Let’s hope other news organizations follow NPR’s lead.
On the air, we should use "abortion rights supporter(s)/advocate(s)" and "abortion rights opponent(s)" or derivations thereof (for example: "advocates of abortion rights"). It is acceptable to use the phrase "anti-abortion", but do not use the term "pro-abortion rights".
And while they’re at it, let’s hope they stop using “death tax,” “partial birth abortion,” and other advocates’ terms that have made their way into mainstream journalism.
This is what Obama speech writer Jon Favreau gets back from his boss. For writers who complain about being heavily edited…
Maybe we’ve found a use for Gitmo after all. Let’s send this guy there.
"To all modern Sons of Liberty: THIS is your time. Break their windows. Break them NOW."
These were the words of Mike Vanderboegh, a 57-year-old former militiaman from Alabama, who took to his blog urging people who opposed the historic health-care reform legislation — he calls it "Nancy Pelosi’s Intolerable Act" — to throw bricks through the windows of Democratic offices nationwide.
"So, if you wish to send a message that Pelosi and her party [that they] cannot fail to hear, break their windows," Vanderboegh wrote on the blog, Sipsey Street Irregulars. "Break them NOW. Break them and run to break again. Break them under cover of night. Break them in broad daylight. Break them and await arrest in willful, principled civil disobedience. Break them with rocks. Break them with slingshots. Break them with baseball bats. But BREAK THEM."
Here’s how to write a story about healthcare. No quotes from politicians. No anecdotes to prove a point. Just useful facts.
For all the political and economic uncertainties about health reform, at least one thing seems clear: The bill that President Obama signed on Tuesday is the federal government’s biggest attack on economic inequality since inequality began rising more than three decades ago.
…The bill is the most sweeping piece of federal legislation since Medicare was passed in 1965. It aims to smooth out one of the roughest edges in American society — the inability of many people to afford medical care after they lose a job or get sick. And it would do so in large measure by taxing the rich.
A big chunk of the money to pay for the bill comes from lifting payroll taxes on households making more than $250,000. On average, the annual tax bill for households making more than $1 million a year will rise by $46,000 in 2013, according to the Tax Policy Center, a Washington research group. Another major piece of financing would cut Medicare subsidies for private insurers, ultimately affecting their executives and shareholders.
The benefits, meanwhile, flow mostly to households making less than four times the poverty level — $88,200 for a family of four people. Those without insurance in this group will become eligible to receive subsidies or to join Medicaid. (Many of the poor are already covered by Medicaid.) Insurance costs are also likely to drop for higher-income workers at small companies.
Finally, the bill will also reduce a different kind of inequality. In the broadest sense, insurance is meant to spread the costs of an individual’s misfortune — illness, death, fire, flood — across society. Since the late 1970s, though, the share of Americans with health insurance has shrunk. As a result, the gap between the economic well-being of the sick and the healthy has been growing, at virtually every level of the income distribution.
The health reform bill will reverse that trend. By 2019, 95 percent of people are projected to be covered, up from 85 percent today (and about 90 percent in the late 1970s). Even affluent families ineligible for subsidies will benefit if they lose their insurance, by being able to buy a plan that can no longer charge more for pre-existing conditions. In effect, healthy families will be picking up most of the bill — and their insurance will be somewhat more expensive than it otherwise would have been.
…Since 1980, median real household income has risen less than 15 percent. The only period of strong middle-class income growth during this time came in the mid- and late 1990s, which by coincidence was also the one time when taxes on the affluent were rising.
For most of the last three decades, tax rates for the wealthy have been falling, while their pretax pay has been rising rapidly. Real incomes at the 99.99th percentile have jumped more than 300 percent since 1980. At the 99th percentile — about $300,000 today — real pay has roughly doubled.
The laissez-faire revolution that Mr. Reagan started did not cause these trends. But its policies — tax cuts, light regulation, a patchwork safety net — have contributed to them.
I left in the hyperlinks in the story. They are good sources.
Cross posted on Commonwealth Commonsense.
Here’s how to write a story about healthcare. No quotes from politicians. No anecdotes to prove a point. Just useful facts.
For all the political and economic uncertainties about health reform, at least one thing seems clear: The bill that President Obama signed on Tuesday is the federal government’s biggest attack on economic inequality since inequality began rising more than three decades ago.
…The bill is the most sweeping piece of federal legislation since Medicare was passed in 1965. It aims to smooth out one of the roughest edges in American society — the inability of many people to afford medical care after they lose a job or get sick. And it would do so in large measure by taxing the rich.
