Survey: Republicans Trust Fox News And Nothing Else

By Alex Seitz-Wald on Jan 18, 2012 at 7:15 pm

A new PPP poll confirms what many have long suspected — that many Americans get their news from sources that hew to their pre-existing beliefs.

But this phenomenon was not balanced on both sides of the ideological spectrum. While Democrats trust most news outlets, to varying degrees, Republicans trust only a single one — Fox News. While a massive 73 percent of Republicans trust Fox, the next highest rating among any major TV news outlet is PBS, which just 30 percent of GOPers trust, according to the PPP poll.

The numbers show just how powerful Fox can be in setting the agenda and influencing the world view of conservatives, with virtually no competition or accountability from the outside world. This monopoly on news penetration for an entire half of the electorate would be bad no matter the network, but it’s especially troubling considering Fox’s shoddy, and often agenda-driven “reporting.” And unlike an openly-ideological news outlet like ThinkProgress or the National Review, which freely advertise their perspectives, Fox insists it’s a traditional “fair and balanced” news outlet.

()

Climate Progress

In Rejection Letter, State Department Concludes Purported Keystone XL Benefits Are Myths

By Brad Johnson on Jan 18, 2012 at 7:05 pm

In a Congressionally mandated report on the reasons for rejecting the Keystone XL tar sands pipeline, the Department of State concludes that the Keystone XL tar sands pipeline has little to do with energy security or the economy. The pipeline, of great interest to the foreign tar sands company TransCanada and its investors, would have little benefit for Americans and many risks. The Keystone XL pipeline just won’t change the economics of oil dependence in the United States:

Regarding economic, energy security, and trade factors, the economic analysis in the final EIS indicates that, over the remainder of this decade, even if no new cross-border pipelines were constructed, there is likely to be little difference in the amount of crude oil refined at U.S. refineries, the amount of crude oil and refined products such as gasoline imported to (or exported from) the United States, the cost of crude oil or refined products in the United States, or the amount of crude oil imported from Canada. . . .

The analysis from the final EIS, noted above, indicates that denying the permit at this time is unlikely to have a substantial impact on U.S. employment, economic activity, trade, energy security, or foreign policy over the longer term.

The State Department concludes that “it would not be reasonable to suggest the pipeline would cause an increase in employment or other economic activity by increasing crude oil imported into the United States.”

Instead of the 100,000 or more jobs that proponents like the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and Rep. John Boehner tout, there would only be the “approximately 5,000 to 6,000 direct construction jobs in the United States that would last for the two years that it would take to build the pipeline.”

Download the complete State Department document.

NEWS FLASH

Every Hour Spent Auditing Corporate Tax Returns Yields More Than $9,000 In Revenue | Near the top of the list of counterproductive budget cuts is cutting funds for the Internal Revenue Service, as every dollar of tax enforcement yields $4-$5 in revenue in a country where uncollected taxes have hit $385 billion per year. Along those lines, Reuters’ David Cay Johnston noted today that IRS auditors “assigned to the 14,000 or so largest corporations found $9,354 of additional tax owed for every hour spent testing tax returns in the 2009 fiscal year.” “The highest-paid IRS auditors make $71 an hour. Based on a 2,080-hour work year, that works out to around $19 million of lost revenue annually for every senior corporate auditor position cut from the payroll,” Johnston wrote.

Alyssa

TV Executives And The Connection Between Technology, Storytelling, And Spectacle

By Alyssa Rosenberg on Jan 18, 2012 at 6:38 pm

Given our conversations about SOPA and legacy media’s willingness (or lack thereof) to embrace the ways technology is changing the way we consume media, one of the things I was most interested in at the Television Critics Association press tour was the way executives from the networks talked about technology and how it’s affecting everything from ratings to storytelling. I have a piece on the Atlantic about the five biggest tech ideas at press tour, and FX’s John Landgraf, Fox’s Kevin Reilly, ABC’s Paul Lee, and Hulu’s Andy Forssell all deserve significant credit for creative thinking. I want to pull out one point, though, because I think it’s an important question without an easy answer:

If you want people to put television on their calendars, make television that’s worth the appointment—in every way.
Executive: Paul Lee, President, ABC Entertainment Group
Lee isn’t alone in recognizing this. But he was the executive of the press tour to point out that if you want people to plan their weeks around television shows, you have to give them not just can’t-miss plots but visual spectacles that they want to see on television screens, which have gotten larger and cheaper even as we’ve added multiple smaller screens. “I think part of that is we are taking risks and having fun and a lot of feature [movie] directors are attracted to that…that’s one of the reasons you saw Phillip Noyce” (the movie director who helmed two episodes of ABC’s Revenge and an upcoming episode of HBO’s Luck) “coming in. I think you’re going to see feature actors as well as directors.” The profusion of movie actors, such as Anjelica Huston on Smash, Josh Lucas on The Firm, and Dustin Hoffman on Luck, coming to the small screen in mid-season seems to be proving him right. It may not have worked for The Firm, which is floundering, but we’ll see how Smash and Luck do.

