Showing posts with label Susan Molinari. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Susan Molinari. Show all posts

Monday, February 28, 2011

The Usual, Even On MSNBC


It's a fair amount of dialogue to go through, but Chris Matthews' discussion on Monday's Hardball (transcript here) with former U.S. Representative Susan Molinari (R-NY) and Politico's Jeanne Cummings has just about everything that's wrong with the media's treatment of entitlements. Matthews leads off:

While it appears there may be a deal coming to keep the United States government funded for another two weeks and open for business, avoiding a shutdown, the question remains whether Congress or the president will do something to curb the big, growing cost of programs like Social Security and Medicare. Or is it all talk and no action, for the obvious reason?

Susan Molinari is a former New York congresswoman. And Jeanne Cummings is assistant manager editor at Politico.

Jeanne, just in strict analytical terms, watching these folks, I wonder if anybody who wants to get elected again in Congress is willing to put their hand up and say: "I want to cut the benefits going to people on Social Security. I want to cut the health benefits. You`re not going to get dialysis for more than three months, X-many months. You`re not going to get the artificial limb reworked after seven years. You`re not going to get the following"?

When it comes to the realities of cutting these programs, will any politician actually do it?

JEANNE CUMMINGS, ASSISTANT MANAGING EDITOR, POLITICO.COM: I don`t think we`re going to see that any time soon, and without a great deal of change here in Washington, Chris, for the reasons that you make clear.

It`s politically very, very difficult. You have down in Florida Representative Adam (sic) West, who has actually talked -- he`s a Republican, a freshman -- and he`s talked more than many of them about some of the changes that would have to come to those programs.

And the Democrats are immediately targeting him. And that -- those are the very issues they`re using against him.

MATTHEWS: Yes.

CUMMINGS: So, it`s going to take a sea change.

MATTHEWS: All you have to do -- Paula Hawkins, remember -- I`m sorry.

But, remember, Paula Hawkins was a senator from down there, never did anything wrong, except she did what they told her to do. She voted to -- she came out in public support of cutting for the COLAs for Social Security. Got blown away. Jeremiah Denton.

I think it`s the only issue, Susan -- you were in the House -- that you can be beaten for, just one vote. Vote to cut Social Security, vote to cut Medicare benefits to people, what happens to you?

SUSAN MOLINARI (R), FORMER U.S. CONGRESSWOMAN: Well, except nobody`s talking about cutting benefits of the recipients right now. What they`re talking about is changing programs in the future. And I think...

(CROSSTALK)

MATTHEWS: But, in the end, doesn`t that do the same thing?

MOLINARI: I think the Republicans are going to take that chance.

Look, John Boehner has just said it. The speaker went out there and said it. Eric Cantor has said it. Paul Ryan has said, when he unveils his budget in a few weeks, there`s going to be entitlement change. Governor Christie has stood up and has staked his claim. Mitch Daniels has.

I mean, you`re starting to see -- and, look, it`s a different...

MATTHEWS: It`s easy for Christie. He`s not doing this. He`s telling them to do it.

(CROSSTALK)

MOLINARI: It`s a different world now, though.

MATTHEWS: OK.

(CROSSTALK)

MOLINARI: This is a different world.

MATTHEWS: OK, Susan Molinari, I respect your judgment. Here`s the latest "USA Today" poll, Gallup poll -- 61 percent of Americans oppose cutting Medicare spends -- 64 percent oppose cutting Social Security spending. These are two-thirds votes.

MOLINARI: I think the American people told the Republicans when they elected in the majority that they wanted this deficit to come under control and that they wanted a little sanity and some validity.

MATTHEWS: I agree with all that.

MOLINARI: We`re starting to see this with the C.R. We`re starting to see this with what the new Republican budget is going to do. I think you`re going to be surprised by the leadership that the Republican Party is going to show.

And I think the American people are going to present them with reelection at the polls for showing that kind of leadership. I think what the last election about -- was leadership.

MATTHEWS: Every time, Susan -- or, Jeanne, every time we poll people -- and I did this back in, I think, 1971, working for a senator from Utah.

You poll people and you ask them what they would like to see government cut, they say foreign aid and general government expenses. They want to see more money on education. They don`t want any cuts in Social Security or anything like it.

