Tag Archives: government

Scooped: British Publication Tells Us Uncle Sam Having Problems Unload Citi Shares

You would think someone in the U.S. establishment press would be following Uncle Sam’s progress or lack thereof in getting out from under its investment in Citigroup, especially since the government promised that it would be fully divested from the bank holding company by the end of this year. From all appearances, you would be wrong. It looks like the government may not be able to keep that year-end divestiture promise. For a fair number of news followers to learn that, the UK’s Financial Times had to take an interest (link may require registration), and Drudge had to link to it: US Treasury stumbles selling Citi shares The US government is in danger of missing its deadline of divesting all of its Citigroup shares by the year-end after a fall in stock market trading volumes prompted authorities to slow down sales in July and August. The lull could prompt the US Treasury, which has a stake of about 17 per cent in Citi, to consider a share offering instead of selling the stock in small quantities in the market, according to bankers and analysts. “The sales of Citigroup stock have slowed way down in July and August … The US Treasury will not finish its share sale by … the end of the year,” said Linus Wilson, a professor of finance at the University of Louisiana. “The only option for the Treasury if it wants to exit Citigroup before the year-end seems to be to conduct a large secondary offering of the stake.” The government only seeks to sell shares equivalent to a small percentage of the overall trading volume in Citi to avoid depressing the price. By the end of August, less than half of the government’s 7.7bn shares in Citi had been sold, with the average number of shares sold per day falling sharply, the latest official data show. The Treasury has until Thursday to complete the sale of 1.5bn shares before entering a “blackout period” ahead of Citi’s third-quarter results. … The government’s continued involvement complicates Citi’s efforts to convince investors its troubled past is behind it. The lack of stateside establishment media interest is, as far as I can tell, complete. None of the stories returned in a search on the company’s name at the Associated Press’s main site contained any information citing the government’s stock-selling difficulty. One item in a group of “Business Highlights” at least acknowledges that Citigroup “is still partly owned by taxpayers.” A search on the company’s name at the New York Times also returned nothing relevant. The Washington Post also has nothing relevant , though it does have an item also carried at the AP’s main site on bonuses that are being paid to Citi execs in (of all things) company stock. But there’s no mention of the problems the government is having in unloading its stake. If Uncle Sam is having trouble unloading Citi, imagine the difficulties it might encounter pulling off its planned initial public offering of stock in Government/General Motors, an attempt which has conveniently been put off until after Election Day. It would appear that the establishment press might be interested in keeping a lid on stories indicating that once the state gets in the business ownership door, it’s very hard for it to get out — assuming it even really wants to. Ultimately, that explains why one has to hope that the British and foreign press stay on top of developments such as these — and that Drudge keeps on reviewing their work. Meanwhile, Tim Geithner says that TARP has worked out just fine , almost as if we’re in past-tense mode. Uh-huh. Cross-posted at BizzyBlog.com .

View original post here:
Scooped: British Publication Tells Us Uncle Sam Having Problems Unload Citi Shares

Amanpour Rues Lack of Appreciation for Obama’s ‘Amazing’ Achievements, Then Slams ‘Bizarre’ & ‘Fringe Quality’ of GOP Candidates

