You can view this video right here by getting the latest version of Flash Player!

DOWNLOADS: (42)

PLAYS: (208)

Donna Brazile takes the rest of the CNN panel to task for their concern for the deficit at a time when our main concern should be putting people back to work. Of course Bill Bennett continues to claim we need more tax cuts and thinks the Democrats are going to "go off the cliff" if they increase the deficit. Brazile reminds him "we've been off the cliff".

Transcript via CNN.

KING: And, Donna, on that point, I want you to listen to Larry Summers because Gloria notes they're starting to talk about the deficit because they're going to raise the federal debt ceiling this week and the numbers get incredibly high. Republicans are starting to say, you know, where's the fiscal discipline here?

And yet, if the you listen to Larry Summers, he seems convinced that they have a little more political space to make the case, that, in the short term, spending to help the economy is more important than reducing the deficit.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

SUMMERS: We've got to do a lot more. There's no more important issue facing the country than job growth because, if we don't create jobs, we've got no prospect that the kind of budget deficits we want. If unemployment stays high, we're not going to have the strength in the world that we want, if unemployment stays high.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

KING: They get away with that a bit longer?

BRAZILE: All the politics aside, the administration is walking a real tightrope between creating the jobs that the American people clearly want and trying to focus on the long-term fiscal health of the nation, the debt.

The Republicans raised the debt ceiling 2002, 2003, 2004, 2007. SO this is customary sometimes during a budget process, to raise it that way. But because of the additional spending that we have on the wars and other issues, we have to raise it again. That's a responsible thing that Congress needs to do.

On the other hand, I think the president is absolutely right to use some of the additional TARP money that will be utilized to pay down the deficit, but to use some of it to create jobs.

Now, hopefully, the private sector -- the president will be able to put some fire under the bankers tomorrow for them to start lending to small businesses so we don't have to continue this rate of government spending.

Continue reading »

Woody Allen in Take the Money and Run

I gotta tell you, the new found concern the Republicans possess for deficit spending is so unintentionally hilarious. They must thank their lucky stars for the mindless memory hole that is the collective American consciousness to not remember the drunken sailor spending that defined the past eight years. Evidently, from the guests this morning, spending will again be the focus, with lots of little digs on how the stimulus is obviously not working and how the best choice is to keep the Bush tax cuts. With Larry Summers, Christina Romer and Alan Greenspan as scheduled guests, what are the chances that someone will bring up sensible legislation and regulation such as the Glass-Steagall Act as the way to avoid another economic collapse? Not bloody likely, methinks. Also, our favorite grasping-to-be-relevant McCain minion, Joe Lieberman, will be back to give his very best Deputy Dog whine on how anything the Democrats propose for health care will cause him to have to filibuster reform. That's Joe, taking the (health insurance) money, and running.

ABC's "This Week" - Lawrence Summers, director of the White House National Economic Council; Rep. Eric Cantor, R-Va.

CBS' "Face the Nation" - Sens. Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., Jay Rockefeller, D-W.Va., Ben Nelson, D-Neb., and Joe Lieberman, Connecticut independent.

NBC's "Meet the Press" - Christina Romer, chairwoman of the White House Council of Economic Advisers; former Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan; Gov. Jennifer Granholm, D-Mich.; former Gov. Mitt Romney, R-Mass.

NBC's "The Chris Matthews Show" - Dan Rather, Kelly O'Donnell, Helene Cooper, Andrew Ross Sorkin. Topics: Obama's Big Contradictions on Health Care, War & Peace and Economic Recovery; The Cultural Chasm on Global Warming.

CNN's "State of the Union" - Summers; Sens. Mark Warner, D-Va., and John Thune, R-S.D.

CNN's "Fareed Zakaria GPS" - A timely debate between Bjorn Lomborg and Paul Krugman on global warming. Plus a free-ranging discussion with a panel of stars on everything from Obama's Nobel Prize to what is happening in Dubai.

CNN's "Amanpour" - General Stanley A. McChrystal - commander of the U.S. forces in Afghanistan.

"Fox News Sunday" - Sens. Judd Gregg, R-N.H., Claire McCaskill, D-Mo., and James Inhofe, R-Okla.; Rep. Ed Markey, D-Mass.; Inez Tenenbaum, chairwoman of the Consumer Product Safety Commission.

