Tag Archives: government

MSNBC’s Thomas Roberts Hypes Pro-gay Rights Lady Gaga as the ‘Joan Baez of Her Time’

MSNBC News Live host Thomas Roberts on Monday pleaded with his Twitter followers to help get Lady Gaga on his program, at one point hyping the pro-gay rights singer as the “Joan Baez of her time.” In the 11am hour, Roberts, who is openly gay and hosted The Advocate On-Air , explained that he had Tweeted Lady Gaga to come on the air and talk about her appearance in Maine to rally support for overturning Don’t Ask Don’t Tell. He lobbied, “And I want Gaga to join me. So, I want you to help me. I’ve sent her a message at Twitter.com/LadyGaga and you should too.” He later begged, “So, keep it up out there, Gaga little monsters. Write to @LadyGaga. Try and convince her to come on the show at two o’clock. We’ll even do a phoner with her.” (Little monsters is the nickname for Gaga fans.) Roberts enthused over the singer, whose real name is Stefani Joanne Angelina Germanotta. Talking to radio host Michael Smerconish, he speculated, ” So, will Lady Gaga become the Joan Baez of her time? ” Roberts later compared, “And in your opinion, is this like Oprah supporting Obama?” MSNBC’s daytime anchors, supposedly delivering objective news, have a history of arguing, on-air, for the repeal of Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell. Contessa Brewer , a colleague of Roberts, is another example. Partial transcripts for the September 20 segments can be found below: 11:35 THOMAS ROBERTS: Lady Gaga is using her star power today to fight the military’s Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell policy on gay service members. A proposal to repeal the measure attached to a defense spending bill that is scheduled to be voted on tomorrow. Lady Gaga is attending a rally in Maine today. Maine’s senators could cast the deciding votes in favor of the bill. And I’m going to be hosting the 2pm hour right here on MSNBC. And I want Gaga to join me. So, I want you to help me. I’ve sent her a message at Twitter.com/LadyGaga and you should too. See, that’s what it says: “Help me get @ Lady Gaga on my 2:00 p.m. hour.” Help me. Little monsters out there. I think that’s- Right? I think that’s what they’re called? I’m asking Courtney Hazlett. She’s right here. But, anyway, little monsters, help me get Lady Gaga on at two o’clock so we can talk about what she’s got planned in Portland, Maine. 11:51 ROBERTS: Welcome back to MSNBC. And I’m asking you to help me today in my Twitter campaign to get Lady Gaga on my 2:00 show here on MSNBC. This is the tweet that I sent to Lady Gaga earlier today, and everyone out there: “Help me get @LadyGaga on my 2pm hour on MSNBC. Want to talk to her about the Maine rally on Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell, the repeal.” So, it’s coming up today at 4pm in Portland, Maine. She’s trying to get Senator Collins and Senator Snowe’s attention there in that state. But, I’ve been getting people tweeting me back really nice stuff. JJLucasH saying, “Hey, Lady Gaga, we need you to contact Thomas Roberts for this important 2pm show.” Also, I like this one from UNCJohnny: “Make an anchor boy happy.” That would be me. Help me get @LadyGaga on my 2pm hour on @MSNBC. So, keep it up out there, Gaga little monsters. Write to @LadyGaga. Try and convince her to come on the show at two o’clock. We’ll even do a phoner with her. We want to hear why she’s doing this at 4pm in Portland, Maine. 2:08 ROBERTS: I want to tell you about Lady Gaga moonlighting as a Washington lobbyist. The pop superstar isn’t giving up her singing gig, but she’s holding a rally in Maine today, making her case to Republican Senators Olympia Snowe and Susan Collins to end the military’s policy of Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell. And here’s the pitch she has out there on YouTube. LADY GAGA: Ultimately, the law is being enforced using gay profiling. And gay soldiers have become targets. In short, not only is the law unconstitutional, but it’s not even being properly or fairly enforced by the government. ROBERTS: So this comes a week after the MTV Music Awards when she was escorted by members of the military who were being kicked out for admitting they are gay. I started a Twitter campaign to get Gaga on the show. Unfortunately, we were told she’s not doing press before this . … ROBERTS: So, will Lady Gaga become the Joan Baez of her time? Michael Smerconish is a nationally syndicated radio talk show host and a MSNBC contributor. All right, Michael. Give me your take. What do you think? MICHAEL SMERCONISH: My take- Thomas, I get nervous when entertainment figures weigh in on matters of politics. But, Long ago I had to cross the bridge and say if I pick my entertainers by politics, I would have nobody to listen to and no movies to watch. She has a constituency. And we are such a segmented society. When you think of all the different media outlets, the different internet web sites and so forth that are out there- And I’m sure she has a constituency that Senators Olympia Snowe and Susan Collins may not hear from on this issue or any other. So, for that matter, yeah. I take it seriously. I think that there’s a group of people will come out and be energized like they haven’t because of Lady Gaga. ROBERTS: Well, she has over six million Twitter followers. I think she’s the number one followed person. And isn’t Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell just a matter of time? So, going after a youth culture, maybe as she is, is the right way to go? SMERCONISH: Well, I think you raise a great point. My view is that the heavy lifting halready been done on Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell. I do believe it’s a matter of time. On a whole host of issues having to do with same-sex relationships. So, so, perhaps, you know, she smells victory on this and wants to be, in part, credited. I guess that’s a cynical take. But I do think it’s going to happen. And I do believe this will have some impact in energizing people who up until now haven’t been heard from on it. ROBERTS: And in your opinion, is this like Oprah supporting Obama? SMERCONISH: Uh, I don’t- You know, dare I say it, I’ve got more respect for Oprah than Lady Gaga. [laughs] I don’t know, man. I- You’ll have to make that judgment. ROBERTS: But still you understand the power that she has. And when she wields it, and she does so in an effective way, it can make a difference. SMERCONISH: There’s no doubt about it. The entertainment world generally, I think, is comprised of individuals who if they use it in the right way have tremendous political power.

