The Barefoot Accountant on Accounting, QuickBooks, Taxes, Money, and Politics

Mr. Walker goes to Washington. He ain’t no Mr. Smith!

Posted on April 14, 2011 by William Brighenti

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

UYGUR: In Washington today, the moment we‘ve all been waiting for, Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker going before the House Oversight Committee. Time for answers. You want answers? I want the truth. That was my best “few good men” impression. Pretty sad. Anyway, Scott Walker, the man who crushed the public unions in the state, stripped collective bargaining rights from hundreds of thousands of workers, so brace yourself, Mr. Walker. Chairman Darrell Issa, let‘s hear it, set the tough tone for the hearing. Tell the audience what to expect.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

REP. DARRELL ISSA ®, CALIFORNIA: If you agree with them, smile. If you disagree with them, smile.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

UYGUR: Instructing the witness to smile. That‘s your opening message? All right. Anyway, maybe some other Republicans on the committee will get down to business and really call out Walker.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

REP. PATRICK MCHENRY ®, NORTH CAROLINA: Governor Walker has boldly set out to push through similar initiatives in Wisconsin. Even in the face of extremely heated political attacks, Governor Walker has shown that he understands and has a genuine commitment to reform.

REP. DENNIS ROSS ®, FLORIDA: One of the issues that we saw in Wisconsin was that there were senators on the democrat side who left the state and failed to come to the table.

REP. TIM WALBERG ®, MICHIGAN: Governor Walker, I also appreciate the fact that what you build in Milwaukee and enjoy riding my road king, I understand you ride as well.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

UYGUR: Whoa, whoa there, take it easy on him. You‘re killing him out there. By the way, remember, this is the Government Oversight Committee. Where is the oversight? Oh, I love riding motorbikes, you do, too. You‘re awesome, dude. All right. Now, why on earth would these four congressmen treat Governor Scott Walker with such—what could have been? What could have been? Could have been that they all just happened to have received money from the Koch Brothers and their political action committee. That same political action committee that just happened to give $43,000 to Governor Walker‘s campaign? You remember the Koch brothers? Charles and David Koch. The billionaires who own Koch industries?

And give millions of dollars to the extreme right-wring groups and the Republican Party that just happen to push policies that benefit Koch industries? What a coincidence. In fact, 14 members of the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform got campaign money from the Kochs in the recent election cycle. Thirteen of them, of course, are Republicans. All told, those members took in more than $100,000 from Koch Industries pac. Nicely done, guys, way to cash in. Now, fortunately, there were some Democrats on the committee who came to fight, unloading on Governor Walker for attacking public workers‘ right to collective bargaining.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

REP. ELIJAH CUMMINGS (D), MARYLAND: I was so strongly object to efforts by politicians who try to use current economic downturn to strip American workers of their rights. We should be helping these workers, not attacking them.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

UYGUR: Another democrat is calling for an investigation of hiring practices by the Walker administration. Check this out.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

REP. BRUCE BRALEY (D), IOWA: Are you ready to apologize to the people of Wisconsin for hiring the 27-year-old son of one of your major campaign donors who‘s a lobbyist, and that individual had no college education, very little managerial experience and had two drunk driving convictions and was hired for an $81,000 a year job?

(END VIDEO CLIP)

UYGUR: Shockingly enough Walker didn‘t apologize. He said that his staff removed the worker once he learned about the cronyism that he had done. I mean, after he learned about the hiring. What an interesting coincidence there as well. But without a doubt, the moment of the day came courtesy of Dennis Kucinich. Congressman Kucinich challenged Walker over a provision that would require union members to vote every year to continue their membership.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

REP. DENNIS KUCINICH (D), OHIO: Can you please explain to me and members of this committee how much money this provision saves for your state budget?

GOV. SCOTT WALKER ®, WISCONSIN: It‘s the same reason we gave workers the right to choose which is a fundamental American right, the right to choose whether or not they want to be a part of the union and whether or not they want up to $1,000.

KUCINICH: How much money does it save government, just answer.

WALKER: It doesn‘t save any.

KUCINICH: OK. That‘s right. That‘s the point.

(CROSSTALK)

WALKER: If you read the federal budget—I‘ll answer your question.

KUCINICH: It obviously had no effect whatsoever on the state budget.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

UYGUR: And with me now is the man himself, democratic congressman from Ohio, Dennis Kucinich. Wait a minute, Congressman, I thought he had to do all these cuts et cetera and do the collective bargaining, all this stuff was to save money from the budget. If it doesn‘t save money from the budget, golly gee willikers, because I wonder why he did it.

KUCINICH: Well, that‘s exactly right, Cenk. And, you know, this hearing was important but not for the reason that it was—that was important because finally, we put Governor Walker on the spot and got him to admit that his attack on collective bargaining didn‘t save the state any money. He just used the state budget crisis as an opportunity to go after public workers, and to try to knock out their collective bargaining rights in the process.

UYGUR: So, what I‘m confused by is why did the Republicans call this, right? I mean, it‘s supposed to be oversight, but they come in and they play patty cakes with them and tell them to smile, and, you know, talk about all the fun things they‘re going to do together. What was the point of this here?

KUCINICH: Well, I‘m glad they called it. I mean, it turned out, it worked out pretty well to be able to demonstrate that there was no fiscal reason behind Governor Walker‘s attack on collective bargaining. And it‘s not just an issue in Wisconsin. In Ohio, in Michigan and other states, there are similar administrations that are attacking workers‘ rights. And this is, you know, they try to make it a fiscal issue when in facts it‘s a fundamental issue of whether or not we have a democratic society, so the right to click the bargaining center of that.

And I think the reason why they called the hearing was to try this, promote this propaganda that somehow the rights of workers are the problems facing states. That‘s hard wash. I mean, the fact of the matter is, that if states have budget problems like Wisconsin, they could have addressed their budget problem, Cenk, by, you know, returning to their state tax that they let expire, it would have covered their short term deficit like that. And if they went after the wealthiest, the billionaires in Wisconsin, they could have covered their whole deficit problem by just reinstating their state tax.

UYGUR: Well, there are some billionaires named the Koch brothers as we were just explaining. And they have given money to the Republicans on that committee. They‘ve given money to Governor Walker, and they don‘t seem to love workers‘ rights. They seem to love their tax cuts. Could that have been—is that just a coincidence or could that have something to do with these hearings and how they treated Governor Walker?

KUCINICH: Well, you know, I think that, you know, I don‘t want to impugn the position of any member of the committee, but I will say this, we understand that our republican friends continue to push for tax cuts as, you know, even they use the deficit as a cover to keep pushing for tax cuts. I mean, that‘s what my friend Paul Ryan is doing, but the attack on collective bargaining rights is a whole different phase in our democratic tradition. Because people have spent the last 70 years and more trying to have the right to organize, the right to collective bargaining, the right to strike, the right to decent wages and benefits. The right to a safe workplace.

And that‘s all under attack right now. And it‘s totally ideological, and they‘re trying to crush workers in the middle class. And this was one moment, just one moment, Cenk. And when I was sitting there in that committee meeting, I was thinking about the thousands of people that I saw in Wisconsin, the thousands of people I stood with in Ohio, and the people, workers who are gathering all over America waiting for an opportunity to get an answer to the question, why did you go after collective bargaining? And today we proved it wasn‘t a fiscal issue at all.

UYGUR: All right. Congressman Dennis Kucinich, that was an important moment today, thank you so much for joining us and talking to us about it.

KUCINICH: I really appreciate being on your show. Thank you.

UYGUR: Thank you.

Posted in Accountants CPA Hartford, Articles | Tagged Cenk Uygur MSNBC TV April 14 2011, Dennis Kucinich Democratic Representative from Ohio, Governor Scott Walker's testimony on Capitol Hill, Koch brothers, Koch Industries, Mr. Smith goes to Washington, Mr. Walker goes to Washington | Leave a comment

For whom the bell tolls? It tolls for thee, Republican Congressmen in senior districts, when you vote for Paul Ryan’s plan to end medicare. It’s a whine party. Is the GOP the party of whiners?

Posted on April 14, 2011 by William Brighenti

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

Cenk Uygur: Republicans across the board have come out hard against President Obama’s debt plan, and it’s no surprise. In a speech yesterday, Obama put the GOP in a tough position. By offering up his own solution. Obama connected Republicans to their party’s plan, which he correctly framed as one which offers tax cuts for the rich at the expense of the poor. And no one was more upset about this than the GOP budget mastermind Paul Ryan, who was forced to sit front and center while the President tore his proposal to shreds. Apparently he wasn’t expecting Obama might actually go on the attack.

Rep. Paul Ryan on video: I was expecting, actually speaking with some Democrats, that it was going to be an olive branch speech. When the commander-in-chief sort of brings himself down to the level of the partisan mosh pit that we’ve been in, that we are in, it makes it more difficult to bring that kind of leadership.

Cenk Uygur: Aaw, so were your feelings hurt? Some people cried about how President Obama shouldn’t have invited him to the speech if he was going to disagree with him. I love that! These guys are actually shocked and chagrined to find out that the President is in fact a Democrat. Look, I’m a little surprised, too. I love the audacity of their expectations. At least I voted for the guy, right. These guys think like, how dare he disagree with us. And if he does, he should be far more polite about it.

Now this comes from the same guys who viciously attacked the President day in and day out. In fact, the Republicans lit into the President right after the speech, saying this isn’t a serious proposal, this shows no leadership, and he just wants to play political games. So what? Only Republicans are allowed to make their case? And if the President actually states his opinion, they’re grossly offended: how dare you be a Democrat. We told you to agree with us. Terrible. No manners at all.

So when the President actually went on the offense and said that the GOP vision on medicare says that America can’t afford to keep their promise we made to care for our seniors, the Republicans actually went into a panic, and here’s the fun part. Now there are reports all over Washington that Republicans with districts that have huge senior populations in them are a little non-committal on whether they will vote for the Ryan plan. Oops. Sometimes when you play with fire, you get burned.

So Ryan just released an op-ed in the Washington Post in a panic. He says the words retirement and retirees six times, senior six times, medicare and medicaid eight times. Why? Because he says, did I say that I was going to cut medicare? Did I say that? Me? No. I’m going to put 10 seniors and retirees. Yeah, that’s the ticket. I love the smell of Republican panic in the morning.

Now joining me is editor-at-large of Salon, Joan Walsh, and Ernest Istook, former Congressman, and now visiting fellow at the Heritage Foundation. Ernie, let me start with you. Did these Republicans guys get caught with their hand in the cookie jar on medicare?

Ernest Istook: No, not at all. The worst thing that you can do to somebody is to make a promise that you cannot keep. When 40% of the money that the federal government spends is borrowed, when you’ve got a $1.6 trillion annual deficit and you keep making promises that are unsustainable, you’re leading people down a primrose path rather than telling them, look, we’ve gotta straighten things out. And that’s what Paul Ryan is trying to do, tell people that. He’s being honest.

Cenk Uygur: Right, he’s just being honest: we’re going to cut your medicare. But that’s OK, Ernie, just tell the American people, you’re being honest with them, there’s not enough money to give to the rich, to pay the rich, because they need a tax cut, because they get a tax cut in Ryan’s plan, from 35% to 25%, since there’s not enough money for the rich, you have to cut their medicare, right?

Ernest Istook: No, you ought to look at the Wall Street Journal today, it published the fact that if you take everybody in the country that makes more than a hundred thousand dollars a year and tax 100% of their taxable income, you still won’t cover the deficit. That’s taxing everybody that makes over a hundred thousand dollars a year and getting all of their revenue and it still isn’t enough money to do all what President Obama wants.

Cenk Uygur: But we’re not saying only look at revenue, look at revenue and spending. You guys are the ones saying only look at spending, but don’t look at revenue at all. But you didn’t answer the questions. Ryan’s plan wants to lower taxes for the rich from 35% to 25%, so you’re saying there’s just not enough money to pay for the rich, so we have to cut your medicare. Is that correct or incorrect?

