Watch the Thom Hartmann video, it's quite informative. Don't you love how this game is played? The temporary Bush tax cuts, the very same ones that helped ballooned the deficit to record levels, are about to expire and the Capitol Hill Chicken Littles are running around screaming "The sky is falling! The sky is falling!" So letting them expire will throw the country into recession? For those of us outside the Village, how would we even know the difference? We're already out of work, or working for peanuts.

Now, you realize where this is going: This is the scary story that's supposed to provide cover for the usual suspects who want to make the Grand Bargain on Social Security. The Greek chorus is gathering, chanting about the "obvious" solutions (hint, hint). "We'll let you have a little stimulus now, provided we can slash the hell out of your earned benefits later!"

And because this is a complicated idea, most people won't understand, the librul media can't explain because they're too hooked on access to make waves, only a few reporters will bring up the idea of simply raising new revenue, and the hollowing of Social Security and Medicare will soon be a "bipartisan" victory. Don't you love politics?

Tax hikes and spending cuts set to take effect in January would suck $607 billion out of the economy next year, plunging the nation at least briefly back into recession, the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office said Tuesday.

Unless lawmakers act, the economy is likely to contract in the first half of 2013 at an annualized rate of 1.3 percent, the CBO said, before returning to 2.3 percent growth later in the year.

Continue reading »

enlarge

DOWNLOADS: 246

PLAYS: 4774

Embed

On his Tuesday program, Thom Hartmann had on former Tea Party Express leader and current radio host Mark Williams to discuss why Williams is so anti-union and how inconsistent that is with his professed beliefs in democracy and freedom.

Hartmann is clearly debating Williams with one hand metaphorically tied behind his back and it's really too easy to show not only the inconsistency but the ignorance from which all of Williams' reactionary anti-union stance (himself a member of the AFTRA union) originates. But that's what I find of most of these tea party types: their stances rarely are consistent with their professed values and as soon as you carry their statements to their (il)logical conclusions, they immediately backtrack and say, "wait, I don't mean that!"

Sadly, it takes far more self-awareness than Williams is capable of to re-evaluate his point of view, but kudos to Thom for trying.

Thom Hartmann points out what you're not hearing in the media about the S&P downgrade:

Have you seen, anywhere, in any media, or even heard reported or repeated on NPR, the following sentence? “We have changed our assumption on this because the majority of Republicans in Congress continue to resist any measure that would raise revenues, a position we believe Congress reinforced by passing the act.”

It’s right there on Page 4 of the official Standard & Poors “Research Update” – the actual report on what they did and why – published on August 5th as the explanation for why they believe Congress – and even the Gang of Twelve – will be unable to actually deal with the US debt crisis.

Perhaps it’s just lazy – the bullet points at the beginning of the report don’t mention the Republicans or taxes, but instead just say, for example (part of one of six quick bullet-points): “[T]he downgrade reflects our view that the effectiveness, stability, and predictability of American policymaking and political institutions have weakened at a time of ongoing fiscal and economic challenges…”

In order to figure out that one of the reasons why is that “Republicans in the Congress continue to resist any measure that would raise revenues,” a hard-working reporter would have to read to page four of the eight-page report.   It’s just too much effort for most reporters?

Although they do also mention this in the very first sentence of the report: “We lowered our long-term rating on the U.S. because we believe that the prolonged controversy over raising the statutory debt ceiling and the related fiscal policy debate indicate that further near-term progress containing the growth in public spending, especially on entitlements, or on reaching an agreement on raising revenues is less likely than we previously assumed and will remain a contentious and fitful process.” (Italics mine)

Or could it be that many reporters – and virtually all of the television talking heads – are themselves relatively high income-earners who don’t relish the idea of higher taxes?

Or could it be that reporters are afraid that if they report the actual language of the S&P Research Report, then Republicans will punish them by denying them “access” – i.e. refusing to show up on their programs – which is the career and show kiss-of-death for radio and TV programs that rely on big-name politicians to work?

Once upon a time, in a land that now seems to have been populated by tooth fairies and unicorns, there was a political party that had a set of core beliefs to which they actually adhered.

Among them was that actually balancing the budget, as opposed to just talking about it, was sacrosanct. Slow change, while necessary, had to be balanced against the traditions of the United States, ones that had mostly served us well over two centuries.

Foreign military adventures should be limited to our national security interests. And one of the single most important components of diplomacy was protecting the economic interests not only of an elite few, but of the great many Americans who toiled in our factories and fields.

This party was known as the Republican Party, and while one might have disagreed with them on their policy prescriptions to cure any particular US ill, one could at least see some logic in their beliefs and understand that they - with some obvious exceptions from time to time (ahem, Joseph McCarthy, ahem) - were doing what they thought was right for the United States of America.

Today, this once respectable organization has turned into nothing so much as a collective id the size of a David-Vitter-Pampers shopping spree. When facing changes to this nation that make them uncomfortable, they choose national hate. When facing ideological worship versus the greatness of the US, the former always wins the day. When facing a choice of what is good for the US or their campaign bank accounts, they inevitably go with the latter.

