RSN Fundraising Banner
FB Share
Email This Page
add comment
read more of todays top articles

Excerpt: "Maddow asks a glaringly obvious question, but that no one really seems to be asking: why isn't the progressive budget plan on the table? A progressive budget plan exists - it has been submitted and introduced - and it is more fiscally responsible than the GOP plan. So what gives?"

MSNBC host Rachel Maddow and Visiting Associate Professor Amy Kapczynski during Q&A at Yale University, 03/28/11. (photo: Michael Marsland)
MSNBC host Rachel Maddow and Visiting Associate Professor Amy Kapczynski during Q&A at Yale University, 03/28/11. (photo: Michael Marsland)

go to original article

e-max.it: your social media marketing partner
 

Comments   

A note of caution regarding our comment sections:

For months a stream of media reports have warned of coordinated propaganda efforts targeting political websites based in the U.S., particularly in the run-up to the 2016 presidential election.

We too were alarmed at the patterns we were, and still are, seeing. It is clear that the provocateurs are far more savvy, disciplined, and purposeful than anything we have ever experienced before.

It is also clear that we still have elements of the same activity in our article discussion forums at this time.

We have hosted and encouraged reader expression since the turn of the century. The comments of our readers are the most vibrant, best-used interactive feature at Reader Supported News. Accordingly, we are strongly resistant to interrupting those services.

It is, however, important to note that in all likelihood hardened operatives are attempting to shape the dialog our community seeks to engage in.

Adapt and overcome.

Marc Ash
Founder, Reader Supported News

 
+8 # Capn Canard 2011-04-23 20:11
This isn't rocket science... This was on Rachel Maddow's show... but the real question is how long will Rachel Maddow have a show on the Fake Liberal News of MSNBC? I get the feeling that her show will be gone within the year just like KO was sent packing. These big MSM news orgs are dysfunctional. Faux News has set the bar so low on quality and investigation that the MSM is destroyed and it will never have the same impact.
 
 
+51 # theshift33 2011-04-23 22:44
And right in step with the accelerated pace of globalization Rupert Murdoch is overseas buying up every media he can get his hands on. The overseas media will be dysfunctional and trashed in short order. They are onto him however but it probably won't make any difference. He can divide nations instead of one country. Murdoch's currently working on damage control and putting out the fire of his News of the World phone hacking scandal over there. He's also negotiating the buyout of BSkyB. 36% just isn't enough. We still have plenty of chaos on the table in the US to keep our Larry, Curly & Moe formats for a few more years. Rachel Maddow is so talented and bright she can use MSNBC as a stepping stone and move on to a better niche as the global project progresses.
 
 
+8 # Dave W. 2011-04-24 11:48
Capn Canard, I like Rachel Maddow but can't deny being disturbed by who she gets her check from. She "very briefly" alludes to this in her piece with the "hi boss" statement. GE owns MSNBC. GE, as most of us now know, is one of the most egregious "tax evaders" in the country. The progressive deficit plan will certainly be after GE and others like them. Two scenarios come to mind: How long, as you suggest Capn, will Maddow be allowed to even subtly poke her fingers in the ribs of her "boss?" Or, how long will it be before Maddow's conscious catches up to her as she's banking what is more than likely a six figure paycheck each year, delivered by one of the fundamental transgressors the Progressive plan identifies? I truly believe her heart and her considerable intellect are in the right place. But just speaking from a personal perspective, I'd have an awfully hard time taking money from GE right now. What is really needed is a Progressive media outlet that is positioned to compete with both MSM and Faux News. Can't the "left" scrape up enough money, and will, to do what the right has so successfully accomplished? If a tree falls in the forest and nobody was there to hear it did it really make a sound? That's about where we are with any true Progressive messages and ideas.
 
 
+9 # billy bob 2011-04-24 20:43
I agree, but I think she needs to be heard. If she wants to be heard, she's either going to get a check from GE or some other corporation that isn't really any better. Olbermann left for Current TV, but very few people have ever even heard of Current TV. It's an unequal playing field no matter how you look at it. It always will be as long as most of our media is corporate controlled. It would be nice if the Fairness Doctrine was brought back, but so far, no one other than a few people posting on this board are actually proposing that. In fact, this Supreme Court would probably interfere with it due to the threat it would pose to corporate order. In my opinion, sometimes shouting from the belly of the beast is the only way to be heard at all.

