Fraud and Waste Mike Johnson

Appearing on Sunday's Meet the Press, House Speaker Mike Johnson was asked about imprisoned sex trafficker Ghislaine Maxwell, accomplice of the late Jeffrey Epstein. Of course, he did a tough on law and order bit, remarking

If you're asking my opinion, I think 20 years was a pittance. I think she should have a life sentence at least. I mean, think of all these unspeakable crimes. And as you noted earlier, probably 1,000 victims. I mean, you know, this is, it's hard to put into words how evil this was. And that she orchestrated it and was a big part of it, at least under the criminal sanction, I think is an unforgivable thing.

Of course, he also left himself maximum flexibility on the issue, having stated a moment earlier "Well, I mean, obviously that's a decision of the President. He said he had not adequately considered that.  I won't get in front of him. That's not my lane." After host Kristen Welker followed up, Johnson added "so again, not my decision...."

Look for the Speaker to be upfront defending the President when Trump ultimately extends a measure of leniency to Maxwell because Johnson is so far up Donald Trump's rear end that.... (You finish the punch line.)

Still, the Epstein saga is a scandal not for the House of Representatives but for the White House and the Justice Department, who are working a strategy to pin any blame for the crimes of Epstein's best friend not on that best friend but on Democrats. However, the House leader does bear considerable responsibility for the disastrous impact the Administration's recently enacted megabill will have on the American people.

 

WELKER: Why would Josh Hawley introduce a bill to roll back cuts in Medicaid if there are not cuts in Medicaid? He says the people in his state are going to suffer

MIKE JOHNSON: I will tell you that the one big beautiful bill safeguards the program pic.twitter.com/ikT8XeVxB4

— Aaron Rupar (@atrupar) July 27, 2025

Welker led off with

Two more critical topics to get to with you, Mr. Speaker. Let's talk about what has been called the Big Beautiful Bill. In June, you told me the bill would not cut Medicaid. But two Republican senators ultimately voted against it because of what they thought were cuts to Medicaid. And Senator Josh Hawley is already out proposing legislation to actually roll back some of the Medicaid cuts that he just voted for. Did the Medicaid cuts go too far, Mr. Speaker?

Oh, dear Lord. Why must the mainstream media, most of whose members (Welker among them) left-of-center, consistently adopt Republican messaging? Call it President Trump's, or the Administration's, or the Republican megabill of tax-and-spending bill. "Big Beautiful Bill" is obviously Trump's branding, an effort to manipulate the media, which was eager to accommodate him.

Johnson replied

The bill does not cut Medicaid. The One Big Beautiful Bill does not cut Medicaid. What it does is strengthen the program. And we talked about this, Kristen, is that the problem is there's a high degree of fraud, waste and abuse in that program. I'm talking about 10s of billions of dollars every year. What we did is we went in to go in and fix that.

He followed with fourteen sentences, none of which answered the question. But when in doubt, simply say "fraud, waste, and abuse," even though fraudsters would be prosecuted and abuse can mean anything in the world, though its most direct and accurate application is to violence against a member of a family and/or household, as in domestic abuse.

In early July, NPR reviewed the likely impact of the cuts Johnson says will "strengthen the program" and explained

The deepest cuts to health care spending come from a proposed Medicaid work requirement, which is expected to end coverage for millions of enrollees who do not meet new employment or reporting standards.

In 40 states and Washington, D.C., all of which have expanded Medicaid under the Affordable Care Act, some Medicaid enrollees will have to regularly file paperwork proving that they are working, volunteering, or attending school at least 80 hours a month, or that they qualify for an exemption, such as caring for a young child. The new requirement will start as early as January 2027.

The bill's requirement doesn't apply to people in the 10 largely GOP-led states that have not expanded Medicaid to nondisabled adults.

Health researchers say the policy will have little impact on employment. Most working-age Medicaid enrollees who don't receive disability benefits already work or are looking for work, or are unable to do so because they have a disability, attend school, or care for a family member, according to KFF, a health information nonprofit that includes KFF Health News.

State experiments with work requirements have been plagued with administrative issues, such as eligible enrollees' losing coverage over paperwork problems, and budget overruns. Georgia's work requirement, which officially launched in July 2023, has cost more than $90 million, with only $26 million of that spent on health benefits, according to the Georgia Budget & Policy Institute, a nonpartisan research organization.

 "The hidden costs are astronomical," said Chima Ndumele, a professor at the Yale School of Public Health.

Briefly: Onerous reporting requirements will result in many millions of Americans losing their health coverage, in a country in which "(54%) of Americans between the ages of 16 and 74 read below the equivalent of a sixth-grade level."

Additionally, "belt-tightening that targets states could translate into fewer health services, medical professionals, and even hospitals, especially in rural communities." As in will translate. And Affordable Care Act

marketplace policyholders will be required to update their income, immigration status, and other information each year, rather than be allowed to automatically reenroll — something more than 10 million people did this year. They'll also have less time to enroll; the bill shortens the annual open enrollment period by about a month.

That is to "strengthen the program" in a country in which a majority of Americans read no better than does an 11-year old.

Co-pays will increase for many Medicaid enrollees in states which have expanded Medicaid, thus discouraging individuals from seeking primary care. More people will get sick, then get help only when their situation is dire, boosting overall health care costs. 

Welker then asked

Josh Hawley says he is worried about cuts to payments and Medicaid reimbursements. Why would he be introducing a bill to roll back cuts to Medicaid if there were no cuts to Medicaid? He says the people in his state are going to suffer.

And Johnson responded

I haven't talked to my friend Josh Hawley about his legalization. I'm not sure what that's directed to. But I will tell you that the One Big Beautiful Bill safeguards the program. It strengthens it.

