The Republican Media- No. 39


Senator Lindsey Graham likes what he sees (literally) in Barack Obama, who is "showing a little bit of leg here" in the proposals expected to be included in the budget proposal to be unveiled on Wednesday.  Overcoming his apparent stimulation, the South Carolina Republican told David Gregory on Meet The Press (transcript, here)

There are nuggets of his budget that I think are optimistic. It’s overall a bad plan for the economy, but when you look at Chained CPI and Medicare reductions, we’re beginning to set the stage for the grand bargain. Chained CPI, adjust/harmonize the retirement age of Medicare with Social Security, do some means testing for both programs and in return flattening the tax code, generate about 600 billion dollars of revenue. And if you look at these changes over 30 years, there’s four to five trillion dollars in savings. So I’m looking for the biggest spending cut in American history by reforming entitlements, saving those entitlements. And the president is showing a little bit of leg here. This is-- this is somewhat encouraging. His overall budget is not going to make it but he has sort of made a step forward in the entitlement reform process that would allow a guy like me to begin talk about flattening the tax code and generating more revenue.

With the cuts in spending, it is "overall a bad plan for" an economy still suffering from lax demand. Graham, however, wasn't referring to that, but to sacrifice elderly people to achieve "the biggest spending cut in American history."     He wants to raise the eligibility age for Medicare and for Social Security, as his friends at the Business Roundtable have advocated.  
The primary driver of the long-term deficit, health care costs, are reduced by Medicare.  But less Medicare means more private insurance, and the health insurance companies just aren't getting enough out of the people Graham & Company view as parasites.   Chained CPI, which the President will recommend, won't be sufficient for Senator Graham, who prays increasing the age of eligibility and means testing will teach those old people a lesson they won't forget.    It would have the desired effect, unfortunately, because

The median income of people over age 65 is less than $20,000 a year. Nearly 70 percent of the elderly rely on Social Security benefits for more than half of their income and nearly 40 percent rely on Social Security for more than 90 percent of their income. These benefits average less than $15,000 a year.

The reason that seniors are so dependent on Social Security is that the other pillars of the retirement stool, employer pensions and individual savings, have largely collapsed.

And in return for decimating earned benefits, Senator Graham is willing- wait for this- to "flatten" the tax code, euphemism for lowering the tax rates of the wealthy and the nominal corporate tax rate, the latter nearly the highest among industrialized nation. However, as The Washington Post recently reported
 
Most of the 30 companies listed on the country’s most famous stock index, the Dow Jones industrial average, have seen a dramatically smaller percentage of their profits go to U.S. coffers over time, even as their share prices have driven the Dow to an all-time high.

A Washington Post analysis of data from S&P Capital IQ, a research firm, found that in the late 1960s and early 1970s, companies listed on the current Dow 30 routinely cited U.S. federal tax expenses that were 25 to 50 percent of their worldwide profits. Now, most are reporting less than half that share.

With the effective corporate tax rate on par with that in other industrialized nations, the South Carolina Senator wants to cut the income of elderly people and raise the costs of their health care, while also reducing the corporate tax rate and shifting the burden onto the middle class.

And to that David Gregory responds- really:  "I also want to follow up-- you’re putting new revenue, as a Republican, you’re putting that on the table and you think it ought to be…"

That, to the host of the longest-running television program in history, is what passes for a compromise position from a moderate Republican.  Presented with a plan which is practically a right-wing wish list of corporate tax breaks, slashing Medicare and Social Security, and giving the Pentagon a pass, David Gregory asks: "Is the Republican leader of the Senate there yet?"

No, David, the question is: Is the Republican leader of the Senate willing to admit he loves it or will he feign disapproval to gain further concessions from the President before negotiations have even begun?    



Share |

Don't Bother Them With Facts

You didn't know, did you, that the Occupy Wall Street protesters are all spoiled brats.

Herman Cain knows. Asked by David Gregory about the "Wall Street protesters," Cain replied "What is their message? That's what's unclear. If that message is, "Let's punish the rich," I don't empathize with that message. They should be protesting the White House." Chatting with Piers Morgan, it was "Some of the population has been spoiled. I happen to think that those demonstrated on Wall Street are spoiled. They have been -- they are spoiled and manipulated because I happen to believe that there was a coordinated effort to create all of this chaos and all of this distraction to cover for the failed policies of the Obama administration."