With notable exceptions like Avatar (which was also downloaded illegally with very high frequency), audiences seem at least somewhat resistant to the idea that there are things that simply must be seen on the big screen in theaters or on a decent-sized television, and that lose all their power when shrunk down to tablet, laptop, or phone size. Certainly, the skepticism of 3D, which I think is seen as a means of cash extraction rather than storytelling, is one indicator that it’s going to be tricky to sell folks on gimmicks. I’d absolutely argue that something like the Luck pilot, with its gorgeous color and heart-stopping horse races, is much better on a decent-sized television than on your phone at the gym. But if networks or studios are going to claim that something needs to be seen big, and seen in its time slot, and expect audiences to believe them, they have to have both the storytelling and the visual chops to back it up.

()

Climate Progress

Oil and Gas Jobs Increase by 75,000 Under Obama — 69,000 More Than Would Be Created By Keystone XL

By Stephen Lacey on Jan 18, 2012 at 6:17 pm

Approximately 75,000 jobs were created in the oil and gas sector under the Obama Administration between 2009 to 2011, according to analysis of data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics.

That’s roughly 69,000 more jobs than would be created by construction of the Keystone XL tar sands pipeline.

The figures, reviewed by the Center for American Progress, show that overall employment in oil and gas (extraction, field support, pipeline construction and transportation, and petroleum refineries) increased by 13% in the last two years.

The figures do not include categories such as gasoline stations, fuel dealers, asphalt paving, or lubrication production.

This strong increase in American fossil fuel jobs contradicts the arguments made by supporters of the Keystone XL tar sands pipeline, who have attacked the Obama Administration for denying the initial permit for the pipeline due to environmental concerns.

The oil and gas industry claims that Keystone XL will create up to 20,000 direct and indirect jobs. But more careful research of those jobs claims — analysis that is backed up by the State Department, Cornell University and TransCanada, the company building the pipeline — has shown that the number is closer to 6,000 jobs.

Armed with these inflated figures (which are still about 55,000 less than jobs created in the last two years), Keystone XL supporters have argued that the tar sands pipeline will be a panacea for job creation in America. In response to today’s news that the Obama Administration would reject the Keystone XL permit and ask TransCanada to file for another, Keystone supporters lined up to lambaste the President.

Chamber of Commerce CEO Tom Donahue said it proves “that creating jobs is not a high priority for this administration.”

And Republican Presidential front-runner Mitt Romney laid it on thick: “If Americans want to understand why unemployment in the United States has been stuck above 8 percent for the longest stretch since the Great Depression, decisions like this one are the place to begin.”

But here’s the deep, dirty little secret not mentioned by fossil fuel champions who falsely claim the Administration is killing oil and gas jobs: Since Obama took office, oil production has increased substantially — with more drilling rigs being deployed in America today than at any time since the mid 1980′s.

This increase in production has already resulted in 12 times the jobs that would be created to build the Keystone XL tar sands pipeline. Do you hear any mention of that from political candidates or the fossil fuel lobby? Absolutely not. And you never will.

These jobs figures prove once again that no matter how aggressively this Administration promotes oil and gas — alienating the environmental base in the process — political opponents will attack Obama in any way they can.

You can find the BLS figures here.

Zach Rybarczyk and Daniel J. Weiss contributed to this report.

(18)

Security

Rep. Peter Welch: Gulf Allies Expressed ‘Great Reservation And Caution’ About Attacking Iran

By Eli Clifton on Jan 18, 2012 at 6:02 pm

Rep. Peter Welch

Returning from a congressional trip to France, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Turkey, and the United Arab Emirates, Deputy House Whip Rep. Peter Welch (D-VT) is bringing back two clear messages from the U.S.’s Gulf allies. In an interview with the Bennington Banner, Welch emphasized that they support strong sanctions “to try and change Iranian behavior” and there is “broad apprehension in those countries about military action” and serious questions about whether a military strike could stop Iran’s alleged nuclear weapons program.

