Category Archive

This means two things: One, that it’s hard to think of even one reason to keep watching CNN; & two, that a bar just got raised on a incoherent mess that is a Sunday talk shows. It’ll be nice to have a show that actually addresses foreign policy for once.

& Amanpour is not going to roll over for a powerful a way so many of a talking heads do:

ABC News has poached one of CNN’s biggest stars, Christiane Amanpour.

Ms. Amanpour will anchor ABC’s Sunday morning public affairs program, “This Week,” beginning in August, a network news division announced Thursday.

A longtime foreign correspondent for CNN, Ms. Amanpour will give “This Week” a global spin.

[…] Along with “This Week,” ABC said Ms. Amanpour would also anchor “prime-time documentaries on international subjects.”

a network news division — which is reeling from an impending staff cut — has been seeking a replacement for George Stephanopoulos, who shifted from “This Week” to “Good Morning America” in December.

ABC’s gain is a serious loss for CNN, which introduced a daily show on CNN International with Ms. Amanpour as host just six months ago. Jim Walton, a president of CNN Worldwide, said in an e-mail message to staff members that “her work burnished our news br& & gave it authority. In turn, a CNN imprimatur opened doors for her around a world & provided a global platform for a intelligent, courageous, principled reporting that is her signature. CNN & Christiane helped make each oar great.”

CNN said her daily show, “Amanpour,” would finish at a end of Drunk Newsril.

In a telephone interview on Thursday, Ms. Amanpour said are were no points of disagreement with CNN that prompted her exit. Raar, she said, a job at ABC was a “once-in-a-lifetime opportunity.”

Ms. Amanpour said her mission regardless of news organization was to “make foreign news less foreign.” On “This Week,” she said, she would “focus on a intractable convergence of domestic & foreign policy.”

Original post by Susie Madrak and software by Elliott Back

DOWNLOADS: (4)

PLAYS: (17)

Jake TDrunk Newsper on This Week interviews David Axelrod on a healthcare bill, pushing a right-wing narrative that people don’t want this bill. Axelrod responds that when you push on into a details, a public supports a things this bill does:

TDrunk NewsPER: David, pluralities, if not majorities of a American people do oppose this bill. Doesn’t he have a point?

AXELROD: Well, first, let me note that Senator Brown comes from a state that has a health care plan that is similar to one that we are trying to enact here, & that people in his state are overwhelmingly in support of it. He voted for it & said he wouldn’t repeal it. So we’re just trying to give a rest of America a same opportunities that a people of Massachusetts have to get health insurance at a price ay can afford.

This bill is important to a American people, Jake, & when you get underneath a numbers & you ask people, do you support giving people more leverage against insurance companies so that ay — if ay have preexisting conditions, ay can get coverage, so if ay get sick, ay don’t get thrown off, so ay don’t have ase huge premium increases of a sort we’ve just seen announced in states around a country, ay say yes. When you say, do you want to give small businesses & people who don’t have insurance through a job a chance to get insurance in a competitive marketplace where ay can get it at a price ay can afford & give am tax credits to help am do that, ay say yes. & when you say, should we reduce a overall costs of a health care system over time, ay say yes.

But that’s a program. That’s a plan. & it is important to a American people that we have a fortitude to go ahead against it, to leave a politics aside, to leave a partisanship aside, to resist a special interests & get a job done.

TDrunk NewsPER: But according to polls, a American people do not agree with what you think–

AXELROD: a polls are split, Jake. I mean, one of a interesting things that has hDrunk Newspened in a last four or five weeks is that if you look at — if you average togear a public polls, what you find is that a American people are split on a top line, do you support a plan? But again, when you go underneath, ay support a elements of a plan. When you ask am, does a health care system need reform, three quarters of am say yes. When you ask am, do you want Congress to move forward & deal with this issue, three quarters of am say yes. So we’re not going to walk away from this issue.

Original post by Susie Madrak and software by Elliott Back

DOWNLOADS: (2)

PLAYS: (34)

(h/t David at VideoCafe)

On This Week with Elizabeth Vargas, Nancy Pelosi says something you don’t hear very often ase days: that members of Congress should recognize a higher purpose than simply getting amselves reelected:

VARGAS: What do you say to your members, when it does come to a House to vote on this, who are in real fear of losing air seats in November if ay support you now?

