When to withdraw: getting out of Afghanistan

Posted on May 13, 2011 by William Brighenti

O`DONNELL: Still to come, how much money can we save if we withdraw from Afghanistan now that bin Laden is gone?

And Melissa Harris-Perry on the fury from Republicans over a musician`s visit to the White House.

O`DONNELL: You`ve got to wonder why it took the CIA so long to find Osama bin Laden. They can afford HBO. In fact, you know, even if they can`t afford HBO, they`re the CIA. They could get HBO.

If they`ve been watching Bill Maher`s show two and a half years ago, CIA might have found bin Laden a lot faster.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: I wish.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: He`s in a cave somewhere.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: He`s not. I just talked to somebody very knowledgeable.

(CROSSTALK)

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: This woman who is —

(CROSSTALK)

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: By the way, Sarah Palin.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: — a villa in — it`s in a nice comfortable villa in Pakistan.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Kabul?

(END VIDEO CLIP)

O`DONNELL: Up next, how much longer should U.S. troops stay in Afghanistan now that bin Laden is gone?

O`DONNELL: When federal deficit reduction measure receiving increased support since the killing of Osama bin Laden is reducing military spending. Through the draw down of the over 100,000 United States troops currently in Afghanistan, White House Press Secretary Jay Carney defined the commander- in-chief`s position on possible withdrawal today.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

JAY CARNEY, WHITE HOUSE PRESS SECRETARY: The president has a policy in Afghanistan. It very explicitly contains within it a transition point in July of 2011 where we begin to drawdown U.S. forces. The pace of that drawdown, the scope of that drawdown depends on conditions on the ground. And the president has yet to receive a recommendation for the first — the number for the first movement of troops out in that drawdown.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

O`DONNELL: According to “The Wall Street Journal,” U.S. military offices will propose the president withdraw a whopping 5,000 troops by July, and as many as another 5,000 by the year`s end. Though troop levels would go down, the president`s 2012 budget request for military operations in Afghanistan would remain about the same about $11,000 billion, roughly the amount we`ve spent in 2011.

That request sounds excessive to the combat veteran who currently chairs the Senate Foreign Relations Committee.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

SEN. JOHN KERRY (D), MASSACHUSETTS: It is fundamentally unsustainable to continue spending $10 billion a month on a massive military operation with no end in sight. The good news is: I believe we don`t have to. I`m convinced that we can achieve our core goals at a more sustainable cost in both lives and dollars and structure.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

O`DONNELL: But today, the House Intelligence Committee chairman suggested that now is not the time to apply fiscal restraint to the effort in Afghanistan.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

REP. MIKE ROGERS (R), MICHIGAN: Al Qaeda is alive and well. They are hurt. They`re damaged. They`re inspirational and operational leader has been taken off the battlefield, which is a huge opportunity for us.

The confusion with them is opportunity for us. And this is the time to step on the gas and break their back. This is the wrong time to back off on funding the intelligence committee — community, excuse me, when they`re very close to technological breakthroughs.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

O`DONNELL: Joining me now Democratic congressman from Ohio, Dennis Kucinich.

Thanks for joining me tonight, Congressman.

REP. DENNIS KUCINICH (D), OHIO: Thank you, Lawrence. Good to be with you.

O`DONNELL: Congressman, we just heard John Kerry say that the $10 billion a month sun sustainable, but we could achieve the core goals with a less expensive presence there. Then we hear the House Intelligence Committee Chairman Rogers saying, no, no, now is the time to — now that Osama bin Laden`s out of the picture, they`re weakened. Now is the time to go after them even harder, presumably spend more money if necessary.

What is the right way to go on this?

KUCINICH: That, in a sense, my friend Congressman Rogers, to follow his logic, we`re look at a second surge, then.

Look, this war in Afghanistan has become a nightmare. The occupation has fuelled the insurgency just like in Iraq. We don`t have any honest partner to deal with there. People we fund one day are fighting our soldiers the next.

We have to get out of there. We cannot afford it in any way. And we`re — if you look at the rate of withdrawal that the White House is talking about, “The Wall Street Journal” reported, they`ll slow walk this war right through 2020-2021, at the cost of another $1.2 trillion. We can`t afford it, and the blood, treasure — by every measure, this is wrong. And now is the time to get out.

O`DONNELL: According to “USA Today”/Gallup poll released today, the majority of Americans, 59 percent now believe that the mission is accomplished in Afghanistan, and we should bring the troops home, 36 percent say keep the troops there. And also, Republicans are now split on whether to withdraw or keep troops in Afghanistan, 47 percent straight Republican Party split on it.

Congressman, it seems like there isn`t a political price to pay for withdrawal. It seems like the popular political choice would be withdrawal at this point.

KUCINICH: Well, you know, sometimes it`s worth respecting the innate wisdom of the people as is being expressed right now. An overwhelming majority of Americans feel our work is done in Afghanistan.

And we also have to keep in mind that with over 10 million Americans unemployed, with 50 million Americans still without health care, with millions of Americans losing their home, with people worried about their retirement security, this is the time for us to come home and start taking care of the economic problems here, which are quite formidable.

So, I think the American people if asked, would you rather take care of things here at home or would you rather spend another trillion dollars in Afghanistan, I think the numbers would go much higher than 59 percent, 60 percent approval for that position.

O`DONNELL: One of the new theories of engagement in Afghanistan — I mean new literally in the last fortnight, is that this is where we base our moves into Pakistan. This is where SEAL Team Six launched from to go into Pakistan, to go get Osama bin Laden. And so, even if what we need to do is these kinds of strikes inside Pakistan, we need to hold a base in Afghanistan in order to launch those.

KUCINICH: OK, let`s look at that. What the underlying assumption is there we`re going to have more war with Pakistan. There`s a point at which Pakistan may start to fight back. We`ve got to be very careful about spreading ourselves so thin that we not only weaken our military, we also leave American vulnerable.

And, you know, we`re — we have our drones over Pakistan, over Yemen, over Libya, over Iraq. We are — we`re in Afghanistan. We are right now at war throughout the region.

It`s time that we put the brakes on this impulse towards war before we get sucked into more war. And if you look at this, this so-called Detainee Security Act, that they`re having hearings on right now, Lawrence, it`s a license for never ending war.

When do we say enough is enough? Stop the wars and start taking care of things here at home. When do we say that? When we do just let`s take care of things here at home, mind our own business and have a strong enough security at home that no one would dare mess with us?

O`DONNELL: Now, you co-signed a letter with other House Democrats to the Armed Services Committee chairman, asking for these hearings on the Defense Authorization Act. The letter read, in part, “By declaring a global war against nameless individuals, organizations and nations associated with the Taliban and al Qaeda, as well as those playing a supporting role in their efforts, the Detainee Security Act — what you just mentioned — would appear to grant the president never unfettered authority to initiate military action around the world.”

So, this otherwise obscure Detainee Security Act would actually, in your view, expand the president`s war-making authority?

KUCINICH: There`s no question about it. I mean, you know, there`s a point at which this very intricate balance of power which the Founders of our country put together and enshrined in the Constitution is about to be totally dismantled. It`s not — it`s bad enough that President Obama ignored the Congress in taking us into a war in Libya. But it becomes even worse when members of Congress are talking about changing the very structure of our laws so that the president can at, you know, at his instance just initiate war against anyone because we say, well, there`s terror suspects in this country.

We`ve got to be very careful that we don`t ruin our democracy with this seemingly insatiable instinct to use aggression as a means of trying to settle our differences with groups and other countries. Should we pursue terrorists? Yes. But as an army? No. As an international police force? Yes.

