Tag Archives: joe kernen

Journos Slam Liberal ‘Pro-Israel’ Group for Lying About Soros Money

You know things are bad when a liberal organization loses the journalists. On Friday, the Washington Times reported that the dovish “pro-Israel” group J Street had taken hundreds of thousands of dollars from controversial liberal philanthropist George Soros, after the organization had denied for years that Soros was a donor. But instead of ‘fessing up immediately to its true funding sources, a panicked J Street public relations team kept misleading the media in the hours before the Washington Times story broke – and appeared to anger some formerly-sympathetic reporters along the way. “A set of half-truths, non-truths and ambiguities from J Street lead a reasonable person to conclude that the group tried to conceal that George Soros has been one of its largest donors for years, and to falsely claim that it had been ‘open’ about those donations over the past three years,” wrote The Atlantic reporter Chris Good on Friday, noting that J Street officials had lied to him earlier that day. Aware that the Washington Times story was about to be published, J Street had contacted The Atlantic’s Good on Friday morning and offered him an exclusive on the group’s growing “fundraising momentum.” A spokesperson for J Street told Good that the group accepted donations from Soros, and that it had always been open about this source of funding. Good initially wrote a favorable article on the organization’s uptick in donations, but after reading the Washington Times story he issued a massive correction and admitted that J Street had misled him that very morning. “J Street also seemed to distort the fact that it received a large contribution from a donor in Hong Kong. Some of this happened on the phone with me earlier today,” Good wrote. Veteran liberal reporter James Besser, who is one of the most influential and well-respected journalists in Jewish media, also had some harsh criticism for the organization. “I was one of the many journalists who asked [J Street] the question [about Soros funding] – and received in return something significantly less than the truth. Okay, it was a lie,” wrote Besser in a stinging rebuke of J Street in The Jewish Week. “[T]here’s no way this doesn’t sow mistrust among commentators and reporters who write and speak about J Street, and who were repeatedly misled by its officials. J Street sought to create a climate of trust with a press corps that was being spun heavily by its opponents; this news undoes a lot of that effort.” The Jewish Telegraphic Agency’s Washington bureau chief Ron Kampeas, who regularly covers J Street, also echoed Besser’s critique. “On J Street, Jim Besser said it,” wrote Kampeas on his blog. “Sometimes, you wanna write something, but someone else says it just right.” J Street publicly denied to the media for years that it received money from Soros, who is a vocal anti-Zionist and a controversial figure in the Jewish community. J Street calls itself a grassroots “pro-Israel, pro-peace” organization that is funded by small donors in the Jewish community, though opponents have long claimed the group was tied to Soros and criticized it as anti-Israel. “We got tagged as having [Soros’] support without the benefit of actually getting funded!” J Street’s director Jeremy Ben-Ami told Moment magazine last March. In May, 2009, the Associated Press reported that “Ben-Ami says liberal philanthropist George Soros attended a 2006 meeting where ideas for such a group were discussed but bowed out immediately, worried his involvement would draw criticism.” And in a Jerusalem Post interview with Ben-Ami in April, 2009, Ruthie Blum Leibowitz reported that one of J Street’s “initial ideological supporters, George Soros, apparently backed out because he thought his reputation as a bankroller for groups that blame Israel and the US for the world’s ills might not be helpful to this particular organization.” On J Street’s own website, a section clarifying “Myths and Facts” about the group claimed that “George Soros very publicly stated his decision not to be engaged in J Street when it was launched – precisely out of fear that his involvement would be used against the organization…J Street’s Executive Director has stated many times that he would in fact be very pleased to have funding from Mr. Soros and the offer remains open to him to be a funder should he wish to support the effort.” The section, which was written in 2008, implied that Soros was not a donor. In a Huffington Post column on Saturday, Ben-Ami admitted that his group has taken money from Soros since Fall 2008.

Excerpt from:
Journos Slam Liberal ‘Pro-Israel’ Group for Lying About Soros Money

NY Times Op-Ed Writer’s Muddled Logic: Money Not Paid in Taxes a Gift from Government

