Category Archives: Conservatives

Local Radio Host Accused of Hit and Run

18 Saturday Feb 2012

Posted by in Conservatives, Politics

≈ 1 Comment

Tags

, , ,

 If it walks like a cover-up and talks like a cover-up…..Video compilation of Houston news reports about local conservative radio host Michael Berry’s involvement in a hit and run (allegedly) at a gay bar,  from Raw Story:

Vodpod videos no longer available.                                                                                                                                                                                                                                Click2Houston has more:

“New witnesses have stepped forward to say they saw a talk show host behind the wheel after a hit-and-run crash outside a popular gay bar, and Local 2 Investigates has obtained video from inside the bar that is now in the hands of police.

Houston police obtained video from inside T.C.’s Show Bar on Converse and Fairview in the Montrose to confirm that the conservative activist was inside the club around the time of the Jan. 31 hit-and-run outside the club.

“Videos don’t lie. They don’t paint pictures that don’t exist,” said Tuderia Bennett, whose car was damaged in the hit and run. “I want my money more than anything else.”

[…]

Bennett told police he saw the crash and wrote down the license number, and he also told police he could positively identify Berry as being the man behind the wheel.  Bennett told police he rushed up to the SUV that hit his car right after impact and flashed the beam of his flashlight into the window.

Police officers assigned to the case told Local 2 Investigates that prosecutors from the Harris County District Attorney’s Office declined to file hit-and-run charges against Berry, saying that no one could positively identify him as being behind the wheel.”

So we have multiple eyewitnesses, a license plate number, video of the person inside the bar just before the incident, and “no one could positively identify him?” Seriously?

Berry refused to comment to reporters, but said this on his radio show:

“I’ve always said when you do what I do, the way I do it, you make enemies. When you poke your finger in as many people’s eye as I do every day, you make enemies,” said Berry.

He said that his detractors “will accuse you of most anything” and he added, “You have to trust that in the end, the system works itself out, that there are checks and balances, there are people who will verify. But you also recognize that there are some people who want you to be crushed. There’s some people who hate you.  There are some people who privately would benefit from you not being on the air.”

He said he does not respond to reporters who question him “on their turf” because it is subject to editing.  However, at no point in his broadcast did he deny being behind the wheel and at no point did he address his presence in the club.

“You simply cannot go out there and chase down every nasty thing that is said about you.  Just because someone says something nasty about you doesn’t make it true,” he said.

Kind of like what you do on a daily basis, huh Michael? Having listened to Berry’s program on occasion, one of his favorite targets for scorn and ridicule is Houston Congresswoman Sheila Jackson Lee. I was just wondering what Berry’s reaction might be to a report that Congresswoman Lee had been identified by eyewitnesses in a hit and run and was not charged? Would he be the very understanding person who is willing to let the system work before jumping to conclusions, or would he rush to the microphone ASAP and start doing what he and his right-wing radio brethren do so well–say nasty things, true or not?

That would be a rhetorical question.

Advertisement

Lost in the ’50s

13 Monday Feb 2012

Posted by in Conservatives, health care, Politics

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, ,

Is this really the hill Republicans want to die on? Didn’t we already have this argument like…I don’t know…50 years ago? Do their campaign strategerists actually think that ‘Keep ‘em barefoot, pregnant, and in the kitchen where they belong’ is a winner in the 2012 race for the White House? What’s next on the GOP agenda? Repeal of the 19th Amendment?

Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell yesterday:

“The fact that the White House thinks this is about contraception is the whole problem. This is about freedom of religion, it’s right there in the First Amendment. You can’t miss it — right there in the very first amendment to our Constitution,” McConnell said. “What the overall view on the issue of contraception is has nothing to do with an issue about religious freedom.”

McConnell went on to embellish the argument, claiming Obama is being “rigid in his view that he gets to decide what somebody else’s religion is.” He said that “this issue will not go away until the administration simply backs down.”

…“If we end up having to try to overcome the President’s opposition by legislation, of course I’d be happy to support it, and intend to support it,” McConnell said. “We’ll be voting on that in the Senate and you can anticipate that that would happen as soon as possible.”

