New York Times columnist Paul Krugman is not happy with the deal Congress and the President apparently have agreed upon to end the debt ceiling impasse.

In his Monday piece, the Nobel laureate wrote, "[T]hose demanding spending cuts now are like medieval doctors who treated the sick by bleeding them":

For the deal itself, given the available information, is a disaster, and not just for President Obama and his party. It will damage an already depressed economy; it will probably make America’s long-run deficit problem worse, not better; and most important, by demonstrating that raw extortion works and carries no political cost, it will take America a long way down the road to banana-republic status.

Extortion? Hardly.

The President and his Party could have prevented this entire situation by actually creating a budget. They do, after all, control the White House and the Senate.

If their priority in January was to avoid what appears likely to happen on August 1, they could easily have done so by, um, trying. But Krugman doesn't report the obvious when it goes counter to his agenda:

[S]lashing spending while the economy is depressed won’t even help the budget situation much, and might well make it worse. On one side, interest rates on federal borrowing are currently very low, so spending cuts now will do little to reduce future interest costs. On the other side, making the economy weaker now will also hurt its long-run prospects, which will in turn reduce future revenue. So those demanding spending cuts now are like medieval doctors who treated the sick by bleeding them, and thereby made them even sicker.

Let's take this one sentence at a time.

Slashing spending while the economy is depressed won’t even help the budget situation much.

Exactly what arithmetic was this Nobel laureate in economics taught? If you're spending more than you're earning each month, every dollar less of outlays improves your budget situation. To claim otherwise is either a lie or the height of ineptitude.

On one side, interest rates on federal borrowing are currently very low, so spending cuts now will do little to reduce future interest costs.

That is indeed true – for now. But interest rates are at historic lows. They can't stay here forever, and when they eventually rise, the added cost to our budget will be catastrophic. It is therefore incumbent upon our government to begin reducing our deficits immediately.

On the other side, making the economy weaker now will also hurt its long-run prospects, which will in turn reduce future revenue.

There is absolutely no evidence that cutting federal spending at this time will be economically harmful. Consider first that despite a 41 percent rise in annual outlays since 2007, the unemployment rate has risen from 4.4 percent to 9.2 percent.

Beyond this, an almost 50 percent cut in spending during the 1920's produced the strongest economy this nation ever enjoyed.

But there's potentially a bigger issue here: a looming credit rating downgrade. Notice that nowhere in Krugman's piece was this even mentioned.

One of the largest crises for America would be to have our bond rating dropped. The major credit rating agencies have warned that if we don't get our spending under control, they're going to cut us from AAA.

While folks like Krugman consider budget cuts akin to "medieval doctors who treated the sick by bleeding them," they conveniently ignore Moody's and S&P wielding battle axes to pounce on any bad budget decisions we make.

Since both of these agencies have made it clear that in order for them to keep their AAA rating on us they want to see serious budget deficit reductions, it is the spending-obsessed Krugman that is actually proposing leeches for the ailing patient.

Barney Frank has to be the biggest sourpuss in Congress. The liberal representative from Massachusetts has made an art form out of ripping off his mike and abruptly ending an interview. This testy feller could pick a fight in a phone booth.

So Frank would be the last person you'd expect, in commenting on the debt ceiling deal, to break out a classic line from comedian Henny Youngman.  Yet that's exactly what Barney did on Morning Joe today, in explaining why he was supporting a deal that contained much he didn't like.

View video after the jump.

JOE SCARBOROUGH: Let me start with you, Barney. We just had [Tea Party-friendly Republican congressman] Connie Mack on.  He's not going to vote for this bill, and my question was, why would [House Dem Whip] Steny Hoyer whip Democratic votes if Democrats are having to vote for a bill that seems to be more Republican in its framework.
 

After some filler about how the bill will somehow force the US out of Iraq and Afghanistan, Barney came to his comedic conclusion.
 

BARNEY FRANK: One of my favorite philosophers of the 20th-century was the great Henny Youngman. And he had one very great line.  "How's your wife?  Compared to what?"  And I think that's the central [inaudible] that's driving people.

Question: could a Republican have gotten away with quoting that Youngman classic, or would he have been accused of sexism, objectifying women, etc.?

Remember how Al Sharpton was among the first black leaders to speak out in favor of Comcast's acquisition of NBC Universal?

