|
|
|
AdvertisementDouble standard?We've all heard the claims that the national media is less likely to criticize left-leaning leaders than those who lean to the right. Since the press often disputes this claim, let's take a look at a couple of examples surrounding internal decisions made within the Obama administration. Recently, Senate Finance Committee Ranking Member Chuck Grassley raised concerns about the Department of Health and Human Services misusing their public website to promote President Obama's health reform agenda. The taxpayer-funded, HHS administered website, www.healthreform.gov contains a link to a "state your support" form letter addressed to Obama. The letter clearly supports the Democrats' position on the topic and goes so far as to imply that raising taxes and costs is acceptable. Perhaps Vice President Biden wrote that line. You'll recall he believes paying more in taxes is the "patriotic" thing to do. Maybe the patriotic thing for our federal government to do is to tighten its belt like the rest of us. The real issue with the blatant health care propaganda is that it is posted on a taxpayer-funded website. A recent poll showed that well over 50 percent of voters did not support the health care proposals circulating Capitol Hill. Since not all taxpayers support this idea, maybe the new administration should think twice about using taxpayers' money to push their agenda. How would Obama, Pelosi and their media buddies have reacted if the previous administration had put a "Support Bush's Iraq Policy" button on the Department of Defense website? Secondly, I wonder if the media would have approved of the latest reorganization effort at USDA if our president's last name was McCain. Over the summer, USDA began working on an internal reorganization of several offices resulting in two rather high-profile shifts in authority. Traditionally, USDA's Office of Budget and Program Analysis (OBPA) reported directly to the number two person in the department. However, under the new plan, OBPA will report to Assistant Secretary for Administration Pearlie Reed. Many folks have expressed concern with removing OBPA's more direct line to upper management, but I guess the budget isn't as important as it once was. The other USDA move raising bi-partisan eyebrows places the Assistant Secretary for Civil Rights also under the watchful eye of Mr. Reed. Previously, the civil rights office reported directly to the secretary. Vilsack says that the move will help the civil rights office work better with the human resources and employment offices. Does essentially demoting an assistant secretary, forcing them to report to someone with the same title, increase effectiveness? At his confirmation hearing, Vilsack emphatically stated that this administration would increase responsiveness to civil rights issues at USDA. However, under this new structure, the civil rights office has one more level of bureaucracy to break through before gaining access to the top dog. Again, I ask where CNN, MSNBC and the New York Times are. Do you think they would have turned a deaf ear to these very same actions under a Republican administration? Advertisement
Copyright/Privacy
Copyright 1995-2009. High Plains Publishers, Inc. All rights reserved. Any republishing of these pages, including electronic reproduction of the editorial archives or classified advertising, is strictly prohibited. If you have questions or comments you can reach us at High Plains Journal 1500 E. Wyatt Earp Blvd., P.O. Box 760, Dodge City, KS 67801 or call 1-800-452-7171. Email: webmaster@hpj.com |
Market Snapshot Inside Futures |
60981