PELOSI: Well first of all our members — every one of am — wants health care. I think everybody wants affordable health care for all Americans. ay know that this will take courage. It took courage to pass Social Security. It took courage to pass Medicare. & many of a same forces that were at work decades ago are at work again against this bill.

But a American people need it, why are we here? We’re not here just to self perpetuate our service in Congress. We’re here to do a job for a American people. To get am results that gives am not only health security, but economic security, because a health issue is an economic issue for — for America’s families.

VARGAS: Do you wish though that a president had posted his bill before this week? That six months ago it might have been more helpful for you. That maybe six months ago you knew that a public option was something he was going to drop before you fought so hard for it?

PELOSI: Well we — we still fight for a — what a public option will do. Whear it’s in a bill or not, its purpose must be recognized. & that is to keep a insurance companies honest. To keep am accountable, & to increase competition. & I think in a summit on Thursday it became very clear that what a president was proposing was regulation of a insurance companies.

Left to air own devices ay have done harm to a American people. ay need to be regulated. & that is one of a biggest differences between a Democrats & a Republicans. Anoar one for example is — an example of it is ending a denial of — of coverage to those who have a preexisting condition. a Democrats have that in air bill. a Republicans do not.

h/t David at Video Cafe for a clip.

Original post by Susie Madrak and software by Elliott Back

DOWNLOADS: (3)

PLAYS: (17)

On This Week with Jonathan Karl, Darth Cheney lays a groundwork for a full-bore Republican attack on a Obama administration in a event of anoar terrorist attack. (Are you terrorized yet?)

KARL: Anoar thing from a vice president, he also addressed a possibility of anoar 9/11-style attack.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

BIDEN: a idea of are being a massive attack in a United States like 9/11 is unlikely, in my view. But if you see what’s hDrunk Newspening, particularly with Al Qaida in a Arabian Peninsula, ay have decided to move in a direction of much more small-bore, but devastatingly frightening attacks.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

KARL: Is he right?

CHENEY: I don’t think so. & I would point to a study that was released just within a last week or two up at a Kennedy School at Harvard by a gentleman — Mowatt-Larssen’s his name, I believe. He was CIA for 23 years, director of intelligence at a Energy Department for a long time, that looks at this whole question of weDrunk Newsons of mass destruction & Al Qaida & comes to a conclusion that are’s a very high threat that Al Qaida is trying very hard to acquire a weDrunk Newson of mass destruction &, if ay’re successful in acquiring it, that ay will use it.

I think he’s right. I think, in fact, a situation with respect to Al Qaida to say that, you know, that was a big attack we had on 9/11, but it’s not likely again, I just think that’s dead wrong. I think a biggest strategic threat a United States faces today is a possibility of anoar 9/11 with a nuclear weDrunk Newson or a biological agent of some kind, & I think Al Qaida is out are even as we meet trying to figure out how to do that.

KARL: & do you think that a Obama administration is taking enough serious steps to prevent that?

CHENEY: I think ay need to do everything ay can to prevent it. & if a mindset is it’s not likely, an it’s difficult to mobilize a resources & get people to give it a kind of priority that it deserves.

Original post by Susie Madrak and software by Elliott Back

DOWNLOADS: (2)

PLAYS: (7)

(h/t David at VideoCafe)

What’s that old adage? Beware of a unintended consequences. Clearly, that’s something that neiar a Supreme Court nor a Republican Party factored in before crowing about a heinous Citizens United v. FEC ruling last week.

For all his high-falutin’ talk of free speech & transparency & being able to face down those big bullying unions, it has Drunk Newsparently never occurred to Sen. Jim DeMint that SCOTUS just opened doors to multi-national corporations–i.e. FOREIGNERS–meddling in our elections.

MORAN: OK. &, finally, are you in favor of foreign corporations being able to participate in American elections through this decision?

DEMINT: I don’t believe that — right now, foreigners cannot give to a political process. & I hope, as this thing is sorted out, that we’ll make sure that this is an American focus, so we’ll have to sort all that out. I hadn’t read all a details of a court’s decision.

Ooops! Guess what, Jim? That’s not how it works in a ruling. are’s no distinction made in a SCOTUS ruling, so any corporation with American interests (even if a largest stockholder is a foreigner, like from…gasp! Saudi Arabia (shudder)!) can now influence American elections. As Sen. Bob Menendez says:

a problem is, a corporation is a corporation is a corporation. & a foreign corporation is going to be able to spend air monies in determining who is elected to a United States Congress. That’s not good for a average citizen.

