We launched this site to provide better access to the people of the 5th CD to their elected Democratic Party representatives.
Copy and paste this into your FB Status:
" I can't believe our government just gave Big Oil (includes BP) $35 billion in tax breaks! Sign this growing petition to help get them repealed.
http://bit.ly/9LpuZZ "
Can you Tweet this?
OMG! We just gave $35 billion in tax breaks 2Big Oil, inclu #BP. Help get them repealed now! http://bit.ly/9LpuZZ #p2 #oilspill
You won't believe this: While reaping the largest profits in history and destroying the Gulf of Mexico, BP and other Big Oil companies have shaken more than $35 billion in special subsidies and tax breaks out of the U.S. taxpayer.
Surprised? I was.
That's why I just signed this petition telling Congress to end all tax breaks and subsidies for dirty fossil fuels and invest in green jobs and clean energy instead. Can you do the same thing?
http://www.stopbigoilbailouts.com/
Thanks!
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/38176034/ns/technology_and_science-science
Dead zone in Gulf linked to oil
Animals that can swim have fled; other smaller creatures have perished
T This day, July 4th, celebrates the birth of our nation, by throwing off the yoke of a tyrant (King George III of England); who ruled by unquestioned authority and the largest military power in the world at the time, while ignoring the will of the people.
The colonists declared their independence by adopting the Declaration of Independence, written by Thomas Jefferson, our 3rd President, and the founder of the Democratic Party, on July 4th, 1776.
It bears repeating our Declaration of Independence, because so many people don’t know what it says, and don’t comprehend the significance of the meanings behind the words. And, most Republicans (who battle against any idea Democrats have), also demonstrate that they don’t support the principles which led to the creation of our nation. It bears pointing out those principles, and demand that our elected officials today, follow the principles which were outlined in our founding documents, rather than making excuses for ignoring them.
The Declaration of Independence: A Transcription
IN CONGRESS, July 4, 1776.
The unanimous Declaration of the thirteen united States of America,
When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.--Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government. The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States. To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid world.
He has refused his Assent to Laws, the most wholesome and necessary for the public good.
He has forbidden his Governors to pass Laws of immediate and pressing importance, unless suspended in their operation till his Assent should be obtained; and when so suspended, he has utterly neglected to attend to them.
He has refused to pass other Laws for the accommodation of large districts of people, unless those people would relinquish the right of Representation in the Legislature, a right inestimable to them and formidable to tyrants only.
He has called together legislative bodies at places unusual, uncomfortable, and distant from the depository of their public Records, for the sole purpose of fatiguing them into compliance with his measures.
He has dissolved Representative Houses repeatedly, for opposing with manly firmness his invasions on the rights of the people.
He has refused for a long time, after such dissolutions, to cause others to be elected; whereby the Legislative powers, incapable of Annihilation, have returned to the People at large for their exercise; the State remaining in the mean time exposed to all the dangers of invasion from without, and convulsions within.
He has endeavoured to prevent the population of these States; for that purpose obstructing the Laws for Naturalization of Foreigners; refusing to pass others to encourage their migrations hither, and raising the conditions of new Appropriations of Lands.
He has obstructed the Administration of Justice, by refusing his Assent to Laws for establishing Judiciary powers.
He has made Judges dependent on his Will alone, for the tenure of their offices, and the amount and payment of their salaries.
He has erected a multitude of New Offices, and sent hither swarms of Officers to harrass our people, and eat out their substance.
He has kept among us, in times of peace, Standing Armies without the Consent of our legislatures.
He has affected to render the Military independent of and superior to the Civil power.
He has combined with others to subject us to a jurisdiction foreign to our constitution, and unacknowledged by our laws; giving his Assent to their Acts of pretended Legislation:For Quartering large bodies of armed troops among us:
For protecting them, by a mock Trial, from punishment for any Murders which they should commit on the Inhabitants of these States:
For cutting off our Trade with all parts of the world:
For imposing Taxes on us without our Consent:
For depriving us in many cases, of the benefits of Trial by Jury:
For transporting us beyond Seas to be tried for pretended offences
For abolishing the free System of English Laws in a neighbouring Province, establishing therein an Arbitrary government, and enlarging its Boundaries so as to render it at once an example and fit instrument for introducing the same absolute rule into these Colonies:
For taking away our Charters, abolishing our most valuable Laws, and altering fundamentally the Forms of our Governments:
For suspending our own Legislatures, and declaring themselves invested with power to legislate for us in all cases whatsoever.
He has abdicated Government here, by declaring us out of his Protection and waging War against us.
He has plundered our seas, ravaged our Coasts, burnt our towns, and destroyed the lives of our people.
He is at this time transporting large Armies of foreign Mercenaries to compleat the works of death, desolation and tyranny, already begun with circumstances of Cruelty & perfidy scarcely paralleled in the most barbarous ages, and totally unworthy the Head of a civilized nation.
He has constrained our fellow Citizens taken Captive on the high Seas to bear Arms against their Country, to become the executioners of their friends and Brethren, or to fall themselves by their Hands.
He has excited domestic insurrections amongst us, and has endeavoured to bring on the inhabitants of our frontiers, the merciless Indian Savages, whose known rule of warfare, is an undistinguished destruction of all ages, sexes and conditions.
In every stage of these Oppressions We have Petitioned for Redress in the most humble terms: Our repeated Petitions have been answered only by repeated injury. A Prince whose character is thus marked by every act which may define a Tyrant, is unfit to be the ruler of a free people.
Nor have We been wanting in attentions to our Brittish brethren. We have warned them from time to time of attempts by their legislature to extend an unwarrantable jurisdiction over us. We have reminded them of the circumstances of our emigration and settlement here. We have appealed to their native justice and magnanimity, and we have conjured them by the ties of our common kindred to disavow these usurpations, which, would inevitably interrupt our connections and correspondence. They too have been deaf to the voice of justice and of consanguinity. We must, therefore, acquiesce in the necessity, which denounces our Separation, and hold them, as we hold the rest of mankind, Enemies in War, in Peace Friends.
We, therefore, the Representatives of the united States of America, in General Congress, Assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions, do, in the Name, and by Authority of the good People of these Colonies, solemnly publish and declare, That these United Colonies are, and of Right ought to be Free and Independent States; that they are Absolved from all Allegiance to the British Crown, and that all political connection between them and the State of Great Britain, is and ought to be totally dissolved; and that as Free and Independent States, they have full Power to levy War, conclude Peace, contract Alliances, establish Commerce, and to do all other Acts and Things which Independent States may of right do. And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes and our sacred Honor.
It is very clear, when reading the Declaration of Independence, that there is a drastic disconnect between our Declaration of Independence and the public positions of the Republican Party, their supporters and their elected officials.
Republicans opposed the creation of Social Security, Medicare and Health Care reform, and are actively working to eliminate them.
Rather than supporting laws that protect the public good, they continually side with special interests and corporations which repeatedly ignore the rights of the public, even when those corporations aren’t even American corporations. (BP is a good example of this. BP is a British Corporation, which was granted waivers, from VP Cheney, for the installation of basic safety equipment, automatic shutoff valves and relief wells which might have prevented the current Gulf Oil Disaster. Halliburton, the company that VP Cheney used to be the CEO of, and which provided Cheney with a $34 million “signing bonus” upon becoming the Vice President of the United States, is another example of this, having been provided contracts for the U.S. military on a no-bid basis, even though Halliburton off-shored their corporate headquarters to Dubai, United Arab Emerites, so that it wouldn’t have to pay U.S. taxes.)
By his actions, former Vice President Cheney (Republican) allowed a foreign corporation, BP, to destroy the Gulf region with an oil spill of an estimated hundred million gallons or more of oil, which engulfed over 60,000 square miles several weeks ago, and which continues to expand every day.
The Supreme Court of the United States, currently controlled by a majority of Justices who were appointed by Republican Presidents and Congresses have repeatedly obstructed justice and denied rights of the PEOPLE, in order to grant extraordinary powers to CORPORATIONS – EVEN FOREIGN CORPORATIONS, which effectively denies the citizens of the United States the right to sovereign rule, by their own choices, rather than by the choices of those FOREIGN CORPORATIONS.
This usurpation of the rights of the PEOPLE has been most recently demonstrated in the Supreme Court Ruling of “Citizens United vs. The FEC”. Citizens United is a Republican front organization claiming to be “grassroots”, but demanded that corporations have the same rights as people, so that they could “vote” by spending unlimited amounts of money to support or oppose candidates for elective office, even if those corporations are owned by foreign nations or individuals. This is a clear violation of the Constitutional principle “We the People of the United States…” and of the 9th and 10th Amendments (part of the Bill of Rights), which guarantee the rights of THE PEOPLE. There is NO SUCH PROTECTION UNDER OUR CONSTITUTION FOR CORPORATIONS.
Amendment IX The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
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.
And Republicans, rather than debating issues on their merits and the facts, have chosen instead, to spread rumors and absolute lies in order to gain support from people who are completely unaware of the truth, and disinterested in getting the facts. This is, in fact, an attempt to excite “domestic insurrections” against our legally elected officials, and create anarchy and chaos.
Taxes have been continually shifted from corporations to individuals, and to property taxes, under Republican Rule, over the past 30 years.
Currently 2/3rds of ALL Corporations in the United States pay NO income taxes. 2/3rds of ALL Corporations in the State of Wisconsin pay NO income taxes. As a result, YOUR individual income taxes, and YOUR property taxes have gone UP to make up for the lost revenues which corporations USED TO PAY.
In Wisconsin, an estimated 12% of all tax revenues USED TO COME from income taxes from corporation. Under Republican Governors and Legislatures, that dropped down to about 5% of all tax revenues. When Republicans cut taxes for corporations, THEY RAISED THEM FOR PROPERTY OWNERS. That is why property taxes are so high, and make up so much of our total tax revenues.
Under Governor Doyle, that corporate tax revenue has risen slightly to the point that corporate income taxes now are up to about 7-8% of all the tax revenues collected in Wisconsin. That KEEPS YOUR PROPERTY TAXES DOWN. In fact, taxes in Wisconsin are at their lowest IN 50 YEARS, in the last six years under DEMOCRATS.
Latest Wisconsin Department of Revenue Reports Show Wisconsin State and Local Tax Rankings LOWEST since 1961-1962! Dropping for Six Straight Years Under Democratic Control!
(Scott Walker says Governor Doyle has been a big spender, but the reality is that he's spent considerably less than Republican Governor Tommy Thompson, whose spending policies as a legislator, Walker VOTED FOR. But what do facts matter, coming from Republicans?)
Republicans are complaining about the fact that the State of Wisconsin has a current Budget Deficit of about $2.5 Billion this year, during the worst economic environment since the Great Depression. Yet, they didn't have any complaints when Republican Governors Tommy Thompson and Scott McCallum left the state with a $3.2 Billion Budget Deficit, which Democratic Governor Doyle inherited in 2003, from Republicans, after nearly a decade of ECONOMIC PROSPERITY. Can you say HYPOCRISY?
We are still $700 MILLION better off than when Republicans left the state in a Financial MESS, when they spent money hand over fist, and threw away the state's "Rainy Day Fund", which had over $500 million in it for emergencies, giving it away to the richest taxpayers in Wisconsin TO BUY THEIR VOTES! But, of course, all they have to tell you is that they are right and Democrats are wrong, and they expect you to just lap it up, because they don't think you have been paying attention. HAVE YOU?
Governor Doyle has a better record than the previous Republican Governors, and they are spinning it to appear as if he's done a worse job.
Do Republicans have no sham? Obviously not.
Reported by The Wisconsin Journal Sentinel, Milwaukee Magazine and The Department of Revenue independently finding the same story:
"Wisconsin’s rankings are their lowest in nearly 50 years and have improved for six consecutive years, unprecedented in state history….In addition, a recently released Ernst and Young study prepared for the Council on State Taxation shows Wisconsin’s business tax ranking now ranks 30th – well below the national average."
COST (Council on State Taxation) also reports that state and local business taxes across the country decreased by 3.5% from FY2008 to FY2009. On average, state and local business taxes across the country only amount to about 9% of all state and local taxes on businesses, while Wisconsin's rate is below the average, and has been on the decline. (Wisconsin's corporate income tax rates are less than 11 other states, AND 2/3rds of all Wisconsin corporations pay NOTHING in income tax - per Wisconsin Dept. of Revenue records.)
And, it should be remembered that because of decades of Wisconsin fiscal policy, which has favored corporations, and cut their taxes, to entice them to locate their businesses here, Property taxes have been the predominant source of Wisconsin's General Revenue. For State and local Government revenues in Wisconsin, $42.3 per $1,000 personal property value is collected, while corporations pay only $4.6 per $1,000 income.
In other words, individuals pay 9.2 TIMES in personal property tax rates what corporations pay for their income tax rate. Low tax rates for corporations (which is something that Republicans have always supported), result in HIGHER TAXES for property owners! Any time corporations get a tax cut, somebody else has to pick up the slack. That means YOU.
By the way, the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities advises that:
"Contrary to what some consider common wisdom, a tax increase can be good policy during a recession. Tax increases are a better option than deep spending cuts — better both for families already suffering due to the recession and for state economies. Tax increases can be designed in such a way that they impose relatively little or no costs on the most vulnerable families; this can be done, for example, by targeting the increase on households with the highest incomes or on profitable corporations. Moreover, as the economists Joseph Stiglitz and Peter Orszag (among others) have noted, tax increases take less money out of the economy than spending cuts, for reasons described more fully below.
One major factor that is reducing, though not eliminating, the need for tax increases in this recession is the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA). Enacted in February 2009, it provides substantial money for state governments that includes roughly $140 billion to help alleviate budget shortfalls through funding for education, health care, and other government services. New York, for instance, scaled back the size of a proposed tax increase package by about $1.3 billion after the ARRA funding was announced."
Also:
"The effective income tax rate for the 400 richest families dropped in two decades, to only about 16.6% in Federal Income Taxes, even though their income INCREASED by 5 times over the same period." Middle class Americans pay almost DOUBLE the effective tax rate of the wealthiest Americans. (I refer to the effective tax rate, because the top tax rates for the super wealthy are almost never paid by them. The extremely wealthy invest in non-taxable bonds and securities, so that only 20% to 60% of their REPORTED income is ever taxed. And, unlike Americans with JOBS, who pay taxes on every penny of income, which is all tracked, recorded and reported; the extremely wealthy can bury their investments and income in layers and layers of corporate "cover" so that it is never found, and if they don't voluntarily report it, it isn't taxed!)
The Bush tax cuts gave these richest families $18 Billion in tax cuts per year. The richest 200 individuals in America got richer by a combined $640 BILLION over the course of 8 years under Bush.
For more on tax policies in Wisconsin and in the U.S. click here.
While celebrating the anniversary of our Independence from a foreign tyrant, we may want to consider what the founding fathers really intended for us, and what positions our two majority political parties are taking in support or opposition to those principles.
The Declaration Of Independence, Read Aloud, is also available from NPR.org http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=128242656&sc=emaf
(I’d recommend that you download the file first before attempting to play it.)
This message was included:
Declaration of Independence
*Listen/Watch on NPR.org*
Many stories at NPR.org have audio or visual content. When you visit the link
above, look for a "Listen" or "Watch" button.
For technical support, please visit NPR's Audio/Visual Help page: http://help.npr.org/npr/consumer/kbdetail.asp?kbid=152
Map: Gulf oil spill trajectory
Want to see what the Gulf Oil Spill would look like if it was dumped on Milwaukee?
Yup, that's right, it would cover half of Wisconsin, half of Lake Michigan, and one forth of Michigan. If you want to see what it would look like in other regions, go to www.ifitwasmyhome.com and plug in another city. And this is based on conditions on June 27, 2010. IT IS STILL EXPANDING. A week and a half ago, it was covering 60,000 square miles. Earlier that same week, it covered 29,000 square miles.
This is the size of the oil spill as of July 8, 2010. The BP oil spill is now covering over 81,000 square miles.
The following piece has got nothing to do with "politics" per se, and everything to do with simple common sense. It asks everyone to consider what risks we are willing to allow corporations to take, in making as much money as they possibly can, while risking the lives, safety and security of not only the people who work for them, but for everyone who lives in an area hundreds of thousands of square miles around. How many people will have to die, before intelligent people are willing to stand up against this madness and put a stop to it?
CRITICAL BREAKING NEWS
17 June 2010 - Helium.com - Terrence Aym
How the BP Gulf disaster could kill millions
Disturbing evidence is mounting that something frightening is happening deep under the waters of the Gulf of Mexico
by Terrence Aym Disturbing evidence is mounting that something frightening is happening deep under the waters of the Gulf of Mexico something far worse than the BP oil gusher.
Warnings were raised as long as a year before the Deepwater Horizon disaster that the area of seabed chosen by the BP geologists might be unstable, or worse, inherently dangerous.
What makes the location that Transocean chose potentially far riskier than other potential oil deposits located at other regions of the Gulf? It can be summed up with two words: methane gas.
The same methane that makes coal mining operations hazardous and leads to horrendous mining accidents deep under the earth also can present a high level of danger to certain oil exploration ventures.
Location of Deepwater Horizon oil rig was criticized
More than 12 months ago some geologists rang the warning bell that the Deepwater Horizon exploratory rig might have been erected directly over a huge underground reservoir of methane.
Documents from several years ago indicate that the subterranean geologic formation may contain the presence of a huge methane deposit.
None other than the engineer who helped lead the team to snuff the Gulf oil fires set by Saddam Hussein to slow the advance of American troops has stated that a huge underground lake of methane gas compressed by a pressure of 100,000 pounds per square inch (psi)could be released by BP's drilling effort to obtain the oil deposit.
Current engineering technology cannot contain gas that is pressurized to 100,000 psi.
By some geologists' estimates the methane could be a massive 15 to 20 mile toxic and explosive bubble trapped for eons under the Gulf sea floor. In their opinion, the explosive destruction of the Deepwater Horizon wellhead was an accident just waiting to happen.
Yet the disaster that followed the loss of the rig pales by comparison to the apocalyptic disaster that may come.
A cascading catastrophe
According to worried geologists, the first signs that the methane may burst its way through the bottom of the ocean would be fissures or cracks appearing on the ocean floor near the damaged well head.
Evidence of fissures opening up on the seabed have been captured by the robotic submersibles working to repair and contain the ruptured well. Smaller, independent plumes have also appeared outside the nearby radius of the bore hole itself.
According to some geological experts, BP's operations set into motion a series of events that may be irreversible. Step-by-step the drilling team committed one error after another.
Congressmen Henry Waxman, D-CA, and Bart Stupak, D-MI, in a letter sent to BP CEO Tony Hayward, identified 5 missteps made by BP during the period culminating with the explosion.
Waxman, chair of the Congressional energy panel and Stupak, the head of the subcommittee on oversight and investigations, said, "The common feature of these five decisions is that they posed a trade-off between cost and well safety."
The two Representatives also stated in the 14-page letter to Hayward that "Time after time, it appears that BP made decisions that increased the risk of a blowout to save the company time or expense."
Called by some insiders investigating the ongoing disaster a "perfect storm of catastrophe," the wellhead blew on the sea floor catapulting a stream of mud, oil and gas upwards at the speed of sound.
In describing the events that transpired in a matter of seconds they note that immediately following the rupture the borehole pipe's casing blew away exposing a straight line 8 miles deep for the pressurized gas to escape. The result was cavitation, an irregular pressure variance sometimes experienced by deep diving vessels such as nuclear submarines. This cavitation created a supersonic bubble of explosive methane gas that resulted in a supersonic explosion killing 11 men and completely annihilating the drilling platform.
Death from the depths
With the emerging evidence of fissures, the quiet fear now is the methane bubble rupturing the seabed and exploding into the Gulf waters. If the bubble escapes, every ship, drilling rig and structure within the region of the bubble will instantaneously sink. All the workers, engineers, Coast Guard personnel and marine biologists measuring the oil plumes' advance will instantly perish.
As horrible as that is, what would follow is an event so potentially horrific that it equals in its fury the Indonesian tsunami that killed more than 600,000, or the destruction of Pompeii by Mt. Vesuvius.
The ultimate Gulf disaster, however, would make even those historical horrors pale by comparison. If the huge methane bubble breaches the seabed, it will erupt with an explosive fury similar to that experienced during the eruption of Mt. Saint Helens in the Pacific Northwest. A gas gusher will surge upwards through miles of ancient sedimentary rock layer after layer past the oil reservoir. It will explode upwards propelled by 50 tons psi, burst through the cracks and fissures of the compromised sea floor, and rupture miles of ocean bottom with one titanic explosion.
The burgeoning methane gas cloud will surface, killing everything it touches, and set off a supersonic tsunami with the wave traveling somewhere between 400 to 600 miles per hour.
While the entire Gulf coastline is vulnerable, the state most exposed to the fury of a supersonic wave towering 150 to 200 feet or more is Florida. The Sunshine State only averages about 100 feet above sea level with much of the coastline and lowlands and swamps near zero elevation. [Elevation map] A supersonic tsunami would literally sweep away everything from Miami to the panhandle in a matter of minutes. Loss of human life would be virtually instantaneous and measured in the millions. Of course the states of Texas, Louisiana, Mississippi, Alabama and southern region of Georgia, states with no Gulf coastline would also experience tens of thousands, if not hundreds of thousands of casualties.
Loss of property is virtually incalculable and the days of the US position as the world's superpower would be literally gone in a flash...of detonating methane.
Links
Evidence that methane gas catastrophe may be building
Video #1: http://www.youtube. com/watch? v=xMEr4FctWAM&feature=player_ embedded #!
Video #2: http://www.youtube. com/watch? v=xMEr4FctWAM&feature=player_ embedded #!
