Starting at the 4:40 mark….

This is what writer, Matt Taibbi, said about the exchange in the above video….

You basically have a whole panel of CNBC goons pooh-poohing the idea that predatory lending took place, setting up the inevitable revisionist history that the 2008 crash was caused by individual homeowners borrowing beyond their means.

My favorite part of this comes roughly at the six-minute mark. Tavakoli has just deftly explained how a lot of the predatory practices worked — people with limited financial literacy were presented with long and complicated mortgage deals, and told they would have a fixed payment in perpetuity or a guaranteed re-finance, or were nailed by fraudulent appraisals. Then she mentioned the big one, the fact that investment banks then took all these mortgages and with eyes wide open securitized them and sold them off as worthy investments to suckers on the other end of the chain.

While she’s saying all this stuff, Santelli, who is one of the fathers of the Tea Party movement, is shaking his head furiously, video-scoffing at everything she’s saying. When he finally does get a chance to speak, this is what he says:

"Here’s my problem with this. It takes two to tango. You can’t cheat an honest man."

You can’t cheat an honest man? What the f*ck does that mean?

"You can't cheat an honest man?" ……I'm with Taibbi…..what the f*ck DOES that mean?

I bring this up not because I get to copy and paste portions of an article with the f-word in it……you know, as fun as that is. Here's the reason this is important….Taibbi continues….

This whole scene sort of encapsulates what’s wrong with the Tea Party movement. The movement, and let’s admit this, has some of its roots in legitimate grievances about government waste and some not-entirely-inaccurate observations about what’s left of the American welfare state. Of course what resonates most with the suburban whites who mostly make up the Tea Party are stories about minorities and immigrants using section 8 housing, food stamps, Medicaid, TANF and other programs, with the Obama stimulus being for them a symbol of this ongoing government largess. The heat of the Tea Party movement comes from the racial frustrations that actually exist out there, in the real world outside New York and LA, as urban expansion and immigration increasingly throw white and nonwhite communities together, with white Tea Party types more and more often blowing gaskets over increased crime rates, declining school standards, and mislaid or wasted tax revenue.

That this perception that minorities are the prime or sole consumers of government entitlement programs is absurdly inaccurate — white people, for instance, are overwhelmingly the largest nonelderly recipients of Medicaid, making up 42.8% of the program’s rolls nationwide, compared to 22.2% for blacks and 27.9% for Hispanics — is beside the point. The point is that the Tea Party is built largely on this narrative of “personal responsibility,” where the central demons are unwed black and Hispanic mothers and absent black and Hispanic fathers, who are, let’s face it, not uncommon characters in the American melodrama.

…the Tea Party movement contains a lot of people who are far more impressed by what they can see with their own eyes than with what, for instance, they read about. I’ve been to Tea Party events where global warming was dismissed by speakers who, without irony, pointed to the fact that there was snow on the ground outside. And while very few people have ever actually seen a CDO manager or a Countrywide executive, or were aware if it when they saw them, the Tea Party folks sure as hell have seen who their neighbors in foreclosure are.

The Fox/CNBC types have very cannily latched on this narrative to rewrite the history of the financial crisis. They know that Tea Partiers will go for any narrative that puts blame on poor (and especially poor minority) homeowners, because the idea of poor blacks and Hispanics borrowing beyond their means fits seamlessly with their world view.

All of what Taibbi says here is exactly right……all of it…..and you get the bad words as an extra special bonus.

The Tea Parties have had a whiff of racism surrounding them since they began….the audiences are 99% white, most of their complaints have to do with rejecting the leadership of Ameria's first black president…..and their unanimous hatred of Obama's stimulus bill in March, 2009 was primarily because some of the allocated funding paid for continuing government programs…..which Baggers perceive as giveaways, primarily to darker skinned Americans.

I know that many will disagree with Taibbi's assessment, insisting instead, that the Baggers only concern, cross their Tea Bags and pinky swear, is out of control government spending.

As we'll see, if and when immigration reform takes center stage again, the Tea Party movement is basically motivated by a, 'we're the diminishing white majority and we don't like it', philosophy.

The only thing worse than that philosophy is the utterly despicable exploitation of the mostly-white Baggers by the slimiest, most dishonest, Rick Santelli-like, amoral, carnival barkers a rotted and corrupt financial industry can buy.

The Reverend does not care for Michael Gerson, former speechwriter for G.W. Bush. I'm sure he's a fine man and all, but, when I read his columns at the Washington Post, or reprinted in the AB Journal (and they reprint them all), he always comes across as a sniveling weenie.

Today's column is no exception…..check that….today's column is exceptionally weenie-ish.

What is mealy-mouthed Michael sniveling about today? Those meanie Democrats are moving forward to pass some version of health care reform, and Mikey doesn't like it….

At this point, for Democratic leaders to insist on their current approach to health reform is to insist that Americans are not only misinformed but also dimwitted.

And the proposed form of this insistence — enacting health reform through the quick, dirty shove of the reconciliation process — would add coercion to arrogance.

Mikey Gerson's former boss, George W. Bush, didn't have enough GOP votes in the Senate in 2003 to pass his deep capital gains tax cuts for America's top 1%. That specific tax cut, which still is operative today, made it possible for poor billionaire stock traders, like Warren Buffet, to pay a lower tax rate (15%) on his income than his secretary. Fair and balanced, the way Republicans like it.

