Friday News Roundup - Hour 1
http://thedianerehmshow.org/shows/2011-04-15/friday-news-roundup-hour-1
The GOP reacts to President Obama’s plan for cutting the deficit. Congress votes on the budget deal that averted a government shutdown. And federal regulators order an overhaul of foreclosure procedures. A panel of journalists joins guest host Katty Kay for analysis of the week's top national news stories.
Guests
Chris Cillizza
author of The Fix, a Washington Post politics blog, and managing editor of PostPolitics.com.
Julie Hirschfeld Davis
congressional correspondent, Bloomberg News.
Greg Ip
U.S. economics editor, The Economist, and author of "The Little Book of Economics: How the Economy Works in the Real World."
Friday News Roundup Video
According to The Economist's Greg Ip, gas prices have risen about $1 per gallon over the past 3 to 4 months, which he says could wipe a full percentage point off of household incomes. The Friday News Roundup panelists discuss the outlook for the nation's rising gas prices and how they could hinder the U.S. economic recovery:
Comments
Please familiarize yourself with our Code of Conduct and Terms of Use before posting your comments.
Does anyone know whether the Ryan proposal for Medicare coverage for future seniors will include a mandate that all such seniors must purchase insurance, or will healthy seniors be permitted to wait until they see health problem before they need to make such a purchase?
Democrats say we can't cut the Federal Budget and increase job creation. Solving unemployment by making the public sector the employer of last resort sounds like the worst way to address the problem.
We should be incentivizing the private sector to create long term jobs, not adding more bureaucrats.
RE: Cutting funding for NPR -- NPR, unlike any other radio news source, will always give guests of every political persuasion a platform to present and defend their positions in a serious and respectful manner. Could that be the definition of liberal?
RE: Paul Ryan budget proposal and health care: Converting Medicare and Medicaid into "premium supported" private plans is nothing more than corporate welfare. As in the case of the Medicare Advantage programs, which cost 12% more than standard Medicare, our tax dollars will be subsidizing lobbying, advertising, and huge executive salaries and profits in the insurance companies, all disguised as "administration."
And which bureaucrat would you like making decisions on your health coverage, a public employee trying to keep his (probably underpaid) job or an insurance company drone pressured by higher-ups to increase profits?
Can someone comment on the relationship between basic tax rules, and the so-called chilling effect of higher tax rates on higher income earners adding jobs to the economy? Don't salaries and wages reduce taxable income of both corporations and small businesses so that adding jobs and paying wages will actually reduce taxable income and reduce the income subject to higher taxes? Wouldn't that in some way encourage job creation (in order to reduce the tax bill)?
Also, I am curious of the relative contributions to democrats and republicans, and Congressman Ryan in particular, from the insurance industry and insurance lobbies. With all the issues we already have with medical insurance limiting which providers they will work with, and the possibility of the health care reform being repealed so that insurance companies will again be able to exclude pre-existing conditions, drop very or chronically ill individuals and place lifetime limits on benefits is it really in the seniors' interest to move away from Medicare and into private insurance coverage?
@rcoffman36, I don't know if Ryan's proposal gets to this level of detail, but I doubt there would be a mandate for seniors to get insurance. First, Republicans, esp. Libertarians, generally object to the government telling people what to do with their money. Second, you don't automatically get Medicare when you turn 65. You have to apply for it and meet certain qualification requirements.
So yes, a senior who is healthy might choose to forgo health insurance to pay for other necessities and rely on emergency car.
Kudos to Diane for cutting off the use of the mantra "class warfare" in yesterday's first hour. Unfortunately, the speaker then went on to call the wealthy "the most productive," as if productivity is only measured by the amount of money one earns. The server who works two jobs and is good at it is productive; people can get back to their jobs on time, well fed and in a good mood and that increases productivity.
Farmers and ranchers are productive and so is the person who helps put up a building. People who use their brilliance to make money in a way that causes the value of homes to drop and takes down the economy of a nation of 300 million are not productive, except for producing more wealth for themselves.
