Ed Schultz said goodbye to his 8PM weekday time slot on MSNBC Thursday night, but not before he addressed the rumors Politico put out yesterday about his switch to a 2-hour show on Saturdays and Sundays. In their article announcing the change, Dylan Byers insinuated that Schultz was being shoved out by MSNBC executives, something Schultz vehemently denies.

Chris Hayes will launch a new show in the 8 PM timeslot, beginning April 1st.

Speaking at the end of his Thursday show, Shultz thanked his wife, his viewers and his team but made it abundantly clear he was ready to take on the weekend cable lineup and shake it up.

Ed Schultz closed his final weekday show on MSNBC Thursday night by thanking his viewers, his team, and his wife of 16 years for supporting him during his time as host of the 8 p.m. show.

Schultz said he looked forward to telling real American stories on MSNBC. “We’re going to build those hours to be the best hours in cable,” he said.

“This is what The Ed Show has always been about, this is what The Ed Show is always going to be about: the people on the road, the stories, the butcher, the baker, the candlestick maker—those middle-class Americans who are fighting for a fair share, and their dream, their piece of the pie of this great country,” he added.

My viewing relationship with Shultz has been tempestuous. There were times where I'd shake my fist at him and other times where I'd give him an ovation. But he has consistently put the spotlight on stories that mean something to those of us who are not celebrities, who are not politicos, but who are just ordinary people trying to get by from day to day.

Ed shined the light on Scott Walker and the Wisconsin union situation right away, and stayed with that story to the end. He highlighted the 47 percent story, and was rewarded with the first interview with Scott Prouty. Watching Ed Schultz could be a little on the tiring side sometimes, but there was never any doubt that he was passionate and ready to do battle (and fire up the troops) for ordinary people.

I wish Chris Hayes much luck in that time slot. I like Chris, but I confess to not having quite the same viewing relationship with him. I think he's brilliant and sometimes funny, but also quite similar to Rachel Maddow in style and approach. We shall see. In the meantime, I'm going to make a commitment to see what Ed does with that weekend slot, because I do believe him when he vows to make those hours the best ever.

Whatever else it is, it will definitely be a refreshing change from the usual Saturday and Sunday afternoon talking heads on Fox and CNN.

Best of luck to you, Ed.

DOWNLOADS: (108)

PLAYS: (406)

Embed

I have a lot of respect for Leo Gerard, and now I have even more. Good for the steelworkers -- they gave Scott Prouty a union job!

WASHINGTON -- Now that he's gone public, Scott Prouty, the man behind the infamous "47 percent" video of Mitt Romney's remarks at a Florida fundraiser, has been in talks to work for the United Steelworkers union in a role that's yet to be determined, the head of the union told HuffPost on Thursday.

Steelworkers President Leo Gerard said the union met Prouty through Charles Kernaghan, a labor rights activist who heads the Institute for Global Labour and Human Rights, headquartered in Pittsburgh. Prouty had gotten in touch with Kernaghan, who'd been researching Bain Capital and outsourcing as Prouty anonymously disseminated his video last year. Gerard said that union officials met with Prouty at the presidential inauguration in Washington, D.C., in January, before the videographer was willing to go public.

Gerard explained his respect for Prouty, paraphrasing a quote from President Barack Obama that one voice can change a room, that room a city, that city a state, and so on. "I think Scott Prouty is one voice that changed the country," Gerard said.

"He's going to come work for us," Gerard went on. "We're going to sit down and talk. He has lots of skills, and we'll try to put him in a place where he can use the skills he's got."

Prouty said in a brief phone call with HuffPost Thursday that he intends to take the job. "I'd be honored to be involved with them. I think they're awesome people," he said of the union. "There's a good possibility it will work out."

In addition to putting him to work, Gerard said the union will protect Prouty, given his new and overwhelming exposure. "No one's gonna mess with him," Gerard said.

Nobody tells me anything! I remember hearing that progressive activists Alex Lawson (executive director of Social Security Works, spearheading the drive to protect it) and Cliff Schecter (bloggger and progressive PR consultant) bought an AM radio station in DC, which they christened We Act Radio, but I had no idea this was where David Shuster landed after his colorful exit from MSNBC. (He's also on CurrentTV, and I didn't know that, either.) Good to have him back!

