Friday News Roundup - Domestic
http://thedianerehmshow.org/shows/2011-12-16/friday-news-roundup-domestic
Congressional negotiators reached a deal on a $1 trillion dollar spending package to avert a government shutdown tonight. But snags remain over extending the payroll tax cut and jobless benefits. Republican presidential frontrunner Newt Gingrich came under fire in the last GOP debate prior to the Iowa caucuses. And, after almost nine years, the Iraq war came to an official end. A panel of journalists joins Diane 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.
Susan Page
Washington bureau chief for USA Today.
Ron Elving
Washington editor for NPR.
Related Video:
The panelists talk about the deal Congress reached to avoid a government shutdown:
The Obama campaign released a video highlighting the significance of the official end of the Iraq War:
Comments
Please familiarize yourself with our Code of Conduct and Terms of Use before posting your comments.
From NPR’s ATC yesterday:
The Sunlight Foundation, which advocates for transparency in politics and government, found that fewer than 27,000 individuals (out of a population of 307 million) each gave at least $10,000 to federal political campaigns in 2010. Sunlight's report, "The Political One Percent of the One Percent," said these donors combined spent $774 million — 24.3 percent of all money from individuals that went to candidates, PACS, political parties and independent expenditure groups in the 2010 midterms, which swept Republicans into control of the House. "It's the 1 percent of the 1 percent who account for almost a quarter of all individual campaign contributions," Looking at the absolute top tier, Drutman says just 17 individuals gave more than $500,000 each.
"We know that money is not equally given by all Americans," says Drutman. "There are very few Americans who can afford to write the kind of big checks that candidates depend on. What surprised us when we did this analysis was just how incredibly concentrated this giving was."
The biggest category, donors with corporate ties, gave slightly more to Republicans. The much smaller categories, ideological givers and lawyer-lobbyists, tilted Democratic. While the Obama campaign and others emphasize their success with small givers, Drutman says there's no mistaking the economic class of the group he looked at."These elite donors on average give $29,000 per electoral cycle. That's more than what half of Americans earn in a single year," Drutman explains.
As they say, Money talks and you know what walks! There’s the problem with politics….money!
From Pew:
Results from a new national survey from the Pew Research Center should strike fear into the hearts of incumbents in Congress, especially those who are members of the Republican Party. A record number of respondents want to vote sitting lawmakers out of office, and Republicans take more of the blame than Democrats for perceptions of a do-nothing Congress.
According to the Pew Research report, two-thirds (67 percent) of registered voters nationwide say "most members of Congress" should be voted out of office in 2012, while only 20 percent want most members reelected. This desire to fire all incumbents marks a record level of discontent since the Pew Center started asking the question 18 years ago, far exceeding previous highs of 57 percent in 2010 and 56 percent in 1994.
The Pew Research poll finds that those who say Congress has done less lately are more likely to blame Republicans for the inaction (40 percent) than Democrats (23 percent). Majorities of all adults view the Republican party as more extreme in its positions and less willing to work with the other side, and pluralities now view the Democrats as more honest and ethical and better able to manage the government.
Voters are critical of the leadership of both parties in Congress, but the Republican leaders receive lower job approval ratings (21 percent) than the Democratic leaders (31 percent). The report notes that "a good deal of this criticism is coming from within the GOP base." Nearly half of Republicans (44 percent) disapprove of the Republican leadership, and 70 percent of Republicans want to see most members of Congress replaced (compared to 60 percent of Democrats and 73 percent of independents).
WASHINGTON, D.C. — Americans’ concerns about the threat of big government continue to dwarf those about big business and big labor, and by an even larger margin now than in March 2009. The 64% of Americans who say big government will be the biggest threat to the country is just one percentage point shy of the record high, while the 26% who say big business is down from the 32% recorded during the recession. Relatively few name big labor as the greatest threat.
Historically, Americans have always been more concerned about big government than big business or big labor in response to this trend question dating back to 1965. Concerns about big business surged to a high of 38% in 2002, after the large-scale accounting scandals at Enron and WorldCom. An all-time-high 65% of Americans named big government as the greatest threat in 1999 and 2000. Worries about big labor have declined significantly over the years, from a high of 29% in 1965 to the 8% to 11% range over the past decade and a half.
This simply reinforces the findings of the previous Sunlight report that Corporations and the rich have spent their money wisely. They've absolutely led the American people into distrusting the wrong problem.
Ron Paul gets hammered for his foreign policy views on Iran which seem to me very sensible. Iran is about the size of Alaska, we have 10 military bases surrounding it (see link). There is no doubt that we have a substantial covert presence in their country. Evidence of Iranian scientists being assassinated, mysterious bombings. We have been meddling in their affairs for decades. I do not subscribe to conspiracy theories but something sure stinks here. Is it any wonder they want the bomb or have a desire to strike back at us. Can you imagine the outrage if Iran were to establish military bases in Canada and Mexico. I just cannot accept that blow back has not and will not occur directly because of our presence and activities in the middle east, it defies logic and reason to think that is not the case. Have a look at the link and consider this.
