DOWNLOADS: (96)

PLAYS: (421)

Embed

The weeper of the House reacted to the question of whether Edward Snowden was a patriot or a traitor about as expected, a stand which will probably rankle a few feathers among some libertarian-minded and tea party republicans. He also noted he's been briefed on all these snooping programs and agrees with them. For privacy rights, Boehner noted 9 of 10 people in the room are usually lawyers there to protect the American public. Or somethin'. If only these guys could learn to couch their phrases in less cartoonish jingoism they might be a shade more convincing. Maybe.

GEORGE STEPHANOPOULOS: Speaker, thank you for doin' this. Let's talk first about these-- revelations about the National Security Agency. Edward Snowden has come forward, said he brought the documents into the public eye. His supporters say he's-- a whistle-blowing patriot. His critics say he's betrayed the country, broken the law. Where do you stand?

JOHN BOEHNER: He's a traitor. The president outlined last week that these were important national security programs to help keep Americans safe, and give us tools-- to fight the terrorist threat th-- that we face. The president also outlined that there are appropriate safeguards in place-- to make sure that-- there's-- there's no-- snooping, if you will-- on Americans-- here at home. But-- the disclosure of this information-- puts Americans at risk. It shows-- our adversaries what our capabilities are. And-- it's a giant violation of the law.

Continue reading »

DOWNLOADS: (188)

PLAYS: (1512)

Embed

After House Speaker John Boehner's ridiculous statement that he wants to know "who is going to jail" over the recent scandal at the IRS -- and Nancy Pelosi's statement that we need a "clear definition of what a 501(c)(4) is -- MSNBC's Lawrence O'Donnell did his best to attempt to remind these politicians that there is no need to change existing law to fix this problem.

Ahead of this Friday's hearing, O'Donnell hopes that at least one of the members of Congress attending will ask the IRS why they decided to change the way they enforced the statute.

O’Donnell reminds politicians of the real IRS scandal:

As O’Donnell has been saying since Monday, the so-called IRS scandal is only the consequence of an older and more basic problem with the organization’s reading of the tax code–specifically, with its reading of Section 501(c)(4), which exempts social welfare groups from paying taxes.

The law defines such groups as “civic leagues or organizations not organized for profit but operated exclusively for the promotion of social welfare.” Since 1959, the IRS has been reading “exclusively” as “primarily.”

“By doing that they made IRS agents judges of political activity, investigators of political activity,” O’Donnell explained in the Rewrite Thursday. “IRS agents were then forced to evaluate just how political a given 501(c)(4) organization might be. And it is very clear that if the words “Tea Party” or the name of any political party at all appears in the title of your 501(c)(4) you absolutely do not qualify for 501(c)(4) status under the law.”

Some politicians, however, still don’t seem to understand the interplay between this law and how it’s enforced.

Continue reading »

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: (102)

PLAYS: (605)

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: (150)

PLAYS: (893)

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: (110)

PLAYS: (474)

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 »

DOWNLOADS: (54)

PLAYS: (133)

Embed

From this Sunday's This Week on ABC, former HP executive and California Senate candidate Carly Fiorina apparently believes that people's civil rights should be put up for a vote... because we all know how well that's worked out in the past. And don't dare call anyone like John Boehner insincere or uncompassionate, because heaven forbid that might hurt their feelings.

We'd hate to get weepy Boehner crying again. And God knows we can't have any of those activist judges deciding things like this. They're only supposed to act that way when it comes to writing new laws that give corporations the same rights as people my friends.

RADDATZ; Let's more on to another big topic for the Republicans this week, and that stunning announcement by Rob Portman that he now supports same-sex marriage. Obviously a personal decision for him, the only Republican senator to support same-sex marriage. George Will, does this go anywhere?

WILL: He will not be the last, because the demographic tide here is large, powerful and execrable. I have said on this program before, opposition to gay marriage is literally dying, it's an older demographic. And if you raise the question among young people, they're not interested. And I dare say this is one of the good things about CPAC. As you saw at CPAC, this was another division and again, a healthy one. It's largely young people attend CPAC. And this is not at the top of their agenda. It's not even on their agenda

RADDATZ: I might take awhile for them to die out, though, George.

