Norquist talks debt fight. Will Senator Tom Coburn consider tax increases?

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

O`DONNELL: Good evening from New York.

Two members of a bipartisan group of six senators working to negotiate a deficit reduction solution of their own appeared on Sunday`s “Meet the Press.” One of them was Senator Tom Coburn.

Here is the Republican senator`s response when NBC`s David Gregory asked whether the so-called “gang of six” plan would include tax increases.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

COBURN: Well, we`re not talking about it. I think if you go back and look at the commission`s report, what we were talking about is getting significant dynamic effects by taking away tax credits, lowering the tax rate, and having an economic increase that will actually increase the revenues to the federal government. We`re not talking about raising tax rates at all.

So, if there`s a net effect of tax revenue, that would be fine with me. I experienced that during Reagan`s period in 1986.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

O`DONNELL: That may not have sounded like a particularly bold response to you, but for a Republican senator, nothing braver has been said on television in this century. Senator Coburn just said that he`s willing to violate a pledge he submitted in 2004 to a man I`ve called the most powerful man in America who does not sleep in the White House.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

O`DONNELL: Meet Grover Norquist, the president of Americans for Tax Reform, whose mission statement is, quote, “The government`s power to control one`s life derives from its power to tax. We believe that that power should be minimized.”

There are some Republicans who have thought that, perhaps, perhaps, maybe, we should have raised taxes to pay for the Iraq and Afghanistan wars, or at least partially pay for them. But they would not dare say so, because that would violate a written pledge they had made to Grover Norquist, who presents every Republican running for the House, the Senate, or the White House with a pledge to sign, saying that he or she will never, ever support raising taxes in any way — including by cutting loopholes out of the tax code that might then force an individual or corporation to pay a higher tax bill, something closer to their actual rate that they`re supposed to pay.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

O`DONNELL: David Gregory pointed out that if Senator Coburn supports a “gang of six” plan that raises net tax revenue, he would violate Grover Norquist`s pledge. Senator Coburn is obviously ready for that fight.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

COBURN: Well, I think, which pledge is most important, David? Is the pledge to uphold your oath to the Constitution of the United States or a pledge from a special interest group, who claims to speak for all of American conservatives when, in fact, they really don`t?

(END VIDEO CLIP)

O`DONNELL: Joining me now, the founder and president of Americans for Tax Reform, Grover Norquist.

Grover, thanks for joining me tonight.

GROVER NORQUIST, AMERICANS FOR TAX REFORM: Hey, Lawrence. Good to be with you.

O`DONNELL: I just wanted to get it out there, exactly what Republicans are up against in this tax dialogue. Now, I know you and I won`t have any areas of agreement here. There isn`t much for us to debate. You know, I`m for higher taxes and much, much higher brackets at the top end.

The one tax bill I worked on in the Senate which you opposed and I helped get passed by one vote was the biggest tax increase in your history — your worst nightmare. So, we couldn`t be more opposite on this.

But I just wanted to get it out there that the bind that Republicans are in, I don`t think the public understands outside of Washington politics how you have worked this subject for decades. You actually have signatures on documents, on a written pledge from Senator Coburn and other Republican senators — virtually all of them — and most Republicans in the House, if not all of them, saying that they will never vote for any increase in taxation, which you define as including the elimination of any loopholes, which would then increase an individual or a corporation`s net tax.

Is that correct?

NORQUIST: No. Two things — and Coburn misspeaks, unfortunately. The pledge that Coburn has, and a copy of it right with me here is a pledge to the people of Oklahoma, and to the American people — says so right in black and white. The senator should know that.

It`s not a commitment to me, personally. And it`s not a commitment to Americans for Tax Reform. It is a commitment, in writing, to the citizens of Oklahoma and to the American people. And I hope he will keep it.

O`DONNELL: But Grover, I don`t mean to interrupt, but just to clarify that point — you wrote the pledge, and that`s the way it`s written for everyone one of them, that they pledge to their constituents, but you guys wrote it.

NORQUIST: Well, the pledge says no net tax increase, and we ask people to make that commitment. We ask — you said Republicans, but we ask everybody to make the commitment. There are a handful of Democrats over time at the federal level, at the national level, who`s taken the pledge. Ben Nelson of Nebraska has taken the pledge.

At the state level, where we have about 1,300 pledge-takers, I don`t know the breakdown, but there are quite a few Democrats.

O`DONNELL: Grover, what is the count that you have in the Senate? How many pledge-takers do you have in the Senate?

NORQUIST: Forty-one senators, 236 members of the U.S. House. So, a majority in the House, and a strong showing in the Senate — neither body is going to be passing a tax increase in the next two years and after the next presidential and Senate elections, when we have a different Senate. And one hopes that a pro-taxpayer president, we`ll be able to get significant spending and tax relief.

O`DONNELL: And what happens politically to someone who violates their pledge? What — you can mobilize against them in a Republican primary, can`t you?

NORQUIST: Well, I think if you`d ask George Herbert Walker Bush how his second term went, that was the first president who took the pledge and then broke it two years later, and couldn`t — after a fairly successful presidency, George Herbert Walker Bush managed the collapse of the Soviet Union, he got Iraq out of Kuwait without getting stuck, occupying the place for a decade, and yet when he raised taxes, he`d broken his commitment to the American people and was not able to get re-elected.

So, the pledges between candidates and the people and the American people have said several times in elections, they`re not particularly happy to have their taxes raised. They want less spending.

O`DONNELL: And, Grover, this is the single obsession/concern of you and your organization. I just want to make it clear to the viewers that you don`t — I don`t believe you have any interest in what happens on the spending side of government. Meaning, if I were to say to you, “Oh, come on, Grover, if we do this, we`re not going to be able to fund Medicare the way we would like to.” That just isn`t your concern.

You just want taxes cut and cut and cut and cut?

NORQUIST: No, to the contrary. Only if you take tax increases off the table do you ever get any spending restraint. This is not just in Washington. Thirteen governors have signed the pledge never to raise taxes. That`s why states where governors have said, we`re not raising taxes. New Jersey, they`re getting reforms because taxes are off the table. Florida, Texas, Pennsylvania, Ohio, Michigan, Wisconsin, all states where they`re not raising taxes, and because of that, they`re actually getting reforms.

Why are we looking at reforms as dramatic as Paul Ryan in the House of Representatives, overwhelming Republican vote for Paul Ryan`s $6 trillion spending reform — $6 trillion less in debt and spending than President Obama wants to spend — why? Because taxes are of the table, tax increases, but Ryan is putting forward a very impressive spending reform, taking the rates from 35 percent, the international high for businesses, to 25 percent, the European average. That`s not radical, but it is a big change in the right direction.

So, step one, don`t raise taxes. Step two, force the politicians to make decisions, to govern — to actually decide that some spending programs are worthwhile and some aren`t.

O`DONNELL: Grover, your group is funded according to “Boston Globe” report. You keep it private information how it`s funded, but “The Globe” got its hand on some of your funding — big tobacco companies, big corporate interests, big moneyed interests, obviously, backing your group. It`s not the only political group that`s backed that way, including some on the other side.

But, obviously, everything you`re doing is in service no reducing your supporters` tax bills in whatever way is possible.

But you see polls now in the American public with a vast majority saying — absolutely, push up that top tax bracket. Absolutely push it up. You have Republicans, a majority, 54 percent saying, push up that top tax bracket.

And the reason I wanted to have you on the show tonight is I wanted to make it very clear to the viewer, this is why Republicans — even who represent districts who want that top tax bracket pushed up — this is why Republicans are absolutely locked in voting against any possible tax entreat. Which presidential candidates have signed your pledge?

NORQUIST: Well, in the past, almost all of the Republicans starting with George Herbert Walker Bush. In this cycle, people are just starting to run. So, we haven`t asked people until they formally run. I expect all of the Republican candidates for president will sign the pledge.

But let me back up. We have 100,000 donors to Americans for Tax Reform. Our position is no net tax increases on the overall tax burden. We do not support or oppose any particularly tax credit.

One of the arguments that I`ve had with Senator Coburn is he wants to get rid of the ethanol tax credit, which is a left-wing effort to force people to use higher cost energy that eats up a lot of corn. It`s a very stupid incentive or disincentive. We ought to get rid of it. We were opposed to putting it in the first place.

But we don`t want to use that as a backdoor hidden tax increase — and there`ll be an effort in the Senate, along with the effort to eliminate that bill, to compensate with lower tax rates overall. So, that it`s revenue neutral.

We should get rid of all annoying tax credits and reduce rates.

O`DONNELL: Well, I completely agree with you on your description of the ethanol tax credit. But the idea that, you know, getting rid of it isn`t good enough, and if you get rid of it, you then have to —

NORQUIST: I don`t want to raise taxes to pay for Obama`s big government.

O`DONNELL: I get it.

NORQUIST: You want to raise taxes to pay for Obama`s big government.

O`DONNELL: Absolutely.

NORQUIST: So, we have a disagreement.

O`DONNELL: That`s right.

NORQUIST: So, don`t pretend it`s about ethanol. It`s about your wanting to pay for Obama`s big government.

O`DONNELL: No, it`s about two things, on my end, it is about ethanol. I think — I agree with you completely, your description is accurate, it is a stupid idea. Get rid of it. But I`m happy to say get rid of it period and let the Treasury collect the additional revenue. That`s where —

NORQUIST: Why? They`d just spend it on too much government.

O`DONNELL: Spend it on health care for people who need it.

Grover, we`re out of time. Grover Norquist, Americans for Tax Freedom — or for Tax Reform, sorry. Thanks very much for joining me tonight, Grover.

NORQUIST: Thank you.

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

Follow the clues: Obama intends to lower the corporate tax rates!

Remember when the President made a progressive speech twelves days ago, and everybody laud him for making a strong case for getting rid of the Bush tax cuts for the wealthy including us? But do you also remember that I gave a note of caution because I picked up a line in that speech that not very many people have mentioned, the one where he indicated that he might actually lower taxes:

Obama: “…more economic growth and build on the Fiscal Commission’s model of reducing tax expenditures so that there is enough savings to both lower rates and lower the deficit.”

So what’s that about after giving this huge speech on the need to raise taxes on the rich so that they can pay their fair share, why did he include that line about lowering taxes? Because that was the plan all along, to lower the top corporate and possibly personal income tax.

