The Libertarian Koch brothers and the NY Times

    Amy Chozick in her New York Times article of April 21, 2013 describes the billionaire Koch brothers as supporters of libertarian causes. I don’t think that the Koch brothers are interested in individual liberty. I see them as supporters of their own interest and in the profits and power of their own class.

    Ms. Chozick points out that the Koch brothers held a seminar three years ago with wealthy donors to develop a strategy to shift the country to smaller government with less regulation and taxes. She goes on to state that the Koch brothers now want to buy up major newspapers in this country to spread their laissez-faire ideas. I would like to inform Ms. Chozick that control of the media by the Koch brothers has nothing to do with laissez-faire ideas. The ideology of the Koch Brothers has more to do with monopoly rule.

          

Budget Debate NY Times

    In reading Michael D. Shear’s 1/6/13 New York Times article on the budget debate I was reminded of a book I once read, The Symbolic Uses of Politics, a book that analyzes political language. It seems Mr. Shear has read it, too. He is sure to call attention to anyone who is a liberal in the budget debate. For example, he refers to the group, “Strengthen Social Security Coalition,” as a group of unions and left-leaning organizations who oppose Social Security cuts. Furthermore, he states that only Liberals are balking against any proposals to cut Social Security made by President Obama. Mr. Shear even identifies Ms. Anna Galland as the Executive Director of the liberal group MoveOn.org.     

   Yet when Mr. Shear portrays House Majority Leader Eric Cantor of Virginia and speaker of the House John Boehner as distrustful of the President and his seriousness when it comes to spending cuts, i.e. Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid, I couldn’t find any references to the word conservative. They get a pass on their political leanings?

     Mr. Shear really misses the mark on Maya MacGuineas. Ms. MacGuineas is the President of the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget. She is portrayed as an objective advocate for a sound budget agreement. Mr. Shear mentions that Ms. MacGuineas has praised the president for trying to find a way to get a fiscal agreement between the administration and Congressional leaders on the debt.  But what Michael Shear doesn’t point out in his article is that the Maya MacGuineas represents millionaires and billionaires whose main goal is to make cuts to social programs in the name of deficit reduction. She is also the nominal head of the corporate group, Fix the Debt, a group of former and present government officials and Wall Street CEO’s who oppose any tax increases on the wealthy.

    Clearly, Mr. Shear has no problem mentioning and identifying left-leaning organizations and their liberal executive directors. But what’s so hard about identifying right-leaning groups and their conservative leaders? This misrepresentation sounds to me like the politics of corporate austerity and the corruption of our political language.