Interviewing David Axelrod on Sunday’s This Week, Christiane Amanpour asked him to explain why “people don’t appreciate some of the amazing legislative agenda” that President Barack Obama has “accomplished,” then with Senator Mitch McConnell she denigrated Republican Senate candidates who are Tea Party favorites: “Are you not afraid that their somewhat, one would say, some might say bizarre statements, their sort of fringe quality might actually turn people off?” She also condescendingly demanded of McConnell: “What is Christine O’Donnell’s qualification for actually governing? What is Sharron Angle’s actual qualification for governing?” In a third segment, she cued up Jordan’s Queen Rania to confirm “Islamophobia” mars America: “You’ve seen the reaction and the fallout from the Islamic center, but it goes broader than that. Do you see a sort of a dangerous Islamophobia in the United States?” While she repeatedly pushed Axelrod about why Democrats were delaying a vote on extending the Bush tax cuts for “the middle class,” with McConnell she tried to discredit extending the tax rates for everyone, childishly describing how “there’s also this huge thing that the people of the United States are worried about, and that is the deficit, and keeping the tax cuts will add trillions to that.” Amanpour proceeded to recite a post ridiculing McConnell: And let me ask you this: According to Howard Gleckman at the Tax Policy Center, let’s see what he’s just written: “McConnell would have to abolish all the rest of the government to get to balance by 2020. Everything. No more national parks, no more NIH, no more highway construction. No more homeland security. Oh, and no more Congress.” In that very same post, Gleckman , a former Business Week correspondent, fretted: “I fear the rest of us will be saddled with the consequences of McConnell’s irresponsible pandering” to “the tea partiers breathing down his neck.” Amanpour also insisted Obama’s economic policies are a success: As you know, the recession was declared over. There’s no recession. And many will say that, you know, they stopped it from going into a Great Depression and that they inherited this awful situation… Excerpts from Sunday’s September 26 This Week on ABC, as collected by the MRC’s Brad Wilmouth: Amanpour to David Axelrod: But really, a lot of people, I mean, people from all over the world, frankly, say to me, here comes a President with a huge mandate, a huge reservoir of goodwill, huge promises to change, and, with all of that, his popularity is down. People don’t appreciate some of the amazing legislative agenda that he’s accomplished. Is this a failure of leadership? Has he allowed the opposition to define him? To Mitch McConnell: AMANPOUR: You heard what David Axelrod said about the Republican plan on extending all the Bush-era tax cuts, and that it would really, you know, put the country more in hock. Analysts say that it will cause, you know, add some four trillion or so to the national debt. Are you really going to do that? Or do you think there will be a compromise on extending the middle class tax cuts?   [McCONNELL] So do you not think, I mean, will you quote, unquote, “hold the middle class tax cut hostage” to all the tax cuts you want to extend? MITCH McCONNELL: Well, nothing is being held hostage to anything. It was the Democrats themselves who decided not to have this. AMANPOUR: Well, would you compromise on that? Even after- McCONNELL: I was the only one who offered a bill. There was never a bill in the Senate. And you know why? Thirty-one Democrats in the House, five Democrats in the Senate agreed with me that we ought not to raise taxes in the middle of a recession. What might happen down the road is not the subject today. The question is, do we want to raise taxes in the middle of a very, very tough economy? All the Republicans think that’s a bad idea, and a substantial number of the Democrats think the same thing. AMANPOUR: Right, but there’s also this huge thing that the people of the United States are worried about, and that is the deficit, and keeping the tax cuts will add trillions to that. And let me ask you this: According to Howard Gleckman at the Tax Policy Center, let’s see what he’s just written: “McConnell would have to abolish all the rest of the government to get to balance by 2020. Everything. No more national parks…no more NIH…. No more highway construction. No more homeland security. Oh, and no more Congress.” So where would you get the cuts? [MCCONNELL] But you’re still not saying where the big, big cuts would come from because some of the things you’re talking about at this point – I mean, it wouldn’t be Social Security or Medicare, Medicaid. It wouldn’t be the defense. [MCCONNELL] So all of this comes into the Pledge for America which was announced this week, a platform for future governing by the Republicans. Now, many people say that it’s simply more of the same. You’ve obviously heard a lot of that over the last couple of days as basically nothing new. And whether they’re left, right or center, people are complaining that, in fact, it doesn’t go far enough, particularly for the very enthusiastic Tea Party base that you have. So, for instance, Erick Erickson has written about this pledge, “It’s full of mom-tested, kid-approved pablum that will make certain hearts on the right sink in solidarity. But like a diet full of sugar, it will actually do nothing but keep making Washington fatter before we crash from the sugar high.” How are you going to, well, you’re laughing. [MCCONNELL] No, that’s all right, but I want to ask you, how will you satisfy the base which seems to be really an insurrection now, the Tea Party? Would you agree that they’re cascading into your space? [MCCONNELL] As you know, the recession was declared over. There’s no recession. And many will say that, you know, they stopped it from going into a Great Depression and that they inherited this awful situation, but let me ask you this: You say you want to go out and win in November. I want to play for you something that Tom Ross, the chairman of the Republican party in Delaware, said to me on this program right after Christine O’Donnell, the Tea Party candidate, won in that last primary in Delaware. [TOM ROSS] Right, so that’s Mike Castle who they thought would win that election come November. Now, basically he’s saying perhaps not. So how do you square that? I mean, do you think these Tea Party candidates will be good for you in November? [MCCONNELL] But, I mean, she definitely wasn’t your candidate. I mean, basically, one would say that the Republican- MCCONNELL: You picked out one Senate race. I just gave you 12 places where we have a chance of beating Democrats. AMANPOUR: No, no, no, there are many. Yeah, but there are many, even in your home state. And I want to ask you, actually, what are the qualifications, do these people have? For instance, what is Christine O’Donnell’s qualification for actually governing? What is Sharron Angle’s actual qualification for governing? Are you not afraid that they might be a turnoff, whether it’s at the- MCCONNELL: Am I afraid of having more Republicans in the Senate? Of course not. AMANPOUR: No, that wasn’t the question. The question is, are you not afraid that their somewhat, one would say, some might say bizarre statements, their sort of fringe quality might actually turn people off? I mean, for instance, what do you say about a Sharron Angle, who I know you just had a fundraiser for, who basically talks about enemies in Congress and talks and hints about, you know, armed rebellion to put them down. I mean, is that the kind of talk for a United States Senator? [McCONNELL] But you didn’t tell me what you think about those kinds of comments from people who want to be a, you know, a Senator. I mean, it’s kind of bizarre, don’t you agree? To Queen Rania: You mentioned how this extremist ideology is even coming to play in the United States. You’ve seen the reaction and the fallout from the Islamic center, but it goes broader than that. Do you see a sort of a dangerous Islamophobia in the United States? How do you assess what’s happening here?

