The White House is calling on other news organizations to isolate and alienate Fox News as it sends out top advisers to rail against the cable channel as a Republican Party mouthpiece.

Top political strategists question the decision by the Obama administration to escalate its offensive against Fox News. And as of Monday, the four other major television networks had not given any indication that they intend to sever their ties with Fox News.

But several top White House officials have taken aim at Fox News since communications director Anita Dunn branded Fox "opinion journalism masquerading as news" in an interview last Sunday.

White House chief of staff Rahm Emanuel told CNN on Sunday that President Obama does not want "the CNNs and the others in the world [to] basically be led in following Fox."

Obama senior adviser David Axelrod went further by calling on media outlets to join the administration in declaring that Fox is "not a news organization."

"Other news organizations like yours ought not to treat them that way," Axelrod counseled ABC’s George Stephanopoulos. "We’re not going to treat them that way."

Asked Monday about another Axelrod claim that Fox News is just trying to make money, White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs said that while all media companies fall under that description, "I would say sometimes programming can be tilted toward accentuating those profits."

But by urging other news outlets to side with the administration, Obama officials dramatically upped the ante in the war of words that began earlier this month with Dunn’s comments.

So far, none of the four other major networks has given any indication that they wish to disinvite Fox News from the White House pool — the rotation through which the networks share the costs and duties of White House coverage and the most significant interaction among the news channels.

The White House stopped providing guests to "Fox News Sunday" after host Chris Wallace fact-checked controversial assertions made by Tammy Duckworth, assistant secretary of the Department of Veterans Affairs, in August.

Dunn said fact-checking an administration official was "something I’ve never seen a Sunday show do."

"She criticized ‘Fox News Sunday’ last week for fact-checking — fact-checking — an administration official," Wallace said Sunday. "They didn’t say that our fact-checking was wrong. They just said that we had dared to fact-check."

"Let’s fact-check Anita Dunn, because last Sunday she said that Fox ignores Republican scandals, and she specifically mentioned the scandal involving Nevada senator John Ensign," Wallace added. "A number of Fox News shows have run stories about Senator Ensign. Anita Dunn’s facts were just plain wrong."

Fox News senior vice president Michael Clemente said: "Surprisingly, the White House continues to declare war on a news organization instead of focusing on the critical issues that Americans are concerned about like jobs, health care and two wars. The door remains open and we welcome a discussion about the facts behind the issues."

Observers on both sides of the political aisle questioned the White House’s decision to continue waging war on a news organization, saying the move carried significant political risks.

Democratic strategist Donna Brazile said on CNN: "I don’t always agree with the White House. And on this one here I would disagree."

David Gergen, who has worked for Democratic and Republican presidents, said: "I totally agree with Donna Brazile." Gergen added that White House officials have "gotten themselves into a fight they don’t necessarily want to be in. I don’t think it’s in their best interest."

"The faster they can get this behind them, the more they can treat Fox like one other organization, the easier they can get back to governing, and then put some people out on Fox," Gergen said on CNN. "I mean, for goodness sakes, you know, you engage in the debate.

"What Americans want is a robust competition of ideas, and they ought to be willing to go out there and mix it up with some strong conservatives on Fox, just as there are strong conservatives on CNN like Bill Bennett."

Bennett expressed outrage that Dunn told an audience of high school students this year that Mao Zedong, the founder of communist China, was one of "my favorite political philosophers."

"Having the spokesman do this, attack Fox, who says that Mao Zedong is one of the most influential figures in her life, was not…a small thing; it’s a big thing," Bennett said on CNN. "When she stands up, in a speech to high school kids, says she’s deeply influenced by Mao Zedong, that — I mean, that is crazy."

Fox News contributor Karl Rove, who was the top political strategist to former President George W. Bush, said: "This is an administration that’s getting very arrogant and slippery in its dealings with people. And if you dare to oppose them, they’re going to come hard at you and they’re going to cut your legs off."

"This is a White House engaging in its own version of the media enemies list. And it’s unhelpful for the country and undignified for the president of the United States to so do," Rove added. "That is over- the-top language. We heard that before from Richard Nixon."

Media columnist David Carr of The New York Times warned that the White House war on Fox "may present a genuine problem for Mr. Obama, who took great pains during the campaign to depict himself as being above the fray of over-heated partisan squabbling."

