Are Obama's Policies Ushering in Era of Socialism?

Numbers show the U.S. is drifting ever closer to the socialist systems popular within the European Union.

By Shannon Bream

FOXNews.com

 

February 17, 2009

 

With taxpayers shelling out $700 billion to bail out Wall Street and another $787 billion to jolt the sputtering economy, serious questions are being raised about whether all the government intervention is taking the country down the path to socialism.

Numbers show the U.S. is drifting ever closer to the socialist systems popular within the European Union. In 1999, government spending made up 34.3 percent of gross domestic product, or GDP, the broadest barometer used to measure the health of the economy. That number is projected to grow to nearly 40 percent by next year.

Government spending within the majority of European Union nations averages 47.1 percent of the GDP, meaning the U.S. is roughly seven points behind -- closer than ever before.

But whether that equates to socialism here depends on whom you ask.

"A technical definition of socialism is that the government owns the production, it owns the factories or the plants or the businesses," said Heather Boushey, a senior economist with the left-leaning Center for American Progress.

"That's not what's happening here," she added. "It's not that the U.S. is buying up all the factories or businesses. What's going on is we're making investments to get the private sector back on track."

Peter Morici, a University Maryland business professor, said the all of the government spending "runs counter to the basic idea of Jeffersonian democracy, that it's the individual who knows best. The government is there to set up a framework for the individual to prosper, succeed and create wealth."

Morici said America is headed for a European-style social democracy of the 1970s.

"A large state sector, some state ownership of enterprises, big enterprises like banks and automobile companies and a lot of inefficiency that goes with it," he said.

But Boushey disagreed.

"We are looking at an economic crisis caused by the collapse of our financial sector," she said. "If we don't get people back to work, the problem will spiral out of control."

Critics warn that's exactly what happened in Europe when it implemented socialist reforms, forcing unemployment into the double digits.

[Source URL]    http://www.foxnews.com/politics/first100days/2009/02/17/obamas-policies-ushering-era-socialism/

Could 'Fairness Doctrine' Be Used to Police the Internet?

A report in The American Spectator says Rep. Henry Waxman, D-Calif., is looking into ways to exert more oversight on the Internet. His office denies the report. 

February 17, 2009

First radio, now the Web?

Media analysts and bloggers are warning that fresh efforts to bring back the so-called Fairness Doctrine could go too far, following a report that one prominent Democrat is looking into ways to apply the media control standards to the Internet. 

The Fairness Doctrine is a police created decades ago but abolished in the late 1980s that required broadcasters to provide opposing views on controversial issues. 

While some Democrats have talked about reviving the policy, The American Spectator reported Monday that Rep. Henry Waxman, D-Calif., is taking the call to a new level. The article said aides to the chairman of the House Energy and Commerce Committee met last week with Federal Communications Commission staff to discuss ways to not only enact those policies but give Waxman's panel greater oversight over the Internet. 

"It's all about diversity in media," the Spectator quoted a House energy committee staff member as saying. "Does one radio station or one station group control four of the five most powerful outlets in one community? ... Does one heavily trafficked Internet site present one side of an issue and not link to sites that present alternative views?" 

The committee vigorously denied the report. A spokesperson called the account "fictitious" in a statement to FOX News. 

"The American Spectator report is false and was written without any documentation or attribution," the statement said. 

FCC spokesman David Fiske also disputed the claims in the piece, saying, "We're not sure that it's an accurate article."

Analysts treated the report with a dose of skepticism as well -- but noted that the idea is not entirely foreign. Robert McDowell, the current FCC commissioner and a Bush appointee, warned in an interview last year that Fairness Doctrine advocates might try to extend their policies to the Web. 

If that is the case, foes and supporters of the doctrine alike say policing fairness on the Internet will prove impossible. Plus they say it's unnecessary and well beyond the scope of the original policy. 

"This borders between stupidity and sheer insanity," said conservative radio talk show host Mike Gallagher, when told about the Spectator report. "I can't wait until they try to monitor how many conservative posts are on a thread versus how many liberal posts are on a thread." 

He added that Democrats would be only neutralizing dominant liberal blogs that currently help them. He predicted any move to extend Fairness Doctrine principles to the Web would "blow sky high." 

The Fairness Doctrine was adopted in 1949 and held that broadcasters were obligated to provide opposing points of views on controversial issues of national importance. It was halted under the Reagan administration. 

