Bob Schieffer Asks Paul Ryan How He Can Justify Cutting Taxes for the Rich
April 18, 2011 No Comment
Click here to view this media This might have been a decent interview by CBS’s Bob Schieffer if he’d bothered to do some follow up with Rep. Paul Ryan after he pretended that his budget plan which lowers tax rates for the rich is not going to do anything but funnel more money to the wealthiest among us. He did follow up when Ryan initially said that his plan didn’t include lowering the top rates down to 25%, which he was forced to backtrack on, but then he allowed him to pretend like Republicans are ever going to agree to do anything meaningful to close the tax loopholes or to raise the effective tax rate on their wealthy campaign donors. Here are a couple of articles on what Ryan’s proposal would actually do. From Mother Jones last year — Paul Ryan’s Plan to Tax You More . Go read the article, but I wanted to share the chart it included illustrating what Ryan’s plan would mean for the tax rates all of us pay. enlarge Credit: Mother Jones And here’s more from Think Progress’ The Wonk Room — Paul Ryan’s Deliberately Vague Plan To Raise Taxes On The Middle Class : Before we all get too weak-kneed over House Budget Committee Chairman Paul Ryan’s (R-WI) “ courageous ” budget, let’s take a quick look at the tax side of the ledger. Ryan uses boilerplate language and topline bullet points to obscure an important fact: his plan would almost certainly raise taxes on most middle-income people. Here’s what we do know. Ryan’s plan would: – Maintain the Bush tax cuts, and further, cut the top individual tax rate down to 25 percent from 35 percent ; – Consolidate the current six tax brackets into some, unspecified, fewer number of brackets ; – Keep overall revenue levels the same ; – Pay for the enormous tax cut for the top by eliminating or curtailing some, unspecified, tax expenditures . More there, so go read the rest. Maybe someone can send the articles to Bob Schieffer for the next time he decides to have Paul Ryan on pretending he doesn’t really just want to lower taxes for rich people. Transcript via CBS News below the fold. SCHIEFFER: You know, you– you have two very different approaches that are now out there. The President wants to raise taxes on the wealthiest Americans. He wants to keep Medicare in place. The big part of the savings in your plan is to do away with Medicare, replace it with private insurance that would be subsidized by the government, and you actually want to lower taxes on the wealthy, even lower than the Bush tax cuts which were enacted during the Bush administration. I– I guess the question I would have, congressman, why do these rich people need another tax cut? I mean they’re already rich. They seem to be doing pretty well as it is now. Why cut their taxes some more? RYAN: So first of all, we’re not talking about cutting taxes. We’re just not agreeing with the President’s tax increases. I guess that’s the new definition of tax cuts. We’re saying keep tax rates where they are right now. And get rid of all those loopholes and deductions, which by the way are mostly enjoyed by wealthy people so you can lower tax rates. We’re basically taking a page out of the play book of the Fiscal Commission, the President’s Fiscal Commission supported by a majority of Democrats said the same thing–broaden the tax base lower the tax rates for economic growth, a simpler, flatter fair tax code more internationally competitive so we can create jobs. That’s what we’re proposing. This isn’t tax cuts. It’s tax reform targeting our revenues at where they are right now. We’re just signing on to all the tax increases that the President is proposing. And Medicare, let me just tell you, no change would occur to anybody fifty-five years of age or above. The problem is Medicare goes bankrupt in nine years. Unless we do something to save it, it won’t be there for future generations like my generation. And the ideas we’re talking about for reforming Medicare is a system that works just like the one that I have as a member of Congress, that federal employees have. It works like the prescription drug benefit works now for seniors, which has proven to lower costs and expand choices. And also it’s an idea that has come from both parties in the past. It has– traditionally had bipartisan support in the past. And I would simply say the President had one idea he gave us on Wednesday, which is have this board of fifteen people that he appoints ration and price control Medicare for current seniors. So we just don’t think government rationing on Medicare is the answer. We think we should keep the promise to current seniors and people ten years away from retiring, but then reform the system for the next generation, so that it’s safe and solvent for current seniors and for future generations because Medicare is going bankrupt. SCHIEFFER: All right, let– let me go back to what you said there at the top. You say you’re not for cutting taxes. But am I misinformed? I thought you were talking about lowering that rate for the top- RYAN: In exchange for deductions. SCHIEFFER: –income taxpayers back to about twenty-five percent, so isn’t that a tax cut? RYAN: That’s right. In ex– in exchange for losing your deductions, so in exchange for losing the loopholes and deductions that mostly higher income earners use, so what we’re saying is keep