Book Report: Left Turn by Tim Groseclose
Tim Groseclose is the Marvin Hoffenberg Professor of American Politics at UCLA. The author has made two major claims: 1) The main vehicle of bias in the media is distortion, not lying and 2) the bias is significantly liberal and this bias really matters by what scholars refer to as the “media effect”. Professor Groseclose describes precisely and in great detail the extent to which the “media effect” affects the thoughts and behaviors of people. I will not attempt to cover the extensive research presented (including many mathematics concepts such as the exogenous effect and equations) in this book report. Professor Groseclose and his partner Professor of Public Policy Jeff Milyo from the University of Chicago began work on the media research project in the spring of 2002. The results of their research was published in the Harvard “Quarterly Journal of Economics”, the oldest scholarly economics journal, which, in my view, is all one needs to know about the unquestionable level of scholarship and peer review of the research this book is based upon.
Professor Groseclose admitted that he had formerly been persuaded by the logic that the “media effect” was really not a factor and found it difficult to believe that voters could be systematically fooled into thinking and voting against their natural tastes and values. In other words, the “media effect” could not override rational choice. However, the good professor has changed his view, after all of his and his colleague’s hard work set forth in the book. Distilling their thesis down to its most bare essence to answer the question of “To what degree has the media distorted the political views of the average voter” here’s the formula: 1) The political views of the typical voter are a weighted average of two things; i) his/her natural views (the so-called political quotient he/she would have absent media bias) and (ii) the average slant quotient of the news that he/she receives, the so-called media mu. This weighted average is referred to as the media lambda.
The above may seem confusing without reviewing the mountain of data supporting these conclusions. Trust me that it all makes sense when you read the book. Professor Groseclose’s Epilogue entitled “Small Steps Toward a Better Media”, i.e., a more responsible media, was a real shocker for me. I had always placed many in the media (not all) in the same smelly basket as many politicians, both on the lowest end of professions worthy of scorn and ridicule from the rest of us. However, the good professor after eight solid years studying both concluded the more he came to respect politicians and the less he came to respect journalists! This is no joke. The reason is simple. While politicians, whether we agree with them or not, under our system of government they cannot hide their votes (Art. I, Sec. 5, US Const. – yeas or nays on the floor, no secret ballots, which is routinely used in both chambers). Politicians can attempt to hide from or distort their records or their opponent’s record but the record is available for all to see, even on cable TV – C-SPAN. Speaking of C-SPAN, Martha Radditz of “ABC News”, while appearing on C-SPAN was asked by a viewer who called in about what party she was registered to. She made the standard mainstream media non-reply that she would not disclose (“we don’t talk about those things”) and made the absurd claim that she is just an objective reporter! These left biased media people falsely maintain the charade of objectivity. Ms. Radditz and her ilk, according to the author, are conspiring against the people.
Professor Groseclose has a two part suggestion to begin to reverse the media “Left Turn”. 1) Liberal journalists should actually have conversations with conservatives, much like politicians are forced to do in the halls of Congress and the Capital, even individuals who can’t stand each other. Washington correspondents vote 93-7% for Democrats, according to the research in the book. Therefore, he suggests the best place to start for them would be a trip to King County, TX and Washington County, UT, two Counties that are nearly as conservative in voting as the correspondents are liberal. The correspondents gaining real world perspective could be beneficial to us, the electorate, if they become more balanced in the process. Professor Groseclose calls this suggestion “Mr. Journalist Goes to Washington County” in an obvious salute to the much beloved classic Jimmy Stewart film “Mr. Smith Goes to Washington.”
I highly recommend this work of non-fiction, particularly in this very contentious political season. Happy reading!
The Civil Rights Act of 1957
Ever heard of the Civil Rights Act (CRA) of 1957? You will after reading this.
We hear so many false suggestions and outright wholly unsupported allegations of racism leveled by the Democrat leftists against Republicans and/or conservatives this political season from political campaigns and the media. So, it’s time to dust off my law degree once again and research the actual legislative history of the CRA and which party did, and which did not, support the CRA. Ignoring and/or re-writing history is never acceptable so here we go.
First, a brief mention of one of the undisputed heroes of the Democrat left, President Franklin Roosevelt (FDR) and his “New Deal” programs. During FDR’s administration, for all its perceived “social justice” and so-called equality, discrimination against blacks in housing, transportation, public accommodation and the armed services went virtually unchecked during the “New Deal”. Fast forward a couple of decades to 1957. In order to break the racist obstruction of Southern Democrats (so-called “Dixiecrats”) Republican President Dwight Eisenhower (Ike), I repeat Republican, sponsored both a civil rights as well as a voting rights act. And who do you think blocked him in the senate? The future president US Senator Lyndon Johnson (LBJ) fought tooth and nail against both. Ike finally signed a very watered down version of the Civil Rights Act of 1957 which was intended to guarantee voting rights of all black people. This was the first civil rights legislation to pass and be signed into law since the Reconstruction era after the Civil War. Ike was forced to send federal troops to Little Rock, Arkansas to escort black students entering a formally all white school to enforce the law.
