Top 6 Health Care Myths From Yesterday’s Republican Presidential Debate.

The seven Republicans who took part in yesterday’s presidential debate in New Hampshire all promised to repeal the Affordable Care Act without offering alternatives for expanding access to insurance or lowering health care costs. Instead, the GOP fudged the facts of the law and stood by Rep. Paul Ryan’s (R-WI) proposal to privatize the Medicare program. Below is a one minute compilation of the GOP’s top six health care myths and the facts that undermine their claims:



CLAIM 1 FROM BACHMANN: The Congressional Budget Office said the Affordable Care Act will kill 800,000 jobs. FACT: The CBO actually found that some people would leave the workforce or work less because they can find affordable health coverage elsewhere. This is a reduction in the supply of labor, not a reduction in the supply of jobs.

CLAIM 2 FROM BACHMANN: Obamacare took $500 billion out of Medicare, shifted it to build a new entitlement for young people. FACT: The health law does not cut the current Medicare budget; it slows the growth in the program by removing $500 billion from future spending over the next 10 years. The cuts help stabilize Medicare by eliminating overpayments and slowly phasing in payment adjustments that encourage greater efficiency. As a result, the law extends the life of the Medicare trust fund by nine years and allows seniors to retain all of their guaranteed Medicare benefits.

CLAIM 3 FROM ROMNEY: I would issue an executive order paving the way for Obamacare waivers to all 50 states. FACT: The executive branch and the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) don’t have the authority to grant blanket waivers — those powers are reserved for Congress.

CLAIM 4 FROM PAWLENTY: Medicare is not financially solvent. FACT: Medicare is fully solvent until 2024. After 2024, the hospital fund will still be able to meet “90 percent” of its commitments.

CLAIM 5 FROM SANTORUM: Paul Ryan’s Medicare plan is “identical to what seniors already have” — Medicare Part D. FACT: It’s not. The government pays 74 percent of costs in Medicare Part D and grows that support at the rate of program costs. “Ryan’s plan covers about a third of beneficiary costs, and that support grows at the rate of inflation — so much more slowly than the rest of the program, or than Medicare Part D.”

CLAIM 6 FROM SANTORUM: The Independent Payment Advisory Board (IPAB) will ration care to seniors beginning in 2014. FACT: The IPAB kicks in if health care spending goes beyond a certain threshold and is statutorily prohibited from rationing benefits or increasing co-pays. In fact, Paul Ryan even supported a more aggressive IPAB-type reform in 2009.


NFTOS

Bachmann Follows Same Radical Ideology

Tax the poor, and cut the taxes for corporations.

Several of the 2012 GOP presidential hopefuls have laid out economic platforms that would include huge cuts in the corporate tax rate. Former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney (R) called for lowering the corporate tax rate from 35 percent to 25 percent, while former Minnesota Gov. Tim Pawlenty (R) went a step further, calling for a cut to 15 percent.

In an interview published today by the Wall Street Journal, Rep. Michele Bachmann (R-MN) — who is toying with a presidential run herself — decided to one-up both Romney and Pawlenty, calling for a reduction in the corporate tax rate to 9 percent. Adding insult to injury, Bachmann wants to pair that huge tax cut with giant tax reductions for the rich, as well as a tax increase on the working poor:

“In my perfect world,” she explains, “we’d take the 35% corporate tax rate down to nine so that we’re the most competitive in the industrialized world. Zero out capital gains. Zero out the alternative minimum tax. Zero out the death tax.” [...]

Her main goal is to get tax rates down with a broad-based income tax that everyone pays and that “gets rid of all the deductions.” A system in which 47% of Americans don’t pay any tax is ruinous for a democracy, she says, “because there is no tie to the government benefits that people demand. I think everyone should have to pay something.”

Let’s take these one at a time. First, cutting the corporate tax rate to 9 percent — a reduction about two and a half times larger than that called for in the radical House Republican budget — would cost more than $2 trillion over ten years. (The Tax Policy Center estimated that a 10 point reduction in the corporate tax rate would cost about $915 billion.)

Second, zeroing out the capital gains tax and the estate tax would overwhelmingly benefit the wealthy, as about 68 percent of capital gains taxes are paid by the richest one percent of the country, and fewer than the richest one quarter of one percent pay the estate tax.

Finally, Bachmann implies that she would raise taxes on those Americans who earn too little to have any income tax liability. (It’s simply not true that they pay nothing, as Bachmann seems to believe, since those who have no income tax liability still pay payroll taxes and any state and local taxes.)

The reason so much of the income tax liability has become concentrated at the top of the income scale is because over the last few decades income inequality has skyrocketed. The richest one percent of the country currently earn nearly one quarter of the income, and therefore pay the lion’s share of the income tax. Bachmann would raise taxes on those who have seen their incomes stagnate or even drop over the last ten years, even as she cuts taxes on the ultra-wealthy.


NFTOS

NRA Hush On Al Qaeda Weak Link

NRA Refuses To Comment On Al Qaeda Video Urging Supporters To Exploit Lax U.S. Gun Laws

In a long meandering YouTube video released last week, American-born al Qaeda spokesman Adam Yahiye Gadahn urged the terrorist group’s followers to exploit lax gun laws in the United States — particularly the private sale gun show loophole — to obtain weapons to murder Americans. But as Rachel Maddow noted this week, there’s a bit more to the story:

MADDOW: Even harder to believe than that, I submit is the fact that if you have been put on the terrorist watch list by the United States of America, you may not be able to board a commercial flight in this country — after all, you’re on the terrorist watch list. But you can legally still buy guns.

It’s also important to point out, as Media Matters’ Chris Brown noted, that because of this private sale loophole, “terrorists that are currently prohibited from purchasing guns can buy guns at gun shows from private sellers because the sellers don’t have to run background checks.”

The National Rifle Association opposes closing this so-called “terror gap,” and it also opposes eliminating the private sale gun show loophole. In fact, one day before al Qaeda released the Gadahn video, the NRA urged its supporters to contact state lawmakers in Delaware to defeat state legislation that would ban private sales at gun shows in Delaware. The NRA claimed that “the true intent of this legislation is to move towards an ultimate ban on all private sales — even those between family and friends – regardless of where they occur.”

