CNN’s Rick Sanchez on Thursday actually asked an Arizona state Congressman, "What is your beef with illegal immigration?"

Imagine that, a so-called journalist asking an elected official what his beef is with people breaking the law.

Honestly, I had to watch this segment four times to convince myself that Sanchez said something this absurd.

On the other hand, those familiar with Sanchez’s work will view his interview with Arizona state Rep. Rick Murphy (R) par for the course (video follows with transcript and commentary):

RICK SANCHEZ, HOST: Mr. Murphy, thanks so much for joining us.

RICK MURPHY (R), ARIZONA STATE REPRESENTATIVE: My pleasure, Rick.

SANCHEZ: It seems this thing has gotten so heated, by the way. And I just want to start right from jump street, as they say. What is your beef with illegal immigration?

You thought I was kidding, right? Need to read that again a few times to absorb the stupidity?

I understand. I did as well.

Take a couple of cleansing breaths, and let’s continue: 

MURPHY: Well, Rick, the problem with illegal immigration is that it it’s — it is multifold. First of all, you have got some folks that are here that collect benefits and that put a burden on the taxpayers, and there is not enough balance to the benefit they’re providing…

(CROSSTALK)

SANCHEZ: OK. Just a quick — just a quick stoppage there. Just a quick stop. You know those people are paying taxes, right?

Now, when most of us think about paying taxes, we consider the federal and state income kind, correct? Not Sanchez: 

MURPHY: Some of them do pay some taxes, sure.

(CROSSTALK)

SANCHEZ: No, they all pay taxes.

(CROSSTALK)

SANCHEZ: No, no, Mr. Murphy, they all pay taxes, sir. Stop and think for a moment. Are you an elected official?

(CROSSTALK)

MURPHY: Yes, I am, Rick.

SANCHEZ: So you think that people who come to this country all steal?

What? What does that have to do with paying taxes? Shhh. Wait. Sanchez is going to explain: 

MURPHY: I’m sorry. I didn’t quite catch that.

SANCHEZ: Do they all steal?

MURPHY: Well, no, they don’t all steal. But let me give you an example, OK?

(CROSSTALK)

SANCHEZ: Just answer the question. Do they all steal? Do they all live in caves?

MURPHY: I don’t think very many of them live in caves, no.

SANCHEZ: OK. So, if they go to grocery store to buy goods, they pay taxes. It’s called the sales tax, right?

Well, first of all, five states don’t charge sales tax: Alaska, Delaware, Montana, New Hampshire, and Oregon.

More importantly, 29 states and the District of Columbia completely exempt food purchased for home consumption from sales tax. Most other states offer lower tax rates or some kind of tax credits to offset their sales tax on groceries.

ONLY Alabama, Arkansas, Mississippi, and South Carolina tax such purchases at their regular sales tax level.

As such, Sanchez was once again showing his audience how little he knows:  

MURPHY: Well, most cities here don’t tax groceries. But, besides that…

(CROSSTALK)

SANCHEZ: OK. Let’s suppose.

(CROSSTALK)

SANCHEZ: Since you are going to be real smart…

You mean as opposed to being REAL DUMB? 

(CROSSTALK)

MURPHY: My wife and I are foster parents, OK?

(CROSSTALK)

SANCHEZ: No, let’s continue the conversation. I don’t want your talking points.

MURPHY: All right.

SANCHEZ: When a person comes to the United States, if they live here and they don’t steal and live under the cave, are they paying property taxes and sales taxes? 

MURPHY: If they buy a home, they’re paying property taxes, sure.

SANCHEZ: What if they rent a home and the person who rents it, who collects their rent charges them that property tax?

What? A landlord charging his tenant for his property tax? How often does THAT happen? 

MURPHY: Well, with our real estate market, there is not a real clear issue there.

(CROSSTALK)

SANCHEZ: Can you live in property in the United States, sir, without paying a property tax?

Obviously, the answer is "Yes" if you’re living with someone and NOT paying rent OR renting and you don’t have a bizarre landlord requiring you to pay his/her property taxes. Unfortunately, Sanchez’s bullying tactics clearly threw Murphy off: 

MURPHY: Not very easily. 

SANCHEZ: Thank you.

Can you buy something at a store without paying a sales tax?

MURPHY: Not in most states.

SANCHEZ: So, why do you go around telling Americans that these people don’t pay taxes, or some of them, as you say, when that…

MURPHY: I didn’t say they don’t pay taxes.

SANCHEZ: You just said that a minute ago. You said some of them do.

(CROSSTALK)

MURPHY: I said the costs they incur — I said the costs they incur do not balance out the costs, the taxes that they pay.

