America Faces No Greater Threat Than Joe Biden and the Democrat Party. Their Assault to Our Borders Is As Great As Their Assault to Free Speech and Free Elections
Friday, August 12, 2022
MEX-OWNED NEW YORK TIMES - PROPAGANDA SHEET FOR LA RAZA FASCISM AND THE BANKSTERS' RENT BOY CHUCK SCHUMER
THE NYT IS OWNE BY MEX BILLIONAIRE CARLOS SLIM WHO RESIDES IN A MASSIVE MANSION ACROSS FROM NY METROPOLITAN MUSEUM.
SCHUMER IS ALSO A SLUT FOR BIG OIL. SURPRISED?
'TWO PIGS: SCHUMER AND MANCHIN
Similar to the Schumer-Manchin bill, Biden’s plan would have provided a $625 billion tax cut for the wealthiest Americans living in blue states — paid for by working and middle class Americans.
Is Chuck Schumer 'the Big Guy' over at the New York Times?
Is Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer the final word at what runs at the New York Times?
Sure looks like it, given a disturbing anecdote told by former Timeswoman Bari Weiss, who left the Times more than two years ago over its atmosphere of intolerance.
Turns out the Times isn't just intolerant, it's sycophantic -- and these charges aren't just right wing hyperbole:
According to Mediaite, Republican South Carolina Sen. Tim Scott had sent in an op-ed to the Times laying out his views on police reform in the wake of the George Floyd riots. On her podcast, where she had Scott on as a guest, she described this:
“Well, here’s what happened. I was at the New York Times and you or your staff sent in an op-ed about the bill and why it fell apart,” Weiss recalled. “And this is the part I’m not sure if you know. There was a discussion about the piece and whether or not we should run it. And one colleague, a more senior colleague said to a more junior colleague who was pushing for the piece, ‘Do you think the Republicans really care about minority rights?'”
“Wow,” Scott said.
“And the more junior colleagues said, ‘I think Tim Scott cares about minority rights.’ And then, and here’s the pretty shocking part. The more senior colleague said, ‘Let’s check with Senator Schumer before we run it,'” Weiss added.
Check with Sen. Schumer?
Is Schumer some kind of owner or shareholder of the Times, which might explain such deference? I've been on editorial staffs myself and know that the editorial page is the voice of the paper -- and by extension, the voice of the owner, so it's never surprising when an owner might ask for a particular message to be expressed.
But last I heard, Schumer is not the owner.
Yet, somehow, the staff know that they need to 'run by" anything that might be controversial with Chuckie Schumer in the Senate.
Is that how editorial decisions are made at the New York Times? They get clearance from Schumer? What happens if Chuckie "Last Word" Schumer says 'no'? And how many of these permissions have been sought, not in this case, but in the past, so that a senior staffer could just casually bring up that Schumer needed to be consulted before the Time could make an editorial decision about what runs and what doesn't run in that august paper?
The younger staffer actually refused to do it on ethical grounds, but the senior staffer is the one who brought up the procedure of running editorial decisions past Schumer first, as if such things were always the way of dealing with tough decisions in the past.
It ought to be the most embarrassing thing to anyone in the news industry, that their own paper asks politicians to determine for them what they should run or not run. Newspapers are supposed to be independent. They're supposed to report and write without fear or favor. Their editorial voices are supposedly a reflection of their stance. But this "get permission from the Big Guy" stuff we are hearing about now? All told, it's public relations of the worst sort, that of a state-controlled press -- and they're no journalists.
What an insult to the memory of the Timesmen of old -- Abe Rosenthal, William Safire, Hedrick Smith, David Halberstam, and many others, some, such as Andrew Malcolm, still with us, who made the Times the gold standard of journalism!
Do they just like being sycophants? Or worse, do they fear displeasing Schumer? Is that how they operate? Readers will now be asking if everything the Times runs is cleared by Schumer first, Just call it the 'Schumer Times.'
Maybe these self-important "journalists" should ask themselves what they are now, given that the public is going to be wondering whether every op-ed they run was actually cleared with Schumer first.
Just don't call them journalists. Laugh at the suck-ups-to-Schumer, check out the nearby streetwalkers, and point at them instead.
Hauser also didn’t like the prevalence ofBig Law talent on the Department of Justice team, which signaled to him that the Biden administration could go soft on corporate malefactors. Alexander Nazaryan
‘War on Seniors’: Democrats to Cut Seniors’ Prescription Drug Benefits Ahead of Midterms
The passage of the Inflation Reduction Act would mean that Democrats would cut seniors’ Medicare prescription drug benefits ahead of the midterms.