Appearing on Fox News this afternoon, Welch pushed back against hawkish calls for military action against Iran:

I’d say three things. First, there’s widespread concern … that Iran is dangerous, that them having a nuclear weapon is extremely dangerous. … Two, there’s strong support for sanctions. But three, there’s great reservation and caution about when it comes to the question of using military force, with some apprehension about what that would unleash in the Middle East.

Welch went on to lay out a number of the regionally destabilizing steps that could follow an attack on Iran’s nuclear facilities:

If you’re Qatar, where you’re fifty miles across the Strait of Hormuz, they feel they will be on the receiving end of any retaliatory response. Turkey, is very concerned about the loss of access to natural gas that heats their homes in the winter. The UAE, which is a strong U.S. ally, … fears what would happen to it with a response and what happens to the sea lanes and their ability to export oil.

Watch it:

Welch, who is a supporter of the Obama administration’s efforts to built a multilateral sanctions regime against Iran, expressed his concern that congressional efforts to tighten sanctions and push for the “military option” are unhelpful. “Frankly, I don’ think Congress is in a situation to micromanage. It turns into a political debate and one -upmanship,” he said.

Indeed Welch is not alone in identifying the potential dangers of a military strike on Iran’s nuclear program. Former Israeli intelligence chief Meir Dagan referred to an Israeli attack on Iran as “the stupidest thing I have ever heard” and, last week, Defense Secretary Leon Panetta called on Israel to “work together” with the international community, adding to his comments back in November that an attack on Iran’s nuclear facilities would only briefly delay the country’s nuclear program.

()

NEWS FLASH

Gingrich Fundraises Off Saying He Wants To Punch Obama In The Face | Newt Gingrich’s campaign sent out a fundraising request to supporters this afternoon touting that the former speaker said he wants to knock Obama out, because, as the subject line of the email suggests, “A Bloody Nose Just Won’t Cut It.” The comment comes from a recent town hall where a questioner asked Gingrich how he would “bloody Obama’s nose.” “I don’t want to bloody his nose, I want to knock him out!” Gingrich responded. “This is exactly why Newt Gingrich is the candidate who must face Obama,” campaign spokesman RC Hammond says in the email, above a bright red “Donate” button:

See the full email HERE.

Justice

‘Strict Constitutionalist’ Ron Paul Endorses Nullification As A ‘Very Good’ Idea

By Travis Waldron and Scott Keyes on Jan 18, 2012 at 5:30 pm

File:John_C_Calhoun_by_Mathew_Brady,_March_1849-crop

Nineteenth Century secessionist Sen. John C. Calhoun

GREENVILLE, South Carolina — Standing in front of a statue of long-time South Carolina Sen. and former Vice President John C. Calhoun, Texas Rep. Ron Paul (R) endorsed the idea that states should be able to nullify federal laws they don’t like at a press conference at the South Carolina state capitol on Tuesday.

In 1833, Calhoun became one of the first American politicians to attempt nullification when he led an effort to nullify a federal tariff that South Carolina opposed. Thirty years later, nullification played a significant role in the start of the Civil War when multiple states, South Carolina included, attempted to nullify federal laws about slavery.

Despite this checkered past, Paul said nullification “would be very good” to have in practice today because it would reduce the size of the federal government:

KEYES: We’re holding this conference in front of the statue of John C. Calhoun. What role do you his beliefs playing in politics today, particularly nullification?

PAUL: Well, to tell you the truth, I don’t feel comfortable right now pretending I can analyze everything he believed in and everything I believe in, so I think I’m going to beg off on that. But if he was a strict Constitutionalist and a states’ rights person, I’m sure that I would have a lot of agreement with him.

KEYES: Do you think nullification is still a valid political argument in society today?

PAUL: Certainly I think it is. And the Northeast states were the first ones to talk about nullification and also — I think nullifying laws, even if we never used it, to have it available would be very good. I think nullification would be a way to restrain the federal government. [...] I think nullification would be a very good principle. I think it probably wouldn’t be used that much, but our federal government would be much smaller than it is today had that principle been more clearly embedded in our Constitution.

Watch it:

This isn’t the first time Paul has endorsed nullification, but doing so in a state where nullification movements led to Civil War makes it particularly noteworthy. And while he claims it was “embedded” in what the drafters of the Constitution “understood,” the actual text they wrote seems to read differently.

The Constitution states clearly that Acts of Congress “shall be the supreme law of the land…anything in the Constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding” — meaning states do not reserve the right to void laws they don’t like.