tax revenues where they are, don’t lower tax revenues but clean up the tax code so that it works. If you have really high tax rates what you end up doing is you penalize small businesses. You have to remember, Bob, most successful small businesses file their taxes as individuals. Most of our jobs come from these small businesses. The President is proposing to raise the top tax rate on these small businesses to 44.8 percent. We don’t think that’s good for jobs. We don’t think that’s good for economic growth. And when we tax our employers a whole lot more than our foreign competitors tax theirs, we lose, they win and we don’t want that. So just like the Fiscal Commission, the bipartisan Fiscal Commission said, lower tax rates, broaden the tax base for economic growth and that’s exactly what we’re proposing. SCHIEFFER: I– I guess the part that I don’t quite understand and I take your proposal to be a serious one but the part I don’t understand is. RYAN: Thank you. SCHIEFFER: If the country is going bankrupt, if the country needs to borrow forty cents of every dollar that it spends, how do you help that by reducing the amount of taxes that the richest people in the country pay? It would be seem to be that’s where you get revenue. How do– how do you– how do you justify? RYAN: Two things. Two things, number one, we don’t have a tax problem. Our revenuers are going back to where they have been historically. We have a big spending problem. Spending is growing at a very unsustainable rate. So let’s focus on spending. The other thing I would simply say is massive tax increases. The President’s proposing 1.5 trillion in tax increases. The Democrats in Congress are proposing anywhere from two to sixteen trillion dollars in tax increases based on the three budgets they brought to the floor the other day. We don’t want to slow down the economy. Here’s the– here’s what we’re trying to get, spending cuts and controls to get spending under control because that’s the problem and economic growth and job creation. We don’t want to give up one to get the other. Raising tax rates on anybody, especially successful small businesses slows down the economy, loses jobs and if you have lower economic growth, you have less revenues and it puts you further behind. We want more tax revenues but we want to get it by expanding job creation, by expanding economic growth so the secret to success here is economic growth and job creation through tax reform, not tax cuts, tax reform at the same levels get better economic growth which we get more revenues and also focus on the problem. The problem is spending. The problem is how much we’ve been spending and how we spend and we have to reform those. And that’s what we really want to be focusing on here.
Continue reading …New Investigative Series From Barlett and Steele — What Went Wrong: The Betrayal of the Middle Class
April 18, 2011 No Comment
In an interview from February 2009, Amy Goodman interviews Pulitzer-winning reporting team Jim Steele and Don Barlett about the breakdown of America’s tax system, and why Geithner’s tax lapses were so much more egregious than Tom Daschle’s. In case you don’t remember, or never knew who they were in the first place , Don Barlett and Jim Steele are a highly-respected Pulitzer Prize-winning investigative team who wrote a hard-hitting series (turned into a book) almost 20 years ago, called “America: What Went Wrong?” Now they write: Over the last year we’ve received some remarkable e-mails and letters about something we wrote nearly 20 years ago. “Your story,” wrote a man from Springfield, IL, “is still going on, but unfortunately few people are aware of the causes, only the dire consequences.” Our story was a newspaper series and then a bestselling book, America: What Went Wrong? that caused a sensation in the early 1990s by explaining to millions of middle-class Americans why they were losing ground, and why it wasn’t their fault. A:WWW pinned the blame squarely on an alliance between Washington and Wall Street that was implementing policies that were destroying good-paying jobs and eroding hard-earned benefits. America: What Went Wrong? was controversial. We took plenty of heat from some economists and others who claimed that the agony millions were experiencing had nothing to do with policy, but was just one of those rough patches America had to go through as our economy reinvented itself. But to thousands of Americans who wrote to us, America: What Went Wrong? explained what had happened to them — and why things might get even worse. And in the last year we’ve been hearing again from many distressed Americans, with comments like these: “(You) outlined the problems and predicted this . . . No one listened and now we are paying.” ”If everyone had read your book, today’s economy would not be a shock.” “It is ironic how we face many of the same issues nearly two decades later.” “Maybe it is time to write a sequel to your great book.” Some of those who wrote had read America: What Went Wrong? when it was first published; others have recently discovered it. But the message was the same: tell the nation what has created the crisis that is hurting so many people today. Your messages arrived as we were thinking of doing just that. We’ve been frustrated by the superficial nature of news accounts describing the current economic meltdown. Most stories focus on