DOWNLOADS: (197)

PLAYS: (1840)

Embed

From this Saturday's Up With Chris Hayes, panel member and Hayes' fellow contributor at The Nation brought up a topic at the end of the show that we unfortunately don't hear too often on MSNBC, which is the fact that the "Fix the Debt" campaign is not really interested in "fixing" anything. They're funded by a bunch of billionaires that are pushing for austerity measures and who are really just interested in lowering their taxes.

Sadly I don't expect we'll be seeing any disclaimers from the network every time they have one of these lobbyists from Pete Peterson's group on any time soon though, especially considering they've got one of them on their payroll. The more we complain, the more the so-called "liberal" network puts Ed Rendell on the air without disclosing his conflict of interests on the matter and he's just the tip of the iceberg when you look at the entire list of their leadership.

As Nichols informed the viewers here, there is a new web site that's been launched by The Center for Media and Democracy called PRWatch which has a lot more information on "Fix the Debt." You can check out the site here: PRWatch.

And here is more from one of their recent posts: Pete Peterson’s “Fix the Debt” Astroturf Supergroup Detailed in New Online Resource at PetersonPyramid.org:

Madison, WI -- One of the most hypocritical corporate PR campaigns in decades is advancing inside the beltway, attempting to convince the White House, Congress, and the American people that another cataclysmic economic crisis is around the corner that will destroy our economy unless urgent action is taken. Soon this astroturf supergroup may be coming to a state near you.

“We would not be here if it wasn’t for the Peterson Foundation and Pete Peterson. They laid the groundwork and we stand here on their shoulders.” – Fix the Debt Co-Founder Erskine Bowles

Today the Center for Media and Democracy launches a new wiki resources on the funding, leaders, partner groups and lobbyists of the Campaign to Fix the Debt, see it here at PetersonPyramid.org.

Move over David Koch and George Soros! The effort is being bankrolled by one of the wealthiest men in the nation. Peter G. Peterson made a fortune at the Blackstone Group on Wall Street. He conveniently cashed out with $2 billion shortly before the 2008 financial meltdown and now has pledged to spend $1 billion of that payout to convince Americans -- who overwhelmingly want to keep and strengthen Social Security and Medicare -- that these programs threaten our very existence as a nation.

His task is a tough one. [...]

Key to the strategy is ginning up a crisis. In lockstep, the CEOs, politicians, and partner organizations stormed the media last fall warning of the looming disaster of the so-called “fiscal cliff.” Breaching the fiscal cliff “will lead to chaos,” warned Erskine Bowles; “derail the fragile recovery,” said Goldman Sachs CEO Lloyd Blankfein; generate a "shock to the financial markets and a painful return to the recession,” said the CEO of Morgan Stanley.

But this chorus of calamity was pure hype. One Fix the Debt steering committee member, former Tennessee governor Phil Bredesen, let slip that the strategy was to create an “artificial crisis” that would force Congress to act.

Their goal is to achieve a Simpson-Bowles style “grand bargain” on an austerity agenda for the United States by the nation’s 237th birthday on July 4, 2013. [...]

Many Fix the Debt firms pay a very low or even a negative average tax rate, contributing to the nation's deficit. Fix the Debt is secretly pushing for a major tax break that would exempt profits earned overseas by U.S. firms from taxation and encourage the offshoring of U.S. jobs. While the Fix the Debt CEOs call for cuts to Social Security, many of the publicly-traded Fix the Debt firms underfund their employee pension plans -- making their workers even more dependent on the popular social insurance plan that American workers pay into with each paycheck.

And as Hayes mentioned during the segment as well, Nichols contributed to The Nation's article on Peterson's group here: Stacking the Deck: The Phony 'Fix the Debt' Campaign.

I hope everyone checks out the entire article and the rest of the resources at PRWatch and I wanted to share just one more item from there. From their SourceWatch page: Fix the Debt Leaders and Conflicts of Interest:

Continue reading »

DOWNLOADS: (134)

PLAYS: (506)

Embed

As Digby rightfully noted after taking a look at some of the reporting on this new Simpson-Bowles plan, "we see the folly of asking for a "balanced approach" when you are negotiating with partisan thugs." Once again, we see that Overton window continually being shoved to the right when there are other alternatives out there, like the package offered by the Progressive Caucus in the House. That, of course, will be ignored, because the Villagers don't seem to consider anyone Serious unless they're talking about austerity and inflicting pain on the working class.