There are currently, over 250 "burns" going on, on the surface of the Gulf of Mexico, in an effort to get rid of the spilled oil and methane which has already reached the surface. THEY ARE BURNING THE OCEAN. What do you think would happen, if a giant Methane gas bubble suddenly surfaced and hit one of those "burns"?
By itself, BP has managed to cause the worst economic and environmental disaster upon us, more than bin Laden, Al Qaeda, the Taliban and all other terrorist groups could have ever hoped to accomplish COMBINED!
So, how does the Republican "Drill, Baby, Drill" philosophy sound now?
Sound more like "Spill, Baby, Spill"?
Most corporations won't do anything until they have a financial incentive or disincentive to do so.
Two refineries owned by oil giant BP account for 97 percent of all flagrant violations found in the refining industry by government safety inspectors over the past three years, a Center for Public Integrity analysis shows. Most of BP's citations were classified as "egregious willful" by the Occupational Safety and Health Administration and reflect alleged violations of a rule designed to prevent catastrophic events at refineries.
BP accounted for 829 of the 851 willful violations among all refiners cited by OSHA during the period analyzed by the Center.
BP is also the most heavily fined energy company in the United States.
BP was one of Mother Jones’s 10 Worst Companies of 2005.
“Nationwide, BP’s facilities have had more than 3,565 accidents since 1990, ranking first in the nation, according to a 2004 report by the Texas Public Interest Research Group (TexPIRG).” (That was from 2004.)
BP had $740 MILLION in fines over the last ten years for thousands of OSHA violations, (including an over $353 million fine for price fixing, and $373 million in fines over the last 5 years alone to avoid prosecution). Obviously, almost 3/4s of a BILLION in losses didn't have any effect in their behavior. That is why the DPW just passed a resolution supporting a BOYCOTT of BP.
BP posted profits of $6.1 Billion for the first quarter of 2010, or $67 million per DAY. (It is also reported that Transocean made a whopping $270 million profit on their over-insured drilling rig. In addition to its operation of the Deepwater Horizons drilling rig, it operates 15 other rigs in the Gulf, yet has managed to avoid paying a single royalty to U.S. taxpayers!)
Piggly Wiggly has a "pig points" program which gives you a few pennies off each gallon of gas you buy, but requires you to redeem those points with BP stations. You might want to let them know what you think about their program. Ask them to change it, and work with a different oil company. You can contact them at http://www.shopthepig.com/forms/contact.php .
Independent gas station operators are just that, INDEPENDENT. If they don't like the flak that BP is getting (and they are getting for associating with BP), they can and should switch over to A DIFFERENT OIL COMPANY. If your favorite restaurant continued to sell e-coli contaminated meat from a favored supplier, would you continue to do business with them?
I pledge to buy my gas from anyone but British Petroleum until the spill is stopped and the disaster is cleaned-up.
ADD YOUR NAME NOW
The oil catastrophe caused by British Petroleum in the Gulf isn't even close to being cleaned up. And BP continues to not allow anyone other than themselves the access to fully investigate the extent of the problems. Why? Because, it's likely the smaller the official estimates, the lower BP's liability could be when it comes time to pay for the clean up.
Clearly, BP's bottom line is more important to them then cleaning up the damage they've caused. Enough is enough. It's time to speak to them in a language BP will understand.
Pledge to buy your gas from anyone but BP until the disaster is cleaned-up. These brands are a part of the BP network.
First Name
Last Name
Email Address
Address
City
State
Zip Code
Please tell us how much you spend on gas in one week, so we can continue to report the full impact of the campaign for as long as we need
* marks required fields
PLEDGE NOW -- AND WE'LL RUSH YOU A FREE "BOYCOTT BP" BUMPER STICKER RIGHT AWAY
If this link doesn't work, go to www.anyonebutbp.com
If anyone who believes that the deep drilling moratorium which President Obama enacted, and which the New Orleans Federal Judge, (who is owned by the Oil Industry), struck down, is actually shutting down all oil production or taking away income from oil workers, here are the facts:
The deep drilling moratorium only affects deep drilling rigs which are in deep water and currently drilling. That is only 33 out of the 3,600 wells in the Gulf region affected by the moratorium.
In addition, those well workers who lose their jobs under the moratorium, will continue to be paid under the $20 Billion BP escrow agreement, which has $100 million set aside specifically to pay for those wages.
(Republican Party Candidate for Senator of Wisconsin, opposing incumbent Senator Russ Feingold (D)),
Ron Johnson Announces Support For Oil Drilling in the Great Lakes
Big Oil’s BFF Supports Global Warming, Defends Big Oil Again and Endorses “Drill Baby Drill” Plan in Great Lakes MADISON — Even as the worst oil spill in U.S. history has grown large enough to threaten an area the size of the Great Lakes, multimillionaire U.S. Senate candidate Ron Johnson continues to show how out of touch he is with Wisconsin values, telling WisPolitics.com that “we have to get the oil where it is,” including drilling in the Great Lakes.
“Everyday Ron Johnson makes it even more clear that he will be a tool of Big Oil in Washington,” said Mike Tate, Chair of the Democratic Party of Wisconsin. “Ron Johnson is out of touch with Wisconsin values and our tradition of protecting the environment. We deserve someone far better than a tool of Big Oil.”
Earlier this month, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration reported that the worst oil spill in history had put at risk 78,264 square miles of fishing area, an area nearly exactly the same size as the Great Lakes. Nevertheless, Ron Johnson announced his support to drill for oil in the Great Lakes, which are estimated to hold oil and natural gas.
On Monday, WisPolitics asked Johnson:
“Would you support drilling, like in the Great Lakes for example?”
Johnson replied:
“You know, the bottom line is we are an oil-based economy. There's nothing we're going to do to get off of that for many years. I think we have to be realistic and recognize that fact and, you know, I, I think we have to, get the oil where it is, but we have to do it where it is.”
Ron Johnson’s Record Supporting Big Oil:
Ron Johnson told Green Bay radio talk show host Jerry Bader earlier this month, “I’m glad there is global warming.”
Johnson also told Bader that he “totally disagreed” that climate change was proven and that it was “absurd” that anything be done to try to fix the problem.
The AP reported: “When asked whether the Gulf spill should prompt more caution before undertaking new oil-drilling projects, Johnson said no.”
Johnson also defended Big Oil telling national right-wing talk radio host Ed Morrissey: “This is not the time to be beating up on those guys, quite honestly.”
Johnson also told Morrissey that, “[T]he first thing that came to my mind” when he heard about the BP oil spill was to double down on his support for drilling in the Arctic Natural Wildlife Refuge (ANWR) because a spill there would be easier to deal with, saying: “Wouldn’t it be far better if we were drilling in ANWR?”
Ron Johnson is too extreme for anyone who values clean air, clean water, and wants to be able to sail and fish on our Great Lakes. He wants to turn them into a corporate sewer!
No wonder he got the endorsement of Terrance Wall, the multi-millionaire developer who dropped out of the Senate race, and who hasn't paid ANY TAXES to Wisconsin for them, for most of the last ten years, because he incorporated them in Delaware! Who's Your DADDY/Kenny Boy, just itching to pull the strings, Terrance?
If anyone was wondering if Republicans were just ACTING NUTS, or REALLY WERE NUTS, you just got your answer.
Care for a dash of tarballs in your drinking water, anyone?
Stop BP from drilling in the Great Lakes
06/04/2010
In the 46 days since the worst oil disaster in American history began, many Wisconsinites have wondered if such a catastrophe could ever happen on our Great Lakes.
Oil behemoths like BP have been pressuring politicians for years to allow oil drilling in the Great Lakes. Thanks to the outcry of support from people like you, we've been able to stop them by securing bans on Great Lakes drilling.
Shockingly, the tragedy in the Gulf Coast still hasn't stopped right-wing extremists from maneuvering to lift these bans.
Just last week, a prominent leader of the far right-wing Mackinac Center for Public Policy in Michigan called on state and federal officials to lift the ban on oil and gas drilling in the Great Lakes -- even as the devastation to the environment and people's livelihood in the Gulf of Mexico continues to grow. This is an organization with deep ties to right-wing organizations in Wisconsin and other Great Lakes states.
We must make sure Great Lakes drilling bans remain intact. Click here to join me in calling for the renewal of bans on drilling in the Great Lakes today .
Our Great Lakes are home to thousands of miles of pristine shoreline and fragile ecosystems that also provide good-paying jobs to tens of thousands of Americans. Fisheries and outdoor recreation alone account for over $40 billion in economic activity annually for states in the region.
That is why I have always stood strong against attempts to drill for oil and gas in the Great Lakes. In 2001, I supported a federal ban on Great Lakes drilling, and in 2007 I stood up to BP when they were caught dumping tons of toxic sludge into Lake Michigan.
Will you join me in standing up again by clicking here to sign our petition to renew the bans on drilling in the Great Lakes?
Every year Wisconsin families and businesses send $16 billion to other states and other countries for energy. As governor, I'll bring clean energy reform to Wisconsin, providing thousands of new good-paying jobs and reducing our dependence on big oil companies like BP and their reckless drilling projects.
In the meantime, we need to redouble our efforts to prevent future disasters like the tragedy in the Gulf of Mexico by renewing the bans on Great Lakes drilling now .
Robert Reich
Former Secretary of Labor, Professor at Berkeley, May 31, 2010
Why Obama Should Put BP Under Temporary Receivership
It's time for the federal government to put BP under temporary receivership, which gives the government authority to take over BP's operations in the Gulf of Mexico until the gusher is stopped. This is the only way the public will know what's going on, be confident enough resources are being put to stopping the gusher, ensure BP's strategy is correct, know the government has enough clout to force BP to use a different one if necessary, and be sure the president is ultimately in charge.
If the government can take over giant global insurer AIG and the auto giant General Motors and replace their CEOs, in order to keep them financially solvent, it should be able to put BP's north American operations into temporary receivership in order to stop one of the worst environmental disasters in U.S. history.
The Obama administration keeps saying BP is in charge because BP has the equipment and expertise necessary to do what's necessary. But under temporary receivership, BP would continue to have the equipment and expertise. The only difference: the firm would unambiguously be working in the public's interest. As it is now, BP continues to be responsible primarily to its shareholders, not to the American public. As a result, the public continues to worry that a private for-profit corporation is responsible for stopping a public tragedy.
Five reasons for taking such action:
We are not getting the truth from BP. BP has continuously and dramatically understated size of gusher. In the last few days, BP chief Tony Hayward has tried to refute reports from scientists that vast amounts of oil from the spill are spreading underwater. Hayward says BP's sampling shows "no evidence" oil is massing and spreading underwater across the Gulf. Yet scientists from the University of South Florida, University of Georgia, University of Southern Mississippi and other institutions say they've detected vast amounts of underwater oil, including an area roughly 50 miles from the spill site and as deep as 400 feet.
Government must be clearly in charge of getting all the facts, not waiting for what BP decides to disclose and when.
We have no way to be sure BP is devoting enough resources to stopping the gusher. BP is now saying it has no immediate way to stop up the well until August, when a new "relief" well will reach the gushing well bore, enabling its engineers to install cement plugs. August? If government were in direct control of BP's north American assets, it would be able to devote whatever of those assets are necessary to stopping up the well right away.
BP's new strategy for stopping the gusher is highly risky. It wants to sever the leaking pipe cleanly from atop the failed blowout preventer, and then install a new cap so the escaping oil can be pumped up to a ship on the surface. But scientists say that could result in an even bigger volume of oil -- as much as 20 percent more -- gushing from the well. At least under government receivership, public officials would be directly accountable for weighing the advantages and disadvantages of such a strategy. As of now, company officials are doing the weighing. Which brings us to the fourth argument for temporary receivership.
Right now, the U.S. government has no authority to force BP to adopt a different strategy. Saturday, Energy Secretary Steven Chu and his team of scientists essentially halted BP's attempt to cap the spewing well with a process known as "top kill," which injected drilling mud and other materials to try to counter the upward pressure of the oil. Apparently the Administration team was worried that the technique would worsen the leak. But under what authority did the Administration act? It has none. Asked Sunday whether U.S. officials told BP to stop the top-kill attempt, Carol Browner, the White House environmental advisor, said, "We told them of our very, very grave concerns" about the danger. Expressing grave concerns is not enough. The President needs legal authority to order BP to protect the United States.
The President is not legally in charge. As long as BP is not under the direct control of the government he has no direct line of authority, and responsibility is totally confused. For example, listen for the "we" and "they" pronouns that were used by Carol Browner in response to a question on NBC's "Meet the Press" Sunday (emphasis added): "We're now going to move into a situation where they're going to attempt to control the oil that's coming out, move it to a vessel, take it onshore ....We always knew that the relief well was the permanent way to close this .... Now we move to the third option, which is to contain it. If [the new cap on the relief well is] a snug fit, then there could be very, very little oil. If they're not able to get as snug a fit, then there could be more. We're going to hope for the best and prepare for the worst." When you get pronoun confusion like this, you can bet on confusion -- both inside the Administration and among the public. There is no good reason why "they" are in charge of an operation of which "we" are hoping for the best and preparing for the worst.
The president should temporarily take over BP's Gulf operations. We have a national emergency on our hands. No president would allow a nuclear reactor owned by a private for-profit company to melt down in the United States while remaining under the direct control of that company. The meltdown in the Gulf is the environmental equivalent.
This post originally appeared at RobertReich.org
OSHA reports 760 egregious, willful safety violations against BP. Reported on News Room Live CNN May 30, 2010
$5.6 - $6.1 Billion profits reported by BP for the first quarter of 2010, or $67 Million per day for the 1st quarter of 2010.
$930 million costs for oil spill as of Friday May 28, 2010. This is only about 14 days of profit for BP.
BP’s stock down nearly 30% since the rig explosion.
26,000 claims for lost income. $35 million paid so far. (BP is shopping for a judge to throw all of the claims into one case in front of one judge, including all of the claims which have already been paid out. If BP wins, they could have the original claims reversed. The judge they are looking to have hear their case is a frequent guest to the oil producer’s conventions. He isn’t paid for his appearances (supposedly), but all of his expenses are picked up by the oil industry.)
Why do Republicans continue to support Big Oil and the false premise that allowing them to destroy our planet is saving jobs?
Is it because more and more people will be forced out of the profitable fishing jobs that they grew up with for generations and will have to switch over to minimum wage clean up jobs to attempt to mop up the oil that the oil companies allow to pour into our oceans, destroying the fragile environment which provides them (or used to provide them) with their livelihoods and our country with the vast majority of our seafood products?
That is just like Republicans, to deny the truth and reframe reality, to put their spin on their lies to make it appear to make sense. Like making flipping hamburgers a “manufacturing job” to help the Bush Administration look like they were keeping our manufacturing industries healthy and growing, when they were actually hemorrhaging jobs to India and China.
And why would anyone still believe that allowing oil companies to cut costs while polluting on a massive scale, and throwing away our valuable natural resources, oil among them, so they could keep their operating costs down, and force the prices of their commodities through the roof, is somehow beneficial to us?
How can allowing hundreds of millions of gallons of oil to pour out into the Gulf of Mexico, not to mention the millions of cubic feet of Methane Hydrates which are pouring out into our atmosphere, help to resolve our energy problems, when these oil companies are being allowed to dump it into the ocean, pour millions of gallons of toxic dispersants into the ocean to destroy the oil, and burn off the oil and gas which they were able to find, but not capable of separating and capturing in a safe and environmentally sound manner?
The oil companies care about PROFITS, they don’t give a DAMN about the environment, or the safe extraction or storage of what they are able to pull out of the earth. They don’t care about the fact that they are throwing away your futures or even their own potential future profits. All they care about is how much they can squeeze out of you NOW.
Like the meat processors who have had to recall millions of pounds of e-coli contaminated ground beef, or spinach or lettuce growers who have had to recall millions of pounds of spinach and lettuce because they allowed fecal matter from nearby cattle ranches to leach into their farms, or because they were too cheap to provide proper sanitary facilities for their migrant workers and allowed them to sh*t in the very fields where they were harvesting the food that ends up on your dining room tables. You die from eating (literally) crappy food. They destroy all of the food suspected of being contaminated. Then they raise the prices on whatever is left, to price even more consumers out of the market. Nothing changes, except that the recalls just keep getting bigger.
And what about the strawberry farmers in Florida who used up so much water to cover their crops and prevent them from freezing earlier this year, so that the water tables dropped and sink holes started to show up where the water had been sucked dry? And then, when a bumper crop appeared and the prices of strawberries were dropping because they were so abundant, those same strawberry farmers were sending their workers out to plow their crops under and reduce their harvest, rather than harvesting them and giving them to the millions of homeless people who are starving? (Until after massive protests, they changed their practices.)
Do you really think that they cared about the fact that they lost/threw away so many millions of dollars worth of food? What they did was to permanently force the consumer prices of these commodities to higher and higher levels so that they could make even greater profits on smaller volume sales.
The purpose of a Democratic Government is to insure that everyone in the country benefits from the decisions of the government, not just a handful who pay off elected officials to look the other way, while they rob everyone blind and rape the earth. (As Republican talking-head Ann Coulter likes to crow: “God said so: go forth, be fruitful, multiply. And Rape the planet - it’s yours.”) She said something very similar again on FOX Hannity and Colmes, June 22, 2001
Coulter: I take the biblical idea. God gave us the earth.
Peter Fenn (Democratic strategist): Oh, OK.
Coulter: We have dominion over the plants, the animals, the trees.
Fenn: This is a great idea.
Coulter: “God says: ‘Earth is yours. Take it. Rape it. It’s yours.”
Fenn: Terrific. We’re Americans, so we should consume as much of the earth’s resources…
Coulter: Yes! Yes!
Fenn: …as fast as we possibly can.
Coulter: As opposed to living like the Indians.
Curtis C. commented on this exchange on http://users.rcn.com/skutsch/anticoulter/quotes.html
This is just misuse of the bible. The bible is full of information on proper stewardship of the planet. Leviticus has ideas for proper land management in it. There is a strong environmental Christian movement based on the teachings in the bible.
I'll give you one very big, good example from the bible. This is the story of Noah and Ark. God makes certain that we include the animals on the ark, because we hold dominion over them, yes, but also because this gives us responsibility for their welfare. Clearly god wants us to take care of the animals on the planet. If we make an animal extinct then we are clearly violating the spirit of the story of Noah and the Ark where god instructed Noah to gather all of the animals and keep them alive. ( I have included the quote below.)
God can't make it much clearer than that.
Genesis Chapter 6.
18: But I will establish my covenant with you; and you shall come into the ark, you, your sons, your wife, and your sons' wives with you.
19: And of every living thing of all flesh, you shall bring two of every sort into the ark, to keep them alive with you; they shall be male and female.
20: Of the birds according to their kinds, and of the animals according to their kinds, of every creeping thing of the ground according to its kind, two of every sort shall come in to you, to keep them alive.
I'm no biblical expert, but this sure makes sense to me. A lot more sense than Coulter (who strikes me as one of those Christians who hasn't really bothered to read what Christ actually said).
What we should be doing is changing the way corporations operate, to make them more responsible to the people and more environmentally responsible, for proper conservation and to create sustainable food sources and natural resources, instead of wiping them out and leaving nothing but devastation behind.
It is a very simple concept which corporations and some politicians still don’t understand. The old timers call it “Don’t sh*t where you eat.” It is a very practical concept that goes way back when primitive man started recognizing that it wasn’t only the foul smell that they could avoid, but the sickness and disease which came along with ingesting human and farm animal waste.
If corporations and politicians can’t follow that simple rule, they shouldn’t be allowed to sit and eat at the same table with people who are more civilized. The same should hold true for having a say in national policies.
Republicans Have Continually Complained About Wisconsin's High Taxes
(maybe that was because Wisconsin had been under Republican control for so long)
Latest Wisconsin Department of Revenue Reports Show Wisconsin State and Local Tax Rankings LOWEST since 1961-1962! Dropping for Six Straight Years Under Democratic Control!
(Scott Walker says Governor Doyle has been a big spender, but the reality is that he's spent considerably less than Republican Governor Tommy Thompson, whose spending policies as a legislator,Walker VOTED FOR. But what do facts matter, coming from Republicans?)
Reported by The Wisconsin Journal Sentinel, Milwaukee Magazine and
The Department of Revenue independently finding the same story:
"Wisconsin’s rankings are their lowest in nearly 50 years and have improved for six consecutive years, unprecedented in state history….In addition, a recently released Ernst and Young study prepared for the Council on State Taxation shows Wisconsin’s business tax ranking now ranks 30th – well below the national average."
COST (Council on State Taxation) also reports that state and local business taxes across the country decreased by 3.5% from FY2008 to FY2009. On average, state and local business taxes across the country only amount to about 9% of all state and local taxes on businesses, while Wisconsin's rate is below the average, and has been on the decline. (Wisconsin's corporate income tax rates are less than 11 other states, AND 2/3rds of all Wisconsin corporations pay NOTHING in income tax - per Wisconsin Dept. of Revenue records.)
And, it should be remembered that because of decades of Wisconsin fiscal policy, which has favored corporations, and cut their taxes, to entice them to locate their businesses here, Property taxes have been the predominant source of Wisconsin's General Revenue. For State and local Government revenues in Wisconsin, $42.3 per $1,000 personal property value is collected, while corporations pay only $4.6 per $1,000 income.
In other words, individuals pay 9.2 TIMES in personal property tax rates what corporations pay for their income tax rate. Low tax rates for corporations (which is something that Republicans have always supported), result in HIGHER TAXES for property owners! Any time corporations get a tax cut, somebody else has to pick up the slack. That means YOU.
