How Liberal News Anchors Slant Terms of the Debt Limit/Spending Debate

As I was writing this post yesterday morning, I happened to be listening to Dick Armey, former GOP House Majority Leader, guest-hosting on CNBC's morning program for an hour.

He and the co-anchors were discussing the very subject of my post- the debt limit talks.

Armey had just finished explaining why taxes should not be raised and spending should be cut when network co-anchor and liberal Becky Quick began to cut in with,

".....but if spending is cut then the economy will....."

Her remark's end was lost amidst Armey's continuing comments and her realization that her words weren't getting any attention.

But notice what Quick's baseline hypothesis is. The elevated levels of federal spending under Wonderboy, up to 24% of GDP, are now to be considered sacrosanct by such liberal apologists as CNBC's liberal anchors.

Any attempt to cut the bloated spending is criticized as what Quick was trying to say- causing economic contraction because spending is removed from the economy.

Of course, last I read, the Keynesian 'C+I+G' equation still obtained, meaning that if government spending is decreased, then that money can be used by consumers to either spend, or save, in which case it can be used for investment.

Just because government doesn't spend money doesn't mean it disappears. Granted, deficit spending is spending that may not occur otherwise. But, then, perhaps it shouldn't.

But it's noteworthy that Quick and her ilk no longer recognize freeing up government spending for other uses as legitimate or appropriate but, rather, risky. So much for investing for growth. Instead, these media Keynesians are for more government spending now and forever, but calling it investment. That way, cutting it will seem bad- either because demand is lessened, or, heaven forbid, government investment in key technologies and projects has been eliminated.

They no longer see any room for non-government economic activity.

The Debt Limit Talks

For me, the best line of the entire debt limit situation came last week when former Senator, now presidential candidate Rick Santorum, replied to a question from Glenn Beck about the Biden-led talks, to paraphrase,

'If Joe Biden's involved, then you know they're going to fail.'

I notice that all of the CNBC coverage involves earnest-sounding liberal Democrats claiming,

'There has to be compromise. Sure, we'll cut spending. But the Republicans refuse to raise revenues. They have to agree to more taxes- it's only fair.'

Really?

How about this- the Democrats and Republicans have been spending far above the long-term federal tax/GDP rate of 18% for decades. No matter what the tax rates, only about 18% of GDP will find its way to federal coffers.

The only real issue now remaining, as global investors begin to doubt America's government's ability to ever live within its means, is to cut spending.

Wasting time on tax hikes or new taxes will only distort and affect consumer behavior to once more lower tax collections to 18% of GDP.

Democrats don't seem to be able, or want to, acknowledge that tax policy is not arithmetic in a static environment, but government policy which provokes changes in consumer and investor behaviors which lower tax collections back to a surprisingly stable long-term rate of 18% of GDP.

Are the Congressional Democrats- and Wonderboy- really so blind and stupid as to not understand this?

I think some are, and the others are simply choosing not to acknowledge, hoping to just keep raising taxes at every opportunity. The liberal mainstream media backs this play by pretending that 'it's only fair' to raise taxes if spending is being cut, ignoring decades of spending excess by both parties. It's a very Russian negotiating tactic- what's yours is on the table, but what's mine is not, ergo, grudgingly giving way on spending cuts, but only if taxes are raised.

Personally, I am at the point where I am okay with no debt limit raise if the Democrats don't agree to spending cuts in excess of the raise within the next year or two.

Economist John B. Taylor offered an excellent compromise solution on Tom Keene's noontime Bloomberg program yesterday. Taylor suggested that Republicans extract half of the $6-7T in required spending cuts this time around, then go for the remaining $3T next year, with no tax hikes ever mentioned.

Sounds good to me.

More Blatant Liberal Bias On CNBC

As I write this, Wonderboy is probably beginning his budget speech which has been reshaped by Paul Ryan's Path To Prosperity budget.

CNBC's flaming socialist political reporter, 'Red' John Harwood, assured one and all that, just like Clinton won the budget debate of his term by planning to reach targets over 10 years, rather than the GOP's 7 years, so, too, will Wonderboy win this time by taking 12 years, instead of Ryan's 10, to reach his budget targets.

Windbag and generally empty-headed, uncredentialed economics reporter Steve Liesman then chimed in that 'the bond market just wants to see a plan,' so Wonderboy's plan will win, and it won't matter that it takes longer to cut deficits.

