You can view this video right here by getting the latest version of Flash Player!

DOWNLOADS: 1611

PLAYS: 878

(Dr. Walter Heller - tried to save Reagan from himself - didn't work)

With word about the latest recession being "over", I was reminded about the last time we had a deep recession in the 1980s and how we all became familiar with the phrases "Reaganomics", Supply-Side and Voodoo-Economics.

Back in the 80s there was 10% unemployment (on paper) and it felt like it lasted forever. Former Kennedy and Johnson Economic adviser Dr. Walter Heller had a few observations to make when he was interviewed on Face The Nation in 1982.

Dr. Walter Heller: “Had the Carter program, and unfortunately it was rather forgettable, but had the Carter program been enacted, we would be in much better shape today. People seem to forget that Carter, in October of the last year of his presidency proposed a tax program that made just excellent sense. It was much smaller than the President’s program, and it concentrated more of its tax cuts, and this is what people forget, on the supply side, so to speak, on true stimulus of government investment. Instead of having enormous deficits that scare the public and Wall Street, we would have had much more moderate deficits, we’d be much better off today.”

Perhaps hindsight is 20/20 but it's interesting to speculate what might have happened had the Carter program been enacted.

But no, The Great Communicator had a better idea . . or so he said.

You can view this video right here by getting the latest version of Flash Player!

DOWNLOADS: (1041)

PLAYS: (3200)

Glenn Beck has become a cartoon. You can pretty much guarantee that every afternoon, you can tune in and find Beck saying something so stupidly outrageous, so detached from reality, so unhinged in its lunacy, that you just have to shake your head. It's not really a very funny cartoon, though.

Yesterday he treated us all to a long rant about how liberals are indoctrinating our children with inhuman values that are OK with letting grandma die at the hands of death panels, or something. "We have raised a generation of potential killers," he warned, inspired by a letter to the editor from a young woman who wants health-care reform for her generation especially. Yeah, that's exactly the same thing as pushing for euthanasia.

Beck, obviously, hears strange things when he listens to other people -- things they don't actually say. Instead, they seem to be edited by the voices inside his head.

He featured a later segment with right-wing economist Arthur Laffer -- one of the progenitors of Reaganomics -- who tells Beck all the damage could be repaired overnight with just a simple injection of Reagan-style economics. Of course, Laffer neglects to mention that G.W. Bush followed his economic prescriptions (especially those tax cuts for the wealthy, and the deregulation of the financial sector) to the letter, too -- and we can see where that got us.

You can view this video right here by getting the latest version of Flash Player!

DOWNLOADS: (254)

PLAYS: (1018)

But Beck concludes anyway that Obama is marching us right into a Soviet-style decline and crumble:

Beck: Did you ever read Pravda?

Laffer: I did read Pravda, as a matter of fact.

Beck: Did you read that? Where they're like, 'What is wrong with the Republicans?' We're watching what happened to Russia -- Pravda gives us more truth than the American press!

He's referring, of course, the Igor Panarin's dire predictions of the fall of America, which, so far, have proven laughably wrong.

Indeed, Panarin is actually just a classic Russian propagandist, engaged in the process of explaining to his readers why post-Soviet rule has not exactly been a smashing success -- by claiming that the USA is about to go into a similar decline.

We had no idea Beck was such a fan of post-Soviet propaganda. Quick, someone alert Glenn Beck and see if he can do another of his McCarthyite exposes.

You can view this video right here by getting the latest version of Flash Player!

DOWNLOADS: (68)

PLAYS: (140)

Good old Mitch McConnell. You can always count on him for the IOKIYAR argument. He seems to have a bit of a memory problem when it comes to the use of reconciliation. Of course we can count on John King not to ask him about it either. Sadly that is all too typical of the media.

From Media Matters--LA Times reported McConnell's criticism of reconciliation without noting his past support of process:

The Los Angeles Times reported Sen. Mitch McConnell's criticism of Democrats' potential use of the reconciliation process to pass health-care reform without noting that he repeatedly voted in favor of using reconciliation to pass the Bush tax cuts.