So given that the NRA came out forcefully against this bill in Delaware, ThinkProgress contacted the powerful gun lobby to comment on Gadahn’s video. Yet the NRA appears reluctant to say anything.

Footnote: On Tuesday, ThinkProgress contacted the NRA’s press office to get a statement and an NRA official said someone there would respond. After receiving no response, they called the same office again on Wednesday and received the same reply.

ThinkProgress then emailed NRA spokesperson Rachel Parsons. Parsons said she was in a meeting and would respond later. Five hours later, we emailed Parsons again to see if she would comment on the Gadahn video. We are still waiting for a response.

Blog brought to you by thinkprogress

NFTOS

The Republican Double Standard

If Anthony Wiener actually slept with one of the six women he is accused of sexting with, would Republicans had given him a standing ovation like they did David Vitter?

I haven’t said much of anything about Rep. Anthony Weiner’s (D-N.Y.) two week-long controversy, in large part because I’m having trouble figuring out why so many are jumping the "ax" Weiner campaign. Many politicians before him have done far worse and yet they did reside or still do reside in congress. Hell, Ted Kennedy got drunk and killed a woman in his car and the country embodied and revered him as a God.

If David Vitter could beat a prostitution rap and continue to pimp himself as a "family values" candidate and still manage to get his rashy rear reelected in a red state, Weiner should be able to keep himself in his seat.



Jiminy Crickets, David Vitter wore diapers around and had sex with prostitutes, but faced no prosecution or professional punishment.

As congressional scandals go, sending dirty pictures online is fairly tame. Republican senators David Vitter and Larry Craig survived immediate calls for resignation after getting caught going way beyond cyber sex. Rep. Anthony Weiner was dumb, for sure, but if that's a crime who would be left on Capitol Hill? Plenty of politicians kept office despite doing worse things than this.  

According to a survey of 500 New York City registered voters conducted by New York 1 and Marist College, only 30 percent say Weiner should resign. 51 percent of respondents said he should stay in his position and 18 percent said they were not sure. “It’s worth keeping in mind that New York is overwhelmingly Democratic. Partisanship can run high in this town. Moral outrage, maybe less so,” said ABC News pollster Gary Langer of Langer Research Associates. – Anthony Weiner: Poll Finds Majority of New York Voters Think He Should Not Resign

The long list of right wing sexual scandels include: Chris Lee, Arnold Schwarzenegger, and John Ensign — but let’s also not forget Mark Sanford, Jim Gibbons, Rudy Giuliani, John McCain, and others.

Quoting NFTOS Editor-in-Chief  Roger West, "Whenever Republicans are calling for a strong Democrat to resign over a sex scandal, that’s the moment people should wake up and smell the heaping pile of hypocrisy."

Now the Right is fundraising on Weinergate. Are you getting it yet? It’s just too bad Democrats won’t turn it around and do the same on Vitter.

Ed Schultz was embarrassed when his own instant phone poll illustrated that over 70% of his own viewers say Weiner shouldn’t resign.  

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

 
Rachel Maddow went through the long list of Republican scoundrels last night which included a very candid Larry Flint.

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

If the late Sen. Ted Kennedy can redeem himself to such glory there is no reason whatsoever why Rep. Anthony Weiner can’t continue driving his adversaries crazy in Congress.

There lies the reason Republicans are demanding he go.

Few are as good on camera making the Democratic case than Rep. Anthony Weiner.



But since Republicans are so self-righteous; Democrats filled with self-loathing, who knows how this will end?"

Republicans get away with sex-related scandals much more easily than Democrats do. Moral of the story: if you’re going to screw around, be part of the GOP.


NFTOS

Koch's Americans for Prosperity Use "Fake Out" Notice

The Koch-backed group Americans For Prosperity admitted to posting fake eviction notices on numerous Detroit homes Monday in order to "startle people" about a bridge project that the group opposes.

From the Detroit Free Press:

Bearing the words "Eviction Notice" in large type, the bogus notices told homeowners their properties could be taken by the Michigan Department of Transportation to make way for the New International Trade Crossing bridge project. The NITC is the subject of debate in Lansing, and Americans for Prosperity is lobbying heavily against it.

"It was meant to startle people," Scott Hagerstrom, AFP's Michigan director, said of the notices on Tuesday. "We really wanted people to take notice. This is the time that their opinions need to be heard. We wanted people to read it."

Republican Gov. Rick Snyder announced last week that the state would renew its push to build the bridge, which would connect Detroit and Windsor, Ontario. "Both economies are deeply connected and heavily reliant on the free flow of trade through the Detroit-Windsor corridor," he said. "Forty-nine percent of all Michigan exports are sold right across the border in Canada."

According to MLive.com, if the bridge is built, a number of residents of Detroit's Delray neighborhood would in fact lose their homes because of eminent domain, but would be compensated for 125% of their home's value.

But the bridge is opposed by Matty Moroun, who owns the Ambassador Bridge, which currently connects the U.S. and Canada. Moroun has been trying to build a second bridge close to where the NITC bridge would be built.

AFP's Michigan branch jumped into the bridge fight in April, launching a statewide campaign that targeted key state legislators who remained undecided about the project. AFP's campaign included 100,000 direct mailings and more than 200 radio ads, according to a press release.

Some supporters of the bridge believe that Moroun and his Detroit International Bridge Company have been working with AFP, whose donors are anonymous, against the project. Both have refused to say whether the DIBC has given AFP any money, but Hagerstorm, of AFP, said the DIBC had nothing to do with the eviction notices.

Dan Stamper, president of the DIBC, similarly denied involvement, and denounced the tactic: "Let me be clear that the Detroit International Bridge Company had nothing to do with the bogus eviction notices posted at homes in southwest Detroit yesterday," he said in a statement. "Although we disagree with plans for a bridge that would disrupt the neighborhood and displace residents, we would never distribute misleading information to disturb or upset residents."

AFP is funded and was founded in part by Koch Industries Executive Vice President David Koch. The group has lobbied on behalf of conservative causes since its founding, and has in the past been an important organizer of tea party events, including multiple state Tax Day Tea Party rallies.



NFTOS

GOP Up To Know Good In Wisconsin

Wisconsin GOP Leaders Trying To Run Fake Democrats On Recall Ballots.

