The Republican Media- No. 25

"It’s a hard thing to be honest about and I think we’ve had a good discussion on this for everybody," Chris Matthews said today on "The Chris Matthews Show."

Maybe honest but a good discussion, no.

Nicole Belle of Crooks and Liars posted a transcript of the discussion Chris Matthews led Sunday morning pertaining to National Public Radio in light of the edited video created by criminal offender James O'Keefe. The participants included Kelly O'Donnell of NBC, Katty Kay of the BBC, David Ignatius of The Washington Post, and The New York Times' David Brooks. Yet, no one, Belle points out, saw fit to mention that the scam was hatched by O'Keefe. O'Keefe is the fellow who fabricated the ACORN video; tried to tamper with the phone lines in Senator Mary Landrieu's office; attempted to lure CNN correspondent Abbie Boudreau onto a boat and seduce her to ruin CNN's reputation; and attended a 2006 conference on "Race and Conservatism" that featured leading white nationalists.

There has been severely limited analysis of the video produced by O'Keefe, especially as it is playing a prominent role in GOP efforts to defund NPR. Oddly, one of the few critics has been that of Glenn Becks's website, The Blaze. There, Editor-in-Chief Scott Baker reported that the site's video analyst, Pam Key, evaluated the audio and video and found considerable editing. Baker broke it down into five sections which he termed: Muslim Brotherhood connections; Does Ron Schiller react to Sharia misstatement with amusement?; How does Schiller describe Republicans?; Are liberals more educated than conservatives?; Does NPR need federal funding?

My favorite video clip comparison (below) appears to demonstrate that the "racist, gun toting" description of tea party members came not initially from Ron Schiller (though he apparently agrees with it) but from two Republicans, an ambassador and a big donor.

It might behoove someone in the "liberal" media to delve around a little to determine who these two Republicans are. It's highly likely an investigative reporter would find that the views of these two do not represent an outlier, that many mainstream conservative members of the Republican party find the tea party outrageous. And we might find quite a few Repub politicians intimidated by a movement that, far from its portrayal by the mainstream media as populist, is little more than a subsidiary of corporate America.

This would be very, very bad for the GOP, which would anger some people. Guys like Chris Matthews and David Ignatius, generally enamored of Barack Obama, are widely misunderstood. Their preferences are for Barack Obama, the man, rather than for liberal policies. (Matthews especially peddles the myth that Obama is personally beloved while his policies are unpopular.) And protecting, consciously or unconsciously, the Republican Party is one way they can avoid- they hope- being smeared by conservatives as part of that evil "liberal media."

Share|

GOP Tax Pledge Firm


The Associated Press reports

Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell warned on Friday that GOP senators will not vote to increase the government's borrowing limit unless President Barack Obama agrees to rein in Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid, laying down a high-stakes marker just weeks before the debt ceiling is reached.

In an interview with The Associated Press, McConnell complained that Obama has refused his offers — both public and private — to work on a bipartisan plan to tackle the nation's massive benefit programs, which threaten to overwhelm the budget in coming years.

"There will be no entitlement reform without President Obama," McConnell said. "It cannot be done without him, will not be done without him."

Obama did not address the long-term financial problems of Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid in the 2012 budget proposal he released in February, saying it will take time to create the political environment necessary for Democrats and Republicans to negotiate in good faith on such difficult long-term issues.

But at a news conference Friday, Obama said he and Congress should address the nation's long-term fiscal condition and programs such as Medicaid and Medicare — after lawmakers complete a deal on spending for the current fiscal year. Obama said any long-term agreement would have to be bipartisan and also would require tackling defense spending and taxes.

A long-term agreement probably would be bipartisan, in the Obama mold; would not likely involve reducing defense spending significantly; and would not involve taxes, at least in the manner of raising them, helping to reduce the long-term debt. Grover Norquist, president of Americans for Tax Reform and originator of the "drown government in the bathtub" goal, was recently interviewed by Ezra Klein. When Klein asked why Norquist wouldn't have GOP candidates sign a spending pledge as well as a tax pledge, Norquist replied

Twenty-five years ago, I created the Taxpayer Protection Pledge at the federal level. Then I brought it to the state and local level. About 97 percent of the Republicans in the House and 85 percent in the Senate have signed on, and the number of candidates who have taken the pledge is even higher. It’s become a party position.