The Speaker responded with seven more sentences in which the question was not answered. However, the accurate answer would be: as he opined in The New York Times, "slashing health insurance for the working poor" would be "both morally wrong and politically suicidal."  That was in May, a few week before Hawley voted for the bill 

The "strengthens the program" or "safeguard the program," applied to Medicaid, is a chapter in the old GOP playbook. It is a variation- a slight variation- of the argument Republicans have invoked against Medicare and Social Security in which they promise to "preserve and protect" what they term "entitlement programs," i.e., Social Security and Medicare.

Mike Johnson once defended President Trump by rationalizing "Yeah, he may be breaking the rules but he's doing it where I can see it. So who cares?" That may be naivete about someone who is involved in a herculean effort to hide the report detailing his sexual and economic involvement with arguably the most prolific pedophiles ever. Or it may reflect on the Speaker's disdain for rules when it suits him. He's not the very worst thing the modern Republican Party is giving the country but he deserves (dis)honorable mention.

Share |

When Pitiful Meets Detestable

Hey, NBC! How about giving Representative Elise Stefanik of New York a platform to make a speech so dishonest as to rival those of Donald Trump? Oh, you already did! (Even a conservative ex-New York congresswoman understands that.)

This is so pathetic that @EliseStefanik is willing to call violent offenders from Jan.6 “hostages” in order to please Trump. Elise sounds like the hostage. https://t.co/cBIdUZXH3F

— Barbara Comstock (@BarbaraComstock) January 7, 2024

And it would make almost as much sense to broadcast, without challenge, an interview of a hostage by Hamas. On Meet the Press, Welker asked

In terms of what we're hearing today, former President Trump has referred to January 6th as a, quote, "beautiful day." Just this weekend, he referred to some of those who are serving time for having stormed the Capitol as, quote, "hostages." Do you still feel as though that day was tragic and that those who were responsible should be held responsible to the fullest extent of the law?

Stefanik began by charging "as typical for NBC and the biased media." A responsible journalist would have challenged the congresswoman by either defending her employer or uncomfortably suggesting an equivalence on the right, the latter option something like "are you including Fox News and Newsmax as part of the "biased media?"

The congresswoman continued

....you played one excerpt of my speech. I stand by my comments that I made on the House floor. I stood up for election integrity, and I challenged and objected to the certification of the state of Pennsylvania because of the unconstitutional overreach. So, I absolutely stand by my floor speech. I am proud to support President Trump.

Pennsylvania yes, Arizona- no. Not only did she vote on January 5 against certifying Arizona's electoral votes for Biden, two days earlier she has released a video in which she remarked "tens of millions of Americans are rightly concerned that the 2020 election featured unprecedented voting irregularities" and that they were properly concerned about "a fundamental lack of ballot integrity and ballot security."

In December, she had  joined in the amicus brief signed by 126 House Republicans in support of a lawsuit filed by the Texas attorney general to overturn the election results in three states won by Biden.  In an open letter to her constituents on January 6, before the confrontation at the Capitol, she falsely claimed "more than 140,000 votes came from underage, deceased and otherwise unauthorized voters- in Fulton County alone." 

In her speech of January 6, Stefanik did condemn the violence of that day, then name-checked Pennsylvania, Georgia, Wisconsin, and Michigan in claiming that "the 2020 election featured unconstitutional overreach by unelected state officials and judges ignoring state election laws." 

Asked for a second time whether January 6 was "a tragic day," Stefanik began 

I have concerns about the treatment of January 6th hostages. I have concerns – we have a role in Congress of oversight over our treatments of prisoners. And I believe that we're seeing the weaponization of the federal government against not just President Trump, but we're seeing it against conservatives. We're seeing it against Catholics.

Hostages. Welker could have asked "what makes the defendants from the insurrection "hostages" and after Stefanik changed the subject or lied, corrected her and then cut the interview off. 

By one  estimate, approximately 230 Israelis and foreign nationals, some since killed, were taken hostage by Hamas on October 7.  They were not kidnapped for no reason. (Excuse the double negative.) No doubt Hamas wants something in return, probably far more than Israel simply ceasing hostilities. That's why they're called hostages. They're not prisoners, unlike the insurrectionists arrested at the Capitol who upon conviction for a serious offense are legally prisoners. 

Stefanik clearly was trying, even harder than usual, to curry favor with Donald Trump. By that point of the interview, Welker had already played a tape of the former President four times saying to "hostages" and had mentioned that Trump had  referred o the criminals serving time as "hostages."  The congresswoman could not more enthusiastically declare to Trump her availability as his running mate. (Well, there is one way but she hasn't done that. Yet.)  Subtly trying to equate the men and women storming the Capitol with the men, women, young people, and babies snatched from their homes by armed terrorists is a loathsome tactic by a loathsome person.

Also, this: Catholics?  Republicans have been trying for some time to gin up public outrage against Democrats by invoking some mythical bias the latter have against Catholics. We know from her reprehensible performance berating Claudine Gay in a committee hearing that Stefanik loves to play the ethnic card. But that's no reason not to shut down an interview when someone makes false accusations unrelated to the question asked or the conversation going on.

Meet the Press has been running for over 76 years, with 15 hosts or co-hosts along the way. It recently had declined, under Chuck Todd, Andrea Mitchell, and the even worse David Gregory. But in the ten months preceding an important election in such tenuous times, NBC's signature news show deserves much better than Kristen Welker.  It's time to pull the plug on her.

Share |

More Than Chuck Todd

Barr on @MeetThePress implies that we Americans all owe him thanks for restraining Trump for years.

