Mandates and Blackmail

Harlingen, Texas, August 19, 2010:  According to an email from my brother, Nate, who calls California home, his state is really in bad shape.  Since politicians are notoriously poor at math, they can only estimate the state is in debt between 19 and 21 billion dollars.  The state, counties and cities are either passing out pink slips to people or making them take days off work without pay.  Schools are terminating the employment of teachers and staff.  Those educators still employed are also targeted. Some school districts are requiring the working teachers to take reductions in their wages just to retain their positions.  Colleges and universities are cutting their staff, limiting enrollment and reducing the number of classes being offered. Plants are closing or relocating.  The value of housing has dropped up to 50% in some locales.  While this is taking place the prices on everything from utilities to gasoline keep climbing. Unemployment continues at 12.5%.

On the local Texas scene, Minerva Simpson, an independent mortgage broker, sees real estate in the Rio Grande Valley taking more financial hits.  In areas around McAllen there has been a 15 to 20K drop in home values.  She forecasts an expanding number of foreclosures due to the failure of banks to embrace the federal government’s loan modification plan. They have seen the reality that the program is only a Band-Aid for the mortgage problem. Among those banks that do embrace the easier mortgage modifications, those in the business observe another problem. Some banks are advising people to “become past due” on their mortgages so they can qualify for the modification of loan program.  Though the statewide unemployment rate is well below the national average at 8%, people still continue to lose jobs.

From a debt-infected California across the country to the Lone Star State, only modestly hit by the economic woes of the nation, states are in serious trouble.  The federal government adds to local woes by attempting to bend sovereign states to the national will using unfunded mandates and financial blackmail as its weapons.

Unfunded mandates have been a weapon of choice by Washington for years.  We have all experienced the requirements of car seats, safety chairs for children, seat belts, no-lead paint, those new pig tail light bulbs, warning labels on almost every item purchased, a vast assortment of safety inspections, boiler inspections, air tank inspections, underground tank inspections and fire sprinkler tests.  We know about the multitude of requirements placed on school districts, ranging from bus safety to charter schools.  We have seen the requirements levied on states before they can obtain federal education grant dollars.  There are even federal mandates on school curriculum.

Now that the government has become a partner in the financial world, there are new rules and instructions for banks to follow.  This includes increased fees and penalties.  The same thing is true for mortgages, with additional government requirements for higher processing fees and increased costs on purchasing a home. Having used your dollars to bail out the auto industry, our government now tells the manufacturers what cars to build and which they want off the road.  More money has been diverted from the food stamp program to fund teacher retirements and saved jobs.  None of these programs or government support projects come free of state commitment.  Historically the federal government has done two things that have been an invasion of state rights.  They have created legislation or regulation that placed the burden of funding their new requirements directly on the shoulders of state or local governments, or directly upon the citizens.

In many cases, when federal mandates are funded at a national level, additional requirements are placed on the states before they can accept the new dollars.  The recent extension of unemployment insurance could only be accepted by the states, if they agreed to rules that would permanently extend those same benefits…even after the extra federal dollars had been exhausted.

For Texas, a special requirement was placed in the legislation by Congressman Lloyd Doggett (D) that before the money to save teacher jobs would be given to the state, Governor Rick Perry had to assure the funding would be used for stated purposes up until 2014.  This was done, as was the case with former stimulus monies, knowing the governor has no authority to approve or authorize any expenditures for longer than two years.  In truth, the Democrat controlled government was denying funds to Texas and presenting it as rejection of the money by a Republican governor.

But, this is the history of our federal government.  For decades, regardless of which political party was in power at the time, Washington has passed law after law and ruling after ruling that mandated the fifty states to take action…and usually fund another Washington whim.  When what was proposed was not accepted, there usually followed the threat of withhold road construction funds, health related funds, education funds…and these days border security funds.  With Washington it is always a case of either unfunded mandates or financial blackmail.

Fair and Unbiased Reporting - Does It Exist?