How did Bush get that "quick, dirty" capital gains tax rate cut passed without 60 Senate votes? The Republicans "added coercion to arrogance", used the reconciliation process to ram the tax cut through, and still needed Dick Cheney's tie breaking vote as vice-president to squeak out a 51-50 win for hedge fund traders and multi-millionaires.

So, Mikey…..if adding "coercion to arrogance" was good enough for the Republican goose to reward a handful of already-rich, paper shuffling, mouse clicking gamblers,…the cost of which was charged on the China Gold Card…..then, I'm thinking it just might be okay for the gander Democrats to use the reconciliation process to pass a vital health care reform package which will extend insurance coverage to millions of Americans who are not hedge fund traders, and LOWER the deficit by over $100 billion over 10 years.

Don't snivel Mikey Gerson. It's unbecoming.

Gerson goes on to list four "stakes" for Obama and those "coercion to arrogance" Democrats in the Senate who dare pass the 53% election victory-president's signature campaign issue. All four are Gerson-patented, waaambulance requiring, WHINES, each measurable on the conservative propaganda-calibrated WHINE-OMETER.

First, the imposition of a House-Senate health-reform hybrid would confirm the worst modern image of the Democratic Party, that of intellectual arrogance.

I'm sorry, Mikey, what? Check that….I'm sorry Mikey, WTF? During the entire year of 2008, Barack Obama's premier campaign promise was to reform health care in America. Did Whiny Mike miss 2008? Using health care reform as his premier campaign point, Barack Obama won the election with 53% of the popular vote, the largest percentage since 1964. To Gerson, if Democrats actually, you know, pass Obama's main campaign promise….they are proving that they are "intellectual(ly) arrogant".

Sorry Mikey….no sale.

Second, this approach would almost certainly maintain conservative and Republican intensity through the November elections.

Mr. Gerson proudly types out this 'no-sh*t-Sherlock' sentence as if it's filled with profundity. The GOP is out of power and obstructing everything that moves. Whether Obama and the Democrats move forward to pass health care legislation, OR NOT, the crazed GOP minority will "maintain" their crazed "intensity." Is there really any doubt about that?

Third, this action would undermine Obama's own State of the Union strategy, which seemed like a shift toward the economy and away from health-care reform.

Gerson is a good and faithful Bushie. Bushies only hear and see what they want to hear and see. Memo to Mikey: during the State of the Union address, President Obama called on Congress to get health care reform done. Additionally, the economy and health care reform are both part of the same puzzle. Without reforming health care, without doing anything to change health care in America, the nation will remain on a path to bankruptcy.

Fourth, a reconciliation strategy would both insult House and Senate Republicans and motivate them for future fights.

My personal favorite. Since 1980, the Senate has passed some 22 pieces of legislation using the reconciliation process, which requires 51 votes for passage rather than 60. Was Congress "insulted" all those 22 times? How about in 2003 when The Dick cast the 51st vote to grant millionaires another tax break…..did that "insult" the Congress? Did any congressional member come out of that vote saying they had been insulted?

But the "motivate them for future fights" part is just way too much bullsh*t for me to handle in the morning. The simple election of a Democratic President in November, 2008 was all filibuster record-setting Republicans needed to get "motivated" to fight. The "we-want Obama-to-fail" train left the GOP station on Obama's inauguation day. The gloves came off as soon as Republicans were trounced in the 2008 general election.

I have no idea why the AB Journal continues to defer to Michael Gerson, a sniveling weenie of a former Bush speechwriter. Whiny-Mikey has nothing to offer. Sure, he can shovel standard-issue, Republican bullsh*t. But, with virtually every ex-Bushie working fulltime for Village media now, how much Republican bullsh*t can we be expected to be buried under before, to borrow a Whiny-Mikey word, we all feel "insulted?"

Republicans are great at making statements, contracts, lists, etc. Republicans are not great at governing, though,….as we've learned once again so painfully under Bush-Cheney and a majority GOP Congress. Republicans still insist that government is the problem.

On the heels of the Great Republican Thinker, Newton Gingrich's Contract With/On America….another GOP list with the intent of trashing governance came out yesterday.

It's called…."The Mount Vernon Statement"….and it's signed by such conservative luminaries as Ken Blackwell, Brent Bozell, Grover Norquist, Tony Perkins, and Ed Meese.

From the Statement…

A Constitutional conservatism based on first principles provides the framework for a consistent and meaningful policy agenda.

» It applies the principle of limited government based on the
rule of law to every proposal.
» It honors the central place of individual liberty in American
politics and life.
» It encourages free enterprise, the individual entrepreneur, and
economic reforms grounded in market solutions.
» It supports America’s national interest in advancing freedom
and opposing tyranny in the world and prudently considers what we can and should do to that
end.
» It informs conservatism’s firm defense of family, neighborhood,
community, and faith.

1) "Limited government" does not appear in the Constitution, so one person's "limit" is another person's threshold level. However, I got a kick out of the "based on the rule of law" part. For 7 years, these same conservatives cheered on the abrogation of American rights through the government's vacuuming up of all electronic communications without judicial warrants, as required by the…umm…Constitution.

The same could be said about Guantanamo, torture, extraordinary rendition, denial of habeas rights…..and a host of other stuff that would fill up the blog post.