In the wake of Gov. Scott Walker’s (R-WI) attack on public employee collective bargaining rights, a number of Republicans elected to the state legislature are expected to face recall elections, with at least six slated for recalls currently.

Yesterday, the Milwaukee-Wisconsin Journal-Sentinel uncovered a new dirty trick that some Wisconsin Republican leaders are encouraging among their members. In a letter obtained by the paper, Dan Feyen, the chairman of the 6th Congressional District Republican Party, instructs his “fellow conservatives” to run spoiler candidates in the primaries for Democratic candidates. Referencing the recall election of Sen. Randy Hopper (R), Feyen argues that a primary would allow an extra month until the general election, which would give Republicans time to organize.

In a separate letter, Feyen also advocates for running a spoiler candidate in the Democratic primary that will decide a nominee to run against Sen. Luther Olsen (R). Here’s a screenshot of one of the letters, where Feyen is encouraging conservatives to support John Buckstaff for a “protest candidacy”:

 
The Milwaukee-Wisconsin Journal-Sentinel notes that Buckstaff has a “has a long history of giving modest amounts to Republican candidates, including Walker and Republican Attorney General J.B. Van Hollen. He even gave $575 to Hopper’s campaign in 2008.” In a conversation with the paper, Feyen said that his efforts are actually being coordinated by the “RPW” — the Republican Party of Wisconsin.


The revelations about Feyen’s letters come on top of a leaked recording of GOP officials in La Crosse discussing how to get a “spoiler candidate in the recall election tentatively scheduled for Republican Sen. Dan Kapanke.”

NFTOS

Saranoya Palin Continues Ignorance

Palin Doubles Down On Paul Revere History Lesson: ‘I Didn’t Mess Up’

On a June 2 stop in Boston on her “One Nation” bus tour, Sarah Palin managed to spectacularly flub the historical account of Paul Revere’s famed “Midnight Ride.” Describing Revere as warning “the British that they weren’t going to be taking away our arms, uh, by ringing those bells and, uhm, making sure as he’s riding his horse through town to send those warning shots and bells,” Palin’s version inspired confusion and some much-deserved jibes from across the media.

None of this has deterred Palin herself, however. This morning on Fox News Sunday, she doubled down on her creative re-imagining of Paul Revere’s ride, saying “I didn’t mess up.”

CHRIS WALLACE: I gotta ask you about that real quickly, though. You realize that you messed up about Paul Revere, don’t you?

PALIN: You know what? I didn’t mess up about Paul Revere. Here’s what Paul Revere did. He warned the Americans that “the British were coming, the British were coming.” And they were going to try to take our arms so got to make sure that, uh, we were protecting ourselves and, uhm, shoring up all of our ammunitions and our firearms so that they couldn’t take them.

But remember that the British had already been there — many soldiers — for seven years in that area. And part of Paul Revere’s ride… And it wasn’t just one ride. He was a courier. He was a messenger. Part of his ride was to warn the British that were already there that, “Hey. You’re not going to succeed. You’re not going to take American arms. You are not gonna beat our own well-armed, uh, persons, uh, individual private militia that we have. He did warn the British.

And in a shout-out, gotcha type of question that was asked of me, I answered candidly. And I know my American history.

Watch it here at NFTOS:




If Palin knows her American history, this latest bit of jujitsu shows no evidence of it. The purpose of Revere’s ride was to inform John Hancock, Samuel Adams, and other colonial American patriots that the British Army was marching from Boston to Lexington. As such, secrecy and stealth were essential. So contrary to Palin’s claim that Revere warned the British they would not succeed, Revere attempted to avoid all contact with British troops or British loyalists already living in the colonies. The entire point of Revere’s mission was to inform the patriots of the British movements without the British knowing they were being informed.


At one point in the night, Revere was temporarily detained and interrogated by British soldiers at a roadblock. He intentionally provided them a falsely inflated description of the colonial militia’s strength, though only in the most strained metaphorical reading could this be considered a “warning.”

Furthermore — again due to the need for secrecy and stealth — Revere used no bells or warning shots, and delivered his message in face-to-face contacts throughout the night. (Palin seems to simply forget her creative inclusion of the bells and warning shots in her initial recounting.)

Once an idiot always an idiot I say!



NFTOS

28 DAYS

Glenn Beck: "I Have Been Given The Gift, The Blessing, Or The Curse" To See "Slightly Over The Horizon"

And as it was foretold, lo, there was great wailing and gnashing of teeth as the Great Prophet Beck continued to pummel those who would not believe with babbling words and strange and foreign ideas. And the non-believers turned and said one to another "What manner of man is this who can look over the hedgerow and see things that do not exist?" And the lefties and Muslims plotted against the Prophet, "How can we have him fall silent so that he can no longer torture our ears so?"

28 days (Beck's last day on Faux News is June 30th) on television is a long time for the prophet of God who has now publicly indicated God has chosen him to save us and the Jewish people from certain genocide at the hands of not only Muslims but those on the left. This is the proclamation he now owns. How long can this madness continue? Here we have a radio shock jock asserting himself as the Messiah. Can it get any creepier?




Glenn Becks Messiah Complex has run rampant for many months now. (A messiah complex (also known as the Christ complex or savior complex) is a state of mind in which an individual holds a belief they are, or are destined to become, a savior).

Beck's speeches often sound like a schlocky Spider-Man soliloquy. Maybe the evil coming is Doctor Octopus!


Personally I don't think beck has the gift of being able to find his posterior with both hands, but as long as he's just slightly more gifted and blessed than his typical fan, he's got a gig somewhere. A few readings if you will from the Book of Beckocalyspe:

A second reading from the Book of Beckocalypse," And so it came to pass that another prophecy failed. But The Great One, the Becksiah, simply said, "Fear not my flock it shall happen...we just need to keep waiting. If it fails to come I will simply rewrite the prophecy. " The Becksiah got out his trusty guide book to the Beckocalypse i.e. the writings of Cleon Skousen, and studied them deeper. And Lo!!!, Beck saw the light. " I will simply keep saying bad things, and they will happen..... and eventually I'll be right". it was so, so simple."