immediate causes such as the housing bubble. While that has certainly been a major factor, it overlooks the underlying cause: a series of public and private policies over the last 40 years that are dismantling the American middle class. The current recession is just the latest stage in this progression. I not only read and admired that original series, I even got to interview Don Barlett, who’s actually one of the nicest people in journalism. The series was such a national phenomena, I used to throw it in editors’ faces every time they said “readers aren’t interested in long-form, comprehensive stories.” All I know is, until it came out in book form years later, the Inquirer had a full-time employee who did nothing but answer reprint requests. (This was before everyone had the intertubes, of course.) American University’s Investigative Reporting Workshop is sponsoring this year-long series, which is being co-published with the Philadelphia Inquirer, Barlett and Steele’s former employer. Here’s the first part in Donald L. Barlett and James B. Steele’s “What Went Wrong: The Betrayal of the Middle Class,” called “America’s 2-class Tax System.” Read it, send it to everyone you know: Eric Cantor, who has represented a section of Richmond, Va., in Congress since 2001 and now is the House majority leader, appears to want to craft a permanent U.S. tax system that caters exclusively to those at the top. So does Michele Bachmann, the Republican representative from Minnesota, a onetime tax lawyer who hopes to make a run for the White House. Likewise, Tim Pawlenty, the former two-term Republican governor of Minnesota, who also sees himself sitting in the Oval Office. Needless to say, none state their proposals like that. But that’s the way their numbers and provisions add up. enlarge Like others in Congress and the media, Cantor, Bachmann, and Pawlenty insist that American businesses are paying too much in corporate income tax. They claim the onerous tax burden is killing jobs and forcing companies to move abroad. To reverse the nation’s fortunes, they say, all Washington need do is slash the corporate tax rate, thereby reducing the amount of taxes these businesses are forced to pay. What’s scary is a growing number of citizens believe them. That means a forecast made years ago by William J. Casey, a wily Republican from another era who liked to dabble in the intelligence world’s black arts inside and outside the country, and who helped craft the election of Ronald Reagan, is coming true. After taking office, President Reagan installed Casey as head of the CIA in 1981. After his first staff meeting at the agency, Casey was quoted as saying: “We’ll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false.” One of the more egregious falsehoods being peddled by the corporate tax cutters is that companies doing business in the United States are taxed at an exorbitant rate. Not so. Though the United States has one of the highest statutory rates on the books at 35 percent, the only fair way to measure what companies actually pay is their effective rate – what they ultimately pay after deductions, credits, and assorted write-offs. By that yardstick, companies in the United States consistently pay taxes at rates lower than corporations in Japan and many nations in Europe. During the 1950s, the decade in which more people joined the middle class than at any time in history – before or since – corporations paid 49 percent of their profits in taxes. Last year, it was about half that rate, a decidedly more modest 26 percent. In 2010, corporate tax collections totaled $191 billion – down 8 percent from $207 billion as recently as 2000. Perhaps a more telling yardstick, corporate tax revenue in 2009 came to just 1 percent of gross domestic product – the lowest collection level since 1936 , or three-quarters of a century ago. In 2010, it edged up to a puny 1.3 percent – the second-lowest since 1940. Even worse, the shriveled tax collections came at a time when corporations were registering an all-time high in profits. At the end of 2010, corporations posted an annualized profit of $1.65 trillion in the fourth quarter. In other words, the more they made, the less they paid. As for the corporate share of total income taxes paid by businesses and individuals, it has plummeted from 40 percent in 1950, the dawn of Middle America’s golden age, to 18 percent last year. The numbers tell us that a lot of politicians, including would-be presidential candidates, are mathematically challenged. The corporate numbers also explain why hardworking Americans are on a greased downward slope from which they are unlikely to recover, as long as the lawmakers and deal-makers in Washington not only refuse to ease their plight, but also continue to pile on, compelling them alone to pay for the country’s massive deficit while simultaneously chipping away at their safety nets. In 2008, the latest year for which statistics are available, individuals and families with incomes between $25,000 and $50,000 paid nearly $2,500, on average, in individual income taxes – a tax rate of 7.1 percent. Once again, because select corporations in America know the right people in Washington, they are doing better. Stupendously better, as attested to by documents filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. Go read the rest. I’ll be following this series closely.
