News Roundup - Hour 1
http://thedianerehmshow.org/shows/2011-07-29/news-roundup-hour-1
A panel of journalists joins guest host Susan Page for analysis of the week's top national news stories: The U.S. House of Representatives did not vote on a two-step plan by House Speaker John Boehner Thursday that would have raised the debt ceiling and cut spending, while Senate majority leader Harry Reid predicted the Senate wouldn't pass the bill and President Obama said he would veto it. Congress is facing an Aug. 2 deadline to avoid a first-ever default on U.S. obligations. The debt ceiling stalemate threatened to stall an already struggling U.S. economy, which grew just 1.3% in the second quarter; and GOP presidential candidate Rick Perry rose to second in a new Gallup Poll.
Guests
Karen Tumulty
national political reporter, The Washington Post.
David Leonhardt
incoming Washington bureau chief, The New York Times.
Jeanne Cummings
deputy government editor, Bloomberg News.
Comments
Please familiarize yourself with our Code of Conduct and Terms of Use before posting your comments.
Heard GOP saying lately, "let’s bring spending back to past more reasonable levels of the past".
How about bringing tax rates back to more reasonable levels?
Since early 20th century, tax rates for highest earners averaged over 60%. .
I really don’t mean to insult anyone’s intelligence or something, but it’s hard for me to comprehend how people can think we can pay down debt without $. I really don’t get that thinking. Are these all simply “greed is good” crowd or what?
Where were the conservatives during W years - we had a booming economy and still they chose not to balance budget and to explode debt and deficit. Where was the outrage then? Where was the fiscal responsibility when W raised debt ceiling 7 times and Ronnie 17 times?
Another argument raised by GOP & on this comment page is that anyone who believes raising taxes on those that have trillions on the sideline are “socialists“- implying that they are at best unpatriotic and at worst perhaps communist.
Since early 20th century wealthiest have been asked to pay on average over 60% tax rate. Apparently during all those years of fiscal sanity we were all a bunch of pinko comis. The “greatest generation” were the worst comis of the bunch because at that time rate was 90% plus. We need to make sure are history books are changed to reflect this GOP sentiment.
IN review... this week just like the last week.
J O B S J O B S J O B S JOBS JOBS
Higher education shows with money rent/mortgage paid, food purchased, lets get crazy and even afford a doctor's visit- no never get off or make that much.
Amazing how quiet desperate Americans are... must be playing their xboxes... or desperate acts locally not news worthy? Oh thats right we no longer have local news coverage- too expensive.
Kill newspapers, 'filter' internet, eliminate post office- almost there. Curious that the 'constitutionists' want to eliminate the postal service and 'return' to the Constitution.
Maybe why saving the Nation involves destroying what is left of 'education'. Makes better voters. Caveat emptor.
Semper fidelus, semper paradis.
We have a spending problem. Taxpayers have no protection in DC. The whole government institution is motivated to grow itself, the debates are about how to grow the pie and the fights are about the slice sizes. Parasites sucking at the government teats clamor for more and more and politicians and bureaucrats are deemed successful if they grow their empire financially.
Raise the debt ceiling in the short-term and cut the spending dramatically in the intermediate- and long-term. Let the hardworking American people decide how their income is best spent, they know better than the government.
The course we've set over the past 30 years is to accept the concept of an ever-growing government that needs to consume more and more of our collective effort. We need to reframe bureaucrats belief system, we need them to treat the money they spend as if it was their own, we need to reward those who do more with less, we need to reward those who identify savings and efficiencies so that that is the motivator, not growing one's fiefdom.
People who ignore the fact that federal government spending is now 24% of GDP when it was 18% in 2000 do so at the peril of us all. It is no wonder they do not understand the simple math challenge represented by future entitlement spending.
Actually Hainc we have a “people who think all’s we have is a spending problem” problem. Anyone who thinks that is either listening to Rush and Fox all day or doing the meds Rush did or both. Get real.
Ronnie and W are directly responsible for about $7.3 trillion in new debt... and their irresponsible policies created problems for Bush1, Clinton, and Obama… adding more debt. I know it’s hard for GOP to grasp, but we can’t keep “staying the course” they have expouned for 30 past years.
It should be extremely obvious that course hasn't worked.
