Those who know me know that I am a Broadcast Engineer and a fan of Talk Radio.  As usual durring an election year there is a war on conservitive/libertarian talk radio. Earlier I reported how a leftist group calling themselves  Media Action Center were trying to backdoor the unconstitutional Fairness Doctrine by invoking its bastard child, the Zapple Doctrine. Now a blogger claims that Walker is controlling the media.

The reach of these media outlets through syndication is virtually statewide; and is a flagrant use of on-air broadcast as a full-time campaign mechanism for the Walker Administration – outside of the campaign.

He uses emails that he obtained to back up his claims.  The problem is that his emails are nothing but press releases and interview confirmations.  Not one contains directives dictating the content of the shows. He makes the following statement.

In a statement to Badger Democracy, Democratic Party spokesman Graeme Zielinski raised grave concern over this practice:

If it is not illegal it certainly is unethical for these broadcast corporations to be providing propaganda support in a scheme straight out of the Kremlin’s playbook. The employers at WTMJ and the other stations should explain how they are independent of the Walker administration and how their hours and hours of slavishly positive-and now, we see, coordinated-coverage fits within their own ethical guidelines and the rules and laws of Wisconsin and the United States.
The idea that the government can so directly control broadcasters who use public airwaves represents a major crisis for Wisconsin journalism.
As long as reporters and broadcast “journalists” are in collusion with conservative politicians like Walker, reporting political agenda as news, democracy is in serious trouble. Zielinski also points out that progressive talk show host John “Sly” Sylvester is never given “talking points,” and has, on many occasions, disagreed with Democratic Party officials and candidates.
The problem with these statements is that none of the talk shows mentioned bill themselves as journalists.  They all clearly state and advertise themselves as conservitive talk show hosts.  I am a follower of Vicki McKenna and can name numerous occasions where she has disagreed with the republican party and she has frequently mentioned that she is a Republican who leans Libertarian.  Being active in several Libertarian causes like the “smoking bans”, the selling of “raw milk” and the government shutdown of “RYO shops” I have contacted Vicki on numerous occasions and know for a fact that she has voiced contrary opinions.  Here is just one example.

Where it get’s interesting is his rant on a guy named Gus.

Gus | September 4, 2012 at 2:08 pm | Reply

This has been going on since, when? 1987, I believe when the FCC eliminated a regulation it had no business making in the first place. As far as I’m concerned, as long as these corporations/ parties are doing things that I agree with, I don’t really care.

  • You mean as long as they pass policies that benefit you…I’ve got mine, screw everyone else. That’s what our “society” has come to. Again, shame.

    • And shame on you for your own willingness to stomp on the constitution!

    • Thank you for admitting to your own hypocrisy. Government does indeed have a right to regulate and legislate “corporate greed.” Especially when you consider the economic and societal impact of that greed. What has caused the greatest economic downturns in US history…not government – unless you consider government’s willingness as an accomplice in allowing corporate greed to go unchecked and unregulated. The lack of corporate conscience throughout the history of this country makes your previous statement ridiculous – and you don’t even realize that is the case, or that the Founders of this nation are turning in their graves at the power corporations have over our democracy. How sad for all of us…

  • And Zelinski’s “Kremlin” comment is laughable since the Democrat Party is getting a lot closer to the Kremlin with each passing election cycle.

  • What is “mine”? I am not worried about corporate greed. That is something which individuals in corporations have to address in their own consciences, and which government has no right to try and legislate. I am more worried about GOVERNMENT greed.

That’s where I jumped in. with one of my favorite Milton Friedman videos.

@ Badger, Corporate greed? Your kidding right? Perhaps you could learn a lesson or two from Milton Friedman.

I worry more about “crony capitalism” aka fascism then greed. You should view left wing talk show hosts with the same scrutiny that you apply to conservative.
http://veritasvincitprolibertate.wordpress.com/2012/07/08/fascism-comes-to-amerika/

  • There is too much here to discuss in a comment response. If you are hanging your economic hat on Friedman, I’m sorry. He and his followers have been wrong in so many ways about his so-called “free market” theories. Friedman’s theories put into practice are directly responsible for worldwide dissolution and collapse of middle class working economies. The only reason his economics are still practiced is revisionist history and those in power profiting greatly from the outcome. Greed as the driving force – you are missing the point. Friedman has always misrepresented the work of Adam Smith – ignoring the moral imperative in his work. “Superior prudence,” Smith said, “is the best head joined to the best heart.” But over the years, economics instructors have edited out Smith’s “moral sentiments” — leaving only the impression that the “invisible hand” of free markets can magically convert individual greed into mutual benefit. Much ignored today is the fact that Smith was pro regulation – The purpose of banking regulations was to oblige “all of them to be more circumspect in their conduct, and by not extending their currency beyond its due proportion to their cash, to guard themselves against the ruinous runs, which the rivalship of so many competitors is always ready to bring upon them” (Wealth of Nations). As for your definition of fascism – to imply that progressive policies in any way reflect fascism is laughable. And by the way…the founders NEVER intended pure laissez faire capitalism. Our current state of corporate capitalist-dominated politics was one of their worst nightmares.