— Michael Beschloss (@BeschlossDC) March 13, 2022

Responding to that tweet, many tweeters unjustifiably condemned Chuck Todd, NBC, and/or Meet The Press merely for inviting the former Attorney General. But many justifiably dumped on Todd for allowing Barr to get away with complaining without evidence that he restrained President Trump. Barr stated

Before the election, you know, he cast his net broadly, and talked to a lot of people, and cabinet secretaries, all of us frequently had to wrestle with him to accomplish things that we thought would keep him on track. And we were successful, generally....

Todd needed to ask Barr what those "things" were. He may have cited specific instances, thus adding to our store of knowledge about the 45th President. Alternatively, Barr would have claimed those things are confidential or otherwise avoided answering the question, in which case he would have been revealed to be full of s_ _ _, uh, er, malarkey.

Perhaps the key to the willingness of prominent guests to return, though, is not to put them more fully on the spot. However, the Chuckster was willing to press Barr on whether the latter would support Trump were he to be nominated in 2024 for President. It "is a mark of totalitarian leaders," the host noted, to "want to be surrounded by people who tell them what they want to hear. We're dealing with this with Putin right now. Does that not give you pause about his ability to ever be commander in chief again?" Then:

WILLIAM BARR:

Well, I don't support his renomination, you know, to be nominated as the standard bearer in '24, and I'm going to support somebody else.

CHUCK TODD:

No, I understand that.

WILLIAM BARR:

Yeah.

CHUCK TODD:

But you sort of shocked a lot of people because you spend a lot of time in your books painting this person as unfit for office.

WILLIAM BARR:

Well, I also --

CHUCK TODD:

And making it clear that he, himself, that he's got temperamental issues, he's got character issues, and yet you would risk that again over any – over Joe Biden?

WILLIAM BARR:

Well, I think there are a lot of American people right now that might prefer having him back in office than what we see --

CHUCK TODD:

I understand that.

WILLIAM BARR:

– under Biden.

CHUCK TODD:

But I'm talking about you.

WILLIAM BARR:

And --

CHUCK TODD:

But I'm talking about you, you've had firsthand account. You saw it up close.

WILLIAM BARR:

Right, well, I think elections are a binary choice, and unfortunately sometimes it's choosing the lesser of two evils. I believe that the progressive wing of the Democratic Party is dangerous for the United States.

CHUCK TODD:

You've said this quite a bit. It's an uncomfortable thing to hear from somebody who was needing to provide equal justice under the law as Attorney General, because you said it while you were Attorney General. You really think the left in this country is somehow more dangerous than some issues around the world? I mean, you feel like --

WILLIAM BARR:

No, I just said in terms of the leadership of the country, I think they would be a dangerous choice for the United States. Our system, the person who's in charge of the administration of the criminal law, is a politically accountable official, and an official has to be politically accountable. But at the same time dedicated to providing equal justice based on law and facts with no favoritism or partisanship, which I did.

 

When an interviewer twice says "but I'm talking about you," it's a tell.  And when Barr remarked "I believe that the progressive wing of the Democratic Party is dangerous for the United States," Todd refused to let his guest switch focus from Donald Trump to Democratic Party progressives, instead asking "You really think the left in this country is somehow more dangerous than some issues around the world."

Ideally, more time would have been allotted for this interview, in which case Todd probably would have continued to press Barr as to why he'd vote for Trump in November of 2024, as he previously had said he would. But that's not how it works on cable news or, for that matter, broadcast news. Short interviews allow the particular network to do two things: a) promote the appearance of numerous guests in the hope that as many viewers as possible will tune in to see the man or woman they're interested in; and b) prevent the interviewee from getting too uncomfortable by being asked the same question, in different ways, until a straight answer must be given.

Considering that, Chuck Todd conducted a reasonably good interview, unfortunately not a habit of his.  A larger problem than bad news hosts is the format of the shows, in which the interviewer- by design- is given insufficient time with the interviewee.  And that is a problem which we the viewers rarely confront, and rarely even acknowledge.

 

Share |

I'm Not A Surgeon But I'll Repair Your Heart Valve

It's fair, and good, to invite on to the Sunday morning news shows individuals from all ends of the political spectrum. However, the journalists- or television personalities- moderating a discussion must have both a working knowledge of the topic they will be discussing a willingness to challenge blatant falsehoods.

Instead, when Meet the Press host Chuck Todd asked (at 39:07 of the first video below) about the Fourth National Climate Assessment, the work of 300 scientists and 13 federal agencies which the Trump Administration and its allies are undermining, he ignored obvious disinformation. Doris Keans Goodwin remarked, blandly though constructively, "if you can't look past yourself and the greater good and not the future, it's not leadership." Only slightly more controversially, Elise Jordan noted that the California fires "would, you hope, start to wake up Republican politicians."   

However Danielle Pletka of the AmericanEnterprise Institute, a right-wing think tank funded primarily by dark money, claimed

The problem for many is that they perceive this as an agenda that is much more about corporate and much more about law and much more about the kind of governance that America has and much less about climate. So from the standpoint of those who have doubts about this, and I don't think we can have any doubts that there is climate change, whether it's anthropogenic, I don't know, I'm not a scientist. I look at this as a citizen and I see it so I understand it. On the other hand, we need to also recognize that we just had two of the coldest years, the biggest drop in global temperatures that we've had since the 1980s, the biggest in the last 100 years. We don't talk about that because it's not part of the agenda....

We don't talk about it because it's not true.  Pletka's claim that "we just had two of the coldest years... since the 1980s" is a Trump-sized lie. In January NASA reported

Earth’s global surface temperatures in 2017 ranked as the second warmest since 1880, according to an analysis by NASA.

Continuing the planet's long-term warming trend, globally averaged temperatures in 2017 were 1.62 degrees Fahrenheit (0.90 degrees Celsius) warmer than the 1951 to 1980 mean, according to scientists at NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS) in New York. That is second only to global temperatures in 2016.

