E-mail updates
Follow on Twitter
Subscribe to RSSFormer Nebraska Sen. Chuck Hagel, a Republican, endorsed Rep. Joe Sestak (D) in his bid for Senate. Hagel's wife endorsed Barack Obama for president.
AP:
Hagel told The Associated Press on Monday that Sestak has demonstrated during his two terms in Congress that he puts what's best for the country before the interests of his party. He said Sestak's courage and integrity as a legislator are qualities the nation needs more of. He refused to comment on the candidacy of Sestak's opponent, Republican Pat Toomey, a former congressman. ... Hagel plans to announce his endorsement Tuesday at news conferences with Sestak in Pittsburgh and Philadelphia.
Leave a Comment:
Meet The Press’s David Gregory—for Second Time in a Month—holds a GOP leader's feet to the summer fire on budget cuts and taxesMeet
Republicans John Boehner and Mike Pence Failed first, yesterday
Mitchell McConnell Scoffed At Having To Pay For The $3 Trillion Dollar Tax Cut For The Rich & It Goes Directly To The Deficit Republicans Say They Want To Cut!
Deficit Fraud McConnell: Why Did Tax Cuts ‘All Of A Sudden Become Something We, Quote, Pay For?’
GREGORY: For a final time, I’ll go back to my question which is,
the extension of the tax cuts would cost $3.2 trillion.
That’s borrowed money, that adds to the deficit.
Do you have a plan to pay for that extension?
Earlier this month, Reps. John Boehner (R-OH) and Mike Pence (R-IN) appeared on Meet the Press and were unable to explain their desire to extend the Bush tax cuts for the richest two percent of Americans with their rhetoric about deficit reduction.
“Listen, what you’re trying to do is get into this Washington game and their funny accounting over there,” Boehner said, when asked if Republicans planned to pay for extending tax cuts for the rich.
Today,
Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) ran into the same trouble with MTP host David Gregory, and scoffed at the very notion of paying for tax cuts.
“Why did it all of a sudden become something that we, quote, ‘pay for?’” McConnell asked.
MCCONNELL: What are you talking about, paid for? This is existing tax policy. It’s been in place for ten years. [...]
GREGORY: For a final time, I’ll go back to my question which is,
the extension of the tax cuts would cost $3.2 trillion.
That’s borrowed money, that adds to the deficit.
Do you have a plan to pay for that extension?
MCCONNELL: You’re talking about current tax policy. Why did it all of a sudden become something that we, quote, ‘pay for’?
In addition to incorrectly stating the effect that the expiration of the cuts would have on small businesses,
McConnell basically summed up the Republican approach here, which is that cutting taxes for the rich is either free or worth exploding the deficit to implement.
In reality, extending just the tax cuts for the richest two percent of Americans — which President Obama has proposed allowing to expire — costs $830 billion over ten years and $36 billion next year alone.
This week, the Washington Post excoriated Republicans for almost unanimously backing a proposal by Sen. Jim DeMint (R-SC) that would permanently extend all of the Bush tax cuts, calling it “a chilling sign of what a number of lawmakers believe passes for fiscal responsibility.”
Of course, maybe McConnell and Senate Republicans simply agree with former Vice President Dick Cheney’s pronouncement that “deficits don’t matter
Great post June. Thank you. McConnell is a fraud of a Senator. The entire GOP is one big scam for the wealthy as far as I'm concerned.
To the Republicans tax cuts for the wealthy are the answer to EVERYTHING! They think that by telling people that they will reduce taxes (nobody likes to pay taxes) that it is enough to get them elected and stay in power. That has worked on some but people are getting wise to their idiocy.
Those that agree with Cheney by saying deficits don't matter they are, as usual, hypocritical because they claim others want to make our children and grandchildren pay for what we do today. Their "deficit don't matter" attitude will come back to haunt our children and greand children because eventually somebody is going to have to pay for them. Those old buzzard GOPers won't be around then so they don't care. Their "I got mine, get your own" idea becomes more and more obvious.
Great post
Wait, you mean it's not the answer to everything?
