An Alternative Perspective Not Heard On The BBC, And Context For The Debate

It seems like we’re about to get a deal of some sort to temporarily alleviate the debt crisis. I say temporarily, because there’s no telling how it’s all going to work out over the next two years. In any case, it’s not done yet, so it’s a couple days early to start mocking the BBC’s coverage with “Lo! The Conq’ring Hero Comes”. What I’d like to do is provide some examples of the exact same budget issue the country has been experiencing at the state level. The BBC has mostly ignored all of this. It’s important, though, to bring this up for two reasons.

1. Spending a moment on how individual states solved their problems provides some helpful context with which to understand the national debate.

2. The reality of what’s gone on at the state level basically puts the lie to what the BBC has been telling you about the national issue.

First up, Wisconsin. Many people here will remember the BBC’s wild-eyed coverage of what went on in Wisconsin a few months back, when a Republican governor was, as the BBC put it, trying to pass an anti-union budget. Searching this blog for Wisconsin-related content will provide plenty of evidence of the BBC’s biased coverage, telling you how awful Gov. Walker’s plan would be for honest public sector workers. I don’t even want to get into how the BBC censored all news of violent and hateful rhetoric from the Left, in stark contrast to the way they focused on every fringe outlier in the Tea Party protests they covered.

In any case, the state had the same budget crisis the country is facing: too much spending, not enough money coming in. The Governor and the Legislature decided to cut spending. The BBC wasn’t happy. So it’s important to check in now to see how things turned out.

Apparently, pretty well. It seems that, by saving money, the state was able to save lots of teachers’ jobs they were going to lose the way things were going. Not only that, but the state itself went from being deep in the red to nosing into the black. It’s possible, you see, if you don’t listen to the likes of Ed Balls or Harry Reid or Mark Mardell. I’ll let the Lt. Governor of Wisconsin, Rebecca Kleefisch, explain.

(After just looking at her and hearing the first three words out of her mouth, tell me Ms. Kleefisch wouldn’t absolutely drive the Beeboids like Justin Webb insane.)

Who’d have thought, eh? Not the BBC.

There’s something else they never told you about the situation in Wisconsin: the Democrats’ budget would have added $1.7 billion in spending, leading to a $1.4 billion deficit. Yet the BBC advocates against people who oppose this kind of thing. Mark Mardell has described the national version as borrowing enough money to continue governing. No other viewpoint on the issue is allowed without qualifying it as “extreme” or “right-wing” or “protecting the wealthy”. So Wisconsin is one example of the BBC’s ideology causing them to get it wrong when they reported on the beginning of the story, wrong in the middle, and then go silent when the result is something that goes against their ideology.

It would be very instructive in figuring out the national debate if one were to look at a concrete example of a success. No wonder the BBC censors it.

Let’s look at another example, one which the BBC barely touched on because there was no loud union agitating to support: Ohio. This state is worth looking at because it’s one of those bell-weather states, which many pundits watch to predict national voting trends (probably a variety of reasons for this, but that’s for another time).

Ohio hasn’t been doing well in recent years. Last year, unemployment was one of the highest in the country, and had a negative credit rating from Standard & Poors. However, last November, Republican John Kasich got elected – with the help of a Tea Party trend in the state, where they won a majority of Congressional seats and state legislature spots. Care to guess the result? The BBC won’t tell you, so I will:

After getting elected, Gov. Kasich (a former Congressman and then…*shudder*…a Fox News talking head) passed a budget which reined in spending. S&P raised the state’s credit rating.

Standard & Poors Ratings Services upgraded Ohio’s debt rating just one day after it put the United States on “creditwatch negative” on what it calls a rising risk of policy stalemate in the debt limit negotiations.

For Ohio, the rating was revised from “negative” to “stable” after Gov. John Kasich signed a new budget the ratings agency says will essentially balance the state’s finances for the next two years. S&P also said Ohio is experiencing a modest economic recovery which has stabilized revenue.

In making the upgrade, the agency also assigned a “AA+” long-term rating to Ohio’s $416.75 million general obligation bonds.

“After a significant decline through the recession, Ohio’s economy is steadily recovering,” according to S&P’s statement issued Friday.

