While some in the mainstream media harp on the purportedly horrendous effects of possible across-the-board spending cuts on March 1, there is also an effort to distance President Barack Obama from responsibility.  An example of this is on CNN, which has shown more than once today a report on the sequester by chief business correspondent Ali Velshi.  An excerpt:

VELSHI: The forced budget cuts were created during the 2011 debt ceiling debacle. They were passed by Congress and signed by the White House.

So “the White House” signs bills into law?  That’s funny.   On August 2, 2011, the day the Budget Control Act became law, Situation Room host Wolf Blitzer told his audience:

Happening now, President Obama signs a bill to raise the debt limit, avoiding an economic debt crisis for now.

At CNN, when an economic debt crisis is avoided, it’s the achievement of President Obama.  But when the network’s Chicken Littles see the sky beginning to fall, simply “the White House” may be partially responsible.  

Lynn Sweet, Washington, D.C. bureau chief for the Chicago Sun-Times, covers the final presidential debate in "Sweet: Obama in command in campaign’s last clash" on the newspaper's Web site.  In the piece she writes:

As soon as Romney pledged not to cut military spending (incorrectly implying that was an Obama proposal — something he has done before) Obama pounced, portraying Romney as woefully uninformed about how a modern military measures its strike force.

In her enthusiasm, Sweet overlooked one thing: Obama does intend to cut defense sending.  Who says so?  Well, President Barack Obama for one.  From his July 15, 2011 press conference:

". . .I’ve said that in addition to the $400 billion that we’ve already cut from defense spending, we’re willing to look for hundreds of billions more."

Additionally, in his proposed Fiscal Year 2013 budget, Obama's own Office of Management and Budget shows (Page 103) that total national defense spending in FY 2011 was $717 billion while estimating it will be $566 in FY 2014.

On Friday's CNN Newsroom, anchor Ashleigh Banfield didn't begin her program with news that unemployment in 44 states has worsened, a story that CNN's Web site reported.  No, she devoted the first 12 minutes of her program to a real burning issue:  Mitt Romney's tax returns.

She spoke of President Barack Obama's offer to accept five years of GOP candidate Mitt Romney's tax returns and demand no more.  The offer is as big a joke as Vice President Joe Biden, yet Banfield discussed it with CNN political
editor Paul Steinhauser and Reuters columnist David Cay Johnston.  Banfield injected her own theory:

BANFIELD: OK. What's critical here and I was getting the political side of this with Paul Steinhauser, these five years that the Democrats are offering in return of letting go of the demand for 10.

Within the five years, falls the year 2009 and that was the year the Obama administration granted a first-of-its-kind amnesty to wealthy Americans, promising not to publicize their names or go after them with felonies if they'd been hiding money offshore, if they just came forward and paid a big penalty and paid some of the back taxes.

So, give me a bit of a feel for this amnesty program and how successful it's been and what about -- what would have happened to you if you didn't take advantage of it?

And later:

BANFIELD: But I do want to ask you, if there is something back after 2009, say, before we have the 2011 and -- or, excuse me, '10 and '11 returns of the Romneys, if there is something with regard to amnesty, does it actually show up and what does it mean about the person that took advantage of the amnesty?

Amnesty? Felonies?  Hiding money offshore?  Sounds like Senate Democratic leader Harry Reid might be moonlighting as a writer for the news readers at CNN.  Banfield used the word "amnesty" nine times, not that she's accusing Romney of anything:

BANFIELD: All right, so, I want to let you know and I'm going to repeat this again. We do not know anything about whether the Romneys have taken any advantage of any kind of amnesty program.

There have been three offerings of the amnesty program, 2009, 2010 and 2011. No, 2009, 2001, 2012. So, we do not know and that is extraordinarily important.

She then noted that "we" asked the Romney campaign about the 2009 amnesty program, but hadn't received a response.  In her painstaking effort to be totally fair, though, she acknowledged the question had only been asked "within the last couple of hours."  Banfield didn't mention if they had asked Romney if he's stopped beating his wife, but she may have.

Obviously, Obama can't run on his record.  His only hope is to divert attention from his epic failures.  The Ashleigh Banfields of the mainstream media are more than happy to lend a hand.  

USA Today's Web site features an Associated Press report with the headline "Housing starts, jobless claims in good shape."  For the many readers who just scan headlines, that sounds encouraging.  Yet by the second paragraph the article notes "that construction of single-family homes and apartments dipped 1.1% in July compared with June. . ."  And by the third paragraph:

Housing has been making a modest comeback this year. But even with the gains, the rate of construction and the level of permits remain only about half the 1.5 million annual rate considered healthy.