A third reading from the book of Beckocalypse "Woe unto you non-believers in me who still laugh at my claim to be able to see over your heads, beyond next Tuesday, and into the valley of Cannan. You shall be put out of the temple where large hailstones shall fall on your heads because you did not heed my warning to always carry an umbrella, and your feet will burn in the fire where I shall standing not wanting shoes because I am adorned with Asbestos socks."

Praise be to Beck, and the Trinity ( O'Riley, Hanity, Ailes and Faux News) and remember Beck's children -buy gold and disaster relief rations, for then and only then will all be good with the world.

Beck you


All we can say here at NFTOS is.........WOW!

NFTOS

UPDATE:Beck: "When I Leave Fox, ... Please Listen To Every Program. Things Are Going To Happen" Fast





NFTOS

YOU CAN'T HANDLE THE TRUTH

GOP Can’t Handle The Truth: Taxes Are Lower Under Obama Than Reagan.



President Obama met with House Republicans today at the White House to discuss ways to move forward on negotiations regarding the nation’s debt ceiling and the budget. During the discussion, talk evidently turned to taxes, and when Obama noted that taxes today are lower than they were under President Reagan, the GOP, according to The Hill, “engaged in a lot of ‘eye-rolling’“:

Republicans attending a White House meeting on Wednesday didn’t take kindly to President Obama telling them tax rates were higher during the Reagan administration. GOP members engaged in a lot of “eye-rolling,” according to a member who was on hand to hear Obama, who invited House Republicans to the White House for discussions on the debt ceiling.

“The President made a comment like the tax rate is the lightest, even more than (under former President) Reagan,” Rep. Lee Terry (R-Neb.) told The Hill following the meeting. House Oversight and Government Reform Committee Chairman Darrell Issa (R-Calif.) joked that during the meeting, “We learned we had the lowest tax rates in history … lower than Reagan!”

That House Republicans find this preposterous is symptomatic of the hold Reagan mythology has over them. After all, for seven of Reagan’s eight years in office, the top tax rate was higher than the current 35 percent. In six of those years, it was 50 percent or more. And every year that Regan was in office, the bottom tax bracket was higher than the current ten percent.

For a family of four, the “average income tax rate under Reagan in 1983 was 11.06 percent. Under Clinton in 1992, it was 9.18 percent. And under Obama in 2010, it was 4.68 percent.” During Reagan’s time, income tax revenue ranged from 7.8 to 9.4 percent of GDP. Last year, it was 6.2 percent and is not projected to climb back to 9 percent until 2016. In fact, in 2009, Americans paid their lowest taxes in 60 years.

Republicans are very fond of saying that the U.S. has “a spending problem, not a revenue problem.” But the truth is that revenue has plunged due to the recession and to continued misguided tax cuts, and revenue needs to be raised to eventually bring the budget into balance. And Reagan knew that taxes were an important part of the budget equation. After all, he “raised taxes in seven of his eight years in office,” including four times in just two years.


NFTOS

Rand Paul Shows He Can Be An Idiot As Well

Rand Paul, Supposed Defender Of Civil Liberties, Calls For Jailing People Who Attend ‘Radical Political Speeches’.

Libertarian-leaning Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY) made headlines last week for single-handedly obstructing the renewal of the Patriot Act, calling the law an unconstitutional infringement on civil liberties. His demand to insert a series of amendments to weaken the law nearly allowed it to lapse and put the country at “risk,” but Paul said it was worth it to prevent the government from continuing to “blatantly ignore the Constitution.” But when Paul went on Fox News host Sean Hannity’s radio show Friday to discuss his opposition to the national security law, he suggested implementing a far more serious infringement on civil liberties. While discussing profiling at airports, Paul called for the criminalization of speech:

PAUL: I’m not for profiling people on the color of their skin, or on their religion, but I would take into account where they’ve been traveling and perhaps, you might have to indirectly take into account whether or not they’ve been going to radical political speeches by religious leaders. It wouldn’t be that they are Islamic. But if someone is attending speeches from someone who is promoting the violent overthrow of our government, that’s really an offense that we should be going after — they should be deported or put in prison.

Listen here at NFTOS:



Paul’s suggestion that people be imprisoned or deported for merely attending a political speech would be a fairly egregious violation on the First Amendment, not to mention due process. What if someone attended a radical speech as a curious bystander? Should they too be thrown in prison? And who defines what is considered so “radical” that it is worth imprisonment?

But Paul’s suggestion is especially appalling coming from someone who fashions himself as a staunch defender of civil liberties. Since coming to Congress, Paul has received praise from libertarians and liberals alike for supposedly being consistent on the issue, and he often speaks of civil liberties in speeches and TV appearances.

However, aside from his admirable stance on the Patriot Act, Paul’s record shows he’s hardly the paragon of civil liberties he claims to be, but rather is “indistinguishable from the rest of the GOP on national security issues,” noted The American Prospect’s Adam Serwer last year. He’s said he will “always fight” to keep GITMO open; has said “[f]oreign terrorists do not deserve the protections of our Constitution;” and has never taken a strong public stance against torture, staying silent most recently after the killing of Osama bin Laden.

“I believe that America can successfully protect itself against potential terrorists without sacrificing civil liberties,” his website says. Apparently speech is not a civil liberty.

What Rand Paul calls "violent overthrow" seems like it would apply to tea bag comments last election cycle (2nd amendment remedies and all). As someone who is very fond of civil liberties this his suggestion is a bit of totalitarianism, no?

NFTOS

Buyers Remorse

Voters Around The Country Afflicted With Buyer’s Remorse Over New GOP Governors.

Over time we have done a lot of coverage of controversial policy measures being inaugurated around the country by the new breed of Republican governors elected last fall due to the recession. And according to survey data from Margie Omero at Public Policy Polling, the voters in most of these states (though not all, Nevada’s an exception) aren’t liking the cocktail of budget cuts, union-busting, anti-abortion laws, etc.

Polls show voters in battleground states regret having voted for their new Republican Governors. Since February, Democratic firm PPP released surveys in eight states asking voters “if you could do last fall’s election for Governor over again, how would you vote?” In seven of the eight, the Democrat now would win, with all seven showing double-digit improvements in their margin. (Only Rory Reid in Nevada still trails.) The chart below shows both the actual 2010 margin and the new margin, sorted by the shift.

