Why Obama's Debt Panel Proposal Failed: Jobs More Important

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

The Message From Washington: Recovery Fix Is More Urgent Than Deficit Fix


Friday, the 18 members of the National Commission on Fiscal Responsibility and Reform failed to pass an austerity plan to slash the U.S. budget deficit by 2015. Although eleven members voted in favor, the final tally was three short of the necessary number to send the plan to Congress for a vote.

Meanwhile, the Labor Department reported that unemployment in November had jumped to 9.8%, causing members of Congress and the Obama administration to suggest what needs to be done quickly to fix the jobs situation.

From Democrats: Extend unemployment insurance for those who have lost their jobs and continue tax cuts for 98% of Americans.



From Republicans: Extend tax cuts for everybody.

The takeaway? Fixing the sluggish recovery is more important right now than fixing the country’s deficit problem.

The cumulative U.S. budget deficit over the next 10 years is projected to be about $6 billion, and the total of U.S. debt is expected to equal more than two-thirds of total U.S. economic output in 2020.

That’s assuming that policymakers allow the Bush-era tax cuts and other expiring tax measures to end as scheduled (which almost certainly won’t happen). Despite the immediate focus on the recovery, don’t be surprised if some of the ideas for austerity find their way back into the president’s FY2012 budget request in February.

As Sen. Kent Conrad, D-N.D., said during the Fiscal Commission’s final meeting Friday: “This is not the end of the story.”

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

Debt Plan Failed To Pass Despite Majority Support: Jobs More Important


A majority of the White House debt-reduction panel, representing a cross-section of the political spectrum, backed a sweeping yet controversial overhaul of U.S. tax and spending policies Friday, a sign that both parties are ready to put sacrosanct programs on the table to address the budget deficit.

Eleven members, ranging from liberal Democratic Sen. Richard Durbin of Illinois to conservative Republican Sen. Mike Crapo of Idaho, supported a proposal advanced by Democrat Erskine Bowles and Republican Alan Simpson, co-chairmen of the National Commission on Fiscal Responsibility and Reform.

The support surprised many but still fell short of the 14 votes needed to bring the package to the House and Senate floor for a vote. White House and Republican leaders suggested key parts of the package could be folded into the budget next year.

The proposals include eliminating popular tax breaks, cutting defense spending and raising the retirement age for Social Security. Multiple members of the panel said such steps were necessary to prevent the U.S. from entering a Europe-style fiscal crisis in the next decade.

President Barack Obama welcomed the report, without endorsing any of its specifics. "To sustain growth in the medium and long term we need to face some difficult choices to curb runaway debt," Mr. Obama said in a statement. "It will require cutting the spending we don't need in order to invest in what's necessary to grow our economy and our middle class. It will require all of us, Democrats and Republicans, to find common ground."

Government officials are trying to establish credibility on long-term deficit reduction while at the same time giving the struggling economy a shot in the arm, which would likely increase the deficit in the short term.

To White House policy makers and their allies, there is no contradiction between demands for immediate stimulus and efforts to cut the deficit over the coming decade.

In fact, the Labor Department's report Friday of far lower job creation than expected in November could help the process. Lawmakers and officials believe it will hasten a deal on a short-term extension of tax cuts, based on the idea that taxes shouldn't rise during an economic downturn, and moving the deficit conversation to the long term.

The White House and congressional negotiators were in talks on a costly package that is expected to temporarily extend all of President George W. Bush's tax cuts, as well as unemployment benefits and a raft of tax breaks for lower-income Americans that were part of last year's economic-stimulus law.

"There is no reason why policy makers can't do the sensible thing of stimulating the economy today through policies such as [emergency unemployment compensation] extension and some type of payroll-tax holiday and simultaneously improve our long-term fiscal sustainability," said Alan Krueger, a Princeton University economist who recently resigned as assistant Treasury secretary for economic policy.

Mr. Obama said the commission's report "includes a number of specific proposals that I—along with my economic team—will study closely in the coming weeks as we develop our budget and our priorities for the coming year."

White House budget director Jacob Lew invited the commission to meet with him and Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner.

Administration officials have pointed to the commission's proposed cuts to defense spending, its attack on "tax expenditures"—cherished tax breaks such as mortgage-interest deductions—and its call for an overhaul of Social Security as potential areas to pursue.

