Friday News Roundup - Domestic
http://thedianerehmshow.org/shows/2013-01-04/friday-news-roundup-domestic
The 113th Congress has been sworn in and it’s the most diverse in history. It includes the first Hindu in the Senate, and the first openly bisexual woman in the House. Republican Congressman John Boehner is re-elected House Speaker despite some opposition in his own party. A deal is reached on the fiscal cliff but big battles still loom on the debt and government spending. The economy added 155,000 jobs in December. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton says she’ll return to work next week after being hospitalized for a blood clot. And Al Jazeera buys Current TV from Al Gore.David Corn of Mother Jones magazine, Jeanne Cummings of Bloomberg News and syndicated columnist Michael Gerson join guest host Tom Gjelten to discuss the week's top national stories.
Guests
David Corn
Washington bureau chief for Mother Jones magazine and author of the new book "Showdown: The Inside Story of How Obama Fought Back Against Boehner, Cantor, and the Tea Party."
Michael Gerson
syndicated columnist and author of "City of Man: Religion and Politics in a New Era."
Jeanne Cummings
deputy government editor for Bloomberg News.
Friday News Roundup Video
Recently retired Rep. Barney Frank, a Massachusetts Democrat, said he would like to be appointed as an interim senator to fill John Kerry’s seat until a special election later this year. Gov. Deval Patrick has the power to name the vacancy created by Mr. Kerry’s nomination to be secretary of state. David Corn, Washington bureau chief for Mother Jones magazine, says he would like to see that happen.
Comments
Please familiarize yourself with our Code of Conduct and Terms of Use before posting your comments.
The NRA’s mobilization is reminiscent of the minutemen movement at the US/Mexican border. It is a calculated move to use the slaughter of American children to promote its agenda to proliferate non-governmental militias within the US.
Every human being with a gun is a potential mass- shooter and we can never determine with certainty the onset of a mental illness that will drive someone to paranoia, madness, and mass killing. In fact, people who collect weapons out of fear are more susceptible of being paranoid and schizophrenic then those who don’t.
Can the NRA guarantee American parents that a mentally unstable/disgruntle armed school staff will never become a mass-killer at the school where they work? Disgruntled employees do become mass-shooters; this is not far-fetched.
Law enforcement professionals belong to well-regulated institutions that provide them with the right monitoring and support system; but not these proposed militias.
School police is the better alternative, but having a police officer posted in front of every household in America would also help stop domestic violence, child-abuse, and etc. What are the logistics? It is ironic that the same conservatives who want cuts in an era where our schools are academically under-founded, our teachers are under-paid; are advocating a significant operational budget increase for our schools. I am sure a good tax-break will help us pay for it.
If going to Google and type: “teacher student fight” “teachers fight” and/or etc.; you get a good idea of the heated environment existing among the staff and faculty at our schools, not just among students.
How many of these fights will end up with a school shooting if we promote gun proliferation in our schools as the NRA is advocating?
Do we really want the NRA and gun-makers to lead debate on curving gun violence in our schools?
Gamaliel E. Frederick Boston, MA
Or you can join the NRA online NOW!!
http://membership.nrahq.org/
"a calculated move to use the slaughter of American children to promote its agenda"
Who is using the bodies of dead children to promote an agenda? It ain't the NRA! It's the Constitution hating left.
Newtown massacre took place on Dec. 14, 2012
December 14, 2012 Feinstein Statement on Connecticut School Shooting
“I hope and trust that in the next session of Congress there will be sustained and thoughtful debate about America’s gun culture and our responsibility to prevent more loss of life.”
December 17, 2012 Feinstein to Introduce Updated Assault Weapons Bill in New Congress.
http://www.feinstein.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/assault-weapons
April, 10 2009
"Sen. Dianne Feinstein tells CBS' "60 Minutes" that the timing isn't right for her to push to renew the ban on assault weapons.
Such an effort might become a distraction for the Obama administration, Feinstein tells Lesley Stahl. But Feinstein adds that no one from the administration has talked to her about the issue.
"So you are going to hold off?" Stahl asks.
"That's correct," Feinstein says. "I'll pick the time
and the place, no question about it," to seek the renewal."
http://blogs.orlandosentinel.com/entertainment_tv_tvblog/2009/04/60-minu...