Again, fast forward to 1964 and the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (the one along with the Voting Rights Act of 1965 which are the only ones mentioned these days along with LBJ, another much admired President by the Democrat left). As I mentioned in the previous paragraph LBJ was no supporter of the civil rights movement. LBJ’s legislative voting record from 1940-1960 was that of a typical “Dixiecrat”, i.e., an actual racist as opposed to the falsely accused Republicans and/or conservatives hung with that heinous label today. And, if you think LBJ had some epiphany and attack of conscience or sudden mysterious injection of righteousness in 1964 and 1965, think again! Here is a direct quote about what he really felt about the civil rights legislation, taken from Ronald Kessler’s book “Inside the White House”:
“These Negroes, they’re getting pretty uppity these days and that’s a problem for us since they’ve got something now they never had before, the political pull to back up they’re uppityness. Now we’ve got to do something about this, we’ve got to give them a little something, just enough to quiet them down, not enough to make a difference.”
Translation of the above quote is that LBJ made an apparent 360° turn which was based solely on the cynical notion that if black people are dependent upon Democrats for public assistance, welfare and government programs they would, as LBJ quipped be “voting Democratic for the next 200 years”. The Republicans of that era were instrumental in the 1964 and 1965 Acts passing, since the Democrats could never muster enough votes within their own party. The “Dixiecrats” would not vote for either Act.
Today, in the mad dash of the left to demonize and vilify Republicans and/or conservatives the actual history of the civil rights movement has been outright distorted. The story in this article is untold since we know who controls traditional media and text books. LBJ was not the civil rights champion he’s made out to be. In fact, he was quite the opposite. Leftists make a fatal mistake, in my view, when they paint conservatives as racist when conservatives challenge welfare because while we understand people need assistance, we also understand that it cannot become a lifestyle, passed down from generation from generation.
The bottom line is we conservatives look at the potential of the individual and not the potential for further votes and political power due to repression of constituents to rise out of dependency on government as LBJ so callously pointed out in the 1960s. Apparently, LBJ’s plan is working out better today than even he would have imagined, generations relegated to government dependence and the misery it brings and a block of voters that vote nearly 100% Democrat, presumably far into the future.
Why Accept Your Unemployment Benefits Running Out This Year or Next?
SSDI to the Rescue!
In the August 2012 issue of Newsmax magazine an article appeared entitled “America: A Disabled Nation?”. Fleshing out the statistics in the article regarding the current state of the Social Security Administration’s (SSA) disability program this is what the American taxpayer is up against. Allow me to apologize in advance for all the SSA acronyms in this posting. Bureaucrats are rendered inoperable without acronyms! To call the disability program perverse is a gross understatement, in my view. About 5 million more workers have joined the ranks of disability beneficiaries since President Obama took office in January 2009, adding to the approximately 4 million workers already on disability which is a striking addition in such a short time.
The definition of who is too disabled to “do any substantial gainful activity in the national economy” (the loose and imprecise SSA standard to which benefits are awarded has been broadened over the years to cover depression, chronic back pain, bipolar disorder, attention-deficit disorder, chronic fatigue syndrome, etc., etc., etc.). With this subjective standard (a Laundry list of disabilities that can’t show up on an MRI) the Administrative Law Judges (ALJs) who preside over SSDI appeals apply this standard to the SSA Rules and deny approximately 50% of disability appeals nationwide, yet there are still about 9 million disability beneficiaries in 2012.
Running the numbers a 44 year old worker making $70,000.00 annually (based upon the required 40 quarters or 10 years of reported earnings) he/she would receive a benefit of about $1,900.00 per month according to the SSA benefits calculator on the SSA’s website. This benefit could continue for 20 years until the recipient is 64 years old and then, at age 65, be rolled into the standard SS benefit, much more per month and decades longer than unemployment. There is a recent trend when state unemployment compensation runs out many more individuals are then taking a crack at SSDI benefits. Why not go for the much bigger prize of SSDI? Attorneys are waiting in the wings to assist you in your disability claim. In 2011 the cost of SSDI and SSI (Supplemental Security Income, i.e. welfare based on disability and financial need, not work quarters) payments was 132 billion dollars. Added to this is the 80 billion dollar cost of Medicare. The Newsmax article states that Medicare is awarded after 2 years, regardless of the age of the claimant. The rule is actually 2 years from when the SSA determines the “onset date” of total disability.