Continue reading …Republican Montana legislator thinks gays should face felony charges for ‘recruiting’ straights
April 18, 2011 No Comment
Click here to view this media We’ve reported previously about how Republicans in Montana’s Legislature, completely overrun by some of the most extremist of all the Tea Party elements, have been going nuts this session, passing a variety of bills that have been so obviously unconstitutional and frivolous (not to mention downright insane) that last week the Democratic governor felt compelled to make a very public display of his vetoes — with a branding iron . But the problem isn’t merely with the legislation they’re passing. There’s also a problem with the legislation they’re refusing to pass. For instance, last month a Democrat offered up a bill that should have been uncontroversial: It would have officially repealed the state’s primitive anti-homosexuality law, already long overturned by the state’s Supreme Court. But no: the Tea-Partying Republicans running the House committee overseeing the bill simply killed it in the crib . So one of those Republicans last week explained to the Missoula Independent exactly what his thinking was: The legislature’s inaction was not, it turns out, another non-priority falling off the too-long to-do list. Rather, it’s homophobic lawmakers subtly suggesting that homosexual acts should still be outlawed, the Supreme Court—and equal rights in general—be damned. In fact, at least one lawmaker, Rep. Ken Peterson, R-Billings, an attorney, argues that the archaic law may still apply in certain situations. Which situations? According to Peterson, chair of the House Judiciary Committee, there are at least two prosecutable offenses—felonies punishable by up to 10 years in prison and a $50,000 fine. One is the “recruitment” of non-gays. “Homosexuals can’t go out into the heterosexual community and try to recruit people, or try to enlist them in homosexual acts,” Peterson says. He provides an example: “‘Here, young man, your hormones are raging. Let’s go in this bedroom, and we’ll engage in some homosexual acts. You’ll find you like it.’” Peterson hasn’t actually seen this happen, he says, because “I don’t associate with that group of people at all… I’ve associated with mainstream people all my life.” The other offense, in Peterson’s legal opinion, is the public display of homosexuality, since he believes the Supreme Court’s decision only applies to private acts behind closed doors. Being gay in public, he says, is a wholly different matter: “In my mind, if they were engaging in acts in public that could be construed as homosexual, it would violate that statute. It has to be more than affection. It has to be overt homosexual acts of some kind or another… If kissing goes to that extent, yes. If it’s more than that, yes.” He went on Billings TV a little later and defended the remarks: Peterson says the law in question, which was ruled unconstitutional in 1997, still has merits. He says the Montana Supreme Court’s decision had a narrow scope limiting prosecution only in private settings. “I feel the law can still have some potential application,” he said Friday, “I don’t think it was repealed with the Grayson case, anyone that says it was repealed hasn’t read the case and doesn’t understand the case.” He says gays and lesbians can and should be prosecuted for overt sexual acts in public, and for “recruiting” members of the straight community. However, he also tried to claim that he did not say something that he in fact plainly said: Friday, he told us he stands by them, but says some were taken out of context. Specifically, he said characterizations that kissing in public could lead to prosecution were untrue. Peterson said he gets along fine with his gay and lesbian colleagues and did not intend to offend the LGBT community with his comments. Peterson, in fact, was probably one of the more thoughtful Tea Partiers who weighed in on this issue. Legislators arguing over the bill in committee were even worse : Sen. Facey said the reason he brought this bill to the legislature is because words matter. And the fact that this law remains on our books sends a message to gay and lesbian people in our state. Unfortunately, members of the committee did not hear Sen. Facey when he said “words matter.” Throughout the hearing, GOP members constantly equated homosexuality with bestiality and pedophilia. In fact, one opposing witness of the bill went so far as to say all pedophiles are either gay or bisexual. In an even more disturbing exchange, Rep. Bob Wagner (of Anderson Cooper 360 fame) asked a series of questions that were intended to imply that all homosexual men have HIV and then have to rely on state assistance for their medical care. Proponents of Sen. Facey’s bill, who have worked multiple legislative sessions, said that this hearing was the most disgusting hearing they have seen in their years at the Capitol. I sure hope Montana voters are proud of what they have wrought.
