Media Matters for America - Latest Items

Fox Revives Deceptive Editing Of Anita Dunn Clip

T.K. — Wed, 16 May 2012 01:27:16 EDT

More than two years after Glenn Beck used his Fox News show to deceptively edit then-Obama administration official Anita Dunn's comments referencing Mao Zedong, Fox News host Greg Gutfeld echoed Beck's false portrayal of what Dunn said by airing a similarly edited clip.

Fox' Gutfeld Plays Deceptively Edited Dunn Clip

Gutfeld: "At Least She's Open In Her Admiration For Mass Murderers." From Fox News' The Five:

GUTFELD: See what I did there? I pulled a Goldberg on a Goldberg, which is why I love Anita Dunn, Obama's former communications director. At least she's open in her admiration for mass murderers. Remember this?

DUNN [video clip] Mao Zedong and Mother Teresa -- not often coupled with each together, but the two people that I turn to most.

GUTFELD: So she gets a wow over Mao, but not from Mitt, as she made her case on the Face [the Nation]. [Fox News, The Five, 5/15/12]

In 2009, Beck Aired Similarly Edited Dunn Clip, As Did Special Report

Beck: "I Don't Think Mao Should Be Anybody's Favorite Anything." From the October 19, 2009, edition of Fox News' Glenn Beck:

BECK: This clip is from a high school graduation back in June of this year. And here is what the White House communications director had to say to the teenagers there.

DUNN [video clip]: Two of my favorite political philosophers, Mao Zedong and Mother Teresa -- not often coupled with each together, but the two people that I turn to most.

BECK: OK, "not often coupled with one another" -- laughter -- "but the two people I turn to most." I don't think Mao should be anybody's favorite anything, especially not your favorite political philosopher or one that you turn to most, given that his political philosophies included shooting political opponents in the head.

[...]

BECK: Let's watch it again and just bask in the irony and get ready to laugh this time, now that you know she was making a funny. Watch.

DUNN [video clip]: Two of my favorite political philosophers, Mao Zedong and Mother Teresa -- not often coupled with each together, but the two people that I turn to most. [Fox News, Glenn Beck, 10/15/09, via Media Matters]

Dunn Said She "Picked Up" Mao Reference From GOP Strategist Lee Atwater, Intended It As "Irony." From a CNN article:

White House communications director Anita Dunn fired back at criticism from TV commentator Glenn Beck on Friday, saying that a Mao Tse-tung quote Beck took issue with was picked up from legendary GOP strategist Lee Atwater.

"The Mao quote is one I picked up from the late Republican strategist Lee Atwater from something I read in the late 1980s, so I hope I don't get my progressive friends mad at me," Dunn told CNN.

As for Beck's criticism: "The use of the phrase 'favorite political philosophers' was intended as irony, but clearly the effort fell flat -- at least with a certain Fox commentator whose sense of irony may be missing." [CNN.com, 10/16/09]

Beck, Fox Continued To Repeat Distortion Of Dunn's Remark

Beck: Dunn Is A "Mao-Lover." On his radio show, Beck said that Dunn is "the Chairman Mao-lover, lizard lady," adding, "I expected, like, lasers to shoot out of her eyes." [Premiere Radio Networks, The Glenn Beck Program, 2/19/10, via Media Matters]

Pinkerton Attempted To Revive Dunn Smear. On a February 2011 edition of Fox News Watch, panelist James Pinkerton said that Dunn "was citing Chairman Mao as her inspiration. ... Folks, Google it. Anita Dunn, Chairman Mao, you'll see." Panelist Alan Colmes pointed out that Pinkerton was taken Dunn "out of context" and that "that's not what she said." [Fox News, Fox News Watch, 2/12/11, via Media Matters]

Fox's Flawed Attempt To Deflect Attention From Romney's Leveraged Buyout Record

Z.P. — Mon, 14 May 2012 18:51:49 EDT

Fox News is pushing fatally flawed analogies to defend Mitt Romney from criticism over his jobs record at Bain Capital, pointing to the Obama administration's green energy loans and the successful rescue of the U.S. auto industry. These comparisons crumble under scrutiny, as leveraged buyouts are different from providing bankruptcy financing or loans.

Obama Campaign Ad Hits Romney On Jobs

New Obama Campaign Ad Highlights Bain's Takeover Of Steel Mill Under Romney's Leadership. In a new ad, the Obama campaign tells the story of how venture capital firm Bain Capital, which Romney led at the time, took over Kansas City steel mill, GST Steel. GST eventually went bankrupt, resulting in hundreds of workers losing their jobs and much of their pensions. However, Bain's executives walked away with millions of dollars in profit. [YouTube, 5/14/12]

Fox News: Romney Should Respond By Hitting Obama Over Auto Rescue, Solyndra

Byron York: Auto Rescue Is Similar "In Essence" To Bain's Steel Mill Bankruptcy. Fox News contributor Byron York, also the chief political correspondent at the Washington Examiner, wrote:

The Obama campaign has released a new ad holding Mitt Romney responsible for the loss of 750 jobs in the bankruptcy of a steel plant purchased by Romney's Bain Capital in 1993.

[...]

How will Romney respond? The Romney campaign has given some broad hints lately. First, the campaign has carefully scrutinized Romney's entire record at Bain and believes it is a strongly positive one overall. But that is the big picture -- there are individual instances in which Bain investments failed. Given that, look for the Romney campaign and its surrogates to counterattack by focusing on an instance in which Barack Obama, in essence, took over a company and laid people off in an effort to save the larger enterprise.

That was, of course, the auto bailouts, and while Obama often cites his success in "saving" the car industry, few remember today how many (non-union) workers lost their jobs in the Obama administration's handling of the matter. During the economic crisis, General Motors and Chrysler shut down more than 700 dealerships, resulting in the loss of tens of thousands of jobs. And the companies did it under pressure from Obama. [Washington Examiner, 5/14/12]

Brit Hume: Romney Could "Fire Back" By Highlighting Auto Rescue, Solyndra. Fox News senior political analyst Brit Hume stated:

HUME: One way would be to fire back at the president for his record on job creation for what happened to the workers at a place like Solyndra, where the administration, I guess, encouraged that company to hire people and generate a business, and then it went bankrupt and everybody lost, including the workers and the taxpayers.

You could talk about the dealerships, auto dealerships that were closed down when the government got control of a couple of the auto companies, an awful lot of people lost jobs, businesses were closed, and so on. [Fox News, America's Newsroom, 5/14/12]

But The Auto Rescue Plan Cannot Be Compared With Bain's Leveraged Buyouts

New York's Jonathan Chait: Comparing Bain's Actions To Auto Rescue Is "Fairly Silly." New York magazine writer Jonathan Chait wrote:

The transformation of American business is deeply unpopular. It has made working life less secure and has failed to deliver broad-based prosperity even while it has bestowed enormous riches on the most fortunate. The locus of public opinion on it in many crucial ways sits well to the left of what either party proposes. Many Americans want to go back to the days when corporations offered secure employment and generous benefits.

That's why, interestingly, Romney is not trying to fight against the currents of public opinion but glide along with them. His response to Obama is telling. As reported by Byron York, Romney plans to hit back at Obama by citing the auto bailout, which imposed some of the same kinds of restructuring that Romney used at Bain: wage cuts for workers, incentive payments, and so on. The comparison is fairly silly, because the key point is that Romney's career produced huge gains for owners of capital, and the auto bailout forced them to swallow huge losses. But it shows Romney's recognition of what the voters want. [New York, 5/14/12]

Wash. Post's Sargent: "Obama Didn't Personally Profit When He Bailed Out The Auto Companies." The Washington Post's Greg Sargent wrote:

If this is indeed the comparison the Romney campaign plans to pursue, it's a curious one. After all, Obama didn't personally profit when he bailed out the auto companies. By contrast, Bain walked away with at least $12 million in profits after its episode involving GST Steel, the company that is the subject of Obama's ads. More broadly, Jon Chait notes: "Romney's career produced huge gains for owners of capital, and the auto bailout forced them to swallow huge losses."

Beyond this, what's really curious about this counterattack is that it only helps underscore the philosophical difference between the two that the Obama campaign is trying to highlight with the Bain attacks.

[...]

[W]hen Romney invokes the auto bailout, all he does is remind us of an instance where his economic worldview broke down -- where his philosophy compelled him to advocate for what likely would have been a disastrous course. This worldview led him to originally argue that the bailout would guarantee the auto industry's certain demise. This worldview obliges him to continue arguing that the auto industry would be in better shape today than it is now if Obama had not pursued a government "intervention." Many experts dismiss Romney's claims about the bailout as thoroughly wrong on several levels .

Obama, by contrast, argues that an unfettered free market is not a total cure-all. He argues that sometimes active government is necessary to help those who have been damaged by free market excess or to step in when the consequences of allowing unfettered capitalism to run its course could damage thousands of lives. In service of this larger point, the Obama campaign is very happy to engage in a dispute over the auto-bailout, a clear cut case where this argument turned out, by most accounts, to be thoroughly vindicated. If anything, invoking the auto-bailout in the context of the battle over the Bain years only reinforces the larger contrast of economic worldviews the Obama team hoped to draw with the Bain ads in the first place. [The Washington Post, 5/14/12]

Bain Used Leveraged Buyouts To Maximize Return To Shareholders

LA Times: Romney's Leveraged-Buyout Strategy Was "To Create Wealth For Your Investors." From the Los Angeles Times:

Under Romney's leadership, Bain became one of the nation's top leveraged-buyout firms, helping lead a trend in which companies were acquired using debt often pledged against their own assets or earnings.

Bain expanded many of the companies it acquired. But like other leveraged-buyout firms, Romney and his team also maximized returns by firing workers, seeking government subsidies, and flipping companies quickly for large profits. Sometimes Bain investors gained even when companies slid into bankruptcy.

[...]

Bain managers said their mission was clear. "I never thought of what I do for a living as job creation," said Marc B. Walpow, a former managing partner at Bain who worked closely with Romney for nine years before forming his own firm. "The primary goal of private equity is to create wealth for your investors."

[...]

Leveraged buyouts allow investors to purchase businesses with the acquisition funded sometimes by significant amounts of debt. To critics, these leveraged deals can make acquired companies more vulnerable to economic downturns, leading to a greater likelihood of bankruptcy and job cuts. At the same time, the deals sometimes introduce discipline to firms and even whole industries that need it.

Either way, Bain investors typically profited. [Los Angeles Times, 12/3/11]

Boston Globe: With Failing Businesses, Romney "Never Suggested They Had To Do Something To Save Workers' Jobs." From a January 27, 2008, Boston Globe article:

The primary objective, of course, was to make money. That meant every job couldn't be saved. Some strategies, such as a roll-ups, are designed at the outset to cut jobs. In roll-ups, similar firms in the same industry are acquired and combined to boost revenues while eliminating duplicative jobs, particularly in administrative areas such as payroll, personnel, and information technology.

[...]

In assessing deals, Romney and partners didn't consider whether they saved or created jobs, according to a former Bain employee who requested anonymity, citing confidentiality guidelines. When Bain partners discussed shutting down failing businesses in which they invested, Romney never suggested they had to do something to save workers' jobs. "It was very clinical," the former employee said. "Like a doctor. When the patient is dead, you just move on to the next patient." [The Boston Globe, 1/27/08]

Reuters: Under Bain Ownership, Steel Mill Went Bankrupt, But Bain Reaped $12 Million Profit And $4.5 Million In Consulting Fees. In October 1993, Romney's Bain Capital became the majority shareholder in a group of investors that bought the Kansas City steel mill renamed GS Technologies. From Reuters:

[I]n October 1993, Bain Capital, co-founded by Mitt Romney, became majority shareholder in a steel mill that had been operating since 1888.

It was a gamble. The old mill, renamed GS Technologies, needed expensive updating, and demand for its products was susceptible to cycles in the mining industry and commodities markets.

Less than a decade later, the mill was padlocked and some 750 people lost their jobs. Workers were denied the severance pay and health insurance they'd been promised, and their pension benefits were cut by as much as $400 ... a month.

What's more, a federal government insurance agency had to pony up $44 million to bail out the company's underfunded pension plan. Nevertheless, Bain profited on the deal, receiving $12 million on its $8 million initial investment and at least $4.5 million in consulting fees. [Reuters, 1/6/12]

LA Times: Under Bain Ownership, Steel Mill "Cut Jobs And Benefits Almost Immediately." As the Los Angeles Times reported:

Leveraged buyouts allow investors to purchase businesses with the acquisition funded sometimes by significant amounts of debt. To critics, these leveraged deals can make acquired companies more vulnerable to economic downturns, leading to a greater likelihood of bankruptcy and job cuts. At the same time, the deals sometimes introduce discipline to firms and even whole industries that need it.

Either way, Bain investors typically profited.

That was true in the case of GS Industries, the 10th-biggest Bain investment in the Romney years. Bain formed GSI in the early 1990s by spending $24 million to acquire and merge steel companies with plants in Missouri, South Carolina and other states.

Company managers cut jobs and benefits almost immediately. Meanwhile, Bain and other investors received management fees from GSI and a $65-million dividend in the first years after the acquisition, according to interviews with company employees.

In 1999, as economic challenges mounted, GSI sought a federal loan guarantee intended to help steel companies compete internationally. The loan deal was approved, but in 2001, before it could be used, the company went bankrupt, two years after Romney left Bain. [Los Angeles Times, 12/3/11]

Reuters: Bain's "Failed Investment" In Steel Mill Led To "A U.S. Bailout." After the steel mill went bankrupt, the federal government had to bail out its underfunded pensions plan:

The story of Bain's failed investment in the Kansas City mill offers a perspective on a largely overlooked chapter in Romney's business record: His firm's brush with a U.S. bailout.

His supporters say the pension gap at the Kansas City mill was an unforeseen consequence of a falling stock market and adverse market conditions. But records show that the mill's Bain-backed management was confronted several times about the fund's shortfall, which, in the end, required an infusion of funds from the federal Pension Benefits Guarantee Corp.

[...]

The U.S. Pension Benefit Guaranty Corp, which insures company retirement plans, determined in 2002 that GS had underfunded its pension by $44 million. The federal agency, funded by corporate levies, stepped in to cover the basic pension payments, but not the supplement the union had negotiated as a hedge against the plant's closure. [Reuters, 1/6/12]

While Obama Administration Used A Structured Bankruptcy To Rescue GM, Chrysler

McClatchy: GM And Chrysler Went Through "Government-Sponsored Bankruptcy" In 2009. McClatchy reported that GM would move through an accelerated "government-sponsored bankruptcy":

Administration officials said late Sunday the federal government would provide an additional $30 billion to GM -- which has already received about $20 billion in government loans -- to help it restructure through bankruptcy. GM will follow a similar course taken by Chrysler LLC, which filed for Chapter 11 protection in April and hopes to emerge from its government-sponsored bankruptcy this week.

The officials, speaking on condition of anonymity in advance of Obama's public remarks, said the administration expects the court process to last 60 to 90 days. If successful, GM will emerge as a leaner company with a smaller work force, fewer plants and a trimmed dealership network. [McClatchy, 6/1/09, via Cleveland Plain Dealer]

U.S. Now Owns A 26 Percent Stake In GM. According to The New York Times, "the Treasury Department still owned a 26 percent stake" in GM as of the beginning of May 2012. This is down from the roughly 60 percent stake owned when GM left bankruptcy in July 2009. [The New York Times, 5/3/12]

Center For Automotive Research: Auto Rescue Saved More Than 1 Million Jobs In 2010. In November 2010, The Wall Street Journal reported that a study from the Center for Automotive Research found that the auto rescue saved well over 1 million jobs:

No matter what happens with Government Motors, the taxpayer intervention in the auto business appears to be a win for Americans, a new research report asserts.

The Center for Automotive Research said today the government's bailouts of the U.S. auto industry spared more than 1.14 million jobs last year alone, and prevented "additional personal income losses" of nearly $97 billion combined for this year and last.

Another 314,400 jobs were saved this year thanks to the $80 billion in taxpayer lifelines extended to GM, Chrysler, and the GMAC and Chrysler Financial financing businesses, CAR said. [The Wall Street Journal, 11/17/10]

Bain Comparisons To Solyndra Are Also Fraudulent

Solyndra Was Given A Loan Guarantee, Not Leveraged For Profit. From a Department of Energy press release announcing the loan guarantee extended to Solyndra in March 2009:

Energy Secretary Steven Chu today offered a $535 million loan guarantee for Solyndra, Inc. to support the company's construction of a commercial-scale manufacturing plant for its proprietary cylindrical solar photovoltaic panels. The company expects to create thousands of new jobs in the U.S. while deploying its solar panels across the U.S. and around the world. [Department of Energy, 3/20/09]

Talking Points Memo: Comparison Between Bain Business Model And Solyndra Loan "Is Misguided On Many Levels." Talking Points Memo's Pema Levy wrote:

The comparison is misguided on many levels and only makes sense if you fundamentally misrepresent both what private equity at Bain meant in practice, and what happened at Solyndra. As a private equity firm, Bain Capital invested in companies and came up with a plan for making them profitable, or more profitable than they previously were. It wasn't merely an investment -- that's venture capitalism -- because it included a business strategy. Sometimes the plan was to lay off workers and cut wages and benefits. Sometimes the strategy failed and the company went under. But Romney, as CEO of Bain, was in charge of strategies that called for laying off workers while benefiting shareholders. None of that is true of Solyndra, where the company was loaned money to follow through on its own projects but ultimately failed anyway. [Talking Points Memo, 1/8/12]

Fox Finds The Villain Of JPMorgan Chase's $2 Billion Loss: Regulation

M.F. — Mon, 14 May 2012 17:15:07 EDT

In the wake of a $2 billion trading loss sustained by the bank JPMorgan Chase, many economists have advocated for the strengthening of financial reform to prevent against reckless behavior. Not Fox, however, which has argued that the problem is too much regulation of Wall Street banks.

JPMorgan Chase Reveals $2 Billion In Trading Losses

NY Times: "JPMorgan Discloses $2 Billion In Trading Losses." From a May 10 New York Times article:

JPMorgan Chase, which emerged from the financial crisis as the nation's biggest bank, disclosed on Thursday that it had lost more than $2 billion in trading, a surprising stumble that promises to escalate the debate over whether regulations need to rein in trading by banks.

