True Believer Easily Led By Liars Who Spout Misinformation He Likes About Medicaid & ObamaCare (Which He Hates)

One seldom discovers a true believer that is worth knowing ~ Henry Louis Mencken (9/12/1880 to 1/29/1956) an American journalist, essayist, magazine editor, satirist, critic of American life and culture, and scholar of American English. Known as the "Sage of Baltimore", he is regarded as one of the most influential American writers and prose stylists of the first half of the twentieth century.

A "true believer", according to the Libertarian Blogger Willis Hart, "is wholly incapable of critical thinking". "These folks", the Libertarian concludes "are at the very minimum useless and can in fact be dangerous during the reigns of charismatic leaders".

I AGREE, I say to the blogger I've referred to as "Mr. LB" in prior posts. Although to that definition I'd add (or emphasize) the fact that true believers tend to get their information from one side and NEVER question whether or not those representing that perspective are being honest with them or if they are being partially honest but spinning the truth to make it essentially a lie.

And THIS is the case with the oblivious true believer Mr. LB, who is oblivious to the fact that he is what he castigates those who disagree with him for being (in his mind). A good portion of the information he uses when authoring his blog posts comes to him via Libertarian and "fiscally conservative" sources (Think Tanks and individuals who identify as Libertarian/fiscally conservative). And, when I've looked into his various claims, what I find is a grain truth and a silo of spin. The latest example of this is a post in which he slams Medicaid and the Affordable Care Act (AKA "ObamaCare")... as follows...

Mr. LB: According to a recent study from the University of Virginia, surgical patients on Medicaid were 97% more likely to die prior to discharge than privately insured patients were and 13% more likely to die prior to discharge than patients who didn't have any insurance at all. And, yes, this study DID control for intervening variables such as age, income, geography, surgical procedure, and prior health status. Wow, I guess that there really is a difference between "coverage" and actual healthcare (1/15/2014 AT 8:06pm)

Could this be true? Is not having insurance at all better than being insured by Medicaid? Of course not. If you don't have insurance you don't get treatment (unless you are wealthy and pay out of pocket). The results of not getting treatment when you need it are predictably worse than if you do get treatment, as the following Kaiser Health News article confirms.

Jonathan Cohn, Senior Editor of The New Republic: ...for the last few months, a cadre of conservative writers and intellectuals has argued that [Medicaid] doesn't actually help beneficiaries and may actually hurt them. To prove their point, they've cited a handful of studies in which Medicaid recipients ended up in worse health than people with no coverage whatsoever. According to Medicaid's critics, this evidence suggests that expanding the program, as the Affordable Care Act would, is a bad idea. (Are You Better Off With Medicaid Than No Insurance? A Landmark Study Says Yes, Kaiser Health News 7/7/2011).

So, should we scrap Medicaid (and perhaps Medicare) and turn these functions over to the private health care insurance industry? Does this study prove government can't do anything right and we're best off letting the private sector handle things whenever possible? Absolutely not. There is actually another explanation as to why the results for people on Medicaid are worse (even than for those with no insurance). And the reason is really simple (in fact I guessed it before doing any research). However, as a true believer, I can understand why the following did not occur to Mr. LB.

Jonathan Cohn: ...if you know you suffer from serious medical problems, you're more likely to sign up for public insurance when it's available. As a result, the Medicaid population may be fundamentally sicker than the uninsured population - and end up with worse medical outcomes, even if they're benefiting from the program's coverage. (Excerpt from the same Kaiser article quoted above).

The stats for the people on Medicaid are worse because they are generally sicker, and expanding Medicaid in Virginia would NOT "imperil the lives of low-income people who have surgery"; which is the nonsensical assertion made by Pete Snyder "a Northern Virginia businessman who is seeking the Republican nomination for lieutenant governor". Pete Snyder is, I suspect, the source of Mr. LB's claims... although I can't be certain, given the fact that Mr. LB rarely cites sources. In any case, I'm going to cite PolitiFact to debunk/explain this one...

Politifact: ...researchers place little of the blame on Medicaid... [because] Medicaid recipients are the poorest, sickest and least educated group of patients. They are the least likely group to seek preventive health care. As a result, they are more likely to enter hospitals in dire conditions that require emergency surgery. ... Does the research prove, as Snyder and other conservatives suggest, that it's safer to be uninsured than on Medicaid? Ailawadi, co-author of the study, said it does not. (Pete Snyder says Medicaid causes higher risk of surgery death, Politifact says "Half True" 3/6/2013).