Rush Limbaugh knows:

So Occupy Wall Street Now? Good. More of it! More chaos, more upheaval, more anger, more frustration. Because what's the Occupy Wall Street crowd doing? They're asking for more government, aren't they? They're not asking for more money returned to the private sector. They're not asking for more prosperity. They're asking for more government as the answer to their wants and needs. They're not looking to themselves. They're not looking at the country as people did in the past: A golden land of opportunity. Just the opposite.

As usual, Rush was 180 degrees from the truth- in fact, the protesters are angry precisely because they believe in America as the land of opportunity, one whose promises have not been kept, in part because of the powerful 1%. If power follows money, the power of that group is demonstrated by the findings (full report, here) of the Congressional Budget Office (two of their charts, via The Politics Blog), as it summarizes:

CBO finds that, between 1979 and 2007, income grew by:

• 275 percent for the top 1 percent of households,
• 65 percent for the next 19 percent,
• Just under 40 percent for the next 60 percent, and
• 18 percent for the bottom 20 percent.

The share of income going to higher-income households rose, while the share going to lower-income households fell.

• The top fifth of the population saw a 10-percentage-point increase in their share of after-tax income.
• Most of that growth went to the top 1 percent of the population.
• All other groups saw their shares decline by 2 to 3 percentage points.

Still, the OWS thousands are, according to the guy who calls the President of the United States "this little boy, this little man-child president" who has been encouraged to "go gansta," are "all a bunch of spoiled, snot-nosed, leftist rich kids." Finally- a group of people Rush Limbaugh calls "rich" and does not idolize, probably because they had the nerve not to gamble away the world's economy.

Share|

John Boehner, Uncharacteristically Right


"Even a stopped clock," the cliche runs, "is right twice a day."

John Boehner is not right twice a day. Or twice a week. And perhaps not twice a month.

But he is right about one thing- or at least was on today's Meet The Press. The line of questioning from host David Gregory presumably was prompted by the scandalous scandalous! finding several days ago by GOP consultant and voter manipulator Frank Luntz that many Iowa Republicans apparently believe Barack Obama is a Muslim. Running one of his famous focus groups (video below) following Bill O'Reilly's interview of the President, Luntz discovered that approximately half the Iowa Republican caucus participants in the group believe Obama is a Muslim.

Here is the relevant portion of the exchange (program transcript, here):

MR. GREGORY: As the speaker of the House, as a leader, do you not think it's your responsibility to stand up to that kind of ignorance?

SPEAKER BOEHNER: David, it's not my job to tell the American people what to think. Our job in Washington is to listen to the American people. Having said that, the state of Hawaii has said that he was born there. That's good enough for me. The president says he's a Christian. I accept him at his word.

MR. GREGORY: But isn't that a little bit fast and loose? I mean, you are the leader in Congress and you're not standing up to obvious facts and saying, "These are facts. If you don't believe that, it's nonsense."

SPEAKER BOEHNER: I just outlined the facts as I understand them. I believe that the president is a citizen. I believe the president is a Christian. I'll take him at his word. But, but...

MR. GREGORY: But that kind of ignorance about whether he's a Muslim doesn't concern you?

Advertise | AdChoices SPEAKER BOEHNER: Listen, the American people have the right to think what they want to think. I can't--it's not my job to tell them.

MR. GREGORY: Why isn't it your job to stand up and say, "No, the facts are these"?

SPEAKER BOEHNER: I am...

MR. GREGORY: Didn't John McCain do that...

SPEAKER BOEHNER: I, I, I just did.

MR. GREGORY: What you're saying, "It's good enough for me," is that really standing up and saying, for those who believe that or who would talk about that--you had a member of Congress, you had a new tea party freshman who was out just yesterday speaking to conservatives, and he said, "I'm fortunate enough to be an American citizen by birth, and I do have a birth certificate to prove it." That was Raul Labrador, a new--a congressman from Idaho. Is that an appropriate way for your members to speak?

