Line in the sand: should Obama go to Wisconsin?

Posted on February 21, 2011 by William Brighenti

Barefoot AccountantTaxes, Accounting, and QuickBooks

>>> now, let’s talk about the politics of what’s happening in wisconsin. where do do the national parties stand on this? and how about the president? where is he? in an interview on thursday, president obama stood up for unions’ collective bargaining rights.

>> some of what i heard coming out of wisconsin where you’re just making it harder for em plies to collective bargain generally seems like an assault on unions.

>> all right, he’s getting into the game, i like that. but it turns out on “meet the press” this weekend lindsey graham responded, saying it was very inappropriate for the president to get in on this controversy. whoo i is why is it inappropriate? he’s the president. these are people protesting. who cares what graham thinks. but the white house cares. over the weekend, the white house and democratic party officials pushed back against criticism from republicans that mr. obama and his political network were meddling in the wisconsin dispute. he said that the white house had done nothing to encourage demonstrations in wisconsin. but why? why did you do nothing to encourage the demonstrations in wisconsin. why are you so proud of that? any little criticism by the right and they were like no, no, no it wasn’t us, it wasn’t us. we don’t support the workers. they run from every fight. get in there. and if you weren’t so sure about that interpretation, here’s dan pfeiffer. he says this is a wisconsin story, not a washington one. false game claims of white house involvement or attempts to distract from the organic grassroots opposition that’s happening in wisconsin. it’s not a washington plan. please, please, we would never support the workers’ unions. they would call us liberals. we wouldn’t do that. never us. by the way, president obama also froze federal employee sal rays raysrsalaries for two years. he wants to be seen as a guy who can do spending cuts. when the unions are protesting in wisconsin, i won’t is stand up for them at all. i’ll leave them hanging in the wind. god for gid senator graham should say i’m inappropriate. get in the fight. get in the fight. you’re our president. meddling? you’re our president! get in the fight. but he’s not going to do it. god forbid they call him a progressive or say he doesn’t cut spending enough or he’s in favor of the average working guy or the unions. those guys all voted for you. where are you? well, let me bring in ed rendell. he’s the former pennsylvania governor. now a political am list. as usual, am i being too tough on the president? or is this a pretty good time to say i’m on the size of the average guy?

>> i think you’re both right and wrong. i think you’re right, the president started out very good on thursday, and he should have come out with a strong statement saying no one should take away collective bargaining rights. those are rights that have made the middle class in this country what it is today. and they should be sacrosanct. and he started out well on thursday. he shouldn’t have backed away from that. but he shouldn’t inject himself in wisconsin or pennsylvania or any of the state where is this is going to happen. in 44 state the, there are deficits. and similar fights are going to be played out in all of those states. the reason why is we don’t want this to be about president obama. we want it to be about the policemen, the firemen, the nurses, the emts, the men and women who plow the snow off the roads in wisconsin. they’re the people who can engender real sympathy. we want this to be about ordinary working people essentially getting the short end of the stick. think about it. look, the union — and this is stunning. the union was willing to do the concessions necessary, additional pain on pensions and pensions and health care benefits. that’s a responsible stand. that’s all the governor should have asked for. and i heard governor walker say, this is what we campaigned on, and that’s why we won the election and the people expect us to do this. that’s not correct. you never campaigned saying you were going to get rid of collective bargaining in wisconsin. and, in fact, polls show a majority of people don’t want you to do it. so that’s a bad excuse. this is union busting. you have every right to go after cost cutting because we need it. and your point is right, we should balance it. but you don’t have the right to try to bust unions. that’s not what people voted for you for.

>> when he said he campaigned on it, he probably means i campaigned on it with the koch brothers.

>> he never said — he never said in a debate, and if you don’t elect me governor, i’m going to get collective bargaining out of the state of wisconsin. ironical ironically, the state which started collective bargaining. ‘.

>> he just spoke. we were carrying it. he talked about the 14 state senators who left. i want to roll that for you. let’s watch.

>> for those 14 democrats, you had your time. now it’s time to come home. you asked for time for the public to understand what’s in the bill. i don’t think you can find a single person at least in the state of wisconsin who couldn’t tell you they’re aware of what’s going on with this bill and what the debate is all about. the time is up and it’s time for them to come back and participate in democracy.

>> how do you react to that snf.

>> he’s putting up straw men. the governor tried to run this through. he never negotiated with the unions in the first place. never sat down and said look, what can we do here? number one. number two, they tried to ram this bill through. the senators have every right to stop this process. if the only way they can stop it is being out of state, that’s okay. and look, collective bargaining isn’t the root of the problem. they’re trying to say that municipalities and cities won’t be able to cut costs themselves unless we get rid of collective bargaining. that’s baloney. i’m not superman, but when i became mayor of the city of philadelphia, we faced the worst deficit in the history of the city of philadelphia. we took our benefits from 58 cents on the dollar, which was the highest in the city by far, no one was close to it in the private sector, no other public sector, down to 37 cents. but i did it through collective bargaining. we took our case to the people, the people supported us, there was a momentary strike and the union finally gave in. when i became governor, our workers did not pay anything — made no contribution to their health plan. they now pay 3% of their salaries. we won that through the collective bargaining process. go and make your point to the public. when you’re dealing with the public unions, the public is the arbitor of the last resort.

>> right. i’ve got to come back to president obama for one second here. look, my issue is here first of all, if he showed up, imagine how energized they would be. those are the guys who work for him who busted their ass for him, who voted for him. imagine if the president shows up, what a statement that would be. and for one side to say we’re going to cut and cut and cut. for the president saying there’s pint behind having unions and here’s why we have them and here’s why collective bargaining is important.

>> i agree with that. but i don’t think he should have showed up. ting he should have followed that hamm through. but he shouldn’t come to madison any more than maybe next month he shouldn’t come to harrisburg or the week after that to springfield or sacramento or whatever. he can’t inject himself into 44 different state fights. he should make —

>> but this is a big one. this is a big one.

>> but in my judgment, the way you win this battle sl to focus on your neighbors. and everyone who works in the private sector has a neighbor who’s a nurse who’s a policeman, who’s a fireman, who’s an emt. and those are the people who the ordinary folks in wisconsin are going to wind upsiding with. they’re not going to vied with a governor who’s being unfair because there isn’t shared sacrifice. how in the lord’s name can you ask for cuts like this and at the same time reduce business taxes? there’s a time for reducing taxes, but it isn’t now.

>> that’s exactly right.

>> and that’s the point we should be making in wisconsin. you’re doing all this on the backs of these people. and public workers aren’t your enemy. i’ve negotiated with public workers for 33 years. those negotiations are tough, but i know the vast majority are terrific. they work hard, they care about their state, their city. and they have families that care about the same things that ordinary folks care about.

>> of course. they’re regular citizens like everybody else. dehumanizing them is crazy.

