Brit Hume Doesn’t Think There Will be Any Blowback for Making Changes to Social Security
January 24, 2011 No Comment
Click here to view this media To hell with what those polls say, Brit Hume doesn’t think there will be any or only minor blowback for any politician that proposes making cuts to Social Security and hopes the President brings it up in his State of the Union Address. Heaven forbid Hume didn’t have the same hopes for the cuts to military spending that those same polls show the public does favor. WALLACE: I want to pick up on what you just said about the fact that people don’t want their spending cut. There was a very interesting poll in “The New York Times” this week which showed people absolutely, in general, favor cutting spending, just not in areas that directly affect them. People were asked which would they be willing to cut? Twenty-one percent said Medicare. Thirteen percent said Social Security. Fifty- five percent said the military. And when asked about changes to Social Security, 18 percent backed raising the retirement age, eight percent chose cutting benefits in the future, 66 percent said cut benefits for those with higher incomes. HUME: I think, Chris, the problem with some of this polling is that it carries the suggestion that those who are currently receiving benefits, Medicare and Social Security, would see those benefits reduced. In fact, however, nearly all the plans that I’ve heard in advance to try to rein in the spending on those program deals with future retirees and future benefits — (CROSSTALK) WALLACE: But this question in The Times — HUME: I saw that. WALLACE: Let me finish. This question in The Times talked about cutting benefits for future retirees, not for current retirees. HUME: I understand. But nearly everybody voting on it — I mean, that includes the whole pool of potential — was it all adults? I don’t remember whether it was, or whether it was registered voters or whoever. WALLACE: No, it was all adults. HUME: Yes, all adults. Well, a poll of all adults I don’t think are terribly useful. And I will tell you this — you talk to anybody under the age of 50 these days about Social Security and Medicare; particularly Social Security, and whether they’re going to get their benefits, they virtually all expect they won’t see anything. So, are they ready for some reduced benefit? I think they are. And I think if you do that, raise the retirement age, reduce the benefits for those who are not yet receiving them, that will pass. And the political blowback will be very minor indeed. WALLACE: Juan, what do you make of that? I mean, I’m struck that 55 percent said don’t cut Medicare, don’t cut Social Security. They want to cut the military. WILLIAMS: Well, you know, I appreciate Brit’s position. He’s saying, look, there is a way out of the forest here, people can come to some common ground. I think you’re going to hear some of that logic from President Obama on Tuesday. But the fact is that when you put these things on the table and you say to people there are going to be cuts involved, guess what? The seniors say don’t touch it. They don’t believe that you’re not going to cut it. I mean, that’s exactly the fear. HUME: I know, but if you do it, and they still get their benefits, they’ll believe it then. WILLIAMS: And that’s exactly the fear tactic that Republicans played on in talking about death panels and all — (CROSSTALK) WALLACE: Let Mara in here. LIASSON: Yes, there is a problem, that Republicans are now on record saying that not one hair on Medicare’s head should be touched. That was their position in health care. However, if there was real bipartisan leadership, and the deficit commission laid out the path to this, and if President Obama and Senator Coburn and Jim DeMint wanted to get together and try do this, there is a way to do this. WALLACE: All right. We’re going to leave it there for now.
Continue reading …
Click here to view this media Following the mass shooting in Tucson, Arizona that left six dead and Rep. Gabrielle Giffords (R-AZ) in the hospital, there have been calls for politicians and pundits to back off violent rhetoric. But tea party favorite Sen. Mike Lee (R-UT) isn’t about to let the tragedy change his tone. Prior to the shooting, Republicans in the House introduced “The Repealing the Job-Killing Health-Care Law Act.” Majority Leader Eric Cantor (R-VA) used the phrase “job-killing” eight times in one briefing on Jan. 4. Most Republicans dialed back that rhetoric in the wake of the shooting. “Whether it’s job-killing, job-destroying, job-crushing, job-ending, job-eliminating, job-preventing, job-limiting, job-hurting, job-excising, job-removing, job-exterminating, or job-doingawaywith – the point is clear,” Cantor later said . In an interview broadcast on ABC Sunday, Lee refused to follow Cantor’s lead. “The shooter wins if we, who’ve been elected, change what we do just because of what he did,” Lee told ABC. And Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) may agree. Speaking to Fox News’ Chris Wallace Sunday about whether Republicans would force a shut down of the government if Democrats didn’t agree to deep spending cuts, McConnell used some violent imagery of his own. “Nobody is going to put a gun to anybody’s head here,” he said.
