WaPo and Obama Administration shape numbers and claim fiscal restraint

United States Surpluses & Deficits Graph (in billions of dollars) Image Credit: The Washington Post / Hugh Hewitt (blog)

WaPo and Obama Administration shape numbers and claim fiscal restraint

The average person stumbling upon an article appearing in The Washington Post, yesterday, about the economy and Government spending would think that our current leadership was having success at being responsible with the citizens money that had been collected in taxes.

The article begins with the following quote excerpted from The Washington Post:

Obama team points to smaller deficit numbers
By David Cho - Washington Post Staff Writer - Tuesday, April 13, 2010

"The federal deficit is running significantly lower than it did last year, with the budget gap for the first half of fiscal 2010 down 8 percent over the same period a year ago, senior Obama administration officials said Monday."
Reference Here>>

While, technically, this statement may be true, it masks the fact that the larger truth is that this adjusted figure moved from being ten (10) times larger than the deficit created by the previous leadership in 2007, to just nine (9) times larger. The Washington Post does reveal the information of this fact in two areas in their article on the Obama Administration report, in a graphic (above) and not until the 13th paragraph of this glowing piece of how well this administration is really not spending that much!

Quote from the 13th paragraph of the same Washington Post article:

"The deficit figure released by the Treasury Department for March means that the federal government has been spending more than it collected for a record 18 consecutive months, dating to the Bush administration."
Reference Here>>

The graph shows the truth of the deficits and Government spending and it is astounding that the Washington Post does not make the lead of this article that the improved spending number of $1,288,000,000,000 (1.3 trillion) is a whopping NINE TIMES larger than $158,000,000,000 ($1.6 billion) of the 2007 deficits of the Bush Administration, the first year with a Democrat Party controlled House of Representatives.

Nationally syndicated talk show host Hugh Hewitt could not have summed up how wrong this article is in its reporting of the effects of the policies of Barack Obama and the reporting job by the Washington Post.

This excerpted and edited from the blog of Hugh Hewitt -

"This is a ruinous level of spending, the sort of wildly-out-of-control hosing of printed money that could lead to a national fiscal stroke. Happy talk about a hundred billion of possible savings here and there and a reduction in earmarks should not divert attention from the fact that President Obama has led the country over a fiscal cliff, and has no solution in the offing except for a commission that will recommend vast tax hikes the prospect of which already chills investment and job growth."
Reference Here>>

In short, we all should expect a higher standard of context and truth in reports issued from our current leadership and more importantly, reporting of this information by the Fourth Estate (MSM).

Equality Shows Itself In Many Forms

"What are you lookin'at?" --- The Arctic habitat of polar bears is under threat as climate change - [thank GOD this caption did not go with the less provable phrase, Global Warming, which has a politically monied connotation and edge to it]- causes ice to melt. Image Credit: Joseph Napaaqtuq Sage/AP

Equality Shows Itself In Many Forms

Here is an item that might warm your heart and cause the brain cells to spin.

The following story goes into detail as to how some scientists are offered "cash" to dispute the United Nations supported climate study.

At MAXINE, the first thing that leaps to mind is an educational system infrastructure where scientists and educators are awarded grants to "study" the cause and effect of climate and change by bureaucracies and politicians who are able to use government monies to influence and sustain the power they naturally have. Government money is collected, lobbied for by interested parties, assigned to niche programs, and fed to educational research and study programs.

So what is wrong with a little "equal" time and influence in the development of a study or message ... after all, who pays the scientists at the capitalist system-hating United Nations and what is in "IT" for them? The ego, prestige, and political control exerted through international agreements like --- Kyoto, do ya' think?

Fair & Balanced is what we like to see at MAXINE!

Excerpts from The Guardian (UK) –

Scientists offered cash to dispute climate study
Ian Sample, science correspondent - The Guardian - Friday February 2, 2007

Scientists and economists have been offered $10,000 each by a lobby group funded by one of the world's largest oil companies to undermine a major climate change report due to be published today.

Letters sent by the American Enterprise Institute (AEI), an ExxonMobil-funded thinktank with close links to the Bush administration, offered the payments for articles that emphasise the shortcomings of a report from the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).

Travel expenses and additional payments were also offered.

The UN report was written by international experts and is widely regarded as the most comprehensive review yet of climate change science. It will underpin international negotiations on new emissions targets to succeed the Kyoto agreement, the first phase of which expires in 2012. World governments were given a draft last year and invited to comment.

The AEI has received more than $1.6m from ExxonMobil and more than 20 of its staff have worked as consultants to the Bush administration. Lee Raymond, a former head of ExxonMobil, is the vice-chairman of AEI's board of trustees.

The letters, sent to scientists in Britain, the US and elsewhere, attack the UN's panel as "resistant to reasonable criticism and dissent and prone to summary conclusions that are poorly supported by the analytical work" and ask for essays that "thoughtfully explore the limitations of climate model outputs".

Climate scientists described the move yesterday as an attempt to cast doubt over the "overwhelming scientific evidence" on global warming. "It's a desperate attempt by an organisation who wants to distort science for their own political aims," said David Viner of the Climatic Research Unit at the University of East Anglia.

"The IPCC process is probably the most thorough and open review undertaken in any discipline. This undermines the confidence of the public in the scientific community and the ability of governments to take on sound scientific advice," he said.
----
"Right now, the whole debate is polarised," he said. "One group says that anyone with any doubts whatsoever are deniers and the other group is saying that anyone who wants to take action is alarmist. We don't think that approach has a lot of utility for intelligent policy."
----
Ben Stewart of Greenpeace said: "The AEI is more than just a thinktank, it functions as the Bush administration's intellectual Cosa Nostra. They are White House surrogates in the last throes of their campaign of climate change denial. They lost on the science; they lost on the moral case for action. All they've got left is a suitcase full of cash."

On Monday, another Exxon-funded organisation based in Canada will launch a review in London which casts doubt on the IPCC report. Among its authors are Tad Murty, a former scientist who believes human activity makes no contribution to global warming. Confirmed VIPs attending include Nigel Lawson and David Bellamy, who believes there is no link between burning fossil fuels and global warming.
Read All>>

So there you have it, the authoritative and balanced voice of Greenpeace states "The AEI ... functions as the Bush administration's intellectual Cosa Nostra. They are White House surrogates in the last throes of their campaign of climate change denial. They lost on the science; they lost on the moral case for action. All they've got left is a suitcase full of cash."

At this moment, the UN has lost on the debate as to who isn't on the take!

Have we (the world) already forgotten the unimaginable torts and betrayal found in the "Oil-For-Food" program negotiated and managed by the United Nations over this last decade?

Isn't the funding by the UN of a scientific report, that promotes an international agreement, that the United Nations would be tasked in managing, just a little suspect?

At MAXINE, we are just askin' questions.

Additional background information about Kyoto and a reaction from China about the report from the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).