Frankly, in 2010 in America – that’s disgusting.

I’ll be watching the speech on FOX News and probably listening to their post-Address wrap up and thoughts. The reason why I choose FOX News is because they will at least bring on both Democrats and Republicans to give their points of view. While their standard slate of commentators (note – commentators) tend to lean to the right on most issues, at least I know that by watching FOX News I’ll be able to hear both sides of the story and that I’ll have a greater chance of getting a news person acting as a fair and impartial arbiter of the discussion. You can’t find that on MSNBC or CNN (though CNN has come a long way).

As for the speech itself, let me turn to the Asbury Park Press which published an article today that said the following:

It has been widely reported that Obama will announce programs aimed at the middle class on issues such as student loans. However, those measures will have limited appeal if unemployment remains high.

“He can do all he wants on college loans. But for those in dire straits, he has to go farther,” Greenberg said.

FYI – David Greenberg is an associate professor of history at Rutgers University. I’m interested to hear what Obama has to say about student loans. Those of you who frequent this blog know that I write about my student loans – a lot (see yesterday’s post). While I have created a plan of my own to repay this debt, by doing so I am effectively taking myself out of the for-sale housing market for the next two years.

Now, a few years ago I would say that I was an extreme example of how student loan debt could possibly hurt and stifle the middle class economy. Today, however, I think there are a lot more people in my situation (albeit at lower dollar amounts) than people may think. Sure, one guy in New Jersey who is handcuffed by six figure student loans is an extreme example of how one person can’t contribute to the economy’s recover…but when you multiply that times let’s say one person in each state, you now have 50 people that aren’t contributing. Then when you consider that there might be 10 people in each state in this situation (a likely figure), now you’re at 500 people that have good paying jobs, but cannot contribute to the economic rebound. Up that to maybe 1,000 people per state (again, not unreasonable when you consider the total population) and now you have 50,000 people not participating.

Simple math: 50,000 people x $250,000 (cost of each person buying one home) = $12,500,000,000 in new home sales

That’s a lot of zeroes, huh? And those are just numbers that I’m pulling out of the air. I’m confident that there are more than 50,000 college graduates who are stifled by their student loan debt and I’m sure that people would be buying more/other things besides new homes – like new cars, clothing, electronics, etc.

Also from the Asbury Park Press:

Recent Republican victories have been attributed in part to economic issues, with unemployment in double digits.

“The challenge is to frame a policy to create jobs, while cutting the deficit,” said Joseph Patten, an associate professor of political science at Monmouth University.

“Traditionally, you stimulate the economy by spending more. It’s difficult to do that when you have a spending freeze,” Patten said.

I had to include Dr. Patten in this entry because he used to be one of my Professors at Monmouth and the guy knows what he’s talking about. I wouldn’t want the task set before President Obama – find a way to generate new jobs while cutting the deficit and still finding a way to appease your ultra-liberal base by spending more money on more programs. Good grief!

Let’s see what Obama has to say tonight.

There is a lot to write about this particular issue. I could write about how one of my liberal professors is touting the White House’s opposition to FOX News strictly on ideological grounds. One could also write about how Chris Wallace from FOX News Sunday hit the nail directly on the head when he suggested that this White House is filled with a bunch of crybabies. Or one could write about how other news stations are sticking up for FOX. In fact, directly from that New York Times article comes this:

In a sign of discomfort with the White House stance, Fox’s television news competitors refused to go along with a Treasury Department effort on Tuesday to exclude Fox from a round of interviews with the executive-pay czar Kenneth R. Feinberg that was to be conducted with a “pool” camera crew shared by all the networks. That followed a pointed question at a White House briefing this week by Jake Tapper, an ABC News correspondent, about the administration’s treatment of “one of our sister organizations.”

Pretty respectable for the competition to honor the unfair treatment that FOX News has been receiving, huh?

However, I want to focus on two things regarding this issue – the White House’s intentional blur between what is news and what is opinion on FOX News and the game that the White House is playing with FOX News.

First, anyone who studies media or watches a great deal of CNN, MSNBC, and FOX News while reading a diversity of newspapers can tell you that there are only so many ways a company can report a story. When a tornado hits Kansas, you don’t often hear FOX News reporters saying, “A tornado hit Kansas today and the lousy liberals are to blame.” Just like you don’t hear any legitimate reporter on MSNBC blaming conservatives for acts of God. When it comes down to reporting events from around the world, you’re going to read or watch the same report no matter where you go.

However, when it comes to commentary, you’re going to get a divergent approach to “reporting.” Bill O’Reilly calls himself a “humble correspondent.” That’s part of his approach to opinion journalism and there is nothing wrong with that at all! O’Reilly takes a very traditional view on the issues, but that’s okay because he’s hosting a program that is rooted in commentary. Glenn Beck has a staunchly libertarian point of view. Now, those who are not well-versed in political ideology would suggest that Beck is a conservative, but he’s not. So the next time you hear a mass media report or read in a newspaper that Beck is a conservative, then you need to second guess that source of news. Sean Hannity, on the other hand, is a hardcore conservative and there’s nothing wrong with that, either.

FOX News clearly labels these programs as commentary and anyone who knows anything about social interaction beyond “Hello, my name is…” can tell that these programs are NOT news-based! The White House isn’t filled with dummies, they understand that these programs are opinion programs. However, their strategy is to lump the legitimate news departments in with these opinion programs to paint FOX News with a broad, anti-liberal, anti-Obama brush. They know that by doing this, there will be a certain percentage of the population that completely agrees with them and will eventually take over this fight now that it has been brought up at a higher level. It’s a shame that such easily influenced, non-critical thinking people exist to do the White House’s prolonged dirty work.

My second point is that the White House actually managed to do something that they hadn’t been able to do up until they began attacking FOX News, i.e. get the FOX News commentators to STOP digging into the backgrounds of Obama’s staff. Think about it. Glenn Beck single-handedly led to Van Jones’ downfall, which opened up the door for other media organizations to wonder what they had missed out on (read the New York Times article linked above). This, frankly, scared the hell out of the White House and led to them attacking FOX News. If the media is covering itself, then they’re NOT digging into the people who maybe shouldn’t be sitting around the table with the President, right?

Hopefully, people will begin to notice this on a large scale and begin to demand that their White House stop engaging in partisan attacks on the media and, instead, get back to the job of running this country.

However, there is a lot of rhetoric out in the political sphere right now about the possibility of raising taxes on the very population that President Obama promised not to raise taxes on. Let’s listen to our friends at CNN…

I don’t buy the clarification offered by White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs. I think that both Timothy Geithner and Larry Summers aren’t skilled in the growing level of doublespeak in this administration. In other words, the further they get from being at President Obama’s side, the more we can expect them to tell us what’s really going on.

It’s scary. President Obama needs to tread lightly on this subject because if he raises taxes – even temporarily – on the middle class, he can kiss the majority in the House and Senate goodbye. Americans don’t like to be lied to. Let’s all hope that President Obama keeps this promise.