Follow this link:
MSNBC’s Thomas Roberts Hypes Pro-gay Rights Lady Gaga as the ‘Joan Baez of Her Time’

Joy Behar Trashes Christine O’Donnell: ‘A Witch Who Doesn’t Masturbate’

Comedian Joy Behar seemed to enjoy herself as she muckraked through exotic comments made by Republican Delaware U.S. Senate nominee Christine O’Donnell over a decade ago, refusing to leave them out of a serious discussion about O’Donnell’s candidacy. She even threw Sarah Palin into the mix. O’Donnell, in a 1999 appearance on Bill Maher’s “Politically Incorrect,” said that she “dabbled into witchcraft” in high school but never joined a coven. Behar lambasted O’Donnell, calling her “crazy” and wondering why she was running for office. “I think it shows you how crazy the girl is, doesn’t it?” Behar asked incredulously. “How many crazy people do we have to have in office?” Behar labeled O’Donnell as a “witch who doesn’t masturbate.” Meanwhile, the show’s token conservative Elisabeth Hasselbeck countered that if O’Donnell is under the gun for such comments, then President Obama should have been scrutinized more closely over his pastor of 20 years, the Rev. Jeremiah Wright. Even veteran liberal journalist and ‘View’ co-host Barbara Walters dismissed the notion of serious discussion of O’Donnell’s comments from 10 or 20 years ago, and argued that her current views on social issues should be scrutinized. Yet Behar couldn’t let the “witch” comment go, suddenly taking a conservative stance on Satan worship. “Dabbling is not an acceptable word, when you’re into witchcraft and Satanism,” the liberal show host preached. When Hasselbeck replied to one criticism that O’Donnell is “unique,” Behar quipped “Unique or eunuch?” Walters soon closed the debate, saying that “whether 20 years ago [O’Donnell] did this or she did that – I mean, it makes for juicy headlines, but it really is unimportant.” It still wasn’t enough for Behar, who wanted to throw Sarah Palin in with the dubious comments. “But you know, isn’t it interesting that Sarah Palin backs her up, and one of the reasons she got elected is because Sarah did those robo-calls to make sure that she got elected,” Behar seriously pointed out. “And if I recall, wasn’t Sarah exorcised in Alaska by a preacher one time? She believes in exorcism. These two are into it together. Talk about a coven. This is a coven!” Hasselbeck dismissed the absurdity of Behar’s logic. “Welcome to the politics of someone backing someone else. It’s certainly not a coven. It’s radical to say something like that.” A partial transcript of the segment, which aired on September 20 at 11:06 a.m. EDT, is as follows: BARBARA WALTERS: Republican Delaware Senate nominee Christine O’Donnell – her past came back to haunt her over the weekend, and she defended herself against comments she made back in 1999 on Bill Maher’s old show called “Politically Correct.” (Video Clip) CHRISTINE O’DONNELL: (On “Politically Incorrect”) I dabbled into witchcraft. I never joined a coven. One of my first dates with a witch was on a Satanic altar, and I didn’t know it. O’DONNELL: (Recently) I was in high school. How many of you didn’t hang out with questionable folks in high school? But no, there’s been no witchcraft since. If there was, Karl Rove would be a supporter now. (End Video Clip) (…) SHERRI SHEPHERD: But I think – you know, in this respect, because she says she’s a conservative Christian, and the basis for being a Christian is you might have a former life – you