ThinkProgress Logo

Politics

EXCLUSIVE AUDIO: Limbaugh Mocks Recession During Speech To Wealthy Right-Wing Donors

By Lee Fang on May 5, 2009 at 8:20 pm

cigarLast night, Rush Limbaugh came to Washington, D.C. to address the President’s Club Dinner, a meeting of wealthy donors and supporters of the Heritage Foundation. The audience included Supreme Court justice Clarence Thomas, Sen. Jim DeMint (R-SC), as well as various millionaire trustees of the Heritage Foundation, like Thomas Saunders.

After more or less reprising his radio show routine, Limbaugh went on to brag about his $400 million contract with Clear Channel Communications. As he continued to gloat about his show’s success, Limbaugh mocked the idea that Americans are suffering, noting, “I’ve never had financially a down year” despite the “supposed” recession:

LIMBAUGH: But during all this growth I haven’t lost any audience. I’ve never had financially a down year. There’s supposedly a recession, but we’ve got – what is this May? Back in February we already had 102% of 2008 overbooked for 2009. [applause] So I always believed that if we’re going to have a recession, just don’t participate. [laughter]

Listen here:

Limbaugh is no stranger to belittling the poor and dismissing the economic troubles of others. In March, Limbaugh scoffed at a question on homeless children, asking, “Would somebody tell me the last time you saw a kid sleeping under a bridge?”

As Media Matters reported, even Limbaugh’s employer Clear Channel is struggling under the weight of the recession. Already this year, Clear Channel has “shed nearly 3,000 employees, or 12 percent of its workforce.” While Limbaugh jets around the country in his $54 million Gulfstream G550, laughing off the recession, does he even realize that his own bloated contract is contributing to the rising unemployment rate?

Security

Netanyahu: Arabs And Jews Unite…Against The Persians

By Matt Duss on May 5, 2009 at 8:00 pm

bibiSpeaking last night via satellite to the AIPAC policy conference gala, Israeli Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu hailed a new era of cooperation between enemies — against a greater enemy:

Friends, there is something significant that is happening today in the Middle East, and I can say that for the first time in my lifetime, I believe for the first time in a century, that Arabs and Jews see a common danger. This wasn’t always the case. In the ’30′s and ’40′s, many in the Arab world supported another country believing that that was their hope. In the ’60′s, ’70′ and ’80′s, they supported another country that was at odds with the Jewish state. But this is no longer the case.

There is a great challenge afoot. But that challenge also presents great opportunities. The common danger is echoed by Arab leaders throughout the Middle East; it is echoed by Israel repeatedly; it is echoed by Europeans, by many responsible governments around the world. And if I had to sum it up in one sentence, it is this: Iran must not be allowed to develop nuclear weapons.

From the perspective of Netanyahu’s own political interests, it’s understandable why he should try to push this sort of cooperation against Iran: In addition to responding to a genuine threat, it makes him look like a uniter. Perhaps just as importantly, it draws attention away from his refusal to explicitly endorse a Palestinian state. From the perspective of America’s interests, however, it seems potentially very troublesome.

Over the several years, Iranian President Ahmadinejad has had considerable success in positioning Iran as the standard bearer of Islamic “resistance,” against the U.S., Israel, and authoritarian regimes in the Middle East. In a recent interview, University of Tehran professor Hossein Seifzadeh, who is now a fellow at the Middle East Institute in Washington, said that Iran’s anti-Israel rhetoric has been “a successful exercise in public diplomacy in the Arab world.”

“The whole image of Iran in the Middle East has changed. Ten years ago, Iran was regarded simply as a Shi’a state.”

Because of his high profile position on Israel and the Palestinians, however, Ahmadinejad has now become “the most popular figure in the Middle East”, according to Seifzadeh.

We’ve often heard concerns from conservatives about President Obama’s outreach to Iran potentially tipping the scales in favor of Iran’s hardliners, led by Ahmadinejad. It’s hard to imagine a more effective strategy for doing just that than Bibi Netanyahu promoting an Israeli alliance with Arab regimes — who, as Israeli representatives never tire of reminding us, are authoritarian, undemocratic, and unpopular — against Iran.