In a separate, independent analysis, scientists at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) concluded that 2017 was the third-warmest year in their record. The minor difference in rankings is due to the different methods used by the two agencies to analyze global temperatures, although over the long-term the agencies’ records remain in strong agreement. Both analyses show that the five warmest years on record all have taken place since 2010.

Theoretically, a reversal may be taking place in 2018. Theoretically, but not actually, because as earlier this month NOAA found

October 2018 also marks the 42nd consecutive October and the 406th consecutive month with temperatures, at least nominally, above the 20th century average....

The year-to-date temperature across global land and ocean surfaces was 1.39 degrees above the 20th century average of 57.4 degrees Fahrenheit- the fourth highest for January-October in the 139-year record. The years 2014-2018 comprise the five warmest January-October periods on record, with 2016 the warmest such period at 1.76 degrees Fahrenheit above average.

Todd undoubtedly knew that Pletka was pulling thing(s) out of her posterior. The problem could be mitigated by more transparency than simply introducing such people as "Danielle Pletka of the American Enterprise Institute." Admittedly, that could prove awkward, unwieldy, or vulnerable to inaccuracy or bias.  

In the short term, in the matter of climate change, Dan Rather has the best recommendation:

When someone starts an argument with "I'm not a scientist, but..." maybe we should stop listening to them weighing in on science. And maybe news shows should stop asking these pundits to talk about something they’re not qualified to talk about.

— Dan Rather (@DanRather) November 26, 2018

Share |

Making It Up About Foreign Policy, Marijuana, Herself. Worse Is This.

This could be about foreign policy.   Carly Fiorina vows to build a missile defense system in Poland and to rebuild the Sixth Fleet, which Stars and Stripes reports already is building a land-based missile interceptor site in, as luck would have it, Poland.  She wants to "conduct regular, aggressive military exercises in the Baltic states," which the US military already is doing, and to "send a few thousand more troops into Germany" because there is nothing that says efficient use of tax money better than sending more soldiers into Germany, in imminent danger of conquest by Russia.

Of course, as Gary Legum points out, that wasn't the real message of the candidate who never really means any of it, except for the style, which is supposed to strike fear into the hearts of the bad guys. Salon's Gary Legum (emphasis his) points out

if you are a conservative voter in America, you’re thinking, Carly won’t be a chump like that wimp Obama, who has let Putin walk all over him. That swelling in your chest is a jingoistic pride that you haven’t felt during the long, dark years that the Kenyan Usurper has been destroying America from within.

Or this could be about drugs, given that as Fiorina was diplomatically advised she was not up to date with her facts about marijuana, she decided to lecture the interviewer with "So I will also tell you something else. We lost a daughter to addiction."   What this has to do with marijuana (especially given her daughter died from a combination of alcohol, prescription drugs, and bulimia)  the publicly-truthless (thank you, Charlie Pierce) candidate didn't mention. But when the point is"I'm right, you're wrong, shut up," it doesn't really matter.

There is, however, at least one more insidious, and potentially more damaging, distortion coming from Fiorina, as illustrated by her exchange with the host on Sunday's Meet The Press:


CHUCK TODD:

Do you believe any of the money Planned Parenthood uses is for good, from the federal government?

CARLY FIORINA:

I'm sure it is. I'm sure it is. But you know what I find amazing? The hypocrisy of Democrats who stand up and oppose every time taxpayer funding for, say, pregnancy centers, that are also very much focused on women's health, but no, Democrats don't want taxpayer funding for pregnancy centers.

I just visited one in South Carolina. They are all privately funded. This is hypocrisy on Democrats' part. This is about a political slush fund. It is about the character of our nation. And yes, we should stand up and fight on this issue.

Thus is the impression left that Planned Parenthood can be eviscerated and centers also "very much focused on women's health"  left intact. But it's unlikely Fiorina is talking about outfits whose main focus is on women's health but rather about crisis pregnancy centers, unregulated and unlicensed, which help pregnant women, though primarily try to talk them out of abortions.

Law school student and NARAL Pro-Choice (chart below from NARAL Pro-Choice America) legal intern Caitlin Bancroft went undercover in Virginia and found

After checking in, I was introduced to my "counselor," a conservatively dressed middle-aged woman who led me to one of the back rooms. She sat across from me with some forms on a clipboard I was not permitted to see. Much like the décor, the set-up reinforced the sense of professionalism and expertise. The consultation began with the standard questions: name, address, age, date of last period?

Right as I began to relax, the Q&A took a turn for the personal and invasive. "What is your relationship with your parents like?" "How is your financial situation?" "Have you told the father?" "What is his religion?" "Are his parents religious?" "How many people have you slept with?" "Would your parents be excited about a grandchild?"

As I sat there having my life probed, the purpose of the questions dawned on me. In case the test was positive, my "counselor" wanted to know which tactic to use to persuade me to continue the pregnancy -- exactly where my resolve was the weakest. Was there a loving Christian boyfriend who would make a great dad? Did I have kind supportive parents who would be excited by the idea of a grandchild? I knew I wasn't pregnant -- knew exactly what she was doing -- knew she wasn't a doctor. But my body reacted instinctively to her questions with guilt and shame. It felt like a kick in the gut when she asked if I had told my brother about the baby, and I felt a creeping sense of selfishness as I imagined the door slamming on my shared apartment, my twenties, my life. Would my parents want me to have this child? Would it matter?

The woman stopped between questions to comment on my answers and lie. "Oh, you've taken birth control. Let me tell you how that causes cancer and is the same a medication abortion." I was told abortion would scar me for the rest of my life -- would damage all of my future relationships and leave me "haunted." I was told the pill could cause breast cancer, that condoms are "naturally porous" and don't protect against STIs, and that IUDs could kill me. She lectured and lied to me for over an hourbefore I even received the results of my pregnancy test.

