The Fine Art of Starving the Beast

First they convince us that government borrowing is necessary to inhibit inflation. Then they max out the nation's credit card, so the government can't borrow any more. And then Grover starts filling his bathtub.[...]

Read The Full Article:
http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/firedoglake/fdl/~3/v3Ht4oHu6wg/

Add to del.icio.us   Digg this   Post to Furl   Add to reddit   Add to myYahoo!

RNC Chair: 'I Don't Think' GOP Wrong on Buffett
Rule

Click here to view this media

Although a majority of Americans support a rule that would tax millionaires as much the middle class, the chairman of the Republican National Committee (RNC) said on Sunday that his party was not wrong for opposing the policy.

In an interview on CNN, host Candy Crowley pointed to a recent Gallup poll that found that 60 percent of Americans -- including 63 percent of independent voters -- backed the so-called "Buffett Rule," which was named after billionaire Warren Buffett because his "secretary" pays a higher tax rate than he does.

"Politically, it appears you are on the wrong side of this," Crowley told RNC Chairman Reince Priebus.

"I don't think so," Priebus replied. "I think that people, once they see what this is all about, once they see what this strategy of Barack Obama is all about -- it's all about dividing and conquering."

"I mean, let's face it -- and we all know what this is. This is a shiny object that Barack Obama wants the country to look at, which as you know, if you added up every dollar of revenue that this little rule would put into place, if you took every dollar over a year, it would add up to paying for 11 hours of the federal government."

"My point is that, politically, you all seem to be losing this argument," Crowley pressed. "There is a fairness issue here that people look back and say, why shouldn't millionaires pay more in taxes?"

"Part of the problem here, Candy, is we're not just talking about millionaires," Priebus insisted. "We're talking about small businesses, pass-through S corporations. We're talking about a president who promised he would get the economy back on track, that he would lower unemployment below 8 percent. ... The point of this is here we are talking about one single, tiny alteration of the tax code -- which he said that he would reform completely -- that amounts to 11 hours."

"This is Obama's strategy: 'Look over here at the shiny object here -- don't look at the big picture, an economy on the brink that I didn't do a thing about and made things worse.' That's what this is about."

(h/t: Talking Points Memo)

Read The Full Article:
http://crooksandliars.com/david/rnc-chair-i-dont-think-gop-wrong-buffett-rul

Add to del.icio.us   Digg this   Post to Furl   Add to reddit   Add to myYahoo!

RNC Chair: I Don't Think GOP Wrong on Buffett
Rule

Click here to view this media

Although a majority of Americans support a rule that would tax millionaires as much the middle class, the chairman of the Republican National Committee (RNC) said on Sunday that his party was not wrong for opposing the policy.

In an interview on CNN, host Candy Crowley pointed to a recent Gallup poll that found that 60 percent of Americans -- including 63 percent of independent voters -- backed the so-called "Buffett Rule," which was named after billionaire Warren Buffett because his "secretary" pays a higher tax rate than he does.

"Politically, it appears you are on the wrong side of this," Crowley told RNC Chairman Reince Priebus.

"I don't think so," Priebus replied. "I think that people, once they see what this is all about, once they see what this strategy of Barack Obama is all about -- it's all about dividing and conquering."

"I mean, let's face it -- and we all know what this is. This is a shiny object that Barack Obama wants the country to look at, which as you know, if you added up every dollar of revenue that this little rule would put into place, if you took every dollar over a year, it would add up to paying for 11 hours of the federal government."

"My point is that, politically, you all seem to be losing this argument," Crowley pressed. "There is a fairness issue here that people look back and say, why shouldn't millionaires pay more in taxes?"

"Part of the problem here, Candy, is we're not just talking about millionaires," Priebus insisted. "We're talking about small businesses, pass-through S corporations. We're talking about a president who promised he would get the economy back on track, that he would lower unemployment below 8 percent. ... The point of this is here we are talking about one single, tiny alteration of the tax code -- which he said that he would reform completely -- that amounts to 11 hours."

"This is Obama's strategy: 'Look over here at the shiny object here -- don't look at the big picture, an economy on the brink that I didn't do a thing about and made things worse.' That's what this is about."

(h/t: Talking Points Memo)

Read The Full Article:
http://crooksandliars.com/david/rnc-chair-i-dont-think-gop-wrong-buffett-rul

Add to del.icio.us   Digg this   Post to Furl   Add to reddit   Add to myYahoo!

The cruel stupidity that is economic austerity

2011 protest, Syntagma Square, Athens (Wikimedia Commons)When right wing politicians talk about deficits you can be certain that they're waging class warfare. When right wing politicians pursue economic austerity you can be certain that they're waging class warfare. If right wing politicians truly cared about fiscal responsibility, they would raise taxes on those who can most afford to pay more taxes and they would end corporate handouts, whether they be direct subsidies or the indirect enabling that is having the public foot the bill for environmental and other public harms incurred as part of corporate profit making. If politicians cared about balanced books they would do what's best to grow the economy and rectify social and economic imbalances. Prosperity does not trickle down. If given the chance, it can blossom up.