2) I have no idea what is meant by "individual liberty". What I know it DOESN'T mean, coming from this particular group of conservatives, is the "liberty" of women to choose what happens with their wombs. It does not include the "liberty" of gays to marry, you know, just like the "liberty" heterosexuals enjoy. Also….see 1).

3) A laugher. These conservatives are saying that the deregulated, wild-west, gambling arena which brought not just the U.S., but the world, to it's economic knees…..should continue as is. That's what the "economic reforms grounded in market solutions", is all about. "Market solutions", to conservatives, do not include oversight and accountability. Ayn Rand is these conservatives hero. Randian thinking espouses a separation of the economy from the government entirely. To coin a phrase…."how's all that deregulationin' and laissez-faire-in', workin' out for ya?"

4) More wars of choice and adventurism. "Advancing freedom", one bombing campaign after another. The dead people never have their "freedom", you know, "advanced"….just ask the families of the hundreds of thousands of dead Iraqis, who had their "freedom advanced"….to the bottom of a six foot hole in the ground. The "Mount Vernon Statement" conservatives are for more pre-emptive war for the purpose of taking control of what rightfully belongs to the U.S.

5) Bring back prayer in public schools, stop embryonic stem cell research, re-closet the gays, advance the cause of fusing the church with the state, end a woman's right to choose……the typical list from the faith-basers.

I never took any of Newtie's "Contract On/With America" seriously…..hell, he never did. It was simply a ploy, a "tool" in the propagandizing toolbox. And I can't possibly take this "Mt. Vernon Statement" seriously either. Why?

There is nothing new in this "Statement". Boilerplate, far-right conservative pablum. The tenets espoused in this "Statement" are nothing new….not in the least…..simply regurgitated failed conservative policies.

When Obama first took office, I thought that he just might take the time to educate the American people in detail about the utter failure of conservative policies, of conservative thinking. Sadly, he hasn't done that nearly enough. That has left an opening for disingenuous conservative power brokers to offer a new bucket of slop…..for the upcoming slopping of the conservative-voting animals. But, sigh, the "new" bucket of slop…..contains the S.O.S….same old slop.

Conservatives really don't have any new ideas. They insist on clinging on to, and cherishing their failures…..they insist on trying to revive dead and proven-to-be-rotted conservative policies.

It's an embarrasment to Mt. Vernon.

Senator Evan Bayh (D-IN) announced yesterday that he would not run for re-election this fall. Here is one of the primary reasons Bayh gave for his decision…..

There is too much partisanship and not enough progress — too much narrow ideology and not enough practical problem-solving. Even at a time of enormous challenge, the peoples' business is not being done.

Take a look at how Senate Republicans have used the threat of a filibuster since Democrats regained the senate in 2006….

It's what I call 'gaming the system.'

Here's Evan Bayh asking Obama a question at a very recent confab with Senate Democrats….

I think many people across the country candidly look at us and say, I don't know if the Democrats are willing to take this on (defciti reduction). They think we want to tax too much and spend too much, and do we have the backbone to really stand up and make some of these hard decisions?

I'd like to present it in a little bit different way that I think is on the minds of people in my state, and perhaps in the minds of independents and moderate Republicans and conservative Democrats around the country — and that's this issue of the deficit and rising debt, and restoring the fiscal health of this country to a position where it ought to be.

So my question to you, Mr. President, is speaking to independents, conservative Democrats, moderate Republicans — people who know we have to do this — why should the Democratic Party be trusted? And are we willing to make some of the tough decisions to actually head this country in a better direction?

Bayh called on President Obama to veto the $1.1 trillion omnibus spending bill passed in mid-December….

“It’s bad for our country’s finances," Bayh said at the time. "It’s bad for our children because we are going deeper into debt to China. It sets a terrible example by showing that politicians are totally out of touch with the sacrifices middle class Americans are making."

"I think for some of them, it's that they don't pay as much attention to the deficit," he told Fox News. "They just don't focus on economics."

Here's Bayh yesterday voicing his discontent with the Senate's recent vote against forming a 'deficit commission'…..

Two weeks ago, the Senate voted down a bipartisan commission to deal with one of the greatest threats facing our nation: our exploding deficits and debt. The measure would have passed, but seven members who had endorsed the idea instead voted "no" for short-term political reasons.

So, Evan Bayh is a genuine fiscal hawk Democrat who is simply fed up with the paralysis in the Senate. The Senate, according to Bayh, won't "pay attention to the deficit." So fed up is he that he just can't stand it anymore.

Or maybe not….

Here's Evan Bayh "focusing", you know, "on economics."

In April, 2009, during the Obama omnibus spending bill debate, an amendment to totally eliminate the estate tax on the top .2% of Americans garnered 48 votes. One of those yes votes to eliminate all estate taxes was cast by…..wait for it….Evan Bayh. Bayh, obviously, was "focusing on economics", when he cast his vote to give the very richest Americans a break. Bayh focused like a laser on the necessity for helping out the poor, top .2%…..while diminishing the federal government's revenue even further. He was "focusing on economics."

Bayh, a self-proclaimed deficit hawk, willing to guard against out-of-control government spending no matter what……had no trouble, whatsoever, voting to put Bush's Iraq war on the national charge card. Same with Obama's Afghanistan escalation…

WALLACE: Senator Bayh, you brought up the question of cost, and the administration has put the cost — and this is kind of astonishing to, I think, a lot of people — $1 million per soldier per year, so if you sent 30,000 soldiers, that would be a $30 billion price tag.