How did I know that? I read the Fiscal Commission’s findings or at least what since has been published since they (the Obama administration) couldn’t get everybody else to sign on. And they said that they wanted to lower the top corporate and individual income rates after getting rid of deductions and loopholes. And now today, the other shoe is beginning to drop. John Harwood reporting for the New York Times said that the Obama administration is preparing a plan to lower corporate tax rates.

They say it will get rid of loopholes and has a revenue-neutral effect, etc., but what will happen is they will get rid of the loopholes for now, but at the first possible opportunity, the corporations will re-insert those loopholes but now at a lower rate. The rate could be lowered from 35% to 26%. Whose brilliant idea was this? Of course, Tim Geithner. There isn’t a corporate executive that this guy has not wanted to hug.

The policy is disastrous, but what’s worse is the politics. In the middle of a brewing middle-class rage about lack of jobs, high gas prices, where the rich are getting richer and paying less taxes, you’re going to propose lowering corporate taxes?! Are you crazy? How toned deaf are these guys?

What’s your slogan for 2012? I know you’re in a lot of trouble, but don’t worry, I just gave the corporations another break?

Turn around, President Obama, you’re going the wrong way. Stop listening to Geithner, stop listening to the Washington media, the country’s in a rage over the economy. They don’t think this is the answer. Please turn around.

Dear American Voter of the Middle Class:

Please be advised that President Barack Obama intends to screw you yet another additional time.  Yes, we know he screwed you by not even proposing to Congress a single-payer healthcare bill.  And we know that he screwed you by extending tax cuts to the rich.  And yes, he lowered the estate tax on the rich, too, whereby millionaires can pass on as much as $10 million in estates to their heirs without paying any taxes.  And yes, not only are the troops still in Iraq, but he increased the level of troops in Afghanistan and even became involved militarily in Libya.

And, of course, you know that he appointed a very conservative panel to the Deficit Commission, from where he will endorse cuts to Social Security and possibly even to Medicare.

But did you know, after all of this, that he intends to lower the tax rate on Corporations from 35% to 26%?  As Cenk Uygur argues in the clip above, the word is out on the street already.  Obama’s top economic advisor, Tim Geithner, loves big Corporations.  He’s a Wall Streeter. And be further prepared to see a reduction on the highest marginal tax rates, too, for the rich again.

Progressives need a challenger to Obama in 2012.  Anybody but Obama in 2012.  Anybody! Obama is worse than any Republican: he is a traitor to all Progressives. He not only sold Progressives out already, but he will continue to sell out Progressives again and again, even though he promises change!

Progressives, find a leader to run against Obama in a primary…now!

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

The Trump card 2012. Is Trump’s strategy backfiring?

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

UYGUR: Breaking news from the Trump campaign, Meat Loaf has signed on. This singer says, not only will he‘ll vote for Donald Trump, but he will also campaign for them. No word on whether Meat Loaf will accompany Trump this Wednesday when he visits New Hampshire and keep primary state. But while Trump has the Meat Loaf vote locked up, he lost the raging bull. Robert De Niro is steaming mad at Trump and he‘s calling him out. Here‘s what De Niro told Trump.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

ROBERT DE NIRO, ACTOR: Come out, come out wherever you have.

(END VIDEO CLIP)
UYGUR: All right. He didn‘t say that. But here‘s what he actually said about Trump‘s birther obsession at the Tribeca Film Festival this weekend, quote, “it‘s like a big hustle, it‘s like being a car salesman. Don‘t go out there and say things unless you can back them up. How dare you? That‘s awful to do.” Of course, Trump couldn‘t let that one go, and he lobbed this cheap shot at De Niro.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

DONALD TRUMP, ENTREPRENEUR: Well, he‘s not the brightest bulb in the planet. I mean, I‘ve been watching him over the years. And I like his acting, but, you know, in terms of when I watch him doing interviews and various other things, we‘re not dealing with Albert Einstein.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

TRUMP: He can‘t help himself. He‘s got a comment on every day. Now, let‘s look at this celebrity tally for against the Donald. Gary Busey joins Meat Loaf on team Trump. That‘s a powerful combo. And Jerry Seinfeld is with De Niro and the Trump is nuts column. Charlie Sheen makes both lists. He came out as a birther last week, but later told an audience not to vote for Trump, because he claims Trump get this, once gave him a pair of diamond and platinum cuff links that turned out to be fake. I‘m so not surprised by that story. Anyway, Trump isn‘t just around up Hollywood, he has also whipped up the Republican Party into a frenzy as well. His shameless devotion to the birther conspiracy theory as Tea Party—and bolted them to the top of the polls. Then on Sunday, Reverend Franklin came out and support.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

REV. FRANKLIN GRAHAM, EVANGELIST: When I first saw that he was getting in, I thought, well this is going to be a joke, but the more you listen to him. The more you say to yourself, you know, maybe the guy is right.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

UYGUR: And that‘s of course Franklin Graham, and that‘s of course him coming out of the closet and saying, he‘s a birther now that Trump has given cover. Meanwhile, Karl Rove sent a strong message when he called Trump a joke, so he‘s in the anti-Trump category. So, is House Majority Leader Eric Cantor, Senator John McCain, New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg. They all seem to wish that Trump would go and take his birth certificate with them. But Donald Trump has proven that he‘s pre-much to honor republican people are talking about.

Man, everybody is talking about him. He sucked the oxygen right out of the race. It‘s already proven to be too much for Mississippi Governor Haley Barbour, who announced today, he‘s not running for president. Saying, he lacked the necessary fire in the bailey. Given that I‘ll live in a glass house, I will not make any bailey jokes. Let the battle for one percent of voters who supported Barbour begin by the way. Pawlenty get ready. There‘s that one percent for Grahams. As for Trump, he shows no signs of backing out yet. Of course, in fact, just when you think the story is dying down, the Trump hike machines starts all over again, and even Al Pacino has gotten sucked into this story.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

UNIDENTIFIED MAN: Just when I thought I was out, they pulled me back in.

UYGUR: All right. He didn‘t say that, either. All right.

Let me bring in Justin Elliott, reporter for Salon. com. Just in recently wrote a piece of “How Trump Could Run and Still Hide His Net Worth.” And received a handwritten response from Donald Trump referring to the person of financial disclosure form that presidential candidates have to fund. Trump wrote, quote, “Justin, I have no problem, I would in fact file early. You will be very surprised, the Donald.”

All right. Justin, you are here. He‘s unbelievable, man. He can‘t help himself. So, were you surprised when you got the letter?

JUSTIN ELLIOTT, REPORTER, SALON. COM: Well, I mean, my first reaction was, this is probably the latest events, that he‘s not running. They‘re taking the time to print out my articles right—and have—back to me. But I think the other key thing that shows that Trump is profoundly insecure about his net worth, you know, a lot of people think that he have been lying about how much—how rich he is. Over the years, he‘s throwing around, numbers like three, four, five billion. Independent estimates put a lot lower. So, clearly that‘s what I was writing about. If he declares his official candidacy at a certain point, you have to release information about how much he worth. So, that‘s the reason why people think he‘s not really going to run.

UYGUR: That‘s what I think. But can he hide his net worth or no?

ELLIOTT: Well, it turns out under the law, he can drag it on for real long time.

UYGUR: Oh, boy!

ELLIOTT: As long as he officially doesn‘t say, he‘s a candidate, and he says, I‘m out there testing the waters as long as he doesn‘t run ads, do a few other things, he doesn‘t trigger the 30-day deadline to file this personal disclosure. So, you know, the first primaries can be win, January, he may have eight months.

UYGUR: Oh, boy! That means we have a lot of Trump unfortunately going forward. You know, but when you ask him about his financial, when you ask him about bankruptcies for example, here‘s what he said. He said, look, quote, “we‘re using the law to our advantage. That shouldn‘t be embarrassing. That should be smart. When I explain it to people, they get it. But a lot of people don‘t know. They say, Trump filed for bankruptcy, it‘s not personal, it‘s just business.” Now, if the average homeowner come and says, look, it‘s not personal, it‘s just business, I‘m underwater, I‘m not paying the mortgage. They say, oh deadbeat, how can you do that? You had a contract et cetera. So, for rich people, contracts are irrelevant, they could just declare bankruptcy whatever they want and get out.

ELLIOTT: Well, I think, actually his first bankruptcy, and we should say I believe he‘s had more bankruptcy than he has had wives, and he‘s had three wives. But his first bankruptcy I believe is early ‘90s involving a failed casino. He owed the bank so much money that they couldn‘t—they bailed him out, because they needed him essentially. So, yes. The certain point if you‘re rich enough, you owed a bank enough money, the need you.

UYGUR: That‘s absurd. All right. So now, the other issues just come out is apparently he has not voted as much as he had said that he had voted. He had missed the 2002 general elections, he skipped 21 years of primaries starting in 1989. So, how does he‘s going to explain that? Well, we got a video of that. So, let‘s watch.

ELLIOTT: Sometimes, you‘ll have a primary where republican is even mentioned, and where there is no Republicans, or where he‘s expected to get four percent of the vote and I‘ll be in a foreign state or I‘ll be in foreign country doing business. And am I supposed to drive back when the Republican is, you know, considered to get three percent of the vote, or there is no republican even running. So, a little bit of that. But in terms of the general election, my record is very good. I mean, general speaking, I like the vote. I‘m a believer in voting, I will tell you.

UYGUR: All right. First of all, I thought it was Gretchen Carlson in there, but they just did a fill in the blank. But anyway, onto Trump, is that going to be convincing to primary voters when he says, come out and vote for me. And he just told everybody, no, primaries, that was busy.

ELLIOTT: No. I don‘t think Trump is even particularly political, I mean, I don‘t know that he could pass a high school civics class. This is the guy, we shouldn‘t take at face value that he‘s a republican. I mean, he ran or he talked a lot about running on a reform party ticket in 2000. A colleague of mine at Salon.com today reported he gave $30,000 to Ed Rendell, democrat in Pennsylvania, six months ago, $50,000 to Rahm Emanuel. I don‘t even think he‘s a republican.

UYGUR: Really? Wow! Fifty thousand to Rahm Emanuel. But on other hand. It‘s not the most liberal guy in the world. Anyway, but Ed Rendell, a strong progressive, is on the show all the time. All right. So, you know, we can‘t figure out where the Donald is going or leaving. But he loves the attention. So, my guess, you write another article, he‘ll write you another handwritten note.