If you ask them, do they want to see government waste cut, they don`t want real cuts. For example, I was just out doing something for Alzheimer`s this past week out in Las Vegas, trying to raise awareness for the big group out there that is working on research. Imagine telling people who have an Alzheimer`s victim in their house and they`re a caregiver -- oh by the way, we`re cutting spending on research that you`re going to face another 20 or 30 years of Alzheimer`s hell in this country because we can`t solve the problem. Do people really want those kinds of cuts?

CUMMINGS: Well, I think in addition to those challenges that you`ve just outlined, there is an additional one for this Congress and the White House if they really want to do anything. And that is that there is a sizable majority in the 60 percents in a recent poll by Kaiser who thinks you can fix Medicare and Social Security by just cutting the other parts of the budget. So, the public, while they may be coming around, they aren`t ready for this debate yet. There`s a lot of education that would have to take place before Washington could move in a serious and fundamental way.

What struck me with the deficit commission in December was they made recommendations that would change Social Security, for instance.

MATTHEWS: Yes.

CUMMINGS: These -- the effect of -- the effect of those changes wouldn`t take place, wouldn`t affect anybody until 2050, OK? That`s a long time from now.

MATTHEWS: I know.

CUMMINGS: And, yet, they were criticized roundly on both sides of the aisle. And nobody`s been willing to touch that one. So, until they deal, they bring the public with them, I think this will remain, they`ve got to educate the public. But until they do that, I think it`s going to be a very tough issue.

MATTHEWS: So, you`re 26 years old and this will affect you. I`m going the math. It`s 39 years from now.

MOLINARI: Twenty-six-year-olds, 52-year-olds don`t rely on Social Security for our benefits. I mean, we`ve all grown up with the reality we don`t think it`s going to be there for them. That is why I think -- you know, look, the line is being drawn. The abdication of leadership by President Obama in following in anything that his deficit commission --

(CROSSTALK)

MATTHEWS: Who on the other side is doing it?

MOLINARI: Three week, Paul Ryan, and you just heard John Boehner say they`re going to make some changes in terms of entitlement reforms. When they come forth with their budget when they`re done cleaning --

(CROSSTALK)

MATTHEWS: Do you think that`s a smart move on their part?

MOLINARI: I think it is a smart move for this country. And I think the voters understand it now. I think it is a different time than when Paula Hawkins and others --

MATTHEWS: Jeanne, do you think the Republicans are going to be the first ones to move on this? Not the Democrats?

CUMMINGS: I will be -- I think they are going to do something. They are promised to do it and there will be something in their budget. Whether that is a serious proposal or not, I`m skeptical of. Only because we`ve been in this town for a long time and there are a lot of proposals that are supposedly serious proposals but they really aren`t.

So, we`ll see if they will be first out and it will be a serious proposal.

MATTHEWS: I will be very impressed -- negatively or positively, I`ll be impressed if your party, the Republican Party, actually says, raise the retirement age, reduce the benefit levels, something that a person can see when they watch a program like this and read the paper, they can get it. They are cutting the benefits.

MOLINARI: This is the party that`s at least proposed the spending cuts for C.R. that the Democrat Party was suppose to pass last year and moving toward September. So, let`s give them credit for what they`ve done so far.

MATTHEWS: You`ve just done that. That`s sufficient.

Anyway, thank you, Susan Molinari. It`s great to have you on because you are a good partisan. But I`m waiting for the Republicans or anybody -- because I watched this under Reagan. And he was as popular as you could get in this country, and he got burnt on this thing

While it appears there may be a deal coming to keep the United States government funded for another two weeks and open for business, avoiding a shutdown, the question remains whether Congress or the president will do something to curb the big, growing cost of programs like Social Security and Medicare. Or is it all talk and no action, for the obvious reason?

Susan Molinari is a former New York congresswoman. And Jeanne Cummings is assistant manager editor at Politico.

Jeanne, just in strict analytical terms, watching these folks, I wonder if anybody who wants to get elected again in Congress is willing to put their hand up and say: "I want to cut the benefits going to people on Social Security. I want to cut the health benefits. You`re not going to get dialysis for more than three months, X-many months. You`re not going to get the artificial limb reworked after seven years. You`re not going to get the following"?

When it comes to the realities of cutting these programs, will any politician actually do it?

