Home » Archives by category » News » Politics (Page 491)

To quote Lawrence O’Donnell from his show back in February , Wayne LaPierre is “Washington’s lobbyist in favor of murderers’ rights, always to use the gun of their choice.” There is no better summary of a man who ensures his $1.27 million salary every year by being a paid serial liar in defense of arms dealers, which groups such as the Violence Policy Center have made clear again and again . So it should be no surprise that when faced with the rights of Americans to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, or those of Mexican Drug Cartels, he comes down squarely on the side of the latter, as pointed out by Media Matters : Wayne LaPierre, executive vice president of the National Rifle Association (NRA), has been on a media blitz trying to defend an NRA lawsuit that attempts to block an executive rule aimed at keeping guns out of the hands of cartels and criminals. The new rule would require gun stores along the border with Mexico to report to the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) when a person purchases multiple long guns, such as the cartel favorite AK-47. ATF agent and Fast and Furious whistleblower Peter Forcelli, whom the NRA has previously cited as an expert on tactics, disagrees with LaPierre. Forcelli told Political Correction that the “vast majority of ATF agents support the reporting requirement, because they know how it works.” Of course it works. It is common sense that it would work, except manufacturing doubt–from the oil companies to the tobacco pushers to the gun runners–is what these guys do. Common sense and science are their enemies. They might save a few lives, but then LaPierre might only make $1.1 million per annum. Follow me on Twitter: @cliffschecter

Continue reading …
Colbert PAC Launches First Ad Asking Iowa Voters to Support Rick ‘Parry’ in Ames Straw Poll

Click here to view this media As Lawrence O’Donnell noted during his “Rewrite” segment during Wednesday night’s Last Word , everyone was wondering what Stephen Colbert would do once he launched his new super PAC. Well, this week we got our answer with the first ad from the PAC, asking Iowa voters to support Rick “Parry” in the Ames Straw Poll. Here’s more from The Hill — VIDEO: Colbert launches first super PAC ad : Comedian Stephen Colbert’s super PAC released its first ad , “Episode IV: A New Hope” paid for by Americans for a Better Tomorrow, Tomorrow. The video takes aim at the money being spend to promote candiates before the Ames Straw Poll in Iowa. Rather than support any of the declared Republican candidates — or Texas Gov. Rick Perry, who is expected to join the field — Colbert asks voters to write-in Rick Parry. That’s with an “A” for America and Iowa, the ad says. Colbert lampooned the Citizens United v. FEC decision on his show since the Supreme Court struck down campaign finance laws and allowed corporations to spend unlimited amounts of money on behalf of candidates. Colbert’s joke to form his own super PAC became a decision with real-life implications for campaign finance.

Continue reading …
Colbert PAC Launches First Ad Asking Iowa Voters to Support Rick ‘Parry’ in Ames Straw Poll

Click here to view this media As Lawrence O’Donnell noted during his “Rewrite” segment during Wednesday night’s Last Word , everyone was wondering what Stephen Colbert would do once he launched his new super PAC. Well, this week we got our answer with the first ad from the PAC, asking Iowa voters to support Rick “Parry” in the Ames Straw Poll. Here’s more from The Hill — VIDEO: Colbert launches first super PAC ad : Comedian Stephen Colbert’s super PAC released its first ad , “Episode IV: A New Hope” paid for by Americans for a Better Tomorrow, Tomorrow. The video takes aim at the money being spend to promote candiates before the Ames Straw Poll in Iowa. Rather than support any of the declared Republican candidates — or Texas Gov. Rick Perry, who is expected to join the field — Colbert asks voters to write-in Rick Parry. That’s with an “A” for America and Iowa, the ad says. Colbert lampooned the Citizens United v. FEC decision on his show since the Supreme Court struck down campaign finance laws and allowed corporations to spend unlimited amounts of money on behalf of candidates. Colbert’s joke to form his own super PAC became a decision with real-life implications for campaign finance.