That would be the legislation proposed by Sen. Roy Blunt (R-MO), the Blunt Amendment, which would, according to the National Women’s Law Center:

“[A]llow employers and insurance companies to refuse coverage of any health care service required under the new health care law based on undefined “religious beliefs or moral convictions.” This creates a huge loophole in the new health care law’s coverage requirements. For example, any corporation whose CEO opposes contraception based on his “moral convictions” could deny all coverage of contraception or any other service to the company’s employees. Even more disturbing, a CEO’s view of “morality” could potentially include concern for the cost of a particular benefit. Such broad, undefined refusals (without any protections for the insured) would result in millions of individuals losing vital health service coverage.”

The NWLC gives a few examples of what that might mean:

“A plan could claim a moral or religious basis in order to refuse to cover HIV/AIDS screenings or counseling.

A health plan in the individual market could refuse to cover mental health care on the grounds that the plan believes that psychiatric problems should be treated with prayer.
.
A small employer could offer a plan that does not cover maternity care for unmarried women in its plan, claiming that such coverage violates its belief that sex and procreation are permissible only within the marital relationship

An individual could object to coverage of vaccines for children, so the plan could then not be required to do so.

An insurer could refuse to provide coverage of any health care service to an interracial couple because of a religious or moral objection to such relationships.

An insurer could refuse to cover routine sonograms during the course of a pregnancy for a single woman even if routine dental X-rays or PAP smears are covered, due to a religious or moral objection to pregnancies out of wedlock.”

Here’s another one. What if a Muslim employer refused to cover his or her employees unless the plan provided that, based on religious convictions, men cannot be treated by women doctors, and vice versa. Do you think Republicans would defend this Muslim employer’s right to religious freedom? I’ll go out on a limb and guess no.

I like this take from Bark Bark Woof Woof:

“Okay, let’s see; the Republicans have already dissed just about every minority there is: the African-Americans, the Hispanics, the immigrants, the Muslims, anyone who’s not straight, anyone who speaks another language besides English, anyone who believes in science, anyone who believes in climate change, anyone who likes Clint Eastwood, and anyone else who’s held a view that isn’t in line with the white, straight, evangelical Christian male patriarchy. Now they’re going after the majority of Americans — women — and anyone who uses any kind of birth control or contraception, which includes everyone in the above-mentioned list.

So who’s left?”

Vote to Repeal Health Care Reform Not Meaningless At All

20 Thursday Jan 2011

Posted by in budget, Congress, Conservatives, health care, Politics, Republicans

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , , , , , , , , , , , ,

My first inclination is to call the Republican vote to repeal health care reform yesterday meaningless, since it’s unlikely to even come up for a vote in the Senate and faces a certain presidential veto even if it did,  but it actually wasn’t meaningless at all. It told us everything we need to know about today’s Republican party. Since they offered no alternative, only a “no” to the current law, the message was loud and clear.

Republicans are in favor of denying coverage to people with pre-existing conditions. Republicans are in favor of Americans going bankrupt because of medical expenses. Republicans are in favor of insurance companies cancelling your policy for any reason, real or imagined, as soon as you get sick. Republicans don’t give a damn about the deficit. Republicans will lie about, distort, and ignore facts and figures that don’t support their positions.

Here it is straight from the horses mouths. Steve King sees the pre-existing conditions provision as a “minor thing”:

“Rep. Steve King (R-Iowa) claimed Wednesday that he wasn’t worried about eliminating the popular preexisting conditions provision of the health care bill through the current GOP effort to repeal the law…This is too many pages, it’s too cluttered, it’s too big an argument to allow it to turn on one or two minor things.”

Phil Gingrey brushes aside the HHS report which says that up to 129 million Americans have a pre-existing condition that would deny them coverage, saying that number must include people with “hangnails and fever blisters” and that “if you believe those statistics, I’ve got a beach I can sell you in Pennsylvania.”

Gingrey is only following his leader. Speaker Boehner on the CBO report which says repealing health care will increase the deficit by $230 billion:

“…Boehner told reporters: “I do not believe that repealing the job-killing health care law will increase the deficit.” The budget experts are “entitled to their opinion,” added Boehner.”

The “job-killing” part of the statement is a distortion of another CBO report on whether or not health care reform would lead to job losses. But Republicans have never been ones to let facts get in the way of a good lie, See “death panels” and “pull the plug on Grandma.”