Here's more from Greg Sargent at The Plum Line: Simpson-Bowles and the mythical, arbitrary “center”:

Like a pair of aging crooners hoping to recapture past glory with a long-awaited reunion tour, Erskine Bowles and Alan Simpson released a new version of their deficit reduction plan today. Ezra Klein ferrets out the real news in the plan: It asks for far less in new revenues, and more in spending cuts, than the previous Simpson-Bowles plan did.

Whereas the previous Simpson-Bowles plan contained a roughly even split of revenues and cuts, the new one reduces the revenue “ask” dramatically, with the result that the overall plan is lopsidedly tilted towards cuts. The reason pinpointed by Klein is particularly striking:

This isn’t meant to be an update to Simpson-Bowles 1.0. Rather, it’s meant to be an outline for a new grand bargain. To that end, Simpson and Bowles began with Obama and Boehner’s final offers from the fiscal cliff deal. That helps explain why their tax ask has fallen so far: Obama’s final tax ask was far lower than what was in the original Simpson-Bowles plan, while Boehner’s tilt towards spending cuts was far greater than what was in the original Simpson-Bowles.

In other words, the plan roughly represents the ideological midpoint between the Obama and Boehner fiscal cliff blueprints — which is why the plan is so heavily tilted towards cuts. As Kevin Drum notes, this is particularly odd, given that spending cuts have already been “75 percent of the deficit reduction we’ve done so far.” Drum adds: “this sure makes it hard to take Simpson-Bowles 2.0 seriously as a plan.” Read on ...

And here's more on that from Steve Benen: Meet the new Simpson-Bowles plan:

Continue reading »

DOWNLOADS: (81)

PLAYS: (146)

Embed

I assume Rep. Paul Ryan was talking about Bill Clinton during this interview on Meet the Press, and not endorsing Hillary for 2016, since Erskine Bowles was Bill Clinton's Chief of Staff, but this is pretty rich coming from someone who helped to derail the Simpson-Bowles plan when he was a member of that commission.

You also gotta love Republicans praising Bill Clinton (the man their party impeached while he was in office and that they treated with about as much disdain as the current resident of the White House) as some great bipartisan savior with whom they're all enamored now.

I'm sure they do love some of the actual bipartisanship we got from Clinton, like bad trade deals and banking deregulation, but to pretend that this modern-day Republican party would be acting any better if we had a Clinton in office is laughable.

GREGORY: It was interesting, on the day of the inauguration Brian Williams and I and others were talking and we noticed some video during the luncheon after the inauguration. And one of the things that caught our eye was a great moment here, you have your back to us, but there are you and you're speaking. You're with Secretary Clinton but also President Clinton. And that's just one of those moments where you say, "Gosh, what were they talking about?" Any advice there coming from --

(crosstalk)

RYAN: We were talking about personal health. Both of us lost our dads when we were young and we were just talking. I got concussions when I was young and Hillary was talking about hers. And we were just kind of chumming it up. Look, if we had a Clinton presidency, if we had Erskine Bowles, Chief Staff of the White House or president of the United States, I think we would have fixed this fiscal mess by now. That's not the kind of presidency we're dealing with right now.

GREGORY: And you don't blame conservatives, particularly in the House--

RYAN: Everybody. Look both--

GREGORY: --for thwarting the effort?

RYAN: Both parties. Forget about just the recent past. Both parties got us to the mess we are in, this fiscal crisis. Republicans and Democrats. And you know what? It's going to take both parties to solve this problem. That's the kind of leadership we need today.

GREGORY: So how do you think about 2016 and a presidential run?

PAUL RYAN: I don't.

GREGORY: You don't. You're not thinking about it now?

RYAN: I think it's just premature. I've got an important job to do. I represent Wisconsin. I'm chairman of the budget committee at the time we have a fiscal crisis. I think I can do my job representing the people I work for by focusing on that right now than focusing on these distant things.

GREGORY: But you'll take serious look at it?

