CyberAlert -- 04/10/2001 -- Nets Focused on Harm of Budget Cuts

"Arrogant" Bush at Fault on China; Nets Focused on Harm of Budget Cuts; "Slaughterhouses Over Schoolchildren"; Whoopi for Tax Cut

1) CBS's Barry Petersen blamed Bush's policies and words for prolonging the situation as the Chinese "military is especially angry with tough-talking policies from the Bush administration," including "the U.S. abandoning a policy of partnership." Petersen featured a Chinese expert who maintained that if Bush's first words were not a "demand," the U.S. personnel would be home.

2) Newsweek's Howard Fineman asserted on Monday's Today that "there was some criticism early on in the first day or two" of the China situation that Bush "was too much the Texas gunslinger."

3) The broadcast networks all focused on the supposed pain caused by Bush's budget cuts. ABC's Linda Douglass highlighted "the cuts in children's health, cuts in health care for the poor." CBS's Bob Schieffer labeled the $2 trillion budget "really spare." Dan Rather complained: "Bush is warning of a looming energy crisis, but at the same time his budget would slash more than $200 million from solar and other alternative energy programs."

4) "What happened to the compassion that was supposed to go with Bush's conservatism?" a bewildered Margaret Carlson wondered in Time magazine. "No one thought his team would choose slaughterhouses over schoolchildren."

5) Sam Donaldson came at George Stephanopoulos from the left on CNN, demanding: "Do you then now believe that the Holocaust survivors in West Palm Beach, who voted apparently for Pat Buchanan, really meant to?"

6) Left wing actress Whoopi Goldberg now all for Bush's tax cut: "This may be all Bush is really good for for me. I want some money back. I would like a little bit of it....I think it's okay to say it's alright to get some money back. I don't think that's a bad thing. I don't think that's Republican or Democratic."

1
CBS keeps insisting upon blaming President Bush for prolonging the spy plane hostage situation. This time it's the fault not only of his "arrogant" words but of changing Clinton's policies.

Last Thursday, as detailed in the April 9 CyberAlert, reporter Barry Petersen claimed China was about to end the situation when Bush demanded the plane and personnel be returned, thus offending the Chinese.

On Monday night Petersen warned that "the military is especially angry with tough-talking policies from the Bush administration," including "the U.S. abandoning a policy of partnership" and looking at selling weapons to Taiwan. Petersen featured "a well-placed director of a prestigious Beijing think tank" who maintained that if Bush's first words were not a "demand," the military personnel would be home already.

Petersen opened his piece from Beijing by explaining how the military in China makes or breaks politicians and "the military is especially angry with tough-talking policies from the Bush administration. For instance, the U.S. abandoning a policy of partnership, now calling China strategic competitor, the U.S. backing off efforts to bring North Korea out of isolation; and worst of all, the U.S. thinking of selling Taiwan advanced weapons. And hurting the process at the outset, some here say, the President's first words a week ago were a demand."
Bush on April 2: "The prompt and safe return of the crew."
Petersen: "So even Secretary of State Powell's statement over the weekend which seemed designed to satisfy China's demand for an apology-"
Powell on Face the Nation: "-and we're sorry that that happened-"
Petersen: "-may be too little too late, says a well-placed director of a prestigious Beijing think tank."
Yan Xue Tong, Qinghua University: "If at the very beginning Powell said this, said the same wording before Bush jumped out to give that kind of arrogant statement, I think that the problem may already be solved."
Petersen: "So the Americans would be home by now?"
Yan Xue Tong: "Quite possible."
Petersen snidely concluded: "And watching America's frustration about getting its crew back, the hard-liners may well be saying 'it's payback time.'"

A bit later in the show Dan Rather did include a conservative viewpoint by playing clips of his interview with Congressman Henry Hyde about the situation.

2

Though "since then I think most critics would say that the administration has done a fairly good job," Newsweek's Howard Fineman asserted on Monday's Today that "there was some criticism early on in the first day or two that he was too much the Texas gunslinger."

