If you have not read it, this is a fascinating article in the New York Times. The crux of the article is the title — even critics of the safety net increasingly depend on it.

The article profiles a number of people who take advantage of the federal social safety net and are increasingly resentful of it. The solutions on fixing it vary. The angry, for some, may or may not be misplaced. The article reads as a Rorschach test on your ideology — liberals will read it and find the people hypocritical. Conservatives will read it and find it all maddening.

The key paragraphs of the whole article comes toward the beginning:

The government safety net was created to keep Americans from abject poverty, but the poorest households no longer receive a majority of government benefits. A secondary mission has gradually become primary: maintaining the middle class from childhood through retirement. The share of benefits flowing to the least affluent households, the bottom fifth, has declined from 54 percent in 1979 to 36 percent in 2007, according to a Congressional Budget Office analysis published last year.

And as more middle-class families … land in the safety net …, anger at the government has increased alongside. Many people say they are angry because the government is wasting money and giving money to people who do not deserve it. But more than that, they say they want to reduce the role of government in their own lives. They are frustrated that they need help, feel guilty for taking it and resent the government for providing it. They say they want less help for themselves; less help in caring for relatives; less assistance when they reach old age. [Emphasis added]

In other words, the United States is increasingly taxing the middle class to subsidize the middle class. All the talk about the poor and what the safety net is designed to do for the poor overlooks that the government has taken it upon itself to keep the middle class from falling into the poorer classes of society.

It reminds me of this Robert Heinlein quote:

“Throughout history, poverty is the normal condition of man. Advances which permit this norm to be exceeded — here and there, now and then — are the work of an extremely small minority, frequently despised, often condemned, and almost always opposed by all right-thinking people. Whenever this tiny minority is kept from creating, or (as sometimes happens) is driven out of a society, the people then slip back into abject poverty. This is known as ‘bad luck.’”

We seem to be on the cusp of that in this country and the middle class realizes what is happening. The creators in the country who come up with the ideas, take the risks to capital and reputation, and possibly get ahead are more and more being labeled the bad guys. But there is more to it than that. The middle class is coming to terms with the idea that upholding its principles will put it at a competitive disadvantage and they are seething about it.

Read More →

If you have not read it, this is a fascinating article in the New York Times. The crux of the article is the title — even critics of the safety net increasingly depend on it.

The article profiles a number of people who take advantage of the federal social safety net and are increasingly resentful of it. The solutions on fixing it vary. The angry, for some, may or may not be misplaced. The article reads as a Rorschach test on your ideology — liberals will read it and find the people hypocritical. Conservatives will read it and find it all maddening.

The key paragraphs of the whole article comes toward the beginning:

The government safety net was created to keep Americans from abject poverty, but the poorest households no longer receive a majority of government benefits. A secondary mission has gradually become primary: maintaining the middle class from childhood through retirement. The share of benefits flowing to the least affluent households, the bottom fifth, has declined from 54 percent in 1979 to 36 percent in 2007, according to a Congressional Budget Office analysis published last year.

And as more middle-class families … land in the safety net …, anger at the government has increased alongside. Many people say they are angry because the government is wasting money and giving money to people who do not deserve it. But more than that, they say they want to reduce the role of government in their own lives. They are frustrated that they need help, feel guilty for taking it and resent the government for providing it. They say they want less help for themselves; less help in caring for relatives; less assistance when they reach old age. [Emphasis added]

In other words, the United States is increasingly taxing the middle class to subsidize the middle class. All the talk about the poor and what the safety net is designed to do for the poor overlooks that the government has taken it upon itself to keep the middle class from falling into the poorer classes of society.

It reminds me of this Robert Heinlein quote:

“Throughout history, poverty is the normal condition of man. Advances which permit this norm to be exceeded — here and there, now and then — are the work of an extremely small minority, frequently despised, often condemned, and almost always opposed by all right-thinking people. Whenever this tiny minority is kept from creating, or (as sometimes happens) is driven out of a society, the people then slip back into abject poverty. This is known as ‘bad luck.’”

We seem to be on the cusp of that in this country and the middle class realizes what is happening. The creators in the country who come up with the ideas, take the risks to capital and reputation, and possibly get ahead are more and more being labeled the bad guys. But there is more to it than that. The middle class is coming to terms with the idea that upholding its principles will put it at a competitive disadvantage and they are seething about it.

Read More →

During the 2008 campaign, the media never opened a debate in the Democrat primary by asking Hilary Clinton how missing documents from the Rose law firm showed up at the White House, or questioning her claim that she landed under sniper fire in Bosnia. Nor did they ever open a debate questioning Obama about his his cocaine use in college, his missing transcripts and birth certificate, or his relationship with Reverend Jeremiah Wright.

When Newt fired back at an obvious media ambush during the opening question of the GOP debate in South Carolina, the mainstream media ratcheted up their attacks. Was it a coincidence that ABC decided to air their ‘surprise’ interview with Newt’s ex-wife after the last debate—and only hours before the South Carolina primary? Was it a coincidence that John King cited the ABC smear story to open the debate? Newt was right to be outraged, and his surge in support after his fiery answer shows that many voters feel the same way.

One thing is clear—the mainstream media isn’t even pretending to be impartial anymore. Republican candidates are constantly attacked and forced to defend themselves against every innuendo, while Obama gets a free pass on every issue. The double standard is now so obvious and so extreme that the media isn’t even making a pretense of being objective anymore.

