UYGUR: Despite the best efforts from Republicans, the American people have already figured out who‘s at fault for rising gas prices. It‘s the oil companies, which is obvious, and also the big banks. A new poll shows 89 percent of Americans blame big oil companies for the rising gas prices. Very logical. The poll also shows that 90 percent of Americans blame Wall Street speculator for $4-per-gallon gas. And of course, they are entirely right. Even Goldman Sachs admits it. In April, the bank warned clients that speculators are artificially boosting oil prices by as much as $20 a barrel.
Now that could cost us as much as 80 cents a gallon for every time we go to the pump extra. Who wants to pay 80 cents extra? Well, that‘s terrible for the rest of us, but you know what? This could have all been avoided. In 2008, House Democrats voted for legislation that would have reined in the speculation. But of course, the Senate Republicans killed it, now, why do they care? Because those big banks and big oil companies, they are the ones that profit from all of this and of course, they are the Republicans‘ top contributors.
All right. Now, let‘s figure out how this all works. I‘m going to bring in Tyson Slocum here, he‘s the director of Public Citizen‘s Energy program.
Tyson, great to have you here. Let me get started with the most obvious question, which is how does the speculation on Wall Street lead to higher gas prices? I think people want to know, how does that work?
TYSON SLOCUM, DIRECTOR, PUBLIC CITIZEN: Right. Well, prices of oil
and gasoline aren‘t set by OPEC. They are not set by the Saudis or
anybody else like that. It‘s—it‘s—it takes place on trading markets in
places like New York and other financial centers, where large banks, like Goldman Sachs and Morgan Stanley, are buying and selling commodity contracts. We have removed a lot of the regulations over these markets, allowing these energy companies to have a big chunk of the market and that is uncompetitive and it allows them to engage in huge levels of speculation that end up driving volume and prices up.
You see a lot of price volatility on these markets and that‘s being driven by the actions of just a small handful of very large banks. They are also bringing a lot of money from pensions and wealthy individuals that are investing in commodities, not to hedge their risk, like normal companies do, like airlines and other entities that have exposure to this price of oil and gasoline, but are investing in commodities just to make money. And so the banks are really driving this speculative rise in prices. Like you said, it is out 75 to 80 cents a gallon.
UYGUR: And so, Tyson, I want to dive into that just a little bit more for clarity, right? Because normally supply and demand would control
prices but here, the demand for the actual commodity is being boosted
up by all the trading so they are pouring in all this money, the banks are into the oil commodity so there by increasing the price of oil which
increases our price of gas. Is that right? Do I have that figured out
right?
SLOCUM: You have got—for every gallon of gas, there are thousands
of dollars in speculative trades behind that gallon of gas that is physically being pumped into your car‘s gas tank. That‘s because the traders on Wall Street, the big banks like Goldman Sachs, are just buying and selling tons of paper contracts. Ninety seven, 98 percent of those trades never result in the physical delivery of a barrel crude oil or gallon of gasoline, it is all just speculation. Now, look, speculation has to play a limited role in these markets. What we at public citizen don‘t like is when speculators are dominating the market, when they are driving the prices beyond the supply/demand fundamentals, because that‘s what‘s killing working families and small businesses right now is we have got this speculation tax of around $30 or $35 a barrel which translates to around the 70, 80 cents a gallon that‘s just pure profit taking by the banks and it really hits all of us hard.
UYGUR: All right.
SLOCUM: And while the oil companies aren‘t necessarily manipulating
things, they are making a killing, because their costs to produce oil aren‘t going up. You know it costs them about 18 bucks to extract a barrel but they‘re selling it for more than 100, that‘s huge profits.
UYGUR: Tyson Slocum, thank you for the explanation, we really
appreciate it, we‘re out of time now. But I want everybody to
understand, more drilling—most gets you three cents a gallon but this
speculation costs us 70 to 80 cents a gallon, that‘s what we have to
address. And the guys getting rich off of it are the banks and the oil
companies as Tyson just explained.
Thank you for watching, everybody. That‘s our show tonight, “HARDBALL” starts right now.
UYGUR: The Republicans are retreating and attacking at the same time today. The attacks we‘re used to. The retreat, we‘re not. So what is that about?
Well, it‘s about that Medicare plan. Man, they are running for the hills.
They are so far up that hill, they are out of breath. They‘re like, Jesus, Lord, mercy (INAUDIBLE).
Democrats got them on the run on this one. “The Hill” reports that Senate Republicans are dropping Ryan‘s Medicare voucher plan entirely. It‘s not included in their new budget unveiled today by Pennsylvania Senator Pat Toomey.
Wow. Run, run, run, run. Stay, stay, stay, stay.
They did not have that worked out for them, and they are saying, you
know what? The time to attack something new. And they‘ve always got to go on the attack, right?
So, what‘s new? Medicaid.
Toomey‘s plan follows the Ryan model of turning Medicaid into a Block Grant program. Now, you know how much that cut? The Ryan plan
cuts at least $1.3 trillion from Medicaid. And a new report out today
says that plan would add 44 million poor people to the ranks of the
uninsured.
Way to stay classy, guys. Of course, Washington will call this serious
and grown up. Yes, of course. When you attack people in lower-income brackets, that is very serious and grown up.
Going after rich people? Oh, no, no, no. We would never want to do that.
At least they learned their lesson on Medicare. Will they learn their
lesson on Medicaid? We‘ll find out.
Well, one of the guys they have to deal with is Democratic Senator from Ohio Sherrod Brown. And he‘s joining us right now.
Senator Brown, great to have you here.
SEN. SHERROD BROWN (D), OHIO: Cenk, how are you? Good to be
with you. Thanks.
UYGUR: All right.
So, first, on Medicare, is it done? Is it, as spike would say, ovah?
Ovah?
BROWN: No, I don‘t think they‘ve—I mean, you said they‘ve learned their lesson. I‘m not sure they have.
Every time they get a chance, from the invention of Medicare in the mid ‘60s, the passage where most Republican opposed it, to the first time Newt Gingrich had a Republican House and Republican Senate, they tried to privatize, fell short. The first time President Bush, there was a Republican president, two Republican houses, House and Senate, President Bush tried to privatize Social Security. Now that the Republicans at least think they are on the ascendancy in Washington, they are trying again.
They are going to keep trying because they don‘t—fundamentally, they don‘t believe in a government program like Medicare or Medicaid, for that matter, can work for the public. And they found out when they went home, and particularly the freshmen Republicans went home, and they unveiled to the sound of trumpets and ticker tape, or however they did it, this grand Medicare scheme under Paul Ryan‘s bill, they found out it wasn‘t so popular, because the voters believe in Medicare, they know it works.
They don‘t want some risky government—anti-government voucher
scheme that is basically just going to shift costs to seniors. It doesn‘t
save dollars like we‘re trying to do with Medicare as a whole to make it
more efficient. It just shifts the cost from the program, from taxpayers, on to seniors, and that just doesn‘t work for people.
UYGUR: Well, it doesn‘t, and that‘s probably why they didn‘t
include it in their new Senate proposal today. And here is a letter from 41 GOP House freshmen—and I love this.
This to President Obama, and they are complaining about “Mediscare
attacks against Republicans. We ask that you stand above partisanship, condemn the disingenuous attacks and work with this Congress.”
Look, I‘m going to be a little harsh, but it sounds like they are crying.
They‘re like, oh, no, Mr. President, please have your party stop attacking our terrible ideas.
BROWN: Yes, exactly.
UYGUR: Any chance you guys will listen?
