Click here to view this media It looks like Republican presidential candidate Newt Gingrich has been proven wrong again. At a campaign event in Suwanee, Georgia last week, the former House Speaker promised supporters that he would bring back cheaper gas because “you can’t put a gun rack on a Volt.” One Crooks and Liars reader noticed our coverage and posted a YouTube video to prove the former Speaker of the House wrong. “He said you couldn’t put a gun rack in a Volt,” the car owner explained. “I take this to heart because I own a Volt… And as you can see, you can put a gun rack in the back of a Volt.”
Continue reading …enlarge For this one, let’s start with a good definition of “theocracy.” the·oc·ra·cy a form of government in which God or a deity is recognized as the supreme civil ruler, the God’s or deity’s laws being interpreted by the ecclesiastical authorities. Rick Santorum, who is a radically conservative, pre-Vatican II Roman Catholic, has said that birth control is ” not okay ,” has argued that states should have the right to ban contraception , that the federal government should require schools to teach creationism , that both homosexuals and adulterers should be imprisoned , and that doctors who perform a legal medical procedure are criminals. Now, I’m not sure who Lewis is referring to when he writes “people” in that tweet — but I do think it’s deeply ironic that someone like Santorum is expressing alarm about theocracy in Iran.
Continue reading …I enjoy reading The Onion , even more so when those it lampoons don’t get the joke. But while satire is meant to be amusing, it quite often reflects a more serious state of affairs. A recent Onion post on a captive breeding program designed to save the critically endangered moderate Republican had me laughing, before it had me thinking. Because, actually… they’re right – the Republican Party truly is dying. For all intents and purposes, it’s already dead, the only impression of life being the lurching about of animated zombies eating their own brains, leaving the traditional mainstream moderate Republican conservative embarrassed and frustrated. The traditional mainstream moderate conservatives aren’t even in reality Republicans any longer, as the party itself has deteriorated from the rot of tea party fanaticism, and Koch Brother corruption, and the constant barrage Fox propaganda posing as journalism, and hate-filled blustering talk shows spewing hydrophobic nonsense, and the jaw-droppingly atrocious bunch of incompetent idiots posing as GOP Presidential candidates. All that is left of a once a respectable political party is the name “Republican” for nostalgic conservatives to cling to. Which is so not good for our country. If disaffected Republicans ever managed to purge themselves of the zombies and the tea partiers and the Limbaughs and Fox and regrouped as something else, much like New Labour rebranded itself in the UK (although New Labour turned out to be just Tory Lite rather than any sort of improved Labour party), Democrats might finally have genuine opponents again – which would be both a bit scary and a bit hopeful. A nation runs best when there’s an honorable opposition to keep the ruling party honest, regardless of what party is in power. An honorable opposition represents a very large proportion of the nation’s citizenship, and gives that citizenship a strong voice. An honorable opposition works harder at designing and proposing alternative ideas in the hope that the good they can do will garner them enough votes next go-round at the polls. I’d like to see an honorable opposition again. Right now, that just doesn’t exist, and it’s not good for either side. Right now, we have a Republican party usurped by loons and goons whose only goal is to bring down President Obama, regardless of the cost to the country, regardless of the damage. Oh, they have a few other ulterior motives, like imposing an authoritarian religious regime on the country that would give hardline Sharia law a run for its money, revoking decades of progressive advancement and what little civil liberties we’ve got left after the Bush administration was through. But repairing our badly damaged and crumbling roads, our airports, bridges, dams, levees, schools, hospitals, national parks, our electrical and water grids? Creating badly needed jobs and strengthening an economy teetering on the edge of collapse? No, that’s not even a blip on their radar, too busy preaching tax cuts for the rich and “austerity” and “sacrifice” for everyone else, like a fat man telling someone dying of starvation the way to get better is to eat even less. And as a result, we have a Democratic Party gradually starting to lose its way as well, rife with DINOs and Blue Dogs and the incompetent or lazy or co-opted. Without an honorable opposition, we have very little with which to keep our party honest. We need a strong, healthy, honorable Republican Party to stay strong, healthy and honorable ourselves. The Republican Party was once a champion of civil rights, personal responsibility and a regulated government, and engendered people like Abraham Lincoln, Teddy Roosevelt and Dwight Eisenhower. Today, Mitt Romney’s father would not recognize the Republican Party his son would like to head, Ronald Reagan’s son says his father would be furious with what the Republican party has become – a party utterly dominated by the rich, the religious fanatic, the psychotic, and the jingoistic bigot. The last remnants of the decent, honorable Old Time Republican party are either senile or dead, what’s left is vitriolic, mean-spirited and downright stupid. There is no Republican Party any longer. It has the name, but it long ago lost its mind before it lost its soul. And I, for one, truly do mourn its passing. Cross-posted at Mouse Musings