JEANNE CUMMINGS, ASSISTANT MANAGING EDITOR, POLITICO.COM: I don`t think we`re going to see that any time soon, and without a great deal of change here in Washington, Chris, for the reasons that you make clear.

It`s politically very, very difficult. You have down in Florida Representative Adam (sic) West, who has actually talked -- he`s a Republican, a freshman -- and he`s talked more than many of them about some of the changes that would have to come to those programs.

And the Democrats are immediately targeting him. And that -- those are the very issues they`re using against him.

MATTHEWS: Yes.

CUMMINGS: So, it`s going to take a sea change.

MATTHEWS: All you have to do -- Paula Hawkins, remember -- I`m sorry.

But, remember, Paula Hawkins was a senator from down there, never did anything wrong, except she did what they told her to do. She voted to -- she came out in public support of cutting for the COLAs for Social Security. Got blown away. Jeremiah Denton.

I think it`s the only issue, Susan -- you were in the House -- that you can be beaten for, just one vote. Vote to cut Social Security, vote to cut Medicare benefits to people, what happens to you?

SUSAN MOLINARI (R), FORMER U.S. CONGRESSWOMAN: Well, except nobody`s talking about cutting benefits of the recipients right now. What they`re talking about is changing programs in the future. And I think...

(CROSSTALK)

MATTHEWS: But, in the end, doesn`t that do the same thing?

MOLINARI: I think the Republicans are going to take that chance.

Look, John Boehner has just said it. The speaker went out there and said it. Eric Cantor has said it. Paul Ryan has said, when he unveils his budget in a few weeks, there`s going to be entitlement change. Governor Christie has stood up and has staked his claim. Mitch Daniels has.

I mean, you`re starting to see -- and, look, it`s a different...

MATTHEWS: It`s easy for Christie. He`s not doing this. He`s telling them to do it.

(CROSSTALK)

MOLINARI: It`s a different world now, though.

MATTHEWS: OK.

(CROSSTALK)

MOLINARI: This is a different world.

MATTHEWS: OK, Susan Molinari, I respect your judgment. Here`s the latest "USA Today" poll, Gallup poll -- 61 percent of Americans oppose cutting Medicare spends -- 64 percent oppose cutting Social Security spending. These are two-thirds votes.

MOLINARI: I think the American people told the Republicans when they elected in the majority that they wanted this deficit to come under control and that they wanted a little sanity and some validity.

MATTHEWS: I agree with all that.

MOLINARI: We`re starting to see this with the C.R. We`re starting to see this with what the new Republican budget is going to do. I think you`re going to be surprised by the leadership that the Republican Party is going to show.

And I think the American people are going to present them with reelection at the polls for showing that kind of leadership. I think what the last election about -- was leadership.

MATTHEWS: Every time, Susan -- or, Jeanne, every time we poll people -- and I did this back in, I think, 1971, working for a senator from Utah.

You poll people and you ask them what they would like to see government cut, they say foreign aid and general government expenses. They want to see more money on education. They don`t want any cuts in Social Security or anything like it.

If you ask them, do they want to see government waste cut, they don`t want real cuts. For example, I was just out doing something for Alzheimer`s this past week out in Las Vegas, trying to raise awareness for the big group out there that is working on research. Imagine telling people who have an Alzheimer`s victim in their house and they`re a caregiver -- oh by the way, we`re cutting spending on research that you`re going to face another 20 or 30 years of Alzheimer`s hell in this country because we can`t solve the problem. Do people really want those kinds of cuts?

CUMMINGS: Well, I think in addition to those challenges that you`ve just outlined, there is an additional one for this Congress and the White House if they really want to do anything. And that is that there is a sizable majority in the 60 percents in a recent poll by Kaiser who thinks you can fix Medicare and Social Security by just cutting the other parts of the budget. So, the public, while they may be coming around, they aren`t ready for this debate yet. There`s a lot of education that would have to take place before Washington could move in a serious and fundamental way.

What struck me with the deficit commission in December was they made recommendations that would change Social Security, for instance.

MATTHEWS: Yes.

CUMMINGS: These -- the effect of -- the effect of those changes wouldn`t take place, wouldn`t affect anybody until 2050, OK? That`s a long time from now.

MATTHEWS: I know.

