When your column is headlined "It's the Elderly, Stupid," I guess readers should know what to expect. Robert Samuelson delivers in today's Washington Post (a column that will appear elsewhere around the country, unfortunately), in a nasty diatribe about the kind of debt debate he thinks the country should be having--one that blames older people:

Older Americans do not intend to ruin America, but as a group, that's what they're about. On average, the federal government supports each American 65 and over by about $26,000 a year (about $14,000 through Social Security, $12,000 through Medicare). At 65, the average American will live almost 20 more years. Should these sizable annual subsidies begin later and be less for some? It's hard to discuss the budget realistically if you ignore most of what the budget does.

The Social Security money they're stealing is theirs, of course--taken out of their paychecks over their entire working lives. What Samuelson is proposing--if he really wants to discuss the budget realistically--is that they should get less of their money back in order to maintain tax cuts for the rich.

Medicare is different, in large part because  healthcare costs really have increased dramatically. That's someone's fault--apparently old people's.

Samuelson goes on to writes about the "contradiction" between people's desire to do something about deficits and their belief that Social Security and Medicare shouldn't be cut. Which isn't a contradiction at all; people support reducing spending in other areas, like the military, and raising revenues via tax hikes on the wealthy. But here's his case:

What sustains these contradictions is a mythology holding that, once people hit 65, most become poor. This justifies political dogma among Democrats that resists Social Security or Medicare cuts of even one dollar.

But the premise is wrong. True, some elderly live hand-to-mouth; many more are comfortable, and some are wealthy. The Kaiser Family Foundation reports the following for Medicare beneficiaries in 2010: 25 percent had savings and retirement accounts averaging $207,000 or more; among homeowners (four-fifths of those 65 and older), three-quarters had equity in their houses averaging $132,000; about 25 percent had incomes exceeding $47,000 (that’s for individuals, and couples would be higher).

So to say "most" old people are poor is wrong--and to prove that, he shows that some older people aren't poor at all.

Go to the Kaiser report he's citing, and you get a very different impression.

From the key findings:

-Half of all Medicare beneficiaries had incomes below $22,000 in 2010; less than 1 percent had incomes over $250,000.

--Half of all Medicare beneficiaries have less than $2,100 in retirement account savings (such as IRAs), and half of all Medicare beneficiaries have less than $31,000 in other financial assets (such as savings accounts)

But why focus on the average Medicare recipient when you can isolate the wealthiest and decry all seniors for their plan to "ruin America"? What Samuelson is saying that "we need to recognize that federal retiree programs often represent middle-class welfare." What he actually seems to be saying is that there is inequality--rich people are getting richer. There are ways to redistribute that wealth in order to pay for everyone's healthcare. But something tells me that's not what he's advocating.

Washington Post columnist Richard Cohen wrote a rather apoplectic column about presidential candidate Michele Bachmann this week, lamenting the fact that other GOP candidates aren't calling her out for being completely ill-prepared for the job:

Bachmann does not deserve to be in the presidential race. Legislatively, she has done little, she knows next to nothing and what she thinks she knows is wrong.

He also called her "an ignoramus" and "a bigot when it comes to gays."

Straight news coverage obviously isn't going to put things like that. But what's remarkable is how reporters seem to give Bachmann credit for being sort of, kind of, well-informed--at least relative to another political figure.

Here's Time magazine's recent take:

It is easy to dismiss Bachmann as a shorter Sarah Palin with a Minnesota accent. But there are important differences. Whereas Palin can stumble over simple questions, Bachmann is far surer on her feet. When Fox News host Chris Wallace recently recounted some of Bachmann's most outrageous statements and asked point-blank whether she is a "flake," the congresswoman didn't blink and delivered a firm recitation of her credentials. During a 2010 interview on MSNBC's Hardball, Bachmann stuck so resolutely to her talking points that the exasperated host, Chris Matthews, asked whether she was "hypnotized." She smiled and repeated them again.

