Compromising positions. Poll: Tea Party won’t compromise.

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

UYGUR: All right. Now, next, the Tea Party is frothing at the mouth trying to shut the government down. Will Boehner do their bidding, or will they take them out? We`re going to talk to one of the Tea Party leaders and ask him what he wants to on do with Boehner if he won`t shut down the government.

And we`re going to break down Paul Ryan`s con job on the country. Could the so-called cuts actually make the budget mess even worse? And what`s his real goal if it isn`t to balance the budget?

UYGUR: Up next, the Tea Party is gunning for a government shutdown unless all its demands are met. But what will the group do if Speaker Boehner makes a deal with Democrats? Well, we`re going to ask a Tea Party leader. He`s right here and he`s going to weigh in, next.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

REP. STENY HOYER (D), MINORITY WHIP: The Tea Party on your side, as so often is the case.

(BOOS)

(CROSSTALK)

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Mr. Speaker, re-claim me my time.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

UYGUR: Republicans so touchy about the Tea Party that they literally shut down Democratic whip Steny Hoyer when he dared to criticize the movement on the House floor.

The Tea Party and its unwillingness to compromise is why a shutdown is still on the table. And a new NBC/”Wall Street Journal” poll points to who is unwilling to give an inch in this debate. The numbers are very telling. It finds that 68 percent of Democrats think their leaders should be willing to make compromise, to give consensus to the current spending debate, and they`ve gotten their wish. They have compromised and compromised.

But look at what happens when you ask Republicans — only 38 percent think that their party leaders should compromise in order to make a deal. And that number drops again when you ask Tea Party members. Just 28 percent, less than three in 10, think that GOP leaders should make concessions.

The Tea Party`s unwillingness to give even an inch was on full display at a rally yesterday organized by Americans for Prosperity. Here is Indiana Congressman Mike Pence calling for a shutdown if the group can`t get its way.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

REP. MIKE PENCE (R), INDIANA: If liberals in the Senate would rather force a government shutdown instead of accepting a modest downpayment on fiscal discipline and reform — I say, shut it down.

(CHEERS)

(CHANTING)

(END VIDEO CLIP)

UYGUR: Well, their position seems to be clear. They don`t want any compromise, and they`re literally chanting shut it down. Hey, when you can`t get your way, just shut it down, right?

By the way, who does that remind you of? For me, it reminds me of the kid who would take their ball and go home if it didn`t go their way. You remember that kid? You guys can`t call me out, I was safe. I`m going home and having a Tea Party.

With me now is Judson Phillips, founder of the Tea Party Nation.

All right. Judson, you see my position on this. So, let me ask you, do you want to you`re your ball and go home?

JUDSON PHILLIPS, TEA PARTY NATION: No, actually, I`d love to see 545 people up in Washington act like grownups and realize we`ve got a major spending and debt problem and start doing serious reductions before we have an economic catastrophe.

UYGUR: Now, when grownups negotiate and I`ve been involved in negotiations. You probably as well, Judson, they see usually come to some of the sort of compromise. If one side says I`m just going to hold my breath until I turn blue, until you get what you want, that doesn`t lead to a compromise or to a solution, does it?

PHILLIPS: And that sounds like Harry Reid who has said —

UYGUR: Really? How so?

PHILLIPS: Yes, Harry Reid said he would not consider senior anything that the GOP sent over. I mean, how many times did he say, you know, it`s not going to be more than $33 billion, not include any riders.

UYGUR: No, Judson, you know that`s not true.

PHILLIPS: Yes, it is. It`s been on the news, even on MSNBC.

UYGUR: Hold on, everybody agrees that the Democrats are conceding to $33 billions. In fact, I`ve heard now $34.5 billion, right? Are you saying they`re not conceding to that? Because that`s what every single person is reporting.

PHILLIPS: No, I think that is figure that they have gone with.

UYGUR: OK. So, they are willing to make a deal, they`ll shake on it right now?

PHILLIPS: Right. Here`s the problem — we have $1,600 billion as a deficit for this year, $1.65 trillion, all right? And the amount that the Democrats are talking about cutting is a mere $33 billion. That`s 2 percent. Boehner is talking about doing a little bit more, not a whole lot, but a little more.

(CROSSTALK)

UYGUR: So, it appears you`re saying it`s merely enough. You don`t want him to compromise. That`s what I got — that seems to be clear.

So, let me play you a video of John Boehner. He was asked about if there`s any difference between you guys and him. It`s interesting. Let`s watch.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP0

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Do you know what the Democrats say? They say they could cut a deal with you, but you won`t buck the Tea Party.

REP. JOHN BOEHNER (R-OH), SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE: There`s no daylight between the Tea Party and me.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: None?

BOEHNER: None.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

UYGUR: Is that true?

PHILLIPS: Oh, I wish. Now, he — I mean, you know, Boehner is improving a bit, so I`m going to give credit. He is improving a bit. But Boehner is not where any of us in the Tea Party want him to be.

You know, I penned an open letter to Boehner this afternoon, saying, look, the General Accounting Office has pointed hundreds of billions of dollars that can be eliminated in the budget just by eliminating inefficient programs, programs that don`t work, programs that are duplicated. Hey, let`s start there.

Nobody supports wasteful and fraudulent government spending. Everybody would agree, hey, if the money is being wasted, we need to cut it out. So, let`s start there. So, I mean, that`s where I kind of like him to start.

UYGUR: All right. So, let me get this right. If the Democrats concede again and you get to $35 billion, are you still in favor of shutting it down?

PHILLIPS: No, I`m in favor of real substantial budget cuts.

UYGUR: OK. In other words, if they say $35 billion, no — no deal, shut it down.

PHILLIPS: That`s — I mean, $34 billion, 35 billion, which you`re talking deficits the size we`re talking about, that`s a joke.

UYGUR: But Judson, everybody watching right now thinks we can`t ever get a deal with you. I mean , we went to 40, you still say no, 45 — I mean, at what point do you say yes unless you get everything you want?

PHILLIPS: Well —

UYGUR: Give me a number. What`s the number where you say, all right, fine, OK, let`s have a deal?

PHILLIPS: I would go, personally, this is me. If they came up with $100 billion, I wouldn`t be happy, but I`d say, OK, I can compromise on that.

UYGUR: Wait, $100 billion — you mean like $61, that`s what the Republicans asked for? You mean beyond that 100?

PHILLIPS: No, I`m talking about — let`s go with the original $100 billion that the Republican said they were going to cut, and the GAO has given them a blueprint. You can cut hundreds of billions just on waste.

UYGUR: So, beyond 100 percent — you want beyond 100 percent of what the Republicans are asking for right now?

PHILLIPS: Yes.

(CROSSTALK)

PHILLIPS: Hey, Cenk, this is not at game where we go, oh, well, we`re going to negotiate and we`ll see who goes first and we play monopoly.

UYGUR: No, it`s not a game, Judson.

(CROSSTALK)

PHILLIPS: We have a lot of debt.

UYGUR: You know what happens? Our troops don`t get paid. It`s not a game to them.

PHILLIPS: No.

UYGUR: I mean, we`re risking their lives in Iraq and Afghanistan and you are willing to shut down the government unless you get over 100 percent of what you want and so, then, these guys aren`t getting paid even though they`re risking their lives. That doesn`t sound like a game to me, either. I mean, you`re willing to do that?

PHILLIPS: The GOP offered a bill that would make sure —

UYGUR: Oh, come on, Judson. Come on.

(CROSSTALK)

UYGUR: You`re saying ultimately — ultimately you will say no to all deals. It`s a gimmick for a week.

PHILLIPS: — so all these guys will get paid.

UYGUR: No, no, that`s a gimmick for a week. Ultimately, you`re saying the final deal, you won`t have under any circumstances.

Do you — last thing for you, Judson, here`s the thing I can`t understand about you guys. You act like you`re the only people in the country, like the Tea Party somehow is the president and the Congress and everybody else and the Supreme Court. You know there are other people in the country and those people are saying compromise. So — and think about that, what does it do to your own party, when you force them into an untenable situation, and then you got general electorate saying we don`t want that? Doesn`t that even — doesn`t that hurt your own party?

PHILLIPS: You`re assuming facts not in evidence. The majority of American people have said we want the spending —

UYGUR: But they say when you want a deal, they say yes.

(CROSSTALK)

PHILLIPS: They would prefer have the government shut down —

UYGUR: That is not what the polls say.

PHILLIPS: It is.

UYGUR: The American people do not want the government shutdown. That is not remotely true.

PHILLIPS: Yes, it is. It most certainly is.

UYGUR: OK. All right. Well, we`ll show the polls. We`ll show the polls. OK?

PHILLIPS: Fair enough.

UYGUR: Judson Phillips, thank you for your time tonight. You made things more clear.

PHILLIPS: Thank you for the invitation.

UYGUR: We appreciate it.

PHILLIPS: Thank you.

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

Stuck in the middle: 2012 Presidential hopefuls hold back on praising Representative Ryan’s budget. Ryan’s budget puts candidates in tough spot.

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

UYGUR: Congressman Ryan`s budget puts 2012 Republicans hopefuls in a sticky situation. They can`t come out against the mother of all budget cutting plans, but they also can`t afford to alienate senior citizens by supporting a proposal to destroy Medicare. Look, 59 percent of seniors voted republican in 2010. They need those votes in 2012, but unfortunately this plan cuts a huge chunk out of Medicare. So, that`s the bad idea. So, where are the republican presidential candidates come out? They say, well, we really applaud his leadership, that was excellent leadership, which is a little ironic. If he`s the leader, why are you guys running for president?

And then second of all, about the actual pendulant, well, I`m still saying, which was the wind is blowing. I`m not going to give a direct answer to that. Classic politicians. By the way, Tim Pawlenty who did whole spiel, his book is called “Courage to Stand.” “Courage to Stand,” a little later when I find out which way things are going.

All right. Now, to talk about this, we`ve got Ed Rollins, he`s joining me, he`s a longtime republican strategist, who is also a political director for President Ronald Reagan. Ed, great to have you back.

ED ROLLINS, FORMER REAGAN POLITICAL DIRECTOR: My pleasure. Thank you.

UYGUR: All right. Ed, I get the sense you`re not buying this. You think this might be a political trouble for the Republicans.

ROLLINS: Well, it`s not a political bill. It is a public policy bill, and I applaud Congressman Ryan for putting something on the table. It`s a long way to go in this process, but is it politically astute at this point in time, probably not. I think one of these things that you`ve got to do is educate the public which comes over a period of time. And right today, you can`t scare the elderly, basically who are on Medicare basically. There`s a lot in this bill that a most people don`t understand yet, and I think they — in the course of a campaign, some people will take sides, some people won`t.

