Dana Loesch defends the rich yet again on AC360

St. Louis Tea Party darling (or head grinch) Dana Loesch was on AC360 yet again. She was paired with Paul Begala on the program.


From the 12.09.2010 edition of Anderson Cooper 360:

Up next: more on Harry Reid and his passion for tackling a bill legalizing online poker, tacking that on to the vital tax deal President Obama worked out with Republicans. Four years ago, he was against online gaming. Now he's for online poker. We will talk about that with Paul Begala and Dana Loesch, who also square off against over extending tax cuts for the wealthy.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

DANA LOESCH, EDITOR, BIGJOURNALISM.COM: These -- these are -- these are people who create jobs.

BEGALA: That's what we're doing.

LOESCH: These are people, by the...

(CROSSTALK)

BEGALA: No, they don't create jobs. They ship jobs overseas. Oh, nonsense.

LOESCH: A lot of individuals have to fly -- have to file -- well, no, that's because you guys raise taxes and you run companies out of -- and you run companies out of the country, and then you're like, oh, my gosh, why are they leaving?

(END VIDEO CLIP)

COOPER: And later, "Keeping Them Honest": The lawmaker who will be in charge of consumer protection in the next Congress, guess where he gets the biggest percentage of his campaign contributions, and guess who else is getting big money from big money? We're "Keeping Them Honest."

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

COOPER: Well, as you heard, Harry Reid said they're out of time for voting on don't ask, don't tell, but, apparently, there's enough time to pass the Internet Poker Act of 2010. It's a bill legalizing online poker at the federal level.

Now, wait a minute, what about, you know, all that other stuff?

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

REID: We have a lot of things to do in a short period of time.

Let's run over what we have to do. We have a tax issue. We have got the funding issue. We have got the START treaty. We have got the defense bill. And we have the DREAM Act. We have the firefighters issue. We have the funding of the seniors for their COLA that they deserve.

We have the 9/11 situation regarding the people in New York who are -- been harmed, damaged and are sick. So, we have lots of things to do.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

COOPER: That was Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid.

Funny, though. He didn't mention the Internet Poker Act of 2010. And it's hard to imagine why he left it off the list, considering that he's the one pushing to pass it. He's trying to attach it to the tax bill, putting out a statement tonight saying -- quote -- "The online poker bill I'm working on is good for the country and for Nevada."

He goes on to say the bill would provide consumer protection and respect the decisions of states that don't support gambling. He concludes, saying -- quote -- "Finally, the revenue and jobs from this multibillion-dollar industry will stay where it belongs, here in America."

So, he's pushing the bill, but, interestingly, four years ago, he was against online gaming. You might wonder what's changed. Well, back then, he said Internet gaming couldn't be adequately regulated. Now he says it can.

But what's also changed is the revenue. Four years ago, the big Nevada casinos thought of gaming as the competition. Now they're realizing that, with their brand-name recognition, they can maybe get a big piece of the online action.

Take a look at this from the Union Gaming Group, which follows the gambling industry, quoted in "The Las Vegas Sun": "We believe there will be a billion dollars in earnings generated by licenses," earnings the industry watchers say, for big names like MGM Resorts International and Caesar's Entertainment.

According to the nonpartisan Center for Responsive Politics, they have been the number-one and number-three donors to Senator Reid over the last 21 years.

Now, in fairness, those big donors are also huge employers, and unemployment in Nevada is sky-high. Senator Reid was elected to serve the interests of his state, certainly, which include the people and the businesses in it. As a majority leader, however, he also serves the country. So our question is, is there a conflict?

I talked about it earlier tonight with Paul Begala and Dana Loesch, editor of BigJournalism.com and host of Saint Louis radio station KFTK.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

COOPER: So, Paul, given all that Harry Reid has on his plate, the tax cuts, don't ask, don't tell, the START treaty, why would he be trying to slip an online poker bill into this session? He's not some obscure member who might be able to go unnoticed. He's the majority leader.

BEGALA: Right. And he's also the senator from Nevada. The biggest employer in his state is the gaming industry. The biggest taxpayer in his state is the gaming industry.

I think he and his supporters believe that there are a lot of Americans getting ripped off on online gaming, and this would set some consumer protections and some regulation in there. So, obviously, a senator from Nevada is going to be for that.

COOPER: Dana, do you buy that, that it's just about, you know, wanting to help folks -- stop folks from being ripped off online?