ELLIOTT: Yes. And this is all by, I mean, he lives off his brand. A lot of buildings that bare his name, he doesn‘t own those buildings. He‘s licensing his name, so it‘s all.

UYGUR: You‘re getting another letter, OK. Watch yourself, Justin. All right. Justin Elliott, of course, from Salon.com. Thanks for joining us.

ELLIOTT: Thanks a lot.

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

The Ryan Shame. Is the GOP losing the budget war?

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

UYGUR: The memo is out. It‘s so out, even the Democrats got it. The Ryan plan to cut Medicare and lower taxes for the rich is a disaster for the Republicans. GOP law makers in their home districts have been getting an earful from voters who don‘t want them to privatize Medicare. And now, the Democrats are mobilizing that anger, and new democratic web video highlights republican freshmen who flip flopped on Medicare.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

REP. DAN BENISHEK ®, MICHIGAN: Social Security and Medicare are a promise we have made to our seniors. And I will keep that promise.

REP. SCOTT TIPTON ®, COLORADO: I‘ll never put or (INAUDIBLE) with no privatization, and no scaring our seniors.

REP. STEVE SOUTHERLAND ®, FLORIDA: We have been to fulfill our commitment to our seniors. The promises that we have made.

REP. RENEE ELLMERS ®, NORTH CAROLINA: Cutting Medicare, $500 million to pay for Obama care. That‘s wrong.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

UYGUR: Look at that tough ad from the Democrats. They just accused the Republicans of lying. When is the last time you saw that? And the progressive group, Americans United for Change is launching a campaign against lawmakers who backed the Ryan plan, starting with this TV ad.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

UNIDENTIFIED WOMAN: Paul Ryan looks like a nice young man, but on April 15th, he thought to end Medicare, and its guaranteed health care benefits. He‘s ending Medicare, so millionaires can get another tax break? Really? Call Congressman Ryan and ask, what were you thinking?

(END VIDEO CLIP)

UYGUR: And now it looks like the Democrats and Congress are not about to let the Republicans off the hook either. Majority Leader Harry Reid will reportedly will schedule a vote on Ryan‘s plan in the Senate, forcing Republicans there to go on the record for ending Medicare or into voting against their own party‘s plan. That‘s what the idea that I love. Now, once so called moderate. Susan Collins of Maine just announced, she would not support the Ryan plan. So, here we go. The dissension begins. And tomorrow, House republican leaders are holding a conference call with nervous law makers. A GOP source tells National Journal, the calls to help law makers who quote, have been getting the crap kicked out of them in town hall‘s back home.

Music to my ears. I just checked out how agitated Congressman Sean Duffy got when a voter challenged him on Medicare at a town hall last week.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

REP. SEAN DUFFY ®, WISCONSIN: Let me tell you what, when you have your town hall, you can stand up and give your presentation. I call a name and we—if you just, I guess I owe everyone here a level of respect. You can ask me whatever questions, they‘re not always easy. I‘m doing the best job I can answer your questions.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

UYGUR: Well, they don‘t like being challenged, when Democrats are being challenge, they love that, right? Now, many of the Republicans are so afraid they‘ve abort a schedule in town halls all together. Why? Because they‘ll know what they‘ll here. Every major poll taken on the last few weeks had shown overwhelming opposition to slashing Medicare. When‘s the last time you saw Republicans running for the hills like this? Look, when are they ever going to learn? Americans love their Social Security and Medicare, so stop trying to kill it.

Joining me now is Congressman Steve Israel, democrat, and from New York I had to say. And chairman of the Democratic National Congressional Campaign Committee. Congressman Israel, great to have you with us tonight.

REP. STEVE ISRAEL (D), NEW YORK: Great to be with you.

UYGUR: All right. Now, those ads and videos that Democrats and progressive groups put together are pretty tough. How much are you guys going press, is this going to be the main issue, going into 2012 saying, they voted to cut Medicare?

ISRAEL: Yes. The vote to terminate Medicare was the defining vote of this Congress, and we intent to hold Republicans accountable every day and in every way for that vote. They are right now trying to defend the indefensible. And the indefensible is, terminating the guaranteed Medicare benefit costing seniors an additional 12,000 in order to fund tax cuts for people making over a million dollars. It is indefensible vote, we‘ll going to hold them accountable. And were going to hold them accountable very aggressively.

UYGUR: And, you know, they said that the Democrats want to cut Medicare because of getting rid Medicare advantage. That‘s what they run on in 2010. That‘s what the DCCC ad shows, but Ryan‘s plan in a double or triple hypocrisy also gets rid of Medicare advantage, so how do they justify that?

ISRAEL: You know, every time I think that they have reach the hypocrisy limit, they prove me wrong. They proved to me that there are no boundaries for hypocrisy in the republican caucus. They spent an entire campaign falsely advertising to seniors that we were going to reduce Medicare. In fact, we increase the solvency of Medicare, we strengthen Medicare. And they say that their plan now to improve Medicare is to end Medicare. Well, guess what? There‘s a reason that every major poll in the country is showing us that seniors, and independents, Democrats and Republicans are absolutely rejecting the republican plan. They are not falling for this nonsense that ending Medicare is improving Medicare.

UYGUR: All right. Well, let me show you some poll numbers here citing this very important to the two parties obviously. In 2008, the Republicans got 53 percent of the senior vote, that 65 years and older. And then in 2010, they got 59 percent, so they had a significant jump up. Have they put that back in play for you, guys? For you to be able to go get that senior votes in 2012?

ISRAEL: They have put back into play two critical groups of the electorate, seniors and Independents. Look, the bottom line is that we lost seniors in 2010 and we lost about 9 million Independents in 2010. Now, we lost them because Republicans were effectively able to lie about us on Medicare. All we have to do to get them back is tell the truth about Republicans wanted to end Medicare. That‘s precisely what we‘re doing now. And what we‘re going to continue to do every day. And this isn‘t about politics by the way. This is about what defines Democrats and Republicans. This is about Democrats who were willing to stand up and continue Medicare but don‘t believe that we should Medicare to fund tax cuts for people making it over million dollars versus Republicans who are willing to cost seniors in additional $12,000 in order to fund tax cuts for millionaires. Under the Republican plan, if you‘re making over million dollars, you win the lotto. If you‘re a senior on Medicare, you lose your Medicare.

UYGUR: Right.

ISRAEL: That‘s what this is about. And we‘re going to keep this message going.

UYGUR: Now, Republicans say, wait a minute, our plan does not affect anybody over the age of 55. We‘re only planning to end Medicare for people under 55. Now, is that also partly an admission though on their part, that well, if they applied it to people over 55, they would be livid, right? So, let‘s just try to kill Medicare for people who might not notice.

ISRAEL: It‘s an absolute admission. You know, what they‘re saying is we know this is a bad idea. So we‘re going to wait for ten years for the bad idea to kick in. Well, you know, I‘ll be honest, I‘m 52-years-old. I paid into Medicare all my working life for decades and decades. And when it‘s time for me to receive Medicare, how is it fair that the government says, well, the Ryan plan denies you Medicare, we turn it over to the insurance companies and we‘re only going to cover you for some of the cost. That is not fair to people who have been paying into Medicare. There are better ways to balance budgets. We balance budgets by tightening our belts, by reducing spending. They balance budgets by eliminating Medicare for seniors and giving tax cuts for millionaires.

UYGUR: All right. Representative Steve Israel, thank you for joining us tonight.

ISRAEL: Thank you.

UYGUR: All right. Now, one progressive group that‘s mobilizing direct action against these lawmakers who voted to end Medicare is MoveOn.Org. Urging people to attend these town halls and call the politicians to account. Now, let me bring in Justin Ruben. Here‘s the executive director of MoveOn.Org. All right. Justin, what are you guys planning to do to mobilize those MoveOn activists at these town hall events.

JUSTIN RUBEN, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, MOVEON.ORG: Well, you know, I think what we found is that when people know about this budget, as soon as people understand exactly what‘s going on, it actually is going to end Medicare to give a tax base to millionaires, people are outraged. And so, the first thing we‘ve been doing is giving people the information, and then, you know, we have members in basically every congressional district. MoveOn about 500 million people around the country, so they‘ve been scouring the newspaper looking for these town halls. And as soon as anybody finds out about them letting the other members MoveOn know through the network and sharing up this town halls to give people a piece of their mind.

UYGUR: Right. And we were just showing video there of the juxtaposition between what happened in 2009 to the Democrats and some Republicans. And to what‘s happening today. That‘s Ryan getting booed there. Now, other than having people in all the states, you also have a huge age group. Are you seeing seniors more mad at this plan even though when they apply to people over 55 or you‘re seeing people under 55 who get in there motivated?

RUBEN: You know, we‘ve been, basically, my experience has been everybody you talk to about this, when people know about it, they just get so angry. You know, I think it just doesn‘t match—it‘s not just that people are worried about, they might be worried about their parents, they‘re worried about what‘s going to happen to them, if they‘re 55. But, you know, and then you have senior citizens saying, you know, what about my grandkids? What about my children? And if they come after Medicare for them, who‘s to say they‘re not going to come after Medicare for me, too. So, I think that you know, the key thing, is that more people hear about this, the angrier they get to Republicans.

UYGUR: Now, Justin, some people will say, hey, look, those Koch brothers organized some of those plans, you know, where the Arlen Specter doing the famous thing we just say, wait a minute, wait a minute, right? And you guys are organizing bringing people the town hall events, so what‘s the difference?

RUBEN: Right. You know, there are two big differences, right? One is MoveOn is funded entirely by small donations. Millions of people around the country who donate whatever they can to make this happen. And this is, you know, it‘s pure grass roots democracy. People letting their neighbors and know about this town halls, and teaming up together to go and actually, and give Republicans a piece of their mind. I think the other thing is just, this is so far out of rack with America‘s priority. I mean, literally, we‘re going to take health caraway from old people in order to give tax breaks to corporations and rich people. You know, that‘s not where American voters are. That may be where the Koch brothers and other corporate backers Republican Party are at, but that is definitely not where the American people at. And this, you know, I think MoveOn members are squarely within the majority of the American people or saying, this is what we stand for.

