WASHINGTON — House Speaker John Boehner is rejecting President Obama’s offer to make historic cuts to the federal government and the social safety net, saying in a statement Saturday evening that he can not agree to the tax increases Democrats insisted on as part of the bargain. Boehner made his decision after speaking with the president by phone on Saturday afternoon, a day ahead of a major White House meeting with Democratic and GOP leadership, a Republican source familiar with situation said. Obama had proposed to Republicans a “grand bargain” that accomplished a host of individual things that are unpopular on their own, but that just might pass as a huge package jammed through Congress with default looming. Obama offered to put Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid cuts on the table in exchange for a tax hike of roughly $100 billion per year over 10 years. Meanwhile, government spending would be cut by roughly three times that amount. It’s no small irony that the party’s dogmatic opposition to tax increases is costing the GOP its best opportunity to roll back social programs it has long targeted. Republicans are now banking on a smaller deficit reduction deal that would still make major cuts, somewhere in the range of $2 trillion. “Despite good-faith efforts to find common ground, the White House will not pursue a bigger debt reduction agreement without tax hikes,” Boehner said in a statement. “I believe the best approach may be to focus on producing a smaller measure, based on the cuts identified in the Biden-led negotiations, that still meets our call for spending reforms and cuts greater than the amount of any debt limit increase.” While taxes are being put forward as a major cause of the collapse of the grand bargain, a Republican familiar with the discussions said that the two parties couldn’t come to an agreement on cuts to entitlements. “The White House would not agree with the core elements of tax reform proposed by the Speaker,” said the official. “A gulf also remains between the Speaker and the White House on the issue of medium and long-term structural reforms.” When word leaked out this past week that Obama was proposing cuts to entitlements, Democrats in Congress and outside advocates kicked their opposition into high gear, making it clear that no bargain would win their support if it contained any cuts to Social Security or Medicare beneficiaries. That opposition may have broken the back of the bargain. UPDATE: White House Communications Director Dan Pfeiffer issued the following statement: “The President believes that solving our fiscal problems is an economic imperative. But in order to do that, we cannot ask the middle-class and seniors to bear all the burden of higher costs and budget cuts. We need a balanced approach that asks the very wealthiest and special interests to pay their fair share as well, and we believe the American people agree. “Both parties have made real progress thus far, and to back off now will not only fail to solve our fiscal challenge, it will confirm the cynicism people have about politics in Washington. The President believes that now is the moment to rise above that cynicism and show the American people that we can still do big things. And so tomorrow, he will make the case to congressional leaders that we must reject the politics of least resistance and take on this critical challenge.” Senator Harry Reid (D-Nev.) released the following statement late Saturday night: I am disappointed that Republicans are unable to work with us to take a historic step forward that would have dramatically reduced our long-term deficit. We asked Republicans to consider a balanced approach that would have required shared sacrifice, but they would not. We still need to make sure we avert the economic catastrophe that would occur if we were to let America fail to pay its bills for the first time in our history, and I am confident that we will. Americans have a right to expect their leaders to rise above partisanship and do the right thing for our economy and the middle class. Senator Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) released the following statement: The President has called the Republicans’ bluff by offering them exactly the type of grand bargain they said they wanted, only to have it rejected. Speaker Boehner had shown in the last week that, if it were up to him alone to decide, the nation would not be risking default to protect the wealthiest two percent of Americans. But in the end, neither the olive branch extended by the President nor the pragmatic streak shown by Speaker Boehner was enough to overcome the far right’s obsession with defending tax breaks for millionaires and other special-interest tax loopholes. Some on the Republican side would like to confuse the issue by pretending it was tax hikes on the middle class that they were trying to prevent, but none were ever on the table. This decision to reject the President’s offer means as much as a trillion-dollar gulf remains between the two sides on a debt limit deal, and Republicans should be put on notice that no matter how hard they try, their plan to end Medicare as we know it will never fill in that gap.
