1493Share 

HELP GIVE AWAY SUPREME COURT PROTEST BUMPER STICKERS

Free Bumper Sticker Page:
http://www.peaceteam.net/bumper_stickers.php

So please put a small graphic button on your own web page linking to the free bumper sticker page, and you will automatically get a link back to your site on all our action pages

.

Here is a code block you can copy and use verbatim, just put it in the side bar of your page or anywhere else you like:

<a href="http://www.peaceteam.net/bumper_stickers.php"><img src="http://www.peaceteam.net/imgs/sc_200x69.gif"></a>

Facebook participants can also submit the ALTERNATE action page at

Stop The Filibuster (Facebook only):

http://apps.facebook.com/fb_voices/action.php?qnum=pnum1027

And this is the Twitter reply for the Stop The Filibuster action

@cxs #p1027

The more of you who support this initiative by posting these buttons on your own pages, the faster we can give away these bumper stickers, to build the movement we will need to actually amend the Constitution, or whatever else can be done to repair the grave damage to our democracy done by the rogue majority on the Supreme Court now.

Republicans have been in arms about immigrants who they’ve branded as illegal as an entire group because they claim that since they aren’t U.S. citizens; they claim that they aren’t entitled to the same rights, benefits and privileges as U.S. citizens are.

Yet the Republican dominated, activist Supreme Court, just GAVE MORE rights, benefits and privileges to Foreign corporations, who are owned or controlled by people who AREN’T U.S. citizens, and the control of our COUNTRY, than U.S. Citizens have!  The people in control of these corporations don't even have to live here, let alone be U.S. Citizens, in order to be given free access to the manipulation of our elections!  That is far more damaging than what any immigrants working for minimum wage can do.

The Bill of Rights, an EXTENTION to the U.S. Constitution, guarantees the RIGHTS OF THE PEOPLE OF THE UNITED STATES.  As the Constitution states:

"We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."

The Bill of rights guarantees the rights of the PEOPLE of the United States and spells them out in more detail in the Amendments to the Constitution.  The Bill of Rights constitutes the first ten Amendments.

Amendment I

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

(No prohibition of free speech, or of the press, or of the people to peaceably assemble.  AND the right to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.  (Correcting a Wrong))

But it also has the following Amendments:

Amendment IX

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

and:

Amendment X

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

The Constitution NEVER gave these rights to ANY CORPORATION.  The SUPREME COURT HAS NO AUTHORITY UNDER THE CONSTITUTION, or the BILL OF RIGHTS to do so, because, under the Ninth and Tenth Amendments,

these rights are RETAINED BY THE PEOPLE, (We the People of the United States…), NOT CORPORATIONS, and Certainly NOT FOREIGN OWNED CORPORATIONS.

Let’s see if rank and file Republicans believe that foreign corporations should be allowed to take away the sovereign rights of the CITIZENS of the UNITED STATES.

See Keith Olberman's Comments from "Countdown" on YouTube HERE. 

The five justices who voted in favor of corporations rights against the people, were all appointed by Republicans:

Associate Justice Antonin Scalia – appointed by Ronald Reagan (1986)

Associate Justice Anthony McLeod Kennedy – appointed by Ronald Reagan (1988)

Associate Justice Clarence Thomas – appointed by George H.W. Bush (1991)

Associate Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr. – appointed by George W. Bush (2006)

Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. – appointed by George W. Bush (2005)

Citizens United is a far right wing organization that launched “Swift boat ads” and fake “documentaries” against Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama during the 2008 presidential campaign cycle.

PLEASE WATCH AND SHARE THIS 4 MINUTE VIDEO featuring Jamie Raskin and Donna Edwards:  http://freespeechforpeople.org/node/35

In one of the worst decisions in U.S. history, the Supreme Court recently ruled that big corporations have the same First Amendment rights as people. This decision has opened the floodgates to unlimited political spending by big corporations.1

To fully undo the damage, Congress must pass a constitutional amendment overturning this terrible decision.

So, we're aiming to send thousands of faxes to members of Congress urging them to close the floodgates of unlimited corporate cash. Can you send a free fax to Senator Herb Kohl today? Click here to send a fax now:

http://pol.moveon.org/fax?tg=FSWI_1&cp_id=1260&id=18848-8847148-_ic3gHx&t=4The fax says: "I urge you to pass a constitutional amendment to stop unlimited corporate political spending and to support legislation for public financing of congressional campaigns."

It's not every day that folks call for an amendment to the U.S. Constitution. But this Supreme Court decision puts our very democracy up for sale. Even tea party activists are saying that the Court has gone too far.2

That's why our friends at Public Citizen, People for the American Way, and leaders in Congress like John Kerry, John Conyers, and Donna Edwards are calling for a constitutional amendment to overturn the Citizens United decision.3

However, because it can take a while to pass a constitutional amendment, we'll keep pushing Congress to immediately pass public financing legislation, so that grassroots candidates can compete while relying on small donors from their district.

It could be now or never. If we let the big corporations unleash their unlimited campaign cash for even one election, it could be impossible to get our democracy back.

Please send a free fax to the office of Sen. Kohl to close the floodgates of unlimited corporate cash. Click here to send a free fax now:

http://pol.moveon.org/fax?tg=FSWI_1&cp_id=1260&id=18848-8847148-_ic3gHx&t=5Thanks for all you do.
–Steven, Lenore, Ilyse, Kat, and the rest of the team

Sources:
1. "Justices Overturn Key Campaign Limits," The New York Times, January 21, 2010
http://www.moveon.org/r?r=86393&id=&id=18848-8847148-_ic3gHx&t=6

2. "'We Might As Well Be Able To Vote For Disney': Tea Partiers Slam Citizens United Ruling," Talking Points Memo, February 3, 2010
http://www.moveon.org/r?r=86392&id=18848-8847148-_ic3gHx&t=7

3. "The Solutions: Three Ways to Curb Excessive Corporate Money in Politics," Public Citizen, accessed January 28, 2010
http://www.moveon.org/r?r=86338&id=&t=12&id=18848-8847148-_ic3gHx&t=8

HELP GIVE AWAY SUPREME COURT PROTEST BUMPER STICKERS

Free Bumper Sticker Page:
http://www.peaceteam.net/bumper_stickers.php

So please put a small graphic button on your own web page linking to the free bumper sticker page, and you will automatically get a link back to your site on all our action pages

.

Here is a code block you can copy and use verbatim, just put it in the side bar of your page or anywhere else you like:

<ahref="http://www.peaceteam.net/bumper_stickers.php"><imgsrc="http://www.peaceteam.net/imgs/sc_200x69.gif"></a>

The more of you who support this initiative by posting these buttons on your own pages, the faster we can give away these bumper stickers, to build the movement we will need to actually amend the Constitution, or whatever else can be done to repair the grave damage to our democracy done by the rogue majority on the Supreme Court now.

Facebook participants can also submit the ALTERNATE action page at

Stop The Filibuster (Facebook only):

http://apps.facebook.com/fb_voices/action.php?qnum=pnum1027

And this is the Twitter reply for the Stop The Filibuster action

@cxs #p1027

January 22, 2010

SUPREME COURT

U.S. Government For Sale

Yesterday, in the case of Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, the Supreme Court held that "the constitutional guarantee of free speech means that corporations can spend unlimited sums to help elect favored candidates or defeat those they oppose." The activist 5-4 decision struck down a 63-year-old ban that ensured corporations may not use their enormous profits to support or oppose candidates. The ruling "declared unconstitutional a large portion of the McCain-Feingold campaign finance reform act passed in 2002." Ian Millhiser of the Center for American Progress Action Fund observed, "Today's decision does far more than simply provide Fortune 500 companies with a massive megaphone to blast their political views to the masses; it also empowers them to drown out any voices that disagree with them." Rep. Alan Grayson (D-FL), who is already pushing legislation to rectify the Court's decision, warned, "The law itself will be bought and sold. It would be political bribery on the largest scale imaginable." "The Supreme Court has thrust politics back to the robber-baron era of the 19th century," the New York Times writes today.

THE BACKGROUND OF THE CASE: The case grew from attempts by the conservative organization Citizens United to promote its anti-Hillary Clinton film, "Hillary: The Movie," in 2008, which "takes viewers on a savaging journey through Clinton's scandals." Because the movie was partially financed with corporate funds, "it fell under restrictions in the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002," also known as The McCain-Feingold Act. The Federal Election Commission (FEC) therefore heavily restricted Citizens United's ability to advertise the film. A March 2009 ruling upheld the FEC's decision, writing that the film was "susceptible of no other interpretation than to inform the electorate that Senator Clinton is unfit for office, that the United States would be a dangerous place in a President Hillary Clinton world, and that viewers should vote against her." The film "was the brainchild of Citizens United President David N. Bossie, a former congressional aid" and longtime Clinton critic. According to Nick Nyhart, president of Public Campaign, "The movie was created with the idea of establishing a vehicle to chip away at the decision. ... It was part of a very clear strategy to undo McCain-Feingold."

FURTHER EMPOWERING BIG BUSINESS: In 2008, "the Obama and McCain campaigns combined to spend just over $1.1 billion, an enormous, record-breaking sum at the time," but a small fraction of what corporations have available. "With hundreds of billions of dollars of corporate profits at stake every time Congress begins a session," wrote Millhiser, "wealthy corporations would be foolish not to spend tens of billions of dollars every election cycle to make sure that their interests are protected. No one, including the candidates themselves, have the ability to compete with such giant expenditures." David Kirkpatrick wrote in the New York Times that the Court "has handed a new weapon to lobbyists. If you vote wrong, a lobbyist can now tell any elected official that my company, labor union or interest group will spend unlimited sums explicitly advertising against your re-election." "The good news," wrote Millhiser, "is that lawmakers are already considering ways to mitigate the damage caused by Citizens United, and a number of options exist, such as requiring additional disclosures by corporations engaged in electioneering, empowering shareholders to demand that their investment not be spent to advance candidates they disapprove of, or possibly even requiring shareholders to approve a corporation's decision to influence an election before the company may do so." Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-NY) and Rep. Chris Van Hollen (D-MD) have been "working for months to draft legislation in response to the anticipated decision." Potential fixes include banning political advertising by corporations that hire lobbyists, receive government money, or collect most of their revenue abroad. "Another would be to tighten rules against coordination between campaigns and outside groups so that, for example, they could not hire the same advertising firms or consultants. A third would be to require shareholder approval of political expenditures, or even to force chief executives to appear as sponsors of commercials their companies pay for."

http://seminal.firedoglake.com/diary/25575

Let's Set The Record Straight on Healthcare Reform!
Click here for the facts:

http://wisc5thcddems.com/WebSitePageEditor/default.aspx?fileUrl=Issues.aspx&tabName=edit

Wed. Jan. 13, 2010 

Haiti earthquake: How to help

An estimated 3 million people have been affected by today's earthquake measuring magnitude 7.0 on the Richter Scale. 