UYGUR: Right. And my understanding is you personally are not going to gain from this plan, right? Because the Koch Brothers are like hey, we get rid at some of those stuff. They stand the game. And MoveOn obviously is fighting for your ideology. Right other wrong, people agree or disagree, but that‘s what‘s happening.

RUBEN: Yes. Absolutely.

UYGUR: All right. Justin, thank you so much for joining us.

RUBEN: Thank you very much.

UYGUR: Justin Ruben, executive director of MoveOn.org.

Posted in Accountants CPA Hartford, Articles | Tagged , , , | 1 Comment

Budget backlash. Town hall attendees target Ryan’s budget.

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

CHRIS MATTHEWS, HOST: Republicans trying to kill Medicare.

Let`s play HARDBALL.

Good evening. I`m Chris Matthews down in Washington. Leading off tonight:

The revenge of the people. Remember all those videos of angry town halls

where voters attacked Democrats over health care? Well, now Democrats

are hoping for a new round of that fighting, this time over Paul Ryan`s push

to kill Medicare, the Republicans` push to kill Medicare. Democrats have even

released a video on the issue. Well, the Republican demolition of Medicare

tops our show tonight.

Plus, the Republican protection racket for the rich. Why do Republicans fight

so hard to defend the rich from paying their fair share of taxes? You tell me.

Also, Donald Trump`s new right-wing buddy and the New York mayor who

says he`s birther mad.

F-16s, by the way, from Norway, of all places, try to kill Gadhafi. No way.

Finally, Haley Barbour`s not running for president — just found out today. So

who is?

We start with the backlash against the Republican Medicare kill. Howard

Fineman is political editor for the HuffingtonPost and David Corn is

Washington bureau chief for “Mother Jones” magazine. Both are MSNBC

political analysts.

Let me take a look — I want you both to see the latest footage. If you hold a

town meeting today, you can be sure someone will have a cell phone…

(LAUGHTER)

MATTHEWS: … someone will have a way of showing it to the world.

Everything now goes viral. Here`s Republican congressman Lou Barletta. He

was the anti-immigrant guy who got elected in Hazleton, Pennsylvania. Here

he is facing angry constituents not over illegal immigrants, but by the

Republican effort to kill Medicare. Let`s watch.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: What you`re doing with this Ryan budget is you`re

taking Medicare and you`re changing it from a guaranteed health care system

to one that is a voucher system, where you throw seniors — I`m 64. You

throw seniors on the mercy of for-profit insurance companies.

The reason we have Medicare in the first place is because seniors couldn`t

get health insurance. People won`t cover seniors for this lousy $15,000. You

said nothing in the campaign about, I`m going to change Medicare. Now you

voted for a plan that will destroy Medicare.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

MATTHEWS: Boy, she is good because she`s totally informed. And by the

way, that little pirouette she did when she turned around and starts…

(CROSSTALK)

MATTHEWS: … Look, I own this room! And she`s basically saying, Lou

Barletta, you ran against illegal immigrants. Fair enough. We elected you

because we didn`t like illegal immigrants. Next thing you know, you`re voting

with the Republicans like a lemming to kill our Medicare.

These are — look, Pennsylvanians up in that part of the country are not rich

people. They`re working class, middle class people, but they`re not going to

head off to Florida to live in some big houses somewhere. They got to make it

up there through the winter and all, and they need the Medicare.

HOWARD FINEMAN, HUFFINGTONPOST.COM, MSNBC POLITICAL ANALYST:

Yes. Well, you know, that…

MATTHEWS: Why is this guy voting with the party like a lemming?

FINEMAN: That`s Joe Biden`s ancestral homeland up there…

MATTHEWS: Right.

FINEMAN: … in the Scranton — you know, eastern Pennsylvania area. It`s an

older demographic. And the Democrats are going to target anybody at or

near…

MATTHEWS: Looks like those people are targeting the Republicans!

FINEMAN: Yes, they definitely are. They definitely are. I think you`re going to

see much more…

MATTHEWS: Why do…

FINEMAN: … of that all around the country.

MATTHEWS: Howard, you and I have been in this business a long time.

FINEMAN: Yes. Yes.

MATTHEWS: What moonshine did Barletta drink that got him to vote with the

Republican vote to kill Medicare? One of the — they`re not going to kill Social

Security. Nobody`s that nuts.

FINEMAN: Right.

MATTHEWS: But you`re pretty close to being nuts when you mess with

Medicare…

FINEMAN: Yes.

MATTHEWS: … the one program I`ve discovered everybody likes once they

turn 65.

FINEMAN: Yes. And I can`t answer it other than to say that ideology trumps

political common sense in this case because they are fixated on the idea that

the route to salvation for the country and for them politically is to cut

government spending.

MATTHEWS: OK…

FINEMAN: But that`s not the popular…

MATTHEWS: The average person doesn`t think…

FINEMAN: … or even necessarily the right way…

MATTHEWS: … it`s government spending. They pay…

FINEMAN: They don`t. They don`t.

MATTHEWS: Let me ask you this. They all have dodges now. We`re going to

get to Pat Meehan…

FINEMAN: Yes.

MATTHEWS: … the former U.S. attorney, who wishes he was still a U.S.

attorney, by the way, I think, defending himself by saying, This is just

blueprint. Well, now the big dodge the Republicans have is, yes, I voted for it,

but that only affects people 55 or 54 and younger. And that woman

apparently in that same exchanged turned around and said, yes — when he

tried to defend himself, she said, yes, but I care about my nieces and

nephews. I don`t want them screwed out of Medicare.

DAVID CORN, “MOTHER JONES,” MSNBC POLITICAL ANALYST: Well, more

important than that, I mean, in that demographic, I worry. But also, people

have parents and people who are 30 and 40 are looking at the parents who

may be 55 or 60…

MATTHEWS: Right.

CORN: … and heading in that direction, they don`t want to worry about

for-profit insurance taking care of their parents in the next five, ten years. So

there`s — it`s not just 64 or…

MATTHEWS: Yes, here`s your Starbucks gift card. Go buy some insurance.

CORN: I mean, that…

MATTHEWS: Take a look at the map. Here`s what`s going on. The Democrats

aren`t so stupid. Look, they got a map now. They`re looking around the

country, where they lost the seats just last November. This isn`t a Hundred

Years War. This is a few months ago. They got blown away in those races.

Now they`re already targeting those to get back, Howard.

FINEMAN: Well, one of the keys is five of those on the map — I don`t know if it

shows that, but five of them in Florida. Five of the districts are in Florida. Duh.

Not surprisingly.

MATTHEWS: Because?

FINEMAN: Well, because of the senior demographic.

MATTHEWS: But they got — they`re the people with money.

FINEMAN: They`re the people with money, but they care about this. They

believe in it philosophically. You`ve got Arizona. You`ve got Iowa. You`ve got

Pennsylvania. That`s what they`re going after. And by the way, by trying to

exempt the younger people, also, it doesn`t necessarily help the Republicans

make their case because what they`re saying to the younger voters is,

We`re going to screw you. We`re going to screw you. So if you look at who

supports what across the board…

(CROSSTALK)

CORN: There are 13 congressional districts where people — where they

elected Republicans in last November, but in 2008 and 2004, they voted for

Barack Obama and John Kerry. That`s half of the 25 they`re going after.

Barletta is in one of those districts. These are the people who should be

running scared. These are Democratic-leaning or Democratic high registration

districts where the people like Medicare, like Medicaid, as well. And they

don`t like tax cuts for the rich. So they all should be worried what`s going to

happen.

MATTHEWS: OK, well, this splits both ways. Let`s try to balance this out, this

discussion. (INAUDIBLE) You look at your cash situation, most Americans,

and most people in the country don`t live in cities, they drive cars. So a lot of

your cash is going right into that pump right now, you know, whether you`re

doing the card or you`re paying the cash, 78 bucks a pop…

CORN: Oh, yes.

MATTHEWS: … paying supreme, you`re paying regular, a little less. Twice a

week, you`re getting killed over 100 bucks in cash. So you`re cash poor.

Then you look at the value of your house. You thought it was worth 100K.

You`re getting close to retirement. That`s your nest egg. That`s only worth

$70,000. So what`s happening today is people are facing cash poverty and

wealth poverty. What I thought I owned in the back pocket — I could go watch

television (ph), I think — at least I own the house. I`m going to sell that to retire

with — it ain`t what it was. You`re going to have a lot less money to go buy

an apartment somewhere, a condo in the — wherever…

CORN: Hey, and their kids…

(CROSSTALK)

MATTHEWS: … on top of that, your Medicare is getting screwed. It isn`t going

to cover you for your health…

CORN: And their kids are not getting good jobs. I mean, that`s the other thing.

MATTHEWS: So who do you blame?

CORN: So you know, the whole feeling…

MATTHEWS: Let`s watch…

CORN: … of security is gone.

MATTHEWS: Let`s watch this guy. Here`s a guy who got elected in Joe

Sestak`s districts. You know this district.

FINEMAN: Yes, I do.

MATTHEWS: It`s right — Delaware County. It`s regular people. They`re not a

lot of right-wing country folk. They`re suburban people, inner, outer suburb.

Here they are realizing the guy they elected because he`s a clean U.S.

prosecutor has been voting the Republican lemming line. Here he is trying to

defend his vote. And here he is — wait until you hear his defense. It`s very

interesting, a little too interesting. Here he is, Pat Meehan, defending his vote

to cut Medicare.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: If you voted to abolish Medicare, how will you explain

that to people who are in their 50s who are out of work, that they will have

not the Medicare that I have?

REP. PAT MEEHAN (R), PENNSYLVANIA: You said in your comment that I

voted to abolish Medicare, and that`s factually wrong.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Well, how is that wrong?

MEEHAN: Let me answer the question…

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: I will.

MEEHAN: … and then I`ll talk to you. Thank you. I voted for the Ryan plan.

What Paul Ryan has put out is a blueprint, a sense of what we would like to

do, a direction that we`d like to go in.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

(LAUGHTER)

MATTHEWS: Do you think it helped he was wearing a regular work shirt

when…

CORN: No.

MATTHEWS: … he explains killing Medicare?

CORN: It doesn`t help.