And what of those jobless claims that are in such good shape?

In a separate report, the number of Americans applying for unemployment benefits edged up slightly last week but remained at a level consistent with modest gains in hiring, the government said.

Housing starts are down, jobless claims are up, but they're both in good shape.  Not quite as miraculous as when the rise of the oceans begins to slow and our planet begins to heal, but heck, it's only his first term.

In the Age of Obama, the economy shows consistent strength and even improvement.  No matter what the statistics actually
reflect.       

Setting aside any pretense of objectivity, MSNBC host Martin Bashir and guests ferociously attacked GOP presidential candidate Mitt Romney during a segment of Thursday's program.  In a discussion with Professors James Peterson and Michael Eric Dyson, Bashir bemoaned the pernicious impact of money in politics, particularly money raised by Romney. (video here)

Bashir: Professor Dyson, isn't that the problem that you have here a vacuous candidate who doesn't have any principles, who is surrounded by cash from individuals who have an agenda?

Naturally, Dyson was more than pleased to pile on, warning of a plutocracy representing "the vapidity and vacuity of an empty suit whose ideological perspective is shaped by the cash that flows into him."  To lend intellectual strength to his contention, Dyson quoted from the hip hop song "Cash Rules Everything Around Me."

Gee, imagine that. Political candidates take money from people with money.  Not only that, but those contributors have - gasp! - an agenda.  And if I were an Obamabot, as these guys obviously are, I'd take it easy with those "empty suit" references.

No mention was made of Barack Obama setting records scarfing up cash and who would do even better if that darn day job didn't occasionally interfere with his bagman duties.  Emotions are already running high at MSNBC.  If someone there doesn't have an an apoplectic fit by Election Day, I'll be surprised.  

On Friday's edition of CNN's Erin Burnett OutFront, the host was upfront in her enthusiasm for President Obama's immigration announcement, even including sound effects and grimacing when she spoke of "Republicans hissing like an angry cat cornered by the neighborhood dog." (video here):

ERIN BURNETT, CNN HOST: OUTFRONT next, the president makes an MVP-like political move that leaves Republicans flat footed. But is it the best policy for our country?

Mentioning two other stories, she resumed:

Let's go OUTFRONT.

OUTFRONT tonight. Backed into a corner. It's an awful noise, whenever you hear it. Love them or not, Republicans are the cats today. That's the sign of the Republicans hissing like an angry cat cornered by the neighborhood dog. Why? The president's order. Allowing immigrants under the age of 30 to stay in this country with two-year work visas. Those visas can be
renewed unlimited times.

And later:

And the most pathetic part about the story today is that Republicans, the cats hissing in the corner, only have themselves to blame. They gave the president the upper hand.

After an Obama film clip:

BURNETT: All right, well, Republicans have kept the Democrat's version of the Dream Act on hold for a few years.

Contrary to Burnett's implication, Republicans were not alone in their opposition to the DREAM Act immigration bill.  In December of 2010, five Democratic senators joined Republicans in opposition.  Yet another Democratic senator opted
to go to a holiday party rather than vote on the bill.

Good news for Obama and accomplices isn't easy to come by these days.  Spoilsports persist in examining his record on unemployment, deficits, foreclosures, the nation's credit rating, etc.  So when Erin can gush about "an MVP-like political move"by Obama, she will.  Then again, with her program contributing to CNN's ratings collapse, maybe she's just auditioning for a gig on ESPN.      

On today's 3:00 pm edition of CNN Newsroom, anchor Brooke Baldwin teased her next segment:

BALDWIN: Coming up next, House Republicans they want to cut billions of dollars in food stamps. We will talk about who exactly in terms of numbers this would impact and why my next guest calls this whole suggestion appalling -- back in 60 seconds.

Baldwin interviewed Edward Cooney, executive director of the Congressional Hunger Center.  She didn't note that, despite its official-sounding name, the center is just another 501(c)3 tax-exempt organization taking money from companies such as Walmart, Kraft, and Archer Daniel Midland, as well public funding for fellowships.  Nor that Cooney had worked at the Department of Agriculture during the Clinton administration.  Nor that Cooney has made political contributions to Sen. Tom Harkin (D-IA) and ActBlue, which characterizes itself as "the online clearing house for Democratic action."