Asked by Klein about the support of the President's bipartisan debt commission for large spending cuts and small revenue increases, Norquist responded

The reason it won’t happen is that the Republicans have taken the pledge and made a promise to their constituents that they won’t increases taxes. And I’ve talked to the guys in the House and Senate. They tell me it won’t happen. And even Coburn, Chambliss and Crapo wrote a letter to me that said, “If and when there is a legislative proposal to be presented to the American people, we look forward to again working with you and all interested parties to support a proposal where any increase in revenue generation will be a result of the pro-growth effects of lower individual and corporate taxes.”

Besides aiding corporate America, the Repub Party stands for one thing: reducing income taxes. And given that campaign rhetoric pledging to allow businesses to pollute the air, poison the food supply, and gamble with the public's money to destroy the mortgage market is not the ticket to electoral success, the GOP will continue to pledge to the American people that it will not raise taxes. President Obama may want to take the high bipartisan road pushing a mixture of spending cuts and tax increases, but Republicans will sign on to the first part.

Klein observes

It's not about reducing the deficit. If it was, then the tax deal wouldn't have passed in December, entitlements would've been in the mix from the beginning, tax expenditures and defense spending would be on the table, etc. Nor is it about cutting spending. If it was, then the cuts wouldn't be limited to 12 percent of the budget. Rather, it's about cutting non-defense discretionary spending.

Barack Obama can persist in playing the adult in the room and, given the quality of GOP presidential hopefuls, may be reelected. But Republicans will not go along with a tax increase and if the President insists on considerable cuts in non-defense discretionary spending, his party will take a tumble.

Share|

The Good, The Bad, and The Ugly


The most quoted, and arguably the best, movie title of all time well describes a short exchange between Dave (David) Greg (Gregory) and presidential Chief of Staff Bill Daley on Meet The Press (transcript here):

MR. GREGORY: The big driver of the, of the deficit, as you know, Social Security, Medicare, those are the real budget busters. And it was interesting, Speaker Boehner gave an interview to the Wall Street Journal. I'll put a portion of it on the screen. This is what he said. Speaker Boehner said Thursday, "...he's determined to offer a budget this spring that curbs Social Security and Medicare, despite the political risks, and that Republicans will try to persuade voters that sacrifices are needed. In an interview with The Journal, Boehner said House Republicans would offer a budget for the next fiscal year that gets goals for bringing the programs' costs under control."

Is this an opening here? Did the president and Boehner talk about this and say, "Look, let's do something here together?"

MR. DALEY: Well, the president's been saying for quite a long time that we, we've got to, not only address our current budget problems, we've got to get to these large--I would take some exception with your statement. Social Security is not the big driver of the deficit right now. We've got to strengthen Social Security for the recipients of that, but the--but you correctly said it's Medicare and Medicaid that's the major driver, as we have an aging population, increased healthcare costs.

Imprinted upon the membership card as one of the requirements of membership of, as Digby refers to it, "the Village," is "Whenever there is mention, or inference, of the national debt, holder of card must demonstrate Seriousness by invoking Social Security." Gregory faithfully complied, claiming "The big driver of the, of the deficit, as you know, Social Security, Medicare, those are the real budget busters."

As any journalist- anywhere- should know (and most probably do, though pretending otherwise), Social Security has nothing to do with the deficit. It has- indirectly only- at times diminished the deficit, but directly it has no effect, and indirectly it hasn't affected the debt, and legally cannot do so. Greg Anrig notes that during the administration of Bush 43 and

continuing to this day, federal deficits would have been much worse if Social Security had not been collecting substantially more in payroll taxes than it paid in benefits. The federal debt would be much higher than it currently is. So, no, Social Security didn’t create the deficit.