Transcript:

KING: Well, I want you to listen, not to the president, but I want you to listen to your own voice. You spoke here in Washington on Friday to a conservative gathering about the health care debate and you voiced quiet confidence about the Republican position. Let's listen.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

MCCONNELL: We're seeing it today in the debate over health care. Ordinary Americans speaking their minds, dismissed and ridiculed by people in power. The reason they are doing this is clear, because we're winning the argument.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

KING: Define "winning" for me. Is winning blocking the Democratic plans and ending this year without a health care reform bill reaching the president's desk?

MCCONNELL: No, winning is stopping and starting over and getting it right. I don't know anybody in my Republican conference in the Senate who's in favor of doing nothing on health care. We obviously have a cost problem and we have an access problem.

But there's a very big difference about whether or not it's appropriate to have a major rewrite of about one sixth of our economy in the process. My members just don't think that's the right way to go. We want to fix the health care system, but we don't want to do or have a $1 trillion over 10-year cut in Medicare, not to make Medicare more sustainable, but to start a new program for others.

We don't think it's a good idea to raise taxes on small businesses and on individuals in the heart of a recession. There are some serious differences about what ought to be done. KING: I saw your speech just before I went over to see the president. So I asked him about it. Listen to this exchange.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

KING: Mitch McConnell told the conservative group, we're winning the health care debate. What do you think of that?

OBAMA: Well, you know, they were saying they were winning during the election too.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

KING: A confident president there, saying he will get health care. He also said in an interview with Univision that's airing this morning that he would love Republican votes, but I don't count on them. I don't count on them. Mr. Leader, let me ask you, if they go forward and they do this with all Democrats, what does that do to the environment down the road? Some Republicans have said well then don't expect our cooperation on financial reform. Don't expect our cooperation on Afghanistan. Is this one issue health care, or could it poison the well?

MCCONNELL: Look, it's not about winning or losing, it's not about the president, it's about American health care and getting it right. And if they try to use this legislative loophole called reconciliation, what they'll be doing, in effect, is jamming through a proposal to rewrite the economy with about 24 hours of debate.

Basically, a legislative loophole to do a massive rewrite of one sixth of our economy. I think that that will produce a very, very severe reaction among the American people, who are already, according to the Gallup poll, not in favor of the direction we're taking on this very important issue.

KING: Help me understand if there's a gap between the audience in the sense that you say here, it's not about winning or losing, but you were very clear to that conservative group, we're winning the argument.

MCCONNELL: Well, by winning, the definition of winning is to stop and start over and do it right.

You can view this video right here by getting the latest version of Flash Player!

DOWNLOADS: (61)

PLAYS: (138)

From Fox News Sunday, Chris Wallace asks Sen. Lamar Alexander about this statement he made to the Wall Street Journal:

"They either don't know how to operate in a bipartisan way or don't want to operate in a bipartisan way," said Sen. Lamar Alexander (R., Tenn.). He warned that if Democrats use a parliamentary tactic called reconciliation to push through a bill by a majority vote in the Senate, "there'll be a minor revolution in this country."

Democratic leaders are leaving open the option of using reconciliation for parts of the bill. But with the political price for that tactic potentially high, they are hoping to avoid it.

As Media Matters reports Wallace and the Wall Street Journal are ignoring GOP's reconciliation double standard.

The Journal did not note that, during the Bush administration, Alexander voted to use the reconciliation process to pass tax cuts and voted against amendments that would have stripped reconciliation language from budget resolutions.

Howard Dean points this out during the segment but Chris Wallace changed the subject after he did rather than address it.

WALLACE: Senator Alexander, I want to ask you about something the president almost certainly won't talk about in his speech on Wednesday night, and that is the idea that they -- that Democrats may decide to just ignore the Republicans and push health care reform through the Senate through a parliamentary device associated with the budget called reconciliation, which means they won't need 60 votes to prevent a filibuster. They'll only need 51 votes.