As for the uninsured people that have better results (the "13% more likely to die prior to discharge than patients who didn't have any insurance at all" folks)? Politifact gives the reason for this as well (as per the same study Mr. LB says he is citing).

Politifact: Many of these people may have been uninsured by choice. "The uninsured population in our study included a subgroup that may have had a high income", Ailawadi said... (excerpt from the same Politifact article quoted above).

The outcomes for this group of uninsured people are better than for those on Medicaid because they're healthier (and THAT is why they chose to go without insurance). Now, Mr. LB says "yes, this study DID control for intervening variables such as age, income, geography, surgical procedure, and prior health status" and it is true the paper does say that. But is also goes on to say "researchers place little of the blame on Medicaid", but that is the precise inference Mr. LB is drawing (and he draws it even though he read the PolitiFact article).

Am I missing something, or does "researchers place little of the blame on Medicaid" mean something other than what it seems to mean? I guess Mr. LB's takeaway from the study is what he wants it to be, and for that reason I say he is an easily-led true believer. Led by his ideology or led by people like Snyder who are obviously spinning (lying) in an effort to argue against the Medicaid expansion provided for by the ACA (the expansion the Conservatives on the Supreme Court decided the states did not have to accept).

In regards to that claim (Medicaid being worse than private insurance and even worse than no insurance), PolitiFact says "Half True" (which technically is the case), but I say Snyder is 100 percent a liar. And Mr. LB is a gullible sap for buying into these lies. Also, "at the very minimum useless" and possibly dangerous (if enough useless idiots like LB listen to and believe these lies).

SWTD #225, wDel #46.

On Libertarians Scared Out Of Their Minds Regarding Statism But Who Worship The Wealthy Elites

Libertarianism is good because it helps conservatives pass off a patently probusiness political agenda as a noble bid for human freedom. Whatever we may think of libertarianism as a set of ideas, practically speaking, it is a doctrine that owes its visibility to the obvious charms it holds for the wealthy and the powerful. The reason we have so many well-funded libertarians in American these days is not because libertarianism suddenly acquired an enormous grassroots following, but because it appeals to those who are able to fund ideas. Like social Darwinism and Christian Science before it, libertarianism flatters the successful and rationalizes their core beliefs about the world. They warm to the libertarian idea that taxation is theft because they themselves don't like to pay taxes. They fancy the libertarian notion that regulation is communist because they themselves find regulation intrusive and annoying. Libertarianism is a politics born to be subsidized. In the "free market of ideas", it is a sure winner ~ quote from The Wrecking Crew by Thomas Frank.

The Libertarians who are scared out Of their minds regarding statism but worship the wealthy elites couldn't be bigger fools, in my opinion. You've seen their comments across the blogosphere; they are constantly warning us about the dangers of "big government" and "statism". They demonize both by claiming that there are those among us who "worship" big government as if it were a religion (see cartoon below). I authored a commentary on one such Libertarian a while back. In the mind of this Ayn Rand worshiping rational self interest as the highest ideal believing individual, what those who value freedom need to fear the most is tyrannical Progressivism.

The problems is that what they decry as "statism" is actually the citizens of the United States instructing our elected governmental representatives that they should pass legislation to provide services and assistance that benefits We The People. "Statism" is (in large part) when the citizens of a country decide we should have a strong social safety net, and, beyond that, there are some things (known as the Commons) that should be administered by the government on behalf of us all.

Healthcare (or health care insurance, the method by which the vast majority of us access health care) is one of those things that many of us on the Left believe should be a part of the Commons. Republicans and Libertarians believe that the health of the citizens is something corporations have the right to profit off of. In my mind the best method by which health care could be delivered to the people would be to open up Medicare to everyone. Medicare operates on a very low overhead (in the neighborhood of 2 percent) on a not-for-profit basis (which is in line with the Progressive belief that health care should be a part of the commons, or a RIGHT).

