Tag Archives: budget

MSNBC’s Chuck Todd Continues to Distort Tax Deal’s ‘Astronomical’ Cost

MSNBC's Chuck Todd on the December 7 “Daily Rundown” was uncharacteristically heated in his opposition to the compromise between President Barack Obama and congressional Republicans on extending the Bush tax rates. Interviewing a Treasury Department official, Todd used flawed statistics to malign the proposed two-year extension of tax breaks for all families as unacceptably expensive. “The cost of this is astronomical though,” proclaimed the NBC Political Director. “The payroll tax cut means essentially borrowing from the Social Security trust fund to do this temporary payroll tax. I mean, it's 120 billion, that's a lot of money!” [Video embedded after the page break.] read more

Read more from the original source:
MSNBC’s Chuck Todd Continues to Distort Tax Deal’s ‘Astronomical’ Cost

‘Lost Revenue’ for Government in Tax Rate Deal Distresses NBC’s Williams and Todd

Brian Williams adopted a liberal framework as he opened Monday's NBC Nightly News by declaring “it’s a fair question to ask and for a while now Americans have been wondering how lawmakers in Washington could possibly extend tax breaks for wealthy Americans while allowing benefits for jobless Americans to be cut off.” Then, after Chuck Todd outlined the Obama-GOP compromise to maintain income taxes at their current rates for two years while extending unemployment benefits and implementing a temporary reduction in the payroll tax, Williams fretted the deal contradicts how “the fight has been over anything in government that isn't paid for,” yet, as Todd despaired in filling in Williams’ regret, “none of this is paid for. In terms of lost revenue for the government next year, it's $450 billion.” read more

More here:
‘Lost Revenue’ for Government in Tax Rate Deal Distresses NBC’s Williams and Todd

Frank Rich: Weak Obama Suffers from ‘Stockholm Syndrome’ for Agreeing to Extend Bush Tax Cuts

It appears that President Obama is about to approve the extension of the Bush tax cuts and this has sent liberals into a frenzy. How to explain it? Well, Frank Rich of the New York Times has a very creative explanation : a weak Barack Obama has been spiritually kidnapped by Republicans and is now suffering from Stockholm Syndrome which allows him to sympathize with his captors. Here is Rich explaining it in “All the President's Captors” at his entertaining best: THOSE desperate to decipher the baffling Obama presidency could do worse than consult an article titled “Understanding Stockholm Syndrome” in the online archive of The F.B.I. Law Enforcement Bulletin. It explains that hostage takers are most successful at winning a victim’s loyalty if they temper their brutality with a bogus show of kindness. Soon enough, the hostage will start concentrating on his captors’ “good side” and develop psychological characteristics to please them — “dependency; lack of initiative; and an inability to act, decide or think.”

Budget Puzzle: You Fix The Budget

Today, you’re in charge of the nation’s finances. Some of your options have more short-term savings and some have more long-term savings. When you have closed the budget gaps for both 2015 and 2030, you are done. Make your own plan, then share it online. ~ Cutting anything from Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid is unfeasible in the real world, so I'd suggest straying from it if you're trying to be realistic. added by: cr00kshanks