Who could have imagined? No need to borrow more, no need for class war. Well, actually Ohio did repeal its estate tax. The class warriors hate that.

Contrary to the opinions espoused across the spectrum of BBC broadcasting, neither Wisconsin nor Ohio needed to borrow more money to continue governing, and spending cuts had positive effects. And none of that “too much, too soon” nonsense. Oh, and the credit rating went up not because of more borrowing but because of a solid short-term plan. Again, not what the BBC has led you to believe.

Texas, with its Republican governor and legislature, has had a budget surplus for like three years running. And that state has led the country in job creation by a long mile. And – oh, the horror – it’s a low-tax state. No wonder Rick Perry is a popular dark horse candidate for President these days. I know, the BBC never told you any of this.

How about Nikki Haley in South Carolina? Yep, now there’s a budget surplus. Is she a “Tea Party darling” too, BBC? Wake me up when they acknowledge her accomplishment. Same goes for Mitch Daniels in Indiana.

So there you have some reality, some context in which to understand the national debate on the debt crisis. Real solutions, real results, all the opposite of the BBC’s propaganda. Did any of these Governors send out the attack dogs like the President has? Did any of these Governors demonize their opponents the way the President has? No, for they are leaders, not mere instigators, and what’s more, have actual plans and sound policies, not just speeches and rhetoric.

This is the reality at the state level, and thank goodness the Founding Fathers had the wisdom to enshrine the level of state autonomy that they did. Too bad the BBC censors news of things that don’t fit their ideological agenda, while telling you the opposite is the only way to save the country.

Who’s being intransigent again, BBC?

Bookmark the permalink.

20 Responses to An Alternative Perspective Not Heard On The BBC, And Context For The Debate

  1. London Calling says:

    Clearly a swivel-eyed right-wing nutter who, err … wow!  This woman has balls – which more than you can say for any of Team Cameron.

     Imagine Fox News TV UK, with stuff like this every night instead of some BBC lefty peroxide poppet reciting the latest Labour Party/ Guardian briefing note. Liberating.

    Would Wisconsin consider a transfer fee? We don’t seem to be able to grow our own.


  2. RGH says:

    In a previous Mardell post he commented, almost wearily, about impasse between the two houses and the president, in terms that made me quite hot under the collar.

    Do readers agree with me that this suggests more tzhan passing fatigue. Perhaps a hankering towards something which is profoundly inimical to a free society.

    “This crisis has deep roots in a very American paradox.
    It is caused by a political system pessimistically designed to curtail political action, one that depends of the triumph of an over-enthusiastically optimistic reading of human nature.”

    And then the anti-democratic daydream.

    “But the president didn’t criticise the way the US government works, although earlier in the day he did allow himself to say he wished he could act alone. But he can’t, so he is left with exhortation.”

    Mardell would like Obama to ‘act alone’.

    All this wearisome talk. He feels sorry for the President.

    Those musings, his impatience with democracy built on checks and balances are annoying to statists and absolutists.

    Here Mardell outs himself as a man of left with its belief in its superiority.

    Perhaps Mardell should realise that it is the ‘royal prerogative’ that America rejected for a very good reason. That thinking is America.

    Socialists love the ‘royal prerogative’ . No check just a majority in a single house that is sovereign and can’t be bound.

    Control that and the world is safe for Keynesian and all the social engineering the left’s heart desires.

    The words Thucydides puts into the mouth of Pericles at the first public funeral of the Athenian war dead in 429 BC sums up his vision as a leader of  democracy and freedom.

    “We alone (the Athenians)  consider the man who refuses to take part in city affairs useless rather than look upon discussion as a stumbling block in the way of action, we think that it is an indispensable preliminary to any wise action at all”

    Socialists see the forms of democracy as validation for their view. Disagreement is wearisome.

    Mardell should listen to Rebecca.

    And so should the President.

    As President, Obama should be thinking of future generations not the next election.

    That is the difference between a stateman and a community organiser with a constituency.


  3. Cassandra King says:

    Wow! Thanks for posting something that the BBC would never ever allow to be aired. After all the poisonous smear attacks by the BBC the right thing to do was done and it worked, the courage to take the right path in the face of bitter prejudice and hatred and it worked.

