Find a show you like and click the 
button. The show will be added to your My Playlist page and updated 24/7 with new videos.
Search Results
3 Views
00:00:40 01/06/12
Mitt Romney, a Profile in Cowardice
[LESS INFO] 3 VIEWS | ADDED 00:00:40 01/06/12
For months, likely Republican presidential nominee Mitt Romney has made Barack Obama's supposed "failure of leadership" a centerpiece of his campaign. But like his ill-advised comparison of President Obama to Marie Antoinette , Romney's sound bite could well boomerang. After all, when Multiple Choice Mitt isn't comically reversing his stands, he's too afraid to take any at all .
That cowardice starts with his tax returns . While John Kerry and John McCain at least presented a summary of their (and their well-to-do wives') payments to Uncle Sam, the $250 million Mitt has so far refused to do so. Despite his famous demand in the 1994 Senate race that Ted Kennedy release his tax returns to show he has "nothing to hide," Romney reiterated his own paperwork would not be forthcoming. "We don't have any current plans to release tax returns, but never say never," Romney said, adding: >
"I can tell you we follow the tax laws, and if there's an opportunity to save taxes, we like anybody else in this country will follow that opportunity."
Or as he put it to CNN's Wolf Blitzer last week (at around the 6:40 mark): >
"I don't put out which tooth paste I use either. It's not that I have something to hide."
That's one interpretation. Another is that Mitt Romney is desperate to avoid the horrible political optics his tax returns would inevitably produce. After all, because Romney's continuing millions in annual income from Bain Capital (a company the Los Angeles Times recently explained "often maximized profits in part by firing workers") are taxed at the 15 percent capital gains rate, Mitt already pays a much lower share to Uncle Sam than most middle class families .
Romney's pusillanimity extends to his own tax proposals as well. Unlike virtually all of his GOP rivals , Romney has held back on endorsing either a flat-tax or the complete elimination of the capital gains tax. As he seemed to suggest to the Wall Street Journal , discretion is the better part of valor when it comes to telling voters about the massive windfall the Romneys would reap under the tax policies that dare not speak their name: >
What about his reform principles? Mr. Romney talks only in general terms. "Moving to a consumption-based system is something which is very attractive to me philosophically, but I've not been able to sufficiently model it out to jump on board a consumption-based tax. A flat tax, a true flat tax is also attractive to me. What I like--I mean, I like the simplification of a flat tax. I also like removing the distortion in our tax code for certain classes of investment. And the advantage of a flat tax is getting rid of some of those distortions"... >
Amid such generalities, it's hard not to conclude that the candidate is trying to avoid offering any details that might become a political target. And he all but admits as much. "I happen to also recognize," he says, "that if you go out with a tax proposal which conforms to your philosophy but it hasn't been thoroughly analyzed, vetted, put through models and calculated in detail, that you're gonna get hit by the demagogues in the general election."
Mitt Romney's fear of getting hit was also on display during the debt ceiling debate this summer. As the GOP's brinksmanship over defaulting on the U.S. debt reached its climax in late July, Romney turned his tail and fled. As MSNBC reported at the time: >
NBC's Garrett Haake reported that Mitt Romney told reporters in Ohio yesterday that he would not comment on the debt negotiations in Washington. And so far, he has refused to either endorse Boehner's legislation (as Huntsman has done) or oppose it (as Pawlenty and Bachman have done). Our question: How does someone who wants to be the leader of the Republican Party not have a position on one of the biggest issues facing Washington, especially after the dueling primetime speeches by Obama and Boehner? It's actually quite surprising; this isn't just another Washington fight. Is the lack of a position proof of how fragile Team Romney believes its front-runner status is right now?
(Ultimately, Romney used Facebook to announce his support of the Boehner bill, but only after it passed the GOP House .)
As it turns out, Ohio was the scene of another of Mitt Romney's moments in cowardice.
After visiting a Republican phone bank calling voters about the state's controversial Issue 2 curbing public unions , Romney amazingly refused to take a position: >
"I'm not saying anything one way or the other about the two ballot issues."
Embarrassed by his obvious lack of backbone, Romney endorsed the measure the next day. Ohio voters, who handily defeated the Republican measure, won't soon forget Romney said goodbye to his spine in Columbus.
Romney's vertebra similarly went missing on immigration and abortion , two issues near and dear to the Republican primary voter's heart. As Steve Benen recounted, Mitt's campaign simply would not answer Joe Klein question about what President Romney would do about the 12 million illegal immigrants already in the country: >
The evasion wasn't exactly graceful. Klein asked what Romney would do with the undocumented immigrants who are already here, and Fehrnstrom replied, "He would not grant them amnesty." Right, Klein said, but instead of amnesty, what would Romney do with these people? "He would not grant them amnesty," Fehrnstrom answered. Got it, Klein said, but what, specifically, would Romney do? "I just told you, he's not going to grant them amnesty," the campaign spokesperson said. When Klein then explained that this isn't actually an answer, Fehrnstrom, once again, said, "He would not grant them amnesty."
The Romney camp built a similar stonewall after their man seemingly came out in support of the soon-to-be defeated "personhood" initiative in Mississippi . But the day after the ballot measure went down to crushing defeat, Team Romney insisted "he's being falsely characterized as supporting a proposed amendment to define a fertilized egg as a 'person.'"
On matters small and large, duck and cover is Mitt Romney's posture. Afraid to admit that he has obviously been running for President without interruption since his failed campaign four years ago, Romney's wife claimed his 2012 run was all her idea. As Ann Romney told Wolf Blitzer last week (starting around the 2:30 mark in the video above): >
BLITZER: Is it true that you had to talk to Mitt into running again? >
ANN ROMNEY. ROMNEY: It is true...after the last campaign, it was kind of ironic that I was the one that said I'd never do this again, and now, this time around, I'm saying, you know what, Mitt, you've got to do this again.
But in Mitt's telling, his latest White House bid is all due to Barack Obama. As he told the Wall Street Journal just days ago, Mitt was content to hang out in his $12 million, soon-to-be doubled-in-size California beach side home : >
The Republican presidential candidate says he never intended to run for office again after 2008--"I went back and bought a home which was far too expensive and grandiose for the purposes of another campaign," he jokes. He was drawn back into public life amid Mr. Obama's bid to "fundamentally transform" the country, to use the president's own words, into "an entitlement society," to use Mr. Romney's.
Given his Boston area townhouse and lakeside mansion with man-made beach in New Hampshire, a third palatial retreat would have seemed excessive for a candidate Romney. After all, Mitt Romney's running for office as a " man of the people "; he can't have mansions, for Pete's sake .
"If it seems like this keeps coming up with the former governor," Benen concluded, "it's not your imagination." >
Romney refused to take a stand on Paul Ryan's budget. Romney refused to take a stand when asked about voters booing a U.S. soldier serving in Iraq during a Republican debate. Romney refused to take a stand when Rick Perry dabbled in Birtherism. Romney initially refused to take a stand on Ohio's campaign to undermine collective-bargaining rights, and then sheepishly backpedaled when the right complained. >
There's going to come a point next year when the Obama campaign is likely to say, "Mitt Romney lacks the courage and the character to be a leader." And the criticism will sting because it's based in fact.
And so it goes for the man George Will rightly described as a "recidivist reviser of his principles." On the issues where he doesn't change his mind, Mitt Romney - the man who would be leader of the Free World - lacks "the courage of his absence of convictions."
(This piece also appears at Perrspectives. )
1 Views
19:00:30 12/28/11
Notable Death of the Year: RIP Austerity Economics, 1921-2011
[LESS INFO] 1 VIEWS | ADDED 19:00:30 12/28/11
"Smokestack Lightnin'," with Hubert Sumlin backing Howlin' Wolf in 1964
This is the time of year when we're reminded of all the famous people who died over the last twelve months, a list which includes two of my favorite guitar players ( Hubert Sumlin and Cornell Dupree ). But there were also some notable non-human deaths in 2011, especially in the world of economic policy.
One of those deaths should have completely altered the political debate in Washington. The name of the deceased was "Austerity Economics," and it was first glimpsed in a 1921 paper by conservative economist Frank Wright. Austerity died of natural causes brought on by prolonged exposure to reality.
But the debate in Washington didn't change nearly enough after its passing. In the nation's capital, dead things still rule the night.
Why Austerity?
"Austerity economics" backers claim that today's economic woes can only be fixed by dramatic reductions in government spending, which will lead to increased private-sector confidence and therefore to greater investment and growth.