In simple terms: We, the people of the United States, are the maid. The GOP is Arnold Schwarzenegger. Any questions?

The one caveat is that it's not Republicans, so much as the forces of the anti-American, gun-toting, religious and corporate Right that have taken over the GOP who are responsible for papa's brand new bag. The Right is Darth Sidious to the GOP's Anakin Skywalker, Angelina Jolie to foreign-born children.

And yes, sadly, the Dark Lord has also sunk his hooks into quite a few in the Democratic Party, just somewhat less in number and relevance.

Continue reading »

Thom Hartmann gives us a history lesson on how Reagan and both Bush's raised the federal debt incredibly over their terms and now Republicans are balking at paying for their own borrowing. My pal Hartmann says they are committing financial fraud because Republicans refuse to pay the bills that their own heroes created. Reagan-worship is most dominant these days too. You never hear the press explain to us how the federal debt even got so high in the first place. It's like Obama spent $14 trillion since he took office. Well, Cheney said Reagan proved deficits didn't matter, and conservatives didn't even blink.

The line is not likely to make this week's eulogies to Ronald Reagan, but when Vice President Cheney allegedly declared, "Reagan proved deficits don't matter," he summed up an enduring argument from the former president's economic legacy.

{}
The fiscal shift in the Reagan years was staggering. In January 1981, when Reagan declared the federal budget to be "out of control," the deficit had reached almost $74 billion, the federal debt $930 billion. Within two years, the deficit was $208 billion. The debt by 1988 totaled $2.6 trillion. In those eight years, the United States moved from being the world's largest international creditor to the largest debtor nation.

No outrage, no Tea Party revolts, no FOX News meltdowns, just cheers for the war hawk.

Because of course they agreed. Deficits only matter when it comes to cynical right-wing politics.

And the Villagers lap it up. Andrea Mitchell was talking to Mark Warner and, while giving him a few different scenarios, painted one depicting Nancy Pelosi riding the Democratic Party over the cliff with American flags if she refuses to deal on Social Security and Medicare. And Mark Warner spews the same Republican arguments about how long we're living and other Heritage Foundation nonsense.

OK, we'll use the GOP's favorite analogy: A household. If you charged a half a million dollars at Tiffany's like Gingrich did on a credit line and then, when the bills had to be paid, you refused unless Tiffany's gave you a bigger credit line-plus a 250K watch thrown in, how long do you think you would stay out of jail? Yet that's what the GOP is doing at this point.

Via email from JoeW:

Hartmann: If you run up debt and refuse to pay that is called FRAUD and that is what Republicans are trying to carry out with these budget deficits they handed us.

What our nation is faced with today is a mountain of debt run up mostly by 3 Republican Presidents – Ronald Reagan – and the two Bushes. And now today – that very same Republican Party is saying “no way” to Democrats who just want to pay off that pile of Republican debt. Think about it this way – the Republicans ran up a huge credit card bill, and now they’re refusing to pay for it. They took the good times – the stimulation to the economy from all that spending and the political benefits from all those wars – and now they don’t want to pay for it. If you or I did that with our credit card – and did it intentionally – we’d be in jail.

Here is why we are in debt. Before Reagan took office – our national debt was just under one trillion dollars and our top tax rate was 74%. But Reagan promised the nation good times – so he gave all his rich buddies tax cuts – and then put $2 trillion on the nation’s credit card. Reagan borrowed and spent – in just 8 years – more money than every president of the United States from George Washington to Jimmy Carter – COMBINED. And now the Republicans don’t want to pay the bill for Reagan’s debt.

As always, Thom Hartmann makes a lot of sense:

One of the most powerful forms of stimulus we could apply to our economy right now would be to lower the current Social Security retirement age from the current 65-67 to 55, and increase the benefits back to where they were in inflation-adjusted 1960s dollars by raising them between 10 to 20 percent (so people could actually live, albeit modestly, on Social Security).

The right-wing reaction to this, of course, will be to say that with fewer people working and more people drawing benefits, it would bankrupt Social Security and destroy the economy. But history shows the exact reverse.

Instead, it would eliminate the problem of unemployment in the United States. All those Boomers retiring would make room in the labor market for all the recent high-school and college graduates who are now finding it so hard to find a job.

Hartmann goes on in the article to discuss in detail about how lowering the retirement age would open up thousands of jobs nationwide, and how wages for working class Americans have been devastated since the days of Ronald Reagan and our old pal Alan Greenspan started gutting unions and trying to lower our standard of living:

In September of 2007, in an interview on C-SPAN for Book TV, Greenspan said: “We pay the highest skilled labor wages in the world. If we would open up our borders to skilled labor far more than we do, we would attract a very substantial quantity of skilled labor which would suppress the wage levels of the skilled, because the skilled are essentially being subsidized by the government, meaning our competition is being kept outside the country.”

It’s shocking that ideologues like Greenspan, Reagan, and Clinton believe this, but they do. And the only way to reverse the past 29 years of Reaganomics/Clintonomics is to tighten up the labor market again. While a great start would be to pull out of our insane trade treaties and begin again protecting American manufacturers, that will take a decade for the impact to be truly felt even if we were to go back to our 1980 tariff levels today. Read on...