The year 2010 was the first one since 1983 in which the program’s total expenses (for benefits and administrative costs) exceeded its income from payroll taxes plus the income taxes collected on some Social Security beneficiaries. That temporary imbalance of $41 billion was a consequence of reduced revenues attributable to the economic downturn. The gap was covered by a small slice of the interest owed on the Treasuries in the trust fund, which is payable from general revenues. That interest would have been owed by the general fund whether or not current payroll tax revenues fell short of benefit commitments....

The actuarial projections show that aside from the temporary payroll tax cut, the Social Security gap will shrink in 2011 and return to surplus in 2012. Then in 2015, revenues from payroll taxes and income taxes owed by retired beneficiaries on their Social Security income will fall short of benefits of owed and continue to fall short going forward. That will again require some of the trust fund’s interest income to cover the gap. But even still, according to the actuaries, the trust fund will continue growing for another 10 years because it will be earning more than enough interest to finance benefits owed.

Bill Daley realizes this and corrects Gregory: "I would take some exception with your statement. Social Security is not the big driver of the deficit right now" (the good). Admittedly, he left open the possibility that Social Security contributes to the deficit but merely "is not the big driver." But that would have been rude to his host if he had exclaimed "David, as anyone who understands Social Security at all knows, it does not add to the deficit" or "David, you big lummox, stop with the Republican talking points."

However, while Daley understands the connection- or rather, lack thereof- between the deficit/debt and Social Security, he adds "We've got to strengthen Social Security for the recipients of that" (the bad). When the Administration urges, as it periodically does, that "Social Security" be "strengthened" (or any variation of that word), it does not mean its benefits, but the system. Barack Obama appears to recognize the need for a greater percentage of income to be captured by FICA which, presumably, would necessitate raising the cap beyond merely being raised pursuant to inflation, which it has been.

But when the President speaks of the solvency of the system, he is inferring that the pressure of paying out benefits puts pressure on the entire framework as payments gobble up an increasing share of national income. (It would be cutting benefits in order to preserve the program, a modern-day, domestic version of "destroying the village in order to save it.") Anrig undermines that myth, pointing out "We know that Social Security’s burden is going to rise very gradually, from just below 5 percent of GDP today to just over 6 percent by 2030, and remain at that level indefinitely thereafter. That’s a relatively modest and manageable increase, particularly compared to the anticipated explosion in health care costs." Nevertheless, Dick Durbin, Obama's de facto representative on the debt reduction commission and in the Gang of Six, months ago spared the President political risk by himself remarking that he would consider increasing the eligibility age.

Credit the White House with refusing to bolster the fairy tale of the nexus between Social Security and the deficit. (Daley didn't, regrettably say anything about the debt.) As with other issues, President Obama is weak but far preferabe to a reactionary opposition, a far cry from "si se puede" and more like "No estamos tan mal."

Share|

At It Again, The Nation's Leading Elitist


When Carly Simon sang "Nobody Does It Better," she didn't mean Rush Limbaugh. But nobody does it better- or at least more brazenly. One is to disregard the major welfare problem in this nation when he misleads his listeners, as he did Wednesday, by complaining

We declared war on poverty, and what do we have? Thirty-five percent of our people living on the dole! Thirty-five percent of American citizens living on handouts.

It's unlikely that Rush was referring to the fossil energy companies, which receive from the federal government and state governments $10 billion to $52 billion a year, nor the eighteen provisions in the tax code that benefit the industry. And that would not include the billions which go toward companies promoting the neo-liberal energy of choice, nuclear.

But while Limbaugh continually has proven masterful at setting the wealthy ("producers" or "earners") against the non-wealthy ("non-earners," "non-producers"), he has been nearly as adept at more fashionable class warfare: setting public employee vs. private employee, union worker vs. non-union worker, middle class against middle class. But maybe, just possibly, some of his listeners are beginning to catch onto his scam.

After Rush whined about an alleged 35% of the nation's citizens scavenging off the backs of wealthy people like him, one of his fans telephoned and complained that Limbaugh was lumping Social Security recipients such as himself in with recipients of unemployment compensation "and other, uh, free handouts." Limbaugh replied in part

There are two distinct definitions here. What I'm talking about is the overall number. I don't care what the subdivisions are: 35% of the American people are living on something produced by somebody else, not themselves. Now, contrary to the knee-jerk reaction that people have when I say this, I am not first condemning those people.