DOWD: I think that there's been an amazing -- and George is right, there has been amazing -- in the last ten years, I think there's been almost a 20-point change in people's perception of gay marriage in this country. I think Rob Portman is another domino in this whole effect.

I think Republicans, any Republicans that stand in the way of this, are standing in the way of march of history on this.

Rob Portman I know well. I did debate prep with Rob Portman in years past. He's a good person. And the people that I think that have criticized him and said, oh, by the way, hHe only did it was a personal thing that affected him personally, he wasn't going to do it otherwise. To me, why do we criticize people for that? The person that started MADD, it was a personal thing. The people that -- many people who have come out against gun control have been personally affected by it. If somebody's path to the truth, or somebody's path to a place where we actually think they're open and compassionate is a personal decision, god be wtih them.

FIORINA: I think we have to be careful, because John Boehner's views, which are different from Rob Portman's views, are equally sincere. And I think when we get into trouble on this debate when we assume that people who support gay marriage are open and compassion and people who don't are not. It's why I believe the right way to solve these very personal issues is to let people vote on them, don't have judges decide it, don't even have representative government decide it, let people vote on it in the states.

I think people of both points of view, accept the democratic process. What they don't always accept is a bunch of self-important, self-appointed judges saying this is culturally the new norm.

DOWNLOADS: (109)

PLAYS: (989)

Embed

Ohio Republican Sen. Rob Portman recently reversed on his opposition to same sex marriage after his son came out as gay, but House Speaker John Boehner (R-OH) says that he would never support equal marriage rights for an LGBT child.

During an interview with ABC that aired on Sunday, host Martha Raddatz asked Boehner if he had talked to Portman about his change of heart.

"He has, in fact, called," the House Speaker admitted. "I appreciate that he's decided to change his views on this, but I believe that marriage is a union of a man and a woman."

"Can you imagine yourself in a situation where you reversed your decision as Portman has on gay marriage if a child of yours or someone you loved told you they were gay?" Raddatz pressed.

"I believe that marriage is the union of one man, one woman," Boehner repeated. "It's what I grew up with, it's what I believe, it's what my church teaches me."

"And I can't imagine that position would ever change."

DOWNLOADS: (175)

PLAYS: (1379)

Embed

It looks like Bill Maher still isn't too worried about Donald Trump and his lawyers, because The Donald ended up on the butt end of another orangutan joke on this Friday's Real Time with Bill Maher on the topic of text shaming -- with Maher citing some examples he "found on the Internet" of some well known figures and their "confessions."

DOWNLOADS: (118)

PLAYS: (860)

Embed

Former Republican vice presidential candidate Paul Ryan on Sunday admitted that the entire Republican budget was based on repealing Obamacare, President Barack Obama's health care reform law.

During an interview on Fox News Sunday, host Chris Wallace asked Ryan how the Republican budget could cut $770 billion out of Medicare in the next 10 years without impacting benefits.

"These are increases that have not come yet," the Wisconsin congressman explained. "So by repealing Obamacare and the Medicaid expansions, which haven't occurred yet, we are basically preventing the explosion of a program that is already failing. So we're saying, don't grow this program through Obamacare because it doesn't work."

"Are you saying, as part of you budget, you would repeal -- you assume the repeal of Obamacare?" Wallace pressed.

"Yes," Ryan insisted.

"Well, that's not going to happen," Wallace pointed out.

"Well, we believe it should, that's the point," Ryan replied. "This is what budgeting is all about, Chris. It's about making tough choices to fix our country's problems. We believe that Obamacare is a program that will not work."

After Obama's re-election in November, House Speaker John Boehner suggested that Republicans were trying to pivot away from an obsession with repealing the Affordable Care Act.

"I think the election changes that," Boehner told ABC's Diane Sawyer. "It's pretty clear that the president was re-elected, Obamacare is the law of the land."

But in January, Republicans voted for the 33rd time in 18 months to repeal the health care reform law.