Thursday, August 28, 2008

Presenting today’s GOP weasel: CNN’s Glenn Beck

While most of the GOP weasels work for FOX “News,” they also have quite a beachhead on other more respectable news networks, such as the venerable CNN.

Now, CNN has really gone downhill in the last several years. Everything they report is THE MOST URGENT THING IN THE KNOWN UNIVERSE, whether it’s who Barack Obama is choosing as his running mate (a most amusing video collage can be found here), or whether Britney Spears is getting a haircut. It also seems CNN gave up on good investigative reporting; even Anderson Cooper is doing stints on 60 Minutes these days.

But one of the reasons why CNN is losing credibility is by including people like Glenn Beck on their roster. He’s yet another overpaid talk-radio blowhard who has made the transition to being a cable-news commentator, and like the other slavering Bush groupies, Glenn rarely has a clear idea what he’s going on about—for him, it’s all about how to spin it in such a way that he can fling feces at the Democrats while applying sufficient suction to the hind end of the GOP.

I subscribe to CNN’s Twitter feed, and this morning got this message: cnn: Beck: Don't believe all that Dems say, with a link to his current column. Had he caught the Democrats in a lie? I was stupid enough to click through and read it.

In short, no. The Twitter alert was completely misleading. (Yet another reason to rethink whether I want to trust CNN as a source of news.)

So let’s just take a moment to look at the convention quotes he’s decided to cherry-pick.

Nancy Pelosi: “I am very proud of the Democrats in Congress.”

Never mind that no Congress in the past 20 years has passed fewer public laws than this one, according to the Wall Street Journal. How could they?

They are spending one quarter of their work week debating and passing symbolic measures such as creating National Watermelon Month. The Journal says no Congress in the past two decades has proposed more symbolic resolutions than this one—1,900, for those of you keeping score at home.

Pelosi went on to mention 10 specific accomplishments, which worked out to 0.9 accomplishments per percentage point of congressional approval rating. Ten accomplishments, 9% approval.

So let’s have a look at your claims, Glenn. First off, the Wall Street Journal article was written by Elizabeth Williamson, and can be found here. She has a point: Congress does waste a tremendous amount of time passing largely irrelevant resolutions.

But there’s a reason why the 110th Congress has passed so few bills: the shocking amount of obstructionism being carried out by the GOP, which is certainly taking up the majority of the other three-quarters of their time. In the 109th Congress, there were 68 motions to stop Democratic filibusters, and the GOP was actually seriously talking about implementing plans to remove the minority’s right to filibuster. But, with the appalling hypocrisy we’ve come to expect from the GOP, they beat that record in the first year of this congress, and have now surpassed the all-time record for filibusters in a single Congress. In addition, GOP procedural holds are becoming commonplace; Senator Tom Coburn (R–OK) has put procedural holds on dozens of bills in this Congress alone. The GOP even filibustered their own legislation when the Senate Majority Leader tried to put all Coburn’s holds into a single package.

It has become clear that the GOP isn’t interested in passing anything of substance, and so the only things that get passed are frivolous resolutions. Pelosi has reason to be proud of the Democrats—for taking the high road in the GOP shenanigans.

So what’s your point, Glenn? Pelosi’s point is that she’s proud of the Democrats. She has reason to be—they’ve had to struggle with GOP obstructionism every step of the way. You, on the other hand, have made no points in your favor. Got another?

Nancy Pelosi: “On the most important policy decision of our time, the war in Iraq, Barack Obama is right and John McCain is wrong—very, very wrong.“

By her definition, do you know who else was very, very wrong? The Democratic vice presidential nominee, Sen. Joe Biden. And the last vice president they nominated, John Edwards. And the guy he ran with, John Kerry. And your headline speaker Tuesday night, Hillary Clinton, among many, many others.

Oooo, very snarky, Glenn. Unfortunately, it doesn’t disguise your effort to be completely and utterly asinine. First off, her statement is true; John McCain still holds to the bizarre belief that a enhanced presence in Iraq will have a positive effect, whereas Barack Obama favors an orderly withdrawl from the region.