For the record, we'll see how the bond market reacts to prospects of continuing extravagant spending on social programs while, according to reports, defense spending gets the axe. Doesn't sound like something markets will feel all the comfortable with, but time will tell.

According to pre-speech leaks, the First Rookie will eschew Ryan's move to a defined-contribution approach to Medicare, in which the government will subsidize the purchase of private insurance, rather than be the ultimate 3rd party payer. This morning, also on CNBC, Democratic Senator Kent Conrad, who took payoffs in the form of sweetheart mortgages from Angelo Mozillo's Countrywide Finance, while chairing the Senate committee that regulated the firm, contended that all Medicare needs is a little spending restraint that some panel can provide. He declared that Ryan's approach is unnecessary, and that seniors won't really have to feel any pain at all.

Conrad then recalled Clinton forming some panel to do this, and assured viewers that it would work this time, too.

Of course, nearly 20 years ago, federal spending and deficits were mere fractions of what they are today. Ratios such as spending/GDP and debt/GDP were significantly lower, too.

It goes to show how arrogant Wonderboy and his handlers are that they think nobody will recall that, just a week ago, he was still calling for higher spending and more 'stimulus.'

One pundit quoted an administration source as saying that 'a week from now, nobody will remember that Ryan's budget plan came first.'

That's pretty cynical, isn't it?

But with media buddies like those on CNBC, I guess Wonderboy's staff figures they can lie all they want and the public will be fooled for at least another eighteen months.

Jeb Hensarling & Steny Hoyer On CNBC This Morning

If you wanted to see a really clear example of the difference in philosophies of the liberal Democrats in Congress versus the more conservative wing of the Republican party, this morning's long, argumentative exchange between former House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer and GOP Texas Congressman Jeb Hensarling. Hensarling was on the Bowles-Simpson Commission, and is vice-chair of the committee on financial services in the House.

Hensarling was excoriating the Democrats' lack of even passing a budget for this fiscal year, and Wonderboy's 2012 budget proposal. In response, Hoyer immediately launched into a predictable, hacked-up whine, complaining that our deficits were all the fault of Republican presidents and, gosh, you know, the Democrats just want to 'invest' in important things. It's not really 'spending' if you swear it's 'investment.'

Joe Kernan, the CNBC co-anchor moderating the melee, asked Hoyer why we couldn't leave it to private sector sources to invest in infrastructure? Hoyer, of course, had no response.

Then Kernan mentioned how the deficit and over-spending has been the rule for over 30 years, back when Hoyer was already in Congress. Steny couldn't resist another whine, claiming that when Clinton was in office, so many million jobs were created, but George Bush destroyed them, and and more, making Democrats better on budgets and economics.

Nowhere did Hoyer admit to the contexts of Clinton having the vaunted 'peace dividend' from the fall of the Soviet Union, while George W Bush fought two wars. Hoyer also accused Republicans of permissive financial sector regulation, carefully omitting Barney Frank's role in swelling the GSEs over time.

My point is, Hoyer reflexively just went into a whine, tossing out all sorts of accusations spread over past decades, as if to excuse high level of spending now. He simply couldn't admit that the past two years have seen more new debt accumulated, to no good purpose, than the all the prior years of the Republic.

Even in the midst of an obvious fiscal problem, and widespread public acknowledgement thereof, Hoyer and his ilk simply cannot stop themselves. They still think a budget that adds another $1.3T of debt this year is okay.

I wish more people could have seen Hoyer's disgraceful grandstanding.

CNBC's "Big Brother" Media

We don't need to wait for a government-controlled media to see 'Big Brother' style media in action.


Simply watch CNBC.


The network seems to be aiming to make mediocrity its watchword. Consider this morning's program.


For two hours, upward failure Jon Corzine was a guest-host. Constantly referred to as "Governor," Corzine primped and opined with an assumed wisdom which belies his actual record.


Originally a Goldman Sachs bond trader, Corzine first stumbled by trying to take the firm public when co-running the place. Although many outside the finance world don't understand, Corzine was deposed by his partners, who subsequently sold the firm to the investing public for much more than Corzine wanted, via an IPO.


From this failure, Corzine moved to ape New Jersey Senator Frank Lautenberg, promptly buying the next Senate seat up for election. Eventually tiring of serving in the minority, Corzine again showed his awful sense of timing by leaving the Senate to buy the NJ governorship just before the Democrats retook the upper chamber in Washington. So instead of chairing a Senate committee, Corzine ended up with the real headache of wrestling with the finances of his dysfunctional state. He lost re-election this past November.


