Tom Blumer @ Newsbusters:
I presume everyone remembers how when the New York Times published information about a classified program designed to track the movement of alleged terrorist funding through the international banking system Bush administration officials threatened to prosecute Times reporters and management over what they had done? No you don’t, because although some conservatives and Republicans thought it might be a worth considering it didn’t happen. You can guarantee that if it had, it would have become a TV-radio-newspaper-Internet establishment press obsession for days on end.
Tonight, Washington Post’s Bob Woodward alleged that because he is sticking to his guns in insisting that sequestration was the brainchild of the Obama White House, that it was personally approved by Obama, and that bringing up tax increases now to try to resolve the current sequestration impasse is “moving the goalposts,” he has been threatened by “a very senior person” in the White House. Woodward said so on CNN’s Situation Room earlier today. What’s even more troubling is that Woodward told two Politico reporters the same thing yesterday, and that they appear to have sat on the revelation until this evening when the CNN interview forced their hand. Relevant portions of the CNN transcript and Politico column follow the jump.
This is from a rush transcript at CNN. Woodward was interviewed by the network’s Wolf Blitzer and Kate Bolduan (I checked the first portion of it against the video; there was no supporting video for the last line quoted below; bolds are mine throughout this post):
BOLDUAN: What do you make of the White House’s response to your article?
WOODWARD: Well, I think they’re confused. I think they’ve got this idea. I mean, they put out these long talking points and said, see, even Woodward’s book reports that Speaker Boehner said, let’s get $600 billion over ten years in revenue in the super committee. That’s exactly right. That’s not the sequester. And they’ve said – they have,as you know, I said, get somebody from the White House here, and we’ll debate.
BLITZER: We invited the White House to send someone here, to debate this issue with you, and they declined.
WOODWARD: Why? Why? Because it’s irrefutable; that’s exactly what happened. I’m not saying this is a moving of the goalposts that was some criminal act or something like that, I’m just saying, that’s –
… BLITZER: You’re used to this kind of stuff, but share with our viewers what’s going on between you and the White House.
WOODWARD: Well, they’re not happy at all, and some people kind of, you know, said, look, we don’t see eye to eye on this. They never really said, though – afterwards, they’ve said that this is factually wrong, and they – and it was said to me in an e-mail by a top –
BLITZER: What was said? Yes.
WOODWARD: It was said very clearly, you will regret doing this.
BLITZER: Who sent that e-mail to you?
WOODWARD: Well, I’m not going to say.
BLITZER: Was it a senior person at the White House?
WOODWARD: A very senior person. And just as a matter – I mean, it makes me very uncomfortable to have the White House telling reporters, you’re going to regret doing something that you believe in. And even though we don’t look at it that way, you do look at it that way. And I think if Barack Obama knew that was part of the communication’s strategy – let’s hope it’s not a strategy, but it’s a tactic that somebody’s employed, and said, look, we don’t go around trying to say to reporters, if you, in an honest way, present something we don’t like, that, you know, you’re going to regret this. And just – it’s Mickey Mouse.
… BOLDUAN: That line clearly has touched a nerve with folks at the White House. There’s no question about that.
Woodward is giving Obama and the White House quite the benefit of the doubt when he says “let’s hope it’s not a strategy.” When have they, the Obama-friendly press, and leftist activists not employed such a strategy?
Establishment press apparatchiks like Jim VandeHei and Mike Allen at the Poltico are already calling Woodward a newly-minted uncomplimentary “unlikely darling of the right wing” when he’s nothing of the sort (all he’s doing is reiterating the truth as told in his book a year ago, when those truths produced no visible pushback).
You know, it’s ironic that many true conservatives like myself are often chastized by liberals for claiming that “America is not a true democracy, it’s a REPUBLIC formed by 50 semi-sovereign states.”
I would like to ask all those liberals, who do in fact believe that we are a democratic nation, “Do you not hear the alarm bell of DICTATORSHIP go off when an American Administration OFFICIAL publicly threatens a WELL KNOWN JOURNALIST for publishing HIS OPINION?????
I demand a liberal to defend this.
It’s the Chicago way.
When the United States was originally conceived as a republic, only white males could vote. We’re a truer example of a democratic republic now than we were then.
I consider plutocracy no better than a dictatorship, and see a lot more warning signs of the former than of the latter. There is no more reliable corrupting influence than money.
@Greg:
Of course you do. You are one of those who suffer from wealth envy and long for the day when the prolitariate rules the entire nation. Which form of socialism do you subscribe to most, Greggie? Nevermind that no matter how wealthy a person may be, they only get one vote. That is, unless you are an Obama supporting poll worker. Then you get to vote as many as six times.
To say that the wealthy have more influence in this nation that the poor is just plain silly. If that were true, the wealthy would not be paying taxes to support the welfare class. You are of the opinion that the wealthy are greedy because they want to keep more of what they earn. I would present to you that there is no one more greedy than those who expect others to support them with free housing, free food, free medical care and free cell phones.
@Greg:
Then why do you insist on using it in corruptible ways?
