DOWNLOADS: (154)

PLAYS: (1670)

Embed

I'm not sure what the producers of MSNBC's UP with Steve Kornacki felt that Grover Norquist's Americans for Tax Reform's Mattie Duppler was going to add to the debate on this Sunday's show, but after watching her on there, apparently it was to keep the rest of the guests busy debunking the endless string of lies she told during her time on the panel.

During a discussion ranging from what percentage of GDP is needs to be taxed, to the size and scope of government, to whether Americans even know what the federal government spends money on, or how many people realize that President Obama has lowered their taxes, the conversation got a bit contentious when Duppler trotted out the old "because of Obama, government spending is out of control" canard.

After the Center for American Progress' Neera Tanden made the point that the central thesis of Republicans' economic strategy has been tax cuts, and that it has been proven that tax cuts don't produce economic growth, here's Duppler's response.

DUPPLER: That's not the central thesis of the Republican party. It is one of the tenets of the Republican party. (crosstalk) But you also have explosive government growth. You've got government spending that's out of control and that...

JOHNSTON: It's not out of control. […] The government is rapidly shrinking under Obama.

DUPPLER: After he exploded it. After he increased spending by eighty-four percent. I mean, seriously, this is laughable that you're telling me that are just (crosstalk).

JOHNSTON: This would put us into a depression. You want to put us into a depression. (crosstalk).

NADLER: This is the central lie...

DUPPLER: I'm challenging your assertion that the deficit and the size of government is shrinking after Obama and congressional Democrats took spending and the size of government to all time highs.

NADLER: This is the central lie... this is the central lie of our political debate right now... what you just said.

JOHNSTON: Absolutely.

NADLER: The fact is, what happened to our deficit is, after it was cut... after it went up because of the Bush tax cuts and the wars and everything, since Obama took office, remember, the CBO before Obama took office said the 2009 deficit was going to be $1.4 trillion and it was. Why? And it was hugely increased. Why? Because when you get a recession, you get a depression such as we were in, two things happen.

One, revenues plummet, taxes plummet. People aren't working. They don't pay taxes, number one. And so taxes plummeted. And number two, automatic spending on unemployment insurance and on food stamps goes up because more people don't have money to eat with...

JOHNSTON: And Jerry, if you don't have part two, that you did, that's when you get the great depression.

After Duppler continued to insist that from a "small government perspective" government spending is still too high, David Cay Johnston reminded her of just what that philosophy is going to cost us.

JOHNSTON: We are going to be poorer in the future because we are cutting spending on basic research. The cell phones that we all have have grown from government spending in the past. The jet airplanes we fly come from government spending, the computers we use, the math in them, all come from government spending. [...] We need to be spending money on government research, development and education and Republicans want to cut all that.

After Duppler said she wanted to know how we were supposed to fund these things, Tanden pointed out the obvious... paying taxes. Duppler pretended that cutting taxes was not "the central tenet" of the Republican party, but thanks to her group, that's exactly what it's been.

If anyone would like a change of pace from the typical debates we've seen over this "fiscal cliff" deal and who made out and who didn't, the upcoming debacle over raising the debt ceiling and what's really lead to the lack of upward mobility and record income disparity in the United States, I'd highly recommend you set aside some time to watch at least the first few segments from Up With Chris Hayes from this Saturday.

Unlike most of the brain-draining discussions we're treated to on the majority of our corporate media and despite the presence of guest Veronique de Rugy appearing again in less than a month on Hayes' show, I don't think most of our readers here will be disappointed with the discussions that went on.

As Hayes has been talking about for some time now, if you really want to know who our members of Congress represent, forget the rhetoric and look at how they vote and who they protect when we see them finally act and not just what we hear them saying during their posturing on television. As was pointed out during the discussions here, despite the fact that President Obama talked about protecting the middle class in this deal, most Americans are going to see their taxes go up with the expiration of the payroll tax holiday.

As the panel members discussed during the segments, there was bipartisan agreement on that for some good reasons, like not wanting to undermine the integrity of the Social Security trust fund. But as was also noted, that should have been replaced with a renewal of the Making Work Pay tax credit, which you can read more about here: Making Work Pay vs. the payroll tax cut, in two charts.

Sadly, our Congress is still showing themselves to be more worried about their rich campaign donors and this deal to make it through their last round of Shock Doctrine governance was no exception.

You can read more on all of this from Hayes' blog here and more video below the fold: The fiscal cliff deal: A tax hike for the real middle class:

Continue reading »

DOWNLOADS: (100)

PLAYS: (288)

Embed

On this week's Fox News Sunday, Bill Kristol suggests that the Occupy Wall Street protesters need to have an "electoral strategy" and help to defeat Democratic legislators in primary races, just like their AstroTurf "tea party" so heavily promoted by Fox did. Naturally no one else on the panel reminded him that the people out there in the OWS movement protesting, don't have any of that Koch brothers money funding them.