You have said, and I quote, "That would wreck the Democratic Party and create a," quote, "'minor revolution in this country.'" Why?

ALEXANDER: Well, for two reasons. One, it would create a bad health care bill because under the provisions in the rules, the parliamentarian would write the bill, so all the senators would be voting on are tax increases or Medicare cuts, and you wouldn't get to put in the bill things like pre-existing conditions or buying insurance across party lines. So it would be a bad bill.

Second, it would be thumbing your nose at the American people who have been trying to say to Washington for the last several months, "Slow down. I mean, too many Washington takeovers, too much debt. You're meddling with my health care." Let's go step by step and do some things to reduce costs.

So thumbing their nose at the American people by ramming through a partisan bill would be the same thing as going to war without asking Congress' permission. You might technically be able to do it, but you'd pay a terrible price in the next election.

DEAN: See, actually, Chris, I disagree with that. I think this has been used 23 times before, including by George Bush's really controversial tax cuts when he first got in. And I don't think the American people care about the process. I think they care about the result.

You can view this video right here by getting the latest version of Flash Player!

DOWNLOADS: (1147)

PLAYS: (1907)

Well, we wondered why the "Tea Party Express" was bothering to advertise so heavily on Fox, when the network was certain to give them all the free advertising in the form of "reportage" from the likes of Glenn Beck and Sean Hannity. And sure enough, Neil Cavuto came through Friday with the first of what will certainly be many Fox News "reports" on the exciting cross-country tour.

But CNN did the real honors Friday, featuring a couple of segments on the tour. The first was a fluff piece about what a cool bus the people on the tour get to ride in. Awesome, dood.

Then Tony Harris did an interview with Mark Williams, the chief spokesman for Our Country Deserves Better PAC, the organization behind the "Tea Party Express." And while Harris did try to ask Williams some skeptical questions, it was a very congenial segment.

Most of all, Williams was able to flatly deceive the CNN audience about their purpose and intent. Harris asked him whether or not the entire thrust of the "tea parties" was to attack President Obama's policies -- a reasonable point, since these "partiers" were nowhere to be found when George W. Bush was busily busting budgets and running up massive deficits in the name of tax cuts for the wealthy.

Harris, though, pretended throughout the segment that they were purely a nonpartisan outfit only angry about overtaxation. Which is a large wagonload of hooey.

The "Our Country Deserves Better" PAC, in fact, was founded in August 2008 -- before the election -- specifically to oppose Barack Obama and his policies. (They called it "drawing contrasts between Senator Barack Obama and John McCain".) In October 2008, for instance, Williams was out on the stump campaigning against Obama as a "socialist" on a previous bus tour called the "Stop Obama Express". They've also runs ads comparing Obama to Hitler.

That's a nice bit of track-covering. Too bad none of these cable anchors are sharp enough to catch on to it.

You can view this video right here by getting the latest version of Flash Player!

DOWNLOADS: (1123)

PLAYS: (6615)

Here's another prime example of those wonderful compassionate conservatives for you. Bill Bennett on CNN's State of the Union just can't seem to get himself to endorse extending unemployment benefits right now, not because he doesn't care about the unemployed, of course. That would sound uncaring, now wouldn't it? He's just concerned that "they have already spent so doggone much money". When Donna Brazile points out that you didn't hear these complaints from Republicans when Bush was giving away the bank with tax cuts for the rich, war spending and giveaways to the drug companies, check out the look on Bennett's face. He doesn't have to say a word. That expression says it all.

They end up on a hard break, so we never do get to hear just what Bennett's compassionate conservative reply would have been, but I'm sure sure it would have been more of the same similar to his earlier remarks. I just wonder if Bill Bennett has ever had to want for anything in his entire lifetime? From the condescending look on his face while she was talking, I would guess not.

YELLIN: Let me ask you about that today because there are indications that there could be, at least the Treasury secretary is not ruling out the possibility of middle class tax increase. How would that play, politically, for President Obama, if that had to happen?