But it's never worked. And if investors have lost confidence in the U.S. government's fiscal stability, they're sure not acting that way. There hasn't been this much demand for Treasury bonds since the government began tracking it twenty years ago, and they haven't performed as well since the go-go 1990s.
It's easy to understand austerity's attraction for power elites inside and outside of government. The people who suffer from austerity budgets aren't the kinds of people they know personally, since they're typically public employees like teachers, police, firefighters and the administrators of social programs; people who need government assistance, like the poor; and middle-class people with the temerity to either grow old or become disabled.
Austerity's attraction became even greater in the U.S. because once it became conventional wisdom that tax increases on the wealthy was "politically infeasible." That made it a program whose sole purpose was to cut government spending, lowering the pressure to increase taxes on the wealthy from today's historically low levels.
For a one-percenter, what's not to love?
Austerity Comes of Age
The idea's been around in one form or another since that 1921 paper, and the International Monetary Fund (IMF) had been imposing it on Third World nations for decades.
But 2009 was the year that austerity really came of age. That was the year that a wealthy stockbroker's son named David Cameron began campaigning for Prime Minister of Great Britain on an explicitly pro-austerity platform.
It was also the year that Cameron helped to form a group named European Conservatives and Reformists (ECR) dedicated to electing like-minded politicians across Europe and helping them collaborate on ways to slash government spending. It was also the year that right-leaning Angela Merkel won reelection as the Chancellor of Germany with a stronger mandate than she'd been given in her first term.
With Nicolas Sarkozy as President of France, Great Britain was the only major European power not yet in the hands of the corporate-backed austerity crowd.
The Global Sado-Erotic Thrill Machine
That changed with Cameron's election as Prime Minister in May 2010, an event that threw pro-austerity Americans into throes of near-erotic ecstasy. And if that sounds like hyperbole, consider conservative Anne Appelbaum's reaction to Cameron's budget in September of 2010: >
Vicious cuts." "Savage cuts." "Swingeing (sic) cuts." The language that the British use to describe their new government's spending-reduction policy is apocalyptic in the extreme. The ministers in charge of the country's finances are known as "axe-wielders" who will be "hacking" away at the budget. Articles about the nation's finances are filled with talk of blood, knives, and amputation.
And the British love it.
What can I say? There are people who collect serial-killer memorabilia, too. But Appelbaum wasn't just speaking for herself. It became unacceptable for any politician in Washington, Democrat or Republican, to advocate anything other than an austerity budget for the United States.
And it was more than an economic strategy to its backers. Austerity became a way to demonize those who had suffered most from the banking abuses and self-indulgences of the wealthy, a totemic "blame the victim" response that turned the political debate into a grotesque inversion of morality. Again, Appelbaum: >
"Not only is austerity being touted as the solution to Britain's economic woes; it is also being described as the answer to the country's moral failings."
Bad Metaphors vs. Good Economists
The Democratic President of the United States, Barack Obama, jumped onto the bandwagon with both feet by repeatedly lecturing Americans on the need for government to stop "spending beyond its means." Obama recycled the popular conservative metaphor of a family that has to sit around the kitchen table and decide how much money it has to spend.
That's one of the worst metaphors in modern politics. Does a family establish its own currency -- especially one that has the unique position of the dollar? Can a family borrow money at rates so low they're effectively less than zero? Would a family let Grandma go hungry because Junior bought too many Porsches out of the family kitty and then gambled it away on lousy mortgage investments?
The world's top economists, those who had successfully predicted the crisis of 2008, tried telling the rest of the world what was wrong with the idea: Joblessness and consumer fears were killing any chance of real recovery. More short-term spending was needed to get the economy moving again. Austerity would make things worse, not better.
But nobody listened. Austerity's S%M-like attraction had the world's elites in its grip.
Death of a Delusion
And then something else came into the picture: Reality.
Cameron's austerity budget had a shattering effect on the already-struggling British economy. His government's financial stability was downgraded five times during his first year in power and retail sales had fallen 2.5 percent. Household income was projected to fall an additional 2 percent if his austerity plans were carried forward. Britain's modest employment gains were reversed, youth unemployment reached record levels, and income inequality was the worst it had been in more than half a century.
Anne Appelbaum's erotic dreams had become Great Britain's nightmare.
As Europe's ruling austerity class pushed forward with their plans, even the IMF tried to dissuade them. It was clear to anyone who wasn't blinded by ideology or political cynicism that austerity economics was a failed program. Even in countries like Greece, where government was far graver than elsewhere, the austerity programs imposed from outside threatened to destabilize society while other reasonable measures like improved tax collection were still not taken seriously enough.
And now the entire Eurozone hangs in the balance. Bankers became wealthy by treating governments as if they were mortgages, lending recklessly and pocketing their fees without considering the long-term reliability of their loans. European leaders insisted for months they were take the kind of sensible steps that should've been taken in the United States by requiring bankers to accept at least part of the losses for the bad loans they had issed.
That plan was quietly dropped last month. "Austerity economics" never calls for austerity from those who have gotten rich by being irresponsible, only from those who didn't benefit from it at all.
The Afterlife
President Obama has dropped his austerity rhetoric, at least for the time being, but the Republicans have not. Listening to Mitt Romney discuss economics is like having a doctor wave a dead chicken over your head and saying he's decided to cast a spell on you rather than operate on that thing they found in your X-rays.
Aside from the bill introduced this month by the House Progressive Caucus to almost no media attention, there's no comprehensive plan for dropping this country's ineffective austerity strategy and replacing it with an agenda that works.
Rational solutions to our economic problems are being ignored. There won't be a real debate about alternatives to austerity until an entire political party, not just part of it, adopts this kind of program. Until then there will be chaos. And where there is chaos, austerity's powerful advocates can step in and take charge.
Austerity economics died in 2011 and is survived by the British, German, and French governments as well as the GOP and large portions of the Democratic Party. Instead of sending flowers, the family has asked the public to abandon all hopes of future economic growth.
22 Views
22:00:00 11/17/11
Act Today To Save The Internet - Oppose SOPA
[LESS INFO] 22 VIEWS | ADDED 22:00:00 11/17/11
The House Judiciary Committee held a hearing today on the "Stop Internet Piracy Act" (aka SOPA). In typical Republican fashion, it was not broadcast on CSPAN and many interested parties were excluded from the proceedings. In fact, the only technology company allowed to testify was Google , who opposes the proposed law along with a coalition of companies which includes Facebook, eBay and Zynga , along with others.
If ever there were a law designed to fatten the pockets of intellectual property attorneys, it is this proposed law. It has the potential to change the Internet, and not for the better. Written by and for large media companies like Comcast, it places full responsibility for intellectual property piracy on the shoulders of site owners rather than users.
As currently written, any website that quoted another site's content, or linked to a site that quoted another site's content could be declared a rogue site by the content owner, whether or not that content is subject to fair use rules. Once declared "rogue", companies like Paypal and Visa could then cut off payments immediately without the benefit of a hearing or due process of law. Fair use? Free speech? Forget about it. Here is the official summary from the House Judiciary Committee site. >
This bill focuses not on technology but on preventing those who engage in criminal behavior from reaching directly into the U.S. market to harm American consumers.
We cannot continue a system that allows criminals to disregard our laws and import counterfeit and pirated goods across our physical borders.
Nor can we fail to take effective and meaningful action when criminals misuse the Internet.
The problem of rogue websites is real, immediate and wide-spread. It harms all sectors of the economy.
And its scope is staggering. One recent survey found that nearly one quarter of global Internet traffic infringes on copyrights.
A second study found that 43 sites classified as ‘digital piracy’ generated 53 billion visits per year and that 26 sites selling just counterfeit prescription drugs generated 51 million hits annually.
Since the United States produces the most intellectual property, our country has the most to lose if we fail to address the problem of these rogue websites.
Responsible companies and public officials have taken note of the corrosive and damaging effects of rogue sites.
That last line is dripping with finger-pointing, as the announcement goes on to extol the virtuous Mastercard company while excoriating Google. Mastercard, of course, supports this wholeheartedly, while Google opposes it, along with Facebook and other websites. The Electronic Frontier Foundation points out that s ites like Vimeo, Flickr and Etsy would likely die as a result of this legislation.
