I checked out the source you list in your initial post. That would be the source with the ad posted next to it for conservative T-shirts making comments about socialists. The source would be more creditable for me if it was proof read.
The headline reads:
Obama to Cut Slain Officer's Benefits in Half -- Where's Media Outrage?
The statement, as you can see, is one which either states, on purpose, that there is a particular officer ó slain officer, mind you ó whose justified benefits for his family are in danger of being cut; or which says so through journalistic incompetence. As one reads into the article, it turns out that there is no officer specifically being spoken about. It turns out that that being slain in the line of duty is a half-truth that instead should speak about officers who die while on duty ó still deserving folk, mind you, but not officers being murdered by criminals as the article allows us to think, but also officers who have died to industrial accident and the natural hazards of a dangerous job.
In fact, what the accurate statement would be is that the general fund from which the Federal government contributes to these officer's benefits is being cut. There are questions however that are not addressed in the article.
The article mentions, for example, a figure of 21%. It says that the number of police deaths has increased this year by that amount over last year. They do not say if this figure is an increase of 21% over the total number of deaths for all of 2008 or of some point thus far in the year. They are in fact quite careless with the way they chuck the number around. They are not terribly clear where the number comes from, how the computation was done and how it was arrived at. Given their carelessness with their presentation, one should not be surprised.
Nor does the article state what percentage of the benefits come from the police officer's union funds, what percentage may come from city funds and what may come from state funds. Nor do they address if there has been any contribution from these sources in the past. They act as if the sole source of the funding is from federal sources. One would need to see this addressed before wanting to express the sort of outrage that various folks have felt free to express here, simply in order to make sure that one is not being mislead by a grotesquely ill written and biased news source.
I'd like to know what unbiased sources Mike or Denise might suggest I use to find out these facts. Sources as apparently misleading as this don't seem to provide much but confusion and misdirection as far as I can tell. I would suspect that the media outrage would eventually follow on the believe that the media has believable facts to deal with. They have been wrong before, of course, and will be again, for all sorts of reasons, good and bad; but they do like to point to things that they think of as being facts as justification for what they're saying, even when they're about weapons of mass destruction that aren't there.
I simply think that this publication is doing more than trying to continue to stir up ill will about Obama at this point. If Obama was going to try to withhold money from police or firefighters who were hurt on the job, even I'd be against him, and almost every other liberal I know. I'm cautious about my civil rights; that doesn't mean I dislike police or that I want anything but safe and secure lives for them. They want their civil rights, too, I've noticed; and for the most part, they're not all that thrilled about the number of guns on the street either.
Sincerely, Bob Kaven