While it's true that the media as a whole engages in sensationalism, and individual outlets are biased, there is no shortage of outlets that are biased in favor of the tea party and against other political leanings. In politics, everyone has enemies in the media.
A strong point against the imaginary person you're debating against that suggests that bias only exists on one side. Could you please quote that person instead of me next time you're responding to him?
You're not going to find me suggesting there aren't a plethora of individuals and sites out there that do the same general thing but on the right rather than the left. I've been on record a number of times on this forum suggesting that it's actually the natural course of media in general that it's going to slant one way or another, because how you view the world will determine how you approach a story. An individual has to make a concerted, dedicated effort in my opinion to honestly put forward an objective piece. Playing devil's advocate against ones own view points and thoughts on an issue is important to put forward an actual unbiased presentation, something many who slant either direction fail to do. Too often an unbiased TONE is enough to satisfy peoples desire for unbiased reporting.
The argument that "they do it too" and "they started it" are childish and even worse, do not address the point that the article makes.
This is not an argument of "they do it too" or "they started it". Rather, it's a suggestion that it's difficult to out right condemn something with little actual historical context OR without a full grasp of the situation it functions within. From my time working with government budgets I could easily see a situation in play where the offices may've been forced with one of two generalized options:
1) Budget enough for the 4th quarter that if they win re-election they can undergo whatever initatives or efforts they would normally have planned.
2) Budget enough for the 4th quarter so that if they lose re-election the money left over in the budget will be on par with a normal year.
In situation 1, if the person loses re-election rather than wins, then they wind up with excess money in the budget which is what goes to bonuses at the end of the year.
In situation 2, if the person wins re-election rather than loses it, then they wind up with a dearth of funds for the 4th quarter and thus are not operating in the manner they would normally shoot for.
Now, is that the situation? I have no clue. However based on what little facts the article provides about how this process is done AND with my understanding of government budget princpiles, I wouldn't be shocked if that turns out to be the case. In which case, this is an issue of the system in which the representatives are functionin in is a broken one with a built in inefficiency. You can fight to change a system, but until it's changed the only thing one can really do is function WITHIN the system.
This is the same general fallacy that so many people foolishly make with regards to the tea party and it's founded on an unabashed desire to attack and destroy while relying wholey on stereotyped boogeymen rather than attempting to be objective.
A budget for an agency, or the federal budget as a whole, becomes set. Once that's set, the reality of the situation is that money IS going to be spent. If the money isn't spent it...let's say a national park in California...then it'll be spent in a National Park in Virginia. If it's not given as a bonus for one office within an agency then it's likely going to be spent by another office in the agency instead. It is an ENORMOUSLY rare situation that the government decides it budgeted MORE money than it necessarily needed and actually REFUNDS the tax payers money or takes the excess and uses it to pay down it's debt. Rather, when the money's not spent in one place it just is spent in the other. The reality is, in any situation where you both dislike the system and are governed by the system, the intelligent and responsable thing to do is go about changing the system and acting WITHIN it until such changes occur. Refusing to function within a system often times actually stifles your ability to affect change while simultaneously affecting little change on it's own. It's illogical and childish to function in such a way, and yet it is the way so many people with crystal clear agenda utilize in a singular case as a means of criticizing the tea party.
[FONT=Georgia, Century, Times, serif]... Oh yea i forgot its hypocrisy [/FONT]