Harlingen, Texas, August 15, 2010:  For more than twenty years the American public has been saying news coverage is left leaning and extremely biased.  Those within the media have consistently denied that such one-sided or opinionated reporting is true.

Back in those days of yore when I first took journalism classes, one of the first things pounded into my empty skull was the definition of news.  According to my professor, news was “A heretofore unreported fact of significance to the public.” It should be noted he said unreported “fact”, not rumor, idea, opinion, or feeling.  Today the reporting of facts seems to be a lost art.  The news of the day has been molded into reports that are often so far removed from reality that they can no longer be accepted as truth.  If the event cannot be tilted in the direction needed for political expediency, it is often ignored completely.  Thus, today’s news reporting is tarnished either by distortion or the sin of omission.

As Americans become more and more disenchanted with the mainstream or traditional media, they are seeking out the Internet to obtain their news and information.  In 1995 more than 60% of the people went to television for their news. Just four years ago 57% of the people still claimed they obtained the majority of their news and information from television.  That number was divided between cable and network news.  By 2007 that figure had slipped to 31.5% of the public using television news as their main source of information.  Among those who still accept television news as a trusted source, FOX leads the pack drawing 28.4% of the audience.  It is followed by CNN with14.9%, NBC and ABC draws about 12% and lagging way behind is CBS with only 7.4% of the news watchers. Those numbers continue to decline and the Internet numbers steadily increase.

In 2006 it was estimated that 23% of the public obtained its news online.  The reports from 2007 show 33.2% of the public going to the Internet for news.  By 2008 that percentage had grown to 50% and today it is estimated that 84% of the American public find their most trusted source of news on the screens of their computers.  As this big shift in the acceptance of news sources is taking place trust in television reporting has dropped to about 20%, newspapers to 16% and radio news to 14%.

The puzzling thing is, why has the business side of television and newspaper publication allowed misinformation, slanted coverage and blatant bias to poison the media well?  Years ago I published a small weekly newspaper.  My half of the partnership was editorial content.  My partner handled all the advertising.  At one point I took it upon myself to attack some local politicians and unattractively compared their conduct to that of used car salesmen.

We had no sooner hit the street with that issue than my partner came rushing in screaming at me.  Two of our used car advertisers were offended by my characterizing of the politicians and had canceled their contracts with our newspaper.  I couldn’t repair the damage I had done to us financially, but I was very careful in future commentary about how I gave negative descriptions.
For the life of me, I cannot understand why similar rages from mainstream media owners have not altered the tone of both print and electronic media.

So, do we have an answer to the question of media’s lack of fairness and unbiased news reporting? Traditional or mainstream media spokespeople still insist it does not even exist. The American news audience, by its migration to the Internet, is saying just the opposite.

Fair and Unbiased Reporting - Does It Exist?

Harlingen, Texas, August 15, 2010:  For more than twenty years the American public has been saying news coverage is left leaning and extremely biased.  Those within the media have consistently denied that such one-sided or opinionated reporting is true.

Back in those days of yore when I first took journalism classes, one of the first things pounded into my empty skull was the definition of news.  According to my professor, news was “A heretofore unreported fact of significance to the public.” It should be noted he said unreported “fact”, not rumor, idea, opinion, or feeling.  Today the reporting of facts seems to be a lost art.  The news of the day has been molded into reports that are often so far removed from reality that they can no longer be accepted as truth.  If the event cannot be tilted in the direction needed for political expediency, it is often ignored completely.  Thus, today’s news reporting is tarnished either by distortion or the sin of omission.

As Americans become more and more disenchanted with the mainstream or traditional media, they are seeking out the Internet to obtain their news and information.  In 1995 more than 60% of the people went to television for their news. Just four years ago 57% of the people still claimed they obtained the majority of their news and information from television.  That number was divided between cable and network news.  By 2007 that figure had slipped to 31.5% of the public using television news as their main source of information.  Among those who still accept television news as a trusted source, FOX leads the pack drawing 28.4% of the audience.  It is followed by CNN with14.9%, NBC and ABC draws about 12% and lagging way behind is CBS with only 7.4% of the news watchers. Those numbers continue to decline and the Internet numbers steadily increase.

