Appalling Cartoon at News Media Guild Site Is Evidence That Its Members Are Incapable of Objective Coverage
April 14, 2011 No Comment
The undisguised bias of a dispatch tonight by Associated Press reporter Laurie Kellman, with help from Scott Bauer, about Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker's appearance before a Congressional committee may have as its source two items found at the Newspaper Guild's web site (seen after the jump). One is an announcement relating to a possible deterioration in the Guild's negotiations with AP, where union members have been working without a contract since November . Immediately below the announcement is an extraordinarily mean and spiteful cartoon produced by “alternative” comic Tom Tomorrow directed at Wisconsin Congressman Paul Ryan which has no place at the site of a group wishing to at least maintain a fig-leaf pretense of objectivity. First let's look at several of the words, phrases, and sentences Kellman and Bauer employed in the 10:26 p.m. version of their report (saved here at my host for future reference, fair use and discussion purposes) — after the headline (“Wisconsin governor defends hobbling unions'), with which the AP pair may have had help: The opening — “Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker defended his school of union hobbling as a route to fiscal discipline …” Paragraph 5 — “Walker's budget for Wisconsin is just the opposite ( of bipartisanship — Ed. ) – an explicit act of partisanship.” Paragraph 7 — “Walker's assault on the public employee unions roiled Wisconsin politics, inspiring widespread protests and a walkout by Senate Democrats in the legislature.” Paragraph 8 — “Former GOP vice presidential candidate Sarah Palin is set to attend a tea party rally this weekend at the Wisconsin Capitol, the site of recent protests over legislation that would strip union rights for most public workers.” There they go again, implying that all union rights are stripped for those involved (in an earlier paragraph, the AP writers claim that Wisconsin's pending law “ends collective bargaining on everything except wages for state and local government employees”). Paragraph 9 — “The bitterness followed Walker to Washington on Thursday. The hearing, billed by Chairman Darrell Issa, R-Calif., as a look at the choices faced by budget-strapped local governments, was more a coming-out for the Republican governor.” Paragraph 11 — “Governors all must balance their budgets, (Vermont Governor Peter) Shumlin, a Democrat, said, and most do it without sparking the kind of animosity roiling Wisconsin.” Paragraph 19 — “(DC nonvoting Congressional Delegate Eleanor Holmes) Norton suggested Walker should take a lesson on civility from Congress, of all places. Though she often disagrees with Issa, for example, 'I have always felt that this was somebody I could talk with and we could have a civil conversation.'” Now let's get to the News Media Guild's home page . It opens with an update published today on the labor dispute with AP: The News Media Guild launched a nationwide investigation into possible illegal coercive anti-union conduct by The Associated Press after receiving reports this week that managers threatened mass layoffs at the news cooperative. The Guild told AP on Wednesday that it had reports from its members that some managers may have violated the anti-coercion provisions of the National Labor Relations Act. It demanded that AP produce a summary of all management contacts with staff about the ongoing labor negotiations. Gee, I'm no fan of AP management, but I suspect that the “threats” might really have been suggestions of the possibility that a lot of people might get laid off if a resolution isn't reached. I don't believe AP is required by law to execute a contract with the Guild, which would appear to indicate that if they want to lay Guild members off, they are within their rights to do so. Below the update on the Guild's home page is the real topper, Tom Tomorrow's cartoon. I've copied the first half, and I'll type the text of the rest, again for fair use and discussion purposes only: The text of the cartoon's final three frames runs as follows: Frame 4 — Heading: “Step Two: Serious people applaud the seriousness of the plan. One Man: “Processing the elderly into snack crackers has always been the third rail of American politics.” Second Man: “It's extremely courageous.” Frame 5 — Heading: “Step 3: Left-wing critics are portrayed as naive, unrealistic ideologues.” Man: “If they had their way, government would be required to provide cradle-to-grave ponies and rainbows .” Woman: “They are so unserious, it is barely worth acknowledging their existence .” Frame 6 — Heading: “Step 4: The window of acceptable debate is shifted ever further toward outright lunacy.” Man: “Perhaps we could take a more moderate approach–and simply abandon the elderly in the desert to fend for themselves !” Second Man: That's about what I'd expect –from a big government socialist like you !” It is very difficult to imagine how the members of a union that is in what looks like a death match with the entity which may be its largest employer and whose leadership would publish hateful garbage like the Tom Tomorrow cartoon detailed above can relay news, especially news directly relating to management-labor relations or government finances, in anything resembling an objective manner. And they usually don't. Cross-posted at BizzyBlog.com .