UYGUR: All right. Now, I want to get back to the politics through this, and how is going — in a second. But you said as you keep the public. But, you know, you guys have been trying to do that for a long time. I mean, that`s what — that`s what Newt Gingrich said back in the mid 1990s, we`ve got to educate the public.

ROLLINS: I guess he would then do a very good job.

UYGUR: All right. But is it possible the public is educated and they just don`t like your plan.

ROLLINS: Well, I think the bottom-line is that people can`t be confused, can`t be scared. And I think at the end of the day, no one who is on Medicare today is going to lose Medicare. And that`s in the provision. It`s for.

UYGUR: But they get a massive cut.

ROLLINS: They basically, the cuts come down below. And I`m not going to argue the details. I`m not — the bill came out yesterday, and unlike Democrats, I don`t want to take 1,000-page bill and explain it until I know something more about it. Right at this point in time, if you`re one of 100 members of Congress who live in very safe republican districts, I would vote for this in a heartbeat. If I`m in a marginal district or in some other states or not quite so, I would be more careful.

UYGUR: See, and that`s what we`re discussing here, the politics of it, right? So, for the republican presidential candidates, this could be an albatross around their neck. I mean, if they come out and they said, oh yes, I`d loved the cut — then that would come back to.

ROLLINS: No one is going to say that. I think first of all, we don`t have any candidates out there announced yet. And obviously we have a year and a half to go before this thing becomes prevalent. I think they have to offer an alternative if they don`t accept this one. Most of them will, and here`s their plan of how they basically try and reduce the deficits. The president hasn`t offered his plan, and I think to a certain extent, any candidate who runs has to have their own plan.

UYGUR: But if they get behind this bill, that could be political trouble. Because you got the cut in food stamps, you got the cut in Medicaid, I mean, look, we can argue about whether it`s a real cut Medicare. But the CBO is in, you know, I don`t want to get into that policy debate, but it seems pretty clear, you see the political damage that could happen to them, especially in a general election.

ROLLINS: Well, I think the key thing is we`re in a general election, we`re in the beginning of a process. And, you know, Democrats didn`t even pass a resolution last time. So, I think at the end of the day, this is Ryan`s plan. It may very well be the House republican plan, it`s not going to get the law of the land, and I think at certain extent that candidates when they get in this race, most of them have been governors, most of them are smart, they understand deficit, reduction and what have you, I think they`ll be careful in some of the items here, and they have to come up with their own plan if they don`t like this one.

UYGUR: All right. Now, I want to move on to something else, a new NBC poll just came out, right?

ROLLINS: Right.

UYGUR: And I want to run some of the numbers by you. First, among the primary voters, when you have everybody included, it`s interesting, it`s a tight race. You`ve Mitt Romney up top with 21 percent. Huckabee is at 17, Trump is at 17 which I`m shocked by. Newt Gingrich had11. Palin at 10, Pawlenty is down at six, Bachmann is at five. Santorum is irrelevant at three. And Haley Barbour even more irrelevant at one. So, but here`s the interesting part, before we discuss that, if you take out the people who probably will not run or have not voiced an interest in running, right? Huckabee, Trump`s not really going to run, so they take him out. Palin, Santorum.

ROLLINS: Huckabee may very well.

UYGUR: No, I think Huckabee might, too. And that`s why this gets to how relevant he is, right?

ROLLINS: Right.

UYGUR: And I think Santorum is going to run, but he`s irrelevant anyway. All right. So, Mitt Romney then becomes 40 percent, Newt Gingrich which at 20 percent, Pawlenty at 12, Michele Bachmann, 11, Haley Barbour at three. What I`m getting out of that is if Huckabee leaves the race, Mitt Romney looks like he`s in great shape, doesn`t he?

ROLLINS: He certainly does at the start. You know, he was, he and Huckabee were second and third, last time, I`m just reminded, having done this for five decades now. I`m reminded of President Giuliani that led in all 50 states last time and then you had President Thompson who jumped in at 31, 32 percent. Right now, polls are about name idea, Donald Trump who is not a serious candidate, everybody knows who he is, some people are form, some people, but when you get down to real debates, you get down to real candidates, and they have to make real choices, Donald Trump is not going to be in the fact.

UYGUR: Did Giuliani have the worst idea of saving his candidacy to Florida that you`ve ever seen in.

ROLLINS: Absolutely, by far. And the fact that you could skip Iowa and New Hampshire when everybody starts there and the media is there, it was nuts.

UYGUR: Even skipped South Carolina. It`s crazy. Why you just skip the whole thing?

ROLLINS: It would be like skipping Staten Island in a mayor`s race in New York. You won`t win if you`re republican.

UYGUR: All right. Ed Rollins, thank you very much.

ROLLINS: My pleasure.

UYGUR: We really appreciate it.

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

Flaws evident in Ryan’s plan. Doesn’t add up.

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

REP. PAUL RYAN (R), HOUSE BUDGET COMMITTEE CHAIRMAN: For starters. We propose to cut $6.3 trillion in spending over the next ten years from the president`s budget. We`ve reduced the debt as a percent of the economy. We put the nation on the path to actually pay off our national debt.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

UYGUR: It`s the big, bold new republican plan, $6 trillion in spending cuts over a decade, reshaping Medicare and Medicaid. It`s Paul Ryan`s path to prosperity, as he calls it. Here`s one giant-sized problem though. Scratch the surface even a little and just look at the facts and it all comes apart. Ryan`s claiming a cut of $6.2 trillion, but it turns out the actual program costs or more like 4.3 trillion, because the extra money is money that goes to Iraq and Afghanistan that`s going to be cut by Obama`s budget anyway, so he knows that, but he put it in there, anyway, to say, oh look at me, I am cutting $6 trillion. I love their gimmickry. They`re just shameless about it. President Obama agrees to the same exact thing. Do they say he`s he`s cutting that money, no, they don`t say that, no, no, they`re cutting. All right. Now, Ryan calls his idea for overhauling Medicare. Here`s another great trait premium support.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

RYAN: We support people more if they`re low income, more as they get sick and wealthy seniors don`t get as much support. And doing it that way fixes the problem, saves Medicare.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

UYGUR: That sounds really good, right? Listen, they`re going, oh yes, that`s great, except for this part. The Congressional Budget Office estimates that most future retirees would actually pay more for health care under Ryan`s plan. Look at this devastating quote, “Beneficiaries participating in the new premium support program would bear a much larger share of their health care cost, than they would under the current program.” The CBO says, that by 2030, Ryan`s plan will have seniors paying over $20,000 out of pocket for health care, 20,000. Strangely, Paul Ryan has neglected to mention that pesky little fact. And here`s another pesky fact that Ryan isn`t talking about.

The spending cuts he`s calling for overwhelmingly hit programs that help the poor. Now, take a look at this cart. It`s from an article from Robert Greenstein on the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities. It shows that two thirds of the spending cuts come from programs that help lower- income Americans, programs like Medicaid, food stamps and low-income housing, but I guess it shouldn`t be a surprise.

After all, someone`s got to pay for all those tax breaks for the rich. Now, remember, Ryan`s proposal also drops the top tax bracket for individuals and corporations from 35 to 25 percent. That`s a huge gift to the rich. Somebody`s got to pay for it.

That is part of why you have so much that you have to take from the middle class and the poor. Here`s the scary part. The plan might just work anyway. But you have to understand its real goal. Even though Ryan`s numbers don`t add up, they could have a huge impact on the bigger fight, which is the ultimate objective. Imagine this is a current budget debate. Democrats on one end of the spectrum and Republicans on the other. And you see where the center is, right? OK. That`s interesting. Now, here comes Paul Ryan with his gigantic specter-shifting proposal, $6 trillion in reductions he claims over ten years. And what happens?

Suddenly the whole debate shifts, and you`ve got a whole new center. Suddenly Democrats are forced into a fight over defending Medicare. Last year, the fight was over whether we should extend the Bush tax cuts for the wealthy. This year was overcutting spending by tens of billions. Next year, it will be overcutting trillions instead. You see how they move the center. So, all of a sudden the whole country is further and further right? That`s the big win for extremist ring-wingers, shifting the whole debate. That`s the whole point of this exercise. They realized that the Democrats can`t be pushed around, so they figure the further we put our side out to the right, the further we can bring Democrats in that direction. Now, let me tell you how you stop that. You stop giving into them, and you fight back.

All right. Now, let`s talk more about this issue with Robert Greenstein, he`s the president of the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities. And Dana Milbank, national political reporter for the Washington Post.

All right. Robert, let me start with you. Some of those numbers are pretty devastating, two thirds coming from the poor, even though of course Ryan claimed almost exact opposite from the clip that we showed you. What`s the reality here? Where do most of the cuts come from?

ROBERT GREENSTEIN, PRESIDENT, CENTER ON BUDGET AND POLICY PRIORITIES: The two thirds is a conservative estimates, probably more than two thirds of Ryan`s cuts come from programs that are targeted on lower, moderate- income people. Let`s just right there in the budget. Medicaid alone takes a $1.4 trillion hit, hundreds of millions more taken away from subsidies to help modest income people by health insurance. And we learned just this afternoon that he has a $127 billion cut in the food stamp program. I remember when the big food stamp opponent was Jesse Helms. This would make Jesse Helm looks like a liberal by comparison. The cuts in those areas are huge. And as you said, Cenk, they`re right alongside massive tax cuts.

The Urban Institute Brookings Tax Policy Center tells us that making the Bush tax cuts permanent at the high end as Ryan`s budget would do, would provide an annual average tax cut of over $125,000 every year for people who make over a million dollars a year. Over a ten-year period, that`s over a million in tax cuts. And that doesn`t even count the huge estate tax giveaway for the richest estates in the country that Ryan would also make permanent. Nor does it count the reduction in the top rate to 25 percent. But when you look at his plan as a whole. He has $4.3 trillion in budget cuts overwhelmingly aimed at lower-income people, and $4.2 trillion in tax cuts which are regressive, so the main issue here isn`t deficit reduction. It`s really what would be the greatest transfer of resources in modern American history by an act of the government from the bottom part to the top part.

UYGUR: You know, it`s ironic, because the Republicans always talk about redistribution of wealth. You don`t get any more redistribution of wealth than this, except it`s going from the poor in the middle class right up to the rich. You know, Dana, let`s talk about a Washington reaction to this. You know, there`s so many people out there saying, oh this is a wonderful, serious plan. Now, we`re finally having a conversation. Is this Washington`s idea of a great discussion? Redistributing all the wealth to the top?