My recollection of this was vague at best, tending as I do to dismiss nearly everything coming from Sharpton as insignificant, predictable or clownish.

Then after FCC approval of the merger back in January, Sharpton began appearing more often as a guest on MSNBC, a cable network subsidiary of NBC that performs yeoman's work in public relations for the Democratic wing of the Democratic Party.

A July 27 article at The Daily Beast by Wayne Barrett, "Sharpton's Affirmative-Action Win," asks whether Sharpton's expected new show on MSNBC is "payback" for supporting Comcast's merger with NBC Universal. Barrett's article leaves little doubt as to the answer.

Barrett points out that Michael Copps, a Democrat serving on the FCC since 2001, voted against the merger, saying it "erodes diversity, localism and competition" and was a "stake in the heart of independent content production." Barrett writes –

But Mignon Clyburn, the daughter of South Carolina Congressman James Clyburn and the only minority member of the FCC, threw her decisive support behind the deal, citing a comprehensive diversity memorandum of agreement (MOU)  signed by Sharpton (emphasis added and throughout) as a mechanism that "will serve to keep the new entity honest in promoting diversity."

Without Clyburn, FCC chair Julius Genachowski, the third Democrat on the commission, seems unlikely to have backed the deal, which he did a week after the MOU was sent to the FCC. The MOU was significant because it countered opposition from Jesse Jackson, a variety of black organizations, and some black House Democrats. The then House Judiciary chair, John Conyers, convened combustible hearings last summer in Chicago and Los Angeles, and California Rep. Maxine Waters declared at one that she wasn't interested in hearing how much Comcast had given to "the NAACP, Al Sharpton, and the Urban League," the three entities that eventually signed the MOU.

Shortly before the FCC approved the acquisition, Barrett points out, "Sharpton aggressively championed James Clyburn in his post-election fight to retain his leadership position in the House, while Comcast  contributed $10,500 to Clyburn's political committees." And — what a shock — "a Comcast spokesperson told The Daily Beast that Comcast has given $140,000 to Sharpton's National Action Network since 2009 – the same year the merger was first proposed."

As for that Memorandum of Agreement signed by Sharpton, NAACP president Benjamin Jealous and Urban League president Marc Morial? It required Comcast/NBC to establish minority advisory councils, Barrett reports, with Morial named to chair the African-American panel. Sharpton chose the Rev. W. Franklyn Richardson, who has chaired his National Action Network board for several years, to sit on the panel. Barrett further writes –

The advisory council met for the first time with Comcast brass in May, but the company says the meeting was confidential, although the MOU itself says its proceedings will be "nonconfidential." Comcast also refuses to release the benchmark study and the master strategic plan it was supposed to develop to implement the MOU promises about diversity, though the agreement says nothing about these documents being confidential. The original memo does specify that employment and procurement progress is confidential, which means that no one will be able to determine whether Comcast's many promises are being kept.

That's why the frequently frowning face of Sharpton on MSNBC prime time may be all we'll know about Comcast/NBC's compliance with its affirmative-action commitments.

Put another way, by the inimitable Yid With Lid –

So Al Sharpton, who in his four days in the host chair (at MSNBC) has shown little or no talent for his new position got the seat to satisfy a diversity initiative set up and blessed by … hey whattayaknow, Al Sharpton.

All of which makes former MSNBC anchor Cenk Uygur's claim that he was eased out to make way for a more Obama-friendly Sharpton — despite improved ratings while he worked the 6 p.m. slot for MSNBC — seem not so far fetched.

Barrett followed up on his July 27 article with an equally interesting Daily Beast read the next day on how Sharpton's support for the Comcast/NBC merger came with another perk — "riches for his other employer, a niche black-owned radio station." 

 During a commentary aired on CBS Sunday Morning, supposedly right-leaning actor and economist Ben Stein blamed the "folly of supply side economics" – singling out President George W. Bush’s tax cuts in addition to President Obama’s spending – for the current federal budget deficit. The CBS contributor also complained that some Republicans have an "inflexible belief" that "low taxes were an American birthright."

He also complained that the Tea Partiers "insisted on the basically impossible, an immediate cut in federal spending, large enough to balance the budget without tax increases. In this age of Medicare and Medicaid, two wars, massive federal debt, interest payments, staggering Social Security obligations, that was simply impossible."

Invoking the Jordan Baker character from the Great Gatsby, he characterized all parties that he blamed as being "careless" people.