Continue reading …
Chris Matthews: ‘Paul Ryan Stuck His Neck Out and [Obama] Punched His Head Off’

Remember the good old days when political commentators were governing their tongues and offering Americans a far more civil tone in the wake of the tragic shootings in Tucson? Well, MSNBC's Chris Matthews on Thursday demonstrated just how bygone those days are when he gleefully reminisced about Congressman Paul Ryan ( R-Wisc .) sticking his neck out with a bold budget proposal months ago only to have President Obama “[punch] his head off” (video follows with transcript and commentary): JOAN WALSH, SALON: [Obama] did a great job fighting the Paul Ryan budget, I believe it was back in April, Chris. You and I both talked about it. He really sounded like a Democrat. He really explained to Paul Ryan why he was making a lot of mistaken assumptions about the way America works. That was awesome, and he backed away from that. I think he was, it was right to try to compromise. It was right to take office in 2009 and try to reach out to the other side and believe that there were Republicans… CHRIS MATTHEWS, HOST: Yeah, but that was easy. But that was easier, Joan. Joan, he made himself a tackling dummy. Paul Ryan stuck his neck out, and this guy punched his head off. But this time around, he’s up against shrewd, tough customers. Those guys fronting for the Tea Party, Ron, knew what they were doing. They had enough people behind them to give them bulk, and they went at the President saying, “We’re going to knock you off here. We don’t care what you think. We’re going to knock you off unless you say ‘Uncle.’” Isn't that special? In the past nine days, Obama signed a woefully inadequate budget agreement that caused our credit rating to be lowered while fueling a massive rout in stocks and conceivably pushing the nation into a recession. Despite this, these two liberal media members think it's a shining moment for the President that he defeated a bill that would have likely prevented the downgrade if it had been enacted. Irrespective of what's happened in the past couple of weeks, Matthews and Walsh would still have Democrats and their President punch Ryan's head off even if it meant a credit rating downgrade, huge stock losses, and a possible recession. And these folks think it's the Tea Party that's trying to destroy the country.

Continue reading …
Chris Matthews: ‘Paul Ryan Stuck His Neck Out and [Obama] Punched His Head Off’

Remember the good old days when political commentators were governing their tongues and offering Americans a far more civil tone in the wake of the tragic shootings in Tucson? Well, MSNBC's Chris Matthews on Thursday demonstrated just how bygone those days are when he gleefully reminisced about Congressman Paul Ryan ( R-Wisc .) sticking his neck out with a bold budget proposal months ago only to have President Obama “[punch] his head off” (video follows with transcript and commentary): JOAN WALSH, SALON: [Obama] did a great job fighting the Paul Ryan budget, I believe it was back in April, Chris. You and I both talked about it. He really sounded like a Democrat. He really explained to Paul Ryan why he was making a lot of mistaken assumptions about the way America works. That was awesome, and he backed away from that. I think he was, it was right to try to compromise. It was right to take office in 2009 and try to reach out to the other side and believe that there were Republicans… CHRIS MATTHEWS, HOST: Yeah, but that was easy. But that was easier, Joan. Joan, he made himself a tackling dummy. Paul Ryan stuck his neck out, and this guy punched his head off. But this time around, he’s up against shrewd, tough customers. Those guys fronting for the Tea Party, Ron, knew what they were doing. They had enough people behind them to give them bulk, and they went at the President saying, “We’re going to knock you off here. We don’t care what you think. We’re going to knock you off unless you say ‘Uncle.’” Isn't that special? In the past nine days, Obama signed a woefully inadequate budget agreement that caused our credit rating to be lowered while fueling a massive rout in stocks and conceivably pushing the nation into a recession. Despite this, these two liberal media members think it's a shining moment for the President that he defeated a bill that would have likely prevented the downgrade if it had been enacted. Irrespective of what's happened in the past couple of weeks, Matthews and Walsh would still have Democrats and their President punch Ryan's head off even if it meant a credit rating downgrade, huge stock losses, and a possible recession. And these folks think it's the Tea Party that's trying to destroy the country.

