Go Home

ron johnson

18 documents found in 0 seconds.

Get Adobe Flash player

DOWNLOADS: (295)
Download WMV Download Quicktime
PLAYS: (4633)
Play WMV Play Quicktime
Embed

Nobel Prize-winning economist Paul Krugman on Sunday accused tea party-backed Sen. Ron Johnson (R-WI) of using "non-facts" to argue that earned benefits programs like Social Security and Medicare needed to be cut in order to be saved.

"Unless we do something, these programs are going broke," Johnson opined during a panel on ABC News. "When I hear people saying Social Security is solvent to the year 2035, it's not."

"In a [sic] entitlement reform package, actually bringing in revenue for those entitlement reforms, I might look at that," he added. "But the fact of the matter is that we're already having a trillion dollars in tax increases hitting us in Obamacare. They're hidden, but it's middle class... As well as the $600 billion [in a January deal to increase taxes on wealthy Americans]. That's $1.6 trillion in tax increases hitting us in the next 10 years."

"We've just run aground right there," Krugman noted. "Your facts are false. The Social Security thing -- Social Security, it has a dedicated revenue base, it has a trust fund based on that dedicated revenue base. You can't change the rules midstream and say, 'Oh well, suddenly the trust fund doesn't count.'"

Johnson interrupted with the claim that "the trust fund is a fiction, it has no value in the federal government."

"It important to realize that the facts that are being brought out here are, in fact, non-facts," Krugman pointed out.

"They're absolute facts," the Wisconsin Republican shot back.



Get Adobe Flash player

DOWNLOADS: (105)
Download WMV Download Quicktime
PLAYS: (460)
Play WMV Play Quicktime
Embed

It was nice to see some push back from the constant drone we're treated to by the talking heads in the media, who apparently will not be happy until Democrats agree to inflict some more pain on their constituents and raise Medicare retirement age along with benefit cuts. As Krugman rightfully noted, all the happy talk about politicians sitting down and having dinner together isn't going to resolve the fundamental policy differences between the two parties -- or the fact that one of them wants to completely take down our social safety nets and privatize them.

He called out George Will as well who was demanding that Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz explain whether Democrats would agree to raise the Medicare age:

KRUGMAN: Is it a condition of any Republican support that you have to go for really terrible policies? Because raising the Medicare age is a terrible policy. It raises medical costs, it does very little to improve the budget. It introduces a lot of hardship. Means testing in Medicare is a better policy. I don't particularly like it, but it's a better policy.

That's the whole idea. They know it's terrible policy and they want Democrats to do their bidding for them so they can immediately turn around and run ads against them in the mid-term elections. They were cynical enough to do it before and they'll do it again. So it's not just bad policy, it's bad and stupid politics as well.

The conventional wisdom talk from the Bloomberg White House corespondent here wasn't much better. There's nothing "optimistic" about these politicians potentially sticking it to the poor and the elderly when we've got record income disparity in the United States right now.

Full transcript below the fold.

Continue reading »



This is the whole video, but if you go to about the 16 minute mark you'll get treated to the full version of Senator Ron Johnson's inner loathing for women, poor women in particular.

Here's the transcript:

One of the first people I met on the campaign trail was a state senator. His entire stump speech talked about a single mom working hard, who we have a great deal of sympathy for. She makes $15,000 part time; doesn’t pay tax, she gets the earned income tax credit. Then he totals up the dollar value for benefits. His figure came to about $51,000; I’ve kind of gone back and I calculated about $43,000. I asked my audience, now if she wants to increase her take-home pay, what does she do? She has another child out of wedlock, right?

Audience Member: Yes.

Senator Ron Johnson: If she wants to lose it all, she finds somebody to support her and she gets married.

Audience Member: Right.

Senator Ron Johnson: Now, unless we, as a society, are willing to take a look at that, and honestly, with our eyes wide open, take a look at the effect of the unintended consequences of all of our good intentions, we’re never going to solve these problems. That’s some of the information we’ve got to convey. So we’ve got a lot of challenges ahead of us here.