By the way, the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities advises that:
"Contrary to what some consider common wisdom, a tax increase can be good policy during a recession. Tax increases are a better option than deep spending cuts — better both for families already suffering due to the recession and for state economies. Tax increases can be designed in such a way that they impose relatively little or no costs on the most vulnerable families; this can be done, for example, by targeting the increase on households with the highest incomes or on profitable corporations. Moreover, as the economists Joseph Stiglitz and Peter Orszag (among others) have noted, tax increases take less money out of the economy than spending cuts, for reasons described more fully below.
One major factor that is reducing, though not eliminating, the need for tax increases in this recession is the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA). Enacted in February 2009, it provides substantial money for state governments that includes roughly $140 billion to help alleviate budget shortfalls through funding for education, health care, and other government services. New York, for instance, scaled back the size of a proposed tax increase package by about $1.3 billion after the ARRA funding was announced."
Also:
"The effective income tax rate for the 400 richest families dropped in two decades, to only about 16.6% in Federal Income Taxes, even though their income INCREASED by 5 times over the same period." The Bush tax cuts gave them $18 Billion in tax cuts per year.
For more on tax policies in Wisconsin and in the U.S. click here.
Want to make sure that Corporations DON'T have the unlimited funding to support Right Wing Republican Extremists? DON'T DO BUSINESS WITH THEM - EVER!
If YOU don't give the money to them in the first place, by doing business with them, THEY won't have the money to give to THEIR candidates! Stop doing business with the big banks and insurance companies who don't live up to their agreements with their customers. Stop doing business with the international conglomerates who funnel money to them. Stop doing business with international banks who won't give local businesses and individuals loans, and instead do business with local credit unions. Stop doing business with the big box stores like Walmart, Target, Home Depot, and other businesses like Pennzoil, Amazon, Land's End (A Madison based company which had a progressive founder, but who sold out to Republicans who brought in Rudy Giuliani to speak to the company employees - the former owner took out a full page ad to protest against the current owners AND the Bush Administration), General Mills, Exxon, AT&T and Verizon who donate heavily to Republicans. Go to BuyBlue.org to find businesses who support Progressives, and OpenSecrets.org to find out which companies give to which candidates and why!
For that matter, stop doing business with local businesses who support Republicans locally.
Don't think boycotts have an impact? When local Channels 18 and 24, owned by the Sinclair Broadcast Group, was airing the sleazy anti-Kerry swiftboat ads, in 2004, customers boycotting companies who advertised on their stations cost Sinclair Broadcast Group, over a period of a few months, $100 MILLION in advertising revenues from businesses who pulled their advertising from those stations. Sinclair Broadcast Group controls 22% of the broadcast market in the United States.
Current Attorney General J.B. Van Hollen ( R ) has refused to get involved in consumer protection issues contrary to the efforts of his predecessor, Attorney General Peg Lautenschlager (D), who made it her policy to go after "Payday Loan" and furniture rental companies who charged exorbitant fees for their services, (which, prior to Republican control, had been considered USURY, but after Republicans got in power, excessive fees and rates became standard).
Democratic Challenger Scott Hassett for the office of Attorney General, successfully prosecuted MENARDS for the largest pollution case in Wisconsin State History. I guess that is why MENARDS is backing J.B. Van Hollen.
Companies like GM who went bankrupt because of the economy, and incompetence on the part of their executives, are now 60% owned by the U.S. Taxpayers, and 10% owned by Canadian Taxpayers.
Even the largest companies are at risk in this economy. And even the smallest losses of revenues can put them out of business, because of their huge overheads.
If you want to insure that they won't have unlimited funds available to donate to Republican - Don't do business with them in the first place. Do business with companies which have the same values as you do.
Congressman F. James Sensenbrenner has his Town Hall meetings posted on his website. Click HERE to get Town Hall Meeting information. Show Up. Audio and Video Tape the events. Send us copies. (email the digital files to chair5thcddpw@gmail.com )
Democrats.com has an online petition to Congressman Sensenbrenner and Senators Kohl and Feingold to support Representative John Conyers Single Payer Health Care Bill HR 676, the "Medicare For All" bill. You can send some personalized messages to them along with the petition, if you like.
Former Governor Tommy Thompson ( R - WI ) was FOR sending $1 BILLION to Iraq for Universal Healthcare, but is AGAINST Healthcare for United States Citizens!
“Universal care is right for Iraq,” Thompson says
MADISON – On Monday, the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel reported that former Bush Administration Secretary Tommy Thompson was ‘critical’ of historic health insurance reform that extends coverage to 172,000 uninsured residents and improves coverage for nearly 4 million Wisconsinites. But what the newspaper didn’t report was that in 2004, Thompson said universal care is right for Iraq.
From the March 3, 2004 edition of the Seattle Times:
“Fresh from a two-day weekend visit to Iraq, the Bush administration's top health-care official defended the $950 million that will be spent to help Iraq establish universal health care.
Congressional Democrats have criticized the administration for helping Iraq to establish universal health care without doing the same for U.S. citizens.
Health and Human Services Secretary Tommy Thompson said yesterday there are major differences between the two countries that defy simple comparisons.
"Even if you don't have health insurance," said Thompson, who toured medical facilities in the Iraqi cities of Baghdad and Tikrit on Saturday and Sunday, "you are still taken care of in America. That certainly could be defined as universal coverage.”
Last weekend, Ohio Congressman John Boccieri, an Iraq War Veteran, cited Thompson’s Iraqi efforts in a speech on the House floor announcing his own support for health insurance reform here in America.
“I’ll remind my friends on the other side (House Republicans) who voted to send (former president George W. Bush’s secretary of health and human services) Tommy Thompson to Iraq with a billion dollar checks in hand to make sure that every man, woman and child in Iraq had universal health care coverage.”
“If it’s good enough for Iraqis, it’s good enough for Americans,” he yelled. “Who are you going to stand with today?”
“Secretary Thompson fought for universal health care in Iraq,” said Mike Tate, Chairman of the Democratic Party of Wisconsin. “Now he is critical of getting the job done for the people of Wisconsin.”
View this release online: http://www.wisdems.org/release_details.asp?id=375
Republicans in Congress “Pull a Sensenbrenner”
In response to the historically landmark passage of the Health Insurance Legislation Senator “Country First” John McCain, has now told Democrats that Republicans won’t cooperate with Democrats on any legislation throughout the remainder of this year. Maybe he should take on a new name “Senator - Republican Party and Personal Ambitions First, John McCain”.
Committees which were set to hold hearings, or which had been in session, were suddenly told that Republican Congressmen were stepping forward to claim that “someone in the Republican Caucus, opposes the continuance of the committee hearings”, while of course not acknowledging that they themselves had any opposition to the committee, but rather were reporting on "some other unknown and unnamed" member of Congress. Committee meetings were shut down after 2 p.m. today (March 24, 2010), as Republicans called upon an old unused rule in the Senate to shut down committee hearings 2 hours after the Senate convenes.
Can we stop paying Republican Members of Congress for REFUSING TO DO THEIR JOBS? Isn't that what they are paid for - to negotiate for and represent their constituents? So, if they don't do it, don't the constituents they represent have the right to demand that they not be paid for services NOT PROVIDED under BREACH OF CONTRACT?
Not only is this a betrayal of the American people, to shut down the business of Congress for politically motivated tactics, but Republican members of Congress refuse to step forward to identify exactly who is opposing these committee hearings, including one Senate hearing regarding our National Defense and the current status of our relationship with North Korea, where the commanding Generals from the regions HQ’d in Korea and Hawaii had to fly in to testify and were prevented from doing so by REPUBLICANS. Never mind the COST of their flying in for nothing, but what could we have done to STRENGTHEN National Defenses, as a result of their testimony, which we won’t be able to hear because Republicans are “taking their BALLS and GOING HOME”?
It reminds us of when Jim Sensenbrenner, as Chair of the House Judiciary, shut down his own committee hearing (6-9-2005), regarding the renewal of the Patriot Act, because he didn’t like what he was hearing from the witnesses, first cutting the witnesses off before the end of their testimony, and then stomping out of the hearing, after claiming that the meeting had adjourned, over objections of his committee colleauges, whom he ignored, and then had the mikes and the lights shut off, so that those who remained in the room, could not continue their discussions.
(Sensenbrenner had repeatedly told his more Liberal crowd in the 5th CD that he didn’t support the renewal of the Patriot Act, until he voted for it AGAIN - Dec. 15, 2005 - Gonzales this week joined Rep. James Sensenbrenner, R-Wisconsin, chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, in rejecting the idea of reopening negotiations or temporarily extending the bill. Sensenbrenner said the present proposal should be ratified or the expiring provisions and changes to the bill will die. That proposal extended most of the Patriot Act INDEFINITELY),
About half of the population of Europe died during the Black Plague. There were no “cures” then.
Royalty ran away to their summer castles, while the dead corpses were piling up in the streets, and few took them away for fear of dying themselves. In the meantime, because of the many dead contaminating the air and water sources, even more died from the cholera and typhoid epidemics, killing off black plague survivors.
So, if we have these same plagues today, and people are dropping like flies, regardless of their wealth and social station, because there is no health care for the middle income or poor, so they can’t get treated, don’t you think that that increases YOUR chances of getting ill by contracting the disease?
Our current health system can’t keep up with the speed of catastrophic events that spread beyond the control of our CDC. It is designed to serve the lowest number of patients at the highest profit margins.
Standard Flu shots can’t be manufactured fast enough, let alone distributed fast enough, because our current health care system doesn’t have the equipment to make it, the personnel to dispense it, and because it is designed to provide only enough services for those who can afford to pay for it. And contrary to the Bush Administration policy of demanding that all medications made available in the U.S. , be manufactured in the U.S., it was buying standard flu vaccines from foreign countries, because U.S. manufacturers complained that they couldn’t make enough profit on them, so they wouldn’t make enough to go around for America’s citizens.
Remember when the vaccine for the Avian flu was only available from a foreign country? That country happened to be Switzerland, and the company was Hoffman La Roche. It operates world wide. It didn’t do the research and development for the Avian flu vaccine, Tamiflu, but rather bought distribution rights from a U.S. firm, Gilead Sciences. Gilead gets 10% of every dose sold. Donald Rumsfeld was Chairman of the Board of Gilead Sciences from 1997 to 2001, and held enough stock to be one of, if not THE largest stock holder in the company. Donald Rumsfeld left Gilead Sciences to become the Defense Secretary. Once the Bush Administration started pushing the Avian Flu scare, and ordering Tamiflu stockpiles through companies that Donald Rumsfeld owned stock in ($1 Billion worth), their stock value went up 720%. In 2005 Donald Rumsfeld was reported to be considering selling some shares of his stock, but Rumsfeld publicly claimed that he wouldn’t sell his shares because he “didn’t want to be accused of insider trading.” Instead, he reportedly bought up an additional $18 million worth of stock. Since the Bird Flu hysteria of 2005, the stock value has gone up another 56%, even though there hasn’t been a widespread Avian Flu pandemic as was predicted by the Bush Administration.
Recently, it was disclosed that Baxter’s International Research Facility out of Orth-Donau, Austria had released contaminated flu virus material to facilities in at least four other countries.
The contaminated product, a mix of H3N2 seasonal flu viruses and unlabelled H5N1 viruses, was supplied to an Austrian research company. The Austrian firm, Avir Green Hills Biotechnology, then sent portions of it to sub-contractors in the Czech Republic, Slovenia and Germany.
The contamination incident, which is being investigated by the four European countries, came to light when the subcontractor in the Czech Republic inoculated ferrets with the product and they died. Ferrets shouldn’t die from exposure to human H3N2 flu viruses.
Public health authorities concerned about what has been described as a “serious error” on Baxter’s part have assumed the death of the ferrets meant the H5N1 virus in the product was live. But the company, Baxter International Inc., has been parsimonious about the amount of information it has released about the event.
On Friday, the company’s director of global bioscience communications confirmed what scientists have suspected.
“It was live,” Christopher Bona said in an email.
The contaminated product, which Baxter calls “experimental virus material,” was made at the Orth-Donau research facility. Baxter makes its flu vaccine — including a human H5N1 vaccine for which a licence is expected shortly — at a facility in the Czech Republic.
People familiar with biosecurity rules are dismayed by evidence that human H3N2 and avian H5N1 viruses somehow co-mingled in the Orth-Donau facility. That is a dangerous practice that should not be allowed to happen, a number of experts insisted.
Accidental release of a mixture of live H5N1 and H3N2 viruses could have resulted in dire consequences.
While H5N1 doesn’t easily infect people, H3N2 viruses do. If someone exposed to a mixture of the two had been simultaneously infected with both strains, he or she could have served as an incubator for a hybrid virus able to transmit easily to and among people.
A Health Care System which can’t properly protect us from the actions of corporations that make errors from incompetence, or intention, can’t respond fast enough or effectively enough to stop rampaging epidemics. We need more doctors, more nurses, and more facilities to handle more people here at home.
The largest health care insurer in the country only has 30 million policy holders. That is less than ten percent of our total population. On the other hand, the largest driver’s insurance policy insurer (State Farm) has 40 million policy holders. So, it isn’t as if they can’t handle a few million more policy holders.
But having more doctors, nurses and facilities, would mean that there would be shorter waiting lists for people (one of the biggest complaints Republicans have against opening up health care access to more people).
Having more doctors, nurses and facilities, would mean that there would be more PEOPLE EMPLOYED, improving our economy.
Having more doctors, nurses and facilities, would mean that there would be a larger pool of certified, qualified professionals that patients and hospitals can choose from, so that they don’t have to depend on doctors and nurses who are compromised because they are drug addicted or drunk from being overstressed from overwork.
Having more doctors, and nurses, would mean that hospitals and clinics would have more professionals to choose from to insure that the people they hire are the BEST qualified to do the job, rather than hiring whomever is available, because, there is a lack of qualified people available to fill the jobs.
Having more doctors, and nurses, would also mean that people who get sick, can get proper care EARLY enough to prevent their illnesses from becoming so severe that the patient has to suffer from a long term chronic condition; and the costs of treatment would be kept to a minimum, because they are getting preventive treatment BEFORE the condition gets so severe or out of control.
Ask the firefighters out there what it is like, not to have enough equipment, personnel, or water to put out an out of control forest fire. That is what our next epidemic will look like, if we don’t prepare for it, except the trees will be PEOPLE.
March 22, 2010
Facts vs. Violence Against Democrats in The Wake of the House Approval of the Health Care Reform Bill
If it wasn’t enough that Democratic Congressmen were spat on, or had racial or homophobic epithets shouted at them, by protesters who claimed to be against Health Care Reform, “Birther” Republican Congressman Randy Neugebauer (Texas), shouted out “Baby Killer” during Rep. Bart Stupak’s (Democrat – Michigan), speech in support of the Health Care Reform Bill, (after he was against it unless Abortion Control was included in it – specifically to ban Federal funds from being used for abortion, unless it was used in cases of Rape and Incest or to protect the life of the mother.)
Mr. Neugebauer was not only out of order for his comments, but he is also completely without any factual support for it. In 2006, the annual State of the World’s Mothers report released by Save the Children researchers found that American babies in The United States are three times more likely to die in their first month as children born in Japan, and newborn mortality is 2.5 times higher in the United States than in Finland, Iceland or Norway. The “Mothers’ Index” ranks 125 nations according to 10 gauges of well-being.
The United States ranks 2nd highest/worst in child hood morbidity rate, with only Latvia, with six deaths per 1,000 live births, higher than the United States with five deaths per 1,000 births.
The report goes on to say “The United States has more neonatologists and neonatal intensive care beds per person than Australia, Canada and the United Kingdom, but its newborn (morbidity) rate is higher than any of those countries,” (annual State of the World’s Mothers report).
This bill actually provides MORE preventive care AND provides support for long term care for children, particularly those who are poor and would normally not be provided any covered medical care. That alone, would mean that more children would be BORN ALIVE and be KEPT ALIVE because of proper medical care being available to them.
In addition, countries with Universal Health Care have statistically lower rates of abortion than the only developed country in the world which doesn’t have Universal Health care, The United States.
The latest United Nations comparative statistics are available at http://data.un.org which demonstrates this point very clearly. Even though abortions ARE FREE in other countries with Universal Health Care, they have FEWER ABORTIONS BECAUSE they have affordable healthcare!
In Canada, the abortion rate is 15.2 abortions per 1,000 women; Denmark, 14.3; Germany, 7.8; Japan, 12.3; Britain, 17.0; and the United States 20.8. When it comes to abortion rates in the developed world, we’re No. 1.
But we also know that at an estimated 45,000 Americans die for lack of health care insurance coverage or preventable errors. That is a number which has been referred to repeatedly during the recent health care debate. This was based on a 1999 report compiled by the Institute of Medicine.
And, why, might you ask, is our estimate based on an 11 year old study? Well, it is because there has not been a comprehensive study since then, because hospitals are failing to keep records on these deaths, because there has been no law that requires them to do so.
Lakewood, Colorado-based HealthGrades Inc. says that its estimates doubles those figures, saying that their data covers all 50 states and is more up-to-date than the 1999 study from the IOM, which said that as many of 98,000 people a year die from medical errors. That report was released in 2004. There have been numerous other, much smaller studies carried out by other organizations on a much smaller scale, which estimate deaths as much as 200,000 annually, due to preventable errors. And millions more injured due to negligence from numerous causes. The IOM report in 1999 estimated that medical errors cost the Nation approximately $37.6 billion each year; about $17 billion of those costs are associated with preventable errors. About half of the expenditures for preventable medical errors are for direct health care costs. 70 percent of those medical errors were found to be preventable; 6 percent were potentially preventable. A 2008 chart review of 15,000 medical records in Colorado and Utah, found that 54 percent of surgical errors were preventable.
In 1999 the IOM “To Err Is Human” report called the death toll shocking and challenged the medical community to cut the rate in half – within five years. Instead, federal analysts believe the rate of medical error is actually increasing. Even in states where there are regulations in place (because the Federal Government had not had them between 1999 and today), hospitals often ignore the rules WITHOUT PENALTY. Consequently, over this period, 1999-2009, as many as 2 million Americans have died needlessly of preventable medical mistakes.
Republicans fraudulently claim that we have "the best medical care in the world". They left off the last part of the statement "...IF you have the money to afford boutique health care services." And of course, recent mistakes in the care of many wealthy celebrities have demonstrated that EVEN WITH their money, they couldn't get effective, professional health care, THAT COULD HAVE KEPT THEM ALIVE.
The report also called for a mandatory nationwide reporting system for medical errors. That never happened.
“The (American Medical Association) came out foaming at the mouth,” said Arthur Levin, president of the Center for Medical Consumers and an author of “To Err is Human.” “And I think the decision was made to let it fall off the table because the wisdom was that you needed the cooperation of the profession to make progress. I think the tacit compromise was, ‘We'll let that go.'”
The AMA and the American Hospital Association vehemently opposed an attempt by President Bill Clinton to create a mandatory reporting system for serious errors. The leaders of both groups snubbed an invite to a White House press conference introducing the president's patient safety agenda in 2000. The groups launched a multimillion-dollar advertising campaign that said mandatory reporting would drive medical errors underground. From 2000 to 2002, they spent $81 million on lobbying efforts, according to campaign statistics collected by the Center for Responsive Politics.
Mandatory reporting was dead on arrival.
But, fraudulent reporting by Republicans on what Health Care Reform would lead to, has raised an undercurrent of a minority of people who are against issues, WHICH DON’T EVEN EXIST in the health care reform bill!
They haven’t bothered to look at the facts or the proof that our current Health Care system is failing on a massive scale.
Now, there are reports that bricks have been thrown through doors and windows of Democratic Congressmen’s and Congresswomen’s, and Democratic Party Offices in at least three different states, after the Health Care Reform Bill passed in the House. New York Monroe County Democratic Committee office, Democratic Rep. Louise Slaughter’s (New York) district office in Niagara Falls, was one of them:
WHEC reported that a note attached to the brick in the Monroe County office read "extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice" -- a quote delivered in an acceptance speech by Republican president candidate Barry Goldwater at the 1964 GOP convention.
No one was injured in either incident in New York.
Slaughter told WHEC that her offices have recently received threatening phone calls.
Speaking on the House floor Sunday, Slaughter referred to damage at her office, saying, "The anger isn't just contained outside the Capitol. Last week someone hurled a brick through the window of my district office in the dark of night. We must step back to remind ourselves of why we are here."
and the Tucson office of Democratic Rep. Gabrielle Giffords (Arizona), was also attacked. Another incident was reported earlier in the weekend by the Sedgwick County Democratic Party in Kansas.
Party Executive Director Lyndsey Stauble told CNN that a brick with anti-Obama and anti-health care messages was thrown at the headquarters sometime late Friday or early Saturday. Nothing was taken, and no one was injured, she said, adding that a bakery next door called police.
Stauble mentioned that a recent post on a blog encouraged people to throw bricks at local Democratic offices nationwide.
Blogger Michael B. Vanderboegh of Pinson, Alabama, told CNN Monday that in a Friday blog -- which he says was posted after the incident at Slaughter's office -- he called for people to break windows at Democratic headquarters at the city and county level. He said he didn't call for the damages to congressional offices because, "I didn't want to be responsible for anybody breaking a federal law."
However, "I can understand how someone can be frustrated enough to throw a brick through a congresswoman's window," Vanderboegh said. He said he feels the health care bill is "unconstitutional and tyrannical."
"My answer is violence, by getting their attention," he said, adding, "If we can get across to the other side, that they are within inches of provoking a civil war in this country, then that's a good thing."
Hmmm. Isn’t inciting violence against the law?
And this isn’t anything new.