FINEMAN: And to say it`s a blueprint doesn`t help, either, because he — what

does that mean? He doesn`t explain what that means. And the more he tries

to explain actually what he voted for, the deeper trouble he`s in because

there`s no way that the mathematics of the Ryan plan would result in

anything other than the average retired person paying at least $5,000 or

$6,000 more…

CORN: These are not…

FINEMAN: … a year in the end. These are not numbers made up…

(CROSSTALK)

CORN: These are not suggested guidelines. You know, for years — the last

year, we`ve heard that Paul Ryan has an integral, coherent plan to save the

country. This is part of that. This is not sort of, Well, let`s have a committee

and study whether we should do this. The Republicans are on record of

ending Medicare and Medicaid as…

(CROSSTALK)

MATTHEWS: It`s just like saying I voted to authorize to war not to go to war.

CORN: It`s even worse than that.

FINEMAN: Well, the problem is, there are numbers attached to it now because

the Congressional Budget Office and other sort of neutral umpires of this

thing are saying there`s no way that the vouchers that Paul Ryan would

hand out would cover all the costs, and so people are going to have to

absorb more of it themselves.

(CROSSTALK)

FINEMAN: Wait. The Republicans aren`t really arguing with those numbers.

MATTHEWS: Let`s take a look at this ad campaign. It was put together by a

progressive group called Americans United for Change. It`s launched an ad

campaign, as I said, this week in four congressional districts at about

$35,000 a pop. By the way, it`s going after, in this case, Sean Duffy of

Wisconsin. Let`s watch the ad nailing the Republicans. Let`s listen.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Sean Duffy looks like a nice young man, but on April

15th, he voted to end Medicare and its guaranteed health care benefits.

Instead, he wants seniors to get coverage from private insurance

companies. Under Duffy`s plan, seniors` costs will go up over $6,000. Duffy

wants to use that money to give millionaires a $200,000 tax break. Ending

Medicare so millionaires can get another tax break? Really? Call

Congressman Duffy and ask, What were…

(END VIDEO CLIP)

(CROSSTALK)

FINEMAN: … the voice of that person, and she sounds like Betty White.

MATTHEWS: It is Betty White.

(LAUGHTER)

MATTHEWS: No, I`m just kidding.

(CROSSTALK)

FINEMAN: That`s a granny — that`s Betty White or Granny or Aunt Flabby or

somebody saying, How dare that nice young man try to deny me Medicare?

MATTHEWS: In other words, I liked his looks, but he`s hurting me.

CORN: But guess what? The Republicans are acting like Republicans!

They`re squeezing the elderly and the poor to make room for tax cuts for the

rich. I mean, this is a gift to the Democrats. And if they can`t do ads like that

across the country, they should…

(CROSSTALK)

MATTHEWS: We got two Republicans on the run, one saying it was just a

blueprint. What was the other one saying? Oh, it`s only for 55 and younger.

So Howard, the fact that they`re already on the run, that they`re playing

dodgeball here, does that tell…

(CROSSTALK)

MATTHEWS: What`s that tell the top Republicans in the House?

FINEMAN: You asked initially, Why did they do it? I think there was a sort of

group frenzy, a sort of group mentality, We got to do something for the Tea

Party initially, we got to be with the Tea Party. And so they did it. This was

the one thing that they felt they had to do…

MATTHEWS: Are they dead?

FINEMAN: … after the election.

MATTHEWS: Are they dead?

FINEMAN: Well, they`re going to run as fast as they can unless they can

change the subject between now and (INAUDIBLE)

MATTHEWS: Well, how do they change the fact they voted for this thing, they

voted for it?

CORN: They can`t change the fact. And this is an albatross around their

neck. They have a year-and-a-half now to try to…

MATTHEWS: Well, it`s a millstone around your neck…

(CROSSTALK)

CORN: No. The Ancient Mariner wore the albatross.

MATTHEWS: OK.

CORN: But this is — this is a heavy burden for them to carry for the next

year-and-a-half because any time they talk about deficit — and they thought

they had an advantage on Obama on the budget and the deficit and tax

issues and all this stuff. Now he has a counterargument. Yes, but this is

what they want to do. And it`s not going to go away.

FINEMAN: Well, they have to — they have to change the argument back to the

fact that the government`s broke, and I don`t know if they can do it. They`re

going to try.

CORN: And the economy`s…

MATTHEWS: Isn`t it like Hollywood? This is high concept.

CORN: Yes.

FINEMAN: That part`s high concept. Losing the Medicare money is not high

concept. That`s the problem for the Republicans.

MATTHEWS: That`s right. Thank you. It`s easier to understand the Democrat

argument — the Democratic argument. Howard Fineman, David Corn, jumping

on the Republican carcass — objectively.

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

A question of taxes. Take a hike.

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP, “MEET THE PRESS WITH DAVID GREGORY”)

DAVID GREGORY, MODERATOR, “MEET THE PRESS”: Could you support a

deal here out of this gang of six on the budget that includes tax increases?

SEN. TOM COBURN (R), OKLAHOMA: Well, we are not talking about it. We

are not talking about raising tax rates at all so.

GREGORY: All right, but here`s — here`s…

(CROSSTALK)

COBURN: So, if there`s a net effect of tax revenue, that would be fine with

me.

GREGORY: Alan Greenspan was on this program last week. He said the

Bush era tax cuts should expire for everybody. Is that not fair?

SEN. KENT CONRAD (D), NORTH DAKOTA: So, you have got to work both

sides of the equation. But we did not raise tax rates in this proposal. What

we did was have tax reform.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

MATTHEWS: Welcome back to HARDBALL.

That was Republican Senator Tom Coburn of Oklahoma and Democratic

Senator Kent Conrad of North Dakota on “Meet the Press” yesterday.

Can Democrats and Republicans find a way to fix the budget?

Former Labor Secretary Robert Reich is a professor at U.C. Berkeley and

author of the new book “Aftershock.” There it is. And University of Virginia

Professor Larry Sabato is the author of “Pendulum Swing.”

Gentlemen, thank you for coming on the show.

ROBERT REICH, FORMER U.S. LABOR SECRETARY: Thank you.

MATTHEWS: This is something that has really gotten sort of bogged up or —

or clogged up in American politics. That is, you can only adjust one side of

the ledger now. That means cutting taxes — or cutting spending, and that`s all

anybody talks about.

Look at these new numbers right now. We have got a “Washington

Post”/ABC poll you might not be shocked by. Forty-three percent — 53

percent opposed to even a small tax increase and small cuts in Medicare. It`s

written as almost minuscule and it`s written as a fair proposition, and people

still reject it 53-45.

Then you ask people, should we go after — sock it to people that make most

of the money, and it`s 3-1 tax people, over 72 percent.

Robert Reich, it seems like people don`t want any kind of an across-

the-board adjustment in anything. They only get excited about hitting people

hard who they are not. In other words, I can read a poll to know that most of

the people who are responding to this are making less than $250,000 a year,

and they`re saying hit the people that do make more.

Is this where we`re at, we only go after the rich, that`s it?

(CROSSTALK)

REICH: Well — oh, Chris, I thought the most part of that “Washington

Post”/ABC poll you`re talking about is that 54 percent, 54 percent of

registered Republicans said taxes should be increased on the rich.

Now, I haven`t seen anything like that for the last 30 or 40 years. And I

haven`t been following every poll for the last 30 or 40 years, but for years

Republicans have been saying and most of the public has been believing that

if you cut taxes on the rich, then you get trickle-down economics that

benefits everybody, and, also, if you increase taxes on the rich, everybody

will be hurt because some day everybody`s going to be a millionaire.

MATTHEWS: Yes.

REICH: Well, those are two methodologies, and they have both gone out of

style and out of fashion. So, even Republicans are beginning to say, look, if

we have no other choice, let`s raise taxes on the rich.

MATTHEWS: So, if that`s the voters` opinion, Larry, why isn`t it happening?

Why do both parties…

LARRY SABATO, DIRECTOR, UNIVERSITY OF VIRGINIA CENTER FOR

POLITICS: It`s not happening…

MATTHEWS: We just saw two members of Congress who are supposed to

be the guys in the middle cutting the deal, they were gun-shy, both of them,

on any kind of tax increase.

SABATO: Yes, because a poll is a not an election. That`s fundamentally the

difference here.

Look, the reason Republicans almost universally, not just Tea Party

Republicans, but mainstream Republicans, oppose any tax increase is

because if they do, they`re guaranteed not just a Tea Party challenge.

They`re probably going to be challenged in a primary by another mainstream

Republican.

And it`s gotten to the point where tax increases are now defined, at least by

some, like our friend Grover Norquist, as being the elimination of tax subsidies

for things like the ethanol industry. So, it`s — it`s getting tougher and tougher

even to raise fees and close loopholes and eliminate subsidies.

MATTHEWS: Well, this is a problem for both parties because, Robert, if — if —

if you can`t get any give from the Republican side on revenues, on taxes,

even on an increase in revenue through reform, if you can`t do that, it seems

to me very hard to get the Democrats to agree to any kind of cut in spending.

So, the president can`t get his own party to do any kind of budget

adjustment, any kind of effort to reduce the deficit that`s real, if he can`t get

the other party to increase revenue. So, both sides get hurt politically

because neither side will move then.

Is that where we`re at? Nobody wants to do anything because nobody`s

doing everything?

REICH: Chris, if you assume that compromise is actually halfway between the

president`s proposal and Paul Ryan`s proposal, then, yes, you are stymied —

you are completely stymied. But if the public and I think a lot of Republicans

and not a few Democrats are getting a lot of news when they go home right

now at town meetings, when the public actually registered what they want —

no cut in Social Security or Medicare, and do tax the rich and let`s get rid of

corporate welfare, let`s pare down military spending — when so many

representatives are hearing that in the town meetings you might actually see

a more, a greater willingness to compromise when they come back.

MATTHEWS: Well, I see that don`t touch Medicare. I don`t see the excitement

of raising taxes. Do you hear it, Larry?

SABATO: No.

MATTHEWS: For the rich?

SABATO: I`m with you, Chris.

MATTHEWS: I mean, do they actually demand at meetings?

SABATO: Well, I don`t know what people are saying in their meetings. I doubt

that`s what the Republican members are hearing — and remember, it would

have to pass the Republican House.

Look, there`s only one open window for a compromise and that is, Bob

mentioned, corporate welfare. I think Republicans would say as Senator

Coburn did, closing loopholes, tax reform. That may be a way to produce

some kind of compromise. But if you`re talking about a general increase in tax

rates, forget about it. Not going to happen.