I thought it was...you know, you extend the "Bush Tax Cuts..er...Shift" and suddenly we have a cure for cancer, no more world hunger or poverty, a cure for cancer, North Korea stands down, Iran is shutting down its nuclear program and bin Laden, Kim Jong-Il and Ahmadinejad are sitting around a campfire singing Kumbaya with Boehner and McConnell!
Right?
Da Noid, your description was priceless and ON THE MONEY! Thanks for posting. LOL! Made my day.
There is a very simple answer: by cutting spending.
Eliminate the department of education, a collection of bureaucrats who contribute nothing at all to actual educations. Save all those salaries and bennies and give the remaining 'federal education' dollars to the states in the form of block grants for education-they know better what to do with it. It would also have the generally beneficial effect of eliminating federal mandates that cost a fortune.
Every other department-every single one-should be cut by 20%. Period. And not idiotic 'reductions in the rate of increases' cuts-but real, deep cuts. let every department decide who and what to cut out-but cut they must.
Clinton proved that providing congress with more money NEVER solves the problem the money was 'targetted' for-look at Medicare. He eliminating the income cap on Medicare taxes, which was supposed to make Medicare solvent forever. Hasn't quite worked out that way, now, has it?
Instead, the Dems are going to propose a VAT tax, on top of tax increases. Of course, they will do this in December-after the elections. Unfortunately for this strategy, this is the worst kept secret in the history of this nation.
Raise the age at which people can collect Social Security to 70 for those under 40; simultaneously, raise the limit on how much people can contribute to their 401k plans. rescind the HCR provision that outlaws company provided Medi-Gap plans for retirees. In fact, repeal HCR all together-instead, congress should pass a law that outlaws state mandates on insurance coverage, and allows people to buy plans across state lines.
the federal budget can be cut, deeply, and most people in this country would not even notice. If it is not cut deeply, we are all going to notice-we will be paying astronomical taxes, have even higher unemployment numbers, and sky high inflation, to boot.
it needs to be done, and done soon.
Sounds like the FOX pundits daily talking points.
I have been reading the criticism of no joe, no bo for some time and I think I am starting to get it. Let me give it a try.
no jo, no bozo,
Are you kidding me? LA is opening a new $578 miilion school next month complete with manicured park, marble memorials to RFK, state of the art swimming pool and preservation pieces. This follows the $377 million Learning Center opened in 2008 and a modest $232 million Visual and Performing Arts school opened in 2009.
You probably think LA needs the 3,000 laid off teachers? All you need is a manicured park and some marble to raise those SATs, jo blo. 50% drop out rate in LA? With those preservation pieces? - Right.... $640 million shortfall this year? Big deal, that's what our union political donations are for. The "poor children"/"teachers" mantra works everytime, besides the kids/and their kids can pay it back. It doesn't effect selfish YOU.
YOU probably think this school district is the WORST in the country. Well it is not no jo, no bo-bo. How dare you question their judgement! They are the nation's second lowest performing! So there!!!!
Gosh, being liberal is kinda fun. I had no idea saying stupid crap felt good.
Yes the School was over the top, but that had nothing to do with the department of education. Which, like most other government agencies is over staffed, because that is where political appointees can be placed. No Jo is just repeating the same lines you hear on the radios and the Fox Tabloid news hour. While I do not totally disagree with anyone, one would think that people could express their own ideas. Which would open up fresh debate around major issues. I do not comment here everyday, because some of the issues deserve no comments.
I never thought I'd have to say it but No Joe, you sound just like Sharron Angle and Rand Paul. The FOX noise machine wins another victim--let the right wing fringe think for you. What a foolish notion but exactly what the republicans want--dumb down the voters by getting rid of the Dept of Education; that way, they can return this country to aristocracy rule. Sure, go ahead and believe the Dept of Education is the evil that besets this country; the answer to our problems is eliminate bureaucrats. That way, schools can teach whatever they please, as in say Texas where history has been replaced with GOP ideology. Why teach the negatives in U.S. history when we can sugar coat it and raise children with no real sense of what this country is or its struggles. Wow.