Continue reading …Schieffer Dismisses ObamaCare Repeal as ‘Waste of Time,’ Amanpour Baffled by Tea Party: ‘What on Earth Do They Mean By That?’
January 23, 2011 No Comment
Two signs Sunday morning of how the Washington press corps are dismissive, disdainful and befuddled by the Tea Party. On This Week , Christiane Amanpour fretted that though the New York Times has discredited the Tea Party’s rationale (“a new report today in the New York Times , they say that in fact TARP will cost maybe $28 billion to the taxpayer, instead of the $700 billion”), she told Republican Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison of Texas “you yourself have been facing, even though you’re a reliable conservative, Tea Party competition in Texas. Are they outflanking you?” Amanpour empathized that Tea Party activists “said that you personally signify everything that the Tea Party is fighting.” A flummoxed Amanpour wondered: “What on earth do they mean by that?” Over on CBS's Face the Nation , Bob Schieffer, echoing Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, asked Senator John McCain about a Senate vote to repeal ObamaCare: “Do you think…that that's a waste of time, that the time in the Senate could be better spent working on something that has a chance of passing?” Instead of then pressing Democratic Senator Chuck Schumer about what Democrats have to fear about such a vote if they have the votes to defeat it, Schieffer simply cued him up with “what will be the Democratic response?” That allowed Schumer to expound on how they’ll force Republicans to reject supposedly popular elements of it. From the January 23 Face the Nation: BOB SCHIEFFER: This morning on Meet the Press, Republican leader Mitch McConnell said he is definitely going to try to force a vote on repealing health care reform, even though as most people, and I'm sure you would agree, there is no chance that that's going to pass in the Senate. Do you think Senator McCain that that's a waste of time, that the time in the Senate could be better spent working on something that has a chance of passing? JOHN McCAIN: One thing about the Senate, it is not the most efficient organization and I don't think we would be wasting – we need to have a vote on it because we promised the people we would… SCHIEFFER TO SCHUMER: He [McCain] agreed, you heard him, with what Mitch McConnell said also this morning. There needs to be a vote on repealing health care. If the Republicans do force a vote — and I would guess that about the only way they can get this done is just to add it on as an amendment to some other legislation — that seems most likely to me. But if they do that, Senator Schumer, what will be the Democratic response? From ABC’s This Week , segment with retiring Senators Hutchison, Kent Conrad and Joe Lieberman: CHRISTIANE AMANPOUR: Let me turn to you, Senator Hutchison. First of all, in a new report today in the New York Times , they say that in fact TARP will cost maybe $28 billion to the taxpayer, instead of the $700 billion. They say that bailing out the auto industry will cost maybe, in the end, about $15 billion rather than the many tens of billions that were put in. What about you? You yourself have been facing, even though you’re a reliable conservative, Tea Party competition in Texas. Are they outflanking you? HUTCHISON: You know, I think the Tea Party has done a good thing in awakening America to the problems that we are facing and saying, we can do something about it. And I appreciate that. I think that if I had run, I would have won. It would have been a tough race, for sure. But I think I would have won because I think my record is good. And it is to be effective and get things done. But I do think there is such a strong feeling that America has not been going in the right direction. And I think people are looking for a change. That's not why I didn't run. It was a personal decision for me. I commute every week. I have two young children and the time was right for me. I'm excited about a new future and excited about turning it over to someone else, but I think that the Tea Party, all in all, has done a good thing for America. AMANPOUR: And yet they say that, as I said you're a reliable conservative by all indicators, they said that you personally signify everything that the Tea Party is fighting. What on earth do they mean by that? Particularly when it comes to issues such as spending cuts and the things that everybody’s talking about right now. HUTCHISON: Well, I think that's a misrepresentation of my record. I am a reliable conservative. There are some people who say that, of course. I mean I read the blogs and it gets kind of depressing, frankly, to read those blogs. But all in all, I have support of Tea Party people. I do have the support of many of the leaders of the Tea Oarty. And I don't think there is a Tea Party spokesman that speaks for everyone. But I have a good relationship with the Tea Party. And yes, there are people that think that maybe I fought too hard for Texas in spending areas. But I think I'm elected to support my state. And I have supported every spending cut, every overall spending cut. And I think we're going to have to be doing a lot more of that in the next few weeks, because we all agree — and I didn't support the stimulus. So I think that was a — way too much spending. But we all agree now, it must be cut. — Brent Baker is Vice President for Research and Publications at the Media Research Center. Click here to follow him on Twitter.
