Liberalism: Death by a thousand taxes

California’s fiscal deck of cards has been destined for collapse for a long time now. No amount of fiscal trickery, glue sticks or tape can stop it. Sadly, the individual cards are the cities and counties, and they’re beginning to fall under a severe financial burden.

Two major cities — Stockton and San Bernardino — have garnered attention in recent weeks because of their fiscal insolvency. The Town of Mammoth Lakes also made the news in as many weeks as the third of four municipalities to seek bankruptcy protection. The City of Vallejo started its bankruptcy process several years ago as it too could not keep up with rising costs.

For several years now California’s golden luster has tarnished as the state’s financial position in the world sunk from what was once the worlds 6^th largest economy to the 9^th or 10^th largest now. This mess has been years in the making. It wasn’t that long ago that California was basking in the glory of a state budget windfall and budget surplus under a governor who was ultimately fired by state voters in a recall election that elevated a “B” movie actor to the top state-house position.

Say what you will about Stockton’s mess, which is a shining example of how greedy public unions are, and the false premise that private sector taxpayers will always have the money to pay public employees an opulent wage while employed and lavish salaries to live out their decades-long retirement in blissful luxury. Even San Bernardino’s published problems related to the housing crash and the loss of property tax revenue fails, while egregious in terms of the city’s ability to conservatively manage its revenues, to point a responsible finger at the true culprit of local government woes in California.

The blame rests with Sacramento

For the most part, the problems with shrinking local revenues in California cities and counties is due wholly to Sacramento’s inability to live within its means and the legal ability it has to blackmail cities and counties into picking up the tab for its spending orgies.

While some continue to claim that Proposition 13, passed by voters in the 1970’s to slow property tax rate hikes, forever killed the golden goose, the fact remains that the State of California has developed a fetish for spending money at rates faster than it can be created, earned and taxed. Additionally, California’s fulltime legislature and bureaucratic machine had developed a keen ability to pass the buck, quite literally, down to the cities and counties by forcing local governments to pick up the tab for things that were formerly paid for through state taxes.

In the early 1990’s, California legislators discovered that they could force cities and counties to give up their local sources of revenue under the notion that they ought to pay for the public education from which they more closely benefit. Never mind that the state up until then had always paid for public education through its own tax stream.

Just 10 years earlier California voters were asked to approve a state lottery, from which oodles and gobs of money would be added to public education. As it turned out, that became just another example in a long list of schemes borne in Sacramento to extract money from gullible Californians. Here’s how that scheme worked: As the mandated amount of money from lottery revenues was given to public education, a like amount of money was withheld from public education, to be spent elsewhere. In short, for every dollar the schools got from the lottery, at least a dollar was withheld from traditional general fund expenditures to public education. To California legislators, the lottery simply became a new source of money to be dolled out in any way they saw fit.

Under California’s 1990’s scheme to defraud local governments and voters, local governments would give up their sole source of funding for public safety and services. That started a landslide of local, targeted tax measures aimed at filling local budget deficits by jacking up local property tax and sales tax rates.

The selling point for these tax hikes was simple: do you want police and fire? Then agree to raise your local sales and property tax rates? What were local voters to do?

Shortly after this mess was created by Sacramento politicians, a local county supervisor in one of California’s more sparsely populated counties, announced out of frustration during budget hearings that he might as well resign as more than 95% of that county’s revenue was mandated by state and federal bureaucracies to be spent on specific programs. So much for local control!

Trying to be a responsible and inquisitive newspaper reporter at the time, I asked a county executive officer why cities and counties didn’t merely keep the taxes they collected and use them locally, rather than sending 100% of it to the state, only to get less than that back. His short and politically correct answer was that this is not how it works in California.

It still puzzles me, what with 58 individual counties, hundreds of cities and their thousands of elected representatives, Sacramento’s 120 legislators can’t be bullied into doing the right thing for the millions of people who live in California’s cities and counties and rely upon the services they provide.