    As I said – this is just too much for a mere comment reply…but thanks, and you better take a heavy dose of Krugman – he has been right about this economy since 2008…

    • Sorry Badger you said “And by the way…the founders NEVER intended pure laissez faire capitalism. Our current state of corporate capitalist-dominated politics was one of their worst nightmares.”

      Of course you are completely wrong. The corporate capitalist system that we live in is fascism and could not exist under pure laissez faire capitalism. There would be no bail outs, no special tax incentives and no job killing regulations.
      http://www.fff.org/freedom/fd0603d.asp

Of course if he actually watched the Milton Friedman video he wouldn’t have made such a foolish statement.  Only under capitalism has there been a strong middle class. Neither he nor his hero “Paul Krugman” can show any form other than capitalism where the middle class flourished. Then he really goes of the deep end accusing others of revisionist history. In response to another poster he sends people to another of his blog posts. 

risaO | September 4, 2012 at 8:24 pm | Reply

Can you give me some current news please? Got any? This is from over a year ago. Get your lawyers out and start suing everyone over this. Yeah, that’s the ticket.

Do you have people still researching for mud and clinging to the past? What are you hoping to accomplish? Another recall? A shutdown of the radio stations? Is this what this party is all about? Where’s your forward thinking, your intelligence? All I hear is crying. What is your platform for the future of the Badger State, besides snipping and fighting?

So I followed the link and found a bit of revisionist history myself.   He took a quote from Ben Franklin out of context and made him sound like a modern socialist.

In a letter to Robert Morris in 1783, Benjamin Franklin wrote of economic justice and fairness:

“All the property that is necessary to a man, for the conservation and the propagation of the species, is his natural right, which none can justly deprive him of: But all property superfluous to such purposes is the Property of the Public, who, by their laws, have created it, and who may therefore by other laws dispose of it, whenever the welfare of the public shall demand such disposition. He that does not like civil society on these terms, let him live among the savages – he can have no right to the benefits of society.”

Marshall Keith | September 5, 2012 at 7:47 am | Reply

Of course you take Franklin’s quote out of context. He was not talking about economic justice. He was talking about people not paying their fair share of taxes. The entire letter can be seen in “The diplomatic correspondence of the United States of America” starting on page 375.
http://books.google.com/books/download/The_diplomatic_correspondence_of_the_Uni.pdf?id=VmMUAAAAYAAJ&output=pdf&sig=ACfU3U0stFj4oQlMVHaYf8FzjVYooyjctw

Mr Franklin would hardly approve of the modern welfare state in either the individual or the corporate level. Here is another of his quotes that illustrate that fact,

“I am for doing good to the poor, but I differ in opinion of the means. I think the best way of doing good to the poor, is not making them easy in poverty, but leading or driving them out of it. In my youth I traveled much, and I observed in different countries, that the more public provisions were made for the poor, the less they provided for themselves, and of course became poorer. And, on the contrary, the less was done for them, the more they did for themselves, and became richer.” –Relating to prices and the poor, 1766

Now back to the original post. To risaO I responded.

Marshall Keith | September 5, 2012 at 8:50 am | Reply

You’ve hit it on the head. Nothing here but press releases and interview confirmations with enough spin to make it appear otherwise. While other progressives try to backdoor the FCC into resurrecting the “fairness doctrine” through it’s bastard child, “the Zapple doctrine”
https://peoplesrepubmadison.wordpress.com/2012/05/24/zapple-doctrine/

  • …the cascading criticism from the libertarian, free market thinkers. Pure laissez faire capitalism is a pie in the sky fantasy; which has nice philosophical overtones – but no basis as a valid economic theory. Followers of Friedman fail to acknowledge the role his economics have in crashing national economies and destroying the middle class in nations worldwide in the 70′s – when his “laboratories” of free market economics were put into practice. Your criticism of the Franklin quote is interesting – you don’t consider “people not paying their fair share of taxes” to be an issue of economic justice? That is one of the basic tenets of economic justice.