I guess, in other words, the left can barely scrape together enough money to keep LinkTV afloat. Minnesota had a bilboard for a local casino back in the '90s that upset repugs. It advertised that you'd "enter a Democrat, and leave a Republican". repugs didn't like the implication that people only vote repug because they like to hoard money. I guess the truth hurt. Large corporations don't get that way by being nice or doing things that could endanger profit. Giving a voice to a liberal can be risky, when you take into account that liberalism is often anti-corporate.
 
 
+3 # Dave W. 2011-04-25 09:11
billy bob, You're correct when you state she needs to be heard. Perhaps the truly scary part is that GE lets a couple of pundits/journal ists such as Maddow,Schultz, formerly Olbermann and the "sometimes" left leaning O'Donnell spout off Progressive jargon. The only reason I can figure they do so is that they figure it's "financially" in their interests to diametrically oppose Fox News and/or not enough people are listening to make any difference. I still wonder why enough allegedly "liberal" celebrities and others "blessed by the buck" can't mount some challenge to Fox. Maybe they just would rather talk than act. Definitely comes with less risk and saves them money. I have Current TV so I'm looking forward to seeing Olbermann's show. The "Fairness Doctrine" is now an anachronism. You say "Large corporations don't get that way by being nice or doing things that could endanger profit." Evidently MSNBC realizes a profit for being the anti-Fox. Even if motives weren't purely altruistic don't you think others might see "potential" for money making in a 24/7 "left" leaning operation? In any event I'll keep watching Rachel. Not many alternatives are there?
 
 
+17 # giraffee2012 2011-04-23 23:14
Capn - I had the same thought about Rachel Maddow's show -- bc she hits 'em between the eys -- and she does give factual news -- and when wrong admits error.

I notice that Ed and Lawrence are focusing on "people" rather than factual news = i.e. they've become real "talking heads" --

And so they are no longer interesting bc they say the obvious -- flip/flop of Trump's rhetoric and not ansering questions + Romey's MA "medical plan" errors. Lawrence looked promising but has wilted.
 
 
+19 # genierae 2011-04-24 08:58
II disagree about Ed Schultz, he is a populist all the way. Who paid the most attention to the Wisconsin protests? Ed. Who cares the most about the 99ers? Ed. All the way down the line he has been there for the people. His push-back against the Republicans is straightforward and accurate, and he doesn't back down. He is valuable also because he is a regular guy, hunts and fishes, and appeals to those white males who are traditionally conservative. He cares very much about the common good, and I am very thankful for him.
 
 
+3 # giraffee2012 2011-04-24 10:01
genierae: I agree that Ed Schultz covers Wisconsin very well - but the rest of his hour is filled with garbage. For example, as a joke I guess, he endorces Trump for the R's ticket for President. Although he makes fun of Trump (who is a joke) Ed gives Trump "PUBLICITY" -- which is what all stations gave to Palin (who is even a bigger joke)
 
 
+9 # genierae 2011-04-24 10:52
I agree that sometimes he gets a little silly (So does Rachel), but his heart is in the right place, and most of his efforts are on target. My take on his endorsement of Trump is that he was illustrating the complete lunacy of the Republican field. When P.T. Barnum is running for president, its a sure sign that this society is on its deathbed. But we must not lose heart, there is a Phoenix waiting in the wings.
 
 
0 # ljkreporting 2011-04-27 19:40
Quoting genierae:
II disagree about Ed Schultz, he is a populist all the way. Who paid the most attention to the Wisconsin protests? Ed. Who cares the most about the 99ers? Ed. All the way down the line he has been there for the people. His push-back against the Republicans is straightforward and accurate, and he doesn't back down. He is valuable also because he is a regular guy, hunts and fishes, and appeals to those white males who are traditionally conservative. He cares very much about the common good, and I am very thankful for him.