A big chunk of the money to pay for the bill comes from lifting payroll taxes on households making more than $250,000. On average, the annual tax bill for households making more than $1 million a year will rise by $46,000 in 2013, according to the Tax Policy Center, a Washington research group. Another major piece of financing would cut Medicare subsidies for private insurers, ultimately affecting their executives and shareholders.
The benefits, meanwhile, flow mostly to households making less than four times the poverty level — $88,200 for a family of four people. Those without insurance in this group will become eligible to receive subsidies or to join Medicaid. (Many of the poor are already covered by Medicaid.) Insurance costs are also likely to drop for higher-income workers at small companies.
Finally, the bill will also reduce a different kind of inequality. In the broadest sense, insurance is meant to spread the costs of an individual’s misfortune — illness, death, fire, flood — across society. Since the late 1970s, though, the share of Americans with health insurance has shrunk. As a result, the gap between the economic well-being of the sick and the healthy has been growing, at virtually every level of the income distribution.
The health reform bill will reverse that trend. By 2019, 95 percent of people are projected to be covered, up from 85 percent today (and about 90 percent in the late 1970s). Even affluent families ineligible for subsidies will benefit if they lose their insurance, by being able to buy a plan that can no longer charge more for pre-existing conditions. In effect, healthy families will be picking up most of the bill — and their insurance will be somewhat more expensive than it otherwise would have been.
…Since 1980, median real household income has risen less than 15 percent. The only period of strong middle-class income growth during this time came in the mid- and late 1990s, which by coincidence was also the one time when taxes on the affluent were rising.
For most of the last three decades, tax rates for the wealthy have been falling, while their pretax pay has been rising rapidly. Real incomes at the 99.99th percentile have jumped more than 300 percent since 1980. At the 99th percentile — about $300,000 today — real pay has roughly doubled.
The laissez-faire revolution that Mr. Reagan started did not cause these trends. But its policies — tax cuts, light regulation, a patchwork safety net — have contributed to them.
I left in the hyperlinks in the story. They are good sources.
Cross posted on Commonwealth Commonsense.
I’ve stated before that I think online commenters to blog posts or news articles should identify themselves. (I don’t really have that problem here.)
There’s a poll on this issue at The Washington Post. It’s breaking slightly for those who favor anonymity. If you don’t, weigh in. If you do, please disregard this post.
There’s a Post blog post about this.
Here’s my take: If a newspaper requires identification for a letter to the editor, how can it justify anonymity to online commenters on an article?
Charlottesville Daily Progress is reporting that police have been alerted that a gas line was severed at the home of Rep. Tom Periello’s brother. Tea party activists recently posted the address of what they thought was the Congressman’s residence. But it was that of his brother.
As I reported yesterday, the press is tending to underplay the actual support for healthcare reform. If I were asked in a poll if I support the bill that was passed, I would have said no because it doesn’t go far enough. The CNN/Opinion Research poll conducted during the weekend showed that when you combine those who supported the legislation signed by the president yesterday and those who opposed it because it did not go far enough, 52% of Americans support the bill and/or even greater reform.
Today in The Washington Post, reporter Scott Wilson again mischaracterizes the level of support for reform.
In staging such a high-profile event, the Obama administration was helping to make health-care reform something for Democrats to run on in the midterm elections this fall, despite the fact that a majority of the electorate opposes it, according to opinion polls conducted before the vote. Rarely, if ever, have such events been as raucous as the ceremony-turned-political rally that rocked the ornate East Room for just over half an hour.
Looking at the healthcare polls on PollingReport.com, few of them ask whether opposition is based on the idea that the current bill or general principles about reform don’t go far enough. But I found two that did.
A Ipsos/McClatchy poll in late February found that overall 41% supported “health care reform proposals presently being discussed" and 47% opposed them. The poll then asked those who “opposed” the proposals, “Is that because you favor health care reform overall but think the current proposals don’t go far enough to reform health care; OR you oppose health care reform overall and think the current proposals go too far in reforming health care?" The result: 37% said they favored reform but that the current proposal didn’t go far enough, meaning another 17% actually support greater reform. The overall support for reform, then, is 58%.
In a CBS poll in early January, 57% of respondents said the “changes to the healthcare system under consideration in Congress” either were about right or “don’t go far enough.” When asked about the proposals to “regulate the health insurance industry,” 61% said they were about right or didn’t go far enough.
Electorally, I can’t imagine that those who are disappointed that reform hasn’t gone “far enough” or isn’t “liberal enough” would vote for Republicans in 2010 based on their opposition to reform. They may stay home because they are disappointed with Democrats, but they won’t be GOP voters.
If you like, write Post reporter Wilson (wilsons@washpost.com) and ask that he not mischaracterize the public’s opinion of healthcare reform.