I could, and I would eventually get to it in my priority list, but that's not my concern.

My concern is for the country at large. Thirty-five percent of people who have money coming in are not earning it! I don't want to hear the sob stories.

Limbaugh went on to explain

"Even as the economy has recovered, social welfare benefits make up 35 percent of wages and salaries this year, up from 21 percent in 2000 and 10 percent in 1960, according to TrimTabs Investment Research using Bureau of Economic Analysis data."

This report from CNBC's Fast Money implies that Trimtabs figure (a rather misleading metric) of 35% referred to Social Security, Medicare, and unemployment insurance. Rush went on to condemn unemployment compensation, declaring

Pelosi and Goolsbee say that this unemployment compensation generates a buck and a half return for every dollar-of-benefits. It's an out-and-out lie. (interruption) No!

Limbaugh must know the statistic (chart below) comes from respected economist Mark Zandi, expected his listeners to believe that House Democratic leader Nancy Pelosi and presidential economic advisor Austan Goolsbee pulled the $1.50 figure out of the air. There is, of course, a lie there, but it came from the $50 million a year man rather from Pelosi and Goolsbee.

But a few of his listeners may be catching on, if this portion of the exchange between one of them and the show's host is indicative:

CALLER: I ran into a little bit of an issue a few years ago when I got some severe cancer and battled it for a couple years. I'm cancer free right now, but unfortunately I cannot work and I had to go on disability.

RUSH: Yeah.

CALLER: And I was just wondering, you know, like I say I'm kinda in conflict with myself because --

RUSH: No, you're not. You're in conflict with me and what I just said. Let me ask you a question.

CALLER: Well, no, sir, I've always been told that, you know, tax money and this and that goes to, in case anything like this comes up --

RUSH: Look, you have a disability, right?

CALLER: Yes, sir.

RUSH: You can't work, right?

CALLER: No, sir.

RUSH: Okay. Do you think I actually think you ought to be denied stuff?

CALLER: No, sir.

RUSH: Okay. I don't think that. I'm not talking about people like you, but there are people who fudge this disability business. I had a story not long ago about a bunch of drunks --

CALLER: Sir, that's what I mean, that's what I mean. I agree.

RUSH: -- in jail getting disability payments because they were alcoholics.

CALLER: No, sir, I agree with that, sir. But, you know, I want our country to survive, and, you know, I just don't know where we can get --

Understandably, if regrettably, the caller then was cut off before he could ask Rush why the latter thinks he lazy. Limbaugh instead did a pirouette, pivoting to the idea that it's only those other guys who are slothful, that "you're not the one we're talking about":

Well, we are a compassionate country. There is not a person in this country that does not want somebody who cannot provide for themselves to go empty. There's not a person in the world who wants that. You don't fall under the headline definition freeloader or what have you. And if you're bothered by it, it's life. A lot of things affect a lot of people. But we're not talking about you. And you are not the majority of that 35% on the dole anyway. You're a small percentage of it. You're not the problem we're talking about.

You probably noticed that this fellow apparently receiving SSI is part of Rush's problem. A few moments before that phone call, Limbaugh had claimed

Sure, some of the 35% are general born freeloaders (every society is gonna have some of those), but a lot of these people have been manufactured. They've been created. A lot of people think this is what they are due as Americans, that this is their entitlement. They haven't been taught the founding. They haven't been taught industriousness. They haven't been taught self-reliance. All that stuff's sneered at. They haven't been taught the beauty of work and achievement, accomplishment, and self-esteem that way.

He makes a distinction between "some of the 35% (who) are born freeloaders" and those who "have been manufactured" and thus "think this is what they are due as Americans, that this is their entitlement." Sure, he argues that government has encouraged this attitude- but he believes the individuals in the 35% not "born freeloaders" are not industrious or self-reliant and don't believe in "work and achievement, accomplishment, and self-esteem."