"They'll throw nothing but heat at her, and she stays in the batter's box and doesn't flinch," marvels an adviser to a rival Republican candidate. Her fans say that's because Bachmann, who has two law degrees, offers more substance than Palin and can speak intelligently--and without Palin's mangled syntax--about policy issues. "She's smart. She's well informed," says Ralph Reed. It's true that Bachmann has a scant House record and a penchant for factual misstatements, including her bizarre claim that NATO air strikes killed up to 30,000 Libyans. But few other politicians so effectively combine policy, ideology--and pure star power.

Talk about exasperating.

The ability to recite talking points instead of answering questions can be called a lot of things-- being "sure on your feet" isn't one of them.

Bachmann has a "penchant for factual misstatements"--one example is given, sandwiched between tributes to her intelligence. Compare that to this assessment from early this year, courtesy of a PolitiFact editor:

"We have checked her 13 times, and [found] seven of her claims to be false and six have been found to be ridiculously false," PolitiFact editor Bill Adair told Minnesota Public Radio.

He added that no other politician had been factchecked as often as Bachmann without saying something that was found to be true.

"I don't know anyone else that we have checked more than a couple times that has never earned anything above a false," Adair said. "She is unusual in that regard that she has never gotten a rating higher than false."

That's pretty astounding--and doesn't really come through in the coverage of her campaign.

On top of all of this, of course, is the notion--rampant in the coverage of her campaign--that Bachmann should be compared to Sarah Palin. There's something strange--and deeply sexist--about this. But without a doubt, being compared to the most famously inarticulate national political figure of our era does a tremendous favor to Bachmann.

Richard Cohen is wondering when other Republican presidential candidate will criticize her record; the same question should be asked of the press corps.

"Iran arming Iraq insurgents" was last month's story. Today's papers are telling a different story; the new line being pushed by U.S. officials is that Iran is supporting Al-Qaeda.

Today's Washington Post:

Iran Allows Money, Recruits

to Reach Al-Qaeda, U.S. Says

'Secret deal' allegedly supports activities of terrorists in Pakistan

In the New York Times:

Treasury Accuses Iran

of Aiding Al-Qaeda

Associated Press:

U.S. Accuses Iran

of 'Secret Deal' With Al-Qaeda

The Post calls this "the most serious U.S. allegation to date of Iranian aid to the terrorist group"-- though it later notes that "U.S. officials have repeatedly accused Iran of assisting Al-Qaeda, links between the two have been difficult to prove." This time around the charge is that a Syrian middleman operating from Iran transfers money and recruits to Al-Qaeda leaders based in Pakistan.  Iran denies any role in this alleged scheme, and the evidence offered in the stories amounts to statements from U.S. officials asserting that this is happening.

The notion that Shi'ite Iran would be working closely with Sunni fundamentalist Al-Qaeda is a leap, as some of this coverage suggests.

But the Times account, by Helene Cooper, seems to go the furthest in helping to shore up the U.S. case,  making the bizarre argument that the existence of U.S. allegations and the Treasury Department sanctions against individuals in the supposed network mean the case against Iran is solid:

The officials said the sanctions were nonetheless meaningful because they would serve to demonstrate that Iran was working with Al-Qaeda.

That's like saying that the fact that the U.S. invaded Iraq to destroy its WMDs means Iraq must have WMDs.

When not providing justification in its own voice, the Times allows U.S. officials to anonymously push their argument further:

Indeed, one senior administration said the action sought to expose both "a key funding facilitation network for Al-Qaeda and a key aspect for Iranian support for international terrorism."

"Our sense is this network is operating through Iranian territory with the knowledge and at least the acquiescence of Iranian authorities," the official said in a conference call with reporters.

Of course, if Iranian officials were really allowing this to happen, U.S. officials would probably say so on the record.

Floating allegations about an Iran/Al-Qaeda connection isn't new. For a good dissenting take on media coverage from last month, you can read this piece from Flynt Leverett and Hillary Mann Leverett.

And it's worth pointing out that the other Iran story, which alleges that Iran is shipping arms into Iraq to kill U.S. soldiers, isn't going away either.

In the debt ceiling debate, Republicans and corporate media have somewhat similar strategies: The GOP can't reach an agreement with the Democrats, because that would be a win for Obama. The media, meanwhile, can't say that the Democrats are doing the right thing, even when they're doing exactly what media pundits demand that they do because that would make the media seem like they were on the Democrats' side.