Tricia said, "NPR, unlike any other radio news source, will always give guests of every political persuasion a platform to present and defend their positions in a serious and respectful manner. "
Not a radio source, but you're forgetting about Fox News. Liberals don't believe it because they don't watch, but pound for pound Fox always gives a VERY fair and balanced presentation. Watch O'Reilley or Hannity sometime. EVERY topic is presented from both sides - and both sides get grilled. Hannity's panel every night has a leftie, a rightie, and somebody in the middle. No other cable channel can boast the fair presentation that FNC offers.
In the picture on this page today ... does it look like Biden's eyes are closed?
Paul Ryan repeatedly states his Medicare health plan is the same (or similar) plan used by congress. In that case it should be offered to future seniors (when they reach age 65) AT THE SAME COST for the premiums and with the same coverage as our federal legislators pay. In other words, bring all of the senior citizens under the same umbrella as our senators and representatives. So, ANY senior citizen will get the same benefits at the same cost!!! NPR’s Julie Rovner has several times reported that a very high majority of our US legislators select the same plan. All the plans offered to congress should be offered to the seniors (again at the same premium cost and the same coverage). But they, too, would most likely select the same plan as most of the others.
All reporters who interview Rep. Ryan should ask him about this proposal. He CANNOT complain this would be TOO costly because it is what he has been advocating for the past week - only he has kept it separate from congress’s plan (and, he shouldn’t). He has said ‘what is good for Congress, should be good for our senior citizens’. THEN he should put the money where his mouth is!!
With those figures available to them, the CBO could then score to see which would be more costly – the current Medicare plan or Ryan’s plan for seniors tied in with the same plan for our US legislators.
The budget bill removes wolves from the Endangered Species List . Shouldn't this be a scientific - not a political - decision?!
The provision also bans citizens from challenging the wolf delisting decision while preserving anti-wolf litigation brought by the state of Wyoming and others. Isn't this a "balance of power" issue?!
Congress has NEVER removed an animal from the Endangered Species List. This sets a dangerous precedent for the future - and has nothing to do with the budget!
The media hasn't even noticed this important - and dangerous - issue.
The Budget deficit debate is very entertaining, but the real danger is the growing perception abroad that the US will not be able to meet its obligations and does not have the political will or economic capacity to keep up with its commitments.
Are we the Spain of 2013?
Is anybody going to mention that Obama's contention that "we would not be a great country without those [social] commitments" is fundamentally FALSE?! That the social programs of SS, Medicare, and Medicaid have done nothing but hold us back as a country, not "made us great". What has made us great is the rugged individualists that have forged their own way in the world, NOT depending on government, NOT depending on a handout. That is what we need to get back to, to compete with the China's and India's.
There is a psyche that has developed in this country that the Government is somehow supposed to take care of everyone and it is strangling our initiative and drive. I'm sure that's what the progressives want, but it is not what "made us great".
@ecgberht, No.
Although I did see footage indicating he was possibly asleep at some point, but I thought that was in another context. I think we should cut him some slack though; he's been front man in the negotiations until Obama rolled up his sleeves.
Chris Cillizza's condescending talk of "scape-goats" is factually wrong.
The current reporting shows clear criminal behavior on the part of specific individuals at the highest levels of Goldman Sachs and other banks, and the Senate report concludes that the Justice Department should prosecute those individuals both for their criminal fraud in 2007 and 2008, and for lying to Congress in 2008 and 2009.