Let's get real. Ron Johnson has ZERO sympathy for single moms. In his heart of hearts they're sluts and slackers. They're moochers and we've got to deal with them, people!

More fundamentally, in Johnson's view we shouldn't be supporting them because for them welfare is a job and motherhood is a pay raise. This, from the "family values" guy who would deny women the right to an abortion and then kick them in the head for daring to have a baby and needing help raising it.

In context, Johnson's entire speech was framed to tell rich people to kick middle class and poor folks around because liberty means business being in control. His constituents aren't that single mom; they're the Business Roundtable and the US Chamber of Commerce.

He should remember that even WalMart is panicking because that welfare mom isn't spending the way they hope.

Let that inner pig out, Senator Johnson, for all to see.



Get Adobe Flash player

DOWNLOADS: (76)
Download WMV Download Quicktime
PLAYS: (170)
Play WMV Play Quicktime
Embed

Huckabee might not realize it, but I think he's making one of the best cases there is out there for the atheism, because if there is a God, old HuckaJesus should have been killed from lightening strikes by now for all of that un-Godly lying he keeps doing over at Fox. Case in point, he he goes again, misleading his audience about Hillary Clinton's remarks during the hearings over the fake, drummed up Benghazi non-scandal.

I guess most of us have seen by now the contentious back and forth between Clinton and Sen. Ron Johnson. Here's how much of it Huckabee decided to quote in the segment above:

CLINTON: With all due respect, the fact is, we had four dead Americans. Was it because of a protest or was it because of guys out for a walk one night who decided they'd go kill some Americans? What difference at this point does it make?

After saying how much he "respects" Hillary Clinton, Huckabee accused her of missing the mark with her answer. He went on to say that it "makes a lot of difference, not only because we want to prevent it from ever happening again, but we want to hold those responsible, who are indeed accountable for the crime." Funny how that sounds a whole lot like the very next line he decided to leave out.

CLINTON: It is our job to figure out what happened and do everything we can to prevent it from ever happening again, Senator. Now, honestly, I will do my best to answer your questions about this, but the -- the fact is that people were trying in real time to get to the best information.

It looks like Huckabee is doing his best to make sure Jon Stewart's writers don't run out of material any time soon.

Get Adobe Flash player

DOWNLOADS: (546)
Download WMV Download Quicktime
PLAYS: (6474)
Play WMV Play Quicktime
Embed



McCain Accuses Clinton of Having an 'Adoring Media'

Get Adobe Flash player

DOWNLOADS: (143)
Download WMV Download Quicktime
PLAYS: (915)
Play WMV Play Quicktime
Embed

Looks like Grandpa McCranky-Pants McCain is still irritated over the exchange between Hillary Clinton and Sen. Rob Johnson at her hearing this Wednesday. And as we've come to expect, the man's hypocrisy meter is completely broken: The pot accuses the kettle of having an 'adoring media':

At yesterday's Senate hearing on September's Benghazi attack, Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) asked Secretary of State Hillary Clinton a series of questions, all of which seemed rather familiar. Indeed, the odd thing about McCain's inquiries is that he would already know the answers to all of his questions if he'd familiarized himself with the publicly available information, including the findings (pdf) of the independent investigation.

And while I was willing to let that go, McCain's appearance on Fox News this morning was even more difficult to endure. [...]

Clinton never said it "didn't matter" how the four Americans were killed. She said the opposite.

As was obvious to anyone paying attention, Sen. Ron Johnson (R-Wis.) was preoccupied with preliminary intelligence reports about a possible protest in Benghazi and Clinton said that was irrelevant as compared to the death of four Americans -- and she was correct.

If McCain found this too confusing to understand, perhaps the Senate Foreign Relations Committee isn't the best place for him to serve.