The policy is the scourge of conservative radio hosts, who say it would allow the federal government to skew content on their programs. Democratic lawmakers, some of whom have renewed the call to reinstate the doctrine in recent weeks, say it would bring accountability to the airwaves and help increase the number of liberal shows in a landscape dominated by conservatives like Rush Limbaugh. 

Steve Rendall, a Fairness Doctrine supporter and senior analyst with Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting, said liberals and conservatives both over-state the impact the doctrine would have on media content. 

He said most talk shows, even those on the right, already comply with the requirements, which he said tread "very lightly" and do not call for absolute balance on the airwaves. 

But he said there is "no justification" for applying the doctrine to the Internet, or any other form of media -- since the doctrine was only meant to apply standards to the privileged holders of limited broadcast licenses. The Internet, by contrast, has infinite outlets for opinion. 

"Cable and Internet are, at least theoretically, limitless in the number of voices that they can present, and it's not at all the same as broadcast," Rendall said. 

Brent Bozell, president of the conservative Media Research Center, said it would be "impossible" to regulate balance and neutrality on the Internet. He said he thinks Democrats eventually want to bring those standards to the Web but are struggling to rally the political will to revisit the Fairness Doctrine. 

He said any legislative efforts to reinstate it will probably occur behind closed doors, since doing it out in the open could cause political repercussions. 

The Spectator reported that Waxman's advisers were discussing ways to implement Fairness Doctrine policies without actually calling it the "Fairness Doctrine." 

Other Democrats have openly called for a modern-day Fairness Doctrine in recent weeks, though they were referring more to radio than the Internet. 

"I absolutely think it's time to be bringing accountability to the airwaves," Sen. Debbie Stabenow, D-Mich., told liberal radio host Bill Press two weeks ago. She said she expects hearings soon on reviving the policy, though her office has reportedly backed off that prediction. (Stabenow's husband, Tom Athans, is and has been an executive at several liberal radio talk groups.)

And Sen. Tom Harkin, D-Iowa, told Press last week: "We gotta get the Fairness Doctrine back in law again." 

During the presidential campaign, a spokesman said then-candidate Barack Obama did not favor reinstating the Fairness Doctrine. But Obama's White House aides are now leaving open the question. 

Asked if the White House would rule out imposing the doctrine on "FOX News Sunday," senior adviser David Axelrod ducked. 

"I'm going to leave that issue to Julius Genachowski, our new head of the FCC ... and the president to discuss. So I don't have an answer for you now," he said. 

Despite the speculation, nobody has introduced a bill this session to reinstate those policies. 

Meanwhile, Oklahoma Sen. James Inhofe introduced a bill this year to prevent reinstatement of the Fairness Doctrine. 

FOXNews.com's Judson Berger and FOX News' Chad Pergram contributed to this report. 

[Source URL]    http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/02/17/fairness-doctrine-used-police-internet/

Lawmakers Worry Whether Obama Tax Cut Will Stimulate Consumer Spending

The Democrats' stimulus plan would give a $400 tax cut to individuals and an $800 cut to couples. That boils down to an extra $13 a week for most workers starting in June, and would fall to about $8 extra per week next January. 

February 16, 2009

President Obama plans to sign his landmark economic recovery package Tuesday, but lawmakers are increasingly concerned that one of the bill's central proposals -- the tax cut for individuals -- will be too small and too temporary to have much effect. 

The stimulus plan would give a $400 tax cut to individuals and an $800 cut to couples. That boils down to an extra $13 a week for most workers starting in June. It would fall to about $8 extra per week next January. 

Some worry the cut is not enough to encourage consumers to go out and spend. And since two-thirds of the economy is consumer spending, the effectiveness of the tax cut in spurring workers to open their wallets is key to an economic revival. 

"The average person will get $8 per week in their paycheck and they will pass on to their grandkids $1.1 trillion in debt," said Republican Sen. Lindsey Graham, S.C. "We created more new government than we did jobs and the substance and process cannot repeat itself." 

Moody's economist Mark Zandi also says the nature of the tax cut could reduce the number of jobs created by the $787 billion stimulus package. 

"With regard to how much of the tax cut's going to spent for individuals, the White House, I think, is assuming that people are going to behave as if that tax cut is permanent, and I doubt that will be the case," he said. 