On the April 9 Today, MRC analyst Geoffrey Dickens noticed, Fineman of Newsweek's Washington bureau told NBC's Katie Couric:
"This would be a very tough test for even the most experienced and knowledgeable President in foreign policy. But for President Bush this is like taking final exams on the first day of classes. There is no tougher dilemma to deal with. The Chinese have the plane, they have the Americans and George Bush has to maneuver very, very carefully. There was some criticism early on in the first day or two that he was too much the Texas gunslinger, issuing the threats first, not following the dictum to walk softly and carry a big stick. But since then I think most critics would say that the administration has done a fairly good job of playing a very difficult hand. And the American public, at least for now, and that's an important qualification is very much behind him."
Couric: "And yet in that second phase, after the so-called gunslinger phase, when he came out talking tough. It was a bit of jockeying in terms of calibrating the response by having Colin Powell come forward issuing the regret, not the apology and sort of having the President retreat into the background, at least, momentarily."
Fineman: "It was jarring, Katie. At first it was George Bush alone in the Rose Garden issuing the threats. Then he retreats. Then it isn't quite clear at least at the beginning who's speaking for the administration. Is it Colin Powell talking about regrets and sorrows? Is it Donald Rumsfeld behind the scenes being quiet but how much is he maneuvering for a tougher line. Is it Dick Cheney and so forth? Now on the Sunday shows yesterday as your report pointed out it was a unified line. Talking about the sorrow, the personal sorrow for the loss of the pilot. But beginning to ratchet up the rhetoric again. Although now it's not President Bush whose doing it. It's his spokespeople who are doing it and this is the third phase that we are entering now. We are only in Day 9 of this crisis."

3

President Bush told reporters on Monday that he aimed his budget at relief for taxpayers, but the broadcast networks on Monday night all focused on the supposed pain caused by budget cuts.

ABC's Linda Douglass highlighted "the cuts in children's health, cuts in health care for the poor. And the Democrats are betting the people will not want to cut funding for those programs just in order to get a tax cut." CBS's Bob Schieffer labeled the $2 trillion budget "really spare."

While NBC's Tom Brokaw noted up front that "in the boom years before the economy went into a dive, Congress was on a spending binge, and the President wants to force some reductions," reporter Campbell Brown warned that "Bush slashes popular government programs. Cuts for 10 of 25 government agencies....On the chopping block, community policing, the program championed by Clinton to hire new officers, a 17 percent cut; money to train health professionals at children's hospitals, a $35 million cut...."

ABC and CBS assumed more government spending will solve the energy crisis as both saw a contradiction in Bush's priorities. ABC's Terry Moran highlighted how "a $186 million cut, 50 percent, would fall on solar and renewable energy programs even though the President has declared the nation faces an energy crisis." Over on CBS Dan Rather complained: "President Bush is warning of a looming energy crisis, but at the same time his budget would slash more than $200 million from solar and other alternative energy programs."

Here's how the three broadcast network evening shows on Monday night, April 9, approached the release of Bush's budget:

-- ABC's World News Tonight led with the budget as Peter Jennings sat behind a pile of budget books and held some up as he explained:
"We're going to begin tonight with this. This is the federal budget which President Bush sent to the Congress today, though Congress just happens to be out of town. This is the analytical perspectives on the budget and this little thing here is the citizen's guide. But here are the details of how Mr. Bush would like to spend $1.9 trillion dollars in the next fiscal year, if he has his way. But it's a much more important document because all of these numbers represent what the new President thinks about the size of the government and the importance of what it does. In other words, it's also a very political document as well."

Terry Moran then argued: "It reveals his basic fiscal conservatism as well as his willingness to pick a fight or two on some very popular programs. It was George W. Bush the budget hawk on full display at a cabinet meeting to roll out his plan."

After a clip of Bush, Moran noted that Democrats will fight Bush over several of his proposed cuts: "A $186 million cut, 50 percent, would fall on solar and renewable energy programs even though the President has declared the nation faces an energy crisis. Cut by $25 million or 15 percent, funding for training pediatricians in hospitals and the COPS program, a favorite of President Clinton's, which provides money to communities to hire police, faces a $270 million or 46 percent cut."

Following a soundbite of Congressman John Spratt, the ranking Democrat on the House Budget Committee, Moran pointed out how the administration say they are trying "to restrain out of control spending from the Clinton years" since spending soared eight percent last year and they want to hold it to four percent. Moran did allow OMB Director Mitchell Daniels to note that the COPS program was never meant to be permanent, running this clip from Daniels: "It was entirely explicit at the beginning that this was to be a three year program."