It's important, though, for progressives to keep pushing away to build progressive radio. Yeah, Air America didn't last, but a lot of their alumni (Sam Seder and Nicole Sandler, just to name a few) are still hanging in there. And as my dear departed friend Joe Bageant said in his book "Deer Hunting With Jesus," talk radio is the only access most poor people get to information about their government. They listen at work, where they spend the most time awake, and after a while, it seeps in and warps their brains. That's why it's so important for us to offer some alternative to the wingnut brainwashing:

Officially launched January 1, 2012, We Act is a 5,000 watt (“of full truth-telling power,” says Kymone) AM station that covers DC, northern Virginia, and southern Maryland, which, per FCC rules, drops to 500 watts after sunset. In the modern media landscape, however, those “terrestrial limitations” mean less than they used to. Listeners can tune in live online, or on a mobile device using the “Tune-in” app for mobile, or a host of other methods. “There are two separate individuals from New Zealand who listen to this station via some website that hosts radio shows.” Alex says.

We Act relies heavily on syndicated content from progressive radio stars like Thom Hartmann, Bill Press, Stephanie Miller, and Ed Schultz, who, Lawson points out, had no broadcast presence in Washington, DC before We Act, despite the fact that Hartmann and Press both broadcast from DC.

Continue reading »

Paul Ryan haz a sad after President Obama smacked him around in his inaugural speech, saying those programs "do not make us a nation of takers; they free us to take the risks that make this country great."

Rep. Ryan didn't care for the attention, it seems. According to Politico, Ryan denies ever, ever, ever referring to people on Medicare and Social Security as "takers."

Is that a great example of denial in action, or what? Ryan suddenly forgot that he rolled out a plan for Medicare that ends it and substitutes private insurance for the lucky few who could afford it. Speaking to Laura Ingraham, he said he had been "misunderstood"! It wasn't about senior citizens, he claims; it was about some mysterious, undocumented overall slide toward a "dependency society."

Oh, Paul. Let us help you.

Paul Ryan at a 2005 fundraiser, selling the end of Medicare and Social Security:

"In case that wasn't clear enough, Ryan added: "I think if we win a few of these right now -- moving health care to a consumer-based, individualist system, moving Social Security to an individually pre-owned, pre-funded retirement system -- just those two right there will do so much to change the dynamics in this society."

Here's another quote from that same speech:

In almost every fight we are involved in here, on Capitol Hill...it is a fight that usually comes down to one conflict: individualism vs. collectivism...That is why there is no more fight that is more obvious between the differences of these two conflicts than Social Security. Social Security right now is a collectivist system, it’s a welfare transfer system…..

He also mentioned Medicare in that same context.

Paul Ryan, June, 2012:

Do you want the American idea of an opportunity society with a safety net where you can take a risk, start a business, make a difference, succeed and be honored for being successful?," Ryan said at a June 15, 2012 fundraiser. "Or do we go down the path the president is proposing -- a social welfare state, a cradle-to-the-grave society where we have more takers than makers."

Paul Ryan's October, 2012 fundraising remarks:

“With a few exceptions, government’s approach has been to spend lots of money on centralized, bureaucratic, top-down anti-poverty programs,” Ryan said. “ … The problem is, starting in the 1960s, this top-down approach created and perpetuated a debilitating culture of dependency, wrecking families and communities. This was so obvious to everyone by the 1990s that, when a major welfare program was finally reformed, the law was passed by a Republican Congress and signed by a Democratic president.”

Here are more examples, mashed up in one compact video here.

Paul Ryan believes 60 percent of the people in this country are takers. He's said that many, many times. And that category includes Medicare and Social Security recipients, no matter how much lipstickhe puts on that pig.

Always remember, this is a moral issue for Ryan. He can deny it all he wants, but this maker/taker belief rests at the core of his very being.

The only difference between Paul Ryan and Mitt Romney is a number: 13 percent. Romney said 47 percent were takers; Ryan says 60 percent are takers.

Otherwise, there's no daylight between them.

It appears that Rep. Jan Schakowsky intends to hold Republicans to their word with regard to deficit reduction. Citing studies that prove a public option would control health care costs, Schakowsky introduced the "Public Option Deficit Reduction Act".

TalkingPointsMemo:

The bill, which almost certainly cannot pass in the Republican-controlled House, is a mostly symbolic effort meant to keep the public option alive as a policy prescription. It is sponsored by Rep. Jan Schakowsky (D-IL), who is on the Energy & Commerce health subcommittee, along with Energy & Commerce Ranking Member Henry Waxman (D-CA) and 43 other lawmakers.

“The Public Option Deficit Reduction Act will give health care consumers more choice and lower their premiums,” said Schakowsky. “And, by providing a lower-cost alternative to private insurance, it would put pressure on all insurers to lower their premiums in order to compete.”