Continue reading …
Nicole Kidman, Tom Hanks and Jennifer Lopez – with mum in tow – among celebrities at Bafta dinner attended by royal couple It was the night when Hollywood royalty came to meet British royalty – and there was no question who were the more starstruck. On the last night of the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge’s tour of north America, the big question was who would bother to turn out – in evening dress on a hot night an at ageing art nouveau theatre in a rundown part of central Los Angeles– for a dinner to promote British film talent, with the off-chance of meeting the royal couple. The answer, of course, was practically everyone in town. Barbra Streisand was there, Tom Hanks was there, Nicole Kidman was there, Jennifer Lopez was there – and brought her mum along – Jack Black was there, James Gandolfini of Sopranos fame was there, Quentin Tarantino was said to be there – and that was before you got to the famous Brits in Hollywood: Stephen Fry, Dominic Cooper, Russell T Davies, Cat Deeley, er, Gordon Ramsay and, double er, Piers Morgan. Some studios – Disney among them – had forked out $25,000 (£15,000) each for one of the 10-seater tables, and the guest list also included a great many middle-aged, anonymous men in black tie, accompanied by some of the most expensively made-up women in the world, who looked as if they might once have been in something. The Guardian diffidently approached one to ask whether she was one of the talented young Brits. “No, I am the partner of the caterer,” she replied. For such an array of talent there was even a red carpet to walk down, past a row of journalists, cameramen and photographers. For the young British talent, who were at the heart of the evening – 42 young actors, directors and video games developers highlighted as “Brits to watch” and given the opportunity to bond and make contacts around the laden tables – it may have been the first red carpet they have had a chance to stroll in California. Bafta, the British Academy of Film and Television Arts, sponsors many of them and Prince William is the Bafta president. Understandably, the Brits were the ones keenest to stop and talk to the British media. Thus, Katie Sole, film producer: “I think it’s great, really inspiring that they [the royal couple] want to be here. I was brought up in Ascot so I know what it means.” And Nigel Lythgoe, Bafta’s director in Los Angeles, now better known in the US as the suave “Nasty Nigel” of Pop Idol: “As a Brit, you can’t just call up and say I’m in Los Angeles, can I come and see you? It just doesn’t happen like that. “This is under one roof all the top echelon of executives in film and television and these 42 young Brits are going to be exposed to them. We are going to show their work on video, we’re going to let them sit at the tables, it’s just wonderful.” As for the duchess, his verdict was inevitable: “She has what Simon Cowell would say is the X Factor.” Of course he would. Nearby, Stephen Fry, whose ubiquity meant he had already met the royal couple at one reception, was avuncularly philosophising on their presence. “You don’t have to believe in monarchy in the medieval sense to realise what a tremendous advantage they give. You would have to be tremendously mean-spirited to say anything bad about them. The best hot-dog stall in town, Pinks, has even produced a Royal Frankfurter – two dogs in one bun – to greet their arrival. If you brought back Clark Gable and Marilyn Monroe to life you could not have had more excitement.” That might have been so, but the crowd across the road, although noisy, was small, only a couple of hundred, others perhaps put off by having to wait for many hours on a dull, dusty side road in the heat – unlike the stars, who came in the cool of the evening, and the royal couple, who arrived after the duke had spent a successful afternoon playing polo at Santa Barbara. The crowd whooped as the stars paraded, the women pausing to pose and be photographed in their evening wear. Only Nicole Kidman could be persuaded to say something cogent: “I think they are lovely … amazing. They make me smile. I just got off the phone with my mother and my mum said: ‘I am so glad you are going to be there – we are Australian.’” A more minor star, Jason Bateman, said: “It is certainly exciting that royalty has come to our city, to our weird little industry. I am assuming they are movie buffs. The only good thing about being famous is you get the chance to meet someone you may admire and they may actually want to talk to you too. They are real movie stars – we are just faking it and getting paid for it; they are the real deal.” And then the real deal arrived in a small motorcade to huge cheers and cries of “we love you”. The remaining lingering stars were ushered inside for a reception, where they were told by Duncan Kenworthy, Bafta’s Los Angeles president: “Please don’t all rush over, be cool in this coolest of towns. Trust me, they will try and chat to all of you. “You can call them whatever you want: sir, madam, Will and Kate. They are very relaxed, as I am sure you will be.” The movie crowd took no notice, chatting among themselves and happily ignoring the video of the young British talent in action being played on screens on the stage. The gossiping only stopped as the prince stepped forward, essaying a joke: “I would like to thank Colin Firth for my perfect opening line: ‘I have a voice’,” he started diffidently, proving that at least one member of the royal family has seen The King’s Speech. Down in the gold and dark red plush of the Belasco Theater’s auditorium, where the