BBC Q&A On US Debt Deal Is Really Q&BS

I was going to leave this alone today, but it's just too egregious to resist. Check out the BBC's Q&A page for the debt crisis. We'll just go Q by Q, as it were.

What is the proposed deal?

Under the the agreement, the US deficit will be reduced by at least $2.4tn over 10 years. The ceiling for US borrowing will be raised by about the same amount in two stages. A new Congressional committee to recommend further deficit-reduction measures is to be set up and report by November. Congressional leaders are hopeful the compromise will win the backing of both houses, but some Republicans and Democrats in the House of Representatives remain opposed for different reasons.

Even the White House's own talking points have the debt reduction as $1.5 trillion. The BBC is using a worst-case (for Keynesians and Socialist fantasists) scenario. Funny, they're usually much more accurate when parroting the White House dicta. In reality, the actual agreement doesn't even hit the $1 trillion mark, and the rest of the spending cuts are hardly written in stone and may not even happen. All we know is that, like the People's Front of Judea in a crisis, it will call for immediate discussion. So the BBC here is selling a molehill as a mountain. It's more sexy that way, I guess.

What is the debt ceiling?

There is a legal limit on the total amount of debts the US government can can run up in order to pay its bills - including military salaries, interest on existing loans, and Medicare. The current limit is $14.3 trillion (£8.9tn).

The cap was reached in May. Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner was able to extend the expected day of reckoning to 2 August, by various tricks such as postponing payments into government pension schemes, and thanks to better-than-expected tax revenues.

Geez, BBC, why not just say the government bills include paying to keep puppies from being killed? How about mentioning all the various wasteful schemes like subsidies for cronies, instead of emotionally charged programs like Medicare and pensions? The way they have it, it makes all government spending seem absolutely vital.

Why can't the Obama administration borrow more?

Because it is not in Mr Obama's power. The debt ceiling is set by statute and can only be raised by Congress.

An overall borrowing cap was first introduced by Congress in 1917 to make it simpler for the government to finance its efforts in World War I.

Since then the ceiling has been raised dozens of times, and it is usually a formality.

Wrong answer. But the problem lies in the attitude behind the question. The BBC is asking this from the perspective that He should borrow more, full stop, no (other) questions asked. Instead, the question should be coming from the perspective that we're deep underwater when it comes to debt and why shouldn't He borrow more money, rather than why is He unable to save us all. This betrays the inherent far-Left mindset at the BBC.

Read more »

ALL SHADES OF OPINION,,,

The great thing about the BBC is that provides all shades of opinion.....get this catch from an eagle eyed reader! "America is apparently on the brink of economic armageddon and about to bring the next apocalypse upon us and the BBC brings on an actor to tell us all about it and how it could be solved. 

Weekend Breakfast on 5Live at 2 hrs 20 mins, tells us that everybody (?) is talking about this doom laden scenario...'even actors'. Cue Richard Schiff....qualified to comment because he acted in the 'West Wing'....oh and they did an episode..maybe..that covered something like this....but you know, he didn't understand it then, and doesn't now but he'll do his best to give us his take on things. Bearing in mind he is a democrat, naturally being a lovey,...he informs us that the obstructionist and unpatriotic Republicans are blocking the necessary legislation (hmmm...didn't the Republican controlled Congress just vote for legislation...that the Dem. Senate voted out?) in order to paint a picture of a failing Obama presidency....the GOP is prepared to see the world economy destroyed in order to get rid of Obama. 

Well thanks for that BBC, let's add him to the very long list of actors, musicians and writers who you bring on to talk about their work but always for some reason end up asking about their, unfailingly, Democrat political views."

MANCHESTER UNITED IN FAVOUR OF HST?

Interesting catch from a Biased BBC reader here;


"Piece on 5Live today about the Hight Speed Train line to Manchester.

We were treated to the views of a 'businesswoman' from Manchester who told us how vital the new line would be for her.

This woman turned out to be Cat Lewis, producer and film maker....who makes films for the BBC.

Isn't Salford, where the BBC's new media centre going to be, in Manchester? Guess it would be handy for all those BBC types to have a special train laid on for them. 

Must watch this space to see which side of the debate the BBC comes down on."

OLEAGINOUS KEITH!

I seem to have missed the announcement that Keith Vaz is back in the government. You too? The reason I assume Keith is back in Government  is that the BBC couldn't get enough from him. During the TI frenzy over the past few weeks Keith was one of the go-to guys and let's face it, who can speak about integrity with more gravitas and experience than Vaz? Today he was on to wax about the need for Turkey to join the EU and further enrich our lives but - panic not - not before it has secured its borders. (Keith probably has referred them to the template his Labour government used between 1997 and 2010 as a great example of erm...tight borders.) The BBC seem to love Vaz. He is on more often than most Coalition Ministers.