let that go, and you don’t do it anymore. (…) ELISABETH HASSELBECK: Do you think it’s valid to then question this? Do you think this is even a valid thing to look at, that Bill’s throwing out here on his show? JOY BEHAR: I think it shows you how crazy the girl is, doesn’t it? How many crazy people do we have to have in office? HASSELBECK: Well let’s start with this. In fairness, Joy, if we’re going to investigate past religious affiliations or dabbles or high school trips here and there, why then wasn’t Billy-boy over here so interested in where President Obama was for 20 years at Rev. Wright’s church, so much so that – (Crosstalk) SHEPHERD: Nobody let that go with him. HASSELBECK: They absolutely brushed it under the rug. In fairness, in fairness – if they’re going to dig into this, they should then open that up too. BEHAR: Well here’s a girl who says that, you know, she didn’t masturbate – she doesn’t believe in masturbating, either. And she wants to make public policy about other people’s sex lives. She’s a witch who doesn’t masturbate, who has never had premarital sex. Why is she running for office? HASSELBECK: Why do you call her a girl, but anyone who’s powerful a woman? You can’t just toss her off as a girl – BEHAR: You can call me a girl anytime you want, honey. HASSELBECK: No, that’s not right. BEHAR: I love being called a girl. SHEPHERD: But are you saying that anything that anybody does back in high school should be held against them as an adult? What did you do in high school, Joy, that you might not want to talk about? HASSELBECK: What about 20 years in a row? What about 20 years listening to a man who hates this country?  (…) BEHAR: Dabbling is not an acceptable word, when you’re into witchcraft and Satanism. HASSELBECK: She wasn’t into it. She went on a date with a guy who was at an altar. BEHAR: She said she had – she did a Satanic ritual at an altar. HASSELBECK: What about 20 years straight, calling someone your mentor, who then goes on to produce hatemongering across the country. 20 years, he’s – (…) WALTERS: When you discuss past positions – and she’s a very conservative candidate, she’s a Tea Party candidate –  the fact that she’s now a candidate – were something that’s surprising. Okay, so we’re giving special attention. She has other views, I think, that she’s – SHEPHERD: Against masturbation – HASSELBECK: She’s unique. WALTERS: She doesn’t think that – BEHAR: Unique, or eunuch? WALTERS: Let me finish, okay? She doesn’t think that using condoms – that using condoms could combat AIDS. She has other points of view, and a conservative point of view – I think those are the things, if you want to discuss them, you discuss them. This has to be thought of in future voting and whatever her philosophy is. (Crosstalk) But whether 20 years ago she did this or she did that – I mean, it makes for juicy headlines, but it really is unimportant. BEHAR: But you know, isn’t it interesting that Sarah Palin backs her up, and one of the reasons she got elected is because Sarah did those robo-calls to make sure that she got elected. And if I recall, wasn’t Sarah exorcised in Alaska by a preacher one time. She believes in exorcism. These two are into it together. HASSELBECK: Does she currently believe in exorcism? BEHAR: Talk about a coven. This is a coven! HASSELBECK: You know what, though? Joy, welcome to the politics of someone backing someone else. It’s certainly not a coven. It’s radical to say something like that.