Given that, it was to be expected that Cooney is less than sympathetic to GOP efforts to reduce the skyrocketing costs of food stamps, also referred to as SNAP (Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program):

COONEY: I think I should also point out though that tomorrow morning, they're going to cut an additional $33 billion that has not gotten the press this other cut has. And they indicated that there will be no harm involved. No one will be hurt because these are technical cuts. I would just like to say to you if you hear that expression from Congress, no one will be
harmed, that's your first notice that you should be running for cover.

BALDWIN: Well, when you mentioned millions of people would be affected, I imagine in that millions we're talking millions of children.

And you do have, as we talk millions, record numbers of people who are in the SNAP, the food stamp program. The numbers they began spiking -- when you look back here, they spiked during the great recession. Then you look from 2007 to today, we have seen the food stamp rolls go from 27
million to 47 million.

Doubtless the recession has had a significant impact on the number of recipients.  But the Department of Agriculture  itself
reported:

The historical relationship between unemployment and SNAP caseloads diverged in the middle of the decade, however. As the unemployment rate fell 1.4 percentage points between 2003 and 2007, SNAP caseloads increased
22 percent, or by 4.8 million participants.

The cost of food stamps has increased from under $18 billion in 2001 to $76 billion now.  As part of President Obama's stimulus, states received additional funding for signing up more participants.  Little wonder food-stamp expenditures have doubled in the past four years.  According to an Associated Press story on ABCNews's Web site:

Many of the immediate (GOP) cuts would return benefit levels to where they would be had Democrats not temporarily increased them in the stimulus measure.  Democrats themselves tapped the benefit increases in 2010 to pay for earlier legislation.

So the GOP's proposed reduction may not be as appalling as opponents contend.  Moreover, the Government Accountability Office states that in Fiscal Year 2011 SNAP had an improper payment rate of 3.8%, costing taxpayers an estimated $2.5 billion.  And that probably doesn't include lottery winners.

Baldwin could have alerted viewers to her guest's background so they could take that into account while hearing his views.  But perhaps that's too much to expect from the self-styled "Most Trusted Name in News."    

This morning the Chicago Tribune carries an Associated Press story headlined "Racine alderman is charged assaulting woman." The piece begins:

A Racine alderman has been charged with assaulting a woman  who worked for him.

Keith Fair was charged Monday with strangulation and suffocation, misdemeanor battery and disorderly conduct.

The woman and the 59-year-old alderman are in a relationship and she is employed by him as a
private investigator and a bartender, according to a criminal complaint.

He was driving her home early Friday when the two argued and  she pushed Fair's face, according to the complaint. Fair then grabbed her by the throat and began to punch her while squeezing her throat, according to the woman, who is pregnant.

Fair is - surprise, surprise - a Democrat, one who worked to elect Barack Obama president.  Sometimes, party affiliation
isn't worth reporting.  As we've seen time and again.

On the Chicago Tribune's Web site today appears Breaking News with the headline "Corruption sentencing delayed for Rezko, fundraiser for Blagojevich."  Tony Rezko, convicted on corruption charges, did indeed raise money for former Gov.
Rod Blagojevich (D-IL).  More significantly, however, he also raised many dollars for President Barack Obama in Obama's earlier political contests.

From a March 15, 2008 Tribune article:

Trying to put his past with Antoin "Tony" Rezko behind him, presidential candidate Barack Obama on Friday said he never thought the now indicted Chicago businessman would try to take advantage of him because his old
friend had never asked for a political favor.

But in a 90-minute interview with Tribune reporters and editors, Obama disclosed that Rezko had raised more for Obama's earlier political campaigns than previously known, gathering as much as $250,000 for the first three offices he sought.

In a November, 2008 telephone call with his chief-of-staff that was recorded by the FBI, Blagojevich expressed his displeasure with the president-elect:

BLAGOJEVICH I thin-, you know, it's really, I get that I'm a big boy and I can handle that, but it's really f***ing galling, this guy is more Tony'd up than I am. And it's almost like they f***ing conspi-, made a concerted effort and they got the Chicago media to f***ing make me wear Rezko more. To f***ing dilute it from him.

More Tony'd up than I am.  Looks like at least some of the Chicago media are still helping Obama distance himself from Tony Rezko. 

Today on the 2:00 pm segment of CNN Newsroom, anchor Randi Kaye spoke with CNN political producer Shannon Travis about criticism directed at President Barack Obama:

TRAVIS: Yes, really, really quickly, billionaire Steve Wynn, you've seen his resorts all over Las Vegas. He's blasting President Obama. I'm going to read this quote from a call, an earnings call yesterday. Quote, "I'm saying it bluntly that this administration is the greatest wet blanket to business and progress and job creation in my lifetime". Those are from Steve Wynn.

