Can the media read a CBO balance sheet? Not by their headlines

The headline should have been "Medicaid budget increased by $25 billion for 2018." In the attached budget document on page 17, it shows Medicaid at $403 billion for 2018 vs. $378 billion in 2017.

For anyone who can read a balance sheet, (and plenty of journalism majors cannot), the $880 billion "cut" that was plastered all over the news comes from the previous administration's ten-year projections vs. the Trump administration's ten-year projections. But the only actual number is the $25 billion increase. I bet if the American people were told the actual number, it would be tough to protest -- or generate such an exciting headline for the left. The obvious reason for the headline is to push an agenda. One of the main reasons we are broke is because the government not only does not cut much, but a cut in a projected increase is always portrayed as a disaster. The media is a major culprit in pushing this agenda.

Maybe the media could point out that all of Obama’s budgets were dead on arrival and that there were years during the Obama administration when the Democrat-led Senate didn’t pass a budget at all. Sort of like Illinois.

On May 25, House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, who sits on the intelligence committee, was asked about Obama’s illegal spying, where the Obama Administration was cited for continually violating the law since 2011 and she said she hadn’t been briefed on the subject yet. Yet somehow, Pelosi was able to critique Trump’s budget within a few days of its issuance. My guess is she read as much of the budget as she did the ObamaCare bill before she passed it.

On May 25, headlines were splashed all over the place following a Congressional Budget Office report claiming that the replacement for Obamacare would cause 23 million people to lose health care coverage by 2026. For one thing, th CBO is notoriously inaccurate in its projections. Among other things, it's on record as claiming ObamaCare would be a runaway success with high enrollment numbers and lowered costs. It stands to reason that if there is no law forcing people to buy ObamaCare, some will obviously choose not to buy it, given its limited choices and high price tag. Why does the media post a headline implying that the number is accurate instead of a wild guess at best? Why doesn't the media tell people how far off the ObamaCare projections have been?

Let's look at the balance sheet specifics: In 2010, CBO predicted that by 2016 twenty three million would be covered by ObamaCare exchanges. The actual number was 10.6 million. In 2010 CBO predicted that the cost of ObamaCare would be $948 billion in its first ten years. By 2014 they had raised the projected costs to over $2 trillion.

Not once have I seen any reporter ask Obama, Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, Pelosi, or any other Democrat how the massive cost overruns in ObamaCare have been paid for. What did they cut or what taxes did they use to pay for the near-$1 trillion shortfall? After all, they say they insist all programs must be paid for. Why do the media and Democrats pretend that they all of a sudden care about the deficit when they haven’t for at least eight years?

I focus on health care headlines because they are so egregious right now, but they are part of an extended pattern of misleading headlines and inaccurate readings.

Something you rarely or ever see in a climate change article showing temperature changes are actual temperatures. They generally just show differences from the average. I would love to see what the actual average temperature in the U.S was in 1880, 1934, and 2016. I believe there is less than a one degree change over 150 years which would certainly be within the margin of error and therefore normal. Of course those numbers are sort of irrelevant if the weather stations weren’t all in the same place. Obviously if the weathering station is placed near cement it is warmer than in grass but that is not evidence that fossil fuels or CO2 cause warming. .

I also don’t recall ever seeing any actual sea levels in articles, only that it is rising. Did they actually measure all the seas in 1880, 1930 and today or are they estimates. I believe the research shows minor rises the last 150 years and the measurements have to be questionable.

The obvious reason that most headlines and articles are written as they are is to influence instead of inform. Almost all reporting today is to push an agenda instead of report facts. It would be much easier and cheaper if the AP, Washington Post and New York Times along with the networks plastered Democratic talking points and liberal think tanks propaganda onto their screens and broadsheets instead of pretending they are actual reporters doing research.

The headline should have been "Medicaid budget increased by $25 billion for 2018." In the attached budget document on page 17, it shows Medicaid at $403 billion for 2018 vs. $378 billion in 2017.

For anyone who can read a balance sheet, (and plenty of journalism majors cannot), the $880 billion "cut" that was plastered all over the news comes from the previous administration's ten-year projections vs. the Trump administration's ten-year projections. But the only actual number is the $25 billion increase. I bet if the American people were told the actual number, it would be tough to protest -- or generate such an exciting headline for the left. The obvious reason for the headline is to push an agenda. One of the main reasons we are broke is because the government not only does not cut much, but a cut in a projected increase is always portrayed as a disaster. The media is a major culprit in pushing this agenda.

Maybe the media could point out that all of Obama’s budgets were dead on arrival and that there were years during the Obama administration when the Democrat-led Senate didn’t pass a budget at all. Sort of like Illinois.

On May 25, House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, who sits on the intelligence committee, was asked about Obama’s illegal spying, where the Obama Administration was cited for continually violating the law since 2011 and she said she hadn’t been briefed on the subject yet. Yet somehow, Pelosi was able to critique Trump’s budget within a few days of its issuance. My guess is she read as much of the budget as she did the ObamaCare bill before she passed it.

On May 25, headlines were splashed all over the place following a Congressional Budget Office report claiming that the replacement for Obamacare would cause 23 million people to lose health care coverage by 2026. For one thing, th CBO is notoriously inaccurate in its projections. Among other things, it's on record as claiming ObamaCare would be a runaway success with high enrollment numbers and lowered costs. It stands to reason that if there is no law forcing people to buy ObamaCare, some will obviously choose not to buy it, given its limited choices and high price tag. Why does the media post a headline implying that the number is accurate instead of a wild guess at best? Why doesn't the media tell people how far off the ObamaCare projections have been?

Let's look at the balance sheet specifics: In 2010, CBO predicted that by 2016 twenty three million would be covered by ObamaCare exchanges. The actual number was 10.6 million. In 2010 CBO predicted that the cost of ObamaCare would be $948 billion in its first ten years. By 2014 they had raised the projected costs to over $2 trillion.

Not once have I seen any reporter ask Obama, Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, Pelosi, or any other Democrat how the massive cost overruns in ObamaCare have been paid for. What did they cut or what taxes did they use to pay for the near-$1 trillion shortfall? After all, they say they insist all programs must be paid for. Why do the media and Democrats pretend that they all of a sudden care about the deficit when they haven’t for at least eight years?

I focus on health care headlines because they are so egregious right now, but they are part of an extended pattern of misleading headlines and inaccurate readings.

Something you rarely or ever see in a climate change article showing temperature changes are actual temperatures. They generally just show differences from the average. I would love to see what the actual average temperature in the U.S was in 1880, 1934, and 2016. I believe there is less than a one degree change over 150 years which would certainly be within the margin of error and therefore normal. Of course those numbers are sort of irrelevant if the weather stations weren’t all in the same place. Obviously if the weathering station is placed near cement it is warmer than in grass but that is not evidence that fossil fuels or CO2 cause warming. .

I also don’t recall ever seeing any actual sea levels in articles, only that it is rising. Did they actually measure all the seas in 1880, 1930 and today or are they estimates. I believe the research shows minor rises the last 150 years and the measurements have to be questionable.

The obvious reason that most headlines and articles are written as they are is to influence instead of inform. Almost all reporting today is to push an agenda instead of report facts. It would be much easier and cheaper if the AP, Washington Post and New York Times along with the networks plastered Democratic talking points and liberal think tanks propaganda onto their screens and broadsheets instead of pretending they are actual reporters doing research.

RECENT VIDEOS