SPEAKER BOEHNER: The gentleman was, was trying to be funny, I would imagine. But remember something, it's not--it really is not our job to tell the American people what to believe and what to think. There's a lot of information out there, people read a lot of things...

MR. GREGORY: You shouldn't stand up to misinformation or stereotypes?

SPEAKER BOEHNER: ...but, but, but, but, but I've made clear what I believe the facts are.

MR. GREGORY: But is, is it, is it because it weakens the president politically, it seeks to delegitimize him that you sort of want to let it stay out there?

SPEAKER BOEHNER: No. What I'm trying to do is to do my job. Our job is to focus on spending. We're spending too much money here in Washington. The president's going to outline this new budget tomorrow, that I outlined earlier, spends too much, borrows too much, and taxes too much. And the president wants to talk about winning the future. This isn't winning the future, it's spending the future.

George Zornick, blogging on thinkprogress.org, the blog of the Center for American Progress, does not agree. He finds the House Speaker's acceptance of Barack Obama as an American-born Christian insufficient and unsatisfying. He argues

Gregory directly accused Boehner of hedging because “it weakens the president politically, it seeks to de-legitimize him,” to which Boehner reacted with visible indignation. But it’s hard to imagine Gregory isn’t correct. Boehner and his fellow Republicans — like all politicians — always try to persuade Americans, and “tell them what to think” on a wide range of issues. Just minutes earlier, Boehner was warning against a deficit crisis he said is caused by Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid, and told Gregory: “I think it’s incumbent on the leaders in Washington, those of us to go out and help the American people understand how big the problem is.”

Gregory maintains "you are the leader in Congress and you are not standing up to obvious facts and saying these are facts." Well, yes, he is saying these are the facts and yes, he is the leader in Congress- but not the leader of President Obama's party.

It is Boehner's job to persuade the American people that maintaining current benefits for the elderly is foolish, asking the wealthy to assume their share of taxes is wrong, deficit spending by the federal government is fine when the economy is humming along but destructive when it is needed to stimulate jobs, and the financial industry is being unfairly targeted by politicians who believe it bears major responsibility for throwing the country into a deep recession. The ideas are wrongheaded, but they are conservative, and that's the agenda- a policy or ideological agenda, as party leaders ought to set out.

Barack Obama's American citizenship and affiliation with Christianity are not part of the GOP agenda and it is not part of the responsibility of the the congressional leader of the opposing party to convince the American people of what is virtually indisputable. Boehner did his part, stating

Our job in Washington is to listen to the American people. Having said that, the state of Hawaii has said that he was born there. That’s good enough for me. The president says he’s a Christian. I accept him at his word.

You, dear and discriminating reader, are a Roman Catholic (or Protestant, Jew, Muslim, etc.) I know because- and only because- you say that you are. There really is no other way to know and your word is sufficient. You could produce a baptismal certificate but, as with Barack Obama, that really shouldn't be, and isn't, necessary.

Further if you assert that you were born in Indiana (or Kansas, Oklahoma, Rhode Island, or Hawaii) and the good folks in Indianapolis agree, that's good enough for me. I know that you're an Indiana-born Roman Catholic because you say that you are and, on the latter point, the state agrees.

That is all Speaker Boehner said. And all that needs to be said. Much of the left (such as this blogger on Crooks and Liars) seems apoplectic that top Republicans have chosen not to lead a crusade to convince their supporters of what, unfortunately, neither Barack Obama nor his supporters have been able to. It is, politically, a masochistic strategy. Telling the American people they are ignorant, then asking for their votes, is not going to win them over. John Boehner understands that and the left ought to, also.

Share|

Tax Cuts For The Wealthy- Priceless, For The GOP.

It's not true that Republicans have no plan.

They don't make it explicit, of course. They won't actually explain their plan to the American people. Nor is it consistent with their criticism of the Democratic majority for running up the deficit. But they do have a plan, of sorts.

On Sunday, host David Gregory of Meet The Press (transcript here) tried, valiantly, to get House Minority golfer (video, below, by Blue America and America for Americans)Leader John Boehner to admit that tax cuts explode the deficit:

MR. GREGORY: Leader Boehner, he puts it right to you.