Ernest Istook: Do you know who pays their fair share? The top 1% of income earners in the country paid 40% of the federal income tax.

Cenk Uygur: But you are not answering the question. You want to give them another tax cut, right? You want to give them another tax cut, yes or no?

Ernest Istook: Actually Ryan is saying bring the corporate rates down so companies quit sending jobs overseas and start having them in America.

Cenk Uygur: So the answer is yes, you want to lower taxes for the rich, and you are saying there’s not enough money for medicare.

Ernest Istook: I want to lower taxes for people who create jobs so that we can bring jobs back to America. The Heritage Foundation says will get a million jobs from Ryan’s plan.

Joan Walsh: Where are the jobs, Ernie? If they’re creating jobs, where are the jobs? We gave you guys a big tax cut, you got an enormous tax cut with the Bush tax cut, where are the jobs? Why in God’s name were jobs not created during the Bush administration if tax cuts for the rich create jobs? It’s pathetic, Ernie, you keep trotting this out.

Ernest Istook: Even Obama says the corporate tax rate has got to be reduced to bring jobs back to America.

Joan Walsh: But we’re talking about the personal tax rate, which Paul Ryan does reduce that top bracket to 25%, which is abominable. You were the people last year screaming about medicare, you’re going to hurt medicare…the Paul Ryan plan cuts medicare for seniors, it breaks the promise, and it says that we can’t be America anymore. That’s what the Paul Ryan plan does. The reason that we have medicare is that there is no private market for seniors, for people who are sick and elderly and getting sicker. He’s going to give them vouchers and say, fend for yourself, and that’s what medicare said we’re not going to do to our seniors anymore.

Ernest Istook: Ryan’s plan does not change medicare for anybody that’s over 55. He wants to change the future so that it will be sustainable and won’t go bankrupt and leave everybody with no coverage at all.

Joan Walsh: It doesn’t have to go bankrupt if the Republicans didn’t yell about death panels last year when President Obama was actually proposing in the bill to keep the costs down.

Cenk Uygur: Ernie, you’re saying that for people under 55, we’ve got to hurry up and cut medicare because otherwise we have to cut medicare. That’s a brilliant plan. But I want to ask you about the politics. You can spin it all you like, but the bottom line is when these Republicans vote to cut medicare, they are in a world of trouble, down in Florida, in Pennsylvania, some of the districts are heavily senior citizens, and you can spin it and spin it, but are they really going to vote that way? But is there some chance that Ryan’s plan is going to get voted down because the Republicans are going to say, I’m not going to touch that?

Ernest Istook: What would you rather have? Someone who promises you a million dollars and can’t deliver or someone who promises you less and you know it’s going to happen.

Cenk Uygur: Are the Republicans going to vote for the Ryan plan or not, that’s my question.

Ernest Istook: Well, we’re going to find out in the next 24 hours when it comes up for vote. I think you’ll see that it passes the House. Will it be unanimous among all Republicans? No. It probably won’t be unanimous among all the Democrats either.

Cenk Uygur: Joan, I just read that the Republicans are accusing President Obama of cutting medicare in his proposal…now, that’s rich.

Joan Walsh: If we were really ready to have a serious conversation and not playing partisan politics, we really can all agree that costs are going up all too quickly and that they are unsustainable. And there were smart things done in the affordable care act that tried to bring costs down to try to keep doctors from simply providing services to do preventive things rather than treat people after they get sick. There are innovative ways to talk about this. It was all described as death panel and last year it was really convenient for Republicans to scare seniors for the 2010 election by saying that Obama was going to hurt medicare. We need to collaborate on a way to keep costs down but this is not the way.

Cenk Uygur: If the Republicans are proud of it and they want to vote for cutting medicare, have at it, Hoss. I’ll be enjoying watching how it turns out.

Posted in Accountants CPA Hartford, Articles | Tagged Cenk Uygur MSNBC TV April 14 2011, Ernest Istook fellow Heritage Foundation, Ernie Istook, is the GOP the party of whiners?, Salon.com's Joan Walsh, the whine party | Leave a comment

Right off a cliff? Tea Party burdens GOP

Posted on April 14, 2011 by William Brighenti

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

CENK UYGUR, HOST: Good evening. I‘m Cenk Uygur.

Today, we saw compelling new proof that the Tea Party is driving the Republican Party and potentially John Boehner right off a cliff. In a vote that ultimately passed a budgeted deal to avert a government shutdown, 59 Republicans broke with their leadership to vote no, despite please from Speaker Boehner.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

REP. JOHN BOEHNER (R-OH), HOUSE SPEAKER: Does it cut enough? No. Do I wish it cut more? Absolutely.

Is it perfect? No. I would be the first one to admit that it‘s flawed, and I would urge all of you to join me in supporting this bill.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

UYGUR: How was that for a sales pitch? Wow. That bill sounded great.

Now, just a few minutes ago, that same bill passed the Senate 81-19. Of course, the issue for many Republicans in the House was that the bill wasn‘t extreme enough for the right wing and their party.

Conservative blogger Erick Erickson said, “If House Republicans vote for the bipartisan compromise, they should be driven into the street by the Tea Party move and horsewhipped metaphorically speaking. In reality, they should be primaried.”

And the editors of the conservative “National Review” called the deal “a sudden disappointment.” Who says “sudden?” I guess they‘re English. All right. Oversold and dependent on classic Washington budget trickery, the episode is strike one against the speakership of John Boehner.”

I guess that‘s the best I can do for an English accent.

Anyway, they were angry about a new analysis from the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office showing that of the $38.5 billion in cuts, about $8.6 billion were in rescission cuts. Now, that‘s money that was appropriated but never spent. So there is a chance that some of that money will eventually not get spent.

Oh, my God. Sound the sirens! They only cut $30 billion now and an extra $8 billion that might have been spent! Ahh!

Of course, not nearly enough for the right wing. The CBO also said that only $352 million of the cuts would go into effect this year. Now, the rest of it was scheduled to get spent soon, like next year.

Ahh! We need to spend now! We wanted a trillion—no, a bazillion dollars in cuts. And we wanted them cut from next year‘s budget. No, this year‘s budget. No, from the budget of 1928.

Why didn‘t you travel in time and get more cuts for us?

The guy‘s a little unreasonable, right? All right, kids. I got it.

I got it. Enough with the temper tantrum. Settle down.

But were the cuts really no big deal? Are you kidding me?

We‘re still looking at $30 billion in cuts, including $1.6 billion for the EPA. That‘s 15 percent of their budget hacked off.

Congratulations, Republicans. You don‘t get to pollute that much more.

Six hundred million dollars was also cut from community health centers. But I guess the Tea Party wanted to hurt the community just a little bit more than they already did. Who needs health? I want my stinking tax cut.

And $500 million was also cut to pay for food and baby formula for low-income families. Why don‘t the babies solve their own formulas?

Now, look, those are huge cuts, but apparently there‘s still not enough for some. Well, let‘s talk about it now. We‘re going to get two different sets of opinion here.

First, Congressman Jim McDermott. He‘s a Democrat from Washington, a member of the Progressive Caucus who voted no on the budget deal today.

Congressman McDermott, I suspect that you voted no for a different reason than the Tea Party. What was that reason?

REP. JIM MCDERMOTT (D), WASHINGTON: I voted simply no because there were cuts in things that did not need to be cut. And secondly, what you were seeing out here was the Republican Party demolishing itself in front of the everybody, and God and country saw them, unable to come up with 218 votes.

John Boehner is basically on his knees, on the floor, begging the

Democrats to keep the country rolling because he can‘t do it. It is simply

I haven‘t seen anything like that in the 23 years I‘ve been in Congress, where the Speaker came out and couldn‘t get the votes for something as simple as a continuing resolution.

It was really a miserable display, but it showed the fact that these people that are on his team are determined to tear this government apart. Now, either they learn something from this experience, or we are in for a terrible ride during the next few weeks, as we go in, first of all, into raising the debt limit, and then we go into a budget for 2012.

They simply don‘t understand what government is about. They think you can do it like, I don‘t know, they‘re running a seventh-grader‘s bank balance, the way they run it. And it‘s terrible, what you saw today, but the Democrats pulled it out and kept the country running.

UYGUR: All right. Now, Congressman McDermott, I know what you‘re alluding to, which is this big fight of course over the trillions of dollars. Now, it looks like they‘re not going to bend at all. In fact, of course, they‘ve said the tax cuts are unacceptable, off the table. But the president drew the line the other day and said, you know what? I refuse to extend the Bush tax cuts.

So how in the world do you resolve that?

MCDERMOTT: Well, it‘s going to be a difficult session. You now have a Speaker who is 39 votes short of a majority. That‘s a minority government in the House of Representatives.

And how he‘s going to deal—he‘s going to have to come to the Democrats and say, hey, look, guys, what do I need to get your votes? And at that point, we should be taking those tax cuts and removing them, and bringing this country‘s budget into balance. It will be very simple if Boehner will just admit that he can‘t do it himself and he‘s got to have the Democrats to help him.

UYGUR: So how does Boehner get out of this? Because they say this is strike one, right? And my guess is strike two is coming soon, because they‘re never going to be satisfied. And if he goes and works with the Democrats, oh, my God, they‘re going to lose their minds.

So, is Boehner in an unwinnable spot here?

MCDERMOTT: He‘s in a very—I sometimes almost feel sorry for him, because he has got a guy standing behind him, Eric Cantor, who is encouraging the 39 votes that didn‘t vote for the bill. So he is looking to take over the speakership, and John Boehner‘s got this guy standing right behind him.

It‘s going to be a very difficult period for him. I don‘t know how he pulls it out, frankly.

UYGUR: And today they also wasted your time on defunding Planned Parenthood, and also defunding the health care law, of course neither of which is going to pass the Senate.

Can you just—I must have missed it—how many bills did they vote on creating jobs?

MCDERMOTT: I missed them too. I must have blinked some place.

The fact is that they put those bills out there for the right-wingers, for the Tea Party people, and said, we‘ll give you a vote on these things so we can pass them over to the Senate. And even offering them that kind of CYA bill, they simply couldn‘t get the votes.

This was a day—really was a parade of the clowns, because there was no jobs in any of this. They cut jobs in health centers, they cut jobs at the NIH, they cut jobs at EPA, all things that the American people want and need, and yet they play these games. I do not understand when they‘re going to start talking about jobs in this economy.

UYGUR: All right. Congressman McDermott, one more question for you, and it‘s that critical one.

Now, Boehner is in that tough spot. There‘s no way he‘s going to get those Tea Party guys to agree to any compromise. Right? So that means, as you were pointing out earlier, Democrats have leverage now because he‘s got to come to the Democrats?

Now, how do the Democrats plan to use that leverage, if at all?

MCDERMOTT: Well, first of all, we have to be asked to the table. So far, we‘ve been denied a seat at the table. And as soon as Mr. Boehner wants to come and talk to Leader Pelosi, we will have a conversation.

There are a lot of ways in which we could use it that would be in the benefit of the American people. I can think of 20 ways I would do it if I were sitting there. But he has to first make the overture, and we‘ll see if he can do it in the face of what he‘s got behind him.

UYGUR: All right. It‘s going to be an interesting thing to watch, there‘s no question about that.

Congressman Jim McDermott from Washington.

Thank you so much for joining us. Really appreciate it.

MCDERMOTT: You‘re welcome.

UYGUR: All right.

Now, for more on the reaction of the other side, let‘s bring in Judson Phillips, leader of the Tea Party Nation, who has vowed to primary Boehner next year.

Judson, you heard us say that Erick Erickson says that he should be horsewhipped, metaphorically. What would you like to do to John Boehner?

JUDSON PHILLIPS, TEA PARTY NATION: Oh, I don‘t want anything violent or extreme. I just want to see a better candidate to replace him.

UYGUR: All right. And what would that better candidate do, just keep telling the Democrats and President Obama, no, no, no, no, no, and we‘d never have any deals?