Jamie Dimon, the chief executive of JPMorgan, blamed "errors, sloppiness and bad judgment" for the loss, which stemmed from a hedging strategy that backfired.

[...]

The setback for JPMorgan may strengthen the hand of regulators in Washington who are now writing the rules for Dodd-Frank -- in particular the Volcker Rule, which restricts banks from trading with their own money.

JPMorgan's setback "casts doubt on Jamie's opposition and adds fuel to anyone who has been pushing for greater regulation," said Mike Mayo, an analyst with Credit Agricole Securities. "Oh, how the mighty have fallen." [The New York Times, 5/10/12]

Fox Argues That JPMorgan's Loss Shows That Financial Sector Regulations Don't Work

Fox's Cavuto Calls The Dodd-Frank Act A "Swamp" And A "Very, Very Expensive And Regulatory-Laden Law That Didn't Work." On the May 11 edition of Fox News' Your World, host Neil Cavuto interviewed Jim LaCamp of Macro Portfolio Advisors to discuss the JPMorgan Chase loss:

CAVUTO: It is weird if you think about it. I'm not condoning or forgiving -- getting a handle on what happened at this firm. But I guess I'm worried about the wrong people policing it.

LaCAMP: Yeah. I mean the last thing we need is another big bill, another new piece of regulation. They need to fix the one they have. They don't even understand the one they have. This administration has a history of putting together big bills with lots of news clips that put vague powers in the hands of unnamed regulators. They still don't even know what the Volcker Rule is. So rather than get all up in arms about this loss that isn't really going to hurt anybody but JPMorgan, how about clarifying the laws that we have? All it's done is make the big banks bigger, which is they were trying to prevent, and it's also driven up credit card fees for consumers, and driven up debit card fees for consumers. So they need to fix what they have first, and then worry about any new legislation.

CAVUTO: Alright. We have plenty of legislation and new rules that kicked in with Dodd-Frank, the new financial law that was supposed to, among other things, address errant or wild trading as it's known, one of the features that led to this JPMorgan fiasco. It gets kind of in the weeds, and I want to step out of that and just look at the swamp here. And the swamp is a very, very expensive and regulatory-laden law that didn't work.

LaCAMP: It didn't work at all, and they really just didn't define anything very clearly at all. Again, a lot of the rules that are in play -- put in place by Dodd-Frank put really vague powers in the hands of unnamed regulators. Nobody knows what's going on. The foxes are still running around the henhouses, but they are a lot smarter than those that build the henhouses. [Fox News, Your World with Neil Cavuto, 5/11/12, via Media Matters]

Fox's Gasparino On JPMorgan Loss: "Regulators Never Catch This Stuff. Regulators Are Bad At Regulation." On the May 14 edition of Fox News' Happening Now, co-host Jenna Lee interviewed Fox Business correspondent Charles Gasparino on the JPMorgan loss:

LEE: A quick final question though Charlie since you know Jamie Dimon. He has repeatedly said this was a stupid mistake.

GASPARINO: Right.

LEE: A really stupid mistake. So how do you regulate stupid, even if it's in a smaller bank?

GASPARINO: My point is this: You're never going to regulate stupidity, right? It's always going to happen. Banks will take losses. By the way they lose a lot more money on other things they do that -- has nothing to do with Dodd-Frank, including lending to people. Here's why -- here's what you -- and by the way regulators never catch this stuff. Regulators are bad at regulation. Here's what the taxpayer should be worried about: How do we make these mistakes smaller? You make them smaller by not having such tremendous financial institutions.

These things are bigger than countries. I mean, Jamie Dimon controls a balance sheet probably as big as France. I mean this is -- we're at a point now where it's kind of absurd that we have banks this big, this powerful, this systemic to the global economy and ours.

And the only way to deal with this, it may not be easy, it may be messy, but you got to protect the American taxpayers. You're not going to protect them through regulation. We should point out, Dodd-Frank has been in effect. Jamie Dimon has Fed officials, the Fed is their chief regulator, camped out in their offices every day. And they missed this. You want to trust them on something else? [Fox News, Happening Now, 5/14/12, via Media Matters]

Fox's Morris: "Is The Regulation Now Hindering Wall Street's Ability To Make America Stronger?" On the May 12 edition of Fox News' Fox & Friends Saturday, co-host Clayton Morris interviewed former Lehman Brothers trader Larry McDonald, and asked whether too much regulation of Wall Street had played a role in the JP Morgan Chase loss of $2 billion:

MORRIS Alright, welcome back. Well JPMorgan Chase under intense scrutiny this week after losing $2 billion in what's being called a bad bet -- have you ever made a bet like that? Now lawmakers on Capitol Hill are calling for more regulation on the big banks, but is that what we need, more regulation? Larry McDonald is a former trader at Lehman Brothers who left just before it failed, you got out at the good time. He's also the author of the book "A Colossal Failure of Common Sense: The Inside Story of the Collapse of Lehman Brothers." Larry, nice to see you this morning.

McDONALD: Great to be here.

MORRIS: So the question, you know some are now calling as a result of this JPMorgan Chase $2 billion bet gone bad. We need more regulation, we need more regulation so something like this doesn't happen again. What do you say?

McDONALD: Well, you know, the bankruptcy at Lehman Brothers was very devastating to the global economy. But you have to remember, Jamie Dimon in the last 60 years is the best risk manager as a CEO. He's entitled to a bad quarter. The banks are even more regulated today than they were back in 2007. So I think that's the ultimate take-away from me right now.

[...]

MORRIS: Is regulation the answer, or is something else needed to be done?

McDONALD: Right now, I mean, I was in Wall Street 2004 to 2008, right here in New York, and I'm -- went on the lecture tour, I'm back on Wall Street now. It's like night and day. The regulations are at least double, triple what they were. So we have more regulation today. I think that there's a lot of pain, and I just don't want to see an overreaction at this time.

MORRIS: Is the regulation now hindering Wall Street's ability to make America stronger?

McDONALD: In some respects, the one thing I really talk about is mortgages. In 2005, 6, and 7, there was massive amounts of liquidity and mortgage availability.

MORRIS: Right.

MCDONALD: Today, because of regulation there really isn't that same infrastructure that we had back then, and that's hurting lending.

MORRIS: We've been hearing that it's simply the banks that aren't lending to individuals. You want to go out and buy a home right now, interest rates are the lowest they've ever been, but the banks won't loan to you. But it's really not the banks you're saying, it's more the regulation surrounding the banks and mortgages?

MCDONALD: Yes, it's a very long story but the whole CDO thing -- right now investors in that type of mortgage product won't buy them because they are looking at the robo-signing scandals. Investors don't trust the infrastructure, so they won't buy big piles of mortgages, which means that mortgage brokers around the country and banks can't sell them as easily as they could. [Fox News, Fox & Friends Saturday, 5/12/12, via Media Matters]

But Experts Say JPMorgan's Loss Is Proof That The Financial Industry Must Be Closely Regulated

Former Director Of CFTC's Trading Division: If Dodd-Frank Is Fully Implemented, It Would Protect Taxpayers, The World Economy, And The Banks Themselves. From a May 11 CNBC guest blog by Michael Greenberger, a former director of the Commodity Futures Trading Commission's Division of Trading and Markets:

If Dodd-Frank had been in effect, these trades would almost certainly have been required to be cleared and transparently executed. They would have been priced by objective clearing operations on at least a weekly basis for purposes of collecting margin against the losing nature of the trades. As the trades lost value, margin would have been called for on a regular and systematic basis. (The losses would never have reached $2 billion without much earlier and corresponding regular calls for margin.) The losing nature of the trades would have been transparent to market observers and regulators for quite some time and the losses would not have piled up opaquely. It is almost certain that, at the very least, the Fed (not wanting to exacerbate its reputation for throwing taxpayer money at "Too Big To Fail" (TBTF) problems), would have backed JP Morgan off these trades long ago.

If even the trades were not required to be cleared, they still would have had to be reported to the public and to the regulators.

Now, if and when Dodd-Frank goes into effect (and if it does, it will be over the likes of JP Morgan's huge and expensive lobbying efforts against implementation), not only will the American taxpayer and the world economy be protected, but these TBTF banks would be protected against their own concededly reckless and highly risky actions. [CNBC, 5/11/12]

Former IMF Chief Economist: "Continued Opposition To [Dodd-Frank's] Volcker Rule Invites Ridicule." Among the reforms instituted by the Dodd-Frank financial reform legislation was the enactment of the Volcker Rule, which restricts banks from engaging in proprietary trading that is not at the behest of their clients. In a May 11 blog post, Simon Johnson, a former chief economist at the International Monetary Fund, called for robust implementation of Dodd-Frank, and said that based on the JPMorgan experience, "[c]ontinued opposition to the Volcker Rule invites ridicule":

The lessons from JP Morgan's losses are simple. Such banks have become too large and complex for management to control what is going on. The breakdown in internal governance is profound. The breakdown in external corporate governance is also complete -- in any other industry, when faced with large losses incurred in such a haphazard way and under his direct personal supervision, the CEO would resign. No doubt Jamie Dimon will remain in place.

The SAFE Banking Act, re-introduced by Senator Sherrod Brown on Wednesday, exactly hits the nail on the head. The discussion he instigated at the Senate Banking Committee hearing on Wednesday can only be described as prescient. Thought leaders such as Sheila Bair, Richard Fisher, and Tom Hoenig have been right all along about "too big to fail" banks (see my piece from the NYT.com on Thursday on SAFE and the growing consensus behind it).

The Financial Services Roundtable, in contrast, is spouting nonsense -- they can only feel deeply embarrassed today. Continued opposition to the Volcker Rule invites ridicule. It is immaterial whether or not this particular set of trades by JP Morgan is classified as "proprietary"; all megabanks should be presumed incapable of managing their risks appropriately.

Dennis Kelleher and Better Markets are right about the broad need for implementing Dodd-Frank and they are particularly right about the problems that surround non-transparent derivatives. [The Baseline Scenario, 5/11/12]

Economist Jared Bernstein: Financial Markets "Will Neither Self-Correct Nor Self-Regulate. ... Therefore, They Need To Be Regulated." In a May 12 blog post, economist Jared Bernsteinsaid that although not entirely clear, "if the rules were properly implemented and enforced, Dodd-Frank would have prevented" JPMorgan's loss. Bernstein also pointed out that JPMorgan's loss constituted further evidence that the financial sector can't be trusted to self-regulate:

That's the most interesting part of this. The answer to the second question is not entirely clear, though I think if the rules were properly implemented and enforced, Dodd-Frank would have prevented this outcome. Hedge #1 would probably be legit but hedge #2 -- the one that blew up -- looks more like the type of proprietary trading the Volcker rule is intended to block. (The usually careful and reliable Allen Sloan gets this wrong today -- the facts of the case and the magnitude of the losses aren't even known yet and he's somehow determined that the case proves we don't need the protection of a Volcker rule.)

It's also possible that under Dodd-Frank transparency rules regarding derivative positions, market participants and more importantly, regulators at the Federal Reserve, would have seen that one bank -- actually one trader at one bank -- was getting cornered such that a reversal in the index had the potential to cause sudden and systemically dangerous losses.

But the fundamental truth here is the one known since Adam (Smith, that is) and amplified by the great financial economist Hy Minsky: humans underprice risk. Their proclivity to do so increases as the business cycle progresses and confidence takes over (remember, JP's bet was unwound by the fact that the economy wasn't as strong as they thought). The advent of a global derivatives market with notional trades in the trillions greatly amplifies the risks.

[...]

And that is this: financial markets are inherently unstable. They will neither self-correct nor self-regulate. Their instability poses a threat to markets and economies and people across the globe. Therefore, they need to be regulated. [JaredBernstein.com, 5/12/12]

Reuters Financial Journalist Felix Salmon: "No Sensible Regulator Can Ever Trust The Banks To Self-Regulate." From a May 10 piece by Reuters financial journalist Felix Salmon, titled "JP Morgan: When basis trades blow up":

This time around, the basis-trade disaster has happened at JP Morgan, where the famous London Whale seems to have contrived to lose $2 billion on what was meant to be a hedging operation. And once again, although the details are still very murky, the culprit seems to be the CDS-cash basis.

[...]

Of course, this loss only goes to show how weak the Volcker Rule is: Dimon is adamant, and probably correct, in saying that Iksil's bets were Volcker-compliant, despite the fact that they clearly violate the spirit of the rule. Now that we've entered election season, Congress isn't going to step in to tighten things up -- but maybe the SEC will pay more attention to Occupy's letter, now. JP Morgan more or less invented risk management. If they can't do it, no bank can. And no sensible regulator can ever trust the banks to self-regulate. [Reuters, 5/10/12]

Economist Paul Krugman: "We Need To Restore The Sorts Of Safeguards That Gave Us A Couple Of Generations Without Major Banking Panics." From a New York Times column by Nobel-Prize winning economist Paul Krugman, titled "Why We Regulate":

Just to be clear, businessmen are human -- although the lords of finance have a tendency to forget that -- and they make money-losing mistakes all the time. That in itself is no reason for the government to get involved. But banks are special, because the risks they take are borne, in large part, by taxpayers and the economy as a whole. And what JPMorgan has just demonstrated is that even supposedly smart bankers must be sharply limited in the kinds of risk they're allowed to take on.

It's clear, then, that we need to restore the sorts of safeguards that gave us a couple of generations without major banking panics. It's clear, that is, to everyone except bankers and the politicians they bankroll -- for now that they have been bailed out, the bankers would of course like to go back to business as usual. Did I mention that Wall Street is giving vast sums to Mitt Romney, who has promised to repeal recent financial reforms?

[...]

What did JPMorgan actually do? As far as we can tell, it used the market for derivatives -- complex financial instruments -- to make a huge bet on the safety of corporate debt, something like the bets that the insurer A.I.G. made on housing debt a few years ago. The key point is not that the bet went bad; it is that institutions playing a key role in the financial system have no business making such bets, least of all when those institutions are backed by taxpayer guarantees.

[...]

But the truth is that we've just seen an object demonstration of why Wall Street does, in fact, need to be regulated. Thank you, Mr. Dimon. [The New York Times, 5/13/12]

Former Labor Secretary Robert Reich: JPMorgan Loss "Reveals How Fragile And Opaque The Banking System Continues To Be, Why Glass-Steagall Must Be Resurrected." From a May 10 blog post by former Secretary of Labor Robert Reich:

J.P. Morgan's lobbyists and lawyers have done everything in their power to eviscerate the Volcker rule -- creating exceptions, exemptions, and loopholes that effectively allow any big bank to go on doing most of the derivative trading it was doing before the near-meltdown.

And now -- only a few years after the banking crisis that forced American taxpayers to bail out the Street, caused home values to plunge by more than 30 percent, pushed millions of homeowners underwater, threatened or diminished the savings of millions more, and sent the entire American economy hurtling into the worst downturn since the Great Depression -- J.P. Morgan Chase recapitulates the whole debacle with the same kind of errors, sloppiness, bad judgment, and poorly-executed and excessively risky trades that caused the crisis in the first place.

[...]

But let's also stop hoping Wall Street will mend itself. What just happened at J.P. Morgan - along with its leader's cavalier dismissal followed by lame reassurance - reveals how fragile and opaque the banking system continues to be, why Glass-Steagall must be resurrected, and why the Dallas Fed's recent recommendation that Wall Street's giant banks be broken up should be heeded. [RobertReich.org, 5/10/12]

Professor Of Corporate And Securities Law: "This Latest Debacle At JPMorgan Demonstrates That The Banks Cannot Police Themselves." From a May 11 Huffington Post article titled "JPMorgan Trading Loss Suggests Little Has Changed Since The Financial Crisis":

"This latest debacle at JPMorgan demonstrates that the banks cannot police themselves, and should not be trusted to do so," said law professor Frank Partnoy, director of the Center on Corporate and Securities Law at the University of San Diego. "At minimum, they should be required to disclose details about their derivatives, so their shareholders can understand what risks they are taking." [The Huffington Post, 5/11/12]

Fox Has A Long History Of Fighting Financial Sector Regulation

Fox Business Host Gerri Willis: "I Think Dodd-Frank Is More Trouble Than It's Worth." [Fox Business, Cavuto, 8/17/11, via Media Matters]

Special Report: Businesses Won't Invest Because Of "Uncertainty" Caused By Health Care Reform And Financial Regulation. [Fox News, Special Report with Bret Baier, 6/30/11, via Media Matters]

Fox's Asman: Health Care Reform, Financial Regulation Are "Holding The Economy Back." [Fox News, Happening Now, 6/2/11, via Media Matters]

Dobbs, Hannity Rehash Falsehood That Financial Regulation Law "Will Guarantee Bailouts In Perpetuity." [Fox News, Hannity, 7/15/10, via Media Matters]

On Hannity, Malkin Claims Financial Regulation Bill Will "Institutionalize And Make Permanent Financial Bailouts." [Fox News, Hannity, 4/21/10, via Media Matters]

Fox Falsely Suggests Financial Reform To Blame For Market Drops. [Media Matters, 5/21/10]

Fox's Carlson: Financial Regulation Reform "Was All Timed To The President's Benefit." [Fox News, Fox & Friends, 4/28/10, via Media Matters]

Right-Wing Conspiracy Theory: Obama Administration Colluded With Security And Exchange Commission On Goldman Charges To Gain Support For Financial Reform. [Media Matters, 4/19/10]

Fox Contributor Dick Morris On Financial Regulation: "Castro Doesn't Have Those Powers." [Fox News, Hannity, 3/29/10, via Media Matters]

Conservative Media Fail In Their Attempt To Dismiss Report About Romney Bullying Incident

C.R. — Sat, 12 May 2012 00:34:50 EDT

Right-wing media have rushed to dismiss the Washington Post's report that Mitt Romney held down a high school classmate and cut his hair, claiming that "the source" for the story "wasn't actually there." In fact, the Post story relied on accounts from five separate sources, four of whom were named, and as the Post's ombudsman noted, their "accounts remain unchallenged." Romney himself said that he's "seen the reports" about the incident and that he's "not going to argue with that."

