TPM LiveWire

White House Gets Reuters To Pull Budget Story

Spread the word. Share this article on Facebook!

Share

Press Secretary Robert Gibbs, President Obama, and Deputy Press Secretary Josh Earnest

Share

Twitter Facebook Fark Reddit Send to a Friend

Send to a friend!

To email:    Your Name:    Your email:

Obama administration aides appealed to the Reuters White House reporting team to kill a story by another reporter of the news service that suggested the president's new budget blueprint included "backdoor" tax hikes.

A White House official told TPMDC the Reuters story was "falsely stating that the President's budget raises taxes for middle class families, when in fact the opposite is true."

The official said when the administration saw the story, published yesterday afternoon, they contacted one of the Reuters White House correspondents.

The White House pushed these points:

- Our budget explicitly calls for permanently extending the Bush tax cuts for households making less than $250,000. - Our budget explicitly calls for allowing the top rate on dividends to increase to 20% for households making over $250,000. - Our budget accounts for the cost of continuing the AMT "Patch". The last administration's budgets ignored these costs, but we explicitly account for them. - Our budget extends expiring tax provisions through 2011.

The official said the Reuters White House team "worked to quickly remedy the situation and helped get the story completely withdrawn" last night.

The original article included a list of what the author deemed tax increases that included allowing a $250 tax credits for teachers buying supplies to expire, for example.

The White House official pointed TPM to the specific page on the budget proving that wrong.

As Rachel Slajda reported earlier, Reuters confirmed to TPM that the White House complained about the piece.

Join the Conversation!

63 comments

Recommend Recommend (4)

February 2, 2010 1:23 PM   

I guess after "the year of death panels" they've realized you have to strike back against falsehoods immediately.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

February 2, 2010 1:26 PM    in reply to cambridgeMR

Well, the "death panels" nonsense was so patently ridiculous, I can see where a reasonable person might underestimate the collective stupidity of the American public. Big mistake.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

February 2, 2010 1:28 PM    in reply to Steaming Pile

What are you talking about, we do have "death panels" in America.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

February 2, 2010 1:32 PM    in reply to W T F

True! They're called health insurance adjusters.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

February 2, 2010 3:10 PM    in reply to desert rain

Wait, they can't be called death panels, since they're republiKKKan sponsored death panels, instituted by private companies. Those aren't death panels! Only FAKE death panels, belonging to some fantasy civil servants, thought up by Sarah Palin can be rightfully ... no not the word .. justifiably ... no not the word either ... DIVINELY called 'Death Panels'. The GaWD! in question is of course Scary Palin hisself.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

February 3, 2010 10:01 AM    in reply to The Coloured European Observer

Your refrence to the kkk in your spelling of the word republican really shows your ignorance and that you don't know a damn thing when it comes to politics. So let me educate you Since Abraham Lincoln, Republicans have been there for blacks when it counted. Nevertheless, Democrats invariably take all the credit for the success of the civil rights movement and invariably fail to give any credit to Republicansthe record shows that since 1933 Republicans had a more positive record on civil rights than the Democrats.

In the 26 major civil rights votes after 1933, a majority of Democrats opposed civil rights legislation in over 80 percent of the votes. By contrast, the Republican majority favored civil rights in over 96 percent of the votes.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

February 3, 2010 10:58 AM    in reply to prevere

true, true and true. But that was then, this is now. The Republican party was in fact an anti-slavery party, largely due to the fact it was based in the north. It's true that civil rights legislation had to be rammed down the throat of the southern Democrats. But you can't deny that the GOP has morphed into a party of corporate and largely white entitlement. The underlying GOP message so often seems to be "we are right because we are the kind of people who should be in charge of stuff. If we were wrong, we wouldn't be so sucessful." It's a 21st century Manifest Destiny.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

February 4, 2010 8:17 AM    in reply to blkblt

Republicans stole the Dixiecrats

Nixon called it the "Southern Strategy". How could a party made up largely of pro-business Northeast social moderates and pro-farmer upper Mid-West social conservatives retake national power away from the New Deal coalition that had dominated politics since 1932?

Well first you take away the fanatic anti-Communist Bircher types. That gets you Southern California and most of the Sun-Belt. Sun-Belter Goldwater had that crowd locked up by 1964. But that doesn't get you over the top. So then you decide to exploit Southern unease/hatred of the Civil Rights Acts of 1964 & 1965 (even though as a Party you were kind of supportive) to steal all the racists right from under the Democratic Party, starting of course with Strom Thurmond. Well that policy was in place by 1972 and vindicated by the Reagan victory in 1980.