PHILLIPS: No deal is better than a bad deal. Look, the country is broke. We‘ve got a $1.65 trillion deficit.

Boehner came in, it was going to be cut by $100 billion, then $61 billion, then $31 billion. And now, according to the CBO today, the deficit, with what they voted on today, is going to be cut by a whopping $352 million. That‘s, what, like owing $16,000 on your car and paying 33 cents? I mean, come on!

UYGUR: But Judson, no. Hold on.

Look, on the $8 billion that was appropriated but not spent, I think you actually have a decent case. And when you look at it and you say that money might have been spent and it might not have, right? But when you look at the heart of the $30 billion, that is a real cut.

I mean, you‘re unhappy that it‘s not immediate, but it‘s coming next year. Is it not enough? I always come back to the same thing with you. When is it ever enough? So you wanted $100 billion and you wanted it yesterday, right?

PHILLIPS: No, I would have settled for it for today, but here‘s the problem.

UYGUR: Are you not merciful?

PHILLIPS: But here‘s the problem. We have a huge budget deficit.

Spending is out of control.

When are we going to stop spending, when we‘re $20 billion in debt, $30 billion in debt, $40 billion in debt? There is no country in the world that has ever borrowed its way into prosperity. It‘s not going to happen with the United States of America. It‘s not happened with any other country. You end up with a debt crisis.

UYGUR: Right. You know, I know. Of course.

PHILLIPS: I‘ve said this on your show before, how do you get a debt crisis? You end up with a lot of debt.

UYGUR: That‘s right. And, you know, one way to solve that would be revenue, but I know you guys don‘t want to discuss that. You only want to discuss one side of it.

But listen, I want to get into more of what you want, because I‘m curious about it. So, for example, obviously in 2012 we have an enormous primary for the Republican side for presidential candidate. Now, I know you love primaries, so who‘s your guy? Who‘s extreme enough for you?

PHILLIPS: Well, let‘s talk about revenue for just a second. Let me go back to that real quick. Every time you cut taxes, surprisingly enough, revenue to the treasury goes up.

UYGUR: Not true remotely. Not even close.

PHILLIPS: Yes it is. It is! It is! Look at the history of it!

(CROSSTALK)

PHILLIPS: It happened in the ‘80s when Reagan did it. That happened last decade when Bush did it.

UYGUR: Look, here‘s what we did with Bush—we cut, cut, cut taxes.

And what happened? The economy created.

PHILLIPS: No!

UYGUR: We created one million jobs in eight years—

PHILLIPS: Did you go through the same 2000s that I went through?

UYGUR: — and you know what? He left—hold on Judson. He left a $1.3 trillion deficit.

It‘s your Republicans who screwed up. Why don‘t you admit that on national TV right now? Republicans never balanced the budget, and they always screwed up.

Go ahead and admit it.

PHILLIPS: What was the deficit in 2007? Answer: $137 billion.

Obama, Pelosi and Reid blew more than that in February of last year.

UYGUR: That was awesome. That was awesome. Hold on. You just said 2007.

When Bush left office, it was over $1 trillion, wasn‘t it? It‘s convenient that you left that part out.

PHILLIPS: No, I picked 2007 because, guess what? That was the last year a Republican Congress and a Republican president passed a budget.

UYGUR: Oh, of course. Of course. When Clinton balanced the budget, that was because of the Republican Congress, right? And then when Bush blows a huge trillion-dollar hole in the deficit, oh, Democratic Congress.

Which one is it? Is it the president or the Congress that takes all the credit?

PHILLIPS: Hey, they get a little bit of both. But in 2007, the deficit was heading in the right direction. And when Pelosi took over, when Reid took over—

UYGUR: He had a huge surplus! You know how much—here. You know what? We got into the topic. Let‘s finish it up.

The two wars, OK, Medicare prescription Part D caused—and I‘m sorry, and the tax cuts, caused a $3.2 trillion addition to the deficit. Why don‘t you just hold your hand up and say I am guilty, I am sorry, nation? We crew screwed up and I‘m now trying to get the Democrats to fix it.

PHILLIPS: Hey, how many Democrats voted for the Medicare drug prescription benefit? I‘ll agree with you on that. That was a bad idea. It blew a lot of money.

UYGUR: A bad Republican idea, yes.

PHILLIPS: It was a bad idea, period.

UYGUR: OK. Was Iraq a genius idea?

PHILLIPS: Iraq was a necessity. Afghanistan was a necessity.

Advertise | AdChoicesAdvertise | AdChoicesAdvertise | AdChoices.UYGUR: A necessity? A necessity?

PHILLIPS: Yes.

UYGUR: Now you want to cut Medicare, Medicaid. You want to cut food stamps. And Iraq was a necessity?

PHILLIPS: Yes, Iraq was a necessity.

UYGUR: Interesting values.

PHILLIPS: When you have the leader of a country who tries to kill a former president of the United States, he‘s got to pay the price for it. And I don‘t care if that former president is Barack Obama or Jimmy Carter.

UYGUR: How many years ago was that? You‘re going back to that?

OK. And so then, by the way, you agree since the horrible terrorism that Gadhafi has done, you agree with President Obama that we should have gone into Libya, right?

PHILLIPS: No, I don‘t agree with that.

UYGUR: Really? Huh? That‘s weird.

PHILLIPS: No, it‘s really simple.

(CROSSTALK)

PHILLIPS: We‘re stuck in two wars. How are we going to get this third one done?

Obama is cutting the defense budget. We‘re stretched too thin. Yes, I would love to see Gadhafi dangle from the end of a rope. But guess what? We‘re not the ones who are going to be able to do it.

UYGUR: All right, Judson. Unfortunately, we ran out of time before you could answer who you want in the GOP primaries, because I know none of them are enough.

You want to bring back Reagan, right? But Reagan raised taxes 11 times. You‘d probably primary him if he was around.

PHILLIPS: No, not really. Invite me back again and I‘ll—

UYGUR: Not really?

(CROSSTALK)

PHILLIPS: Invite me back again and we‘ll talk about the primary. OK?

UYGUR: All right. Fair enough.

Judson Phillips, head of the Tea Party Nation.

We appreciate it.

PHILLIPS: Hey, thank you.

Posted in Accountants CPA Hartford, Articles | Tagged Cenk Uygur MSNBC TV April 14 2011, Right off a cliff?, spending bill not appealing to extreme right, Tea Party burdens GOP | Leave a comment

The vision thing: will Americans share the burden of the debt?

Posted on April 13, 2011 by William Brighenti

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

CENK UYGUR, HOST: Good evening, everybody. I‘m Cenk Uygur.

President Obama spoke earlier today, and he sounded like the man we voted for. He outlined a progressive vision for the country, defended the idea of government, that sometimes we can achieve more together than we can apart. I really like that.

He said he would also protect important social programs and fight for the middle class. It was a very good speech to listen to, and it was, of course, this afternoon that he gave it, where he unveiled his plan for cutting the deficit and, more importantly, outlined his vision of America.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

BARACK OBAMA, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: We believe in the words of the first Republican president, Abraham Lincoln, that through government, we should do together what we cannot do as well for ourselves. We will all need to make sacrifices, but we do not have to sacrifice the America we believe in. And as long as I‘m president, we won‘t.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

UYGUR: Progressives have been asking him to make his case for a long time. And it appeared today that he was making that case.

You know what else he did? He also ripped into the Republicans.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

OBAMA: I believe it paints a vision of our future that is deeply pessimistic. It‘s a vision that says America can‘t afford to keep the promise we made to care for our seniors. It‘s a vision that says up to 50 million Americans have to lose their health insurance in order for us to reduce the deficit. That‘s not a vision of the America I know.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

UYGUR: The president says his plan will reduce deficits by $4 trillion over 12 years, and the first step is rolling back Bush tax cuts for the rich.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

OBAMA: We‘re (ph) $1 trillion worth of tax cuts for every millionaire and billionaire in our society. We can‘t afford it. And I refuse to renew them again.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

UYGUR: Nice. I like the word “refuse.”

The president also drew a line in the sand on Medicare, too. He attacked the Republican plan to privatize it with a voucher system.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

OBAMA: I will preserve these health care programs as a promise we make to each other in this society. I will not allow Medicare to become a voucher program that leaves seniors at the mercy of the insurance industry.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

UYGUR: So the speech in its totality sounded strong and it sounded progressive. Again, that is a president that we voted for, and it was nice to see him actually make that case today. So, very encouraging.

But while the president‘s speech hit all the right notes, he was short on specifics in terms of how he would reform Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security. Now, it‘s a little troubling as he hinted that the specifics might be basically dictated by the debt commission.

Now, that‘s a cause for concern, because the debt commission, well, in my opinion and in the opinion of a lot of progressives, it took a lot from the poor and the middle class and still gave too much to the wealthy, as I said, for most progressives in the country. Now, we‘ll have to see how this plan gets put into action—that‘s of course critical—and what happens once negotiations actually start with Republicans.

Now, to give us a progressive perspective is Independent Senator from Vermont, of course, Bernie Sanders. He‘s a member of the Progressive Caucus, and about as progressive as it gets.

So, let me start really simple. What did you think of the speech?

SEN. BERNIE SANDERS (I), VERMONT: I thought the president said a lot of the right things. I think the devil is going to be in the details. And, also, the question is, is whether the president is going to fight for what he believes, or is this just rhetoric?

Cenk, what we saw in terms of the tax deal, you remember back in December, the president really basically caved in and gave the Republicans almost everything they wanted. In terms of the continuing resolution, the 2011 budget, which I‘m going to vote against tomorrow, there were massive cuts in programs for health care, for education, for infrastructure, keeping people warm. I think a very bad agreement.

Now what the president is saying is that he is drawing a line in the sand. And I hope very much that the president is going to say to the Republicans that if you refuse to raise the debt limit, if you are about to destroy or bring chaos to the international financial community, leading, perhaps, to a major depression, if you guys are prepared to do it, take responsibility. But we‘re not going to cave in again, we‘re not going to be blackmailed again. You are not going to dismember the government and cut back on programs that tens and tens of millions of Americans absolutely depend upon while, as the president said, you give a trillion dollars in tax breaks to the richest people in this country who, in many ways, have never had it so good.

So the president‘s rhetoric was strong, weak on the details. But the $64 question is, is the president going to really fight? Is he going to rally the American people and say no, we‘re not going to bring hardship to the people without money while we give tax breaks to the very rich? That‘s the issue that remains to be seen.

UYGUR: Well, Senator Sanders, it is apparent to me that you are concerned. Right? And towards the end of the speech, the president did say, I might not get what I want, so that, of course, opens the door for negotiations. Now, obviously they have to have negotiations.

I guess my question to you is, are you happy with where the negotiations appear to begin? Because the president kept referring to that deficit commission that he put together. What‘s your thoughts on that?

SANDERS: No, I think you make a very good point, Cenk, and I am not. What often happens is we start off somewhere in the middle, or to the right of center, then the Republicans go into the extreme right, and we end up with a settlement that is very far to the right.

I think the president should have been very clear in terms of Social Security, for example, in saying, excuse me, Social Security has not contributed one nickel to the deficit, it can pay out ever benefit owed to every eligible American for 26 years, has a $2.6 trillion surplus, it is not on the table. We‘re not going to discuss it now. That‘s for another day.

In terms of Medicare, I think that, clearly, there are financial problems. There are ways that, by getting rid of bureaucracy within the Medicare system, we can save substantial sums of money without doing the kinds of damage that the Republicans want to do.

So, again, Cenk, the devil will be in the detail. But I am not a great fan of that Simpson/Bowles deficit reduction commission. I think that‘s a bad place to start from.

UYGUR: Right. You know, one of my concerns with that commission is, among other things, they said Social Security retirement age would be raised to 69. If that‘s the model we‘re using, you‘re not happy with that solution at all, right?

SANDERS: And they‘re going to also, in addition to that, cut benefits for many, many workers. It is not a good place to start from.