BRAZILE: Well as we know, that 95 percent of the tax relief that was offered in the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act went to middle class Americans. So I would hope at a time when middle class Americans and others are feeling the squeeze from the state governments and the local governments and now the federal government with the debt, I would hope that this would not be an issue right now. But if he's talking about putting this in the mix in terms of how we pay for health care reform, we need to take a look at it.

YELLIN: Bill, does that make you think, oh, this is going to look good in 2012 for the elections?

BENNETT: I'm really not thinking about that, but the interesting thing is, it's not so much President Obama and the Democrats versus the Republicans at this point. In many ways, it's President Obama and the American people. And the more they're hearing, the more skeptical they're becoming. Thus you see his polls going down. I don't want to be gloomy, I want to be upbeat. It's always morning in America as far as I'm concerned.

But the problem is, when people look at these various proposals, like health care or like cap and trade, what they're getting is, they may have additional burdens on them, additional taxes or additional costs. And that doesn't, A, encourage them, B, it doesn't encourage a long-term recovery.

Continue reading »

This is the legacy of the Reagan era: keep hacking away at vital parts of the safety net so politicians can proclaim they didn't raise taxes. It makes as much sense as selling your car's spare tire and jack.

Republicans used tax cuts as a way to bludgeon Democratic opponents, and instead of making voters understand how vital these government services are, Democrats far too often agreed with the Republicans and raced to cut everything they could. And now, when we need it most, the unemployment system is literally falling apart.

Who could have predicted that if you keep slicing vital services, you wouldn't have them when you need them?

WASHINGTON — Years of state and federal neglect have hobbled the nation’s unemployment system just as a brutal recession has doubled the number of jobless Americans seeking aid.

In a program that values timeliness above all else, decisions involving more than a million applicants have been slowed, and hundreds of thousands of needy people have waited months for checks.

And with benefit funds at dangerous lows even before the recession began, states are taking on billions in debt, increasing the pressure to raise taxes or cut aid, just as either would inflict maximum pain.

Sixteen states, with exhausted funds, are now paying benefits with borrowed cash, and their number could double by the year’s end.

Call centers and Web sites have been overwhelmed, leaving frustrated workers sometimes fighting for days to file an application.

While the strained program still makes more than 80 percent of initial payments within three weeks — slightly below the standard set under federal law — cases that require individual review are especially prone to delay. Thirty-eight states are failing to make those decisions within the federal deadline.

For workers who survive a paycheck at a time, even a week’s delay can mean a missed rent payment or foregone meals.

This is the part of the article that sets my blood boiling:

“Lower tax rates make it easier to attract business,” said Doug Holmes, president of UWC, a group that advocates on behalf of employers. “We don’t want to spend a whole lot of time beating ourselves up because we didn’t raise taxes enough. Nobody anticipated a recession this size.”

Yeah, nobody except a couple of Nobel Prize-winning economists and a bunch of dirty hippies with computers.

You can view this video right here by getting the latest version of Flash Player!

DOWNLOADS: (94)

PLAYS: (189)

David Shuster and Tamryn Hall bring in J.P. Freire and Matthew Slutsky to "debate" whether the stimulus package is working or not. While I like David Shuster and think he does as good of a job as he's allowed to on MSNBC, this entire exercise struck me as just another example of why more people need to watch programs like Democracy Now and Bill Moyers Journal.

How the hell do you have an honest debate on this topic in five minutes? And cut the guests off at the end for some B.S. not important "breaking news" at the end of the segment to boot?

If MSNBC really cared about this topic, one, they'd be bringing in actual, respected economists to debate it from all sides of the aisle. Two, they'd not be limiting the debate to a few minutes. And three, they'd not be using the latest Republican talking point du jour as their guiding light for their "news" stories. Just because the Republicans decided to throw their latest hissy fit for the day doesn't mean they need to be taken seriously.

It's really tiresome to watch our "news" cycle being driven off the RNC fax machines talking points memo day after day.

You can view this video right here by getting the latest version of Flash Player!