Hal Turner, New Jersey’s top White-Supremacist internet-radio show host was arrested several times for threatening public officials with bodily harm, most recently July 25, 2009 for threatening to murder three federal appeals court judges in Chicago following their recent ruling upholding handgun bans.
In August of 2008, a man walked into the Democratic Party Headquarters for Arkansas and shot the State Democratic Chairman to death.
Now Rush Limbaugh is saying to his audience “We need to defeat these bastards. We need to wipe them out.”
And all this current nonsense, because Congress finally passed a Health Care Reform bill after only 100 years of discussion (started by President Theodore Roosevelt – Republican by the way), and debate, supported for at least 40 years by the Democratic Party, and opposed by Republicans (but they still want to talk about it – while DOING NOTHING.)
What was the Republican argument when they were in control of the Congress? Wasn’t it “Majority Rules, The Majority is the Majority?” Now they demand not only a super majority (60 votes), but even 80 votes in the Senate, which has absolutely NO substance or support in the Constitution or current law.
If they wanted to pass a Health Care Reform Bill, they certainly could have done so, when they were in complete control of the Congress during the first six years of the Bush Administration, but I guess that didn’t take a high priority, in comparison to fighting an illegal war with Iraq, and making sure that oil companies were given carte blanche to drill where ever they wanted and pollute as much as they wanted, while raising energy rates and cutting off Grandmothers’ electricity (and laughing about it), so that they had no air conditioning in California during the heat waves.
It is clear that you won’t see responsible debate coming from Republicans, given that shouts of “Kill Him” came out of Palin audiences where Palin did nothing to dissuade her supporters from this behavior. Even the U.S. Secret Service revealed during the final weeks of the 2008 Presidential Campaign that Sarah Palin’s attacks on Barack Obama’s patriotism provided a spike in death threats against the future president. (reported by the Telegraph.co.uk on November 8, 2008)
“Details of the spike in threats to Mr. Obama come as a report last week by security and intelligence analysts Stratfor, warned that he is a high risk target for racist gunmen. It concluded: "Two plots to assassinate Obama were broken up during the campaign season, and several more remain under investigation. We would expect federal authorities to uncover many more plots to attack the president that have been hatched by white supremacist ideologues."
Irate John McCain aides, who blame Mrs. Palin for losing the election, claim Mrs. Palin took it upon herself to question Mr. Obama's patriotism, before the line of attack had been cleared by Mr. McCain.”
Is this what Republicans consider “Leadership”?
Senator Coburn ( R - Okla ) threatened to use his Senatorial perogative to block any lawmakers from being appointed to any federal post should they switch their vote to yes for the reconciliation, after voting no in the previous vote for the Senate version of the Health Care Bill, and lose their bid for re-election in November. Since no Republicans have indicated any thoughts of changing their minds, it is a clear threat against Democrats. And it isn't much of a threat, given that Republicans have been blocking Obama's appointments since his inauguration. This would give President Obama the option of appointing them anyhow, while the Senate is out of session, known as a recess appointments, the terms of those appointments would then expire at the end of the next Senate Session.
After the passage of the Health Care Bill, Sarah Palin posted comments to her followers that "this is not the time to retreat, it is the time to reload".
She has put out a map "targeting" vulnerable Democratic seats, with gunsight crosshairs identifying their geographic locations!
The inexcusable and undeniable connection to the idea of her pushing her followers using violence, or threats of violence, to get their way is very clear.
POLITICO reported on Monday (March 22nd) that Mike Troxel, an organizer for the Lynchburg Tea Party, posted on his blog what he thought was the congressman’s address, encouraging tea party activists to “drop by.”
The address has since been posted on websites of at least one other local tea party activist.
Read more: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0310/34934.html#ixzz0j7wyX8Do
He posted the wrong address. It was the address of the Congressman's brother, who has four young children. The Congressman Thomas Perriello ( Va. Dem ) had requested that they take down the address, but the website owner has refused to do so. Someone cut their propane gas line to the house. The Fire Marshal and the FBI are currently investigating. It is likely that they posted the wrong address INTENTIONALLY, because it was a FAMILY MEMBER's home and not the Congressman's, because threats against Congressmen and the President are FELONIES.
Death threats have been made agsint Louise Slaughter, Bart Stupak and comments threatening to lynch Senator Pat Murray (D-Washington).
Threats of violence have reached a fever pitch, and while Republicans and the Tea Party movement's founders have claimed that this was not what their organizations are all about, they haven't come out to loudly denounce them, or take any actions to shut them down. That happened during the presidential elections as well, and Republicans know that the vast majority of those making the threats are Republicans, so they play to their base to stoke the fires.
Enough is enough. Hate speech, and inciting violence is a CRIME, and it should be FULLY enforced to the FULL EXTENT of the law.
And Republicans who continue to consider themselves Republicans should be ashamed of themselves for being any part of these attempts to intimidate through violence. Maybe that is why only 23% of the U.S. population are willing to call themselves Republicans now. Even Republican strategists are now starting to call themselves Independents or Conservatives to avoid the connection.
There is no legitimate claim of “integrity”, “taking the higher road”, or justification for being in a position of "leadership" when their only position has been to deny rights to access affordable Health Care for average Americans, which Republican Congressmen and women currently enjoy at the expense of American taxpayers, while inciting violence against those who disagree with them.
The face of the leadership of the Republican Party are those of thugs who lead TERRORISTS against their own neighbors, in an attempt to intimidate or beyond that, actually act on suggestions of violent acts. This is not representative government by majority rule. That is anarchy.
Media Matters Exposes the Unholy Alliance of the Corporate Controlled FOX "News" and The Republican Party (followed by an explanation of why it is effective among the gullible Right Wing)
February 24, 2010
White House Health Care Reform Summit
Click below to see the entire Summit online:
Click Here to see President Obama's Proposal.
Overview of the President's Proposal
The President’s Proposal puts American families and small business owners in control of their own health care.
- It makes insurance more affordable by providing the largest middle class tax cut for health care in history, reducing premium costs for tens of millions of families and small business owners who are priced out of coverage today. This helps over 31 million Americans afford health care who do not get it today – and makes coverage more affordable for many more.
- It sets up a new competitive health insurance market giving tens of millions of Americans the exact same insurance choices that members of Congress will have.
- It brings greater accountability to health care by laying out commonsense rules of the road to keep premiums down and prevent insurance industry abuses and denial of care.
- It will end discrimination against Americans with pre-existing conditions.
- It puts our budget and economy on a more stable path by reducing the deficit by $100 billion over the next ten years – and about $1 trillion over the second decade – by cutting government overspending and reining in waste, fraud and abuse.
The President’s Proposal bridges the gap between the House and Senate bills and includes new provisions to crack down on waste, fraud and abuse.
It includes a targeted set of changes to the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, the Senate-passed health insurance reform bill. The President’s Proposal reflects policies from the House-passed bill and the President’s priorities. Key changes include:
- Eliminating the Nebraska FMAP provision and providing significant additional Federal financing to all States for the expansion of Medicaid;
- Closing the Medicare prescription drug “donut hole” coverage gap;
- Strengthening the Senate bill’s provisions that make insurance affordable for individuals and families;
- Strengthening the provisions to fight fraud, waste, and abuse in Medicare and Medicaid;
- Increasing the threshold for the excise tax on the most expensive health plans from $23,000 for a family plan to $27,500 and starting it in 2018 for all plans;
- Improving insurance protections for consumers and creating a new Health Insurance Rate Authority to provide Federal assistance and oversight to States in conducting reviews of unreasonable rate increases and other unfair practices of insurance plans.
More Senate Democrats are signing on everyday to Sen. Michael Bennet's letter, which calls for the Senate to pass a public option using reconciliation.
Since Monday, we've added Senators Tim Johnson, a moderate Democrat from the conservative state of South Dakota, Debbie Stabenow -- a powerful Senate Finance Committee member from Michigan -- and Appropriations Committee Chairman Daniel Inouye of Hawaii.
That gets the letter from 0 signers to 23 in exactly one week and we're just getting started. The Hill reports DSCC Chairman Senator Robert Menendez says he expects many more Democrats will sign the letter too.
"There is a lot more people who I believe will join," Menendez said on MSNBC. "When you get to a certain number, there is a tipping point and people who may have felt like it's not possible may feel it's possible."
Now, it's time for Democrats to put Republicans on defense. Polling shows overwhelming support for a public option -- Nevada 56% -- Minnesota 62% -- Illinois 68% -- swing states, blue states, conservative states -- Missouri 57% -- Virginia 61% -- Iowa 62% -- in state after state after state.
The momentum keeps building with 119 House Democrats, 23 Senators and
We did it!
1,124,457 Voices for Real Health Care Reform!
Today, (Feb 24, 2010), the House of Representatives debated the Health Insurance Industry Fair Competition Act - Legislation that would repeal the 65 year exemption health insurance companies have from anti-trust regulations.
This exclusion of health insurance companies from anti-trust regulations was originally enacted at a time when insurance companies and hospitals were often functioning at financial losses, because those institutions were acting as Good Samaritans, and providing the best service they could provide, to their fellow man, regardless of the cost to themselves.
Today, the insurance companies are making Billion$ in profit$, while denying policy holders treatment they need to live, and jacking up premiums just to increase their PROFIT$. The top 5 health insurance companies increased their profits by 56%, while cutting 2.7 MILLION policy holders.
They are making profits, even during a deep recession, as more and more Americans DIE from lack of quality healthcare and health insurance. 45,000 Americans DIED last year alone, BECAUSE they didn't have healthcare insurance.
Watch comments by Democratic Congressman Weiner on the floor of the House.
Here's a partial transcript of the debate:
WEINER: You guys have chutzpah. The Republican Party is the wholly owned subsidiary of the insurance industry. They say this isn’t going to do enough, but when we propose an alternative to provide competition, they’re against it. They say we want to strengthen state insurance commissioners and they’ll do the job. But when we did that in our national health care bill, they said we’re against it. They said we want to have competition but when we proposed requiring competition they’re against it. They’re a wholly owned subsidiary of the insurance industry. That’s the fact!
LUNGREN: Mr. Speaker I ask that the gentleman’s words be taken down.
WEINER: You really don’t want to go there, Mr. Lungren. [...] Make no mistake about it. Every single Republican I have ever met in my entire life is wholly owned subsidiary of the insurance industry. That is why —
LUNGREN: Mr. Speaker I ask that the gentleman’s words be taken down once more.
WEINER: Look, the point is very simple, there are inequities in the present way we distribute insurance. There are winners and there are losers. The winners are the insurance industry. [...] There is not bipartisanship on this particular issue. The people who sit on this side (the Democrats side of the chamber), at the risk of offending anyone, generally support the idea of standing up for the American people in their battle against big insurance. And the people generally speaking who sit on this side (Republican side), of the chamber and specifically speaking as well in a lot of cases, simply won’t permit that to happen and haven’t for a generation. Well, that is going to end now. [...] Enough of the phonyness. We are gonna solve this problem because for years our Republican friends have been unable to and unwilling to. Deal with it!” (applause)
At the end of the debate the House voted 406-19 to repeal health insurance company's exemption from anti-trust regulations.
Who, might you ask, could possibly be so cold and inhumane as to vote against this bill? ALL of them were REPUBLICANS!
Here's the Roll Call: The roll call of the vote is now up. GOP Reps. Akin (MO), Boehner (OH), Brady (TX), Broun (GA), Buyer (IN), Franks (AZ), Garrett (NJ), Jenkins, Jordan (OH), King (IA), Lamborn (CO), Linder (GA), Moran (KS), Paul (TX), Price (GA), Ryan (WI), Sensenbrenner (WI), Tiahrt (KS), and Westmoreland (GA) voted against it.
True to their corporate masters, GOP Rep. Paul Ryan (1st CD) and GOP Rep. Jim Sensenbrenner (5th CD), stood against the people, so that health insurance companies could continue to rake individuals and small businesses over the coals, with rate increases that bankrupt them and put them out of business.
Are you STILL voting for them???!!! REALLY???
In response to Republican Representatives Ryan (1st CD), and Sensenbrenner (5th CD), voting against the bill to repeal the health insurance companies’ anti-trust exemption - I would like to put forth the following data to demonstrate how wrong they are in their positions.
A letter from the GAO in 2008 (available at http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d09363r.pdf), clearly demonstrates a continuing consolidation of market share by a handful of Health Insurance companies increasing their dominance over 2005 and 2002.
Here is a small sampling by state of how concentrated that control was in 2008:
In Alabama, out of 7 licensed carriers, the largest is Blue Cross Blue Shield of Alabama. BCBS of Alabama had a 96% market share.
In Alaska, out of 11 licensed carriers, the largest is Premera Blue Cross. Premera held 77% of the market.
In Delaware, out of 14 licensed carriers, the largest is Blue Cross Blue Shield of Delaware. BCBS had 58% of the market.
In Iowa, out of 28 licensed carriers, the largest is Wellmark, Inc. Wellmark, Inc. had 60% of the market.
In Maine, out of 8 licensed carriers, the largest is Anthem BC/BS. Anthem BC/BS (WellPoint), had 56% of the market.
In North Carolina, out of 27 licensed carriers, the largest is Blue Cross Blue Shield of North Carolina. BCBS had 65% of the market.
In North Dakota, out of 10 licensed carriers, the largest is Noridian Mutual Company dba BlueCrossBlueShield of North Dakota. BCBS had 91% of the market.
In Rhode Island, out of 4 licensed carriers, the largest is Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Rhode Island. BCBS had 84% of the market.
By Contrast:
In Wisconsin, out of 41 licensed carriers, the largest is United Healthcare Insurance Company. United Healthcare Insurance Company has 32% of the market.
The lesson is that with COMPETITION, there is LESS of a MONOPOLY. With less of a monopoly, the consumer has the option to go to a different company if they don’t like the way they are being treated by the company they are currently with, or if they are being charged too much, or if they are being denied coverage. The more that companies are allowed to monopolize their control of the market, the more they can dictate the terms of their coverage, without giving consumers any choice in the matter.
A TRUST is a MONOPOLY. The Anti-trust law breaks up the monopolies so that they can’t hold the consumers hostage.
Republicans have been arguing that the Democrats are trying to take over healthcare. They aren’t. They are trying to offer an alternative to people who are being priced out of the market, or are being refused coverage or treatment.
The numbers don’t lie. They demonstrate that a handful of companies are consolidating control and swallowing up smaller companies, until there is no one left to compete with them.
Free-market advocates will tell you that this would create more cost efficiencies in the running of these companies, except that the data shows that in the United States, the administrative costs of Healthcare Insurance (7%) is twice the median for Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) countries, (Canada and Japan spend 2-4% on administrative costs), while the overall health spending per capita in the United States is more than twice that of OECD countries (according to a report from the Congressional Research Service put out on Health Care Reform on April 14, 2009).
And despite the diverse names you see on the different companies, the control of those companies is limited to a much smaller number of companies.
WellPoint Insurance Company is the nation’s largest health insurance company, and covers 33.7 million members nationwide.
WellPoint is an independent licensee of the Blue Cross and Blue Shield Association and serves its members as the Blue Cross licensee for California; the Blue Cross and Blue Shield licensee for Colorado, Connecticut, Georgia, Indiana, Kentucky, Maine, Missouri (excluding 30 counties in the Kansas City area), Nevada, New Hampshire, New York (as Blue Cross Blue Shield in 10 New York City metropolitan and surrounding counties and as Blue Cross or Blue Cross Blue Shield in selected upstate counties only), Ohio, Virginia (excluding the Northern Virginia suburbs of Washington, D.C.), Wisconsin; and through UniCare. This information is off of their own corporate website.
UnitedHealth Group claims that it serves more than 70 million people nationwide (in more than just health insurance). Their 2009 Financial Statement states that they offer health benefits through UnitedHealthcare, Ovations, and AmeriChoice.
In 2006, Mark Farrah Associates showed the market distribution that year, by geographic area, with UnitedHealth Group, WellPoint, Aetna, Humana, HSCS, and other variants of BCBS holding the majority of the Healthcare Insurance market.
In spite of our “best in the world healthcare” (The World Health Organization doesn’t agree with that assessment, by the way. In 2001 France was ranked #1, with the United States coming up a distant 37th, out of 191 countries ranked) - up to 98,000 patients died last year in the U.S. because of mistakes by doctors or hospitals. (According to a 2007 CRS report: The U.S. has the third highest rate of deaths among 26 OECD countries from medical errors. We also have the third highest rate of infant-mortality. For deaths resulting from AIDS, the U.S. ranks second. For deaths resulting from cancer, the U.S. ranks 14th. For deaths resulting from respiratory diseases, the U.S. ranks 24th out of 30, with twice the number of deaths as compared to France, Switzerland and Italy. ) About 45,000 people died last year because of lack of health insurance, and people are currently losing their health insurance at the rate of about 14,000 per day. There are about 47 million people currently without healthcare insurance. One in eight uninsured in 2007 (CRS Healthcare Reform report from April 14, 2009), were in household insurance units with incomes of $50,000 or more. 500,000 Veterans and 1.4 Million children live on the street.
On the other hand, over 45 million people are covered by Medicare. Medicare is a program run by the Federal Government with private insurance companies administering some aspects of it.
8 million people are covered under the Federal Employees Health Benefits Program, including most of the U.S. Congress, with over 4 million current and past employees enrolled. Both of those programs are strongly supported by the people who have them, and in spite of the Republican members of Congress being against government healthcare programs, I haven’t seen any of them refusing to take coverage under their current government run Federal Employees Health Benefits Program. In 2010, there was an FEHBP rate increase of 8.8%. In 2009, there was a rate increase of 7.9%, with a 2008 rate increase of 2.9%. Funny, but that darn government healthcare program is showing much lower rate increases than the private sector has over the same period. What was that about Private Business creating more competition, better efficiencies, and at lower costs?
WellPoint had announced policy rate increases of 39% or even more. Other companies have announced rate increases between 15% and 50%, and even more for some individuals and small businesses.
Health Net increased one policy holder’s rate by 34% on top of 18% last year. Another by 49%.
Small businesses are being hit as well. Aetna hit a small 8 member group with 40% increases.
Anthem, owned by WellPoint, hit one individual with a 96% rate increase, they also are cutting a Physical Therapist’s reimbursement rate by 30-50%.
Fewer customers, more profit
Each of these companies, except Aetna, shed customers in 2009 and saw profits jump. And They're Still RAISING PREMIUMS!
Company 2008 profit 2009 profit Change in profit
WellPoint $2.5B $4.7B + 91%
UnitedHealth $3.0B $3.8B + 28%
Humana $647M $1B + 61%
Cigna $292M $1.3B + 346%
Aetna $1.4B $1.3B – 8%
Totals $7.8B $12.2B + 56%
Source: U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission filings
These are not isolated incidents, and completely justify government regulation of the Healthcare Insurance Industry, as well as the elimination of the anti-trust exemption that they currently enjoy.
Anyone who doesn’t see this, is either completely uneducated in what is going on in the Healthcare Insurance Industry, and the customers they are NOT serving, or just doesn’t care.
Have your rates been jacked up?
Are you one of the countless folks who’ve been hit lately with a big health insurance premium? Health insurers are jacking up rates across the country, and we want to know if you’ve been hit with a rate increase.
Tell us about it here, so we can take action.
Today, during a hearing before the House Energy and Commerce Health Subcommittee, Reps. Bart Stupak (D-MI) and Henry Waxman (D-CA) questioned WellPoint CEO Angela Braly about the company’s proposed rate increases in California’s individual health insurance market. The congressmen read from a series of internal company emails which revealed that WellPoint was rising premiums simply to increase its profits:
– “The average increase is 23 percent and is intended to return California to a target profits of 7 percent, versus 5 percent this year.” [WellPoint email, October 7, 2009]
– “We’re asking for premiums that would put us $40 million favorable…if we get the increases on time, we will see an opt gain upside of $30 million downgrades and rate cap.” [WellPoint email, November 2, 2009]
– “[W]e needed to reach agreement on filing strategy quickly — specifically in the area of do we file wth a cushion allowed for negotiations.” [WellPoint email, 10/24/2009]
On Feb 15, 2010, in a Fox Business interview of Wellpoint VP Brad Fluegel, Fox host Stu Varney appeared to chide Fluegel for the rate increases and his justifications for them, saying
"You handed the politicians red meat at a time when health care is being discussed," Varney said. "You gave it to them... You couldn’t see this coming? I mean really, you couldn’t see this coming?"
Think Progress recounts that Fluegel later shared a moment of laughter with the hosts: "At the end of the interview, the Fox hosts chuckled with the WellPoint VP. They apologized for being so harsh and warmly reminded Fluegel that their criticism of insurer profits was only meant to be 'warm up' for Rep. Henry Waxman’s (D-CA) investigation. 'You did very good,' cooed one of the cohosts."
(Thus proving that not only weren't the Fox Business hosts serious in their attacks on Fluegel, and didn't care about the policy holders, but rather only in trying to hide their true intentions - jacking up premium rates - until after the healthcare debate was over - AND to inflame voters - to not vote for Democrats if they don't DO SOMETHING to FIX THIS HEALTHCARE MESS! - Even though Republicans have consistently voted against Healthcare Reform - Across the board!)
President Obama releases details on his Healthcare Reform Proposals to bridge House And Senate Versions (You will need the Adobe Acrobat program on your system in order to view the proposal.)
February 19, 2010 - By Paul Krugman Op-Ed Columnist
California Death Spiral
Health insurance premiums are surging — and conservatives fear that the spectacle will reinvigorate the push for reform. On the Fox Business Network, a host chided a vice president of WellPoint, which has told California customers to expect huge rate increases: “You handed the politicians red meat at a time when health care is being discussed. You gave it to them!”