What's more, Clinton has "an adoring media"? This from a man who spends so much time on the Sunday shows that he has his mail forwarded to green rooms? This from a senator who's so adored by the D.C. political establishment that he's considered reporters his base?

Yep. Heaven forbid McCain ever turns down a chance to get his mug in front of the camera, just like his BFF Lindsey Graham. If there's ever a day where I don't have to see either of them on the television again, it can't come soon enough.

Transcript below the fold.

Continue reading »



Get Adobe Flash player

DOWNLOADS: (481)
Download WMV Download Quicktime
PLAYS: (5386)
Play WMV Play Quicktime
Embed

After a number of the talking heads over at Fox "news" slammed Congressional Republicans for not going after Hillary Clinton hard enough during the Benghazi hearings this week and showing the exchange between Clinton and Sen. Ron Johnson during the Senate hearing, Colbert accused Johnson of allowing Clinton to "step all over Ron's Johnson" and"spank him."

Colbert showed Johnson ending the exchange by saying "thank you Madame Secretary" and wondered why the Senator would do so unless "thank you Madame Secretary" was his "safe word."

After showing Johnson and a bunch of the talking heads on the right claiming that Clinton's anger during the hearings was just an act and made up, Colbert followed with this:

COLBERT: Don't get me wrong. These guys know something about faking emotions. They do it every day and I respect them for it. But in this case I'm not buying it. First, it just makes the Republicans look weaker. Now they lost to something that wasn't even real.

And second, second... if you're saying Hillary could fake that kind of anger, that's saying that every woman I've ever enraged might have been faking it. I don't think so fellas. I mean I've infuriated my share of the ladies over the years and let me tell you, I get them there, okay? They always seem pretty worked up. You know, you can tell when it's real. I mean, they're screaming the whole time. I've even had my neighbors complain. [...]

Anyway, these hearings were a debacle that left unanswered the one question they were really about. Is there anything we can do to stop Hillary in 2016?



Get Adobe Flash player

DOWNLOADS: (546)
Download WMV Download Quicktime
PLAYS: (6474)
Play WMV Play Quicktime
Embed

Jon Stewart took quite a few swipes at the GOP clown show we witnessed this week, with Republicans grilling Sec. Hillary Clinton over their drummed up Benghazi witch hunt. After opening things up with a reminder of the fact that Republicans and the talking heads over at Fox were claiming that Clinton was faking her health problems, Stewart took his audience back through some of the highlights of the most obnoxious moments during Clinton's over five hour long testimony before the House and Senate committees.

As Stewart noted, Clinton did a really good job of taking the better part of their criticisms of her, and turning it right back around on them and called her the "Magneto of finger-pointing."

Stewart didn't spare the Democrats, who he slammed as too "ass-licky, and who for the most part, looked like they were more worried about getting a job in a future Clinton administration if Hillary were to run and win a presidential race in the 2016.

He wrapped things up showing how Fox took her contentious back and forth with Sen. Ron Johnson completely out of context and he got one last shot in on Sen. Rand Paul for his ridiculous statement that Benghazi was the "worst tragedy since 9/11."



CNN's Ali Velshi Lets GOP Sen. Ron Johnson Blow Smoke

Get Adobe Flash player

DOWNLOADS: (95)
Download WMV Download Quicktime
PLAYS: (487)
Play WMV Play Quicktime
Embed

Lately, CNN's Ali Velshi has done a good job of pushing back at some of these Republican politicians when they come on his show and lie. This wasn't one of those times. While Velshi did do a good job of making clear that raising the debt ceiling is paying for spending which has already been approved by the Congress, and that it's not the same thing as a household running up the credit cards, he let Wisconsin Sen. Ron Johnson get away with a whole bunch of whoppers during this segment without much pushback.