DOWNLOADS: (59)

PLAYS: (178)

What's wrong with this picture when Pat Buchanan is talking more sense than Harold Ford Jr. or Lawrence O'Donnell? While Buchanan disagrees with the agenda set out by the Obama administration on getting health care reform done, at least he's got the sense to know that if someone says they're going to do something, they'd better stick with it and not worry about some poll numbers in Ohio. Harold Ford Jr. thinks maybe the Obama administration should think about some more tax cuts to stimulate the economy, and maybe hold off on reforming our health care system.

Thanks Harold. With Democrats like these.... And can these talking heads quit saying that the Obama administration's stimulus package was the first one? The first stimulus package was passed in 2008, by George Bush. With tax cuts. That didn't work and failed to stimulate the economy.

I'd also like to know why Lawrence O'Donnell or the Hardball producers think Harold Ford and Pat Buchanan should be their go-to guys on an economic debate instead someone like Paul Krugman who predicted what's happening now? Can we get some economists in the house instead of a milk toast DLC Democratic talking head and a Republican talking head, neither of whom are experts on the economy?

Transcript below the fold.

Continue reading »

TIME Magazine: Republicans in the Wilderness: Is the Party Over?

The most urgent question is the meaning of economic conservatism. Representative Patrick McHenry of North Carolina, a conservative who keeps a bust of Reagan on his desk, surprised me by declaring that the Reagan era is over. "Marginal tax rates are the lowest they've been in generations, and all we can talk about is tax cuts," he said. "The people's desires have changed, but we're still stuck in our old issue set."

I give it one day. Once Rush mentions it on the radio, McHenry will be bowing and scraping before his altar.

March 25, 2009 C-SPAN

DOWNLOAD (63)

PLAY (171)

Ouch. What can I say except the truth hurts. Of course there was just enough time for David Gregory to get a shot in at Democrats right before being saved by the bell and ending the conversation. Heaven forbid the panel is allowed to spend too much time talking about how Republicans are devoid of ideas. The difference David Gregory is who Democrats want to cut taxes for and it is not their only idea. I think the American public figured out over the last eight years, not just the last four months that most of the ideas the Republicans do have about how to run the country are bad ones.

MR. GREGORY: I want to talk some Republican politics here in our remaining moments. Michael Steele, head of the RNC, he got in more hot water this week. Gave an interview with GQ and talked about abortion, and his is how the conversation went. He was asked, "Are you saying you think women have the right to choose an abortion?" Steele says, "Yeah. I mean, again, I think that's an individual choice." "You do?" Steele, "Yeah. Absolutely."

David Frum, does that represent the Republican Party?

MR. FRUM: It should represent a view within the Republican Party. It should be permissible to say such a thing. Look, we need--I, I speak as a Republican. We need Michael Steele. He is exciting, he is warm, he has a marvelous TV presence. It--that's, that's the face that our party should be presenting to the country, and we need to support him. And the very fact that he is opening up the debate, talking with the constituencies that need to, need to be reached, these are valuable and fresh things. And I, I am just sick about the kind of level of, of attack he has taken, because we need him.

MR. SMILEY: I'm glad--I'm, I'm glad, David, that Michael Steele is there. I could never imagine 10 years ago that we'd have two parties, both headed by black men. But it's important to understand two things, very quickly. Number one, it's about the policy, not the personality. You can't put a colored face out and think that black people and brown people and women are coming just because you got a colored face out front. Number one, it's about the policy. And number two, all this infighting I think still underscores this party doesn't know who they are, where they're going or how they're going to get there.

MR. FRUM: Well, but both of those are positive things. He's not a black face, he's just a different face. We need different kinds of people. And it isn't that you think you put a black face on the party and you'll get black voters. You put a different face on the party and you'll get different voters.

MR. SMILEY: But the policy, but the policies have to change, too. That's my point.

MS. KAY: But...

MR. FRUM: And--but the first step to making the policies change is saying it's possible, there's room. And his kind of knocking down the walls is saying we can have a wider discussion in the Republican Party than we've allowed ourselves.

MS. KAY: Isn't...