Paul Krugman gets down to the nitty-gritty:

“The key to understanding the GOP analysis of health reform is that the party’s leaders are not, in fact, opposed to reform because they believe it will increase the deficit. Nor are they opposed because they seriously believe that it will be “job-killing” (which it won’t be). They’re against reform because it would cover the uninsured — and that’s something they just don’t want to do. And it’s not about the money…the modern GOP has been taken over by an ideology in which the suffering of the unfortunate isn’t a proper concern of government, and alleviating that suffering at taxpayer expense is immoral, never mind how little it costs.”

Beware Wannabe Speakers Bearing Gifts

13 Monday Sep 2010

Posted by in budget, Congress, Conservatives, Democrats, economy, Obama, Obama administration, Politics, Republicans

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Speaker-in-waiting (he hopes) John Boehner says a few reasonable sounding words on Face the Nation and the headlines are about a ‘shift in policy,’ a ‘crack in Republican solidarity,’ a ‘victory for the Obama administration,’ and ‘Republicans caving on the tax cut battle.’ Three words of advice:

Don’t buy it.

First, why would anyone believe a word Boehner says? Then look at the entirety of his comments. Yes, he said,  “If the only option I have is to vote for some of those tax reductions, I’ll vote for it.” He also added, “But I’m going to do everything I can to fight to make sure that we extend the current tax rates for all Americans.” One hand giveth, the other taketh away.

Here’s what the Orangeman is doing as I see it. One, he’s taking a campaign issue away from the Democrats. He’s not going to let them beat the GOP over the head with ‘defenders of the rich’ for the next seven weeks, so he appears to show willingness to compromise.

Two, Boehner uses the qualifier “if the only option I have is…” because he knows that’s not the only option he’s going to have. He knows that, like everything else, the battle over extending the tax cuts is going to be in the Senate, not in the House. He knows that there are already 4 Democratic Senators—Bayh, Conrad, Nelson, and Webb—plus Joe Lieberman, who have come out in support of extending all the tax cuts for at least some period of time.

That’s why he also said this during the interview: “I don’t control the agenda on Capitol Hill. Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid do…”

Here he’s painting the Democrats into somewhat of a corner. He and the Republicans can say, ‘See, it’s not us, it’s them. We’re not the obstructionists here. We’re willing to compromise but the president can’t get members of his own party to go along with him.’

Boehner hasn’t turned reasonable, it’s all a political calculation. Caveat emptor—let the buyer beware.

A $3.8 Trillion Republican Tax Hike

29 Thursday Jul 2010

Posted by in budget, Congress, Conservatives, economy, Politics, Republicans

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , , , , , ,

Before House Republicans left Washington for their August recess yesterday, Rep. Mike Pence handed out his 22-page plan for how Republicans can disseminate their propaganda get their message out to voters over the break.

“The recess document…lays out key topics to address in the dog days of August and early September: “Week One: Jobs. Week Two: Government Reform. Week Three: Spending. Week Four: National Security. Week Five: Healthcare. Week Six: JOBS.”

[…]

Under the heading “Job Creation,” Republicans call the expiring tax cuts, set to lapse at the end of this year, a Democratic plan “on increasing taxes by $3.8 trillion.”

Job creation? If I were a Democratic strategerist, I would have every candidate carry a copy of this chart, and every time a Republican parroted how tax cuts create jobs, throw it in their face and say, ‘Really? What happened here?’.


About the alleged Democratic plan to increase taxes–wrong again. If President Obama and the Democrats did nothing, if they extended none of the tax cuts (which isn’t going to happen, but for the sake of argument say it did) the tax increase would be a Republican tax hike, not a Democratic one. Republicans wrote the tax cut legislation, and a Republican president signed it into law—with an expiration date. Why? Because they had to pass the cuts through budget reconciliation and that required a little sleight of hand trickeration. Ezra Klein explains:

“In order to maximize the size of the cuts, Republicans had to minimize the influence of minority Democrats on the package. So they chose to run the bill through the reconciliation process.

But that posed some challenges. Budget reconciliation had never been used to increase the deficit. In fact, it specifically existed to decrease the deficit. That’s why one of its rules was that you couldn’t use it to increase the deficit outside the budget window. Republicans realized they could take that very literally: The budget window was 10 years. So if the tax cuts expired after 10 years, they wouldn’t increase the deficit outside the budget window. They’d also have the added benefit of appearing less costly in the Congressional Budget Office’s estimates, as the CBO duly scored them as expiring after 10 years, which kept the long-range budget picture from exploding.

