Predictions for the next two years
Posted by Mike Sylvester - 11/8/08 @ 12:39 pm - Filed Under Featured, National Politics
I hope that many of you will respond to this post with predictions of your own. I did a post similar to this two years ago and the results were interesting to say the least. Here are my predictions on what will happen in the next two years in Federal politics.
1. Obama has promised to pull our combat troops out of Iraq within 16 months from taking office. I applaud this plan and I agree with it. That being said Obama will NOT keep this promise. I feel that he will pull some troops out of Iraq. We currently have 146,000 troops in Iraq. Obama will have been President for 16 months in May of 2010. May 20th, 2010 I predict we will have 80,000 troops in Iraq. This will really anger the peace wing of the Democratic Party.
2. Many conservatives, especially in talk radio, are warning that the Democrats will bring back the “Fairness Doctrine.” I think that some Democrats will try to bring this terrible law back into effect; however, I feel they will be soundly defeated (as they should be).
3. The Democrats have been promising to restore fiscal discpline in Washington since they swept into power in the 2006 Congressional Elections. Since they took power the Federal deficits have ballooned to record levels. I expect that to continue, in fact, I expect it to get even worse in the next two years. The Federal debt was 10 trillion dollars on September 30th, 2008 (End of Federal Fiscal Year). I predict it will grow to 11 trillion dollars as of September 30th, 2009. This will result in the largest annual deficit in our nation’s history. I predict it will grow to 11.8 trillion dollars as of September 30th, 2010.
4. Barack Obama promised to ensure we are not dependent on foreign oil in ten years. I predict that he will make absolutely no progress on lowering our dependence on foreign oil over the next two years. Every US President since Jimmy Carter has promised to lower our dependence on foreign oil and each and every one of them has failed. Barack Obama will be no different.
5. Democrats ran countless political ads in Indiana, Ohio, Pennsylvania etc. attacking the Republicans on outsourcing jobs overseas. I agree that this is a major problem that has been created by the unwillingness of Democrats as well as Republicans to address this issue. I predict the Democrats will entirely ignore the problem for the next two years.
6. The Democrats frequently talk about protecting Social Security. Social Security collects more then it spends and has for many decades. The Democrats have been in control of Congress for the last two years and in those two years they have continued to spend that surplus on other budgetary items. Not one dime of the social security surplus has been saved. I expect that to continue for the next two years; the Democrats will do nothing to create a social security lock box.
7. The Democratshave talked about increasing payroll taxes on the wealthy in order to help protect social security. I expect them to follow through on this in one form or another. President Reagan eliminated the wage cap on wages for Medicare taxes. I expect President Elect Obama to modify the wage cap on social security. Currently you pay a 6.2% payroll tax on the first $102,000 in wages you make per year and your employer matches this tax. I expect Obama to basically keep it the way it is on the first $102,000 (Roughly indexed for inflation), then I expect him to not levy a social security tax on remaining wages up to $250,000; then I expect him to tax all wages above $250,000 with maybe an additional 3.1% tax forboth the employee and employer. I expect this to pass Congress on a vote that is pretty close to Party lines.
8. A large number of Democrats have promised to make affordable health-care available in one way or another. I feel this will be debated in Congress; however, I feel the Democrats will not be able to get the votes in order to create a big Government run health-care system.
9. The Democrats will grant Amnesty to a huge number of illegal aliens. This will anger and unite conservatives; however, the Democrats will pass an Amnesty bill very similar to the one that was recently defeated.
10. We currently have about 32,000 troops in Afghanistan. I expect to see President Obama increase this number. In fact, I expect us to have about 50,000 troops in Afghanistan in two years.
11. By the end of the year about one million American families are expected to have received at least one foreclosure related notice in 2008. I expect this to continue at a similar pace over the next two years. Congress passed a law this summer designed to help many of these homeowners; however, the law will not prevent foreclosures, it will instead delay them. I feel the real estate market will be pretty flat over the next two years.
12. Unemployment is becoming a larger and larger problem. Last month Unemployment hit 6.5%; its highest rate in 14 years. In the last 14 years unemployment has been very low; however, that is changing and changing for the worse. I expect unemployment to average almost 8% over the next two years. This will be devastating to the economy and to many families. I expect Congress to extend unemployment benefits significantly; likely in the first 100 days.
13. Many Democrats (And a surprising number of Republicans) have expressed an interest in limiting executive pay in the banking industry for those companies participating in the bailout. The bailout is currently written with realistically no executive compensation limits. I expect that the Democrats will modify that and slightly limit executive excesses for companies benefiting from the taxpayer bailout.
14. Barack Obama will bailout the auto industry. He will spend tens of billions of taxpayer dollars. This will delay the fall of the big three automakers; however, it will not save them. Numerous other industries will line up with their hands out including the airline industry. I expect President elect Obama to bailout several industries.
15. Many of the Bush tax cuts have already been extended. The Democrats have talked about rolling these tax cuts back. I do not expect them to roll very many of them back at all…
16. Many states and large cities are in dire financial straights due to poor fiscal planning and massive over spending. I expect the Federal Government to step in and bailout many of these states and large cities; likely through large loans through a mechanism similar to the bank bailout package.
17. Many people fear the Democrats will pass legislation that will change the laws on the votes employees make about whether they wish to unionize or not. Currently this vote is done by secret ballot. Many unions wish this to be done by a union check card; in other words the union would just have to get a majority of workers to sign cards stating they wish to unionize rather then voting by secret ballot. I oppose this legislation. Many of the big unions expect President Elect Obama to pass this legislation. I expect this legislation to pass the House easily and I expect it to languish in the Senate. I do not think it will pass the senate; if it does pass the senate Obama will sign it.