He allowed Johnson to lay the blame for our deficits on the Obama administration, even though (as we've pointed out here time after time), most of that deficit is due to Bush policies and the recession and not because of Obama, as this article and its charts clearly point out. And even after Velshi pointed out that we can't just partially default on the deficit as a lot of Republicans have claimed, and that it would likely cause a great deal of economic havoc, he allowed Johnson to just flat-out disagree with him and didn't challenge him after that.

As long as we're allowing these politicians to pretend that Social Security contributes to the deficit when it doesn't, or pretending that raising the age for Medicare and throwing more seniors into the private health insurance market is a rational way to get our health care costs under control, they get to advocate for balancing the budget and paying for tax cuts and defense spending on the backs of the poor, elderly and middle class.

As Chris Hayes and Karoli pointed out here, the conversation we ought to be having is whether the Affordable Care Act is going to do enough to get our health care costs under control -- and if not, what steps we need to take to improve that? (None of our leaders want to talk about single-player, of course) We also need to talk about getting the United States back to full employment and quit allowing Republicans to just mindlessly repeat "job creators" and "tax cuts" in every conversation without rebuttal.

And of course, none of these guys are ever pushed on why we can't cut our bloated defense spending and get rid of the waste. They never seem to be too concerned about how starting another unnecessary war might destroy the future for their grandchildren. No, granny has to take a cut in her Social Security and Medicare benefits. The one word that never gets used here is privatization, because that's what they're advocating. These costs aren't going to go away. They just want to make sure the insurance companies and Wall Street gets their cut.

It would have been nice if Velshi asked Johnson if he really doesn't "want to play brinksmanship", why does he continue to do it? Why does he thinks it's acceptable to threaten our interest rates if that's something he's actually concerned about? Velshi also waited until the following segment when the Senator was off the air to point out the fact that President Obama's budget was never actually voted on, but sadly, even that wasn't done without some false equivalencies and "both sides do it" nonsense:

VELSHI: Why don't we have a budget? Gridlock, basically. In fact, Senate majority leader Harry Reid, a Democrat, says it was not worth trying to go through the process of passing the president's budget. That's why you hear that old Republican saw that Harry Reid won't even present a budge to the Senate. You may have also heard the of repeated claim that President Obama's budget was struck down in the House and the Senate, getting zero votes. Goose eggs from either party.

But those bills were not the budget. They were shell versions of the president's budget put forward by Republicans designed to fail. They were not budgets. They were just politics.

Republicans did put out their own budget plan in the form of Paul Ryan's "Path to Prosperity," but bipartisan bickering resulted in no progress there, either.

Sorry Ali, but it was more than just "bipartisan bickering" which prevented Ryan's budget from being passed. Most Americans hated it, Republicans were backing away from it and even Paul Ryan himself was doing some backtracking on that debacle he put forward. You can read more about Ryan's so-called "Path to Prosperity" here in Jon Perr's post, where Fox was pretending that it doesn't add trillions to the deficit.

Maybe someone can tell Velshi to give it a look before he starts blaming the Democrats for its failure.

Full transcript below the fold.

Continue reading »



Get Adobe Flash player

DOWNLOADS: (161)
Download WMV Download Quicktime
PLAYS: (704)
Play WMV Play Quicktime
Embed

Tea party-backed Sen. Ron Johnson (R-WI) on Wednesday excused Walmart's decision to decline an invitation to the White House to discuss gun violence because "they are trying to grow the economy."

The nation's largest seller of munitions told The Wall Street Journal on Tuesday that it refused to participate in Vice President Joe Biden's task force because of a scheduling conflict.

Walmart also explained to CNN's Christine Romans that the company had already scheduled month sales meetings in Bentonville, Arkansas and none of its 2.2 million employees could make it to Washington.

CNN host Soledad O'Brien on Thursday told Johnson that "when people tell me they have a scheduling snafu, I just don't believe them."

"They're probably out there trying to grow the economy," the Wisconsin Republican shrugged. "You know, they're concentrating on their business and I'll take them at their word."