Continue reading …
Michelle Rhee and the Willow Creek Leadership Summit

enlarge If one were to paint a picture of StudentsFirst founder, Michelle Rhee, based upon her associations, what would emerge wouldn’t look much like anyone claiming to be a “liberal,” or a Democrat. After all, she’s cozied up with Florida governor Rick Scott to help destroy Florida public schools. Then did the same with Tennessee’s legislators to wreck theirs. She’s also an avowed enemy of organized labor, stepping out with Scott Walker to be honored by Betsy DeVos. Plus, her good buddy Joel Klein is Rupert Murdoch’s BFF. Here’s a new contour to flesh out the picture: Rhee is slated to appear at Willow Creek Community Church’s Global Leadership Summit this week. And here’s something you need to know about Willow Creek Community Church. Willow Creek, while officially non-denominational, has theological roots reaching deeply into the Southern Baptist tradition. Because that might put off someone otherwise interested in attending their church, Willow Creek is not affiliated with the SBC, but they nevertheless form alliances and share fundamental beliefs with them. Those fundamental beliefs have led them to affiliate with organizations like Exodus International, an organization dedicated to “praying away the gay.” Huffington Post: (RNS) Willow Creek Community Church, a trend-setting megachurch in suburban Chicago, has quietly ended its partnership with Exodus International, an “ex-gay” organization. Willow Creek decided to sever ties with the Florida-based ministry in 2009, Christianity Today reported, but the decision only became public in June. Church officials described the move as a shift in approach rather than a change in belief. Susan DeLay, a spokeswoman for Willow Creek, said the church continues to welcome those who are attracted to people of the same sex. “Willow Creek has a whole host of ministries for people dealing with these issues, and we would never intend for them to feel sidelined,” she told Christianity Today. Yes, yes they do. Pastor Steve Wu, leader of their Chicago church, resigned after he admitted to “sexual impurity.” The statement put out by the church is somewhat instructive: During Sunday services on Jan. 25, one of the church Elders, Greg Haecker, read a brief statement to the Willow Chicago congregation announcing Wu’s resignation effective immediately. The statement said: “He admitted to sexual impurity and has taken full responsibility for his sin. He has expressed a desire to participate in a restoration process.” I have some background in church-speak so let me translate two key terms for you. “Restoration process” means the process of publicly admitting one’s sin and agreeing to undergo counseling with a mentor in the church. Ted Haggard underwent a similar process. The term “sexual impurity” sounds as though it could be anything from visiting the wrong websites to premarital sex, but that’s not quite true. That term is specifically reserved in churchspeak for homosexuality. It’s sort of the nice way to say the dirty word without saying it. Whether it was an act, a relationship, or an advance on Wu’s part, it was enough to have him and his ministry summarily erased from Willow Creek’s website within 24 hours and any mention of specifics held very close to the vest. I’m certain Steve Wu’s “restoration process” included some serious praying away of the gay, because Willow Creek hasn’t turned its back on condemning homosexuality. They’ve simply decided to do their own praying-away. Here’s a blurb from a 2006 Willow Creek message entitled “Is God….Homophobic?”: Even though we don’t understand all the complex dynamics that lead to same sex attraction, we have an omniscient God who is smarter than us and who does understand. God’s Word teaches he designed sexual expression to be limited and ultimately expressed between a man and a woman in the commitment of marriage. All people are made in