SANCHEZ: So, they pay — so, OK, so let’s just leave it at that. So, even illegal immigrants pay taxes right?

MURPHY: They do pay some.

SANCHEZ: Thank you.

Let’s move on to another point. Do you think that the benefits that they give — do you know any benefits that they give Americans?

MURPHY: That the illegal immigrants give Americans?

SANCHEZ: Yes. Yes. Like what?

MURPHY: Well, some companies and some people benefit from the cheap labor. But, on the other hand, you have fewer available jobs for Americans. And it drives down wages for Americans that do the same jobs. So, I’m not real sure that it’s clear that there’s a benefit there.

(CROSSTALK)

SANCHEZ: No, you are right. You are right. And it’s very well stated.

But let me ask you this. How about Social Security? Do you know that illegal immigrants subsidize you and your Social Security to the tune of $7 billion, so that some day you can retire on money they put into the system that they can never collect? Study, "New York Times."

MURPHY: Well, Rick…

SANCHEZ: You should know that if you’re going to argue this stuff.

(CROSSTALK)

MURPHY: I would say that $7 billion is a drop in the bucket. For Social Security, that’s a drop in the bucket.

(CROSSTALK)

SANCHEZ: Seven billion dollars is a drop in the bucket?

Indeed it is. According to a new report by the Federation for Immigration Reform, illegal immigration is currently costing taxpayers $113 billion. As it is estimated that illegal immigrants are now paying about $13 billion in taxes, this means we’re losing about $100 billion a year.

Of course, if I brought this up in Sanchez’s presence, he’d disdainfully accuse me of being smart: 

(CROSSTALK)

MURPHY: Compared to the total amount of the obligation? Compared to the total amount of the obligation, yes, it is.

SANCHEZ: Well, so did you know that?

MURPHY: Yes, I know that they do pay in. But they also do that mostly on the backs of people whose identities they have stolen. And it creates a huge burden and cost and inconvenience and disruption to those people’s lives.

(CROSSTALK)

SANCHEZ: Actually, once again, you are wrong. Did you know that most illegal aliens are given something by the federal government called a tax I.D. that allows the government off to collect Social Security taxes from them? Did you know that?

MURPHY: Rick, I realize that some of them have that. But I also realize that many of them have stolen identification. It happens in this state all the time. As a matter of fact, we probably lead the nation in it.

SANCHEZ: But here’s the point. And, look, I don’t mean to get into an argument with you.

You don’t mean to get into an argument with him? You’ve been arguing since the opening bell: 

SANCHEZ: But it’s almost like when we have these conversations, we only hear one side. And the bottom line is this, isn’t it? Tell me if I’m wrong.

Illegal immigrants in the United States have been all but recruited by businesses in the United States. They have said, here, come here. I want you to come to the United States. I have got a job for you.

And then when they get here, our U.S. government with our broken immigration system gives them the wherewithal or the tax I.D.s and all the other papers so that they can work legally, even though they’re not here legally. And now we hear folks like you saying, it’s all the illegal’s fault.

I guess I’m just trying to put this in perspective. Is it really?

MURPHY: Well, you kind of put words in my mouth. I don’t think I ever said it is all the illegal’s fault.

Now, nobody put a gun to their head and made them come here. But I would grant you that administrations from both sides of the aisle have done pretty much what you said and turned a blind eye.

SANCHEZ: Yes, you’re right.

MURPHY: And I don’t appreciate it from either side.

The fact of the matter is, Arizona is paying a disproportionate price for this problem because we’re right on the border. And California and Texas have their borders sealed much better than Arizona does. They have been intentionally funneled here, because they assumed that it would be too inhospitable and people would stop crossing, but that didn’t happen.

We need to have our border secured and we need to have that done first before we do anything, because people frankly don’t trust the federal government to do what they say they’re going to do. They need to prove themselves.

(CROSSTALK)

SANCHEZ: You are 100 percent right. And I think most Americans watching this newscast would say, you are absolutely right. The federal government has to come up with some kind of system to control the borders and a system for comprehensive immigration reform.

Unfortunately, most of the time, the anger that comes from one side or the other doesn’t allow that to happen. And maybe that’s why guys like you and I need to have these conversations more often.

My thanks to you, Mr. Murphy, for taking time to join us. I enjoyed the respectable discourse.

MURPHY: My pleasure, Rick. Thanks for having me.

Amazing. If you needed any more proof that members of our media actually support illegal immigration, you got it in this segment.

As the proprietor of The Right Scoop noted, "It’s hard for me to believe that a CNN host would ask someone ‘what’s your beef with illegal immigration.’"

It’s not hard when the host is Rick Sanchez. 