"I think the concern is -- from people who actually do want to protect gun rights -- is that this is a fast-moving train to try and restrict those gun rights," Johnson added. "So, people are suspicious of that."

"From my standpoint, if they've got sales meetings, those things are probably pretty important. They are trying to grow our economy and that's a good thing."

New Yorker magazine Washington Correspondent Ryan Lizza pointed out that Walmart had a fleet of corporate jets in Bentonville and could easily send someone to D.C. for meetings.

"It's just a slap in the face to publicly say you've been invited to the White House and you're not going," he explained. "Whenever someone in politics says it's a scheduling issue it means they don't want to be there."

During his appearance on CNN's Starting Point panel on Wednesday, Lizza also asked Johnson to respond conservative radio host Rush Limbaugh, who recently asserted that liberals were trying to "normalize pedophilia" by legalizing same sex marriage.

"Senator, Rush Limbaugh and pedophilia?" Lizza pressed. "What do you got?"

"Not gonna happen," Johnson replied.

UPDATE (2:15 p.m. ET): A Walmart spokesperson on Wednesday said that the company had "underestimated the expectation to attend the meeting on Thursday in person, so we are sending an appropriate representative to participate."



Get Adobe Flash player

DOWNLOADS: (178)
Download WMV Download Quicktime
PLAYS: (793)
Play WMV Play Quicktime
Embed

Sen. Bernie Sanders continues to be one of the stand-up guys in the Senate with telling it straight when it comes to the fact that Social Security does not add a dime to our deficit and that if President Obama wants to do something about the deficit, he needs to be cutting that corporate welfare, instead of talking about balancing the budget on the backs of the most vulnerable in our society and our veterans.

Sanders joined Ed Schultz on MSNBC this Friday evening. After Schultz took the viewers through some of the goading by Republicans who are trying to get President Obama to do their dirty work for them and go after our New Deal social safety nets, and a clip of Ronald Reagan explaining that Social Security does not contribute to the deficit, he asked Sanders if he trusted President Obama not to cave into their demands.

Sanders said no, but if enough of us make our voices heard along with the slew of progressive groups who are pushing back hard against these potential cuts, he feels he will be responsive to the voters. All I can say is I hope he's right about the President listening, and I know he's right about the need for everyone who doesn't want to see these programs cut to make their voices heard and get on the phone, email, write letters, call and make sure that both President Obama and your members of Congress know to how you feel.

They need to be hearing from someone besides the Ed Rendell and Pete Petersons of the world. I'm grateful that we've got Ed Schultz giving us a break from the otherwise constant drumbeat on his network, calling going after our social safety nets adult, serious and balanced in exchange for Republican hostage taking. on raising the debt ceiling after their party spent like drunken sailors and now don't want to pay their credit card bill.

Get Adobe Flash player

DOWNLOADS: (178)
Download WMV Download Quicktime
PLAYS: (565)
Play WMV Play Quicktime
Embed

Bernie was still pushing for one item that would help with our deficit that sadly has gone nowhere with those looking out for the 1 percent since it was introduced over a year ago, a tax on Wall Street speculation:

Legislation was introduced on Wednesday to impose a financial transaction tax on the trading of stocks, bonds and derivatives. The measure would reduce gambling on Wall Street, encourage the financial sector to invest in the productive economy, and significantly reduce the deficit without harming average Americans. "This bill offers us a clear choice. We can balance the budget on the backs of working Americans and senior citizens on fixed incomes or we can ask the gamblers on Wall Street to pay a little bit more in taxes," said Sen. Bernie Sanders, a cosponsor of the bill.

Under the proposal, there would be a speculation fee of 0.03 percent on credit default swaps, derivatives, stocks, bonds, and other financial transactions. It would yield about $200 billion in new revenue over the coming decade. The lead sponsor in the Senate is Tom Harkin. Rep. Peter DeFazio filed companion legislation in the House.