Now, some top Democrats are talking about the idea — the new idea of a war tax to pay for the escalation in Afghanistan. Good idea?

BAYH: No, I don't think it's a good idea, not at this point, Chris. First of all, you need to provide for the nation's security regardless of your financial situation, and there's no bigger deficit hawk in Congress than I am.

….we've got to look at cutting spending in other parts of the budget before we even talk about raising taxes.

To summarize then……..Evan Bayh is full of sh*t….and always has been.

That's the street-talk description of Evan Bayh. Glenn Greenwald's must-read on Mr. Bayh is a bit more, you know, refined….

"It's impossible to find a more perfectly representative face for the rotted Washington establishment than Evan Bayh. He is the pure expression of virtually every attribute that makes the Beltway so dysfunctional, deceitful and corrupt."

Good riddance….Mr. Bayh. No one who is honestly concerned about national deficits or government spending is going to miss you. One of the very reasons today's Senate is so dysfunctional is….Evan Bayh.

On the Jobs Bill front…

Senate Finance Committee Chairman Max Baucus(D-MT) announced he'd reached accord with ranking member Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-IA). They unveiled what was supposed to be a final jobs package. But the agreement didn't sit well with many Democrats, and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid has pulled it out of their hands, and announced he'd move ahead with a smaller bill.

Recognize those two names? Baucus….Grassley? Those are the two senators who helped delay health care legislation all through the summer and fall of last year. Those senators helped to strip out of the Senate health care bill any public option provision.

See if you recognize this strategy….

…the jobs initiative originally belonged to Senate Majority Whip Dick Durbin (D-IL) and Sen. Byron Dorgan (D-ND). But Baucus recently objected, saying that he should be allowed to run certain key elements of it through his powerful committee–that by doing so, he could bring Republicans on board.

After months and months of "bringing Republicans on board" in the health care reform "debate"…..how many Republicans in the end voted for the Baucus Senate bill? ZERO.

Watching Baucus and Grassley and Snowe drag their feet on health care reform, apparently, didn't register at first with Harry Reid. Watching Baucus try to "bring Republicans on board" with health reform and watching Baucus bring ZERO GOP votes after months of wasting time…….Reid, under pressure from Nevada voters this year, once again delegated Obama's 'jobs bill' to the Senate Finance Committee….which means guys like Baucus and Grassley (of 'pull the plug on grandma' fame), were in charge.

Fortunately, Harry Reid woke up yesterday and trashcanned the entire Baucus-Grassley effort on jobs….here's why….

Among other things, Baucus and Grassley said that jobs could only move forward if the Senate agreed to take up a bipartisan "reform" (a.k.a. slashing) of the estate tax.

Shocker…right? The creation of a jobs bill, to Baucus and Grassley, was an opportunity to pay back the two senators richest campaign contributors. Over 8 million Americans unemployed and the Mighty Bipartisan Duo of Baucus and Grassley took advantage of that tragic number to push for estate tax elimination on the richest .1% of Americans.

Reid was right in flushing this piece of…..legislation.

However, even worse, I think, in the Baucus and Grassley "jobs bill" that Reid, thankfully, trashed, is the tax-credit-for-jobs provision championed by two other senators who often irritate us with their smug self-satisfaction about how bipartisan they are, Chuck Schumer (D-NY) and Orrin Hatch (R-UT).

L.A. Times….

According to a draft outline of the bill circulated by Senate Democrats, the cornerstone would be a proposal to give businesses that hire unemployed workers this year an exemption from the 6.2% Social Security payroll tax. If they keep those workers more than a year, employers would get an additional $1,000 tax credit per employee.

I hope that any new Congressional bill offered up to create jobs does not include this provision outlined by Schumer and Hatch.

Here's why….

Owners complained that “poor sales” was their top problem, and there is no need to hire with no new customers. It is hard for workers to “earn their pay” in this environment, a necessity if a firm is to stay in business. Ten (10) percent (seasonally adjusted) reported unfilled job openings, unchanged from December but historically low. Over the next three months, a seasonally adjusted net negative one percent of owners planning to create new jobs, a one point improvement, but still more firms planning to cut jobs than planning to add.

Business in 2010 America doesn't have enough…..customers. Business has more than enough workers to handle their existing….customers. Simply bribing employers with payroll tax giveaways and $1000 per every-employee-they-keep-for-a-year checks, isn't going to do anything to bring new…customers….to their businesses.

The very best strategy to follow in these very high unemployment times is to follow the lead of Franklin Roosevelt. Create public works jobs. Not just shovel ready infrastructure projects….but also clean-up jobs in rural and inner city blighted areas….city, county and township renewal projects like parks, road repaving, drainage ditch cleanup, etc. You and I both know that there are plenty of things that need to be done in our communities.

Depending on private enterprise to create new jobs through a bribery process, when those same business enterprises say their biggest economic problem is lack of….customers…..is simply a wishful thinking exercise by compromised congressional members whose answer to virtually any problem is….'give stuff away to business, boast that we did something, and hope for the best.'

