Beloved icons of childhood entertainment in America, or subtle forms of anti-business indoctrination that brainwash your kids into hating capitalism?

Thank goodness we have Fox to ask these questions.

Lou Dobbs sounded the alarm again tonight on his Fox Business show:

DOBBS: Now, an "Unmentionable" -- a story you won't hear anywhere in the liberal national media, or nearly all of the national liberal media. Hollywood is once again trying to indoctrinate our children. Two new films out this year, plainly with an agenda, plainly demonizing the so-called "1 percent" and espousing the virtue of green-energy policies, come what may.

The first, Dobbs said, is an animated film called The Secret World of Arrietty, and the second is Universal Pictures' computer-animated version of the 1971 Dr. Seuss classic The Lorax.

The graphic that aired during a clip of the movie declared, " 'Lorax' Movie Pushes Anti-Industry Message":

Contrary to what conservatives claim, however, there are significant questions about whether Iran is planning to build nuclear weapons at all. Indeed, 2007 and 2011 National Intelligence Estimates found no conclusive evidence that Iran is even trying to build a bomb. In January 31 testimony before the Senate Intelligence Committee, Director of National Intelligence James Clapper reiterated the fact that the U.S. intelligence committee does not have evidence to say that Iran is trying to build a bomb.

But there is another good reason to have some skepticism when conservatives warn that Iran is on the verge of having a nuclear weapon: they have been warning that Iran is months, a year, or at most two years away from the bomb for years. Here are some examples:

2005: Iran Is "Months" Away From The Bomb

• In December 2005, both Rush Limbaugh and a Washington Times editorial repeated a distortion from the Drudge Report of comments by International Atomic Energy Agency director general Mohamed ElBaradei regarding how soon Iran might have a nuclear weapon; the Times claimed ElBaradei said Iran was "a few months" away and Limbaugh claimed ElBaradei said Iran was "months away." ElBaradei actually said that Iran may be able to produce a nuclear weapon "a few months" after it becomes capable of enriching uranium to a grade suitable for making weapons, which, according to the IAEA and news reports on U.S. intelligence at the time, was at least two years away. 

"Last year" refers to gas prices last February; Fox's chart omitted what happened in the 13 months between February 2011 and last week. Here's how Fox's source, AAA,

Fox News Resumes Perennial Gas Price Charade  

Today In Dishonest Fox News Charts

Worst chart I've seen all day

Dishonest Fox Chart: Food Stamps Edition

But Rose's video didn't back up the damning allegation -- Planned Parenthood had actually reported the "potential sex trafficking" to law-enforcement officials a week before the release of the first video. The video -- as well as others subsequently released by Live Action -- was quickly discredited.

But the fact that Rose's video was exposed as a fraud didn't stop Fox News from relentlessly hyping her work and giving her repeated opportunities to appear on air to push her false "sex trafficking" claim. A dishonest smear that would have gone largely unnoticed was instead amplified by Fox's megaphone, leading to real consequences for Planned Parenthood and the hundreds of thousands of women who rely on the organization's services.

On the February 19 edition of Fox's America's News HQ, Trotta responded to the criticism. She said that the intent of her remarks was not to say that "all military men are rapists," but to express that "the environment of combat, by definition, sets up a situation where basic instincts rule. The niceities of male-female interaction fade in this arena, and any scientist will tell you that testosterone rules." Trotta claimed that "most" of her critics "have no experience with the subject" of women in the military.

Today, as part of Black History Month, Fox & Friends ran a segment on a program designed to help inner city youth in Philadelphia. The report was done in conjunction with the Ailes Apprentice Program, but Fox didn't spend any time discussing what the Ailes Apprentice Program is. A quick check of Fox News' website, however, reveals that the Ailes Apprentice Program is aimed at "promoting diversity in broadcast & cable journalism." And video on the Ailes Apprentice Program's home page states that the program is aimed at "educating, mentoring, guiding, and inspiring young minorities." Graduates of the program receive "a bonus."

Somebody should alert Fox's two biggest hosts, Sean Hannity and Bill O'Reilly, to the fact that Fox News has an affirmative action program. Because they won't be happy. Hannity has even asserted that affirmative programs violate Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.'s vision for America. 

MYTH: GM And Chrysler Could Have Gone Through "Traditional" Bankruptcy

National Review's Rich Lowry: "Certainly GM Would Have Survived Just An Ordinary Bankruptcy Process." National Review editor Rich Lowry claimed:

LOWRY: These companies, they needed to go bankrupt. They needed to go through that process. And they would have survived coming out on the other end without the taxpayer losing money on them. And they'd probably be even leaner and meaner than they are today. Certainly GM would have survived just an ordinary bankruptcy process. [Fox News, America Live, 2/7/12]

Fox's Eric Bolling: "GM And Chrysler Could Have Operated In Bankruptcy, Come Out, And Then We Wouldn't Have Spent Billions Of Dollars." Fox News host Eric Bolling claimed:

BOLLING: Just like Continental Airlines operated in bankruptcy for 10 years, GM and Chrysler could have operated in bankruptcy, come out, and then we wouldn't have spent billions of dollars, and the investors, the bondholders and the stockholders, wouldn't have been destroyed in the market. [Fox News, The Five, 2/7/12]

Fox's Charles Payne: "We Bailed Them Out Instead Of Them Going Through A Traditional Bankruptcy." Fox News contributor Charles Payne claimed:

PAYNE: In some ways, GM reminds me of America's own little version of Greece. They had a major problem, we bailed them out instead of them going through a traditional bankruptcy. And it would still, in my mind, probably be the same company but with private owners. [Fox News, Your World with Neil Cavuto, 2/15/12]

FACT: Economic Experts At The Time Said Private Financing For Auto Bankruptcies Was Impossible

Moody's Chief Economist Mark Zandi: Because Of "Credit Crunch," Private Bankruptcy Financing "Would Be All But Impossible To Get." In 2008, Moody's economist Mark Zandi explained why the federal government needed to provide financial help to prevent liquidation of U.S. automakers:

The U.S. auto industry desperately needs financial help, and the federal government should provide it. Without aid, the industry seems headed toward a quick liquidation, which would mean hundreds of thousands of layoffs at just the wrong time for the sliding U.S. economy.  

Without government help, the Big Three will almost surely enter the kind of bankruptcy from which there is no exit. They could file for a Chapter 11 restructuring, but would most likely end up in a Chapter 7 liquidation. Their plants and other operations would be shut and their assets sold to pay creditors. Given the collapse in the financial system and resulting credit crunch, so-called "debtor in possession" or DIP financing would be all but impossible to get. Bankrupt firms need DIP financing to operate--to pay suppliers, finance inventories and meet payroll--while they restructure. It is risky for DIP creditors even in good times, but they do get first dibs on the bankrupt firms' assets and can earn high rates and fees. But in a credit crunch such as we are experiencing now, nothing will convince creditors to take the risk. [Moody's Analytics, 11/21/08]

Paul Krugman: Chapter 11 "Would Mean Wiping Out Probably Well Over A Million Jobs." In 2008, Nobel laureate and New York Times columnist Paul Krugman wrote:

If the economy as a whole were in reasonably good shape and the credit markets were functioning, Chapter 11 would be the way to go. Under current circumstances, however, a default by GM would probably mean loss of ability to pay suppliers, which would mean liquidation -- and that, in turn, would mean wiping out probably well over a million jobs at the worst possible moment. [New York Times, 11/16/08]

Dean Baker: "No One Would Have Stepped Forward To Provide Credit To Operate Through Bankruptcy Without A Government Guarantee." Dean Baker, co-director of the Center for Economic and Policy Research, wrote:

Had General Motors and Chrysler been allowed to go into bankruptcy last fall, it would have quickly led to a chain of bankruptcies by a whole set of parts suppliers, all of whom are owed large amounts of money by these two companies. It is virtually certain that these companies and their suppliers would be forced to shut down, because no one would have stepped forward to provide credit to operate through bankruptcy without a government guarantee. Because Ford shares many of these suppliers with GM and Chrysler, the disruption to the supply chain almost certainly would have been enough to push Ford over the line as well.