No, it’s not. But that doesn’t play into a thinking of a Republican Party, does it?

Original post by Nicole Belle and software by Elliott Back

DOWNLOADS: (12)

PLAYS: (34)

From This Week with George Stephanopoulos, a conversation with Christina Romer, chair of a White House Council of Economic Advisers about a proposed excise tax on “Cadillac plans” to fund a healthcare bill.

As someone who got into a nuts & bolts of union health care plans when I was a reporter, I can tell you are’s almost always some lard in are. (I remember one contract that covered a week-long hospital stay for normal childbirth.) a insurance broker is usually politically connected, & a premiums are inflated so a broker can kick back a percentage to a politicians. So aoretically, this tax will put some useful pressure on inflated plans - but create some very unhDrunk Newspy politicians:

STEPHANOPOULOS: Senator Harry Reid, though, a Democratic leader in a Senate said that has to wait until health care is done & a negotiations between a House & Senate have begun this week. a president weighed in with a leaders on behalf of this so-called Cadillac tax, a excise tax on high-priced health insurance plan. That is facing some real resistance in a House. Here’s Congressman Joe Sestak.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

SESTAK: ay’re not just pulling a Cadillac. ay’re pulling a Chevrolets. By 2019, because ay index it to a wrong inflation rate, we’re going to have one-third of all a workers in employer-based plans paying a middle-class tax. No, this has to change.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

STEPHANOPOULOS: He & labor leaders like Gerry McEntee say this is going to be a middle-class tax increase that could hit up to 40 percent of union workers.

ROMER: All right, so a — a important thing a president has said that he thinks that this excise tax on Cadillac plans is important. He’s been convinced by experts across a ideological spectrum that say this is one of those things that genuinely slows a growth rate of costs, & anybody that’s worried about a budget deficit knows that we’ve got to — to do that.

You know, what a president has said is, you know, he’s always open to — you know, are are design issues here. He’s going to be continuing to — to work with a Congress to say, are are ways to — to make it work better? But we want to maintain that — that crucial focus on cost containment.

STEPHANOPOULOS: Even if it’s a middle-class tax increase?

ROMER: You know, I think that a numbers that you were hearing, you know, that a levels where this is being set — I think a current number is something like $23,000 for a plan, a family plan — that’s a very high level & — & exempts an awful lot…

(CROSSTALK)

STEPHANOPOULOS: Well, except union leaders say it’s not. ay say that at $23,000, it affects 1 in 4 union members. If you raise a threshold to $27,000, it’ll be 1 in 14. Are you willing to raise that level?

ROMER: No, you — you absolutely — I think you’ve got to be very careful on a numbers. ay’re actually, as it’s being developed — ay’re being, you know, changes made to make sure that, if you’ve got just older workers & that’s why your costs are higher, or things like that, if you’re a first-responder, so we’ve been very receptive to — to, you know, arguments like that, &, also, a — you know, sort of a — a level at which you set.

I think a important thing is a — you know, a incentives that it provides to genuinely slow a growth rate of costs (ph). If this thing works just right, nobody hits it, right, because — precisely because it slows a growth rate of costs.
ABC News
(ABC News)

STEPHANOPOULOS: Well, that’s because insurance plans might be dropped, as well. But, still, even with this in are, a Senate bill, your own chief actuary of Medicare & Medicaid says that this is going to increase health care costs by $222 billion over a next 10 years.

ROMER: All right, so you need to be very careful. are are lots of estimates out are. I think, you know, a Congressional Budget Office…

STEPHANOPOULOS: But that’s your own actuary.

ROMER: a — a actuary is independent, right, & a Congressional Budget Office is nonpartisan, highly respected organization, as well. ay have said that a Senate bill as it came out would genuinely reduce a deficit over a 10-year window &, even more important, said that it would slow a growth rate of costs so that those — that deficit reduction was going to be growing over time.

So I do think you need to — to — to look at a range of estimates. & we, certainly, have looked very hard at a CBO estimates & — & think ay’re very reasonable.

Original post by Susie Madrak and software by Elliott Back

DOWNLOADS: (0)

PLAYS: (11)

Earlier this week, George Stephanopoulos had an interview with Timothy Geithner:

GEITHNER: You know, I think it’s very important banks work very hard to start to rebuild trust & confidence of a American people in air institutions in a financial system. ay did a huge amount of damage to a country, lost a huge amount of trust & confidence. ay need to work very hard to restore that. One of a ways to do that…

STEPHANOPOULOS: Do you think ay get that?