Rebecca MacKinnon, former CNN reporter and senior fellow at the New America Foundation, had this to say : >
The bills would empower the attorney general to create a blacklist of sites to be blocked by Internet service providers, search engines, payment providers and advertising networks, all without a court hearing or a trial. The House version goes further, allowing private companies to sue service providers for even briefly and unknowingly hosting content that infringes on copyright — a sharp change from current law, which protects the service providers from civil liability if they remove the problematic content immediately upon notification. The intention is not the same as China’s Great Firewall, a nationwide system of Web censorship, but the practical effect could be similar.
Abuses under existing American law serve as troubling predictors for the kinds of abuse by private actors that the House bill would make possible. Take, for example, the cease-and-desist letters that Diebold, a maker of voting machines, sent in 2003, demanding that Internet service providers shut down Web sites that had published internal company e-mails about problems with the company’s voting machines. The letter cited copyright violations, and most of the service providers took down the content without question, despite the strong case to be made that the material was speech protected under the First Amendment.
Indeed. MacKinnon goes on to point out that this bill goes far beyond intellectual property protection. In particular, the House bill is set up to hold companies liable for users' actions. That would kill YouTube forever, but more importantly, it sets up an environment where power is freely wielded by those with the resources to shut down those without resources. Imagine Fox News declaring this site "rogue", for example. Search engines would block all traffic and results, and our right to speak freely (and criticize them freely) would be infringed upon. The same is true of Media Matters. Those with the lawyers and the money would win by default.
The Occupy movement? Dead. They'd shut down the Facebook and Twitter accounts along with the live stream without cause. Simply call it "rogue" and be done. That's how totalitarian societies operate and it's anathema to anyone who understands the Internet.
BusinessWeek : >
As Brad Burnham of Union Square Ventures says in a blog post, what these bills do is expose a fundamental disconnect between proponents of an open Internet and companies and legislators who would rather create their own kind of Internet: a version of the Web that’s less chaotic, more respectful, and most importantly, a lot easier to control. As Burnham notes, that kind of Internet would make things a lot easier for content producers and entertainment conglomerates, but it would remove or imperil a lot of the things that make the Internet so valuable:
“The Internet is not just a series of pipes. Its core architecture embeds an assumption about human nature.
> The Internet is designed to empower individuals, not control them. It assumes that the if individuals are empowered, they will do the right thing the vast majority of the time.
”
Over the past few days, I've seen reports that this bill is dead and other reports that it's alive and kicking. There are many who are raising their voices against it, including Oregon Senator Wyden, who has placed a hold on it. Unfortunately, it's a bipartisan bill. It shouldn't be. No Democrat should support this kind of suppression online. None. No conservative with true respect for the Constitution should support this kind of suppression, and indeed, one of those who oppose it is Ron Paul, to his credit.
As much as it pains me to admit this, I find myself on the same side as Darrell Issa. Via The Hill : >
Issa said the rush to hold the hearing was based on the flawed assumption that the bipartisan bill would quickly become law and said the sponsors didn’t want to hear from opponents, but must now accept that there is real opposition to their bill.
“What they’re realizing is there are so many unintended consequences that they can’t just use Google as a piñata and bash on it here,” he said, citing the broad coalition of opposition encompassing the tech industry, the left and the right.
“I don’t believe this bill has any chance on the House floor,” Issa added when asked about the odds of the bill moving forward after passing the Judiciary Committee. “I think it’s way too extreme, it infringes on too many areas that our leadership will know is simply too dangerous to do in its current form.”
The bottom line here? Many of these lawmakers don't know enough about the Internet to understand the issues at stake. Further, as companies like Amazon, Apple, Spotify, Hulu and others develop ways to stream their content at affordable prices to users, piracy will likely decline. Dropping a nuclear bomb on the Internet is unnecessary to prevent piracy. This is really about control. Comcast wants control of what users can see and stream on their pipes, something I predicted back when they first proposed merging with NBC-Universal.
This attempt by mega-corporations to take control of the Internet needs to be stopped cold. There has been a huge online response expressing opposition, but it needs to continue. Please sign the EFF petition here , or call your representatives to register your opposition to a law which is unnecessarily draconian and serves only the interests of corporations who do not serve yours.
11 Views
21:00:01 11/14/11
Confirmed Serial Adulterer Passes Alleged Serial Harasser in GOP Race
[LESS INFO] 11 VIEWS | ADDED 21:00:01 11/14/11
Here in a nutshell is the state of play in the 2012 Republican presidential sweepstakes: alleged serial sexual harasser Herman Cain is being surpassed by confirmed serial adulterer Newt Gingrich . With Mitt Romney stalled and Cain hemorrhaging support from women voters, polls last week from CBS and Marist showed the former House Speaker had surged into a virtual three-way tie at the top. By Monday, new surveys from CNN and PPP showed Newt vaulting past the fading pizza maker. Nevertheless, that development should be a discomforting prospect for a Republican Party which lost the women's vote by 13 points in 2008. As his public statements and personal life show, the thrice-married Gingrich is hardly a champion for American women.
That starts with Newt Gingrich's belief that marriage is an institution between one man and three women in rapid succession.
In 1980, Newt was separated from his first wife and former high school geometry teacher , Jackie Battley. As she lay incoherent in her hospital bed following surgery for a reoccurrence of uterine cancer, Gingrich paid her a visit to announce he wanted a divorce. As Lee Howell , a Gingrich friend and associate at whose wedding Newt was best man, described it: >
"Newt came up there with his yellow legal pad, and he had a list of things on how the divorce was going to be handled. He wanted her to sign it. She was still recovering from surgery, still sort of out of it, and he comes in with a yellow sheet of paper, handwritten, and wants her to sign it. >
Newt can handle political problems, but when it comes to personal problems, he's a disaster. He handled the divorce like he did any other political decision: You've got to be tough in this business, you've got to be hard. Once you make the decision you've got to act on it. Cut your losses and move on."
He moved on to wife number two, Marianne Ginther . But Marianne fared little better, getting dumped for Congressional staffer Callista Bisek after a six year affair even as Newt was leading the inquisition of Bill Clinton. As Vanity Fair summed it up last year: >
According to Salon, Gingrich and the former Hill staffer (23 years his junior, mind you) would frequently dine in the Supreme Court cafeteria--an unsuspectingly sordid detail. (In 1995, Vanity Fair referred to Bisek as Gingrich's "frequent breakfast companion.") Gingrich stepped down from Congress in 1998 following an ethics scandal, among other things. The two were married two years later.
Gingrich, who swapped his Baptist faith for Catholicism just in time to attack President Obama's 2009 address at Notre Dame University, later explained that his rapid fire infidelities were the actually product of his own patriotism: >
"There's no question at times of my life, partially driven by how passionately I felt about this country, that I worked far too hard and things happened in my life that were not appropriate. And what I can tell you is that when I did things that were wrong, I wasn't trapped in situation ethics, I was doing things that were wrong, and yet, I was doing them."
Of course, the things Newt Gingrich was saying to American women weren't any better.
As the New York Times recounted 16 years ago, Newt suggested menstruation should keep women out of essential roles in the American military: >
"If combat means living in a ditch, females have biological problems staying in a ditch for 30 days because they get infections, and they don't have upper-body strength. I mean, some do, but they're relatively rare. On the other hand, men are basically little piglets -- you drop them in the ditch, they roll around in it, doesn't matter, you know."
And for Gingrich, the biggest "infection" of them all - liberalism - caused a young mother to murder her children.
Back in 1994, after dumping his cancer-stricken first wife but before marrying his mistress following the adulterous affair that ended his second marriage, Newt pointed the finger at Democrats for the Susan Smith affair.
It was Smith who drew Americans' initial sympathy - and subsequent scorn - for her invention of a black bogeyman to conceal her heinous crime.
On October 24th, 1994, as the New York Times recalled, Smith killed her young sons, killings for which she was eventually sentenced to life in prison: >
That night, investigators say, Mrs. Smith pulled her car to the edge of a deep lake, stepped out, put the gearshift in drive and let it roll down the boat ramp into the black water. Her two little boys, buckled snugly in their safety seats, died under the lake... >
..."I believed her, right up to the end," said Juliaette Kerhulas, of Mrs. Smith's story that a young black man had ordered her out of her burgundy 1990 Mazda on the night of Oct. 25, then driven away with 3-year-old Michael and 14-month-old Alexander in the back seat.