Krauthammer Smacks Down WaPo’s King Over Stimulus Jobs Created or Saved

For the second week in a row Charles Krauthammer has gotten into a heated debate with the Washington Post’s Colby King on the PBS program “Inside Washington.” This time it was about the effectiveness of President Obama’s stimulus plan.  “These guys have had a year and a half and people are not happy with the results,” said Krauthammer. “$1 trillion of stimulus it disappeared and there is nothing to show.” King responded, “They had 3 million jobs to show for it.” The fun really started after Krauthammer marvelously replied, “Yeah, saved, saved, how do you measure a saved job?” (video follows with transcript and commentary):  GORDON PETERSON, HOST: Is Axelrod right, or is he just looking for an excuse to talk about the President’s bad numbers? EVAN THOMAS, NEWSWEEK: Is that a binary question? CHARLES KRAUTHAMMER: Yeah, the correct answer is “b.” (LAUGHTER) KRAUTHAMMER: Let’s go on to something else. I mean, it’s so damned obvious, come on. I mean, he’s whining in advance, he’s looking for an excuse. He ran, look, these guys have had a year and a half and people are not happy with the results. $1 trillion of stimulus it disappeared and there is nothing to show. With the healthcare reform people don’t want… COLBY KING, WASHINGTON POST: They had 3 million jobs to show for it. KRAUTHAMMER: Yeah, saved, saved, how do you measure a saved job? KING: Go out and ask the teachers. Go out and ask the teachers. Go out and ask the cops whose jobs were saved. Ask them about it. They’ll tell you. KRAUTHAMMER: The net loss of jobs is staggering under this administration. KING: Well… KRAUTHAMMER: Yes… KING: Given the eight years of mismanagement it was bound to happen. KRAUTHAMMER: There has been a half a million increase… KING: The eight years of mismanagement it was bound to happen. KRAUTHAMMER: …government jobs have gone up and the private sector has cratered. KING: Charles, that’s speaking a lie, you know exactly what I am talking about because you are a straight shooter. PETERSON: If you’re Axelrod, Evan, what do you say to the President at this point? KRAUTHAMMER: I’m leaving. [Laughter] KRAUTHAMMER: Which he is. I’m leaving in spring. That’s what you say. THOMAS: Yeah, I think that they are really exhausted and, and a little bit down and they’re just kind of, I think they’re, they don’t know what to do. I don’t, I don’t think they are having happy, optimistic, this is all going to work out conversations in the Oval Office. I think they’re just trying to get… NINA TOTENBERG, NPR: Do you have any good ideas? KRAUTHAMMER: They made a choice early on that they were going to push an ideological agenda on healthcare instead of addressing the American economy and that is the major complaint against them. And that’s why they’re going to get swept in November. Indeed. Nicely done, Charles. These weekly smackdowns are becoming something to look forward to on Friday nights. Almost better than high school football.  Readers are encouraged to review last week’s fight .  

Excerpt from:
Krauthammer Smacks Down WaPo’s King Over Stimulus Jobs Created or Saved

Evan Thomas on Ending Bush Tax Rates: ‘God Knows the Federal Government Desperately Needs that Revenue’

Newsweek veteran Evan Thomas, who announced a few weeks ago his intention to leave the financially-failing magazine and teach journalism at Princeton , issued a ringing call – in defense of federal spending – for why he hopes Congress and President Obama cannot agree on extending any of the Bush tax cuts, so income tax rates rise next year: God knows the federal government desperately needs that revenue, so this is one case where I think gridlock is a good thing. Not exactly in line with the thinking of Tea Party voters. (Audio: MP3 clip ) On this weekend’s Inside Washington, the magazine’s former Washington bureau chief, Assistant Managing Editor and, most-recently, editor-at-large, encapsulated the political/media class’s priority – keeping government spending safe – as he argued: A couple of weeks ago, Fareed Zakaria wrote a column in which he said Congress should do what it does best, nothing. And what he means by that is if Congress does nothing, those tax cuts go away. We need the revenue, we need the revenue. I know it’s not great for the economy right now to be having a tax hike, but you’re just returning rates to where they were in the 1990s, when the economy was doing pretty well. God knows the federal government desperately needs that revenue, so this is one case where I think gridlock is a good thing. ( Inside Washington is a weekly show produced by ABC’s Washington, DC affiliate, which airs it Sunday morning after it runs Friday night on DC’s PBS affiliate, WETA-TV channel 26, and Saturday on local cable’s TBD TV .)

See the rest here:
Evan Thomas on Ending Bush Tax Rates: ‘God Knows the Federal Government Desperately Needs that Revenue’

Sanchez Admits He’s Wrong: White House Did Say Unemployment Wouldn’t Exceed 8% If Stimulus Passed