>> if you want to demonize leadership, demonize leadership, but don’t demonize the ordinary rank and file policemen and firemen. one of tpolice mens i saw made the point after 9 snsh 11, everybody said what heroes they were, but that didn’t last very long, did it?

>> it appears it hasn’t lasted very long in wisconsin, that’s for sure.

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

Koch dealers: Koch brothers linked to Wisconsin budget

Posted on February 21, 2011 by William Brighenti

Barefoot AccountantTaxes, Accounting, and QuickBooks

>> scott walker’s fourth largest donor during his 2010 campaign. they donated $43,000 to his election effort. gee, i wonder what they wanted. and now governor walker is going with the union busting budget bill. they pay him to bust the budget, and .he says right as soon as he comes in, i’ve got a genius idea, why don’t i bust the budgets? but the koch brother i’m sure care about the average worker, right? it turns out that koch industries slashed jobs at plants across the country, incluing cutting 25% of the worse force in green bay, wisconsin. now meanwhile, the koch brothers joint network increased by $11 billion in the same year. oh, we just had to cut all those workers, otherwise we would have only made $10.9 billion and we couldn’t have that. the workers had to be slashed. what was that about shared sacrifice, sarah? did the koch brothers share any sacrifice? of course, another koch-funded group, americans for prosperity has joined the wisconsin budget battle. would you believe it? they’re backing the governor’s union busting agenda. who could have figured? they started the website, stand with walker.com. gee, i wonder how all this is connected. for me, let me bring in lee fong. talk to me about the koch brothers? is this payback?

>> sure, they same the same kind of perverse supply side ideology where you basically soak the middle class and the poor to reward the rich. as you mentioned, koch industries has been slashing jobs, thousands of them, allncluding in wisconsin at the same time they’ve basically given themselves, the stwo top exectives, charles and david, an extra $11 billion. just in the last two years. that’s pretty similar to governor walker who’s basically given a huge tax cut to businesses in wisconsin while at the same time only asking nurses and teachers to sacrifice.

>> now that the protests have begun, how are the koch brothers involved in the sount protests in madison?

>> as you mentioned, they started this website, standwithwalker. basically, you know, not only saying that we should end collective bargaining rights for public employees, but also private employees and that this really radical drive by governor walker should be expanded across the country. and, you know, the past two years, they have a group called fight back wisconsin and americans for prosperity. they’ve been bussing people around, hosting tea parties. they’ve brought in walker to help campaign for him. then this past saturday, they bussed in tea partiers and people like joe the plumber, joe populists to support him.

>> they bus these guys in — and you just heard the governor he’s complaining people come in from out of state. arefully of the people they bussed in local to wisconsin?

>> well, they had definitely not wisconsinites, but the koch brothers do own a lot of companies in wisconsin. a set of power plants, pipelines, lumber mills. and interestingly enough, hidden in this budget bill, you know, we’re talking about collective bargaining rights, but he also has a line item that allows him to sell off wisconsin power plants basically with no-ed by contracts. so it’s possible there could be a quid pro quo later this year.

>> i’m looking forward to that as well.

>> so let me get this right. they get lower taxes. who know what is they’re going to get in no-ed by contracts later. if you’re looking for actually stopping collusion in wisconsin, i don’t think governor walker is going to be your guy. fwu is the ultimate goal here, not just wisconsin, but throughout the country to go after, not just public unions but private unions so the koch brothers will play less to their workers throughout the country?

>> no, it’s much bigger than that. the koch brothers want to maximize their political pow per .that’s why they financed this junket for federal judges program. they fund think tafrks and so-called libertarian nonprofits. this is much bigger than wisconsin. they want to crush the labor movement. they know if there’s no labor movement, they have no real opponents, so in 2012 and 2014 and so forth, they’re basically unstoppable. i interviewed david koch, one of the executives at koch industries. he says this is just the beginning. he plans to expand this campaign in. co-ing years.

>> that sounds lovely. and he says at some point, the average guy like me. the average billionaire like you? come on, who are you kidding. apparently the whole state of wisconsin. we really appreciate it. good report.

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

Do you need to lighten up during tax season?

Posted on February 20, 2011 by William Brighenti

Are you about to strangle your spouse, shoot your boss, kick your dog, or drive someone off the road? You need a break. Lighten up, get your mind off taxes, and laugh. Here’s a few to get you started.

The Barefoot Accountant

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

Something’s not right. Is the GOP in disarray?

Posted on February 17, 2011 by William Brighenti

It seems like everyone is trying to go further right these days.  Governor Scott Walker is busting up unions in Wisconsin.  Republican House Members are marching towards a government shutdown.  We even have a Democratic President openly flirting with social security and medicare reform.  So conservatives feel that they have the momentum and they are hungry for more.  

But something I’m not entirely clear on is what exactly do they want?  Speaker John Boehner proposed $61 billion in spending cuts, but the Tea Partiers are demanding $100 billion.  OK, they want more; I get that.  Most Republicans are war supporters who won’t touch defense spending but the Ron Paul crowd wanted us out of Afghanistan yesterday.  And freshman Tea Partiers helped vote down a fighter plane program last night, which is great.  On social issues, Republican legislators are obsessed with restricting abortion, while Barbara Bush and Betty McCain are cutting pro-gay marriage acts.  Will the real Republican priorities please stand up? 

CPAC was a place where all these strange and sometimes warring Republicans sat together, and yet no Republican grabbed the mantle.  Look at the fascinating results of the Presidential Straw Poll, where Mitt Romney is the backup choice to Ron Paul.  Paul-Romney in 2012?  Probably not.  Then you have New Jersey Governor Chris Christie, and he ties for third place with former New Mexico Governor Gary Johnson.  And Sarah Palin isn’t even on the board.  Wait.  Back up. Who’s Gary Johnson and how the hell did he finish third? He’s a libertarian or an old school conservative, whatever you want to call it.  But he’s for gay rights and legalizing pot. and he beat out Sarah Palin, Mike Huckabee and even establishment heavyweight Newt Gingrich. How did he do it? He’s here, so let’s ask him. He’s also the honorary chairman of Our America Initiative. Not a lot of people outside of New Mexico know you, I’m just trying to keep it real.

>> totally real, yeah, yeah.

>> so how did you finish third?

>> as governor of new mexico, everything was a cost benefit analysis. everything. what are we spending our money on? as government 06 new mexico, i would like to think i was the most conservative governor in the country.

>> do you think pot had something to do with it? you’re for legalizing. you came out of nowhere.