God’s image, and truth is that God’s plan for sexuality makes our lives so much better when we cooperate with it. Homosexual activity is ‘a’ sin in God’s eyes; it’s not ‘the’ sin, and God is in the business of transforming the lives of all morally imperfect people . A Christ-following church needs to be a safe place where not only homosexuals, but all of us moral foul-ups, can find love and support and can grow spiritually as God works in us and as we apply his truth. Willow Creek has certainly put more effort into bridging the gap between churches and the LGBT community than most. In 2008, Pastor Bill Hybels met with representatives of Soulforce , a group whose stated mission is to meet with church leaders in order to change hearts and minds about anti-homosexuality attitudes in the church. The outcome was mixed, at best. Despite cutting ties with Exodus International, there is no indication that Willow Creek has altered its core view that homosexuality is a sin and celibacy is the only correct response for homosexual church members. Christianity Today : Susan DeLay, director of media relations at Willow Creek, said the church’s decision to end its relationship with Exodus doesn’t mean it has become less welcoming to people with same-sex attraction or more averse to big problems. “It’s quite the contrary,” she said. “Willow Creek has a whole host of ministries for people dealing with these issues, and we would never intend for them to feel sidelined. All we’ve changed is how we’ve gone about inviting them into the church, which is the primary issue here.” The Chicago Tribune has more: But after careful contemplation, Willow now espouses the belief that “coming to faith in Christ doesn’t promise a change in sexual orientation,” she said. While this sounds fine and good and maybe even attractive, it disguises the core doctrinal conflict between evangelical churches and the LGBT community. Churches still believe homosexuality is a sin and should be cause for repentance, not celebration. In fact, I was unable to find any resources for LGBT members on the Willow Creek site or the Willow Creek Association site. That could possibly be related to the criticism of the church’s affiliation with Exodus International or the recent firestorm over Starbucks CEO Howard Schultz’ withdrawal from the Global Leadership Summit. While it’s unclear whether Schultz’ decision was made as a result of pressure brought about by gay activists or not, there is no question that it created some discomfort. Chicago Tribune : Already catching heat for how a cafe manager allegedly berated and fired a gay employee, the CEO of Starbucks suddenly canceled an appearance at Willow Creek Community Church this week after an online petition insisted he denounce the mega-church’s views on homosexuality. Though Starbucks confirmed Schultz no longer planned to be there, the company would not attribute it to a campaign launched last week calling on Schultz to denounce the church’s stance before the event. It is into this environment that Michelle Rhee steps, and it is yet another indication that her primary goal is not StudentsFirst. If students were the goal, she would possibly take kids into consideration who are bullied because they are gay. She might have even made a “It Gets Better” video if students were first. She might even have acknowledged that LGBT students in a hostile learning or social environment are at a clear disadvantage for learning. But she has done nothing of the sort. It’s been crickets from Rhee. Instead, Rhee will deliver her poison pill school privatization message wrapped inside a soft, fluffy wrapper called “StudentsFirst” and leave leaders feeling all inspired to go out and wreck public schools even more. She will do this in the context of a summit sponsored by an organization that is doctrinally opposed to the LGBT lifestyle but still wraps that in a soft, fluffy, welcoming message. Birds of a feather.