Ms. Kerhulas wasn't the only one who believed in her. None other than future House Speaker Newt Gingrich rushed to the defense of Smith, whose step-father ironically happened to be a prominent Republican fundraiser and member of the Christian Coalition. Even after her confession, Gingrich insisted the Smith murders showed the decay of American society under Democratic Party rule : >
Enter Newt Gingrich, who rushed into action on election eve with another reliable generic culprit: society. He said the double murder "vividly reminds every American how sick the society is getting and how much we need to change things," expediently adding that "the only way you get change is to vote Republican."
As Frank Rich recounted in August 1995: >
Asked later by Tom Brokaw to elaborate, the Speaker-to-be cited "a direct nexus between the general acceptance of violence" and "the pattern that the counterculture and Lyndon Johnson's Great Society began in the late 60's."
Of course, the 1960's also happened to be the time when the women's movement rose to prominence. The victories it achieved for women's political equality, economic independence and reproductive rights transformed American society and helped move the nation closer to a "more perfect union."
Apparently, those epochal changes escaped Herman Cain's notice. And while Cain's is being punished in the polls for it, he is being replaced atop the GOP field by Newt Gingrich . While that may be a good thing for Tiffany's bottom line , it's a sad development for American women.
5 Views
21:00:01 11/14/11
Confirmed Serial Adulterer Passes Alleged Serial Harasser in GOP Race
[LESS INFO] 5 VIEWS | ADDED 21:00:01 11/14/11
Here in a nutshell is the state of play in the 2012 Republican presidential sweepstakes: alleged serial sexual harasser Herman Cain is being surpassed by confirmed serial adulterer Newt Gingrich . With Mitt Romney stalled and Cain hemorrhaging support from women voters, polls last week from CBS and Marist showed the former House Speaker had surged into a virtual three-way tie at the top. By Monday, new surveys from CNN and PPP showed Newt vaulting past the fading pizza maker. Nevertheless, that development should be a discomforting prospect for a Republican Party which lost the women's vote by 13 points in 2008. As his public statements and personal life show, the thrice-married Gingrich is hardly a champion for American women.
That starts with Newt Gingrich's belief that marriage is an institution between one man and three women in rapid succession.
In 1980, Newt was separated from his first wife and former high school geometry teacher , Jackie Battley. As she lay incoherent in her hospital bed following surgery for a reoccurrence of uterine cancer, Gingrich paid her a visit to announce he wanted a divorce. As Lee Howell , a Gingrich friend and associate at whose wedding Newt was best man, described it: >
"Newt came up there with his yellow legal pad, and he had a list of things on how the divorce was going to be handled. He wanted her to sign it. She was still recovering from surgery, still sort of out of it, and he comes in with a yellow sheet of paper, handwritten, and wants her to sign it. >
Newt can handle political problems, but when it comes to personal problems, he's a disaster. He handled the divorce like he did any other political decision: You've got to be tough in this business, you've got to be hard. Once you make the decision you've got to act on it. Cut your losses and move on."
He moved on to wife number two, Marianne Ginther . But Marianne fared little better, getting dumped for Congressional staffer Callista Bisek after a six year affair even as Newt was leading the inquisition of Bill Clinton. As Vanity Fair summed it up last year: >
According to Salon, Gingrich and the former Hill staffer (23 years his junior, mind you) would frequently dine in the Supreme Court cafeteria--an unsuspectingly sordid detail. (In 1995, Vanity Fair referred to Bisek as Gingrich's "frequent breakfast companion.") Gingrich stepped down from Congress in 1998 following an ethics scandal, among other things. The two were married two years later.
Gingrich, who swapped his Baptist faith for Catholicism just in time to attack President Obama's 2009 address at Notre Dame University, later explained that his rapid fire infidelities were the actually product of his own patriotism: >
"There's no question at times of my life, partially driven by how passionately I felt about this country, that I worked far too hard and things happened in my life that were not appropriate. And what I can tell you is that when I did things that were wrong, I wasn't trapped in situation ethics, I was doing things that were wrong, and yet, I was doing them."
Of course, the things Newt Gingrich was saying to American women weren't any better.
As the New York Times recounted 16 years ago, Newt suggested menstruation should keep women out of essential roles in the American military: >
"If combat means living in a ditch, females have biological problems staying in a ditch for 30 days because they get infections, and they don't have upper-body strength. I mean, some do, but they're relatively rare. On the other hand, men are basically little piglets -- you drop them in the ditch, they roll around in it, doesn't matter, you know."
And for Gingrich, the biggest "infection" of them all - liberalism - caused a young mother to murder her children.
Back in 1994, after dumping his cancer-stricken first wife but before marrying his mistress following the adulterous affair that ended his second marriage, Newt pointed the finger at Democrats for the Susan Smith affair.
It was Smith who drew Americans' initial sympathy - and subsequent scorn - for her invention of a black bogeyman to conceal her heinous crime.
On October 24th, 1994, as the New York Times recalled, Smith killed her young sons, killings for which she was eventually sentenced to life in prison: >
That night, investigators say, Mrs. Smith pulled her car to the edge of a deep lake, stepped out, put the gearshift in drive and let it roll down the boat ramp into the black water. Her two little boys, buckled snugly in their safety seats, died under the lake... >
..."I believed her, right up to the end," said Juliaette Kerhulas, of Mrs. Smith's story that a young black man had ordered her out of her burgundy 1990 Mazda on the night of Oct. 25, then driven away with 3-year-old Michael and 14-month-old Alexander in the back seat.
Ms. Kerhulas wasn't the only one who believed in her. None other than future House Speaker Newt Gingrich rushed to the defense of Smith, whose step-father ironically happened to be a prominent Republican fundraiser and member of the Christian Coalition. Even after her confession, Gingrich insisted the Smith murders showed the decay of American society under Democratic Party rule : >
Enter Newt Gingrich, who rushed into action on election eve with another reliable generic culprit: society. He said the double murder "vividly reminds every American how sick the society is getting and how much we need to change things," expediently adding that "the only way you get change is to vote Republican."
As Frank Rich recounted in August 1995: >
Asked later by Tom Brokaw to elaborate, the Speaker-to-be cited "a direct nexus between the general acceptance of violence" and "the pattern that the counterculture and Lyndon Johnson's Great Society began in the late 60's."
Of course, the 1960's also happened to be the time when the women's movement rose to prominence. The victories it achieved for women's political equality, economic independence and reproductive rights transformed American society and helped move the nation closer to a "more perfect union."
Apparently, those epochal changes escaped Herman Cain's notice. And while Cain's is being punished in the polls for it, he is being replaced atop the GOP field by Newt Gingrich . While that may be a good thing for Tiffany's bottom line , it's a sad development for American women.
4 Views
21:00:00 09/18/11
Lindsey Graham Thinks Making Millionaires Pay More Taxes Is Class Warfare But Let's Do It Anyway
[LESS INFO] 4 VIEWS | ADDED 21:00:00 09/18/11
I seriously think that at some point we will see some conservative's head explode from all the cognitive dissonance they hold. I'm putting my money on Sen. Lindsey Graham. Graham is such an interesting paradox, since he was the one Republican to break from his party and refuse to vote to convict Bill Clinton during the impeachment, is often part of these bipartisan gangs in Congress that actually get legislation passed and has occasionally been fairly reasonable on the issues of immigration, climate change and economic issues. But he will often also backtrack on all of these issues, especially in defense of his BFF, John McCain.
On State of the Union , Graham exhibited this cognitive dissonance perfectly. Host Candy Crowley asked him his opinion on President Obama's upcoming tax plan--quaintly referred to as "The Buffett Plan"-- and Graham just spouted off the same tried and true talking points about targeting the uber-wealthy for tax increases as class warfare that we heard every single conservative use on every other show.
But then...
Graham went off the talking points and get this...advocated for raising taxes on millionaires and billionaires and shirking corporations: >
The tax code should be reformed for one purpose: to generate more revenue, to run the government and create jobs. And when you pick one area of the economy and say we’re going to tax those people, because people are not those people, that’s class warfare.
Look at what Bowles/Simpson did. They didn’t pick on Warren Buffett or any other group. They’re going to make all millionaires and billionaires pay a higher rate, by eliminating the deductions. They’re going to make corporate pay a higher rate – 25% will be the top rate – but they’re going to have to pay it because they won’t have the deductions and loopholes of getting out of paying. That’s the model. What Bowles/Simpson did with the Gang of Six, let’s take the tax code that’s so complicated – that GE pays no taxes – and flatten the rates to be economically competitive but get people to actually pay taxes.
