Media Matters for America - Research Items

Myths And Facts About Electric Cars

J.K.F. & S.T. — Wed, 08 Feb 2012 16:11:00 EST

As automakers are starting to bring electric vehicle (EV) technology into the mainstream, conservative media outlets have repeatedly misled consumers about electric cars by trying to paint them as environmentally harmful and unsafe, among other false claims.

CONSERVATIVE MEDIA OUTLETS ARE CAMPAIGNING AGAINST THE ELECTRIC CAR BY:

Denying That EVs Reduce Carbon Dioxide Emissions

Downplaying EV Sales

Misleading About EV Distance Range

Distorting Volt Safety

Feigning Concern About Battery Disposal

In states like Indiana that are heavily reliant on coal-fired power, hybrid cars cause fewer emissions than plug-in EVs, but EVs still cause fewer emissions than conventional gasoline powered cars. In areas where electric car sales are high, EVs are significantly more environmentally friendly than the national average. For example, the Los Angeles area is projected by Pike Research to have the second highest electric car sales in the nation over the next 5 years, and carbon emissions for all-electric cars there are nearly half that of the national average:

[Department of Energy,

Volt Sales Affected By Lack Of Supply. CNNMoney reported:

GM executives said on the company's conference call that Volt sales have been constrained not by lack of demand, but by lack of supply.

Volt sales had slowed to a trickle during the summer months as GM temporarily shut down the Detroit factory where the car is built. The month-long shut-down allowed GM to revamp the factory in order to boost the car's production volume. [CNNMoney,

[Boston Consulting Group, 1/7/10]

Tax Credits For Electric Vehicles Have Bipartisan History. As the following summary from the Congressional Research Service shows, Presidents George H.W. Bush and George W. Bush signed legislation providing tax incentives for the purchase of electric vehicles and other cars that reduce reliance on oil:

EPAct 1992 established tax incentives for the purchase of electric vehicles and "clean-fuel vehicles," including alternative fuel and hybrid vehicles. The Energy Policy Act of 2005 (Section 1341) significantly expanded and extended the vehicle purchase incentives, establishing tax credits for the purchase of fuel cell, hybrid, alternative fuel, and advanced diesel vehicles.

[...]

The Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of 2008 established a tax credit for the purchase of plug-in vehicles, both pure electric vehicles and plug-in hybrids (i.e., gasoline/electric hybrid vehicles that can fuel on gasoline or be recharged from the electric grid.) For passenger vehicles, the credit is a maximum of $7,500, depending on the vehicle's battery capacity. After sales of vehicles eligible for the credit exceed a total of 250,000 for all manufacturers, the credit is phased out. [Congressional Research Service, 2/4/10]

Tax Credits Contribute To Development Of American Advanced Battery Industry And Jobs. A Duke University analysis of the U.S. value chain for lithium-ion vehicle batteries stated: "Largely as a result of financial support by federal and state governments, the U.S. domestic lithium-ion battery supply chain is developing very quickly." The report also said "U.S. production capacity has indeed grown very quickly, from just two relevant plants before the ARRA [American Recovery and Reinvestment Act] funding, to 30 planned sites aiming to achieve a projected 20% of world capacity by 2012, and 40% by 2015." [Duke University Center on Globalization, Governance & Competitiveness, 10/5/10]

MYTH: Electric Cars Are A Threat To The Grid

On his Fox Business show, Cavuto stated that electric car owners are "compromising our grid." [Fox Business, Cavuto, 12/8/11, via Nexis]

Fox's Eric Bolling suggested that if a "million" or two million electric cars were on the road, we would have "no ability to charge these cars. The electric -- the power grid right now is on its ear already." [Fox Business, Happy Hour, 7/19/09]

The National Legal and Policy Center's Mark Modica suggested on Fox Business that the "electric grid isn't ready for" the amount of electric cars that advocates want on the road. [Fox Business, Cavuto, 10/12/11, via Nexis]

FACT: Studies Show EVs Are Unlikely To Strain Grid, Particularly With Good Planning

Studies Indicate That Plug-In Cars Won't Strain The Grid. GreenCarReports noted:

A comprehensive and wide-ranging two-volume study from 2007, Environmental Assessment of Plug-In Hybrid Vehicles, looked at the impact of plug-in vehicles on the U.S. electrical grid. It also analyzed the "wells-to-wheels" carbon emissions of plug-ins versus gasoline cars.

The study is well regarded, in part because of its authors. It was a joint effort by two somewhat unlikely partners: the Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI), which is the utility industry's research arm, and the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC).

It looks at the consequences of drivers charging plug-in vehicles at different times during the day. And it assumes a gradual rollout of electric vehicles into the current U.S. fleet of 300 million vehicles. GM, for example, will only sell 10,000 Chevy Volts during all of 2011.

In practice, this means electric cars will only impose marginal increases on the electric grid. The load of one plug-in recharging (about 2 kilowatts) is roughly the same as that of four or five plasma television sets. Plasma TVs hardly brought worries about grid crashes.

[...]

Knowing all this, the EPRI-NRDC study concluded -- not surprisingly -- that plug-in vehicles won't strain the grid. Two earlier, more limited studies from the Pacific Northwest National Laboratory and Oak Ridge National Laboratory concluded essentially the same thing. [GreenCarReports, 7/13/10, via Discovery News]

Utilities And Regulators Can Institute Policies To Smooth Demand. A 2011 MIT study on "The Future of the Electric Grid" stated:

The degree to which EVs pose a stress to the power grid depends on their local penetration rate, as well as the power and time at which they charge. If regulators and utilities appropriately influence charging so that it mostly does not coincide with the system peak demand, EVs will improve system load factor and will not cause unmanageable disruption to the bulk generation and transmission system. Otherwise, integrating these loads will require more investment in equipment. [Massachusetts Institute of Technology, 2011]

Engineers Are Developing New Software To Address Added Demand. Good reported:

As I explained in a previous column, some automakers with EVs in the pipeline are already working on the issue. Ford, for example, recently joined up with Microsoft Hohm for an in-vehicle charging system in the 2011 electric Ford Focus. The system will allow drivers to schedule vehicle charging during off-peak hours, or times when the grid has capacity to spare.

Microsoft and Ford aren't the only companies working on EV charging software. Google is also working on a platform that will use something called a vehicle dispatch algorithm to smooth out the electricity load on the grid. And the U.S. Department of Energy's Pacific Northwest National Laboratory is developing a Smart Charger Controller to automatically juice up vehicles when electricity is cheapest and the demand for power is lowest. [Good, 11/11/10]

Electric Cars Could Provide Backup Power For The Electric Grid. Miller-McCune reported in October:

For 15 years, [Willett] Kempton, who directs the University of Delaware's Center for Carbon-Free Power Integration, has pushed the idea that fleets of electric vehicles -- rather than being another big draw on the electric grid -- could provide valuable backup power on demand to utilities. This would reduce the need for costly new generating plants, and help ensure a reliable supply of electricity.

Utilities pay each other billions of dollars a year for such backup power through wholesale electricity markets, and Kempton believes that a hefty slice of that pie could be paid to electric-vehicle owners instead.

Some industry analysts agree that the approach, known as "vehicle-to-grid," could take off; a December 2010 report from the business research firm Global Data conservatively projected a global market for vehicle-to-grid that would pay $2.3 billion to electric vehicle owners by 2012 -- and $40 billion by 2020. [Miller-McCune, 10/31/11]

MYTH: Each Volt Cost Taxpayers More Than $250,000 In Subsidies

In a CBS news brief, Ashley Morrison stated: "According to a new report, every car sold so far has cost taxpayers as much as two hundred and fifty thousand dollars." [CBS, CBS Morning News, 12/22/11, via Nexis]

Fox News promoted the figure on Fox & Friends, Special Report, and The Five (twice). Fox Business covered the figure in at least 9 segments. [Media Matters, 12/22/11] [Nexis search, 1/20/12]

Rush Limbaugh and numerous conservative blogs repeated the figure. [RushLimbaugh.com, 1/11/12] [HumanEvents.com, 1/7/12] [Washington Examiner, 1/23/12] [National Review Online, 12/21/11] [MichelleMalkin.com, 12/21/11] [Hot Air, 12/21/11]

FACT: Subsidy Estimate Was Based On Fuzzy Math

Estimate Includes Subsidies For Supplier Companies And Subsidies That Haven't Actually Been Distributed. The source of the claim that each Volt costs taxpayers $250,000 in subsidies is James Hohman of the Mackinac Center for Public Policy, a conservative think tank that has received money from fossil fuel interests. The estimate, which Hohman conceded was "simple math," included state and federal subsidies "via tax credits and direct funding for not only General Motors, but other companies supplying parts for the vehicle." It also included subsidies that the companies haven't yet received. Hohman divided that total by 6,000 - the number of Volts sold at the time. [Media Matters, 12/22/11]

Finance Writer: "Fundamental Flaw" In The Estimate "Discredits The Entire Report." Writing for TheStreet.com, Anton Wahlman - who said he is "totally opposed to government subsidies" -- stated that "there is a fundamental flaw behind the math in this 'report' that discredits the entire report straight down to zero, in my view." From his post:

Here is the point: Why divide whatever amount -- $1.5 billion or otherwise -- by the number of Chevrolet Volts sold to date? If he had done this study one year from now, when we could be looking at 60,000 Volts made, as GM repeatedly has promised, the headline number would be $25,000 per car-- not $250,000. You would divide the $1.5 billion by 60,000 instead of 6,000.

But why stop at a year from now? This investment in automotive propulsion technology is meant to be refined and influence generations of cars for decades. Some part of GM's Voltec architecture and techniques will drive sales of approximately 60 million cars over the next 25 years or so, in any reasonable estimation.

[...]

The absurdity of the math used can be further shown by asking what the study would have yielded if it had been done six months ago or a year ago. Six months ago, 3,000 Volts had been sold and therefore the implied subsidy was $500,000 per car -- half as many cars, twice the subsidy per car. One year ago, the first Volt was sold and therefore this one car must have cost $1.5 billion, according to the reasoning by the people who wrote the headlines around this study.

This is the way it works in almost every industry. The first iPad manufactured probably cost Apple $100 million or whatever. Does that mean Apple lost $100 million minus $500 on this iPad? Of course not. The development cost for any product is written off across large volumes, typically multiple generations, where both hardware and software accumulate constantly. [TheStreet.com, 12/22/11]

New Polls Showing Catholic Support For Contraception Coverage Further Undermine "War On Religion" Claim

C.R. — Wed, 08 Feb 2012 13:24:48 EST

New polls released this week indicate that a majority of Catholics believe that employers should provide health care plans that cover contraception. This further undermines right-wing media claims that President Obama has declared "war on Catholics" or a "war on religion" because of his administration's recent decision requiring religiously affiliated organizations to offer health care plans that cover contraception.

Obama Administration Reaffirmed Health Insurers Must Cover Contraception

New York Times: "Obama Reaffirms Insurers Must Cover Contraception." From a January 20 New York Times article:

The Obama administration said Friday that most health insurance plans must cover contraceptives for women free of charge, and it rejected a broad exemption sought by the Roman Catholic Church for insurance provided to employees of Catholic hospitals, colleges and charities.

Federal officials said they would give such church-affiliated organizations one additional year -- until Aug. 1, 2013 -- to comply with the requirement. Most other employers and insurers must comply by this Aug. 1. [The New York Times, 1/20/12]

Recent Polls Show Majority Of Catholics Support Insurance Plans That Cover Contraception ...

Public Religion Research Institute: "Majority Of Catholics Think Employers Should Be Required To Provide Health Care Plans That Cover Birth Control At No Cost." A poll released by the Public Religion Research Institute (PRRI) on February 7 found that "[r]oughly 6-in-10 Catholics (58%) believe that employers should be required to provide their employees with health care plans that cover contraception." From PRRI:

Majority Support Requirement that Employer Health Care Plans Include Contraception Coverage

A majority (55%) of Americans agree that "employers should be required to provide their employees with health care plans that cover contraception and birth control at no cost." Four-in-ten (40%) disagree with this requirement.

There are major religious, generational and political divisions:

Roughly 6-in-10 Catholics (58%) believe that employers should be required to provide their employees with health care plans that cover contraception.

Among Catholic voters, support for this requirement is slightly lower at 52%.

Only half (50%) of white Catholics support this requirement, compared to 47% who oppose it.

Among other religious Americans, 61% of religiously unaffiliated Americans believe that employers should be required to provide their employees with health care plans that cover contraception, compared to only half (50%) of white mainline Protestants and less than 4-in-10 (38%) white evangelical Protestants.

The news release about the poll included the following graph:

[PRRI, 2/7/12]

PRRI: "Majority Of Catholics (52%) Say That Religiously Affiliated Colleges And Hospitals Should Have To Provide Coverage That Includes Contraception." From PRRI's press release:

Nearly half (49%) of Americans say that religiously affiliated colleges and hospitals should be required to provide their employees with health care plans that cover contraception or birth control at no cost. Forty-six percent say they should not have to provide this type of coverage.

A majority of Catholics (52%) say that religiously affiliated colleges and hospitals should have to provide coverage that includes contraception.

Among Catholic voters, however, only 45% support this requirement, while 52% oppose it.

Only about 4-in-10 (41%) white Catholics support this requirement, compared to 58% who oppose it. [PRRI, 2/7/12]

Public Policy Polling: "A 53 Percent Majority Of Catholic Voters" Support "Providing Women With Prescription Birth Control Without A Co-Pay." A Public Policy Polling (PPP) survey released February 7 found that "a 53 percent majority of Catholic voters" support providing birth control to women without a co-pay, and a 53 percent majority also agreed with the sentiment that "women employed by Catholic hospitals and universities should have the same rights to contraceptive coverage as other women." From PPP:

A solid 56 percent majority of voters support the decision to require health plans to cover prescription birth control with no additional out-of-pocket fees, while only 37 percent are opposed. It's particularly noteworthy that pivotal independent voters support this benefit by a 55/36 margin; in fact, a majority of voters in every racial, age, and religious category that we track express support. In particular, a 53 percent majority of Catholic voters, who were oversampled as part of this poll, favor the benefit, including fully 62 percent of Catholics who identify themselves as independents.

[...]

- A similarly strong majority (57 percent) of voters think that women employed by Catholic hospitals and universities should have the same rights to contraceptive coverage as other women, while only 39 percent say these institutions should be exempted from the requirement that health plans cover prescription birth control with no additional out-of-pocket costs because contraception runs counter to Catholic teachings. Notably, a 53 percent majority of Catholics agree with this sentiment, including 60 percent of independents. [PPP, 2/7/12, via Planned Parenthood, emphasis original]

... As Have Past Polls

Catholics For Choice Poll Found 63 Percent Of American Catholics Support Coverage For "Contraception, Such As Birth Control Pills." According to a 2009 poll conducted for Catholics for Choice, 63 percent of American Catholics said that "health insurance policies -- whether they are private or government -- should cover ... contraception, such as birth control pills."

[Belden Russonello & Stewart, September 2009]

And Several Catholic Groups Found A "Silver Lining" In HHS Rule

Catholic United's Executive Director: "There Is A Silver Lining In Today's Ruling. Increased Access To Contraceptive Services Will Dramatically Reduce The Abortion Rate In America." James Salt, executive director of the group Catholics United, issued this statement in response to the contraception ruling:

Although we recognize the authority of Catholic teaching on the issue of contraception, we also acknowledge that there is a silver lining in today's ruling. Increased access to contraceptive services will dramatically reduce the abortion rate in America. Reducing abortion should be a goal recognized by both sides of this highly polarized debate. Furthermore, we look forward to working with the administration in finding a win-win solution that will both meet the medical needs of women while protecting the religious liberty of Catholic institutions. [Catholics United, 1/20/12]

Catholic Democrats President Whelan: "These New Regulations ... Will Certainly Help Reduce The Number Of Unintended Pregnancies" And "Decrease The Incidence Of Abortion." Dr. Patrick Whelan, president of Catholic Democrats, issued a statement on the Department of Health and Human Services ruling that noted, "These new regulations, providing for greater access to contraception, will certainly help reduce the number of unintended pregnancies across the country, and correspondingly are likely to further decrease the incidence of abortion." From Whelan's statement:

As a physician and pediatric specialist, I know that news of the HHS regulations today means that more women will have access to the kind of health care that has been denied to millions over the years because of the high cost. Over 50% of girls and women who use contraceptives take them for reasons other than the prevention of pregnancy. Since the beginning of his first presidential campaign in 2007, President Obama has emphasized the importance of preventing unintended pregnancy as the most moral approach to solving the abortion problem. These new regulations, providing for greater access to contraception, will certainly help reduce the number of unintended pregnancies across the country, and correspondingly are likely to further decrease the incidence of abortion. [Catholic Democrats, accessed 1/26/12]

But Right-Wing Media Continue To Claim Obama Is Waging A "War On Religion"

Doocy: Obama Giving Catholics "A Year To Figure Out How To Reverse 2,000 Years Of Religious Doctrine." On the February 8 edition of Fox News' Fox & Friends, co-host Steve Doocy discussed the ruling with political analyst Larry Sabato. At one point, he asked Sabato, "Why do you think the, you know, the White House drew such a bold line in the sand, saying, 'Look, we're going to give you a year to figure out how to reverse 2,000 years of religious doctrine, but you got a year, so stop complaining.' " [Fox News, Fox & Friends, 2/8/12]

WSJ: "HHS Tells Religious Believers To Go To Hell." In a February 8 editorial titled, "ObamaCare's Great Awakening" and subtitled "HHS tells religious believers to go to hell. The public notices," The Wall Street Journal wrote:

In late January the Health and Human Services Department required almost all insurance plans to cover contraceptive and sterilization methods, including the morning-after pill. The decision came after passionate lobbying by religious groups and liberals from the likes of Planned Parenthood, amid government promises of compromise.

[...]

Practicing this kind of compulsion is routine and noncontroversial within Ms. Sebelius's ministry. That may explain why her staff didn't notice that the birth-control rule abridges the First Amendment's protections for religious freedom. Then again, maybe HHS thought the public had become inured to such edicts, which have arrived every few weeks since the Affordable Care Act passed.

Bad call. The decision has roused the Catholic bishops from their health-care naivete, but they've been joined by people of all faiths and even no faith, as it becomes clear that their own deepest moral beliefs may be thrown over eventually. Contraception is the single most prescribed medicine for women between 18 and 44 years old, and nine of 10 insurers and employers already cover it. Yet HHS still decided to rub it in the face of religious hospitals.

[...]