See original here:
Joy Behar Trashes Christine O’Donnell: ‘A Witch Who Doesn’t Masturbate’

Most Economists Want All Tax Cuts Extended; CNN’s Roberts Sees Need to ‘Bump Up’ Govt’s ‘Revenue Stream’

A new CNN/Money survey of 31 top economists found a majority of them say the top priority — given the weak state of the economy — is for Congress to extend the Bush tax cuts for all income groups. But talking about this policy recommendation with CNN/Money’s Paul La Monica on Monday’s American Morning, co-anchor John Roberts rued the conundrum of needing to keep tax rates low for economic reasons — putting “more money in the pockets of people” — while at the same time, because of the “frightening” trillion-dollar deficits, “you’ve got to bump up your [the government’s] revenue stream.” Roberts fretted: You want to put more money in the pockets of people, particularly when you look at unemployment over 9 percent. But then at the same time you have these deficits that are running at an absolutely frightening rate of a trillion-plus dollars a year. So, you’ve got to bump up your revenue stream but at the same time you want to keep your money coming into the economy. So how do you reconcile that calculation? It seems not to have occurred to Roberts that the way to avoid either monstrous deficits or suffocating tax increases is to reduce government to a more affordable size. Looking at the details of CNN’s survey of economists, it’s understandable why they would want the tax cuts extended. Their average forecast is for unemployment to be just below 9% at the end of next year, a full fifteen months from now, with a quarter of those surveyed seeing the unemployment rate still at 9.5% or higher in December 2011. As for the consequences of letting the tax cuts expire, just today, the Heritage Foundation released a comprehensive study showing that the tax hikes envisioned by President Obama would lead to slower economic growth, lower family income, higher interest rates and a loss of an average of 600,000 private sector jobs each year from 2011 through 2020, or 6 million fewer jobs total. Liberals are already trying to frame the deficit debate as one of making sure government has the money it needs to pay for the vast expansion President Obama and congressional Democrats achieved over the past 19 months. A fair and balanced news media would put much of the onus on liberals to backtrack on their massive spending commitments before requiring the beleaguered private sector to kick in an even greater share. Here’s the exchange during the 8am ET hour of CNN’s American Morning, September 20: JOHN ROBERTS: Seventeen minutes now after the hour. We have 110 days until the Bush tax cuts are set to expire and the debate over whether to extend them has absolutely consumed Capitol Hill. The strongest impact will most certainly be felt in the bank accounts of millions of Americans. CANDY CROWLEY: Minding your business this morning, CNN/Money’s Paul La Monica. President Obama is suggesting that the tax cuts should expire only for the richest 3 percent of taxpayers but there are economist who say that may not be the best idea. [turns to La Monica] So, is it? PAUL LA MONICA: Yeah, we surveyed 31 leading economists and a majority, 18 of them, said that their top priority if they were a Washington policymaker would be to extend the tax cuts for everyone. ROBERTS: So in terms of extending the tax cuts and what that does for the economy, run the numbers for us. You have got an example here. LA MONICA: Yeah. You have a middle class family, $75,000, you know, two children, you would have about $2600 in higher taxes if the cuts are not extended. ROBERTS: So — for the average family that’s a lot of money, but particularly in these hard economic times, when you know you are worried about, ‘Am I going to keep my job,’ ‘Should I buy that,’ — to not to get hit with an extra bill of $2600, that’s substantial. LA MONICA: Definitely, that’s why I think there is such urgency in Washington to get something done. It does seems that the main issue is, obviously, just trying — whether or not to extend them for everyone or to exclude the wealthiest top percent of the country. I mean a lot of people both Democrats and Republicans think that extending it for the middle class is obviously the right thing that has to be done, particularly in these tough times. CROWLEY: You know those tax cuts are already in place, so I’m going to assume that keeping them doesn’t really change the job market, it simply — the argument is [if they expire] things will get worse for America. LA MONICA: Exactly. It’s similar to two years ago when the financial crisis was really first starting to take hold, a lot of things that Washington or you know, was hoping to do right now is preventing the economy from deteriorating any further. I mean we’ve had obviously hopes of a recovery earlier in the year that have started to fade this summer. And that’s worrying a lot of people on obviously, you know, in Washington and on Wall Street. ROBERTS: So when you look at the calculation, Paul, you’ve got your rock and you’ve got your hard place. The rock being you want more money coming in to the economy itself so you want to put more money in the pockets of people, particularly when you look at unemployment over 9 percent. But then at the same time you have these deficits that are running at an absolutely  frightening rate of a trillion-plus dollars a year. So, you’ve got to bump up your revenue stream but at the same time you want to keep your money coming into the economy. So how do you reconcile that calculation? LA MONICA: Yeah, that’s very difficult. It’s the classic short-term versus long-term solution right now that people are trying to weigh. What is more important? A lot of people that we have spoken to at CNN/Money say that really Washington has to do everything in their power to help the middle class extending these tax cuts is likely something that can do that even though it could add to the deficit in the short-term. The hope, and admittedly it is something that could bear out over time but you know, you don’t know for certain is that if the economy starts to finally pick up some steam and consumers spend more, primarily because maybe they aren’t getting this bigger tax hit, the deficit could help take care of itself, because a stronger economy leads to higher tax revenue from not just individuals but businesses over the long haul. CROWLEY: Paul, thanks so much for breaking it down. Appreciate it.