MR. GREGORY: Katty:

MS. KAY: Isn't it even a bigger problem, the question of leadership within the Republican Party, is that I haven't heard a sensible Republican idea on this economic crisis, apart from reducing taxes, over the last four months.

MR. FRUM: The payroll tax holiday is a great idea.

MS. KAY: You--they have to come up with...

MR. GREGORY: Right.

MS. KAY: They have to start coming up with ideas that the American public is interested in. You've got some younger Republicans saying, "We need to get back to talking about health care, we need to get back to talking about education, the kinds of things that the American public are talking about, and not just talking about cutting taxes."

MR. LIESMAN: That's the parody of the Republican Party that goes around in economic circles. "Well, you have cancer, cut taxes." You know, that's the, the, the solution of the Republican Party to everything.

MR. GREGORY: But the payroll tax idea, Republican idea was also shared by some Democrats, as well.

MS. KAY: Right.

MR. LIESMAN: It's a big danger, though, David, which is that if you watch the savings rate go up, the fear is that people will get this money from the government and they will save it instead of spend it, which is the argument for government spending at this moment.

MR. GREGORY: All right, lot, lots more to talk about. Unfortunately, we're out of time.

February 24, 2009 C-SPAN

DOWNLOAD (108)

PLAY (318)

I just got around to going back for this clip but it's worth sharing. Jon Stewart smacks down John Sununu for Republican hypocrisy over their sudden new found religion on deficits now that it's for domestic spending and trying to get our economy out of a free fall, not wanting to regulate industry as well as their lack of concern for our future generations paying back what the occupation in Iraq and the Bush tax cuts have added to the deficit.
John Amato:

Stewart also asks Sununu if Judd Gregg just learned that he was a conservative? Wouldn't he have known that two weeks ago?
And then Jon talks about how the Bush tax cuts killed the Fed budget and, well...you know...

Stewart: I'm not an economist, but let's say I start out with a surplus and I say lets have a tax cut to stimulate the economy, lets make it 1.2 trillion dollars and that surplus turns into a deficit. Why would I at that point go, hey you know what could fix that? A tax cut.

Heather: As much as the villagers are trying to protect the Republicans over their Bush behavior, the only ones that are left to expose them are the late night comedy/talk show battles as of late. Whether anyone thinks SNL's skit of the Republican leadership was funny or not, which I actually didn't think was all that funny, doesn't really matter and that was not what I was trying to convey by posting it.

I posted it because like this clip, their two faced concern over how our tax payer dollars are spent is being made a mockery of as it should be. It's just sad that our MSM is so corrupted they're not reflecting how they should be scorned for their actions and it's taking our comedians to call them out for it, whether anyone thinks they are funny or not.

DOWNLOAD (31)

PLAY (107)

Debbie Wasserman Schultz on CNN's State of the Union responding to John King questioning her with the media's latest talking points on bipartisanship and about what's going to happen to the bill once it goes to conference committee. She explains that Republicans refused the hand of bipartianship. The only people surprised by that are the media.

KING: As you know, the new president came to town promising a new era of bipartisanship. Eight years of George W. Bush, eight years of Bill Clinton, not much true bipartisanship in this town. Your speaker after the Senate compromise was reached on Friday, made clear she doesn't like it. She said this, "Washington seems consumed in the process argument of the bipartisanship when the rest of the country says they need this bill."

The process argument of bipartisanship. The president said it is a critical spirit to have in this town. Your boss in the House, the speaker, doesn't seem to think it's important.

SCHULTZ: On the contrary, Speaker Pelosi has made bipartisanship and reaching out in the Republicans in the House a priority. We made sure that we had markup after markup in committee this week and in the last few weeks which included Republican amendments that we heard, that some that we accepted.

We reached out our hand across the aisle, asked them to help craft this legislation. That was rejected. So we have made an effort at reaching out our hand across the aisle. They really seem to be more interested in making sure that this whole process fails. It's really baffling to me why they don't want to pass an economic recovery package. They'll have to answer the American people as to why that is.

Continue reading »