A list of charitable organizations active in the nation

• Action Against Hunger
• American Red Cross
• American Jewish World Service
• AmeriCares
• Beyond Borders
• CARE
• Catholic Relief Services
• Childcare Worldwide
• Direct Relief International
• Doctors Without Borders
• Feed My Starving Children
• Friends of WFP
• Haitian Health Foundation
• Hope for Haiti
• International Medical Corps
• International Relief Teams
• Medical Teams International
• Meds and Food for Kids
• Mercy Corps
• Operation USA
• Oxfam
• Partners in Health
• Samaritan's Purse
• Save the Children
• UNICEF
• World Concern
• World Vision
• Yele Haiti
  
• Wyclef Jean's grassroots org
  Text Yele to 501 501 to donate $5 via your cellphone

The U.S. State Department Operations Center said Americans seeking information about family members in Haiti should call 1-888-407-4747. Due to heavy volume, some callers may receive a recording. "Our embassy is still in the early stages of contacting American citizens through our Warden Network," the U.S. State Department said in a statement. "Communications are very difficult within Haiti at this time."

For those interesting in helping immediately, simply text "HAITI" to "90999" and a donation of $10 will be given automatically to the Red Cross to help with relief efforts, charged to your cell phone bill.

How To Help: Red Cross | Mercy Corps

About the Author: Cheryl Mills serves as the Counselor and Chief of Staff to Secretary of State Hillary Clinton.

Earlier today, a powerful earthquake with a magnitude of 7.0 struck Haiti. Reports are still coming in, but it appears that many schools, hospitals and other buildings have collapsed, adding more suffering to an already impoverished nation, the poorest country in the western hemisphere.

Reports continue to pour in from all over and we are extending all our thoughts and prayers to those who have been affected.

As Secretary Clinton said earlier, the U.S. government will offer assistance to Haiti and others in the region in the form of civilian and military disaster relief and humanitarian assistance.

For those interested in helping immediately, simply text "HAITI" to "90999" and a donation of $10 will be given automatically to the Red Cross to help with relief efforts, charged to your cell phone bill.

Or you can go online to organizations like the Red Cross and Mercy Corps Mercy Corps to make a contribution to the disaster relief efforts.

The State Department Operations Center has set up the following number for Americans seeking information about family members in Haiti: 1-888-407-4747. We'll provide more details and opportunities to help as we learn more. To stay up-to-date, follow us on state.gov.

More Republican Hypocrisy.  The RNC has had healthcare coverage for their members that INCLUDED abortion coverage for the last 18 years.

When the information recently became public, RNC Chair Michael Steele decided to change the policies, to "opt out" of the abortion coverage.  But contrary to Republican demands that any public healthcare option not do business with any insurance company that offers abortion coverage, they are continuing to do business with the same insurance company that STILL provides abortion coverage to their other customers.  Why do they continue to demand that the public, that they are supposed to represent, has to comply with restrictions that the Republican Party EXEMPTS THEMSELVES FROM?   

Congressman Jim Sensenbrenner hosts town hall meetings throughout the 5th CD. This is a big opportunity for Democrats to get answers that Sensenbrenner's constituents deserve to hear.  So, when they are announced, you may want to attend and be prepared to ask questions.  It helps if you have some background on issues so that you can debate him when he throws his propaganda at you to cloud the issues, and use it as an opportunity to get on his soapbox to shove his opinions down your throat, rather than listening to his constituents.

You might want to ask him these questions:

How do you expect tax credits to fix the skyrocketing costs of healthcare?

Tax credits only give you an offset for a portion of the expenses that you have.  It doesn't pay for all of the healthcare, or even a major portion of it.  And it doesn't have any affect on Doctors or Hospitals raising the costs of healthcare to their clients, or healthcare insurance premiums skyrocketing faster than wages, and insurance policies forcing policy holders to pay higher and higher co-payments and out-of-pocket costs before health insurance even kicks in.

Nationwide, the average health care costs for every man, woman and child run about $9,000.  In Wisconsin, that number is closer to $10,800.  The latest Wisconsin Health Insurance Cost Ranking report for 2010 was released on

December 22, 2009, and is available on www.citizenactionwi.org . 

The report shows that there is a 19% variation between the highest cost major metro area and the lowest cost metro area, which amounts to a $1,608 difference for a single policy each year.

Wisconsin health insurance costs continued their rapid rise in 2009, rising 9% overall dispite a very slow rate of general inflation for other consumer products.  There is also a large gap in the rate of healthcare inflation in different areas of the state, with some rising by 11% and others rising by 3%.

All Wisconsin regions and metro areas have suffered healthcare insurance inflation above the national average.

While national employer-based single health insurance premiums have increased 120% this decade, they have increased 179% in Wisconsin.

The report also finds that the national for-profit insurance companies offer the lowest quality health plans, as measured by performance measures and consumer satisfaction.  SE Wisconsin has among the highest health insurance costs, but the lowest quality health plans, because of the predominance of the national for-profit companies in the region.

National for-profit health care plans can have 40% or 50% of their total income going toward actual healthcare, with 30% or 40% going towards overhead, and the remainder paying off shareholders.  The top six insurance companies had profit increases of 480% in the last few years.  American Chronicle reported on July 19, 2009 that the CEO of United Healthcare received $1.7 BILLION in executive pay TWO YEARS AGO.

Medicare, which is a GOVERNMENT RUN PROGRAM, only has about 2% to 3% of the total expenses going towards overhead, while 97% to 98% goes towards actual patient healthcare.

The proposed healthcare reform bills in Congress require that private insurance companies put 80% of their total revenues actually going towards patient healthcare.  That gives more healthcare to more people, while still allowing private companies money to pay for their overhead costs.  The difference is that private insurance companies are currently spending more money to pay people in their companies to DENY benefits to their policy holders, EVEN WHEN THOSE BENEFITS ARE COVERED.  You are paying for their salaries, when you send them a premium check.  And if you don't believe it, try getting your medical bills paid for by your insurance company, when you have a life-threatening, or chronic, expensive illness or disability that they would have to pay for, long-term.  You will run into delays of payments, denials of coverage, and countless excuses of why they shouldn't have to pay for it because of technicalities, which were INTENTIONALLY not detailed in your insurance policy.

Insurance policies are written in legalese and double-talk, with vague explanations of what they cover and don't cover, and areas in one part of the policy that are completely refuted in other areas of the policy, if you read them carefully.  It is typical of legal documents that are written to allow them "weasel room" to wiggle out of a commitment, if they can make a case that they aren't responsible for paying the costs, or simply are able to delay payments until the policy holder simply gives up and refuses to fight them.

$635 million has been spent by lobbyists on the healthcare issue, lobbying Congress over the last two years. 

Is there no wonder why people are supporting and enrolling in Wisconsin's Badger Care Plus?  ( A Medicaid program for the poor, which had to suspend enrollments because of the surge of people trying to get coverage under the program.) 

Why is it that you have no problem in accepting a healthcare plan for yourself, provided to Federal employees, that give you 100% coverage of benefits, when you refuse to allow that same policy extended to the general public?

When constituents ask you why you defend yourself in taking the benefits of this "socialist healthcare" for yourself, when you have healthcare coverage paid for by the U.S. Taxpayer, yet refuse to support healthcare reform that would provide the same quality healthcare to your constituents - you have argued that your healthcare coverage isn't as good as what teachers get.

I suppose that means that the teachers' LABOR UNION does a BETTER JOB at providing healthcare benefits to their members, than the U.S. Congress has done to provide healthcare benefits to citizens of the United States, or even to members of Congress themselves?

Congressman Sensenbrenner, you have proposed as the Republican alternatives to the Democrats healthcare reform plan: HSAs (Healthcare Savings Accounts), which the individual funds by themselves and are nothing more than savings accounts.  You also support Paul Ryan and Jim DeMint's Health Plan Proposals which were written by the Lewin Group, a wholly owned subsidiary of United Healthcare, the same insurance company which denied coverage to a healthy baby boy, because they claimed he was overweight.

The Lewin Group is part of Ingenix, a UnitedHealth subsidiary that was accused by the New York attorney general and the American Medical Association, a physician's group, of helping insurers shift medical expenses to consumers by distributing skewed data…In January, UnitedHealth agreed to a $50 million settlement with the New York attorney general and a $350 million settlement with the AMA, covering conduct going back as far as 1994.” [Washington Post, 7/22/09]

Congressman Sensenbrenner, how much do you receive in donations from insurance industry, pharmaceutical industry and lobbyists from the healthcare industry to vote against the interests of your constituents, and do nothing to control the out of control costs of healthcare?

After witnessing corporations deliberately wasting funds on unnecessary bonuses and travel luxuries, do you continue to support restricting bank regulations?

On more than one occasion, you have voted against bills that would protect members of the LGBT community from discriminatory, or even VIOLENT acts.  Could you explain your reasoning for this?

Over five years ago, when you were the House Judiciary Chair, and the Republican Party was in control of Congress, a whistle-blower reported secret bank accounts held in The (Royal) LGT Bank of Liechtenstein, (a favorite vacation spot of yours), to hide money for millionaire/billionaire tax evaders, yet you and the Republican Congress never took any legal action, or even investigated the evidence, or took action to make these tax evaders pay their fair share of taxes.  The LGT Bank reportedly held an estimated $1.2 TRILLION in assets being hidden by tax evaders.  Yes, that is not a typo.  That's TRILLION.  (Remember when we were told by Republican politicians that when the billionaires were given huge tax cuts that they would invest it in businesses and create jobs so the money would "trickle-down"?  Now you know where it all "trickle-went!") 

Only now, with a Democratic Congress, is it being investigated and publicly reported that over 70 countries (in every country except Antarctica), have been involved in hiding money for tax evaders.  A Republican Congressman who opposed the bank and auto industry bailouts, suggested on the floor of Congress, that as much as $20 TRILLION in hidden funds would be "repatriated" into the U.S. economy, if Congress would waive the criminal penalties and fines! (Keep in mind, that not only did this Republican Congressman know that $20 Trillion was being kept in illegal bank accounts to evade taxes, but he knew this in spite of the fact that the major media has never reported it!  So Republicans knew about this when Bush was still in office, yet they never did anything to recover the funds to keep the U.S. Government from going bankrupt, or to keep the U.S. and global economy from collapsing! )

Congress recently offered the tax scofflaws an opportunity to turn themselves in for leniency.  October 15, 5:00 p.m. was the deadline and only 7,500 people turned themselves in, even though there were over 57,000 tax evaders reported from ONE BANK ALONE.   NPR reported that most of these tax scofflaws aren't willing to turn themselves in because they figure that the U.S. Government won't take the time, or commit the resources to investigate and go after them, assuming that they won't be able to find them, or uncover all of their hidden funds and their sources. 