Right you are, G. Ed Schultz is a leftist in the making- he leads with his heart and his head sees the issues very clearly-He loves the people and understands the insecurity of right-wing ideology. Bottom line- he realizes this is a war, of the few and powerful haves against the multitudes of the have nots. He's a straight arrow at thea heartof the problem in our country. He is number one. Rachel too. She appeals to the more intellectual- but it all comes from her heart-felt concern for people. and she is fearless. That they are broadcasting now is where we are at;if things change-we will have to react. We do need a commercial network of our own, too.
 
 
+21 # Christopher Marlowe 2011-04-23 23:15
I'm with the Capn. No one else is covering this story because all the MSM news is garbage: It is owned by only six corporations for a reason. (Thanks to the Telecommunicati ons Act of 1996. Thanks Clinton.) The house just voted to get rid of Medicare and we hear NOTHING on the MSM.
There is no difference between the dems and the repugs: they are mostly all corporate whores. I thought the dems were going to stop the wars...back in 2006. I'm still waiting. Now we're bombing Libya. Obama is a fake. I campaigned for that clown. Clinton was a fake. The last real dem was Carter. The last real president was Kennedy.
I've always voted dem, but from now on I'm voting some plain-label party. Anything but dem or repug.
 
 
+6 # rf 2011-04-24 05:42
Can't stop the wars...think about the unemployment numbers...and the economy...the guns industry is one of the only left here. We HAVE to have wars...all of the time...
 
 
0 # NOOSE 2011-04-25 00:51
Hope you're strapping up your boots, you must be going sounding like that.
 
 
+21 # kernel 2011-04-24 06:59
... And you'll hand the White House to Republicans, who will hand the rest of the Supreme Court to the cheap-labor conservatives.
 
 
+14 # Regina 2011-04-24 12:49
It's high time to quit the fiction that the rabid right is "conservative" -- they conserve nothing but their wealth and power. They're extremists, reactionaries, obstructionists , who connive to destroy every public good every time they ascend to a majority. And those ascents are enabled by shenanigans at the polls. This misleading mislabel is being fed us by the language mavens who work as writers and editors -- they need dictionaries, at the very least. They could use a little common sense, too.
 
 
-4 # Suavane 2011-04-24 13:10
"Obama is a fake. I campaigned for that clown. Clinton was a fake. The last real dem was Carter. The last real president was Kennedy. " - Perhaps you can tell us how you came to this conclusion. All of the above had to deal with military conflict.
 
 
+3 # tomo 2011-04-23 23:53
The reason there is no progressive budget "on the table" is because Obama never puts anything progressive on the table. He talks it up--to establish his progressive credentials--an d then declares it "undo-able." Paul Simon, commenting on musical composition, said once: "You can run a good melody right after itself once, but if you try to do it a third time in a row, it falls flat."
Obama so continually plays this same trick of talking up a proposal so he can walk away from it, it's surprising anyone is still paying attention. Our attention should be devoted to finding a genuine progressive for 2012.
 
 
+23 # Regina 2011-04-24 01:13
Let's not forget who pays the freight of election campaigns -- it's the corporations, some of which own the media, while others buy their ad time. And the Supreme Court has now made those corporations "supreme." If we could ever pry the campaigns from the gluttonous corporate fists -- and TV comes over electromagnetic channels that are national property! -- we might have a democracy in more than empty slogans. Meanwhile we have Rachel -- I hope she survives the "interests" that hogtied Keith.
 
 
+36 # maddave 2011-04-24 01:27
Given her current trajectory Maddow will continue on to become America's new Walter Cronkite. When Cronkite spoke, people listened and acted, and I see this young woman's enthusiasm, honesty and absence of any hidden agenda as invigorating and motivational assets. Which is exactly why Corporate America will make every attempt to discredit her and drive her off the air & into obscurity.

"We The (Common) People" must make it our purpose and goal to support Rachel and to ensure that her voice stays loud and clear. The best way - indeed, the ONLY way - to do this is patronize her sponsors whenever possible and to call and write our thanks and encouragement to MSNBC & sponsors for keeping Rachel Maddow on the air.
 
