Lies Lies Lies...Yeah!

[Spence]

They're gonna get you. The government's top expert on Medicare costs was warned that he would be fired if he told key lawmakers about a series of Bush administration cost estimates that could have torpedoed congressional passage of the White House-backed Medicare prescription-drug plan, according to an e-mail by the expert.

When the House passed the benefit by five votes Nov. 22, the White House was embracing an estimate by the Congressional Budget Office that the bill would cost $395 billion over 10 years. But for months, the administration's own analysts in the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services had concluded repeatedly that the drug benefit could cost upward of $100 billion more than that.

Withholding the higher cost projections was important, because the White House was facing a revolt from 13 conservative House Republicans who had vowed to vote against the Medicare drug bill if it cost more than $400 billion.

Rep. Sue Myrick of North Carolina, one of the 13 Republicans, said she was "very upset" when she learned of the higher estimate.

"I think a lot of people probably would have reconsidered [voting for the bill] because we said that $400 billion was our top of the line," Myrick said.

Five months before the House vote, the government's chief Medicare actuary had estimated that a similar plan the Senate was considering would cost $551 billion over 10 years. Two months after Congress approved the new benefit, White House budget director Joshua Bolten disclosed that he expected it to cost $534 billion.

Richard S. Foster, the chief actuary for the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, which produced the $551 billion estimate, told colleagues in June that it would cost him his job if he revealed numbers relating to the higher estimate to lawmakers.

"This whole episode which has now gone on for three weeks has been pretty nightmarish," Foster wrote in an e-mail to some of his colleagues June 26, just before the first congressional vote on the drug bill. Source (http://www.philly.com/mld/philly/news/8165172.htm?template=contentModules/printstory.jsp)

[RedskinsDave]

Good ole Philly.com. When did they change their name from Pravda?

[akhhorus]

that has been reported even by the Washington Times. The Senate is trying to get the Medicare bill back on the floor to vote it down. According to the AARP, the final total might be higher than 600 billion

[dukeuch]

Originally posted by RedskinsDave
Good ole Philly.com. When did they change their name from Pravda?

This has been carried on all the news wires. Are you questioning the accuracy, or do you think that it is no big deal to lie like that?

[RedskinsDave]

I know the news, I just love the tone of philly.com. It would be like me citing newsmax. How many times do we have to re-hash the same subjects though? This was reported the day after the Medicare bill was passed.

[dukeuch]

Originally posted by RedskinsDave
I know the news, I just love the tone of philly.com. It would be like me citing newsmax. How many times do we have to re-hash the same subjects though? This was reported the day after the Medicare bill was passed.

Everyone knew the numbers Bush was putting out were bogus, but I really do not think that the day after the bill was passed that it was reported that Foster was threatened with his job were he to speak out about the lies. If so, please point it out, because I think this is timely news.

[RedskinsDave]

It doesn't say he was threatened with his job. He said it would cost him his job, big difference.

[lakewinola]

Philly.com is a compilation of 2 newspapers, the inquirer and the daily news, the article you are referring to was in the inquirer, a PULITZER PRIZE winning publications. Here is the link to the history of the paper, began early 1800's. Please try to do a little research on a source before you trash it.

http://www.philly.com/mld/inquirer/news/local/6135296.htm

[lakewinola]

In case you did not want to read the entire history of the inquirer: I wonder if NEWSMAX is equally accomplished? Hmm got the Kerry afair thing nailed didn't they?



The Pulitzer Prize for its reporting on Three Mile Island, awarded to The Inquirer in 1980, was one of 17 Pulitzers the newspaper received between 1975 and 1990. In the spring of 1990. Inquirer staffer Gilbert Gaul won the paper's 17th Pulitzer, for exposing lax federal regulation in the blood industry.

In that 1975-90 span, The Inquirer won more national journalism awards than any other newspaper in the country. Among them, in addition to the Pulitzers, were the Roy W. Howard A ward, the Ernie Pyle Memorial A ward, the University of Missouri Medal, the Robert Kennedy Award for Photojournalism, the National Headliners Award, the Thomas L. Stokes Award, the George Polk Award, the Heywood Broun Award, the George Loeb Award and numerous awards in various categories from the Society of Professional Journalists, Several were won more than once.

[dukeuch]

Originally posted by RedskinsDave
It doesn't say he was threatened with his job. He said it would cost him his job, big difference.

You are simply wrong. Ignoring the obvious fact that if he knew it would cost him his job to tell the truth means that either overtly or implicitly he was threatened.

Also, there are assertions that Thomas Sculley specifically told FOster he would be fired for insubordination if he reported the numbers. Sculley denies it of course, but curiously says that he "curbed Foster on only one specific request, made by Democrats" becuase he thought the Democrats would "use the cost estimates to disrupt the debate." So of course he was threatened.

[RedskinsDave]

Wow Pulitzer prizes prohibit a newspaper from having an amazingly leftist slant I guess. :rolleyes:

[akhhorus]

Newsmax and the Philly Inquirer shouldnt be compared. Newsmax still hasnt apologized for running a doctored picture of Kerry that the original photographer said was a fake and produced the original. They are a terrible mouthpiece for conservative ideas. The Inquirer is a reputable newspaper. They might have a slant, but thats no worse than the papers that have conservative slants. And there are plenty of those.

