DOWNLOADS: (148)

PLAYS: (1532)

Embed

MSNBC's Chris Hayes slammed House Speaker John Boehner and the Republican party for being foolish enough to play a game of political suicide with this latest proposal of theirs called the Full Faith and Credit Act, which would, as Democrats have rightfully been going after them for, mean that the United States would pay China before paying our troops if Republicans decide to keep playing more games on raising the debt ceiling.

John Boehner On Debt Ceiling: Let's Pay China First, Then U.S. Troops:

House Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) on Tuesday essentially agreed with Democrats' arguments that a Republican bill to prioritize debt payments would put China before U.S. troops -- except he suggested that would be a good thing.

During an interview with Bloomberg TV, Boehner was asked about this week's vote on the Full Faith and Credit Act, which, in the event that the U.S hits its debt ceiling, would direct the treasury secretary to pay only the principal and interest owed to bondholders before making any other payments. Money for other payments, such as those for veterans, Medicare and national security, would have to be divvied up from what remained of the scarce federal funds.

Republican supporters of the bill maintain that the most important thing is that the nation won't default on its credit as as long as those interest payments are made on time.

"Our goal here is to get ourselves on a sustainable path from a fiscal standpoint," Boehner said. "I think doing a debt prioritization bill makes it clear to our bondholders that we’re going to meet our obligations."

When show host Peter Cook asked if Boehner's comments mean that, as Democrats have suggested, Republicans are basically choosing to pay China before paying U.S. troops, Boehner didn't disagree.

Republicans never cared about blowing mile wide holes in our budget until we got ourselves a Democrat elected as President. Now they're continuing to be willing to play with the full faith and credit of the United States government over a budget mess they helped to create to score political points with their wingnut base.

Rough transcript of Hayes letting them have it for this not only being bad policy, but really, really stupid politically below the fold.

Continue reading »

DOWNLOADS: (172)

PLAYS: (902)

Embed

Melissa Harris-Perry and her panel (which included Carmon Wong Ulrich, Dean Baker, Lisa Cook and Josh Barro) took on President Obama and his budget plan which includes ceding to the Republicans and their demand for chained CPI and explained why that proposal ought to be dead on arrival for Democrats who are concerned about the retirement security of average Americans.

This really was a welcomed change of pace from what we're generally treated to on the network, whether it be David Gregory asking just how much pain Democrats are willing to inflict on seniors, to the day after day drone on Morning Joe with Scarborough and his regulars demanding a pound of flesh from seniors as well, to Chris Matthews going after Democrats who don't want to go along with cuts to our social safety nets unreasonable.

It really would be nice to see their daytime lineup during the week, and Scarborough's three hour nightmare every morning filled up with conversations more like this one, but that's not likely to happen any time soon.

HARRIS-PERRY: The budget plan President Obama presented this week makes another push toward a grand bargain with an inclusion of an enticement to Republicans that had so far been off the table in the deficit battle, a proposal to take a scalpel to Social Security. His plan would limit the benefits paid to seniors by charting the calculation for inflation -- changing the calculation for inflation, to cut the growth of monthly Social Security payments in the future. So instead of tying the increases to the consumer price index, the President's budget would change it to a different calculation called chained CPI.

And while his budget exempts the oldest and the poorest of Social Security recipients, it would cause 65 year old retirees to lose more than a thousand dollars a year by the time they reach age 85, which far more of them are now going to reach.

House Republicans for their part, have refused to take the bait. But the plan has sparked resistance from within the President's own party as progressives launch an organized campaign against the proposal. So I mean, I mean I know what second term presidents are supposed do. They're supposed to touch the third rail that nobody else can. They're never run for election again. But this one has been tough.

ULRICH: Why are we picking on old people? Why are we nickel and diming our seniors who can't afford this? A thousand dollars a year, that can pay for prescriptions, prescription coverage that's not covered by the government, because in retirement, more than a third of your costs are going to be related to health care. $200,000 on average for seniors in their senior lifetime. It's crazy.

HARRIS-PERRY: And with baby boomers being where they are in their life cycle right now, we've got a lot of seniors, if everybody is going to stop smoking, even more old people, right, and so we know this is a huge population and I think part of the conversation has been, what are we going to do with all of these retirees, and this is one answer.