This would have meant almost a complete shutdown of the auto industry in the states of Michigan, Indiana and Ohio. In these states, the auto industry and its suppliers account for close to 6% of total employment. Imagine if the country suddenly lost 8.4 million jobs (more than twice the actual job loss over the last five months). Such is the impact these three states would face were the Big Three to cascade into bankruptcy. [Center for Economic and Policy Research, 4/3/09]

Jonathan Cohn: "The Same Wall Street Meltdown That Has Dragged Down The Economy And GM Sales Has Also Dried Up The ... Money GM Would Need To Operate." Jonathan Cohn, senior editor at The New Republic, reported:

One reason for the casual support for letting GM fail is the assumption that bankruptcy would be no big deal: As USA Today editorialized recently, "Bankruptcy need not mean that the company disappears." But, while it's worked out that way for the airlines, among others, it's unlikely a GM business failure would play out in the same fashion. In order to seek so-called Chapter 11 status, a distressed company must find some way to operate while the bankruptcy court keeps creditors at bay. But GM can't build cars without parts, and it can't get parts without credit. Chapter 11 companies typically get that sort of credit from something called Debtor-in-Possession (DIP) loans. But the same Wall Street meltdown that has dragged down the economy and GM sales has also dried up the DIP money GM would need to operate.

That's why many analysts and scholars believe GM would likely end up in Chapter 7 bankruptcy, which would entail total liquidation. The company would close its doors, immediately throwing more than 100,000 people out of work. And, according to experts, the damage would spread quickly. Automobile parts suppliers in the United States rely disproportionately on GM's business to stay afloat. If GM shut down, many if not all of the suppliers would soon follow. Without parts, Chrysler, Ford, and eventually foreign-owned factories in the United States would have to cease operations. From Toledo to Tuscaloosa, the nation's assembly lines could go silent, sending a chill through their local economies as the idled workers stopped spending money. [The New Republic, 12/3/08]

Looking Back, Experts Agree That Private Financing Was Unavailable For A "Traditional" Bankruptcy

Center For Automotive Research Chief Economist: "Private Bankruptcy For Automakers Would Not Have Been Possible ... Because Credit Markets Were Frozen." Reuters reported that supporters of GOP presidential candidate Mitt Romney "point out that airlines and other large businesses have been able to reorganize in bankruptcy without government help." Reuters continued:

"There were two ways to do it - either use crony capitalism, where government picks the winners and losers, or you go through the traditional reorganization process," said Saul Anuzis, a Romney supporter and former head of the Michigan Republican Party.

Sean McAlinden, chief economist at the Center for Automotive Research, or CAR, said there was one problem with that argument: a private bankruptcy for automakers would not have been possible during the 2008-2009 financial crisis because credit markets were frozen and GM and Chrysler were unable to get private financing to keep operating through bankruptcy.

Without federal help, the companies could have been forced to shut down, which would have devastated parts suppliers and threatened solvent carmakers such as Ford and Toyota, McAlinden said.

The intervention saved 1.3 million jobs in 2009, CAR estimates.

"It was the most successful peacetime industrial intervention in U.S. history," McAlinden said. [Reuters, 2/10/12]

The Economist: "The Credit Markets Were Bone-Dry, Making The Privately Financed Bankruptcy ... Improbable." Robert McShane, The Economist online U.S. editor, wrote:

Following the bail-outs, the president eventually forced Chrysler and GM into bankruptcy, a step Mr Romney thought should occur naturally. And the government oversaw painful restructurings at both companies, which were largely in line with Mr Romney's broad suggestions. But the course Mr Romney recommended in 2008 began with the government stepping back, and it is unlikely things would've turned out so well had this happened.

Free-marketeers that we are, The Economist agreed with Mr Romney at the time. But we later apologised for that position. "Had the government not stepped in, GM might have restructured under normal bankruptcy procedures, without putting public money at risk", we said. But "given the panic that gripped private purse-strings...it is more likely that GM would have been liquidated, sending a cascade of destruction through the supply chain on which its rivals, too, depended." Even Ford, which avoided bankruptcy, feared the industry would collapse if GM went down. At the time that seemed like a real possibility. The credit markets were bone-dry, making the privately financed bankruptcy that Mr Romney favoured improbable. He conveniently ignores this bit of history in claiming to have been right all along. [The Economist, 2/14/12]

Fox News contributor Tucker Carlson and anchor Martha MacCallum argued that the debt "needs to be an issue" in the presidential election, and urged Republican candidates to make debt reduction "the issue" in the campaign. When guest Christopher Hahn argued that debt reduction could wait until the economy is on firmer ground before making our primary focus deficit reduction, MacCallum scoffed: "Oh please!"

Economists warn that debt reduction should wait until the economic recovery is on firmer ground. Dean Baker, co-director of the Center for Economic and Policy Research, explained that prioritizing the deficit now "makes no sense":

There are no businesses that are going to hire additional workers because the government laid off school teachers or firefighters and we cut back spending on food stamps. Businesses hire more workers when they see more demand for their product. All of these actions that reduce the deficit, either on the spending or tax side, translate into less demand and therefore less employment. In short, those who want to cut the deficit now are lobbying for fewer jobs and higher unemployment.

Nobel Prize winning economist Paul Krugman has argued that a premature focus on deficits would be "counterproductive."

This tactic of shifting the debate away from jobs and economic growth to fixate on debt is nothing new at Fox. In the spring of 2010, while economists were arguing that more needed to be done to reduce unemployment and help grow the economy, Fox News insisted that debt was "our number one issue." At the time, Krugman argued that "jobs now, deficits later was and is the right strategy."

The effect of that hijacked debate was a credit downgrade that Fox News figures cheered.

It's not just economists who say it's not time to shift attention away from economic growth. Voters overwhelmingly say that jobs and the economy should be the focus of this year's election, not the debt. Voters are also more likely to say that the economy is moving in the right direction, rather than the wrong direction; and they are more likely to say that the Republican Party is moving in the wrong direction.

All of which could explain why Fox is trying to move the debate in a different direction.

Fox News Talkers Converge On Highly Misleading Talking Point  

Fox Blames Obama For Change In Gas Prices From January 2009 To Now. On at least six occasions in the past week, Fox News has pushed the talking point that gasoline prices have almost doubled (increasing 83% or 90% or 91%) since Obama took office in January 2009. The claim was also promoted this week by the Drudge Report and CNSNews, as well as the Senate Republican Conference. Fox falsely suggested that Obama's energy policies are to blame for the increase in prices, without explaining that prices were low in January 2009 because the recession slashed demand. [The O'Reilly Factor, 2/9/12][CNSNews.com, 2/14/12] [Drudge Report, 2/14/12][Senate Republican Conference, 2/15/12][Fox & Friends, 2/15/12][Your World with Neil Cavuto, 2/15/12][The Five, 2/15/12][Special Report, 2/15/12][Fox & Friends, 2/16/12]

Fox also repeatedly aired variations of the following graphic:

[Your World With Neil Cavuto, 2/15/12]

Gasoline Prices Plummeted In Late 2008 In The Midst Of A Massive Recession. This chart shows that oil and gas prices fell sharply in late 2008 (displayed as an index to show the correlation between oil and gas prices):

[Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis, accessed 2/16/12]

Wash. Post In Feb. 2009: "The Overwhelming Cause Of The Collapse In Oil Prices Has Been The Faltering World Economy." From a February 2009 Washington Post article:

Just one year ago, the price of oil finished trading at more than $100 a barrel for the first time, fueling speculation about a new era of oil prices. Yesterday, oil finished trading in New York at $39.15 a barrel, and that after surging 13 percent for the day.

The overwhelming cause of the collapse in oil prices has been the faltering world economy, which has fueled the drop in consumption.

Oil use in China, which most forecasters a year ago assumed would be the engine for increasing global demand, has screeched to a halt. [Washington Post, 2/20/09]

Former API Economist: Recession Is "One Way To Reduce Oil Prices, But Not A Very Attractive One." In an email to Media Matters, Michael Canes, Senior Research Fellow at the Logistics Management Institute, former Chief Economist of the American Petroleum Institute, and a supporter of increased offshore drilling, wrote:

Most oil market experts believe that the rapid and sustained reduction in oil prices that began in 2008 and extended beyond occurred because the world economy began to slow down and ultimately to experience a deep recession.  This is one way to reduce oil prices, but not a very attractive one. [Email to Media Matters, 3/7/11]

Gasoline Prices In Canada Have Followed Same Trend As U.S. The following chart shows that gasoline price trends are basically the same in Canada as in the U.S., underscoring the fact that prices are driven by the world oil market and not by Obama's policies. The difference between the two lines reflects the fact that the U.S. has relatively low gas taxes.