The White House is now trying to cauterize the political damage and saying it is open to some "compromise" on its own contraception decision. But the rule is already final. HHS tried to sell it as a compromise when it was announced, and in any case HHS would revive this coercion whenever it is politically convenient some time in Mr. Obama's second term. Religious liberty won't be protected from the entitlement state until ObamaCare is repealed. [The Wall Street Journal, 2/8/12]

Hannity: This Is A "War On Religion." On the February 7 edition of his Fox News show, Sean Hannity said of the HHS rule, "Do we all agree this is an assault on the First Amendment, freedom of religion, a war on religion? Am I wrong?" [Fox News, Hannity, 2/7/12, via Media Matters]

Stuart Varney: Obama Is Telling Catholics, "You Must Abandon Your Faith, Or Abandon Charity." On the February 7 edition of Hannity, Fox Business host Stuart Varney said that "[i]t is cruel to tell Catholics that you must abandon your faith, or abandon charity. That is a cruel decision to place upon anybody":

VARNEY: I'll go further, and I'll be harsher. I think this is a cruel and arrogant move on the part of the president. It is cruel to tell Catholics that you must abandon your faith, or abandon charity. That is a cruel decision to place upon anybody. [Fox News, Hannity, 2/7/12, via Media Matters]

For more examples of right-wing media portraying President Obama as anti-Catholic, click here.

Hannity's "War On Religion" Campaign Undermined By Catholic Support For Contraception Coverage

K.Z. — Tue, 07 Feb 2012 23:54:43 EST

Continuing a Fox News campaign to portray President Obama as anti-Christian, Sean Hannity claimed the administration's requirement that insurers cover contraception for women was part of a "war on religion." That criticism is undermined by the fact that a majority of Catholics believe insurance policies should cover contraceptives.

Obama Administration Reaffirmed Health Insurers Must Cover Contraception

New York Times: "Obama Reaffirms Insurers Must Cover Contraception." From a January 20 article in The New York Times:

The Obama administration said Friday that most health insurance plans must cover contraceptives for women free of charge, and it rejected a broad exemption sought by the Roman Catholic Church for insurance provided to employees of Catholic hospitals, colleges and charities.

Federal officials said they would give such church-affiliated organizations one additional year -- until Aug. 1, 2013 -- to comply with the requirement. Most other employers and insurers must comply by this Aug. 1. [The New York Times, 1/20/12]

And While Polling Shows That Catholics Support Insurance Coverage For Contraception

[Belden Russonello & Stewart, September 2009]

And Several Catholic Groups Found A "Silver Lining" In The Move

Although we recognize the authority of Catholic teaching on the issue of contraception, we also acknowledge that there is a silver lining in today's ruling. Increased access to contraceptive services will dramatically reduce the abortion rate in America. Reducing abortion should be a goal recognized by both sides of this highly polarized debate. Furthermore, we look forward to working with the administration in finding a win-win solution that will both meet the medical needs of women while protecting the religious liberty of Catholic institutions. [Catholics United, 1/20/12]

Catholic Democrats President Whelan: "These New Regulations ... Will Certainly Help Reduce The Number Of Unintended Pregnancies" And "Decrease The Incidence Of Abortion." Dr. Patrick Whelan, president of Catholic Democrats, issued a statement on the HHS ruling that noted, "These new regulations, providing for greater access to contraception, will certainly help reduce the number of unintended pregnancies across the country, and correspondingly are likely to further decrease the incidence of abortion." From Whelan's statement:

As a physician and pediatric specialist, I know that news of the HHS regulations today means that more women will have access to the kind of health care that has been denied to millions over the years because of the high cost. Over 50% of girls and women who use contraceptives take them for reasons other than the prevention of pregnancy. Since the beginning of his first presidential campaign in 2007, President Obama has emphasized the importance of preventing unintended pregnancy as the most moral approach to solving the abortion problem. These new regulations, providing for greater access to contraception, will certainly help reduce the number of unintended pregnancies across the country, and correspondingly are likely to further decrease the incidence of abortion. [Catholic Democrats, accessed 1/26/12]

Hannity Accused Obama Of Waging "A War On Religion"

Hannity: This Is A "War On Religion." Hannity called the contraception mandate an "assault on the first amendment, freedom of religion, a war on religion":

HANNITY: Do we all agree this is an assault on the first amendment, freedom of religion, a war on religion? Am I wrong? [Fox News, Hannity, 2/7/12]

Stuart Varney: President Obama Is Telling Catholics "You Must Abandon Your Faith, Or Abandon Charity." Stuart Varney called the contraception coverage mandate, "a cruel and arrogant move":

VARNEY: I'll go further, and I'll be harsher. I think this is a cruel and arrogant move on the part of the president. It is cruel to tell Catholics that you must abandon your faith, or abandon charity. That is a cruel decision to place upon anybody. [Fox News, Hannity, 2/7/12]

For Fox's ongoing campaign to portray President Obama as anti-Catholic, click here

Right-Wing Media Aren't Concerned About Helping The Poor, But They Sure Want To Help The Rich

M.F.B. — Tue, 07 Feb 2012 15:42:18 EST

As income disparities continue to increase, and the effective tax rate paid by the rich remains at historic lows, right-wing media figures work hard to make sure none of that changes. They routinely attack the poor and programs designed to assist them, while simultaneously extolling the rich and defending them against any attempt to get them to pay their fair share of taxes.

Conservative Media Frequently Deride The Plight Of The Poor As Well As Programs To Aid Them ...

... But Fiercely Defend The Rich ...

... Often Relying On Misinformation To Do So

Conservative Media Frequently Deride The Plight Of The Poor As Well As Programs To Aid Them ...

Limbaugh Suggested That Rather Than Raise The Minimum Wage, We Should "Get Rid Of It." From the February 2 edition of Premiere Radio Networks´ The Rush Limbaugh Show:

LIMBAUGH: I got an email during the break, and this is not a criticism of the email. But it is a perfect illustration of what's happening here in the Republican primary. I have a story. It is from David Espo at the Associated Press. Republican presidential contender Mitt Romney renewed -- now listen to me folks -- Mitt Romney renewed his support yesterday for automatic increases in the federal minimum wage to keep pace with inflation, a position sharply at odds with traditional Republican business allies, conservatives, and party senior lawmakers.

By the way, folks, have you seen the teenage unemployment rate in this country. Well, can you say 25 percent. I mean, it's 16, 18 -- it's way, way up there. The teenage unemployment rate -- it's a record highs. Whatever it is, it is a record high. And why do you think that is in part? It's the minimum wage. Businesses are having enough trouble as it is in this economy, and then to be told to go out and higher a bunch of people who have no experience and pay them an arbitrary amount of money that has no relationship to the business' operation, cost structure, is literally absurd. And so the only option the small businessman has is not hiring anybody. You can price -- it's sort of like raising tax rates. And these dummkopfs in Washington think: Well, you've got to raise the tax rates, and these taxpayers just sit out there like a bunch of idiots and they'll pay it.

Every time tax rates are increased, guess what? Revenue goes down. If you want more of an activity you cut taxes on it. If you want less of an activity you raise taxes. If you want more homes sold then you allow the interest on the mortgage to be deducted. If you don't want a lot of homes to be sold take that deduction away. If you want to spur teenage hiring lower the minimum wage or get rid of it. If you want to retard teenage hiring, if you want to slow down, if you want limit the amount of teenagers getting jobs raise the cost of hiring them. And that's what an increase in the minimum wage is.

The minimum wage, the stock conservative answer to it is get rid of it. It certainly isn't to raise it. It certainly isn't to tie it to the cost of living index. [Premiere Radio Networks, The Rush Limbaugh Show, 12/14/10]

Fox's Hume Railed Against Tax Increases On The Rich: "When's The Last Time One Of These Poor People Offered You A Job?" On the July 25, 2010, edition of Fox News Sunday, in response to Juan Williams' assertion that "Obama has already cut taxes" and that the taxes Democrats are calling to be allowed to expire are only for "the very rich in the country," Fox News senior political analyst Brit Hume asked: "When's the last time one of these poor people offered you a job?" He added that the people affected by letting the tax cuts expire "are the job creators, the people who have money to invest, capital to put at risk, to build enterprises and, they hope, make more money are people that have some money to begin with." [Media Matters, 7/28/10]

CBS To Receive Award From Fringe Group At CPAC

S.T. — Tue, 07 Feb 2012 10:35:00 EST

CBS News correspondent Sharyl Attkisson is set to receive a journalism award at this year's Conservative Political Action Conference from Accuracy in Media, a right-wing group with a long history of promoting anti-gay views and conspiracy theories. Attkisson -- the first reporter from a mainstream news outlet to receive AIM's annual award -- has produced some notably bad journalism over the past year, particularly on the topics of clean energy and vaccines.

CBS's Attkisson To Receive "Accuracy In Media" Award

Accuracy In Media Will Honor CBS Correspondent Sharyl Attkisson At CPAC. Accuracy in Media (AIM), a right-wing organization that criticizes perceived liberal bias in the media, announced this month that it would "honor Dana Loesch and Sharyl Attkisson for their outstanding contributions to journalism" with its Reed Irvine Accuracy in Media award. The award is being presented at the Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC) on February 9, 2012. Attkisson is listed on the schedule as a speaker at the award presentation. [Accuracy in Media, 2/1/12] [CPAC, accessed 2/6/12]

*UPDATE: CBS Responds. In response to questions about the award, CBS told Politico: "CBS News journalists are regularly honored by a broad spectrum of organizations for their outstanding original reporting." See below for factual problems in Attkisson's reporting that have not been corrected by CBS.

*UPDATE 2: AIM Responds. AIM spokesman Logan Churchwell told the Washington Post that Attkisson agreed to accept the award "in person" and will speak for 8-10 minutes. The Post also reported: "Attkisson, says Churchwell, has worked with AIM founder Reed Irvine in the past." According to TPM, Churchwell also said Attkisson "confirmed and reconfirmed" her attendance at the award presentation.

*UPDATE 3 (2/9/12): TPM reports that Churchwell "told TPM that Attkisson was sent on assignment out of town. Churchwell confirmed that CBS' bureau chief will accept the award on her behalf."

AIM Is A Cesspool Of Hate And Conspiracy Theories

AIM Known For Extreme Anti-Gay Views. Led by Cliff Kincaid, former Editor of Accuracy in Media and now Director of AIM's Center for Investigative Journalism, AIM has repeatedly published virulently anti-gay commentary.

AIM Promoted Birther Claims. At the 2009 CPAC, AIM's Kincaid questioned whether President Obama was born in the U.S., saying "Back during the 1980's at least we knew -- we knew that our President was born in the United States." Kincaid later released a copy of his own long-form birth certificate in order to call on Obama to do the same. In 2011 AIM Chairman Don Irvine -- the son of the late Reed Irvine, the AIM founder for whom the award is named -- applauded the release of Obama's long-form birth certificate, saying "Accuracy in Media has been a longtime advocate for transparency regarding the President's birth records; today that need has been met." Two days later AIM published a guest column stating that Obama's "long form birth certificate may not be genuine." [Media Matters, 8/5/09] [Media Matters, 2/26/09] [Accuracy in Media, 7/24/09] [Accuracy in Media, 3/1/10] [Accuracy in Media, 4/27/11] [Accuracy in Media, 4/29/11]

AIM Pursued Conspiracy Theories About Vincent Foster's Death. In The New York Times' 2004 obituary of Reed Irvine, the Times wrote: "while AIM occasionally lived up to its name, it also spent much of its time pursuing conspiracy theories." The Times noted that the organization had questioned whether the "death in 1993 of Vincent W. Foster Jr., the deputy White House counsel in the Clinton administration, was really a suicide." Indeed, as recently as 2004 AIM released a "Special Report" alleging that the "American Press participated in the cover-up of Foster's murder." [New York Times, 11/19/04] [Accuracy in Media, 10/16/04]

AIM: "There Is No Evidence That Obama Was Baptized." AIM has argued that journalists should question Obama's Christian faith, stating: "[C]alling yourself something is not the same thing as proving it is the case. Obama's Christian claim deserves to be scrutinized ... The facts show that there is no evidence that Obama was baptized in a traditional Christian sense of the term. Indeed, Muslims could join the church in Chicago that Obama attended." [Accuracy in Media, 2/14/11]

AIM Calls Global Warming A "Fraud." In 2007 Kincaid wrote an article titled "Media Promote Global Warming Fraud" claiming there was a "lack of scientific data to support the man-made global warming assertions." And in 2008, AIM issued a "Special Report" titled, "Will Media Expose Global Warming Con Job?" The report encouraged journalists to "break ranks and pursue their next Pulitzer Prize by exposing the lack of scientific consensus on CO₂ as a planet-heating pollutant." [Accuracy in Media, 2/5/07] [Accuracy in Media, 2/1/08]

All Previous Award Recipients Were From Right-Wing Media Outlets

Attkisson First Mainstream Reporter To Earn AIM Distinction. Attkisson appears to be the first reporter from a mainstream news network to receive AIM's Reed Irvine Accuracy In Media Award. This year AIM will also honor Dana Loesch, a conservative CNN contributor and the editor of Andrew Breitbart's website Big Journalism. The previous winners are:

2011: Tucker Carlson, founder of the Daily Caller, and Newsmax writer Ken Timmerman. [Accuracy in Media, 1/31/11]
2010: Andrew Breitbart and Marc Morano of Climate Depot. [Accuracy in Media, 1/31/11]
2009: M. Stanton Evans, Human Events contributor and author of Blacklisted by History: The Untold Story of Senator Joe McCarthy and His Fight Against America's Enemies, and Karl Denninger, then-Tea Party activist. [Accuracy in Media, 2/25/09]
2008: Heritage Foundation Fellow Lee Edwards. [Targeted News Service, 6/30/08, via Nexis] [Accuracy in Media, 2009] [Heritage, accessed 2/6/12]
2006/2007: Fox News contributor and conservative blogger Michelle Malkin and "Patriot Post" Executive Editor and Publisher Mark Alexander. [Patriot Post, 2/17/06] [Accuracy in Media, 2/23/07]
The award was established in 2005 in honor of AIM founder Reed Irvine, who died in 2004. The first recipients were FreeRepublic.com bloggers Harry MacDougald and Paul Boley. [Accuracy in Media, 7/6/06, via AmericanDaily.com] [Accuracy in Media, 11/28/05]

Attkisson Has Produced Shoddy, Irresponsible Reporting Over The Past Year

Attkisson Botched Green Energy "Investigation." In a recent "investigation" for CBS's This Morning, Attkisson purported to reveal 11 "New Solyndras" -- companies she said "are having trouble" or "have filed for bankruptcy" after receiving federal assistance. But Attkisson was counting companies that didn't even receive federal funds, companies that haven't actually gone bankrupt, and companies that have sold the government-backed projects to other firms, meaning taxpayer funds are not in their hands. Bill O'Reilly and CBSNews.com used Attkisson's misleading report to spread additional false information. In announcing its award recipients, AIM specifically lauded Attkisson for her green energy report. [Media Matters, 1/13/12] [Media Matters, 1/18/12] [Media Matters, 1/30/12] [Accuracy in Media, 2/1/12]

Science Writer: Attkisson Is "One Of The Least Responsible Mainstream Journalists" Covering Vaccines and Autism. Science writer Seth Mnookin, author of The Panic Virus: The True Story Behind The Vaccine-Autism Controversy, wrote on his website: "For years, CBS News's Sharyl Attkisson has been one of the least responsible mainstream journalists covering vaccines and autism. Again and again, she's parroted anti-vaccine rhetoric long past the point that it's been decisively disproved." Indeed, in three articles on CBSNews.com this year, Attkission has suggested that there is a major "debate" in the scientific community over whether vaccines are connected to autism, despite the lack of evidence for the supposed link. Mnookin told Media Matters that he found it "shocking that her vaccine reporting is featured on a major news" site. [SethMnookin.com, 3/31/11] [Phone conversation, 2/6/12]

Children Who Are Not Vaccinated Are At Risk Of Serious Infectious Diseases. Vaccination rates in certain areas of the United States are decreasing, coinciding with a rise in measles cases. As Dr. Steven Weinreb wrote in the New York Times, "For each year between 2001 and 2008, the median number of [measles] cases in the United States was 56. In the first six months of this year [2011] alone, there were more than 150 reported cases -- the most since 1996. A vast majority of those who were sickened had not been vaccinated or had uncertain vaccination histories." [New York Times, 12/27/11]

Attkisson: A "New Scientific Review" Shows The "Austism-Vaccine Debate" Is Not Over. More than a year after the formal retraction of the main study upon which theories connecting autism to vaccines were based, Attkisson wrote: "For all those who've declared the autism-vaccine debate over - a new scientific review begs to differ. It considers a host of peer-reviewed, published theories that show possible connections between vaccines and autism." Mnookin criticized Attkisson's article, noting that the author of the "new scientific review," Helen Ratajczak, had only "been the primary author of a published study" twice in the past decade, and it was "only the fourth study she's been associated with in any capacity during that time." Dr. David Gorski further broke down the "pseudoscience" cited in Attkisson's article, and concluded by wondering why CBS "tolerate[s] Attkisson's horrible reporting on vaccines and other scientific issues." [CBSNews.com, 3/31/11] [SethMnookin.com, 3/31/11] [Media Matters, 9/16/11] [ScienceBasedMedicine.org, 4/4/11]

Attkisson Editorialized In Article About Debunked Vaccine-Autism Link. In 2010, a federal court ruled that families with autistic children are not entitled to compensation from the vaccine court because a causal link between vaccines and autism is "scientifically unsupportable." In an article titled "The Search for Safer Vaccines," Attkisson commented that "vaccine-injured children who end up with autism are quietly winning their cases, but only when they focus on the more general argument of seizures or brain damage rather than autism. Some victory." [CNN.com, 3/12/10] [CBSNews.com, 1/19/11]

CBS Reportedly Had To Remove A False Paragraph From Attkisson's Report. In January 2011, Attkisson wrote an article titled "Child Flu Vaccine Seizures?" According to an excerpt quoted by Mnookin, Attkisson's article originally ended by stating that a new study "discusses how early life seizures 'may contribute to the enhanced risk of IDD's (Intellectual and Development Disabilities) and ASD's (Autism Spectrum Disorders.)'" But the study did not "say anything about vaccine-related febrile seizures," according to Mnookin, who noted that "when CBS was alerted to the problem," it removed the offending paragraph without noting a correction. The article still states that "non-government medical experts differ on the issue of whether flu shots should be given to children," even though the American Academy of Pediatrics, the American Medical Association and the American Lung Association all recommend that children older than 6 months get the flu vaccine. [SethMnookin.com, 1/28/11] [CBSNews.com, 1/26/11] [American Academy of Pediatrics, 9/1/11] [American Medical Association, accessed 2/3/12] [American Lung Association, accessed 2/3/12]

Still Wrong: Right-Wing Media Continue To Dismiss Jobs Report With Discredited Attack

C.R. — Mon, 06 Feb 2012 13:43:33 EST

Following the news that the unemployment rate fell in January from 8.5 percent to 8.3 percent, right-wing media have continued to claim that a routine Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) adjustment to jobs data, based on the 2010 census, means that "1.2 million people dropped out of the labor force" in January. In fact, experts say that claim is "simply wrong" and reflects a misreading of the BLS report.