Continue reading …Republican Montana legislator thinks gays should face felony charges for ‘recruiting’ straights
April 18, 2011 No Comment
Click here to view this media We’ve reported previously about how Republicans in Montana’s Legislature, completely overrun by some of the most extremist of all the Tea Party elements, have been going nuts this session, passing a variety of bills that have been so obviously unconstitutional and frivolous (not to mention downright insane) that last week the Democratic governor felt compelled to make a very public display of his vetoes — with a branding iron . But the problem isn’t merely with the legislation they’re passing. There’s also a problem with the legislation they’re refusing to pass. For instance, last month a Democrat offered up a bill that should have been uncontroversial: It would have officially repealed the state’s primitive anti-homosexuality law, already long overturned by the state’s Supreme Court. But no: the Tea-Partying Republicans running the House committee overseeing the bill simply killed it in the crib . So one of those Republicans last week explained to the Missoula Independent exactly what his thinking was: The legislature’s inaction was not, it turns out, another non-priority falling off the too-long to-do list. Rather, it’s homophobic lawmakers subtly suggesting that homosexual acts should still be outlawed, the Supreme Court—and equal rights in general—be damned. In fact, at least one lawmaker, Rep. Ken Peterson, R-Billings, an attorney, argues that the archaic law may still apply in certain situations. Which situations? According to Peterson, chair of the House Judiciary Committee, there are at least two prosecutable offenses—felonies punishable by up to 10 years in prison and a $50,000 fine. One is the “recruitment” of non-gays. “Homosexuals can’t go out into the heterosexual community and try to recruit people, or try to enlist them in homosexual acts,” Peterson says. He provides an example: “‘Here, young man, your hormones are raging. Let’s go in this bedroom, and we’ll engage in some homosexual acts. You’ll find you like it.’” Peterson hasn’t actually seen this happen, he says, because “I don’t associate with that group of people at all… I’ve associated with mainstream people all my life.” The other offense, in Peterson’s legal opinion, is the public display of homosexuality, since he believes the Supreme Court’s decision only applies to private acts behind closed doors. Being gay in public, he says, is a wholly different matter: “In my mind, if they were engaging in acts in public that could be construed as homosexual, it would violate that statute. It has to be more than affection. It has to be overt homosexual acts of some kind or another… If kissing goes to that extent, yes. If it’s more than that, yes.” He went on Billings TV a little later and defended the remarks: Peterson says the law in question, which was ruled unconstitutional in 1997, still has merits. He says the Montana Supreme Court’s decision had a narrow scope limiting prosecution only in private settings. “I feel the law can still have some potential application,” he said Friday, “I don’t think it was repealed with the Grayson case, anyone that says it was repealed hasn’t read the case and doesn’t understand the case.” He says gays and lesbians can and should be prosecuted for overt sexual acts in public, and for “recruiting” members of the straight community. However, he also tried to claim that he did not say something that he in fact plainly said: Friday, he told us he stands by them, but says some were taken out of context. Specifically, he said characterizations that kissing in public could lead to prosecution were untrue. Peterson said he gets along fine with his gay and lesbian colleagues and did not intend to offend the LGBT community with his comments. Peterson, in fact, was probably one of the more thoughtful Tea Partiers who weighed in on this issue. Legislators arguing over the bill in committee were even worse : Sen. Facey said the reason he brought this bill to the legislature is because words matter. And the fact that this law remains on our books sends a message to gay and lesbian people in our state. Unfortunately, members of the committee did not hear Sen. Facey when he said “words matter.” Throughout the hearing, GOP members constantly equated homosexuality with bestiality and pedophilia. In fact, one opposing witness of the bill went so far as to say all pedophiles are either gay or bisexual. In an even more disturbing exchange, Rep. Bob Wagner (of Anderson Cooper 360 fame) asked a series of questions that were intended to imply that all homosexual men have HIV and then have to rely on state assistance for their medical care. Proponents of Sen. Facey’s bill, who have worked multiple legislative sessions, said that this hearing was the most disgusting hearing they have seen in their years at the Capitol. I sure hope Montana voters are proud of what they have wrought.