The jobs report—just 39,000 new payroll jobs and a 9.8% unemployment rate for November—was "shockingly bad," said Douglas Holtz-Eakin, a former Republican director of the Congressional Budget Office. But the 11 votes for the commission report, including five senators from across the political spectrum, was "shockingly good," he said.

A resolution of the tax issue and the surge in support for drastic steps to reduce the deficit could bring economic benefits, Mr. Holtz-Eakin said. "We've got a business sector staring at Washington, totally paralyzed by what they see coming out," he said.

After the commission's final meeting, an additional 13 senators—12 Democrats, and independent Joseph Lieberman of Connecticut—wrote to the president urging action on the commission's plan "now."

"I would simply say to the president, to the Senate, to the House, and to the people of our nation, that we should not let this proposal fall idly by the wayside," Republican Sen. Mike Crapo, a conservative closely aligned with the GOP leadership, said as he cast his vote for the plan.


View Larger Map


Sources: CNN, Forbes.com, Fox News, MSNBC, PBS, Young Turks, Wall Street Journal, Youtube, Google Maps

Rick Sanchez Apologizes To Jon Stewart

Rick Sanchez: Comments about Jon Stewart Were "Narrow-Minded"


Nearly a week after calling "Daily Show" host Jon Stewart a bigot and suggesting that members of the Jewish faith control the TV networks, former CNN anchor Rick Sanchez confirmed in a statement Wednesday that he has apologized to Stewart. Sanchez also called his comments "narrow-minded" and said he was excited about whatever opportunities lay ahead of him after being fired from CNN.

Sanchez said that he opposes "hate and intolerance in any form" in the statement released by CNN. In an interview with satellite radio host Pete Dominick Thursday, Sanchez said that Stewart is bigoted toward "everybody else that's not like him." CNN fired Sanchez Friday.

In his written statement, Sanchez referred to his controversial comments as "tired and mangled," confirming words his wife posted to Facebook Monday that the comments were the result of "exhaustion from working 14 hr days for 2 mo. straight."

Reports of Sanchez apologizing to Stewart came from a post Suzanne Sanchez published to her Facebook page. On Monday night -- the first "Daily Show" episode since Rick Sanchez's comments were broadcast -- Stewart opened the show by lampooning Sanchez. Stewart didn't mention having a conversation with Sanchez or an apology.

Read Sanchez's full statement below:

On October 4th, I had a very good conversation with Jon Stewart, and I had the opportunity to apologize for my inartful comments from last week. I sincerely extend this apology to anyone else whom I may have offended.

As Jon was kind enough to note in his show Monday night, I am very much opposed to hate and intolerance, in any form, and I have frequently spoken out against prejudice. Despite what my tired and mangled words may have implied, they were never intended to suggest any sort of narrow-mindedness and should never have been made.

In the aftermath of these comments, CNN and I have decided to part ways. However, I want to go on record to say that I have nothing but the highest regard for CNN and for my six wonderful years with them. I appreciate every opportunity that they have given me, and it has been a wonderful experience working for them. I have tremendous respect for everyone there, and I know that they feel the same about me. There are no hard feelings -- just excitement about a new future of opportunities.

I look forward to my next step with great anticipation.


View Larger Map

Sources: CBS News, CNN, Huffington Post, Young Turks, Youtube, Google Maps

When Addressing "Torture Gate" President Obama Must Fairly Apply Rule of Law

Dr. Condoleeza Rice recently discussed America's right to Torture Prisoners of War with a group of bold Stanford University students.

While its true those students did ask some challenging questions, I must admit as usual Condi held her own.

Check out some of her statements:

"The president instructed us that nothing we would do would be outside of our obligations, legal obligations under the Convention Against Torture."

"I didn't authorize anything. I conveyed the authorization of the administration to the agency, that they had policy authorization, subject to the Justice Department's clearance. That's what I did."

"Foreign Policy is full of tough choices."

"The United States was told, we were told, nothing that violates our obligations under the Convention Against Torture, and so by definition, if it was authorized by the president, it did not violate our obligations under the Convention Against Torture."

Does any of this sound familiar? I can sum it up in one word: Nixon!

