DOWNLOADS: (867)

PLAYS: (2293)

Embed

Wow, what do you know... for the second time in a row David Gregory decided to hammer one of the Congressional Minority Leaders about the cost of extending the Bush tax cuts. Two weeks ago it was John Boehner. Now Mitch McConnell got his turn to respond to Alan Greenspan's remarks that the Republicans should not be extending them without a way to pay for them. McConnell's response after Gregory hammered on him after he refused to answer the question initially:

SEN. McCONNELL: You're talking about current tax policy. Why did all it of a sudden become something that we, quote "paid for." Look, the problem is the spending problem. If we grind down the spending, we will begin to get a handle on this mounting debt, and if you push this economy further backward, we'll get less revenue for the government, not more. Raising taxes in the middle of a recession on the major job generator in America, small business, is a very, very bad idea.

So much for that deficit they claim they're so concerned about. Not when it comes to tax cuts for the rich. David Gregory should have called him out for his lie about how many small businesses are going to be affected by the tax cuts expiring as well, but hey... it's David Gregory. It's unusual for him to even this aggressive with a Republican when they come his show so my expectations are pretty low when it comes to him getting one of these guys off of their talking points for the day.

He did ask him another good question during this segment as well though. When McConnell said the Republicans would be willing to consider going along with the recommendations from President Obama's deficit commission, Gregory asked him why they needed a Democratic president's commission to figure out what the Republican's think should be cut. McConnell punted on that one and Gregory let it go of course. McConnell claimed he didn't want the matter to become a "political football". Yeah right. Everything is a "political football" with the Republicans.

They do absolutely nothing if that they don't think they can use to gain a political advantage, no matter how bad it is for the country. You could say the same for a lot of them on both sides of the aisle, but the level of just sheer callousness for anything other than remaining in power and protecting their rich campaign donors from the GOP when the country is in this bad of shape is just reprehensible. They're hoping the Democrats do their dirty work for them on Medicare and Social Security so they don't take the political hit for doing what we all know they'd like to do, destroy and privatize both programs.

Transcript below the fold.

Continue reading »

DOWNLOADS: (294)

PLAYS: (294)

Embed

If Liz Cheney had any credibility maybe she'd go on some other media outlets once in a while instead of having to hide behind the refuge of Fox to spread her lies. Although Juan Williams did actually get after her a bit in this segment. Liz Cheney seemed to take it a bit personally that the Obama administration was criticizing her father's administration. Since they got stuck trying to clean up after the collapsing economy Bush left them, I'd say they've got every right to be critical when it comes to the employment numbers. With Republicans and ConservaDems like Nelson fighting them at every turn on everything but tax cuts for their rich buddies it's surprising they've gotten anything meaningful passed to help the economy.

Media Matters has more on her talking points on the stimulus.

Liz Cheney contradicts economists, claims the stimulus has "not worked":

Liz Cheney spread the myth that the stimulus bill has "not worked" to mitigate job losses. In fact, many independent and private analysts have agreed that stimulus spending significantly raised employment over what would have happened without it.

As they noted here's what Cheney said about stimulus during the segment.

Cheney: The Republicans are saying no to things that have not worked. We've lost 3.3 million jobs since the stimulus passed last year. And what is clear is that the private sector is not going to hire when they're traumatized. And I think they have been pretty well-traumatized by the policies of this administration. They don't know what coming next; more taxes, more regulation.

Here's a bit more from their article:

But independent and private analysts agree stimulus significantly raised employment CEA: Recovery Act has raised employment "by between 2.5 and 3.6 million." In its fourth quarterly report on the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009, the Council of Economic Advisers (CEA) stated: "The CEA estimates that as of the second quarter of 2010, the ARRA has raised employment relative to what it otherwise would have been by between 2.5 and 3.6 million. These estimates are broadly consistent with the direct recipient reporting data available for 2010:Q1."

Independent analysts agree that recovery act significantly raised employment. In its quarterly report, the CEA included figures from independent analyses that also credited the recovery act with increasing employment.

Go read the rest of the article. They've got more with some numbers on the stimulus and the jobs numbers.

DOWNLOADS: (276)

PLAYS: (394)

Embed

Republicans have long said that tax cuts don't need to be paid for but House Minority Leader John Boehner refused to use the talking point Sunday.

NBC's David Gregory asked Boenher he agreed with Alan Greenspan that tax cuts do not pay for themselves. The Minority Leader sidestepped the question.

"The only way to get our economy going again and solve the budget problems is to get the economy moving, get more people back to work where they can care for their own families, and begin to expand the tax rolls to bring more revenue for the federal government," began Boehner. "What we have to do is we have to get our arms around the spending spree that's going on in washington, DC."