Salt Grass,
Thanks for your comments and I agree for the most part. It would be nice to talk about government agency over staffing, political appointees that cannot be replaced, Salazar's crippling of the energy industry, the power of the czars, the policy and law abuses of the EPA, the effects of HCR such as removing approval for the most widely used breast cancer treatment from Medicare/Medicaid, etc.
There is so much important stuff that doesn't get discussed.
Having said that, what is disappointing is that in the case of Fox talking points, except for when Fox makes a stupid error, I never hear a discussion about the points, just marginalization/dismissal because it might have been said on Fox. None of the comments I have ever made here have come from Fox for just that reason. They may been discussed by someone on Fox, I don't know, but they invariably come from RCP, or similar sources because in that forum an idea can be developed and a better understanding attained. My comments are thus, so much more easily defended. My guess is that many of the conservatives like no jo do the same. Comments are not discussed because it is simply easier to dismiss the comment and marginalize the person by stating it is a Fox talking point than to discuss/argue the point, especially when it is a good point and someone lacks the ability to skillfully address the point.
It's funny that these comments are being made on a thread (?) that led with a reguritation of Meet the Press, a 6 second sound bit show that has little more benefit than the show that follows - Turbo Dogs.
Jody, Iowa-
I agree. Wow.
Liberal Californiadictated the liberal ideology/content of school books for years because they were the largest buyer of school books. Liberal California cannot even afford to buy school books now. Their bureaucrats can build $578 million dollar schools, but they cannot hire teachers without government assistance. And again, liberal California cannot even afford to buy school books.
Kinda funny that conservative Texas gets to pick now, because they are the largest purchaser of school books, conservative Texas CAN afford to buy school books.
How's that liberalism working for California?
Jody, dear, you do not know me. I have been for the elimination of the Department of Education since the Reagan campaign.
It was instituted by Carter, and, at the time,I thought it was a good idea. Unfortunately, I became 'educated' as to the downside of federalizing things as a result-my state, like all states, was saddled with federal mandates we could not afford.
It has only gotten worse.
yes, states know what their students need, rather than federal agencies. In fact,local school districts know more than states-and each individual school knows better than any of them. Spare me the sermons on why some federal bureaucrat understands a child in a third grade classroom in Iowa better than the teacher, principal, and parents do. It doesn't sell.
Sestak is another democratic voice of the future. Chuck Hagel is a republican whose moderate GOP voice is needed in the Senate these days. No way would he have put party first before country during the economic crisis. He is one republican I always liked; a smart, no nonsense legislator who voted what he thought was right not what the party told him.
I like Chuck Hagel. Democrats owe him a debt of gratitude for being among the first -- and only -- republicans to turn against the war in Iraq. It looks like he has decided to come home. Now, if only he could align his social policy views with his military policy views.
By the way, I heard this morning that a US soldier was killed in Iraq yesterday. What do we call that now, if not a "combat" death? I think it's fair to say that "combat operations" in Iraq are not yet over.
As a former Nebraskan, I have more respect for Hagel then I ever will have for Dem Senator Ben Nelson. If I were a betting man, I would say Hagel would be a top choice for Secretary of Defense when Gates retires.
Come to think of it, Yellow Dog, that may be exactly what's going on here. He's preparing himself to be palatable to democrats. Won't bother me a bit, either. He was my choice the first time around. At least we should be able to count on him to say what he thinks.
I'm not sure how much weight this endorsement will have in the long run, but hey - it beats an endorsement by Sarah Palin any day! :)
Seriously, though - You'd never know it from the state who brought you Rick Santorum, but there are a lot of moderate Republicans here, too, and if this does anything to catch their attention, then I'm not about to argue. Thank you, Chuck Hagel, and welcome aboard!
Yellowdog. I agree completely, I'd trade one Chuck Hagel for ten Ben Nelsons any day.
Again Chuck Hagel consistently has shown bipartisan. He also worked with Senator Barack Obama in 2007 to introduce a nuclear nonproliferation bill. John Bolton and the rest of the neo-cons might not like it. Bolt-on would like to strike (nuke Iran).
Good on Chuck Hagel.
Now, if the rest of the Party of No would just come to their senses, this would be a better America.
How's that nuclear nonproliferation of Obama's working?