Thanks to newsbusters.com for this update and story. Visit newsbusters.com for more headlines and articles.

This story is the latest from the Freerepublic.com, check the Free Republic website for more.

New York Times reporters David Herszenhorn and Jackie Calmes reported on Obama’s politically calculated visit to the Tastee Sub Shop in Edison, N.J. in Thursday’s "Obama Trumpets Party’s Small-Business Bona Fides."

The paper’s political team let Obama fully sell himself as a down-home populist by completely skipping (in the print edition) the fact that Obama would be departing from a town in New Jersey to two glitzy fundraisers in the Times’s home town Manhattan. The Washington Post, on the other hand, did notice that Obama later traveled by helicopter to a fundraiser at the Four Seasons in Manhattan, then went on to Vogue editor Anna Wintour’s townhouse for another.

Calmes filed a report on the fundraisers Wednesday night for the paper’s "Caucus" blog: "After an afternoon of populism, lunching with small-business owners in New Jersey and gabbing with the opinionated ladies of ABC-TV’s "The View," President Obama ended his day on Wednesday at separate $30,400-a-person fundraisers here in Manhattan."

But those politics-as-usual details didn’t make it into the print story, leaving room for these vital nuggets: Obama "ordered a ’super sub with everything,’ to highlight his party’s small-business agenda….Mr. Obama ordered a six-inch ’super sub’ — he declared that at nearly 49 he can no longer eat the 12-inch variety — and sat down at a table with the owner, Dave Thornton, and the owners of three businesses in nearby towns."

Peter Applebome’s Thursday "Our Town" column in the Times made a glancing reference to the fundraisers, calling the president’s sub shop stop "the populist portion of the president’s visit to the region before decidedly less-modest stops in New York."

In contrast, the Washington Post managed to notice the disparity in Thursday’s print edition, "On midterm campaign trail, Obama mixes populist appeal with wooing of big donors."

President Obama’s message to voters this election year is simple and full of populist zeal: Democrats are on the side of the little guy, not the Wall Street brokers, celebrities and chief executives….In town after town, the president is holding events that highlight his party’s work on behalf of the average Joe — but that are carefully scheduled to leave plenty of time for unpublicized fundraisers with people who are anything but.

They certainly weren’t publicized in the New York Times.

Thanks to newsbusters.com for this update and story. Visit newsbusters.com for more headlines and articles.

Tax was taking $25 million a year from dock workers and other support industries

Alaska Governor Sean Parnell has signed a bill which would lower taxes dramatically on tourists visiting the State. His Cruise Ship legislation reduced the passenger tax from $46 per person to $19.50.

“Through this legislative session it became very clear as I talked to small business owners around the state that what they needed was for state government to step out of the way and create more opportunity.”

Parnell continued:

“This really gives Alaskans, thousands of Alaskans, hope that we have turned the corner now and we will no longer have the exodus of ships and capacity out of our state and that we will start to build the business back and get those Alaska jobs back for Alaskans.”

According to AK3 one industry source estimated that the tax was “taking about $25 million a year away from docks and other work supporting the industry and addressing tourism impacts.”

The tax was snuck into a proposition approved by voters, that was pushed by environmentalists and other liberal special interest groups in 2006. The result of the tax was almost immediately felt by Alaska workers along the southeast Coast.

Juneau lost a ship that was permenently berthed at the city’s harbour. From JuneauEmpire.com, July 26:

Royal Caribbean this year has relocated the 2,100-berth Serenade of the Seas from Alaskan waters after a dispute with the state over the commercial passenger vessel tax, commonly known as the “head tax,” established by voters in 2006.

Overall, Juneau is expecting 14 percent fewer cruise ship visitors this year.

The Legislature has reduced the head tax, beginning next year, and also rolled back associated environmental regulations in a effort to win ship visits in future years.

MSNBC’s Chris Matthews on Wednesday demonstrated how the dissemination of Democrat talking points and marching orders via the JournoList can be far more effectively employed on television.

In a "Hardball" segment about a new Democratic National Committee ad that looks to connect the GOP with the "more extreme elements" of the Tea Party, Matthews chatted with Republican strategist Todd Harris and the George Soros-funded Center for American Progress’s Jennifer Palmieri about whether the strategy will work.

What was most interesting was how Matthews, almost like a JournoLister, seemed to be drawing from a discussion he had with his panelists on last weekend’s syndicated program bearing his name.

Before we get there, here’s the relevant discussion with Harris and Palmieri (videos follow with transcripts and commentary): 

CHRIS MATTHEWS, HOST: Do you think it would be smarter to say that the Tea Party people are somewhat deranged? I mean, these are different ideologically.