Look at the above photo right to left. A swaggering egomaniac with a conceit the size of Africa, never accomplished anything that was not financed by the government. Next, a republican who has patiently waited his turn only to find that the ground he stands on has shifted in a way that makes him obsolete. Next, a liberal democrat that is so rich her biggest problem is finding time for both her beauty salon appointments and botox treatments. Last Eric Cantor, living in a world where being right does not win an argument, the country is determined to keep the status quo and it's just not his time.
Drew Kelly- The heart of our Constitution protects the property of the wealthy first, so that's counter-socialist, or antisocial. Our foreign policy kills and destroys to advance and protect the business interests of our wealthiest, so it's sociopathic. A tipping point of positive reinforcement and deception was reached under Reagan and it has intensified ever since. The protests of the People in the 1930s provided the impetus to temper capitalism slightly therefore saving it. Now American citizens are as helpless as beef cattle in a feedlot. They consume what is provided even if they pay multiple times by going into debt, and they have little choice but to believe what they're told and hope for miracles. The T-party has brought the imbalances to a crisis.
A default would be no surprise now. It is likely too late for the Oligarchy to relent and redistribute before crony corporate capitalism implodes. This is a rehearsal for the scarcity of fossil fuels and the ecological implosion that is nearly assured now. People with money and property and outsized power are never going to share voluntarily. Both business parties and the Treason-Party represent them. So the People have one last chance to get organized and save civilization. I'm visiting DC right now and it's hot and I can't find much I can do.
As a recent graph in the NYT shows, it is the Bush era tax cuts that form the biggest contributor to the deficit. A Democratic congress with a Democratic president extended them.
http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2009/06/09/business/economy/20090610-...
After the great depression and after the second world war, taxes on rich people were very high, because we had to rebuild our society and they have the capacity to pay. Republicans and Democrats voted for that.
But this whole showdown is about posturing for the next election anyway. Since 1940 the debt ceiling has been raised ninety times, and now all of a sudden it's a problem? Yeah right! The real problem is the policy we will get. We're going to cut back on the benefits for old people and those with medical needs. Raising taxes on the rich: off the table. Letting certain corporations pay their fair share of taxes: off the table. Defense spending: off the table.
Grady Lee- Agree with your sentiments- .
Only problem I have with your arguments is that the way you frame them often is way over head of most Americans. Realizing that almost ½ of Americans and politicians don’t believe in man-influenced global warming or evolution you need come up with concise messages like GOP, like “ don‘t like them there taxes“, “they hate us for our Freedom” or “stay the course” or something.
How bout, “let’s not enter Depression and irreversibly destroy our environment just to try and prove a point” or something, I don’t know.
Very much appreciate your efforts in DC- you certainly picked a hot day for it.
Right Roland- Kitchen table issues are the only issues that really matter. Now the Oligarchy wants to repossess our table. Everything non-corporate and non-elitist is off the table. The truth is that the interest on our higher national debt is lower comparatively than it was in 1998. When the credit ratings agencies demanded cuts of 4 trillion what they meant to say is that the Oligarchy is not satisfied with the current interest rates on the national debt they hold. They are engineering sabotage again, much like the Meltdown, to enhance their income stream. It is no accident that wealthy fascists recruited and bankrolled ignorant and superstitious candidates. For these gremlins were the lever of the next step in the fraud and extraction that continues to hollow out the American quality of life. And this circus detracts from the stimulus projects, energy policy and rebuilding American capitalism needs to prevent the implosion of cascade failure. I wonder if our wealthy off-shoring overlords understand that they are strangling their 250 year old golden goose. We are past peak wealth and income disparity and are about to go over a cliff. (You fill in the next line.)
I keep hearing that they're going to cut X billion dollars. When are We the People going to be informed of the specifics of what's being cut? Or have I missed that minor piece of information?
Would someone please review the history here:
1. Over a year ago, the President asked Congress to set up a commission to deal with the debt. They refused, so he set up his own
2. Six months ago the President's Bipartisan Commission agreed to spending cuts and tax increases at about a 2:1 ratio
3. 70% of Americans favor spending cuts and tax increases at the same ratio
4. About a week ago, bipartisan Gang of Six in the Senate agreed to spending cuts and tax increases at about the same ratio
5. At about the same time, the President was negotiating with the Boehner asking him to agree to essentially the same plan to reduce the the debt by about 5 billion over 10 years
6. Now 3 days before default, the House leader, in order to save his wealthy masters any tax increase, tries to pass a bill that reduces the debt by only 1 billion, sets up the commission the President wanted over a year ago, and puts us in the same position of potential default in 6 months
...AND HE CAN'T PASS IT. Plus the Senate won't pass it & the President won't sign it.