This was also yet another example of the very derisive type of coverage of the OWS movement we've seen from Fox in general, and where most of them were dismissive of the idea that anyone on the Democratic side of the aisle either will or should pay attention to the protesters concerns, or just more or less mocking them as Kristol was doing here. It really is just night and day from their fawning promotion of the "tea party" protests and whether or not Republican legislators should have paid attention to them.

WALLACE: What do you think of how the two parties are playing this?

KRISTOL: I think Republicans should be quiet. I mean, these are demonstrations against the party in power, which last I looked, was the Obama administration. They hate the current regulation of Wall Street which is being governed by a law called Dodd-Frank. Last I looked, Dodd was a Democratic senator and Frank was a Democratic congressman.

Wall Street is represented by a Democratic congressman, Jerrold Nadler. So I'd say Republicans and conservatives should step aside and let the left fight this out. I mean, who knew the left was suffering from such Tea Party envy? That's what strikes me.

They want their own Tea Party. You read these leftist columnists, they need the energy.

Weren't we being told a year ago or even a few months ago that the Tea Party was the worst thing that could have happened to the Republican Party, it's a bunch of extremists, it's going to destroy the Republican Party? And now they realize that, because the Tea Party strengthened conservatism, and they wish they had their own version of it.

But, what did the Tea Party do? This is A.B. -- what did the Tea Party actually do in 2009 and 2010? They defeated a whole bunch of Republicans in primaries, right? They elected people, or, in some cases, defeated people that didn't win in the general.

They had real electoral clout. And if I were running Occupy Wall Street, they need to defeat. They need to defeat Senator Gillibrand in the Democratic primary in New York, or Congressman Nadler in the Democratic primary in lower Manhattan, or someone.

WALLACE: And move the party to the left?

KRISTOL: Yes, they can't -- otherwise, it's just talk. I mean, they need to have an electoral strategy.

Full transcript available here.

Rep. Jerrold Nadler joined the set of Chris Hayes' new show, Up With Chris Hayes on MSNBC this Sunday morning to talk about President Obama's proposal to increase the tax rate on millionaires and a bill he's going to be introducing this week that should end this hostage taking we've seen from Republicans on the debt ceiling.

Here's more from The Hill on that -- House Dems introduce bill to eliminate debt ceiling:

Three congressional Democrats are introducing a bill Wednesday that would abolish the federal debt ceiling. The lawmakers say that the recent debate to raise the ceiling and avoid default had a "disastrous" effect on the U.S economy, and that the legislation would keep parties from using a potential default as a hostage in future budget debates.

"The debt ceiling is truly arbitrary and has nothing to do with the deficit," Rep. Jerrold Nadler (D-N.Y.) said in a statement last Wednesday. "The debt ceiling does not prevent the United States from incurring new debts. That occurs when Congress decides to authorize more spending than revenues. The debt ceiling prevents the president from borrowing money to pay those debts when they come due."

Virginia Democrat Jim Moran and Georgia Democrat Hank Johnson will join Nadler in introducing the legislation. But the bill is unlikely to gain traction, especially in the Republican-controlled House. Members of the GOP were encouraged that they were able to use the debt ceiling as leverage to attain deep budget cuts during negotiations with President Obama and the Senate. [...]

“Republicans in Congress have shown they are willing to hold the fate of our economy hostage by using the debt ceiling as a political weapon. It’s a tactic that has far ranging effects, disrupting financial markets, damaging the peoples’ trust in government and delaying consideration of must-pass legislation to create jobs and get our economy back on track," Moran said.

DOWNLOADS: (1011)

PLAYS: (3374)

Embed

Rep. Jerrold Nadler appeared with his fellow New York Rep. Peter King to discuss plans to build the Islamic center and mosque near ground zero on CNN's State of the Union. Nadler made a few really great points during this segment which more Democrats need to be repeating. The people opposed to the center being built are conflating Al Qaida with Islam, no one is objecting to the mosque in the Pentagon, the people who want to build the center already have a mosque a few blocks away which no one objected to and we don't put the Bill of Rights and religious freedom up to a vote.

He also said he'd respect the Republicans' sincerity on the issue if they'd voted to take care of the first responders instead of playing politics with the health of those that rushed into those buildings on 9-11. I couldn't agree more.

NADLER: Well, I certainly appreciate the sensitivities of some of the families of 9/11. There are others who have expressed support for it. The press has concentrated on those who have opposed it. But frankly, ground zero is hallowed ground. Two blocks away, first of all, is not so hallowed ground. Second of all, we should not -- government officials should not be in a position of pressuring people where to build their mosque or their church or whatever.

Third of all, as much as I respect the sensitivities of people, there is a fundamental mistake behind it, and that is how can you -- and I can quote any number of some of the people who have commented on it, and what they are saying essentially is how can you put a mosque there when, after all, Muslims attacked us on 9/11, and this is ripping open a wound?

Well, the fallacy is that Al Qaida attacked us. Islam did not attack us. Islam, like Christianity, like Judaism, like other religions, has many different people, some of whom regard other adherents of the religion as heretics of one sort or another.