Continue reading …Click here to view this media Liz Trotta apparently doesn’t have any remorse about her statements that John wrote about last week, where she said that women in the military should expect to be raped , and rather than apologize, she decided to double down and blame the liberals and feminists for her woes. Via Raw Story — In labored clarification, Fox contributor castigates military’s ‘fake heroism’ : Appearing on the Fox News show America’s News HQ , contributor Liz Trotta attempted to clarify remarks she made earlier this month that became fodder for The Daily Show , during which host Jon Stewart summarized that she did not want the military helping women who’ve been “raped too much. ” Unfortunately for the former Washington Times editor , what she actually said isn’t going to make the controversy go away — but then, that may have been the point. After suggesting that the issue of women in military roles has “never gotten a fair and open hearing,” Trotta went on to say: “The political correctness infecting the Pentagon has resulted in silly and dishonest fairy tales about female heroism,” she said. “Has anyone forgotten the Jessica Lynch story?” “There are countless other stories of fake heroism or exaggerated prowess in which women are the stars, many of them tailored for The New York Times and its agenda to promote militant feminism, no matter what the truth,” Trotta added. And here’s more via Mediaite — Fox’s Liz Trotta Clarifies Remarks About Women In The Military : Later in her appearance, Trotta noted that: The military is not a social services operation, or a testing ground for gender wars. It is a fighting machine. Women are not as strong as men. Their instincts and reactions in crises are markedly different. There’s a reality the left will not face: biology is not destiny. “I certainly did not say all military men are rapists,” she added. “I believe that the environment of combat, by definition, sets up the situation where basic instincts rule. Any scientist will tell you that testosterone rules.”
Continue reading …2012 Feb. 20 • Silent Protest for Women’s Rights • Virginia State Capitol • Richmond, Virginia from Silver Persinger on Vimeo . Update : Lawmakers in Virginia put off a final vote Tuesday on a highly contested bill that would require women in the eastern US state to undergo a transvaginal ultrasound prior to an abortion. Republican Governor Bob McDonnell, a Roman Catholic father of five, was poised to swiftly sign the so-called “informed consent” bill — adopted by the state senate earlier this month– into law. But a day after 1,000 protesters descended on the state capitol in Richmond, the House of Delegates held off on third and final reading of the legislation, leaving open the possibility it might yet be amended or dropped altogether when it comes before the chamber again on Wednesday. ==================================== Over 1,000 demonstrators assembled outside of Virginia’s Capitol on Monday. Standing silently in the cold, they lined the walkway used by the legislators who have been voting on — and voting away — women’s rights in Virginia. The Richmond Times-Dispatch reported that a bill to require ultrasounds of women about to undergo an abortion was scheduled for passage on Monday, but was pushed back by the House: With hundreds protesting outside the Capitol, the House of Delegates delayed multiple contentious bills that appeared poised for final passage today. The chamber pushed back votes on a measure that would require an ultrasound of all women considering an abortion as well as adoption- and gun-related legislation. `From their Facebook page : The Capitol ground rules say that we cannot assemble, hold signs, chant, yell or protest. We think silence in the face of this struggle and their unconstitutional rules presents the strongest response to their assault on women. Please come out and stand up for our rights and for the rights of all women in VA to choose the best reproductive route for themselves. These people are used to signs, yelling, chanting etc. It is not new. They are not used to silently being stared at and having to look us in the eye. It gives us the power. Tuesday, reports indicate that even as women continue to protest at the Capitol, the ultrasound bill is now headed to the Governor: After garnering national attention and jokes at the state’s expense, a bill to require ultrasounds of women about to undergo an abortion will likely head to Gov. Bob McDonnell after final passage in the House of Delegates today. On Monday, about 1,000 people appeared at the Capitol to oppose the measure as part of a women’s rights rally that came together quickly through social media and word of mouth. Thanks in part to left-leaning political pundits such as MSNBC’s Rachel Maddow and a satirical take on the issue from “Saturday Night Live,” the legislation has made its way into the national spotlight, raising a furor from opponents who see the proposed requirement as wildly invasive. That’s due in part to the fact that trans-vaginal ultrasounds are the only method available to doctors that early in a woman’s pregnancy. A recent poll showed that the majority of Virginians reject the measure. Of those surveyed, 55 percent say they oppose the legislation while 36 percent support it. Saturday Night Live’s The “Really!?! With Seth & Amy” segment took aim at the “personhood” bill from Del. Robert G. Marshall, R-Prince William, and an ultrasound abortion requirement proposed by Del. Kathy J. Byron, R-Campbell.