While this doesn’t immediately address local cities like Stockton and others, who are drowning in a sea of debt created in large part by selfish public employees unions, the fact remains that had Sacramento not stolen local tax revenues from the cities and counties, then maybe local governments would be in a better position to afford the excessive salaries that only public employees enjoy.

Related articles

• Another California Bankruptcy, Away From the Coast – Bloomberg (bloomberg.com)
• As San Bernardino declares bankruptcy, experts debate whether it’s another fluke, or another domino (mercurynews.com)
• More city bankruptcies on California horizon? – MarketWatch (marketwatch.com)
• Dan Walters: California just as insolvent as bankrupt cities (sacbee.com)
• Stockton, California, Files for Bankruptcy Protection – Bloomberg (bloomberg.com)
• As San Bernardino declares bankruptcy, experts debate whether it’s another fluke, or another domino (mercurynews.com)

Exodus is symptomatic of California’s foundational faults

If things continue on course, the State of California may wind up as uninhabited as the former mining town that in its heyday had money flowing as freely as the spring runoff from the nearby Sierra Nevada.

The Sacramento Bee reports that more college-bound Californians are fleeing to other states, in spite of the higher sticker price for out-of-state tuition costs.

That’s because California’s liberal legislature and its growing full-time bureaucracy, have succeeded in running what was once the world’s 5th largest economy, into the proverbial toilet, but you won’t get that part of the story by reading the Bee article alone.

Based on the Bee’s Page-One story, even the higher out-of-state tuition costs are not a deterrent for students wanting to learn valuable and marketable skills within a reasonable amount of time. The reasons, from the story, are two-fold: California in-state tuition rates continue to climb at an astronomical rate; and, colleges are cutting back on the number and availability of courses, turning a typical four-year degree into a 5 or 6-year process.

Some interviewed for the story claim that this will further exacerbate California’s “brain drain,” as younger, smarter, more energetic people will leave the state and won’t return. Inserted in this premise is the notion that jobs and a lucrative income tax base is important to the well-being of the state.

Blame California’s brain drain in large part on the state’s absurd and onerous tax structure. Coupled with its blatantly anti-business stance in Sacramento, where career politicians learn quickly how to insulate themselves from the real world, California has succeeded in forcing the state’s best and brightest to greener pastures in states such as Texas and Florida.

That’s okay though, because California Governor Jerry “Moonbeam” Brown has a plan to raise taxes and force through a multi-billion bullet train to transport people from the sticks into the collapsing cities where jobs are as scarce as common sense in Sacramento.

Not long ago the Sacramento Bee also reported that the state’s population of illegal immigrants, who were welcomed with open arms across a porous border, are now themselves fleeing back to Mexico because… wait for it… there are jobs to be had.

Mexico currently boasts an unemployment rate of around 5% and a GDP 2-3 times that of the United States. Given that California’s unemployment rate is somewhere north of 12% (50% in some local communities), and that the political climate is about as anti-business as one can get, it’s rather comical that even the undocumented Democrat voters are abandoning ship.

California’s problem is foundational. The Democratically-controlled legislature has for decades bled the most productive of Californians dry while the state agencies they amply fund with taxpayer dollars, do their best to further fleece businesses through draconian policies and laws passed by their legislative buddies.

Kudos to the Bee for pointing out another symptom of California’s disease. At least someone at the paper had the guts to point out a serious problem. One can only hope that the lawmakers and policy wonks in California can piece together the symptoms with a proper diagnosis and a radical, but necessary treatment program to bring California back to life. Otherwise, a lot more people will be permanently leaving what was once this nation’s 5th largest economy for lands of opportunity elsewhere.