Senator John McCain's Senior Presidential Campaign Advisor, Senator Phil Gramm, is Vice Chairman for UBS in America, which has been shown to have actively pursued and advised thousands of clients to create secret offshore bank accounts to evade U.S. taxes, contrary to U.S. law.  In February, UBS agreed to a $780 million settlement of criminal charges that it had sent bankers posing as tourists into the USA to help clients evade taxes.  In August, UBS agreed to settle an IRS civil lawsuit by providing data for nearly 4,500 U.S. clients whose accounts once held an estimated $18 BILLION.  12 Key Figures Prosecuted in UBS Tax Evasion Case. 

According to the IRS, two-thirds of all corporations operating in the United States (U.S. and Foreign), don't pay anything in income taxes.  Yup, that's right - zip, zero, zilch.  According to the Wisconsin Department of Revenue, two-thirds of all corporations operating in the State of Wisconsin don't pay anything in income taxes either.  And that is in spite of the fact that corporate taxes were at their lowest under Republican Governors, and have increased somewhat under Governor Doyle, to take some of the pressure off of individual property owners.  The Institute for Wisconsin's Future reported that the Corporate sector underpaid state and local taxes by $1 Billion in 2007 alone.  For more information on tax policy and actual documentation that disproves the Republican rants about "the need for tax cuts for the wealthy" click HERE.

Representative Sensenbrenner: When are you going to go after the wealthy tax evaders and collect the taxes they legally owe so that your middle-class and small business owner constituents don't have to continue to pay more than their fair share of taxes, in order to pay the taxes that your wealthy buddies HAVEN'T BEEN PAYING? 

Harry Reid: Include the Public Option!

Here's a brief letter you can send to your email circle. Please send it along right away, but please only contact people who know you personally. Spam hurts our campaign.

Click here to open a new e-mail and invite your friends, family and colleagues to get involved:
Invite friends and colleagues.

Or, you can cut and paste the text below into an email message:


Subject: Harry Reid Hi, After months of delay, the full Senate is about to debate and vote on landmark health care legislation. But first, Senator Harry Reid and Democratic leaders have a big decision to make: Will the Senate consider real health care reform with a public health insurance option, or a watered-down compromise full of giveaways to Big Insurance? I just signed a petition asking Sen. Reid to include a strong public health insurance option in the Senate's health care bill. Will you join me at the link below? http://pol.moveon.org/harryreid/?r_by=17539-8847148-FPtfOJx&rc=paste Thanks!

The final step:

If you want to understand how it is that "Conservatives" have managed to screw up healthcare, insurance and banking for everyone but a handful at the top you might want to watch Michael Moore's "Capitalism - A Love Story".  He takes punches at Democrats and Republicans alike, but he makes valid points.

You might also check out one of the web sites that Michael Moore refers to in his movie www.deadpeasants.biz .  It is a website that a legal firm, McClanahan Myers Espey LLP,  has put together while investigating how corporations have been taking out life insurance policies on their employees, often without their knowledge or consent, so that they make tens of thousands and even millions of dollars on the deaths of their employees!  This is something that should be ILLEGAL, but many corporations have been using as PROFIT CENTERS for their corporate gain!  It is also telling that the term "Dead Peasants Policies" is a term that the insurance companies came up with.  It also clearly explains how they view working class employees. 

Here's a partial list from their website:

Which employers bought policies on the lives of employees?

Because a company’s purchase of insurance policies is not a public record, it is virtually impossible to know every company that invested in policies on employees’ lives. The following companies, however, are believed to have been named as the beneficiary of life insurance policies on employees:

• ADAC Laboratories
• Advanced Telecommunication Corp.
• Aeroquip Vickers Inc.
• Alabama Power Co.
• Alfa Corp.
• Allegheny Technologies Inc.
• Allergan Inc.
• Allfirst Financial Inc.
• Amegy Bank, N.A.
• American Business Products, Inc.
• American Electric Power
• American Express Co.
• American Greetings Corp.
• American Management Systems Inc.
• American Seafoods Group LLC
• Ameritech Corp.
• Amerus Group Co.
• Anadarko Petroleum Corporation
• Appalachian Power Co.
• Arch Chemical
• Aristech Chemical Corp.
• AT&T Communications
• Atlantic Richfield Co.
• Avery Dennison Corp
• Avon Products Inc.
• B. F. Goodrich Company
• Ball Corporation
• Bank Boston
• Bank Of America
• Bank One Corp.
• Barnett Banks Inc.
• Bassett Furniture Industries Inc.
• Be Aerospace Inc.
• Bear Stearns Companies
• Bellsouth Corporation
• Boise Cascade Corp.
• Boston Company
• Boston Federal
• Bristol-Myers Squibb Company
• Camelot Music, Inc.
• Carolina Power & Light Co.
• Carpenter Technology Corp.
• Catskill Financial Corp.
• Central Power & Light Co.
• Ch2m Hill Companies Ltd.
• Charming Shoppes, Inc.
• Checkfree Corp.
• Chemical Banking Corporation
• Citibank, N.A.
• Citizens Bank
• Clark Inc.
• Clorox Company
• CNF Inc.
• Coca-Cola Company
• Columbus Southern Power Co.
• Commercial Intertech Corp.
• Compass Bank (Florida & Alabama)
• Computer Technology Associates Inc.
• Consolidated Natural Gas Co.
• Consolidated Rail Corporation
• Cox Enterprises, Inc.
• CTA Inc.
• Cymer Inc.
• Diamond Shamrock Inc.
• Diebold Inc.
• Dime Bancorp Inc.
• Dow Chemical
• Earle M. Jorgensen Co.
• Eastman Kodak Company
• Eaton Corp.
• ECC Capital Corp.
• Enserch Corp.
• F&M Bancorp
• FiberMark Inc.
• Figgie International Inc.
• Fina Oil & Chemical Company
• First Bank System Inc.
• First Commonwealth
• First Midwest Bancorp Inc.
• Fleet Bank
• FleetBoston Financial Corp.
• Flightsafety International Inc.
• Frontier Bank
• Fulton Financial Corp.
• GATX Corporation
• Georgia Power Co.
• GNC Corp.
• Great Plains Energy Inc.
• GTE Corporation
• Gulf Power Co.
• HCR Manor Care Inc
• Hechinger Company
• Heritage Commerce Corp.
• Herman Miller Inc.
• Hershey Foods Corporation
• Hillenbrand Industries, Inc.
• Hosiery Corporation of America
• Houghton Mifflin
• Household Finance
• Hovnanian Enterprises Inc.
• Hughes Supply Inc
• ICI Americas, Inc.
• Idaho Power Company
• IKON Office Solutions Inc.
• Indiana Michigan Power Co.
• Integra Bank Corp.
• Intermark Inc.
• Iowa First Bancshares Corp.
• Iroquois Bancorp Inc.
• J Jill Group Inc.
• JP Morgan Chase & Co.
• Kansas City Power & Light
• Kansas Gas & Electric Co.
• Keithley Instruments Inc.
• Kentucky Power Co.
• Keycorp Ohio
• Kimberly Clark
• Korn Ferry International
• Laser Master Int’l. Inc.
• Linens N Things Inc.
• LKQ Corp.
• Louisiana Pacific Corp.
• Manor Care Inc.
• Marriott International Inc.
• McDonnell Douglas Corp.
• Media General Inc.
• Medicalcontrol Inc.
• Menasha Corporation
• MidAmerican Energy Co.
• Miix Group Inc.
• Mississippi Power Co.
• MNC Financial Inc.
• Mueller Industries Inc.
• National City Corporation
• NationsBank
• Nestle Enterprises
• Norfolk Southern Corp.
• Norfolk Southern Railway Co.
• Northern States Power Co.
• Ohio Power Co.
• Old National
• Olin Corporation
• Owens & Minor Inc.
• PacifiCorp
• Panera Bread Co.
• Panhandle Eastern Pipe Line Company
• Parker Hannifin Corp.
• Penn Treaty American Corp.
• Penns Woods Bancorp Inc.
• Phibro Animal Health Corp.
• Philipp Brothers Chemicals Inc.
• Phoenix Companies Inc.
• Pinnacle Financial Services Inc.
• Portland General Electric
• Potlatch Corporation
• PPG Industries
• Procter & Gamble Company
• PSS World Medical Inc.
• Public Service Co. of New Mexico
• Public Service Co. of Oklahoma
• Public Service Enterprise Group
• Questech Inc.
• R. R. Donnelley & Sons Company
• Ruddick Corp.
• Ryder System Inc.
• Sallie Mae (Stud Ln Mktg Assoc.)
• Savannah Electric & Power Co.
• Sequa Corp.
• Service Merchandise Co., Inc.
• Shearson Mortgage
• Sherwin-Williams
• Sky Chefs
• Smart & Final Inc.
• Smith Barney
• Sonoco Products Co.
• Southwest Bank
• Southwest Water Co.
• Southwestern Bell Corp.
• Southwestern Electric Power Co.
• Southwestern Public Service Co.
• Star Banc Corp.
• Stauffer Management Company
• Steelcase Inc.
• Sturgis Bancorp Inc.
• Summit Bank of N.J.
• Swank, Inc.
• Tellabs Inc.
• Tenet Healthcare Corp.
• Texas Eastern Transmission Corp.
• Tompkins Trustco Inc.
• TXU Corp.
• TYCO International
• UniFirst Corp.
• Union Bank
• United National Bancorp
• Urocor Inc.
• Vineyard National Bancorp
• W. R. Grace & Company
• Wachovia Corporation
• Walgreen Company
• Wal-Mart Stores
• Walt Disney
• Wang’s International, Inc.
• Wells Fargo, N.A.
• West Coast Bancorp
• West Texas Utilities Co.
• Westar Energy Inc.
• Western Aire Chef Inc
• Western Resources, Inc.
• Westpoint Pepperell
• Winn Dixie
• Winnebago Industries Inc.
• Woolworth Corporation
• Xcel Energy Inc.
• York Water Co.
• Zale Corp.

Did you happen to read this in the Huffington Post:

"Michael Moore has made the most important and urgent political film of our time. In fact, he might have made the most American of films since the populist cinema of Frank Capra." (Read the rest of this excellent piece, "Michael Moore's Grapes of Wrath," by clicking here.)

Or this from the Los Angeles Times:
"It is Moore at his most passionate, most personal and most political, and that is something not to be missed."

Or this from the Minneapolis Star Tribune:
"'Capitalism' is a Molotov cocktail thrown straight at the heart of the New York Stock Exchange. The impact is spectacular."

And finally this gem from MacLeans the "Time magazine" of Canada:
"... Moore is at the top of his game. 'Capitalism: A Love Story' may be the best film of his career."

