The Astonishing Stupidity of Not Raising Taxes on the Rich When Budgets Are Tight

By Larry Beinhart
March 1, 2011

History show that when spending is cut -- in the name of balancing the budget -- recessions immediately follow.

The current economy is routinely and universally referred to as the worst recession since the Great Depression.

It makes sense, therefore, to look back at government tax and spending policies during the Depression and what the results were.

1932 -- Hoover raises the top tax rate from to 25 to 63 percent.

1933 -- Roosevelt comes into office. He begins spending at the same time that new tax hike comes into effect. The Depression bottoms out.

1934 -- Recovery begins. The GNP rises 7.7 percent, unemployment falls to 21.7 percent.

1935 -- New government spending on public works and rural electrification. A push to strengthen labor and raise wages. New taxes through the creation of Social Security.

The GNP grows another 8.1 percent, and unemployment continues to fall.

1936 -- The top tax rate is raised again. This time to 79 percent.

GNP grows a record 14.1 percent; unemployment falls even further.

1937 -- Roosevelt is afraid of deficits! He cuts spending for 1937.

There's a new recession. It continues for a year.

1939 -- The U.S. borrows, resumes deficit spending, this time on a military build-up. The recession ends.

1941 -- America enters World War II.

In economic terms, it's the New Deal on steroids. The top tax rate goes up to 91 percent. Nonetheless, government spending is so high that by 1945 the deficit is 123 percent of GDP. Unemployment is ended by employing 16 million people directly in the armed forces and millions more are employed producing war material and supporting the military.

The Great Depression is finally over.

When taxes were raised the economy improved. Every time. Deficits had no negative effect on the economy. Indeed, when deficits were at their highest, the economy boomed.

After spending was cut -- to balance the budget -- a recession immediately followed. When taxes were raised and government spending resumed -- with deficits -- that recession ended.

When taxes were raised again, and government spending went sky high, the Great Depression finally ended.

So here we are. We refused to raise taxes. The recession continues. Now, we're going to cut spending.

http://www.alternet.org/story/150099/the_astonishing_stupidity_of_not_raising_taxes_on_the_rich_when_budgets_are_tight

Large majority of Americans back public employee union rights: poll

By Sahil Kapur
Tuesday, March 1st, 2011 -- 10:00 am

WASHINGTON – Americans want to maintain the collective bargaining rights of public employee unions by a nearly two-to-one margin, according to a new New York Times/CBS poll.

Sixty percent said they oppose attempts in states like Wisconsin to curtail those rights, while only 33 percent said they support those efforts. Seven percent had no opinion.

The results may reflect a growing backlash against Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker (R), who has for weeks been involved in a high-profile standoff with state Democrats and union supporters over his budget plan, which would curtail union bargaining rights.

Invoking the state's budget deficit, Walker extracted major concessions from public worker unions on pensions and benefits, but they insist the state not take away their right to collectively bargain in the future.

The collective bargaining provision would have "no immediate effect" on the budget and "wouldn't save any money this year," the National Journal reported.

The public appears divided on whether attempts to reduce the benefits of government workers are aimed at cutting the deficit or simply busting unions.

In the Times/CBS poll, 45 percent said it's usually about trimming deficits; 41 percent said it's about weakening unions. Fourteen percent weren't sure.

When asked about options to reduce the deficit, raising taxes decidedly won (40 percent) over decreasing benefits of public-sector workers (22 percent).

A plurality of the public, however, said that unions have "too much" influence in American life and politics (37 percent). Only 19 percent said they have "too little," and 29 percent believed that unions have the "right amount" of influence.

http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2011/03/01/large-majority-of-americans-back-public-employee-union-rights-poll/

Wisconsin judge orders Capitol open to public

MADISON, Wisconsin (Reuters) - Wisconsin officials said Tuesday they would not ease entry restrictions at the Capitol Building in Madison after a judge ordered there be public access during business hours.

The Capitol building has been the focus of two weeks of protests by labor unions and their supporters opposed to Gov. Scott Walker's plan to curtail union power.

The state agency that operates the Capitol building said it was already in compliance with the judge's order.

Dane County Circuit Court Judge Daniel Moeser ordered state officials on Tuesday to open access. Moeser's order was granted without a hearing and specified it would stand until the trial court is able to schedule a hearing on the matter.

A hearing on the restraining order sought by the Wisconsin State Employees Union is scheduled for Tuesday afternoon.