Go here to see the original:
Amanpour Rues Lack of Appreciation for Obama’s ‘Amazing’ Achievements, Then Slams ‘Bizarre’ & ‘Fringe Quality’ of GOP Candidates

Open Thread: Colbert Disgraces Congress

For general discussion and debate. Possible talking point: Stephen Colbert disgraces the Halls of Congress! Was this a sad moment in American history, or a good way to publicize the immigration issue? How does this make Democrats look moving into the midterm elections? Any other thoughts? 

Follow this link:
Open Thread: Colbert Disgraces Congress

Behar Claims Tea Partiers ‘Don’t Believe in Any Govt At All, Zero,’ Taxes Not Increasing in January

On the September 15 The View on ABC, co-host Joy Behar insisted that co-host Elisabeth Hasselbeck was wrong to assert that taxes are set to increase in January as the two sparred over the issue. Behar: “It’s not an increase, Elisabeth. It is not an increase.” She soon added, “They are not, stop saying it’s an increase because it’s not.” After Hasselbeck shot back, “Okay, we’ll talk in January,” Behar continued, “The Democrats want to eliminate the tax cuts for the rich. That’s all. Stop doing that.” Behar also exaggerated the anti-big government views of the Tea Party movement, claiming that members “don’t believe in any government at all, zero,” and mocked activists for supposedly not realizing that Medicare and Social Security are run by the federal government. Behar: “They just don’t believe in any government at all, zero. At the same time, it’s fascinating about them, at the same time that they don’t believe in any government, a lot of them are like, ‘Don’t touch my Medicare.’ Well, what do you think that is? That’s the schism within the Tea Party. Don’t touch my Social Security. Get the government out of my house, you know, come on.” Below is a transcript of the relevant portion of the Wednesday, September 15, The View on ABC: ELISABETH HASSELBECK: The Tea Party is more like a generator behind certain candidates. So they’ll get behind certain candidates and raise money for them, whereas they maybe wouldn’t get it someplace else. They’re more like a renegade group that’s kind of pushing candidates forward. They have power, obviously. We just saw this happen. I mean, but to say that she won’t win, don’t discount. We saw what happened with Scott Brown in Massachusetts. SHERRI SHEPHERD: Are they like a rebel branch from the Republican, the Tea Parties? BEHAR: Kind of. HASSELBECK: They don’t take on social issues, which is interesting. They’re purely fiscal. BEHAR: They just don’t believe in any government at all, zero. At the same time, it’s fascinating about them, at the same time that they don’t believe in any government, a lot of them are like, “Don’t touch my Medicare.” Well, what do you think that is? That’s the schism within the Tea Party. Don’t touch my Social Security. Get the government out of my house, you know, come on. HASSELBECK: It’s a different issue because what’s going to happen now with the tax increase is it is actually going to affect senior citizens more than anybody else right now. BEHAR: It’s not an increase, Elisabeth. It is not an increase. HASSELBECK: Let me tell you something, it is going to be an increase, and they are changing the terms- BEHAR: They are not, stop saying it’s an increase because it’s not. HASSELBECK: Okay, we’ll talk in January. BEHAR: The Democrats want to eliminate the tax cuts for the rich. That’s all. Stop doing that. HASSELBECK: They’re changing the lingo, so guess what? All seniors citizens are going to end up paying the price on this tax, and it’s a crime in this country. BEHAR: If you don’t make over $250,000, you’re not going to have tax raising. HASSELBECK: It’s actually going to come from the stocks they hold in dividends, so when you look at it, you’re going to see what’s going to happen. They’re changing all terminology. BEHAR: It’s a very small percentage of people. HASSELBECK: It’s not, because they own the most in dividends of anyone else in this country.

