Tag Archives: islam

ABC’s Amanpour Takes Dig at Bush: Relations w/ Muslim World ‘Devastatingly Damaged Over the Previous Eight Years’

It’s one thing to acknowledge that the Muslim world has had a negative reaction to America ‘s war effort in Afghanistan and Iraq, but, when one starts referring to “the previous eight years” before the Obama administration, it starts to sound like partisan Democratic talking points. As ABC’s Christiane Amanpour appeared on Sunday’s Good Morning America to talk about President Obama’s predicament regarding his speech on the proposed mosque near Ground Zero, Amanpour at one point recounted that relations with the Muslim world had suffered during the “previous eight years” before Obama became President. After host John Berman queried as to “how is this playing in the Muslim world,” Amanpour at one point asserted: “But clearly President Obama from the very beginning went out of his way to try to repair relations with the Islamic world which had been so devastatingly damaged over the previous eight years.” The war in Afghanistan was only seven years old when Obama took office, so her “previous eight years” crack could only be interpreted as a reference to the entire Bush presidency rather than the war itself. Below is a transcript of the relevant portion of the Sunday, August 15, Good Morning America: JOHN BERMAN: There is, of course, another audience here, the international audience, how is this playing in the Muslim world? CHRISTIANE AMANPOUR: Well, all of this will inevitably play. How precisely these last two days of comments and change in comments will play, we’ll wait to see. But clearly President Obama from the very beginning went out of his way to try to repair relations with the Islamic world which had been so devastatingly damaged over the previous eight years . He not only mentioned that in his inauguration speech, in his first interviews, but also with that big speech in Cairo, and obviously, talking about trying to get moderate Muslims also to stand up for their faith and to stand against extremism. And, in fact, the people who are in charge of building this have spoken out against 9/11, have condemned terrorism and are viewed as those in the moderate community. So it’s clearly something that has come a cropper, if you like, since they were able to build this and protests have started. But the question, is vital. What does it actually mean, how far away is suitable? Can a mosque be built there? There are other mosques in that general area. What does it precisely mean when you strip it all down, this political furor that’s been started over this?

Read more:
ABC’s Amanpour Takes Dig at Bush: Relations w/ Muslim World ‘Devastatingly Damaged Over the Previous Eight Years’

Amanpour’s Panel Hails Obama’s ‘Courage,’ ‘Leadership’ and ‘Great Global Message’ on Mosque