All this to save the wealthiest 2% from paying their fair share of taxes.
http://fairsharetaxes.org
Drew: People have the ability to detect lies, even well-meant lies. I am standing by and preparing for the occupation of DC on Oct. 6. I interview people almost every day on camera and have been doing so for several years. I let them ask questions and I help them find the answers. The little I understand I have learned in co-operation with typical citizens. I think the potential exists for an uprising more comprehensive than in Egypt because most people are angry and plenty smart. They can do the investigating and answer the questions. We need to be asking them the right questions not telling them myths. It was an elderly retired man on the Red Line yesterday who explained the interest rate thing I describe in my previous post. He also explained that health and retirement cuts would cause intense suffering but be a drop in the bucket in closing the deficit. He said it was akin to the crazy false argument about earmarks which were tiny beside corporate welfare, goodies for the rich and the bloated defense budget. Most people can understand that it is trillions for the elite and only billions for the people. Count the zeros. The truth is plain to see, but is being hidden. I'm 3'6" and so can't talk above anyone's head.
It's these idiots who say we're in recovery and blame extraneous events for setbacks who are bamboozling the public. Even facts are off the table. NPR should be ashamed.
DrewKelly wrote:
"Since early 20th century, tax rates for highest earners averaged over 60%. "
That doesn't make it right.
The most fundamental rights upon which our free country is based as expressed in the Declaration are these; life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. That phrase, originally stood as "life, liberty, and property". There's a reason for that.
The Constitutional igorance on this board is astounding.
The Federal Government is too big and spends too much. That's not just a platitude. It's a Constitutional fact. DrewKelly, please read article 1, section 8 and tell me how you justify the existence of the following:
Department of Education
Department of Agriculture
Department of Labor
Department of Energy
Department of HHS
Department of HUD
Simple enough for a 5th grader to understand:
Cut spending = freed up revenue you can now use to save and pay down debt. If I have $100 dollars in expenses, and $75 in revenue, I simply cut back $25 dollars in spending and PRESTO! Now I have $25 bucks I can use to pay off my debts.
What about this do the libs not understand? There's no reason to raise taxes when all you have to do is cut back spending on wasteful endeavors.
BTW everyone, you might want to check the projected tax rates for next year. The "wealthiest 1%" are not the only ones who are going to get soaked with tax increases - EVERYONE is going to pay higher taxes, YES, EVERYONE will pay more.
Christ people, wise up.
Your math doesn't work... 100 in expenses and 75 income = 25 deficit. Cut back expenses by 25 and you've balanced your budget. Congratulations, but you don't presto! have another 25 to pay off debts.
Have you ever been an elected official? This is the sort of fuzzy thinking that's gotten us in the mess we're in.
Surprisingly, no one discusses the root of our major problems - the industry of INSURANCE.
Or the industry of FEAR.
Why is Medicare so costly? Due to insurance costs. Why do we need so badly health insurance? Because the costs associated with any regular procedures are multiplied by 10 due to the cost to insure the Doctors. Therefore, there is no clear pricing for procedures and interventions, creating fear and giving large space for overcharge and fraud.
And that goes to home insurance, business insurance, etc. I can go on and on... Cut the insurance costs and people will be able to afford medical procedures preventively, in a regular basis, and eventually, in emergencies.
In another issue, the same way FDA needs to approve tested drugs before they are sold in the market, the FINANCIAL PRODUCTS should also be tested and approved before being sold for individuals and institutions, or the banking industry will exercise its creativity again into another crisis and bailout.
Don't tax you, don't tax me, tax the rich guy. Free lunch served. So easy and feels so good.
Ilana Bernstein...
I hope you are in favor of tort reform and allowing insurance to be sold over state lines, because that is the ONLY way to bring down insurance costs.