And also, most importantly, we have to separate the whole issue of how we deal with the deficit, which is very important, from Social Security, and how we make sure that that remains strong for 75 years. These are separate issues, because Social Security is paid for by the payroll tax, has a huge surplus right now, hasn‘t contributed one nickel to the deficit. And it is only Republican ideology and propaganda which is trying to bring these two issues together.

UYGUR: All right. Senator Sanders, honestly, I didn‘t know where you were going to come out on this, and I sense concern from you. That‘s what I sense.

OK. We‘ll see how it plays out, obviously. Thank you for joining us tonight. Really appreciate it.

SANDERS: Thank you. Good to be with you.

UYGUR: All right.

Now, a key part of the president‘s message today was for Americans to share the burden of our debt and for the wealthy to give something back.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

OBAMA: There‘s a time when the tax burden on the wealthy is at its lowest level in half a century, the most fortunate among us can afford to pay a little more.

And I believe that most wealthy Americans would agree with me. They want to give back to their country, a country that‘s done so much for them. It‘s just Washington hasn‘t asked them to.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

UYGUR: Well, I hope he‘s right. They‘re looking forward to giving back.

Now, look, take a look at this chart. He‘s definitely right about how low taxes are today.

For example, you see that the taxes are at 35 percent now for the top bracket, which is, historically speaking, incredibly low. Now, decades ago, the top rate was 70, 80, and even 90 percent.

Remember the last Republican that balanced the budget? Eisenhower.

The highest marginal tax rate under Eisenhower? Ninety-one percent.

So, yes, there‘s no question the rich can pay a lot more, and apparently are not paying their fair share. And that‘s why we‘re in part of the trouble that we‘re in now.

So now let me bring in Representative Jan Schakowsky. She‘s a Democrat from Illinois. She was at the president‘s speech today, and she has an even bolder tax plan. She‘s also a member of the Progressive Caucus and of the president‘s debt commission.

Now, let me start there, because I know you‘re a part of the commission and that you did not sign off on it. What was your concern with the commission?

REP. JAN SCHAKOWSKY (D), ILLINOIS: Well, not only didn‘t I sign off on it, but I actually offered an alternative plan that said, yes, we can balance the budget, but we don‘t have to do it on the backs of the elderly and middle class and poor people. But, having said that, there were a couple of things that I agreed with the commission on, and that was that we should go after what we call tax expenditures. So it‘s tax breaks for wealthy Americans. And number two, that the defense budget had to be on the table.

And those were two things that the president said today that he also liked about the deficit commission, and that he also wanted to adopt. So, I actually agreed with him on that, even though I voted against and presented my own proposal for balancing our budget.

UYGUR: So is it—you know, I know the president outlined today, basically, he wants to get a trillion dollars in reinstating some of the tax rates that were under Clinton. He wants to get $2 trillion from spending cuts, so a lot more from spending cuts, and maybe save about a trillion dollars in interest payments if you do this plan.

Do you think that‘s the right balance, or are you concerned about that balance? And are you concerned that he is using the commission here apparently as his guide, something that you voted against?

SCHAKOWSKY: Well, let me just say this, Cenk, that what the president did today, rather than lay out all kinds of very specific items, was present a very different vision of America between what he sees and what the Republicans have proposed. I think that was the context that is most important so the American people really understand what what‘s at stake, that the vision that they proposed was deeply pessimistic, that it was not the America that he sees.

It‘s not the America that he sees that makes poor people and middle class people bear the burden of this debt, that seniors shouldn‘t have to pay. And he talked pretty specifically about Medicare and Medicaid, that, yes we could reduce the cost of health care, but that doesn‘t mean that we had to do it by shifting those costs to poor people and old people in our country.

I thought it was a very passionate expression of the very different ways that we look at it. The Republicans have offered something that will absolutely exacerbate the disparity in income between the rich and the poor in our country, that ask the poor and middle class to sacrifice, even though as the president pointed out, the middle class income hasn‘t increased, while we‘ve seen this dramatic rise in the wealth of the top earners in America.

And so I really applauded that speech. We‘re still going to have to work out the details, but if he‘s coming from that kind of place, I have confidence on where we‘re going to end up.

UYGUR: All right. You know, thematically, I couldn‘t agree more with you. I thought he hit that note over and over in the speech, and it was really encouraging to see. And I say that as a progressive. You know, I‘m honest with the viewers, they know where I come from.

And speaking of which, I really like your plan. I want to show people what it is.

SCHAKOWSKY: Thank you.

UYGUR: It would be 45 percent rate for every dollar above a million dollars, and it would be 49 percent for billionaires, for every dollar above a billion. Now—

SCHAKOWSKY: Right. And I wanted to make that point, because people will say, a billion dollars? Who makes a billion? Well, yes, there are Americans who made $1 billion and more in 2010. That was their one-year take for that particular year, $1 billion.

UYGUR: So should the president have been bolder, though and go with –

I mean, it seems like your plan, as much as you and I might like it, doesn‘t even get considered in Washington. What‘s wrong there, that we have a Democratic president who isn‘t pushing the spectrum to the left there?

SCHAKOWSKY: Well, believe you me, I think that it would be wildly supported by the American people, who 81 percent said the preferable way to deal with our deficit and our debt would be to raise taxes on millionaires. And I know Bernie Sanders, Senator Sanders, had a similar proposal for millionaires.

And so what I‘m saying to my colleagues, have the courage to follow, follow the American people. They‘re telling us what they want us to do. There‘s no risk involved. We should, in fact, I think, even go higher, as my plan does, and tax millionaires and billionaires even more, not because of revenge, not because we‘re going to punish them, because of fairness.

UYGUR: Yes. If you can‘t get politicians on your side to agree to a position that they ideologically agree with and 81 percent of the country agrees with, well, there‘s something wrong in Washington.

But Representative Schakowsky is one of the ones that is trying to fix it.

And we thank you for joining us tonight.

SCHAKOWSKY: Thank you so much, Cenk.

UYGUR: All right.

Posted in Accountants CPA Hartford, Articles | Tagged Cenk Uygur MSNBC TV April 13 2011, Rep. Jan Schakowsky Democrat from Illinois, should the rich be taxed more to bring down the deficit?, The vision thing, will Americans share the burden of the debt?, will the rich share the pain | Leave a comment

Obama to go after Bush-era tax cuts. Progressive USA.

Posted on April 13, 2011 by William Brighenti

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

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

PRES. BARACK OBAMA (D), UNITED STATES: Indeed to those in my own party. I say that if we truly believe in a progressive nation of our society, we have an obligation to prove that we can afford our commitments.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

UYGUR: Now, as we‘ve been telling you all day. Barack Obama made a passionate case for progressive ideals and a speech on the deficit reduction today. At the heart of his case, an argument about fairness in our society, especially when it comes to taxes.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

OBAMA: In the last decade. The average income of the bottom 90 percent of all working Americans actually declined. Meanwhile, the top one percent saw their income rise by an average of more than a quarter of a million dollars each. That‘s who needs to pay less taxes?

(END VIDEO CLIP)

UYGUR: Do you see why, I like the speech? That‘s a great point. Please, please follow through on that. Obama made it clear he‘s going to go after those Bush year tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans, but even before Obama spoke, republican leaders today put their forward, their vision of America. It‘s a vision that rejects progressive values, including the idea of raising taxes on millionaires.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

REP. JOHN BOEHNER ®, HOUSE SPEAKER: If we‘re going to resolve our differences and do something meaningful, raising taxes will not be part of that.

REP. ERIC CANTOR ®, HOUSE MINORITY WHIP: We don‘t believe that raising taxes is the answer here. I think the American people understand we have a serious problem in this country.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

UYGUR: So, the battle lines are clear. Republicans don‘t even want to consider taxing the rich, but now check out who does like Obama‘s progressive issue. The majority of Americans. A new “USA Today”/Gallup poll finds that 59 percent of Americans favor raising taxes on those main over $250, 000. That is exactly President Obama‘s proposal. Seventy eight percent of Democrats, and 60 percent of independents are on board with that. That‘s a big number. Even 37 percent of Republicans agree, which is also a little surprising, right? That‘s a big number for Republicans.

Now, according to a recent NBC/”Wall Street Journal poll,” when it comes to raising taxes on those who are making over a million dollars, it‘s even clear for Americans then. Eighty one percent find the plan acceptable. But it‘s not just taxes. Americans are progressive on a whole slew of fundamental issues. Now, let‘s take Medicare. According to that Gallup poll, 61 percent of Americans would defend it, saying that accept only minor changes. And a reason NBC/”Wall Street Journal” poll found 77 percent of Americans have cut the Social Security in the name of balancing the budget would be unacceptable. Seventy six percent say the same way about cuts the Medicare, and sixty seven percent wants to reject cuts the Medicaid.

So, when you actually look at the numbers, what the American people really want is clear, a progressive nation. But are we going to get one? Certainly in Washington, that‘s the question we‘re going to talk about tonight.

With me now is Jim Dean, Chair of Democracy for America, and Adam Green, co-founder of the Progressive Change Campaign Committee. Before Obama‘s speech, his group had circulated a petition warning the president not to touch Medicare or Medicaid or risk losing progressive support. Now, having said that, Adam, let me start with you. What do you think here after watching the speech? Which, using—Medicare and Medicaid, are you guys going to withdraw support or not?

ADAM GREEN, CO-FOUNDER, PROGRESSIVE CHANGE CAMPAIGN COMMITTEE: Well,

first of all, the president rightly deserves credit for really well articulating the case for raising taxes on millionaires, and those making over $250,000, you know, all the praise in the world. The problem will be on issues like Medicare and Medicaid and Social Security, when the president has been consistently ambiguous about whether he will draw a line in the sand against benefit cuts. You know, what he said was that the Paul Ryan plan to privatize Medicare is off the table. He‘s alluded to finding some generic savings that wouldn‘t entail benefit cuts like, you know, if they could save taxpayers money by not paying as much money to the insurance companies, add more power to them. But he‘s consistently been ambiguous about whether he would actually draw to a line in the sand and say, absolutely no way to benefit cuts.

And I think, as he said before, you know, when literally trillions of dollars have gone to the wealthiest Americans after Wall Street has looted this country, it would be unconscionable to cut benefits for our grandparents, kids who need to see doctors and those with disabilities. So, we hope that he draws line in the sand very soon.

UYGUR: All right. Jim, let me ask you a tough question. Because, look, one of the things that I do on this show is I try to show people real facts, numbers, and sometimes it‘s polling, sometimes it‘s things that have happened in the past, and you know, there‘s this conventional wisdom in D.C. that the country center right, nonsense, nonsense, nonsense. It‘s not my opinion, it‘s the facts, right? But yet, in Washington, we seem to lose the argument. So, that‘s my question to you. Why, if we‘re right and the country‘s progressive, why do we seem to keep losing in Washington?

JIM DEAN, CHAIR OF DEMOCRACY FOR AMERICA: Well, I‘m not sure that I had the total answer to that Cenk. Look, we‘re thrilled that the president is engaging and leading an adult discussion about solving a budget crisis. By getting additional—by raising taxes and those that have been the beneficiaries of the taxpayers as well as its economy. We‘re thrilled that he‘s taking to Paul Ryan‘s plan off the table. But, you know, Washington is bubble as he have alluded to, and I think a lot of people feel that the statesmanship is somehow between the rest of America and a small minority of people who believe in using the budget for their own ideological means. And that‘s something that we‘ve got to work on a little bit. You know, I think a lot of folks in Washington should spend a little bit more time in their own districts and a little bit less time in D.C. And they would find that out very quickly and they would agree with your point very quickly.