Dianne Feinstein: “I Carried a Concealed Weapon”
“I know the sense of helplessness that people feel. I know the urge to arm yourself because that’s what I did. I was trained in firearms. I walked to the hospital when my husband was sick. I carried a concealed weapon and I made the determination if somebody was going to try and take me out, I was going to take them with me,” said Feinstein.
http://www.infowars.com/dianne-feinstein-i-carried-a-concealed-weapon/
Happy New Year.... Happy New T-Party created "Fiscal Cliff`s" arguments to fall off of...If you live in a swing State,as I do,you were pounded by T-Party liar ads on Obama wasteful spending....But what is that? Part is the $3 TRILLION the Bush Tax Cuts have added so far.... I love the NeoNutzi`s when they bash Obama on the percentage of debt he`s added... NeoNutzi hero Ronald Reagan raised the debt ceiling 17 times. From $980 BILLION to $2,857,430,960,187.32 .... That`s a 300% increase.... Tax cuts to the wealthy threw everything out of whack then,and continues today. If Obama was that irresponsible the $10 TRILLION debt he inherited,would turn into a $30 Trillion debt. Most of the Obama added debt is the Wars and Bush tax cuts,ALL UNFUNDED....The Obama Stimulus package was added in 2+ years ago.
The New York suburban newspaper that outed the NRA terrorists must now hire gunmen to protect staff members from attacks by the outed terror group...... SURPRISE.....SURPRISE ???
"Tax cuts to the wealthy threw everything out of whack then,and continues today."
Your "Tax cuts to the wealthy", Clifford, raised revenues to the FG by 40% after the 2003 tax cuts. Even Obama knew that taxes had to be kept low or we would have decended from recession to depression - well, at least until he could use it as a wedge issue in his class warfare assault when he needed it for re-election.
Has America 'lost the plot' over the the concept and purpose of govt taxation of individuals and companies??
Regarding the recent fiscal cliff averting votes in the U.S. Congress's Senate and House of Representatives, dissenting Democratic party Senator Tom Harkin (Iowa) said what has needed to to expressed by the U.S.'s political leadership for over 3-years:
http://www.npr.org/2013/01/01/168417043/harkin-explains-no-vote-on-fisca... -
"(I voted against this bill) because it's so discriminatory. All of the tax benefits that go to rich people and the high-income earners are made permanent.
"The tax benefits that we Democrats put in in 2009 to help modest-income people, those are made temporary.
"To me, that just stands logic on its head.
"You should make the things that help modest-income earners permanent and the things that help high-income earners temporary. Vice President Biden and everyone in their speech, I think, kept referring to 400,000 as middle class.
"Well, if you're making $400,000, you're in the top 1 percent of income earners in America. So have we defined the new middle class as people making $400,000 a year?"
Roderick V. Louis,
Vancouver, BC, Canada
Has America 'lost the plot' over the the concept and purpose of govt taxation of individuals and companies??
PART 2:
Regarding the recent fiscal cliff averting votes in the U.S. Congress's Senate and House of Representatives, dissenting Democratic party Senator Tom Harkin (Iowa) said what has needed to to expressed by the U.S.'s political leadership for over 3-years:
http://www.npr.org/2013/01/01/168393842/senate-ushers-in-new-year-with-f... -
"SENATOR TOM HARKIN: As I've said before, no deal is better than a bad deal, and this looks like a very bad deal the way this is shaping up.
"(Interviewer): Harkin complains the White House went too far in accommodating Republicans, making Bush-era tax cuts permanent not just for the middle class, but for households making up to $450,000.
"That's a windfall for the wealthy, who Mr. Obama has long said need to pay more in taxes. Even the president's preferred cut-off of $250,000 is more than generous enough for the Iowa Democrat.
"HARKIN: If you make $250,000 a year, you're not middle-class; you're in the top two percent of income earners in America. Have we forgotten that the average income earners in America are making 25, 30, 40, 50, 60 thousand dollars a year?
"That's the real middle-class in America..."
==========
Roderick V. Louis,
Vancouver, BC, Canada
Happy New Year!
Most economists agree that stimulus works when the economy is sluggish. On the other hand, stimulus adds to the national debt which, in the long run, drags down the economy. The national debt is now around $16T. Is there a “red line” for national debt which we should not cross? What is it?