Citing an earlier estimate by the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office, Schakowsky expects it to reduce the deficit by some $100 billion over 10 years by boosting competition among insurers and paying providers at Medicare rates. The 2010 version of the public option was expected to reduce the debt by $68 billion over 10 years.

This probably has as much chance of passing in this Congress as a handgun ban does. But it serves a good purpose. First, it keeps the focus on Republicans' hypocrisy with regard to the deficit, because a public option would save money and keep insurance costs down. They could also introduce a Medicare buy-in bill for people 50 and up, which would really reduce the cost of Medicare and put it on the road to full solvency. Either way, there's no question that it would save money in the long run. Republicans will scurry around and whine about socialism in between whines about tyranny and guns, which keeps them from actually focusing on their own message and forces them to dance to our tune.

The other benefit is the incentive for all of us to try and overcome the insane gerrymandering and take back the Congress. I figure if people view the Congress as lower than cockroaches and head lice, there should be hope for any candidate, Democrat or otherwise, to be elected in 2014. We just need to make the case for the next two years for why this group of Republicans is toxic to the country and Democracy.

Along those lines, Democrats (particularly the DCCC) should take note: If they had contended in every district instead of ignoring 45 of them, it's possible that the popular vote edge would have even been bigger than it was. That needs to happen in 2014.

The whole "fiscal cliff negotiation" theme is driving me crazy. Ever since Jonathan Chait and Ezra Klein started acting like there were serious negotiations underway, everyone has gone wild on both sides.

I realize it was only ten days ago, but you know there was a time where we were banging the drum for the White House to hold fast, and you know who was losing that battle? John Boehner, Eric Cantor, and the entire Republican party. We were winning. They were losing. And they knew it.

Representative Tom Cole said the votes were there to pass the middle class tax cuts without any deal, without any bargain, without anything but bringing the bill to the floor. That was on December 12th.

All of a sudden, Boehner started playing "Let's Make a Deal" and the Villagers went crazy with it. But we don't have to. I don't understand why we're letting them muck this up with all manner of stupidity, which is only bolstering Republicans' images at the expense of Democrats.

All anyone has to do is start with what we know: Republicans do not negotiate in good faith ever, and they only negotiate at all when they are pressed to the wall. Therefore, we can all assume this is a lot of smoke with lots of mirrors and absolutely no sincerity.

I am of the belief that absolute clarity is needed in order to get this done in an orderly fashion. That means no muddling up the issues. It is absolutely driving me crazy to see the narrative driven by media that Medicare, Social Security, tax reform and the debt ceiling MUST be wrapped up in a tiny little neat package by December 31st.

No. Nothing need be wrapped up by December 31st. Absolutely nothing. I've heard arguments for why they should be, and so I'll take them one by one:

• Unemployment extensions expire 12/29: These are urgent. I am not minimizing that. But they are separate from any discussion about tax reform, tax rates, and tax cuts. There is no relationship between them and they should be addressed separately from the other issues. If the extensions are renewed in the first weeks of January, it will not do harm to recipients, and can retroactively be corrected.
• But the debt ceiling. ZOMG, the debt ceiling: President Obama needs to have us clamoring and echoing him on this: the debt ceiling is UNRELATED to the tax revenue question now and forevermore, and we should be prepared to have Republicans shut down government over it. Let them take the hit for their folly. Never before 2011 was the debt ceiling a serious hostage, and it shouldn't be one now.
• More stimulus! - The stimulus package the President is suggesting won't even cover Hurricane Sandy relief, which the sick GOP cheapos in Congress have already delayed and dithered about for weeks now. Seriously. President Obama is asking for $56 billion in stimulus. Sandy relief is expected to cost around $60 billion. It's just math.
• Better a Democrat shore up Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security, right? Sure. But certainly not in the name of deficit reduction or tax reform. Again, these are issues that are being intentionally smashed together to muddy up what is a simple, straightforward process.
• The payroll tax expires! Uh oh. Good. It should expire. It was always dangerous territory. If they want to extend it, they can extend it in the form of a refundable tax credit for 2013, which doesn't cause money from the General Fund to be transferred to the Social Security trust fund. Withholding can be adjusted to account for the credit, and the economy will be saved from ruin.

The only time Republicans care about the deficit is when they are not in the White House. This is a game, an act, an obscene dance of political gamesmanship, but it is NOT a negotiation.

What we should be doing:

• Ignore the Villagers' hand-wringing
• Stop accepting what they say as truth.
• Stop reacting to everything.
• Start saying out loud that the only thing that should happen before January 1st is an up or down vote in the House on the Senate extension of middle class tax cuts.
• Stomp your feet, call your Congressman, shout it out: ONLY an up or down vote on the middle class tax cuts is warranted, and that means one vote on the Senate bill, not some stupidly crafted package of nonsensical, arcane, ridiculously meaningless "cuts".