DANA MILBANK, WASHINGTON POST: Well, you see, Paul Ryan himself said yesterday — I don`t know if he exactly meant to say this, he said, this is not a budget, this is a cause. I think that was a rare moment of honesty, because it really is about a cause, and that cause is sort of permanently lowering the tax burden. And look, everybody knows how to get out of this — the looming debt problem that we have, and that is, you can`t do it all by spending cuts. And for that matter, you can`t do it all with tax increases. Everybody is going to have to feel some pain in here. What Paul Ryan did is say, look, actually it`s just the other side that`s going to have to feel some pain and have their beloved social programs cut, we`re not going to take much out of the Pentagon. And in fact, not only we are not going to increase taxes, but we`re going to decrease the top rates for corporations and for the wealthiest Americans.

So, in that sense, it wasn`t a serious proposal. I think the way you set it up is correct, it`s really sort of the opening game but here to say, OK, we`ll be over here to try to pull you in our direction and you have the president sort of being I think in his own way, a bit extreme by saying nothing needs to be done here is essentially what his budget does…

UYGUR: Really?

MILBANK: Well, yes.

UYGUR: It`s not the sense I get from the president, I mean, he did the deficit commission, which is at least halfway towards Ryan, so.

MILBANK: Exactly. I think, and that`s the — and that`s where things are going to have to end up. I mean, you have the bold Simpson proposal. The final solution is going to have to look something like that.

UYGUR: I don`t agree with that, I`ll be honest with you. Because in that proposal, taxes were also cut. I mean, they raise them in other ways. But I want to go to Robert on this, I don`t know if you studied up on the Deficit Commission, but what they seem to do is lower the top brackets like Ryan does, but then increase taxes, which wind up hitting middle class again. So, I like that solution in some ways even less. The middle class gets spending cuts, and tax increases, and the rich still get their tax cut.

GREENSTEIN: Well, the Bowles shows some commission clearly as preferable to Ryan. My concerns about the deficit commission package is that I think a really balanced package would be about half budget cuts and about half revenue increases. And the Bowles-Simpson is about two-thirds budget cuts, and one-third revenue increases, it does have some revenue increases from closing a lot of tax deductions, credits and the like, but it didn`t specify which deductions and credits. And in the real world, those provisions will be, I think almost impossible to pass on the hill. That`s one of my worries about Bowles-Simpson. It held out there lowering the top rate to 28 or 29 percent. And more than paying for it by massive changes unspecified in areas that would have to include the employer health exclusion, the mortgage interest deduction.

I think a lot of what it recommended there would be good policy, don`t get me wrong, but I don`t see how you could pass it. And I do think Bowles-Simpson went too far on some of its budget cuts, but in any event, Dana makes a good point that that`s one possible way out. What we don`t know is whether Republicans on the hill, other than the few of them who were on the Bowles-Simpson commission would ever accept something like Bowles-Simpson, which does have significant defense cuts and does have net tax increases, even though it lowers the top rate. Paul Ryan and all the House Republicans are on the deficit commission voted against it. So, a big concern would be if this group in the Senate, bipartisan, that`s trying to produce a bill based on Bowles-Simpson came forward with it, and it somehow got 60 votes in the Senate, I think Paul Ryan and the House republican leaders would reject it out of hand anyway.

UYGUR: Right. Now, look, a lot of the tax increases that you mention, that you give credit to the commission for are again, they hit the middle class. So, I don`t like that deal, either. And look, last question for you, Dana, look, when you asked American people and NBC did, the poll shows, they say, 81 percent say, raise taxes on the rich. Ryan plan doesn`t have that at all. And in fact, I don`t think really the deficit commission has that plan, either in terms of the rich. Why don`t we try what the American people want?

MILBANK: Well, the American people don`t want any of these things, let`s face it. You know, we just want, you know, have our cake and eat it. But Bob is correct, it is going to have some sort of a mix of tax spending cuts here. And people are not going to like it, you`re not going to like it, Cenk. Bob is not going to like it. I`m not going to like it. But that`s where the debate has to be.

UYGUR: If you went by the polls and he said, all right, now the percentage we`re going to cut, largely comes from the tax increases the American people are in favor of. And we will cut in X, Y and Z places, we would have a deal. Just listen to the American people. We`re supposed to be a democracy. Look at what they`re saying, don`t cut Social Security, don`t cut Medicare and Medicaid. There are other places to cut. In other polls, they also say cut defense. This Ryan`s plan is the exact opposite of what the American people want.

MILBANK: And the problem is, it only takes a small group in the Congress right now to prevent anything from happening. You see that even in this short-term thing here. The White House said to Speaker Boehner, look, we`ll give you the $32 billion cut you want, and all of a sudden, he`s got the small group of Tea Partiers won`t let him accept what he originally asked for in the first place.

UYGUR: Right.

MILBANK: So, there`s not a whole lot of hope that we can come to any sort of agreement even if we get reasonable people to table.

UYGUR: Yes. Dana Milbank and Robert Greenstein. We`ve got to leave it there, right there, unfortunately. We`ll be right back.

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

Shutdown showdown: who benefits from a government shutdown?

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

UYGUR: Welcome to the show, everybody. I`m Cenk Uygur. Now, in a day of high political drama just two days before a possible government shutdown, President Obama accused House Republicans of injecting politics into the budget debate. That preceded word that the president and Vice President Biden will meet with top Republicans tonight at the White House to try to get a budget agreement. It may not be a very friendly meeting.

Here`s what the president said at an event in Philadelphia today.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

BARACK OBAMA, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: We`ve now agreed to cut as much spending as the Republicans in Congress originally asked for. I`ve got some Democrats mad at me, but I said, You know what? Let`s get past last year`s budget and let`s focus on the future. So we`ve agreed to a compromise, but somehow, we still don`t have a deal because some folks are trying to inject politics in what should be a simple debate about how to pay our bills. I do not want to see Washington politics stand in the way of America`s progress.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

UYGUR: I got to be honest with you guys. Look, I don`t want to do it, but to me, I don`t know if he doesn`t get it or what it is, but of course, you`re in politics. You`re the Democrats. They`re the Republicans.

They fight hard. Do they inject politics into it? Of course they do. But if you keep saying, I want to look towards the future and I want to just get beyond this, so just give them whatever they want, well, then, they keep winning.

Remember, politics is about policy ultimately. This isn`t just to say, Oh, you`re not playing politics. Well, every one of these cuts is real. They`re billions in cuts that wind up affecting you. That`s why we want the president to fight.

Look, I`m on his side. I want him to do better. But as he keeps constantly giving in and being proud of it, it`s frustrating! Now you`re going to see the Republicans in a second. They`re the exact opposite. The Obama administration, you know, has already agreed to the $73 billion in cuts. But of course, it`s not enough for the Republican Party. Now they want deeper cuts.

And as if to prove President Obama`s point, they`re playing politics to get what they really want. But when they play it, it is vicious. Republicans like Speaker John Boehner know that if a government shutdown happens, military members would remain working, but would not receive their pay until the government is back up and running. Now, think about that for a second.

So (INAUDIBLE) look, they say, Look, we got the $73 billion that we originally wanted. We don`t care. We want another $7 billion. And if the military doesn`t get paid — remember the guys that we used as props for eight long years under Bush, saying, Oh, you better watch it, oh, you`re hurting the troops. Now they don`t care about hurting the troops because they want their political agenda.

And they again, for the eighth time in a row, now they hold them hostage. Whenever they have a situation, they know the president cares. I get that. You understand that, right? The president cares. He doesn`t want the military to go without pay. But they use that against him. It`s almost like Spiderman. You know he`s going to save the bus full of people, right, so then you hold that bus full of people hostage. And that`s what the Republicans do time after time.

But he`s got to stop falling for that trick. He`s got to draw clearer lines, in my opinion. So Boehner, of course, today proposed another one- week spending plan, which he`s cynically is calling a troop funding bill. The only reason the troops would need special funding is because the Republicans cut off the money and shut down the government! That`s why they need the special funding.

But here`s Speaker Boehner.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

REP. JOHN BOEHNER (R-OH), SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE: The government`s due to shut down tomorrow, so we`re going to be prepared to move forward with our troop funding bill that would fund our troops, keep the government open for another week, and cut $12 billion in spending.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

UYGUR: I mean, that`s cynical, dirty politics in a nutshell. The guys threatening to take away troops` salaries pretend to be the ones fighting for it.

All right, joining me now is Congressman Jim McDermott. He`s a Democrat from Washington. Also with me, MSNBC political analyst Richard Wolffe. Thank you for joining me, guys. I appreciate it.

Congressman, let me start with you. I know they`re going over the White House. Will there be a deal? Do you know anything about it? And if there is a deal, will there be more compromise from the Democrats?

REP. JIM MCDERMOTT (D), WASHINGTON: I`m very doubtful there`ll be a deal because the Republicans have never wanted a deal. I voted no on the first one. I voted no on the second one. I`m going to vote no on this because you can never give them enough. They`re always going to want to take more. And the president should have figured that out by now, in my view.

I simply think you`ve got to stop backing up and say, Put your money where your mouth is. We are either going to close this government down because you won`t fund it, or we`re not going to. I think they are going to have to give on the Republican side, but they take the position that they don`t have to compromise because compromise is a dirty word and it means you`ve given up your principles. It is simply raw politics. There`s nothing else here but raw politics. And the president has got to stand up to them and jam them against the wall.

UYGUR: All right, now, Richard, look, you cover the White House. You hear Congressman McDermott`s frustration. You heard my frustration. Does the president here — do you get a sense that he gets that the progressive side goes, Come on, please stop giving in already?

RICHARD WOLFFE, MSNBC POLITICAL ANALYST: Sure, he does, and that`s what he was saying today. That`s what he said out of the White House yesterday. You know, he has reached the end of the line here, and he is willing to call a bluff because this has turned into a game of blackmail, let`s face it. It was $1 billion or $2 billion for a couple of weeks, and now it`s turned into $12 billion for one week.

And enough already. That`s what the president is saying quite clearly. I think if you`re asking the question, Is he going to give them something more? Well, he`s given them everything they wanted to begin with. And this is moving in the wrong direction, from the White House`s point of view, because every time they sit down or try and talk about it, the demands get greater, they get more outrageous. And we haven`t even talked about the rider or anything else.