    The economic followers of which you speak have been data sifting, propagandizing, and re-writing history for decades, even abusing the “invisible hand” that Adam Smith wrote of in the earliest days of the republic. You need to get out of that box – economic theories and systems do not operate in social, moral, or fiscal equilibrium. Krugman, Marshall. Read Paul Krugman.

  • Your comment is awaiting moderation.

    We have never had pure laissez faire capitalism. As a matter of fact it was in 1971 that Nixon put the final nail in the gold and silver standard declaring , “I am now a Keynesian in economics” So your criticism of laissez faire is unfounded. Crony Capitalism has existed almost since the founding of our country.

    On your comment:
    Your criticism of the Franklin quote is interesting – you don’t consider “people not paying their fair share of taxes” to be an issue of economic justice? That is one of the basic tenets of economic justice.

    Fair share would be everyone paying the same percentage, if everyone paid the same percentage the people would demand the government quit spending money. But when the government promises to give money to one group at the expense of another, that is not fair share, PERIOD.

    I notice that you said nothing on Franklin’s opinion of the modern welfare state (which is another false tenets of economic justice.) Again here it is.

    “I am for doing good to the poor, but I differ in opinion of the means. I think the best way of doing good to the poor, is not making them easy in poverty, but leading or driving them out of it. In my youth I traveled much, and I observed in different countries, that the more public provisions were made for the poor, the less they provided for themselves, and of course became poorer. And, on the contrary, the less was done for them, the more they did for themselves, and became richer.” -Relating to prices and the poor, 1766

    Here is more Milton Friedman.

  • Your comment is awaiting moderation.

    BTW Badger, I read Paul Krugman’s “The Return of Depression Economics and the Crisis of 2008″ he put heavy emphasis on lack of regulation while Austrian economists predicted the crash.

As you can see, my last two comments have been awaiting moderation for two days. Of course progressivism never could withstand the scrutiny of logic and reason. it only works if you remain emotional and irrational.

Updated September 10,2012

Today Badger Democracy posted the following.

Badger Democracy | September 10, 2012 at 8:27 am | Reply

While your “Keynesian v. Austrian” video is intriguing…your characterization of Krugman’s 2008 book is misleading. Krugman knew that deregulation of banks and Wall Street was a precursor to another depression – he was right. Yes, Bernanke and many other economists (not all Keynesian) missed the impending housing bubble (a result of the aforementioned deregulating) – again Krugman acknowledged this, and points out in 2010 that the Fed didn’t learn anything from its mistakes in evaluating the situation: http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/01/06/bernanke-and-the-bubble/ …oh yes, and in 2006, Krugman lamented the increasing housing bubble being ignored by Greenspan:

“Some say the worst is already over. Mr. Greenspan, who’s been an optimist all the way, now argues that the latest data on new-home sales and mortgage applications suggest that housing has already bottomed out. Business investment is still growing briskly, and so far consumers haven’t cut their spending. So maybe this is as bad as it gets.

But I think the pessimists have a stronger case. There’s a lot of evidence that home prices, although they’ve started to decline, are still way out of line. Spending on home construction remains abnormally high as a percentage of G.D.P., because banks are still lending freely in spite of rapidly rising foreclosure rates.

This means that home sales probably still have a long way to fall. And you don’t want to make too much of the fact that some housing indicators have turned up; those indicators tend to bounce around a lot from month to month.

Moreover, much of the good news in the latest economic report is unsustainable at best, suspect at worst. Almost half of last quarter’s estimated growth was the result of a reported surge in automobile output, which some observers think was a statistical illusion, not something that really happened.

So this is probably just the beginning. How bad can it get? Well, you don’t have to go far to find grim forecasts: Merrill Lynch predicts that the unemployment rate will rise from 4.6 percent now to 5.8 percent by the end of next year.”

Not saying Krugman is infallible…just pointing out that your continued allegiance to the theories of Milton Friedman is a bit misguided. On a macroeconomic scale, his theories have been a failure. They work well if you are part of the corporate elite/ownership class…but have always resulted in high unemployment, depressed earnings, and increased income inequity. Argentina, Chile in the 70′s? The Friedman “lab schools” in South America? It took those countries generations to recover – and in many ways they still are. The immorality and inequity that led to this current depression is why Friedman doesn’t work – left to their own self governance in the “free market” – corporations and the wealthy elite will destroy each other (and the economy) with their own greed. That has been proven time and time again.