There are, in fact, recall drives afoot in at least some of these states. But despite these polls and those efforts, voters can’t generally stage a “do-over” on the election. The resulting conservative policy shifts — often notwithstanding the wishes of the voters — are part of the ongoing price the country is paying for the inadequacy of economic recovery measures adopted during the 110th Congress. Macroeconomic performance is the main driver of political outcomes, and, simply put, macroeconomic performance wasn’t good enough last year to stop the opposition party from sweeping into office despite an extreme agenda that voters don’t like once they see it.


NFTOS

HAPPY MEMORIAL DAY

TO THOSE WHOM HAVE SERVED THIS GREAT NATION.......THANK YOU!!!!

From the staff at NFTOS

New Jersey Govna Loses Testacles to Koch Brother

Bowing To Koch Pressure, Chris Christie Announces Plan To Withdraw From Successful Climate Initiative.

New Jersey Governor Chris Christie wants to kill New Jersey’s participation in the nation’s first successful carbon trading program. The Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative (RGGI) is a ten-state climate and clean energy program that has reduced emissions and brought tens of millions of dollars to New Jersey ratepayers. Following a multi-million-dollar campaign to derail RGGI by the Koch front group Americans for Prosperity, Christie today called RGGI a “gimmicky” program that is “nothing more than a tax on electricity.”

But in a 2008 campaign ad, Christie said, “I will be New Jersey’s number-one clean-energy advocate.” He explicitly embraced President Obama’s climate and clean energy goals, which included a national cap-and-trade system for clean energy investment:

There is no doubt that renewable energy is the future here in New Jersey and there is really no better time for us to begin the discussion about how it will not only lead us to energy independence, but also how it will help create more good paying, middle class jobs in New Jersey. It’s a change that President Obama stands firmly behind. we couldn’t agree more.

Watch it here at NFTOS:




Christie has now joined Tea Party opposition to Obama’s clean-energy policy to the detriment of programs he once supported. In his press conference today, Christie said he didn’t want to “overplay” the benefits to ratepayers because “we’re not talking about a huge difference.”

In fact, in addition to reducing New Jersey’s emissions by around 80,000 tons per year, this “gimmicky” program brought back $29.6 million to New Jersey ratepayers in 2010, supporting enough clean electricity to supply 20,000 homes. A new progress report out from RGGI shows that for every dollar invested by the program, states have gotten $3 to $4 in benefits.

“There’s only one thing you need to do in order to pull out of RGGI – ignore all the tangible, clean energy benefits. That’s it,” said the Conservation Law Foundation’s Seth Kaplan to Think Progress. “Christie’s had a good record in the past. The only reason to pull out now would be to score some ideological political points.”

New Jersey follows three other states – Delaware, Maine and New Hampshire – that have considered pulling out of RGGI. Resisting the polluting influence of Koch-backed lobbying and media campaigns, all those states decided to remain in the program because of the proven, positive benefits to ratepayers and businesses.

Politico notes that Christie is trying to make clear that he is not a global warming skeptic. “In the past I’ve always said that climate change is real and it’s impacting our state,” Christie said at the start of a 14-minute prepared statement. “There’s undeniable data that CO2 levels and other greenhouse gases in our atmosphere are increasing. This decade, average temperatures have been rising. Temperature changes are affecting weather patterns and our climate.”


NFTOS

New Jersey Governor Gets Dose of Reality

New Jersey Supreme Court Orders State To Restore $500 Million In Education Funding Stripped By Gov. Christie.

The New Jersey Constitution requires the state to “provide for the maintenance and support of a thorough and efficient system of free public schools for the instruction of all the children in the State between the ages of five and eighteen years.” Yet, because the state failed to meet this obligation in many of its poorest school districts, the state Supreme Court ordered New Jersey to stop underfunding those districts more than 20 years ago. In 2009, the court finally determined that the state had complied with its decades-old order, and ended much of its oversight of the state’s education funding. Sadly, Gov. Chris Christie (R) almost immediately took this as a license to slash education funding for the poor.

Yesterday, however, the justices reminded Christie that he is not allowed to thumb his nose at the state constitution, and it ordered the state to restore $500 million that had been stripped from the state’s most needy districts. As the court’s official summary of the opinion explains:

The State applied to this Court two years ago, asking to be relieved of the orders that required parity funding and supplemental funding for children in the so-called “Abbott districts” in exchange for providing funding to those districts in accordance with SFRA. The State persuaded this Court to give it the benefit of the doubt that SFRA would work as promised and would provide adequate resources for the provision of educational services sufficient to enable pupils to master the Core Curriculum Content Standards (CCCS).

When the Court granted the State the relief it requested, it was not asked to allow, and did not authorize, the State to replace the parity remedy with some version of SFRA or an underfunded version of the formula. In respect of the failure to provide full funding under SFRA’s formula to Abbott districts, the State’s action amounts to nothing less than a reneging on the representations it made when it was allowed to exchange SFRA funding for the parity remedy. Thus, the State has breached the very premise underlying the grant of relief it secured with Abbott XX.

Yesterday’s decision opens a hopeful new chapter for children in struggling school districts. At least 19 state supreme courts have held that their states’ substandard public schools for low-income students violates the state constitution, but these decisions often fall into a predictable pattern. The court orders the state to fix its substandard school districts, the state delays for 20 years or more, and eventually, the state supreme court loses its will and backs down.  
Christie clearly hoped that the New Jersey Supremes would follow this all-too-common pattern and back away from New Jersey’s constitutional guarantee that an excellent education is every child’s birthright. But when Christie tried to stare the court down, the justices refused to blink.

Yesterday was not a total victory for New Jersey’s school children — the court restored funding to many of the state’s poorest districts, but it declined to restore cuts that benefit struggling students in wealthier districts. Nevertheless, it is a clear rebuke to Chris Christie, and a reminder that conservative governors flout their states’ constitution.

NFTOS

Eric Bolling to Replace The Prophet Beck?

Potential Glenn Beck Replacement Eric Bolling’s Racially-Tinged Language: ‘Obama Chugging 40′s’ In Ireland .