Indeed. Sky-high rate increases make a powerful case for action. And they show, in particular, that we need comprehensive, guaranteed coverage — which is exactly what Democrats are trying to accomplish.
Here’s the story: About 800,000 people in California who buy insurance on the individual market — as opposed to getting it through their employers — are covered by Anthem Blue Cross, a WellPoint subsidiary. These are the people who were recently told to expect dramatic rate increases, in some cases as high as 39 percent.
Why the huge increase? It’s not profiteering, says WellPoint, which claims instead (without using the term) that it’s facing a classic insurance death spiral.
Bear in mind that private health insurance only works if insurers can sell policies to both sick and healthy customers. If too many healthy people decide that they’d rather take their chances and remain uninsured, the risk pool deteriorates, forcing insurers to raise premiums. This, in turn, leads more healthy people to drop coverage, worsening the risk pool even further, and so on.
Now, what WellPoint claims is that it has been forced to raise premiums because of “challenging economic times”: cash-strapped Californians have been dropping their policies or shifting into less-comprehensive plans. Those retaining coverage tend to be people with high current medical expenses. And the result, says the company, is a drastically worsening risk pool: in effect, a death spiral.
So the rate increases, WellPoint insists, aren’t its fault: “Other individual market insurers are facing the same dynamics and are being forced to take similar actions.” Indeed, a report released Thursday by the department of Health and Human Services shows that there have been steep actual or proposed increases in rates by a number of insurers.
But here’s the thing: suppose that we posit, provisionally, that the insurers aren’t the main villains in this story. Even so, California’s death spiral makes nonsense of all the main arguments against comprehensive health reform.
For example, some claim that health costs would fall dramatically if only insurance companies were allowed to sell policies across state lines. But California is already a huge market, with much more insurance competition than in other states; unfortunately, insurers compete mainly by trying to excel in the art of denying coverage to those who need it most. And competition hasn’t averted a death spiral. So why would creating a national market make things better?
More broadly, conservatives would have you believe that health insurance suffers from too much government interference. In fact, the real point of the push to allow interstate sales is that it would set off a race to the bottom, effectively eliminating state regulation. But California’s individual insurance market is already notable for its lack of regulation, certainly as compared with states like New York — yet the market is collapsing anyway.
Finally, there have been calls for minimalist health reform that would ban discrimination on the basis of pre-existing conditions and stop there. It’s a popular idea, but as every health economist knows, it’s also nonsense. For a ban on medical discrimination would lead to higher premiums for the healthy, and would, therefore, cause more and bigger death spirals.
So California’s woes show that conservative prescriptions for health reform just won’t work.
What would work? By all means, let’s ban discrimination on the basis of medical history — but we also have to keep healthy people in the risk pool, which means requiring that people purchase insurance. This, in turn, requires substantial aid to lower-income Americans so that they can afford coverage.
And if you put all of that together, you end up with something very much like the health reform bills that have already passed both the House and the Senate.
What about claims that these bills would force Americans into the clutches of greedy insurance companies? Well, the main answer is stronger regulation; but it would also be a very good idea, politically as well as substantively, for the Senate to use reconciliation to put the public option back into its bill.
But the main point is this: California’s death spiral is a reminder that our health care system is unraveling, and that inaction isn’t an option. Congress and the president need to make reform happen — now.
February 19, 2010
THE U.S. Census is looking to hire workers for the 2010 Census. If you are looking for a job with the U.S. Census go to www.2010censusjobs.gov or call the toll free jobs line at 1-866-861-2010 FedRelay: 1 800-877-8339 TTY In Milwaukee, the number is 414-203-3860.
New Poll Shows That When the Public Is Given ACCURATE Information About Healthcare Reform, The Majority SUPPORT IT. Click to Read The Complete Poll.
Now If We Can Only Get Congress To DO THE SAME.
This is the latest Newsweek Poll.
Note that even though more of the respondents claimed to be Democrats (35%) or Independents (39%), very few actually considered themselves to be Liberal (15%), and 39% considered themselves very Conservative, or Conservative, with 36% considering themselves to be Moderate!
Republicans gained public support for their positions, ONLY BY TELLING LIES.
When the TRUTH comes out, THEY LOSE.
Senator Feingold's Response To My Letter:
dateFri, Feb 19, 2010 at 12:46 PM
subjectResponding to your message
mailed-byfeingold.senate.gov
Dear Mr. Nakamoto,
Thank you for contacting me regarding your support for a public health insurance plan option. I agree with you that a public option is a key part of health care reform.
It is far past time for Congress to guarantee health insurance coverage for all Americans. Too many Americans are forced to make basic decisions regarding their health based on cost rather than on medical reasons; too many delay seeking treatment and do not receive preventive care, which results in more costly, or even fatal, consequences down the line. Our country spends $5,670 per capita annually on health care - which is twice as much as any other industrialized nation - and 15.6 percent of our gross domestic product. Despite this spending, we are not healthier than those other countries, and we still have more than 46 million Americans - including eight million children - who do not have health insurance, and countless others who are underinsured.
As you know, these high and rising costs take a tremendous toll on American families and businesses. While inflation grew 9.7 percent, and wage growth was 12.3 percent, premiums for family insurance coverage rose 59 percent from 2000-2004 and show no sign of stabilizing. As a result, many employers are shifting much of their health care costs to employees, no longer providing health benefits, or eliminating positions.
On May 6, 2009, I joined a number of my Senate colleagues in sending a letter to the Chairman of the Senate Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee and the Senate Finance Committee supporting a public plan option as a core part of health care reform. I have included the letter for your review.
Ensuring every American is guaranteed good, affordable health care coverage is made much more difficult by relying only on private insurers. While Americans should be able to retain their current coverage if they choose, providing a public option should keep health care costs down for all Americans. On June 18, 2009, I gave a speech on the Senate floor regarding the need for a public plan option. I have included a copy of the speech for your review.
On October 8, 2009 I sent a letter along with 29 of my Senate colleagues to Senate Majority Leader Reid (D-NV) requesting that the version of health care reform that comes to the Senate floor contain a public insurance option. I have included the letter for your review.
On December 24, 2009, the Senate passed H.R. 3590 "The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act" by a vote of 60 to 39, with my support. The Senate health care bill is far from perfect. I am deeply disappointed it does not include a public option to help keep down costs and I also don't like the deal making that secured votes with unjustifiable provisions.
For this reason, on January 19, 2010, I sent a letter to Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) and Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi (D-CA), strongly urging that the final version of the health reform bill include a public health insurance option. I have attached the letter for your review.
While the Senate health reform bill could and should have been much stronger, it includes very important provisions for Wisconsin that I fought for. The bill will bring more Medicare dollars to Wisconsin by improving the unfair reimbursement formula that has siphoned money away from the state for years, and by rewarding the high-quality, low-cost care practiced at hospitals across Wisconsin. Wisconsin taxpayers also win because we will see a boost in Medicaid funding, so our state isn't harshly penalized for its leadership in expanding coverage. The bill also ends discrimination by insurance companies against people with preexisting conditions, expands coverage to 30 million more Americans and reduces the deficit by an estimated $132 billion over the next ten years and up to a reported $1.3 trillion over the next twenty years. Despite the bill's flaws, it does meet the test of real reform, and the cost of inaction was much too high. You can find the text of the bill at http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=111_cong_bills&docid=f:h3590pp.txt.pdf.
Again, thank you for contacting me. I will continue work to improve the Senate health care bill and restore the public option in the final version. I am committed to improving access to health care and making health care more affordable for the people of Wisconsin. You can learn more about my work on health care reform at my website at http://feingold.senate.gov/healthreform.html. I look forward to hearing from you in the future.
FLETTER_Feingold on public option in hcr.pdf
576K View Download
Letter to Reid 100809.pdf
830K View Download
Public Option Speech.pdf
1898K View Download
Updated letter to Kennedy and Baucus re public health plan.pdf
897K View Download
The Public Option LIVES!!!!
For months now, D.C. insiders and T.V. blowhards have said the public option is dead, but Senator Michael Bennet from Colorado just proved them wrong and Senators Kirsten Gillibrand (NY), Jeff Merkley (OR), and Sherrod Brown (OH) have already stood up to join him.
These four Senate Healthcare Heroes are circulating a letter calling on Majority Leader Reid to use reconciliation to pass healthcare reform with the choice of a public option. Both Senators Russ Feingold and Herbert Kohl publicly stated last year that they would vote for a public option if it was in the final bill.
Now it's time for them to prove it. Call and demand they sign on to Senator Bennet's Public Option letter right now.
Senator Russ Feingold
DC: (202) 224-5323
Middleton: (608) 828-1200
Milwaukee: (414) 276-7282
Senator Herbert Kohl
DC: (202) 224-5653
Milwaukee: (414) 297-4451
Eau Claire: (715) 832- 8424
CLICK HERE TO SEE A SAMPLE SCRIPT AND REPORT YOUR CALL
Thanks to your hard work, 120 House Democrats signed and delivered the Polis/Pingree letter to Harry Reid a little over a week ago.
Four Senate Healthcare Heroes saw that leadership and your hard work -- and aren't sitting around and hoping for change -- they're taking the lead and making it happen.
Think of it this way: if this was a football game, House Democrats threw the Senate a Hail Mary pass and these four Senators just caught it. But now, they have to score the touchdown. That means we need to call on other Senators to join them.
So today, members of Democracy for America, Progressive Change Campaign Committee, CREDO Action, and MoveOn are calling their Senators and demanding they sign Senator Bennet's Public Option letter too -- and join these Healthcare Heroes in fighting for real reform.
READ THE LETTER AND REPORT YOUR THANK YOU CALL HERE
You can also email their offices using their website contact forms at:
http://feingold.senate.gov/contact_opinion.html
http://kohl.senate.gov/contact.cfm
Dear Senators Feingold and Kohl,
Last year, you both publicly stated that you would support the Public Option if it were in the Healthcare Bill. Right now, the Healthcare Bill is DEAD without Reconciliation.
Senator Michael Bennet from Colorado and Senators Kirsten Gillibrand (NY), Jeff Merkley (OR), and Sherrod Brown (OH) have already stood up to join him in asking Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, to use reconciliation and pass healthcare reform with the choice of a Public Option. Since the Senate didn’t include one in their bill, it makes sense to use the House version.
The Democratic Party of Wisconsin has repeatedly called for all of our Democratic Party elected officials to fight for Universal Healthcare with a Public Option, for several years.
The Senate couldn’t manage to get it passed when it had 60 Democrats in the Senate, NOT using reconciliation, and now we’ve lost the 60th Democratic Senate vote.
You don’t need 60 votes this time. You only need 51.
Will you stand for Healthcare Reform with the Public Option before we lose our best chance in the last 100 years to get meaningful healthcare legislation passed?
Les Nakamoto
Chair 5th CD DPW
Think it doesn't matter who gets elected? Think again.
In a 5-4 decision the Supreme Court, with its ruling in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, that corporations and unions can spend an unlimited amount of money on campaign advertising. Guess who has more money?
Go to www.SherrodBrown.com to sign the Senator's petition to blunt the Supreme Court Decision on unlimited campaign financing. See the article which provides information on the bill he is introducing.
Now amplify your impact with Twitter, Facebook, and E-mail
RT--PETITION: Help Sen. Sherrod Brown keep Corporate Billions out of Politics! bit.ly/6LB9Dx
Use Facebook or Tweet to amplify your impact!
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.
In addition to the fact that corporations are now completely unencumbered as to how much money they spend on campaign advertising, which obviously favors corporations over average citizens, and the fact that this decision favors those with the most money to win (Just like in poker, if you have the most chips on the table, and go “all in”, anyone who wants to challenge or “call you” can only call up to the amount of chips they have in their possession. If they can only come up with a small fraction of the value of the chips you went all in with, if they lose, they lose everything; and if they win, they can only win up to the amount that they bet, so the big guy can walk away virtually untouched if he has an unlimited bank account in comparison to the person who calls him. After repeated hands, the guy with the biggest bankroll has the much better chance of winning everything, while the guy with the smaller bankroll has very little chance of winning at all.) This allows for a complete domination of the average person, no mater how many there are of them, by a handful of the wealthiest individuals. It is skewed to favor "the house" (in Casino parlance), so that the people would eventually get to the point where they can never win! How do you think they built up Las Vegas with all of their billion dollar casinos? It's from the money left behind by all the visitors who actually thought that they had a chance against "the house". This is what the U.S. Supreme Court did in cahoots with the Corporations. That should get everyone hopping mad for this absolute travesty of justice.
But That's Not All!
The point that everyone, Republicans and Democrats alike, should be absolutely incensed about, and screaming about, is the fact that the Supreme Court also put no restrictions on multi-national corporations, and foreign owned corporations. They just gave ALL Corporations the right to “vote” in our elections by spending as much money as they want; to favor or oppose candidates for election depending on the positions they hold on different issues, like providing free access to our economy to continue sending our jobs overseas; or to favor trade agreements, which favor foreign countries rather than our own, the United States. That gives them the access they need to further destroy our economy while strengthening their own. Republicans have been outsourcing jobs and destroying industries here at home for decades. The Republican justices just gave them even more assistance in continuing that practice by allowing foreign corporations, many of whom are controlled by foreign governments, to dictate our trade policies. They just gave away the sovereign rights of the United States to be ruled by its own citizens.
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."
A RIGHT-WING ACTIVIST COURT: The Washington Post writes that the Court's majority made "a mockery of some justices' pretensions to judicial restraint." Although Chief Justice John Roberts represented himself as an impartial "umpire" during his 2005 confirmation hearings -- acknowledging that "it is a jolt to the legal system when you overrule a precedent on the bench" -- Roberts "has shown himself more willing than his mentor and predecessor, William H. Rehnquist, to question the court's past decisions." During his short tenure thus far, Roberts' "record is not that of a humble moderate but, rather, that of a doctrinaire conservative." Likewise, Samuel Alito's replacement of Justice Sandra Day O'Connor has tipped the court's balance from supportive of congressional efforts to reduce the influence of special interests to suspicious of how the restrictions curtail free speech. Since Roberts and Alito joined its ranks, the Court ignored longstanding precedents protecting women against paycheck discrimination and older workers against age discrimination. The Court overruled a very recent precedent protecting women's reproductive freedom, and Roberts even had the audacity to claim that the Court's landmark Brown v. Board of Education decision forbids school boards from desegregating public schools. In his dissent, Justice John Paul Stevens wrote, "At bottom, the Court's opinion is thus a rejection of the common sense of the American people. ... While American democracy is imperfect, few outside the majority of this Court would have thought its flaws included a dearth of corporate money in politics."
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
By: Jim Moss Thursday January 21, 2010 7:00 pm |
As we begin to digest the unbelievable Supreme Court decision from earlier today, it might be helpful to remember how this whole idea that corporations are entitled to the same rights as individuals began:
1886, in the case of Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific Railroad Company, the U.S. Supreme Court decided that a private corporation is a person and entitled to the legal rights and protections the Constitutions affords to any person. According to the official case record, Supreme Court Justice Morrison Remick Waite simply pronounced before the beginning of arguement in the case:
"The court does not wish to hear argument on the question whether the provision in the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution, which forbids a State to deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws, applies to these corporations. We are all of opinion that it does."
The court reporter duly entered that into the summary record of the Court’s findings. Thus it was that a two-sentence assertion by a single judge elevated corporations to the status of persons under the law, prepared the way for the rise of global corporate rule, and thereby changed the course of history.
In the 22nd century, do you think people will look back on today’s Supreme Court ruling with the same distaste that we look back at this one from 1886? Does granting corporations the right to spend freely on political ads also have the potential to change history?
Sign the letter to your member of Congress: http://my.barackobama.com/page/content/fairelections/
A coalition of public interest organizations strongly condemned today's ruling by the US Supreme Court allowing unlimited corporate money in US elections and announced that it is launching a campaign to amend the United States Constitution to overturn the ruling. The groups, Voter Action, Public Citizen, the Center for Corporate Policy, and the American Independent Business Alliance, say the Court's ruling in Citizens United v. FEC poses a serious and direct threat to democracy. They aim, through their constitutional amendment campaign, to correct the judiciary's creation of corporate rights under the First Amendment over the past three decades.
Immediately following the Court's ruling, the groups unveiled a new website – http://www.freespeechforpeople.org – devoted to this campaign.
"Free speech rights are for people, not corporations," says John Bonifaz, Voter Action's legal director. "In wrongly assigning First Amendment protections to corporations, the Supreme Court has now unleashed a torrent of corporate money in our political process unmatched by any campaign expenditure totals in US history. This campaign to amend the Constitution will seek to restore the First Amendment to its original purpose."
About
On January 21, 2010, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that corporations are entitled to spend unlimited funds in our elections. The First Amendment was never intended to protect corporations.
This cannot stand. Join our campaign to protest this decision. Protect our democracy! Free speech is for people — not corporations.
What's at stake
"American citizens have repeatedly amended the Constitution to defend democracy when the Supreme Court acts in collusion with democracy's enemies, whether they are slavemasters, states imposing poll taxes on voters, or the opponents of woman suffrage. Today, the Court has enthroned corporations, permitting them not only all kinds of special economic rights but now, amazingly, moving to grant them the same political rights as the people. This is a moment of high danger for democracy so we must act quickly to spell out in the Constitution what the people have always understood: that corporations do not enjoy the political and free speech rights that belong to the people of the United States."
- Professor Jamin Raskin, constitutional law expert at American University's Washington College of Law and Maryland state senator.
PLEASE WATCH AND SHARE THIS 4 MINUTE VIDEO featuring Jamie Raskin and Donna Edwards: http://freespeechforpeople.org/node/35
The Solution: A Free Speech for People Amendment
To correct the damage the Supreme Court has done to the First Amendment, we need to pass a constitutional amendment of our own that puts people ahead of corporations.
Below is our resolution in support of the Free Speech for People Amendment.
ADD YOUR NAME IN SUPPORT OF THIS RESOLUTION»
WHEREAS the First Amendment to the United States Constitution was designed to protect the free speech rights of people, not corporations;
WHEREAS, for the past three decades, a divided United States Supreme Court has transformed the First Amendment into a powerful tool for corporations seeking to evade and invalidate democratically-enacted reforms;
WHEREAS, this corporate takeover of the First Amendment has reached its extreme conclusion in the United States Supreme Court’s recent ruling in Citizens United v. FEC;
WHEREAS, the United States Supreme Court’s ruling in Citizens United v. FEC overturned longstanding precedent prohibiting corporations from spending their general treasury funds in our elections;
WHEREAS, the United States Supreme Court’s ruling in Citizens United v. FEC will now unleash a torrent of corporate money in our political process unmatched by any campaign expenditure totals in United States history;
WHEREAS, the United States Supreme Court’s ruling in Citizens United v. FEC presents a serious and direct threat to our democracy;
WHEREAS, the people of the United States have previously used the constitutional amendment process to correct those egregiously wrong decisions of the United States Supreme Court that go to the heart of our democracy and self-government;
NOW HEREBY BE IT RESOLVED THAT WE THE UNDERSIGNED VOTERS OF THE UNITED STATES CALL UPON THE UNITED STATES CONGRESS TO PASS AND SEND TO THE STATES FOR RATIFICATION A CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT TO RESTORE THE FIRST AMENDMENT AND FAIR ELECTIONS TO THE PEOPLE.
Learn more about the "Free Speech for People Amendment"
ADD YOUR NAME IN SUPPORT OF THIS RESOLUTION»
Passing a constitutional amendment is a long-term project that requires hard work and grassroots organizing before it will succeed. You can help the campaign reach its goal by helping educate others and
spread the word. Here are some easy ways to get started:
Sign on: http://www.freespeechforpeople.org
The concept of a corporation being a "person" with the same rights as an individual was a crock when it was first conceived, and the dangers of that fraud are only now being understood by the vast majority of the oblivious.
This "ruling" by the Supreme Court's radical 5 demonstrates that their ONLY concern is to sell their rulings to the highest bidder. This is TREASON.
The Supreme Court decision turns over control of our airwaves and of the gullible masses to whatever company has the most money. And it doesn't care where that money comes from, or whether or not that corporation is an AMERICAN corporation, or a multinational corporation or FOREIGN corporation which has NO loyalties to this country whatsoever.
This is an obscene "interpretation" of the Constitution, and is being done for ONLY ONE REASON. To give complete control to whoever has the most money. That isn't one person-one vote.
What the Supreme Court has ruled is that the majority of the PEOPLE have NO rights and NO VOICE, when compared to BIG BUSINESS, which is All about drowning out discussion and debate, and forcing a corporate position all in the name of THEIR PROFITS, even if it completely bankrupts this entire country and all of its people.
Letter from Congresswoman Tammy Baldwin:
Last week the Supreme Court dealt an enormous blow to democracy and campaign finance reform when it ruled that corporations may spend freely to advocate for the election or defeat of a candidate.
While this decision has been little noticed outside of Washington, D.C., what has been apparent is the growing influence of large corporate interests including Wall Street banks, credit card companies, and health insurance giants. This latest decision only raises the voice of these big special interests.
Since my very first election, I’ve been proud to run campaigns fueled by the contributions of everyday Americans. And with this ruling giving an upper hand to multinational and domestic corporations and Republicans, the help of supporters like you is more important than ever.
Please visit my website to see the full press release on the Supreme Court decision or to make a contribution towards my reelection campaign.
Thank you for your continued support,
Tammy
Statement on Supreme Court ruling on Campaign Finance Press Release, January 21, 2010
Statement on Today’s Supreme Court Ruling that corporations may spend freely to support or oppose candidates for president and Congress; and striking down provisions in the McCain-Feingold campaign finance bill that barred union- and corporate-paid issue ads in the closing days of election campaigns
“Today’s Supreme Court decision is a huge blow to our democracy. I am terribly disappointed by the ruling and what it means to our electoral process. People tell me everyday that they think big corporations - the Wall Street bankers and brokers, insurance companies, drug companies, oil companies, or credit card companies - have too much power in Washington, D.C. This decision will only make it worse.