BROWN: No. It‘s funny they do that. I mean, it‘s not funny, but it‘s
curious they do that, because a lot of them, last year, went after
Democratic House incumbents saying that Democrats were cutting
Medicare. What we were doing is taking away insurance company
subsidies that the insurance companies got when they were involved in the Medicare privatization program begun by—well, begun 10 or so
years — 10 or 11 or 12 years ago.
So the fact is, these guys, of course they are complaining about it,
because they know we are being straightforward and we are attacking
them for what they want to do to Medicare. But it‘s like when they
accuse Democrats of class warfare. They are the ones doing the class warfare, we are just pointing it out.
They‘re the ones that are trying to scare seniors and take away what
we know works, a very good Medicare program that‘s been around for
45 or 46 years now. And we are just pointing out that they are trying to undercut it and privatize it and shift cost to seniors.
We‘re going to keep pointing that out. They‘re going to keep trying it
because it‘s what they believe.
They don‘t believe in this government health program any more than they believe in the health bill we passed a year and a half ago. They don‘t like Medicare. They don‘t like to say it that way, but they really fundamentally don‘t like that program.
UYGUR: Well, there is one other issue here, of course, as we pointed
out, and that‘s Medicaid. I want to show you an NBC/”Wall Street
Journal” poll. Medicaid also polls well.
First of all, the most popular thing is raising taxes on millionaires for how to balance the budget. That‘s 81 percent saying they are in favor of that.
Don‘t cut Medicare is at 76.
But don‘t cut Medicaid is also at 67 percent. That‘s two-thirds of the country.
So will the Democrats have as much passion and fight in defending Medicaid as they did on Medicare?
BROWN: Yes. We went through that a decade and a half ago, too, in
the ‘90s, when Gingrich tried to Block Grant Medicaid. It‘s a nonstarter.
It hurts two groups of people. It hurts poor kids. They are—about
two-thirds of Medicaid beneficiaries are children. They are only
one-third of the cost, because kids don‘t get sick as much.
The other part of Medicaid is seniors, many of them in nursing homes,
low-income, moderate-income seniors who don‘t have a lot of assets.
That‘s about a third of the individuals in Medicaid but two-thirds of the
costs because they are obviously—it costs more to take care of a senior than a child.
So they are going after young—they‘re going after poor children and
low-income, moderate-income, low-asset, if you will, seniors. And that ain‘t going to work either because the public gets it.
The public is on to these guys, how they overreach. They overreached in Ohio in what they are doing in collective bargaining.
I mean, I have asked people to go on my Web site, SherrodBrown.com/Ohio, and sign up about—against what they are
trying to do when they overreached in Ohio in taking away bargaining
rights and going after women‘s rights. It‘s the same thing they are doing nationally, and it has got to stop.
UYGUR: Right.
Senator Sherrod Brown, taking the fight to them today.
BROWN: Thanks. All right.
UYGUR: I appreciate you being here.
BROWN: Good to be with you.
UYGUR: All right.
Now let‘s bring in Ezra Klein. He‘s an MSNBC contributor and a reporter for “The Washington Post.”
Ezra, let‘s concentrate on that Medicaid attack that‘s coming now—
$1.3 trillion, cutting 44 million people off of Medicaid. That is Draconian.
Are you as convinced as Senator Brown that the Democrats are going
to fight just as hard on that one, or maybe not?
EZRA KLEIN, MSNBC CONTRIBUTOR: I am convinced that many
Democrats will fight quite hard on Medicaid. Medicaid is very close to the heart of Democrats. It is a great society program. It protects truly the most vulnerable people in America.
One group that Senator Brown didn‘t bring up were disabled. The bulk
of Medicaid‘s costs come from the disabled, the people who really can‘t take care of themselves, and people who really can‘t go out and
purchase their own health care insurance. So I think, emotionally,
Democrats will be there. The problem for Medicaid is its constituents
aren‘t as powerful.
UYGUR: Exactly. That‘s exactly it.
KLEIN: More able-bodied, more able-minded seniors are stronger.
UYGUR: That‘s what I‘m worried about.
KLEIN: And so, even if Democrats are emotionally there to fight for
Medicaid, they are not going to have quite the same interest group
backup that Medicare does. And that could lead to an outcome where
they beat back most of the attacks on Medicaid, but it still does get
whacked in a way Medicare simply doesn‘t.
UYGUR: You know, I think it will, and I‘ll tell you why. And I
don‘t want to be pessimistic, and I hope they fight back and I hope they win. Right?
But they‘ve got to do the spending cuts, and the Republicans are coming, and unfortunately we‘re on Republican ground because we‘re talking about that debt commission which was so conservative, which the President has lauded over and over, for reasons that I cannot
comprehend. But Medicare affects us all. Right? Social Security
affects us all.
So, that‘s easy to protect because it‘s got a large constituency, as you said. Medicaid only helps the poor, the disabled, et cetera.
Well, you know, those guys are going to be easier to hit politically.
Aren‘t they?
KLEIN: They are easier to hit. I don‘t think anybody—I don‘t think
Democrats particularly want to hit them.
And one thing that will help Medicaid, one factor in this that isn‘t well
understood, the Affordable Care Act, which Democrats really do care
about protecting and which this administration really cares about
protecting—they really do see it as their entire legacy—the Affordable
Care Act expands Medicaid tremendously. About half of the 32 million
people who are going to be covered are going to be covered through
Medicaid.
So a sharp cut in Medicaid is essentially a direct attack on the Affordable Care Act. And a lot of Democrats are going to find that one to be a nonstarter, too. They‘ve been very united in repelling Republican attempts to repeal the bill, and they‘re not going to be much more impressed with Republican attempts to cut out the heart of the bill‘s coverage provisions —
UYGUR: Well, look—you know, Ezra—
KLEIN: — and then take 44 million people beyond that out of health care coverage.
UYGUR: Ezra, I hope to God you‘re right. But look, the president, when he made his speech a couple of weeks ago, and talked about how we‘re going to take three times as much from spending cults as we are from tax increases, well, you‘ve got to cut somewhere. And so that‘s what I‘m scared about.
But now, look, if they don‘t do this, they do something called a CAP Act.
Real quickly, can you explain to people what that is and why that might be even worse?
KLEIN: Are you talking the McCaskill//Corker CAP Act?
UYGUR: Yes.
KLEIN: So, the McCaskill/Corker CAP Act, what it does is it holds
spending down to 20.6 percent of GDP. And currently, spending is
around 23, 24 percent of GDP. And because we‘re going to have a big
retirement boom in the coming years—the baby boomers are leaving
work—we‘re going to have somewhat more spending, because they are
going to need Medicare, they‘re going to need Social Security. We‘ll have fewer working-age adults.
Essentially, what the CAP Act does is it institutes something like—it
forces something like the Ryan plan through the back door by saying that there is only one way to handle our problems. And that is sharply, sharply, sharply cutting spending and the federal programs.
You only allow one way to get out of this, which is a much smaller,
much more restrained, much less efficient government. And you do it at the exact moment that you have a really large number of seniors retiring and a very significant unemployment problem, such that you‘re going to have a state that is completely incapable of dealing with the very problems that are facing it.
UYGUR: Right.
KLEIN: For Democrats to be on this act is a shocking thing. And I have just been baffled by the fact that McCaskill and Manchin and Lieberman and a bunch of others are there. Any Democrat who believes that Medicare and Social Security and the military should exist really can‘t in good conscience support the CAP Act, because the numbers for those programs and that act simply don‘t add up.
UYGUR: Ezra, I couldn‘t agree more with you, but I‘m not—except for the part where you are shocked that Lieberman and Manchin are on board.