"You're not being responsive to a specific point, which is how can you be for cutting the deficit and also cutting taxes as well when they're not paid for?" asked Gregory.

"Listen, you can't raise taxes in the middle of a weak economy without risking the double-dip in this recession," replied Boehner, still not answering the question.

"That's not the question. Are tax cuts paid for or not?" pressed Gregory.

"You're trying to get into this Washington game and their funny accounting over there," said Boehner.

DOWNLOADS: (683)

PLAYS: (2152)

Embed

During a Senate Budget Committee hearing Sen. Bernie Sanders took his turn questioning a panel of economists about the need to get some fairness back into our tax structure and to do something about the millions of Americans who are hurting right now. When Sen. Sanders made the point which was the topic of this column at the Huffington Post, he was met with laughter from some in the hearing room.

Sanders: I think you have a society which is moving in many ways toward an oligarchy where you...

I thought I heard a laughter....

Well some of them sitting right in this room... some of whom think it's funny when we talk about oligarchy when the richest 1% have more than the bottom 90% and we see that trend growing wider, that's what I would call oligarchy.

As Nicole wrote about last week, here's more from Bernie.

No to Oligarchy:

The American people are hurting. As a result of the greed, recklessness and illegal behavior on Wall Street, millions of Americans have lost their jobs, homes, life savings and their ability to get a higher education. Today, some 22 percent of our children live in poverty, and millions more have become dependent on food stamps for their food.

And while the Great Wall Street Recession has devastated the middle class, the truth is that working families have been experiencing a decline for decades. During the Bush years alone, from 2000-2008, median family income dropped by nearly $2,200 and millions lost their health insurance. Today, because of stagnating wages and higher costs for basic necessities, the average two-wage-earner family has less disposable income than a one-wage-earner family did a generation ago. The average American today is underpaid, overworked and stressed out as to what the future will bring for his or her children. For many, the American dream has become a nightmare.

But, not everybody is hurting. While the middle class disappears and poverty increases the wealthiest people in our country are not only doing extremely well, they are using their wealth and political power to protect and expand their very privileged status at the expense of everyone else. This upper-crust of extremely wealthy families are hell-bent on destroying the democratic vision of a strong middle-class which has made the United States the envy of the world. In its place they are determined to create an oligarchy in which a small number of families control the economic and political life of our country.

The 400 richest families in America, who saw their wealth increase by some $400 billion during the Bush years, have now accumulated $1.27 trillion in wealth. Four hundred families! During the last 15 years, while these enormously rich people became much richer their effective tax rates were slashed almost in half. While the highest paid 400 Americans had an average income of $345 million in 2007, as a result of Bush tax policy they now pay an effective tax rate of 16.6 percent, the lowest on record. Read on...

DOWNLOADS: (446)

PLAYS: (1059)

Embed

As quite a few took note of today, Eric Cantor finally admitted that extending the Bush tax cuts will increase the deficit during his appearance on MSNBC's The Daily Rundown. Now that Cantor has tried to change the conversation to job creation, Steve Benen made this point today...

Oddly enough, I consider this something of a breakthrough. For 18 months, Democrats, most notably President Obama, have said the deficit matters, but the state of the economy matters more. Republicans and their Tea Party base have argued the opposite, insisting that the deficit has to take priority; we're facing a debt crisis; etc.

Cantor's line, repeated as if it were obvious, puts Republicans in a different place -- if boosting the economy means "digging the hole deeper," so be it. I happen to agree wholeheartedly.

At this point, then, it's time for a different debate. For a year and a half, it's been economic growth vs. deficit reduction. Cantor is signaling a new argument -- economic growth through spending vs. economic growth through tax cuts.

Instead of arguing over whether to increase the deficit, Cantor seems prepared to concede the point, and argue deficit increases are unfortunately necessary. Democrats should welcome his new-found wisdom, and initiate a discussion over the efficacy of spending vs. the efficacy of tax cuts.

And David Dayden followed Benen's post with this.

He basically said, “Sure, less revenues theoretically increase the deficit, but we’re about getting people back to work, and low taxes for ‘job creators’ facilitates that.”

So I wouldn’t say he conceded the point so much as he raised a different one, a point which is equally wrong as the Laffer curve, incidentally. He claims that lower and lower taxes facilitates job creation. But the two Bush terms saw the lowest taxes for the wealthy, presumably the “job creators” Cantor is talking about. And those two terms saw the worst job creation in recorded American history going back to the Depression. This chart from the Wall Street Journal lays it out. Nobody since Hoover had worse annual job growth than George W. Bush, at a time when it was not at all expensive for “job creators” to make money.