A compromise solution, passed into law via a piece of legislation known as the Affordable Care Act kept the profit motive intact. Originally proposed by "the Heritage Foundation and the American Enterprise Institute, and championed, for a time, by Republicans in the Senate" a mandate to buy HC insurance from FOR PROFIT providers (with some government assistance based on income), the ACA is now being vociferously opposed by Conservatives and Congressional Republicans who don't want the Democrats (and Barack Obama) to get credit (and receive the appreciation of the electorate).

The Republicans could have joined with Democrats and help shape the legislation and later share in the credit. Instead they decided to oppose (legislation and ideas they previously endorsed) and obstruct everything (even going as far as to oppose legislation that would benefit the country economically). According the Representative from the 32nd district of Texas, Pete Sessions, the plan was to wage a Taliban-like insurgency. They would, in other words, sabotage the Dems and Obama at every turn, regardless of the harm they might inflict on the country (a worsening economy would, in fact, be beneficial to them).

Not that any of this represents the Libertarian point of view. Repubs, Conservatives who distance themselves from the Republican Party, and Libertarians all demonize the ACA as a threat to "liberty" and all believe health care should be for profit (and it is not a part of the commons). Libertarians explicitly reject the very notion that any resource (or service) can be held in common (or administered for the common good). Ayn Rand, the source of many of the ideas that make up the ideology of Libertarians believed that anyone who accepts government assistance can be described as "parasites, looters and moochers [who used] the levers of government to steal the fruits of her heroes' labor".

A "hero" to a Rand devotee would be a rugged individualist who made his own way in the world relying only upon him or herself. He (or she) was the type personified by the "I built this" meme of the 2012 GOP presidential convention. These are the people otherwise known as the Makers, while most of the rest of us are the Takers. In the Objectivist's eyes (a religion created to worship Rand) most of us fall into the category of the unwashed masses who deserve nothing more than a life of poverty and to die in the gutter.

Although the Libertarians did not support Mittens Romney, he and his running mate (Paul Ryan) did tear a page out of the Rand Bible in their adoption of the "makers and takers" meme of demonizing the vast majority of us who are not wealthy, or at least well off (this was the thinking behind Mittens' 47 percent comment). Mittens later walked back, and then even denied insulting Americans who have the gall to believe the reason government exists is to provide services and see to it that nobody (or as few people as possible) fall though the cracks.

The fact is, however, that this is the mentality of people who describe themselves as "fiscally conservative". What they actually mean is that the government should keep it's hands off the money of the people who have it. Even though capitalism is a flawed system that allows some to manipulate things to their advantage and wind up with a huge pile of money that was earned mainly via the labor of others (workers they force into "contracts" that tend to favor themselves).

Redistribution is the key in balancing the equation in the minds of the Left. Seeing as capitalism tends to favor a small minority and wealth concentrated in a small number of hands is not healthy for the economy or society, it is the RIGHT and JUST role of the government controlled by We The People to step in and attempt to do SOME equalizing. Who wants to live in a country where a small number of wealthy elites control everything and the vast majority of the populace lives in miserable squalor?

I know I sure as hell do not, but for the Libertarians the dystopian nightmare they envision would be a world gone completely Socialist. In their minds what we should all fear the most is that the government does too much us and that the taxes on rich folks are too high. There does come a point where I think the government could (hypothetically) go to far. I don't want the government to control the means of production (which it would have to in order to be fully Socialist), but we are leagues away from ever crossing that Rubicon.

That there are dupes and stooges who genuinely believe that the United States has swung dangerously toward far Left Socialism would be laughable, if not for the fact that it is these fools (extremist Republicans, Tea baggers, Libertarians and even some Conservative/Corporatist Dems) who are to blame for the obstruction that is retarding an economic recovery. The fact is we have much more to fear from the fascist Right that believes the plutocrats should rule. Them and their deluded dupes and stooges who think government should get out of the way and the right won't step in to fill the power vacuum.

The choice here is, I believe, is between two rulers... should We The People rule (via our elected representatives) or should the wealthy rule? As far as Libertarians are concerned, there is a distinction that should be noted (one that the Libertarians believe is quite significant)... that is while the Repubs think government should assist the wealthy in their quest to rule over us (and help the wealthy siphon off the fruits of our labors to enrich themselves), while the Libertarians believe government should get out of the way and allow the wealthy to rape workers and the common man without their assistance.