Zandi disputes White House estimates that the package will save or create 3 to 4 million jobs. He thinks the package will add 2 to 2.5 million jobs by the end of 2010. 

However, Democrats argue that their tax cut is a far more effective stimulus than the cut under former President Bush last spring, which gave taxpayers a lump-sum refund. 

"Instead of giving one paycheck at once, which George Bush did, and it really didn't stimulate the economy, the economists said 'stretch it out and people are more likely to put it into economy and get our economy going'," said Democratic Sen. Charles Schumer, N.Y. 

The rebates under President Bush were higher-- $600 per person and $1,200 per family, plus $300 dollars per child. But analysts say most taxpayers took the lump-sum rebate and either saved it or paid down debt. 

Economists say that is because they knew the money wasn't a permanent part of their family budgets and decided it was not sufficient to make any major purchases. 

Obama originally wanted a $500 tax cut for individuals and a $1,000 cut for couples in his package, but that got trimmed during negotiations in Congress 

So will $8 dollars a week unleash any more spending than the lump sum taxpayers received last year? 

One factor that could also affect job creation is the extent to which the stimulus helps small businesses, which create about three-quarters of all new jobs. 

"The tax provisions in the final compromise were gutted when it comes to business," Graham said. 

He complained that a tax benefit for business was cut from $67 billion to only $4 billion. 

Republican Rep. Peter King, N.Y., said others who do little to create jobs get far better treatment. 

"We give more tax relief to the arts than we do to small businesses," he said. 

FOX News' Jim Angle contributed to this report. 

[Source URL]    http://www.foxnews.com/politics/first100days/2009/02/16/lawmakers-worry-obama-tax-cut/

Religious liberty

By Jeff Jacoby, Globe Columnist  |  December 31, 2008

Same-sex marriage made plenty of news in 2008, from court decisions legalizing it to the adoption of amendments banning it to the ongoing battle over Proposition 8 in the one state - California - where both occurred.

But one front in the marriage wars rarely gets the coverage it deserves: the drive by gay activists to punish religious believers whose faith forbids homosexual relationships. Consider three (of many) recent cases:

In April, photographers Jon and Elaine Huguenin were fined $6,637 by the New Mexico Civil Rights Commission for declining to shoot a lesbian commitment ceremony. The Huguenins didn't want to take a job that would have required them to disregard their Christian values. But the commission ruled that in turning down the work, they had illegally discriminated on the basis of sexual orientation.

Marcia Walden, a licensed counselor in Georgia, was fired for referring a lesbian client to someone better suited to help her. "Jane Doe" had approached Walden for counseling on her same-sex relationship, a request with which Walden recognized her own religious beliefs were in conflict. Rather than provide insincere counseling, Walden referred Jane to a colleague. That colleague commended her for doing "the right thing" by making the referral, but Jane later filed a complaint, and Walden lost her job. Just last month, the dating site eHarmony agreed to begin providing gay and lesbian matchmaking services in order to settle a lawsuit accusing it of discrimination. eHarmony was founded by evangelical psychologist Neil Clark Warren in 2000 and had never provided a same-sex option. But rather than use a dating service that catered to gays, a New Jersey man decided to sue eHarmony for not doing so. New Jersey's attorney general jumped into the case and eHarmony caved under pressure.

For many gay marriage supporters, it is not enough that same-sex relationships be normalized: Any private reluctance to embrace that normalization must also be penalized. Freedom of religion is the first of our liberties, the guarantee that opens the First Amendment. But religious liberty is under assault by gay activists, and the First Amendment is getting battered. It ought to be a bigger story.

[Source URL]    http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/2008/12/31/religious_liberty?mode=PF

Democrats Consider Reviving 'Fairness Doctrine'

Democrats Consider Reviving 'Fairness Doctrine'

February 12, 2009

A political battle is brewing over control of the radio airwaves as Democrats consider pushing for the revival of the Fairness Doctrine, an FCC policy that requires broadcast stations to provide opposing views on controversial issues of public importance.

Democratic lawmakers who support the doctrine say it will help increase the number of liberal shows in a landscape dominated by conservative talk radio hosts like Rush Limbaugh.

"I absolutely think it's time to be bringing accountability to the airwaves," Sen. Debbie Stabenow, D-Mich., told liberal radio host Bill Press last week. She said she expects hearings soon on reviving the policy, which was introduced in 1949 and abolished in 1987.

