While most eyes were trained on the State of the Union address (or a burning cabin in California), PBS last Tuesday aired a documentary on the ongoing fiscal deadlock in Washington titled, "Cliffhanger." In it, the House Speaker John Boehner is portrayed as hopelessly trapped between an equivocating and untrustworthy President Obama who "poisoned the well" and an immovable Tea Party caucus manipulated by the hyper-ambitious Eric Cantor. But the usually excellent Frontline series didn't merely get lost in the weeds of DC politics. When it comes to the unprecedented Republican debt ceiling hostage-taking that precipitated Washington's "cliffhanger," PBS missed the forest for the trees altogether.

What is the Fiscal Cliff? One of the most striking omissions from a film titled "Cliffhanger" is any definition of the so-called "fiscal cliff." That triple witching hour on January 1, 2013 when the Bush tax cuts and the two-year payroll tax reduction set to expire just as the $1.2 trillion, ten-year sequester was to begin is never fully explained. (The sequester drop-dead date was shifted to March 1.) And the risk in that manufactured crisis was not that the United States would suddenly increase its national debt, but instead reduce too quickly and thus trigger a steep (and unnecessary) recession.

Glossing Over the Original Sin. In "Cliffhanger", Frontline's sins are myriad. But none is more crucial than skirting past the original sin itself. That is, the Republican threat beginning in 2011 to trigger a default on the full faith and credit of the United States isn't just without parallel in modern American history. It is the GOP's extortion over the debt ceiling (which Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell called "a hostage that's worth ransoming" and a "new template") which is responsible for the sequester and "fiscal cliff" showdowns which followed.

Continue reading »

David Schuster talks about his days working at Fox.

Public Policy Polling’s 4th annual poll about television news shows that public trust for Fox News has hit a record low. But in case you had any doubt that the “fair and balanced” network is entwined with the GOP, trust for Fox is so strong among Republicans that their partisan support makes it the most trusted news network, too.

PPP explains:

Just like its actual ratings, Fox News has hit a record low in the four years that we've been doing this poll. 41% of voters trust it to 46% who do not. To put those numbers into some perspective the first time we did this poll, in 2010, 49% of voters trusted it to 37% who did not. Fox has maintained most of its credibility with Republicans, dropping just from 74/15 to 70/15 over that period of time. But it's been losing what standing it had with Democrats (from 30/52 to 22/66) and independents (from 41/44 to 32/56).

We find once again this year that Democrats trust everything except Fox, and Republicans don't trust anything other than Fox. …When it comes to asking Americans which single outlet they trust the most and least out of the ones we polled on, Fox News once again wins both honors. 34% say it's the one they trust the most, compared to 13% for PBS, 12% for CNN, 11% for ABC, 8% for MSNBC, 6% for CBS, and 5% each for Comedy Central and NBC. Fox News is the choice of 67% of Republicans, while Democrats basically split their allegiances four ways between ABC and CNN, both at 17%, and MSNBC and PBS, both at 16%.

So while Roger Ailes and his minions still pretend to lack a partisan agenda, American news consumers know better. It’s also heartening to know that such stunts as pretending there’s journalistic value in questioning President Obama’s citizenship, denying climate change, and predicting a landslide win for Mitt Romney don’t sit so well with most of us.

By the way, the real winner was PBS. It was the only outlet trusted by a majority of respondents.

Fox News has now lost their perch as most trusted news in the PPP's newest survey. However, since PBS wasn't polled last year, I'd say they never had that distinction in the first place.

Raw Story:
In the space of one year, Fox News has lost its perch as the most trusted TV news network in the US and is now average at best, a new survey has found.

A poll gauging public trust in TV news has found that PBS is the most trusted name in news, while trust in Fox News has dropped significantly.

According to a survey from Public Policy Polling, "a year ago a plurality of Americans said they trusted Fox News. Now a plurality of them don't."

In a survey taken a year ago, PPP found that Fox was the most trusted news network, with 49 percent saying they trusted the network, and 37 percent saying they did not. In the new poll, 42 percent said they trusted the network while 46 percent disagreed.

The new reigning champion is PBS, which was not included in last year's inaugural poll. The public broadcaster was found to be trusted by 50 percent of respondents, and distrusted by 30 percent -- the closest any news network has come to gaining the trust of a majority of Americans.

Fox News has found itself in roughly the same place, trust-wise, as NBC and CNN, but still above ABC and CBS, who were trusted by 35 and 36 percent, respectively, in the latest poll.

PPP notes that trust in the network declined only marginally among conservatives, from 75 percent to 72 percent. "But moderates and liberals have both had a strong increase in their level of distrust for the network -- a 12-point gain from 48 percent to 60 percent for moderates and a 16-point gain from 66 percent to 82 percent for liberals," the institute reported...read on

They lost 12 points of trust with moderates. As Digby says, who are these people? Anyway, it's good to see some people understanding the truth, but it's really taken a lot of crazy-town to convince them and as the election draws near, the amount of crazy will surely rise to incredible heights.

I know conservative flim-flam artists will not abide. Here's a reminder to PBS and their staff and brass: Beware being O'Keefe'd.