Uh...Lindsey, how exactly is this different from what Obama and the Democratic Party has been saying about making the tax burden fair? Seriously, this logic pretzel of simultaneously advocating for and blocking what the White House is trying to do to improve the economy is gonna kill you.
5 Views
23:05:03 07/22/11
Breaking: John Boehner out of talks with Obama as the Soap opera goes on with Debt Ceiling
[LESS INFO] 5 VIEWS | ADDED 23:05:03 07/22/11
As I figured would happen, Rep. John Boehner has pulled out of negotiations with Obama over the debt ceiling talks because.....revenues and safety net cuts.
What a shock . >
House Speaker John Boehner has broken off talks with President Barack Obama on getting a budget deal to avert a government default. The Ohio Republican says the president wants to raise taxes too high and won't make "fundamental changes" to benefit programs such as Medicare .
Top GOP aides say Boehner will now work with Senate leaders on an alternative aimed at averting a market-rattling, first-ever federal default.
Jed Lewison was covering Obama's recent remarks: >
3:38 PM PT: President Obama has wrapped up perhaps the most dramatic news conference of his presidency. (As for statements, nothing will beat the Osama bin Laden one, of course.) To recap: Boehner is out of talks in the big deal. Obama is now talking about the big deal in the past tense. He is insisting on the debt limit being raised, even if it's a clean debt limit extension.
--
3:23 PM PT: After saying he is willing to sign the McConnell plan that would require him to take the responsibility of raising the debt limit, Obama adds: "I cannot believe Congress would be that irresponsible that they would not send to me a package that avoids a self inflicted wound when things are so difficult." He's at least calling for a clean bill here.
There wasn't time for the Grand Bargain and I'm happy about that. We'll see where it goes from here. It's clear President Obama wanted a big deal and we all saw how powerful the bully pulpit is because now Americans want the debt ceiling raised and they'd like a compromise. A couple of weeks ago, most Americans agreed with the Tea Party and didn't want the debt ceiling raised at all. This is a tactic I find annoying by the administration. Even if they win some sort of victory, the dialogue has shifted hard to the right over cuts and not spending and revenues to kick start this economy. That's a bad spot for a Democratic President to put himself in and for his Congressional brethren as well.
If only he used the bully pulpit more often and in progressive terms...Anyway...this soap opera continues.
Hullabaloo: >
Update I: Keep in mind that everyone's posturing in public right now, trying to get their people on board for something. I wouldn't assume anything. For all we know, both Boehner and the President have agreed to a clean vote with a pinky swear to get back to work on that dratted debt the day after and Nancy and John are planning a full week-end of kabuki to show their troops that they fought until very end. With the president saying his bottom line is raising the debt ceiling, it could be that the GOP "reluctantly" agrees to Pelosi's plan for 2.4 without any cuts.
Or maybe the Republicans really are going to go over the cliff. It ain't over 'til it's over
Have you noticed that Villagers are getting mad at Grover Norquist? He's been around a long time pulling strings in the GOP for decades, but since he's been out there with his no new taxes pledge and using insane logic to defend it, he's now interfering with the Villagers desire to see a Grand Bargain too.
0 Views
02:01:03 05/02/11
Video: Relieving severe sticker shock
[LESS INFO] 0 VIEWS | ADDED 02:01:03 05/02/11
Members of Congress have different ideas to bring those soaring gas prices down. U.S. Congresswoman Marcy Kaptur and U.S. Congressman Bob Latta both say they understand driver frustration. With gas costing $4.15-$4.19 in the region, slightly above the national average, $5 dollars is just off on the horizon. Both lawmakers are trying to curb the soaring price before it gets out of hand for Americans. Congressman Latta believes there's an easy way to fix that and it starts with the president. "All he has to do in one day say we're going to start drilling in the United States and getting these restrictions off," Rep. Latta said. "You'll see the price start going down. But Rep. Kaptur has a different approach. She revealed a plan on Sunday asking Speaker of the House John Boehner to allow Congress to vote on eliminating tax breaks for oil companies. "While the American people are experiencing severe sticker shock at the pump these companies and others are smiling all the way to the bank," she said. "Let members register what they think and let the American people register what they think." Kaptur says at one point Speaker Boehner was open to a vote on ending tax breaks, but for some reason unknown, he changed his mind. "It's important for Ohioans to send a message through him to his party," Rep. Kaptur said. "Oil company lobbyist are telling Speaker Boehner they can't afford to give up their tax breaks. He should listen to the American people instead." Becoming energy independent in the United States is another idea Congresswoman Kaptur has. But until that happens, she wants Congress to vote on this issue, to help people save at the pump.
62 Views
19:56:58 03/18/11
The New Order in Washington: Featuring Gail Collins, Mike Allen, and Peter Beinart
[LESS INFO] 62 VIEWS | ADDED 19:56:58 03/18/11
Journalists Gail Collins, Mike Allen and Peter Beinart discuss the current state of Washington politics, and examine outlooks for the 2012 Presidential election. This program was recorded in collaboration with the City University of New York, on March 1, 2011.
The spring Perspectives with Peter Beinart series opens with an evening examining the new order in Washington. The discussion features Gail Collins, columnist for the New York Times, and Mike Allen, chief political correspondent for Politico. Peter Beinart is a faculty member at CUNY's Graduate Center and Graduate School of Journalism and a senior political writer for the Daily Beast. - CUNY
Mike Allen is the chief White House correspondent for Politico. He comes to us from Time magazine where he was their White House correspondent. Prior to that, Allen spent six years at the Washington Post, where he covered President Bush's first term, Capitol Hill, campaign finance, and the Bush, Gore and Bradley campaigns of 2000.
Gail Collins joined the New York Times in 1995 as a member of the editorial board and later as an Op-Ed columnist. In 2001 she became the first woman ever appointed editor of the Times's editorial page. At the beginning of 2007, she stepped down and began a leave in order to finish her new book: When Everything Changed: The Amazing Journey of American Women from 1960 to the Present. She returned to the Times as a columnist in July 2007.
Peter Beinart is an American journalist and Associate Professor of Journalism and Political Science at the City University of New York. He is a Senior Fellow at the New America Foundation and Senior Political Writer for The Daily Beast website. Beinart worked at The New Republic until 2006, for much of the time writing The New Republic's signature "TRB" column, which was reprinted in the New York Post and other major American newspapers.
49 Views
01:42:06 01/04/11
Albert Teich - What Will a Republican House Mean for Climate Policy?
[LESS INFO] 49 VIEWS | ADDED 01:42:06 01/04/11
Complete video at: http://fora.tv/2010/11/30/Albert_Teich_Post-US_Midterm_Election_Policy_Perspective
Albert Teich, Director of Science and Policy Programs at the American Association for the Advancement of Science, predicts how the Republican shift in the U.S. House of Representatives will impact efforts to pass climate change legislation.
-----
On November 30th and December 1st, 2010, at the TIME Conference Center in New York City, many of the most innovative people and organizations in the science and technology world came together for an historic gathering - the 2010 World Technology Summit and Awards, the eighth Summit and ninth Awards thus far! - to celebrate each other's accomplishments; to explore what is imminent, possible, and important in and around emerging technologies; and to create the kinds of serendipitous relationships that create the future.
The majority of Summit participants were either current WTN members (primarily winners/finalists from previous World Technology Awards cycles, as selected by their peers as those doing the innovative work of "the greatest likely long-term significance") or 2010 World Technology Award nominees. A combination of keynote talks, panel discussions, and breakout sessions... and potentially-career-altering-networking opportunities over two days concluded with a gala black-tie Awards ceremony on the second night. - World Technology Network
Albert H. Teich is director of Science and Policy Programs at the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS), a position he has held since 1990. He is responsible for the Association's activities in science and technology policy and serves as a key spokesman on science policy issues. Dr. Teich also serves as director of the AAAS Archives. Dr. Teich received a B.S. degree in physics and a Ph.D. in political science, both from M.I.T. Prior to joining the AAAS staff in 1980, he held positions at George Washington University, the State University of New York, and Syracuse University. He is the author of numerous articles and editor of several books, including Technology and the Future, a widely used textbook on technology and society, the eleventh edition of which was published by Wadsworth Cengage Learning in 2008. More on Dr. Teich's career can be found at www.alteich.com/al.
32 Views
01:20:12 01/04/11
What Will a Republican House Mean for Climate Policy?