Related articles

• For Chronically Unemployed, More Bad News In Calif (wspa.com)
• Open Thread: The Great California Exodus (newsbusters.org)
• Destroying the California Dream (Guest Voice) (themoderatevoice.com)
• California! Liberal Paradise (cowboypress.wordpress.com)

Presidential policies perpetrate poverty

The Compact Fluorescent Light Bulb contains so much Mercury that it must be disposed of as a hazardous material. (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

I currently have a vested interest in issues such as this. You see, the company that employes me pays me to drive their trucks loaded with the very stuff President Obama wants to ban. Of course the reason they pay me isn’t simply because they like me, but because I provide for them a service from which they profit. It’s the American way… or so it seems it was.

The grand irony of wanting to ban coal under the false premise that it harms the environment is, sadly, almost a footnote in the third paragraph of a Washington Times story. Why, if coal is so prevalent in the United States, and it’s responsible for powering much of our country, would we want to get rid of it?

Oh, that’s right: President Obama HATES America!

Which in and of itself seems ironic. How many other nations of immigrants would afford such an opportunity to a man borne, according to published reports, out of wedlock?

Even further into the story is the latest argument the Obama EPA wants to use in arguing against the safety of coal-fired power plants — you know, the facilities that make the electricity that power the electric buggies Obama wants us all to drive?

It seems that mercury emissions from these coal-fired power plants is also dangerous to life here on Earth. Why then the big push for everyone to buy those over-priced, curly-shaped light bulbs that contain large amounts of — you guessed it, mercury?

In fact, these bulbs contain so much mercury that you’re not allowed by law to simply toss them in the trash when they burn out. You have to dispose of them as you would any other dangerous hazardous material.

I’m all for progress and innovation. If there’s something out there that makes my life better and costs less money to improve my life, then I’m all for it. But that’s not the direction Obama is taking this country.

Related articles

• EPA to reduce new power plants’ carbon pollution (seattletimes.nwsource.com)
• New U.S. power plants must meet first-ever limits on carbon pollution (oregonlive.com)
• WashTimes: Obama’s twisty light-bulb logic (junkscience.com)
• Thanks Barack… EPA To Kill New Coal-Fired Plants Through First-Ever Greenhouse Gas Regulations (thedaleygator.wordpress.com)

Testing the First Amendment: Is Obama pushing martial law?

The fact that this has gone viral since it was released, and that those who’ve commented on it all believe this is nothing less than martial law under a more politically-correct name, is in itself significant reason to appropriately react. Could this be the beginning of martial law in America? Unless the President is clairvoyant and he’s doing this in reaction to some future event that only he sees in his mind’s eye — an event some argue he’s hoping to instigate — the Constitutional crisis this raises is frightening.

All joking aside about needing an attorney to translate this, there are some sections in here that anyone with a modicum of common sense and understanding of our Constitution knows is wrong (to put it mildly!). Bear with me…

It’s utterly astounding that this President wants us to believe that he is concerned about the national defense of the United States of America as founded! If we are to believe Sec. 102, then we must definitely suspend disbelief as his most recent budget proposals call for a massive reduction in Pentagon and Defense Department funding in future years. You don’t cut national defense with one hand and with the stroke of a pen in the other write something like this!

Section 103 likewise causes one to suspend disbelief when it says under subsection (c) “be prepared, in the event of a potential threat to the security of the United States, to take actions necessary to ensure the availability of adequate resources and production capability, including services and critical technology, for national defense requirements;”

Since when has this President EVER showed or demonstrated a sincere concern for ANY of this? Does the Keystone Pipeline ring a bell with anyone? We could be well on our way to a more secure energy policy with oil from a friendly neighbor such as Canada.

Some of the best stuff follows in Sec. 104 with the naming of the Secretary of Homeland Security as the overseer of portions of this order. Excuse me, but where in the Constitution does the Department of Homeland Security have a role in national defense? Where is DHS even listed in the Constitution? Show me! Isn’t it the purview of Congress and the Department of Defense to implement security measures for the United States? Yes, the President is also the Commander in Chief, but he doesn’t operate as such in a vacuum. That’s why there is such a thing as the separations of powers, which the Constitution carefully delineates. I guess this will all make better sense and be much easier for Obama once martial law is implemented and the Constitution is suspended.

