Freedom of the Press – Has It Gone Too Far?

As America celebrates its birthday today, I figured it would be a good time to take a look at one of our basic freedoms outlined in the First Amendment. The idea for this blog post came from a recent conversation I had on Facebook regarding the recent Supreme Court decision on the healthcare law. Given the fact that I was raised in a very conservative/Republican environment, most of my friends come from a similar persuasion and since I disagreed with them on the Affordable Care Act, a very spirited discussion was had. The one thing that came out that was very revealing to me (but not surprising) was that, for the most part, it was apparent they got their news from Fox News and other conservative media outlets. I should note that I do not fault my friends for getting their news from a source of similar ideology as I think it is only natural to gravitate towards that with which we agree. I only ask “Is this wise?”

Throughout my adult life, I have taken great pride in the fact that I try and get my news from a variety of sources. In fact, I often joke that the only way to truly get "fair and balanced" news was by watching an hour of Fox News followed by an hour of MSNBC. And actually that is what I have always tried to do – follow both the conservative and liberal media outlets. If you check my "most visited" websites on my Internet browser at work (which is where I check news the most online), you will find MSNBC in the #1 position and Fox News in the #2 position. It is a very interesting study in mass media to follow both websites as they vary greatly in both how they present a story and what they think the top news story of the day is. For instance, the day the Supreme Court decision was handed down I had to chuckle at the way the news organizations handle their website that day. For starters, MSNBC was the first to declare that the Supreme Court had upheld the healthcare reform law while Fox News was the last of the three cable news organizations to report that the Supreme Court had upheld the law. The philosophical differences between the two organizations did not stop there. Of course, there was the obvious difference between them as to what they even called the law with MSNBC referring to the "healthcare law" and Fox News calling it “Obamacare." However, the most interesting part came later in the day when the House voted to find the Attorney General in contempt of Congress. Fox News immediately changed its head story to the House vote while MSNBC put the news up regarding the House vote, but kept the Supreme Court decision as the top story.

The reason I follow both the conservative and liberal news organizations goes back to my college days. As I said, I grew up being very conservative/Republican and the college I attended leaned to the right on political issues to say the least. During that time, I read a lot of the conservative commentators such as Cal Thomas and William F. Buckley. A college professor for whom I had a lot of respect questioned why I only read commentators from the right and why I didn't read any liberal commentators. She followed up by asking, “Are you worried they will change your mind?" All she was trying to do was get me to think critically, but that one question changed the way I researched and looked at news. I started reading the op-eds of liberals in the paper along with the same conservative commentators that I had read before. For the most part, I found it did not change my opinion, rather it reinforced why I believed, what I believed. In fact, I have found that my transformation of political philosophy has had less to do with the commentators that I read and more to do with the actual facts themselves. In other words, I was now using the news as a tool to help inform my opinion rather than shape it.

This brings me to the purpose of this post. I believe our Freedom of Press has allowed us to develop a culture where people do not challenge their assumptions and only gravitate towards that with which they already agree. The left has MSNBC and the New York Times, while the right has Fox News and the Wall Street Journal. If you only watch and read that with which you agree already, your beliefs and political positions are never challenged and this only serves to reinforce the positions you already hold. All of this is the natural byproduct of our consumer culture as the media is only providing what the masses want – news and opinions with which they already agree. In other words, one of the great freedoms that we are promised in our Bill of Rights has, in many ways, unwittingly led to a more divided nation – not a stronger one.

So what is the solution? As with all our basic freedoms, the freedoms we are promised must be tempered with individual responsibility. Freedom of Speech requires that individuals behave responsibly with that freedom and not abuse it by spreading false information or creating undue panic – the old yelling “FIRE!” in a crowded theater. Freedom of Religion requires us to practice our religion in a way that allows others to practice their religion (or lack thereof) as well. The Right to Bear Arms requires individuals to behave responsibly with firearms so that they do not fall into the wrong hands. I could go on, but I think the point is clear that individual responsibility plays a large role in the preservation of our freedoms.

