Friday News Roundup - Hour 1
http://thedianerehmshow.org/shows/2011-06-10/friday-news-roundup-hour-1
Budget talks led by Vice President Biden continued on Capitol Hill. Both sides are focused on avoiding what the Obama administration warned would be a first-ever default on U. S. debt. Newt Gingrich said he’s still in the 2012 presidential race after an exodus of his top campaign aides. Mitt Romney’s staff said the former Massachusetts’s governor will skip the Ames, Iowa straw poll. Leon Panetta’s appointment as the new Secretary of Defense appeared on track after his confirmation hearing. And a massive Arizona wildfire continues to blaze. A panel of journalists joins Diane for analysis of the week's top national news stories.
Guests
David Corn
Washington bureau chief, "Mother Jones" magazine; author of several books, most recently, "Hubris: The Inside Story of Spin, Scandal, and the Selling of the Iraq War."
Karen Tumulty
national political reporter, The Washington Post.
Mark Tapscott
editorial page editor, The Washington Examiner.
Friday News Roundup Extra
The panelists talk about whether or not Rep. Anthony Weiner (D-NY, 9th District) can survive the scandal surrounding lewd pictures of himself that he sent to women via Twitter. "Any time sex enters the public discourse, hypocrisy is about a nano-second behind," said Mother Jones Washington bureau chief David Corn, referring to Congressional Republicans involved in recent similar scandals who are still in office. But The Washington Post's Karen Tumulty said the fact that former Rep. Chris Lee, a Republican from New York, resigned immediately after shirtless photos of him surfaced on the web back in February makes it more difficult for Rep. Weiner to keep his seat:
Comments
Please familiarize yourself with our Code of Conduct and Terms of Use before posting your comments.
Mark Tapscott: "It's not about ideological purity, it's about integrity".
This from the most ideologically pure guest to appear on the Friday News Roundup (possibly) ever!
Tell that to moderate Republicans who lost primaries last year because their opponents called them RINO's. Tell that to the GOP members who quake every time Rush Limbaugh opens his mouth in their direction. Tell that to Newt, who got "ripped a new one" when he dared depart from Republi-Con orthodoxy by suggesting the Ryan "Kill Medicare" Plan might not be the wisest idea ever raised.
The GOP is today the Republi-Con party (Republican-Conservative). There is no room for moderates in it (and certainly no such thing as a "liberal" Republican). Ideological purity is precisely what "movement conservatives" who dominate it are all about, along with their TeaBagger allies. That's why their only answer to anything is cut, cut, cut. (More about that later.)
This being said, I agree with Mr. Tapscott about Romney. I wouldn't trust him either. People should remember that his "conversions" (whether about economic or social issues) weren't made on the "road to Damascus", but on the road to the White House!
Your lie was in your description of the events. And it was a diatribe because you didn't ask a question. Moreover, Mark gave you more credit than you deserved in his response.
Federal Government revenue rose by $800 billion from 2003 to 2007.
http://www.usgovernmentrevenue.com/#usgs302a
What Congress neglected to do was cut other spending sufficiently.
Americans ignored the fiscal responsibility and inexperience of candidate Obama; but given how much worse things have become during the last 5 years of Democrat/Obama reign of terror, next November should be a revolution.
Thinking of increasing revenue of the Federal Gov: does anyone remember getting a bill for--say--the Iraq War?
No? Who did pay for it; the Chinese?
This means the country is working with a massive disconnect. The average American, let alone the political or media class, has never gotten serious about our financial realities.
Cutting taxes and dumping the social network would be idiotic if it weren't so completely self-serving.
Thanks to David Corn for a little sanity.
Now about budget cuts and tax cuts as the answer to everything.
Mr. Tapscott is correct about at least one thing: the ideological purists that control the Republi-Cons don't trust the government (except, of course, when it comes to interfering with our private lives and decisions). That's one reason why increasing revenues (tax increases, eliminating tax subsidies) is "off the table". He's right, the purists insist that any new money will simply be spent, so all they want is budget cuts.
Funny thing: history refutes them. In the 90's both Bush the First and Clinton raised taxes. According to Republi-Con ideology (a.k.a "voodoo economics") that should have tanked the economy and resulted in even greater deficits. What acually happened? An economic boom, and the first surplus since 1969! Hmm, seems like something is wrong with the ideology.