Ten days ago we were winning this by not budging at all. Yes, President Obama, that means YOU too. Now suddenly we're engaging in the farce Republicans call "negotiations?" Give me a break. This has been an exercise in how to turn media narratives around for the Republicans' benefit, but it is nothing like a negotiation.

If we really want to win, we simply stop acknowledging all of the stupid GOP party trial balloons floating around us and start pushing for one vote. One vote before December 31st. Just one. No amendments, no extras. One vote on the Senate bill to extend the middle class tax cuts.

Then make them sit at OUR table next year, when the upper rates are set and not going back down. That's how it's done. Our way, not theirs.

This is Ed Schultz' outstanding segment last night on the insanity going on in Michigan right now. As I write this, thousands of protesters are flooding the capitol in Lansing, Michigan to protest the state legislature's cramdown passage of right-to-work laws.

Ed has some stunning statistics, but the one that should most stun is this: only SIX PERCENT of people in Michigan support the lame duck legislature addressing this issue.

After being condemned by endorsees like the Detroit Free Press for ramming through a law like this without any debate or consideration, Governor Rick Snyder should sit back and realize he has an opportunity and a decision to make.

If he signs this bill into law, he will serve the six percent who support taking undemocratic action to destroy the middle class and workers all over this country.

If he vetoes it, he will serve the 94 percent who do not want this law crammed down their throats in a lame-duck session of the Michigan legislature.

That's his choice. The people or the oligarchs. He can be a hero or a pariah. Granted, he could be a wealthy pariah, but still a pariah.

If Snyder is interested in any kind of political career beyond where he is now, he should choose to serve the 94 percent. If he isn't, then he will sign it and take his place as a Tool of Oligarchy.

His call.

DOWNLOADS: (134)

PLAYS: (724)

Embed

I suppose it all depends on what you mean by wealthy. Still, sounds like Obama is semi-solid on ending those upper-class tax cuts, which is better than nothing but not enough:

WASHINGTON — President Barack Obama promised liberal groups on Tuesday that the Bush tax cuts will end for the nation's wealthiest, according to a statement from the progressive group MoveOn.

"MoveOn’s 7 million members will be pleased to know that President Obama today strongly reiterated his steadfast commitment to ensuring that the Bush tax cuts for the wealthiest 2 percent finally end December 31—and to protecting the middle class in the process," said the group's political action executive director Justin Ruben after meeting with Obama at the White House.

In his daily briefing, White House Press Secretary Jay Carney rejected the GOP's approach to raise revenues by cutting loopholes and deductions from the tax code, saying raising taxes on the rich was non-negotiable for Obama.

But Carney did not say whether Obama would stand by his "wealthy" cutoff line at $200,000 for individuals or $250,000 for families — a response to disagreement among Democrats over where to raise taxes and where to keep the rates the same or lower. Sen. Chuck Schumer has proposed raising the threshold to $500,000 or even $1 million.

The president "is not wedded to every detail of that plan," Carney said, when asked about the income levels. "I'm not going to negotiate hypothetical details."

No one's really saying much about Medicare and Social Security, but I got emails late yesterday afternoon from several of the organizations whose representatives attended the meeting, asking people to get ready for a fight:

Labor and progressive leaders who met with President Obama Tuesday drew a line in the sand on taxes, unemployment insurance, and entitlements—all of which are subject to change under the looming fiscal cliff deadline.

The meeting was the first of three the president will hold on the topic this week. He will meet with business leaders Wednesday and Congressional leaders Friday.

Richard Trumka, president of AFL-CIO said the meeting was "very positive," and that the president reiterated his position on preserving tax breaks for the middle class and seeing that the wealthy pay more.

One point of conflict between labor leaders and the White House may arise if the president offers to raise the eligibility age for Medicare as leverage to reach a deal. Trumka made no indication that the two sides made any progress on negotiating the issue during their one-hour meeting.

Matt Bai says it's too late:

Liberal activists will tell the president that things are very different now. He’s won a mandate, they will say, and that means he doesn’t need to compromise.

But while Mr. Obama can probably claim some vindication on the need to make the tax code more equitable, it would be a stretch to say that the voters demanded that he hold the line against entitlement cuts as part of a broader deal. The possible terms of a grand bargain hardly ever came up during the campaign, because neither side wanted to talk about it.