Continue reading …Appalling Cartoon at News Media Guild Site Is Evidence That Its Members Are Incapable of Objective Coverage
April 14, 2011 No Comment
The undisguised bias of a dispatch tonight by Associated Press reporter Laurie Kellman, with help from Scott Bauer, about Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker's appearance before a Congressional committee may have as its source two items found at the Newspaper Guild's web site (seen after the jump). One is an announcement relating to a possible deterioration in the Guild's negotiations with AP, where union members have been working without a contract since November . Immediately below the announcement is an extraordinarily mean and spiteful cartoon produced by “alternative” comic Tom Tomorrow directed at Wisconsin Congressman Paul Ryan which has no place at the site of a group wishing to at least maintain a fig-leaf pretense of objectivity. First let's look at several of the words, phrases, and sentences Kellman and Bauer employed in the 10:26 p.m. version of their report (saved here at my host for future reference, fair use and discussion purposes) — after the headline (“Wisconsin governor defends hobbling unions'), with which the AP pair may have had help: The opening — “Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker defended his school of union hobbling as a route to fiscal discipline …” Paragraph 5 — “Walker's budget for Wisconsin is just the opposite ( of bipartisanship — Ed. ) – an explicit act of partisanship.” Paragraph 7 — “Walker's assault on the public employee unions roiled Wisconsin politics, inspiring widespread protests and a walkout by Senate Democrats in the legislature.” Paragraph 8 — “Former GOP vice presidential candidate Sarah Palin is set to attend a tea party rally this weekend at the Wisconsin Capitol, the site of recent protests over legislation that would strip union rights for most public workers.” There they go again, implying that all union rights are stripped for those involved (in an earlier paragraph, the AP writers claim that Wisconsin's pending law “ends collective bargaining on everything except wages for state and local government employees”). Paragraph 9 — “The bitterness followed Walker to Washington on Thursday. The hearing, billed by Chairman Darrell Issa, R-Calif., as a look at the choices faced by budget-strapped local governments, was more a coming-out for the Republican governor.” Paragraph 11 — “Governors all must balance their budgets, (Vermont Governor Peter) Shumlin, a Democrat, said, and most do it without sparking the kind of animosity roiling Wisconsin.” Paragraph 19 — “(DC nonvoting Congressional Delegate Eleanor Holmes) Norton suggested Walker should take a lesson on civility from Congress, of all places. Though she often disagrees with Issa, for example, 'I have always felt that this was somebody I could talk with and we could have a civil conversation.'” Now let's get to the News Media Guild's home page . It opens with an update published today on the labor dispute with AP: The News Media Guild launched a nationwide investigation into possible illegal coercive anti-union conduct by The Associated Press after receiving reports this week that managers threatened mass layoffs at the news cooperative. The Guild told AP on Wednesday that it had reports from its members that some managers may have violated the anti-coercion provisions of the National Labor Relations Act. It demanded that AP produce a summary of all management contacts with staff about the ongoing labor negotiations. Gee, I'm no fan of AP management, but I suspect that the “threats” might really have been suggestions of the possibility that a lot of people might get laid off if a resolution isn't reached. I don't believe AP is required by law to execute a contract with the Guild, which would appear to indicate that if they want to lay Guild members off, they are within their rights to do so. Below the update on the Guild's home page is the real topper, Tom Tomorrow's cartoon. I've copied the first half, and I'll type the text of the rest, again for fair use and discussion purposes only: The text of the cartoon's final three frames runs as follows: Frame 4 — Heading: “Step Two: Serious people applaud the seriousness of the plan. One Man: “Processing the elderly into snack crackers has always been the third rail of American politics.” Second Man: “It's extremely courageous.” Frame 5 — Heading: “Step 3: Left-wing critics are portrayed as naive, unrealistic ideologues.” Man: “If they had their way, government would be required to provide cradle-to-grave ponies and rainbows .” Woman: “They are so unserious, it is barely worth acknowledging their existence .” Frame 6 — Heading: “Step 4: The window of acceptable debate is shifted ever further toward outright lunacy.” Man: “Perhaps we could take a more moderate approach–and simply abandon the elderly in the desert to fend for themselves !” Second Man: That's about what I'd expect –from a big government socialist like you !” It is very difficult to imagine how the members of a union that is in what looks like a death match with the entity which may be its largest employer and whose leadership would publish hateful garbage like the Tom Tomorrow cartoon detailed above can relay news, especially news directly relating to management-labor relations or government finances, in anything resembling an objective manner. And they usually don't. Cross-posted at BizzyBlog.com .