Next, instead of portraying Bush as heroic for taking on corporate welfare, John Cochran looked at how business interests are upset with cuts in their pet programs: "The U.S. Chamber of Commerce is livid that the budget cuts subsidies to American companies trying to compete with foreign outfits."
Willard Workman, U.S. Chamber of Commerce: "I would say one man's welfare is another man's livelihood. Without these kinds of supports from our government we simply will not be able to compete."
Cochran proceeded to outline how Bush also wants to eliminate federal loan guarantees for buyers of U.S.-made ships before he concluded: "Big business provides big campaign donations to both Republicans and Democrats on Capitol Hill and the lobbyists we talked to said, 'Look, we love this President on most issues, but when it come to cutting corporate welfare, we can and will stop him.'"

So much for the idea that donations from business control Bush policy.

Following Cochran, Peter Jennings turned to Linda Douglass on Capitol Hill for an assessment. She informed Jennings: "There's already some howling going on here, specifically about the cuts in the environment that Terry was just talking about, cuts in every agency, they are focusing on that. The environment is popular with the public. Also the cuts in children's health, cuts in health care for the poor. And the Democrats are betting the people will not want to cut funding for those programs just in order to get a tax cut."

As for Republicans, Douglass maintained they are caught between supporting their President and the interests of their constituents who want money for pet projects.

-- CBS Evening News. After a series of stories on China, Dan Rather announced, as transcribed by MRC analyst Brad Wilmouth: "President Bush sent Congress the details today of his budget plan for fiscal year 2002. The 2500-page document outlines a wide range of cuts the President wants in government programs, but it also provides new ammunition for his opponents, and there's a long way to go with this whole thing. Bob Schieffer's on Capitol Hill with the real deal on the budget battle ahead."

Schieffer began: "Dan, it is the annual Washington ritual. The President proposes, the Congress disposes. As always, has started with the President calling in the Cabinet to give the budget plan a big send off."

After the Bush soundbite, Schieffer portrayed the budget as frugal: "In fact, as big as it is, this budget is really spare. It contains nothing radically new, but to make room for the President's tax cut, it limits growth to no more than 4 percent next year, barely above the inflation rate for all programs except mandatory benefits. Democrats found little to like."
Congressman John Spratt: "Every account that deals with the environment is cut. EPA is cut. Interior is cut."
Schieffer: "For sure, few programs escape the knife. Favorite Democratic programs like money to train children's doctors are cut. So is the old Clinton program to put more cops on the streets. Business lobbyists are upset about plans to eliminate subsidies for buyers of American built ships. Cuts in funds to build public housing. And reducing subsidies to the Export-Import Bank, which helps foreign companies buy U.S. products. As the document was released, officials did seem more upbeat about the economy....In truth, none of this should be taken too seriously. Senators have already said they'll scale back the President's tax cut, and with the Senate evenly divided now between Republicans and Democrats, it is impossible to say which programs really will get cut and which ones won't, but there will be a fight over everything."

Rather followed up by trying to show a Bush contradiction: "President Bush is warning of a looming energy crisis, but at the same time his budget would slash more than $200 million from solar and other alternative energy programs. The budget would, however, spend $150 million to develop what are called less polluting coal products."

-- NBC Nightly News made the budget its top story as Tom Brokaw explained: "President Bush has decided how he wants to spend your money -- almost $2 trillion. That's a lot of money. But in the boom years before the economy went into a dive, Congress was on a spending binge, and the President wants to force some reductions. As you might expect, that's bringing immediate protest, especially from Democrats who think that he's hurting social and environmental programs way too much. But, as NBC's Campbell Brown reports from the White House tonight, the President is aiming his budget at tax cuts, not at Democrats."

Brown claimed the public would have to sacrifice to get a tax cut: "Tom, this is when the battle with Congress really begins and when Americans find out what they'll have to give up to get the biggest tax cut in 20 years. Dozens lining up today for a first look at the details of the President's nearly $2 trillion budget, a plan even he says it designed around giving Americans a $1.6 trillion tax cut."