(LAUGHTER)

LOESCH: Well, that's the -- that's a kind of kittens-and- sunshine sort of explanation for it, I think.

Really, and the reality of this is that there's...

COOPER: Kittens and sunshine?

(LAUGHTER)

LOESCH: ... there's -- there is a lot of tax revenue to be had over this.

Seventy-five percent of the revenue is going to be going back to Nevada, going to be going to New Jersey as well. So, that's -- they look to make a lot of money off of this.

COOPER: So, it's smart politics for Harry Reid?

LOESCH: Oh, yes, completely.

He's using his senatorial power to go and pay back the people who have donated the most to his campaign. And there's a lot of politicians who do it, but let's just be honest and call it what it is.

COOPER: Let's talk about this tax deal now.

It's obviously unclear what's going to happen, ultimately, with the tax cut extensions. Does it make sense for House Democrats, Paul, to take on President Obama in such a -- a defiant and public manner?

BEGALA: You know, I don't know. It probably feels good for them.

I would actually reverse this. It's the president who took them on. I -- I didn't think it was a good deal. Most House Democrats didn't think it was a good deal. But set that aside.

The president seemed to go out of his way to stick a thumb in their eye. He said people in his own party who disagreed with him preferred symbolism over substance, fighting over getting things done, that they were sanctimonious, for goodness sakes.

He would be much better served if he said, look, I -- I'm the president. I think this is the best thing for the country, but I understand there are principled people in my own party who disagree with me. I admire that principle, but I want you to work with me to try to do what I think is best. Wouldn't that be nicer than just going out there and sticking a thumb in the eye of people, many of whom lost their jobs in part because of Barack Obama?

COOPER: Dana, does it make sense, do you think, for the president to have made this deal politically? Because now it's going to come back -- it's going to be another big issue in 2012 during the presidential election, because these tax cuts will be set to expire then.

LOESCH: Absolutely.

And we're going to see this being used on campaigns. It's going to be the -- it's going to be this campaign season, but just repeated again in a couple of years.

I -- I think that this was the best that he could have done, but what I don't understand is, this is all theater. We wouldn't even be having this problem at all if Democrats, who had a filibuster-proof majority, if they had done something about taxes earlier, perhaps, before the election, like way back when they -- when they had all this political capital and they were shoving through health care and everything else.

If they would have actually paid attention to -- we wouldn't even be in this situation. It just seems a little bit comical to me now, because they waited for so long. And now here it is, the 11th hour, and, suddenly, they're all concerned.

COOPER: Paul, did Democrats make a mistake?

BEGALA: Yes, I think -- I think Dana makes an important point, and a legitimate point.

I would have one important correction. They didn't have a filibuster-proof majority in the Senate, or they would have done this. But it's a fair point.

LOESCH: Well, they had it in the House, though.

BEGALA: They had a chance -- they -- they had a chance -- right. They had a chance in September. The Senate Democrats decided not to put this up right before the election. I do think that was a strategic mistake.

COOPER: Well, it does seem that Barack Obama ran as a candidate as the guy who could bring both parties together in a room and come up with compromise and a deal.

(LAUGHTER)

COOPER: Isn't that what he's done? Why, then, are liberal Democrats surprised that he's made a deal?

BEGALA: Well, he -- he -- oh, he didn't say that. He said, I don't just want to play the game better in Washington. I want to change the game.

He didn't say that he would just make cynical political deals. And I think that's what this is. It may be the better thing for him to do. I tend to disagree with that. But, no, I think this runs very contra to the Obama brand. If tax cuts for the rich generated jobs, we would have more jobs.

(CROSSTALK)

LOESCH: This isn't tax cuts for the rich.

(CROSSTALK)

BEGALA: ... because that's all we have done for 10 years.

LOESCH: That's misframing the argument.

BEGALA: I mean, it's just -- I mean, I'm sorry. You know, look, I believe in lots of crazy stuff, and I believe in Santa Claus and the Tooth Fairy, but it -- you just can't persuade me to believe, after 10 years of...

LOESCH: Really?

BEGALA: ... shedding jobs and cutting taxes for the rich, that somehow now all we have got to do is cut taxes for the rich, and now, all of a sudden, after failing to create jobs for 10 years...

LOESCH: What is this cutting taxes for the rich? These -- these are -- these are people who create jobs.

BEGALA: That's what we're doing.