Well, of course they are. I mean, Lieberman, Democrat? Manchin?
OK. Look, some of the top economists in the world, 75 of them, got together and said what the CAP Act is—here, I‘ll just read it to you real quick. It says, “Such caps would require cutting or eliminating programs that are vital to the middle class like Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid. To put it bluntly, these plans would amount to nothing less than a Medicare kill switch.”
So this looks like a backdoor way of cutting all these programs without
saying you are cutting it.
So, all right, the last thing on this. I know some Democrats have signed on. That makes it even scarier.
Do they realize this at the end and go, wait a minute, we‘re not going to do this, or do they actually go in favor of this, what appears to be a terrible plan?
KLEIN: I think so. And I think the Obama administration really has their hair on fire about this.
They are getting really serious pushback on the Hill from the Obama
administration. And also, I mean, center-left groups, groups that tend to be thought of as centrists, like Third Way, are coming out and saying this is going to be like another Smoot-Hawley, which is the tariff act that was considered to be a contributor of the Great Depression. So there‘s going to be very, very broad agreement in the party against this act.
UYGUR: All right. Ezra Klein, thank you so much. A great discussion
tonight.
A Gallup Poll conducted between May 6 through May 8 indicates that the Osama bin Laden raid gave President Obama a little bump in his approval ratings, showing that 51% of those polled approve on his job overall as President while 40% disapprove. The results reflect a modest rise of about 5% attributable to the Osama bin Laden raid and killing. Although most pundits feel that this 5% bump will fade, it may make a big difference for Obama going forward since it involves national security. Why? Because future Republican attacks on Obama on National Security will not work since the public knows that Obama was the guy who got Osama bin Laden. So the poll results is good news for Obama overall.
But there was bad news in the very same Gallup Poll for Obama as well. Only 34% of those surveyed approve of Obama’s handling of the economy–the lowest number of his presidency! Obama misjudged badly how to solve our economic problems. He went with this trickle down theory: that if we give breaks to the corporations and the banks, that’ll trickle down to us. Well, the corporations are doing great, we’re seeing that over and over, the stock market’s back up, bonuses are going through the roof for CEOs, but unemployment is still at 9%. Data provided by zillow.com show that home values fell 3% in the first quarter of 2011; they’re down 8.2% from May, 2010; and they’re down 29.5% since their peak in 2006.
A stunning 28.4% of all single-family homes are now “underwater”, which means that people owe more money on them than what they are worth.
Now that’s now all Obama’s fault. The problem started in 2006 and went through all of 2008. But how do you address that? All that takes money out of consumers pockets. Those are the things that affect real average Americans, and it’s dragging down the economy.
Unfortunately, we did not fix that underlying problem. We went with the theory that if we give money to the businesses, tax cuts to the businesses, and bail outs to the businesses, that it will come down to us. But it didn’t. And that’s what’s pretty bad news for President Obama. And he’s got to address that as quickly as possible.
Have you ever observed the mating dance of the birds of paradise? The male moves dramatically, and in response, the female inches away, but ultimately the male conquers the female, and achieves the purpose of this ritualistic, instinctive dance.
Well, the Democrats and Republicans have been dancing ritualistically quite some time now like birds of paradise. The Republican Congress leaps dramatically to the right, and then the Democratic President and Congress inches to the right, and as a result, the fulcrum of the political balance between the two parties and the constituents that they represent, keeps moving ever so slightly and undetectably to the electorate to the right. Neat, huh? And guess who gets screwed in the end? You got it!
In fact, the current Obamacare bill was the Republican version of fixing the healthcare problem in our country. Recall the positions of the moderate Bob Dole Republicans in office back in 1996. And recall former Republican Governor Mitt Romney’s healthcare bill enacted in Massachusetts. Of course, now that Mitt is running for President and the Republican political position has shifted to the precipice of extreme right ideology, he opposes Obamacare and his former Romneycare. LOL! Don’t you just love it. I couldn’t write this stuff. It’s too funny.
And both Bill Clinton and Barack Obama have mastered the steps of the birds of paradise dance. You know, the hokey-pokey, ever so slightly modified for southpaws,
You put your left foot out,
You put your left foot in;
You put your right foot out,
And you shake it all about.
You do the Hokey-Pokey,
And you turn yourself around.
That’s what it’s all about!
Don’t believe me? Recall that Obama had talked about a single-payer healthcare bill. Recall that he failed to present this bill to Congress for a vote. Instead in response to the Republican cries of socialism, pink commie, and the like, he then inched over and presented the Romneycare version of fixing healthcare, the original Republican solution to our nation’s healthcare problem of the mid-1990s. Of course, now that the Republicans have leaped to the extreme right (the political right raised to the nth power of infinity), they have not truly proposed any viable solution at all to the prohibitive cost of healthcare except for holistically medically dumping the sick and old on a hill outside Sparta and letting nature take its course.
Still don’t believe me? Recall that Obama originally proposed tax increases for those earning more than $250,000 annually, and tax cuts for those earning less. And how did the Republicans dance to that tune? They counter-proposed tax cuts plus a huge estate tax cut largely benefiting the rich. See? President Obama put his left foot out and his left foot in, he put his right foot out, then shook it all about…hokey-pokeying the middle class and turning himself around, and that’s what it’s all about.
The problem with doing this dance of the birds of paradise is someone gets screwed at the end of this dance, and guess who does? Always, inevitably, the middle class: no single-payer healthcare system to control costs, making the insurance, pharmaceuticals, and medical companies even richer; tax cuts for the rich, resulting in huge deficits, which are hidden, deferred taxes, later to be passed onto the middle class in customary subterfuge fashion; and ultimately the privatization of medicare and, doomed to follow, social security, eventually abandoning us all on that same Spartan hill after we become old and sick.
It’s too bad President Barack Obama and former President Bill Clinton never appeared on “Dancing with the Stars” because they do this dance oh so well, and would be shoo-ins to win that contest hands down with their hokey-pokey, birds of paradise dance. They are so good at it that I bet you didn’t even notice it, did you?
Senate Bill No. 1239 (SB1239) was approved on May 4, 2011, increasing taxes largely on the middle class residents in Connecticut. My question to Governor Dannel Malloy is, why did you place the burden of its revenue raising provisions on middle class citizens of Connecticut?
Thank, God, Governor Dannel Malloy is a Democrat. Can you imagine the regressivity of the tax bill if Malloy had been a Republican?! Perhaps Malloy, like President Barack Obama and former President Bill Clinton, doesn’t know he’s a Democrat. Can campaign contributions dictate the fiscal policies of our elected official? Perish the thought.
How could Governor Dannel Malloy’s tax bill have been truly progressive and representative of middle class residents of Connecticut? I will review the current tax changes and include my belated proposals.
First, let’s look at the changes in Connecticut’s income tax rate. Dan Malloy is increasing the income tax rate on all Connecticut taxpayers whose adjusted gross income (total revenues less adjustments to income—itemized deductions are not subtracted from Connecticut taxable income) exceeds $50,000 for those filing single, $80,00 for those filing head of household, and $100,000 for those filing jointly. Consequently, the majority of the middle class residents are having their Connecticut income taxes increased by 10% to 30% depending on their adjusted gross income: this bill certainly imposes an additional and unnecessary hardship on the Connecticut middle class. However, the rich in Connecticut—those whose Adjusted Gross Income exceeds $500,000 for those filing single and $1,000,000 for those filing jointly—only have a 3%, and not a 10% to 30%, increase in their tax rates! Is this equitable? Is this sharing the pain? Is this a progressive tax bill?