 
+17 # dfvboulder 2011-04-24 03:05
Funny thing, even Rachel doesn't cut to the chase: The progressive budget cuts military spending, and proposes a public option; those are anti-corporate policies, and they are highly effective in balancing the budget. OOPS. Yeah, not only is this not rocket science -- it's not even complicated.
 
 
-36 # antineocon 2011-04-24 06:48
Hey why not Ron Paul Libertarian he makes more sense than anyone
 
 
+12 # fishskicanoe 2011-04-24 09:07
Quoting antineocon:
Hey why not Ron Paul Libertarian he makes more sense than anyone


Because libertarianism is what is driving the country to destruction. Paul Ryan was a speaker at Ayn Rand's centenary celebration. Libertarianism inevitably leads to the Corporate State or at its very "best" corporate feudalism. Under libertarianism power is allowed to aggregate power unstopped by anything except satiation.
 
 
+4 # Melinda Hutchings 2011-04-24 09:21
to antineocon...
Surely you jest!
 
 
+2 # JimYoung 2011-04-24 10:01
Please do some independent research on Ayn Rand (one of his heroes) and tell us how the poor obstructed capitalists (that want effective anarchy of the type Herbert Hoover felt ruined the application of his more idealized and rational capitalism), are any more "oppressed" than the very many successful minorities that overcame very much tougher "obstacles."
 
 
+6 # adele 2011-04-24 07:45
Even liberal Rachel Maddow and her guest fail to discuss the real reason for the press not covering the Progressive budget plan "The People's Budget." The corporations and their government lackeys run everything, including the media, and they have no allegiance to any country, America included. They couldn't care less about the American people. Feed them junk and lies, make them irrationally fearful, educate them in "factory schools" to be unthinking test takers. The thinking progressives can simply be ignored.
 
 
+14 # rm 2011-04-24 07:55
The US is a dysfunctional and failed state. It cannot resolve even simple problems -- like healthcare. The private, for profit system we have is a failure. Everyone in the world knows that, except for the few people who read news on MSM channels or write it in newspapers and the few people bribed in congress.

The simply solution is the one we already have -- Medicare for All. Write a one page bill in congress saying that everyone who wants Medicare can buy in. Those who don't, can continue to buy private, for profit insurance. Over time, everyone will be in Medicare because the privates will simply not compete. They will purge anyone with health problems and sooner or later everyone has a health problem.

This will never happen in the US. The US is not capable of making a rational decision as a nation. The US will go bankrupt and collapse before it makes a rational decision.
 
 
+2 # Zeke 2011-04-24 07:58
Where can I read a copy of this Progressive Budget Plan? Maybe part of the reason it's not on the table is that finding it (even using The Center for American Progress' own search engine) is nearly impossible!
 
 
0 # theshift33 2011-04-25 10:02
google Congressional Progressive Caucus or The People's Budget and you will find it there.
 
 
+3 # fredboy 2011-04-24 08:34
Think forward two or three generations and envision what the nation that was the U.S. will be like...
 
 
+3 # rm 2011-04-24 10:38
Good idea fredboy. In 2 or 3 generations there will be no United States. The union will have broken up into several independent nations, each going its own way. Some, mostly the old south, will be third world apartheid hell holes, run by the descendants of people like Hailey Barber. Others, like California, Oregon, Washington will be closely connected with the rest of the Pacific rim economies (China, Japan, Korea) and will that will be the center of wealth on influence in the world.

The construction called the United States is a sock-puppet for vicious special interests in transnational corporations and Israel. The American people, even the teabaggers, are growingly aware of this and they hate Washington for selling itself to evil corporations and the equally evil nation of Israel. The US government cannot be reformed; it will simply be dumped, like yesterday's garbage.
 
 
+8 # Leslie Owens 2011-04-24 08:58
Paul Krugman also covered the Progressive Caucus budget plan in this blog entry: http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/04/22/the-progressive-budget-alternative/
Though he is ignored as often as Rachel, if not more.
 