And, even though the balanced budgets of the late 1990s were largely the result of increased tax revenues that came with a booming economy – which notably also happened in the years after a capital gains tax cut was passed by a GOP-controlled Congress – Stein praised former President Bill Clinton for the balanced budget that existed when he left office.

Stein vaguely acknowledged the "Internet bubble" that helped fuel the 1990s economy, but still seemed to give Clinton credit for the balanced budget:

There's no doubt that Bill Clinton for all of his issues left the federal budget on a sound financial footing. It was undone by the bursting of the Internet bubble, the two wars following 9/11, but mostly because of the folly of supply side economics, which falsely assured Americans that they could have their cake and it a eat it, too. That large tax cuts would yield higher government revenue. There never was any convincing data to back it up…

Last April, Stein did a similar commentary attacking tax cuts on the same show, but, in September of last year, his commentary featured him complaining about the drive to raise taxes on the wealthy, leading Sy-Fy producer Linda McGibney to attack him personally on the next week’s show.

Below is a complete transcript of Stein’s commentary from the July 31 CBS Sunday Morning:

CHARLES OSGOOD: Feeling the urge to sound off about the national debt debate? So is our contributor Ben Stein.

BEN STEIN: There is a telling scene in the Great Gatsby where Jordan Baker, the shady golf pro, says, "I hate careless people. It takes two to make an accident."

BOB SCHIEFFER, CBS ANCHOR: The days are now dwindling down to a precious few.

LESTER HOLT, NBC ANCHOR: In President Obama's words, "We are almost out of time."

DIANE SAWYER, ABC ANCHOR: The debt stalemate in Washington-

STEIN: This comes to mind because of the budget, taxes, debt ceiling crisis the nation is going through. What we are seeing is a stupendous pile-up of immensely careless people who have been heading for trouble for more than a decade now. There's no doubt that Bill Clinton for all of his issues left the federal budget on a sound financial footing. It was undone by the bursting of the Internet bubble, the two wars following 9/11, but mostly because of the folly of supply side economics, which falsely assured Americans that they could have their cake and it a eat it, too. That large tax cuts would yield higher government revenue. There never was any convincing data to back it up, and there’s also supply side tax cuts were immense government deficits under Bush 43.

There was also another problem, an inflexible belief by some on the GOP side that low taxes were an American birthright. They're not.  We're not immune to arithmetic. If we spend a lot, we have to tax a lot. Then came Mr. Obama's carelessness. His wild raise in the federal expenditure so that what had seemed like huge deficits under Bush 43 suddenly seemed modest. And then came the Tea Partiers who insisted on the basically impossible, an immediate cut in federal spending, large enough to balance the budget without tax increases. In this age of Medicare and Medicaid, two wars, massive federal debt, interest payments, staggering Social Security obligations, that was simply impossible.

So we have now got many careless persons making an accident. It now appears disaster has been averted in that the can has been kicked down the road at least for a while. That's not great, but it’s better than an immediate train wreck. If something cannot go on forever it will stop, said my famous father, but it can end horribly if people are careless enough. It's time for the grown-ups of the right and the left to stand up. Both parties got us into this mess and both parties have to get us out.

George Will and Paul Krugman had another great debate Sunday about the role of government spending in stimulating the economy.

As the New York Times columnist predictably whined about the need for more federal spending not less, ABC's lone conservative said on "This Week," "It would be good to go to the electorate and have a Krugman election this time, saying: resolved, the government is too frugal – let's vote" (video follows with transcript and commentary):

PAUL KRUGMAN, NEW YORK TIMES: The first thing is, we shouldn't — you know, from — from the perspective of a rational person — in other words, a progressive on this stuff — we shouldn't be even talking about spending cuts at all now. We have 9 percent unemployment. These spending cuts are going to worsen unemployment. That's not even — it's even going to hurt the long-run fiscal picture, because we have a situation where more and more people are becoming permanent long-term unemployed. And if you have a situation in which you're going to permanently raise the unemployment rate, which is what this is going to do, that's actually going to reduce future revenues.

So this — this thing — these spending cuts are even going to hurt the long-run fiscal position, let alone cause lots of misery. And then on top of that…

CHRISTIANE AMANPOUR, HOST: Well, you…

KRUGMAN: … we've got these budget cuts, which are entirely — basically the Republicans said we'll blow up the world economy unless you give us exactly what we want, and the president said, OK. That's what happened.