Why anyone would invite this clown onto a major business cable television program is beyond me.


Joining Corzine, for 'balance,' for one segment, was Howard Dean, the failed Democratic presidential candidate.

Corzine sagely nodded his bearded head and tut-tutted over incoming House Speaker Boehner's being advised by this mornings lead staff editorial in the Wall Street Journal to lay the basis for a GOP president in 2012. Dean continued his mad-dog, illogical ranting on higher taxes.

For his part, Corizne, who claims to read the WSJ, evidently missed this editorial, and went on to claim that deficit reduction just has to include hefy tax increases- there's no other way!

You might ask yourself what a business network is doing using explicitly political icons- failed, at that- on its lead morning program? Good question.

If analysis of governmental actions and their impacts on business were the point, surely there are less-partisan, more qualified guests/hosts.

Who needs a government-run media when CNBC does the job so nicely in the private sector? Thank God you can also watch Fox News.

Howard Dean's Taxation Delusions On CNBC

I happened to view an exchange this morning on CNBC between former CBO head Douglas Holz-Eakins and former Vermont governor and DNC chair Howard Dean. It was most illuminating.

In a discussion regarding fiscal responsibility and tax policies, Dean railed against 'giving tax cuts to the rich' while borrowing the money for them from China.

It was truly laughable that Dean didn't see the warped perspectives embedded in his comments. To wit, Dean, being an uber-liberal, naturally assumes all of your income is, in reality, the government's. Letting you keep any of it is a gift for which you should be on bended knee, kissing the feet of your political masters.

Thus, letting you keep any more of your income than you already do, while liberals- and conservatives- spend more than the government collects in taxes, and cover the difference by borrowing from our enemies, like China, is considered folly by said uber-liberals, Dean included.

When confronted by co-anchor Joe Kernen and Holz-Eakins with the reality that soaking the income of the upper percentiles of income-earners still only generates about $94B, assuming no changes by said wealthy in declared income, against the trillions in deficits, Dean only continued to wail that we were borrowing from the Chinese to 'give tax breaks to the rich.'

Standard far-left stuff, but ludicrous when contrasted with the fact that all of the incomes of the wealthy still won't make a dent in the spending binge on which our liberal Democratic Congress and Wonderboy have been.

If you think about it, aren't our wealth-transfer payment programs the ones which are deemed 'non-discretionary' and breaking our budgets? Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, and related transfers, enacted with no global or macro budgetary conditionality? As communal, unlimited spending pots, the withdrawals from which are on individual eligibility bases, not apportioned and pro-rated based upon budgetary limitations?

It's ridiculous! Thanks to Congressional idiocy in the 1930s and 1960s, we've elevated the poor and destitute ahead of every other need of our Republic. They never are required to share in the economies and belt-tightening shared by our other national governmental spending and taxation realities.

I don't think I've ever seen so clear a picture of the nonsensical liberal ethos and belief system than in Howard Dean's hysterically comical attitude and comments this morning on CNBC. It was straight out of Socialism 101.

'All income belongs to the people. The government is the people. The poor receive first consideration for spending by the government, on behalf of the people, i.e., the government.'

The actual value-producing income-earners are simply presumed to be fatted cattle to be milked and, in time, through death taxes, slaughtered for the benefits of the non-working and/or poor.

Joe Crowley's Nonsensical Rant On CNBC

Yesterday morning, I witnessed an interesting exchange between Steve Forbes and NY Democratic Congressman Joe Crowley.

Forbes was a guest host for an hour, mostly to discuss the current support building in Congress for a sweeping tax code overhaul. If you recall, Forbes ran for president some years ago on the flat tax issue. Or perhaps just simplified- I don't recall the details anymore. But I do recall tax comprehensive tax reform as his salient issue.

Crowley, however, exhibited the type of behavior which makes you realize why you want small government. He ranted a now-familiar line about how Bill Clinton was a god-like president leaving a budget surplus. George Bush, of course, spent it all, and then some, leaving Wonderboy with a sorry mess.

Taxes, of course, must rise, as must spending.

Crowley must be an idiot. His refusal to listen to Forbes' reminders of the context of the various points that Crowley made showed him to be a mindless demagogue. No acknowledgement of the booming, post-Reagan economy Clinton inherited. Nor the famed 'peace dividend' from the Soviet Union's collapse.

Nor Bush' inheriting a war on terror, thanks to Clinton's turning a blind eye to the building pressures and events.