Read the rest here:
Behar Claims Tea Partiers ‘Don’t Believe in Any Govt At All, Zero,’ Taxes Not Increasing in January

For Democracy to Work…

For democracy to work, complete transparency must be obtained. There must be no hiding behind patriotism, national security, and fear. These catch phrases are a vault for the secrets a government does not want the public to know of. Also due to these phrases, Americans society, while often preaching freedom of speech, in reality practices resentment, hatred, and peer pressure against those who step outside the norm (of what is politically correct). I would thus say no government needs to prohibit the freedom of speech, but only let the people prohibit (more so regulate) speech for them. It has happened so many times in our country’s past, we cannot afford to let this keep happening. For democracy to work, diplomacy must be the first and preferably the only course of action in settling disputes. Democracy cannot be offensive in nature—only defensive. Due to reasons prior, freedoms and liberties (primarily those stemming from privacy) cannot waver in the shadow of fear, and thus democracy is at a severe disadvantage when it comes to warfare—either democracy (liberty) fails, or military security fails. Just as the integrity of a family is tested through hardships, the integrity of our government is tested through decisions made during or related to warfare and economic downtimes. A democratic government thus cannot suddenly revoke civil liberties or rights in lieu of the often vague, “Clear and Present Danger.” And thus, for democracy to work, preemptive strikes cannot occur. A democratic society must lead by example, not retaliation, revenge, or fear. For democracy to work, the freedom of the press must be entirely free of regulation and censorship. The live footage of firefights during the Vietnam War had an immense impact on the outlook of war for those on the home front. The press is vastly more censored (both from corporate, and government), today. We cannot afford to have a censored press, as it holds all the power in shifting the majority of Americans’ view of any issue or event. People (straw man, I know) are gullible, and do not realize the power that manipulation has on their decisions and views. For democracy to work, capitalism must maintain complete separation and segregation from the democratic system. As soon as private funding enters the picture, our potential candidates are primarily only determined by officials promising the majority (the currently diminishing middle class) of Americans false promises, while truly only representing those providing the most money (synonymous with votes) to their campaign. Votes don't get politicians elected, advertising & funding does. So who will get prioritized? For democracy to work, lobbying must be made illegal, or vastly more restricted and regulated. For democracy to work, a form of free election must be in order. An equal amount of taxpayer money must be distributed to the two presidential candidates. Since funding is the primary means of obtaining a position, we limit ourselves on the selection of candidates. Money cannot be a prerequisite in order to obtain or maintain a political position–yet it is. Set up two temporary television channels and websites for these candidates. Debates should be daily, and written correspondence between the two candidates should be a must—the topic voted upon by the public. I say written responses because some people are better at composing their thoughts on paper rather than in speech with millions watching, that is more or less just a game of who is quicker on their feet, not who is more reasonable or knowledgeable. Nominees for the general elections should only obtain their money through local donation from the citizens of their future jurisdiction, or by some other means which would allow absolutely ANY American citizen to run and potentially win—not based on their funding and advertising flash, but by their intelligence, charisma, knowledge, ethos, and promises. In sociology, “random” is defined as everyone having an equal chance and possibility to participate (in an experiment); not every American citizen has an equal chance of running for office. I don't have a perfect answer, but it's apparent something needs changed. For democracy to work, bliss cannot be derived from ignorance. The importance of pursuing the truth and finding information for ones’ self must be emphasized. Everyone is entitled to vote, but not everyone understands for who their vote entitles. For democracy to work, accountability must be exacted out. False campaign promises are a form of false advertisement. Politicians must be held to the same justice system as we, the people, are. Anything else to add? (News seemed to be the only appropriate place to put this; my apologies if not). http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/f/f3/Bald_eagle_landing.jpg added by: Jake_Leonard

George Stephanopoulos Parrots Democratic Talking Points on New GOP Pledge: They’re ‘Repealing Health Care’

