US election double standards
by Anastasia Churkina
RT America
October 13, 2012
NY Comicon Today
If you’re attending the New York Comicon today, I’ll be signing “Billionaires & Ballot Bandits” with Greg Palast from 1 to 2pm at ComicBook.com booth #2249, which is in the small press area. Please note: NY Comicon is SOLD OUT so this is only applicable if you already have reserved tickets. Hope to see you there!
SYNDICATED COLUMN: Big Bird is a 1%er
Romney’s Silly But Salient Point on PBS
“I like PBS. I love Big Bird. Actually, I like you, too,” Mitt Romney told Jim Lehrer in the most quoted line from the first presidential debate. “But I’m not going to keep on spending money on things to borrow money from China to pay for.”
Huge news!
If deficit spending will be verboten under the Mittocracy, what will happen to all those out-of-work soldiers and defense contractors? Where will the drones crash after they run out of gas?
But let’s not talk about that either. Apparently I’m the only person in America who noticed that the military-industrial complex is about to go out of business.
People are instead focusing on Romney’s call to cut the $445 million a year the federal government–which amounts to a paltry 1.2% of 1% of the federal budget–contributes to the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, which subsidizes PBS and NPR.
My fellow political cartoonists are having a field day, echoing President Obama’s hat tip to the O.J. case: “Elmo has been seen in a white Suburban. He’s driving for the border.” The New York Times’ Charles M. Blow riffed: “Big Bird is the man. He’s eight feet tall. He can sing and roller skate and ride a unicycle and dance. Can you do that, Mr. Romney?” A co-creator of “Sesame Street” dismissed Romney as “silly.”
Silly? Definitely.
But is Romney right? Probably.
Candidates and parties aren’t important. Ideas are. If we’re ideologically consistent, if we want to appear credible when we criticize right-wingers like Romney, we left-of-center types have to hold ourselves to the same (or higher) standards as those to which we subject our enemies. We have to admit when they’re correct, even–especially–when it’s about something as trivial as this.
This is a time when we have to give the devil his due.
Until recently I was unaware of the exorbitant salaries received by executives and top employees of federally-subsidized broadcasting networks. In a 2011 op-ed for The Wall Street Journal, Senator Jim DeMint (R-SC) pointed out that PBS paid its president, Paula Kerger, over $600,000 a year–more than the President of the United States. “Kevin Klose, president emeritus of NPR…received more than $1.2 million in compensation, according to the tax forms the nonprofit filed in 2009,” wrote DeMint. “Sesame Workshop President and CEO Gary Knell received $956,513 in compensation in 2008.” (Now Knell runs NPR, which pays him about $575,000.)
Actor Carroll Spinney, who plays Big Bird and Oscar the Grouch, was paid more than $314,000 last year.
The liberal Center for American Progress countered: “While those numbers are not exactly chump change, it’s pennies compared to the salaries of another industry the U.S. taxpayers subsidize at much higher cost–Big Oil.”
But that’s red-herring sophistry.
Wasteful federal spending on overpaid executives is wrong, whether it’s for planet-murdering energy corporations, or on a network that airs free educational TV that helps ready kids for school with basics like counting, math and even Spanish.
Kill both.
“Like for-profit media companies, Sesame [and PBS] needs to pay top dollar to attract talent,” MSN’s Jonathan Berr argues, sounding like a Fortune 500 corporation defending sky-high CEO paychecks.
I disagree.
NPR and PBS do an OK job reporting the news–as long as it happens on a weekday–but that’s not the point.
If you accept public money, you’re in public service and should get paid accordingly. Which is to say, fairly–and at the lowest fair cost to taxpayers.
If you can’t find someone qualified to run NPR or PBS, or an actor up to the task of playing Big Bird, for $100,000 a year–especially in this job market–you’re not looking hard enough. Something is off-kilter when the studios of publicly-funded shows like NPR’s “All Things Considered” are centrally located and sumptuously furnished with mahogany tables and the latest high-tech gadgetry, while those of privately-owned 50,000-watt talk-radio powerhouses are situated in the slums and look like 1970s-era flophouses.
Salary figures for NPR “stars” like Robert Siegel ($341,992), Renee Montagne ($328,309), Steve Inskeep ($320,950), Scott Simon ($311,958) and Michele Norris ($279,909) are three to four times more than top-rated talk-radio hosts in the biggest markets get. How dare these 1%ers shake us down during pledge drives, much less collect federal taxdollars?
PBS only receives 15% of its funding from the feds. For NPR it’s 2%. As a former NPR exec confided, given the political heat they take over it, they’d might be better off cutting the strings. Then they’d be free to stop giving lying conservatives “equal time” to seem “fair.”
Why is the government giving broadcasters money they don’t need? There’s a much stronger argument for propping up newspapers, which remain the original source of 95% of news stories. Print media is in big trouble: the newspaper industry has shrunk 43% since 2000. Analysts say that even that chart-filled ubiquitous denizen of hotels USA Today may fold. If the feds want to do something good for journalism–and the well-informed populace required for vibrant democracy–they should start by subsidizing print newspapers.
But only if their editors and publishers don’t get paid ridiculous salaries.
(Ted Rall‘s new book is “The Book of Obama: How We Went From Hope and Change to the Age of Revolt.” His website is tedrall.com. This column originally appeared at MSNBC’s Lean Forward blog.)
