DOWNLOADS: (82)

PLAYS: (250)

Embed

On this Sunday's Meet the Press, Sen. John McCain continued to prove the point Chris Hayes made on his show this Friday about just who Congress is responsive to, and it's not your average citizen out there. McCain thinks we have "our priorities a little bit skewed" on these sequestration cuts, but of course there's only one area he's concerned about, and that's defense spending.

MCCAIN: Well I say with all due respect to my friends, it's a little bit hypocritical, the same day when all the focus was on the delays that we have in getting through airports, the Chief of Staff of the United States Army was saying that we're... if we don't reverse this, we're going to have a hollow army. We'll be unable to defend the nation and it would take us ten or fifteen years to recover.

I think we have our priorities a little bit skewed here. Look, I'm for giving the FAA flexibility, but I also want to give the military flexibility and I don't want these sequestration cuts to be as deep as they are on the issue of defense. We've got a lot of savings we can make in national security, but right now we are, in the words of the Secretary of Defense and our uniformed service chiefs, we're putting the security of this nation at risk.

McCain was basically repeating what he said in a press release from this Friday.

DOWNLOADS: (68)

PLAYS: (231)

Embed

It seems Grandpa McGrumpy wasn't too happy about his buddy Willard getting zinged by President Obama during the final presidential debate this Monday and let the audience know during his appearance this Tuesday on Morning Joe.

McCain: Obama’s ‘Bayonets And Horses’ Remark A ‘Cheap Shot’ And I ‘Resent It’:

Appearing on MSNBC's "Morning Joe," Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) praised Mitt Romney's performance in the final debate and criticized President Obama for mocking the GOP candidate's approach to the defense budget.

"Frankly, I don't understand why the president wants to take these kind of cheap shots -- bayonets and horses, what's that all about?" he said. "You know, when I debated then-Senator Obama I didn't criticize or belittle his lack of experience on national security issues. And he seemed to take these kind of cheap shots. ... I kind of resent it."

"I think you should treat your opponent with some respect. ... It was small ball."

This coming from the same man who inflicted Sarah Palin on the rest of the nation and allowed her to be running around the country during the presidential campaign accusing then Sen. Obama of "paling around with terrorists." And from the same man who called Obama a celebrity and compared him to Paris Hilton. Small ball, huh? Well, you'd know all about that, now wouldn't you?

DOWNLOADS: (706)

PLAYS: (7577)

Embed

The Daily Show's Jon Stewart took apart Mitt Romney's promises to both cut the budget deficit, lower taxes on everyone, increase military spending and somehow not raise taxes on the middle class, along with his running mate Paul Ryan -- the numbers guy -- and their complete unwillingness to give anyone any specifics about what they'd cut or what loopholes they would close.

After showing a clip of Ryan telling Chris Wallace that it "would take too long" to "go through all the math" that would supposedly prove their plan is "revenue neutral," Stewart offered them a little help in that regard.

STEWART: How about this? You're busy? Leave it with us. We'll look it over. Unless it's all... bullsh*t.

Stewart wrapped things up with a little reminder from one of our former presidents who was also "running at a time when we were recovering from a financial crisis and who was telling Americans about the need for the rich to sacrifice in order to help pay for social programs." The more things change, the more they stay the same.

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: (99)

PLAYS: (161)

Embed

Here we go again with another Republican telling us we need to make the income disparity in the United States worse. Right now I'm thinking the least amount of damage that so-called "super committee" could do right now is just to remain deadlocked.

And who wants to bet the people Kay Bailey Hutchison is talking here who currently aren't paying any taxes are the poor and the elderly? And naturally the one reason she really wants to see that committee come to an agreement is because heaven forbid we can't reduce our military spending.

Transcript via CNN.

CROWLEY: OK. Let me turn you to somewhat politics as usual up on Capitol Hill, where we have 33 senators who have written the super committee and said, listen, rewrite the tax code with no net tax increase. Does that letter not doom the super committee to failure given what the Democrats want and this is supposed to be a compromise?

HUTCHISON: No, I don't think it dooms it to failure. I think if we are going to realistically get our budget house in order, we've got to cut spending, we have to have a fairer tax code, one in which it is lower and promotes growth in business, but does catch people who aren't paying taxes right now who should be paying taxes.

