EMAIL SIGN UP!
Most Popular This Week
Popular content
Today's Top News
Mainstream Media Ignores S&P Attack On GOP Revenue Intransigence
Have you seen, anywhere, in any media, or even heard reported or repeated on NPR, the following sentence?
“We have changed our assumption on this because the majority of Republicans in Congress continue to resist any measure that would raise revenues, a position we believe Congress reinforced by passing the act.”
It’s right there on Page 4 of the official Standard & Poors “Research Update” (pdf) – the actual report on what they did and why – published on August 5th as the explanation for why they believe Congress – and even the Gang of Twelve – will be unable to actually deal with the US debt crisis.
Perhaps it’s just lazy – the bullet points at the beginning of the report don’t mention the Republicans or taxes, but instead just say, for example (part of one of six quick bullet-points): “[T]he downgrade reflects our view that the effectiveness, stability, and predictability of American policymaking and political institutions have weakened at a time of ongoing fiscal and economic challenges…”
In order to figure out that one of the reasons why is that “Republicans in the Congress continue to resist any measure that would raise revenues,” a hard-working reporter would have to read to page four of the eight-page report. It’s just too much effort for most reporters?
Although they do also mention this in the very first sentence of the report: “We lowered our long-term rating on the U.S. because we believe that the prolonged controversy over raising the statutory debt ceiling and the related fiscal policy debate indicate that further near-term progress containing the growth in public spending, especially on entitlements, or on reaching an agreement on raising revenues is less likely than we previously assumed and will remain a contentious and fitful process.” (Emphasis mine)
Or could it be that many reporters – and virtually all of the television talking heads – are themselves relatively high income-earners who don’t relish the idea of higher taxes?
Or could it be that reporters are afraid that if they report the actual language of the S&P Research Report, then Republicans will punish them by denying them “access” – i.e. refusing to show up on their programs – which is the career and show kiss-of-death for radio and TV programs that rely on big-name politicians to work?
I don’t know the reason, but it’s fascinating to see all the huffing and puffing about the S&P downgrade of America’s debt that all seems to be working so hard to avoid mentioning that critical sentence.
Inquiring minds want to know…
Comments
Note: Disqus 2012 is best viewed on an up to date browser. Click here for information. Instructions for how to sign up to comment can be viewed here. Our Comment Policy can be viewed here. Please follow the guidelines. Note to Readers: Spam Filter May Capture Legitimate Comments...
39 Comments so far
Show AllMost reporters work for media outfits owned by those who want to keep taxes low so they have more money available to bribe politicians to get taxes for the wealthy and for corporations further reduced and more taxpayer funded corporate welfare tossed their way..
Reporters will have a pink slip waiting for them if they report on the possibilty of restoring higher tax rates on the wealthy and corporations.
Bingo!
I never listen/ watch right wing (Fascist) media anyway. It plugs my B.S. Filter.
No mention of Democrats? Please go away, Obama supporter.
Baby. Bathwater.
This article is about the refusal to consider raising taxes, which is leadingto the S&P downgrade, which is the fault of the republicans. Last I checked, the Democrat House minority does support raising taxes - not raising them enough for my likes, but they do support it.
And condemning Republicans does no imply support for democrats. You need a lesson in basic logic.
The quote is taken out of context. It was referring to the assumption about the Bush Tax Cuts....
"Compared with previous projections, our revised base case scenario now
assumes that the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts, due to expire by the end of 2012,
remain in place. We have changed our assumption on this because the majority
of Republicans in Congress continue to resist any measure that would raise
revenues, a position we believe Congress reinforced by passing the act."
Yeah right, the Dems want to raise taxes after extending the Bush tax cuts to the elites a few months back. It is called 'dodge and weave." But more importantly, let's all ignore that the Dems just participated in the biggest social cut since the New Deal on the poorest of the poor. Yeah, lets all ignore it. Maybe if we do, it won't be true. In fact, lets all join hands and wish upon a star...
The refusal to consider raising taxes, which is leading to the S&P downgrade, is the fault of the republicans. Last I checked, the Democrat House minority does support raising taxes - not raising them enough for my likes, but they do support it.
And condemning Republicans does no imply support for democrats. You need a lesson in basic logic.
But at any rate, this article is about the media ignoring the fact that not raising taxes, rather than being insufficiently austere, is the major reason for S&P's downgrade. So you are entirely off topic anyway.
From the article: "Or could it be that many reporters – and virtually all of the television talking heads – are themselves relatively high income-earners who don’t relish the idea of higher taxes?"