COPYRIGHT 2012 TED RALL
LOS ANGELES TIMES CARTOON: Underwater on the Car
I draw cartoons for The Los Angeles Times about issues related to California and the Southland (metro Los Angeles).
This week: Gas prices in California are at a record high for the third day in a row, up slightly more than a cent overnight at $4.668 for a gallon of regular just as motorists start their work week. The cost of fueling up has soared in recent days, as refinery and pipeline problems squeezed supply. The steep and sudden run-up caused Gov. Jerry Brown to call Sunday for a quick infusion of winter-blend gasoline.
NBCNews.com Blog: Romney Was Right About Big Bird
Here’s the NBCNews.com version of this week’s column.
The Spite Vote
Mitt Romney is enjoying a bigger than expected bump in the polls following Wednesday night’s presidential debate. Why? Spite.
In a two-party system, a.k.a. the two-party trap, disgruntled voters are forced to choose between two almost equally unpalatable candidates. Most of all, they hate the incumbent who caused the problems that they are suffering: in this case, unemployment, underemployment, stagnant wages, no hope of a better future.
Until a few months ago, I would have forecast that Obama’s chances for reelection were basically doomed. In fact, I bet an acquaintance a substantial amount of money that that was in fact the case. But then Mitt Romney went on to commit a series of well reported gaffes that we don’t need to go into here. Why is Romney doing better now? People have been looking for an excuse to vote against Obama. When you are flailing between choices, you tend to lash out against the incumbent. That is what we are seeing today.
After the debate, people saw that Romney wasn’t quite as much of an a**hole as he had made himself out to be on the campaign trail. Well, of course he is exactly as much of an a**hole as that, and no doubt much more than that, but he was “nice” enough in to make them feel okay about choosing to vote against Obama – to demonstrate their anger at Obama for choosing to prolong the Depression. So there’s the bump in the polls. Will it stick? I don’t know. But it’s an interesting phenomenon to watch as a dying system gasps its final breaths.
Why Was Obama So Blah?
Hard to believe I know, but Pres. Obama is a human being. I say it’s hard to believe because when you are a war criminal, a torture enabler, assassin, drone war operator, etc., people often forget that you are made of flesh and bones. But, after further reflection about last night’s performance, I can’t help but speculate that Pres. Obama is suffering from some sort of personal setback. He looked uncharacteristically sad.
Reading his face, it was hard to escape the conclusion that the president had just received some sort of bad news, perhaps related to himself or someone close to him. Of course, we may never know whether this is true. But it’s my speculation and I’m sticking to it.
LOS ANGELES TIMES CARTOON: A Maid’s Job Is Never Done
I draw cartoons for The Los Angeles Times about issues related to California and the Southland (metro Los Angeles).
This week: Gov. Jerry Brown vetoes a bill that would have led to meal and rest breaks for nannies, maids and other domestic workers.
My Review of the First Debate
The old-fashioned presidential debate has become, well, old-fashioned. At this point, does anyone really care about the endless array of statistics – real and imagined, and no doubt for the most part ginned up – that the two candidates recited endlessly last night? Both men looked haggard, especially the president. No doubt both had been cramming their brains full of these useless fake factoids for weeks. Really, what they should’ve done is hung out by the pool for a day or two beforehand to collect their thoughts.
There is something awkward and indeed strange about receiving detailed economic plans for the first time in oral form. What are we, the citizens of a society based on oral tradition? There is this little thing called the Internet. Why don’t the two sides post the details of, for example, their economic plans online months before the debates? Let the media, experts, the Congressional budget office, etc. analyze the plans so that they have been fully synthesized by the public before the two candidates meet.
Presidential debates are a chance for the public to compare and contrast to visions of the way that the country should move forward – or, in a democracy, multiple visions. But we don’t have that. But I digress.
Obama seemed especially exhausted, like a college kid who it spent the night studying the night before. Overall, I would give the advantage to Romney, but not because Romney was particularly impressive. One edge that Romney did have was his ability to tap into personal stories, such as the unemployed folks he met in Dayton, Ohio.
Both men, but particularly Pres. Obama, look like college kids who had spent the night before cramming for an exam. They were rote and robotic and uninspiring and uninspired.
Voters need to know what each candidate’s vision is for the country. Instead, especially from the president, we got different “approaches.” Pres. Obama said, I have a different approach to this from Mitt Romney. I have a different approach to that. We don’t need approaches.
Pres. Obama seems bloodless. Which, considering that he was standing next to Mitt Romney, is saying something. Why didn’t he talk about his vision?
If I had been standing there, I would have talked about the country that is possible. A country in which nobody is sleeping outside due to lack of money. A country where losing your job doesn’t mean losing your dignity. The country in which a CEO is not allowed to pay himself $40 million the same year that he fires thousands of employees.
I would talk about building a country with different priorities, such as one that does not squander trillions of dollars on stupid, counterproductive, brutal wars while millions of our citizens are starving and denying themselves medical care. I would talk about the need to provide a college education to everyone who wants and qualifies for one. I would talk about the need to rebuild our infrastructure from the ground up, and talk about the lack of dignity created by this system.
Even within the constructs of capitalism – the most evil, reprehensible, discriminatory economic system ever conceived – there is still space to argue for the kind of reforms that would not only make most people’s lives better, but would save the system from the inevitable collapse and or revolution to come. Once again, both standardbearers of the major political parties squander their opportunity to show that there is any way out, or that reform is possible. Maybe that is because it is not.