CNN’s Rick Sanchez took a very strong position about a White House promise on Monday only to have to backtrack and admit he was wrong 45 minutes later. During Monday’s “Rick’s List,” Sanchez challenged Republican National Committee communications director Doug Heye about his claim that the Obama administration said the unemployment rate wouldn’t exceed eight percent if Congress enacted the President’s stimulus bill. “Doug, who made that promise?” asked a defiant Sanchez. “I never recall hearing the President of the United — in fact, I recall the very first speech the President of the United States made after being sworn in and the very first thing he said to Americans was, expect unemployment to go into double digits.” The CNN host arrogantly continued, “I don’t think you’re right. Prove me wrong.” About 45 minutes later, Sanchez marvelously proved himself wrong (videos follow with transcripts and commentary): RICK SANCHEZ, HOST: Doug — Doug, let me bring you into that conversation. What’s your take on what Lindsey Graham said yesterday that seems to be getting a lot of attention? DOUG HEYE, DIRECTOR OF COMMUNICATIONS, REPUBLICAN NATIONAL COMMITTEE: Well, he’s absolutely right. You look at what we were promised from the stimulus bill — and now, apparently, we have another $50 billion stimulus package coming at us — we were promised that unemployment would be under 8 percent. And it just isn’t the case nationally. And, certainly, in a lot of states — take Nevada, for instance. SANCHEZ: Who — who made — who made — Doug, Doug, who — who — Doug, who made — Doug, who made that promise? I — I never recall hearing the President of the United — in fact, I recall the very first speech the President of the United States made after being sworn in and the very first thing he said to Americans was, expect unemployment to go into double digits. Those were his exact words. So, now you’re saying that the president promised Americans that unemployment would be below 8 percent? I just — I’m not — I don’t think you’re right. Prove me wrong. About 45 minutes later, just after the President finished his Labor Day speech in Milwaukee, Wisconsin, Sanchez proved himself wrong: SANCHEZ: Doug Heye is joining us once again, as is our own Jessica Yellin, who are going to be joining us on the other side of this. As we watch the president, by the way, it’s important to point out, and I mentioned a little while ago that he has his work cut out for him. I also mentioned before the president’s speech that — because Doug had mentioned, well, the White House had promised an unemployment rate of below eight percent. I asked him, had the president ever said that? Because the president had said you can almost guarantee double digits, though I’m not sure we got that as a nation, although a lot of states have seen double digit unemployment. You know what, Doug? I got the chart that you were referring to. It wasn’t the president. It wasn’t the vice president. It was Christina Romer. Come on over. Let’s show this to our viewers before we go to break. Put it in a box there if you want so we can continue to see the president. We’ll leave the president on one side, and I’ll show you this chart. See it right there? See the bold line? That’s the line that Christina Romer said — and there is eight percent — this is with the stimulus plan. She said we’d stay under eight percent. She said without stimulus we’d get up to nine percent. Obviously she was wrong. So, Doug, you were right, man. We’re going to come right back. This is “RICK’S LIST.” We’ll continue our conversations. Go ahead Doug. I’ll let you finish it out. Don’t brag now! DOUG HEYE, COMMUNICATIONS DIRECTOR, RNC: Barney Frank, Representative Barney Frank from Massachusetts said such a prediction, last month he said that was dumb. I tell you, it’s not often a Republican like myself agree with Barney Frank, but Barney Frank was right. SANCHEZ: That’s exactly what he said. You’re right. I read the quote while we were listening to the president, by the way. For the record, the chart Sanchez shared with his viewers comes from a January 9, 2009, report entitled “The Job Impact of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Plan” created by Romer and Jared Bernstein who is Vice President Biden’s chief economic adviser: As is clearly visible, this report graphically claimed that if stimulus was enacted, the White House believed unemployment would not exceed eight percent. As such, it is certainly noble that Sanchez discovered his own error and admitted it both to Heye and his viewers. However, it’s now twenty months since this projection was made, and it indeed has been an issue since the moment unemployment passed the eight percent mark. That Sanchez is just now discovering the administration made this claim is quite disturbing albeit not at all surprising.

Read more here:
Sanchez Admits He’s Wrong: White House Did Say Unemployment Wouldn’t Exceed 8% If Stimulus Passed