In the United States, the only honest fiscal solution is to end the Bush tax cuts, end foreign military adventurism, stop pretending that it's necessary to spend more on military and ostensible national security hardware than the rest of the world combined, and end all forms of corporate subsidies. If a corporation cannot survive on its own it deserves to die. If a corporation's survival serves some vital social or security need and it cannot survive on its own, then it should be socialized rather than publicly subsidized. After all, public subsidies to privately held corporations already are a form of socialism, it's just that much of the money goes into private pockets rather than serving the public good.

That we are even discussing economic austerity is itself proof that the political systems of the developed world are but servants to private industry. We know how the world dug itself out of the Great Depression, and it wasn't economic austerity. It was deficit spending. It was Keynesian economics. It was a widespread series of policies that laid the foundation for true economic growth. From the ground up. The top resting securely on a solid base rather than on the shoulders of an overburdened populace. And as more and more people had the means to participate in the economy the short-term deficits began to resolve themselves. When people have money to spend they also have taxable income. When people have money to spend the businesses that profit off their spending also have taxable income. A reviving economy means greater government revenue because more people and businesses are contributing to it. A reviving economy means fewer government outlays, not as a form of social punishment but because there is less social need. It's not complicated.

European voters in the past decade went mostly conservative, electing the wrong governments at the wrong time, and the embrace of austerity programs by those governments has provided a clear lesson for everyone?not that a lesson should have been needed, given the monumental historic successes that were the New Deal and the Marshall Plan. But the economic news out of Europe this year has been almost relentlessly bleak, and last month it was reported that economies across the Eurozone are shrinking again, with a double-dip recession looking increasingly likely. The Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development predicted that the anemic British economy also would slip back into recession. Across the continent, consumer confidence has collapsed. And of course this economic turmoil is only proving yet again what shouldn't even need to be proved: that deep recessions aren't solved by focusing on deficits. From The Economist, in January:

In the euro zone, Germany, France, Spain and Italy all managed to reduce their structural budget deficits, the latter three thanks to austerity. All are expected to reduce those deficits further this year. But this is not the good news it seems. Austerity, the IMF has found, could be making Europe?s crisis worse, rather than better.

In February, Gerard Lyons, the chief economist and head of global research at Standard Chartered, summarized to Sky News:

Europe doesn't have a debt problem, Europe has a growth problem.

And that's the whole point. Because reducing deficits does not revive struggling economies. Direct effort to stimulate growth does. And how is a shrinking or stagnant economy supposed to grow when the actual people actually trying to survive in that economy are being punished with deliberately imposed further economic hardship? Again, this is not complicated.

Read The Full Article:
http://feeds.dailykos.com/~r/dailykos/index/~3/ui8GT0ZfmQw/-The-cruel-stupidity-t
hat-is-economic-austerity

Add to del.icio.us   Digg this   Post to Furl   Add to reddit   Add to myYahoo!

Hookergate

When they want to keep a secret they can and do.When they want to tarnish the image of America they can and do.Columbia+secret service is the topic of the day and number one on Google has a picture of sexy high heels next to a story by[...]

Read The Full Article:
http://www.docudharma.com/diary/29629/hookergate

Add to del.icio.us   Digg this   Post to Furl   Add to reddit   Add to myYahoo!

Greg Mankiw Hides the Role of Government in
Redistributing Income Upward

The fact that Greg Mankiw works for Governor Romney is very clear when he tells readers:"Whether competition among governments is good or bad comes down to the philosophical questions of what you want government to do and how much you fear government[...]

Read The Full Article:
http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/firedoglake/fdl/~3/q8eOqllmZXI/

Add to del.icio.us   Digg this   Post to Furl   Add to reddit   Add to myYahoo!

This Week: In Memoriam

Click here to view this media (h/t Heather at VideoCafe)
This Week with George Stephanopoulos notes the loss of four service members in Afghanistan this week. In addition, there were ten casualties last week that we did not note:

US Army SPC James Dutton, 25, Checotah, OK
US Army SSGT Tyler J Smith, 24, Licking, MO
US Army SPC Jeffrey L White Jr, 21, Catawissa, MO
US Marines Cpl Christopher D Bordoni, 21, Ithaca, NY
US Army SSGT Christopher Brown, 26, Columbus, OH
US Army 1SGT Shawn T Hannon, 44, Grove City, OH
US Army 1SGT Jeffrey J Rieck, 45, Columbus, OH
US Army Capt. Nicholas J Rozanski, 36, Dublin, OH
US Marines Cpl Alex Martinez, 21, Elgin, IL
US Army SPC Antonio C Burnside, 31, Great Falls, MT
US Navy Constructionman Trevor J Stanley, 22, Virginia Beach, VA
US Army SPC Phillip CS Schiller, 21, The Colony, TX
US Marines LCpl Ramon T Kaipat, 22, Tacoma, WA
US Marines LCpl Abraham Tarwoe, 25, Providence, RI