 
+2 # JimYoung 2011-04-24 22:46
Krugman is indeed ignored to enough to be the first honoree I saw make Brad DeLong's "The Ancient, Hermetic, and Occult Order of the Shrill!" (I found it later than most.) Apparently the wisdom (or lack of it) has nothing to do with getting into the "order" but being ignored like the hospital alarms does. There are so many "alarms" out there, many that are critically important, that few are ready to, or capable of, responding to them. I do hope the brightest can wake a few up, though,before the batteries (and patient) die.

Brad DeLong provides many in depth looks at the problems, any one of which could dispel months of nonsense that passes for news, but considers himself one of the "shrill", since the public and politicians "change the channel" to avoid thinking about things such as that at http://delong.typepad.com/sdj/2011/01/sensible-economists-letter-on-the-affordable-care-act.html
 
 
+6 # wfalco 2011-04-24 09:54
So we see what we are up against. Issues that matter to the people are placed in the back burner. If it is loud and corporate backed(Tea Party events)there is coverage. A more rational, thought provoking question and answer session is thrown in the corporate news trash heap.
A watered down version of the Civil War still exists.

Those of us on the left(forgive me for my "elitism") are thought provoking, rational, and logical. And those on the right...do I have to attempt to elaborate. The dummies are the storm troopers that the corporate John Birchers need to stay in power. This is a policy that has been in existence for quite some time because it works.
 
 
+3 # JimYoung 2011-04-24 09:54
How to share the cost? Too many public retirement giveaways? Who believed those levels they thought their pension plan investments (in private, AAA rated investments) were supposed to bring in?

How do we explain that they aren't going to get the returns they thought they would (without expecting taxpayers to pick up the shortfall)? Were they too optimistic? Were they sold by honest agents, unaffected by the bonuses, commissions, high fees, easy creation of debt instruments, and side bets they could make with such large pools of supposed asset value?

How dare (tongue-in-chee k) those public employees keep the forecast benefits of those investments (and the "benefits" of privatized, monetized, medicine)? Tell them to get in line behind those financial sector types (all over the world) that we rescued, and thank their lucky stars they are better off than the private sector middle class who used to make, and keep, more than public workers did.

Let's throw them at least partially under the bus to save the rest of us. Who knows, if they will take less, perhaps the holders of the millions of mortgages that are upside down will take less? (But isn't that the case if their investments relied too heavily on those mortgages?)

Is the answer to rely more heavily on those that sold us those "investments"?
 
 
+5 # DesignCreature 2011-04-24 11:38
I was so proud of Rachel for bringing to our attention what is happening in Belmont the tiny town being taken over by the government.
And the story of the girl's school helping pregnant young woman. This story and the pictures were some I found hard to believe. That we, the USA, could be doing these things like what has been done, and is being done, in other countries. Where is the shock that this may just be the beginning of our own "police state"? Thank you Rachel Maddow.
 
 
+8 # historywriter 2011-04-24 12:50
I've been wondering lately if we can sustain a democracy in a country as huge, populous, and now, fragmented and ideologically stubborn as the U.S. is. Maybe we are just too big and with too many media that do not care about anything except profits--and defeating any liberal, progressive, democratic agenda. Or compromDespite all the many divisions and controversy in our past, I think Americans (excluding the Native Americans and the Blacks, of course) were more or less united on some basic ideas. We fought a terrible war to keep us together and most of us preferred that. We united during WWII, and came together in the postwar period over recovery and even helping others with the Marshall Plan--imagine doing that now. We rebuilt ourselves after the war with a huge national highway system, and we built houses, and we sent G.I.s to school, launching one of the greatest eras of prosperity we've ever known.
I don't think we could do a single one of those things now.
And, let's not go into global climate change; if this world survives, our descendants are going to wonder what kind of idiots and screwballs we were.
Nor could we be frightened into fear to do idiotic things like overruling the constitution--n ot as much, anyway. And we didn't have small nation-states with not much military seriously finding ways to attack us.
 