The guy even took a slimy shot at CNN. What did they ever do to him? I mean, CNN even does its best to support the Tea Party. PBS, just remember the pimp.

DOWNLOADS: (1016)

PLAYS: (960)

Embed

At the very end of Fox and Friends yesterday, Brian Kilmeade and Fox "legal analyst" Peter Johnson Jr. go ballistic over funding public television and radio, saying it should be "privatized", calling it "welfare for broadcasting" and suggesting in their not-so-subtle way that public broadcasting is a government propaganda channel.

Why does this not surprise me in the least? After all, why would we possibly need public broadcasting when we have such stellar, unbiased sources as Fox News? Who would be there to tell us how the Muslims are going to impose Sharia Law on us (without explaining exactly what that is), or inflict Glenn Beck on the planet daily?

James Fallows wrote a terrific column on why NPR matters and should matter to everyone. After extolling Fox News' excellence (hey, he said it, not me) at what they do, he says this:

"News" in the normal sense is a means for Fox's personalities, not an end in itself. It provides occasions for the ongoing development of its political narrative -- the war on American values, the out-of-touchness of Democrats -- much as current events give preachers material for sermons. This is why Fox's emphasis goes to its star interpreters -- Glenn Beck, Bill O'Reilly, Sean Hannity, the "Fox and Friends" crew -- more than to expanding bureaus around the country or the world, investing in scientific, economic, or international expertise, or generally trying harder to place primary observers wherever it can.**

Isn't NPR just the same thing, from an different political perspective? No, and the difference matters.

NPR, whatever its failings, is one of the few current inheritors of the tradition of the ambitious, first-rate news organization. When people talk about the "decline of the press," in practice they mean that fewer and fewer newspapers, news magazine, and broadcast networks can afford to try to gather information. The LA Times, the Washington Post, CBS News -- they once had people stationed all around the world. Now they work mainly from headquarters -- last year the Post closed all its domestic bureaus outside Washington -- and let's not even think about poor Newsweek and US News.

Continue reading »

DOWNLOADS: (751)

PLAYS: (3131)

Embed

Stuart Varney is getting tingles up his leg over the fact that Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker is ramming through legislation to strip Wisconsin workers of their bargaining rights. He's practically breaking open the champagne over it.

I guess he hasn't seen the images I'm seeing, of thousands gathered at the State Capitol in Wisconsin, protesting Walker's attempt to strip them of all bargaining rights. Meanwhile, Walker is doubling down on his promise to call out the National Guard if there's a walkout, while dismissing the protests.

Today is the second day of demonstrations. These people are not going anywhere. Scott Walker would do well to look at what happened in Egypt when the government dismissed protesters and threatened them. I am not saying he is the equivalent of Hosni Mubarak, but I am saying that when thousands gather outside your office to let you know they object to your strong-arm tactics, risking their health and possibly having to face down the National Guard, they're not doing it for fun and giggles. They're as serious as he is.

Here's a photo. People stayed overnight there, despite the cold. Dismiss them at your own peril, Governor Walker.

If that doesn't impress you, I highly recommend Talking Points Memo's wonderful slide show.

Update: Looks like Governor Walker has moved on to the negotiation stage of grief. Something tells me the protesters aren't going to accept any erosion of their right to bargain. Soon, anger. Then acceptance.

On stepping down as President:

AHMED ABOUL GHEIT: The president is an honest person who takes the wellbeing and the stability of the country. He believes strongly in stability - stability that would ensure development and progress.

MARGARET WARNER: Has he even considered stepping down as the demonstrators are demanding?

AHMED ABOUL GHEIT: He believes and he publicly said so: He believes that if he steps down or relinquishes his authority or nominates somebody else then first that is unconstitutional but second, he thinks that it would entail chaos and it would entail violence and it would entail also opportunities for those who would wish to act in a manner to threaten the state, the stability of the country and society. He has a constitutional responsibility to defend the Constitution and to defend the national security of Egypt.

MARGARET WARNER: Does he feel that he's indispensable then?

AHMED ABOUL GHEIT: As a president, not as a person. As a president.

On government responsibility for the Tahrir Square thuggery and chaos:

Continue reading »

DOWNLOADS: (902)

PLAYS: (2750)

Embed

Former Fed Chairman Alan Greenspan said that the push by congressional Republicans to extend the Bush tax cuts without offsetting the costs elsewhere could end up being "disastrous" for the economy.

In an interview on NBC's "Meet the Press," Greenspan expressed his disagreement with the conservative argument that tax cuts essentially pay for themselves by generating revenue and productivity among recipients.

"They do not," said Greenspan.

"I'm very much in favor of tax cuts but not with borrowed money and the problem that we have gotten into in recent years is spending programs with borrowed money, tax cuts with borrowed money," he said. "And at the end of the day that proves disastrous. My view is I don't think we can play subtle policy here."

The comments from the former Fed chief were an elaboration of a position he outlined in an interview earlier in the week. Speaking with PBS' Judy Woodruff, Greenspan expressed his opposition to passing legislation that would hold tax rates steady (under law the tax cuts Bush passed ten years ago are going to expire, thereby bringing rates back to Clinton-era levels). President Obama has pledged to continue the tax breaks for those individuals making under $200,000 and those families earning less than $250,000.