[GasBuddy.com, accessed 2/16/12]

Analysts: Speculation, Refinery Closures Currently Pushing Up Prices. From a February 14 Bloomberg Businessweek report:

Strangely, the current run-up in prices comes despite sinking demand in the U.S. "Petrol demand is as low as it's been since April 1997," says Tom Kloza, chief oil analyst for the Oil Price Information Service. "People are properly puzzled by the fact that we're using less gas than we have in years, yet we're paying more."

Kloza believes much of the increase is due to speculative money that's flowed into gasoline futures contracts since the beginning of the year, mostly from hedge funds and large money managers. "We've seen about $11 billion of speculative money come in on the long side of gas futures," he says. "Each of the last three weeks we've seen a record net long position being taken."

Refineries have also been getting squeezed by higher crude prices over the past several months, forcing some of them to shut down rather than operate at a loss, says [equity analyst Jason] Stevens. " [Bloomberg Businessweek, 2/14/12]

Conservative Media Also Tried To Blame Obama For Last Year's Prices. [Media Matters, 1/5/11, 4/24/11, 4/25/11, 5/9/11]

Fox Advises GOP To Try To Cash In Politically On Gas Prices

Steve Doocy: Gas Prices Are An "Opportunity To Disrupt" Positive Economic Narrative. On the February 16 edition of Fox & Friends, co-host Steve Doocy said: "As you look at the price of oil going through the roof, and nobody's talking about it, this has the opportunity to disrupt what some are saying, 'oh look, good news for President Obama. The economy is getting better.' Not if gas prices mess it up." [Fox News, Fox & Friends, 2/16/12]

Steve Hayes: Republicans Should "Point To The President's Role In Causing These Gas Prices To Go Up." Appearing on Special Report, Fox News contributor Steve Hayes said: "Republicans have to make an argument. It's not just that we look at the gas prices. Republicans have to explain what gas prices have gone up, and unlike the White House, which seems to suggest this is random effect, point to the president's role in causing these gas prices to go up." [Fox News, Special Report, 2/15/12 via Nexis]

Fox Anchor Hopes High Gas Prices Will Be "Enough To Derail" Obama's Re-election. On the February 16 edition of Fox & Friends, guest-host Juliet Huddy asked if rising prices are "enough to derail [Obama's] return to the office." Fox News contributor Eric Bolling replied: "Well it better be. What else matters? How much we pay for a gallon of gas. How much we pay for a loaf of bread." [Fox News, Fox & Friends, 2/16/12]

Pat Caddell: Gas Prices Are "A Perfect Issue" For GOP. Fox News contributor Pat Caddell lamented that Republicans are unable to "mount a narrative that has a big idea to it," and said that the price of gasoline "is a perfect issue" for Republicans. [Fox News, Your World With Neil Cavuto, 2/15/12]

A.B. Stoddard: Rising Gas Prices "Will Be A Good Talking Point For Republicans." On the February 15 edition of Special Report, Fox News contributor A.B. Stoddard said:  "I think the increase of gas prices since President Obama has been in office is high and it will be a good talking point for Republicans. However, I don't think that it is going to be a driving campaign issue if the economy continues in the direction that it's going." [Fox News, Special Report, 2/15/12 via Nexis]

Doug Schoen: Gas Prices Could Prevent Obama From "Benefitting From The Drop In The Unemployment Rate." On the February 16 edition of Varney & Co. Fox News contributor Doug Schoen said that Obama is "benefitting from the drop in the unemployment rate to 8.3%, and the growing perception in the polls that things are getting better and ultimately, with the Republican party divided, there needs to be some force outside the system to question that narrative for him to be hurt. Gas prices could be it." [Fox Business, Varney & Co., 2/16/12]

Fox News' Talking Points On Gas Prices Are Wholly Removed From the Facts

U.S. Oil Production Has Increased Over The Past Few Years -- And Prices Have Still Gone Up. From the 2012 Annual Energy Outlook by the Energy Information Administration:

Domestic crude oil production has increased over the past few years, reversing a decline that began in 1986. U.S. crude oil production increased from 5.1 million barrels per day in 2007 to 5.5 million barrels per day in 2010. Over the next 10 years, continued development of tight oil, in combination with the ongoing development of offshore resources in the Gulf of Mexico, pushes domestic crude oil production in the Reference case to 6.7 million barrels per day in 2020, a level not seen since 1994. Even with a projected decline after 2020, U.S. crude oil production remains above 6.1 million barrels per day through 2035.

EIA also provided the following chart, which shows the recent reversal of a 30-year trend in declining U.S. fuel production (orange line). Still, EIA projects that oil prices will continue to rise in coming decades.

[Energy Information Administration, 1/23/12]

Number Of Oil Rigs In Operation In The U.S. Now Highest On Record. From the Energy Information Administration:

[Energy Information Administration, accessed 2/16/12]

AP: "The Data Certainly Make It Harder For Republicans" To Back Up Their Claims About Obama's Energy Policies. From an Associated Press fact check:

From the presidential campaign trail to Congress, Republicans have been hammering Obama for locking up the nation's energy resources. GOP presidential frontrunner Mitt Romney, for one, accuses Obama of pursuing policies "that keep us from using our own energy."

But such complaints don't hold up. The U.S. produced more oil in 2010 than it has since 2003, and all forms of energy production have increased.

[...]

In speeches and his first campaign ad, Obama also points to the nation's reduced dependence on foreign oil. But the energy information agency says that the decline began in 2005 and comes from a variety of factors -- among them the recession, high gas prices that dampened driving and changes in efficiency and consumer behavior that pre-date the Obama administration.

Even if Obama's policies aren't the cause for these trends, the data certainly make it harder for Republicans - and the oil and gas industry - to substantiate their claim that his policies have dampened energy production. [Associated Press, 2/6/12]

EIA Director: Expanding Drilling In Federal Areas Is Not Expected To Have A Large Impact On Prices. From the March 2011 Congressional testimony of Richard Newell, Administrator of the Energy Information Administration:

In the short-term, oil markets react to many competing factors in a global context, and it is extremely difficult to disentangle the near-term impact of mid-to-long-term developments in the context of oil markets that see typical daily price movements in the range of 1-2 percent, and much higher fluctuations at times. Long term, we do not project additional volumes of oil that could flow from greater access to oil resources on Federal lands to have a large impact on prices given the globally integrated nature of the world oil market and the more significant long-term compared to short-term responsiveness of oil demand and supply to price movements. Given the increasing importance of OPEC supply in the global oil supply-demand balance, another key issue is how OPEC production would respond to any increase in non-OPEC supply, potentially offsetting any direct price effect. [Energy Information Administration, 3/17/11, emphasis added]

Even The American Petroleum Institute Doesn't Claim That Opening All Federal Areas To Drilling Would Lower Prices. CNNMoney.com reported:

[American Petroleum Institute's Rayola] Dougher said that if all federal land was open to oil drilling -- not just offshore but Alaska's wildlife refuge and all federal land in the West that isn't a national park -- the country could produce an extra 2.8 million barrels of oil a day by 2025.

Being that she represents the oil industry, Dougher gave the idea a hard sell.

She said it would create another 500,000 jobs, add $150 billion each year to government coffers and shave a significant chunk off the country's foreign trade deficit.

But one argument she didn't make was lower prices.

"How would that play out in the market, what impact would that have on prices," she said, "we just don't know." [CNNMoney.com, 4/25/11]

Former Bush Economic Advisor: "You Can't Change The Oil Price Very Much With The U.S. Exploration." On the April 26, 2011 edition of MSNBC's Hardball with Chris Matthews, Doug Holtz-Eakin, who served on George W. Bush's Council of Economic Advisors said, "you can`t change the oil price very much with the U.S. exploration":

MATTHEWS: Well, let me ask you this. If we were raping this continent, if we were drilling offshore everywhere, deep drilling, risking everything -- just like we did, down in -- with BP, if we were taking apart the ANWR and drilling everywhere, would the price of gas be much different? In the world market, since this all fungible, if we were doing all that here in the United States, would the price of gas be much different? I`m just asking that question.