Continue reading …
Results likely to heighten investor fears that Google’s commitment to recruit 6,200 workers this year will harm profits Google has reported an 18% rise in first-quarter profit, disappointing analysts who are increasingly concerned about thecompany’s aggressive expansion strategy and lavish spending. Google’s first-quarter earnings of $2.3bn, or $7.04 a share, for the quarter ended 31 March came in below analyst projections as the internet search leader accelerated recruitment hiring and spending in other areas, driving up its expenses. The company’s shares shed $27.74, or nearly 5%, to $550.77 in extended trading. These results are likely to heighten investor fears that Google’s earnings will suffer because of the company’s commitment to hire at least 6,200 workers this year. That would be the most in its 13-year history. Google co-founder Larry Page, who replaced Eric Schmidt as CEO after the quarter ended, has indicated he plans to keep investing in long-term opportunities that may take years to pay off, even if that affects the short-term results. Page offered a determinedly optimistic view of the figures. “I’m very excited about Google and our momentum, and I’m very, very optimistic about our future,” he said. He insisted that the management transition Google announced three month ago is unfolding as planned, with Page overseeing day-to-day operations while Schmidt handles government relations and stalks possible acquisition targets in his new role as executive chairman. If not for the cost of employee stock rewards, Google said it would have earned $8.08 a share. The company hired 1,916 staff, taking its workforce over 26,300. Half of the new staff are working on products and services to supplement search advertising, which makes most of Google’s money. Google US economy Economics guardian.co.uk
Continue reading …Anthony Weiner Gets GOP Rep To Admit Ryan Plan Equals Vouchers, End to Medicare
April 14, 2011 No Comment
Click here to view this media On The Last Word, Anthony Weiner maneuvered Rep Jack Kingston (R-GA) into admitting that the Ryan plan ends Medicare and converts it to a voucher plan. What’s so funny about this is how hard Boehner has been working to deny it , because of course, vouchers equal privatization. So Boehner’s out there laying it down saying no, it’s not privatization, it’s transformation . We all know it’s bull but then who cares, because he’s doubling down on Ryan’s plan after the President’s speech anyway in order to appease the Tea Party and his insurance company keepers happy. Keep overreaching, GOP. Keep it up.
Continue reading …
Tensions grow over ‘tens of thousands’ figure with ‘incandescent’ Vince Cable challenging policy interpretation The first major rift between David Cameron and Nick Clegg opened up after the Liberal Democrats accused the Tories of attempting to breach the agreement on immigration. In a sign of tensions in the run up to the local elections and AV referendum on 5 May, senior ministerial sources dismissed Clegg’s view of the policy. The row erupted after the prime minister declared in his first major speech on the subject since the election that the government would cut net migration to the “tens of thousands” each year rather than hundreds of thousands. Cameron also warned that immigrants unable to speak English or unwilling to integrate have created a “kind of discomfort and disjointedness” which has disrupted communities. An “incandescent” Vince Cable, the business secretary who was not briefed about the speech, rounded on Cameron. “I do understand there is an election coming but talk of mass immigration risks inflaming the extremism to which he and I are both strongly opposed,” he told the BBC. Cable also challenged Cameron’s interpretation of government policy. “The reference to the tens of thousands of immigrants rather than hundreds of thousands is not part of the coalition agreement, it is Tory party policy only,” he added. Cameron slapped down Cable when he appeared to accuse him of being “off beam”. He said after his speech: “[It was] an important attempt to explain why we are doing what we are doing, why it’s right and why some of the critics of it, actually, are off beam.” Clegg, who “noted rather than approved” Cameron’s speech, was initially irritated with Cable for coming close to breaching cabinet collective responsibility. The deputy prime minister was relatively relaxed with Cameron on the grounds that he was mentioning “tens of thousands” as an aspiration and not a formal target. One senior Lib Dem, who reflected Clegg’s thinking, said: “The tens of thousands is Conservative policy. It is not Lib Dem policy. We do not think that it can be set as a target. It is not government policy.” But Tory government sources challenged Clegg’s interpretation when they insisted that the tens of thousands figure was formal coalition policy agreed by the cabinet. One source said: “That figure is in the background documents to the Queen’s speech and is in Home Office documents. It has been used on the floor of the Commons. It is government policy. “It is true that it is not in the coalition agreement. But there are quite a lot of things that are not in the