There’s little doubt that Rep. Charlie Rangel’s reputation has suffered throughout Manhattan as a result of  multiple ethics charges. But his fate will be decided in his district alone and not Manhattan at large. That’s why it’s very odd for the NYT to avoid polling just the most likely voters. While it would not be a mistake to also include results from neighboring areas, the sample used here just has 195 respondents with a large margin of error.That’s not helpful to readers.

Even the best polls acknowledge a margin of error that discerning readers should carefully consider. However, the methodology and sampling that is used to determine most Manhattan voters would prefer to see Rep. Charles Rangel leave Congress is flawed to the point where it is highly misleading. This is more a question of competence and less a question of bias.

A New York Times poll revealed a “significant reversal in public sentiment” that now shows a clear majority of Manhattan voters have an unfavorable view of the congressman and believe there is some merit to the charges against time. Rangel stands accused of multiple charges that include agreeing to four rent-stabilized apartments in Harlem, neglecting to pay taxes on a beachfront home in the Dominican Republic and using his House office to raise money for an education center.

Here is how the poll numbers break down, according to a NYT report. Only 23 percent of respondents say he should continue his re-election efforts. Meanwhile, 46 percent say he should end his campaign and step down at the end of his current term, while 24 percent say he should resign immediately.

But there are a few problems here. For starters just 195 registered voters were polled and this includes a sampling error of plus or minus seven percentage points. That’s a large error margin for such a small sample. Moreover, the NYT declined to poll Rangel’s district; that’s an odd omission. While results pulled from Manhattan as a whole are interesting and suggestive, they have little practical value. The article concludes with quotes from residents outside of Rangel’s district, which are meant as a rejoinder to those inside his district with misgivings. Shouldn’t this be turned around?

As a long time serving member with strong ties to favorable media organs, Rangel has a nationwide identity. But his future in politics will be determined by constituents who are now weighing the ethics charges. A more compelling report could have been built around voters who have previously supported the Harlem Democrat, but now have doubts. Unfortunately, this article does not provide readers with any meaningful insight into where the most decisive block of voters may be heading.

Readers are told the Rangel retains the upper hand in his primary battle, despite the allegations. But this assertion is not substantiated. There is just as much anecdotal evidence that suggests Rangel’s base is evaporating as there is for continued support.

“Despite Mr. Rangel’s troubles, he remains the clear favorite in the primary,” the NYT declares. “The poll measured the views of those throughout Manhattan, not only those in his district, but the results are telling because he represents about 40 percent of the borough’s residents.”

The results are not as telling as they should be because they do not include a sampling that pulls exclusively from likely voters in Rangel’s district. If this result were reported in tandem with results from other parts of Manhattan, that would have had more relevance. Unfortunately, the Manhattan poll results that are reported are far too limited in scope to have any real meaning.

Popularity: 1% [?]

American taxpayers are feeling a little nostalgic about former President Bush and his tax cuts. There’s no question that they were just what the doctor ordered after the 9/11 terror attacks. But NYT columnist Paul Krugman is opposed to extending the cuts because he sees them as a giveaway to rich. The alternative approach he suggests is quite costly in its own right…

Whatever voters may think of former President George W. Bush these days, they think very highly of their disposable income, cost of living and bank accounts. That’s why it’s smart politically for Republicans to call for an extension of the Bush tax cuts set to expire at the end of this year.

But it’s also makes good public policy, contrary to what New York Times columnist Paul Krugman has argued. With the U.S. still mired in recession, now would be a particularly bad time to further burden Americans with rate increases. Here’s what the expiration will mean for working families and average citizens.

• 35% bracket which will increase to 39.6%
• 33% bracket which will increase to 36%
• 28% bracket which will increase to 31%
• 25% bracket which will increase to 28%
• 10% and 15% will condense to 15%
• The capital gains tax will increase from 15% to 20%
• The tax on dividends will increase from 15% to 39.6%

READ THE FULL ARTICLE >>

Popularity: 1% [?]

Contemporary civil rights organizations that support race conscious policies in contradiction to Martin Luther King’s emphasis on equality and character get a free pass from the New York Times, which repeats and recycles unfounded accusations aimed against Tea Party participants and Glenn Beck of Fox News. In many respects, the small government activists who took part in Beck’s “Restoring Honor” rally are more in step with MLK’s convictions than their critics. It is the ideals of the founding period that make liberty possible. Not outdated, collapsing entitlements.

False allegations of racism aimed against Tea Party activists who favor constitutional restraints on federal power predictably resurfaced in a New York Times report that sought to discredit Glenn Beck’s Washington D.C. rally. Reporter Kate Zernike has a long history of invoking race as a way to discredit and marginalize Tea Party activism.

As TimesCheck has previously noted, there is a concerted effort in the news media to interlink small government activists with radical elements. “They tend to be white and male, with a disproportionate number above 45, and above 65,” Zernike laments in an earlier report. Their memories are of a different time, when the country was less diverse.”

The data does not substantiate the allegations. Even the New York Times/CBS poll, which typically oversamples Democrats, concluded Tea Party activists were sophisticated and well-educated. There’s also a Washington Post/ABC Poll that shows 20 percent of voters concur with the Tea Party’s economic concerns; that’s hardly suggestive of an irrelevant, radical fringe.

READ THE FULL ARTICLE >>

Popularity: 3% [?]

Supposedly, Australia’s ambitious clean energy network will cost households just eight dollars a week over the next ten years, the NYT declares in a recent report. But new studies show that renewable, green technology is quite costly and cannot be sustained without government intervention. These facts go missing from the report…

So called renewable energy sources comprise just 6 percent of Australia’s power supplies, but this could change dramatically in the next few years if environmentalists have their druthers, according to a New York Times “Green Column” that highlights pending projects. Current plans call for the largest wind farm in the Southern Hemisphere to be built between now and 2013, the report says.

Although the report concedes that there are enormous logistical challenges connected with the project, it permits renewable industry advocates to talk around the engineering obstacles. The NYT also claims the renewable energy initiatives will generate modest costs for Australian citizens. But the experiences of European countries and U.S. states suggest otherwise and should be reported.

READ THE FULL ARTICLE >>

Popularity: 6% [?]

Rep. Paul Ryan (R-Wis.) has offered  a comprehensive, highly detailed plan for financial and economic renewal that has inspired small government activists across the country. It has also earned positive media coverage from left leaning sources that are normally hostile toward free market concepts. But the New York Times is not part of this mix. Columnist Paul Krugman claims Ryan’s plan is an unrealistic giveaway to the rich. Meanwhile, entitlement spending is sustainable and responsible?

Columnist Paul Krugman is agitated, if not panicked.

An audacious proposal aimed at reforming collapsing entitlements, reducing debt and alleviating burdensome taxation has been on the receiving end of positive press coverage. It must therefore be taken down and discredited as an unrealistic sham replete with tax favors for the rich.  Even as The Washington Post and other left-leaning publications provide readers with a balanced and comprehensive critique, it is instructive to note that The New York Times feels a need to perpetuate entitlement illusions.

Democrats who have added a new financial liability on top of existing programs in the form of ObamaCare get a free pass, while Krugman zeros in on Rep. Paul Ryan (R-Wis.) for offering up a proposal that the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) says would make Medicare permanently solvent. Ryan has called for a voucher system that would allow seniors to shop for their own private insurance as part of his Roadmap for America’s Future. This is but one aspect of a highly detailed financial plan set up in stark contrast to the “government-centered ideology” that now holds sway in Washington D.C.

READ THE FULL ARTICLE >>

Popularity: 5% [?]