President Barack Obama’s endorsement Friday night of building a mosque near Ground Zero has driven the establishment press corps to find nobility in pursuing conviction even in the face of public opposition, not something MSM journalists admired about the previous President, while suddenly becoming very concerned about protecting private property rights – all while hailing Obama’s “great global message.” “I thought the speech Friday night was a model of political courage, in the sense that he said what he believed knowing that it was going to cost him,” hailed Washington Post Associate Editor David Ignatius on ABC’s This Week with Christiane Amanpour. Picking up on Matthew Dowd’s suggestion Obama was echoing George W. Bush’s “it’s my way or the highway” attitude, Chrystia Freeland , global editor-at-large for Reuters, argued: Another way of talking about that is leadership, conviction, having your beliefs and not governing according to polls. And I think if you ask most Americans what kind of leader you want, if you ask people in the world what kind of leader do you want, you want someone who governs according to conviction….for American leaders to say in the face of, you know, some political pressure from their voters, to say actually we believe sufficiently strongly in diversity, in private property rights for our Muslim citizens, I think that’s a great global message. Ignatius, the Post’s former foreign editor and business editor and now a columnist on international affairs, backed Freeland, contending that doing what upsets Americans is good to do because it protects property right and pleases the world: I agree with that. I think that’s one of our strongest suits. As the world looks at us, if they see that the United States, even in an issue that hurts, and Ground Zero hurts, even on that issue, we still stand up for the freedom of people to dispose of their property as they want. That does count. When I travel, you travel Christiane, we hear comments about that America a lot. I think you shouldn’t minimize the benefits of saying to moderate Muslim, here you are. This upsets a lot of Americans, but we’re going to do it anyway. (Where were Ignatius and Freeland when the Supreme Court allowed eminent domain seizures of homes so local government could sell the land to developers?) In between, Amanpour worried the controversy over the mosque hurts Obama’s efforts to befriend Muslims and “so do you think it’s wise to have this huge hubbub over it, or it should just go forward, this mosque?” Amanpour fretted: I just want to ask you this, but it does go to the heart of what he’s  been doing since the beginning of his presidency, reaching out not just to the Muslim world but Muslims in general. He’s made a very important first interview where he said the United States could not afford to have yet another generation of Muslims viewing it as the enemy. So do you think it’s wise to have this huge hubbub over it, or it should just go forward, this mosque? Earlier in the program, Amanpour put forward Germany’s state capitalism as a model to emulate: “The big story out of Europe this weekend is that Germany has shown stronger than expected growth over the last quarter. Laura, you were saying something about how Germany had taught and trained its workforce to compete in these situations.” From Berkely, California, Laura D’Andrea Tyson, of the President’s Economic Recovery Advisory Board, asserted: “A major part of that is serious vocational training and very serious ongoing training for manufacturing workers in Germany.” She also trumpeted: “Germany manages to do this with a much higher tax rate than we do.” My previous looks at Amanpour’s This Week: From last Sunday: “ Amanpour Elevates British Journalist Who Sees ‘Culture of Hate’ in U.S., Time to Divide Up Our ‘Pie ’” Two weeks ago, reviewing Amanpour’s debut: “ Amanpour Slums to Take on U.S. Politics, Flummoxed Pelosi’s Victories Aren’t Better Appreciated ” A Friday (August 13) Daily Caller article by Caroline May, “ Amanpour’s ‘This Week’ continues to receive negative reviews as viewers express desire for Tapper’s return ,” included my assessment of Amanpour: Brent H. Baker, Media Research Center Vice President for Research and Publications speculated to The Daily Caller that Amanpour’s air of superiority has added to the poor reviews. “Viewer revulsion toward Amanpour is hardly surprising given her condescending attitude toward them,” he said. “In her first two shows, she’s acted like she’s deigning to explain the world to the uninformed rubes, aka Americans, watching, acting as if she’s slumming to help bring the world to the ill-informed Americans.” From the Sunday, August 15 This Week with Christiane Amanpour, segment with Laura D’Andrea Tyson, former New Jersey Governor Jon Corzine, Senator John Corker and Chamber of Commerce economist Martin Regalia: CHRISTIANE AMANPOUR: Let me just quickly go to what you mentioned about being competitive with the rest of the world. The big story out of Europe this weekend is that Germany has shown stronger than expected growth over the last quarter. Laura, you were saying something about how Germany had taught and trained its workforce to compete in these situations. LAURA D’ANDREA TYSON: Right, well Germany has had a long-term commitment to manufacturing. And it has a very strong manufacturing base. It has a much larger share of economy in manufacturing than we do. A major part of that is serious vocational training and very serious ongoing training for manufacturing workers in Germany. And often times a German firm with German workers will retrain and use technology at home rather than offshore those jobs abroad. And I want to point out also that Germany manages to do this with a much higher tax rate than we do. I think there should be corporate tax reform. I agree with a lot of what Senator Corker and Martin Regalia [of the Chamber of Commerce] have said. But we need investment. I would say, in thinking about the share of government and GDP, something the Senator mentioned, we need to distinguish between investment spending by the government — whether it’s federal, state or local – and other spending. A dollar spent for infrastructure is different than a dollar spent for current operations. From the roundtable: MATTEW DOWD: …It feeds a broader narratively about him, which is, it’s my way or the highway. In many ways, to me, it reminds me of Bush, which is, “I don’t care what the American public is on this, I’m going say what is the right thing to do.” He’s done it on immigration in Arizona, he’s done it on this, he’s done it on health care. I think that’s the political problem he has. DAVID IGNATIUS, WASHINGTON POST. Why is that a problem for him? I thought the speech Friday night was a model of political courage, in the sense that he said what he believed knowing that it was going to cost him. The White House has stayed out of this issue knowing that it’s political poison. And I thought the President spoke to it fairly directly. This is America, people have a right to build on property that they own, even if it’s going to be a mosque near Ground Zero. I was sort of sorry that he was trying to walk it back in these more nuanced comments yesterday. CHRYSTIA FREELAND, REUTERS: I totally agree with David. And I think, you know, Matt, to the point of my way or the highway, another way of talking about that is leadership, conviction, having your beliefs and not governing according to polls. And I think if you ask most Americans what kind of leader you want, if you ask people in the world what kind of leader do you want, you want someone who governs according to conviction. And I do think this touches on, Christiane, the economic panel you had earlier. I think that it touches on in two important ways. This point about private property might seem like a parsing, but it is actually essential and  I think to have the President, and we had similar comments from  Mike Bloomberg, coming out and saying, actually, we believe that the rights of private property are so strong, we are not going to change them because the cosmetics are not- …. CHRISTIANE AMANPOUR: I just want to ask you this, but it does go to the heart of what he’s  been doing since the beginning of his presidency, reaching out not just to the Muslim world but Muslims in general. He’s made a very important first interview where he said the United States could not afford to have yet another generation of Muslims viewing it as the enemy. So do you think it’s wise to have this huge hubbub over it, or it should just go forward, this mosque? …. FREELAND: But let’s talk a little bit about the rest of the world. You know, I think that actually, the President’s comment, the comments by Mike Bloomberg are really an important message to the Muslim world. We’re talking about Pakistan later on. For these people — for American leaders to say in the face of, you know, some political pressure from their voters, to say actually we believe sufficiently strongly in diversity, in private property rights for our Muslim citizens, I think that’s a great global message.   IGNATIUS: I agree with that. I think that’s one of our strongest suits. As the world looks at us, if they see that the United States, even in an issue that hurts, and Ground Zero hurts, even on that issue, we still stand up for the freedom of people to dispose of their property as they want. That does count. When I travel, you travel Christiane, we hear comments about that America a lot. I think you shouldn’t minimize the benefits of saying to moderate Muslim, here you are. This upsets a lot of Americans, but we’re going to do it anyway.