Wash. Post Article Describes Romney Forcibly Cutting High School Classmate's Hair

Wash. Post: "Mitt Romney's Prep School Classmates Recall Pranks, But Also Troubling Incidents." From a May 10 article in The Washington Post:

Mitt Romney returned from a three-week spring break in 1965 to resume his studies as a high school senior at the prestigious Cranbrook School. Back on the handsome campus, studded with Tudor brick buildings and manicured fields, he spotted something he thought did not belong at a school where the boys wore ties and carried briefcases. John Lauber, a soft-spoken new student one year behind Romney, was perpetually teased for his nonconformity and presumed homosexuality. Now he was walking around the all-boys school with bleached-blond hair that draped over one eye, and Romney wasn't having it.

"He can't look like that. That's wrong. Just look at him!" an incensed Romney told Matthew Friedemann, his close friend in the Stevens Hall dorm, according to Friedemann's recollection. Mitt, the teenage son of Michigan Gov. George Romney, kept complaining about Lauber's look, Friedemann recalled.

A few days later, Friedemann entered Stevens Hall off the school's collegiate quad to find Romney marching out of his own room ahead of a prep school posse shouting about their plan to cut Lauber's hair. Friedemann followed them to a nearby room where they came upon Lauber, tackled him and pinned him to the ground. As Lauber, his eyes filling with tears, screamed for help, Romney repeatedly clipped his hair with a pair of scissors. [The Washington Post, 5/10/12]

Right-Wing Media Dismiss Article By Claiming "The Source" For The Story "Wasn't Actually There"

Daily Caller: "Cracks In The Washington Post Story On Romney's 'Pranks' Emerge." From a May 10 post on the conservative site The Daily Caller:

A question emerges in reading the Washington Post piece on Mitt Romney today: How can Romney's old pal Stu White tell the Washington Post that he has "long been bothered by the Lauber incident" -- and then later admit to ABC News that he was "not present for the prank" and "was not aware of it until this year when he was contacted by the Washington Post"?

This is curious.

The Washington Post story reports: "I always enjoyed his pranks," said Stu White, a popular friend of Romney's who went on to a career as a public school teacher and has long been bothered by the Lauber incident."

But ABC News, says: "White was not present for the prank, in which Romney is said to have forcefully cut a student's long hair and was not aware of it until this year when he was contacted by the Washington Post." [The Daily Caller, 5/10/12]

Doocy Claimed That "The Source For The Story, Stu White ... Wasn't Actually There." On the May 11 edition of Fox News' Fox & Friends, co-host Steve Doocy summarized the Washington Post article and then claimed that there are "cracks in the story." He referred to one person named in the story, Stu White, as "The Washington Post's source" for the article and said White "wasn't actually there" for the incident:

DOOCY: Another story that flashed across your computer screen and across your television as well was this 5,000-word story in The Washington Post yesterday where it's alleged that when he was in high school, Mitt Romney was involved in a prank where he and some other guys bullied a kid with long hair, got him down, and cut his hair. Some are now wondering whether or not it was a hit job because there's some cracks in the story. For instance, apparently, The Washington Post's source for the story, Stu White, who said -- is quoted as saying, "I was always bothered by the Lauber incident" -- he wasn't actually there. And he wasn't present for the prank, and he only heard about it this year when he was contacted by The Washington Post.

Co-host Gretchen Carlson then read a statement from Lauber's family saying that the "portrayal of John is factually incorrect and we are aggrieved that he would be used to further a political agenda." [Fox News, Fox & Friends, 5/11/12]

Doocy: "The Facts Are Falling Apart, And Falling Apart Fast. So Is It Just Another Media Hit Job?" Later in the broadcast, Doocy said: "Meanwhile, chances are, you saw the report -- a mainstream newspaper calling Mitt Romney a big, bad high school bully. Problem? Well, the facts are falling apart, and falling apart fast. So is it just another media hit job?" [Fox News, Fox & Friends, 5/11/12]

Megyn Kelly: "The Key Guy On Whose Testimony This Is Based Now Admits He Wasn't There." On the May 11 broadcast of Fox News' America Live, host Megyn Kelly said:

KELLY: And yet, Chris, many in the media today -- I'm talking mainstream media reporting today -- still is not mentioning the fact that the key guy on whose testimony this is based now admits he wasn't there, and the sisters of the alleged victim have come out and said, "Not to our knowledge, and our brother would not want this being reported in this way." And so there are at least some questions about the accuracy that are not also being added by other outlets reporting the Post's front-page story today. [Fox News, America Live, 5/11/12]

Hannity Claimed "A Lot Of These Accounts Have Fallen By The Wayside" And Added, "That Person Has Rescinded The Story -- His Story." On the May 11 broadcast of his talk radio show, host Sean Hannity discussed the Post story with University of Pennsylvania professor Anthea Butler. Hannity claimed that "a lot of these accounts have fallen by the wayside" and claimed that "that person has rescinded the story -- his story." From the show:

BUTLER: I think, though, that's what important about this is something very, very specific. And you know, bullying is wrong on every count, but what the difference is, is that Mitt Romney says, "I don't remember," and you've got all of these accounts. And so if the people [unintelligible] --

HANNITY: No, no, no. A lot of these accounts have fallen by the wayside.

BUTLER: I don't think so.

HANNITY: Oh, yes they have.

BUTLER: I meant, there's a couple of people from the story who have said, you know, "This was really terrible."

HANNITY: OK. And there's also other --

BUTLER: "I thought about it for years afterward" --

HANNITY: And -- but wait a minute. But that person -- wait a minute.

BUTLER: And they [unintelligible]

HANNITY: That person has rescinded the story -- his story. And he said, I didn't know about this, they put my name in this piece, until they had contacted me. And the family is saying, the sister of this kid, by the way who died in 2004, she described her brother as a very unusual man. He didn't care about running with a peer group. And they say that what they're saying, this portrayal is factually incorrect, and they don't like this being used to further a political agenda. [Premiere Radio Networks, Hannity, 5/11/12]

But Five Sources Gave The Post Accounts Of The Incident -- And Stu White Wasn't One Of Them

Wash. Post Article Listed Five Sources For Lauber Story. The Washington Post article cited five students who "gave their accounts independently of one another," four of whom spoke on the record and one of whom asked to remain anonymous:

A few days later, Friedemann entered Stevens Hall off the school's collegiate quad to find Romney marching out of his own room ahead of a prep school posse shouting about their plan to cut Lauber's hair. Friedemann followed them to a nearby room where they came upon Lauber, tackled him and pinned him to the ground. As Lauber, his eyes filling with tears, screamed for help, Romney repeatedly clipped his hair with a pair of scissors.

The incident was recalled similarly by five students, who gave their accounts independently of one another. Four of them -- Friedemann, now a dentist; Phillip Maxwell, a lawyer; Thomas Buford, a retired prosecutor; and David Seed, a retired principal -- spoke on the record. Another former student who witnessed the incident asked not to be identified. The men have differing political affiliations, although they mostly lean Democratic. Buford volunteered for Barack Obama's campaign in 2008. Seed, a registered independent, has served as a Republican county chairman in Michigan. All of them said that politics in no way colored their recollections. [The Washington Post, 5/10/12]

Stu White Was Not One Of The Five Sources Who Gave Accounts Of The Lauber Incident To The Post. While the Post did issue a clarification stating that White "has been disturbed by the incident since he learned of it several weeks ago from a former classmate," White was not one of the five sources the Post interviewed who described Romney holding down Lauber and cutting his hair. [The Washington Post, 5/10/12]

Wash. Post Ombudsman: Accounts From The Five Sources "Remain Unchallenged." From a May 11 post by Washington Post ombudsman Patrick Pexton on his blog:

The Post changed the story after talking to White again and discovering that White only learned of the prank in recent weeks after being told of it by a Cranbrook classmate.

Kevin Merida, national editor of The Post, said on Friday that "We should have updated it with a note." I agree with Merida. I would have used strike-through text online to make it clear to readers that that part of the online story was changed. I think that's just the better part of candor. There is now an editor's note at the very bottom of the story. The Post is not calling it a correction. I think it is a correction, but not germane to the central theme of the story.

This part of Horowitz's story is tangential at best. It is only about how one person, who was not an eyewitness, felt about the incident.

Four of the five witnesses to the forcible haircut cited by the Post are on the record, by name, and remember it well. Their accounts remain unchallenged. I also think it's important to point out that Romney quickly apologized after the story was published, and although not a detailed apology, I think his demeanor in the apology seemed genuine. [WashingtonPost.com, Omblog, 5/11/12]

And Romney Himself Said He's "Not Going To Argue" With "Reports" About The Incident

Romney: "I've Seen The Reports -- Not Going To Argue With That." On the May 10 edition of his Fox News show, host Neil Cavuto asked Romney about the Post story. Romney said that he didn't "recall the incident" but that he was "not going to argue with" the "reports." From the show:

ROMNEY: Well, first of all, I had no idea what that individual's sexual orientation might be. Going back to the 1960s, that wasn't something that we all discussed or considered. So, that's simply just not accurate. I don't recall the incident myself, but I've seen the reports, and not going to argue with that. There's no question but that I did some stupid things when I was in high school. And obviously, if I hurt anyone by virtue of that, I would be very sorry for it and apologize for it. [Fox News, Your World with Neil Cavuto, 5/10/12]

Right-Wing Media Minimize Romney's Reported Bullying As "Foolish Games"

M.F.B. & C.R. — Fri, 11 May 2012 16:12:00 EDT

Right-wing media have responded to a Washington Post story detailing Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney's alleged bullying of a high school classmate by dismissing Romney's reported bullying as "foolish games" and possibly just an attempt to enforce his school's dress code. However, bullying has destructive consequences for victims, including heightened risks of depression and suicide.

Wash. Post Reports Romney Led High School Bullying Incident

Wash. Post: In High School, Romney Ambushed And Forcibly Clipped The Hair Of A Younger Student. The Washington Post reported:

Mitt Romney returned from a three-week spring break in 1965 to resume his studies as a high school senior at the prestigious Cranbrook School. Back on the handsome campus, studded with Tudor brick buildings and manicured fields, he spotted something he thought did not belong at a school where the boys wore ties and carried briefcases. John Lauber, a soft-spoken new student one year behind Romney, was perpetually teased for his nonconformity and presumed homosexuality. Now he was walking around the all-boys school with bleached-blond hair that draped over one eye, and Romney wasn't having it.

"He can't look like that. That's wrong. Just look at him!" an incensed Romney told Matthew Friedemann, his close friend in the Stevens Hall dorm, according to Friedemann's recollection. Mitt, the teenage son of Michigan Gov. George Romney, kept complaining about Lauber's look, Friedemann recalled.

A few days later, Friedemann entered Stevens Hall off the school's collegiate quad to find Romney marching out of his own room ahead of a prep school posse shouting about their plan to cut Lauber's hair. Friedemann followed them to a nearby room where they came upon Lauber, tackled him and pinned him to the ground. As Lauber, his eyes filling with tears, screamed for help, Romney repeatedly clipped his hair with a pair of scissors. [The Washington Post, 5/10/12]

Right-Wing Media Minimize The Alleged Bullying

CNN's Erickson Dismisses Reported Romney Bullying: "Romney Cut A Hippy's Hair." In a May 10 Red State post, CNN contributor Erick Erickson dismissed the Post's story as "Mitt Romney cut a hippy's hair at his preparatory high school":

Mitt Romney cut a hippy's hair at his preparatory high school. A day after Barack Obama caved on gay marriage, the Washington Post "coincidentally" says Mitt Romney cut the hair of a boy who "was perpetually teased for his nonconformity and presumed homosexuality."

Let's leave out the fact that the kid who got his haircut was subsequently thrown out of school for smoking one cigarette, but we're to believe that the assailants of his hair, witnessed by many, were ignored. Oh, and the guy who got is hair cut never, ever, ever mentioned it, including to family, and died in 2004 so it can't be verified. But a handful of students who now probably support Barack Obama have a crystal clear memory of events from 50 years ago. The people who were adults at the time of the incident and still alive have no memory of it, but remember Romney and said he was never a disciplinary problem. [Red State, 5/10/12]

Erickson: "Breaking ... Romney Went To High School." Erickson also emailed his Red State Morning Briefing list about the story with the subject line, "BREAKING NEWS: Mitt Romney Went to High School. Seriously." [Red State Morning Briefing, 5/10/12]

Limbaugh: 1965 Was "A Great Year; Bullying Was Legal." During the May 10 edition of his radio show, Rush Limbaugh dismissed the Post's story, saying: "You had long hair in 1965, you were gonna get razzed. It didn't matter. They weren't gonna think you were in the Beatles. If you had long hair in 1965, you were gonna get made fun of." Limbaugh added: "See, 1965's a great year; bullying was legal." Limbaugh also blamed a "pro-Obama media" for making this a story. From Limbaugh's show:

LIMBAUGH: This is the campaign. This is exactly -- you've been warned. You knew. You don't need to be warned. You know this kind of stuff's coming. This is what the drive-by media does in conjunction with the Democrat in the White House. When I saw this, I just -- I started laughing.

[...]

LIMBAUGH: Now maybe I'm wrong, but I think most people are gonna laugh at this. It's so obvious now -- it is so pathetically transparent what this is. Media ganging up on Romney -- a pro-Obama media ganging up on Romney. 1965 -- probably a stretch to say it had anything to do with the kid being presumed gay. You had long hair in 1965, you were gonna get razzed. It didn't matter.

They weren't gonna think you were in the Beatles. If you had long hair in 1965, you were gonna get made fun of. See, 1965's a great year; bullying was legal. [Premiere Radio Networks, The Rush Limbaugh Show, 5/10/12, via Media Matters]

Fox Graphics On Alleged Romney Bullying: "Foolish Games?"; "Elementary Antics?" During a segment on the May 11 edition of Fox News' Fox & Friends about Romney's alleged bullying, the following graphics were aired:

[Fox News, Fox & Friends, 5/11/12]

Breitbart.com: "Was Romney Enforcing Cranbrook's Dress Code?" From a May 10 Breitbart.com post titled "Was Romney Enforcing Cranbrook's Dress Code?":

Mitt Romney's so-called "gay-bashing" incident at high school may have been no more than an officially-sanctioned attempt to enforce the school's dress code, and not any kind of bullying, according to a former Cranbrook student who spoke exclusively to Breitbart News.

Mitt Romney was something of a failed high school athlete, but he had plenty of school spirit and led his prep school in cheers and worked the sideline at football games. It is that school spirit that probably led him to cut the hair of a fellow student in a prank gone wrong -- a prank the Washington Post speculatively suggested was homosexual-bashing.

Cranbrook had a strict code of conduct, including a dress code. Boys at Cranbrook until the 1980s were required to wear a coat and tie. "School spirit meant supreme teamwork," writes Kathryn Bishop Eckert in Cranbrook. "In observation of the dress code and the code of conduct students dressed and behaved as young gentlemen." Even today, Cranbrook Kingswood Upper School maintains a strict dress code relative to other prep schools: jeans are forbidden. On Mondays (so-called Formal Dress Day) boys still wear a dress shirt with a tie and girls have to wear dresses or dressy tops with skirts. This is not uncommon. Many prep schools across the country ban dyed hair, even today.

Clay Matthews, today Cranbrook's director of public relations and communications, noted that it was likely that dyed hair was prohibited from Cranbrook in 1965 under the school's code of contact.

Romney clearly conformed to the dress code, and to the code of conduct. Lauber clearly did not. Unlike Romney, Lauber was known as a nonconformist who walked around campus with bleached-blond hair in what Romney probably correctly saw as a violation of the school's dress code. That Romney did it within the sight of Matthew Friedemann, the school's prefect to whom he complained about Lauber, indicates that Romney thought of himself as merely enforcing the rules (at prep schools in those days, prefects maintained order and discipline, often in exchange for discounted room and board).

The fact that Romney was not disciplined by the administration in the aftermath of the incident is further evidence that Romney was enforcing the dress code overzealously, rather than targeting Lauber for any perceived homosexuality. [Breitbart.com, 5/10/12]

In Fact, Bullying Has Destructive Consequences For Victims

StopBullying.Gov: Kids Who Are Bullied Are More Likely To Experience Depression, Anxiety, And Other Health Problems. From the website StopBullying.gov:

Kids who are bullied can experience negative physical, school, and mental health issues. Kids who are bullied are more likely to experience:

Depression and anxiety, increased feelings of sadness and loneliness, changes in sleep and eating patterns, and loss of interest in activities they used to enjoy. These issues may persist into adulthood.

Health complaints

Decreased academic achievement -- GPA and standardized test scores -- and school participation. They are more likely to miss, skip, or drop out of school.

A very small number of bullied children might retaliate through extremely violent measures. In 12 of 15 school shooting cases in the 1990s, the shooters had a history of being bullied. [StopBullying.gov, accessed 5/11/12]

UCLA Psychologist: Regularly Bullied Students Do Significantly Worse In School. In a 2010 study titled "Bullying Experiences and Compromised Academic Performance Across Middle School Grades," Jaana Juvonen, a UCLA professor of psychology, and then-UCLA psychology graduate students Yueyan Wang and Guadalupe Espinoza, found that "high level of bullying by school mates is consistently related to academic disengagement and poor grades across the 3 years of middle school." From the study:

The current study findings demonstrate robust direct associations between peer victimization and compromised academic performance over time. Our main findings are consistent regardless of whether victimization relied on self-assessments or peer nominations and whether we predicted GPA or teacher-rated academic engagement. In spite of school, gender, and ethnic differences in the academic performance indicators, the results also replicated across 11 large urban middle schools and across both five and six time points. As far as we know, this study is the first one examining the links between bullying experiences and academic performance across this many data points over one entire phase of schooling with a sample of mainly ethnic minority youth in urban settings. We were also able to show that the link between peer maltreatment and compromised academic performance is largely due to individual differences in bullying experiences. This finding suggests that high level of bullying by school mates is consistently related to academic disengagement and poor grades across the 3 years of middle school.