Continue reading …The real culprit behind American unemployment? The iPad, says congressman Jesse Jackson Jr.: It’s “probably responsible for eliminating thousands of American jobs.” Just look at Borders’ bankruptcy, he noted on the House floor on Friday: “Why do you need to go to Borders anymore? Why do you need to go…
Continue reading …
Latest opinion poll, carried out three weeks before AV referendum, suggests opinion against alternative vote system is hardening Support for a change to the way in which MPs are elected is collapsing, according to a new Guardian/ICM poll. The figures give the No campaign a 16-point lead, compared with a two-point lead for the Yes campaign in the equivalent Guardian/ICM poll, carried out in February. Conducted less than three weeks before the UK votes, the poll suggests opinion against the alternative vote is hardening as both sides squabble over the implications of change. The poll is the first for two months to be carried out by telephone using a random sample rather than an online panel, and the results have been adjusted to take account of turnout. Uniquely for the Guardian, the poll also includes a sample of voters from Northern Ireland, which is included in the UK-wide referendum. ICM posed the same question that will be asked in the referendum: “At present, the UK uses the first past the post system to elect MPs to the House of Commons. Should the alternative vote system be used instead?” The results will make depressing reading for Yes campaigners, who began the year with high hopes. A December Guardian/ICM poll last year put the Yes vote six points ahead before adjusting for likely turnout. In February, the two camps were neck and neck on the same measure, and now – again before turnout is taken into account – the No vote is 11 points ahead. Pro-AV campaigners had hoped people who wanted change would be more likely to turn out on polling day. Instead, once people are asked how likely they are to vote, the lead for the Nos increases. Among people who say they are likely to vote and have made up their minds, the No lead is now 16 points, with 42% saying yes and 58% no. Three-quarters of Conservatives are planning to vote will vote against, as will a small majority of Labour supporters. Only Lib Dem voters are firmly in favour, with more than two-thirds saying they will vote for the change. The Yes camp could still turn things around by winning over the 23% who say they do not know how they will vote, but this includes many people who say they may not turn out at all. Young people are more than twice as likely to favour AV as pensioners, but pensioners are more than twice as likely to vote as the young. Increasing youth turnout could determine the outcome. Ahead of the elections, which will take place in Scotland and Wales for devolved administrations and in England for many local councils, Labour has also regained a narrow lead over the Conservatives. The estimated national voting intentions put Labour on 37%, up one. The Conservatives are on 35%, down two, and the Lib Dems on 15%, down one but still higher than in most online polls. Support for other parties stands at a combined 13%, a recent high in ICM surveys. That includes 3% each for the Greens and Ukip and a combined 5% for the Welsh and Scottish nationalists. • ICM Research interviewed a random sample of 1,033 adults across the United Kingdom aged 18+ by telephone on 15-17 April 2011. Interviews were conducted across the country and the results have been weighted to the profile of all adults. Voting intention based on British sample of 1,003 people. Alternative vote Electoral reform AV referendum Opinion polls Julian Glover guardian.co.uk
Continue reading …
Glenn Beck announced in a live show that he has sold his Connecticut mansion and will be leaving the New York City area. Wire Update caught the performance, which was being held in Albany on Saturday and streamed online, and reported that Beck had said that his home has been sold. The house has been on the market since December 2009. Back then, Beck, who had bought the house in 2005, was selling the property for just under $4 million ($250,000 less than when he first bought it). The 8,720 square foot colonial sits on 2.8 acres in New Canaan, Connecticut. Beck also talked about the new media empire he intends to build once his departure from a daily role at Fox News is complete. Among other things, he said he will be building a “research department” and develop a “new way to communicate with each other.” And, he said, he will be leaving New York City. “As we build a new media I’m not building it in New York,” he said. TVNewser reported, however, that even if Beck leaves, his company, Mercury Radio Arts, will continue to have many of its operations in New York. Beck has a swanky New York apartment; it’s not clear if he’s selling that too. One thing he will certainly miss: seeing Broadway shows. He’s a devoted theater-goer, and has recently praised the “Spider-Man” musical repeatedly.