Read more:
Amanpour’s Panel Hails Obama’s ‘Courage,’ ‘Leadership’ and ‘Great Global Message’ on Mosque

Open Thread: Has Obama Already Flip-flopped on Ground Zero Mosque?

For general discussion and debate. Possible talking point: Has Obama already flip-flopped on the Ground Zero Mosque? Friday he said this .  Saturday he said (video follows): Thoughts? 

View post:
Open Thread: Has Obama Already Flip-flopped on Ground Zero Mosque?

Why Are the Intolerant Preaching Tolerance?

So the other night I announced plans to build a gay bar catering to Islamic men, near the proposed mosque site near Ground Zero. The goal? To echo the mosque’s own website, which says it’s trying to promote integration and tolerance. I figured, I could return the favor, by opening a gay bar. After all, Islam despises homosexuality – and this Muslim-friendly gay bar would help mend fences. Right now the working name of the bar is Heaven and Halal. It will be two floors – one serving Hallel food, and other other serving cocktails. There will be 72 of them. And they will be virgin. So here’s an update, since last night. Now, I’ve scoped out some properties. And, I’ve received countless inquiries regarding investment, folks who have offered up to six figures. But because some of them were drunk, they may have placed the decimal point in the wrong place. I also contacted the Cordoba House, the folks behind the mosque – but they have not returned my calls. So I tweeted them. Here’s what they tweeted back. You’re free to open whatever you like. If you won’t consider the sensibilities of Muslims, you’re not going to build dialog. By the way, I’m not building dialog, I’m building a bar. And as for the sensibilities of Muslims – which involves homophobia – thats not for me. And that’s my point – its weird being educated in tolerance by an incredibly intolerant ideology. As long as gays and women are treated so poorly, how can they teach us compassion and generosity? Anyway, I will keep you all up to date on the progress – and for more info, always come here. If you don’t you’re probably a racist homophobe. Crossposted at Big Hollywood

Read the original post:
Why Are the Intolerant Preaching Tolerance?