But here's what's crazy: Some conservatives are also saying they love the film and are telling people to go see it: E.D. Hill from Fox News, the Wall Street Journal, and the Financial Post. Even Jim Pinkerton, White House staffer under both Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush said, "I've got to tell you, on this particular issue, I'm with Michael Moore." This is amazing. Plus, having the mainstream support of people who speak to middle America, like Jay Leno and Merle Haggard -- this has truly become a movie that has reached its hand out and said "please come in, I think you might appreciate knowing some of the things I'm going to show you." If there was ever a time to take your Republican brother-in-law to a Michael Moore film, this would be it!

Last week, Mike had one of his best openings ever -- second only to the once-in-a-lifetime "Fahrenheit 9/11." It tied for 6th in the national box office (with Drew Barrymore's "Whip It," which was on nearly twice as many screens!) and had the #4 per-screen average. "Capitalism" earned more than Mike's last film, "Sicko," did on its opening weekend and is on track to be one of the top 5 grossing documentaries of all time (which will give Mike 4 of the top 7 all-time docs!). And "Capitalism" remains the highest grossing per-screen average for any film in limited release in 2009. And it's a documentary! This never -- very rarely -- happens.

I can tell you that Mike is probably more proud of this film than anything he's done since "Roger & Me." That's because "Capitalism: A Love Story" is what I would call the pinnacle of his life's work -- this is his manifesto.

And it's damn funny! Or, rather, it's damning and it's funny. You will be transported watching this amazing movie -- no one has ever made anything like it. If you want a great time at the movies this weekend, go see "Capitalism." You will NOT be disappointed!

Click here to find where it's playing near you. It's rated "R," like most of Mike's films (why? why? why?), but that didn't stop him from seeing "Woodstock" or "M*A*S*H" when he was a teenager -- and it shouldn't stop you under-17-year-olds from seeing "Capitalism: A Love Story!" You know what to do.

And check out our newly redesigned website that I manage for Mike. There's great new stuff every day. You can now post comments and participate in the discussion!

And you can stay in touch with Mike on Twitter at Twitter.com/MMFlint.

That's it for now. Grab some friends and go see this great flick -- it won't be around forever! They gotta make room for "Saw VI!"
Webmaster
MichaelMoore.com

If you like what you see, join us!

Become a member!     

Contribute: http://www.wisdems.org/contribute.asp

Or if you prefer to donate directly to the Fifth Congressional District Democratic Party click HERE.

Volunteer: http://www.democrats.org/modules/votercontact/login_signup.php

Get eMail Updates!

State Party News: http://www.wisdems.org/release.asp?id=0

Become a stakeholder in taking back America!

  Get Your Democracy Bonds Today!

Check out our Newsletter for the latest information on what is going on in the 5th CD. 

If you'd like to blog with other Democrats around the State, click here. (Links to the Wisconsin State WisDems.org blogsite.) 

There have been a number of inquiries regarding Homeowner or Condominium Owner Associations prohibiting Resident Owners from displaying political signs during campaign season.  It is ILLEGAL for them to prohibit the display of campaign signs.  They may, however, determine the size and placement (within reason), of the signage.  I've provided the Wisconsin State Statutes which cover this issue below:

Wisconsin State Statute prohibiting Homeowner or Condo Associations from prohibiting their owners from posting political signs.

http://nxt.legis.state.wi.us/nxt/gateway.dll?f=templates&fn=default.htm&d=stats&jd=ch.%20703

703.105(1m)      
(1m) No bylaw or rule may be adopted or provision included in a declaration or deed that prohibits a unit owner from displaying in his or her condominium a sign that supports or opposes a candidate for public office or a referendum question.

703.105(2)      
(2) Notwithstanding subs. (1) and (1m), bylaws or rules may be adopted that regulate the size and location of signs, flags and flagpoles.

A man walks up to the White House gate and says he is there to see George Bush. The Marine guarding the gate informs the man "George Bush doesn't live here anymore".

The man says "Thank you" and walks away.

The next day the same man walks up to the same gate and says to the same Marine "I am here to see George Bush".

The Marine says, I am sorry sir, but George Bush does not live here anymore."

The man says "Thank you" and walks away.

The next day the same man walks up to the same White House gate and says "I am here to see George Bush".

The marine at the gate says to the man, "Sir, for three days now you have come to this gate asking to see George Bush and for three days I have told you that he does not live here anymore. Why do you keep coming back?"

The man says, "I just like hearing you say it, that's all"

The Marine then smiled, saluted and said " I'll see you tomorrow sir."

For online access to information regarding where the money from The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act is going, go to:  Recovery.gov

Read the full bill, or download the PDF documents go here:

The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009

For information on the Repower America plan, to convert America to 100% clean electric power within ten years, by replacing coal and foreign oil while creating cheaper energy and more jobs, go to: RepowerAmerica.org

Iraq For Sale: The War Profiteers

The Budget According to McCain: Part I

May 13, 2008

Updated: May 16, 2008

Think it's all about cutting earmarks? Think again.

Summary

McCain’s big promise is that he can balance the budget while extending Bush’s tax cuts and adding a few of his own. He likes to leave the impression that this can be done painlessly, for example, by eliminating "wasteful" spending in the form of “earmarks” that lawmakers like to tuck into spending bills to finance home-state projects. We found that not only is this theory full of holes, it's not even McCain's actual plan. In this story we examine the spending-cut side of McCain's budget program. In Part II, we'll look at what McCain has said about taxes.

McCain's pronouncements on cutting spending, and even on the growth in the size of the federal government, are dubious at best:

• McCain seems to say that he can save $100 billion by cutting out earmarks. But budget experts say that cutting earmarks would actually save very little. And questioned more closely, McCain's campaign now says that his planned savings have nothing to do with eliminating earmarks.

• With earmarks out as a potential source of savings, McCain hasn't said what he'd cut out of the discretionary budget to get to $100 billion. He's even indicated that defense spending might increase. If defense spending is off the table, saving $100 billion would require 18.5 percent across-the-board cuts in every other discretionary program, including things like elementary and secondary education, veterans' health benefits and highway construction. The alternative would be severe cuts in a few programs, as yet unnamed. 

• McCain says that "just in the last few years" the government has puffed up "by 40 percent, by trillions." Actually, it has taken federal spending a decade to grow 40 percent, and even longer to grow by "trillions." In inflation-adjusted dollars, federal spending is projected to come to $2.45 trillion in fiscal 2009, including $1.4 trillion for Social Security, Medicare, military spending and veterans programs. The last time the budget was "trillions" smaller was 1951.

Update, May 16: In our original article, we did not specify in the summary that the $2.45 trillion in federal spending is measured in inflation-adjusted dollars, with 2000 as a baseline. Also, we have changed the summary to reflect that the estimate is for fiscal year 2009, as we say in the Analysis section; the spending levels are still being developed by Congress.

Also, we should not have said that student loans were part of the discretionary budget, as we did originally. They are not. And we have changed the term "assistance to veterans" to be more specific, since some veterans programs are mandatory and some are discretionary.

Analysis

Beginning, appropriately enough, with an April 15 speech, presumptive Republican presidential nominee John McCain began unveiling a series of economic proposals. He elaborated on his plan in an April 16 interview with Andrea Mitchell on MSNBC and again in an April 20 appearance on "This Week with George Stephanopoulos" and has continued repeating many of his claims on the stump. In the first of our two-part article on McCain's budget and tax proposals, we look at his plan to reduce government spending.

McCain's Earmark Sleight-of-Hand

The McCain campaign has been vague about where, exactly, the candidate will cut spending. But one theme has emerged consistently: McCain will save money by eliminating earmarks:

McCain (April 15): I will veto every bill with earmarks, until the Congress stops sending bills with earmarks. ... The great goal is to get the American economy running at full strength again. ... And one very direct way to achieve that is by taking the savings from earmark, program review, and other budget reforms.

McCain (April 16): I can show you $35 billion just in the last two years of pork-barrel projects that should be eliminated that would certainly help pay for a lot of that [proposed tax cuts]. And $65 billion that's already on the books.

McCain (April 20): "Two years in a row, last two years, the president of the United States has signed in a law, two big-spending, pork-barrel-laden bills worth $35 billion. That increases the budget, the baseline of the budget. In the years before that, $65 billion. You do away with those, there’s $100 billion right there, before you look at any agency of government."

McCain is apparently claiming that he can save $100 billion simply by eliminating earmarks, past and present. Let's start with a simple overview of earmarks, which are line items inserted by lawmakers into legislation funding the federal government. Estimates of earmarked spending vary. For fiscal 2008, the budget watchdog group Taxpayers for Common Sense said there was $18.3 billion earmarked in spending bills. Citizens Against Government Waste came in at $17.2 billion. The Office of Management and Budget tallied earmarks at a mere $16.9 billion. In 2006, the Congressional Research Service, which used a different definition of "earmark" for each of the 11 spending bills it studied in that year, came up with over $67 billion.

But contrary to popular belief -- this is the first of several bits of information readers may be surprised by -- cutting earmarks wouldn't necessarily cut government spending, according to independent budget experts from across the political spectrum. Jeff Patch, a budget fellow at the libertarian Cato Institute (and also a former McCain volunteer) told FactCheck.org that "earmarks just direct funds from executive agencies to specific projects or companies." That is, while there are still a few pet projects slipped into legislation in the dark of night that do increase the federal budget, earmarks often simply tell agencies how to spend money that they are already getting. So while earmarks may drive up the cost of government slightly (by, for example, awarding no-bid contracts in a legislator's home district), cutting earmarks alone is "not sufficient for cutting wasteful spending," Patch said. The Brookings Institution's Paul Cullinan, research director of the Budgeting for National Priorities Project, agrees, saying that earmarks "might be an allocation issue" rather than a spending issue. And Scott Lilly, a senior fellow with the liberal Center for American Progress, told us that "there’s no evidence that if you took earmarks out, federal spending would go down."

And (surprise #2) McCain now says that many earmarks aren't really wasteful spending at all. For example, in 2006 the Congressional Research Service counted 75 percent (or $15.7 billion) of the 2006 foreign operations budget as earmarks. That figure includes $4.3 billion in aid to Israel and Egypt. Another $16.1 billion was earmarked for military construction and veterans affairs, and $9.4 billion more was earmarked for defense spending. That's $41 billion – or more than two-fifths of the amount of earmark spending McCain cites. But McCain has no plans to cut those particular earmarks. Douglas Holtz-Eakin, McCain's chief economic adviser, told FactCheck.org that "if you don't have earmarks, a lot of those things would be funded under regular order, if they have merit."