    The BBC will never admit the truth will it?


  4. Louis Robinson says:

    David, this clip from the Senate needs to be seen by British members of B-BBC. It’s Marcio Rubio talking about the debt.  (Guest appearance from John Kerry) You bet this won’t get on BBC TV or radio – EVER!


    • David Preiser (USA) says:

      Agreed.  “Two years have gone by without a budget.”  Two years during which the Dems ran both houses, and didn’t need a Republican vote to do it.  But they’d have to admit what they really wanted to do on paper, so they passed.  How often does the BBC mention this?  Does anyone even know about this in Britain?


    • John Anderson says:


      Marco Rubio’s speech was a belter – and some are tipping him as a nominee for President next year.   He’d wipe the floor with Obama in debate.    His speech was up there with the excellent speeches of Jeff Sessions – clarity,  honesty,  straight talking about how deeply serious things are,  how the old Washington ways have led to dire straits and fiscal crisis.


  5. john in cheshire says:

    An informative posting, as usual, David. Thanks. I am pleased that there are causes for optimism within the US. I wish I felt the same for us here in the UK. We need a few people like Ms Kleefisch and her Republican compatriots to sort out our socialist mess, since we seem to be up to our neck in incompetent socialists in all the three main parties. And with a cheerleader like the bbc, I despair of it ever changing.


  6. Span Ows says:

    The trouble in Madison was a disgrace, I advise those who want more CLEAR bias to do as David says and read the threads back in Feb/March to see what the BBC wasn’t saying…it was reporing alright but jkust what they wanted you to know (no chnage there then)

    Re the video above: anathema to any Beeboid plus the interviewer was polite, no sneering, no interruptions and the questions were relevant to the previous answer, things that are unknown to the BBC employess who come with their preconceptions (yes, that means bigotry) and say what they came to irrespective of what the interviewee is saying!


    • Geoff Watts says:

      The interviewer asked four questions, two of which were asking the interviewee for her advice, one of which was asking the Lt Gov to summarise how successful she has been. So none of those three questions was putting the interviewee on the spot. She wasn’t asked to justify anything, she wasn’t challenged on any of her points, she was simply given a very soft question and then allowed to say whatever she liked.
      Only one question actually hinted at there being some disagreement over the policies. But rather than ask about that, the interviewer asked the Lt Gov if she regretted how nasty the fight had got? What is she likely to say? 
      I am not going to claim that I know very much about the political debate taking place in Wisconsin, but I did search for “Act 10, Walker opposition Wisconsin” and not surprisingly quite a lot of sites were thrown up. Reading that and some of the Wisconsin papers, it seems that there are a lot of questions the Lt Gov could have been asked, but she wasn’t.
      Since this video is from Pajamas Media it is not a surprise that it takes a strong line of support for the policies that Gov Walker espouses. And let’s be quite clear, that is fine – no one is pretending otherwise. If you go to Pajama Media you know what you are going to get. It is very clear what its editorial line is.
      But to suggest that this interview is some sort of exemplar is not really sustainable. Simply giving politicians some very soft questions and then allowing them to talk without holding them to account (which I am *certain* most politicians would absolutely love) for what they say would be a failure on the part of the media. Unless you think that politicians should not be required to defend their policies in public and should simply be allowed to describe them.
      Most interviews are adversarial because it is about getting the interviewee to argue their case. Using 50% of your questions asking the interviewee for their advice  is certainly going to win you friends among politicians. Whether that would be serving your readers/listeners/viewers is another matter.


      • David Preiser (USA) says:

        And you’re not forced to pay for it or pretend it’s impartial.  But I didn’t post the video as an example of an impartial interview, now did I?  Can you challenge Kleeefisch’s statement and prove that Wisconsin is in defecit and has not done what she claims? 


      • London Calling says:

        “Most interviews are adversarial because it is about getting the interviewee to argue their case”

        You mean Paxman gurning and interrupting? You mean 20 interruptions if you are trying to say something “not of the Left”? Methinks you are watching the BBC in an alternative universe Geoff.