coalition agreement. This policy has been cleared at all levels of government.” The row over the highly sensitive matter of immigration showed that relations between the Tories and Lib Dems are becoming tense in the run up to the elections and AV referendum. Senior Lib Dem cabinet ministers have become irritated with George Osborne over his claims about the funding of the yes campaign. Danny Alexander, Osborne’s deputy at the Treasury, accused him of “pretty desperate scaremongering”. Lib Dems made it clear that differences are extending beyond a “permitted” area, such as AV, to immigration where the coalition partners are meant to work together. Lord Oakeshott, an ally of Cable’s who resigned as a Lib Dem treasury spokesman in a row with Osborne over the banks, hit out at Cameron. “When something is not in the coalition agreement it does not become coalition policy just because David Cameron says so, even if he has shown his speech to Nick Clegg,” he said. Oakeshott’s dig at Clegg highlighted tensions between Cable and the deputy prime minister. Cable was angry with both Cameron and Clegg for failing to brief him on the speech which relates to his ministerial portfolio. “Vince didn’t know anything about the speech and was absolutely horrified,” one source said. “Nick is clearly not being tough enough in saying no to Cameron.” Lib Dem sources had earlier hailed Cable for his success in restraining the Tories in cabinet negotiations over immigration. They believe the party’s greatest success was in rejecting Tory pressure to impose a cap on student migration. “Nick and Vince are very proud to have worked hard to get the policies where they are. The Tories wanted a student migration cap. That has not happened.” Clegg had earlier tried to downplay the differences. His spokesman said: “This is a Conservative prime minister speaking to Conservative party activists using Conservative language.” Yvette Cooper, the shadow home secretary, said: “The Tory-led government’s immigration policy is in chaos. And now the business secretary has said he doesn’t even agree with the policy in the first place. “David Cameron said ‘no ifs, no buts’ he would deliver on his target to cut net migration to the tens of thousands, yet Vince Cable said that it isn’t coalition policy. What on earth is going on?” David Cameron Immigration and asylum Liberal-Conservative coalition Nick Clegg Vince Cable Elections 2011 Alternative vote Nicholas Watt guardian.co.uk
Continue reading …My wife has indulged my fantasies about her with other men but not anymore, and now I’m struggling without the prospect of new sexual adventures I’m a 45-year-old man who has been married to a beautiful woman for 15 years. I find my wife talking about her previous sexual experiences very erotic. But she’s quite conventional and her imagination isn’t great. She’s indulged my desire to hear new stories by meeting other men, sometimes just for drinks but occasionally it’s gone far beyond that – to my pleasure. She’s now told me she will no longer indulge this and I’m struggling to accept there’s no scope for adventure. It’s a big part of what makes me tick sexually, and my frustration’s growing. We’ve discussed me having an affair, but it’s not what I want. My wife says she couldn’t cope with it, anyway. The issue is the difference between fantasy and reality. It’s fantasy that does it for you, isn’t it? You don’t need your wife to actually go with someone else. Since the idea of her being with someone else turns you on, you could negotiate with her to create fantasy scenarios that will inspire you. But first, find out what she really wants from your love-making, and provide it. If you can give her what she wants, and promise you won’t expect her to have sex with other men, she may be willing to put more effort into making up new stories or searching for erotic tales in, say, the media. Perhaps you could find scripts for her, or research stories yourself and use them privately to enhance your arousal. • Pamela Stephenson Connolly is a clinical psychologist and psychotherapist who specialises in treating sexual disorders. • Email your problem to private.lives@guardian.co.uk Sex Relationships Pamela Stephenson Connolly guardian.co.uk
Continue reading …A focus on famous people risks blurring the message that mental illness can happen to anyone In an ideal world, it would not take a film star to get the media focused on mental illness. But we don’t live in an ideal world, we live in a celebrity culture where Catherine Zeta-Jones being treated for bipolar disorder can soar to the top of news websites’ “most viewed”, and relegate Andrew Lansley’s woes or even David Cameron’s pre-election views on immigration. I am an ambassador for Time to Change, the campaign to change attitudes on mental illness, to break down the stigma and taboo which still surround it. It appears to be having some success: when England cricketer Michael Yardy left the World Cup because of depression, the “pull yourself together … what has he got to be depressed about?” brigade were in the minority. There is greater understanding, but still stigma. Some people with mental illness say the discrimination can be worse than the