So you know, when you look at this, you look at the polls, look at the new NBC poll, although everyone gets blamed, there is no question Republicans come off worse out of this. That`s why you`re seeing Republicans trying to play this naked political ploy about the troop funding bill. They know this is going to hurt them more. They`re all about pre-positioning for what comes next.

UYGUR: How about the riders, Congressman McDermott? If the president says, All right, we`ll give you one or two riders, does that add to your frustration? You know, how do you vote on that? What`s your take on that?

MCDERMOTT: I`m not voting for it. I — listen, this — I`ve been watching these games for 40 years. I`ve been through budget battles since 1970, 23 of them here in the Congress. And what they`re doing now is a simple old game of jamming it down his throat and saying, We`re going to walk away.

Now, when somebody does that to you, they`re not negotiating with you. They`re not putting something on the table to negotiate it. They are just jamming it at you. And the president just cannot allow himself to be taken by that kind of maneuver. He has to say to them, No riders. I gave you the money. Now, that`s the end of it.

MCDERMOTT: Riders have nothing to do with balancing the budget. NPR — cutting NPR does not make the fiscal situation better. Taking away Planned Parenthood does not make the fiscal situation any better, and I`m not giving you that. If you can`t get it in legislation on the floor, you`re going to have to try, but you can get it at your own risk. You`re not going to get it by jamming me on the budget.

UYGUR: Now, Richard, take us inside that meeting at the White House today. What`s going to happen? Is the president going to say what Congressman McDermott is saying there, No on the riders, I already gave you everything you originally asked for and a billion dollars extra, and I`m not giving a nickel more, or is he going to go a little further down the road?

WOLFFE: I suspect he`s going to say, Come on, Congressman, Speaker Boehner, you`ve got everything you want. What`s it going to take to do a deal? You know you`re going to come off worse in this.

This isn`t a fight the president wants to have. It`s not his…

UYGUR: That`s the problem.

WOLFFE: … kind of politics. It`s not his kind of policies. He does not — he did not get elected…

UYGUR: What is his politics, can I ask, Richard? I`m sorry to interrupt.

WOLFFE: He didn`t — well, you know that…

UYGUR: I`m sorry to interrupt, but is his politics? What`s…

WOLFFE: You`re not that sorry. Don`t worry.

(LAUGHTER)

WOLFFE: But it`s — look, he was elected to unite red and blue America. He was elected to find the common ground and to come up with compromise and try to move beyond this kind of partisan squabbling.

He has been dragged into this unwillingly even at the time when he`s trying to say, I`m making a play for independent voters, I`m trying to be reasonable here, I`m giving everything I can. But there is a line here, and he`s come up against it.

He doesn`t want to play that kind of game, even though Democrats are going to come off better for it. That`s the kind of conversation he`s got to have with Speaker Boehner tonight because the question is, What can Boehner really deliver? Does he speak for the center of American politics or doe she speak for the Tea Party? And that`s the kind of realpolitik that`s going to be played out in the Oval Office tonight.

UYGUR: Well, who Boehner speaks for is incredibly clear. Of course he`s speaking for the radical right. And he has no delusions of speaking for the — I don`t think he does. I mean, he might say it, but it`s obvious to everybody watching that he does and he`s for the radical right. But at least he represents his position.

Congressman McDermott, do you think President Obama`s going to hold the line today? I don`t even know why they`re having a meeting if he`s going to hold the line. My guess is that he`s going to give them a little bit more. I mean, am I being overly cynical? And please also address what Richard said, which is, Hey, listen, he`s trying to find the center here. He`s the president of all of us, trying to unite red and blue. Is that a fair argument?

MCDERMOTT: This week, the president announced that he`s running for reelection. Now, if he`s running for reelection by backing down from the Republicans every time they push him against the wall, he`s going to have a real tough time in this election.

This is the time for him to take a stand and say, Look, I have been as polite and gracious and conciliatory as I can be. I`ve given you everything I`m going to give you, and we are done. You do whatever you want to do. You let the country fall on its face, and I will point to the people who could not put it together.

UYGUR: All right. Congressman McDermott, very clear. Richard Wolffe, great analysis. Thank you both for joining us tonight. Really appreciate it.

WOLFFE: You bet.

UYGUR: All right. And by the way, just so you know, I`m with McDermott. Not a nickel more.

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

The Path to Prosperity By Rep. Paul Ryan: Representative Paul Ryan’s Prepared Remarks at AEI Event

Thank you Arthur, and thank you all for being here today.

You know, the budget debates that are raging now in state capitals and here in Washington-especially the one we’re having now in Congress-seem a little disconnected from reality.

The news stories are full of phrases like “continuing resolutions” or “baseline levels.” The numbers are in the millions or billions. The scorecard is about political posturing and partisan edge.

The debate is stale. The debate is distracting.

The debate needs to change.

Today, we are here to give Americans the debate they deserve.

We face a monumental choice about the future of our country. For too long, policymakers in Washington have traveled the path of least resistance… of easy promises and the empty claims of progress… of relentless spending and constant borrowing.

This path has left us on the brink of national bankruptcy, and continuing down it will push our nation into a debt crisis characterized by uncontrollable interest rates… unsustainable taxes… and an unprecedented economic collapse.

We will leave our children a very different nation than the one we inherited-highly centralized and heavily bureaucratic, less self-governing and less free.

The President, whose budget punted on the drivers of our debt, is not the first public official to have drifted down this perilous path.

And those members of his party who are defending his do-nothing approach while demagoging our solutions-well, they are certainly not the first, either.

In recent years, both political parties have squandered the public’s trust. The American people ended a unified Republican majority in 2006, just as they ended a unified Democratic majority last fall.

They reject empty promises from a government that can’t live within its means. They deserve the truth about the nation’s fiscal and economic challenges. They deserve-and demand-honest leaders willing to stand for solutions.

The new House majority-in which it is my privilege to serve as Chairman of the Budget Committee-has decided to do things differently. We have decided to offer America the choice they deserve.

The stakes in this debate are high. They transcend what fraction a government worker in Madison contributes to his benefits package. And they transcend what number between $33 billion and $61 billion we finally settle on as we try to repair this year’s broken budget process.

At stake is the security and stability of American families. At stake is the potential and prosperity of American workers.

At stake is America.

If the debt poses an existential threat to all we hold dear-if we truly believe that our current path leads to a debt-fueled economic crisis and to the demise of America’s exceptional promise-then let’s dispense with the trivialities. Let’s confront the nation’s most urgent fiscal and economic challenges. And let’s chart the path to a brighter future, restoring America’s promise, and ensuring real security through real reform.

The Path to Prosperity is the budget we are putting forward today. It is not just a budget-it is a cause. It represents our choice for America’s future, and our commitment to the American people.

We aim to restore the dynamism that has defined America over the generations, unleashing the genius of America’s workers-investors-and entrepreneurs and strengthening the foundations of economic growth and job creation now and in the future.

We reject a culture of complacency and offer reforms that promote initiative by rewarding effort.

We disavow the idea of unlimited and unrestrained government. Instead, we call for a government limited to its core constitutional functions and faithful to its noble mission to secure life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness for all.

Now more than ever, it is vitally important that we act.

The government’s unfunded liabilities-promises the government makes to current workers about their health and retirement security for which it has no means to pay-are projected to grow by tens of trillions of dollars in the coming years.

Every year that Congress fails to act, the U.S. government gets closer to breaking promises to current retirees, while adding to a large and growing stack of empty promises made to future generations.

*****

The flawed structure of our biggest government programs is by no means the only reason that we find ourselves facing a crisis.

The President and the last Congress enacted major increases in spending, diverted government agencies from their key missions, and failed to deliver on their promises to create jobs-the biggest step in the wrong direction being the creation of two new open-ended health care entitlements, which will accelerate the nation toward bankruptcy.

Programs that make up the safety net for the poor are failing both the citizens who rely on them and the taxpayers who fund them.

And the tax code is riddled with complexities and inefficiencies, creating a drag on the very economic growth that is essential to a sustainable fiscal future.

The President’s recent budget proposal would accelerate America’s descent into a debt crisis. It doubles debt held by the public by the end of his first term and triples it by 2021. It imposes $1.5 trillion in new taxes, with spending that never falls below 23 percent of the economy. His budget permanently enlarges the size of government. It offers no reforms to save government health and retirement programs, and no leadership.

Our budget is very different. For starters, it cuts $6 trillion in spending from the President’s budget over the next ten years, reduces the debt as a percentage of the economy, and puts the nation on a path to actually pay off our national debt. Our proposal brings federal spending back to 20 percent, consistent with the post-war average, and reduces deficits by $4.4 trillion.

Most important, our budget tackles the nation’s biggest fiscal challenges head-on. It is a plan for job creation and growth today-a plan that ensures that our children inherit an America stronger, more prosperous, and more free-as past generations have sacrificed to ensure for us.

There are four major aspects of this budget’s reform agenda:

•First, this budget reforms government to make it more efficient, effective and responsible.
•Second, it builds on the state-led welfare reform successes of the 1990s to strengthen the social safety net.
•Third, this budget helps to fulfill the mission of health and retirement security for all Americans.
•Fourth, it will reform the tax code to promote economic growth and job creation.
By removing the anchor of debt that weighs down our economy and advancing pro-growth tax reforms, this budget is a jobs budget. It sends a signal to investors, entrepreneurs and job creators that a brighter future is still possible-that America can still be the growth engine that it ought to be.

An estimate from the Heritage Center for Data Analysis projects The Path to Prosperity to help create nearly 1 million new private-sector jobs next year, bring the unemployment rate down to 4 percent by 2015, and result in 2.5 million additional private-sector jobs in the last year of the decade alone. It spurs economic growth, with $1.5 trillion in additional real GDP over the decade. According to the Heritage analysis, this budget would result in $1.1 trillion in higher wages and an average of $1,000 in additional family income each year. This is a path to prosperity.

It begins by reforming government. The role of the federal government is both vital and limited. When government takes on too many tasks, it usually doesn’t do any of them very well.

This budget restores limits to government in order to reduce deficits, save money for taxpayers, and focus federal departments and agencies on critical missions.

The first job of government is to secure the safety and liberty of its citizens. Defense spending should be executed with greater efficiency and accountability, but our men and women in uniform should never be thought of as mere line items on a budget spreadsheet.

This budget follows the lead of Defense Secretary Robert Gates, assuming $178 billion in savings from going after the inefficiencies at the Pentagon, but reinvesting $100 billion of that into key military capabilities, before putting the rest toward deficit reduction.

Other government agencies have important roles to play as well, but the budgets for many of these agencies have grown far beyond what is justified by their properly limited missions. Domestic government agencies enjoyed a 24 percent increase in their base budgets since the President took office-nearly 85 percent when stimulus funds are included.

