Share This Article with a Friend!

Assault on America, Day 484: Media hypocrites overreact to wrong kind of government shutdown

Workforce reduction
Media’s double-standard on “shutdowns” is irreconcilable

Here’s a hypothesis: Democrats favor the nanny state; the media loves Democrats. Therefore, the media champions bloated government, even when Democrat leaders are clearly wrong (or except when the liberal party controls everything).

With all the recent hubbub over protests and lockdown orders, it got me thinking: Why does the media depict partial government shutdowns that largely affect only federal employees (and they know they’ll still get paid when it’s over) as horrifying and harmful yet it’s shown as dutiful and patriotic to compel private citizens not to work their businesses regardless of their desire and ability to do so? Conversely, why do polls consistently indicate government shutdowns, when they occur, are unpopular while a significant portion of the public now apparently thinks it’s okay to shutter a major chunk of the private economy due to (somewhat) unquantifiable health scares?

It's a question a lot of people are asking these days as Chinese Communist Party (CCP) virus inspired closures are still in place in many parts of the country. No one denies that the so-called novel coronavirus is real -- well over 200,000 worldwide deaths and counting testify to its potency among vulnerable human beings -- but protests and reports of quarantine-breaking citizens are becoming as prevalent as some leaders’ calls to go back inside and sit tight while bills mount and internal pressures build to rectify the situation.

As would be expected during these trying times, America’s political parties aren’t seeing eye-to-eye on how to go forward. Whereas Nancy Pelosi’s always decried the sad fate of federal workers during government work stoppages, she seems more than content to obfuscate and delay where everyone else is the focus group. House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy called the Speaker on her hypocrisy the other day.

Dominic Mastrangelo reported at The Washington Examiner, “House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy said the nation deserves an apology from Speaker Nancy Pelosi for delaying the coronavirus economic relief money.

“’Nancy Pelosi owes America an apology. She has held up every single bill when it came to coronavirus that we put forth,’ the California Republican said Saturday on Fox News. ‘The first time, she held it up so the D-triple-C, the Democratic arm, could attack Republicans. The second time, she held it up for the entire week to get more funding for the Endowment of the Arts and the Kennedy Center and try to put the Green New Deal in.’

“[Last] week, Congress passed another $484 billion spending bill that allocates $310 billion for small businesses, $75 billion for healthcare providers and facilities, $25 billion to increase testing for the COVID-19 virus, and $60 billion for an economic disaster-relief program after a series of delays on voting.”

Of course Pelosi responded to similar accusations by claiming Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell was blameworthy for the delays since he and Republicans didn’t automatically accede to Democrats’ initial demands to load the bills with extra pork for the liberal party’s interest groups. It’s as though an “emergency” bill becomes less urgent when it specifically targets only the people most impacted by the authorities telling them they can’t switch on the “We’re Open!” flashing neon sign in their store windows until state and/or local officials give the thumbs up.

The dictionary defines “emergency” as, “a serious, unexpected, and often dangerous situation requiring immediate action.” The concept isn’t all that complicated. If Democrats had their way, emergency’s new definition would read something like, “a serious, unexpected (but welcomed), and often dangerous situation requiring immediate action, unless you’re a Republican voter and there are liberal constituencies with their hands extended.”

While most Americans, including fiscally-minded conservatives, agreed something needed to be done to battle the budding health pandemic that no one truly understood or accurately foresaw, the scope of the “relief” has exceeded even the most pessimistic doomsayer’s wildest nightmares. A couple months ago, who would’ve ever thought the unemployment rate would rise to depression-like levels and Congress would keep adding to a potential $3-5 trillion deficit for this year?

Make no mistake, Pelosi and her followers don’t give a hoot about the burgeoning numbers. They just want to ensure their pets receive their bones or biscuits. And she was more than willing to let people suffer until she got what she wanted and Republicans sweated the possible political consequences of refusing to capitulate… again.

Is it déjà vu all over again or a boring reality TV plot?

Something about this scenario seems strangely familiar, like a reality TV show that bases each script on a certain premise. Fans of “The Bachelor” know that host Chris Harrison will preface each episode’s conclusion with, “Stay tuned for the most dramatic rose ceremony ever.”

Yup, we’ve seen it all before with government “emergencies” too. It's been fifteen months since the last government shutdown (the longest in history, 35 days), which lasted over a month and passed in the night when President Trump and congressional Republicans agreed to let Nancy Pelosi and “Chucky” Schumer get their way. It seems like an eternity ago but Congress was tied up with its latest petty dispute over passing omnibus budget legislation that Trump insisted must include money for border security, including funds for construction of a physical barrier (sometimes known as a “wall”).