Freedom of the Press is no different. While many people would view the responsibility of this freedom to fall on the press itself, I would challenge all of us to act responsibly with this freedom as well. Certainly the press has the responsibility to report in a professional manner and with the truth, but as I stated above in our current mass media culture, the media will provide what the public wants – which is to be told that with which they already agree. To combat this, the responsibility once again falls on the individual and we all must do our part in trying to get our news from multiple sources and even those with whom we know we will disagree. So in honor of your freedom on this Fourth of July, read, watch or listen to something that you know has the opposite political view. As my college professor asked, “are you worried it will change your mind?"

The Ironies of the Supreme Court Decision

I know it's been a while since I posted on this blog, but given the historic decision today by the Supreme Court, I figured it was time to resurrect the blog. While I’ve made no secret of the fact that I supported the Affordable Care Act, I do not want to talk about the merits of the law or the rationale of the decision. Rather, I want to talk about some of the ironies that exist since the decision has been announced - one irony in the reactions and the other in the result.

The first irony I found was in the reaction by conservatives. Predictably, they were not happy with the decision as they wanted the court to strike down the law. What I find ironic about this is that it wasn't that long ago that conservatives bemoaned the role of activist judges who would do from the bench what couldn't be accomplished at ballot box. They would always criticize judges who would substitute their judgment for those in the political branches (i.e. legislative and executive branches). However, in this instance the conservatives wanted the judges to do exactly that. It used to be that conservatives would argue that if you didn't like something that Congress had enacted, the appropriate reaction was to try and change that result through the electoral process. It’s for this reason that I found the following to be the most interesting quote from Chief Justice Roberts’ opinion: "But the Court does not express any opinion on the wisdom of the Affordable Care Act. Under the Constitution, that judgment is reserved to the people." It's almost like Chief Justice Roberts is telling the American electorate that if they don't like his decision, it's their prerogative to change the leadership in Congress and the White House. You can already see that is the tactic that Mitt Romney is taking when he said "What the Court did not do on the last day of its session, I will do on my first day as president." In other words, if you don't like it, vote for Romney.

The second irony I found was in the end result. A very underreported part of this litigation leading up to the oral arguments, after oral arguments and now after the decision, is the issue surrounding the Medicaid expansion. All the attention in the coverage of this case has focused on the so-called individual mandate, while very little had addressed the issue of the Medicaid expansion. In a nutshell, the Affordable Care Act extended coverage to many low income individuals who previously did not qualify for Medicaid by expanding the eligibility population for the Medicaid program. Since Medicaid is a partnership between the federal and state governments and state governments share in the cost of the Medicaid program, many states had challenged the Affordable Care Act arguing that the law unconstitutionally required them to expand their Medicaid program to the newly eligible population or risk losing all of the federal money that they received for their entire state Medicaid program. In other words, the states argued that the federal government was “blackmailing” them by threatening their existing funding that they already received. Most of the analysis, what little there was, disregarded the states’ challenge as it was assumed that the Court would uphold the Medicaid expansion.

It turns out that the real surprise of the day, that still has not gotten much attention, is that a majority of the Court agreed with the states that the federal government could not require the states to expand their eligibility populations or risk of losing all their Medicaid funding. The decision by the court does allow the federal government to expand Medicaid to the newly eligible population, but only if it gives the states the option of whether they will agree to it. In other words, as with many things in Medicaid, things could vary greatly from state to state. The truth is the federal government is scheduled to pay for most of Medicaid expansion. The Affordable Care Act calls for the federal government to initially pay for all the new enrollees under the expansion until 2017 and then the amount the federal government pays will gradually decrease until 2020 at which point the feds will pay 90% of the cost of the newly eligible beneficiaries. (For a complete analysis, please see this brief from the organization I currently work for explaining how the Medicaid expansion will be paid for.)

Given the highly partisan nature of the Affordable Care Act, there have already been states that have refused federal money because it was being appropriated to them under the health care reform law. I believe it is entirely conceivable that in some of the most Republican states the idea of accepting money from the federal government as a result of this law will be so toxic that the state will refuse to expand Medicaid. The irony of all this is that the Affordable Care Act was designed to increase access to health care by increasing the amount of people with health insurance. This was especially true of low income individuals who cannot afford to pay for their own coverage, i.e. the ones that would be eligible under the Medicaid expansion. Now that it will be left up to the states, it is entirely possible that the very population this law was intended to extend coverage to will be without it. So despite the fact that the left thinks that this decision was a win for them; I think the jury is still out.