I still want to see bankers in prison. But a major component of government overspending is prison. If we ensured that nobody got out of jail (much less prison) without a GED, a job and a sponsor, we could rehabilitate instead of incarcerate. Our budgetary goal should be to incarcerate no more citizens by percentage than Great Britain. Where do we get all the teachers and sponsors--by cutting Defense--all non-coms have been taught to teach. I propose we cut Defense by half and see if anybody attacks us--if not, cut another half, until our defenses match those of France per capita.--From Jim in Annandale, VA
@exgbehrt,
No man is an island
No man is an island entire of itself; every man
is a piece of the continent, a part of the main;
if a clod be washed away by the sea, Europe
is the less, as well as if a promontory were, as
well as a manor of thy friends or of thine
own were; any man's death diminishes me,
because I am involved in mankind.
And therefore never send to know for whom
the bell tolls; it tolls for thee.
John Donne
The notion that this country was built by rugged individuals who "have forged their own way in the world" and did not take any handouts nor rely on the government is a myth. For one thing, you do rely on the government in countless ways even if you don't recognize it. Second, a lot of those rugged individuals used the labor of slaves and poorly paid immigrants to build this country.
They were able to do so because the government facilitated it. Perhaps you are not aware of the deplorable condition of many seniors prior to social security and medicare.
It was mentioned that a 2% across the board spending cut was a meat axe approach. Come On!!!
Only a fool at this point would think that a tax increase before a REAL spending cut is a good idea. Giving spending addicts more money is insane.
pallas_athena,
'Perhaps you are not aware'
And perhaps you are not aware that slavery was, essentially, against the law after the civil war ended. That was 150 years ago.
'you do rely on the government in countless ways even if you don't recognize it.'
The government has its place. but the FEDERAL government's place should be limited to its duties under Article 1, Section 8, which are few. States can do what they want, within the bounds of the law and their individual constitutuions. Not the Federal Government.
I wouldn't even have a problem with a "safety net". But we don't have a "safety net". We have a Federally sponsored retirement system that makes its citizens beholden and dependant on the Federal Government. In the late 18th century, if they thought this was such a good idea the Founders would have put it in place. They didn't. Benjamin Franklin said, "We have a republic ... if we can keep it". We haven't been able to. Inch by inch, we have slipped into oligarchy, and I'm sorry, but it starts with Wilson and FDR.
Yes, I'm aware that slavery, at least in the confederate states was abolished almost 150 years ago, but (1) "rugged individualists" turned to immigrant labor as a source of cheap labor, (2) even though slavery was abolished, ex-slaves could still be hired pretty cheaply and were denied many of the rights of citizens in many jurisdictions, not just the south, until the civil rights laws were enacted and began to be enforced 100 years after the XIIth & XIVth amendments. Who was enabling this? The states. Who stepped in to stop it? The federal government.
Then there was the industrial revolution, where many "rugged individualists" used men, women and children to produce their goods and services for little pay, long hours, and no protection from work hazards. Why? Because they could. They had money and power that they used to pay off local politicians. Who was enabling this? The states. Who stepped in to stop it? The federal government.
Besides Article I, sec. 8, the preamble says that the federal government has been created "in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity." While our courts have decided that the preamble does not establish any rights or powers, other nations have not so held.
Also, if you read Article I, sec 8 narrowly, then the federal government's increased powers started long before Wilson & FDR and continued long after. TR promoted the federal government's "trust busting" role, which was intended to prevent a lapse into plutocracy (a type of oligarchy) and he created the National Park system, and of course, there's Lincoln. Eisenhower used the military to enforce federally ordered desegregation of schools. Then there was the landslide re-election of Richard M. Nixon who had a year earlier instituted wage and price controls. These are just some of the activities that are perceived by many to lie outside the enumerated powers.
'"rugged individualists" used men, women and children to produce their goods and services for little pay, long hours, and no protection from work hazards....Who stepped in to stop it? The federal government'.
No, actually it is labor unions that put a stop to it. What labor unions accomplished was then codified in safety regulations, child labor laws, etc. Once EEOC comes along, the labor unions should have disappeared. Instead, their purpose essentially changes from one of protecting laborers to controlling businesses and sucking them like a tick sucks blood. But I digress.