REICH: Well, Larry, I completely agree with Larry on that. No general increase

in tax rates, but what we`re talking about is increasing taxes on the rich. Not

only getting rid of the, you know, extension of the Bush tax cuts for people

over $250,000, but also, for example, capping home mortgage interest

deductions, maybe, what, $20,000 a year. I mean, there are a lot of things

that can be done that would get in my view a great deal of public support.

MATTHEWS: But you`re not running for anything, Robert. And, Larry, and

you`re not running for anything. And I think Larry made the point a minute, I

think that was crisply stated. There`s a difference between a poll and an

election. If all you have to do is expose yourself as a Republican to any kind

of problem with the voters, they`ll kill you on it. The Republicans will be Tea

Partying you. The Democratic side, they`ll get you on Medicare.

So, I`m afraid that the solution politically for this crowd of people in politics

today is: do nothing. Let the deficit ride.

Robert, don`t you think that`s what`s going to happen, really? They just going

to let this deficit balloon and they`re not going to do anything about it.

REICH: Chris, always the path of least resistance is to do nothing. But if the

dollar continues to drop, if we see that — it`s not just Standard & Poor`s but

capital markets become very afraid that the Republicans and Democrats

doing nothing, then their hands may be forced and may have to do something.

MATTHEWS: Wow.

REICH: And then the question is: what are they going to cut or what tax are

they going to raise? And I think if you can raise any taxes at all, it`s got to be

on the rich.

MATTHEWS: I don`t see any leadership out there from either party cutting a

deal.

Larry, what about Haley Barbour quitting? I thought he might be able to thread

the needle. He might be, to use another metaphor, a Tea Party-appealing

person but without being a Tea Party person. But — what do you think? Why

did he quit?

SABATO: Chris, I think he`s one of the smartest politicians in either party and

he just proved it today. He wasn`t selling. And he picked it up. He wasn`t

selling because of the D.C. lobbyist thing, because of the Mississippi

connections, because of his accent and looks. And he decided I think rather

sanely he didn`t want to go through this tortured presidential selection

process for nothing.

MATTHEWS: So, now, there`s only a couple left. There`s only Jeb and maybe

Christie. Who`s the — what do you call it — the dark horse for you? Who`s

going to come in the race and win it on the Republican side, anybody?

SABATO: I doubt anybody comes in but the person who just keeps being

mentioned is Chris Christie and he loves it no matter what he`s saying.

MATTHEWS: I agree with you completely on that.

Robert Reich, Chris Christie, what do you think? Big surprise —

(CROSSTALK)

REICH: I think he could be a very strong candidate but don`t take your eyes

off Mitt Romney. He looks the part. He acts the part. He has gleaming white

teeth. He is kind — now, wait a minute, I know the public is very —

(CROSSTALK)

MATTHEWS: You are setting him up. You are setting this guy up — duller than

you can imagine.

REICH: Mitt Romney is an empty — Chris, I`m not — I`m not a supporter of Mitt

Romney. I think he`s a very strong candidate. I mean, Mitt Romney is an empty

suit. I think in fact —

(CROSSTALK)

MATTHEWS: You heard what I said the other day? He gives empty suits a

bad name.

Anyway, thank you, Robert Reich. Thank you, Larry Sabato. You`re just

setting this guy up. An ass (ph) and a gold and the horse is what you want.

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

Trump’s chances….Is he running? Trump tops GOP candidates in latest Gallup poll!

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

Donald Trump says he’ll be happy to throw open the files on all his financial dealings and says even in bankruptcy he was proving just how smart he actually is.

[Recent interview of Donad Trump by Michael Isikoff]

Isikoff: Wait a second. You were Chairman of the Board. You were Chairman of the Board.

Trump: I was Chairman but I didn’t run the company.

Isikoff: You were paid $2 million a year.

Trump: Excuse me. I didn’t run the company. I’m just telling you.

Isikoff: Why were you paid $2 million a year?

Trump: Excuse me, because of my genius.

[End of interview]

Alex Burns is deputy political editor for Politico. In just a few weeks, Trump is headed to New Hampshire. From New York City new reports that could hurt his chances show billionaire Trump did not vote for the primary elections for two decades. How much might that hurt him?

This is something that we’ve seen with billionaire candidates before. Meg Whitman when she ran for governor of California last year, turned out she really had not voted in decades. It was used against her to make the case that this is not a person who is serious about politics. This is an amateur billionaire who is doing something fun. I think that that could maybe hurt Donald Trump but I don’t think it will be a surprise to anyone that this guy is not a conventional politician and doesn’t engage in politics the way the other members of the Republican presidential field have.

You know, listen, running for president, let’s take just the state of Iowa. There are republicans there according to a new AP report which question whether or not Trump would attend the small meetings and fairs and those events that are critical to win over that key primary state. What’s the read on that?

That’s maybe the biggest test for Trump specifically in the next couple weeks as you mentioned he’s going up to New Hampshire where he’s supposedly going to do a walk and talk event somewhere in the state. It will be the first time we’ve actually seen him interact with voters in a retail politics way. In those early presidential states, that’s what really gets you where you need to go in terms of building support and so far we haven’t seen trump do anything of the kind.

Okay, how about the new poll Gallup poll which shows Huckabee at the top of the race with Trump.

I think the poll that you just mentioned, that has to be concerning for some republicans that top two candidates, Huckabee and Trump, are media personalities who are flirting with the race but haven’t indicated that they are serious about running. There’s a desire for new candidates. Faces that aren’t out there campaigning already.

Okay, but let’s talk about the populous perspective. The message is resonating with voters out there. One poll shows 70% believe the country is going in the wrong direction. Do you think his voice if it is a populist one has, some sort of staying power in this economic environment?

Whether or not Trump is the right person to deliver that message, I think there clearly is a strong desire among republican primary voters in particular for someone to go out and say what Trump is saying that America is on the decline. We can’t trust Barack Obama to stick up for us on the national stage. The way Trump says it is the U.S. is now the laughing stock of the world. He’s clearly gained a lot of traction. He’s had a big microphone to deliver that message and if another candidate can hit the same coward in the same confrontational way, they might go farther than pretty flawed guy like Trump.

Okay. Alex Burns, thank you.

Thank you.

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

The Barefoot Accountant wishes you a very Happy Easter! Please enjoy Bing Crosby singing “Easter Parade” from the 1942 film, “Holiday Inn”.

My dad was quite a “hoofer” in his younger days, trotting around like a Fred Astaire-James Cagney combination; and my mom was a singer in an all-girls’ orchestra during the 1930s, possessing a powerful voice like Judy Garland. So as a child growing up in my parents’ home, whenever Fred Astaire, Bing Crosby, Judy Garland, Gene Kelly, Jane Powell, Kathryn Grayson, Deanna Durbin, and other song and dance performers would appear in a film on TV at our house, my parents would watch and listen to their performances in appreciation and awe. Although my brothers and I loved sports, playing ball everyday and collecting baseball cards and memorizing stats, an appreciation of music and musicals and classic films were also instilled in us. I now find myself deeply appreciative of my parents for having done such, even though playing the accordion for nine years was painful.

My parents died a number of years ago; however, I would like to share with you my father’s favorite singer, Bing Crosby, singing one of his favorite holiday songs, “Easter Parade”, composed by Irving Berlin. The scene of the film clip is from the 1942 movie, “Holiday Inn”, one of my dad’s favorites. I share this in memory of the greatest dad ever on earth. (My mom was pretty great, too, even though she was the disciplinarian in the family, and I was the child who gave her the most trouble!)

Happy Easter to you all!

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

Left hook. Voters fight back against the budget. New signs GOP budget triggering backlash.

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

CENK UYGUR, HOST: Good evening. I‘m Cenk Uygur. And we‘ve got a lovely Friday show for you guys today.

In fact, tonight, the left has started fighting back. From local town hall events to the president, it‘s on.

President Obama did his part by continuing to pound Republicans who want to give tax breaks to the rich and make the poor and the middle class pay the bill.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

BARACK OBAMA, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: I don‘t want my tax cut paid for by cutting children from Head Start, or doing away with health insurance for millions of people on Medicaid, for seniors in nursing homes or poor children, or families that have a disabled child. I don‘t want to make that tradeoff.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

UYGUR: Those are good fighting words. All right. Here we go.

And now the simmering outrage is also beginning to boil over at local events. Every day we‘re getting new reports of Republican lawmakers getting grilled by voters in their home districts over plans to privatize Medicare and, of course, on their plans to reduce taxes for the risk.

Now, check out what happened to Congressman Sean Duffy.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

REP. SEAN DUFFY ®, WISCONSIN: I don‘t want to penalize businesses. I want to encourage them to come here and set up shop and put our people to work. That‘s what I want to do. And if you penalize them by way of mandates and manipulations—

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Making them pay their fair share? The Ryan budget proposes to turn Medicare into a voucher program.

DUFFY: No, it doesn‘t.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Yes, it does.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Well, that‘s what my understanding is—that‘s what it is.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

UYGUR: And for the record, the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office agrees with the informed constituent there, not the congressman. That is what the Ryan plan does.

Now, here‘s another Republican on his heels over Ryan‘s plan, Congressman Patrick Meehan.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: If you voted to abolish Medicare, how do you explain that to people who are in their 50s, who are out of work, that they will have not the Medicare that I have?

REP. PATRICK MEEHAN ®, PENNSYLVANIA: You said in your comment that I voted to abolish Medicare. And that‘s factually wrong.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Well, how is that wrong?

MEEHAN: Ma‘am, let me answer the question and then I‘ll talk to you.

Thank you.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: I will.

MEEHAN: I voted for the Ryan plan.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

UYGUR: By the way, guess who said he didn‘t vote—wouldn‘t vote for the Ryan plan just a few months ago during the campaign season? Of course, Patrick Meehan.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

MEEHAN: That‘s the agenda I‘m not voting for. That‘s the first and most important thing.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

UYGUR: Oops, except when he did vote for it. I love that his constituents are now holding him accountable.

Now, back to the action, a town hall held by Republican Lou Barletta this week also got out of hand.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Take the tax cuts that were given to the wealthy two percent —

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Sit down!

