DOWNLOADS: (149)

PLAYS: (1539)

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: (64)

PLAYS: (331)

Embed

So much for those claims that unlike their "opinion" shows in the evening, Fox' daytime programming is supposed to be "straight news" reporting, but then, we all knew that was ridiculous before this incident: Fox News Anchor Shouts Down Criticism Of Ryan Budget:

Fox News host Bill Hemmer tried to shout down Rep. Chris Van Hollen’s (D-MD) criticism of the GOP budget on Tuesday morning by loudly reading from Rep. Paul Ryan’s (R-WI) editorial promoting the newly-released Republican plan.

Hemmer dismissed Van Hollen’s claims that Ryan’s proposal would benefit the richest Americans while severely underfunding programs like Medicare, Medicaid, and food stamps as “talking points” and claimed that the plan would make the government “healthier.” Then, as Van Hollen explained that steep cuts in spending would undermine job growth, Hemmer proceeded to angrily read from Ryan’s Wall Street Journal opinion piece.

As Van Hollen told Hemmer at the end of the interview, reading from Ryan's Wall Street Journal editorial to argue his points isn't exactly "fair and balanced." Media Matters has more where they break down all of the Republican talking points Hemmer was regurgitating here: Fox Regurgitates False Talking Points To Defend Ryan Budget . It's a long list, so go read the whole thing.

DOWNLOADS: (125)

PLAYS: (738)

Embed

To this day, I cannot honestly tell if President Obama has been offering up things like chained CPI to Republicans because he is hoping to put them in a box and make them look completely unreasonable, knowing full well they're never going to go along with tax increases in exchange, or if he is cynical enough to think that going after the benefits of the elderly and the poor are going to go unnoticed by voters if they are willing to negotiate with Republicans, destroy the Democratic brand on New Deal social safety nets and marginalize the progressive base of the Democratic party.

The most generous read is that he's playing a dangerous game of politics and forcing Republicans to defend policies which are extremely unpopular with the public and putting himself out there as the "reasonable" middle in the hopes that most voters aren't watching the Kabuki theatre well enough to follow along. The worst is that he actually believes cutting benefits to seniors is some "balanced" approach to reducing our deficit when we've got record income disparity in America.

I am equally as perplexed and as irritated that Rep. Chris Van Hollen didn't give former Bush OMB director Sen. Rob Portman some pushback on this Sunday's Face the Nation when he played the Social Security-is-insolvent game, pretended that it adds to the deficit, when it doesn't, and conflated Social Security with Medicare and Medicaid.

They have their own set of problems that have nothing to do with Social Security, but everything to do with the fact that America has a healthcare crisis (whether it's government programs or private insurance) that Portman and his ilk in the Republican party refuse to do anything to remedy.

If Portman would like to "educate" the public, how about we start by not allowing him to lie to them?

It's also really disheartening to watch someone like Portman come on the air and fear-monger over deficits when the administration he worked for is largely responsible for the one we have now and not have that brought up to them. Every time one of them complains about that "Obama deficit," these charts should be shown on the air to rebut them.

Sadly, we're putting up with not just the media, but the Democratic leadership that isn't interested in challenging most of the GOP's lies when they come on the air. If anyone would like to contact Rep. Van Hollen's office to ask him why he's not willing to challenge Republicans when they lie about Social Security, here is his office's contact information.

Full transcript below the fold.

Continue reading »

DOWNLOADS: (154)

PLAYS: (968)

Embed

Rep. Jim Jordan (R-OH) says that gun buyers should face background checks for concealed carry handgun permits but not assault rifles because "it's about freedom."

During a Sunday interview on Fox News, Rep. Chris Van Hollen (D-MD) explained to guest host John Roberts that even people on the terrorist watch list could purchase assault rifles like the Bushmaster AR-15 that was used to slaughter 20 children in Newtown, Connecticut.

Jordan, however, insisted that "more restrictions on law-abiding Americans is not going to prevent these kind of tragedies."

"We've got to remember the Second Amendment is about freedom," Jordan opined. "And that's what we've got to focus on as we move forward. If there's ways outside of this [background check proposal] that we can help address the situation, fine. But we've got to remember it's about freedom. And, frankly, you've got to remember that bad guys aren't stupid, they're just bad."

"This isn't about restricting people, this is about common-sense provisions," Van Hollen replied. "For example, right now we have a background check but there are big loopholes in the background check. Do you want to get rid of the background checks, the criminal background checks?"