[LESS INFO] 32 VIEWS | ADDED 01:20:12 01/04/11
Complete video at: http://fora.tv/2010/11/30/Albert_Teich_Post-US_Midterm_Election_Policy_Perspective
Albert Teich, Director of Science and Policy Programs at the American Association for the Advancement of Science, predicts how the Republican shift in the U.S. House of Representatives will impact efforts to pass climate change legislation.
-----
On November 30th and December 1st, 2010, at the TIME Conference Center in New York City, many of the most innovative people and organizations in the science and technology world came together for an historic gathering - the 2010 World Technology Summit and Awards, the eighth Summit and ninth Awards thus far! - to celebrate each other's accomplishments; to explore what is imminent, possible, and important in and around emerging technologies; and to create the kinds of serendipitous relationships that create the future.
The majority of Summit participants were either current WTN members (primarily winners/finalists from previous World Technology Awards cycles, as selected by their peers as those doing the innovative work of "the greatest likely long-term significance") or 2010 World Technology Award nominees. A combination of keynote talks, panel discussions, and breakout sessions... and potentially-career-altering-networking opportunities over two days concluded with a gala black-tie Awards ceremony on the second night. - World Technology Network
Albert H. Teich is director of Science and Policy Programs at the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS), a position he has held since 1990. He is responsible for the Association's activities in science and technology policy and serves as a key spokesman on science policy issues. Dr. Teich also serves as director of the AAAS Archives. Dr. Teich received a B.S. degree in physics and a Ph.D. in political science, both from M.I.T. Prior to joining the AAAS staff in 1980, he held positions at George Washington University, the State University of New York, and Syracuse University. He is the author of numerous articles and editor of several books, including Technology and the Future, a widely used textbook on technology and society, the eleventh edition of which was published by Wadsworth Cengage Learning in 2008. More on Dr. Teich's career can be found at www.alteich.com/al.
5 Views
21:30:57 12/16/10
Why filibuster reform is vital: The Founders' intent was for the Senate to be a majority body, not a supermajority
[LESS INFO] 5 VIEWS | ADDED 21:30:57 12/16/10
[From Fix The Senate Now : Interview with a senator who likes how it dysfunctions.]
Quietly behind the scenes in the Senate, Democratic senators are working to prepare a package of filibuster-rules reforms , led in particular by Sen. Jeff Merkley of Oregon and Sen. Tom Udall of New Mexico .
This morning I sat in on a conference call with Merkley and Udall, who explained how they were planning to roll out a framework for other senators to examine soon. (Here's Dave Weigel's report .) Certainly the urgency to do so has only been heightened by events of the past few days, with Republicans using the filibuster to effectively forestall any action by the Senate in the lame-duck session beyond extending the Bush tax cuts -- including approval of the START treaty, DADT repeal and the DREAM Act.
Fundamentally, as these events have demonstrated, Republican abuse of the filibuster has rendered the Senate into a body in which only the supermajority rules. Considering that it was clearly never designed to be anything other than a majority-rule body by the Founding Fathers, it's a pretty classic case of hypocrisy for Tea Partying right-wingers who love to parade their love of the Founders whenever possible.
So I asked them about whether they intended to use the Founders' intent as a kind of marketing point for their plan. Here's what they said:
>
Udall: That point is very much talked about. And it was not that long ago that there were major pieces of legislation in which the public discussion always was, 'Can we get 51 votes to pass this?'
We had controversial Supreme Court justices -- for example, Clarence Thomas -- who was passed through without a supermajority. There was no cloture process or extended debate requested by those who opposed him.
It was considered a privilege to exercised -- that is, the privilege of delaying the Senate so that you could continue to make your points was considered a precious privilege to be exercised upon very rare occasion. That social contract has been eliminated. And members of the Senate are ready to make their objection to the regular order of 51 on everything, and often many times on a single bill, and that has done what you've just described, which is it has turned the Senate into a supermajority body. And for all those who say, do not disrupt the tradition of the Senate, the response is, the tradition of the Senate has never been for it to be a supermajority body.
Merkley: To give you one little factoid here: When Lyndon Baines Johnson was in the Senate, the time he was the Majority Leader from 1954 to 1961, in that entire six-year period, he only attempted to cut off debate, filing cloture, one time. The last two years, Harry Reid had to do that 84 times.
So we've taken something that was an extraordinary rare expression of opposition -- where you went down to the floor and you did everything you could to persuade the American people and your own constituents as to your point of view -- now we don't do that. Now the only filibuster -- the only filibuster I think I've really seen, a true filibuster in the Senate tradition, in the two years I've been here is what happened with Bernie Sanders in the last couple of days, where he took the floor for approximately eight hours or more to actually talk about the tax package.
Most of the time, we see this in a secret way, when you look at C-SPAN2 and you're looking at the Senate, you see a quorum call, the post-cloture debate time -- that time is not being utilized for debate, and that has rendered the Senate a broken institution.
Merkley also talked about the dysfunction that occurs after a cloture vote -- that is, a vote to end the debate and thus the filibuster -- fails to reach the 60-vote threshold: >
Merkley: You can think of a cloture vote that fails as the following: 41 senators have said they want to continue debate. When that happens, under current rules, we do not have ongoing debate. People just leave the floor and we are let with a quorum call. There's nothing to compel senators to actually engage in the debate that they have said they want to have. There are a number of potential rules that could be used that exist currently, but each of them is trumped by some other procedural mechanism. And that's why you don't see continuous debate after a cloture call. ...
The advantage of continuous debate is that it honors the purpose of the cloture vote, which was to have debate. The other advantage is that it says to the American people: 'Here is my position. This is why I'm not ready to have a vote yet. This is what is most important. Here is my case.' In other words, senators stand on the floor, literally stand on the floor and make their case to the American public. And the American public and their colleagues can say, 'You're a hero' or 'You're a bum.' And provide that kind of feedback to all of the senators, who will have to vote on a subsequent cloture vote at some point down the line. And if no one has anything left to say, then the whole purpose of the post-cloture debate is concluded -- that is, if no senator at some point is ready to continue the debate, then we should automatically go to a majority vote.
This would get rid of many of the frivolous objections. And just to give you a sense of this -- we just had a food safety bill in which three filibusters were launched, delaying the work of the Senate by three weeks. Each objection to the regular order creates a one-week delay and a 60-vote hurdle. And yet that was on a bill that had substantial bipartisan support, it was not, if you will, one of the bills that has grave national consequences one direction or the other. So if, on a simple, ordinary bill, you can have three cloture motions, you can imagine the type of delay that has resulted in we have no appropriations bills, why we don't have a budget that was debated, and so on and so forth. Why so many House bills come here to die.
Aas Greg Sargent reports today, there is some quiet momentum building in support of these reforms, especially given the galling impotency of the past couple of weeks: >
The key thing that's happening is that groups pushing to reform the filibuster are now laying down a clear roadmap to action, and are setting their sights on clearly defined common-sense reforms that seem eminently achievable if enough political will gathers to make them happen. For instance, a range of lefty groups and powerful labor unions like AFL-CIO and SEIU recently spelled out a statement of core principles that would form the bedrock of reform.
The underlying ideas here are twofold: First, there's Senator Tom Udall's insight that each Congress has the power under the Constitution to set its own rules. And second, Senator Jeff Merkley, one of a new crop of younger reform-minded Senators, is getting traction with a proposal of simple, achievable reforms to encourage as much open debate as possible, mainly by forcing Senators to actually filibuster.
Of course, as anyone even casually familiar with the inner workings of the Senate will tell you, the best-intentioned ideas can -- and often do -- disappear without ever getting acted on, for reasons that no one can explain. But it's certainly noteworthy that a real movement seems to be taking shape to prevent that from happening this time around.
Tom Harkin is predicting some serious fireworks on Jan. 5 : >
Senate Democrats will make a dramatic effort to reform the rules of the chamber when the next Congress begins, one of the body's primary filibuster-reform advocates said Wednesday morning.
Sen. Tom Harkin (D-Iowa), who has championed a weakening of the procedural mechanism that allows the minority party to hold up legislation, predicted "fireworks" on Jan. 5, 2011 -- the day on which the Senate can, he argued, revamp its rules by a simple majority vote.
"There could be some fireworks. There could be some fireworks on January fifth," Harkin said at a pro-reform event sponsored by several like-minded organizations. "I'm going to be there. I'm armed. I'm armed with a lot of history, and I know the rules, and I know the procedures too, so we will see what happens on the fifth."
