This has to be one of the most disgusting things I've watched in a long time. If anyone was wondering what network out there might be worse than the hacks on Fox over this "fiscal cliff" fearmongering, I think you just got your answer -- CNBC.

Anchor Accuses Top House Progressive Of Tanking Markets By Appearing On CNBC:

At around 3:30 PM Eastern Tuesday, CNBC anchor Michelle Caruso-Cabrera noted a sell-off in the stock market, an entirely unremarkable occurrence in the course of the financial network’s daily coverage. But what separated this particular sell-off from others, according to Caruso-Cabrera, was that it could be traced directly to the appearance of one of the House’s top progressives on her show.

Rep. Raul Grijalva (D-AZ) tanked the market, she said, by refusing to budge on his contention that Medicare cuts should be off the table in negotiations surrounding the so-called fiscal cliff. Democrats accused the anchor of trying to “shame” them into cutting entitlement cuts by directly blaming Grijalva’s words for the market’s decline.

Grijalva, co-chair of the House Progressive Caucus, appeared on CNBC to talk about the debt talks and his view that it was unfair to talk about Medicare and other entitlement programs when Republicans remain publicly unwilling to significantly increase government revenues.

Caruso-Cabrera said Grijalva’s words were literally hurting the economy in real time. It’s something that’s happened before when members of Congress appear on the air, she added.

“Representative? You know what, as we’re talking the market is selling off once again,” she told Grijalva. “Every time members of Congress come on, and I’ve got to tell you sir, I think you’re contributing to the fears that we’re going off the fiscal cliff because it doesn’t sound like there’s any compromise in what you’re saying. Do you care that markets are selling off dramatically when it looks like you guys can’t come to a deal?”

As the interview ended, Caruso-Cabrera noted that the market had gone down “80 points” on the day at that point. Read on...

Update: Here's more from Digby: And they don't even have to be virgins.

DOWNLOADS: (769)

PLAYS: (3520)

Embed

While I agree with Bill Maher that we do have a problem with the costs of Medicare and Medicaid and defense spending and I agree that our budget should not be balanced on the backs of the poor, what the hell is it going to take to get through to Maher that Social Security is not to blame for the deficit? It's running a surplus.

Maybe someone can send him this article by Robert Reich -- Budget baloney: Social Security isn't to blame for deficit:

Social Security won't be a problem for another 26 years, and even then, the problem can be solved.

New Jersey Governor Chris Christie, a Republican presidential hopeful, says in order to “save” Social Security the retirement age should be raised. The media are congratulating him for his putative “courage.” Deficit hawks are proclaiming Social Security one of the big entitlements that has to be cut in order to reduce the budget deficit.

This is all baloney.

In a former life I was a trustee of the Social Security trust fund. So let me set the record straight.

Social Security isn’t responsible for the federal deficit. Just the opposite. Until last year Social Security took in more payroll taxes than it paid out in benefits. It lent the surpluses to the rest of the government.

Now that Social Security has started to pay out more than it takes in, Social Security can simply collect what the rest of the government owes it. This will keep it fully solvent for the next 26 years.

But why should there even be a problem 26 years from now? Back in 1983, Alan Greenspan’s Social Security commission was supposed to have fixed the system for good – by gradually increasing payroll taxes and raising the retirement age. (Early boomers like me can start collecting full benefits at age 66; late boomers born after 1960 will have to wait until they’re 67.)

Greenspan’s commission must have failed to predict something. But what? It fairly accurately predicted how quickly the boomers would age. It had a pretty good idea of how fast the US economy would grow. While it underestimated how many immigrants would be coming into the United States, that’s no problem. To the contrary, most new immigrants are young and their payroll-tax contributions will far exceed what they draw from Social Security for decades.

So what did Greenspan’s commission fail to see coming?

Inequality.

Remember, the Social Security payroll tax applies only to earnings up to a certain ceiling. (That ceiling is now $106,800.) The ceiling rises every year according to a formula roughly matching inflation.

Back in 1983, the ceiling was set so the Social Security payroll tax would hit 90 percent of all wages covered by Social Security. That 90 percent figure was built into the Greenspan Commission’s fixes. The Commission assumed that, as the ceiling rose with inflation, the Social Security payroll tax would continue to hit 90 percent of total income.

Today, though, the Social Security payroll tax hits only about 84 percent of total income.

It went from 90 percent to 84 percent because a larger and larger portion of total income has gone to the top. In 1983, the richest 1 percent of Americans got 11.6 percent of total income. Today the top 1 percent takes in more than 20 percent.

If we want to go back to 90 percent, the ceiling on income subject to the Social Security tax would need to be raised to $180,000.

Presto. Social Security’s long-term (beyond 26 years from now) problem would be solved.

Bingo.

DOWNLOADS: (599)

PLAYS: (1780)

Embed

CNBC anchor Michelle Caruso-Cabrera visited the set of Morning Joe to push her new book You Know I'm Right and apparently we've got another Ayn Rand fan working for CNBC. After saying that the auto companies should have been allowed to fail, presumably to get rid of those pesky over paid union workers, Mike Barnicle asks her if she thinks we're going to have to raise taxes to pay our deficit.

Cabrera of course doesn't think we should raise taxes and says that instead we should cut spending. Leslie Stahl asks her where. She replies:

Easy stuff; you get rid of the Department of Labor, the Department of Commerce, the Department of Education. You can get rid of all of those. They're not necessary. You don't need that stuff done at the federal level.

But the real issue, let's talk about it – Social Security and Medicare, right? We have over promised so much that someday if we don't do something, we're going to be Greece. We're on the path to that. So what you do right now is you tell young people instead of saving that Social Security and giving it to the government, you're going to have a personal account, and that's going to be your retirement. And in the mean time, as you get closer to retirement, you're going to have to live on that money instead, because...

Leslie Stahl asks her what happens when the markets crash again and there's no safety net. Her answer:

Well, this is the choice, okay? So you're saying the choice is I can have the government pay me in the future guaranteed, or I can have this uncertainty of the market. I see it differently. I see the uncertainty of the markets or the uncertainty of some future Congress, some future bunch of people who are... can at any day decide you've got to retire later. You've got to put up more money.

Or in other words, don't dare expect the rich to pay back the Social Security trust fund and you're on your own for your retirement. Her buddies on Wall Street crash the economy again... too bad, so sad. Cabrera would fit right in at the Tea Party rallies.