RYAN: I'll decide later about that. Right now I'm just focused on this.

DOWNLOADS: (101)

PLAYS: (626)

Embed

From this Wednesday's Starting Point, Republicans aren't doing a very good job defending themselves for wanting to keep most Americans and our economy hostage to retain those tax cuts for the richest among us: GOP Rep. Has No Answer For Why Republicans Won’t Vote For Middle-Class Tax Cuts:

Rep. Jeb Hensarling (R-TX), the incoming chairman of the House Financial Services Committee, could not explain during an interview on Wednesday why House Republicans are holding middle- and low-income tax cuts hostage to the cuts for the wealthiest Americans in the fiscal cliff showdown. When pressed by CNN’s Soledad O’Brien, Hensarling first cited complaints about spending, but when O’Brien asked why he couldn’t set spending levels aside and compromise on taxes first, he had nothing but unrelated talking points: [...]

Hensarling’s invocation of Speaker John Boehner’s (R-OH) proposal is not only not an answer to O’Brien’s question — as it doesn’t explain what’s wrong with the simple solution O’Brien poses — but it’s also not anything close to balanced. While Boehner’s plan contains an array of draconian spending cuts, it doesn’t propose any actual increased revenue, relying instead on the same voodoo as the Romney tax plan.

As Zack noted, his analysis on the electoral math is also wrong and irrelevant.

Full transcript below the fold.

Continue reading »

DOWNLOADS: (283)

PLAYS: (2769)

Embed

It seems Paul Krugman is about as tired as I am of these talking heads and politicians who seem to be obsessed with inflicting pain on the working class. Republicans aren't going to be happy until they undo every New Deal program, destroy our social safety nets and destroy what's left of the dwindling middle class in America.

The PBS Newshour had Paul Krugman on this Tuesday evening to counter some of Erskine Bowles deficit fetishism from the previous night and all I can say is I hope the Democrats are listening to him. We don't have a deficit crisis. We've got a jobs crisis and what Republicans are proposing will just make that worse: Paul Krugman: Hasty Fiscal Fix to the Deficit Would Cause 'Austerity Bomb':

GWEN IFILL: Erskine Bowles may be one of the people you have written about in the past who you called deficit scolds who were touting a phantom menace known as the fiscal cliff.

PAUL KRUGMAN,PrincetonUniversity: Yes.

GWEN IFILL: Am I right about that?

PAUL KRUGMAN: Fiscal cliff is not a phantom menace. The deficit right now is, the notion that something terrible will happen if we don't deal with the deficit right away.

The fiscal cliff is a very different story. That's about reducing the deficit too fast.

GWEN IFILL: In fact, you call it an austerity bomb. Describe that, what you mean by that.

PAUL KRUGMAN: Yes.

Well, what's happening is that we are scheduled, unless something is done, basically to do to ourselves gratuitously what has been happening to some of the European economies.

We're going to have substantial spending cuts, substantial tax increases at a time when the economy is still very weak. And, of course, that's a recipe for sliding back into recession.

So, we set ourselves up with the land mine in the road in front of our economy, which is not based on anything real. It's just based on our political mess.

Continue reading »

DOWNLOADS: (98)

PLAYS: (497)

Embed

I've seen a number of interviews with Rep. Peter DeFazio over the last week or so and all of them were very good, but this one was one of the more satisfying, because CNN's Erin Burnett finally got a little push back with her fearmongering over the "fiscal cliff" and playing concern troll for Wall Street. I was happy to see DeFazio get a chance to make a lot of very good points about these negotiations and what we should be focusing on to solve our deficit problems, and number one on that list is jobs.

As DeFazio rightfully noted, if we want to actually solve our deficit problem, we need to be getting Americans back to work and contributing to our tax base. And he did a really good job laying out the fact that raising the age for Medicare enrollment would, rather than save money, probably end up costing American taxpayers more, because you'd just be shifting costs from Medicare to the subsidies for the private insurance exchanges.

I was also happy to see him push back at the hysteria that "the markets are going to react badly" if some deal on this "fiscal cliff" isn't reached soon. As he noted, if there's real value there in those stocks, any changes in the market are going to be temporary and Congress should not be reacting to their threats out of fear as they have in the past.

