Labels

2010 State of the Union (1) ABC News (2) Abubakar Siddique (1) Affirmative action (1) Afghanistan (2) Africa (1) Agence France-Presse (1) AlterNet (1) Anton Chekhov (1) Arizona (2) Arms control (1) Arnold Schwarzenegger (1) Asia (1) Atul Gawande (1) Barack Obama (4) Barnett Rubin (1) BBC (1) Blogs (4) CBS News (1) Civil and political rights (2) Civil rights movement (1) CNN (2) Cook Political Report (1) Daily Show (1) Daniel Hernández (1) David Valesky (1) Dean Skelos (1) Democratic (1) Democratic Party (1) Democratic Party (United States) (2) Detroit (1) Diane Savino (1) Egypt (1) Election Day (1) Energy and Environment (1) Fabian Núñez (1) Federal Bureau of Investigation (1) Federal holidays in the United States (1) Gabrielle Gifford (1) Gabrielle Giffords (3) George W. Bush (2) Governor of California (1) Health care reform (1) Healthcare Reform (1) History (2) Hollywood (1) Hosni Mubarak (1) Huffington Post (2) Jeff Klein (1) Jimmy Carter (1) Joe Biden (1) Joe Louis Arena (1) Jon Stewart (1) Kabul (1) King-Martin Luther (1) Links (1) Marsy's Law (1) Martin Luther King Jr (1) Martin Luther King Jr. Day (1) Medicare (2) Medicare Sustainable Growth Rate (1) Mike Huckabee (1) Mike Rogers (1) Mitt Romney (1) Mohamed ElBaradei (1) MSNBC (3) National Defense University (1) NATO (1) Nazism (1) New Hampshire (1) New START (1) New York City (1) New York Observer (1) New York State Senate (1) New York Times (1) News (2) Newt Gingrich (1) Oklahoma Senate (1) Pakistan (1) PoliticalWire (1) Politician (1) Politics (1) Politics Daily (1) President (1) President of the United States (1) Public Broadcasting Service (1) Rand Paul (1) RealClearPolitics (1) Republican (5) Republican Party (United States) (2) Republicans (1) Ron Paul (1) Rudy Giuliani (1) Russia (1) Russian language (1) Sacramento County Superior Court (1) San Diego State University (1) Sarah Palin (3) September 11 attacks (1) Social Security (1) Staten Island (1) Steve Cohen (1) Taliban (1) TechCrunch (1) The Checklist Manifesto: How to Get Things Right (1) The Wall Street Journal (1) Tucson Arizona (1) Twitter (1) United States (10) United States Congress (1) United States Department of Justice (1) United States Department of State (1) United States Senate (2) US News and World Report (1) USA Patriot Act (1) Zbigniew Brzezinski (1)

Democracy Now!

CNN.com - Politics

BBC News - Politics

Democratic Underground Latest Breaking News

CNN.com - World

CNN.com - Video

Total Pageviews

Delicious

Search This Blog

Tweet Politics Blog

Powered By Blogger
Showing posts with label Democratic Party (United States). Show all posts
Showing posts with label Democratic Party (United States). Show all posts