REP. BOEHNER: The only way we're going to get our economy going again and solve our budget problems is to get the economy moving, get more people back to work where they can care for their own families and begin to expand the tax rolls to bring more revenue to the federal government. And what we have to do is we have to get our arms around the spending spree that's going on in Washington, D.C.

MR. GREGORY: But Leader Boehner...

REP. BOEHNER: That's the only way we solve the budget problems.

MR. GREGORY: ...I'm sorry, you're--that--you're not, you're not being responsive to a specific point, which is how can you be for cutting the deficit and also cutting taxes, as well, when they're not paid for?

REP. BOEHNER: Listen, you can't raise taxes in the middle of a weak economy without risking the double-dip in this recession. President Obama's favorite Republican economist, Mark Zandi, came out several weeks ago and made it clear that raising taxes at this point in, in the economy is a very bad idea.

MR. GREGORY: But do you agree that tax cuts cannot be paid for...

REP. BOEHNER: You cannot balance the budget without a...

MR. GREGORY: But tax cuts are not paid for, is that correct?

REP. BOEHNER: I am not for raising taxes on the American people in a soft economy.

MR. GREGORY: That's not the question, Leader Boehner. The question...

REP. BOEHNER: And the people that the president wants to tax...

MR. GREGORY: ...is, are tax cuts paid for or not?

REP. BOEHNER: Listen, what you're trying to do is get into this Washington game and their funny accounting over there. You cannot get the economy going again by raising taxes on those people who we expect to create jobs in America and to get the economy going again. If we want to solve the budget problem, we've got to have a healthy economy and we have to get our arms around the runaway spending that's going on in Washington, D.C.

MR. GREGORY: I just want to clarify this. I mean, if you--I'm relying on what Chairman Greenspan said. Maybe--if you're accusing him of funny Washington games. He says that tax cuts that aren't paid for are not--they are not cutting the deficit, that they are not actually paid for, it's borrowed money. And so do you believe tax cuts pay for themselves or not?

REP. BOEHNER: I do believe that we've got to get more money in the hands of small businesses and American families to get our economy going again, and the only way to get that economy going again is to do that and to get our arms around the spending.

Then he gave up, moving onto Social Security. Gregory had a second chance, this time with Representaive Mike Pence (a little slicker, arguably a little more dishonest), also from Ohio:

MR. GREGORY: Well, we're going to get to Todd's piece, but Congressman Pence, I mean, this is the tension that I got out with Leader Bennett--Boehner. Republicans want more tax cuts. It seems to me they acknowledge that they are not paid for, and yet, at the same time, they want tax cuts, but they're so worried about the deficit. How do you resolve that tension?

REP. MIKE PENCE (R-IN): Well, I think the, the way you resolve it is you focus on jobs. I got to tell you, when I'm home in Muncie, Indiana, people are asking the question, "Where are the jobs?" I mean, we have more than 14 million Americans unemployed. National unemployment is 9.5 percent. Clearly, the economic policies of this administration, however well intentioned, have failed. And we've got to do something different. And it's not, it's not just about preserving the tax relief of 2001 and 2003, David. It is, it is also about beginning to embrace the kind of spending discipline and reform that will...

MR. GREGORY: But, Congressman, you're asking Americans to...

REP. PENCE: ...that will restore confidence to markets.

MR. GREGORY: ...to believe the Republicans will have spending discipline when you're saying extend the tax cuts that aren't paid for and cut the deficit. How is that a consistent, credible message?

REP. PENCE: Well, I understand the credibility problem, David. You know that during the first six years of this decade, I spent most of my time fighting against runaway spending under Republicans. I opposed No Child Left Behind, I opposed the Medicare prescription drug bill, I opposed the Wall Street bailout. What the American people are starting to see is that Republican, Republicans on Capitol Hill get it and the Democrats, from the White House to Capitol Hill, just don't get. You just heard Carol Browner here on the show say that they're, they're intending, I think she said "possibly" to use the lame duck session to pass a national energy tax. I mean, that, that is, that is outrageous. What the American people know is necessary to get this economy moving again is get federal spending under control and preserve and promote the kind of policies and taxes that'll, that'll create jobs.