UYGUR: Right. And I don‘t want people to get the wrong impression. But when it comes to politics, look, in 2006, the Democrats won overwhelmingly, in 2008 they won overwhelmingly, and there was a mandate to be more progressive, but when it comes to policy, oftentimes it looks like we‘re on the short end of it. And part of the reason for that I think is the republican attack. So, let me give you an example of that today guys, and we‘ll have you respond. Of course, they immediately said that it was class warfare, the idea of taxing anybody, a nickel more. Let me show you the tape on that.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

UNIDENTIFIED MAN: This is the tired old way of waging class warfare, pitting one piece of our society against the other.

UNIDENTIFIED MAN: Going to everyone for the nation‘s fiscal woes but himself, attacking the path to prosperity budget and setting a new standard for class warfare rhetoric.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

UYGUR: So, Adam, how do you fight back against that? How do you respond?

GREEN: Well, there is class warfare, there is republican class warfare against middle-class working families. And what the poll numbers that you showed before should indicate to the president that he has the ammunition to end this war. He has the public on his side. And what we need is a bold fighter saying, absolutely no to Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid, benefit cuts, absolutely yes to increase in taxes on the wealthy, holding corporations accountable, and I‘m cutting military. That would be a winning argument policy wise and politically. And we hope he does it.

UYGUR: All right. Jim, let me ask that question, then. Do you think he did, I mean, for example, one of the things that pointed out here, and we had Representative Schakowsky on before, she points that out all the time. Top one percent of the country have 34 percent of the wealth. The bottom 90 percent of the country only have 29 percent of the wealth, that‘s startling, right? But yet, anytime you say, hey, can we get the taxes to be fair for the top one percent? They scream, oh my God, class warfare, class warfare. So, now, the president did not go as far as Representative Schakowsky‘s plan to talk tax millionaires and billionaires, didn‘t go as far as Bernie Sanders plan. Is that a strategic mistake that if you go towards the Republicans, and then you start the negotiations and you want to go further, that he should have put his marker further left, or, what do you think about that?

DEAN: Well, I‘m less concern about whether put his marker now, as what‘s going to happen when they start these negotiations. And, as you know, in the past, you know, given some of the past negotiations, there‘s reason for concern there. And I really believe that the president really needs to stand up, he specially needs to stand up on preserving programs for the middle class, especially Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid, I think if he does that, he‘s going to get a tremendous backing not only from own caucus but from the American people. He needs to take this fight to the people, Cenk, and not play this Washington game of trying to split the difference again with a bunch of ideologues who have not been serious about passing the balanced budget in the past and again, are using the whole budget debate for their own social ideology.

UYGUR: All right. Jim Dean of democracy for America and Adam Green of the Progressive Change Campaign Committee, thank you for representing your side today. We appreciate it.

DEAN: Yes. Thanks for having us on.

UYGUR: Yes. And Adam also had a nice tie. All right.

Posted in Accountants CPA Hartford, Articles | Tagged Cenk Uygur MSNBC TV April 13 2011, Obama to go after Bush-era tax cuts, Progressive America, Progressive USA | Leave a comment

Fight for America. Fighting for America’s future.

Posted on April 13, 2011 by William Brighenti

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

UYGUR: Today, President Obama took pains to distinguish his vision for America from the one put forth by Paul Ryan and the House Republicans. And in the process of drawing that distinction, the president also set himself apart from his possible 2012 contenders.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

OBAMA: To their credit, one vision has been presented and championed by Republicans in the House of Representatives and embraced by several of their party‘s presidential candidates.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

UYGUR: Ah, the race is on. And that‘s smart, connecting them to Ryan‘s plans.

Now, after he connected them to that plan, the president proceeded to tell the country exactly what he thinks of that whole vision.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

OBAMA: This vision is less about reducing the deficit than it is about changing the basic social compact in America. There‘s nothing serious about a plan that claims to reduce the deficit by spending a trillion dollars on tax cuts for millionaires and billionaires. And I don‘t think there‘s anything courageous about acting for sacrifice from those who can least can afford it and don‘t have any clout on Capitol Hill. That‘s not a vision of the America I know.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

UYGUR: Now do you see why I liked this speech? OK. That was some good stuff.

Of course, the GOP candidates jumped all over the speech. Mitt Romney accused the president of digging into his “liberal playbook.”

First of all, he‘s a Democratic president. Second of all, what have you got? You‘ve just got name-calling? No substance?

Oh, yes? You‘re a liberal!

Nice one, Mitt.

And Tim Pawlenty said the president‘s plan wasn‘t serious.

Were you listening to this speech? The president called for $4 trillion in cuts. How much more serious did he need to be?

So, now is the time to talk about who wins and who loses out of this big national debate. So let‘s do that right now with our guests, Dana Milbank, national political reporter for “The Washington Post.” And also with us is Democratic strategist and syndicated columnist David Sirota. His latest book is “Back to Our Future.”

All right, Dana, let‘s start with you.

The president went on the attack a little bit, but then he said he‘s going to do the deficit commission. Or didn‘t say he was fully going to do it, but that he was using it as his guide.

First, is this smart politics? Has he done a good job of casting himself in the middle here, if you will?

DANA MILBANK, NATIONAL POLITICAL REPORTER, “THE WASHINGTON POST”: I

think he has done a very good job here, because had he come out and say, look, I‘m going to give a big old hug to Alan Simpson and Erskine Bowles, and I‘m just going to give my blessing to their plan, you would not be having the same show that you‘re having tonight. You‘d be pretty angry about this.

I think what he did is he said all the right words. And let‘s face it, Paul Ryan gave him a real gift. This was a gimme. It was easy for the president to get up there and be the anti-Ryan, and thereby claiming the center, as well as keeping his base happy. I suspect when you get right down to the details, it‘s not going to be so pretty.

UYGUR: Well, you see, that‘s really interesting. So, overall, you‘re not buying it. You‘re saying, like, he didn‘t want to mess with his base, that‘s why he gave such a greet speech on, oh, progressive vision, values, et cetera, but you think he‘s not going to do that. You think he‘s actually going to be very much in favor of that commission, which we don‘t like?

MILBANK: When you talk to White House officials, that‘s what I‘m hearing. All signs sort of point in that direction.

I mean, there‘s a lot of jockeying going on. And you were just talking with Jan Schakowsky. I was at their event today.

I think it‘s very smart of them to come out and say, hey, we can solve this problem with 80 percent of the money coming from tax increases. I think it‘s good for the president to have that on his left as a counterweight to Paul Ryan.

So, this is all about positioning right now, it‘s not about negotiating. And I think while this will not come as good news to you, I think signs still point towards that Bowles/Simpson plan.

UYGUR: All right.

Well, David, let me get the progressive perspective from you. Does that hearten you or does that really concern you?

DAVID SIROTA, FMR. DEMOCRATIC STRATEGIST: Well, look, there‘s a lot of good things in this and there‘s a lot of bad things, as usual.

I mean, I think the good thing is that the president now has a fight

over taxes and tax fairness on his hands, which I think is winning terrain

for Democrats, and I think it‘s winning terrain if you want to see our tax

rates become more progressive. I think the bad news is, is that there is –

for every dollar raised from tax reform, there‘s $3 raised from spending cuts, and a lot of those spending cuts come from major programs that are both progressive and wildly popular in America.

So what I would say is that I think that he‘s trying to split the difference here. I do think he is somewhat in the middle. And I agree with Dana, that I think congressional Democrats have an obligation to really stake out a much more progressive position, because if they don‘t, he‘s exactly right, the president will—he has in the past—he will run, my guess is, to simply embrace the Republican position even more than perhaps he already has.

UYGUR: Dana, is that a winning strategy, politically, for 2012? You speak like a Democrat and act like a Republican?

MILBANK: Well, I guess so. I mean, the president has been following this pattern all along, that he sort of sounds themes that excite his base, then he basically leaves the details up to Capitol Hill. We saw that with the stimulus, we saw it with health care, we‘re seeing it again happening now.

I mean, in the end, it‘s going to matter what is actually in this final plan, assuming they can agree on anything at all. He aggravated liberals greatly with the deal struck very recently. And I think the White House felt a lot of that heat, and I think that‘s why you got the kind of speech that you got today.

And, incidentally, I think we should say the Republican presidential candidates are pounding Obama, but they‘re not really all that much. The only one who is fully behind this Ryan plan is Rick Santorum, and we all know where that campaign is going.

UYGUR: Absolutely nowhere.

But let‘s talk about the more relevant campaign, which is Obama‘s campaign.

David, do you think it‘s a smart strategy? Because, you know, of course conventional wisdom is you want to be in the center, you want to be above it, and you want to say, hey, look, I‘m doing a bit of this and a bit of that, I‘m giving you some tax increases, because—although they call it—what is it, spending cuts from taxes? Because they don‘t want to call it tax increases.

SIROTA: Tax expenditures.

UYGUR: Yes, that‘s right. And spending cuts. Or do you think, hey, you know what, a more progressive strategy would simply be a better strategy politically?

SIROTA: Well, look, I think it‘s cynical. Right?

I think the expectation on the Obama administration‘s part and Obama strategists has been what it‘s always been, which is we can say really nice things and our progressive base won‘t catch up to any of the details, because what they see on television when the president speaks is what they want to hear. The question is, how much does this become a debate about the actual details in this plan, and how much of it just becomes traded sound bites?

Typically, with budget politics, having worked on the Appropriations Committee years ago, typically it becomes, unfortunately, about sound bites, not about details. But my guess is, that if the Republicans really dig in, if the Republican presidential candidates really dig in on this and make it a debate about big sets of details, then I think you‘re going to have perhaps somewhat of an erosion of grassroots support. Not to say that that grassroots support is going to go vote for the Republican, but somewhat of an erosion of enthusiasm for the president when people realize that he hasn‘t taken on in this plan yet the major challenges in a progressive way that he could.

UYGUR: You know, I‘m going to be honest with you guys. You have discouraged me a little bit. OK? And I‘ll tell you why.

Because I listened to the speech and I‘m like, God, it‘s a good progressive vision, and he keeps talking about how important it is for everybody to pay their fair share, et cetera. But I get the sense from both of you that you‘re not buying it, that it‘s just talk.

And, Dana, I mean, you‘re—tell me a little bit more about your reporting on that, because I think that“ really important. Is he going to basically do that deficit commission? Because if he does, that‘s not progressive at all.

MILBANK: It certainly sounds that way to me. And, you know, we‘ve seen this sort of movie before.

Now, if you look at the health care debate, I would argue that whatever the president wanted to end up with, even if he wanted this plan, perhaps he should have started out saying, hey, actually, I do want socialized medicine. Then they could have split the difference in a different place just as a purely tactical matter.

But the White House has been sending out all kinds of signs. Bowles and Simpson were there today. They‘ve been fairly encouraging. You know, the president is supportive of this Gang of Six in the Senate that‘s basically mimicking Bowles and Simpson. So I think signs do point that way.

UYGUR: Right. Oh, well. It was a nice speech.

MILBANK: Sorry.

(LAUGHTER)

UYGUR: OK.

The Washington Post‘s Dana Milbank and columnist David Sirota.

Thank you both for joining us.

And Dana, nice tie. I have the same exact one.

Posted in Accountants CPA Hartford, Articles | Tagged Cenk Uygur MSNBC TV April 13 2011, Fight for America, Fighting for America's future, President Barack Obama's criticism of Rep. Paul Ryan's budget cut plan, syndicated columnist David Sirota, Washington Post's Dana Milbank | Leave a comment

Right to choose. Conservative views enforced on D.C.

Posted on April 13, 2011 by William Brighenti

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

UYGUR: We all know that the GOP loves big government when it comes to our private lives. They want to get between you and your womb. Case in point, during the budget battle last week, Republicans pushed to cut off federal funding for Planned Parenthood. They didn‘t succeed but they did manage to force conservative views on Washington, D.C. As part of the deal that was cut with Democrats, the District of Columbia is banned from using its own funds to provide abortions to low-income women. D.C. Mayor Vincent Gray was among 41 people arrested while protesting the deal, which effectively takes away autonomy from the city.