As for your Franklin quote – it is not “fair” in your words to tax someone in poverty at the same RATE as one who is in the top 1%. 10% for someone in poverty is a significant burden – for someone who is a multi-millionaire, it is, quite literally, the very least they ought to do. Even Jefferson was wrong on some issues – particularly slavery. The Founders were not infallible. As the Constitution allowed for – the nation evolves. They set in motion a system of governance that has been turned on its head by many of the followers of Friedman and the “Chicago School;” who themselves profit in power and wealth from those policies.

You are quite welcome to your “every individual for themselves” philosophy. A society doesn’t function that way. Maybe in Vicky McKenna’s mind it does…but not in reality.

We are done here – in some manner, I would enjoy letting you have everything you want politically and economically so you can see the consequences. Say hi to Vicky for me.

I agree with Paul Krugman in part. He said Many bubble deniers point to average prices for the country as a whole, which look worrisome but not totally crazy. When it comes to housing, however, the United States is really two countries, Flatland and the Zoned Zone.” Of course he does not go into detail how “progressive” government control and regulation created the “Zoned Zone”  Dr Thomas Sowell goes into great detail discussing the facts.

The the news backs up the statements made by Dr Sowell.

Now on to your comment.

Not saying Krugman is infallible…just pointing out that your continued allegiance to the theories of Milton Friedman is a bit misguided. On a macroeconomic scale, his theories have been a failure. They work well if you are part of the corporate elite/ownership class…but have always resulted in high unemployment, depressed earnings, and increased income inequity. Argentina, Chile in the 70′s? The Friedman “lab schools” in South America?

For starters neither countries have been free countries, they have either been dictatorships or military Oligarchy. But as Friedman frequently stated that it is free markets increase the lot in life of the common man and the facts bare that out.

CHILE’S ECONOMY ENJOYED a remarkable boom in the early 1990s, the result of a comprehensive transformation that began in 1974 with the adoption of free-market economic policies. Between the 1930s and the early 1970s, the Chilean economy was one of the most stateoriented economies in Latin America. For decades, it was dominated by the philosophy of import-substitution industrialization. Heavily subsidized by the government, a largely inefficient industrial sector had developed. The sector’s main characteristics were a low rate of job creation, a virtual absence of nontraditional exports, and a general lack of growth and development. In the early 1970s, the ruling socialist-communist Popular Unity (Unidad Popular–UP) coalition of President Salvador Allende Gossens (1970-73) attempted to implement a socialist economic system. The Allende experiment came to an end with the military coup of September 11, 1973. From that point on, Chile’s economic policies took a radical turn, as the military government undertook, first timidly and later more confidently, deep reforms aimed at creating a market economy.

In the early 1990s, politicians and analysts from around the world looked to the Chilean economy for lessons on how to open up international trade, create dynamic capital markets, and undertake an aggressive privatization process. In early 1994, Chile had the strongest economic structure in Latin America and, in large part because of the military government’s reforms, was emerging as a modern economy enjoying vigorous growth.

On to your comment.

As for your Franklin quote – it is not “fair” in your words to tax someone in poverty at the same RATE as one who is in the top 1%. 10% for someone in poverty is a significant burden – for someone who is a multi-millionaire, it is, quite literally, the very least they ought to do.

For starters the constitution calls for “equal protection” not your mythological “economic justice” See the 14th amendment. One thing I agree with Obama is that, “Everybody is going to have to give. Everybody is going to have to have some skin in the game,” Mr. Obama said during the interview, taped Saturday in Washington.

Economic and equal protection would call for everyone to pay the same percentage. By having everyone with equal skin in the game they have equal incentive to hold the government accoutable.  The way things stand almost 50% pay nothing at all while “progressives” such as yourself call for even more taxes on the 1% ignoring the fact that that 1% already pays more then the lower 95% combined and you call that justice?

An analysis of IRS data by the Tax Foundation shows that the top 1 percent of taxpayers paid 40.4 percent of the total income taxes collected by the federal government, the highest percentage in modern history. While the bottom 95 percent paid 39.4 percent of the income tax burden.

And like I said almost 50% of taxpayers pay nothing!

Tax Day is a dreaded deadline for millions, but for nearly half of U.S. households it’s simply somebody else’s problem.

About 47 percent will pay no federal income taxes at all for 2009. Either their incomes were too low, or they qualified for enough credits, deductions and exemptions to eliminate their liability. That’s according to projections by the Tax Policy Center, a Washington research organization.

I suggest you listen to  Judge Andrew Napolitanoon the constitution, natural law and libido dominandi.

 So Badger Democracy I give your the same challange that Milton Friedman gave Donahue. Please show any government that increased the lot of the poor as did a free society and free markets!

Advertisements