Robert Rubin, a man with a mixed record, (Treasury Secretary during the Clinton Administration, but chairman of the executive committee and chairman of the board of directors of a reckless Citigroup) recently was on a local all news radio show (WTOP) and said that two things the markets require from the Federal Government are a functional government and a guarantee that the government pays its debts. He wasn't asked what the Government requires of the markets, which would include, such things as honest brokers who are kept at least as honest as the local bookie (not selling junk bonds as AAA) and a little skin in the game ( NOT gaming with perverse rules, such as (a) 1/100 chance to win, (b) 99/100 chance to lose, (c) I cap my losses, so I win.) He has his requirements of the Government and the Government has its requirements of the financial industry. There's no question this industry is an important force in stabilizing the economy and promoting growth, but it has to be monitored. Congress, with its imperfections, also needs to be monitored , at least, to make sure it meets the requirements of a less than perfect financial industry. Both sets of institutions need to remember that it's Main Street and the American public that saved the financial industry. If both Congress and Wall Street acknowledge and remember that, then it would help both Congress and Wall Street stay grounded and remember not to again risk the financial security of the American public. Banks used to be community pillars and the fuel for the manufacturing and other engines of our economy. Recently, they became the flimflam artists that swindled municipalities and Americans out of their securities. Perhaps, a return to honest practices, again will help drive our economy, generate jobs and increase Government stability and revenues, with Government being the cop on the beat making sure rules and laws are followed.
Great comments; all we need to do is mobilize our allies and have the 2nd amendment repealed. After all, it's been a couple of hundred years since the constitution was written; obviously this is an anachranism from a time when this made sence.
While we are at it; let's revisit freedom of the press. With modern technology offering so many options having a free and unfettered press is certainly not needed. Besides; we need to make sure people like Hanity and Limbaugh are fair and ballanced; getting rid of this amendment will finally allow the people to manage that fringe element.
Hey, while we are fixing things; let's go after the ability of private citizens to own property. We should at least allow the government the ability to approve ownership of private assets (at least more than they do now). The top 5% own most of the assets in the country; why shouldn't we the people be allowed to have some more of their stuff. It's unfair that the rich get to own so much.
I'm sure there are other pesky aspects of the Constitution that need changing; but let's focus on these for now, we can fix the others later. After all; we need to keep our children safe, and it appears that the Constitution was formed without considering our offspring (figures; what would you expect from a bunch of white guys).
The hippies and flower children of the sixties who once rebelled against "the man" have become the man. They are mean, nasty control freaks out for revenge . They bludgeon the opposition with a constant drum beat of lies, personal insults and political correctness. Calls of racism, sexism and inequality are their favorite tools to put even the slightest criticism on the defensive. Their only answer or solution to anything is giving more power and control to the man. Their religion is global climate change and wealth redistribution. Personal responsibility and traditional values are quaint outdated ideas that they believe never worked and only suppressed free will. They live for the moment, mob rule supersedes Constitutional rights, decadence is desired. World history on societal and governmental evolution mean nothing to them, their arrogance in believing that the entirety of all human history has led up to this moment for them the enlightened to take control.
WW; the current deficite (as a percentage of GDP) is anywhere from 80% to 120%. Most economist say that as a country gets above 100% you are entering a dengerous area. Essentially we are close, if not over, the "red line".
What are the risks?
1. Higher interest rates - US bonds are curently around 1%. If our interest rates rose to 5%; the budget would have to increase by $680 Billion (this number is of course going up as the deficite increases).
2. Higher inflation - The Federal Reserve is printing Trillions of dollars (Quantitative Easing if you follow the news). As more money is put in circulation, the value drops. This causes prices to rise. We also risk hyper-inflation if this continues (type that in to your search engine if you want to really get scared).
3. Higher interst rates - As the demand from the federal government increases, the amount of money available for economic expansion is reduced. The Fed is keeping interest rates low to encourage economic expansion. This will stop as inflation increases. Inflation is not bad (in an of itself) if it is as a result of a growing economy. But if prices increase because of deficite spending, increased interest rates will only cause pain in the private sector. There will be little ability to absorb the increased costs (as you would be able to do with rising employment that will create increased demand for goods).
4. Lower employment - There are many reasons that this will follow the first three impacts. Lack of confidence, lack of capital, low demand caused by a reduction in available income (normally incomes do not rise as fast in high inflationary periods).
We should all be scared about what is going on. The deficite needs to be fixed NOW!
The problem with the line of argument (in both notes) is there is no reference point. Both are correc that something approaching $75,000 (more if you live in an urban area) is probably a starting point for middle class. What is missing is the current tax levels. If you include local and state taxes; someone making $150,000 and above is paying close to 50% of income to the government. This is before the tax changes for those earning $400,000 - $450,000 and above. Plus if you have managed to save over $5,000,000 for your heirs you can now give the government 45% of that (even though you have paid taxes while earning that money).