View original post here:
Most Economists Want All Tax Cuts Extended; CNN’s Roberts Sees Need to ‘Bump Up’ Govt’s ‘Revenue Stream’

Dead fish all over east coast-lack of oxygen from gulf ecocide?

What a coverup. It doesn't take a genius to figure out that the oil more than likely has entered the ocean current loop and may well be depriving oxygen to marinelife causing these huge fishkills all up the East Coast. The media is covering it up, the government is covering it up. And yes, there are such things as fishkills and that is understood. However, this seems out of the ordinary. It isn't enough that we are killing the oceans with our plastic, poisons, acidification, overfishing and agricultural run off, we will now let BP get away with dealing the final blow. added by: JanforGore

Book Review: NY Times Reporter Kate Zernike Still Finding Tea Party Racism in "Boiling Mad"

New York Times political reporter Kate Zernike’s thin new book ” Boiling Mad — Inside Tea Party America ,” is among the first of what will surely be a flood of related books by journalists. Like her reporting for the Times, “Boiling Mad” covers the movement from a mostly hostile perspective that only intermittently becomes something like empathy when she’s talking to one of the invariably pleasant Tea Party citizens themselves. Behind the (of course) red-as-a-Red State-cover lies a mere 194 pages of text, not including a 33-page reprint of an old, biased Times poll on the Tea Party. While not wholly a notebook dump, there’s little new, and Zernike evinces little sympathy or feel for conservative concerns. Her expertise is instead finding racism everywhere she looks in Tea Party land. Even such benign conservative boilerplate as opposition to the minimum wage is racially suspect in Zernike’s eyes, as proven in her dispatch for the Times criticizing Glenn Beck’s gathering on the National Mall on the anniversary of Martin Luther King’s March on Washington: Still, the government programs that many Tea Party supporters call unconstitutional are the ones that have helped many black people emerge from poverty and discrimination….Even if Tea Party members are right that any racist signs are those of mischief-makers, even if Glenn Beck had chosen any other Saturday to hold his rally, it would be hard to quiet the argument about the Tea Party and race. Zernike once wrote that Tea Party members “tend to be white and male, with a disproportionate number above 45, and above 65. Their memories are of a different time, when the country was less diverse.” And during the Conservative Political Action Conference in D.C. in February, Zernike falsely accused conservative author Jason Mattera of using a racist “Chris Rock” voice in a speech (turns out Mattera just has a thick Brooklyn accent). So it’s no surprise Zernike quickly reestablished her race obsession on page 3 of “Boiling Mad,” reflecting on a Tea Party speaker “looking out at the sea of faces, almost all of them white.” The book’s index reveals that 23 pages worth of the book’s slim content refer to”race and racism.” Unlike many mainstream journalists, Zernike grasps shades on the right, noting the Tea Party’s social-media savvy young are “largely libertarian,” and interestingly described the odd mix of young activists and retirees as a “May-to-September marriage of convenience.” But “Boiling Mad” lacks a cohesive narrative, which may be an accurate rendition of the decentralized, libertarian nature of the movement but doesn’t make for a satisfying organic read. That’s partly the function of a merciless pre-electoral book deadline leaving crucial questions unanswered. Will the movement lead the GOP to take back Congress or cause it to blow a historic opportunity? Besides her chapter on the Kentucky Republican primary won by Rand Paul, Zernike uncovers few clues about the political possibilities of the movement. And Zernike’s empathy only goes so far. Showing a touching (and Timesian) trust in government statistics, Zernike marveled at the Tea Party’s ignorance, “impervious to reports from the Congressional Budget Office…that the federal stimulus had cut taxes and created millions of jobs and that the health care legislation passed in 2010 would reduce the federal deficit.” If Zernike truly thinks the CBO is the last word on those issues, she is more gullible than any Tea Partier, especially with new indications health spending is on the rise since Obama-care was enacted. Zernike reaches back to the