CUMMINGS: And, yet, they were criticized roundly on both sides of the aisle. And nobody`s been willing to touch that one. So, until they deal, they bring the public with them, I think this will remain, they`ve got to educate the public. But until they do that, I think it`s going to be a very tough issue.

MATTHEWS: So, you`re 26 years old and this will affect you. I`m going the math. It`s 39 years from now.

MOLINARI: Twenty-six-year-olds, 52-year-olds don`t rely on Social Security for our benefits. I mean, we`ve all grown up with the reality we don`t think it`s going to be there for them. That is why I think -- you know, look, the line is being drawn. The abdication of leadership by President Obama in following in anything that his deficit commission --

(CROSSTALK)

MATTHEWS: Who on the other side is doing it?

MOLINARI: Three week, Paul Ryan, and you just heard John Boehner say they`re going to make some changes in terms of entitlement reforms. When they come forth with their budget when they`re done cleaning --

(CROSSTALK)

MATTHEWS: Do you think that`s a smart move on their part?

MOLINARI: I think it is a smart move for this country. And I think the voters understand it now. I think it is a different time than when Paula Hawkins and others --

MATTHEWS: Jeanne, do you think the Republicans are going to be the first ones to move on this? Not the Democrats?

CUMMINGS: I will be -- I think they are going to do something. They are promised to do it and there will be something in their budget. Whether that is a serious proposal or not, I`m skeptical of. Only because we`ve been in this town for a long time and there are a lot of proposals that are supposedly serious proposals but they really aren`t.

So, we`ll see if they will be first out and it will be a serious proposal.

MATTHEWS: I will be very impressed -- negatively or positively, I`ll be impressed if your party, the Republican Party, actually says, raise the retirement age, reduce the benefit levels, something that a person can see when they watch a program like this and read the paper, they can get it. They are cutting the benefits.

MOLINARI: This is the party that`s at least proposed the spending cuts for C.R. that the Democrat Party was suppose to pass last year and moving toward September. So, let`s give them credit for what they`ve done so far.

MATTHEWS: You`ve just done that. That`s sufficient.


Molinari claims "I think the American people told the Republicans when they elected in the majority that they wanted this deficit to come under control." In these days of Speaker, John "so be it" Boehner, it must be difficult for Matthews to remember that the GOP campaigned as much on unemployment as on the deficit. And after Molinari added that the American people voted for the GOP because "they wanted a little sanity and some validity," Chris Matthews (on your "liberal" cable channel) responded "I agree with all that." "That" would have included Molinari conflating Social Security with the deficit, two completely unrelated topics. Even if Matthews is confused, it's incomprehensible that a former congresswoman would be.

But Molinari wasn't done. She went on to claim "Twenty-six-year-olds, 52-year-olds don`t rely on Social Security for our benefits. I mean, we`ve all grown up with the reality we don`t think it`s going to be there for them." That led Digby to blog "What do you mean "we", rich woman?"

Actually, Social Security won't be there only if disinformation specialists like Molinari have their way. If, as Ezra Klein in August demonstrated with the chart (from Center for Budget and Policy Priorities) below, if the tax rate for incomes above $250,000/$200,000 (family, individual) had been extended and the money applied to the Social Security, there would have been no shortfall for the next 75 years.





But if Molinari was partisan (understandable and legitimate) and thoroughly dishonest (expected and illegitimate), Jeanne Cummings betrayed an elitism characteristic of the Third Estate on this issue. Only the wise people, the "serious" people understand. She explains "So, the public, while they may be coming around, they aren`t ready for this debate yet. There`s a lot of education that would have to take place before Washington could move in a serious and fundamental way." A moment later, determined to make sure the audience understood that she isn't part of the rabble, Cummings added "And nobody`s been willing to touch that one. So, until they deal, they bring the public with them, I think this will remain, they`ve got to educate the public. But until they do that, I think it`s going to be a very tough issue."

Matthews, far less smug than his guests, at least acknowledged that the public likes Social Security and stated that he'd be "very impressed, negatively or positively," if the Republicans "raise the retirement age, reduce the benefit levels."

But of course they won't admit they are reducing benefits, for the same reason Molinari recognized "nobody`s talking about cutting benefits of the recipients right now" and young adults have, she exulted, "grown up with the reality" that "we don't think it's going to be there." The aggressive disinformation campaign won't work with anyone currently at, or near, the eligibility age. For all others, it will come packaged as "reform." And all through the mainstream media, it will be applauded.