HOLTZ-EAKIN: No, he can`t change the price very much. So, I mean, he`s trying to do things --

MATTHEWS: But the conservatives are saying all you have to do is pump like -- all you got to do is drill like -- Pawlenty said, just got at this, dig, dig, and dig, drill, drill, and drill, and somehow the price of the gas is going to down on the world market. You`re saying that`s not true?

HOLTZ-EAKIN: Well, I mean, you can`t change the oil price very much with the U.S. exploration. It certainly can`t change it quickly. We know that. And I think Republicans have been honest about that.

You also aren`t going to change the price of gasoline attacking oil companies. You know, the president is saying, oh, we got to get rid of $4 billion subsidies. That`s 3 cents a gallon, OK? That`s not a solution.

MATTHEWS: Would you get rid of them?

HOLTZ-EAKIN: Yes, but it`s not going to change gas prices that way. [MSNBC, Hardball, 4/26/11, accessed via Nexis]

Energy Analyst: "Americans Tend To Exaggerate The Price Effects Of Fluctuations In Domestic Production." According to Joseph Dukert, independent energy analyst and former president of the U.S. Association for Energy Economics said via email that "Americans tend to exaggerate the price effects of fluctuations in domestic production in relation to the total amount of oil in global trade. On the larger stage, the perception of geopolitical risks is more important." [Email to Media Matters, 4/21/11]

Oil Expert: "The Oil Industry Has Been Able To Convince People There Is A Connection Between U.S. Drilling And Prices." From a January 2011 Greenwire article:

If gas prices keep increasing, Republicans probably will make a push on increased fossil fuel production, said Ken Green, resident scholar with the American Enterprise Institute think tank.

[...]

But experts disagreed about how much impact additional drilling could have. Crude oil is a global commodity, Green said.

"The world price is the world price," Green said. "Even if we were producing 100 percent of our oil," he said, if prices increase because of a shortage in China or India, "our price would go up to the same thing.

"We probably couldn't produce enough to affect the world price of oil," Green added. "People don't understand that."

U.S. production could be negated by decisions that the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries makes, said Philip Verleger Jr., energy economist, and David Mitchell EnCana, professor of management, at the University of Calgary's business school.

"Suppose the U.S. were to boost production 1 million barrels a day," Verleger said. "OPEC has the capacity to cut 1 million barrels."

The oil industry has been able to convince people there is a connection between U.S. drilling and prices, Verleger said. [Greenwire via NYTimes.com, 1/4/11]

Oil Analyst: "Drill Drill Drill Thing" Is "A Simplistic Way Of Looking For A Solution That Doesn't Exist." From an April 2011 CNNMoney article:

The problem is this: While increased oil and gas drilling in the United States may create good-paying jobs, reduce reliance on foreign oil and lower the trade deficit, it will have hardly any impact on gas and oil prices.

That's because the amount of extra oil that could be produced from more drilling in this country is tiny compared to what the world consumes.

Plus, any extra oil the country did produce would likely be quickly offset by a cut in OPEC production.

"This drill drill drill thing is tired," said Tom Kloza, chief oil analyst at the Oil Price Information Service, which calculates gas prices for the motorist organization AAA. "It's a simplistic way of looking for a solution that doesn't exist." [CNNMoney.com, 4/25/11]

Alas, Fox, with the help of the Republican Party, is still making the same arguments. In order to do so, Fox and the GOP are pretending that there is no religious support for Obama's birth control policy.

Today Fox's "straight news" division covered a House Oversight and Government Reform hearing on "Lines Crossed: Separation of Church and State. Has the Obama administration Trampled on Freedom of Religion and Freedom of Conscience?" The hearing, chaired by Congressman Darrell Issa (R-CA), featured witnesses who oppose mandatory insurance coverage for birth control. However, the committee refused to allow supporters of the birth control policy to have their say. The hearing consisted of nine witnesses who opposed the birth control policy, but only gave Democrats one witness to tell the other side. Moreover, Issa rejected the witness the Democrats chose and made it impossible for two other Democratic witnesses to appear.

And Fox's "straight news" division coverage of the hearing was as diligent as Issa at ignoring religious support for the birth control rule. Fox News' America Live host Megyn Kelly showed clips of the hearing and said: "you've got a lot of Catholic and other religious leaders who are still saying 'you didn't get it done Mr. President. You should have talked to us beforehand.' " She, like the House GOP, failed to mention a single religious group that has come out in support of the birth control rule. Nor did she mention the fact that most Americans and Catholics support the birth control rule as well.

The news is difficult for Fox to digest because two of the core claims it has been making about Obama is that he's destroying the U.S. economy (and capitalism as we know it), and that he's a political failure. But now both of those storylines are unraveling based on empirical evidence about the employment rate and the president's standing in the polls.

So if you're Fox's Gretchen Carlson, what do you do this week? You suggest that the improving unemployment numbers, as tabulated by the Labor Department,  may have been "fabricated":

And if you're Fox's Sarah Palin on the same day? You suggest Obama's improved approval rating is based on "misinformation given to the American people."

In other words, Fox News is somewhere between damage control and denial, and this approach has the makings of a year-long conspiracy theory Fox will have to keep spinning throughout the presidential campaign. (i.e. People only like Obama because they are misinformed about him and because of fabricated findings.)

The plight highlights what has always been one of Fox's most pressing programming dilemmas: How is the anti-Obama channel going to explain good news for Obama? And how is Fox going to explain to fans if and when Oama is re-elected? For loyalists who tune in everyday for their daily dose of Obama Derangement Syndrome, Fox has confirmed and re-confirmed many times over that the president is a monster of historical proportions and is doing untold damage to the country as he shreds democracy and liberty.

If that's true, what would account for a possible Obama victory in November? Or in the short term, what would account for the president's growing popularity and the improving economy? For now, Palin clings to the "misinformation" claim, while Carlson peddles the line about unemployment numbers possibly being "fabricated."

That's what losing the argument looks like. 

On January 20, the Obama administration announced that nonprofit employers -- including those connected to religious organizations -- would be required to provide health insurance coverage for contraception. After the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops registered their opposition to the rule, conservative media figures accused the administration of engaging in a "war on the Catholic church."

On February 10, President Obama announced an accommodation that would allow insurance companies to directly offer contraception coverage to employees whose employers have religious objections to such coverage.

During a five-day period when the controversy reached a boiling point, cable news channels hosted a total of 301 guest appearances, but only one of those guests was a public health expert. The rest were political figures or religious leaders.

BOLLING: What is going on in California? How's this? Congresswoman, you saw what happened to Whitney Houston. Step away from the crack pipe. Step away from the Xanax. Step away from the Lorazepam. Because it's going to get you in trouble. How else do you explain those kinds of comments?

Bolling's comment drew some shock from co-hosts Steve Doocy and Juliet Huddy, and after a commercial break, Bolling said that he was "kidding about the crack pipe, but obviously the rhetoric, you know."

Watch:

This is not the first time Bolling has used racially charged rhetoric on Fox. Last June, on his Fox Business show, Bolling teased a segment about the White House hosting the president of Gabon by saying, "Guess who's coming to dinner? A dictator. Mr. Obama shares a laugh with one of Africa's kleptocrats. It's not the first time he's had a hoodlum in the hizzouse." He began the segment itself by saying, in part, "So what's with all the hoods in the hizzy?" He later issued a brief -- and dishonest -- apology for the segment.

In May 2011, Bolling claimed Obama was "chugging a few 40s" instead of responding to devastating tornadoes in Joplin, Missouri. Bolling later tried to walk back his "chugging 40s" comment by pretending that he hadn't engaged in racially charged rhetoric and asserting that he "took some heat for saying Obama should have delayed his European bar crawl."

UPDATE: Two days before Bolling's controversial comments, Los Angeles radio hosts John Kobylt and Ken Chiampou made similar comments and referred to Whitney Houston as a "crack ho." KFI-AM radio suspended the hosts until February 27. 