The magnitude or practical significance of the findings is substantial, inasmuch as one point higher mean on self-perceived victimization score on the 4-point scale across the 6 time points predicted .3 reduction in GPA. Projecting this effect on just one of the academic subjects included in the GPA, this means that peer victimization can account for up to an average of 1.5 letter grade decrease in one academic subject (e.g., math) across the 3 years of middle school. Although our correlational findings do not allow us to draw casual conclusions, we believe this finding may be one of the strongest demonstrations of the how social stressors and academic performance indicators are linked in middle school.

The empirical findings documented are especially impressive in light of the high consistency of the academic indicators across the 3 years of middle school. Although there was a general decline in GPA and academic engagement from the first fall to the last spring of middle school, the rank order of the close to 2,000 students remained rather consistent across the 3 years. To be able to show that any social stressor is consistently related to such stable academic indicators suggests that the association is indeed a very robust one. Our findings reveal that students who were generally more bullied were likely to fall into the low range of the rank order, receiving lower grades and engaging less in academic tasks than did other students. [The Journal Of Early Adolescence, "Bullying Experiences and Compromised Academic Performance Across Middle School Grades," September 2010]

Education Development Center Study: Poor "School Performance" Seemed "To Be Correlated With Bullying." In November 2011,The Boston Globe highlighted a study by the Education Development Center that found that poor "school performance" seemed "to be correlated with bullying." From the Boston Globe article:

School performance also appeared to be correlated with bullying: 7.4 percent of students who said they received mostly A's in school experienced bullying in school and online, while 16.1 percent of students who received mostly D's and F's reported both [cyberbullying and school bullying]. [The Boston Globe, 11/17/11]

Campus Pride Survey Author: Bullied Students "Face Increased Risk For Depression, PTSD, And Suicidal Attempts And Ideation." From an October 2010 New York Times article titled "Bullying, Suicide, Punishment":

A survey of more than 5,000 college students, faculty members and staff members who are gay, lesbian, bisexual or transgender published last month by the advocacy group Campus Pride found that nearly one in four reported harassment, almost all related to sexual orientation and gender identity.

Warren J. Blumenfeld, an associate professor of curriculum and instruction at Iowa State University and an author of the Campus Pride study, also conducted a smaller survey of 350 nonheterosexual students between the ages of 11 and 22 and found that about half of the respondents reported being cyberbullied in the 30 days before the survey, and that more than a quarter had suicidal thoughts.

"Those students who are face-to-face bullied, and/or cyberbullied, face increased risk for depression, PTSD, and suicidal attempts and ideation," Professor Blumenfeld said. [The New York Times, 10/2/10]

Medical Journal Study: "Being A Victim" Of Bullying "Appears To Heighten The Risk For Depression, Suicidal Ideation, And Suicide Attempts." From a 2007 study titled "Bullying, Depression, and Suicidality in Adolescents" and published in the Journal of the American Academy of Child & Adolescent Psychiatry:

This study found an association between bullying behavior and depression, SSI [serious suicidal ideation], and suicide attempts among high school students. Approximately 9% of the sample reported being frequently victimized, and 13% reported bullying others frequently. These rates are similar to previous reports (Kaltiala-Heino et al., 1999; Nansel et al., 2001).

[...]

Depression, SSI, and suicide attempts were significantly associated with victimization and with bullying others both in and away from school. Higher exposures to being victimized or bullying others generally were related to higher risk of depression, suicidal ideation, and suicide attempts, yet infrequent involvement in bullying behavior also was related to increased risk of depression and suicidality, particularly among girls.

[...]

Our findings suggest that bullying behavior in and away from high school is a prevalent problem among adolescents. Being a victim or a perpetrator appears to heighten the risk for depression, suicidal ideation, and suicide attempts. Our results emphasize that bullying may be a marker of suicidal behavior and that routine prevention of bullying should be considered part of any suicide prevention strategy. Both bullying behavior away from school and in-school bullying should be scrutinized. Mental health practitioners evaluating suicidal tendencies should consider bullying one of the potential risk factors. Conversely, in evaluations of students involved in bullying behavior, it is important to assess depression and suicidality. [Journal of the American Academy of Child & Adolescent Psychiatry, "Bullying, Depression, and Suicidality in Adolescents," January 2007]

Decades Later, The Victim Of Romney's Alleged Bullying Said He Had "Thought About [The Incident] A Lot Since Then." From the Washington Post article:

After the incident, Lauber seemed to disappear. He returned days later with his shortened hair back to its natural brown. He finished the year but ultimately left the school before graduation -- thrown out for smoking a cigarette.

Sometime in the mid-1990s, David Seed noticed a familiar face at the end of a bar at Chicago O'Hare International Airport.

"Hey, you're John Lauber," Seed recalled saying at the start of a brief conversation. Seed, also among those who witnessed the Romney-led incident, had gone on to a career as a teacher and principal. Now he had something to get off his chest.

"I'm sorry that I didn't do more to help in the situation," he said.

Lauber paused, then responded, "It was horrible." He went on to explain how frightened he was during the incident, and acknowledged to Seed, "It's something I have thought about a lot since then." [The Washington Post, 5/10/12]

StopBullying.gov: Dismissing Bullying As "Kids Being Kids" Leads To "Higher Levels Of Bullying." Citing a study on bullying in schools, a StopBullying.gov document states: "When adults in the school system ignore bullying or feel that bullying is just 'kids being kids,' then higher levels of bullying will exist." [StopBullying.gov, accessed 5/11/12]

Ignoring Facts, Right-Wing Media Attack Same-Sex Parenting

M.L.J. — Fri, 11 May 2012 14:07:22 EDT

In the wake of President Obama's endorsement of marriage equality, right-wing media have criticized same-sex marriage by arguing that the children of heterosexual marriages fare better "economically, educationally, and emotionally" than children of same-sex partnerships. However, studies have shown that the "adjustment, development, and psychological well-being of children is unrelated to parental sexual orientation."

Right-Wing Media Claim "Children Do Best With A Mom And A Dad ... Economically, Educationally, And Emotionally"

FRC's Perkins: "The Evidence Is Overwhelming" That "Children Do Best With A Mom And A Dad." During the May 10 edition of MSNBC's Hardball with Chris Matthews, Family Research Council (FRC) president Tony Perkins claimed, "We make policy based on what's best for society as a whole. The evidence is overwhelming. Children do best with a mom and a dad. They do best economically, educationally, and emotionally." [MSNBC, Hardball, 5/10/12, via Media Matters]

Wash. Times' Kuhner: Same-Sex Couples Lack "The Balance And Harmony Necessary For The Healthy Development Of Children. In his May 10 Washington Times column, Jeffrey Kuhner wrote:

This is nonsense. Most Americans are neither intolerant nor bigoted. Rather, they understand that marriage is the basic institution of society. For thousands of years in the West, it has had a privileged role. Marriage solidifies the bonds between a man and a woman, laying the foundation for raising children in stable families. It is the glue that binds a functioning, viable social order. Marriage is the natural unit that enables society to perpetuate itself from one generation to the next. This is not hate; it's common sense.

[...]

Secular liberals are engaged in social engineering. They are fostering the myth that women and men are the same and interchangeable. According to Mr. Obama, a child needs two committed and loving parents - regardless of their gender. This is fantasy. A child needs a committed mother and father. Women and men are profoundly different; they have distinct natures, with unique biological, emotional and psychological characteristics. It is the fusion of these two divergent genders that provides the balance and harmony necessary for the healthy development of children. Hence, same-sex "marriage" is an oxymoron. It is akin to redefining gravity: an act of hubris destined to fail. [The Washington Times, 5/10/12]

But Studies Show That Children's Well-Being Is "Unrelated To Parental Sexual Orientation" ...

Evan B. Donaldson Adoption Institute Study: "Children Raised By Gay And Lesbian Parents Fare Comparably To Those Raised By Heterosexuals." A March 2006 study conducted by the Evan B. Donaldson Adoption Institute found:

Against a backdrop of increasing public acceptance, social science research concludes that children reared by gay and lesbian parents fare comparably to those of children raised by heterosexuals on a range of measures of social and psychological adjustment.

The report further found that "Studies on gay and lesbian parenting support the position that children are not disadvantaged" by being raised by gay and lesbian parents. [Evan B. Donaldson Adoption Institute, 3/1/06]

APA: "There Is No Scientific Evidence That Parenting Effectiveness Is Related To Parental Sexual Orientation." A study conducted by the American Psychological Association (APA) in July 2004 concluded that "there is no scientific evidence that parenting effectiveness is related to parental sexual orientation: lesbian and gay parents are as likely as heterosexual parents to provide supportive and healthy environments for their children." [APA, 7/30/04]

APA: "Psychological Well-Being Of Children Is Unrelated To Parental Sexual Orientation." From the same 2004 APA study: "[R]esearch has shown that the adjustment, development, and psychological well-being of children is unrelated to parental sexual orientation and that the children of lesbian and gay parents are as likely as those of heterosexual parents to flourish." [APA, 7/30/04]

... And In Some Cases Children Of Same-Sex Couples Fare Better

American Academy Of Pediatrics: Children Of Same-Sex Couples Are "More Tolerant Of Diversity And More Nurturing Toward Younger Children" Than Those Of Heterosexual Couples. From a February 1, 2002, American Academy of Pediatrics report:

[G]rowing up with parents who are lesbian or gay may confer some advantages to children. They have been described as more tolerant of diversity and more nurturing toward younger children than children whose parents are heterosexual. [American Academy of Pediatrics, 2/1/02]

Author Of Parenting Study: Children Raised In Lesbian Families Have "Higher Levels Of [Psychological] Competency And Lower Levels Of Behavioral Problems." According to Dr. Nanette Gartrell, co-author of the National Longitudinal Lesbian Family Study:

The authors found that children raised by lesbian mothers -- whether the mother was partnered or single -- scored very similarly to children raised by heterosexual parents on measures of development and social behavior. These findings were expected, the authors said; however, they were surprised to discover that children in lesbian homes scored higher than kids in straight families on some psychological measures of self-esteem and confidence, did better academically and were less likely to have behavioral problems, such as rule-breaking and aggression.

"We simply expected to find no difference in psychological adjustment between adolescents reared in lesbian families and the normative sample of age-matched controls," says Gartrell. "I was surprised to find that on some measures we found higher levels of [psychological] competency and lower levels of behavioral problems. It wasn't something I anticipated." [Time Magazine, 6/7/10]

Psychologist Abbie Goldberg: Gay Parents "Tend To Be More Motivated, More Committed Than Heterosexual Parents." According to Clark University psychologist Abbie Goldberg, who studies LGBT parenting, gay couples "tend to be more motivated, more committed than heterosexual parents." From a January 15 Live Science article:

Gay parents "tend to be more motivated, more committed than heterosexual parents on average, because they chose to be parents," said Abbie Goldberg, a psychologist at Clark University in Massachusetts who researches gay and lesbian parenting. Gays and lesbians rarely become parents by accident, compared with an almost 50 percent accidental pregnancy rate among heterosexuals, Goldberg said. "That translates to greater commitment on average and more involvement."

The Life Sciences article went on to say that "while research indicates that kids of gay parents show few differences in achievement, mental health, social functioning and other measures, these kids may have the advantage of open-mindedness, tolerance and role models for equitable relationships, according to some research. Not only that, but gays and lesbians are likely to provide homes for difficult-to-place children in the foster system, studies show. "[Life Science, 1/15/12]

Right-Wing Media Attempt To Deflect Attention From Obama's Pro-Marriage Equality Stand

M.F. & A.N. — Thu, 10 May 2012 17:40:00 EDT

After President Obama's historic announcement that he is in favor of marriage equality, many in the right-wing media are refusing to debate the substance of same-sex marriage. Instead, they are casting about for ways to attack Obama's position on marriage that ignore the actual debate.

Obama Announces His Support For Marriage Equality

On ABC, Obama Voiced Support For Marriage Equality. In an interview with ABC News correspondent Robin Roberts, Obama stated: "[A]t a certain point I've just concluded that for me personally it is important for me to go ahead and affirm that same sex couples should be able to get married":

PRESIDENT OBAMA: I have to tell you that over the course of several years as I have talked to friends and family and neighbors when I think about members of my own staff who are in incredibly committed monogamous relationships, same-sex relationships, who are raising kids together, when I think about those soldiers or airmen or Marines or sailors who are out there fighting on my behalf and yet feel constrained, even now that Don't Ask Don't Tell is gone, because they are not able to commit themselves in a marriage, at a certain point I've just concluded that for me personally it is important for me to go ahead and affirm that I think same sex couples should be able to get married. [ABC News, 5/9/12]

In Addition To Basic Fairness, Same-Sex Marriage Has A Variety Of Other Benefits To Society

Gay And Lesbian Couples Are Denied A Variety Of Basic Rights Because Of Their Inability To Marry Each Other. The Human Rights Campaign has compiled a list of federal rights that gay and lesbian couples are denied because their marriages are not recognized on a federal level. Those rights include:

Same-Sex Couples Are Denied Social Security Surviving Spouse And Surviving Parent Benefits.
Employers Who Cover Same-Sex Partners' Health Benefits Must Pay Additional Taxes.
Gay And Lesbian Couples Have Less Access To The Child Tax Credit, The Earned Income Tax Credit, And Other Tax Laws That Benefit Families With Children.
Gay And Lesbian Couples Do Not Have A Right To Take Leave Under The Family And Medical Leave Act To Care For A Sick Family Member Or New Child.
Same-Sex Couples Receive Worse Tax Treatment When They Sell Their Home.
Same-Sex Couples Receive Worse Tax Treatment Under The Estate Tax.
Same-Sex Couples Receive Worse Tax Treatment Of Retirement Benefits.
A U.S. Citizen Does Not Have The Right To Petition To Have His Or Her Same-Sex Spouse Legally Immigrate To The United States.
Gay And Lesbian Federal Employees Cannot Cover Their Partners Under Their Health Insurance Plans.
When An Employer Fires A Gay And Lesbian Employee, They Are Not Required To Allow The Employee's Partner To Receive Health Insurance Via Consolidated Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act (COBRA). [Human Rights Campaign, accessed 5/10/12]

Marriage Equality Would Create Benefits For Businesses And The Economy. An October 2006 study by UCLA School of Law's Williams Institute on Sexual Orientation Law and Public Policy titled "The Effect of Marriage Equality and Domestic Partnership on Business and the Economy" outlined the potential business benefits that would be derived from official recognition of same-sex couples:

We find several potential business benefits of equal treatment for same-sex couples:

Current employees will be healthier, more satisfied, and less likely to leave their jobs if they get domestic partner benefits.

Domestic partner or spousal benefits will increase the competitiveness of employers in recruiting and retaining talented and committed employees.

New weddings or other ceremonies would be a $2 billion boon for wedding-related industries in the United States.

Marriage equality would make it easier for multistate and multinational businesses to transfer employees and to create consistent benefit and salary policies. With a potential hodge-podge of growing jurisdictional requirements, business leaders are likely to crave uniformity and simplicity in responding to diverse family needs and sustaining fair treatment for all employees. [UCLA School of Law, October 2006]

Marriage Equality Has A Positive Impact On State Budgets. An October 2006 Williams Institute study titled "The Effect of Marriage Equality and Domestic Partnership on Business and the Economy" outlined the impact of marriage equality on state budgets:

States would spend less on public assistance, since family-level income thresholds associated with some means-tested social programs would reduce the eligibility of some same-sex couples and their children if they are treated as a family unit.

The increased spending on weddings noted earlier would also generate sales tax revenues. [UCLA School of Law, October 2006]

Marriage Equality Would Generate Economic Gains Due To Increased Spending On Weddings. A Williams Institute Study titled "Spending on Weddings of Same-Sex couples in the United States" showcased the increased economic expenditures derived from wedding spending that would follow as a result of Marriage Equality enactment.

The extension of marriage rights to same-sex couples in various jurisdictions will generate economic gains for the businesses in those jurisdictions due to increased spending on weddings. A 2004 Forbes magazine article projected that if same-sex marriage rights were granted nationwide, same-sex weddings would generate $16.8 billion dollars in expenditures, adding significantly to America's annual $70 billion wedding industry. For over twenty years, various other commentators have argued or found that the first state or states to offer marriage equality would experience a wave of increased tourism from out-of-state couples that would bring millions of additional dollars in revenue to state businesses.

[...]

[...]

Rather Than Debate The Issues Of Same-Sex Marriage, Many Right-Wing Media Figures Have Found Other Ways To Attack Obama

Free Beacon Headline: "Gay For Pay." A May 9 post by The Washington Free Beacon suggested that Obama is caving to donors who were "threatening to withhold donations over the president's position on gay rights":

President Obama announced his support for same-sex marriage less than 48 hours after the Washington Post reported that prominent political donors were threatening to withhold donations over the president's position on gay rights.

"[A]t a certain point I've just concluded that for me personally it is important for me to go ahead and affirm that I think same sex couples should be able to get married," Obama told ABC News in an interview. [The Washington Free Beacon, 5/9/12]

FoxNews.com: "$AME-$EX PAYOFF?" A headline on FoxNews.com stated: "$AME-$EX PAYOFF." The headline led to an article on an Obama fundraiser that claimed he is "raising Hollywood cash on heels of gay marriage endorsement."

[FoxNews.com, 5/10/12]

Fox's Carlson Asks If Obama Is "Demonizing Those Who Disagree" With Marriage Equality. From the May 10 edition of Fox News' Fox & Friends:

GRETCHEN CARLSON: President Obama makes history announcing his support for same-sex marriage. But is there tolerance for both sides or is he demonizing those who disagree with him now? We're going to report and you can decide. [Fox News, Fox & Friends, 5/10/12, via Media Matters]

Carlson Also Asks: Is Obama's Support For Same-Sex Marriage A "Political Ploy" To Distract From The Economy? From the May 10 edition of Fox & Friends:

CARLSON: So is this a distraction? Is this another political ploy because of November and the election coming up? I mean, let the voters decide that. But should we be now talking about this? Is this the most important issue of the day? Or should we be talking about the economy right now? [Fox News, Fox & Friends, 5/10/12, via Media Matters]

Cavuto Suggests The White House Came Out In Support Of Marriage Equality To Increase Progressive "Enthusiasm." From the May 9 edition of Fox News' Your World with Neil Cavuto:

NEIL CAVUTO (host): As you, I think, were mentioning earlier Ed, the White House is nothing else but brilliant political strategist and you don't get to the White House without toppling the Hillary Clinton campaign and doing all the rest. So they have calculated the potential fallout from this and the possibility of losing key states they've won before like North Carolina, Virginia, and Indiana and must have crunched the numbers and said "well we pick up -- maybe -- an enthusiasm or from our base, elsewhere, enough to swing states that we wouldn't have gotten otherwise.