The national Republican Party made a conscious decision to become the Party of Fanatic Anti-Communism and Racism in the sixties. They decided to put their own brand on a set of pathological beliefs and in the process turned their backs on a century of largely progressive, good government policies. They can bleat all they want but the pure fact is that Nelson Rockefeller, whose name was used to identify a whole wing of the Republican Party would not be welcome in it today. On the other hand Democrats Bull Conner and Lester Maddox would be embraced with glee.

Republicans you decided you wanted the narrow minded troglodyte racists on your side, made a deliberate decision to go out and pursue them, and now have them firmly in your camp. Congratulations, the Southern Strategy kind of worked for you. But for God sakes stop telling us that Jefferson Davis was a fricking Democrat and Lincoln freed the slaves. We got that, we actually read stuff like history books. The facts on the ground say that secessionist Jefferson Davis would now be standing side by side with Republican secessionist Rick Perry, and that civil rights supporter Abraham Lincoln would be standing side by side with fellow Illinoisian Barack Obama.

You wanted the racist scum, now you got them. And you know you can keep them for as long as you want. As a bonus you can keep the nooses, the klan robes and the Confederate flags. In exchange can you stop insulting our intelligence by dragging up the Party history you have steadfastly rejected over the course of the last fifty years?

The Republican Party is no longer the Party of Lincoln, instead it is proudly the Party of Reagan and Thurmond. And yes both of them were once registered Democrats. You wanted 'em, you got 'em, now deal with it.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

February 5, 2010 3:14 PM    in reply to Bruce Webb

Democrats call it the "Southern Strategy" and I have no idea what Nixon called it. I've always heard it referred to as the "Southern Compromise", the compromise being that the south would stop opposing Civil Rights if the Republican Party would become pro-life. After WWII appalled Progressives with the end-result of eugenics, they lost their commonality of racism with the Dixiecrats. Southerners found a different commonality with Republicans not based in racism.

Yes, if someone were a racist, they would become a Republican, but the party doesn't support racism in any way that I've ever seen. Sort-of like how Socialists join the Democrats, but most Democrats aren't Socialists.

I am proudly anti-Communist, though.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

February 2, 2010 5:40 PM    in reply to W T F

They are known as insurance companies.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

February 3, 2010 3:56 PM    in reply to goldiera

According to the American Medical Association’s National Health Insurer Report Card for 2008, the government’s health plan, Medicare, denied medical claims at nearly double the average for private insurers: Medicare denied 6.85% of claims.

In its 2009 National Health Insurer Report Card, the AMA reports that Medicare denied only 4% of claims —a big improvement, but outpaced better still by the private insurers.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

February 4, 2010 8:26 AM    in reply to Jen06

How much of that was denials for services not even covered by private insurance to start with? Like motorized chairs, and custodial care?

The patient populations of Medicare and private insurance have almost zero overlap with the exception being Medicare Advantage. Got any figures on denial rates by MA plans? If not those comparative percentages are simply statistical garbage, you are sampling different populations with different sets of needs.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

February 2, 2010 2:07 PM    in reply to Steaming Pile

Never underestimate the power of ignorant people in large groups. (See Brown, Scott)

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

February 2, 2010 3:51 PM    in reply to benintn

And never underestimate the anger of large groups of educated and informed people reacting to the campaign politics of arrogant entitlement by centrist corporatist candiates promising more of the same standard democratic fare. Martha lost without learning from the defeat of Hillary in Iowa. Hillary learned and began an actual campaign rather than awaiting a coronation. Hillary became a better candidate; Martha did not and Scott Brown is now a Senator. Expect Joe Kennedy to try and reclaim the family seat in 2012.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

February 2, 2010 4:08 PM    in reply to PoliSciJunkie

you lost me at "educated and informed". Aren't you the lot claiming the earth is 6000 years old, not warming, oh wait it's warming, but that's just God hugging us closer....?

Right?