So, what's catching your eye this morning?

I always ask teabaggers when I run into them, how any federal deficit has hurt them personally? They can't respond to that. They have no answer except to cry "socialism."

Sure, it's much better to have a surplus like Clinton did, but these same deficit hawks were quite happy when the Bush tax cuts came down and the rich got richer and the economy collapsed. But I ask again: How has deficit spending hurt you?

Long term debt is nothing to sneeze at, but when we're talking about reforming health care for America, who really cares if it's $700 billion for 10 years or $1 trillion or $1.5 trillion? (By the way, I love the way the press never tells America what it would cost per year because then the figure doesn't sound so bad. They make it appear that the cost is $700 or 900 billion a year.)

Go ask a teabagger about costs and see what they say. What will it matter in the long run? We can figure out how to pay for it. Even FDR was hampered by these deficit hawks when he brought the country out of the Great Depression, and now these deficit hawks almost put us back into a Depression because they were so deficit crazy.

The deficit hawk is code for keeping the rich---rich. And then finding ways to keep their money pouring in.

Digby has a great post up today about costs:

The Peterson Foundation is ready with the news. They released a report (pdf) on the Kennedy Bill today...

{}

The fact is that if all these benefits were actually realized, the country would be far, far better off, both financially and otherwise. Nobody expects that spending will go down, merely that the growth in spending will be less. Therefore, if the government finds itself having to pay out all that money in health care benefits, this healthier, more prosperous nation can surely afford to levy the necessary taxes to pay for it, right?

I don't give a damn what this is going to cost in 2029. And nobody else should either because these projections are based on bullshit. Nobody can see that far into the future. If we can pay for it now, then we should do it now. And if it costs more down the line, then we will find a way to pay for it. This nonsensical obsession with deficits decades into the future is nothing more than a scam designed to keep the gravy train going for the wealthiest Americans at the expense of everyone else.

If these numbers are correct, then the fiscal scolds are going to have to argue that people today have to die so that wealthy people in 2029 don't have to pay higher taxes. It's that simple.

The president is also talking about having a deficit neutral bill, but he's being attacked for it by the usual suspects.

Ever notice the deficits are only a problem when Democrats spend to help the rest of us?

Krugman explains why the deficit isn't the huge problem Republicans always say it is (but only when there's a Democratic president, of course):

So is there anything to worry about? Yes, but the dangers are political, not economic.

As I’ve said, those 10-year projections aren’t as bad as you may have heard. Over the really long term, however, the U.S. government will have big problems unless it makes some major changes. In particular, it has to rein in the growth of Medicare and Medicaid spending.

That shouldn’t be hard in the context of overall health care reform. After all, America spends far more on health care than other advanced countries, without better results, so we should be able to make our system more cost-efficient.

But that won’t happen, of course, if even the most modest attempts to improve the system are successfully demagogued — by conservatives! — as efforts to “pull the plug on grandma.”

So don’t fret about this year’s deficit; we actually need to run up federal debt right now and need to keep doing it until the economy is on a solid path to recovery. And the extra debt should be manageable. If we face a potential problem, it’s not because the economy can’t handle the extra debt. Instead, it’s the politics, stupid.

You can view this video right here by getting the latest version of Flash Player!

DOWNLOADS: (891)

PLAYS: (1379)

Isn't it wonderful that Raum Emanuel thought it was a great idea to get a bunch of Republicans to pretend they're Democrats? Who would have ever imagined that could have turned out badly? Bluedog Mike Ross decides to see just how many Republican talking points he can squeeze into a several minute segment on CNN's State of the Union.

King: [A]t one of your recent town halls, there was actually a young man -- not quite ready to vote, I don't believe -- who got up and raised one of the big concerns about this bill, and that is spending.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

(UNKNOWN): Mr. Ross, I want the same opportunity that you had. Please do not -- don't load me up with debt that I can't pay.

(APPLAUSE)

(END VIDEO CLIP)

KING: Now, you voted in committee to keep the process moving, to get the House bill moving along, to keep it moving after you got some concessions. If that bill were on the full House floor tomorrow, based on everything you have heard back home, including the concern there about deficit spending, would you vote yes or do you need additional changes?

