NBC To Air ‘Interview’ Of Sandusky By Man Who Called The Case Against The Convicted Child Rapist ‘Remarkably Weak’

NBC is hyping an “interview,” to be aired Monday, with convicted child rapist Jerry Sandusky. But what they don’t tell you is the interview wasn’t conducted by NBC. Rather, NBC is airing excerpts of an interview by John Ziegler, right-wing documentarian and propagandist. Ziegler has been publicly skeptical of the charges against Sandusky, who was convicted of 45 counts of child sexual abuse, writing that at the time the grand jury was convened “the legal case against Jerry Sandusky was actually remarkably weak.”

Ziegler insists he is “not supportive” of Sandusky and does acknowledge he engaged in “criminal behavior.”

The interview being aired by NBC as news content is part of a larger documentary called “The Framing of Joe Paterno.” On his website, Ziegler lambasts the Freeh Report of the Penn State scandal, which concluded Joe Paterno “failed to protect against a child sexual predator harming children for over a decade.” Ziegler attacks the testimony of assistant coach Mike McQueary who said he observed Sandusky sexually assaulting a child in the shower. Ziegler says “the evidence indicates that McQueary did not witness an assault, but rather a botched ‘grooming’”

Previously Ziegler has produced films such as “Media Malpractice: How Obama Got Elected” and “Blocking The Path to 9/11,” a film defending an error riddled mini-series seeking to pin blame on Bill Clinton for the 9/11 attacks.

Ziegler is also defending Reno Saccoccia, the Steubenville football coach who “knew about the rape of a 16-year-old girl by two of his players, but didn’t say a word about it to school administrators or local law enforcement.” On his website, Ziegler asserts Saccoccia is “not culpable” and reveals he has been “advising him for the past several months on how to handle the media firestorm.”

Scott Paterno publicly opposes Ziegler’s efforts to defend his late father. He wrote on Twitter, “If John had a credible way to exonerate Dad, why would we oppose it? Think about that.”

One child advocacy group has called on NBC to cancel the segment featuring the Sandusky interview.

View the original article here

50 Years Ago Today, JFK Called For Closing A Giant Tax Loophole…But It Still Exists

Our guest blogger is Seth Hanlon, Director of Fiscal Reform at the Center for American Progress Action Fund.

On January 24, 1963, exactly half a century ago, President John F. Kennedy called on Congress to enact a broad overhaul of the tax code. One of JFK’s boldest proposals was to close a giant tax loophole that allows wealthy people to escape taxes on capital gains — the appreciation in value of stocks, businesses, or other investments — by holding onto assets until death and passing them onto heirs.

Though JFK’s successor, Lyndon Johnson, pushed through much of the Kennedy tax program in 1964, the tax break on inherited capital gains survived. It exists to this day as one of the largest loopholes in the tax code.

The provision is sometimes called the “angel of death loophole” or, in tax-speak, the “stepup in basis at death.” Here is how it works: Let’s say an investor buys stock for $1,000 and over time it shoots up in value to $100,000. If the investor sells that stock, he’ll owe capital gains taxes on the amount it has gone up.

But if the investor holds onto the stock his whole life and bequeaths it to his heirs, the $99,000 of gain is never subject to capital gains tax. The heirs inherit the stock with what’s called a “stepped-up basis,” which means that if they sell the stock at some point, they’ll only owe capital gains tax on any gain above $100,000.

The inherited capital gains loophole has major effects on the budget, on the economy, and on tax fairness. It results in about half of all capital gains going permanently untaxed. It costs the U.S. Treasury an estimated $50 billion per year (perhaps more). It encourages people to hold onto assets even when they would otherwise want to sell them. And since capital gains are highly concentrated at the top end of the income scale, it undermines progressivity.

One of the arguments for maintaining the inherited capital gains tax break is that the estate tax provides a backstop, ensuring that large inheritances are taxed. But that argument holds less water now that the estate tax has been largely eviscerated.