O`DONNELL: One of the strangest power dynamics of the second half of the 20th century has been watching the Congress slowly surrender its war- making authority to the White House.

KUCINICH: Absolutely right.

O`DONNELL: Congressman Dennis Kucinich, Democrat from Ohio — thank you very much for joining us tonight.

KUCINICH: Thank you.

Posted in Accountants CPA Hartford, Articles | Tagged , , , | Leave a comment

Debt drama: debt and the deficit.

Posted on May 13, 2011 by William Brighenti

O`DONNELL: Joining me now, MSNBC contributor, Ezra Klein, columnist for “The Washington Post.”

Thanks for joining me tonight, Ezra.

EZRA KLEIN, MSNBC CONTRIBUTOR: Good evening.

O`DONNELL: Ezra, the Republican demands on the debt ceiling have shifted. There`s different groups asking for different things. And one of the things they want is a balanced budget amendment.

This seems to me like something you could just say, OK, sure, we`ll do a balanced budget amendment. You`ll never ratify a balanced budget amendment. It`s impossible to do it, amendment to the Constitution to balance the budget.

KLEIN: Bruce Bartlett is a former Reagan economic official and he looked at this. And he said, this amendment, he said, is the dumbest proposed amendment I have ever seen. It looks like it was written on the back of a napkin.

And it does.

Here`s how extreme the balanced budget amendment the Senate Republicans passed is — it would rule the Ryan budget, the GOP budget unconstitutional because it`s too profligate. It spends too much money.

So, one of the current ways you can sort of sum up the Republican position on the debt ceiling is that in order to raise the debt ceiling, we need to pass a balanced amendment that will make the Republican budget unconstitutional. It`s not serious policymaking.

O`DONNELL: But you could promise them a vote on it and it will never become an actual amendment to the Constitution. Would that satisfy them to just have a vote on it?

KLEIN: I don`t know if it would satisfy them, I would prefer not to have a vote on it because, you know, you can have things pass unexpectedly. You can have bad consequences out of the financial crisis, a secondary recession coming from, you know, an unexpected spike in energy prices and then there`s some sort of movement in the states you just don`t expect.

That balanced budget amendment, I don`t know if people have taken a close look at it. But in effect, it would control — it would hold spending down. It`s not just budget. What it really does is it says spending can`t be above 18 percent of GDP in the previous year, which means about 16.7 percent of GDP in any given year.

Right now, spending is 24 percent of GDP. So, you would essentially have to cut the federal government by 1/3, almost to half in order to get there. We have never done anything like that before. You can`t do that and keep Medicare and Medicaid, Social Security and the military. It wouldn`t be possible.

O`DONNELL: Now, do you believe anyone on Wall Street actually told Eric Cantor, hey, yes, don`t worry about raising the debt ceiling, it`s not important to us?

KLEIN: I want to put Eric Cantor in a room with a bunch of folks on Wall Street who will them that we need some revenue in this country. And see if he comes back and says, well, just on Wall Street, we need tax hikes.

Look, as you can see in the graph we`ve got here, the single largest policy contributor to our deficits going forward are the Bush tax cuts. You extend those and you`re looking at $4 trillion in new debt. Boehner is saying to raise the debt ceiling, he wants $2 trillion in spending cuts. So, if you add those policies up, his tax cuts are double, on the debt, what the spending cuts would take away from the deficit.

It`s really important to realize that we`re not having a deficit conversation on both sides here. The Republicans are having a conversation about tax cuts and the size of government. And Democrats are, I think, actually more broadly having what they think is a deficit conversation. But that`s dangerous not to be actually having a dangerous conversation over the debt ceiling, because when the two parties aren`t speaking about the same thing, that makes it harder to reach an agreement. And as Senator Sanders pointed out I think quite correctly, if we don`t reach an agreement on the debt ceiling, the consequences of that will be functionally unimaginable for the global financial system.

O`DONNELL: Though a lot of us have been, I think, possible to some of the audience, troublingly non-specific when we get into what the disaster of the debt ceiling would be. And partially, that`s because we`ve never seen it happen. We`re talking about a catastrophe that we`ve absolutely never bothered to chart out before because this was always, as you know referred to in the Congress as a must-pass bill, which meant both parties knew it had to pass.

They could stump about it. They could make speeches about it. But they couldn`t get in the way of it actually passing. They had to make sure there`d be 51 votes in the Senate and just enough in the House to get the thing passed.

It seems that the Republicans in the House do not understand — I mean, genuinely do not understand that.

KLEIN: Well, let me — it`s useful to be specific as you say. So, take the financial crisis we had two years ago, three years ago now. And imagine it basically 1,000 times worse.

What happened in the financial crisis is we had a class of assets, these bonds backed by houses. We thought it was safe. It wasn`t safe. And when it wasn`t safe, when it turned out to be risky, the entire financial system froze because nobody knew how much money they really had and nobody knew if they were going to get paid back. That`s in the real simple terms what happened.

The singular safest asset in the entire global financial system, the asset on which everything else is based upon, is the treasury security. It is our government`s debt, our government`s capacity to pay back creditors. If that goes into doubt, if the financial system cannot trust the bedrock of the entire system, we will have a financial crisis that makes what we just went through look like child`s play. It will be nothing compared to what we`ll see.

O`DONNELL: Ezra Klein of “The Washington Post” with that good news — thank you very much for joining me tonight, Ezra.

KLEIN: Thank you.

Posted in Accountants CPA Hartford, Articles | Tagged , , , , | Leave a comment

Debt ceiling disaster looms. Debt limit fight.

Posted on May 13, 2011 by William Brighenti

O`DONNELL: Good evening from New York.

This afternoon, President Obama met with the Senate Democratic Caucus to discuss a path forward on the budget, deficit reduction and a vote on the debt limit. The president is expected to meet with Senate Republicans tomorrow.

Also, today, the chairman of the president`s Council of Economic Advisors, Austan Goolsbee, said in a speech to the Chicagoland Chamber of Commerce, “To tie deficit reduction to the debt limit in my view is quite insane. If we hit the debt ceiling, we default. It`s like trying to lose weight by cutting off your head.”

But, congressional Republicans are insisting on linking deficit reduction to the debt limit. Here`s House Majority Leader Eric Cantor talking about the debt limit at a news conference this morning.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

CANTOR: I started off the week with a visit to the New York Stock Exchange, and while there, talked to many individuals engaged in our capital markets, investors, traders and the rest. The message that I heard was: keep at it, don`t back down, cut spending, reform entitlements and make sure we get our fiscal house in order. And in particular, they were focused on the issue before us as far as increasing the debt ceiling in this country. What I heard and what I believe is, it is reckless for us to increase the credit limit of this country without cutting spending, without reforming entitlements, without getting our fiscal house in order.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

O`DONNELL: That is a new belief for Eric Cantor. Eric Cantor did not believe it was reckless to increase the credit limit of the country without cutting spending, reforming entitlements or getting our fiscal house in order when he voted multiple times to raise the debt limit when President Bush was in office. It is either reckless to increase the debt limit without cutting spending or it isn`t.

Nothing reveals the emptiness of Congressman Cantor`s words more than his own voting record on the debt limit.

Joining me now is independent Senator Bernie Sanders of Vermont, a member of the Senate Budget Committee who met with President Obama today.

Thank you for joining us tonight, Senator Sanders.

SEN. BERNIE SANDERS (I), VERMONT: Good to be with you.

O`DONNELL: Senator, what happened in that meeting with the president today?