ROSS: Well, I think -- I think we'd probably need to see a few more changes, too.

Let me say this, that I'm glad to see all people, young and old, starting to talk about the debt. I've been talking about the debt for nine years. Let's not forget here, it took George Washington to Bill Clinton to put this country $5 trillion in debt. It took the last president to double it. And so, I'm one of those that have said, one of my key principles is I will not support a health care reform bill that is not deficit-neutral, period.

KING: Not deficit-neutral, period. As you know, the president is not on the ballot next year, but all of you Blue Dog Democrats in the House are on the ballot, and the Republican National Committee is already after you on the radio, sir. I want you to listen to a snippet from this radio ad attacking you for voting to keep the process moving.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

COMIC VOICE: He folded like a lawn chair.

ANNOUNCER: Mike Ross.

COMIC VOICE: He threw in the towel.

ANNOUNCER: Mike Ross did exactly what Nancy Pelosi wanted him to do.

COMIC VOICE: He caved in, he buckled.

ANNOUNCER: Mike Ross was one of just four congressmen who cast the deciding votes to advance Nancy Pelosi's radical big government health care plan. Ross backed a plan that will cost taxpayers billions, just days after talking like he wouldn't.

(END VIDEO CLIP) KING: Such an important policy question facing the country right now, Congressman, but also a very dicey political environment. Can you vote for anything along the lines of what is right now before the House of Representatives and survive next year?

ROSS: John, first, I've got a response ad that I'm running to that ad, and I hope at some point you all will play just as many seconds of it.

I read the newspaper this morning. $57 million has been spent in the last six months, most of it in the last 45 days, trying to scare folks. I saw an ad the other night on TV. It scared the living daylights out of me. But I went back and watched it again. It used the word "could" six times in 60 seconds.

I've laid out -- I've now done 37 town hall meetings on health care reform since April. I'm doing telephone town hall meetings. I'm doing roundtable discussions at hospitals, where we bring in small- business owners, the self-employed, the uninsured, doctors, hospital administrators, and we're listening to them.

I can tell you, I've laid down my set of principles, so I will not force government-run health care on anyone. If there ever is government-run health care, the first ones to sign up should be the president and every member of Congress, including myself. You should be able to keep the insurance you've got today, if you like it, and always choose your own doctor. No federal funding for illegal immigrants or for abortion, and no rationing of health care. I will never vote for a bill to kill old people, period.

KING: Congressman Ross, we appreciate your time today.

You can view this video right here by getting the latest version of Flash Player!

DOWNLOADS: (1022)

PLAYS: (4621)

Our friend Digby was on an excellent panel today at Netroots Nation in Pittsburgh discussing how we find ways to talk about economic issues in America going forward, especially since we have to confront such an endless deluge of right-wing BS framing.

She points out, adroitly, that for some reasons, deficits and federal spending are only a problem when a Democrat occupies the White House. Moreover, that deficit spending in support of an illegitimate overseas war is never questioned, while deficit spending to stop the USA from falling into an economic depression or to help Americans with their health care is readily attacked without raising an eyebrow.

As usual with Digby, it's entertaining and enlightening.

Amato and I are having fun hanging out with our blogging friends. Bill Clinton is speaking tonight, and we'll have video from that in the morning.

You can view this video right here by getting the latest version of Flash Player!

DOWNLOADS: (1123)

PLAYS: (6634)

Here's another prime example of those wonderful compassionate conservatives for you. Bill Bennett on CNN's State of the Union just can't seem to get himself to endorse extending unemployment benefits right now, not because he doesn't care about the unemployed, of course. That would sound uncaring, now wouldn't it? He's just concerned that "they have already spent so doggone much money". When Donna Brazile points out that you didn't hear these complaints from Republicans when Bush was giving away the bank with tax cuts for the rich, war spending and giveaways to the drug companies, check out the look on Bennett's face. He doesn't have to say a word. That expression says it all.

They end up on a hard break, so we never do get to hear just what Bennett's compassionate conservative reply would have been, but I'm sure sure it would have been more of the same similar to his earlier remarks. I just wonder if Bill Bennett has ever had to want for anything in his entire lifetime? From the condescending look on his face while she was talking, I would guess not.