Let's be just. Both Democrats and Republicans deserve part of the credit for that (though the deficit began to decline in 1993, the first year Clinton was in office, with a Democratic majoity). The point I'm making isn't partisan, it's philosophical. Reganomics ("voodoo economics") never worked, and doesn't work. It put our deficit "on steroids" in the 80's. It wiped out our surplus under Bush the Second. And it will lead to a second Great Depression as long as the only "policy" Republi-Cons will allow is "no new taxes, cut, cut cut"!
Oh, and my source for the budget data is The World Almanac, 2010, page 63.
I am no scientist, and find the whole global warming controversy too complicated to comment on. (And I have no problem with healthy skepticism on both sides of the issue. Though I do have a problem with the cynicism that seems to motivate too many deniers.) That being said, I have a question:
When we had those terrible snowstorms deniers were screaming that this disproved global warming. So, what do they have to say now that we're having terrible floods, tornadoes, and heat waves?
Regarding Weiner's, uh, appendage.
PART ONE
It's wonderful seeing Republi-Cons expressing outrage over his disgusting (and infantile) conduct. Ah, such moral certitude and concern for what’s best for the nation.
I just have to wonder whether, like Romney, their demands for Weiner's resignation have more to do with elections than "convictions". So, here's a little challenge for them.
Prove you’re not a typical Republi-Con hypocrite. Prove you called for the resignations of Senators Craig, Ensign, Vitter, and Governor Sandford.
Of course, we all know the answer the GOP would have to give:
Craig: (caught in that bathroom in 2007, and having pled guilty to the crime later that year) remained in office until his term ended in 2009.
Ensign: who insisted Clinton should resign, remained in office for two years after his own infidelity (and far worse) was exposed, resigning just before the Ethics Committee released its damning report about him (which has been forwarded for criminal investigation).
Vitter: STILL in office, despite proof that he had been “professionally" unfaithful, with women who were paid to (ahem) assist his infidelity. (Oh, and his constituents re-elected him after the scandal broke.)
Sandford: after hiking “the Old Appalachian Trail" (with the help of his Argentine mistress), served out his term as Governor (although he was censured, the proverbial “slap on the wrist").
So, I’m not “overwhelmed" by the new-found Republi-Con cries for purity and integrity we are seeing everywhere.
TO BE CONTINUED
PART TWO
P.S. - There was another prominent politician caught in a sex scandal at around the same time: Elliot Spitzer. The difference? He resigned! (And he’s one of those nasty, liberal, “anti-family values" Democrats!)
P.P.S. - And for the record, if I lived in Weiner's district, I would primary him myself in 2012. But whether he stays or goes is a decision for his constituents to make! Both Republicans, and the other Democrats, should butt out.
Diane, please do not penalize David Corn for what you called a less than civil discussion. He is my absolute favorite commentator. If you don't want such a contentious debate, then don't put him on with people like Mark Tapscott, who parrot ridiculous republican theories such as "the economy isn't growing because business is too uncertain about future tax policies." Oh, Please!
I was rooting for David Corn all the way, and didn't find it too un-civil.
Thanks for having him as a guest.
Individuals and businesses lack confidence to spend and invest because they see government playing a dangerous game of chicken with government bond investors. The government is spending with abandon on the back of deficits and debt; and this is before the boomers start retiring consuming medicare/medicaid with their it's-all-about-me raison d'etre.
The bill will come due and it's going to come in the form of higher taxes for anyone who's got anything that can be taxed; an income (earned or unearned), property or savings. No wonder individuals and businesses are hoarding cash and gold; and the economy is about to implode.
tennisman09021952 on June 10, 2011 @ 10:22 am wrote: "Can you please address the despicable behavior of a Conservative group in Michigan that distributed flyers saying people's homes would be foreclosed to make a statement about an unrelated matter (some bridge), but caused hysteria in the neighborhood."
Thanks for the head's up, but you should have included links to the story. Here's three:
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-20070076-503544.html
http://news.yahoo.com/s/yblog_thelookout/20110609/us_yblog_thelookout/fa...
http://www.citizen-times.com/article/C4/20110608/OPINION01/106080314/Edi...?
By the way, a slight correction: the flyers weren't concerned with "an unrelated matter". They claimed the people receiving the flyers were going to have their homes taken to make way for the bridge. That was a lie!