Fox News Watch: Jim Pinkerton Cites CMI Piece on Ground Zero Mosque

Jim Pinkerton on Saturday cited a Culture and Media Institute article about the hypocritical reporting of the proposed Ground Zero mosque. On Thursday, CMI’s Alana Goodman noted in a piece cross-posted at sister site NewsBusters: Ground Zero mosque organizer Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf has been described by the media as a “moderate” and a “bridge-builder.” But not too long ago, the same news outlets gave identical labels to a radical Virginia mosque that has been linked to some of the most infamous Islamic terrorist attacks in recent years.  When the discussion on Saturday’s “Fox News Watch” moved to the Ground Zero mosque, Pinkerton brought this up (video follows with transcript):  JON SCOTT, HOST: Jim, the host of “Red Eye” here on Fox, Greg Gutfeld, kind of a comedy show, says he wants to open a gay bar across the street from this Islamic mosque and promote positive dialog. Now, a spokesman for the Islamic center said this, this plan does not consider the sensibilities of Muslims. Did the mainstream media pick up on the irony there? JIM PINKERTON: I don’t think so, but I think the reason, Andrea, why they don’t have to write their own op-eds is because they got the New York Times shilling for them every, every morning. And the media are remarkably uncurious about the nature of this mosque. Alana Goodman, who writes for the Culture and Media Institute, went back and looked up that Abdul Rauf, you now, about he’s a moderate, he’s thoughtful, and all of this good stuff, they were using literally the same language about the mosque in Northern Virginia that Anwar Al Awlaki, the Yemen, the guy who’s now in Yemen teaching killing Americans and the inspiration to this underwear bomber, and the Times Square bomber, they used the exact same words then that they’re using now to describe this guy.

Read the original post:
Fox News Watch: Jim Pinkerton Cites CMI Piece on Ground Zero Mosque

Olbermann Mocks Bozell, NewsBusters as ‘Worst Person in the World’

MSNBC’s Keith Olbermann named MRC president Brent Bozell Wednesday’s “Worst Person in the World” for my NewsBusters post on Jon Stewart’s sneering attack on  conservatives as supposedly being opponents of religious freedom over the Ground Zero Mosque controversy. (Audio here .) Predictably, in choosing this dishonor, Olbermann was playing rip-and-read from certain Hillary Clinton-founded Fox-and-Rush watchdogs, as he routinely acts as the TV Xerox of the Bush-Hating Left-Wing Blogosphere. Olbermann also re-tweeted them yesterday . None of these analysts on the left evaluated their own tendency to see grave threats to freedom of religion and church-state separation from Christian evangelists, but nothing at all threatening to their swaggering secular coolness from Islamic advocates of “dialogue.” (See, for example, one take on the Ground Zero Imam Feisal Abdul-Rauf’s views on America’s “Shariah compliance.” Hello, Barry Lynn?) Here’s the transcript:   OLBERMANN: But our winner, Brent Bozell of the hilarious Media Research Center and NewsBusters — not happy that John Stewart criticized the anti-American frenzy by conservatives to stop the building of houses of worship for Muslims. “Stewart,” writes Tim Graham on NewsBusters, quote, “mocked conservatives for having no respect for freedom of religion. This from Comedy Central, the network that mocks Jesus and Christians relentlessly but censors whenever the radical Muslims threaten them? Yes, Stewart was arguing for the greatness of Islam that it should be accepted with great tolerance as a global religion.” Except, of course, when Comedy Central folded in front of Muslim protests over an episode of South Park , Stewart mocked Comedy Central. You know how I know that? Graham’s own Media Research Center and NewsBusters applauded Stewart for doing it. One Lachlan Markay wrote, “Jon Stewart noted the blatant censorship his employer Comedy Central exercised against its popular show South Park by banning it from showing and even uttering the word ‘Mohammed’ in this week’s episode after a threat came forward from an Islamic group. His extensive recap of all the religions the show has made fun of over the years was clearly a critique of Comedy Central’s decision.” Clearly, people at NewsBusters are not relying on their own Web site for information. Then again, with their kind of track record, who would? Brent Bozell of the somewhat self-destructive NewsBusters and Media Research Council [sic], today’s “Worst Person” – hey, beard – “in the World”! I wrote that Stewart and his network shouldn’t “cower” before Muslim critics as they trash Christians. But it’s clear that Lachlan reported that Stewart mocked radical Islam (sort of) over the Comedy Central censorship in April. He lightly made fun of the bosses, and then lightly mocked the Muslim death-threateners with Jewish-deli-and-Frisbee jokes: They “try to intimidate the creators of South Park all while enjoying our lovely theater district, our many diverse restaurants including really the best Jewish delis you’ll find and our new high line park. It’s a park made out of an elevated train line. It’s a super-thin park in the sky. Let’s play Frisbee.” Radical Muslims make death threats; Stewart makes Frisbee jokes and mocks gospel choirs with his “F-You” song. That hardly compares in tone and temper to another April bit, Stewart trashing the 21st-century Catholic Church for heinous massacres in the 13th  as well as everything from Galileo to the Spanish Inquisition: SAMANTHA BEE: The Cathars, the gnostic sect in 13th century France. STEWART: I still got nothing there. BEE: Tens of thousands of them were massacred under the direct authority of Pope Innocent III, persecuted out of existence by the Catholic Church. STEWART: Oh, I see. BEE: Well, that’s what you’re doing now. STEWART: Sam, see, if any other organization had done anything close to what the church is being accused of, they’d be done! The church is barely showing any contrition. Stewart also made fun of Christian “Islamophobes” and Fox News in early July when the bizarre story of NASA administrator Charles Bolden’s Islamic outreach broke. Clearly, the cable news stars on the Left plays the enemy-of-my-enemy-is-my-friend game. Just like they were anti-anti-Communist, now they’re anti-anti-Islamist. 