Plutocracies are enabled by the people themselves, who believe that it’s ok to take from one group, to give to another, as long as it’s the “right” group on the receiving end. Plutocracies are enabled by the buying and selling of influence within the government, whether it be by corporation, individuals, or any kind of group looking for an advantage over another. Plutocracies aren’t necessarily reliant upon rich corporations with all of the influence, they are just as bad when a jealous and envious people commit “legal theft” of property from some, and use the gains of that theft for welfare and power consolidation.
That you cannot see that welfare to the people is just as bad as corporate welfare, is very telling.
I find it telling that some people can’t seem to imagine the desire for a more equitable distribution of wealth being motivated by anything other than self interest or envy.
It’s almost as if one of the fundamental teachings of our culture’s primary religious figure didn’t even exist.
@Greg:
And exactly where in the Bible do you find Jesus Christ advocating the rich having their wealth removed from them, at the point of the Roman sword (the IRS of Rome) in order to give that wealth to the poor?
@retire05, #7:
What I was saying is that there are reasons why a person might support various progressive social programs besides self interest or envy, which seem to be the only motives you’re willing to attribute it to.
Try Matthew 22:17–21 for Jesus’s comments about taxation, and Romans 13:1–7 and Romans 13:6–7 for St. Paul’s.
@Greg:
Perhaps you should read John 12. You, like Judas Iscariot, thinks that the wealth, or the things that wealth can buy, should be taken in the name of the poor. But Jesus warned “For the poor always ye have with you”.
What you progressives always want to discuss is the fact that the poor are always with us, but you never once want to discuss the reason that a nation like the United States has poor. You never want to discuss that being poor should only be a temporary condition and that anyone, like Dr. Benjamin Carson, can pull themselves out of the temporary condition we call poverty.
Why is that, Greggie? Why do you never want to discuss the cause of poverty?
Greg is the type of guy who, if you were out “treasure hunting” with him using metal detectors, and you found a gold coin while all he found was a dime from the 80’s, he would demand his “fair share” of whatever proceeds you gained from selling that gold coin. After all, it isn’t fair that his search area yielded nothing while you found something valuable.
And I seem to be missing something here, but I’m pretty sure that Jesus didn’t tromp around with armed guards commanding you to give up your wealth for his poor.
@Greg: I asked you in another thread where YOU say the line should be drawn. YOU ignored the question. Is that because you don’t have an answer Greg? How much do YOU think success should be punished, and down to what level? Until you can honestly answer those questions, your opinions are meaningless and insignificant.
@retire05, #9:
You’ve left part of the story out. According to John, Judas wasn’t actually thinking of the poor at all. He was bemoaning the loss of some pocket change:
Judas probably would have complained about taxes, too.
@Scott in Oklahoma, #11:
I’ve answered that question before. I’ll do so again:
I think the top tax rates that were in effect during the years of the Clinton administration would be about right. The top rate was a bit below 44 percent. This was the amount that the top rate had been raised to during the final year of the George H. W. Bush administration.
If you’ll recall, the top rate was 50 percent during most of the Reagan years, but was reduced to 33 percent during his final year in office. It remained at 33 percent through most of Bush the First’s single term, but was increased in his final year because of a resurgence of concern about escalating deficits.
During the years of the Clinton administration—with the 44 percent rates in place—deficits were greatly reduced. By the end of his term there was actually public discussion about how to use the anticipated surpluses. Paying down the national debt looked like a real possibility.
We reverted to rapidly escalating deficits again during the years of the Bush tax cuts, which coincided with the launching of 2 unfunded wars. The economy finally went to hell in a handbag, reducing federal revenue even further. With the increased federal spending needed to throw desperate people a lifeline and to keep the economy from total collapse, deficits rose even faster.
So, I’ll say 44 percent for the top rate, and some degree of increase for everyone else. I would do the 44 percent quickly, but phase in the increase for everyone else gradually to avoid too much of a shock to a slow recovery.
So, we’ve got the 44 percent part, effective with 2013. The gradual increases for everyone else are missing. Hopefully people will be receptive to that discussion as the economy strengthens.
I would also start looking for serious spending reductions. I’ve always said the approach has to be balanced, including both revenue increases and spending cuts. It’s hard to believe we can’t do better than sequestration.
@johngalt, #10:
Correct. The armed guards tromping around enforcing tax collections belonged to Caesar, as they ever have. It’s always Caesar, or some other secular authority. Death and taxes: only through the first do you eventually escape the second. And there might still be debts to be paid. Opinions vary.
@Greg:
Thank you for supporting my point, Greg. Bringing up what Jesus said about charity towards the poor, and the current idea of welfare, is meaningless. They have absolutely nothing to do with one another.
Yes, you have. And at the same time, you continue to refuse to denounce the tactics the Democrats have displayed most recently whenever spending cuts of any kind are brought up. Namely, that those bunch of thieves lie and exaggerate about the effects that would be felt by even the smallest of cuts. And many times, those cuts aren’t even real spending cuts.
This time around the lefties are really doubling down on stupidity. For example, Rep. Waters suggested that 170 MILLION jobs would be lost due to the ‘Sequestration’. Kind of hard to do when the estimates run to only 135-145 Million employed currently.