Perhaps they don't believe in self-esteem. It's difficult to have a positive view of oneself when Limbaugh and a few other conservatives assert that you are not entitled to receive unemployment compensation when you are laid off. Or that in old age you have no right to receive medical care because you are no longer a producer or "self-reliant."

But Americans who believe that families of individuals who have lost their jobs should not be left to starve or that the elderly should not be left to die can take solace, if only to a limited extent, that on at least this occasion, Rush Limbaugh had to defend himself against a caller who appeared to understand that a hero of his believes he is just another slothful American. Call it minimal, but it is progress.

Share|

Deception, Again


James O'Keefe is still at it.

The criminal offender and film editor, who carried out a phony sting against ACORN, now has targeted National Public Radio.

"Has targeted," rather than "targeted," because the stunt is part of the effort by congressional Republicans to end subsidies to the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, which provides a relatively small amount of the funding, this fiscal year $430 million, which goes to programs distributed to NPR and PBS.

NPR President Vivian Schiller (no relation to Ron), who had announced her resignation for later this year, already has resigned in response to distribution of the highly edited video produced by the guy serving a three year term of federal probation for trying to sabotage the phone system of Louisiana Senator Mary Landrieu (a Democrat: aren't you shocked?), charges later reduced. O'Keefe might be serving a prison term for the offense were it not for one of those liberal, permissive Judges (or, in this case, a prosecutor) who usually appall conservatives.

According to the Associated Press,

The heavily edited video shows Schiller and another NPR executive, Betsy Liley, meeting at a pricey restaurant in Washington's Georgetown neighborhood with two men claiming to be part of a Muslim organization. The men offer NPR a $5 million donation. NPR said Tuesday it was "repeatedly pressured" to accept a $5 million check, which the organization "repeatedly refused."

"The current Republican Party is not really the Republican Party. It's been hijacked by this group that is ... not just Islamophobic but, really, xenophobic," Schiller said in the video, referring to the tea party movement. "They believe in sort of white, middle America, gun-toting -- it's scary. They're seriously racist, racist people."

The right is exorcised by the attack of Ron Schiller, the president of NPR's fundraising arm and senior vice president for development, on corporate America tea party supporters. Additionally, though, conservatives are arguing that financing should be eliminated for an organization which, contrary to its official policy, doesn't need it. House Majority Leader Eric Cantor charged "This disturbing video makes it clear that taxpayer dollars should no longer be appropriated to NPR.... as executives "finally admitted that they do not need taxpayer dollars to survive." Senator Jim DeMint (R-S.C.) claimed "There's two issues at stake here in regards to taxpayer funding for public broadcasting: We can't afford it, and they don't need it." And Mark Meckler of Tea Party Patriots, subsidiary of the corporate interest group and Republican front group FreedomWorks, asked rhetorically "At a time when the country is upside down by more than a trillion dollars, can we really afford to provide huge subsidies to entities that openly state that they don't need the money?"

The beauty of the schemes hatched by O'Keefe is that there is no downside. When ACORN received defective registration applications, it informed election registrars. When O'Keefe and Hannah Giles, dressed normally (but as pimp and prostitute in the edited video), entered ACORN offices, police were notified. Planned Parenthood, object of a recent phony sting, promptly informed the Federal Bureau of Investigation. ACORN was defunded and then disbanded. House anti-abortion Republicans, (with a few Democrats) have voted to defund Planned Parenthood, which through its family planning care probably has prevented more unwanted pregnancies, thus more abortions, than any organization in America.

NPR refuses a donation from the phony militant Muslim organization represented by O'Keefe. But Ron Schiller (erroneously) contends NRP doesn't need federal funding; the right reacts "then why waste taxpayer money on it?" And that response is muted compared to that which would have ensued if the organization had promptly pleaded that it was in desperate need of continued federal funding. Given that former Pennsylvania Senator and concurrent Virginia resident Rick Santorum can compare elderly people and poor children in need of health care to drug addicts, a segment of the right likely would attack NPR as a welfare cheat and an arm of the Democratic socialist machine.