Do I still think that some members of former George W. Bush's Administration should be subpoenaed and prosecuted for Human Rights violations?

Yes, however.......Only if the U.S. Dept. of Justice also chooses to prosecute Employers who knowingly and intentionally hire Illegal Immigrants. These workers were then exploited or abused. Some until they died prematurely.

Yes, only if the United States Dept. of Justice also agrees to prosecute crooked District Attorneys and Law Enforcement Officers who intentionally tampered with cases or "padded" cases with trumped up Federal charges, for the sole purpose of imprisoning thousands of African-American/Hispanic young men and women.

Yes, only if the United States Dept. of Justice also decides to conduct an investigation into how School District Superintendents nation wide used the No Child Left Behind Act as Stare Decisis for Re-Segregating America's Public Schools.

Yes, only if the United States Dept. of Justice will also prosecute all those responsible for intentionally steering Toxic Mortgages and Car Loans into the hands of numerous unqualified buyers who couldn't repay them, therefore contributing to the Meltdown of our Economy.

Yes, only if the United States Dept. of Justice seeks to look into how thousands of Law Enforcement Agency Dept Heads and District Attorneys across the country, chose NOT to investigate or prosecute citizens who intentionally committed Hate Crimes even when the evidence slapped them in the face!

Yes, only if the United States Dept. of Justice chooses to hold State Attorney Generals and State Legislators nationwide accountable for NOT establishing and enforcing Fair, Equitable Tax Laws.

In addition that also includes holding those same State Attorney Generals/ State Legislators accountable for intentionally withholding Unemployment Benefits from citizens legally and rightfully entitled to them, for no just cause other than Corporate Loopholes or Corporate Incentives.

Yes, only if the United States Dept. of Justice will allow Congress to subpoena Health Care Plan Provider CEOs just as they summoned Banking/ Car Industry CEOs, for the purpose of them explaining to Congressional Members why their companies charged such exorbitant fees when processing claims and why millions of eligible claims were denied. Especially claims for Mental Health Care treatment and Medicare for the Elderly.

Yes, only if the United States Dept. of Justice will subpoena thousands of DSS Directors from all 50 states to testify before Congress regarding:

a) Keeping Foster Children in the system until the age of 18 just to help bring in more Federal money for thirsty state budgets.

b) Encouraging/ Allowing Teens and Low-Income, Single Mothers to continue birthing baby after baby after baby, again for the sole purpose of bringing in more Federal money.

c) Allowing "Deadbeat Dads" to not pay Child Support due to Teen Mothers and Low-Income Women with Children (who by the way received Welfare Checks provided from Federal funding), refusing to cooperate with Child Support Enforcement agencies regarding the whereabouts of those lazy "sperm donors".

d) Continuing to dole out Welfare Checks, Food Stamps, Medicaid, Child Care Assistance and Free Housing to Teen Mothers or Low-Income Women with Children, even when they were NOT attending School or Working.

e) For allowing millions of Children/ Youth to die each year by training and ordering Social Workers to ignore blatant, clear signs of Child Abuse/ Child Neglect.

With all due respect to President Obama's Administration, the Rule of Law can't be used for Political purposes.

That is NOT why the U.S. Constitution and Geneva Convention Treaty were drafted.

In order to create a substantive legal standard for improving the lives of all Human Beings, the Rule of Law must be fairly and equally applied.

If the United States Dept. of Justice takes necessary steps in conducting thorough investigations proceeding with prosecutions of individuals who have committed the actions I mentioned above, then and only then will I agree that some members of former President George W. Bush's administration should be bought before a court of law for authorizing acts of Torture.

MSNBC's Keith Olbermann and guest dissects Condi's discussion on "Torture Gate" with Stanford University students.





Nixon: "If the President does it, that means its not illegal".




View Larger Map

Sources: Young Turks, Huffington Post, Stanford University, Whitehouse.gov, Healthreform.gov, Ed.gov, Speaker.gov, MSNBC, Countdown with Keith Olbermann, Think Progress, ABA, Black's Law Dictionary, Rutgers Law Record, Newsobserver, NC Dept. of Public Education, NC Dept. of Health & Human Services, Biz Journals, NCGA, Youtube, Google Maps