After Labor Department Reported January Employment Growth ...

Labor Department: Employment Rose By 243,000 Jobs In January And Unemployment Dropped To 8.3 Percent. From the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS):

Total nonfarm payroll employment rose by 243,000 in January, and the unemployment rate decreased to 8.3 percent, the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics reported today. Job growth was widespread in the private sector, with large employment gains in professional and business services, leisure and hospitality, and manufacturing. Government employment changed little over the month.

[...]

The unemployment rate declined by 0.2 percentage point in January to 8.3 percent; the rate has fallen by 0.8 point since August. [Bureau of Labor Statistics, 2/3/12]

NY Times: Two Million Jobs Added In Past Year. The New York Times' Economix blog reported that "[o]ver the last 12 months, the economy added nearly two million jobs, more than in any similar period since early 2007." [The New York Times, Economix, 2/3/12]

... Financial Blog Zero Hedge Dismissed Employment Growth With Claim That "1.2 Million People Dropped Out Of The Labor Force"

Zero Hedge: "1.2 Million People Dropped Out Of The Labor Force In One Month!" A post on economics and finance blog Zero Hedge claimed that the Bureau of Labor Statistics report estimated that "1.2 million people dropped out of the labor force" in January. From Zero Hedge:

A month ago, we joked when we said that for Obama to get the unemployment rate to negative by election time, all he has to do is to crush the labor force participation rate to about 55%. Looks like the good folks at the BLS heard us: it appears that the people not in the labor force exploded by an unprecedented record 1.2 million. No, that's not a typo: 1.2 million people dropped out of the labor force in one month! So as the labor force increased from 153.9 million to 154.4 million, the non institutional population increased by 242.3 million meaning, those not in the labor force surged from 86.7 million to 87.9 million. Which means that the civilian labor force tumbled to a fresh 30 year low of 63.7% as the BLS is seriously planning on eliminating nearly half of the available labor pool from the unemployment calculation. As for the quality of jobs, as withholding taxes roll over Year over year, it can only mean that the US is replacing high paying FIRE jobs with low paying construction and manufacturing. So much for the improvement. [Zero Hedge, 2/3/12 emphasis in original]

"1.2 Million" Number Comes From A Misreading Of The Jobs Report

Krugman: "We Have Rush Limbaugh, Fox, Etc., Claiming That A Step Down [In Working-Age Population Estimate] Somehow Implies Fake Calculations. Still Not True." In a February 5 blog post, Nobel Prize-winning economist and New York Times columnist Paul Krugman wrote:

First, about that jobs report: all the usual suspects have jumped on the routine BLS population adjustment to claim that the numbers were cooked. The real story here is that the BLS estimates unemployment based on a monthly survey; this tells us what fraction of workers are unemployed. To turn that into a number of unemployed, the BLS estimates total working-age population; but it updates those estimates only once a year. So there's usually a step up or down in the totals each January, signifying nothing.

Back in the Bush years there were a lot of bogus claims of huge job growth reflecting a step up in the population numbers. Now we have Rush Limbaugh, Fox, etc., claiming that a step down somehow implies fake calculations. Still not true. And the thing that makes this so tiring is that they keep trotting out the same old bogosity, no matter how many times it has been refuted. [The New York Times, The Conscience of a Liberal, 2/5/12]

Economic Journalist Barry Ritholtz: "The Fact Is 1 Million People Did Not Drop Out Of The Labor Force In January 2012." In a February 3 post, economic journalist and Washington Post columnist Barry Ritholtz explained that those who are claiming that 1.2 million people dropped out of the labor force in January are misreading the Labor Department's jobs report:

So today following an otherwise pretty darn good jobs report, we get the usual perma-pessimists at Zero Hedge and Rick Santelli over at CNBC proclaiming that the report showed a drop of over 1 million people from the labor force in one month. Of course, as ususal, both Santelli and Zero Hedge have a real reading comprehension problem and completely missed that this million+ people isn't some new January phenomenon, but a result of the BLS using the 2010 census data to have more accurate data. In other words, the changes in the Household Survey to the various measures had taken place over the years prior to 2010, but for simplicity's sake, the BLS incorporates these changes into one month (which they clearly point out).

[...]

[T]he fact is 1 million people did not drop out of the labor force in January 2012. [The Big Picture, 2/3/12]

Private Sector Economist Brian Wesbury: Labor Force Participation Rate "Is Not The Negative Silver Bullet That Bearish Analysts Think." In a February 2 report released by First Trust Portfolios, economist Brian Wesbury, a member of the Academic Advisory Council of the Federal Reserve Bank of Chicago, explained that "the [labor force] participation rate is right about where it should be." From First Trust's report:

In his response to the State of the Union Address last week, Indiana Governor Mitch Daniels said that the "percentage of Americans with a job is the lowest in decades." This echoes the focus of many bearish analysts on the labor force participation rate, which is the share of the population that is either working or looking for work. Participation was only 64.1% in 2011, the lowest since 1983.

[...]

The bears don't care that in 2011 private payrolls increased 160,000 per month and the unemployment rate fell almost a full percentage point. They don't even care that the labor force actually grew. They argue that the labor force isn't growing fast enough and if it had grown as fast as population growth, the unemployment rate would be significantly higher. But, even though the labor force participation rate is the lowest in a generation, it is not the negative silver bullet that bearish analysts think. Data from 1995 and 2005 suggest the participation rate is right about where it should be. [First Trust Portfolios, 2/2/12]

WSJ: Population Growth Didn't Affect Unemployment Rate. In a post analyzing the jobs report numbers, The Wall Street Journal's Real Time Economics blog explained:

Today's jobs report carries good news on both fronts. The unemployment rate fell, and the employment-population ratio rose. That means the improvement in the labor market is real -- people actually found jobs.

The employment gain wasn't immediately obvious to some observers because of a quirk in this month's report. Every January, the Labor Department readjusts its data to account for changes in the population. The tweaks are especially significant in years like this one that take into account a new decennial census.

This year, the population adjustment makes it look like the employment-population ratio didn't change from December to January. In reality, the ratio improved by 0.3 percentage points. The gains were just masked by the population adjustments.

Here's what happened: According to the Census Bureau, the civilian population grew by 1.5 million people in 2011. But the growth wasn't distributed evenly. Most of the growth came among people 55 and older and, to a lesser degree, by people 16-24 years old. Both groups are less likely to work than people in their mid-20s to early 50s. So the share of the population that's working is actually lower than previously believed. Taking that into account, the employment-population ratio went up. The unemployment rate wasn't affected.

"There was not a big increase in discouraged workers," economist Betsey Stevenson commented on Twitter. "What happened was Census found a bunch of old people we had assumed died." [The Wall Street Journal, 2/3/12]

Time: "The Labor Force Numbers Stayed Essentially The Same." Time reporter Massimo Calabresi wrote:

Some Obama opponents are struggling to find a cloud in the silver lining of January's jobs numbers, which estimated that there was a 243,000-job boost and a big drop in the unemployment rate, from 8.5% to 8.3%, last month. Their biggest gripe focuses on the size of the labor force: As the unemployment rate has trended down over the last few months, anti-Obama commentators have argued that the official percentage for those without jobs is deceptive because the Bureau of Labor Statistics doesn't count those who have stopped looking for work. In Friday's report, they found a sharp increase in that group: More than 1.2 million people joined the non-job seeking pool of working-age Americans last month.

[...]

The demographic adjustments had no effect on the unemployment rate, says Mary Bowler, the resident expert in these matters at the BLS. And when it comes to labor force estimates, the steep jump in the number of those not seeking work came entirely from the census adjustment, which added 1.25 million people to that group. If you take out the census adjustment, the labor force numbers stayed essentially the same, as reflected by the labor force participation rate of 63.7%. In other words, the spike in the number of people no longer looking for work is entirely the result of some people at the Labor Department adding numbers to their spread sheets rather than an actual observed shift anywhere in the real economy. [Time, 2/3/12]

**Even Conservative American Spectator Admits Claim That "Labor Force Dropped More Than 1.2 Million" Is "Simply Wrong"**

American Spectator Blog: "The Claims Of A Big One-Month Drop In Labor Force And Participation Rate Are Simply Wrong." In a February 3 post on the blog of The American Spectator, a conservative publication, Ross Kaminsky wrote that it's "simply not true" that "the participation rate dropped .03 percent and the labor force dropped more than 1.2 million in the past month." From Kaminsky's post:

[ZeroHedge.com analyst and writer Tyler] Durden says that the civilian non-institutional population rose by 1.7 million month-over-month but doesn't mention that almost all of that increase was due to an adjustment by Bureau of Labor Statistics based on the results of the 2010 census, plus smaller annual adjustments.

From the BLS report:

The adjustment increased the estimated size of the civilian noninstitutional population in December by 1,510,000, the civilian labor force by 258,000, employment by 216,000, unemployment by 42,000, and persons not in the labor force by 1,252,000. Although the total unemployment rate was unaffected, the labor force participation rate and the employment-population ratio were each reduced by 0.3 percentage point. This was because the population increase was primarily among persons 55 and older and, to a lesser degree, persons 16 to 24 years of age. Both these age groups have lower levels of labor force participation than the general population.

In other words, the participation rate (employment-population ratio) was reported to have dropped by 0.3%, exactly the amount of participation rate "drop" created by changing the population number used in the calculation (due to updated census data.) Without this once-a-decade adjustment, the change in participation rate would have been reported as...wait for it...zero.

I don't want to overstate the significance of Durden's oversight, which conservative voices around the media and the web are also making, namely the idea that the participation rate dropped 0.3 percent and the labor force dropped more than 1.2 million in the past month. Those things are simply not true no matter how loudly people scream "conspiracy" and "propaganda." (Having been trading financial markets for about 25 years, I've heard these same accusations about economic data being manipulated to help the incumbent president -- whether Democrat or Republican -- so many times, they just bore me now.)

And while the actual participation rate might in fact be this new lower number, that would also mean that prior numbers were lower. In other words, the top-line change -- caused almost entirely by using new census population numbers -- is an artifact of the new census data, but few people have read to the end of the BLS report to get that important piece of information.

Furthermore, there are cyclical reasons that the participation rate shouldn't be as high now as it was a few years ago in a different part of the economic cycle, as economist Brian Wesbury (no liberal, he) explains.

Look, I don't like writing anything that is likely to benefit Barack Obama or his supporters. But the facts are the facts, and the claims of a big one-month drop in labor force and participation rate are simply wrong. If our side is going to call certain data "propaganda," the least we can do is make sure we understand the data. [The American Spectator, 2/3/12, emphasis added]

Yet Right-Wing Media Still Hyped Zero Hedge's Claim That "1.2 Million" Left The Labor Force

Fox's Lott Claims Figure Is Evidence Of "More And More Americans ... Giv[ing] Up Looking For Work." In a February 3 column on FoxNews.com, contributor John Lott claimed:

Three years after Obama became president, even the official unemployment rate still remains high. The newly released 8.3 percent unemployment rate is still a half a percentage point higher than when he took office.

But that still might be looking at the bright side. If we include those who have given up looking for work and those who could only find part time work, the unemployment rate stands at almost an entire percentage point higher than when Obama entered office.

In January 2009, 11.6 million Americans were out of work and 23 percent of them had been unemployed for more than six months.

Today there are 12.8 million unemployed and 43 percent have been out of a job for more than six months. The average length of unemployment has increased dramatically since even the recovery started. Back in June 2009, "only" 29 percent of the unemployed had been unemployed longer than six months.

The number of unemployed Americans last month fell by 339,000, the fifth largest drop since January 2009. But there was an even much more shockingly large number -- almost 1.2 million additional Americans were classified in January as not being in the labor force (see figure here). Unfortunately, that has been the consistent story that has made this "recovery" unique as more and more Americans have just given up looking for work.

Fox Nation linked to Lott's column with the following graphic:

[FoxNews.com, 2/3/12; Fox Nation, 2/3/12]

Wash. Times: "This Figure Represents Those Who Out Of Sheer Frustration ... Have Dropped Out Of" The Labor Force. In a February 3 editorial, The Washington Times claimed that the Bureau of Labor Statistics "dropped 1.2 million from the calculated workforce" in January. From the editorial:

The White House hyped the news Friday that January payrolls had risen by 243,000. The hitch is the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) also dropped 1.2 million from the calculated workforce. Somehow this net loss of a million workers in a single month was transformed into an improvement in the unemployment rate. As the old saying goes, figures don't lie, but liars can figure.

"Job growth was widespread," the BLS reported, but most Americans sense that something isn't quite right with the numbers. The most important change was the deep decline in the workforce. While the overall population jumped an 1.6 million in January, the workforce declined a record-setting 1.2 million. This figure represents those who out of sheer frustration or for other reasons have dropped out of what the government defines as the active labor pool. They are worse than simply unemployed; they are both jobless and hopeless. [The Washington Times, 2/3/12]

Doocy: "There's A Million Less People Than We Thought Working ... Some Have Said, That's Kind Of Fishy." On the February 6 broadcast of Fox News' Fox & Friends, the co-hosts discussed the unemployment rate and jobs report. Co-host Steve Doocy claimed, "There was an adjustment last week ... suddenly, what, over a million people disappeared?" Later, Doocy said, "You know, they take the census every 10 years, and they figured, OK, there's a million less people than we thought working, which some have said, that's kind of fishy." [Fox News, Fox & Friends, 2/6/12]

Right-Wing Media Rely On Discredited Evidence To Dismiss Positive Jobs Report

Z.P. — Fri, 03 Feb 2012 22:52:01 EST

Right-wing media are rushing to put a negative spin on newly released jobs numbers showing a drop in the unemployment rate and a net increase in jobs by parroting the discredited claim that government data show that "1.2 million people dropped out of the labor force" last month. In fact, as economic experts have explained, that number reflected an increase in population from 2010 Census figures and is not the result of how many people "dropped out" of the labor force last month.

After The Labor Department Reported January Employment Growth

Labor Department: Employment Rose By 243,000 Jobs In January And Unemployment Dropped To 8.3 Percent. From the Bureau of Labor Statistics:

Total nonfarm payroll employment rose by 243,000 in January, and the unemployment rate decreased to 8.3 percent, the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics reported today. Job growth was widespread in the private sector, with large employment gains in professional and business services, leisure and hospitality, and manufacturing. Government employment changed little over the month.

[...]

The unemployment rate declined by 0.2 percentage point in January to 8.3 percent; the rate has fallen by 0.8 point since August. [Bureau of Labor Statistics, 2/3/12]

Financial Blog Zero Hedge Dismissed Employment Growth With Dubious Claim That "1.2 Million People Dropped Out Of The Labor Force"

But Experts Argue That The 1.2 Million Number Is Based On A Misreading Of The Jobs Report

Economic Journalist Barry Ritholtz: "The Fact Is 1 Million People Did Not Drop Out Of The Labor Force In January 2012." Economic journalist and Washington Post columnist Barry Ritholtz explained that those who are claiming that 1.2 million people dropped out of the labor force in January are misreading the Labor Department's jobs report:

So today following an otherwise pretty darn good jobs report, we get the usual perma-pessimists at Zero Hedge and Rick Santelli over at CNBC proclaiming that the report showed a drop of over 1 million people from the labor force in one month. Of course, as ususal, both Santelli and Zero Hedge have a real reading comprehension problem and completely missed that this million+ people isn't some new January phenomenon, but a result of the BLS using the 2010 census data to have more accurate data. In other words, the changes in the Household Survey to the various measures had taken place over the years prior to 2010, but for simplicity's sake, the BLS incorporates these changes into one month (which they clearly point out).

[...]

[T]he fact is 1 million people did not drop out of the labor force in January 2012. [The Big Picture, 2/3/12]

WSJ: Population Growth Didn't Affect Unemployment Rate. In a post analyzing the jobs report numbers, The Wall Street Journal's Real Time Economics blog explained:

Today's jobs report carries good news on both fronts. The unemployment rate fell, and the employment-population ratio rose. That means the improvement in the labor market is real -- people actually found jobs.

The employment gain wasn't immediately obvious to some observers because of a quirk in this month's report. Every January, the Labor Department readjusts its data to account for changes in the population. The tweaks are especially significant in years like this one that take into account a new decennial census.

This year, the population adjustment makes it look like the employment-population ratio didn't change from December to January. In reality, the ratio improved by 0.3 percentage points. The gains were just masked by the population adjustments.

Here's what happened: According to the Census Bureau, the civilian population grew by 1.5 million people in 2011. But the growth wasn't distributed evenly. Most of the growth came among people 55 and older and, to a lesser degree, by people 16-24 years old. Both groups are less likely to work than people in their mid-20s to early 50s. So the share of the population that's working is actually lower than previously believed. Taking that into account, the employment-population ratio went up. The unemployment rate wasn't affected.

"There was not a big increase in discouraged workers," economist Betsey Stevenson commented on Twitter. "What happened was Census found a bunch of old people we had assumed died." [The Wall Street Journal, 2/3/12]

Time: "The Labor Force Numbers Stayed Essentially The Same." Time reporter Massimo Calabresi wrote:

Some Obama opponents are struggling to find a cloud in the silver lining of January's jobs numbers, which estimated that there was a 243,000-job boost and a big drop in the unemployment rate, from 8.5% to 8.3%, last month. Their biggest gripe focuses on the size of the labor force: As the unemployment rate has trended down over the last few months, anti-Obama commentators have argued that the official percentage for those without jobs is deceptive because the Bureau of Labor Statistics doesn't count those who have stopped looking for work. In Friday's report, they found a sharp increase in that group: More than 1.2 million people joined the non-job seeking pool of working-age Americans last month.

[...]