People who oppose tax increases are certainly reasonable to ask that our government spend within its' means. We all do that in our personal lives; a good starting point might be with that assumption.
What we have instead is increased taxes that risk lowering economic expansion. I would be happy to accept that risk and would pay more taxes (we are above the average but are not in the top 10%). What I want in return is to have the federal government spend the money we send them; not 30% more. Now the democrats are saying we can't reduce spending we need to make the tax structure more "fair". So we will go thru another round of tax the rich. In the long run this socialism will hurt everyone. Let's get spending under control now while we have the ability to do so. Otherwise our childred will curse us for our slothfulness and averice.
The problem with the line of argument (in both notes) is there is no reference point. Both are correc that something approaching $75,000 (more if you live in an urban area) is probably a starting point for middle class. What is missing is the current tax levels. If you include local and state taxes; someone making $150,000 and above is paying close to 50% of income to the government. This is before the tax changes for those earning $400,000 - $450,000 and above. Plus if you have managed to save over $5,000,000 for your heirs you can now give the government 45% of that (even though you have paid taxes while earning that money).
People who oppose tax increases are certainly reasonable to ask that our government spend within its' means. We all do that in our personal lives; a good starting point might be with that assumption.
What we have instead is increased taxes that risk lowering economic expansion. I would be happy to accept that risk and would pay more taxes (we are above the average but are not in the top 10%). What I want in return is to have the federal government spend the money we send them; not 30% more. Now the democrats are saying we can't reduce spending we need to make the tax structure more "fair". So we will go thru another round of tax the rich. In the long run this socialism will hurt everyone. Let's get spending under control now while we have the ability to do so. Otherwise our childred will curse us for our slothfulness and averice.
NSCoalman,
Some excellent points in your posts. Just two responses on this one:
1) Making the tax structure more "fair" is a euphemism for wealth redistribution and confiscatory tax policy is not "fair" at all. Also, "taxing the rich" is a misnomer. You are really taxing the "successful". It's easy to get Joe Blow to say, "yeah, let's tax the rich". It's harder for him to say, "yeah, let's tax the successful", without seeing himself as bitter and jealous.
2) The burden we are placing on our children is something I've been thinking a lot about lately. If our fathers and grandfathers were the "greatest generation", we might be the worst. This should be a constant drum beat from true conservatives in this country whenever the subject of the debt - or now, the debt ceiling comes up.
I think Americans, by and large, want to do the right thing. But they are painted a picture of things that just is not true and it's being done through the distortion of language that is splitting America in two.
I have zero confidence that the President has any intention to tackle the single biggest financial problem in this country: entitlement spending now and going forward. Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security are simply unsupportable within the current scheme of things. Taxing the rich will never get you there. If every dollar of earned income over $100,000 were to be taxed at a rate of 100%, we still could not even cover our annual deficit.
The President promised in February of 2009 to stop kicking the can down the road on entitlement reform. Sadly, all he has done is set the table for massive tax increases and continued profligate spending.
I liked the call from the caller who suggested that the Tea Party members become citizens of Russia so that they can live where there is a 13% flat rate on taxes.
Having lived and studies in Moscow and St. Petersburg, I would be more than happy to move to Russia. I do not know how you can judge something when you have never experienced it. The more I listen to the Friday Roundup, I realize the panel has an oppinion about everything and experience little.
Debray
I never hear anything about the efficiencies of govenment only the total cost. Why is no discussion about how money is spent focusing on waste. By employiing a "Lean" approach there would certainly be significant cost containment before getting to cutting services or capabilities.
Coorporations employ this all the time by reviewing all contracts for areas of opportunities. Look at spending behavior around travel and expenses.
I have experienced as much as 10% improvements in operating expenses through this approach. It doesn't sound significant but certainly adds up.
Better than "Burning the Furniture" to get spending down. That approach is not effective and typically boomerangs in the next cycle with higher cost to repair damamge.
Once, cost containment is firmly in place then look at human capital and serivce effectiveness.
Finally, the tax code needs to be overhauled.....but not until the previous steps are taken.
Lee Black wrote:
"I liked the call from the caller who suggested that the Tea Party members become citizens of Russia so that they can live where there is a 13% flat rate on taxes."
Yes. That call was very helpful. It really moved the debate forward.
Ugh.