Continue reading …Why you can’t trust conservative deficit warriors: Remembering the George Bush budget of 2001
April 18, 2011 No CommentAs we are witnessing, the Beltway media are pushing the theme of that we need to cut, cut, cut, so that our national debt can be lowered. They call this “shared sacrifice” — though it’s clear that they won’t be sharing in the sacrifice. The rest of us will. This is a common assumption that news pundits are weaving into their narratives every day. The Democrats and President Obama have also embraced this idea and shifted the goal posts to the right of center. Austerity rules, even though it’s proved to be anything but effective. If we look at what’s happening in the UK now, and remember what happened under FDR when the deficit hawks stepped in to curtail the federal government, it’s clear that this nonsensical approach to budget writing just makes economic recovery regress. To many of us watching the wealthy thrive in this economy while the working class struggles is very frustrating. I’m starting to finally hear some pundits question the wisdom of why Republicans refuse tax increases and instead push for more tax breaks for the rich at this time when they are already wealthy. Bob Schieffer asked Paul Ryan that yesterday on FTN. There is one thing certain, though: The Bush budgets, and especially the tax cuts that accompanied them, caused catastrophic harm to our country and to the world. Paul Ryan wants to continue the work that Bush, Cheney and Rove started. Well, here’s a flashback to what George Bush told America in 2001. Via Think Progress: Indeed, the nation’s $14 trillion debt is largely a result of “the cost of two wars, a runaway defense budget, the Bush tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans, taxes on the richest Americans being the lowest in a generation , and a recession caused by the lack of regulation of Wall Street.” The Bush administration followed wars with huge regressive tax cuts and an unpaid for prescription drug benefit. But in his first major address to Congress, President George W. Bush promised that his “responsible” budget would pay off the national debt in ten years : My budget has funded a responsible increase in our ongoing operations. It has funded our Nation’s important priorities. It has protected Social Security and Medicare. And our surpluses are big enough that there is still money left over. Many of you have talked about the need to pay down our national debt. I listened, and I agree. We owe it to our children and our grandchildren to act now, and I hope you will join me to pay down $2 trillion in debt during the next 10 years. At the end of those 10 years, we will have paid down all the debt that is available to retire. That is more debt repaid more quickly than has ever been repaid by any nation at any time in history. Of course, the opposite occurred , with debt held by the public increasing from $3.5 trillion to nearly $6 trillion and gross federal debt going from $5.6 trillion to nearly $10 trillion. In fact, conservatives argued in 2001 that the very existence of a budget surplus was a valid reason to enact large, regressive tax cuts . But this is precisely what happens when you have an administration that believes “ deficits don’t matter .” So here we are. Nothing that Bush said came true in 2001 — except the opposite. Bush’s name is never mentioned by the MSM because the Beltway thinks it’s not cool to blame him any longer. When you destroy a house and start from scratch you have to know why your house was destroyed in the first place and take precautions to never so it doesn’t happen again. Apparently reminding the American people that conservative policies led us into ruin is not newsworthy anymore.
Continue reading …Why you can’t trust conservative deficit warriors: Remembering the George Bush budget of 2001
April 18, 2011 No CommentAs we are witnessing, the Beltway media are pushing the theme of that we need to cut, cut, cut, so that our national debt can be lowered. They call this “shared sacrifice” — though it’s clear that they won’t be sharing in the sacrifice. The rest of us will. This is a common assumption that news pundits are weaving into their narratives every day. The Democrats and President Obama have also embraced this idea and shifted the goal posts to the right of center. Austerity rules, even though it’s proved to be anything but effective. If we look at what’s happening in the UK now, and remember what happened under FDR when the deficit hawks stepped in to curtail the federal government, it’s clear that this nonsensical approach to budget writing just makes economic recovery regress. To many of us watching the wealthy thrive in this economy while the working class struggles is very frustrating. I’m starting to finally hear some pundits question the wisdom of why Republicans refuse tax increases and instead push for more tax breaks for the rich at this time when they are already wealthy. Bob Schieffer asked Paul Ryan that yesterday on FTN. There is one thing certain, though: The Bush budgets, and especially the tax cuts that accompanied them, caused catastrophic harm to our country and to the world. Paul Ryan wants to continue the work that Bush, Cheney and Rove started. Well, here’s a flashback to what George Bush told America in 2001. Via Think Progress: Indeed, the nation’s $14 trillion debt is largely a result of “the cost of two wars, a runaway defense budget, the Bush tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans, taxes on the richest Americans being the lowest in a generation , and a recession caused by the lack of regulation of Wall Street.” The Bush administration followed wars with huge regressive tax cuts and an unpaid for prescription drug benefit. But in his first major address to Congress, President George W. Bush promised that his “responsible” budget would pay off the national debt in ten years : My budget has funded a responsible increase in our ongoing operations. It has funded our Nation’s important priorities. It has protected Social Security and Medicare. And our surpluses are big enough that there is still money left over. Many of you have talked about the need to pay down our national debt. I listened, and I agree. We owe it to our children and our grandchildren to act now, and I hope you will join me to pay down $2 trillion in debt during the next 10 years. At the end of those 10 years, we will have paid down all the debt that is available to retire. That is more debt repaid more quickly than has ever been repaid by any nation at any time in history. Of course, the opposite occurred , with debt held by the public increasing from $3.5 trillion to nearly $6 trillion and gross federal debt going from $5.6 trillion to nearly $10 trillion. In fact, conservatives argued in 2001 that the very existence of a budget surplus was a valid reason to enact large, regressive tax cuts . But this is precisely what happens when you have an administration that believes “ deficits don’t matter .” So here we are. Nothing that Bush said came true in 2001 — except the opposite. Bush’s name is never mentioned by the MSM because the Beltway thinks it’s not cool to blame him any longer. When you destroy a house and start from scratch you have to know why your house was destroyed in the first place and take precautions to never so it doesn’t happen again. Apparently reminding the American people that conservative policies led us into ruin is not newsworthy anymore.