tables were set out, the young British talent was interspersed with the old Hollywood talent that may one day notice them. On a centre table, Fry sat near to Hanks with Gandolfini opposite, but the royals made a beeline straight for the latter, famous for his role as Tony Soprano, who favoured them with his wry Mafia grin. At the top table, Kidman and Streisand were waiting – the latter the only star too grand not to have bothered walking the red carpet. Both found themselves ignored as the royals sat down, gazing only at each other before belatedly acknowledging the stars sitting opposite. Streisand was hidden from them behind a large table lamp, around which her hand came flapping urgently in greeting. Sometimes even the greatest stars can’t resist getting in on a piece of the action. William and Catherine visit more humble folk today – an inner-city arts project and a centre for injured former servicemen – before flying home by a scheduled flight, although it is a safe bet that they will not be travelling cabin class. Their trip to Canada, with its brief stopover in Los Angeles – a celebrity-obsessed city that William’s mother, Diana, never got to – has been a clear success. Large and enthusiastic crowds greeted them across Canada and the couple engaged with those they met with ease and charm. They did not put a foot wrong, no gaffes, no tantrums, just smiles – and their success means they will be asked to do it again, and again. It may postpone, if not change, the ultimate fate of the monarchy, but they have sprinkled a little stardust over the battered old institution. As Licia Corbella, a columnist on the Calgary Herald, wrote this week: “It is undeniable that they are breathing new life into a monarchy grown stodgy and seemingly irrelevant to younger generations. It doesn’t hurt either that they both look hot in jeans and cowboy duds.” Well, up to a point: the duchess’s costume count had reached 23 by yesterday. Prince William The Duchess of Cambridge Monarchy Celebrity United States Stephen Bates guardian.co.uk
Continue reading …FNC’s Colmes Disputes MSNBC’s Olbermann/Halperin Double Standard, Contradicts Himself
July 9, 2011 No CommentFNC’s Colmes Disputes MSNBC’s Olbermann/Halperin Double Standard, Contradicts Himself
July 9, 2011 No CommentAP Biz Writer on Good Stocks to Buy: ‘One Good Bet: The Jobless Aren’t Likely to Find Work Anytime Soon’
July 9, 2011 No Comment
While Associated Press Economics writers like Christopher Rugaber and Paul Wiseman, as seen in a post this morning (at NewBusters ; at BizzyBlog ), talk of “baffled economists” and a job market that is “defying history,” one AP writer, in discussing stocks which have done well in this economy, has revealed what employment prospects really are with quite un-baffling certainty from the point of view of those who have to put their money where their expectations are, i.e., investors. The wire service's Bernard Condon cited a pawn shop operator, a payday lender, a debt-collection firm, and a rent-to-own outfit as companies which have outperformed the market and are expected to continue doing so. The reason for the expectation is found in the title of this post, which is also seen in the following excerpt from Condon's composition : How bad is it? Pawn shops, payday lenders are hot As the jobless rate inches up and the economic recovery sputters, investors looking for a few good stocks may want to follow the money – or rather the TV, the beloved Fender guitar, the baubles from grandma, the wedding ring. Profits at pawn shop operator Ezcorp Inc. have jumped by an average 46 percent annually for five years. The stock has doubled from a year ago, to about $38. … In investing, it's often better to focus on what you can safely predict, even if that safety is found in companies that thrive on hard times. One good bet: The jobless aren't likely to find work anytime soon. And companies profiting from their bad fortune will continue to do so. B-B-B-But I thought the president told us three months ago that “We are turning the corner.” And of course, there's been no shortage of Associated Press and other wire service reports telling us that the economy is on the “rebound” and that the joblessness problem is a result of “temporary factors,” blah-blah-blah-blech. Not so, as Condon explains, because when it comes to putting one's money where the greatest expected returns are, the companies whose prospects are bright are those which work with the financially at risk or cater to the growing number of Americans who have become misers by necessity: – Stock in payday lender Advance America Cash Advance Centers (AEA) has doubled from a year ago, to just under $8. Rival Cash America International Inc. (CSH) is up 64 percent, to $58. … – Profits at Encore Capital Group, a debt collector that targets people with unpaid credit cards bills and other debts, rose nearly 50 percent last year. Encore has faced class action suits in several states, including California, over its collection practices. The Minnesota attorney general filed a suit in March. No matter. The stock (ECPG) is up 59 percent from a year ago, to more than $30. – Stock in Rent-A-Center (RCII), which leases televisions, couches, computers and more, is up 57 percent from a year ago to nearly $32. Nine of the 11 analysts covering the company say it will rise further and that investors should buy it. The idea of investing in companies catering to the hard-up might not be palatable to some people. But it is profitable. Memo to Chris Rugaber and Paul Wiseman: It's also not baffling and certainly doesn't defy history. Cross-posted at BizzyBlog.com .