Deathers and birthers, the lot of you. And you can burn in hell, too.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

February 3, 2010 12:04 PM    in reply to The Coloured European Observer

I see affirmative action in Europe has the same effect it does in the US.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

February 3, 2010 9:43 AM    in reply to PoliSciJunkie

Can we please put an end to the Scott Brown myth? All politics are local. Coakley won the primary when she was against the national health care reform plan. She lost when she later came out supporting it (and by running a terrible campaign). Massachusetts is very happy with their own state run health care plan. They don't want anyone one messing it up and making them pay for some other state's problems when they feel that they have acted responsibly in their own state. No national movement, just local politics.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

February 3, 2010 3:52 PM    in reply to Steaming Pile

Is that why after a couple of days Dems came out and said "There was no such thing about death panels but we removed that part anyway/"

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

February 2, 2010 1:25 PM   

Now the wingers will be complaining about media manipulation.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

February 2, 2010 1:26 PM    in reply to jeffgee

I'll take accusations of media manipulation over accusations of a middle-class tax hike any day of the week.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

February 2, 2010 8:33 PM    in reply to jeffgee

That would be a true accusation, and a sad comment on the state of our National Media: ya got ta 'manipulate' them to get their reporters to actually read the source material in order to get their story right, rather than simply ape the "Conventional Wisdom" peddled by the partisan right for the last generation, plus.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

February 2, 2010 1:29 PM   

The story was rewritten all over the internet which means, unless they can scrub the entire internet, it's fact to the teabaggers since they read it on teh internetz.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

February 2, 2010 2:10 PM    in reply to mike from Arlington

Agreed.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

February 2, 2010 2:34 PM    in reply to Boidster

but WHICH internetz?

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

February 2, 2010 3:14 PM    in reply to JEP07

I mean, you have them commie Internetz and the REAL AMEH'CAN Internetz, which are patrolled by the Fact-Free RepubliKKKans ...

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

February 2, 2010 1:33 PM   

Reuters – a traditional news medium that cares about accuracy! Will wonders never cease?

In order to offer a "fair and balanced" perspective, FockSnooze will now report rumors of Satanism and animal cruelty in the White House.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

February 2, 2010 1:38 PM   

wow, this the BIG STORY! Major coup for the administration! Fearless leaders at work! Josh Marshall is desperate for good news!

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

February 2, 2010 1:40 PM    in reply to Lalo35adm

I expect more from your trolls. This is very disappointing.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

February 2, 2010 1:59 PM    in reply to Acewrap

"I expect more from your trolls."

Really? Why?

Preschool level "nyah-nyah!" is exactly what I've come to expect from the little Teabuggers.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

February 2, 2010 3:26 PM    in reply to Acewrap

I think you're being unfair to the troll - it's a tough subject for them. Their mythology is that the MSM only writes pro-Obama pieces, so all they can do in response to this is to fling poo.

Have compassion, and grade on a curve.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

February 2, 2010 4:44 PM    in reply to Acewrap

"This is very disappointing...." LOL ROTFLMAO!

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

February 2, 2010 1:41 PM   

It's just a blatant attempt to try to destroy Obama. there is no doubt about it in my mind. I think he realizes how bad it is and the WH has decided to fight back the lies. Good for them. I am sure they will be busy. They will need a full time staff just to fact check the news,

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

February 2, 2010 2:09 PM    in reply to lousgirl84

It's like Don Rumsfeld in reverse - we need a whole "Department of Truth" to combat the spin machine.

Our 4th Branch of Government is really letting us down.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

February 2, 2010 1:41 PM   

Considering the executives making the decisions to run stories or not, as well as the editors, will acutally be the ones hit by the $250,000+ taxes, I'm expecting a lot more falsehoods to be published before being, ahem, corrected.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

February 2, 2010 2:11 PM    in reply to Jaycal

As Richard Rorty used to say, "Truth is what your colleagues let you get away with."

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

February 2, 2010 1:51 PM   

My humble opinion on stealth taxes. . .
The biggest stealth tax of all came 2001 when the administration, with the help of congress cut current tax rates while raising spending.

When you spend, you tax. It's as simple as that.
The taxes we are being forced to pay today were signed into place by GW Bush in 2001. When they borrowed money they implemented a stealth tax on all of us.

Today we are paying for it. And tomorrow we will be paying for it.
GW Bush took a vibrant succesful economy and turned it over to those who would spend and spend with no care of how to pay for it.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

February 2, 2010 8:37 PM    in reply to mcrose68

It was a tax shift, in fact. 1) Borrow money to cut taxes for the rich; 2) Have the Middle Class pay a higher proportion of taxes as a result; 3) The Middle Class will therefore pay back the loan for the tax cut for the rich.

Republican "tax cuts" in action!

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

February 3, 2010 10:57 AM    in reply to eztempo

Obama a Republican? Who knew?