Continue reading …Krugman Shocker: 1990s Economic Boom ‘Had Nothing Much To Do With Bill Clinton’
January 23, 2011 No Comment
For years, Democrats and their media minions have maintained that the economic boom of the '90s was caused by the fiscal policies of President Bill Clinton, in particular his 1993 income tax hike. Appearing on ABC's “This Week” Sunday, New York Times columnist Paul Krugman shockingly said what conservatives have been claiming all along (video follows with transcript and commentary): PAUL KRUGMAN: I think the model is something like Clinton who, in fact, mostly was just riding on a successful economy that was successful mostly for reasons that had nothing much to do with him. But he was able to, to be a very popular president by presiding over that, by providing competent management on those things you could control. I think that is Obama’s model now. It’s, I’m not sure it will be enough cause this, we’re in much deeper economic than we were in the ’90s, but given the realistic political limits, you can’t expect him to do too much. Indeed. As conservatives like myself have been saying for years, despite what the Democratic presidential candidate and his media minions were saying at the time, the early '90s recession ended in the first quarter of 1991 long before most of the nation had ever heard of Bill Clinton. Counter to the totally incorrect conventional wisdom fostered by dishonest media members across the fruited plain, the Gross Domestic Product grew by 2.7 percent in the second quarter of 1991 followed by 1.7 percent in the third quarter and 1.6 percent in the fourth quarter. As such, before the first primary in New Hampshire, the economy was already growing. But that was just the beginning, for the economy was actually starting to boom before Election Day, as the GDP grew by 4.5 percent in the first quarter of 1992, 4.3 percent in the second quarter, 4.2 percent in the third quarter, and 4.3 percent in the fourth quarter. What this means is the economy had been growing for seven straight quarters by the time Clinton took office, with the previous four quarters experiencing what most economists consider boom-like in terms of GDP. Now throw in Intel expanding computer chips to a 586 platform, as well as a little invention called the router which allowed us mere mortals to log onto the Internet, and the resulting technological boom provided economic stimulus like nothing most Americans alive at the time had ever witnessed. Add it all up, and Mr. Krugman was 100 percent right for a change. Someone pass the smelling salts.
Continue reading …Rachel Maddow Takes Stephen Moore to Task Over His Praise of Reagan’s Tax Policies
January 23, 2011 No Comment
Click here to view this media Rachel Maddow took The Wall Street Journal’s Stephen Moore to task over his praise of Ronald Reagan’s tax cuts and how they were supposedly so wonderful for America. As Rachel pointed out, they were great alright, if you were rich. MAHER: Here’s the part of Ronald Reagan I’m not so crazy about. There’s a few things I’m not so crazy about. He introduced the religious right into politics… MOORE: And turned around the US economy. MAHER: Uh… okay. Well you know what, David Stockman says this: The debt explosion has resulted not from big spending by the Democrats, but instead the Republican Party’s embrace, about three decades ago [Ronald Reagan], of the insidious doctrine that deficits don’t matter if they result from tax cuts. Which George Bush the first called “Voodoo Economics”. It’s still with us. Now what do you say to your fellow Republicans here… MOORE: I’d say the Reagan tax cuts were the greatest economic policy of the last fifty years. They caused about a twenty year expansion… MAHER: Okay but what (crosstalk). How could we afford the tax cuts that Obama and the Republicans just agreed on in December? How is that a good thing when… MOORE: It’s a good thing because we have to have the lowest tax rates in the world if we want to compete. I mean all the people in this audience will have jobs (crosstalk) if we have a pro-business, pro-competitive environment. While Stephen Moore continually talked over her, Rachel Maddow attempted to explain how the deficit skyrocketed and that we had some of the worst income inequality in decades due to Reagan’s policies. She’d finally had enough of him interrupting her and stood up to say this. MADDOW: From 1980 until 1990, the top 1% saw their income go up by roughly 80%. The median wage in the country over ten years went up 3%. That means for the people who are best off on the country, it was the Matterhorn and for everybody else in the country, it was like this. (crosstalk) So if you were rich, Reagan was awesome. And if you were anybody else, it sucked. David Stockman wrapped it up with pointing out how completely irresponsible the Republicans have been when it comes to spending. And Maher pointed out that their true strategy is to “starve the beast”. For more on just how wonderfully trickle-down economics worked for most of us, here are a few articles. Income inequality Some thoughts — and graphs — on inequality and income The United States of Inequality And there are a couple of good articles on measuring income and a break down as to what some of the charts on income out there tell us here and here .