The demographic adjustments had no effect on the unemployment rate, says Mary Bowler, the resident expert in these matters at the BLS. And when it comes to labor force estimates, the steep jump in the number of those not seeking work came entirely from the census adjustment, which added 1.25 million people to that group. If you take out the census adjustment, the labor force numbers stayed essentially the same, as reflected by the labor force participation rate of 63.7%. In other words, the spike in the number of people no longer looking for work is entirely the result of some people at the Labor Department adding numbers to their spread sheets rather than an actual observed shift anywhere in the real economy. [Time, 2/3/12]

Right-Wing Media Jumped On The Discredited Figure To Dismiss Jobs Report As "Corrupt"

Rush Limbaugh Cited The 1.2 Million Number To Argue That The Jobs Report Is "Corrupt." On his radio show, Rush Limbaugh cited Zero Hedge and claimed that "1.2 million people dropped out of the labor force in one month" to argue that the jobs numbers report is as "corrupt as it can be." [Premiere Radio Networks, The Rush Limbaugh Show, 2/3/12]

Sean Hannity Repeated The 1.2 Million Falsehood To Claim Lower Unemployment Rate Is "Phony." On his radio show, Sean Hannity stated: "It appears that the people not in the labor force exploded by an unprecedented record 1.2 million and that's not a typo. In other words, 1.2 million people dropped out of the labor force in one month." He then explained that what this shows is that the unemployment rate is a "phony number." Hannity added: "This jobs report has limited good news but phony numbers all around it." [Premiere Radio Networks, The Sean Hannity Show, 2/3/12]

Fox Nation Highlighted Limbaugh's Charge That Unemployment Rate Number Is "Corrupt." Fox Nation amplified Limbaugh's criticism of the jobs report using the headline: "Rush Slams 'Corrupt' Obama Jobs Stats":

[Fox Nation, 2/3/12]

Drudge: "Record 1.2M Fall Out Of Labor Force." The Drudge Report highlighted the misleading claim that 1.2 million people dropped out of the labor force:

[Drudge Report, 2/3/12]

Planned Parenthood's Effort To Fight All Types Of Cancer Still Under Attack

C.R. — Fri, 03 Feb 2012 12:55:56 EST

Following the controversy surrounding Susan G. Komen for the Cure's initial announcement that it would end its relationship with Planned Parenthood, right-wing media have tried to downplay Planned Parenthood's efforts to fight cancer, claiming that Planned Parenthood doesn't provide mammograms and does "nothing to prevent breast cancer." But this ignores the numerous cancer-related services Planned Parenthood annually provides to women -- including more than 1.5 million cancer screenings and preventative services in 2010 -- such as breast exams, mammogram referrals, and screenings for other types of cancer; moreover, contrary to right-wing claims, some Planned Parenthood clinics do indeed provide mammograms.

"They Don't Even Do Mammograms": Right-Wing Media Downplay Planned Parenthood's Efforts To Fight Cancer

Fox's Sandy Rios: Planned Parenthood Does "Nothing To Prevent Breast Cancer. They Don't Even Do Mammograms." On the February 2 edition of Fox News' America Live, host Megyn Kelly discussed Komen's decision to end Planned Parenthood funding with Fox News contributors Sandy Rios and Jehmu Greene. Rios claimed: "I think it's a fabulous decision. ... They do nothing to prevent breast cancer. They don't even do mammograms." Rios also added, "They're taking money from Susan G. Komen under false pretenses." [Fox News, America Live, 2/2/12]

Weekly Standard: Planned Parenthood "L[ied] About Providing Mammograms." A February 2 Weekly Standard post claimed that Planned Parenthood's president has "falsely claim[ed] on national television that the group provides mammograms." From the post:

Last spring, Planned Parenthood president Cecile Richards went on CNN and claimed that if Congress cut off funding to Planned Parenthood "millions of women are going to lose access, not to abortion services, to basic family planning, you know, mammograms." But as pro-life activist Lila Rose documented in a video, Planned Parenthood does not provide mammograms.

This story is worth recalling in light of the news this week that the Susan G. Komen foundation, one of the nation's largest breast cancer charities, has cut off funding (more than $600,000) to Planned Parenthood. Cecile Richards wrote that the foundation's decision to "end its support of lifesaving breast cancer screening at Planned Parenthood health centers comes as a blow to women across America."

[...]

Now obviously Planned Parenthood's role as America's largest abortion practitioner seems to be a significant factor in Komen's decision. Many Americans who would like to fund breast cancer research without lining the pockets of abortionists have pushed Komen to end its Planned Parenthood grants in recent years.

But why does Planned Parenthood feel entitled to a private charity's donations, especially considering the fact that Planned Parenthood's president falsely claims on national television that the group provides mammograms? Isn't Komen free to give its money to organizations that do more than provide mammogram "referrals" and breast cancer screenings? [The Weekly Standard,

[Planned Parenthood Action Fund, 1/31/12, via Twitter]

Planned Parenthood: "Low-Income Women" Are At "Immediate Risk" If Komen Ends Planned Parenthood Funding. In a response to Komen's decision on its website, Planned Parenthood stated:

At immediate risk are low-income women, many located in rural and underserved communities, served by 19 Planned Parenthood programs funded by the Komen Foundation. This funding has enabled designated Planned Parenthood health centers to provide women with breast health education, screenings, and referrals for mammograms -- lifesaving care for women where Planned Parenthood is their only source of health care. [PlannedParenthood.org, accessed

[PlannedParenthood.org, Affilate Services Summary, accessed 2/3/12]

Contrary To Claims, Some PPFA Clinics Indeed Provide Mammograms -- Thanks To Grants From Komen

As Of March 2011, Texas Planned Parenthood Clinics Did Offer Mammograms -- "Through Grants From The ... Susan G. Komen Foundation." In a March 2011 statement to Media Matters, Felicia Chase Goodman, CEO of Planned Parenthood of Central Texas, said:

Planned Parenthood of Central Texas is proud to provide comprehensive breast cancer screening for our patients, including mammography when needed. Through grants from the Central Texas affiliate of the Susan G. Komen Foundation and our participation in the Breast and Cervical Cancer Screening (BCCS) program (through the Texas Department of State Health Services), PPCT provides referrals and pays for mammograms and diagnostic follow up treatment for our patients at area radiology and surgical clinics.

Through these grants, in 2010 PPCT patients received 609 screening mammograms and 125 diagnostic mammograms; breast cancer was detected in 20 women. For most of these patients, Planned Parenthood is their only healthcare provider.

Through our participation in the BCCS program, patients who are diagnosed with breast or cervical cancer can be enrolled in the Medicaid for Breast and Cervical Cancer (MBCC) program, which ensures that they receive the necessary treatment to fight cancer. [Media Matters, 3/31/11]

Waco, TX, Planned Parenthood Has Provided More Than 2,000 Mammograms Since 2001. From a Waco, TX, Planned Parenthood Newsletter:

In 2009 we provided 487 mammograms and 162 diagnostic follow-up procedures for our patients. Since this program began in 2001, we have provided 2,683 mammograms to low-income women. [Waco Planned Parenthood, Spring/Summer 2010]

Texas Department Of State Health Services Lists Planned Parenthood Clinics As Breast Cancer Service Providers. The Texas Department of State Health Services includes Planned Parenthood of Central Texas in Waco in its list of Breast and Cervical Cancer Services providers. [Breast & Cervical Cancer Services Clinic Locator, accessed 2/2/12]

Tucson, AZ, Planned Parenthood Hosted "Free Mobile Mammography Clinic." From Planned Parenthood's Website:

Planned Parenthood Arizona will host a free mobile mammography clinic, supported by Pink365. Mammography has proven to be the single most beneficial tool in detecting early and treatable cancer. The goal of screening exams, such as mammograms, is to find cancers early before it has a chance to grow and treatment works best. [PlannedParenthood.org, 8/07/09]

This Is Nothing New: Right-Wing Media Have Long Pushed Smears And Falsehoods About Planned Parenthood

For right-wing smears and falsehoods about Planned Parenthood, SEE HERE.

Obama's Mortgage Relief Plan Is Immediately Attacked By The Right-Wing Media

M.F.B., M.F., & A.N. — Thu, 02 Feb 2012 14:38:00 EST

President Obama recently outlined his proposal that would give millions of homeowners a chance to save thousands of dollars annually by refinancing their mortgages at a lower interest rate even if their homes are currently underwater. The right-wing media immediately went on the attack, claiming that Obama's mortgage relief plan is a political stunt being used to "pander" to voters during an election year.

Obama Announces Mortgage Relief Plan To Deal With "Massive" Housing Problem

AP: Obama Proposal Would Create "An Annual Savings Of About $3,000 For The Average Borrower." From a February 1 Associated Press article:

President Barack Obama called on Congress Wednesday to make it easier for millions of additional homeowners to refinance their mortgages at lower interest rates even if they owe more than their homes are worth. He conceded that his administration's housing plans so far have not lived up to their promise.

Calling the housing problem "massive in size and in scope," Obama detailed a proposal he outlined in his State of the Union speech last week, tackling an issue of vital concern in states key to his re-election.

"This housing crisis struck right at the heart of what it means to be middle class in America: our homes," Obama said, speaking at a northern Virginia community center.

Obama's proposal would give homeowners with privately held mortgages a shot at record low rates though a new government program, for an annual savings of about $3,000 for the average borrower.

The program is the latest administration effort to help homeowners in the face of a massive number of foreclosures and plunging house values that have left millions of borrowers owing more than their homes are worth. The administration plan aims to ease the way toward refinancing for borrowers, who despite good credit have been unable to take advantage of lower rates because they are underwater on their loans or because banks fear they will be left taking losses.

[...]

The administration estimates that 3.5 million borrowers with privately-held mortgages have high enough interest rates that they would have incentive to refinance under the new plan. That's in addition to 11 million borrowers who have Fannie- or Freddie-guaranteed loans who could be eligible for refinancing under the administration's proposed changes.

About 11 million Americans -- roughly 1 in 4 with a mortgage -- are underwater, according to CoreLogic, a real estate data firm.

Half of all U.S. mortgages -- about 30 million home loans -- are owned by nongovernment lenders.

The new administration plan would permit homeowners to refinance their mortgages into loans backed by the Federal Housing Administration. To qualify, borrowers with privately held mortgages would have to have no more than one delinquency in the six months preceding refinancing. Their loans would have to fall within the mortgage limits set by the FHA in their home counties. [Associated Press, 2/1/12]

Obama's Proposal Would Also Give Relief To Renters And Homeowners Looking For Work. From a White House fact sheet on Obama's plan:

• First Pilot Sale to Transition Foreclosed Property into Rental Housing to Help Stabilize Neighborhoods and Improve Home Prices: The FHFA, in conjunction with Treasury and HUD, is announcing a pilot sale of foreclosed properties to be transitioned into rental housing.

• Moving the Market to Provide a Full Year of Forbearance for Borrowers Looking for Work: Following the Administration's lead, major banks and the GSEs are now providing up to 12 months of forbearance to unemployed borrowers.

• Pursuing a Joint Investigation into Mortgage Origination and Servicing Abuses: This effort marshals new resources to investigate misconduct that contributed to the financial crisis under the leadership of federal and state co-chairs.

• Rehabilitating Neighborhoods and Reducing Foreclosures: In addition to the steps outlined above, the Administration is expanding eligibility for HAMP to reduce additional foreclosures, increasing incentives for modifications that help borrowers rebuild equity, and is proposing to put people back to work rehabilitating neighborhoods through Project Rebuild. [WhiteHouse.gov, 2/1/12]

Right-Wing Media Suggest Obama's Plan Is A Charade Designed To Gain Votes

Malkin: Obama Is Re-Inflating The Housing Bubble To "Pander In An Election Year." In a February 1 post on her blog, Michelle Malkin criticized President Obama for outlining his mortgage relief plan saying he was "re-inflating the housing bubble to pander in an election year." From the post:

Ugh. We're back to this again. Yes, President Obama's re-inflating the housing bubble to pander in an election year. Foreclosure avoidance is now a civil right. Long-term consequences be damned.

Obama is outlining a proposal to allow millions more homeowners to refinance their mortgages at lower interest rates even if they owe more than their homes are worth. The White House says the average borrower could save about $3,000 annually.

His first mortgage-mod program was fraud-ridden and failed. So, of course, he's doubling down.

Obama has also promised today to send a homeowner "bill of rights" to Congress.

Maybe he should try abiding by the original one first.

***

Over the past several years, I've written extensively about the bipartisan housing entitlement culture and the death of the stigma of default. I repeat:

Property-value preservation is not a civil right.

The truth is: Nobody wants to swallow tough truths. They just want their candy. [Michelle Malkin, 2/1/12]

Limbaugh Falsely Claims Obama Will Refinance Everybody's Loans. "All You Have To Do Is Promise To Vote For Him." From the February 1 edition of The Rush Limbaugh Show:

RUSH LIMBAUGH: So what do we do now, folks? That's the question. Everybody wants to know what do we do now? And what we do now is what we should be doing all along. I'll give you an example.

[...]

Obama's on TV this morning. He was in Falls Church, Virginia, doing a campaign speech. And in this appearance he announced yet another plan to bail out people who are underwater in their houses. This -- I don't know what this is, HARP 2, HARP 3. We alluded to this a few weeks ago where Obama was going to take people that were underwater and basically refinance their mortgages and have a monthly payment max out at something like six or seven hundred dollars. It's essentially, not quite forgive everybody's mortgage, but the effort was to make them think that was going to happen. That's the reason, one of the many reasons, Obama's out there saying, "Vote for me" today.

We predicted this a few weeks ago, and I think -- I'm sure I was the first to predict it. He's promising the government will refinance everybody's loans. No credit checks. No credit checks, no proof of anything. All you have to do is promise to vote for him. And that's implied. That is understood. I mean that's the whole point of it. So how do you fight this? What do we do? The only thing that has ever had a chance from the first days of this election, this campaign, has been to make it about Obama. Every day, in every which way possible, on issues, on Obama's record, on the things he can't defend. That's what needs to happen. That's what our chance is. Our team: not all that good. You know it, and I know it. They're just not. [Premiere Radio Networks, The Rush Limbaugh Show, 2/1/12]

In Fact, Obama's Plan Is Aimed At Helping "Responsible Borrowers." The White House fact-sheet on Obama's plan states that to be eligible for the refinancing program, homeowners must be "current on their mortgage," "meet a minimum credit score," "have a loan that is no larger than the current FHA [Federal Housing Administration] conforming loan limits in their area," and be seeking to refinance "a single family, owner-occupied principal residence." [WhiteHouse.gov, 2/1/12]

Hot Air's Morrissey: Obama Is "Vote Mining Among Underwater Middle-Class Homeowners." From a February 1 post on the right-wing blog Hot Air by Ed Morrissey:

Jim Pethokoukis argued last week that this is Obama's attempt to buy some middle-class support. Republicans may stop it for its new fees on lenders, which will supposedly fund the costs, but certainly not the risks involved in this shell game, but that would also be useful for Obama in vote mining among underwater middle-class homeowners -- in fact, it might be more useful than passage. (Republicans could pass it with a provision approving the Keystone XL pipeline and dare Obama to veto it, too.) Its passage will only extend the problem for most of these homeowners, transfer risk from private lenders to taxpayers in many cases, and do nothing to create conditions in which demand rises for housing that would solve the valuation issue. [Hot Air, 2/1/12]

National Review Online: Obama's Mortgage Relief Plan Is To "Serve The Progressive Election-Year Narrative." From a February 1 blog post by Sam Staley at National Review Online:

Sorting out the housing market will indeed be a long-term process. But the long-term solution is bringing the market back into balance after it was thrown out of whack in a not insignificant way by an "ownership society" myth, propagated and subsidized by both Republican and Democratic administrations. And the new housing-finance bureaucracy will struggle against its contradictory missions of making sure households don't buy houses they can't afford (reducing demand) and by making it easier and more straightforward to secure loans (increasing demand). Creating stability in the housing market won't be aided by the new bureaucracy created to rule over the mortgage industry, although it serves the progressive election-year narrative that it's the government that must ride in on a shining white horse to save the common person from the evil bankers. [National Review Online, 2/1/12]

Morrissey: Obama Is Trying "To Buy A Few Votes At The Expense Of Taxpayers And Banks." From Morrissey's post on Hot Air on January 25:

Being underwater on a mortgage is a tough economic position, but no tougher than people who invest in other assets and end up having less value than what they invested. If homeowners find themselves in this position, they can keep paying the mortgage and eventually get above water on equity while continuing to live in their homes, which isn't ideal but certainly isn't an emergency that warrants picking the pockets of other taxpayers. It also won't do anything to prevent or minimize foreclosures, which is one of the actual problems in the housing market. This is nothing more than a bald attempt to buy a few votes at the expense of taxpayers and banks, and it will exacerbate the very problems it purports to address. Game-changer? More like an overtime period. [Hot Air, 1/25/12]

However, Economists Say Streamlined Mortgage Refinancing Would Benefit The Economy

Economist Mark Zandi: "There Is No Better Way To Quickly Buoy Hard-Pressed Homeowners Than Helping Them" Refinance At Current Rates. In a January 24 blog post on the Washington Post website, Mark Zandi, chief economist at Moody's Analytics, explained the economic benefits of President Obama's refinancing plan:

The president proposed to allow "every responsible homeowners" the chance to more easily refinance, a savings of about $3,000 annually.

There is no better way to quickly buoy hard-pressed homeowners than helping them take advantage of the currently record low fixed mortgage rates and significantly reduce their monthly mortgage payments.

[...]

Over 30 million homeowners are current on their mortgages and could profitably refinance at the current mortgage rate, which now average less than 4 percent for a 30-year fixed rate. The macroeconomic benefit could be significant. If, say, half refinance in the next six months, then this would save homeowners over $20 billion in mortgage payments this year and double that next year. Homeowners' extra cash will quickly find its way into the economy.

It is important to note that while homeowners will have more cash to spend, investors in these mortgages will receive less interest income. This dilutes the economic benefit of facilitating more refinancing, but only modestly. The biggest mortgage investors include the Federal Reserve (through quantitative easing), Fannie and Freddie, and foreign investors. All mortgage investors are probably a bit surprised they haven't already been refinanced out of their investments. [Washington Post, 1/24/12]

Economist Dean Baker: Obama's Mortgage Refinancing Plan Will "Benefit Communities And The Economy By Limiting The Blight Of Foreclosure And Giving Consumers More Money To Spend." In an email to Media Matters, Dean Baker, co-director of the Center for Economic and Policy Research, stated:

[T]he main thrust of the Obama housing plan is just common sense. It is trying to set up a structure so that underwater homeowners will be able to refinance at low interest rates just like anyone else. This is the sort of support for the housing market that the government has always provided. This can mean the difference for millions of homeowners between keeping and losing their homes. It will also benefit communities and the economy by limiting the blight of foreclosure and giving consumers more money to spend. And, it will be done at very little cost to the government.