BAKER: You know, it really is outrageous I think, because the presumption is that somehow seniors have too much money. And you know, Josh actually wrote a nice piece on this a little while back. Our retirement system collapsed. We don't have defined benefit pensions any longer. Most people have little by way of savings. We know that a lot of people took a big hit on their homes with the collapse of the housing bubble. Social Security has been the one pillar of retirement income that's stood up. If anything we should looking into expanding it. So, I mean, this is just you know, the Washington Post loves this. But apart from the Washington punditry --

Continue reading »

DOWNLOADS: (102)

PLAYS: (596)

Embed

Last week the chairman of the National Republican Congressional Committee, Rep. Greg Walden went on the air and spilled the beans about what their strategy for the mid-term elections was going to be if the Democrats were foolish to go along with President Obama's concession to Republicans, where he agreed to give them the chained CPI they've been demanding on Social Security cost of living increases. This Sunday on Meet the Press, the NYT's David Brooks wanted the viewers to believe that was only a one-off.

Never mind that they've done exactly that same thing in the last mid-term election, this time it's not going to happen, because John Boehner told him so.

DAVID GREGORY: I've only got a couple minutes left. I want to throw the budget out here, as well, during its part over Washington's deal with-- David Brooks, the criticism from Republicans of President Obama was that he wasn't taking entitlements seriously. Now he's talking about reducing the benefits of Social Security over time. And here was a key Republican who had called upon him to do that this week, and his response to the President's budget was the following.

(Videotape)

Rep. Greg Walden (R-OR): His budget really lays out kind of a shocking attack on seniors if you will.

(End videotape)

DAVID GREGORY: (LAUGHTER) Here's the head of the Republican Committee to Reelect Republicans in the House saying, "We asked you to do this, but now you've done it, and why are you going after seniors?"

DAVID BROOKS: Well, that was opportunism on stilts. (CHUCKLE) But I think he was more or less alone. I talked to some House leadership people. And they're still, "We should do reform." And so I think what Obama did is the right thing to do, but it was too small.

Essentially, we've got this widening inequality problem. We've got wave stagnation. 52% of the kids born out of wedlock to moms under 30-- are born out of wedlock. And discretionary spending, all the domestic programs, health, education, welfare, that's going down to Eisenhower levels under this budget.

So I wish you'd be a little more aggressive on entitlements so we can be spending the money on young families instead of affluent seniors. And he does do that. He gets-- he goes-- takes a tiny step in that direction--

Of course Brooks believes we've only got two choices, which is either sticking it to seniors or children, as opposed to one other choice he doesn't mention -- like raising his taxes.

And note to David Brooks. Social Security doesn't add one dime to the deficit. And dismantling our social safety nets is not "reforming" them.

DOWNLOADS: (146)

PLAYS: (886)

Embed

Nothing like watching a bunch of overpaid, millionaire pundits yucking it up and having a grand old time discussing whether the administration has happily thrown their base under the bus with -- no regard for the lives of those who would be affected by these policy changes.

That's exactly what the audience was treated to on this Friday's Morning Joe on MSNBC. These millionaire pundits probably would not find the hippie punching so humorous if any of of them thought they might have to rely on Social Security to get by in their old age.

Carville: I Think Obama Likes Angering Liberals (VIDEO):

Democratic strategist James Carville said Friday that he doesn't think President Barack Obama is sweating the criticisim he's taken from his liberal base over a budget proposal that includes cuts to Social Security.

Appearing on MSNBC's "Morning Joe," Carville said he thinks Obama relishes the commendation he's received from deficit hawks like New York Times columnist David Brooks and host Joe Scarborough. Asked by co-host Mike Barnicle how the President will respond to the outrage from the left-wing of the Democratic Party, Carville was blunt.

"I think he likes that," Carville said. "I don't think he's upset. He got a very favorable Washington Post editorial. 'Morning Joe,' very favorable commentary right here. I guarantee you if he's up watching this right now. Got a good David Brooks column. He's kind of excited this morning. This is kind of important to him."

But Carville added that the White House is not "totally out of bounds" with its budget, arguing that the proposal will "throw the Republicans off" and that Obama is desperate to strike a grand bargain with the GOP.

DOWNLOADS: (225)

PLAYS: (2543)

Embed

MSNBC analyst and former Obama advisor David Axelrod may not have been too happy with Rachel Maddow for her response to President Obama putting Social Security cuts on the table with his budget proposal, but she was exactly right here. The White House seems to want a fight with the left, because if what they were really worried was solvency of the system, they'd put raising the income cap on the table.