It is only insensitive if you regard Islam as the culprit, as opposed to as the culprit. We were not attacked by all Muslims. And there were Muslims who were killed there, there were Muslims who were killed there. There were Muslims who ran in as first responders to help. And we cannot take any position like that.

Continue reading »

DOWNLOADS: (224)

PLAYS: (481)

Embed

From The Ed Schultz Show, Jerrold Nadler says the appointment of a Special Prosecutor doesn't go far enough and that the law is that when torture occurs under American jurisdiction there must be an investigation of everyone who may have been involved and if warranted prosecutions. Nadler expressed concern that we aren't being aggressive enough and limiting the investigations too much. He also adds this:

Nadler: We are well into territory already, where because of the pardon of Nixon after Watergate and the people around him, because of in the Iran Contra, we're getting into territory where it becomes taken for granted that high officials can violate the law and get away with it.

Schultz: Yep.

Nadler: If high officials violated the law here, if Cheney did, if Rice did, etc., they've got to be prosecuted to show that no one is above the law.

I agree with his point that no one is above the law. I disagree that we're "getting into territory" where high officials take it for granted that they will never be held accountable for their law breaking. We're well past that point now.

April 21, 2009 MSNBC Countdown

DOWNLOAD (211)

PLAY (324)

You Tube

Jerrold Nadler on Countdown discussing what will be done if Karl Rove again refuses to honor subpoenas and appear before Congress.

DOWNLOAD (75)

PLAY (215)

You Tube

Keith talks to Rep. Jerrold Nadler about Rove's claims of executive privilege and what the process will be if he again refuses to appear before Congress, this time with a new Attorney General's office to enforce contempt charges.

DOWNLOAD (173)

PLAY (287)

From Democracy Now Dec. 23, 2008.

AMY GOODMAN: Our guest is Congressman Jerrold Nadler. He represents New York’s Eighth Congressional District. It goes from the Upper West Side down right to Ground Zero.

REP. JERROLD NADLER: To, in fact, Coney Island.

AMY GOODMAN: In Brooklyn.

REP. JERROLD NADLER: Yes.

AMY GOODMAN: Speaking of districts, are you interested in the Senate seat?

REP. JERROLD NADLER: Certainly.

AMY GOODMAN: And what is the politics that goes on behind this?

REP. JERROLD NADLER: Well, that’s very hard to know. This is an appointment. It’s entirely internal to Governor Paterson’s head. So one doesn’t really know what the politics is. Obviously, the people supporting Senator—I’m sorry, the people supporting Caroline Kennedy think that a public campaign would be helpful. Other candidates have not been doing it. I have not been doing a public campaign. And no one really knows.

AMY GOODMAN: Have you talked to Governor Paterson privately?

REP. JERROLD NADLER: Yes.

AMY GOODMAN: And do you think Caroline Kennedy is qualified to be senator?

REP. JERROLD NADLER: Well, that’s up to Governor Paterson to decide, and I’m not going to comment on that. All I’ll say is that I think that’s the wrong question, and the press has been asking the wrong question. The question should not be is Caroline Kennedy or any other individual, for that matter, qualified, because the assumption there is if you meet the certain minimum qualification, you’re entitled to the seat. The question ought to be the same question anyone hiring someone for any responsible job would ask, and that is, is this person the most qualified of all the available candidates? That’s the relevant question.

AMY GOODMAN: And why do you think you’re the most qualified?

REP. JERROLD NADLER: Well, I think all the candidates think they’re the most qualified. I think my record in Congress is a very progressive and forward-looking record. I think I’ve shown very good judgment. I was one of the few downstate people who voted against the war, against the PATRIOT Act. I’ve taken a leadership role on civil liberties, on economic development. And I led the battle against the—I led the battle for eight years against the Bankruptcy, so-called, Reform Act of 2005, which we now recognize as probably responsible for maybe a third of the foreclosures that are going on in this country.

AMY GOODMAN: Which Vice President-elect Joe Biden championed.

REP. JERROLD NADLER: Well, he supported it. About a third of the Democrats in the House voted for it. And I think my record on economic development in New York, in terms of port development and transportation, has been a very far-seeing record. But, you know, all of this is for the Governor to weigh, and other candidates have other merits and other accomplishments, and he’s got to weigh all of them.

AMY GOODMAN: In terms of how you fit in with the new Obama administration, the path you’re taking now, pushing, for example, 1531, which would—well, which urges President Bush not to pardon people, this is not the path of the Obama administration.

REP. JERROLD NADLER: Well, we don’t know what the path of the Obama administration is, as I said earlier. We will see. I certainly hope that the new administration will recognize, and there are comments from the President-elect and from Eric Holder, who’s going to be the new Attorney General, and from other people, all over the lot on this, frankly, so it’s impossible to predict. But I would hope that they would recognize a necessity to investigate whether crimes were committed and, if they were, to prosecute them, and not—more to the point, not to hold high government officials automatically exempt from the normal processes of justice, because to do that is to loosen the bonds that protect us all.