In submitting his tax reform proposal to Congress, Kennedy emphasized that eliminating “the ability to avoid all capital gains taxed on assets held until death” would mean that more investors would choose “the most desirable investment[s],” not the most tax-favored ones. JFK’s proposal included a number of exceptions to address practical issues, including exempting the vast majority of people with only modest amounts of capital gains. Unfortunately, however, Congress left the loophole untouched, and subsequent efforts to address it have also come up short.

Fifty years later, Congress is again discussing tax reform, and though the inherited capital gains loophole is one of the largest tax breaks, it is rarely debated. But if Congress is committed to a balanced approach to our fiscal challenges, and serious about “base broadening” tax reform, it should revisit a half-century-old proposal that is more relevant than ever.

View the original article here

Hate Group Spokesman Called Out For Anti-Gay Positions On Live TV

For reasons that remain unclear, cable news networks continue to provide airtime to the Family Research Council, neglecting to recognize that it has been designated as a hate group for its anti-gay views, let alone the fact that it hardly represents mainstream Christianity. Today was no exception, as FRC’s Peter Sprigg was invited on CNN to join the chorus of conservative objections that Pastor Louie Giglio will no longer be participating in President Obama’s Inauguration because of his anti-gay views. Sprigg attempted to claim that Christians are the victims, but fortunately, Truth Wins Out’s Wayne Besen was there to set the record straight:

SPRIGG: The world we live in, unfortunately, is increasingly marked by the enforcement of intolerance in the name of tolerance, exclusion in the name of inclusion, and forced uniformity in the name of diversity. It’s contradictory, it’s downright Orwellian, and yet people actually make these statements, unbelievably, with a straight face. [...]

BESEN: Peter, I find it ironic that you’re embracing diversity. I mean you called for the imprisonment of gay people and said we should export homosexuals out of the United States and suddenly you’re for tolerance? I’m a little confused here.

SPRIGG: [silent laughter] Well this is about Pastor Giglio and President Obama, it’s not about me.

Watch it:

Jeremy Hooper is right to celebrate this as a victory for GLAAD’s Commentator Accountability Project, which seeks to expose the anti-LGBT records of conservative spokespeople whose positions are typically not given proper context by the news outlets that interview them. Sprigg’s presence on CNN is the quintessential example of this whitewashing, because as Besen pointed out, his positions are seemingly even more anti-LGBT than Pastor Giglio’s. Sprigg has proven time and time again that he does not even have the most basic understanding of sexuality but does have a significant antipathy toward the very existence of gays and lesbians. He has no authority to speak about LGBT issues, and CNN should learn from this interview not to provide a pedestal for his bigoted point of view again.

View the original article here

Maybe Paul Ryan Should Have Called It a Trojan Condom Budget

Barack Obama spoke to the American press yesterday to demagogue Republicans, Paul Ryan’s budget, cite Ronald Reagan as proof that raising taxes is okay, and damn with faint praise American exceptionalism.

The President called Paul Ryan’s budget a “trojan horse.” Given the President’s predilection for forcing all Americans, through regulatory fiat, to adhere to his view of contraception, I suspect that had Paul Ryan preemptively called his budget a ‘trojan condom,” the President of the United States would be campaigning trying to make us all adhere to it.

One thing that really stuck out at me in his speech yesterday was his statement that his very life and career were made possible because of American exceptionalism. He’s right. It’s also what makes his public policy choices so maddening.

The President’s policy choices reject the very American exceptionalism he himself claims to have benefited from. Our nation has had a unique spirit centered around the idea of the Puritan work ethic and the rugged individualism that sprang from that.

But Barack Obama wants to get rid of that exceptionalism and make us conform to the failed socialist policies of Europe. He says he wants to tax the rich because it will help the middle class. The only way taxing the rich helps the middle class is when the middle class is so dependent on government that it requires further wealth redistribution to maintain its government subsidy.

Government subsidy is not what American exceptionalism is all about. Government policy to redistribute wealth for middle class welfare subsidies is conforming to the rest of the world.

Conforming is not exceptional, it is a failure.

As an added bonus, it was more than a bit ironic to hear Barack Obama call Paul Ryan a social darwinist considering Barack Obama remains the only member of the Illinois State Senate to speak in favor of infanticide from the floor of the State Senate.

View the original article here