VRWC news: gonna be a long thread [Archive] - Page 2

boutons_deux

02-14-2013, 11:14 AM

The State of the 4-Year-Olds

In 1971, when he was a senator, Mondale led the Congressional drive to make quality preschool education available to every family in the United States that wanted it. Everybody. The federal government would set standards and provide backup services like meals and medical and dental checkups. Tuition would depend on the family's ability to pay.

And it passed! Then Richard Nixon vetoed it, claiming Congress was proposing "communal approaches to child rearing." Now, 42 years later, working parents of every economic level scramble madly to find quality programs for their preschoolers, while the waiting lines for poor families looking for subsidized programs stretch on into infinity.

And President Obama is trying, against great odds, to do something for 4-year-olds.

People, think about this for a minute. We have no bigger crisis as a nation than the class barrier. We're near the bottom of the industrialized world when it comes to upward mobility. A child born to poor parents has a pathetic chance of growing up to be anything but poor. This isn't the way things were supposed to be in the United States. But here we are.

Would it be different if all the children born over the last 40 years had been given access to top-quality early education - programs that not only kept them safe while their parents worked, but gave them the language and reasoning skills that wealthy families pass on as a matter of course?

We'll never know.

Mondale's Comprehensive Child Development Act was a bipartisan bill, which passed 63 to 17 in the Senate. It was an entitlement, and, if it had become law, it would have been one entitlement for little children in a world where most of the money goes to the elderly.
?After Gerald Ford became president, the early childhood education bill's supporters tried to resurrect the plan. They had hardly done anything besides agree that they probably ought to wait until after the 1976 election, when they were hit with a political tsunami. Members of

Congress started getting hundreds and hundreds - sometimes thousands and thousands - of hysterical letters accusing them of plotting to destroy the American family.

This was before constituent e-mail, when that kind of outpouring was shocking, particularly since a number of the writers seemed to believe that Congress was plotting to allow children to organize labor unions and sue their parents for making them do chores.

"That was really the beginning of the Tea Party. The right wing started to turn on this thing viciously," said Mondale. "They said it was a socialist scheme. They were really pounding the members of Congress and a lot of people got cold feet."

Nobody really knew where it was all coming from. A reporter for The Houston Chronicle traced the hysteria back to a man in Kansas who had written the leaflet, based on information he'd received from a revival in Missouri, which he told the reporter he had since learned was almost all completely wrong.

http://mobile.nytimes.com/article?a=1027421&f=28&sub=Columnist

Have the Repugs DONE ANYTHING since 1970 that advanced American civilization (and not just for the 1% and corps) ?

You motherfuckers who vote in Repugs have plenty of stinking shit and blood on your hands.

boutons_deux

02-19-2013, 02:09 PM

Meet Donors Trust: The Little-Known Group That Helps Wealthy Backers Fund a Right-Wing Agenda

Since 1999, the nonprofit charity Donors Trust has handed out nearly $400 million in private donations to more than 1,000 right-wing and libertarian groups.

When it comes to the wealthy funders of right-wing causes, the big names are well known: billionaires like the industrialist Koch Brothers and the casino magnate Sheldon Adelson, super PACs like Americans for Prosperity and Karl Rove’s Crossroads GPS. Now, through them, hundreds of millions of dollars have poured into right-wing causes and candidates. But now it turns out this web of dark-money donations is even more secretive than we previously thought. That’s because the operations of a largely unknown group have now come to light. They’re called Donors Trust, a nonprofit charity based in Virginia.

Since 1999, Donors Trust has handed out nearly $400 million in private donations to more than 1,000 right-wing and libertarian groups. The fact Donors Trust has been able to quietly do so appears to explain why it exists: Wealthy donors can back the right-wing causes they want without attracting public scrutiny. Donors Trust is classified as a "donor-advised" fund under U.S. tax law, meaning its funders don’t have direct say in where their money goes. That in turn allows them to remain largely anonymous.

http://www.alternet.org/meet-donors-trust-little-known-group-helps-wealthy-backers-fund-right-wing-agenda?akid=10077.187590.11HXRz&rd=1&src=newsletter797084&t=3

boutons_deux

02-19-2013, 05:27 PM

VRWC/Corporate War on Employees is over and won.

Disposable Workers: Why Throwaway Employees are Bad Policy (http://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2013/02/disposable-workers-why-throwaway-employees-are-bad-policy.html)

http://www.nakedcapitalism.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/02/workforcestudyfired.jpg

http://www.nakedcapitalism.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/02/Screen-shot-2013-02-18-at-1.30.53-AM.png

http://www.nakedcapitalism.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/02/Screen-shot-2013-02-18-at-1.37.07-AM.png

http://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2013/02/disposable-workers-why-throwaway-employees-are-bad-policy.html#bQ1rrTfizkP6QsgI.99 (http://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2013/02/disposable-workers-why-throwaway-employees-are-bad-policy.html#bQ1rrTfizkP6QsgI.99)

boutons_deux

02-20-2013, 04:41 PM

Former Republican: How the GOP Turned Into a Racket Ripping Off Vulnerable Americans

As with many religions, political parties have a tendency to start as a movement, transform into a business, and finally degenerate into a racket designed to fleece the yokels. One organization which has gone out of its way to illustrate this evolution is the Republican Party. And it has done so with a national scope and fundraising apparatus that would have made Jimmy Swaggart or Jim and Tammy Faye Bakker mute with awe.

By "Republican Party" I mean both the formal party and its extended apparat: talk radio and the Fox News empire, pressure groups like the Family Research Council, allegedly "educational" 501(c)3 organizations like the Heritage Foundation, direct mail outfits descended from the original Richard Viguerie mother ship, polling firms like Rasmussen's, and the Tea Party itself (the latter nevertheless asserts its non-affiliation with the GOP despite its having sponsored (http://www.2012presidentialelectionnews.com/2011/09/video-watch-full-cnn-tea-party-republican-debate-from-tampa-fl/) [3] the Florida Republican presidential candidates' debate in 2011).

True believers in this multi-faceted scam are usually careful to make a (false) distinction between the institutional GOP and the so-called conservative movement. The Republican Party and its grandees, according to this fable, are not "true conservatives." By 2008, the operatives of the racket were already saying this about George W. Bush, but that assessment required them to perform the mental gymnastics of forgetting that only a few years earlier, they were eager (http://www.amazon.com/Bush-Country-Century-While-Driving-Liberals/dp/B000H2MTCS) [4] to nominate (http://www.amazon.com/Rebel-Chief-Inside-Controversial-Presidency/dp/0307336506/ref=sr_1_2?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1361120672&sr=1-2&keywords=Barnes+Bush) [5] Dubbya to the next available vacancy in the Trinity.

Unchastened by its electoral drubbing in 2012, the GOP circled the wagons once again. Is their former colleague, the war-disabled Bob Dole, pleading with the Senate GOP to ratify a harmless United Nations treaty recommending international standards for treatment of the handicapped? No way, the UN's black helicopters might descend on America (http://www.businessweek.com/printer/articles/85428-how-the-senate-failed-u-dot-s-dot-businesses-and-bob-dole) [11]! Are hurricane victims still out of their homes in the depth of winter? Screw 'em, they're not our constituents (http://voteview.com/blog/?p=746) [12]. Is the GOP's filibuster of a nominee for secretary of defense (and a former GOP colleague to boot) unprecedented? Precedents were made to be broken, and traitors have to be punished. Indeed, freshman Senator Ted Cruz, visually and substantively reprising the role of Joe McCarthy (http://talkingpointsmemo.com/assets_c/2013/02/mccarthy-cruz-cropped-proto-custom_28.jpg) [13], has even implied treason, slyly insinuating that nominee Chuck Hagel might be in the pay of North Korea or Iran. It doesn't even end there: the lunatic Right is now suggesting that John Brennan, the CIA Director-designee, and certainly a man involved in killing his share of Muslims (http://www.salon.com/2013/02/14/right_wing_runs_with_john_brennan_is_a_muslim_theo ry/) [14], is himself a secret Muslim convert, just like his boss, the president!

Shocking as all this is, it should not be surprising. Belief in the rapture (a word found nowhere in the Bible) has been around as a formal theological precept since John Darby (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Darby_%28evangelist%29) [15] fabricated the notion in the early 19th century. Yet when the promised apocalypse fails to arrive on schedule, it is only the weak-willed who renounce the sacred dogma. The anointed remnant knows that the great disappointment was merely a test of their faith, so they redouble their adherence to the sacred text, whether the author is St. John the Divine or Ayn Rand. The refusal of the world to end on October 22, 1844 may have caused some disenchantment among the Millerites (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Millerism) [16], but more than a century and a half later, the Left Behind series of apocalyptic novels (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Left_Behind) [17] has sold over 65 million copies (more than sales of Merriam-Webster dictionaries). In like fashion, the complete failure during the last 30 years of tax cuts for the wealthy to increase revenue, kick-start economic growth, or help the middle class has not dented the faith of the true believers -- nor has it reduced the personal wealth of hucksters like Karl Rove, Grover Norquist, or Dick Armey, who profitably dispense economic snake oil to the rubes wholesale.

As the GOP narrowed and hardened its dogma, the affluent, educated suburbs drifted away from the Church of Reagan, leaving the organization to an increasingly less educated, southern, rural, and downscale white voting base (needless to say, the executive wing of the party is decidedly not downscale in its personal finances; they know, just as surely as L. Ron Hubbard knew, that there is gold to be mined from the suckers). The slide among both voters and elected officials has been frighteningly steep since 2008. Compared to the current crop (http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2013/01/animal-house/309189/) [18] of congressional GOP freshmen and sophomores, even George W. Bush looks like Henry Cabot Lodge. The party of Abraham Lincoln (a genuine architect of popular enlightenment through his establishment of land grant colleges) has degenerated into Scientology for rednecks who think embryology, evolutionary biology, and geology are lies from the pit of hell (http://articles.latimes.com/2012/oct/07/nation/la-na-nn-paul-broun-evolution-hell-20121007) [19].

The deeper causes of this lunacy lie beyond the GOP, for the party is a symptom of a peculiar American sociology as much as the Republican Party is a cause of many of the political ills we face. One suspects the real cause is ultimately a confluence of long-term historical trends. The 40-year-long deindustrialization of the country and the associated weakening of upward mobility for blue-collar Americans are significant factors. Along with deindustrialization came the catastrophic decline of industrial unions (http://www.amazon.com/Stayin-Alive-1970s-Working-Class/dp/1595587071/ref=sr_1_fkmr0_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1361072158&sr=1-1-fkmr0&keywords=cowley+stayin+alive) [20], which had once been a secular political outlet for constructive action and social assimilation for workers. The symbiosis of politics and religion in American life, a phenomenon almost unheard of in other advanced democracies these days, infused many politicians with a taste for self-righteousness and apocalyptic brinksmanship that are fatal to a system designed for separation of powers, compromise, and moderation. Finally, the Cold War lasted too long, and left a permanent garrison state; it also left a paranoid world view that demands enemies foreign and domestic. If the monolithic world Communist conspiracy is no longer with us, the Muslim caliphate will serve nicely in its stead. If there is no longer an internal Red menace boring from within, there is a secret Muslim poised to become CIA director.

Contrary to some observers (http://www.theamericanconservative.com/articles/is-the-gop-still-a-national-party/) [21], I do not believe the GOP is finished as a national party. It is too well entrenched in too many state legislatures due to gerrymandering. In turn, the state legislatures can gerrymander congressional districts thoroughly enough so that it is unlikely Republicans will lose control of the House at least until the census of 2020. Dixie and the Tornado Belt are prone to send candidates of the intellectual caliber and world view of James Inhofe (http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/James_Inhofe) [22] to the Senate for the foreseeable future, thus assuring a veto over legislation via the filibuster. The voting base itself, endlessly stoked by talk radio and Fox News, thrives on its martyr-like self-image as a persecuted remnant of Real Americans; and all the would-be messiahs they adore are Republicans, not third party candidates. There is also just too much money to be made by hucksters, so it is doubtful that the GOP will go the way of the Whigs. And, who knows, another national catastrophe like 9/11 or an asset collapse could once again put them at the helm of the country to summon the demons lurking in the national id.

http://www.alternet.org/news-amp-politics/former-republican-how-gop-turned-racket-ripping-vulnerable-americans

boutons_deux

02-20-2013, 04:43 PM

Secretive Donors Trust Pumps Far More Money Into Climate Denial And Inaction Than Kochs And Exxon Mobil Combined (http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2013/02/19/1611441/secretive-donors-trust-pumps-far-more-money-into-climate-denial-and-inaction-than-kochs-and-exxon-mobil-combined/)

According to Goldenberg, the total contributions of Donors Trust from 2002 to 2010 dwarfs the amounts (http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2013/feb/14/funding-climate-change-denial-thinktanks-network) given by Exxon Mobil or even the Koch Foundation:

By 2010, the dark money amounted to $118m distributed to 102 think tanks or action groups which have a record of denying the existence of a human factor in climate change, or opposing environmental regulations.

The money flowed to Washington thinktanks embedded in Republican party politics, obscure policy forums in Alaska and Tennessee, contrarian scientists at Harvard and lesser institutions, even to buy up DVDs of a film attacking Al Gore.

http://thinkprogress.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/02/Graphic-climate-denial-fu-001.png

Finally, in the case of Donors Trust at least, there is complete anonymity (http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2013/feb/14/funding-climate-change-denial-thinktanks-network) for contributors:

“The funding of the denial machine is becoming increasingly invisible to public scrutiny. It’s also growing. Budgets for all these different groups are growing,” said Kert Davies, research director of Greenpeace, which compiled the data on funding of the anti-climate groups using tax records.

“These groups are increasingly getting money from sources that are anonymous or untraceable. There is no transparency, no accountability for the money. There is no way to tell who is funding them,” Davies said.

Donors Trust has been dedicating (http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2013/feb/15/media-campaign-windfarms-conservatives) more of its resources to the relatively young Franklin Centre for Government and Public Integrity, marking a strategic shift away from activism centered in Washington, D.C., and towards efforts to scrap climate policy at the individual state level.

http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2013/02/19/1611441/secretive-donors-trust-pumps-far-more-money-into-climate-denial-and-inaction-than-kochs-and-exxon-mobil-combined/

boutons_deux

02-20-2013, 04:45 PM

How The Financial Sector Sucks $635 Billion Every Year From The Real Economy (http://thinkprogress.org/economy/2012/12/06/1291541/how-the-financial-sector-sucks-635-billion-every-year-from-the-real-economy/)

Before the Great Recession, the financial sector had consistently been eating up a greater and greater share of the economy. In 2007, it accounted for a whopping 40 percent of corporate profits (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/06/29/AR2010062901578.html). Before 1950, the financial sector made up less than 3 percent of GDP; now it makes up more than 8 percent (http://thinkprogress.org/economy/2011/12/14/389487/financial-sector-gdp-recession/).

According to a new report from Demos, the financial sector siphons off $635 billion annually (http://www.demos.org/publication/cracks-pipeline-restoring-efficiency-wall-street-and-value-main-street) in funds that otherwise might go to productive uses, rather than flipping financial assets back and forth:

In recent years, the financial sector share of aggregate GDP has been in the range of 8.3%, an increase from the historic level of 4.1%. By inferring that the historical increase in financial sector share of GDP is attributable to the value diverted from capital intermediation, the excessive wealth transfer to the financial sector is in the range of $635 billion per year. In terms of capital investment loss, one would apply a multiplier to the annual wealth transfer figure since recovery of the annual cost to the capital intermediation system would enable greater upfront investment by businesses and governments.

Research has found that a large financial sector can actually impede economic growth. An International Monetary Fund study showed that “at high levels of financial depth, a larger financial sector is associated with less growth (http://thinkprogress.org/economy/2012/07/09/513371/study-finance-impede-growth/). Our findings show that there can be ‘too much’ finance.” Currently, the six biggest banks hold assets equal to 60 percent of America’s GDP (http://thinkprogress.org/economy/2011/10/07/338887/1-facts-biggest-banks/).

http://thinkprogress.org/economy/2012/12/06/1291541/how-the-financial-sector-sucks-635-billion-every-year-from-the-real-economy/

boutons_deux

02-25-2013, 06:15 AM

Not-So-Smart ALEC: The Right Wing vs. Renewable Energy

Yves here. This post is useful not simply for its discussion of the economics of green energy but also for showing how think tanks fabricate findings to support their political message.

By Frank Ackerman, senior economist at Synapse Energy Economics, and a senior research fellow at GDAE at Tufts University.

Renewable energy is clean, sustainable, non-polluting, reduces our dependence on fossil fuels, improves the health of communities surrounding power plants, and protects the natural environment. Who could be against it?

Answer: The American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC), a lobbying group that is active in drafting and advocating controversial state legislation. They’re not just interested in energy: in recent years ALEC has supported Arizona’s restrictive immigration legislation, the “Stand Your Ground” gun laws associated with the shooting death of Trayvon Martin, and voter identification laws proposed in many states. ALEC’s priorities for 2013 include making it harder to bring product liability suits against manufacturers of defective products, ending traditional pension plans for public employees, promoting the diversion of public education funds into private schools and on-line education schemes, and supporting resistance to “Obamacare” health policies.

When it comes to energy, ALEC wants to speed up the permitting process for mines, oil and gas wells, and power plants – and to eliminate all state requirements for the use of renewable energy. The latter goal is packaged as the “Electricity Freedom Act.” In numerous states, ALEC has used studies by Suffolk University’s Beacon Hill Institute (BHI) to claim that the “Electricity Freedom Act” will free ratepayers from the allegedly immense costs and job losses of renewable energy standards.

In a recent study for the Civil Society Institute, my colleagues and I at Synapse Energy Economics analyzed the ALEC studies of the costs of renewable energy. Our report found fundamental flaws in both the energy data and the economic modeling used by BHI.

University of Arizona economist Alberta Charney has examined STAMP’s findings for her state. Charney compared three models’ analyses of a combined $1 billion increase in state taxes and $1 billion increase in state government spending. The IMPLAN and REMI models, widely used to study employment impacts, both projected that Arizona would gain about 8,000 net new jobs from this package; STAMP estimated a net loss of about 9,000 jobs. Charney attributed this to the biased assumptions underlying STAMP’s treatment of government spending and taxes.

It’s no wonder that ALEC favors BHI’s economic model: STAMP has never seen a government program that it liked or a tax cut that it disliked. Those who want an objective analysis of the costs and benefits of renewable energy, however, will need to look elsewhere.

http://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2013/02/not-so-smart-alec-the-right-wing-vs-renewable-energy.html?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+NakedCapitalism+%28naked+capi talism%29

VRWC-controled, financed stink tanks cranked out biased "studies" with absolutely wrong bullshit to support the enrichment and protection of the VRWC.

boutons_deux

02-28-2013, 03:04 PM

Since 2011, 105 Wage Supression Bills Have Been Introduced In State Legislatures (http://thinkprogress.org/economy/2013/02/28/1653171/wage-suppression-bills/)

Since January 2011, legislators from 31 states have introduced 105 bills reflecting ALEC’s “model” legislation designed to suppress the wages of low-paid workers in the United States — these bills aimed to repeal state minimum wage laws, reduce minimum wage rates for youth and tipped workers, weaken overtime compensation policies, and prevent local governments from establishing living wage ordinances. Of these 105 bills, 67 were directly sponsored or co-*‐sponsored by ALEC-*‐affiliated legislators from 25 different states. [...]

While only 11 of the 67 ALEC-affiliated wage suppression bills were ultimately passed into law, the cumulative impact of the 105 bills that have been introduced over the past two years remains significant. The persistent introduction of legislation to weaken or repeal wage standards drains the political momentum behind improving wages and workplace standards for low-paid workers by forcing a defensive fight over protecting the standards that already exist. As retail and fast-food workers in New York, Chicago, and cities across the country take collective action to improve wages in the nation’s fastest-growing low-wage industries — and as dozens of legislatures consider new proposals to increase minimum wages this year — ALEC’s wage suppression agenda serves as a significant source of inertia undermining the current push for better wages and workplace standards.

http://thinkprogress.org/economy/2013/02/28/1653171/wage-suppression-bills/

boutons_deux

02-28-2013, 03:08 PM

How AT&T Is Planning to Rob Americans of an Open Public Telco Network

AT&T has a sneaky plan.

It wants to exploit a loophole in the Federal Communications Commission (FCC)’s rules to kill what remains of the public telecommunications network — and all of the consumer protections that go with it. It’s the final step in AT&T’s decade-long effort to end all telecommunications regulation, and the simplicity of the plan highlights a dysfunction unique to the American regulatory system.

AT&T and other big telecom carriers want to replace the portions of their networks that still use circuit-switching technology with equipment that uses Internet Protocol (IP) to route voice and data traffic. But because the FCC previously decided that it has no direct authority over communications networks that use IP, this otherwise routine technological upgrade could lead to a state of total deregulation.

We are already living with the consequences of the FCC IP decision: an uncompetitive broadband market (http://www.wired.com/opinion/2012/10/bandwidth-race-plan/). Our broadband providers enjoy the kinds of high profit margins (http://www.technologyreview.com/news/510176/when-will-the-rest-of-us-get-google-fiber/) that would make a 19th-century robber baron blush. And our ability to use these networks to communicate openly and freely is under constant assault (http://www.savetheinternet.com/blog/2012/07/16/censorship-freedom). Meanwhile, consumers in other countries (http://www.nytimes.com/2013/01/24/opinion/how-to-get-high-speed-internet-to-all-americans.html?_r=0) not only have better access (http://www.wired.com/opinion/2012/12/hey-dont-forget-about-internet-access-in-the-u-s/), but they pay far less for far better services.

But there are large portions of the public telecom network that don’t use IP, and that are still subject to varying degrees of regulatory oversight — including traditional landlines, alarm circuits, and many of the “special access” connections that carry voice and data traffic from cellular towers.

Now AT&T wants approval to convert all of this to an all-IP system. And because of the FCC’s flawed view of IP, this move would jettison all of the public interest protections that govern common carriers (http://www.economist.com/node/16106593) like AT&T. (The centuries-old “common carriage” concept applied to entities like railroads, shippers, and telecoms that transport goods often using public rights-of-way; since these functions are critical to commerce, common carriers are usually regulated even if they don’t operate in monopoly (http://www.wired.com/opinion/2012/10/antitrust-is-supposed-to-protect-consumers-not-competitors/) markets).

The immediate consumer impact of AT&T’s proposal would be swift and severe:

Higher prices.Remember what happened after California partially deregulated AT&T in 2006? The price of some basic voice services tripled (http://www.sfgate.com/technology/dotcommentary/article/AT-amp-T-rates-skyrocket-since-deregulation-4204388.php). AT&T wants to make this happen everywhere. Also, the ability of many smaller wireless carriers to offer competitively priced services is based on specific regulations that prevent special access providers like AT&T and Verizon from charging exorbitant rates.These protections against monopoly prices will disappear if AT&T gets its way.

Service disruptions.Brinksmanship between AT&T and smaller wireless carriers that use the public network to transport their own traffic would lead to telecom blackouts. Just look at how cable customers are held hostage in carriage spats between cable providers and content owners. The rules that require carriers to get networks back online after outages would also be history if the FCC approves AT&T’s petition.

Inequality and discrimination. Seniors, low-income families, and rural residents — all of whom are more likely to rely (http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nhis/earlyrelease/wireless201212.pdf) on fixed-line voice services or dial-up internet access (http://www.esa.doc.gov/sites/default/files/reports/documents/exploringthedigitalnation-computerandinternetuseathome.pdf) — would especially feel the pinch. Carriers that are now required to offer universal service will be free to redline poor neighborhoods and disconnect consumers at will. Elderly grandmothers living on fixed incomes rely on rate-regulated landlines to stay connected, but they need not worry: AT&T has an expensive wireless plan they can purchase instead.

http://www.wired.com/opinion/2013/02/the-latest-sneaky-plan-to-rob-americans-of-a-public-telco-network/

boutons_deux

03-15-2013, 10:56 AM

In screwed news... ALEC is behind a new bill in Tennessee, which blocks public unions from participating in the political process.

House Bill 913 forbids the Tennessee State Employees Union from using dues money for anything but collective bargaining, enforcing union contracts, or assisting members with grievance procedures.

The plan is especially insulting to public employees considering state employee collective bargaining is prohibited in the state, and Republicans enacted a law last year, which eliminated the word “grievance” from state legislation.

The United States Chamber of Commerce is pushing the measure, which was written by the American Legislative Exchange Council, and it's being sponsored by State House Republican Chair Glen Casada.

The GOP got access to huge sums of corporate cash through Citizens United, and now they want to make sure Democrats can't compete in campaign fund raising. Leave it to ALEC to figure out how to destroy unions and steal elections all in one fell swoop.

http://truth-out.org/news/item/15129-on-the-news-with-thom-hartmann-obama-administration-wants-to-hand-over-access-to-your-financial-records-to-law-enforcement-agencies-and-more

Corporate-Americans can have no restrictions on their "free speech as money", but ALEC/USCoC intends to the deny Human-Americans' free speech.

Fuck the neo-Confederacy, which is just like the old Confederacy.

boutons_deux

03-21-2013, 06:29 AM

How ALEC Has Undermined Food Safety By Pushing ‘Ag Gag’ Laws Across The Country

Two more states are considering bills that would prevent whistleblowers from exposing cruel or unsafe practices in factory farms, joining five other states with similar “ag gag” bills. If passed, the pending legislation in Tennessee and California would require that evidence of animal abuse be turned over to law enforcement authorities within 24 to 48 hours.

Such bills are touted — and, in some cases, sponsored — by agriculture industry officials as a lawful attempt to stop animal cruelty in farming operations. But they actually undermine advocates’ work to develop animal cruelty or food safety cases against the agricultural industry.

And it turns out the real basis for the bills has its origins in the American Legislative Exchange Council, a conservative think tank that has been behind such legislative pushes as “stand your ground” gun laws, voter ID laws and laws mandating states teach climate change denial in schools. Several of the lawmakers who are pushing ag gag laws have agriculture industry ties and ties to ALEC — nearly one in four Iowa lawmakers who voted for Iowa’s ag gag law, for example, are members of ALEC.

In 2002, ALEC introduced a piece of mock legislation titled the Animal and Ecological Terrorism Act, which labels people who interfere with any animal operations “terrorists” and made it illegal for anyone to enter “an animal or research facility to take pictures by photograph, video camera, or other means with the intent to commit criminal activities or defame the facility or its owner.” ALEC began pushing the legislation in 2004, and several of the bills currently being considered borrow language from AETA — Indiana’s bill aims to keep farming operations “free from the threat of terrorism and interference from unauthorized third persons,”

http://thinkprogress.org/health/2013/03/19/1741691/alec-food-safety-ag-gag/ (http://thinkprogress.org/health/2013/03/19/1741691/alec-food-safety-ag-gag/)

ALEC is right up there with Monsanto as 100% evil, 100% anti-Human-American.

boutons_deux

03-29-2013, 04:20 PM

Kochs, Chamber of Commerce Bankroll Judges’ Seminars On Corporate Crime And Capitalism (http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2013/03/29/1797141/kochs-chamber-of-commerce-bankroll-judges-seminars-on-corporate-crime-and-capitalism/)

The Louisiana federal judge overseeing the civil trial over BP’s alleged gross negligence in the 2010 Deepwater Horizon incident attended a seminar in 2009 called “Criminalization of Corporate Conduct” sponsored by the American Petroleum Institute, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and 13 other funders. In 2011, that same judge dismissed a wrongful-death claim in a suit brought against ExxonMobil and Chevron USA for exposure to radioactive substances. Another judge who attended that seminar voted in a 2-1 holding to reject emissions caps that both the American Petroleum Institute and the Chamber had opposed in briefs in the case.

In all, 11 percent of U.S. federal judges attended all-expense paid seminars whose top contributors included conservative foundations and major corporations (http://www.publicintegrity.org/2013/03/28/12368/corporations-pro-business-nonprofits-foot-bill-judicial-seminars) between 2008 and 2012, according to an analysis by the Center for Public
Integrity. Sponsors often pay for participants airfare hotel stays and meals. Tim Meko reports:

Leading the list of sponsors of the 109 seminars identified by the Center were the conservative Charles G. Koch Charitable Foundation, The Searle Freedom Trust, also a supporter of conservative causes, ExxonMobil Corp., Shell Oil Co., pharmaceutical giant Pfizer Inc. and State Farm Insurance Cos. Each were sponsors of 54 seminars.

Other top sponsors included the conservative Lynde and Harry Bradley Foundation (51), Dow Chemical Co. (47), AT&T Inc. (45) and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce (46), according to the Center’s analysis.

It is not just the sponsorship of these seminars that creates at least the appearance of a conflict. Many of these seminars are outwardly devoted to addressing corporations’ liability and/or economic theories. For example, a seminar called “Corporations and the Limits of Criminal Law.” was funded by AT&T, BB&T, BP America, Cigna, Coca-Cola, Dow Chemical, FedEx Corp. and others. Another called “The Moral Foundations of Capitalism” was funded by that same group of sponsors and the Chamber of Commerce. A host of others are generally themed around economics and tort liability.

Outcry about these all-expense paid judicial education programs was louder before 2007 (http://www.nytimes.com/2006/01/20/opinion/20fri4.html?_r=0), when the body that oversees judges started requiring judges and seminar hosts to disclose information about their programs. As a result of these disclosures and the work of the Center for Public Integrity, we now know that conservative groups and corporations with a stake in major litigation are bankrolling these junkets. The new rule, however, does not require disclosure of how much each entity contributed.

Aside from contributions to particular seminars, the Center’s reporting traces millions of dollars more in contributions to two schools that host the bulk the majority of these seminars. It found that ExxonMobil reported “giving $20,000 to George Mason specifically for its judicial training program. The oil company gave an additional $30,000 to the university’s Law & Economics Center, which hosts the conferences. Between 2003 and 2007, the ExxonMobil Foundation gave the think tank $150,000.” The Charles G. Koch Charitable Foundation has also contributed millions to George Mason University, and other foundations and corporations contributed hundreds of thousands of dollars to George Mason’s judicial education program and a similar program at Northwestern University. One major sponsor of these programs known for its corporate-influenced program ceased holding seminars on 2011. (http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2011/10/19/347717/notorious-corporate-junkets-shop-finally-ends-junkets-for-judges-program/)

Not every seminar fit into this category. The Open Society Foundation and the Robina Institute, both of which have social justice missions, sponsored one seminar — on human rights and international law. CPI has an excellent tool for viewing all contributions by seminar, judge, sponsor, and several other factors here (http://www.publicintegrity.org/2013/03/21/12349/find-judge).

http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2013/03/29/1797141/kochs-chamber-of-commerce-bankroll-judges-seminars-on-corporate-crime-and-capitalism/

boutons_deux

04-05-2013, 09:09 AM

Powerful Right-Wing Groups Are on a Stealth Mission to Make America Look Like Texas

“You may not have heard about it,” DeMint continued. “We’ve been cultivating bright ideas, building coalitions and working with others like the State Policy Network to make these things happen.” SPN is a nonprofit that nurtures conservative think tanks in all fifty states; its president, Tracie Sharp, was sitting near the front at the event and was warmly acknowledged by the speakers several times.
Other conservative leaders have spoken even more glowingly of the way that state-level political investments can shape the future of conservatism. “We have, us fellow warriors for liberty, a rendezvous with destiny,” said Henry Olsen, an American Enterprise Institute vice president, at a meeting of conservative think tank leaders last November at the Ritz-Carlton resort on Amelia Island, Florida. “Reagan’s generation did too, and their task was to plant the tree of liberty in the garden of Roosevelt. Our task is to protect that tree against the gales and gusts of Hurricane Barack, and to help nurture that tree so that it grows into a grove and forest.”

At the same event, Grover Norquist proclaimed that with SPN’s support, Republican governors might “turn their states into Texas or Hong Kong”—laboratories of the free market. “It’s a wonderful opportunity,” he added.

These media-savvy organizations—which frequently employ former journalists to churn out position papers, news articles, investigations and social media content with a hard-right slant—bolster the pro-corporate lobbying efforts of the American Legislative Exchange Council. Like ALEC, State Policy Network groups provide an ideological veil for big businesses seeking to advance radical deregulatory policy goals. Interviewed at the San Francisco event this past January, SPN’s Sharp maintained that her organization is loosely connected and has no coordinated agenda. But if the last four years are any guide, conservative think tanks are on the march, working from a similar script to tear down organized labor and promote extreme right-wing policies in state capitols from Alaska to Florida.

Financial support for SPN-affiliated think tanks has increased by tens of millions of dollars over the last four years, disclosures show. In areas with the most concentrated investments, particularly the Midwestern states referred to in DeMint’s speech, budgets for state-level political groups have doubled, outpacing their counterparts on the left. Without control of the White House, corporations anxious to push back against taxes and regulations, along with a cadre of wealthy right-wing donors, have invested in these state-level think tanks, partisan media outlets, training institutes and online advocacy efforts. Some existing organizations have been expanded, and others founded to fill what conservative planners viewed as a tactical void.

Americans for Prosperity, known largely for its affiliation with the billionaire Koch brothers and for organizing Tea Party rallies, is part of this state-focused spending spree. The group has opened new local chapters or more than tripled the funding for existing chapters in key states. This increased spending has helped Americans for Prosperity recruit conservative activists and deploy them during contentious policy debates. Audit reports collected by the New York State Attorney General’s office show that Americans for Prosperity went from spending about $4.9 million on state chapter activities in 2009 to $10.6 million in 2011, the last available disclosure. Those figures do not necessarily account for the television, radio and Internet advertising purchased by the group when lobbying on state policy issues (which has reportedly reached over $4 million in places like Wisconsin), or the ubiquitous bus tours it has sponsored around the country.

Under Sharp’s leadership, State Policy Network has grown, opening new think tanks (now numbering fifty-nine) and forging close relations with ALEC, which brings together conservative state lawmakers and corporate lobbyists to draft “model legislation.” In 2009, ALEC gave Sharp an award to thank her for “getting SPN members more involved” with the organization. “This special acknowledgement belongs to those who have put in dedicated time and energy through ALEC,” said Sharp, who accepted the award onstage with lobbyists from Verizon and Altria.

http://www.alternet.org/print/powerful-right-wing-groups-are-stealth-mission-make-america-look-texas

boutons_deux

04-05-2013, 09:10 AM

State Policy Network, an umbrella coordinating ALEC, Heritage, Heartland and others

http://my.firedoglake.com/cgibson/2013/04/04/state-policy-network/

boutons_deux

04-05-2013, 09:12 AM

ALEC-Sponsored Bill To Repeal North Carolina’s Renewable Energy Standard Narrowly Passes Out Of Committee

Yesterday, the North Carolina House Commerce Committee narrowly passed a bill that would repeal the state’s successful renewable energy standard. Currently, 29 states and the District of Columbia have adopted Renewable Energy Standard’s (RES) to encourage electric utilities to expand the power they generate from renewable sources such as solar and wind.

In 2007, North Carolina became the first state in the Southeast to adopt such a standard — Senate Bill 3 passed both chambers with overwhelming bipartisan support and requires state utilities to supply 12.5 percent of renewable energy by 2021. Since then, clean energy companies have generated billions in revenue and have created thousands of in-state jobs — all while reducing pollution and saving ratepayers money.

http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2013/04/04/1824171/alec-sponsored-bill-to-repeal-north-carolinas-renewable-energy-standard-narrowly-passes-out-of-committee/

boutons_deux

04-05-2013, 09:16 AM

Efforts to Deliver "Kill Shot" to Paid Sick Leave Tied to ALEC

Walker's Anti-Paid Sick Day Law in Wisconsin Brought to ALEC

In May of 2011, Governor Walker pushed Senate Bill 23 to override a Milwaukee ordinance providing for paid sick days. It appeared to be the first paid sick days preemption bill passed in the country.

Milwaukee's ordinance specified that paid sick days could be used if a worker is ill or needs to care for a sick child, and passed via referendum with over 70 percent of the popular vote in 2008. The 2011 state law not only steamrolled local democratic will by overriding a law passed overwhelmingly in a popular vote, but also repealed the rights of working people to get medical treatment they need, care for their children, and help safeguard the health of their families, coworkers and customers.

A few months later, at ALEC's August 2011 Annual Meeting in New Orleans, the bill was brought to the Labor and Business Regulation Subcommittee of the ALEC Commerce, Insurance and Economic Development Task Force.

Meeting attendees were given complete copies of Wisconsin's 2011 Senate Bill 23 (now Wisconsin Act 16) as a model for state override. ALEC's Labor and Business Regulation Subcommittee at the time was co-chaired by YUM! Brands, Inc., which owns Kentucky Fried Chicken, Pizza Hut and Taco Bell.

Legislators attending the Labor and Business Regulation Subcommittee meeting were also handed a target list and map of state and local paid sick leave policies prepared by ALEC member the National Restaurant Association.

In Wisconsin, the state chapter of the National Restaurant Association lobbied for Senate Bill 23 to repeal Milwaukee's sick days ordinance, as did the local branch of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, an ALEC member.

http://truth-out.org/news/item/15527-efforts-to-deliver-kill-shot-to-paid-sick-leave-tied-to-alec

ALEC, financed by United Corporations of America, works relentlessly to fuck over Human-Americans and the environment, to the benefit of UCA, 1%ers.

boutons_deux

04-05-2013, 09:42 AM

6 Charts That Show How Conservative Politics Are Destroying America

In each of the charts below look for the year 1981, when Reagan took office.

Conservative policies transformed [3] the United States from the largest creditor nation to the largest debtor nation in just a few years, and it has only gotten worse since then:

http://www.alternet.org/print/economy/6-charts-show-how-conservative-politics-are-destroying-america

boutons_deux

04-05-2013, 08:15 PM

Conservative Groups Dominate Efforts To Convince Supreme Court To Hear Cases

conservative groups utterly dominate the game of seeking to influence which cases the Supreme Court hears. Although the Supreme Court receives about 9,000-10,000 petitions a year seeking their review of a case, only a tiny fraction of these petitions are granted — this year, for example, the Court will only hear 77 cases with full briefing and oral argument. So often the most decision the justices make in a case is the decision to hear it in the first place. There are many views that five justices would support if forced to express their opinion, but that is no guarantee that those views will someday make their way into a Supreme Court opinion.

In light of this fact, conservative organizations have clearly made a significant investment in trying to make sure cases that favor their views catch the justices eye. Eight of the ten most frequent filers of amicus briefs seeking to influence which cases are heard by the Court are solidly on the right:

http://thinkprogress.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/04/amici-chart-e1365174168394.png

There are a number of possible explanations for why conservatives completely dominate this area of Supreme Court litigation, the most obvious of which is that massive corporations and right-wing billionaires simply have more money to throw at hiring lawyers with the skills and influence to convince the justices to take a case. Even relatively prosperous left-of-center groups, however, likely stay out of this game because of the Roberts Court’s conservatism. Indeed, the Chamber isn’t just the top filer of amicus briefs asking the Court to hear cases, the corporate lobbying group is also one of the most successful litigants — if not the most successful litigant — before the Supreme Court.

http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2013/04/05/1826781/conservative-groups-dominate-efforts-to-convince-supreme-court-to-hear-cases/

boutons_deux

04-12-2013, 07:41 AM

The puntive, inhumane VRWC War On Employees

Raise the minimum wage? Hell no, lets:

Abolish the Minimum Wage? It’s No Fantasy

The premise—Abolish the Minimum Wage—is far from the current mainstream debate. Since its creation in 1938, the minimum wage has been venerated. For years, public discussion has focused on raising it, and although such increases are a constant point of contention between Democrats and Republicans, people have rarely questioned the rule’s existence.

But the deregulation of government over the past 15 years, now coupled with the rise of an unforgiving libertarianism on the right, has allowed lawmakers to re-examine programs and policies that haven’t been touched for decades—the Glass-Steagall Act separating banks and investment firms as well as federal welfare are gone. Now Social Security (http://www.truthdig.com/report/item/abolish_the_minimum_wage_its_no_fantasy_20130408/#), Medicare, Medicaid and the minimum wage are threatened.

In the end, for people like Roberts and Dorn, it is not about the statistics. It is about vague ideas like liberty and justice. Unfettered capitalism would correct what is wrong, they say, if only barriers like regulation and taxes would disappear.

“The minimum wage,” Dorn said, “interferes with individual freedom and economic freedom.” :lol :lol :lol

http://www.truthdig.com/report/item/abolish_the_minimum_wage_its_no_fantasy_20130408/

and we see how taxpayers top up the Welfare Queen Walmart's shitty wages by $Bs/year with food stamps, Medicaid while Walmart pockets $10Bs/year in profits.

"Most of us don’t need legislation to protect us in the labor force.”"

oh yeah? he's just the garden-variety fucking libertarian ideological sociopath, like all the Randian assholes here. And I bet he doesn't pay his maid's health insurance while wanting to kill ACA entirely.

Bernstein with the killer bitch slap:

This “laissez faire market ideology,” Bernstein said, not only “trumps common sense and empirical evidence” but objectifies labor—people—who are treated like commodities when economists remain locked up in the ivory tower and look at society through a narrow lens. "

boutons_deux

04-16-2013, 05:12 PM

The Propaganda System That Has Helped Create a Permanent Overclass Is Over a Century in the MakingWhere there is the possibility of democracy, there is the inevitability of elite insecurity. All through its history, democracy has been under a sustained attack by elite interests, political, economic, and cultural. There is a simple reason for this: democracy – as in true democracy – places power with people. In such circumstances, the few who hold power become threatened. With technological changes in modern history, with literacy and education, mass communication, organization and activism, elites have had to react to the changing nature of society – locally and globally.