Continue reading …Click here to view this media For the perpetual tax-cutters of the Republican Party, last week’s surrender on the payroll tax cut extension for 160 million working Americans was an especially damaging one. While tried if untrue GOP talking points that “tax cuts pay for themselves” and “never need to be offset” were thoroughly debunked, new polling shows the large Republican lead on the tax issue has virtually evaporated. All of which explains why Eric Cantor and House Republicans are now proposing the ” JOBS Act, ” a package of anti-regulatory measures and a whopping 20 percent tax cut for small businesses. Sadly for Cantor, a mountain of evidence shows that customer demand , and not government regulations, is the biggest burden to small business hiring. And with the total federal tax burden having hit its lowest level since 1950 , the GOP would deliver billions in budget-busting tax breaks to millions who need them least. Last year, House and Senate Republicans blocked President Obama’s proposal for a temporary reduction in employers’ payroll tax contributions because its cost was to be funded by surtax on millionaires. Now, House Republicans are proposing the Jumpstart Our Business Startups (JOBS) Act, as Majority Leader Cantor explained on Fox News Sunday : “We’ll be bringing forward a bill that provides 20 percent tax cut for small businesses — again, knowing full well that small businesses create more than 60 percent of the jobs in this country.” But host Chris Wallace quickly exposed what would be another GOP windfall for the wealthy . Recalling the GOP’s defense of the “job creators” who don’t create jobs , Wallace rightly asked, “Does that mean that those small businessmen who file individual taxes would get a 20 percent cut in their taxes? CANTOR: Well, we know that overwhelmingly, the number of folks who are business people in this country file as individuals. We know that. We want to help the small businesses as defined by the Small Business Administration. That’s 500 employees or less. Those entities will be allowed for 20 percent tax cut straight to the bottom line — and that’s what we want to do to make it easier for these small businesses to start up. WALLACE: But does that mean a lot of folks who are making $250,000 a year are going to get a tax cut? CANTOR: You know, Chris, you know, that suggestion is somehow that we shouldn’t be, and I shouldn’t be going home to my district in Richmond, Virginia, and telling a small business person that I can help by providing a tax cut for them so they can grow their business and hire more people just because maybe someone else benefits. As it turns out, that someone else might be Donald Trump , Oprah Winfrey or, say, the owner of the New York Giants. That’s because, as we learned during the GOP’s successful 2010 fight to prevent a return to the Clinton-era tax rate for those earning over $250,000 a year , the Republican definition of small business includes tens of thousands of doctors, dentists, lawyers, consultants, athletes – even author Barack Obama – who employ few or no workers. As after Bloomberg , the New York Times , the Washington Post , TPM , CBPP and MSNBC among other documented, that list of the top 2% of small business earners (just 400,000 out of 34.3 million filers) also includes multi-billion dollar firms, partnerships and “S-Corporations”, such as Bechtel, Coors, and PriceWaterhouseCoopers. So much for Eric Cantor’s claim that “At the end of the day we are all in this together.” But Cantor’s con JOBS Act doesn’t end there. The other major component, he announced Sunday, is to “address the regulatory burden that small businesses are facing so we can see them start up again.” Pointing to a recent Gallup small business survey, Cantor claimed on Wednesday : “They cited, overwhelmingly, the reasons they are not looking to hire new workers is because of the fear of rising health care costs coming out of this government and out of the health care law. They also said the reason why they’re not hiring is the fear of increased regulation that will make it more difficult for them to keep the doors open and the lights on.” But as Crooks and Liars documented last week, the cost of regulations and health care weren’t even in the top four reasons Gallup’s small business owners gave for