Suppose you report $100,001 in adjusted gross income. What impact will Malloy’s tax bill have on your Connecticut income taxes? You will pay an additional $1,000 in Connecticut income taxes under its new income tax rates. Nice, huh? Does this hurt your wallet?
And if you report $200,001 in adjusted gross income, you will pay an additional $3,000 in Connecticut income taxes under its new income tax rates. Ouch!
But if you report $500,001 in adjusted gross income, you will pay only an additional $1,000 in Connecticut income taxes under its new income tax rates! So the individual reporting $300,000 less in taxable income is paying $2,000 more in additional taxes under the new state income tax rates than the individual in the upper income bracket?! Where is the progressivity in the tax rates on the rich? Shouldn’t they be paying even more under a progressive tax structure?
Why are not those percentages of increase in the Connecticut income tax rates reversed for those income thresholds? Why are not the rich seeing an increase of 10% to 30% instead of a mere 3% increase? And why are not the middle class Connecticut residents getting a mere 3% increase, if any, in their tax rates? Could it be because Dannel Malloy has his roots in Stamford, Connecticut in Fairfield County, the richest county in Connecticut? Could it be that Governor Dannel Malloy is a Democrat in sheep’s clothing? Isn’t this more trickle down nonsense of the Republicans, claiming by being soft on the rich, that wealth will trickle down and jobs will be created here instead of China and India? Do you still believe in this Republican voodoo economics after the greatest transfer of wealth to the upper class over the past thirty years?!
In addition, Dan Malloy’s tax bill will have a significant impact on lower and middle class residents by reducing the Connecticut property tax credit from $500 to $300. So there alone is $200 more in taxes for the majority of Connecticut residents. That’s regressive as well. But there many other regressive provisions in Dan Malloy’s tax bill.
The overall sales tax rate, a tax that takes a larger percentage of disposable income from the lower and middle classes than from the upper class, is increasing another 5.83%, up from 6% to 6.35%. In addition, the sales tax exemptions on sales of clothing less than $50 in amount and sales of non-prescription drugs and medicine are being eliminated. Moreover, alcoholic beverage taxes are increasing on average 20% and cigarette taxes 13.3%, while there’s an additional 3% cabaret tax admissions, food, drink, service, and merchandise at any place offering live music, dancing, or other entertainment for profit in addition to serving alcoholic drinks. There are too many increases in taxes and fees targeting the Connecticut middle class too numberous to itemize here, but they are targeting the lower and middle classes in Connecticut.
If Governor Dannel Malloy were an elected official representing the economic interests of Connecticut’s lower and middle classes, he would not have proposed any increases in income tax rates on couples with adjusted gross incomes of less than $250,000, nor increases in sales taxes, alcohol taxes, cigarette and tobacco taxes, fees, conveyance taxes, and the like, but instead would have progressively increased the income tax rates on adjusted gross incomes exceeding $250,000, but especially on those above $500,000! That approach would have been in the best interests of Connecticut lower- and middle-class residents.
So why has a Democratic Governor, why has Dannel Malloy, proposed and signed a regressive tax bill burdening the Connecticut middle class? Is Malloy following the political centrist paths of Barack Obama and Bill Clinton? These two clever politicians have been very successful inching themselves to the political right as the Republicans continue their Shermanesque march to the precipice of the political extreme right, shifting the center of the political fulcrum like two birds of paradise performing their rhythmic and instinctive mating dance. Have you noticed yet that it’s always the middle class getting screwed at the end of their dance? My deep-gut suspicion is that Dannel (blue blood variant of Daniel?) Malloy has further political aspirations, perhaps for the Presidency or the Vice-Presidency, and he believes that such positioning will serve him well in the future.
Hopefully the middle class of Connecticut will realize the regressiveness of his tax bill and not only not re-elect him in the future but voice their opposition to his policies and political aspirations to middle class taxpayers outside of Connecticut.
UYGUR: There are now new point blank accusations that Pakistan is still harboring terrorists even as we give them billions in aid. Democratic Senator Carl Levin, chairman of the Armed Services Committee says, he believes that top levels of the Pakistani government knew about Bin Laden and that they know about other terrorists as well.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
SENATOR CARL LEVIN (D), CHAIRMAN, ARMED SERVICES COMMITTEE: The thing which astounds me more than anything, of course, is the idea that people in Pakistan higher up in the intelligence service or the army or police, local officials, didn`t know he was there. I find that so difficult to believe. There`s a bigger issue. They do know where the Haqqani network is.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
UYGUR: Now they know that while we`re giving them billions in aid. We give a total of $20 billion since 2001. Lately we`ve been doling out at least $1.3 billion a year and we`re apparently getting very little in return.
Pakistan has gotten very used to us not holding them accountable through all the Bush years, where we seem to have put very little pressure on them.
Remember Bush had no clue about Pakistan when he took office. Here`s Bush as a candidate in 1999 unable to name the leader of Pakistan.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
GEORGE W. BUSH, FORMER U.S. PRESIDENT: The new Pakistani general has just been elected. He`s going to took over office. It appears he`s going to bring stability to the country, and I think that`s good news.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: You can`t name him.
BUSH: General, I can`t name the general.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
UYGUR: Two things to note. Not only couldn`t Bush name Pervez Musharraf, but Musharraf definitely was not elected. He came to power in a military coup and it was definitely not good for the subcontinent.
Now that level of ignorance did wind up becoming very relevant as the Bush administration just kept trusting Musharraf over and over again, as if he was good for Pakistan and good for our interests.
By 2006, the evidence was already mounting that Pakistan was giving cover to terrorists, but the Bush team still didn`t get it.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: The Pakistanis aren`t willing to seek Bin Laden and have peace pact with the terrorists, where are we?
DICK CHENEY, FORMER U.S. VICE PRESIDENT: I don`t buy the premise of your question. President Musharraf has been a great ally. In fact is Musharraf has put his neck on the line in order to be effective in going after the extremist elements, including al Qaeda and including the Taliban in Pakistan.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
UYGUR: Oops. T hey had the wrong strategy. They were soft on Pakistan. Barack Obama promised a different strategy during the campaign. He said, we`re going to act with or without them and now Bin Laden is dead.
And word today that the U.S. has launched its first drone attack in Pakistan since the killing of Bin Laden. Pakistani officials say the attack killed 10 people in a Taliban stronghold near the Afghan border. You want to talk tough on terror? That`s how you do it.
Joining me now is Retired Army Colonel Lawrence Wilkerson who served as chief of staff to Secretary of State Colin Powell in the Bush administration.
Colonel Wilkerson, great to have you here. Now, I know that Pakistan has a lot of nuance, it`s not as simple as you give them aid or you don`t give them aid. They`re different people within their government.
But to the outside world, as you look back at the Bush administration, it appeared that we were far too trusting over the Musharraf government.
COLONEL LAWRENCE WILKERSON, U.S. ARMY (RETIRED): I would say that`s probably a fair assessment, but the most — I listened to your lead-in, and I was thinking the most damaging thing we did in the Bush administration was we took our eye off the ball in the Afghan/Pakistan theater.
When we went to Iraq, it became basically a backwater theater, an economy of force theatre, as we say in the military. We just don`t have the assets to put that kind of emphasis on two theatres simultaneously.
So when we went to Iraq, Afghanistan was just there. We weren`t doing very much there. It was wasted time. In that time, as you pointed out, Musharraf spent most of the money we were giving him on beefing up the army to confront India, not on delivering jobs to his people, better infrastructure, education and so forth, which should have been the purpose of that money.
