got overzealous. There's just no more money left to spend.
But on this particular issue, this is an outrage, and it's a story that really needs to get out, because imagine if the Bush administration had done something like this because they had some agenda. There would be no way that they would be allowed to get away with it. And I think, so far, he's getting a little bit of a pass on this.
This needs -- there needs to be a lot of pressure put on to get those numbers out, because he's doing it exactly for the reason Doug said. He's trying to get an agenda passed that we know virtually nothing about. Why? Because he doesn't want people to look too closely at it, because then it will fail.
Okay, enough with the sarcasm. On with the show!
Reading the opinion piece by Maria Cheng in the Sunday Pioneer Press I got to wondering who the experts are who gave Ms. Cheng her title "European health care far from perfect." I am familiar with the reports coming out of the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development comparing health outcomes and expenditures. These have included the summary "How does the United States compare?" which pointed out that the US spends about twice as much per capita as the european systems, our health status, life expectancy infant mortality etc. are falling behind the improvements being made in Europe. So, I wondered who the experts she cited were. Here's one. Someone, at something called the Institute Economique Molinari, complains that in France, which OECD ranks as the best health care system in Europe, the state has displaced services formerly provided by the private sector. I wondered what the Institute was. Here's the first sentence from their parent organization's web site: "The form of social organization known as the State, an increasingly virulent parasite on civil society, is entering the final stages of an unsustainable growth that threatens the existence of civilisation itself." I couldn't find Dr. Crespo's Institute but I found an article by him entitled "BLACK MARKET MEDICINE: AN ETHICAL ALTERNATIVE TO STATE CONTROL". These appear to be rather extreme positions by U.S. standards. European health systems no doubt have their problems. But they probably also have reputable critics.
whowhatwhenwherehow--if I was, you know me, to define Journalism, leaving aside the journal in the word for the moment, well then I'd say it was an impartial description of the events and issues of the day, the rest being just fluff, the defense of someone else's opinion--such as I am postulating here, which is to say, a view on the events and issues of the day, the facts being relevant only insofar as they bolster my argument.
Editing the journal; at least we get to comment on the edit, select those facts which most set our minds at ease, add or delete according to our whims,
The problem is the Keepers Of The Record are corrupt, slaves either to Man or Mammon--Ideologues or shopkeepers,
they allow that which suits their needs; they take but no longer search. The few reporters who remain are often beaten on the city streets, are labeled as eccentrics, and the slaves call them liars or worse.
The dialogue we are left with is trivial, buried under all the gold is the real story, which we are never told. Mr. Murdoch has told his minions that the guillotine must never be rolled out again. He has assured his sponsors that the Lie will become the truth because he controls the facts, that the herd will graze contentedly until he gives the word to move them to other pastures.
We hesitate to postulate evil, but from Murdoch to Doug Coe, the question is not one of Truth but Empire and our squeeks are no more than the nuisance of having mice in the walls at the chateau.