In 2006 it was estimated that 23% of the public obtained its news online.  The reports from 2007 show 33.2% of the public going to the Internet for news.  By 2008 that percentage had grown to 50% and today it is estimated that 84% of the American public find their most trusted source of news on the screens of their computers.  As this big shift in the acceptance of news sources is taking place trust in television reporting has dropped to about 20%, newspapers to 16% and radio news to 14%.

The puzzling thing is, why has the business side of television and newspaper publication allowed misinformation, slanted coverage and blatant bias to poison the media well?  Years ago I published a small weekly newspaper.  My half of the partnership was editorial content.  My partner handled all the advertising.  At one point I took it upon myself to attack some local politicians and unattractively compared their conduct to that of used car salesmen.

We had no sooner hit the street with that issue than my partner came rushing in screaming at me.  Two of our used car advertisers were offended by my characterizing of the politicians and had canceled their contracts with our newspaper.  I couldn’t repair the damage I had done to us financially, but I was very careful in future commentary about how I gave negative descriptions.
For the life of me, I cannot understand why similar rages from mainstream media owners have not altered the tone of both print and electronic media.

So, do we have an answer to the question of media’s lack of fairness and unbiased news reporting? Traditional or mainstream media spokespeople still insist it does not even exist. The American news audience, by its migration to the Internet, is saying just the opposite.

Can America Fail? Read The History of Sparta.

Harlingen, Texas, August 6, 2010:  According to most sources Edmund Burke said it first.  The 18th Century British statesman is quoted to have said, “Those who don’t know history are destined to repeat it.” There have been multiple modifications of the statement and different individuals credited with the words, but it still remains a strong truth…if you do not pay attention to history, you are inviting failure.

Many people have viewed what is taking place in the United States today with similarities to what brought about the fall of Rome.  They see our excesses and political intrigues comparable to what transpired among those long-ago people.  I would argue our template is more in tune with the fall of Sparta.

Those of us who dozed through those classes in ancient history may not remember that Sparta was a city-state in southern Greece. By the eighth century B.C. it had grown from a collection of villages or colonies, to a powerful state with a strong military force.  In 550 B.C. through 449 it fought and won an extremely protracted war with Persia.  This was followed with a war from 431-404 to defeat Athens.  Sparta was said to have the most powerful military force in the world.  Military conflicts continued decade after decade but in time proved to be far too many and much too costly for the state. This brought about a diminishing of military strength.  The might of Sparta declined and defeats replaced victories.  By the third century it was in steep free-fall.

Today, historians credit the fall of Sparta to several things.  It had established a class of ruling elite who could not make needed changes due to the entrenched habits. They had created a government that could not bend or modify its actions.  Sparta had too many enemies abroad.  At the same time there was anger being displayed by the Sparta population.  The non-citizen population made up of everyone below age thirty, who did not have a state-supported military background, felt discriminated against by the government. They expressed their anger against all the Sparta “citizens”, who were Spartans above age 30 and of a class of people favored by the ruling elite.

In addition, Sparta had overextended itself militarily and could not replace its army losses with an adequate number of warrior elite.  Militarily their practice of sending too few men into battle resulted in massive losses and defeat. That, combined with the hatred of large numbers of Spartans, the constant bickering of the government officials and the financial drain of extended warring brought an end to the city-state.

Today the United States finds itself in two very protracted wars.  It seems to be collecting enemies abroad faster than it can find friends.  There is a political elite in Washington that ignores the wishes of the citizenry and dispenses favoritism to those it views in tune with the desires of the White House.  Concerning the GOP and the Tea Party marchers, the elitist attitude of the ruling majority seems to be… keep denigrating them, ignore their ideas and suggestions… and treat them almost as non-citizens.  Adding salt to the wounds, the treasury is bankrupt.

Wouldn’t any historian say…Shades of Sparta?