Also interspersed in the deception were subtle judgments of my life decisions. "So you do have some scruples about you," she said at one point, referring to my low number of sexual partners. One of the most disturbing comments came when I was pressed about the sexual experience leading to my visit, the reason I supposedly needed a pregnancy test in the first place. I told her an all too common story of acquaintance rape. I had been at a party, I said, severely intoxicated and unable to consent, "I didn't remember anything... I just wished it hadn't happened." Her response made it clear that the situation was my fault, "Oh so he took advantage of you. Well just don't do it again sweetie; just don't do it again." It made me sick.

It only got worse after a positive pregnancy test. At another CPC (the deceptively named "A Woman's Choice" in Falls Church, Virginia) I could hear two employees whispering before entering my room, plotting strategies to reveal the test results and best manipulate my reaction. When they did finally clue me in, my concerns were casually brushed aside and used as ammunition for their agenda: I could care for a baby with no job, my parents would certainly help, and I could absolutely handle the stress. They even argued that I could be a law student while pregnant: "It will probably be good for the baby," the woman said, "because you will be sitting down all of the time."

At this center and elsewhere, the conversations were always the same. It didn't matter how many times I said that l didn't want to be pregnant or be a mother the CPC staffer would continue to bully me. Their tactics were so blatantly manipulative that I should have been able to fight back. I wanted to have a response, some kind of self-defense. But I couldn't find anything to say. I am pro-choice feminist activist and I often discuss these kinds of difficult and emotionally sensitive topics at work and in school. Yet these women's so-called concern left me defenseless, struggling to find a response that didn't play right into their hands.

 "There are," Bancroft writes, "over 58 CPCs, more than double the number of comprehensive reproductive healthcare centers in the state."  Across the nation- in which they outnumber abortion clinics approximately 3-to-1-  they are not all "privately funded," as the publicly-truthless candidate implies.   NPR explains the Guttmacher Institute

an abortion rights think-tank, cites seven states with line items in their budget for alternatives to abortion. Texas gives the most — more than $5 million over two fiscal years. Ohio budgeted $250,000 in 2013, and this year abortion opponents plan to boost their request to $1 million. Ohio and nearly two dozen other states also send smaller amounts to pregnancy centers through the sale of "Choose Life" license plates.

Fiorina is not alone in this deception.  In the last GOP debate, John Ellis Bush contended

There are 13,000 community-based organizations that provide health services to women, 13,000 in this country. I don’t believe that Planned Parenthood should get a penny from the federal government. Those organizations should get funding, just as I increased funding when I was governor of the state.

To be sure, Fiorina (as outlined by Legum) is the master demagogue. It must be difficult for Republicans and wayward independents to recognize as excrement anything stated so resolutely and confidently, sometimes with warped statistics. In light of the effort of congressional right-wing extremists to shut down the government over contraception and women's health care, its most dangerous expression probably is the growing myth that there is an extensive array of viable alternatives to Planned Parenthood.

Share |

Breaking! Carly Fiorina Tells The Truth!

Carly Fiorina told the truth!  On Sunday's Meet The Press (transcript here), the GOP presidential candidate was asked (video below) whether congressional Republicans should force a shutdown of the federal government over Planned Parenthood funding and replied

Well, you know, here's the thing. We are finding common ground. People's views evolve on all kinds of things. And the American people's views have evolved on this. So let's just take one example. The majority of women, the majority of young people, the majority of Americans now believe that abortion for any reason at all after five months is wrong.

Sadly, most people do oppose abortion after 20 weeks, as the poll question usually is stated.  (Actually, five months is more likely to be 21-22 weeks, about which no one is asked. But let's not quibble.)

Unfortunately, Fiorina then stated "Just as they believe that the butchery of live fetuses for body parts is wrong."  One woman's body parts, however, is another woman's fetal tissue used by Dr. Ben Carson (in years past) and other medical personnel for research into AIDS, spinal cord injuries, diabetes, cancer, and eyesight loss.  And given that Planned Parenthood makes no profit on the fetal tissue, it's not done for the purpose of procuring body parts. And it's not butchery. Otherwise, Fiorina is spot-on.

Nonetheless, Fiorina claimed also

I believe there are a variety of ways to deal with this. But I believe this is something we must stand up and fight for. Because it is about the character of our nation. Taxpayers are funding this activity. And not only that, not only are taxpayers having to fund this butchery, but Planned Parenthood doles out millions of dollars every single election cycle to Democrat candidates. This is a political slush fund on top of being butchery that Americans, again, whether they're pro-life or pro-choice, cannot support.

She is right- there is a variety of ways to deal with this!  However, given that she is talking about abortion and not the preventive care and contraception Planned Parenthood specializes in, it is not being funded by federal income tax, pursuant to the Hyde Amendment. It is not butchery. (There she goes again!)  Slush funds are illegal- otherwise, they are not slush funds, and we haven't heard of indictments. Further, though Planned Parenthood does contribute to Democratic candidates, the total amounts fall far short of "millions of dollars."

"That scene," Fiorina added, of a "voice saying what I said they were saying, 'We're going to keep it alive to harvest its brain' exists as well." Then she vowed that she viewed the scene, which does not exist.

But if Fiorina says most individuals oppose abortions after 20 weeks and there are ways to attack the procedure, she is correct.  Unfortunately, almost everything else out of her mouth is wildly distorted or an outright lie. That makes her a viable Republican candidate for President.

Up next: another danger



Share |

And Off-Camera, Chuck Todd Discovered War

Has Chuck Todd ever heard of a cell phone camera? A body camera? YouTube videos?