I agree with Steve Benen that Cantor is conceding that the economy matters more than the deficit, a key bit of info. But if you think that paves the way for a legitimate discussion of these issues you haven’t seen one Washington Republican speak over the past decade.

Meanwhile, I’d rather pigeonhole Republicans along the lines of what Andrew Samwick asks of those still clinging to the idea that tax cuts raise revenue: if that’s the case, where does it end? Where does the Laffer curve bend? At what point do marginal tax rates, in this theory, end up becoming counter-productive and decreasing revenue?

I agree completely and if the Republicans want to make the argument that those Bush tax cuts created jobs, let them explain this chart.

DOWNLOADS: (733)

PLAYS: (2980)

Embed

Even Fox News' own poll says plurality of Americans want some Bush tax cuts to expire and one host just can't believe it.

50 percent of Americans favor letting taxes increase on at least the richest Americans, according to a Fox News and Opinion Dynamics survey taken July 27-28. 44 percent want to keep the lower tax rates for everyone.

Of the Americans that favored raising taxes on some Americans, 36 percent want to keep the tax cuts for people making less than $250,000 while 14 percent want to let all the Bush tax cuts expire.

"I'm astounded that a plurality there, 50 percent, said they should go up on some level," said Fox News host Alisyn Camerota Monday.

"Asking people if they like tax cuts is asking if they like chocolate ice cream. Everybody likes tax cuts yet 50 percent there -- if you added the bottom two categories together -- think there should be some tax hike of some kind," she explained.

Fox News host Steve Doocy took the opportunity to speak for Americans. "Because ultimately we would like to keep our own money because ultimately we don't trust Washington to spend it effectively," he said.

"Indeed," Camerota agreed. "That was your campaign speech. Nice."

DOWNLOADS: (972)

PLAYS: (4982)

Embed

I wonder if Sean Hannity fed Elisabeth Hasselbeck her talking points before President Obama appeared on The View this week? Hasselbeck got taken to school over jobs saved and unemployment by the President in this segment.

Hasselbeck: I want to get to something that’s really important to so many Americans. You had promised that the stimulus bill would cap unemployment at 8 percent. We’re at near 10 percent across the country, 12 percent in my home state of Rhode Island. We are in a state of chronic joblessness. Yet, and we heard in the beginning of the show as well, you claimed that there’s "saved jobs", something, a standard that’s not been used before by any administration. [Sigh]

It’s frustrating to hear that saved jobs boasting, because it doesn’t feel that way to Americans when they don’t have jobs and they’re losing jobs. How can you continue and your administration continue saying you’re saving jobs when in fact people are losing jobs?

Obama: Well, actually Elisabeth what’s happened is that we’ve gained private sector jobs for the last five months. So, we were losing jobs when I was sworn in, as I said 750,000 jobs per month. We’ve now gained jobs for five consecutive months in the private sector. You’re absolutely right that it’s not enough. And if you don’t have a job right now, the only answer you want to hear is "I’m hired".

Hasselbeck: Right.

Obama: So, the frustration that people have is entirely justified. Now, I have to tell you though, this isn’t just my standard, Elisabeth, or my administration’s standard. There was a report that came out by a couple of economists just today, including John McCain’s former economist, that said had we not taken the steps that we had took, you would have actually seen millions of more jobs lost and we would be in a Great Depression. So, I know that’s not satisfying and it’s not good enough. But...

Hasselbeck: I think it’s the word ‘saved’ is what’s troubling people cause they don’t feel it.

Obama: Well, it makes a difference though if your job is one of the one that was one of the ones that was saved.

Someone needs to ask Hannity in a skirt if she's seen Steve Benen's monthly jobs chart if she thinks that nothing's been done to improve things since President Obama came into office. Most on the left would argue that not enough has been done and we had a reversal in the trend last month but we're definitely moving away from the bottomless pit Bush was taking us into.

DOWNLOADS: (247)

PLAYS: (841)

Embed

Friend of and occasional contributor to Crooks and Liars Bob Cesca appeared on The Ed Schultz Show to discuss his recent column at The Huffington Post, The GOP Plot to Screw the Economy and the Middle Class. Great job Bob. I hope MSNBC gives you some more air time. Here's some of the beginning and end of Bob's post:

We're only three months away from the midterm election when a shockingly large number of American voters will inexplicably vote for Republican candidates. I have no idea if this will mean a Republican takeover of the House or Senate or both, but there will definitely be enough voter support for Republicans to significantly reduce the Democratic majorities in the House and Senate.