Tax hikes now aren’t the answer, however. They never really have been, despite what you and your kind claim. Bush’s tax cuts MORE than paid for themselves. I’ve displayed the math showing it previously.
@Greg: So you’re comfortable with the thought of surrendering over 50% of your earned income after you factor in local and state taxes? Where’s the incentive to be a success? And you fail to mention what you think should be done about the 50% of the country that pays no federal taxes.
Tell us Greg, is it better to have a few support the many, or is it better to divide the load by all the people? And according to that new math, if a punished business stays small to have a managable tax burden versus growing and employing more people to contribute to the tax base given a smaller individual tax burden, which option do you think is better?
THE CONSERVATIVES WOULD DO A LOT BETTER JOB IF THEY WOULD BE IN POWER,
NOW YOU SEE LIARS REPEATING WHAT THE LIAR IN CHIEF
IS CAMPAIGNING CONSTANTLY ABOUT HIS LIES, WARNINGS, THREATS, OF PUNISHMENTS
TO ANYONE BREAKING HIS RULES,
IT’S A REGIME OF TERROR NOW, THE DEMOCRATS ARE SCARE OF THEIR LEADER,
AND IF ONE WOULD DECIDE TO TALK AND EXPOSE ALL THE CORRUPTION,
HE WOULD BE WORRY FOR HIS FAMILY BEING ATTACK AS HIMSELF TOO,
A REGIME LEAD BY FEAR INDEED,
A WHITE HOUSE LEAD BY CONSERVATIVES UNDER REPUBLICAN
PARTY WOULD BRING FREEDOM WHICH PEOPLE HAD FORGOT IT EXISTED IN AMERICA,
AND A DRIVE TO IMPROVE THE PEOPLE REVENUES IN JOBS THEY LIKE AND HAVE LEARNED TO BE GOOD AT,
THEY WOULD ENCOURAGE THE CREATORS TO INNOVATE LIKE IT WAS BEFORE,
THEY WOULD GET RID OF THOSE THOUSANDS PAGES OF REGULATION KEEPING THE BUSINESS UNABLE TO PROFIT THEIR BUSINESS,
THE CONSERVATIVES ARE NOT LIARS, THEY ARE NOT AFRAID TO SAY HOW IT IS AND EXPOSE THE CORRUPT WHO HAVE WON A LEADERSHIP JOB BY DEMONIZING OTHER GOOD PEOPLE,
THAT’S WHY THE CONSERVATIVES ARE SO FEARED AND ARE ATTACK BY SOLD UP MEDIAS TWO BIT CLERKS,
WHO TAKE ORDER FROM THIS WHITE HOUSE MISERABLE HATER CREW.
THE DAY IS COMING FOR THE CONSERVATIVES REPUBLICANS WILL TAKE THE WHITE HOUSE, AND THE PEOPLE WILL SEE THE LIBERATION OF AMERICA FROM THOSE WHO TRY SO HARD TO DESTROY IT, DON’T LOOSE HOPE, IT WILL COME AND BE SOLID AS A ROCK HAVING LEARNED FROM NOW
OBAMA AGAIN IS THREATENING BY SAYING HE WILL TAKE AWAY FROM THE MILITARY AND BORDER PATROL OFFICERS, HE IS PUTTING THIS COUNTRY IN PERIL
@Greg:
Thank you for pointing that out. You see, Jesus was pointing out that Judas’ intentions were not pure, were self-serving. How is that any different than Democrat politicians who subscribe to the same philosophy knowing that their goals are self serving in the form of votes from those who will benefit from redistributive policies? It’s not.
@Greg:
While the top rate remained at 50% for those years you refer to, the amount of earnings taxable at the top rate also increased, from $162,400 in 1984 to $175,200 in 1985. Those making the $162K actually saw their tax rate decrease. And it was 1986, not 1988, that Congress passed a top rate of 38.5% placing it in effect for the year beginning January, 1987.
You also mention how Clinton balance his budget, but you fail to mention that he did it on the back of the military, causing an attrition of 1/2 million active military and allowing planes to sit useless on tarmacs at our Air Force bases for lack of parts. Yet, Obama, who wants desparately to deplete our military, wants to increase spending even more.
Another subject you won’t wade into.
@retire05, #20:
Balancing a budget requires spending reductions. Everybody wants the reductions to affect only the other guy, or the other guy’s favorite programs. The unpleasant fact is that in order to balance the budget, everybody will have to make concessions. Defense will have to take cuts. So will social programs. And no one is going to reduce deficits by cutting taxes. That has never actually worked. It’s one of the GOP’s self-serving fairy tales.
Some republicans can be amazingly disingenuous and astonishingly inconsistent. They can turn on a dime, going in a moment from strident demands for draconian social program cuts to angry campaign accusations that Obama plans to cut Medicare funding. They’ll wave flags and praise the troops and accuse Obama of not caring about them or of even secretly holding them in contempt, and then turn around and vote against expanded veterans health care, educational benefits, or a veterans job bill.
GREG
you forget the pyramid builder in chief,
the REPUBLICANS HAVE TO WATCH,
he put one for CHINA INTEREST,
two for me, HECK 2 MORE FOR ME,