We know there are a lot of businesses who have been on a hiring streak, Randi, but this is what Steve Wynn, billionaire real estate mogul in Las Vegas thinks about the Obama administration.

What hiring streak is Travis talking about?  CNN Money.com reported last week that initial unemployment claims remained above the 400,000 mark for the 14th straight week.  The Bureau of Labor Statistics noted in its June, 2011 report that there are now 14.1 million Americans out of work.  The same agency pegged that number at 11.6 for January, 2009, the month Barack Obama took office.  

According to a U.S. Chamber of Congress analysis last week, only 19 percent of small-business executives expect to add to their payrolls in the next year.  Twelve percent plan on cutting jobs while 62 percent said they're not planning on hiring.

Some in the mainstream media still want to protect Obama, even if it puts whatever little credibility they have left at stake.  The more than 14 million Americans who still can't find work after Obama's $800 billion stimulus would love for CNN to identify those many businesses that are on a hiring streak.

Economic growth in the first quarter was an abysmal 1.8 percent.  Last week, initial jobless claims increased by 25,000 from the previous week, up to 429,000.  The Federal government borrows $188 million an hour, or over $52,000 a second, just to keep up with President Obama's spending demands.  Despite almost a trillion dollars for Obama's and the Democratic Congress's stimulus, unemployment remains at 8.8 percent.

Amid all these storm clouds, the Obamamaniacs at CNN have found a silver lining.  Anchor T.J. Holmes on CNN Newsroom reported yesterday:

Here is a sign that the economy is getting better, an unexpected sign you didn't think about. Divorce rates in the U.S. are on the rise. It's explained here. In 2000 before the recession, of course, way back before the recession, the divorce rate was 4.0. When hard times started in 2007 the breakup rate dropped to 3.6 percent here. But then last year it fell a bit more, a bit more to 3.5. That was the divorce rate then. So, fewer and fewer people are getting divorced.

But now as the economy gets better, we're learning now, we're starting to see a surge in divorce filings. I'm going to bring in matrimonial attorney -- that sounds so much better than divorce attorney -- Elizabeth Lindsay, here to explain this to me. Explain to me just the basics. Why is it when the economy gets better people are OK to get divorced?

The counselor, of course, was more than happy to provide details.  

T.J. didn't ask what evidence exists of the "surge in divorce filings," but why mess up a happy story? In the Age of Obama, good news about the U.S. economy is so very hard to find.  But apparently, the news readers at CNN will grasp at any straw. 

It was good economic news on CNN's Newsroom this morning. After a brief mention of radiation in Japan , anchor Carol Costello reported:

Brand new numbers out of the Labor Department this morning. It turns out jobless claims plummeted last week. Down 6,000 to 388,000.

I'm not certain what dictionary CNN news readers use, but "plummet" wouldn't seem to be the right verb. Merriam-Webster's online reference defines plummet as "to fall perpendicularly" or "to drop sharply and abruptly." A 1.5 percent reduction in jobless claims quite clearly doesn't meet those definitions.

Moreover, the 6,000 drop figure is "seasonally adjusted" with a Labor Department statistical technique designed to accommodate fluctuations in the job market. DOL's Employment and Training report included the raw data:

The advance number of actual initial claims under state programs, unadjusted, totaled 354,301 in the week ending March 26, a decrease of 156 from the previous week.

156 fewer jobless claims. Hundreds of billions spent by President Obama and his liberal accomplices on shovel-ready jobs and that's what results.

Yet at CNN, jobless claims "plummeted." Don't they ever tire of trying to prop up Obama's failed administration?

These days, Barack Obama would rather talk about his birth certificate than use the word “stimulus.”  At the press conference that wouldn’t end last week, Obama was asked if his latest and greatest spending proposal amounted to a second stimulus.  He answered, “There is no doubt that everything we’ve been trying to do is designed to stimulate growth and additional jobs in the economy,” but adamantly avoided the dreaded s-word.

    That’s understandable.  The roughly trillion-dollar stimulus enacted by Obama and his large Democratic majority in Congress has become nearly as big a national joke as Obama himself.

    It was an ACORN-sized scam from the beginning.  When success is to be substantially measured in “jobs saved,” a criterion that’s unprovable, you know that they know how preposterous their scheme is.