SANDERS: Well, I don`t know that it`s useful to talk about what happened at a private meeting. What I can say is that many of us are sick and tired of seeing this country being blackmailed by Republican demands. These people are apparently willing to plunge the entire world into a financial crisis by not lifting the debt ceiling if they don`t get their way.

And I think enough is enough. They blackmailed us in terms of shutting down the government. They blackmailed us in December about extending unemployment benefits. And I am sick and tired of that. I think the American people are as well.

We need a good debate on the budget, but we don`t need blackmail.

O`DONNELL: Have you found in these meetings a way around this blackmail, which I think is the perfect word for what`s going on in the House of Representatives?

SANDERS: Lawrence, I think the answer is, yes. I think that every poll that I have seen suggests that the American people want shared sacrifice in helping us reduce a very serious deficit problem.

They think it is — makes no sense at all that at a time when the wealthiest people in this country are doing extremely well and while the middle class has been really hurt by the recession that you give huge tax breaks to the wealthy and you cut back on programs that the middle class desperately needs like Medicare, Medicaid, Pell grants, et cetera. People want shared sacrifice, which means that the wealthiest people who have enjoyed hundreds of billions of dollars in tax breaks, who have seen their effective tax rate go down to the lowest level in recent history, they`ve got to pony up. They`ve also got to help out in deficit reduction.

Corporations that make billions in profits and pay nothing in taxes, you know what? They also have to corporate.

We need shared sacrifice not simply massive cuts in programs for low and moderate income Americans.

O`DONNELL: Senator Sanders, there seems to be confusion in the public, generally, about what the debt ceiling is and what it does. It does not incur any new debt. It simply accepts the fact that debt has been incurred over the last 10 years, over the recent times, and that this is a way of assuring that the debt that has been incurred will actually be paid. It`s paying our bills.

SANDERS: Exactly.

O`DONNELL: It`s fiscal sanity.

Do you think you have enough time between now and the moment when the debt ceiling will have to be raised sometime this summer to actually get the public educated to the point where there can be that political pressure brought on Republicans to get this thing done?

SANDERS: Lawrence, I think the answer to that is absolutely, yes. I think the word has got to go out that in fact for the first time — here`s what you are saying in English — for the first time in the history of this great country the United States will not be paying its bills. We will default. We will be a deadbeat.

And everybody knows that will have huge international consequences on international finance. It will raise interest rates in this country. It could perhaps bring about a depression worldwide.

I think what we have got to do is put pressure on the Republicans and say to them, you can`t do this. Yes, we`ve got to have a debate about the budget. But you can`t blackmail the president of the United States and the American people in catastrophic terms unless you get your way.

We`re tired of bullying. We`re tired of babies saying give it to us all or else we`re going to wreck the whole house. I don`t think that is what the American government should be about.

O`DONNELL: Senator, I would to put up on the screen a chart of what`s happened with the debt ceiling over the last decade from 2001 to 2008. It`s been raised several times. It`s had to have been raised.

And as I say as we talked about here, it doesn`t in any way increase spending. It simply acknowledges that the government has done this spending already. That the government has committed to this spending.

And it takes legislation to change the spending — the debt ceiling has nothing to do with incurring one additional dollar of spending.

SANDERS: That`s correct, Lawrence. And again, I think we need a good debate about how we move toward deficit reduction. But you cannot hold hostage the American people by refusing to raise the debt ceiling.

The other point that I would make is I think if you look at polls out there, the American people have a pretty good idea about how they want to move toward deficit reduction and it is certainly not the Republican plan.

People want us to take a hard look at military spending. Start bringing the troops home from Afghanistan. Start closing some military bases around the world that we may not need to maintain anymore. Do away with corporate loopholes. Ask the wealthy to start paying their fair share.

So, there are ways that we can move toward a balanced budget that are fair and responsible, not simply do it on the backs of the sick, the elderly, the children and the poor.

O`DONNELL: Senator Sanders, we`re going to discuss military spending and the possible drawdown in Afghanistan with Congressman Kucinich in another segment. But given that we have now gotten Osama bin Laden, do you think that affects the possibilities of military spending cuts in a way that we haven`t — we wouldn`t have been able to achieve before getting Osama bin Laden?

SANDERS: I mean, that`s hard to say, Lawrence. My own view before and after the killing of bin Laden is that after 10 years of war in Afghanistan, after spending this year perhaps $100 billion, the time is now for the Afghan government and the Afghan military to defend themselves. I think we can`t leave tomorrow. I think we`ve got to support their military and their police.

But I think we need to move out of Afghanistan as quickly as we possibly can.

O`DONNELL: Senator Bernie Sanders, independent of Vermont — thanks for joining us tonight.

SANDERS: Good to be with you.

Posted in Accountants CPA Hartford, Articles | Tagged , , , , | Leave a comment

Crude reality. Challenging big oil on tax breaks.

Posted on May 12, 2011 by William Brighenti

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

SEN. JAY ROCKEFELLER (D-WV), FINANCE COMMITTEE: I think you`re out of touch, deeply, profoundly out of touch and deeply and profoundly committed to sharing nothing.

JOHN WATSON, CHEVRON CEO: I don`t think the American people want shared sacrifice. I think they want shared prosperity. And what we have to offer —

ROCKEFELLER: Oh, just —

(CROSSTALK)

ROCKEFELLER: — lovely statement. But do you understand how out of touch that is? We don`t get to shared prosperity until we get to shared sacrifice.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

MATTHEWS: Wow. Welcome back. That was a big exchange between Senator Jay Rockefeller of West Virginia and the CEO and chairman of Chevron, and it highlights the anger on display today in the Senate hearings. Oil company executives testified before the Senate Finance Committee today that they need big tax breaks. But in a year with record profits for oil companies that everybody knows about and rising gas prices everybody has to pay, their timing is pretty bad.

Joining me right now (INAUDIBLE) Finance Committee members, Senator Chuck Schumer of New York and Senator Debbie Stabenow of Michigan.

Senator Schumer, what`s going on with the oil companies? They seem to benefit — every time there`s any kind of kerfuffle in the Middle East, all oil goes up, even though a lot of it — most of it we get doesn`t come from over there. Why do oil prices always go up when anything happens in the Middle East, even though we don`t really rely on them for all the oil?

SEN. CHUCK SCHUMER (D-NY), FINANCE COMMITTEE: It`s called lack of competition. One of the worst moves that was made — and this was made by Democratic and Republican administrations alike — was to let them all merge. Imagine ExxonMobil, ChevronTexaco, BPAmoco. When you only have four or five big companies, they control it all and they don`t compete on price. So when the price of a barrel of oil goes up, the price at the gas pump goes up very fast. When the price of the barrel of oil goes down, it`s very sticky and goes down slowly because they don`t compete. Plain and simple.

And probably the best thing we could do is break them up, go back to the days when there were 10 or 15 world competitors, not just four or five. But that`s not going to happen.

MATTHEWS: Well, do you think there`s price leadership? do you think there`s price leadership? Do you think —

SCHUMER: Absolutely.

MATTHEWS: — there`s restraint of trade here?

SCHUMER: Absolutely.

MATTHEWS: Do you think a restraint of trade here?

SCHUMER: Absolutely.

MATTHEWS: Can you prove it? Can you prove it?

SCHUMER: No.

MATTHEWS: Can you prove collusion?

SCHUMER: I think, if it could be proven, they wouldn`t do it. It`s very hard to prove, because they don`t get in a room and conspire. Just one of them raises the price, and the next day, everyone else magically comes up with the same idea —

MATTHEWS: Yes.