Access to the building was tightened earlier this week and remained restricted at midday on Tuesday with law enforcement officers escorting people to hearing rooms and to other offices.

Representative Peter Barca, the minority leader of Democrats in the Wisconsin Assembly, said authorities needed to open access to the building in an "orderly process."

"I do think they need to do this immediately," Barca said.

Joe Thoennes, 25, who has camped in the capitol building for 10 consecutive nights, said access still appeared restricted on Tuesday morning after the order was issued and he planned to stay put in the rotunda.

"I've been wanting to get out so I can have a shower," Thoennes said. "But I'm not planning on going anywhere for now."

(Reporting by David Bailey and Stefanie Carano in Madison and James Kelleher in Chicago; Editing by Greg McCune)

http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2011/03/01/wisconsin-judge-orders-capitol-open-to-public/

Majority in Poll Back Employees in Public Sector Unions

By MICHAEL COOPER and MEGAN THEE-BRENAN
Published: February 28, 2011

As labor battles erupt in state capitals around the nation, a majority of Americans say they oppose efforts to weaken the collective bargaining rights of public employee unions and are also against cutting the pay or benefits of public workers to reduce state budget deficits, according to the latest New York Times/CBS News poll.

Labor unions are not exactly popular, though: A third of those surveyed viewed them favorably, a quarter viewed them unfavorably, and the rest said they were either undecided or had not heard enough about them. But the nationwide poll found that embattled public employee unions have the support of most Americans — and most independents — as they fight the efforts of newly elected Republican governors in Wisconsin and Ohio to weaken their bargaining powers, and the attempts of governors from both parties to cut their pay or benefits.

Americans oppose weakening the bargaining rights of public employee unions by a margin of nearly two to one: 60 percent to 33 percent. While a slim majority of Republicans favored taking away some bargaining rights, they were outnumbered by large majorities of Democrats and independents who said they opposed weakening them.

Those surveyed said they opposed, 56 percent to 37 percent, cutting the pay or benefits of public employees to reduce deficits, breaking down along similar party lines. A majority of respondents who have no union members living in their households opposed both cuts in pay or benefits and taking away the collective bargaining rights of public employees.

Governors in both parties have been making the case that public workers are either overpaid or have overly generous health and pension benefits. But 61 percent of those polled — including just over half of Republicans — said they thought the salaries and benefits of most public employees were either “about right” or “too low” for the work they do.

When it came to one of the most debated, and expensive, benefits that many government workers enjoy but private sector workers do not — the ability to retire early, and begin collecting pension checks — Americans were closely divided. Forty-nine percent said police officers and firefighters should be able to retire and begin receiving pension checks even if they are in their 40s or 50s; 44 percent said they should have to be older. There was a similar divide on whether teachers should be able to retire and draw pensions before they are 65.

The nationwide telephone poll was conducted Feb. 24-27 with 984 adults and has a margin of sampling error of plus or minus three percentage points for all adults. Of those surveyed, 20 percent said there was a union member in their household, and 25 percent said there was a public employee in their household.

Tax increases were not as unpopular among those surveyed as they are among many governors, who have vowed to avoid them. Asked how they would choose to reduce their state’s deficits, those polled preferred tax increases over benefit cuts for state workers by nearly two to one. Given a list of options to reduce the deficit, 40 percent said they would increase taxes, 22 percent chose decreasing the benefits of public employees, 20 percent said they would cut financing for roads and 3 percent said they would cut financing for education.

The most contentious issue to emerge in the recent labor battles has been the question of collective bargaining rights. A proposal by Gov. Scott Walker of Wisconsin to weaken them sent Democratic state lawmakers out of state to prevent a vote, flooded the Capitol in Madison with thousands of protesters and sparked a national discussion about unions.

The poll found that an overwhelming 71 percent of Democrats opposed weakening collective bargaining rights. But there was also strong opposition from independents: 62 percent of them said they opposed taking bargaining rights away from public employee unions.

Phil Merritt, 67, a retired property manager from Crossville, Tenn., who identifies himself as an independent, explained in a follow-up interview why he opposed weakening bargaining rights for public workers. “I just feel they do a job that needs to be done, and in our country today if you work hard, then you should be able to have a home, be able to save for retirement and you should be able to send your kids to college,” he said. “Most public employees have to struggle to do those things, and generally both spouses must work.”