The news anchors of major networks are in the $12,000,000/year bracket. This goes back to Watergate when journalists were all over the issue. The PTB decided then to bring major news figures into the ranks of the very wealthy. If you want a good example, consider the career of Tom Brokaw:
"We can't let that whole generation and a whole segment of the population just slide away out to the Internet and retrieve what information it wants without being in on it." - Tom Brokaw
"I ... believe strongly that the Internet works best when there are gatekeepers. When there are people making determinations and judgments about what information is relevant and factual and useful. Otherwise, it's like going to the rainforest and just seeing a green maze." -Tom Brokaw
"I think Jack Welch [CEO of General Electric, owner of NBC] is the smartest boss I ever had, and he signs my paychecks" -Tom Brokaw
...and, thank you, Rachel Maddow, yes, that bubbly lady on MSNBC, just got a multimillion dollar contract.
And she deserves that salary for speaking truth to power! This is one extremely intelligent gal who won't be bought off.
I wonder why anyone pays attention to S&P. As Paul Krugman points out in another article today, it gave AAA ratings to the mortgage securities which caused the financial meltdown in 2008. Why does anyone care what S&P says anymore?
Because they WANT to pay attention to S&P. The downgrade is useful to their agenda.
The deliberate omission of the passage citing GOP revenue intransigance by the American corporate news media is not surprising in the least. Said 'news' outlets are amongst the shoddiest in the English-speaking world, plus they have a corporate-friendly agenda to hew towards. Lastly, said passage interferes with their telling of the 'partisan gridlock' storyline, which is a much easier story to tell as it has opposition and does not require time or column inches to provide context. Lastly, if they were to elucidate this passage, their sacred 'access' to 'newsmakers' would go poof.
The quote is taken out of context. It was referring to the assumption about the Bush Tax Cuts....
"Compared with previous projections, our revised base case scenario now
assumes that the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts, due to expire by the end of 2012,
remain in place. We have changed our assumption on this because the majority
of Republicans in Congress continue to resist any measure that would raise
revenues, a position we believe Congress reinforced by passing the act."
AP certainly didn't bother to include that "trifling tidbit", Tom.
You go Thom!!!! People just cannot read or will not read. Their loss and now ours.
G.W. Is still destroying the U.S. Even after he and cheneys lies and thievery are over. We are being down graded because of the bush tax cuts. The working class and poor have been milked until there is nothing left, the formula for recovery makes no sence without the top one percent and big corporations paying their fair share, thanks teabaggers and republican Koch suckers! Fox news lies, where are the jobs.
The Bush tax cuts which Obama, let us not forget, agreed to extend.
If you will wake up a little you will remember that the republicans and teabaggers had the U.S. Held hostage in that situation too. Absolutely no taxes for big corporations or the wealthy in other words kiss the ass of the people who finance your campaign no matter how it effects us. Make Obama look bad at all expences even if it destroys America finically. Fox news lies, where are the jobs.
Yeah, Obama really fought to let those tax cuts for the wealthy expire!!!! I mean, gosh, I can't tell you how many times I heard Obama over the last few years state that those cuts WILL expire. Also, his repeated proclamations, on how the very richest Americans are the only ones that have made out over the last 30 years, and that it would be unfair to put the burden on the sick and elderly to maintain an even more extravagant lifestyle for those richest 2% folks "going forward".
I mean, you're right Obama is quite the populist.
Then, Obama, painted Republicans into a corner, using the bully pulpit of the presidency to pronounce that he would veto ANY legislation that contained cuts to the New Deal programs, thus highlighting the Republicans' intent to crash the economy to protect just the wealthy.
So yeah, I see where you are coming from.
I too get so disappointed when the tax cuts get extended, or the dems give on new revenue, but they too have to kiss ass to the wealthy and big corporations to protect their elections. The Roberts court made it impossible to regulate election money so now we are stuck with our elected officials having to kiss up to the rich to save their jobs and try to Postpone the remainder of the sale of our country. Fox news lies, where are the jobs
Indeed. Poor, beleagured Obama. The man just can't catch a break long enough to do what his achin' heart and socialist brain promised us in '08.
Obama continues the Bush/Cheney agenda, on every damn front.
Yes, it was on NPR this morning when I was driving home from work. About 8 a.m. Central time. A brief mention but it was there, about the Republicans refusing any raise in taxes being the other half of the problem. I noticed it because I was so surprised, NPR having gone so far to the right the past few years.
Excellent point. The American people need to be awakened to the corporate conspiracy to sabotage the middle class for their own exhorbitant selfishness. The evidence keeps piling up.
Thank you, sometimes I think I am just talking to myself. Fox news lies, where are the jobs.
yes, the people need to be awakened to the fact that Obama is IN ON the corporate conspiracy. ps...I would never be allowed to state this on the Thom Hartmann show!