Stabenow's husband, Tom Athans, is and has been an executive at several liberal radio talk groups.

But Oklahoma Sen. James Inhofe said radio programming should be based on what brings in listeners and advertisers.

"I can't think of anything worse than to have government in a position to dictate the content of information going over public radio," said Inhofe, a Republican. "The whole idea is that it has to be market driven. We have a lot of progressive or liberal radio shows but nobody listens to them and every time one tries to get on, they are not successful."

Inhofe and other critics believe those pushing to bring back the Fairness Doctrine -- nicknamed the Hush Rush Doctrine -- want to diminish the influence of Limbaugh and other conservative talk show hosts. Supporters insist that's not the case.

Sen. Tom Harkin, D-Iowa, told Press Wednesday that the Fairness Doctrine is needed not to remove any conservative voices, but to ensure that there are a few liberal shows on the air.

During the presidential campaign, a spokesman said Barack Obama did not favor reinstating the Fairness Doctrine. But his White House spokesman has since left the door open.

"I pledge to you to study up on the 'Fairness Doctrine' so that, one day, I might give you a more fulsome answer," White House press secretary Robert Gibbs said.

Inhofe says Democrats and liberal advocacy groups aren't going to let the matter drop.

"They are committed to make this happen," he said. "We got to be ready."

Inhofe introduced a bill this year to prevent reinstatement of the Fairness Doctrine, but he said he has not gotten a single Democrat to co-sponsor it. 

FOX News' Molly Henneberg contributed to this report.

[Source URL]    http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/02/12/dems-consider-reviving-fairness-doctrine/

GOP Sounds Alarm Over Obama Decision to Move Census to White House

GOP Sounds Alarm Over Obama Decision to Move Census to White House

February 9, 2009

Utah's congressional delegation is calling President Obama's decision to move the U.S. census into the White House a purely partisan move and potentially dangerous to congressional redistricting around the country. 

Rep. Jason Chaffetz, R-Utah, told FOX News on Monday that he finds it hard to believe the Obama administration felt the need to place re-evaluation of the inner workings of the census so high on his to-do list, just three weeks into his presidency.

"This is nothing more than a political land grab," Chaffetz said.

Rep. Rob Bishop, R-Utah, told the Salt Lake Tribune that the move "shouldn't happen." He and Chaffetz are trying to rally Republicans "before its too late."

"It takes something that is supposedly apolitical like the census, and gives it to a guy who is infamously political," Bishop said of Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel, who would be tasked with overseeing the census at the White House.

The U.S. census -- a counting of the U.S. population -- is conducted every 10 years by the Commerce Department. Its results determine the decennial redrawing of congressional districts

As a matter of impact, the census has tremendous political significance. Political parties are always eager to have a hand in redrawing districts so that they can maximize their own party's clout while minimizing the opposition, often through gerrymandering.

The census also determines the composition of the Electoral College, which chooses the president. If one party were to control the census, it could arguably try to perpetuate its hold on political power.

The results of the census are also enormously important in another way -- the allocation of federal funds. Theoretically, a political party could disproportionately steer federal funding to areas dominated by its own members through a skewing of census numbers. 

At this point the White House doesn't seem willing to say what Emanuel's role will be in overseeing the census, and White House officials say census managers will work closely with top-level White House staffers, but will technically remain part of the Commerce Department. 

But critics say the White House chief of staff can't be expected to handle the census in a neutral manner. Emanuel ran the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee in the 2006 election, and he was instrumental in getting Democrats elected into the majority. 

"The last thing the census needs is for any hard-bitten partisan (either a Karl Rove or a Rahm Emanuel) to manipulate these critical numbers. Many federal funding formulas depend on them, as well as the whole fabric of federal and state representation. Partisans have a natural impulse to tilt the playing field in their favor, and this has to be resisted," Larry Sabato, the director of the Center for Politics at the University of Virginia, told FOX News in an e-mail.

Critics note that the method of counting can skew the census. Democrats have long advocated using mathematical estimates, a practice known as "sampling," to count urban residents and immigrants. Republicans say the Constitution requires a physical head count, which entails going door-to-door.

In 2000, Utah, which has three congressmen, was extremely close to landing a fourth House seat based on U.S. Census numbers, but the nation's most conservative state fell short by a few hundred votes because the Census Bureau wouldn't count Mormon missionaries from Utah serving temporarily overseas.