Therefore, Medicare could be awarded with the back benefits, and the 2 years is calculated from onset date, not the filing date. A lump sum payment for back benefits is awarded when the claimant receives a “fully favorable” decision from the ALJ after an initial denial of claim appealed to the Office of Disability Adjudication Review (ODAR). Using the $1,900.00 monthly benefit mentioned at the beginning of the foregoing paragraph times 24 months of back benefits (onset date going back 2 years which not unusual) the lump sum payment would be $45,600.00 plus Medicare! In fact SSI beneficiaries receive Medicare and, of course, Medicaid. SSI benefits automatically go together with Medicaid benefits. They’re both welfare based, not work based.
Another aspect of SSDI and SSI is the “ticket to work” program. According to Bloomberg Business Week less than 1% of the disabled ever return to work. And if an individual does choose to return to work the SSA has a program for these individuals known as “ticket to work”. Here we go again (just like my last post on this site)……….. cue up music from The Twilight Zone TV series while I explain “ticket to work” SSA’s program to purportedly facilitate disability beneficiaries returning to work part time. Normally SSA conducts a “continuing disability review” (CDR) every 3 years or so to determine if the beneficiary is still totally disabled or can attempt to return to the work force. However, if a beneficiary, who is presumed to be 100% disabled, applies to the “ticket to work” program regardless of whether he/she ever gains employment no more CDRs are conducted while in the program.
In other words now the beneficiary is magically no longer considered 100% disabled by the SSA and is available to work part time and keep up to a certain amount of earned income as well as the SSDI or SSI benefit payment! According to the SSA’s upside down logic the formerly 100% disabled beneficiary is now not 100% disabled and available to work (whether he/she is actually working is irrelevant) and will never again be subjected to a CDR while in the program even though he/she is, according to the SSA, no longer 100% disabled. Would it surprise anyone to know “ticket to work” is a miserable failure.
This is another very troubling example of a social program created by a federal law originally passed in July 1956 with the best of intentions that has morphed into the massive, tangled bureaucratic web and costly boondoggle we have today. What a surprising turn of events!
Gov. Scott attacks The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (ACA) “Obamacare”!
An article appeared in the National Review (online) on July 4, 2012. I will summarize the article:
The media has given little to no attention to the Supreme Court’s second ruling regarding the ACA, so-called “Obamacare” in a 7-2 decision striking down a massive and very costly expansion of Medicaid (which is administered by the states). Barely a day after the decision our governor Rick Scott announced that Florida will not expand Medicaid eligibility to 133% of the federal poverty level (as set forth in the ACA). Earlier, Gov. Scott had declined to establish state insurance exchanges, as allowed for (but not required) in the ACA. The left is going absolutely apoplectic over this one two punch to the ACA in Florida, as I will explain.
The savings on the Medicaid side over about ten years to Florida taxpayers who will not have to foot the bill for the Medicaid expansion after 2017 (when the federal government begins the phase down of the additional funds provided from 2014-2017) will be approximately twenty billion dollars. The ACA provides that most of those who would have been eligible for Medicaid will become eligible for subsidies through the ACA exchanges paid in full by the federal government. But, as Rod Serling stated so uniquely in an episode of The Twilight Zone that you might recall; “Ahhh, there’s the rub!”. If Florida refuses to set up the insurance exchange (which Gov. Scott has done) the ACA gives the federal government the authority to step in and set up the exchange itself. Congress has not appropriated any funds for this purpose and, in this political climate, seems very unlikely to do so any time soon!
Now to “the rub”. Those subsidies under the ACA cannot be offered by the federal government, only by the state run exchanges! In my view, the ACA is not only bad law (with a few good provisions which can be resurrected after the current law is repealed) and terrible public policy for the middle class and small businesses but is so poorly drafted as to contain a huge loophole that may render the law unworkable. We can only hope! Here’s an example of how this loophole could work. The subsidy triggers the penalty (tax?) under the ACA for employers with fifty or more employees who fail to provide workers with insurance but only if at least one employee qualifies for subsidies under the exchange. Therefore, if subsidies can only be provided through state authorized exchanges a state could defeat the employer mandate just by refusing to establish an exchange! Apparently, the towering intellects who drafted this legislation missed this! In any case, the Obama administration and our friends at the IRS claim they have the unilateral right to rewrite the ACA to close this loophole (and others). I don’t claim to be a legal genius like the Obama team but I do have a law degree and practiced law for many years. This claim of a unilateral rewrite is certainly open to legal challenge. Maybe the Supreme Court will get it right this time!
The bottom line is that while the media and the political class pontificate and spin the Court’s decision about whether or not the individual mandate is a tax, etc. the real action (as has been the trend for a very long time) is taking place with governors and state legislators in the fight for fiscal sanity against the ACA, better known as “Obamacare”.