I say the result is much the same, so I place a lesser significance on this distinction. The utopian gates of the Progressive Kingdom (or greater equality and a healthier economy) will only open (or become possible) when the populace wakes the hell up and realizes that wealth must be kept in check. Wealth begets greed and corruption, whether it is in the private or the public sector. BOTH the Conservative Republicanism and Libertarianism that says redistribution/socialism is an evil must be guarded against.

Although, as the recent abuses of governmental power highlighted by the unconstitutional spying and data mining of the NSA shows, a big government that seeks to ever increase it's power can be a danger akin to that of the unchecked corporations. That answer is not, however, to strip down government, defund it, or keep it "out of the way". Doing that would [1] allow the wealthy and corporations to step in and fill the power vacuum and lead to a greater concentration of money and power in the hands of the wealthy. "Big government" is the only tool We The People have to keep the power of the wealthy in check. THAT is why some seek to destroy (or diminish) the power of government (by fooling some with slanders like "Big Guv").

The answer is not "small government" but more democracy and more transparency. The Citizens United SCOTUS decision was an effort by the Right to corrupt our elections. Elections under the influence of big money will tend to favor those paying for the elections. Unfortunately commercial propaganda campaigns CAN influence the gullible and cause them to vote against their own interest.

The answer it to stop worshiping the wealthy as Conservatives, Republicans, Libertarians and Conservative/Corporate Democrats do. The answer to improving society and our economy is Progressivism. Socialism (Democratic Socialism) is not an evil. Fascism (rule by the wealthy and corporations) is the real evil... and when they corrupt our government via bribery THIS is what you could conceivably call "Big Guv". But when the "big government" (big enough to stand up to the corporations and the wealthy and keep them in check) is transparent and acting on our behalf? That could be a greater force for good.

Image Description: Ridiculous Libertarian cartoon that will cause gullible Righties to laugh and say, "that's so true" when the assertions it makes are actually false.

Responding to the assertions made in the "Shrine of the Statists: Big Guv" cartoon...

Responding to the assertions made in the "Shrine of the Statists: Big Guv" cartoon...

1. Speech Balloon: Big Guv is hungry. Will feed him more taxes!

My Response: Taxes are for needed government programs. Waste exists and we should work to eliminate as much of that as possible, but taxes aren't a "tribute" to "appease" this "Big Guv" god. Nobody is arguing that tax money should be intentionally wasted.

2. Speech Balloon: Big Guv will keep us safe!

My Response: Keeping us safe is the JOB of our police and military (supposed to be, at least). Nobody is arguing that people should give up the right to defend themselves.

3. Speech Balloon: Only Big Guv should have guns!

My Response: The courts have interpreted the 2nd amendment to mean citizens have a right to own guns. After the Sandy Hook tragedy the crazies in Congress (Repubs and some Conservative Dems) shot down modest restrictions and safeguards, yet this cartoonist suggest gun confiscation is a possibility? This is a total straw man.

4. Speech Balloon: Curse those who disbelieve!

My Response: Another straw man. Randal Paul, a Libertarian, is currently serving in the Senate. He ran for office and was elected, not "cursed".

5. Sign: Worship Obey.

My Response: Straw man. Nobody "worships" government. People are only expected to "obey" so far as laws are concerned. Disagreement is protected under the first amendment.

6. Gun in the right hand of "Big Guv": Government force.

My Response: Force is used to enforce laws passed by our elected representatives. What is this, a call for anarchy? (Actually it's the old canard that the collection of taxes is backed up by force and is theft. Sorry, Libertarians, but the collection of taxes is authorized by the Constitution).

7. Door in side of "Big Gov": Implication that dissenters will be jailed.

My Response: Free speech is protected by the first amendment. People aren't thrown in jail for being Libertarians.

8. The Fed in the left hand of "Big Guv": Implication that the Fed is under the control of "Big Guv".

My Response: Incorrect. Wikipedia says "the Federal Reserve System has both private and public components, and was designed to serve the interests of both the general public and private bankers". Why should the Fed serve the interest of private bankers instead of only acting in the OUR interest? Answer; it shouldn't. The Fed needs to be brought fully under the control of "Big Guv".

SWTD #196, lDel #5.