SCHUMER: — and raises the price the same amount. That`s not illegal, at least at this point.

MATTHEWS: No, it`s price leadership. It`s the — well, it`s industrialization organization.

Let`s take a look. Senator Stabenow, let`s take a look at this comment. Here`s a press release formally put out by Conoco, the big oil company. Now, this is amazingly destructive language.

“ConocoPhillips highlights solid results and raises concerns over un- American tax proposals at an annual meeting of shareholders.”

What`s that about, where they`re attacking anybody who questions their tax status as un-American?

SEN. DEBBIE STABENOW (D), MICHIGAN: Well, it`s really shocking, Chris.

And, at the hearing today, my good friend Chuck Schumer asked them specifically about that. Other colleagues as well asked them — asked him to apologize for that, the idea that it`s un-American to say that, with huge deficits that we have in this country, where we`re trying to figure out what needs to be cut in order to move forward that we wouldn`t look at, in some cases, 100-year-old tax breaks that have been given to the oil companies, back when a barrel of oil was $17?

Now it`s over $100. Highest profits of any corporation in the world, and then they have the audacity to not only sock it to us at the pump and hold us hostage because they — there is no competition, but then taxpayers have to pay on top of that.

MATTHEWS: Yes.

STABENOW: So, when we look at how we`re going to bring down the deficit, what should go, this is definitely something that should go. And let me just add one other thing.

If folks want to go out and buy one of these great new American-made electric vehicles that we`re making in Detroit and in Michigan, as well as other vehicles, that`s a great way to get off of foreign oil.

MATTHEWS: Let`s take a look at Senator Schumer.

Here you are, sir, today taking on the chairman of ConocoPhillips. Let`s listen.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

SCHUMER: Do you think anyone who advocates cutting these subsidies is un-American? Yes or no?

JAMES MULVA, CHAIRMAN AND CEO, CONOCOPHILLIPS: Well —

SCHUMER: Yes or no, sir. That one, we deserve a yes-or-no answer on. It was your release that said un-American.

Do you apologize for it?

Do any of you others consider it un-American to be against the subsidy that you`re for? If you do, raise your hand.

All right, thank you. I appreciate the other four of you not labeling those who are different from you un-American.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

MATTHEWS: Well, do you make of this, Senator, that the Republicans in the Congress do defend these tax breaks? They obviously benefit from them for financial support.

But this is such an old argument. You probably grew up on it, like I did. The oil companies control the Senate. How does that happen? Why do they get the tax breaks from the Congress?

SCHUMER: Well, they got the tax breaks because of lobbyists and political muscle. But, you know, we`re in a different era in two ways.

One, oil is $100 a barrel, not $30, not $40, not $50. Their profits are greater than they have ever been. But, second, we have a huge deficit. And everyone is supposed to sacrifice. I mean, some of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle are saying, let`s cut cancer research, let`s cut loans to middle-class families to help them pay for tuition.

Do — does anyone, does anyone, except these five executives, think that those should be cut —

MATTHEWS: Yes.

SCHUMER: — before we take back these tax breaks that they don`t need?

STABENOW: Right.

SCHUMER: I mean, it`s — it`s just — you know, I sat at that hearing and I said, the five of them are in their own little world. They probably go to something called the Petroleum Club in Houston and they just talk to one another. They don`t even understand the world that they`re in.

MATTHEWS: I think the Petroleum Club is in Tulsa, actually, but there is one.

SCHUMER: OK. Well, I — theoretically, yes.

MATTHEWS: And they all get together there. You`re right, though. It does exist.

(CROSSTALK)

SCHUMER: Whatever its name is.

MATTHEWS: It exists.

STABENOW: Right.

MATTHEWS: Let me ask you, Senator Stabenow, why do they —

SCHUMER: It`s not — it`s not called the shared sacrifice club, I assure you.

MATTHEWS: No, it`s not.

STABENOW: Right. Right.

MATTHEWS: No, I don`t think so.

Let me ask you, Senator Stabenow, about the question of power.

STABENOW: Right.

MATTHEWS: Do the auto companies that you have to represent geographically and economically, do they want this? Why do they want — why aren`t they fighting the oil companies?

It seems to me it`s — it`s almost a contradiction that they wouldn`t be opposed to — they would want cheaper gas, so they can get people to buy their cars and travel with them.

STABENOW: Well, they`re not advocating for these subsidies. They`re not advocating for higher prices. That`s for sure.

I mean, right now, they`re out rushing — I will be with GM tomorrow. They`re announcing 4,200 new jobs coming in Michigan related to the Chevy Volt, because it`s doing so well. Ford has announced 7,000 new jobs. Chrysler put a second shift in Detroit at the Jefferson plant for their great new vehicles.

I mean, we`re coming back because they`re making great new advanced- technology vehicles. And, you know, Chris, I think there`s one more really important thing. And that is the undertone today of the hearing was that somehow, if we took away these taxpayer subsidies, they were going to raise our prices again.

MATTHEWS: Yes.

STABENOW: These billions of dollars in subsidies amount to about 1 percent — 1 percent of their profits. So, it`s absolutely ridiculous on the face of it.

And today, I said to them, does that mean that if we added more tax dollars, you would bring down our gas prices? I asked each of them, how much would it take for us to give you as taxpayers to bring down our prices? And none of them would — would answer that.

MATTHEWS: I think it`s time to play hardball with these guys.

Thank you very much, Chuck Schumer of New York, and Debbie Stabenow, the senator from Michigan.

STABENOW: Thank you.

Posted in Accountants CPA Hartford, Articles | Tagged , , , , , , | 2 Comments

Slick politics: big oil fights to keep tax breaks and retorts opposing oil subsidies is “un-American”.

Posted on May 12, 2011 by William Brighenti

 

Today the CEOs of big oil companies came to Washington to try to defend the indefensible: $4 billion in tax breaks each year taken out of the taxpayers’ pockets. That would be you that they are taking it from. With Democrats fighting to end those subsidies once and for all, executives from the top 5 oil companies tried to claim they paid their fair share in taxes, which is nonsense. Of course, Democrats on the Finance Committee of the Senate today were having none of it.

Mr. Watson: The oil and gas industry pay their fair share of taxes.

Other Oil CEO: We pay our full share.

Rockefeller: In the case of ExxonMobil, your effective Federal tax rate is 3% lower than the Federal tax rate of the average individual. I think you’re out of touch: deeply, profoundly out of touch.

The truth is that the oil companies don’t even come close to paying their fair share. Over the last three years, ExxonMobil had an effective tax rate of 17.6%. That’s 3% less than what the average American pays in income taxes.

So if you are a middle class American, you are paying a higher tax rate than the richest company in the world. Does that sound fair to you?

Senator Chuck Schumer also drilled the Conoco Phillips CEO about his company’s statement that opposing the oil subsidies was “un-American”.

Schumer: Do you think that anyone advocating these subsidies is un-American?

Conoco Phillips CEO: That’s a very important statement. Can I take a moment to respond to that?

Schumer: Do you apologize for that?… I know your view on the issue. Do you consider it un-American to have a different view? Yes or no?

Conoco Phillips CEO: Senator, I believe that the proposal on the table for consideration is going to have a very adverse impact with respect to energy policy.