But Republicans want the entire package kept in place. Even so, they have declined to say how they would pay for it, saying, in part, that keeping the Bush tax cuts in place will pay for itself.

In addition to throwing cold water on that theory, Greenspan also weighed in on broader economic issues and trends. The former Fed Chairman relayed some sobering economic predictions, saying he expected the nation's unemployment rate to remain at its current level, mainly because there were few tools left to change it.

(Watch the video here)

Honestly, at this point, I don't even care whether or not this crappy healthcare bill passes. I see so many serious problems with it, and I simply do not have any trust in the integrity of the Obama administration and the commercially-sponsored Congress to fix them.

The only reason I can see for supporting the bill is political - and no, I don't think that's an insignificant reason. (I'd guess it's the only reason Wendell Potter still supports it.) However, as Dr. Marcia Angell points out, the bill is such a confusing mess, what are the odds that its passage will work in the Democrats' favor? It's a complete and utter crap shoot, and for that, I blame the consistent lack of leadership from the top. I have never been so disgusted with the political process in my entire life:

From Bill Moyers Journal:

BILL MOYERS: So, has President Obama been fighting as hard as you wished?

MARCIA ANGELL: Fighting for the wrong things and too little, too late. He gave away the store at the very beginning by compromising. Not just compromising, but caving in to the commercial insurance industry and the pharmaceutical industry. And then he stood back for months while the thing just fell apart. Now he's fighting, but he's fighting for something that shouldn't pass. Won't pass and shouldn't pass.

What this bill does is not only permit the commercial insurance industry to remain in place, but it actually expands and cements their position as the lynchpin of health care reform. And these companies they profit by denying health care, not providing health care. And they will be able to charge whatever they like. So if they're regulated in some way and it cuts into their profits, all they have to do is just raise their premiums. And they'll do that.

Not only does it keep them in place, but it pours about 500 billion dollars of public money into these companies over 10 years. And it mandates that people buy these companies' products for whatever they charge. Now that's a recipe for the growth in health care costs, not only to continue, but to skyrocket, to grow even faster.

BILL MOYERS: But given that, why have the insurance companies, health insurance companies been fighting reform so hard?

MARCIA ANGELL: Oh, they haven't fought it very hard, Bill. They really haven't fought it very hard. What they're fighting for is the individual mandate. And if they get that mandate, if everyone does have to buy their commercial products, then they're going to be extremely happy with it.

BILL MOYERS: But this is all about politics now. It's not about pure health care reform. So given that reality, what would you have the President do?

MARCIA ANGELL: Well, I think you really do have to separate the policy analysis from the political analysis and I'm looking at it as policy. And it fails as policy. Moreover, a lot of people say, "Let's hold our nose and pass it, because it's a step in the right direction." And I say it's a step in the wrong direction.

You're right. Politics is different and there are a lot of people who say, "Look, it's a terrible bill. Even a step in the wrong direction as policy goes. But we need to get Obama elected again and we need to continue with the Democratic majority in Congress. And so we need to give Obama and the Democrats a win. If we don't, the Republicans will come in and take over Congress in the fall, and then the White House in 2012. But the problem with a political analysis is sometimes you're right and sometimes you're wrong. And Democrats and particularly liberals have a history of outsmarting themselves.

Continue reading »

DOWNLOADS: (1182)

PLAYS: (5596)

Embed

Michael Steele went on MSNBC this morning before the health-care summit and began attacking President Obama for a "dog and pony show" -- and claimed that the president should have held this summit a year ago, when things were just getting started.

The problem with this: Obama did. On March 5 of last year. Fully televised. All that.

Republicans were so busy back then concocting plans to scuttle ANY health-care reform, though, that it kinda slipped their minds.

Kudos to Chuck Todd and Savannah Guthrie for calling him out for it:

STEELE: This whole dog and pony show that we're about to witness today is something that should have taken place a year ago, when the administration first came in last February and laid out its agenda for health care. This is how you should have started it - bipartisan, public forum, CSPAN, your cameras rolling to capture this and to capture, most importantly, what the American people want. And right now, they want us to start over, and I think we should.

TODD: Chairman Steele, in fairness to them, I mean, it was a year ago that they actually had a summit.

GUTHRIE: On March 5th.

TODD: And it wasn't just the legislative leaders. They brought in folks from the industry as well. And that one was televised. So...does that one not count? I'm just curious.

STEELE: Well, apparently it didn't. Because we don't have health care.

You know, you really can't blame Republicans for wanting to fire Steele as the RNC chair, when the level of incompetence is this deep.

But we progressives hope he sticks around, just for the comic relief.

AfterDowningStreet: Lobbying top spenders

Michael Winship: From the annals of sno-cone science

The Big Picture: How is Toyota like Citigroup and Goldman Sachs?

Informed Comment: How the Iranian regime checkmated the Green dissidents on a crucial day

Prometheus 6: Lawyered up

Bic's Place: Mind Reading