AMANPOUR: You know, you've been consistent about this, saying that there should be no cuts at a time of recession and weak recovery. What is your scenario, though, once this goes through and there are significant spending cuts and no revenues?

KRUGMAN: We're looking. I mean, we used to talk about the Japanese and their lost decade. We're going to look to them as a role model. They did better than we're doing. We're — this is going to go on — I have nobody I know who thinks that the unemployment rate is going to be below 8 percent at the end of next year.

With the spending cuts, it might well be above 9 percent at the end of next year. There is no light at the end of this tunnel. And all the — we're having a debate in Washington which is all about, gee, we're going to make this economy worse, but are we going to make it worse on 90 percent the Republicans' terms or 100 percent the Republicans' terms? And the answer is 100 percent.

GEORGE WILL: Paul's right. We are a third of the way through a lost decade, but we're a third of the way after TARP, the stimulus, Cash for Clunkers, dollars for dishwashers, cash for caulkers, the entire range of stimulus, the Keynesian approach, which, by its own evidence, simply hasn't worked. Now Paul says double down.

KRUGMAN: Can I just say — in advance, one important point is to make that — is that people like me said in advance this wasn't remotely big enough. It's not an after the fact. It's not coming back afterwards. Right from the beginning, we looked — I looked at the numbers, people like me looked at the numbers, said we have — we're going to have huge cutbacks at the state and local level. You've got a federal increase which is going to be barely enough to limit those cutbacks. There is going to be no net fiscal stimulus, if you look at government as a whole, which is what happened.

WILL: And it…

KRUGMAN: So here we are.

WILL: It would be good to go to the election — electorate and have a Krugman election this time, saying: resolved – the government is too frugal. Let's vote.

Since 2007, annual federal spending has increased by 41 percent while the debt has grown by $5.6 trillion or 64 percent. During this time, unemployment rose from 4.4 percent to 9.2 percent.

And idiots like Krugman think spending more will solve the problem.

Even worse, idiots like the folks that produce ABC's "This Week" continue to invite him on their program to repeat such nonsense.

Why?

 On Saturday’s CBS Evening News, correspondent Nancy Cordes seemed to put the burden on Republicans of causing U.S. troops to wonder if they will be paid on time during the budget battle, as a clip of her was shown asked House Speaker John Boehner, "How can you even allow these soldiers to wonder whether they're going to get paid?"

Cordes got to the subject after showing a clip of an unidentified male member of the House of Representatives declaring, "This process has become a joke. It is a disgrace. It's an insult to the American people." The CBS correspondent then added, "And to the troops." After relaying that some troops had raised concerns with Joint Chiefs Chairman Mike Mullen, Cordes showed the clip of herself with Speaker Boehner.

The CBS correspondent did not show a clip of any Democrats being asked a similar question.

Below is a transcript of the report from the Saturday, July 30, CBS Evening News, with critical portions in bold:

RUSS MITCHELL: And good evening. With less than 72 hours to go before the federal government potentially runs out of money to pay its bills, there is now word that talks to cut a deal have gone to a new level, this after the Senate late last night shot down a Republican proposal from the House, and the House today said no to a Democratic plan from the Senate. Congressional correspondent Nancy Cordes is on Capitol Hill with the very latest. Nancy, good evening.

NANCY CORDES: Good evening to you, Russ. And things have taken a strange turn here this evening. Republican leaders insist that an agreement is close at hand, but Democrats say that's a ruse. What we do know for certain is that Republican leaders have resumed talks in some form with the White House.

MITCH MCCONNELL, SENATE MINORITY LEADER: We are now fully engaged, the Speaker and I, with the one person in America out of 307 million people who can sign a bill into law. I'm confident and optimistic that we're going to get an agreement in the very near future and resolve this crisis in the best interests of the American people.

CORDES: But Democratic Senate Leader Harry Reid disputed that a short while later.

HARRY REID, SENATE MAJORITY LEADER: Not true. I just spent two hours with the President and Vice President and Leader Pelosi, and it's fair for me to say that the engagement there is not in any meaningful way.

CORDES: The two sides have been locked in a seemingly endless cycle of voting down whatever plan the other party puts forward.