UPDATE' Keith is now sorting out all Winehouse related issues on the BBC. He is now universal.

ALL THE NEWS NOT FIT TO SHOW!

A frustrated B-BBC reader writes;

"Is the BBC making no mention of some important protests by large numbers of people all round a country, proof of bias? 24 hours ago, Saturday evening, in Israel 150,000 people protested in at least five cities about the cost of living - food, housing, childcare, baby and child necessities and others. it's a major happening in Israel, the PM cancelled a trip to Poland and there is talk about the summer recess for the Knesset being postponed or cancelled. Netanyahu is setting up committees to urgently look at the problems. Israelis are talking about the relatively few rich Israeli families who apparently own many commercial and industrial companies. There is a lack of competition and many prices are far too high for people's salaries, people just can't manage

What does the BBC have on its website about this groundbreaking story? ABSOLUTELY NOTHING. WHY? Because the BBC would have to show Israelis as ordinary humans rather than Palestinian-bashing monsters. Because the BBC seems to have an aversion to economics generally? Because they're lazy and it's easier to keep hacking on about the Palestinians? Who to my mind are increasingly irrelevant.

The BBC has always had a strange reluctance to show film of Israelis doing ordinary things, shopping, walking along Israeli streets, in ordinary homes. Showing this would reveal that Israel is a busy, bustling, vibrant and especially peaceful country. Anathema for al Beeb."

OPEN THREAD...

Some BBC journos are on strike today so I am following their example. The floor is yours..

SNAKE OIL INVESTORS

Greenery continues to infect every part of the BBC. Last night the Dragon's Den was back. The centrepiece project - introduced in awed tones by poisonous host Evan Davis - was an eco-conman from Halifax, who off the back of the feed-in tariff (a subsidy from the government under which money from jacked-up energy bills is given to those who can afford to install solar panels - i.e. robbing the poor to stuff the bank accounts of the rich), had registered a massive growth in his business and couldn't keep pace. All of the dragons but one salivated at the prospect of feasting on this government bonanza and they clambered over each other in their obscene haste to grab a stake in the scam. In a sense, I don't blame them - why ignore such a cast-iron guaranteed money-making scheme? But it was clear from their comments that all of the so-called dragons are signed-up green-creed fanatics. And who else would the BBC choose to supposedly represent the entrepreneurial spirit?

We Have A Deal, But The BBC Casts Doubt On The Tea Party

So the US Congressional leadership has agreed to a budget deal - the first real one since the President took office, as it happens - to temporarily stave off a default and financial ugliness. The agreement will raise the debt ceiling by $900 billion, and create and a cut of $1 trillion in spending over the next 10 years. Most media seem to be qualifying it as an "immediate" cut, but that seems rather silly as the actual cuts won't happen immediately, and will be spread out rather thinly over time. And it's pretty much a wash, so nothing is really fixed. However, the key factor is here that the agreement also requires the forming of a committee within the year to come up $1.5 trillion more spending cuts. Now that means something.

And no tax increases. We'll have to wait and see how the vote goes on Monday, of course, but it's hard to believe that Boehner would agree to this if the party whips hadn't come up with the votes to pass it.

Sounds pretty much like the Boehner plan, which Mark Mardell described as having basically vetoed itself by not raising the debt ceiling even more, or raising taxes. On Friday, the BBC North America editor informed you of the White House talking point that it was wrong.

President Barack Obama says there is a way out of the mess, and he is clear it is not House Speaker John Boehner's proposal.

He says the Republican's plan has no chance of becoming law. It's odds on the president won't have to veto it, as the Tea Party seems to have done the job for him. He's again urging people to tweet, ring, email their members of Congress and push them to reach a deal.

Has the BBC reported that Twitter fail yet? Today, he wrote this:

The sort of deal we seem to be looking at is, objectively a victory of the Republicans.

The Democrats take a lot of pain and can only hope to avoid the worst political damage. But the Tea Party members don't get everything they want by any means and are quite capable of snatching defeat from the jaws of victory.

Mr Boehner's people told me months ago that they knew there would always be a handful who would never support any deal. But that handful or rebels turned out to be a bucketful, sloshing with Tea Party enthusiasm. We will soon see the limits to their purity and the extent of their pragmatism.

So Mardell believes the vote could fail due to the "purity" concerns of the Tea Party movement. The negative connotations of that word really reveal his ideological bias.

Let's how the vote turns out, and how the BBC covers it. Let this be the thread for discussion of the BBC's coverage of the result.