Following a soundbite of Bush saying his budget puts taxpayers first, Brown cautioned: "But to give taxpayers relief, Bush slashes popular government programs. Cuts for 10 of 25 government agencies. Bush's goal: Limiting much of government spending to just a 4 percent increase, half of what President Clinton got last year. On the chopping block, community policing, the program championed by Clinton to hire new officers, a 17 percent cut; money to train health professionals at children's hospitals, a $35 million cut; a more than $2 billion cut in environmental programs; and the President abandons a campaign promise on the environment -- a pledge to spend $100 million to help poor countries protect their environment and reduce debt, a decision some political analysts say could galvanize environmentalists for an all out war with the Bush White House."
Prof. Alan Lichtman, American University: "They believe that George W. Bush has directly targeted for the big knife the programs that they hold most near and dear."
Brown uniquely pointed out some proposed spending hikes: "But the President insists this is a compassionate conservative budget that includes an 11.5 percent increase for education, just over $150 million to help seniors buy prescription drugs, and new tax credits to help low income Americans buy health insurance. Democrats argue Bush is throwing away a rare chance to save Social Security and Medicare on a tax cut that's too big."
Congressman John Spratt: "It's unconscionable for us to simply look at the problem and say we'll let our children solve it. We'll go ahead and have tax cuts now."
Brown concluded: "Now advisors say the President will be firm on limiting spending, but this budget is now in the hands of Congress, and lawmakers will be spending the weeks ahead trying to add in the money for their favorite programs."

Next, Lisa Myers looked at how on pork programs always come back even after they are cut, using mohair and honey subsidies as examples as she reported that farm subsidies have "exploded" from $4.6 billion in 1996 to $32 billion in 2000.

I guess that's what CBS's Bob Schieffer would call "spare."

As for how accurate all these "cut" numbers really are, scroll back up and you'll notice that ABC's Terry Moran reported Bush's budget will "cut" Clinton's COPS program by 46 percent while NBC's Campbell Brown stated it will be "cut" by 17 percent.

4

This week's Time features a column by Margaret Carlson which matched her ridiculous outburst on Saturday's Capital Gang, in which charged that if "the Bush administration keeps trying to kill health and safety regulations at this pace, soon we won't be able to eat, drink or breathe." While her Time piece complained about "decisions pouring out of the Bush administration that favor American business at the expense of American people," it did not repeat her false connection between not testing meat for salmonella and exposing kids to Mad Cow Disease.

As quoted in full in the April 9 CyberAlert, on the April 7 Capital Gang Carlson argued: "Remember when Ronald Reagan tried to save a few pennies on the school lunch program by classifying ketchup as a vegetable? Last week the Bush administration went further, axing a regulation that forced the meat industry to test hamburgers served in school for salmonella. Imagine, Mad Cow Disease among children, K through 12."

A CyberAlert reader, who wishes to remain anonymous, pointed out that there is no relation between not testing for salmonella and missing Mad Cow infected meat: "Salmonella is a bacteria that can cause a severe, sometime fatal intestinal infection. Contamination by salmonella can be determined by several test methods. The risk associated with contaminated meat can be essentially eliminated by proper food handling procedures and thorough cooking. The onset of symptoms is within days, and the disease is often treated successfully with antibiotics." But what causes Mad Cow, on the other hand, has no test to detect it "and conventional sterilization techniques, such as cooking, are useless."

Carlson's Time magazine piece demonstrated neither she nor the magazine will let facts get in the way of a good anti-conservative anecdote as she began her diatribe by repeating the false liberal tale about Reagan and ketchup:

"What is it with Republicans and school lunches? In 1981 Ronald Reagan looked both callous and politically ham-handed when he tried to save a few pennies on school lunches by classifying catsup as a vegetable. Last week the Bush Administration went beyond condiments, proposing to ax a Clinton Administration regulation that forces the meat industry to perform salmonella tests on hamburger served in school cafeterias. Given the heightened interest in the health of cattle right now, the move wasn't exactly well timed."

After rattling off a bunch of Bush's other supposed terrible deeds, Carlson asked: "What happened to the compassion that was supposed to go with Bush's conservatism? The campaign prepared us for some of this -- candidate Bush made plain his intention to drill in the Arctic wildlife refuge, not a bad political calculus given America's preference for SUVs over caribou. But no one thought his team would choose slaughterhouses over schoolchildren, even if only for a day. What connects these decisions is a preference for folks he knows: his oil-field buddies (mirrors of himself), corporate executives and captains of industry, from the Halliburton honcho to the Terminix franchisee."

