The latest polls show the people are not happy with President Obama's handling of budget matters, but Republicans look even worse. And yet, while the GOP delivers one idea after another, Obama has offered nothing, instead just attacking, attacking, attacking, blaming everyone but himself, in (apparent) utter denial of the reality that no man on the face of this Earth is more responsible for our debt catastrophe than he.
Why then are the public blaming Republicans more? It is because of the ceaseless, shameless, and oftentimes utterly dishonest attacks on them coming from Obama's media hit men. A day doesn't go by without a leftist 'news' media outrage. They come in all shapes, too.
First, there is the asinine. Think MSNBC anchor Mika Brzezinski. There she was broadsiding the Republicans for having refused President Obama's proposal. 'I think the Republicans look stupid and mean,' she declared. 'This is stupid. This is a no-brainer in terms of a deal. This is a no-brainer and they look mean and they look difficult and they're going to lose this.' But what is 'this'? What was Obama's proposal? There was none, just nebulous language about the 'wealthy' needing to pay their 'fair share,' of 'revenue,' which in the English language means a massive tax hike, which the GOP, correctly, rejects.
There is the inaccurate. MSNBC daytime anchor Thomas Roberts loudly complains the party of the 'super rich' is to blame. 'We haven't had tax increases over the last ten years. We've had a recession, we've had two wars to fight. Why do you think the top 2 percent of America has a chokehold on the other 98 percent?'
That's almost exactly upside down. The Tax Foundation has estimated the top one percent pay 38 percent of the entire income tax burden, and the top five percent pay 58 percent. The bottom 50 percent pay nothing in federal tax. With these numbers, it could be argued that the bottom fifty percent has a chokehold on the top five percent.
There is the I've-lost-all-sense-of-sanity-and-class crowd, and yes, we're talking Chris Matthews here. On 'Hardball,' Joan Walsh of Salon.com says the Republican resistance to new taxes is 'deadly and it's wrong and it's hostage-taking, and you shouldn't negotiate with hostage-takers.' Matthews has a chance to step in with a gentle, 'Whoa, cowgirl.' Instead it just carries him away, and he can only add: 'I agree. It's terrorism!' A pundit who looks at the debt talks and sees deadly terrorism doesn't need a math class. He needs psychological help.
There is the obsequious. Obama's painted as the perfectly reasonable negotiator who's bent over backwards. NBC's Matt Lauer wants to know 'Where is the shared sacrifice going to come from on the Republican side?' CBS's Bob Schieffer insists Obama talks compromise, but 'I don't hear any concessions from people on the other side. They just say no taxes, and that's their negotiating posture.'
No one, but no one in the media (outside of Fox News, of course) is calling this double-talking president of ours on the carpet. This president who now tells us we must raise taxes to save the Republic is the same president who just seven months ago was telling us that everyone agrees the worst thing one could do during a crisis is raise taxes. Republicans agreed then, and hold to that position now. That makes them unreasonable, unbalanced.
And where did this sudden spurt of media fiscal discipline come from, anyway? Where were they when America needed someone to ask Obama, Pelosi & Reid how they were going to pay for TARP? Where were the media demanding to know where the trillion bucks for the anti-stimulus program was coming from? How about the trillion for Obamacare?
They went along for the ride on all these budget-busting disasters. And now they have the temerity to lecture us on fiscal discipline?
There is the oblivious. Some journalists refuse to acknowledge spending's soared under Obama. When Grover Norquist factually notes Obama's binge, CNN anchor Ali Velshi erupts in protest. 'Wait a minute! 'He created with his spending?' You didn't just suggest that our budget problem is because of President Obama, did you, Grover?' Norquist says yes, he wasn't kidding. Velshi dismisses this concept as unreasonable: 'Okay, we're going to pass by that question, because that's an unreasonable position.'
In round numbers: In less than four years Obama has increased the debt by $4 trillion. He proposes we raise it another $2.3. This makes Obama responsible for almost half the debt of the United States. But it is 'unreasonable' to say so.
The leftist news media aren't coming to this debate to be an honest broker. They're just trying to break one side apart, and never mind that it's their vision that is driving us right over a cliff.