TODD HARRIS, REPUBLICAN STRATEGIST: Yes, just say it.

(CROSSTALK)

MATTHEWS: People disagree about it. But I don`t think going after the opposing Wall Street reform is credible.

Here`s a question. You got people, like Sharron Angle, who say they want to have Second Amendment remedies, if you don`t like Congress, like pull a gun out and shoot the Congress. You got people, like Bachmann, who want McCarthy — Joe McCarthy tactics.

JENNIFER PALMIERI, CENTER FOR AMERICAN PROGRESS: Right.

MATTHEWS: You got a lot of crazy screw balls out. They`re not screw balls necessarily, it`s people.

PALMIERI: No. Right.

MATTHEWS: But their ideas are. Why don`t you — why didn`t your party go after the screw balls and say the Republicans are in bed with these nuts?

PALMIERI: Well, I think that was the point –

MATTHEWS: But this doesn`t do that.

PALMIERI: Apparently you think they could have executed that better.

(CROSSTALK)

PALMIERI: But they — I don`t think you get more unpopular with privatizing Social Security and Medicare. But they have –

MATTHEWS: You can`t defend your screw ball wing, can you?

HARRIS: Look, both parties have ample supplies of screw balls, both sides.

PALMIERI: Not so much on our side these days.

HARRIS: Oh, please. Please. The fact is the only people this cycle talking about repealing the 17th Amendment –

(CROSSTALK)

HARRIS: — is the Democratic National Committee.

MATTHEWS: They want to give right to life to senators.

PALMIERI: Mike Pence is the chairman of the Republican Caucus and he`s part of the Tea Party Caucus. This is where the Republican leadership, Michele Bachmann, is likely to be a committee chair.

MATTHEWS: All the birthers joined — all the birthers are joining. (INAUDIBLE)

(CROSSTALK)

MATTHEWS: How can you — that you`re laughing. You`re laughing at the nuts (ph). You got these crazy ladies and men in the attic, and you say, don`t go up in the attic. That`s your solution.

HARRIS: Look, Marco Rubio who probably — who was on the cover of the –

MATTHEWS: Who`s his consultant?

(LAUGHTER)

HARRIS: Right. Exactly. Marco Rubio was on the cover of "The New York Times" magazine with the headline "The First Senator from the Tea Party Movement." I`ve never heard Marco talked about repealing the 17th Amendment. He doesn`t talk about it. Marco doesn`t talk about ending Medicare. He says we need entitlement reform.

PALMIERI: But Sharron Angle does, and Rand Paul does, and you have like House Republican leadership –

MATTHEWS: You want Tea Party support four candidate?

HARRIS: Of course.

MATTHEWS: Well, that`s the point. You got to defend them.

PALMIERI: Yes, that`s the problem.

HARRIS: Look, the average person who shows — "The New York Times" did a huge survey of the Tea Party Movement.

MATTHEWS: Can you get nine votes without defending nuts?

HARRIS: Hold on. Hold on.

MATTHEWS: I mean, I`m asking a philosophical question.

HARRIS: The overwhelming majority — I`m not going to defend, you know, if someone is racist and shows up at a Tea Party rally, I`m not going to defend that. But the overwhelming majority of people who are involved in the Tea Party Movement are upset about spending, they`re upset about the health care takeover, and they`re frustrated because they feel like their government is not listening to them. That`s what is driving people out to these rallies and if the Democrats want to piss a little of those people –

(CROSSTALK)

MATTHEWS: — your side here. Does it offend you as a Republican, a sane Republican, that your candidate to defeat Harry Reid, the head of the Democratic Party in the Senate, believes in people using gunplay if they don`t like Congress?

HARRIS: Well, look, I didn`t see what her quote is.

MATTHEWS: She said, use Second Amendment remedies if you don`t like what Congress is doing.

(CROSSTALK)

MATTHEWS: She`s your candidate to knock off Harry Reid.

Now, here’s what was discussed on last weekend’s "The Chris Matthews Show" concerning how the Democrats can possibly thwart losing one or both chambers of Congress this November:

MATTHEWS: And here’s the professional challenge for the White House. They got a challenge here. They know what we just said. What are they going to do about it?

Mr. HOWARD FINEMAN (Newsweek Senior Washington Correspondent): There’s not, frankly, that much to brag about, so what they’re going to have to do, and what they will do is focus on Republicans both generally and generically and individually. They’re going to say that individual Republicans are literally crazy, whether it’s Sharron Angle…

MATTHEWS: They got a few cases.