The system will not be perfect, but if perfection is the standard for an acceptable policy, then we would never do anything. [Email to Media Matters, 2/1/12]

Former Bush Economic Adviser: Streamlining Mortgage Refinancing "May Benefit Up To 30 Million Borrowers" And "Possible Savings Of $70 Billion Per Year In Lower Mortgage Payments." Glenn Hubbard, former chairman of President George W. Bush's Council of Economic Advisors, outlined the current problems for borrowers under the status quo and explained the economic benefits of increased access to mortgage refinancing in a report titled "Streamlined Refinancings for up to 30 Million Borrowers":

Frictions in the mortgage market have restricted the ability of tens of millions of borrowers from refinancing their mortgages, hampering monetary policy, slowing the economic recovery, and leading to excessive numbers of foreclosures. We propose a streamlined refinancing program that may benefit up to 30 million borrowers with government-backed mortgages, leading to possible savings of $70 billion per year in lower mortgage payments. [GlennHubbard.net, 9/1/11]

Executive Director Of UNC-Chapel Hill's Center For Community Capital: Obama Plan Would "Reduc[e] Losses For Investors ... And Increase Consumer Spending." In an email to Media Matters, Janneke Ratcliffe, the executive director of the Center for Community Capital at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, wrote:

There is growing evidence that these measures -- reduced monthly payments and relief from negative equity -- are effective at reducing foreclosures. Unfortunately, many responsible borrowers can't take advantage of today's low rates, and others can't qualify for relief from eroded house values, simply because their loan is owned by the wrong investor or serviced by the wrong servicer.

This plan would offer a refinancing option to millions of underwater homeowners who are current on privately-held mortgages but cannot refinance because of negative equity. The new program would make it easier for the one to two-and-a-half million homeowners that don't have Fannie or Freddie loans but are otherwise eligible for HARP refinancing to lower their monthly housing payments. The proposed changes to the HARP rules would increase competition among services and help more borrowers with Fannie- and Freddie-backed loans to take advantage of lower rates. And the revamped incentives for principal reduction through HAMP should help more of the 12 million underwater borrowers in the U.S. today, more than a quarter of which are already falling behind on their mortgage payments, restructure their loans to reflect current market values.

If implemented, with adequate takeup, these restructurings would yield substantial ripple effects in the form of easing downward pressure on house values, reducing losses for investors and taxpayer-backed mortgage entities, and increased consumer spending. [Email to Media Matters, 2/2/12]

CAP's Associate Director For Financial Markets Policy: Obama's Housing Plan Would "Put More Money In The Hands Of The Average Household." David Min, the associate director for financial markets policy at the Center for American Progress, told Media Matters that if Obama's housing plan were to pass Congress, it "would definitely help the housing market." Min also stated that the plan would "put more money in the hands of the average household by allowing them to refinance their mortgage rate into the lower rates available today" and "help struggling homeowners by providing them with principal reductions." [Email to Media Matters, 2/2/12]

Yglesias: "Obama's Mass Refinancing Plan Could Boost The Economy." In an article headlined "Obama's Mass Refinancing Plan Could Boost the Economy," Matthew Yglesias, Slate's business and economics correspondent, explained how Obama's mortgage refinancing plan would benefit the economy if implemented:

Has the Obama administration finally hit on a job-creation idea that could be a game-changer? It's not clear how big an overall impact it would have, but the new proposal on mortgage refinancing could -- if implemented -- break a long-standing deadlock in the housing finance market and provide a significant boost to a "recovery winter" scenario.

One major channel through which the kind of low interest rates prevailing today normally help spur economic recovery is that people refinance their mortgages which increases the amount of money they have free to direct toward other things. Indeed, I myself am currently going through the process of refinancing my mortgage. It should end up saving me a few hundred bucks a month plus reducing the life of the loan by a year. Unfortunately, many people currently can't refinance their loans because their mortgage is "underwater." What they owe is more than what the house is worth. This becomes a bit of a recursive issue. Unless economic activity (and therefore incomes) revive, it's difficult for house prices to do anything other than go down. But the low house prices are impeding refinancing--one of the main tools we rely on to boost economic activity. [Slate, 2/1/12]

Obama's Previous Mortgage Relief Plans Have Been Attacked By The Right-Wing Media In The Past

Fox's Tantaros: Obama's Mortgage Plan Is "Purely A Political Stunt." In October 2011, Obama put forward a plan to assist homeowners who are underwater on their mortgages. The right-wing media went on the attack. For instance, during the October 25 edition of Fox News' America's Newsroom, co-host Bill Hemmer asked Fox News contributor Andrea Tantaros, "How vulnerable is this president on the issue of housing going into an election year?" Tantaros replied that Obama is "very vulnerable" and later said that "his plan is purely a political stunt." [Fox News, America's Newsroom, 10/25/11, via Media Matters]

Fox Regular Morici: Obama's Plan Is "A Re-Election Ploy." On the October 25 edition of Fox News' Fox & Friends, co-host Steve Doocy interviewed economist and professor Peter Morici about Obama's mortgage relief plan. Doocy said, "You know, the president is trying to not only keep people in their houses, but to try to keep him in the White House as well with this." Morici agreed, saying, "This is really a re-election ploy, because it's going to create new problems down the road." [Fox News, Fox & Friends, 10/25/11, via Media Matters]

Krauthammer: "[Obama] Knows That This Is A Farce." On the October 24 edition of Fox News' Special Report, Fox News contributor Charles Krauthammer said of Obama's plan, "But Obama is not here about fixing stuff. This is all about framing the debate. This is an appearance of motion. ... He knows that this is a farce." Fox Nation later hyped Krauthammer's commentary in an October 24 post. [Fox News, Special Report, 10/24/11, via Fox Nation]

Dobbs: Obama's New Plan To Help Homeowners Is "Offering Up ... Bribes" So He Can "Get Re-Elected." On the October 24 edition of Fox News' America Live, host Megyn Kelly discussed Obama's plan with Fox Business host Lou Dobbs. Dobbs attacked Obama's plan, saying it was "one of the most irresponsible initiatives [Obama] could take" and later claiming that Obama is "offering up billions -- hundreds of billions of dollars in bribes" so that he can "get re-elected." [Fox News, America Live, 10/24/11, via Media Matters]

The Hannity Challenge: How To Make The Case That The Economy Is Improving

J.H. — Thu, 02 Feb 2012 00:01:00 EST

Sean Hannity pushed the myth that President Obama has made the economy worse, arguing that you could not "make the case" that it has improved during Obama's watch. In fact, when Obama took office, he inherited an economy that was shrinking faster than it had in 50 years and that had lost 2 million jobs in 3 months; by contrast, the economy is now growing and added 1.9 million private sector jobs last year.

Hannity's Challenge: "How Do You Make The Case" That The Economy Has Improved

Hannity: "You Cannot Make The Case With A Straight Face That This Economy Has Gotten Better Under This President." Discussing the 2012 presidential election, Fox News' Sean Hannity claimed, "You cannot make the case with a straight face that this economy has gotten better under this president. You can't make it anymore." [Fox News, Hannity, 2/1/12]

This Is How You Make The Case That The Economy Has Improved

THEN: The Economy Was Contracting By Nearly 9 Percent. The Bureau of Economic Analysis estimated that gross domestic product declined by 8.9 percent during the fourth quarter of 2008 -- the final quarter before President Obama took office. According to IHS Global Insight, GDP decline at the end of 2008 "represents the worst single-quarter decline in GDP since the 10.4 percent drop in the first quarter of 1958." [IHS Global Insight, 7/29/11]

NOW: The Economy Is Growing. In its initial estimate of economic growth during the fourth quarter of 2011, the Bureau of Economic Analysis estimated that gross domestic product increased by 2.8 percent. [Bureau of Economic Analysis, 1/27/12]

THEN: The Economy Lost 2 Million Jobs In Three Months. According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, employment decreased by 802,000 jobs in November 2008, 619,000 jobs in December 2008, and 820,000 jobs in January 2009 -- a total of 2.2 million jobs in three months. [Bureau of Labor Statistics, accessed 2/1/12]

NOW: The Economy Added 1.9 Million Private Sector Jobs Last Year. According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, private sector employment increased by 1.9 million jobs in 2011. [Bureau of Labor Statistics, 1/6/12]

CNN: "Since Job Growth Resumed, The Economy Has Added About 3 Million Jobs." CNN.com reported:

The U.S. economy created about 2 million private-sector jobs in 2011, according to the BLS -- a figure comparable to 2005, when 1.9 million jobs were created. And since job growth resumed, the economy has added about 3 million jobs. [CNN.com, 1/25/12]

Conservative Media Repeat Tabloid's Climate Misinformation

S.T. — Wed, 01 Feb 2012 18:05:00 EST

After the British tabloid Daily Mail published a flawed article that distorted climate research to claim we could be "heading for a mini ice age," conservative media followed suit. In fact, the study did not project a decline in global temperatures.

Scientists: Solar Fluctuations Won't Offset Global Warming

Met Office: Reduction In Solar Output "Insufficient To Offset" Global Warming. Announcing the new research, the Met Office stated that a reduction in solar output "will not substantially delay expected increases in global temperatures caused by greenhouse gases":

New research has found that solar output is likely to reduce over the next 90 years but that will not substantially delay expected increases in global temperatures caused by greenhouse gases.

Carried out by the Met Office and the University of Reading, the study establishes the most likely changes in the Sun's activity and looks at how this could affect near-surface temperatures on Earth.

It found that the most likely outcome was that the Sun's output would decrease up to 2100, but this would only cause a reduction in global temperatures of 0.08 °C. This compares to an expected warming of about 2.5 °C over the same period due to greenhouse gases (according to the IPCC's B2 scenario for greenhouse gas emissions that does not involve efforts to mitigate emissions).

[...]

The study also showed that if solar output reduced below that seen in the Maunder Minimum - a period between 1645 and 1715 when solar activity was at its lowest observed level - the global temperature reduction would be 0.13C.

Peter Stott, who also worked on the research for the Met Office, said: "Our findings suggest that a reduction of solar activity to levels not seen in hundreds of years would be insufficient to offset the dominant influence of greenhouse gases on global temperatures in the 21^st Century." [Met Office,

[Real Climate, 6/19/11]

Scientists Dispute Whether Grand Solar Minimum Will Occur. Wired explained that while some scientists think a solar minimum might happen again, this is disputed and would nevertheless have an "insignificant" impact on our climate:

The possibility of imminent solar dormancy was raised by reports from the ongoing American Astronomical Society meeting of fading sunspots and dips in the sun's magnetic patterns. Those are considered portents of solar inactivity, suggesting that the next solar minimum -- a natural downturn in activity -- would be especially pronounced, perhaps lasting for decades.

When that last happened, between the mid-17th and early 18th centuries, northern Europe experienced a period of unusually cold weather. Known as the Maunder Minimum, or more conversationally as the Little Ice Age, it's a period historicized by accounts of ice skating on the Thames and seasonal inns built on Baltic Sea ice.

Press accounts of the new solar reports played up the Maunder Minimum angle, hinting that it might happen again. Some even implied that global warming might be counteracted.

In fact, the meaning of the latest sunspot reports is still being debated, as Andrew Revkin at Dot Earth has chronicled. But even if they really do portend a decades-long solar lull, studies already point to a minimal effect on climate.

Most Little Ice Age cooling appears to have been the result of coincidentally high volcanic activity that cloaked Earth in sunlight-blocking soot. As for the sun, a study published in 2001 in Science found that reduced solar activity produced a cooling effect of about 0.5 degrees Fahrenheit. In other estimates, the cooling is even more insignificant. [Wired, 6/15/11]

Led By Daily Mail, Conservative Media Distort Research To Claim Earth Is Cooling

Daily Mail: "The Figures Suggest We Could Even Be Heading For A Mini Ice Age." Quoting several contrarian "experts," the Daily Mail claimed that new data released by the Met Office and the University of East Anglia Climatic Research Unit "suggest that we could even be heading for a mini ice age":

The figures suggest that we could even be heading for a mini ice age to rival the 70-year temperature drop that saw frost fairs held on the Thames in the 17th Century.

[...]

Meanwhile, leading climate scientists yesterday told The Mail on Sunday that, after emitting unusually high levels of energy throughout the 20th Century, the sun is now heading towards a 'grand minimum' in its output, threatening cold summers, bitter winters and a shortening of the season available for growing food. [Daily Mail, 1/29/12]

FoxNews.com: Solar Minimum "Will Cause Temperatures To Fall, Scientists Say." Pivoting off the flawed Daily Mail article, FoxNews.com claimed: "The debate over global warming may be heating up again amid new scientific evidence that the sun's activity is cooling down -- which will cause temperatures to fall on planet Earth, scientists say." The FoxNews.com article was titled, "With sun's activity set to diminish, is global cooling coming?" [FoxNews.com, 1/31/12]

Erickson: "According To The Climate Record ... It May Be Getting Colder." On his radio show, CNN contributor Erick Erickson claimed that "most of the climate models when you actually delve into it and talk to a lot of the scientists -- the skeptics and the non-skeptics alike" -- "they all kind of point out the same thing, that the sun, you would think would have a big effect on climate, but a lot of the climate models discount the effect the sun has to the extent that it probably does have." Erickson further claimed that "according to the climate record, from not the skeptics but from the actual global warming community, the world has not really warmed since 1997 and in fact it may be getting colder." [WSB, The Erick Erickson Show, 1/30/12]

Loesch: Earth Is "More Likely Heading To A Mini Ice Age."At times reading aloud from a blog post by Jim Hoft, which quoted the Daily Mail article, CNN contributor Dana Loesch said on her radio show:

"The latest temperature data shows" that really the "planet hasn't warmed in the last 15 years" and is more likely "heading to a mini ice age. The figures suggest that we could even be heading" for this "to rival the 70-year temperature drop that saw frost fairs held on the Thames" since the 17th Century.

[...]

Unbelievable. Science, huh? Facts, right? [KFTK, The Dana Show, 1/30/12] [Gateway Pundit, 1/29/12]

Daily Mail's Misinformation Has Been Furthered By Others In Conservative Media. [Washington Times, 1/31/12] [Newsmax, 1/30/12] [WND.com, 1/29/12] [BigGovernment, 1/30/12] [Powerline, 1/30/12] [The Right Sphere, 1/29/12] [American Thinker, 1/29/12]

Conservative Media Attempt To Use 12 Years Of Data To Refute Long-Term Trend

Daily Mail: University Data "Confirms That The Rising Trend In World Temperatures Ended In 1997." The Daily Mail claimed that new data released by the Met Office and the University of East Anglia Climatic Research Unit "confirms that the rising trend in world temperatures ended in 1997." This claim was echoed by Erickson and Loesch:

The supposed 'consensus' on man-made global warming is facing an inconvenient challenge after the release of new temperature data showing the planet has not warmed for the past 15 years.

The figures suggest that we could even be heading for a mini ice age to rival the 70-year temperature drop that saw frost fairs held on the Thames in the 17th Century.

Based on readings from more than 30,000 measuring stations, the data was issued last week without fanfare by the Met Office and the University of East Anglia Climatic Research Unit. It confirms that the rising trend in world temperatures ended in 1997. [Daily Mail, 1/29/12]

Met Office: 'No Warming' Claim Is "Entirely Misleading." The Met Office took the reportedly unusual step of responding to the Daily Mail article, which it said contained "numerous errors" and did not "fully include the answers we gave him." The Met Office said the argument that there has been no warming in the last 15 years is "entirely misleading." [Met Office, 1/29/12]

The Last Decade Was The Warmest On Record. Discovery News reported on November 29:

Thirteen of the warmest years recorded have occurred within the last decade and a half, the UN's World Meteorological Organization said on Tuesday.

[...]

The 2002-2011 period equals 2001-2010 as the warmest decade since 1850, the report said.

2011 ranks as the 10th warmest year since 1850, when accurate measurements began.

This was true despite a La Nina event -- one of the strongest in 60 years -- that developed in the tropical Pacific in the second half of 2010 and continued until May 2011. [Discovery News, 11/19/12]

The following chart from NOAA shows decadal averages since the beginning of the instrumental temperature record:

[NOAA, accessed 8/26/11]

Independent Temperature Study: We Can't Make Conclusions About Long-Term Trends Based On "Periods As Short As 13 to 15 Years." The Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature project, which independently verified the long-term warming trend in land temperature data, concluded:

Some people draw a line segment covering the period 1998 to 2010 and argue that we confirm no temperature change in that period. However, if you did that same exercise back in 1995, and drew a horizontal line through the data for 1980 to 1995, you might have falsely concluded that global warming had stopped back then. This exercise simply shows that the decadal fluctuations are too large to allow us to make decisive conclusions about long term trends based on close examination of periods as short as 13 to 15 years. [Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature, accessed 1/30/12]

Conservative Media Repeatedly Promote Tabloid's Climate Misinformation

Following Another False Mail Article, Conservative Media Previously Claimed "Climate Scientists Predict Mini-Ice Age." On January 10, 2010, the Mail on Sunday -- the sister paper of the Daily Mail -- ran an article by David Rose headlined, "The mini ice age starts here." Rose claimed that climate scientist Mojib Latif's work "refutes" the view "that the big chill was merely short-term 'weather' that had nothing to do with 'climate', which was still warming." That day, popular conservative blogger Jim Hoft claimed "climate scientists warned" of a "mini ice age." The next day, Fox Nation linked to Hoft's post with the headline "Now Climate Scientists Predict Mini-Ice Age" and FoxNews.com wrote an article that claimed that Latif "says we're in for 30 years of cooler temperatures -- a mini ice age, he calls it." Latif responded that the Mail had misused his research and that he predicts "nothing that would constitute a little ice age." Sean Hannity later distorted Latif's work on his Fox News show, as did Cal Thomas in his Washington Examiner column. [Media Matters, 1/12/10] [Media Matters, 1/13/10] [Media Matters, 1/14/10]

After Mail Distorted Climate Scientist's Quote, Conservative Media Followed. On February 14, 2010, the Daily Mail distorted a BBC interview with climate scientist Dr. Phil Jones. Jones explained that while there was a positive warming trend from 1995 to 2009 it was not statistically significant at the "95% significance level," although it was "quite close." Jones added, "Achieving statistical significance in scientific terms is much more likely for longer periods, and much less likely for shorter periods." The Daily Mail published an article titled "Climategate U-turn as scientist at centre of row admits: There has been no global warming since 1995." That same day The Daily Caller and Jim Hoft promoted the Mail's distortion. The next day, Fox News' Peter Johnson Jr. adopted the Mail's language and further distorted Jones' quote saying "Talk about a U-Turn, that whole global warming thing may have never existed. What a key scientist is now saying that could debunk the whole theory." The next week, George Will used Phil Jones' claims to suggest that there has been an "absence of warming." [Media Matters, 2/15/10] [Media Matters, 2/15/10] [Media Matters, 2/22/10]

Right-Wing Media Cheer Decision That Could Hinder Access To Breast Cancer Services For Thousands Of Women

J.V.B. — Wed, 01 Feb 2012 13:59:00 EST

Right-wing media have applauded Susan G. Komen for the Cure's decision to stop providing funds to Planned Parenthood. But Komen's decision could affect access to breast cancer screenings and other cancer-related services for thousands of women, as the Komen funds have allowed Planned Parenthood to provide 170,000 breast exams and 6,400 mammogram referrals in the past five years.