Thomas Friedman's column today (7/27/11) is a great example of this. Aside from what sounds like a call for a series of Tom Friedman impersonation festivals (i.e., "a series of hearings under the heading: 'What world are we living in?'"), what he's asking for is basically just what Obama's done:

For starters, two years ago Congress and the Obama administration would have collaborated on a series of hearings.... Then we would have put together "The National Commission for 21st Century America."... We then sit down with a blank sheet of paper and say, "OK, given our current fiscal predicament, where should we cut spending and where must we raise new tax revenues so that we can bring our government back to solvency and, at the same time, reinvigorate our formula for growth and success."...

"Such a plan requires cutting, taxing and spending. It requires cutting because we have made promises to ourselves on Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid that we cannot keep without reforming each of them."

But we cannot possibly generate the savings--or the new investments we need in our formula for success--by just taking funds from these social programs and shredding the social safety nets.... That is why we need to raise new tax revenues as well--so we can simultaneously shrink the entitlements programs, but still keep them viable, and generate the funds needed to strengthen all five parts of our growth formula. Anyone who says that either entitlement reform or tax increases are off the table does not have a plan for sustaining American greatness and passing on the American dream to the next generation.

It's hard to deny that this outline closely resembles the general policy approach, as well as the rhetoric and decision-making process, of the actually existing Obama administration. But Friedman can't write a column saying he thinks the president has got basically the right idea; where's the fun, or the bestselling book, in that? Instead, the columnist pretends that he's making a brilliantly original proposal that is only likely to be carried out by his longstanding dream of a  "radical centrist" third party:

Personally, I'll support anyone with a real plan to cut spending, raise revenues and boost investment in the five pillars of our success--be they Democrats or Republicans. But if neither Republicans nor Democrats can see that we need a hybrid politics today--one that requires cutting, taxing and investing as part of a single nation-building strategy (phased in over time)--then I'll hope for a third party that does get it and can take us where we need to go.

Hear that, Democrats? When you start talking about cutting spending, raising revenues and investing in the future, Tom Friedman is ready to support you. If he hears about it, that is.

The speculation about whether Texas Gov. Rick Perry will jump into the Republican presidential race boils down to one word: Jobs. Perry's state has been generating jobs at an impressive rate--which Perry likes to think is due to low taxes and lax regulations. Some of the coverage points to important caveats--the booming oil economy, for instance, and rapid population growth both make Texas fairly unrepresentative.

Today the Wall Street Journal has an excellent piece by Ana Campoy and Sara Murray  about the Texas miracle. The papers shows that many of these jobs are in the public sector; a million total new jobs over the past decade, but roughly "300,000 of the new Texas jobs were in government."

What's more, this graph accompanying the piece shows the rate of private sector job creation declining since 2008, while the rate of growth in  public employment* continues to rise:

The Journal includes this typical line from Perry:

"Government doesn't create any jobs," he said last month on Glenn Beck's show on Fox News. "They can actually run jobs away."

He's partly right. As the Journal points out, Perry's budget cuts will lead to job losses in the public sector, particularly in the public schools. While he might not deserve credit for the Texas job boom, he can claim credit for some likely job losses.

*Note: Corrected to more accurately reflect the chart (thanks to commenter Kyle O.)

In a piece today, the Washington Post's Greg Miller reports on a CIA base that will be used to conduct drone strikes in Yemen:

The agency is building a desert airstrip so that it can begin flying armed drones over Yemen. The facility, which is scheduled to be completed in September, is designed to shield the CIA's aircraft, and their sophisticated surveillance equipment, from observers at busier regional military hubs such as Djibouti, where the JSOC drones are based.

The Washington Post is withholding the specific location of the CIA facility at the administration's request.

The existence of the base has been reported elsewhere--the New York Times noted on June 15 that an "American official would not disclose the country where the CIA base was being built." The Times pointed out that the shift to CIA control was important, since with "the operations under CIA control, they could be carried out as a 'covert action,' which can be undertaken without the support of the host government." Meaning the U.S. could bomb Yemen without the approval of Yemen's government, in the event that the current government were to fall.