See more here:
Olbermann Mocks Bozell, NewsBusters as ‘Worst Person in the World’

Open Thread: Three Things You Should Know About Islam

Via the Right Scoop . Thoughts?

Read this article:
Open Thread: Three Things You Should Know About Islam

CNN’s Fareed Zakaria Returns ADL Award in Protest to Position on Ground Zero Mosque

At the top of his eponymous program yesterday, CNN’s Fareed Zakaria took drastic action to protest the Anti-Defamation League’s opposition to the proposed Ground Zero mosque. Zakaria, who was honored by the ADL in 2005 with the Hubert H. Humphrey First Amendment Freedoms Prize, gave back his award because he was “deeply saddened” by the group’s respect for the families of 9/11 victims who oppose the construction of a mosque just two blocks from Ground Zero. “Given the position that they have taken on a core issue of religious freedom in America, I cannot in good conscience keep that award,” lamented Zakaria, who hoped that distancing himself from the ADL would compel the organization to realize its “mistake” and reverse its position. In his lengthy monologue, Zakaria vigorously defended Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf’s constitutional right to erect the mosque: “If this community center were being built anywhere else in the world, chances are the U.S. government would be funding it.” While Zakaria was correct to point out that strengthening ties between moderate Muslims and non-Muslims is a central focus of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, he failed to realize the reason so many Americans oppose the construction of a mosque so close to Ground Zero is precisely because of its proximity to the 9/11 attacks committed by Islamic radicals. Displaying stock footage of former Alaska Governor Sarah Palin and former House Speaker Newt Gingrich speaking at the Southern Republican Leadership Conference earlier in the year, Zakaria condemned “politicians who have shamelessly and shamefully capitalized on the public’s wariness” about the construction of a mosque near Ground Zero. Zakaria, eager to omit the most controversial details of the proposed construction project, uttered the word “mosque” only once is his screed, preferring the innocuous term “community center.” The Newsweek columnist proceeded to paradoxically bemoan the “disinformation about this center.”                                      A full transcript of “Fareed’s Take” on the August 8 “Fareed Zakaria GPS” can be found below: You know that ever since 9/11, the United States has been trying to engage in a battle of ideas against radical Islam. Now, America can’t really get involved in a debate within Islam, so that means finding and supporting moderate Muslims. This is a cultural struggle that has been warmly supported by liberals and conservatives. In fact, many conservatives have argued that we should be engaged in a much more extensive and expensive effort to fund moderates and de-legitimize radical and violent Islam. Under both the Bush and Obama administrations, there have been active efforts worldwide to support Muslims who are trying to rescue their religion from extremists, fundamentalists, and jihadists. And this has meant funding mosques, Islamic centers, imams, and community leaders who share a peaceful and pluralistic vision of Islam, except, it turns out, if they are in our own back yard. The debate over the proposed community center to be built a few blocks away from the World Trade Center has missed this fundamentally important point. If this community center were being built anywhere else in the world, chances are the U.S. government would be funding it. The man behind it, Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf, has spent years trying to offer a liberal interpretation of Islam. His most recent book, “What’s Right With Islam is What’s Right With America,” argues that America is actually what an ideal Islamic society would look like because it is peaceful, tolerant, and pluralistic. His vision for Islam, in other words, is Osama bin Laden’s nightmare – we should be encouraging such an Islamic center, not demonizing it. Now, there is of course the much more fundamental issue, freedom of religion in America, which is a founding principle of this country. The most eloquent and intelligent defense of that principle came last week from New York’s mayor, Michael Bloomberg, in an address that should be required reading in every civics class in America. There have, on the other hand, been politicians who have shamelessly and shamefully capitalized on the public’s wariness. The public is wary understandably because there has been so much disinformation about this center. But perhaps the most puzzling stand was taken by the Anti- Defamation League, which was founded to support the freedom of religion. The director of the ADL, Abraham Foxman, explained that the victims of 9/11 had feelings on this matter that should be respected even if they were irrational. First of all, there were many dozens of victims of 9/11 who were Muslim. Do their feelings count? More important, are irrational feelings, prejudices, hatreds OK because those expressing them are victims or see themselves as victims? Will the ADL defend the rights of Palestinian “victims” to be anti-Semites? I have to say I was personally deeply saddened by the ADL’s stand, because five years ago the organization honored me with its Hubert Humphrey Award for First Amendment freedoms. Given the position that they have taken on a core issue of religious freedom in America, I cannot in good conscience keep that award. So this week I’m going to return to the ADL the handsome medal and the generous honorarium that came with it. I hope this might spur them to see that they have made a mistake, and to return to their historic, robust defense of freedom of religion in America, something they have subscribed to for decades and which I honor them for.