The massive budget increases of the last few years have served, not to help agencies meet existing missions more effectively, but to create new missions that lie beyond the proper scope of the federal government and serve dubious public policy goals-whether an excessive EPA overreach or the implementation of the disastrous new health care law.

This budget restores spending discipline to a government that badly needs it by returning spending on domestic government agencies to below 2008 levels, and freezing those levels in place for five years.

It does this, not through indiscriminate cuts, but by proposing the elimination of dozens of wasteful and duplicative programs identified by nonpartisan watchdogs and government auditors such as the Government Accountability Office.

And it doesn’t just call for government to spend less-it calls for government to refocus on creating the conditions for prosperity, instead of micromanaging the economy.

Washington should not be in the business of picking winners and losers. Jobs are not created when politicians reward their connected cronies with favoritism or fund their ideological adventures. Jobs are created when we choose economic freedom.

So our budget targets corporate welfare programs by proposing to privatize Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac which are costing taxpayers hundreds of billions of dollars.

It gets rid of the permanent Wall Street bailout authority that Congress created last year.

And it rolls back expensive handouts for uncompetitive sources of energy.

Instead, it calls for a free and open marketplace for energy development and innovation. It proposes the removal of moratoriums on safe, responsible energy exploration here in the United States… ends Washington policies that drive up gas prices… and unlocks America’s vast energy resources to help lower costs, create jobs, and reduce dependence on foreign oil.

If we want these reforms to last, then it is not enough to change how much government spends-we must also change how government spends.

This budget contains budget-process reforms-including real, enforceable caps on spending-that will reorient government toward spending and taxing only as much as it needs to fulfill its constitutionally prescribed roles.

Welfare reform

The second part of our reform agenda seeks to build on the success of the bipartisan welfare reforms of the late 1990s.

There is a widely shared consensus in this country in support of strong safety net for Americans who, through no fault of their own, have fallen on hard times.

However, the government programs that make up this safety net are coming apart at the seams. It should come as no surprise that a system designed in the 1960s is not equipped to deal with the unique pressures of the 21st century.

Bipartisan efforts in the late 1990s transformed cash welfare by encouraging work, limiting the duration of benefits, and giving states more control over the money being spent.

But cash welfare is only one of 77 means-tested federal government programs. Others, including Medicaid, food stamps, and housing aid, were left un-modernized and unreformed.

This budget completes the work that was left undone with reforms that are centered on individuals and led by the governors at the state level.

Medicaid suffers from the same flawed financing structure that welfare used to suffer from. The federal government provides an open-ended match on what the states spend on Medicaid, which creates perverse incentives and encourages the program’s heedless growth.

And states are unable to save money by tailoring the program to meet the unique needs of their own populations. Instead, they must obey one-size-fits-all federal mandates, meaning that the only way they can save any money at all is by cutting reimbursements to doctors and hospitals.

That’s why so many doctors refuse to see Medicaid patients-the payment rates in many states are so low that doctors are losing money every time a Medicaid patient walks into their offices.

This budget proposes an end to this one-size-fits-all approach. It converts the federal share of Medicaid spending into a block grant and cuts excessive federal strings, freeing states to design programs that work best for their residents.

Giving states more flexibility will allow them to create a range of options that will give Medicaid patients access to better care.

This budget proposes similar reforms to the food stamp program, ending the same flawed incentive structure that rewards states for signing up ever-higher numbers of recipients, as opposed to rewarding results.

And because the best welfare program is one that ends with a job and a stable, independent life for the individual, this budget aims to streamline and strengthen federal job training programs by consolidating dozens of wasteful and duplicative programs into accountable, targeted career scholarships, aimed at empowering American workers with the resources they need to pursue their dreams.

Entitlement reform

The third part of our reform agenda will put an end to empty promises from a government that is going broke. Instead, it secures health and retirement programs both for current beneficiaries, who will receive the benefits they’ve organized their retirements around, and for future generations, who will inherit stronger programs they can count on when they retire.

This starts with saving Medicare. The open-ended, blank-check nature of Medicare’s subsidy mechanism is threatening the solvency of this critical program and creating inexcusable levels of waste in the system.

Everyone who is on Medicare or knows someone on Medicare has stories about waste in the system-unnecessary tests… redundant treatments… the cost in both time and money of mistaken billings and misplaced records… and just outright fraud. This kind of waste is inevitable in a top-down, government-run system, and it translates into runaway health-care inflation.

This budget repairs Medicare’s broken structure and saves the program for current and future beneficiaries.

In observance of the principle that government should reorient its policies without forcing people to reorganize their lives, this budget’s reforms will not affect those in or near retirement in any way.

Instead, when people 54 years old and younger become eligible for Medicare, they will be able to choose from a list of Medicare-approved coverage options and pick a plan that best suits their needs.

Medicare would then provide a payment to the plan to subsidize its cost. This plan is identical to the system that members of Congress and other federal employees enjoy. It is similar to how the Medicare prescription drug benefit works today.

This reform plan will preserve Medicare through competition among health plans for the business of millions of seniors, and by trimming billions in waste and fraud.

Under this plan, Medicare will provide wealthy seniors with less assistance, while providing more assistance for lower-income beneficiaries and those with greater health risks. Reform that empowers individuals–with a strengthened safety net for the poor and the sick–will guarantee that Medicare can fulfill the promise of health security for America’s seniors.

It will also be necessary to reform Social Security to prevent severe cuts to future benefits. This budget forces policymakers to come to the table and work to enact common-sense reforms.

It does this by requiring the President to submit a plan for restoring balance to the Social Security trust fund, and requiring congressional leaders in the Senate and the House to put forward their best ideas as well. This process is designed to yield a bipartisan solution quickly.

We all know the way forward here. The President’s bipartisan Fiscal Commission provided a very good example of what needs to happen to make Social Security solvent.

The Commission proposed a more progressive benefit structure, with benefits for higher-income workers growing more slowly than those of lower-income workers who are more vulnerable to economic shocks in retirement.

The Commission also proposed reforms that account for increases in longevity, to gradually reflect the demographic changes that are straining Social Security’s finances.

Although the budget itself does not contain these changes, I support both of these ideas.

The goal of our budget is clear: We must save Social Security for current retirees and strengthen it for future generations.

Tax reform

This budget strives to achieve retirement security, economic security, and fiscal sustainability-but none of this is possible unless we have economic growth. This brings me to tax reform-the fourth part of our agenda. This budget recognizes that the nation’s fiscal health requires a vibrant, growing private sector and a tax code that is simple, efficient and fair. Unfortunately, the U.S. tax code fails on all three counts.

This budget attacks complexity, inefficiency and unfairness in the code with a set of fundamental reforms drawn from a broad consensus of economic experts and based on the principle that government should never take a dollar from one of its citizens unless that dollar is needed for an absolutely vital national purpose.

It draws on the commonly held view that the key to pro-growth tax reform is to lower tax rates while broadening the tax base-that is, letting individuals keep more of the money they earn, while getting rid of the distortions and loopholes that divert economic resources from their most efficient uses.

And it starts, not by asking what is the “right mix” of tax increases and spending cuts to balance the budget, but by asking what is the purpose of government, and then raising only as much revenue as the government needs to fund the things it is supposed to be doing.

In 1981, President Ronald Reagan inherited a stagnant economy, with a tax code that featured 16 brackets and a top rate of 70 percent. When he left office in 1989, the tax code had been simplified down to just three brackets, with a top rate of 28 percent.

Over time, additional brackets, credits and carve-outs have grown on the tax code like weeds. As with so many things, such as practicing the politics of optimism, we need to get back to the Reagan model-in this case, by implementing the policies of growth. This budget begins by lowering taxes, with top individual and corporate rates capped at 25 percent. It adopts a revenue neutral approach by clearing out a burdensome tangle of loopholes that distort economic activity.

Finally, this budget fixes a major problem that has distorted economic activity over the last few years: Its reforms are designed to be permanent changes in law, not temporary booster shots or short-term cuts with built-in expiration dates. American families and businesses need-and they deserve-certainty and predictability when it comes to taxes. They need to be able to plan for their economic futures.

*****

America is drawing perilously close to a tipping point that has the potential to curtail free enterprise, transform our government, and weaken our national identity in ways that may not be reversible.

The tipping point represents two dangers: first, long-term economic decline as the number of makers diminishes and the number of takers grows… and second, gradual moral-political decline as dependency and passivity weaken the nation’s character… as the power to make decisions is stripped from individuals-and their elected representatives-and given to non-elected bureaucrats.

This budget charts a new path. It represents a new federal commitment, assuring this nation’s workers, investors and entrepreneurs that the new House majority recognizes the threat that unlimited government poses to the American way of life.

It affirms our cherished ideals of individual liberty, equal opportunity, entrepreneurship and self-reliance. These are the ideals that have cultivated the exceptional American character.

The American Enterprise Institute, under Arthur Brooks’s visionary leadership, continues to make this case for these ideals with clarity and force, just as this budget seeks to make them the guiding lights of American fiscal policy once again.

Freeing individuals by restoring limits to the size and scope of government should not be a partisan issue. In his State of the Union Address on January 4, 1935, President Franklin Delano Roosevelt warned the nation of the threat to America’s national character from permanent dependency on government:

The lessons of history, confirmed by the evidence immediately before me, show conclusively that continued dependence upon relief induces a spiritual and moral disintegration fundamentally destructive to the national fiber. To dole out relief in this way is to administer a narcotic, a subtle destroyer of the human spirit… It is in violation of the traditions of America.

This budget offers America a model of government that is guided by the timeless principles of the American Idea.

This budget provides policymakers with a blueprint to put our budget on the path to balance and our economy on the path to prosperity.

This budget assures America’s seniors-those who are currently retired and future retirees-that their health and retirement security will be preserved and strengthened.

This budget provides parents with hope that their children can inherit a strong, free and prosperous America. It is a plan to give our children a debt-free nation so they too can realize the American Dream.

Submitted for consideration to the U.S. Congress, and to the American people, this budget represents the new House majority’s answer to history’s call. It is now up to all of us to keep America exceptional.

Thank you.

Paul Ryan, a Republican, represents Wisconsin’s first congressional district and serves as chairman of the House Budget Committee.

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

The TARP fiasco: (3) big TARP sins the government never told you. Big banks stealing from you.

UYGUR: News was announced recently that the big banks have paid back the $250 billion in TARP money that they‘d originally taken from taxpayers. So a lot of people put up a flag saying, Hooray, mission accomplished.