Despite its blatant unconstitutionality and disturbing historical connotations, nullification has seen a resurgence in popularity among right-wing politicians who oppose laws ranging from health care reform to federal light bulb standards.

()

Economy

Romney Invests In Several Bain Funds That Use Offshore Tax Havens To Boost Profits

By Pat Garofalo on Jan 18, 2012 at 5:25 pm

Mitt Romney yesterday admitted for the first time that his tax rate is about 15 percent, lower than the rate paid by millions of middle class families. Romney is able to pay such a low rate (even though the top income tax rate is 35 percent) because his income comes overwhelmingly from investments and he is able to use a pernicious loophole available to wealthy money managers.

Romney has been refusing to release his tax returns, finally conceding to releasing his 2011 return after he files it in April. However, only releasing his 2011 returns would give Romney the opportunity to keep under wraps some of the financial engineering he may have done to avoid taxes before the last calendar year. As Reuters noted, those returns “could shed light on how Romney and Bain use offshore strategies to avoid taxes.” In fact, ABC News reported today that Romney has millions of dollars parked in several Bain funds that are set up in tax shelters in order to help their investors avoid U.S. taxes:

Although it is not apparent on his financial disclosure form, Mitt Romney has millions of dollars of his personal wealth in investment funds set up in the Cayman Islands, a notorious Caribbean tax haven…As one of the wealthiest candidates to run for president in recent times, Romney has used a variety of techniques to help minimize the taxes on his estimated $250 million fortune. In addition to paying the lower tax rate on his investment income, Romney has as much as $8 million invested in at least 12 funds listed on a Cayman Islands registry. Another investment, which Romney reports as being worth between $5 million and $25 million, shows up on securities records as having been domiciled in the Caymans.

Even if these funds don’t help Romney directly dodge U.S. taxes, which the campaign claims they don’t, they convey a host of advantages to Bain and Romney, including “higher management fees and greater foreign interest” from investors looking to avoid U.S. taxes. As the Washington Post’s Suzy Khimm noted, “just one of these offshore-linked funds — Bain Capital Fund VIII, based in the Cayman Islands — generated $1 million for the Romneys in 2010.”

Offshore funds are attractive to investors, since they help with tax evasion, and more investor interest translates into more profit for Bain and Romney. As we’ve noted, Romney has a lucrative retirement deal with Bain that is paying him millions each year.

In contrast to Romney’s steadfast refusal to release his tax returns, George Romney (Mitt’s father) released 12 years worth of tax returns when he ran for president in 1968. Those returns showed that the elder Romney paid a 37 percent effective tax rate.

()

Alyssa

Ten Books That Could Be Kicked Out of Classrooms Under Arizona’s Insane Curriculum Law

By Alyssa Rosenberg on Jan 18, 2012 at 5:23 pm

In December, an Arizona judge upheld a state law that bans classes that “promote the overthrow of the United States government, promote resentment toward a race or class of people, are designed primarily for pupils of a particular ethnic group or advocate ethnic solidarity instead of the treatment of pupils as individuals.” That ruling’s already cost Tucson public schools their Mexican Studies program, and as part of that elimination, Shakespeare’s The Tempest is being removed from classrooms and sent to the district’s book depository. As nuts as it is to think that the Bard’s story of a sorcerer and his daughter could promote a rebellion in Arizona, there are a lot of other books that could fall under scrutiny if this law is allowed to stand.

1. Paradise Lost, John Milton: Sure, this is supposed to be John Milton’s repentance of his republican apostasy, but what if red-blooded American kiddies get confused by the eloquence of that wily creature Satan? That whole “Farewel Remorse: all Good to me is lost; / Evil be thou my Good” thing could cause all sorts of kerfuffles and uprisings, like those darn video games my grandson is always playing.

2. A Tale of Two Cities, Charles Dickens: It’s a short leap from Marquis Evrémonde to Mitt Romney, and we wouldn’t want to invite that comparison, now would we? Darnay is such an avatar of the politics of envy.

3. The Harry Potter series, J.K. Rowling: This one might be a squeaker. Sure, the hero advocates strongly against the anti-Muggle, Squib, and Mudblood race politics of Voldemort and his cronies. But that Potter kid is awfully disrespectful to the Minister of Magic and forms of authority in general.

5. Ender’s Game, Orson Scott Card: Pre-teens plotting an overhaul of world government and resisting the efforts of the military that’s recruited them to manipulate them. Total recipe for disaster. Especially now that blogging is an actual thing that kids can do. Nuke this one. And parents, shut down your kids’ Tumblrs just to be safe.
Read more

()