AP’s Sidoti Laments Dems’ Prospects in Ohio, Is Convincing as HuffPo Zealot

In a post at National Review Online’s Battle ’10 blog last night , Mytheos Holt commented on a report seen at the Huffington Post: HuffPo Panics about GOP Sweep of Ohio Looks like the Huffington Post is buying into the “As Ohio goes, so goes the nation” meme this election cycle, based on a story out today. The HuffPo item is by Liz Sidoti. But Sidoti is a national politics writer for the Associated Press, and what Holt really read was what AP would like us to believe is a supposedly “objective” analysis of the electoral situation in Ohio right off the wire. Word for word, the item at HuffPo is the same dispatch as found  at the AP’s main site . The only clue as to its origin, which Holt missed (and it’s easy to see how), is the teeny-tiny AP logo where Sidoti’s byline appears. In other words, Sidoti’s stridency and Democrat-sympathetic viewpoint are so obvious that she passes the HuffPo zealotry test. Here are some examples of how Sidoti “successfully” came off as a  budding HuffPo pundit: Dems’ prospects threatened by economic woes Frustrated, discouraged and just plain mad , a lot of people who have lost jobs – or know someone who has – now want to see the names of Democrats on pink slips. And that’s jeopardizing the party’s chances in Ohio and all across the country in November’s elections. In this big swing-voting state alone, Democratic Gov. Ted Strickland is in a dogfight for re-election. Senate candidate Lee Fisher may be even worse off. As many as six House Democrats could lose their jobs this fall. Recession-fueled animosity is dominating every race, giving Republicans hope of huge victories. … In Ohio, like almost everywhere else, voters don’t much care for Washington, Wall Street or anything resembling the establishment. They grouse about every politician, including President Barack Obama, whom Ohioans played a critical role in electing. They fume over the nation’s teetering finances. … Republicans are hoping to capitalize on voters’ economic disillusionment, frustration with Obama and tea party-generated enthusiasm. Democrats are relying on a financial advantage, a robust get-out-the-vote operation and, mostly, the ghost of George W. Bush to curb an expected Nov. 2 shellacking. … at Suzzie’s Beechwold Diner, Steve Reither epitomizes the Democrats’ other big challenge: a fired-up electorate tilting toward the GOP. A Republican-turned-independent, Reither is sick of both parties and says: “They all talk about change and nothing changes.” But he saves his harshest words for Obama, whom he calls a socialist and a liar. This year, he says he’ll probably vote largely with the GOP in November – “I’ll hold my nose” – simply to fire Democrats. “This administration and his cronies are running this country into the ground,” Reither, 55, says as he finishes his breakfast. The owner of a small auto restoration business, he says he’s been struggling for the past two years, and he blames Obama’s policies that “hurt the little guy.” Democrats at all levels are sounding a populist tone, casting their races as helping voters on Main Street vs. Republican policies intended to help Wall Street. Republicans, in turn, argue that Democrats – led by Obama – are making a tough economic situation worse with a free-spending, big-government agenda. Of course Sidoti’s work looks like HuffPo punditry, as it’s all from the Democrats’ “woe is us, these terrible things are happening” perspective. Republicans are seen as the unworthies upsetting the apple cart. And voters? Well, they’re just “mad” and full of “animosity.” It’s quite instructive to see how an AP report is correctly interpreted as left-leaning output. And sad to say, Liz Sidoti isn’t anywhere near the wire service’s worst offender. Cross-posted at BizzyBlog.com .

Here is the original post:
AP’s Sidoti Laments Dems’ Prospects in Ohio, Is Convincing as HuffPo Zealot