In the end, this is just the latest example of how Republicans have treated Washington, D.C. Whenever they want to do a social experiment based on their conservative ideology, they force it upon D.C. because the federal government has ultimate control over the local government. And then they can score political points with their base for imposing their values on the local population, which by the way, ironically is among the most liberal in the country. Now the thing is I thought we lived in a democracy, but apparently, if you live in the District of Columbia, that just doesn‘t apply to you. Now, on the other hand, Democrats could have fought for the resident of the city but shockingly enough, they didn‘t. So once again, Washington, D.C. has gotten thrown under the bus in negotiations with the GOP.

Joining me now is D.C. Mayor Vincent Gray to talk about that. Mayor Gray, thank you for joining us, we appreciate it.

MAYOR VINCENT GRAY, DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA: Thank you so much for having me. I appreciate it, you have done a good job of characterizing the dilemma we find ourselves in.

UYGUR: All right. So let‘s start with that dilemma. First, let‘s talk about the Republicans and how they continually play with D.C. Isn‘t there a problem there? I thought they have, the, you know, slogan don‘t tread on me but they like treading all over you.

GRAY: Well, absolutely, we are being tread upon and it happens repeatedly. We see these riders on our budget. We have seen two of them in this instance. First of all, the banning of our ability to use our own money to support abortions in the District of Columbia and then the foisting upon us of a voucher program that basically says here is money, you are going to go give money to private schools to educate your children. This really eliminates any possibility in those two areas that the people of this city will be able to make the decisions that are made by the people of every other state and every other city without having to be subjected to this.

UYGUR: So, for a lot of people that might not know why, why can the federal government do this to you, guys? Why can‘t you control your own government?

GRAY: Well, it‘s because we are—there is a federal presence, we are the federal city. But what it doesn‘t recognize and they fail to acknowledge is that these dollars are raised by the people of the District of Columbia. We have our own tax system. We have property taxes, income taxes, sales taxes. And those taxes are the responsibility of—generated by the 600,000 people who live in the city. Yet, the Congress intervenes whenever it feels like it and imposes its will on the District of Columbia. If they were federal funds, perhaps they would have a legitimate case but these are our dollars and we ought to make those decisions for ourselves. That‘s why 41 people were arrested yesterday, because people have got to the point where they are saying enough is enough. We want budget autonomy for ourselves and the city. We want to have self-determination, like everybody else.

UYGUR: I think this is the height of irony, because the Tea Parties were all about taxation without representation, the original Tea Parties.

GRAY: That‘s right. That‘s exactly correct.

UYGUR: Now the current batch of Tea Party say, well, I don‘t care what the D.C. people pay in taxes, we‘re just going to take over and give them a conservative ideology, even though your city is among the most liberal in the country.

GRAY: Absolutely. And not only that, the Tea Party members are people who also believe that states and local jurisdictions ought to have the right to make their own decisions, not have federal interference, congressional interference like we see here in our city.

UYGUR: All right. One final question for you, Mayor Vincent Gray. It is easy to say, OK, Republicans are doing the wrong thing because they are. All right. But on the other hand, it seems like whenever the Democrats are in a bind, I will give you D.C., you do whatever you like there. How do you feel about that?

GRAY: Well, I feel like we got thrown under the bus and it‘s clear that it isn‘t just Republicans who are supporting this deal. This deal has been supported by people on both sides of the aisle. I‘m concerned, too, about what the White House‘s role is in all of this. So, the question is for us, you know, where are our supporters? And that‘s why people are simply tired of it, that‘s why people are engaging in civil disobedience and I think this is not going to go away quickly because people are sick and tired of raising our money and then having someone else tell us how to live our lives.

UYGUR: So, do you think President Obama threw you under that bus?

GRAY: Well, you know, there have been quotes that said, you know, we will give up D.C. We have contacted the White House. I want to hear directly from the president himself what his position was. The president has said he supports voting rights for the city, that he supports, you know, the charter and home rule. Now is the time to demonstrate that, it is easy to have the conversation but these are the instances where we need to see it.

UYGUR: All right. D.C. Mayor Vincent Gray, thank you for joining us tonight. We appreciate it.

GRAY: Thank you.

Posted in Accountants CPA Hartford, Articles | Tagged Cenk Uygur MSNBC TV April 12 2011, conservative views enforced on D.C., right to choose, Washington D.C. Mayor Vincent Gray | Leave a comment

A defining moment for Obama: no right turn!

Posted on April 13, 2011 by William Brighenti

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

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

WILLIAM JEFFERSON CLINTON, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: I believe this budget debate is about two very different futures for America, about whether we will continue to go forward under our motto, “E Pluribus Unum” – – out of many, one—whether we will continue to unite and grow, or whether we will become a more divided winner-take-all society.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

UYGUR: Bubba! All right. That was back in 1995.

It was amid an historic showdown with Newt Gingrich, where Bill Clinton threw down the gauntlet and stood up for progressive values, vowing to protect Medicare. It was bold and it made a lot of sense since he is a Democratic president.

Now, it did partly trigger two government shutdowns, obviously forced mainly by the Republicans, but ultimately it worked. The policy worked and the politics also worked. Clinton won re-election in 1996.

Now it‘s President Obama‘s turn. Tomorrow, he will lay out his plan to reduce America‘s deficit. And in the process, Obama will have a chance to explain exactly what he stands for.

We have seen what the Republicans want to do, and it‘s Draconian. Paul Ryan‘s proposal would shift the burden entirely onto the backs of the poorest Americans. It would slash Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security and other programs that help lower-income Americans. It would give a huge tax break to the rich, reducing upper-income taxes from 35 percent to 25 percent, as if the rich were not getting a big enough break.

Also on the table is last year‘s deficit commission plan. Now, it does a slightly better job than Ryan‘s at spreading the pain, but it‘s still ugly. True, it doesn‘t seek to privatize Medicare, and it raises taxes on capital gains, which are good, but it does target social security, proposing to raise the retirement age. And, of course, like Ryan‘s plan, it would lower taxes for the wealthy and for corporations.

But there‘s another plan I want to tell you about, one that isn‘t getting nearly the media attention that Ryan‘s is. But it‘s the only plan that actually makes sense.

It‘s from the Congressional Progressive Caucus. It‘s simple, it‘s strong, and it spells out an entirely different vision of American values.

You see the people carrying the burden equally? It makes sense. It balances the budget and it‘s fair.

Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security don‘t take any hits. Savings come from a reduction in military spending. Remember, we spend a tremendous amount of money. Forty-three percent of the entire world‘s spending on defense is from the United States of America.

Under the progressive plan, revenues get a bump by ending the Bush tax cuts for those making over $250,000, and also by raising taxes on millionaires. Also by closing corporate tax loopholes. All three of those things make tremendous sense.

Now, last year, Barack Obama backed down on those Bush tax cuts, unfortunately. He let the Republicans have their way. He said it was so they could fight later. Well, now the fight is coming, but as a result, America is now paying an enormous cost.

The Congressional Budget Office estimates that the Bush tax cuts are adding hundreds of billions to our deficit. Now it‘s time for Barack Obama to fight back. He said it would come, and today‘s the day. Actually, tomorrow, he needs to make his case, not the Republicans‘ case.

The progressive plan that makes a ton of sense, in my opinion, is the way to go. But is the president going to go in that direction? And if he doesn‘t, if not now, when?

With me now is Democratic Congressman Xavier Becerra of California.

Congressman Becerra is a member of the Congressional Progressive Caucus.

Congressman, first of all, the Progressive Caucus plan, what do you think of it? Does it make sense?

REP. XAVIER BECERRA (D), CALIFORNIA: Cenk, the Progressive Caucus puts forward what we have always known, the ideas that helped build America put Americans back to work. And I‘ve got to tell you that there have been some ideas to invest in this country that the Progressive Caucus has put forward for a long time and had success, but these days, under Republican rule, they don‘t get much attention.

UYGUR: And what do you think the president is going to do? I mean, that‘s obviously questions that everybody is asking. You can go in the progressive direction, although I don‘t know why it‘s not getting media attention. Obviously, we‘re trying to give it attention. It make a lot of sense to us. Or you can go in the way of the Ryan plan or the Deficit Commission, which was the president‘s commission.

Are you afraid he might go in that direction instead?

BECERRA: I have no doubt that the president is going to clearly outline the contrast between he and the Republicans in the Ryan plan, and perhaps the even more conservative Republican Study Committee plan which really is the one that House Republicans are behind.

And so I think you‘re going to find that the president will give the clear distinction between his vision of how to move American forward and put Americans back to work and the Republican vision, which essentially says seniors, through budget cuts, to Medicare and Social Security, pay for the tax cults for the very wealthy and the subsidies for big oil.

UYGUR: So, Congressman, talk us about those differences, because in some places, it appears clear, it looks like the president is going to say hey, for people making about $250,000, we‘re going to go back to the Clinton-era tax rates, which makes sense, it‘s progressive, it was his position during the campaign, et cetera, et cetera. But in places like Medicare and Medicaid, it looks like he is going to propose cuts.

Now, does that jibe with his earlier statements? Does that make sense to you?

BECERRA: Well, if you‘re talking about providing savings through Medicare that take you further along in reducing the cost of health care, that makes sense. That is what we did last year when we found $500 billion of savings by removing some of the duplication of services that was costing seniors and taxpayers a great deal of money.

But if you are talking about doing what the Republicans do, which is essentially privatizing Medicare, turning it into a voucher, what I call coupon care, because you essentially get a coupon to go shop for your health care—and we know since 1965, the only reason seniors have easy access to health care is because Medicare came along. Before that, private insurers did not want seniors to get coverage under their company.

So if you are talking about trying to move forward with strengthening Social Security, strengthening Medicare, you‘re on the money. The moment you start talking about privatizing it making seniors pay for the extra cost, you are essentially going back to pre-1965, pre-1935, when seniors retired in poverty.

UYGUR: All right. So let‘s assume for the moment being that the president does the progressive thing, and he says, I‘m marginally going to protect these program, going to make some—of course, the devil is in the details and we‘ll see what kind of adjustments get made to Medicare and Medicaid and Social Security. That‘s very important.

But let‘s give him the benefit of the doubt on that and say he does that. How does it then get resolved? Because, today, John Boehner came out and said raising taxes is unacceptable to him and it‘s a nonstarter.

So how do you resolve that?

BECERRA: Cenk, that is the big difference between what I believe the president will tell the American people and what John Boehner and the Republicans are telling the American people. The Republicans have said we‘re taking things off the table. They want to protect those fat cats, those sacred cows. And the president, I hope, will say everything should be on the table.

And those of us who are strong supporters of strengthening Social Security, Medicare, should be prepared to say that we can put those programs on the table and know that they will survive because the American public wants them to be stronger, not to be privatized. But to the degree that Republicans remove things from discussion that should be on the table, the Republicans are truly revealing what they‘re doing, and that‘s simply they are protecting the special interests that have been providing them with a great deal of support every two years, every four years that there‘s an election.

UYGUR: Right. But, Congressman, last thing on this.

Look, I know my strategy, and it‘s not the one that the president favors. If they said to me it‘s unacceptable, I‘d say, all right, unacceptable right back at you, and this is what I think of your criticism. Right? But that‘s not how the president operates, and we‘re going to have a deadline on the debt ceiling soon, right?

So, how do you resolve it when both sides say no, it‘s—one side says we‘ve got to have tax cuts, and the other side says no, we actually have to go back to the Clinton era (ph)?

BECERRA: Well, Cenk, no one wants to see the game of chicken played the way the Republicans played it with this recent budget vote that we had where they nearly shut the government down unless they got their way. What we found out quickly, that it wasn‘t—their concerns were not about budgets and about fiscal issues and numbers, it was about a social agenda.

If the Republicans try to do that, whether it‘s with the debt ceiling vote, or with the 2012 budget, which we are now starting to discuss and debate, then I believe the president has every right to set down a clear marker and say enough is enough, the people want us to put Americans back to work and get our fiscal house in order. You don‘t have to do that by cutting kids out of Head Start, cutting seniors out of their Medicare benefits.