The 1953 Iranian coup d'état (known in Iran as the 28 Mordad coup]) was the overthrow of the democratically elected government of Iranian Prime Minister Mohammad Mosaddegh on 19 August 1953, orchestrated by the intelligence agencies of the United Kingdom and the United States under the name TPAJAX Project.[4] The coup saw the transition of Mohammad-Rezā Shāh Pahlavi from a constitutional monarch to an authoritarian one who relied heavily on United States support to hold on to power until his own overthrow in February 1979
http://www.freetherepublic.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article...
Ron Paul is the only major candidate who is not spitting lies in your face!
I find it amusing that congress can bicker and be entirely partisan yet upon the eve of vacation become conciliatory and slightly productive. Maybe congress does not have enough vacations.
Rep Paul is the only Republican candidate who speaks about Iran based on substantiated information about Iran instead of inflammatory and unsubstantiated claims about Iran. For this stance he has taken a great deal of heat from the Israeli lobby. In fact he was not invited to the Republican Jewish Coaltion forum awhile back
Ron Paul Not Invited To Republican Jewish Coalition Presidential Candidates Forum
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/12/02/ron-paul-republican-jewish-coal...
The Obama administration is pulling troops out of Iraq. Why is it that a candidate is hammered for considering talking and direct negotiations with Iran instead of knee jerk and dangerous reactions being so dismissed. Seems like there are enough people dead and injured based on false claims
Monte and even on the so called liberal website Huffington Post they will never put Rep Paul above the fold..even though he is only a few points behind Gingrich in Iowa
Republican "intelligensia" would indicate there might be intelligence in the Republican Party. That's totally laughable given the field of candidates before us.
Hi Diane, Just found the show.
Your discussion of congressional leaders awaiting direction gleaned from the results of the fall elections is not a little distressing. It reflects the cultural tendency these days to wait for next time. To somehow believe that there will be a "perfect moment" when the way forward will be revealed and everyone will agree. If you're waiting for this moment and actually believe it's possible, then compromise, which is the very engine of civil government, is not even on the table. So, congress churns and churns and produces zip.
I am not a Rep Paul supporter except I do like what he has to say about US invasion mistakes and destructive US foreign policies
Rep Paul is the only Republican candidate who speaks about Iran based on substantiated information instead of making inflammatory and unsubstantiated claims like the other Republican candidates. For this stance he has taken a great deal of heat from the Israeli lobby. In fact he was not invited to the Republican Jewish Coaltion forum awhile back
Why is it that a candidate is hammered for considering talking and direct negotiations with Iran instead of knee jerk and dangerous reactions being so dismissed. Seems like there are enough people dead and injured based on false claims. One would think the pro life Republicans would have noticed this fact.
I'm glad Ms. Rehm read that comment on-air about panelists chuckling at protests worldwide. The Friday news roundup has been a highlight of my listening week for a long time, but recently I've noticed Friday's panelists snickering and chuckling at both their callers (which I find pretty demeaning and somewhat unprofessional) and the Occupy/Protest Movement.
I don't know you would do that. It just comes off as elitist and creepy. Certainly not what I expect from NPR or your show in particular. Thank you.
do any of your guest think that any of the alleged pro life Republican candidates will be called out on the obvious contradiction between being pro fetus but not really pro life stances. pro life means supporting health care for that baby, equity in education for that child, eventually equity in wages.
When will a line be drawn between being pro fetus but not really pro life by many individuals who hide behind their alleged religious beliefs. I am so tired of this hypocrisy
monte agree agree agree
kathleen wrote:
"Monte and even on the so called liberal website Huffington Post they will never put Rep Paul above the fold"
It could be easily argued that liberal democrats are drenched in war blood. It's a myth that they are not the party of war. Here's something I wrote and never used here, I thought it an interesting perspective.
Democrat Woodrow Wilson entered us into World War 1, he was also a key figure in shaping the severely punitive Treaty of Versailles which many blame for the rise of Adolf Hitler. Democrat Franklin D. Roosevelt entered us into WW2. The Korean war under the democratic President Truman presided over the death of 54,229 and 8,154MIA Americans and 227,800 Koreans killed and 43,500 MIA. Vietnam, democratic President Kennedy followed by democrat L.B.J. were responsible for 58,148 American deaths, Vietnamese estimates top 2,000,000 violent deaths, totals range between 2 and 3.8 million. Compared to these the Iraq war was almost a bar fight! Isn't it odd that republicans are looked at as the national security war mongers. It's obvious the "military industrial complex" is necessary to fight democrat wars!
kathleen wrote:
"Monte and even on the so called liberal website Huffington Post..."
-------------------------------------------
"So-called" ? Just because Arianna is unintelligible when she speaks, it doesn't mean Huffpo is any less liberal than MediaMatters and the Dailykos.
