DOWNLOADS: (240)

PLAYS: (2319)

Embed

As Susie already noted here, Ed Schultz got the scoop and for the first time, interviewed Scott Prouty, the man who filmed Mitt Romney's now infamous "47 percent" video. And for anyone who did not catch it this Wednesday evening, I really recommend watching the entire hour he talked to Schultz.

I wanted to highlight a bit more of the beginning of the interview here: Revealed: The 'blue collar' bartender who secretly filmed Romney making infamous 47 percent remarks to wealthy donors:

The man who secretly filmed the infamous ’47 percent’ video of Mitt Romney has finally come forward and explained why he decided to wade into the presidential dogfight.

Scott Prouty publicly admitted that he was the bartender who released the footage of Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney speaking at a private fundraiser and he said that the motivating reason behind the move was so that all Americans could see the ‘true’ Romney.

‘Frankly, the people that were there that night, they paid $50,000 per person for a dinner. I grew up in a blue collar area of Boston,’ Mr Prouty said in an interview with MSNBC’s Ed Schultz.

‘There's a lot of people who can’t afford to pay $50,000 for one night, for one dinner… I felt an obligation for all of the people who can't afford to be there.

‘I knew where he came from, he was born with all of the advantages- he was the son of a Governor, a CFO, went to prep school and Harvard- and I don’t think he has any clue what a regular American goes through on a daily basis. The day in, day out struggles of regular Americans --that guy has no idea and I don’t think he will ever have any idea,’ he said. [...]

His attention was piqued when Romney walked into the room and quickly began ordering staff members around. Even though his comments that the workers should speed up their service was likely in jest, that still rubbed Mr Prouty the wrong way.

Continue reading »

DOWNLOADS: (104)

PLAYS: (291)

Embed

Good for Sen. Bernie Sanders for standing up for what's right if President Obama tries to offer Republicans cuts to our social safety nets as part of some "grand bargain": Bernie Sanders says give people what they want: Safe Medicare and Social Security:

Sen. Bernie Sanders is leading the charge in the Senate to block any grand bargain that would cut Medicare, Medicaid, or Social Security benefits, and he's got a pretty smart strategy. He explained his efforts in an interview with Greg Sargent. Getting a budget deal is not about offering up the trophy of entitlement cuts to lure in Republicans, Sanders says.

"It's a question of making Republicans an offer they can't refuse," Sanders tells me. "Their position is no more revenues. You and I know that is not the position of the American people. One in four corporations doesn't pay any taxes. What Democrats and progressives should say is, 'Sorry, we're not going to balance the budget on the backs of the vulnerable.'" Sanders described the idea of cutting education, Social Security, Medicare and veterans' benefits as an "obscenity." [...]

"The alternative is not to go into a back room and negotiate with Boehner; it's to make our case to the American people," Sanders said. "I don't believe there's a red state in America where people believe you should cut Medicare, Social Security and veterans' benefits rather than doing away with corporate tax loopholes."

Now that's a pretty smart and pragmatic reading of the American electorate as well as a smart and pragmatic strategy for getting the Republicans to relent on revenue. Wooing them sure as hell isn't going to get the job done. But standing up as Democrats, with the people, could.

And as Greg Sargent noted, he may have some help some of his fellow Democrats in the Senate:

I asked Sanders if he would filibuster any grand bargain that cuts entitlement benefits. “It’s more than just the filibuster,” he said. “That’s a one day tactic. This is about rallying the American people and winning.” He predicted liberals in the Senate (Jeff Merkley, Sherrod Brown, and Elizabeth Warren come to mind) would likely band together to adopt a range of tactics to block such a grand bargain. “Filibustering may be part of it,” he said.

It’s still unclear to me what the endgame would look like if liberals stick with such a strategy. Republicans could simply continue to support indefinite sequestration rather than agree to anything at all, let alone a deal that includes new revenues but no entitlement cuts. Or if the White House does strike a grand bargain, liberal Dems may ultimately cave and support it. Or if a deal is reached in the Senate, it could pass without liberals. However unclear the way foward remains, it’s undeniably good for progressive Senators to be out there defining the liberal position in the debate in as high-profile a way as possible.