not hiring more workers: In a new Gallup poll released Wednesday, small business owners revealed that the lack of need for new employees (76 percent), worries over revenue (71 percent) and concern about the state of the U.S. economy (66 percent) were the top three reasons for not hiring new workers. But you’d never know that if you just glanced at Gallup’s headline, which instead warned, “Health Costs, Gov’t Regulations Curb Small Business Hiring.” As it turns out, the finding that weak sales and flagging customer demand are far and away the leading impediments to small business hiring has been confirmed by the Washington Post , the Wall Street Journal , McClatchy and Small Business Majority, just to name a few. CNN recently reached the same conclusion. Asking “Is government regulation really holding back the labor market?” CNN answered, “Not so much, according to government data and surveys of business owners and economists.” Only a small percentage of employers report regulation as a reason for laying off workers…And a CNNMoney survey of economists conducted in the second quarter delivered similar results. Only a couple of the 16 economists questioned said government regulation was the biggest drag on the labor market. An analysis by Moebs Services similarly concluded: The uncertainty plaguing the American economy has nothing to do with government regulations or taxes on millionaires. It’s an uncertainty driven squarely by consumers and small-businesses who are worried about their short-term financial prospects. And it’s been going on since well before Obama took up residence in the White House. In his demolition of the GOP’s talking points, Larry Mishel of the Economic Policy Institute pointed that small businesses’ concerns over taxes and federal regulations are much lower now that it has been in 15 years. Poor sales have been Job One since the onset of the Bush recession in late 2007. What businesses (and business economists) say in private surveys also does not support the “regulatory uncertainty” mantra one hears from the D.C.-based business trade associations.. The National Federation of Independent Business (NFIB), which describes itself as “the leading small business association representing small and independent businesses,” does a regular survey of small businesses. One question that has been asked since 1973, is “what is the single most important problem your business faces?” The answer choices are inflation, taxes, government regulation, poor sales, quality of labor, interest costs, health insurance costs, the cost of labor, and other matters. Interestingly, the single largest response is “poor sales,” the choice of 30 percent of respondents since President Obama was sworn in (averaging the 10 quarters between early 2009 and spring 2011). In other words, slack demand appears to be the key concern of small businesses. All of which is why the Republicans’ JOBS Act is a con job. Unlike the Obama payroll tax cut for employers which was never brought to a vote in the House and filibustered by Senate Republicans, Eric Cantor’s gambit does virtually nothing to jump-start small business hiring. (It’s worth noting that the Economic Policy Institute among others forecast the employer-side payroll tax cut would have less bang for the buck than other elements of Obama’s American Jobs Act .) While they have a catchier acronym this time around, Republicans are pushing regulatory reform small businesses aren’t worried about and tax cuts they don’t need. (This piece also appears at Perrspectives .)
Continue reading …It’s tea party reporter, Miss Susie Sampson’s latest installment on the campaign trail.
Continue reading …Y’know, we were all pretty hard on Issa and the House GOP for having one-sided, inherently misogynistic hearings on birth control. We, as a progressive community, kvetched that having a panel of men testify on a women’s health issue was a mistake born of political gamesmanship and intolerance. Boy, is the egg on our face. Recently found footage, seen here, suggests that there WAS an attempt at balance in these hearings–a chance for turnabout, fair play, and justice. So, our apologies to Issa, Walsh, and all the other gentlemen of the House GOP. You guys clearly know how to treat women. Maybe that will help with this little problem. Thanks fellahs!