AP: The Obama Administration Is Weighing Options For Cuts To U.S. Nuclear Stockpile Built Up During The Cold War 

AP: "US Weighing Options For Future Cuts In Nuclear Weapons, Including 80% Reduction." In a February 14 article headlined "US weighing options for future cuts in nuclear weapons, including 80% reduction," the Associated Press reported: 

The Obama administration is weighing options for sharp new cuts to the U.S. nuclear force, including a reduction of up to 80 percent in the number of deployed weapons, The Associated Press has learned. 

Even the most modest option now under consideration would be an historic and politically bold disarmament step in a presidential election year, although the plan is in line with President Barack Obama's 2009 pledge to pursue the elimination of nuclear weapons. 

No final decision has been made, but the administration is considering at least three options for lower total numbers of deployed strategic nuclear weapons cutting to: 1,000 to 1,100; 700 to 800, and 300 to 400, according to a former government official and a congressional staffer. Both spoke on condition of anonymity in order to reveal internal administration deliberations. 

The potential cuts would be from a current treaty limit of 1,550 deployed strategic warheads. 

A level of 300 deployed strategic nuclear weapons would take the U.S. back to levels not seen since 1950 when the nation was ramping up production in an arms race with the Soviet Union. The U.S. numbers peaked at above 12,000 in the late 1980s and first dropped below 5,000 in 2003. 

Obama has often cited his desire to seek lower levels of nuclear weapons, but specific options for a further round of cuts had been kept under wraps until the AP learned of the three options now on the table. 

A spokesman for the White House's National Security Council, Tommy Vietor, said Tuesday that the options developed by the Pentagon have not yet been presented to Obama. [Associated Press, 2/14/12] 

Right-Wing Media Respond To Potential Cuts In Nuclear Stockpile With Predictable Outrage 

Fox's Liz Cheney: Obama "Is So Clearly Putting The Nation's Defense At Risk." From the February 14 edition of Fox News' Hannity: 

LIZ CHENEY (guest host and Fox News contributor):Well it seems that the one area that he is in fact willing to cut is in defense. And in addition to the $487 billion in defense cuts we're going to see over the next ten years, we just learned this evening -- Jennifer Griffin reported that the president is now in fact considering cutting our nuclear -- our strategic nuclear forces by as much as 80 percent. Can you believe that the American people will stand by for this, you know, again as we're going into this election cycle when he is so clearly putting the nation's defense at risk? 

DANA PERINO (Fox News host): It's a hard argument for them to make when there are so much other nuclear armament activity happening all around the world in places that are not friendly to the United States. I don't think -- they've not made a good case for it. You know, certainly I'll sit there and listen. But I feel like if you want to have a place in the world where you are in a position of leadership the only reason people respect you is if you have more than they do, and we're on a precipitous decline. [Fox News, Hannity, 2/15/12, via Media Matters] 

Fox's Stuart Varney: "Retreat On The Nuclear Front" Will "Invit[e] Someone To Go Against" The U.S. From the February 14 edition of Fox News' Hannity: 

STUART VARNEY (Fox Business host): Why would we do this? Why would we retreat on the nuclear front so dramatically? What's the point? Is this for saving financially? Is that what it is? Because it is a retreat. If you don't have a forward posture that is one of strength then, I think, you're inviting -- not attack, that's too strong a word. But you're inviting someone to go against you. As you retreat somebody else will step forward. If that's what we're doing with nuclear weapons that is very dangerous. The Washington Post report on this calls it disarmament. That's a very strong word. [Fox News, Hannity, 2/15/12, via Media Matters] 

Fox's Peter Johnson: "Most Americans Would Say, In The Ideal World, We Don't Want Nuclear Weapons," But "This Is Not In The Ideal World. In The Ideal World, We Want America To Be Protected." From the February 15 edition of Fox News' Fox & Friends: 

BRIAN KILMEADE (co-host): That was President Barack Obama back in 2009 pledging to eliminate nuclear weapons. And it looks like that's exactly what he's trying to do today. The AP now reporting he's considering cutting our nuclear arsenal by up to 80 percent. Is this a good idea? Joining us right now, Fox News legal analyst Peter Johnson Jr. So we're going to disarm as a nation? 

PETER JOHNSON JR. (Fox News legal analyst): The president has not approved these takedowns yet, but there's a various set of proposals and one of the proposals would bring us back to levels that we haven't seen since 1950. And this is one of the reasons that the president won the Nobel Peace prize, and he's articulated it time and time again and we've heard it that he wants to bring us to a zero, a global zero with regard to nuclear weapons in the world and of course in the United States. 

[...] 

JOHNSON: The truth is that we have to understand that deterrence usually mean strength. The issue becomes what is deterrence? There's a lot of people around the world that say: "Let's disarm, we don't need nuclear weapons." We all agree that nuclear weapons are destructive. But in the world, in the realpolitik that we live in, it's clear that nuclear weapons do in fact have a deterrence.  

KILMEADE: What kind of power does he have? Because the final decision has not been made. Congress can speak out. Republicans and Democrats, I imagine, will speak out.  

JOHNSON: Sure, and there was a lot of debate about the START treaty. And so no one is saying at this point the president is going to unilaterally disarm. This is going to be the subject of conversations between us and the Russians. But as the world changes and as the threats become different, we may in fact have to change the way shorter-range nuclear weapons, more targeted nuclear weapons, less dispersive nuclear weapons, to deal with the terrorist threat. 

KILMEADE: But the problem is we're not just dealing with the Russians, we're negotiating with ourselves. We're doing this to ourselves with no other upside, and it costs a lot of money to do this. 

JOHNSON: I think most Americans would say, In the ideal world, we don't want nuclear weapons. This is not in the ideal world. In the ideal world, we want America to be protected. 

KILMEADE: And the ideal world -- Sesame Street. And we're not on Sesame Street. 

JOHNSON: We're not on Sesame Street. This is a tough game and they're protecting us right now. [Fox News, Fox & Friends, 2/15/12, via Media Matters] 

Rush Limbaugh: Obama "Is Reducing Our Stockpile Unilaterally By 80 Percent," Shifting The Balance Of Power "Away From Us" "By Design." From the February 15 edition of Premiere Radio Networks' The Rush Limbaugh Show: 

RUSH LIMBAUGH: There are some things happening today that are downright scary. The regime, led by Barack Hussein Obama, is weighing options for reducing our U.S. nuclear force, including a reduction of up to 80 percent in the number of deployed warheads. 80 percent. Folks, this is staggering. Meanwhile, the Iranians are nuking up. 

[...] 

LIMBAUGH: We are unilaterally disarming. We are not requiring the Russians to go along. And even if the Russians said they would match these reductions, they lie. That is the lesson of the Russians and nukes. I think our top -- what was our top moment? We had -- our number of warheads peaked at 12,000 in the late '80s. And let me tell you something. That number of nuclear warheads is what helped us win the Cold War. That number of nuclear warheads sent a message to every other nation, particularly at that point in time the Soviet Union. You hit us, it doesn't matter. We've got enough left to wipe you out in retaliation. That many nuclear warheads was a deterrent. 

So much is flashing back in me. You go back to the '80s and the '70s, the nuclear freeze movement, the peaceniks wanting to get rid of nukes, and there was an arms race going on. And we were increasing our stockpile, as were the Russians. The numbers mattered only in terms of deterrent. We had to keep up and we had to stay ahead. It was the deterrent. You build, for example, the B2 bomber hoping never to have to use it. 

The left has never understood this about military matters and defense. They never understood this about nukes. You build them so that you don't have to use them. That's the point. You don't build them because you want to. You don't build them because you can't wait to use them. You don't build them because you're warmongers. You build them so that you don't have to. It's what's behind practically every major weapon, invention, and manufacture. The B2 stealth bomber -- you hope you never have to use it. Now we have had to, obviously. But the hope is that the brute force and the ability to project power is enough to deter anybody from taking us on. It's a great strategy; it is how this stuff works. 