UYGUR: Right. Well, will he? That‘s the question I guess we‘ll find out as the negotiations proceed.

Congressman Xavier Becerra, thank you for joining us. Of course, member of the Congressional Progressive Caucus. Thank you for your time tonight.

BECERRA: Thanks very much.

UYGUR: All right.

Now I want to bring in Roger Simon. He‘s chief political columnist for Politico. His new article is about the heat that Obama could start feeling from liberals unhappy with one too many compromises.

I know all about that. All right.

(LAUGHTER)

UYGUR: Roger, is that a real threat here for the president? Because, you know, I did this just a little while ago about what I would do with the Republican criticism. That seems to be what President Obama does with liberal criticism nonstop.

Does he actually have to be concerned for a change?

ROGER SIMON, POLITICO: I think the White House is pretty confident that Barack Obama will not be facing a significant challenge on his left, and that is why he has opened up so much room to his left, because he thinks there is no one there to exploit it.

But this is a president who abandoned single-payer health care, who agreed to extending tax cuts for the rich, who promised to close down Guantanamo and, in fact, is keeping it open and holding military tribunals, and has expanded the war in Afghanistan.

Now, for all those people who say, well, yes, there‘s a lot of room to the left and a lot of unhappy liberals, but, you know, they are not that unhappy. Imagine, if you will—this is totally a fantasy—if Hillary Clinton announced tomorrow she was resigning from the cabinet, was going to run against the president because the president was simply too moderate, had gone back on his promises, and basically she could carve a better man out of a banana.

UYGUR: Wow. I don‘t think she‘ll say that.

SIMON: I don‘t think she will. But as an example, I don‘t think if she did, she would be met by a huge amount of anger and disgust or even laughter.

UYGUR: Well, you know, as far as—

SIMON: I think a number of progressives would say, well, she might

have a point there

UYGUR: Right. Well, as far as political drama was concerned, that would be amazing, right? And it would be certainly ironic for then Hillary to take the more liberal position, given that it was the exact opposite in 2008.

SIMON: Sure.

UYGUR: But look, I want to talk to you about the Progressive Caucus, because Congressman DeFazio came on this program last night and said it‘s time for the president to start acting like a Democrat. He use some pretty strong words, said the president caved in on several occasions.

So, does it make sense, is it a smart strategy for progressives in Congress to say we‘re not going to take it anymore, I don‘t care what the president says, we are going to put real pressure from the left and we‘re going to give him a whole bunch of no votes if he keeps going towards the right?

SIMON: I think it‘s the only weapon they have, and I think it may be a good weapon. And I doubt very much that progressives are going to be entirely pleased by the president‘s speech tomorrow.

The White House has already figured out that to gain moderate support, this is a president who has to bite the built and say, we‘re going to cut Medicaid, Medicare and even Social Security. He is not going to say “cut,” he is going to say “reform.” But I don‘t think you are going to see an entirely progressive proposal from the president tomorrow. And one of the reasons—

UYGUR: Yes. You know, you hit the nail on the head there.

SIMON: Yes.

UYGUR: I mean, the critical part is when they say “reform,” it usually means cut. That‘s a political code word, and that‘s what we‘re going to watch out for in tomorrow‘s speech.

Roger Simon from Politico.

Thank you so much for joining us. We really appreciate it.

SIMON: Thank you, Cenk.

UYGUR: All right.

Posted in Accountants CPA Hartford, Articles | Tagged a defining moment for Obama, Cenk Uygur MSNBC TV April 12 2011, no right turn, Politico's Roger Simon, will Obama stand up for Medicare and Medicaid and Social Security | Leave a comment

Happy Birthday, Romneycare! Will health care ruin Romney’s presidential bid?

Posted on April 13, 2011 by William Brighenti

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

CENK UYGUR, HOST: Good evening. I‘m Cenk Uygur.

How you all doing tonight?

You know what we‘re going to do? We‘re going to start with a question tonight for the Republican Party. Now, what do you do when your most likely candidate to run against President Obama has a really, really big problem?

Now, why are we asking that today? Well, it‘s because today happens to be a very special birthday. Romneycare is five years old. Whoo-hoo. Happy birthday Romneycare!

On this date in 2006, with a beaming Ted Kennedy by his side, Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney proudly signed a bill with an individual mandate guaranteeing health care to all its citizens. That night, he went on “HARDBALL” to talk up his achievement.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

GOV. MITT ROMNEY ®, MASSACHUSETTS: We‘re going to see the kind of effect that this change has on our individual citizens‘ lives really very, very quickly. And there‘s not much question here, it works.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

UYGUR: That was then. And remember the law gave insurance to 98 percent of people in Massachusetts, and it added only about one percent to the state budget. Now, that sounds pretty good, right?

Well, it provided a template for President Obama‘s national health care law. And that‘s the problem for Mitt Romney, who just yesterday, officially began exploring a presidential bid. And really, that‘s the problem for the whole Republican Party since he is their front-runner.

Republicans hate the president‘s health care law. Seventy-four percent say it was a bad thing. Along with the health care bill will be the big issue in the Republican primary. And it is Romney‘s Achilles heel, because he actually had a somewhat sensible plan. That is a terrible problem to have if you‘re in a Republican primary.

In recent months, Democrats have gone out of their way to praise Romney‘s plan just so they could rub it in a little bit more.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

BARACK OBAMA, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: I agree with Mitt Romney, who recently said he is proud of what he accomplished on health care in Massachusetts.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: And you appreciate the work that Mitt Romney has done with health care?

(CROSSTALK)

DAVID AXELROD, WHITE HOUSE SR. ADVISER: That work inspired our own health care bill, and he ought to be proud of it and he ought to embrace it.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

GOV. DEVAL PATRICK (D), MASSACHUSETTS: I think one of the best things he did was to be the co-author of our health care reform.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

UYGUR: And today, Democrats in Iowa, New Hampshire and Massachusetts all staged happy birthday parties for Romney‘s law.

Now, of course, Romney himself has a very different view of his crowning achievement as governor.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

ROMNEY: Some things worked, some things didn‘t, some things I‘d change. But one thing I would never do is usurp the constitutional power of states with a one-size-fits-all federal takeover.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

UYGUR: That is so wonderfully weak. Romney‘s now trying to turn his health care law into the kind of states‘ rights issues that conservatives love, to which I say, come on, come on, come on, come on, come on. It‘s the worst excuse I have ever seen.

I love the president‘s plan in my state. I just think you should have a worse one in yours. That sounds desperate to me.

But Romney isn‘t the only Republican to have a change of heart when it comes to the individual mandate. In 2006, the mandate wasn‘t even a liberal idea. It was promoted by conservative think tanks like the Heritage Foundation.

That‘s probably why President Obama adopted it. Oh, I said it.

Shouldn‘t have said it.

All right. Now, they thought it would foster individual responsibility then. They even sent a representative to Romney‘s signing ceremony.

Now, look, you see Robert Moffitt there? I‘m one to screw up names, right, with a name like Cenk Uygur?

All right. So, he is the director of health policy at the Heritage Foundation, and he is wildly applauding the Romney law. Well, of course, that was back then, when they were in favor of the individual mandate.

Now that the political winds have shifted in the Republican Party, blowing the debate and Mitt Romney much farther to the right, well, not so much. And we applaud. I didn‘t mean to applaud.

And you have to remember why they now hate the plan that was originally theirs—because President Obama agreed with it. If Obama said he liked little puppies, the Republicans would find a reason why puppies are unacceptable. Or Romney‘s case, he‘d tell you why puppies are great in Massachusetts but might not work in other states.

Joining me now is the man called the chief architect of the Romney health care law, MIT economics professor Jonathan Gruber. He also helped the Obama administration write the Affordable Care Act. Also with us is MSNBC political analyst Richard Wolffe.

Great having both of you here. We appreciate you coming on tonight.

JONATHAN GRUBER, MIT ECONOMICS PROFESSOR: You bet.

UYGUR: Thank you.

Let me start with you, Professor Gruber. What do you think about Romney trying to run away from his plan these day?

GRUBER: Well, I think it‘s sad. I think this is an incredible accomplishment. He really is, in many ways, the father of health care reform, this round of health care reform in the U.S.. And I think it‘s sad for him and just a sad statement for his party that a candidate who accomplished so much can‘t actually run on his accomplishment.

UYGUR: Yes, that is kind of sad, isn‘t it? It‘s a curious place to be in.

What do you think? I mean, are they really that similar? To get to the heart of the matter here, is the Romney plan and the health care plan passed by President Obama and the Democrats pretty much the same thing, or no?

GRUBER: I would call the federal Affordable Care Act basically a more ambitious form of Romneycare in the sense the core of the acts are basically the same—the notion of making insurance markets fair, so you can‘t discriminate against the sick; making people buy health insurance so that prices can be fair; and subsidizing health insurance to make it affordable. That three-legged stool is at the core of both plans. The difference is the federal bill is much more ambitious in taking on cost control in a way which we didn‘t really do in Massachusetts.

UYGUR: That‘s interesting. So you would think that that would be better, because we need cost controls.

GRUBER: You would think.

UYGUR: You would think. OK.

Now, let‘s go to Richard Wolffe now.

Richard, how damaging is this going to be to Mitt Romney in those Republican primaries?

RICHARD WOLFFE, MSNBC POLITICAL ANALYST: Well, it‘s already causing him problems. I mean, look at the polls where he is now. He has dropped from the sort of front-runner status to somewhere behind Donald Trump and Sarah Palin in the most recent polling I‘ve seen. So it‘s causing him problems and it gets to the heart of the authenticity challenge that he had last time, which is that he keeps changing his positions.

Now, it‘s hard to sort of blame everything on Mitt Romney. The truth is his party has changed.

Mitt Romney didn‘t take his health care plans from some socialist manual written by Saul Alinsky and Van Jones. He took his plan form what the Republicans thought was their consensus after the Clintons‘ effort in the early ‘90s.

The truth is, the Republican Party, even today, is not what it was just a decade or two ago. So his party has changed, and he is struggling to move with it. The problem is, of course, the party is exactly what he needs get through the primaries.

UYGUR: Well, you know, it‘s an interesting case of the Obama administration‘s political jujitsu working, because they adopt Romney‘s plan, and then they tell Romney, ha ha, you have our plan, and hence, your party hates your plan. Right? So I get that.

But, you know, Richard, let me press on that a little further. If Romney makes it out of the primaries—and as you just pointed out, that‘s a huge, huge “if” given this scenario—if he does make it out, then can he turn it around on the president and go, hey, listen, you are the one telling everybody that you love my plan, so why don‘t I run the country instead?

WOLFFE: Well, if you listen to his pitch in his video, it‘s about jobs. He is saying—although he says he has always been in the private sector, there was that spell being governor. I mean, he is saying that he has that economic expertise.

And to be honest, you know, there is a reason to actually tout his health care plan in New Hampshire. It‘s not far from where people are actually benefiting from a health care plan which is popular in Massachusetts.

So, he could actually take that and run with it if he wanted to embrace it. It won‘t help him elsewhere and in Republican races around the country. But he does have to go out and perform what all of those Republicans have to perform if he wins the nomination, which is a reversal.

You can play to the Republican base and it will only take you so far, because Independents want to hear something very different. That‘s what the White House is trying to talk to right now. They are trying to go for the center.

They don‘t need to worry about the base. They don‘t need to worry about a primary contest.

UYGUR: Right.

Professor Gruber, let me go back to you again on the content of this plan, because I think if you are out there watching this, you are kind of confused at this point. Wait, if it‘s Obama‘s plan and Romney‘s plan, is it a conservative plan, is it a liberal plan? What is it? I mean, does it fit into either one of those boxes?

GRUBER: Well, I think it really borrows from both. It‘s a plan I like to call incremental universalism.