The Foundations of Social Control

The new industrial elite accumulated millions and even hundreds of millions by the end of the 19th century: Andrew Carnegie was worth roughly $300 million after he sold Carnegie Steel to J.P. Morgan in 1901, and by 1913, John D. Rockefeller was estimated to have a personal worth of $900 million. In the late 1880s, Rockefeller met Frederick T. Gates, a minister, educator, and administrator in the Baptist Church when they were negotiating the founding of a new university, which resulted with a pledge of $600,000 from Rockefeller to found the University of Chicago in 1889. At this time, Rockefeller hired Gates as his associate in charge of Rockefeller’s philanthropic ventures. Gates became central in inculcating the notion of “scientific benevolence” within Rockefeller’s philanthropies. As Gates wrote in his autobiography, “I gradually developed and introduced in all his charities the principle of scientific giving.” Gates advised Rockefeller to form a series of “self-perpetuating” philanthropies.

The circumstances in which the Rockefeller Foundation emerged are notable. In 1913, a coal strike began at a Colorado mine owned by the Rockefellers in the small mining town of Ludlow, where roughly 11,000 workers (mostly Greek, Italian, and Serbian immigrants) went on strike against the “feudal domination of their lives in towns completely controlled by the mining companies.” Repression quickly followed, culminating in what became known as the Ludlow Massacre in 1914, with the Rockefellers hiring the National Guard to attack the strikers and destroy their tent city, machine gunning the crowd and setting fire to tents, one of which was discovered to have housed eleven children and two women, all of whom were killed by the fire.

The Congressional Walsh Commission was founded to investigate the activities which led to violent labour repression at the Colorado Fuel & Iron Company in Ludlow, though the scope of the Commission was expanded to study philanthropic foundations themselves. The Commission’s founder, Frank P. Walsh, explained:

...the creation of the Rockefeller and other foundations was the beginning of an effort to perpetuate the present position of predatory wealth through the corruption of sources of public information... [and] that if not checked by legislation, these foundations will be used as instruments to change to form of government of the U.S. at a future date, and there is even a hint that there is a fear of a monarchy.

...

Through the educational system, the social sciences, philanthropic foundations, public relations, advertising, marketing, and the media, America and the industrialized states of the world developed a unique and complex system of social control and propaganda for the 20th century and into the 21st. It is imperative to recognize and understand this complex system if we are to challenge and change it.

http://www.alternet.org/media/propaganda-system-has-helped-create-permanent-overclass-over-century-making

The victory of the 1%/VRWC Class Warfare over the 99% is now so total even "(bogus) progressives" like Obama and Dems have simply quit fighting for the 99%, the Have-Nots

America is fucked and unfuckable.

boutons_deux

04-21-2013, 11:28 AM

Randian Kansas, with ALEC, epitomizes the VRWC/Repug war on employees

Kansas Bans Communities From Making Contractors Pay Prevailing Wages On Public Projects (http://thinkprogress.org/economy/2013/04/18/1887571/kansas-prevailing-wage-ban/)

On Tuesday, Kansas Governor Sam Brownback (R) signed (https://governor.ks.gov/frontpagenews/2013/04/16/governor-brownback-signs-31-bills-into-law-tuesday) a law aimed at prohibiting local (http://thinkprogress.org/economy/2013/04/18/1887571/kansas-prevailing-wage-ban/#) governments from requiring contractors to pay prevailing wages on public works projects:

“HB 2069 prohibits cities, counties, and local government units from using ordinances, resolutions, or law to require private employers to provide leave, benefits and higher compensation.”

Prevailing wage and living wage policies require employers receiving public funds to pay workers wages in line with the cost of living or industry standards of the community. Kansas’ new law prohibiting these measures will go into affect on July 1, and it leaves state and federal prevailing wage requirements in place, although Kansas repealed its state prevailing wage law in 1987 (http://www.bizjournals.com/kansascity/news/2013/04/17/kansas-bans-local-govt-prevailing-wage.html). Two counties, Sedgwick and Wyandotte, will have their local prevailing wage laws currently on the books overturned.

The law is also similar to prevailing wage repeal proposals that have been tied to (http://thinkprogress.org/economy/2013/03/13/1711511/how-alec-is-fueling-efforts-to-block-paid-sick-leave-and-other-pro-worker-policies/) the controversial business-front group the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC). Since 2011, 105 bills “aimed to repeal or weaken core wage standards at the local level” have been introduced in 31 state legislatures, and of those 67 were “directly sponsored or co-sponsored by ALEC-affiliated legislators.” A model of the ALEC repeal proposal is available (http://www.alec.org/model-legislation/prevailing-wage-repeal-act/) on its website. Other states, including neighboring Missouri (http://thinkprogress.org/economy/2013/02/19/1611501/missouri-republicans-offer-slew-of-union-busting-proposals/), have also seen attempts to overturn prevailing wage laws part of larger efforts to undermine labor rights.

http://thinkprogress.org/economy/2013/04/18/1887571/kansas-prevailing-wage-ban/

boutons_deux

04-22-2013, 12:37 PM

Koch Brothers Plan to Buy up Eight Major Newspapers
The billionaire oil moguls Charles and David Koch are pushing ahead with their plans (http://thinkprogress.org/media/2013/03/12/1708561/report-koch-brothers-looking-to-purchase-several-major-american-newspapers/) to purchase several news outlets across the United States, according to a detailed report in the New York Times (http://www.nytimes.com/2013/04/21/business/media/koch-brothers-making-play-for-tribunes-newspapers.html?pagewanted=all) on Sunday.

At a recent seminar in Aspen, one attendee reported that the brothers — infamous for bankrolling conservative candidates and causes — put forth the question of, “How do we make sure our voice is being heard?” Their answer, it seems, will be to purchase the entire Tribune company, which constitutes a huge swath of American print media:

The papers, valued at roughly $623 million, would be a financially diminutive deal for Koch Industries, the energy and manufacturing conglomerate based in Wichita, Kan., with annual revenue of about $115 billion.
Politically, however, the papers could serve as a broader platform for the Kochs’ laissez-faire ideas. The Los Angeles Times is the fourth-largest paper in the country, and The Tribune is No. 9, and others are in several battleground states, including two of the largest newspapers in Florida, The Orlando Sentinel and The Sun Sentinel in Fort Lauderdale. A deal could include Hoy, the second-largest Spanish-language daily newspaper, which speaks to the pivotal Hispanic demographic.

http://www.alternet.org/media/koch-brothers-plan-buy-eight-major-newspapers

Class Warriors on the rampage.

boutons_deux

04-24-2013, 05:35 AM

Forced arbitration by a corporate-lacky abritrator, screwing away investor power of class actions, as encouraged by the JINO anti-Human-American Repug SCOTUS.

"Charles Schwab & Co., Inc. — a well-known investment advisor (http://action.citizen.org/p/dia/action/public/?action_KEY=12178#) holding more than $2 trillion in assets for millions of investors — is trying to eviscerate its customers’ rights.
In the fine print of Schwab’s terms of service, there’s a forced arbitration clause and a ban on consumers joining together in class (http://action.citizen.org/p/dia/action/public/?action_KEY=12178#) actions."

http://action.citizen.org/p/dia/action/public/?action_KEY=12178

boutons_deux

04-24-2013, 04:55 PM

War on Employees

Hospitals Across America Lead A Profit-Driven Fight Against More Labor Protections For Nurses (http://thinkprogress.org/health/2013/04/24/1912321/hospitals-nursing-staffing-ratios/)Nurses are fighting to improve hospital standards (http://www.kaiserhealthnews.org/Stories/2013/April/24/nurse-staffing-laws.aspx) and patient care by pushing for mandated minimum staffing levels for nurses in hospitals. The logic — which has been reflected in reality — goes that, with more nurses per patient, the better and more personal level of care Americans will receive. But as nurses’ unions take their push for legislation establishing these standards nationwide, they’ve come up against a formidable foe: hospital administrators who are balking at the price tag.

“Hospitals right now are run like businesses and they’re focused on the short-term bottom line,” said Jeff Breslin, president of the Michigan Nurses Association, a union backing a minimum staffing bill in the Michigan legislature. If the bill becomes law, he said, “it doesn’t matter what part of the state you’re in, you can be assured you’re going to have adequate nursing care whatever place you’re going into.” [...]

Today, only California requires all of its hospitals to maintain a minimum nurse-to-patient ratio. If a hospital sees a surge of patients due to something unexpected, like a car crash or an outbreak, it still must meet the minimum ratio. The only time a hospital can go under the minimum ratio is during what the statute calls a “healthcare emergency.”

Jolee Cochran, a registered oncology nurse who has been working at Cedars-Sinai Medical Center in Los Angeles for 26 years, said the law has made her job more manageable. Before, she said, it wasn’t uncommon for a nurse to be responsible for seven patients at a time. Now, it would be a violation of the law for her to have more than five patients under her care.

Cochran said patients in her hospital are much sicker than they used to be and require much more complex care. “I can’t imagine having more than five patients with one nurse, with the type of patients we have now,” she said.

http://thinkprogress.org/health/2013/04/24/1912321/hospitals-nursing-staffing-ratios/

http://thinkprogress.org/health/2013/04/24/1912321/hospitals-nursing-staffing-ratios/

boutons_deux

04-30-2013, 03:45 PM

New Paper Links Food Price Inflation to the Power of “Agro-Trader Nexus” (ie, Monsantos + Cargills) (http://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2013/04/new-paper-links-food-price-inflation-to-the-power-of-agro-trader-nexus-ie-monsantos-cargills.html)

Joseph Baines’s new article, “Food Price Inflation as Redistribution: Towards a New Analysis of Corporate Power in the World Food System” (http://bnarchives.yorku.ca/359/02/20130422_baines_food_price_inflation_as_redistribu tion_aam.pdf) is a must read if you care to understand how major corporations exercise hidden influence on our daily lives. The paper is so chock full of information and history that a summary does not do justice to its arguments, so I hope you’ll read it in full.

Surprisingly, conventional wisdom in academia is that retailers, meaning supermarkets, are the most powerful players in the food system. Baines argues that that view is out of date. While grocers gained influence from the 1960s through 1990s, which was reflected in capturing a larger share of the total profits in the food supply chain, that changed around 2000, and their profit share has fallen since then. The turn of the millennium also marks the onset of food price inflation. Baines argues that the change in dominant players and in pricing dynamics are linked, and reflect the rise of a new constellation:

My main contention is that since the late 1990s the dominant grain traders have forged close linkages with major agribusinesses. These links have given rise to a power constellation that I call the Agro-Trader nexus. The nexus’s main impact on the world food system since the early 2000s comes in the form of its facilitation and championing of the wasteful absorption of grain and oilseeds into the heavily subsidised first- generation biofuels sector. The soaring production of biofuels has contributed to a dramatic upswing in accumulation for the firms of the Agro-Trader nexus. However, the biofuels boom has been less beneficial for other firms operating in food supply chains and it has pushed millions of people into conditions of acute undernourishment.

These are the major types of players that Baines identifies in this Alien v. Predator struggle for dominance:

http://www.nakedcapitalism.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/04/Screen-shot-2013-04-30-at-12.07.22-AM.png

http://www.nakedcapitalism.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/04/Screen-shot-2013-04-30-at-12.18.26-AM.png

The paper describes how these two sectors have combined forces through joint ventures and more important, for working together to create what Veblen called “institutional wastage,” or scarcity in the midst of potential abundance. One way has been to encourage greater production of meat, since eating higher up the food chain requires more grain. But the biggest culprit is biofuels:

It was primarily the rapid development of the first-generation biofuels sector in the 2000s that cata- lysed the inflationary shifts that have recently reverberated throughout the world food system. The Agro-Trader nexus was at the forefront of this biofuels boom. Indeed, the Renessen venture between Cargill and Monsanto sought to engineer and patent varieties of corn with high levels of starch, so that the crop can be more easily processed into ethanol (GRAIN 2007: 19) and Bunge’s and DuPont’s Solae venture has also come up with inbred and bioengineered varieties of corn and soybeans specially de- signed for the combustion engine rather than the human stomach (Milling & Baking News 2006: 20). Although ADM has not been involved in any comparable ventures with the agro-biotech giants, it has worked unremittingly to create a policy environment within which the wasteful absorption of grain in the biofuels sector can be achieved. As one Washington analyst put it:

Perhaps no commodity in American history has depended more on government support for its viability than ethanol. And perhaps no other company has done as much to orchestrate Washington’s current support for the fuel than ADM.

http://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2013/04/new-paper-links-food-price-inflation-to-the-power-of-agro-trader-nexus-ie-monsantos-cargills.html?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+NakedCapitalism+%28naked+capi talism%29

boutons_deux

05-04-2013, 10:39 AM

Kochs Form New Dark Money Group To Hide Political Activities From PublicThe right-wing network funded by the billionaire industrialist Koch brothers is being revamped after the 2012 elections, starting with a new nonprofit called the "Association for American Innovation" that will act as a hub for funneling undisclosed spending towards the Kochs' political projects.

With ambiguous IRS rules and a deadlocked Congress, they might get away with it.

The role for the group, according to the Huffington Post (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/04/26/koch-brothers-group_n_3164357.html), is to serve as a financing vehicle for the Koch political network, which includes organizations like Americans for Prosperity. In some respects it appears to be playing a similar role as the Center to Protect Patient Rights (http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Center_to_Protect_Patient_Rights#cite_note-open_secrets-0), a 501(c)(4) nonprofit run by Koch operative Sean Noble that funnelled (http://www.opensecrets.org/news/2012/05/cppr.html) nearly $55 million to other front groups, which in turn ran ads attacking Democrats in the 2010 elections.

The Association for American Innovation will likely help the Kochs and their allies continue avoiding transparency in political spending.
Association Formed as "Business League," Perhaps to Avoid IRS Scrutiny

The Association is organized under Section 501(c)(6) of the tax code, setting it apart from many of the dark money groups active in the 2010 and 2012 elections, like Karl Rove's Crossroads GPS or Americans for Prosperity, which are organized as 501(c)(4) "social welfare" nonprofits.

Section 501(c)(6) is reserved for business leagues like the U.S. Chamber of Commerce or trade associations like the pharmaceutical lobby PhRMA; but unlike those groups, there is little evidence the Association exists to advance the interests of any particular trade or industry.

"A (c)(6) is exactly where you'd expect captains of industry to go for political leverage out of the public view, especially if the notorious 501(c)(4) organizations are about to be more heavily scrutinized and regulated by the IRS," attorney Greg Colvin, an expert in nonprofit law, told the Center for Media and Democracy.

"Unlike a (c)(4), the organization would have no pretense of promoting the common good and general welfare of the community," Colvin said. "A 501(c)(6) is not a public interest organization. It can promote the special interests of oil and gas, pharmaceuticals, real estate developers, manufacturers, or free enterprise capitalism generally."

http://www.alternet.org/news-amp-politics/kochs-form-new-dark-money-group-hide-political-activities-public?akid=10398.187590.tCccZu&rd=1&src=newsletter834900&t=19

"They'll Be Baaack" -- Terminators of Democracy (even if it is a Great American Myth)

boutons_deux

05-05-2013, 09:32 AM

A Bigger, Darker Rightwing Funder
It's "the most powerful organization in America that no one seems to know about."

That's how Scot Ross, executive director of the progressive think tank One Wisconsin Institute (http://www.instituteforonewisconsin.org/), describes the Bradley Foundation (http://www.bradleyfdn.org/).

Unlike David Koch of the Koch Brothers, whose cover was blown when a gonzo blogger named Ian Murphy (http://progressive.org/taxonomy/term/1322) (editor of the Buffalo Beast and a frequent contributor to The Progressive), impersonated him in a prank call to Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WBnSv3a6Nh4).

The Milwaukee based Bradley Foundation operates off the mainstream media radar. Yet the group has made more than $530 million in grants and awards since 1985, making it a much, much bigger giver to rightwing causes than the Koch brothers. With more than $290 million in assets, Bradley is one of the biggest foundations in the United States.

Bradley Foundation's particular focus on privatizing the public schools.

Among the report's findings:

--The Bradley Foundation, headed by Governor Scott Walker's campaign co-chair Michael Grebe, has underwritten a massive, pro-privatization propaganda campaign, including "a systematic and relentless campaign to turn public opinion against the public school system."

--Bradley has spent more than $31 million since 2001 supporting organizations promoting education privatization, academics providing favorable pro-privatization pseudo-science, media personalities promoting the privatization agenda, and lobbying organizations advocating for privatization legislation.

--The Bradley-financed campaign has manufactured an education "crisis," proposed a "solution," attacked and undermined the ability of potential opponents to block their agenda, and funded aggressive pro-privatization media and lobbying efforts.

--The Bradley-financed Wisconsin Policy Research Institute has manipulated research and pressured a University of Wisconsin professor to downplay results that show school vouchers in a negative light, while highlighting scientifically dubious favorable results.

http://www.progressive.org/bradley-foundation-spearheading-assault-on-public-schools

Of course, Bradley is REALLY REALLY concerned about the educating children ... by indoctrinating them with bullshit.

boutons_deux

05-07-2013, 04:27 PM

Republican Court Says Employers Have A Constitutional Right To Keep Workers Ignorant Of Their Rights (http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2013/05/07/1974651/republican-court-says-employers-have-a-constitutional-right-to-keep-workers-ignorant-of-their-rights/)

Although this language says nothing about employers also having the right not to post information they would prefer to keep their workers ignorant of, the three Republican judges fabricate such a right through the power of a rhetorical question:

Suppose that § 8(c) prevents the Board from charging an employer with an unfair labor practice for posting a notice advising employees of their right not to join a union. Of course § 8(c) clearly does this. How then can it be an unfair labor practice for an employer to refuse to post a government notice informing employees of their right to unionize (or to refuse to)? Like the freedom of speech guaranteed in the First Amendment, § 8(c) necessarily protects—as against the Board—the right of employers (and unions) not to speak. This is why, for example, a company official giving a noncoercive speech to employees describing the disadvantages of unionization does not commit an unfair labor practice if, in his speech, the official neglects to mention the advantages of having a union.

http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2013/05/07/1974651/republican-court-says-employers-have-a-constitutional-right-to-keep-workers-ignorant-of-their-rights/

boutons_deux

05-07-2013, 04:29 PM

VRWC/corporate war on employees:

Now They Want to Take Away the 8-Hour Day and 40-Hour Week

House Republicans are pushing a bill that takes away extra pay for overtime, substituting "comp" time instead. The Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) of 1938 is the law that brought us the eight-hour workday and the 40-hour workweek. This law does not prohibit employers from requiring workers to work over 40 hours. Instead, it gives employers an incentive to instead pay extra or hire more people, and gives employees a premium if they do have to work longer. (Note that this is also the law that brought us a minimum wage and outlawed child labor.)

There is proof that overtime pay works: workers like domestic workers and agricultural workers - jobs not covered by the FLSA - are twice as likely to have to work more than 40 hours in a week. And even with this law, Americans already work more hours than in almost any other industrialized country.

The Bill - No Guarantees

The House will be voting on H.R. 1406, The Working Families Flexibility Act, which lets employers offer "comp time" instead of overtime pay. The problem is that employers will pressure workers to take comp time instead of overtime, which reduces paychecks and gets rid of the incentive to hire more people. Later, the employees will be pressured to not take that comp time, or will have to be "on call," etcetera.

It is important to note that the law does not guarantee workers the right to actually use the comp time they get instead of extra pay. Employers can put it off forever. You can't use this time when you want to, only when the employer decides it is okay.
This really is a flat-out pay take-away, can't use it another day.

http://truth-out.org/news/item/16238-now-they-want-to-take-away-the-8-hour-day-and-40-hour-week

boutons_deux

05-07-2013, 04:54 PM

ALEC Ignores First Amendment, Assembles a "Most Wanted" List

In what might be the biggest anti-ALEC rally yet, the ALEC legislators and lobbyists arriving at the Renaissance Hotel on May 2 were greeted by a wave of protesters (http://www.ustream.tv/recorded/32260597) that outnumbered the conference attendees.

More than 600 firefighters, teachers, environmentalists, and church leaders carried signs reading "ALEC is Not OK" and chanting "backroom deals are ALEC's game/sweetheart deals for corporate gain," while a giant inflatable pig wearing a banner reading "Hi, my name is ALEC" floated overhead. Two big rigs adorned with Teamsters logos circled the convention center, honking their horns and blowing air brakes. Harold A. Schaitberger, President of the International Association of Fire Fighters, told the crowd that ALEC's “sole purpose is to develop the most anti-worker, anti-employee, anti-union, anti-middle class, pro-business, pro corporation policies, legislation and agenda possible.”

Inside, white men in dark suits milled in the lobby of the Renaissance Hotel and the neighboring Cox Convention Center. Laughter floated through the hotel bar as corporate lobbyists (with a "private sector" tag on their name badge) huddled with state legislators (wearing "public sector" tags).

ALEC's Most Wanted

How does ALEC know who Surgey is?

CMD later obtained a document (http://www.prwatch.org/files/ALEC's_Most_Wanted.pdf) titled "OKC anti-ALEC photos" at the ALEC conference.

The page featured the pictures and names of eight people, four of whom work with CMD, including Surgey, CMD's general counsel Brendan Fischer and its Executive Director Lisa Graves, as well as CMD contributor Beau Hodai.

It is not known whether the photo array of people who have reported on or criticized ALEC was distributed to ALEC members or shared with Oklahoma City law enforcement.

Other targets on the document included The Nation's Lee Fang, who has written articles critical of ALEC, and Sabrina Stevens, an education activist who spoke out in an ALEC task force meeting last November. Also featured were Calvin Sloan of People for the American Way and Gabe Elsner of Checks and Balances Project, both of whom are ALEC detractors.

The name of ALEC Events Director Sarah McManamon was in the top corner, indicating the document was printed from her Google account.

Dennis Van Roekel, president of the National Education Association teacher's union, told the crowd via Skype that ALEC has a "systematic approach to pushing a corporate agenda in all aspects of public policy."

Ryan Kiesel, Executive Director of the Oklahoma ACLU, highlighted ALEC's support for bills to make it harder for Americans to vote through voter ID restrictions (and its promotion of sham "voter fraud" claims), and is not buying ALEC's claim that it has abandoned its voter suppression projects. "If ALEC were really withdrawing its support for voter ID, they could use their elected official proxies to announce that fraud is not a real problem, and that these laws are unnecessary," he said. "But they have not."

Jane Carter, an economist at AFSCME, identified the problems with the ALEC privatization agenda, particularly the Public-Private Fair Competition Act, a "forced privatization" (http://www.progressmichigan.org/2013/04/rep-macmaster-introduces-alec-model-forced-privatization-bill/) bill that requires public services be turned over to corporate control if private industry claims they can do the service; this bill was recently introduced in Michigan. Phillip Martin of Progress Texas described how ALEC's healthcare agenda -- particularly its adoption of the Health Care Compact, which asserts state control over health care -- could be used to thwart federal healthcare reform.

Dr. George Young Senior, a Pastor at the Holy Temple Baptist Church in Oklahoma City, highlighted how ALEC is where the struggles of communities of color, workers, environmentalists and others converged -- and how people need to unite against the forty-year-old organization to fight back.

"If we let this go on for another forty years," he said, "next time they won’t just move us out of our room, they will kick us out of the whole building!"

http://truth-out.org/news/item/16216-alec-ignores-first-amendment-assembles-a-most-wanted-list

boutons_deux

05-10-2013, 01:36 PM

How Big Oil Uses the Republican Party

In a surprise move, the eight Republican members of the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee yesterday blocked a floor vote on President Obama's nominee, Gina McCarthy, as EPA Administrator. In doing so the Republican senators broke their earlier promisadditione to move McCarthy's nomination if she answered an unprecedented 1079 written questions, a quest she completed. Political observers assume the Republican roadblock is meant to derail or delay the implementation of a new EPA rule, promised by President Obama to finally regulate carbon pollution. The Republican ranking member, Senator David Vitter of Louisiana, orchestrated the double cross. Vitter is an unabashed mouthpiece for the petroleum industry and record breaking receptacle for petrodollars having received $1.2 million in oil company largesse during his public service career. With cash gushers of oily money cascading down their open gullets, the Republican leadership's mercenary devotion to Big Oil shouldn't shock us. However, the boldness of the party's most recent assault on the public interest might cause us to ponder how GOP's honchos' knee jerk slavishness to petroleum interest has infected its rank and file.

The perversity of the modern conservative mind is displayed in two studies published last week. Those studies illustrate the extent to which the right wing has become the ideological sock puppet of Big Oil and the GOP's army of right wing Christian fundamentalists oil industry foot soldiers. A peer reviewed National Academy of Sciences report shows that the label "energy efficient" on a product actually makes it less likely that self-identified conservatives will purchase that product. Why? Because morally twisted right wing orthodoxy has taken the "conserve" out of conservatism. Craven hatred of all things environmental has made the labels "clean," "green" or "efficient" pariah among GOP acolytes. Conversely, dirty energy is patriotic and even "blessed."

Big Oil's Orwellian skill at employing the rhetoric of patriotism and emblazoning its enterprises with stars and stripes, has stitched the notion that conservation is synonymous with "anti-American" into the fabric of GOP talking points. In 2006, President George W. Bush's press secretary Ari Fleischer answered a press query about whether President Bush believed in fuel efficiency standards for automobiles saying, "That's a big 'No.'" The President believes that it's an American way of life, and that it should be the goal of policy makers to protect the American way of life. The American way of life is a blessed one. And we have a bounty of resources in this country... Conservation alone is not the answer."

After a decade of this brand of oily claptrap from the industry's political toadies and its talking heads on Fox News and hate radio, many conservative Americans now embrace the farcical presumption that buying and burning gas is a patriotic act. In 2008, as the oil industry raked in record profits by raking Americans with record prices at the pump, the party of the petro plutocrats proudly adopted Big Oil's rallying cry as its mantra "Drill, Baby, Drill."

By the way, Fleischer's use of the term "blessed" to describe unconscionable profligacy and immoral waste reflect another GOP orthodoxy -- the notion that God wants us to burn oil.

A second study published this week by University of Pittsburgh Professor David Barker and Professor David Bearce of the University of Colorado found that a fundamentalist Christian belief in biblical End Times is a significant motivating factor behind Republican voter resistance to curbing climate change. According to Bearce and Barker, 76 percent of self-identified Republicans say they believe in the End Times. "Since the world is going to end at a predestined time anyhow," their logic goes, "it would be heretical to curb our destructive appetites under the delusion that we can do anything about pushing back God's ordained date."

Anointing rapacious behavior with religious gloss is an old strategy for both right wing conservatives and the extraction industry. When a House Oversight Committee summoned Ronald Reagan's first Secretary of Interior, James Watt, to explain his caper to sell off American's public lands, waters and mineral rights to oil, mining and timber companies at what the General Accounting Office called "fire sale prices," Watt, a former mining and oil company lawyer, retorted, "I don't know how many future generations we can count on before the Lord returns." Embracing his party line, along with its hook and sinker, Watt explained that environmentalism was a plot to "weaken America" and dismissed environmentalists as a "left wing cult which seeks to bring down the kind of government I believe in."

Watt was an early proponent of Dominion Theology, the authoritarian Christian heresy that cites cherry-picked phrases from the book of Genesis to advocate man's duty to subdue nature. His carbon industry alliances and Apocalyptical Christianity inspired Secretary Watt to set about dismantling his department and distributing its assets to his pals. His disciple and former employee, Gale Norton, another energy industry lawyer and lobbyists, would continue the chicanery when she succeeded Watt as Interior Secretary during George W. Bush's administration. As Shakespeare observed, "The devil can quote Scripture to serve his own purposes."

In reality, there is nothing patriotic, moral or religious about Big Oil. A storied history of perfidy and greed has distinguished these companies among the most treasonous and piratical of all American business enterprises. Halliburton's decision to relocate to the Cayman Islands after fattening itself on $9 billion worth of inherently crooked no-bid, cost-plus contracts during the Iraq War is only one of many examples of their shaky loyalty to our country. Before it vaulted onto the bandwagon of patriotism, Texaco flew not "Old Glory" but the "Jolly Roger" over its Houston headquarters, proudly adopting the pirate flag as the emblem of a pirate industry.

The threats from global climate change and ocean acidification are only the tip of a melting iceberg. Not satiated with simply destroying the planet, the oil industry's relentless greed has eroded American's economic independence, imperiled our national security, and ruined our global economic leadership and moral authority.

America's national security is rooted in a strong economy at home. As Republican oilman T. Boone Pickens has acknowledged, our deadly addiction to oil is the principal drag on American capitalism. Our nation is borrowing a billion dollars a day to purchase a billion dollars of foreign oil, much of it from nations that don't share our values or that are outright hostile to our interests.

Our oil jones has us funding both sides of the war against terror! Big Oil has embroiled us in foreign wars supporting petty dictators who despise democracy and who are hated by their own people. The export of $700 billion dollars annually of American wealth has beggared our nation, which, a few short decades ago, owned half the wealth on Earth.

Add to these cataclysmic numbers, the $100 billion annual military cost of protecting oil infrastructure in the Persian Gulf, trillions spent on various oil wars over the past decade, billions more in economic injury from oil spills in Valdez, the Gulf of Mexico and in American rivers from the Hudson to the Kalamazoo to the Yellowstone, the massive damage done to the coast of Louisiana from local drilling companies which aggravated New Orleans' destruction by Katrina, not to mention the hundreds of billions annually in externalized health care costs from illnesses caused by the oil industry.

If the oil industry had to pay the true costs of bringing its product to market, gas prices would be upwards of $12 per gallon at the pump, according to economist Amory Lovins, and most Americans would be running to buy electric cars.

With low cost disruptive technologies like cheap, fast and efficient electric vehicles, and solar and wind technologies poised to displace Big Oil, the industry is using its hold on the Republican Party to permanently embed itself in our economy while subverting science, American democracy, free market capitalism and our sacred belief in an ethical God.

http://readersupportednews.org/opinion2/277-75/17362-focus-how-big-oil-uses-the-republican-party

boutons_deux

05-26-2013, 09:49 AM

If Barry gets his secret TPP implemented, the following will seem trivial

How Corporations Are Subverting Attempts to Rein in Their Power

Citizens have won important policy victories only to be undermined by the growing web of international investment rules and arbitration courts.

In 2009, when the government of El Salvador refused to issue an environmental permit to a Canadian mining corporation, community activists in Las Cabañas rejoiced. For years they had been fighting a pitched battle (http://www.stopesmining.org/j25/) against the efforts of the company, Pacific Rim, to mine for gold in their region - plans that included the dumping of toxic arsenic in their rivers. It was not a campaign without risk. Four Salvadoran anti-mining activists have been assassinated in the course of their courageous efforts. That victory, however, may well prove to carry a high cost for the people of El Salvador. In a legal assault filed in a World Bank trade court, Pacific Rim is now demanding $315 million in compensation payments from the Salvadoran government, an amount equal to one third of the country’s annual education budget.

That is just one example among many where citizens have fought for and won an important policy victory only to find that victory undermined by corporations using the growing web of international investment rules and arbitration courts. There are many others. Public health campaigners in Uruguay won a huge victory in 2010 when the national government passed new health laws to discourage tobacco consumption. Even though those new laws (including aggressive new warnings on cigarette packages) directly mirrored the guidelines of the World Health Organization, the U.S. corporate tobacco giant Philip Morris retaliated with a $2 billion legal action (http://justinvestment.org/2010/04/phillip-morris-makes-demands-of-uruguay-at-the-international-centre-for-settlement-of-investment-disputes/) against the government.

Nowhere is this muscle-flexing by multinational corporations a greater threat than on issues related to sustainable development. The result is a little known but enormous legal obstacle planted directly in the policy path toward a sustainable future. The Democracy Center has just documented that threat in an important new report released this week: Unfair, Unsustainable and Under the Radar: How Corporations Use Global Investment Rules to Undermine a Sustainable Future. (http://democracyctr.org/new-report-unfair-unsustainable-and-under-the-radar/)

For many this system of corporate-driven investment rules and “dispute resolution” burst into public view a decade ago when Bechtel, the San Francisco-based engineering conglomerate, sued the people of Bolivia for $50 million following the now-famous Cochabamba Water Revolt (http://democracyctr.org/bolivia/investigations/bolivia-investigations-the-water-revolt/), after investing just $1 million in the country. A global citizen campaign (http://democracyctr.org/bolivia/investigations/bolivia-investigations-the-water-revolt/bechtel-vs-bolivia-details-of-the-case-and-the-campaign/) aimed at the corporation ultimately forced Bechtel to drop that case for a token payment of 30 cents (http://democracyctr.org/bolivia/investigations/bolivia-investigations-the-water-revolt/#ii-bechtel-vs-bolivia-). Yet in the years since, the pile of corporate cases has only grown ever higher.

http://www.alternet.org/environment/how-corporations-are-subverting-attempts-rein-their-power?akid=10486.187590.n8C9pC&rd=1&src=newsletter845794&t=21

boutons_deux

06-12-2013, 08:44 AM

If VRWC can't stuff the federal/state courts with ideological, extremist, politicized hatchet judges, they try to indoctrinate what they think are susceptible judges

Secret court judge attended expenses-paid terrorism seminar

U.S. District Judge Roger Vinson, who signed an order (http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/interactive/2013/jun/06/verizon-telephone-data-court-order) requiring Verizon to give the National Security Agency telephone records for tens of millions of American customers, attended an expense-paid judicial seminar sponsored by a libertarian think tank that featured lectures from a vocal proponent of executive branch powers.

Vinson, whose term on the secret Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court began in 2006 and expired last month, was the only member of the special court to attend the August 2008 conference sponsored by the Foundation for Research on Economics & the Environment, according to disclosure records filed by the federal judge.

The Center for Public Integrity collected the disclosure records as part of aninvestigative report (http://www.publicintegrity.org/2013/03/28/12368/corporations-pro-business-nonprofits-foot-bill-judicial-seminars) that revealed how large corporations and conservative foundations routinely sponsor ideologically driven educational conferences for state and federal judges.

It’s unclear which lectures Vinson attended during the “Terrorism, Civil Liberty, & National Security” seminar. FREE’s website only provides a general agenda for the program and no lecture transcripts.

But Eric Posner, a University of Chicago law professor who delivered two lectures, argued in a 2007 book he co-wrote — Terror in the Balance: Security, Liberty, and the Courts (http://www.amazon.com/Terror-Balance-Security-Liberty-Courts/dp/019531025X/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1/002-2000051-1374447?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1183401492&sr=8-1) — that “the executive branch, not Congress or the judicial branch, should make the tradeoff between security and liberty.”

The book also asserts that while “no one doubts that injustices occur during emergencies, the type of judicial scrutiny that would be needed to prevent the injustices that have occurred during American history would cause more harm than good by interfering with justified executive actions.”

The seminar, conducted in Montana, also included separate lectures entitled “Terrorism & the U.S. Constitution,” “Decision-Making in Counter Terrorism Dilemmas” and “The Triumph & Pitfalls of the Security State.”

Update, 3:11 p.m.: From 2005 to 2009, FREE received a total of $430,000 in general operating support from the Claude R. Lambe Charitable Foundation, of which billionaire businessman Charles Koch is a director. The M.J. Murdock Charitable Trust, however, is listed as the sole funder for the national security conference that Vinson attended.

http://www.publicintegrity.org/2013/06/07/12784/secret-court-judge-attended-expenses-paid-terrorism-seminar?utm_source=email&utm_campaign=watchdog&utm_medium=publici-email

boutons_deux

06-14-2013, 09:24 AM

Conservatives Target State Courts in Battle Over Culture Wars

There’s a court battle over abortion taking place in Kansas, but it’s probably not the fight you think. Anti-abortion activists in the state are slowly and systematically trying to “reform” the state judicial system (http://www.kansascity.com/2013/05/19/4244053/bigger-push-on-kansas-judiciary.html) in an effort to give conservatives greater control over the courts. And as state courts play an increasingly important role in the battle over reproductive rights and the policing of pregnancy, these so-called “reforms,” if successful, could be more devastating to women than the deluge of anti-abortion laws enacted in the state so far.

Kansas House Judiciary Committee Chairman and staunch anti-abortion activist Lance Kinzer closed out the legislative session with a flurry of proposals aimed at limiting the influence of the state’s supreme court. The proposals follow a growing rift in the state (http://www.kansas.com/2013/05/19/2809972/kansas-chief-justice-says-senators.html) between the extremely conservative legislature and the state supreme court that has thwarted conservatives on education funding, the death penalty, and, of course, abortion.

One of the reforms proposed last month would amend the state constitution to have the governor appoint and the state senate confirm members of the state’s supreme court and appeals court. This reform eliminates a commission that currently screens applicants and names three finalists for judicial vacancies for the governor to consider. Five of the commission’s nine members are attorneys elected by other attorneys, and under the current system in Kansas the state legislature plays no role in judicial appointments. The proposals also bookend a legislative session that started with Republican Gov. Sam Brownback (http://cjonline.com/news/state/2013-03-27/brownback-signs-legislation-reform-judicial-selection)signing legislation granting Kansas governors greater influence over selection of judges to serve on the Kansas Court of Appeals but failing to eliminate the nominating commission.

http://rhrealitycheck.org/article/2013/06/13/conservatives-target-state-courts-in-battle-over-culture-wars/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+rhrealitycheck+%28RH+Reality+ Check%29

boutons_deux

06-14-2013, 11:36 AM

Illustration of how 1%/corporate money fucks the 99% in court

For Judges, Campaign Cash Speaks Louder than Ideology (http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2013/06/11/2140481/for-judges-campaign-cash-speaks-louder-than-ideology/)

A new study (http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2013/06/11/2140481/for-judges-campaign-cash-speaks-louder-than-ideology/A%20new%20study%20compares%20contributions%20from% 20big%20business%20to%20state%20supreme%20court%20 rulings%20in%20more%20than%202,000%20cases%20from% 202010%20to%202012,%20and%20concludes%20that%20%E2 %80%9Ca%20justice%20who%20receives%20half%20of%20h is%20or%20her%20contributions%20from%20business%20 groups%20would%20be%20expected%20to%20vote%20in%20 favor%20of%20business%20interests%20almost%20two-thirds%20of%20the%20time.%E2%80%9D%20This%20correl ation%20was%20strongest%20in%20the%20handful%20of% 20states%20with%20partisan%20high%20court%20electi ons.%20Republican%20judges%20receive%20much%20more %20funding%20from%20big%20business,%20and%20in%20g eneral,%20they%20are%20more%20likely%20to%20vote%2 0in%20favor%20of%20corporate%20litigants.%20The%20 study%20found,%20however,%20%E2%80%9Ca%20stronger% 20relationship%E2%80%9D%20between%20corporate%20ca mpaign%20cash%20and%20the%20votes%20of%20Democrati c%20justices.%20%E2%80%9CJudges%20who%20are%20not% 20ideologically%20or%20otherwise%20predisposed%20t o%20vote%20in%20favor%20of%20business%20interests% 20might%E2%80%A6.cast%20votes%20in%20cases%20eithe r%20to%20obtain%20financial%20support%20from%20tho se%20business%20interests%20for%20their%20future%2 0campaigns,%20or%20at%20least%20to%20reduce%20ince ntives%20for%E2%80%A6.attacks%20funded%20by%20busi ness%20interests.%E2%80%9D%20This%20discrepancy%20 mirrors%20the%20findings%20of%20a%202007%20study%2 0by%20Madhavi%20McCall%20and%20Michael%20McCall%20 of%20Texas%20Supreme%20Court%20rulings%20between%2 01994%20and%201997.%20In%20general,%20the%20Republ ican-controlled%20court%20was%20much%20more%20likely%20 to%20favor%20defendants%20over%20plaintiffs.%20But %20plaintiffs%20who%20made%20a%20campaign%20contri bution%20received%20%E2%80%9Cmore%20than%20double% 20the%20rate%20of%20support%E2%80%9D%20among%20the %20justices.%20These%20results%20suggest%20that%20 campaign%20contributions%20can%20be%20very%20effec tive%20in%20persuading%20judges%20to%20vote%20agai nst%20their%20ideological%20inclination.%20Campaig n%20cash%20speaks%20louder%20than%20a%20judge%E2%8 0%99s%20predisposition%20to%20favor%20individual%2 0plaintiffs%20or%20corporate%20defendants.%20Sheph erd%E2%80%99s%20study,%20sponsored%20by%20the%20Am erican%20Constitution%20Society,%20found%20that%20 the%20correlation%20between%20corporate%20campaign %20contributions%20and%20rulings%20has%20grown%20s tronger%20since%20the%20late%201990%E2%80%99s,%20a s%20spending%20on%20high%20court%20elections%20has %20exploded.%20In%20a%20series%20of%20cases,%20the %20U.S.%20Supreme%20Court%20has%20struck%20down%20 limits%20on%20independent%20spending%20in%20politi cal%20campaigns%20and%20limited%20states%E2%80%99% 20options%20to%20curb%20the%20influence%20of%20cam paign%20cash.%20The%20study%20noted%20that%20corpo rate-funded%20groups%20are%20taking%20advantage%20of%20 these%20loopholes%20in%20campaign%20finance%20laws ,%20and%20their%20%E2%80%9Cdominance%20of%20televi sion%20advertising%20has%20steadily%20increased%20 over%20time.%E2%80%9D%20Because%20voters%20often%2 0lack%20knowledge%20about%20judicial%20candidates, %20these%20ads%20can%20be%20very%20effective%20at% 20defining%20the%20candidates%20in%20the%20minds%2 0of%20voters.%20There%20is%20no%20reason%20to%20th ink%20that%20the%20role%20of%20money%20in%20judici al%20elections%20will%20subside.%20Until%20voters% 20demand%20reforms%20to%20curb%20the%20influence%2 0of%20money%20on%20the%20judiciary,%20Americans%20 will%20have%20even%20more%20judges%20that%20favor% 20corporate%20defendants%20over%20individuals%20se eking%20to%20hold%20them%20accountable.) compares contributions from big business to state supreme court rulings in more than 2,000 cases from 2010 to 2012, and it concludes that “a justice who receives half of his or her contributions from business groups would be expected to vote in favor of business interests almost two-thirds of the time.” This correlation was strongest in the handful of states with partisan high court elections. Republican judges receive much more funding from big business, and in general, they are more likely to vote in favor of corporate litigants.
The study found, however, “a stronger relationship” between corporate campaign cash and the votes of Democratic justices. “Judges who are not ideologically or otherwise predisposed to vote in favor of business interests might….cast votes in cases either to obtain financial support from those business interests for their future campaigns, or at least to reduce incentives for….attacks funded by business interests.”