Cross posted on News Commonsense.
As I reported yesterday, the press is tending to underplay the actual support for healthcare reform. If I were asked in a poll if I support the bill that was passed, I would have said no because it doesn’t go far enough. The CNN/Opinion Research poll conducted during the weekend showed that when you combine those who supported the legislation signed by the president yesterday and those who opposed it because it did not go far enough, 52% of Americans support the bill and/or even greater reform.
Today in The Washington Post, reporter Scott Wilson again mischaracterizes the level of support for reform.
In staging such a high-profile event, the Obama administration was helping to make health-care reform something for Democrats to run on in the midterm elections this fall, despite the fact that a majority of the electorate opposes it, according to opinion polls conducted before the vote. Rarely, if ever, have such events been as raucous as the ceremony-turned-political rally that rocked the ornate East Room for just over half an hour.
Looking at the healthcare polls on PollingReport.com, few of them ask whether opposition is based on the idea that the current bill or general principles about reform don’t go far enough. But I found two that did.
A Ipsos/McClatchy poll in late February found that overall 41% supported “health care reform proposals presently being discussed" and 47% opposed them. The poll then asked those who “opposed” the proposals, “Is that because you favor health care reform overall but think the current proposals don’t go far enough to reform health care; OR you oppose health care reform overall and think the current proposals go too far in reforming health care?" The result: 37% said they favored reform but that the current proposal didn’t go far enough, meaning another 17% actually support greater reform. The overall support for reform, then, is 58%.
In a CBS poll in early January, 57% of respondents said the “changes to the healthcare system under consideration in Congress” either were about right or “don’t go far enough.” When asked about the proposals to “regulate the health insurance industry,” 61% said they were about right or didn’t go far enough.
Electorally, I can’t imagine that those who are disappointed that reform hasn’t gone “far enough” or isn’t “liberal enough” would vote for Republicans in 2010 based on their opposition to reform. They may stay home because they are disappointed with Democrats, but they won’t be GOP voters.
If you like, write Post reporter Wilson (wilsons@washpost.com) and ask that he not mischaracterize the public’s opinion of healthcare reform.
Cross posted on Commonwealth Commonsense.
Stop me if you heard this one before.
“…[T]he state has to live within its means, just as families have to live within theirs.”
Oh, you have heard it? How ‘bout this?
“Government must do what most families and businesses in Fairfax County have done – set priorities and tighten its belt.”
Of course, these are the well-worn platitudes of those who see taxes as weapons of mass destruction. The first is by a state delegate; the second is from an email I received from my Fairfax county supervisor.
Even on the face of it, these statements are nonsense. What do businesses do in tight times? Often, they raise prices. And families? I know few who are so defeatist that they would simply hunker down when money gets tight. Rather, they work harder to earn a promotion, or find a better paying job, or a second job. In other words, they look to increase income, not just cut expenses. They make the sacrifice to work harder today for a better tomorrow, most likely for their children’s sake.
But what is more pernicious about these statements is that they are often accompanied by the implied accusation that government is bad. At best, it presents a false dichotomy: families versus the government.
But families and businesses are part of the government. Every person or company that pays taxes or votes (and perhaps the Supreme Court will soon give that right to companies, too) is part of the government. Government is passed down from generation to generation with the implied support of a majority of its citizens.
And while such statements are often accompanied by invoking the “founding fathers,” those invocations , too, are false. Our founding fathers were not men of letters. They weren’t great artists, musicians or philosophers. Their contribution was our government. They believed in government. And because the Articles of Confederation proved to be weak, they came together to write the Constitution for a stronger government.
So efforts to malign government as the problem subvert the very idea of our country.
Here’s another look at families, or at least mine. Our kids are long gone from Fairfax schools. But they helped make them who they are today. And what a blessing freshmen sports, especially indoor track, were in providing a safe outlet for our son’s energy in that crucial first year of high school. As many a bored track parent would say at meets, “Better than on the streets.” So were libraries where our youngest daughter checked out books by the dozen. So were public parks where our oldest daughter tread their fields. Schools, libraries, parks, all will likely see major funding cuts when Fairfax approves this year’s budget.
Moreover, few expect a quick turnaround in the economy. If we don’t find the funds to maintain these services, they will decline. If not permanently, at least for a long time.
So our family will look at what we have and make tough decisions. But the easiest decision would be to pay more in taxes, i.e., raise income, to preserve our quality of life here. That’s what businesses do to survive and families do to thrive. Given the deep cuts in the state budget, the county government is the last line of defense for our communities. And many us still believe in our founding fathers’ legacy—government.