When you hear guys like Crowley spout such ill-informed, small-minded nonsense, you realize why you want Congress doing as little as possible, influencing as little of American life as possible, and generally keeping focused on spending, taxes and foreign affairs. Not business, wealth transfers, nor other important social issues.

Crowley exemplifies the type of mediocre people who populate Congress, because the smarter, more motivated among us are busy making money and pursuing our American Dreams. Leaving morons like Crowley minding the government, and making mischief by increasing their power over the lives of the rest of us.

More Tax Cut Drivel On CNBC

The other morning on CNBC's SquawkBox program, Carlos Whatshisname was debating the now-constantly newsworthy topic of of extending the Bush-era tax cuts.

As the guest pundit described the economic stimulus to be experienced by such extension, Carlos, ever the dyed-in-the-wool, mindless liberal, solemnly intoned,

"But they'll have to be paid for sometime down the road."

What is it about liberals and ignorance of so-called dynamic scoring? Do they really still believe that cutting tax rates loses revenue, because nobody invests more or works harder when they get to keep more of what they earn?

You'd think CNBC would be less backward than that. But they're not. Instead, they continue to spread misleading propaganda that all tax cuts must be 'paid for,' because the problem is never government spending, it's the wealthy not paying their 'fair share,' however that is determined.

Stealth Liberal Bias on CNBC

This morning on CNBC, retiring New Hampshire Republican Senator Judd Gregg guest-hosted. I watch/listen to the channel  most mornings for business purposes, but often race to hit the 'mute' button when the more egregiously liberal pundits- John Harwood, Ed Rendell, Howard Dean, Tim Cane, Don Peebles- begin to speak.

As the conversation meandered through various aspects of fiscal and social policy, and the upcoming Congressional elections, one of the co-anchors asked Gregg a question phrased something like this,

'With you and a Democratic moderate, Evan Bayh, retiring, how will Congress get work done, govern, compromise, if both parties send increasingly-ideological extremists to Congress?'

The questioner went on to assert that compromise was so important, yet those pesky Republicans and their Tea Party friends don't seem to show any intent on compromising with the president!

See the bias inherent in the question and comment?

Now that the Democrats have taken giant steps forward socializing medicine and health care, owning big chunks of American business, doubling the debt in just two years that it took our Republic from 1789-2008 to amass, and causing massive regulatory uncertainty, it's time for compromise!

So why can't/won't/don't Republicans come to the table and bargain?

After all, the Democrats rammed through massively-unpopular social and spending legislation over the objections of Republicans. Now that Republicans might be in control of the House, perhaps even the Senate, well, it's time for compromise.

Amazing, isn't it? And nobody in the media seems to think this is an abnormal attitude.

John Harwood's Lies on CNBC

This morning, on CNBC, I watched John Harwood lie about the newly-publish Republican Congressional Pledge.

In discussing the Pledge, and its companion itemized legislation, Harwood dismissed it as just a rehash of old GOP bills.

But Harwood has spent the last year and a half, like most mainstream, and thus, liberal media mouthpieces, describing the Republicans as "the party of NO," with no ideas of their own.

Which is it, John?

Harwood cleverly managed to avoid disclosing any of the details. See, back when they were introduced, Harwood would ignore them, claiming the Republicans had no 'new ideas.'

Now that they are reorganized into a framework as supporting items for the GOP Congressional Pledge, Harwood avoids the details by claiming they are 'nothing new.'

Pretty tricky, eh?

So much for honesty and truth in reporting from major US media outlets.

Alexi Giannoulias' Senate Race Woes In Illinois

A Wall Street Journal editorial two Fridays ago by Kim Strassel wonderfully detailed the woes of Illinois Democrat Senatorial candidate Alexi Giannoulias.

Alexi is running for Wonderboy's old Senate seat, and the First Rookie is campaigning for the youngster.

Trouble is, the rest of the Illinois Democrats aren't all that happy about this. Because of that bank thing.

You know, the problem with Alexi's family bank being shuttered by the feds. And Alexi being chief loan officer when the family's Broadway Bank,

"loaned millions to Michael "Jaws" Giorango, a convicted bookmaker, as well as other crime figures."

Apparently, loaning money to organized crime figure is okay as post-partisan politics for Wonderboy.

Alexi also mismanaged the state's college savings program as Treasurer.

My favorite aspect of all of this is CNBC's MIA behavior.