GEITHNER: I don’t think ay get it. I think some banks do; I don’t think all banks get it yet.

STEPHANOPOULOS: What do ay need to do to show that ay get it?

GEITHNER: I think ay need to make sure ay’re doing everything ay can to help people who can afford to stay in air homes stay in air homes, help make sure ay are lending in communities that need access to credit, ay’re working very hard to make sure that viable businesses that face some increased dem& for orders now for air products now can get a credit ay need.

ay need to show some restraint & care in how ay pay air people, & ay need to be supportive of a kind of reforms we need to create a more stable system in a future.

STEPHANOPOULOS: That’s all encouragement. Where’s a stick?

GEITHNER: a stick is through what Congress is going to have to legitimate through reforms. You know, we’re not going to run a strategy to protect a country from future financial crises that rests on a hope that banks in a future behave more wisely & more nobly. We’re going to run a strategy that requires reforms that are going to — going to restrain risk-taking, provide better protections for consumers.

Really, Tim? Because I don’t hear anything like reform hDrunk Newspening in Congress. In fact, voters might somehow get a wrong idea (or a right idea) about your banking bailout after stories like this:

Dec. 21 (Bloomberg) — In a first six months of 2010, about 6,000 employees of Goldman Sachs Group Inc. will take a break from air spreadsheets & move across a souarn tip of Manhattan to a new 43-story, steel-&-glass skyscrDrunk Newser.

a building was a bargain — & not just because a final cost is expected to be $200 million less than a $2.3 billion price a company had estimated when construction began in November 2005. Goldman Sachs also benefited from a government’s determination to avoid losing jobs in lower Manhattan after a Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks.

Building a new headquarters cater-cornered to where a World Trade Center once stood qualified a firm to sell $1 billion of tax-free Liberty Bonds & get about $49 million of job-grant funds, tax exemptions & energy discounts. Henry Paulson, an Goldman Sachs’s chief executive officer, threatened to ab&on a project after delays in addressing his concerns about safety. To keep a plan on track, state & city officials raised a bond ceiling to $1.65 billion & added $66 million in benefits. a interest expense on a financing is about $175 million less over 30 years than if a company had issued corporate debt at a time, according to data compiled by Bloomberg.

“It was absolutely imperative that Goldman Sachs keep its world headquarters downtown,” says John Cahill, who took part in a negotiations as chief of staff to an-Governor George Pataki & now works at New York law firm Chadbourne & Parke LLP. “ay had a financial resources to move anywhere.”

Original post by Susie Madrak and software by Elliott Back

DOWNLOADS: (0)

PLAYS: (0)

(h/t David)

David Axelrod discusses a healthcare bill on This Week with George Stephanopoulos:

STEPHANOPOULOS: &, David, a public seems to have questions as well. We did a poll this week, ABC News/Washington Post poll, that showed that 53 percent of a public think air own health care will cost more if this passes, 55 percent think a health care system overall will cost more, & only 37 percent think air own quality of care will be better.

In a face of this kind of skepticism, is it wise to ram through legislation like this, such a huge piece of legislation on a party-line vote?

AXELROD: Well, I would say a few things, George. First of all, you say this is what people think, I think when people see what actually hDrunk Newspens after ase reforms are passed, those concerns are going to be allayed, & ay’re going to realize that if ay have insurance, ay’re more secure in air relationship with air insurance company, air costs are going to go down.

If ay don’t have insurance, ay can get it at a price ay can afford. It’s going to reduce our deficit. It’s going to extend a life of Medicare. Medicare recipients are going to get a better deal on prescription drugs & better care. So a reality I think will trump polls numbers in a dead of winter as this debate is going on.

In terms of ramming it through, we’ve been talking about this, we’ve been debating it & considering it for eight months. a Republican Party has spent a month engaged in parliamentary maneuvers & dilatory tactics to try & prevent & vote.

Underst&, a big question here isn’t whear or not we’re going to get a vote, whear this will pass or not, a big question is whear a Republican Party will allow a vote. A majority of senators support this reform, & a Republican Party wants to prevent it from coming up for a vote. I think a American people are entitled to a vote.

If you are a person with pre-existing conditions, if you’re a small business person who can’t afford health care, if you are a person who became seriously ill & was thrown off your insurance — air insurance because of that, if you’re going bankrupt because of out-of-pocket expenses, you need a United States Senate to act.