So if all this savings isn't coming from earmark cuts, then where will it come from? Holtz-Eakin tells us (surprise #3) that it will come from cuts in the annual budget:

Holtz-Eakin: So what he’s talked about is going forward, just not signing bills that have earmarks in them, period. That’s his pledge. And then, also going forward, cut discretionary spending, and that’s simply a pledge to reduce the amount of spending. And it’s not that it’s going to be tied to going back to specific projects that began as earmarks. It’s that we’re going to scrub defense, non-defense spending alike, reform procurement, evaluate programs, take the time-out, the one-year pause, and look at everything and then cut the budget going forward. Which, ultimately, hopefully, we’ll get $100 billion out of the annual baseline.

When we asked specifically whether the $100 billion in spending cuts had anything to do with eliminating earmarks, Holtz-Eakin told us: "It can't. I mean, by definition, every dollar is up for grabs every year."

So McCain's boast that he can save $100 billion "before you look at any agency of government" is flatly false. His economic adviser tells us that budget cuts cannot, "by definition," arise simply by eliminating earmarks. Instead, McCain's plan is to scrub $100 billion from the discretionary budget. And those cuts are not at all linked up to past earmark spending.

McCain's attempt to conflate earmark reform with budget cuts is a bit of logical sleight-of-hand (a formal logical fallacy that philosophers call an undistributed middle). McCain's argument is that:

1. The McCain economic plan will cut $100 billion of the discretionary budget.

2. Past and present earmarks account for $100 billion of the discretionary budget.

3. Therefore, the McCain economic plan will cut past and present earmarks.

The argument is seductive. But consider another argument that has exactly the same logical structure:

1. Clouds are white and fluffy.

2. Sheep are white and fluffy.

3. Therefore, clouds are sheep.

Sheep and clouds have some properties in common, but that doesn't mean that they are the same thing. Similarly, earmark cuts and budget cuts may add up to the same totals, but that doesn't mean that the budget cuts will be the result of earmark cuts.

Okay, So What Are We Cutting, Then?

The McCain campaign has been pretty vague about just what will be cut. Holtz-Eakin told us only that the cuts "will have to come from across-the-board review" of discretionary spending. Campaign spokesperson Brian Rogers told us that McCain is willing to cut defense spending on "expenditures not included in the Administration’s budget or identified as a priority” to "conduct the War on Terror and defend our great nation." Indeed, McCain has pledged to overhaul the defense procurement process in order to eliminate wasteful spending.

But McCain specifically exempted military spending from his pledge to freeze increases in the discretionary budget, and he has called for increasing the total size of the military. So McCain’s promises to reform the military procurement process and cut unnecessary spending don't mean saving money to fund tax cuts; it's more like taking the funds out of one defense budget pocket and putting them in another. We’re all for spending efficiently, but getting more out of each dollar while spending even more of them is very different from saving money. It’s a bit like a husband who tells his wife that he saved them hundreds of dollars because he bought a new plasma TV on sale.

The non-defense side of the discretionary budget totals around $540.8 billion. So even if McCain's defense budget doesn't get any bigger, he'd still be looking at convincing Congress to slash 18.5 percent of the funding for everything else in the discretionary budget -- things like veterans' health benefits, highway construction, elementary and secondary education, and immigration services. Or he could make much deeper cuts in just a few programs. He's leaving vague exactly how he'd accomplish the goal, saying he first wants to do a thorough review of government programs after he's elected.

A Trillion Here, a Trillion There

At a more fundamental level, McCain seriously overstates the rate at which the size of government has grown.

McCain (April 20): My friend, we have increased the size of government by some 40 percent just in the last few years. By some 40 percent, by trillions. By trillions, we have increased the size of government.

The size of the budget has increased by 40 percent, but McCain exaggerates in saying that has happened “in the last few years.” According to the Office of Management and Budget, after adjusting for inflation, federal expenditures increased by 40 percent between 1999 and 2009. But 40 percent doesn't represent an increase of "trillions." Measured in inflation-adjusted dollars, total expenditures in 2009 are expected to be about $2.45 trillion. The last year that the budget was "trillions" smaller: 1951. Even without adjusting for inflation, it has been 21 years since the budget was trillions smaller. To our ears, 21 seems like more than a "few years." And 58 sounds like rather a lot.

But McCain wasn’t finished with his trillion-dollar exaggerations. A few moments later, he added:

McCain (April 20): So why would you not think that if we stopped that increase in the size of government, in the form of a $1 trillion or so, that we can’t balance the budget?

It’s certainly true that cutting spending by $1 trillion would result in a balanced budget. Of course, the total discretionary budget (including the entire defense budget) is just a little more than $1.2 trillion, so McCain just has to convince Congress to slash discretionary spending by 83 percent. Alternatively, McCain could convince Congress to couple more modest cuts in discretionary spending with deep reductions in popular programs like Social Security and Medicare. Historically, wagers that either of those things would happen have been imprudent investments.

– by Joe Miller, with Viveca Novak

Sources

Citizens Against Government Waste. "CAGW's Pig Book Digs up $17.2 Billion in Pork." 2 April 2008. Citizens Against Government Waste, 8 May 2008.

CRS Appropriations Team. "Earmarks in Appropriation Acts: FY1994, FY1996, FY1998, FY2000, FY2002, FY2004, FY2005." 26 January 2006. Congressional Research Service, 8 May 2008.

CRS Appropriations Team. "Earmarks in FY2006 Appropriations Acts." 6 March 2006. Congressional Research Service, 9 May 2008.

McCain, John. "A Strong Military in a Dangerous World." 7 May 2008. JohnMcCain.com, 9 May 2008.

McCain, John. "Senator McCain Addresses the Oklahoma State Legislature on Government Reforms." 21 May 2007. JohnMcCain.com, 8 May 2008.

Lilly, Scott. "McCain Pulls Rug Out From Under Israel." 16 April 2008. Center for American Progress Action Fund, 9 May 2008.

Office of Management and Budget. "FY 2008 Appropriations Earmarks Summary." 28 January 2008. Office of Management and Budget: Earmarks, 8 May 2008.

Office of Management and Budget. "Historical Budget Tables, FY2009." 4 February 2008. The White House: Office of Management and Budget, 1 May 2008.

Taxpayers for Common Sense. TCS Database of FY08 Earmarks. 12 March 2008, 1 May 2008.

Related Articles

Gas Price Fixes That Won't

McCain, Clinton call for gas tax relief that really isn't, while Bush dredges up old ideas with a variety of problems.

McCain's $5,000 Promise

His new ad only tells half the story of what his health proposal could mean for U.S. workers.

DNC vs. McCain

Two Democratic Party TV ads hit McCain on Iraq and the economy. We supply context and corrections.

Washington Post Fact Checker: 4 Pinocchios for McCain's "Fantasy" Plan to Balance Budgets by Cutting Earmarks.

"McCain's talk about eliminating $100 billion a year in earmarks is largely fantasy. His advisers are now promoting a more realistic plan of eliminating $100 billion in overall spending. But it is difficult to take even that promise very seriously given the fact that the senator refuses to identify exactly which projects he will be cut. To use a phrase coined by George H.W. Bush, this is 'voodoo economics,' based more on wishful thinking than on hard data or carefully considered policy proposals." [Washington Post, Fact Checker Blog, 5/23/08: http://blog.washingtonpost.com/fact-checker/2008/05/mccains_fantasy_war_on_earmark.html]

Candidate Watch

McCain's Fantasy War on Earmarks

Portland, OR, May 12, 2008.

"I can eliminate $100 billion of wasteful and earmark spending immediately--35 billion in big spending bills in the last two years, and another 65 billion that has already been made a permanent part of the budget."
--John McCain, NPR All Things Considered, April 23, 2008.

John McCain boasts that he can save $100 billion a year "immediately" by eliminating the so-called earmarks that legislators attach to spending bills to finance pet projects, usually in their home state. But he has refused to say exactly which projects he would cut, and his estimates of the amount of money that is being spent on earmarks have been challenged by independent experts.

The Facts

The Arizona senator is promising to balance the budget by the end of his first term, while simultaneously extending the George W. Bush tax cuts, introducing billions of dollars of new tax cuts of his own, and remaining in Iraq as long as is necessary to stabilize that country. Asked how this miracle will be accomplished, McCain told George Stephanopoulos of ABC News This Week on April 20 that he could come up with $100 billion "tomorrow" by vetoing pork-barrel spending bills.

Here's $100 billion right here for you, George. Two years in a row, the last two years, the president of the United States has signed into law two big spending, pork barrel-laden bills with $35 billion (in earmarks). In the years before that, $65 billion. You do away with those, there's $100 billion right before you look at any agency.

Pouff! $100 billion in taxpayer money! Saved! Just like that! With a flick of the presidential veto pen!

There are a number of problems with this magical budgetary balancing act. First of all, the suspiciously round $100 billion figure is largely a figment of the McCain campaign's imagination. I have not been able to find a single independent budget expert to vouch for it. McCain's economics adviser, Doug Holtz-Eakin, will not say how the campaign arrived at the figure, other than that it is an extrapolation from various studies, including a 2006 study by the Congressional Research Service available here.

The CRS study breaks down earmarks by different government departments, without giving a global figure. According to Scott Lilly, a former Democratic appropriations staffer now with the Center for American Progress Action Fund, the CRS study identifies a total of $52 billion in earmarks for a single year. However, much of this money is tied to items such as foreign aid to countries like Israel, Egypt, and Jordan, that McCain says he will not touch.

By most definitions of the term, the amount of money spent on earmarks is much lower than the CRS study. The Office for Management and the Budget came up with a figure for $16.9 billion in the 2008 appropriation bills. Taxpayers for Commonsense, an independent watchdog group that focuses on wasteful spending, identified $18.3 billion worth of earmarks in the 2008 bills, a 23 per cent cut from a record $23.6 billion set in 2005.

How much of this $18.3 billion could be eliminated is a "difficult question that we have not yet figured out," said Taxpayers for Commonsense vice-president Steve Ellis. The figure includes such items as $4 billion for the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, which could not be eliminated without halting hundreds of construction projects around the country. Another big chunk goes to military construction, including housing for servicemen and their families, which McCain has also promised not to touch.

Bruce Riedl, a budget analyst with the Heritage Foundation, says it might be possible to eliminate roughly half the expenditure on earmarks every year, i.e. around $9 billion, using the Taxpayers for Commonsense figures. He identified $5 billion in Community Development Block Grant funds, most of which goes to local governments, as a prime target for cuts. Even if earmarks were eliminated altogether, many other expenditures would have to be shifted to other parts of the budget.

Like other analysts, Riedl was mystified by McCain's argument that previous year's earmarks automatically become a "permanent part of the budget." "I don't understand how they come up with that," he told me.

Excluding those programs McCain has promised to preserve, the draconian slashing of earmark expenditures might save around $10 billion a year. But that is still a long way from the $100 billion in savings that McCain says that he can identify "immediately."

The McCain camp now says that the senator never meant to suggest that his proposed $100 billion in savings would all come from earmarks. Holtz-Eakin told me that McCain had simply promised to cut overall spending by around $100 billion. Some of these savings will come from earmarks, some from other parts of the budget. He declined to identify which specific projects would be cut.