What you miss is, those men, women, and children who worked for little pay and long hours ARE the rugged individualists that I am speaking of. They didn't ask for government handouts. They didn't ask for unemployment. They didn't sue their companies. Instead they worked hard, provided for their families, and many of them were successes because of it.
'While our courts have decided that the preamble does not establish any rights or powers, other nations have not so held.'
Why would anyone here care what other nations do wrt the rights and powers of government. The only one that matters to us is OUR Constitution, which it appears, you are not satisfied with.
'Also, if you read Article I, sec 8 narrowly, then the federal government's increased powers started long before Wilson & FDR and continued long after.'
It really started with Lincoln, but it "jumped the shark" with Wilson and FDR. That's what I was trying to communicate. And as for the rest of your examples, thanks for making my point.
'if you read Article I, sec 8 narrowly'
You don't have to read it broadly or narrowly. You just have to read what it says. To paraphrase, the government gets (national) infrastructure (e.g. highways, rail lines, etc), specie, immigration, commerce disputes between states, post office, patents and a few others. Everything else belongs to the states unless the Constitutuion is ammended by them.
It's not rocket science. It's just that big government progressives don't like what it says, so they fall back on things like "the preamble" and "the commerce clause" to twist the intent of the founders of a SMALL central government with the bulk of the power in the hands of the states and the people; a little bit of power in the hands of a whole lot of people, instead of what we have today which is almost all the power in the hands of 545 people; congress, the president, and the judiciary.
Federal workers are "slugs and not trying to do their job."
And he ought to know!
Sometimes this guy gets it right. Kudos.
I find it amazing that one of the commentators, Chris Cillizza
states the politicians are behind the curve when it comes to public opinion on higher taxes on the rich. Every current polls shows a clear majority favors raising taxes on those with the highest incomes. He then goes on to state that he "wonders whether the country has moved beyond raising taxes on the rich" Isn't it his job to know these things, is he allergic to polls? His nonchalant attitude towards this question really struck a nerve with me and I believe is a symptom of what is wrong with the MSM today and real tragedy for our country
I believe that Chris Cillizza is the perfect example of a corporate mouthpiece pretending to be a reporter. Maybe these guys earn to much and can no longer relate to the average Joe.
at 950cst or so I heard the interviewed male bulldog the female npr rep into agreeing with the repub idea of taxing the rich will raise costs for the poor. this is typical repub crud as if these companies raiseprices instead of reducing profit margins and ceo bonuses. people will simply buy another product. the koch brothers are already seeing a decline in their paper products so they are cutting prices. and yet the female interviewer was clueless. this is lousy reporting by npr and that female should be reviewed for her ability to carry on an impartial segment
the average joe wants everyone else to pay higher taxes, what a surprise
Monte and others,
“All taxes bad” is such infantile thinking, it blows my mind.
Cutting taxes for wealthy does not create jobs, If it did, after 8 years of Bush we’d be in job heaven.
We’ve tried tax cuts for fabulously wealthy. We’ve tried deregulating. These are recipees for disaster. It’s not rocket science. Give more $ to the fabulously wealthy promotes growth- for fabulously wealthy. “Trickle down” doesn’t work- must we enter 2nd Great Depression before this is understood?
The rich don’t drive the economy- consumer spending drives economy. It’s really not tough.
"Nearly all new jobs in US are created by firms less than 5 years old” -4/4/11 Time Mag.
2+2= 4. The world is round. Tax cuts for wealthy does not create jobs. These are facts.
Tricia:
I got news for you, it is already been happening. Who do you think are going to be some of the biggest beneficaries under Obamacare. The insurance companies for one because you have to have insurance or be fined or go to jail.
Second will be Big Pharma because in order for reduced costs larger quantites and centralize buying will accomplish this.
As for your comment "public employee being underpaid" is a misnomer. Public Federal employees have gotten some of the biggest wage increases under this administration. Even a Federal Janitor is making more money than someone in the same position in private sector.