What I mean by that is it borrows from the conservatives the notion of incremental, the notion of, look, we have a private system that works, let‘s build on that private system. Let‘s fix the holes is the private system.

It borrows from the left universal, the notion of, hey, let‘s get universal coverage. Let‘s fix this fundamental social flaw in our society that people are uninsured. And, so, it gets that universal coverage goal, but it does so using really pretty traditionally conservative tools of an individual mandate, which was a Republican idea, and of subsidies to private insurance, rather than just expanding public insurance.

UYGUR: Well, look, if it‘s that moderate, Romney is going to have a lot of trouble with that in the Republican primary. They are not a moderate mood, it appears.

To that point about the larger campaign, Richard, I want to show you a clip of Mitt Romney and his overall problems, his flip-flops on, in this case, abortion, and ask you about that. Let‘s watch first.

WOLFFE: Sure.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

ROMNEY: I believe that abortion should be safe and legal in this country.

I will preserve and protect a woman‘s right to choose, and am devoted and dedicated to honoring my word in that regard.

The right next step in the fight to preserve the sanctity of life is to see Roe v. Wade overturned.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

UYGUR: Now, I know politicians generally have some issues with honesty, but is that beyond the bounds of reason? I mean, are the Republican primary voters going to look at that and go, oh, come on, slick Mitt?

Advertise | AdChoicesAdvertise | AdChoicesAdvertise | AdChoices.WOLFFE: Look, it‘s OK to change your mind over time, but it‘s only OK to do it on one, maybe two issues. Abortion, I think, you know, he could credibly claim that he has come to some sort of revelation on it. But on so many different subjects, it starts to stretch and strain credulity.

And his bigger problem—look, if you want to say Romney is going to be the Obama of the Republican Party this time around, Obama was always a centrist, but he could prove that he had left-of-center credentials because he took a strong position against the war in Iraq, and that carried him through the primaries. He didn‘t have to strain on any other subject.

For Romney, he has to choose what that issue is to say yes, I‘m one of you, I‘m a real conservative. He should stick to what he is talking about now, which is the economy, which is jobs, go after the president‘s economic policy, but say on all these other position, actually, I‘m a centrist, that‘s why I‘m electable around the country and I‘m your best hope of unseating this president.

UYGUR: All right. Excellent analysis.

MIT professor Jonathan Gruber and MSNBC political analyst Richard Wolffe, thank you both.

WOLFFE: Thanks, Cenk.

GRUBER: You‘re welcome. Good to be here.

UYGUR: All right. Have a great night, guys.

Posted in Accountants CPA Hartford, Articles | Tagged Cenk Uygur MSNBC TV April 12 2011, Happy Birthday Romneycare, msnbc political analyst richard wolffe, Prof. Jonathan Gruber, Romneycare hard sell for GOP primaries, Will health care ruin Romney's presidential bid | Leave a comment

Showdown breakdown: did the Democrats get a “deal” on the budget?

Posted on April 13, 2011 by William Brighenti

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

UYGUR: Now, let‘s take a look at the big picture coming out of budget battle. Who won and who lost? And what does it mean for the next showdown? Now, think about this, Republicans ended up getting $78.5 billion in cuts, but back in February they were pushing for just $72 billion in cuts. And at the time, Harry Reid called that extreme.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

SEN. HARRY REID (D), NEVADA: The chairman of the Budget Committee today, today, send us something even more draconian than we had originally anticipated.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

UYGUR: So, Harry Reid and the Democrats ended up giving away $6.5 billion more than the initial draconian republican plan even called for. And that sounds like a pretty big loss, right? But Senator Reid declared victory yesterday, saying that they were proud to have gotten this deal, and that the cuts were historical. And once again, this weekend, President Obama Senior Advisor David Plouffe conceded that, yes, the cuts that the Republicans forced Democrats to swallow were brutal.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

DAVID PLOUFFE, PRESIDENT OBAMA SENIOR ADVISOR: Well, some of the cuts were draconian. Because it‘s not just the number. It‘s what composes the number.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

UYGUR: But the Obama administration argues the cuts could have been even worse. They say Democrats were able to save some programs that Republicans tried to put on the chopping block. Meantime, there are also big questions on the republican side. True, they got even more than the $72 billion that they originally wanted, but some other riders especially Tea Partier say, it‘s still not good enough.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

UNIDENTIFIED MAN: From what I know, it sounds like John Boehner got a good deal, probably not good enough for me to support it.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

UYGUR: And Michele Bachmann wrote on Friday, quote, “the deal that was reached tonight is a disappointment for me and for millions of Americans who expected $100 billion in cuts.” And sure enough, republican leaders are already bending to that pressure from the far right, and positioning themselves for a much bigger fight ahead.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

REP. JOHN BOEHNER ®, HOUSE SPEAKER: This is just the first step, the first step is what has to be a lot of steps. And if the president won‘t lead, we will.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

UYGUR: In other words, Republicans are getting ready to seriously target what they call entitlements, just as Paul Ryan called for. But that‘s a move that could backfire on them.

I want to bring in two people to talk about that, Paul Waldman, he‘s a senior correspondent from “The American Prospect.” In his new article, he warns Democrats should brace for pain in the upcoming spending fights, also, with me is MSNBC political analyst, Karen Finney, former spokesperson for the democratic national committee. All right. First, let me start with you, Paul. I get the sense that you didn‘t think that what Obama and the Democrats accomplished in this fight was really a victory.

PAUL WALDMAN, “THE AMERICAN PROSPECT”: Well, we still don‘t know all the details of exactly what is being cut. But the thing that was disconcerting to a lot of people was when, afterwards on Friday night, President Obama came out and hailed the cuts as historic, the largest budget cuts in history. The problem with that is, that it then sets the context for the next battles, the battle over the debt ceiling and the battle over the 2012 budget, and what it‘s saying is essentially that cutting government spending is what we ought to be doing even in a shaky recovery.

And the problem with that is that most liberals, including most economists believe it, that‘s not what we ought to be doing, we ought to be actually be spending more when we‘re in the economic situation we‘re in now. But, it‘s a case where the president has kind of accepted the presumption that the Republicans are working from, and the problem could then be when we get to the next battle once again, we‘re not going to be arguing over whether we should cut, but just how much we should cut.

UYGUR: Karen, is that a problem in framing, or are we missing something about the Obama strategy?

KAREN FINNEY, MSNBC POLITICAL ANALYST: Now, well, I don‘t yet know if we‘re missing about the Obama strategy, now I was trying to sort of take that back and think about the bigger picture and see if there‘s some angle that the rest of us are quite seeing here. Certainly, with regard of framing, the battle should have been, look, we all agree that cuts need to be made, but where and how is really what we‘re fighting over. They tried to make that argument but they didn‘t stand up for that argument. I think it‘s strongly as they could have, and then at the end, they kind of came in and really made it a tough argument.

That being said, if you take a step back, I suppose there‘s one school of thought that says, there will be implications of these cuts that we can then point to and say, this is what the Republicans will do. If you give them the White House, if they get full control back of the House and Senate, this is the kind of thing they will do versus what we want to do, which is, yes, we need to rein in the debt, but we don‘t want to do it on the backs of poor people in the middle class. Hey, but that‘s the best I can come up with.

UYGUR: OK. I appreciate you trying, but isn‘t it tough to make that argument when you agree with them on the cuts, you know, whether it‘s a spending cuts they disagreed to or the cuts that they agreed to earlier?

FINNEY: Well, sure, I mean, look, I think what‘s important though is that coming up to the next set of battles, Democrats need to very clearly, let‘s take a lesson from Wisconsin, let‘s take a lesson from even last week where people in America were enraged that the idea of cutting women‘s health care and clean water, make it simple, make it straightforward and really delineate what it is that we stand for and that Democrats are opposed to, versus the Republicans and stop letting the Republicans get ahead of the game on it.

UYGUR: You know, Paul, no matter what you think of the democratic strategy, the Republican Strategy may have some significant problems. I want to give you a quote from Charlie Cook, he wrote for the National Journal, quote, “Most voters want to see the federal budget balanced and spending cut. However, they don‘t want Social Security or Medicare or Medicaid touched. House Republicans are not just pushing the envelope, they‘re soaking it with lighter fluid and waving a match at it. So, he thinks the Republicans might be in a lot of trouble with their strategy.” So, did the president set them up to be in this kind of trouble by overreaching?

WALDMAN: Well, possibly. It‘s important for Democrats when they talk about this to make it concrete, to talk about what‘s really going to happen. And I think that the outcome of the debt ceiling argument is one that is really, really important. Today, this afternoon, the White House came out and made what was essentially their opening bid, saying, they wanted a clean bill on the debt ceiling, one not loaded down with more cuts and policy riders, which is what Republicans want to do. It‘s really important for them to hold to that position. Because, you know, we‘re going to have to raise the debt ceiling, everybody understands it, the budget deficit is not going to go to zero this year, and what Republicans are engaged in when they‘re saying that we‘re going to allow the United States government to default on its loans unless we get the things we want.

I mean, you know, this may sound extreme, but that‘s almost economic terrorism. And so, it‘s really important for the White House to say, you know, we‘re not going to negotiate about that, we‘re not going to, you know, potentially send the entire global economy into a tailspin. If you want to have an argument about the budget, we can do it in the fall over the 2012 budget, but it will be really telling as to whether or not the White House stands firm on this idea that the debt ceiling should be a vote in and of itself up or down without anything that passed to it.

UYGUR: Yes. All right. Paul Waldman and Karen Finney, great conversation. Thank you so much both.

WALDMAN: Thanks.

UYGUR: All right. We‘re going to come right back, and tell you what it means to be a liberal.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

UYGUR: We‘ve been talking a lot about the budget battle today, and I know what the president‘s strategy was. He wanted to stay above the fray. And look, that makes some sense in certain contexts. You have a president that says, all right, Democrats want this, Republicans want that, and I‘m going to bring them together, I‘m going to bring the country together. But sometimes we need a leader who is in the middle of the fray, who is a strong leader that says, this is what I stand for. And I want to tell you a quick story of someone who was on my show, “The Young Turks,” sometime back, he‘s an actor and comedian named Rick Overton. And he told him an amazing story about his dad. He said, his dad fought the Nazis, and was a really proud and strong liberal and told them what a real liberal does.

And he said, you know, his dad—he said, you put the women and children behind you, and if you‘re in a war, you put the weak and the wounded behind you, and you say, you grab a gun, and you stand a post and you say, I will protect you. That‘s what it means to be a liberal. And I was blown away by that. I love that definition. Now, that was in the context of war, in the context of this political battle, we still need someone to stand a post and be a strong leader and say, these are cuts I am not willing to make for the most disadvantaged or for the middle class. And it‘s refreshing to have that kind of strong leader from time to time.

And that is what we believe we elected in President Obama. So, I think of Rick Overton and his dad every once in a while and what it means to be a liberal and what it means to be a strong leader. And I hope the president knows that, because what we‘ve got next is a really important battle, that‘s the battle we‘ve been telling you about all day today. It‘s about trillions of dollars, it‘s about our values. And I really hope the president hears that story and thinks, I‘m ready to stand that post.

Posted in Accountants CPA Hartford, Articles | Tagged did the Democrats get a "deal" on the budget?, Paul Waldman, Showdown breakdown | Leave a comment

Mr. Walker goes to Washington. He ain’t no Mr. Smith!

For whom the bell tolls? It tolls for thee, Republican Congressmen in senior districts, when you vote for Paul Ryan’s plan to end medicare. It’s a whine party. Is the GOP the party of whiners?

Right off a cliff? Tea Party burdens GOP

Obama to go after Bush-era tax cuts. Progressive USA.

Fight for America. Fighting for America’s future.

Right to choose. Conservative views enforced on D.C.

Happy Birthday, Romneycare! Will health care ruin Romney’s presidential bid?

Showdown breakdown: did the Democrats get a “deal” on the budget?

Barefoot Accountant

The Barefoot Accountant

Posts by William Brighenti

Blogroll

Articles