DOWNLOADS: (108)

PLAYS: (539)

Embed

While discussing the fact that seniors will not be getting a cost of living increase on their Social Security benefits next year, Fox host Julie Banderas allows financial consultant Dominick Tavella to propagate the myth that the Social Security trust fund is broke. Tavella apparently wants the Fox viewers to believe that the surplus disappeared because the system is paying out more than it's taking in right now. Maybe he's trying to drum up some business for his investment company.

Banderas: With Social Security obviously being the primary source of income as you mentioned for a great majority of Americans, in fact 64% of retirees.

Tavella: 64%.

Banderas: 64%, that is a huge disadvantage for so many of our seniors. I guess... do you need to think a little differently about retirement given these circumstances?

Tavella: Well obviously if you're not retired yet and particularly if you're younger and have a long time to go, if you are not paying attention to what's going on here, if you are not seeing the writing on the wall then you really have to be walking around with your eyes closed.

This system, the Social Security system simply is broke. It is broke today. They are spending more money today than they're actually collecting way ahead of schedule. So the solutions to this are going to be painful and particularly painful the younger you are.

They're going to push out the age for retirement. We're hearing rumors it might go out to age 70. We're hearing who's even going to be eligible for getting Social Security. They're going to put income limits in place. So you have to take care of yourself. If you don't you really have nobody to blame but yourself.

DOWNLOADS: (145)

PLAYS: (1655)

Embed

Republican Senate candidate from Colorado was put on the defensive Sunday after he compared being gay to the disease of alcoholism.

In a debate on Meet the Press, Buck told NBC's David Gregory that being gay, like alcoholism, was not completely determined at birth.

GREGORY: Do you believe that being gay is a choice?

BUCK: I do.

GREGORY: Based on what?

BUCK: Based on what? I guess you can choose who your partner is.

GREGORY: You don’t think it’s something that’s determined at birth?

BUCK: I think that birth has an influence over it, like alcoholism and some other things, but I think that basically, you have a choice.

The Democratic opponent, Sen. Michael Bennet, quickly disagreed.

"I absolutely believe he's outside the mainstream of views on this," said Bennet.

After the debate, Buck tried to explain himself to reporters.

"I am not a biologist and I haven't studied the issue, but that's my opinion," Buck said. "I wasn't talking about being gay as a disease. I don't think that at all and I hope that no one would be that insensitive to try to draw that...I certainly didn't mean it that way."

In an earlier debate, Buck had expressed support for "don't ask, don't tell," saying the country shouldn't get distracted by "lifestyle choices."

BUCK: I do not support the repeal of Don't Ask, Don't Tell. I think it is a policy that makes a lot of sense. It's not whether an individual is gay can serve in the military, the question is whether that individual can be openly gay in the military. It's one thing to deny someone access to the military and to a career in the military, it's another thing to -- for morale purposes and other purposes -- make sure that we are as homogeneous as possible in the military in moving towards the common goal of the security and the military action, as opposed to the distractions that are caused by allowing lifestyle choices to become part of the discussion.

On This Week with Christiane Amanpour, we are all very, very shocked that people like Christine O'Donnell are somehow taken very, very seriously. As if the constant media barrage had nothing to do with that -- or with the success of crazy people like Sharon Angle, who for some reason was also taken seriously (because we didn't want to hurt the widdle feelings of the disgruntled fringe teabaggers):

Meghan McCain, author of the book "Dirty Sexy Politics," said Christine O'Donnell, the Republican candidate for Senate in Delaware, was real trouble.

"Well, I speak as a 26-year-old woman and my problem is that, no matter what, Christine O'Donnell is making a mockery of running for public office," McCain told anchor Christiane Amanpour. "She has no real history, no real success in any kind of business."

McCain, daughter of Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., said that the message, "that sends to my generation is: one day you can just wake and run for Senate, no matter how [much of] a lack of experience you have. And it scares for me for a lot of reasons."

"I just know, in my group of friends, it turns people off because she's seen as a nutjob," she said.

You know, Meghan, this might have been a good time to apologize to the public for your father, who after all, set the precedent on lowering that bar... you betcha!

Amanpour asked political analyst Matthew Dowd about the curious backgrounds of some Tea Party-affiliated candidates that have come to light recently.

He said when people vote for them, "they are votes of passion. They are like crimes of passion, in that in the aftermath you think, 'maybe I shouldn't have done that,'" he said. "But in the middle of a time when the country is so angry at Washington ... they turn to candidates that are so outside, that many of those candidates are either nuts, or somewhat off or not competent."