Sunday, May 23, 2010

Extrapolating Newt

Think Progress reports on two exchanges between Republican politicians and the media: the first, from the May 15 Fox News Sunday with host Chris Wallace and former House Minority, then Majority, Leader Newt Gingrich; the second, with HLN host (and "The View" co-host) Joy Behar and former U.S. Representative Susan Molinari of Staten Island, NY two days later.

WALLACE: You also write this, and let’s put it up on the screen. “The secular-socialist machine represents as great a threat to America as Nazi Germany or the Soviet Union once did.” Mr. Speaker, respectfully, isn’t that wildly over the top?

GINGRICH: No, not if by America you mean the historic contract we’ve had which says your rights come from your creator, they’re unalienable, you’re allowed to pursue happiness. I mean, just listen to President Obama’s language.
************************************************************************
BEHAR: Susan, when Bush was called a Nazi, the right wing went berserk on him. And yet, Gingrich just throws the word around as if it’s nothing. What is up with him? What is he, losing his marbles?

MOLINARI: This has always been — let me distance myself from that remark first of all in all seriousness. To compare anything that is going on in this country to the atrocities of Nazi Germany in any way, shape or form is just crazy. And you know that Newt was so smart. He got the Republican majority back in a generation, contract with America. And then, you know, moved quickly into a government shutdown and complained about his seat on President Clinton’s plane.

This is Newt. He can be really smart sometimes and sometimes he can just say some absolutely outrageous things. I would be like to be in that corner of saying that is outrageous.

Later in the show, Molinari tried to change the subject, saying, “let’s just take Newt off the table because that’s just not even worth talking about.” “Let’s put him under the table,” replied Behar. “Right. Exactly. Thank you,” responded Molinari.


***********************************************************************************
Molinari deserves a lot of credit for taking on Gingrich for comparing his country (does he consider it his country?) for comparing it to Nazi Germany, or at least to Weimar Germany. Newt's criticism is not limited to Barack Obama or Nancy Pelosi. To suggest that any administration (or "regime" as Rush Limbaugh terms it) as presenting a Nazi-like threat to the U.S.A. implies something dark and disturbing to the nation and its people as they are.

But this is low-hanging fruit, criticizing the reactionary former Georgia congressman for trying to make a connection between the President of the United States and Nazism. Not low-hanging fruit for Molinari, given that these days Republicans have to fear being written out of their party if they veer too far from the far-right orthodoxy; but for the rest of us, for whom comparing our president to Adolf Hitler is slightly invidious. In a less controversial vein, though, Gingrich argued

by America you mean the historic contract we’ve had which says your rights come from your creator, they’re unalienable, you’re allowed to pursue happiness.

Here Newt obviously was referring to that great and important preamble

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security. Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government. The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States. To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid world.

Except for one thing. Alert the tea partiers! And alert much of the Republican right, for whom wrapping oneself up in the Constitution, without elaboration or explanation or appropriate context, is much in vogue.

This preamble comes not from the United States Constitution- the supreme law of the land- but from the Declaration of Independence, an act of defiance against the British crown. At first glance, Newt merely was inferring that our rights come from the Declaration of Independence, an eccentric point of view, but one which puts him, not coincidentally, on the right side of God (to the American people; God may choose to render a different verdict after Newt's ultimate demise). The preamble of the United States Constitution less conveniently reads

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

Newt presumably was referring to the portion, italicized above, of the Declaration's preamble. But he may have had another intent.

That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government.

Could it be that Gingrich was making a cryptic reference to the invitation to "the People to alter or to abolish" Barack Obama's administration "and to institute new Government?" (Note the upper case "G" in the original.) Perhaps this is making too much of his statement but it would be consistent with some of the rhetoric emanating from the Tea Party movement and others on the extreme of the Republican Party.

Or, in line with Occam's Razor, perhaps Newt Gingrich was merely doing what so many in his party do these days: thoughtfully or otherwise, accurately or otherwise, throwing some red meat at the wall and seeing what sticks. At least on one day, in one venue, Susan Molinari was having none of it.



The New Pledge of Allegiance

Last month, Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez infamously stated "I have a local city councilman that has this saying 'Woke 1...