http://www.centerforsmallgovernment.com/
BELIEVE 15% OF WHAT YOU SEE IN THE BOSTON GLOBE
By Carla Howell
*** begin quote ***
Our mothers told us, “Believe nothing you hear and half of what you see.” But when it comes to government spending articles in the Globe, perhaps we should only believe 15% of what we see.
Governor Patrick recklessly ratified a $2.55 billion spending increase for plush government pensions — boosting an already bloated government pension cash cow. While most private sector workers and taxpayers have NO employee pension.
But the newspapers made it look like Governor Patrick bravely vetoed a $3 billion govenrment employee pension increase.
I pride myself in spotting bias, inaccuracies and deception in news coverage that pertains to government budgets. Sadly, I find it in almost every single one I read.
Unless I read too fast — and don’t take the time to read the fine print. Which I did last week. The Boston Globe ran a story with the headline “Patrick rejects pension increase…Benefit could have cost state billions.” The second paragraph states, “Fiscal watchdogs had warned that the benefit could cost the state more than $3 billion over the next 20 years.”
I concluded from this that Governor Patrick vetoed the entire $3 billion government employee pension expansion, which he had previously supported.
A few days before this story, a Globe editorial advised the governor to veto this one – hinting that letting the bill stand could incite voter anger and affect the November election. It seemed to be a thinly veiled warning that a veto was necessary to stop Question 1 to End the Income Tax from winning.
I helped give legs to the story by mentioning in a media interview last week that Patrick’s $3B veto was a sign that Question 1 to End the Income Tax is already having an impact on government spending.
Then I saw a letter to the editor in the Globe penned by a careful reader who pointed out that Gov. Patrick did not veto the entire $3B
government employee pension increase as the Globe’s headline suggests. Rather, he vetoed only 15% of the increase – and let 85% of the increase stand.
I should know better than to ignore the fine print of a news article about government budgets. Mea culpa.
Upon rereading the article, I can’t vouch for what percentage was actually vetoed without doing research. But 15% seems to be in the
ballpark.
So it’s possible our initiative already helped to stop $450 million in new state spending, but not the $3B I’d hoped (at least not as a result
of this particular veto).
Please use my oversight as a reminder of how much care it takes to avoid falling for claims that a politician cut government spending – when he
actually increased government spending.
*** end quote ***
Like Star Trek and their Prime Directive, the Doctor’s Hippocratic Oath, and the old Gallo ad “We serve no wine before its time”, politicians have an a similar canard. I don’t know who came up with it, but I first heard it from a troublemaker, Jim Gearhart, at the local radio station 101.5.
“Politicians are ALWAYS: feathering their own nest, rewarding their friends, or punishing their enemies.”
Carla would be well advised to remember that. In her “mistake”, she forgot that the paper was reporting on a “politician”. Vetoing a public pension bill would be that political directive. So by definition, the report was EITHER biased or just honestly wrong! Guess I’m jaundiced, it was a deliberate cover up to give the Guv good press and a handout to the trough feeders.
Argh!
# # # # #
Reinke Faces Life 