During the health care "debate", many Republicans rose to their feet, grabbed the nearest megaphone, and shouted that Democrats were threatening Medicare. Those collectivist Democrats, if one was to believe Republicans, were going to "eliminate services" for seniors on Medicare. At least that's what "real Americans" like ex-governor Sarah Palin and Iowa Senator Charles Grassley told us. The nation was warned repeatedly of the upcoming "death panels" that Medicare beneficiaries would face under a Democratic "takeover" of everyone's health care. The "Democrat" health care reform plan would wind up….well you remember…."pulling the plug on grandma."

On Monday, I heard Jeb Hensarling (R-TX) tell a Hardball audience that Social Security should be privatized in the same fashion G.W. Bush had proposed in 2005. Working Americans would have "personal" or "private" funds, replacing traditional Social Security, and those funds would be available for placement in the stock market. Hensarling said that Americans under 55 should have their future SS checks reduced.

That's what he said.

Paul Ryan (R-WI) released the working GOP plan to reduce SS and initiate a brand new system relying primarily on the "reliable" free market stock exchanges.

I would mention here that Bush's privatization scheme for Social Security would have cost the American taxpayers $1 trillion to set up. One trillion.

Ryan's Republican plan includes…"gradual, modest increase in the retirement age,"

From Ryan's plan….

"All other workers will have a choice to stay in the current system or begin contributing to personal accounts. Those who choose the personal account option will have the opportunity to begin investing a significant portion of their payroll taxes into a series of funds managed by the U.S. government."

But Social Security reductions and privatization schemes are only part of how Paul Ryan and the Republicans would confront the Tea Partiers biggest boogeyman……too much national debt.

Medicare, in the Republican plan, is also on the chopping block. Yep, who would have thunk it, right? GOP'ers wrung their hands and moaned (Elvis lyric) about Obamacare possibly setting up "death panels" for, you know, old people on Medicare. The Baggers at Grassley's functions were oh-so-concerned about on-Medicare grandma having the plug pulled on her breathing machine.

Nevertheless, Paul Ryan's Republican plan for Medicare would …..
"starting in 2021, new enrollees would be given vouchers to purchase private health insurance."

Honestly, while daring and a bit breathtaking……the facts of the GOP plan for "reforming" Medicare involve eliminating Medicare as we know it and offering voichers to seniors. Voichers that would be used to buy health care insurance from FOR PROFIT insurance companies.

Ryan's Republican plan would end income and payroll tax breaks for employers who now provide health care to employees…..which would discourage employers from providing health care benefits to their employees. Also in Ryan's plan is the Holy GOP Grail…limiting malpractice award settlements. The remainder of Obama's stimulus plan fund, several hundred billion, would be rescinded under the Republican plan to deal with deficits.

Interestingly, Ryan's Republican plan freezes discretionary government spending for 10 years…..a source of GOP mockery when President Obama proposed it just the other day.

The GOP plan is a veritable tsunami washing away half-century old domestic programs…..the most popular government programs to date.

When would the GOP tsunami of privatizing SS and Medicare wind up lowering deficits and the debt down to reasonable levels?

"..the Ryan budget plan dubbed the "Roadmap for America's Future" would take the deficit from 11 percent of gross domestic product in 2009 to 4.8 percent in 2030 and 2.6 percent in 2050. The Congressional Budget Office shows the GOP plan would end the deficit around 2060 and they would produce a surplus of 6 percent of gross domestic product by 2083."

Republicans would have Americans accept a plan which would open up Social Security and Medicare to the Banksters and Big Insurance. In so doing, benefits would be reduced, requirement ages raised and tax dollars placed into the hands of for-profit money schemers. The same schemers who have destroyed the American economy by gambling recklessly, the same schemers who have helped to make health care coverage beyond the reach of average Americans.

With all of that…..the GOP plan would finally get the federal budget defcits under control by…..2080.

GOP weasel, John Boehner (R-OH), nervous about connecting his political futures to such a radically regressive plan, had this to say about Ryan's plan……

"Paul Ryan, who's the ranking member on our budget committee, has done an awful lot of work in putting together his roadmap," Boehner said. "But it's his. And I know the Democrats are trying to say that it's the Republican leadership. But they know that's not the case."

Unfortunately for Boehner….Paul Ryan is the GOP House guy responsible for putting together GOP budget plans.

What does all this tell us? I think it demonstrates what the GOP priorities are. GOP ideas for "reform", whether it be deficits or health care, always contain huge windfalls for profiteers……while severely cutting into popular, government-run, domestic safety net programs for average Americans.

I agree with many liberal bloggers. Democrats should make a HUGE deal of this radical Republican proposal.

Frank Luntz, GOP "word consultant", looking like he's squeezing out another loaf of deception.

For many years now, Republicans haven't had any new policy ideas to offer to the American people. By definition, conservatism is against change…unless it's regressive (good old days and all that)…..so no new ideas coming from Republicans is to be expected. It's in the GOP DNA.

How can Republicans get away with politically battling without any new policy ideas Americans might embrace?

Deception and disinformation…..and when even that's not enough…..Republicans are encouraged to just lie about stuff.

We witnessed this dynamic during the health care reform "debate."

Here's the repellent Frank Luntz, GOP word-guru…..explaining how GOP deception and disinformation would play out in the health care back and forth….

Q: Is it a correct description of the president’s plans for reform?

Luntz: We don’t know what he is proposing. We want to avoid “a Washington takeover.”

Q: But that’s not at issue. What the Democrats want is for everyone to be able to choose between their old, private health-insurance plan and an all-new, public health-insurance option.