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: — and put it in Medicare.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: I agree with her. And you know what? Why don‘t you tell me to sit down?

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Sit down!

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: She‘s an American citizen.

(CROSSTALK)

(END VIDEO CLIP)

UYGUR: There‘s a lot of shut up and sit downs in there. It‘s getting heated.

And if all that wasn‘t enough, this week, Paul Ryan, the actual architect, was booed by his own constituents for resisting raising taxes on the rich.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: We have to lower spending, but it‘s a matter of, there‘s not wrong with taxing the top because it does not trickle down.

REP. Paul RYAN ®, WISCONSIN: We do tax the top.

(BOOING)

(END VIDEO CLIP)

UYGUR: I never tire of that.

And finally, how is this for a direct message? At a town hall meeting for New Hampshire Republican Charlie Bass, a voter said, point blank, “I like Medicare the way it is. Don‘t screw it up.”

You know what? That about sums it up.

So, joining me now is Congressman Jim McDermott, Democrat from Washington, and a member of the Progressive Caucus.

Congressman, it looks like the Republicans have a little role reversal here. They loved it when you guys were getting attacks at the town halls. All of a sudden, when they‘re on their heels, they‘re like, “What?” Did you notice some of the annoyed looks on the faces there? They‘re like, what are you doing questioning me?

REP. JIM MCDERMOTT (D), WASHINGTON: Well, I think they never guessed, Cenk, that they couldn‘t keep selling this program and that the people would wake up and figure out what was behind it, that there was really a voucher plan behind it all, and that they were going to wind up out there with a program that didn‘t cover what they needed when they were sick. The people have figured it out, and they are not going to sit still for it, and the Republican plan is doomed. Even though all of them drank the Kool-Aid and went out and voted for it, they are doomed on that issue.

UYGUR: I love one of the women at one of those events when the other people started yelling at her. The congressman told her, hey, listen don‘t worry about it. For people above 55, this isn‘t going to apply anyway. She‘s like, well, how about my kids and my grandkids? So why are you going to take their Medicare away?

It seems like that‘s their big strategy, is to say, don‘t worry, senior citizens, we‘re only harming other people that you know, not you.

MCDERMOTT: That‘s exactly what it is. If you‘re over 55, you‘re on a free ride to the end of your life, but anybody behind you, well, they‘re going to get this voucher system that is not going to pay for what they need.

And they think that somehow seniors are so selfish and so into their own thing, that they don‘t care about their own children or their own grandchildren. They couldn‘t be more mistaken.

It was the most—it was the biggest mistake I have ever seen any political party make, thinking that they could divide seniors from their family and say, hey, don‘t worry about your grandchildren or your son and daughter. It just was stupid.

UYGUR: All right. Now, Congressman, I‘m worried about the substance, though, because right now, as we‘re having these town hall events and the president is speaking very forcefully on the road, there‘s movement afoot in Congress over a CAP Act. Now, the CAP Act would cap the amount of spending we could have, and it wouldn‘t touch taxes at all, which gives the Republicans a huge advantage.

Is that a bad idea to be negotiating on their terms?

MCDERMOTT: Well, what we should be deciding in this country is what we need to take care of the needs of is the people of this country, and then find out where the revenue is to do that. Now, the president has suggested that we should start taxing billionaires and millionaires to help pay for what this country needs. And to put a cap on it and say, well, we can‘t touch any taxes is simply not realistic.

The president is telling the truth, and the American people know it. They know that billionaires who got big tax breaks did not need it, did not deserve it, and are not paying their way.

UYGUR: Now, the president has a different plan, but do we have a sense in Congress of which way it‘s going to do? Because of course, the Republicans are immediately claiming the CAP Act is bipartisan and we shouldn‘t touch taxes.

Is it likely to go in that direction, or is it likely to go in the president‘s planned direction instead?

MCDERMOTT: I think we‘re going to have to go in the president‘s direction. There has to be a combination of judicious cuts, things that make sense. There are places in the Defense Department and other places where we can make cuts, but there must be some additional revenue.

And it‘s got to come from the people at the top of the pile. Millionaires do not need to have every dime they‘re having. They should be sharing it with some of the people at the bottom, making sure that ordinary people can make a living and can take care of their children.

UYGUR: All right, Congressman. Last quick question for you. If the CAP Act is the final solution here as we get closer to the debt ceiling, is that a failure for Democrats?

MCDERMOTT: Well, I‘m not going to make a judgment that that‘s what‘s going to be the resolution. I think we‘re going to find a way to get a clean raising of the debt limit and deal with the budget down the road.

I think that the president just has to be firm and say, I only want a clean raising of the debt limit, don‘t tie all these other issues on it, because that‘s not—we don‘t need to threaten the world market, we don‘t need to disturb our own currency.

UYGUR: All right. I hear you. You know, I hope he stays strong on that. I hope the crowds are encouraging him in the right direction.

Congressman Jim McDermott, thank you for joining us tonight.

MCDERMOTT: You‘re welcome.

UYGUR: All right.

Now I want to bring in MSNBC political analyst Richard Wolffe.

Richard, let‘s go back to the town hall events for a second. I know back in 2009, et cetera, that there were a lot of these town hall events where the right was very angry. I want to show you a little clip of that first, and then we‘ll come back and talk about it.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Wait a minute.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: And I am leaving. I have every right to leave.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Wait a minute.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: I think that the Obama administration has already started to restore trust in health care—

(BOOING)

SEN. CLAIRE MCCASKILL (D), MISSOURI: Beg your pardon? You don‘t trust me?

(END VIDEO CLIP)

UYGUR: All right. Now, how organized was that stuff compared to what‘s happening today?

RICHARD WOLFFE, MSNBC POLITICAL ANALYST: Well, it was a combination of things, but there was serious organization behind it. We know for a fact that Freedom Works, Dick Armey‘s group, which has extensive ties to corporate America, and especially the health care industry as well—one of its board members has long-standing ties to the health care industry—

Freedom Works was talking about Astroturfing this idea that you pretend to have a grassroots operation and involved in organization, too. But it was very fertile ground for Republicans, because they had so many fears of, ironically, corporate America, and also of these big government plans that they thought the president was behind.

Of course, you know, this is very different. There has been organization behind some of these protests just as there was behind Social Security protests, when President Bush tried to reform that. But you‘re looking at a very different operation here.

You‘re looking at a situation where over 70 percent of the population does not agree with the Republican position either on taxes or on Medicare. So if the Republican organization was dealing with something that their supporters wanted, here you‘re in a situation where it‘s not just Democrats who agree with the president‘s position, the Democratic position. Independents and a substantial number of Republicans do, too.

So you don‘t need to organize them in the same way.

UYGUR: Right. But it wouldn‘t hurt. I mean, that‘s the thing.

I‘m seeing all these events, and it‘s one or two people—it looks like in New Hampshire, God, there were people who voted for McCain, people who voted for Obama. They come together and they‘re mad that their Medicare might get taken away. But on the other hand, if progressives organize them a little bit, that might help.

WOLFFE: Yes, it would help. And I think that‘s going to develop as well.

You are already seeing the traction both from elected officials and from some of these interest groups. There are people organizing right now.

This isn‘t going to end right now. I mean, remember, it‘s easy to look back on the health care protests and think they suddenly emerged out of nothing. They group over time as Republicans, as the Republican media found that they could fuel these things, people could appear on TV and get coverage for it. They picked up their own steam, and I think we‘re going to see the same through the next several months, if not the next year or so, as we debate this whole Republican package.

UYGUR: All right. Now, speaking of the package, I do want to ask you again about the CAP Act. We talked to Congressman McDermott about that. That seems to be what the Republicans are pushing, which would be a hard cap on spending.

So, if they reach that cap, they‘ve got to cut everything. They‘ve got to cut regular spending, Medicare, entitlements, Social Security, et cetera. And they don‘t touch taxes at all.

That seems like a huge Republican win. Right now there‘s reporting from Washington that the Democrats are considering that.

Is that crazy talk, to consider that?

WOLFFE: Well, I think you have got to look—ironically, you showed a clip there of Claire McCaskill from Missouri. She‘s been talking about spending caps as well.

The question is, what kind caps, how far do they extend? And do they really have to throw this out right now?

If you listen to the president, the reason he‘s taking on Republicans on the debt ceiling so hard here is because they know Republicans are going to blink. They know that corporate backers—they know that John Boehner has said the debt ceiling will be raised. And even if they adopt Ryan‘s plan today, they‘re going to have to raise the debt ceiling anyway.

It‘s going to be raised, so why give up so much now? But could spending caps be out there in some form now or in the next year or two? Yes, probably, if there are enough senators in the middle like McCaskill who want this to happen. There isn‘t that big a Democratic majority to hold it back.

UYGUR: You‘re right, McCaskill is one of the sponsors, but it‘s a terrible idea. You‘re right, they‘ve got them on the ropes, and the corporate guys—

WOLFFE: Don‘t have to give it up now.

UYGUR: — are never going to let the Republicans not raise the debt ceiling. So don‘t do it. Don‘t—I always want to ask them, don‘t do it, please don‘t do it, it doesn‘t make sense.

All right. Richard Wolffe, great analysis. Thank you for joining us.

WOLFFE: You bet, Cenk.

UYGUR: OK.

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

Back to Base-ics: 2012. Obama goes back to the basics. Protesters to Obama: Where’s our change. We paid our dues, where’s our change?” Progressives cannot trust a President who violated their trust on multiple occasions.

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

In the spring of 2009, 90% of the Democratic base approved of Obama. Now only 70% of the base approve of him. As Obama prepares for his Presidential campaign of 2012, he wants same organizers and same volunteers as in 2008 and appeals for their support. President Obama is trying to mend fences with the Left after failing to fight for single-payer healthcare, cessation of tax cuts for the rich, and social security (Obama is considering cuts to social security and possibly to medicare). But the Progressives want change, and reply to his appeals for their support, “We paid our dues, where’s our change.” Will the Progressives be stupid enough to support again someone who reneged on his campaign promises? Will the American public be gullible enough to trust President Barack Obama to stand up for them after breaking virtually every promise he made to them in 2008, about taxing the rich, fighting for a single-payer healthcare option, cutting defense spending, bringing the troops home and ending wars of attack of other nations, not cutting social security and medicare?! Are the progressives that incredibly stupid?! Obviously, they are!!