While on his tour of Europe, President Obama traveled to the Irish hometown of an ancestor yesterday where he drank a pint of Guinness, which he joked tasted “so much better here than it does in the States,” becasue “you guys are — you’re keeping all the best stuff here!”

Faux Business host Eric Bolling — who has been filling in for Glenn Beck in recent weeks and is rumored to be a potential replacement for the paranoid prime timer — was not amused, taking to Facebook and Twitter to slam the president for celebrating his Irish heritage while Americans suffer from the aftermath of the Missouri tornadoes:

“40′s” is a slang name for 40oz malt liquor bottles. But Obama drank from a pint glass (not a bottle) of beer that doesn’t come in 40oz bottles. Why did Bolling say Obama was “chugging 40′s”? As even some of Bolling’s Facebook commenter note, it’s an eyebrow-raising choice of words, given the beverage’s long-time association with African American stereotypes.

Throughout the late 80s and 90s, 40 oz malt liquor was rolled out with “aggressive marketing campaigns aimed at minority drinkers,” which often portrayed black actors and rappers in stereotypical or exploitative fashions. There is a fairly large body of academic literature exploring the relationship between malt liquor and African Americans, and 40 oz stereotypes were even mocked in the 2009 parody of “blacksploitation” films, “Black Dynamite.”

Hip hop culture has appropriated malt liquor, with numerous songs with “40 oz” in the title. “Rap artists have been popular images in malt liquor advertising and ‘gangsta’ rap performers portray malt liquor as a sign of masculinity,” a 2005 study of malt liquor consumption noted. But more socially conscious rappers have condemned malt liquor’s association with mainstream hip hop culture, with Public Enemy’s Chuck D writing an entire song — “One Million Bottlebags” — on the topic.

Last month, Bolling infamously devoted an entire segment to questioning the authenticity of Obama’s birth certificate, after he had released the long form version, along with birther Islamophobe Pam Geller. (HT: LGF)


NFTOS

Wisconsin Orders Recall Election

For three GOP Senators.

Despite massive protests, procedural obstacles, and restraining orders, the Wisconsin GOP hustled Gov. Scott Walker’s (R) anti-union bill into law in March. Now, they’re paying a steep political price. Democratic and labor activists launched an effort to recall six Republicans who supported crippling the right of public employees to collectively bargain.

They needed roughly 15,000 signatures to secure recall elections for each senator. In each case, “more than 21,000 signatures were gathered.” Today, the non-partisan state election officials announced the success of their efforts by ordering a recall election for state GOP Sens. Dan Kapanke, Randy Hopper, and Luther Olsen on July 12:

The Wisconsin board that oversees elections rejected most challenges Monday to a recall effort targeting three Republican state senators, clearing the way for a July 12 election.

The Government Accountability Board [GAB] rejected the challenges made to recall petitions targeting Republican Sens. Dan Kapanke of La Crosse, Randy Hopper of Fond du Lac and Luther Olsen of Ripon.

Republicans argued that the campaigns improperly filed initial paperwork to launch the petition drive and that some signatures should not be counted, but the GAB rejected the arguments and, in the case of Kapanke, unanimously decided to order a recall election. The other GOP lawmakers facing recall elections are state Sens. Robert Cowles, Sheila Harsdorf, and Alberta Darling. The board will judge those petitions on May 31, “and likely would certify all the petitions that same week.”  
NFTOS

Faux News' Roger Ailes Thinks Palin's An Idiot

New York Mag: Ailes Has Extensive Influence On GOP Politics, Thinks Palin Is An "Idiot"



Roger Ailes and Glenn Beck


New York magazine is out with an extensive profile of Fox News chief Roger Ailes that details the significant role he plays in conservative politics. Furthering the evidence that Fox News is simply a campaign arm of the GOP, the piece quotes an anonymous Republican aide who states that "You can't run for the Republican nomination without talking to Roger," and notes that Ailes actively encouraged Republican Governor Chris Christie to run for president. Ailes also apparently doesn't think too highly of his employee, Sarah Palin, who, according to a source close to Ailes, he thinks "is an idiot." From the article:

A few months ago, Ailes called Chris Christie and encouraged him to jump into the race. Last summer, he'd invited Christie to dinner at his upstate compound along with Rush Limbaugh, and like much of the GOP Establishment, he fell hard for Christie, who nevertheless politely turned down Ailes's calls to run. Ailes had also hoped that David Petraeus would run for president, but Petraeus too has decided to sit this election out, choosing to stay on the counterterrorism front lines as the head of Barack Obama's CIA. The truth is, for all the antics that often appear on his network, there is a seriousness that underlies Ailes's own politics. He still speaks almost daily with George H. W. Bush, one of the GOP's last great moderates, and a war hero, which especially impresses Ailes.

All the 2012 candidates know that Ailes is a crucial constituency. "You can't run for the Republican nomination without talking to Roger," one GOPer told me. "Every single candidate has consulted with Roger." But he hasn't found any of them, including the adults in the room--Jon Huntsman, Mitch Daniels, Mitt Romney--compelling. "He finds flaws in every one," says a person familiar with his thinking.

"He thinks things are going in a bad direction," another Republican close to Ailes told me. "Roger is worried about the future of the country. He thinks the election of Obama is a disaster. He thinks Palin is an idiot. He thinks she's stupid. He helped boost her up. People like Sarah Palin haven't elevated the conservative movement."

The entire article is worth a read and includes revelations that Ailes threatened to quit in 2008 if News Corp. chief Rupert Murdoch endorsed Barack Obama, and that Ailes thought that Obama's call for a new civilian corp meant that the president wanted to create a "national police force," a conspiracy theory that Glenn Beck has since adopted.

Check the whole thing out here.


NFTOS

Faux Business News..”Be Ashamed That You’re In Poverty”

Fox Business maligned essential anti-poverty programs, deriding food stamps, unemployment insurance, and the Earned Income Tax Credit as "a form a welfare, income redistribution" and evidence that America now has an "entitlement mentality."

Host Stuart Varney's attack on these programs came just as a new study from the National Bureau of Economic Research showed just how essential these and other government programs are to keeping tens of millions of Americans out of poverty.