The one group that favors weakening those rights, by a slim majority, was Republicans. Warren Lemma, 56, an electrical contractor from Longview, Tex., said states did not have the money to pay for many benefits that state workers enjoy.

“Retirement benefits should not be taken away from those about to retire, but the system should be changed for the people starting to teach just now,” said Mr. Lemma, a Republican. “And the only way the system will change is to do something about unions and their control, and the only way to do that is to take away collective bargaining.”

The poll found that 45 percent of those surveyed said they believed that governors and state lawmakers who are trying to reduce the pay or benefits of public workers were doing so to reduce budget deficits, while 41 percent said they thought they were doing so to weaken unions’ power.

Although cutting the pay or benefits of public workers was opposed by people in all income groups, it had the most support from people earning over $100,000 a year. In that income group, 45 percent said they favored cutting pay or benefits, while 49 percent opposed it. In every other income group, a majority opposed cutting pay or benefits: Among those making between $15,000 and $30,000, for instance, 35 percent said they favored cutting pay or benefits, while 60 percent opposed it.

Labor unions, including private sector labor unions, are seen as less influential now than they were three decades ago. The poll found that 37 percent of those surveyed believe that labor unions have “too much influence” on American life and politics, while 48 percent said they had the “right amount” or “too little” influence. In a 1981 poll, by contrast — soon after President Ronald Reagan fired striking air traffic controllers — 60 percent of those surveyed said unions had “too much influence.” Of course, union membership has declined since then.

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/01/us/01poll.html?_r=2&hp

Regulators Reject Proposal That Would Bring Fox-Style News to Canada

As America's middle class battles for its survival on the Wisconsin barricades -- against various Koch Oil surrogates and the corporate toadies at Fox News -- fans of enlightenment, democracy and justice can take comfort from a significant victory north of Wisconsin border. Fox News will not be moving into Canada after all! The reason: Canada regulators announced last week they would reject efforts by Canada's right wing Prime Minister, Stephen Harper, to repeal a law that forbids lying on broadcast news.


Canada's Radio Act requires that "a licenser may not broadcast....any false or misleading news." The provision has kept Fox News and right wing talk radio out of Canada and helped make Canada a model for liberal democracy and freedom. As a result of that law, Canadians enjoy high quality news coverage including the kind of foreign affairs and investigative journalism that flourished in this country before Ronald Reagan abolished the "Fairness Doctrine" in 1987. Political dialogue in Canada is marked by civility, modesty, honesty, collegiality, and idealism that have pretty much disappeared on the U.S. airwaves. When Stephen Harper moved to abolish anti-lying provision of the Radio Act, Canadians rose up to oppose him fearing that their tradition of honest non partisan news would be replaced by the toxic, overtly partisan, biased and dishonest news coverage familiar to American citizens who listen to Fox News and talk radio. Harper's proposal was timed to facilitate the launch of a new right wing network, "Sun TV News" which Canadians call "Fox News North."

Harper, often referred to as "George W. Bush's Mini Me," is known for having mounted a Bush like war on government scientists, data collectors, transparency, and enlightenment in general. He is a wizard of all the familiar tools of demagoguery; false patriotism, bigotry, fear, selfishness and belligerent religiosity.

Harper's attempts to make lying legal on Canadian television is a stark admission that right wing political ideology can only dominate national debate through dishonest propaganda. Since corporate profit-taking is not an attractive vessel for populism, a political party or broadcast network that makes itself the tool of corporate and financial elites must lie to make its agenda popular with the public. In the Unites States, Fox News and talk radio, the sock puppets of billionaires and corporate robber barons have become the masters of propaganda and distortion on the public airwaves. Fox News's notoriously biased and dishonest coverage of the Wisconsin's protests is a prime example of the brand of news coverage Canada has smartly avoided.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/robert-f-kennedy-jr/fox-news-will-not-be-moving-into-canada-after-all_b_829473.html?ref=fb&src=sp

A National ID Card For American Citizens? Get Ready – The Real ID Act Goes Into Effect On May 11

For a moment, imagine a future where you are not able to drive a car, get on a plane, get on a train, vote, enter a federal building, open a bank account or get a job without a national ID card. You don't think that could ever happen in America? Well, you might want to brush up on the Real ID Act because it is going to go into effect on May 11, 2011 unless something is done to stop it.  When I first learned this, I was absolutely stunned.  After all, wasn't the Real ID Act supposed to be "dead"?  A few years ago state legislatures across the nation were in an uproar over this law.  The Department of Homeland Security was forced to delay implementation of it several times.  But now it is back.  You see, this is what the federal government often does.  They will try to push something very unpopular through, and if they meet resistance they will "play dead" until the uproar has died down and then they will come right back and implement it anyway.  This is what is happening with the Real ID Act.