If that sounds like a rhetorical question, it's because it is. Evidently, though, he is thoroughly unacquainted with the whole social media thing. The Meet The Press moderator on Sunday asked the Donald of Trump (video at bottom)

And, again, I know we're going to get into a lot more issues with you in a couple weeks. But I want to ask you about Black Lives Matter. The latest shooting of a white police officer shooting an unarmed black man. Do you see this as a crisis in America?

There are two indications this was a terrible question.  A "crisis,"  according to the Oxford Dictionary, is "a time of intense difficulty, trouble, or danger."  If Todd believes that incidents of police shooting unarmed blacks is a new development, he should tell us why.  Far more likely is that social media has made us much more aware that police-community relations in many black communities is dreadful. The race riots (yes, folks born before 1960: that's what they were called... for very good reason) should have been our first clue. The second might have been conclusions of the Kerner Report, which followed the rash of violent incidents. The third might be the growing concentration of poverty in the central city (again, a term from the time) since then.

The other indication is that Donald of Trump agreed "it's a massive crisis. It's a double crisis" before recommending government give "power back to the police because crime is rampant" (also, "I'm a big person.") Something is not "rampant" when it has been declining for 35 years. Still, striking fear is the heart of Trump's message- really, the heart of his Party's message- and perhaps a stupid question deserves a stupid answer.

Continuing the theme of having been born yesterday, Todd followed up with "Do you understand why African Americans don't trust the police right now?"

Somebody inform Chuck Todd:  "right now" inaccurately suggests that it is a recent occurrence. It gives our society the opportunity to ignore the problem once other events overtake it, when our focus shifts to Iran, immigration, taxes, or more likely, whatever gets the most airplay because it has the most dramatic video.

If Todd was, however, consistent, so was Trump, who gave to this question an answer almost identical to the last, maintaining "we have to give strength and power back to the police."

In response to the exchange, Digby characterizes the candidate as "Nixon with the privilege and without the brains." But we should expect little else, from Trump or from the other GOP wannabees, who will say even more ridiculous things.  It apparently didn't occur to the host of the longest-running television show- let alone the longest-running news program- in history to ask the candidate what should actually should be done about mistrust between the police and the black community. Or even what in the heck he was talking about.










Share |

Extortion Made Possible


As a President, Barack Obama is an excellent comedian, combining fine material with extraordinary timing.    Last April, Obama (who is frequently accused by Republicans of being elitist) spoke at the annual White House Correspondents' Dinner.  It already was clear his fall opponent would be Mitt Romney and he quipped of him "We both have degrees from Harvard.  I have one, he has two. What a snob."  He followed that with "Here we are in this vast magnificent Hilton ballroom, what Mitt Romney would call a fixer upper."

During the general election campaign, after GOP vice-presidential nominee Paul Ryan was exposed as having lied about running a sub-three hour marathon, Obama joked at the Alfred E. Smith Dinner "And I have to admit, it can be a grind.  Sometimes it feels like this race has dragged on forever, but Paul Ryan assured me that we've only been running for two hours and fifty something minutes."

In stand-up, Barack Obama is professional grade or better.  And in his weekly address Saturday morning, the President was true to form, though he was sitting at the time.   He stated

And as I said earlier this week, one thing I will not compromise over is whether or not Congress should pay the tab for a bill they’ve already racked up.  If Congress refuses to give the United States the ability to pay its bills on time, the consequences for the entire global economy could be catastrophic.  The last time Congress threatened this course of action, our entire economy suffered for it.  Our families and our businesses cannot afford that dangerous game again.

I congratulate the newly sworn-in Members of Congress, and I look forward to working with the new Congress in a bipartisan way.  If we focus on the interests of our country above the interests of party, I’m convinced we can cut spending and raise revenue in a manner that reduces our deficit and protects the middle class.  And we can step up to meet the important business that awaits us this year. Creating jobs and boosting incomes. Fixing our infrastructure and our immigration system.  Promoting our energy independence while protecting our planet from the harmful effects of climate change.  Educating our children and shielding them from the horrors of gun violence.

I look forward to working with the new Congress in a bipartisan way.   If we focus on the interests of our country above the interests of party, I'm convinced we can cut spending and raise revenue in a manner that reduces our deficit and protects the middle class.

Mitch McConnell laughed hilariously.    The following day, he claimed on Meet The Press

Where we are now is we have resolved the revenue issue and the question is what are we going to do about spending. I wish the president would lead us in this discussion rather than putting himself in a position of having to be dragged kicking and screaming to the table to discuss the single biggest issue confronting our future.

Until we adjust the entitlements so that they meet the demographics of our country we can't ever solve this problem. The time to solve it is now. Presidential leadership is desperately needed. Now we know he's good at campaigning, but when does he put the campaign aside and start governing and addressing the single biggest issue confronting America and its future?

You might have thought that the decline of the middle class, the decreasing supply of good-paying jobs, a health care system far more expensive and far more effective than in virtually every other industrialized nation, nuclear proliferation or the threat of terrorism, or a continuing gulf in relations between a white majority and ethnic minorities might be "single biggest issue confronting America and its future. "  No, for the Senate Minority Leader it is the need to wean the sick, the elderly, and the poor off social insurance so that the wealthy can maintain an effective tax rate lower than almost anywhere else in the world.  And it cannot be done, McConnell warns, without the President of the United States and the leader of the Free World "having to be dragged kicking and screaming."

The President has raised the stakes almost to a stratospheric level, reminding us

And as I said earlier this week, one thing I will not compromise over is whether or not Congress should pay the tab for a bill they've already racked up.  If congress refuses to give the United States the ability to pay its bills on time, the consequences for the entire global economy could be catastrophic.  The last time Congress threatened this course of action, our entire economy suffered for it.  Our families and our businesses cannot afford that dangerous game again.