"But in the end," Dowd said, "if you had to switch places with the Democratic Party or the Republican Party, the Democrats would switch places with the Republicans in a minute if they could in this year's election cycle."

Dowd, who has worked for both Democratic and Republican candidates, said that the voters of Delaware will serve as a final check against O'Donnell, who is running for a Senate seat in Delaware for the third time.

"Republicans nominated somebody that's not qualified, that's probably incompetent, and has said some crazy stuff," he said. "The great news is, the Delaware electorate is probably going to send her packing one more time."

Despite many protestations that they are WV residents and care about WV issues, the wife of tea party Republican Senate candidate John Raese cannot vote for husband as she was purged from WV voter rolls. Why? She's already a registered FL voter.

In an escalating residency controversy between West Virginia’s Senate contenders, the wife of Republican businessman John Raese is being purged from the state’s voter rolls because she is also registered to vote in Florida.

John Raese is running against Democratic Gov. Joe Manchin to fill the seat of the late Sen. Robert Byrd (D).

Roll Call confirmed Friday that Elizabeth Raese is registered to vote in both states but has not voted in West Virginia since 1998. But in an interview this week with Time magazine, she indicated that she would be — and has been — voting in West Virginia.

“We are West Virginians,” Elizabeth Raese said, according to Time reporter Jay Newton-Small. “We live here, we vote here, people know that. We also have a home in Colorado, but we’re not residents there either.”

Raese campaign spokesman Kevin McLaughlin said Elizabeth Raese does not remember the conversation with the Time reporter, but he added that, “If she did say this, she obviously misspoke.”

Though John Raese’s campaign has repeatedly confirmed that he lives and pays taxes in West Virginia, an investigation by the nonpartisan PolitiFact.com showed that his wife has been registered to vote in Palm Beach County, Fla., since 2001 and voted there in 2008.

The "carpetbagger" charge is one that is apparently taken far more seriously in West Virginia than the "teabagger" charge. This could undermine Raese's campaign against Gov. Joe Manchin for the Senate seat. So Raese has been on the defensive:

Morgantown industrialist John Raese defended his residency, despite owning a mansion in Palm Beach, Fla., on which his wife, Liz, claims a homestead exemption as a Florida resident.

"I've never been a resident of Florida. I pay taxes and I live here in West Virginia," Raese said, adding, "My wife isn't running for U.S. Senate. I am."

So, what would we have expected total government spending — federal, state, and local — to do over the past three years if there had not been a crisis and a change in government control? A first approximation would have been spending growing along with the trend growth in the economy — that is, real GDP growing with the economy’s potential, and government spending growing at real GDP plus inflation.

Now, over the period 2000-2007 — from business cycle peak to business cycle peak — real GDP grew 2.4 percent a year. So a reasonable estimate for trend growth is 2.4 percent, or 7.3 percent since 2007.

We can use actual inflation: the GDP deflator rose 4.1 percent from 2007II to 2010II.

Put these together, and “normal” growth in government spending would have been 11.7 percent over the past three years.

Actual growth has been higher: 19.5 percent. So government spending is about 7 percent, or about $350 billion, higher than a simple trend projection would have suggested. What accounts for the higher spending?

Well, none of it is government consumption; it’s all in transfer payments. BEA data aren’t quite as helpful here as I’d like, but it’s clear that a large chunk, roughly $100 billion, is unemployment benefits, which have surged along with unemployment, and another large chunk is Medicaid spending, which has surged because the slump has impoverished more people. Some more for other safety net programs, like food stamps. Also, Social Security and Medicare outlays have gone up about $85 billion more than my 11.7 percent norm — medical cost growth, aging baby boomers, and maybe some people taking early retirement because they can’t find jobs.

The thing about Krugman is that he's really wedded to the idea that presenting concrete facts will change the discussion. He doesn't understand that the right wing will simply create new "facts" to justify their accusations!

In an election season that appears more like a three ring circus than an exercise in democracy, Republican tea party candidate Allen West of Florida has flown under the radar of most, overshadowed by his flashier teabagging compatriots, like Christine O'Donnell, Sharron Angle and Marco Rubio. Even his nuttier statements (like having a higher security clearance than the President of the United States) seem more sadly self-deluded than loony. But Allen West may be one of the more dangerous candidates out there:

NBC News’ Lisa Myers reports that Allen West (FL-22) has ties to an infamous motorcycle gang, the Outlaws. [..]