Get a load of these guys: so not letting big oil companies skip out on paying their taxes is un-American. I guess in their version of America, where they buy our politicians to do their bidding, yeah, then it would be un-American. Today it wasn’t the first time around the block for these big oil guys. The big oil executives faced a similar panel back in 2005. Now at that time Senator Ron Wyden asked the executives if they agreed with President Bush, who said oil companies do not need incentives when oil prices are so high. And back then it was just at $55 per barrel. The oil executives replied that they did not need incentives but access. So they agreed: no need for incentives.

Wyden played that 2005 clip for them today and then hit them with this:

Wyden: If your companies did not need incentives to drill for oil at $55/barrel, how in the world could you need incentives when oil is at $100/barrel?

James Mulva, Conoco Phillips Chairman & CEO: Our costs go up, our taxes go up….

That’s a joke. Their costs are nearly identical to what they were back then. And their taxes have not gone up one dime; in fact, their effective tax rate has gone way down. Do you know what has gone up? What you pay at the gas pump and the incredible profits these oil companies make.

So where do they get the nerve? Look, they’re sitting there and telling the Senators anything that they like. They were cocky today. They were telling them that they were not going to back down on anything. Why? Because they figure that they already bought Congress. You want me to show you how?

Since 1998, big oil spent $1.1 billion on lobbying. Last year alone they spent $146 million. So the Senators can say all they like, but they know that there’s nothing that’s going to go past the House because in the House they bought all the Republicans. Do you know how much they paid the Republicans last year?

They paid them $21.8 million in direct campaign contributions. So that’s why they get to sit up there and be the welfare queens that they are and take all of our money and then they laugh at us. These guys are the worse at not believing in the free market. All those conservatives talk about the free market. Nonsense. All they do is leech off of us.

Now let’s bring in Senator Claire McCaskill from Missouri, co-sponsor of the bill to roll back the big oil subsidies. Please tell me about your bill, how much does it take away in oil subsidies, and do you think it has a chance of passing.

McCaskill: We have tried to do the simplist bill possible by limiting it to the five biggest oil companies. These are the same five oil companies that made a profit of over $35 billion just in the last three months. So the fact that we’re limiting it to the big guys and not going after the small independent producers. And secondly, all of this money is going to go towards the deficit. What I can’t imagine is that all these guys around here talking about the deficit and the debt, and they are not willing to step up and take away these tax goodies from the wealthiest and the most profitable corporations in the history of the world.

“Close Big Oil Tax Loopholes Act”: The Menendez–McCaskill–Brown Plan cuts $21 billion in tax breaks over 10 years; it target the top 5 oil companies.

Senator McCaskill, we know that when you go to pass it, the Republicans are just going to fillibuster and you have two Democrats who are on their side, Mary Landrieu and Mark Begich, and you know that in the House, the Republicans totally control it, they just voted in unison against cutting these subsidies because their bosses are the big oil companies, there is no question about that.

But when you go into negotiations about what to cut next because that’s coming next, is it possible that Democrats can say, and will they say, that we are not going to do any cuts until you agree to these cuts that 74% of the American people agree to and this is the first set of cuts that we have to have, otherwise no deal on any cuts?

McCaskill: I think we are going to be in a very strong negotiating position because if we do not have the political will to cut these subsidies to big oil, how are we going to find the political will to cut the subsidies of all the other parts of our economic picture right now. As you said, we are not talking about a free market, we are talking about subsidizing a lot of big corporations in a lot of different ways: all of those tax goodies that are in the tax code got there via lobbyists. Really, we can lower taxes and have more revenue if we were to focus on the people that didn’t have lobbyists and take all those goodies away.

So if these guys can’t go for this very reasonable approach to reduce the tax subsidies to corporations, I do not know how we can take them seriously on any of the deficit reduction.

Senator, I want to show you a clip from one of the welfare queens that was in the Senate today, that CEO for ExxonMobil, Rex Tillerson, he had the nerve to threaten us. Here’s the video clip.

Tillerson: If you give me a different tax burden than what my competitor has, then I don’t get to develop that lease. Since the U.S. is not attractive, I am going to take my capital and go somewhere else.

And he wasn’t the only one. There were two CEOs who said that they would leave the U.S. I would say, good, God Bless, go to Somalia, see how it would treat you. And in 2009 they actually paid $15 billion in taxes to other countries and none to us. How do you take that threat from a guy like that.

McCaskill: I think it’s frankly a little nervy. The customers of these oil companies that are in this country are paying very high prices right now. The people I represent are hurting because of gas prices. And these guys have been wildly profitable. The notion that they have to get subsidies from the United States taxpayer or they are going to leave our shores is un-American. That is un-American.

And by the way, there are plenty of other companies in the world that do drilling, and do you know how much profit they got just in 2010? The top five oil companies alone got $74 billion in profits. So for them to say that they will take their business elsewhere is a joke. So it’s one thing to bring them up before the Senate Finance Committee, and it has brought this issue to light, and it was a great maneuver to do that so that the American people can get educated on that, but again I want to focus on what’s next. Is there a will within the caucus of the Senate for the Democrats to say we do not have any deal on cutting spending until you cut these subsidies.

McCaskill: I think what you are going to see is that we are going to bring the bill to the floor rather quickly and I am optimistic that there are still a few moderates left in the Republican Party that want to be consistent: you can’t say that we want to cut subsidies in our budget to help our deficit but we won’t touch the ones to big oil. And I think that this is going to be a very uncomfortable vote for many of the Republican Senators. So I am hopeful that we may get a few of them and that we may get enough votes to pass it. And if not, we will figure out the next best strategy to leverage this and get it passed. I think it is very important to stay on this one until we get it done.

Senator McCaskill, thank you for joining me tonight. Now joining me is John Hofmeister, the former President of Shell Oil, and he’s the founder of the Citizens for Affordable Energy and author of, “Why We Hate the Oil Companies: Straight Talk from an Energy Insider”. You were one of these guys in 2005 who answered that you didn’t need these subsidies, isn’t that correct?

Yes, that’s correct, Cenk.

As Senator Wyden pointed out today, we didn’t need these subsidies when oil was selling for $55 per barrel, is there any rational argument that these oil companies would need subsidies to promote drilling when oil is at $100 per barrel?

Hofmeister: What was happening today was show time, political theatre. What the companies are objecting to is being singled out. There is a deal out there to be made. And why the Senate, the House, the White House, and the industry won’t come together to figure out some deal. The U.S. needs more oil; we all know that. There’s oil to be had. The government needs more money. There’s money in oil. The American people need lower prices, where more oil will lower prices. There’s a deal here, and when the Democrats set out to punish just five companies, of course they are going to get pushed back. I would have pushed back. It is not the money, it is not the subsidies, it is the process. So how do we make a deal here that everybody could win.

John, I agree with you in 2005 when you said that you didn’t need the subsidies, and I think that you are saying that today. When you say that they are singling out these top five, you lose me entirely and I will tell you why. It is not that you are wrong about that. But if you say let us sit down and cut these oil subsidies, I would do that deal immediately. But the reason we cannot do that is because these politicians are bought. The entire Republican Party is in the tank for these guys. They got $21.8 million from these oil companies. Their votes have been bought literally by these oil companies. If I could get the Republicans to cut all of these oil companies, I would do that in a second. Isn’t that the problem? These guys won’t make a deal because their boss is the oil companies.

Hofmeister: The problem is 50% Republican and 50% Democratic. Both parties.

No way.

Hofmeister: Both parties. The Democrats have refused to drill. They have had the Senate for five years. We haven’t had a single energy plan in five years. 