>> the marijuana issue really falls on in the context of cost benefit. half of law enforcement, half the prisons, that’s what we’re spending, about $20 billion a year. what are we getting for that? well, we’re arresting 1.8 million people a year and we now have 2.3 million people behind bars. really, it needs go a through z. you’re just talking about m for marijuana. i think — i would like to think that what people respected about what i have done in new mexico and what i’m trying to bring to bear right now is just truth regarding all of these issues. i advocate balancing the federal budget tomorrow. that’s medicare, medicare, social security and defense. i would be wanting out of afghanistan yesterday. i would have been opposed to iraq from the beginning. i think that all the arguments that could get posed for the problems that we’d face getting out of afghanistan or iraq, we would have those same discussions 25 years from now, if that’s when we decide to have those discussions. legalization, you make a great point. we get drug wars, gang violence. it’s not like we wochb the war on drugs.

>> when it comes to medicare and medicare, the federal government could give states back to health care for the poor and those over 65. maybe 65 changes to a different age. but do away with the mandates. look, we’re all competitive. we’re all out for best prak phillips we would live within our means. i just think the biggest threat to our national security is the fact that we’re spending more money than what we’re taking in. and i’ve lived my entire life watching government take in more money than what it spends. i’ve just always thought that wouldn’t be sustainable. and i think that day of that unsustainability is here now.

>> we agree on that. let’s get to what we disagree on. it is it is is not a problem with the deficit at all.

>> no, it’s not. it is it is is based on making in more money than what you give out. we’re talking about a reform to social security.

>> what would that reform be?

>> one would be raising the retirement age.

>> that’s unacceptable. that’s a cut. if you retired at the age of 70 instead of 65, you miss out on $63,000 of retirement benefits. that’s a huge cut.

>> this is something that can be phased in. if we don’t address these issues, we’re going to be left by nothing. and by nothing, are we going to receive our social security checks? yeah, but they’re not going to buy anything because of the cash we’re printing to cover these obligations.

>> when you talk sense on saving money, i hear you. but social security is a $2.5 trillion surplus. it makes no sense to cut that.

>> we paid out more money —

>> there’s $2.5 trillion. that’s the good faith of the united states. when we say oh, the bond market would collapse if we didn’t pay china or saudi arabia. it’s also a huge problem if we don’t pay the people who paid into social security.

>> but we’ve been paying out social security. we’re going to have to print more money to pay out social security.

>> we have to pay our bills. social security is our bills. and it’s our bill not to saudi arabia. it’s our bill to the american people who paid into it.

>> and when social security was established, let’s see, nobody was going to even live to 65 when social security was established. so using that same correlation today, maybe it ought to be 80 years old.

>> that’s where you lose me.

>> when it was first established —

>> look, white collar workers live longer today, but that’s not necessarily true of blue collar workers. this idea of oh, my god, we’re living longer is not necessarily true.

>> statistically, we’re living to 79 years old as opposed to 62 years old.

>> since 1972, the upper brackets now living four years longer than the lower brackets in this country. so there’s a huge difference in how much — who’s actually living longer.

>> i think clearly everybody is living longer. that’s the average. what are we at today? 79 versus 62 when social security was established.

>> i would never agree to cut people who paid into it —

>> i’m not saying cut.

>> i’m just telling you, if you’re saying retire later, that’s a cut.

>> make the system final.

>> we agree on a lot of things, that’s good.

>> i got it. it’s a good conversation. i like it.

>> my problem is the guys who sell out to lobbyists, whether republicans or democrats.

>> government picking winners and losers. i’m going to the to be back on here, i can see that right now.

>> what if we go back to the clinton era tax rate. do you know what that could give us 1234$5 trillion over the next ten years. problem solved. i balanced the budget.

>> getting rid of impediments to entrepreneurs that would create more jobs in this country.

>> right, that’s what clinton did. do we agree?

>> both parties have done it.

>> bush didn’t do it. bush created about a million jobs and then immediately lost after he went out of office.

>> i’m in the camp that lower taxes create better economies.

>> but that’s not what history bears out.

>> thanks for having me on.

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

Showdown tonight on Capital Hill: Boehner threatens government shutdown.

Posted on February 17, 2011 by William Brighenti

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

>>> shawdown tonight on capitol hill.

>> i love that music. and how much do you love those hats? the hats are awesome. a phrasen threat to shut down the government if the gop doesn’t get what it wants. of course, that’s what they always do. a day after john boehner said he didn’t want a shutdown, he seemed to have changed his tune and of course, drew a line in the sand. again, that’s twha they always do. he said he wouldn’t support a short-term funding bill if he didn’t get his cuts and that the budget battle takes longer than two weeks.

>> i am not going to move any kind of short-term c.r. at current levels. when we with say we’re going to cut spending, read my lips. we’re going to cut spending.

>> you’re going to do a read my lips pledge? do you know anything about american politics? all right, have it it. see how it turns out for you. you know what happened? then harry reid fired back.

>> we’re terribly disappointed that speaker boehner can control the votes in his caucus to prevent a shutdown of government and now he’s reshorting to threats to do just that without any negotiations. that is not permissible and we will not stand for that. he’s wrong. even when he’s angry, he’s like that is not permissible. who says not permissible? that’s awesome. terribly, terribly disappointed. okay, but look, he’s fighting back. that’s a great thing. what happens in the showdown goes all the way. why is boehner all of a sudden talking about government shutdowns? what happened for him to to all of a sudden go that way?

>> i heard more than wiggle room in that “at current levels.” what’s current levels? we could eliminate the selective service that i tried food the other night. it costs $28 million a year. then we wouldn’t be in current levels. i don’t think he was saying we’ve got to have all our cuts or we’ll shut down the government but it could come to that ultimately. he’s being driven by the extremes in his caucus.

>> harry reid seems to have taken those threats very, very seriously, striking back like this. so what happens if they go at lagger heads here. sf there a government shutdown? is that what could happen here?

>> we could get to that point. i didn’t think we would get to government shutdown until we got to the debt limit. if we wanted to balance a budget in one year, which is what you would have to do if you’re not going to increase the debt limit, we would have to eliminate the entire government three times over, or, you know, medicare and social security and the government, or a few other miscellaneous things this year. you can’t get there in one year. you can only cut things. well, cutting everything wouldn’t get us to balance. i thought it wouldn’t come until the debt limit, but maybe it will come sooner.

>> boehner says i want all the cut ps and reid says we’re not giving you all the cuts. and who cares. it would never come close to balancing the budget. what they need to do is stop the bush tax cuts, but neither side is talking about that. how do you make a deal here?

>> i think the president through his spokesman opened up the door today to doing cuts in this fiscal year and i think there’s some things that could be done. you look at $20 billion, $30 billion, that would be half. but we’ve really got to break down some of the firewalls. why can’t we go after agriculture subsidies? why are we paying $20 billion this year to not grow things at a time when we’re borrowing the $20 billion. that’s kind of absurd? why can’t we look at subsidizing the oil and gas industry. if the republicans would just give on those things, we could easily exceed their targets.

>> one last question, why don’t the democrats bring back the tax issue. i know they just settled it, right, but at the very least, rhetoric, say hey, you can not balance the budget this way. if you’re going to make the middle class and poor pay, why don’t we have shared pain that includes the upper class and the rich?