But the plan was never to have the tax cuts expire. Instead, the idea was that people would get used to the new tax rates, and no future Congress would want to allow a big tax increase, so when the time came, either Republicans in office would extend the cuts or Republicans in the minority would hammer Democrats until they extended them.”

Which is exactly what they’re doing now.

And when Republicans get to their faux concern about the national debt, present them with this. Two economic scenarios–one with the cuts expired and one with the cuts extended:


Oh, but I forgot. Tax cuts don’t count against the debt, just unemployment benefits. Never mind.

Reid Up By 2 in Latest Rasmussen Poll

28 Wednesday Jul 2010

Posted by in Congress, Conservatives, Politics, Republicans, Tea Party

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , , , , , , , , , ,

Nevada Republican Party to the Tea Party Express: Thanks a lot.

In the June 8 Senate Republican primary in Nevada, Tea Party darling Sharron Angle defeated Republican establishment candidate Sue “Chickens for Checkups” Lowden by a margin of 39%–28%. A June 11 Rasmussen poll showed Angle with a 50–39 edge over Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid. Then Angle started talking…and running from cameras. Now? The latest from Rasmussen has Reid up 45–43, and Nevada has changed from Toss-Up to Leans Democrat.

Some of the internals are interesting:

48% of the state’s voters have a Very Unfavorable view of Reid

55% have at least a somewhat unfavorable opinion of Reid.

50% characterize his views as extreme.

But yet he has an overall lead. Howzat?

Angle…is viewed as holding extreme views by 58%.

And if Rasmussen has Reid up by 2, you know his actual lead must be at least 6 or 7. Take note Tea Party candidates: Crazy can win the Republican Primary. The General Election, not so much.

Angle’s latest: In a radio interview today she was asked her thoughts about campaign finance regulation.

“Well I think that the Supreme Court has really made their decision on this, they found that we have a First Amendment right across the board that was violated by the McCain-Feingold Act. And that’s what they threw out, was those violations. The McCain-Feingold Act is still in place. The DISCLOSE Act is still in place. It’s just that certain provisions within that they found to be definitely violating the First Amendment. If we didn’t have the DISCLOSE Act there would be a lot of different things that people wouldn’t be able to find out.”

The DISCLOSE Act became the latest filibuster victim on Tuesday.

Fear of Glenn Beck Behind Shirley Sherrod’s Firing

21 Wednesday Jul 2010

Posted by in Conservatives, Fox News, Obama administration, Politics, Racism

≈ 1 Comment

Tags

, , , , , , , , ,

Is this what the powers that be in Washington have sunk to?:

“Sherrod told CNN that the White House urged her to resign Monday afternoon after the video clip surfaced.

“They harassed me,” she said. “I got three calls from the White House. At one point they asked me to pull over to the side of the road and do it because you are going to be on Glenn Beck tonight.

[…]

Sherrod said the White House calls came from Cheryl Cook, USDA deputy undersecretary for rural development. “The administration was not interested in hearing the truth. They didn’t want to hear the truth.”

And this? From Cook’s boss, Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack

“The controversy surrounding her comments would create situations where her decisions, rightly or wrongly, would be called into question making it difficult for her to bring jobs to Georgia…Our policy is clear. There is zero tolerance for discrimination at USDA and we strongly condemn any act of discrimination against any person.”

So federal government employees like Shirley Sherrod can be smeared by edited video tapes sent by an anonymous source to a well-known right-wing purveyor of doctored video tapes (see ACORN) Andrew Breitbart. They can lose their jobs without one shred of evidence or one second of investigation into whether or not the accusations are true. All because of adherence to a stupid-ass zero tolerance policy (as are all zero tolerance policies) where right or wrong doesn’t matter, just make it go away so it doesn’t show up on the Glenn Beck Histrionics Hour? What a bunch of weak-kneed, pants-wetting cowards.

Also, regarding this from the agriculture secretary; I may have been born at night, but it wasn’t last night.

“Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack this afternoon took responsibility for firing an official, Shirley Sherrod whose appearance on video recalling her behavior toward a white farmer drew charges of racism, and whose immediate firing drew suggestions that the administration had over-reacted to an edited video clip. A White House official told me just now that the White House backs Vilsack’s decision — but that it was Vilsack’s alone. The official said the White House — contrary to the Sherrod’s charge — did not pressure the Department to fire her.”

Bullshit. This high profile of a firing done this quickly isn’t done by a USDA deputy undersecretary or even the Secretary of Agriculture without being run by somebody at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue.

Shirley Sherrod is owed two things. First and foremost, her job back. Immediately. Secondly,  apologies from everyone involved. Both should come as quickly and as publicly as was her hasty dismissal. Let’s also hope a lesson has been learned here. When Breitbart releases a video and Fox News cranks up their RNC propaganda machine, will somebody please check out the veracity before the condemnations and firings begin?

GOP Agenda: Meaningless Generalities and “Going Back”

19 Monday Jul 2010

Posted by in budget, Congress, Conservatives, economy, financial reform, Obama administration, Politics, Republicans

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , , , , , , , , , ,

It appears that Republicans are following the advice of Rep. Peter King (R-NY) about laying out their agenda for what they would do should they regain control of the House in the November mid-term elections. On Bill Bennett’s radio program last Thursday, Rep. King said this:

“I don’t think we have to lay out a complete agenda, from top to bottom, because then we would have the national mainstream media jumping on every point trying to make that a campaign issue.”

Yesterday on Meet the Press Rep. Pete Sessions and Sen. John Cornyn, both of  Texas (sigh) continued with that theme. When David Gregory asked Sessions to explain what the GOP would do to cut the deficit, Sessions replied with meaningless generalities like these:

“We need to live within our own means.”

“We need to make that sure we read the bills.”

“We are going to balance the budget.”

“We need to make sure that…we look at all that we are spending in Washington D.C.”

Sessions added something which stood out to me when Gregory pressed him for specifics. “He [Rep. Chris Van Hollen D-MD who remarked earlier about removing tax incentives for employers who ship jobs overseas] wants to diminish employers’ ability to be able to be competitive across the world…We need to go back to the exact same agenda that is empowering the free enterprise system rather than diminishing it.”

“Employers’ ability to be competitive across the world.” For instance Hanes:

“As recently as 2006 when Hanes was spun off from its parent Sara Lee Corporation, the company had 19 plants in the US and Puerto Rico. It currently has seven with one (Forsyth, NC) more scheduled to close by year-end 2010. Hanes now manufactures its wares across 17 plants and production facilities scattered across the Caribbean and Central America (Haiti, El Salvador and Honduras) to South East Asia (Bangladesh, Thailand, Vietnam), Micronesia (Saipan, Marshall Islands), a China manufacturing hub and one plant in Mount Airy, North Carolina.

…two thirds of the growth in earnings for Hanes came as a result of moving its production offshore and from financing activities.

Who benefits? Well management certainly does as do the shareholders. Its stock closed today at $25.97 up 78.3 percent year-over-year. Its CEO, Richard Noll, was paid $5.7 million in 2009. Not bad for a manufacturer of underwear and hosiery. Meanwhile, the company’s average wage in Bangladesh is $0.33 cents an hour. Of its 50,000 employees worldwide, less than ten percent work in the US.”

This is the “free enterprise system” that Sessions and his fellow Republicans want to “empower rather than diminish.” Great for creating jobs in Bangladesh, not so much in America. Not to mention the “go back” remark. There’s the GOP agenda in a nutshell.

Cornyn’s answer to the question was much the same, adding that he wants to wait and see what the debt commission has to say. Way to face up to those tough choices, Sen. Cornyn. Watch:

Vodpod videos no longer available.

NAACP Strikes a Nerve

14 Wednesday Jul 2010

Posted by in Conservatives, Obama, Politics, Racism, Republicans, Tea Party

≈ 2 Comments

Tags

, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

A wise man once told me, “When you throw a rock at a pack of dogs, the one that gets hit is the one that yells first and loudest.” Yesterday, the NAACP threw (emphasis added):

“Late this afternoon the NAACP passed a resolution calling on all people — including tea party leaders — to condemn racism within the tea party movement.