Actually, I hear that and other similarly uninformed views from callers to the Thom Hartmann show all the time. He's actually pretty patient iwth such foolishness. If you think there's no difference between Republicans and Democrats, try to remember back to the years between 2001 and 2009 when the Republicans irresponsibly ran up huge debts, started two wars, and created a financial meltdown.
Old Blue,
After 2008 for two years the Dems had the WH and both houses of Congress. What did they do with it? Did they change campaign financing laws to diminish the influence of corporations? Did they undo ONE thing that Bush and his criminal cabal had imposed on the American people? Thom Hartmann likes to quip about whether the Repugs have passed one law that benefits the citizens of the U.S. What have the Dems passed that have helped its citizens? Don’t think for a minute that the Health Insurance Extortion Act benefits anyone but the health insurance companies.
Thom Hartmann is an unapologetic member of the Democratic Party and sits on the board of Progressive Democrats of America (PDA). He constantly blames Republicans for the deficiencies and ineffectiveness of the Democrats. Naively he believes that the Democratic Party can be subsumed by progressives just as, in his example, the Tea Party supposedly took over the Republicans. He’s wrong. The moneyed interests that had been the major funders of the Republican Party all along were frustrated with any moderation in the party. When the first black president was coronated it was the perfect opportunity to focus that money on an agenda that would have otherwise been seen as too radical.
When the Dems beg for money, they have to rely on the same corporations and wealthy that the Repugs do. Small donations from 140 million people still couldn’t exceed the donations given by the wealthiest 1%. That’s one of the reasons why Obama opted out of public financing. The public can’t compete. So the notion that populists or progressives can infiltrate the Democratic Party sufficient to influence it in any way is fantasy.
In any event, why is the Democratic Party even redeemable? They have consistently voted in favor of war, they still support the terrorist state of Israel, they provided retroactive immunity to a corporation guilty of illegally spying on American citizens, they voted every time for renewal of the Patriot (sic) Act, and they refused to even consider impeachment of a president who admitted to approving war crimes, just to name a few. How can anyone with a conscience be a member of such a vile, corrupt and criminal enterprise? What kind of logic says, “I want to join a criminal group in order to make it better.”? Are you psychotic? What a great defense for a terrorist on trial – “I only joined because I wanted to infiltrate it and make it more benevolent”. No surprise that this call to join and infiltrate the Democratic Party comes from someone who, as a board member of PDA, has an organizational interest in increasing its membership and membership coffers.
BTW, for you TH apologists, I’m not off topic by pointing out the obvious bias of the writer.
'Actually, I hear that and other similarly uninformed views from callers to the Thom Hartmann show all the time. He's actually pretty patient iwth such foolishness. '
Absolute bullshit! Thom has exhibited the same contempt for anyone who challenges him from the left (and there are very few allowed to do so) as Obama and his henchmen, like Emmanuel. In addition to his grand rationalizations for Obama's behavior, it's one of the main reasons I no longer respect Hartmann.
Policy over party!
S&P has no cred.....sorry.
What are you talking about? No cred?
This is why I stopped listening to Thom, he's still under the impression that there's a difference between repugs and dems. He used to say many smart things that inspired me but he's no different from any other radio talking head. He still speaks as if there's a possibilty that the dems will be good for the people and that they're not all corporate shills. And let's try to remember that no matter what acting is done about the stoopid debt ceiling, there's still a debt. Soon it will all come crashing down, and no matter how many commercials Hartmann does, he too will feel the pain of the fall of the Amerikan empire.
Thom:
Great pick-up as one basis for rating change. Thank you for all your efforts.
What I find ironic is the Govt is screaming foul !!!. They didn't cry foul when the corporations came after the little guy when he got in trouble for things beyond his
control - but instead bailed out the too-big to fail crooks.
Gee surprise !!! the credit companies, Wall Street, banks, and rating agencies etc. have been screwing the American public for the last thirty yrs. Now its the
Govt's turn.
Now you know why the Consumer Credit Protection Agency will never be approved.
I think Thom is a little premature here and that this will probably be picked up by at least some of the mainstream print media and maybe even a few of the talking heads on Monday. After all, it didn't come out until Friday evening and weekends are probably contractually mandatory when you're making the really big dough. Otherwise, nice catch, Thom.
The quote is taken out of context. It was referring to the assumption about the Bush Tax Cuts....
"Compared with previous projections, our revised base case scenario now
assumes that the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts, due to expire by the end of 2012,
remain in place. We have changed our assumption on this because the majority
of Republicans in Congress continue to resist any measure that would raise
revenues, a position we believe Congress reinforced by passing the act."
It's actually a reasonable assumption, as few in Congress, and nobody in the White House, wants those tax cuts to expire.