18. President Obama has promised to create a tax credit of $3000 for companies creating new domestic jobs in 2009 and 2010. This is an interesting idea (Though I do not think it will work) and I think he will keep this promise in one form or another.
19. I am certain legislation will be passed that will allow families to tap their retirement plans without paying a 10% penalty; in fact, it will be passed in the first 100 days. This is a terrible idea and I am certain the Democrat will pass it. Americans do not have enough saved for retirement as it is; letting people withdraw that money creates a larger problem down the road.
20. Barack Obama has promised a 90 day moratorium on foreclosures for people attempting to make their payments. This will easily pass and will be enacted within the first 100 days. This plan will do NOTHING except make the problem worse. People who are in danger of foreclosure would only benefit from this plan if they are able to dramatically raise their income over the 90 days. With unemployment increasing steadily the only people who would benefit from a 90 day moratorium are those who inherit money or win the lottery. This policy would actually lengthen the real estate woes since banks will be forced to hold onto these properties they are losing money on for longer.
21. As part of a stimulus plan the Democrats(Along with many Republicans) will mail another round of stimulus checks in early 2009.
22. In the first 100 days the Democrats SHOULD pass a bill requiring Medicare to negotiate bulk discounts for drug prices. They will not.
23. In the first 100 days the Democrats SHOULD pass a bill that would allow the re-importation of prescription drugs. They will not.
24. Barack Obama and many Democrats have promised to close loopholes in the tax code that allow the wealthy as well as large businesses to avoid paying taxes; I support this measure; however, the Democrats will largely fail to do this. In fact I think it is almost certain that the Democrats will make the tax code large and more complicated as they attempt to give their supporters breaks via the tax code.
25. Barack Obama promised to make it so seniors with incomes of $50,000 or less do not pay any Federal income tax. I think this will not happen.
26. Barack Obama will implement am economy-wide cap-and-trade program to reduce greenhouse gas emissions to the level recommended by top scientists to avoid calamitous impacts. I think this will encounter a lot of difficulty in Congress; however, I think it will happen.
27. Barack Obama promised to create five million green collar jobs. This was an absurd promise that will be 100% impossible to keep and everyone knows it. This promise was broken the minute he made it.
Those are my predictions. I welcome your responses to my predictions and any prediction you would like to make.
Mike Sylvester
Comments
72 Responses to “Predictions for the next two years”
Leave a Reply
Mike,
I really respect your intelligence and I enjoy your posts here on Fort Wayne Politics.
However, your bleak political outlook always amazes me. Though it seems partisan, I know it is not.
In these historic times, can there not be an ounce of positive prediction for our new president-elect’s leadership ability?
Charles
Just a couple of notes on some of Mike’s predictions and a little of my own thoughts:
1. We aren’t coming home from Iraq, so get used to a decades-long stay.
We built the world’s largest embassy in Iraq, and we are now in the final stages of working out agreements to stay. We may draw down some troops, but we are in Iraq to stay. This will be similar to our strategy in Germany, Japan, Korea, etc.
Bush knew exactly what he was doing when he manipulated a non-existent situation - the WMDs - to justify invading Iraq. (See James Baker’s 2001 assessment prepared at the request of Dick Cheney).
Now that we are there, we will continue our presence. Ask yourself this - what better place to keep an eye on Israel’s welfare, monitor the other Middle Eastern countries, and exploit the Iraqi oil reserves?
2. The illegal immigrant issue is a red herring. Have you been following the progress of the transcontinental highway routes? The TOLs running from Canada to Mexico?
Does it make any sense, on the one hand to tighten up border crossings while on the other hand to open the borders further to the trucking industry? Come on, it sounds good to scapegoat immigrants, but in reality, increased commerce with Mexico and the countries of DR-CAFTA will make it virtually impossible.
3. The beneficiaries of the bailout are, apparently, hoarding the money that was set aside to “save” them. Mergers and buyouts will increase as those who fail to obtain bailout money will be forced to sell to larger “fish.” This will result in the biggest corporations swallowing up the smaller institutions leaving us with fewer choices and subject to even more predatory practices.
4. VeraSun - one of the country’s leading ethanol producers - has filed for Chapter 11 protection. The ethanol industry will continue to flounder as the balance between corn-based ethanol production runs head on into the meat producing industry. The rush to ethanol production was not clearly researched and studied.
Governors of the ten leading ethanol-producing states - 5 Republican and 5 Democrat - rushed headlong into jumping on the ethanol bandwagon without much thought. The troubles in the corn-based ethanol industry will force Obama to re-evaluate his alternative fuels endeavor - at least in that area.
5. The auto industry bailout was in the works before Obama was elected. Again, a bad idea of rewarding poor judgment with a handout.
6. Oil companies will continue to rake in record profits. Although the Iraq no-bid contracts have been canceled, the companies will still be able to bid in an open bidding process. With their foot back in the door in Iraq, the definition of energy independence becomes largely one of semantics.
With oil now at $61.00 per barrel, focus will again be on oil as the source to power our vehicles. Assuring a supply of oil in the future will once again lull Americans into their favorite past-time of burying their heads in the sand - literally - and relegating energy conservation and alternative energy issues to the background.
The lower price will not last, but will any lessons be learned from this past couple of years? I really hope we have learned something from this last oil fiasco.
Charlotte,
1- Obama will NOT bring home every troop from Iraq or he will end up keeing a group in Pak or Afgaf. instead. We will end up with a our troops right in that region.
2- Obama has already backed off of making any massive changes to NAFTA. He did that months ago as he got the word that many of his big time supporters did not agree with him.