Full transcript below the fold and more with his appearance on Ed Schultz's show earlier this week as well.

Continue reading »

DOWNLOADS: (149)

PLAYS: (304)

Embed

I don't know why these Sunday talking heads show anchors like David Gregory even bother asking politicians questions if they're not going to push them for some actual answers. On this Sunday's Meet the Press, first Gregory had to hide behind the now defunct deficit commission co-chairs to point out the fact that Mitt Romney's math on his economic plan doesn't add up.

And when he asked Romney surrogate Rob Portman to give him specifics to counter their arguments, he got exactly none. All the audience got instead from Portman was carping about how the plan had been mischaracterized, without any explanation as to how. But rest assured, Mitt Romney's going to talk about in the debates. Never mind that the economy was supposed to be the topic of the first debate and we weren't offered any specifics then.

Gregory also managed to feign ignorance about Mitt Romney's six non-existent "studies" that are supposed to support his fuzzy math and trickle down economics. Maybe he was too busy getting ready for his next speaking engagement or learning some more dance moves to take some time to, you know... read. I don't think anyone had any high expectations for Karl Rove's dance partner when he was offered this job. Gregory continues to do his best to keep them right where they belong week after week.

Transcript below the fold.

Continue reading »

DOWNLOADS: (269)

PLAYS: (811)

Embed

Here we go again with former Sen. Alan Simpson slamming his fists on the table, demanding that our politicians agree to make some form of "grand bargain" later this year and berating Republicans for their fear of Grover Norquist coming after them if they aren't loyal to his anti-tax pledge.

As Ross Eisenbrey reminds us this week, Simpson is no hero when it comes to his plans for our social safety nets: Alan Simpson isn’t ‘saving Social Security’:

Alan Simpson is at it again. Launching another off-color attack on people who oppose the Bowles-Simpson plan to bomb Social Security in order to save it, Simpson claims he is saving it for young people who would otherwise be “gutted.” In fact, Simpson’s overarching desire to protect rich Americans from paying their fair share of Social Security taxes (if wealthy earners paid FICA taxes on all of their income, most of Social Security’s solvency problems would be solved) leads him to propose cuts in Social Security almost as large as the automatic benefit reductions that will occur in 2033 under current assumptions.

According to an analysis of the Bowles-Simpson plan by Social Security’s chief actuary, middle-class workers with average earnings over the course of their careers (around $43,084 in 2010) would see a 22 percent cut in benefits by 2080, not significantly different from the 23.5 percent cut in benefits these workers would face if nothing were done to shore up Social Security’s finances. Our children and grandchildren will lose critical benefits under Simpson’s plan, while seniors like him are mostly protected.

Notwithstanding Simpson’s crocodile tears for young people, under the Bowles-Simpson plan, if someone who is born in 2015 retires at age 65 with a middle-class income in 2080, Social Security will replace only 28 percent of their pre-retirement earnings. By contrast, a 65-year old who retired in 1980 replaced 49 percent of pre-retirement earnings. It is Simpson himself who wants to gut the Social Security of coming generations.

That didn't stop CNN's Fareed Zakaria from treating Alan Simpson and his fellow commission head Erskine Bowles as some sort of heroes during his interview with them this Sunday. If they really wanted to make sure Social Security remains solvent, as Ross noted, they'd lift the income cap instead of using the hole they blew in the budget with the Bush tax cuts and two wars they refused to pay for as an excuse to gut our social safety nets.

Continue reading »

DOWNLOADS: (100)

PLAYS: (296)

Embed

When caught just the latter part of this interview on Fox News before I had a chance to go back and watch all of it, I thought maybe it was just Neil Cavuto who had lost his mind, but apparently the brilliant idea of having former Wyoming Sen. Alan Simpson drafted to run for president originated with The Mustache of Misunderstanding, Thomas Friedman.

From Tim Murphy at MoJo -- The Alan Simpson For President Movement Comes of Age:

When we last heard from Alan Simpson, the former Wyoming Senator and GOP co-chair of the Simpson-Bowles Debt Commission was railing against today's disrespectful youths, "walking on their pants with their caps on backwards listening to the Enema Man and Snoopy Snoopy Poop Dog." All of which make the calls for him to run for president as inevitable as they are inexplicable.