While it’s true that Biden, Clinton, Kerry and Edwards voted to allow the President to carry out the war based on lies the administration was telling, most of them no longer favor a continued presence. Edwards has been clear that he was wrong to do so and had he known the truth behind the administration’s lies at the time, he would not have voted for it. Kerry voted for the war, but was concerned about the funds needed to carry out the war (leading to all those charges of “flip-flopping”—remember, Glenn?). Clinton now favors withdrawl. I don’t know what Biden’s stance on withdrawl will be, but he’ll almost certainly support the Obama administration’s stance.

So what’s your point, Glenn? Pelosi’s point is that Barack Obama is right, and that John McCain is wrong. You, on the other hand, have made no points in your favor. Got another?

Michelle Obama: “That’s why I left a job at a law firm for a career in public service, working to empower young people to volunteer in their communities.”

Michelle Obama’s chosen career path led her to make $275,000 per year at a private hospital. Is that really a “public service” job?

It seems to me that a Republican wouldn’t be able to get away with such a generous assessment of their résumé. They would surely be harassed for making a six-figure salary inside the evil health care industry, while millions suffer without insurance.

But hey, there’s nothing wrong with making money, at least to me. And remember, she didn’t say she was volunteering. She said she was “working to empower young people to volunteer,” which is totally different.

I haven’t been able to find out what Michelle Obama’s earnings were as an intellectual property attorney after she graduated from law school. But in 1993, she held public sector positions in the city of Chicago, moved on to work at the University of Chicago in 1996 (among other things, she founded that university’s Community Outreach Center), and then started with the University’s hospitals in 2002, where her current position is as Vice President for Community and External Affairs.

Now, Glenn, you seem to think that public service jobs are inherently low-paying, and that Republicans with similar records would get harangued for a similar career record. You’re wrong on both counts. Michelle Obama’s job record shows years of public service, and that she is paid well for her competence is unsurprising. Check out what the CEO of the Red Cross makes sometime. On the other hand, if she’d stayed with the law firm, she would undoubtedly be making quite a bit more than that.

So, what’s your point, Glenn? Ms Obama’s point is that she left a job at a law firm for a career in public service, working to empower community volunteers. You, on the other hand, have made no points in your favor. Got another?

Michelle Obama: Barack Obama will achieve his goals “the same way he always has—by bringing us together and reminding us how much we share and how alike we really are.”

How will he do it? He’ll talk everyone into it. Yes, that has worked with his nomination, but can he “remind” me into wanting the government to pay for universal everything?

I don’t think so. I must not be hoping hard enough for change.

More snark! Gawrsh.

Glenn, for the record, “talking everyone into it” is what democracy is all about. Also, nobody has been pushing for, as you so quaintly put it, “universal everything.” Implying that merely makes you out to be a jerk. And sadly, I doubt anyone can remind you into not wanting to be one of those.

So, what’s your point, Glenn? Ms Obama’s point is that her husband’s administration will pursue convincing arguments to provoke unity. You, on the other hand, have made no points in your favor. Got another?

Michelle Obama: If her husband wins, her children can tell their kids someday that they “decided to stop doubting and to start dreaming.”

Sometimes doubting is good. For example, it’s good to doubt that other countries’ failing policies, such as universal health care, will suddenly work here.

Oh, Glenn, now you’re really getting petty. You’re also lying.

The truth is that universal health care is fairly successful in countries where it’s been implemented. It’s not without its problems—as you might expect, it can be a financial challenge at times. But on the whole, it’s been working pretty well for those countries. Take, for example, Germany’s system: multiple non-profit healthcare insurers, you have freedom of choice among insurers, doctors, and many other things. England’s National Health Service is gradually privatizing their hospitals by creating foundation trusts. If you watched Frontline, one of the best reasons for having a Public Broadcasting System, you might have seen a report on various countries’ health-care systems a while back that I found genuinely thought-provoking.