This discrepancy mirrors the findings of a 2007 study by Madhavi McCall and Michael McCall of Texas Supreme Court rulings between 1994 and 1997. In general, the Republican-controlled court was much more likely to favor defendants over plaintiffs. But plaintiffs who made a campaign contribution received “more than double the rate of support” among the justices.

These results suggest that campaign contributions can be very effective in persuading judges to vote against their ideological inclination. Campaign cash speaks louder than a judge’s predisposition to favor individual plaintiffs or corporate defendants.
Shepherd’s study, sponsored by the American Constitution Society, found that the correlation between corporate campaign contributions and rulings has grown stronger since the late 1990’s, as spending on high court elections has exploded. (http://www.brennancenter.org/publication/new-politics-judicial-elections-2000-2009-decade-change) In a series of cases, the U.S. Supreme Court has struck down limits (http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2012/11/30/1240641/meet-four-conservative-state-supreme-court-justices-thankful-for-citizens-united/) on independent spending in political campaigns and limited states’ options (http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2012/06/26/505379/supreme-court-assault-on-campaign-finance-reform-likely-to-kill-west-virginia-anti-corruption-law/) to curb the influence of campaign cash.

The study noted that corporate-funded groups are taking advantage of these loopholes in campaign finance laws, and their “dominance of television advertising has steadily increased over time.” Because voters often lack knowledge about judicial candidates, these ads can be very effective at defining the candidates in the minds of voters.

http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2013/06/11/2140481/for-judges-campaign-cash-speaks-louder-than-ideology/

illustrates that the real "war" is not left vs right, but 1% vs 99%, the Wealthy Class making war on the non-Wealthy.

boutons_deux

06-18-2013, 02:18 PM

Republicans Are Passing ALEC Written Laws Banning Paid Sick Leave

conservatives and Republicans that their primary concern is enriching corporations and promoting their so-called “free-market capitalism” meme as the be all, end all solution to America’s economic woes. Part and parcel of free-market capitalism is removing all constraints from businesses whether it is environmental regulations or workplace protections for employees who drive corporate profits with their cheap labor and purchasing their cheap Chinese-made products. What is less well-known is that for 80 years Republicans have panted to eliminate New Deal provisions that protect workers and provide them with reasonably-safe working conditions including a 40-hour work week, safety inspections, and what Republican’s consider luxuries; bathroom and lunch breaks, overtime pay, and a woefully inadequate minimum wage

The latest assault on American workers, like most assaults on the labor force, is courtesy of the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC) and it is occurring in Florida where ALEC controls the governor and state legislature. At the urging of large corporate employers, and ALEC members, the Florida legislature passed and Governor Rick Scott signed, a pre-emptive law making it illegal to pass legislation to provide paid sick leave to employees. That’s right, a state law banning local governments from implementing paid sick leave legislation to protect corporate employers (http://thinkprogress.org/economy/2013/04/29/1934871/alec-orchestrated-bill-to-preempt-paid-sick-leave-passes-florida-senate/) such as Disney World, Red Lobster, Olive Garden, and perennial enemies of labor, the Florida chapter of the Chamber of Commerce who all whole-heartedly supported the Draconian measure.

The law is one of ALEC’s fill-in template bills being introduced across the nation and an effort to pass “preemption bills” that will block any prospective paid sick leave legislation as part of the corporate drive to keep measures helping workers off the books before they can be proposed or voted on by legislatures or the public. In Florida, more than 50,000 voters attempted (http://thinkprogress.org/economy/2013/04/29/1934871/alec-orchestrated-bill-to-preempt-paid-sick-leave-passes-florida-senate/) to get a required paid sick leave measure on the 2012 ballot, but it was thrown off (http://thinkprogress.org/economy/2012/09/19/872841/floridians-denied-chance-to-vote-on-paid-sick-leave/) by Republicans on the county commission and it took a three-judge panel to have it included on the 2014 ballot. Now, regardless the voters’ wishes, the measure is moot and it is down to the state’s Republican House Majority Leader, Steve Precourt (R-ALEC), who pressed the measure through the legislature and it is no surprise Precourt is an active ALEC member (http://www.prwatch.org/news/2013/04/12037/efforts-deliver-kill-shot-paid-sick-leave-tied-alec).

The idea of passing laws in Republican-controlled states preemptively banning worker-friendly labor laws is not unique to Florida and nothing new coming from ALEC that is on a tear to destroy the democratic process for years.

http://www.politicususa.com/2013/06/18/republicans-passing-alec-written-laws-banning-paid-sick-leave.html?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+politicususa%2FfJAl+%28Politi cus+USA+%29

boutons_deux

06-19-2013, 11:11 AM

ALEC Tours Tar Sands, Works with Industry Groups to Block Low-Carbon Fuel Standards

The American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC) recently adopted a “model” bill from an oil-industry lobby group, that would limit the ability of states to negotiate regional “low-carbon fuel standards” (LCFS), a mechanism designed to reduce the carbon intensity of transportation fuels. If agreed by states, LCFS could have a significant impact on the sale of fuels derived from Canadian tar sands in the United States, regardless of any decision the Obama administration makes over the proposed Keystone XL pipeline.

ALEC’s interest in the tar sands is increasingly active. It organized a tour of the Alberta tar sands for its members in October 2012, and as previously reported (http://www.prwatch.org/news/2013/04/12049/seven-state-keystone-xl-resolutions-where-are-environmentalists) by CMD, at least seven states introduced resolutions in 2013 calling for the approval of the controversial Keystone XL pipeline from Canada to Texas. The resolutions contained language from an ALEC “model” bill and from a set of talking points by TransCanada, the proposed pipeline operator that was also listed as a sponsor of the most recent ALEC conference that took place in Oklahoma City in May 2013.

American Fuel and Petrochemical Manufacturers Partner with ALEC

The new ALEC “model” bill, called "Restrictions on Participation in Low-Carbon Fuel Standards Programs (http://www.alec.org/model-legislation/restrictions-on-participation-in-low-carbon-fuel-standards-programs/)," was sponsored at an ALEC conference in Washington, DC in November 2012, by Steve Higley, a lobbyist from the U.S.-based industry group American Fuel and Petrochemical Manufacturers (AFPM). Koch Industries and Exxon Mobil, both of which are represented on the ALEC Private Enterprise Advisory Council, are members of AFPM and have executives sitting on the board of directors.

The ALEC bill is intended to block environmental LCFS agreements. The implementation of LCFS poses a threat to the continued U.S. market for oil derived from the Canadian tar sands. Following the passage of the California LCFS law in 2006 – so far the only state to have such a standard in operation – the president of AFPM stated it would "harm our nation's energy security by discouraging the use of Canadian crude oil." (http://www.ocregister.com/articles/california-334541-state-carbon.html)

http://truth-out.org/news/item/17071-alec-tours-tar-sands-works-with-industry-groups-to-block-low-carbon-fuel-standards

boutons_deux

06-23-2013, 10:33 AM

The American Legislative Exchange Council Is Hard at Work Privatizing America, One Statehouse at a Time

In state legislatures around the country, boilerplate ALEC legislation that dilutes collective bargaining rights, blocks Americans from voting, and limits corporate liability is passing without the public knowing who’s behind it.

A national consortium of state politicians and powerful corporations, ALEC — the American Legislative Exchange Council — presents itself as a “nonpartisan public-private partnership”. But behind that mantra lies a vast network of corporate lobbying and political action aimed to increase corporate profits at public expense without public knowledge.

one Wisconsin politician describes as “a corporate dating service for lonely legislators and corporate special interests.”

http://www.alternet.org/news-amp-politics/bill-moyers-american-legislative-exchange-council-hard-work-privatizing-america

VRWC installing the corporatocracy at all levels of govt. It's NOT for the good of Human-Americans.

Privatizing as many public functions as possible, the coporatacarcy distributes taxpayer contributions to capitalists bank accounts, while delivering, as all business does, the shittiest possible product for the highest possible price, amplified by the no-competition, long-term, practically irreversible "agreements" of privatization

boutons_deux

06-28-2013, 08:25 AM

Meet the Right-Wing Bankrollers Behind High Court Challenges to the Voting Rights Act and Affirmative Action

The challenges to both the Voting Rights Act and university affirmative action programs were organized by the same activist, who has acknowledged that he receives funding from the Bradley Foundation (http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Bradley_Foundation) -- a Milwaukee-based funder of right-wing causes that has long targeted racial equity.

Same Group and Donors Behind Fisher and Shelby County Cases

The group that brought both challenges (http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/12/04/us-usa-court-casemaker-idUSBRE8B30V220121204) is the Project on Fair Representation, a legal defense fund dedicated to reversing race-based legal protections and whose website says it devotes “all of its efforts to influencing jurisprudence, public policy, and public attitudes regarding race and ethnicity.” The Project was founded and led by one person, Ed Blum, who coordinated the challenges in both the Fisher and Shelby County cases.

Blum has likened his role in high-profile litigation to "Yenta the matchmaker." "I find the plaintiff, I find the lawyer, and I put them together, and then I worry about it for four years," he said (http://www.nytimes.com/2012/02/24/us/edward-blum-and-the-project-on-fair-representation-head-to-the-supreme-court-to-fight-race-based-laws.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0).

Blum urged Shelby County, Alabama, to bring its Section 5 challenge after the Department of Justice blocked its effort to dilute the voting power of its growing African-American population. He also connected with Abigail Fisher, a white student who was denied admission to the University of Texas at Austin and claimed it was because of her race. Blum was also behind the last Voting Rights Act challenge to make it to the Supreme Court, Northwest Austin Municipal Utility District No. 1 v. Holder.

The Project on Fair Representation covered the legal fees in both the Shelby County and Fisher cases using funds filtered through the secretive Donors Trust, which has been described as (http://www.publicintegrity.org/2013/02/14/12181/donors-use-charity-push-free-market-policies-states) a "Dark Money ATM" since it stealthily funnels money from the Kochs, Bradley and other funders to organizations in the right-wing network.

http://www.alternet.org/news-amp-politics/bankrollers-behind-supreme-court-challenges-vra-and-affrimative-action?akid=10632.187590.qmWiiC&rd=1&src=newsletter861503&t=7

Just like Scaife bribing/financing Jones to go after Clinton

boutons_deux

06-28-2013, 08:44 AM

VRWC War on (women) Employees

Forced to Work Sick? That's Fine With Disney, Red Lobster, and Their Friends at ALEC

America's one of the only industrialized nations that doesn't mandate paid sick leave. These guys want to keep it that way.

Before jetting off last week for a trade mission at the Paris Air Show, Florida's Republican Gov. Rick Scott took a moment to sign into law a bill that banned local governments from requiring employers to offer paid sick leave. The restaurant industry and Florida's big theme parks lobbied hard for the passage of the legislation, which blocked local efforts to give low-wage workers a basic benefit that's standard in virtually every industrialized country in the world except the US.

The Florida law is the most recent in a series of victories by low-wage industries that, with the aid of Republican-led state legislatures, have succeeded in derailing or overriding measures providing this benefit to workers. Working behind the scenes in this campaign is a familiar foe of employee rights, the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC), whose membership includes a range of major corporations and industry groups. The corporate-funded organization's model "preemption" legislation—disallowing municipalities from enacting their own paid leave laws—have been introduced by state legislators around the country.

The numbers are sobering: 43 percent of women employed in the private sector don't have a single paid sick day, and more than half of all working mothers don't have paid leave they can use to care for sick kids. The figures are even worse for women in low-wage jobs. More than 80 percent of people making less than $8.25 an hour have no sick leave, and women are over represented in this category.

http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2013/06/paid-sick-leave-florida-disney-alec

boutons_deux

06-28-2013, 09:12 AM

How the Temp Workers Who Keep Huge Corporations Running Are Getting Crushed

It’s 4:18 a.m. and the strip mall is deserted. But tucked in back, next to a closed-down video store, an employment agency is already filling up. Rosa Ramirez walks in, as she has done nearly every morning for the past six months. She signs in and sits down in one of the 100 or so blue plastic chairs that fill the office. Over the next three hours, dispatchers will bark out the names of who will work today. Rosa waits, wondering if she will make her rent.

In cities all across the country, workers stand on street corners, line up in alleys or wait in a neon-lit beauty salon for rickety vans to whisk them off to warehouses miles away. Some vans are so packed that to get to work, people must squat on milk crates, sit on the laps of passengers they do not know or sometimes lie on the floor, the other workers’ feet on top of them.

This is not Mexico. It is not Guatemala or Honduras. This is Chicago, New Jersey, Boston.

The people here are not day laborers looking for an odd job from a passing contractor. They are regular employees of temp agencies working in the supply chain of many of America’s largest companies – Walmart, Macy’s, Nike, Frito-Lay. They make our frozen pizzas, sort the recycling from our trash, cut our vegetables and clean our imported fish. They unload clothing and toys made overseas and pack them to fill our store shelves. They are as important to the global economy as shipping containers and Asian garment workers.

Many get by on minimum wage, renting rooms in rundown houses, eating dinners of beans and potatoes, and surviving on food banks and taxpayer-funded health care. They almost never get benefits and have little opportunity for advancement.

Across America, temporary work has become a mainstay of the economy, leading to the proliferation of what researchers have begun to call “temp towns.” They are often dense Latino neighborhoods teeming with temp agencies. Or they are cities where it has become nearly impossible even for whites and African-Americans with vocational training to find factory and warehouse work without first being directed to a temp firm.

http://www.alternet.org/labor/temps-who-power-corporate-giants-getting-crushed

ah, America The Beautiful, Taking Care of Its Own

iow, America is a failed society and civilization.

boutons_deux

07-01-2013, 11:23 AM

St Ronnie started the War on Employees, the SCOTUS VRWC political hacks keep it going, for decades

Five Ways The Supreme Court Gave The Shaft To Workers (http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2013/07/01/2237481/five-ways-the-supreme-court-gave-the-shaft-to-workers/)

Last week, a bare majority of the Supreme Court did something this Court rarely does — it made life markedly better for millions of Americans by striking down the unconstitutional Defense of Marriage Act (http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2013/06/26/2218321/doma-is-unconstitutional/). This decision, however, should not overshadow the blow the Court’s conservatives dealt to the franchise by striking down a key prong of the Voting Rights Act (http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2013/06/25/2209911/three-ways-the-supreme-court-gutted-voting-rights-today/). Nor should it displace two other decisions handed down last week that delivered big victories to abusive bosses throughout the nation. Indeed, the Court’s five conservatives have become a worker’s worst enemy in Washington. Here are five examples of how the Supreme Court has made life more difficult for workers:

1. Waving Off Workplace Harassment

Federal law provides very robust protection to workers who are sexually or racially harassed by a supervisor, but it is far more difficult to win a lawsuit if you have been harassed by a co-worker (http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2013/06/24/2200681/the-scariest-pending-supreme-court-case-that-youve-probably-never-heard-of/). This distinction exists because supervisors are capable of intimidating their victims into keeping silent, and so there needs to be additional protections for workers harassed by their bosses so that these workers feel safe complaining about their supervisor’s actions.
Yet, in Vance v. Ball State University, the five conservative justices virtually wrote these protections for victims of boss-on-employee harassment out of the law (http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2013/06/24/2202021/how-the-supreme-court-stomped-on-workers-rights-today/). Under Vance, your boss only counts as your “supervisor” if they have the power to make a “significant change in [your] employment status, such as hiring, firing, failing to promote, reassignment with significantly different responsibilities, or a decision causing a significant change in benefits.” Thus, in many modern offices where hiring and firing decisions are made by a distant human resources manager, few bosses will actually qualify as “supervisors.” Vance also ignores the authority often given to senior workers to direct the actions of junior employees — and to potentially abuse this power in the process. In one case described by Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg in her dissent, a senior truck driver coerced a newly hired woman to have unwanted sex with him (http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/12pdf/11-556_11o2.pdf) because she feared he would fail her on an important exam. Yet this man no longer qualifies as a “supervisor” thanks to Ginsburg’s conservative colleagues.

2. Unwinnable Lawsuits

The second big anti-worker decision last week cut off an important mechanism ensuring that employers are held accountable if they retaliate against workers who file civil rights complaints (http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2013/06/24/2202021/how-the-supreme-court-stomped-on-workers-rights-today/). In University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center v. Nassar (http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2013/06/24/2202021/how-the-supreme-court-stomped-on-workers-rights-today/), the five conservatives nixed what are known as “mixed motive” lawsuits in retaliation cases, a decision that effectively forced many workers to develop extra sensory perception if they want their employers to comply with anti-retaliation law.

Under the mixed motive framework, a worker only needs to show that racism, sexism or a similarly improper motive was part of the reason driving an employer’s decision to lash out at a worker. The burden then shifts to the employer to prove that discrimination did not drive their decision. These suits force an employer to reveal what they were actually thinking at the time that they fired an employee, rather than forcing the worker to read their boss’ mind.
Without mixed motive lawsuits, many victims of retaliation will discover that it is impossible to prove their claims in court. Worse, Nassar builds off a similar decision, Gross v. FBL Financial Services (http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2009/06/18/176643/scotus-to-older-americans-learn-to-read-minds/), that gutted the ability of many victims of age discrimination to hold their employers accountable.

3. Signing Away Your Rights

The Court’s five conservatives are staunch supporters of forced arbitration, a practice that enables businesses to shift lawsuits against them out of real courts and into a privatized arbitration system where the corporate party is often able to select an arbitrator with a record of siding with corporate interests (http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2011/10/03/334251/has-corporate-america-achieved-total-judicial-victory-over-american-consumers/). Indeed, one notorious arbitration company behaved as such a rubber stamp for corporate parties that it ordered a woman to pay more than $11,000 that she did not owe because she had the same name as another woman who did owe money (http://www.americanprogressaction.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/09/SCOTUS.pdf). (This company is now out of the consumer arbitration business (http://thinkprogress.org/economy/2009/07/20/172865/no-more-naf/), largely due to a settlement with Minnesota’s attorney general.)

Federal arbitration law explicitly exempts “workers engaged in foreign or interstate commerce.” Yet, in Circuit City v. Adams (http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/99-1379.ZS.html), five conservative justices joined an opinion holding that forced arbitration contracts could be imposed on workers engaged in foreign or interstate commerce. The upshot of this opinion is that your employer can force you to sign away your right to sue them in a real court — under penalty of termination if you don’t comply.

4. Dividing and Conquering

Two years ago, the Court shut down a class action lawsuit (http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2011/06/21/249820/wal-mart-second-worst/) brought by more than 1 million women against the giant retailer Walmart. Walmart, however, was only the second most important class action case that Supreme Court term. Two months earlier, the five conservative justices held in AT&T v. Concepcion that your employer can force you to sign away your right to bring a class action (http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2011/04/27/176997/scotus-nukes-consumers/) against them just as easily as they can force you into privatized arbitration. Indeed, the Court based this decision on the same Federal Arbitration Act that forms the basis of their forced arbitration decisions, despite the fact that that act has nothing to say about class actions.

Class actions, which allow multiple parties with common claims to join together under the same lawsuit, are often the only cost effective way to hold a company accountable. Lawyers are expensive, and plaintiffs’ attorneys are often paid a percentage of their client’s winnings rather than an hourly fee (http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2011/06/27/254361/scotus-review-part-i-class-actions/). For this reason, it is often impossible to hire a competent plaintiffs’ attorney unless your claim is valuable enough that a lawyer can earn a living representing you. Class actions make it possible for multiple workers whose individual claims may only amount to a few thousand dollars — a lifeline for the workers but rarely enough to entice a good lawyer — to join together in order to hire counsel and share the costs of litigation among themselves. Cases like Concepcion, render many workers with relatively small claims against their employer powerless to fight back.

5. Unequal Pay for Equal Work

Finally, the Court’s five conservatives famously tossed out Lilly Ledbetter’s claim (http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2012/10/17/1035571/why-romney-is-against-equal-pay-for-women-in-one-picture/) that she, as a woman, is entitled to earn just as much as her male colleagues earned for doing the same job. Ledbetter became a political celebrity after this decision, and her name is now attached to the law President Obama signed (http://thinkprogress.org/economy/2013/01/29/1508421/ledbetter-anniversary-pay-gap/) overruling the Supreme Court’s rejection of her case.

Ledbetter’s story, however, demonstrates just how difficult it is to fix a Supreme attack on workers’ rights after the justices have decided. Ledbetter became a national figure. President Obama ran ads touting his support for her (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ayILjfYs7xw). And yet the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act barely overcame the Senate’s de facto 60 vote threshold (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lilly_Ledbetter_Fair_Pay_Act_of_2009) after Obama took office backed by enormous super-majorities in both houses of Congress.

Laws overruling anti-worker decisions are all but certain to die in the House today, even if they somehow overcome a Senate filibuster. And few people know the names of Jack Gross or Naiel Nassar or Vincent and Liza Concepcion, even though their cases likely did far more to harm workers than the Supreme Court’s decision in Ledbetter. Absent a dramatic shift in Congress — or a new justice to replace one of the Court’s conservatives — the Court’s anti-worker march will likely continue with impunity.

http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2013/07/01/2237481/five-ways-the-supreme-court-gave-the-shaft-to-workers/

and assholes STILL vote for Repugs

boutons_deux

07-02-2013, 10:44 AM

The Republicans of the Supreme Court

http://readersupportednews.org/images/stories/alphabet/rsn-I.jpgn order to fully understand what the five Republican appointees on the Supreme Court have been up to when they make decisions that affect our democracy, as they did last week on voting rights, you need to understand what the Republican Party has been up to.

The modern GOP is based on an unlikely coalition of wealthy business executives, small business owners, and struggling whites. Its durability depends on the latter two categories believing that the economic stresses they've experienced for decades have a lot to do with the government taking their money and giving it to the poor, who are disproportionately black and Latino.

The real reason small business owners and struggling whites haven't done better is the same most of the rest of America hasn't done better: Although the output of Americans has continued to rise, almost all the gains have gone to the very top.

Government is implicated, but not in the way wealthy Republicans want the other members of their coalition to believe. Laws that the GOP itself championed (too often with the complicity of some Democrats) have trammeled unions, invited outsourcing abroad, slashed taxes on the rich, encouraged takeovers, allowed monopolization, reduced the real median wage, and deregulated Wall Street.

Four decades ago, the typical household's income rose in tandem with output. But since the late 1970s, as these laws took hold, most Americans' incomes have flattened. Had the real median household income continued to keep pace with economic growth it would now be almost $92,000 instead of $50,000.

Obviously, wealthy Republicans would rather other members of their coalition not know any of this - including, especially, their role in making it happen. Their nightmare is small-business owners and struggling whites joining with the poor and the rest of the middle class to wrest economic power away. So they've created a convenient scapegoat in America's minority underclass, along with a government that supposedly taxes hardworking whites to support them.

This is where the five Republican appointees to the Supreme Court have played, and continue to play, such an important role.

First, wealthy Republicans have to be able to spend as much money as possible to bribe lawmakers to do their bidding, tell their version of history, and promulgate several big lies (the poor are "takers not makers," government keeps them "dependent," the wealthy are "job-creators" so cutting their taxes creates more jobs, unions are bad, regulations reduce economic growth, and so on).

The five Republicans on the Supreme Court have obliged by eviscerating campaign finance laws. Their 2010 decision in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, along with the broad interpretations given it by several appellate judges (also Republican appointees), has opened the money floodgates.

Second, wealthy Republicans want to quietly reduce the impact of any laws that might limit their profits, even though they may help struggling whites as consumers or employees. The easiest way to execute this delicate maneuver is to make it harder to sue under such laws.

Here, too, the five Republicans on the Court have been eager to oblige by tightening requirements for class actions and limiting standing to sue. In their recent Comcast Corp. v. Behrend decision, for example, they threw out $875 million in damages that a group of Philadelphia-area subscribers had sought from the cable giant, reasoning that the subscriber plaintiffs hadn't proven they constituted a "class" for the purpose of a class action.

Third and finally, wealthy Republicans want to minimize the votes of poor and minority citizens - and further propagate the myth that these people are responsible for the economic problems of struggling whites - through state redistricting and gerrymandering, voter-identification requirements at polling stations, and the use of almost any pretext to purge minority voters from voting lists.

The five Republicans on the Court obliged last week by striking down a section of the 1965 Voting Rights Act that sets the formula under which states with a long history of discrimination must ask the federal government or a judge for approval before changing their voting procedures.

The significance of Shelby County, Alabama vs. Holder was made plain Thursday when the Court effectively nullified two cases involving Texas voter laws by sending them back to lower courts to reconsider in light of Shelby. One was a voter identification requirement, enacted in 2011, that a federal judge had rejected on grounds that it imposed a disproportionate burden on lower-income people, many of whom are minorities. The other was a redistricting plan, also rejected by a federal court, in part because it would block minorities from gaining a majority vote in almost all districts.

But now both are effectively reinstated, as are the efforts of several other states to suppress votes.

Supreme Court justices are appointed for life in order to ensure their independence from politics. But when it comes to the core political strategy of the Republican Party, the five Republican appointees are, in effect, an extension of the GOP.

http://robertreich.org/post/54383807135

boutons_deux

07-06-2013, 09:56 AM

VWRC War on Employees, including rampant, wide-spread wage theft

Contracts, court rulings giving employers legal upper hand

When Jose Tadeo Gamez Flores realized that his employer had failed to pay him for all the hours he was working as a janitor, he did what many other employees might do in the same situation: He tried to sue to recover the lost wages.

But Flores, 34, ran into an obstacle when he tried to file a class-action lawsuit to get back his and other janitors' wages. He had signed away his right to file a lawsuit against his employer.

After being hired, Flores had been presented with a pile of papers to sign. And he had unknowingly agreed not to take any legal problem with his bosses to the courts, but instead go to a private arbitrator handpicked by his employer.

"This is the equivalent to saying you have to give up your right to vote in an election," said Ari Moss, Flores' attorney. "It's about punishing the poor and the weak, and saying you don't have the right to come and seek redress."

Emboldened by a series of Supreme Court decisions and an employers' job market, many companies are starting to require workers to sign away their rights in return for a job. It is a trend that experts worry could further wear away employees' power in the workplace. The contracts make it harder for employees to join class-action lawsuits, take their employers to court, or leave to go work somewhere else.

"You can see this common thread of making it more difficult to have your day in court," said David Yamada, a professor at Suffolk University Law School in Boston. "The legal climate for employees is a tough one."

Employers defend arbitration agreements as a low-cost way to resolve disputes while freeing up space in the overburdened court system. But some lawyers label arbitrators "corporate courts" because the arbitrator is hired by the employer, and because employers statistically win much more in arbitration than they do in courts.

"It unevens the playing field," said Paul Bland, a senior attorney at Public Justice. "It used to be if you took away a right that you would have under normal law, the courts would throw it out."

The use of these arbitration agreements has become more common since a 2011 Supreme Court decision, AT&T Mobility vs. Concepcion, that made it easier to prevent workers from participating in class-action lawsuits, Bland said. That further complicates things for employees who have small claims that aren't big enough for a lawyer to take on unless they turn into a class-action lawsuit.

Mazhar Saleem is bound to his employer by a number of contracts that made it hard to earn enough money to live, but also hard to go work anywhere else. He drives a town car for a company in New York as an independent contractor, rather than as a full-time employee. That means he doesn't get benefits, never gets overtime, and isn't guaranteed set hours.

But he also signed a non-compete contract when he started working, meaning he can't drive a car for anyone else in New York. So even if his employer doesn't give him any work, he's not allowed to go find it elsewhere, says his attorney, Michael Scimone, with the law firm Outten and Golden.

"It ties into the larger theme of employers trying to use contracts to alter pieces of the employment relationship that are supposed to be governed by law," Scimone said.

Non-compete clauses, once a staple of the high-tech world, are being extended to cover hairdressers, auto mechanics, exterminators and other professions that courts would traditionally not uphold them for, lawyers say. They essentially mean an employee can't leave a job to take another one nearby, unless he or she wants to stop working for a year or so.

It's a way to keep promising employees from leaving, said Matt Marx, an MIT professor who has studied these contracts.

"Given the increased job mobility of today's world, companies are saying, 'We can't count on people to be here forever. We have to lock them up with contracts," he said.

In a recent case in Worcester, Mass., three women working at a hair salon tried to leave after their conditions at work deteriorated. All three received cease and desist letters when they started working elsewhere, because they had signed non-compete clauses. They had to wait a year for the clauses to expire before they could work in the area again.

In other contracts being distributed at the workplace, employees agree to pay the costs of litigation if they lose, and employers shorten the amount of time in which employees can sue them. All of these contracts make it less likely for employees to win against their bosses in court — if they are even allowed to take them to court.

That means lawyers will be more hesitant to take on workplace cases because it has gotten more difficult for them to win them, said Catherine Fisk, an employment law professor at UC Irvine's law school.

"The less likely an employee is to file a claim, the less incentive a company has to extend money and other resources to prevent the illegal discrimination from happening," she said.

Two recent Supreme Court decisions have made it harder for employees to win discrimination suits.

Many employment lawyers say they're not surprised that courts have made life tougher for employees. Since the beginning of the Roberts court, experts say, the Supreme Court has issued decision after decision cutting back employees' legal avenues to complain.

"Since the Warren court, employers have done well at the Supreme Court, but in the Roberts court, they have done exceptionally well," said Cynthia Estlund, a professor at New York University's School of Law. John G. Roberts Jr. became chief justice in 2005.

Law historians trace the court's conservative leanings to the long stretches of Republicans in the White House in the 1980s and 2000s that allowed presidents to appoint more conservative judges to lower courts and to the Supreme Court.

A study published earlier this year in the Minnesota Law Review found that two of the court's current justices are the most conservative out of any of the justices who served between 1946 and 2011, and that court under Roberts is friendlier to business than it was during either of the two previous chief justices.

Adding up seven years of decisions, the workplace is getting to be a tough place for many, said Cliff Palefsky, an employment lawyer at McGuinn, Hillsman & Palefsky in San Francisco. Employers already can ask employees to work harder for less because the job market is still so sluggish in many fields. But in some cases, employees who think they can find a better situation elsewhere are going to have trouble doing so.

"The law is being undermined and it's putting some workers in a bind," Palefsky said. In some situations, when non-compete clauses are mixed with arbitration agreements, he said, "We're one step away from indentured servitude."

http://touch.latimes.com/#section/1780/article/p2p-76573747/

America the Beautiful, fucking over employees who simply want to work, get ahead, chasing the mythical, false American Dream

boutons_deux

07-12-2013, 10:08 AM

Charles Koch Foundation: An Income Of $34,000 Puts You In The Wealthiest 1 PercentIf you earn $34,000, that puts you in the wealthiest 1 percent of the world, according to the Charles Koch Foundation.

That's one of many assertions made in a new ad that attempts to undermine government policies that protect low- and middle-income Americans.

The Economic Policy Institute estimates that a family of three needs an income of at least $44,617 a year (http://www.epi.org/resources/budget/) to cover basic living expenses in the cheapest parts of the country (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/07/03/federal-poverty-line-afford-to-live_n_3541338.html). In Wichita, Kansas, where the commercial is currently being aired (http://thinkprogress.org/economy/2013/07/10/2280101/charles-koch-minimum-wage/), according to Think Progress, a family of three would need to make $53,721 (http://www.epi.org/resources/budget/) to get by. That's far more than $30,000 a year that two parents earning minimum wage would make.

Minimum wage is one policy that billionaire Charles Koch would like to see eliminated. In a recent interview (http://www.kansas.com/2013/07/09/2881836/charles-koch-launching-wichita.html) with the Wichita Eagle, Charles Koch described the federal minimum wage as one of the policies that “creating a culture of dependency” and added that it “reduces the mobility of labor.”

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/07/11/koch-brothers-commercial_n_3581017.html?utm_hp_ref=daily-brief?utm_source=DailyBrief&utm_campaign=071213&utm_medium=email&utm_content=NewsEntry

boutons_deux

07-13-2013, 06:45 AM

An Impertinent Question

http://readersupportednews.org/images/stories/alphabet/rsn-P.jpgermit me an impertinent question (or three).

Suppose a small group of extremely wealthy people sought to systematically destroy the U.S. government by

(1) finding and bankrolling new candidates pledged to shrinking and dismembering it;

(2) intimidating or bribing many current senators and representatives to block all proposed legislation, prevent the appointment of presidential nominees, eliminate funds to implement and enforce laws, and threaten to default on the nation's debt;

(3) taking over state governments in order to redistrict, gerrymander, require voter IDs, purge voter rolls, and otherwise suppress the votes of the majority in federal elections;

(4) running a vast PR campaign designed to convince the American public of certain big lies, such as climate change is a hoax, and

(5) buying up the media so the public cannot know the truth.

Would you call this treason?

If not, what would you call it?

And what would you do about it?

http://robertreich.org/post/55191562750

boutons_deux

07-15-2013, 01:14 PM

6 Dangerous ALEC-Backed Bills Beyond Stand Your Ground Laws (http://thinkprogress.org/economy/2013/07/15/2302051/6-dangerous-alec-backed-bills-beyond-stand-your-ground-laws/)

On Saturday, a Florida jury found George Zimmerman not guilty of shooting unarmed teenager Trayvon Martin. The case has put a spotlight on the state’s Stand Your Ground Law, which enabled Zimmerman to initially walk free because it allows the use of deadly force in self-defense. In the wake of the jury’s ruling, President of the National Urban League Marc Morial turned attention back to the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC) (http://thinkprogress.org/politics/2013/07/14/2297121/urban-league-alec-zimmerman/), a conservative, corporate-backed group that crafts model legislation and is behind the country’s wave of Stand Your Ground laws.

ALEC has pushed other destructive laws across the country, many of which are already being adopted:

1. Pushing voter suppression laws: The group’s model legislation was a big factor in the wave of voter suppression laws (http://thinkprogress.org/progress-report/major-corporations-flee-conservative-voter-suppression-group/) passed ahead of the 2012 election in states such as Texas, Wisconsin, and Florida. These bills include restrictive ID requirements, cutting back on early voting, residency restrictions that often impact enrollment for college students, putting roadblocks in the way of mass voter registrations, and others. While the group vowed to focus just on economic issues (http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2012/04/17/465775/alec-retreat-non-economic-issues/) after corporations pulled funding in response to these voter efforts, the efforts are still moving forward in many states.

2. Reducing or eliminating income taxes: Research conducted for ALEC has claimed that cutting the income tax rate in states will spur growth and create jobs (http://mediamatters.org/blog/2013/03/29/wall-street-journal-relies-on-right-wing-alec-t/193331), and many (http://thinkprogress.org/economy/2013/05/30/2078001/north-carolina-gop-seeks-even-more-regressive-state-tax-burden/) states (http://thinkprogress.org/economy/2013/04/08/1835741/jindal-abandons-income-tax-plan/) have (http://thinkprogress.org/economy/2013/03/29/1794061/oklahoma-tax-cut-for-the-rich/) followed up on this research and proposed just such plans. The group’s connection to anti-tax efforts (http://thinkprogress.org/economy/2012/02/02/417488/florida-gop-alec-forget/) was made abundantly clear when a state lawmaker neglected to remove its mission statement from a boilerplate bill.

3. Blocking paid sick leave bills: While the movement to guarantee workers paid sick days has gained momentum at the city and state level, as New York City just joined (http://thinkprogress.org/economy/2013/06/27/2224331/new-york-paid-sick-days/) four other cities and Connecticut with such a bill, ALEC has been behind a counter effort (http://thinkprogress.org/economy/2013/03/13/1711511/how-alec-is-fueling-efforts-to-block-paid-sick-leave-and-other-pro-worker-policies/) to make sure these laws can’t be enacted. The latest such bill passed in Florida (http://thinkprogress.org/economy/2013/06/17/2165671/rick-scott-paid-sick-leave/), where local governments are now forbidden from enacting paid sick leave legislation. They have also cropped up in Wisconsin (http://thinkprogress.org/economy/2011/07/29/283454/judge-milwaukee-sick-days-over/), Michigan (http://www.michiganradio.org/post/michigan-lawmakers-consider-blocking-local-paid-sick-leave-ordinances), and Mississippi (http://thinkprogress.org/economy/2013/02/27/1644821/mississippi-republicans-would-prohibit-towns-from-establishing-a-minimum-wage/).

4. Attacking efforts to raise wages: More than 100 bills have been introduced in 31 state legislatures (http://www.nelp.org/page/-/rtmw/uploads/NELP-ALEC-Wage-Suppression.pdf?nocdn=1?nocdn=1) since 2011 that are aimed at repealing or weakening laws that raise wages at the local level, 67 of which were “directly sponsored or co-sponsored by ALEC-affiliated legislators,” according to a report from the National Employment Law Project. Eleven of those have already been signed into law. The proposed laws attempt to repeal state minimum wage laws that are above the federal floor of $7.25 an hour, reduce the minimum wages for young people and tipped workers, weaken overtime compensation, and block local governments from passing bills that increase pay to a living wage.

5. Taking down state renewable energy standards: In partnership with the Heartland Institute, ALEC has written model legislation called the “Electricity Freedom Act” (http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2013/01/19/1473251/despite-conservative-attacks-states-continue-to-realize-the-benefits-of-renewable-energy-standards/) that rolls back state standards. It argues that renewable energy mandates are “a tax on consumers of electricity” and that they go beyond what market forces would call for. Such a bill was being considered in North Carolina (http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2013/04/04/1824171/alec-sponsored-bill-to-repeal-north-carolinas-renewable-energy-standard-narrowly-passes-out-of-committee/), although failed in committee (http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2013/04/24/1915831/breaking-north-carolina-alec-modeled-res-repeal-bill-fails-in-committee/), and it is now under consideration in Kansas (http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2013/02/15/1597281/conservatives-aim-to-roll-back-kansas-renewable-energy-standard/). States have also pushed an ALEC-backed bill to teach climate change denial (http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2013/01/31/1521401/oklahoma-colorado-arizona-alec-bill-teaching-climate-change-denial-in-schools/) in schools.

6. Banning the exposure of unsafe or cruel farm practices: Seven states are considering “ag gag” bills that would prevent whistleblowers from exposing inhumane factory practices against farm animals (http://thinkprogress.org/health/2013/03/19/1741691/alec-food-safety-ag-gag/), requiring that evidence be turned over to law enforcement within 24 or 48 hours. These bills have their roots in ALEC’s effort on legislation that labels people who interfere with these operations terrorists and makes it illegal for activists to take pictures or video of them.

http://thinkprogress.org/economy/2013/07/15/2302051/6-dangerous-alec-backed-bills-beyond-stand-your-ground-laws/

ALEC, conserving the status quo, protecting/enriching Corporate-Americans (that finanace ALEC) while fucking Human-Americans.

boutons_deux

07-18-2013, 05:18 AM

ALEC (UCA, United Corporations of America) wealth extraction, wealth redistribution upwards

Cashing in on Kids: 139 ALEC Bills in 2013 Promote a Private, For-Profit Education Model

Despite widespread public opposition to the education privatization agenda, at least 139 bills or state budget provisions reflecting American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC) education bills have been introduced in 43 states and the District of Columbia in just the first six months of 2013, according to an analysis by the Center for Media and Democracy, publishers of ALECexposed.org (http://www.alecexposed.org/wiki/ALEC_Exposed). Thirty-one have become law.

ALEC Vouchers Transfer Taxpayer Money to Private and Religious Schools

News Corp CEO Rupert Murdoch has called public education a "a $500 billion sector in the U.S. alone that is waiting desperately to be transformed."

But this "transformation" of public education -- from an institution that serves the public into one that serves private for-profit interests -- has been in progress for decades, thanks in large part to ALEC.

ALEC boasts on the "history" section of its website (http://www.alec.org/about-alec/history/) that it first started promoting "such 'radical' ideas as a [educational] voucher system" in 1983 -- the same year as the Reagan administration's "Nation At Risk" report -- taking up ideas first articulated decades earlier by ALEC supporter Milton Friedman.

ALEC Corporations Reap the Rewards
\
Some of the for-profit corporations profiting from the ALEC Education privatization agenda include:

"Amplify," the newly-created education division of Rupert Murdoch's News Corp, parent company of Fox News. News Corp is on the ALEC Education Task Force. In 2010, News Corp hired former New York City chancellor Joel Klein to run its education division, which includes the for-profit education company formerly known as Wireless Generation. The firm has big plans for a specialized "Amplify Tablet" that would provide lesson plans, textbooks and testing to cash-in on new "Common Core" required state standards.