Why? Because too many voters tend to be low-information, knee-jerk Springfield-from-The-Simpsons types, and the Republicans have lashed their crazy trains to this new wave of inchoate roid-rage to help sweep them into more congressional seats.

[...]

Unless there's some sort of mass epiphany, or unless the Democrats actually speak up and take the discourse by the horns and fight, middle class American voters in November will augment the number of Republicans (and conservadems) in Congress mostly because they've been suckered into endorsing these insane Republican economic policies. Subsequently, the Republicans will balloon the deficit and undermine the economic recovery in order to give more handouts to the super rich. And the middle class will continue to be an accomplice in its own slow-roasted homicide.

Go read the whole thing here.

You can read more from Bob over at his place and at the HuffPo.

DOWNLOADS: (117)

PLAYS: (184)

Embed

Ed Henry points out the obvious about President Obama's poll numbers which is that once you have to start making decisions on how you're going to govern, there are people who are not going to be happy with those choices. What he glosses over here is the level of obstruction that the Republicans have chosen to use purely as a crass political tactic. Instead of explaining to the viewers the unprecedented use of the filibuster in the Senate, Henry merely says that the White House is "hoping" they can portray them as the party of "no". Maybe if the Ed Henry's of the world did their job and explained our political process to the viewers instead of everything being framed around the horse race and politics, they'd understand why the President has had a hard time getting any of his agenda which would satisfy the left passed.

VELSHI: Ed, you're around the president all the time. I mean this -- his campaign and his election can really be characterized by excitement. What happened to all that excitement surrounding the election of President Obama and why is he not -- either by choice or not -- drumming up that kind of enthusiasm leading up to the midterm elections or is it too early to say?

HENRY: You could probably boil it down to one word. Governing. Governing is just not as much fun, not as easy as it is, as Candy will tell you, as campaigning is. When you're out there, you're a rock star, you're sort of this new brand.

Once Barack Obama was elected president, all those campaign promises -- you know, liberals wanted to cash in on various things that are not so popular in the center of the country.

I think the enthusiasm gap they're hoping here at the White House will be closed once the president gets out there more on the road, once Bill Clinton -- they're planning on deploy him, the former president -- gets out there, they think they can drum up some enthusiasm.

And they're banking on one other thing that Paul will tell you about, as well Candy. That sort of behind the big picture numbers which is that, you noted that people don't trust the president, don't have faith in the president in some of these numbers, but they have even less faith in Congress.

When you dig down deeper, they have the least faith in Republicans in Congress and the White House believe that's because Republicans haven't put up a lot of alternatives to their plans on health care or Wall Street reform.

They're trying to paint the Republicans as the party of the no and basically say you can't get something with nothing and they're hoping here n the White House that over the next three months or so they convince the American people that they've taken some touch choices, the Democrats, some tough votes.

But at least they stood up to try to reform some things, fix this economy, et cetera. We'll see if that works.

DOWNLOADS: (245)

PLAYS: (294)

Embed

Cynthia Tucker does a good job of cutting through all of the typical Villager opining about President Obama's poll numbers and with whom he is in or out of favor. When it comes down to it, what Americans are concerned about is jobs and the economy. It kills me to hear the others on the panel talk about what decisions our politicians are making purely in terms of the optics and whether the policy decisions being made are going to harm the President or either party politically, rather than as Tucker does, framing the discussion as to how those decisions are going to affect people's lives.

Howard Fineman and Norah O'Donnell also both seem to think that President Obama should have been able to work miracles with this economy given the obstructionist Senate he's got to deal with and fail to lay the blame for the slow recovery on the Republicans who did their best to make sure the stimulus was watered down. Jobs should be the number one priority for the Democratic Party if they don't want to get hammered this November. The Republicans are well aware of this and doing their best to make sure as many people suffer as possible if it helps get them reelected.

Cynthia Tucker was exactly right here. Voters aren't going to care if someone calls the President an "activist" if they see what he's doing improving their individual lives and they're able to work and take care of their families. The rest of the bunch are just having an exercise in Villager navel-gazing.

Matthews: First up, oh the irony of it all. President Obama is in poll trouble today because many in the center think he’s done too much. Since the inauguration, Obama’s lost ground with independents on whether he’s got the right policy to be President, down 21 points with independents, the true centrists. But here’s the irony or contradiction, he’s also dropped among the liberals. Nine points; they think he hasn’t done enough.

And how about the Republicans? Another irony. They’re pounding the President on policy but only 26% of voters think Republicans would make good decisions themselves.

Howard, it’s purgatory for the President isn’t it? He seems to be damned for doing too much by the center, damned for not doing enough by the liberals.

Continue reading »