John, let’s set the record straight. Are there Democrats in the tank for these guys? Absolutely. Mary Landrieu has gotten $794,844 in her career from Big Oil. And now she says this is a gimmick going after the oil subsidies. Mark Begich from Alaska has gotten $139,805 from these big oil companies, and he says the same thing, oh, poor oil companies; we need to give them more of our tax money. So do I believe in these Democrats? Hell, no. These Democrats are just as corrupt as the Republicans. But there are just two Democrats, whereas it’s the entire Republican party. You’ve got to see that.

Hofmeister: I get this question all the time at town hall meetings across the country. Why do we have legalized corruption in Washington D.C.? Why are we paying any money to a politician, anybody? If they are in for public service, why would any politician want money? I think the whole corrupt system of pay to play or whatever you call it, where you use all this money, Republicans and Democrats, is just legalized corruption. And it should go away.

John, I couldn’t agree more with that. But assume you are in the Senate and you got this bill in front of you. I would vote for it in a second. Is it the best bill? I would take away all of the oil subsidies. They are all totally indefensible. I would love to do clean elections. That is my number one issue. I totally agree with you there. But you got this bill in front of you. Who would you rather have this $21 billion. The oil companies who are making all of these profits, or the American people?

Hofmeister: I don’t think that is the solution. Oil companies need more money to plough back in to make more oil, the American government needs more money, and everybody needs more money. We get more money by producing more oil.  By producing more oil, we get more money, and everybody comes out ahead.  The consumers get lower prices, the government gets more taxes, and the oil companies get more money to make more oil.

John, that’s nonsense. They made $74 billion in profits last year. And just this quarter they made over $30 billion in profits. So it’s not like they are not making profits; their costs are incredibly low in comparison to the $100 per barrel of oil.  So they have all of the incentive in the world in the free market to drill, baby, drill.  And they can drill all over the place. And they can make that profit. Why should we not tax them at a reasonable rate. Right now they are paying less than the average middle class guy in the street. Why is a plumber paying higher than ExxonMobil. That is entirely unjustifiable.

Hofmeister: This is a 90 year old problem. These tax loophole subsidies go back 90 years. This is not a new problem. Why hasn’t it been settled before now? Why can’t these companies get permits? Why can’t they get leases? Why does the White House flip flop on whether they can drill or not?

They have all the permits and leases in the world. They got all these leases that they are not even using. John, these are all excuses. Is it a 90 year old problem, I absolutely agree. So let’s fix it today. Let’s vote yes on this bill. And then let’s vote yes on the next bill to get rid of the rest of the subsidies. If you are not going to do that, you are saying you are continuing the problem.

Hofmeister: Here is what I said in the House of Representatives two months ago. 3 million more barrels, 3 million more jobs, $20 billion to the Federal government, not $4 billion, $20 billion. That’s a whole lot more. All it would take is cooperation between the White House and the parties, and we could get it done.

I would love to get it done, but there is no cooperation because every time you go to do it, the Republicans say, hell, no, we got to give that extra $4 billion to the oil companies. So I don’t see where you see that cooperation. I see a bunch of bought politicians who are making certain that the richest people in the world and the richest companies in the world pay less taxes than the average American, and I find that repulsive, and I find these guys to be the biggest welfare queens in the country.

Hofmeister: And that’s the reason I started Citizens for Affordable Energy, a grassroots organization, not Republican, not Democratic, we take no money from any energy company, we are about fixing this problem for America’s future.

All right, I hear you on that, brother. John Hofmeister, former CEO of Shell Oil Company. Thank you for joining us tonight. We do appreciate it.

Thank you.

Posted in Accountants CPA Hartford, Articles | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Dollars and nonsense. Deficit debate full of false facts.

Posted on May 11, 2011 by William Brighenti

UYGUR: Welcome back, everybody. Now, here‘s a shocker. Republicans are refusing to budge an inch in budget negotiations. You don‘t say. Well, with Democrats and Republicans bellying over whether they extend the government‘s debt limit and trim budget deficits, negotiations are being complicated by disputes over basic economic facts. Well, there‘s a reason for that. It‘s because the Republicans are lying on purpose about those facts. Now, I‘m not just saying that. We‘re going to show you, we‘re going to prove it to you.

For example, John Boehner speech on Monday, he said this.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

REP. JOHN BOEHNER (R-OH), SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE: The reason stimulus spending binge frankly hurt our economy and hampered private sector job creation in our country.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

UYGUR: Not remotely true. The CBO finds that the stimulus put between 1.4 and 3.3 million people back to work. And cut the unemployment rate by as much as 1.8 percent. That is what economists agree on. There aren‘t almost any economists out there saying, oh, no, no, no, we did the stimulus and it actually causes jobs. There is no such theory, John Boehner made it up. He also made this up.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

BOEHNER: We will never have real economic growth if we‘re going to raise taxes on those in America who create jobs.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

UYGUR: Now, under Clinton, the economy growth average of nearly four percent a year. Now, remember we had much higher rates at that time. Actually, we‘re much higher and a little higher. And guess what happened? Twenty two million jobs were created. What resulted was the largest economic expansion in history. So they say, well, you can‘t raise rates. If you raise rates on the job creators, we don‘t have any jobs. You‘d have to be unconscious the entire decade of the ‘90s to believe that. You can‘t possibly think that they just missed the decade of the ‘90s, oh, 22 million, jobs are created under the Clinton race. Whoopsie, doopsie, they‘re know they‘re not telling the truth.

And then you‘ve got another doozie by Boehner.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

BOEHNER: It‘s possible to make sure in just a way that will ensure a future beneficiaries and we‘ll have access to the same kinds of options that members of Congress currently have.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

UYGUR: They just keep saying that. I‘m amazed. Not remotely true. Here‘s the reality. Under the Ryan plan, by 2030, the government would cover only 32 percent of the average 65-year-old‘s health care costs. In comparison, the government covers 75 percent of health care cost for the average member of Congress. Look, these are not matters of opinion, these are facts. Either Speaker is ignorant, and he has no idea what the fact are, or he‘s purposely misleading you. And what‘s worse is why. Because they don‘t care about you. They care about their donors, you‘re pawns to be manipulated. What they want to do is get you to believe things that aren‘t true. So, they could do what‘s right for their donors, where there‘s the big insurance companies, the big oil companies, the big banks. Those are the guys who pay people like John Boehner. And that‘s why John Boehner and those Republicans who say things that demonstrably false are not honest actors, and we shouldn‘t treat them as such.

All right. Now, joining me is columnist for the Washington Post, Dana Milbank. Also, with us, a reporter for the Huffington Post and MSNBC analyst Alex Wagner. All right. Dana, let me start with you. Look, those things aren‘t true. So, what are we supposed to do? Are we supposed to call it even and say, well, on the one hand, this guy who‘s got the wrong facts and on the other hand, you‘ve got these guys with the right facts?

DANA MILBANK, COLUMNIST, “THE WASHINGTON POST”: Well, Cenk, what you have to do is retaliate by making up a whole bunch of things on your show. And see if we can get people to believe that.

UYGUR: Not a bad plan.

(CROSSTALK)

MILBANK: I can help you with that. I think you‘ve really hit on the nub of the problem here, and that is why we can‘t have a rational debate.

We‘ve got these echo chambers going on and, you know, John Boehner‘s

followers believe those things he said. He can find validators in the

media to say what he said is true even if he look at it and then objective

say it‘s not. This is why we can‘t have a rational debate going on in this country. Look, you know, both sides have a times been guilty of this but now, we‘re at a point where you‘re not even operating with your own opinions, you‘re operating with your own facts. That‘s why people are legitimately worried that we‘re heading for a real collapse with the debt limit here because they can‘t have a reasonable discussion.