Emphasizing the importance of Congress agreeing to raise the debt ceiling, Obama characteristically blames the recalcitrance not on Republicans or congressional Republicans, but rather on Congress, hoping to solidify the public's impression that all of Congress is obstructing the public interest.  Call it Obama's version of "fair and balanced," a pox on both their houses, a descent into moral equivalence.

But we're in trouble if Republicans aren't as willing to be as reasonable as the President seems to believe they are.  Repubs may be willing to balk at raising the debt ceiling, perhaps again setting in motion events leading to a drop in the nation's credit rating, which would increase the cost of borrowing and, hence, the budget deficit.   And now Obama has made it clear to them that he believes it would be "catastrophic" if they act like they're accustomed to acting.  And that gives the GOP tremendous bargaining power.



Share |

Prelude To Cuts


In the spirit of bipartisanship and comity, let us be generous:  the utterances of Senator Tom Coburn (R-OK) are incompatible with objective reality.

On Sunday's Meet The Press, Dr. Coburn claimed (as caught by Crooks and Liars)

It doesn't really matter what happens at the end of this year because ultimately the numbers and the bond holders throughout the world will determine what we'll spend and what we won't. So, we can play the political game that is being played out in Washington right now or we can be absolutely honest with the American people and say, 'Medicare is going bankrupt, Social Security disability will be bankrupt in two years, Social Security trust fund will be bankrupt in five years, Social Security total will be bankrupt in 16,17 years.

Medicare is divided into four parts, one of which (Part C) is administered through the private sector through any number of Medicare Advantage Plans.  Of the other three, the Medicare Trustees Report, according to a summary prepared by the Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services

projects that the Supplementary Medical Insurance (SMI) Trust Fund is financially balanced because beneficiary premiums and general revenue financing are set to cover expected program costs... SMI Part D, the Medicare prescription drug program, had an average growth rate of 7.2 percent over the last 5 years.  Cost projections for Part D are lower than in the 2011 Trustees report, due to lower spending in 2011 and greater expected use of generic drugs.

HI expenditures have exceeded income annually since 2008 and are projected to continue doing so under current law in all future years.  Trust Fund interest earnings and asset redemptions are required to cover the difference.  HI assets are projected to cover annual deficits through 2023, with asset depletion in 2024.  After asset depletion, if Congress were to take no further action, projected HI Trust Fund revenue would be adequate to cover 87 percent of estimated expenditures in 2024 and 67 percent of projected costs in 2050.  In practice, Congress has never allowed a Medicare trust fund to exhaust its assets.  

There is no concern that Medicare Part D, the notorious prescription drug program created by President George W. Bush as a sop to the pharmaceutical industry, will go bankrupt.Neither can Part B, the Supplementary Medical Insurance Trust Fund, go bankrupt.   Coburn is doubtless speaking of Part A, which is expected to cover 67% of costs in 2050.   Or, as the good Doctor would put it, "going bankrupt."  In a fact check, CNN explained, more thoroughly and clearly than have I,

When officials talk of Medicare insolvency, they're talking specifically about the trust fund for Medicare's hospital insurance, or Medicare Part A, which covers inpatient hospital stays, care at a nursing facility, hospice care and some home health care. The other parts of Medicare, though costs are rising, are "adequately financed" for now, the program's trustees say.

The Part A fund's overseers -- the Boards of Trustees of the Federal Hospital Insurance and Federal Supplementary Medical Insurance Trust Funds -- said back in 2009, before the Affordable Care Act passed, that the banked money used to make up the difference between income (such as taxes) and expenses for Part A would be depleted in 2017.

But then the Affordable Care Act passed. The trustees reported that the act's lower expenditures (cutting rates to providers) and increased revenues (a payroll tax hike for wealthier people in 2013) "improves the financial outlook for Medicare substantially."

The trustees reported in 2010 that health care reform would delay the Part A trust fund's insolvency until 2029. By 2011, the trustees moved that insolvency estimate back to 2024.
By that date, the trust fund would be depleted. But that doesn't mean the Medicare Part A program would collapse. Revenues would be able to pay for most of the costs. The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, which administers the program, said this year: "Projected (trust fund) revenue would be adequate to cover 87% of estimated expenditures in 2024 and 67% of projected costs in 2050."

Coburn makes three claims about Social Security: 1) disability will be "bankrupt" in 2014; the trust fund will be "bankrupt" in 2017; 3) in "total," it will be "bankrupt" in in 2038 in 2039.

Social Security is not going bankrupt in the manner the Senator would have people believe it.  With no infusion of additional revenue, it will be able to pay most of its obligations for decades.  Coburn, in faux panic mode, is anxious that people believe that without "reform," Social Security will be obsolete in a few years.

Disability is the most tenuous, with the fund needing replenishment by 2016.    The trust fund will be depleted- as "bankrupt" would seem to mean- in 2033, not in 2017.  After that point, 75-78% of Social Security benefits (given no change in policy) would be paid (through payroll taxes and taxation of Social Security benefits) until 2087.

But the public won't support the evisceration of two-thirds (Medicare and Social Security) of the social insurance the poor, the elderly, and much of the middle class depend upon unless alarmists such as Tom Coburn are allowed to shred the truth and create an alternate reality.  As pointed out by Bob Somerby, in April criticizing Kevin Drum for condoning use of term "bankrupt" to describe Social Security

It would indeed be a very bad thing if the Social Security trust fund ran dry and promised benefits had to be cut. (The trustees now project that this will happen in 2033.) But people have been led to believe, for the past three decades, that Social Security won’t be there at all by the time they reach retirement age. Almost surely, the terms “bankrupt” and "bankruptcy" have played a key role in this disinformation campaign.

Because we’re away from our sprawling campus, we won’t provide any links. But voters have been deeply misinformed about the future of Social Security dating to the 1980s.