Continue reading …
Viral Ad of the Day: All-Pro NFL stars Matt Cassel and Patrick Willis, MMA Champions Jon “Bones” Jones and Urijah Faber, America’s Toughest Trainer Jillian Michaels, WWE legend Rey Misterio, and Olympic hopeful Josh Cox star in the latest Kenny Powers viral from K-Swiss. Shut up and watch this. [ barstool .] Broadcasting platform : YouTube Source : The Daily What Discovery Date : 08/07/2011 21:46 Number of articles : 4
Continue reading …
Betty Ford said things that first ladies just don’t say, even today. And 1970s America loved her for it. According to Mrs. Ford, her young adult children probably had smoked marijuana – and if she were their age, she’d try it, too. She told “60 Minutes” she wouldn’t be surprised to learn that her youngest, 18-year-old Susan, was in a sexual relationship (an embarrassed Susan issued a denial). She mused that living together before marriage might be wise, thought women should be drafted into the military if men were, and spoke up unapologetically for abortion rights, taking a position contrary to the president’s. “Having babies is a blessing, not a duty,” Mrs. Ford said. The former first…
Continue reading …The ironic thing was that I had been planning to write a positive piece this morning about Obama’s remarks on housing in yesterday’s Twitter town hall , as I was pleased he was acknowledging the mistakes of his housing policy, and was hopeful that this statement — along with the outstanding news this morning of new Treasury rules forcing banks to give some mortgage relief to unemployed homeowners — signaled a tougher stance on Wall Street. And I was hoping that Christine Varney’s departure from the antitrust division at the Department of Justice might give an opportunity for someone more aggressive to be appointed there, so my mood was pretty good before I saw this morning’s all-hope-dies-here headline on Social Security. Oh, well. This administration has specialized at raising progressive hopes one minute and crushing them the very next. The question now on Social Security is what exactly is on the table and what isn’t. The statement the White House put out this morning is this: There is no news here. The President has always said that while Social Security is not a major driver of the deficit, we do need to strengthen the program and the President said in the State of the Union Address that he wanted to work with both parties to do so in a balanced way that preserves the promise of the program and doesn’t slash benefits. That not slashing benefits part of the statement sure sounds good and makes me feel better, but what does working with the Republicans in a balanced way mean? They want to cut benefits, not raise the payroll tax. And Social Security — unlike Medicare and Medicaid which include a lot of payments to providers that can be tinkered with in different ways to potentially lower costs — is all benefits. So is it on the table or isn’t it? The White House says the President is opposed to cutting benefits, which is wonderful, and I’m grateful for them reiterating that in the wake of the news reports this morning. But if you put it on the table, that means benefits might get cut, which is a disaster for the middle class, and a disaster for the Democratic Party. It would break the Democratic coalition into pieces, do more to alienate the base than any other thing the President could do, alienate seniors, who have never been too crazy about Obama anyway and who we need to move toward us in 2012, take away the political high ground Democrats seized because of the Ryan budget’s attacks on Medicare and Medicaid. It is the high rollers on Wall Street and their friends in the media and D.C. establishment who want to put Social Security on the table. The funders of the “we can solve our budget problems by cutting Social Security and Medicare and Medicaid” PR campaign are people like Wall Street billionaire Pete Peterson. Billionaires and multimillionaires demanding that retired people getting an average of $14,000 a year in Social Security get their benefits cut has always struck me as just a little wrong. Especially when these wealthy and powerful elitists figure out how to shelter their own income so they can avoid paying the same rate as their secretaries. But these hypocritical powerbrokers are exactly the ones for whom the entire Republican Party is fighting so hard. The question now: will Obama join them in screwing the middle class? When it comes to government policy, there is no way to avoid the question of who wins and who loses. And over the last three years, in this massive economic crisis America has faced, it is the Wall Street big boys, the overgrown banks who own assets equal to 64 percent of our country’s GDP, who keep winning. When they blew up the economy and taxpayers bailed them out with no strings attached, Wall Street won. When the biggest banks swallowed up their competitors and got even bigger, Wall Street won. When bonuses and profits returned to record levels a year after they were bailed out, in the midst of the worst recession since the 1930s, Wall Street won. When the legislation allowing judges to force them to negotiate on mortgage writedowns failed, Wall Street won. When their carried interest tax loophole failed to get repealed, Wall Street won. When the amendment to force the break-up of the biggest banks lost, Wall Street won. When loopholes were added to derivatives regulations, Wall Street won. When the antitrust division at DOJ refused to lift a finger against the huge mega-banks, Wall Street won. When none of the top executives at these banks that had manipulated the economy went to jail, and few of them even lost their job, Wall Street won. The biggest question of our times is this: in spite of the naked greed, corruption, and excess exposed in the 2008 panic, will the win streak keep going? Will they succeed in taking Social Security money away from low and middle-income seniors? Or will, just maybe, the Obama administration stand up to Wall Street corruption this time? If Obama knows he needs to change his policy on housing, and starts doing more truly great things like the announcement today in terms of helping unemployed people keep their homes, that would be a major victory for the middle class over the Wall Street titans. If Obama were to replace Christine Varney with a head of antitrust who was more aggressive at breaking up huge companies who have too much market power, like the Too Big to Fail banks, that would be a blockbuster victory for both the economy and our democracy. If Obama finally does the right thing and gives Elizabeth Warren a recess appointment to the new Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, that would be an exciting victory for the middle class over the big banks who have been trying to stop her. These issues are all tied together in the same question: does the middle class win, or does Wall Street win? If Obama chooses Wall Street, gives into the banks on all these issues, and hurts senior citizens with Social Security cuts, he will break apart the Democratic coalition and doom his re-election chances. If he challenges Wall Street and fights for the middle class, he will win the 2012 election in a landslide. No matter what Obama does, though, progressives need to keep fighting for what we believe in: we need to fight with all our strength to preserve Social Security benefits, and we need to take on the Wall Street banks on behalf of homeowners and consumers.