House Republicans Using Fake IRS Scandal To Defund Affordable Care Act

...this is the beginning of a generational battle... "Repeal ObamaCare" is going to be the battle cry for Republicans for the next 20 years or longer ~ Thom Hartmann (dob 5/7/1951) an American radio host, author, entrepreneur, and progressive political commentator. His nationally syndicated radio show has 2.75 million listeners a week. From 2008 to 2011, Talkers Magazine rated Hartmann the most popular liberal talk show host in America... an excerpt from hour 2 of the 6/29/2012 broadcast of his radio program... the day after the SCOTUS decision upholding most of the ACA (8:08 to 9:47).

On 6/5/2012 I authored a commentary titled, "Tea Party Groups Allowed To Hide Donors Real IRS Scandal". In this commentary I explained that the IRS "targeting" Conservative groups was not an Obama Administration scandal, but a Republican scandal, as Republican groups were applying for 501c4 tax exempt status, getting it (none were denied), and then politicking when the law forbids it. 501c4 status is for groups engaged exclusively in social welfare. If they wanted to politick they SHOULD have applied for the 527 tax exempt status. Under both 501c4 and 527 designations your group will be exempt from taxes. The difference is that under 501c4 status your donors remain anonymous, while under 527 status donors must be disclosed.

Conclusion? The Tea Party groups that applied for 501c4 status LIED to get it. They politicked in violation of the law and SHOULD have received extra scrutiny (or been "targeted"). The REAL scandal was that they were ALL approved! The reason they wanted 501c4 status and not 527 status was so they could HIDE THEIR DONORS. Karl Rove did just that with his two groups: one a SuperPac and the other a 501c4 that accepted donations anonymously and then re-gifted the money to the SuperPAC. Because the SuperPAC couldn't accept donations without disclosing who they were from, but the LAUNDERED money from the 501c4? Those donors remained secret.

Today I'm going to fill you in on the SECOND way in which the IRS scandal is actually a Republican scandal. House Republicans are going to cut the IRS budget so the Affordable Care Act cannot be implemented... or it's going to make it a hell of a lot more difficult, at least.

Following are some experts from a 6/15/2013 Associated Press story by Stephen Ohlemacher titled, "IRS scandals threaten funding for health care law". My commentary will follow each excerpt...

Stephen Ohlemacher: Mounting scandals at the Internal Revenue Service are jeopardizing critical funding for the agency as it gears up to play a big role in President Barack Obama's health care law. Obama sought a significant budget increase for the IRS for next year, when the agency will start doling out subsidies to help people buy health insurance on state-based exchanges. Congressional Republicans, however, see management problems at the IRS as an opportunity to limit the agency's funding just as it is trying to put in place the massive new law.

My Response: The scandals are Republican in nature, as I just pointed out. But does the "Liberal Media" mention this? No. I had to do a specific Google search to pull up those stories when I was researching the article I mention above. The vast majority of people who read this AP story will automatically assume the "scandals" are the "targeting" of Conservative groups and denying/delaying their 501c4 status, which most readers will believe they should have been granted posthaste (even though they should have all been rejected). Also, the wasting of taxpayer money on lavish conferences and parody "training" videos (more on that later).

SO: Republicans have been fighting the health care law ever since Democrats enacted it in 2010 without a single GOP vote. Unable to repeal the law, some Republicans hope to starve it by refusing to fund its implementation. The IRS scandals are giving them a timely excuse.

Me: The last time the House Republicans voted to repeal the Affordable Care Act was 5/16/2013, and that was the 37th vote! The Washington Post says, "the vote was 229 to 195, with two Democrats joining Republicans in voting for repeal. The Democrats were Mike McIntyre NC and Jim Matheson Utah". Shame on these Democrats. And shame on the Republicans for wasting taxpayer money in a pointless exercise, as the repeal won't be taken up by the Senate, would be voted down there if it were, and would be vetoed by the president if it got to his desk. And there is also the fact that the Supreme Court ruled the ACA constitutional (with GWb-appointed chief justice Roberts among those in the majority).

SO: Last month, the IRS was rocked by revelations that agents had targeted tea party and other conservative groups for extra scrutiny when the groups applied for tax-exempt status during the 2010 and 2012 elections. A few weeks later, an Inspector General's report said that the agency had spent lavishly on employee conferences during the same time period. From 2010 through 2012, the IRS spent nearly $50 million on employee conferences. In 2010, the agency used money that had been budgeted to hire enforcement agents to instead help pay for one conference that cost $4.1 million, according to the watchdog's report.