Obama gets played by Putin, reducing our resources while he's giving Iran the Bomb. Putin assured Obama Bushehr would not come on line before the end of the year (what kinda deal is that in the first place?) then punks him by loading it up last Saturday.
Nonproliferation? How about Global Nuclear Stimulus. If the craziest, most dangerous country in the world can have a bomb, every country can have one, especially the ones that feel threatened by the craziest, most dangerous one having it. Russia, China, France, etc. are going to make a lot of money building nuclear facilities for the Saudis, UAE, etc.
Yea, Obama and Putin did real well.
You guys seem to really like cute little phrases, i.e. Bolt-on, Party of No, tea baggers, etc. If you guys ever come to your senses (as Fiesty would say lol), here is another one......
Puter's Poodle.
Hagel is the future of the GOP if they expect to get anywhere. The extremists who have been running the party have been ruining things for them. Once the moderates regain control the Republican party will be much better off. They will possibly take control and return to the grandness they once had.
Sestak can be counted on to protect medicare and ss, the lying dopes of nope GOBP have been trying for years to get at the money this self sustaining program generates. Tooter the turtle from Kentucky is a flat out liar.
Myth: Social Security is going broke.
Reality: There is no Social Security crisis.By 2023, Social Security will have a $4.3 trillion surplus (yes, trillion with a 'T'). It can pay out all scheduled benefits for the next quarter-century with no changes whatsoever.1 After 2037, it'll still be able to pay out 75% of scheduled benefits--and again, that's without any changes. The program started preparing for the Baby Boomers retirement decades ago.2 Anyone who insists Social Security is broke probably wants to break it themselves.
Myth: We have to raise the retirement age because people are living longer.
Reality: This is a red-herring to trick you into agreeing to benefit cuts. Retirees are living about the same amount of time as they were in the 1930s. The reason average life expectancy is higher is mostly because many fewer people die as children than did 70 years ago.3 What's more, what gains there have been are distributed very unevenly--since 1972, life expectancy increased by 6.5 years for workers in the top half of the income brackets, but by less than 2 years for those in the bottom half.4 But those intent on cutting Social Security love this argument because raising the retirement age is the same as an across-the-board benefit cut.
Myth: Benefit cuts are the only way to fix Social Security.
Reality: Social Security doesn't need to be fixed. But if we want to strengthen it, here's a better way: Make the rich pay their fair share. If the very rich paid taxes on all of their income, Social Security would be sustainable for decades to come.5 Right now, high earners only pay Social Security taxes on the first $106,000 of their income.6 But conservatives insist benefit cuts are the only way because they want to protect the super-rich from paying their fair share.
Myth: The Social Security Trust Fund has been raided and is full of IOUs
Reality: Not even close to true.The Social Security Trust Fund isn't full of IOUs, it's full of U.S. Treasury Bonds. And those bonds are backed by the full faith and credit of the United States.7 The reason Social Security holds only treasury bonds is the same reason many Americans do: The federal government has never missed a single interest payment on its debts. President Bush wanted to put Social Security funds in the stock market--which would have been disastrous--but luckily, he failed. So the trillions of dollars in the Social Security Trust Fund, which are separate from the regular budget, are as safe as can be.