>> well, unfortunately, my leadership, including the president are kind of compromised on that issue having pushed through those giant tax cuts. i voted no. in that one day, we increased the federal debt by $800 billion with one vote and brought us to what are now record deficits that they’re reacting against to cut all these programs. that would have been a progressive way — we could have just walked away from all the extension of the tax cuts and we would have progressively raised taxes in america and cut the deficit in half over the next ten years. and the rates would have been the rates of the clinton era when the economy boomed. hey, that would have been pretty fair.

>> thank you, congressman, we appreciate

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

State workers fight back in Wisconsin. Attack on the American worker

Posted on February 17, 2011 by William Brighenti

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

>>> to the show. i am cenk uyger. we’ve got demonstrations and protesters and they’re rocking another capital in the world today. this time it’s right here in america, in madison, wisconsin. protesters flooded the capital building in madison today protesting the republican governor scott wapner’s efforts for a bill to stop collective bargaining rights for the works. — workers. even democratic state senators joined the protests. all 14 of them physically left the state, which meant there weren’t enough lawmakers capital to hold the planned vote on the controversial bill. that’s a unique way of fighting it. now let me explain what they’re fighting about. governor walker says there will be after $3 billion deficit. his solution is to cut state workers’ benefits by $300 million. pause and do the math there. that doesn’t add up there. that doesn’t get you there. not even close. it requires most public workers to pay off of their pension costs and 12% of their health care premiums which is twice what they pay now. and it eliminating union collective bargaining rights on everything except salaries. but get this — even then, salary negotiations are limited by the consumer price index, which is just inflation. so in other words, it’s just pegged to inflation so they don’t have that right either. so some state workers are exempt in the bill. this is the interesting part. police, firefighters and state troopers. now, i wonder why that happened? are you sitting? it turns out the major public safety unions in wisconsin just happen to support governor walker and his election campaign last year. what a coincidence. they get off and everybody gets punished. important spending cuts happen to fall just squarely on their shoulder. the governor isn’t stripping them of their rights. he’s threatening them. first he threatened layoffs saying they’re much better off doing what we’re proposing in this budget repair bill than looking at 5500 layoffs of state workers and anywhere from 5,000 to 6,000 layoffs in local government. that’s a clear threat. you better play ball or else i’m going to fire you. walker also threatened to bring in the national guard to deal with the protesters, which i think is outrageous. some of the members of the guard don’t want to be used against the unions because first, it’s an abuse of the national guard and second, because some of them are in the union. what are they going to do? intimidate themselves? so now on the national level, republicans are closing ranks behind walker, which is, of course, what they always do. here’s what paul ryan of wisconsin had to say about the protests.

>> it’s like cairo has moved to madison these days.

>> all right, so would that make governor walker the equivalent of hosni mubarak? wait to paint your own guy as a dictator, genius. and that’s supposed to be the really smart republican. governor walker insisted his plan was the only way to deal with the budget short fall. but you only have to go one state over to show that’s not true. last week, he ruled out his own proposal, a plan that does what almost every other elected official is too afraid to do — raise taxes on the rich. by the way, that’s what got him elected. he inherited a deficit that will be $6.2 billion over the next two years. his proposal fixes almost half that short fall by raising taxes a few percent on the top 5% of taxpayers. now, let’s compare the situation in wisconsin to that in minnesota because i think it’s really instructive. wisconsin’s governor want fos slash workers rights and bin fits with gets him $300 million. minnesota’s governor wants to tax 3 mrs. on the ri% on the rich, which gets him almost $3 billion. so a small tax increase for the rich gets you 10 times better results. you tell me, which one of those options makes more sense? i know what this guy is going to think. that’s msnbc’s ed shultz, he’s host of “the ed show.” live from madison, wisconsin. tell us what the protests have been about today.

>> it’s good to be with you tonight. you know, the emotion here is now in day number seven and it doesn’t seem to be waning whatsoever. today we had some real legislative action take place. the democrats, since they’re not getting much support at all from the national democrats are showing progressives in this country how to stand up to corporate power and how to stand up to the top 2%. every democrat walk ed out of the senate today so a vote could not have been taken. 14 of those senators have now crossed the state line into illinois, and for the lack of a better term, cenk, they are on the lam. the governor of wisconsin has sent the state patrol out to round up these democrats, because they have an obligation to come in and vote. but 14 of them have crossed the line into illinois. and so this is all a crap shoot at this point. but the bottom line here is that the democrats here in wisconsin are going everything they possibly can to avert this bill and support the people who have been out here in the thousands to stop this proposal from going through. it is amazing. 30,000 people yesterday, more than 30,000 people today. more events are going to unfold tonight. this is ground zero for working people in america. the attack on wage earners, the attack on unions from the big money people in this country is all starting right here. and as karl rove said last night on fox, this is all about the money. they’re trying to do the union busting. they’re trying to take people out of unions, take away the collective bh iive bargaining here so they can be less effective in an election cycle. you get a sense in madison this really is a fight for democracy and this is a stand that has to be made by the working folk in america. you can see our broadcast platform here is being surrounded. i can only imagine what it’s going to be like tonight at 10:00 eastern time, 9:00 central when we do ‘the ed show” here. and these democrats are standing strong against this governor who wants to do radical, sweeping changes to the working folk of this state.

>> don’t lie to many e. i noe you gave those 14 democrats asylum. where are you keeping them?

>> well, we are going to talk to one of them tonight out of state. they are at an undisclosed clo case. — location. we do know they’re in illinois. and there are a couple of them willing to talk to us tonight. so this is the story. how long will this story last and will they actually get a vote here in wisconsin? and keep in mind, this is nothing but a blueprint for republicans to go to ohio and do the same thing. to go down to florida under governor scott and do the same thing there. this is an attack on labor. the 2012 campaign is well under way. what these people in wisconsin want, what i gather on the ground is they want president barack obama to step out unequivocally and be behind labor. this is going to be an absolute legislative fight to the finish. they want to hear from the democrats. they want to hear from harry reid, they want to hear from dick durbin and chuck schumer. where’s the democratic leadership when it comes to standing with the wage earners in the country?

>> i sense you’re thinking of the national democrats and perhaps the president aren’t doing enough here to support those workers is that what you’re saying?

>> i’m saying the hour glass has been turned on the workers in this state. the people who went door to dpoor and did the social network, the people who helped barack obama win this state by double-digit margins are now at his doorstep asking him to step up for the workers here in wisconsin. where are the democrats? we are seeing leadership from the wisconsin democrats. they won’t give the republicans the vote. they walked out today. they’re going to fight for these workers and that’s really what it’s all about here in wisconsin.

>> one last thing for you, ed. paul ryan compared those protests to cairo, which i guess he thought was insulting somehow. what do ewe make of that comment?