Jordan noted that he had supported background checks and training courses for concealed carry permits.

"So, why not make that universal?" Van Hollen wondered. "Let's join each other in making sure we get rid of the loophole, so that everybody that purchases a gun must have a background check. Would you support that?"

"You've got to remember what the Second Amendment is about: It's about freedom," Jordan remarked.

"So if you've broken the law and committed a violent act, you should be able to go out and buy a semi-automatic assault weapon?" Van Hollen pressed.

"You shouldn't be able to get a concealed carry permit, that's for darn sure," Jordan quipped without answering the question.

DOWNLOADS: (134)

PLAYS: (694)

Embed

House Republicans are pushing to amend the "fiscal cliff" deal that just passed in the Senate, but as Rep. Barney Frank told TPM, "if House Republicans amend the Senate bill to include spending cuts, they'll effectively kill the deal.":

"If they do, that'll kill the package," he said after a Democratic caucus meeting.

"I would not predict what these people will try to do because they are in thrall to extremists," Frank said. "But if they amend this I don't know how they think they -- an amendment basically says, our ideology is too rigid and we're not really trying to really [reach a deal]."

Speaker John Boehner's (R-OH) office said his members have expressed "universal concern" with the agreement's lack of spending cuts. Rumors on Capitol Hill are that the House GOP is considering amending the legislation and sending it back to the Senate.

House Democratic leaders demanded an up-or-down vote on the Senate deal on Tuesday afternoon.

Rep. Chris Van Hollen (D-MD) declined to discuss whether a GOP amendment to include spending cuts would threaten the bill.

"Look, the country deserves an up or down vote on the compromise bipartisan bill that passed the Senate," he told TPM. "What we're calling for is an up or down vote. Let democracy work its will. ... Let's just take this step by step."

Here's more from The Hill: Senate-passed 'fiscal cliff' agreement in trouble in House:

Continue reading »

DOWNLOADS: (57)

PLAYS: (132)

Embed

The House Democrats took a page out of Bill Frist's playbook, calling for an up or down vote on the legislation that passed in the Senate on New Years Eve: House Dem Leaders Call For Vote On Senate Fiscal Cliff Deal:

House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) called on GOP leadership to hold a "straight up or down vote" on the Senate-passed legislation to avert the fiscal cliff.

Flanked by Democratic leaders, she told reporters in the Capitol that Speaker John Boehner (R-OH) has a duty to permit a floor vote in order to prevent middle class taxes from rising.

And we're hearing noise on the other side about killing the deal with Eric Cantor saying he's against it: Cantor Opposes Fiscal Cliff Deal:

House Majority Leader Eric Cantor (R-VA) came out against the fiscal cliff deal passed by the Senate, according to Republican members in attendance at a closed-door meeting of the House GOP conference Tuesday afternoon.

And his fellow House members aren't happy about the spending in the bill: Boehner Aide: GOP Members Concerned With Lack Of Spending Cuts In Senate Bill:

House Republicans expressed "universal concern" with the lack of spending cuts in the fiscal cliff deal passed overwhelmingly by the Senate, said Speaker John Boehner's spokesman Brendan Buck.

"The Speaker and Leader laid out options to the members and listened to feedback," Buck said in an emailed statement. "The lack of spending cuts in the Senate bill was a universal concern amongst members in today’s meeting. Conversations with members will continue throughout the afternoon on the path forward."

They're still saying they may vote on the bill tonight. I wonder how long they're going to obstruct the deal if the markets start opening and reacting to what's happened.

DOWNLOADS: (224)

PLAYS: (1374)

Embed

Former Obama economic adviser Austan Goolsbee asserted on Sunday that Republicans "would classify Mitt Romney's horse as a small business" if they thought it would help them convince Americans that taxes shouldn't be raised on the wealthy.

During an ABC News discussion about the federal deficit, The Wall Street Journal's Kimberly Strassel argued that the 3 percent of small businesses that would be impacted by ending the Bush-era tax cuts for the richest Americans were actually the "most important and productive business generators in the country."

"Republicans talk about small businesses like you want them to think about mom-and-pops [shops]," Rep. Chris Van Hollen (D-MD) explained, adding that Republicans would classify Bain Capital -- the firm presumptive Republican presidential nominee Mitt Romney founded -- as a small business.

"They would classify Mitt Romney's horse as a small business," Goolsbee interrupted.

"It's true!" Van Hollen agreed. "Hedge fund owners, Fortune 100 companies all come under this rubric of small business."