K12 Inc., the nation's largest provider of online charter schools, where low-paid teachers manage as many as 250 students at a time and communicate with their pupils only through email and phone. The corporation, whose CEO Ron Packard received $5 million in total compensation (http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/virginia-schools-insider/post/k12-inc-chief-executive-ron-packard-paid-5-million-compensation-package-in-2011/2011/12/09/gIQASUiGiO_blog.html) in 2011, is on the ALEC Education Task Force and its lobbyist Lisa Gillis has Chaired ALEC's Special Needs Subcommittee. According to a report in the New York Times (http://www.nytimes.com/2011/12/13/education/online-schools-score-better-on-wall-street-than-in-classrooms.html?_r=2&seid=auto&smid=tw-nytimes&pagewanted=all&), students in K12, Inc. schools often perform very poorly, and some K12 teachers claim that they have been encouraged to pass failing students so that the company can receive more reimbursement from states. K12 receives an average of between $5,500 and $6,000 for every student on its rosters -- the same amount that would be spent for students attending a brick-and-mortar school, despite K12 not having to pay for cafeteria, gyms, busing, or heat and air conditioning -- and much of K12's profits are spent on advertising targeted at increasing enrollment, rather than on investments in education. At K12's Agora Cyber Charter School, which produces more than 10% of the company's revenue, nearly 60% of students are behind grade level in math, nearly 50% are behind in reading, and a third do not graduate on time.

Corinthian Colleges is a for-profit college chain that operates campuses under names like Everest, Heald, and WyoTech, in addition to offering degrees online. It has become notorious for aggressive recruiting practices and leaving students unprepared for the job market and saddled with massive student loan debts. In Milwaukee, for example, where a Corinthian Everest campus was financed with $11 million (http://www.jsonline.com/blogs/business/210087411.html) in city bonds, just 25% of students found jobs (http://www.jsonline.com/business/university-of-phoenix-to-close-three-state-campuses-a379a0t-174864561.html) and over half dropped out; the campus closed two years after it opened. Nationally, over 40 percent of Corinthian's students default on their loans, and only 60% of students complete their coursework. In June, Corinthian disclosed (http://www.latimes.com/business/money/la-fi-mo-corinthian-colleges-sec-probe-20130616,0,2938734.story) that it is under investigation by the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) and has been subpoenaed by California's Attorney General for its recruiting practices and financial responsibility.

The 501(c)(4) American Federation for Children and its 501(c)(3) wing the Alliance for Children, for example, have brought an array of privatization bills to ALEC and promoted the legislation across the country. The groups were organized and are funded (http://www.thenation.com/blog/162613/right-wing-billionaires-invest-wisconsins-recall-elections-save-school-privatization-age) by the billionaire DeVos family (heirs to the Amway fortune); Richard DeVos has received the ALEC "Adam Smith Free Enterprise Award." AFC's top lobbyist is disgraced former Wisconsin Assembly Speaker Scott Jensen, who was convicted (http://www.nbc15.com/news/headlines/2814276.html) of three felonies for misuse of his office for political purposes and banned from the state Capitol for five years (though the charges were later reversed and dropped as part of a plea agreement (http://www.todaystmj4.com/news/local/112240184.html)). Jensen represents the organization (http://news.heartland.org/newspaper-article/2009/10/26/new-model-legislation-available-policymakers) on the ALEC Education Task Force and has brought AFC bills to ALEC (http://www.commoncause.org/atf/cf/%7BFB3C17E2-CDD1-4DF6-92BE-BD4429893665%7D/education_35daymailing_stfs11_updated%20Ohio.pdf) for adoption as "model" legislation. AFC spent at least $7 million (http://media.jsonline.com/documents/ASC1290_FINAL_3.25.13UPDATED.pdf) electing privatization-friendly state legislators across the country in 2012, but reported far less (http://www.prwatch.org/news/2013/05/12101/issue-ad-charade-american-federation-children-uncovered-wisconsin) to state election authorities.

In addition to the DeVos family foundations, the Milwaukee-based Bradley Foundation is one of the top school privatization funders in the country, spending over $31 million over the past eleven years promoting "school choice" nationwide, according to (http://www.onewisconsinnow.org/p-is-for-payoff.pdf) One Wisconsin Now; for decades, Bradley has also been a major ALEC funder. The foundation has over $600 million in assets and is headed by Michael Grebe, Scott Walker's campaign co-chair.

Originally promoted as a program for Milwaukee's low-income students of color to have access to private education, the initial voucher program gained support from some African-American leaders and was pushed by State Representative Polly Williams, a Milwaukee Democrat. But last session, Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker broadened vouchers to families with higher incomes, and in the 2013-2015 budget further expanded the program. "They have hijacked the program," Williams says (http://www.jsonline.com/blogs/news/207753841.html). "As soon as the doors open for the low income children, they're trampled by the high income," she said. "Now the upper crust have taken over."

http://truth-out.org/news/item/17636-cashing-in-on-kids-139-alec-bills-in-2013-promote-a-private-for-profit-education-model

for-profit schools extractive capitalism: shittiest possible product for highest possible price

boutons_deux

08-03-2013, 11:21 AM

Dirty Hands: 77 ALEC Bills in 2013 Advance a Big Oil, Big Ag Agenda

ALEC, Fueled by Fossil Fuel Industry, Pursues Retrograde Energy Agenda

http://www.prwatch.org/files/images/hands_in_crude_oil350px.jpg

For decades, ALEC has been a favored conduit for some of the worlds largest polluters, like Koch Industries, BP, Shell, Chevron, and Exxon Mobil, and for decades has promoted less environmental regulation and more drilling and fracking.

ALEC bills in recent years have pulled states out of regional climate initiatives, opposed carbon dioxide emission standards, created hurdles for state agencies attempting to regulate pollution, and tried to stop the federal Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) from regulating greenhouse gas emissions. The legislation introduced in 2013 carries on this legacy. ALEC bills favor the fossil fuel barons and promote a retrograde energy agenda that pollutes our air and water and is slowly cooking the planet to what may soon be devastating temperatures.

"Disregarding science at every turn, ALEC is willing to simply serve as a front for the fossil fuel industry," says Bill McKibben, co-founder of 350.org. "Given the stakes--the earth's climate--that's shabby and sad."

ALEC Tours the Tar Sands

http://www.prwatch.org/files/images/ALECLegislators.png2012 ALEC Academy attendees (Photo via Twitter)

In October of 2012, ALEC organized an "Oil Sands Academy" where nine ALEC member politicians were given an all-expenses-paid trip to Calgary and flown on a tour of the Alberta tarsands while accompanied by oil industry lobbyists. The trip was sponsored by pipeline operator TransCanada and the oil-industry funded American Fuel and Petrochemical Manufacturers, and email records obtained by CMD show that after the trip, ALEC urged legislators to send "thank you" notes to corporate lobbyists for their generosity.

At least ten states in 2013 have introduced variations on the ALEC "Resolution in Support of the Keystone XL Pipeline," calling on the president and Congress to approve the controversial project. Environmentalists oppose the pipeline because extracting oil from Canadian tar sands would unlock huge amounts of carbon, increasing the greenhouse gas emissions that contribute to climate change. Despite being promoted as a "job creator," the pipeline would only create between 50 and 100 permanent positions in an economy of over 150 million working people.

In Nebraska, CMD filed an ethics complaint (http://www.prwatch.org/news/2013/07/12164/cmd-calls-nebraska-ethics-investigation-over-alec-keystone-%E2%80%9Cacademy%E2%80%9D-junket) against state senator Jim Smith, the ALEC State Chair for Nebraska, who never revealed to his constituents that he had gone on the "Oil Sands Academy," and failed to disclose over a thousand dollars of travel expenses paid for by the Government of Alberta, Canada. Sen. Smith has been exceptionally vocal when it comes to his support for the Keystone XL pipeline. For example, he sponsored a 2012 Nebraska law that would -- if it survives a continuing legal challenge -- bypass the U.S. State Department and allow TransCanada to start building the Nebraska part of the pipeline right away, regardless of any future decision by the federal government.

ALEC Partners with Heartland Institute for Rollback of Renewables

Even more extraordinary is ALEC's push this year to repeal Renewable Portfolio Standards (RPS), which require that utility companies provide a certain amount of their total energy from renewable sources like wind.

"ALEC's long time role in denying the science and policy solutions to climate change is shifting into an evolving roadblock on state and federal clean energy incentives, a necessary part of global warming mitigation," says Connor Gibson, a Research Associate at Greenpeace.

In Germany, where the nation has set a goal of getting 35% of its energy from renewables by 2020, public committment to clean energy technologies is transforming markets, driving innovation and generating huge numbers of jobs. Even in the U.S., where there has been less public investment, the Bureau of Labor Statistics says 3.1 million clean energy jobs (http://www.epi.org/publication/bp349-assessing-the-green-economy/) have been created in recent years.

Perhaps because of RPS' job-creating qualities, ALEC's bill to repeal renewable standards, the "Electricity Freedom Act," was too much even for the most conservative legislatures. It failed to pass in every state where it was introduced -- even in North Carolina (http://www.prwatch.org/news/2013/04/12075/big-defeat-alecs-effort-repeal-renewable-energy-standards-north-carolina), where it had the backing of Grover Norquist (http://cjonline.com/news/2013-02-28/norquist-pitch-renewable-energy-mandate-rejected), and whose Republican-dominated
legislature has been rolling multiple ALEC bills into law in 2013 (http://www.newsobserver.com/2013/05/06/2875525/private-group-carries-sway-in.html)

It may be little surprise that ALEC's attack on renewables was spearheaded by one of its looniest members: the bill was brought to ALEC in May 2012 (http://www.commoncause.org/atf/cf/%7BFB3C17E2-CDD1-4DF6-92BE-BD4429893665%7D/35-day_mailing_eea_stfs.pdf) by the Illinois-based Heartland Institute, a group best known for billboards (http://www.prwatch.org/news/2012/06/11578/scott-walker-and-ted-kaczynski-heartland) comparing people who believe in climate change to mass murderers like the Unabomber Ted Kaczynski.

ALEC is usually very secretive about its model legislation and its efforts in the states, but ALEC did not disguise the fact that it had made the Electricity Freedom Act a priority for the 2013 session. ALEC's Energy, Environment and Agriculture Task Force Director Todd Wynn published (http://www.americanlegislator.org/alec-to-states-repeal-renewable-energy-mandates/) blog (http://www.americanlegislator.org/freedom-not-force-in-the-north-carolina-renewable-energy-debate/) posts (http://www.americanlegislator.org/constitutionality-of-renewable-energy-mandates-in-question/) on the topic and was quoted in the press (http://www.washingtonpost.com/national/health-science/climate-skeptic-group-works-to-reverse-renewable-energy-mandates/2012/11/24/124faaa0-3517-11e2-9cfa-e41bac906cc9_story.html) discussing how ALEC was working with Heartland to promote the repeal bills.

In many of the states that have proposed versions of the Electricity Freedom Act, the right-wing infrastructure has sprung into action, almost according to a script. The Beacon Hill Institute publishes a study (using discredited (http://www.synapse-energy.com/Downloads/SynapsePaper.2013-01.CSI.ALEC-Talking-Points.12-092.pdf) analysis) claiming that a state's renewable standards lead to higher energy costs, as it did in states like Maine (http://www.onlinesentinel.com/news/energy-report-cited-by-lepage-under-scrutiny_2012-11-26.html) and Ohio (http://heartland.org/policy-documents/research-commentary-ohio-alternative-energy-portfolio-standard) and Wisconsin (http://www.wpri.org/Reports/Volume26/Vol26No4/Vol26No4.pdf) and Arizona (http://www.beaconhill.org/BHIStudies/AZ-REST/AZ-BHI-REST-2013-0403FINAL.pdf). The David Koch-founded and-led Americans for Prosperity organizes an event to "educate" its members about how renewables are "punishing" consumers, as they did in Nebraska (http://americansforprosperity.org/nebraska/newsroom/afp-opposes-sen-lathrops-lb-104-expand-tax-benefits-for-solyndra-and-other-green-companies/), and perhaps invite a guest from the Heartland Institute to make similar claims, as they did in Kansas (http://americansforprosperity.org/kansas/event/renewable-portfolio-standards-event-with-the-heartland-institute-afp-foundation/).

ALEC, the Heartland Institute, and the Beacon Hill Institute all have received money from foundations associated with Charles and David Koch (http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Koch_Family_Foundations), and each are also part of the State Policy Network, an umbrella group of right-wing organizations that claim adherence to the free market. SPN has received at least $10 million (http://www.publicintegrity.org/2013/02/14/12181/donors-use-charity-push-free-market-policies-states) in the past five years from the mysterious Donors Trust, which funnels money from the Kochs and other conservative funders. SPN was also a "Chairman" level sponsor of ALEC's 2011 Annual Conference and ALEC is an Associate Member of SPN.

But even though the ALEC/Heartland anti-renewable energy fight found little success in 2013, the group is not giving up.

New Avenue Sought to Rollback Renewables

“I expect that North Carolina and Kansas will probably pick up this issue again in 2014 and lead the charge across the country once again,” Wynn said (http://www.midwestenergynews.com/2013/06/04/state-renewable-energy-laws-survive-repeal-attempts-so-far/).
ALEC now appears to be modifying its strategy to find a more palatable way to attack renewable standards.

At its August 2013 meeting, ALEC will consider a watered-down version of the Electricity Freedom Act with a bill called the "Market Power Renewables Act." That legislation would phase-out a state's Renewable Portfolio Standards and instead create a renewable "market" where consumers can choose to pay for renewable energy, and allow utilities to purchase energy credits from outside the state. This thwarts the purpose of RPS policies, which help create the baseline demand for renewables that will spur the clean energy investment necessary to continue developing the technology and infrastructure that will drive costs down.

But, it would satisfy ALEC's goal of preserving reliance on dirty energy from fossil fuels.

ALEC Bills Undermine Environmental Regulations, First Amendment

ALEC energy, environment, and agriculture bills moving in the first six months of 2013 include:

...

http://www.prwatch.org/news/2013/08/12193/dirty-hands-77-alec-bills-2013-advance-big-oil-big-ag-agenda

boutons_deux

08-07-2013, 11:41 AM

Carl Gibson | How the ALEC Agenda Forced Chicago's School Closings

Earlier this year, Chicago Mayor Rahm Emanuel announced the closing of 50 public schools (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/08/01/cps-school-closing-ruling_n_3685410.html), the vast majority of which serve low-income children in high-poverty neighborhoods. While the unelected Chicago Board of Education slashed school budgets and forced the firing of thousands of school employees and educators, Mayor Emanuel gave out millions in tax breaks to the Chicago Mercantile Exchange (http://www.nbcchicago.com/blogs/ward-room/Emanuel-Pushes-For-Merc-Tax-Break-132310958.html) - his top campaign contributor - a new stadium for DePaul University (http://inthesetimes.com/article/15229/robbing_peter_to_pay_depaul/), and possibly even more for Wrigley Field (http://chicagoist.com/2013/08/02/cubs_to_get_property_tax_break_on_w.php). The city isn't broke, but rather has simply made clear that corporate profits are a higher priority than public education.

The situation in Chicago is not unlike the situation in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, where the city council has ordered the closing of 23 public schools (http://abclocal.go.com/wpvi/story?section=news/local&id=9018966), also in impoverished neighborhoods. Pennsylvania governor Tom Corbett slashed $1 billion from public education while simultaneously handing out $800 million in corporate tax breaks (http://www.pennlive.com/opinion/index.ssf/2013/04/on_tax_day_gov_corbett_should_put_people_ahead_of_ corporate_tax_breaks_as_i_see_it.html) across the state, meaning a direct transfer of wealth from schools to the pockets of corporate CEOs. If one connects the dots, it's easy to trace all of this back to ALEC. Here's how ALEC's agenda is harming schools like those in the city hosting their annual conference.

Mayor Emanuel cites Chicago Public Schools' $1 billion deficit as a cause for his closing of 50 public schools. But Chicago is far from broke – the money is simply being given away to other non-educational ventures. The ALEC agenda operates the same way.

The Center for Media and Democracy's "ALEC Exposed (http://alecexposed.org/)" wiki has published an exhaustive database of ALEC's model legislation sorted by category. ALEC's 1995 "Sound Federal Fiscal Policy Resolution" blames higher deficits on higher taxes, rather than ALEC's other model bills aimed at repealing estate taxes and capital gains taxes, which generate significant tax revenues and are overwhelmingly paid by the super-rich. By systematically starving states of revenue by cutting taxes for the rich, a revenue crisis is created with budget cuts presented as the only solution.

Redirecting Public Funds to Privately-Run Charter Schools

Chicago Public Schools estimates that Rahm Emanuel's budget cuts are affecting classrooms to the tune of $68 million (http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/politics/clout/chi-emanuel-doesnt-address-cps-neighborhood-school-cuts-20130806,0,5916825.story) this year alone. But the Raise Your Hand Coalition puts that number closer to $162 million (http://ilraiseyourhand.org/content/statement-truman-college-budget-hearing)when accounting for the money given to privately-run charter schools. Those cuts have led to over 2,000 layoffs (http://ilraiseyourhand.org/content/devastating-cuts-2085-more-teachersemployees-laid-cps) in the CPS system, of which approximately 1,300 are teachers.

But studies have consistently shown that public school students do better than their charter school counterparts. The Ohio Department of Education released a study last year showing that, among other results (http://innovationohio.org/2012/10/18/charter-schools-still-outperformed-by-public-schools/), public schools graduated 90% of their students, while charter schools only graduated 30%, even linking proficiencies with poverty levels in every instance. The real reason is cities like Chicago and Philadelphia are instead diverting public funds from public schools to charter schools at the insistence of millionaire charter school backers. This is simply one step toward privatizing more schools, thus widening the opportunity chasm between the sons and daughters of privilege and those living in poverty.

"Groups like ALEC, StudentsFirst, Democrats for Education Reform— in order for them to function and raise money and get private contributions, they have to show that schools are failing," Cantor said. "Schools in the US aren't failing. Schools with lower income kids have lower test scores, but that's a failure of society … We have to catch up with all those difficulties with no resources."

Busting Teachers' Unions

Michelle Rhee of StudentsFirst is one of the most outspoken detractors of teachers' unions. She quit her job (http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2010-10-13/michelle-rhee-is-said-to-step-down-as-washington-d-c-schools-chancellor.html) as DC's chancellor of schools after firing roughly 200 teachers and putting another 700 on notice based on student test scores. Since then, her StudentsFirst organization has become a nationwide effort funded by millions from big finance and has recently dumped considerable sums into union-busting efforts inOhio (http://dianeravitch.net/2012/10/31/michelle-rhee-shows-her-true-colors/) and Michigan (http://www.esquire.com/blogs/politics/michelle-rhee-michigan-union-ballot-14124244).

A 2002 study (http://www.scribd.com/doc/158569393/Teacher-Unions-and-Student-Achievement) by Arizona State University found that students learning from unionized educators statistically achieved more than those learning from teachers who didn't have a union. This could be because unionized teachers can advocate for students openly without fear of retribution from principals or school boards. It could also mean that unions like the CTU tend to be some of the only groups that advocate for equity in school districts.

"The rich get richer and the poor get poorer. Schools in high value areas and wealthy suburbs do really well in terms of test scores. Their parents pay a lower property tax rate than we do in Chicago because the property is worth so much more," Cantor said. "They constantly raise taxes for schools and they don't mind, because those are their kids. But we don't yet have the political will in this country to do that on a massive scale. The people in power want to educate their kids, not all kids."

http://readersupportednews.org/opinion2/299-190/18785-carl-gibson-how-the-alec-agenda-forced-chicagos-school-closings

boutons_deux

09-08-2013, 08:44 AM

The Political Calculations Behind Growing Inequality

Fifty years ago, average Americans lived in a society where less than $10 of every $100 in personal income went to the nation’s richest 1 percent.

Our top 1 percent are now grabbing just under 20 percent of America’s income, double the 1963 level.

How did this happen? We Americans certainly never voted for this upward redistribution. In all the years since Martin Luther King, Jr.’s “I Have a Dream” speech, no candidates ever campaigned on a platform that called for enriching America’s already rich.

Yet the rich have been enriched. And they keep getting even richer while America’s 99 percent face an economic insecurity that never lets up.

This doesn’t make sense. Americans, after all, live amid democratic institutions. Why haven’t the American people, through these institutions, been able to undo the public policies that squeeze the bottom 99 percent and lavishly reward the crew at the top?

Why, in other words, hasn’t democracy slowed rising inequality?

Societies that let wealth concentrate at enormously intense levels, the four show, will quite predictably end up with a wealthy class who can concentrate enormous resources on getting their way.

These wealthy underwrite political campaigns. They spend fortunes on lobbying. They keep politicians and bureaucrats “friendly” to their interests with a revolving door that promises lucrative employment in the private sector.

Just how deeply have America’s super-rich come to dominate our political process? Bonica and his co-authors offer up a revealing anecdote: Back in 1980, no American gave out more in federal election contributions than Cecil Haden, the owner of a tugboat company. Haden contributed what would, in today’s dollars, amount to about $1.72 million, almost six times more than any other political contributor in 1980.

In the 2012 election cycle, by contrast, just one deep-pocket couple alone, gaming industry giant Sheldon Adelson and his wife Miriam, together shelled out $103.4 million to bend politics in their favored wealth-concentrating direction.

Both “Democrats as well as Republicans,” the four analysts observe, have come to “rely on big donors.”

What has this reliance produced? Nothing good for average Americans. Back in the 1930s, for instance, Democrats championed the financial industry regulations that helped create a more equal mid-20th century America. In our time, significant numbers of Democrats have joined with Republicans to undo these regulations.

too many lawmakers and other elected leaders can’t see that “public interest.” Cascades of cash — from America’s super rich — have them conveniently blinded.

http://truth-out.org/opinion/item/18675-the-political-calculations-behind-growing-inequality

iow, the 99% America is fucked and unfuckable. The rising tide (GDP) the used to lift all boats (after the progressive reforms of the 1930s, so hated by 1%/conservatives) has been rigged to lift only the the 1%/corporate boats, leaving the 99% foundering in the muck and stink of low tide, a tide that only goes out.

btw, it's the 1% and MIC corps agitating for (profiting from the) war with Syria, not the 99% that will pay for it. War is wealth transfer / redistribution-upward racket.

boutons_deux

09-15-2013, 03:54 PM

global capitalists preparing their coup de grace on the world's 99%

"Trade" Deal Would Mean a Pay Cut for 90% of U.S. Workers

The verdict is in: most U.S. workers would see wage losses as a result of the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) (http://www.citizen.org/tpp), a sweeping U.S. "free trade" deal under negotiation with 11 Pacific Rim countries. That's the conclusion of a report (http://www.cepr.net/index.php/publications/reports/net-effect-of-the-tpp-on-us-wages) just released by the non-partisan Center for Economic and Policy Research (CEPR).

TPP's corporate proponents have tried to sell the NAFTA-style deal to the U.S. public and policymakers by claiming that it will result in gains for the U.S. economy. They often cite a study (http://bookstore.piie.com/book-store/6642.html) from the Peterson Institute for International Economics that used sweeping assumptions to project a tiny benefit from the TPP. We brought that study down to size back in January, showing that, even if one accepts the pro-TPP authors' litany of optimistic assumptions, the much-touted "benefit" from the TPP would amount to an extra quarter per person per day (http://citizen.typepad.com/eyesontrade/2013/01/a-shiny-quarter-per-day-new-tpp-study-uses-sweeping-assumptions-to-project-tiny-benefit.html).

As this week's CEPR report points out, the pro-TPP study projected a meager 0.13 percent increase to U.S. gross domestic product (GDP) by 2025 if the controversial (http://citizen.typepad.com/eyesontrade/2013/08/final-tpp-round-not-final-are-even-more-secretive-talks-ahead.html) TPP would be signed, passed, and implemented. By comparison, economists have estimated (https://mm.jpmorgan.com/EmailPubServlet?doc=GPS-938711-0.html&h=-825pgod) that Apple's iPhone 5 contributed a 0.25 - 0.5 percent increase to U.S. GDP.

That is, the TPP's total contribution to the U.S. economy is expected, by TPP proponents, to be about one half to one fourth of the contribution of the latest iPhone version.

Well, you might say, a nearly invisible blip in GDP is better than no blip in GDP. (You might say this if you ignore the host of dubious assumptions used to project said blip, and ignore the TPP's expected threats to medicines affordability (http://www.citizen.org/documents/TPPonepagerfinalmostrecent.pdf), environmental protections (http://www.citizen.org/documents/fact-sheet-tpp-and-environment.pdf), food safety (http://delauro.house.gov/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=406:-delauro-food-safety-critical-issue-in-upcoming-trade-talks&catid=7:2011-press-releases&Itemid=23), Internet freedom (http://tppinfo.org/), and financial stability (http://www.citizen.org/documents/FinanceReregulationFactSheetFINAL.pdf).)

But what would such a paltry GDP rise mean for your pocket? Answering that requires taking into account the increase in income inequality that typically results from such "free trade" deals (http://citizen.typepad.com/eyesontrade/2013/08/trade-and-inequality.html). The author of the CEPR report, economist David Rosnick, explains, "There are winners and losers from trade, and research has shown that trade contributes to inequality. In fact, it would take only a very small contribution to inequality due to trade to wipe out all of the gains that most workers would get from this agreement." Rosnick then uses the empirical evidence on the trade-inequality relationship and shows that even taking the most conservative estimate of trade's contribution to inequality (that trade is responsible for just 10% of the rise in inequality), the losses from projected TPP-produced inequality indeed would "wipe out" the tiny projected gains for the median U.S. worker.

That is, as a result of the TPP, the median U.S. income would fall. It would not just fall in comparison to the incomes of the wealthy (which would rise). It would fall in absolute terms, forcing middle-class U.S. workers to take home less in 2025 than they earn today.

Such wage losses would afflict most U.S. workers. Rosnick shows that if we assume that trade has contributed just 15% of the recent rise in inequality (a still conservative estimate), then the TPP would mean wage losses for all but the richest 10% of U.S. workers. So if you're making less than $87,000 per year (http://www.bls.gov/oes/current/oes_nat.htm#00-0000) (the current 90th percentile wage), the TPP would mean a pay cut. And if you're making more than $87,000 per year, you may still be a tad concerned about how the deal could jeopardize the safety of your food, threaten clean water protections, roll back Wall Street reforms, etc.

Click here for the disturbing report from CEPR (http://www.cepr.net/documents/publications/TPP-2013-09.pdf).

http://citizen.typepad.com/eyesontrade/2013/09/the-verdict-is-in-the-trans-pacific-partnership-tpp-a-sweeping-free-trade-deal-under-negotiation-with-11-pacific-rim-coun.html

fast-tracked TTP remains hidden from Congress but available to 100s of US corporations

Can the capitalists of United Corporations of American buy enough Dem senators to win approval?

THEGOAT

09-15-2013, 03:56 PM

So this thread is like the Boutons version of drudge report?

Why not just make a blog?

boutons_deux

09-15-2013, 04:01 PM

Secret Quarter-Billion-Dollar Koch Brothers Political Operation Revealed

Politico.com, the Washington insider website, has the money-in-politics scoop (http://dyn.politico.com/printstory.cfm?uuid=2AAD0995-04D3-40D9-905F-CD3C0F06AD13) of the year: It has unmasked a previously unknown political money laundering operation, set up by the energy billionaires and libertarian Koch brothers, that raised $256 million and secretly spent almost all of it last year against Democrats.

“The filing offers a rare tour of the conservative movement and how it gets its funds,” Politico said:

• Center to Protect Patient Rights, a group that vehemently opposes Obamacare: a total of $115 million, from three grants.
• Americans for Prosperity, an organizing and advocacy group that is courted by Republican presidential candidates: $32.3 million.
• The 60 Plus Association, a free-market seniors group that also opposes Obamacare: $15.7 million.
• American Future Fund, an Iowa group that spent a lot of money on ads in 2012, many for Mitt Romney: $13.6 million.
• Concerned Women for America Legislative Action Committee, which gets involved in a number of social policy debates: $8.2 million.
• Themis Trust, a Koch-based voter database that is made available to other conservative organizations: $5.8 million.
• Public Notice, a fiscal policy think tank: $5.5 million.
• Generation Opportunity, a group for “liberty-loving” young people: $5 million.
• The LIBRE Initiative, which targets a free-market message to Hispanic immigrants: $3.1 million.
• The National Rifle Association: $3.5 million.
• The U.S. Chamber of Commerce: $2 million.
• American Energy Alliance: $1.5 million.
• And several groups — including the State Tea Party Express, Tea Party Patriots and Heritage Action for America — got less than $1 million each.

http://www.alternet.org/tea-party-and-right/secret-quarter-billion-dollar-koch-brothers-political-operation-revealed?paging=off

boutons_deux

09-25-2013, 01:10 PM

The Latest Trend in Trade Secrets

The Obama administration is quietly forging two deals that are being written by and for the benefit of corporations, to the detriment of workers and consumers.

Neither the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) nor the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP) have scary-sounding names. But these pacts will hurt millions of people while making the world much safer for corporations. So far, and only under great pressure, has Obama reluctantly let some of our own lawmakers glimpse certain sections.

This secrecy (http://www.cbc.ca/news/world/shhh-let-s-have-an-international-trade-meeting-and-not-tell-anyone-1.1388334) exists for good reason. If normal citizens or rank-and-file members of Congress got the drift of what is going on there’d be a revolt. To say the least, these dealsaren’t designed for our benefit (http://billmoyers.com/2013/09/17/study-mega-trade-deal-would-make-most-americans-poorer/).

Quite the contrary. They’re being written by and for the benefit of corporations, to the detriment of workers and consumers. This follows the baleful path of our earlier trade and investment deals, including NAFTA, CAFTA (http://www.counterpunch.org/2002/09/12/what-rhymes-with-nafta-but-smells-worse-cafta/), the WTO, and the U.S.-Korea Free Trade Agreement.

The big winners in all these pacts are the companies that conjure them up: huge banks, PhRMA members, mining conglomerates, tobacco giants, Big Ag’s denizens, and every other pillar of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce.

Mining companies are already taking full advantage of these pacts. Foreign companies can challenge national rules (http://www.ips-dc.org/reports/mining_for_profits_in_international_tribunals)rest ricting arsenic, cyanide, and other forms of pollution in global trade panels, and governments have been forced to pay up for enforcing their own laws. As El Salvador has learned through its attempt to outlaw gold-mining (http://www.csmonitor.com/World/Americas/2013/0910/El-Salvador-buried-treasure-or-fool-s-gold) over the objections of Canada’s Pacific Rim Mining Corp., the litigation process is long, convoluted, and expensive.

The new trade deals Obama is championing would make it even easier for global corporations to override national laws that get in their way. For one thing, they may override our Dodd-Frank Law on financial regulation (http://www.alternet.org/economy/huge-multinationals-are-plotting-steamroll-our-democracy-their-hunt-profits?page=0,0). That would allow international banks to “streamline” regulations (http://ourfuture.org/20130523/tpp-a-deregulation-treaty-not-a-trade-treaty) and once again create reckless new securities. PhRMA, too, is looking for friendlier international regulations (http://rabble.ca/blogs/bloggers/council-canadians/2013/09/eli-lillys-nafta-lawsuit-should-prompt-rethink-investor-rig), even though it already uses NAFTA and other accords to challenge patent laws it finds inconvenient.

This corporate quest to “harmonize” national rules would mean oversight would sink to the lower common denominator around the world. No wonder these deals are being forged in secret (http://truth-out.org/news/item/15142-corporate-backed-trans-pacific-partnership-shrouded-in-secrecy).

http://otherwords.org/latest-trend-trade-secrets/

boutons_deux

10-06-2013, 07:46 AM

In the Kock Bros fully owned subsidiary of Wisconsin

Wisconsin Attorney General Seeks to Vitiate Open Records Law to Protect ALEC’s National Treasurer

Wisconsin Attorney General J.B. Van Hollen has taken the unprecedented step of asserting that a state legislator cannot be held accountable for refusing to disclose public records in response to a lawful open records request by the Center for Media and Democracy.

Van Hollen’s department asserted in court filings (http://org.salsalabs.com/dia/track.jsp?v=2&c=c9E8JKwD150KZF0K4aIctgcpTmwMw4XX) that Wisconsin Senator -- and American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC) national treasurer -- Leah Vukmir cannot be served with a court order demanding that she comply with her legal responsibilities under the open records law.

This novel legal argument reverses the policy and practice of prior Attorneys General and would make any state legislator immune from enforcement of the state open records law and any other civil matter.

“Because the current practice of the legislature is never to be out of session, the Attorney General’s position means that state legislators can’t be held accountable for refusing to comply with their duties under the open records law. This is a radical departure from the clear language of the law, from the position taken by previous Attorneys General, and from Wisconsin’s long, proud history of transparency and commitment to open government,”

http://www.commondreams.org/newswire/2013/09/13

"We Don't Need No Steenkin' Laws"

boutons_deux

10-07-2013, 09:13 AM

5 Depressing Ways That 1%'s Huge Profits Have Broken the Back of America
1. Income Redistribution is Worse than Usually Reported

2. Wealth Redistribution is Even Worse than Income Redistribution

3. The Redistribution of Productivity: Boosting Profits rather than Wages

4. Finance is Outrunning Society, and Taking the Money with Them

5. Redistribution through Government Manipulation

http://www.alternet.org/economy/5-depressing-ways-1s-huge-profits-have-broken-back-america?akid=11015.187590.Z38XG6&rd=1&src=newsletter906249&t=5

boutons_deux

10-07-2013, 09:54 AM

The Radical Christian Right and the War on Government

There is a desire felt by tens of millions of Americans, lumped into a diffuse and fractious movement known as the Christian right, to destroy the intellectual and scientific rigor of the Enlightenment, radically diminish the role of government to create a theocratic state based on “biblical law,” and force a recalcitrant world to bend to the will of an imperial and “Christian” America. Its public face is on display in the House of Representatives. This ideology, which is the driving force behind the shutdown of the government, calls for the eradication of social “deviants,” beginning with gay men and lesbians, whose sexual orientation, those in the movement say, is a curse and an illness, contaminating the American family and the country. Once these “deviants” are removed, other “deviants,” including Muslims, liberals, feminists, intellectuals, left-wing activists, undocumented workers, poor African-Americans and those dismissed as “nominal Christians”—meaning Christians who do not embrace this peculiar interpretation of the Bible—will also be ruthlessly repressed. The “deviant” government bureaucrats, the “deviant” media, the “deviant” schools and the “deviant” churches, all agents of Satan, will be crushed or radically reformed. The rights of these “deviants” will be annulled. “Christian values” and “family values” will, in the new state, be propagated by all institutions. Education and social welfare will be handed over to the church. Facts and self-criticism will be replaced with relentless indoctrination.

U.S. Sen. Ted Cruz—whose father is Rafael Cruz, a rabid right-wing Christian preacher and the director of the Purifying Fire International (http://www.purifyingfire.org/ministries.htm) ministry—and legions of the senator’s wealthy supporters, some of whom orchestrated the shutdown, are rooted in a radical Christian ideology known as Dominionism (http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Dominionism) or Christian Reconstructionism. This ideology calls on anointed “Christian” leaders to take over the state and make the goals and laws of the nation “biblical.” It seeks to reduce government to organizing little more than defense, internal security and the protection of property rights. It fuses with the Christian religion the iconography and language of American imperialism and nationalism, along with the cruelest aspects of corporate capitalism.

The intellectual and moral hollowness of the ideology, its flagrant distortion and misuse of the Bible, the contradictions that abound within it—its leaders champion small government and a large military, as if the military is not part of government—and its laughable pseudoscience are impervious to reason and fact. And that is why the movement is dangerous.

The cult of masculinity, as in all fascist movements, pervades the ideology of the Christian right. The movement uses religion to sanctify military and heroic “virtues,” glorify blind obedience and order over reason and conscience, and pander to the euphoria of collective emotions. Feminism and homosexuality, believers are told, have rendered the American male physically and spiritually impotent. Jesus, for the Christian right, is a man of action, casting out demons, battling the Antichrist, attacking hypocrites and ultimately slaying nonbelievers. This cult of masculinity, with its glorification of violence, is appealing to the powerless.

It stokes the anger of many Americans, mostly white and economically disadvantaged, and encourages them to lash back at those who, they are told, seek to destroy them. The paranoia about the outside world is fostered by bizarre conspiracy theories, many of which are prominent in the rhetoric of those leading the government shutdown. Believers, especially now, are called to a perpetual state of war with the “secular humanist” state. The march, they believe, is irreversible. Global war, even nuclear war, is the joyful harbinger of the Second Coming. And leading the avenging armies is an angry, violent Messiah who dooms billions of apostates to death.

“What we have here is our core values as Americans and Christians slipping away into this facade where we should take care of our poor, sick, and disabled,” Ted Cruz said in the Senate last month during a 21-hour speech that he gave in an attempt to block the funding of Obamacare. “It is disheartening to know that the nation our forefathers built is no longer of importance to our president and his Democratic counterparts. Not only that, we are falling away from core Christian values. I don’t know about you, but I believe in the Jesus who died to save himself, not enable lazy followers to be dependent on him. He didn’t walk around all willy-nilly just passing out free health care to those who were sick, or food to those who were hungry, or clothes to those in need. No, he said get up, brush yourself off, go into town and get a job, and as he hung on the cross he said, ‘I died so that I may live in eternity with my Father. If you want to join us you can die for yourself and your own sins. What do I look like, your savior or something?’ That’s the Jesus I want to see brought back into our core values as a nation. That’s why we need to repeal Obamacare.”

etc, etc.

http://www.truthdig.com/report/item/the_radical_christian_right_and_the_war_on_governm ent_20131006

ElNono

10-07-2013, 03:37 PM

Hey boutons... can you keep all your trash in here?

This whole spamming business is retarded, plus nobody is reading pages and pages of crap.

Thanks

boutons_deux

10-07-2013, 03:38 PM

Hey boutons... can you keep all your trash in here?

This whole spamming business is retarded, plus nobody is reading pages and pages of crap.

Thanks

GFY

boutons_deux

11-11-2013, 04:59 AM

“We have a radical philosophy:” The right-wing plot to stop the public option (http://www.salon.com/2013/11/10/%e2%80%9cwe_have_a_radical_philosophy_the_plot_to_ stop_the_public_option/)

The Rise of the Kochtopus

http://geekadelphia.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/05/sharktopus.jpg

The Koch Brothers have been behind mind-boggling amounts of political spending.

Koch Industries itself has spent more than $50 million lobbying since 1998. But Jane Mayer, with The New Yorker, cautions, “Only the Kochs know precisely how much they have spent on politics.”

According to tax records, between 1998 and 2008, the Kochs have funneled hundreds of millions of dollars through charitable organizations, with much of that money winding up in the hands of political organizations, too.

Mayer writes, “The three main Koch family foundations gave money to thirty-four political and policy organizations, three of which they founded, and several of which they direct. The Kochs and their company have given additional millions to political campaigns, advocacy groups, and lobbyists.”

The National Committee for Responsive Philanthropy produced a report in 2004 questioning the charitable nature of the Kochs’ donations. Their report concludes that the Kochs aren’t actually making charitable contributions; they’re making investments in ideas that will eventually lead to higher profits. According to the report, Koch foundations “give money to nonprofit organizations that do research and advocacy on issues that impact the profit margin of Koch Industries.”

The International Forum on Globalization has mapped the various organizations and individuals that make up the tentacles of the Kochtopus.

They include media personalities such as Rush Limbaugh and Glenn Beck. Think tanks beyond CATO, including the American Enterprise Institute, which has received nearly $2 million in Koch cash, and the Heritage Foundation, which has received more than $4 million. Also benefitting from the Kochs are lobbying organizations such as the US Chamber of Commerce and the American Legislative Exchange Council.

And the Kochs provided nearly $6 million in funding for Americans for Prosperity, one of those organizations that split off from CSE’s tobacco Tea Party in the first decade of the twenty-first century to form the new Royalist-tinged Tea Party after Barack Obama was elected in 2008.

It takes a lot of money to get the entire political and economic class to buy into an ideology that has repeatedly caused massive economic crashes—especially since the last crash was still fresh in everyone’s mind.

As Charles Koch told Doherty, “We have a radical philosophy.”

The Tea Party, even if birthed by the tobacco companies, was nurtured by multimillionaire Royalists and billionaires such as Charles and David Koch. They spent millions to set up and promote Tea Party organizations, fund rallies, and charter buses to carry people from all around the country to boost participation.

And by the summer of 2009, what appeared to be a full‑on grass‑roots movement, but in the background was a well-oiled, corporate-funded anti-Obama PR machine, had developed all around the country, complete with mostly elderly white Americans shouting down their congressmen and congresswomen, accusing them of being socialists and pushing secret agendas to raise everybody’s taxes and destroy democracy.

But the Kochs weren’t operating alone. Born out of the Ailes memo for GOP TV in the 1970s, Fox News was now the most watched cable news network in America. And they did their part to squash any sort of Progressive Revolution, and ensure that the Royalists’ counterrevolution succeeds.

Fox News Gets in the Game

Bill Sammon got the memo.