Continue reading …

Dean Baker schools Steve Forbes and Larry Kudlow on what another Tax Repatriation holiday would mean for our struggling economy. Kudlow usually just screams that tax breaks are the true job creators in the world, but with a seasoned pro like Baker on the set, he could only muster up a wimpy I’ve got no crystal ball defense. He’s for Tax Repatriation to be made permanent of course, but not because it creates jobs or helps the economy. Kudlow just goes cuckoo for corporate cash. Kudlow: I can’t predict investment and job creation, but…. Larry says this quite a lot to Dean. His only defense for this scam is that it puts more money in the pockets of those nice and quite generous investors who aren’t sitting on the sidelines even now. See? Baker: The question is what’s the best way to spend money and that’s probably not a good way to do it. if we want to stimulate the economy there’s lots of other things we can do and that’s not a very good way and what that’s going to mean is we’ll have larger deficits in the future because everyone is going to park their money overseas with the expectation that there’s going to be another tax holiday come 2016 or whatever it might be. So this is going to be costing us a lot of money in the long term with very little impact in the way of boosting growth or investment. — We need to stimulate the economy and this is a bad, bad way to stimulate the economy. It’ll give almost no boost and I probably couldn’t think of a worst way in fact Steve Forbes finally chimes in and says we have the highest tax rates in the entire developed world dammit and everyone is growing faster than us and pulling away and we need to get the investors animal spirits back up. Baker brings up the ’90s that had higher tax rates and higher economic growth. Steve Forbes comes back on and in a fit of desperation practically pleads with Baker: can’t we be more like China? Dean starts laughing at him at this point. I did too. Baker: China does a lot of things differently from us. You want to adopt China’s model here? I thought this was the center of free market capitalism? Kudlow comes back in to try and bail Forbes out by throwing around stats about China’s tax rates and corporate rates in the Clinton years, but Dean cuts in and says that the tax rates were still higher back then. Forbes starts babbling about a one shot deal or something. You can try to figure him out. Digby’s take: Sadly, I hear Democrats also signing on to this idiotic idea under the apparent assumption that more money for rich people and corporations can be defined as “tax reform” (that justifies slashing the safety net) and will result in something they can call a stimulus. Baker explains why that’s ridiculous, but Forbes just screeches the psychobabble talking points about the poor CEOs’ fragile emotional state — which the Right’s been parroting for so long that most of the country believes they were handed down on Mt Sinai — and that’s that. Still — it was good to see someone with sense on TV pointing out that all this crapola won’t create jobs. More like this please. Yes, more like that. Heather did a good post about the Tax Repatriation holiday a few days ago when Matt Taibbi joined Keith Olbermann to discuss it. Matt Taibbi: Corporate Tax Holiday Gaining Bipartisan Support Here’s how it works: the tax laws say that companies can avoid paying taxes as long as they keep their profits overseas. Whenever that money comes back to the U.S., the companies have to pay taxes on it. Think of it as a gigantic global IRA. Companies that put their profits in the offshore IRA can leave them there indefinitely with no tax consequence. Then, when they cash out, they pay the tax. Only there’s a catch. In 2004, the corporate lobby got together and major employers like Cisco and Apple and GE begged congress to give them a “one-time” tax holiday, arguing that they would use the savings to create jobs. Congress, shamefully, relented, and a tax holiday was declared. Now companies paid about 5 percent in taxes, instead of 35-40 percent. Money streamed back into America. But the companies did not use the savings to create jobs. Instead, they mostly just turned it into executive bonuses and ate the extra cash. Some of those companies promising waves of new hires have already committed to massive layoffs. . It was bad enough when lobbyists managed to pull this trick off once, in 2004. But in one of the worst-kept secrets in Washington, companies immediately started to systematically “offshore” their profits right after the 2004 holiday with the expectation that somewhere down the road, and probably sooner rather than later, they would get another holiday… read on

Continue reading …

CNN's Christine Romans and Ali Velshi tried to argue that no evidence exists linking tax cuts to job creation while interviewing Sen. Pat Toomey (R-Pa.) Wednesday, on America's deficit problem. The financial gurus challenged Toomey's conservative point that tax hikes should be off the table as a revenue increase, because they would hurt the economy. “So, where is the evidence that not cutting taxes creates jobs?” Ali Velshi asked. “We haven't seen it.” [Video below the break.] “We've been cutting taxes for 10 years,” Romans strangely argued, as if each year since the 2001 Bush tax cuts the federal government has been granting additional cuts. “And we haven't seen the job creation,” Velshi added. However, Senator Toomey responded that small businesses would be affected by a tax hike, as well as risk-taking and investment. “Well, let's remember that after cutting taxes in 2003, we did have a tremendous job creation,” Toomey pointed out. “The unemployment rate dropped to below 5 percent and as recently as 2007, our federal deficit under the current tax regime was only 1.2 percent of GDP, a tiny fraction of where it is now.” Romans also referenced 2009 IRS statistics reporting that only 3 percent of taxpayers earn an income of over $200,000 per year. She implied that few Americans would be “affected by tax increases.”