Now maybe I'm making that political leap, and this is just by accident that this happened but is there that potential that they can make up for what could be loses in those key states.

ED HENRY (Fox White House correspondent): Yes, I mean senior officials insist in private that they haven't sat down with the polls to sort all of this out, but let's face it, this White House like the White House before it is acutely aware of where public opinion polls are on any big issue whether it's the economy or same-sex marriage. Bottom line is they do have concerns that there could be fallout from states like North Carolina, but yes, they also believe they can make up for that with young voters.

Let's note the president that kicked off those rallies last Saturday, officially kick off the campaign to college campuses where you look at the college Democrats and the college Republicans often opposing each other on economic issues but largely coming together on issues like same-sex marriage. [Fox News, Your World with Neil Cavuto, 5/9/12]

CNN's Loesch Attacks Obama For Taking "A Federalist Stance" On Same-Sex Marriage. From a May 9 post on Brietbart.com by CNN contributor Dana Loesch titled "Is Obama's Federalist Stance On Same-Sex Marriage Racist?":

The President today said that he personally supports same-sex marriage, but took a federalist stance on it:

The president stressed that this is a personal position, and that he still supports the concept of states' deciding the issue on their own.

A states' rights stance? Remember when that was racist? A growing chorus of progressives said that states' rights were racist: people like Chris Matthews, Al Sharpton, and even newspapers. So what is their opinion now that the President has brought up states' rights as his explanation for his same-sex marriage stance? Racist, still? [Breitbart.com, 5/9/12]

HotAir's Allahpundit: Obama May Have Dropped "Cynical Charade" On Marriage To "Maximiz[e] Turnout" Among The Base. In a HotAir post titled "Breaking: Noted gay-marriage supporter finally drops cynical charade," pseudonymous blogger AllahPundit stated: "As for the politics, Karl notes in the Greenroom that Team Hopenchange may now be shifting from a campaign aimed at winning back disaffected working-class swing voters to a campaign aimed mainly at maximizing turnout among their base." [HotAir, 5/9/12]

Fox News Misrepresents EPA Climate Rule

S.T. — Thu, 10 May 2012 17:11:48 EDT

Fox News reporter Doug McKelway falsely reported that EPA's proposed greenhouse gas rule requires coal plants to install carbon capture and storage technology and could shut down up to 25 percent of coal-fired power. In fact, the rule applies only to future coal plants, which few companies planned to build anyway due to competition from natural gas.

Rule Applies Only To Future Power Plants

Fox News Misrepresents EPA Rule Limiting Greenhouse Gas Emissions From Coal Plants. During Fox News' America's Newsroom, Doug McKelway falsely reported that "The new rules require coal-fired plants to install new technology called carbon capture and storage, but it's tremendously expensive and not commercially available." McKelway also stated that "people across the spectrum of politics and industry fear the regulations will shut down as many as 20-25 percent of coal-fired plants," and that "A lot of those people" who work in the coal industry are "really fearing for their jobs." [Fox News, America's Newsroom, 5/10/12]

Rule Does Not Affect Existing Coal Plants. As Politico reported, the proposed rule "doesn't limit greenhouse gas emissions from existing power plants. [EPA Administrator Lisa] Jackson said if the agency proposes a standard for existing plants in the future, it would be after an 'extensive' and transparent public process to set limits that 'avoid inconsistent requirements' and are 'achievable.'" [Politico, 3/27/12]

Few Companies Planned To Build New Coal Plants Anyway

Major Coal-Powered Utility Said New EPA Rule "Won't Have Much Of An Impact" On Business. American Electric Power, one of the largest U.S. utilities, told the National Journal that the new EPA rule "doesn't cause immediate concern" for the company:

Even one of the nation's most coal-reliant utilities, Ohio-based American Electric Power--which has come out in fierce opposition to many other Obama EPA rules--says climate-change rules for new plants probably won't hurt the company's bottom line.

"We don't have any plans to build new coal plants. So the rules won't have much of an impact," said Melissa McHenry, a spokeswoman for the company. "Any additional generational plants we'd build for the next generation will be natural gas. It will shape sources for new generation. But in the near term, the impact will not be as great. It impacts the ability to expand the use of coal for electricity, but it doesn't cause immediate concern for us." [National Journal, 3/26/12]

Duke Energy: EPA Rule "Means Nothing To Us." Greenbiz.com reported:

Duke Energy (NYSE: DUK) has two new coal plants -- not subject to the EPA emissions cap -- slated to come on line at the end of this year, along with two new natural-gas plants. The company plans to spend $7 billion on the four plants, which will result in rate increases for its customers in the coming months.

Still, Duke, which has utilities that serve North Carolina, South Carolina, Indiana, Kentucky and Ohio, says it has no plans for new coal projects beyond the two plants already in the works. Tom Williams, director of external relations for Duke, added that the company will look at natural gas, nuclear energy and upgrades to existing coal plants instead.

"This proposal means nothing to us," he said. "Our carbon profile is going down. We're shutting down 3,800 megawatts of coal and [the new plants] we're bringing on will replace that with lower carbon emissions," Williams said. [Greenbiz.com, 3/27/12]

The Economist: "New Rules Will Only Formalize A Shift That Has Already Been Under Way." From a March 31 article by The Economist:

Lobbyists for the coal industry immediately declared that the Obama administration was "driving up energy prices and destroying jobs". In fact, low gas prices, along with sluggish demand for electricity in the aftermath of the recession, have kept power prices subdued (petrol prices are another matter). For some time now utilities, faced with falling gas prices and the prospect of stricter environmental regulation, have been favouring gas over coal anyway. So the new rules will only formalise a shift that had already been under way, with little immediate economic impact. [The Economist, 3/31/12]

Contra Fox, EPA Rule Will Have Little To No Impact On Electricity Rates

Fox Airs False Claim That Rule Would Increase Electric Bills "At Least ... 30 Percent." During the segment, Fox aired video of Craig Jennings, the Preston County Commission President, stating: "They're telling us that you're going to see at least a 30 percent increase in your electric bill now." Fox did not clarify who "they" are. [Fox News, America's Newsroom, 5/10/12]

Brookings Economist: "EPA Rule Will Have No Significant Effect On Electricity Prices." Syracuse University economics professor and Brookings Institute Senior Fellow Peter Wilcoxen said that "the EPA rule will have no significant effect on electricity prices":

The idea that the new regulations will shut down the coal industry is nonsense. The new rules only bear on new power plants (and exempt those already in the planning stages), so existing coal-fired power plants are unaffected and can continue burning coal.

One might argue that the ruling will limit the *growth* of the coal sector but that's not correct either: coal's growth would be very limited anyway due to the low cost of natural gas and the very high capital cost of new coal plants. To put it simply: the life-cycle costs of coal-fired power are considerably higher than gas-fired power. This is not a theoretical matter: over the last decade, the electric power sector has responded by adding more than about 200 gigawatts of gas-fired capacity and about 2 gigawatts of coal. The US now has considerably more gas-fired capacity than coal-fired capacity and low gas prices will accelerate that trend even without the EPA decision.

Finally, because it only rules out an expensive option that wouldn't have been used anyway, the EPA rule will have no significant effect on electricity prices. [Email to Media Matters, 4/2/12]

Harvard's Robert Stavins: Given Low Natural Gas Prices, New Coal Regulation "Will Have Absolutely No Effect Whatsoever" On Electricity Prices. Professor Robert Stavins, Director of Harvard's Environmental Economics Program and a proponent of more market-based approaches to greenhouse gas regulations, explained that as long as natural gas prices remain low, there will be no new coal plants under construction. Therefore, EPA regulations on new plants will have "absolutely no effect whatsoever" on the price of electricity. He also noted that under these conditions, the new rule will have no environmental benefits. [Phone conversation with Media Matters, 4/2/12]

Bipartisan Policy Center: Rule Will Have "Very Little, If Any, Impact" On Electricity Rates. Jennifer Macedonia of the Bipartisan Policy Center wrote:

The rule is neither expected to reduce huge amounts of carbon emissions, nor will it kill a swath of power plants. In fact, the proposed regulation will have very little, if any, impact on actual power plants, jobs, electricity rates, or pollution. Still, it represents an historic step in the debate over actions to curb climate change and in the long term future of coal-fired electricity generation. [Bipartisan Policy Center, 3/30/12]

Right-Wing Media Mock WH Adviser For Accurately Portraying Obesity As A National Security Threat

M.L.J. — Thu, 10 May 2012 14:45:00 EDT

Right-wing media are attacking Sam Kass, White House assistant chef and senior policy adviser on healthy food initiatives, for calling rising obesity rates a national security threat. But military experts have noted that high obesity rates threaten military enrollment and readiness.

WH Senior Policy Adviser Sam Kass Calls Rising Obesity Rate A National Security Threat

White House Chef And Food Policy Adviser Sam Kass Points To National Security Threat As One Reason For Highlighting Childhood Obesity. During a May 7 speech he made at the Weight of the Nation conference, White House assistant chef and senior policy adviser Sam Kass said:

What motivates us is not just the fact that one in three Americans will have diabetes, the impact of obesity on the economy and our healthcare system, or our kids' compromised ability to learn. It's not just the fact that obesity may be our Nation's greatest national security threat. All of those reasons are of vital importance, but we have also internalized what these problems really mean in the lives of children. The First Lady always reminds us that this is about how our kids feel and about how they feel about themselves. It's about the toll that being overweight takes on their self-esteem and their ability to perform. [Let's Move, 5/7/12]

Military Experts Agree That Obesity Is A National Security Risk Because It Limits Military Enrollment And Readiness

Military Officials: In 2005, 27 Percent Of Young Adults Were Too Overweight To Serve In The Military. In an April 30, 2010, Washington Post op-ed, retired U.S. Army Generals and former chairmen of the Joint Chiefs of Staff John M. Shalikashvili and Hugh Shelton noted that "27 percent of all Americans" were "too overweight to serve in the military." From the Washington Post:

Are we becoming a nation too fat to defend ourselves?

It seems incredible, but these are the facts: As of 2005, at least 9 million young adults -- 27 percent of all Americans ages 17 to 24 -- were too overweight to serve in the military, according to the Army's analysis of national data. And since then, these high numbers have remained largely unchanged.

[...]

While other significant factors can keep our youth from joining the military -- such as lacking a high school diploma or having a serious criminal record -- being overweight or obese has become the leading medical reason recruits are rejected for military service. Since 1995, the proportion of potential recruits who failed their physical exams because of weight issues has increased nearly 70 percent, according to data reported by the Division of Preventive Medicine at the Walter Reed Army Institute of Research.

We consider this problem so serious from a national security perspective that we have joined more than 130 other retired generals, admirals and senior military leaders in calling on Congress to pass new child nutrition legislation. [The Washington Post, 4/30/10]

Gen. Shalikashvili: "Since 1995, The Proportion Of Recruits" Who Failed Physicals Due To Obesity Is Up "By Nearly 70 Percent." An April 25 ABCNews.com article quoted Shalikashvili pointing out that the number of recruits who have "failed their physical exam" due to weight problems "has risen by nearly 70 percent." From ABCNews.com:

While putting cafeteria fare on the level of a national security threat may be "dramatic," "it's not entirely unjustified" considering how much students eat during the school day, said Karen Glanz, a professor at the University of Pennsylvania Schools of Medicine and Nursing.

In the report, the retirees called for less junk food in schools, better nutrition programs for kids and overall better funding for federally provided school lunches. The group also appeared on Capitol Hill Tuesday with Sen. Richard Lugar and Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack to show their support for new legislation on the issue pending in congress [sic].

"Since 1995, the proportion of recruits who failed their physical exams because they were overweight has risen by nearly 70 percent," said Gen. John M. Shalikashvili, a former chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.

"We need to reverse this trend, and an excellent place to start is by improving the quality of food served in our schools," he added. [ABCNews.com, 4/25/10]

Rear Admiral James Barnett: Obesity Is "Not Just A Major Health Issue For Our Nation, It's Also Become A National Security Issue." On the March 8 edition of CBS' This Morning, Retired Rear Admiral James Barnett pointed out that obesity is "not just a major health issue for our nation, it's also become a national security issue." Barnett further noted that "When we talk about nutrition, we talk about healthy bodies, but we`re also talking about healthy minds. Nutrition affects strong bodies, strong minds. We need both." [CBS, This Morning, 3/8/12]

Former Senate Majority Leader Frist: Childhood Obesity "Threatens Our Security, Our National Security." A November 29, 2011, CNSNews article quoted former Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist (R-TN) noting that childhood obesity "threatens our security, our national security as a nation." From CNSNews:

"Childhood obesity is something much larger than something that just hurts and pulls back and restrains our economic strength. It threatens our security, our national security as a nation," Frist said on Tuesday at the "Building for a Healthier Future" summit held in Washington, D.C.

"Between 1995 and 2008, over 140,000 potential military recruits failed their entrance physicals, failed them because they were too heavy," said Frist. "That's 140,000 young men and women who were motivated enough to enlist but, because of being overweight, could not. They were the ones who wanted to serve their country, who were willing to put themselves in harm's way, and they were told, 'No, you're too heavy to safely be trained.'" [CNSNews, 11/29/11]

Study: Every Year, The Military Discharges Over 1,200 Enlistees "Because Of Weight Problems." From an April 8, 2010 report by the national security nonprofit Mission: Readiness:

Unfortunately, the impact of weight problems on the military does not stop with those turned away. Every year, the military discharges over 1,200 first-term enlistees before their contracts are up because of weight problems; the military must then recruit and train their replacements at a cost of $50,000 for each man or woman, thus spending more than $60 million a year. [Mission: Readiness, "Too Fat to Fight," 4/8/10]

Despite Expert Analysis, Right-Wing Media Mock Kass For Calling Obesity A National Security Threat

Fox Nation: "Obama's Food Czar Says Obesity Bigger Threat Than Al Qaeda." From a May 9 Fox Nation post:

[Fox Nation, 5/9/12]

Hoft: "Obama Food Czar Now Making National Security Speeches." In a May 9 Gateway Pundit post titled "Good Grief! Obama Food Czar Now Making National Security Speeches," Jim Hoft wrote:

It's an Obama world.

[...]

Now National Food Czar Sam Kass is giving lectures on the obesity threat on national security.

[...]

Earlier this week Leon Panetta told us global warming was a national security threat. Last June they told us Al-Qaeda was no longer a threat.

This is so confusing. [Gateway Pundit, 5/9/12, emphasis original]

Big Government's Bigelow Mocks Kass For Calling Obesity A National Security Threat. In a May 9 Big Government post, William Bigelow wrote:

Here's your multiple choice question of the day: According to Sam Kass, who was the personal chef for the Obama family before they moved into the White House and is now an assistant chef and food initiative coordinator there, what may be the nation's greatest security threat?

1.     Islamic terrorists

2.     Nuclear weapons in Iran and North Korea

3.     China's stranglehold on our national debt

4.     Fat

This shouldn't be too hard. This is the Obama White House we're talking about.

You guessed it. The answer is the extra poundage Americans carry.

[...]

It's good to know that even if Islamic terrorists slaughter us, repellent regimes bomb us, or China finally collects its chips and we suffer an unheard of depression, the Obamas care that we look good in our clothes.

What the heck, if we're going to be buried, we might as well look our best. [Big Government, 5/9/12, emphasis original]

Americans Disagree With Rush Limbaugh On Marriage Equality

E.P.A. & Z.P. — Wed, 09 May 2012 20:11:00 EDT

Rush Limbaugh attacked President Obama today over his support for marriage equality, accusing Obama of leading a "war on traditional marriage" and the Catholic Church while accusing same-sex marriage supporters of wanting "to corrupt the institution." However, polls show that public support for same-sex marriage has been trending upwards over the past several years, including in the Catholic community.

Obama: "I Think Same Sex Couples Should Be Able To Get Married"

"I have to tell you that over the course of several years as I have talked to friends and family and neighbors when I think about members of my own staff who are in incredibly committed monogamous relationships, same-sex relationships, who are raising kids together, when I think about those soldiers or airmen or marines or sailors who are out there fighting on my behalf and yet feel constrained, even now that Don't Ask Don't Tell is gone, because they are not able to commit themselves in a marriage, at a certain point I've just concluded that for me personally it is important for me to go ahead and affirm that I think same sex couples should be able to get married," Obama told Roberts, in an interview to appear on ABC's "Good Morning America" Thursday. [ABC News, 5/9/12]

Limbaugh: Obama Is "Waging" A "War" On Marriage, Catholic Church

Limbaugh: Obama "Is Going To Lead A War On Traditional Marriage." Limbaugh repeatedly accused Obama of "waging" or "leading" a "war" on "traditional marriage" on his radio show today:

LIMBAUGH: We've arrived at a point where the president of the United States is going to lead a war on traditional marriage. You want to call that winning? Your side is winning when the president has to lead a war on traditional marriage?

[...]

LIMBAUGH: Obama and people like [caller] are trying to turn traditional institutions on their head. And people like me who are minding their own business all of a sudden have to stand up and defend these traditions and institutions from people like you, and now the president who's waging a war on traditional America.

[...]

LIMBAUGH: Marriage is a word. It has a specific meaning. And all of a sudden, some people came along and said 'well, we want to change the definition.' No, you don't want to change the definition. You want to corrupt the institution is what you want to do. 'How dare you say that? We don't want to - we want in on the institution.' Well then, marry a woman. Or marry a man. That's what marriage is.

LIMBAUGH: There's no other way to characterize it, Barack Obama is leading a war on gay marriage, just like he's leading a war on the Catholic Church, the war on stay-at-home moms.

[...]