On the morning of October 27, 2009, staffers at Fox News received an urgent message from their boss, the Washington managing editor, Bill Sammon. It had to do with certain wording to be used by Fox anchors when reporting on the health reform debate—in particular, the wording to be used to describe the “Public Option.”
Ten months had passed since Barack Obama and a slew of progressive Democrats in Congress were sworn in, promising to break up the Royalists’ stronghold in our democracy and economy.

First up was the Royalist dominance in our health care system—the only one in the entire developed world that does not offer health care as a basic human right.
The Royalists knew their grip on our nation’s health care system was in danger, so they grabbed ahold of their megaphone to spew disinformation—namely, Roger Ailes.
Fear of “death panels” was one of several myths spun out of the right-wing messaging campaign funded by big for-profit health insurance corporations opposed to any sort of health reform. It was given credence by Sarah Palin in an August 2009 Facebook post in which she wrote, “The America I know and love is not one in which my parents or my baby with Down Syndrome will have to stand in front of Obama’s ‘death panel’ so his bureaucrats can decide, based on a subjective judgment of their ‘level of productivity in society,’ whether they are worthy of health care. Such a system is downright evil.”

The ironic thing about Palin’s message was that so‑called death panels were actually a very real thing in America. Every single day, death panels at for-profit health insurance corporations determine whether or not it’s worth paying out a certain claim or signing on to a certain lifesaving medical procedure. In those cases, a “subjective judgment” is made on how a cancer patient’s chemotherapy will affect the corporation’s bottom line.

It was exactly this sort of abuse that President Obama’s Affordable Care Act was trying to curb. But in the perversion of the health reform debate, somehow that message got reversed. And even though there was no such thing as a “death panels” provision in the health reform bill, it was an issue that dominated much of the health care debate in the summer of 2009.

Another myth was that the president’s health reform would amount to a government takeover of the private health insurance industry. Given the antigovernment fervor sweeping the nation after thirty years of bad government under Royalist Republicans, this myth gained a lot of traction.

The Royalists warned that President Obama was taking over the American health care system with all its advanced MRI machines and laser surgeries and cutting-edge medication, and transforming it into a socialized, rationed health care system like the ones that were killing off millions of people in “Communist Europe.” It was a myth that everyone who lives outside the United States, in particular in Canada and Europe, regarded as patently absurd. Europeans have far better health care results than Americans, and nearly every single person I’ve talked to from a nation that has a single-payer system told me they prefer their health care system to mine any day of the week, thank you very much.

But Royalists were able to find a handful of Canadians who’d had a bad experience with their home health care system and paraded them around as victims of “socialized medicine.” Eventually, like the “death panels” myth, the government takeover myth stuck, too.

It grew out of the Public Option component of the health reform law.

In some parts of the country there was only one health insurance choice for consumers. One big for-profit health insurance corporation held a monopoly over the local market and could therefore charge whatever they liked and treat their customers however they liked. To inject some competition (the stuff Royalists claim to love) into the market, a government health insurance program was conceived that would serve as a more efficient and compassionate alternative to private health insurance plans. In the proposed health reform legislation, this alternative was known as the Public Option. The idea is simple, give people a choice and let the free market decide.

The Public Option was a far cry from what progressives wanted, which was a single-payer system. But if private health insurance corporations suddenly had to compete, then at least prices would get lower and quality would get better. Royalists hated the idea, as you would expect, since their corporate donors knew that more competition in the markets meant that less money could be diverted to the bonuses of health insurance executives such as “Dollar” Bill McGuire, who made a billion dollars working at United Healthcare.

So Fox News took up the cause. The subject of the Bill Sammons October 27, 2009, e‑mail was: “Friendly reminder: let’s not slip back into calling it the ‘public option.’”
This e‑mail was later obtained by the media-watchdog group Media Matters. It read in full:

1) Please use the term “government-run health insurance” or, when brevity is a concern, “government option,” whenever possible.

2) When it is necessary to use the term “public option” (which is, after all, firmly ensconced in the nation’s lexicon), use the qualifier “so‑called,” as in “the so‑called public option.”

The e‑mail continued with two more “reminders” from Sammon about how to talk about the Public Option:

3) Here’s another way to phrase it: “The public option, which is the government- run plan.”

4) When newsmakers and sources use the term “public option” in our stories, there’s not a lot we can do about it, since quotes are of course sacrosanct.

Fox anchors did as they were told, and suddenly the phrase “Public Option” vanished from the Fox News airwaves.

Why the name change? Why call it a “government option” rather than its legal name, the “Public Option”?

The answer: polling.

About two months earlier, on the same airwaves, Republican pollster Frank Luntz went on The Sean Hannity Show and let slip a critical Republican messaging strategy. In regard to the Public Option, Luntz told Hannity, “If you call it a ‘public option,’ the American people are split . . . [but] if you call it the ‘government option,’ the public is overwhelmingly against it.” After all, a “government option” implied a government takeover of health care, which meant socialized medicine.

Hannity himself was blown away and immediately noted that Luntz made “a great point” and that from then on Hannity himself would use the term “government option.”
A new message was born.

Here was the Washington managing editor of Fox News, Bill Sammon, instructing his news anchors to use poll-tested terms that would help Republicans sway the public’s opinion against President Obama’s health reform law. It was plain-and-simple propaganda.

A few months later, Fox News’s manufactured fear of a “government takeover of health care” successfully forced Democrats to drop the Public Option from the health reform law.

http://www.salon.com/2013/11/10/%E2%80%9Cwe_have_a_radical_philosophy_the_plot_to_ stop_the_public_option/

boutons_deux

11-11-2013, 06:17 AM

War on Employees:

Wage theft outstrips bank, gas station and convenience store robberies (http://www.dailykos.com/story/2013/11/05/1253318/-Wage-theft-outstrips-bank-gas-station-and-convenience-store-robberies)

http://s3.amazonaws.com/dk-production/images/56305/large/wage_theft_vs_bank_etc_robberies.jpg?1383681798

Fully 64 percent of low-wage workers have some amount of pay stolen out of their paychecks by their employers every week, including 26 percent who are effectively paid less than minimum wage. Fully three-quarters of workers who are due overtime have part or all of their earned overtime wages stolen by their employer. In total, the average low-wage worker loses a stunning $2,634 per year in unpaid wages, representing 15 percent of their earned income.

And enforcement? Forget about it. At the federal level, there's just one agent enforcing wage laws for every 141,000 workers. More than half of the states have cut wage enforcement staff in recent years, and some states have tried to eliminate those positions entirely. For instance,

In 2010, Missouri’s labor department collected $200,000 in restitution for minimum-wage violations and $500,000 for prevailing-wage violations, and issued 1,714 citations for child-labor violations. Yet [Republican state House Speaker Steven] Tilley charged that investigators were being “overzealous,” particularly in prosecuting complaints of employers cheating on prevailing wages.

For many Republican politicians, crimes committed by employers against workers don't really register as crimes at all in our political environment. And while the Obama administration has cracked down (http://www.dailykos.com/story/2011/09/19/1018349/-Department-of-Labor-cracks-down-on-wage-theft-through-misclassification), the back pay it's collected is just a drop in the bucket of what workers have earned that their employers have taken.

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2013/11/05/1253318/-Wage-theft-outstrips-bank-gas-station-and-convenience-store-robberies#

and

IRS Warns Businesses, Individuals to Watch for Questionable Employment Tax Practices

The Internal Revenue Service issued a consumer alert today for eight schemes where federal employment taxes are not properly withheld or paid by employers from their employees’ paychecks. The IRS alert to business owners and other taxpayers follows a string of recent convictions and court rulings involving employment tax schemes.

“Failure to pay employment taxes is stealing from the employees of the business,” said IRS Commissioner Mark W. Everson. “The IRS pursues business owners who don’t follow the law, and those who embrace these schemes face civil or criminal sanctions.”

There are many reasons employers don’t withhold or pay employment taxes. For some, it may be an attempt to use the government as a bank to 'borrow the money for a short while' with good intentions to pay it back later. For others, it may be a situation where an employer collects the taxes and elects to keep it during a period of financial difficulty rather than pay it to the IRS. For a small number, it involves philosophical differences with the tax law of the United States that courts consistently reject. Regardless of the reason, federal law requires employment tax withholding and payment by employers.

http://www.irs.gov/uac/IRS-Warns-Businesses,-Individuals-to-Watch-for-Questionable-Employment-Tax-Practices

Missouri "1,714 citations for child-labor violations" had the candidate or politician who proposed repealing all child labor laws.

boutons_deux

11-16-2013, 08:37 PM

ALEC Floats Legislation Chipping Away At The 17th Amendment

The bill would significantly increase the role of the state legislature in the election of U.S. senators, inching back toward the process used prior to the passage of the 17th Amendment in 1913. The 17th Amendment (http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/amendmentxvii) established the direct election of U.S. senators. Before this amendment, senators were chosen by state legislators.

Under the draft measure, a plurality of the state legislature would be able to nominate a candidate to appear on the ballot, alongside candidates nominated by the parties through the convention or primary process.

"It's an attempt to blunt the effects of the 17th Amendment by reinserting the state legislature and their views back into the process of electing U.S. senators," said UC-Davis School of Law Professor Vikram Amar, stressing that it was just his first "gut reaction" to seeing the bill. "By itself, it's not a full-fledged repeal or circumvention of the 17th Amendment ... but it's kind of an encroachment of the vision of the 17th Amendment."

The ALEC measure is not coming out of thin air. For years, some Republican politicians have called for the repeal of the 17th Amendment, and that effort has picked up steam with the rise of the tea party movement.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/11/15/alec-17th-amendment_n_4281729.html?utm_hp_ref=politics

The fucked up, anachronistic, dysfunctional Senate isn't already non-representative enough for these right-wing extremists.

Same electoral objective of Repug states planning to award electoral votes proporationally by number of districts won instead of Pres winner take all.

The Repugs know they are screwed demographically, so fucking democracy, voter suppression, extreme gerrymandering, Constitutional and electoral changes is the only way they can win.

boutons_deux

11-16-2013, 09:51 PM

Is IKEA the New Model for the Conservative Movement? State Policy Network

In every state in the country, there is at least one ostensibly independent “free-market” think tank that is part of something called the State Policy Network— there are sixty-four in all, ranging from the Pelican Institute, in Louisiana, to the Freedom Foundation, in Washington State. According to a new investigative report by the Center for Media and Democracy, a liberal watchdog group, however, the think tanks are less free actors than a coördinated collection of corporate front groups—branch stores, so to speak—funded and steered by cash from undisclosed conservative and corporate players. Although the think tanks have largely operated under the radar, the cumulative enterprise is impressively large, according to the report. In 2011, the network funnelled seventy-nine million dollars into promoting conservative policies at the state level.

Tracie Sharp, the president of the S.P.N., promptly dismissed the report as “baseless allegations.” She told Politico (http://www.politico.com/story/2013/11/koch-brothers-think-tank-report-99791.html), “There is no governing organization dictating what free market think tanks research or how they educate the public about good public policy.”

But notes provided to The New Yorker on what was said during the S.P.N.’s recent twenty-first-annual meeting raise doubts about Sharp’s insistence that each of the think tanks is, as she told me, “fiercely independent.”

That agenda includes opposing President Obama’s health-care program and climate-change regulations, reducing union protections and minimum wages, cutting taxes and business regulations, tightening voting restrictions, and privatizing education.

Sharp also acknowledged privately to the members that the organization’s often anonymous donors frequently shape the agenda. “The grants are driven by donor intent,” she told the gathered think-tank heads. She added that, often, “the donors have a very specific idea of what they want to happen.” She said that the donors also sometimes determined in which states their money would be spent.

The S.P.N. operates as a tax-exempt nonprofit, allowing it to take tax-deductible contributions that it does not have to publicly disclose. According to the study by the Center for Media and Democracy, the donations include more than a million dollars run through the organizations DonorsTrust and Donors Capital Fund, which serve to erase the donors’ names, operating, as Mother Jones put it, like a “dark-money ATM for the conservative movement.”

according to the Center for Media and Democracy study, corporate donors to the S.P.N. have included many of America’s largest companies, such as Facebook, Microsoft, A.T. & T., Time Warner Cable, Verizon, Philip Morris and Altria Client Services (both subsidiaries of Altria), GlaxoSmithKline, Kraft, and funds from various entities linked to the fossil-fuel billionaires Charles and David Koch.

states’ think tanks are independent is true as a legal matter.” Still, she said, “in practical terms, the Center for Media and Democracy has documented how these groups have promoted … carbon-copy claims, identical language, and distorted statistics, differing only through the state label placed at the top of a particular report.”

Far from being independent, “they are intensely subservient to the wishes of the most powerful few.”

But she did draw one distinction between S.P.N. and IKEA. Because, she contends, the bills that S.P.N. backs divert millions of taxpayer dollars from government to the private sector, “they are hardly cheap.”

Read more: http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/newsdesk/2013/11/is-ikea-the-new-model-for-the-conservative-movement.html?printable=true&currentPage=all#ixzz2krp3TreC

so you right-wing asshole STILL think there is NO VRWC? :lol

boutons_deux

11-17-2013, 12:00 PM

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/BYlsNFlCcAIPCCl.png:large

boutons_deux

11-28-2013, 01:52 PM

here's the kind of trash the VRWC trash hires to do their dirty work

The Corporate Bully Whose Front Groups, Willful Distortions and Hate-Mongering Has Poisoned U.S. Politics : Meet Richard Berman

Big Food’s top flack has pioneered the worst in our political culture.

Dr. Evil is Richard Berman, a Washington-based lawyer-turned-hitman for Big Food who pioneered and still deploys many of the most intentionally deceptive, inflammatory and anti-democratic tactics used in corporate propaganda campaigns today. For nearly four decades, Berman’s attacks have tried to smear, discredit and destroy public-interest causes and groups by a toxic brew of industry front groups, distortion-filled attacks, ridicule and bullying to stoke prejudice and hatred as a means of turning the public’s attention and regulators away from his paymasters’ business practices.

Take his effort to cripple the Humane Society (http://www.humanesociety.org/) of the United States (HSUS) and defame the character of its CEO, Wayne Pacelle. He ran a television ad during the 2013 Academy Awards telling people not to give to HSUS. He created a YouTube video viewed 1.7 million times calling Pacelle “the Bernie Madoff of the charity world.” He set up a non-profit front group called Humane Watch to undermine donations intended for the HSUS and a website attacking its funding. He even threatened (http://www.citizensforethics.org/blog/entry/corporate-bully-richard-berman) the Better Business Bureau to drop HSUS' accreditation under the business group's Wise Giving Alliance, and then attacked (http://www.humanewatch.org/hsuss_terrible_horrible_no_good_very_bad_day/) BBB when it refused to do so.

Astute observers have concluded that Berman is guilty of the sins he regularly accuses others of. Legitimate watchdog groups, such as CharityNavigator.org, have characterized (http://www.charitynavigator.org/index.cfm?bay=search.summary&orgid=11842#.UoqxBY2E7Z3) his web (http://bermanexposed.org/) of non-profit front groups, which take in millions (http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/File:11022012_Berman-kr-01.png) in tax-deductible corporate donations, as the fake charities. Tax law experts contacted by Bloomberg.com said (http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-11-02/union-busting-by-profiting-from-non-profit-may-breach-irs.html) his operation was comparable to Madoff’s, a shell game of financial transfers enriching Berman that likely violated tax laws. Investigative reporters have even traced (http://articles.philly.com/2013-03-08/news/37564041_1_berman-sick-days-front-group) e-mails from front groups who deny they’re working with him back to his office.

Can one man really be held responsible for large slices of any era’s excesses, especially in a city as dominated by opportunists as Washington, D.C.? The answer is yes, there are people who are emblematic of political eras. Ronald Reagan was the “Teflon president,” evading (http://www.jstor.org/discover/10.2307/3234744?uid=16887128&uid=2129&uid=16886816&uid=2&uid=70&uid=3&uid=67&uid=62&sid=21103004293033) criticism that stuck. Lee Atwater was the dark political operator who revived (http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/20/opinion/20sat3.html) the GOP’s racist attack machinery for George H.W. Bush’s 1988 presidential campaign. In Berman’s case, there is a decades-long record of gleefully (http://www.citizensforethics.org/blog/entry/corporate-bully-richard-berman) taking fights into the gutter.

Why would Berman and his backers go after a group like the Humane Society of the U.S., the nation's most effective animal protection group? Or enviromentalistsconcerned (http://bermanexposed.org/) about mercury in tuna? Or nutritionists concerned (http://bermanexposed.org/) about trans fat? Or physicians worried (http://bermanexposed.org/) about the effect of high-fructose corn syrup on obesity? Or restaurant workers seeking (http://articles.philly.com/2013-03-08/news/37564041_1_berman-sick-days-front-group) a higher minimum wage and paid sick days? Or liberal foundations funding (http://bermanexposed.org/) public-interest advocates?

Because in every one of these examples, their warnings and advocacy threaten how Big Food—the corporate-dominated food and beverage industry paying Berman—makes its fortune.
http://www.alternet.org/corporate-accountability-and-workplace/richard-bermans-propaganda-wars-take-us-politics-gutter

boutons_deux

12-05-2013, 10:51 AM

Conservative group ALEC pushes stealth tax on homeowners who install solar panels

An alliance of corporations and conservative activists is mobilising to penalise homeowners who install their own solar panels – casting them as “freeriders” – in a sweeping new offensive against renewable energy, the Guardian has learned.

Over the coming year, the American Legislative Exchange Council (Alec) will promote legislation with goals ranging from penalising individual homeowners and weakening state clean energy regulations, to blocking the Environmental Protection Agency, which is Barack Obama’s main channel for climate action.

Details of Alec’s strategy to block clean energy development at every stage – from the individual rooftop to the White House – are revealed as the group gathers for its policy summit in Washington this week.

For 2014, Alec plans to promote a suite of model bills and resolutions aimed at blocking Barack Obama from cutting greenhouse gas emissions, and state governments from promoting the expansion of wind and solar power through regulations known as Renewable Portfolio Standards.

Alec wanted to lower the rate electricity companies pay homeowners for direct power generation – and maybe even charge homeowners for feeding power into the grid.

“As it stands now, those direct generation customers are essentially freeriders on the system. They are not paying for the infrastructure they are using. In effect, all the other non direct generation customers are being penalised,” he said.

Eick dismissed the suggestion that individuals who buy and install home-based solar panels had made such investments. “How are they going to get that electricity from their solar panel to somebody else’s house?” he said. “They should be paying to distribute the surplus electricity.”

The group sponsored at least 77 energy bills in 34 states last year. The measures were aimed at opposing renewable energy standards, pushing through the Keystone XL pipeline project, and barring oversight on fracking

Until now, the biggest target in Alec’s sights were state Renewable Portfolio Standards which require electricity companies to source a share of their power from wind, solar, biomass, or other clean energy. Such measures are seen as critical to reducing America’s use of coal and oil, and to the fight against climate change. RPS are now in force in 30 states.

“Approximately 15 states across the country introduced legislation to reform, freeze or repeal their state’s renewable mandate,”

Three of those states – North Carolina, Ohio, and Kansas – saw strong pushes by conservative groups to reverse clean energy regulations this year.

after its bruising state battles in 2013, Alec was now focused on weakening – rather than seeking outright repeal – of the clean energy standards.

other key agenda item for Alec’s meeting this week is the EPA. The group is looking at two proposals to curb the agency’s powers – one to shut the EPA out of any meaningful oversight of fracking, and the other to block action on climate change.

model bill endorsed by the Alec board of directors last August would strip the EPA of power to shut down a frack site or oil industry facility.

http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2013/12/04/conservative-group-alec-pushes-stealth-tax-on-homeowners-who-install-solar-panels/ (http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2013/12/04/conservative-group-alec-pushes-stealth-tax-on-homeowners-who-install-solar-panels/)

ALEC is the concentrated corporate power conspiracy to fuck over America and to protect/enrich corporations.

boutons_deux

12-05-2013, 05:18 PM

New Guardian Docs Show ALEC Misled Press, Public

Internal documents from the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC) published by The Guardian provide stunning insight into the inner workings of the "corporate bill mill" -- and offer new evidence about how the group has continually misled reporters, the public, and even its own members.

The notoriously secretive ALEC has been thrust into the sunlight in the two years since the Center for Media and Democracy launched ALECexposed.org, analyzed over 800 of ALEC's previously-secret model bills, and documented the corporations and legislators pushing ALEC's legislative agenda. It now appears that ALEC has been scorched by the sunshine.

According to the new Guardian documents (https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/841593-alec-docs.html), which were apparently prepared for ALEC's board in August, over the past two years ALEC has been losing corporate members, suffering from major funding shortfalls, and anticipates legal trouble with ethics rules and its charitable tax status.

ALEC is still supported by tobacco, oil, and pharmaceutical interests, but has lost around 60 corporate members in the fallout over ALEC's role in promoting Stand Your Ground legislation, voter ID, climate change denial, and an array of other controversial, corporate-friendly bills, the documents show. The leaked documents outline a "prodigal son" project (misspelled as "prodical son") aimed at luring "lapsed" corporations back into the fold, and describe a $1.4 million budget shortfall that accrued as a result of ALEC's shrinking roster of corporate backers.

ALEC forms 501(c)(4), but previously claimed: "We have no current plans to operate a 501(c)(4) in the near future”

The Guardian documents show that ALEC has formed a new 501(c)(4) entity, the "Jeffersonian Project," apparently in anticipation of the IRS investigating ALEC's current 501(c)(3) charitable status. This revelation could be seen as an admission from ALEC that its critics were correct about its violations of the tax code (although ALEC insists it does not lobby, despite documentary evidence to the contrary).

ALEC had previously misled reporters about its plans for a 501(c)(4).

In December of last year, ALEC spokesperson Kaitlyn Buss told Bloomberg News (http://go.bloomberg.com/political-capital/2012-12-13/alec-thought-of-non-profit-then-thought-not/) "we have no current plans to operate a 501(c)(4) in the near future.”

When Buss said "the near future" and "current plans," she apparently meant "next week."

Just eight days after the Bloomberg story ran, ALEC formed the 501(c)(4) "Jeffersonian Project (http://www.prwatch.org/files/jeffersonian_project.pdf)," according to a certificate of incorporation obtained by the Center for Media and Democracy. (ALEC also failed to mention to Bloomberg that it had incorporated (http://www.prwatch.org/files/alec_now.pdf) another 501(c)(4), "ALEC NOW" in July of 2012; that entity was dissolved earlier this year.)

“The only charity work ALEC does is on behalf of needy corporations and lonely legislators,” said (http://pocan.house.gov/media-center/press-releases/pocan-comments-on-alec-s-new-attempts-to-shield-itself-against-tax-laws) Rep. Mark Pocan (D-WI), who as a state legislator attended some ALEC meetings and wrote about it for The Progressive magazine. “It is past time that ALEC is exposed for what it is—a corporate lobbying firm doing the bidding of corporations."

ALEC forms 501(c)(4) to "provide greater legal protection," "lessen ethics concerns"

ALEC's 501(c)(3) charitable status has been challenged in IRS complaints from Common Cause, Clergy VOICE, and the Voters Legislative Transparency Project, all of which allege that ALEC engages in far more lobbying than is permissible for a "charity," and which were supported with research from CMD. When Common Cause's late president Bob Edgar filed a whistleblower complaint challenging ALEC's tax status in April of 2012, ALEC fought back hard. Its lawyer Alan Dye publicly dismissed (http://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/statement-by-alan-p-dye-on-latest-harassment-tactic-against-alec-by-liberal-front-groups-148537365.html) the complaint a "harassment tactic" that "ignores applicable law."

"The attacks on the American Legislative Exchange Council are based on patently false claims," he told reporters at the time.

But behind the scenes, Dye took a more measured tone, according to The Guardian documents. Forming a 501(c)(4) -- which is allowed to lobby without limit -- would “provide greater legal protection or lessen ethics concerns,” Dye wrote in an August 2013 memo to ALEC's board of directors. Forming the Jeffersonian Project would remove "questions of ethical violations made by our critics and state ethics boards and provides further legal protection."

"ALEC certified to the IRS for years that it didn't spend a penny on lobbying, thereby preserving its absurd status as a charity," Steve Spaulding, Staff Counsel at Common Cause, told CMD.

ALEC's charitable status had allowed its corporate members to write-off their ALEC membership dues -- which are essentially lobbying expenses -- as tax-deductible charitable contributions.
"In forming a 501(c)(4) arm, it appears that ALEC is on notice that it's not going to get away with abusing our nation's charitable tax laws much longer," Spaulding said.

ALEC Bleeding Corporate Members, But Told Legislators "Our Numbers Are Actually Up"

The Guardian documents also reveal the rapid drop in ALEC's corporate and legislative members, and the corresponding impact on ALEC's budget. Many of the departures are attributable to public awareness campaigns by Color of Change, Progress Now, Common Cause, Greenpeace, People for the American Way, CMD and other public interest organizations.

"By ALEC’s own reckoning the network has lost almost 400 state legislators from its membership over the past two years, as well as more than 60 corporations that form the core of its funding. In the first six months of this year it suffered a hole in its budget of more than a third of its projected income," The Guardian reports.

But ALEC tried to suggest otherwise in communications with its legislative members.

In June of 2012, in the wake of intense criticism for its multi-year drive to get "Stand Your Ground" bills introduced and passed and following an exodus of its corporate members, ALEC sent an email (http://www.prwatch.org/files/june_2012_alec_email.pdf) to legislative members to boost morale.

"We’ve done some tremendous work over the years," ALEC wrote, claiming it was "correct the record" about the "outrageous claims about ALEC" and its dwindling membership.

“You may be interested in knowing that, since CMD and others began their efforts, our private sector membership has increased by 20 percent in the last 12 months,” ALEC wrote in the June 2012 email. "In fact, despite the prevailing narrative of late, our numbers are actually [I]up from where they were just 12 months ago."

But ALEC's internal documents indicate that the organization was misleading its legislative members.

According to The Guardian documents, ALEC's "private sector" members dropped from 280 in 2011, to 241 in 2012, to the new low of 214 in 2013, as of this summer. Legislative membership dropped from 2,200 in 2011, to 2,010 in 2012, to 1,810 in 2013 (although ALEC still boasts (http://www.alec.org/about-alec/frequently-asked-questions/)of 2,000 members on its website).

When confronted with these facts by The Guardian, ALEC gave a statement markedly different than what it previously told its legislative members.

"No one disputes that ALEC lost public and private members during the past several years," said ALEC spokesperson Bill Meierling.

ALEC as Pay-to-Play

Other documents, such as those describing potential ALEC task forces that could help attract new funders, undermine the notion that ALEC is a legislator-driven organization. The materials indicate that ALEC operates as a genuine pay-to-play.

Despite ALEC describing (http://www.alec.org/about-alec/frequently-asked-questions/) itself as being "run by and for state legislators,” the factors ALEC considered when deciding whether to enact task forces like "Gaming" or "Tribal Affairs" had little to do with the interests of state legislators. A "pro" for a Gaming task force is that the industry generated $37 billion in revenue last year; a "con" for a potential Tribal Affairs task force is that "there may be little to no private sector funding," even while acknowledging that the issue would be relevant to many ALEC legislators.

Pledging Allegiance to ALEC

One of the more bizarre revelations in the documents is a plan to have the legislators who serve as ALEC State Chairs sign a pledge of "loyalty" and agree to "put the interests of [ALEC] first." This proposal underscored concerns that some ALEC politicians have been putting the interests of ALEC (and its corporate backers) ahead of their constituents, and ahead of their commitment to upholding their state constitution.

Another element of the pledge is an agreement that State Chairs will "inform ALEC of any public records/FOIA requests that include ALEC documents." This fits into a larger pattern of ALEC trying to keep its communications with lawmakers secret. This year, ALEC began stamping the materials (http://www.prwatch.org/news/2013/05/12098/alecs-latest-transparency-move-asserting-immunity-freedom-information-laws) it gives to legislators with a “disclaimer” asserting that the documents are not subject to any state’s open records/freedom of information laws, and has been sending communications to legislators via an online dropbox, which it admitted (http://host.madison.com/news/local/alec-says-its-communications-with-wisconsin-lawmakers-are-private/article_d6c7497c-3174-5b62-81d2-e4b4efd3e5d2.html)was an effort to try to evade disclosure under open records laws. CMD has fought ALEC legislators' efforts to keep ALEC records secret in Texas (http://www.prwatch.org/news/2013/09/12259/texas-attorney-general-rebuffs-alecs-effort-declare-itself-immune-open-records-la) and Wisconsin (http://www.jsonline.com/news/statepolitics/process-server-says-senators-aide-pushed-him-down-b9996911z1-223508311.html).

The cover page for the State Chair pledge states that ALEC recommends that "The Board should approve the following job descriptions for State Chairs," but ALEC told The Guardian that the pledge was not adopted. Still, it reflects a very troubling mindset to even propose that elected officials who lead ALEC’s legislative agenda in the states owe ALEC a duty to put the organization first and to report to it.

http://www.truth-out.org/news/item/20442-new-guardian-docs-show-alec-misled-press-public

aka, ALEC is nothing but a conspiratorial lobbying/front operation for United Corporations of America.

boutons_deux

12-06-2013, 11:49 AM

Conservative Groups Plan US-Wide Assault on Education, Health and Taxes

State Policy Network co-ordinating plans (https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/842271-spn-budget-proposals-state-by-state.html) across 34 US states
• Strategy to 'release residents from government dependency'
• Revelations come amid growing scrutiny of tax-exempt charities

• Read key excerpts from the SPN proposals (https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/842271-spn-budget-proposals-state-by-state.html)
• Portland Press Herald: group's plan to eliminate taxes (http://www.pressherald.com/news/Mainers-in-Washington-County-have-mixed-reactions-to-FreeME-plan-to-eliminate-taxes.html)
• Texas Observer: the money behind the fight to wreck Medicaid (http://www.texasobserver.org/money-behind-fight-undermine-medicaid/)

Conservative groups across the US are planning a co-ordinated assault against public sector rights and services in the key areas of education, healthcare, income tax, workers' compensation and the environment,documents obtained by the Guardian reveal (https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/842271-spn-budget-proposals-state-by-state.html).

The strategy for the state-level organisations, which describe themselves as "free-market thinktanks", includes proposals from six different states for cuts in public sector pensions, campaigns to reduce the wages of government workers and eliminate income taxes, school voucher schemes to counter public education, opposition to Medicaid, and a campaign against regional efforts to combat greenhouse gas emissions that cause climate change (http://www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-change).

The policy goals are contained in a set of funding proposals obtained by the Guardian. The proposals were co-ordinated by the State Policy Network, an alliance of groups that act as incubators of conservative strategy at state level.

The documents contain 40 funding proposals (https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/842271-spn-budget-proposals-state-by-state.html) from 34 states, providing a blueprint for the conservative agenda in 2014. In partnership with the Texas Observer and the Portland Press Herald in Maine (http://www.pressherald.com/news/Mainers-in-Washington-County-have-mixed-reactions-to-FreeME-plan-to-eliminate-taxes.html), the Guardian is publishing SPN's summary of all the proposals to give readers and news outlets full and fair access to state-by-state conservative plans that could have significant impact throughout the US, and to allow the public to reach its own conclusions about whether these activities comply with the spirit of non-profit tax-exempt charities.

Details of the co-ordinated approach come amid growing federal scrutiny of the political activities of tax-exempt charities. Last week the Obama administration announced a new clampdown on those groups that violate tax rules (http://www.nytimes.com/2013/11/27/us/politics/new-campaign-rules-proposed-for-tax-exempt-nonprofits.html?hp&_r=0) by engaging in direct political campaigning.

Most of the "thinktanks" involved in the proposals gathered by the State Policy Network are constituted as 501(c)(3) charities that are exempt from tax by the Internal Revenue Service. Though the groups are not involved in election campaigns, they are subject to strict restrictions on the amount of lobbying they are allowed to perform. Several of the grant bids contained in the Guardian documents propose the launch of "media campaigns" aimed at changing state laws and policies, or refer to "advancing model legislation" and "candidate briefings", in ways that arguably cross the line into lobbying.

The documents also cast light on the nexus of funding arrangements behind radical rightwing campaigns. The State Policy Network (SPN) has members in each of the 50 states and an annual warchest of $83m drawn from major corporate donors that include the energy tycoons the Koch brothers, the tobacco company Philip Morris, food giant Kraft and the multinational drugs company GlaxoSmithKline.

SPN gathered the grant proposals from the 34 states on 29 July. Ranging in size from requests of $25,000 to $65,000, the plans were submitted for funding to the Searle Freedom Trust, a private foundation that in 2011 donated almost $15m to largely rightwing causes.

The trust, founded in 1998, draws on the family fortune of the late Dan Searle of the GD Searle & Company empire – now part of Pfizer – which created NutraSweet. The trust is a major donor to such mainstays of the American right and the Tea Parties as Americans for Prosperity, the American Legislative Exchange Council (Alec), the Heartland Institute and the State Policy Network itself.

SPN's link to Searle, the Guardian documents show, was Stephen Moore, an editorial writer with the Wall Street Journal. Moore, who advises Searle on its grant-giving activities, was asked by SPN to rank the proposals in two halves – a "top 20" and "bottom 20". It is not known how many of the 40 proposals were approved for funding, nor which may have been successful.

Moore told the Guardian that he is an unpaid adviser to the Searle Foundation, having been a lifetime family friend to Dan Searle. He said the grant decisions were made by Searle's sons and grandsons based upon the late businessman's "commitment to the advancement of free enterprise and individual rights".

The proposals in the grant bids contained in the Guardian documents go beyond a commitment to free enterprise, however. They include:

• "reforms" to public employee pensions raised by SPN thinktanks in Arizona, Colorado, Minnesota, Missouri, New Jersey and Pennsylvania;
• tax elimination or reduction schemes in Alabama, Arkansas, Georgia, Maryland, Nebraska and New York;
• an education voucher system to promote private and home schooling in Florida;
• campaigns against worker and union rights in Delaware and Nevada;
• opposition to Medicaid in Georgia, North Carolina and Utah.

SPN's president, Tracie Sharp, told the Guardian that "as a pro-freedom network of thinktanks, we focus on issues like workplace freedom, education reform, and individual choice in healthcare: backbone issues of a free people and a free society."

In its grant bid, the Maine Heritage Policy Center asked for $35,000 to support a "research and demonstration project" that would "release residents from extreme government dependency". It would turn the state's poorest area into what the Portland Press Herald describes in its report (http://www.pressherald.com/news/Mainers-in-Washington-County-have-mixed-reactions-to-FreeME-plan-to-eliminate-taxes.html) from Washington County as "a gigantic tax-free zone"

... etc

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/dec/05/state-conservative-groups-assault-education-health-tax

Winehole23

12-06-2013, 11:55 AM

Why not just make a blog?Implies an editorial function, fluent and correct English idiom, and a conscious appeal to readership.

boutons_deux

12-14-2013, 02:29 PM

The World Champion USA inequality is not accidental, but a direct, intended result of the 1%/VRWC/UCA buying the govt policies that created it.

1 Percent’s Surge Is 40 Years In The Making

From 2009 to 2012, the U.S. experienced a significant economic recovery, in which average real income growth jumped by 6 percent. That’s the good news. The bad news is that almost all of that increase — 95 percent — was enjoyed by those in the top 1 percent of the income distribution.

To appreciate this remarkable finding, set out in an important paper (http://elsa.berkeley.edu/~saez/saez-UStopincomes-2012.pdf)by University of California economist Emmanuel Saez, we need to add some context. From 2007 to 2009, the recession produced a 17.4 percent decline in average real income — the largest drop since the Great Depression. Every income class was hit hard, but in percentage terms, those at the top of the economic ladder suffered the biggest decreases.

During the recovery — from 2009 to 2012 — members of the top 1 percent have enjoyed a big boost in their average income: 31.4 percent. As Saez shows (http://elsa.berkeley.edu/~saez/saez-UStopincomes-2012.pdf), this figure almost wiped out the loss from the recession, returning the top 1 percent to essentially where it was in 2007.

By contrast, the remaining 99 percent saw measly growth of 0.4 percent, about a 30th of the 11.6 percent loss they experienced in the recession. By the end of 2012, the bottom 99 percent wasn’t close to where it was in 2007.

If we go back to 1993, we can see how extreme these patterns have been. Under Presidents Bill Clinton and George W. Bush, the U.S. enjoyed significant expansions. Both expansions were quite lopsided in favor of the top 1 percent, but at least everyone gained.

In both periods, the top 1 percent did great, enjoying annual income growth of 98.7 percent (under Clinton) and 61.8 percent (under Bush). The bottom 99 percent did well, too, with annual gains of 20.3 percent under Clinton and 6.8 percent under Bush.

It should be plain that during both expansions, the U.S. saw nothing close to the disparities of the first years of the current recovery.

Here’s another way to see the point. From 1993 to 2012, the top 1 percent has enjoyed an increase of 86.1 percent in annual income, with the rest of us getting 6.6 percent. That means the top 1 percent received 68 percent of total income growth over the period — a high figure, but much lower than the whopping 95 percent from 2009 to 2012.

Extreme as that figure is, it can be seen as consistent with the broader pattern of continuing increases in economic inequality since the early 1970s, when the top 10 percent received about 33 percent of total annual income (a figure that had remained pretty much constant since the 1940s). Over the next decades, the share of the top decile grew fairly steadily until 2007, when it ended up with about 50 percent of the whole.

The recession reduced that figure to about 47 percent, but in 2012, it climbed back to more than 50 percent. Focusing on just the top 1 percent, Saez finds a broadly similar pattern, with a generally growing share since the 1970s, to the point where its members could claim about 22 percent of total income in 2012.
Are these patterns a reason for concern? Americans certainly don’t believe in equal results, but they do believe that whether or not your parents are rich, you should have a fair chance to get ahead.

The troubling fact is that in the top and bottom 10 percent, U.S. families show a degree of economic “stickiness.” If a child has rich parents, there is a good chance (http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-08-08/why-is-u-s-economic-mobility-worse-in-the-south-.html)he will stay in the economic elite, but if his parents are poor, he has a decent chance of remaining poor.

A disturbing implication is that if the top earners experience big income growth while everyone else gets stuck, there will be growing disparities in the opportunities of rich children and poor children.

A lot of work needs to be done to specify the reasons for the post-1970s increases in economic inequality. But one point is clear: Through 2012, the gains from the current recovery were concentrated among the top 1 percent, and that pattern, extreme though it is, fits with a general surge in economic inequality over the last 40 years.

http://www.nationalmemo.com/1-percents-surge-is-40-years-in-the-making/ (http://www.nationalmemo.com/1-percents-surge-is-40-years-in-the-making/)

cuts in capital gains tax down from 35%, cuts in top marginal tax brackets, globalism exporting jobs and profits to low-tax countries, tax breaks for executive "performance" awards, etc, etc. Over 40 years, the wealth piles up, while the 99% stagnate or decline.

As linked in another post, it is now the strategy of the 1% to obstruct, through tea bagger/Repug 100% obstructionism, any major changes in policy that would threaten the 1%'s curent, very privileged and powerful status quo.

Buying local, state, federal politicians and judges is only pocket change to the 1%.

iow, America's 99% is fucked and unfuckable.

Winehole23

12-16-2013, 02:07 AM

http://www.incapsula.com/the-incapsula-blog/item/820-bot-traffic-report-2013

boutons_deux

01-06-2014, 05:36 AM

http://www.incapsula.com/the-incapsula-blog/item/820-bot-traffic-report-2013

gfy

boutons_deux

01-06-2014, 05:39 AM

Post analysis shows Koch brothers raised $400 million for shadow political network

An analysis by The Washington Post and the Center for Responsive Politics published Sunday revealed that Koch Industries-backed entities operating in the opaque world of political dark money raised more than $400 million during the 2012 election cycle largely from anonymous donors.

The Post and CRP examined (http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/koch-backed-political-network-built-to-shield-donors-raised-400-million-in-2012-elections/2014/01/05/9e7cfd9a-719b-11e3-9389-09ef9944065e_story.html?hpid=z1) 17 conservative groups that made up the Koch network of loosely-affiliated organizations and found that they had raised at least $407 million during the 2012 campaign. The amount is comparable to the combined spending of all unions in state, federal and local races, and dwarfs all other sources of political spending in 2012 other than, perhaps, the Karl Rove-associated
Crossroads super PAC and nonprofit group which brought in $325 million in the last cycle.

It isn’t clear, despite the Post analysis, how much the Koch brothers themselves contributed to the affiliated groups, in part because they used complicated and sophisticated financial processes to shield the identities of donors.

The Post nailed down two nodes through which much of the money passed, though. The Freedom Partners Chamber of Commerce, with a board of current and former Koch Industries officials, brought in nearly $256 million in 2011.

The second node, TC4 Trust, raised more than $66 million in three years before it was shuttered in June 2012, according to tax filings.

http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2014/01/05/post-analysis-shows-koch-brothers-raised-400-million-for-shadow-political-network/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+TheRawStory+%28The+Raw+Story% 29

boutons_deux

01-26-2014, 12:01 AM

Koch World 2014

The billionaire industrialists Charles and David Koch are convening some of the country’s richest Republican donors on Sunday at a resort near Palm Springs, Calif., to raise millions of dollars for efforts to shape the political landscape for years to come.

It’s the cash that can possibly kick Democrats out of the Senate majority this fall and shape the philosophy and agenda of the GOP conference – not to mention the 2016 presidential field.