Continue reading …
enlarge Credit: Life Magazine JFK – January 20, 1961 – gazing at the New Frontier. Click here to view this media Fifty years ago this day (in case you haven’t already heard about it), John F. Kennedy was inaugurated as the 35th President of The United States. From my liner notes on the Great Speeches Of The 20th Century Box: “He was the youngest President. He came at a time when the Cold War had reached a fevered pitch. He spoke of “new frontiers” and the renewed faith in the American Dream. When John Fitzgerald Kennedy took the oath of office that, brisk, snow-dusted January morning in 1961, he captured the imagination of the youth of America. Kennedy spoke of the commitment to change, the possibilities of a world in peace, the idea that we shouldn’t ask what our country should do for us, rather what we should do for our country. It was the beginning of a time we would come to know as Camelot.”
Continue reading …
Greg Sargent’s analysis of how successful the Republican party’s strategy was at painting Democrats and President Obama with broad strokes of “liberal” last year ignores one part: The abject failure of the press and broadcast media to expose it. I think Sargent has nailed exactly why Republicans were so successful with their strategy in his update to the original post, where he explains more clearly: What McConnell shrewdly recognized is that the public would read the absence of bipartisan cooperation with Obama as a sign of liberal extremism, and would perceive any bipartisan support for his agenda as a sign of moderation, regardless of the policy details. This is exactly what happened. Whe Obama was denied bipartisan support, people worried about liberal overreach. But his bipartisan successes have suddenly persuaded the public that he is more moderate. What Sargent misses in his analysis is this: Their strategy worked because they were taken seriously by the DC press, who has the irritating habit of reporting even the most bizarre behavior as somehow acceptable. McConnell’s strategy worked because he could count on the press pool to give weight to behavior that deserved no weight. Take the town halls, for example. Over and over again we heard about how “angry” people were at these town halls. Anyone paying attention also knew they were full of tea party shills and paid pot-stirrers who weren’t angry as much as they were greedy. Yes, there were people there who had legitimate concerns, but again, those concerns were stirred up by orchestrated propaganda campaigns. The ‘death panel’ claim in the health care reform debate is a shining example. It was launched with tobacco shill Betsy McCaughey’s nonsensical interview with Fred Thompson on July 14, 2009, the same day the House reported out their version of the bill. Concurrent with that interview, a set of specious claims about the House bill were published on a Liberty University website and sent out via email to create an intentional email chain. Senior citizens love email chains, believe them, and pass them on. They counted on that. Within days, the ‘death panel’ claim took hold, along with several others. Sarah Palin then piled on with her version of it, claiming that her Downs Syndrome child would somehow be killed or denied treatment under the House version of the bill. Where was the press in all this? Why, being very “balanced”, of course. Here’s a Fox News panel amplifying the claim: Click here to view this media From Fox, it’s expected. How about ABC News? As mainstream as they come, the kind of news people who pat themselves on the back about not paying attention to Fox News might be likely to watch. Well, in August, 2009 at the height of the town hall/death panel controversy, they reported this : The House bill, H.R. 3200, also includes controversial “end of life care” consultations, which would reimburse doctors for discussing end-of-life arrangements with patients, but which some critics have characterized as “death panels.” See how that works? Some critics? Not “some critics”. OPPONENTS. But never, ever do they say that. They don’t point out that the death panel lie emanated from and was spread by people who opposed the bill. They framed it as random opposition with no real organized center. Over and over they do this. Just look at the reporting this week on the effort to repeal the Affordable Care Act. Never do they look at WHY this is being done, and their reporting actually suggests there might be credible reasons for wanting to repeal it. Why hasn’t one of them asked the questions Democrats have asked this week