See more here:
CNN’s Fareed Zakaria Returns ADL Award in Protest to Position on Ground Zero Mosque

Rosie O’Donnell’s Staffer: Ground Zero Mosque Opponents Like Nazis

On Wednesday’s edition of Rosie Radio on Sirius/XM satellite radio, Rosie O’Donnell’s staffers sounded more radical than Rosie on the topic of the Ground Zero mosque proposal: “GOOGLE PETE” MELE (staffer): I get very angry at [opposition to the mosque]…It is beyond un-American.   BOBBY PEARCE (staffer): Right. I agree. MELE: …This sort of persecution, blindly, of one group is what was going on in Germany in the 1930s …You can’t say because [Muslims were behind the 9/11 attacks], we can’t have them doing anything in our country. DEIRDRE DOD (staffer): I don’t think that’s what [opponents of the mosque are] saying…They’re saying [that they] want this as a sacred site…They’re not saying, ‘We hate [Muslims].’ Into this fracas came O’Donnell, with the peace offering that radical Islam and radical Christianity are very similar: O’DONNELL: It’s hard that people are associating [Islam] with terrorism. There are radical extremists in every religion, and it doesn’t negate the teachings or the values of the religion, or the vast majority of people who follow the religion.  That’s not to say that O’Donnell doesn’t have a major problem with those radical Christians, as her Nazi roundup talk the next day showed. 