"[Former Sen.] Robert Byrd in 1975, the last time that last time that we changed the rules and [brought the filibuster threshold] from 67 [votes] down to 60, actually stated on the floor that a majority, 51 senators, could change the rules. And that's what we intend to do and that is what we are working on right now. We are coming on the fifth to basically send a motion to the vice president ... that will change the rules and there is a procedure to provide 51 votes to do that. Robert Byrd said that in 1975 and that's what we are going to try to do."
Essentially, that path to reform requires Vice President Joe Biden -- who supports weakening the filibuster -- to rule on the first day of the next session that the Senate has the authority to write its own rules. Republicans, presumably, would immediately move to object, but Democrats could then move to table the objection, setting up a key up-or-down vote. If 50 Democrats voted to table the objection, the Senate would then move to a vote on a new set of rules, which could be approved by a simple majority.
Keep your fingers crossed. And call your senators and buck them up.
7 Views
00:00:33 11/22/10
This Week: Are We Going To Be Taken Seriously By The Very Serious People On The Debt Ceiling?
[LESS INFO] 7 VIEWS | ADDED 00:00:33 11/22/10
Nothing reminds me to take my blood pressure medicine like another Sunday morning in Absurdistan! Is it just me, or is it crazy to turn the deficit "crisis" into a political argument, and not an economic one? Have the Villagers so completely bought into the Grand Bargain narrative that it doesn't even occur to them that this is a really bad idea?
Oh, you already know the answer. These shows are nothing more than a high school vanity project for the Village elders. And that, of course, includes the media "journalists" who take part. What an incoherent mess.
Why does multimillionaire host Christian Amanpour [$2m salary, married to James Rubin , executive editor at Bloomberg News, adjunct professor at Columbia University, salaries unknown] allow Sen. Jon Kyl [worth between $519,090 to $746,082 ] to get away with saying a targeted tax increase on billionaire hedge fund managers is a "job killer"? She probably asks tougher questions of her 11-year-old son.
And OMB head Jacob Lew [In 2009, got $944,578 bailout bonus after working for Citigroup, where his salary was $1.1 million and "additional compensation". Current salary unknown] speaks in spin, all of which whizzes past Amanpour like a whiffle ball.
Could we just once have a real discussion on the nuts and bolts of the issues, instead of partisan spin? >
AMANPOUR: This morning there are reports of a resurrected grand bargain. So, is a breakthrough on the horizon? Joining me, a man at the heart of these tense negotiations, White House budget director Jack Lew.
Thank you for joining me.
LEW: Good to be here, Christiane.
AMANPOUR: How worried should the American people be? Is the country going to default? Is a deal at hand?
LEW: I do not believe that responsible leaders in Washington will force this to default. I think that all of the leaders of congress and the president have acknowledged that we must raise the debt limit. And the question is how?
I think the question is, do we do more than that? Do we do as much as we can to reduce the deficit and provide some assurance that we're taking seriously the fiscal problems this country faces?
AMANPOUR: So is there a grand bargain still on the table?
LEW: Well, I think that there's multiple tracts that are being discussed. It's not a given how we get to raising the debt limit. There are some extreme voices that are saying, we should push it over the edge. I think the risk of taking that path is just enormous. The present referred to it as Armageddon. It would mean higher interest rates, which are taxed on all Americans, it would undermine our standing in the world and it could have a cloud for a long time over the United States.
I think the question how we get there -- Senator McConnell, Senator Reid have been working on a path that would, in fact, give congress perhaps a way to get that done.
I [think] the challenge is doing more. It's not enough for us just to do what we have to do. We have to do as much as we possibly can to deal with the fiscal challenges.
AMANPOUR: Sitting here today with the time ticking away. What do you think is the realistic? Will it be the McConnell sort of last-ditch effort which allows the president to raise the debt ceiling and allows Republicans or anybody to register their disapproval of it?
LEW: I think that what we face now is not a challenge of do we have the time. It's a question, do we have the will.
The president has shown through his leadership that we must take action, we must take it now. He's spoken to the issue in his State of the Union, in his budget, he spoke to it over the last few days to the public. He is pressing these discussions forward that we should do as much as we can. And he's willing to take on some very, very difficult issues that will require for both sides to move into areas to make them uncomfortable to get this done.
AMANPOUR: Well, let's talk about entitlements. The Democrats, you've heard Nancy Pelosi, you've heard Senator Reid talk about not touching entitlement. Is that just a public posture or will that be part of a deal?
LEW: I think it's very, very hard for Democrats to make these changes in entitlement programs and for good reason. They have an effect on people that's really very significant.
We are concerned first and foremost about the stability of Medicare as a system to provide for the medical needs of our elderly. It does contribute to the problems we face in terms of rising costs over the years. The challenge is could we get a balanced package together? It's not fair to ask senior citizens to pay a price, to ask families paying for their college educations, for their children to pay a price , but to leave the most privileged out of the bargain.
And everything has to be on the table.
Um, Jack? We've already paid a price. High unemployment, declining wages and public services. We had our turn, leave us out of this "balance" argument. It's their turn, the rich people. The people like you - and Christiane. >
AMANPOUR: But who would be part of the big deal -- entitlement cuts, correct?
LEW: I think the president made clear that, depending on the size of the package, there would be different kinds of things that could be done in entitlements. There are some relatively small technical changes and there are structural changes.
In order to get the kinds of structural reforms that would be needed in a long run, there has to be a balanced package that puts taxes, revenues as well as spending on the table.
There's that "balance" fetish again. Hey Jack, WE PAID AT THE OFFICE!!! >
AMANPOUR: Does the president have his own plan? What is on the table? You saw Speaker Boehner saying where are the president's cards?
LEW: I think Speaker knows quite well how far the president is willing to go. There have been detailed conversations on many, many subjects. And I think the president has shown that he's willing to move into space that is a very hard place for Democrats to go . And the challenge is, can we find a place where there will be some kind of fairness and balance.
And leadership takes partnership as well. The president has shown a willingness to go there. We need a partner to work with.
Yes, and apparently leadership takes deep cynicism and an abiding faith in disreputable economic theories -- that just happen to dovetail with the desires of the elite. Funny how that works out! >
AMANPOUR: If it gets down to that, would the president, as Representative Cantor suggest, do a one-year extension to save the country from going into default?
LEW: The president has been very clear on that subject. It would be a very unacceptable outcome to have...
AMANPOUR: But would he do it?
LEW: He's made clear that he will not have this debate over should we raise the national debt a year from now. It would be a bad thing for the economy and a bad thing for the country.
AMANPOUR: So to be clear, he could be pushed into default then?
LEW: I do not believe the country will be pushed into default. I think congress knows what it has to do. It's got time do it. The president has made clear what he is prepared to do and the parties are going to have to come together.
It's kind of unfortunate that things always have to get to the last minute. Sometimes there are no consequences, right now, we're in a place where the world is watching. And we should get our business done, congress should get its job done and the president has been working every day for the last month trying to work with them to get it done.
AMANPOUR: And some kind of a deal, whether it's the grand bargain, or the Mitch McConnell last-ditch effort, plus whatever it might be. Would the president agree to any deal that does not include revenue raising?
LEW: I think the president made clear that there are reasonable steps that can be made to reduce spending. We've already made many, many deep cuts in spending. There's more restraint that we think is in order. He has made it clear that for a big deal, there will have to be balance between revenue and spending.
The question is how much can we get done? And the president's view is clear. We should get as much done as we possibly can to give assurance to the market and to the American people that we got our fiscal house in order.
No matter who we have to screw and leave by the side of the road. Tough luck, chumpies! >
AMANPOUR: So if you had to predict right now, what would be the deal that will get done to avoid this deadline, this potential catastrophe as we're calling it?
LEW: So I think the minimum is I believe the debt will be extended. I think notwithstanding the voices of a few who are willing to play with Armageddon, responsible leaders in Washington or not.
Our efforts over the next days will be to, in addition to that, do as much as we possibly can to make the tough decisions -- this is a question of leaders coming together and saying, we are going to do hard things on both sides. And the time is now, as the president said, if not now, when.
Yes, because that's what disaster capitalism is all about : Seizing the opportunity. >
AMANPOUR: On that note, Jack Lew, thank you so much of you for joining us.
LEW: Thank you.
NOTE: I'm continuing my little experiment (inspired by this ) of illustrating just how large a class divide exists between us and our elected representatives. As has been reported elsewhere, members of Congress seem to have amazing luck with the stock market - frequently beating the Street by significant margins. So let's keep in mind that their interests may not always align with ours.