And now, Barack Obama is reducing our stockpile unilaterally by 80 percent, back to 300 warheads. Now you might say: "Well that's good, Rush. It's making the world safer." It is not making the world safer. If the Russians still have 1,500 or 2,000, whatever the number is, folks, there's a balance of power here that has shifted away from us. And this, I'm here to tell you, is by design. [Premiere Radio Networks, The Rush Limbaugh Show, 2/15/12, via Media Matters] 

But Experts Agree U.S. Should Make Strategic Reductions To Its Nuclear Arsenal 

Arms Control Association Executive Director: U.S. Could Reduce Its Nuclear Stockpile "Substantially ... While Retaining Sufficient Firepower To Deter Nuclear Attack By Any Current Or Potential Adversary." In a May 2011 editorial, Daryl G. Kimball, Executive Director of the Arms Control Association, "a national nonpartisan membership organization dedicated to promoting public understanding of and support for effective arms control policies," wrote:

In the 20 years since the end of the Cold War, successive U.S. and Russian presidents have gradually reduced the size and salience of their enormous nuclear stockpiles. Nevertheless, the size of each country's arsenal far exceeds what might be considered necessary to deter nuclear attack. Both sides can and should go lower.

Even under the New Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty (New START), each country is allowed to deploy 1,550 strategic nuclear weapons on 700 missiles and bombers. Thousands of additional warheads are held in reserve. Unless they adjust their thinking, both countries will spend scarce resources to modernize and maintain similar nuclear force levels for 20 to 30 years to come.

This year, as the Obama administration reviews decade-old presidential guidance on nuclear force structure and nuclear employment policy, the president has an unprecedented opportunity to discard outdated targeting assumptions, open the way for deeper reductions of all warhead types, and redirect defense dollars to more pressing needs.

The 2010 "Nuclear Posture Review Report" outlines the national security rationale for reducing the role and number of U.S. nuclear weapons and eliminating outdated Cold War policies. The document asserts that "the fundamental role of U.S. nuclear forces is to deter nuclear attacks against the U.S. and our allies and partners."

At the same time, the report acknowledges that the United States and Russia "each still retain more nuclear weapons than necessary for stable deterrence." Given that no other country deploys more than 300 strategic warheads and given that China possesses 40 to 50 warheads on intercontinental-range missiles, the United States and Russia could reduce their overall nuclear stockpiles substantially -- to 1,000 warheads -- while retaining sufficient firepower to deter nuclear attack by any current or potential adversary.

As the 2007 Arms Control Association report "What Are Nuclear Weapons For?" suggests, the United States could move to a smaller force of 500 deployed and 500 nondeployed strategic warheads on a smaller, mainly submarine-based triad within the next few years. A 2010 study by three Air Force analysts in Strategic Studies Quarterly concludes that the United States could "draw down its nuclear arsenal to a relatively small number of survivable, reliable weapons dispersed among missile silos, submarines, and airplanes." They argue that such a force might number only 311 nuclear weapons.

Maintaining and modernizing U.S. strategic forces at current, higher levels is not only unnecessary, but prohibitively expensive. If Congress and the White House are serious about reducing defense expenditures by $400 billion by 2023 to reduce the ballooning federal deficit, they should start by deferring or curtailing the Pentagon's ambitious plan to upgrade and replace the strategic triad, which is projected to exceed $100 billion over the same period. [Arms Control Association, May 2011] 

Air Force Experts: U.S. Could "Address Its Conceivable National Defense And Military Concerns With Only 311 Strategic Nuclear Weapons." In a May 23, 2010, New York Times op-ed, Gary Schaub Jr., an assistant professor of strategy at the Air War College, and James Forsyth Jr., a professor of strategy at the School of Advanced Air and Space Studies, wrote:

Last week, Secretary of Defense Robert Gates and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton testified before the Senate to advocate approval of the so-called New Start treaty, signed by President Obama and President Dmitri Medvedev of Russia last month. The treaty's ceiling of 1,550 warheads deployed on 700 missiles and bombers will leave us with fewer warheads than at any time since John F. Kennedy was president. Yet the United States could further reduce its reliance on nuclear weapons without sacrificing security. Indeed, we have calculated that the country could address its conceivable national defense and military concerns with only 311 strategic nuclear weapons. (While we are civilian Air Force employees, we speak only for ourselves and not the Pentagon.)

This may seem a trifling number compared with the arsenals built up in the cold war, but 311 warheads would provide the equivalent of 1,900 megatons of explosive power, or nine-and-a-half times the amount that Secretary of Defense Robert McNamara argued in 1965 could incapacitate the Soviet Union by destroying "one-quarter to one-third of its population and about two-thirds of its industrial capacity."

Considering that we face no threat today similar to that of the Soviet Union 45 years ago, this should be more than adequate firepower for any defensive measure or, if need be, an offensive strike. And this would be true even if, against all expectations, our capacity was halved by an enemy's surprise first strike. In addition, should we want to hit an enemy without destroying its society, the 311 weapons would be adequate for taking out a wide range of "hardened targets" like missile silos or command-and-control bunkers.

The key to shrinking our nuclear arsenal so radically would be dispersing the 311 weapons on land, at sea and on airplanes to get the maximum flexibility and survivability.

[...]

While 311 is a radical cut from current levels, it is not the same as zero, nor is it a steppingstone to abandoning our nuclear deterrent. The idea of a nuclear-weapon-free world is not an option for the foreseeable future. Nuclear weapons make leaders vigilant and risk-averse. That their use is to be avoided does not render them useless. Quite the opposite: nuclear weapons might be the most politically useful weapons a state can possess. They deter adversaries from threatening with weapons of mass destruction the American homeland, United States forces abroad and our allies and friends. They also remove the incentive for our allies to acquire nuclear weapons for their own protection.

We need a nuclear arsenal. But we certainly don't need one that is as big, expensive and unnecessarily threatening to much of the world as the one we have now. [The New York Times, 5/23/10]

Nuclear Posture Review: "Our Most Pressing Security Challenge At Present Is Preventing Nuclear Proliferation And Nuclear Terrorism, For Which A Nuclear Force Of Thousands Of Weapons Has Little Relevance." According to the Defense Department's 2010 Nuclear Posture Review:

During the Cold War, our nuclear weapons policies and forces were designed to meet two core goals: to deter a massive nuclear or large-scale conventional, biological, or chemical attack by the Soviet Union and its allies; and to reassure our allies and partner that they could count on us to carry out that mission effectively. At the peak of the Cold War, the United States had over 30,000 nuclear weapons, including thousands deployed in overseas locations on short-range delivery systems. The U.S. nuclear weapons production complex constantly developed new types of weapons.

Today, the reassurance mission remains, but the deterrence challenge is fundamentally different. While we must maintain stable deterrence with major nuclear weapons powers, the likelihood of major nuclear war has decline significantly; thus far fewer nuclear weapons are needed to meet our traditional deterrence and reassurance goals. Further, the United States today has the strongest conventional military forces in the world. Our close allies and partners field much of the rest of the world's military power. Moreover, our most pressing security challenge at present is preventing nuclear proliferation and nuclear terrorism, for which a nuclear force of thousands of weapons has little relevance. [Defense.gov, Nuclear Posture Review Report, April 2010]

American And Russian Security Experts: Smaller Is Safer When It Comes To Our Nuclear Arsenal. In a September/October 2010 Foreign Affairs article headlined "Smaller and Safer: A New Plan for Nuclear Postures," Bruce Blair, president of the World Security Institute and Co-coordinator of Global Zero; Victor Esin, a retired Colonel General and former Chief of Staff of the Russian Strategic Rocket Forces; Matthew McKinzie, a Senior Scientist at the Natural Resources Defense Council; Valery Yarynich, a retired Colonel who served at the Center for Operational and Strategic Studies of the Russian General Staff; and Pavel Zolotarev, a retired Major General and former Section Head of the Defense Council of the Russian Federation, wrote:

The New START agreement did not reduce the amount of "overkill" in either country's arsenal. Nor did it alter another important characteristic of the U.S. and Russian nuclear arsenals: their launch-ready alert postures. The two countries' nuclear command, control, and communication systems, and sizable portions of their weapon systems, will still be poised for "launch on warning" -- ready to execute a mass firing of missiles before the quickest of potential enemy attacks could be carried out. This rapid-fire posture carries with it the risk of a launch in response to a false alarm resulting from human or technical error or even a malicious, unauthorized launch. Thus, under the New START treaty, the United States and Russia remain ready to inflict apocalyptic devastation in a nuclear exchange that would cause millions of casualties and wreak unfathomable environmental ruin.