Read more:
Rosie O’Donnell’s Staffer: Ground Zero Mosque Opponents Like Nazis

NBC’s Andrea Mitchell Hits Democrat From the Left on Bush Tax Cuts

On the Wednesday edition of her self-titled MSNBC show, Andrea Mitchell actually hit a Democratic Senator from the left on tax cuts. Democratic Indiana Senator Evan Bayh appeared on Andrea Mitchell Reports to offer his support to extending the Bush tax cuts as a way to stimulate the economy but a skeptical Mitchell pressed: “Senator, given the deficit and the wealth of the upper class, and the fact that they sit on their money and put it into savings, why give them this tax break?” Bayh went on to tell the NBC correspondent that raising taxes “will lower consumer demand at a time we want people putting more money into the economy” and pointed out “the people you’re referring to, in those upper brackets, are the ones that make decision about hiring and making investments.” The undeterred Mitchell responded with the Obama administration line that “you should extend the tax cuts for the middle class but not for people making more than $250,000 a year.” Bayh, delivering a basic economics lesson, reminded Mitchell that while “middle class taxpayers are using the extra money to pay down debt, credit card bills, mortgages, things like that…It’s the people in the upper brackets who continue to spend at a higher rate, propping up consumer demand” and insisted “If we want people to hire more individuals, if we want them to make business investments, raising burdens on them probably doesn’t improve their optimism, confidence and discourages rather than encourages them to do those kinds of things.” However, Bayh did relent when he offered to Mitchell that eventually the tax rates “are probably going to have to go up but it ought to be as part of a comprehensive deficit reduction package.” The following exchange was aired on the August 4 edition of MSNBC’s Andrea Mitchell Reports: ANDREA MITCHELL: July’s official unemployment numbers due out Friday but an independent study says that the U.S. economy added only 42,000 private sector jobs last month. That is sluggish. That sluggish growth and the overall weak economy has Republicans and even some Democrats rallying against letting any of the Bush tax cuts expire, including the ones for the upper class. And joining us now Democratic Senator Evan Bayh, one of those Democrats that serves on the Banking and Small Business committees . Senator, given the deficit and the wealth of the upper class, and the fact that they sit on their money and put it into savings, why give them this tax break? SEN. EVAN BAYH: Well, a couple of things, Andrea. First, as you noted, the economy is very weak right now. And raising taxes will lower consumer demand at a time we want people putting more money into the economy. Secondly, the people you’re referring to, in those upper brackets, are the ones that make decisions about hiring and about making investments. We want them to do more of that, and so raising burdens on them during a time like this is just not the right thing to do. Now once the economy has a head of momentum under it, a self-sustaining recovery, we’re adding jobs, not the forty-some thousand you mentioned, but more than 100,000 – 200,000 every month then we can pivot and look at deficit reduction. Because in the long run I share that, the concern about that. But right now we want to emphasize growth and getting the economy moving and then pivot and get the deficit down. MITCHELL: Well what do you say to the White House and their position is that you should extend the tax cuts for the middle class but not for people making more than $250,000 a year. BAYH: Well, a couple of things. There’s some evidence that’s come out recently that middle class taxpayers are using the extra money to pay down debt, credit card bills, mortgages, things like that. That’s a good thing to do but it doesn’t stimulate the economy. It’s the people in the upper brackets who continue to spend at a higher rate, propping up consumer demand. And then there’s the point that I mentioned. If we want people to hire more individuals, if we want them to make business investments, raising burdens on them probably doesn’t improve their optimism, confidence and discourages rather than encourages them to do those kinds of things. And the final point that I make, Andrea is, eventually those rates are probably going to have to go up but it ought to be as part of a comprehensive deficit reduction package combined with spending enforceable spending restraint. To just go out and raise taxes with no spending restraint, particularly during a recession, it’s just not the right time to do that. MITCHELL: Well at this stage, as you’re leaving the Senate. You don’t have to worry about the political fallout in, in the midterm elections, but are your colleagues going to go along, your Democratic colleagues, go along with extending the tax breaks for the, for the rich? BAYH: No, the vast majority of them won’t. I suspect that there will be three or four or five of us who have qualms about that. But I won’t identify the member but someone who you would quickly recognize as a very liberal member of the caucus yesterday was speaking up about she happened to believe that raising taxes on anyone making less than $8 million a year, at this moment, was not the right thing to do. So even some of the more liberal MITCHELL: Eight million?! BAYH: No, no $1 million. I’m sorry, $1 million. MITCHELL: Okay. BAYH: I should enunciate more clearly. $1 million a year was not the right thing to do. So this debate has a ways to go. We need to do two things in sequence. Number one, err on the side of more stimulus for the economy, getting it moving. That means not raising taxes right now when it’s very sluggish as you pointed out. And then a real focus on deficit reduction starting with spending restraint. And then if we have to raise revenue, which in all likelihood we probably will, focusing on the people who are in the position to help us do that best but not now. MITCHELL: Evan Bayh from the Senate. Thank you very much.

Read the original here:
NBC’s Andrea Mitchell Hits Democrat From the Left on Bush Tax Cuts