3- I do not blame one business from hording the money. You have a President Elect who has clearly stated he is going to tax their profits, raising capitol gains, and bury them for any losses. My thinking is if you are going to bury my rear then it will be your own money going down the tubes. As soon as Obama figures out how to get off his high horse and back off to point the money will then start to flow. He is going to learn VOTES TALK BUT MONEY DOES THE WALK. Then again he should already know that as he sure spent enough.
4- Obama supported ethanol while McCain opposed it for the very mess it has gotten us into. Corn was not the way to go and one has to have their head in the sand to have ever thought the US could produce enough corn to supply both markets (fuel/food) without a major pice spike.
5- The second round of the bailout is for the GM payment to the UAW for the health insurance program. Without it and GM filing BK the UAW will no longer have a cream of the cream health care of any retired person in the United States.
GM is going down the tubes and going to go BK. There is no way around it. GM has made many errors but the UAW contract is what put them at a financial disadvantage to Toyota and others.
You can not pay someone 80% of their paycheck for two years while they are not working. You can not afford $28.00 a hour for production work, plus cost of living increases adding to it.
Toyota still believes it will turn a $5 billion profit when its’ fiscal year ends in March. GM has lost $2.5 billion in just the last three months.
In 2007 Toyota was making tens of billions of dolars while GM was suffering losses in the billions.
The real question is will the Democrats prop up GM to take care of the UAW loyal Obama supporters with tax dollars. If they don’t then GM is headed to court and the UAW is going to rejoin the rest of the real world.
The American auto industry got themselves into this jam with the UAW when they where the only three playing the game here in the US. Greed, from both sides has come home and it is time to face the real world.
You do not hear a sound out of the UAW over the thousands of engineers that have been laid off with little more then then “sorry” spoken. They don’t get some great unemployment package or health insurance. So I do not feel sorry for the UAW workers as they sure did not feel sorry for any of the people who happen not to belong to the union.
6- Oil prices have fallen but as we come out of the slump prices will incease as demand returns. We should have learned that from the 70’s. To that extent I agree with you.
Record profits is such a ugly word. I think we should take the owners of businesses that happen to make a profit and shoot them. We want all American businesses to be like GM.
Do you have any idea how much federal taxes oil companies paid out before they got to that profit number? How many billions they paid the federal government in matching SS taxes and Medicare taxes? How many billions they put in state and federal coffers for fees? Where do you think the profit goes?
The money goes to shareholders. Most of which are mutal funds and the likes. They are some of oil companies biggest shareholders. Mutal funds and 401-K account investor groups are what makes the average person’s retirement account grow.
Go ahead and tax the hell out of them. I think the government should tax all profits at 75%. That way greed will be disposed of, business expanding will be gone, new products developed will be gone, and many of these business will just move to some other country. So have at them and enjoy the short ride!
The government then can take care of everything for you. You don’t have to do anything as the government will be there to take care of you. No need to work as the government will pay for your housing, your car, your gas, your electric, your cell phone, you health insurance, and maybe even some pocket change.
Gosh, I bet that is why some many people want to come to the United States!
Charles,
I think President Elect Obama will try to be an agent of change and I think he will work hard at it; that being said, we have large problems in this country and they will not be easily addressed.
Mike Sylvester
Will I be able to buy beer on Sunday with that pocket change? In the end, that’s all voters really care about…
J.Q.
1. I said we AREN’T coming home. Was your emphasis just agreement?
3. The money that is being hoarded is the taxpayer bailout money. That money is not their profit money - it is a giveaway from the taxpayer for which we will probably never see a return even though we are supposed to see something back.
They should not be able to use it buy up other companies to solidify their monopolies of the industry.
Do you honestly believe that no amount of profit is too much? What then becomes the difference between that and price gouging? Sure price gouging is at the pump, but how about price gouging at the other end?
It will be interesting to see if the profits stay high now that gas is coming down again - not that it will stay down. Or have the oil companies screwed the public enough right now that they can feel magnanimous and lower the price for a short time period?
Don’t overlook the upcoming potential for the major oil companies to get their hands on Iraqi oil. While the n-bid contracts were canceled, they are still able to bid in the open process. They are now going to start splitting up the oil reserves in Iraq.
Unfortunately, Jeff, I believe you are right on the money. That is very evident here in NE Indiana. I was a little disappointed that we had such a small upswing in voters compared to many other counties in the state, but we still did a good job. Anyway, complacency just seems to run rampant here and its going to be a long, hard road to hoe to change that.
Charlotte
As of January 21 you can stop blaming things on Bush. I know that’s a kneejerk reaction, but in a couple months, it will be Obama’s war.
Mike, you have no political sense. Stick to accounting.
Keith:
I disagree. It will always be Bush’s war; he is the one who got us into the mess. Vietnam was always known and will be known as Johnson’s war.
Even though Nixon took it over, most people see it as Johnson’s efforts which led to escalation, not Nixon’s. Nixon made decisions to take the war into a different area when he decided to bomb Cambodia, but for the most part, the war was not known as Nixon’s war.
Likewise, it will be Obama’s responsibility to straighten out Bush’s war. If Obama does not put into place an exit strategy of some type and, instead, continues with the fighting and implants new tactics, then he will have ownership for that portion of the war.
Having said that I still don’t believe we will leave entirely.
I believe we will now have an ongoing presence for decades thanks to Bush’s maneuvering.