This isn’t a hyper-legalistic matter; we're not talking about a minor "rhetorical stretch." This is one of the greatest disinformation campaigns of the past fifty years. This campaign should be studied in detail, although orgs like the AP never will, and you know all about our professors!

Of course, when people are led to believe that Social Security won’t survive at all on its present course, they can easily be persuaded to favor extreme “reforms.”

Medicare, whose financial problems lie not in the program itself but in health care costs generally, is now being similarly denigrated- and not only by Republicans.     At the Democratic National Convention, former President Clinton, recognizing that the insolvency date of Medicare would be moved up if Mitt Romney were elected and repealed the Affordable Care Act, maintained "So, if (Romney is) elected and if he does what he promised to do, Medicare will now go broke in 2016."   The following day, Vice President Biden declared "The plan (Romney is) proposing would cause Medicare to go bankrupt by 2016."

While Social Security probably will not be harmed until after resolution of the fiscal slope negotiations, Medicare is on the chopping block currently.  And with both, disinformation is enhanced by manipulation of the language by the major players.


and to the millions of Jewish readers of this blog....   HAPPY CHANUKAH




Share |

Compromising, At Best



First, the "fiscal cliff" is not a cliff at all, literal or otherwise.

Try driving your car to the edge of a cliff.   Get out.  Then put the car into drive, release the emergency brake (if it is on), and watch your car plunge to its destruction.   Matt Yglesias argues "a salient fact about non-metaphorical cliffs is that falling over them is generally irreversible.  If the cliff is high enough that falling off of it would kill you, then if you falloff you're going to die and that's the end of it.  The 'fiscal cliff' by contrast isn't like that at all." Krugman explains that, despite the hand-wringing from the media and Washington Wise Men (and women)

It's worth pointing out that the fiscal cliff isn't really a cliff.  It's not like the debt-ceiling confrontation, where terrible things might well have happened right away if the deadline had been missed.  This time, nothing very bad will happen to the economy if agreement isn't reached until a few weeks or even a few months into 201.  So there's time to bargain.

In a similar vein, Dan Gross notes

Most significantly, the cliff will change the negotiating dynamic. After January 1, 2013, for the first time in several years, Republicans will desperately need and want something from the President. As CEOs, investors, and lobbyists wail, Republicans will only be able to deliver if they can coax President Obama into a deal. They can jump up and down and demand that Washington cut taxes on the very wealthy at a time of high budget deficits. And if Blackstone Group CEO Steve Schwartzman—who once compared the Obama administration to the Nazis, wants his low tax rate back—he can call the White House. Good luck with that.

Gross and Krugman recognize that a newly re-elected President Obama can negotiate from a strong bargaining position, the latter noting he is "in a far stronger position than in previous negotiations."   He can let the Bush-era tax cuts expire and then present Congress with the option of bringing back the lower rates for individuals earning below $200,000 and couples earning under $250,000.    House Democrats tried that in the summer but House Republicans, figuring the GOP might retake the White House and the Senate, predictably rejected it because the higher, 39% rate, would return for the wealthy.

That was then, this is now, and President Obama holds the cards- if he wishes to play them.    Early indications are mixed, at best.   On Friday, President Obama declared "But as I’ve said before, we can’t just cut our way to prosperity. If we’re serious about reducing the deficit, we have to combine spending cuts with revenue. And that means asking the wealthiest Americans to pay a little more in taxes."

Unfortunately, a moment later he followed that with"I want to be clear, I’m not wedded to every detail of my plan. I’m open to compromise. I’m open to new ideas. I’m committed to solving our fiscal challenges."

The community organizer, who won, and retained, the presidency by amassing the best campaign organization in American political history, is at it again, acting as if the opposition holds the power while he strives to secure half the pie, or even one-quarter.   We know he's "not wedded to every detail" of his plan and is "open to compromise," as he has been for four years.  Though Speaker John Boehner has indicated he is willing to raise revenues by limiting tax deductions, Digby realizes

So we have the general outlines of what revenues Boehner and the Republicans are willing to accept. Good to know. Does anyone have any idea what cuts the president and the Democrats are willing to accept in return? It seems as though it might be time to have a little chat about that because it appears that they've all agreed to accept some temporary chump change as a Big Victory and the Republicans may very well have wised up enough to recognize that now's the time to take the deal. 

So, what do you think the Republicans will demand for the tremendous sacrifice of closing a couple of loopholes? What will be the price for this huge sacrifice? 

I don't know, but I do know that the president once before agreed to 2 dollars in cuts for every dollar in revenue. He's said just recently that as Commander in Chief he can't go along with big defense cuts, so don't look for much money there. So, where are the cuts going to be?

We may have learned yesterday, when on Meet The Press yesterday Bob Woodward revealed that he had obtained

a confidential document, last offer the president -- the White House made last year to Speaker Boehner to try to reach this $4 trillion grand bargain.  And it's long and it's tedious and it's got budget jargon in it.  But what it shows is a willingness to cut all kinds of things, like TRICARE, which is the sacred health insurance program for the military, for military retirees; to cut Social Security; to cut Medicare. And there are some lines in there about, "We want to get tax rates down, not only for individuals but for businesses."  So Obama and the White House were willing to go quite far.

If Obama and Boehner had reached this agreement months ago, it would now be President-elect Romney with a Repub-controlled House and Senate.   And if this now forms the outline of a deal, the social safety net would be disemboweled, with even benefits for veterans cut, confirming the worst (inaccurate) stereotypes held of Democrats.  There will be no President (H) Clinton, (S) Brown, Biden, O'Malley, or (the fairly loathsome) Andrew Cuomo.  But at least, Barack Obama will go down in history as the transformative President always has yearned to be.



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|