Thursday, January 20, 2011

Poll Finds Wariness About Cutting Entitlements - NYTimes.com

Poll Finds Wariness About Cutting Entitlements - NYTimes.com

Poll Finds Wariness About Cutting Entitlements




9) »
As President Obama and Congress brace to battle over how to reduce chronic annual budget deficits, Americans overwhelmingly say that in general they prefer cutting government spending to paying higher taxes, according to the latest New York Times/CBS News poll.
Yet their preference for spending cuts, even in programs that benefit them, dissolves when they are presented with specific options related to Medicareand Social Security, the programs that directly touch the most people and also are the biggest drivers of the government’s projected long-term debt.
Nearly two-thirds of Americans choose higher payroll taxes for Medicare and Social Security over reduced benefits in either program. And asked to choose among cuts to Medicare, Social Security or the nation’s third-largest spending program — the military — a majority by a large margin said cut the Pentagon.
While Americans are near-unanimous in calling deficits a problem — a “very serious” problem, say 7 out of 10 — a majority believes it should not be necessary for them to pay higher taxes to bridge the shortfall between what the government spends and what it takes in. But given a choice of often-discussed revenue options, they preferred a national sales tax or a limit in the deduction for mortgage interest to a higher gasoline tax or taxing employer-provided health benefits.
Americans’ sometimes contradictory impulses on spending and taxes suggest the political crosscurrents facing both parties as they gird for debate over how to address the fiscal woes of a nation with an aging population, a complex tax system and an accumulated debt that is starting to weigh on the economy.
On Thursday, a large group of House conservatives called for cutting $2.5 trillion in mostly unspecified spending over the next decade and House Republican leaders have vowed to make spending cuts a priority in coming months after winning a majority on that promise in November’s midterm elections. President Obama is expected to make fiscal responsibility a central theme of his State of the Union address on Tuesday night, and of the budget he will send Congress next month for the 2012 fiscal year, which starts Oct. 1.
The antitax sentiment reflected in the poll is in line with Republicans’ mantra that spending, not taxes, is the problem for the federal budget. Yet that assessment contradicts the conclusions of several bipartisan and academic panels that proposed debt-reduction plans over the past year.
Those groups — including, in November, a bipartisan majority of Mr. Obama’s fiscal commission — each concluded that the growth in the nation’s debt could not be reined in with spending cuts alone. They said the required reductions, including for Medicare and Social Security, would be deeper than anything the public would accept.
The poll of 1,036 adults nationwide, which has a margin of sampling error of plus or minus three percentage points, was conducted Jan. 15 through 19 — in the days after Mr. Obama gave a widely praised address at a Tucson memorial service for those killed in theshooting rampage that wounded Representative Gabrielle Giffords, Democrat of Arizona. Nearly two-thirds of Americans approve of his response to the shooting, the poll showed; 11 percent disapprove.
National tragedies or crises often have a rallying-around effect that buoys a president’s public image. The poll, like others recently, shows Mr. Obama with a slightly improved approval rating. Nearly half of Americans, 49 percent, approve of his job performance, compared with 39 percent who do not.
The public also gives Mr. Obama the benefit of the doubt as he and Republicans adjust to their new power-sharing relationship. After a productive lame-duck session of Congress late last year, in which Mr. Obama won a number of concessions from Republicans in return for extending the Bush-era tax cuts on high incomes, the poll showed that nearly eight out of 10 Americans believe Mr. Obama will try to work with Republicans to get things done — including 77 percent of independents and 57 percent of Republicans. Less than half of all respondents — 46 percent — said Republicans will try to work with Mr. Obama.
The president holds no advantage over Republicans, however, on addressing the deficit and job creation. Americans split on whom they trust more to make the right decisions on both issues. The poll holds other warning signs for the president. With the unemployment rate remaining above 9 percent, majorities disapprove of his handling of the economy (52 percent), job creation (54 percent) and the deficit (56 percent).
Fewer people than ever think Mr. Obama has the same priorities for the country as they do: 52 percent say he does not share their priorities, down from 65 percent who said he did when Mr. Obama first took office.
Representative John A. Boehner, a Republican of Ohio who is the new House speaker, is relatively unknown to the national public; the roughly one-quarter who have an opinion of him are split between those with negative and positive views.
A far-better-known Republican, Sarah Palin, also is far more disliked. She is viewed unfavorably by 57 percent of the public, including a majority of independents — her highest negative rating ever in Times/CBS polls.
In a week that saw House Republicans vote to repeal Mr. Obama’s signature domestic achievement, the law overhauling the health care system, nearly half of Americans said the law should stand. About four in 10 people support repeal, but many say they want to undo only parts of the law.
Asked what Congress should focus on, 43 percent of Americans say job creation; health care is a distant second, cited by 18 percent, followed by deficit reduction, war and illegalimmigration.
If Medicare benefits have to be reduced, the most popular option is raising premiums on affluent beneficiaries. Similarly, if Social Security benefits must be changed to make the program more financially sound, a broad majority prefers the burden fall on the wealthy. Even most wealthy Americans agree.
As budget woes force a national debate over the country’s domestic priorities, preserving money for education ranks at the top for most Americans.
The poll showed that the Arizona shootings had not changed Americans’ general opposition to banning handguns. However, more than six in 10 favor a nationwide ban on assault weapons and on the kind of high-capacity magazine used in Tucson.

Megan Thee-Brenan and Marjorie Connelly contributed reporting.
Enhanced by Zemanta

Friday, January 14, 2011

How The Media Botched The Arizona Shooting | The New Republic

Icon for recentismImage via WikipediaHow The Media Botched The Arizona Shooting | The New Republic