symptoms. What the mental health charities find deeply frustrating is that they can only get on the media via celebrities. If Zeta-Jones had been diagnosed with cancer, we would be talking about cancer. It is as though the celebs attached to an issue lead a debate, rather than the issue and how it affects millions of people. There is a danger that focus on famous people tends to get in the way of one of our central messages – it can happen to anyone – or that it reinforces one of the myths, that mental illness hits “creative, achieving people”. But if you are the charity in question, trying to raise your profile so as to raise funds and awareness for the services you provide, you have to play the game. I was inundated with media bids and the charities wanted me to take them up. Isn’t it better if a doctor or a nurse goes up? Ah, but they want a name. So here’s an idea for the Guardian. Take Catherine Zeta-Jones as the “peg” – but open a few pages of G2 to fellow sufferers most of us have never heard of. The charities will help find them. Then your readers will see that not all bipolar sufferers look like Stephen Fry or Catherine Zeta-Jones … They look like the woman next door, the guy on the bus, the colleague across the office, the kid you met on holiday last year. One in four of us will have a mental illness at some point. That is a lot of people. Very few are film stars. Zeta-Jones will help raise the profile of the issues, whether she wanted it that way or not. That should lead to better understanding. But as I said when I spoke to the Royal College of Nursing on Wednesday about mental health, including my own issues of breakdown and depression, better understanding must be an accompaniment to good treatment, not a substitute. I join the many others who wish her well and thank her for the support her name will lend our campaign. But there are people with the same illness who cannot get the support they need, who still feel they have to lie about their condition to get or keep a job, and who really worry about the impact of government cuts and reforms that will fundamentally change the way mental health services are run. Those issues should be getting an airing regardless of celebrity support or involvement. Alastair Campbell has asked for his fee for this article to go to Rethink. Bipolar disorder Mental health Catherine Zeta-Jones Charities Depression Health Alastair Campbell guardian.co.uk
Continue reading …
Department for Business, Innovation and Skills to prohibit American orders of three drugs used in lethal injections Britain is to ban the export to the US of three pharmaceutical drugs that are used to execute prisoners on death row, Vince Cable has said. An export ban for pentobarbital, pancuronium bromide and potassium chloride – used in lethal injections – will be formalised in a few days, said the business secretary, who is urging a Europe-wide ban on sales of the drugs to the US. “We oppose the death penalty in all circumstances and are clear that British drugs should not be used to carry out lethal injections,” he said. “Because of the importance and urgency of the situation this is an issue on which we felt we had to take the lead.” The move comes after a parliamentary inquiry heard that enough pharmaceutical drugs have been sold to the US by licensed British wholesalers since last summer to execute 100 death row inmates. The Department for Business, Innovation and Skills last November imposed export controls on sodium thiopental, a rarely-used anaesthetic, after it emerged that a small-scale wholesaler working out of the back office of a west London driving school had sold the drug to Georgia’s and Arizona’s department of corrections. The anti-capital punishment charity Reprieve, which mounted a legal challenge to ban sodium thiopental, welcomed the new block on the three drugs. But the charity said US states imposing the death penalty via lethal injection are now turning to a Danish company, Lundbeck A/S, for supplies of pentobarbital. Denmark’s foreign minister said she will urge US states such as Texas and Ohio to stop using that drug. Reprieve director Clive Stafford Smith said: “Britain has now taken the lead in ending complicity in the US death penalty, which is very welcome. Since the US executing states are now turning to a Danish company, Lundbeck, to kill people, we must hope that the UK can persuade our EU partners to take a similar line.” Pentobarbital is a sedative with a range of medical uses, including the treatment of epileptic seizures and other conditions that require some form of sedation. It is often used for putting down animals. Since late last year, it has been used in the US for lethal injections after supplies of sodium thiopental became scarce. The Danish foreign minister, Lene Espersen, said she cannot take direct action against Lundbeck because the drug is produced by a plant in Kansas. Pentobarbital has been used to execute prisoners in Ohio and Oklahoma. Mississippi and Arizona are also considering switching to the drug for lethal injections. Lundbeck has written letters to US prison authorities asking them not to use pentobarbital for lethal injections, but with little effect. The pharmaceutical