As of May 11, all driver's licenses across the United States will be required to conform to federal national security standards.  In essence, our licenses are now going to be federalized.

Yes, this is really happening.  A Fox News article from a couple weeks ago confirmed that these "national ID cards" will be required to board airplanes and enter federal buildings....

States must be in compliance by May with the regulations laid out in the 2005 REAL ID Act. The law, a recommendation of the Sept. 11 commission that investigated the 2001 terror attacks, creates a national security standard for state-issued identification cards to be used for purposes like boarding airplanes and entering federal buildings.

Isn't that great?

Now security goons will be able to ask us for our "papers" just like they used to do in Nazi Germany and the USSR.

Back in 2008, former U.S. Representative Bob Barr wrote the following about how not having one of these new national ID cards will automatically strip us of some of our most fundamental rights....

"A person not possessing a Real ID Act-compliant identification card could not enter any federal building, or an office of his or her congressman or senator or the U.S. Capitol. This effectively denies that person their fundamental rights to assembly and to petition the government as guaranteed in the First Amendment."

Of course the Department of Homeland Security insists that the Real ID Act is just here to "help" us and to make life "better" and "more secure".  According to their website, some of the goals of the Real ID Act are "to help prevent terrorism, reduce fraud, and improve the reliability and accuracy of personal identification documents."

But is this really what we want America to become?

A nation where we are constantly passing through checkpoints and where security goons are constantly checking our national ID card?

What kind of liberty and freedom is that?

Eventually these national ID cards will likely be required for virtually every single interaction that we have with the federal government.

Can you imagine the kind of power that the federal government will have to watch us and track our activities if this thing gets fully implemented?

The more you really think about the notion of a national ID card for Americans the more repulsive it becomes.

Eventually, without a "Real ID" you will not be able to be hired by most employers.  So in essence, you will be required to get the permission of the federal government before you can work.

Without a "Real ID", your ability to travel will be greatly restricted.  Eventually there will be very few modes of public transportation that you will be able to use without having a national ID card.

And what if you lose your national ID card?  Talk about a headache!

Hey, eventually they might just decide to solve that problem by putting a microchip directly into our hands.

Wouldn't that be convenient?

Can you see where all of this is headed?  Many of the people that are attempting to implement this thing may have "good intentions", but we all know what they say about "good intentions".

We do not need a national ID card to have a nation that is safe and secure.

Please contact your representatives in Washington D.C. and let them know that you want the Real ID Act repealed once and for all.

If we put up with a national ID card, then the Obama administration will be emboldened to try to implement the "universal Internet ID" that they have been talking about.

The sad truth is that America is no longer "the land of the free".  The government has decided that in order to keep us "safe", everything that we do must be watched, tracked, traced, recorded and controlled.

It doesn't matter whether the Democrats are in power or if the Republicans are in power - every year the United States becomes even more like a prison camp.

Hopefully the American people will wake up and will realize that this is not what our founding fathers intended.

So what do you all think about the coming implementation of the Real ID Act?  Please feel free to leave a comment with your thoughts below....

http://endoftheamericandream.com/archives/a-national-id-card-for-american-citizens-get-ready-the-real-id-act-goes-into-effect-on-may-11

Fox News gets okay to misinform public, court ruling

03/09/10 11:48
Filed in: Media Reform

UPDATED:Many news agencies lie and distort facts, not many have the guts to admit it...in court...positioning the First Amendment as their defense!

The attorneys for Fox, owned by media baron Rupert Murdoch, successfully argued the First Amendment gives broadcasters the right to lie or deliberately distort news reports on the public airwaves. We are pushing for a consumer protection solution that labels news content according to its adherence to ethical journalism standards that have been codified by the Society of Professional Journalists (Ethics: spj.org).
A News Quality Rating System and Content Labeling approach, follows a tradition of consumer protection product labeling, that is very familiar to Americans. The ratings are anti-censorship and can benefit consumers.