"While there is undoubtedly a visceral thrill in finally setting out after your antagonists, the history of administrations that have successfully taken on the media and won is shorter than this sentence," Carr wrote over the weekend. "So far, the only winner in this latest dispute seems to be Fox News. Ratings are up 20 percent this year."

He added: "The administration, by deploying official resources against a troublesome media organization, seems to have brought a knife to a gunfight."

A bill pending in Congress would give pet owners tax deductions of up to $3,500 for taking care of their pets.

The proposal, H.R. 3501, was introduced by Rep. Thaddeus G. McCotter (R-MI). It also is known as the Humanity and Pets Partnered Through the Years or HAPPY Act.

Pet owners could deduct expenses for the care, including veterinary care, of a pet up to $3,500. Pets are defined as “legally owned, domesticated, live animals.” However, animals used in research or in conjunction with a business or similar use won’t qualify.

The bill notes that according to the “2007-2008 National Pet Owners Survey, 63 percent of United States households own a pet” and “Human-Animal Bond has been shown to have positive effects upon people’s emotional and physical well-being.”

Pet owners on various blogs are pushing passage for the bill. Others think there are more important issues facing the country. One creative individual has even come up with the form “W-K9,” or Individual Pet Tax Return, which you can see here.

So what do you think? Worthy or a waste?

Call it the tipping point. Or the point of no return.

 While many fixate on bogus claims that phantom healthcare legislation bill will reduce the deficit, the new Congressional Budget Office (CBO) report shows that bill would quickly shift 37 million Americans to government-paid healthcare.

Added to 87 million already on taxpayer health programs (Medicare, Medicaid, military) and about 8 million in children’s programs, the tilt is accelerating against private care and insurance.

Whoever pays your bills gets to pick your doctor and decide what care you can receive. So be nice to Uncle Sam.

The CBO projected the 37 million figure based on the leading proposal from the Senate Finance Committee, even though that plan still isn’t written. And that’s just for starters: A study done for The Heritage Foundation projects that 103 million Americans eventually would be moved into government-run care under the House-backed proposal.

But CBO calculates that 13 million more people would get care by expanding Medicaid and children’s programs; 23 million would get subsidies to help pay premiums as they are put into government-run “insurance exchanges.” It’s all done by expanding the definitions of who qualifies as needy.

And for everyone else? We get to pay for it. As Sen. Charles Grassley, R-Iowa, said, “Most Americans with health insurance will see their premiums increase.” By how much? Nobody will know until Senate secrecy ends and lawmakers release actual language. But one projection says an extra $900 a year for a family of four.

Yet the rush is on to persuade Americans that everything is okay because the deficit — a monstrous $1.4 trillion a year right now — won’t get worse. CBO says that, by enlarging government, we nevertheless knock off an average $8 billion a year from the deficit. Compared with $1.4 trillion, it’s less than half of one percent improvement in the annual deficit. And even that’s artificial.

Yet the spin is out there. Two typical headlines said, “CBO Says Senate Health Bill Would Expand Coverage, Reduce Deficit” and “Healthcare Bill Gets Green Light in Cost Analysis.”

“Reduces the deficit” is newspeak code that means “raises taxes” while making government ever-bigger. In this case, the tax increases are about $227 billion, says the CBO. The overall cost is projected at $829 billion. That’s not a guaranteed figure. CBO could stand for “Can’t Bank On it” because projections are notoriously understated. Their analysis of Sen. Max Baucus’ proposal admits as much, stating that it’s “subject to substantial uncertainty.”

That caveat is missing from many media reports. Also overlooked is CBO’s caution that it has not been given legislative language to review (who has?), and so was required to follow only the “outlines” the committee provided, plus what CBO labels “the major additional corrections and clarifications provided by the committee staff.”

Nobody can check CBO’s numbers because a lot are based on oral conversations and private communication. That’s further proof the public’s right to know is denied while glowing claims are given to the media. Nobody can read or analyze the bill until it exists; the process needs to be slowed down so we all can see the dirty details.

In addition to higher taxes, the entire charade also depends upon phantom savings to support the claim of cutting the deficit. $404 billion, according to the CBO, would come from reducing Medicare spending. If such savings actually happened, they should be used to shore up Medicare’s shaky finances, not to justify an expansion of government.

But it’s fantasy to think such savings will occur. “These projections assume that the proposals are enacted and remain unchanged throughout the next two decades, which is often not the case,” the CBO writes. “The long-term budgetary impact could be quite different if those provisions were ultimately changed or not fully implemented.”