Section 104 (c) (1) tells us there is an “assistant to the President.” Who is this person and what Congressional oversight is there for this person? The section goes on to list several other presidential assistants? Who are they, what are they paid and what legislative branch oversight is there of these people and their positions?

Part II — Priorities and Allocations of this executive order ought to bring shivers up the spines of all Americans, if not a tingling sensation up one’s leg (Chris Matthews notwithstanding)! Since when does the Secretary of Defense need to concern himself with the allocation of water resources? And now we’re going to give the Agriculture Secretary the authority to oversee “the domestic distribution of farm equipment and commercial fertilizer.” The notion that the Agriculture Secretary can, by fiat, distribute farm equipment for any purpose violates the Fifth Amendment clause that reads “nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.” And what’s this reference to “all forms of civil transportation” under the Transportation Secretary’s purview supposed to mean? Does that mean the government can take my automobile for no other reason than it wants it?

Section 203 is likewise laughable given President Obama’s distaste for oil and his decision to keep America dependent upon hostile foreign nations for our supply of oil, rather than allow America to become solely independent and sovereign in the procurement and production of its own oil and natural gas needs.

Rush Limbaugh reported within the past week that, according to multiple private and government resources, the United States is sitting on (conservatively speaking) enough oil and natural gas to make us completely independent for the next several hundred years! Ironic since the President’s own actions since taking office have been to make us more dependent upon foreign sources of energy.

Limbaugh quotes US Sen. Dick Lugar‘s recent opinion article in Politico on the matter of high oil prices. In his recently published opinion piece, Sen. Lugar said “Every 10% increase in oil prices is expected to knock 0.25% off economic growth…”

“That, if true, is an amazing fact, especially when you bear in mind that we’ve had gasoline prices go up more than 100% under Obama. That works out to a reduction of GDP by 2.5%, and our GDP is not even growing at 2%. Our GDP, our economy is growing at under 2%, and the federal government’s share of the total economic output of this (which does not include economic output; they don’t produce anything) is 23%, on its way eventually to 25%.  It is at a historical high.  That’s how much of the private sector that Obama and the Democrats have simply transferred and shut down and moved to the government sector. ” ~ Rush Limbaugh

You can read the executive order for yourself, but suffice to say, this is NOT something any self-respecting American President, under the authority granted him by the US Constitution, would ever suggest. Then again, we’ve never had such a president until now.

Related articles

• New Executive Order grants President wide-ranging powers to allocate resources in case of ‘emergency’ (twitchy.com)
• US Constitution

Apologies are not enough

Image via Wikipedia

In the spirit of today’s penchant for apologizing — President Obama notwithstanding — I thought it might be appropriate while we still have a few living World War II veterans to encourage an apology to Europe. After all, they’ve certainly made a mess of things for themselves since we liberated them.

Imagine what Great Britain, Germany, France, to name a few, would be like if we’d have simply butted out and minded our own business.

So, I’m hoping that the remaining World War II vets might join together and, along with their formal apology to Europe, could find it in their hearts to also return to Europe the Nazi flag that they took from Hitler and his forces. I’m sure that Germany, France, Britain and some of the other European Union nations would be glad to raise the new flag as a symbol of unity.

Related articles

• This Day in History: Hitler Reoccupies The Rhineland (history.icanhascheezburger.com)
• Wilders: Dutch Government Should Apologize for Nazi Collaboration in WWII deportation of Jews (atlasshrugs2000.typepad.com)
• Apology over war graves (theage.com.au)
• Norway apology for Holocaust role (bbc.co.uk)

Federal overspending made simple to understand

The following comes from David Barton at Wallbuilders. It puts the federal budget into numbers that are much easier to comprehend for those of us who don’t deal in millions, billions and trillions!

If the US Government was a family, they would be making $58,000 a year, they spend $75,000 a year, & are $327,000 in debt on their credit card. They are currently proposing BIG spending cuts to reduce their spending to $72,000 a year. That is a cut of $3000 per year. They are still going to overspend their income by $14,000 each year. So in another 10 years they will owe about ½ million dollars on their credit card.