Asked whether McCain had misspoke or whether he had been misunderstood in his focus on eliminating earmarks, Holtz-Eakin replied: "a bit of both."

The Pinocchio Test

McCain's talk about eliminating $100 billion a year in earmarks is largely fantasy. His advisers are now promoting a more realistic plan of eliminating $100 billion in overall spending. But it is difficult to take even that promise very seriously given the fact that the senator refuses to identify exactly which projects he will be cut. To use a phrase coined by George H.W. Bush, this is "voodoo economics," based more on wishful thinking than on hard data or carefully considered policy proposals.

 
TAX CUTS

Washington Post Fact Checker: 2 Pinocchios for Fiorina and McCain Tax Claims.

"The McCain camp is attempting to persuade Americans that their taxes will increase dramatically with Barack Obama as president. The presumptive Republican nominee has repeatedly said that Obama would enact 'the largest tax increase since the Second World War.' A surrogate, former Hewlett-Packard CEO Carly Fiorina, insists that Obama has not proposed 'a single tax cut' and wants to 'raise every tax in the book'... Carly Fiorina is wrong to claim that Obama has proposed no tax cuts and wants to raise 'every tax in the book.' John McCain is on more solid ground when he claims that Americans from many different backgrounds could be affected by a rise in capital gains taxes, but he has greatly exaggerated the adverse impact." [Washington Post, Fact Checker blog, 6/11/08: http://blog.washingtonpost.com/fact-checker/2008/06/mccain_vs_obama_on_taxes.html]

Candidate Watch

McCain vs Obama on taxes

Washington D.C., June 10, 2008.

"Under Senator Obama's tax plan, Americans of every background would see their taxes rise--seniors, parents, small business owners, and just about everyone who has even a modest investment in the market."
--John McCain, National Small Business Summit, Washington D.C. June 10, 2008.

The McCain camp is attempting to persuade Americans that their taxes will increase dramatically with Barack Obama as president. The presumptive Republican nominee has repeatedly said that Obama would enact "the largest tax increase since the Second World War." A surrogate, former Hewlett-Packard CEO Carly Fiorina, insists that Obama has not proposed "a single tax cut" and wants to "raise every tax in the book."

The Facts

There are significant differences between the two candidaes on tax policy. McCain would like to make the Bush tax cuts of 2001 and 2003 permanent, and has proposed a few more of his own. Obama, by contrast, favors allowing the tax cuts to expire as scheduled for Americans earning more than $250,000 a year. He would raise taxes on capital gains and dividends, but has also promised tax breaks for low and middle-income Americans.

McCain's speech to the Small Business Summit yesterday leaves the impression that Obama favors raising taxes on all Americans, across the board. But his words have been carefully parsed. A more literal reading suggests that he could also be talking about some Americans from "every background," not "all Americans." The key issue is how many low and middle-income Americans would be affected by the Obama tax increases.

In order to substantiate its claim that large numbers of ordinary Americans will be worse off under the Democrats, the McCain camp points to an Obama proposal to raise tax rates on dividends and capital gains. Obama advisers argue that any tax increases will be offset by credits for lower-income families. They also point out that most middle and low-income families invest in the market through 401 (k) plans that are exempt from capital gains taxes.

Maya MacGuineas, a budget expert at the New America foundation, says that the McCain camp is trying to create an exaggerated impression of the number of people from low and middle-income groups who will be adversely affected by the Obama tax proposals. "It is legitimate to say that they can find a cleaning person or a waitress somewhere who will be affected, but the numbers should not be overwhelming," she said.

The claim that Obama will "enact" the largest tax increase since World War II is also overblown. The Bush tax cuts will expire automatically at the end of 2010, so it is hardly a question of "enacting" a new tax increase. According to Obama's new economics adviser, Jason Furman, the revenues raised from letting the tax cuts expire will be returned to middle and low-income tax payers in the form of tax credits to pay for health insurance, so the overall effect will be revenue neutral.

McCain spokesman Brian Rogers pointed to an analysis by the non-partisan Annenberg Political Fact Check that found that the gross tax increase would amount to $103.3 billion in 2011, the largest single-year tax increase since World War II. The Annenberg study pointed out, however, that "most economists" prefer to measure tax changes as a percentage of gross national product, in which case it would be the fifth largest increase since 1943.

According to Brookings economist Douglas Elmendorf, the Obama plan will eliminate income taxes for 10 million Americans. "It's very clear that taxes for lower income Americans will decline under Obama," he said.

The Pinocchio Test

Carly Fiorina is wrong to claim that Obama has proposed no tax cuts and wants to raise "every tax in the book." John McCain is on more solid ground when he claims that Americans from many different backgrounds could be affected by a rise in capital gains taxes, but he has greatly exaggerated the adverse impact.

FactCheck.org: McCain's Claim That Tax Cuts Increase Revenue Is

"Highly Misleading."

Republican presidential candidate Sen. John McCain has said that the major tax cuts passed in 2001 and 2003 have "increased revenues." He also said that tax cuts in general increase revenues. That's highly misleading. In fact, the last half-dozen years have shown us that we can't have both lower taxes and fatter government coffers. The Congressional Budget Office, the Treasury Department, the Joint Committee on Taxation, the White House's Council of Economic Advisers and a former Bush administration economist all say that tax cuts lead to revenues that are lower than they otherwise would have been - even if they spur some economic growth. And federal revenues actually declined at the beginning of this decade before rebounding. The growth in the past three years that McCain refers to brings revenues back in line with the 40-year historical average as a percentage of gross domestic product." [Fact Check.Org, 6/11/2008]


FactCheck.org: McCain's Largest Tax Increase Charge "Wrong" and "Misleading."

According to the Annenberg Public Policy Center's Factcheck.org: "By the measure most economists prefer, McCain is wrong in his claim that Sens. Clinton and Obama want to implement 'the single largest tax increase since the Second World War;'... At a more basic level, it's misleading to tag Clinton and Obama for something that was scheduled during the Bush administration - the expiration of the 2001 and 2003 Bush tax cuts, which by law will occur at the end of 2010." [Factcheck.org, 5/14/2008, http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/the_budget_according_to_mccain_part_ii.html]

The Budget According to McCain: Part II

May 14, 2008

The new McCain loves tax cuts. But many of his claims about them are off.

Summary

In our last installment we looked at McCain's pronouncements on spending cuts to help balance the budget. In Part II, we examine what he's said on a subject that might be more pleasing to many Americans: lowering taxes. We found exaggerations and distortions here, as well.

• McCain says that eliminating the Alternative Minimum Tax will save "more than 25 million middle-class families more than $2,000 every year." But McCain's "middle class" includes families making up to $200,000 per year, and the $2,000 figure is an average. Those earning more money will see the lion's share of the savings. McCain also leaves out the fact that the proposal could cost as much as $1.6 trillion over 10 years.

• By the measure most economists prefer, McCain is wrong in his claim that Sens. Clinton and Obama want to implement "the single largest tax increase since the Second World War;" it would be the fifth largest. At a more basic level, it's misleading to tag Clinton and Obama for something that was scheduled during the Bush administration – the expiration of the 2001 and 2003 Bush tax cuts, which by law will occur at the end of 2010.

• McCain also repeats the mantra that cutting the capital gains tax rate will increase government receipts. In fact, rate cuts produce a spike in revenue, but it's only temporary. McCain also falsely claims that higher capital gains tax rates will affect 401(k) plans.

• McCain was the first to announce the now widely discredited proposal to suspend federal gas taxes. The proposal wouldn't lower prices at the pump and would result in (effectively) an $8.5 billion windfall to oil companies.

Analysis

In an April 15 speech, McCain unveiled a set of proposals that he says would reduce spending, lower taxes and still leave the government with enough money to balance the budget. We've already tackled McCain's pledge to cut discretionary spending by $100 billion. In this second part, we examine his plan to lower your taxes.

Alternative Middle-Class Cuts

McCain says his plan to eliminate the Alternative Minimum Tax (AMT) would be a "middle-class tax cut." That depends on what your definition of "middle class" is.

McCain (April 15): “I will also send to the Congress a middle-class tax cut – a complete phase-out of the Alternative Minimum Tax to save more than 25 million middle-class families more than 2,000 dollars every year.”

Douglas Holtz-Eakin, McCain's economic adviser, confirms that the senator is referring to taxpayers making up to $200,000 a year. According to projections by the Tax Policy Center (TPC), 26.6 million of those paying the tax in 2010 will make up to $200k, while 5.8 million will make more than that. TPC figures also show that the majority (64 percent, or 20.9 million) of AMT taxpayers in 2010 will earn more than $100,000 a year. The AMT was originally devised in 1969 after 155 taxpayers with incomes over $200,000 escaped paying any federal income taxes. But because the tax isn't indexed to inflation, it has been affecting a greater percentage of taxpayers in most income classifications each year; that $200,000 threshold would be worth $1.2 million in today's dollars. Bush's tax cuts have caused the AMT to affect more people than it otherwise would: Taxpayers are subject to the AMT when the amount they owe under the "regular" tax system dips below the amount they would pay under the AMT, so cuts in the regular tax rate can actually increase the number of people who must pay the AMT. In fact, the estimated percentage of taxpayers subject to the AMT will have more than doubled in 2010 because of the Bush tax cuts.

Holtz-Eakin also told FactCheck.org that the families to which McCain refers would save an average of $2,000 a year. That means some would save more and some would save less. Those in higher income groups pay much more of AMT taxes than do those with lower earnings, and they would reap more of the benefits of repealing the tax as well. About 90 percent of the tax benefits of doing away with the AMT in 2007, for instance, would have gone to households in the $100k and above group; 55 percent would have gone to households earning more than $200k. We've charted the Tax Policy Center's data on who will pay the AMT in 2010 and how much of the AMT tax burden they'll bear:

The TPC projects that 32.4 million taxpayers will pay the AMT in 2010. As the chart shows, 46.6 percent of them will earn between $100,000 and $200,000 that year. Those with higher incomes pay more of the tax. For instance, nearly 22 percent of AMT taxpayers in 2010 will make between $75,000 and $100,000, but they'll pay 7.7 percent of AMT taxes. Those making $200k to $500k represent just 15 percent of all AMT taxpayers, but they pay nearly 40 percent of all AMT taxes.

McCain also fails to mention that repealing the AMT costs the government a lot of money in lost revenues. According to the TPC, nixing the AMT would cost more than $850 billion over 10 years, if the Bush tax cuts expire as scheduled. If the tax cuts are extended, eliminating the AMT would cost $1.6 trillion over 10 years.

Doing away with the AMT would certainly be a tax cut for wealthy individuals – and others affected by the tax. As for whether it rightly can be called a "middle-class tax cut," as McCain says, we'll let you be the judge. We’ve written before about how the majority of Americans consider themselves to be middle class.