Mr. FINEMAN: They have some cases that they can at least argue that. And more-and they’re going to focus on individual ones. There’s the pointillistic approach. But there’s also the general one, which is going to say, `You can’t take us back to the future with tax cuts and no regulation.’

MATTHEWS: OK.

Mr. FINEMAN: And that’s going to be the argument. Whether it’ll sell or not-I think what they’re really trying to do, Chris, is to depress the turnout of the independents that Amy’s talking about. In other words, poison the well with those people who want-independents who want to vote…

MATTHEWS: So smart. How do they do that? How do they do that?

Mr. FINEMAN: Just give them a lot of bad information about the Republicans.

MATTHEWS: In other words, if people were stock, and they go-John, they’re stock.

Mr. JOHN HEILEMANN (New York). Yeah.

MATTHEWS: They go, `I don’t like the way things are so I don’t feel like voting Democrat. I don’t like the Republicans because they weren’t so good last time, but I see them coming at me, I don’t like that. I’m just not going to-I’m going to go get a beer tonight. I’m not going to vote.’

Mr. HEILEMANN: Go have a beer. Go have a beer.

MATTHEWS: Is that making sense as a strategy?

Mr. HEILEMANN: It’s about-it’s about one of the few strategies available to them. And, you know, there’s a wise-there’s a wise political philosophy-there’s a-there’s a-there’s a wise political philosopher somewhere who said something like, you know, that trying to get-you’re getting-when you go to the voting booth, you’re saying yes to something. You’re pulling the lever in favor of saying yes. There aren’t many people in the country right now that want to say yes to the Democratic Party.

MATTHEWS: So…

Mr. HEILEMANN: So if that’s the case, make them want to say no to Dem-to Republicans as much as they want to say no to Democrats.

MATTHEWS: Which means don’t vote.

Mr. HEILEMANN: And if they don’t want to say-if they want to say no to both of them, they say to hell with this, they stay home, and maybe you’ll limit losses that way.

MATTHEWS: That’s called voter suppression.

So, last Friday when TCMS was taped, Matthews asked his guests – which included Newsweek’s Fineman, New York magazine’s Heilemann, and AJC’s Tucker – what the Democrat strategy should be to avoid catastrophe this November.

The conclusion was THEIR Party – let’s not kid ourselves! – has no other choice but to just play defense and attack Republicans whenever possible in order to suppress votes.

As if on cue, the DNC released the following ad late Tuesday: 

Now, five days after his chat with Fineman et al, Matthews basically discussed the same exact strategy on MSNBC while chatting with a member of the ultra-left-wing, George Soros-funded activist group the Center for American Progress.

Kind of JournoListic, wouldn’t you say? 

Thanks to newsbusters.com for this update and story. Visit newsbusters.com for more headlines and articles.

So as you know, Wikileaks has posted a crapload of secret military reports about the Afghan war, including covert operations against Taliban figures. They claim their goal is to reveal “unethical behavior,” by the government and corporations.

On their website they write “All governments can benefit from increased scrutiny by the world community, as well as their own people.”

This is pure bullpoop, to use the scientific term.

p>The fact is, their goal is to only “expose” people they don’t like – meaning the United States military – and get worldwide props for it.

The head of Wikileaks, Julian Assange would argue that their role is to shine a “light on the everyday brutality …of war.” But of course, he’s sympathetic only to those we are fighting against. He says he wants to help “people who are vulnerable. And I enjoy crushing bastards.”

Can you guess who the bastards are?

Look, we don’t need him to tell us that war sucks. No one wants to see our troops or innocent civilians dead. But we fight to eradicate an evil- and in this case it’s an evil that this douchebag is helping. Remember that the U.S. doesn’t send suicide bombers into crowded restaurants, or behead journalists, or fly planes into buildings. We are waging a war against scum – and yet Julie chooses to thwart us instead.

It makes me wonder that if Julie had secret documents that harmed our enemies – would he share those? Since they don’t fit into his hit list of evil “governments and corporations,” hell no. So while his majestic, but wholly one-side strategy of transparency continues – it’s America that’s being attacked.

Secondly, whatever Julie thinks is “unethical behavior” is only unethical if you’re an idiot. For example, saying it’s a war crime to have an enemy hit list may be true if it’s at a children’s birthday party. But in war, it’s the whole point. The entire war is a hit list, you doll-haired dipwad.

But see, Julie isn’t doing this to save lives – he’s doing it for himself. He enjoys “creating systems on a grand scale, so, in the end, he gets back at daddy and reaps the accolades that come with it.

May a terrorist mistake him for a sexy goat.

And if you disagree with me, you’re a racist homophobe who eats oil-soaked pelicans.

Crossposted at Big Hollywood. 