Well, Charlotte, I’m curious. What does a “straightened-out” war of aggression look like? I mean, really, after an unprovoked invasion and the mass murder of hundreds and hundreds of thousands of people — not to mention such small matters as the total destruction of a country’s physical plant, and the sowing of its soil with depleted uranium — what is there to be done except saying, very quietly, “we’re sorry,” and getting the hell out at flank speed? (And 16 months to remove part of the army ain’t exactly flank speed, either, even assuming it happens … which I greatly doubt.)
Jim:
Perhaps that statement was not properly worded. And I apologize for a lapse in wording something so complicated and devastating to human beings and their culture as “straightening it out.”
There can be no way to go back and undo the destruction that has been done, the hundreds of thousands who have been killed, the destruction of architecture and buildings, etc.
I guess I am hoping against all hope that we leave with no remaining forces, but I am very doubtful that we will ever be free of Iraq now that we are there.
As I mentioned, the oil companies are back in the business of bidding for access to Iraqi oil. What are the odds that if Exxon BP, Shell, etc. gain their foothold back, that we will leave them unprotected?
But the oil companies aren’t the only reason we will probably stay - it is a location from which to monitor the other Middle Eastern nations and to protect Israel, if necessary.
I opposed this from day one, but frankly I am realizing that Bush wanted a presence in the Middle East, and he went about that goal by fabricating a rationale for invading, and he now knows that it is highly unlikely that we will leave. His actions remind me of the old saying, “Crazy like a fox.”
Jim Dean,
If you feel that way, why bother reading any of Mike’s posts? I will agree that there are plenty of idiot bloggers out there. But I don’t spend any time reading them. I only read a blog post if I think I can learn something from it, and I only leave a comment when I think that the blogger can learn something from me.
Charlotte,
I don’t think any amount of profit is too much, so as long as it was legally and ethically obtained. A word of advice: if you think a company is making too much money, buy some shares in it.
What “big government run healthcare system”? Neither Sen. Obama nor Sen. McCain advocated that. Both proposed variations of an “employer-based” plan such that if one has a job with health insurance, they stay in it. In fact, the topic was debated here in FW in September at the HealthCare Summit, and both the Obama and McCain surrogates were challenged by the representative of the Citizen Action Coalition, Indianapolis, for this very reason. The CAC favors the Congressional Bill 676, “Medicare for All,” which now has 99 sponsors and is a big government run program driven by expanding Medicare.
The fact is that neither Barack Obama nor John McCain support this plan.
I respectfully disagree with your prediction here. There will be some form of health care access legislation within the next two years, but I agree with you that it will not be a “big government run” program.
Charlotte
I can see the political manuvering has begun to continue the war but also to continue to blame it on Bush. I suppose if we have another hurricane and New Orleans floods, that’s Bush’s fault again too. I get it, nothing can ever be the Democrats’ fault. Damn good strategy if it works.
The Democrats elected in Congress in 2004 had a mandate, based upon the platform that they ran on and their corresponding win, to cut funding to zero and end the war. They didn’t. The Democrats now have abolute power to do something.
By the way, I was born in the early 1970’s and, based upon what we were taught in school, the war was always more associated with Nixon than Johnson. History will treat Obama the same way unless he pulls out.
I support the fairness doctrine.
I think that it is helpful in getting the “full story” out on important issues. For example- Pat White on WOWO- a week or so ago he went on and on and on and on (you get the point) about Obama and a possible tie to Rashid Khalidi. But he NEVER ONCE mentioned that Khalidi’s operation was funded by a group led by John McCain.
Don’t even get me started about Rush, Hannity and others.
If we want to tone down the rhetoric, and really discuss the issues, we need to have both sides presented.
I am not in the minority on this one.I found this online: In an August 13, 2008, telephone poll released by Scott Rasmussen, 47% of 1,000 likely voters supported a government requirement that broadcasters offer equal amounts of liberal and conservative commentary, while 39% opposed such a requirement.
Careful what you wish for Kevin
It doesn’t surprise me that super liberal Kevin Knuth would bloviate in support of such a blatant violation of the 1st amendment. Radio stations have allowed reasonable opportunity for conflicting views *if* they can generate an audience and bring in revenue. The left has never been able to do that, which is why Air America failed.
The fairness doctrine doesn’t belong in a country that’s dedicated to freedom of the press and freedom of speech. How about for every left-wing blog out there it’s required that the hosting company give equal time to a right-wing blog? If none come to the table, the left-wing blog is taken off-line.
How about TV broadcasts? I suppose one good thing is Keith Olbermann’s show would be eliminated, along with Katie Couric and many others.
Kevin, I’d suggest turning on NPR.
Kevin;
I support the Fairness Doctrine also, but only to a limited extent. First of all, there are certainly many idiots on both the right and the left who only inflame rather than inform on the issues. I guess the fact that all these idiots (on both sides) are so popular pretty much proves that is what the people want though. Even at it’s best, the Fairness Doctrine will not eliminate the idiots, it will just balance out the idiots on the left with the idiots on the right. So the reality is that there is really no strong evidence that this will lead to more intelligent discourse.
The only time I support this is when there are publicly owned or controlled venues being considered. In other words, the FCC regulates who, when and where people may broadcast, so I think it is appropriate to ensure that they are doing so on a fair basis. But venues such as the internet are unlimited in their scope. In this case, it makes absolutely no sense to inject the Fairness Doctrine (as some have suggested.) This type of controlled speech would probably be about as helpful as cencorship of certain ideas is.
Another problem is how do you define fairness? I expect that according to your world view (and many others), this would be as simple as saying the Republicans and the Democrats should get equal air time for all ideas. But what about subjects that don’t follow that neat scheme? What about a subject where the D’s and the R’s are largely in agreement, but the Libertarians or the Green Party has an opposing idea? Does fairness mean that every single idea gets equal time? If it does, then we are going to have a hard time even setting up a matrix to analyze 300 million different ideas because I doubt there are any two Americans who totally agree on everything.