Good Morning America’s George Stephanopoulos on Thursday offered up Democratic talking points as he discussed a new set of Republican promises, should the GOP win Congress. The skeptical host interviewed Representative Paul Ryan and repeated, “You heard the President. He said this is the exact same agenda as Republicans had before he came to office. How is it different?” In a tease for the segment, he spun, ” Republicans unveil their plan for America: Cutting taxes and repealing health care .” It may seem like a small distinction but Republicans oppose the new law, not the concept of Americans having health care. Stephanopoulos repeatedly grilled the GOP Congressman: “…The two central items in the agenda, are extending the tax cuts passed under President Bush. Repealing the health care law by President Obama. Those are going to cost at least $4 trillion over the next ten years. And your- your pledge doesn’t spell out anything close to paying for that $4 trillion.” He followed up by pressing, “But, you say a path to balance. But, you do concede that you do not have a plan to balance the budget. And you don’t pay for the tax cuts that you are extending?” Yet, when Stephanopoulos interviewed Barack Obama for 16 minutes on September 9 , he included several softball questions, such as this empathetic example on the minister who threatened to burn a Koran on 9/11: “I wonder what this must feel like from behind your desk. You’re President of the United States. You have to deal with the fallout. And here’s a pastor who’s got 30 followers in his church. Does it make you feel helpless or angry?” A transcript of the September 23 segment, which aired at 7:06am EDT, follows: GEORGE STEPHANOPOULOS: Let’s turn now to one of the architects of the Republican agenda, Congressman Paul Ryan of Wisconsin, a ranking Republican on the House budget committee. Good morning, Congressman. REP. PAUL RYAN: Hey, good morning, George. STEPHANOPOULOS: You heard the President. He said this is the exact same agenda as Republicans had before he came to office. How is it different? RYAN: Well, first of all, cutting spending, creating jobs and putting the policy of economic growth in place, and cleaning up the way Congress works is not only standing in stark contrast to this Congress and this President. But, actually, George, it stands a bit in stark contrast to way Republicans conducted ourselves a decade ago. We need to own up to the fact that when we were in the majority, we spent too much money. We lost our way. We have got to get that back. We are not here offering a plan to reinvent America. We are trying to reclaim our country by rededicating ourselves to the timeless principles that made us exceptional. These are the basic building blocks to get us on the right track. The first steps to get this country on the right track. STEPHANOPOULOS: Yet, Congressman, the two central items in the agenda, are extending the tax cuts passed under President Bush. Repealing the health care law by President Obama. Those are going to cost at least $4 trillion over the next ten years. And your- your pledge doesn’t spell out anything close to paying for that $4 trillion. RYAN: We’d put 1.3 trillion in cuts right there as well. But the President is also proposing $3 trillion of those $3.7 trillion in tax cuts be extended. So, it’s not as if the President and the Democrats aren’t saying extend some of them. We’re saying- STEPHANOPOULOS: But, how are you going to pay for the $4 trillion, if you’re going to reduce the spending? RYAN: Well, I brought a budget to the floor that reduced $4.8 trillion in spending, which would have more than compensated for these tax cuts. The point is, George, raising taxes on successful, small businesses, which these tax increases would hit 50 percent of all small business income, 70 percent of our jobs come from small businesses. It is not a good idea in this economy, to raise these kind of taxes. Even some of the President’s own economic advisers are suggesting, we should not have tax increases occur in January. What- The problem we have right now is jobs, George. We need the economy growing. We need job creations. Taxing capital gains, taxing dividends taxing small businesses will hurt us from creating jobs. Mark Zandi, Peter Orszag. Even some of the President’s own advisors are suggesting that. So, we’re saying, not only keep taxes low, but focus on spending. Cut spending. Control spending. Get the budget on the path to balance. We will begin with that. STEPHANOPOULOS: But, you say a path to balance. But, you do concede that you do not have a plan to balance the budget. And you don’t pay for the tax cuts that you are extending? RYAN: Well, we can pay for the tax cuts. I have provided budgets that do that in the past. STEPHANOPOULOS: But, the rest of the Republicans aren’t signing on to it? RYAN: No. That’s the road map which is quite different. What I’m saying is we have a plan to get this country back on track. We want to cut and control spending. The deficit is such a mess right now. It’s going to take time to balance the budget. But, what is the current government doing? Their making it worse. The President has added a budget that doubles our debt in five years. And triples it in ten years. We want to go in a different direction. So, we don’t want to balance the budget by raising taxes. We want to balance a budget by controlling spending. ‘Cause, after all, that’s the real source of our problem. STEPHANOPOULOS: You also talk about cleaning up Congress. You’re taking some heat, some surprising heat from conservatives. Erick Erickson of RedState.com says- hits you were not taking on earmarks, for not banning earmarks. He says “The lack of an earmarks ban is terrible. Cutting off the gateway drug to big government is important.” Your response? RYAN: I agree. We’ve already banned earmarks. That’s already in the Republican platform. STEPHANOPOULOS: Only for your conference. Not for the House overall. RYAN: Republicans- We’ve going to continue this earmarks ban. We’ve already done the earmark ban. So, it’s something we’ve already initiated it in our own volition within our own conference. It’s something we’re intending on continuing. That’s why it’s not new pledge. STEPHANOPOULOS: So, you’ve got the pledge. What will you pledge to pass in the first year, if Republicans take control of the house? RYAN: Right. So, this is something we could pass tomorrow. This is a governing agenda that we’re saying if we got in control of Congress tomorrow, here’s what we would do. And there’s dozens of pieces of legislation here we’re talking about. First of all, the health care bill, we think is a disaster. It’s making the deficit worse. That’s according to the President’s actuary. It’s making health care go up. We would replace this health care law with consumer-directed health care that actually gets affordable health care to everybody, regardless of preexisting condition. STEPHANOPOULOS: So, that is number one. Okay, Congressman- RYAN: We would cut spending, right away. There’s lots of things we would do. We would rescind TARP. We would rescind unspent stimulus. We would do a federal hiring freeze. That can get you 1.3 trillion in spending cuts. And we would prevent these massive tax increases from hitting our economy January 1st so that we can keep job creation going. We’re trying to remove uncertainty so the economy can grow. There’s a big uncertainty problem. Businesses aren’t hiring because of all this government uncertainty. We want to address that. STEPHANOPOULOS: Big agenda for January 1st. Thank you very much, Congressman.

