Early last week, Bill O’Reilly made a shocking attack on Alan Colmes over the sequester and called him a "liar" for correctly saying that President Obama has offered to make spending cuts. O’Reilly was so tyrannical and bullying that even John Stossel later told him he had been “obnoxious” and “out of line.” Kirsten Powers told O’Reilly, “You need to admit you’re wrong.” But Laura Ingraham, subbing for O’Reilly on Friday night (3/8/13), used the “Tip of the Day” segment to falsely argue that O’Reilly was correct. Even worse, she indirectly scolded Colmes by lecturing to her viewers, “When you prepare for a debate, have the facts on your side.” FoxNews.com echoed the message by calling the brief segment, Have the facts on your side when preparing for a debate. In reality, it's O'Reilly and Ingraham who don't have the facts on their side.
When you prepare for a debate, have the facts on your side. Unless you live on Mars, by now you know that O’Reilly got into it with Alan Colmes earlier this week. Friends were emailing me about it. Bill challenged Alan to come up with a concrete proposal to cut spending. Bill’s point, the president will not put forth any specifics. Well, today, the lead editorial in the Wall Street Journal examines the president’s plan and draws the same conclusion. There are no meaningful specifics in it. So here’s the tip: read that editorial in the Journal, headlined, “Obama’s Not So Grand Offer.” You’ll learn a lot and you’ll see exactly why Bill got so worked up.
Well, Laura, I read the editorial. Nowhere does it say that Obama offered “no meaningful specifics.” What it complains about is that Obama is offering “only token spending cuts.” But specifics? There are quite a few specifics. For example:
Mr. Obama endorses another round of arbitrary cuts for hospitals and other providers, to the tune of about $30 billion. He favors new price controls for the Medicare drug benefit for a $140 billion pop. He wants a new program to “encourage efficient care after a hospital stay,” as if the central planners can issue a decree and care will suddenly become more efficient.None of this will make a difference in practice.
Mr. Obama’s offer would ask the most affluent seniors to contribute more for benefits and tweak the program’s cost-sharing system for everyone else, but even this means-testing is very modest. The White House’s favorite health economist, Jonathan Gruber of MIT, estimates that better cost-sharing incentives for Medicare beneficiaries can save $125 billion. Mr. Obama’s version saves $35 billion.
In a similar vein, PolitiFact ruled a comparable statement by Speaker of the House John Boehner as “Pants on Fire.”
It didn’t take us long to find the White House plan. We found it on the White House home page by clicking the prominent button that says “SEE THE PLAN.” It leads to a page titled “A Balanced Plan to Avert the Sequester and Reduce the Deficit.”
The plan cites deficit reduction of the past two years, which has included a $600 billion tax hike on wealthy households and $1.4 trillion in discretionary spending cuts. Going forward, Obama proposes $200 billion in reduced defense spending, new efficiencies in health care that would save another $400 billion, eliminating some agriculture subsidies and reforming the postal service, among other proposals. On the revenue side, the plan calls for closing tax loopholes and limiting deductions to 28 percent for the wealthiest Americans.
O’Reilly and Ingraham may not like the cuts Obama is proposing but it’s just not true he has not offered any specifics. Ingraham really needs to take her own advice and get the facts on her side before jumping into this debate. And as Kirsten Powers might say, now two of them need to admit they’re wrong.
Hannity hasn’t condemned his viewers, neither has anyone at Fox News. And Republican biased media outlets are all cheering it on.
You know Pierce is fine with that, because IOKIYAR. Just ignore him until he’s banned for crossing the line, or turning out to be U Mad? again.
As for the article itself… par for the course in O’Reilly’s world. O’Reilly almost never apologizes (remember Jeremy Glick?), and when he does, it’s always for yelling. He doesn’t correct his facts, nor does he feel the need to apologize for how he talked to his guest- Yelling or not.
In fact, with Colmes being the first (and possibly last) genuine exception, O’Reilly only acknowledges there was an incident by going after them when he’s been humiliated enough. And Colmes being a big name on Fox Radio may be the only thing keeping this from escelating.
She knows very well that if she gives even a slither of criticism towards his egoship, Laura can kiss off any chance of ever hosting his show again when he takes a day off.
This is like when Rush called Sandra Fluke a slut. Everyone on the right was standing in line to defend and kiss Rush’s ass by villainizing the victim.
Bill and Rush could drop a sack full of kittens into a river and would get full support from the right. It’s really pathetic.