LOESCH: These are people, by the...

(CROSSTALK)

BEGALA: No, they don't create jobs. They ship jobs overseas. Oh, nonsense.

LOESCH: A lot of individuals have to fly -- have to file -- well, no, that's because you guys raise taxes and you run companies out of -- and you run companies out of the country, and then you're like, oh, my gosh, why are they leaving?

It was because you're making it impossible for them to do business in the United States. Why -- why is there no explanation or address of that?

But it's not tax cuts for the rich.

BEGALA: I just...

LOESCH: These are job-creators. These are people who create jobs, those evil businesspeople that employ everyone.

(LAUGHTER)

BEGALA: First off, Dana, cutting taxes for the rich does not generate jobs. Second, those big businesses and those CEOs...

LOESCH: It -- it absolutely does. It absolutely does.

BEGALA: Excuse me for talking while you're interrupting.

LOESCH: Statistics support it.

BEGALA: Those big businesses and those CEOs...

LOESCH: I just had to correct...

(CROSSTALK)

BEGALA: ... who ship jobs overseas, they're the ones who are getting these tax breaks. And if it worked, we would have -- when Bill Clinton was president, we raised taxes on the rich.

And I know it was a socialist paradise -- 39.6 percent, that's tyranny -- 35 percent under Bush, that's freedom.

(CROSSTALK)

BEGALA: So, the line between freedom and tyranny is a very narrow and perilous one, because we were free under Bush, and everything was great under Bush with 35 percent top marginal rate for the rich...

LOESCH: Let me ask you this question. This will -- this will settle it.

BEGALA: ... but 39.6 that Obama wants -- I mean, come on.

LOESCH: Let's boil -- let's boil it down to one quick question. Paul, Paul, Paul...

BEGALA: Who would you rather have -- or whose economics would you rather have, the economy we had under Clinton or the economy we had under Bush?

LOESCH: ... do you believe that this -- do you believe that the state can control the output of the individual? Do you believe that it is the state's right to claim the fruits of the labor of -- of you or anyone else? Because that, ultimately, is what it comes down to.

BEGALA: Do I -- oh, I believe in a democracy. All of us have a moral obligation to support our country.

LOESCH: Oh, there we go. No, no, no.

BEGALA: Some of us -- go to Walter Reed. There are men and women at Walter Reed who have given...

LOESCH: Answer the question. Do you believe the state can control the output of the individual?

COOPER: One at a time. One at a time.

Paul -- let Paul answer.

LOESCH: Paul, you're deflecting.

COOPER: Let Paul answer.

(LAUGHTER)

BEGALA: I believe in a democracy. It is the sacred obligation of every citizen to support and defend and protect its country.

Some people do it with blood and limbs. And it really is nauseating for me to see rich people to say, I don't even want to write a check, when I -- I know people who have lost two legs wars that they didn't even support. So, I'm sorry. Don't give me all this high and mighty nonsense that somehow rich people are better than working people, because I think that's a load of hooey.

LOESCH: I'm not. You're putting words into my mouth. That's a straw man argument right now.

BEGALA: You say, oh, rich people are great. They create all the jobs.

They don't, actually. Middle -- this -- this whole economy is driven by middle-class consumers, Dana.

LOESCH: No, I was talking about business owners. Don't do this class warfare stuff.

(CROSSTALK)

COOPER: All right, Dana, I want to give you the final thought, and then we have got to go. We have got to go. I want to give you the final thought, Dana. Go ahead.

LOESCH: This -- the bottom line is that Paul's argument rests upon the false premise that people who are in a particular income bracket have no opportunity or reason at all whatsoever to leave that particular income bracket.

And that is the thing that Democrats like to exploit when they like to say, oh, let's -- let's do this class warfare. Let's attack the rich. Let's attack the people who create jobs.

That's just -- that's false. And I think that we need to stop framing the argument in that way and -- and quit being so adversarial towards businesspeople.

COOPER: Paul, your furrowed brow...

LOESCH: They create the jobs, help the middle class.

COOPER: ... and -- and smirk says it all. So, I'm going to let Dana have the last...

(LAUGHTER)

COOPER: ... the last word here.

Dana Loesch, appreciate it, Paul Begala as well. Thank you.

(LAUGHTER)

LOESCH: Thanks.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

In the end, Dana's still being a hypocrite as she and her husband (Chris) are in the rich income maker category.