Continue reading …Hardline demands from northern European governments dampen hopes second rescue package will be signed off The Greek people and their government were on Monday being made to sweat at the hands of European finance ministers for a €130bn (£110bn) bailout to save the country from bankruptcy and the eurozone from collapse. Hardline demands from northern European governments dampened initial optimism that the eurogroup of 17 finance ministers would sign off on a second rescue package for the stricken Greek economy in less than two years. Jean-Claude Juncker, the prime minister of Luxembourg, who was chairing the meeting in Brussels, had said on arriving: “I am of the opinion that today we have to deliver, because we don’t have any more time”. The brinkmanship came amid conflicting assessments of the likely impact of a Greek debt default, with some arguing it would provoke runs on banks and a pan-European depression and others insisting it would swiftly be contained and ultimately encourage new Greek competitiveness. Greece must repay €14.4bn of its debt by 20 March, but some European diplomats said the bailout might not be finalised until just days before that deadline – if at all. The Dutch and Germans refused to endorse the package even though Evangelos Venizelos, the Greek finance minister, who arrived with his prime minister, Lucas Papademos, insisted Athens had now met all the conditions for the bailout. “For Greeks, this is a matter of national dignity and a national strategic choice and no other integrated and responsible choice can be opposed to it,” he declared. Jan Kees de Jager, his Dutch counterpart, raised the stakes before what promised to be a long and stormy meeting, by resetting tough conditions for approving the bailout, including the permanent stationing of non-Greek fiscal watchdogs in Athens. “Greece wants the money and so far we haven’t given them anything. We have said no over the past weeks. We can afford to say to no until Greece has met all the demands. It’s up to Greece and the troika [European Central Bank, IMF and European Commission] to say whether this has been done and for us it is a no until Greece has done so. If Greece lives up to all its obligations, then the Netherlands will also do its part,” he said. Dutch sources said the conservative-led minority government in the Hague would refuse to sign up for any deal that did not commit the Greek government to deliver a debt-to-GDP ratio of 120% by 2020 and allowed a drift to, say, 125% or 129% – the level assumed by the troika’s latest analysis of Greece’s depressed economy, which contracted 7% last year. “Debt sustainability is a key issue for us too,” said a German source, pointing out that the IMF would also refuse to back a deal that did not ensure such sustainability. Christine Lagarde, the IMF managing director, simply noted that Greece had made “significant efforts”. The IMF has already indicated that, whereas it contributed around a third of the first €109bn Greek rescue package, it would pay only 10-15% this time – forcing eurozone governments to pay in more. Dutch officials made plain there could be no question of increasing the rescue package to €138bn, as suggested in some quarters because the Greek economy is contracting faster than expected. “We’ve seen that Greece time and time again fails to satisfy the conditions that the international community makes … In the Netherlands, it really is an issue that you have to lend money to a country that for the umpteenth time hasn’t held itself to its agreements,” De Jager said. The German finance minister, Wolfgang Schäuble, said on arrival that he was confident a deal would be struck, but Berlin officials made plain there was an array of issues to be settled first – not least ensuring that Athens lived up to its promises, cut spending, reformed its archaic labour laws and repaid its debts. “We’re not talking about imposing commissars on each Greek ministry as it’s sometimes alleged in Athens, but ensuring that these fiscal commitments are met. That needs constant surveillance, but the mechanism for doing so is yet to be agreed,” one said. The German government is suggesting that the specially-designated (escrow) account set up to ensure that bailout monies are used to service debt and not for general public spending should be controlled by, say, senior IMF and Greek National [central] Bank officials. The conflict continued ahead of a likely decision by all 27 EU finance ministers, including the British chancellor, George Osborne, on Tuesday to approve new powers for Brussels to monitor fiscal policy within eurozone countries – and demand budget changes, in an unprecedented erosion of national sovereignty. There were some reports that Athens and Brussels had agreed that both the ECB and national central banks would take part in the debt relief programme by putting some of their profits on Greek debt into the bailout fund. But a deal with private bondholders, a core element of the overall agreement, was also at risk because the banks and other institutions could be forced to accept an even deeper “haircut” than the 70% discussed with Athens. Greek sources indicated this was part of the tense negotiations and might unravel. Any deal agreed also needs to be ratified by the parliaments of Germany, the Netherlands and Finland. The Bundestag is to debate the package on 27 February, though this may slip because of delays in completing its final details, and is certain to approve it despite loud complaints about Greek “fecklessness”. “There’s been a complete breakdown of trust between Germans and Greeks,” one European diplomat said. “The atmosphere has got extremely nasty, with all this talk of sending in the controllers.” Earlier, David Cameron tried to shift the focus of next week’s EU summit to jobs and growth by releasing an eight-point letter signed by himself and 11 other government heads – including Italy’s Mario Monti and Spain’s Mariano Rajoy. It was the first time the Italian and Spanish premiers had backed such a UK-led initiative. But conspicuously absent from the declaration, which urged a boost to growth via liberalisation of services, were the names of Angela Merkel, the German chancellor, and Nicolas Sarkozy, the French president, who traditionally launch their own “call to arms” before each EU summit. Greece European Union Europe Germany Netherlands Finland Euro Eurozone crisis European Central Bank Banking Euro Financial crisis David Gow guardian.co.uk