 
+2 # rm 2011-04-24 14:54
Good point, historywriter. I would go a step farther. The "age of democracy" is over. Democracy was an idea born in the 17th century. It still lives in some developing nations, but it has died in the developed west. We learned from the neo-cons that the path of the west now is toward unitary or absolute presidents. The US government does not represent "people" in any way. It represents capital and imperialism. Very few people, of either the left or the right, would do anything to defend the Federal government. It has been sold to the highest bidders (i.e., multinational corporations and Israel). It does their work. Sure there are ritualized elections, but they are meaningless and pointless. Obama is just the same as Bush/Cheney.

Empires come and go. They rise and fall. The US is old by the standards of empires. It is falling and will disappear soon. Very few people even want it around any more. We will all be better off when the Washington government expires and rots into the compost heap of history. Yes, it is filled with idiots and screwballs, but all empires are.
 
 
+3 # wheel12 2011-04-24 17:27
Rachel,

You have the platform to bring the Progressive Budget Plan to all. Do it! send it to members of congress, newspaper and progressive publications.
 
 
+1 # julie ziesman 2011-04-24 18:57
If you watched the show, Racheal said that the Progressives have not even lobbied her show with their plan. I guess they want it to be secret.
 
 
+14 # brianf 2011-04-24 19:45
The reason the progressive budget plan isn't on the table is the same reason impeachment of the Bush regime for war crimes was never on the table and the same reason single payer was never on the table. It's the same reason there was no coverage of the thousands of young people marching to stop global warming was not covered. It's the same reason the largest worldwide demonstrations in history to get CO2 levels to 350 ppm were not covered by the national media It's the same reason the tiniest tea bagger gatherings get extensive coverage. It's called censorship and propaganda, and it permeates the national media. Even PBS and NPR do it regularly, although they aren't nearly as bad as the corporate-owned media. This is the biggest threat to democracy we've ever faced, and it keeps getting worse.
 
 
+4 # billy bob 2011-04-24 20:28
Thank you for saving me all that typing. I was just going to try to say the exact same thing, but not nearly as well.
 
 
+1 # ljkreporting 2011-04-27 19:44
Yup. You said it all, bub!
 
 
+2 # Sheila Cook 2011-04-24 22:50
I have a couple of points to make.
1. The repugs say their budget will create jobs. In fact, their budget will cause job losses because if they cut the budget more people will be laid off. Their plan WILL CREATE MORE UNEMPLOYMENT. WHY AREN'T THE DEMS TALKING ABOUT THAT? Why aren't they telling that to the public? What is wrong with them? I'm beginning to wonder if the sleazy Dems want the other side to be able to pass their filthy budget. We'll be in even more trouble if they get away with it.
 
 
+5 # Barry De Jasu 2011-04-25 07:21
A great way for the Progressive Budget Plan to get publicity is for some charismatic Progressive to announce that he/she will challenge President Obama in the Democratic Presidential Primary. This would get a spotlight on the budget and many other issues as well. It would also challenge the President to seriously consider and face a truly Progressive agenda.
 
 
+5 # casavenko 2011-04-25 09:58
The biggest drain on our economy is war.we build the best WMD's in the world, which keeps keeps our for profit healthcare system going, and of course that adds debt, which is the other thing that this country builds.Your debt is corp.profit. Defense spending is killing our country, and making more profit than ever.while trying to control and maintain control of oil supplys worldwide.the military is the worlds largest consumer of petroleum. Which is contributing to climate change. This is criminal, in my opinion. We need to end this madness. We have become inslaved by our debt, built on war based economy. We need to return too a Green, clean, non -war based economy. Its time to return to a Peace -based economy. Built on KINDNESS, and love of our fellow man.working together,instea d of all the lies, wars, and disrespect for others.
 
 
0 # Linde Knighton 2011-04-25 19:02
When, oh when will any so called lefty cover the all cuts, anti-union, corporate tax cutting budget in the great state of Washington?
Talk about a bad budget. But NO, can't mention it because the Dems control the Leg and Gov.
 

THE NEW STREAMLINED RSN LOGIN PROCESS: Register once, then login and you are ready to comment. All you need is a Username and a Password of your choosing and you are free to comment whenever you like! Welcome to the Reader Supported News community.

RSNRSN