UYGUR: Colonel, I`m really curious to what happened inside the White House. Obviously, there are a lot of smart people that work there, including your boss, Colin Powell, including yourself, that knew the dynamic within Pakistan.
So when you guys said, wait a minute, why are we taking our eye off the ball in Afghanistan and Pakistan, what was the reaction? How did it work internally?
WILKERSON: I don`t think there was as much argument as there should have been. The argument was more of the debate I should say. It was more over whether we should do Iraq at all. My boss was adamant there were a couple reasons why we shouldn`t do it at the time we did it.
One was that we didn`t have the international support and vastly international legitimacy and the other one, probably more to your point, it was bad timing. We simply didn`t have the armed forces, the assets to prosecute two theaters with vigor simultaneously.
And so he knew that if we were going to Iraq, we would going to leave the theater that was probably the more important one on its own for a long period of time, however long it took us to stabilize things in Iraq. We knew it would take longer than five or six months to do Iraq right.
UYGUR: You know, I remember back then I was pulling my hair out like, he`s in Afghanistan, why are we sending more people to Iraq than we are to the Afghanistan/Pakistan area where we know al Qaeda? It made no sense to me.
WILKERSON: I think that`s become so clear that I wonder why the American people haven`t gotten on to it yet. Yesterday, or day before yesterday, the Iraq oil report made the projections that there`s 100 billion barrels for sure, 200 billion probably, and at the outside 300 billion. That dwarfs Saudi Arabia. I know why Dick Cheney went to Iraq.
UYGUR: Wow. So you`re saying that it didn`t have to do with al Qaeda or Bin Laden. Obviously, they weren`t there and you guys knew they weren`t there. It had to do with the oil.
WILKERSON: That was the camouflage. That was to get the American people excited about going to war in Iraq again. The real reason for Iraq, and incidentally the reason we aren`t coming home anytime soon is the oil.
UYGUR: You know, you mentioned Dick Cheney as if he was making the decisions. I want to play one more clip here from George Bush in that same interview when he was asked about world leaders and then get a response from you. Let`s watch first.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Can you name the president of Chechnya?
BUSH: No, can you?
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Can you name the president of Taiwan?
BUSH: Yes, Lee. The new Pakistani general has just been elected. He`s going to took over office. He appears he`s going to bring stability to the country, and I think that`s good news.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: But you can`t name him?
BUSH: General. I can`t name the general.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Prime minister of India?
BUSH: The new prime minister of India is — no.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
UYGUR: Now, at the time, I remember some people said, well, that was unfair, you can`t ask somebody running for president to know world leaders. But his profound lack of knowledge, did it lead to people like Dick Cheney being able to really take control and do things that the president, you know, was not savvy enough to understand?
WILKERSON: In my view, absolutely so. The president was not steeped in much of anything certainly not foreign policy. Dick Cheney is one of the most competent, capable bureaucrats I`ve ever met.
I worked in the Pentagon when he was secretary of defense. I would have declared him at the end of that time period, the best secretary of defense since James Forestall, but that best was because of the his decision-making ability, his executive ability.
He brought that ability to the White House. George W. Bush did not possess that ability ergo guess who became president in that first term.
UYGUR: More strong words. That`s why we love having you on, real truth, that`s what we try to get here. Retired Army Colonel Wilkerson, as always, a great pleasure to have you tonight.
UYGUR: Wall Street fat cats are raking in more cash than before the recession, that`s amazing. But Republicans are doing everything they can to give them even more breaks. Maybe that`s even more amazing. Robert Reich on the water against the middle class, next.
UYGUR: There`s now new evidence that the middle class in this country remains under siege despite some good signs on the job`s front. The latest number shows that economy added 244,000 jobs in April, beating expectations. That`s of course is good news. The jobless rate is now at nine percent, that`s not really good news. In fact, that`s a little higher than last month, but analysts say that it shows people have confidence in the job market and have resumed actively searching. President Obama says, it`s proof that the economy is on the rebound.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
PRES. OBAMA (D), UNITED STATES: We just went through one of the worse recessions in our history. Worst in our lifetimes, the worst since the great depression. But this economic momentum that`s taking place here and else it`s taking place all across the country.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
UYGUR: Btu one of the problems is the jobs Americans are getting are pretty low-paying. Sixty two thousand were created by McDonald`s alone last quarter. So, that`s a huge chunk of the jobs created last quarter. But as the average working person is struggling, corporate profits are soaring. Was CEOs raging in like they`ve never done before literally? In fact, the Fortune 500 companies made a combine $10.8 trillion last year and their preference went up 81 percent. That`s a stunning number. In 2010, the average compensation for an S&P 500 CEO was $9 million. That`s their average. That was up 24 percent from 2009. So what are politicians doing about all this? Are they going to create jobs? Seeing that we`re still at nine percent unemployment? No, they`re doing a betting of corporations. Republicans are now busy trying to fight against the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau which would protect consumers, and they`re also busy passing new laws to help the bankers as if they weren`t helped enough. Are there no bounds of reason?
Joining me now is former Clinton Labor Secretary Robert Reich, he`s now professor at UC Berkeley, and he`s going to help us try to figure this thing out. Great to have you here as always.
ROBERT REICH, FORMER CLINTON LABOR SECRETARY: Hi, Cenk.
UYGUR: Hey, so first question is, look, how long we`ve been told, hey, if the corporations do well — and they`ve got these big profits, they`ll hire more people. The Republicans keep chanting job creators, job creators, but it doesn`t appear they are creating nearly enough jobs. So, why is there this disparity?
REICH: Well, one reason Cenk that they are doing so well, and we see corporate profits almost up to pre-recession levels right now is because they`re their cutting payrolls. I mean, payrolls are one of their biggest costs, and if they can cut their payrolls and ship the jobs abroad or replace the jobs with automated machinery or the internet or software, that means more money for the corporation and higher profits. And that exactly what`s happening. Jobs are really not coming back at the rate that they should be coming back largely because these corporations basically want to make more money.
UYGUR: So, when the Republicans tell us night in, and night out gigs, oh, we got to create more jobs by giving more breaks to the businesses and banks. I mean, how, and by the way, they`re doing it right now. You can talk to us about those, you know, laws they`re passing to protect the bankers as we speak. How much nonsense is that based on this evidence, these facts?
REICH: Well, it`s a lot of nonsense, in fact it`s huge nonsense, Cenk. I mean, these big corporations are now sitting on almost $2 trillion of cash. They don`t know what to do with it. They`re buying back their own shares of stock in order to further increase stock prices, and executive pay because so much executive pay is related to shares of stock. And they are doing mergers and acquisitions, buying up other companies, again, they are expanding production abroad. They are not expanding jobs here in the United States by any reasonable amount. I mean, you know, the job numbers look pretty good. But if you consider that we need about 350,000 new jobs every single month for the next three or four years to get back to six percent unemployment, we`re really, this is a very poor jobs number, and a very poor jobs report, given what we all to be seeing in a recovery.
UYGUR: Look, and part of the problem here is that the whole idea that they`ve been pushing for over 30 years now, this trickle down economy just doesn`t work. Let me give you two graphs here that are, you know, really telling. When you look at the top one percent of Americans, their average income tax rate has decline from 34.5 percent in 1980 all the way down to 23.27 percent. Now, the number you`re looking at there is their income, their share of total income for the country. It went up from 8.5 percent to 20 percent. So, what they told us is, hey, if you lower our taxes, as we did there now, that`s the number you`re looking at there, don`t worry, you know, it will come down to you, but it didn`t. We got nine percent unemployment. Where did it go? It went to them, it went from 8.5 percent to 20 percent.