After Axelrod did a terrible job of attempting to explain why the administration actually believes this is somehow a good idea and claiming that what they're worried about is preserving the programs and economic growth, Maddow responded.

MADDOW: I believe you that he believes in his budget, but I think that if what he really believes in is Social Security benefit cuts, he's going to feel the ground beneath his feet give way. And I think this is the start that ends badly on the Democratic party (crosstalk).

After Axelrod tried to pretend that progressives “want to do nothing” and just leave the programs exactly as they are now, Maddow shot back.

MADDOW: Nobody's saying do nothing. That's not fair. Nobody's saying do... nobody's saying do nothing. First of all, Social Security isn't the problem with the deficit. Second of all, there is a way to fix it that has nothing to do with starving old people now or in the immediate future.

You have people pay more. And then your system is solved. If you wanted to approach it toward just solvency, that would be one of the things that's on the table. For the Democrats to not put that on the table and say it's all about solvency and not the politics, I just don't buy it.

He walked back some of his previous comments and brought up Medicare and Medicaid solvency, rather than just sticking to the issue of Social Security. He could have defended other portions of the budget such as spending on education and research and development. But after admitting that he's aware that the Republicans are already attacking the Social Security cuts, Axelrod said let's see what their position is in the coming weeks and months -- when they attempt to defend their “indefensible” budget.

Maddow was again correct in her response when she told him that their position in the upcoming weeks and months was going to be exactly where they are now. I'd say you can take that one to the bank. Good for her for calling the administration out for how cynical the politics of this move has been.

DOWNLOADS: (110)

PLAYS: (470)

Embed

Who didn't see this cynical move coming? President Obama offers up cuts to Social Security benefits that Republicans want and they immediately turn around and attack him for it. They've done it before, so there's no reason to believe they weren't going to do it again.

It's terrible policy and as this so clearly illustrates, terrible politics as well: Fiscal frauds:

Okay, if this isn’t the clarifying moment we’ve been waiting for, nothing will ever be.

This afternoon on CNN, GOP Rep. Greg Walden, the chairman of the NRCC, opened fire on Obama’s budget by claiming it is an assault on seniors:

“I’ll tell you when you’re going after seniors the way he’s already done on Obamacare, taken $700 billion out of Medicare to put into Obamacare and now coming back at seniors again, I think you’re crossing that line very quickly here in terms of denying access to seniors for health care in districts like mine certainly and around the country,” he said on CNN Wednesday afternoon.

This makes it all but certain that Republicans will use Obama’s Chained CPI proposal to attack Democrats in the 2014 elections for cutting Social Security. Brian Beutler points out that this vindicates the warnings of those on the left who predicted this would happen. [...]

But I wanted to focus on another aspect of what this attack from Walden tells us.

For one thing, it directly contradicts what GOP leaders themselves said earlier today. Remember, John Boehner and Eric Cantor effectively endorsed Chained CPI by claiming we should proceed with those cuts while not raising taxes. Boehner said Obama “deserves some credit” for embracing it. But now the NRCC chair is calling it an assault on seniors?

You could not illustrate the farcical nature of the GOP position on all this more perfectly.

This is what happens when you try to negotiate with hypocrites who don't care if they're talking out of both sides of their mouth at the same time.

Full transcript below the fold.

Continue reading »

From Thom Hartmann's radio show this Wednesday: Rep. Alan Grayson: No Chained CPI!:

Thom Hartmann talks with Representative Alan Grayson, U.S. Congressman (D-FL) about President Obama's budget proposal which includes cuts to Social Security.

Sign the petition here: NoCuts:

29 members of Congress have pledged to vote against legislation that cuts Social Security, Medicaid or Medicare benefits. Join us. If 100,000 of us sign this petition, I will deliver it to the White House.

Alan

DOWNLOADS: (540)

PLAYS: (6874)

Embed

Bill Maher wound up his New Rules segment on this Friday evening's Real Time by going after today's crop of Ayn Rand worshiping Libertarians in a rant where Maher basically said he didn't leave Libertarianism, it left him. As he noted, even though he's expressed support for the philosophy in the past, it was because it "meant he didn't want big government my bedroom, or my medicine chest and especially not on the second drawer of the nightstand on the left side of my bed."