ACORN, Planned Parenthood, NPR. When there is highly edited video and a compliant mainstream media, facts get lost even when they are mentioned, as they infrequently are. The left needs to have an answer, not only to counteract the noxious tactics of ultra conservatives and their congressional allies but also as a deterrent to the far right's aggressive efforts to mislead the public.

Share|

More Jobs, Of A Sort


President Obama's comments at a gathering of 152 Democratic donors at the Museum of Fine Arts in Boston were unexceptional. They were mostly boilerplate, highlighting the series of successes he has enjoyed in 2+ years as President.

Graciously complimenting former House Speaker Nancy Pelosi- without whose leadership those achievements would have been far fewer- Obama remarked

Not only were we able to get this economy going again, that in the last 15 months we’ve seen the economy add jobs…

We didn’t just rescue the economy we put it on the strongest footing for the future.

To his credit, the President didn't, as far as we know from this article, patronize us with yet another reference to "winning the future" while the GOP, emboldened by Obama's eagerness to compromise away his constituency, is winning in Congress. But according to analysis (transcript, in PDF, here) by the National Employment Law Project of Bureau of Labor Statistics data, enthusiasm for the economic recovery now in its infancy should be tempered. NELP observed

In the private sector, there is a striking imbalance between where the recession’s job losses occurred, and where the growth of the past 12 months was concentrated:

 Lower-wage industries constituted 23 percent of job loss, but fully 49 percent of recent growth

 Mid-wage industries constituted 36 percent of job loss, and 37 percent of recent growth

 Higher-wage industries constituted 40 percent of job loss, but only 14 percent of recent growth


With such a recovery, it doesn't appear we're doing much to reverse this trend:

Share|

John McCain, Again Ready To Trade American Workers


Sunday, Christiane Amanpour interviewed Senator John McCain (R-AZ) on This Week (transcript here) and raised the issue of the U.S. manufacturing base. Amanpour noted that ABC, as part of its series, Made In America, removed from a home all products not made in this nation. McCain commented

But I would also point out that, if you'd emptied that house, if you'd left a computer there or an iPad or an iPhone, those are built in the United States of America. And as the president said, continuously, and I agree with him, innovation is the key to restoring our economy.

Give the Arizona senator a pass on this one. It's easy to mistake mainland China for the U.S.A. But he ought not to get a pass for remarking

Well, I think it's obviously a recognition of the reality and the trends, that cheaper, lower-cost labor products will usually prevail over the products made in higher wage and income countries....

And that's got to be exports. We've got to have free trade agreements. I'm glad the president is supporting the South Korea free trade agreement. We basically abandoned Colombia and Panama. All these other countries are concluding free trade agreements amongst themselves while we are being left behind. And that's very harmful.

Small statistic: two years ago, 40 percent of the imports of agricultural goods in Colombia were from the United States of America. They concluded free trade agreements. Now 20 percent is there. So we have the ability to outcompete any other country in the world and outinnovate.

Small statistic, Senator McCain, courtesy of Washington Post columnist Harold Meyerson:

Defenders of corporate offshoring assert that we can't compete with low-cost labor in China and other developing countries. Clearly, though, Germany has shown that you can retain a manufacturing sector by producing products of high added value even when labor costs are correspondingly high. Hourly manufacturing compensation (wages plus benefits) was $48 in Germany in 2008 - the most recent year surveyed by the Bureau of Labor Statistics - while it was $32 in the United States. Yet Germany is an export giant, while we are the colossus of imports.

And another small statistic: in 2010, Germany had the most favorable trade balance in the European union, at 126.4%. Sometimes, products made in higher wage and income nations, such as Germany, will prevail over products made elsewhere, such as in the U.S.A.

The gibberish from McCain, consistently anti-American worker, was in character. Who can forget his performance before a union audience in April, 2006 (obviously not me, given that I've included this video a few times before)?








It's comforting to think that the euphemistically- phrased "free trade" enhances the competitiveness of American industry and doesn't rip apart the middle class. But it does, and it's something the two fellows running for President a few autumns ago should remember.

Share|