Robert Reich: Stimulate Economy With 90% Tax On Top Earners

Can you imagine what would happen to the economy if top wage earners were taxed at 70 to 90 percent? Former Clinton Labor Secretary Robert Reich can, and he thinks it’s a great idea. To be sure, many Americans were concerned that giving Democrats control of the executive and legislative branches of our government during an economic crisis could usher back in socialist tendencies first seen in this nation during the Depression. Fears of such a leftward shift sparked a new powerful movement called the Tea Party. With this in mind, Reich’s op-ed “How to End the Great Recession” published in Friday’s New York Times validates these concerns:  The rich spend a much smaller proportion of their incomes than the rest of us. So when they get a disproportionate share of total income, the economy is robbed of the demand it needs to keep growing and creating jobs. What’s more, the rich don’t necessarily invest their earnings and savings in the American economy; they send them anywhere around the globe where they’ll summon the highest returns – sometimes that’s here, but often it’s the Cayman Islands, China or elsewhere. The rich also put their money into assets most likely to attract other big investors (commodities, stocks, dot-coms or real estate), which can become wildly inflated as a result. Meanwhile, as the economy grows, the vast majority in the middle naturally want to live better. Their consequent spending fuels continued growth and creates enough jobs for almost everyone, at least for a time. But because this situation can’t be sustained, at some point – 1929 and 2008 offer ready examples – the bill comes due. And how does Reich see “us” paying that bill? If you said “higher and higher taxes,” give yourself a cigar: THE Great Depression and its aftermath demonstrate that there is only one way back to full recovery: through more widely shared prosperity. In the 1930s, the American economy was completely restructured. New Deal measures – Social Security, a 40-hour work week with time-and-a-half overtime, unemployment insurance, the right to form unions and bargain collectively, the minimum wage – leveled the playing field. In the decades after World War II, legislation like the G.I. Bill, a vast expansion of public higher education and civil rights and voting rights laws further reduced economic inequality. Much of this was paid for with a 70 percent to 90 percent marginal income tax on the highest incomes. And as America’s middle class shared more of the economy’s gains, it was able to buy more of the goods and services the economy could provide. The result: rapid growth and more jobs. 70 to 90 percent! He said it, didn’t he? 70 to 90 percent! But there’s more: What else could be done to raise wages and thereby spur the economy? We might consider, for example, extending the earned income tax credit all the way up through the middle class, and paying for it with a tax on carbon. Or exempting the first $20,000 of income from payroll taxes and paying for it with a payroll tax on incomes over $250,000. Yep. Let’s tax carbon and give the proceeds to lower and middle-income wage earners. There it is, folks. If you doubted the whole global warming scam was specifically designed to redistribute wealth, one of the left’s most-respected economic strategists just admitted it! But there’s still more: In the longer term, Americans must be better prepared to succeed in the global, high-tech economy. Early childhood education should be more widely available, paid for by a small 0.5 percent fee on all financial transactions. Public universities should be free; in return, graduates would then be required to pay back 10 percent of their first 10 years of full-time income. A 0.5 percent fee on all financial transactions! Does that mean if one buy’s stock or a house, the government gets a half of a percent? And another half when you sell? Does that include mutual funds, treasury bills, and money market accounts? And certificates of deposit? See where this could lead? Now just imagine if these socialists also get their way and a new valued added tax is implemented? At that point, any time you want to actually use your money, the government gets a slice kind of like a mafia kingpin or a union leader. And this is supposed to help the economy? But there’s still more: Another step: workers who lose their jobs and have to settle for positions that pay less could qualify for “earnings insurance” that would pay half the salary difference for two years; such a program would probably prove less expensive than extended unemployment benefits. Earnings insurance! Earnings insurance! As I hinted at the onset, this op-ed by Reich is a picture of the future if the Party in power and their media minions get their way.   Be afraid, America! Be very afraid!