But aside from that, I’m not sure that universal health care is the only solution. But given that you’re the sort of person who took an inspirational statement like that, and confined it to a ridiculous commentary on the health-care system, I doubt you have the imagination, forethought or compassion to consider alternatives that alleviate the health-care crisis facing this country.

So, what’s your point, Glenn? Ms Obama’s point is that her grandchildren will be inspired by Barack Obama’s achievement. You, on the other hand, have made no points in your favor. Got another?

Hillary Clinton: “John McCain doesn't think that 47 million people without health insurance is a crisis.”

She must have missed the update that this number dropped by over a million. While it's still too high, I doubt she would have missed the news if it had risen.

She also missed, according to the U.S. Census Bureau, that 37 percent of the uninsured live in households making more than $50,000 a year, most of which can afford health insurance.

Twenty percent aren't even citizens of this country. One in three are eligible for government insurance, but aren't enrolled. So, while our health care is far from perfect, it's much better than Hillary wants you to believe.

And now we’re getting into the bizarre. First off, Glenn, I don’t see much difference between “John McCain doesn't think that 47 million people without health insurance is a crisis” and “John McCain doesn't think that 46 million people without health insurance is a crisis.” Another thing that you didn’t mention? That million or so people? Covered by Medicare and Medicaid. Government programs.

Second, part of the point of Clinton’s statement is that that 37% of the uninsured in households making more than $50,000 a year are still struggling to afford health insurance, you miserable thoughtless gibbon. The cost of family coverage has risen on average over 80% since Bush took office; wages have only risen about 20% in the same period (nearly even with the costs of goods and services, and far below the 350%–400% that gas prices have increased by). In other words, in real terms, people are managing to retain less money while health-care insurance is skyrocketing.

Just as a benchmark, let’s take the COBRA rates from something that you might be familiar with: the International Alliance of Theatrical Stage Employees (IATSE). It’s the labor union representing “technicians, artisans and craftspersons in the entertainment industry, including live theatre, motion picture and television production, and trade shows.” Some of the support personnel that manage to get your smug rictus on the television probably belong to that.

Let’s just have a look at the COBRA rates for that. Looks like their “C1-Core Family” rate is $2,241. Just how is a person with a kid netting $3,000 a month going to afford that, Glenn?

Oh, sure, they can go all the way down to “C3-Core,” where the family rate is $680. That’s still over 22% of the paycheck. Even then, it’s only 80% coverage, after a $2,500 deductable, provided you’re in-network, and 0% if you’re visiting grandma in another state and have to go to the ER. And if you wind up with a serious problem (say, cancer), you’re facing bills in excess of $100,000. Try paying that off in a timely manner at $3,000 a month.

And take me. I make a good income, somewhat better than the figure you mentioned. I don’t have much in the way of dependents. But I’m worried about what happens if I lose my health insurance. You may not have to worry about it, of course, since you’re making about $10 million a year just from your talk-radio gig, and who knows what from your CNN gig and other appearances, but I do. Moreover, I worry about my friends who aren’t making as much, or who are facing health issues; maybe you don’t have any of those.

So, what’s your point, Glenn? Senator Clinton’s point is that John McCain doesn't think that 47 million people without health insurance is a crisis. You, on the other hand, have made no points in your favor. Got another?

Hillary Clinton: “I will always remember the boy who told me his mom worked for the minimum wage and that her employer had cut her hours.”

So, how will raising the minimum wage get that mom more hours? If the business owner found her employment too expensive at the lower wage, won't they be cutting her hours even more now?

By the way, since the minimum wage increase, teenage unemployment is at a 15-year high. I'm sure there's no relation whatsoever.

Entirely missing the point, Glenn. First of all, you seem to be making a ridiculous link between Senator Clinton’s anecdote and teenage unemployment. How old do you think that boy was, Glenn? How likely is it that his mother is still a teenager?