Climate Progress

Obama and Biden press House Dems for fast action on climate bill, Waxman MAY take bill straight to full committee

By Joe Romm on May 5, 2009 at 7:22 pm

The Washington Post reported today:

President Obama and Vice President Biden urged a group of House Democrats at a White House meeting this morning to move forward with climate-change legislation that has become a subject of controversy among some Democrats and threatened to stall health-care reform.

At the same time, E&E News PM (subs. req’d) reported:

House Energy and Commerce Chairman Henry Waxman (D-Calif.) said today that he will bypass regular order on a major climate change and energy bill and mark up the legislation before the entire 59-member panel.

At this point, I don’t have confirmation for the second story, but it is obviously one strategy for moving the bill along while still giving time for intra-party negotiation.

There does seem to be movement on the bill and the Obama-Biden visit may have helped:

Read more

Politics

Pence: I’m Not ‘Anti-Science’…But I Don’t Believe In Global Warming, Stem Cell Research, Or Evolution

By Satyam Khanna on May 5, 2009 at 6:21 pm

Last month, House Minority Leader John Boehner (R-OH) announced the creation of the House GOP American Energy Solutions Group, which will “work on crafting Republican solutions to lower energy prices for American families and small businesses.” Undermining the seriousness of the task force, the GOP announced that it was appointing climate change denier Rep. Michele Bachmann (R-MN) to the group.

Another member of the organization is Rep. Mike Pence (R-IN). In a contentious debate with MSNBC’s Chris Matthews today, the third-ranking House Republican claimed that the science behind climate change is “mixed.” Pence did, however, admit that it is “fair” to question whether that makes him a discredited messenger on energy issues:

PENCE: Well let me tell you. I think the science is very mixed on the subject of global warming, Chris.

Q: Then why should your party believe you’re going to get serious about it, if you say the science is mixed?

PENCE: Yeah, it’s a fair question. But look. I’m all for clean air. I’m all for clean coal technology. I’m sure reducing CO2 emissions would be a positive thing.

“In the mainstream media, there is a denial of the growing skepticism in the scientific community on global warming,” Pence bellowed. Watch it:

It’s unclear what “growing skepticism” on man-made climate change Pence is seeing. But his anti-science tirade was just beginning. Pence then defended his party’s opposition to embryonic stem cell research, falsely claiming there were alternatives that “obviated” the need for embryonic research. And when Matthews pressed Pence on whether he believes in evolution — an undeniable fact and the foundation of biology — Pence said he believes in creationism:

PENCE: Uh, do I believe in evolution? I embrace the view that God created the Heavens and the Earth, the Seas and all that’s in them. The means that he used to do that, I can’t say, but I do believe in that fundamental truth.

“Did you take biology in school?” asked an incredulous Matthews. “If your party wants to be credible on science, you gotta accept science. … I don’t think your party is passionately committed to science, or fighting global warming, or dealing with the scientific facts we live with.”

“Tell me what you really think, Chris,” Pence retorted. “This anti-science thing is a little bit weak.”

Update

The Wonk Room’s Brad Johnson interviews Mike Pence about his repeated lies on the impact of clean energy legislation.

Yglesias

Tonight’s Homework

By Matthew Yglesias on May 5, 2009 at 6:13 pm

All the cool blogs of have-of-day quick link roundup posts. So why not this one?

– Peter Beinart says we should talk to Hamas.

– Interpreting the stress tests.

– Rebecca Traister on Jeff Rosen and Sonia Sotomayor.

– Everyone I know hated Ross Douthat’s second column but I think it’s an important point.

– Torture makes your intelligence worse.

– One more study debunks the myth of union intimidation.

Let’s go Nuggets!

Yglesias

Dinner With Prize-Winning Critics

By Matthew Yglesias on May 5, 2009 at 6:06 pm

Reader C.K. asks what I think about Barack Obama’s dinner with Paul Krugman and Joe Stiglitz.