See original here:
Robert Reich: Stimulate Economy With 90% Tax On Top Earners

9.5% Unemployment and Chris Matthews Doesn’t Get Why People Miss Bush

Despite unemployment at 9.5 percent and millions of people having lost their jobs since Barack Obama was elected, Chris Matthews just doesn’t understand why anyone would miss George W. Bush. Without naming this week’s PPP poll finding Ohioans would vote for Bush over Obama by the tally of 50 to 42 percent if a presidential election was held today, Matthews in the first segment of “Hardball” asked his guests, “Why would you want that back?” When Time’s Michael Scherer tried to explain logically why voters are disappointed with what Obama has done since Inauguration Day, Matthews wasn’t having any of it (video follows with transcript and commentary): CHRIS MATTHEWS, HOST: Here`s the point. Why are the voters now in these polls — now, some of the polls are robocall polls. They`re not the most reliable polls. But I`m seeing enough evidence to think there`s something going on. When people say — independent voters say they`d rather have Bush back — MICHAEL SCHERER, TIME: That`s right. MATTHEWS: — after Iraq and taking this economy — doubling the national debt, bringing the deficit out of nowhere, when Clinton left it with a big, fat surplus, why would you want that back? SCHERER: Take — MATTHEWS: What`s your reporting tell you? SCHERER: What a lot of these voters are voting for — these are independent voters. You know, the miracle of Obama in 2008 wasn`t that he got elected, it was that he got elected in a lot of states like Indiana and North Carolina that didn`t go Democrat very often. He did that by grabbing independent voters who were sick of President Bush, who thought the country was going in the wrong direction, and he offered a broad promise of hope and change that hasn`t been delivered. That`s what he`s suffering for. And I think in a place like Ohio, where you`re talking about that poll, what people are saying is, “Look, you know, we weren`t being treated well with the last guy. We`re not treated being well with this guy. We`ll take whatever we can get.” Exactly. Matthews either forgot or was dishonestly ignoring that this is why the Democrats won in 2006 and 2008: the country was unhappy with Republicans and just wanted to vote “D”. Now, the country is unhappy with the Ds: DAVID CORN, MOTHER JONES: There has been a message problem out of the White House. When you have polls showing that people don`t believe the stimulus has created jobs or saved jobs and you have Republicans echoing and — and reemphasizing that particular lie, and it sets in, well, that`s something that actually, I think, is within the realm of control for the White House. MATTHEWS: There are two choices when you vote, D or R. If the people push R, does your reporting tell that they know they`re voting for more lackadaisical administration, like Katrina, more hawkishness and neo- conservative fighting of wars that are wars of choice, not necessity? Do they know they`re voting for that kind of thing? And they`re voting for a guy who was so sloppy on fiscal policy, refused to veto a single spending bill, that we doubled the national debt? Do they know that that`s what R means when they vote R this November? SCHERER: When I was in Indiana — I was in South Bend, Elkhart, Joe Donnelly, very tough reelecting, won with 67 percent — MATTHEWS: Yes. SCHERER: — of the vote — MATTHEWS: I liked that part. SCHERER: — a couple years ago — he is dealing with voters who were telling me Barack Obama`s not the guy I voted for. I thought he was going to turn the economy around. He didn`t turn the economy around. I didn`t know he was going to do this health care thing. I thought he was going to change Washington (INAUDIBLE) Washington change. That`s what they were voting for. It has nothing to do with the wars, the other — MATTHEWS: Well, that`s the reelection talk, right. SCHERER: No, but these are independent voters. These are people — you know, they`re not high-information voters — (CROSSTALK) MATTHEWS: When Obama was running for reelection or running for election, the economy wasn`t in the tank. It went in the tank during the transition. Doesn`t anybody remember that? It was the last quarter of the Bush administration that everything went to hell. Once again, it’s tough to determine whether Matthews’ memory is suffering or he’s just dishonest. The recession officially began in December 2007, and the financial crisis started in September 2008 – the THIRD quarter almost two full months BEFORE Election Day: SCHERER: Obama went to Elkhart, Indiana, in February of 2009, couple weeks after he gets in office, he says, I`m going to pass the stimulus. It`s going to help you. I`m going to keep my promise — MATTHEWS: Right. SCHERER: — to Elkhart. Elkhart`s unemployment now is over 13 percent and it`s been rising again this summer. MATTHEWS: Because it was rising when he came in. SCHERER: It was rising — (CROSSTALK) CORN: — probably would be higher now if Obama hadn`t — (CROSSTALK) CORN: And you know, this is — this is the administration`s obligation, and Democrats on the Hill are livid because they don`t think the White House is living up to this obligation of making a stronger case – – MATTHEWS: There`s so much — CORN: — making the case that you just made! MATTHEWS: Let`s make the points through the numbers. Unemployment when Bush came in was 4.2 percent. When he left office, it was up to 7.6 percent, way up from where he came in. When Bush came into office, we had a $281 billion Clinton-led surplus. When he left, we had a $1.2 trillion deficit. And he doubled the national debt. Those are the facts on the table. Yes, but unemployment is now at 9.5 percent and likely climbing. There are currently 3.3 million fewer people on non-farm payrolls than in January 2009 making today’s labor markets FAR WORSE than they were when Obama took office. But that’s only half the story, for the Democrats have controlled Congress since January 2007. As this is a Congressional election, it is a referendum on what the Party controlling the House and the Senate have done since they took over. Here, the numbers are even more glaring, as the unemployment rate that month was 4.6 percent. Over 7 million people have lost their jobs since the Democrats took over Congress. As for fiscal policy, the last budget created by the Republican-controlled Congress had a deficit of $160 billion. This year, with Obama and Democrats controlling everything, we’re on pace for close to a $1.6 trillion deficit, or TEN TIMES 2007’s shortfall. But Matthews doesn’t want to share those numbers with his viewers:  MATTHEWS: Let`s go back to the politics again. The voter out there, he can only choose between what he had and what he has. You`re saying he`s going to choose what he had in Elkhart, Indiana. SCHERER: They`re not voting for Bush in Elkhart. They`re voting — they`re voting because they`re — (CROSSTALK) MATTHEWS: Their memory of what? SCHERER: No, they`re disappointed with what they have. Indeed, because no matter how you slice it, in most parts of the country, things are worse today than they were when Obama was inaugurated and FAR WORSE than when the Democrats took over Congress. But don’t expect a shill like Chris Matthews to report that in an election year.

Read more here:
9.5% Unemployment and Chris Matthews Doesn’t Get Why People Miss Bush