To read Carlson's entire April 16 "Public Eye" column, go to:
http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,105601,00.html [2]

5

Last Thursday on CNN's Larry King Live, ABC's Sam Donaldson came at George Stephanopoulos from the left, demanding: "Do you then now believe that the Holocaust survivors in West Palm Beach, who voted apparently for Pat Buchanan, really meant to?" Both insisted more voters intended to vote for Gore than Bush.

The April 5 CNN show had the ABC This Week team as the guests. MRC analyst Brad Wilmouth noticed this exchange about the Miami Herald/USA Today recount which determined that Bush would have won by an even bigger margin if the Florida Supreme Court-ordered hand count, which was blocked by the U.S. Supreme Court, had proceeded:

George Stephanopoulos: "I do think this was a blow to the Democrats. Listen, a lot of Democrats had the suspicion, I think I had a suspicion that when the Supreme Court stopped the counting in December, they were denying Gore a count, a recount, that would give him a victory. I think if you look at the, at the weight of the evidence that The Miami Herald reported, it clearly shows that Bush, under most reasonable standards, would have won."
Sam Donaldson: "Now, George Stephanopoulos, may I just interrupt and ask you a question, which is, do you then now believe that the Holocaust survivors in West Palm Beach, who voted apparently for Pat Buchanan, really meant to?"
Stephanopoulos: "No, no, that's a separate issue, Sam. That's a completely separate issue. I believe that more people in the state of Florida went to polls intending to vote for Al Gore than went to the polls intending to vote for George Bush."
Donaldson: "Okay, I agree with that."
Stephanopoulos: That's separate from saying, listen, the Florida Supreme Court ordered a count, the United States Supreme Court stopped it, that denied Gore victory. I don't think you can say that anymore."

6

What does Jay Leno do to left-wing celebrities? Last week, as detailed in the April 4 CyberAlert, Martin Sheen, who in February had denounced George Bush as a "moron," told Leno: "I support whoever is in that office." Now, last night on the Tonight Show, Whoopi Goldberg, who campaigned for Al Gore, informed Leno that she's all for Bush's tax cut.

Goldberg recounted on the April 9 NBC show how, after she won $10,000 with a Las Vegas slot machine, casino officials took half of it for the IRS. Goldberg then remarked: "This may be all Bush is really good for for me. I want some money back. I would like a little bit of it."
Leno: "We become Republican real fast, don't we?"
Goldberg: "No, no, no. I feel like if I'm going to pay for a stealth bomber I would like some of my programs serviced. I don't mind paying taxes, but I've paid a lot of taxes, [pointing at audience] as have most of you, you paying a lot of money out and every now and then-"
Leno: "But they didn't win the jackpot in Vegas."
Goldberg: "No, but 50 percent of that went to him. But no, I think it's okay to say it's alright to get some money back. I don't think that's a bad thing. I don't think that's Republican or Democratic. That's just greedy humanity."

I'm guessing at that next to last word as she actually says what sounds like "gree."

As for a tax cut not being Republican or Democratic, what happened to Gore's mantra about Bush's "risky tax cut scheme"? If anyone is amongst the undeserving rich as espoused in liberal spin it's someone as wealthy as Goldberg. --Brent Baker [3]

>>> Support the MRC, an educational foundation dependent upon contributions which make CyberAlert possible, by providing a tax-deductible donation. Use the secure donations page set up for CyberAlert readers and subscribers:
http://www.mrc.org/donate [4]

>>>To subscribe to CyberAlert, send a blank e-mail to: mrccyberalert-subscribe
@topica.com [5]. Or, you can go to: http://www.mrc.org/newsletters [6]. Either way you will receive a confirmation message titled: "RESPONSE REQUIRED: Confirm your subscription to mrccyberalert@topica.com." After you reply, either by going to the listed Web page link or by simply hitting reply, you will receive a message confirming that you have been added to the MRC CyberAlert list. If you confirm by using the Web page link you will be given a chance to "register" with Topica. You DO NOT have to do this; at that point you are already subscribed to CyberAlert.
To unsubscribe, send a blank e-mail to: cybercomment@mrc.org [5].
Send problems and comments to: cybercomment@mrc.org [5].

>>>You can learn what has been posted each day on the MRC's Web site by subscribing to the "MRC Web Site News" distributed every weekday afternoon. To subscribe, send a blank e-mail to: cybercomment@mrc.org [5]. Or, go to: http://www.mrc.org/newsletters [6].<<<