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

OBAMA: I want you to be excited about the next 18 months and then the next four years after that, and I want you to remind everybody else those simple words that summed up our campaign in 2008 and still sum up our spirit—yes, we can. Thank you, everybody, God bless you.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

UYGUR: That was of course President Obama late last night at a fund-raiser in Los Angeles. He was trying to evoke the spirit of 2008 as he revs up for his 2012 campaign. Now, much of that speech was a direct message to his critics on the left who have been feeling disappointed in this solution by the first two years of his presidency.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

OBAMA: I know the conversations you‘ve been having. Oh, I don‘t know, you know, I don‘t like that compromise with the Republicans. Look, there are times when I‘ve been frustrated, just like you have been, but we knew this wasn‘t going to be easy.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

UYGUR: I don‘t think anybody thought that change was going to be easy. We just didn‘t want it to be so easy for the Republicans to win on their priorities like the Bush tax cuts. But that‘s just one of many issues that progressives have with the president. In fact, just hours earlier in San Francisco, he was interrupted by singing protesters asking for more change.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

(SINGING) “We paid our dues, where‘s our change, we paid our dues, where‘s our change.”

(END VIDEO CLIP)

UYGUR: That was them singing, we paid our dues, where‘s our change. A little catchy. And that‘s exactly why the president was trying to address progressive critics in that speech we showed you. He knows that a sentiment among some of these voters, so again he appealed to them to remember 2008.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

OBAMA: All of us can still remember that night in Grant Park. The excitement on the streets, the sense of possibility, I want to make sure we are putting the campaign in your hands. The hands of the same organizers, the same volunteers, the same neighborhood folks.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

UYGUR: Now, the president‘s issues with the left is reflected in his polling among self-described liberals. In April 2009, three months after the inauguration, 90 percent of liberals approved of the job that he was doing. In April of 2010, just after the health care law pass, it had dropped all the way down to 81 percent. Not bad. And now, it‘s at 70 percent. Look, 70 percent is still a pretty good number, but you clearly see it sliding away from him. He needs every one of those votes if he‘s going to win again. The problem for the president when it comes to the left is his record, honestly. Just check out the last two years.

Gitmo stays open, financial reform is incredibly weak, the president helps to deep six the public option, there‘s more tax cuts for the rich and there‘s a huge spending cuts that he just agreed to, and the least goes on. But the opportunity for the president is in the next 18 months. You know, he‘s still president. There‘s still a long way to go. So, will he stand his ground on taxes, Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security? The most important fights are still ahead of us. Will he keep listening to Washington Insiders who counsel that he must agree with the Republicans to seem centrist? Or will he regain his progressive footing? You know, one way to convince people that you are progressive is by being a progressive. Now, let‘s bring in two different voices to get their perspectives on this.

Joining me now is David Sirota, radio host and syndicated columnist.

Also with us is Joe Madison, host with Sirius XM radio. Both old friends. In fact, I used to fill in for Joe back in Washington a long, long, time ago on his radio show. All right. Joe, let me start with you. You know, I laid out a little bit of a list there. You have a spirited defense of the president‘s progressive credentials?

JOE MADISON, RADIO TALK SHOW HOST: Yes, I have a spirited defense. Because as you saw in the GW, the George Washington speech, he drew the line on some of the major points you just talked about, Medicaid, Medicare, education, and then he turned around and he said, OK, who is behind me? I think earlier in the program, you made a very good point. One of the things that the right is very good at doing is organizing. Organizing outside of the beltway. And that‘s what we have to do. We have to organize, much the way the people in Madison, Wisconsin, organize. And it has to be a groundswell from the grassroots.

One of the things that bugs me to death about progressives, we are terrible organizers when it comes to trying to provide a counterbalance. Now, finally, let me say this—I‘m old enough to remember, when Martin Luther King Jr., after the ‘64 civil rights act was passed, he went to Johnson and said, we need a voting rights act, Johnson said make me do it. And that‘s how we got Selma to Montgomery. And that‘s how we got a voting rights act. And what progressives have to do, and I think what I heard the president just say, make me do what you want me to do.

UYGUR: But, David, if they‘re going to do that, doesn‘t that mean that they have to pressure the president and put some real, you know, be tough with him. I mean, how do you make someone do something unless you‘re tough with them.

DAVID SIROTA, SYNDICATED COLUMNIST: That‘s the question, right? I mean, the problem I think for the left right now is that so many people on the left in our red versus blue country, are organized not necessarily around an agenda, but around an individual. And at the same goes to the right under George Bush, we I think on the progressive left, in the progressive movement, too many people are organized around whatever President Obama does and says is great. Just like the right was organize around, whatever George Bush does and says is great.

Your point is exactly the right point, that if we want a different list, that list that you just showed up there of a new war, of spending cuts aimed at Medicare, of new Bush tax cuts, of extending the Bush record on civil liberties in many cases. If we want a different list than that, then we cannot be organized around the idea that whatever President Obama says is good and whatever Republicans do is bad. We need to be organized around an agenda. Because if there is no pressure on President Obama, if we are organized only around the individual, then there would be no real change.

UYGUR: So, Joe, let‘s talk about that. Because, you know, if we want to stop that concept that you know, that you guys are talking about, that we just, you know, agree with whatever the president says, well then we have to disagree with him, don‘t we? I mean, when he does the compromise we don‘t like with the Republicans. Because we don‘t think—not because we‘re against compromise, but because we thought it was a bad compromise, don‘t we have to call him out on it?

MADISON: Well, of course you have to call him out. Look, here in Washington, D.C., didn‘t Eleanor Holmes Norton call the president out? The former mayor of Washington, D.C., Sharon Pratt Kelly. And the first lady of the first elected mayor, they tried to deliver a letter saying, Mr. President, at least put no tax ace on your limousine couldn‘t get the letter delivered. They called him out, but at the same time, we have to understand something, candidates run on transformational leadership. When they get elected, it becomes transactional, and it‘s how you transact business in Washington that makes you successful. And keep in mind, you‘ve got to get him elected into the next term, and everybody used to say when he first got elected, don‘t expect him to do everything in four years. Remember, there‘s a second term her here, and I‘m certain that‘s what in the back of his mind.

UYGUR: Well, David. I saw you shaking your head. Go for it.

SIROTA: I mean, my answer to that is that, it‘s just a justification for the status quo, that simply saying, that we‘re only playing for the next election, we‘re playing for the next election, and we‘re playing for the next election. It‘s a justification for the status quo. I think as citizens, we have an obligation, not a right, but an obligation to look at the record that was accumulated in the first four years of the Obama presidency. And say, not what was tried to be done and what didn‘t happen, but what did this administration actually not even try to do arguably did the exact opposite of what it said it was going to do. And I think progressives have every right to say, we‘re not going to be organized around an individual, we‘re going to be organized around a set of issues. And if this president deviates from that, then we‘re not going to be with him when he asks for our vote again. I mean, this is not a president who tried to get the public option. This is a president who went out of his way subvert the public option. This is not a president who tried to stop the Bush tax cuts. This is the president who went out of his way to extend the Bush cuts. I could go on, but you get my point.

MADISON: Sometimes progressives really tick me off, and if he hadn‘t tried to transact the way, they would have kicked a lot of poor people that progressive claim that they are interested in absolutely under the bus.

(CROSSTALK)

SIROTA: Hundreds of billions of dollars to the drug and insurance companies. Hundreds of billions of dollars of your tax payer dollars. And my tax payer dollars because they didn‘t put up a fight. The problem—my thing is, the problem with progressives is, progressives want to say, whatever the president says, because this is a lot of fiery speeches. That‘s great. We don‘t want to look under the hood and say, hey, what did he actually do? Because the problem is, when you actually look at what he actually did, it‘s not such a nice picture. I‘m sick and tired of progressives being organized around speeches. I want a progressive move and it‘s organized around.

MADISON: Progressives for the most part are the lousiest organizers there are. They don‘t—you know, all they do is a lot of talk. If you want to end the war, then do what folks did to end the Vietnam War. Get the hell out of there and march.

SIROTA: Amen! Get out there and protest the war in Libya.

(TALKING OVER EACH OTHER)

UYGUR: All right. Guys.

MADISON: And of course, what‘s going to happen, you‘re going to end up with a president worse than you think you have now.

UYGUR: But Joe, Joe, I got to ask you the last question here.

MADISON: Yes.

UYGUR: Look, if you say I‘m going out there and organize, go out there and make him do it, isn‘t that what David is saying? I mean, don‘t wait on him to do it. Make him do it. We‘ve got the most important fights coming, I don‘t want him to buckle on Medicare or Social Security. Shouldn‘t we aggressively challenge him to make sure that he does the right thing?

MADISON: Yes. But you don‘t kill him in the process.

UYGUR: So how do you do it then?

MADISON: Well, intelligently.

(LAUGHTER)

UYGUR: I hope so. I hope so. I think we‘re arguing over what would be the intelligent way to do it. But guy, it‘s been a good conversation. It really has.

MADISON: I think we‘re all on the same side. It‘s just that—look, I just don‘t want to throw the baby out with the bathwater and this end up with something far worse.

UYGUR: Of course, Joe, Joe, but everybody agrees with that. Look, nobody is saying, oh yes, and hence go vote for a republican. How would that make any sense? That wouldn‘t make any sense at all. The question is, how do you help the Democrats, how do you help the president by effectively challenging them to be more progressive?

MADISON: You do challenge, but if you think that people will go vote for republican, the problem is they won‘t go vote at all.

SIROTA: Can I make one very quick point? Just very, very quick point.

UYGUR: Got to be the last one, David.

SIROTA: A very, very quick point. Progressives back in the 1960s, didn‘t say we‘re worried about Lyndon Baines Johnson‘s reelection. They said we‘re worried about ending the Vietnam war, and they ended that war, because they were willing as you suggest to go up against a president, no matter what his party was, and that…

(CROSSTALK)

MADISON: And excuse me.

UYGUR: But we‘ve got to leave it there.

(CROSSTALK)

MADISON: You weren‘t born. They got Richard Nixon.

UYGUR: OK. Don‘t worry, you guys will be back. It‘s a great conversation.

MADISON: Thank you.

UYGUR: David Sirota, Joe Madison, thank you both, guys.

And look, their hearts both in the right place. That‘s what you want, you want a good conversation.

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