Arloc Sherman of the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities noted that "public programs keep one in six Americans out of poverty -- primarily the elderly, disabled, and working poor -- and that the poverty rate would double without these programs." The CBPP included a graph to show just how important these programs are for reducing poverty amongst millions of Americans:

Yet Varney bemoaned "all these people on food stamps," Medicaid, the Earned Income Tax Credit and unemployment insurance as "a form of welfare, income redistribution" and "entitlement mentality." Watch it here at NFTOS:



Varney completely ignored the need for such programs to keep millions of Americans out of poverty. After guest and Democratic strategist Krystal Ball defended the social safety net, Fox's Charles Payne castigated poor people for not being embarrassed enough about their situation:

PAYNE: Krystal, there's no doubt that these are good programs. I think the real narrative here, though, is that people aren't embarrassed by it. People aren't ashamed by it. In other words, the there was a time when people were embarrassed to be on food stamps; there was a time when people were embarrassed to be on unemployment for six months, let alone demanding to be on it for more than two years. I think that's what Stu is trying to say, is that, when the president says Wall Street is at fault, so, you are entitled to get anything that you want from the government, because it's not really your fault. No longer is the man being told to look in the mirror and cast down a judgment on himself; it's someone else's fault. So food stamps, unemployment, all of this stuff, is something that they probably earned in some indirect way.

Maybe, just maybe it's Fox Business who should be ashamed of themselves.  
 
NFTOS

Glenn Beck Says...............

“The NY Times Thought "Hitler Was Really Great"

NFTOS hasn’t blogged on Beck in awhile, so here is a story to show that this tool has now morphed to a full blown asshat! It’s evident and clear that Beck is once again slandering the times, but hey it’s Glenn Beck and we expect nothing less from the Mormon prophet.

If you've watched the Glenn Beck program on Faux News lately -- if you haven't, you'd better hurry, because the clock's ticking -- you know that Beck thinks something terrible is about to happen to Israel and the Jewish people. What that thing is he hasn't really explained, but it has something to do with the Nazis.

To that end, on his program this evening Beck went after the New York Times for their 1933 review of Hitler's Mein Kampf and claimed that the Times, despite being aware of Hitler's persecution of the Jews, took a soft tone on the Fuhrer. Beck summarized what he said was the Times' tone: "Hitler is really great! Have you seen Germany and all the happy people? OK, the Jew thing is really bad, but have you seen all the happy people?"




Beck says he knows this because "we do our homework." Well, I do my homework, too.

The Times review of Hitler's memoir (behind the Times paywall) was anything but laudatory of the man. Contrary to Beck's claim that it treated Hitler's persecution of the Jews as an afterthought, the entire second half of the Times review is devoted to describing Hitler's "bitter prejudice and libel of the Jews," going so far as to compare the English translation of Mein Kampf to the German original and noting that "even in the abridged translation there are pages and pages of attacks upon the Jews, but many more pages of such attacks are omitted." (The first half of the review focused largely on Hitler's efforts to consolidate power and make Germany "ready for a war of conquest and revenge.")

The reviewer, James W. Gerard, did make passing mention of Hitler's "good" contributions to German society, as Beck notes. But to suggest that they were the focus of the piece is an outright lie, as demonstrated by the conclusion, in which Gerard calls for unified action to stand against Hitler's anti-Semitism:

The civilized world took a strong stand against the Turks because of their massacres of the Bulgarians at one time, and of the Armenians at another, against the atrocities of the Belgian Congo, against the cruelties in the rubber forests of the Amazon. Think of our own indignation at the concentration camps of Cuba, which led eventually to the freeing of that lovely island from the yoke of Spain. With horror we read of the expulsion of Jews from Spain, and now that the world is bound in smaller compass by radio, airplane, express steamers, by constant congresses of religions and commerce, we have all of us a right to criticize, to boycott a nation which reverts to the horrible persecutions of the Dark Ages, we have a right to form a blockade of public opinion about this misguided country.

It is with sadness, tinged with fear for the world's future, that we read Hitler's hymn of hate against that race which has added so many names to the roll of the great in science, in medicine, in surgery, in music and the arts, in literature and all uplifting human endeavor.  
This isn't the first time that Beck has reached into the New York Times' archive to slander the paper. Back in February, he said the Times "heaped praises" on Benito Mussolini in a 1923 article, selectively editing the article to omit the portions condemning the Italian fascist as "just as great a danger to the peace of Europe as the Kaiser's sword used to be at Berlin."

His last show at Faux News can’t get here quick enough!

NFTOS

TAN MAN……..THEIRS NO CRYING IN POLITICS

Ohio Tea Bag Leader To Boehner: ‘I Am Sick Of The Tears'

Cry Baby Boehner

Ohio Tea Bag activists may have the ear of the most powerful Republican in Washington, but they gave him an earful at a private meeting last month. Reuters reports that House Speaker John Boehner (R-OH) quietly convened a meeting with 25 Tea Party leaders in his district, but they didn’t seem to be too appreciative. Denise Robertson of the Preble County Liberty Group even vowed to run a primary candidate against Boehner and said she’s sick of seeing Boehner cry in public again and again:

She said “my fantasy now” is someone will challenge Boehner in the 2012 Republican primaries. “If we could find someone good to run against him, I’d campaign for them every day,” Robertson said.


“I am sick of the tears,” she added, a sarcastic reference to Boehner’s famous propensity to cry. “I want results.”

Boehner, along with much of the GOP, is “stuck between the Tea Party and a hard place.” But, he only has himself to blame for bringing the activists into the fold and over-promising what he could deliver with control of a single chamber of Congress. Boehner has already been hammered by his hometown Tea Bag leaders for trying weaken Congressional ethics laws. In March, an activist infamously told GOP leaders to “take off your lace panties.” Yesterday, the national group Tea Party Nation set an email to supporters saying, “It is time to replace Boehner now.”  


NFTOS

Trump Decides……..

To Pick $50 Million Entertainment Career Over Presidential Race

Announcing that he wouldn’t run for president on Monday, Donald Trump said in a statement that “business is my greatest passion and I am not ready to leave the private sector.” It’s not surprising that he didn’t choose to run a campaign that he almost certainly would have lost. But Trump’s decision was probably based as much on an ultimatum from NBC, the network that runs The Apprentice, Trump’s one undisputed business triumph, as it was by any particular love of business.  