Year after year, Congress has claimed it would make future reductions in Medicare spending and doctor and hospital payments. Then lawmakers consistently vote to repeal the reductions before they occur.

All supposed savings should be accomplished and put in the bank before Congress spends it.

Everything in the legislation unravels once you recognize it’s built upon phony claims of savings and very real claims of tax increases. And for what? To expand the number of people with health coverage from the current 85 percent to what they claim will be a 94 percent level, by raising taxes and dictating that everyone must buy insurance. Yet Grassley says the bill “still leaves 25 million people without health insurance. That’s not much bang for the buck.” Adding more taxes to pay for more subsidies would send costs even higher.

Congress has abandoned the pretense of making care more affordable to focus on making government bigger.

Even liberal Democrats are rebelling against those new taxes, which would come mostly from taxing existing health insurance (by claiming that it’s “high-end” coverage). This week 157 Democrats — 60 percent of those in the House — sent Speaker Nancy Pelosi a mass letter objecting to this plan. Now Speaker Pelosi has floated the notion of a European style VAT tax instead. Another big new tax, this time on everyone.

Despite some media raves, the Baucus plan is not a magic bullet. But it is a typical liberal approach to tax everyone else for a big government giveaway.

It’s more proof that the era of big government is not over — it’s overwhelming.

---

About the author:

Ernest Istook served 14 years as an Oklahoma Congressman and is now a distinguished fellow at The Heritage Foundation.

 

WASHINGTON, D.C. – Following recent media reports that brought to light policy changes for the media covering Guantanamo Bay, Cuba (Gitmo), U.S. Senator Jim Inhofe (R-Okla.), a senior member of the Senate Armed Services Committee, sent a letter to President Obama requesting clarification from the administration.  It appears that the administration has changed its media policy towards Gitmo in a way that prohibits members of the press visiting Gitmo from reporting on both the military commission hearings and the detention facility on the same trip.  Instead, reporters are forced to take separate trips when covering the two venues.

“Restricting journalists from reporting on both the military commission hearings at Gitmo and the detention facility at Gitmo will directly impact worldwide press access and ultimately result in less transparency,” Inhofe said. “News organizations are cutting costs at every available opportunity therefore this new policy requiring journalists to take separate trips when reporting on both venues at Gitmo will likely result in less media coverage. For an Administration that has promised to be the most transparent, I believe there needs to be clarification regarding the policy change, why it has changed, and who authorized the change.”
 
The Inhofe letter also seeks explanation for why reporters who routinely cover Gitmo have been given little, if any, notice about upcoming media trips to cover the commission hearings.

(WASHINGTON, D.C.) – U.S. Senator Tom Coburn, M.D. (R-OK) released the following statement after voting against the legislative branch appropriations bill, which increases Congress’ budget three times the rate of inflation.

 “Congress’ decision to dramatically increase its budget while families across America are cutting back is an affront to every taxpayer.  We should be leading by example, not hoarding taxpayer funds for our own perks and political convenience.  Spending $500,000 on town hall promotion and $4 million on consultants for leadership offices is an embarrassment to this body,” Dr. Coburn said, noting that his office has returned an average of $470,000 in unspent office account funds each year he has served in the U.S. Senate.   

“This bill represents a failure of leadership in Congress among both Republicans and Democrats.  With this bill we are not only earning our dismal 16 percent approval rating, but are undermining financial stewardship in every other area of government.  If we can’t make hard choices about how we run our offices, how can we expect anyone in government to do the same?  Our government wastes at least $350 billion every year through fraud, mismanagement or duplication in part because agency heads have little to fear from congressional oversight,” Dr. Coburn said.

“A Congress that so brazenly holds itself above the economic laws that govern everyday life should be held accountable and replaced by the American people.  Of every dollar we spend this year we are borrowing 43 cents from the next generation.  Any family that managed their personal finances that way would end up in bankruptcy.  In fact, that is where the federal budget is headed if Congress doesn’t wake up,” Dr. Coburn added.

“Our national debt today is now $11.8 trillion and counting.  Our debt will double in five years and triple in ten years.  At the same time, the long-term unfunded liability for Social Security and Medicare is more than $100 trillion.  We simply can’t continue on this course any longer.  Unfortunately, this bill shows that the leadership of both parties is not only failing to recognize the depth and severity of the problems before us but is willing to put us deeper in debt in order to satisfy their own short-term parochial and political desires,”  Dr. Coburn said.