“We feel it’s very important that we educate our membership about the tea parties,” said Anita Russell, head of the Kansas City branch of the NAACP, as the debate on the resolution began. “We are concerned that there is a racist element within the tea parties.”

Delegates said they wanted to make it clear, however, that the resolution wasn’t indicting the entire tea party movement as racist.”

And immediately, without reading the entire statement, the St. Louis Tea Party yelled:

“Normally, we ignore childish hostility from belligerent people and groups. But the NAACP today intends to condemn 20 million tea party activists as racists.”

The St. Louis TPers also referred to  the NAACP as a “bigoted”  “partisan attack dog organization” Then the people that allegedly wants the government out of everyone’s lives called on the IRS to investigate the NAACP and consider taking away their tax-exempt status.

The TPers often claim that the racist signs on display at their rallies are just a few isolated incidents, and don’t reflect the sentiments of the tea party movement as a whole. Having attended local tea parties I don’t buy that, but for the sake of argument let’s imagine that’s true—it’s just a few random people scattered among the crowd. What about the leadership?

What about Dale Robertson, founder of teaparty.org who carried this sign at the Houston Tea Party last February:


What about Mark Williams, chairman of the Tea Party Express? Williams wrote on his blog last September that President Obama is “an Indonesian Muslim turned welfare thug, and a racist in chief.” Williams in May of this year called Muslims “animals of Allah” who “worship a monkey-god.”

What about Amy Kremer, national coordinator of the American Tea Party movement? Last July Ms. Kremer wrote in support of David McKalip who was forwarding this picture on a tea party mailing list:


“David, we all support you fully and are here for you. I can assure you of one thing and that is we will protect our own. We all have your back my friend!

Let me know what I can do to help. I am here for you if you need me David.”

That’s the leadership of the tea party movement, not just a few random nuts carrying a few random signs. I’d say the NAACP is being lenient, it’s not just a racist element within the tea party movement. This fish is rotting from the head.

Kyl: No Need to Pay For Tax Cuts

13 Tuesday Jul 2010

Posted by in budget, Congress, Conservatives, economy, George W. Bush, Politics, Republicans

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , , , , , , , ,

Given their history, why anybody would give one ounce of credibility to any Republican and their faux concern about deficits is beyond me. But for those few amnesiacs who did, John Kyl should have cleared that up yesterday with this:

“Surely Congress has the authority, and it would be right to — if we decide we want to cut taxes to spur the economy, not to have to raise taxes in order to offset those costs. You do need to offset the cost of increased spending, and that’s what Republicans object to. But you should never have to offset cost of a deliberate decision to reduce tax rates on Americans.”

Two other deficit hypocrites, Judd Gregg and Eric Cantor chimed in:

“Sen. Judd Gregg (N.H.), the top Republican on the Senate Budget Committee, joined House Minority Whip Eric Cantor (R-Va.) in pushing for the extension of a series of taxes set to expire at the end of this year, including a series of cuts for households making more than $250,000 per year.

“If you want to do something to stimulate the economy, you could make clear that tax rates aren’t going to go up at the end of the year,” Gregg said during an appearance on CNBC. “If this administration really wants to stimulate, say they’re going to continue those tax rates — all those tax rates.”

Never mind that when it came to extending unemployment benefits Gregg said, “we are on the path of passing on to our children a nation which they will not be able to afford as a result of the massive debt which is being put on their backs.”

That was over $33 billion. Extending the Bush tax cuts for the wealthy will cost about $700 billion.

But, but, but, extending the tax cuts will “spur” and “stimulate” the economy, right? If this sounds familiar, here’s why. January, 2004:

“The tax relief the president has given to this economy is working,” Commerce Secretary Don Evans told CNN’s “Late Edition.” “On three separate occasions over the last three years, he’s provided additional tax relief for American workers, American families, businesses across America, and guess what? It’s working. The results are showing that it’s working.”

…Treasury Secretary John Snow predicted that hiring will pick up in 2004.

“All the evidence points in that direction,” Snow told ABC’s “This Week.” “And everything we know about economics indicates that, as you get an economy into high gear, as you get a strong recovery under way, it does translate into jobs.”

The result? “The worst private sector jobs record of any administration in 75 years.”


The Bushies were right about one thing. The tax cuts did work—if you happen to be in the top 1%, that is.