10 Views
00:00:33 11/22/10
This Week: Are We Going To Be Taken Seriously By The Very Serious People On The Debt Ceiling?
[LESS INFO] 10 VIEWS | ADDED 00:00:33 11/22/10
Nothing reminds me to take my blood pressure medicine like another Sunday morning in Absurdistan! Is it just me, or is it crazy to turn the deficit "crisis" into a political argument, and not an economic one? Have the Villagers so completely bought into the Grand Bargain narrative that it doesn't even occur to them that this is a really bad idea?
Oh, you already know the answer. These shows are nothing more than a high school vanity project for the Village elders. And that, of course, includes the media "journalists" who take part. What an incoherent mess.
Why does multimillionaire host Christian Amanpour [$2m salary, married to James Rubin , executive editor at Bloomberg News, adjunct professor at Columbia University, salaries unknown] allow Sen. Jon Kyl [worth between $519,090 to $746,082 ] to get away with saying a targeted tax increase on billionaire hedge fund managers is a "job killer"? She probably asks tougher questions of her 11-year-old son.
And OMB head Jacob Lew [In 2009, got $944,578 bailout bonus after working for Citigroup, where his salary was $1.1 million and "additional compensation". Current salary unknown] speaks in spin, all of which whizzes past Amanpour like a whiffle ball.
Could we just once have a real discussion on the nuts and bolts of the issues, instead of partisan spin? >
AMANPOUR: This morning there are reports of a resurrected grand bargain. So, is a breakthrough on the horizon? Joining me, a man at the heart of these tense negotiations, White House budget director Jack Lew.
Thank you for joining me.
LEW: Good to be here, Christiane.
AMANPOUR: How worried should the American people be? Is the country going to default? Is a deal at hand?
LEW: I do not believe that responsible leaders in Washington will force this to default. I think that all of the leaders of congress and the president have acknowledged that we must raise the debt limit. And the question is how?
I think the question is, do we do more than that? Do we do as much as we can to reduce the deficit and provide some assurance that we're taking seriously the fiscal problems this country faces?
AMANPOUR: So is there a grand bargain still on the table?
LEW: Well, I think that there's multiple tracts that are being discussed. It's not a given how we get to raising the debt limit. There are some extreme voices that are saying, we should push it over the edge. I think the risk of taking that path is just enormous. The present referred to it as Armageddon. It would mean higher interest rates, which are taxed on all Americans, it would undermine our standing in the world and it could have a cloud for a long time over the United States.
I think the question how we get there -- Senator McConnell, Senator Reid have been working on a path that would, in fact, give congress perhaps a way to get that done.
I [think] the challenge is doing more. It's not enough for us just to do what we have to do. We have to do as much as we possibly can to deal with the fiscal challenges.
AMANPOUR: Sitting here today with the time ticking away. What do you think is the realistic? Will it be the McConnell sort of last-ditch effort which allows the president to raise the debt ceiling and allows Republicans or anybody to register their disapproval of it?
LEW: I think that what we face now is not a challenge of do we have the time. It's a question, do we have the will.
The president has shown through his leadership that we must take action, we must take it now. He's spoken to the issue in his State of the Union, in his budget, he spoke to it over the last few days to the public. He is pressing these discussions forward that we should do as much as we can. And he's willing to take on some very, very difficult issues that will require for both sides to move into areas to make them uncomfortable to get this done.
AMANPOUR: Well, let's talk about entitlements. The Democrats, you've heard Nancy Pelosi, you've heard Senator Reid talk about not touching entitlement. Is that just a public posture or will that be part of a deal?
LEW: I think it's very, very hard for Democrats to make these changes in entitlement programs and for good reason. They have an effect on people that's really very significant.
We are concerned first and foremost about the stability of Medicare as a system to provide for the medical needs of our elderly. It does contribute to the problems we face in terms of rising costs over the years. The challenge is could we get a balanced package together? It's not fair to ask senior citizens to pay a price, to ask families paying for their college educations, for their children to pay a price , but to leave the most privileged out of the bargain.
And everything has to be on the table.
Um, Jack? We've already paid a price. High unemployment, declining wages and public services. We had our turn, leave us out of this "balance" argument. It's their turn, the rich people. The people like you - and Christiane. >
AMANPOUR: But who would be part of the big deal -- entitlement cuts, correct?
LEW: I think the president made clear that, depending on the size of the package, there would be different kinds of things that could be done in entitlements. There are some relatively small technical changes and there are structural changes.
In order to get the kinds of structural reforms that would be needed in a long run, there has to be a balanced package that puts taxes, revenues as well as spending on the table.
There's that "balance" fetish again. Hey Jack, WE PAID AT THE OFFICE!!! >
AMANPOUR: Does the president have his own plan? What is on the table? You saw Speaker Boehner saying where are the president's cards?
LEW: I think Speaker knows quite well how far the president is willing to go. There have been detailed conversations on many, many subjects. And I think the president has shown that he's willing to move into space that is a very hard place for Democrats to go . And the challenge is, can we find a place where there will be some kind of fairness and balance.
And leadership takes partnership as well. The president has shown a willingness to go there. We need a partner to work with.
Yes, and apparently leadership takes deep cynicism and an abiding faith in disreputable economic theories -- that just happen to dovetail with the desires of the elite. Funny how that works out! >
AMANPOUR: If it gets down to that, would the president, as Representative Cantor suggest, do a one-year extension to save the country from going into default?
LEW: The president has been very clear on that subject. It would be a very unacceptable outcome to have...
AMANPOUR: But would he do it?
LEW: He's made clear that he will not have this debate over should we raise the national debt a year from now. It would be a bad thing for the economy and a bad thing for the country.
AMANPOUR: So to be clear, he could be pushed into default then?
LEW: I do not believe the country will be pushed into default. I think congress knows what it has to do. It's got time do it. The president has made clear what he is prepared to do and the parties are going to have to come together.
It's kind of unfortunate that things always have to get to the last minute. Sometimes there are no consequences, right now, we're in a place where the world is watching. And we should get our business done, congress should get its job done and the president has been working every day for the last month trying to work with them to get it done.
AMANPOUR: And some kind of a deal, whether it's the grand bargain, or the Mitch McConnell last-ditch effort, plus whatever it might be. Would the president agree to any deal that does not include revenue raising?
LEW: I think the president made clear that there are reasonable steps that can be made to reduce spending. We've already made many, many deep cuts in spending. There's more restraint that we think is in order. He has made it clear that for a big deal, there will have to be balance between revenue and spending.
The question is how much can we get done? And the president's view is clear. We should get as much done as we possibly can to give assurance to the market and to the American people that we got our fiscal house in order.
No matter who we have to screw and leave by the side of the road. Tough luck, chumpies! >
AMANPOUR: So if you had to predict right now, what would be the deal that will get done to avoid this deadline, this potential catastrophe as we're calling it?
LEW: So I think the minimum is I believe the debt will be extended. I think notwithstanding the voices of a few who are willing to play with Armageddon, responsible leaders in Washington or not.
Our efforts over the next days will be to, in addition to that, do as much as we possibly can to make the tough decisions -- this is a question of leaders coming together and saying, we are going to do hard things on both sides. And the time is now, as the president said, if not now, when.
Yes, because that's what disaster capitalism is all about : Seizing the opportunity. >
AMANPOUR: On that note, Jack Lew, thank you so much of you for joining us.
LEW: Thank you.
NOTE: I'm continuing my little experiment (inspired by this ) of illustrating just how large a class divide exists between us and our elected representatives. As has been reported elsewhere, members of Congress seem to have amazing luck with the stock market - frequently beating the Street by significant margins. So let's keep in mind that their interests may not always align with ours.
1 Views
21:51:04 11/15/10
Video: Top GOP Senator Flips on Earmark Ban Proposal
[LESS INFO] 1 VIEWS | ADDED 21:51:04 11/15/10
Cementing a major change to the ways of Congress, the top Republican in the Senate on Monday fell into line behind demands by House leaders and tea party activists for a moratorium on pork-barrel projects known as "earmarks." (Nov. 15)
0 Views
21:51:04 11/15/10
Video: Top GOP Senator Flips on Earmark Ban Proposal
[LESS INFO] 0 VIEWS | ADDED 21:51:04 11/15/10
Cementing a major change to the ways of Congress, the top Republican in the Senate on Monday fell into line behind demands by House leaders and tea party activists for a moratorium on pork-barrel projects known as "earmarks." (Nov. 15)