REICH: Exactly, Cenk. There`s simply no trickle down. I mean, trickle-down economics is a big fat lie. And we have right now many, many top executives, CEOs, Hedge Fund managers, Wall Street executives, they`re making oodles of money, and they are paying 15 percent taxes. That`s lower than most secretaries, lower than most lower middle class, working class people. How are they getting away with it? Because they`re capital gains, they`re treating it more and more of their income as capital gains and its dividends that are taxed now at 15 percent. I mean, they are setting the rules. You and I, average working Americans across this country, the middle class, are not setting the rules.
UYGUR: Look, that`s because they rigged the rules, as you say. Because they bought the politicians. One last real quick thing, let me show you a chart, graph of income and equality. We`re now between Uganda and the Ivory Coast. We have worse income inequality than Pakistan, Kazakhstan, Ethiopia, what has become of this country? And if you don`t have a middle class, who`s going to buy those goods?
REICH: Well, exactly, Cenk. In fact, one of the reasons we are having such a hard time coming out of the gravitational pull of the great recession is because so many people don`t have enough money. I mean, what we ought to be doing right now, and what our politicians is watching and ought to be doing, instead of worrying about the long-term budget deficit, and cutting spending, and all of that stuff, what they ought to be doing is worrying about putting cash, more money, and more jobs for average working people. I mean, you know, cut payroll taxes.
UYGUR: Right.
REICH: I mean, create a WPA for people, if you can`t provide another way of creating jobs.
UYGUR: All right. Secretary Reich, thank you so much. We`ve got to go. We`ll be right back.
UYGUR: For our “Con Job of the Day,” we`ll take a look at the bait- and-switch move that the House Republicans have pulled to work on their real priorities instead of jobs. House Republicans couldn`t talk enough about jobs when they were in the minority.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
REP. JOHN BOEHNER (R-OH), MINORITY LEADER: The American people are still asking the question, where are the jobs?
(END VIDEO CLIP)
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
ERIC CANTOR (R-VA), MINORITY WHIP: This election is about work. It`s about getting people back to work.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: We are determined to fight for the future of the American people, to create jobs.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
UYGUR: So you would think they would be gung ho to pass some job bills, right? Of course not.
The number of jobs bills proposed so far? You guessed it, zero. Or as they would say on Cinco de Mayo, nada.
Instead, they`re pushing social issues and helping big banks. Of course! That`s what they always do.
Just yesterday, the House passed a bill to permanent ban federal funding for abortion; ban tax credits for businesses that cover abortions under their health insurance plans; and bar women from counting the cost of an abortion as a deductible medical expense.
Great. So, instead of attacking the jobs issues, they immediately started attacking women`s rights.
Now, if you`re a woman who voted for them thinking that they were going to help you find a job, how do you feel now?
And, of course, two House committees also voted to advance bills to weaken the new financial regulations. One would delay implementing new rules governing to — while the other would limit the power of the new consumer financial protection bureau. Out of control derivatives are what sunk the economy in the first place. And now the Republicans want to let the banks do the same exact thing again? And these guys pretend to be against the bailouts? Please. But Boehner says by doing things like limiting the abortions, the house is keeping good on its promises.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
REP. JOHN BOEHNER (R-OH), SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE: Today we`re taking another step toward media commitment in keeping our word.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
UYGUR: How about your word on creating jobs? House Republicans campaign on jobs but deliver on their social agenda in giving the Wall Street donors another huge break. And that`s our con job of the day.
UYGUR: Well, we end the show with good news today, everybody. Corporate profits are way up. In fact the fortune 500 companies made a combined $10.8 trillion last year and their profits soared 81 percent. So obviously you`ve all been rehired, right? I thought this was supposed to trickle down to all of us, but yet we still have about nine percent unemployment. Now, corporations are asking for bigger tax breaks, because I guess they didn`t make enough money by not hiring you. They say if we just give them more breaks, then out of the infinite mercy of their hearts, they will consider hiring some of us. Maybe.
In fact, this is the one thing Democrats and Republicans agree on unfortunately, that we should lower corporate tax rates. Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner is proposing taking out some of the loopholes in the system and lowering corporate taxes from 35 percent all the way down to 26 percent. And of course, his fellow Republicans, yes, he is a republican, he just happens to work on a democratic administration, of course love the idea, they`ve all enthusiastically agree to start planning on this.
The reality, of course is that these profits get concentrated at the very top to give you a sense of that. There`s a startling new analysis done by Dean Baker that compares an average executive salary to the salary of a Navy SEAL, you know, the guys who just risked their lives to take out Bin Laden. A Navy SEAL makes $54,000 on average. The CEO`s of Goldman Sachs and JP Morgan make about 20 million a year. But let`s be fair and take the average pay of a CEO at an S&P 500 company. That number is $11,358,445. That means they earn 200 times the salary of our bravest troops. But we do have to retain their talent, right?
Now, who thinks these are the right priorities? And where have these priorities left us? With worst economic inequality than Pakistan, where our SEALs insisted that rate. Yes, Pakistan is more equitable than us. So, are the Ivory Coast, Utopia, and Kazakhstan. To be fair, we are nip and tuck with Uganda. I`m afraid we`re slipping into a banana republic where the rich are super-rich and everyone else grovels. Let`s get back to that American middle class, stop it with the corporate tax cuts, whether you`re a democrat or a republican.
The Washington Post’s Ezra Klein and Sirius Radio’s Bill Press talk about the beginnings of a Republican surrender on Representative Paul Ryan’s plan to privatize Medicare.
UYGUR: Now, Paul Ryan, it turns out, to be completely under the bus. Republicans are running for the hills and now signaling surrender on Ryan`s plan to cut Medicare.
Can you believe that? Well, we`ll tell you what caused their panic.
And America`s richest companies were revealed today. Guess how many were oil companies? And guess how much of your money the GOP gave them again today?
UYGUR: For our “Con Job of the Day,” we`ll take a look at the bait- and-switch move that the House Republicans have pulled to work on their real priorities instead of jobs. House Republicans couldn`t talk enough about jobs when they were in the minority.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
REP. JOHN BOEHNER (R-OH), MINORITY LEADER: The American people are still asking the question, where are the jobs?
(END VIDEO CLIP)
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
ERIC CANTOR (R-VA), MINORITY WHIP: This election is about work. It`s about getting people back to work.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: We are determined to fight for the future of the American people, to create jobs.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
UYGUR: So you would think they would be gung ho to pass some job bills, right? Of course not.
The number of jobs bills proposed so far? You guessed it, zero. Or as they would say on Cinco de Mayo, nada.
Instead, they`re pushing social issues and helping big banks. Of course! That`s what they always do.
Just yesterday, the House passed a bill to permanent ban federal funding for abortion; ban tax credits for businesses that cover abortions under their health insurance plans; and bar women from counting the cost of an abortion as a deductible medical expense.
Great. So, instead of attacking the jobs issues, they immediately started attacking women`s rights.
Now, if you`re a woman who voted for them thinking that they were going to help you find a job, how do you feel now?
And, of course, two House committees also voted to advance bills to weaken the new financial regulations. One would delay implementing new rules governing to — while the other would limit the power of the new consumer financial protection bureau. Out of control derivatives are what sunk the economy in the first place. And now the Republicans want to let the banks do the same exact thing again? And these guys pretend to be against the bailouts? Please. But Boehner says by doing things like limiting the abortions, the house is keeping good on its promises.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
REP. JOHN BOEHNER (R-OH), SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE: Today we`re taking another step toward media commitment in keeping our word.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
UYGUR: How about your word on creating jobs? House Republicans campaign on jobs but deliver on their social agenda in giving the Wall Street donors another huge break. And that`s our con job of the day.