Me: Note that the IRS was "rocked" by these particular revelations and NOT by revelations that ALL the Conservative groups that applied for the 501c4 status were approved when they shouldn't have been (because they were politicking), and that these groups are using the status to HIDE their donors. The "Liberal Media" is doing a bang-up job of covering that story, aren't they? Not.

As for the report from the Inspector General that said the IRS "spent lavishly on employee conferences", not so says US News & World Report. A 6/12/2012 article titled, "What Was so Lavish About the IRS Employee Conference?" says "tax experts and lawyers who have been professionally involved in reviews and in setting up conferences say evidence of wrongdoing is slim". One quoted expert says, "you want them to be conducting training conferences at a time like this...". Another expert says that a "$4 million outlay for a three-day national convention would not be out of line for a national conference for more than 2,600 senior managers".

The article goes on to give other examples of how the IRS spent less on conference related items than is typical in the private sector. Yes, those "Star Trek" and "Gilligan's Island" training videos were lame and embarrassing, but again, according to a tax lawyer cited in the article, "the IRS has a big training challenge, and you want to see them addressing it in a creative and out-of-the-box way". Although the videos were "dumb", the tax lawyer concludes that "you can't fault them for trying".

In any case, the IRS director during the time they spent "lavishly" on conferences was Doug Shulman, a Republican bush appointee. Shulman was director of the IRS from 3/24/2008 to 11/9/2012. It was also during this time period that Conservative Tea Party goups were "targeted". And, while it was not Shulman who directed the "targeting" of the Tea Party groups, it was another Republican IRS manager (in the Cincinnati office) who did so.

The individual, whose name has not been revealed, says "he and an underling set aside Tea Party and Patriot groups because the organizations appeared to pose a precedent that could affect future IRS filings". According to Rep. Elijah Cummings the IRS manager "is a conservative Republican working for the IRS". Cummings correctly concluded, "I think this interview and these statements go a long way toward showing that the White House was not involved in this".

The person who resigned, "acting" director Steven Miller, wasn't in charge at the time. By the way, Miller was only an acting director because Senate Republicans have refused to confirm anyone to fill the position permanently under Obama. Republican obstruction in not confirming an IRS director chosen by the President is another aspect of the scandal which is being completely ignored by the media.

SO: "For years Republicans in Congress have made repeated attempts to stop and slow down the Affordable Care Act. This is just the latest attempt to put up roadblocks to implementing the law", White House spokeswoman Amy Brundage said.

Me: Exactly. If only Democrats would go on the offensive instead of saying saying things like... "based upon everything I've seen, the case is solved. And if it were me, I would wrap this case up and move on". No Rep. Cummings, the case is NOT solved! We need 501c4 reform so Conservative groups (any group really, but Conservative ones in particular) cannot abuse the designation and use it to hide donors and launder political donations.

SO: Democrats in Congress say they are growing tired of Republican attempts to repeal a law that has survived a review by the Supreme Court and whose main champion — Obama — won re-election last year. "The American people will see over the next six months the lengths the Republicans will go to destroy the implementation of the Affordable Care Act", said Rep. Jim McDermott of Washington state, a senior Democrat on the House Ways and Means Committee. "I'm sad about it, it's awful", McDermott added. "But sometimes in a democracy people have to learn the hard way, and the American public is going to learn".

Me: What the American public should learn is that they need to vote out as many of these obstructing Republicans as possible and return the House to Democratic hands. I am beyond tired with these Republican shenaggians, endless obstructing and fake scandals.

SWTD #168

Yahoo Going Nooz Route In Aggregating Glenn Beck The Blaze Right-wing Nuttery

By the skillful and sustained use of propaganda, one can make a people see even heaven as hell or an extremely wretched life as paradise ~ Adolf Hitler (4/20/1889 to 4/30/1945) dictator of Nazi Germany from 1934 to 1945. Hitler was at the center of Nazi Germany, World War II in Europe, and the Holocaust.