California’s anti-property tax movement of the 1970s for more racial subtext. “Race was more subtle in conservative populist movements like the tax revolts than began in California and spread across the country in the late 1970s.” So subtle that only liberal journalists can spot it. While loathing the movement’s aims, Zernike genuinely seems to like her individual subjects, like Keri Carender, perhaps the first Tea Partier, a 29-year-old Seattle woman with a nose ring who Zernike called “an unlikely avatar of a movement that would come to derive most of its support from older white men.” Zernike followed resident Jennifer Stefano’s evolution from a random visit to a park in Bucks County, Pa., where she encountered a Tea Party rally in progress, to being nearly arrested barely a year later outside a polling place while trying to get Tea Party candidates on the Republican state committee. She allows activists to have their say, like two women at a rally “agitated that government could force you to wear a seatbelt but left it to women to ‘choose’ whether to have an abortion.” But whenever Zernike steps back to take in the movement as a whole, her observations can be gruesomely unfair. Zernike consistently portrays the movement as antediluvian and racially suspect: To talk about states’ rights in the way some Tea Partiers did was to pretend that the twentieth century and the latter half of the nineteenth century had never happened, that the country had not rejected this doctrine over and over. It was little wonder that people heard the echo of the slave era and decided that the movement had to be motivated by racism. Little wonder indeed! The most unfair section of the book, predictably, involves accusations of racism — the controversial claim that Obama-care protesters shouted racial slurs at John Lewis, black congressman and civil rights hero, during the heated debate before Congress voted on Obama-care. Zernike claimed the Tea Party had “organized the rally,” then took advantage of its loose structure to blame the entire group for any possible bad behavior by any individual in the vicinity, something the Times has never done when covering the truly violent acts committed by some at loosely organized left-wing rallies: It was difficult, if not disingenuous, for the Tea Party groups to try to disown the behavior. They had organized the rally, and under their model of self-policing, they were responsible for the behavior of people who were there. And after saying for months that anybody could be a Tea Party leader, they could not suddenly dismiss as faux Tea Partiers those protesters who made them look bad. Oddly, Zernike’s colleague at the Times, Carl Hulse, wrote an unsympathetic piece on the protesters the day afterward that didn’t mention the Tea Party at all. And the paper actually corrected the same charge when made in its pages by political writer Matt Bai, saying he had “erroneously linked one example of a racially charged statement to the Tea Party movement. While Tea Party supporters have been connected to a number of such statements, there is no evidence that epithets reportedly directed in March at Representative John Lewis, Democrat of Georgia, outside the Capitol, came from Tea Party members.”   Another recurring theme of “Boiling Mad” is anger: “The supporters were angry, but the activists were angrier.” The April 15 rally on Capitol Hill was “a blend of jingoism and grievance,” concerns which Zernike only occasionally attempted to explain. She spent just as much time pulling back her focus to chide the movement with civics lessons: “People might get frustrated with Congress or the federal bureaucracy. But they did not want to leave old people relying on the whims of the market or charity for health and security in their sunset years.” Vulgar critics of the Tea Party movement (“tea-baggers,” anyone?) are left out of her narrative, contributing to the sense of imbalance. Even that back page poll, supposedly a true-to-life snapshot of the movement, is blurred in the paper’s liberal prism. Here’s Question 72: “In recent years, do you think too much has been made of the problems facing black people, too little has been made, or is it about right?” Besides the unsympathetic slant, the problem with “Boiling Mad” is that it’s hard to draw conclusions about a political movement yet to test itself in a nationwide election. The subject needs time to steep. Months premature, “Boiling Mad” is all steam, no substance.