>> well, the big narrative by the tox broadcasters and the big narrative by the republicans is that they want to have create this atmosphere that all of these people out here are nothing but a bunch of psychos. that all these people really aren’t american, questioning their patriotism, questioning their love for country. nothing but a bunch of union slacks that want to do nothing but rob the treasury. that’s how they’re being portrayed. and for paul ryan to go on national television and make that comment in comparison between cairo and madison is an insult to these people and is an insult to democracy in this country.

>> and if walker is in the role of mubarak, it’s not very flattering to them. i know some of the protesters are calling him hosni walker. i’m for democracy in cairo, i’m for democracy in madison, wisconsin. thank you so much for joining us tonight on our program. really appreciate it, ed.

>> thank you, cenk. good to be with you.

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

Fighting oil’s billions in breaks. Fueling their profits

Posted on February 16, 2011 by William Brighenti

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

>>> today, it was another simple but dramatic test for all those on the right who brag about cutting spending. this time it was a giveaway to the nation’s oil giants worth billions of dollars. congressman ed markey and ore house democrats put forward an amendment today. it would close a loophole in the law that allows oil companies to drill in the gulf of mexico without paying any royalties. the loophole would cost taxpayers about $53 billion over 25 years. i want to pause here to explain something to you guys. all the stuff about bildrill, baby, drill. okay, then we get the oil herement. we don’t get the oil here. we don’t get royalties? the gulf of mexico. $53 million, gone. some of that is going to bp, a foreign oil company. markey introduced a bill to end tax breaks. that’s worth over $40 billion of five years. by the way, that’s separate. that’s outside of the $53 billion, okay? all going to the companies that are the most profitable in the world. take that $40 billion, plus the money saved over the next five years, put those two together, just over the five-year period, and you would put about $51 billion back into the pockets of taxpayers. $51 billion. you might say oh, but the poor oil companies, they need the money, too. really? let’s find out. you know what the profits were for exxonmobil in 2009? $19.3 billion. it looks looic they’re doing pretty fine without us. chevron, $10.5 billion, conoco phillips, $4.9 billion. that’s not revenue. that’s profit! okay? now, how about them giving back to us. are they giving us any taxes? exxon mobile in 2009 got back $156 million from the u.s. government. they paid nothing. they got $156 million back. chevron got $19 million back. but you think well, okay, 245 must have been their tax — no. to other country, exxon paid $15.2 billion in taxes and chevron paid $7.8 billion. you know that means? yeah, they pay taxes. they just don’t pay it to us. they don’t give us the royalties, they don’t give us the taxes. the whole thing is outrageous. whether you’re a conservative or a liberal, it shouldn’t matter. why would you want our money going to the most profitable companies in the world? it’s basically a bailout for big oil. it makes no sense. now luckily, there’s some people in congress fighting back on this. with me now is democratic congressman ed markey of massachusetts. great pleasure to have you on. seems like a lovely bill you put together. soo so i — you know, some people have to be incredulous about this. are you saying if we’re drilling in the gulf of mexico, the united states taxpayer — drill, baby, bill, baby, drill, we get zero dollars for that?

>> that’s right. because of a glitch in leases put out thereto in the late 1990s, bp and other huge multinational oil companies are drilling for free. they don’t pay the american people anything to drill in public waters for the oil, which is owned by the american people. so what my amendment will do is to remove that loophole because, oil companies who are making $100 a barrel don’t need tax breaks or loopholes to make sure they make the $100 billion a year, which they made last year, and the $1 trillion which they made over the last ten years.

>> we have republicans telling me every day, hey, we have to drill over here so we can have the oil. but you’re saying we’re not getting a dime for that oil. and bp is a foreign company, and then — okay, do i have this right? bp can then sell it to anyone in the world, the oil they got from our gulf of mexico and they don’t have to sell it back to the u.s. at cheap prices or anything like that. is that right.

>> there’s no requirement at all. all they have to do is drill for the oil, sell it, make a profit and they don’t have to give anything back to the american people at all. we’re making cuts to the american broadcasting system, but the republicans don’t have to put out any cuts to the oil. we have to reduce the size of the federal deficit, but we have to be smart about it. who doesn’t need a subsidy? you don’t have to subsidize oil companies to drill for oil any more than you would have to subsidize a bird to fly or a fish to swim. they’re already making so many profits that they don’t need an extra $50 billion from the american tax payer.

>> so i want the viewers to understand, the next time you hear drill, baby, drill, or anything about drilling in the u.s., we don’t get any of it. we don’t get any of it, right?

>> well, for certain leases, y e. yes that are out in the gulf of mexico. it’s about $50 billion that the tax pair will not get back. and there are another set of tax breaks that give the industry $43 billion in breaks that are 100 years old at their oldest, and at $100 a barrel, why are we providing tax breaks for the oil industry when people are being tipped upside down at the gas pump, having money shaken out of their pockets to give to the oil companies for their profits right now.

>> congressman markey, here’s the last point. this has got to be the easiest bill in the world to pass. give me names, name names. who’s holding this up?

>> i’m telling you what, we will have the vote sometime in the next 24 hour, and then i will have the list of names and you will know who believes the oil industry, while they’re reporting record profits still believe that they need american taxpayers money as they’re cutting the programs for the poorest people in our society. free lunches for the oil industry they say? okay. free lunch for grandma. uh-uh. that’s an extravagance the federal government cannot afford. we’re going to have a vote on that in the next 24 mourps.

>> — hours.

>> i’m going to be very curious which of the so-called conservatives are going to vote for bailouts for the oil

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

Will the GOP take away jobs? GOP war on jobs.

Posted on February 16, 2011 by William Brighenti

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

>>> today, republicans in the house tries the process to splash spending or dlf$60 billion to the budget. but what happened to one of the central planks of their campaign?

>> this election is about work. it’s about getting people back to work.

>> why isn’t the president focused on creating jobs that the american people are asking for?

>> we are determined to fight for the future of the american people, to create jobs.

>> the number one question in america continues to be where are the jobs?

>> where are the jobs? where are the jobs? where are the jobs? where are the jobs? americans are still asking the question, where are the jobs?

>> you just saw it right there. 2010, that is what they pounded home. that’s what they ran on, where are the jobs? well, now that john boehner is the speaker of the house, he’s singing a little different tune.

>> over the last two years since president obama has taken office, the federal government has added 200,000 new federal jobs. and if some of those jobs are lost in this, so be it.