The Yahoos at Yahoo News appear to be at it again. If they aren't hiring Fox Nooz butt kissers like Dylan Stableford, then they're cozying up to Right-wing nutjob Glenn Beck's The Blaze. "Scandals Have Snowballed Through the Obama Years and More May Be Coming" is the nooz story I discovered a link to prominently featured on the Yahoo home page. Did Yahoo News pay for this Obama bashing tripe by "assistant editor" (and former Paul Ryan staffer) Christopher Santarelli, or are they just conferring to The Blaze some legitimacy by aggregating their nooz?

"Nooz" as I define it (and I think many on the Left would agree here and use the word similarly) is Right-wing propaganda masquerading as actual news. The term is (of course) in reference to Rupert Murdoch's Fox News, otherwise known as Fox Nooz or Faux Nooz. Now, I have noticed that on this occasion (as well as others) Yahoo News is going the "nooz" route, in that they seem to be catering to the far-right with one-sided news (or "nooz") stories authored by "reporters" actually employed by Yahoo, or by aggregating nooz from far-right sources, as is the case with this article from The Blaze.

Following are some excerpts from The Blaze story in which Glenn Beck employee Christopher Santarelli interviews writes about an interview of TN Representative Marsha Blackburn by Mallory Factor (Blaze contributor and not a woman despite the feminine name). Blackburn, one of the nuttier members of the House, believes the Affordable Care Act (AKA ObamaCare) to be "a government run, government ensured, government financed, government delivered healthcare system" (it isn't), and that it might include death panels (it doesn't).

Santarelli: Rep. Marsha Blackburn says the growing controversy involving HHS Secretary Kathy Sebelius trying to raise money from companies that her department regulates ranks among the major scandals that are plaguing the administration. The funds raised would go to nonprofits that help people enroll in and get excited about Obamacare.

My Commentary: According to Steve Benen of the Maddow Blog funds are needed to promote the health care law. The more people that sign up, the larger the pool and the lower the costs per person... but the Republicans won't provide any funds for this necessary promotion, so Sebelius has been soliciting "private-sector health executives and non-profit organizations" for some cash to fund the promoting. It's all quite legal so long as there is no quid pro quo.

Santarelli: "A lot of people have said it sounds like Iran-Contra - to me, I think it's probably a little bit worse", Blackburn said in a video interview with TheBlaze contributor Mallory Factor.

My Commentary: No, it isn't "a bit worse". You only think that because you're a nutter. The two situations are actually not comparable in the least. With Iran-Contra individuals in the Reagan administration were raising money via the sale of weapons to Iran to fund Nicaraguan rebels. It was all very illegal, while Sebelius asking for donations to promote the health care act is totally legal. One was a scandal that should have resulted in Regan going to jail, while the other isn't a scandal at all.

Blackburn does, however, appear to be on the same page as the other Tennessee Rs. Regarding the fundraising, Senator Lamar Alexander says "the legal analogy with Iran-Contra is strong", and that it "should cease immediately and should be fully investigated by Congress". Fu#k you Lamar. Intelligent people recognize this as yet another Republican attempt to undermine the president's health care legislation. Also, shame on the voters of Tennessee who elected these far-right kooks (a group that does not include me. I live in TN, but didn't vote for either of these dumbasses).

Santarelli: Blackburn told TheBlaze that scandals have "snowballed" through the Obama years, now coming to a head with... Benghazi, the Department of Justice caught surveilling lawful media outlets like the Associated Press and Fox News, the IRS targeting conservative groups, and this latest controversy with Sebelius and the HHS. Blackburn told TheBlaze that she has even heard of more whistleblowers set to step forward regarding scandals at the EPA.

My Commentary: That Republicans cut funding for protecting our embassies and consulates is a valid concern and should be addressed. The real scandal regarding the IRS "targeting" conservative groups is that they were all approved, even though the law says 501c4's "must operate exclusively for the promotion of social welfare" and not allowed to "specifically endorse any political candidate".

So the IRS found that no tea bag group was violating this rule? What bull. In any case, the real reason groups like these want the 501c4 status is so they can "avoid having to reveal their contributors". I agree with Senator Ron Wyden who says politically active groups (like the tea party groups that were "targeted") "ought to be 527 organizations [that] must disclose their donors" (they would still be tax exempt).