YELLIN: Let me ask you about that today because there are indications that there could be, at least the Treasury secretary is not ruling out the possibility of middle class tax increase. How would that play, politically, for President Obama, if that had to happen?

BRAZILE: Well as we know, that 95 percent of the tax relief that was offered in the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act went to middle class Americans. So I would hope at a time when middle class Americans and others are feeling the squeeze from the state governments and the local governments and now the federal government with the debt, I would hope that this would not be an issue right now. But if he's talking about putting this in the mix in terms of how we pay for health care reform, we need to take a look at it.

YELLIN: Bill, does that make you think, oh, this is going to look good in 2012 for the elections?

BENNETT: I'm really not thinking about that, but the interesting thing is, it's not so much President Obama and the Democrats versus the Republicans at this point. In many ways, it's President Obama and the American people. And the more they're hearing, the more skeptical they're becoming. Thus you see his polls going down. I don't want to be gloomy, I want to be upbeat. It's always morning in America as far as I'm concerned.

But the problem is, when people look at these various proposals, like health care or like cap and trade, what they're getting is, they may have additional burdens on them, additional taxes or additional costs. And that doesn't, A, encourage them, B, it doesn't encourage a long-term recovery.

Continue reading »

You can view this video right here by getting the latest version of Flash Player!

DOWNLOADS: (113)

PLAYS: (263)

More astroturfing? Sure looks like it to me. From Hardball April 15, 2009. Mike Barnicle questions Mike Pence about why only now the outrage over deficit spending. Pence says that it was the bailout and stimulus bill and claims that this is just a grass roots movement that started in the fall. The other guest John O'Hara claims that this was something that's been boiling up since George Bush was in office. Barnicle then asks O'Hara how he got involved in the protests.

Barnicle: So John I mean clearly you're a young guy....What got you actively involved in this. Give me a little bit about your background. Who are you and why are you involved in this?

O’Hara: Absolutely. I work at a free-market think tank, the Heartland Institute here in Chicago. In my spare time, on weekends and nights, leading up to the Feburary 27th tea parties, my good friend J. P. Freir, he's been on this network, at the American Spectator invited me and asked me if I could help him get some momentum behind having a tea party in front of the White House. We did. We had over 300 people show up. And there were concurrent tea parties across the country that day and ever since then you’ve had thousands come out in Orlando, Cincinati and then today in Chicago we had over 5000 and man more in cities across the country.

Think Progress has more on John O'Hara's "weekend work" organizing these protests. He wasn't really organizing any of this for his employer. He was just spending his time off volunteering. Riiiggtt. Of course Mike Barnicle doesn't ask him why he thinks anyone should believe that.

    John McCain's plan to build 45 new nuclear reactors could cost taxpayers hundreds of billions in defaulted loan guarantees.

The Republican presidential nominee wants the plants built in time to help the U.S. meet a 29 percent increase in electricity demand by 2030. Industry estimates put their cost at $7 billion each ... Investment bankers, citing the industry's cost overruns in the 1980s, say they won't finance its long-sought ``nuclear renaissance'' without federal backing.

``Loan guarantees get reactors built, simply put,'' said Kevin Book, senior vice president and energy specialist at the Friedman, Billings, Ramsey & Co. investment banking firm in Arlington, Virginia.

... Taxpayers are on the hook only if borrowers default. A 2003 Congressional Budget Office report said the default rate on nuclear construction debts might be as high as 50 percent, in part because of the projects' high costs.

``The nuclear industry has been aggressively going after taxpayer-backed loan guarantees because nuclear technology cannot stand on its own two feet in the marketplace,'' said Allison Fisher, an energy policy analyst for the nonprofit consumer group Public Citizen in Washington.

Indeed, rising construction costs hit nuclear plants doubly hard because of safety considerations - which means a new nuke plant costs two to four times as much per kilowatt generated as any other kind of power. And with a total build cost at current prices of around $315 billion, defaults rates of 50% and more would involve taxpayers in yet more corporate giveaways and deficit spending. The potential costs in this plan alone outrun all the savings McCain says he can make by cutting earmark spending. The only way to make it viable is for consumers to pay up to four times more for their power.

Isn't it about time John McCain came clean about the pitfalls of his nuclear energy plan and explained why, if simply getting away from using oil is his priority, he won't turn up for Senate votes on tax credits for renewable energy generation?