I'm sure he'll have all of the Ron and Rand Paul supporters mad at him after he lumped them in with their fellow Ayn Rand fan, Paul Ryan, for basically taking the movement and turning it into a “creepy obsession with free market capitalism.”

Maher thinks the movement has basically lost its collective mind these days, and I would argue you could say the same for the Republican party as well, which as a whole has adopted these very same "principles" if you want to be generous enough to call them that.

Continue reading »

DOWNLOADS: (50)

PLAYS: (283)

Embed

You can add Liz Cheney's name to the list of Republicans that aren't in any mood to help poor old Reince and the rest of them out with their latest farce of a "rebranding" effort. As Steve Benen noted, Cheney's op-ed in Rupert Murdoch's rag this week is laughably delusional. I'd qualify that by saying it would be were it not for the fact that this woman is actually taken seriously by so many: Cheney slips further down the rabbit hole:

The point of Liz Cheney's Wall Street Journal op-ed today is fairly predictable and not altogether uncommon among far-right activists -- she wants the Republican Party to resist the urge to become more mainstream, and instead "fight" harder against the GOP's real and imagined enemies. But in execution, Cheney's piece is a rather extraordinary work of delusion.

Jon Chait highlights some of the more glaring problems with the op-ed -- he uses it to argue, persuasively, that Cheney is "obviously stark raving mad" -- which reads like a bizarre rant from a partisan so filled with rage towards President Obama that reason was thrown out the window when the writer made a right-hand turn into Crazy Town. Cheney is certain, for reasons that remain mysterious, that Obama has "launched a war on Americans' Second Amendment rights," is deliberately sabotaging capitalism, and wants to destroy the nation's global standing on purpose.

It's a truly ridiculous tirade with all the sophistication and accuracy of a Breitbart comments section. But there's also an unintentionally amusing part -- Cheney's unhinged rant includes this Ronald Reagan quote from 1961:

"Freedom is never more than one generation away from extinction. We didn't pass it on to our children in the bloodstream. The only way they can inherit the freedom we have known is if we fight for it, protect it, defend it and then hand it to them with the well-taught lessons of how they in their lifetime must do the same. And if you and I don't do this, then you and I may well spend our sunset years telling our children and our children's children what it once was like in America when men were free."

This is, to be sure, a popular quote on the right, and if it seems familiar to long-time readers, it's because I've written about it several times before.

In this case, however, Cheney forgot to look up the context in which Reagan made these comments before relying on it. Indeed, note that at one point in the quote, Reagan said, "And if you and I don't do this," although in Cheney's piece, there's no frame of reference to tell the reader what "this" is.

And what was Reagan referring to at the time? I'm glad you asked. "This" was referring to preventing the creation of Medicare. [...]

And so, freedom-loving Americans had to stop Medicare or we "may well spend our sunset years telling our children and our children's children what it once was like in America when men were free."

Yes, that evil Medicare that's going to enslave everyone, just like, as Steve also noted, Social Security, and now "Obamacare." Chait's column which Steve referenced is worth a full read as well which you can find here: Liz Cheney Is Even More Bonkers Than We Suspected.

Emily Arrowood and Simon Maloy also took the op-ed apart over at Media Matters: Liz Cheney: Get Over 2012 And Start Embracing Romneyism :

Continue reading »

DOWNLOADS: (228)

PLAYS: (2544)

Embed

On this Friday's Real Time with Bill Maher, documentary filmmaker Alexandra Pelosi was once again sent out to do interviews for the show, this time in New Jersey in the aftermath of Hurricane Sandy. After watching so many of these so-called "tea partiers" who were out there waving signs saying to keep the government's hands off of their Medicare during the health care debate debacle, the responses here were not that surprising.

In the end, none of the people she talked to wanted to have Social Security, Medicare, education, unemployment insurance, hurricane relief or anything else cut to balance the budget. About the only thing they agreed on was cutting Congressional salaries and foreign aid, which as Maher rightfully noted when the segment was over, doesn't do anything to balance the federal budget.

The cognitive dissonance on display was disheartening, but sadly, not unexpected or surprising. Tragically, what was also missing was any meaningful follow up on the fact that Social Security doesn't add a dime to the deficit or about the root causes of what's driving up health care costs and what can be done to help lower the deficit without destroying our social safety nets, which even self proclaimed "tea party" members don't want to see happen when it affects their own lives.