Stossel gives us perfectly valid reasons to distrust our government officials in his piece, We Pay Them to Lie to Us.
…when Harry Reid says he’ll give 30 million additional people health coverage while cutting the deficit, improving health care and reducing its cost, it’s not entertaining. It’s incredible.
The politicians have a hat full of tricks to make their schemes look cheaper than they are. The new revenues will pour in during Year One, but health care spending won’t begin until Year Three or Four. To this the Cato Institute’s Michael Tanner asks, “Wouldn’t it be great if you could count a whole month’s income, but only two weeks’ expenditures in your household budget?”
From the start, Obama has promised to pay for half the “reform” cost by cutting Medicare by half a trillion over 10 years. But, Tanner asks, “how likely is it that those cuts will take place? After all, this is an administration that will pay seniors $250 to make up for the fact that they didn’t get a Social Security cost-of-living increase this year (because the cost of living didn’t increase). And Congress is in the process of repealing a scheduled increase in Medicare premiums.”
Walter Williams asks a great question in his, A Minority View: Voluntarism or Self-Interest?
Say you want a nice three-bedroom house. Which human motivation do you think would get you the house sooner: the generosity of builders or the builders’ desire to earn some money?
Just about everyone would agree that there would be massive shortages and discontent if there were a congressional mandate that we must depend on our fellow man’s generosity for our home, our car, our food and thousands of other items that we use. Why then must a person depend on his fellow man’s generosity for an item like bone marrow that might mean the difference between life and death? There is no rhyme or reason for the congressional prohibition of bone marrow other than arbitrary unconstitutional abuse of power that far too many Americans tolerate and would like to see extended to other areas of our lives.
Thomas Sowell gives us more reason to distrust politicians in, Solving Whose Problem?
No one will really understand politics until they understand that politicians are not trying to solve our problems. They are trying to solve their own problems– of which getting elected and re-elected are number one and number two. Whatever is number three is far behind.
Many of the things the government does that may seem stupid are not stupid at all, from the standpoint of the elected officials or bureaucrats who do these things.
The current economic downturn that has cost millions of people their jobs began with successive administrations of both parties pushing banks and other lenders to make mortgage loans to people whose incomes, credit history and inability or unwillingness to make a substantial down payment on a house made them bad risks.
Was that stupid? Not at all. The money that was being put at risk was not the politicians’ money, and in most cases was not even the government’s money.
No one pushed these reckless mortgage lending policies more than Congressman Barney Frank, who brushed aside warnings about risk, and said in 2003 that he wanted to “roll the dice” even more in the housing markets. But it would very rash to bet against Congressman Frank’s getting re-elected in 2010.
Very few people are likely to connect the dots back to those members of Congress who voted for bigger mortgage guarantees and bailouts by the FHA. So the Congressmen’s and the bureaucrats’ jobs are safe, even if millions of other people’s jobs are not.
Congressman Barney Frank is not about to cut back on risky mortgage loan guarantees by the FHA. He recently announced that he plans to introduce legislation to raise the limit on FHA loan guarantees even more.
Congressman Frank will make himself popular with people who get those loans and with banks that make these high-risk loans where they can pocket the profits and pass the risk on to the FHA.
As I read through Sowell’s piece, the question “where’s the missing check and balance?” kept rolling through my mind. How can the citizen’s of Barney Frank’s district continue to elect him? Why aren’t others checking and balancing him in Congress? I keep coming back to the media. The media isn’t doing its job. We simply don’t know.
The media carries stories that fit its mental model and weeds out stories that don’t. The work John Zeigler did after the Obama election keeps surfacing in my mind. You can see his work here. Ziegler demonstrated through interviews just how much effect the media’s story lines have. It’s very subtle. It’s incubated in my mind for the better part of six months.
The people Ziegler interviewed knew negative facts about McCain and Palin cold. They might as well have been reciting the alphabet. They didn’t know the negative fact about Obama or Biden nearly so well. I didn’t know those facts well and I’m plugged into conservative media.
I’m reminded of the Ziegler work when I see an ACORN story bust and then vaporize quickly with no ties to Obama. Had that been an organization that W or Cheney was affiliated with in the past, we’d still be hearing new information from different angles. Or when I saw the long lines waiting for H1N1 flu vaccine or Wall Street getting a hold of the vaccine early. Under W, that would have been panned as Bush not liking poor people, but I never saw an angle linking that to Obama. If the global warming e-mails that surfaced this week turn out to be legit, I wonder which media outlet will dare call Gore out for being a snake oil salesman? Palin releases her book and gets 11 fact checkers assigned by the Associated Press, while Obama didn’t have one.
The media has completely lost its objectivity – if it ever had it. It’s finally losing its credibility with the masses. The question is, will it try to restore by starting to ask the tough questions and doing the investigative work on its own?