LIMBAUGH: It's official. Obama supports gay marriage after talks with his wife and daughters, gay service members, and others. Pink smoke coming from the White House chimney. [Premiere Radio Networks, The Rush Limbaugh Show, 5/9/12 via Media Matters]

Most Americans Support Marriage Equality

Gallup: More Americans Support Legalizing Same-Sex Marriage. From a May 2012 Gallup poll:

[Gallup, 5/8/12]

Pew Research Center President: "Acceptance Of Gay Marriage Has Grown Steadily Over The Past Eight Years." Pew Research Center president Andrew Kohut recently wrote:

Acceptance of gay marriage has grown steadily over the past eight years. By 2008, support for gay marriage had risen to 39 percent, while opposition had slipped to 52 percent. And in recent years, support has markedly increased as opposition has ebbed. Today, the latest Pew Research Center survey finds a 47 to 43 percent plurality favoring gay marriage, with as many Americans saying they strongly favor (22 percent) as saying they strongly oppose (22 percent).

Much of the growing support for gay marriage is generational. Majorities of the millennial generation, who were a very small share of the electorate in 2004 when the gay marriage issue rallied the conservative base, have grown in number and have consistently favored. But also, many older Americans have changed their minds. Since 2004, support for gay marriage has increased from 30 percent to 40 percent among baby boomers, and even among seniors (from 18 percent to 32 percent). (On balance, though, most members of this generation remain opposed, at 56 percent.)

A good deal of increased support for gay marriage reflects growing public acceptance of homosexuality. In 1994, when the Pew Research Center first began asking the public about societal acceptance, Americans were evenly divided as to whether homosexuality should be accepted or discouraged. However, views changed markedly over the next 17 years. By 2011, 58 percent of the public said it favored acceptance while just a third (33 percent) continued to favor discouragement.

While there remains a huge partisan gap on acceptance of homosexuality in general and gay marriage specifically, the political prospects for the issue are far different than they were two election cycles ago. It has become a lower priority issue for voters, and the partisan intensity gap is not as overwhelmingly one sided as it once was. Today there are almost as many strong supporters of gay marriage among Democrats (34 percent) as there are strong opponents among Republicans (40 percent). [The New York Times, 4/16/12]

Public Support For Gay Marriage "Has Accelerated Dramatically In The Last 2 Years." A July 2011 poll from the Benenson Strategy Group and Voter Consumer Research found that support for marriage equality "has increased over the years and that the rate of increase has accelerated dramatically in the last 2 years."

[Freedom to Marry, 7/27/11]

Pew: "Broad Declines In Opposition To Gay Marriage." From a 2012 Pew Research Center study showing large declines in opposition to same-sex marriage, including among Catholics:

[Pew Research Center, 4/25/12]

Limbaugh Has A History Of Engaging In Bigoted Attacks Against LGBT Community

Limbaugh: Marriage Equality Is "Ripp[ing]" Marriage "To Shreds." During the February 24, 2012, edition of his show, Limbaugh commented on a judge ruling the Defense of Marriage Act unconstitutional:

LIMBAUGH: Just took it upon himself to say that a piece of legislation is unconstitutional. Defending traditional values is not modern? It's off topic? Attacking them is modern and good politics? That's what we're to believe here? All we're doing is defending traditional values. All we're doing is defending the institutions and the traditions that have made this country great, and apparently that's what you're not supposed to do? "No, no, don't do that! Mr. Limbaugh, you're just gonna make people nervous. Women aren't going to understand." You wouldn't believe the emails. "Rush, women's brains can't compute this way. You're making a big mistake here by just bringing this up." Oh, so we can't defend all these great traditions, but the left can attack them? The left can attack them and rip them apart and tear them down, and that's good politics? Is that what we're to believe? We're supposed to sit by while great traditions and institutions like marriage are ripped to shreds. [Premiere Radio Networks, The Rush Limbaugh Show, 2/24/12]

Limbaugh Denigrated Slain LGBTQ Teen For Exploring His Sexuality. On the November 22, 2011, edition of his show, Limbaugh claimed that Larry King, a 15-year-old openly gay student who was killed by a reportedly homophobic classmate, was exploring whether he needed a "chop-a-dick-offa'-me operation," stating:

LIMBAUGH: He was showing up in school dressed as a woman -- was wearing dresses. He was bothering the other boys. His mother called the school. She was worried about her son's behavior. She asked the school to keep a sharp eye out for him, that she was worried that his behavior was going to cause something unfortunate to happen to him. We're talking 14-, and 15-, 16-year-olds here. Her son dresses up as a woman, goes to school, and starts lavishing attention on other boys.

When she told school officials about this, she says, again, that school officials told her that there was nothing they could do. That her son had a civil right to explore his sexual identity, meaning he had a right to come to school dressed as a girl. He had a right to come to school dressed in female attire -- he was wearing dresses. He had a right to explore whether or not he was a woman in a boy's body. He had the right to explore whether at some point he was going to need a chop-a-dick-offa'-me operation. [Premiere Radio Networks, The Rush Limbaugh Show, 11/22/11]

Limbaugh Ridiculed Gender Reassignment Surgery. On the January 19, 2011, edition of his show, Limbaugh called gender reassignment surgery an "add-a-dick-to-me" procedure, saying:

LIMBAUGH: Let me put this in perspective for you, folks. The Democrats and the media put forth this challenge -- oh, what are you gonna cut? You're saying you're going to cut spending -- what are you gonna cut? What are you gonna cut? And then we hear that the city of Berkeley is going to start paying for chop -- add-a-dick-to-me's. Sex change operations. And they -- what do we want to cut? Well, I ask you. [Premiere Radio Networks, The Rush Limbaugh Show, 1/19/11]

To see more attacks Limbaugh has leveled at the LGBTQ community, click here

Obama For Marriage Equality, Right-Wing Media Against It

M.F.B. & K.Z. — Wed, 09 May 2012 19:15:00 EDT

In an ABC News interview today, President Obama announced his support for marriage equality, saying, "I think same sex couples should be able to get married." Conservative media figures immediately accused Obama of declaring a "war on marriage" and the Catholic Church.

Obama: "I Think Same Sex Couples Should Be Able To Get Married"

PRESIDENT OBAMA: I have to tell you that over the course of several years as I have talked to friends and family and neighbors when I think about members of my own staff who are in incredibly committed monogamous relationships, same-sex relationships, who are raising kids together, when I think about those soldiers or airmen or Marines or sailors who are out there fighting on my behalf and yet feel constrained, even now that Don't Ask Don't Tell is gone, because they are not able to commit themselves in a marriage, at a certain point I've just concluded that for me personally it is important for me to go ahead and affirm that I think same sex couples should be able to get married. [ABC News, 5/9/12]

LGBT Groups, Public Officials Cheer Obama Announcement

Former George W. Bush Solicitor General: "President Obama's Words Remind Us That Marriage And Equality Are Universal Values That Unite Us All." Ted Olson, a former solicitor general under President Bush and lead co-counsel for the American Foundation for Equal Rights, said the following in response to Obama's announcement:

"Today is a proud day for all Americans. ... The bedrock American principles of freedom and human dignity are central to the political and legal convictions of Republicans, Democrats, liberals, and conservatives alike. President Obama's words remind us that marriage and equality are universal values that unite us all. They remind us that we are all -- as a People and a Nation -- striving to form a more perfect Union." [American Foundation for Equal Rights, 5/9/12]

Human Rights Campaign: "In Supporting Marriage Equality," Obama Sends A "Message Of Hope." Human Rights Campaign president Joe Solmonese released this statement following the announcement:

"Today, President Obama made history by boldly stating that gay and lesbian Americans should be fully and equally part of the fabric of American society and that our families deserve nothing less than the equal respect and recognition that comes through marriage.

His presidency has shown that our nation can move beyond its shameful history of discrimination and injustice. In him, millions of young Americans have seen that their futures will not be limited by what makes them different. In supporting marriage equality, President Obama extends that message of hope to a generation of young lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender Americans, helping them understand that they too can be who they are and flourish as part of the American community. And his words remind gay and lesbian families across the country, who, like their neighbors, struggle to afford healthcare and college for their kids, pay their taxes and plan for retirement -but with the added burden of discrimination -- that they do not face those challenges alone and unheard.

"Americans fundamentally believe in fairness, but many, like the President, have struggled to reconcile that core belief and the question of marriage equality. The President's words will no doubt inspire thousands more conversations around kitchen tables and in church pews. We are confident that our nation will continue to move inexorably toward equality and we thank the President for so boldly leading us in that direction." [Human Rights Campaign, 5/9/12]

Servicemembers Legal Defense Network: "This Is A Great Day For Gay And Lesbian Service Members." President of the Servicemembers Legal Defense Network Aubrey Sarvis stated:

"This is a great day for gay and lesbian service members, who are living with the daily reality that while they are now able to serve openly, they and their families are treated as second-class citizens under laws like the discriminatory Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA). Certainly, the President's leadership in repealing 'Don't Ask, Don't Tell' laid the foundation for his reaching this positive outcome. We welcome the President's support for marriage and will work with him to repeal DOMA and all laws that undermine equality and treat our service members unfairly." [Servicemembers Legal Defense Network, 5/9/12]

Fox Anchor Shep Smith: Obama Is "Now In The 21^st Century." After playing video of Obama's announcement, Fox News anchor Shepard Smith said: "The President of the United States, now in the 21^st century." [Fox News, Studio B, 5/9/12 via Media Matters]

Conservative Media Accuse Obama Of A "War On Marriage" And The Catholic Church

Rush Limbaugh: President Obama "Is Going To Lead A War On Traditional Marriage." Reacting to reports, before Obama's announcement, that Obama would come out in support of same-sex marriage, Rush Limbaugh said to a caller that Obama is going to "lead a war on traditional marriage." Following the announcement, Limbaugh stated:

LIMBAUGH: We've arrived at a point where the President of the United States is going to lead a war on traditional marriage. That's where we -- you want to call that winning? Your side is winning when the president has to lead a war on traditional marriage?

[...]

LIMBAUGH: Obama and people like [caller] are trying to turn traditional institutions on their head. And people like me who are minding their own business all of a sudden have to stand up and defend these traditions and institutions from people like you, and now the president, who's waging a war on traditional America.

[...]

LIMBAUGH: There's no other way to characterize it, Barack Obama is leading a war on gay [sic] marriage, just like he's leading a war on the Catholic Church, the war on stay-at-home moms.

[...]

LIMBAUGH: It's official. Obama has announced he supports gay marriage after talks with his wife and daughters, gay service members, and others. Pink smoke coming from the White House chimney. [Premiere Radio Networks, The Rush Limbaugh Show, 5/9/12]

Fox Nation: "Obama Flip Flops, Declares War On Marriage." In highlighting Obama's announcement on marriage equality, a Fox Nation headline read: "Obama Flip Flops, Declares War On Marriage." Hours later, Fox Nation changed the headline to remove the words "declares war on marriage."

[Fox Nation, 5/9/12, via Media Matters]

Jim Hoft: "Obama Continues Attacks On Christian Church." In a May 9 post on Gateway Pundit headlined "Obama Continues Attacks On Christian Church -- Throws His Support Behind Gay Marriage," Jim Hoft wrote:

You knew this was coming. After Joe Biden came out and supported gay marriage (something that is against his Catholic faith), and then Arne Duncan, the Secretary of Education of all people, came out and endorsed gay marriage... You knew this was a planned strategy, promoted by Democrats and pushed by the liberal media, for Barack Obama to come out and support gay marriage too.

In an interview with ABC, Barack Obama just came out in support of gay marriage. He just threw MILLIONS of Christian Americans under the bus.

Personally, I don't have a problem with gay relationships. I don't have a problem with gay unions. I do have a problem with a president pushing a law on the people with the specific intent of punishing the Church and Christian Americans. [Gateway Pundit, 5/9/12, emphasis original]

Fox Regular Bill Donohue: Obama "Has Fully Broken With His Christian Moorings" Frequent Fox guest and Catholic League president Bill Donohue reacted to the news by urging for a constitutional amendment to define marriage as between "two people who can naturally produce a family, namely a man and a woman":

In 1996, when Barack Obama was up for a state senate post in Illinois, he said he supported gay marriage. Eight years later, when he set his sights on the U.S. Senate, he discovered his Christian roots and said he was against it. In 2008, he said he was opposed to homosexuals marrying, but he also opposed a ballot initiative in California, Proposition 8, that affirmed marriage as being exclusively between a man and a woman. In other words, his Christian roots were losing their grip. Since then he's been "evolving." Now the evolution is over and he has fully broken with his Christian moorings.

[...]

The time has finally come to pass a constitutional amendment affirming marriage as an institution reserved to the only two people who can naturally produce a family, namely a man and a woman. [Catholic League, 5/9/12]

MRC's Tim Graham: "This Is Not An 'Evolution.' It's A 'Devolution.' " In a May 9 tweet, Media Research Center director of media analysis Tim Graham wrote:

[Twitter, 5/9/12]

How ALEC Is Quietly Influencing Education Reform In Georgia

S.C. & B.D.P. — Wed, 09 May 2012 10:41:14 EDT

Georgia media have been silent as members of ALEC in Georgia's legislature have successfully pushed through a version of ALEC's Charter Schools Act, which would create a state-controlled board with the power to establish and fund charter schools over local opposition. A Media Matters analysis found that while Georgia media have frequently written about the bills, they have completely overlooked ALEC's influence in the debate.

Georgia Passed Companion Bills Opening The Door For Charter School Expansion

The Georgia Legislature Approved Language For A Charter Schools Amendment (HR 1162) To The Georgia Constitution. From the Atlanta Journal-Constitution:

The full-court press legislators endured during the charter schools battle in the General Assembly now moves to voters, who this fall will get their chance to determine how much authority the state should have to approve and fund charter schools. [...]

After the Senate passed a resolution sending the constitutional amendment to voters Monday, Tony Roberts, president and chief executive officer of the Georgia Charter Schools Association, noted that constitutional amendment campaigns in Georgia have cost anywhere from $5 million to $10 million. [...]

Republicans in the General Assembly have made that argument for weeks, saying a constitutional amendment was needed to counter a decision from the Supreme Court, which ruled in May that the state could not force local school districts to pay for charter schools they did not authorize.

That ruling all but killed the Georgia Charter Schools Commission, which had approved applications for charter schools that were turned down by local school districts. Charter schools authorized by the commission had, before the court ruling, been eligible for local district money. It meant 16 schools attended by thousands of students were denied more than $8 million in funding. [Atlanta Journal-Constitution, 3/19/12, emphasis added]

Georgia Gov. Deal Signed HB 797 To Establish A New Charter Schools Commission. Last week, Georgia Gov. Nathan Deal (R) signed HB 797 into law, which, according to the Cherokee Tribune:

Charter school supporters gave the governor an enthusiastic welcome Thursday when he stopped in Cherokee County to sign charter school funding legislation into law.

Gov. Nathan Deal made an appearance at Cherokee Charter Academy to sign House Bill 797, which was passed by the General Assembly this year. [...]

HB 797 provides for the establishment of a state charter schools commission and for requirements for state-created charter schools. The bill is contingent upon the passage of House Resolution 1162, a corresponding constitutional amendment that will appear on the ballot in November. [Cherokee Tribune, 5/4/12, emphasis added]

Companion Bills Were Introduced By Members Of ALEC And ALEC's Education Task Force

Republican Reps. Jan Jones, Brooks Coleman, And Edward Lindsey Sponsored Both Bills. [HR 1162, Georgia General Assembly's website, accessed 5/7/12] [HB 797, Georgia General Assembly's website, accessed 5/7/12]

Jones Is A Member Of American Legislative Exchange Council's (ALEC) Education Task Force. [Sourcewatch.org, accessed 5/7/12]
Lindsey Is An ALEC Member. [Sourcewatch.org, accessed 5/7/12]

Provisions Of Georgia's Companion Bills Mirror ALEC's Model Charter School Legislation

Georgia's Companion Bills And ALEC's Model Legislation May Circumvent The Will Of Local Communities By Creating A State-Level Charter School Authority. HR 1162 allows Georgia's General Assembly to create and fund state charter schools that operate under terms set by the State Board of Education. For that purpose, Georgia's HB 797 aims to establish a "state-level commission" that "shall be appointed by the State Board of Education and shall be composed of a total of seven members and made up of three appointees recommended by the Governor, two appointees recommended by the President of the Senate, and two appointees recommended by the Speaker of the House of Representatives." The commission shall have the power to "approve or deny petitions for state charter schools." [GA HR 1162] [GA HB 797]

The ALEC Model Bill Allowed Charter Applicants To Apply To A State "Public Charter School Board" Rather Than Seek Local Approval. The membership of that board, like that of HB 797, would be composed of 7 members chosen by the state, rather than local, government. From the ALEC model bill:

Membership. - The Governor shall solicit from the Speaker of the House and the President of the Senate a list of 15 individuals they determine are qualified to serve on the Board. The Governor shall appoint 7 individuals from the list to serve on the Board. [ALEC's "Next Generation Charter Schools Act", ALECexposed.org, accessed 5/7/12, emphasis added]

Clauses Regarding The Establishment Of A New 'Charter Schools Commission' Are Nearly Identical In Georgia's HB 797 And ALEC's Model Bill. From Georgia's HB 797:

(a) The State Charter Schools Commission is established as a state-level authorizing entity working in collaboration with the Department of Education under the authority of the State Board of Education. Start-up funds necessary to establish and operate the commission may be received by the State Board of Education in addition to such other funds as may be appropriated by the General Assembly. The department shall assist in securing federal and other institutional grant funds to establish the commission. [GA HB 797, emphasis added]

From the ALEC model bill:

(i) There is established within the state a Public Charter School Board [...]

(ix) Expenses of Board. - Any start-up expenses of the Board shall be paid from such funds as may be available to the State Department of Education; provided, That within 45 days of [implementation date], the State Department of Education shall make available not less than $130,000 to the Board.