Komen Announces It Is Ending Partnership With Planned Parenthood

LA Times: Komen "Said Tuesday That It Was Halting All Partnerships With Planned Parenthood Affiliates." From a February 1 Los Angeles Times article:

In what looks to be a break between two organizations dedicated to women's health, a national breast cancer awareness group said it would stop providing funds to Planned Parenthood centers for breast cancer examinations and other breast health services.

Susan G. Komen for the Cure, a leader in fundraising for breast cancer research and famous worldwide for its iconic pink ribbon, said Tuesday that it was halting all partnerships with Planned Parenthood affiliates because of recently adopted criteria that forbid it from funding any organization under government investigation. [The Los Angeles Times,

[Planned Parenthood Action Fund, 1/31/12, via Twitter]

Planned Parenthood: "Planned Parenthood Doctors And Nurses Provide Nearly 750,000 Breast Cancer Screenings Annually." In a January 31 press release responding to Komen's decision, Planned Parenthood noted that its health centers "provide nearly 750,000 breast cancer screenings annually." From the press release:

Over the past five years, Planned Parenthood health centers with Komen program funding have provided nearly 170,000 clinical breast exams out of the more than four million clinical breast exams performed nationwide at Planned Parenthood health centers, as well as more than 6,400 mammogram referrals out of 70,000 mammogram referrals. Anti-choice groups in America have repeatedly threatened the Susan G. Komen for the Cure Foundation for partnering with Planned Parenthood to provide these lifesaving cancer screenings.

Planned Parenthood's quality, accessibility and affordability make it a leader in identifying breast cancer early when there is the best chance of successful treatment. Nationwide, Planned Parenthood doctors and nurses provide nearly 750,000 breast cancer screenings annually, offering risk assessments, breast exams, breast health information and education, and diagnostic and surgical referrals. [Planned Parenthood,

[Fox Nation,

[Erick Erickson, Twitter feed, 4/8/11]

Huckabee: "I'm Not A Fan Of Planned Parenthood. I Think It's 'Planned Barren-hood,' For The Most Part." On the April 9, 2011, edition of Fox & Friends, then-Fox News contributor Mike Huckabee falsely claimed that Planned Parenthood is "primarily an abortion provider," saying, "Look, I'm not a fan of Planned Parenthood. I think it's 'planned barren-hood,' for the most part. And I don't appreciate the fact that they are primarily an abortion provider, even though they claim to be about women's health." [Fox News, Fox & Friends, 4/9/11, via Media Matters]

Bogeyman: Fox News Attacks Progressives With Fantasy Version Of Saul Alinsky

T.K. — Tue, 31 Jan 2012 17:34:00 EST

Fox News personalities have repeated numerous falsehoods about activist Saul Alinsky, including that he was a "Marxist" and that he dedicated his book Rules for Radicals "to Lucifer." Fox has used this false image of Alinsky to attack President Obama and other progressives.

Fox Portrays Alinsky As A "Socialist," Claims He "Admired" Lenin And Marx

Varney: Alinsky "Was A Socialist." From Fox News' America Live:

MEGYN KELLY (anchor): Stu, who is Saul Alinsky?

STUART VARNEY (Fox Business host): OK. Born in Chicago. He was a socialist. He essentially established an aggressive strategy and aggressive tactics for America's hard left. Published a book in 1971 which became something of a textbook for community organizers. It was called Rules for Radicals. He favored direct action, confrontation, an aggressive presentation of the socialist, hard-left position. [Fox News, America Live, 1/24/12]

O'Reilly: Alinsky Was "In The Great Tradition Of Karl Marx, Lenin ... He Even Said He Admired Those Men." From Fox News' The O'Reilly Factor:

BILL O'REILLY (host): Look, Saul Alinsky, you know, for people who are involved in political science -- there he is -- this guy, you know, is in the great tradition of Karl Marx, Lenin --

ALAN COLMES (Fox News contributor): Not really.

O'REIILLY: -- people -- well, he even said he admired those men, OK? He said it in his writings, that he admired them and that he didn't respect private property rights. He thought that everybody should be guaranteed a certain style of life, and he worked toward that in a very aggressive way. [Fox News, The O'Reilly Factor, 1/24/12]

Fact: Alinsky Was Not "A Marxist Or Communist Or Socialist"

Biographer: Alinsky "Is Routinely Labeled As A Marxist Or Communist Or Socialist, None Of Which He Was." From a May 2010 article by Sanford D. Horwitt for "Just Books," a review published by New York University Law School's Brennan Center for Justice:

Alinsky's name and Rules for Radicals are a daily presence on the Internet, especially in Tea Party blogs and, periodically, on Rush Limbaugh's and Glenn Beck's web sites. For most of these commentators, Alinsky is caricatured as a dark, sinister force whose spirit comes alive late at night in the Oval office. He is routinely labeled as a Marxist or Communist or Socialist, none of which he was. [BrennanCenter.org, 5/12/10]

Communists Attacked Alinsky For Advocating American Intervention In World War II. From a 1972 Playboy interview with Alinsky:

PLAYBOY: What was your own relationship with the Communist Party?

ALINSKY: I knew plenty of Communists in those days, and I worked with them on a number of projects. Back in the Thirties, the Communists did a hell of a lot of good work; they were in the vanguard of the labor movement and they played an important role in aiding blacks and Okies and Southern sharecroppers. Anybody who tells you he was active in progressive causes in those days and never worked with the Reds is a goddamn liar. Their platform stood for all the right things, and unlike many liberals, they were willing to put their bodies on the line. Without the Communists, for example, I doubt the C.I.O. could have won all the battles it did. I was also sympathetic to Russia in those days, not because I admired Stalin or the Soviet system but because it seemed to be the only country willing to stand up to Hitler. I was in charge of a big part of fund raising for the International Brigade and in that capacity I worked in close alliance with the Communist Party.

When the Nazi-Soviet Pact came, though, and I refused to toe the party line and urged support for England and for American intervention in the war, the party turned on me tooth and nail. Chicago Reds plastered the Back of the Yards with big posters featuring a caricature of me with a snarling, slavering fanged mouth and wild eyes, labeled, "This is the face of a warmonger." But there were too many Poles, Czechs, Lithuanians and Latvians in the area for that tactic to go over very well. Actually, the greatest weakness of the party was its slavish parroting of the Moscow line. It could have been much more effective if it had adopted a relatively independent stance, like the western European parties do today. But all in all, and despite my own fights with them, I think the Communists of the Thirties deserve a lot of credit for the struggles they led or participated in. Today the party is just a shadow of the past, but in the Depression it was a positive force for social change. A lot of its leaders and organizers were jerks, of course, but objectively the party in those days was on the right side and did considerable good. [Playboy, March 1972]

Alinsky: "Dogma, Whatever Form It Takes, Is The Ultimate Enemy Of Human Freedom." From the Playboy interview:

PLAYBOY: Did you consider becoming a party member prior to the Nazi-Soviet Pact?

ALINSKY: Not at any time. I've never joined any organization -- not even the ones I've organized myself. I prize my own independence too much. And philosophically, I could never accept any rigid dogma or ideology, whether it's Christianity or Marxism. One of the most important things in life is what Judge Learned Hand described as "that ever-gnawing inner doubt as to whether you're right." If you don't have that, if you think you've got an inside track to absolute truth, you become doctrinaire, humorless and intellectually constipated. The greatest crimes in history have been perpetrated by such religious and political and racial fanatics, from the persecutions of the Inquisition on down to Communist purges and Nazi genocide. The great atomic physicist Niels Bohr summed it up pretty well when he said, "Every sentence I utter must be understood not as an affirmation, but as a question." Nobody owns the truth, and dogma, whatever form it takes, is the ultimate enemy of human freedom.

Now, this doesn't mean that I'm rudderless; I think I have a much keener sense of direction and purpose than the true believer with his rigid ideology, because I'm free to be loose, resilient and independent, able to respond to any situation as it arises without getting trapped by articles of faith. My only fixed truth is a belief in people, a conviction that if people have the opportunity to act freely and the power to control their own destinies, they'll generally reach the right decisions. The only alternative to that belief is rule by an elite, whether it's a Communist bureaucracy or our own present-day corporate establishment. You should never have an ideology more specific than that of the founding fathers: "For the general welfare." That's where I parted company with the Communists in the Thirties, and that's where I stay parted from them today. [Playboy, March 1972]

Alinsky Disparaged Lenin And Those Who Quote "Mao, Castro, And Che Guevara." From Rules for Radicals:

What is the alternative to working "inside" the system? A mess of rhetorical garbage about "Burn the system down!" Yippie yells of "Do it!" or "Do your thing." What else? Bombs? Sniping? Silence when police are killed and screams of "murdering fascist pigs" when others are killed? Attacking and baiting the police? Public suicide? "Power comes out of the barrel of a gun!" is an absurd rallying cry when the other side has all the guns. Lenin was a pragmatist; when he returned to what was then Petrograd from exile, he said that the Bolsheviks stood for getting power through the ballot but would reconsider after they got the guns! Spouting quotes from Mao, Castro, and Che Guevara, which are as germane to our highly technological, computerized, cybernetic, nuclear-powered, mass media society as a stagecoach on a jet runway at Kennedy airport? [Saul Alinsky, Rules for Radicals, Pages xx-xxi]

Biographer: For Alinsky, "Communists Were Trouble That His Community Organizations Could Do Without." From Horwitt's biography of Alinsky, Let Them Call Me Rebel:

Alinsky's own attitude toward communists had changed over the years. In the late 1930s, before the Soviet-German nonaggression pact, Alinsky had been enthusiastic about a United Front strategy, and in the Back of the Yards he had worked amicably enough with the occasional communist. After the war, during the purges of left-wing unions and in the McCarthy period, he was disgusted by the professional Red baiters, spoke out against them frequently, and extended his sympathy and, occasionally, a helping hand to witch-hunt victims whom he knew. Still, he had little patience and sympathy for the relatively few communists he continued to encounter. To be sure, he didn't give more than a scintilla of psychic energy to them, and to the extent he thought about them at all, he held to a very strong stereotype: they were quarrelsome, rigid, dour, humorless. In any event, he thought that to be a communist in the United States was pointless at best and perverse and destructive at worst. In short, communists were trouble that his community organizations could do without. Within an organization, they were apt to be trouble because they were obsessed with pushing ideologically pure issues and otherwise manipulating the agenda for their own narrow interests. They were also trouble, especially if they occupied visible leadership roles, because they made the organization vulnerable to outside attack. In short, he did not like them, did not need them, and as a general matter, wanted them quietly moved out of his community organizations. [Sanford D. Horwitt, Let Them Call Me Rebel: Saul Alinsky: His Life and Legacy, Page 395]

Monica Crowley Falsely Claims Alinsky "Dedicated" Rules For Radicals "To Lucifer"

Crowley: "Alinsky Wrote Rules For Radicals in '71 And Dedicated It To Lucifer." From Fox News' The O'Reilly Factor:

MONICA CROWLEY (Fox News contributor): OK, first of all, let's keep in mind who Saul Alinsky was and how he directly influenced Barack Obama. Saul Alinsky wrote Rules for Radicals in '71 and dedicated it to Lucifer. He was the godfather of the leftist --

O'REILLY: The devil.

CROWLEY: Yes, Satan.

O'REILLY: He wasn't Lucifer --

CROWLEY: I'm not making it up.

O'REILLY: OK.

CROWLEY: Lucifer.

O'REILLY: It wasn't Lucifer Schwartz.

CROWLEY: No.

O'REILLY: It was just "Lucifer."

ALAN COLMES (Fox News contributor): I don't think Lucifer is a Jewish name.

CROWLEY: No, it wasn't Murray Lucifer Schwartz, no. [Fox News, The O'Reilly Factor, 1/24/12]

Fact: Alinsky Dedicated Rules For Radicals "To Irene." Rules for Radicals begins with "personal acknowledgments" to four people:

It is followed by a dedication: "To Irene":

[Saul Alinsky, Rules for Radicals, Pages v, vii, via Media Matters]

"Irene" Was The Name Of Alinsky's Wife. [The Watkinson Library at Trinity College, accessed 1/30/12]

"Lucifer" Is Mentioned As A Warning In A Quote Attributed To Alinsky. A subsequent page contains quotes from Rabbi Hillel and Thomas Paine, as well as another quote attributed to Alinsky:

Lest we forget at least an over-the-shoulder acknowledgment to the very first radical from all our legends, mythology, and history (and who is to know where mythology leaves off and history begins -- or which is which), the first radical known to man who rebelled against the establishment and did it so effectively that he at least won his own kingdom -- Lucifer.

[Saul Alinsky, Rules for Radicals, Page ix, via Media Matters]

Glenn Beck promoted the falsehood about Rules for Radicals' dedication on his Fox News show.

Varney Falsely Suggests Alinsky's Community Organizing Style Was "Beat 'Em Up"

Varney: Unlike Alinsky, Obama Advocated That Community Organizing Be "More Cooperative, Organize Locally For Self-Help." From America Live:

KELLY: He came up -- he didn't grow up, but he came up -- when he became a professional man in Chicago, he is a noted community organizer. You heard the White House spokesman acknowledge that and say it's all been well documented. But some of President Obama's biographers have said that he is a lot more conciliatory in his approach than Saul Alinsky was. So while they have a lot in common on paper, is there any evidence that they have the same sort of radical philosophy?

VARNEY: Well, in 1988, then-citizen Obama published an essay in which it was all about after Saul Alinsky, how to organize in the state of Illinois. It was much more conciliatory. It was none of the confrontation, beat 'em up, occupy -- none of that aggression. It was indeed more conciliatory, it was more cooperative, organize locally for self-help. That's a very different tactic strategy and style from the Alinsky, hard-left go get 'em.

KELLY: Trying to empower those without power.

VARNEY: Yes. [Fox News, America Live, 1/24/12]

Varney: "The President Backs Occupy Wall Street. That's A Kind Of Alinsky-Style Tactic, Is It Not? Occupy, Take Control, Demand, Be Aggressive." From America Live:

KELLY: So, I mean, is this a talking point by Newt Gingrich that may sort of tap into folks on the far right who don't like President Obama, or are there legitimate parallels between these two men that should concern some folks?

VARNEY: There are legitimate parallels, bearing in mind President Obama's background as a community organizer in Chicago, where Saul Alinsky was a community organizer and wrote the textbook on community organization. For example, the president backs Occupy Wall Street. That's a kind of Alinsky-style tactic, is it not? Occupy, take control, demand, be aggressive. How about wealth redistribution? That's a key Alinsky element in his strategy in his tactics, wealth redistribution. That kind of thing links President Obama with the Alinsky message. [Fox News, America Live, 1/24/12]

Kelly Notes Biographer Said "Alinsky Was Not A Bomb-Throwing Radical By Any Means." From America Live:

KELLY: But there may be an influence, in your view, but there's not a direct mentor-mentee, passing the torch down the line in Chicago politics kind of thing.

VARNEY: No. It's not like President Obama reads the book, goes out and says, "Occupy, demonstrate, confront, be aggressive." Not quite that. It's the influence, as opposed to the direct translation of tactics.

KELLY: This is from an Alinsky biographer who came out and said that Alinsky was not a bomb-throwing radical by any means. Others have said he's not as controversial as, you know, folks like Newt Gingrich would have you believe. But there is a real question about how closely Obama read him or is affiliated with him.

VARNEY: There is. Alinsky says the have-nots should take away the power of the haves. It's that expression "take it away," it that aggression that goes to the core of the argument. [Fox News, America Live, 1/24/12]

Fact: Alinsky Rejected Violence, Advocated Working Within The System

Alinsky: "Go Home, Organize, Build Power And At The Next Convention, You Be The Delegates." From Rules for Radicals:

In the midst of the gassing and violence by the Chicago Police and National Guard during the 1968 Democratic Convention many students asked me, "Do you still believe we should try to work inside our system?"

These were students who had been with Eugene McCarthy in New Hampshire and followed him across the country. Some had been with Robert Kennedy when he was shot and killed in Los Angeles. Many of the tears that were shed in Chicago were not from gas. "Mr. Alinsky, we fought in primary after primary and the people voted no on Vietnam. Look at that convention. They're not paying any attention to the vote. Look at your police and the army. You still want us to work in the system?"

It hurt me to see the American army with bayonets advancing on American boys and girls. But the answer I gave to the young radicals seemed to me the only realistic one: "Do one of three things. One, go and find a wailing wall and feel sorry for yourselves. Two, go psycho and start bombing -- but this will only swing people to the right. Three, learn a lesson. Go home, organize, build power and at the next convention, you be the delegates." [Saul Alinsky, Rules for Radicals, Page xxiii (emphasis in original)]

Biographer: Alinsky "Was Not a Bomb-Throwing Radical By Any Means." From the Chicago Tribune:

Alinsky's tactics included tying up bank teller lines with volunteers repeatedly exchanging a $100 bill for pennies and vice versa as a way to protest banking institutions, said John Kretzmann, professor at Northwestern University's School of Education and Social Policy. Another involved Alinsky's followers threatening to occupy all the bathrooms at O'Hare International Airport for an entire day. The threat alone granted Alinsky a meeting with then-Mayor Richard J. Daley, Kretzmann said.

"Newt realizes this is just an act, saying Alinsky is a dangerous radical. Gingrich is enough of a historian to know what Alinsky was about," Horwitt said. "This is something that he is feeding to a part of the conservative right. (Alinsky) was not a bomb-throwing radical by any means." [Chicago Tribune, 1/24/12]

Alinsky: "To The Organizer, Compromise Is A Key And Beautiful Word." From Rules for Radicals:

Compromise is another word that carries shades of weakness, vacillation, betrayal of ideals, surrender of moral principles. In the old culture, when virginity was a virtue, one referred to a woman's being "compromised." The word is generally regarded as ethically unsavory and ugly.