UYGUR: Well, Alex, I want to play you another clip from Boehner and this is where he talk about the massive borrowing, and spending by the Treasury Department and he says something else that is interesting. So, let‘s watch that real quick.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

BOEHNER: And this massive borrowing and spending by the Treasury Department crowded out private investment by American businesses of all sizes.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

UYGUR: In order for that theory to be true, and there is an economic theory, that if the government spends too much, it crowds out private investment.

ALEX WAGNER, MSNBC ANALYST: Sure.

UYGUR: The interest, and the way it does that is interest rates go up, but interest rates have not gone up. They are incredibly low. So, for anyone to make a statement like that today, they would have to not know what the interest rates was or they‘d have to be purposely lying. Is there any way that I‘m seeing that wrong?

WAGNER: I don‘t think so. It‘s sort of like Rip Van Winkle economics, you just fall asleep for the parts you don‘t like. But, you know, to your point, Cenk, private business is actually doing pretty well in some sectors. You look at the fortune 500 list that came out last week, you know, the top 500 companies in America saw a soaring 81 percent increase in profits. I mean, it‘s the largest profit increase since the index was created. So, this idea that somehow once private, you know, for the private sectors flooding with money that‘s going to translate into jobs and a better economic forecast, the country doesn‘t seem to really hold any water.

UYGUR: So, Dana, isn‘t that the crux of the problem here? We‘ve got all Washington talking about how we‘re going to do spending and we can‘t raise taxes, because then, you know, that would hurt jobs. We just showed you the facts, and the facts don‘t match that, so why are we still having that conversation? Why don‘t the Democrats change the conversation and go, no, no, no, we‘re going to create jobs. And the way we did that for example was through the stimulus but not by cutting spending.

MILBANK: Sure. And I mean, the argument about the stimulus is a good example. I mean, you can make the case that, well, it wasn‘t worst the expense for the economic benefit we got. You could argue that in the long term, maybe it‘s more harmful to the economy. But you can‘t argue that it had a negative effect in the short term. That‘s just simply as near, the problem is when President Obama goes out and tries to knock this down and explain these things, it‘s like what‘s happens with the health care debate. He looks like he‘s deep in the weeds, and you know, Mark Twain said, you know, a lie can make it halfway around the world while the truth is still putting on its shoes. The problem is, it‘s just very hard to keep up with this sort of thing.

UYGUR: All right. Well, Alex, John Boehner now has a new problems as well and that‘s with some Catholics. Let me show you what a Catholic leader wrote to John Boehner, he said, this Stephen Schneck he‘s Catholic University of America from them. He said, “Your record and support of legislation to address the desperate needs of the poor is among the worst in Congress. This fundamental concern should have great urgency for Catholic policymakers, yet even now you work in opposition to it.”

Now, Dana was talking about strong responses. That‘s a strong response. Is it interesting to see Catholic community in some portions coming out and calling him out and saying, hey, how about the poor? Why do we forget all about them?

WAGNER: Well, I think what we‘re seeing is this argument that the White House has long wanted, which is a fundamental sort of debate about the compact that the government should and can have with the American public. And I think that the Catholic representative is speaking to that. It‘s his idea of, should the government be accountable to the poor and be uninsured and those are the disadvantage in society. And I think they‘re beginning to see some real blowback from certain corners with regards to the GOP‘s policies on some of the stuff. Look at what AARP said to Eric Cantor. I mean, there‘s real concern that their, quote, unquote Medicare reform is going to harm seniors in the long run. And the GOP has tap that up to a messaging concern but I think that there is a larger argument here, and when that both sides are going to have to address, you know, what is the role of government in public life?

UYGUR: So, Dana. That is the fundamental question. I think Alex is totally right about that. So, when today for example, the Republicans demand another $45.7 billion in spending cuts, how do the Democrats respond? I mean, they say that their priorities are different, they say that for example, as with the great majority of the American people, we should consider going back to the Clinton tax rates, meaning raising taxes for people making over a quarter of a million dollars. Now, the Republicans say, that‘s off the table. So, what do you do next when the other guys say, it‘s off the table?

MILBANK: Well, what the Democrats are doing, which is politically effective, is to stay on the offense on Medicare. And, you know, the Republicans are say, it‘s medi-scare and that they are frightening people about, that they are going to lose their Medicare. Of course, this is the same thing the Republicans did during the health care debate. That‘s a way of seizing the offensive for the Democrats. It works politically. The problem is it‘s, you know, it‘s irresponsible in some way because it‘s not getting everybody to the table to actually have a discussion here. In fact, the Republicans, freshmen Republicans in the House, they said, come on, White House, could you please cut it out with the medi-scare. And I suspect they‘ll do that as soon as John Boehner backs down on his tax situation.

UYGUR: No, but Dana, we‘ve got to go, but I‘ve got to disagree a little bit there. I mean, those guys is crying to the president, I find to be hilarious. But they viciously attack Democrats all the time. They‘re going to come to the table with their own set of priorities, no matter what you do. And the only thing they respond to his strength, that‘s why they ran away from their own Medicare proposal, because the Democrats actually came out strong against it.

Now, I‘m sorry I got the last word there, but we‘re out of time. So, Dana and Alex, it was a great conversation.

WAGNER: Thanks, Cenk.

MILBANK: Thanks, Cenk.

UYGUR: As always, thank you for joining us.

Posted in Accountants CPA Hartford, Articles | Tagged , , , , | Leave a comment

Getting drilled: ending Federal giveaways to big oil

Posted on May 11, 2011 by William Brighenti

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

SEN. CHUCK SCHUMER (ND NEW YORK: When the average motorist pulls up at that pump, they‘re hit with a double whammy—the high price of gasoline, and then some of their tax dollars are going to subsidize Exxon Mobil.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

SEN. DEBBIE STABENOW (D), MICHIGAN: We pay for the privilege of their gouging us.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

SEN. ROBERT MENENDEZ (D), NEW JERSEY: It‘s time for the big five oil companies to give up these subsidies and allow their companies to pay a fair share towards reducing the deficit.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

UYGUR: It‘s on. Look at that.

Senate Democrats are hitting back at big oil and the Republicans who support them unconditionally. The Democrats sent a letter to the CEOs of the big five oil companies, and they‘re urging them to admit that they don‘t need those taxpayer subsidies when they appear before the Senate Finance Committee tomorrow.

Now, remember, they take at least $4 billion in subsidies every single year. What the Democrats are proposing is, hey, over the next 10 years, let‘s at least take back $21 billion of those subsidies. That cuts our deficit, that helps to balance our budget, and they clearly don‘t need them. Let me show you.

Exxon Mobil, Shell, ConocoPhillips, BP and Chevron made $32 billion in profits just in the first quarter. So how do they maintain these huge subsidies anyway? Well, that‘s because they have big backers in the Republican Party. Look at this.

House members who voted to continue oil subsidies received five times more money in 2010 from oil and gas. Of course.

They received more than $8.7 million in campaign contributions from oil and gas interests in that 2010 election. So now the GOP says that taking away subsidies would raise gas prices.

Now, I‘ve got to tell you, that is absolute economic nonsense. Under that theory, the only way that gas prices would rise is if the oil companies produced less oil because they thought that they weren‘t making enough money. Well, you know, our taxes are higher, we‘re not making enough, so we‘re not going to produce as much oil, and then prices go up.

But that‘s a laughable proposition. They‘re making money hand over fist.

You know that the prices have tripled since the last time we passed one of those subsidies? Tripled.