Luntz: I’m not a policy person. I’m a language person.

Translation: It doesn't matter what Obama or congressional Democrats proposed to reform health care…..the reform would be labeled by Republicans as "a Washington takeover".

And so it was. Luntz's "language" lesson worked it's way through the rotted and decomposed corpse we still call the American mainstream media. Tea Partiers, unhinged and incoherent…yet passionate about disliking Obama as president…..carried the "language" forward. Result? No health care reform has been passed. Luntz, Republicans, Big Insurance, Big Pharma win again…..by deception and lies….Americans lose.

But what of the veracity of the GOP talking point that Obama and the Democrats were proposing a "Washington takeover"?

Doesn't matter, policy is not my concern, said Luntz…..I'm hired to deceive people with "language."

I bring this up because fat-Frank is at it again, working with Republicans and the Banksters-Who-Ate-America to deceive voters into believing the lie that if Washington regulates Banksters, Armeggedon (or something bad) will result. Why? Because….yep, you guessed it…..government was responsible for America's financial collapse.

Huffington Post…

"If there is one thing we can all agree on, it's that the bad decisions and harmful policies by Washington bureaucrats that in many ways led to the economic crash must never be repeated," Luntz wrote. "This is your critical advantage. Washington's incompetence is the common ground on which you can build support."

"Public outrage about the bailout of banks and Wall Street is a simmering time bomb set to go off on Election Day," Luntz wrote. "Frankly, the single best way to kill any legislation is to link it to the Big Bank Bailout."

Think about what Luntz is saying. New legislation to rein in some of Wall Street's unregulated gambling schemes, the vortex of why the economy fell apart….or a new federal agency to protect consumers from the same types of trick loans which helped inflate a housing bubble…..can be defeated by Republicans by repeatedly chanting the words "Big Bank Bailout." Not because new government regulation of the Banksters wouldn't help prevent another future government bailout of same…..but because Americans recoil negatively at the words "Bank Bailout."

Luntz's deception business treats the American people like plantlife who automatically and mindlessly respond to sunlight….or in this case, lack of sunlight. Cattle easily fooled into going into the slaughter yard pen.

Personally, I dislike Frank Luntz, and have for years. He represents everything that is wrong with American politics.

But there's method and purpose in Luntz's word madness….

Think Progress

Luntz, who gained national recognition for his role in shaping the buzzword-heavy Contract for America with Newt Gingrich in 1994, has built a sizable business selling his messaging advice to both corporations and Republican campaigns.

Who might some of those "corporations" be that Luntz works for….

– Luntz client Ameriquest Mortgages: The proposed Consumer Financial Protection Agency (CFPA) would eliminate predatory mortgages. Ameriquest, America’s “sub-prime leader,” has been prosecuted by Attorney General Richard Blumenthal for inflating property values so borrowers could get bigger loans, imposing upfront fees without reducing interest rates as promised, and intentionally deceiving lenders with hidden penalties and interest rates on final loan documents.

– Luntz clients Merrill Lynch and Bear Stearns: Under proposed financial reform, big banks, like Luntz clients Merrill Lynch and Bear Stearns, would face a new structure designed to police financial products, prohibit predatory ones, and require clear forms and disclosures. The CFPA would also help regulate hidden bank fees and other bank abuses.

– Luntz client American Express: The CFPA would regulate the credit card industry, preventing predatory interest rates and fees.

Just as Betsy McCoy deceived and lied about health care reform because she was being paid by Big Insurance and Big Pharma…..so too Frank Luntz with the Banksters.

The crucial question now for Americans is….can corporate and GOP-paid "language" deceivers and liars fool most of the people most of the time?

I'm thinking, and especially so since the Rogue Supremes went down on Big Corporations, that the answer is….yes.

And I thought Obama's SOTU address was impressive…

Yesterday, President Obama spoke and answered questions at a House Republican retreat in Baltimore. Entire transcript here. It's going to be a cold weekend…..so stay in and take the time to read the transcript or go here to watch the entire event. It's that good.

President Obama spent a total of 82 minutes talking to and answering questions by some of his most…..I don't know….colorful….GOP House opponents.

How did it go?

As some unnamed GOP spokesperson said afterwards, "we won't be doing that again."

Conservative wingnuts, as I lovingly call them, live in a bubble. Politically speaking. As many know, The Reverend is a veteran of dialoguing with wingnuts. I've learned quite a bit about the species over the many years I've been engaging them. I've been grateful for the experience and have personally benefited greatly. From my experience I've come to learn how to speak fluent wingnut as well as accurately predict wingnut political manuevers before they take place.

Nowhere is the wingnut political bubble on display more than on Fox "News." Wingnut watchers of Fox insist that because Fox draws the largest "news" audiences…..they are the most trustworthy deliverer of "news" and information. What President Obama did yesterday was expose the truth about Fox and it's audience.

Even though Fox, and others, repeat mistakes and lies continuously…even though a few million Americans take in those mistakes and lies on a regular basis….and even though all wingnuts concerned will swear under oath that Fox is as honest as Old Abe…..outside the wingnut bubble, none of it will hold water.

It was interesting to watch GOP House member after GOP House member run off at the mouth using numerous wingnut bubble talking points…before they asked the President a question. I suppose the GOP House wingers thought they were still operating under the Fox protocol, where they can spout off unchallenged and unrebutted winger bubble talking points with relative ease.