Continue reading …• Tories down four points to 36% in latest Guardian/ICM poll • Labour up one point on 37%, Lib Dems down two on 14% • Majority of respondents (52%) want NHS bill dropped David Cameron has squandered the Conservatives’ new year lead as voters turn against his health reforms, according to a Guardian/ICM poll. The Tories are down by four percentage points in a single month, slipping from 40% to 36% since January. Labour is one point ahead, on 37%, with Ed Miliband’s party up from 35% last month. The Liberal Democrats slip back two to stand at 14%, and the combined total of the smaller parties has climbed by four points, to 13%. As the prime minister hosted a special NHS summit , which excluded the professional bodies most opposed to his health and social care bill , the public is siding with those royal medical colleges who want the legislation ditched. An outright majority of respondents, 52%, say that the bill – which would overhaul NHS management, increase competition and give family doctors more financial responsibility – should be dropped. That is against 33% who believe it is better to stick with the plans at this stage. The 19-point overall margin in favour of abandoning the legislation is mirrored in strong leads for killing the bill across all social classes and regions, as well as among male and female voters. Only the very youngest respondents aged 18 to 24, the least likely to vote, favour sticking with the plans, by 46% to 39%. Opposition hardens with age, and is at its most marked among the over-65s – who favour dropping the bill by a 56% to 29% margin. A third of Conservatives (31%) and a significant majority of Lib Dem voters (57%) also want the proposed law to be ditched. With crunch votes on the drive to extend medical competition likely to take place in the House of Lords next week, the role of the private sector in the health service is becoming more controversial. Even though respondents were reminded that private companies already provide some NHS treatments, a clear majority, 53%, believe that such competition undermines the health service, compared with just 39% who believe it forces the NHS to raise its service standards. When ICM asked a slightly different question on private involvement in September 2005, at the height of the controversy about Tony Blair’s NHS reforms, opinion was evenly split – with 48% in favour of more private involvement, and 49% against. There are signs that the Conservatives’ failure to persuade the public about its NHS reforms could contribute to a “retoxification” of the Tory brand. Cameron – who once said his priorities could be summed up in the three letters “NHS” – initially invested a great deal of effort in overcoming the Conservatives’ historic difficulties on the terrain of health. One year into his leadership, ICM found he had made progress – in October 2006 only 31% said they did not trust the Tories at all to run the health service, as against 32% who said the same of Labour. In the latest poll, however, 40% of respondents said they did not trust the Conservatives at all, against 25% who say the same about Labour. Only a minority of voters trust either of the main parties “a lot” on the health service – 23% for Labour, and a mere 13% for the Conservatives. Labour is trusted “a little” by 46% of respondents, while 42% say the same of the Conservatives. Lib Dems will be especially interested in the results of the poll. The party’s peers could provide the decisive swing votes to amend the health bill in the Lords, and – with many of the party’s activists anxious about the reforms – the NHS is expected to loom large at its spring conference next month. The junior coalition partner can point to a series of concessions it has wrung out of the Conservatives since last year’s “pause” in the legislation’s progress, but the public does not seem to have noticed. Just 9% trust the Lib Dems a lot on health, against 45% who trust them a little and 39% who do not trust them at all, figures that are strikingly similar to those for the Tories. By 50% to 46%, remaining Lib Dem supporters are inclined to believe that competition can spur the NHS to raise its game. But among the larger group who backed the party in the 2010 election, the predominant view is that competition will instead undermine the health service, by a two-to-one margin of 60% to 32%. Dropping the bill would be especially popular among 2010 Lib Dem voters, with 67% of them backing that option, as against just 21% of this group who want the government to stick with its plans. ICM Research interviewed a random sample of 1,013 adults aged 18+ by telephone on 17-19 February 2012. Interviews were conducted across the country and the results have been weighted to the profile of all adults. ICM is a member of the British Polling Council and abides by its rules. Opinion polls NHS Health Health policy Public services policy Conservatives Labour Liberal Democrats Tom Clark guardian.co.uk
Continue reading …