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

February 2, 2010 1:52 PM   

Would have been nice if the WH acted this fast at squashing the 'Cadillac plan' tax in the Senate HCR bill - or at least fixing it so it wouldn't become a backdoor tax increase on the middle class. If they had done so, may the House would passed the Senate bill by now.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

February 2, 2010 1:52 PM   

Good. Fight back.

Reuters = FAIL

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

February 2, 2010 2:44 PM   

New benchmark to define middle class families at $250K.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

February 2, 2010 3:55 PM    in reply to MartynW

From the IRS Website:

Q1. What is the Making Work Pay Credit?

A. In tax years 2009 and 2010, the Making Work Pay provision will provide a refundable tax credit of up to $400 for individuals and up to $800 for married taxpayers filing joint returns.

I remember talking to my HR person when this provision went into law last spring and it was our understanding from the onset that Making Work Pay was only intended to last for 2009 and 2010, not for it to be a permanent tax cut.

The Hill is reporting that Obama said it would be a permanent tax cut, and unless I missed something, I don't remember him saying that.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

February 2, 2010 4:31 PM    in reply to MartynW

Oh wait, let's vote Obama out of office because he's fiscally sound: getting taxes to pay for spending that is good for the country!

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

February 3, 2010 8:51 AM    in reply to The Coloured European Observer

Obama fiscally sound! Are you serious. The Obama administration has spent and obligated more money than the all previous administrations since our founding combined but in your eyes he is fiscally sound.

No my friend, Obama is a trainwreck that will wreak havoc upon the United States for generations to come.

Me, I believe it is intentionally destroying this nation.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

February 4, 2010 8:34 AM    in reply to wayward1

Wow in 13 months Obama actually spent more money than this country spent on WWII and Vietnam combined? And on 70 years of Social Security? and 45 years of Medicare? and the Cold War?

I mean I've heard of innumeracy but man this statement takes the cake.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

February 3, 2010 11:06 AM    in reply to The Coloured European Observer

I think Obama has a very good point. Raise spending to unimaginable heights. Take the money from the investor class. The people who invest in business. The businesses that create jobs.

I think it is a brilliant strategy. It worked once before as outlined in Amity Shlaes book: "The Forgotten Man"

Well if by "worked" you mean extending the depression for almost a decade.

The country is in the best of hands.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

February 4, 2010 8:45 AM    in reply to MSimon

Puh-lease.

Investors love to cut jobs. And reward themselves handsomely for cutting costs in doing so. Entripreneurs don't set out to create jobs, they set out to create profits. In the process they often have to hire people, but if they can find a way to make that process cheaper, say by locating that workforce in a 'right to work' state or in a sweatshop in the N. Marianas they will.

Look everytime a corporation or investor tries to avoid paying for their societal obligation in the way of taxes or whatever they drag out that tired "don't you want the jobs" argument. It is bullshit and always has been, capitalism has always seen labor as a pure cost sink to be limited or eliminated to the degree possible. The argument that investors should be given huge tax breaks so they can take jobs away from unionized Western Washington to union busting South Carolina (a very live issue here since Boeing decided to open the second 787 line in SC simply to shave labor costs) is just self-serving bullshit.

If business decides they need to exploit labor productivity they will hire. If they can forego that labor then they will. This idea that they are somehow big hearted humanitarians concerned with keeping up employment levels is simple hogwash. We didn't fall off the turnip truck yesterday.

The most disgusting thing is that a bunch of glibertarians actually seem to believe this crap.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

February 7, 2010 6:08 AM    in reply to Bruce Webb

Damn you're good.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

February 2, 2010 4:48 PM   

Why isn't the headline "White House corrects totally wrong Reuters story." The headline carries the implication that they were censoring some bad news for them.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

February 2, 2010 5:54 PM   

Thats called corporate controlled media. Another term is propaganda. There is no more free press, they have been bought and paid for long ago. Were it not for the bloggers, I don't know where we would be.
Now that we found our voices, the supreme court has silenced them for good with their Jan ruling giving corporations unfettered, unlimited powers to interfer in our election process and fund their candidates to serve. They can afford both sides, so our vote is now a sham.
MSM works against our interests, not for them. That is why the story was presented the way it was.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

February 2, 2010 6:18 PM   

Nope, not true. The story is still up on Reuters web site. I saw this claim earlier today on another site, and it included a link to the story still being up. Obama's tax increases include the elimination of a tax break that was given to people earning below 95 thousand dollars, and will increase taxes by 400 dollars per year. I know your lot can't handle the truth, but that doesn't mean that the truth goes away. Obot tried to bury the facts, but it was exposed.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

February 2, 2010 8:26 PM   

So, the follow-up I want to see is whether someone at Reuters was either re-assigned or fired over publishing a blatant "hit job" at the expense of their employer's credibility?