And from the Kos diary as well: Send an email to the White House telling President Obama to immediately stop proposing any cuts to Social Security.

DOWNLOADS: (289)

PLAYS: (2393)

Embed

Nobel prize winning economist and columnist Paul Krugman sat down the MSNBC's Ed Schultz this Friday evening to discuss the recent madness we've been watching with this budget sequestration, which President Obama signed into law this Friday evening. Once again we find Krugman being one of the few voices of reason who is allowed some air time on our corporate media, discussing the fact that this deficit fetishism we're seeing from our politicians is exactly the wrong conversation we should be having right now.

What we should be talking about first and foremost is getting Americans back to work. It was also good to hear some push back against the constant chatter we're hearing from the Villagers in the media who are continually pushing for Chained CPI, and pretending as though cutting Social Security benefits in exchange for "tax reform" -- a.k.a. lowering taxes on rich people and corporations -- is something anyone should think is acceptable, or "balanced" or that would do a thing to help lower the deficit. It would have been nice to hear either of them say out loud that Social Security does not add to the deficit during this interview, but it was only implied and not clarified for the audience.

Here's more on Krugman's conversation with Schultz via Raw Story: Paul Krugman: Sequester ‘was designed to be stupid’:

“This was designed to be stupid,” Krugman said. “The whole point was, this was supposed to be a doomsday device that would force the [Democratic and Republican] parties to reach an agreement. Of course, they didn’t, and here it goes.”

While the effect of the spending cuts would take time to manifest, Krugman told Schultz, they would definitely be felt by late 2013.

“This is exactly what the doctor did not order,” he said.

While the spending cuts were conceived as a fix for the federal deficit, Krugman said, this was not the time to implement that kind of measure. Instead, he said, the government should be taking advantage of low interest rates and a high number of unemployed construction workers to invest in infrastructure and education.

“What kind of spending would it take to keep us on the track that we’re on right now?” Schultz asked, noting a continued pattern of private sector job growth despite Republican resistance to a new jobs bill since the stimulus package of 2009.

“If we would just stop cutting, the growth would probably keep going,” Krugman answered. “If spending had grown as fast in this recovery as it has in past recoveries, we’d be spending something like $200 billion a year — state, local and federal — more, maybe $300 billion a year more. Maybe $300 billion a year more. We’d have about a million and a half more public sector workers than we do right now, because we’ve been laying them off at [an] unprecedented pace. So, I think $300 billion a year of additional spending would be appropriate and would mean, if we did it, that we would be pretty close to full employment at this point.”

Greg Sargent made the same point in his column this week as well: The Morning Plum: Happy Sequester Day! We’re still stuck in the wrong conversation.:

Continue reading »

DOWNLOADS: (108)

PLAYS: (386)

Embed

As Think Progress noted, Republicans immediately shot down President Obama's proposal to increase the minimum wage to $9 per hour during his State of the Union address, claiming that it would harm job growth and make it harder for small businesses to hire. None of that is true of course, but that's not going to stop them from looking out for campaign donors like the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and the National Restaurant Association -- both of whom are against the proposal. Guess they want to keep that cheap labor coming!

Wingnut Rep. Marsha Blackburn however, had a different take on why it's acceptable to pay Americans starvation wages, and accidentally shot a big hole in her own talking point. Don't expect her to retract what she said if she's asked about it:

OOPS: GOP Rep. Inadvertently Makes The Case For Nearly Doubling The Minimum Wage:

Tennessee Rep. Marsha Blackburn (R) chose a different reason to oppose the proposal today. A stronger minimum wage, Blackburn said, would negatively affect the ability of young workers to enter the workforce as teenagers, and would prevent them from learning responsibility like she did when she was a teenage retail employee making a seemingly-measly $2.15 an hour in Mississippi:

BLACKBURN: What we’re hearing from moms and from school teachers is that there needs to be a lower entry level, so that you can get 16-, 17-, 18-year-olds into the process. Chuck, I remember my first job, when I was working in a retail store, down there, growing up in Laurel, Mississippi. I was making like $2.15 an hour. And I was taught how to responsibly handle those customer interactions. And I appreciated that opportunity.