But to the organizer, compromise is a key and beautiful word. It is always present in the pragmatics of operation. It is making the deal, getting that vital breather, usually the victory. If you start with nothing, demand 100 percent, then compromise for 30 percent, you're 30 percent ahead. [Saul Alinsky, Rules for Radicals, Page 59 (emphasis in original)]

Right-Wing Media Have Long Invoked Alinsky To Fearmonger About Obama, Progressives

National Review: "Obama Is Still Every Inch The Alinskyite Organizer." Stanley Kurtz, wrote at National Review's The Corner blog: "Obama is still every inch the Alinskyite organizer. He talks about uniting, even as he deliberately polarizes. He moves incrementally toward radical left goals, but never owns up to his ideology. Instead, he tries to work indirectly, by way of the constituencies he seeks to manipulate." [The Corner, National Review Online, 8/3/11]

Beck: Videos Of Mob Violence = Alinsky. Glenn Beck said of flash mobs that steal from stores: "I'm pretty sure Saul Alinsky talked about this in his book -- you know, the one that mentions Lucifer as the first rebel? Yeah. He mentioned this as a way of overwhelming the system." [Fox News, Glenn Beck, 6/27/11]

Beck: Alinsky Came Up With "Blueprint" For Today's "Progressive Nightmare." Beck said on his Fox News show: "The man who came up with the blueprint for the progressive nightmare that we are witnessing today is Saul Alinsky." [Fox News, Glenn Beck, 3/21/11]

Limbaugh Asks If Obama Has Ever Had An Idea Not Found In The Communist Manifesto Or Rules For Radicals. Rush Limbaugh said of Obama on his radio show: "Has he ever had an original idea -- by that, I mean something not found in The Communist Manifesto? Has he? Has he simply had an idea not found in Saul Alinsky's Rules for Radicals?" [Premiere Radio Networks, The Rush Limbaugh Show, 1/25/11]

Ted Nugent: Obama's "Saul Alinsky And The Smoke-And-Mirrors Communist Agenda" Hides An Anti-Gun Record. Appearing on Beck's radio show, Ted Nugent said that Obama "learned so well from Saul Alinsky and the smoke-and-mirrors communist agenda" to hide that he is "the master of deception" on the issue of gun rights. [Premiere Radio Networks, The Glenn Beck Program, 4/1/10]

Beck Calls Obama And Dems "Ruthless, Morally Bankrupt, Ends-Justify-The-Means Saul Alinsky-Ites." Beck said that Obama and the Democrats are "ruthless, morally bankrupt, ends-justify-the-means Saul Alinsky-ites who will do anything, include eat their own, to get what they want." [Fox News, Glenn Beck, 3/22/10]

Beck's Two Steps In "Che Indoctrination" Of Schoolkids -- First, The T-Shirt; Then, Read Them Saul Alinsky. On his Fox News program, Beck stated: "This is the second step in the Che indoctrination. First, you get the kids in the T-shirt, and then you read them Saul Alinsky in school, recommended by the president." [Fox News, Glenn Beck, 2/1/10]

Crowley Suggests Obama Wants Americans To Be Killed In Order To Fulfill Alinsky Agenda. On The O'Reilly Factor, Monica Crowley called Alinsky "a radical who believed in the radical remaking of America by shattering its very foundations," adding, "I believe that President Obama has taken that to heart to the extent where over the last year, we have seen him apologize for the United States relentlessly." When O'Reilly responded, "He can't want Americans to be killed," Crowley said: "Well, how else do you explain his incredibly flaccid reactions to these kinds of attacks against the United States?" [Fox News, The O'Reilly Factor, 1/5/10]

Luntz Likened Clinton's Praise Of Alinsky In Her Senior Thesis To Praise Of "People From Germany In The 1930s And 40s." Republican pollster Frank Luntz said of Hillary Clinton's college thesis on Alinsky: "In the language she uses she holds him up almost like an icon. ... I don't know how to say this, but that's like holding up some of the people from Germany in the 1930s and '40s." [Fox News, Hannity & Colmes, 3/5/07, via Media Matters]

Fox Regularly Uses The "Racial Code Words" Denounced By Fox's Juan Williams

J.V.B. — Tue, 31 Jan 2012 14:06:00 EST

Fox News contributor Juan Williams recently wrote that "[t]he language of GOP racial politics is heavy on euphemisms that allow the speaker to deny any responsibility for the racial content of his message," citing such phrases as "entitlement society," "food stamp president," and "amnesty" for undocumented immigrants. But this language is not contained to GOP candidates; Williams' colleagues at Fox News routinely employ or echo these "racial code words."

Williams Notes GOP Employs "Code Words" To Deny "Responsibility For ... Racial Content"

Williams: "Code Words" Such As "Food Stamp President" Are Used By GOP To Deny "Responsibility For The Racial Content" Of Their Message. In a January 30 column in The Hill, Fox News contributor Juan Williams noted that GOP politicians use "code words" to "deny any responsibility for the racial content" of their message. Williams cited phrases such as "entitlement society," "food stamp president," and "amnesty" as examples of "[t]he language of GOP racial politics." From The Hill:

Race is always a trigger in politics, but now a third of the nation are people of color -- and their numbers are growing. With those minorities solidly in the Democratic camp and behind the first black president, the scene is set for a bonanza of racial politics.

The language of GOP racial politics is heavy on euphemisms that allow the speaker to deny any responsibility for the racial content of his message. The code words in this game are "entitlement society" -- as used by Mitt Romney -- and "poor work ethic" and "food stamp president" -- as used by Newt Gingrich. References to a lack of respect for the "Founding Fathers" and the "Constitution" also make certain ears perk up by demonizing anyone supposedly threatening core "old-fashioned American values."

The code also extends to attacks on legal immigrants, always carefully lumped in with illegal immigrants, as people seeking "amnesty" and taking jobs from Americans.

But the code sometimes breaks down. [The Hill, 1/30/12]

Not Just The GOP Candidates: Williams' Colleagues At Fox Regularly Employ Or Echo These "Racial Code Words"

"FOOD STAMP PRESIDENT"

Eric Bolling Echoed Gingrich: Obama "Is The Food Stamp President." On the January 17 edition of Fox News' The Five, co-host Eric Bolling echoed statements made by GOP presidential candidate Newt Gingrich, saying of President Obama:

BOLLING: But he is the food stamp president. There I have no problem with this. Can I? Can I -- allow me, and I'll shut up the rest of the block. Obama has presided -- presided over the biggest expansion in food stamp usage, in numbers: in pure dollar amount, it went from $60 billion to an $83 billion program -- the fourth-largest entitlement program in America. Under Obama, it's exploded. Why can't he be -- and by the way, food stamps, there are more white people on food stamps than black people. So it's not a racial issue. [Fox News, The Five, 1/17/12, via Media Matters]

Dick Morris: "Newt Is Right. ... Obama Has Basically Put Everybody In The Country On Welfare." On the January 18 edition of Fox News' Hannity, Fox News contributor Dick Morris stated:

MORRIS: Newt is totally right. When Obama took office, there were 32 million people on food stamps. Now, there are 46 million. What Obama has done is, under Clinton, he cut the welfare rolls in half, and now Obama has basically put everybody in the country on welfare. [Fox News, Hannity, 1/18/12, via Media Matters]

Sean Hannity: "He Is The Food Stamp President. Look At The Numbers, They Speak For Themselves." Fox News host Sean Hannity pointed to increased food stamp usage to label Obama the "food stamp president," saying: "He is the food stamp president. Look at the numbers, they speak for themselves -- 32 million to 46 million, 12 million increase. Obama's policies have resulted in a lot more people being on food stamps. What's the problem?" [Fox News, Hannity, 1/18/12, via Media Matters]

Tucker Carlson: "More People Have Joined The Food Stamps Program Under Obama Than Any Other President." On Hannity, Fox News contributor Tucker Carlson praised Gingrich for the "great job" he did explaining why he thinks Obama is the "food stamp president," adding: "And more people have joined the food stamp program under Obama than any other president." [Fox News, Hannity, 1/17/12, via Media Matters]

Monica Crowley: Record Food Stamp Usage Is "A Direct Result Of The Obama Administration's Policies." On Fox News' America Live, Fox News contributor Monica Crowley argued:

CROWLEY: At this point, what Newt is saying is that this administration took a bad economy and made it so much worse, with policies that have really oppressed job creation, suppressed economic growth, to the point where people cannot find jobs. And also, you know, one thing he didn't say, which is the extension of unemployment benefits to 99 weeks and so on.

You know how the situation in America, Megyn, where you have record numbers of people not just on food stamps, 46 million, but record numbers of people on at least one or more social welfare programs, and that's a direct result of the Obama administration's policies. [Fox News, America Live, 1/18/12, via Media Matters]

"ENTITLEMENT SOCIETY"

O'Reilly: "The Campaign Is Really All About An Entitlement Society Versus A Self-Reliant One." On the January 6 edition of Fox News' The O'Reilly Factor, host Bill O'Reilly noted a decrease in the December unemployment rate but claimed: "Talking Points believes the American economy is improving slightly, but the big picture is federal spending and regulation, not decimal points on unemployment. As we said last night, the campaign is really all about an entitlement society versus a self-reliant one. And the struggle will be intense." [Fox News, The O'Reilly Factor, 1/6/12, via Media Matters]

O'Reilly: Obama, Dems Want "America To Become An Entitlement State." On the July 18, 2011, edition of The O'Reilly Factor, O'Reilly claimed:

O'REILLY: On one side, President Obama, the Democratic Party, want America to become an entitlement state that compels social justice, financially supporting Americans who can't or won't support themselves. On the other side, Republicans want a lean mean economic machine. The GOP doesn't much care about providing money to those who have not. The party wants to drastically cut government spending and promote private business to bolster the economy. [Fox News, The O'Reilly Factor, 7/18/11 via Media Matters]

Fox Business Unveiled Theme Of "Entitlement Nation: Makers Vs. Takers." Fox Business' website introduced the network's "week-long theme of 'Entitlement Nation: Makers vs. Takers' " on May 20, 2011, featuring the following graphic:

[FoxBusiness.com, 5/20/11]

"AMNESTY"

Guilfoyle: DREAM Act "Encourages People To Essentially Seek An Amnesty." On the November 23, 2010, edition of Fox News' The O'Reilly Factor, Fox News' Kimberly Guilfoyle claimed that the DREAM Act "incentivizes illegality and encourages people to essentially seek an amnesty by saying, 'Sure, I'm going to be in the military.'" [Fox News, The O'Reilly Factor, 11/23/10, via Media Matters]

Malkin Called DREAM Act "Reckless Illegal Alien Amnesty." On the December 2, 2010, edition of Fox News' Fox & Friends, Fox News contributor Michelle Malkin said: "There are so many political payoffs that are currently in the pipeline. Foremost among them, Harry Reid trying to ram through this very unpopular, expensive, and reckless illegal alien amnesty DREAM Act." [Fox News, Fox & Friends,12/2/10, via Media Matters]

Dobbs Claimed Obama's Border Efforts Are A "Foundation" For "Unconditional Amnesty." On the August 9, 2010, edition of Fox News' America Live, guest and Fox Business host Lou Dobbs called a pending border security bill "a modest border security piece of legislation," and claimed "it would give [the Obama administration] the foundation to say, we did something about border security ... and then move ahead and have their way on the issue of unconditional amnesty." Dobbs later claimed that "we are not seeing a commitment to actual detention and apprehension." [Media Matters, 8/30/10]

Fox Nation Relabeled Immigration Bill "Amnesty Bill." In a July 9, 2009, post, Fox Nation linked to an Associated Press article about an upcoming immigration bill under the headline, "Schumer: Amnesty Bill Ready by Labor Day." The original AP headline was, "Schumer: Immigration bill to be ready by Labor Day." [Fox Nation, 7/9/09, via Media Matters]

Kelly: "A Group Of Republican Senators ... Are Demanding To Know If The Administration Plans To Grant Amnesty To 11 Million Illegals." On the July 27, 2010, edition of America Live, host Megyn Kelly said, "A group of Republican senators -- a dozen, to be exact -- are now demanding to know if the administration plans to grant amnesty to 11 million illegals here in the United States." [Fox News, America Live, 7/27/10, via Media Matters]

Don't Believe Fox's Hype: Ener1 Enjoys Bipartisan Support And Is Not "Another Solyndra"

C.R. & L.H.R. — Tue, 31 Jan 2012 13:43:09 EST

Fox News figures have been hyping the bankruptcy filing of high-tech battery manufacturer Ener1, blaming President Obama for its financial problems and claiming the case is "another Solyndra," referring to a solar panel company that went bankrupt last year. But experts have said the case is "no Solyndra," and in blaming Obama for Ener1's bankruptcy, Fox is ignoring a history of GOP support for the company -- including from Indiana Gov. Mitch Daniels, to whom Fox recently gave lavish praise.

Fox Hypes Ener1 Bankruptcy Filings As "Another Solyndra" For Obama

Kilmeade: "This Sounds Like Solyndra"; Varney: "It's A Major Embarrassment For The President's Green Energy Policy." On the January 27 edition of Fox News' Fox & Friends, the co-hosts discussed Ener1's bankruptcy with guest and Fox Business host Stuart Varney. Co-host Brian Kilmeade said to Varney, "This sounds like Solyndra," and Varney replied, "It's another major embarrassment for the president's green energy policy." From the broadcast:

KILMEADE: Ener1 was given millions in stimulus dollars -- now it's bankrupt. The company's CEO citing insufficient customer demand. Stuart Varney is here. Stuart, this sounds like Solyndra.

VARNEY: It's another major embarrassment for the president's green energy policy. Solyndra, Beacon Power, and now Ener1. And by the way, Vice President Biden, in that same speech, went on later to refer to it as "Enron 1." ... So an embarrassment for President Obama's green energy policy, another couple of gaffes from Vice President Biden. The place is bankrupt.

[...]

VARNEY: Well, look, Ener1 is a child of the stimulus program. It got $118 million in grants, not loans, grants, to go forward. It is now bankrupt. It was supposed to employ 1,400 people by 2013. It doesn't. It employs 350.

[...]

VARNEY: It's another example of the government picking winners with our money. Unfortunately, they're losers, and we lose our money. [Fox News, Fox & Friends, 1/27/12]

MacCallum Calls Ener1 "Another Solyndra." On the January 27 edition of America's Newsroom, co-host Martha MacCallum introduced a segment on Ener1 by saying, "So it looks like we may have another Solyndra on our hands." She then discussed the company's bankruptcy with Varney. From the show:

MacCALLUM: So it looks like we may have another Solyndra on our hands. A third American energy company filing for bankruptcy after getting federally-backed funds from the Energy Department through the White House. Now, this time it is called Ener1, the parent company of an electric car battery maker. Seems that electric car battery sales have not been so hot. They received a $118 million grant back in 2009. Just last year, Vice President Biden praised the company when he was there touring their facility.

[...]

VARNEY: Well, obviously, this was an embarrassment for Vice President Biden. Not just [calling the company "Enron 1"] but promoting a company which got government money which went bankrupt within a year. It's also a very big disappointment for President Obama's green energy policy. As you said there, Martha, Ener1 makes batteries for plug-in cars. Very little demand for those batteries. The company is now bankrupt. It got a $118 million grant, not a loan -- it got a grant of $118 million. Spent about $55 million of it, and now it is in Chapter 11. It's not going away completely. It'll stay in business, protected from its creditors. This thing is not going to expand, and a lot of money, taxpayer money, is gone.

MacCALLUM: That's an unfortunate growing list of those energy companies. [Fox News, America's Newsroom, 1/27/12]

Fox's Kelly: Ener1 Bankruptcy Is Part Of "The High-Profile Failure Of A Couple Of [Green Technology] Firms, One Of Which ... Is Called Solyndra." On the January 27 edition of Fox News' America Live, host Megyn Kelly led a segment about Ener1's bankruptcy by saying, "This is the latest controversy over federal efforts to fund green technology companies, and the high-profile failure of a couple of these firms, one of which, of course you've heard of, is called Solyndra." From the broadcast:

KELLY: Well, the White House is taking questions today about an electric car battery company that just filed for bankruptcy after it got more than a hundred million dollars of taxpayer money. This is the latest controversy over federal efforts to fund green technology companies, and the high-profile failure of a couple of these firms, one of which, of course you've heard of, called Solyndra. Trace Gallagher is here with more on the latest company. Trace?

TRACE GALLAGHER (Fox News correspondent): Megyn, this is called Ener1, and as you said, this a company that makes electric batteries for electric cars. The Department of Energy gave Ener1 a $118 million grant. And depending on how this Chapter 11 bankruptcy restructuring goes, taxpayers could get some of that money back, could get it all back, then again they may lose that money. Critics are saying this kind of points to whether or not the Obama administration is doing its homework when it comes to investing in these types of companies. At the State of the Union address last year, the president pointed out this country [sic] as exactly the type that we should be investing in. One day after that speech, almost exactly one year ago today, the vice president visited the Ener1 plant in Greenfield, Indiana. The vice president was there, again, touting Ener1. [Fox News, America Live, 1/27/12]

Bolling: Ener1 Is "The Latest Green Mistake By The Obama Administration" And "Is Being Called Solyndra Two Or Is It Solyndra Three"? On the January 27 broadcast of Fox News' The Five, co-host Eric Bolling began the show by airing a clip of Obama admitting in an ABC interview that he makes mistakes, then went on to attack Obama for the bankruptcy of Ener1:

BOLLING: The top story tonight: the mistake maker-in-chief, President Obama and I can finally agree on something. Take a listen.

[begin video clip]

DIANE SAWYER (host, ABC's World News): You don't second guess yourself?

OBAMA: I second guess myself constantly. Look, I make a mistake, you know, every hour, every day. You know, there are always things that you're learning on the job, and I have no doubt that I'm a better president now than the day I took office, just because, you get more experience.

[end video clip]

BOLLING: I wonder if this is what the president was talking about.

[...]

BOLLING: That was VP Biden at Ener1. One year ago, the latest green mistake by the Obama administration, this one is being called Solyndra two or is it Solyndra three, whatever. The problem is when Obama makes a mistake, it costs taxpayers billions. [Fox News, The Five, 1/27/12, via Nexis]

But Experts Say Ener1 Is "No Solyndra" ...

Battery Industry Expert: "Ener1 Is No Solyndra." In a January 28 post on the blog The Energy Collective, James Greenberger, executive director of a trade association for advanced batteries, wrote that "the near future" "of Ener1 ... looks far different than that of Solyndra following its bankruptcy" and concluded, "This is no failure." From Greenberger's post:

This past Thursday the bad news coming out of Ener1 seemed to culminate in the filing of a Chapter 11 bankruptcy petition in the United States Bankruptcy Court in the Southern District of New York.

[...]