[ALEC's "Next Generation Charter Schools Act", ALECexposed.org, accessed 5/7/12, emphasis added]

Georgia's HB 797 And ALEC's Model Bill Offer Parallel Clauses Defining The Composition Of The Proposed Charter Schools Commission. From HB 797:

(b) The commission shall be appointed by the State Board of Education and shall be composed of a total of seven members and made up of three appointees recommended by the Governor, two appointees recommended by the President of the Senate, and two appointees recommended by the Speaker of the House of Representatives. The Governor, the President of the Senate, and the Speaker of the House of Representatives shall each recommend a list of no fewer than two nominees for each appointment to the commission." [GA HB 797]

From the ALEC model bill:

(i) Membership. - The Governor shall solicit from the Speaker of the House and the President of the Senate a list of 15 individuals they determine are qualified to serve on the Board. The Governor shall appoint 7 individuals from the list to serve on the Board.

[ALEC's "Next Generation Charter Schools Act", ALECexposed.org, accessed 5/7/12]

Georgia's HB 797 Follows ALEC's Model Regarding Pay For Commission Members. From HB 797:

(e) The members of the commission shall not be compensated for their services on the commission but may be reimbursed for per diem and travel expenses in the same manner as provided for in Code Section 45-7-21. [GA HB 797]

From the ALEC model bill:

(vii) No compensation for service. - Members of the Board shall serve without pay, but may receive reimbursement for any reasonable and necessary expenses incurred by reason of service on the Board.

[ALEC's "Next Generation Charter Schools Act", ALECexposed.org, accessed 5/7/12]

Georgia's Top Three Newspapers Failed To Notice ALEC's Connection To Charter School Companion Bills

The Atlanta Journal-Constitution Mentioned The Charter School Bills 43 Times But Never Mentions Their Connections To ALEC. [LexisNexis, 1/25/12-5/7/12]

But In 2008, The Atlanta Journal-Constitution Noted ALEC's Influence On Education Reform In Georgia. From the Atlanta Journal-Constitution in August 2008:

Nearly a quarter of the 1,200 students interviewed last spring for the survey said they've had a class where they felt they must agree with the professor's political views to get a good grade. The University System of Georgia commissioned the survey after Republican lawmakers pushed legislation they titled as an academic freedom bill during the last two sessions of the General Assembly. House Bill 154, sponsored by Rep. Tom Rice (R-Norcross), was killed both years. It would have required schools to report to the General Assembly on the steps they are taking to protect "the free exchange of ideas."

The proposal is almost a word-for-word a copy of legislation provided by the American Legislative Exchange Council, a conservative lawmakers' group. Other states have considered it and some have passed it. Susan Herbst, the chief academic officer of the University System, said the survey showed most students are happy with the discourse on campuses. [Atlanta Journal-Constitution, 8/21/08, via Nexis, emphasis added]

From the Atlanta Journal-Constitution in March 2008:

The idea of school choice in Georgia has been around for more than a decade, since the first charter school bill was signed into law in 1993 by Gov. Zell Miller. The issue has become more prominent this decade as national conservative groups have brought the issue to the tops of legislative agendas in states around the country.

A few of those groups have become active in Georgia. All Children Matter, based in Michigan, has given money to Georgia legislators. The Alliance for School Choice, which bills itself as the nation's largest "organization promoting school vouchers and scholarship tax credit programs" is helping fund lobbying efforts for Casas' bill. And the Republican-leaning American Legislative Exchange Council has provided research and sample legislation. [Atlanta Journal-Constitution, 3/26/08, via Nexis, emphasis added]

The Augusta Chronicle Mentioned The Charter School Bills 18 Times But Never Mentions Their Connections To ALEC. [LexisNexis, 1/25/12-5/7/12]

The Macon Telegraph Mentioned The Charter School Bills 17 Times But Never Mentions Their Connections To ALEC. [LexisNexis, 1/25/12-5/7/12]

METHODOLOGY

Media Matters conducted a Nexis search of all news articles in Georgia's three largest newspapers (based on total circulation numbers from the Audit Bureau of Circulations) pertaining to ALEC, each charter school bill, and their sponsors going back to January 25, 2012, when HB 797 and HR 1162 were introduced in the Georgia legislature.

(NOTE: Wire service reports appearing in a newspaper are not always included in the Nexis database.)

Charter School Companion Bills Could Negatively Impact Local Public Schools

Professional Association Of Georgia Educators: Charter School Amendment "Is About Tapping Into Local Funds Without The Local Board Having Approved The Charter School." From Maureen Downey, reporting in the Atlanta Journal-Constitution's education blog:

I asked some educational professionals about how they saw today's House Education Committee vote and what the amendment actually did.

Here is what Tim Callahan of the Professional Association of Georgia Educators said:

We feel that today's committee vote was both unfortunate and disappointing. Despite the smoke screens, this is not about naming an alternate authorizer for start-up charters; it is about tapping into local funds without the local board having approved the charter school. It is not about "choice" but who pays for the choices of others. The Supreme Court ruling addressed charter schools that were authorized by the Charter Commission. It did not address schools authorized by the state board of education receiving state, but not local, funds.

Current state law:

"Upon denial of a petition for a start-up charter school by a local board and upon application to the state board by the petitioner, the state board shall approve the charter of a start-up charter petitioner for a state chartered special school if the state board finds, after receiving input from the Charter Advisory Committee, that such petition meets the requirements set forth in Code Section 20-2-2063 and the provisions of this title, and is in the public interest."

If this were really about alternate authorizers needed to overcome recalcitrant local school boards, current law seems to be just fine. We will oppose this amendment, but continue our support of charter schools - even those who get turned down locally and later get state board approval - as long as local boards are not forced to fund them. The "price" for not getting local board approval is loss of local funds. The remedy for Luddite local boards is appeal to the state board. I think there is at least an imperfect balancing of interests here that does not run roughshod over either local boards or the constitution.

[Get Schooled with Maureen Downey, Atlanta Journal-Constitution, 2/2/12]

Georgia Southern University Professor: HR 1162 Will "Tak[e] State Funds Away From Local School Districts And Giv[e] It To State-Created Charter Schools." Michael Moore, a professor of literacy education at Georgia Southern University, wrote about HR 1162 in the Savannah Morning News:

Perhaps the most contentious action was passing HR 1162 authorizing a constitutional amendment giving the state the authority to create charter schools. This amendment is designed to overturn a Georgia Supreme Court decision.

Several local districts (including Bulloch and Candler counties) challenged the constitutionality of the Perdue-appointed commission and won. The court held that the power to create charter schools belongs to local school boards -- not the state.

But the issue was really all about funding. The Georgia Supreme Court never reached the funding issue because the state commission itself was unconstitutional. Legislators said that if the amendment passes, no local money would support state-created charter schools.

In Georgia, state-created schools can't be funded with local money unless local voters approve.

To get around this, the state takes money away from local school districts in an amount exactly equal to what the local district would spend if the school were a local charter (and sends the difference to the state charter schools). The state says no local funds were involved, but whether it came from the left pocket or the right pocket, it's the same pair of local pants that is missing money at the end of the day.

Put another way, taking state funds away from local school districts and giving it to state-created charter schools is doing indirectly what can't be done directly.

The "conservative" state legislators who loathe the idea of an appointed board making medical decisions under Obamacare embraced this model for the state's charter schools commission. Once again, state government trumps local control. This will probably all wind up back in court. [Savannah Morning News, 4/8/12, emphasis added]

Cherokee County School Board: HR 1162 "Threatens The Integrity Of The Existing Statewide System Of Providing For And Properly Funding Quality Public Education." From the Cherokee Tribune:

The Cherokee County School Board adopted a resolution opposing the constitutional amendment that would allow the state to create charter schools without local school board permission in a 4-2 vote Thursday night, despite some board members alleging the resolution contained "inflammatory" language and was "insulting" toward some groups.

The resolution, proposed by School Board Vice Chairwoman Janet Read, requests voters to reject the constitutional amendment that will be on the November ballot as a result of the passage of House Bill 1162. [...]

"The Cherokee County Board of Education believes that it should remain unconstitutional for the state to take and redirect local school tax dollars for the aforementioned purposes," the proposed resolution states, noting the constitutional amendment "threatens the integrity of the existing statewide system of providing for and properly funding quality public education." [Cherokee Tribune, 4/20/12, emphasis added]

Georgia State University Professor: The Georgia Legislature Is "Usurp[ing] The Power Vested In Local School Boards." Jack Hassard, Professor Emeritus of Science Education at Georgia State University, wrote for Education Week's teacher blog:

The Charter school movement has been in the news recently in Georgia. The Georgia Legislature is trying to get around the present Charter School law which says that applications for establishing a charter school must be approved by the local school district. [...]

In January 2012, House Bill 797, to provide for state chartered special schools, was introduced into the Georgia House. The Bill, if approved by both houses would seek to amend Title 20 of the Official Code of Georgia (Education Code), meaning that the citizens of Georgia would have to vote on the amendment. The key element of this Bill is to enable the State of Georgia, through the Georgia Charter School Commission, to authorize "state charter schools." The bill claims that state charter schools can serve as a complement to the educational opportunities provided by local school boards. And indeed, the amendment, if passed by citizen vote, would establish a state level commission to create its own set of schools, and demand that the local school board essentially use local funds to support a school they may or may not sanction. As you will find out ahead in this post, charter schools may not be a viable alternative in terms of raising student achievement scores.

This puts enormous power in the Commission, whose members will be appointed by the Governor, and the leaders of the state legislature. It also brings into question how this unelected Commission can usurp the power vested in local school boards to provide for the education of students in its jurisdiction. [...]

Based on research that was cited above, the Georgia legislature in its intent to make it possible for the State to create charters without approval nor support from the local school districts is not warranted simply on the basis that charter schools do as good a job as public schools in either helping students to be college ready, or in data cited here in leaning mathematics. The claim that charters provide a robust alternative to public schools is simply not supported on the basis of the research reported by Dr. Marder and his colleagues at the University of Texas. [EdWeek.org, 3/16/12, emphasis added]

Studies Show Charter Schools May Not Be Any More Effective Than Traditional Public Schools

GA Department of Education Study On Academic Performance In 2010-2011 Found Existing Charter Schools Trail Traditional Public Schools. From the report:

While 70% of all charter schools including charter system schools made AYP [Adequate Yearly Process], only 67% percent of conversion and start-up charter schools made AYP in 2010-11. This is a decrease from 80% in 2009-10. In comparison, traditional public schools also declined from 2009-10 to 2010-11 although by a smaller percentage. Over the past five years, the overall performance of charter schools compared to traditional public schools has been mixed but both groups have traditionally demonstrated the same general performance trends. [Charter School Division 2010-2011 Annual Report, Georgia Department of Education, 12/30/11]

An Atlanta Journal-Constitution Study Found Charter Schools Were More Likely To Have Test Scores Indicating "Endemic Cheating." From the Atlanta Journal-Constitution:

The AJC developed a statistical method to identify school systems with far more unusual tests than expected, which could signal endemic cheating such as that which occurred in Atlanta. The newspaper's score analysis used conservative measures that highlighted extremes and were likely to miss many instances of cheating.

Big-to-medium-sized cities and rural districts harbored the highest concentrations of suspect tests. No Child Left Behind may help explain why. The law forced districts to contend with the scores of poor and minority students in an unprecedented way, judging schools by the performance of such "subgroups" as well as by overall achievement.

Hence, high-poverty schools faced some of the most relentless pressure of the kind critics say increases cheating.

Improbable scores were twice as likely to appear in charter schools as regular schools. Charters, which receive public money, can face intense pressure as supposed laboratories of innovation that, in theory, live or die by their academic performance. [Atlanta Journal-Constitution, 3/25/12, emphasis added]

Public Non-Charter Students Score Higher Than Charter Students On Average. From average scale scores compiled by the National Center for Education Statistics:

	2009 public school national average scale scores
	Charter	Non-charter
Mathematics, grade 4	231	239
Reading, grade 8	212	220
Mathematics, grade 8	275	282
Reading, grade 8	257	262

[National Center for Education Statistics, accessed 10/25/11; screenshots of data here]

Black Helicopters Alert: Morris Warns Obama Is Pushing For "One World Government"

A.N. — Tue, 08 May 2012 17:46:31 EDT

Fox News contributor Dick Morris told Sean Hannity that "one world government" is "happening." His evidence consists of false statements about a series of treaties, some of which enjoy bipartisan support, are important for U.S. national security, and protect children from exploitation.

Morris And Hannity Explore "One World Government" Conspiracy Theory

Morris Claimed "One World Government" Is "Happening." During the May 7 edition of Fox News' Hannity, Dick Morris told host Sean Hannity that he believes Obama will "sign a series of treaties that will bind the United States hand and foot for decades and get them ratified by the lame duck Senate":

HANNITY: What's fascinating about this, and I'll let you explain it in your own words, there are people for years who have warned about one world government, world taxation, all of these things, and you're saying, "Yeah, it's happening."

MORRIS: It's happening.

HANNITY: Explain.

MORRIS: I believe that President Obama, at some level, knows he's not going to get reelected, and Hillary knows it. And they know they're going to lose the Senate. And you remember when they passed the START treaty, Sean? Lame duck session?

HANNITY: Yup.

MORRIS: I believe that he is going to sign a series of treaties that will bind the United States hand and foot for decades and get them ratified by the lame duck Senate. [Fox News, Hannity, 5/7/12]

Morris Previously Claimed That "Those Crazies In Montana Who Say, 'We're Going To Kill ATF Agents Because The U.N.'s Going To Take Over' -- Well, They're Beginning To Have A Case." In a March 2009 appearance on Fox, Morris expounded on a long conspiracy theory about a "super-national authority" that will oversee U.S. financial institutions, then asserted that President Obama's policies are "internationalist" and that "those crazies in Montana who say, 'We're going to kill ATF agents because the U.N.'s going to take over' -- well, they're beginning to have a case." [Fox News,Your World with Neil Cavuto, 3/31/09, via Media Matters]

Morris Misleads About The Law Of The Sea Treaty

Morris: The U.S. Navy, Not The Law Of The Sea Treaty, Should Protect "Freedom Of The Seas." Morris' first example of a dangerous treaty was the Law of the Sea Treaty, a treaty that Obama cannot sign in the lame-duck session since it was already signed by former President Bill Clinton:

MORRIS: One of them is coming up for ratification in June. It's called the Law of the Sea Treaty, L-O-S-T, LOST. It provides that the United States is obliged to share half of its royalties from oil drilling and mineral drilling out to 200 miles with a newly created UN-based Seabed Authority, which will distribute the money as it wishes -- we have 1 vote out of 160 -- to 160 nations.

[...]

MORRIS: All of these have a fig leaf. The fig leaf here is oh, freedom of the seas. But the point the conservatives make is the United States Navy does a very good job of guaranteeing --

[CROSSTALK]

HANNITY: Exactly. And those are our territorial waters.

MORRIS: And I'll tell you something even worse. In this treaty, it provides that the Seabed Authority may take action to prevent pollution of the ocean. Pollution includes thermal pollution. This Authority could ban carbon emissions in the United States so we don't heat up the ocean. [Fox News, Hannity, 5/7/12]

But The U.S. Navy Says Law Of The Sea Treaty "Supports National Security Interests By Codifying The Right Of U.S. Military Vessels To Navigate Freely" On The High Seas. From 2003 testimony by Admiral Mike Mullen:

General Myers, the services, and the combatant commands strongly support the United States becoming a party to the convention, which DOD and five administrations have consistently supported.

As a comprehensive, multilateral treaty that confirms navigational rights and freedoms for maintaining global mobility and forward presence and readiness, the convention supports national security interests by codifying the right of U.S. military vessels to navigate freely on, under, and over the high seas or within international straits. Furthermore, within traditional choke point areas, a normal mode of operations is permitted, including formation steaming, use of sensors such as radar and sonar, submerged transits, and the launching and recovery of aircraft.

Since 1983, the Joint Chiefs and the combatant commanders have supported the navigational provisions of the convention because of the core belief that a comprehensive, widely accepted, and stable legal basis for the world's oceans is essential to U.S. national security. [Statement by Adm. Mike Mullen before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, 10/21/03]

Bush Urged Senate To Ratify Treaty Because It Was "In The National Security Interests" Of The Country And Would "Secure U.S. Sovereign Rights." From a May 15, 2007, statement by former president George W. Bush titled "President's Statement on Advancing U.S. Interests in the World's Oceans":

I urge the Senate to act favorably on U.S. accession to the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea during this session of Congress. Joining will serve the national security interests of the United States, including the maritime mobility of our armed forces worldwide. It will secure U.S. sovereign rights over extensive marine areas, including the valuable natural resources they contain. Accession will promote U.S. interests in the environmental health of the oceans. And it will give the United States a seat at the table when the rights that are vital to our interests are debated and interpreted. [White House Archives, 5/15/07]

In 2004, The Senate Foreign Relations Committee Unanimously Recommended Ratification Of Law Of The Sea Treaty. On February 25, 2004, the Republican-controlled Senate Foreign Relations Committee voted to recommend ratification of the Law of the Sea Treaty by a vote of 19-0. [Senate Foreign Relations Committee report on Law of the Sea Treaty, 3/11/04]

Law Of The Sea Treaty Again Received Bipartisan Support In 2007. In 2007, the Senate Foreign Relations Committee again voted in favor of ratification, this time by a vote of 17-4. [Senate Foreign Relations Committee report on Law of the Sea Treaty, 12/19/07]

Morris Misleads About The International Criminal Court

Morris Fearmongers About Losing Sovereignty To International Criminal Court, Which Will Charge Americans With "Aggression." Morris said the following about the International Criminal Court, a court created by a treaty Clinton signed, Bush withdrew from, and which remains unsigned:

MORRIS: I'll give you another example. The -- well you alluded to it. The International Criminal Court. We are the only country in the world that's not a member of it. And at some level it's OK. It's got the fig leaf, it goes after war criminals and human rights abusers. But they include in their treaty the definition of a new crime called aggression. And aggression is defined as going to war without UN approval. And the president, vice president, secretary of defense are personally, criminally liable for imprisonment in trial in front of the ICC court. [Fox News, Hannity, 5/7/12]

But The Obama Administration Has Been Actively Working To Ensure "Total Protection For U.S. Armed Forces And Other Nationals" Over The Crime Of Aggression. From a statement by State Department Legal Advisor Harold Koh following a 2010 international conference on the International Criminal Court:

The outcome on aggression, though, we think served our core interests. We ensure total protection for U.S. armed forces and other nationals going forward. The court can't exercise jurisdiction over the crime of aggression without a further decision, which will not take place until after January 2017. The prosecutor cannot charge nationals of non-States Parties, of which we are one, with the crime of aggression. A State Party that ratifies amendment can opt out. So the allegations they committed aggression can't be the basis for an ICC investigation or prosecution, and we secured an outcome that ensured that the U.S. and non-state parties would be treated the same, which was a major point or principle.