Making $2.15 an hour certainly lower than today’s minimum wage, which federal law mandates must be at least $7.25 an hour. But what Blackburn didn’t realize is that she accidentally undermined her own argument, since the value of the dollar has changed immensely since her teenage years. Blackburn was born in 1952, so she likely took that retail job at some point between 1968 and 1970. And according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics’ inflation calculator, the $2.15 an hour Blackburn made then is worth somewhere between $12.72 and $14.18 an hour in today’s dollars, depending on which year she started.

DOWNLOADS: (104)

PLAYS: (490)

Embed

Ed Schultz took a whack at chickenhawk Dick Cheney for having the nerve to be out there whining about President Obama's national security cabinet nominations over the weekend: Dick Cheney Criticizes Obama National Security Appointees In Speech :

CHEYENNE, Wyo. -- Former Vice President Dick Cheney said Saturday night that President Barack Obama has jeopardized U.S. national security by nominating substandard candidates for key cabinet posts and by degrading the U.S. military.

"The performance now of Barack Obama as he staffs up the national security team for the second term is dismal," Cheney said in comments to about 300 members of the Wyoming Republican Party.

Cheney, a Wyoming native, said it was vital to the nation's national security that "good folks" hold the positions of secretary of state, CIA director and secretary of defense.

"Frankly, what he has appointed are second-rate people," he said.

John Kerry, the 2004 Democratic presidential nominee, has been confirmed as secretary of state. CIA designate John Brennan and defense secretary nominee Chuck Hagel are still awaiting U.S. Senate confirmation.

As Schultz noted, coming from the man who got five draft deferments, and that worked in an administration that lied us into invading Iraq and hired the likes of Condi Rice and Don Rumsfeld, that's pretty rich. And as Ed reminded us, it's just in time for the seventh anniversary of Cheney shooting his friend, Harry Whittington in the face, which is as Ed noted, probably as close to combat as Cheney will ever come.

DOWNLOADS: (164)

PLAYS: (847)

Embed

I don't expect we'll see any Republicans willing to support his legislation, but good for Sen. Sanders for doing this: Senator Introduces Bill To End Huge Corporate Tax Giveaway:

Corporations offshoring profits costs both the federal government and states billions of dollars per year. One of the more egregious giveaways is known as “deferral,” which allows U.S. corporations to avoid paying taxes on overseas profits until they bring that money back to the U.S., giving them every incentive to leave it overseas permanently.

According to the Congressional Budget Office, “The current tax system provides incentives for U.S. firms to locate their production facilities in countries with low taxes as a way to reduce their tax liability at home,” ultimately resulting in compensation for U.S. workers being lower. Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT) is introducing a bill today that would end this practice and close several other corporate tax loopholes: [...]

According to the Joint Committee on Taxation, “the provisions in this bill will raise more than $590 billion in revenue over the next decade.”

Due to the proliferation of loopholes, credits, and the use of tax havens, major corporations haven’t paid the full statutory tax rate in 45 years. In 2011, the 12.1 percent effective rate that corporations paid was the lowest in 40 years.

Here's more from Sen. Sanders' site: End Offshore Tax Havens:

Continue reading »

DOWNLOADS: (204)

PLAYS: (1649)

Embed

On his first night back from vacation over the holidays, Stephen Colbert came to the defense of his hero, "Papa Bear" O'Reilly, better known as Bill-O around here, for his remarks about Asian-Americans on The Factor last week.

Somebody had to stick up for him after that mean old Ed Schultz was picking on him.

DOWNLOADS: (178)

PLAYS: (793)

Embed

Sen. Bernie Sanders continues to be one of the stand-up guys in the Senate with telling it straight when it comes to the fact that Social Security does not add a dime to our deficit and that if President Obama wants to do something about the deficit, he needs to be cutting that corporate welfare, instead of talking about balancing the budget on the backs of the most vulnerable in our society and our veterans.