Sadly, a majority of Justices have sent the message that money, power, and influence rule the day in Washington. We must renew our efforts to enact meaningful campaign finance reforms that give hard-working Wisconsinites a fair shake in the political process.”
Six remedies for the Supreme Court power grab
Two more suggestions -
- Prohibit lobbying costs as a business expense. Along with campaign expenses.
- Prohibit corporations with more than 15% of their liquid assets off shore, from
spending money on any campaign expenses.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Six remedies for the Supreme Court power grab
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
By Martin Lobel
The media need to focus public attention on the judicial legislating by the five "conservative" Justices of the U.S. Supreme Court in deciding Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission. They ruled that corporations have a right to spend as much money as they want to buy ads to support or oppose politicians - a question that the litigants weren't arguing but that the Justices reached out to decide.
Justices Kennedy, Scalia, Roberts, Thomas and Alito divined that that was the original intent of the drafters of our Constitution even though Jefferson had warned against just such concentrations of power and they ignored Chief Justice John Marshall's opinion in Bank of the United States v. Deveaux when he referred to a corporation as an "invisible, intangible and artificial being" and "certainly not a citizen." Apparently they believe that they know better what the drafters of the Constitution meant than Chief Justice Marshall who actually knew the drafters. The only rational conclusion to draw from this action is that "original intent" is merely a subterfuge to justify whatever action Scalia and his followers want to take.
The five "conservative" Justices had no problem substituting their opinion for the carefully balanced Congressional legislation to curb the power of money in elections. Under the now stricken McCain-Feingold legislation, corporations could spend money that was " voluntarily" contributed to Political Action Committees (PACs) or to overpaid lobbyists who in turn would contribute or bundle contributions to candidates. Whether such contributions were really voluntary or not is open to question, but at least it gave economically powerful interests a means to influence elections without the appearance of a quid pro quo that direct expenditures entail. Apparently, even though the Justices don't run for office, they felt they were more expert in deciding what influence money has on elections than those who do.
There is another interesting, and I hope unintended consequence, of the decision. Foreign corporations can now influence American politics directly by spending unlimited amounts of money. I can just see the memo now from an American subsidiary of a Chinese corporation to its home office:
"Dear Chairman, The United States Supreme Court has just decided we can directly influence their elections with our money. Please send me $100 million of the US Treasury Bonds we own so we can defeat those politicians who stand in our way of taking over the US economy."
As long as those five supposedly conservative Justices are there, we are likely to see even more judicial activism and legislating, contrary to the judicial philosophy Chief Justice Roberts espoused at his confirmation hearings. It will be interesting to see what the Court will do with a case seeking to prohibit the publishing of the names of those petitioners opposed to gay marriage on the grounds they might be subject to ridicule or harassment. Will the same First Amendment rights so precious to corporations be struck down when it comes to revealing who signed a petition seeking a referendum opposing gay rights?
Congress still has remedies to protect the country from abusive corporate political spending. Here are several of them:
Congress and the SEC have the power to make sure that corporate political spending reflects the will of the shareholders, not just management. There is absolutely no dispute that boards of directors have a fiduciary obligation to represent the interests of the shareholders, although, unfortunately, since boards are chosen by management, this has been honored more in its breach than its observance.
As a partial solution, the SEC and the FEC should promulgate rules before the next election to ensure that decisions on corporate political spending represent the desires of the shareholders. This could be done by requiring boards of directors to poll shareholders before making any specific political expenditure. Boards should be required to vote on each such political expenditure and publicly reveal every member's vote. Ads paid for by a corporation or group of corporations should be required to reveal who was paying for it and perhaps, like a candidate, the Chairman of the Board should be required to appear and say the board approved the ad.
In order to prevent money laundering, bundling the cost of such ads under a group's name should be prohibited so the public really knows who paid for the ad. Shareholders who disapproved of such expenditures should be allowed to get from the corporation their proportionate share of the expenditure. This wouldn't have much effect if an individual wanted his money, but it would have an effect if pension funds and other large investors demanded their money.
In addition, foreign owned or controlled (5 percent or more?) corporations should be prohibited from spending money to influence American elections.
Congress ought to explicitly prohibit corporations from deducting the cost of such ads from their income so that taxpayers are not subsidizing them.
Congress should prohibit corporations that are government contractors from spending money on such ads. Such spending would seem to fall within the same rationale that the Court recognized in continuing to prohibit direct corporate contributions to politicians or upholding the Hatch Act.
If any member of the Court voted to strike down such clearly constitutional restrictions on corporate spending, it would then be time to discuss impeachment for subverting the Constitution.
THERE'S MORE: READ THE ENTIRE ARTICLE ON NIEMANWATCHDOG.ORG
Niemanwatchdog.org is a project of the Nieman Foundation for Journalism at Harvard University. Its aim is to encourage reporters and editors to monitor and hold accountable those who exert power in all aspects of public life.
Barry Sussman, Editor
Dan Froomkin, Deputy Editor
Go to Niemanwatchdog.org
E-mail us at editors@niemanwatchdog.org
http://www.movetoamend.org/model-resolution
Model Resolution
Resolution to Legalize Democracy and Abolish Corporate Personhood
Whereas, government of, by, and for the people has long been a cherished American value, and We The People’s fundamental and inalienable right to self-govern, and thereby secure rights to life, liberty, property, and the pursuit of happiness is guaranteed in the US Constitution and the Declaration of Independence, and;
Whereas, free and fair elections are essential to democracy and effective self-governance, and;
Whereas, persons are rightfully recognized as human beings whose essential needs include clean air, clean water, safe and secure food, and;
Whereas, corporations are entirely human-made legal fictions created by express permission of We The People and our government, and;
Whereas, corporations can exist in perpetuity, can exist simultaneously in many nations at once, need only profit for survival, and exist soley through the legal charter imposed by the government of We The People, and;
Whereas, in addition to these advantages, the great wealth of large corporations allows them to wield coercive force of law to overpower human beings and communities, thus denying We The People’s exercise of our Constitutional rights, and;
Whereas, corporations are not mentioned in the Constitution. The People have never granted constitutional rights to corporations, nor have We decreed that corporations have authority that exceeds the authority of
We The People of the United States.
Whereas, interpretation of the US Constitution by unelected Supreme Court justices to include corporations in the term ‘persons’ has long denied We The Peoples’ exercise of self-governance by endowing corporations with Constitutional protections intended for We The People, and;
Whereas, the illegitimate judicial bestowal of civil and political rights upon corporations usurps basic human and Constitutional rights guaranteed to human persons, and also empowers corporations to sue municipal and state governments for adopting laws that violate ‘corporate rights’ even when those laws serve to protect and defend the rights of human persons and communities, and;
Whereas, corporations are not and have never been human beings, and therefore are rightfully subservient to human beings and governments as our legal creations, and;
Whereas, large corporations’ profits and survival are often in direct conflict with the essential needs and rights of human beings, and;
Whereas, large corporations have used their so-called ‘rights’ to overturn democratically enacted laws passed at municipal, state and federal levels, aimed at curbing corporate abuse, thereby rendering local governments ineffective in protecting their citizens against corporate harms to the environment, to health, to workers, to independent business, to local and regional economies, and;
Whereas, the recent Citizens United v. the Federal Election Commission Supreme Court decision that rolled back the legal limits on corporate spending in the electoral process creates an unequal playing field and allows unlimited corporate spending to influence elections, candidate selection, policy decisions and sway votes, and forces elected officials to divert their attention from The Peoples’ business, or even vote against the interest of their human constituents, in order to ensure competitive campaign funds for their own re-election, and;
Whereas, large corporations own most of America’s mass media and use that media as a megaphone to express loudly their political agenda and to convince Americans that their primary role is that of consumers, rather than sovereign citizens with rights and responsibilities within our democracy, and this forces citizens to toil to discern the truth behind headlines and election campaigning, and;
Whereas, tens of thousands of people and municipalities across the nation are joining with the Campaign to Legalize Democracy in the United States to call for an Amendment to the US Constitution to Abolish Corporate Personhood;
Therefore be it resolved that the State of (City of, County of, etc.) ___________ hereby calls on our (legislators, elected officials, mayor, commissioners, etc.) ___________ to join the tens of thousands of citizens, grassroots organizations and local governments across the county in the Campaign to Legalize Democracy in the US and to call for an Amendment to the Constitution to Abolish Corporate Personhood and return our democracy, our elections, our communities back to America’s human persons and to thus reclaim our sovereign right to self-governance.
Be it further resolved that the State of (City of, County of, etc.) ___________ calls on other communities and jurisdictions to join with us in this action by passing similar Resolutions.
Be it further resolved that the State of (City of, County of, etc.) ___________ supports education to increase public awareness of the threats to our democracy posed by Corporate Personhood, and encourages lively discussion to build understanding and consensus to take appropriate community and municipal actions to democratically respond to these threats.
DATE: ___________
URGENT CALL TO ACTION FROM
HOWARD ZINN, THOM HARTMANN, MEDEA BENJAMIN, FRAN & DAVID KORTEN, BILL MCKIBBEN, BILL FLETCHER, JIM HIGHTOWER, TOM HAYDEN, REV. YEARWOOD, & MORE . . .
Exxon. AIG. Enron. Blackwater. Edison. Halliburton. Diebold.
They've gone after our tax dollars. Our services. Our jobs. Our schools. Our military. Our votes. Our future. Our freedoms. And the federal courts have helped them every step of the way.
Today, with its ruling in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, the Supreme Court ruled that corporations are persons, entitled by the U.S. Constitution to buy elections and run our government.
Human beings are people; corporations are legal fictions. The Supreme Court is misguided in principle, and wrong on the law. In a democracy, the people rule.
We Move to Amend.
We, the People of the United States of America, reject the U.S. Supreme Court's ruling in Citizens United, and move to amend our Constitution to:
Firmly establish that money is not speech, and that human beings, not corporations, are persons entitled to constitutional rights.
Guarantee the right to vote and to participate, and to have our votes and participation count.
Protect local communities, their economies, and democracies against illegitimate "preemption" actions by global, national, and state governments.
Adrienne Maree Brown, Ruckus Society
Alec Loorz, Kids vs Global Warming
Andrew Kimbrell, International Center for Technology Assessment
Andy Gussert, Citizens Trade Campaign
Anne Feeney, musician
Ben Manski, attorney, Exec. Director, Liberty Tree
Benno Friedman, photographer
Benson Scotch, former Staff Counsel to Sen. Leahy, U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee
Bill Fletcher, Exec. Editor, BlackCommentator.com
Bill McKibben, founder, 350.org
Bill Moyer, Backbone Campaign
Brad Friedman, Publisher, The BRAD BLOG
Brad Thacker, Be The Change USA
Brett Kimberlin, Director, Justice Through Music
Brian McLaren, Christian activist & author
Carl Davidson, Progressive America Rising
Carolyn Oppenheim, Shays 2
Charlie Cray, Center for Corporate Policy
Dal LaMagna, founder, Tweezerman, Inc.
Dave Wells, formerly Board of Directors, Sierra Club
David Cobb, initiator of 2004 Ohio Recount
David Gespass, president, National Lawyers Guild
David Korten, author of When Corporations Rule the World
David Rovics, musician
David Swanson, AfterDowningStreet.org
David Wells, Jr., Nashville Urban Harvest
Dean Myerson, Executive Director, Green Institute
Diane Wittner & Margaret Flowers, Chesapeake Citizens
Dr. Jill Stein, candidate for Governor of Massachusetts
Ed Garvey, attorney at law, editor, FightingBob.com
Emily Levy, Velvet Revolution
Fran Korten, Editor, YES! Magazine
Frank Arundel, activist
Gary Zuckett, WV Citizen Action
George Friday, National Coordinator, IPPN
George Martin, United for Peace & Justice
Georgia Kelly, Praxis Peace Institute
Glen Ford, Executive Editor, BlackAgendaReport.com
Greg Coleridge, NE OH American Friends Service Committee
Howard Zinn, historian
Jackie Cabasso, Executive Director, Western State Legal Foundation
James Gustave Speth, Distinguished Senior Fellow, Demos
Jan Edwards, writer
Jane Anne Morris, author, Gaveling Down The Rabble
Jeff Cohen, founder, FAIR
Jeff Milchen, founder, ReclaimDemocracy.org
Jeffrey Short, Ph.D., Pacific Science Director, OCEANA
Jerome Scott, League of Revolutionaries for a New America
Jill Bussiere, Co-Chair, Green Party of the U.S.
James M. Cullen, editor of The Progressive Populist
Jim Hightower, author, columnist, and radio commentator
Joel Bleifuss, Editor & Publisher, In These Times
John E. Peck, Executive Director, Family Farm Defenders
John Nichols, Washington Correspondent, The Nation
John Rensenbrink, President, Green Horizon Foundation
John Stauber, author, Weapons of Mass Deception
Jonathan Frieman, social entrepreneur
Josh Healey, Youth Speaks
Josh Lerner, The New School for Social Research
Josh Silver, Executive Director, Free Press
Judith Pedersen-Benn, Unitarian Universalists for a Just Economic Community
Kai Huschke, Envision Spokane
Kaitlin Sopoci-Belknap, Democracy Unlimited of Humboldt County
Ken Reiner, inventor and founder, Kaynar Corp.
Kevin Danaher, Executive Co-Producer, Green Festivals
Kevin Zeese, Executive Director, TrueVote.US
Leah Bolger, CDR, USN (Ret), Bring the Guard Home! It's the Law.
Lewis Pitts, Lawyer, Legal Aid of NC
Lisa Graves, Executive Director, Center for Media and Democracy
Lori Price, Managing Editor, Citizens for Legitimate Government
Makani Themba-Nixon, Executive Director, The Praxis Project
Margo Baldwin, Publisher, Chelsea Green
Mark Crispin Miller, author, Fooled Again
Mary Zepernick, Program on Corporations Law and Democracy
Marybeth Gardam, Women's International League for Peace and Freedom
Matt Nelson, Just Cause
Matt Rothschild, Editor, The Progressive
Medea Benjamin, co-founder, Code Pink
Michael Albert, Z Communications
Michael Bonnano, OpEdNews
Michael Marx, Corporate Ethics International
Michael Shuman, attorney, economic, author of "The Small-Mart Revolution"
Mike Ferner, President, Veterans for Peace
Mimi Kennedy, actress, activist
Miriam Simos, Starhawk, activist and writer
Nancy Price, Alliance for Democracy
Nick Pavloff, Jr., Gulf of Alaska Aleut from Kodiak Island
Norman Solomon, author, co-chair, Healthcare Not Warfare campaign
Patrick Reinsborough, SmartMeme
Paul Saginaw, founder, Zingerman's, Inc.
Prof. Peter Gabel, School of Law, New College of California
Prof. Victor Wallis, Managing Editor, Socialism & Democracy
Rabbi Arthur Waskow
Rep. Michael Fisher, House of Representatives, Vermont
Rev. Edward Pinkney, Black Autonomy Network Community Organization
Rev. Lennox Yearwood, President, Hip Hop Caucus
Richard Mazess, Prof. Medical Physics, UW-Madison, CEO of Lunar Corp & Bone Care Intl.
Riki Ott, Executive Director, Ultimate Civics
Robert McChesney, professor, co-author, The Death and Life of American Journalism
Ronnie Cummins, founder, Grassroots Netroots Alliance
Sally Castleman, Election Defense Alliance
Sam Smith, Editor, Progressive Review
Sarah Manski, CEO, PosiPair.com
Shahid Buttar, Rule of Law Institute
Ted Glick, climate change activist
Ted Nace, author, Gangs of America: The Rise of Corporate Power
Thom Hartmann, nation's #1 nationally syndicated progressive talk show host
Tia Oros & Christopher Peters, Seventh Generation Fund for Indian Development
Tiffiniy Cheng, Executive Director, A New Way Forward
Tim Carpenter, Executive Director, Progressive Democrats of America
Tom Hayden, activist
Ward Morehouse, chair, National Lawyers Guild's Committee on Corporations
- organizations listed for identification purposes only
Sign the Petition here: http://www.movetoamend.org/motion-amend
Motion to Amend
We, the People of the United States of America, reject the U.S. Supreme Court's ruling in Citizens United, and move to amend our Constitution to:
· Firmly establish that money is not speech, and that human beings, not corporations, are persons entitled to constitutional rights.
· Guarantee the right to vote and to participate, and to have our vote and participation count.
· Protect local communities, their economies, and democracies against illegitimate "preemption" actions by global, national, and state governments.
“I hope we shall... crush in its birth the aristocracy of our moneyed corporations, which dare already to challenge our government to a trial of strength and to bid defiance to the laws of our country.” ~ Thomas Jefferson, letter to George Logan. November 12, 1816
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
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:
"I will not waste time with those who have made the calculation that it's better politics to kill this plan than improve it. If you misrepresent what's in the plan, We Will Call You Out." President Barack Obama
Call Out The Insurance Lobbyists and members of Congress who are taking healthcare lobbyists' money to support them, instead of us!
Call Congress and Hold them Accountable. Make sure that they stand up to Insurance Lobbyists who are spreading propaganda against much needed Healthcare Reform.
Call Congress: (202) 224-3121 Sign the Petition: Click HERE.