about why Republicans want us to go back to benefit caps and exclusion for pre-existing conditions? Why haven’t they done in-depth reports on what happens when people are denied insurance for conditions like gingivitis ? By not asking these questions and calling lies outright lies, they enabled Republicans’ goals and message. Greg Sargent pushes that enabling a little farther by giving them a pass and characterizing McConnell/GOP strategy as “brilliant”. I think this stands as another reminder that the strategy of Senate Republicans during the past two years was politically brilliant . As you may recall, Mitch McConnell got a lot of attention last month because he frankly acknowledged that Republicans made a calculated decision to deny Obama bipartisan support for his proposals in service of a grand political objective: “We worked very hard to keep our fingerprints off of these proposals,” McConnell says. “Because we thought — correctly, I think — that the only way the American people would know that a great debate was going on was if the measures were not bipartisan. When you hang the ‘bipartisan’ tag on something, the perception is that differences have been worked out, and there’s a broad agreement that that’s the way forward.” McConnell’s victory is also our Fourth Estate’s failure. Bonus: Digby and I must be operating on the same wavelength today. Here’s her post on Jon Stewart’s “Big Lie Lie” .
Continue reading …Colorado’s New Secretary Of State Announces He’s Also Keeping His Old Job. Conflict Much?
January 22, 2011 No Comment
enlarge CO Secretary of State Scott Gessler, who blithely ignores even the appearance of conflict. Via the Denver Post. Because, you know, he didn’t even know what the job paid until after the election: Less than two weeks on the job, Colorado Secretary of State Scott Gessler says the $68,500 a year salary doesn’t pay enough. That’s why Gessler, a Republican, says he is going to be moonlighting as a lawyer for his old law firm – a firm known for representing clients on elections and campaign law issues, the very areas Gessler is now charged with policing as secretary of state. Gessler, 45, says he’ll be working about 20 hours a month for the firm, now called Hackstaff Law Group and formerly known as Hackstaff Gessler. The news was first reported by The Denver Business Journal on Friday. Sounds like a real sweetheart , doesn’t he? It’s amazing how Republican elected officials no longer even pretend to avoid the appearance of conflict. And why not? It’s not as if the media won’t let them get away with stunts like this: Colorado Secretary of State Scott Gessler is no stranger to political controversy. He has represented a long line of conservative advocacy and attack groups and in that role has become the public face of partisan causes. Indeed, his name and the law firm he founded virtually stand for a branch of Colorado politics that seeks to limit government restrictions on and oversight of campaign financing. He has done battle repeatedly with laws the secretary of state is charged to enforce and now he is secretary of state. His election victory put government watchdog groups on high alert. News coming today, a little more than a week since he was sworn into office, that Gessler plans to keep working part-time as an attorney for his former firm even while serving as secretary of state has set conflict-of-interest alarm bells ringing in watchdog offices.
Continue reading …
Martin Luther King, Jr.‘s “missing” final years, questioning the capacity of our undergraduate graduates, and a new California law that allows cops to snoop our smart phones. These discoveries and more after the jump. On a regular basis, Truthdig brings you the news items and odds and ends that found their way to Larry Gross, director of the USC Annenberg School for Communication. A specialist in media and culture, art and communication, visual communication and media portrayals of minorities, Gross helped found the field of gay and lesbian studies. The links below open in a new window. Newer ones are on top. Martin Luther King, Jr.‘s final years are mostly missing from the media’s coverage of his life King’s “missing years” include those during which he voiced his opposition to the Vietnam War and organized the Poor People’s Campaign. Are Undergraduates Actually Learning Anything? Drawing on survey responses and transcript data, researchers have concluded that a significant percentage of undergraduates are failing to develop the broad-based skills and knowledge they should be expected to master.
Continue reading …