Suppose the debate is about global warming. Is it really fair to just seek the opinions of Al Gore and Sen. Inhofe? What about the people who think there might be a problem but think that it is sometimes being over-played? Shouldn’t fairness require that they get their say also. You could take just about every issue on the national agenda and when you look at it closely you will realize that the talking heads of both the left and the right often miss a lot. In other words what I am saying is what I think you perceive as fairness (balance between D’s and R’s) is nowhere near that because it often just balances two extremely narrow views on the matter.
In reality, the internet is the Fairness Doctrine in it’s highest form. You can never make people read something they don’t want to, but here, every single idea is represented. If there is an opinion you want to find, it is almost certain you can find it here. If not, you can start your own blog for free and add your ideas to the mix.
So yeah, I too support the Fairness Doctrine. But what I do not support is beuracratic programs that do nothing to ensure real fairness and only further complicate matters for everyone.
Phil,
So what if someone wants to inflame? Who said the airwaves are supposed to be dedicated to
“informing”? It’s a first amendment right to inflame, inform, or for that matter, tell people to pack sand. The 1st amendement was not written to provide intelligent discourse.
Phil, I agree that the internet should NOT fall under the fairness doctrine.
Penny- The airwaves are controlled by the FCC- there is only a limited number of licenses and so much spectrum available.
Think of the world we would live in if Rupert Murdoch simply bought all the stations. Would he still make his (false) claim of “fair and balanced”?
Kevin,
Federal law would not allow Murdoch, or anyone else for that matter to own that many stations.
Read the rules.
The largest radio station owner in the country is Clear Channel, and they only own 132 talk radio stations. The next highest ownership is Cumulus Broadcasting , with 32 talk stations.
Penny,
the “fairness doctrine” was an FCC rule that was changed…why do you think they could not change any of the others?
Penny,
I should have included this:
you wrote: It doesn’t surprise me that super liberal Kevin Knuth would bloviate in support of such a blatant violation of the 1st amendment.
Sorry, the Supreme Court ruled on this before- the Fairness Doctrine is constitutional.
Why doesn’t anyone want to analyze the root problem, that is, at least in the context of talk radio, why does liberal programming consistently fail in the marketplace of ideas? I would think, Kevin, that you would want to know the answer to that question rather than simply silence dissent.
Sorry Mike, I know we took this post a bit off topic, but maybe this is a sign of things to come. I therefore predict that the next two years will be spent talking soley about the Fairness Doctrine. The Democrats and the Republicans will both engage in this in an attempt to mask the fact that neither side is doing anything substantive.
Keith;
I could think of a couple good responses to that. First of all, focusing just on talk radio is unfair. There are many types of news media, and there are many long-standing liberal ones that are quite successful.
Now, a response that Kevin might like a bit more: “Talk” radio is mostly full of nothing but screaming idiots. Most of the people who listen just want an amen, not to be truely informed. The fact that liberals don’t fit well in that lowly format could be a sign of their intelligence.
Keith,
Then you are in agreement with me that the mainstream media is NOT left wing?
Let see. CNN, MSNBC, and Headline News would all have to reformat their operations. Yes, so would Fox News…. Then we would have to visit local TV stations and then local radio stations.
The person pushing this is Newt Minnow, Obama long time friend and campaign advisor. He was also the head of the FCC during JFK’s time.
I see this NOT HAPPENING. But wait then the GOP gets equal time on The View, Oprah Winfrey Show, and so forth. Gosh, that is almost worth seeing as the hosts have to set there and let the GOP make their points…. Look at SNL, it took the GOP followers to even give the show a rating bump. Now it will slide back to noplace.
Just out of curiosity, in r/e the fairness doctrine: To those of you who would like to see it happen, I wanted to offer my sincere appreciation to you. I realize I am an absolute troglodyte, I have no business listening to talk radio and those “nutty” conservatives. No wonder I have such crackpot ideas like self reliance, self respect, hard work pays off, government should protect me and not feed me, freedom of speech, all that kind of silly shit.
Now I can see the light, thanks in large part to “The One” and his highly educated masses of truth teachers, our intellectual superiors, like master Knuth. How embarassed I am to not have realized sooner that they obviously do in fact know what’s best for all of us. We must stop this brainwashing by talk radio and concentrate on the clarity and truth offered by “The One” and his disciples. We need not a difference of opinion, it’s foolish, no, dare I say BLASPHEMOUS to NOT follow the teachings of “The One”. What we must work toward is ONE media, with ONE world view, so everyone will like us.
If you doubt the need for a fairness doctrine, look no further than those those sky high ratings & profits generated by talk radio. This cannot continue, as Mr Knuth has pointed out, those that listen are idiots, morons, pondscum if you will and if we are to ever reach a level of intelligence and intellectual prowess that of The Knuth, we must abandon the most successful medium in history, because my friends, Kevin (and “the One”) know what’s best. Just ask him. You millions of listeners are just not smart enough to understand, and so we must trust in the braintrust of The Knuth, as he knows all. The all knowing all seeing all omniscient Knuth!
Praise be the wise one!!!!
Phil–
So your reasoning is that talk radio should be (effectively) silenced because its viewpoint isn’t worthy?
Wow. We have a First Amendment mostly to keep us safe from people like you.
Rumpole, that is not at all what I said.
What I said is:
1) Talk radio hosts and TV political pundits are usually nothing more than screaming fools.