In the next round of arms control negotiations, Washington and Moscow need to pursue much deeper cuts in their nuclear stockpiles and agree to a lower level of launch readiness. These steps would help put the world on a path to the elimination of nuclear weapons -- "global zero." And they can be taken while still maintaining a stable relationship of mutual deterrence between the United States and Russia, based on a credible threat of retaliation, and while allowing limited but adequate missile defenses against nuclear proliferators such as Iran and North Korea.

[...]

Many planners still contend that deterrence also requires the ability to retaliate against an opponent's leadership bunkers and nuclear installations, even empty missile silos. But this Cold War doctrine is out of date. Deterrence today would remain stable even if retaliation against only ten cities were assured. Furthermore, uncertainty and incomplete knowledge would make U.S. and Russian policymakers risk averse in a crisis rather than risk tolerant. So arsenals can safely be reduced much further than the New START level. But just how deeply can they be cut? And how can the reliance on a quick launch be eliminated while preserving strategic stability? To answer these questions, we created computer models that pitted U.S. and Russian strategic offensive forces against each other in simulated nuclear exchanges. We also modeled the thorny problem of missile defense systems to assess their impact on the stability of deterrence and to gauge at what warhead levels they become destabilizing.

[...]

Our modeling found that the United States and Russia could limit their strategic nuclear arsenals to a total level of 1,000 warheads each on no more than 500 deployed launchers without weakening their respective security. De-alerting these forces actually helped stabilize deterrence at these and lower levels. And the modeling showed that fairly extensive missile defense deployments would not upset this stability.

[...]

Once the New START agreement is approved by the U.S. Senate, the arms control process between the United States and Russia needs to continue moving forward. Washington and Moscow could easily reduce their nuclear forces to just 1,000 warheads apiece without any adverse consequences. They could also de-alert their nuclear forces, diminishing the risk of an accidental or unauthorized launch. Eventually, in concert with other nuclear states and after progress has been made on missile defense cooperation, they should be able to reduce their arsenals to 500 weapons each. Even after these deep cuts, hundreds of cities would still remain at risk of catastrophic destruction in the event of a nuclear war. [Foreign Affairs, September/October 2010, via CarnegieEndowment.org]

Under Secretary Of Defense Michèle Flournoy: "We Can Maintain Deterrence At Lower Levels Of Forces." From a January 5 Defense Department press briefing:

Q:  Dr. Carter, I'd like to ask you about the nuclear arsenal. The strategy document says that it's impossible that our deterrence goals can be achieved with a smaller nuclear force.  Could you elaborate on that?  And is it still an open whether the department wants to preserve all legs of the nuclear triad?

ASHTON CARTER (Deputy Secretary of Defense):  Surely you can.  I'm going to ask Michèle to elaborate on that.

MICHÈLE FLOURNOY (Under Secretary of Defense):  So I mean, I think the strategy is very clear, that we will continue to field a safe and secure and effective deterrent, but -- and that we will continue to modernize and recapitalize as necessary.  I do think it's that -- our judgment than we -- that we can maintain deterrence at lower levels of forces, but I will defer any discussion of specific programmatic details to the budget when it rolls out. [Defense.gov, 1/5/12]

Nuclear Expert Joseph Cirincione: "Rightsizing The Nuclear Force Would Strengthen U.S. Global Leadership, Enhance The Country's Ability To Deter New Nuclear Weapon States, [And] Accelerate Efforts To Prevent Nuclear Terrorism." In a February 2 Foreign Affairs article, Joseph Cirincione, President of Ploughshares Fund, a global security foundation, and an adjunct professor at the Georgetown University Graduate School of Foreign Service, wrote:

Obama could rewrite those policies to shrink the target list, eliminate the need to launch weapons in minutes, and make other common-sense improvements. For example, by dropping the requirement to launch approximately 1,000 weapons at targets within 20 minutes, he could reduce the number of submarines required on station, allowing for a secure submarine force of eight boats. That would save $20 billion over ten years and $120 billion over the life of the program. Delaying the new strategic bomber would save $18 billion over ten years, and canceling it, $68 billion over 20 to 30 years. Reducing the current arsenal of intercontinental ballistic missiles from 420 to 300 would save billions more, although no one is sure how much, because the government has never done what most businesses do routinely -- that is, cost out the options.

Whatever Obama decides will remain secret. But the results will speak for themselves in budget submissions, program schedules, and whether the United States accelerates reductions required under the New START treaty. Rightsizing the nuclear force would strengthen U.S. global leadership, enhance the country's ability to deter new nuclear weapon states, accelerate efforts to prevent nuclear terrorism, and greatly reduce the danger of the use of nuclear weapons from miscalculation, misunderstanding, or accident. It would make us all safer. More than budget decisions, these are fundamental security issues that tell the world a great deal about U.S. leadership, intentions, and values. Updating the nuclear posture from that of the Cold War era could be one of the most lasting legacies of the Obama presidency. He has already made promises; the time has come to deliver on them. [Foreign Affairs, 2/2/12]

Ploughshares Fund Director Of Policy And Government Affairs: "It's Time To Stop Spending Dollars That We Don't Have On Programs That We Don't Need And That Don't Make Us More Secure," Including Nuclear Weapons Programs. In an August 3, 2011, blog post, Joel Rubin, the Director of Policy and Government Affairs for the Ploughshares Fund, wrote:

As the dust settles on the debt ceiling deal, it's become clear that major cuts to defense spending have not only been approved in a bipartisan manner by Congress, but that even more are on the way. This means that the days of unlimited defense spending increases, where all systems can be purchased, are over.

So now is the time for tough choices to be made between defense programs that serve our warriors and those that we have maintained for too long due to bureaucratic, parochial or ideological reasons. It's time to stop spending dollars that we don't have on programs that we don't need and that don't make us more secure.

And there is a clear target for such cutting: nuclear weapons. Making these cuts will fit neatly into the broader framework on defense cutting that this debt deal has created. [PloughShares.org, 8/3/11] 

Vice Chairman Of The Joint Chiefs Of Staff Gen. James Cartwright Said "Nuclear Deterrence" Is No Longer An Effective Counter To Our Greatest National Security Threats. From a July 14, 2011, article published in Global Security Newswire:

The nation's second-ranking military officer on Thursday called for a broad reassessment of how to deter significant threats to the United States (see GSN, June 22).

A future national military strategy should strike a balance between fielding conventional weapons and nuclear arms, with the latter viewed as less usable against most threats, said Gen. James Cartwright, vice chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. Fresh planning should also account for the emerging roles played by missile defenses and cyber capabilities, he said.

Cartwright suggested, as well, that the future role of each leg of the nuclear triad -- bomber aircraft, ICBMs and submarine-launched missiles -- must be fundamentally re-examined so that desired capabilities and quantities are maintained, rather than determined by budget-cutting drills or political horse-trading.

"I'm advocating a conscious decision on: What is deterrence? How does it work?" the Marine Corps general told reporters at a breakfast Q&A; session. A 21st century approach should also account for the role of nonmilitary forms of power and persuasion, such as economic and diplomatic tools, he said.

During the Cold War, the United States sought to balance its fielded atomic weapons against the Soviet arsenal in a standoff dubbed "mutual assured destruction," in which either side that initiated a nuclear war would risk a devastating response.

With the growing possibility today that the first modern detonation of a nuclear weapon could be at the hands of a terrorist rather than a foreign government, the game has changed, said Cartwright, who is slated to retire early next month after a nearly 40-year military career.

"Violent extremist organizations are very real" and have signaled interest in using weapons of mass destruction against the United States and its allies, he said. "It's not a nation-state you're dealing with [but] it's equally threatening. So we have to start to think about this a little more holistically."

Washington in the future might attempt, for example, to head off threats from major nuclear powers in one way, while using a different strategy to deter any smaller nuclear-capable adversary, he said.

"You may actually decide that you're going to stay [with] mutual assured destruction with one country, but the other one is not going to be that," Cartwright said at the event, sponsored by the Center for Media and Security. "You're going to have to have the capability ... to convince them that you are, in fact, capable" of hitting an adversary that contemplates using a nuclear weapon, and that such an adversary is "not going to win," he said.