In addition, you’re mispresenting one of the more ridiculous canards of the GOP. The truth is that the teenage unemployment rate tracks the general unemployment rate fairly closely, and has little correlation (if any) to the minimum wage. It’s far, far more likely that skyrocketing energy costs, or any of a number of other economic stressors were the real source of that family’s stress, rather than raising the minimum wage by a whole buck an hour. Woo. Forty bucks a week per employee is going to be that much of a stress on a business?

So let’s just take a nice close look at the claim that minimum wage affects teenage unemployment, say, since 1950. I can’t find a viable source of information about teenage participation in the workforce at the moment, so let’s assume that the Bureau of Labor Statistics figure of approximately 4% of the workforce consists of teenagers (which was true in 2006 and 2007). Here’s a graph of the unemployment rate, plus a lighter line showing the teenage unemployment rate weighted by their percentage of the workforce.

[Note: By the way, I owe many thanks to Spencer England of the excellent Angry Bear ’blog for allowing me to use data he gathered for making a similar illustrative post back in June.]

The top of the graph shows the initials of the president at the time (the party is shown by either a light red or light blue background), and the percentage rate is shown on the left. While the teen unemployment rate tends to run two or three times higher than the general unemployment rate, because teens make up only about 4% of the workforce, the upshot is that you can see the percentage of the total unemployment rate taken up by those ranging in age from 16 to 19.

Unfortunately, you can’t tell very much about the teen unemployment rate from that graph, so only for illustrative purposes, let’s weight that up by a factor of five (making it appear that teens constitute 20% of the workforce):

So now, let’s add the minimum wage into that graph. In each case, the minimum wage is mapped onto a percentage value ($4.55 would be 4.55%). The light green line is the actual minimum wage value, and the darker green line is the same adjusted for inflation (using 2000 as the reference date):

The data doesn’t show a clear correlation between minimum wage and teenage unemployment. During Clinton’s presidency, the minimum wage was raised, but unemployment was dropping, just as it did during the terms of JFK and LBJ. During the first Bush’s term, you can see that a drop in unemployment occurs after the hike in minimum wage.

So, what’s your point, Glenn? Senator Clinton’s point is that she would never forget the boy who told her his mom, already working for minimum wage, had had her hours were being reduced. You, on the other hand, have made no points in your favor. Got another?

Joe Biden: “Even today, as oil companies post the biggest profits in history . . . John wants to give them another $4 billion in tax breaks.”

Here is the justification behind this talking point:

1. John McCain wants to cut corporate income taxes for all companies.
2. Oil companies are companies.

That’s it.

Democrats believe that you think oil companies are mean, so they single them out, hoping you think McCain has cut a special deal just for them. He hasn’t.

I guess it’s really hard to drum up anger against your opponent when you say, “John McCain wants to cut taxes for companies that make delicious ice cream sundaes, feed the puppies of toddlers and fix veterans’ wheelchairs,” but that's just as truthful as what Biden said.

Actually, Glenn, no, it isn’t. What Biden was talking about wasn’t tax cuts (McCain wants to reduce the maximum corporate tax rate from 35% to 25%), but about the oil-industry specific tax breaks that McCain and other GOP lackeys have been flogging. So your “justification” is misleading at best, and . . . oh, heck, let’s just call it. Glenn, you’re a squirmy, greasy little weasel.

So, what’s your point, Glenn? Biden’s point is that McCain wants to give the oil companies—already posting the biggest profits in history—billions of dollars in additional tax breaks. You, on the other hand, have made no points in your favor. Got another?

No?

Good.

A few final notes for today

Mark my word: All those Republicans who are screaming about the choreography of the Democratic National Convention will be completely silent about the oozing self-righteous God-thumping choreography at the GOP National Convention.

I’ve been paying attention, but I didn’t watch the Democratic convention, and I won’t watch the GOP convention. They’re just showcases, sporting little actual purpose anymore other than a huge waste of campaign funds.

And finally, I’ve got to learn to make shorter entries. This is just taking too much time.