They hung the banner. TARP was a success.

Again, I hate to break it to you, that‘s not the reality. And let me show you why that‘s not the case. So look, there were dozens of ways that money was funneled to the banks outside of direct cash infusions, and the Treasury Department doesn‘t want to tell you about that because it‘s inconvenient. I can give you so many examples, but let me just give you three egregious examples and you‘ll see what I‘m talking about.

Originally, $475 billion of TARP went to insurers, auto companies and borrowers. Now, a lot of that money was funneled through the banks—to banks, I should say, through companies like AIG. So that was what they called a back-door bail-out. So now you want to know how much of that has not been repaid? $187 billion. So when they tell you all the money came back, it‘s not true. $187 billion in back-door bail-outs is still out there and hasn‘t been repaid.

Second, the Fed took over $1 trillion in government-backed mortgage securities from the banks. Those were the toxic mortgages. In other words, the banks unloaded their worst assets onto us, and not just a little bit, a trillion dollars! They didn‘t want to tell you about that part, right?

Now, look, principled conservatives and progressives like Ron Paul, Alan Grayson and others fought tooth and nail to make sure that we didn‘t have that kind of financial trickery coming out of the Fed. And this shouldn‘t be a political thing. It shouldn‘t be a partisan thing.

Now, but the third part of all of this will drive you absolutely crazy. Acting Assistant Secretary Timothy Massad has just admitted that the banks used small business lending fund to repay their federal bail-outs.

What does that mean? Look, that‘s the banks paying back the federal government with federal government money. They take what was supposed to go to small business lending, and they, Oh, thanks a lot for giving me that money, now I‘m going to pay back the bail-out. Well that‘s our money! You‘re just paid us back with our money! I mean, it‘s a joke! It‘s a joke.

And the extra kicker is that small businesses didn‘t get those loans so they could hire you and we could have the economy improve again and unemployment go down. So the banks diverted the money that was supposed to create jobs to paying back their own bail-outs.

Look, don‘t take my word for it. Neil Barofsky, who‘s the special inspector general for TARP—so he‘s the guy who was in charge of making sure they did it right—says they didn‘t do it right. He said that allowing the banks to do all this, not regulating them effectively after the crash and not attaching any strings to those bail-outs could lead to, quote, “disastrous consequences.” That was his parting warning as he left this week.

And one more thing. Doesn‘t it strike you as a little weird that Republicans almost never complain about Tim Geithner, even though the economy is the largest issue and he‘s the Treasury Secretary? And did you notice that the Tea Party, which was originally formed because of anger about the bail-outs, has never done one protest at the Treasury Department or a single protest at Wall Street. So how does that make any sense? If you‘re angry about the bail-outs, why didn‘t you do that?

It‘s funny how the one thing that professional politicians and the people who are funding the Tea Party all agree on, whether they‘re Republicans or Democrats, is that the banks must always be protected. So don‘t believe the hype.

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

Countdown to shutdown. Government remains in disarray.

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

UYGUR: President Obama kicked the budget battle up a notch today by making it clear that he would not accept the short-term stop-gap bill. And by emphasizing that Republicans have gotten everything they wanted, Obama may have thrown House Speaker John Boehner off his game a little bit.

After the president spoke, Boehner could only manage a vague, sweaty, nervous-sounding press conference where he had this bizarre admission —

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

BOEHNER: The White House is proposing cuts that are far beyond things that we would imagine. And so we want to get an agreement and we want to keep the government open.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

UYGUR: Why did he just admit that the White House has given them more than they wanted? But he‘s right. They have given in over and over again.

I mean, I‘m—I don‘t get it. Like, if you‘re a Republican at this point, not like a Tea Partier, who‘s like, I want a billion, a trillion, a gazillion, a Brazilian, I‘m out of cuts. If you were a real Republican—

I mean, if somebody hands you the queen (ph), why don‘t you take it? At this point shouldn‘t you be frustrated at Boehner? What‘s his real motivation?

We‘re going to talk about that in a second.

But even though it‘s the Republicans who are obviously holding up the budget, the American people apparently are split on who to blame if the government shuts down on Friday. A Pew poll found that 39 percent of people would blame Republicans and 36 percent would blame the Obama administration, while 16 percent would blame both.

It was even closer in a “Washington Post” poll, where Republicans and the Obama administration each got 37 percent. I‘m stunned by that. How could you—how can you look at those things and go, oh, yes, they are being as obstinate?

Look, I have told you over and over again, we had at first, $40 billion given in by the Obama administration, got no credit for it. And then $4 billion, and then $6 billion, and then $20 billion, and then another $3 billion. And then Republicans haven‘t moved at all.

How could it possibly be even? Well, there is a second answer to that. But, look, let me give you some perspective.

Democrats appear to be in much worse shape than they were leading up to the last government shutdown in 1995. Back then, 46 percent of people said they blamed the Republicans and only 27 percent said the Clinton administration would be at fault.

So, what happened here? Why is it so much different today than it was back then?

I‘ve got to be honest with you, it‘s because one side isn‘t making its case. We showed you the clips in the first segment. The Republicans come out and they‘re, like, it‘s their fault, their fault, they‘re being unreasonable, and they are shutting the government down. You ask the president, and he is, like, I don‘t know, I don‘t want to blame anybody.

But you‘re in politics. You‘ve he got to make your case. Otherwise, how do people know?

And it turns out, look at the polls. They don‘t know. They‘re like, I don‘t know who is at fault. Now, that‘s crazy. Somebody‘s got to change that dynamic, and that somebody is the president.

All right. Now joining me is David Sirota. He‘s a syndicated columnist and author of the book “Back to Our Future.” And also with us is Ryan Grim, congressional correspondent for “The Huffington Post.”

Ryan, I want to start with you. I mean, look, I keep saying it‘s crazy. Boehner, you give him exactly what he wanted back in February, and he says, no, I want more. You give him a little more, and he says, no, I want $7 billion more today.

Does he not want a deal?

RYAN GRIM, “THE HUFFINGTON POST”: Well, first of all, he‘s obviously been paying attention to this White House over the past couple of years, and he knows that he can keep getting more and more and more as long as he drags this out. But, fundamentally, what he‘s doing is he‘s crafting his budget with the audience in mind of his Tea Party caucus. And as long as he is doing that, as long as he is trying to pass a bill through the House with only Republican votes, he‘s not going to get it through the Senate.

And this isn‘t a serious negotiation until he decides that he is going to have to pick up, say, 40, 50 Democratic votes and then start whipping Republicans hard. Because I just don‘t see how there is a path that goes from 218 Republicans, and then over to the Senate, and gets enough Democratic support to also be able to pass there and then get to the White House, because the Tea Party is going to want too many cuts in order to—so—and the Senate Democrats aren‘t going to go along with that.

UYGUR: Well, Ryan —

GRIM: So, until he abandons that, this is just strange.

UYGUR: Right. But does that mean, like—is there some chance he actually wants to shut down? Does he want to say to the Tea Party, look at this, I shut it down for however long, two days, a week, two weeks, two months? I don‘t know. Then he goes back and negotiates, but gets his bona fides with the Tea Party?

GRIM: Yes, I don‘t know exactly what‘s in his mind, but that would make sense tactically, because then he can say, look, I did everything I could. Senate Democrats wouldn‘t go for it, and we shut the government down. So, that‘s some read meat for the Tea Party.

Then, after a couple of days of that, they see the ramification, and then he comes back, cuts a deal with some House Democrats. It goes to the Senate, goes to the White House. And then perhaps the Tea Party wing of his conference will kind of give him a pass for negotiating with Democrats.

They‘ll say, well, the guy did shut the government down, we‘ve got to give

him that

UYGUR: All right.

David, I want to go to you. I mean, when you see the president here, and he comes out—and this was a big deal. He wasn‘t supposed to come out, he comes out, and he says, look, $33 billion and that‘s it.

Do you believe him? Do you think he is going to stand his ground at $33 billion, or do you think he‘ll give in more?

DAVID SIROTA, SYNDICATED COLUMNIST: Well, I don‘t understand why we should believe him. I mean, this is a president who started out the budget debate by conceding the very terms of the debate by saying—the first position the administration took was saying we need to freeze domestic spending entirely. So he has been giving and giving and giving and not drawing a line in the sand.

And I think the Republicans, frankly, as a negotiating tactic, why should they stop? Right?

The Tea Party folks are probably saying, why should we stop? We‘ll pass the farthest right bill possible through the House, we‘ll ram it through the House. It will go over to the Senate, it will get amended. He‘ll go into conference committee, and they will be starting on the House side with the most extreme conservative position possible.

So, in many ways, I think what we are seeing is that the Republicans really understand negotiation 101, and the Obama administration either doesn‘t understand negotiation 101, or is actually ideologically with some of the more hard-core conservative policies and ideologies of the Tea Party that is controlling the House of Representatives.

UYGUR: Let me build on David‘s point a little bit and give this question to you, Ryan. I mean, this is the first time the president has come out in public and said, this is where I stand. He didn‘t say that in the beginning where he—like, if he had come out and gave a big speech, I am giving away $40 billion in cuts, now the Republicans have to come to me, it would have been very public, right?

And then when the Republicans didn‘t come to him, well, then they would have seemed unreasonable. But he didn‘t do that in public and he didn‘t do that until now.

And now that he‘s done this in public, if he doesn‘t concede anything more going forward, isn‘t he—I mean, look, I wouldn‘t concede a nickel, right? But you know how President Obama is. Isn‘t he going to feel like, well, in order to seem reasonable, we should give them at least a couple more billion?

GRIM: Yes. I mean, whatever the administration has been doing for the past couple of months clearly hasn‘t worked, because we‘re now in a situation where we have, you know, almost nine percent unemployment, with a lot of economists saying that what we need is to stimulate the economy. And instead, Congress is doing the exact opposite.

So something isn‘t working.

The administration has accepted the argument, as David said, that what we need are cuts now. Just a few months ago, people were still acknowledging the fact that the economy could use more stimulus. And the administration was saying, while we are for long-term cuts, we want to get the budget in order in the long term, in the short term we don‘t want to damage this fragile recovery.

Now here we are, all of a sudden, talking about cutting billions and billions of dollars from programs that really do actually cut deep into what‘s happening, and they are—and it‘s not a controversial thing to say that these cuts will cost thousands of jobs.

Mark Zandi, I think his figure was 700,000 jobs. He was an adviser to John McCain. So, this is like basic economics here.