Mike Huckabee’s contract with Fox News pays him $500,000 a year, a sum that’s been quoted often in discussions of his decision not to run for president. But that contract pales in comparison to Trump’s take from his entertainment ventures: in its list of the wealthiest entertainers in 2009 and 2010, Forbes estimated that Trump makes $50 million annually from his entertainment ventures.

Trump might not have to sacrifice all of that income if he ran for president, because some of it comes from speaking fees, books, and products like a menswear line. There are no prohibitions on candidates receiving money for services rendered, so Trump probably could continue doing product endorsements as long as he wasn’t being paid unusually high rates for them, though he might have dropped some clients in order to avoid conflicts of interest or to appear more substantive. And NBC’s president for programming, Bob Greenblatt, told entertainment reporters that if Trump ran for president, the network would replace him but continue the show with a new host, a move they’d likely have been required to make to comply with equal time rules. That very public announcement left Trump with the unpleasant prospect of a campaign that could strip him of the most legitimate business enterprise in his portfolio.

Trump’s brief, incendiary campaign may have long-term negative implications for his brand, especially given how much he harped on President Obama’s citizenship. But continuing The Apprentice, one of the few things NBC knows works in the current lineup, gives Greenblatt desperately-needed breathing room to roll out an ambitious new programming schedule. Trump’s pseudo-run may have set the bar low for ugliness in the 2012 Republican primary, but in the short term, he’s still good business for NBC.


NFTOS

FLASHBACK

In 1983, Reagan Warned Of ‘Incalculable Damage’ If Debt Ceiling Wasn’t Raised.

As of today, the United States has officially hit its legal borrowing limit, bumping into the statutory debt ceiling. The Treasury Department has some options at its disposal for delaying default, but those will be exhausted around August 2.

For months, Republicans have been claiming that they will refuse to raise the debt ceiling — and thus risk the widespread economic consequences of the U.S. eventually defaulting on its debt — unless several conditions are met, including cuts to Medicare and Social Security. In fact, some Republicans have said that they think that default wouldn’t be so bad. “The case has not been made that this is an absolute necessity,” said Rep. Bill Huizenga (R-MI).

However, Republicans poo-pooing the necessity of raising the debt ceiling might want to look to conservative icon Ronald Reagan. In 1983, Reagan warned that the consequences of failing to raise the nation’s borrowing limit “are impossible to predict and awesome to contemplate”:

The full consequences of a default — or even the serious prospect of default — by the United States are impossible to predict and awesome to contemplate. Denigration of the full faith and credit of the United States would have substantial effects on the domestic financial markets and the value of the dollar in exchange markets. The Nation can ill afford to allow such a result. The risks, the costs, the disruptions, and the incalculable damage lead me to but one conclusion: the Senate must pass this legislation before the Congress adjourns.

In a 1987 radio address, Reagan also said, “Congress consistently brings the government to the edge of default before facing its responsibility. This brinksmanship threatens the holders of government bonds and those who rely on Social Security and veterans benefits. Interest rates would skyrocket, instability would occur in financial markets, and the Federal deficit would soar.”

Several key Republican leaders, including Speaker of the House John Boehner (R-OH) and House Budget Committee Chairman Paul Ryan (R-WI) have admitted that failing to raise the debt ceiling is simply not an option, with Boehner saying that it would be a “disaster,” while Ryan called it “unworkable.” But the GOP continues to play games, inching the U.S. ever closer to the scenario that Reagan explicitly warned against.

NFTOS

Mitt’s Health Care Proposal

Five things you should know:

The bottom line about Mitt Romney’s “new” health care plan is that it reads exactly like his health care plan from the 2008 campaign, which looks very similar to the GOP House alternative offered in the midst of the 2009 health care reform legislative battle and Sen. John McCain’s (R-AZ) 2008 campaign plan. In other words — a rehash of traditional GOP prescriptions that deregulate the insurance market without providing adequate coverage to the sickest Americans or significantly reducing health care costs. Here are five things you should know about Romney’s plan:

1. Romney says he would empower states with greater flexibility by block-granting the Medicaid program, the federal/state initiative that provides coverage to senior citizens and poor Americans. But as a recent Kaiser Family Foundation report has pointed out, converting the existing matching rate formula into a block grant would give states less money that they would have otherwise received and force local governments to cut eligibility to the program. Kaiser examined different scenarios for state responses to reduced federal Medicaid spending and estimated 31 to 44 million Americans could lose their health insurance coverage.

2. Romney would “reform the tax code to promote the individual ownership of health insurance” and “give individuals a choice between the current system and a tax deduction to buy insurance on their own.” He thinks this would create “the best of both worlds” by allowing certain individuals to leave their employer-sponsored health insurance plans and find coverage on the individual market. But this would only entice young healthy workers to buy cheaper but less substantive insurance in the individual insurance plan market place, increasing costs for sicker workers and forcing some to opt out entirely. Among those who would lose their health care are 56 million Americans with pre-existing chronic health conditions. The credits would also fail to cover the cost of comprehensive coverage.

3. Romney says that “individuals who are continuously covered for a specified period of time may not be denied access to insurance because of pre-existing conditions” — a good idea that’s made even better by the Affordable Care Act that he wants to repeal. He’s also advocating for allowing individuals “to purchase insurance across state lines, free from costly state benefit requirements.” This means that insurers would be able to circumvent consumer protections in certain states and sell bare-bone subprime policies to the healthiest (and most profitable) beneficiaries. Companies would have little incentive to do business in states that require coverage for such things as cancer screenings or have guaranteed issue protections and sell plans across the country that deny coverage altogether to high-cost cases. The Affordable Care Act includes a similar — but far better regulated — provision that allows states to form compacts in which they can establish their own regulations.

4. Romney wants to “reform medical liability” and have the federal government “provide innovation grants to states for reforms, such as alternative dispute resolution or health care courts.” The current health care law already includes similar demonstration projects, even if the Congressional Budget Office has concluded that malpractice reforms could at most save $54 billion over 10 years.

5. Finally, Romney proposes establishing Health Savings Accounts and eliminating “the minimum deductible requirement for HSAs.” This may help some healthy people but will do little to aid Americans with expensive chronic conditions who will quickly deplete their savings accounts.

NFTOS