Speaking of Those Bush Tax Cuts...

The senator also repeated his opposition to letting Bush's tax cuts expire, a reversal of his previous position on the cuts:

McCain (April 15): By allowing many of the current low tax rates to expire, [Democrats] would impose – overnight – the single largest tax increase since the Second World War. Among supporters of a tax increase are Senators Obama and Clinton. Both promise big "change." And a trillion dollars in new taxes over the next decade would certainly fit that description.

Actually, there’s nothing "new" about most of these taxes. As we’ve noted before, Bush’s major 2001 and 2003 tax cuts are set to expire at the end of 2010. It’s a bit misleading to say that not changing the current law would be enacting a tax hike.

Both Sens. Obama and Clinton have said they would extend some of the Bush tax cuts but allow those that apply to people making more than $250,000 a year to expire. (Just 2 percent of U.S. households are projected to earn more than $250,000 next year, according to the TPC.) While there’s some guesswork about how their policy pronouncements would play out, the TPC has calculated that under a scenario like the one the Democratic contenders have suggested, Americans would pay $1.1 trillion more in income and estate taxes over 10 years than they would if all 2001-2006 tax cuts were extended and the estate tax was repealed permanently. Put another way, that means that extending all of the reductions and eliminating the estate tax would lower government revenues by about $1.1 trillion more than the Democratic proposal. To be fair, McCain has said he wouldn't eliminate the estate tax, but raise the exemption and cut the rate.

McCain also calls the Democratic plan to let some of the Bush cuts expire "the single largest tax increase since the Second World War." That’s true when measured in inflation-adjusted dollars, a comparison that a U.S. Treasury study calls "the second best measure." Since McCain said the increase would happen "overnight," we looked at the effect in the first year of the tax changes. The TPC found that taxpayers would pay an additional $103.3 billion in 2011, the first year a Democratic plan would be implemented. In inflation-adjusted dollars, that would be the largest single-year tax increase since WWII.

But most economists prefer to measure tax changes as a percentage of gross domestic product, which takes into account changes in the size of the overall U.S. economy. The Congressional Budget Office projects the GDP will be $16.7 trillion in 2011, which means the tax change would be six-tenths of 1 percent of GDP. By that measure, this plan would be the fifth-largest increase enacted since 1943. Looking at the effect of tax increases as an average of the first two years, this one would be the third largest since 1968.

McCain’s Supply-Side Myth

McCain says that not all of his tax cuts will cost the government money. He continues to repeat the suspect claim that cutting the capital gains tax rate will actually increase government revenue.

McCain (April 20): Sen. Obama says that he doesn’t want to raise taxes on anybody over – making over $200,000 a year, yet he wants to nearly double the capital gains tax. Nearly double it, which 100 million Americans have investments in – mutual funds, 401(k)s – policemen, firemen, nurses. He wants to increase their taxes. And he [Obama] obviously doesn’t understand the economy, because history shows every time you have cut capital gains taxes, revenues have increased, going back to Jack Kennedy.

Obama doesn't understand the economy? What about the giant blunder of clearly implying that 401(k) funds are subject to capital gains taxes? That's simply not the case: Those retirement funds are taxed as income when they are drawn down. (If the money is withdrawn before the plan participant is 59 1/2 years old, a penalty must also be paid unless the money is used for certain purposes.)

Also, Obama hasn't quite said he "wants to nearly double the capital gains tax" rate. What he said, in a CNBC interview, was this:

Obama (March 27): And I certainly would not go above what existed under Bill Clinton, which was the 28 percent. I would – and my guess would be it would be significantly lower than that.

Then there's the matter of whether capital gains tax cuts trigger revenue increases. We’ve addressed this distortion before, most recently when ABC News moderator Charles Gibson made a similar claim during a Democratic debate. Like Gibson, McCain is partly right. Revenues do tend to increase immediately following a cut in the capital gains tax rate. Because capital gains (or earnings on gains in stocks or real estate) are taxed only when the asset is sold, many investors will hold on to their assets until lower tax rates take effect, then rush to the "sell" window. But the spike in income to the federal government is temporary. A 2002 Congressional Budget Office study found that the effect wears off after a year or two. The report concluded that cuts to the capital gains tax rate "may not be enough to produce additional receipts over a long period" but "may do so over a few years."

For the record, Obama has said he doesn't want to raise taxes for anyone making less than around $200,000 per year; McCain appears to have made a verbal typo when he said "over $200,000."

The Gas Tax Pander

McCain also pledged to temporarily lift the 18.4 cents per gallon federal tax on gasoline (24.4 cents on diesel).

McCain (April 15): I propose that the federal government suspend all taxes on gasoline now paid by the American people – from Memorial Day to Labor Day of this year. The effect will be an immediate economic stimulus – taking a few dollars off the price of a tank of gas every time a family, a farmer, or trucker stops to fill up.

We've written about this one before. In fact, no economist thinks that McCain's gas tax holiday – or the very similar one proposed by Hillary Clinton days after McCain announced his promise – will save consumers money. Price cuts would spur greater demand for gasoline, but because the summer gas supply is already fixed, consumers would end up bidding gas back up to its old price. So motorists would pay just as much for each gallon, but 18.4 cents of each of those gallons would go to oil companies instead of the federal government. The tax currently goes directly to the Highway Trust Fund, and the American Society of Civil Engineers estimates that the holiday could siphon $8.5 billion from the fund. McCain promises to use general revenues to shore up the Highway Trust Fund, but that of course means increasing the deficit by another $8.5 billion. (Clinton would try to retrieve that money by slapping a windfall profits tax on oil companies.)

In McCain's world, everyone gets a pony: tax cuts for the middle class, higher revenue to continue all the popular government programs and the elimination of all those earmarks that no one (except their very specific beneficiaries) really likes anyway.

Unfortunately, in the world of fiscal reality, it's not so easy to dole out such generous gifts.

– by Lori Robertson, Viveca Novak and Joe Miller

Sources

Clausing, Kimberly A. "The Role of U.S. Tax Policy in Offshoring." Brainard, Lael and Susan M. Collins. Brookings Trade Forum: 2005. Washington, D.C.: Brookings Institution Press, 2006. 457-490.

Congressional Budget Office. "Capital Gains Taxes and Federal Revenues." 9 October 2002. Congressional Budget Office. 1 May 2008.

Internal Revenue Service. "401(k) Resource Guide - Plan Participants - General Distribution Rules." 1 May 2008. United States Department of the Treasury: Internal Revenue Service. 1 May 2008.

Obama, Barack. First on CNBC Interview: CNBC's Maria Bartiromo Speaks with Senator Barack Obama on CNBC's "Closing Bell" Maria Bartiromo. 27 March 2008.

Tempalski, Jerry. "Revenue Effects of Major Tax Bills." Office of Tax Analysis, U.S. Department of the Treasury, Sept. 2006.

Tax Policy Center. "AMT Participation Rate (percent) by Individual Characteristics." 29 January 2008. Tax Policy Center. 1 May 2008.

Tax Policy Center. "Distribution of AMT and Regular Income Tax by Cash Income, Current Law." 29 January 2008. Tax Policy Center. 1 May 2008.

Tax Policy Center. "Options to Limit the Extension of the 2001-06 Tax Cuts Above $250,000, Static Impact on Individual Income and Estate Tax Liability and Revenue ($ billions), 2009-18." 11 February 2008. Tax Policy Center. 1 May 2008.

Tax Policy Center. "Repealing the AMT: Costly and Regressive." 5 January 2007. Tax Policy Center. 1 May 2008.

Tax Policy Center. "AMT Revenue per AMT Taxpayer." 29 Jan. 2008. Tax Policy Center. 1 May 2008.

Burman, Len and Julianna Koch and Greg Leiserson. "The Individual Alternative Minimum Tax (AMT): 11 Key Facts and Projections." Tax Policy Center. 1 Dec. 2006. 1 May 2008.

Weisman, Jonathan. "Falling Into Alternative Minimum Trouble." 7 March 2007. The Washington Post. 1 May 2008.

Congressional Budget Office. "Backup Data for CBO's Year-by-Year Forecast and Projections for Calendar Years 2008 to 2018." 14 May 2008.

ABC News transcript. "Obama and Clinton Debate." 16 April 2008. ABC News Web site. 14 May 2008.

Related Articles

The Budget According to McCain: Part I

Think it's all about cutting earmarks? Think again.

Gas Price Fixes That Won't

McCain, Clinton call for gas tax relief that really isn't, while Bush dredges up old ideas with a variety of problems.

ABC News Reports that Bush APPROVED Torture!

(Note: After years of repeatedly denying that he had knowledge of, or approved of torture techniques being used, and months of an ABC News investigation, Bush finally acknowledged that he APPROVED of torture techniques being used.  Not only did he approve of them, but Condoleeza Rice had meetings that were very specific about what techniques could be used, so that the torture was choreographed according to what they approved!)

April 11, 2008

President Bush says he knew his top national security advisers discussed and approved specific details about how high-value al Qaeda suspects would be interrogated by the Central Intelligence Agency, according to an exclusive interview with ABC News Friday.

"Well, we started to connect the dots in order to protect the American people." Bush told ABC News White House correspondent Martha Raddatz. "And yes, I'm aware our national security team met on this issue. And I approved."

 
As first reported by ABC News Wednesday, the most senior Bush administration officials repeatedly discussed and approved specific details of exactly how high-value al Qaeda suspects would be interrogated by the CIA.

The high-level discussions about these "enhanced interrogation techniques" were so detailed, these sources said, some of the interrogation sessions were almost choreographed -- down to the number of times CIA agents could use a specific tactic.

These top advisers signed off on how the CIA would interrogate top al Qaeda suspects -- whether they would be slapped, pushed, deprived of sleep or subjected to simulated drowning, called waterboarding, sources told ABC news.

The advisers were members of the National Security Council's Principals Committee, a select group of senior officials who met frequently to advise President Bush on issues of national security policy.

At the time, the Principals Committee included Vice President Dick Cheney, former National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld and Secretary of State Colin Powell, as well as CIA Director George Tenet and Attorney General John Ashcroft.

As the national security adviser, Rice chaired the meetings, which took place in the White House Situation Room and were typically attended by most of the principals or their deputies.

The so-called Principals who participated in the meetings also approved the use of "combined" interrogation techniques -- using different techniques during interrogations instead of using one method at a time -- on terrorist suspects who proved difficult to break, sources said.

Contacted by ABC News, spokesmen for Tenet and Rumsfeld declined to comment about the interrogation program or their private discussions in Principals meetings. The White House also declined comment on behalf of Rice and Cheney. Ashcroft could not be reached.

ABC News' Diane Sawyer sat down with Powell this week for a previously scheduled interview and asked him about the ABC News report.