The Senate passed the Democrats’ $700 billion Inflation Reduction Act on Sunday, setting up a vote later this week for the House to pass the bill and make the deal law.
However, the legislation contains stringent leftist price controls that would drastically alter seniors’ benefits.
The Inflation Reduction Act would redesign Medicare Part D, a federal program administrated through private insurance companies to offer retail prescription drug coverage to Medicare beneficiaries. Before Medicare Part D, tens of thousands of Medicare beneficiaries had little help with retail drug costs.
However, in the Democrats’ aim to reduce prescription drug prices, they slipped price controls into the Medicare Part D section of the Inflation Reduction Act.
The legislation would alter Medicare Part D by:
Capping the cost of Part D prescription drugs by creating a $2,000 ceiling for annual out-of-pocket costs
Lowers beneficiary coinsurance and would increase plan and manufacturer liability by 2025
Premium growth is capped at six percent per year
Expanding the income threshold for the program’s low-income subsidy to 150 from 135 percent of the federal poverty level
Requiring Part D plans to spread out out-of-pocket costs for beneficiaries over the plan year
All in all, the Democrats’ Medicare Part D redesign could likely lead to a reduction in supplemental benefits for Medicare Part D recipients, or American seniors.
Senate Majority Leader Charles Schumer (D-NY) speaks on the Inflation Reduction Act at the U.S. Capitol on August 05, 2022 in Washington, DC. (Kevin Dietsch/Getty Images)
Democrats took a significant hit on Saturday, when the Senate parliamentarian, Elizabeth MacDonough, ruled that the Inflation Reduction Act’s provision to force pharmaceutical companies to give rebates for their products sold to private insurers exceeded inflation and violated the Senate rules on reconciliation. This would have acted as a cushion to the Medicare Part D redesign under the Inflation Reduction Act.
This could lead to patients with private insurance paying higher costs for prescription medications by “disincentivizing” pharmaceuticals from keeping prices lower.
Sen. Rick Scott (R-FL), voted against the Inflation Reduction Act on Sunday. Photo taken on Capitol Hill on September 28, 2021 in Washington, DC. (Patrick Semansky/Getty Images)
This lost provision would have eliminated $288 billion in savings that Democrats hoped to create under the Inflation Reduction Act.
While Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY) lamented the loss of the rebate program, he hailed the bill as a stepping stone to taking on “Big Pharma.”
“This is a major victory for the American people,” Schumer explained. “While there was one unfortunate ruling in that the inflation rebate is more limited in scope, the overall program remains intact and we are one step closer to finally taking on Big Pharma and lowering Rx drug prices for millions of Americans.”
After voting against the Inflation Reduction Act on Sunday, Sen. Rick Scott (R-FL) slammed Democrats for, among other issues, cutting Medicare for seniors:
After helping Joe Biden drive America into a recession and create the highest inflation in 40 years, Senate Democrats just doubled down on their attacks by targeting seniors, job creators and every American family. With their new reckless tax-and-spending spree, Democrats have launched a WAR ON SENIORS and a WAR ON AMERICAN JOBS that hikes taxes and will result in far fewer life-saving drugs. Worse still, with a supersized IRS that just got $80 BILLION more in its budget to hire 87,000 more agents, Joe Biden’s federal government is coming after every penny you have with more audits. The Democrats’ radical socialist agenda of bigger government and higher taxes isn’t working. The only thing that will come from this is even MORE SPENDING, HIGHER TAXES AND MORE INFLATION. The Democrats are destroying our country, killing retirements and crushing the American Dream for millions, but they don’t care. [Emphasis added]
He added, “This is a sad day for the country, but I will never stop fighting for Florida families and to put an end to Joe Biden’s failed agenda.”
Ike Brannon, a former principal economic adviser for the late Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-UT) and former senior adviser for tax policy at the Treasury Department, said in a statement:
You don’t need to be an economist to know that the drug provisions in the reconciliation bill will increase premiums for seniors and increase costs for everyone in the commercial health insurance markets. Giving the government the ability to negotiate some drug prices isn’t going to change that reality — and it will undoubtedly limit consumer access to some life-saving drugs.
Brannon said, “If lawmakers want affordability without disrupting consumer access, they should encourage more competition in the marketplace. That is what pharmacy benefit managers do.”
Sean Moran is a congressional reporter for Breitbart News. Follow him on Twitter @SeanMoran3.
No comments:
Post a Comment