    And then there was the matter of oversight.  To make certain that bundle of bucks was spent prudently, Obama designated his very own Sheriff Joe:  Biden. “To you - he’s Mr. Vice President,” said Obama, “but around the White House we call him ‘the Sheriff’- because if you’re misusing taxpayer money, you’ll have to answer to him.”

    Left unexplained was precisely how anyone could answer to Biden.  The notoriously loquacious Biden pretty much makes it impossible to get a word in edgeways.

    It doesn’t seem as though the Sheriff’s been pulling out his plugs in frustration, despite no shortage of stimulus horror stories.  $6 million given to an ad agency created three whole jobs.  $100,000 to a left-leaning theater to support socially conscious puppet shows.  Another hundred thou for a martini bar and a Brazilian steakhouse.  $1 million to a dinner cruise company to supplement its anti-terrorism plan.  $2 million for a replica railroad to attract tourists.

    If Obama and his accomplices were sincere in wishing to evaluate their stimulus, they’d stop talking about a mythical jobs saved number and look to the unemployment rate.  The month Obama signed the stimulus into law, unemployment was 8.1%.  Now it’s 9.6% and Barry’s chief economic adviser predicts it’s not going down anytime soon.

    It’ll be interesting to see what word Obama will employ now that the s-word has fallen into disfavor.  He probably has his worker bees looking for a worthy successor.  In government, that’s what happens.  Terms that have a stench justifiably associated with them are merely replaced even though the program remains much the same.

    You remember the food stamp program.  Yes, that food stamp program.  After most of the public – even dull-witted Democrats – realized all the fraud and waste it involved, a makeover was necessary.  So now the food stamp program is gone.  It’s transitioned to the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP).

    Then there was the infamous Aid to Families with Dependent Children, better known as AFDC.  That has become Temporary Assistance for Needy Families, or TANF.

    The Interior Department’s Minerals Management Service was criticized for its handling of the Gulf oil spill.  In 2008, the department’s inspector general reported that some employees “used cocaine and marijuana, and had sexual relations with oil and gas company representatives.”  Oh, and some of them “accepted gifts with prodigious frequency.”  On the bright side, sick leave abuse didn’t seem to be much of a problem.

    Interior secretary Ken Salazar understood prompt, firm action was required.  So in June, Mineral Management Service was no more.  It’s now known as the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, Regulation and Enforcement.  I don’t know about you, but that new and improved name makes me feel better all over. 

    The Federal Job Training Partnership Act (JTPA) took the place of 1973’s Comprehensive Employment and Training Act (CETA) in 1982.  CETA had been widely discredited for its ineffectiveness and fraud.  Indicative is an early report prepared for Sen. Sam Nunn (D-GA).  It was titled “Strong Internal Controls at Service Delivery Level Will Help Prevent CETA-Type Fraud and Abuse in Job Training Partnership Act Programs.”

    The new name didn’t change much.  CETA-type fraud continued.  JTPA brought just as many hoaxes and as much waste.  Moreover, it supplied welfare to some of the largest companies in America.  McDonalds, Radisson, McDonnell Douglas, Toyota and Subaru were only some of corporations that took advantage of the government’s generosity.

    JTPA trained people for jobs for which they were already qualified, paid to teach cab drivers to smile at their customers, and gave money to students to put on a puppet show.  That government money-puppet show link really needs further investigation.

    After years of such shenanigans JTPA, like its predecessor CETA, faded away.  Of course, it didn’t totally disappear; it was replaced with the Workforce Investment Act of 1998.

    So Obama shouldn’t have much difficulty in swapping the s-word for something more palatable.  He fooled enough people to be elected and it’s evident their naiveté is boundless. 

     Spending more of someone else’s money has as much appeal to them as it does to him.  It’s the only utensil in the community organizer’s toolbox.  It’s always been the only utensil in the community organizer’s toolbox.  

Recovery summer just keeps getting better and better.  News outlets such as MSNBC.com announce "New jobless claims drop sharply."  Although the unadjusted data reflect an actual increase, the media are reporting a seasonally adjusted drop of 21,000 in jobless claims.  

But that wasn't good enough for MSNBC. While broadcasting an Obama speech during Andrea Mitchell Reports, the screen crawl reported "NEW JOBLESS CLAIMS DECLINE BY OVER 200,000."

OK, mistakes happen.  But my guess is that if the error reflected poorly on the Obama administration, someone would have caught the error pronto.  An hour later, MSNBC Live anchored by Tamron Hall was still featuring the same mistake.  The following hour, anchor Chris Jansing took over and new jobless claims still had dropped by more than 200,000.