Originally posted by lakewinola
In case you did not want to read the entire history of the inquirer: I wonder if NEWSMAX is equally accomplished? Hmm got the Kerry afair thing nailed didn't they?



The Pulitzer Prize for its reporting on Three Mile Island, awarded to The Inquirer in 1980, was one of 17 Pulitzers the newspaper received between 1975 and 1990. In the spring of 1990. Inquirer staffer Gilbert Gaul won the paper's 17th Pulitzer, for exposing lax federal regulation in the blood industry.

In that 1975-90 span, The Inquirer won more national journalism awards than any other newspaper in the country. Among them, in addition to the Pulitzers, were the Roy W. Howard A ward, the Ernie Pyle Memorial A ward, the University of Missouri Medal, the Robert Kennedy Award for Photojournalism, the National Headliners Award, the Thomas L. Stokes Award, the George Polk Award, the Heywood Broun Award, the George Loeb Award and numerous awards in various categories from the Society of Professional Journalists, Several were won more than once.

[RedskinsDave]

Originally posted by akhhorus
but thats no worse than the papers that have conservative slants. And there are plenty of those.

Really? Name them

You said you're a Republican and I'm still waiting for proof. Either that or you enjoy providing fodder for those who oppose you.

[dukeuch]

Originally posted by RedskinsDave
Really? Name them

You said you're a Republican and I'm still waiting for proof. Either that or you enjoy providing fodder for those who oppose you.

What the hell are you saying, that there ARE left leaning newspapers and NO reight leaning newspapers? Oh yeah, I get it: I agree so they are accurate, I disagree so they are lefties.

Dave, I know you have more integrity than that and recognize that there are certainly conservative AND liberal publications, as well as the unbiased papers who agree with me, not you.

[RedskinsDave]

He said plenty, I only know of a very small few. I wasn't questioning the integrity, only the bias. If I wanted to question the integrity of a liberal rag, I'd mention the NY Times.

[akhhorus]

Originally posted by RedskinsDave
Really? Name them

You said you're a Republican and I'm still waiting for proof. Either that or you enjoy providing fodder for those who oppose you.

Washington Times
Atlanta Journal Constitution
The State
Miami Herald
NY Post
Every newspaper owned by NewsCorp(which is over 200)
Charlotte Observer
St. Louis' (I believe Post Dispatch)
New Orleans Picyaune
Dallas Morning News
Houston Chronicle
Chicago Tribune
San Diego Union Tribune

and those are just daily newspapers.
Do you want my voting registration? here it is, it says Republican on it..hmm. Just because someone's a republican doesnt mean I agree with everything Bush (or the Republicans) do.

[RedskinsDave]

Everything? I'll wait for you to agree with ANYTHING.

[akhhorus]

The only political discussions here have been on social issues and medicare. Thats pretty narrow. I agree with Bush on Tax Policy(keep the cuts coming, but he needs to stop spending), Education, War on Terror and Judicial appointments. I agree with Republicans like McCain and Chuck Hagel more than any others. Why dont you read about them, and youll know where I stand.

[RedskinsDave]

Sounds more like a Libertarian to me.

[akhhorus]

Originally posted by RedskinsDave
Sounds more like a Libertarian to me.

Im a victim of where I live, Charleston was the beginning of a rebellion, and the mood still stays. I am a constructionist republican with a libertarian bend.

[Spence]

Just thought I'd point out that a strong majority of newspapers endorsed Bush over Gore in 2000, Dole over Clinton in 1996, Bush over Clinton in 1992, Bush over Dukakis in 1988, Reagan over Mondale in 1984 and so on.

Why would that be?

Newspapers are owned by big corporations. Who is the party of big corporations?

P.S. Just read The Wall Street Journal editorial page.

[akhhorus]

Originally posted by Spence
Just thought I'd point out that a strong majority of newspapers endorsed Bush over Gore in 2000, Dole over Clinton in 1996, Bush over Clinton in 1992, Bush over Dukakis in 1988, Reagan over Mondale in 1984 and so on.

Why would that be?

Newspapers are owned by big corporations. Who is the party of big corporations?

P.S. Just read The Wall Street Journal editorial page.

and the Washington Times editoral page, NY Post; the Washington Post's Editorial page editor used to work at the Heritage Foundation(conservative think tank).

Is there a Liberal media bias? Most newspapers are moderate, but there are biases for both sides all over the place. The big TV news networks:
NBC: Moderate
FOX: duh
CBS: liberal
ABC: Moderate
CNN: Moderate/liberal
MSNBC: Does anyone actually watch them? But they lean conservative

[Yudolindo]

ABC: Liberal
CNN: Way Liberal

[Yudolindo]

The FT is a good paper.

[Spearfeather]

Originally posted by Spence
Just thought I'd point out that a strong majority of newspapers endorsed Bush over Gore in 2000, Dole over Clinton in 1996, Bush over Clinton in 1992, Bush over Dukakis in 1988, Reagan over Mondale in 1984 and so on.

Why would that be?

Newspapers are owned by big corporations. Who is the party of big corporations?

P.S. Just read The Wall Street Journal editorial page.

Both parties are the " party of big corporations "