UYGUR: No. But, look, the thing is they are holding the economy hostage, because if the economy loses jobs, Republicans then turn around and say, oh, look, it‘s all Obama‘s fault, he couldn‘t create jobs. And they try to get their guy into the White House, whereas Obama thinks he is desperate to create jobs, he can‘t risk a shutdown. So, they have all the advantage.

Given that, David, last question to you, you know, you see how this has developed. You see what Ryan pointed out there, which is a great point.

What does that tell us about what might come in 2012? Because now we have got the giant battle, the $4 trillion, $6 trillion battle, coming up for that budget. Is that a sign of terrible things to come in terms of concessions from the Democrats in that battle?

SIROTA: I absolutely think so. I think that it‘s really tragic. And I keep going back to the terms of the debate.

We are not having a discussion about how to stimulate the economy. We are having a discussion about how to cut, cut, cut, at a cost of what most economists think are going to be at least tens of thousand, if not hundreds of thousands, of jobs.

Put that rhetorical frame into the super-heated cauldron of presidential politics, where the Republican nominee is going to be saying even more cuts, more cuts, more cuts. And President Obama, who has said yes, yes, yes, I will give up these cuts, I will continue to give up these cuts, and we are in a political downward spiral that I think is going to have tragic ramifications for the budget and for the economy in the country in 2012.

UYGUR: All right.

David Sirota and Ryan Grim, thank you both for joining us tonight. I really appreciate it.

GRIM: Thanks, Cenk.

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

Inside the Koch Brothers’ vast network. Koch Brothers Industries: the Koch Party

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

UYGUR: Paul Ryan says the fight over the budget isn‘t some simple negotiation. He says House Republicans aren‘t just trying to score political points.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

RYAN: Look at these people, look at these new people who just got here. You know, they didn‘t come here for a political career.

UNIDENTIFIED MAN: That‘s right.

RYAN: They came here for a cause. This is not a budget this is a cause.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

UYGUR: But what is that cause? Is it ideological or is it really financial? I.e., to help the richest people in the country. Look, that is a not a theoretical question, it‘s real, because there are people in this country who have decided that buying our government is a really good investment. And they are real people and two of them happen to be brothers. Their names are Charles and David Koch. They are the billionaire brothers who own Koch Industries, an oil and gas giant. The Koch brothers are everywhere. Now a new report from Tony Carrk at the Center for American Progress spells out the full reach of their political empire. The story starts in 1980 when David Koch was the libertarian party‘s vice presidential candidate. David Koch‘s platform was far, far right of Ronald Reagan. He wanted to eliminate corporate taxes all together. He wanted to abolish Social Security and are you ready for this? Koch even called for getting rid of public schools entirely.

But it didn‘t work out. They lost to Reagan, who was far too much of a lefty for their taste. So, the Koch brothers came to an interesting conclusion. If you can‘t beat them, buy them. Instead of trying to be politicians, they started using their money to influence politicians which proved to be a far more effective strategy. First, they needed to give their extremist ideology, the veneer of credibility. So, they began funding the so-called think tanks. And the last 15 years alone, they have given $85 million to 85 different groups. Some of the amounts are jaw-dropping. According to the Center for American Progress, they gave over $13 million to the Cato Institute during that period, 12 million to the citizens for a sound economy, four million to the heritage foundation. In other words, when you hear someone from the Cato Institute quoted in the news and he is casting doubt on global warming, keep in mind that Charles Koch actually founded the Cato Institute and that Koch Industries subsidiaries have paid millions in environmental fines.

That‘s not some neutral objective report you are hearing from the Cato Institute, it‘s a report that was bought and paid for by Koch Industries for a very specific purpose, so they can make more money by avoiding pollution regulations. The think tanks are to influence politician and it end the debate in D.C. But in case that‘s too subtle, they also decided to actually invest a lot of money directly into politicians themselves. They have given $11 million to federal candidates since 1990, 89 percent of that, of course, went to Republicans. Seeing that the strategy is working, they have actually stepped up their spending recently. Americans for prosperity, which reportedly gets millions from the Koch Brothers, spent $45 million in the last elections.

In that last election, Koch Industries Political Action Committee gave to 62 of the 87 freshmen House Republicans. And this is a Koch-fueled Congress. The Kochs and their affiliates gave to 13 gubernatorial candidates in the last cycle. Of course, ten of them were Republicans. They also gave $1 million to the Republican Governors Association. The list of governors they helped to elect includes Scott Walker and John Kasich, both of them who just happen to be rabid union busters. And that brings us to where we are in politics today. Governor Walker attacks the unions. House Republicans go after the EPA and now Paul Ryan targets those pesky little safety nets, Medicare and Medicaid. The Koch Brothers are closing in on checkmate.

Advertise | AdChoicesAdvertise | AdChoicesAdvertise | AdChoices.Citizens United allowed them to pour an unlimited amount of money into political campaigns. And now they have announced plans to spend $88 million on the 2012 election. They figured out the matrix. Our politicians are up for sale and it‘s a good return on their investment and the Koch‘s plan to do a lot more buying.

With me now is Tony Carrk, he is the policy director for the Center for American Progress Action War Room and the author of that new report.

TONY CARRK, CENTER FOR AMERICAN PROGRESS: Cenk, great to be with you.

UYGUR: Now first, it‘s great to have you here. This isn‘t just about the Koch Brothers, the promise anybody can buy these politicians, and a lot of billionaires and millionaires do, but they are a perfect example here. What I found interesting is the first thing they did was to go buy the think tanks, why do you think they did that?

CARRK: I think they wanted to number one, keep their money under the radar, so they were funding the right-wing think tanks that could start building the policy case for the agenda that they are trying to push and that agenda is one that puts their business interests above those of middle class families.

UYGUR: And they seem to have really stepped up their spending these days and they have a lot more public profile, partly because of some of the research that‘s been done on them, including by you guys, us, et cetera, but it seems like they were a little bit more brazen these days. Do you think that‘s because of Citizens United, or they think what difference does it make, we can buy these, you know, these elections anyway we like? Who care it is people know?

CARRK: I mean, I‘m not entirely sure if it‘s, I mean, I think Citizens United is a part of that but I also think it was just the situation, the environment that we are in now, where there was a lot of public anger in 2009 after the economy was brought to its knees and they were able be to, you know, help organize the Tea Party rallies and kind of use that public anger to help further their ideological agenda which is to get rid of government, and that will help pad their profits and at the same time, it‘s going to be hurting everyone else.

UYGUR: Yes, you know, it‘s I think a perfect storm. You got the Tea Party coming in, you‘ve got Citizens United that lets them spend unlimited money. And at the same time, this seems my God, this is a better return on investment than I imagined. The Republicans are giving us everything we wanted, right? So, when you put all that together, they think, OK, it is winning time, right?

CARRK: Exactly. And I think if you look at the success they had in the 2010 elections, if you look at now the House Energy and Commerce Committee, the Koch Industries is the single largest oil and gas contributory to that committee and that committee is also the one that oversees energy policy in this country, which also regulates carbon emission, things they have a personal interest in because that is also what their business interest is.

UYGUR: Yes. You know, actually, I want to give the audience some facts on that, because that it is amazing. They have given to 22 Republicans on that committee, a total of $279,500. They have also given to five Democrats on that committee, a total of $32,000 because they are in the energy business, of course they‘re going to go buy the Energy Committee. And, you know there is a note from “The Hill,” which is great. House democrat Gerry Connolly says, he wants to change the title of the bill that would go after EPA to the Koch Brother appreciation act. How accurate is that? I mean, how swamped is that Energy Committee by Koch money?

CARRK: I mean, I think the facts speak for themselves like the numbers that you just threw out I think show exactly the type of influence that they have on that committee. And I would also add to that that the head of the Americans for prosperity co-authored an Op-ed with the chairman of the House Energy and Commerce Committee on just how bad the EPA would be to regulate carbon emissions. So, it‘s money on one hand but it is also the access that they have with the lawmakers as well.

UYGUR: Well, we saw that access in Wisconsin, when the fake Koch Brother called Governor Walker. Governor Walker spent 20 minutes with him, he‘s like, yes, let me tell you how we are going to bust the unions. By the way, if you bust the unions, the start public and then you go to private, hey, that lowers the cost for Koch Industries because they have to pay their employees less. So, it all works out for Koch at the end. But I want to ask you about the Tea Parties. You mentioned that earlier. How much are they involved in the Tea Party movement?

Advertise | AdChoicesAdvertise | AdChoicesAdvertise | AdChoices.CARRK: Well, I think, I mean, a lot of this, I would like to say is been a lot of research done by my colleagues at Think Progress, just when the Tea Parties began and who helped organize them, who helped give them materials and show them the way that, you know, protest government and to make their voices heard. When you look back at that, a lot of that went through Americans for prosperity which goes, you know, back to Charles and David Koch. So I think from the—even one employee said that their job was to stimulate the Tea Party, that they didn‘t necessarily create it, per se, but they definitely helped it along.

UYGUR: Right. And I got to be honest, it was a brilliant strategy, because I mean, they have got all these guys who are now doing them favors, they‘re trying to kill the EPA for the Koch Industries. You know, it is money well spent. Tony Carrk, great research. Thank you for joining us. Really appreciate it.

CARRK: Thank you for having me.

UYGUR: Thank you, man. And by the way, you know that the protests are funded by the Koch Industries when the huge buses show up that they have paid for, all right?

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

Why Medicare won’t go away.