After Newt fired back at ABC and CNN with both guns blazing, Ann Curry once again tried to ambush Newt during a live interview on NBC Today. First, she accused him of being racist because he called Obama a “food stamp President.” She went on to quote a New York Times editorial that implied that Newt and all South Carolina Republicans are racist:

“By mixing falsehoods with racial condescension, Newt Gingrich brought a raucous presidential debate crowd to its feet on Monday night in South Carolina, further cheapening his reputation and that of the state Republican Party…

In South Carolina, where a Confederate flag still waves on the front lawn of the State Capitol largely because of the efforts of the state Republican Party, it remains good primary politics to stir up racial animosity and then link it to President Obama.” –The New York Times

Curry wrapped up by asking Newt “Are you intentionally playing the race card to win votes?” Once again, Newt smacked down the liberal media ambush with a clear, forceful and passionate response:

“Modern liberals are totally off the deep end. When conservatives care about the poor and conservatives offer ideas to help the poor and conservatives suggest that the poor would rather have a paycheck than a food stamp, the very liberals who have failed them—at places like The New York Times—promptly scream ‘racism’ because they have no defense for the failure of liberal institutions which have trapped poor children in bad schools, trapped them in bad neighborhoods, trapped them in crime-ridden situations. Liberal solutions have failed, and their only answer is to yell ‘racism’ and hide.”

In their attack on Newt, both Ann Curry and The New York Times failed to mention that the confederate flag isn’t flying over the South Carolina Capitol—it’s across from the Capitol over a memorial to Confederate soldiers who died in the Civil War. And the compromise to fly the flag over the Confederate War Memorial was brokered by a Democrat governor more than a decade ago. This is not a Newt issue, and it’s not new issue. Now the liberal media is trying to use it to dismiss Newt’s surge in South Carolina by painting the whole state as racist. In their eyes, that might somehow diminish Newt’s success by convincing the rest of the country to ignore South Carolina completely.

We all know the mainstream media is biased. Now it seems they’re trying desperately just to remain relevant. Meanwhile, the surge in support for Newt after his smackdown of the liberal media is showing what everyone else already knows. The mainstream media is a joke.

Another day, another distorted and fear-mongering attack from the Old Grey Lady on America’s natural gas industry.

Headline: Add Quakes to Rumblings Over Gas Rush
(originally published under the headline “Some Blame Hydraulic Fracturing For Earthquake Epidemic”; link may require subscription/signup)

Nine quakes in eight months in a seismically inactive area is unusual. But Ohio seismologists found another surprise when they plotted the quakes’ epicenters: most coincided with the location of a 9,000-foot well in an industrial lot along the Mahoning River, just down the hill from Mr. Moritz’s neighborhood and two miles from downtown Youngstown.

At the well, a local company has been disposing of brine and other liquids from natural gas wells across the border in Pennsylvania — millions of gallons of waste from the process called hydraulic fracturing that is used to unlock the gas from shale rock.

Here, the Times conflates two dissimilar processes in an attempt to create fear and worry about natural gas. Follow below the jump, and allow me to explain.

Read More →

Another day, another distorted and fear-mongering attack from the Old Grey Lady on America’s natural gas industry.

Headline: Add Quakes to Rumblings Over Gas Rush
(originally published under the headline “Some Blame Hydraulic Fracturing For Earthquake Epidemic”; link may require subscription/signup)

Nine quakes in eight months in a seismically inactive area is unusual. But Ohio seismologists found another surprise when they plotted the quakes’ epicenters: most coincided with the location of a 9,000-foot well in an industrial lot along the Mahoning River, just down the hill from Mr. Moritz’s neighborhood and two miles from downtown Youngstown.

At the well, a local company has been disposing of brine and other liquids from natural gas wells across the border in Pennsylvania — millions of gallons of waste from the process called hydraulic fracturing that is used to unlock the gas from shale rock.

Here, the Times conflates two dissimilar processes in an attempt to create fear and worry about natural gas. Follow below the jump, and allow me to explain.

Read More →

So much for President Obama’s promises of economic stimulus.  The New York Times reports that moments after the President signed a new law to expand regulation over the financial sector, one business group complained that the new law will discourage job growth.

The Business Roundtable complained in a statement that the law “takes our country in the wrong direction” and may discourage investment and job growth, echoing concerns made by the United States Chamber of Commerce and other business organizations.

I wonder how many jobs the President destroyed or failed to create with this new law?  The House is voting on two postponed suspension bills, an extension of unemployment benefits (H.R. 4213), and the “Multiple Peril Insurance Act.”  The Senate is scheduled to vote on H.J. Res. 83, a joint resolution approving the renewal of import restrictions contained in the Burmese Freedom and Democracy Act of 2003, and S.Res. 591, a resolution recognizing and honoring the 20th anniversary of the enactment of the Americans with Disabilities Act.  After those votes the Senate will resume consideration of the “Small Business Jobs” bill.

Read More →

So much for President Obama’s promises of economic stimulus.  The New York Times reports that moments after the President signed a new law to expand regulation over the financial sector, one business group complained that the new law will discourage job growth.

The Business Roundtable complained in a statement that the law “takes our country in the wrong direction” and may discourage investment and job growth, echoing concerns made by the United States Chamber of Commerce and other business organizations.

I wonder how many jobs the President destroyed or failed to create with this new law?  The House is voting on two postponed suspension bills, an extension of unemployment benefits (H.R. 4213), and the “Multiple Peril Insurance Act.”  The Senate is scheduled to vote on H.J. Res. 83, a joint resolution approving the renewal of import restrictions contained in the Burmese Freedom and Democracy Act of 2003, and S.Res. 591, a resolution recognizing and honoring the 20th anniversary of the enactment of the Americans with Disabilities Act.  After those votes the Senate will resume consideration of the “Small Business Jobs” bill.

Read More →