By the way, not only was "Americans for Prosperity" involved (a group created and run by Koch Industries), but also another "Republican activist": Manuel (Matty) Moroun. And what "noble principle" inspired his actions? He owned a toll bridge the government built bridge would compete with. That's right, folks, he was trying to preserve his monopoly!
Next time you hear Republ-Cons extolling the "virtues" of privatizing our public roads, remember this incident!
reply to hainc:
You agree with my conclusion:
Even with revenues going up, the deficit went up. For whatever reason. That is not being fiscally responsible!
Yes, revenue went up, the raw number; but that does not put the lie to my assertion that he voted to reduce federal revenue.
Look at the total result of their actions, don't cherry pick! This is what was done. This is what happened. This is what happened to the deficit. Also, this is what happened to the people of the United States, who saw their economic security disappear as fewer and fewer got a larger and larger share of what we all create.
When I posted earlier, I did not notice your additional assertions about Democratic control of Congress or that they have "made it worse."
"Democrats have controlled congress for almost 5 years and the WH for 3."
The facts:
Democrats controlled the house for the final two years of the Bush Administration and the first two years of President Obama's current term. That's 4 years of control of the House of Representatives, for two of which, they also controlled the White House. Since January, the Republicans have controlled the House.
Republicans controlled the Senate from January of 2001 through early January of 2009. Since the end of January in 2009 Democrats have controlled the Senate, and for a brief time they nominally held the 60 seats necessary to pass legislation in the face of a filibuster by the minority party. However, Democrats don't show the kind of party unity that Republicans exhibit, so they have mostly been unable to overcome Republican objections, as the Republicans have insisted upon filibustering virtually all business that comes before that Chamber. So the Democrats can hardly be said to have been "in control" when the minority party has insisted upon exercising a legislative veto over virtually every piece of legislation.
So now we're talking tax revenue/population and you accuse me of cherry picking, despite the fact you reference no facts nor refute mine. It was a resource allocation issue, not generation issue. Whatever.
Further you make excuses about Democrats inability to respond. Sounds like a systemic problem that we shouldn't expose ourselves to ever again.
I'm not sure how you got through the screener, but I'm not wasting any more time.
rici on June 10, 2011 @ 11:51 am wrote: "The American Revolution did not have financing until George Washington’s brothers and the Ohio Land Company stole and resold the Native Americans Ohio lands."
What the "frak" are you talking about. The only reference I can find to the "Ohio Land Company" was to something that went out of business in 1776! (You know, before the Revolution.) In fact, until the Treaty of Paris (1781), which ended the Revolutionary War, Britain owned and controlled Ohio!
By the way, for all you anti-Semites out there, American Jews played a pivotal role in financing the Revolution (often bankrupting themselves in the process). Look up the name Haym Salomon sometime.
hainc on June 10, 2011 @ 12:51 pm wrote: "Moreover you haven't been paying attention. Democrats have controlled congress for almost 5 years and the WH for 3. They only made things worse."
You know, hainc old chum, I wasn't going to bother responding to your usual ideological nonsense (since it's apparent most of the people realize you have absolutely no credibility), but since it's clear you "haven't been paying attention", allow me to raise a few points:
1) Bush and the Republi-Cons turned a surplus of $236,241,000,000 (in 2000) into a deficit of $248,181,000,000 by 2006, an increased debt of almost 5 billion, and the consequences of the Bush tax cuts (the major cause) didn't end in 2006.
2) In 2007, when the Democrats "took over Congress", there was an even split in the Senate, and a bare 31 seat majority in the House. Given that Bush had two-thirds of his vetoes sustained, and given that with 49 Senators the Republicans could easily have filibustered anything they wanted to, I don't think the Dems deserve exclusive blame for 2007 and 2008 (when the deficit skyrocketed even more). So that pretty much eliminates two of your "five years".
3) I guess it escaped your notice that the Republi-Cons have been filibustering anything and everything they could during the remaining 3 years, which further weakens your claim of "control".
4) Our economy was wrecked before Obama took office, largely due to "conservative" economic policies that even some Democrats were foolish enough to go along with. (That's right, there may be no liberals, and precious few moderates, in the GOP, but there are conservative Democrats. "I got your 'big tent' right here.")
No, I won't blame the Republi-Cons for everything. There were Democrats (Clinton for one) who also embraced their "deregulation" mania, but I do blame the philosophy espoused by Republi-Cons. The last thing we need is more of the same!
hainc on June 10, 2011 @ 1:14 pm wrote: "What Congress neglected to do was cut other spending sufficiently."