Earlier one of the commentators stated that consumers were still saving money which was part of the slowness of the economic recovery. It seems that the elephant in the room is the high rate of unemployment, not to mention the many cuts in salaries that those who still have jobs are dealing with. The media seems to ignore the effects of unemployment and only mentions it when the numbers are published.
I'm not sure that John Q. Public understands that Congressmen/Senators get to keep whatever money is left in their campaign warchest when they no longer run for re-election.
The $174,000/year they get paid for governing is nothing compared to the huge amount they can go home with at the end of their "service".
If we want these people to "govern" then perhaps we should require these leftover campaing funds go to the FEC for use as campaign matching funds.
I'm tired of hearing the the "american people" won't make any suggestions on what to cut. How's this for a starting point:
1. reverse bush era tax cuts
2. means test for social security and medicare benefits (the rich don't need a safety net)
3. cut defense - BUT - congress must agree not to micro manage the cuts - the executive branch should have sole discretion over what gets cut so that congress can't play games with saving projects in their own district
After that, serious look must take place at all the corporate welfare that's on the books (oil subsidies, farm subsidies, etc).
It is hard for me to believe that there is heavy special interest involved in this conflict. There is a lot of money on the line and I simply do not believe that the Tea Party freshmen are not taking some direction from a central funding authority that funded their campaigns. The public line is that their voters put them there to cut the budget and follow an ideological path and if that is the case then the voters brought this situation upon themselves through some vision that we need to crash the system in order to change it. In the back office there are some deals we will never see that butter bread.
once you desert reason and resort to violance conclusions are the result if domination not intellect. Powerful reason for anarchy.
Z Harris:
At best cutting spending can conceivably get us to a point where we are spending as much as we are taking in- and that’s a noble sentiment.
But to get out of the hole we got into it’s going to take more than that.
The plan that Obama and Dems supported propose raising taxes on those over 250G- not everyone.
Let’s not repeat all the same mistakes made before Depression- Please.
mmc wrote:
"I'm tired of hearing the the "american people" won't make any suggestions on what to cut. How's this for a starting point:
1. reverse bush era tax cuts (sure, confiscatory, but what the hell)
2. means test for social security and medicare benefits (the rich don't need a safety net) (confiscatory - SS is NOT a safety net. It was INTENDED to be, but it is now a retirement program because retirement age was not indexed to actuarial tables).
3. cut defense - BUT - congress must agree not to micro manage the cuts - the executive branch should have sole discretion over what gets cut so that congress can't play games with saving projects in their own district - read: let's make the President dictator in chief instead of just Commander in chief. Spending is controlled, Constitutionally, from the House for a reason.
I have a different set of suggestions:
Start by eliminating:
Department of Education
Department of Agriculture
Department of Labor
Department of Energy
Department of HHS
Department of HUD
ECGbert
Maybe we should go back to having slaves, revoke women’s right to vote, and revoking worker’s rights, too.
All social programs are not evil.
You: " ‘Since early 20th century, tax rates for highest earners averaged over 60%.’ That doesn't make it right.”
May not make it right, but our economy and employment sure seemed to fare better.
Those who believe wealthiest amongst us should be asked to contribute at rates more commensurate with the past are no more socialist than America as a whole was when greater fiscal sanity prevailed.
DrewKelly:
Taking 60% or 90% of somone's income is not "fiscal sanity". It's confiscation.
"Maybe we should go back to having slaves, revoke women’s right to vote, and revoking worker’s rights, too.
All social programs are not evil."
Ah, slavery and suffrage, the last bastions of the liberal! These are not "social programs", DrewKelly, they are Ammendments to the Constitution. Read Article 5 to get a better understanding.
ECG:
Intent of my slavery and suffrage remark earlier was only that just as constitution did not make reference to those departments you listed, it also did not address slavery or suffrage.
ECG:
No one ever paid 90%+ of their income. Many exemptions and loopholes existed then as today. The idea behind 90% top tax rate wasn't to confiscate people's money, it was to get them to reinvest it in the economy that allowed them to gain it in the first place.
And no I’m not supporting a 90% rate. Perhaps Reagan era 50% might be appropriate for about “10-15 years in order to recoup revenue that NEVER should have been lost because of grotesquely irresponsible Bush tax cuts, aimed mainly to benefit the rich” .
(Quotes provided because I am more or less quoting directly from another comment from another blog concerning debt debate).