Specifically, in no case can jurisdiction be exercised with respect to acts committed until one year after 30 States Parties accepted the amendment, and then there are two channels by which aggression can be prosecuted if and when the crime does come into effect. One channel goes through an exclusive Security Council trigger, which the U.S. had been urging. The second goes through a prior Security Council review with three conditions. If the Security Council doesn't make a determination that aggression occurs, the prosecutor has to offer a reasonable basis for proceeding. That decision would require a majority vote of six judges, and the Security Council would still have the authority to stop the prosecution with a red light, Chapter 7 resolution.

The net result of this was that the crime of aggression was put on the back burner for the next seven years, and we think this accomplished the basic goal that we were focused on, which is giving the breathing room for the court to get stronger and focus on its core crimes. [Statement of Harold Koh to the American Society of International Law, 6/16/10]

The Jurisdiction Of The ICC's Definition Of The Crime Of Aggression Will Not Be Decided On Until After January 1, 2017. From the International Criminal Court's Resolution RC/Res.6 for "[t]he crime of aggression":

The Court shall exercise jurisdiction over the crime of aggression in accordance with this article, subject to a decision to be taken after 1 January 2017 by the same majority of States Parties as is required for the adoption of an amendment to the Statute. [International Criminal Court Resolutions, accessed 5/8/12]

And A Bush Administration Official Who Oversaw Guantanamo Litigation Says The ICC "Is Consistent With The U.S. Commitment To Enforcing Human Rights." In a July 7, 2010, FoxNews.com opinion piece, Vijay Padmanabhan, former chief counsel for the U.S. State Department on Guantanamo and Iraq detainee litigation during the Bush administration, explained some of the benefits of the ICC for the United States. Padmanabhan explained that the ICC was "consistent with the U.S. commitment to enforcing human rights," and noted the negative implications of the U.S. not joining the ICC, suggesting it allows "states with political agendas contrary to the interests of international justice to divert the Court from work that is also beneficial to the United States." [FoxNews.com, 7/7/10]

Morris Misleads About Proposed Code Of Conduct In Outer Space Treaty

Morris Misleads On U.S. Involvement In European Union's "Code Of Conduct In Outer Space" Treaty. From the May 7 edition of Fox News' Hannity:

MORRIS: You know how liberals have always not wanted us to have a missile defense?

HANNITY: Right.

MORRIS: Because they claim we will do a first strike. And so what the Europeans did was they got together and said there's too much debris in outer space, too many things floating around, it's litter, and it could crash into satellites and stuff. And they passed a Code of Conduct in outer space that says no country may launch a missile or a satellite that contributes to debris. That means we can't send up anti-satellite satellites, it means we can't send up missile interceptors. The only way we have of neutralizing North Korea and Iran if they get the bomb is space-based missile interceptors. This treaty would prohibit it. And Hillary -- in January the deputy secretary of state, Ellen Tauscher announced we were not going to pursue negotiations on this. Hillary overruled her and now is negotiating this treaty. [Fox News, Hannity, 5/7/12]

U.S. Department Of State: The EU's "Code Of Conduct For Outer Space Activities" Would Not "Impose Legal Obligations On The United States." During a April 18 speech at the National Space Symposium, Frank Rose, Deputy Assistant Secretary for the U.S. Department of State's Bureau of Arms Control, Verification and Compliance division, explained that the European Union's proposed Code of Conduct "will establish a set of non-legally-binding transparency and confidence-building measures." Furthermore, Rose stated that the "Obama Administration would not subscribe to an International Code if it constrained or limited the inherent right of individual or collective self-defense, our intelligence community programs or operations, or our ballistic missile defense systems or capabilities." [U.S. Department Of State, 4/18/12]

Morris And Hannity Mislead On Proposed Small Arms Treaty

Morris And Hannity Fearmonger About A Potential "Small Arms Treaty." From the May 7 edition of Fox News' Hannity:

MORRIS: The Small Arms Treaty.

HANNITY: Let me just lay out three more things. It would prevent, literally, the American export -- it would force the American export of weapons, our weapons that we develop and our technology to other countries, it would have jurisdiction over firearms in the United States. [Fox News, Hannity, 5/7/12]

But The U.S. Is Actually Working Toward A Small Arms Treaty That Extends U.S. Standards On Arms Trafficking To The International Community. From an October 14, 2009, statement by Secretary of State Hillary Clinton:

On a national basis, the United States has in place an extensive and rigorous system of controls that most agree is the "gold standard" of export controls for arms transfers. On a bilateral basis, the United States regularly engages other states to raise their standards and to prohibit the transfer or transshipment of capabilities to rogue states, terrorist groups, and groups seeking to unsettle regions. Multilaterally, we have consistently supported high international standards, and the Arms Trade Treaty initiative presents us with the opportunity to promote the same high standards for the entire international community that the United States and other responsible arms exporters already have in place to ensure that weaponry is transferred for legitimate purposes. [Remarks by Hillary Clinton, 10/14/09]

Without A Treaty, Small Arms Are Flowing From Non-U.S. Markets To Human Rights Abusers. According to the United Nations Office for Disarmament Affairs, "[t]he illicit trade in small arms, light weapons and ammunition wreaks havoc everywhere." The U.N. notes that "[s]mall arms facilitate a vast spectrum of human rights violations, including killing, maiming, rape and other forms of sexual violence, enforced disappearance, torture, and forced recruitment of children by armed groups." [UN.org, Small Arms, accessed 5/8/12]

Thus The UN General Assembly Decided Treaty Conference Was Needed To Prevent "Diversion To The Illicit Market," Which Promotes "Armed Conflict." A resolution adopted by the General Assembly on the Arms Trade Treaty found "the problems relating to the unregulated trade of conventional arms and their diversion to the illicit market is a contributory factor to armed conflict." Therefore a "United Nations conference on the Arms Trade Treaty" should convene "for four consecutive weeks in 2012." [Resolution adopted by the General Assembly 64/48, 12/2/09]

And Small Arms Treaty Talks Aim To Stop Arms From Flowing To Human Rights Abusers, Not Regulate Domestic Arms Sales. From an October 2009 Washington Post article:

"No government is discussing a treaty that would ever impact the right to bear arms, nor require regulation of domestic sales of arms," said Scott Stedjan, a senior policy adviser at the relief group Oxfam America. "This is totally about international transfer of arms so that they don't go to human rights abusers."

The United States is the world's largest supplier of conventional weapons, accounting last year for nearly 70 percent of the global arms sales on contracts valued at $37.8 billion. Italy and Russia were second and third, with $3.7 billion and $3.5 billion in arms sales, according to figures compiled by the Congressional Research Service.

Arms control experts and rights advocates welcomed the U.S. commitment to participate in U.N. talks, saying the negotiations could help impose some basic rules in an industry that operates in the shadows, fuels conflicts and provides arms to terrorist groups and insurgents. [Washington Post, 10/16/09]

Morris Misleads About The Convention On The Rights Of The Child

Morris Suggests The U.S. Will Lose Sovereignty Under The Convention On The Rights Of The Child. The final treaty Morris discussed was the Convention on the Rights of The Child, a treaty signed by President Clinton, but not yet ratified:

MORRIS: There's something called the Rights of the Child treaty, which Britain for example is a signatory to. When Cameron wanted to cut welfare benefits in Britain, the Rights of the Child advocates sued him, saying he wasn't allowed to do it, because of the child treaty, which obliged him to give children certain basic levels of food, medicine, clothing, and everything. And the treaty provides that rich nations have a legal obligation to provide poor nations with enough aid to satisfy that.

[CROSSTALK]

HANNITY: So now we're going to spread wealth around the world as if we're not overtaxed now?

MORRIS: You're going to see lawsuits in the United States enforced by U.S. district courts that require us to increase our foreign aid budget. And let me say this: A foreign treaty under the Supremacy Clause of the Constitution is equal to a constitutional amendment. You can't repeal it. You can't override it. You can -- there are only two ways of getting out of it, a constitutional amendment or be let out of it by the other 180 countries. [Fox News, Hannity, 5/7/12]

Amnesty International: Claims That The Treaty Usurps U.S. Sovereignty Are "A Result Of Misconceptions, Erroneous Information, And A Lack Of Understanding." From Amnesty International's frequently asked questions web page on the Convention on the Rights of the Child:

The most common unfounded concerns voiced by the opposition include:

The Convention usurps national and state sovereignty

The Convention undermines parental authority

The Convention would allow and encourage children to sue parents, join gangs, have abortions,

The United Nations would dictate how we raise and teach our children

These claims and perceptions are a result of misconceptions, erroneous information, and a lack of understanding about how international human rights treaties are implemented in the United States. Notably, in many cases, the Convention's opponents criticize provisions which were added by the Reagan and Bush Administrations during the drafting process in an effort to reflect the rights American children have under the U.S. Constitution.

[...]

The Convention contains no controlling language or mandates. Moreover, under the supremacy clause of our Constitution, no treaty can "override" our Constitution. The United States has historically regarded treaties such as this Convention to be non-self-executing, which means the Convention can only be implemented through domestic legislation enacted by Congress or state legislatures, in a manner and time-frame determined by our own legislative process. Moreover, the United States can reject or attach clarifying language to any specific provision of the Convention.

Therefore, neither the United Nations nor the Committee on the Rights of the Child would have dominion, power, or enforcement authority over the United States or its citizens. Ultimately, the Convention obligates the Federal Government to make sure that the provisions of the treaty are fulfilled. [Amnesty International, accessed 5/8/12]

What Buffett Really Said About The Buffett Rule

M.L.J. — Tue, 08 May 2012 12:53:00 EDT

Right-wing media claimed that Warren Buffett "blast[ed]" the Buffett rule and that he "isn't totally in favor" of it, citing a CNBC interview in which Buffett said the rule is a "small improvement" that "doesn't cure all revenue problems." But during that interview, Buffett said that he's "fine" with the rule as introduced by Senate Democrats and that it "encompasses the principles that I believe in."

Buffett: I'm "Fine" With The Buffett Rule; "It Encompasses The Principles That I Believe In"

Buffett On CNBC: "I'm Fine With" The Buffett Rule; "It Encompasses The Principles That I Believe In." From the May 7 edition of CNBC's Squawk Box:

ANDREW ROSS SORKIN (co-host): You know, Warren, to me, one of the most interesting answers that came out of the meeting was about the Buffett rule, and in particular, sounded to me like you were indicating that what the White House has done with the Buffett rule is different than what you would've done. And I think you used the quote that it's been butchered a bit. Could you elaborate on that?

BUFFETT: No, no. No, I said some of the commentary about it has been butchered or - but no, I would not say the rule at all has been butchered. Obviously, if I were writing a bill myself, there would be - there'd be a little difference. For one thing, there would probably be a different break point - maybe at $10 million or something of the sort. But, it's interesting - you mention the term "White House" because it's Senator Whitehouse who introduced the bill - Senator Whitehouse of Rhode Island. And I wrote him a letter after he introduced the bill and said I'm fine with it. I mean, everybody would do something a little bit differently, but it encompasses the principles that I believe in.

Buffett then responded to co-host Becky Quick's comment that "some of the criticism [of the Buffett rule] that's come out, though, has been that it's really a Band-Aid on a really bad tax system":

BUFFETT: Oh, it doesn't -- it is a small improvement in a very bad tax system. It doesn't cure all, it doesn't cure all revenue problems remotely. In my original article, I said, you know, we've got major problems on the expenditure side. And, no -- but it -- no, all it does is it says that when you've got 131 of the 400 largest incomes in the country that are averaging 270 million, you have a hundred -- a third of them paying at rates less than 15 percent, counting payroll taxes. That is something that should be corrected. [CNBC, Squawk Box, 5/7/12, relevant portion begins around 3:30]

But Right-Wing Media Spin Buffett's Comments To Claim He "Blast[ed]" The Buffett Rule

Big Government: "Buffett Rips The Buffett Rule." A May 7 Big Government post headlined, "Buffett Rips The Buffett Rule," highlighted a portion of Buffett's comments on CNBC and claimed that Buffett "came out today and criticized" the Buffett rule. From Big Government:

Warren Buffett came out today and criticized the Obama Administration's new "Buffett Rule" which would apply a minimum tax rate of 30 percent on individuals making more than a million dollars a year. Buffett thinks more should be done, and said that the Rule was:

a small improvement in a very bad tax system. It doesn't cure all, it doesn't cure all revenue problems remotely. In my original article I said we've got major problems on the expenditure side. All it does is say that when you've got 131 of the 400 largest incomes in the country that are averaging 170 million, you have a third paying taxes at less than 15% counting payroll taxes; that is something that should be corrected.

It would be nice to see GDP galloping at 4 or 5 %. But we've had a complete resuscitation of the banking system, in all cases but residential construction we've had the economy come back in a very significant way, and month by month it gets better. [Big Government, 5/7/12]

Fox Nation: "Buffett Rips The Buffett Rule." On May 7, Fox Nation linked to the Big Government post with the headline: "Buffett Rips The Buffett Rule":

[Fox Nation, 5/7/12]

Fox's Carlson: "Chances Are The President Never Expected [Buffett] To Blast The So-Called Buffett Rule." During the May 8 edition of Fox News' Fox & Friends, co-host Gretchen Carlson said: "Chances are the president never expected this guy to blast the so-called Buffett rule. Warren Buffett himself, the billionaire, now saying it won't do much to help our ailing economy." She later stated, "It's a little problematic when the guy you name it after isn't totally in favor of it." From Fox & Friends:

CARLSON: Chances are the president never expected this guy to blast the so-called Buffett rule. Warren Buffett himself, the billionaire, now saying it won't do much to help our ailing economy. Remember, President Obama named his tax-hike proposal after Buffett, who supports increased tax revenues on America's top earners. But during a recent Buffett announcement, he criticized the president's proposal as a small improvement to a very bad tax system that couldn't even remotely cure our revenue problems. And those are your headlines. It's a little problematic when the guy you name it after maybe isn't totally in favor of it.

STEVE DOOCY (co-host): Oops.

BRIAN KILMEADE (co-host): They could've checked with him.

During the segment, on-screen text read, "Buffett vs. Buffett; Billionaire blasts rule that bears his name":

[Fox News, Fox & Friends, 5/8/12]

Not The First Time: Right-Wing Media Have Previously Misrepresented Buffett To Claim He Criticized Buffett Rule

In September 2011, Right-Wing Media Twisted Buffett's Comments To Claim He Repudiated The Buffett Rule. After a September 2011 CNBC interview, right-wing media falsely claimed that Buffett would not "endorse" the Buffett rule, and that he "repudiates" it. [Media Matters, 9/30/11]

Fox's Bolling Is Oblivious To Positive Changes In Economy Under Obama

D.S. — Tue, 08 May 2012 00:32:43 EDT

Fox's Eric Bolling said that "there isn't one" economic metric that has improved since President Obama took office. In fact, the economy stopped shrinking and started growing since Obama's inauguration, private-sector jobs and exports have increased, and employment turned from sharp declines to growth.

Bolling: "There's Isn't One" Economic Measure That's Improved Since January 20, 2009

Bolling: Nothing Has Improved Since "January 20, 2009, When President Obama Started Calling The Shots." From Fox News' The Five:

BOLLING (co-host): I'm not sure -- you can't say this, though, Bob. Here's what you do. You take a snapshot at January 20, 2009, when President Obama started calling the shots, and you take another snapshot now, and give me one, give me one metric that's better. There isn't one. It's an economic metric.

BOB BECKEL (co-host): Manufacturing, kids who have insurance, women who get equal pay --

BOLLING: Yes, the redistribution metrics are much better. [Fox News, The Five, 5/7/12]

FACT: GDP, Private-Sector Jobs, Exports Are Higher Than When Obama Took Office

BEA: Economy Shrank More Than 4 Percent In Q1 2009; Now, Economy Has Grown For Nine Consecutive Quarters. Data from the Bureau of Economic Analysis, with a chart from the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis:

[St. Louis Fed, accessed 5/7/12]

Labor Department: Economy Was Shedding 750,000 Jobs A Month When Obama Took Office; Now, U.S. Has Had 18 Consecutive Months Of Job Growth. Data from the Department of Labor, with a chart from the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis:

[St. Louis Fed, accessed 5/7/12]

Wall Street Journal: "The Number Of Private-Sector Jobs In The U.S. Economy Is Now Higher Than The Month [Obama] Took Office." From The Wall Street Journal:

Friday's disappointing employment report showed slowing momentum in the labor market since the start of the year. But President Barack Obama, who officially launches his reelection campaign Saturday, overcame one threshold: the number of private-sector jobs in the U.S. economy is now higher than the month he took office.

[...]

Private-sector Jobs

With the latest report, total private payrolls are now higher than they were in January 2009. The latest count put private-sector jobs at about 111 million in April (reported as 111.02 million), or 35,000 jobs more than the January 2009 level. Private payrolls as of April were up 760,000 from Obama's first full month in office in February 2009. [The Wall Street Journal, 5/4/12]

NPR: "American Exports Are Up 34 Percent" Since Obama Pledged To Double Exports, "And The Number Continues To Rise." From NPR.org:

In his State of the Union address two years ago, President Obama argued there were a few things the U.S. needed to do in order to recover from the economic recession: One of them was to export more of goods around the world.

"The more products we make and sell to other countries, the more jobs we support right here in America," Obama said.

That night, the president unveiled a new goal: to double U.S. exports over the next five years. It would be an increase the president said would "support 2 million jobs in America."

Most economists dismissed the pledge at the time as somewhat quixotic, but two years later, the U.S. is on pace to meet that goal. American exports are up 34 percent since the president gave that speech, and the number continues to rise. [NPR.org, 4/21/12]