And which party controlled both the White House and Congress from 2003 - 2007? Oh, yes, the Republicans!
One final thought.
While I appreciate the need for civil discourse (the fact that NPR and PBS programs usually don't degenerate into shouting matches is one reason I support public broadcasting), I was happy to have both Mr. Corn and Mr. Tapscott on this show. True they "mixed it up" a bit, and sometimes "crossed a line" (glad Diane "called them out" on this), but it was worthwhile having them "go at it".
There is a place even on the News Roundup for such battles. I wouldn't want a steady diet of it, and I hope both men exercise a little more self-control next time they are on, but I think we would all be the poorer if they were "exiled".
Ciao!
hainc:
I did not dispute your fact. Revenue went up. I will stipulate. Terrific. That's immaterial if it did not go up enough to cover the additional expenses that we also undertook. I claim that's fiscal irresponsibility. My Congressman and Mr. Boehner both voted to do that. When the war came along, they did not try to make any adjustments to enable us to pay its cost by doing anything other than borrowing more.
Where we disagree is on what course we should take to try to escape this situation.
If you like, we can leave out what happened to people. I'm sure that we have different ideas on what the role of government should be. Let's forget that our constitution declares that we have a government in the first place to "establish justice" and "ensure domestic tranquility." I daresay we have very different ideas of justice.
I point out that those who now refuse to borrow any more were responsible for putting us on a steeper slope that took us from a projected path out of the hole we were in into the deeper one in which we now languish.
You asserted the Democrats have control -- I pointed out that, due to systemic problems caused by the rules of the Senate and the will of the Republican members of that body, they do not. Control means the ability to impose one's will. If they don't have it, they don't have it. That's reality. Without control, how can one be held responsible? What's the difference between a reason and an excuse?
How did I get through the screener? I told her I was from Cincinnati and wished to make a comment about what I saw as the disconnect between my representative's claim of being fiscally responsible and his actions while in office, and that I thought it was irresponsible to refuse to raise the debt ceiling when he voted to initiate and sustain that deficit.
RE: Swipe fees, low key so to speak. Own/operate a very small business and because we are very small we pay a much larger % of sales to the CC folks on every debit or credit card sale we make. Last year the State of VT instituted a law giving us the right to give discounts for cash. In our case we pay almost nothing at all to deposit checks as well. We instituted a 5% discount for cash or (good) check on purchases. So, don't let anyone say the merchants are not going to pass the savings on to consumers. We did and hope others will follow suit since we almost always pay cash for purchases at smaller local merchants. Ultimately this also lowers the sales tax on items as well. We pay a % of the total even though sales taxes are part of the total. We calculate the discount pre sales tax which is what stores do with "specials". We have dubbed it our "Rewards Program", point of sale, no accumulating points which may expire, etc. And, no, we are not going to do "shameless commerce" and give our web site.
Good show, enjoyed it.
Mark Tapscott makes the show, as a whole, less intelligent. In the future, please exclude partisan hacks with agendas. They have nothing to add to thoughtful discussion.
Diane,
I never miss the news roundup and I love it dearly, but I cringe when I see David Corn's name on the lists of guests. I say this as someone who is liberal on most issues and would agree with him in many cases in principle, but he simply does not fit the tone and intelligence of your shows. Apologizing for the content of your own show seems a bit misleading. No apologies would be necessary if you just kept him off the show and didn't allow him to use as a platform for pre-arranged talking points. I can think of no other news roundup guest who is as belligerent, clearly partisan, and disrespectful as him. Your partisan conservative guests always outshine him in terms of reasonable dialog and even-handednessWith him as guest, your show sounds like cable news demagoguery, and it hurts to say that.
jdl wrote:
"Diane,
I never miss the news roundup and I love it dearly, but I cringe when I see David Corn's name on the lists of guests. I say this as someone who is liberal on most issues and would agree with him in many cases in principle, but he simply does not fit the tone and intelligence of your shows. "
But that is exactly why Rehm has David "Creamed " Corn on. He expresses Rehm's far left views while Rehm can continue the charade that she doesn't have an ideological bias.
I, too, was disappointed by Diane's snarkey comment to David Corn about being economist to the world. And I did not feel that David and Mark's comments were uncivil.
I really wish that people would try to imagine our country in 10, 20 or 30 years if thoughtless and indiscriminate program cuts are enacted.