The story seemed to have been broken by the Associated Press (6/14/11), which, like the Post, is not telling readers what it knows about the base:  "The Associated Press has withheld the exact location at the request of U.S. officials."

This is reminiscent of the Post's decision in 2005 to report on CIA secret prisons ("black sites") in Eastern Europe--without disclosing the location of those sites, where terrorism suspects were taken to be interrogated (Extra! Update, 12/05).

It obviously makes senses for any White House to want to keep its secret programs under wraps--particularly when there's a chance that laws are being broken, or civilians are being killed. (Recall that the U.S. Navy launched a cruise missile loaded with cluster bombs into Yemen in 2009, reportedly killing 41 civilians.)

It does not make sense, however, for news outlets to assist them in these efforts.

Some of the media commentary around the debt ceiling bemoans the state of the partisanship in Washington. Much of the chatter is about a supposed failure to compromise. As Josh Marshall argues, "this is simply false, even painfully so." By any reasonable standard, the White House and the Democratic leadership have made an array of drastic compromises in order to win favor with Republicans--who are basically refusing to go along, since denying Obama any kind of "victory" is a key part of their electoral strategy for 2012.

But in corporate media, "balance" is essential. So both "sides" must be held responsible, never mind the facts. I was struck by this comment from host Christiane Amanpour on ABC's This Week this Sunday (7/24/11):

This week with tempers flaring, the rhetoric has boiled over. Exhibit A, the war of words between two Florida congressmembers, Republican Allan West and Democrat Debbie Wasserman-Schultz.

Wasserman-Schultz fired the first shot on the House floor, criticizing West for supporting a debt deal that would cut Medicare.

West's response, a furious e-mail to his colleague when he said, "You are the most vile, unprofessional and despicable member of the U.S. House of Representatives. You have proven repeatedly that you are not a lady and, therefore, shall not be afforded due respect from me."

So how does Washington move past this partisan rancor?

Excuse me? Wasserman-Schultz criticized West's support for a particular bill. She didn't say anything outrageous--which is why ABC didn't air a clip or even quote from her speech, the one where she "fired the first shot." West's intemperate "you are not a lady" response would suggest he's the one with the problem here. But you can't say it that way. Just like you're not supposed to say that Republicans are refusing to support Barack Obama's very Republican budget offers.

Glenn Beck (7/25/11, via Mediaite, 7/25/11) explains on his radio show why the right-wing Norway terror suspect is what we call left-wing here in America:

This was one of the episodes where I showed the railroad tracks that were different than America. In America, the left railroad track is gigantic government--it could be Communist or Fascist, it doesn’t matter, it's giant government. The other side of the track is anarchy or very, very small government. So that's the left and right here in America. The Left and Right in Europe, because, once they got rid of the kings, they didn’t get "We the People," they had to replace it with another strong government. And that's where Fascism and Communism came from. That’s your left and right. Fascism on the right; Nazis. And Communism on the left. And there are variations on both of those theories, Fascism and Communism, left and right. This guy, the shooter, is from the right-wing, different than our right-wing. It is still big government.

Just to give an example of how Anders Behring Breivik's politics are not completely different from right-wing politics in the United States, in the same radio broadcast, Beck shared his feelings about the victims of the Norwegian shooting spree:

As the thing started to unfold and there was a shooting at a political camp, which sounds a little like the Hitler Youth. Who does a camp for kids that's all about politics? Disturbing.

So the kids who were massacred in Norway were kind of like Hitler Youth. Which is to say they were kind of going to grow up, take over the world, impose a totalitarian dictatorship and commit genocide. What's the rational thing to do with people like that, if no one else is going to stop them?

This is a fairly standard argument for Beck, with the steps one should take to stop the Nazi-like menace usually left unspecified. For example, he repeatedly portrayed the Tides Foundation, a fairly obscure funding group, as the secret organization "behind it all...involved in the nasty of the nastiest" (9/29/09). On his July 13, 2010 show, he presented Tides as being behind a plot to "kill white babies"--suggesting that it might soon be too late to stop it.