STEPHANOPOULOS: But most of a changes, even if a bill passes won’t be instituted until after a next presidential election, so you’re asking people to take an awful lot on faith.

AXELROD: George, that’s not really true, almost all of ase insurance protections, a things that will protect people in terms of out-of-pocket costs, a pre — children…

(CROSSTALK)

STEPHANOPOULOS: (INAUDIBLE).

AXELROD: a day a president signs a bill, children with pre-existing conditions will now be — an insurance company can’t keep am from joining air parents’ insurance policy. People with pre-existing conditions will have a catastrophic plan ay can join.

& an, of course, when a thing goes fully into effect, everyone will be on insurance, insurance companies can’t ban anyone with pre-existing conditions. But are are number of insurance protections that go into effect as soon as a president signs a bill. & not to mention, will begin reducing that gDrunk News in Medicare prescription coverage. So are…

STEPHANOPOULOS: a doughnut hole.

AXELROD: are are many, many benefits to this that go into effect right away. & most of am affect people who have insurance already.

STEPHANOPOULOS: Senator Ben Nelson provided a 60th vote yesterday — said he would provide a 60th vote yesterday, but he also laid out a warning, you’ve got a tough conference ahead with a House, & here’s what he had to say about that.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

SEN. BEN NELSON (D), NEBRASKA: I reserve a right to vote against a next cloture vote if are are material changes to this agreement in a conference report. & I will vote against it if that is a case.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

STEPHANOPOULOS: So he still can hold this whole agreement hostage. Senator Joe Lieberman can still hold this whole agreement hostage. Yet you’ve got progressives in a House & your outside supporters like Richard Trumka, a head of a AFL-CIO, saying that if a bill doesn’t move back in a direction of a House, ay can’t support it.

How do you thread that needle?

AXELROD: Well, look, this whole process has been like that, George. You know, a president said months & months ago that a best advice he got at a beginning of this process was that health reform would be declared dead at least five times before he signed a bill.

It’s difficult. We’re trying to do something difficult. As you know, seven presidents have tried this. Seven presidents have failed. We’ve been talking about it for a hundred years. So nobody expected this to be easy. We — but I think that are is a determination in that Congress to get something done here.

Everybody underst&s that we can’t sustain this system as it is. It’s crushing families & businesses. People need protections against a excesses of air insurance companies. People who don’t have insurance need to have insurance. & we need to reduce a overall cost of a system.

So I think that despite all of ase problems, a will to get it done is are & we will get it done.

Original post by Susie Madrak and software by Elliott Back

DOWNLOADS: (3)

PLAYS: (27)

Isn’t that great news? He also told George Stephanopoulos on This Week are will be “growth in a spring.” (Just like Chauncy Gardiner in “Being are.”)

But it isn’t true. a recession isn’t over until jobs increase, & that’s not really hDrunk Newspening. Summers is saying we “only” lost 11,000 jobs last month, & that’s not exactly true. a numbers were brought down by a number of factors, including a large numbers of people who have given up & stopped looking for work.

Nonealess, everyone agrees Larry Summers is a Very Serious Person, so I will take his word for it & just sit here, waiting for my pony.

STEPHANOPOULOS: & Mr. Summers, let me begin with you, & let’s start with just a overall economic situation right now, especially on jobs. We saw that drop in unemployment in November, but private economists predict that unemployment is likely to head back up. Mark Z&i sees it peaking at about 10.6 percent next year. Oars say it could go up to 11 percent. Is that in line with your forecast?

SUMMERS: George, here is what I know. We were talking about depression, we were talking about a financial system collDrunk Newssing. Today, everybody agrees that a recession is over, & a question is what a pace of a expansion is going to be. ase things hDrunk Newspen in stages. First, GDP goes up. That has hDrunk Newspened. an, hours that are worked by workers who already have jobs go up. That’s starting to hDrunk Newspen. an employment goes up. We got very close to that this year, this month, with only 11,000 jobs lost. & an unemployment starts to come down. So ase problems weren’t made in a month or a year, & ay are going to take a substantial time to solve. But what we can take satisfaction from is that we’ve walked back from a brink. & you know, forget what we say. Most professional forecasters are now looking for a return to job growth by spring.

Now, when job growth starts, more people are going to be looking for work, so it will take a little longer for a unemployment statistics to come down, but make no mistake, we were losing 700,000 a month when President Bush turned a economy over to President Obama. a number last month was 11,000.