The Koch political operation has become among the most dominant forces in American politics, rivaling even the official Republican Party in its ability to shape policy debates and elections. But it’s mostly taken a piecemeal approach, sticking to its sweet spots, while leaving other tasks to outsiders, or ad hoc coalitions of allies.

That’s changing. This year, the Kochs’ close allies are rolling out a new, more integrated approach to politics. That includes wading into Republican primaries for the first time to ensure their ideal candidates end up on the ticket, and also centralizing control of their network to limit headache-inducing freelancing by affiliated operatives.

The shift is best illustrated in the expansion of three pieces of the Koch political network expected to be showcased or represented at the three-day meeting in Palm Springs, whose evolving roles were described to POLITICO by several sources.

• Center for Shared Services: a nonprofit recruiter and administrative support team for other Koch-backed groups, which provides assistance with everything from scouting office space to accounting to furniture and security.

• Freedom Partners: a nonprofit hub that doled out $236 million (http://www.politico.com/story/2013/09/behind-the-curtain-exclusive-the-koch-brothers-secret-bank-96669.html) in 2012 to an array of conservative nonprofits that is now expanding its own operation so that it can fulfill many of the functions of past grantees.

• Aegis Strategic: a political consulting firm started last year by Koch-allied operatives who will recruit, train and support candidates who espouse free-market philosophies like those beloved by the Kochs, and will also work with nonprofit groups in the Koch network, like Freedom Partners, with which it has a contract to provide policy analysis.

http://dyn.politico.com/printstory.cfm?uuid=A8FE31E8-48DC-4889-8548-3F90B914A730

boutons_deux

02-06-2014, 03:27 PM

Koch Brothers Left a Confidential Document at Their Last Donor Conference—Read It Herehttp://www.motherjones.com/politics/2014/02/koch-brothers-palm-springs-donor-list

boutons_deux

02-10-2014, 05:15 PM

Wisconsin Legislature Joins Radical Right's Call For A Federal Constitutional Convention

The most recent state to adopt ALEC'S model to amend the U.S. Constitution

http://www.alternet.org/files/styles/story_image/public/story_images/shutterstock_we_the_people_0.jpg

February 10, 2014 |

Wisconsin is the latest state to line up behind a national effort to amend the Constitution and cripple the federal government's ability to spend -- likely forcing steep cuts in popular earned benefit programs such as Social Security and blocking Congress from responding to economic downturns or natural disasters -- apparently with the ultimate goal of completely overhauling America's system of governance.

Assembly Joint Resolution 81 (https://docs.legis.wisconsin.gov/2013/proposals/ajr81), which passed out of committee on Wednesday, would call for an Article V Constitutional Convention to force a federal balanced budget amendment. Article V of the U.S. Constitution provides that thirty-four states (two-thirds) can trigger a convention to propose an amendment, which must then be ratified by 38 states (three-fourths). The legislation closely tracks the “Balanced Budget Amendment Resolution” (http://www.alec.org/model-legislation/a-resolution-calling-for-a-federal-balanced-budget-amendment/) from the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC) and allied advocacy groups promoting an Article V convention.

“AJR 81 comes right out of the ‘Convention of States’ workshop and materials presented at ALEC where state legislators were promised bundled campaign contributions and grassroots support if they joined this effort to amend the federal constitution,” said Rep. Chris Taylor, a Madison Democrat who attended ALEC’s Annual Meeting in Chicago last summer, in a statement (http://urbanmilwaukee.com/pressrelease/rep-chris-taylor-statement-on-ajr-81-latest-alec-scheme-to-hit-wisconsin/). “I am alarmed that this effort is now making its way through the Wisconsin legislature and is tentatively scheduled to be considered by the full Assembly next Tuesday.”

ALEC has published a “how-to” manual (http://big.assets.huffingtonpost.com/ALECArticleV.pdf) for an Article V constitutional amendment, and at its last two meetings hosted workshops on amendment strategy from the group “Citizens for Self Governance,” led by Tea Party Patriots co-founder Mark Meckler, and whose board (http://selfgovern.com/about/) includes Wisconsinite Eric O’Keefe (http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Eric_O%27Keefe) (who has spoken publicly about being subpoenaed in Wisconsin’s John Doe probe in his role as Director of Wisconsin Club for Growth). Citizens for Self Governance seeks to use the amendment process to severely restrict federal power, for example by redefining the Commerce Clause to prohibit Congress from enacting child labor or anti-discrimination laws. In recent years, the Article V idea has spread in Republican circles thanks to right-wing radio host and author Mark Levin, and has been elevated (http://www.glennbeck.com/2013/12/18/citizens-for-self-governance%E2%80%99s-mark-meckler-makes-the-case-for-a-convention-of-states/) by the likes of Glenn Beck (http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2013/12/18/could-a-convention-of-states-occur-as-early-as-2016/).

Following ALEC’s December 2013 meeting in Washington D.C., the primary sponsor of AJR 81, Wisconsin Rep. Chris Kapenga (R-Delafield), co-organized a convening (http://www.prwatch.org/files/190554908-mount-vernon-assembly-invitation.pdf) of around 100 state legislators to discuss the Article V amendment process (http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/politics/2013/12/chris_kapenga_mark_levin_and_article_v_the_secret_ campaign_to_pass_conservative.single.html). (Last year, Rep. Kapenga was one of nine Wisconsin lawmakers who told a Tea Party group they would seek to arrest federal officials (http://www.jsonline.com/news/statepolitics/nine-lawmakers-back-charging-federal-officials-who-implement-obamacare-here-n47kl10-179180251.html) implementing the Affordable Care Act in the state). A followup meeting is planned for Spring of this year.

The push for a constitutional convention has garnered limited attention in the mainstream media. "A lot of Americans outside of these conservative circles have no idea this is going on, that all of these strategies are being developed to basically neuter the federal government, and what the ramifications of those strategies would be in the long run,” says Rachel Tabachnik, a research fellow at Political Research Associates, who has tracked the evolution of “state’s rights” efforts to amend the constitution. “

These states are seeking to undo all civil rights, social safety nets, and regulatory functions that they don't want."

Goal: Cripple Federal Responses to Economic Crises and Disasters

Although some advocates have pushed for a broader call for a constitutional convention -- the Convention of States group, for example (http://www.conventionofstates.com/learn-convention-states-0), hopes to "call a convention for a particular subject rather than a particular amendment" to radically alter state-federal relations -- AJR 81 is focused more narrowly on calling for a balanced budget amendment.

Since World War II, the federal government has deliberately used deficit spending as a policy tool to soften economic downturns, preventing recessions from turning into depressions by spending on programs like unemployment benefits, targeted tax breaks, or jobs training. Tax revenues decline during a recession, just as these necessary expenditures increase. Similarly, natural disasters can wreak havoc on the economy, and disaster relief can also require deficit spending. A Balanced Budget Amendment would handcuff the government at a time when economic crises, drought, and catastropic hurricanes are on the rise.

As Jon Peacock of the Wisconsin Budget Project explains:

A balanced budget amendment in the U.S. Constitution would result in much longer and deeper recessions and would cause unnecessary job losses. When the economy goes into a dive and people are without jobs, the need for food stamps, health insurance and unemployment insurance rise sharply. Since tax revenue typically falls as the need for those programs rises, a balanced budget would require cuts to these safety net programs and other areas of spending at the worst possible time. That would not only take away vital help during a recession, but would also exacerbate the downturn by requiring program cuts and/or tax increases as the recession worsens.

A highly respected economic forecasting firm, Macroeconomic Advisers, considered the effects of a balanced budget amendment during a period like the recent recession. They described the impact on the economy of cutting spending at such a time as “catastrophic” – leading to depression-like conditions and millions of additional jobs lost. A balanced budget amendment is also likely to jeopardize Social Security and other earned assistance upon which retirees depend.

Companion Bill to Rein-In "Runaway Convention" Reflects ALEC Model

The right is not united in their support for the Article V constitutional amendment effort. The U.S. Constitution has never been amended through the Article V process, and many fear a "runaway convention" where delegates approve amendments other than a balanced budget -- for example, an amendment that would address the harm caused by the Supreme Court's Citizens United decision. The Heritage Foundation (http://blog.heritage.org/2011/02/10/dont-be-fooled-by-article-v-conventions/) opposes an Article V convention for these reasons. One of the most consistent critics (http://www.jbs.org/legislation/the-article-v-convention-scam) of the Article V effort has been The John Birch Society; the Convention of States group has taken their criticism seriously enough to post a response on their website (http://www.conventionofstates.com/news/answering-john-birch-society).

In response to those fears, Rep. Kapenga has introduced a companion bill, AB 635 (https://docs.legis.wisconsin.gov/2013/related/proposals/ab635), aimed at stymieing a “runaway convention” by declaring that delegates to the convention may not vote on other issues besides the balanced budget amendment, and providing that those who do will be immediately dismissed by the other delegates. This is nearly a word-for-word copy of the ALEC “Resolution for Limitations on Authority of state Delegates to a ‘Convention for Proposing Amendments’ under Article V of the US Constitution (http://www.alec.org/model-legislation/resolution-for-limitations-on-authority-of-state-delegates-to-a-convention-for-proposing-amendments-under-article-v-of-the-us-constitution/).”

Almost every Republican member of the Wisconsin Assembly has signed on as co-sponsors to AJR 81 and AB 635. Lobbying for the bill in Wisconsin (https://lobbying.wi.gov/What/BillInformation/2013REG/Information/10992)are Americans for Prosperity, the state U.S. Chamber of Commerce affiliate Wisconsin Manufacturers and Commerce, as well as the National Federation of Independent Business, which purports to represent small business but is a front for right-wing corporate interests.

Outside of Tea Party circles, it does not appear that most Wisconsinites were clamoring for their legislators to push this proposal. But it does not appear that citizen support is a necessary component of the Article V convention effort.

At last year's ALEC meeting in Chicago, where an Article V convention was discussed, Rep. Taylor recounted a conversation with a private sector ALEC member. In response to her concerns about average Americans not wanting a radical overhaul of their Constitution, he told her (http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2013/08/16/wisconsin-democrat-who-infiltrated-alec-they-dont-want-people-involved-in-the-political-process/): "You really don't need people to do this. You just need control over the legislature and you need money, and we have both."

http://www.alternet.org/civil-liberties/wisconsin-legislature-joins-radical-rights-call-federal-constitutional-convention?akid=11490.187590.BQ8jQ1&rd=1&src=newsletter956848&t=7&paging=off&current_page=1#bookmark

And of course ALEC's money is Kock Bros, USCoC, corporations, and secret funding, aka, THE VRWC

boutons_deux

02-12-2014, 01:37 PM

Repug/VRWC War On Employees

Confederate TN Repugs threatening to penalize VW workers if they exercise their RIGHT to form a union.

Union Drive Doesn’t Bother Management, but G.O.P. Fumes

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/02/12/business/automaker-gives-its-blessings-and-gop-its-warnings.html?partner=rss&emc=rss

boutons_deux

02-12-2014, 02:00 PM

War on Employees

The Latest Attack on Public Sector Unions: Paycheck Protection in Pennsylvania and Missouri

The GOP offensive against public sector unions at the state level that began in earnest in Wisconsin and Ohio in early 2011 is far from over. In its more recent manifestation, Republican politicians in Missouri and Pennsylvania are once again promoting so-called "paycheck protection" legislation, which they claim will protect the interests of ordinary workers. Nothing could be further from the truth. In common with similar legislation that right-wing groups have promoted for the past two decades, the goal of this legislation is to silence the political voice of working people and ensure that the wealthy dominate state elections.

Paycheck "Protection" Has Always Been a Partisan Right-Wing Ploy

Along with legislation restricting public sector bargaining and right-to-work laws, paycheck protection legislation - which either restricts unions' ability to raise or spend money on politics - has been one of the main anti-union initiatives that conservative activists have promoted at the state level. Starting with the very first legislation in Washington State in 1992, a state-level network of right-wing organizations promoted paycheck legislation through ballot initiatives and bills. Paycheck legislation has always been a cynical attempt to tilt the balance of political power in favor of right-wing politicians who promote that legislation, not an effort to protect individual union members and non-union employees. In 1998, President Clinton explained that paycheck is a partisan power solution in search of an imaginary problem: "This is an attempt to create the impression that workers are being put upon when they aren't. And it's being done to alter the balance of power in the political debate."

http://truth-out.org/opinion/item/21786-the-latest-attack-on-public-sector-unions-paycheck-protection-in-pennsylvania-and-missouri

the paychecks being protected and increased are those of top management and investors.

boutons_deux

02-17-2014, 09:53 AM

How The Far Right Plans To Paralyze The Government With A Constitutional Convention

a new movement on the far right hopes to change American history and the powers of the federal government by convening a so-called “Convention of the States,” which aims to severally limit the powers of the federal government with “a balanced budget amendment, clarified definitions of the general welfare and commerce clauses, and limits on federal taxation.” The idea is being promoted by right-wing heroes Glenn Beck, Mark Levin and David Barton. But its biggest ally is the right’s most effective tool for passing legislation in the states.

Wisconsin is the latest state to consider a petition (http://www.prwatch.org/news/2014/02/12379/constitutional-convention-could-cripple-federal-capacity-combat-recession) for a national Constitutional convention using language promoted by the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC), the Koch-funded non-profit network of state legislatures behind Stand Your Ground and Ag-Gag laws, which make it harder to report animal abuse. And to make sure the convention, which is supposed to be open-ended, doesn’t get hijacked for non-balanced-budget-related amendments — to, say, overturn Citizens United, ALEC is also promoting a companion bill that would limit the convention.

The right’s fixation on a balanced budget amendment is just another gambit to cut taxes since most iterations include severe limits on taxation. Jon Peacock of the Wisconsin Budget Project explains (http://www.wisconsinbudgetproject.org/constitutional-convention-could-cripple-federal-capacity-to-combat-recession) how such an amendment would inflict massive damage during economic crises:

A balanced budget amendment in the U.S. Constitution would result in much longer and deeper recessions and would cause unnecessary job losses. When the economy goes into a dive and people are without jobs, the need for food stamps, health insurance and unemployment insurance rise sharply. Since tax revenue typically falls as the need for those programs rises, a balanced budget would require cuts to these safety net programs and other areas of spending at the worst possible time. That would not only take away vital help during a recession, but would also exacerbate the downturn by requiring program cuts and/or tax increases as the recession worsens.

A highly respected economic forecasting firm, Macroeconomic Advisers, considered the effects of a balanced budget amendment during a period like the recent recession. They described the impact on the economy of cutting spending at such a time as “catastrophic” — leading to depression-like conditions and millions of additional jobs lost. A balanced budget amendment is also likely to jeopardize Social Security and other earned assistance upon which retirees depend.

http://www.nationalmemo.com/watch-far-right-plans-gut-government-constitutional-convention/

boutons_deux

02-26-2014, 04:56 PM

Packing the courts, state and federal, with extremist judges is a major part of the VRWC strategy

Beware: Clarence Thomas Is One Of America’s Top Legal Minds (http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2014/02/24/3321531/clarence-thomas-americas-legal-minds-progressives-ignore-fact-peril/)

It’s “how long has it been since Clarence Thomas asked a question?” season again! At irregular intervals, journalists like to remind the nation that Justice Thomas doesn’t like to ask questions from the bench. Here’s a 2011 piece discussing Thomas’s “5-Year Silence (http://www.nytimes.com/2011/02/13/us/13thomas.html?_r=0),” a 2012 piece regarding his “Six Years of Silence (http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2012/03/545532/),” and and 2013 piece pondering “Why Clarence Thomas STILL Hasn’t Asked A Question In Seven Years (http://www.businessinsider.com/why-clarence-thomas-doesnt-ask-questions-2013-2).” This year, the New Yorker’s Jeffrey Toobin kicks off the season with the provocative title “Clarence Thomas’s Disgraceful Silence (http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/comment/2014/02/clarence-thomas-disgraceful-silence.html).”

His piece labeling Thomas’s silence “disgraceful” also notes that, when Thomas is not hearing oral arguments, he’s “imported once outré conservative ideas (http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/comment/2014/02/clarence-thomas-disgraceful-silence.html), about such issues as gun rights under the Second Amendment and deregulation of political campaigns, into the mainstream.” In 2011,

Toobin laid out some of Thomas’s contributions to the law in greater detail (http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2011/08/29/110829fa_fact_toobin?currentPage=all). He also quotes Yale law Professor Akhil Reed Amar, who compares Thomas to the late Justice Hugo Black: “Early in their careers, they were often in dissent, sometimes by themselves, but they were content to go their own way. But once Earl Warren became Chief Justice the Court started to come to Black. It’s the same with Thomas and the Roberts Court. Thomas’s views are now being followed by a majority of the Court in case after case.”

Thomas And Black

It’s a bit of an exaggeration to suggest that Thomas has reshaped the law in his own image — Thomas wants to shrink the federal government’s power to the point where national bans on child labor and whites-only lunch counters are unconstitutional (http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2011/09/19/321978/justice-thomas-who-thinks-federal-child-labor-laws-are-unconstitutional-complains-about-judicial-activism/), a position that no other justice has taken.

In Thomas’s constitutional narrative, things like federal child labor laws aren’t unconstitutional just because Clarence Thomas says so, they are unconstitutional because they are not “faithful to the original understanding” of the Constitution.

Originalism, in other words, enables a justice who wants to bring about radical, sweeping change to the Constitution to argue that this change is legitimate even if it finds no support in prior jurisprudence. It is a tactic that can be deployed by liberals like Black and by conservatives like Thomas. And when it succeeds, it can transform the Constitution into something that judges of the previous era would barely recognize.

Much of Thomas’s vision of the Constitution, however, is easy to recognize. It is often the very same vision Roosevelt appointed justices like Black to roll back, a vision rooted less in the original understanding of the Constitution than in a narrow understanding of the Constitution that President George Washington rejected (http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2014/02/17/3297131/george-washington-tea-partys-worst-nightmare/) in the very early days of the Republic.

Thomas’s mere presence on the Court, combined with his efforts to grant legitimacy to long discarded doctrines, gives credibility to this narrow vision of the Constitution that it could otherwise never enjoy. Before the Tea Party even existed, before Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY) claimed that the “hard part about believing in freedom (http://thinkprogress.org/politics/2010/05/19/98217/paul-civil-rights/)” is allowing whites-only lunch counters to exist — and before three of Thomas’s colleagues joined him in trying to judicially repeal the Affordable Care Act (http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2012/06/29/508522/dissenting-opinion-analysis-justice-kennedy-abandons-all-pretensions-of-being-a-moderate/) based on a legal argument that, in one Reagan-appointed judge’s words, had no basis “in either the text of the Constitution or Supreme Court precedent” (http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/civil-liberties/news/2012/03/07/11260/not-even-close/) — Thomas sat silently on the Supreme Court’s bench, pondering how to transform the Tea Party’s wildest dreams into reality.

Clarence Thomas is not a lightweight. He is one of the more intelligent members of the Supreme Court. And he is one of the most dangerous men in America. Progressives dismiss his intellect at their peril.

http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2014/02/24/3321531/clarence-thomas-americas-legal-minds-progressives-ignore-fact-peril/

boutons_deux

03-08-2014, 06:43 PM

The corporatocracy continues its predation to fuck over and suck even more wealth out of Human-Americans

Conservative group Alec trains sights on city and local government

The rightwing group Alec (http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/dec/04/alec-freerider-homeowners-assault-clean-energy) is preparing to launch a new nationwide network that will seek to replicate its current influence within state legislatures in city councils and municipalities.

The American Legislative Exchange Council, founded in 1973, has become one of the most pervasive advocacy operations in the nation. It brings elected officials together with representatives of major corporations, giving those companies a direct channel into legislation in the form of Alec “model bills”.

Critics have decried the network as a “corporate bill mill” that has spread uniformly-drafted rightwing legislation from state to state. Alec has been seminal, for instance, in the replication of Florida’s controversial “stand-your-ground” (http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/oct/29/trayvon-martin-mother-testifies-senate-stand-your-ground) gun law in more than 20 states.

Now the council is looking to take its blueprint for influence over statewide lawmaking and drill it down to the local level. It has already quietly set up, and is making plans for the public launch of, an offshoot called the American City County Exchange (http://www.alec.org/initiatives/acce/%20) (ACCE) that will target policymakers from “villages, towns, cities and counties”.

The new organisation will offer corporate America a direct conduit into the policy making process of city councils and municipalities. Lobbyists acting on behalf of major businesses will be able to propose resolutions and argue for new profit-enhancing legislation in front of elected city officials, who will then return to their council chambers and seek to implement the proposals.

In its early publicity material, Alec says the new network will be “America’s only free market forum for village, town, city and county policymakers”. :lol :lol :lol Jon Russell, ACCE’s director, declined to comment on the initiative.

Alec spokesman Wilhelm Meierling also declined to say how many corporate and city council members ACCE has attracted so far, or to say when the new initiative would be formally unveiled. But he confirmed that its structure would mirror that of Alec’s work in state legislatures by bringing together city, county and municipal elected officials with corporate lobbyists.

“As a group that focuses on limited government, free markets and federalism, :lol :lol :lol we believe our message rings true at the municipal level just as it does in state legislatures,” he said.

In December, the Guardian revealed (http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/dec/03/alec-funding-crisis-big-donors-trayvon-martin%20%20) that Alec was facing funding problems as a result of fallout from its backing of “stand-your-ground” laws, in the wake of the shooting in Florida of the black teenager Trayvon Martin (http://www.theguardian.com/world/trayvon-martin).

The Guardian also disclosed that Alec had initiated a “prodigal son project” (https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/841593-alec-docs.html), :lol Biblical! :lol designed to woo back corporate donors that had broken off relations with the group amid the gun-law furore.

The extension of its techniques to city councils and municipalities across America offers Alec the chance to open up a potential source of funding that might help it solve its budgetary crisis. There are almost 500,000 local elected officials, many with considerable powers over schools and local services that could be attractive to big business.
Alec makes the appeal to corporations explicit in its funding material for the new ACCE exchange. It offers companies “founders committee” status in return for $25,000 a year and “council committee” membership for $10,000.

By joining ACCE’s council committee, corporate lobbyists can “participate in policy development and network with other entrepreneurs and municipal officials from around the country”. In committee meetings, lobbyists will be allowed to “present facts and opinions for discussion” and introduce resolutions for new policies that they want to see implemented in a city. At the end of such meetings, the elected officials present in the room will take a vote before returning to their respective council chambers armed with new legislative proposals.

Nick Surgey of the Center for Media and Democracy, which monitors Alec’s activities, said: “It just wouldn’t be possible for any corporation to effectively lobby the hundreds of thousands of local elected officials in the US, which until now has left our local mayors and school board members largely free from the grasps of coordinated lobbyists. Alec is now trying to change that.”

One of the main criticisms that have been levelled against Alec is that its influence distorts the democratic process by giving corporations a handle over lawmaking. Similar fears are now being expressed about the intentions of ACCE in American cities.

Natalia Rudiak, a Democratic city council member in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, said she was “offended” by the suggestion she needed an outside body such as ACCE, which is licensed in Arlington, Virginia, to tell her what her community needed.

“Local politics in America is the purest form of democracy,” she said. “There is no buffer between me and the public. So why would I want the involvement of a third party acting on behalf of a few corporate interests?”

Rudiak added that she found ACCE’s boast that it will be “America’s only free market forum” patronising.

“If by ‘free market’ they mean weighing supply against demand in the best interests of the people of Pittsburgh,” she said, “then we are debating those issues in the council chamber every single day.”

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/mar/06/conservative-group-alec-city-local-government/print

ALEC has the same objective as corporations, shittiest possible product for highest possible price.

Certainly enough of those "500,000 local officials" are easy targets for corruption by ACCE.

boutons_deux

03-16-2014, 01:35 PM

The TPP Tries to Put a “No Exit” Sign on America’s Crapified Health Care System by Allowing Medical Procedures to be Patented World-wide (http://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2014/03/tpp-tries-put-exit-sign-americas-crapified-health-care-system-allowing-medical-procedures-patented.html)

Hundreds of thousands of people (http://www.cdc.gov/features/medicaltourism/) — especially those who can’t afford concierge medical care (http://www.forbes.com/sites/russalanprince/2013/05/30/what-is-concierge-healthcare/) — increasingly look to medical tourism (http://www.cnbc.com/id/101487998) to exit (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exit,_Voice,_and_Loyalty) the tapeworm-infested (http://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2013/11/krugman-on-obamacare-gets-the-wrong-worm.html) brutal and hideously expensive U.S. health care rental extraction device system, with its Taylorist methods and penitentiary-like facilities, in favor of more humane and more reasonably priced alternatives available in other countries; heck, there’s even a medical tourism trade association (http://www.medicaltourismassociation.com/en/index.html)!

Of course, “medical tourism” might be more accurately called “medical arbitrage.” For example, my privileged position as a citizen of the United States, once a first-world country in areas beyond the Acela corridor, still entitles me to various free gifts, including the high value of the US dollar, which I can arbitrage to purchase health care in not-first-world countries with lower value currencies and first-class — and not brutal — care. The Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) because it requires that medical procedures can be patented, will lessen this arbitrage opportunity in medical care by raising the price of medical procedures, thereby making you less able to get the kind of health care that you need and deserve, by raising its price.[1] Here is the relevant draft text, from TPP’s Article QQ.E.2 (http://www.exposethetpp.org/Leaked_TPP_Text_Analysis.pdf), with the U.S. proposal underlined:

[US: Consistent with paragraph 1] each Party [US proposes; AU/NZ/VN/BN/CL/PE/MY/SG/CA/MX oppose: shall make patents available for inventions for the following] [NZ/CL/PE/MY/AU/VN/BN/SG/CA/MX propose: may also exclude from patentability]: (a) plants and animals, [NZ/CL/PE/MY/AU/VN/BN/SG/CA/MX propose: other than microorganisms]; (b) [JP opposes: (b)diagnostic, therapeutic, and surgical methods for the treatment of humans or animals [US proposes; AU/SG/MY/NZ/CL/PE/VN/BN/CA/MX oppose: if they cover a method of using a machine, manufacture, or composition of matter]; [NZ/CL/PE/MY/AU/VN/BN/SG/CA/MX propose:] and

As you can see from the bracketed text, most other countries oppose the U.S. proposal. There are good reasons for doing so.

First, the U.S. proposal would raise the cost of medical care — that’s the part that eliminates arbitrage for U.S. citizens.[2] Public Citizen (http://www.citizen.org/documents/MedicalProceduresMemo_final%20draft.pdf):

Medical procedure patents create significant transaction costs for patients . Physicians or healthcare providers could be charged additional royalties on top of the one-time cost of a medical device each time they practice a patented method. … The patenting of medical processes essentially nullifies the effect of patent exhaustion in specific instances, giving patentees rights over downstream uses of a patented medical device. Physicians , healthcare providers, or other companies, who infringe medical procedure patents may then be liable to pay high damages that are “adequate to compensate for the infringement, ” but no less than a reasonable royalty rate.

Courts often set a reasonable royalty rate based on the “percentage of infringing sales resulting from the unauthorized use of the patented invention.” In Medtronic Sofamor Danek USA, Inc. v. Globus Medical, Inc., for example, the court found defendants liable for $2,085,269.20 in damages for infringing patents on “devices a nd methods used by spinal surgeons to stabilize bony structures.” Insurance companies typically cap the amount they will reimburse on any given procedure. Price hikes resulting from medical procedure patenting are likely to be shifted onto consumers, either in the form of higher co-payments or higher insurance premiums.[3]

The additional costs that medical procedure patents impose may be no small deal for the patient. While patients are billed anywhere from $1500 to $2000 per stent used in coronary angioplasties, the actual cost of manufacturing the stent is only $15. A high-tech scan may cost a hospital “a few cents of electricity” and “a couple of hundred dollars [sic] worth of a technician’s or a doctor’s time,” but the patient is typically billed “several thousand dollars” per diagnostic procedure.

Second, most medical associations regard medical procedure patents as unethical (http://elgarblog.wordpress.com/2013/11/27/pacific-rim-treaty-threatens-public-health-patent-law-and-medical-procedures-by-alexandra-phelan-and-matthew-rimmer/) — as indeed they are.

Under the TRIPS Agreement 1994 in the WTO (http://www.wto.org/english/tratop_e/trips_e/t_agm3c_e.htm#5), governments are allowed to refuse to grant patents that cover diagnostic, therapeutic and surgical methods for the treatment of humans or animals. This allowance under international trade law recognises that patents over medical treatment methods are an unjustifiable limitation on the freedom of physicians to treat their patients to the best of their abilities and are a risk to human health. If a patent exists over a surgical method, a physician has a choice (assuming they are even aware a patent exists over the surgical method): respect the patent and risk the health of their patient, or violate the patent and risk being sued for infringement. This is not a decision that physicians, particularly in emergency situations, should be required to make, and is an unjustifiable risk to health and undermines medical ethics.

It is no surprise then that the World Medical Association (WMA) (http://www.wma.net/en/30publications/10policies/m30/) has taken a strong position against patenting of surgical methods. In its position statement on the patenting of medical procedures, the WMA states that the patenting of medical procedures poses serious risks to the effective practice of medicine, and is unethical and contrary to the values of the medical profession.

http://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2014/03/tpp-tries-put-exit-sign-americas-crapified-health-care-system-allowing-medical-procedures-patented.html?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+NakedCapitalism+%28naked+capi talism%29

My bet is that if Bishop Gecko were President, the Repug Senators who now oppose TPP (only because it Obama proposing it, not because of the TPP content) would be selling, approving TPP aggressively.

boutons_deux

03-16-2014, 01:50 PM

“Wisconsin is the model”: Grover Norquist’s Tea Party scheme to crush his union enemies

“How did we do it in Wisconsin?” RNC Chair Reince Priebus asked Saturday morning. “The simplest way I can tell you is we had total and complete unity between the state party, quite frankly, Americans for Prosperity, the Tea Party groups, the Grandsons of Liberty. The [Glenn Beck-instigated] 9/12ers were involved. It was a total and complete agreement that nobody cared who got the credit, that everyone was going to run down the tracks together.”

Priebus made his comments on a Saturday morning CPAC panel addressing how conservatives could fight and defeat organized labor state by state. Moderator Grover Norquist, the president of Americans for Tax Reform, opened the panel by suggesting that conservatives had been neglecting the union issue in recent years out of a mistaken sense that private sector union demise was inevitable, and that public sector union decline was impossible.

Rather, argued Norquist, a raft of National Labor Relations Board appointments by Obama – who he said had made a strategic error by prioritizing Obamacare over a pro-union “card check” bill – would make this “the time for the other team to cheat” and hike private sector unionization. (Pro-labor scholars have questioned (http://www.salon.com/2014/02/05/breaking_union_rule_despised_by_right_wingers_now_ roaring_back_to_life/) how much impact proposed rules from the NLRB, a body which lacked a quorum for some stretches of Obama’s presidency, will have on union efforts.) Meanwhile, said Norquist, Republican victories in the states offered a chance to “fix a lot of the abuses that we thought we’d have to live with” in the public sector. “Wisconsin,” Norquist later told the crowd, “is the model.”

Scott Walker’s 2011 “budget repair” law, passed (http://www.salon.com/2012/06/04/turning_against_unions/) amid a high-profile multi-week protest occupation of the state capitol, severely reduced the right of public employees to collectively bargain, effectively imposed public sector “Right to Work,” and required regular “re-certification” elections among employees on whether to retain their now-narrowed form of union recognition.

http://www.salon.com/2014/03/08/wisconsin_is_the_model_grover_norquists_tea_party_ scheme_to_crush_his_union_enemies/

====================

so how's WI doing under Repug political domination? :lol

Weak economic numbers haven't affected Scott Walker's popularity

No matter how you spin them, the numbers show Wisconsin’s economy continues to sputter.

As other states are adding thousands of jobs post-recession, Wisconsin lags near the bottom on that measure (http://host.madison.com/host.madison.com/tncms/admin/action/%20http:/www.mysanantonio.com/news/article/Wis-drops-to-44th-in-private-sector-job-creation-4392345.php) and appears to be going in the wrong direction.

While the national unemployment rate has been dropping, Wisconsin’s has been going in the opposite way. All ten of the largest metro areas in the state saw an increase in their jobless rate, according to figures released this week.

Milwaukee saw its non-seasonally adjusted jobless rate in February increase to 8.4 percen (http://www.biztimes.com/article/20130404/ENEWSLETTERS02/130409880/-1/daily_enews/Milwaukee-area-unemployment-rate-up-to-84%89)t, hardly a sign that happy days have returned to Wisconsin’s largest — and most important — economic center.

And the latest stats show wages and income for working people in Wisconsin are trending down, falling 4.1 percent (http://host.madison.com/news/local/wages-for-dane-county-and-wisconsin-workers-fell-latest-federal/article_07ee356c-97e7-11e2-97e3-001a4bcf887a.html) over the past two years, worse than the nation as a whole.

But despite the disappointing economic data, Gov. Scott Walker has actually seen his job approval rating tick higher to 50 percent, according to the latest Marquette University Law School poll (https://law.marquette.edu/poll/wp-content/uploads/2013/03/MLSP15CompleteToplines.pdf). That’s up from 49 percent last fall.

It’s a curious twist for a governor who made job creation and business development the centerpiece of his political agenda — and something that goes against the conventional wisdom that economic issues trump all others.

“What this tells me is that people filter the economic news through their own political lens,” says Professor Charles Franklin, who supervises the Marquette poll.

http://host.madison.com/news/local/writers/mike_ivey/weak-economic-numbers-haven-t-affected-scott-walker-s-popularity/article_b1fcc782-9d6c-11e2-a233-001a4bcf887a.html#ixzz2w9Xsl16q (http://host.madison.com/news/local/writers/mike_ivey/weak-economic-numbers-haven-t-affected-scott-walker-s-popularity/article_b1fcc782-9d6c-11e2-a233-001a4bcf887a.html#ixzz2w9Xsl16q)

Walker/Repugs have done everything to screw the 99% and enrich the 1%, but Repug voters still vote stupidly against their own interests.

boutons_deux

03-17-2014, 01:42 PM

Who Controls the Kochs’ Political Network? ASMI, SLAH and TOHE

Obscure limited liability companies have ultimate say over the Koch network’s nonprofits, which spend hundreds of millions of dollars to advance conservative causes.

Libertarian billionaire brothers Charles and David Koch were among the first to grasp the political potential of social welfare groups and trade associations — nonprofits that can spend money to influence elections but don’t have to name their donors.
The Kochs and their allies have built up a complex network (https://projects.propublica.org/graphics/koch) of such organizations, which spent more than $383 million in the run-up to the 2012 election alone.

Documents released in recent months show the Kochs have added wrinkles to their network that even experts well versed in tax law and campaign finance say they’ve never seen before — wrinkles that could make it harder to discern who controls each nonprofit in the web and how it disperses its money.

A review of 2012 tax returns filed by Koch network groups shows that most have been set up as nonprofit trusts rather than not-for-profit corporations, an unusual step that reduces their public reporting requirements.
It sounds complicated and arcane because it is. Some of the nation’s top nonprofit experts said they could only speculate on the reasons for the network’s increasingly elaborate setup.

“My guess is that we’re looking at various forms of disguise — to disguise control, to disguise the flow of funds from one entity to another,” said Gregory Colvin, a tax lawyer and campaign-finance specialist in San Francisco who reviewed all the documents for ProPublica.

Four other leading nonprofit experts and three conservative operatives with knowledge of the Koch network said the most likely reason that the Kochs and their inner circle are using this arrangement was to exert control over the groups without saying publicly who was in charge. In particular, they said, the Kochs likely wanted to prevent any of the groups that they help fund from going against their wishes — as happened with the Cato Institute (http://www.nytimes.com/2012/03/06/us/cato-institute-and-koch-in-rift-over-independence.html?pagewanted=all), the libertarian think tank the Kochs had long supported before they got into a dispute with its president, Ed Crane.

http://www.propublica.org/article/who-controls-koch-political-network-asmi-slah-tohe?utm_source=et&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=dailynewsletter

boutons_deux

03-20-2014, 12:50 PM

the corporate/VRWC/ALEC War on Employees (contributes to poverty, inequality, lost employee opportunities)

The Overtime Threshold Has Eroded 57.5 Percent from its Peak Valuehttp://s4.epi.org/files/2014/snapshot-overtime-03-18-2014.png.608

http://www.epi.org/publication/overtime-threshold-eroded-57-5-percent-peak/

And of course it was the Repugs in their 2004 mods to the Fair Labor Standards Act that removed $Bs from low-end employees, reclassifying them as supervisors and exempt from overtime.

boutons_deux

03-22-2014, 03:00 PM

http://nationalmemo.wpengine.netdna-cdn.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/03/Moneyboarding-1024x705.jpg

boutons_deux

03-26-2014, 01:52 PM

The current Supreme Court has headed in a very scary direction.

Recently, three well-respected legal scholars examined almost 20,000 Supreme Court cases from the last 65 years. They found that the five conservative justices currently sitting on the Supreme Court are in the top 10 most pro-corporate justices in more than half a century.

And Justices Samuel Alito and John Roberts? They were number one and number two.

Take a look at the win rate of the national Chamber of Commerce cases before the Supreme Court. According to the Constitutional Accountability Center, the Chamber was winning 43% of the cases in participated in during the later years of the Burger Court, but that shifted to a 56% win-rate under the Rehnquist Court, and then a 70% win-rate with the Roberts Court.

Follow these pro-corporate trends to their logical conclusion, and pretty soon you'll have a Supreme Court that is a wholly owned subsidiary of big business.

http://elizabethwarren.com/

boutons_deux

04-14-2014, 12:37 PM

Nothing Really Compares to the Koch Brothers’ Political Empire

As billionaire conservatives Charles and David Koch become a focus of Democratic Party attacks (http://talkingpointsmemo.com/dc/harry-reid-war-on-koch-brothers) for their big spending in the 2014 elections, conservatives have argued back that the Kochs’ “dark money” is puny compared to the shadowy funds spent by an array of wealthy liberal interests and individuals.

Fingers have been pointed at labor unions (http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052702303824204579423650900853802), billionaire investor George Soros (http://allenbwest.com/2014/03/reid-calls-koch-brothers-un-american-harry-ever-heard-george-soros/), billionaire environmentalist Tom Steyer (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/03/31/koch-brothers-spending-_n_5065245.html) and the Tides Foundation (http://washingtonexaminer.com/why-do-the-koch-brothers-get-all-the-sunshine/article/2523869) as the supposed liberal counterparts to the Kochs.But the numbers just don’t add up. And these progressive groups tend to operate in the sunshine of public disclosure, unlike the Kochs’ semi-secret political empire.

Let’s start with the misunderstanding — or the deliberate expansion — of the term “dark money.”

Coined in October 2010 by Bill Allison (http://sunlightfoundation.com/blog/2010/10/18/daily-disclosures-10/), editorial director at the Sunlight Foundation, “dark money” was meant to describe the funds spent on elections and election-related issue ads by political nonprofits that are not required to disclose the names of their donors. This money skyrocketed following the Supreme Court’s 2010 Citizens United decision.
The term “dark money” does not apply to every nonprofit that does not disclose its donors — not even to every nondisclosing nonprofit with political goals, broadly speaking, on the left or the right.

The term “dark money” does not apply, however, to every nonprofit that does not disclose its donors — not even to every nondisclosing nonprofit with political goals, broadly speaking, on the left or the right.

“Cato [Institute], Heritage [Foundation] and Center for American Progress aren’t dark money groups, and neither is the March of Dimes, which also does not disclose donors,” Allison said via email.

“I think of Dark Money as the money from undisclosed donors spent to influence the outcome of an election.”

What kinds of nonprofits does the term cover? Mainly, “social welfare” nonprofits (organized under section 501(c)(4) of the tax code) and trade associations (organized under section 501(c)(6)), when they spend money to influence electoral outcomes. It can also cover shell corporations that spend on elections and have no other apparent purpose.
Those not included under the “dark money” moniker: public interest nonprofits (organized under section 501(c)(3)), which may be involved in shaping policy but are forbidden to engage in electoral activity and labor unions (organized under section 501(c)(5)), which can participate in elections but must disclose their donors to the Labor Department.

The Koch brothers run most of their political empire through a network of 501(c)(4) and 501(c)(6) nonprofits, the majority of which spend money directly on elections or fund those that do.In total, the Koch political empire marshaled $400 million in the 2012 election cycle (http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/koch-backed-political-network-built-to-shield-donors-raised-400-million-in-2012-elections/2014/01/05/9e7cfd9a-719b-11e3-9389-09ef9944065e_story.html) toward groups and efforts that spent money directly in the electoral arena. Not every group that received money from the empire reported spending on elections, but the vast majority of that money went to groups that spent tens of millions on electoral ads — which must be reported to the Federal Election Commission — and even more on issue ads that targeted candidates but didn’t advocate their electoral victory or defeat — which is not reported. Koch players included Americans for Prosperity, the American Future Fund and the 60 Plus Association.

Already, Koch-linked dark money groups (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/03/20/koch-brothers-2014_n_4995698.html) have spent more than $30 million on ads targeting vulnerable Democratic congressional candidates running in the 2014 midterms.
It is the electoral focus of the Koch nonprofits and their sophisticated efforts to shield donors’ identities (http://www.propublica.org/article/who-controls-koch-political-network-asmi-slah-tohe) – plus the vast sums of money they move — that has brought them the unwanted attention of both Democratic Senate leadership and reporters.

There exists no outside network or organization supporting Democratic Party candidates in elections, while not disclosing its donors, that spends money in comparable amounts.