Appellate Court Rules Media Can Legally Lie.
By Mike Gaddy. Published Feb. 28, 2003
On February 14, a Florida Appeals court ruled there is absolutely nothing illegal about lying, concealing or distorting information by a major press organization. The court reversed the $425,000 jury verdict in favor of journalist Jane Akre who charged she was pressured by Fox Television management and lawyers to air what she knew and documented to be false information. The ruling basically declares it is technically not against any law, rule, or regulation to deliberately lie or distort the news on a television broadcast.

On August 18, 2000, a six-person jury was unanimous in its conclusion that Akre was indeed fired for threatening to report the station's pressure to broadcast what jurors decided was "a false, distorted, or slanted" story about the widespread use of growth hormone in dairy cows.

The court did not dispute the heart of Akre's claim, that Fox pressured her to broadcast a false story to protect the broadcaster from having to defend the truth in court, as well as suffer the ire of irate advertisers. Fox argued from the first, and failed on three separate occasions, in front of three different judges, to have the case tossed out on the grounds there is no hard, fast, and written rule against deliberate distortion of the news.

The attorneys for Fox, owned by media baron Rupert Murdoch, argued the First Amendment gives broadcasters the right to lie or deliberately distort news reports on the public airwaves.

In its six-page written decision, the Court of Appeals held that the Federal Communications Commission position against news distortion is only a "policy," not a promulgated law, rule, or regulation. Fox aired a report after the ruling saying it was "totally vindicated" by the verdict.

http://ceasespin.org/ceasespin_blog/ceasespin_blogger_files/fox_news_gets_okay_to_misinform_public.html

The Taliban and al-Qaeda: Not ideaological allies

Report exposes lie behind U.S. war and occupation in Afghanistan

February 28, 2011


The popular Afghan resistance is fighting to drive out foreign invaders.

The following was written anonymously by a March Forward! member who is an active-duty GI.

A new report published by New York University calls into question one of the central premises justifying the United States war on the people of Afghanistan.

The study is entitled  Separating the Taliban from al-Qaeda: The Core of Success in Afghanistan and was produced by NYU’s Center on International Cooperation. Though it is generally supportive of the goals of the United States and NATO in Afghanistan, it reveals that the Taliban and al-Qaeda are not ideological allies, but rather have developed a pragmatic political alliance in the face of a common enemy – U.S.-led imperialism.

According to the study, the Taliban and al-Qaeda are “caught in a marriage of convenience” forced upon them by the U.S./NATO-led International Security Assistance Forces occupying Afghanistan. The two groups are sharply distinct and have radically different goals. They share neither ideology, social or cultural backgrounds, nor national origins. To date no Afghan nationals have ever been proven members of al-Qaeda. Even before September 11, 2001, there was “considerable friction between them … and today that friction persists.”

The study goes on to say that existent relationships between the Taliban and al-Qaeda come in three main varieties: “personal/ individual ties, a shared religion, and their circumstances, a shared location and enemy.” While al-Qaeda has provided some financial and training assistance to the Taliban, the organization has had absolutely no influence on the native Afghan resistance movements.

Matthew Hoh, a Former State Department official who resigned in protest of the way the war was being carried out, has said that possibly thousands of resistance groups in Afghanistan fight entirely independent from any affiliation, but are instead motivated solely by the common desire to remove foreign occupiers from their homes.

The Taliban’s leaders have repeatedly maintained that they have no interest in launching international attacks against the United States. Their goals, unlike al-Qaeda, are exclusively national in scope – they seek to drive out a colonial-type occupation by foreign invaders. Their actions have been entirely defensive and limited to Afghanistan’s national borders, unlike the United States, which invaded and occupied a country that has never committed a single act of aggression against it.

The NYU study additionally claims that the 2009 Obama administration troop surge is actually undermining the over-all U.S. strategy by alienating both the broader population of Afghans and the Taliban. U.S/NATO actions, particularly the increased frequency of night raids on Afghan homes, are further radicalizing the resistance and unifying opposition to the foreign occupation forces.

Furthermore, a public opinion poll taken last fall in Kandahar and Helmand provinces—the focus of the troop surge and the scene of the great majority of bloodshed in the country—found that only a miniscule 8 percent of young men even know about the Sept. 11 attacks in the United States.

Even the Taliban leadership did not know in advance about the September 11 attacks, according to the NYU study. Their statements immediately afterwards condemned the attacks while expressing disbelief that they were the work of bin Laden.