In addition, the following notable names lost their lives in the last two weeks: television host Gil Noble, auto designer Ferdinand Alexander Porsche, publicist and alleged CIA operative Michael Sands, painter Thomas Kinkade, legendary newsman Mike Wallace, Olympian Mark Lenzi, author and screenwriter Karyn Kay, musician Hal McKusick, and hockey hall of famer Emile Bouchard.

According to iCasualties, there have been 2,958 allied service members killed in Afghanistan.

Read The Full Article:
http://crooksandliars.com/nicole-belle/week-memoriam-139

Add to del.icio.us   Digg this   Post to Furl   Add to reddit   Add to myYahoo!

I'm sorry...would you run that by me again

By @BGinKC

Michele "pinwheel eyes" Bachmann was on the teevee machine this morning, appearing on Meet the Press to defend the GOP and downplay the war the republican House majority and rethug-controlled statehouses all over the country have waged against women since taking their seats in January of last year.

It's almost like they came into their offices determined to punish us uppity sluts because we left them for a black guy a couple years earlier.

Anyway, back to Shelly and MTP...Regular readers know that I am fond of pointing out that Irony is not only not dead, it is in robust health and peak condition, and appears poised to live a long, long life, flourishing so long as republicans continue to exist.

Rep. Michele Bachmann (R-MN), who wants to outlaw abortion and restrict coverage of female contraception, on Sunday insisted that Republican members of Congress "want women to have their own choices."

During a Sunday interview on NBC, Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand (D-NY) spoke out against a Republican effort to allow employers to restrict health plans from covering contraceptives for women.

"The Republican Party of the House of Representatives have made it part of their agenda that they want bosses to tell women what medicines they are eligible to take," she explained. "Nothing could be more insulting. Ninety-nine percent of America's women take birth control in their lifetime. This is a debate that has long been settled."

"But this Congress - starting with H.R. 1 - has made an effort...," Gillibrand said, before she was interrupted by the Minnesota congresswoman.

"That's a false portrayal," Bachmann argued. "What we want is women to be able to make their own choices. We want women to make choices."

"Not when your boss tells you, you can't," Gillibrand pointed out.

"We want health savings accounts and the ability to be able to make their own choices in health care," Bachmann insisted. "You see, that's the lie that happens under Obamacare. The president of the United States effectively becomes a health care dictator. Women don't need anyone to tell them what to do on health care. We want women to have their own choices, their own money."

"That waythey can make their own choices for their future on their own bodies," she added. [emphais mine]

Unless, of course, a woman chooses abortion. That's different. Somehow.

But you also have Ann Romney -- would someone explain the First Rule of Holes to her, please?

She's been so sheltered that's she's practically helpless and totally clueless about what she's up against here...to the point that I'm starting to get that same sick feeling I would get when I was a teenager and I watched documentaries that showed scenes of baby seals getting clubbed.

But. she. won't. shut. up.

"And I think that all of us need to know that we need to respect choices that women make. Other women make other choices, to have a career and raise a family, which I think Hillary Rosen has actually done herself."

Seriously? Again, unless she chooses to have an abortion. Or to get her reproductive healthcare through Planned Parenthood. He's going to get rid of that. Or to stay home with her kids. He's going to give her the dignity of work, instead. Father knows best, you know. But yeah, other than that, he is totally cool with women making their own choices.

She also insists that she knows what it's like to "struggle."

"Believe me....I've suffered economic hardships. When Mitt was in grad school at Harvard, it was 'touch and go'..... We were living on the edge, no income, chipping away at our stocks to make ends meet.... no entertaining..."  

The horror! I don't know how the poor dear possibly endured such hardship! I'm so sorry I haven't been more sympathetic to her plight. Why, this changes everyting! In light of this news -- she was forced to sell stock to get by! -- Bless her heart, I take back everything I've said about her since last week.

Oh wait...no I don't. But she seriously needs to stifle, because all she's managing to do is show that Mittens isn't necessarily the most tone-deaf half of the couple.  


Read The Full Article:
http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/TheyGaveUsARepublic-FrontPage/~3/CJpHK4h-zps/im-so
rrywould-you-run-that-by-me-again

Add to del.icio.us   Digg this   Post to Furl   Add to reddit   Add to myYahoo!