You see, for many months, beginning, I believe, back in the fall of '09, Alexi was the darling of CNBC's morning Squawk Box program. He would smile and preen as one of the country's youngest State Treasurers, crow about his innovative moves, and wink about running for the Senate. He was probably given this privilege at least monthly for several months running.

Suddenly, no more Alexi. I'm guessing these toxic revelations about his past, and perhaps the failing college savings program, soured the producers on the up-and-coming Wonderboy acolyte.

But, being good liberal media members, did CNBC turn around and investigate their former favorite State Treasurer?

Of course not! That would be impugning a hopeful Democratic Senate candidate, as well as themselves.

Far better to just go quiet and hope nobody noticed.

According to Strassel, downstate Republican Senate candidate Mark Kirk has raised $2.3MM to Alexi's reported $900K.

Maybe they're noticing all this in Illinois, after all.

CNBC's Blatant Liberal Bias

I happened to catch a blatant example of CNBC's uber-liberal bias last week. It was the day after Tuesday's primary elections across the nation.

Speaking of Blanch Lincoln's narrow escape from defeat by her more liberal challenger in Arkansas, "Red" John Harwood, NY Times political columnist and CNBC political reporter, solemnly gave Lincoln's re-election prospects.

On a day when Fox News featured guest pundits giving Lincoln's Republican opponent a 25 point lead in the polls, Harwood pronounced Lincoln as having "a 50-50 chance" of re-election.

How blatant and misleading can you get?

But that's what passes for political coverage on CNBC, the business cable news network owned by GE. The ailing, diversified conglomerate mis-led by Jeff Immelt reflects his politics all down the network lineup- MSNBC, NBC, and CNBC. All displaying a massive liberal tilt in political coverage and commentary.

That's why, when I watch CNBC in the morning, I mute the channel whenever Harwood has a segment, or frequent liberal guests Howard Dean or Ed Rendell appear.

More Liberal Bias On CNBC Last Week

CNBC's early morning Squawkbox program has a feature just before 7am called "The Chairs."

Periodically, the co-anchors, Becky Quick, Joe Kernen and Carlos whatshisname, repair to director's chairs to discuss ostensibly non-business issues.

Late last week, Kernen read from an editorial in the Washington Post, a paper he referred to as 'one of yours' to Carlos, by Carter pollster Pat Caddell. As he has explained on Sean Hannity's Fox program many times, Caddell expressed the view that Wonderboy is committing political suicide by pushing his flawed healthcare bill against an overwhelming, informed voter opposition. Caddell wrote, and has said, that he believes this effort will result in both Houses of Congress becoming Republican-led after November's elections.

In reply, Carlos, who is relatively young and, frankly, unbelievably naive, sputtered that health care is so important that his Democrats (he is a dyed-in-the-wool liberal) don't care about losing political power, so intent are they on doing 'the right thing.'

And that, he passionately declared, is to pass Barry's big health care changes and 'save money' over the next decade. Apparently this rube actually believes the currently-proposed monstrosity will do that.

At this point, even liberal, but thinking, co-anchor Becky Quick couldn't take any more of Carlos' drivel, and jumped in to pile on him with Kernen. She emphatically rejected the current bill, correctly noted it is front-end loaded with new taxes, back-end loaded with spending, and unwisely attempts to reorganize too much of our nation's competitive economy in one big gulp.

She then went on to reflect the views of many independent voters that the two parties really must work together to pass more restrained, realistic, genuine "reform," not simply either pass this proposal, or nothing.

It was quite a few minutes of live political theatre. Carlos portrayed himself as a total idiot. Completely naive, believing federal government social program spending projections, and unwaveringly believing that Wonderboy is only trying to save the US money and restore business competition through reduced, albeit government-controlled, health insurance and care spending.

You just couldn't write comedy as good as Carlos' loony behavior that morning.

More Media Bias on CNBC

I watched part of Wisconsin Republican Representative Paul Ryan's guest hosting stint on CNBC's morning program this past Monday.

This ought to tell you how biased the GE-owned network is.

Ryan's sitting there on the set, right in front of the hispanic male co-anchor, who promptly calls him "Pat" Ryan.

Hey, he's Irish, right? Pat, Paul, Phil. They're all about the same, aren't they, Carlos?

CNBC Backs Liberal Candidates: Illinois Treasurer Alexi Giannoulias

It appears that CNBC has dropped all pretense of being a neutral cable network.

As I write this, I hear Carlos whathisname browbeating a Republican Congressman, telling him that the GOP has already lost Coleman's seat, won't be gaining seats next year, and has no leadership.