In fact, there is no evidence that the Taliban had a role in the 9/11 attacks. They even offered to extradite bin Laden to face trial, but in response were arrogantly told that the United States “will not negotiate with terrorists.”

NYU study shatters U.S. justification for war on Afghan people

Considering that the alleged pretext for the invasion and occupation of Afghanistan was in response to the Sept. 11 attacks, the findings in NYU’s study completely shatter the main justification for the war. The official justification for the U.S. military invading Afghanistan in 2001 was, in the words of then-President George W. Bush, to “smoke out” the enemy – al-Qaeda.

But if the Taliban does not share a common ideology or goals with al-Qaeda, had nothing to do with the 9/11 attacks and even offered to extradite bin Laden, what was the true reasoning behind the U.S. invasion of Afghanistan?

Another pretext for the invasion of Afghanistan was the Taliban’s reactionary social policies. As this propaganda line went, the United States invaded Afghanistan to save its women. There is no question that the Taliban regime had reactionary social policies. But that had not prevented the United States from organizing and funding reactionary extremist forces like the Mujahedeen when it was plotting to overthrow Afghanistan’s progressive and secular government. Social problems have only intensified since the U.S. invasion, and can never begin to be overcome as long as the Afghan people live under occupation.

The true motive behind the U.S. invasion of Afghanistan was to maintain and expand its global hegemony and empire. Afghanistan is home to strategic natural gas and oil pipelines and is a critical crossroads to deal with the former Soviet republics of Central Asia, as well as Pakistan and Iran. Raising the stakes still further, in June of 2010 the United States discovered untapped mineral deposits worth upwards of a trillion dollars. Among those minerals is lithium, the metal used in cell phone and computer batteries, an enormous strategic prize.

However, it becomes clearer every day that, in spite of overwhelming military and technological superiority, the United States cannot win the war. Due to the valiant resistance of the people of Afghanistan, the United States has been forced to replace its goals of all-out domination with the avoidance of the appearance of defeat to stave off inspiring further resistance among other targets of the U.S. empire. 

We have nothing to gain from this occupation. The Afghan people have the right to self-determination. The only solution to this quagmire that is in the interests of us, our families, and the vast majority of people in the U.S. and Afghanistan, is the complete and immediate withdrawal of all U.S. and NATO forces from the region.

http://www.answercoalition.org/march-forward/statements/the-taliban-and-al-qaeda-not.html

Libya oil production to shut down completely-BofA

LONDON | Thu Feb 24, 2011 2:38pm EST

LONDON Feb 24 (Reuters) - Oil production in Libya is expected to shut down completely and could be lost for a prolonged period of time, Bank of America Merrill Lynch said on Thursday.

"We expect Libyan production to be shut down completely and we might lose sweet crudes from Libya for a prolonged period of time," Bank of America Merrill Lynch analyst Sabine Schels told Reuters.

Schels said that the world faced the prospect of real supply shock in which the loss of 1.6 million barrels per day of sweet oil could potentially trigger a steep rise in prices and force a sharp reduction in demand to balance the system.

"Some of the supply can be replaced with Saudi light crude and some from SPR, but if the disruption is prolonged, we will need demand to drop to balance the system," Schels said.

The bank is currently discussing scenarios and outlooks, and will publish a report on its findings in the coming days.

"We already faced a demand shock last year with global demand increasing by 2.8 million bpd and on top of that, what we have now is a real supply shock," Schels said.

"In a price shock scenario whereby we lose 1.6 million bpd, the rise in prices can be a lot greater than in the case of a demand shock. (Reporting by Jessica Donati; editing by Marguerita Choy)

http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/02/24/libya-merrill-idUSLDE71N2I720110224

Wisconsin Radio Station Explains Why It Dropped Beck's "Unacceptable" Show

February 25, 2011 5:24 pm ET by Joe Strupp

The Madison, Wisconsin, radio station that dropped Glenn Beck's program this week issued the following statement to Media Matters when asked why the decision was made:

WTDY can no longer carry the Glenn Beck program. Over the last 12 months, the show has devolved into plugs for Fox News (the radio version of which is aired by our direct competitor), his books, and other personal endorsements. The lack of actual content becomes more apparent daily. Monday's program was the final straw; his unabashed deriding of Madison is unacceptable for broadcast in our community.

http://mediamatters.org/blog/201102250040