SkylarW wrote:
"I'm glad Ms. Rehm read that comment on-air about panelists chuckling at protests worldwide. The Friday news roundup has been a highlight of my listening week for a long time, but recently I've noticed Friday's panelists snickering and chuckling at both their callers (which I find pretty demeaning and somewhat unprofessional) and the Occupy/Protest Movement.
I don't know you would do that. It just comes off as elitist and creepy. Certainly not what I expect from NPR or your show in particular. Thank you."
-------------------------------------------------
While the Occupy fill in the blank ilk are indeed amusing, if not just plain idiotic, where did you ever get the idea that NPR hasn't always been elitist and creepy?
monte wrote:
"Here's something I wrote and never used here, I thought it an interesting perspective."
That is an absolutely brilliant piece, monte. I will steal it and use it, (but I will give you credit for it, of course). Nice going!
A caller asked how the government can continue to cut the funding for social security by lowering the payroll tax? Unfortunately your guests failed to give the specific answer. The funds lost through the payroll tax cut are replaced out of the general tax fund. The Social Security Administrator has released a letter expressly stating this fact.
kathleen wrote:
"pro life means supporting health care for that baby, equity in education for that child, eventually equity in wages."
This is one of the most stunning statements I've ever read on any message board, at any time, bar none.
And I don't mean that in a good way!
kvhoward wrote:
"The funds lost through the payroll tax cut are replaced out of the general tax fund. "
Of course that's true, kvhoward. That's because the Social Security "trust" fund and the General fund are all rolled up in one big ball o' cash.
Your Social Security contributions are nothing but numbers on a piece of paper, backed up by other pieces of paper (Treasury Bills), the actual money loaned to the General fund and spent.
Make ya feel all warm and fuzzy about your retirement?!
monte wrote:
"Ron Paul gets hammered for his foreign policy views on Iran which seem to me very sensible. "
-------------------------------------------------
Paul has some good ideas, but he can't resist pilling on some absolutely bizarre geopolitical opinions. He appears to be channeling 1930's U.S. ambassador to GB, Joe Kennedy, as his foreign affairs advisor. If by some quirk of fate he were to be the GOP candidate, he would be demolished by POTUS Obama in the 2012 election. So why would conservatives, or even libertarians, want him as their candidate?
Do you remember the Iranian hostage crisis? What did Mossadegh's 1953 assassination have to do with the Americans at the U.S. embassy in 1979?
The New York Times front page fold article of Thursday's FOX News GOP candidate debate managed to edit out any reference to FOX News. The NYT sure has FOX envy.
Ecgberht, thanks for the kind words. Feel free to use anything I write, no credit necessary.
MarcusTullius wrote:
" why would conservatives, or even libertarians, want him as their candidate?"
Maybe because they don't want another windsock for a candidate!
I was listening to Rush Limbaugh today, besides making fun of the way Ron Paul speaks the only argument against Ron Paul was the theory that Iran is religiously suicidal and will use the nuke given the chance. This as far as I can tell is only serious beef with R.P. I don't accept that theory as you know. Quite frankly I just do not think it's possible for us to get our house in order unless budget cuts include military spending. Lets face it many republicans are unwilling to cut entitlement programs just like the democrats. In fact I don't think there's much difference on national security issues either.
In my opinion Pakistan and India are unstable and they seem to be able to control themselves. Does it not seem obvious that the U.S. is pushing Iran in to a corner looking for a reason to escalate the chance for military conflict? They need Iran to make the first move.
I listen to you often and enjoy your Friday News Roundup. I was offended as I listened tonight. I don't recall the caller’s name but the question was along the lines of "you never talk about Social Security?" Now, I know that you have covered the topic because I have listened to your show for some time. You responded in such a nasty tone, "when I was married my husband told me to never say never” and “If you listened to my show you would know that I do cover that topic." You were rude to him. What if this was his first time listening to your show? I'm sure you have not gained a new listener. I think you misunderstood what his intentions where when he asked his question. Maybe he was thinking media in general does not talk about Social Security enough? I could be wrong; however, I think your response to him was very rude.
I agree. I cannot understand what people don't like about Ron Paul. He seems to have spent years studying the things he speaks about: foreign interventalism, sound money, monetary policy, Constitutional governement. He talks about "blowback" in which our meddling in the domestic affairs of foreign countries will lead others to attack Americans, whether on their soil or ours. However, he can then go on to cite the CIA study that explains this. That is what I like about him, doesn't just surmise, he investigates and explores.
He wants to abide by his oath and follow the US Constitution. He doesn't want the US to send its servicemen and servicewomen carelessly into armed conflict. He wants to increase a citizen's personal freedoms.
Excuse my seemingly random post above. It is in response to several of @monte posts.
monte wrote:
"Maybe because they don't want another windsock for a candidate! "
------------------------------------------
As opposed to having Paul, the isolationist conspiracy embracing candidate, who has zero chance of defeating POTUS Obama in 2012? The GOP is not interested in another inept McCain candidate or a candidate that appears on the conspiracy loving Alex Jones radio show, i.e., Ron Paul.