Mr. Obama may have more leverage now than he did in 2011 to put a hard limit on the scale of entitlement cuts, but it’s unthinkable that he could reach a comprehensive deal — something he still badly wants to do — without at least accepting the terms he found acceptable the first time around. That’s how negotiations work.

So while it may be good strategy for progressive groups to pressure the White House on entitlement spending, no one should harbor the illusion that the president won’t sign off on reductions. The simple fact is, he already has.

DOWNLOADS: (286)

PLAYS: (3951)

Embed

The fact-checkers must have been putting in some serious overtime last night with the abundance of lies that passed for Paul Ryan's speech. It was telling to watch journalists on Twitter respond to Ryan's words without placing them in context of truth or ethics.

But over on MSNBC, there was one particular slam of Ryan's against President Obama that just couldn't go unmentioned: the closure of the GM plant in Ryan's hometown of Janesville, Wisconsin. See, we in fact-based community know that Ryan tried to save the plant by writing a letter, appealing for assistance, but in end, the plant was closed in December 2008, a full month before Obama took office:

In June 2008, Ryan sent a letter along with his Wisconsin colleagues Senators Russ Feingold (D) and Herb Kohl (D) protesting the closure of General Motors plant in Janesville, Wisconsin. “We ask that you reconsider the decision to close the Janesville GM plant and request a meeting with you as soon as possible to discuss OM’s plans for the Janesville plant, including the possibility of retooling the plant for different production lines,” said the letter from the three lawmakers to GM CEO Rick Wagoner. As Talking Points Memo’s Benjy Sarlin notes, Ryan actually voted for a Bush-era effort to expand government loans to GM, a plan that failed to save the Janesville plant.

But that doesn't stop Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker from trying to blame Obama as well. But Rachel Maddow politely yet firmly gets right into his face calling out the lie, with Al Sharpton and Ed Schultz not far behind. Look how smoothly the blank-eyed liar keeps lying.

Scott Walker was asked by Maddow if Walker thought the auto bailout was not effective. “It wasn’t in Wisconsin,” said Walker. “What we need is true prosperity and that comes really more effectively trough the private sector.”

“You run down the American auto industry at a moment when it really has come back,” said Maddow. “To see such a bright spot in the economy being talked about as if things hadn’t worked out in the auto industry since the bailout is a surprise, Gov.”

“It could have come back more effectively and sooner had they taken the advice of Mitt Romney early on and done a managed bankruptcy instead of spending all those dollars of taxpayers’ money that otherwise could have been done more effectively in the private sector early on,” Walker replied.

“Was there private sector credit available to save the auto industry,” Maddow asked.

“A managed bankruptcy is something that could have been quite effective,” said Walker.

“It was not Barack Obama's economic policies that closed that GM plant,” said Schultz. “It’s in the Washington Post right now, Gov. Walker.”

In the face of continued pressure to weaken the United States Postal Service and attack the unionized working families who work for the USPS, Ed Schultz offers up the most comprehensive defense of the agency to date. In addition to pointing out the facts of the case that have been widely reported in the blogosphere, Schultz takes on a new angle — that cutting back on postal service equates to voter suppression in states that have vote by mail, particularly Oregon, which votes exclusively by mail.

As previously pointed out, the USPS would have a surplus right now if it wasn't for the fact that Republicans in Congress in 2006 required the service to prefund 75 years of pensions in just 10 years — a requirement no other private or public organization has to deal with. Other than a slight dip because of the recession, the USPS was at record highs in terms of volume, despite claims that the Internet and email were hurting traditional mail.

Square State also points to the first of several ads from the American Postal Workers Union that highlights a Colorado Springs postal worker. Two other APWU ads showcase the problems created by the assault on the USPS.

At Daily Kos, Laura Clawson notes that the Senate passed a bill that would give the Postal Service some time to avoid extreme measures:

The Senate passed S. 1789, the bill generally reported to be aimed at "saving" or "fixing" the postal service, by a vote of 62-37 Wednesday. Less widely reported were the origins of the postal service's problems in a crisis manufactured by Congress and exacerbated less by the shift online than by the recession. The Senate bill buys the postal service some time before the worst proposed post office and processing center closures, cuts to delivery and lengthened delivery times, and jobs cuts can begin to kick in. But while it prevents postal executives from kicking off an immediate death spiral, it doesn't create the conditions for the postal service's success by reversing the conditions that manufactured the crisis to begin with.

The Senate's bill would bar the postal service from ending Saturday mail delivery for two years, keeps overnight first-class mail delivery for some mail sent short distances while allowing longer delivery times over greater distances, prevents pre-Election Day closures in states that vote by mail, and prevents the closure of post offices if there are no other post offices within 10 miles, among other things.