>> if some of the jobs are lost, so be it? from the guy who ran the campaign on where are the jobs? of course he’s wrong on the numbers. and the number of jobs created, the net increase was 58,000, if since obama has come in. so boehner was only off by about 142,000. you know why he was off by that? because he picked the number out of his back pocket. they just make it up! it’s amazing. the office of management and budget found that, in fact, in 2010, there were 8.4 federal employees for every 1,000 americans. under bush, there were 9.1 federal workers per 1,000 citizens. do you know what that means? that means that president bush had more federal employees per capita. in fact, under president obama, we’re seeing the lowest level of federal employees per capita since before 1962. so less federal employees per capita, and they call him a socialist anyway. oh, he’s adding federal employees. it’s time to cut the jobs. from the guys who ran on jobs. now, according to the center for american progress, the extreme cuts the house republicans want to make will have dire consequences. it’s not just the federal job, it’s — first, you’ve got the direct loss of 650,000 government jobs if their plans go into effect. the republican plans. but there’s also the indirect loss of an additional 325,000 jobs for a grand total of 975,000 jobs lost. no one does more math than this problem. and we’re proud of it. well, now we know the speaker boehner’s response to nearly 1 million jobs lost with his party’s spending cuts. it’s this —

>> so be it. so be it. so be it. so be it. so be it.

>> it’s very, very clear. now with all the republican talk of cutting the deficit, they completely write off one simple solution. let me give it to you now — repealing the bush tax cuts. did you know that getting rid of all the bush tax cuts would have saved $5 trillion over the next ten years, according to the congressional research service? so let me put that into perspective for you. president obama, deep spending cut, heating assistance for the poor, you’ve got the, uh you know, the education cuts and it goes on and on and on. community cuts. they total $1.1 trillion over ten years. that’s a lot of cuts, right? when you go to the deficit commission, the big cuts to social security, medicare, et cetera, et cetera, that was $4 trillion over basically ten years. 2020, it would be $4 trillion. we don’t need any of those draconian cuts. all we got to do is go back to the clinton tax rate. do you know how many jobs were created under clinton during his administration? 22 million. it totally worked. save the $4 trillion without cutting social security and medicare at all and with that extra $1 trillion, do whatever you like. heating assistance, the republicans do you want to do another war? that’s probably what you would want to spend it on. i wouldn’t recommend it. but it’s such an easy solution. why don’t we do that instead? well, let’s ask congressman anthony weiner. he’s joining us now. congressman, am i missing something? isn’t that a million times more obvious solution? and a much easier solution?

>> well, the short answer is no, you’re not missing anything. the problem that we have here is we have a combination of things going on at once. we extended the bush tax cuts for millionaires and billionaire billionaires. that dug us a deep hole. now in order to dig out of that hole and others, they’re doing basically the republican budget cutters are saying let’s make air traffic controllers take a 20% cut. let’s reduce the amount of cops on the beat and these types of efforts. but you know what is important to keep in mind here, the single greatest thing to do to reduce our deficit, our long-term debt is to get people back to work. when fewer people are working, fewer people are paying income taxes. more people are getting services for the government 37 we have to be careful we don’t go in the direction that ireland and england went into where they slashed budgets during their session and axccelerated the downward spiral. which side are you on? if you think it’s smart to cut air traffic controllers, when you probably want to vote republican in the next congress.

>> look, the tax rates, if it went back to the clinton levels, the rich would get about 3% or 4% of money over $250,000. or we could cut the other. pras like food safety. who wants to cut food safety? it’s crazy. let me focus on the jobs, though. the center for american progress numbers just now, about a million jobs lost if the spending cuts go into effect. i know they’re a progressive think tank. do you think those numbers are accurate? if they are, you guys should be screaming that from the roof tops, shouldn’t you?

>> yeah, i think they are accurate. and let me explain to your viewers why it is. when you cut the services, there’s a knock-on effect. sure when you cut cops you’re going to lose police officers in just about every district of the country, but when you cut back on investment programs, when you cut back even on the one i gave you, air traffic controller, which means fewer flights can fly, which means the airline industry has to take a hit. this is the impact that winds up happening when you swing at the budget with an ax rather than going at wit a scalpel. so not only that, let’s remember something that i think john boehner leaves out. there have been more private sector jobs created in two years of president obama than in eight years of president bush. he’s already created more private sector jobs than the last president did in two full terms.

>> here’s what i’m worried about, though. whether it’s president obama or now the fight in the house, it seems like people are accepting the republican framing. hey, we already gave the tax cuts for the rich and we cannot discuss that. that’s off the table. so now let’s concentrate on hitting the poor and the middle class. so go, give me your spending cuts. isn’t it wrong to accept that framing all together? no, i don’t accept the only answer is spending cuts to things like food safety and safety of our planes as they’re landing.

>> i agree 100%. democratswhofight.com is having this conversation. and homingly, the rank and file are saying we have to look at this frame much broader. we have to see if things are basically fair. is it basically fair for billionaires, literally billionaires to get tax cuts, and then say to senior citizens that we’re going to provide only half of you help with energy. or we’re going to say to middle class families trying to get pell grants to put their kids through college that we’re going to slash those back to afford these billionaire tax cuts. i agree with you, we have to broaden our scope to talk about general philosophies in our country. democrats generally believe in the idea that we have to help the middle class and those struggling to make it. republicans agree with lower tax rates for millionaires and billionaires. which side are people on is the fundamental question.

>> you know where i like to leave interviews? where i have 100% agreement.

>> i only come on your show because i agree with you 100% of the time.

>> thank you for your time tonight.

>> thank you, sir.

>> all right, now for more, let me bring in dana millback. first of all, let me ask you this, how many jobs fw s bills have the republicans proposed since they came into power?

>> let me cut on my fingers. none.

>> really? none? how many amendments on abortion.

>> there have been a couple. one prominently called hr-3. part of the problem is the whole notion of creating jobs from the republican point of view is just get the government out of it and the private sector will create the jobs on their own. they say by cutting government, we are creating jobs. that may be true in the very long term as the budget comes into balance over many years. but in the short term that’s one huge whopper of an economic shock that could — as you’re discussing, nearly a million jobs could be lost and that could be the kind of shock that sends the economy right back into recession.

>> you made an interesting point in your article today, though. when you talk about the politics of this, that may not be such a bad thing for the republicans. why is it? explain that?

>> i don’t want to say that republicans are wishing for the economy to go back in the tank. let’s take them at their — remarks at their face value and they they want to grow the economy and grow jobs b, but it is a political fact that it is in their interest if the economy is not growing very quickly, and if the unemployment rate does not budge by 2012. that’s how a republican president will get elected and a rj laer majority in the house and conceivably taking over the senate. so certainly, if it does have the unintended effect, shall we say, of throwing the economy back into recession, there is a political dividend, even if that’s not what the motive was in the first place.

>> and that’s exactly what the motive is. okay. so now on the other hand, the politics that they played with that clip from john boehner, not so smart. for him to say so be it, that’s got to be terrible politics, doesn’t it?