More here:
George Stephanopoulos Parrots Democratic Talking Points on New GOP Pledge: They’re ‘Repealing Health Care’

Why Can’t Clean Energy Be More Like Cell Phones? (Video)

Image via Uncyclopedia Or, Why Government and Business Are Locked in a Climate Showdown At a special session focused on energy and the environment at the 2010 Clinton Global Initiative , billionaire investor and clean energy entrepreneur Richard Branson joined Christiana Figueres , essentially the world’s top international climate negotiator, to discuss policy and business solutions for global warming. Figuere… Read the full story on TreeHugger

Read more here:
Why Can’t Clean Energy Be More Like Cell Phones? (Video)

Matthews Scolds Obama: ‘Stop Saying Cutting Taxes Is Giving People Money – It’s Their Money!’

A truly shocking thing happened on Monday’s “Hardball”: Chris Matthews, the man who once proudly boasted about getting a thrill up his leg when Barack Obama speaks, actually scolded the President on national television. Maybe even more surprising, the MSNBCer told the object of his affection, “Stop saying that giving people tax cuts is giving people money. It`s their money!” The unashamed liberal host continued, “A tax cut is when the government doesn`t take our money. It`s an important distinction” (video follows with transcript and commentary): CHRIS MATTHEWS, HOST: I have one small tweak to make to what the president said today — he should stop saying that giving people tax cuts is giving people money. It`s their money! A tax cut is when the government doesn`t take our money. It`s an important distinction. He talked today, for example, about people getting a check from the government in the form of a tax cut. That`s not the way it works. If tax rates are kept lower, it`s a matter of the check going to the government being smaller. Again, it`s an important distinction. Wouldn’t it be nice if others on the Left along with their media minions understood this basic principle? After all, the way Democrats and press members have been talking about extending the Bush tax cuts lately, it’s as if we all work for the government and any money it deigns to give us we should be thankful for. That an unapologetic liberal like Matthews not only gets this but is also willing to say it on national television makes you wonder why all so-called journalists don’t agree. Errr – maybe not.

Follow this link:
Matthews Scolds Obama: ‘Stop Saying Cutting Taxes Is Giving People Money – It’s Their Money!’

Newsweek’s Stuart Taylor a Bit Misleading in Article on Court Challenge to ObamaCare

“The justices have not struck down a major piece of legislation, let alone a president’s signature initiative, as beyond Congress’s power to regulate commerce in some 75 years.” That’s how Newsweek’s Stuart Taylor Jr. today all but argued that, political ideology of the Supreme Court’s majority aside, a Supreme Court decision declaring unconstitutional the “individual mandate” of ObamaCare is quite unlikely. But while Taylor may be right  that no signature presidential initiative post-New Deal has been declared unconstitutional by the Court on the grounds that it violated the interstate commerce clause, he neglected to mention there are two key cases in the past 15 years where the Supreme Court did set outer limits to Congress’s exploitation of the commerce clause as a fountain of federal power. In 1995, a 5-justice majority in U.S. v. Lopez struck down a provision of the Gun Free School Zones Act of 1990 that made it a federal crime to possess a firearm in a school zone. Chief Justice Rehnquist wrote for the Court that “the possession of a gun in a local school zone is in no sense an economic activity that might, through repetition elsewhere, have such a substantial effect on interstate commerce….  Nor is it an essential part of a larger regulation of economic activity, in which the regulatory scheme could be undercut unless the intrastate activity were regulated.” What’s more, Rehnquist noted (emphasis mine), “To uphold the Government’s contention that 922(q) is justified because firearms possession in a local school zone does indeed substantially affect interstate commerce would require this Court to pile inference upon inference in a manner that would bid fair to convert congressional Commerce Clause authority to a general police power of the sort held only by the States.” In other words, if the Court had accepted the government’s rationale in Lopez, it would paved the way to destroy what is supposed to be an enumerated, limited federal power into a broader “police power” that is reserved for the several states of the Union.  Similar arguments regarding ObamaCare are certain to be made before the Supreme Court should the case get that far. Five years later in United States v. Morrison , the Rehnquist Court drew on the precedent in Lopez to strike down a portion of the federal Violence Against Women Act — legislation championed by current Vice President and then-Delaware Senator Joe Biden — on the grounds that it was an improper application of the interstate commerce clause. Wrote Rehnquist for the Court (emphasis mine): The Constitution requires a distinction between what is truly national and what is truly local , and there is no better example of the police power , which the Founders undeniably left reposed in the States and denied the central government, than the suppression of violent crime and vindication of its victims. Congress therefore may not regulate noneconomic, violent criminal conduct based solely on the conduct’s aggregate effect on interstate commerce. Both Lopez and Morrison were 5-to-4 cases, but they are relevant case law for the question of whether the ObamaCare individual mandate violates the interstate commerce clause by jury-rigging it into a police power-granting clause for Congress.

