Busted: NY TIMES Lies To Slam Paul Ryan

Stone. Cold. Busted.

The New York Times was the first Pro Oabma Super PAC to launch a salvo against Paul Ryan. And in doing so they treat the truth just like all the other Super PACs out there. From the Times Slimitorial:

More than three-fifths of the cuts proposed by Mr. Ryan, and eagerly accepted by the Tea Party-driven House, come from programs for low-income Americans. That means billions of dollars lost for job training for the displaced, Pell grants for students and food stamps for the hungry. These cuts are so severe that the nation’s Catholic bishops raised their voices in protest at the shredding of the nation’s moral obligations.

Mr. Ryan’s budget “will hurt hungry children, poor families, vulnerable seniors and workers who cannot find employment,” the bishops wrote in an April letter to the House. “These cuts are unjustified and wrong.”

I went and dug up the letter [pdf] and you won’t be surprised to learn… it did not say anything of the kind.

The committee has been instructed to reduce agricultural programs by an additional $33.2 billion. In allocating these reductions, the committee should protect essential programs that serve poor and hungry people over subsidies that assist large and relatively well-off agricultural enterprises. Cuts to nutrition programs such as the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) will hurt hungry children, poor families, vulnerable seniors and workers who cannot find employment. These cuts are unjustified and wrong. If cuts are necessary, the committee should first look towards reducing and targeting commodity and subsidy programs that disproportionately go to large growers and agribusiness.

The bishops DID NOT as the Times charged raise their voices in protest at the “shredding of the nation’s moral obligations.”  The bishops DID NOT say Ryan’s budget would “hurt hungry children, poor families, vulnerable seniors and workers who cannot find employment” and they DID NOT call Ryan’s budget “unjustified and wrong.”

All they did was urge the house to cut agribusiness before cutting programs for the poor. Which is exactly what you expect from a group that spends untold resources helping the poor.

By lying about Ryan’s budget the Times loses all credibility and authority to report on a campaign marred by Democrats making repeated outrageously false attacks against Republicans.

The Times owes Romney and Ryan a retraction and an apology.

Great Moments in Liberal Journalism
Stranded Jet Skier Slips Into JFK Airport From Jamaica Bay Unnoticed
  • Vagabond661

    Pell Grants stay the same next year, around $5,500. Eligibilty is what changes. Since Pell grants have doubled over the last 4 years, it’s time to weed out the free loaders and get the money to those who really need it.

  • jim_m

    By lying about Ryan’s budget the Times loses all credibility and authority

    That presumes that the NYT retained any credibility to begin with. It has long ago spent its credibility with its refusal to cover real news that might be embarrassing or damaging to democrats. IIRC it didn’t report on Weinergate until he resigned forcing the Times to explain to readers why they had not heard about the story until after it was over.

    Like most media outlets the Times is hopelessly partisan.

  • herddog505

    Don’t hold your breath.

    “Shredding the nation’s moral obligations” is what the libs EXPECT Paul Ryan – and any Republican – to do. Consider the NYT’s article “fake but accurate”.

  • http://profiles.google.com/giovanni.ciriani Giovanni Ciriani

    The article is an editorial in the opinion section of the paper. In the opinion editorials one can find views coming from a wide spectrum of political positions.

    • Jwb10001

      So you can lie about what people said in an editorial?

      • retired.military

        If it is the NY TIMES the people said whatever supports the Liberal agenda despite whatever words came out of their mouth.

    • UOG

      I take the NYT so that I can put it under consideration… my parrot, Consideration.

  • djdrummond

    I’d be more worried if the NYT had readership in more than four figures …

  • SCSIwuzzy

    One word: Duranty

  • Hank_M

    Maybe someone should ask the NY Times which of the approx 80 means tested social welfare programs we have that they’re referring to?

Optimization WordPress Plugins & Solutions by W3 EDGE