STENY HOYER, HOUSE MINORITY WHIP: The people aren't looking to us for what we can stop. They're looking to us for what we can do.

CORDES: The partisan sniping continued today.

REP. DAVID DREIER (R-CA): The action that we're about to take here today is going to help with the process of seeing senator McConnell and Senator Reid work together. Why? Because-

REP. SANDER LEVIN (D-MI): I'm going to take back my time, Mr. Dreier. That is pernicious nonsense!

CORDES: Baron's newspaper dubbed it a "stupid fight."

UNIDENTIFIED MALE MEMBER OF THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES: This process has become a joke. It is a disgrace. It's an insult to the American people.

CORDES: And to the troops, some of whom asked the Chairman of Joint Chiefs of Staff, as he traveled through Afghanistan, whether they will still get paid if the U.S. coffers run dry. He told them, "I honestly can't answer that." How can you even allow these soldiers to wonder whether they're going to get paid?

JOHN BOEHNER, HOUSE SPEAKER: I think Senator McConnell and I are both confident that we're going to be able to come to some agreement with the White House and end this impasse.

CORDES: But, again, Democratic leaders dispute that, and, in fact, when House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi was returning from the White House this evening, we asked her what she thought of McConnell's assertion that they were close to a deal, and she said to us, "I don't even know what you're talking about. " Russ?

Saturday night in Cincinnati, Fox 19's Kimberly Holmes Wiggins interviewed Ohio Democratic Senator Sherrod Brown from Washington about the state of the debt-ceiling debate. A full transcript follows.

Contained therein readers will see the untruthful establishment press memes which have dominated their coverage, and all too typical disgraceful and predictable demagoguery by Brown. Similar reports involving other Democrats likely played on stations across the nation this past weekend.

Strap on the duct tape. Here goes (bolds and numbered tags are mine; link is to the station's video home page):

Wiggins: Hi, in Washington now, there are just three days until the U.S. defaults on its debt [1], and still no compromise.

The President and GOP leaders [2] are expressing confidence that lawmakers will reach a deal to avoid default [1] and end the spectacle in Congress. [3] This as plans from both sides of the aisle have been rejected. Still, even one of Ohio's senators agreed the deal can be reached.

And joining me now is Senator Sherrod Brown in Washington. Now Senator, we are three days away from D-Day when we could default [1], and the House just rejected Senator Reid's debt bill. Now earlier today, you seemed optimistic that we could come up with a compromise. Now, uh, how (laughing incredulously — Ed.) are you still optimistic that this could happen? How, because a lot of Americans don't believe that? [4]

Sen. Sherrod Brown (never tagged as a Democrat — Ed.): Well, I'm, I'm optimistic because I think that, uh, I spoke yesterday, uh, with a conservative Southern Republican Senator, friend of mine, about how, how we do this. He thinks we're very close. He thinks as I do that the, that the the leaders, that Senator Reid and Senator McConnell [5], will come together in a bipartisan way in the Senate. Uh, they may be filibustered for a while. That's why we will maybe stay in tonight, all night if necessary, until we get to 60 votes, until we pass it, send it back to the House of Representatives, and I think that they will do their patriotic duty. [6] It's simply too dangerous to default [1] on the full faith and obligations of the United States of America.

Wiggins: Now you have pledged to reject a GOP plan of having a temporary increase of the debt ceiling. [7] Now at this point, Americans are just frustrated. [4] Are you sticking with that plan right now?

Brown: Well, with the, I think the Reid plan in the Senate, which has a, a lot of the requests of the Republican leader in the bill, a lot of it is uh, is uh bipartisan in that way, makes sense. I-ah-I-I did vote against the House plan, because the House plan, number one, it jeopardizes Medicare and Social Security and Medicaid. [8] Number 2, the House plan most damagingly would put us in this situation again in six months. And I don't know any sen-, I don't know any businesspeople in Cincinnati and Blue Ash or Hamilton or Norwood or anywhere in Southwest Ohio that think that we should do this again in six months. It's terribly damaging to the economy. It's terribly damaging to consumer confidence. It's terribly, it, it injects all kinds of uncertainty that, that business, that business can't operate under, in terms of investing, in terms of creating jobs, in terms of growing their companies.

Wiggins: Now some voters and viewers are saying this isn't about balancing the budget at all but about 2012. What do you say to those critics?