Take the Tides Foundation, a longstanding liberal donor fund that provides money to nonprofits working on the environment, labor issues, immigrant rights, gay rights, women’s rights and human rights. Conservative blogs blasted the foundation as far more influential than the Koch brothers as early as 2011.

But according to tax records accessed through CitizenAudit.org (http://www.citizenaudit.org/), the Tides Foundation allocates little of its money to groups that engage in FEC-reportable spending on elections. Tides gave just $3.1 million of its $136 million in 2011-2012 grants to 501(c)(4) nonprofits that are permitted to engage part-time in politics. An even smaller sum went to such groups that actually reported election spending — i.e., dark money groups.

Some of those recipient groups reported spending large sums on elections, but they received very little of that from Tides: The League of Conservation Voters, which spent $11.2 million on elections, received just $150,000 from Tides. The Michigan League of Conservation Voters spent $860,237 but received only $15,000. Planned Parenthood spent $6.7 million and received $110,000. And VoteVets.org spent $3.2 million and received $82,500.

The Advocacy Fund, a former Tides organization that is still run out of the same office, gave more to 501(c)(4) nonprofits in the last election cycle: $11.5 million. But only $5.7 million went to those dark money groups that actually spent money on the elections. Recipients that engaged in electoral spending included America Votes ($1.8 million from the Advocacy Fund), the Campaign for Community Change ($1.3 million), the League of Conservation Voters ($2 million), the National Wildlife Federation Action Fund ($125,000), the NRDC Action Fund ($80,000) and the Sierra Club ($278,000).

So if the Tides Foundation is supposed to be the liberal equivalent of the Kochs, it’s a pale shadow of the conservative juggernaut. Combined, the money from Tides and the Advocacy Fund falls well short of the amounts amassed by the Koch operation.

Another favorite target of conservative comparison making is George Soros, who is indeed a major progressive political donor and operates a large network of nonprofit funds to push his vision of an “open society.” This network holds assets in the billions of dollars.

But again, the Soros foundations direct only a tiny fraction of their funds to groups spending money to directly influence elections. The Open Society Policy Center and the Fund for Policy Reform, the main Soros groups donating to 501(c)(4) nonprofits, gave $12.9 million to those nonprofits in the 2012 cycle, of which just $1 million went to the subset that spent money in elections. Soros himself has publicly stated his opposition to funding attack ads.

In addition, Soros was personally a major donor to Democratic super PACs in the last election, including $1 million to American Bridge 21st Century, $1 million to Priorities USA Action, $675,000 to House Majority PAC and $100,000 to Senate Majority PAC. He has also donated $25,000 to the Ready for Hillary PAC. But unlike whatever funds the Koch brothers pour into their political empire, the Soros donations to super PACs are not “dark,” for they are all disclosed to the FEC in publicly accessible records.

As for Tom Steyer, the former hedge fund investor turned super-environmentalist, the majority of his spending this election cycle has gone through a super PAC, which discloses its donors — or in Steyer’s case, its donor.

Other liberal donor funds — including the Atlantic Advocacy Fund, the Green Tech Action Fund and the Public Interest Projects Action Fund — donated approximately $35 million to 501(c)(4) nonprofits during the 2012 election. But only 19 percent of that went to groups that actually spent money on elections.

As for Tom Steyer, the former hedge fund investor turned super-environmentalist, the majority of his spending this election cycle has gone through a super PAC, which discloses its donors — or in Steyer’s case, its donor. So far, his CE Action Committee has spent more than $1 million to help Senator Ed Markey (D-MA) secure victory in a 2013 special election and more than $8 million to help Virginia Governor Terry McAuliffe (D) win his race.

Steyer has declared that he intends to spend up to $100 million in the 2014 elections. Although that would no doubt make him the largest political donor among those backing Democratic candidates, it remains to be seen whether he will follow through. The Los Angeles Times said (http://articles.latimes.com/2013/dec/21/nation/la-na-steyer-20131222) as much when it wrote that Steyer “may” be the liberal answer to the Kochs.

In the meantime, the Kochs’ dark money empire is not merely a future threat or a possible hope. It is a reality, controlled by two billionaires who chose to operate, as much as they can, in the political shadows.

http://billmoyers.com/2014/04/10/nothing-really-compares-to-the-koch-brothers-political-empire/

boutons_deux

04-14-2014, 12:43 PM

What Do the Koch Brothers Really Want?

Here are just a few excerpts of the Libertarian Party platform that David Koch ran on in 1980:

“We urge the repeal of federal campaign finance laws, and the immediate abolition of the despotic Federal Election Commission.”

“We favor the abolition of Medicare and Medicaid programs.”

“We oppose any compulsory insurance or tax-supported plan to provide health services, including those which finance abortion services.”

“We also favor the deregulation of the medical insurance industry.”

“We favor the repeal of the fraudulent, virtually bankrupt, and increasingly oppressive Social Security system. Pending that repeal, participation in Social Security should be made voluntary.”

“We propose the abolition of the governmental Postal Service. The present system, in addition to being inefficient, encourages governmental surveillance of private correspondence. Pending abolition, we call for an end to the monopoly system and for allowing free competition in all aspects of postal service.”

“We oppose all personal and corporate income taxation, including capital gains taxes.”

“We support the eventual repeal of all taxation.”

“As an interim measure, all criminal and civil sanctions against tax evasion should be terminated immediately.”

“We support repeal of all law which impede the ability of any person to find employment, such as minimum wage laws.”

“We advocate the complete separation of education and State. Government schools lead to the indoctrination of children and interfere with the free choice of individuals. Government ownership, operation, regulation, and subsidy of schools and colleges should be ended.”

“We condemn compulsory education laws … and we call for the immediate repeal of such laws.”

“We support the repeal of all taxes on the income or property of private schools, whether profit or non-profit.”

“We support the abolition of the Environmental Protection Agency.”

“We support abolition of the Department of Energy.”

“We call for the dissolution of all government agencies concerned with transportation, including the Department of Transportation.”

“We demand the return of America's railroad system to private ownership. We call for the privatization of the public roads and national highway system.”

“We specifically oppose laws requiring an individual to buy or use so-called "self-protection" equipment such as safety belts, air bags, or crash helmets.”

“We advocate the abolition of the Federal Aviation Administration.”

“We advocate the abolition of the Food and Drug Administration.”

“We support an end to all subsidies for child-bearing built into our present laws, including all welfare plans and the provision of tax-supported services for children.”

“We oppose all government welfare, relief projects, and ‘aid to the poor’ programs. All these government programs are privacy-invading, paternalistic, demeaning, and inefficient. The proper source of help for such persons is the voluntary efforts of private groups and individuals.”

“We call for the privatization of the inland waterways, and of the distribution system that brings water to industry, agriculture and households.”

“We call for the repeal of the Occupational Safety and Health Act.”

“We call for the abolition of the Consumer Product Safety Commission.”

“We support the repeal of all state usury laws.”

In other words, the agenda of the Koch brothers is not only to defund Obamacare.

The agenda of the Koch brothers is to repeal every major piece of legislation that has been signed into law over the past 80 years that has protected the middle class, the elderly, the children, the sick, and the most vulnerable in this country.

It is clear that the Koch brothers and other right wing billionaires are calling the shots and are pulling the strings of the Republican Party.

http://readersupportednews.org/opinion2/277-75/23082-what-do-the-koch-brothers-really-want

boutons_deux

05-01-2014, 10:26 AM

ALEC news

Why 5 Utilities Quietly Dumped ALEC and Others Won’t Even Speak of the Lobbying Group

Greenpeace has directly confirmed at least five large U.S. utility companies have ceased supporting the secretive lobbying group in recent years:

MidAmerian Energy Holdings Company (MEHC)
PacifiCorp—a MEHC subsidiary with distinct ALEC membership as of 2011
NV Energy (http://ecowatch.com/2014/01/12/welcome-to-fabulous-las-vegas-sign-solar-energy/)—now a MEHC subsidiary with distinct ALEC membership as of 2011
Alliant Energy
PG&E

Independent of ALEC, some of these companies continue to resist commonsense clean energy incentives, such as net metering (http://ecowatch.com/2013/11/04/states-renewable-energy-grade/) for distributed solar generation. The democratization of electricity production poses a serious threat to monopolistic utility companies, and rather than working to innovate during this massive shift in the energy economy, many utilities are digging in their heels. In the long run, that will not likely turn out to be a wise choice; even King Coal’s top lobbyists admits that the industry is outdated, comparing coal’s latest pollution control technology to the irrelevant “bag phone” (http://grist.org/article/top-coal-lobbyist-compares-coal-plants-to-90s-car-phones-refuses-to-say-if-coal-contributes-to-climate-change/?utm_source=syndication&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=feed) technology of yesteryear.

Four utilities refused to respond to Greenpeace after over two months of repeated outreach through phone, email and fax, indicating how toxic ALEC’s brand is even to some of the nation’s polluters:

Dominion Resources in Richmond, VA
Ameren in St. Louis, MO
NiSource in Merrillville, IN
Arizona Public Service (and holding company Pinnacle West Capital) in Phoenix, AZ

http://ecowatch.com/2014/05/01/utilities-alec-lobbying-group/

Note that Arizona "Public" Service utility is actually owned by a wealth-sucking holding group, aka "Arizona Capital Service" racket, which certainly behind APS's laying taxes on solar panel users.

boutons_deux

06-08-2014, 04:36 PM

Who Is Behind the National Right to Work Committee and its Anti-Union Crusade?

As the U.S. Supreme Court's 2014 session comes to a close, one of the major cases left for a decision is Harris vs. Quinn,which could effect some 7 million public sector workers in the United States.
The case originates in Illinois, where home health care workers have been successfully organized by public sector unions. Now, a small group of these workers, represented by lawyers from the National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation, have sued and their lawyers contend that the agency fees, or the fair share dues that even non-union members of a bargaining unit are required to pay to unions that bargain for higher wages on their behalf, violate the First Amendment. Agency fees are barred in so-called "right to work" states, which have much less unionization and lower wages and benefits.

Joel Rogers, a professor of law and sociology at the University of Wisconsin, calls it (http://www.thenation.com/article/179033/why-harris-v-quinn-has-labor-very-very-nervous) "the most important labor law case the court has considered in decades." This is because when the Supreme Court decided to take on the case, the National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation dramatically expanded the scope of the case beyond the home health care workers to include all public sector workers, from teachers and firefighters to sanitation workers to librarians. If the court follows National Right to Work's lead, every state in the country would essentially turn into an anti-union "right to work" state, which would be a significant blow to public sector unions' collective bargaining efforts and also complicate thousands of existing contracts between organized workers and municipalities, cities, counties, and states across the country.

http://www.prwatch.org/files/images/epigraph.png

Founded nearly 60 years ago, the NRTWC has been a national leader in the effort to destroy public and private sector unions. The groups have increased their funding and staffing in recent years. In 2012, the three groups combined reported over $25 million in revenue, making them a powerful instrument of the corporate and ideological interests that want to keep wages low and silence the voice of organized labor in the political arena.

NRTWC's success and the demise of unions in the United States has directly contributed to the erosion of high-paying middle class jobs and to growing inequality, as this chart from theEconomic Policy Institute (http://www.epi.org/news/union-membership-declines-inequality-rises/) graphically illustrates.

National Right to Work's Deep Connections to the Koch Brothers and the John Birch Society

The NRTWC has deep connections within the national right-wing network led by the Koch brothers. Reed Larson, who led the NRTW groups for over three decades, hails from Wichita, Kansas, the hometown of Charles and David Koch. Larson became an early leader of the radical right-wing John Birch Society in Kansas, which Fred Koch (the father of Charles and David) helped found. Several other founders and early leaders of the NRTWC were members and leaders of the John Birch Society (http://cdn.calisphere.org/data/28722/8t/bk0003z7b8t/files/bk0003z7b8t-FID1.pdf), specifically the Wichita chapter of which Fred Koch was an active member.

The groups remain tied to the Kochs. In 2012, the Kochs' Freedom Partners (http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Freedom_Partners) group funneled $1 million to the National Right to Work Committee (http://conservativetransparency.org/recipient/national-right-to-work-committee/), while the Charles G. Koch Charitable Foundation (http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Charles_G._Koch_Charitable_Foundation) gave a $15,000 grant to the NRTWLDF (http://conservativetransparency.org/recipient/national-right-to-work-legal-defense-foundation/), which has also received significant funding from the Koch-connected DonorsTrust (http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/DonorsTrust) and Donors Capital Fund (http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Donors_Capital_Fund). Today, at least three former Koch associates work as attorneys for the NRTWLDF.

In June 2010, Mark Mix, the current head of the NRTW groups, attended the Kochs' exclusiveAspen strategy meeting (http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Koch_Network) to give a presentation on how to mobilize conservatives for the 2010 election, along with representatives from Koch-backed groups such as the Center to Protect Patient Rights (now called American Encore (http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Center_to_Protect_Patient_Rights)) and Americans for Prosperity (http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Americans_for_Prosperity).

In addition to the Koch brothers, the NRTWLDF has received significant funding from many big name conservative donors, including the Walton Family Foundation (http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Walton_Family_Foundation) (of Walmart), the Coors family's Castle Rock Foundation (http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Castle_Rock_Foundation), Wisconsin's Bradley Foundation (http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Bradley_Foundation), the John M. Olin Foundation (http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/John_M._Olin_Foundation), and the Searle Freedom Trust (http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Searle_Freedom_Trust).

A $33 Million Anti-Worker Lobby Shop with Ties to ALEC, SPN, and More

In order to push their extreme agenda, the NRTWC has launched a massive lobbying effort at both the state and federal level. In the U.S. Congress alone, the NRTWC has spent (http://soprweb.senate.gov/index.cfm?event=selectFields&reset=1) over $33 million on lobbying between 1999 and 2013. NRTWC has lobbied Congress to pass a national "Right to Work Act," which is sponsored by Senator Rand Paul (R-KY). Paul has lent his name to several NRTWC advocacy and fundraising letters and received over $27,000 in campaign contributions from the NRTWC’s federal political action committee. The NRTWC also strongly opposed the Employee Free Choice Act, which would have made it easier for workers to organize, while supported legislation that would weaken the regulatory authority of the National Labor Relations Board over employers.

The NRTWC also does extensive lobbying on the state level. In 2012, lobbyists registered with the NRTWC were on the ground in Indiana (http://www.in.gov/ilrc/files/2012_employer.pdf) and Michigan (http://www.michigan.gov/sos/0,4670,7-127-1633_11945---,00.html) when both states passed anti-union "right to work" bills and are big supporters of Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker and his efforts to crush public sector unions. The NRTWC was an exhibitor at the 2011 annual conference of the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC), the corporate bill millexposed by CMD in 2011 (http://www.alecexposed.org/wiki/ALEC_Exposed). ALEC's "Right to Work Act (http://alecexposed.org/w/images/c/c8/1R10-Right_to_Work_Act_Exposed.pdf)," which has been in the ALEC library since at least 1980, is one of its most commonly used "model" bills. When Republicans took trifecta control of 26 state houses in November of 2010, it was a top agenda item at theDecember 2010 ALEC meeting (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/mary-bottari/wisconsin-recall-election-right-to-work-_b_1553348.html). According to a 2010 email (http://www.prwatch.org/files/ALEC%20Policy%20Initiatives%20%28Ballweg%29%2011:1 1:10.pdf) from ALEC to Wisconsin legislators that CMD obtained, ALEC referred to its "Right to Work Act" as a "solution… for your state's most pressing issues." Currently 24 states are so-called "right to work" states. In 2013, 15 states introduced legislation based on ALEC's "Right to Work Act."

The NRTWLDF is also an associate member of the State Policy Network (SPN) (http://www.spn.org/directory/organizations.asp), an $84 million dollar network of 64 state-based "think tanks." The State Policy Network's affiliate in Michigan, the Mackinac Center (http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Mackinac_Center), was one of the major supporters behind "right to work" when the legislature passed the bill in 2012. Through its board, staff, and other activities, the NRTW groups also have close connections to Americans for Prosperity, the Cato Institute (http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Cato_Institute), theAmerican Conservative Union (http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/American_Conservative_Union), and the Republican National Committee (http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Republican_National_Committee).

Professor Rogers and other labor experts contend that the NRTWC's success in the U.S. Supreme Court "would be a disaster for labor, particularly for the public sector unions that traditionally rely more heavily on agency shop agreements." As Rogers points out, it is technically possible to form a union in a "right to work" state, but when union members are free to stop paying their dues, the union becomes a weak and ineffective organization. The results for American workers are clear. Research show (http://www.epi.org/publication/right-to-work-michigan-economy/)s that "right to work" states have lower wages, less health care and more poverty.

https://www.commondreams.org/view/2014/06/04-6

My safe bet is that the extreme right-wing Repug SCOTUS5 will vote in favor of National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation/VRWC screwing unions and workers.

boutons_deux

06-25-2014, 06:44 AM

Kock Bros, CEO of America, buy another whore

Republican Senate Candidate Signs Koch Pledge, Abruptly Changes His Tune On Climate Change (http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2014/06/24/3452603/rubens-koch-pledge/)

http://thinkprogress.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/06/AP912505538663-638x497.jpg

He’s the only Republican (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/05/23/republicans-global-warming-jim-rubens_n_5379997.html) running for Senate who mentions climate change on his website. He used to support a carbon tax, and actually talks about conservative climate change solutions. Then, Jim Rubens signed the Koch brothers’ pledge not to do anything about it.

The pledge, from the Koch-backed organization Americans For Prosperity (AFP), requires signers to “oppose any legislation relating to climate change that includes a net increase in government revenue.” That rules out a carbon tax, a policy (http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2014/06/23/3452051/national-carbon-tax-analysis/) that would make huge carbon cuts, create jobs, raise incomes, and improve the health of Americans. It’s also one of the few policies Congress could use to seriously fight climate change.

An American University report (http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/newsdesk/2013/07/the-kochs-and-the-action-on-global-warming.html), released in July, identified the Kochs’ influence and the AFP pledge as instrumental in stopping members of Congress from voting for climate action. That’s why the Obama administration has had to cut carbon using the EPA’s authority to regulate pollutants. And AFP is only one (http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2013/12/22/3099141/climate-denying-groups-funding/) of at least “91 think tanks, advocacy groups, and industry associations, funded by 140 different foundations, that work to oppose action on climate change.”

It’s a major change for a candidate who not only believes in human-caused global warming, but who said (http://www.greentechmedia.com/articles/read/Jim-Rubens-Is-Arguably-the-Most-Unique-Republican-Running-for-Senate) voters use that belief “as a proxy for candidate credibility on other issues.” Deny climate change, he’s saying, and Republicans will lose elections.

http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2014/06/24/3452603/rubens-koch-pledge/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+climateprogress%2FlCrX+%28Cli mate+Progress%29

Plenty of unpaid? AGW-denying whores right here in ST.

boutons_deux

07-02-2014, 08:30 AM

the corporatocracy/United Corporations of America continues to increase its control of govt and the country

The Chamber Of Commerce Won More Than Two-Thirds Of Its Supreme Court Cases This Term (http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2014/07/02/3455473/the-chamber-of-commerce-won-more-than-two-thirds-of-its-supreme-court-cases-this-term/)

Big business wasn’t the public focus of this year’s just-completed U.S. Supreme Court term. But the corporate lobby’s number one representative nonetheless retained the outsized influence on U.S. jurisprudence that has come to characterize the Roberts Court (http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2013/05/07/1974771/study-in-supreme-courts-past-65-years-two-george-w-bush-appointees-were-most-likely-to-side-with-business-interests/), winningmore than two-thirds (http://theusconstitution.org/text-history/2753/us-chamber-commerce-continues-its-winning-ways) of its cases even by conservative estimates.

The Chamber of Commerce won 11 of the 16 cases in which it filed briefs, according to data compiled by the Constitutional Accountability Center (CAC). This 69 percent win rate marks the continued success of the lobbying shop that dubs itself the world’s largest business organization in shifting Supreme Court precedent to increasingly favor big business.

Factoring in this term, the Chamber of Commerce has enjoyed an overall 70 percent win rate since the court has been led by Chief Justice John G. Roberts — by far the highest win rate in modern history. During the years when the court was led by the last chief, Justice William Rehnquist, the Chamber’s win rate was 56 percent, and under the chief before that, Warren Burger, its win rate was just 43 percent:
http://thinkprogress.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/07/ChamberWinRate2014.jpg

The Chamber’s success this year demonstrates its continued dominance, after several years in which the U.S. Supreme Court has sided with the Chamber of Commerce at a rate of 80 percent. Major cases during this period include Citizens United (this year’s sequel doubled down on that ruling (http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2014/04/02/3422036/how-the-supreme-court-just-legalized-money-laundering-by-rich-campaign-donors/), although the case concerned wealthy individuals rather than their businesses), a string (http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2013/03/28/1786161/why-2-million-comcast-customers-may-never-get-to-air-their-grievances-in-court/) of (http://pubcit.typepad.com/clpblog/2013/03/walmart-sequel-more-scotus-hostility-to-class-actions.html) decisions (http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2011/04/27/176997/scotus-nukes-consumers/) eroding the mechanisms for holding corporations accountable as a class, and Kiobel v. Royal Dutch Petroleum (http://www.nytimes.com/2013/05/05/business/pro-business-decisions-are-defining-this-supreme-court.html?pagewanted=1), which shredded accountability for human rights abuses abroad, including those by corporations with some U.S. presence.

http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2014/07/02/3455473/the-chamber-of-commerce-won-more-than-two-thirds-of-its-supreme-court-cases-this-term/

USCoC, Alec, Kock Bros, "Christian" Taleban, financial sector, etc. America is so fucked and unfuckable.

meanwhile, the youth unemployment rate (16 - 25) is an official 14% millions more not lookng, and MIC is jockeying to win the contract for $100Bs for nuclear-capable next generation stealth bomber, while its $1T+ F-35 sucks.

boutons_deux

07-28-2014, 04:53 PM

Fossil Fuel-Funded Groups Organizing Public Rallies Against New EPA Climate Rule (http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2014/07/28/3464833/epa-hearings-fossil-fuel-public-rallies/)

Starting Tuesday, anyone who objects to new proposed federal regulations to cut carbon emissions from power plants can make their complaints public — and opponents of the rules are lining up to take a shot.

A number of right-wing groups that receive funding from the fossil fuel industry and the Koch Brothers — the American Legislative Exchange Council, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, and Americans for Prosperity (AFP) among others — have vociferouslyopposed (http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2014/05/30/3442251/carbon-pollution-rule-attacks/) the carbon regulations from the beginning. They’ll be bringing in supporters to both speak at the hearings and to attend various rallies scheduled to coincide with the hearings in each city. AFP in particular is planning rallies at the hearings in Atlanta (http://americansforprosperity.org/georgia/newsroom/immediate-release-afp-georgia-to-hold-stop-the-epa-power-grab-rally-launch-georgia-energy-freedom-alliance/),Denver (http://coloradopeakpolitics.com/2014/07/28/tell-the-epa-no-afp-rally-to-protest-epa-overreach-tomorrow/), and Pittsburgh (http://americansforprosperity.org/pennsylvania/event/epa-hearing-press-conference/) to oppose the new rules and to “educate media and rally goers about the harmful impacts on job creation and energy costs.”

“We also saw earlier this year, when the [Senate's] Environment and Public Works committee had the four former Republican EPA administrators testify in favor of the climate rules,” said Dave Willett, a spokesperson for the League of Conservation Voters. “The room was full of miners that had been brought in.”

And while the AFP rallies tend to tonally focus on the interests of industry, the Pennsylvania Chamber of Commerce and several other coal groups have a rally planned in Pittsburgh to focus more on workers who oppose EPA’s rules. “We’re expecting quite a big turnout from folks there,” Willett continued. “They’re having a raffle for a chance to meet Dale Earnhart Jr.”

However, between the low projected costs of the regulations and their market-friendly design, the efforts EPA went to in designing the regulations to accommodate (http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2014/06/04/3444452/coal-state-politicians-epa/) coal-dependent states and give them options, the fact that such projections tend to be too pessimistic (http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2014/06/05/3444651/epa-regulations-inequality/), and that they ignore (http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2014/06/03/3444064/epa-explainer-economy/) the counteracting economic benefits of cutting emissions, it’s unlikely EPA’s new rules will actually harm the economy or jobs.

http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2014/07/28/3464833/epa-hearings-fossil-fuel-public-rallies/

the EPA didn't cause this:

https://www.kftc.org/sites/default/files/media/coal_trends_graph_1.png

https://www.kftc.org/campaigns/appalachian-transition/coal-production-and-employment-trends

Were these BigCarbon whores protesting as 50% of their jobs were destroyed by BigCoal itself?

boutons_deux

07-28-2014, 05:55 PM

VRWC/Corporatocarcy in Action

Human-Americans excluded, screwed, along with the environment

Legislators, Corporations Gather For Secret Meeting Against Clean Energy And You’re Not Invited (http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2014/07/28/3461743/alec-annual-meeting-energy-climate/)

Going into their annual meeting in Dallas, Texas on Wednesday, ALEC — the secretive organization that brings together conservative politicians and major corporate interests — is looking to recalibrate their approach to repealing or obstructing a range of clean energy initiatives after a year of state-level defeats (http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2013/08/08/2399121/corporations-clean-energy-standards/). The 40-year-old group, which has been pushing a corporate-backed, free market-driven agenda for decades, is beholden to a number of utilities and fossil fuel companies that bankroll them and they are expected to show results. At the same time, with renewable energy gaining momentum across the country and homeowners increasingly eager to get in on the rapid growth and falling prices, ALEC risks alienating itself from the public yet again.

Dale Eisman, director of communications at Common Cause, a non-profit working towards government accountability, told ThinkProgress that his organization takes specific issue with how ALEC crafts their legislation at meetings like the upcoming one.

“The secrecy of it through closed meetings, they are masquerading as a charity while operating as a lobby,” said Eisman. “Whatever t he issue — labor, schools, climate, or energy — they are drafting bills to advance corporate interests that don’t necessarily coincide with the public interest.”

This past year ALEC’s influence contributed to the ongoing battles (http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2013/11/12/2928231/arizona-utility-alec-membership/) between solar customers and utilities in Arizona and a Kansas Republican lawmaker’s ostracization (http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2014/06/17/3449826/rps-gop-support-kansas-koch/) from the state Chamber of Commerce after he refused to support an ALEC-backed measure designed to weaken Kansas’s successful renewable energy standard. ALEC, which does not publish a full list of all dues-paying members, includes some (http://www.alec.org/) 2,000 state legislators, corporate executives, and lobbyists. Many of the state legislators have gone on to become members (http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/ALEC_Alumni_in_Congress) of Congress.

It is well-documented that most of ALEC’s revenue comes from corporations and corporate foundations, including those associated with petrochemical billionaires Charles and David Koch, rather than legislative dues. An analysis by the Energy & Policy Institute found that between 1998 and 2012 (http://www.eri-nonprofit-salaries.com/index.cfm?FuseAction=NPO.Summary&EIN=520140979&BMF=1&Cobrandid=0&Syndicate=No) ALEC’s membership fees totaled just over $1 million while gifts, grants, and contributions were just over $78 million. ALEC received (http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2013/08/08/2399121/corporations-clean-energy-standards/) $500,000 in funding from various Koch foundations from 2005-2011 and $1.4 million from ExxonMobil this past decade.

http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2014/07/28/3461743/alec-annual-meeting-energy-climate/

boutons_deux

08-02-2014, 01:15 PM

Utility Trade Group Funds ALEC Attack on Americans Using Solar

As the American Legislative Exchange Council (http://www.alecexposed.org/wiki/ALEC_Exposed) (ALEC) prepares to meet in Dallas this week, the Center for Media and Democracy has uncovered new evidence that Edison Electric Institute (EEI) -- the trade association for the U.S. utility industry -- has been funding ALEC's legislative assault on solar energy.

Although ALEC recently proclaimed (http://www.alec.org/responding-sierra-club-email-campaign/) that it was being falsely portrayed as "anti-clean energy," these latest revelations confirm that ALEC continues to pursue a polluters' wish list, despite its PR pronouncements.

"Solar Is Dumb," says ALEC Legislator

As documented (http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/dec/04/alec-freerider-homeowners-assault-clean-energy) by Suzanne Goldenberg and Ed Pilkington in The Guardian late last year, ALEC has been peddling legislation designed to increase costs for Americans who have invested in solar panels for their homes and businesses, which ALEC's rep attempted to label as “freeriders.” Through ALEC's bill and campaign, the group has been pushing changes to state laws that would increase costs for homeowners with solar who sell excess energy back to the grid, known as “net metering.”

The CMD documents underscore what Gabe Elsner of the Energy & Policy Institute (http://www.energyandpolicy.org/) has uncovered, which is that EEI is a prime player in ALEC -- footing the bill and calling the shots on the anti-renewable agenda. This shows that some powerful utilities -- which include public and private entities -- are backing ALEC's extreme agenda, not just global coal and oil corporations.

At the ALEC “Spring Task Force Summit,” held in Kansas City, Missouri, in May, legislators and lobbyists sat down together to eat lunch and hear about the threat of solar.

As reported previously by Wisconsin state Rep. Chris Taylor -- a Democrat who has written about ALEC's extreme agenda (http://www.progressive.org/news/2014/05/187687/alec-otherworld) -- during the sponsored ALEC lunch, “legislators from Utah and Oklahoma bragged about slowing the development of solar energy in their states.” She noted that Minnesota state Rep. Pat Garofalo, a Republican, actually told the room “solar is dumb.”

Now it is known that, according to emails recently obtained by CMD through open records requests, the legislators’ lunch for the anti-solar agenda was sponsored by EEI.

ALEC offers a range of sponsorship options for its corporate clients and funders. An ALEC document obtained by CMD, lists the 2013 price for a policy workshop during an ALEC conference at $25,000 - $40,000. No price was listed for a session at which participants would also receive lunch, although presumably a lunch workshop's cost could be even higher. It is a small price to pay, however, to capture an audience of legislators from across the country along with food and drink.

According to Elsner, who works for a Washington D.C.-based think tank that conducts research on fossil fuel industry lobbyists, EEI also helped develop the ALEC model legislation on net metering.

Captured on video by Elsner, Rick Tempchin -- Executive Director, Retail Energy Services, at the Edison Electric Institute (EEI) -- confirmed that they worked with ALEC to develop the “model” legislation, which was formally adopted by ALEC in January 2014.

"EEI and its member companies join ALEC to advance an agenda that protects the utility industry’s profits at the expense of ratepayers,” Elsner told CMD.

“That’s why EEI funds ALEC. The growth of cheap clean energy is a threat to the utility industry’s bottom line, and ALEC is a useful tool to lobby state legislators for special interests trying to squash the clean energy market.”

EEI ignored repeated requests for comment.

Solar Success Threatens Big Polluters

The U.S. solar industry is booming, with a 60% increase in-home solar installations in 2013, resulting in reductions in carbon pollution, and a large number of well-paying solar-installation jobs.

Business Insider recently reported there are now more people employed in the solar sector in the U.S. than there are coal miners (http://www.businessinsider.com/us-has-more-solar-workers-than-coal-miners-2014-7).

This growing solar market represents a threat to the long-held monopoly on electricity production held by utilities. EEI represents companies that generate seventy percent of the electricity in the United States, with thirty-seven percent of the total generated from burning coal and thirty percent from "natural gas," which is predominantly methane -- a"potent" carbon (http://www.psr.org/environment-and-health/environmental-health-policy-institute/responses/natural-gas-the-newest-danger-global-warming.html)in terms of its effect on warming temperatures.

In addition to its anti-solar work to help charge solar customers more, ALEC has also been attempting to weaken or fully repeal so-called “Renewable Portfolio Standards” – which are state laws that require utilities to provide a certain percentage of electricity from renewable sources at some set point in the future. ALEC's bill adopts the Koch "freedom" frame for public policy by calling this legislative agenda the “Electricity Freedom Act,” although it would greatly undermine state efforts to free Americans from over-dependence on fossil fuels that are contributing to the climate (http://www.economist.com/node/21556798) and ocean (http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ocean_acidification)changes underway.

ALEC's task force on this issue was previously led by staffer Todd Wynn (http://www.prwatch.org/news/2012/12/11890/solar-energy-industries-association-seia-cuts-ties-alec), who is now at EEI and who echoed the Charles Koch playbook (http://www.motherjones.com/mojo/2011/03/charles-koch-brothers-wisconsin-walker) in claiming that state efforts to decrease reliance on fossil fuels and increase the use of cleaner energy was supposedly a "crony capitalist" policy.

The language for the Electricity Freedom Act was brought to ALEC by the Heartland Institute, an Illinois-based operation that itself receives funding from the fossil fuel industry, and is probably best known for its extremism in comparing people who believe in climate change to the Unabomber Ted Kaczynski. (http://articles.latimes.com/2012/may/09/local/la-me-gs-unabomber-billboard-continues-to-hurt-heartland-institute-20120509)

One of Heartland's key spokespeople peddling its effort to derail initiatives to address climate change, James Taylor, was recently discredited in the landmark Showtime series "Years of Living Dangerously (http://yearsoflivingdangerously.com/story/against-the-wind/)." Taylor claimed to interviewer America Ferrera that he was a scientist because he had taken some science classes in college. As Connor Gibson of Greenpeace noted, by the Heartland definition almost everyone is a scientist (http://greenpeaceblogs.org/2014/05/20/heartland-institute-climate-change-denier-james-taylor-pwnd-tv/). (CMD'sresearch (http://www.prwatch.org/news/2013/08/12207/side-climate-change-denial-your-coffee-alec-dishes-some-hard-swallow-spin-heartla) and its Executive Director, Lisa Graves (http://www.progressive.org/users/lisa-graves), was featured in the film along with the investigations of Brendan DeMille (http://www.desmogblog.com/2014/05/19/years-living-dangerously-takes-climate-denial-anti-science-attacks-climate-solutions) of DeSmog blog.)

On the Agenda in Dallas: “How to Think and Talk About Climate and Energy Issues”

ALEC is also working to derail proposed EPA rules to limit carbon pollution from coal plants.

Documents obtained by CMD, and first reported (http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2014/may/02/barack-obamas-emissions-plan-comes-under-new-line-of-attack) by Suzanne Goldenberg of The Guardian in May, show that ALEC has conducted monthly conference calls with lobbyists and legislators, encouraging lawmakers to activate their state’s Attorney General to litigate the proposed standards.

It has also been promoting a number of bills over the past 12 months on this subject, and ALEC will consider a new proposed bill at its Dallas conference this week titled“Resolution Concerning EPA’s Proposed Guidelines for Existing Fossil Fuel-Fired Power Plants" and ALEC is providing political messaging to its legislative members in a new session called “How to Think and Talk About Climate and Energy Issues.”

In addition to financial support from EEI, ALEC also receives funding from the coal giantPeabody Energy (http://www.prwatch.org/news/2013/08/12208/more-corporations-drop-alecs-conference-brochure), ExxonMobil (http://www.greenpeace.org/usa/en/campaigns/global-warming-and-energy/exxon-secrets/), Shell (http://www.prwatch.org/news/2014/03/12420/oil-industry-conjures-illusion-public-support-kxl-using-alec-politicians), BP (http://www.prwatch.org/news/2013/08/12193/dirty-hands-77-alec-bills-2013-advance-big-oil-big-ag-agenda), Koch Industries (http://www.kochexposed.org/) and other fossil fuel companies. The corporate co-chair of ALEC’s Energy, Environment and Agriculture task force, which helps set the agenda for the task force, is Paul Loeffelman, a lobbyist with American Electric Power (http://www.prwatch.org/news/2014/05/12463/corporate-interests-calling-shots-week-alecs-kansas-city-meeting) (AEP) which is a member of EEI. AEP generates sixty percent of its electricity from burning coal.

The co-leader of the Congressional Progressive Caucus, Rep. Raul Grijalva (http://www.prwatch.org/news/2014/04/12451/congressman-grijalva-requests-investigation-alecs-role-nv-range-fight), has called on the Interior Department to investigate the influence of AEP and other corporations on these policies.

"No Comment"

CMD asked ALEC to comment on what EEI received in return for its cash, but ALEC’s Senior Director, Communications and Public Affairs, Wilhelm Meierling refused to answer questions about EEI’s funding, beyond confirming that they are a member.

In a statement, Meierling told CMD: “All work conducted at ALEC is led by out (sic) public sector members and any resulting resolutions are approved by the board of directors, comprised solely of legislators.”

Stung by criticism that ALEC resembled a "pay to play" operation, ALEC has attempted to re-brand itself as a "legislator-driven organization,” publicly announcing a new rule that only legislators can propose ALEC “model” bills. However, corporate lobbyists and politicians vote as equals on those bills at ALEC task forces where, as Dana Milbank colorfully noted (http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/dana-milbank-alec-stands-its-ground/2013/12/04/ad593320-5d2c-11e3-bc56-c6ca94801fac_story.html), the press is barred despite ALEC's PR claims.

Additionally, CMD subsequently uncovered documents (http://www.prwatch.org/news/2014/04/12441/documents-open-records-lawsuit-undermine-alecs-claim-alec) showing how lobbyists distribute bills to ALEC legislators in advance and provide a detailed script so legislators could advocate the legislation at ALEC as if it were their own ideas.

Although ALEC has removed its "Top 10 Myths About Global Warming" from its site as part of its public relations remake, ALEC's prior sessions have included climate change denialist propaganda such as "Warming up to Climate Change (http://prwatch.org/news/2011/07/10914/alec-exposed-warming-climate-change)," as reported by then-Wisconsin state Rep. Mark Pocan, who now serves in Congress. He observed that session and wrote for The Progressive how ALEC lawmakers lapped up claims that increased carbon dioxide is good for you. (http://www.progressive.org/inside_alec.html)

Just last year, ALEC featured a weather personality who claimed (http://www.prwatch.org/news/2013/08/12207/side-climate-change-denial-your-coffee-alec-dishes-some-hard-swallow-spin-heartla)that the planet was getting colder, despite the severe melting (http://http//www.economist.com/node/21556798) of ice in polar regions, where fossil fuel companies are expanding their investments (http://http//www.economist.com/node/21556798).

It remains to be seen what messages ALEC politicians will be told they should echo at this year's conference.

http://www.commondreams.org/views/2014/07/31/utility-trade-group-funds-alec-attack-americans-using-solar

boutons_deux

08-05-2014, 02:57 PM

Here's one of the more secret paths for corporate conspirators to attack regulations, reducing, even defeating, the laws passed by Congress

Lobbyists bidding to block government regs set sights on secretive White House office

In early 2011, after years of study, the Occupational Safety and Health Administration moved to reduce the permissible levels of silica dust wafted into the air by industrial processes like fracking, mining, or cement manufacturing. The move came after years of public comment and hearings, and reflected emerging science about the dangers posed by even low levels of dust. OSHA predicted the rule would save 700 lives annually and prevent 1,600 new cases of silicosis, an incurable, life-threatening disease.

The proposal stirred fierce opposition from an array of industries, which argued that the costs of reducing silica levels far outweighed the potential benefits. When OSHA pushed ahead, the lobbyists took their arguments to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, a division of the Office of Management and Budget. Few people have ever heard of OIRA even though it is part of the White House and has broad authority to delay or suggest changes in any draft regulation.

OIRA’s deliberations on the silica rule began in February 2011, and lasted two and a half years. During that time, records show, its officials held nine meetings (http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/oira_1218_meetings/) with lobbyists and lawyers for the affected industries, but sat down only once with unions and once with health advocates.

Last August, the office sent a revised version of the rule back to OSHA; the worker protection agency has yet to act.

Labor advocates noted that the lengthy delay appeased House Republicans and pushed a decision opposed by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce out of the 2012 presidential campaign. “During that delay thousands of workers were further exposed to silica,” said Peg Seminario, director of safety and health at the AFL-CIO. “People have gotten sicker and some will die because of the exposures that have continued to take place.”

What happened to the silica rule is no isolated example. A series of executive orders over the past three decades have given OIRA significant authority to reassess rules on every imaginable subject, from healthcare to the environment to transportation. The office shares early drafts of rules with the president’s top advisers as well as other Cabinet-level agencies that might object.

Although some on OIRA’s team have degrees in science and engineering, former officials say its leadership and staff are largely drawn from the realms of economics, law, and public policy.

Regardless, the office does not hesitate to rework agency rules that were years in the making and backed by peer-reviewed science. Often, OIRA officials make a proposed rule appear too costly by revising the calculation of benefits downward. As it did with the silica limits, the office can also prolong the process, holding regulations in limbo for months and sometimes years.

http://grist.org/climate-energy/lobbyists-bidding-to-block-government-regs-set-sights-on-secretive-white-house-office/?utm_source=syndication&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=feed

boutons_deux

08-26-2014, 04:29 PM

Ralph Nader: How Corporate Espionage on Nonprofit Watchdogs Goes Unpunished

Here’s a dirty little secret you won’t see in the daily papers: corporations conduct espionage against US nonprofit organizations without fear of being brought to justice.

Yes, that means using a great array of spycraft and snoopery, including planned electronic surveillance, wiretapping, information warfare, infiltration, dumpster diving and so much more.

The evidence abounds.

For example, six years ago, based on extensive documentary evidence, James Ridgewayreported (http://www.motherjones.com/environment/2008/04/exclusive-cops-and-former-secret-service-agents-ran-black-ops-green-groups?page=1) in Mother Jones on a major corporate espionage scheme by Dow Chemical focused on Greenpeace and other environmental and food activists.