Thanks to newsbusters.com for this update and story. Visit newsbusters.com for more headlines and articles.

Barely a month after Dave Weigel resigned from the Washington Post, he has been hired by…the Washington Post.

Well, to be more specific, by Post subsidiary Slate Magazine. Michael Calderone tweeted the news this evening, and Weigel confirmed shortly thereafter.

Weigel’s resignation came after it was revealed he had made derogatory and highly offensive comments towards prominent conservatives on the liberal media listserv JournoList. Those included suggesting that Matt Drudge should set himself on fire, wishing death on Rush Limbaugh (incidentally, he wasn’t the only JournoLister to do so), and dubbing Newt Gingrich an "amoral blowhard."

It wasn’t the first time Weigel got in trouble for offensive comments. It wasn’t the first time he took heat over comments made about Matt Drudge. He also called gay marriage opponents bigots, sparking outrage from some on the right.

Since Weigel had been hired to cover the political right, most conservatives believed he would be a counterweight to Ezra Klein, who covers the liberal beat on his own WaPo blog. Weigel’s comments confirmed (though anyone who had read his work already suspected) that he would not bring that hoped-for balance.

Weigel’s comments also set off a media frenzy over the extensive behind-the-scenes media collaboration on JournoList. Andrew Breitbart offered $100,000 for the JournoList archives. The Daily Caller eventually got a hold of those archives, and has published a number of exposes on some of the more controversial discussions that took place on the list.

The news that Weigel has been hired by a Post-owned publication suggests that his resignation was just a move to shield him – and possibly the Post – while the controversy blew over. Though the biosphere is still buzzing about the JournoList scandal, pundits have been largely silent on Weigel’s role in that scandal since shortly after his resignation.

Like that of its parent publication, Slate’s editorial stance is distinctly liberal.

Thanks to newsbusters.com for this update and story. Visit newsbusters.com for more headlines and articles.

This story is the latest from the Freerepublic.com, check the Free Republic website for more.

Tax was taking $25 million a year from dock workers and other support industries

Alaska Governor Sean Parnell has signed a bill which would lower taxes dramatically on tourists visiting the State. His Cruise Ship legislation reduced the passenger tax from $46 per person to $19.50.

“Through this legislative session it became very clear as I talked to small business owners around the state that what they needed was for state government to step out of the way and create more opportunity.”

Parnell continued:

“This really gives Alaskans, thousands of Alaskans, hope that we have turned the corner now and we will no longer have the exodus of ships and capacity out of our state and that we will start to build the business back and get those Alaska jobs back for Alaskans.”

According to AK3 one industry source estimated that the tax was “taking about $25 million a year away from docks and other work supporting the industry and addressing tourism impacts.”

The tax was snuck into a proposition approved by voters, that was pushed by environmentalists and other liberal special interest groups in 2006. The result of the tax was almost immediately felt by Alaska workers along the southeast Coast.

Juneau lost a ship that was permenently berthed at the city’s harbour. From JuneauEmpire.com, July 26:

Royal Caribbean this year has relocated the 2,100-berth Serenade of the Seas from Alaskan waters after a dispute with the state over the commercial passenger vessel tax, commonly known as the “head tax,” established by voters in 2006.

Overall, Juneau is expecting 14 percent fewer cruise ship visitors this year.

The Legislature has reduced the head tax, beginning next year, and also rolled back associated environmental regulations in a effort to win ship visits in future years.

Chris Matthews on Monday got a much-needed lesson from Rep. Paul Ryan (R-Wisc.) on how tax hikes impact the budget as well as the economy.

"Congressman Ryan, is there any tax role for reducing our $1.4 trillion to $1.7 trillion debt this year — deficit this year?" Matthews asked during the 5PM installment of MSNBC’s "Hardball." "Is there any role in tax increasing to help do that job?"

When Ryan gave an answer Matthews didn’t like, the host arrogantly responded, "So, you won`t cut — you won`t raise taxes and you won`t cut spending…All this bitching about the deficit doesn`t mean squat, because you won`t do either, raise taxes or reduce spending."

With the ball nicely teed up, Ryan unleashed a drive down the middle of the fairway that would make Tiger Woods proud (video follows with transcript and commentary, h/t Twitter’s @LFRGary):  

CHRIS MATTHEWS, HOST: Congressman Ryan, is there any tax role for reducing our $1.4 trillion to $1.7 trillion debt this year — deficit this year? Is there any role in tax increasing to help do that job?

REP. PAUL RYAN (R), WISCONSIN: I don`t think it`s a good idea, especially when we`re trying to come out of a jobless recovery in a slow- growth economy.