When disaster strikes, journalists have to write something about it—and write it fast. That means they have to take mental shortcuts, calling up established narratives and laying them out like old wrapping paper for new and more ambiguous facts. (Wife poisons husband. Revenge killing? Money killing? Self-defense killing? We stand at the ready with a lot of templates.) While the resulting gift isn’t always pretty, it’s generally good enough for deadline work.
But sometimes the shortcuts produce a journalistic stampede at the worst possible time. That’s what happened last weekend, when 22-year-old Jared Lee Loughner shot six people to death at an Arizona Safeway and gravely wounded many more, including Democratic Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords. The dominant storyline in the press—one that persisted in the face of all the facts—was that right-wing hysteria and lunacy had given rise to Loughner’s atrocity. Only on Wednesday night, when President Obamadelivered a speech that effectively told everyone to cut it out, was the stampede halted (one hopes). But it’s still worth reviewing how the nation’s leading periodicals descended into such mindlessness.
Let’s go back to this Saturday. When news of the incident first broke, bloggers began to speculate that this was a Tea Party-related incident. No evidence of that emerged. Once a little more information trickled out, The New York Times and other outlets linked Loughner to a far-right publication called American Renaissance. That likewise had no basis in fact. Over the next day or two, as Loughner turned out to give off numerous indications of mental illness but very few of right-wing ideology, the dominant analysis became, “Okay maybe this guy was nuts, but, still, he was at least indirectly a product of a climate of political hysteria.”
By Monday, The New York Times’ editorial page had kicked into action. It conceded that, sure, Loughner operated “well beyond usual ideological categories,” but, still, it was “legitimate to hold Republicans and particularly their most virulent supporters in the media responsible for the gale of anger that has produced the vast majority of these threats, setting the nation on edge.” The Los Angeles Times followed suit. It admitted that, sure, Loughner and “his own demons were primarily to blame,” but it still condemned the “increasingly incendiary and violent rhetoric that characterizes today's political debate,” for which “the right bears the brunt of responsibility.” Meanwhile, dozens of opinion writers were busily adding related but equally ethereal musings to the heap. Writing in the Guardian, blogger Jessica Valenti blamed a “country that sees masculinity—especially violent masculinity—as the ideal.”  There is of course one advantage to all such lines of argument, if argument is the word for it. They are entirely faith-based, which makes them pretty much irrefutable. But faith-based punditry works in more than one direction. Seven years after the massacre at Columbine High School—in which two senior students shot and killed twelve students and a teacher—CBS News invited Brian Rohrbough, who had lost his son Dan, to explain why he thought the shootings had happened. “The public school system has taught in a moral vacuum, expelling God from the school and from the government, replacing him with evolution, where the strong kill the weak, without moral consequences and life has no inherent value,” Rohrbough said. “And I assure you the murder of innocent children is always wrong, including by abortion. Abortion has diminished the value of children.” Most liberals (myself included) would disagree with Rohrbough’s explanation for the shooting, but they’d have trouble explaining why it’s any less plausible or substantive than explanations blaming Jared Loughner on rightwing hysteria.
So why did the press go so far astray this week? How did many fine, otherwise fair-minded journalists allow their judgment to become so clouded? Let’s venture briefly—and hopefully not too speculatively, lest I be accused of double standards—into the realm of cognition. Organizational theorists such as Karl E. Weick, a professor of psychology at the University of Michigan Business School, have researched how we react to unexpected events. In his 1995 book Sensemaking in Organizations, Weick notes that we humans automatically categorize what we encounter, ushering messy new complexities into tidier established categories (“myths, metaphors, platitudes, fables, epics and paradigms,” to be precise). When something bad and inexplicable takes us by surprise, our brains reach for the handiest existing narratives, and accuracy falls by the wayside in favor of simple plausibility. “The stories are templates,” writes Weick. “They are products of previous efforts at sensemaking. They explain. And they energize.”
Contributing to such tendencies are the habits of newsrooms. In their 1989 book How Do Journalists Think?, S. Holly Stocking and Paget H. Gross note that a typical reporter launches into a story with an investigative hypothesis, one that is often bolstered during the reporting process by “confirmation bias.” Only with great reluctance—in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary—is such a hypothesis normally discarded. Added to that is the weakness that competing hypotheses are tested one at a time, so that alternative explanations for the same data points are almost never considered simultaneously. “For example,” write the authors, “if one is testing a theory about the negative impact of feminism on women’s lives, one is unlikely also to test theories about its positive impact.”
At this point, however, a reader might reasonably ask why, in this case, launching into a discussion of political hysteria was such a bad thing. If the shootings in Arizona can serve as a springboard for discussing a significant, if not necessarily related, societal menace, why not let them do so? After all, much of the right truly has become unhinged.
Well, yes, but let’s remember that the deaths caused by Jared Loughner were preventable. There were concrete things that could have been done and that we now should do. Some people think we should place more restrictions on gun ownership. Some think we should provide more security services to members of Congress. Some think we should have improved mental-health resources. Such solutions may be wise or foolish, but the point is that they are directly relevant to the tragedy of last weekend.
By focusing on explanations that are abstract and speculative and only indirectly related, however, we risk losing sight of the crucial and immediate questions at hand. For instance, when Congressman James Clyburn was interviewed by NPR about the shootings, Clyburn followed the lead of all the major news outlets and focused almost entirely on “the discourse around the political arena,” suggesting a reexamination of the Fairness Doctrine. In short, Clyburn largely ignored a real problem while pledging to focus on an imagined one. That is the danger here.
In 1911, a fire at the Triangle Shirtwaist Factory in New York killed 146 garment workers, most of them women and immigrants. Fortunately, the outrage that followed it went in a healthy direction, resulting in new federal workplace safety laws. This was a lot more helpful than essays blaming the fire on misguided ideals of femininity. There’s a place for speculation and supposition, of course. But not a big place, and not for long. It’s well past time for journalists to move on from what we don’t know about the causes of last weekend’s tragedy and grapple seriously with a great deal that we now do know—even if, God forbid, it means we’ll have to abandon our hypotheses.
T.A. Frank is a writer in Los Angeles and an editor at the Washington Monthly.
Enhanced by Zemanta