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

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

LYNDON JOHNSON, FORMER U.S. PRESIDENT: No longer will older Americans be denied the healing miracle of modern American. No longer will illness crush and destroy the savings that they have so carefully put away over a lifetime so that they might enjoy dignity in their later years.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

UYGUR: That was President Lyndon Johnson on the day that he signed Medicare into law. Ever since then, right up to the present days, Republicans have been trying to kill it. In fact, the plan to block senior citizens from affordable health care began years before it even became law, with a former movie star leading the charge.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

RONALD REAGAN, FORMER U.S. PRESIDENT: We can write to our congressmen, to our senators, we do not want socialized medicine, if you don‘t this program, I promise you will pass just as surely as the sun will come up tomorrow.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

UYGUR: Talking points from all the way back then. The same talking points as always. Yes, that was then-private citizen Ronald Reagan recording a message against Medicare proposal back in 1961. Now, despite his efforts, Medicare became law on July 30th, 1965 with Democrats overwhelmingly voting for it and Republicans split just about 50/50 on it. But once Reagan became president, the Republicans saw their chance to kill Medicare again. This time, as part of the early ‘80s budget fights that just like now, dominated the news.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

UNIDENTIFIED WOMAN: The cost of health care increasing and Reagan administration proposing cuts of several billion dollars, many people, especially the poor and the elderly, could face serious problems.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

UYGUR: Well, the Democrats fought back at that point and Medicare survived. Flash forward to the government shut down of the mid‘90s, the law was once again under attack from the republican revolution. Then House Speaker Newt Gingrich gave a speech on Medicare in which he said, quote, “We don‘t get rid of it in round one because we don‘t think that that is politically smart. We believe it is going to wither on the vine because we think people are voluntarily going to leave it, voluntarily.” That turned out to be, of course, not true, so once again, the Republicans failed and Medicare survived. Now, it‘s under attack again, as part of the 2012 budget from GOP Congressman Paul Ryan. His plan would dismantle Medicare and replace it with a system in which people use government vouchers to buy private insurance.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

REP. PAUL RYAN ®, BUDGET COMMITTEE: The Democrats went a different direction in health care, they really believe in a government-run system and I think logic, proof, history shows you government-run health care doesn‘t work. We want to harness the power of patient choice.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

UYGUR: Even “The Wall Street Journal” admits, quote, “the plan would essentially end Medicare.” So there is no secret here. The Republicans have been trying to kill Medicare since before it began, we just showed you the tapes. The problem, well, the American people love it. A Kaiser poll from 2009 showed people on Medicare trust it much more than people with private insurance trust those companies. That was 68 percent to 48 percent. And last month‘s NBC poll shows three-quarters of Americans think it is unacceptable to cut Medicare in order to trim the deficit. Now this looks to be an obvious losing issue for the Republicans. The only way they can win is if the Democrats preemptively surrender. Come on, they wouldn‘t do that with three-quarters of the country behind them, would they? Are you sure?

All right. Joining me now is Congressman Bill Pascrell, a New Jersey democrat on the Budget Committee who was called Ryan‘s plan a quote, “Road to Ruin.” OK. It seems that you are not interested in surrendering, it appears that you would you like to fight for Medicare. Do I have that right, congressman?

REP. BILL PASCRELL (D), NEW JERSEY: I never take a back step, you know that, Cenk, and we are not going to take a back step on Medicare.

UYGUR: Now, congressman, you and I have been talking about these issues for a long time. You know my stance on this. So, you got to understand my skepticism. I have seen the Democrats give in time and time again over the last ten years, OK? Now, are you positive that the administration and the rest of the Democrats are going to hold and say, we are not going to give into this proposal on Medicare.

PASCRELL: The great majority of Democrats are going to vote no in any American, shape or form to privatize Medicare. Republicans tried this on Social Security, six years ago, President Bush failed, they know it‘s a failed policy. You notice they didn‘t even bring up Social Security in the 2012 budget which we‘re going to lay out tomorrow during our committee hearing. Now, they are talking about Medicare. And then, they‘re saying, here is the switch that they are trying to get us to think about. Then, they‘re saying it is only going to pertain to people under 55 years of age.

So, if you are over 55, your Medicare is safe. They don‘t understand the issue of Medicare. They don‘t understand how this was our greatest weapon against senior poverty. Many seniors are living on fixed income. These guys and gals don‘t get it and we are going to turn them back. So, the road map needs a GPS right now. They are stuck in the middle of the woods but they haven‘t decided which way to go yet.

UYGUR: Now, I know you said that you guys aren‘t going to go for private advertising and I believe that, but how about cuts to Medicare? Do you think the president is going to hold firm and say no cuts to Medicare?

PASCRELL: Hey, Cenk, here is the most insidious part of their entire proposal. There‘s $550 billion that we laid out in the health care reform act which these guys are out to set and destroy. They call this socialized medicine. They call this rationing of health care, and that is exactly what we have now, which we can no longer accept. The point being this $550 in savings, they assume it in their budget. So, as much as they want to kill health care, or Obama-care as they call it so affectionately, what they really want to do is take the money and run. They will stop at nothing and Republicans, you must understand, want not only to privatize Medicare but the next stop, they will try again on a stand-alone bill to privatize Social Security. This is not our way out of the budget morass. We got to have cuts. There is no two ways about it.

And the portions of the budget that we are, the president started us out. Tomorrow, we start a second chapter on the republican budget and you‘re going to hear a lot of response and a lot of kickback tomorrow. Hopefully folks will listen to watch what happens during the budget hearing tomorrow. So, those people who have amnesia about 2001 to 2008, Cenk, they are going to have an opportunity to get a real face value of what happened and the debt that we brought to bear between 2001 and 2008. So, they say we don‘t want to give debt to our kids, what the heck did they do? They didn‘t pay for two tax, major tax cuts in 2001 and 2003. They didn‘t pay for the two wars, they didn‘t pay for Medicare prescription drug reform. Who are they kidding?

UYGUR: All right. I‘m interested to see what happens tomorrow and I‘m definitely interested to see what happens throughout that fight. Congressman Bill Pascrell, thank you for joining us tonight.

PASCRELL: OK, Cenk.

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

GOP remains quiet as Obama launches bid. Gopher it.

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

UYGUR: While President Obama officially launches campaign for 2012 today, the top republican contenders have not formally entered the race yet. They‘re still exploring, exploratory committees to do further explorations, all right, but today Tim Pawlenty did release his own snazzy video in response of the president‘s election analysis.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

UNIDENTIFIED MAN: I‘ve got a question for you. How can America win the future when we‘re losing the present?

UNIDENTIFIED MAN: Washington has given.

UNIDENTIFIED MAN: It‘s staggering.

UNIDENTIFIED MAN: In order for America to take a new direction, it‘s going to take a new president.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

UYGUR: What kind of video was that? I guess since he‘s so dull, he‘s trying to make it exciting, but I don‘t think it‘s worthy. All right. Pawlenty by the way supposed to be the exciting candidate for Minnesota? I have no idea why anybody thinks that, but there‘s actually another contender for Minnesota out there, who could be much more relevant and her name is Michele Bachmann. She raised more money than any other republican so far this year, $2.2 million, and that‘s after raising a record $13 million last year for her congressional campaign. Bachmann also just hired Mike Huckabee‘s Iowa political director from when he won the state back in 2008. So, if she has the money, she has a Tea Party and she has a weak republican field. So, does she have a real shot? I think the answer might be yes.

Let‘s talk to A.B. Stoddard, associate editor and columnist for “The Hill,” to see if I‘m right. First, on Pawlenty, OK, and who‘s better, Pawlenty or Bachmann? I don‘t know why anybody is exited by Pawlenty, I don‘t think the guy ever done anything, he is the blandest guy who has ever run for president. I think Michele Bachmann has a ten times better chance than Pawlenty. Tell me if I‘m wrong.

A.B. STODDARD, ASSOCIATE EDITOR AND COLUMNIST, “THE HILL”: I think she has the early advantage with the wow factor. He has the un-wow factor, but I think he probably has a little more staying power for the way that this primary is going to be run. Much different from 2008, a much longer slog. It is going to be a numbers game with proportion including not an early knockout, winner take all, primaries which really sets a momentum in the early state. And also determines a winner early. I don‘t think Iowa will be predictive where Michele Bachmann will run very strong of who ends up the nominee. I think it‘s going to be a long slog and I think that‘s what Mitt Romney and Tim Pawlenty are.

UYGUR: I want to get back, and I want to say, but look, I‘m obsessed with Pawlenty, what a dull guy he is. Can you someone for the love of God tells me what these guys looks like, what did he do? OK, so he was the governor of Minnesota. So what? What did he do? Why is he interesting? Why do you think he has lasting power?

STODDARD: Well, he‘s very good on television. I don‘t know if you‘ve ever seen this. And what Republicans tend to say is that he‘s good on television, and interviews very lovable, very smart, very articulate, knows the issues, knows his foreign policies, well, it‘s domestic policies. Been there—you know, more than President Obama but when you get him in a speech, when he‘s trying to travel the country and wow the crowds, he doesn‘t have the energy. And as you know, Michele Bachmann has really made a huge splash in her trips that she‘s been making any grass roots love her. And she‘s really energizing the base, and obviously as you mentioned before, she‘s a real fund-raising powerhouse, so it is something for Tim Pawlenty to contend with. Early, he was helping—proximity to Iowa. He was going to do well—but she‘s jump in all of a sudden. She was born and raised in Iowa before family moved to Minnesota, and they love her there.

UYGUR: And she‘s got much better jackets as you saw there. Look, I have seen the Pawlenty speeches, we all like, Bachmann gets something—look here, I‘m going to show you a clip of Bachmann buttering up the crowd in Iowa. I mean, she‘s a classic politician. She knows what she‘s doing. Let‘s watch.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

REP. MICHELE BACHMANN ®, MINNESOTA: I am an Iowan, I was born here in Waterloo, Iowa. And I am a seventh generation Iowan. That‘s even better, Iowans are very intelligent people, besides being extremely good looking, Iowa is the land of milk and honey.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

UYGUR: Milk and honey. All right. But look, she gets the crowd revved up. I mean, she‘s got the money, she really does, and she‘s got the numbers, so, why wouldn‘t she have a chance? And it‘s not just Iowa. I mean, look, think about it. When you go to New Hampshire now, led by the Tea Party, she‘s Tea Party, you go down to South Carolina, she doesn‘t have a chance some kind, if she does, she‘s doing pretty well in the polls there, too.

STODDARD: There are some polling among primary voters so far that are showing the same results for Michele Bachmann that did for Sarah Palin, that they think she‘s great, and they want her to run but they don‘t know that she‘s really presidential team, but that could change. She really is hot in Iowa. We don‘t know how much of a bump that will give her to rule to the other states. But remember, Mike Huckabee won Iowa, John McCain did not. It‘s not necessary predictive, and even, it was mentioned before, with this contest changing the way that it‘s going to, there will be other people who have stronger coalitions than Michele Bachmann has. Tim Pawlenty is really taking care of the republican three legged sole. Fiscal policy, domestic policy, and issues importance of social conservatives. He‘s an evangelical Christian himself. He‘s going to make sure that there‘s no stone uncovered. And I think that if you look at a long, protracted race, it‘s very hard to imagine that she ends up taking over someone who‘s a two-term governor. But it‘s early and all that can change everything. I think if you‘re Tim Pawlenty, you‘re just glad Sarah Palin, not in the race, and Michele Bachmann is.

UYGUR: I hear you. And it is exciting and it is early, we‘ll see how it goes. But you said stole, does remind of a stole, you‘re right on that. All right. A.B. Stoddard, thank you. We appreciate it.

STODDARD: Thank you.

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