The GOP took the case to the U.S. Supreme Court, but was ultimately unsuccessful. Utah leaders had hoped the 2010 census would rectify the problem, but now worry that they will lose again if the census is managed by partisans.

When Obama nominated New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson to be commerce secretary -- he was later forced to withdraw -- he indicated that Richardson would be in charge of the census. 

The decision to move the census into the White House was announced just days after Obama named New Hampshire Sen. Judd Gregg, a Republican, to be his commerce secretary. Gregg has long opposed "sampling" by the census and has voted against funding increases for the bureau. 

Sabato said moving the census "in-house" will likely set up a situation where neither the Commerce Department nor the White House will know exactly what is going on in the Census Bureau. He said the process is "too critical to politics for both parties not to pay close attention."

"I've always remembered what Joseph Stalin said: 'Those who cast the votes decide nothing. Those who count the votes decide everything.' The same principle applies to the census. Since one or the other party will always be in power at the time of the census, it is vital that the out-of-power party at least be able to observe the process to make sure it isn't being stacked in favor of the party in power. This will be difficult for the GOP since I suspect Democrats will control both houses of Congress for the entire Obama first term," Sabato said.

FOX News' Bill Sammon and Shannon Bream contributed to this report.

[Source URL]    http://www.foxnews.com/politics/first100days/2009/02/09/gop-sounds-alarm-obama-decision-census-white-house/

Bill Press: 'Fairness Doctrine' Will Remedy 'Conservative Media Conspiracy'

Bill Press: 'Fairness Doctrine' Will Remedy 'Conservative Media Conspiracy'

By Brent Baker

February 8, 2009

Bitter over the decision, by the owner of the Washington, DC area radio station which carried his show and other left-wing hosts, to drop its liberal talk show format which didn't garner enough listeners to even show up in the latest ratings, Bill Press charged in a Sunday Washington Post op-ed:  

There is no free market in talk radio today, only an exclusive, tightly held, conservative media conspiracy. The few holders of broadcast licenses have made it clear they will not, on their own, serve the general public. Maybe it's time to bring back the Fairness Doctrine -- and bring competition back to talk radio in Washington and elsewhere.

In the February 8 piece, "Another Right-Wing Conspiracy in Washington? [1]", Press lamented that while the owner of WWRC, dubbed "Obama 1260" by owner Red Zebra, "will add Ed Schultz to its conservative lineup on 570 AM," he'll be "outgunned in this market by at least 15 conservative talkers."

He proceeded to list them without, however, acknowledging that the DC market has a far-left Pacifica station as well as two stations which air NPR talk shows: "Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Laura Ingraham, Mark Levin, Chris Plante, Michael Smerconish, Michael Savage, Andy Parks, Fred Grandy, Bill Bennett, Monica Crowley, Bill O'Reilly, Dennis Miller and Lars Larsen. No matter how good Schultz is, that's not a fair contest -- nor a fair use of the public airwaves."

But many of those conservative hosts are hardly pulling in great ratings in the DC market either, though more listeners than the station which aired Press, so maybe DC just isn't a very good market for talk radio and thus switching to a low-cost financial news format, as WWRC will do on Monday, makes business sense. Last Monday, on his DCRTV.com [2] blog, Dave Hughes noted:

The last PPM numbers it had when it ranked showed WWRC in 35th place full-day, age 12+. Red Zebra's co-owned righty talker, WTNT, while it may have seen its ratings rise a bit of late, still ranked 32nd overall in the latest ratings round-up. WTNT's Bill Bennett morning show was its highest-rated at 25th place. Even at the market's dominant righty radio talker, Citadel's WMAL, things are not good. It placed 16th in the latest PPMs, with middayer Rush Limbaugh in 12th.

[UPDATE: The Radio Equalizer offers [3] a detailed dissection of the fallacies in the Press op-ed.]

---

Links:
[1] http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/02/06/AR2009020602511.html
[2] http://www.dcrtv.com/
[3] http://radioequalizer.blogspot.com/2009/02/bill-press-wants-government-to-regulate.html

[Source URL]    http://newsbusters.org/blogs/brent-baker/2009/02/08/bill-press-fairness-doctrine-will-remedy-conservative-media-conspiracy