Thoughts on the Mid-Terms & the New Congress

It’s been a while since I posted on here, but I just had some thoughts on today’s historic events that I thought I’d share. First of all, as a politically moderate supporter of President Obama, I was glad to see the Republicans take control back of the House of Representatives. For anyone who read my 2008 essay on the election, you know that I liked what then candidate Obama said regarding changing the political tone in Washington. Unfortunately, I think he found a Washington that was embroiled in political bickering and that was further complicated by his own party which realized it controlled power in all the political branches of government for the first time in 14 years. This resulted in the Democrats early on ignoring President Obama’s attempts to include Republicans on the stimulus just days into his presidency. Speaker Pelosi was intent on showing off the Democrats new found power and used it to swiftly pass the stimulus while President Obama was attempting to court Republicans. This ultimately set the tone for the next two years as Republicans quickly took to the role of minority party and simply criticizing anything proposed by the Democrats.

With the 2010 elections results (which were very predictable), there is now a return to shared government between the two parties. I was VERY pleased with the way things changed in December as three very important items were passed with varying levels of bi-partisan support – the two year extension of the Bush tax cuts, the ratification of the New START Treaty with Russia and repeal of “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell.” I was hopeful that this was a precursor to how President Obama and Republican leadership would work together on getting things accomplished in the 112^th Congress where there will be shared responsibility.

Unfortunately, what I’ve heard out of House Republicans suggests something different. In fact, it suggests business as usual, such as more investigations into the executive branch and more catering to interest groups. However, the thing that really bothers me is the move to bring up a vote on the “repeal” of the healthcare reform that passed last year. What exactly are the House Republicans hoping to gain with this? I’m sure it will pass the House and they might even get some Democrats to come on board with it. However, it’s got no prayer in the Senate which the Democrats still control and President Obama would veto any such bill anyway. All the Republicans are trying to do is embarrass the President with this move as they want to pass it prior to the State of the Union Address. So that’s what we’re paying them for – passing useless bills just to embarrass the other party. Oh, & I’m not sure it even accomplishes its goal – how will it embarrass them?

Another thought that some of the Freshman Republicans who won in swing districts might want to consider before they vote “Yes” on repeal. Are you sure you want that to be your first big vote? Remember there are some good things in the original health care reform, such as not allowing insurance companies to deny you for pre-existing conditions or allowing children to stay on their parent’s insurance longer. You really want to vote “No” on that stuff? Because that’s what voting for repeal means. Keep in mind, the Congressmen who make up the Republican leadership in the House are mostly from safe districts, but that is not the case for some Freshmen who won in “swing” districts. By voting for repeal, you are writing your opponent's first negative ad when you run for re-election in 2012. “Congressmen X sided with the BIG insurance companies when he voted to allow them to deny you coverage for a pre-existing condition.”

Republicans need to remember the lessons of 1995-96 if they truly wish to use their 2010 victory as a spring board to retaking the White House in 2012. In 1995-96, Republicans tried this same thing with President Clinton. They tried embarrassing him and marginalizing him, and that was when they had control of both houses in Congress. Well, it didn’t work. Clinton rediscovered what made him a popular candidate with moderates and independents and he spoke to those voters again. You can see President Obama starting to do some of the same things in December with his willingness to compromise when it was in the best interest of the economy (extension of the Bush tax cuts and unemployment benefits), seizing the foreign policy mantle as Chief Diplomat (ratification of New START) and being practical in pushing for repeal of an unpopular and defective policy (“Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell”). I said it before the Mid-Terms and I’ll say it now, the Republicans taking control of the House might be the best thing to happen to President Obama. I’m interested to see how he approaches the State of the Union Address both in tone and in actual policy. I’ll try and check in then.

2011 Budget Graphic

A friend of mine on Facebook posted this link to a New York Times visual of President Obama's proposed 2011 budget. It really shows just how much of the budget is made up of items that are set and cannot really be changed like defense spending, social security and medicare. It's a great visual aid. Check it out!