It began over the summer, when New York Times columnist Thomas Friedman said at the Aspen Ideas Festival that "If Alan Simpson and Erskine Bowles want to run as president and vice president, I will vote for them." Former New York Governor Eliot Spitzer reprised the idea in an interview with Simpson on CNN a few days later. For folks like Friedman, who pride themselves on the boldness of their ideas in the face of a crippling status quo (accurate or not), Simpson is a tantalizing choice. And now, with Republicans still freaking out about their choices for President and Friedman still pining for some sort of third-party savior capable of making tough choices and magically transcending checks and balances, the calls for a Simpson candidacy have picked up again (even though he's not running). [...]

Simpson is a pro-choice Republican who opposed Don't Ask, Don't Tell, and doesn't actually seem to understand how Social Security works—despite making it a signature issue. He is also, reportedly, old. But maybe this is his year.

To his credit, when Cavuto asked Simpson if there "was any situation under which he would consider running for president," Simpson laughed and told him "God, that's absurd. I mean, that really can't be... you're a bright guy." To which Cavuto responded, "Not really." Hey, Neil said something on the air I agree with for once!

DOWNLOADS: (453)

PLAYS: (1608)

Embed

After saying how "proud" he was of his Republican members who participated in the deficit commission and that voted for the proposals endorsed by the co-chairs Simpson and Bowles, McConnell refused to name a single specific proposal that he would endorse. McConnell basically said he knows the electorate isn't going to like what he's willing to vote for but he wants the Democrats to take the hit for it politically.

It appears the only accomplishments McConnell is going to be proud of are ones he doesn't have to take responsibility for. And sadly it looks like President Obama is going to be happy to help him with that given he's still saying it's possible to negotiate with Republicans.

GREGORY: Let me talk about the debt. The Deficit Commission proposal came out this week. And here are just some of the highlights. And tough medicine here in terms of what they propose. Social Security, raise the retirement age, cut future benefit increases. On taxes, eliminate mortgage deduction, increase federal gas tax by 15 cents per gallon. Federal spending caps, security, non-security spending. Freeze federal pay for three years. Eliminate Congressional e-- earmarks.

You said on the program back in August, if this was a credible proposal, you’d be behind it. You have three-- Senators who you appointed to this commission, all of whom voted for it. Are you now prepared to endorse this and be a catalyst to get some of these measures passed?

MCCONNELL: First, let me say I was extremely proud of my-- appointments. Senator Coburn, Senator Crapo, Senator Gregg. They supported it, not because they liked every part of it. Because they-- because they thought that this comprehensive recommendation underscored how deep-seated this problem is. This is an enormous problem. I think the message to us is, "Let’s see what we can do with the President." You cannot do entitlement reform in-- for-- for viewers, entitlements mean long term-- liabilities.

Set by law. We don’t even vote on ‘em every year. Some of them very popular, Social Security, Medicare and the like. You cannot do entitlement reform with just one party. You can only do entitlement reform on a bipartisan basis. So, I think the message to us coming out of this deficit reduction report is it’s time for the President of the United States and people like John Boehner and myself and others, to sit down and talk about what we can do to make sure that we have the same kind of country for our children and our grandchildren that our parents left for us.

GREGORY: But Senator, people have been hearing this a long time. And politicians make these promises. The President said there’s gotta be broad sacrifice. Why can’t you say whether you’ll specifically endorse this plan? And what you’re-- what you intend to do as a party? As a leader, to-- to-- to make some painful choices?

MCCONNELL: Well, it would be absolutely irresponsible to sit here on a Sunday talk show and blow the talks by starting to endorse and rule out things. What I’m saying is, this is the roadmap. We need to sit down with the President, see what we can do together. Because the only way we will actually accomplish something-- I want to actually accomplish something.

GREGORY: But do you endorse these specific proposals?

MCCONNELL: What I endorse is the-- the effort to underscore the-- the magnitude of the problem. And I’m prepared to sit down with the President and figure out what we can do on a bipartisan basis. That’s what this-- report was about. Now it’s time to do something.