Chris Matthews did his best to carry water for Blue Dog Jason Altmire who's trying to get Nancy Pelosi ousted from her leadership position by conflating "centrist" with corporate. I guess this is what Chris Matthews considers a "courageous" Democrat -- killing jobs and refusing to help the long term unemployed.
Sorry Chris but there's nothing "courageous" about sucking off the corporate teet while throwing the most vulnerable of your constituents under the bus.
Representative Jason Altmire: Job Killing Deficit Hawk:
With the unemployment rate near 10 percent and the vast amounts of idle capacity almost everywhere, we have more to fear from deflation than inflation. All measures show that inflation is very low and falling, as would be expected in an economy with so much slack.
In spite of a situation that demands more government stimulus to boost the economy, deficit hawks in Congress are now demanding cuts in spending to reduce the size of the deficit. This effort will slow growth and throw people out of work. Therefore these deficit hawks deserve serious ridicule for doing so much harm to workers and their families.
Today's object of special ridicule is Pennsylvania Congressman Jason Altmire. Mr. Altmire insisted on paring back a package of unemployment benefits and aid to deficit strapped state governments. Altmire told the Washington Post: "We've hit the wall. We've come to the tipping point where we're not going to do anymore... I think the case can be made that there are still more people who need jobs than there are jobs available. ... But what's the limit?"
That's pretty good. The unemployment rate is at 9.9 percent. Prior to the recession, unemployment had not been this high in 27 years, and Mr. Altmire thinks: "the case can be made that there are still more people who need jobs than there are jobs available."
This is not a marginal call. It's kind of like saying that AIG may have become somewhat over-extended. Unfortunately, Mr. Altmire has apparently left planet earth and decided that his top priority is reducing the size of a supplemental appropriations bill.
Altmire and his collaborators managed to squeeze $30 billion out of the bill. If we follow the methodology used in a paper written by Obama administration economists Christine Romer and Jared Bernstein, Altmire's cuts will reduce growth by roughly $50 billion. This will throw more than 300,000 people out of work.
That's a great thing for members of Congress to do -- throw people out of work. It really helps their children also. Mr. Altmire can explain to the kids whose parents are forced to give up their homes that they will have a lower interest burden on the debt (which is not even true). The kids will no doubt thank Mr. Altmire for his consideration.
In fairness, Representative Altmire probably doesn't know squat about the economy. He probably just takes his cue from wealthy friends who enjoy muttering about "fiscal responsibility" when the issue is items like unemployment benefits and aid to state and local governments. But, ignorance is not much of an excuse when you are crafting economic policy. Because of Mr. Altmire's blind pursuit of deficit reduction, hundreds of thousands of people will suffer needlessly and the nation as a whole will see growth curtailed. If ridicule were proportional to the damage done by their policies, given the treatment of Senator Stevens, we would have to start a new television network dedicated to this purpose to ensure that Representative Altmire received the proper level of ridicule.
Transcript below the fold.
MATTHEWS: Let me ask you an intellectual question, but it gets really political. Mr. Altmire first, then Mr. Cummings. Is it better for a party, either party, to have a leader who`s from a safe district, like -- well, Tip O`Neill, in the old days, Cambridge, Massachusetts -- I think he had a communist run against him once. That was the only opponent he ever faced up there in his later years -- or a Chuck Schumer or somebody from a safe district like Pelosi`s, or is it better to have somebody who has to fight like hell to get reelected every six years, like Harry Reid in the Senate?
Do you want somebody from a tough district or someone from a safe district? Because if you`re from a safe district, you know the problem, which is they are too far over. If it`s from a tricky district, they got to keep playing games with Hispanic votes and every trick in the world to save their seat. That`s just my way of putting it, but you have to play a lot of games to hold onto some of these seats. Your thoughts, Mr. Altmire.
ALTMIRE: It`s...
MATTHEWS: Should it be better to be a swing seat or a safe seat?
ALTMIRE: It depends on what you...
MATTHEWS: Because you`re knocking Nancy Pelosi because she`s on the left representing well, I think you`d agree, San Francisco. But you`d say that`s not representing western Pennsylvania. San Francisco is uniquely liberal, like Cambridge, Massachusetts, or parts of New York City. But if you have a leader from them, they will represent their areas, and then you will have a poster child, if you will, or woman or man, for what the voters love to go against from the middle part of the country. Your thoughts.
ALTMIRE: Chris, you`ve outlined exactly the decision the Democratic Party needs to make. Do they want to continue to be the loyal opposition, fighting for a left-of-center ideology that is relevant only in a few areas of the country, or do they want to continue to try to be a national party, a party that can win in the deep South and in the industrial Midwest, places where the party got crushed? I would suggest you have to have a leader who understands the issues that are relative across the entire country, not just along the coasts.
MATTHEWS: OK, who are you for in -- who are you for in the leadership race for -- let`s get this down right now, Mr. Altmire, Steny Hoyer, perhaps, who`s going to run again -- looks like he`s running against Jim Clyburn for whip, the number two position after Pelosi? Who are you for?
ALTMIRE: I support Steny Hoyer.
MATTHEWS: Mr. Cummings, another tough question for you. Do you (INAUDIBLE) do you support Mr. Clyburn or (INAUDIBLE)
CUMMINGS: I`m for both of them.
MATTHEWS: ... or do you...
CUMMINGS: I am for both of them. I think that we`re going to end up with a deal where they`re both in leadership. Both of them bring phenomenal skills to the plate, and we need both of them. And I think we`ll find that happening.
MATTHEWS: Well, who should be whip, number two?
CUMMINGS: I`m not -- I`m not going to go into that. But I can tell you...
MATTHEWS: Oh, I love it!
(LAUGHTER)
MATTHEWS: I love it!
(CROSSTALK)
MATTHEWS: In Philly, they call this "middling" a guy, forcing you to choose between geography and the Black Caucus. I can really hit you with this one.
CUMMINGS: When all the dust settles, both of them will be at the table. And I applaud that. I think we need both of them.
MATTHEWS: Well, Mr. Cummings, I appreciate fully your situation being from Maryland and being a member of the caucus. Thank you, sir. I think this fight should be interesting, if there is one. Thank you, gentlemen. I think, Mr. Altmire, you are a courageous fellow for saying what you do. And I do think that Pelosi was a problem in Pennsylvania. I think she`s a problem in that middle part of the country. Part of it`s looks, style, manner, ideology. Parts of it`s geography. Part of it`s -- who knows, could be gender, I don`t know. But I think there`s something that the Republicans love to run against in that part of the country. And I know you have to face the fire for it. Thank you, sir, for joining us.
ALTMIRE: Thank you.
CUMMINGS: Thank you, Chris.