Powell said that he didn't have "sufficient memory recall" about the meetings and that he had participated in "many meetings on how to deal with detainees."

Powell said, "I'm not aware of anything that we discussed in any of those meetings that was not considered legal."

In his interview with ABC News, Bush said the ABC report about the Principals' involvement was not so "startling." The president had earlier confirmed the existence of the interrogation program run by the CIA in a speech in 2006. But before Wednesday's report, the extraordinary level of involvement by the most senior advisers in repeatedly approving specific interrogation plans -- down to the number of times the CIA could use a certain tactic on a specific al Qaeda prisoner -- had never been disclosed.

more... 

 http://abcnews.go.com/TheLaw/LawPolitics/story?id=4635175&page=1

Condoleeza Rice, then NSC advisor held several high level top-secret meetings regarding what torture techniques could be used and then perjured herself before Congress claiming that it had not been used!  Hear her say in her own words that torture is illegal under U.S. law!  (Click on the arrow in the middle of the video screen to start the video.)

Sign the petition to call on Secretary of State Condoleeza Rice to resign!

http://condimustgo.com/

How do you keep a war going on for 100 years?

Six months at a time.

Here's evidence of how the Bush/McCain Endless War Installment Plan is conning America into buying into this Endless War.

See the video put out by MoveOn.org.  Click on the arrow in the middle of the screen below to start the video.

(MoveOn.org is not affiliated with our organization.  The YouTube video was taken off of their website and reposted here.)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=suNqiAgE1kw

What are the Stakes in This Year's Presidential Election? 

Quite simply, the choice is between more of the same of Bush politics and policies, which have been embraced by the far right and have hurt the majority of Americans, or a change in direction. 

The presumptive Republican Party nominee, John McCain, claims to be the candidate of the future and of change, but he surrounds himself with George H.W. Bush and George W. Bush cronies, who have supported them in lockstep, just has McCain has done.  McCain is no longer the maverick opposing Bush.  He is the lapdog doing Bush's whim in order to gain the support of Bush's base and the White House, even to the continued detriment of this country.

We are entangled in an illegal war, that was supported by the far right, because they benefit financially from it, but for the most part, don't have to pay for it, or fight it.

This $750 Billion boondoggle to Bush donors like Halliburton, KBR, Titan, CACI, Blackwater, and many more, are stealing food out of the mouths of your children, the clothes off of your back and the homes that you have worked so hard to attain.  It is destroying your future and your childrens' future by taking the resources that could have provided you with an education and jobs and healthcare; while shipping jobs and industries to countries that compete with us globally.

If you want to see more proof on just how badly Bush and Co. have bungled this war in Iraq in order to fraudulently steal money from American Taxpayers, you need to see Robert Greenwald's film.  "Iraq for Sale: The War Profiteers".  You can check out a preview here:  http://iraqforsale.org/

and more eye opening previews here:

http://store.bravenewfilms.org/ifsdvd06.php

http://iraqforsale.org/trailer.php

http://iraqforsale.org/video_military.php

http://iraqforsale.org/video_revolution.php

http://iraqforsale.org/video_erik.php

http://iraqforsale.org/video_blackwater.php

http://iraqforsale.org/video_david.php

http://iraqforsale.org/video_caci.php

http://iraqforsale.org/video_gettested.php

http://iraqforsale.org/video_pursuit.php

http://www.linktv.org/programs/mwatch_iraq

http://iraqforsale.bravenewfilms.org/blog/393-watch-director-robert-greenwald-on-olbermann

http://iraqforsale.bravenewfilms.org/blog/404-new-video-the-tale-of-prince-blackwater-ceo-erik-prince

http://iraqforsale.bravenewfilms.org/blog/871-producer-director-robert-greenwald-on-bill-maher-s-show

Video from Congressional hearing on Iraq war profiteering

Testimony reveals Blackwater abuse, negligence

http://iraqforsale.bravenewfilms.org/blog/501-testimony-reveals-blackwater-abuse-negligence

Stopping War for Profit: Greenwald on Olbermann
by jessehaff · Tuesday February 20, 07:09 AM

During congressional hearings on Iraq war profiteering last week, the governments top 3 auditors found $10 billion in overcharges or unaccounted spending out of $57 billion in private contracts. Keith Olbermann interviewed Robert on the issue of Iraq war profiteering. Robert explained:

"We have to call into question the very core issue: yes they're stealing, but even above and beyond that, should people be profiting - should corporations be making millions and millions when Iraqis and Americans are being killed? That to me goes to the heart of the issue and we need to start asking that harder and harder."

Iraq for Sale video banned from Congress

Director Robert Greenwald is testifying today on outsourcing before the Defense Subcommittee of the House Appropriations Committee. He was invited to testify before Congress by Rep. Jim Moran and intended to show four minutes from Iraq For Sale. Instead, Republicans banned the excerpts from being shown. The video above is what was intended to be shown before Congress.

VIDEO: Robert Greenwald vs. Jack Kingston
by robert greenwald · Friday May 11, 09:34 AM

As I walked down the very big, very impressive halls of Congress yesterday, it started to dawn on me that the idea of making a film about war profiteering had actually led to a hearing in Congress in front of the people who can make a difference on the issue -- the people who write the legislation.

As I continued down that very long, very marble hall I began to have flashbacks about the road that had gotten me here. It started when we began work on Iraq for Sale: The War Profiteers January 2006.

I thought of the call I received from Bob Borosage at Campaign for America's Future­ he said Brave New Films had to do a film about the war profiteering occurring in Iraq. I remember my visceral response when I first heard the term war profiteering-how could anyone be so sick as to profiteer from war.

As I walked down the hall, I thought of the 3000 people who donated $25 and $50 a piece to help us get started on production of the film. We had had trouble raising funds in the timeframe we needed to work within, and the amazing people who had supported Brave New Film's past work chipped in to get our production started.

I thought of our wonderful Executive Producer Dal LaManga who invested the money we needed to finish. He said to me, "Stop trying to raise more money, here, go finish the movie and tell the world what is happening."

I thought of the soldiers, and of the families of contractors who appear in the film -- their courage continues to motivate and inspire me.

I flashed back to the thousands of screenings of Iraq for Sale that occurred across the country and around the world.

And then, I realized I was there, at the entrance to the hearing room about to speak to the House Appropriations Committee Subcommittee on Defense about war profiteering.

Jeremy Scahill, the brilliant author of BLACKWATER was with me. I listened as he gave his remarks to the committee. He detailed research from his book that even members of Congress did not know. When my time came to speak, I told stories about the people I got to know while making Iraq for Sale. I was not allowed to show clips from the film, so I explained the stories of how private corporations are making a killing in Iraq. (testimony)

When the time came for questioning, Jack Kingston, (Rep- Georgia) began to attack Jeremy and me (video). His attacks were beyond weak. He falsely attempted to smear me and the people who helped to make this film a reality. I got a warm fuzzy feeling thinking about the fact that truth was on my side, while Kingston simply had feeble rhetoric. As Jeremy and I fought back against Kingston, -we were giving Kingston a one-two punch he could not recover from.

As his attacks continued it dawned on me that others on the Committee were listening, thinking, and probably forming questions about how they could change they system and hold corporations accountable. They were.

It's been a hell of a ride from last January to now. This next step of taking the ideas of the film, the issues raised and turning them into very specific solutions shows that people really can have an impact when they fight hard for what is right.

See the film, and make sure all your friends and relatives see it, particularly if they still support this war.  It will open your eyes and make you sick that our government continues to support this wholesale theft, not for our security, but for corporate profit.  It shows people who originally supported the war and supported and worked for the companies that supported Bush, until they got to Iraq and saw what was really going on there.  It shows that companies (Halliburton/KBR) responsible for providing clean water for our troops are NOT treating the water, but taking water directly out of rivers, that are polluted with feces and loaded with bacteria, and giving it to our troops to drink, so that these companies can increase their profits.  And that is only the tip of the iceberg.  

Instead of providing security and prosperity to Americans here at home, he throws away lives and resources on a war that has accomplished nothing in the past and will accomplish nothing in the future, except to weaken America while destroying ordinary Americans' dreams, while the super rich refuse to contribute to the taxes that pay for the war and Bush's policies, making them even more wealthy.

McCain calls into question Senator Barack Obama's qualifications for Commander in Chief when Obama said in response to a Tim Russert hypothetical question that he would attack an enemy "that threatens America or America's interests", even on Pakistan soil, (which President Bush has just done), and that if Al Qaida regrouped in Iraq, after our troops withdrew, that he would send them back.

McCain and Bush have responded by saying that Al Qaida in Iraq means that Al Qaida are already in Iraq.

Senator Obama responded by saying that Al Qaida weren't in Iraq until after Bush and McCain invaded Iraq.  (Look it up, it's true.  Saddam Hussein, Iraq's dictator, did not share his power with anyone, and did not allow Al Qaida to come into Iraq to establish bases or training camps.  In fact, Al Qaida had its bases and training camps in Afghanistan and PAKISTAN, which is supposed to be a U.S. Ally.  Members of Pakistan's Intelligence service were actually training bin Laden's forces in Afghanistan when American troops were preparing to invade Bora Bora.  Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld ordered American troops to stand down for several weeks to allow Pakistan Intelligence agents to escape across a narrow mountain pass into Pakistan before the bombing of Bora Bora began.  bin Laden and his followers are believed to have escaped along with the Pakistan Intelligence agents during this time period along this same route that was intentionally left unguarded.  This was a matter of media investigation early on in the war, (and then quickly dropped), where members of the military and chopper crews were interviewed who admitted that this actually had happened.

McCain, on the other hand, has demonstrated his own inability to act "Presidential" or demonstrate the ability to act judiciously or with sound strategy in the use of our military.  He is promising us that the war and occupation in Iraq could last 100 years and that "there will be more wars".  He forgets that the first duty of the President of the United States is to keep us safe by avoiding war through diplomatic means, not to threaten war at every opportunity. 

See for yourself:  http://mccainsings.com/?utm_source=rgemail

And then ask yourself if singing "Bomb, bomb, bomb, bomb, bomb Iran" is "Presidential", "good judgement" or "good strategy" in dealing with a country which we could soon be at war with now, when they weren't a threat before we attacked Iraq.  Ask yourself if McCain's singing this little ditty ignored the reality of the sensitivity of this issue, in order to stir up the blood lust of his followers, even if it further endangered Americans and American interests in the region.  For more on why McCain is bad for America click on the link below.

http://www.wisdems.org/mccain.asp

See John McCain debate himself!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ioy90nF2anI&feature=related

Fair Use Notice:

This site may contain copyrighted material, the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. Such material is made available in an effort to advance understanding of environmental, political, human rights, economic, democracy, scientific, and social justice issues, etc. It is believed this constitutes a 'fair use' of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 USC Section 107, the material is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving similar information for research and educational purposes