Bill-o…this wasn't.

One typical example…

Mike Pence (R-IN)….

"Now, last year, about the time you met with us, unemployment was 7.5 percent in this country. Your administration and your party in Congress told us that we'd have to borrow more than $700 billion to pay for a so-called stimulus bill that was a piecemeal list of projects and boutique tax cuts, all of which we were told had to be passed or unemployment would go to 8 percent, as your administration said.

Well, unemployment is 10 percent now,….

Republicans offered a stimulus bill at the same time. It cost half as much as the Democratic proposal in Congress. And using your economic analyst models, it would have created twice the jobs at half the cost. It essentially was across-the-board tax relief, Mr. President.

…..you've raised this — a tax credit which was last promoted by President Jimmy Carter.

….would you be willing to consider embracing,…. the kind of across-the-board tax relief that Republicans have advocated, that President Kennedy advocated, that President Reagan advocated, and that has always been the means of stimulating broad-based economic growth?"

What Pence was doing was repeating standard issue Fox wingnut bubble talking points. Pence's "question" was actually a rehearsal of a bogus, yet often repeated, narrative which has become all too familiar to Wingnut Bubble Residents.

According to the Fox Bubble Points,….Obama promised 8% unemployment and has failed miserably because unemployment is at 10%. In the Bubble narrative, Obama's "so-called" stimulus and "boutique" tax cuts, strongarmed into law by Democrats, has been a total and corrupt failure…..only making America's dire economic and unemployment situation, worse. Now, as the Fox Bubble Points go, Obama, like "Jimmy Carter", has proposed a tax credit for new hires….but when will Obama join Fathers, Kennedy and Reagan, and propose "across the board", "broad based", "stimulating",….wait for it…."tax relief?"

Obama, who doesn't live in the Fox Bubble, took no prisoners….

"…the hope was that unemployment would remain around 8 — or in the 8 percent range. That was just based on the estimates made by both conservative and liberal economists because at that point not all the data had trickled in.

We had lost 650,000 jobs in December. I'm assuming you're not faulting my policies for that. We had lost, it turns out, 700,000 jobs in January, the month I was sworn in. I'm assuming it wasn't my administration policies that accounted for that. We lost another 650,000 jobs the subsequent month, before any of my policies had gone in to effect. So I'm assuming that wasn't as a consequence of our policies. That doesn't reflect the failure of the Recovery Act."

Mike Pence had to go to a neutral corner after that series of rapid-fire blows…..but the Wingnut Slayer was relentless…

"…we can score political points on the basis of the fact that we underestimated how severe the job losses were going to be, but those job losses took place before any stimulus, whether it was the ones that you guys have proposed or the ones that we proposed, could have ever taken to effect.

Now, that's just the fact, Mike, and I don't think anybody would dispute that. I — you could not find an economist who would dispute that."

On the "so-called" stimulus and those "boutique" tax cuts,…..

"This notion that this was a radical package is just not true. A third of them were tax cuts. And they weren't — when you say they were boutique tax cuts, Mike, 95 percent of working Americans got tax cuts. Small businesses got tax cuts. Large businesses got help in terms of their depreciation schedules.

I mean, it was a pretty conventional list of tax cuts."

The stimulus was, in reality, a moderate-to-conservative action….

"….the component parts of the Recovery Act are consistent with what many of you say are important things to do: rebuilding our infrastructure, tax cuts for families and businesses, and making sure that we were providing states and individuals some support when the roof was caving in."

President Obama finished up with Mike Pence by shredding, embarassingly for Bubble Residents, the idea that Obama had rejected a better GOP economic proposal that would have "produce(d) twice as many jobs"……

"….. the notion that I would somehow resist doing something that cost half as much but would produce twice as many jobs — why would I resist that? I wouldn't. I mean, that's my point, is that — I am not an ideologue. I'm not. It doesn't make sense if somebody could tell me, "You could do this cheaper and get increased results," that I wouldn't say, "Great."

The problem is, I couldn't find credible economists who would back up the claims that you just made."

That's what a wingnut slaying looks like……and that was only one of many slayings Obama carried out yesterday.

Summarizing: Right-Wingers, Fox viewers, Wingnut Bubble Residents…are not used to having their Bubble Points destroyed in front of their eyes, not used to their Faux-Narratives being deconstructed so skillfully and honestly. But that's what happened yesterday….and that's why conservative Republicans won't be volunteering to do it again.

Tomorrow, I will post on the other very important point Obama made about how Wingnut Republicans have "boxed" themselves in.

Here is fresh proof from a vote in the Senate yesterday that Republicans really took Obama's SOTU message to heart. Republican Senators, after reflecting Soberly and Seriously on what Obama had to say Wednesday night about Democrats and Republicans working together for the sake of the American people…..broke through their bipartisan funk and voted on Pay-Go Thursday morning.

Pay-Go is basically an agreement assuring that legislation is paid for as it's passed.

Pay-Go, it would seem, would be right up the Republicans' fiscal responsibility and fiscal accountability alley. Since Obama took office, Republicans have been very, very loud and vocal criticizing the Big Democratic Spenders….who, they say, are socializing everything that moves and not paying for any of it.

Trillions of ones and zeroes have been expended in the conservative blogosphere railing against Obama and the Democrat's profligate spending…it's always profligate…always. To hear conservatives and Republicans…..overspending, deficit spending, the national debt….are our worst enemies as a country….and they alone, conservatives and Republicans….are the only folks who have the courage and "common sense" to rein in government spending.