Continue reading …

A new Washington Post poll finds , among other things, that a full 70 percent of Americans either believe Barack Obama has “tried but failed” to solve “the major problems facing the country” or has actually “made problems worse.” That compares, by the way, with 71 percent of Americans in a December 2008 Pew Center poll who thought the same of outgoing President Bush. Yet in analyzing the polling data, Post staffers Jon Cohen and Dan Balz buried bad news for the president deep in their page A1 August 11 article and suggested the sour view Americans have on the Congress was the bigger story for the upcoming election season (emphasis mine):

Continue reading …

Economist Dean Bellows on the logic of the debt ceiling increase and possible default. Dean Bellows argues that the downgrade of the United States’ credit rating did not cause the recent losses on Wall Street: Time to beat up on really really bad news reporting. The stock market doesn’t tell people why it does what it does. We have commentators who bloviate on what they think caused the market to rise or fall, but they don’t really know and they could be completely wrong. That is why it was incredibly irresponsible for NPR to tell listeners in its top of the hour news segment that the market plunged because Standard and Poor’s downgrade of U.S. debt. NPR does not know this to be true and it certainly is not obviously the case. The market that should have been most immediately affected by the S&P downgrade was the U.S. bond market. However bond prices soared in the trading immediately following the downgrade and continued to rise through Wednesday. If there was greater fear that the U.S. would default because of the downgrade, then bond prices should have plunged as investors demanded a higher risk premium. This did not happen. The most obvious alternative explanation for the plunge in the market is the risk that the euro could break up as the debt crisis spread from relatively countries like Greece and Ireland, to the euro zone giants, Spain and Italy. The prospect of a euro zone break-up raises a real risk of a Lehman-type freeze up of the world financial system. It is far more plausible that this prospect led to the plunge in the stock market than the downgrade by one of three major credit rating agencies. Bellows and others, including Acting Assistant Secretary for Economic Policy John Bellows , have pointed out that the original rationale S&P used to argue for the downgrade was based on $2 trillion calculation error. When this error was pointed out to them BEFORE the downgrade was issued, S&P effectively ignored it. According to Bellows: The impact of this mistake was to dramatically overstate projected deficits—by $2 trillion over 10 years. As anybody who has followed the fiscal discussions knows, a change of this magnitude is very significant. Nonetheless, S&P did not believe a mistake of this magnitude was significant enough to warrant reconsidering their judgment, or even significant enough to warrant another day to carefully re-evaluate their analysis. S&P acknowledged this error – in private conversations with Treasury on Friday afternoon and then publicly early Saturday morning. In the interim, they chose to issue a downgrade of the US credit rating. Independent of this error, there is no justifiable rationale for downgrading the debt of the United States. There are millions of investors around the globe that trade Treasury securities. They assess our creditworthiness every minute of every day, and their collective judgment is that the U.S. has the means and political will to make good on its obligations. The magnitude of this mistake – and the haste with which S&P changed its principal rationale for action when presented with this error – raise fundamental questions about the credibility and integrity of S&P’s ratings action. When further confronted over the decision to make the downgrade, S&P representatives, talked about their decision being transparent , while hiding information about the decision: S&P won’t say who at the company made the decision to downgrade U.S. debt from its AAA rating to AA+, only that it was made by a panel of five to nine executives. But company president Deven Sharma defended S&P in a CNBC interview yesterday. Said Sharma: “Our role is to call the risks effectively and transparently, and that’s what we have done.” S&P’s response to a math error? Acknowledge it and then keep the bad decision based on the error. Their response to questions about that decision? Claim to be transparent while saying that the decision was made by an indeterminate number of anonymous people. Something smells fishy…

Continue reading …