These are the actual proportions of the federal budget & debt, reduced to a level that we canunderstand.

Here’s another one that was published on The Wall and Broad Report:

The USA Has NO BUDGET since OBAMA has Become President!!!

The U.S. Congress sets a federal budget every year in the trillions of dollars. Few people know how much money that is so federal spending needs to be broken into simple terms to be understood.

Let’s put the 2011 federal budget into perspective:

• U.S.income: $2,170,000,000,000
• Federal budget: $3,820,000,000,000
• New debt: $ 1,650,000,000,000
• National debt: $14,271,000,000,000
• Recent budget cut: $ 38,500,000,000 (about 1 percent of the budget)

It helps to think about these numbers in terms that we can relate to. Therefore, let’s remove eight zeros from these numbers and pretend this is the household budget for the fictitious Jones family.

• Total annual income for the Jones family: $21,700
• Amount of money the Jones family spent: $38,200
• Amount of new debt added to their high-interest credit card: $16,500
• Outstanding balance on the credit card: $142,710

Because the Jones’ realized they’re in trouble, they decided to become responsible and cut their spending. After a lot of posturing and wrangling, they agreed to cut a whopping $385 from their budget.

Either way we’re in a heap ‘o big trouble in America and our elected representatives — OUR EMPLOYEES — are committing malfeasance on a daily basis and we the people seem to be powerless to stop it. Well, we’re not!

Some unanswered questions and thoughts of a former journalist

Let’s see if I understand this correctly: I can own a private enterprise that is quite profitable and makes lots of money for me; those who choose to invest in my company and my employees. I can play by the rules and still get hauled before a bunch of self-important, pious egotists masquerading as esteemed Senators to defend my business acumen because somehow, somewhere, the premise was proffered that my legal business, which pays millions of dollars in taxes to support these government hacks, is somehow evil.

Meanwhile, the same government hacks that I support with the taxes generated from my private business, can support programs that run guns across international borders so that foreign agents can then execute a war against the country that my taxes support, but when I ask my congressman why he won’t assume his constitutional authority to declare war against the people firing at my neighbors from across the same international border, I’m laughed at as if my suggestion is ludicrous. Imagine if we’d had the same attitude on Dec. 7, 1941.

Some more questions and observations:

• What’s the difference between what Bernie Madoff did to private investors and what the United States government is doing to its citizens via Social Security?
• When George W. Bush sent troops to the Middle East to fight a war the media called him a warmonger and wanted to drag him to his death.
• When Barrack Hussein Obama sent troops to the Middle East to fight a war the media called him brave.
• The George W. Bush tax cuts were gifts to corporate cronies and the rich until Obama was given the choice to let them expire, then they were the right thing to do.
• Exxon is chastised for not paying its “fair share” of taxes while General Electric can pay no taxes on billions in profits and its CEO receives presidential treatment and access.
• The same communist regimes that we once touted as our enemies are more profitable, more capitalistic and run their governments with lower tax rates than we do? Did you know that Russia has a flat tax and collects more money than it ever did because of it, or that China regularly visits American businesses in order to learn how to replicate our capitalistic successes?
• How did health care become a right and the ownership of firearms by free citizens become outlawed? What constitutional amendment covers health care?
• Who decided that it was more important to pay people to literally dig through the trash of a former governor than it was to dig into the past of the man who would soon become President of the United States? Why weren’t more people alarmed when two veteran news journalists openly admitted that they knew nothing about the background of Barack Hussein Obama, or what his thoughts and motivations were?

Related articles

• Unanswered question – What about the Wall St. meeting? (politico.com)

The patriotic premises of liberals and the lies they tell

Did you know that children who attend American Independence Day celebrations are more likely to vote Republican (gasp!) when they grow up?

Don’t tell the Obama regime, otherwise they might concoct a scheme to ban the celebration altogether.