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

February 3, 2010 12:16 AM   

Yep nothing to see here, White House now dictating what stories can be run by the media. Do you really think the American people will be fooled by this? This type of crap will get 10 times more attention than a stupid article on Reuters.

This administration is a shambles. It's really kind of funny and truly pathetic. From the Parthenon to the outhouse in just over 12 months. Good job!

This administration has been teabagged by the very people it considered rubes. I mean, you couldn't write this stuff.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

February 3, 2010 1:58 AM   

Most Americans are looking past the rhetoric of this administration and others who try too hard to protect its reckless spending policies which seeks to put more and more control into the hands of government. We will all negatively be directly or indirectly effected if the spending breaks are not drastically put on.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

February 3, 2010 9:22 AM   

in the article it states: "The White House official pointed TPM to the specific page on the budget proving that wrong"(re: tax increase on mid class). Does anyone else agree that it would be great if TPM shared that page number and/or specific wording ? I've been searching the internet and cannot find a copy of the budget that states that.

"Can you really ever trust another human being ? The answer is NO, Gregg."- Robert Deniro ( Meet The Parents)

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

February 3, 2010 11:02 AM   

I would like to thank Christina Bellantoni for responding so promptly to my request for the page number of the budget that supports the claim that taxes for the middle class will drop, not rise. It's Page 160, table S-8.this is the link to that page:http://www.gpoaccess.gov/usbudget/fy11/pdf/summary.pdf. I have to say i find nothing on there to refute the claim that taxes will drop and/or the existing tax rates will not sunset.I do see extension of credits, but nothing mentioning the tax rates for individuals

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

February 3, 2010 11:05 AM   

correction to above :instead of refute it should say support

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

February 4, 2010 7:27 PM   

To the extent that the article was factually wrong, Reuters was correct to withdraw it. To the extent that Reuters buckled under due to the administrations differing with the conclusions in the article, this is a very bad thing indeed. And the administration needs to be condemned even more strongly than Reuters.

The above discussions on "death panels" is a case in point. The proposed health care plans did, in fact, allow for the government to withhold health care if they considered it inefficient. Those favoring the plans have the right to question the rhetorical nature of the comment. However, to call the use of the term "death panels" a lie is intellectually dishonest and dishonorable. It does more to damage the critics credibility than that of the term's user.

I, for one, would rather have a company that wants the public's business than on 536 self-seeking, remote and calculating politicians(counting this and any future Presidents). We can debate my conclusion, or the appropriateness of the term "death panel" but not their existence in the proposed legislation. Its weak, self-indulgent thinking like I see above that has moved me from being a very liberal Democrat to the promised land - political and intellectual independence.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

February 7, 2010 6:17 AM    in reply to SeekingRationalThought

"The proposed health care plans did, in fact, allow for the government to withhold health care if they considered it inefficient"

Are you talking about the group that is supposed to review treatments for efficacy? There is certainly that function in there, and it's crucial to any kind of cost containment. There is no point paying $100 a pill for something that doesn't work.

The only other thing I remember being considered a "death panel" was the clause that allowed medicare to reimburse doctors for discussing end of life care with patients. That got taken out because the Republican's said they wanted to kill grandma, or something like that.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

April 26, 2010 10:32 PM   

Thats called corporate controlled media. Another term is propaganda. There is no more free press, they have been bought and paid for long ago. Were it not for the bloggers, I don't know where we would be.
Now that we found our voices, the supreme court has silenced them for good with their Jan ruling giving corporations unfettered, unlimited powers to interfer in our election process and fund their candidates to serve. They can afford both sides, so our vote is now a sham.
MSM works against our interests, not for them. That is why the story was presented the way it was.

Tosh
buy viagra kamagra

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

April 26, 2010 10:33 PM   

Obama fiscally sound! Are you serious. The Obama administration has spent and obligated more money than the all previous administrations since our founding combined but in your eyes he is fiscally sound.

No my friend, Obama is a trainwreck that will wreak havoc upon the United States for generations to come.

Me, I believe it is intentionally destroying this nation.

Tosh
m65 acne

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

Leave a comment

Your response:

Follow us!

Most Popular

TPM Stories Now Surging on