The Justice Department has said that the Outlaws produce and distribute methamphetamine, and engage in other criminal activities including arson, homicide, and prostitution. [Justice Department, National Gang Threat Assessment 2009, Published January 2009, accessed 9/13/10]

This past Monday, Republican Leader John Boehner was raising money for Allen West in Florida. This past Tuesday, NRCC Executive Director Guy Harrison touted West’s candidacy. Republican leaders, including Eric Cantor and Sarah Palin, support Allen West.

Motorcycle gangs? Drug production and distribution? Arson? Homicide? Oy.

Strictly anecdotal, but friends I have in Florida's 22nd District have told me that West's signs are all over the country and Democratic rival Ron Klein's are few and far between. Of course the NRCC is putting their money and backing behind the campaign. Will they continue to support West with these kind of ties?

You can call the NRCC and ask them if they want to keep giving donations to Allen West at (202) 479-7000.

DOWNLOADS: (145)

PLAYS: (1134)

Embed

Liz Trotta attacks Think Progress for their reporting on the US Chamber of Commerce and their foreign funding. Trotta reads two lines from a New York Times op-ed that Think Progress has already thoroughly debunked as her proof that their reporting isn't to be trusted because they're a "far left" blog. Sadly Liz Trotta wouldn't know what a real journalist looked like if one bit her on the nose.

Here is the response from Think Progress to that NYT's op-ed.

GRAPHIC: How The Chamber Gets Its Foreign Money:

After consulting with the Chamber of Commerce’s chief lobbyist Bruce Josten, the New York Times and the Washington Post publish articles today largely dismissing concerns about the Chamber’s foreign sources of funding as a means to raise money to air political attack ads. Both the Times and the Post articles fail to appreciate the scope of the Chamber’s foreign sources of funding, focusing instead too narrowly on independently-run, foreign-based “AmChams.” The Times casually disregards our report as part of a “Washington spin cycle” (which apparently also involves the New York Times editorial board). [...]

In fact, as ThinkProgress has noted, “AmChams” are only a small piece of the puzzle. Most of the Chamber’s foreign sources of funds come from large multi-national corporations which are headquartered abroad, like BP and Siemens. Direct contributions from foreign firms also are accepted under the auspices of the Chamber’s “Business Councils” located in various foreign countries. [...]

Neither the Times nor the Post appear to have pressed the Chamber to answer two critical questions:

1) How many foreign sources of funding does the Chamber have? The Washington Post’s Greg Sargent received this statement from a Chamber spokeswoman: “[Of] the Chamber’s 300,000 members, a relative handful are non-U.S. based companies.” How many is a “relatively handful,” and how much do they contribute?

2) Are the foreign funds being directed into the same general account that is used to pay for partisan attack ads? Again, the Post’s Greg Sargent pressed on this point. The Chamber, which is running more than $10 million in political advertising just this week (the largest expenditure in one week by an outside group), said, “We are not obligated to discuss our internal accounting procedures.”

You can read all of their recent posts on the US Chamber of Commerce here. Full transcript of Liz Trotta's hackery below the fold.

Continue reading »

Last night I watched Doc Halladay and Tim Lincecum in a great pitching duel. But if you live in New York and subscribe to Cablevision, it was blacked out -- thanks to a high-stakes game of chicken between Cablevision and News Corp.

This shouldn't have happened. But in a monopoly industry that has only token competition, this sort of thing is not uncommon. We've gotten far too used to media companies putting the screws to us through high prices, poor service and lousy selection. Isn't it time we regulated the cable industry, and restrained the media companies that provide content? As far as I'm concerned, cable is now a utility -- and should be regulated like one:

NEW YORK — Cablevision, the service provider for 3 million customers in the New York area, and Fox parent News Corp. failed to solve a dispute over rates Saturday, leaving baseball fans who wanted to watch the opener of the National League Championship Series with a blank screen instead of a marquee pitching matchup.

Both sides met throughout the afternoon Saturday but adjourned before the start of the playoff game between the Phillies and the San Francisco Giants, said Cablevision spokesman Jim Maiella. Negotiators plan to meet again Sunday.

The stalemate that led to Fox pulling its channels and, briefly, online content from subscribers in parts of New York, New Jersey and Connecticut early Saturday was the latest in a series of programming fee disputes that have led to blackouts of programs such as the Oscars. But the impasse amounted to more than corporate wrangling for Bronx resident Clifford Taylor.