THE AHIP REPORT HAS BEEN ROUNDLY CRITICIZED
The Author Of The AHIP Report, PriceWaterhouseCoopers, Admitted That They Weren't Paid To Evaluate The Effect Of The Entire Bill And Said Their Estimate Could Be Wrong. "PriceWaterhouseCoopers, the authors of AHIP's report, put out a statement last night that basically said, 'Hey, we weren't paid to evaluate the effects of the entire bill, but rather a small slice of it.' The statement only seems to reinforce critics' view that the report is skewed precisely because it doesn't take into account the totality of reform. PwC's report estimates that insurance premiums will rise faster under the proposed reforms than under the current system. The last, and key, line from the statement: 'If other provisions in health care reform are successful in lowering costs over the long term, those improvements would offset some of the impacts we have estimated.' In other words, PwC is saying if reform's cost containment measures work, their estimate could be wrong." [Politico, 10/13/09]
AARP VP John Rother Said The Report Is Not "Worth The Paper It's Written On." AARP Executive Vice President John Rother told reporters Monday that he doesn't think the report is "worth the paper it's written on." Rother also said the report was "fundamentally dishonest." [AP, 10/12/09]
Washington Post's Ezra Klein Said The Insurance Industry's Report Was "Deceptive." The report was farmed out to the consultancy PricewaterhouseCoopers, which has something of a history with this sort of thing: In the early-'90s, the tobacco industry commissioned PWC to estimate the economic devastation that would result from a tax on tobacco. The report was later analyzed by the Arthur Andersen Economic Consulting group, which concluded that "the cumulative effect of PW’s methods … is to produce patently unreliable results." It's perhaps no surprise that the patently unreliable results were all in the tobacco industry's favor. He who pays the piper names the tune, and all that. All that makes it a bit hard to respond to this analysis. Seriously engaging with its methodology probably gives it more credit than it deserves, making this seem like an argument between two opposing sides as opposed to a predictable industry hit job. But totally ignoring its claims means some of them might live unchallenged. In short, the insurance industry is getting scared. After many months of quiet constructiveness, they're launching a broadside on the week of the Senate Finance Committee's vote. The White House, which had a pleasant meeting with the industry's leadership last week, was shocked by the report, and so too was the Senate Finance Committee. The era of cooperation seems to be over, and they weren't given much advance warning. But the report might have another impact, too: The evident anger and fear of the insurance industry might do a bit to reassure liberals that this plan is worth supporting, after all. [Ezra Klein, Washington Post, 10/12/09]
MIT Economist Jonathan Gruber Said The AHIP Claim on Benefits Tax Was "Implausible.” MIT economist Jonathan Gruber is one of the most well-respected experts in this field--somebody whose modeling has wide credibility, even among Republicans. He looked at the PriceWaterhouseCoopers report and tells me that he finds that set of claims "implausible." The particulars, for those who want to get into the weeds, have to do with PriceWaterhouseCoopers assumptions about regional variation. To arrive at their figures, they assume that average premiums in some parts of the country would exceed the national average by about twice the national average. But the best available data we have, from government surveys and the Kaiser Family Foundation, suggest that average premiums exceed the national average by, at most, around 20 percent. The idea that the variation would somehow explode up to 100 percent, during a period in which reform will likely reduce national variation, is pretty hard to swallow. [New Republic, 10/12/09]
Time Magazine: The Report Based Its Prediction On Provisions That Increase Costs While Ignoring Others That Seek To Mitigate Costs. "One problem with the industry-funded report is that it bases its prediction on provisions in the bill that increase costs, while ignoring others that seek to mitigate those costs -- such as subsidies to help many currently uninsured Americans purchase coverage. ... The report also makes broad assumptions about the impact of reform that conflict with the assessments of the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office." [Time Magazine, 10/13/09]
MSNBC's Dr. Nancy Snyderman Said The AHIP Report "Sure Seems Stinky" And "I Don't Even Know What Those Numbers Come From." MSNBC's Nancy Snyderman: "Boy, it sure seems stinky. Something doesn't smell right here at the 11th hour. And you know, listen, Karen Ignagni has been a fabulous guest on this program, and I think the health-insurance industry has been -- at least straight-talking, even if they have an agenda. But, boy, something doesn't feel right. ... You know what's very frustrating to those of us who are just normal consumers? I listen to you, I listen to the insurance guys, I listen to the senators on the Baucus committee, and everybody tosses out numbers. And none of them -- none of them gibe with anybody else's. I mean, this report from the insurance industry said that costs would go up 111 percent under reform, and under the current system only -- it says 79 percent, you know, increase. I don't even know what those numbers come from." [MSNBC, 10/12/09]
THIS ISN'T THE FIRST TIME THE HEALTH INSURANCE INDUSTRY HAS LIED, CHEATED OR USED MISLEADING REPORTS IN AN ATTEMPT TO KILL HEALTH REFORM
Former Cigna Executive: Insurance Industry Has Increased The Number Of Uninsured People By Using “Deceptive Marketing Practices” By Selling “What Is Essentially Is Fake Insurance.” The New York Times reported on the vast underinsured population in the United State: “‘Underinsurance is the great hidden risk of the American health care system,’ said Elizabeth Warren, a Harvard law professor who has analyzed medical bankruptcies. ‘People do not realize they are one diagnosis away from financial collapse.’ Last week, a former Cigna executive warned at a Senate hearing on health insurance that lawmakers should be careful about the role they gave private insurers in any new system, saying the companies were too prone to ‘confuse their customers and dump the sick.’ ‘The number of uninsured people has increased as more have fallen victim to deceptive marketing practices and bought what essentially is fake insurance,’ Wendell Potter, the former Cigna executive, testified.” [New York Times, 7/1/09]
AHIP Claimed 1% Profits, Which NPR Took To Task: Actual Profits Were Anywhere From 2 To 10 Times More Than Insurers Claimed. NPR examined the health insurer’s claim that their profits represented only 1% of each dollar spent on health care: “Insurers are measuring their profits against total health care spending. That's all the money you and I and employers and insurers and the government spend for doctors' visits, hospitalizations, drugs and other things…But many economists calculate insurance company profits differently. Just like for any other business, they look at what the companies take in — in this case in premiums — versus what they pay out directly, as in claims. Fortune magazine economists calculate insurance company profits this way: For the 10 biggest insurers in the year 2006 (the year the insurers used for the 1 cent out of every dollar depiction above), profits were anywhere from 2 to 10 percent, or two to 10 pennies on the dollar. That's two to 10 times as much as what the insurance industry group suggests in its illustrations.” [National Public Radio, 8/3/09]
Humana Sent A Letter To Its Beneficiaries Falsely Claiming That Seniors Would Lose Benefits In The Medicare Advantage Program Because Of Reform. "Medicare officials are warning the insurance company Humana that it may be breaking federal regulations by sending letters to its beneficiaries that falsely claim seniors would lose benefits in the Medicare Advantage program because of Democrats' health care reforms. The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS), which is part of the Department of Health and Human Services, sent a letter to Humana, Inc. on Friday instructing the company to immediately end all such mailings to beneficiaries and to remove any related materials from its Web site. The CMS began an investigation into Humana's mailings at the urging of Sen. Max Baucus (D-Mont.), who is writing the health care legislation under attack." [CBS, 9/21/09]
WP: “Research Firm [Lewin Group] Cited By GOP Is Owned By” UnitedHealth. "The political battle over health-care reform is waged largely with numbers, and few number-crunchers have shaped the debate as much as the Lewin Group, a consulting firm whose research has been widely cited by opponents of a public insurance option... The Lewin Group is wholly owned by UnitedHealth Group, one of the nation's largest insurers.” [Washington Post, 7/22/09]
The Lewin Group Is Part Of Ingenix, Which Paid Settlement To New York And AMA For “Helping Insurers Shift Medical Expenses To Consumers By Distributing Skewed Data.” The Washington Post did a profile of the Lewin Group and it’s connection to embattled Ingenix, owned by UnitedHealth Group, “one of the nation’s largest insurers.” It wrote, “[t]he political battle over health-care reform is waged largely with numbers, and few number-crunchers have shaped the debate as much as the Lewin Group, a consulting firm whose research has been widely cited by opponents of a public insurance option… 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]
Politifact Called The Lewin Group Claim That Health Insurance Reform Would Deprive Roughly 120 Million Of Their Health Care “False.” According to PolitiFact’s truth-o-meter, Rep. Mike Pence, in an email, wrote that Democrats propose “a government-controlled health care plan that will deprive roughly 120 million Americans of their current health care coverage.” Politifact wrote that "We asked Pence's staff about the number, and they referred us to a report from the Lewin Group, a health care consulting firm. The report ran a number of scenarios, including what would happen if the government offered a public option that was a Medicare-style plan open to everyone. Their model found that 118 million people would choose to drop their private coverage in favor of cheaper public coverage. ... We rated Pence’s statement that the government would ‘deprive’ 120 million of their ‘current health care coverage’ False.” [PolitiFact, 5/19/09]
The Health Care Industry is Spending 1.4 million Per Day on Lobbying. The Washington Post reported that this year has seen "a record-breaking influence campaign by the health-care industry, which is spending more than $1.4 million a day on lobbying in the current fight, according to disclosure records." [Washington Post, July 6, 2009]
Take the pledge
Reply |Julia Eisman, Stand Up For Health Care to me
show details Oct 13 (2 days ago)
dateTue, Oct 13, 2009 at 12:51 PM
subjectTake the pledge
Dear Activist,
Last November, Americans demanded change. Right now, we’re on the brink of health care reform – and we’re not going to stop demanding change till it happens.
After a century of failed attempts, the House and the Senate have made tremendous progress in drafting a comprehensive bill to fix our broken health care system.
We’ve come far, but it’s not over till the President has a real reform bill on his desk.
We’re participating in a national call-in day on October 20th to tell Congress that it’s time to deliver. Will you join?
Take the pledge that you’ll participate in our national call-in day next Tuesday, October 20th:
http://www.standupforhealthcare.org/deliverLooking around your community, you know we need reform now. The climate is tough: family budgets are strained due to the high cost of care, insurance companies play by their own rules, and Americans are struggling to afford to visit the doctor.
The economic downturn has left families unemployed and, as a result, uninsured. In the last twenty-two months, 4,106,530 million Americans have lost health coverage. By next Tuesday, that number will rise by more than 42,000.
Covering the uninsured gets us only part of the way there – even those who have insurance need protection from soaring premiums and insurance industry discrimination.
We cannot afford to wait. Tell Congress that it’s time to deliver on health care.
Commit to calling your Senators and Representative on October 20th.
http://www.standupforhealthcare.org/deliver
Thank you,
Julia Eisman
Online Advocacy Manager
Historic news on health care
dateTue, Oct 13, 2009 at 8:27 PM
subjectHistoric news on health care
Despite increasingly desperate attacks from the insurance lobby, the Senate Finance Committee took the historic step of voting reform legislation out of committee with bipartisan support. They're the final committee to do so -- and the negotiations over the final bill will now move to the full House and Senate.
Soon, every senator and representative must decide where they stand. Lobbyists will be racing to each office, trying every trick in the book to derail the President's plan. In fact, just this week, the insurance lobby released a self-serving report falsely claiming that reform would increase costs. Journalists called it "deceptive" and said "something doesn't smell right here." A prominent M.I.T. economist described the study as "deeply flawed."
It's a blatant scare tactic designed to frighten voters and bully Congress -- and it's just the beginning. We need to speak out right away to show Congress that their constituents are watching closely, and we're counting on them to say "no" to the lobbyists and "yes" to reform.
Send a message urging Congress to stand with voters, not D.C. lobbyists, and pass real reform.
It's becoming clear that the insurance companies will do whatever it takes to stop progress: The New York Times is reporting that special interests are spending $1.4 million every day to kill reform -- and even commissioned their own slanted analysis of the Finance Committee's legislation in an effort to defeat it. But today, after widespread criticism, the company that produced the report issued a statement saying that it analyzed only part of the bill because that's exactly what the insurance industry paid them to do!
And we just got word that insurance companies are spending $1 million on a misleading ad to scare seniors out of supporting reform. The ad falsely declares that reform will cause cuts in Medicare, even though reform is crucial to ensuring the long-term survival of the program and preserving the care that millions of seniors depend on.
Now that all five congressional committees have passed reform legislation, we're sure to see attacks that are even more extreme. It's up to us to make sure that ordinary Americans continue to be heard louder than the Washington lobbyists.
Please send a message to Congress today:
The next few weeks are absolutely crucial to our success -- we'll be organizing events, running ads, and doing everything possible to make sure Congress passes real reform. But right now, the most important thing we can do is make our voices heard immediately. Please speak out now.
Thanks,
Mitch
Mitch Stewart
Director
Organizing for America
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:
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
This is the Video that Republicans blocked from being viewed in Congress. This is the Video that Republicans don't want you to watch. This is the same Video that the so-called "liberal" media refuses to show you on main stream TV broadcasts (except for Keith Olbermann), or in movie theaters. Ask Yourself "Why?"
It is a documentary of the war profiteering that is going on by Bush campaign donors in Iraq. The war profiteering is why there are no accurate accounting records being provided to justify the "cost plus" billing by contractors like KBR, Halliburton, CACI, Blackwater, and so many more.
This is why we are currently spending $10 Billion a month in Iraq. This is why McCain wants to stay in Iraq for 100 years. It's a Republican gravytrain at taxpayer expense.
Get A Copy Of The Video And Spread The Word. Watch it. Show it to Family, Friends and Neighbors. This Election is about either Continuing this Greed and Corruption, or Ending it. Your Choice.
http://iraqforsale.org/facts.php
Facts & Research
This is general facts & research. Go over here for the specific corporations, and the experts in the film.
BACKGROUND ARTICLES
- Contract Sport (2/16/2004, Jane Mayer, New Yorker)
- Outsourcing War (3/1/2005, P. W. Singer, Foreign Affairs)
- The Other U.S. Military (5/31/2004, BusinessWeek)
- The private contractor-GOP gravy train (5/11/2004, Robert Schlesinger, Salon.com)
- Outsourcing Blame (5/21/2004, William D. Hartung, TomPaine.com)
- Alternet's war profiteering archive
- WarSlavery.org resources on human trafficking
- REPORTS
- War Profiteers: Profits Over Patriotism in Iraq (9/2006, Campaign for America's Future)
- Windfalls of War: U.S. Contractors in Afghanistan & Iraq (Center for Public Integrity)
- Executive Excess 2006 (8/2006, Institute for Policy Studies and United for a Fair Economy)
- A Fistful of Contractors: The Case for a Pragmatic Assessment of Private Military Companies in Iraq (9/2004, David Isenberg, BASIC)
- Outsourcing is Facilitating Human Rights Violations (2006 Annual Report, Amnesty International USA)
HEARINGS
BOOKS
- Iraq, Inc: A Profitable Occupation (11/2004, Pratap Chatterjee)
- Corporate Warriors: The Rise of the Privatized Military Industry (4/2004, P.W. Singer, Brookings Institution)
- The Market for Force: The Consequences of Privatizing Security (7/2005, Deborah A. Avant, Author Q&A)
- Blood Money: Wasted Billions, Lost Lives, and Corporate Greed in Iraq (8/2006, T. Christian Miller)
- Licensed to Kill: Hired Guns in the War on Terror (8/2006, Robert Young Pelton)
- A Bloody Business: America's War Zone Contractors and the Occupation of Iraq (5/2006, Gerry Schumacher)
- Contract Warriors (4/2005, Fred Rosen)
- The Best War Ever, Damned Lies, and the Mess in Iraq (9/2006, Sheldon Rampton and John Stauber)
August 18, 2008
Keith Olbermann Responds to McCain's Speech to the VFW
"Though victory in Iraq is finally in sight," you told the V-F-W today, Senator McCain, "a great deal still depends on the decisions and good judgment of the next president. The hard-won gains of our troops hang in the balance. The lasting advantage of a peaceful and democratic ally in the heart of the Middle East could still be squandered by hasty withdrawal and arbitrary timelines. And this is one of many problems in the shifting positions of my opponent, Senator Obama."
The shifting positions of Senator Obama?
Senator McCain - on the 22nd of May, 2003 ... you said, of Iraq, on the Senate floor, quote:
"We won a massive victory in a few weeks, and we did so with very limited loss of American and allied lives. We were able to end aggression with minimum overall loss of life, and we were even able to greatly reduce the civilian casualties of Afghani and Iraqi citizens.
Senator - you declared victory in Iraq, five years and nearly three months ago.
Today you say: "victory in Iraq is finally in sight"?
The victory you already proclaimed five years ago?
Are we going back in time Sir?
If that had not been enough, in June of 2003, with even Fox News noting "many argue the conflict (in Iraq) isn't over," you answered:
"Well, then why was there a banner that said 'Mission Accomplished' on the aircraft carrier? Look, the - I have said a long time that reconstruction of Iraq would be a long, long, difficult process, but the conflict - the major conflict is over, the regime change has been accomplished, and it's very appropriate."
In 2003, your war was won, because somebody was putting up a... banner.
In 2008, your war might finally be won, because you are putting up... a campaign based on the mirage that Iraq is winnable.
And yet it is Obama shifting positions on Iraq?
Even if this country were to forget, Senator, the victory lap you and President Bush took five years ago - just on their face, your remarks today at the V-F-W, Senator, are nonsensical.
more...
August 16, 2008
http://www.opednews.com/articles/Breaking-Conyers-Calls-Co-by-Ralph-Lopez-080815-807.html
August 16, 2008 at 11:17:44 Headlined on 8/16/08:
Breaking: Conyers Calls Committee Back from Summer Recess to Investigate Suskind Allegations by Ralph Lopez Page 1 of 3 page(s) www.opednews.com
|
|
(4.8 from 13 ratings) View Ratings | Rate It
From Impeachment Left to Right
"The 110th Congress isn’t over. We’re starting our work, and then we’re doing it in a period where the Congress is in recess. I’m calling everybody back." -- John Conyers on DemocracyNow, Aug.14,2008
House Judiciary Chairman John Conyers has taken the highly unusual step of calling his committee back from summer recess in order to investigate allegations by Ron Suskind that the Bush administration forged a letter to buttress the links made between Saddam and 9/11, and Saddam and WMD. The congressional Authorization for the Use of Force Against Iraq, the ""War Resolution" which, as far short as it fell of a congressional declaration of war, gave the invasion its constitutional legal cover, and gave Bush the authorization to invade only after he had certified to congress the existence of these two critical links. If Saddam had nothing to do with 9/11, and if he did not possess WMD, the war was off.
The Authorization for the Use of Force stipulated:
Sec. 3 (b) Presidential Determination.--
In connection with the exercise of
the authority granted in subsection (a) to use force the President
shall, prior to such exercise or as soon thereafter as may be feasible,
but no later than 48 hours after exercising such authority, make
available to the Speaker of the House of Representatives and the
President pro tempore of the Senate his determination that--
(2) acting pursuant to this joint resolution is consistent
with the United States and other countries continuing to take
the necessary actions against international terrorist and
terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations,
or persons who planned, authorized, committed or aided the
terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001.
On March 23, 2003, the president certified just that:
-"I have also determined that the use of armed force against Iraq is consistent with the United States and other countries continuing to take the necessary actions against international terrorists and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations, or persons who planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001." -George Bush, certification to Congress to authorize the use of force in Iraq, March 23, 2003
"Armed force against Iraq is consistent with...actions against...nations...who...aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11..." are the operative words in that statement without the subordinate clauses.
After the flurry of impeachment articles embodied in HR 1345, read on the House floor on June 9, 2008, Rep. Dennis Kucinich followed up on July 10 with a single article which lasers in on the exact war lies Suskind's alleged forgery has called attention to. Not that the document is needed to show Bush lied. He admitted as much, which in a courtroom is prima facie evidence which supercedes any other.
In a press conference with Tony Blair in Jan. of 2003, Bush said:
[Adam Boulton, Sky News (London):] One question for you both. Do you believe that there is a link between Saddam Hussein, a direct link, and the men who attacked on September the 11th?
THE PRESIDENT: I can't make that claim.
THE PRIME MINISTER: That answers your question.
And on Sept. 18, 2003, on Meet the Press, Bush drove the nail in all the way:
-"No, we've had no evidence that Saddam Hussein was involved with September the 11th.
Conyers' reconvening of his committee was the result of enormous public pressure, most poignantly that coming from military families wanting to know why their loved ones are dead. Despite the exquisite, shining clockwork political operation now in place at the Executive Branch, working hand in glove with the media spin machine, it's still not that easy to get 4100 Americans killed over lies. Bush knew Americans would not subject their troops to such an uncertain fiasco over 17 violated UN resolutions, or Saddam's brutal but by no means unique human rights record. If we attacked every country which violated UN resolutions, we'd be bombing Tel Aviv.
So Bush lied.
What is needed now is a full-court press by the public, especially those citizens up until now silent, to transform the Suskind investigation into true impeachment hearings. Public pressure, and only public pressure, resulted in the stunning but buried hearings of July 25, 2008. On that day only 17 out of hundreds of citizens from across the country who packed the hallway outside the Judiciary chambers were allowed into the room. As people chanted "Shame!" it was explained by Judiciary staff that the rest of the seats were taken by the media. The joke turned out to be on you, the public. Media packed the room, but not one American newspaper, not one network news station, reported the dramatic six-hour testimony which outlined some of the most serious charges which can be made against a U.S. president.
This country is now learning what many already know: that democracy is not given. It is demanded. Few politicians are interested in your right to freedom from search and seizure without a warrant, or your right to a jury trial even if George Bush thinks you are an "enemy combatant." They already belong to a class of the powerful who will merit special consideration. Some, with good reason, may argue that we already have a two-tier system of justice, for the rich, and for the poor. But like the movie says, you ain't seen nothing yet.
There is nothing partisan about impeachment. Just as politics should stop at the water's edge (except for John McCain, who injected himself into the Georgia crisis in a manner which would have earned Obama a withering barrage,) it stops when the very process by which we govern ourselves is in peril.
This is why someone like Bruce Fein, a former Reagan deputy attorney general who "trashed the Roe v. Wade abortion decision, stating that it required a "hallucinogenic intellectual flight" on the part of Justice Harry Blackmun to draft the opinion," according to CommonDreams.org, has come out as one of the most effective spokemen for a Bush impeachment. Why? CommonDreams goes on:
This is what did it: The disclosure that the National Security Agency (NSA) is engaged in the domestic wiretapping of American citizens in the United States without first obtaining warrants. The Bush Administration had crossed the line. Within twenty-four hours, Fein went into constitutional combat mode. And he hasn't stopped since.
For Fein, there is nothing really to debate; the law is settled. In 1978, Congress passed the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, or FISA, permitting the government to conduct electronic surveillance on citizens in the United States if it first gets a warrant from the FISA court, which exists for that reason only. The FISA court rarely has denied such a request.
Fein says:
"The President could pick and choose which statutes to obey in gathering foreign intelligence and employing battlefield tactics on the sidewalks of the United States."
Please do three things:
1) Call Judiciary Committee members, give a message saying we know the difference between a show, and impeachment. This is fast.
2) Participate in the campaign to reach Judiciary members' campaign contributors, to ask them as one citizen to another to withhold contributions until the member does this clearest of patriotic duties. Why this route? Because congressmen have shown themselves to be impervious to any amount of constituent pressure. Rep. John Olver (D-MA) even said, at a town meeting "Spare me, I know full well the overwhelming majority of my constituency is in favor of impeachment" as he told the packed room he would not co-sponsor any resolutions against either Bush or Cheney. We used to think that representatives were there to represent us. We have learned better. But we're not done with them.
3) Start now to prevail on the media to cover important hearings when they happen. Participate in the advertiser boycott.
There will be naysayers, and the Pelosians who seems to think that a super-majority of Pelosians is the answer. These are the same people who betrayed Americans by failing to stop the Iraq War, when they were given a majority to do just that. Better the Pelosians understand that doing their duty to impeach will be seen as a down-payment on regaining the trust of the rank-and-file, and the American people. Otherwise all promises are empty. Any national healthcare will be written by big pharma and the insurance companies. Presidents will continue to get their blank checks for war. As for the naysayers on impeachment, as the saying goes, either lead, follow, or get out of the way.
From Impeachment Left to Right
Thanks to MediaMatters.org for the following. Each one of these statements has been debunked:
* From Bush's September 28, 2002, radio address to the nation:
The danger to our country is grave and it is growing. The Iraqi regime possesses biological and chemical weapons, is rebuilding the facilities to make more and, according to the British government, could launch a biological or chemical attack in as little as 45 minutes after the order is given. The regime has long-standing and continuing ties to terrorist groups, and there are Al Qaeda terrorists inside Iraq. This regime is seeking a nuclear bomb, and with fissile material could build one within a year.
* From Bush's October 7, 2002, speech:
We know that Iraq and Al Qaeda have had high-level contacts that go back a decade.
* From Bush's January 28, 2003, State of the Union address:
Evidence from intelligence sources, secret communications, and statements by people now in custody reveal that Saddam Hussein aids and protects terrorists, including members of Al Qaeda.
* From a February 6, 2003, statement by Bush:
Senior members of Iraqi intelligence and Al Qaeda have met at least eight times since the early 1990s. Iraq has sent bomb-making and document forgery experts to work with Al Qaeda. Iraq has also provided Al Qaeda with chemical and biological weapons training.
Take action -- click here to contact your local newspaper or congress people:
impeach bush
Click here to see the most recent messages sent to congressional reps and local newspapers
http://ralphlopezworld.com
Ralph is the author of a new book "Truth in the Age of Bushism."
Barack Obama will be accepting the Democratic Presidential nomination in front of up to 76,000 supporters on Thursday, August 28 from the 50-yard line at Invesco Field in Denver. The speech will be at 9pm central standard time. The Obama campaign will be publicly announcing Obama Watch Parties for this event. We'll let you know as we get further details.