You get revenue increase by increasing the growth in our business sector, our private sector. You increase growth in the private sector and you'll get new revenue, because people will be working and paying taxes rather than having to be on unemployment.

Continue reading »

DOWNLOADS: (148)

PLAYS: (323)

Embed

Appearing on CBS Monday, House Financial Services Committee ranking member Barney Frank (D-MA) pointed to growing military spending as one of the causes of S&P's downgrade of U.S. credit.

"I would hope there would be one bipartisan agreement we can reach and I've been working for," Frank told CBS' Nancy Cordes. "There is one area in American policy where we are doing things disproportionate to the rest of the world. We don't give our older people more medical care, we don't have a better retirement, we don't spend more on the environment. Where America is disproportionate is our extraordinary willingness to be the military policemen for the whole world."

"We spend far more of our economy as a national percentage on the military than just about any nation except a beleaguered nation like Israel, which has to do with self defense. We are spending well over $120 billion a year in Iraq and Afghanistan. The time has come to find a place where we could, I think, together, make some savings. So, I am -- that's going to be my mantra for the next few months."

"We could be the strongest nation in the world for $400 billion instead of $700 billion, or $450 billion instead of $700 billion," he added. "We could easily save more than $200 billion without in any way endangering our security."

DOWNLOADS: (531)

PLAYS: (925)

Embed

To hell with what those polls say, Brit Hume doesn't think there will be any or only minor blowback for any politician that proposes making cuts to Social Security and hopes the President brings it up in his State of the Union Address. Heaven forbid Hume didn't have the same hopes for the cuts to military spending that those same polls show the public does favor.

WALLACE: I want to pick up on what you just said about the fact that people don't want their spending cut. There was a very interesting poll in "The New York Times" this week which showed people absolutely, in general, favor cutting spending, just not in areas that directly affect them.

People were asked which would they be willing to cut? Twenty-one percent said Medicare. Thirteen percent said Social Security. Fifty- five percent said the military. And when asked about changes to Social Security, 18 percent backed raising the retirement age, eight percent chose cutting benefits in the future, 66 percent said cut benefits for those with higher incomes.

HUME: I think, Chris, the problem with some of this polling is that it carries the suggestion that those who are currently receiving benefits, Medicare and Social Security, would see those benefits reduced. In fact, however, nearly all the plans that I've heard in advance to try to rein in the spending on those program deals with future retirees and future benefits --

(CROSSTALK)

WALLACE: But this question in The Times --

HUME: I saw that.

WALLACE: Let me finish. This question in The Times talked about cutting benefits for future retirees, not for current retirees.

HUME: I understand. But nearly everybody voting on it -- I mean, that includes the whole pool of potential -- was it all adults? I don't remember whether it was, or whether it was registered voters or whoever.

WALLACE: No, it was all adults.

HUME: Yes, all adults. Well, a poll of all adults I don't think are terribly useful.

And I will tell you this -- you talk to anybody under the age of 50 these days about Social Security and Medicare; particularly Social Security, and whether they're going to get their benefits, they virtually all expect they won't see anything. So, are they ready for some reduced benefit? I think they are.

And I think if you do that, raise the retirement age, reduce the benefits for those who are not yet receiving them, that will pass. And the political blowback will be very minor indeed.

WALLACE: Juan, what do you make of that? I mean, I'm struck that 55 percent said don't cut Medicare, don't cut Social Security. They want to cut the military.

Continue reading »

DOWNLOADS: (443)

PLAYS: (786)

Embed

While discussing America's current economic situation and whether voters think it's going to improve or not on CNN's Your Money, panel member Candy Crowley made this bizarre statement as to how our political leadership should react to the recommendations from the Catfood commission's co-chairs, Simpson and Bowles.

CROWLEY: Well, they're going to try next year. I mean, here's the problem. Everybody talks about reducing the debt and reducing the deficit, which are two separate things. But nonetheless, we've had this debt commission come and say, well, here's how you do it. And there's just three big ticket items, right? Federally funded health care, the Pentagon and Social Security. Well, you know, what you need here are three politicians, the Speaker, the Majority Leader in the Senate, and the president who don't care about re-election to kind of try to lead this. Because when you look at all the polling, the public is not for cutting any of those or changing the benefits.