So, of course they‘re going to continue producing as much oil as
possible, and it isn‘t going to affect gas prices at all. But the thing is, the Republicans already know that. They‘re just looking for any excuse to justify selling out to their donors, which are, of course, the huge oil companies.

All right. Now let me bring somebody in here to have a discussion with.

The man you just saw in that clip was Senator Robert Menendez. He‘s one of the lawmakers who sent that letter to the big oil CEOs, and he‘s going to grill them tomorrow.

Senator Menendez, great to have you here.

MENENDEZ: Good to be with you, Cenk.

UYGUR: All right. Now, you‘re going to bring in the oil executives. My guess is they‘re going to say that they still absolutely need those subsidies. In fact, ConocoPhillips said that it was un-American to challenge those subsidies.

How do you respond to that?

MENENDEZ: Well, number one, I hope ConocoPhillips will apologize tomorrow to suggest that simply asking them to be part of meeting the nation‘s deficit challenge, as we‘re asking middle class, working families, families on medium income in this country and make $50,000 a year, that we say to them they should be part of meeting the nation‘s deficit challenge, but we‘re not willing to say to the big five oil companies who will make projected $125 billion this year that they should give up $2 billion this year in oil subsidies and do so for the next 10 years? That‘s pretty ridiculous.

And so to say that that‘s un-American is unacceptable, number one.

And number two is some of them have in the past suggested—or some of their predecessors have suggested that when oil is at the price it is, it‘s certainly not necessary to have these subsidies.

So the bottom line is, I don‘t know how the big five are going to do anything to justify the position that the American taxpayer should continue to have what in essence is corporate welfare.

UYGUR: Now, I‘m going to play you a clip of Fox News anchors talking about this, because I want to show people the nonsense and then come back and talk about why it makes no sense.

Let‘s watch it first.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: If you raise the taxes on gasoline and oil, the price of gasoline and oil isn‘t going to go down. The price of gasoline and oil is going to go up.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: This White House does not want to lower prices, and they‘re willing to go after the oil companies, which is going to only make the price go up.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

UYGUR: Now, there aren‘t any economists who agree with that. They say that it‘s, of course, all about supply and demand, and that the oil companies will continue to supply the oil, because they‘re making incredible profits at it.

So how do you argue with people who don‘t argue based on facts?

You know what it is? They‘re taking $21.8 million—they did in 2010, the Republicans did—from oil and gas companies. So they‘ll make up anything. So how do you argue with these guys when they don‘t even believe the things that they‘re saying themselves?

MENENDEZ: Well, Cenk, one of the things about truth is that no matter how much you crush it, it springs back up. And it‘s pretty undeniable.

The reality is, is that to suggest that gas prices are going to go up because we‘re going to take $2 billion away from the big five only, the big five oil companies who will makes $125 billion this year in profits, and that somehow should dictate more rising gas prices is ridiculous. And the average American fully understands that.

Secondly, it‘s very well established that the fluctuations in the marketplace, speculation, you know, the price—the strength of the dollar, disruptions in market supply, that can affect gas prices more—probably than anything we‘re going to do in taking away a small amount of the corporate subsidies that they‘re getting.

And lastly, when it‘s 30-some-odd dollars a barrel to produce oil, and a lot less for the big five—they‘re even more efficient at it—and you‘re selling oil at $100-something a barrel, you know that there‘s plenty of room already. That‘s why they‘re making these record profits.

They don‘t need to gouge the American taxpayer more. They‘re already paying at the pump. And it‘s an insult to have them not only pay at the pump, but then also give them a tax subsidy out of those taxpayers‘ pockets.

UYGUR: All right. The final question for you, Senator Menendez, is on how do you get this done? Right?

Because to me it seems like you guys should say under no circumstances will we have any budget cutting at all going forward until you take away these subsidies. That‘s it, we‘re not—you know, they love to declare things off the table all the time, right? Until you put this on the table, we‘re not having a conversation.

Is that actually possible in Washington?

MENENDEZ: Well, I certainly believe that since all of the $21 billion that we‘ll save by taking away these subsidies to big oil will go to the deficit—that‘s what we proposed—that in any extension of the debt relief—of the debt ceiling—that this has to be an essential element.

They‘re going to come and say they want certain things. I think this should clearly be one of our counters. And it seems to me that it‘s doable.

You know, even some Republicans—Speaker Boehner, in the past, has said this should be eliminated. Ryan, the budget chair, has said that in the House, several of my Republican colleagues here in the Senate.

Well, it‘s time to show us that you‘re willing to put your vote where your comments are.

UYGUR: And you know who else has said that? Seventy-four percent of the American people. So this should be an easy win for Democrats if you guys insist on it. That‘s my sense of it. We‘ll see if that comes to fruition.

Senator Robert Menendez, thank you for joining us this evening. We really appreciate it.

MENENDEZ: Great to be with you.

UYGUR: All right.

Posted in Accountants CPA Hartford, Articles | Tagged , , , | Leave a comment

Cenk Uygur’s Republican Con Job of May 10, 2011: hypocrisy over revealing full disclosure of campaign donations.

Posted on May 10, 2011 by William Brighenti

Now on the Republican Con Job of the day, we go to Republican hypocrisy on full disclosure of campaign cash. As the New Republic points out, over the years the GOP has claimed that it favored letting the public know where political donations came from.

John Boehner on Meet the Press in 2007: “What we ought to do is have full disclosure of all the money that we raised and how it was spent.”

Fantastic. I totally agree. And Boehner was not alone. Last year Eric Cantor, Republican Representative of Virginia, said, “Anything that moves us back towards that notion of transparency and real-time reporting of donations and contributions I think would be a helpful move.” (Newsweek.com)

Great. Mitch McConnell, Republican Senator of Kentucky, even said, “Why would a little disclosure be better than a lot of disclosure?” (TheHill.com)

Lovely. We got a deal then, don’t we? Let’s definitely find out where the political money is coming from. What? No deal?!

Of course, now that “Citizens United Decision” has opened the floodgates to corporate money, the GOP is changing its tune. The Republicans, led by Mitch McConnell are blasting an Obama plan to require more disclosure from companies seeking government contracts. They said that it would have “a chilling effect on participation.” That’s where they get to buy the politicians, right? That’s the kind of participation that they are talking about.

McConnell even called disclosure “a cynical effort to muzzle critics of this administration and its allies in Congress.” (The Washington Post)

So Republicans supported transparency until they realized that it might reveal how much big political donors are rewarded with government cash. That’s when they realized that transparency may not be in their best interests after all.

And that awesome Republican political flip-flopping is the Con Job of the day!

Posted in Accountants CPA Hartford, Articles | Tagged , , , , , | Leave a comment

Should we leave Afghanistan with bin Laden dead?

Posted on May 10, 2011 by William Brighenti

The question is, should we leave Afghanistan. Of course! This killing of Osama bin Laden could not have come at a better time; we’re supposed to start reductions in July anyway. Let’s get the hell out of there. Just hang the banner. It’s the one time I agree with the banner. Mission accomplished.

We’ve already spent at least $1.28 trillion, it’s going to go to $1.5 trillion in Iraq and Afghanistan. That is a sick amount of money. And he wasn’t in either Iraq or Afghanistan. He was in Pakistan! Should we stay in Afghanistan? You gotta have your head examined if you think we should!

Posted in Accountants CPA Hartford, Articles | Tagged , | Leave a comment

Unemployment, gas prices rise.

Posted on May 10, 2011 by William Brighenti

Posted in Accountants CPA Hartford, Articles | Tagged , , , | Leave a comment