Now, Eric Cantor and the Republicans are throwing Paul Ryan under the bus. Fun for everybody, especially us. The white flags are up. We`ll tell you all about it. And the Republicans did show unity today on one thing. It was with their buddies in big oil. The grand oil party just gave away more of your money to the richest companies in the world. We`ll tell you all of that.
UYGUR: With Americans` attention fixed on the death of Bin Laden this week, Republicans and Congress are hoping no one will notice that they`re surrendering on Paul Ryan`s plan to privatize Medicare. Well, I noticed how Speaker John Boehner started the retreat last week.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
BOEHNER: Paul Ryan has an idea, they`re certainly worthy of consideration.
(CROSSTALK)
I voted for it. I`m for it. It`s our idea, all right? It`s Paul`s idea. Other people have other ideas. I`m not wedded to one single idea, but I think — we have a plan.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
UYGUR: Damn, I`m kind of into it. It was Paul`s idea. I`m not saying anything, right? Then yesterday, a “Washington Post” story suggested that Majority Eric Cantor was dropping the Medicare proposal from budget negotiations. Cantor denied saying that, but he wouldn`t say Medicare was still in play. Instead, he told reporters quote, “I have not taken Medicare off the table, but the president has. The reality is this president has excoriated our budget plan, and the Medicare proposal in the plan.” So, all of a sudden he`s like I`m not backing away, the president has just been too tough on it. Fascinating. Well, that convince yet that their back and down. This morning, the chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee Dave Camp indicated he`s not even going to bring the plan up in committee.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
REP. DAVE CAMP (R), MICHIGAN: I`m not really interested in just laying down more markers. I would rather have the committee working with the Senate and with the president focus on savings and reforms that can be signed into law.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
UYGUR: That`s great. And now, even Paul Ryan himself is backing up with this statement, quote, “Our starting point is the budget passed by the House. We are under no illusion that we`re going to get everything we`ve always wanted in this one bill.” Oh, really? Well, Ryan sounded pretty sure of himself exactly one month ago today when he unveiled his budget proposal.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
UNIDENTIFIED MAN: You`re a liar! (bleep).
REP. PAUL RYAN (R), WISCONSIN: Everyone under 55 is.
(BOOING)
UNIDENTIFIED MAN: Why in the world did you ever vote for the Paul Ryan Medicare plan?
RYAN: This is the path to prosperity. This is the budget that we are putting forward today. This represents our choice for our country`s future, and it`s our commitment to the American people. We don`t need clever politicians. We need leaders and we need leadership. And so we believe we have a moral imperative. It is time to stand up and do what is necessary to fix this country.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
UYGUR: So those town hall events might have had something to do with him going from it is a moral imperative to, did we say we were going to end Medicare, I didn`t mean we`re going to end Medicare. Where did you get that idea? Back pedal, back pedal, back pedal, back pedal. And look, beyond the town hall outrages, poll after poll shows that American people are against on the Republicans on this one. A brand-new Quinnipiac poll found 70 percent of people oppose cutting Medicare to balance the budget. That`s like the 20 millionth poll in a row saying the exact same thing. So what part of 70 percent did they not understand? Well, if they missed it the first time around, they seem to be getting the message now.
All right. Joining me now is Ezra Klein, MSNBC contributor, a reporter from “The Washington Post,” and Bill Press, host of “The Bill Press Show” on Sirius Radio. Ezra, let me start with you. We`ve got a republican aid telling the press, quote, “it is a big problem about the Medicare plan.” Things are unraveling. So, is that true? Have we analyzed this right? Are they really running away from this issue?
EZRA KLEIN, MSNBC CONTRIBUTOR: It is a big problem. So, on the one hand they are simply bowing to the laws of political gravity here. They don`t control the Senate, they don`t control the White House. What is fascinating, however is that knowing that they could have never gotten a plan that is this extreme signed by the president, they still made all their people vote on it. Usually, when you control only one chamber of Congress, you try to keep your people from taking very, very dangerous votes, because you don`t really have the promise you actually pass the plan you want. And so, why get them on record for something the other party can run against you in the next election. They got them on record on privatizing Medicare, they`re not going to pass a privatization of Medicare. And yet, it`s still going to be example A in the democratic campaign against them. So, I wonder if there are no couple of very annoyed house members this week.
UYGUR: Well, you know, the thing though is that Bill, you know, Representative Camp won`t bring it up for a second voting committee, because he`s afraid of exactly what Ezra just said. And Boehner is trying to spin this like it`s not a retreat, but let me give you Boehner`s clip here and then we`ll come and talk about it.
BILL PRESS, HOST, “THE BILL PRESS SHOW”: Right.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
BOEHNER: My interpretation of what Mr. Camp was, was a recognition of the political realities that we face. While Republicans control the House, the Democrats control the Senate and they control the White House. We`ve put our plan on the table. It`s out there — and it`s time for the Democrats to put their plan on the table.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
UYGUR: Bill, when`s the last time you saw Republicans retreating like this, talking about, oh it`s political reality, we have to run for the hills?
PRESS: I don`t think I`ve ever seen them retreat like this. As relate to that, absolutely perfectly and Boehner just confirmed that. You know, what, I think this is the republican Jonestown, Cenk. I mean, Paul Ryan mix the Kool-Aid, they all drank it, and now they realize it`s a poison brew, but they can`t deny it. I mean, they wrote this thing. They introduced it. They embraced it and they voted on it. It`s like it`s stand freight on their part. And even Eric Cantor`s aide this morning said, quote, “Our position is the Ryan budget.” So, they`re trying to have it in a sense both ways. They don`t want to alienate the Tea Party, but they know this is poison. I mean, this is — I honestly believe on this issue alone that they could lose the House of Representatives. It`s stunningly politically stupid for them to do this.
UYGUR: Well, now, to Bill`s point, Ezra, it seems like they`re stuck in the middle. Because you got a freshman congressman like Joe Walsh who`ve said this today, “I would be very disappointed if we didn`t follow through. We have spent, gosh, a month or two now trying to educate the American people to a pretty good reception, I appreciate the chairman`s notion but I would continue to respectfully challenge him to get this thing through committee.” Meaning, he thinks they`re definitely not going to push it forward and he`s mad about it, so now you`ve got the Tea Party guys mad, and you`ve made the seniors and the rest of the voters mad. Well, this looks like a disaster, doesn`t it?
KLEIN: Right. There`s two big things to watch here. And number one is by bringing out the Ryan plan, by conflating deficit reduction with vast ideological, reshaping of the American state, the Republicans committed a lot of people in their base and in their party to something much bigger than just cutting the debt. That`s going to make it much harder for them to cut eventual deal on the debt ceiling, on the budget, because there are people that now see this as an opportunity, not something to bring down the budget deficit, but to get things like the privatization of Medicare, they wanted all along. But the other thing to watch is that they could drop something like the Medicare privatization plan, so people begin saying, well, they`ve lost.
They`re backing down and get things like big cuts in the Medicaid. But obviously go to the poor and the disabled. And so, don`t have very powerful political constituency. If the Republicans end up seeming like they suffer big political defeat here, but actually getting a big policy win, because it looks like they compromised from something immeasurably extreme to something that`s only quite extreme, that won`t at the end of the day be big policy. So, I`m really urging people to keep an eye on Medicaid that doesn`t have quite the same protection as Medicare does.