company, whose bestsellers include drugs for the treatment of psychiatric and neurological disorders, is under pressure from human rights groups to take stronger action, such as rewriting distribution contracts with clauses prohibiting sales of pentobarbital to US prisons. Lundbeck has rejected that idea, saying it would be impossible for distributors to track how every vial is used. The company said it sells about 50mn doses of pentobarbital a year, but has declined to give any breakdown of sales. Pancuronium bromide is a muscle relaxant and potassium chloride is used to stop the heart and is sometimes used in abortion procedures. In February, a parliamentary inquiry heard that a shortage of supplies in the US was forcing American states to search abroad for painkillers, paralysing agents and heart-stopping compounds administered in lethal injections. Pharmaceuticals industry United States Denmark Europe David Batty guardian.co.uk
Continue reading …
Dominique de Villepin – a vocal critic of Nicolas Sarkozy on traditional right – is considering run for president in 2012 Dominique de Villepin, the former French prime minister, moved closer to the ultimate standoff with his arch-enemy Nicolas Sarkozy on Thursday as he presented a programme for running for president next year. Villepin, who Sarkozy once said he would like to hang from a butcher’s hook, recently quit Sarkozy’s ruling rightwing UMP party, setting up his own political grouping, République Solidaire, and considering challenging Sarkozy’s bid for presidential re-election in 2012. A Gaullist, Villepin has become the most vocal critic of Sarkozy on the traditional right. He has called him “a problem for France” and slammed his policy to round up Roma migrants as “a stain on the French flag”. Although Villepin has only a small army of activists – his movement claims 25,000 members – if he stands in the election he could split the traditional rightwing vote. This would cause headaches for Sarkozy whose party, the UMP, is falling apart, torn between centrists and rightwingers who can’t agree over the president’s extremist line on immigration, crime and Islam. Villepin, a former protege of Jacques Chirac who became famous for arguing France’s case at the United Nations against the 2003 invasion of Iraq, said it was too early to announce whether or not he would run for president. But the 57-year-old part-time poet and historian laid out his proposals, including a “citizen’s income” welfare benefit of €850 a month for people with no other earnings. He said he offered a “credible alternative” to Sarkozy. The political rivalry between Sarkozy and Villepin is legendary. It culminated in the Clearstream trial last year in which Villepin was cleared of falsely smearing Sarkozy over alleged acts of money laundering. A retrial is due to begin next month, and Villepin may be waiting for that to close before he makes a final announcement on whether or not to run. Sarkozy is at his lowest-ever approval ratings, around 29% according to a Le Point poll. The only other French president to have ever stooped lower was Chirac, at the height of his unpopularity following the EU constitution referendum of 2005. Dominique Strauss-Kahn, the favourite for the primaries for a Socialist candidate, stands at 52% approval ratings, with the far-right’s Marine Le Pen at 28%. Sarkozy, who has yet to officially announce he will stand for re-election, is under severe pressure, not just from the Front National, but within the UMP camp, a broad coalition of centrists and rightwingers which is fast disintegrating. The former environment minister and centrist Jean-Louis Borloo also recently quit the party to prepare for his own bid for the presidency. Addressing his own concerned MPs, Sarkozy insisted this week that he had a “good feeling” about next year’s election. Nicolas Sarkozy France Europe Angelique Chrisafis guardian.co.uk
Continue reading …MSNBC Praises Obama’s ‘Soaring’ Speech, Calling On ‘Wealthiest Americans to Pay Their Way’
April 14, 2011 No Comment
On his 3PM ET hour show on MSNBC on Wednesday, host Martin Bashir enthusiastically reacted to President Obama's budget speech: “'We will invest in the future of America,' that's what President Obama just said in a much-anticipated speech on the budget…. He offered a series of broad proposals and said it's time for the wealthiest Americans to pay their way and share in taxes.” Moments later, White House correspondent Mike Viqueira joined Bashir and proclaimed: “..the President's speech was part soaring, speaking to the aspirations and character of a nation, if you will.” Bashir observed: “Mike, I don't want to sound as if I'm misrepresenting the President, but it appeared to me that he was suggesting that we can't be self-centered as far as fiscal policy is concerned. We can't simply slash programs everywhere without somehow expecting the wealthiest in society to contribute. Is that your impression?” Viqueira agreed and reiterated: “Well, the President did reach for, as I said, that soaring sort of rhetoric that speaks to the basic aspirations of people and the beliefs of what America is. He said, 'It tells us' – the Ryan plan, talking about the Republican