Saturday October 22nd 2005, 11:24 am
Filed under: Government, Media Concentration
Why would a bunch of newspapers decide to support Bush and the interests of the rich around the same time in the same way?
Each of the newspapers is owned by Freedom Communications, Inc. (freedom to spread propaganda for the rich.)
Each of the editorials is unsigned as the official opinion of the newspaper.
Each says Bush was right to lower the wages of workers rebuilding New Orleans, by suspending the Davis-Bacan law requiring prevailing-wages for government contracts.
And they all happen to say exactly the same thing, beginning with this paragraph:
One of the smartest things President Bush did to reduce recovery costs in the aftermath of hurricanes Katrina and Rita was to suspend Davis-Bacon Act rules in the hardest hit states. But Congress is frantically trying to overrule the president, which would add billions of dollars to the already staggering recovery costs.
Amazing that newspapers from California, Colorado, and North Carolina could be channeling, simultaneously and in complete harmony, the Bush administration line for cutting wages for workers rebuilding the Gulf Coast.
Papers recently running this include the Daily News of Jacksonville, NC and the The Colorado Springs Gazette of Colorado Springs, Colorado.
Freedom Communications also owns TV stations.
More city newspapers will probably have the pro-rich, pro-Bush editorial line from Freedom Communications if the FCC changes this rule.
Regarding the substance of the editorial:
The Davis-Bacon Act which George W. Bush suspended requires workers on government contracts to get prevailing wages.
It is bad policy to hurt workers by suspending this rule.
It’s more effective to rebuild New Orleans through good-paying jobs which give workers stability and spending money they can use at other businesses, then by giving workers lousy wages while the middlemen with contacts in the the government make millions.
If Freedom Communications is so concerned about saving taxpayer money, why not limit the amount of money which the executives can make off these deals, instead of lowering what workers will be paid?