"We live for sports," Taylor said. "Die-hard New Yorker fans, we love to see the Yankees and Giants play."

[...] According to Cablevision, the dispute is about $80 million, to be precise. The cable company says that News Corp. is asking for that much more a year for access to 12 Fox channels, including those in dispute. That would more than double the yearly rate to $150 million, says the company, which is demanding that Fox enter into binding arbitration.

Fox, meanwhile, blames Cablevision Systems Corp. "In an effort to avoid this very situation, we started this process in May and made numerous reasonable proposals, Mike Hopkins, president of Fox Networks Affiliate Sales and Marketing, said in an earlier release.

"As long as there is a serious effort on the part of Cablevision, we will be at the table," Fox spokesman Scott Grogin said Saturday. "We want to settle this as quickly as possible."

After negotiations ended later in the day, Cablevision issued a statement accusing News Corp. of using the sporting events "to hold viewers hostage," calling it shameful.

By Saturday afternoon, Cablevision's Internet customers were blocked from watching Fox content on the network's website and on the video site Hulu, prompting U.S. Rep. Edward Markey, D-Mass., to call on the Federal Communications Commission to broker an agreement and step in to "defend Internet freedom and consumer rights."

This is the problem with the media lending so much credibility to the tea party and airing ad nauseam all the nutty things they say. It DEMANDS that any teabagger worth their bag has to ratchet up the craziness to get noticed. And David Harmer wants to be noticed. It wasn't enough to come out against bailouts (even when he's personally benefited from them), that's small potatoes. That's why David Harmer has done the Randians one better and advocated for the abolishment of public schools:

David Harmer, a tea party favorite who is running as a Republican for the U.S. House of Representatives in California's 11th district, is not just in favor of getting rid of the Department of Education. (Something the Maine GOP incorporated into their platform this year.)

No, Harmer wants to eliminate public schools entirely, and turn the clock back two hundred years, to a time when educational opportunities for the poor, African-Americans, women, the disabled, and other groups, were either limited or non-existent.

::facepalm:: Lord save us all. I knew that the Republicans preferred a dumbed-down electorate, the better to voter against their interests, but this is ridiculous. In his 2000 San Francisco Chronicle op-ed, Harmer said this:

Six years ago, I wrote "School Choice," a book making the case for a voucher system. Vouchers give parents consumer power, the financial ability to choose from among competing providers of schooling. Back then, the only voucher system in operation was in Milwaukee, Wis., and the teachers' unions were trying to strangle it.

Since then, the Milwaukee program has been greatly expanded, and numerous voucher programs elsewhere -- both publicly and privately funded -- have proven wildly popular, with demand far exceeding supply. These programs are restricted to the lowest-income students or those trapped in the worst schools. Given the opportunity to put their children into better schools, even disadvantaged parents jump at the chance.

So long as the state Constitution mandates free public schools, a voucher system (or refundable tuition tax credit) is the best we can do. To attain quantum leaps in educational quality and opportunity, however, we need to separate school and state entirely. Government should exit the business of running and funding schools.

This is no utopian ideal; it's the way things worked through the first century of American nationhood, when literacy levels among all classes, at least outside the South, matched or exceeded those prevailing now, and when public discourse and even tabloid content was pitched at what today would be considered a college-level audience.

Of course, with his six-figure severance package, the notion of privatizing schools is but a piddly amount. For those Americans whose household income falls on the poor side of the bell curve? Well, suckers, you just didn't work hard enough and your kids aren't deserving of a decent education. Henry Rollins in Vanity Fair:

Continue reading »

It's been a slice people.  I leave you hoping each and every one of you VOTES on November 2nd! And if you're in Arizona, watch out for the Teapublican mailers!

People's World: Sitting Out the Elections? Think Again!

Choices Campus Blog:  Get Out HER Vote: On the Road

NAMI Blog:  Get Ready, Get Set, Vote!

Diatribes of Jay:  10 Reasons to Vote Democratic in 2010

Latinoaview: Vote Republican? Not Hardly.

Mugsy's Rap Sheet:  101 Reasons Not to Vote Republican

Rock the Vote!   Get Out the Vote!   Declare Yourself!   Can I Vote?   Absentee Voting    What to Bring.

Guest round up by Swimgirl. Batocchio is up next; send tips to batocchio9 AT yahoo DOT com.