We got a taste of the Tea Party/Republican vision for our country when the bill to help Sandy Storm victims was so callously cast aside in the House, as if it was not the government's problem. Shame on you people...your true colors were revealed in spite of all your BS talk of compassion.
Indianapolis
just how many filibuster have actual occurred - not just threatened?
Why not make those who wish to filibuster, actually do it!
af64 wrote: "We got a taste of the Tea Party/Republican vision for our country when the bill to help Sandy Storm victims was so callously cast aside in the House"
It was loaded with billions of dollars of pork that had nothing to do with Sandy.
Where do you get your news from?
Gene6 wrote:
"I never hear anything about the efficiencies of govenment only the total cost. Why is no discussion about how money is spent focusing on waste. By employiing a "Lean" approach there would certainly be significant cost containment before getting to cutting services or capabilities."
Excellent points, but it never happens - even though every adminstration promises. The current one is no exception.
"President-elect Barack Obama vowed today to get rid of federal programs that no longer make sense and run others in a more frugal way to make Washington work in tough economic times.
Obama said that to make the needed investments to create jobs, "we also have to shed the spending we don't need."
"In these challenging times, when we are facing both rising deficits and a sinking economy, budget reform is not an option. It is an imperative," Obama said. "We cannot sustain a system that bleeds billions of taxpayer dollars on programs that have outlived their usefulness, or exist solely because of the power of a politicians, lobbyists, or interest groups. We simply cannot afford it. This isn’t about big government or small government. It’s about building a smarter government that focuses on what works. That is why I will ask my new team to think anew and act anew to meet our new challenges.... We will go through our federal budget – page by page, line by line – eliminating those programs we don’t need, and insisting that those we do operate in a sensible cost-effective way."
Barack Obama November 25, 2008.
With NO passable budget in the last four years, how do you think he's doing?
As for looking at "human captial and service effectiveness", sorry. That can never happen as long as there is a public sector union that is electing Democrats.
Thank you, Dan D. I emailed and tweeted a question to the panel about this...
johnandere...
The Move To Russia comment made a very good point. The Tea Partiers are like children that can't see the broader consequences of their desires. So if they believe a flat tax would make them happy....they should move to where their dream is a reality. But I would bet after a short time they would start crying about something else that isn't 'going their way' in Russia.
The Tea Party needs adult supervision.
@Dan D.
The 'preferred' cut of PORK never stopped a Republican before.....Where have you been living?
af64 wrote:
"The Move To Russia comment made a very good point."
If that point was to demonstrate the low level thinking that is driven by the MSM into the brains of liberals, then, yes I agree with you.
"The Tea Partiers are like children that can't see the broader consequences of their desires. So if they believe a flat tax would make them happy....they should move to where their dream is a reality. But I would bet after a short time they would start crying about something else that isn't 'going their way' in Russia".
The concept of a "flat tax" cannot be viewed in a vacuum. Yes, many Tea Partiers (though not all) favor a flat tax. But along with a "flat tax", comes much smaller government, much less government meddling in free markets, and much more personal responsibility. Russia offers none of those things. So with respect to the Tea Party, their "dream is NOT a reality" in Russia and that is the false assertion that makes the caller's ... and your point moot.
"The Tea Party needs adult supervision."
Ah! There's the 'tell'! And liberal progressives are just the ones to give it to them right? Just like they would like to supervise the rest of society? In fact, the Tea Party would like EVERYONE to have LESS government supervision and more personal responsibility - something we're not finding in this country, and certainly not in Russia today.
af64 wrote:
The Tea Party needs adult supervision.
That's hilarious coming from the side that wants other people to pay their bills and still want a handout on top of it. Hows this for adult supervision, if you want something work for it, don't cry and whine until someone hands it to you, after all that's what I tell my daughter. Invest in yourself(education), get a real job(they are out there), pay taxes (at a reasonable rate), and quit asking the rest of the country to pay your way. I'm sick and tired of these liberal hacks trying to pick my pocket simply because they have no work ethic and I do.
@mnemecek
Your comment covers all the typical aspersions that are hurled by the Tea Party. What do you know about what "side" I'm on?
I have always payed my bills, have never "taken a handout", have always worked for what I wanted. I've invested in my own education (and paid back my graduate student loan in record time), have always had a "real job", pay my taxes AND have never asked "the rest of the country to pay my way".
Your comment reflects the ignorance and childishness that my original comment referred to. Get out in the world and get to know people whom you think are just "hacks trying to pick your linty pocket"!