2) Most people who listen to them do not seek full and balanced information. What they seek is to just hear someone agree with their own ideas.
3) My criticism of these TV and radio hosts applies equally well to left and right.
4) My opinion about the listeners is not necessarily a criticism. Seeking reinforcement of ones own ideas is a valid practice. Personally though, I prefer to have my own thoughts challenged as I think that leads me to make better decisions in the end.
5) The airwaves are a limited commodity, and if the government is going to control access to them then it should be done on a basis of fairness.
Phil, I appreciate that you think there’s a difference between what you said and what I said. In substance and effect, there is not, and that’s why we have the First Amendment.
I happen to agree with Phil.
Talking heads deal in few facts, don’t answer questions, and follow supplied talking points. Because you can overtalk someone does not make you right, but it makes them loud.
I watch CNN, MSNBC, and Fox. Often flipping back and forth. I believe someplace, but not always, between the two is the real story.
I do disagree with Phil on fairness. First, anyone with enough money can buy any radio or TV station they want. It is not like back in the 60’s where the networks owned or had contracts with local stations that locked them up.
This is already a long thread, so I am putting my predictions on my blog.
Jim Wetzel made comments about Iraq that really are not accurate, especially when he added “sowing of its soil with depleted uranium” into the false accusations of destroying the physical plant and failure to acknowledge that Iraqis have killed very large numbers of their fellow citizens for either political or religous differences. If any of the rest of you want to actually learn about depleted uranium beyond what you might read on Jim’s protest sign, go to http://www.depletedcranium.com or to the many links to solid scientific field and laboratory reports at http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/DUStory/message/88 or even just read what the neutral Swiss have to say at http://www.labor-spiez.ch/en/dok/hi/pdf/depleted_uranium_en_kurz.pdf
DUStory-owner@yahoogroups.com
I’m going to respond to Phil’s post, Kevin’s, as usual, isn’t worth responding to.
Phil, who is the arbiter of who is a screaming idoito? Is Dan Rather any more reliable because he put on a suit and worked for the Tiffany Network? Providing information in talk radio is secondary to entertainment, like watching the Daily Show. No one thinks Rush Limbaugh is doing 3 hours of straight news. The liberals have their share of idiots, some do well (Olbermann) and some dno’t (Air America) but that’s for the marketplace to ferret out.
Finally, people are not going to listen to Hannity for one hour and thoughtfully listen to a one hour reubttal by Chris Matthews any more than you or Knuth would listen to Katie Couric for an hour and then listen to a reubbtal by Ann Coulter. You’re just going to lessen the ideas in the marketplace which, regardless of the ideas, is bad.
Keith-
Liberal radio does not “fail”. Rachel Maddow and several others have shows that are on across the country. Stations like WOWO only choose right wing-one viewpoint programming.
Funny, though, how many of their employees vote in Democratic primary elections….must not believe all those things they tell you on the air!
Tim Zank-
“If you doubt the need for a fairness doctrine, look no further than those those sky high ratings & profits generated by talk radio.”
Sky high profits? Really? Then why does WOWO keep cutting staff? Why does their afternoon producer also act as station receptionist? Remember when the Queen was on WOWO? They could not afford her anymore.
Sounds like “sky high profits” to me.
You are a perfect example of why the fairness doctrine is necessary- you only consider ONE side and make a decision. Do you think that has made our country a better place? No discussion, simply the mantra that “if a democrat says it, it must be wrong”?
Again, I support the fairness doctrine. and I can do it without resorting to name calling!
Kevin, you may not “directly” call me names, but your implication is clear. I am not entitled to my own choice of radio programs because I am not as smart as you. That’s basically what you believe and what you are saying. Do you find no comfort in the fact your side won handily in spite of your perceived threat from “right wing radio”? For God’s sake man, you won. What possible reason could you (and “The One”) have to squelch talk radio now, other than you are convinced your opinion is the ONLY opinion.
I respect your right to have an opinion and to listen/watch whomever you deem appropriate and I have the right disagree and listen/watch whomever I like. That’s called freedom.
I don’t think it’s your job (or “The One’s or Chuck Schumer’s) to silence anybody. It’s your job to convince as many people as possible that your beliefs are better for the country than mine. It’s a very scarey proposition to put a muzzle on those with whom you don’t agree.
Tim,
The socialist left-wing feels Fairness Doctrine is part and parcel to their effort to turn our society into a totalitarian nation. Since they cannot engage in violence against their political opponents (yet), this is merely one of many steps in that direction.
Obama will turn the left-wing youth into Hitler-style paramilitary operation, complete with organized rallies to nurture future socialist leaders. This will be accomplished under the guise of community service organizations, which Obama has already stated he will make mandatory.
Obama will come take away yours guns.
Obama will come and take away what he deems your excess income, and then give it away.
Obama: “It’s not that I want to punish your success. I just want to make sure that everybody who is behind you, that they’ve got a chance for success too,” Obama responded. “My attitude is that if the economy’s good for folks from the bottom up, it’s gonna be good for everybody … I think when you spread the wealth around, it’s good for everybody.”
Obama will tap into the weak minded in our society to reach his goals.
Kevin’s easy prey.
Jim Dean,
Post your predictions if you feel mine are so off-base…
Mike Sylvester
Kevin
i’ve never heard the Rachel Maddow show but if you say so, i”m sure Limbaugh is shaking in his shoes.
Air America went off the air because it was $4 million in debt. As Limbaugh said, $4 million, $4 million? I have checking accounts with $4 million.
Kevin Knuth is a masochist. He listens to Pat White everyday.
A recent ATI-News/Zogby shows that undecided voters are against the Doctrine: 50 percent against the Doctrine to 17 percent for.