And  a few days later, on July 17, Glenn Beck fan Byron Williams set out with his arsenal to try to wipe out the Tides Foundation staff, much as Breivik went to exterminate the "Hitler Youth" summer campers. Unlike Breivik, Williams didn't make it to his target; he was arrested after a shoot-out with police instead.

No doubt Williams, in Beck's mind, isn't a real right-winger either.

"Make Way for the Radical Center" is exactly the sort of headline that suggests a story one might want to skip. But this is a Tom Friedman column (7/24/11), so you know it's going to be good for...something.

This time around, the jet-setting third party advocate is writing about something called Americans Elect, which Friedman hails as  "a viable, centrist, third presidential ticket, elected by an Internet convention."

"I know it sounds gimmicky," he writes. Well, yeah.

Also slightly familiar, to anyone who remembers Unity '08, which was once described as "an Internet-based third party that plans to select its presidential candidate through online voting." That description came from one Tom Friedman, on June 16, 2006.  Or the Tom Friedman of May 3, 2006, who hoped for an internet-based third party that was "big, strategic, centrist and forward-looking."

This isn't to say there's anything wrong with efforts to challenge the two-party system, which certainly limits political expression. But it's curious that Friedman assumes that the "center" isn't being adequately represented--or that, more importantly, a truly democratic nominating process would yield a "centrist" ticket. There's no reason to believe that would happen. Friedman's candidate would "challenge both parties from the middle"--but why would the people choose such a candidate? And is a third party "financed with some serious hedge-fund money" really a step in the right direction?

One rule Americans Elect has set down: A presidential candidate has to cross the party line to find his or her running mate--as Friedman puts it, "a Democrat must run with a Republican or independent, and a Republican with a Democrat or independent."

This sounds like... well, something that Tom Friedman would advocate. Which he did, in 2004: "I want to wake up and read that John Kerry just asked John McCain to be his vice president." Or consider the Tom Friedman who, in 2007, suggested that if Obama were to win the Democratic nomination, he "might want to consider keeping Dick Cheney on as his vice president." The reason had something to do with Iran policy: "Mr. Obama's gift for outreach would be so much more effective with a Dick Cheney standing over his right shoulder, quietly pounding a baseball bat into his palm." Ah, the magic of centrism!

Tom Friedman already has too much influence in our political discussion. Do we really need hedge fund millionaires organizing a third party in order to bring his columns to life?

Newsweek has a feature called "My Favorite Mistake," where a famous person talks about something they've done wrong.http://www.fair.org/blog/wp-admin/edit.php

This week (7/24/11) it's former Secretary of State Madeleine Albright. The mistake she cited was when she wore the wrong pin to a meeting with Russian leader Vladimir Putin, and then said something critical about his Chechnya policy. (The best mistakes are the most self-serving ones, apparently.)

When I saw the headline, I was half-wondering if she'd talk about her famous defense of killing Iraqi children on 60 Minutes (5/12/96):

Leslie Stahl asks Albright: "We have heard that half a million children have died. I mean, that's more children than died in Hiroshima. And, you know, is the price worth it?"

To which Albright replies: "I think this is a very hard choice. But the price--we think the price is worth it."

Iraq did come up in the Newsweek piece, when Albright wrote, "We had sanctions on Iraq then, and I was instructed to keep saying terrible things about Saddam Hussein."

I would agree that she said something terrible.

Nafissatou Diallo, the hotel maid who has accused Dominique Strauss-Kahn,  is now speaking out publicly--weeks after press coverage took a turn against her, based on the notion that something about her made her allegations less credible.

"Strauss-Kahn Prosecution Said to Be Near Collapse" was the July 1 New York Times headline. One of the strongest bits of evidence was the claim that Diallo spoke to a friend, in prison on a drug charge, about Strauss-Kahn's wealth--the implication was that she and a criminal associate were plotting out how to profit from the assault.