Thom finishes by stating that his plan would ultimately "take us to nearly zero unemployment and dramatically stimulate the economy." I happen to think it's a good idea. What say you?

dKos:

It was announced on Air America Radio, Jon Elliot's show tonight, that Randi Rhodes was attacked in a park in NYC walking her dog.[..]

A fellow blogger's account from the UK:

Sideshow - Uk

Get well soon, Randi Rhodes. I don't usually have time to listen to her show but I tend to leave AAR on when I'm in front of my computer - but when I heard Lionel sitting in for her, I just turned it off. Sorry, I just can't listen to him. But right now I'm listening to John Elliot and he says Randi was attacked last night while she was walking her dog. She wasn't carrying a bag and was just in sweats, and she was beaten up pretty badly and had some teeth knocked out. Elliot is saying it sounds like it was neither a sexual assault nor a robbery and he suspects it was political. The way things are going, he could be right.

Without any information (or confirmation) I think we should be careful about assuming motivations behind the attack. I'll only say on behalf of C&L that we wish Randi a speedy recovery.

Joe Gandelman has more...

UPDATE: Thom Hartmann just read the official AAR statement on his program:

October 16-NEW YORK-On Sunday evening, October 14, Air America host Randi Rhodes experienced an unfortunate incident hindering her from hosting her show. The reports of a presumed hate crime are unfounded. Ms. Rhodes looks forward to being back on the air on Thursday.

UPDATE #2: We're getting conflicting reports on exactly how Randi got hurt. So without Randi Rhodes's own statement clearing up the speculation, we'll stick with just wishing her a speedy recovery.

I heard this on Thom Hartmann's program this morning and it stunned me. H.R. 4239 was introduced on November 4th. Its Senate companion bill (S. 3880) was passed UNANIMOUSLY in September.

Here's the summary:

Animal Enterprise Terrorism Act - Rewrites federal criminal code provisions regarding animal enterprise terrorism to prohibit anyone from traveling in, or using the mail or any facility of, interstate or foreign commerce for the purpose of damaging or disrupting an animal enterprise and, in connection with such purpose: (1) intentionally damaging, disrupting, or causing the loss of property used by or owned in connection with such enterprise; (2) intentionally placing a person in reasonable fear of death or serious bodily injury to that person or a family member through threats, vandalism, property damage, trespass, harassment, or intimidation; or (3) conspiring or attempting to do so. Prescribes escalating penalties.

Authorizes restitution for: (1) the reasonable cost of repeating any experimentation that was interrupted or invalidated as a result of such offense; (2) the loss of food production or farm income reasonably attributable to such offense; and (3) any other economic damage, including any losses or costs caused by economic disruption, resulting from such offense.

That's right, PETA is now a terrorist organization. In my college days, I protested (along with other students) the biology department of my university when some of the animal experiments they did and their treatment of lab animals came to light. By this definition--so purposefully vague, except for the use of the word "terrorist"--I would be considered a terrorist for my participation. And with powers the President has claimed on fighting terrorism, that student protest could leave me in jail without any rights--or much, much worse.

Greg Palast: A Labor Day recipe...and an an excerpt from Thom Hartmann's new book, "Screwed: The Undeclared War On the Middle Class." Is anyone surprised that more
people are unemployed during conservative presidencies?

Pharyngula: A conservative Christian opposing public prayer at football games! Seems he'd been in Hawai'i, where he'd been shocked to discover that pre-game prayers were given by Buddhist monks.

NewsHog: Hey, don't look over there. There's nothing to see. Look over here instead!

AGITPROP: Weekend Wingnut Roundup...and don't miss Welcome to Pottersville's Assclowns of the Week

CNN - President wants Senate to hurry with new laws...BUT WAIT! This was 1996 and the president was Bill Clinton, prodding recalcitrant Republicans to pass terrorism legislation. (Hat tip Cell Whitman)

Lost in Tarnation: Islamoconfusion is the result when you can't keep your lies straight about why we invaded Iraq.

How's that Hooker Dick Morris?

Thom Hartmann had Dick Morris (I am the toe man) on his show today and there was a very interesting exchange. Morris was prattling on about how wonderful Condi Rice is when Thom questioned her job performance. Immediately, Dick began assaulting Sandy Berger so Hartmann reminded Dick of his hooker obsession. Morris hung up on him.

Download | play -MP3 (

The White Rose Society has all of Hartmann's audio files.

Sandy Berger told me personally Dick that he told Condi Rice when she came into office-that his words to her were look out for Osama Bin Laden. He's coming to get you. You need to be paying attention. This has to be your number one priority and she said, "OK thank you very much for that information," and did then nothing.

Morris: Did he, did he take the documents out of his socks when he told you that?

Hartmann: Come on Dick, do you want me to talk about hookers with you? Come on Dick.

Morris: Okay, well thanks very much for the interview. Bye-bye. (hangs up)

If more talk show hosts did this sort of thing there wouldn't be many extreme right wing apologists left on the airwaves.