[...]

"What is it that you do, when you get the president up in the middle of the night and you say, 'So-and-so is attacking. The only thing I've got that can get there for the next 24 hours or 48 hours is a nuclear weapon'?" Cartwright said. 

"We have to find some way to get a range of action that allows us to be credible in those first few hours if we're not there" with military forces on the ground, and "allows us also to not have to start at the nuclear level," he said. [NTI.org, 7/14/11]

Even Conservative Politicians Have Called For Nuclear Weapons Cuts

Republican Sen. Tom Coburn Proposed Saving $79 Billion And Improving National Security By Reducing U.S. Nuclear Force. From Senator Tom Coburn's (R-OK) July 2011 deficit reduction plan:

Reduce Nuclear Weapons Force Structure ($79 Billion) 

This option would reduce the size of the nuclear weapon stockpile to levels within the START treaty limits and make the following changes:

• Reduce the size of the Intercontinental Ballistic Missile (ICBM) force from 500 to 300.
• Maintain a 1,100 nuclear weapon reserve.
• Reduce the size of the ballistic nuclear submarine fleet from 14 to 11.
• Maintain 40 strategic bombers and delay the purchase of new bombers until the mid-2020s.

[Coburn.Senate.gov, July 2011]

Fox Figures Call For More Spending Cuts

Varney: Claim That Cutting Spending Would Hurt Economy Is "The Exact Opposite Of True." During the February 15 edition of Fox News' Fox & Friends, Fox Business host Stuart Varney claimed that Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner's assertion that cutting spending would hurt the economy was "the exact opposite of true." From the broadcast:

GRETCHEN CARLSON (co-host): Well, Republicans say that the president's spending plan will give America a larger, European-style government, but Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner says making more cuts right now would hurt the economy.

GEITHNER [video clip]: There are some who have suggested that we should cut deeper and faster with more severe austerity now. That approach, though, would damage economic growth. It would reverse the gains we've achieved in getting more Americans back to work and healing the damage caused by the financial crisis. And it would push more Americans into poverty.

CARLSON: Stuart Varney is here with his analysis. All right, let's dissect what the Treasury Secretary just said. When you hear that, what do you think?

VARNEY: I think the exact opposite is true. What -- when Secretary Geithner opens his mouth, out comes Obamanomics. And he is saying the government spends more, you'll get more growth in the economy. Ignore the debt buildup. Treasury Secretary Geithner says, you tax people more, you get more revenue -- ignore the damage that that does to the economy. Now, I disagree with that entirely. I think he's -- what he's doing is, he's convincing people, or trying to convince voters, that if we spend more money and create a European-style social democracy -- spend more, give more, more cradle to grave security -- if we do that, the rich will pay for it. I think the exact opposite. The rich cannot pay for all of this, and we must not ignore the buildup in debt, and we must not ignore the damage that tax increases do to the economy. [Fox News, Fox & Friends, 2/15/12]

Carlson: "If The Economy Was Worse Than [Obama] Expected, Then Wouldn't You Be Proposing A Budget That Had More Cuts In It?" Later, during the February 15 edition of Fox News' Fox & Friends, co-host Gretchen Carlson asked Fox News contributor Sarah Palin, "If the economy was worse than [Obama] expected, then wouldn't you be proposing a budget that had more cuts in it?" From the broadcast:

CARLSON: We're back with former Alaska Governor Sarah Palin. I mean, I hate to bring it up, but if the economy was worse than he expected, then wouldn't you be proposing a budget that had more cuts in it?

PALIN: You would think so. What he does is defy common sense -- and also, did you catch what he was saying in there? He is now blaming the estimators, the statisticians, the economists. Everyone else is to blame for the economic woes except for his failed policies? That is another indication of his naiveté and his un -- he's not fit to hold this office, because we need leadership that will be held accountable, that won't shy away from taking responsibility for mistakes that they have made, and President Obama has made many mistakes in allowing increased taxes, allowing government to grow, accumulating trillions and trillions of dollars more in debt -- though, yes, as you point out, he had promise to do cut deficits in half. [Fox News, Fox & Friends, 2/15/12]

But Economists Agree That Spending Cuts Right Now "Could Impede ... Economic Recovery"

EPI: "[T]he Budget Wisely Does Reflect The Reality That Too-Rapid Fiscal Tightening Could Impede The Current Economic Recovery." In a February 13 blog post, Ethan Pollack of the Economic Policy Institute (EPI) wrote:

While we would argue that [Obama's] proposals provide less fiscal support than the economy still needs, the budget wisely does reflect the reality that too-rapid fiscal tightening could impede the current economic recovery.

"The largest single investment in the president's budget -- a $476 billion transportation reauthorization -- represents a $125 billion increase in investments in roads, bridges, and transit systems over 10 years relative to spending levels projected under current laws.  These investments are vital to long-run economic growth and global competitiveness, and are in sharp contrast to the recent House GOP bill to slash transportation investments over the coming years. [EPI, 2/13/12]

Reich: "America's Jobs Deficit Continues To Be A Much Larger Problem Than The Budget Deficit." In a February 3 blog post, former Labor Secretary Robert Reich wrote:

When they're not blaming Obama for a bad economy, Republicans are decrying the federal budget deficit and demanding more cuts. But America's jobs deficit continues to be a much larger problem than the budget deficit.

In fact, we can't possibly achieve the growth needed to reduce the budget deficit as a proportion of the total economy unless far more people are employed. Workers are consumers, and consumer spending is 70 percent of economic activity. And cutting the budget means fewer workers, directly (as government continues to shed workers) and indirectly (as government contractors have to lay off workers) and therefore fewer consumers.

Yet deficit hawks continue to circle. [RobertReich.org, 2/3/12]

Bernanke: Congress Must "Take Care Not To Unnecessarily Impede The Current Economic Recovery. In a February 2 article, The Washington Post reported:

Federal Reserve Chairman Ben S. Bernanke on Thursday cautioned lawmakers against taking any steps that would hurt economic growth as they work to cut the nation's debt, and he defended the central bank's recent actions to support the economy.

In testimony before the House Budget Committee, Bernanke urged Congress to put a priority on finding a sustainable level of federal spending over coming decades.

But, he said, they also must "take care not to unnecessarily impede the current economic recovery." Supporting growth now, he said, "will lead to lower deficits and debt in coming years." [The Washington Post, 2/2/12]

Moody's Economist Zandi: "I Wouldn't Add To Cuts This Year Or Next, Given The Fragile Economy." CNNMoney reported on July 11, 2011:

There is a danger in cutting too much too soon, according to Mark Zandi, chief economist at Moody's Analytics, who favors big spending cuts so long as they don't take effect for a few years.

"I wouldn't add to cuts this year or next, given the fragile economy," Zandi said. "There is already plenty of restraint on the books." [CNNMoney, 7/11/11]

Krugman: Cuts Would Lead "To The Elimination Of Hundreds Of Thousands Of Jobs." In a March 3, 2011, New York Times column, economist and Nobel Prize winner Paul Krugman wrote:

The clear and present danger to recovery, however, comes from politics -- specifically, the demand from House Republicans that the government immediately slash spending on infant nutrition, disease control, clean water and more. Quite aside from their negative long-run consequences, these cuts would lead, directly and indirectly, to the elimination of hundreds of thousands of jobs -- and this could short-circuit the virtuous circle of rising incomes and improving finances.

[...]

[I]t's hard to see how such an obviously irresponsible plan -- since when does starving the I.R.S. for funds help reduce the deficit? -- can improve confidence.

Beyond that, we have a lot of evidence from other countries about the prospects for "expansionary austerity" -- and that evidence is all negative. Last October, a comprehensive study by the International Monetary Fund concluded that "the idea that fiscal austerity stimulates economic activity in the short term finds little support in the data."

And do you remember the lavish praise heaped on Britain's conservative government, which announced harsh austerity measures after it took office last May? How's that going? Well, business confidence did not, in fact, rise when the plan was announced; it plunged, and has yet to recover. And recent surveys suggest that confidence has fallen even further among both businesses and consumers, indicating, as one report put it, that the private sector is "unprepared to fill the hole left by public sector cuts." [The New York Times, 3/4/11]