MR. GREGORY: Right. But I just want to be clear. So if you want more tax cuts, you would be very specific in saying how they'd be offset with spending cuts, as well, since they will not be paid for. You acknowledge tax cuts being extended cannot be paid for, it would be borrowed money.

REP. PENCE: Well, no. I, I, I don't acknowledge that. I mean, the reality is that I think it's apples and oranges. It's something that John Boehner was talking to you about. Here in Washington, D.C., they, they talk about tax cuts the same way they talk about spending increases as though the government owned all of the money. They say, "Are they paid for?" Well, I think, I think deciding on a government spending increase is very different on whether or not we allow the American people to keep more of their hard-earned tax dollars. But, as John Boehner just said, the most important thing right now is to get this economy moving again, to create jobs, and to get federal spending under control.

Apparently not wanting to expose as hypocrites two Republicans, Gregory went onto to another roundtable participant, Harold Ford, who mildly disagreed with Pence, then changed the topic. Actually, not bad for Republican Ford of the DLC.

Still, Boehner, who presumably would become Speaker if the GOP takes over the House, and Pence, who might challenge him, both avoided answering the question. (Nor were they reminded that Democrats are planning to block the tax cuts for the middle class to expire.) They couldn't respond honestly, of course, because the tax cuts are not paid for, will reduce revenue, and would send the deficit spiraling. They could quote then-Vice President Dick Cheney claiming "Reagan proved deficits don't matter." Or they could inject themselves with truth serum and note that deficits are a problem but in a severe economic downturn a necessary evil. But either way, what would they tell Tea Party supporters?

It's convenient and easy for the GOP now to call for "getting our arms around the runaway spending," "get federal spending under control," and ending the stimulus. One-third of the stimulus (totalling $787 billion) was allocated for tax cuts- and all but $55 billion of the $288 billion has been spent. The bulk of the money not yet paid out ($495 billion) was dedicated to job creation ("contracts, grants, loans") and to state and local governments ("entitlements") struggling to meet Medicaid and other payments- and to keep their own taxes from exploding.

For those keeping track at home, that would mean that tax cuts account for 45% of the funds thus far paid out as part of the stimulus package that Republicans incessantly tell us has failed. Funny, they don't seem to mention that.

Share|

The Republican Media- No. 18a

When the Sunday morning- or weekday evening- news programs go into their chat mode, a politician, strategist, or talk show host is brought in when the broadcast wants a partisan or hard ideological viewpoint expressed. Apparently, though, NBC's Chief White House Correspondent and host of "Race to the White House," will do just fine., as his appearance on the 7/20/08 edition of "Meet The Press" demonstrated.

Following an interview of Al Gore, Tom Brokaw hosted a discussion including Chuck Todd and Gregory. Gregory (page 4 of transcript) took a couple of unwarranted shots at Gore, the latter of which (in bold) I'll comment on here:

Can I make one point related to this? I do think that, you know, inside the White House, there's always been a feeling that Al Gore thinks he's got the monopoly on this debate, and so there is sensitivity among conservatives about this that he, he commands the microphone, and nobody else can, can be an entrant into this debate. So I think he's, he's politically divisive in that way. I--I'm hard-pressed to believe that he wouldn't necessarily go in the administration if he got the platform, but I also take seriously the idea that working outside, "so I can keep making money in all of this," but he can also have a really profound impact on the flow of the debate both here and overseas.

Gregory infers that Gore's involvement in the global warming debate is driven by greed- "so I can keep making money in all of this." (Note Gregory is not so honest as to admit "I believe Gore is motivated by money, but rather implies a quote from the former Vice-President.) This may be intended to leave the impression with the viewer that Gore is wealthy only because of his investment in the field of energy conservation. However, in an article posted July, 2007 in fastcompany.com, Ellen McGirt explains (p. 1) of the 2000 Democratic presidential nominee:

In addition to the steady flow of six-figure speaking gigs, he has become an insider at two of the hottest companies on the planet: at Google, where he signed on as an adviser in 2001, pre-IPO (and received stock options now reportedly worth north of $30 million), and at Apple, where he joined the board in 2003 (and got stock options now valued at about $6 million). He enjoyed a big payday as vice chairman of an investment firm in L.A., and, more recently, started a cable-television company and an asset-management firm, both of which are becoming quiet forces in their fields.