To top if off, Obama is on record opposing the Fairness Doctrine.
Stiffle dissent… any and all judgment of The Obama Years, and the Pelosi House and the Reid Senate - that’s the goal. The only way to do it is to hush Rush, and Hannity, and Ingraham, and Boortz, and O’Reilly, and Levine, and the list goes on.
Socialism at it’s finest.
Keith-
Air America was a NETWORK- not a show. You are comparing apples to oranges.
WOWO is picking and choosing shows to play on its FCC controlled airwaves.
The Right Wingnuts should fear the fairness doctrine. With it in place, if a political ad is run that is FALSE, they have to GIVE equal time.
Let’s look at the Montagano/Souder race- WOWO ran a commercial that said Montagano’s dad paid the taxes on his house (FALSE), that his dad was making the payments (FALSE), and another ad that said Montagano took money from Planned Parenthood (FALSE).
Tim Zank- No, I am not calling you a name at all- you called me “Master Knuth”.
You are entitled to your choice of what you listen to- ever hear of XM radio? Purchase what you want and have fun- but if they are PUBLIC airwaves and they are LIMITED in supply, shouldn’t everyone have a chance to hear what they want?
Well, let’s all suppose the Fairness (squelch dissent)Doctrine is placed back in play. Then most talk radio stations will die, and the national shows, Rush, etc. will move to XM radio.
Master Knuth, I doubt they’ll let that happen.
WOWO is picking and choosing shows to play on its FCC controlled airwaves.
No shit. It’s called capitalism. What a novel idea! It sure beats the hell out of socialism.
Next thing you know they’ll be telling cities that they need to have a soul food restaurant next to every Chinese Restaurant.
Penny-
Capitlism would benefit if you would PAY to listen Rush on XM and not on the FREE FEDERALLY CONTROLLED airwaves with no opposing viewpoint.
Thanks for making my point!
You missed the point Knuth. Do you realize how many thousands of people that would put out of a job?
It won’t happen. Advertisers would leave, revenue would dry up, and people would be put on the streets.
You think in this economy Obama will allow that to happen just because Pelosi and Reed get trashed on Rush?
Penny,
if that were true, how did WOWO stay in business for 62 years PRIOR to Reagan killing the fairness doctrine?
You know Penny, I am thinking that you must be employed by WOWO….
You slay me Kevin.
WOWO was almost dead when it took on talk radio. If they hadn’t swiped Limbaugh from 1250 AM WGL in 1989, they most likely would not be here today at least as you now know them. WGL was the leader in Ft Wayne talk radio back then and WOWO was smart enough to see the trend. After Rush, they got Dr. Laura and the other big names followed. WGL-talk was knocked out of the park.
How about FM100Talks? You don’t see liberal talk radio there do you? Why? Because no one will listen to that crap. Who wants to listen to someone whine for 3 hours?
Oh, and for the record, Queen Diane’s departure had little to do with money, it was all about a personality conflict. She’s quite the witch if you must know. And as a listener, you should be aware she was replaced.
Kevin
How far do you want to take that BS federally controlled argument? Should the government be able to control what cars are allowed to operate on federally funded highways? I know you don’t like competition and all that free market hooey, but why don’t you find someone to compete with Limbaugh?
It is nice to see how concerned some are about “fair” treatment in the media is a must. However, they have yet to call out ACORN for breaking the law in either supporting one person running for office and messing up about everything else they touched. I guess it comes down to what is “fair” is in the eyes of the beholder. Right Kevin?
Kevin, so the Fairness Doctrine would ensure we are “getting the “full story” out on important issues. ”
Does that mean you would force us to listen to liberal dribble?
Why not just put NPR on every station and mandate the 8 minutes of everything considered right before the Obama pledge?
Tell me how you wouldn’t agree to that to ensure we got ‘the whole story’?
Kevin,
It’s all nice and fuzzy to call it “fairness,” but that’s just a label. You could call it the “Cure Breast Cancer and End World Hunger Doctrine” and that wouldn’t change what it is–the government making decisions about broadcasts based on political content. If the First Amendment was intended to prohibit anything, it is that.
The most amusing part, to me, about your arguments is that it is identical in reasoning to the argument typically used for censorship in Muslim countries–”This viewpoint is not worthwhile (evil), therefore, it should be reduced or eliminated in favor of viewpoints that are worthwhile.”
FAIRNESS DOCTRINE RULES!!!!
Call me all the names you like- put Rush on XM and you can listen to him all you like.
Do any of you know why INC does shows like “impact”? Because they have to, based on FCC rules, to show that having a license is in the best interest of the public.
Why is it you none of you GOP Wingnuts want open discussion and both sides laid out?
Knuth sez “Why is it you none of you GOP Wingnuts want open discussion and both sides laid out?”
We already have that. What you and Reid, Shumer, Pelosi etc. are suggesting is FORCING American business people to air YOUR view of the world. You already have that right, if you want to air your views on talk radio or television, have Soros pony up and by a station/network. He hasn’t already done that because it’s a frickin economic loser (see air america) and he knows it.
Why is it you want the government dictating content in the name of fairness? That’s by definition a less open discussion. WOWO and any other station is free to air whatever they want.
If liberal ideas are good ideas, then I’m sure a radio station will be able to market liberal talk radio successfully.
“Free speech” means exactly that–free from coercion, direction, dictation, or meddling. It means the government doesn’t punish successful or popular viewpoints by suppressing them in the name of fairness, nor does the government prop up failing viewpoints by requiring reluctant venues to host them.
To all,
There is nothing fair about the “fairness doctrine.” It is an infringment on free speech.