Nancy and Chucky shrieked “no way!” and were prepared to let those poor federal employees (about 800,000 deemed “non-essential”… there’s that word again) idled by the shutdown languish and suffer forever, if need be. Needless to say, in that showdown the Democrat leaders had a great deal less political pressure on them to cave since they knew from the outset they’d get practically everything they asked for -- or swore they wouldn’t pay for -- and Trump and Republicans would receive all the blame thanks to a media that doesn’t care about the actual merits of a stalemate or reporting the facts on the issues at hand. The journos must’ve figured it was much more fun and damaging to attach culpability without doing their homework.

In fairness, as part of the justification for ending the shutdown, Trump did promise to use appropriated but non-allocated military funds to construct/update/repair the border wall and made good on the vow a few weeks later. Today, work continues along the most threatened (by illegal immigration) sections of the line between Mexico and the United States, though no one’s talking about it much anymore. Trump is preoccupied with coronavirus response and “Chucky” and Nancy are solely concerned with projecting fault and maximizing the potential political hurt on the president.

So the “shutdown” continues. In an oddly ironic twist, the federal government is chugging along at full employment while the rest of the country, many parts of it at least, is sitting home stewing and waiting -- or protesting -- until the political powers-that-be open the floodgates and allow life to return to pre-virus “normal.” The main difference being there’s no way the individuals will be paid for their forced sequester. It’s economic activity that’s gone forever, no matter how many “relief” bills are passed and dollars distributed.

Opinions diverge widely on possible reopening dates and there’s been an inordinate amount of scrutiny on Sweden lately, as the only country in the western world that’s kept things going (with increased awareness of social distancing, etc.) as though the citizenry could handle its own precautions. Meanwhile the numbers keep accumulating and the cable news channels run 24/7 with statistics and data purportedly to keep people scared to death and docile in the face of government edicts that were thought unthinkable before.

It begs the question: Why is government considered more “essential” than private industry? Why are people so moved by the fate of furloughed federal workers for a few weeks during work shutdowns but not nearly as compassionate for the plight of the common businessman and woman on Main Street, U.S.A.? Why doesn’t the media run special “human interest stories” about entrepreneurs who were forced to cash in their children’s college fund to pay rent for their stifled small business?

Who suffers more, federal government employees on hiatus who are assured of being compensated for a “vacation” or the man and woman in small town America who don’t have any control over their destinies?

Where’s the media?

Grampa Joe Biden’s solution to the coronavirus conundrum is to spend trillions more

There’s little doubt that if Joe Biden ever becomes president that federal government employees would likely never face the prospect of a shutdown, because he’d sign every spending bill that was ever sent to him... as long as it were big enough. As revealed in a recent interview, the Democrat nominee in waiting would solve the current coronavirus dilemma the same way his party always does it -- by dumping tons more money into government solutions but not specifying what they are.

Eddie Scarry reported at The Washington Examiner, “Democrats and most of the national media have signaled that they feel perfectly at ease with an extended national economic shutdown, and the former vice president reminded us of that, saying in an interview Friday with Politico that he wants another multitrillion-dollar coronavirus response bill. This one, he said, would need to be ‘a hell of a lot bigger’ than the $2 trillion relief bill that Congress passed last month.

“Because Biden is quoted as saying ‘hell’ and ‘son of a bitch,’ Politico’s Michael Grunwald felt justified in describing the interview as ‘fiery,’ but for those who read it, it would more accurately be characterized as ‘uncomfortable’ or ‘unhelpful.’

“Biden said in the interview he wants to print more money for unemployment benefits and to start up on various ‘green energy’ projects, but he said nothing about the desperate and urgent need to move people in this country back to their jobs.”

It’s clearly a continuation of Biden’s overall campaign strategy, which is summarized as: Act mad as hell, blame Trump for whatever bad is happening in the country, don’t give the current president any credit for leadership, etc., and most of all, don’t say anything that could be interpreted as a real policy that’s unrelated to the party’s politically correct constituencies.

In Democrat-land the COVID-19 economic shutdown would apply coast-to-coast and would continue indefinitely until polls show a majority of people won’t abide by the authorities’ orders any longer. Then give it another three weeks and command local law enforcement to begin incarcerating people who defy the dictates. The media will play along and depict protest organizers as valueless cretins who don’t care about their fellow citizens.

As has been previously stated, it’s in Biden’s best interest to prolong shutdowns as long as possible so as to keep him away from largescale campaign appearances where folks would get a good look -- and listen -- at his spiel. Grampa Joe’s boss, Obama, was a master at promising a lot and avoiding specifics, but the current candidate’s brain doesn’t always coincide with what’s coming out of his mouth.

One thing’s for sure, Biden and Democrats think the country and the world revolves around government. The “experts” control the narrative and Grampa Joe makes sure they have plenty of money to spin their schemes. Just wait until the “climate change” crowd gets its moment in the sun. There might not be another energy sector job ever created again.

As the coronavirus episode has revealed, Democrats and their media enablers don’t act the least bit bothered by keeping America’s business doors closed as long as it plays to their political prospects. It’s a far cry from their concerns for federal employees during government shutdowns. How do they explain the distinction?

Share this