That's right: the man who had the judgement to support Gulf War I and oppose Gulf War II got in early at Google, became involved at Apple, and started a cable television company. And criticism of his vision that energy conservation was a growing business would logically come only from hard-core Repub partisans, distraught that alternative energy might cut into the profits of the oil industry.

Reflections on a Presidential press conference- No. 2


O.K., enough praising the President. The question following the question about the Dalai Lama and mainland China was posed by NBC's David Gregory about the Israeli air attack upon a partly-constructed nuclear reactor in Syria, which was criticized by exactly two countries- Syria and North Korea. Here was the exchange:


Q There's a report today from Israel Army Radio indicating that the Syrians have confirmed that the Israelis struck a nuclear site in their country. You wouldn't comment on that before, and I'm wondering if now, on the general question, you think it's appropriate for Israel to take such action if it feels that there is mortal danger being posed to the state?

THE PRESIDENT: David, my position hadn't changed. You can ask me another question.

Q Can I ask you whether -- did you support Israel's strike in 1981 on the Iraqi reactor outside Baghdad?

THE PRESIDENT: You know, Dave, I don't remember what I was doing in 1980 -- let's see, I was living in Midland, Texas; I don't remember my reaction that far back.

Q Well, but as you look at it as President now --

THE PRESIDENT: -- private citizen back there in 1981 in Midland, Texas, trying to make a living for my family and --

Q But you're a careful -- someone who studies history --

THE PRESIDENT: Student of history? I do, yes. No, I don't remember my reaction, to be frank with you.

Q But I'm asking you now, as you look back at it, do you think it was the right action for Israel to take?

THE PRESIDENT: David, I'm not going to comment on the subject that you're trying to get me to comment on.

Q Why won't you? But isn't it a fair question to say, is it -- given all the talk about Iran and the potential threat, whether it would be appropriate for Israel to act --

THE PRESIDENT: Hey, Dave -- Dave --

Q -- in self-defense --

THE PRESIDENT: I understand --

Q -- if Iran were to --

THE PRESIDENT: -- I understand where you're trying to take --

Q -- develop nuclear weapons?

THE PRESIDENT: I understand where you're trying to take. It's a clever ruse to get me to comment on it, but I'm not going to. Thank you.

Q Well, I'm just wondering why you think it's not appropriate to make that judgment, when it's a -- it is a real-world scenario, as we know, since they apparently took this action against Syria --

THE PRESIDENT: Dave. Welcome back. (Laughter.)


Several comments are in order:

- "David, my position hasn't changed. You can ask me another question." Leaving aside the obvious arrogance, what of "my position hasn't changed?" What is his position and why isn't the President letting us in on the secret?

- David Gregory could have asked the President, "Do you support an air attack without explanation by one nation upon another sovereign nation?" Sure, ascribing such legitimacy to inarguably one (Syria) of the world's foremost terrorist states of the late 20th and early 21st century would be ludicrous. but it would have boxed Mr. Bush into a corner. Instead, Gregory asked whether it would be "appropriate for Israel to take such action if it feels that there is mortal danger being posed to the state?" Wordly thusly, this is a softball. The answer can only be: "yes."

- The President said that he "didn't remember what I was doing in 1980." Yes, we know about Mr. Bush and the 1980's. This may have been uncharacteristic honesty.

- David asks "given all the talk about Iran and the potential threat, whether it would be appropriate for Israel to act..." Yes, it's appropriate, especially because the President has been eager to tout this threat, at this very press conference and elsewhere.

- Another softball: whether Mr. Bush supports "Israel's strike in 1981 on the Iraqi reactor outside Baghdad." Since then, we have fought two wars against Saddam Hussein's Iraq, one in response to his invasion of an independent nation (Kuwait) and the other in part because of his alleged possession of "weapons of mass destruction." The only true weapon of "mass destruction" currently is nuclear, raising the specter of the "mushroom cloud" which Bush, Cheney, and Rice would invoke. No nuclear program, no mushroom cloud- except without the Israeli attack in 1981 there may have been an active nuclear program established by Saddam Hussein. Yet, the President was unable to answer the question in the only way possible: "yes."