Mr. 14% Romney filed for tax extension due just
before election

Politicians from both parties are already bad with transparency, but this is ridiculous. Mr. 14% tax rate has to be worried about discounted rate while regular working Americans suffer through this economy wondering how they will make ends meet. At the moment it sounds like he has his tax team on this to make it look less embarrassing for Romney. Who believes that his tax rate is suddenly going to look anything remotely like the unwashed masses? It's going to take some work to make this anywhere near the rate that others are paying.

Romney will only be able to hide this information until October if everyone allows him to get away with it. Obama is now calling for Mr. 14% to release his taxes for the past 12 years, as Obama has already done. While Romney is at it, he needs to start explaining why he needs a secret Swiss account and billionaire Warren Buffet doesn't. More from the Boston Globe.

Read The Full Article:
http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/Americablog/~3/ZZNPOPCQ-HA/mr-14-romney-filed-for-
tax-extension.html

Add to del.icio.us   Digg this   Post to Furl   Add to reddit   Add to myYahoo!

This Week: Geithner Says Romney's Accusation of
Administration's 'War on Women' Is Ridiculous

Click here to view this media

On This Week with George Stephanopoulos, George demonstrates his Villager chops by once again refusing to address issues with anything other than the most superficial means possible. Now, he's not stupid. Even though he knows why so many women lost their jobs at that phase of the recession (namely, due to Republican obstructionism and their refusal to back economic stimulus), he knows that his job as a political chess piece is to allow Tim Geithner to defend the administration without adding the taint of his fact-based observations.

Now, Geithner blows it. He doesn't bring up the facts. Instead, he just dismisses the argument and says, "it's a ridiculous argument, it's already been debunked." Debunked by WHO, Tiny Tim? Debunked HOW?

Since Geither dropped the ball, why wouldn't the host want to insert known facts into that discussion? George, isn't your job as an alleged journalist to contradict or strengthen the arguments of your guests? WHY ARE YOU THERE, George? To show off your chiseled jaw and perfect hair? Arghh.

STEPHANOPOULOS: Women have been front and center in the presidential race this week. And Governor Romney tried to turn the table on Democrats, who said that Republicans have prosecuted a war on women with this argument.

Listen.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

MITT ROMNEY (R), PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: The real war on women has been waged by the policies of the Obama administration, because...

(APPLAUSE)

ROMNEY: -- did you know that of all the jobs lost during the Obama years, 92.3 percent of them are women. During the Obama years, women have suffered.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

STEPHANOPOULOS: Now I -- I know you disagree with the point that Governor Romney is making. But that number he's citing, 92.3 percent of the job losses are women, is accurate, isn't it?

GEITHNER: It's a -- it's a ridiculous way to look at the problem. And this is a political moment and you're going to be seeing -- just to borrow a line from Mario Cuomo -- you're going to see a lot of politicians choose to campaign in fiction. But we have to govern in fact.

And this crisis was a very damaging crisis, hurt everybody. And it began in, as you know, in early 2008. And a lot of the early job losses in 2008 affected men, because they affected construction and manufacturing.

And as the crisis spread and state and local governments were forced to cut back on services and fire a lot of teachers, that caused a lot of damage to women, too.

But what matters is -- and this is why this debate is so important -- is what can we do to help families across the America -- America, men and women, not just get -- get back to work, but help them afford college, help them get access to affordable health care, preventative care, and make sure that we're strengthening this important safety net at a time where so many Americans are suffering.

And that's the debate we're having across the country. And that's a good debate to have.

STEPHANOPOULOS: But you completely reject his argument?

GEITHNER: Oh, it's a ridiculous argument. Ridiculous. It's been largely debunked this week by the people who have looked at it.

STEPHANOPOULOS: Even though, but you -- you do concede that the number is correct?

It's -- it's technically accurate?

Oh, for heaven's sake, George, give it a rest! Who cares if it's "technically accurate" WHEN THE CONTEXT TELLS THE REAL STORY? But Tiny Tim isn't such a great surrogate for the administration.

GEITHNER: But, you know, again, the crisis began in early 2008, a year before the president took office. It was gaining momentum throughout 2008, even coming up to the time of the inauguration.

You know, unemployment -- as you know, the GDP, at that point, was falling. The economy was contracting at an annual rate of almost 9 percent at that point. We were losing 750,000 jobs a month, devastating damage. Now -- and it hurt men and women. It hurt families across the country. There's no doubt about it.

And, again, the early job losses were concentrated in manufacturing and construction. A lot of men lost jobs then. A lot of women lost jobs later on.

The question we should all be debating is what can we do to make the economy stronger and make sure the gains of growth are -- are shared more broadly?

And the president's policies are making the economy stronger. And the alternatives proposed by his opposition would be devastating, not just to the safety net, but to investments in education. They would be very damaging to the economy. And we're not going to support them.

Read The Full Article:
http://crooksandliars.com/susie-madrak/week-geithner-says-romneys-accusation

Add to del.icio.us   Digg this   Post to Furl   Add to reddit   Add to myYahoo!