Myth: Social Security adds to the deficit
Reality: It's not just wrong -- it's impossible! By law, Social Security funds are separate from the budget, and it must pay its own way. That means that Social Security can't add one penny to the deficit.1
Sources:
1."To Deficit Hawks: We the People Know Best on Social Security" New Deal 2.0, June 14, 2010
http://www.newdeal20.org/2010/06/14/to-defict-hawks-we-the-people-know-best-on-social-security-12290/
2. "The Straight Facts on Social Security" Economic Opportunity Institute, September 2009
http://www.eoionline.org/retirement_security/fact_sheets/StraightFactsSocialSecurity-Sep09.pdf
3. "Social Security and the Age of Retirement"Center for Economic and Policy Research, June 2010
http://www.cepr.net/index.php/publications/reports/social-security-and-the-age-of-retirement/
4. "More on raising the retirement age" Ezra Klein, Washington Post, July 8, 2010
http://voices.washingtonpost.com/ezra-klein/2010/07/more_on_raising_the_retirement.html
5. "Social Security is sustainable" Economic and Policy Institute, May 27, 2010
http://www.epi.org/analysis_and_opinion/entry/social_security_is_sustainable/
6. "Maximum wage contribution and the amount for a credit in 2010." Social Security Administration, April 23, 2010
http://ssa-custhelp.ssa.gov/app/answers/detail/a_id/240
7. "Trust Fund FAQs" Social Security Administration, February 18, 2010
http://www.ssa.gov/OACT/ProgData/fundFAQ.html
8. "To Deficit Hawks: We the People Know Best on Social Security" New Deal 2.0, June 14, 2010
http://www.newdeal20.org/2010/06/14/to-defict-hawks-we-the-people-know-best-on-social-security-12290/
Consider that business pays 6 % on top of the 6 % deducted for social security or payroll taxes from your income, so if the income ceiling is removed, then businesses should not be subjected to the additional amount. So the individual would have no ceiling but the ceiling for business would be capped and increased based on inflation. Additionally if there were no ceiling on social security tax, then the actual tax rate could possibly be reduced on all income levels. I would bet that the ultra rich would not have issues with that proposal. Even Rush, who has a 36 million a year contract, could afford the additional payroll taxes. After all he probably pays payroll taxes just one month out of the year.
By the way, I heard this morning that a US soldier was killed in Iraq yesterday. What do we call that now, if not a "combat" death? I think it's fair to say that "combat operations" in Iraq are not yet over.
I also think it's fair to say Fox Noise will make sure every media outlet knows that in addition to discussing the potential "war" about the construction of an Islamic cultural center near ground zero. I heard the Fox and Freaks' monkey girls (girls holding their jobs down with their tails) and the dolty male commentators keeping the "monkey business" going by bashing the pull-out yesterday. I bet this sounds a lot like"cha ching" to private military contractors.
Domenico Montanaro: "Hagel told The Associated Press on Monday that Sestak has demonstrated during his two terms in Congress that he puts what's best for the country before the interests of his party.:
And then we have John McCain in 2006 and then in 2010, when he was in what was considered to be the political fight of his life:
KING: You like the National Guard idea, since -- what do they really do?
MCCAIN: I think what the National Guard will do is one, provide some comfort to some of our citizens who feel we don't have enough people down there, and they're correct. I think the second thing is important to point out, that the guard people will play support and administrative roles and some labor work. But in order to be an effective border patrol -- remember the border patrol, it requires training, just like it requires training to do other specialties. So I think the President's intention is for them to go down there and be of assistance, but not be on the front line.
KING: Is it PR?
MCCAIN: Partially PR, because Americans are so upset about broken borders in a time when we're in a war on terror and we are not enforcing our borders. All of us understand and appreciate that. Larry, parts of southern California and parts of the southern part of my state are devastated by illegal aliens, whether it be health care costs or law enforcement or even destruction of our wildlife refuges. I understand the frustration that Americans feel, but thank God the majority of Americans feel that we have to handle this in a humane fashion and in a comprehensive fashion. McCain Said Immigrants Paying Back Taxes, Passing A Background Check, And Waiting In Line Is "In No Way Amnesty." KING: Are you surprised that so many people, I think over 70 percent, favor, like, work program -- don't favor throwing them back?
MCCAIN: Well, I think it's the goodness of the American people and a realization on the part of the American people, you can't round up 11 million people and send them back. I mean, first of all logistically it's impossible, but from a humanitarian standpoint, an economic standpoint.
So when Americans understand the problem, which is a product of 50 years of failed federal policy, they think that earning -- and I emphasize earning -- citizenship is the way to go. And that means back taxes, criminal background check, $2,000 fine, work for six years, get in the back of the line behind everybody else, then get a green card, then be eligible for citizenship. That, in no way, is amnesty. [CNN, Larry King Live, 5/14/06]
2010: McCain Asked Homeland Security Secretary To Send The National Guard To The Border. According to POLITICO, Sen. John McCain wrote in a letter to Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano: "I am asking you and the administration to immediately reconsider your position and send National Guard troops to our southern border region." [POLITICO, 3/30/10]