Sanders joined Ed Schultz on MSNBC this Friday evening. After Schultz took the viewers through some of the goading by Republicans who are trying to get President Obama to do their dirty work for them and go after our New Deal social safety nets, and a clip of Ronald Reagan explaining that Social Security does not contribute to the deficit, he asked Sanders if he trusted President Obama not to cave into their demands.

Sanders said no, but if enough of us make our voices heard along with the slew of progressive groups who are pushing back hard against these potential cuts, he feels he will be responsive to the voters. All I can say is I hope he's right about the President listening, and I know he's right about the need for everyone who doesn't want to see these programs cut to make their voices heard and get on the phone, email, write letters, call and make sure that both President Obama and your members of Congress know to how you feel.

They need to be hearing from someone besides the Ed Rendell and Pete Petersons of the world. I'm grateful that we've got Ed Schultz giving us a break from the otherwise constant drumbeat on his network, calling going after our social safety nets adult, serious and balanced in exchange for Republican hostage taking. on raising the debt ceiling after their party spent like drunken sailors and now don't want to pay their credit card bill.

DOWNLOADS: (178)

PLAYS: (565)

Embed

Bernie was still pushing for one item that would help with our deficit that sadly has gone nowhere with those looking out for the 1 percent since it was introduced over a year ago, a tax on Wall Street speculation:

Legislation was introduced on Wednesday to impose a financial transaction tax on the trading of stocks, bonds and derivatives. The measure would reduce gambling on Wall Street, encourage the financial sector to invest in the productive economy, and significantly reduce the deficit without harming average Americans. "This bill offers us a clear choice. We can balance the budget on the backs of working Americans and senior citizens on fixed incomes or we can ask the gamblers on Wall Street to pay a little bit more in taxes," said Sen. Bernie Sanders, a cosponsor of the bill.

Under the proposal, there would be a speculation fee of 0.03 percent on credit default swaps, derivatives, stocks, bonds, and other financial transactions. It would yield about $200 billion in new revenue over the coming decade. The lead sponsor in the Senate is Tom Harkin. Rep. Peter DeFazio filed companion legislation in the House.

DOWNLOADS: (221)

PLAYS: (3662)

Embed

Anyone remember Bill-O and his rant back in September of last year, where he threatened to "pack it in" and leave the country if President Obama raised his taxes? MSNBC's Ed Schultz took his viewers on a trip down memory lane and replayed O'Reilly's threat, and asked him when he was going to make good on it now that his taxes have indeed gone up.

Sadly as Ed and The Daily Beast's Michael Tomasky noted, it's not likely that we'll get rid of Bill-O or his ilk any time soon, regardless of the Randite temper tantrum he threw on the air last year.

DOWNLOADS: (209)

PLAYS: (1662)

Embed

From TPM: Boehner Calls Off Plan B Vote:

In a stunning defeat, Speaker John Boehner (R-OH) called off a vote Thursday night on his Plan B to avert the fiscal cliff, citing a lack of support from his own party. Boehner issued the following statement as an emergency meeting of the House Republican Conference was ending:

The House did not take up the tax measure today because it did not have sufficient support from our members to pass. Now it is up to the president to work with Senator Reid on legislation to avert the fiscal cliff. The House has already passed legislation to stop all of the January 1 tax rate increases and replace the sequester with responsible spending cuts that will begin to address our nation's crippling debt. The Senate must now act.

This might not be good news for John Boehner, but as John already noted here, he's looking like Santa Claus for progressives.

And here's Eric Cantor's "walk of shame" leaving the House after "Plan B" went down in flames.

DOWNLOADS: (222)

PLAYS: (3319)

Embed

[Scarce edit: A little musical soundtrack seemed in order. Music by Screen Team, a parody of Awolnation's "Sail".]

DOWNLOADS: (177)

PLAYS: (2259)

Embed