Earlier this month, Ann Romney’s dressage horse, Rafalca, competed in the 2012 London Olympics.

In 2010, the Romneys took more tax deductions on their horses than most Americans earn in a year. According to The New York Times, the couple “declared a loss of $77,000 on their 2010 tax returns for the share in the care and feeding of Rafalca.”

Census Bureau statistics show that the mean yearly per capita income for individuals in the U.S. between 2006 and 2010 was $27,334.

Republican vice presidential candidate Paul Ryan suggested on Friday that Romney's background was "starting small businesses."

DOWNLOADS: (329)

PLAYS: (1103)

Embed

Former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush (R) on Friday suggested that Republicans were outsourcing their "principles and convictions" by signing Grover Norquist's pledge to never raise taxes.

During a House Budget Committee hearing, Rep. Chris Van Hollen (D-MD) asked the former governor if he agreed with the Americans for Tax Reform pledge.

"No," Bush said, shaking his head. "OK, so I ran for office three times. The pledge was presented to me three times. I never signed the pledge. I cut taxes every year I was governor."

"I don't believe you outsource your principles and convictions to people," he added. "I respect Grover's political involvement. He has it every right to do it, but I never signed any pledge."

Since introducing the pledge in 1986, Norquist has been remarkably successful at getting signatures from Republicans. Only six of the 242 Republicans serving in the House today have not signed on.

But things could be changing this year as 25 of the candidates promoted by the National Republican Congressional Committee have so far refused to add their names to the list.

"For what it's worth, I don't necessarily see this as evidence of moderation," MSNBC's Steve Benen wrote on Tuesday. "On the contrary, many, if not all, of those who are rejecting Norquist's project appear to be very much in line with his party's anti-tax orthodoxy. They're balking, not because they intend to support tax increases, but because some are open to trading away tax credits, some don't like taking orders from D.C. lobbying groups, and some are just anti-pledge in general."

(h/t: Talking Points Memo)

DOWNLOADS: (83)

PLAYS: (219)

Embed

House Budget Committee Chairman Paul Ryan (R-WI) on Sunday said he had made a mistake by suggesting America's top military brass were being dishonest when they said they supported President Barack Obama's budget cuts.

"I totally misspoke," Ryan admitted to ABC's George Stephanopoulos. "It was not the impression I meant to give."

During a budget summit in Washington on Thursday, Ryan had lashed out at the generals for presenting a budget that he said they didn't really believe in.

"We don’t think the generals are giving us their true advice," Ryan declared. "We don’t think the generals believe that their budget is really the right budget."

Later that day, Joint Chiefs of Staff chairman Martin Dempsey had a sharp response to Ryan's comments.

"There’s a difference between having someone say they don’t believe what you said versus … calling us, collectively, liars," Gen. Dempsey explained to reporters.

"My response is: I stand by my testimony. This was very much a strategy-driven process to which we mapped the budget."

DOWNLOADS: (124)

PLAYS: (307)

Embed

Rep. Paul Ryan told David Gregory on this Sunday's Meet the Press that he wasn't concerned about Republicans over playing their hand on the issue of contraception and women's health while discussing some of Rick Santorum's latest remarks on the campaign trail.

Ryan told Gregory that he was instead worried that matter "might get misconstrued" and that voters were going to look at this as a matter of freedom of religion and the government over reaching and demanding that employers are mandated to pay for "everyone else's free birth control."

Rep. Chris Van Hollen did a fair job of pointing out that the Republicans were turning to wedge issues to get their base riled up because they have nothing else to run on right now and the weren't screaming about the many states that already had similar requirements for religious institutions and what services they were required to cover for their employees.

I really wish the Democrats would ask Republicans one question when they start screaming about how religious institutions ought to be allowed to discriminate against their female employees and that is just how far do they think that religious "freedom" goes with what laws they should have a right to disobey. Should they be allowed to ignore child labor laws? OSHA rules? Laws and regulations on the safety of the medications provided in their hospitals? Just where is the line drawn with these so-called "conscience clauses"?

If Paul Ryan thinks the Republicans are going to be able to frame this is an attack on religious "freedom" and defending their "freedom" to discriminate against women is some women is some winner for them, again, I say, good luck with that. You're going to need it.

And if anyone else is as tired of seeing Ryan's smug mug on the television set, you can support his opponent Rob Zerban at our Blue America page here -- Stop Paul Ryan.

Transcript below the fold.

Continue reading »