Read the original here:
Book Review: NY Times Reporter Kate Zernike Still Finding Tea Party Racism in "Boiling Mad"

Savannah Guthrie’s Soak-the-Rich Obsession: Higher Taxes Only Means of Lowering Deficits

Isn’t it odd after the passage of TARP, the stimulus and ObamaCare that left-wing politicians and their cheerleaders in the mainstream media are suddenly worried about budget deficits? As opposed to reining in deficit spending, the new public policy stance for the Democratic Party going into the 2010 midterm election is to call for a tax hike on the top-income earners by letting the Bush tax cuts expire for those folks. In an interview on MSNBC’s Sept. 17 “The Daily Rundown” with Sen. John Cornyn, R-Texas, co-host Savannah Guthrie pressed the Texas senator on the need to raise taxes in order to lower budget deficits. Guthrie asked: “Sir, as you know, a lot of the energy in the Republican Party, some of the animating issues have to do with deficit and spending, and I ask you given the concern among Republican voters about deficit spending, how is it that Republicans can get behind allowing the Bush tax cuts to go forward for the wealthiest Americans, something that will cost $700 billion borrowed money deficit spending. How do you square that up?” This is becoming a pattern for Guthrie. The previous week, Guthrie pressed Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell with the same line of questioning . But according to Cornyn, Guthrie was offering false choices, which was the exact same way McConnell responded when she pushed the same premise. “Well Savannah, it doesn’t make any sense to raise taxes in order to keep current tax policy in place,” Cornyn said. “I think frankly that’s a false choice. My preference would have been to make these tax rates permanent, but we didn’t have the votes to do it so they’re temporary. They’re going to expire.” Cornyn’s response didn’t satisfy “The Daily Rundown” co-host. Apparently in Guthrie’s mind, if you earn money – what the government allows you to keep is a federal expenditure, suggesting all earned income is the government’s and they’re just allowing you to keep some of it. “But, that will be deficit spending, right? I mean, it is deficit spending?” an unrelenting Guthrie interrupted and fired back at Cornyn. Cornyn called Guthrie’s “deficit spending” description a false construction and said raising taxes on anyone would be an “anti-stimulus.” “I think that’s a false construct, with all due respect, because these are current tax rates,” Cornyn replied. “We’re talking about the largest tax increase in American history. And particularly Democrats, I think, and Republicans are looking now to say, ‘You know what, even if we’re for raising the marginal tax rates to what they were in the ’90s, the worst time to be doing this is during a time of fragile, economic recovery so I hope we can come together and to stave that off, because I can’t think of a worse anti-stimulus at this time than this huge tax increase.” During the 2008 election, political opponents of the Republican Party and the party’s presidential nominee Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., would often describe the GOP’s economic policies as “Hoover-esque.” Liberal economist Jared Bernstein was one of the people who used it to describe Republican policies in 2008 . Bernstein now holds a prominent position in the Obama White House as the chief economist for the vice president. But you don’t have to appear more “Hoover-esque” than raising taxes in the middle of an economic downturn – as former President Herbert Hoover did immediately following the stock market crash of 1929 with The Revenue Act of 1932.

View original post here:
Savannah Guthrie’s Soak-the-Rich Obsession: Higher Taxes Only Means of Lowering Deficits

White House Accused of Withholding Key Info on BP Spill

There’s been a well-documented gray area surrounding the cooperative operations of BP and federal governmental agencies in the response to the Gulf spill. Questions were raised about press access, for instance, as the government seemed to be abetting BP in restricting media access to sensitive or potentially embarrassing spill-impacted sites. Later, there was the NOAA’s report that 75% of the oil had vanished — such fine news for B… Read the full story on TreeHugger

Read the original post:
White House Accused of Withholding Key Info on BP Spill

Plant Killed by Facebook-Fed Fans

Is this a sign that social networking is bad? An Australian plant that was fed via a Facebook page died as a result of being over fed by its facebook fans on the site. The interactive project was conducted at the Queensland state library … http://bit.ly/dnunVb added by: itgrunts

Parking ticket issued as NYC man lays dead in front seat.

A NYC man was ticketed as he lay dead hunched over in his front seat. The traffic agent said he could not see the man through his dark tinted windows. The body was discovered by a friend 1 hour after the ticket was issued. added by: twoon

Big Govt, Small Citizen

When the citizen no longer has control of the government, then liberty is lost to statism. added by: 2hellnwait