Continue reading …
This week's boomlet of smearing Republicans as fiscal Wahhabis and budgetary suicide bombers was the top agenda item when MRC president Brent Bozell appeared on the Hannity show's “Media Mash” segment Thursday night. First, they discussed how Chris Matthews repeatedly called Republicans terrorists who want to “abolish” the federal government at the mere prospect that they're resisting tax hikes. Bozell remarked that on MSNBC, Mark Halperin was banned indefinitely for calling Barack Obama a crude anatomical term for “jerk.” But an MSNBC host can repeatedly call conservatives a band of terrorists out to destroy America, and that’s just another day at the office. [See video below. MP3 audio here .]
Continue reading …NYT: Debt Ceiling Woes Caused By Bush Tax Cuts and GOP Refusal to Raise Revenues
July 8, 2011 No Comment
The New York Times on Friday once again proved itself to have absolutely no clue how budgets work. In its editorial “Negotiating the Debt Ceiling on a Knife's Edge,” the Times – like so many other math-challenged “news” organizations in America today – blamed the current debt ceiling woes on the Bush tax cuts and Republican refusal to raise revenues: Every fresh report of “progress” on the debt-ceiling talks produces new reasons to feel profoundly uneasy. The talks were misbegotten from the beginning, made necessary only by the irresponsible refusal of Republicans to pay the nation’s bills unless they got everything their way on government spending and taxes. So the talks were “misbegotten” and only “made necessary” because the Republicans refuse to raise taxes? This not only requires a willing suspension of arithmetic acumen but also a pre-schooler's knowledge of recent history. The Democrats controlled both chambers of Congress and the White House for two years. In only one of those years did they propose a budget. They chose to completely abdicate this responsibility in 2010 due to fears whatever they offered would hurt them at the polls. What the Times and all of its Obama-loving brethren in the press have been ignoring is that this situation we're facing today was brought on by the failure of the Party they support to address this matter well before the clock approached midnight. During his press conference last week, the President joked about his daughters – whatever their ages – getting their homework done a day before its due, and chided Republicans to do the same. Yet it is him and his Party that have consistently dragged their feet on matters relating to the budget, a fact his press all too gladly continue to give him a pass for as they blame all the nation's fiscal woes on Republicans. The Times on Friday was more than willing to do its part: It is already clear that the Republicans have succeeded spectacularly in their insistence that the agreement be mostly about spending cuts rather than building back the money lost from the Bush tax cuts that was the principal cause of the deficit. Ah yes. Our deficit problem is all because of the Bush tax cuts. It has absolutely nothing to do with a 41 percent increase in spending since the Democrats took over Congress in January 2007. The final Republican-created and Bush signed fiscal 2007 budget spent only $2.73 trillion. If we spent that this year, with projected tax receipts of $2.57 trillion, our budget would practically be balanced. If the Democrats had only raised spending at the rate of inflation, the 2011 deficit would be $370 billion and we'd be nowhere near the debt ceiling. Nevermind such inconvenient truths, Times readers. In the Gray Lady's strange world, eliminating the Bush tax cuts – which might raise $379 billion a year – completely wipes out a $1.5 trillion deficit. Isn't it funny that the same people who accuse conservatives of being anti-science because they don't believe carbon dioxide is destroying the planet are anti-math? And they have the nerve to call us the know-nothings.
Continue reading …