plan – 'It tells us we can't afford the America we believe in.' So the President sort of laid out his vision for America.” Near the end of the segment, Bashir remarked: “When I hear the current discussion about cutting spending, I'm reminded of what Margaret Thatcher in Britain during the 1980's, when she dismissed the idea of a civic society and she said that all she wanted to do was focus on individuals. Isn't that what we now have, a president who wants shared sacrifices, an opposition that's solely focused on cuts that would appear to hit the most vulnerable without any consideration for raising taxes?” Viqueira replied: “And that's what the President did. He's done this before, quotes Abraham Lincoln, as he points out, the first Republican president, saying that the idea here for American government is to help those who can't help themselves. And they really are trying to encourage the coming battle to be fought on that – those grounds.” In addition to praising Obama's speech, Bashir also slammed Republicans for criticizing the President: “Republicans didn't even wait for the President to make his speech today before coming out with a scathing review of his handling of the issue….I'm curious about the reaction of the White House to entertaining a group of Republicans to morning coffee and then to hear them come out and immediately trash the President's speech even before he's delivered it.” Here is a transcript of the April 13 exchange between Bashir and Viqueira: 3:00PM ET MARTIN BASHIR: 'We will invest in the future of America,' that's what President Obama just said in a much-anticipated speech on the budget and his plan to tackle the nation's mounting debt and deficits. He offered a series of broad proposals and said it's time for the wealthiest Americans to pay their way and share in taxes. BARACK OBAMA: In December I agreed to extend the tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans because it was the only way I could prevent a tax hike on middle class Americans. But we cannot afford $1 trillion worth of tax cuts for every millionaire and billionaire in our society. We can't afford it. And I refuse to renew them again. BASHIR: Republicans didn't even wait for the President to make his speech today before coming out with a scathing review of his handling of the issue. JOHN BOEHNER [REP. R-OH]: I have been pushing the President for months to engage in this discussion about our long-term fiscal mess. I'm glad that he's finally decided to engage in it. ERIC CANTOR [REP. R-VA]: This is vintage obama. He's been standing on the sidelines expecting the rest of us to make the tough decisions to lead this country. BASHIR: NBC's Mike Viqueira is live at the White House. And Luke Russert joins us live from Capitol Hill. Mike, can I begin with you? Before we discuss the President's speech, I'm curious about the reaction of the White House to entertaining a group of Republicans to morning coffee and then to hear them come out and immediately trash the President's speech even before he's delivered it. MIKE VIQUEIRA: Yeah, well, you know, Martin, I have to say part of that is sort of a set piece. I thought an interesting portion of the afternoon had to do with the fact that Paul Ryan, you saw his picture there, in the chiron over your shoulder, was sitting in the front row and the President spent a good amount of time absolutely bashing the plan that Paul Ryan has constructed, the actual detailed piece of legislation that's going to be on the House of Representatives' floor tomorrow and Friday. You know, the President's speech was part soaring, speaking to the aspirations and character of a nation, if you will. Part framework – and that word 'framework' should be emphasized, because White House officials on background have been using it over and over and over again today – it did not have sort of the granularity or details that would go with a legislative proposal. And part of it, and a significant part of it, really setting the President and Democrats apart from what Republicans are going to be doing and proposing and debating over the course of the next two days in the House of Representatives, specifically when it comes to tax reform. The President obviously feels the Republican plan is tilted more towards the wealthy. And Medicare, the valued but costly program for elderly, that the President accuses Paul Ryan and Republicans of trying to privatize. The President, again, a framework, he says $4 trillion in debt reduction over the course of the next 12 years, if these recommendations are followed. Reform of the tax code to make it simpler and fairer, not a great deal of detail, again, in a lot of these proposals. The White House does say that for every $3 in cuts there will be $1 in tax revenue. It comes with a fail-safe or trigger, if the ratio of debt exceeds a certain percentage of the Gross Domestic Product in this country. And it brings up an interesting point, too, Martin. Why are we having the discussion? Because the total national debt in this country, now $14.3 trillion, exceeds the yearly GDP of this country, $14.1 trillion. And that is part of what's driving the urgency of this discussion, Martin.
Continue reading …