      • Span Ows says:

        Geoff, David has already answered one point but as for the rest, I suggest you read what I wrote, I said it was anthema to a BBC interviewer; they wopuld be horrified; I agree noone is claiming this was a example of a tough political interview, it was smart-girl stuff so it was as expected but you need to acquaint yourself with the sly bullying sneering holier-than-thou arrogant and sometimes downright lies in the shite-fest that serves as BBC interviewing that goes on with any interview of someone that is a tad off the Beebs tight left-liberal agenda. I have yet to see or hear a SINGLE tough interview with anyone from New Labour and there’s enough opportunity as they’re NEVER off the effing BBC these days (most of your last paragraph decribes to a T the method employed with Labour by the BBC)


  7. Millie Tant says:

    Very interesting post DP.


  8. AndyUk06 says:

    Great post DP and an interview that you almost certainly never see aired on the BBC.

    The reality is Ms. Kleefisch represents the hard working majority of Wisconsin that see through the lie that all those working for the government are heroes and somehow beyond any form of reproach.

    Understand that Wisconsin public sector employees are like most public sector employees wherever you are: they like a system that pays an average of $76,500 per year, and will fight like wildcats against any reforms to that system. 

    The BBC treat people who are essentially promoting their own economic self-interest as though they are major civil rights campaigners, when in fact their actions are no better than your average grasping so-and-so on Wall Street.

    Much like the UK, public sector employees got themselves terrific overtime, holiday, pension and health care benefits through buying politicians with their votes and campaign money.  It is only when responsible elected officials in Wisconsin are trying to balance the budget that we get to see the their true colours.  Yet the left-wing BBC portrays these people as though they were marines taking on the Taliban.

    Public sector workers pursue their own narrow financial interests to the detriment of everyone else   .That’s fine, most of us are guilty of the same, but its time for the BBC to stop pretending it’s all somehow virtuous.


  9. John Anderson says:

    The “compromise” now emerging looks like total vindication for the Tea Party view – “Taxed Enough Already”.   That’s the Tax party of “hobbits,  the extremists,  right-wing loons” etc – the Tea Party that the BBC has scorned from the off.   And the BBC scorn derives from its failure to analyse and report properly on the US political scene.   The BBC has never recognised that the “Tea Party” is not a party – it is an increasing national mood.

    Anyway – it looks like no tax increases, significant cuts in public spending – a whole new way of doing things in Washington.

    Next stop – deeper cuts,  and onwards to a Balanced Budget Amendment to the Constitution such as applies to the spending of 49 individual states of the Union.


    • Demon1001 says:

      Why only 49 states?  Which one have you excluded?

      Or should we think of 57 like Obama?  πŸ˜€


  10. ian says:

    We in Britain can emulate these brave US rebels. By diverting our license fee payments to cable and satellite subscriptions, we can turn the world of television into a lean, efficient, competitive force for good, eager to broadcast what we want or need to hear, rather than to propagandise us.

    At the same time, the collapse of the TV poll tax will enable many more elderly people to survive the coming winter. Each year, literally  thousands die of hypothermia because they can’t afford adequate central heating – they are forced to keep the BBC’s champaigne socialists living in luxury instead. In the name of social justice we must stop paying the license fee.


  11. David Preiser (USA) says:

    “It will end the crisis that Washington imposed on the rest of America”.

    Thus Spake The Obamessiah.  So the Beeboids had better support this plan as well. πŸ™‚


  12. Davieboy says:

    Sure it’s been said many times before, but thanks DP for so many great posts giving us important information in such a digestible form.
    Now, where’s that Pulitzer Prize nomination form…. 


  13. London Calling says:

    DV – bBC a great place indeed. Under the yoke of Communism samizdat was the only way people could argue with State Controlled media. For State-controlled today read Common-Purpose controlled. For samizdat read the internet. When every TV screen – BBC Sky or ITV – and every newspaper – Guardian FT, Times, Metro or whatever is crafted by career Leftie-journalists –  the internet is the only remaining Citizens Communication Area.

    This is not just about the BBC Bias: the overpaid wordsmith media aristocrats put in place during the Blair years are everywhere. If the media is the court of human opinion, it is bent, crooked, and must be resisted.