UYGUR: Right. And never, you know, underestimate the Democrats` ability to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory.
PRESS: Well, on that point.
UYGUR: So, Bill, how do they press forward on this one now? Because it`s time to put it away.
PRESS: Well, I just going to say, on the point, I think Democrats really have — the ground has certainly shifted, and I think Democrats have gained the advantage in maybe three ways. One, I think they`ve had an advantage now in getting an independent vote on the debt ceiling and stop playing political game with it. Two, I think they have gained an advantage in these budget negotiations. Call it excoriating the Republicans or whatever, but now the Democrats can push for cuts where they ought to come in the oil subsidies, in the Ag-subsidies, in raising the taxes on the wealthy and those things that President Obama has talked about. And then again, thirdly, I think that they have already made those spots, every one of those Republicans that voted for this is going to have that spot running in their district. It was a vote to save Medicare or kill Medicare, and they voted to kill it, and they can`t run away from them.
UYGUR: Bill, I think you`re exactly right. You know how I feel, you have them on the run, you press forward, you move forward.
PRESS: Absolutely.
UYGUR: Go forward. Go after them on a lot of this stuff. We`re talking about oil subsidies next, but there is one issue that they still have a tremendous backing on which I`m not sure they are going to tackle. Let me ask you about that, in that latest Quinnipiac poll, when asked about taxes, here we go again, increased taxes on people making over $250,000, the American people are totally on board. Sixty nine percent say yes, only 28 percent oppose. Is this the time to strike on that as well?
KLEIN: Not only is this the time, but it`s been the time for years now. The Democrats have been running on taxes for a very long time. And the key failure they make when they run on taxes, if you`re not willing to forthrightly advocate for some taxes, and that means on people who make less than $250,000 occasionally, the Clinton era tax cuts rates weren`t horrible for people making 150, 000, 100,000 either. If you never allow people to really raise taxes, you eventually going to have to have something like the Ryan plan. You cannot have a state with any sort of real level of responsibility and things like Medicare, and Medicaid and Social Security, if you don`t also have revenues. The Obama administration has always been quite terribly on the tax issue. And even as they begin to push on 250k and up, at some point Democrats are going to have to come out and say, you know, what, if you want a government, you have to be willing to fund it and it seems people want it, so we got to be adults here.
UYGUR: Hey, listen, if we went back to the Clinton rates, I would do that in a second. I know it`s little tougher on all of us, but hey, we got 22 million jobs at that time. I mean, it was a comprehensive plan that worked.
PRESS: It worked.
UYGUR: Absolutely. All right. Ezra Klein and Bill Press, as always guys, great having you here tonight.
TRUMP TOLD THE AMERICAN PEOPLE THERE ARE THE SECURITY STATE AGENTS WHO THINK THAT THEY RUN THE GOVERNMENT AND HE STOOD UP TO THEM AND CHALLENGED THEIR ORTHODOXIES AND PIETIES AND SHOWED AMERICANS, ESPECIALLY PEOPLE IN THE REPUBLICAN PARTY ON THE RIGHT, THAT THESE INSTITUTIONS ARE NOT NOBLE OR BENEVOLENT BUT ARE HIGHLY PERNICIOUS. THEY […]
Joe Biden said, if you're fully vaccinated, the chances that you can get severely ill, not even die just get severely ill, are very low. And the statistic that he gave is, out of every 160,000 people who have been vaccinated, only one ends up going to the hospital with a serious illness. So the […]
Glenn Greenwald: "So you have huge number of journalists who believe that, they have the right to lie and even when they get caught, they don't care because they know their audience won't hold it against them." Continue reading →
THAT'S WHAT THEY ARE USING JANUARY 6TH. IT'S DEMENTED TO COMPARE 9/11 AND JANUARY 6TH BUT IT'S SO CENTRAL TO THE AGENDA OF THE SECURITY STATE, THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY, TO ESSENTIALLY INITIATE A SURVEILLANCE REGIME, A DETENTION REGIME, AGAINST PEOPLE ON THE RIGHT WHO ARE AGAINST THE ESTABLISHMENT. AND THEY’RE ALREADY DOING IT. AND THEY […]
Carlson: So now we’re arming the Taliban and marooning our own citizens in Afghanistan. Who could possibly have seen that coming. Glenn Greenwald is one of the few journalists who did see it coming. He writes for Substack where all … Continue reading →
And so that is what I call the birth of this woke industrial complex. It is a new leviathan, a new monster, that is far more powerful than what Thomas Hobbes might have envisioned 400 years ago, and it is the biggest threat to individual liberty today. It is not big government alone. Its conservatives […]
FBI CIA NSA are not only spying on American citizens but also are illegally unmasking their identities to journalists who support our fascist government Continue reading →
The government is instructing social media companies what should and shouldn't be allowed to be on the internet, these are the people least competent to judge what is misinformation. Continue reading →
Google, Facebook and Twitter should be treated as state actors under existing legal doctrines. Using a combination of statutory inducements and regulatory threats, Congress has co-opted Silicon Valley to do through the back door what government cannot directly accomplish under the Constitution. Congress is giving Big Tech immunity and more power in exchange for it censoring […]
THE SECURITY STATE HAS EXISTED SINCE THE END OF WORLD WAR II. THEY'VE BEEN OPERATING IN SECRET AND WITH NO DEMOCRATIC ACCOUNTABILITY FOR EIGHT OR NINE DECADES NOW. DWIGHT EISENHOWER WHEN HE LEFT OFFICE WARNED THE COUNTRY ABOUT THE DANGERS THAT THEY POSE. Continue reading →
Darryl Cooper, AKA @MartyrMade, is a podcaster who had a Twitter thread go viral with 13k retweets and 20k likes of the first Tweet alone. This one is 36-Tweets long. It makes very cogent arguments of not only why millions of Trump supporters believe the 2020 election was stolen, but also why we are justified […]
COVID-19 antibodies have been found in blood samples as early as September, 2019. China knew about the virus' transmission to humans months before it announced such to the world. Why has the media and our government not investigated this gross negligence, if not mass murder? Continue reading →
Democrats and elites are making straight white men the enemy of their new world order. Blacks, hispanics, gays are now the good guys; straight white men are the bad guys. Continue reading →
This ruling class of administrative state, big tech, corporations: all of these people think that they can get rid of Trump and we'll go back to normal. They're wedded to a broken system that has sold out the American people. And now they're going to try to sell out the American people and the middle […]
The real threat is collusion. When journalists strike secret alliances with the very people they're supposed to be holding accountable, we are in deep trouble. Lies go unchallenged. Democracy cannot function. And that's what we're watching right now. Continue reading →
The CIA from the very first days of the Trump administration, even before he was inaugurated, devoted themselves to sabotaging the administration because Donald Trump questioned just a few of their pieties. And that can't be done in Washington. Whoever does that must be destroyed. And so the CIA and the Deep State operatives became […]
The problem is the corruption that is absolutely pervasive in the U.S. news media. There are newsrooms all throughout New York and Washington DC, where top editors are explicitly saying they do not want this story investigated. And they're being clear that the reason that they don't want to investigate it is because they think […]
So Apple isn't fighting for diversity. They're doing exactly what they appear to be doing: they're trying to keep wages down and keep their workers compliant by importing labor from abroad.This isn't about diversity. It's about exploitation. It always is Continue reading →
Accountants CPA Hartford, LLC
Accountants CPA Hartford Connecticut is an accounting firm in Hartford, Connecticut offering a variety of accounting & tax services.
10
Accountants CPA Hartford, LLC