I do think a minority of Democrats in Congress will support an effort to re-implement the “Fairness Doctrine;” however, I think they will fail.
Mike Sylvester
Kevin,
Talk radio is not for “discussion”. They are privately owned businesses. If talk radio is such a powerful force affecting public opinion, how do you explain Obama winning? The fact is, Democrats are now drunk with virtually-unlimited power. They see this as an opportunity to clamp down on conservatives in a vindictive manner, banana republic-style.
It’s noteworthy how tyrants always move to shut down the opposition media: Putin, Chavez, Mugabe, Castro, Lenin, Stalin, Hitler, Pelosi, Reed, Schumer. Speaking of Schmer, he claims talk radio is pornography.
This would be better titled the “Chavez Doctrine”.
Bloviate away Knuth!
Rumpole-
You wrote: WOWO and any other station is free to air whatever they want.
Really? Bet they cannot play George Carlin’s Seven dirty words.
The issue is NOT Freedom of Speech- there is no argument that the FCC controls the media- the question here is where is the line drawn.
Many of you are saying that they should not dictate content. Is that to mean you also accept full nudity during daytime/primetime Television? Dropping the f-bomb during Rush Limbaugh?
If not, then I think many of you are being hypocritical.
Surely, Kevin, you can’t be serious. Obscene images and obscene words are, according to the Supreme Court, not protected speech within the ambit of the First Amendment. Political speech, however, is the core form of expression protected by the First Amendment.
Comparing government regulation of the content of political speech to government regulations prohibiting legal obscenity is comparing apples to zebras.
Sylvester is so smart. Did you know he’s a CPA? I wish he would run for Congress! Please run in 2010.
Thanks
Kevin,
Infants are allowed and even encouraged to look at breasts. But once they switch to solid foods, they aren’t allowed to look at them until they are 18. That’s hypocrisy.
Rumpole,
The Supreme Court already ruled that the Fairness Doctrine DOES NOT violate the 1st amendment.
Robert- VERY funny!
Kevin, the Red Lion Broadcasting case relied on the assumption that the Fairness Doctrine would not result in self-censorship by broadcasters. Today, with the benefit of hindsight, and seeing the explosion of talk radio literally the day after the Fairness Doctrine died, we know to a factual certainty that the Fairness Doctrine does have a very real chilling effect.
Because a very important factual underpinning of the Red Lion decision has been disproven, there’s a good chance that the Supreme Court will render a different opinion when the issue again arises.
Kevin is right. According to the US Supreme Court the Fairness Doctrine does not impinge on 1st Amendment Rights.
Furthermore the DC Court of Appeals ruled in favor of the FCC as well and that was when the court had Bork and Scalia on it.
And let me just say that if the fairness doctrine even gets brought up for a vote then it will be the least of Republican worries. That means so many other pieces of Democratic legislation will have passed that you’ll probably be too pissed to even care about this anymore.
Having said that I’m against the Fairness Doctrine. I think media today is vastly different than the 40s when this was first introduced. There are so many options out there that people will seek out what they want, when the want, and they will likely find it.
I also think this could potentially lead to regulation of the internet and I certainly don’t want to see that happen.
And finally, I don’t think Democrats need the government to help us win in the market of ideas. The party is refocused and re-energized like I have never seen in my lifetime. We can win on the merits of our ideas and I think we can do that w/o the Fairness Doctrine…
Jeff sez: “We can win on the merits of our ideas and I think we can do that w/o the Fairness Doctrine…”. You are right on the money Jeff, and you guys just proved it. Obviously you and I don’t agree on a number of policy issues, but I respect your opinions and pay attention to your arguments because you are rational.
Both parties have enough old school IRRATIONAL players left over, and Kevin, you very often fit that mold. The Supreme Court today would find the premise of a 60 year old broadcasting “fairness” rule that pertained to a couple (2) of tv networks and a hand full of radio stations in the 40’s laughable at best.
What’s really ironic is, ABC, NBC & CBS would have to dramatically alter their television newscasts to accomodate a conservative point of view. As someone posted above, be careful what you wish for, it could bite you in the ass Kevin.
Jeff,
I agree with your position. If ideas are good, they will be competitive without the intervention of the heavy hand of government.
OK… for all of you here is a question I pose to all…. If the fairness rule comes back who will monitor it and what will equal fairness?
It will soon spread past just minutes and seconds. It will get to to matching speaker against speaker of equal delivery. Then it will get to how questions are framed seeking answers from both sides….
This is a debate between the two far ends of the two parties. If the Democrats push this matter they may find out they loose the long term battle as the middle will find it one more step of government control over the people.
Look at music today that often carries political messages within the words. Does that mean the other side will demand equal air time for music that provides the other sides view point.
In fact, these Justices appointed by Predident Elect will make/break our 21st Century laws.
Our Constitution will become a changing, living
document. The original Constitution will cease
and new laws will prevail. Be very careful of the hope for change. Our Founding Fathers & Mothers
would cringe at the amount of power given to a
government. We fought to get rid of government?
America is unique and we still have a long fight.
JQ,
It’s a misnomer that the Fairness Doctrine means equal time for different points of view. That was never part of the original rule.
Now if the posts of Kevin Knuth were required to be followed by those of a sane, rational person, I’d have to rethink my position.
Keith,
At least we can thank our lucky stars that Kevin Knuth finished fifth in a five man race. Someone with his ideas holding the reigns of power–no matter how local or inconsequential–may well be incompatible with fundamental notions of liberty.
[...] 11/8/8 I made 27 predictions about what the first two years of the Obama Administration would bring. We are now twelve months [...]