As for the Justice Department seizing of AP phone records, concern over that is right and just, but Republicans have previously opposed a media shield law, while it has broad support from Democrats. Republicans simply want to have their cake and eat it too in regards to this issue; i.e. criticize the administration but not "hamstring" future (Republican) administrations when it comes to going after the media's reporting of White House leaks. What is needed here is some serious reforms to ensure freedom of the press, and it does not appear as though (the hypocritical) Republicans are willing to go far enough.

Regarding Blackburn's assertion that individuals within the EPA are going to whistleblow, I'm not sure what she is referring to. However, given Blackburn's abysmal voting record when it comes to Oil/Energy/The Environment, she's probably referring to the EPA's attempt to regulate CO2... that is, actually do something about Global Climate Change given the fact that Congressional Republicans refuse to do a damn thing to address this serious problem.

Santarelli: Blackburn said that along with colleagues in Congress she will investigate these cases methodically and responsibly, subpoena individuals when necessary, and "make certain power grabs like this don't take place".

My Commentary: It isn't responsible to exploit non-scandals for political advantage Marsha! It isn't that I think Congress should ignore these issues, as I am a believer that it is the role of Congress to provide oversight, but that isn't the Republican goal here. The goal is to embarrass the Obama Administration, use these "scandals" for political advantage (in the upcoming midterms and in the next presidential election) and to stymie the Congressional Democrats and President's agenda. Proof of that will be their failure to pass any meaningful reforms.

I predict that the IRS scandal will open the door to further abuse of 501c4s. These groups will now be able to openly politick and hide who their donors are (which is what the Repubs want). The AP/Fox scandal might result in some legislation that provides some protections to reporters, but passage of the media shield law the Dems want is unlikely. The Benghazi hearings might lead to better protections for our overseas diplomats, but I haven't actually heard any talk of restoring any of the cut funding.

Finally, in regards to the "little bit worse" worse than Iran-Contra issue of funding for the implementation of ObamaCare... the Repubs object to the use of funds from outside sources, but they won't approve any government funding (thus eliminating the need of the administration to rely on donors), because the goal here is to sabotage it (the implementation). My prediction here is that nothing will happen - the Repubs won't stop Sebelius nor will they restore funding.

In other words, the Repubs will fail utterly to make any of these faux scandals stick. Although I'm sure some of them know that, but will press ahead anyway due to the fact that regardless of the outcome they will achieve their primary objective of obstructing. And that, folks, is why this recovery has been so weak, and we get ignorant Keynesian-bashing comments such as the following...

Willis Hart: There have only been 2 sharp economic downturns in U.S. history that haven't been followed by a sharp economic recovery; the Great Depression under Hoover... and FDR and this current malaise under Bush and Obama. I would strongly argue that it (the fact that both were responded to via an interventionist government) is hardly a coincidence (5/5/2013).

No. I'd argue the problem is not enough intervention. With this idiotic statement Mr. Hart completely ignores the fact that the Republicans have been working hard to stymie a recovery via actual sabotage. That is the REAL intervention that is taking place here... intervention by the Republicans aimed at making the economy worse!

So what we have here, IMO, is far-Right propaganda coming from a individual who presents himself as "Moderate" and from a supposed "news" organization which some might mistake for unbiased straight reporting. But who really gives a crap what one deluded individual thinks (Willis Hart), or even one deluded individual with a small audience (Glenn Beck) thinks. I find it far more troubling that Yahoo News is lending it's legitimacy to this type of extremist nuttery. I've never seen a MSNBC story on Yahoo.

Also, don't forget that Beck was fired by Fox for, among other things, claiming that the president hates White people. Fox has more legitimacy IMO than Beck, and remember I made the case earlier that Fox traffics in Right-wing propaganda. The Blaze is loony-toon paranoid propaganda which should be shunned by all of us normals (both on the Left and on the Right).

Just as Dish Network adding The Blaze to its channel lineup was a very bad idea, so is Yahoo adding it to it's news feed a bad idea. Both these companies need to rethink these decisions. Glenn Beck may be able to make a buttload of money catering to far-Right nuts, but that doesn't mean anyone else should even acknowledge the existence of The Blaze. I'm not saying search engines should censor their results as I do not support censorship, but placing stories from The Blaze alongside stories from legitimate news sources (and thereby lending The Blaze credibility) is, I think, a little troubling.

SWTD #156