Continue reading …
The American Academy of Pediatrics has urged CBS Outdoor to take down the advertisement funded by anti-vaccine groups For 17 days, every hour for 15 seconds, a controversial message is being sold to the American public via a CBS billboard in Times Square, New York. A photograph of a mother cradling her naked baby is accompanied by the words: “Vaccines: Know the risks.” This image is faded out, and replaced by the Statue of Liberty and “Vaccination. Your Health. Your Family. Your Choice.” The advert is paid for and endorsed by the non-profit National Vaccine Information Center (NVIC) and Mercola.com (self-proclaimed World’s Number 1 Natural Health Website), and will be shown until 28 April. CBS Outdoor has faced a massive backlash for its choice of clientele: both NVIC and Mercola are viewed by many as anti-vaccine propagandists. In particular, the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) , one of the many organisations responsible for testing the safety of vaccinations, is urging the company to remove the ad. It accuses CBS of putting the lives of children at risk by encouraging parents to delay or skip vaccination. Mercola and the NVIC use the ad to endorse their websites, linking the public to what the AAP deems “misinformation” – a barrage of articles blaming common ingredients in vaccines for a number of health problems from breast cancer to infertility. The NVIC publishes a disclaimer on almost every article, assuring readers that it is not anti-vaccination – despite the fact its spokesperson, Playboy model Jenny McCarthy, has publicly described vaccinations as “a product that’s shit” . For Mercola, NVIC and McCarthy, thimerosal – a mercury-containing preservative – is Public Enemy Number One. All three insist there has been a direct connection between vaccines containing thimerosal and the increasing number of children being diagnosed with autism. McCarthy’s own son has the condition, which she blames on the MMR shot he received before his diagnosis. Her bestselling Louder Than Words: A Mother’s Journey in Healing Autism warns parents of the “dangers” involved in vaccinations. NVIC’s website recommends A Shot in the Dark, one of the first books to link vaccines to autism and, in its words, a “classic”. As a precautionary measure thimerosal has been reduced or eliminated from vaccines in the US and Europe, but in 2010 it was proved that the preservative was not linked to autism and the AAP is keen to defend it . On 13 April, Dr Marion Burton, president of the AAP, wrote to Wally Kelly, CBS Outdoor chairman, describing her organisation as having “worked hard to protect children and their families from unfounded and unscientific misinformation regarding vaccine safety”. It seems the 15-second ad is undoing all its hard work. The letter states: “The AAP’s 60,000 member pediatricians urge you to remove these harmful messages … Please do your part to help reassure parents that vaccinating their children … is the best way to protect them from diseases.” The AAP is not alone in demanding that CBS remove the ad. Blogs are urging readers to sign a petition to get it removed, and there are campaigns such as Stop Jenny against McCarthy’s celebrity endorsement. They describe the ad as “misinformed consent” – linking parents to sites that aren’t scientifically accurate. CBS has yet to comment publicly on the negative attention surrounding the campaign. Would an ad campaign like this be allowed to run in the UK? It seems unlikely given the recent discrediting of Andrew Wakefield’s research linking the MMR vaccine to autism. Interestingly, Wakefield continues to work in America, despite being accused of fraud by the BMJ and struck off by the General Medical Council . Having resigned from the NHS for being (in his words) “unpopular”, he set up the Thoughtful House foundation in Texas, which researches autism. Wakefield’s research continues to be recognised by Thoughtful House and the National Autism Association , despite having been discredited by the AAP and the American Medical Association . In America, it seems, Wakefield, Mercola, NVIC and Jenny McCarthy enjoy the freedom to do and say whatever they please, without fear of being hounded by the media. Perhaps that is why CBS has allowed its Times Square billboard to be used by the campaign: the American media just don’t care enough to kick up a fuss. Immunology Medical research Controversies in science Vaccines and immunisation Autism Health Health & wellbeing guardian.co.uk
Continue reading …