There are 1096 different Obama speeches/events that are available to see at this website, along with another 40 related events.
The Right Wing Slime Machine Is In Full Gear
Fight Back with the FACTS!
Download your copy of Obama's Rebuttals here:
Don't Leave Any Slime Unanswered!
Then write to your local Newspapers to let them know that you won't stand for this anymore. Use the following link to send out emails to local newspapers automatically.
August 14, 2008
GOP Brags that McCain Will Continue Bush's Economic Legacy
From David Sirota:
Last week, I appeared on Fox News to discuss the inflammatory comments by Phil Gramm (John McCain's top economic advisor) and how those comments really epitomize the Republican Party's country clubbish, let-them-eat-cake outlook on the economy. Notice about half-way through as the Republican strategist I'm debating actually acknowledges that McCain's major idea for fixing the economy is continuing George W. Bush's tax policies - and that when she's called out for saying that, she tries to deny what she just said.
The interchange is instructive for two reasons.
First and foremost is the admission: namely, that Republicans still want America to believe that the way to steady the economy is to follow Bush's efforts to slash taxes for millionaires. As I show in the very first chapter of my book, this is a prescription being rejected even in some of the most conservative parts of the country.
Second, there is the denial: When called onto the carpet for wanting to continue the policies of the most unpopular president in history, Republicans start running for cover to the point of claiming they never said what they just said. The denial is a tacit acknowledgment of the power of the populist uprising now boiling throughout the country. The GOP knows the country is very angry at conservatives' free market fundamentalism - and so will deny and obfuscate to pretend they aren't championing such fundamentalism.
Of course, moments after appearing on Fox, my email in-box was filled with hate mail from conservative viewers. For instance, Dave in Bokeelia, Florida told me "Gramm was abolutely correct" in blaming Americans for the economic downturn, then asked, "Why don't you and your boyfriend move to Denmark or some other socialist country?" (apparently, he's not aware I'm happily married to my wife, Emily). Then he declared, "Obama has already lost, you moron."
A guy named Charles angrily asked, "When did raising taxes ever stimulate economic growth?" then said "raising taxes will only cause a deeper recession," and added "Do your homework before berating someone on television." Apparently, he forgot that our most recent economic boom during the 1990s came immediately after President Clinton raised taxes on the wealthy.
My favorite was from a guy named Steve who wrote, "hey girlyboy, do you have any idea how pitiful you look to normal folks when you open your sissy moth beging the government to help?" (that is his spelling - for real).
These comments show how powerful conservative propaganda has been -- it has convinced a number (albeit a dwindling one, according to polling data) of people to believe that the real problem in our country is that we have too few royalists running the government -- not too many. Though this conservative ideology is clearly on the ropes, the Fox News clip shows that the GOP is going to continue trying to ram it down our throats.
This is an ongoing series from the national tour for THE UPRISING. You can order The Uprising at Amazon.com or through your local independent bookstore.
See the video and sign the petition by clicking on the link below:
American Workers Fare Better Under Democratic Presidents - Here's the Proof
In viewing Appendix Table 2:
7 out of 10 of the last recessions on record occurred under Republican Administrations, (8 of 11 if you count the one we are currently in.)
1954 and 1958 under President Eisenhower (The 1961 Recession began shortly after Eisenhower left office);
1970 under President Nixon;
1975 under President Ford (who took office after Nixon resigned);
1982 under President Reagan;
1991 under President George H.W. Bush;
and 2001 under President George W. Bush. Republicans controlled both Houses of Congress for six years prior to the 2001 recession. (2008 - We are currently in another recession under Dubya, but we won’t know what the results will be until five years from now, so that obviously has been left off of the chart. Republicans controlled both Houses of Congress for 12 of the previous 14 years prior to this last recession. And while Democrats have a slight majority in both Houses of Congress now, they haven’t been able to pass any laws rescinding Bush’s and Republican policies because they don’t have enough votes – they need Republican votes in order for the bills to pass, and for Bush to sign them – not to mention the 2/3rds majority they need to override Bush’s vetoes.)
Going back further to the Great Depression, Calvin Coolidge (Republican) was President 1923-1929, prior to and during the Great Depression, with Herbert Hoover (Republican) 1929-1933 following him. He didn't do a very good job at getting us out of the Depression, so he only served one term. It should also be noted that Republicans controlled both houses of Congress for the eight years prior to and during the Great Depression, and for three years after the Depression hit, with heavy majorities.
Franklin Delano Roosevelt (Democrat) 1933-1945, did such a good job cleaning up their mess, that he was elected to four terms in office. Democrats in Congress also had much to do with the changes in policy that Roosevelt was able to get passed because they had been elected to replace the Republicans who had gotten them into the Depression in the first place. They enjoyed dominance in both houses for the twelve years during Roosevelt’s presidency and the two years after.
Note also the highest wage and salary average percentage shares / (recovery) (percentage of the total national income growth) for the five years after the recessions, occurred under Democrats Harry S. Truman 59.9% (1945-1953), John F. Kennedy (1961-1963) and LBJ (1963-1969) 49.8% and President Jimmy Carter 50.6% (1977-1981); the lowest wage and salary percentage shares coming from Republican Administrations – Nixon (1969-1974) 35.3%, Reagan (1981-1989) 37.0%, and Bush (2001-2009) 34%;
while corporate profits increased the most under Republican President George W. Bush, a whopping 45.9% (2001-2009) followed by Bill Clinton 29.5% (1993-2001), John F. Kennedy (1961-1963) 22.9% and Lyndon Baines Johnson 22.9% (1963-1969), all Democrats.
Bill Clinton’s recovery after George H.W. Bush’s recession, was only a little under average for wage and salary percentage shares 45.9% (Eisenhower and Reagan did a little better at 48.9%, 49.6% and 49.2% respectively), and second only to George W. Bush’s for corporations at 29.5%.
Wages and Salaries recovery fared the worst under George W. Bush 34% - even worse than under Nixon 35.3% and Reagan 37% and 49.2%. (Do you see a trend here?)
McCain wants not only to continue Bush’s policies, but to reduce corporate taxes, while increasing taxes on the poor and middle income individuals as well as taxing Social Security and health benefits.
It is clear that both wage and salary earners, and corporations do well under Democratic Presidents; but even taking into consideration that the latest numbers reflect excessive profit taking by the big Oil Companies, it is obvious that while wage earners don't do well, corporations are heavily favored under Republican Presidents.
When it comes to the economy, if you are looking for a recovery, which political party is in the White House matters. And it matters a great deal.
McCain - BUSTED!
McCain's Economic and Tax Policies, and his attacks on Senator Obama are proven LIES.
(OK, so he DID say he DIDN'T know much about Economics - Before he said he DID.)
BALANCED BUDGETS
FactCheck.org: McCain's Spending Plans Don't Add Up.
According to the non-partisan FactCheck.org, "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."
[FactCheck.org, 5/13/08: http://www.factcheck.org/elections2008/the_budget_according_to_mccain_part_i.html]
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:
- The McCain economic plan will cut $100 billion of the discretionary budget.
- Past and present earmarks account for $100 billion of the discretionary budget.
- 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:
- Clouds are white and fluffy.
- Sheep are white and fluffy.
- 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 amore 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.
What was that about Corporations being taxed so much that they were leaving the Country? Oops - I guess the facts expose another Republican lie.
McCain promises even more tax breaks to the top one one-hundredth of one percent of earners (who have doubled their income with an average of an almost $15 million increase from 2000-2006 alone, and account for one quarter of all the income growth in the country), while taxing the 90% at the bottom of the income ladder (who have only seen an average income increase of $350 in the same six year period, and in total only account for 4% of all of the income in the country.)
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/robert-l-borosage/the-great-corporate-tax-h_b_118479.html Remember the old Steve Martin routine on how to make a million dollars and not pay taxes: "First, make a million dollars... Second, don't pay taxes." Turns out Martin's joke is standard operating procedure for corporations in the United States -- only, in comparison, Martin was a piker.
Today, the Government Accountability Office (GAO) released a study on taxes paid by corporations. In what Sen. Byron L. Dorgan (D-ND) mildly called "a shocking indictment of the current tax system," the GAO found that about two-thirds of corporations operating in the US did not pay taxes annually from 1998 to 2005.
Now most corporations in America are start-ups or small, mom and pop operations that have adopted a corporate form to lower their tax rates. And a greater percentage of large corporations do pay some taxes. But in 2005, with corporate profits reaching new heights as a percentage of national income, the GAO found that over one-fourth -- 28% of large corporations paid no taxes. (It defined large corporations as those with assets of at least $250 million dollars or gross receipts of at least $50 million dollars.) They can tell you how to make $50 million dollars and not pay taxes.
Not surprisingly, the income collected from corporations has been declining as a percentage of GDP, with the burden transferred to your income and payroll taxes. According to a study by the Treasury Department, from 2000-2006, an average of 2.2% of GDP was collected in corporate taxes. This compares to an average of 3.4% in other industrial countries. The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office projects that, under current law, corporate revenues will decline to 1.9% of GDP by 2017.
Why is this important? Well, the Bush administration, led by Treasury Secretary Paulson and conservatives led by John McCain are mounting a major campaign to cut the corporate tax rate even more, arguing that we are crippled competitively by having a US rate higher than any industrial nation other than Japan. "America has the second highest business [tax]rate in the entire world," says John McCain. "Is it any wonder that jobs are moving overseas? We're taxing them out of the country."
But the GAO study confirms what we already knew: whatever the nominal tax rate, US corporations pay an effective rate among the lowest in the industrial world.
Yet the core of McCain economic agenda consists of breath-taking corporate tax breaks. He calls for cutting the top corporate rate from 35% to 25% and allowing corporations to write off investments in the first year. Combined, the Tax Policy Center wonks cost these at over $1.3 trillion over 10 years. Len Burman of Tax Policy Center estimates that in total, McCain would cut corporate revenues by about 50% from current levels. They'll be making hundreds of millions of dollars and not paying taxes. This is no joke.
To pay for these tax breaks, sustain the Bush tax cuts, add more tax breaks AND balance the budget in four years, as McCain promises, will require heroic cuts in spending. Not military spending; McCain promises to increase that. How will he do this? On the stump, McCain promises to veto any earmarked spending. But that is a gesture, providing about $18 billion a year. (And he isn't exactly consistent. McCain often tells folks who defend a local project that it is the process, not the individual project that he opposes.) Perhaps that's why McCain calls for raising Medicare taxes on seniors with over $50,000 a year in income and taxing employer-based health care benefits for families. Working people and seniors will help pay the tab for the corporate tax give-away.
It's hard not to wonder about the pure, contrary, inanity of the current conservative position. Our military is by far the strongest in the world, while our trains are among the slowest and our sewers are collapsing. So they propose raising spending the military and cutting domestic investment. We suffer gilded age inequality, with the wealthiest 15,000 families -- one-one hundredth of one percent of the population -- capturing fully one-fourth of the entire income growth from 2000 to 2006. Their average income rose from $15.2 million per year to $29.7 million per year. Meanwhile, the rest of us -- 133 million households that make up 90% of the country -- divided up 4% of the nation's income, adding about $305 to our average $30,354 income. So conservatives push for more tax cuts for the wealthy, while proposing to tax employer based health benefits. Corporate profits (prior to the recession) have catapulted to what is by far the highest percentage of national income in the past half century. So they want to cut corporate taxes, inevitably increasing the burden on labor. The economic future looks dim because consumers, drowning in debt, are cutting back. So they suggest cutting taxes on corporate investments will generate new investments and growth -- as if companies don't need someone to buy the products they make.
Maybe that will be Steve Martin's next routine: How to sell more stuff and not have customers. Somehow, it doesn't sound so funny.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/08/12/representation-without-ta_n_118455.html
JENNIFER C. KERR | August 12, 2008 06:31 AM EST |
WASHINGTON — Two-thirds of U.S. corporations paid no federal income taxes between 1998 and 2005, according to a new report from Congress.
The study by the Government Accountability Office, expected to be released Tuesday, said about 68 percent of foreign companies doing business in the U.S. avoided corporate taxes over the same period.
Collectively, the companies reported trillions of dollars in sales, according to GAO's estimate.
"It's shameful that so many corporations make big profits and pay nothing to support our country," said Sen. Byron Dorgan, D-N.D., who asked for the GAO study with Sen. Carl Levin, D-Mich.
An outside tax expert, Chris Edwards of the libertarian Cato Institute in Washington, said increasing numbers of limited liability corporations and so-called "S" corporations pay taxes under individual tax codes.
"Half of all business income in the United States now ends up going through the individual tax code," Edwards said.
The GAO study did not investigate why corporations weren't paying federal income taxes or corporate taxes and it did not identify any corporations by name. It said companies may escape paying such taxes due to operating losses or because of tax credits.
More than 38,000 foreign corporations had no tax liability in 2005 and 1.2 million U.S. companies paid no income tax, the GAO said. Combined, the companies had $2.5 trillion in sales. About 25 percent of the U.S. corporations not paying corporate taxes were considered large corporations, meaning they had at least $250 million in assets or $50 million in receipts.
The GAO said it analyzed data from the Internal Revenue Service, examining samples of corporate returns for the years 1998 through 2005. For 2005, for example, it reviewed 110,003 tax returns from among more than 1.2 million corporations doing business in the U.S.
Dorgan and Levin have complained about companies abusing transfer prices _ amounts charged on transactions between companies in a group, such as a parent and subsidiary. In some cases, multinational companies can manipulate transfer prices to shift income from higher to lower tax jurisdictions, cutting their tax liabilities. The GAO did not suggest which companies might be doing this.
"It's time for the big corporations to pay their fair share," Dorgan said.
____
On the Net:
Government Accountability Office: http://www.gao.gov
August 5, 2008
Paris Hilton Responds to 'Celebrity' Ad
By Denise Williams
Aug 5th 2008 8:13PM
Filed Under:eAds, Breaking News, Viral Video, LOLection
This is totally hot.
First mother Kathy Hilton offered this stinging rebuke to John McCain on The Huffington Post for the hideously bad "Celebrity" ad the other day:
I've been asked again and again for my response to the now infamous McCain celebrity ad. I actually have three responses. It is a complete waste of the money John McCain's contributors have donated to his campaign. It is a complete waste of the country's time and attention at the very moment when millions of people are losing their homes and their jobs. And it is a completely frivolous way to choose the next President of the United States.
Now daughter Paris is offering up her own video rebuttal:
http://news.aol.com/political-machine/2008/08/05/paris-hilton-responds-to-celebrity-ad/?icid=100214839x1206878638x1200376398
Paris really smacked down "the old, wrinkled, white-haired guy." ROTFLMAO!
Obama Doesn't Sweat. He should.
by Greg Palast
Greg Palast on the Thom Hartmann show
In swing-state Colorado, the Republican Secretary of State conducted the biggest purge of voters in history, dumping a fifth of all registrations. Guess their color.
In swing-state Florida, the state is refusing to accept about 85,000 new registrations from voter drives – overwhelming Black voters.
In swing state New Mexico, HALF of the Democrats of Mora, a dirt poor and overwhelmingly Hispanic county, found their registrations disappeared this year, courtesy of a Republican voting contractor.
In swing states Ohio and Nevada, new federal law is knocking out tens of thousands of voters who lost their homes to foreclosure.
My investigations partner spoke directly to Barack Obama about it. (When your partner is Robert F. Kennedy Jr., candidates take your phone call.) The cool, cool Senator Obama told Kennedy he was “concerned” about the integrity of the vote in the Southwest in particular.
He’s concerned. I’m sweating.
It’s time SOMEBODY raised the alarm about these missing voters; not to save Obama’s candidacy – journalists should stay the heck away from partisan endorsements - but raise the alarm to save our sick democracy.
And that somebody is YOU. Joining with US, the Palast investigative team. Here’s how:
We have been offered an astonishing opportunity to place the Kennedy-Palast investigative findings on a national, prime-time, major-network television broadcast. Plus, separately, we have an extraordinary offer to create a series of reports for national network radio.
But guess what? The networks will NOT PAY for our public service reports. We have to raise the start-up funds in the next two weeks to film it, record it and get it on the airwaves.
WE need YOU to fund the reports, DISSEMINATE the findings as we post the print, audio and video on the web– and ACT on it.
So, for only the second time this year, I am asking each one of you to make a tax deductible donation to the non-profit, non-partisan Palast Investigative Fund of $500, $150 or $100.
Progressives have complained for years of no opportunity to get the hard, cold sweaty truth on the air. Well, put your money where your heart and soul is.
Donate at least $500, I’ll send you every book I’ve written and every film, signed.
Send $150 and I’ll send you as a gift, a copy of John Ennis' film Free For All, the brilliant and funny film about the Theft of Ohio. AND I'll send you, signed, a copy of my book, Armed Madhouse, plus a copy of the BBC/Democracy Now film investigations, The Election Files and a copy of the spoken word CD Live from the Armed Madhouse all signed.
Donate $100, and I’ll send you 3 copies, one signed to you, of “The Elections Files, “ the best of our BBC/Democracy Now films – including special never-broadcast interviews with Kennedy and fired prosecutor David Iglesias.
I know you’re ponying up for your favorite candidates. But what’s the point of winning folks' votes IF NO ONE COUNTS THEM?
Please make your donation – today. No corporation, no big foundation, is going to take on this emergency in our democracy. The election’s about to be stolen – for a third time. SO WHAT ARE YOU GOING TO DO ABOUT IT?
Donate today (for $1,000 minimum, we’ll list you as a Producer of our next DVD, in gratitude). Why? Because the only way to get the vote-chewing cockroaches out of the voting machinery is to turn on the lights – tell the truth on them. On prime time.
After our team busted the story of Katherine Harris’ attack on innocent Black voters as “felons,” the NAACP sued and won back their rights. The truth CAN make the difference. Yes, we can. Indeed, we HAVE.
Think all votes should be counted in America? Then YOU stand up and be counted. Don’t expect networks or commercial sponsors to pay for your democracy. Feed the truth, donate $100 right now and pass on a copy of the Elections Files to your dippy cousin who thinks Kerry lost fair and square.
Donations from our prior and only request already paid for some of our filming in the Southwest. Don’t let this story be swept under the border.
If you want more information, go to GregPalast.com, or write me directly at GregPalast.com – and hit the button, “contact Greg.”
Pass this on!
**************************
Greg Palast is a Puffin Foundation Writing Fellow for Investigative Reporting at the Nation Institute, New York. Read and view his investigations for BBC Television at www.GregPalast.com.
It Was Bound To Happen - Just Like Republicans Have Always Done, They Fabricate Stories to Make Democrats Look Bad.
Right after Senator Obama returned from his trip to Afghanistan, a lie written by a soldier in Afghanistan was circulating around the blogs. The soldier, CPT Jeffrey S. Porter, Battle Captain, TF Wasatch, claimed that Senator Obama "got off the plane and got into a bullet proof vehicle...As the Soldiers where lined up to shake his hand he blew them off and didn't say a word as he went into the conference room to meet the General...."
Snopes.com dug into the story and proved that it was FALSE.
http://www.snopes.com/politics/obama/afghanistan.asp
This is just one of the latest chain email smears that are being used against Senator Obama.
According to an Army Spokesperson quoted in the New York Daily News:
"These comments are inappropriate and factually incorrect," said Bagram spokeswoman Army Lt. Col. Rumi Nielson-Green, who added that such political commentary is barred for uniformed personnel.
In a follow-up Blog entry, the Daily News reported that the e-mail's author has recanted his original message:
Now he is asking that everyone delete the email and not forward it on, claiming that after checking his sources, he found that the information that he put in his email was wrong.
Unfortunately, anyone not reading the retraction will still have the same negative perception of him.
In addition to the official military denials, a Department of Defense video shows Senator Obama meeting, talking, and eating breakfast with U.S. troops in Afghanistan (and includes a brief interview with a soldier who noted that Obama "took time out of his schedule to come over and visit with us, not just at this camp but at other surrounding camps in Afghanistan.")
Snopes also received a flood of messages from U.S. troops who met Senator Obama in his Middle East trip in Afghanistan and elsewhere, who reported quite different experiences than CPT Jeffery Porter, including a letter from another soldier who says that CPT Porter wasn't even there.
Another wrote: "I don't know who this captain saw, but it wasn't the Barack Obama I just saw in Afghanistan. Unlike most of the pols who breeze on through for nothing more than brief photo ops before leaving he was warm, friendly & engaging (as much as security would allow) with the troops he met and he was genuinely interested in us and our mission and how we could best serve our country. When Obama went to Jordan a few days ago they said "The guy gets it. Sharp, aware and a very good listener. He doesn't seem stuck in any preconceived positions."
Those are the qualities I'd like to see in my Commander in Chief. While Obama was out visiting the troops, what was John McCain doing...?, playing golf with his rich cronies (Bush Sr.) in Kennebunkport and whining about how much press coverage Obama was getting. Definitely "not" the qualities I want to see in my Commander in Chief."
The Salt Lake Tribune reported that it was unlikely that the e-mail's author would face any disciplinary measures.
Can you imagine what would have happened if an Obama supporter had done something like this to McCain?
You may also recall, that while security was supposed to be tight, and the location and itinerary for Senator Obama was supposed to be kept secret until after he left, Senator McCain was blabbing to reporters about where Senator Obama was going to be and when!!!
I guess security for another American means nothing to Senator McCain if he can provide intelligence to our enemies, so that he can get them to do his dirty work for him, and get himself into the White House.
Or will Senator McCain claim that he didn't know what he was doing when he was divulging sensitive information to the whole world?
How secure does that make you to trust McCain with the safety of the United States, or Democrats in general if he gains the White House?
How secure does it make you to consider that he has been a member of Congress for the last 26 years?
Maybe that explains the mess we are in.
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