I think it’s a good thing. It’s important for a President to try to get in touch with people who are outside his immediate circle of go-to advisers. That said, on the controversial question of the administration’s banking policy at this point the die is basically cast. The administration has hit on what it thinks is a reasonable satisficing solution and they believe the economy is starting to turn around. Critics respond that having taken more forceful action in the past would have been better, but to a large extent the water is now under the bridge. What’s more, it’s very likely that a few months hence we’ll start seeing slightly positive GDP growth and continued weakness in the labor market and that both sides in the Great Democratic Party Banking Family Feud will view that data as vindication for their position. So I don’t expect anything enormously concrete will emerge from this, but it’s good to see an administration trying get some input from a variety of directions rather than adopting a bunker mentality.

Climate Progress

Pence Repeats $3000 Lie About Green Economy, Accuses MIT Economist Of Playing Politics

By Brad Johnson on May 5, 2009 at 5:56 pm

Today, Rep. Mike Pence (R-IN) not only lied twice on national television about the cost of a green economy, but also accused the MIT economist who has challenged Pence’s distortion of his work of playing politics. Since March, the GOP has repeated a $3000 lie about about cap-and-trade clean energy legislation, claiming that the analysis came from an MIT study. Even though economist John Reilly, a co-author of the study, has sent multiple letters to the GOP telling them their distortion is “just wrong” and asking them to stop misrepresenting his work, they ignored his requests. This afternoon, the Wonk Room interviewed Pence about Reilly’s attempts to correct the false portrayals of his own study. When asked if Reilly was wrong, Rep. Mike Pence (R-IN) accused the economist of “making a public policy or political conclusion”:

I respect the work that he did. We took the number that he used [for the value of the cap-and-trade market] and divided it by the number of the households. What he’s doing, he’s not making a mathematical conclusion, he’s making a public policy or political conclusion. He believes the other side’s analysis that there’ll going to be a rebate of these revenues and job growth.

Watch it:


This morning, after MSNBC’s Joe Scarborough asked him about the GOP plan for a green economy, Pence instead repeated the $3000 lie. Pence then led a Republican mock hearing on energy policy to attack the Waxman-Markey American Clean Energy and Security Act, where the Wonk Room interview took place. Pence then appeared on MSNBC an hour later and repeated the lie in an interview with Andrea Mitchell. Neither Scarborough nor Mitchell challenged Pence for quoting the repeatedly debunked statistic.

Yet again, Pence is “just wrong.” In fact, Reilly, a widely respected energy economist, was “making a mathematical conclusion” when he told the House Republicans their $3000 figure was a fabrication. Asserting that the value of the market is equivalent to the economic cost of the policy — which one has to do to claim that the cost of cap and trade is $3100 per household — requires the assumption that value of the market magically disappears somewhere. Pence is not correct when he makes the argument that the lack of economic detail in the Waxman-Markey American Clean Energy and Security Act permits this distortion. Reilly attempted to explain this to the Weekly Standard:

It is not really a matter of returning it or not, no matter what happens this revenue gets recycled into the economy some way.

Furthermore, Reilly has explained that the MIT study shouldn’t be used to analyze Waxman-Markey at all. Even “apart from the misrepresentation of the costs” by the GOP, Reilly told Climate Progress last week, “it is inappropriate to draw conclusions on the costs of Waxman-Markey” from a study published two years ago that doesn’t model key cost-containment provisions, such as the use of offsets.

Update

In an interview with the Wonk Room, Rep. John Shimkus (R-IL) says he’s “glad” economist John Reilly objected, because now Shimkus will use a $3900 figure constructed by the Weekly Standard in response:

Politics

Bachmann: Obama’s Policies Are Fitting America’s 19 And 20-Year-Olds ‘With Shackles And Chains’

By Matt Corley on May 5, 2009 at 5:24 pm

bachmann-glasses.jpgThis past weekend, Rep. Michele Bachmann (R-MN) appeared on the Northern Alliance Radio Network show, hosted by conservative bloggers John Hinderaker and Brian Ward. During the interview, Bachmann said she was “concerned” that debt resulting from President Obama’s policies are fitting “the current 19 and 20-year-olds” with “shackles and chains.”