Look, we have got unemployment at almost 10 percent. The last thing we should be doing is raising taxes on the economy. Look, the worst thing for deficit reduction is a slow economy. You hit small businesses with these kinds of tax rate increases and you will slow down the economy further.

Look, 75 percent of those who will get hit with these higher tax rates are successful small businesses. Tens of millions of our jobs come from these small businesses. Now, if you try to blame these tax cuts and the wars for all of our fiscal problems, the numbers just don`t add up.

At best, 14 percent of the evaporation of the surplus came from these tax cuts. It all came from other circumstances: spending, economic growth declining, 9/11, all these other things.

MATTHEWS: Yes.

RYAN: So, I think what Joe earlier said is right, which is these taxes will go up. And I think that`s a mistake. And I think it`s going to hurt the economy.

MATTHEWS: Well, let me ask you one question as a follow-up.

It seems to me every Republican that goes on "Meet the Press" lately is asked, where will you cut? They say nothing. They will not mention any cuts.

(CROSSTALK)

RYAN: Chris…

MATTHEWS: No, I have had Congressman Pence on, who won`t say any cuts.

(CROSSTALK)

MATTHEWS: So, you won`t cut — you won`t raise taxes and you won`t cut spending.

RYAN: Chris…

MATTHEWS: So, in other words, all this bitching about the deficit doesn`t mean squat, because you won`t do either, raise taxes or reduce spending.

RYAN: Let me answer it, then.

MATTHEWS: Neither one.

RYAN: This year, Congress isn`t even doing a budget, but, last year, when we did a budget, I brought a budget to the floor that specifically cut $4.8 trillion of spending out of the budget and paid for all of these tax cuts and debt reduction. Two months ago, we put out $1.3 trillion in very specifically listed and enumerated spending cuts. So, I can go on with you on cuts. I can show you all the kinds of cuts.

Good answer, right? Here was Matthews’ astonishingly addle-minded response: 

MATTHEWS: But that`s one-three hundredth (ph) of the deficit. That`s 0.3 of 1 percent you`ve talked about.

One-three hundredth of the deficit? $1.3 TRILLION?

The lesson continued: 

RYAN: Four-point-eight trillion dollars is not .3 of 1 percent of the deficit.

MATTHEWS: OK, 4.8 trillion. OK.

RYAN: And 1.3 trillion is not peanuts.

MATTHEWS: OK.

RYAN: It`s nothing to sneeze at.

MATTHEWS: OK. Let me go.

(CROSSTALK)

RYAN: Two things –

From here it became obvious what Matthews was up to. He’s not interested in balancing the budget. He’s certainly not interested in cutting spending.

What he’s interested in is getting Republicans to say what programs they want cut so that Democrats can use that against them in the upcoming elections.

Ryan saw through the charade: 

MATTHEWS: I just don`t see — I just don`t see any program cuts. You`re talking in general terms, but let me tell you this: the major Republicans that come on television will not cut Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid. They won`t cut the military. They can`t cut debt servicing. They won`t — they won`t get rid of a major cost of government.

They`ll talk about, you know, let`s freeze discretionary spending or discretionary and domestic in some sort of generalized way. But they won`t get rid of government. They seem to like government. In fact, they love to talk against it.

RYAN: Go to Americanroadmap.org and you will see a very comprehensive piece of legislation that the CBO has scored that`s actually paying off the debt –

Indeed, this Roadmap was released last week, but I digress: 

MATTHEWS: OK.

RYAN: — with specific reforms to the entitlements you mentioned.

MATTHEWS: Name a major piece of the 1.4 trillion to 1.7 trillion. No, just take –

RYAN: OK.

MATTHEWS: — just take a chunk out that 1.4 trillion by getting rid of a big program or good expenditure that people now watching can understand.

Straightforward question. Now watch Ryan give a straightforward answer that Matthews will summarily brush aside like a fly in front of the camera: 

RYAN: I would rescind the unspent stimulus funds. I would rescind all the TARP funds that aren`t spent. I would do a federal hiring freeze and pay freeze for the rest of the year. And I would go back and cut discretionary spending back to `08 levels and freeze that spending going forward.

Now, you and I can get into a debate about Keynesian economics, whether it worked or didn`t. I don`t think it did. We increased domestic discretionary last year by 84 percent. I don`t think we should continue to build that kind of a base. Let`s go back and cut discretionary spending back to `08 levels.

MATTHEWS: OK.

RYAN: Rescind stimulus, rescind TARP and do a federal hiring and pay freeze. Those are just a few ideas that add up to $1.3 trillion right there.