But what really caught my attention was a segment last week in which Illinois Treasurer Alexi Giannoulias actually appeared in the studio in NJ.

The 33-year old Democrat is clearly stumping for higher office, as the linked webpage notes. No doubt, seeing an uncredentialed Illinois Senator rise to the presidency in less than one term, Giannoulias probably figures he can make it, too, just after meeting the age qualification.

I've seen Giannoulias interviewed on CNBC before. They clearly favor him, since free air time like that is an immense gift. And he's not the only state-level Democrat to be given this sort of gift. There are a handful of Democratic governmors and AGs who also frequently appear on the network- much more frequently than any Republicans.

But, back to Giannoulias. He was grinning and primping for his big, free nationwide media event. Although it would seem to have no relevance to major national issues, he described how he has personally written a bill to regulate credit card issuers' activities with the state's college students.

As I heard this, I was aghast. You would think that college is a time when young people need to learn how to manage in the real world for themselves. If they unwisely take and use credit, they'll need to pay the consequences. Most are minors, and would require parental co-signatures, anyway.

But according to Giannoulias, the issuers are the villains, and he has to protect these youngsters from themselves.

Sadly, he discussed nothing regarding Illinois probably being number two or three among states following California to the brink of bankruptcy. No, Giannoulias obviously wants to beat it out of the Treasurer's office before that reality hits home to the people of Illinois.

Come to think of it, what are we to make of a nation that elects an inexperienced legislator from a nearly-bankrupt state to its highest office?

Sad times, indeed. And most of our media seem to be aiding such folly.

CNBC's Ever More Explicit Liberal Tilting

CNBC has been pulling out all the stops to paint Wonderboy's various spending and taxing programs as good for America.

It began earlier this week, when the channel's Hispanic morning show anchor, Carlos whatshisname (spelled Quintanilla, I believe, but not pronounced that way), interviewed Republican after Republican in the Capitol, grinning from ear to ear as he repeated his refrain,

'So, does the GOP have the ability to anything but just say 'no' to these bills, since you are simply opposing them? Is that a wise choice to just oppose these bills?'

Each Republican, from Eric Cantor on, replied, correctly, that they offered their own alternative bills, which were rejected out of hand.

Carlos Q ignored this point- every time. He just kept grinning in obvious delight as he needled the GOP members for being essentially powerless, and attempted to paint them as simply obstructing what everyone knows is truth, justice and the American Way.

Meanwhile, only softball questions are thrown at leading Democrats like Steny Hoyer. He was allowed to get away with a baldfaced lie, claiming that Bubba Clinton's administration 'created' 6 times the number of jobs as were added during George W. Bush's two terms.

Then, yesterday morning, the channel paraded a host of Democratic apologists for the tax and spending increases.

Jared Bernstein, VP Biden's economic hack, claimed they had 'worked with' GOP members in the Congress, therefore, the Republicans were simply being obstructionist. Bernstein's account, of course, differs from that of every Republican Representative or Senator involved. The latter explain that their ideas were ignored by Democrats, who were told to take their cues from Frisco Nan, the stimulus bill's author.

Then the OMB director was put on air to cry foul in answer to the charges of tax hikes. He mumbled some numbers about overall tax cuts and claimed that taxes were going down, not up.

Just amazing.

I guess the good news is that CNBC is a business news channel, not a general media outlet, such as Fox News. They probably don't draw as large and audience, and most of whom do watch are smart enough to recognize the liberal lies CNBC peddles or hosts.

As such, the lies and bias inherent in CNBC's coverage isn't seen by most Americans. A saving grace for us all.

CNBC's Political Slip

I saw an interesting example of GE's networks' ultra-liberal, left-leaning politics yesterday.

As CNBC was covering the 'fiscal responsibility summit,' anchor Bill Griffith said, to paraphrase as closely as I can recall,

'President Obama is targeting to cut this deficit in half by the end of his first term. That's the term he is currently serving.'

Do you see the embedded liberal slant?

Griffith didn't say 'by the end of his term.'

No. He said "first" term. As in,

'he'll be getting re-elected, no question. So we need to identify this as his first term already, to distinguish what he'll do with his second four year stint as President.'

And, of course, Griffith got away with it. The only conservative on the program at that hour, Michelle Caruso Cabrera, probably has been told not to meddle excessively in conservative politics. Economics and business, yes. Politics, nyet.

So Griffith's implicit support for the inept Democratic President went unchallenged.

So much for independent news sources, even about business.