To support this, Bachmann then claimed that today’s youth will face a tax rate of “65 percent or higher” because of Obama:

BACHMANN: Well, I tell you what I am concerned about are the current 19 and 20-year-olds that are going to hold this debt. And it’s the mother of all ironies, John and Brian, that the kids who voted en masse for Barack Obama are the ones being fitted with shackles and chains. And they’re going to wake up one morning and find out that their tax rate is 65% or higher. Who is going to get out of bed in the morning if you realize that two-thirds or more of your day is spent earning money? You are working for Uncle Sam and you keep very little.

Continuing her paranoid fearmongering, Bachmann then claimed that Obama’s plans to institute a cap-and-trade program to reel in greenhouse gas emissions will turn Americans into “servants to government”:

BACHMANN: About every 30 years you see a huge piece of legislation that has the potential to change our country forever, that’s what this global warming tax is, the cap and trade. This is the piece of legislation of our time that could change our country forever and that’s why people need to recognize that government will be given control over almost every activity of your life and then we will become servants to government to pay for this level of control. It’s very frightening, the energy tax.

Listen here:

This isn’t the first time Bachmann has used over-the-top rhetoric to attack efforts to move to a clean energy economy. “I want people in Minnesota armed and dangerous on this issue of the energy tax because we need to fight back,” said Bachmann in March. “Thomas Jefferson told us, having a revolution every now and then is a good thing.”

Additionally, Bachmann has a record of implying that Obama is seeking to enslave Americans. Last month, she claimed that the Edward M. Kennedy Serve America Act, which Obama signed, had provisions for “re-education camps for young people.”

Transcript: Read more

Related Posts

Economy

Study: High School Grad’s ‘Net Fiscal Benefit’ To Country Is $250,000 Greater Than Dropout’s

By Pat Garofalo on May 5, 2009 at 5:15 pm

gradsWe’ve noted before that the fiscal rate of return on investments in education can be quite high — upwards of 10 percent — simply because “better educated people are more productive, get sick less often, are less likely to require public assistance, commit fewer crimes, make more money, and pay more in taxes.”

In a report released today, the Center for Labor Market Studies at Northeastern University confirmed this notion and attached a dollar amount. The Center found that a high school grad’s net fiscal benefit to the country is $250,000 greater than that of a high school dropout:

[A]dults with high school diplomas contribute major fiscal benefits to the country over their working lifetime. The Center estimates that “the combined net fiscal” benefits – including the payment of payroll, federal, and state income taxes, and local property taxes versus the receipt of cash and in-kind transfers and the considerable costs of incarceration and parole/probation – adds up to more than $250,000 per youth who finishes high school over their lifetime relative to the average high school dropout.

The Center also noted that in 2007 “16.0% of persons between 16 and 24 years of age (nearly 6.2 million people) were high school dropouts,” while “the cost of funding an effective two-year program to re-enroll students who have dropped out is about $20,000.”

Yglesias

Post-Liberation Politics

By Matthew Yglesias on May 5, 2009 at 5:03 pm

A few days backed I linked to a short take from Sasha Polakow-Suransky about the failures of opposition politics in South Africa. He has a longer take in The National that, I think, puts this in an enlightening perspective:

COPE, despite the hopes it inspired, fell flat – taking just under eight per cent of the vote, while the DA took almost 17 per cent and won control of the Western Cape. The fact remains that South Africa has not yet emerged from the era of national liberation politics. The Congress Party, which led the anti-colonial struggle in India, was not seriously challenged nationally for the first 20 years of independence and it did not lose control of the parliament until 1977. It was in the same year, three decades after the establishment of Israel, that voters there shocked the nation’s founding elite by electing the Likud opposition for the first time.

South Africa has not yet reached the stage where, as Johnny Copelyn puts it, “the previous order is so far in the background that it is no l­onger a compelling explanation for the problems people have”.

That said, there are also a bunch of countries that never emerged from the phase of initial domination by the liberation political party. Thus far, though, despite much hand-wringing related to Jacob Zuma I haven’t seen any real indication that democratic institutions don’t continue to exist in South Africa. The ANC just continues to have an extremely strong grip on the public imagination.

Older

Switch to Mobile
ThinkProgress Signup Overlay Skip and Continue to ThinkProgress Skip and Continue to ThinkProgress

Sign Up