Newsweek's cover story this week is based on an interview with her is a compelling read. The magazine points out that one part of the Times' account might not be what the paper suggested it was:

On July 1, the New York Times reported the existence of a taped conversation between Diallo and Tarawally. The article said they talked the day after the incident at the Sofitel and quoted a "well-placed law enforcement official": "She says words to the effect of: 'Don't worry, this guy has a lot of money. I know what I’m doing.'" But at the time, prosecutors did not have a full transcript of the call, which had been conducted in a dialect of Fulani, Diallo’s language. The quote was a paraphrase from a translator’s summary of the tape, and the actual words are somewhat different, sources told Newsweek.

In July, Newsweek talked to Tarawally in Arizona. He insisted that the quotation must refer to a later conversation and in any case was taken out of context. Diallo said she no longer talks to Tarawally. He used her bank account to move tens of thousands of dollars around the country without informing her, she said. She denied he ever gave her money to spend. "Like I say, he was my friend," Diallo told us. "I used to trust him."

Strauss-Kahn has millions of dollars to defend himself against serious criminal charges. Part of how one does that is by discrediting one's accusers, and one of the best tools to do that is the press. To take negative information about Diallo appearing in news articles at face value-- even when that information is said to be coming from the prosecution's side-- would be naive in the extreme.

Forget about "winning the future"--Barack Obama wants to win the center. That's what the Washington Post is telling readers (7/25/11):

Obama 'Big Deal' on Debt a Gamble to Win the Center
Advisers think securing his plan would ensure general-election victory

The Post's Zachary A. Goldfarb (who can't be held responsible for the headline) explained that Obama was making Republicans

an offer they couldn't refuse. In exchange for trillions of dollars in cuts, including to Medicare and Social Security, Republicans would have to agree to a fraction of that in increased tax revenue.

He added:

Obama's political advisers have long believed that securing such an agreement would provide an enormous boost to his 2012 campaign, according to people familiar with White House thinking. In particular, they want to preserve and improve the president's standing among political independents, who abandoned Democrats in the 2010 midterm elections and who say reining in the nation's debt is a high priority.

Perhaps this is, indeed, what White House insiders are saying. But a newspaper should point out that such ideas are hard to align with reality. As Dean Baker noted at Beat the Press:

Every poll done on this issue shows that people across the political spectrum, including Tea Party Republicans, overwhelmingly oppose cuts to Social Security and Medicare. The Post either has some polls that no one else knows about or it's just making things up.

Or it's the same old story, where the media define the "center" somewhere well to the right of center.

Every so often you're struck by something like this-- a collection of covers for this week's Time:

NBC (Nightly News, 7/19/11) did some polling to see what the public thinks about the Republican and Democratic positions on the budget and debt ceiling :

CHUCK TODD: Now, look, any sort of deal is putting pressure on the bases of both parties. For Republicans, a large majority of the country is telling Republicans get off the no new taxes pledge and compromise, 62 percent.

TEXT:

NBC News/The Wall Street Journal

Should Republicans Compromise?

Agree to Raise Taxes

Yes 62%

No 27%

TODD: But inside those numbers, tea party supporters, 65 percent of them say to Republicans, "No. Stick to your guns and stick to that pledge."

As for Democrats and entitlement reform, look at this one. A majority, 52 percent of everybody we tested, said to Democrats, "Stick to your guns and don't allow cuts in Medicare and Social Security for deficit reduction."

TEXT:

NBC News/The Wall Street Journal

Should Democrats Compromise?

Cuts to Social Security & Medicare

Yes 38%

No 52%

TODD: So as you can see, it's a mixed political bag for both parties, but particularly for Republicans.

So 62 percent of those polled said Republicans should compromise, while the opposite proportion--38 percent--said Democrats should do the same. That translates into a "mixed bag" for both parties--that is, if corporate media are doing the mixing.

The first sentence of Mark Landler's piece in the New York Times today (7/21/11):

It is a truism of Middle East peacemaking that the United States is the pivotal player--the most credible broker between the Israelis and the Palestinians.

If by "truism" he means "something most people don't believe to be true," then this makes sense. If he means "truism" in the other, more conventional way, then it is difficult to understand the article in question--which is about Palestinian efforts to pursue alternatives to U.S.-backed negotiations.