>> i was at that session yesterday morning. as soon as i heard that, i said i think there’s going to be a problem with that. and sure enough, the afternoon, it exploded. there were a couple of problems. one is the 200,000 figure, as you pointed out is wrong. and otherwise, it just sounds so callous. and even if we can understand what he’s trying to say, and that is, yes, some jobs may be lost in the path to a long term larger number of jobs created, you don’t say it by saying so be it. as i pointed out in the article, john boehner is not taking a so be it attitude towards workers in his own district. he was fighting for this thing that looked very much like an earmark to make sure this engine at the pentagon said it does not want for the new joint strike fighter, makes sure that continues to be built. he actually lost that battle today.

>> dana, one more quick question. i want to talk about the-35 at the end of the show. i thought that was really interesting. but is there a price to be paid here? are the republican voters waking up today and going when are they ever going to do anything about jobs? or have they not gotten that message yet?

>> you know, i think it’s going to be measured by results, and, you know, they’ll get some credit, of course, obama and the democrats will get more credit for it, because they’re mostly in charge, if jobs grow in advance of the 2012 elections. so look, and the reverse is true. if people feel that the republicans are doing great damage with these cuts. but, you know, it will take disht’s not something in the abstract that people can grasp right now. they’re going to have to wait and see their kid’s headstart program canceled or they’re not going to be able to take that flight they were going to take. that’s how it will begin to be felt over time.

>> thanks for your time tonight.

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

The Truth about Taxes and about Obama: Obama is Not a True Progressive

Posted on February 15, 2011 by William Brighenti

Accountants CPA Hartford CT LLCBarefoot Accountant, William Brighenti, and Accountants CPA Hartford CT LLC

UYGUR: Now, look, I often talk about how the tax deal that President Obama and the Republicans just agreed to, basically redistributes wealth to the richest Americans. And now the new proposed budget cuts takes more money out of programs that help the poor and the middle class.

But there‘s a part of the earlier tax deal that doesn‘t get mentioned enough. Other than giant tax cuts for the rich, there were also some tax increases in the deal. Did you know that?

Do you know what it turns out they affect the most? I hope you‘re sitting down. It turns out the poor and middle class get hurt the most. I couldn‘t have seen that coming. The deal killed what is called the making work pay credit, OK? That used to help lower taxes for lower income Americans.

As a result, a lot of poor people are now actually seeing their taxes go up rather than down after this deal. Here‘s a graph to prove it. Look at this. Two-thirds of the people making less than $18,000 a year will pay more in taxes. So the poor paid, as a percentage, they‘re getting hit the hardest, right?
.
Forth percent of the people making less than $35,000 will pay more. Twenty percent of the people making less than $64,000 will pay more. You see a pattern here? Twelve percent of the people making less than $104,000 will pay more, but it gets worse. Of the people making more than $564,000 a year, less than two percent of them will see their taxes go up, thanks to this so-called bipartisan tax deal.

Now it is bipartisan, but none of the rest of us agreed to it. So 98 percent of the super-rich get huge tax cuts and two-thirds of the poor get tax increases. Have you ever seen anything less progressive in your life? It‘s a good thing we elected a Democratic president.

Now, I want to bring it the Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist behind the graph we just showed you. He is investigative journalist David Cay Johnston. He won a Pulitzer Prize for his tax reporting and his latest book is “Free Lunch; How The Wealthiest Americans Enrich Themselves at Government Expense and Stick You With the Bill.”

David, first let‘s talk about that graph that we just showed people. So it seems to hit the poor the most. But did everybody else miss this story? Could that really be right? That we just said, hey, you know what, we‘ll take from the poor and give it to the rich?

DAVID CAY JOHNSTON: There was very, very little coverage of this. The reason I put a column on tax.com about this is that journalists missed this as a story. And particularly remember the Republicans‘ pledge, we won‘t raise taxes on anybody. Well, they raised taxes on every third taxpayer in America, 51 million people. And President Obama said, I‘m not going to raise taxes on anybody who makes less than a quarter million dollars a year. Well, he did.

Now, one of the arguments being made by critics of my column today at tax.com is, well, these were temporary tax cuts. You can‘t say they got a tax increase. They were temporary. Guess what? The Bush tax cuts, both the estate tax and the income tax, and the investor‘s tax cuts, those were temporary and they were also extended. This was not. And it‘s part of a fundamental Republican plan that‘s been at work for a long time, Cenk, which is, push the burden down the income tax ladder where people don‘t vote, they‘re not particularly politically active, and relieve burdens who are in the political donor class, the very rich in America.

UYGUR: So, David, now I know as a percentage the number of people that got affected the most were the poor, right? And then the middle class and then, obviously, the rich almost didn‘t get affected at all by the tax increase. Now, the tax cuts, on the other hand, helped the rich the most, right? So we‘ve got that.

But as a percentage of their income, how did it affect poor Americans?

Did it hurt them more in that regard as well?

JOHNSTON: Well, some poor working Americans—remember, we‘re talking about working people—will see their tax bill rise by four percent of their income. Four percent. That is a significant number.

And remember, among the bottom third of workers in America, those are people who make $15,000 or less. Think about that. Fifty million people in America who work make less than $15,000 a year. That group is particularly hard-hit. And their average income is only $6,000 because many of those people want to work full time, can‘t find full-time work. They get cheated on their wages because we‘ve radically cut enforcement of the wage laws in this country. We have fewer wage and labor inspectors than we did in 1941.

UYGUR: All right. So, you know, that‘s the tax angle. But I‘ve just got to ask you, I mean, I thought a Democratic president would believe in progressive ideals. I mean, I‘m not seeing it wrong, right? This is the exact opposite of being progressive, right?

JOHNSTON: Yes, it is. Not only is it the exact opposite, it‘s also not investing in the future. President Obama is not a particularly liberal president, despite all this talk about him being a socialist. Anyone who‘s read his life story, read whom he promoted to the high positions at the “Harvard Law Review” when he became editor of the “Harvard Law Review” will see this pattern of his very closely identifying with Wall Street, wealthy people, and their interests.

And look who‘s surrounded him in the White House? They‘re people from Wall Street.

So it‘s been a consistent pattern of the president‘s. And the president has bought into a budget now in which he‘s suggesting we‘re going to reduce support for college students and graduate students, the people who are going to have the high incomes and the intellect to develop the future economy. My goodness, would you expect that of Obama?

UYGUR: Well, whether we expect it or not, that‘s what we got. So David Cay Johnston, thank you for your time tonight. We appreciate it.

We‘ll be right back.

JOHNSTON: Thank you.

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

Obama’s budget brings change

Posted on February 15, 2011 by William Brighenti

Accountants CPA Hartford, Connecticut, LLCAccountants CPA Hartford, Connecticut, LLC, The Barefoot Accountant, and William Brighenti, CPA

>>> me show you what he said, and then i’ll explain.