So, yesterday, fically responsible, adult Republican Senators had a chance to put their best Fiscal Serious foot forward and vote along with a Democratic proposal for the Congress to pay for legislation as it's passed. Pay-Go.

How did those GOP Senators vote on Pay-Go? Not a trick question. I mean, surely, the Fiscally Serious and Responsible, Non-Big Gub'mint Spenders would want to assure that no more is added to the deficit and national debt….I mean right? Republicans have to now satisfy the TeaBagger movement to get re-elected….and the Baggers are nothing if they aren't opposed to Big Profligate Democratic Government Spending.

So how did those Serious Republican Senators vote yesterday on Pay-Go?

All 40 Republican Senators voted AGAINST Pay-Go. 40 GOP Senators voted "no"….to paying for legislation as it's passed in Congress. 60 Democrats and Independents voted for Pay-Go.

Please…..some Republican, some conservative…..explain to me the brilliant thinking by Republican Senators here. If there is an explanation…..other than, "we want Democrats and Obama to fail at everything"…..I sure would like to know what it is.

On a side note, the Akron Beacon Journal editorial page writers still have a crush on Ohio's own Republican Senator George Voinovich….who is retiring this year. The ABJ editorial writers often attribute fiscal common sense to Voinovich. To ABJ editorial writers, Voinovich is Serious, a Protector of Fiscal Responsibility, a champion for lowering deficits and lowering our national debt. A Sober and Serious Republican Senator.

George Voinovich, as Serious and as Fiscally responsible as he is, joined with the other 39 Very Serious Protectors of America's Treasury….and voted NO against Pay-Go.

Remind me again why it is that Republicans are the Party of fiscal responsibility……cause, you know, I can't remember.

I stand corrected.

I was under the assumption that last Tuesday night's special election in Massachusetts to fill Ted Kennedy's old senate seat was……ummm….an election to fill Ted Kennedy's old senate seat.

Never have I been so mixed up.

I have been learning, since last Tuesday, that Republican candidate, Scott Brown, was actually elected President last week.

See how mixed up I was?

Perhaps it's all part of some yet-plumbed paragraph in the Patriot Act…..or something. Sure enough…..one week after Scott Brown was elected to replace Barack Obama as president, Obama has begun to capitulate…..apparently ready to hand over the reins of executive leadership to that 41st Republican senator….41st out of 100 total.

What made The Reverend finally see the truth about our new, only-elected-by-Massachusetts….Reality Show Senator/President? This white flag raised by Obama yesterday…..

President Obama will propose freezing non-security discretionary government spending for the next three years, a sweeping plan to attempt deficit reduction that will save taxpayers $250 billion over 10 years.

…..

If the changes are passed, the non-security discretionary spending will be at its lowest level in 50 years. It currently is $447 billion for fiscal year 2010, and the administration wants it kept at or below that level through 2013, the official said.

Can new tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans be far behind?

What's going on here?

Because Rahm and Barack are the only two people alive who can play 11 dimensional political chess while simultaneously reading War and Peace and conducting, flawlessly, Handel's Messiah……they both understand that the Massachusetts special election was really a referendum on Obama's presidency.

And because Rahm and Barack are galactically smarter than all politicians who have come before them, they know that when Democrats have 59 senators and Republicans only have 41……Americans really want the 41 to make all the nation's decisions.

Rahm and Barack know that when an incoherent and tiny movement of poor-loser types calling themselves the Tea Partiers, or TeaBaggers, endorse a Scott Brown-type and help him to get elected in Massachusetts…..that immediately, all Democrats should begin voting to implement the Republican policy of cutting and freezing government spending on social programs. That's how f*cking smart Rahm and Barack are.

I confess, I'm nowhere close to being that smart….so you'll have to excuse my ignorance.

Put another way……Rahm and Barack, after beating, and beating, and beating….that dead and decomposed horse named Bipartisanship all summer and early fall-long……with truly amazing results by the way, the White House Power Duo have now decided, after President Scott Brown was elected, that the problem with beating that dead horse is that the club hasn't been big enough to get the job done.

Put yet another way. If Rahm and Barack think that moronic independent TeaParty voters are going to change their disingenuous or disinformed minds about voting for Congressional Democrats this November because they have announced that they will freeze federal spending on domestic programs……if the Power Duo thinks that…..then, they must be, you know, inhaling.

Tomorrow night Obama will give his first official State of the Union address. If the planned leak yesterday about freezing non-defense government spending is any indication of what Obama will say tomorrow night….American progressives are in for a real treat.

Having already reneged on many campaign promises,……responding when criticized for doing so by bashing progressives who helped to get him elected…..can there be any doubt that tomorrow night Barack Obama will officially retract his campaign slogan of "Yes, We Can"…replacing it with the more Teabagger-friendly slogan, "No, We Really Can't?"

Obama gave a speech late last week where he used the words fight and fighting….some 17-20 times. Obama often repeated the phrase, "I'll fight for you." I have no idea what he was talking about.

Usually, when political combatants raise the white flag, it means they are surrendering.

But, then, Rahm and Barack are really, really smart….and have been astonishingly successful, so far, co-opting Serious Republican bipartisan support…….so what would I know?

More of Obama's surrender terms, here.