Oops! Too late: the media arm of the Obama regime has already posted the story.

It’s true. Well, almost… Not really. ABC News admits that even the study’s co-author, David Yanagizawa-Drott of Harvard University can’t match up the thesis with the facts. Not to worry folks; like the Christmas stories that proclaim Jesus wasn’t really born on Dec. 25th or that what he said and did can’t be authenticated, this is just another attempt by the anti-American media to belittle you for waving your American flags and celebrating the moral convictions of those who risked life and livelihoods to declare themselves and others free and independent from the tyranny of King George by signing the Declaration of Independence.

According to the story’s author:

One thing not addressed in the report is that nearly every kid in America attends Fourth of July celebrations, but the Republican Party is a minority party.

Minority party? So what’s the problem? If most kids grow up to be Democrats who cares?

Let’s apply a little Philosophy 101 here… If there are fewer registered Republicans in America then certainly the premise must be that there are more registered Democrats.

US voter registration in 2004.

The 2004 census statistics even bear this out. So, if nearly ever kid in America attends an Independence Day celebration in the United States as declared in the story, simply philosophy would suggest that celebrating Independence Day would make one more likely to be Democrat than Republican, even though ABC News declared the exact opposite?

Halfway through the story ABC News printed this joke: “Calls to Democratic officials were not returned because they had left their offices early to celebrate the Fourth of July.”

Really? How did the author of the story know they were out celebrating Independence Day? Come on now: George Stephanoloulos works for ABC News and is one of the Democrat Party’s biggest apologists around! Isn’t he one of the author’s colleagues? Even if he was reluctant to make up a quote I’m sure he could find someone out there to make up some lies about Republicans and Independence Day.

Of course that isn’t why they printed the paragraph. For Liberals, the time off for patriotic or religious holidays has nothing to do with celebrating the memory of the holiday. You don’t believe for a moment that Liberals actually go out and celebrate Independence Day, Christmas, Memorial Day, Veterans Day, Thanksgiving or Easter for the rememberances that they are? That’s not the purpose of a holiday for these folks. The purpose of a national holiday for these people is just another paid vacation on the taxpayer’s dime.

As an aside, I thought that children weren’t affected by the things they watched, did or played? We’re always told that the violent video games kids play are perfectly harmless, that they don’t lead kids to violent tendencies, or that the music they listen to doesn’t encourage them to act out in ways that are counter to the morals of a good and just society.

So what’s the worry Mr. and Ms. Liberal? These kids at the Independence Day ceremonies will likely continue the practice of drinking the kool aid you serve up to their older brothers and sisters in college and continue to vote with the premise that government is good, politicians are the only people in America who have your best interests at heart and that freedom and liberty are the archaic, evil and racist outcomes of a bunch of hooligans who dared to break away from the theocratic and despotic regime of King George.

Obama to help fathers? How… like he helped the economy?

Since President Barack Obama signed the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 into law America has lost 1.9 million jobs, according to government statistics.

My first response was a bit skeptical; then it was a bit more positive, but not to worry: I got over that.

It seems that President Obama used his Saturday radio address to weigh in on fatherhood. One might call that appropriate since Mr. Obama is the father of two young girls.

After reading an ABC News blog, what made me think the most — knowing what we now know about Obama’s politics — can be found in the following paragraph:

He said many fathers don’t have the time or resources to be as good as fathers as they would like to be, in part because of the state of the economy, and touted his administration’s efforts to offer “men who want to be good fathers a little extra support.”

Where do we find the time or resources, Mr. President? As for time, that’s not a problem for millions of Americans; many of us have lots of that since we’re not working. Our problem isn’t time, but money. We’re not allowed to print money to pay our bills, so how do we pay those bills?

It’s no secret that the American economy sucks. Fathers all across America are worried about a whole host of economic issues that they can’t change and see no hope for ever getting better. For some of us our worries are only compounded by the little things in life such as divorce, relocation, child support, employment opportunities… the list goes on.