Brown: Well, I-I think there's always politics in this, and I, y'know, we've, we've done this, the Congress, long before I got there, raised the debt limit many times, 18 times under Ronald Reagan. There was, there were no political opponents that tried to, tried to make this all about politics to raise the debt ceiling, as have, people have now. [9] And it clearly is about politics. It's about, in many cases, people that are, that are holding the debt limit hostage. [10] And that means holding the full faith and credit of the United States of America, uh, through default [1], ho-holding it hostage. [10] And, uh, it's just wrong. But we've got to do this, we've got to raise the debt ceiling. We don't want to go through it again in six months. We don't want to jeopardize Medicare and Social Security. [8] That's why the, the Reid plan, which is bipartisan I think will pass the Senate, and ultimately the House, and signed by the President.

Wiggins: And real quick, if a plan is not placed by Tuesday [1], what will happen to folks here in the Tri-State on Wednesday?

Brown: Well I was on the phone today with, uh, in the front office, I was taking phone calls, and uh, people, including three from Cincinnati, of the ten or so calls I took, [11] said, said, "We're very concerned about what would happen should Social Security [8], if we don't do this by Tuesday." I'm concerned about border security. [12] I'm concerned about paying our troops in Afghanistan. I'm very concerned about what would happen to the dollar. I'm concerned about interest rates, and businesses that trying, are trying to expand, borrowing for their payroll, or local governments, all the things that, or 401(k)s, all the things that would be affected [13] if we don't do this by Tuesday. See that's why I think we get it done. We have to.

Wiggins: Senator Sherrod Brown. Thanks for that.

Brown: My pleasure. Thanks Kim.

Notes:

• [1] — As explained earlier today (at NewsBusters; at BizzyBlog), failing to reach a deal by August 2 would not trigger a default. Moody's said so, and Obama has privately said so. The misrepresented prospect of default was mentioned by Wiggins or Brown a total of six times.
• [2] — What happened to Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, Kim?
• [3] — "Spectacle"? What about the "spectacle" of a president who never had a plan, and whose spokesman actually had to fend off establishment press reporters impatient with the presidential cajoling when he hadn't stepped up with anything?
• [4] — So nice of you to pretend to speak for "Americans," Kim. You're not speaking for me, and I daresay you have no credible support for your contentions.
• [5] — Say what you want about his performance, Mr. Brown, but the only "leader" in Washington during the past few weeks who was actually willing to craft something specific was House Speaker John Boehner. The nation has had no budget for 800-plus days, because previous Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Reid wouldn't pass one, and because the President of the United States had zero problem with the idea of running the world's largest single entity without one.
• [6] — So if Boehner and the House vote down the Sentate's ultimate concoction — and please note that Sherrod Brown more than likely has NO idea of what it contains — they're not patriots. They're traitors. Gosh, Dems play the patriotism card over any attempt to rein in a runaway government, while taking umbrage at any attempt to call them on their clearly questionable patriotism when they advocate compromising military readiness. With all due respect (i.e., none): Bleep you, Senator Brown.
• [7] — Whoa, Kim. Why isn't Sherrod Brown not "doing his patriotic duty" when he promises to reject the GOP plan? (crickets)
• [8] — I looked really hard for anything in the Boehner v. 2.0 as scored by the Congressional Budget Office Wednesday. There isn't anything that would "jeopardize" those programs.
• [9] — As pointed out earlier today (at NewsBusters; at BizzyBlog), the Senate vote to raise the debt ceiling in March 2006 was 52-48. Every Democrat, including Barack Obama and Harry Reid, voted against it, and Dick Cheney was on hand in case he was needed to break a potential tie.
• [10] — Orchestrated Democratic talking point alert.
• [11] — Senator Brown, the question wasn't, "What are your callers afraid of?" It was "What (do you think or know) will happen to folks here in the Tri-State on Wednesday?"
• [12] — Senator Brown, if you're so concerned about border security, why did you first vote FOR illegal-immigrant amnesty in 2007, and then when you realized it was going to go down in flames, change your vote to against (covered here and here)? If you think we're going to forget that, pal, you've got another thing coming.
• [13] — Typical Armageddon-like litany.

The entire interview was based on a false premise, contained false assertions about the House and Senate bills, and was conducted with a senator whose only mission was to further fan the flames of baseless fears. This is what passes for "news" at Fox 19.

Cross-posted at BizzyBlog.com.