Now, let’s understand that at the beginning of this segment, Matthews asked Ryan how he plans on reducing our $1.4 to $1.7 trillion deficit. The Congressman just gave cuts to eliminate $1.3 trillion, and Matthews dismissed it totally: 

MATTHEWS: OK. Congressman Crowley, I still don`t see any cuts in entitlements there. But go ahead.

Cuts in entitlements? Matthews didn’t ask Ryan to cut entitlements. Matthews asked him what he would cut to balance the budget and Ryan complied.

As such, Matthews was being completely dishonest. This wasn’t about balancing the budget.

Matthews wants to get Republicans to say they’ll cut Social Security and/or Medicare: 

(CROSSTALK)

PAUL: You asked me discretionary.

MATTHEWS: Congressman Crowley, let me ask you. What are the Democrats going to do about the deficit? Anything?

REP. JOSEPH CROWLEY (D-NY), WAYS & MEANS CMTE.: Well, I did notice there, though, Chris, was he didn`t mention at all his plan to privatize Social Security. Again, going back to the same old Bush agenda, the failed Bush agenda, the American people rejected in the election of Barack Obama and the Democratic majority in the House and the Senate.

(INAUDIBLE) as it may, I think Democrats have really taken steps to be more responsible. We`re working under a PAYGO system, pay as you go. And albeit there are some items that are cut off from that portion of it, we are attempting to get back a system that was proven to get our budgets in order to really — under the Clinton administration –

MATTHEWS: Yes.

CROWLEY: — really just — really bring back more fiscally responsible Congress, more responsible government. It has worked in the past. Chris, I think it will work in the future. The president has said he wants to cut this deficit in half and I want to help him do that.

MATTHEWS: OK. Let`s get back to the bottom line. Are you comfortable going to the voters, Congressman Crowley, with a proposal to eliminate the $250,000 and above tax cut?

CROWLEY: I could tell you, Chris, in my district, there are very few people who make more than that money (INAUDIBLE) just a gross income of $250,000 or more. And I think, to live in the greatest country, as I said before, the world has ever known, it`s a small price to pay.

MATTHEWS: Let me ask you, Congressman Ryan — you have no problems defending tax cuts for people who make over a quarter a million a year?

RYAN: Small businesses — go to Wisconsin.

(CROSSTALK)

Now watch Matthews either demonstrate staggering ignorance or shameful dishonesty: 

MATTHEWS: No, no, individuals. It`s an individual tax cut.

And small businesses are owned by WHOM, Mr. Matthews? The lesson continued: 

RYAN: No, no. You have to understand, Chris, 75 percent of those people who pay that tax rate are small businesses who file as individuals, not corporations. That`s the problem with this economic argument, Chris, is when you think you`re just taxing rich people like Bill Gates, what you`re end up doing is you`re hitting successful small businesses. When we tax our employers more than our foreign competitors tax theirs, they get our jobs and we lose in global competition.

So, we ought to be keeping our eye in economic growth and job creation, what`s necessary to do, and that means low tax rates on businesses and small businesses in certainty. We have a whole new tax on certainty that`s hurting economic growth. We need to give taxpayers certainty that they`re not going to have a huge wave of tax increases in 2011 and then another in 2013.

MATTHEWS: OK.

RYAN: I would argue that`s depressing economic growth and costing us jobs.

Clearly not listening, Matthews went for another gotcha question: 

MATTHEWS: So, when the debt commission comes back this fall, and as a two-to-one cut in spending and a $1 increase in taxes, you`ll oppose it?

RYAN: I`m a member of the debt commission. I`m working, my colleagues –

MATTHEWS: I know.

(CROSSTALK)

MATTHEWS: If the proposal is for $2 in spending cuts, and $1 tax increase, you`re going to oppose the majority position on that?

RYAN: I don`t think it`s good form to do table talk, what`s on the table or off the table in the debt commission. I`m hoping we could put a really good dent on the problem.

MATTHEWS: OK. Well, I`m with you with that.

Thank you, U.S. Congressman Joe Crowley of New York –

CROWLEY: Thanks, Chris.

MATTHEWS: — and Paul Ryan of Wisconsin.

Unfortunately, Matthews’ behavior here was indicative of virtually all on the left in our nation today, especially those in the media.

The Republicans have been offering budget-cutting plans since this Congress was sworn in, but the majority Party in power continually refuse to listen to any of their suggestions.

Like a dutiful foot-soldier, Matthews continues to tell his tiny audience that the GOP is just saying no to obstruct everything his Party wants to enact.

As Ryan marvelously demonstrated Monday, nothing could be further from the truth?

Bravo, Congressman. Bravo! 

Thanks to newsbusters.com for this update and story. Visit newsbusters.com for more headlines and articles.