>> you talked about social security medicare and medicaid. the truth is social security is not the huge contributor that the other two entitlements are. i’m confident we can get social security done in the same way that ronald reagan, tip o’neil were able to get it done, by parties coming together, making some modest adjustments, i think we can avoid slashing benefits, and i think we can make it stable and stronger for not only this generation, but for the next generation.

>> stronger for the next generation. remember, tip o’neil and ronald reagan wound up making some cuts to social security. he says we’ve got the issue with it big affecting the deficit a bit. in fact social security doesn’t affect it at all. what game are they playing? i remember the reaction yesterday. it was curious. they all had a similar theme. eric cantor called it a missed opportunity to lead. paul ryan said the president failed a critical test of leadership. jim jordan said he failed a crucial test of leadership. and republican senator john cornyn called it a missed opportunity to lead. so what you it? why are they all talking about leadership and leading? he introduced the budget, so what’s with the code words? what are they trying to get at? that’s what we’re trying to figure out, then i see alabama senator jeff sessions on cnn’s ” american morning” yesterday and it began to make sense.

>> we need to do this? a bipartisan way. none of this will ever pass if the president is not supporting it. he should be helping us. he’s the leader.

>> do you understand what’s happening? they’re playing a little game here. they have a little dance going. they’re saying, hey, president obama, you left out social security medicare and medicaid in your budget. it would be great for us republicans if you would lead on that issue. in other words, we want to cut social security, but we don’t want to take the political hit for it, so why don’t you lead on that? okay. now that game translates to president obama coming out today in the clip you saw first going, well, i’d like to achieve bipartisan consensus on it, but why don’t you lead instead? the game continued today. so here’s republican budget chairman paul ryan during a committee hearing. watch him.

>> this year’s budget in particular presented the president with a unique opportunity to lead our country. the president has disappointed us all by declining that opportunity. he punted. the president has abdicated his leadership role. first he punted to a bipartisan fiscal commission to develop solutions, then when his own commission put forward a set of reforms, a commission comprised of a majority of democrats, he ignored them.

>> talking about punting, we would really like for the president to lead on this. now, he already cut the spending. it ain’t about the spending. it’s about what they call entitlements. remember, they are entitlements, because you paid into them your whole life, you are entitled to them. what do they have to do? they want to talk about that commission that paul ryan just referred to. that commission said we need to raise the retirement age to 69, and we need to reduce benefits. this they raise it to 70, you know between 65 and 70, the difference is $63,000 for every person who would retire? that’s the amount of money they would take out of your pocket. i’m never going to let go of that sack. that’s a huge amount of money think would take from you. he goes to obama, don’t punt, you better lead. now obama will take a shot at him. let’s watch that.

>> the fiscal commission put out a framework. i agree with much of the framework, i disagree with some of the framework. it is true that it got 11 votes. that was a positive sign. what’s also true, for example, is that the chairman of the house republican budget tiers didn’t sign on.

>> that’s paul ryan. he’s taking a little dig there. if you’d like to cut the entitlements, why don’t you do it, big guy? have at it. who takes up that challenge? house speaker john boehner says, all right, let’s do it.

>> when it comes to the real issues facing our country, he just punted. republicans will not punt. we will — everything’s on the table. we will put forward a budget that deals with the big challenges that face our country.

>> so after boehner says, hey, listen, we will not punt, we will actually take this on, obama says, all right, now it looks like we’re having a deal. let’s watch obama.

>> look, i was glad to see yesterday republican leaders say how come he didn’t talk about entitlements?

>> i think that’s progress. what we had been hearing made it sound as if we just slashed deeper on education or, you know, other provisions in the domestic spending that somehow that alone was going to solve the problems.

>> it’s not alone going to solve the problems. you’ve got to go after social security, medicare and medicaid. now that the republicans have said it or begin to say it, now president obama says now we can dance. i didn’t want to lead on it, we’re trying to figure out who will get the political blame, but today they seem to agree that at some point they’re going to cut your social security. they politicians drive me crazy. it is the single least popular thing in america, but it looks like they’re going to agree to do it. now, joining me is adam green, cofounder of the progressive change committee. adam, i know a lot of democrats will say, what do you mean? he said he would not slash the social security. what’s the matter with you guys?

>> some people will say that, but it’s very important to point out whether you call it a slash, whether you call it a cut, a trim, any cut to social security is the same thing, and that is a betrayal of workers who paid into and earned these benefits. we need to say with one solid voice, no way, this is not on the table.

>> well, they say, adam, look, it’s connected to the deficit, we have huge deficit problems, what do you say to that?

>> the best way to solve the deficit is create jobs now that means massive investments in our infrastructure. that will pay for itself in the long term, but more importantly we need to define this better. it is simply just not true that all attempts to deal with the deficit are created equal. we’ve heard a lot from president obama recently in the context of egypt about how self-determination in a democracy is important, the will of the people must govern. guess what? overwhelmingly, rep, and democratic people say no cuts to social security, no cuts to medicare, no cuts to medicaid, but do you know what that bipar san consensus does support? cutting bush tax cuts for the wealthy, cutting wasteful military, taxing wall street more? we have bipartisan consensus in the country, we just have to stop retaining the idea that these ideas are bad. we need president obama to finally face up.

>> so, look, it drives me crazy, because the consensus in washington is exactly the opposite of is the consensus in the rest of the country. there’s a reason for it. they’re ball by the people who pay their bills, the lobbyists. the lobbyists like tax cuts for the rich. they’ve got to get the money somewhere, right, adam? they’re going to get it from social security. when they say social security is in trouble, look, we know when the — say it, it ain’t true. it has a $2.5 trillion surplus. why does president obama agree with them? why does he accept their framing? why does he come out and say it’s related to the deficit, et cetera, and that we need to come to a consensus on basically how not to slash it, but to cut it?

>> we probably could have an entire two-hour program about president obama’s issues with his — but i think it could be summed up like this. he is intent to using republican framing on almost every issue. today he said social security is not, quote, a huge contributor. that’s just not true. it is not in any way, shape or form a contributor. not one penny is contributing to the deficit because of social security. as you said, it has a surplus, but he said, quote, medicare and medicaid are huge problems and talked about the deficit. no, i’m sorry, democratic presidents should not be talking about medicare and medicaid in those terms. people like my grandmother are dependent on medicare to survive. if democratic presidents only talk about social programs, well, they’re certainlially asking to lose. they need to have a winning mentality to go on the offense, and finally pick a fight with the republicans and beat them. we need them to not cut social security. i mean, we — the one thing we beat bush on was not cutting social security. harry reid beat them back, et cetera, et cetera, even harry reid beat them back. we’ll see, maybe we’re wrong, maybe obama will come out strong and fighting. i hope he does.

>> i don’t think we’re wrong, but i agree, it would be great if he came out fighting. we would be there fighting with him if he did fight the republicans on this issue, no doubt about it.

>> thank you, adam.

>>> how often do you hear a host say, god, i hope i’m wrong? that would

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