More here:
Newsweek’s Stuart Taylor a Bit Misleading in Article on Court Challenge to ObamaCare

CNN Contributor Avlon: Christine O’Donnell ‘Queen of the Wingnuts’

CNN contributor John Avlon returned to his consistent theme of bashing conservative on Monday’s Newsroom, labeling Delaware Republican Senate candidate Christine O’Donnell the ” new queen of the wingnuts .” Avlon also referenced Reason magazine’s label of O’Donnell as a ” crackpot of the first order ” and didn’t provide the full context of her 1997 remarks on AIDS. Anchor Kyra Phillips led the 9 am Eastern hour of Newsroom with the Republican’s 1999 appearance on ABC’s Politically Incorrect where she cited how she “dabbled” in witchcraft as a teenager. After playing a clip from the 11-year-old appearance, Phillips continued that O’Donnell’s remarks are ” raising eyebrows and some concerns from the GOP establishment ” and brought on Avlon, who has a knack for being tougher on his identified “wingnuts” on the right than those he picks from the left. The anchor referenced The Daily Beast writer’s September 15 column in her first question: “O’Donnell actually canceled two Sunday talk show appearances after this came to light, and now, you are calling her the new queen of wingnuts .” Avlon confirmed his label of the Delaware candidate and went right into citing Reason magazine and made his mischaracterization of her 13-year-old comments on AIDS from an appearance on C-SPAN : AVLON: Ah, the queen of the wingnuts . Yes, and this week in the Values Voters [Summit], she was very clear to say that she was not a wingnut. She was very specific about that. But this new revelations haven’t helped, and when you cancel Sunday shows at the last minute, that is sign of a campaign in crisis and damage control mode. This is just the newest revelation, but in reality, these sorts of claims have been dogging her campaign from early on. I mean, the libertarian Reason magazine called her a crackpot of the first order before the primary . So this is just the latest information, and whether you find this witchcraft claim more controversial or offensive than statements like- say, that AIDS sufferers shouldn’t be called victims, that’s a judgment call . But there’s a lot more where this comes from. The writer failed to mention that O’Donnell was criticizing what, in her view, was a “gross disproportionate allocation of funds” going towards dealing with HIV/AIDS. She made an analogy with heart disease: “When somebody finds out that they’re at high risk for heart disease, they cut out the fatty foods, they start exercising, they quit smoking. However, our approach to AIDS, when you’re in a high risk behavior, is to eliminate the consequences so that you can continue in your lifestyle which brings about this disease.” Speaking of “politically incorrect,” that’s how one could qualify pointing out the fact that lifestyles such as drug abuse or male homosexual activity put people at much higher risk for HIV than other activities, something that the CDC clearly underlines . Later, Phillips made light of the witch issue with a reference to the popular “Bewitched” TV series: “I don’t know, John. Can you imagine just kind of twitching your nose, doing a little ‘Bewitched’ action, being able to change policy? I don’t know…. Elizabeth Montgomery would be the positive witch model .” Avlon has repeatedly bashed conservatives in past TV appearances. During a October 23, 2009 appearance on CNN’s American Morning, he equated conservatism with racism. He labeled the “saving freedom” theme for CPAC 2010 ” a little extreme ” and ” a little far out ” during two February 2010 segments . The Daily Beast writer also lamented Senator John McCain’s tack to the right during the Arizona primary on August 25 and slammed Glenn Beck as a “professional divider” on CBS’s Early Show two days later . The full transcript of Kyra Phillips and John Avlon’s segment from Monday’s Newsroom: PHILLIPS: All right, it’s getting harder to be shocked by anything in politics. But here’s a story that sure meets the challenge: a politician admits that she dabbled in witchcraft, and it’s not some local crackpot running for dog catcher. It’s Christine O’Donnell, a Republican nominee for U.S. Senate, and a darling of the surging Tea Party movement. Here’s her surprising claim resurfacing from a 1999 interview. CHRISTINE O’DONNELL (from 1999 episode of ABC’s ‘Politically Incorrect’): I dabbled into witchcraft. I never joined a coven. But I did, I did. JAMIE KENNEDY, ACTOR: Wait a minute. You were a witch? BILL MAHER: Yes, she was a witch. KENNEDY: You were a witch. O’DONNELL: I didn’t join a coven. I didn’t join a coven. Let’s get this straight. KENNEDY: Wait a minute. I love this. You’re a witch. You’re going Halloween-‘I was a witch.’ I mean, wait a minute. O’DONNELL: That’s exactly why. KENNEDY: How did you used to be a witch? O’DONNELL: Because I dabbled into witchcraft, I hung around people who were doing these things. I’m not making this stuff up. I know what they told me they do. PHILLIPS (live): Okay. Well, O’Donnell’s comments are raising eyebrows and some concerns from the GOP establishment. But what matters most is what voters are thinking, just six weeks ahead of the midterm elections. CNN’s Jim Acosta will join with the results of a weekend straw poll in just a second, and CNN contributor John Avlon looks at O’Donnell’s mission: damage control. John, let’s go ahead and start with you. O’Donnell actually canceled two Sunday talk show appearances after this came to light, and now, you are calling her the new queen of wingnuts. AVLON: Ah, the queen of the wingnuts. Yes, and this week in the Values Voters [Summit], she was very clear to say that she was not a wingnut. She was very specific about that. But this new revelations haven’t helped, and when you cancel Sunday shows at the last minute, that is sign of a campaign in crisis and damage control mode. This is just the newest revelation, but in reality, these sorts of claims have been dogging her campaign from early on. I mean, the libertarian Reason magazine called her a crackpot of the first order before the primary. So this is just the latest information, and whether you find this witchcraft claim more controversial or offensive than statements like- say, that AIDS sufferers shouldn’t be called victims, that’s a judgment call. But there’s a lot more where this comes from. PHILLIPS: Well, and Karl Rove weighed in, of course, not showing her any love, and she actually Tweeted Sunday night on that and said that if she did have the powers of a witch, then Karl Rove would be backing her candidacy. (laughs) AVLON: (laughs) Well, that’s one way to spin it. (laughs) I mean- PHILLIPS: Well, does she owe an explanation to her fellow Republicans? AVLON: You know, I mean, I don’t think this should be taken that seriously. What it’s indicative of- this is a comment made on ‘Politically Incorrect’ 10 years ago. What it’s indicative of is a candidate who’s got a huge amount of baggage, who will be radioactive to voters in the common-sense center of America because of this and many, many other statements and questions about her candidacy- questions that other Republicans were raising before the primary, saying- hey, folks, we’ve got a good chance to pick up Joe Biden’s seat in the Senate if the nominee is Mike Castle, but a really bad chance if it’s Christine O’Donnell, who’s never held elected office before, but has run for the Senate three times in the last five years. PHILLIPS: Now, no one has come out- well, Republican-wise and had her back. Mike Pence was even on American [Morning] this morning, he skirted around the issues. We got six weeks and counting, John, and this is not her first obscure moment, shall we say? (both Phillips and Avlon laugh) You’ve talked about- you know, I mean, we watched them. We’ve covered it. You mentioned the- AVLON: Just the tip of the iceberg- yeah. PHILLIPS: Yeah. Well, that’s what we’re wondering. Is this just the tip of the iceberg and how long- AVLON: Yes. PHILLIPS: Until someone gets behind he,r or just says that’s it, got to go? You’re out. AVLON: You know, I think she’s in. Look, she won a close partisan primary fairly decisively. But the problem is that’s not representative of the entire electorate. But she has the strong backing of the Tea Party Express- put a quarter of a million dollars in her campaign in the last 10 days. But this is going to keep coming out. There is a lot more where this comes from because, throughout the 1990s, she was essentially a professional social conservative activist, going on television shows, from MTV to Politically Incorrect, and playing the kind of evangelical ingenue role here, and that is something that’s going to create a lot of vulnerabilities. There is videotape and a lot of it, of her saying some things which can really alienate or raise some reasonable questions among reasonable-minded people. PHILLIPS: I don’t know, John. Can you imagine just kind of twitching your nose, doing a little ‘Bewitched’ action, being able to change policy? I don’t know. That might be- AVLON: That’s the positive vision [unintelligible]- PHILLIPS: Yeah! That’s actually a nice way to look at it. AVLON: Elizabeth Montgomery would be the positive witch model. PHILLIPS: There you go. (laughs) Oh boy. Boy, did we age ourselves there. John Avalon, great to see you. AVLON: (laughs) Good to see you.

Follow this link:
CNN Contributor Avlon: Christine O’Donnell ‘Queen of the Wingnuts’