What was announced on Thursday was, however, not the worst (unless you happened to be a common stockholder of Ener1) and may even be grounds for some optimism. The filing on Thursday was a "prepack", indicating that the major creditors of Ener1 have gotten together and agreed on a plan for Ener1 going forward. Those creditors, including Liberty Harbor Special Investments of New York, Itochu Corp. of Tokyo and Goldman Sach's Palmetto State Credit Union of Florida, will exchange their debt for all of the stock of Ener1. Trade creditors and employees will be paid in full. Operations at EnerDel in Indianapolis will continue. And most important, and most intriguingly, $81 million of new money will be invested in Ener1, according to the company's press release.

The future, or at least the near future, of Ener1, therefore, looks far different than that of Solyndra following its bankruptcy. Operations at EnerDel will continue. The technology and know-how that the $110 million DOE stimulus grants funded appears to remain intact. The market has not rejected that technology.

[...]

By all accounts [Ener1's] technology and knowledge base appears secure and about to be doubled-down upon by $81 million of new investment. This is no failure. [The Energy Collective, 1/28/12, emphasis added]

CNNMoney: "Unlike Bankrupt Solyndra ... Ener1 Promised Its Business Will Proceed As Usual." A January 26 CNNMoney article stated that "[u]nlike bankrupt Solynda ... Ener1 promised its business will proceed as usual." It went on to note, "The company said the 'voluntarily initiated' bankruptcy filing won't impact any of its subsidiaries, including EnerDel," the division that received a government grant. From the article:

Electric car battery maker Ener1 filed for bankruptcy Thursday, three years after receiving a $118.5 million grant from the U.S. government.

Ener1 (HEVV), which makes a variety of energy storage devices under different subsidiaries, is the parent company of EnerDel, the car battery division that received the government grant to help build a manufacturing plant in Indianapolis.

Unlike bankrupt Solyndra, the advanced solar panel maker that became a lightning rod for critics of Obama's stimulus spending when it closed its factory and liquidated, Ener1 promised its business will proceed as usual.

The company said the "voluntarily initiated" bankruptcy filing won't impact any of its subsidiaries, including EnerDel.

"The restructuring will not adversely impact their employees, customers and suppliers," the company said in a press release, noting there will be no layoffs as a result of the action.

The company blamed the bankruptcy on a slower than expected demand for electric vehicles.

Analysts have also said any electric car battery maker faces stiff competition from Asian firms, which are largely considered to be well ahead of the curve due to their long experience making batteries for electronics. Ener1 was thought to offer one of the best chances for an American company to compete in this field.

The company said that's still the case, and that the restructuring will allow it to reduce its debt and free up $81 million for capital spending. [CNNMoney.com, 1/26/12]

Reuters: Ener1 "Expects To Emerge From Chapter 11 Within 45 Days ... [Ener1 Says] No Jobs [Will] Be Lost Because Of The Filing." From a January 26 Reuters article:

Ener1 has $73.9 million of assets and $90.5 million of debts, according to its bankruptcy petition.

It filed a "prepackaged" reorganization plan that it said has support from enough creditors, and expects to emerge from Chapter 11 within 45 days.

It said the plan would slash long-term debt, provide up to $81 million of new equity financing, and allow it to honor its commitments, which it said include the provision of backup storage systems for the 2014 Winter Olympics.

Unsecured creditors would be paid in full, but holders of its 186.9 million shares would receive nothing, Ener1 said. No jobs would be lost because of the filing, it added.

Jen Stutsman, an Energy Department spokeswoman, called the bankruptcy "unfortunate," but said the proposed equity infusion "demonstrates that the technology has merit." [Reuters, 1/26/12]

Grist's David Roberts: "Substantively, Ener1's Restructuring Means Very Little." From a January 27 post on Grist:

You'll recall that ever since the Solyndra faux scandal, the right has been on the hunt for a "new Solyndra," another company that received help from the Dept. of Energy and subsequently went under. For a while the New Solyndra was going to be Fisker Automotive, for a while SunPower, but those attempts sank like a stone.

The latest candidate is lithium battery company Ener1, Inc., which just declared Chapter 11 bankruptcy as part of a long-term debt restructuring deal. Ener1′s subsidiary EnerDel received a $118.5 million grant as part of the stimulus bill. Rep. Cliff Stearns, the GOP's Solyndra point man, has a characteristically melodramatic statement out on it.

Substantively, Ener1′s restructuring means very little. As DOE spokesperson Damien LaVera pointed out, "This is one of 30 new advanced battery and electric vehicle component plants that the administration has invested in across the country." What matters is the success of the broad portfolio, and more important, the success of the industries and innovations the support is meant to stimulate. Of course there will be failures and setbacks along the way. In fact, Congress itself expected the DOE loan guarantee program to have a much higher failure rate than it has actually had; it set aside $2.4 billion in anticipation. That's the nature of supporting cutting-edge companies. [Grist, 1/27/12]

Green Car Reports: "Ener1 Files For Bankruptcy, But Isn't Dead." A January 30 post on High Gear Media's Green Car Reports site analyzed Ener1's financial history, then concluded that "unlike Solyndra and some other much-publicized green energy firms, Ener1's story doesn't look like it will end just yet." From the post:

But the real story of what happened to Ener1 goes beyond political posturing and back to the firm's connections with Norwegian electric automaker Think, maker of the diminutive two-seat Think City.

When Ener1 became the official supplier of battery packs to Think Global, Think had already been bankrupt twice before.

[...]

Shortly after Ener1 became official battery supplier for the Think, it was hit with the news that Think was in dire financial crisis. To help out and secure its own future, Ener1 helped provide the majority of funds in a $5.69 million bridge loan to Think.

For better or worse, Ener1 became an investor in a firm whose business it relied on to survive, a symbiotic relationship which would eventually prove catastrophic.

[...]

By the time Think entered its third bankruptcy in June last year, Ener1 owned 48 percent of the firm, and was forced to write off over $73 million in losses and accounts receivable against Think.

At that point, Ener1's house of cards started to fall down, with its shares entering free-fall as the stock market reacted to its Think-inherited debt.

[...]

But unlike Solyndra and some other much-publicized green energy firms, Ener1's story doesn't look like it will end just yet.

According to TheEnergyCollective, Ener1's Chapter 11 paperwork included details of how major creditors of Ener1 are already planning to write-off Ener1's debts against them in exchange for Ener1 shares.

At that point, trade creditors and employees will be paid, Ener1's EnerDel facility in Indianapolis will continue to operate, and an additional $81 million of private investment will be given to the company.

Ener1 may have inherited Think's debt, but it appears it has also inherited its abilities to rise again from the ashes of insolvency. [Green Car Reports, 1/30/12]

... And Fox Erased Ener1's GOP Support, Including That Of Gov. Mitch Daniels ...

Ener1 Press Release Notes "Bipartisan Cooperation By Senators Lugar and Bayh, and Gov. Daniels." In its August 2010 press release announcing the $118 million grant from the Energy Department, Ener1 credited GOP Gov. Mitch Daniels of Indiana for helping to secure its funding, along with then-Sen. Evan Bayh (D-IN) and Sen. Dick Lugar (R-IN):

Economic growth is not a Democratic or Republican issue. This effort has been a model of bi-partisan cooperation by Senators Richard Lugar and Evan Bayh, and by Governor Mitch Daniels," [EnerDel CEO Ulrik] Grape said. "Their support has been tremendously important." [Ener1 Press Release, 8/5/10]

USA Today: Former Ener1 CEO Said That "No Single Individual Has Been More Important To Us Than Gov. Mitch Daniels." A January 27 USA Today article, titled, "Obama critic backed bankrupt clean energy firm," noted that Daniels had "championed" Ener1 and quoted a former Ener1 CEO as saying, "No single individual has been more important to us than Gov. Mitch Daniels." From the article:

Daniels, a former budget director in the George W. Bush administration, has backed Ener1 for several years. Ener1 has also received support from Sens. Richard Lugar, a Republican, and former Sen. Evan Bayh, a Democrat, who wrote a joint letter to Energy Sec. Stephen Chu in June 2009 backing the DOE grant.

Daniels, however, has stood out among lawmakers in his backing of the company.

"No single individual has been more important to us than Gov. Mitch Daniels, our advocate in chief in Washington and on missions abroad," said former Ener1 CEO Charles Gassenheimer at a 2010 event to announce the joint venture with the Chinese auto parts company.

Jake Oakman, a spokesman for Daniels, said on Friday that the governor had no comment about the bankruptcy. [USA Today, 1/27/12]

Grist: "Latest Clean Energy Faux Scandal Engulfs GOP Spokesman Mitch Daniels" And Other GOP IN Politicians. The January 27 Grist post described the support for Ener1 and its EnerDel division from several GOP Indiana politicians, including Daniels, Lugar, and Rep. Dan Burton. From the post:

In a shocking turn of events, Republicans have turned on the very man they chose to speak for them this week in response to Obama's State of the Union address -- Indiana Gov. Mitch Daniels. He is taking a drubbing in the conservosphere, but what's most peculiar about the scandal that threatens to engulf him is that Republicans don't seem aware that they're attacking him.

[...]

Sen. Richard Lugar (R-Ind.) was a key advocate for EnerDel. He visited its factory in 2008 and said, "Fostering research for advanced batteries should receive high priority as part of our nation's effort to develop a diversity of energy sources." Here he is acknowledging the risks but saying that companies like EnerDel represent the future:

[...]

Lugar and Sen. Evan Bayh (D-Ind.) sent a letter to energy secretary Steven Chu in 2009 that cites EnerDel's application for a loan under the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007, as well as its more recent application for funding under the stimulus bill, and says, "We add our individual voices to urge its favorable consideration." Egg on their face!

Of course everyone knows Lugar's a big RINO. What's perhaps more surprising is the heretofore undetected socialism hiding in the heart of hyper-conservative Rep. Dan Burton (R-Ind.), who in 2007 called EnerDel "the wave of the future ... cutting edge technology [that] will help relieve our dependency on foreign oil." Here he is bragging on the company's DOE partnership. Whoopsy.

[...]

Hm ... anyone else? Oh yes, here's one. In 2008, the "Indiana Economic Development Corporation offered EnerDel up to $7.125 million in performance-based tax credits and up to $58,000 in training grants." Those tax credits were unveiled by none other than Indiana Gov. Mitch Daniels ...

[...]

Fox News is not going to be happy about this. [Grist, 1/27/12]

HuffPo: Daniels' Administration Granted Ener1 Over $7 Million In Tax Credits And "Praised It Effusively." In a January 26 article, The Huffington Post reported that Ener1 received "extensive aid" from Daniels, noting that his administration "granted the firm ... more than $7 million in tax credits." From the article:

Ener1 got a $118 million grant from the federal government in 2009. But it also got extensive aid from the Indiana Republican governor who delivered the GOP response to Obama's Tuesday address -- Gov. Mitch Daniels.

Daniels' administration granted the firm, which makes its batteries in Indiana, more than $7 million in tax credits, and praised it effusively.

"Eight hundred fifty jobs of any kind is great news," Daniels said at the time, in August 2008. "When those jobs are in a technology of tomorrow, like electric cars, it offers the prospect of even bigger news to follow. Indiana has what it takes to lead this automotive revolution and today is step one." [Huffington Post, 1/26/12]

Bloomberg Businessweek: "Ener1's Grant Application Received Bipartisan Support From Indiana Lawmakers" And Ener1 Received Millions In Grants "Under The George W. Bush Administration." A January 26 Bloomberg Businessweek article noted that the Ener1 grants received "bipartisan support from Indiana lawmakers" and went on to state that "the company got a $6.5 million Energy Department advanced-battery grant and a $4 million Defense Department research and development contract under the George W. Bush administration." [Bloomberg Businessweek, 1/26/12]

... Whom Fox Figures Fawned Over After His SOTU Response

Chris Wallace On Daniels: "A Star Is Born." During Fox Broadcasting's January 24 State of the Union coverage, Fox News Sunday host Chris Wallace said that Daniels' response to President Obama's address was a "strong speech" and that "some of these responses from Republicans and Democrats fall flat; some of them, like [Daniels'], you'd say a star is born." Wallace concluded: "I think some people are going to be looking at that speech and saying, 'Why isn't he running for president?' " [Fox Broadcasting Co.'s State of the Union coverage, 1/24/12, via Media Matters]

For more examples of Fox figures fawning over Daniels, SEE HERE.

Media Matters for America - Research Items

Myths And Facts About Electric Cars

CONSERVATIVE MEDIA OUTLETS ARE CAMPAIGNING AGAINST THE ELECTRIC CAR BY:

MYTH: Electric Cars Are A Threat To The Grid

FACT: Studies Show EVs Are Unlikely To Strain Grid, Particularly With Good Planning

MYTH: Each Volt Cost Taxpayers More Than $250,000 In Subsidies

FACT: Subsidy Estimate Was Based On Fuzzy Math

New Polls Showing Catholic Support For Contraception Coverage Further Undermine "War On Religion" Claim

Obama Administration Reaffirmed Health Insurers Must Cover Contraception

Recent Polls Show Majority Of Catholics Support Insurance Plans That Cover Contraception ...

... As Have Past Polls

And Several Catholic Groups Found A "Silver Lining" In HHS Rule

But Right-Wing Media Continue To Claim Obama Is Waging A "War On Religion"

Hannity's "War On Religion" Campaign Undermined By Catholic Support For Contraception Coverage

Obama Administration Reaffirmed Health Insurers Must Cover Contraception

And While Polling Shows That Catholics Support Insurance Coverage For Contraception

And Several Catholic Groups Found A "Silver Lining" In The Move

Hannity Accused Obama Of Waging "A War On Religion"

Right-Wing Media Aren't Concerned About Helping The Poor, But They Sure Want To Help The Rich

Conservative Media Frequently Deride The Plight Of The Poor As Well As Programs To Aid Them ...

CBS To Receive Award From Fringe Group At CPAC

CBS's Attkisson To Receive "Accuracy In Media" Award

AIM Is A Cesspool Of Hate And Conspiracy Theories

All Previous Award Recipients Were From Right-Wing Media Outlets

Attkisson Has Produced Shoddy, Irresponsible Reporting Over The Past Year

Still Wrong: Right-Wing Media Continue To Dismiss Jobs Report With Discredited Attack

After Labor Department Reported January Employment Growth ...

... Financial Blog Zero Hedge Dismissed Employment Growth With Claim That "1.2 Million People Dropped Out Of The Labor Force"

"1.2 Million" Number Comes From A Misreading Of The Jobs Report

Even Conservative American Spectator Admits Claim That "Labor Force Dropped More Than 1.2 Million" Is "Simply Wrong"

Yet Right-Wing Media Still Hyped Zero Hedge's Claim That "1.2 Million" Left The Labor Force

Right-Wing Media Rely On Discredited Evidence To Dismiss Positive Jobs Report

After The Labor Department Reported January Employment Growth

Financial Blog Zero Hedge Dismissed Employment Growth With Dubious Claim That "1.2 Million People Dropped Out Of The Labor Force"

But Experts Argue That The 1.2 Million Number Is Based On A Misreading Of The Jobs Report

Right-Wing Media Jumped On The Discredited Figure To Dismiss Jobs Report As "Corrupt"

Planned Parenthood's Effort To Fight All Types Of Cancer Still Under Attack

"They Don't Even Do Mammograms": Right-Wing Media Downplay Planned Parenthood's Efforts To Fight Cancer

Contrary To Claims, Some PPFA Clinics Indeed Provide Mammograms -- Thanks To Grants From Komen

This Is Nothing New: Right-Wing Media Have Long Pushed Smears And Falsehoods About Planned Parenthood

Obama's Mortgage Relief Plan Is Immediately Attacked By The Right-Wing Media

Obama Announces Mortgage Relief Plan To Deal With "Massive" Housing Problem

Right-Wing Media Suggest Obama's Plan Is A Charade Designed To Gain Votes

However, Economists Say Streamlined Mortgage Refinancing Would Benefit The Economy

Obama's Previous Mortgage Relief Plans Have Been Attacked By The Right-Wing Media In The Past

The Hannity Challenge: How To Make The Case That The Economy Is Improving

Hannity's Challenge: "How Do You Make The Case" That The Economy Has Improved

This Is How You Make The Case That The Economy Has Improved

Conservative Media Repeat Tabloid's Climate Misinformation

Scientists: Solar Fluctuations Won't Offset Global Warming

Led By Daily Mail, Conservative Media Distort Research To Claim Earth Is Cooling

Conservative Media Attempt To Use 12 Years Of Data To Refute Long-Term Trend

Conservative Media Repeatedly Promote Tabloid's Climate Misinformation

Right-Wing Media&nbsp;Cheer&nbsp;Decision&nbsp;That Could Hinder&nbsp;Access To&nbsp;Breast&nbsp;Cancer&nbsp;Services For Thousands Of Women

Komen Announces It Is Ending Partnership With Planned Parenthood

Bogeyman: Fox News Attacks Progressives With Fantasy Version Of Saul Alinsky

Fox Portrays Alinsky As A "Socialist," Claims He "Admired" Lenin And Marx

Fact: Alinsky Was Not "A Marxist Or Communist Or Socialist"

Monica Crowley Falsely Claims Alinsky "Dedicated" Rules For Radicals "To Lucifer"

Varney Falsely Suggests Alinsky's Community Organizing Style Was "Beat 'Em Up"

Fact: Alinsky Rejected Violence, Advocated Working Within The System

Right-Wing Media Have Long Invoked Alinsky To Fearmonger About Obama, Progressives

Fox Regularly Uses The "Racial Code Words" Denounced By Fox's Juan Williams

Williams Notes GOP Employs "Code Words" To Deny "Responsibility For ... Racial Content"

Not Just The GOP Candidates: Williams' Colleagues At Fox Regularly Employ Or Echo These "Racial Code Words"

"FOOD STAMP PRESIDENT"

"ENTITLEMENT SOCIETY"

"AMNESTY"

Don't Believe&nbsp;Fox's&nbsp;Hype: Ener1&nbsp;Enjoys Bipartisan Support And&nbsp;Is Not "Another Solyndra"

Fox Hypes Ener1 Bankruptcy Filings As "Another Solyndra" For Obama

But Experts Say Ener1 Is "No Solyndra" ...

... And Fox Erased Ener1's GOP Support, Including That Of Gov. Mitch Daniels ...

... Whom Fox Figures Fawned Over After His SOTU Response

**Even Conservative American Spectator Admits Claim That "Labor Force Dropped More Than 1.2 Million" Is "Simply Wrong"**

Right-Wing Media Cheer Decision That Could Hinder Access To Breast Cancer Services For Thousands Of Women

Don't Believe Fox's Hype: Ener1 Enjoys Bipartisan Support And Is Not "Another Solyndra"