My question for Mr. Obama is this:

Dear Mr. President: you say that your administration has made an effort to offer “men who want to be good fathers a little extra support.” Those are your words, sir. Please tell me specifically what these efforts are and how I apply.

No sir, I’m not in line for some of your “stash money” to build me a new kitchen or buy me a fancy new ride, though I drove a nice new Ford F150 the other day… but I digress. I just want to know what you can do to maybe open some doors for me to get a good job in the state where my daughter lives with her mom (my ex-wife). You see sir, my daughter is just a little older than Sasha and younger than Malia. I just want to watch my little girl grow up and be there for her. Speaking man to man, you can understand, can’t you Mr. President?

Then again maybe I should ask Senior White House Correspondent Jake Tapper to elaborate since he was the one who apparently interviewed the President and wrote the blog post for ABC News. Why didn’t Mr. Tapper elaborate in his blog on just what it is that the Obama administration is doing to make life a little easier for us fathers? As a reporter I certainly would have asked that question, especially if it was my job and personal goal to make President Obama look good in the media.

Help me again, Mr. Tapper: just how has President Obama helped me and the millions of fathers across America? Weren’t we promised better economic times than the 5% unemployment under George W. Bush? Instead, Obama has presided over the loss of nearly 2 million American jobs in his first two years of office. That’s certainly not the kind of hope and change we were all expecting.

What do Pulitzer Prizes mean anymore?

Image via Wikipedia

I recall studying journalism in college when discussions came up about the notion of “yellow journalism” and how a man named Joseph Pulitzer was synonymous with the term.

For those who might not be familiar with the term, it generally means the kind of journalism that is sensational, sometimes tacky, and aimed more at attracting readers and viewers than the kind of responsible journalism one might expect from a respectable newspaper or news organization.

Think of yellow journalism as the kind of reporting we see today from most main-stream outlets: irresponsible reporting that exaggerates and downright lies, while not focusing on the real issues affecting America today. Even Wikipedia, which has regularly been called into question for its objectivity, rightly reports that yellow journalism is “a type of journalism that presents little or no legitimate well-researched news and instead uses eye-catching headlines to sell more newspapers. Techniques may include exaggerations of news events, scandal-mongering, or sensationalism. By extension “Yellow Journalism” is used today as a pejorative to decry any journalism that treats news in an unprofessional or unethical fashion.”

So it seems rather ironic that Joseph Pulitzer, a man synonymous with sensational journalism, would have his name attached to a journalism award that allegedly honors those who’s work is worthy of the highest honors in news reporting.

Aside from the LA Times’ reporting of the fiasco in the City of Bell, where council members and the city manager were robbing the city blind by taking outrageous salaries and pension plans, I doubt that the rest of the Pulitzer prize-winning works will be widely recognized by the general public as true journalism that exposed political corruption and affected a positive outcome.

While I found the Wall Street Journal editorials named by the Pulitzer Committee interesting and somewhat entertaining, their heady reading is certainly not something most people are going to read, much less react to as they contemplate who to vote for in the next election.

While years of blame has been cast on the Internet and “New Media” for the downfall of journalism in America, the fact remains that journalism for the most part died a long time ago when editors and publishers stopped serving their communities and neglected their audience in exchange for cost-cutting measures and higher profit margins. While newspaper companies did enjoy double-digit profit margins for a period of time as recent as 10 years ago, newspapers over the past several years have completely lost their shorts because those earlier cost-cutting measures lead to newspapers nobody wanted to read. Once the customer (the reader) lost interest in the product, profits succumbed to a business acumen that was more interested in chasing dollar bills than the tried-and-true method of serving one’s customers and treating them with respect.

Related Articles

• Is Journalism Still Yellow? (journalistjan.wordpress.com)
• 2011 Pulitzers: The Oscars of Journalism are announced today. Who cares? (slate.com)
• 2011 Pulitzer Prize Winners Announced – New York Times (news.google.com)
• You: 2011 Pulitzer Prize Winners Announced (nytimes.com)