I see continued unemployment because our education system, starved of teachers and funds, cannot produce graduates who have the technical skills for the 21st century. I see ERs jammed with people who cannot afford health insurance. I see plagues of food-borne illnesses because the FDA has been hampered by lack of funding. I see worsening economic inequality and continuing Wall Street risky behavior because Congress has been purchased by self-interested money interests.
Adam Smith wrote that the invisible hand of the market will need to be regulated by governmental regulation. Too many of the proposed cuts are pennywise and pound foolish. We must be very careful not to eat our seed corn.
Etaoin Shrdlu wrote:
"Well! I never thought I’d see the day I’d come to Sarah Palin’s defense (even if only partly), but today’s the day.
Besides, Palin relishes the media’s attention when it suits her purpose. And when it doesn’t? Ciao!"
Do SP a favor; stop defending her. The lame stream media, otherwise known as the habitual haters of Palin, can't fathom why she would not give them her schedule. She doesn't care if they follow her or not, but they can't resist flocking to the women they despise. The liberal media even dropped the live coverage of Gov. Romney's declaration as a POTUS candidate to go live to Palin.
Still waiting for any evidence of Rehm defending Juan Williams and criticizing NPR for his firing. Is this just another instance where you can't be bothered to support your wild claims with facts?
http://thedianerehmshow.org/shows/2011-05-27/friday-news-roundup-hour-1?...
Etaoin Shrdlu
Your like a nut case running around the titanic with a bag of corks.
As a loyal listener for over 12 years I have noted Diane's growing frustration with the course of events. I share it; and it seems David Corn does as well. However...
The debate went off course after Diane's interjection at break that Mr. Corn wanted to be "the Chief Economist of the World." It was a snide comment and more significantly it compromised her role as a neutral moderator. At that point Mr. Corn probably felt that if she was going to be judgmental rather than facilitative, then he would have to make his points case through her opposition rather than with her assistance. What was left was not quite uncivil but was trending toward the all too typical shrill arguments that are getting us all nowhere fast.
This is one forum where I have come to expect better.
debatedonotpont... wrote:
"The debate went off course after Diane's interjection at break that Mr. Corn wanted to be "the Chief Economist of the World." It was a snide comment and more significantly it compromised her role as a neutral moderator."
You have got to be kidding. When has Rehm ever been a "neutral moderator?" NPR doesn't employ neutral moderators. She is a bona fide liberal. Her bias is no more a secret than Sean Hannity's bias.
I listened to this with half an ear while working, and was shocked at Diane's sign-off, since I hadn't heard anything uncivil, and thought it was more uncivil to criticize the guests on the air. I listened again later and was shocked again at Diane's comment about David Corn. I don't get much out of those FNRs where there is a joint wringing of hands without new information. I thought this show had potential for a good debate. I personally thought Mark Tapscott's comments were pointless and ridiculous, but I was interested in hearing a real discussion, no matter how 'contentious,' if each panelist was drawn out on the issues, and the conversation allowed to go someplace perhaps new and interesting. I gather from the comments that others thought the same of David Corn. What an opportunity lost, to respect the passion and commitment of these often warring viewpoints, and to glean something deeper than the usual predictable conclusions.
I am a lot less likely to listen to DRS in the future.
It was refreshing to hear Mark Tepscott (sp) criticizing both parties for selling out to special interests. He raised some interesting points that I have not heard in the mainstream political debate regarding crony capitalism. On the other hand, I found David Corn's relentless naked partisan sniping and recounting of talking points tiresome.
I wish the show would talk about Ron Paul, Gary Johnson and other candidates that aren't being fawned over by the media as much. Candidates like these tend to be supported by the grassroots, while being shunned by corporate special interests. They advocate for real change.
smcjoy wrote:
"I personally thought Mark Tapscott's comments were pointless and ridiculous, ...I gather from the comments that others thought the same of David Corn."
Yes, Corn's comments were pointless and ridiculous. That is Corn's raison d'être .
smcjoy wrote:
"I am a lot less likely to listen to DRS in the future."
Because Rehm reamed out Corn for being himself you have lost faith in Rehm's commitment to the liberal agenda. Really?
Perhaps the only way to get you back in the fold is if Rehm had Corn substitute host her show. He would fit right in with her other liberal substitute hosts, i.e. Susan Page, Steve Roberts, Terence Smith, Frank Sesno, Andrea Seabrook, and Katty Kay.