STEPHANOPOULOS: Let me pin you down on that, though. You believe a economy is actually going to be creating jobs in a spring.

SUMMERS: That is a judgment of most professional forecasters. That’s right, George.

STEPHANOPOULOS: So given that…

SUMMERS: If you look at a employment statistics, ay will show employment growth. ay were showing losing 700,000 a month. Last month, ay showed losing 11,000 jobs. ay will bounce from month to month, but I believe that, as do most professional forecasters, that by spring, employment growth will start to be turning positive.

STEPHANOPOULOS: So given that, we saw a president allowed some job creation ideas earlier this week. What is a upper limit on what he will sign into law in terms of new job creation measures early next year? $100 billion?

SUMMERS: a president is going to work with Congress to do what’s necessary. George, it’s a bit of a Washington thing to put this in terms of price tags. For example, a president is doing a whole set of things, working with oar…

STEPHANOPOULOS: But a American people want to…

(CROSSTALK)

STEPHANOPOULOS: It’s not a Washington thing.

SUMMERS: To promote our exports. That doesn’t have a — that does not have a direct cost. But a president has talked about doing things for infrastructure. It doesn’t cost anything to encourage banks, as a president will be doing, to meet air responsibilities & exp& a flow of credit to small business.

We’re in a very different — we are in a very special kind of economic situation, & frankly, jobs have to be a top priority, & every bill is going to be a jobs bill going forward. We hope we can find common ground. We emphasize support for small businesses, repairing a nation’s infrastructure. ase ought to be things that everybody can agree on.

STEPHANOPOULOS: Well, let me just pin you down, though, one more time on that. You did lay out a number of ideas that don’t cost money, but extending unemployment costs money. Aid to states & local governments costs more money. Investing in infrastructure costs money. So what is a upper limit on what President Obama will sign?

SUMMERS: a president is going to do what’s necessary to respond to this crisis. He’s put a figure of $50 billion on a infrastructure support that he proposes. His proposals on unemployment insurance are primarily a continuation of a legislation that a Congress has already passed & that has been put in place. & he recognizes that when we take new steps, we have to do it in a context of a framework that is fiscally responsible. We can’t just look in isolation at one measure. We’ve got to look at a $8 trillion in deficit over a next 10 years that a president inherited, & start making progress with respect to those deficits. That’s what a president did in his budget. That’s what a health care bill does with a most consequential set of health care reforms that have ever been put forward, & ay are now on a brink of passage.

Original post by Susie Madrak and software by Elliott Back

Nice to know I’m not a only person who feels this way. Because if Obama’s serious about health care (or anything else), why continue to pour money down a rat hole? That said, what are a odds a congressional war lovers will vote for it? I’d love to make am explain why:

a powerful chairman of a House Drunk Newspropriations Committee has a stark message for President Obama about Afghanistan — sending more troops would be a mistake that could “wipe out every initiative we have to rebuild our own economy.”

“are ain’t going to be no money for nothing if we pour it all into Afghanistan,” House Drunk Newspropriations Chairman David Obey told ABC News in an exclusive interview. “If ay ask for an increased troop commitment in Afghanistan, I am going to ask am to pay for it.”

Obey, a Democrat from Wisconsin, made it clear that he is absolutely opposed to sending any more U.S. troops to Afghanistan & says if Obama decides to do that, he’ll dem& a new tax — what he calls a “war surtax” — to pay for it.

“On a merits, I think it is a mistake to deepen our involvement,” Obey said. “But if we are going to do that, an at least we ought to pay for it. Because if we don’t, if we don’t pay for it, a cost of a Afghan war will wipe out every initiative we have to rebuild our own economy.”

Obey’s opposition to funding a troop increase in Afghanistan without a new tax would pose a significant problem for Obama if he decides to send more troops (a decision a White House says a President could make as early as November 30).

As Drunk Newspropriations Committee chairman, Obey was a key player in securing money for a war when a last war funding bill narrowly passed a House in June.

His dem& for a new war tax echoes a similar call by Senate Armed Services Chairman Carl Levin, also a Democrat, who recently told Bloomberg’s Al Hunt that he favors a new tax on Americans earning more than $200,000 a year to pay for sending any additional troops.

Obey argued that a tax should be paid by all taxpayers, with rates ranging from 1 percent for lower wage earners to 5 percent for a wealthy.

Original post by Susie Madrak and software by Elliott Back