MARTIN: There you go.

CROWLEY: And you can't get to it any other way.

First of all, since when do any politicians not care about being reelected? Sadly it seems to be all they care about too often and raising money to do it rather than looking after their constituents. Second, the "everybody" that's obsessed with deficit reduction are not the American voters, but our beltway Villagers and the politicians who have decided to use this opportunity for some good old Shock Doctrine type changes to our social safety nets.

Next we get Crowley saying we need to address "federally funded health care", by which I assume she means Medicaid. Of course no mention there that the reason it is so expensive is the government is paying for the oldest and sickest patients while the insurance companies get to make a profit off of the rest of us and how opening that system up to everyone would make it viable and allow the rest of us to quit making the insurance company CEO's rich.

Continue reading »

Rachel Maddow feels the same way I do after listening to this pitch by the administration. Jared Bernstein did not say one thing that swayed me that this is a good idea. Listen to Evan Bayh? You've got to be kidding me. A spending freeze in the middle of an economic downturn is insane. And of course there's no freeze for defense spending or Homeland Security.

TPM has more on the proposal--Obama Administration To Propose Freezing Non-Military Discretionary Spending:

President Obama will propose freezing non-security discretionary government spending for the next three years, a sweeping plan to attempt deficit reduction that will save taxpayers $250 billion over 10 years.

When the administration releases its budget next week, the discretionary spending for government agencies from Health and Human Services to the Department of Treasury will be frozen at its 2010 level in fiscal years 2011, 2012 and 2013.

A senior administration official detailed the move, speaking on a condition of anonymity because Obama will announce his decision during his State of the Union address Wednesday night.

The cuts would target "duplicative," "ineffective" and "inefficient" spending withing government, the official said on a conference call with reporters.

"This is not a blunt, across-the-board freeze," the official said, adding that some agencies will see spending increases while some will see spending cuts as the total remains constant.

Exempted from the freeze would be Pentagon funding, and the budgets for Veterans Affairs and Homeland Security.

"We do need to reflect the fact that we remain at war," the official said, noting the president was able to win several battles on cutting Pentagon spending.

The official declined to discuss specifics but said the new plan would save taxpayers $250 billion over 10 years. Read on...

UPDATE: Jared Bernstein posted this response on The White House Blog to last night's interview. Budget Freeze-eology 101: Hatchets vs. Scalpels

DOWNLOADS: (252)

PLAYS: (620)

Embed

I don't agree with Bob Schieffer all that often but I do agree with most of his points on this one. From CBS News' Face the Nation, Nov. 1, 2009--A Class in Nation-Building 101:

SCHIEFFER: Finally today, as the president tries to develop a new strategy in Afghanistan, I wonder if this is the real lesson that we’ve learned in Afghanistan so far, that nation-building, like charity, probably begins at home, at least the way we seem to be going about it in Afghanistan.

Now, don’t get me wrong. Terrorism poses a threat to America’s national security, but is trying to build a Western-style nation in Afghanistan by funneling money to its leaders really the best way to combat terrorism?

I guess what set me off is that story about how we’ve secretly put the president of Afghanistan’s brother on the CIA payroll. He’s the one who is supposed to be mixed up in the drug trade. The idea was that, by doing that, he’ll help us pave the way to building a democracy there. Now, that’s good work if you can get it. But I don’t see how that is making us safer.

Whatever the size of the military force the president decides on for Afghanistan, I think he needs to be paying more attention to where the money is going for the non-military spending there. Incredibly, no one really seems to know. The judge by what we’ve gotten from it so far, we’d be much better off with some nation-building back home. Our infrastructure is already a mess.

We could start at the Oakland Bay Bridge, where a 5,000 pound part of the top fell off into the traffic below. That would certainly make us safer, for sure.

In Afghanistan, we’re having to relearn what we should have already known, that we can help others but we can’t do it for them. And when we have to pay others to help themselves, I don’t see how that helps anyone but the guy getting paid.