It’s a really skewed view of the relationship between citizens and the government – that anything you earn and get to keep by not paying to the government in the form of taxes is a show of benevolence from the government. But that’s apparently the view of Richard H. Thaler, professor at the University of Chicago . In the Sept. 26 New York Times , Thaler, declares that tax cuts are a gift in his op-ed “What the Rich Don’t Need.” “WANT to give affluent households a present worth $700 billion over the next decade?” Thaler wrote. “In a period of high unemployment and fiscal austerity, this idea may seem laughable. Amazingly, though, it is getting traction in Washington . I am referring, of course, to the current debate about whether to extend all, or just some, of the tax cuts of President George W. Bush – cuts that are due to expire at year-end. They’re expiring because the only way they could be enacted initially was by pretending that they were temporary.” Video Below Fold This caught the eye of CNBC’s Joe Kernen, the co-host of “Squawk Box.” On the Sept. 27 broadcast of his show, Kernen pointed out the flaw in that logic. “Over the weekend, I was reading in The New York Times – it was one of their professors that writes. I forget the guy’s name. I always disagree with him,” Kernen said. “[H]e talks about it as a $700-billion gift to the rich. And I just have a problem when they look at – OK, so they’re using the Clinton tax levels as the standard of where we are. And anything diverges from that is a gift, even though it’s money you earned. It’s a gift back to you.” Kernen questioned why the talking point used by tax cut opponents is always based on what tax levels were during the Clinton presidency and why it is a view that a certain percentage of what taxpayers keep is gift to the them. “Let’s go back to pre-, before Reagan began was around, when it was 70 percent. Anything less than 70 percent, is it a gift to the taxpayer?” he continued. “[D]oes it start at ‘you pay 100 percent to us and anything we let you keep after that is a gift’ or does it start at ‘0 percent and anything you charge me prove that you need to spend that.’ Why don’t you do it that way? Prove that you need anything above zero percent. Show me you’re not going to waste it and then prove you can do it.” Fill-in co-host Michelle Caruso-Cabrera, author of the forthcoming book “You Know I’m Right: More Prosperity, Less Government” summed it up succinctly by explaining what the intended relationship of government and the citizens is. “They work for us,” Caruso-Cabrera said. “We don’t work for them.”

More:
NY Times Op-Ed Writer’s Muddled Logic: Money Not Paid in Taxes a Gift from Government

CNBC’s Kernen Declares Obama’s Populist Tactics Proof He Advocates ‘Redistribution of Wealth’

To many, it’s hardly a revelation to most, but when someone keeps taking the same action over and over again, even to his detriment, it can reveal a lot about that individual’s belief system. This was an observation CNBC “Squawk Box” host Joe Kernen made about the Obama administration’s willingness to embrace a populist “soak the rich” tactic against the wealthy in the United States, even though it isn’t winning him favor with the American people, according to opinion polling. A new ABC News/Washington Post poll shows more people now think President Barack Obama’s policies have hurt the economy than have helped. And Kernen called the unwillingness to change course evidence of the president’s ideology – proof he does believe in the redistribution of wealth. “When push comes to shove, the left wins out with this guy,” Kernen said on the Sept. 8 broadcast of “Squawk Box.” “Axelrod calls the shots when push comes to shove. And this will make the case for a populist argument that these rich people – soak the rich – they do not need this and we’re going to cut for the middle class and we’re going to pay for it by soaking the rich. And it’s right down – but it also – he said it all along, but to his critics, those critics, it’s more evidence of a redistribution that when it all comes down to it, the overriding mandate of this administration – it’s a redistribution of wealth. ”  And even Kernen’s “Squawk Box” co-host Carl Quintanilla said it was obvious this wasn’t working. “If that strategy had worked since he came into office – talking down Wall Street, scolding businesses, fat cats – his poll numbers would be higher,” Quintanilla added. “So the question is, why isn’t he adjusting?” But Kernen says it’s deeper than just a soak-the-rich philosophy for the sake of short-term political expediency, but that this is a belief Obama has held for decades. “Because I think he really believes that wealth needs to be redistributed after the income disparity over the past 30 years ,” Kernen said. “I really think he believes and he’ll forego some near-term job gains and every thing else.” In his first column for The New York Times on Sept. 7 , Peter Orszag, Obama’s former director of the White House Office of Management and Budget, suggested that Obama should reconsider his administration’s stance on allowing the Bush tax cuts expire. Moody’s economist Mark Zandi, an expert the Obama administration had relied on heavily in 2009 to get the stimulus passed, also has questioned the administration’s wisdom . And even a Times Sept. 8 story , which are traditionally sympathetic to Obama’s causes, was also doubtful he could prevail, as Kernen pointed out. “It’s so obvious – even Orszag can figure that out,” Kernen continued. “Even Zandi – just about everyone can figure out that you don’t try to stimulate at the same time you’re sucking money out of the economy. It makes no sense. But even The New York Times – ‘It’s not clear that Mr. Obama can prevail given his,’ and this is The New York Times, ‘given his own diminishing popularity the tepid economic recovery and the divisions within his own party.’ It says a lot of nervous Democrats wish that he would give them some cover and say, all right, maybe we’ll …”

Read more from the original source:
CNBC’s Kernen Declares Obama’s Populist Tactics Proof He Advocates ‘Redistribution of Wealth’