Greenpeace was running a potent campaign against Dow’s use of chlorine to manufacture paper and plastics. Dow grew worried and eventually desperate.

Ridgeway’s article and subsequent revelations produced jaw-dropping information about how Dow’s private investigators, from the firm Beckett Brown International (BBI), hired:

An off duty DC police officer who gained access to Greenpeace trash dumpsters at least 55 times;
a company called NetSafe Inc., staffed by former National Security Agency (NSA) employees expert in computer intrusion and electronic surveillance; and,
a company called TriWest Investigations, which obtained phone records of Greenpeace employees or contractors. BBI’s notes to its clients contain verbatim quotes that they attribute to specific Greenpeace employees.

Using this information, Greenpeace filed a lawsuit (http://www.greenpeace.org/usa/en/news-and-blogs/news/spygate/) against Dow Chemical, Dow’s PR firms Ketchum and Dezenhall Resources, and others, alleging trespass on Greenpeace’s property, invasion of privacy by intrusion, and theft of confidential documents.

Yesterday, the D.C. Court of Appeals dismissed (http://www.dccourts.gov/internet/documents/13-CV-685.pdf) Greenpeace’s lawsuit. In her decision, Judge Anna Blackburne-Rigsby notes that “However Greenpeace’s factual allegations may be regarded,” its “legal arguments cannot prevail as a matter of law” because “the common law torts alleged by Greenpeace are simply ill-suited as potential remedies.” At this time Greenpeace has not decided whether to appeal.

The Court’s opinion focused on technicalities, like who owned the trash containers in the office building where Greenpeace has its headquarters and whether the claim of intrusion triggers a one year or three year statute of limitations. But, whether or not the Court’s legal analyses hold water, the outcome – no legal remedies for grave abuses – is lamentable.

Greenpeace’s lawsuit “will endure in the historical record to educate the public about the extent to which big business will go to stifle First Amendment protected activities,” wrote lawyer Heidi Boghosian, author of Spying on Democracy (https://spyingondemocracy.org/). “It is crucially important that organizations and individuals continue to challenge such practices in court while also bringing notice of them to the media and to the public at large.”

This is hardly the only case of corporate espionage against nonprofits. Last year, my colleagues produced a report titled Spooky Business (http://www.corporatepolicy.org/2013/11/20/spooky-business/), which documented 27 sets of stories involving corporate espionage against nonprofits, activists and whistleblowers. Most of the stories occurred in the US, but some occurred in the UK, France and Ecuador. None of the US-based cases has resulted in a verdict or settlement or even any meaningful public accountability. In contrast, in France there was a judgment against Electricite de France for spying on Greenpeace, and in the UK there is an ongoing effort regarding News Corp/News of the World and phone hacking.

Spooky Business found that “Many of the world’s largest corporations and their trade associations – including the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, Walmart, Monsanto, Bank of America, Dow Chemical, Kraft, Coca-Cola, Chevron, Burger King, McDonald’s, Shell, BP, BAE, Sasol, Brown & Williamson and E.ON – have been linked to espionage or planned espionage against nonprofit organizations, activists and whistleblowers.”

Three examples:

In 2011, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, its law firm Hunton & Williams, and technology and intelligence firms such as Palantir and Berico were exposed (http://thinkprogress.org/economy/2011/02/17/144678/chamberleaks-malware-hacking/) in an apparent scheme (http://thinkprogress.org/chamberleaks-timeline/) to conduct espionage (http://www.thenation.com/blog/173167/lobbyists-targeting-liberal-groups-channeled-chinese-hackers-strategy) against the Chamber’s nonprofit and union critics (http://thinkprogress.org/economy/2011/04/11/156819/chamberleaks-more-plans/).
Burger King was caught (http://www.nytimes.com/2008/05/07/opinion/07schlosser.html?_r=0) conducting espionage (http://www.sanders.senate.gov/newsroom/must-read/tomato-pickers-feeling-spied-on-ft-myers-news-press) against nonprofits and activists trying to help low-wage tomato pickers in Florida.
The Wall Street Journal reported (http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB117565486864559297) on Walmart’s surveillance tactics against anti-Walmart groups, including the use of eavesdropping via wireless microphones.

...

http://www.alternet.org/corporate-accountability-and-workplace/ralph-nader-how-corporate-espionage-nonprofit-watchdogs-goes

(big) Corporate-Americans are shitty Americans

boutons_deux

09-14-2014, 05:23 AM

the American financial oligarchs get their puppets at the Fed to distribute taxpayer wealth upward to the financial oligarchs

Wall Street Is Coming to Fleece Your Town

The Fed's bizarre new rules transfer power from the public sector, once again.

In an inscrutable move that has alarmed state treasurers, the Federal Reserve, along with the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation and the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency, just changed the liquidity requirements for the nation’s largest banks.

Municipal bonds, long considered safe liquid investments, have been eliminated from the list of high-quality liquid collateral. assets (HQLA). That means banks that are the largest holders of munis are liable to start dumping them in favor of the Treasuries and corporate bonds that do satisfy the requirement.

Muni bonds fund the nation’s critical infrastructure, and they are subject to the whims of the market: as demand goes down, interest rates must be raised to attract buyers. State and local governments could find themselves in the position of cash-strapped Eurozone states, subject to crippling interest rates.

The first major hit to US municipal bonds occurred with the downgrade of two major monoline insurers in January 2008. The fault was with the insurers, but the taxpayers footed the bill. The downgrade signaled a simultaneous downgrade of bonds (http://www.globalresearch.ca/credit-default-swaps-evolving-financial-meltdown-and-derivative-disaster-du-jour/8634) from over 100,000 municipalities and institutions, totaling more than $500 billion.

The Fed’s latest rule change could be the final nail in the municipal bond coffin, another misguided move by regulators that not only does not hit its mark but results in serious collateral damage to local governments – maybe serious enough to finally propel them into bankruptcy.

http://www.alternet.org/economy/wall-street-coming-fleece-your-town?paging=off&current_page=1#bookmark

boutons_deux

09-17-2014, 04:26 PM

The Koch Brothers' 3-Step Plan to Conquer the Next Generation

http://readersupportednews.org/images/stories/alphabet/rsn-R.jpgight-wing oligarchs dominating our political process, like the Koch Brothers, are wealthy beyond measure. Combined, Charles and David Koch are worth over $100 billion (http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2014-04-16/koch-brothers-worth-100-billion-buying-printers-to-ads.html), and make $6 million per hour (http://www.salon.com/2013/11/27/4_ways_the_koch_brothers_wealth_is_incomprehensibl e_partner/). That translates to over $1600 per second, which is enough to feed someone on food stamps for an entire year (http://www.usagainstgreed.org/20131125_Analysis.txt). Compare that figure to the $13 million that former Kroger CEO David Dillon earned in his last year with the company, which he called “ludicrous (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/08/26/david-dillon-pay-ludicrous_n_5716717.html).” Their only problem is their age – David Koch is 74, Charles Koch is 78. For their class to maintain power over American politics and government, they have to make investments in future generations to ensure their ideology will live on beyond them.

It’s been well-documented (http://www.truth-out.org/news/item/26225-koch-foundation-proposal-to-college-teach-our-curriculum-get-millions) by now how the Koch Brothers are sponsoring economic programs at colleges and universities around the country. By itself, this could be interpreted as philanthropy. There’s nothing inherently wrong with a billionaire donating some of his wealth to education. But the greater strategy in the Kochs’ chess game isn’t just to make themselves wealthier, but a far more sinister one. That strategy can be broken down into three steps:

1. Defund Public Schools

America’s public schools and universities are all being deprived of state tax dollars slowly but surely. This is not an accident. Model bills (http://www.salon.com/2013/03/15/alec_makes_public_hundreds_of_model_bills/) written by the Koch-funded American Legislative Exchange Council (an innocuous-sounding merger of right-wing state legislators and corporate lobbyists) accomplish this goal threefold. First, model legislation aimed at giving corporations huge tax breaks gets passed. Then, model resolutions stating that balancing the budget must take priority over funding public institutions are passed. Finally, ALEC legislators use those resolutions as justification to slash public services, like schools, to the bone in order to plug the gaping budget hole made by corporate tax breaks.

Florida governor Rick Scott has slashed school funding while simultaneously advocating for over$140 million (http://www.cbpp.org/cms/?fa=view&id=3927) in new corporate tax breaks.

Pennsylvania governor Tom Corbett has given out $3 billion (http://pennbpc.org/costoftaxcuts) in corporate tax breaks during his tenure, and has cut education funding by $1 billion (http://www.psea.org/general.aspx?id=10400).

Wisconsin governor Scott Walker cut schools by $1.2 billion and has given out $570 million (http://www.politifact.com/wisconsin/statements/2014/sep/07/greater-wisconsin-political-fund/scott-walker-cut-school-funding-more-any-governor-/) in corporate tax breaks.

On its own, this could be seen as, at best, a radical gamble in economic growth with schools on the line. But when this tactic is repeated in multiple states in different geographical regions, it’s apparent there’s a strategy at play.

2. Make Schools Dependent on Private Entities for Money

At Florida State University, emails from an economics professor in 2008 show that the Koch Brothers were willing to donate millions to the university through their foundation, but only if they had a say (https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/1292464-kochcostsbenefits.html) in the curriculum that was taught and in the hiring of professors to teach the curriculum.

FSU took the donation, and consulted with the Koch Foundation on who would be hired to teach courses that largely vilified government services and promoted the Kochs’ unique brand of libertarian free market ideology.

At the time, Florida’s public universities had seen their funding levels fall by 41 percent over the previous five years (http://www.cbpp.org/cms/?fa=view&id=3927).

Public universities traditionally depend on state government funding for 53 percent of their operational budgets. But without a dependable key funding source like state governments, colleges and universities are forced to raise tuition, which results in only a privileged class of students able to attend college. Public universities are also forced to come crawling to private interests like Koch-funded foundations for funding, which always comes with strings attached.

3. Ingrain students with Greed-Based Ideology

To be blunt, the Kochs’ economic philosophy is essentially, “Fuck you, I’ve got mine.” In 1980, David Koch ran for vice president on the Libertarian Party ticket. Some of his proposals (http://www.sanders.senate.gov/koch-brothers) included

killing Medicare and Medicaid,

eliminating federal campaign finance laws,

doing away with all environmental protections,

abolishing the minimum wage, and

privatizing water systems, railways, and the post office.

Koch also called for eliminating laws that prevent creditors from gouging debtors with high interest rates,

deregulating private health insurance companies, and

killing the food stamp program.

In the college and high school courses on Libertarian thought offered by the Institute for Humane Studies, :lol a Koch-funded think tank, many of these ideas (http://www.publicintegrity.org/2014/03/27/14497/inside-koch-brothers-campus-crusade) are taught to unsuspecting and impressionable young students.

As the Center for Public Integrity reported (http://www.publicintegrity.org/2014/08/26/15387/koch-funded-think-tank-offers-schools-course-libertarianism), students are taught about how sweat shop workers in third world countries don’t have it so bad, how the federal minimum wage kills jobs, and how the Environmental Protection Agency is bad for the environment.

With this strategy, students attending college would mistakenly interpret such greed-inspired drivel as scholarly research to be taken as gospel. Upon graduation, it can be assumed they would start families and impress their ideologies upon their children. Colleges themselves would be transformed from institutions that cherish and develop critical thinkers into additional cogs of the corporate machine, with corporate-approved professors churning out obedient workers instead of independent-minded leaders.
This strategy is nothing short of generational conquest. It is only by insisting that our public schools be properly funded by our tax dollars, instead of by oligarchs with their own agendas, that we can stop the corporate brainwashing of our kids.

http://readersupportednews.org/opinion2/277-75/25924-focus-the-koch-brothers-3-step-plan-to-conquer-the-next-generation

boutons_deux

10-10-2014, 03:54 PM

ALEC is coming to a city block near you

The conservative think tank known for flooding state legislatures with its agenda is starting to think locally

The American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC) has long made headlines as a conservative policy-sharing network that has pushed an agenda of voter suppression and dismantling of public education at the state level. Now the group, backed by conservative billionaires Charles and David Koch, is going local (http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2014-08-11/corporate-lobby-alec-aims-at-u-s-city-councils-with-new-group.html) with its new initiative, theAmerican City County Exchange (http://www.alec.org/initiatives/acce/) (ACCE). Soon, city government or county commission policies could be generated at the same right-wing think tank that has attacked environmental protections, attempted to undermine the rights of workers and made it harder for people to vote.
At a time of congressional gridlock and partisan rancor, local policies are easier to come by at the local level, with business and citizen groups coming together to generate solutions to problems such as affordable housing, public transit, open space and good-paying jobs. At the heart of these efforts is the spirit of regional collaboration among people who will have to live with the consequences of policy.
ALEC, with its new project, plans to interrupt that collaborative policymaking process by coming in from the outside with model bills based on an ideological obsession with privatization rather than on local knowledge about what works.

Progress grows local

Some of the most successful, life-improving policies in metro regions involve partnerships among elected officials, private corporations and grass-roots activists. What has made collaboration successful is the fact that stakeholders come together. I saw this firsthand during more than a decade of work in Silicon Valley. There the Silicon Valley Leadership Group (http://svlg.org/) (a business consortium) worked with organized labor and community groups to ask for funding for quality public transit and the development of affordable housing. One result of this collaboration was a sales-tax-funded public transit system (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Santa_Clara_Valley_Transportation_Authority) that is being built to serve all residents of Santa Clara County.

The business community in Silicon Valley also partnered with organized labor around the issue of children’s health care. In 2001 the Santa Clara County government, at the behest of the South Bay Labor Council and local business leaders, set up a combination of property taxes, tobacco taxes and outside grants to fund a universal health care program (http://www.mercurynews.com/ci_19501926) for all children in the county. Though its funding was shaky at times, the program managed to cover 97 percent of the county’s children, until it became part of California’s Medicaid program in 2013.

ALEC wants to take the same sort of highly ideological agenda that has stunted progress in Washington and state capitals and impose it at the metro level.

Instead of trying to contribute to locally relevant solutions, ALEC’s new project hopes to take local stakeholders out of the equation. It plans to take cookie-cutter bills thought up by corporate lobbyists and try to push them through local government. From its state-level work, ALEC is known for its attacks on environmental protections (http://www.prwatch.org/news/2014/04/12457/revealed-alec%E2%80%99s-2014-attacks-environment), its opposition to employees’ rights such as paid sick days (http://www.prwatch.org/news/2014/07/12551/paid-sick-days-gain-momentum-as-alec-allies-push-back) and for promoting “stand your ground” gun laws (http://mediamatters.org/blog/2012/03/21/alec-has-pushed-the-nras-stand-your-ground-law/186459) that have been used as legal cover for violence against young unarmed African-American men and women.

Privatization agenda

For city and local governments, ALEC’s primary focus is on privatization. Its new local push through the ACCE wants to “ease the way for corporations to take over local services,” as Jay Riestenberg, an analyst at Common Cause, recently told (http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2014-08-11/corporate-lobby-alec-aims-at-u-s-city-councils-with-new-group.html) Bloomberg News.

Conservative think tanks such as the Heritage Foundation and the Cato Institute have long pushed a smaller-government agenda of privatizing government services such as mass transit (http://www.cato.org/publications/policy-analysis/fixing-transit-case-privatization) and utilities. They argue that instead of being run by elected public officials using tax dollars, these vital services should be funded and operated by private corporations in a competitive marketplace.

The problem with this is that privatization locks local government into contracts that remove democratic oversight. While city and county politicians face repercussions at the ballot box if they do not deliver services for their constituents, corporations can take the money and run — often leaving voters with few means to reverse bad decisions when services are compromised.

We have already seen at the state level that the negative consequences of ideologically driven privatization can be profound. For example, in Rhode Island, ALEC was successful in persuading state government to hand over its public employee pension fund to private hedge fund managers. As Matt Taibbi documented in (http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/looting-the-pension-funds-20130926) Rolling Stone, the regret now runs deep among state lawmakers, who have seen their state pay out millions in servicing fees to these private hedge funds, while the pension fund — and city services — continue to suffer. “They pretty much took the COLA [cost of living pay raises for public workers] and gave it to a bunch of billionaires,” Providence’s retired firefighter union chief told Taibbi.

At the city level, perhaps the most prominent cautionary tale (http://nextcity.org/daily/entry/infrastructure-projects-p3-contracts-chicago-parking) about privatization is Chicago’s move to sign a 75-year contract with finance company Morgan Stanley for the management of its parking meters. A city audit showed that the deal rested on an undervaluing of the meters and lost the city $1 billion as a result.

In addition, Morgan Stanley recently sued the city over lost profit because of the periodic shutting down or moving of meters for street cleaning and city events. Chicago lost that lawsuit, to the tune of another $61 million.

This means the city incurs additional cost when it wants to add protected bike lanes and bus routes and enact other interventions that could help reduce carbon emissions. And because the deal with Morgan Stanley is locked in for another 69 years, voters have little recourse. Future generations will suffer from this decision, which was made before they were born. They won’t be able to use their votes to reverse the parking meter fiasco.

“Local politics in America is the purest form of democracy,” Pittsburgh city council member Natalia Rudiak said to The Guardian (http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/mar/06/conservative-group-alec-city-local-government) about the ACCE. “There is no buffer between me and the public. So why would I want the involvement of a third party acting on behalf of a few corporate interests?”

Rudiak’s comment cuts to the core of the matter: ALEC wants to take the same sort of highly ideological agenda that has stunted progress in Washington and state capitals and impose it at the metro level.

If Americans let them succeed, we will lose the most promising frontier in democratic policymaking today — local government — along with our communities.

http://america.aljazeera.com/opinions/2014/10/american-legislativeexchangecouncillocalmunicipalgovernment .html

DarrinS

10-10-2014, 05:39 PM

Did Obama get any Wall Street money?

boutons_deux

10-10-2014, 07:11 PM

Did Obama get any Wall Street money?

more than McLiar (Wall st knows how to pick a winner), but 10x LESS than Bishop Gecko (Wall st knows how to pick a winner)

boutons_deux

10-23-2014, 03:47 PM

IRS Whistleblowers: Agency Executives Behind Multibillion-Dollar Corporate Tax Giveaways

A veteran Internal Revenue Service attorney demands a congressional audit of the IRS to investigate the agency's alleged role in allowing US corporations to illegally avoid paying billions of dollars in taxes even as it cracks down on individuals and small businesses.

A 10-year veteran Internal Revenue Service (IRS) attorney has demanded a congressional audit of the IRS to investigate the agency's alleged role in allowing US corporations to illegally avoid paying billions of dollars in taxes even as it cracks down on individuals and small businesses.

In a letter to Treasury secretary Jacob Lew, IRS commissioner John A. Koskinen and IRS chief counsel William Wilkins, Jane J. Kim, an attorney in the IRS Office of the Chief Counsel in New York, accused IRS executives of "deliberately" facilitating multibillion-dollar tax giveaways. The letter, dated October 19, will add further pressure on the agency, which is under fire for allegedly targeting conservative and Tea Party groups.

Kim, who has previously blown the whistle (http://www.taxanalysts.com/www/features.nsf/Articles/3E1959AFF1A76BC485257CA00045ACC6?OpenDocument) on "gross waste of government resources" in the IRS New York field offices, wrote in her new letter that senior IRS officials have "intentionally undermined the authority of the IRS Whistleblower Office (WO)" to avoid taking action "in cases involving billions in corporate taxes due." The IRS also refuses to enforce laws for "large corporate taxpayers," resulting in giveaways of further billions, despite applying the same laws with "draconian strictness to small business, the self-employed, and wage-earning individuals."

The IRS attorney's letter was copied to Jason Foster, chief investigative counsel for the Senate Committee on the Judiciary, as well as several other senators and House representatives, including Elizabeth Warren, Maxine Waters, Alan Grayson, Bernie Sanders, Charles Grassley, Mike Lee, Rand Paul and Ted Cruz. They could not be reached for comment.

http://www.truth-out.org/news/item/26996-irs-whistle-blowers-agency-executives-behind-multibillion-dollar-corporate-tax-giveaways

the wealthy and corps obtain the govt and policies they pay for.

boutons_deux

11-03-2014, 04:59 PM

John Oliver: The Real Shadow Government Is in the State Legislatures, Where ALEC Calls the Shots (http://www.thenation.com/blog/187673/john-oliver-real-shadow-government-state-legislatures-where-alec-calls-shots)

John Oliver has gotten a well-deserved rep lately for doing investigative comedy on Last Week Tonight, and this weekend he made an excellent point about state legislatures and ALEC (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aIMgfBZrrZ8), the Koch-supported legislation mill. While we’re all focused on how control of the US Senate could be determined by the midterm elections tomorrow, we ought to remember that the gridlocked Congress has passed a mere 185 bills so far this session.

But the state legislatures, which are staffed by folks Oliver believes are downright weird (and he had the tapes to prove it), passed a whopping 24,000 laws in the same period.
And many of those bills are written by ALEC. Like, literally. Oliver shows a clip of a Democratic legislator pointing out on the floor that a bill submitted for passage seemed to be printed off the conservative group’s website, down to the type font and even the little ALEC logo in the text.

And all this goes on under what little radar is left in local media markets. Watch Oliver try to make up for that.

http://www.thenation.com/blog/187673/john-oliver-real-shadow-government-state-legislatures-where-alec-calls-shots

ALEC is the heavily financed with laundered money, unregistered lobbying proxy for BigCorps.

boutons_deux

11-03-2014, 05:16 PM

The ALEC Problem Is Even Worse Than John Oliver Thinks

The bad news is that ALEC is expanding its influence to a hyper-local level, which even Last Week Tonight overlooked.

In August, ALEC launched an initiative to take its model legislation beyond statehouses and into city councils and county commissions.

This new spinoff, the American City County Exchange (http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2014-08-11/corporate-lobby-alec-aims-at-u-s-city-councils-with-new-group.html), "will push policies such as contracting with companies to provide services such as garbage pick-up and eliminating collective bargaining, a municipal echo of the parent group's state strategies."

The corporate influence of the initiative is poignantly illustrated by the group's membership fee disparity: Local council members and county commissioners are required to pay a nominal $100 (http://www.alec.org/wp-content/uploads/Public-Sector-ACCE-Final-Web.pdf) for a two-year membership. Meanwhile, prospective private industry members must choose between a $10,000 and $25,000 (http://www.alec.org/wp-content/uploads/Private-Sector-ACCE-Final-Web.pdf) membership fee.

According to a search of the Nexis database, only a tiny number of print news outlets have reported on the new initiative. And as local media outlets face extinction (http://www.forbes.com/sites/billconerly/2013/06/21/the-death-of-newspapers-a-third-nail-in-the-coffin/) or the possibility of being gobbled up (http://www.businessinsider.com/warren-buffett-buying-newspapers-2013-3) by billionaire media moguls, it falls to the larger outlets that remain to lead the way.

http://mediamatters.org/blog/2014/11/03/the-alec-problem-is-even-worse-than-john-oliver/201424

boutons_deux

12-04-2014, 05:33 PM

How Fox News' Conservative Message Creeps Into Local News Broadcasts

Across the country, Fox News Channel's conservative misinformation is being broadcast to millions of viewers through local television stations, which are owned and operated by the network's parent company, often without the knowledge of the station's viewers.

Local news stations fall into two categories (http://stateofthemedia.org/2013/local-tv-audience-declines-as-revenue-bounces-back/local-tv-glossary/): "owned and operated stations" whose content is controlled by a network or larger parent company, and "affiliate" stations that are not owned by a central network, and thus do not have to use the network's content. So a local "Fox" station might be entirely independent, or it might be controlled by Rupert Murdoch's 21st Century Fox -- and they do not have to tell viewers which they're watching.

By owning these local stations, Murdoch and 21st Century Fox can push narratives of their choosing onto large local audiences, often running the same news packages and hosting the same personalities that appear on the Fox News cable channel. According to federal communications law (http://www.fcc.gov/guides/review-broadcast-ownership-rules), a single company can own any number local stations so long as they collectively reach "no more than 39 percent of all U.S. TV households."

21st Century Fox recently expanded (http://www.21cf.com/News/Business/2014/FOX_TELEVISION_STATIONS_COMPLETES_TRANSACTION_TO_A DD_SAN_FRANCISO-BAY_AREA_DUOPOLY_TO_ITS_OWNED_AND_OPERATED_FOOTPRI NT/#.VGTK1PnF9mg) into the San Francisco market, broadening their reach to 37 percent of U.S. television homes. They now own 28 stations in 17 markets.

With 71 percent (http://www.journalism.org/2013/10/11/how-americans-get-tv-news-at-home/) of Americans getting their news from local channels -- almost double that of cable news networks -- Fox's expansion means that more households will be subject to Fox News' conservative misinformation even if they don't watch the cable news network.

http://mediamatters.org/blog/2014/12/01/how-fox-news-conservative-message-creeps-into-l/201722

boutons_deux

01-02-2015, 08:44 PM

Cashing in on public schools (http://www.dailykos.com/story/2015/01/02/1352273/-Cashing-in-on-public-schools)

This picture of what's going on in education policy today may be cartoonified, but unfortunately it's not as exaggerated as we might want to believe. Public School Shakedown offers the big picture in a nutshell (http://www.publicschoolshakedown.org/node/376):

In the past decade, public funding for education has significantly declined (http://www.cbpp.org/cms/?fa=view&id=4011).

Yet cuts to public schools budgets aren’t because the resource pie is shrinking – in fact, the past twenty years has seen historic highs (http://www.statista.com/statistics/188141/annual-real-gdp-of-the-united-states-since-1990-in-chained-us-dollars/) in the country’s gross domestic product.

Cuts to public school budgets are because the pie is being unequally sliced, with corporations and the super-wealthy getting richer and richer (http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2011/02/income-inequality-in-america-chart-graph).

For example, despite massive school closings in Philadelphia, the city’s budget for charter schools (http://www.labornotes.org/2013/09/chicago-and-philadelphia-closing-schools-and-funding-charters) increased by $107 million. Government give-aways to corporations (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/bill-quigley/ten-examples-of-welfare-for-the-rich-and-corporations_b_4589188.html) through tax breaks and loopholes depress the amount of state aid available for schools.

With padded budgets, these corporations and their philanthropic arms foot the bills for school privatization, from charters to vouchers to the political lobbyists that propel school privatization laws forward.

Not only are public schools suffering, they are being systematically divested from, siphoning funding and resources to private schools and the corporations that fund them.

And students and teachers alike pay the price.

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2015/01/02/1352273/-Cashing-in-on-public-schools?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+dailykos%2Findex+%28Daily+Kos %29#

A lot if not most non-profit charter schools actually sub-contract almost all of their operations to for-profit scammers.

Do you right-wingers still really think the VRWC, BigCorp, evangelical Bible humpers give a flying fuck about the quality of K12 education?

boutons_deux

01-02-2015, 09:11 PM

Barbarians at the Gates: Authoritarianism and the Assault on Public Education

As public schools are privatized, succumbing to corporate interests, critical thought and agency are erased, and education emphasizes market values rather than democratic ideals.

If we conjured up George Orwell and his fear of state surveillance, Hannah Arendt and her claim that thoughtlessness was the foundation of totalitarianism, and Franz Kafka whose characters embodied the death of agency and the "helplessness of the living," (2) (http://www.truth-out.org/news/item/28272-barbarians-at-the-gates-authoritarianism-and-the-assault-on-public-education#a2) it would be difficult for these dystopian works of literary and philosophical imagination to compete with the material realization of the assault on public education and public values in the United States at the beginning of the 21st century.

These are dangerous times.

Compromise and compassion are now viewed as a pathology, a blight on the very meaning of politics.

Moreover, in a society controlled by financial monsters, the political order is no longer sustained by a faith in reason, critical thought and care for the other.

As any vestige of critical education, thought and dissent are disparaged, the assault on reason gives way to both a crisis in agency and politics.

The right-wing Republican Party and their Democratic Party counterparts, along with their corporate supporters, despise public schools as much as they disdain taxation, institutions that enable critical thinking, and any call for providing social provisions that would benefit the public good.

Not only are both parties attempting to privatize much of public education in order to make schools vehicles for increasing the profits of investors, they are also destroying the critical infrastructures that sustain schools as democratic public spheres.

http://truth-out.org/news/item/28272-barbarians-at-the-gates-authoritarianism-and-the-assault-on-public-education

boutons_deux

01-27-2015, 05:28 AM

The Koch network plans to spend nearly $1 billion on the 2016 elections

The billionaire Koch brothers' network of wealthy conservative donors plans to raise $889 million for the 2016 elections, the Washington Post's Matea Gold (http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/koch-backed-network-aims-to-spend-nearly-1-billion-on-2016-elections/2015/01/26/77a44654-a513-11e4-a06b-9df2002b86a0_story.html?hpid=z1) and Politico's Ken Vogel (http://www.politico.com/story/2015/01/koch-2016-spending-goal-114604.html) reported Monday.

The astonishing number is far more than an organized outside group network has ever raised during a political campaign cycle. Indeed, it's more than either the Democratic or Republican Party raised from 2011-2012, according to tallies by the Center for Responsive Politics (https://www.opensecrets.org/bigpicture/ptytots.php?cycle=2012) placing the parties' fundraising at about $800 million each.

Furthermore, unlike donations to political parties, the details of the Koch network's fundraising can be kept secret. The network has many members beyond Charles and David Koch, and while some of their names have leaked to the press, the names of others — and the amounts they contribute — are unknown.

Could the Kochs swing the GOP primary?

Importantly, Gold also reports (http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/koch-backed-network-aims-to-spend-nearly-1-billion-on-2016-elections/2015/01/26/77a44654-a513-11e4-a06b-9df2002b86a0_story.html?hpid=z1) that the group's officials were exploring whether the network's members "would coalesce around a single candidate" in the crowded Republican presidential field (http://www.vox.com/2015/1/9/7522657/republican-2016-primary-romney). Back in 2011 and 2012, Koch network-funded groups stayed out of the GOP primary, preferring instead to focus their spending on trying to defeat President Obama and Democrats.

A major financial investment from the Koch network this time around could significantly affect the primary. For instance, it could further bolster the prospects of an "establishment" candidate like Jeb Bush. Bush has quite a conservative record (http://www.vox.com/2014/12/16/7401785/jeb-bush-issues) on economic and business issues, and he's not too far away from (http://www.slate.com/blogs/weigel/2013/05/09/the_terrifying_koch_brothers_sponsor_a_boozy_pro_i mmigration_reform_panel.html) the Kochs on immigration reform.

But the network could also provide a major base of financial support to a candidate less well-known to the DC lobbyist crowd — for instance, Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker, who reportedly attended (http://www.usnews.com/news/politics/articles/2015/01/25/koch-event-drawing-2016-hopefuls-rubio-paul-cruz-walker) the Koch network event last weekend. Walker won the loyalty of many conservative donors by battling against unions — they could pay him back by giving him the funds necessary to let him go toe to toe with Bush, Mitt Romney, or Chris Christie. Senators Marco Rubio, Ted Cruz, and Rand Paul (http://www.vox.com/2015/1/26/7913611/rubio-cruz-koch-brothers) also attended last weekend's Koch network event.

http://www.vox.com/2015/1/26/7917917/koch-billion-2016

boutons_deux

02-09-2015, 09:20 PM

Koch allies strike again, killing Wyoming's Medicaid expansion (http://www.dailykos.com/story/2015/02/09/1363360/-Koch-allies-strike-again-killing-Wyoming-s-Medicaid-nbsp-expansion)

The Koch brothers have made defeating Medicaid expansion wherever possible a primary goal, and have groups active in a number of states. In Maine, it's the Koch-affiliated Foundation for Government Accountability (http://thetippingpoint.bangordailynews.com/2014/04/09/state-politics/how-the-koch-brothers-are-killing-medicaid-expansion-in-maine/) (FGA). In Tennessee, it's the state chapter of Americans for Prosperity, which scored a victory (http://www.dailykos.com/story/2015/02/09/1362832/-Koch-brothers-killed-Medicaid-expansion-in-Tennessee-and-they-re-coming-for-your-state) by denying Medicaid to more than 200,000 Tenneseeans. AddWyoming to their win column (http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/02/07/us-usa-wyoming-medicaid-idUSKBN0LB04I20150207). Late Friday, the Wyoming Senate rejected a plan that Gov. Matt Mead (R) had been pushing the expansion, despite a campaign the FGA (http://www.politico.com/politicopulse/1214/politicopulse16334.html) started in December.

As Wyoming lawmakers consider an alternative Medicaid expansion proposal, the Foundation for Government Accountability is running a radio spot and sponsoring a petition calling on people to “Stand with Mead.” But the version of Republican Gov. Matt Mead they’re referring to is the staunch Obamacare opponent of the past — not the Mead of the present, whose health department devised the expansion plan.The group wants to keep Mead’s past “fresh in his mind” and activate public opposition to any expansion. “We’re honestly slightly confused as to why a strong conservative governor would be trying to push a plan that most of his constituents don’t support,” said the FGA’s Charles Siler.

The FGA was triumphant (http://thefga.org/2015/02/breaking-wyoming-legislature-joins-tennessee-rejecting-medicaid-expansion/) in this press release, trumpeting their wins in both Tennessee and Wyoming. This group isn't one of the groups directly under the Koch umbrella, but like the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC), is included in the labyrinthian web (http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/koch-backed-political-network-built-to-shield-donors-raised-400-million-in-2012-elections/2014/01/05/9e7cfd9a-719b-11e3-9389-09ef9944065e_story.html) of groups where Koch and other money is funneled. The FGA received (http://thetippingpoint.bangordailynews.com/2014/04/09/state-politics/how-the-koch-brothers-are-killing-medicaid-expansion-in-maine/) "$108,150 from the State Policy Network (SPN), an ALEC-founded and Koch-funded umbrella group for state-level conservative organizations of which both FGA and MHPC are affiliates. They also received $25,000 from the Atlas Economic Research Foundation, another group with close ties to the Kochs."So even in deep, deep red Wyoming, the Kochs are working to make sure no Republican politician escapes their clutches and does something that might benefit the people.

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2015/02/09/1363360/-Koch-allies-strike-again-killing-Wyoming-s-Medicaid-nbsp-expansion?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+dailykos%2Findex+%28Daily+Kos %29

Kock Bros are FUCKING TRAITORS, conspiring with their chaep, toxic whores to hurt Americans.

boutons_deux

03-03-2015, 05:15 PM

Behind Supreme Court’s Obamacare Case, A Secretive Society’s Hidden Hand

The Federalist Society was founded in 1982 by a small group of conservative and libertarian law students at Yale and the University of Chicago. Many of the founders had worked on the Reagan presidential campaign, and when they arrived in their elite law schools, they noticed a profound mismatch between the ideas that were achieving political ascendancy — about limited government and free markets and states’ rights — and a liberal orthodoxy that was embedded in almost all major legal institutions of the time.

Flash forward 30 years: The Federalist Society has matured into a self-professed “society of ideas” that claims 40,000 to 60,000 members. These include every Republican-appointed attorney general and solicitor general since the 1980s, dozens of federal judges, and four sitting U.S. Supreme Court justices: Antonin Scalia, who was one of the organization’s original mentors at the University of Chicago; Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito and John Roberts.

the Federalist Society’s influence is one step removed from the policy process. Yet that influence is profound.

What Supreme Court cases were they participating in? Were they consistently promoting a certain kind of scholarship or set of beliefs?

I identified the key areas of law that have taken a significant conservative turn over the past 30 years. And by reviewing transcripts from meetings and conferences, I was able to show how those ideas were gestated within the Federalist Society network for decades before being accepted by the Supreme Court.

The organization’s statement of principles provides a useful frame. The first part says: We believe the state exists to preserve freedom. Two key areas where this principle has played out are the Second Amendment — there has been a radical reframing of the right to bear arms as a right on par with speech and religious freedom — and campaign finance, culminating in Citizens United (http://www.oyez.org/cases/2000-2009/2008/2008_08_205) and the idea that corporations and individuals both have free speech rights.

A second Federalist principle holds that the separation of governmental powers is central to the Constitution. There’s been a very, very concerted effort to narrow the federal power over interstate commerce, to restrict the ability of Congress to regulate, and to dramatically expand states’ rights.

The third principle is the idea that it is the role of the judicial branch to say what the law is and not what it ought to be. That is the key issue in King v. Burwell.

There are two very different ways to look at the issue of statutory interpretation. For many years, the dominant view was: If the meaning of that language is not immediately apparent, judges should look to legislative history – what was Congress’s intent when they wrote those words? In the case of Obamacare, the legislative intent is pretty clear: Congress’s aim was to provide tax benefits to lower income Americans to help underwrite the cost of insurance.

But since the 1980s, there’s been a quiet revolution in statutory interpretation by the courts. Instead of taking into consideration legislative history and intent, there’s been a shift to just looking at the plain meaning of the text and ignoring everything else because supposedly things like legislative history are too subjective. This revolution began with a core group of Federalist Society members centered in the Reagan Justice Department. Justice Scalia has been a major proponent.

If the plaintiffs in King v. Burwell prevail, the Federalist Society will have two victories. The obvious one is that Obamacare will suffer another major setback. The other will be to more firmly entrench this idea of statutory interpretation – we shouldn’t look at legislative history; we shouldn’t look at consequences; we should just look at the plain meaning of the words, and our inquiry ends there. The Supreme Court majority’s approach could well be: The ACA says what it says — let Congress fix it. But they know full well that this Congress will not pass that fix.

Twenty or 30 years ago, if you were going to hear oral arguments in a case about the Pregnancy Discrimination Act, much of the discussion would have focused on statutory intent — the fact that the entire purpose of this Act, regardless of how the language is phrased, was to prevent discrimination on account of pregnancy. That is virtually not talked about now.

In the Young oral arguments last December, almost the entire focus was on the meaning of “similarly situated” and “similar in their ability or inability to work.” There was a lot of discussion about semicolons. And when you limit the conversation in this way, the effect almost always is to limit protections, to restrict rights.

http://www.propublica.org/article/behind-supreme-courts-obamacare-case-a-secretive-societys-hidden-hand?utm_source=et&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=dailynewsletter&utm_content=&utm_name=

boutons_deux

03-08-2015, 08:26 AM

the VRWC is winning its War on Public Schools, to be replaced by for-profit, indoctrinating, down-dumbing scam "schools", on teachers and teacher unions.

Where Have All The Teachers Gone?

This is the canary in the coal mine.

Several big states have seen alarming drops in enrollment at teacher training programs. The numbers are grim among some of the nation's largest producers of new teachers: In California, enrollment is down 53 percent over the past five years. It's down sharply in New York and Texas as well.
In North Carolina, enrollment is down nearly 20 percent in three years.

"The erosion is steady. That's a steady downward line on a graph. And there's no sign that it's being turned around," says Bill McDiarmid, the dean of the University of North Carolina School of Education (http://soe.unc.edu/).

Why have the numbers fallen so far, so fast?

McDiarmid points to the strengthening U.S. economy and the erosion of teaching's image as a stable career. There's a growing sense, he says, that K-12 teachers simply have less control over their professional lives in an increasingly bitter, politicized environment.

The list of potential headaches for new teachers is long, starting with the ongoing, ideological fisticuffs over the Common Core State Standards, high-stakes testing and efforts to link test results to teacher evaluations. Throw in the erosion of tenure protections and a variety of recession-induced budget cuts, and you've got the makings of a crisis.

The job also has a PR problem, McDiarmid says, with teachers too often turned into scapegoats by politicians, policymakers, foundations and the media.

"It tears me up sometimes to see the way in which people talk about teachers because they are giving blood, sweat and tears for their students every day in this country. There is a sense now that, 'If I went into this job and it doesn't pay a lot and it's a lot of hard work, it may be that I'd lose it.' And students are hearing this. And it deters them from entering the profession."

While few dispute the shortage itself, Benjamin Riley, head of the group Deans for Impact, a new consortium of 18 reform-minded deans of colleges of education, thinks it's not yet clear why potential teachers are turning away.

"The honest answer is: We don't know. There is nothing that has been done rigorously, in a way that's empirically defensible saying, 'We know this is why the number has dropped,' " Riley says.

Isabel Gray is a senior art history major at Millsaps College (http://www.millsaps.edu/) in Mississippi. She is passionate about exploring a career in K-12 teaching. But, as graduation nears, she's also having second thoughts about a profession that, she feels, is obsessed with testing and standards.

"You want to find the right balance between being a really good teacher and still meeting those standards and not just teaching toward the test, really retaining that material and not just being taught, you know, testing strategies. And it's hard to find that balance. And there's just so much that's changing" in education, she says.

The teacher employment picture is, of course, local and regional. One part of a state may have too many elementary teachers, while another may have too few. And the gaps vary by specialty — with many places facing serious shortages in areas including science, math and special education.

Riley worries there may be a national mismatch that few are looking at deeply.

"The question, and one that needs to be empirically investigated, is 'Are we overproducing certain kinds of teachers school districts aren't looking for and under-producing certain types of teachers that schools and other types of employers are desperately looking for?' "

There are, of course, alternative teacher certification programs across the U.S. including Teach for America (http://www.npr.org/blogs/ed/2014/12/01/366343324/teach-for-america-at-25-with-maturity-new-pressure-to-change). But TFA, too, has seen large drops in enrollment (http://www.nytimes.com/2015/02/06/education/fewer-top-graduates-want-to-join-teach-for-america.html?_r=0) over the past two years.

One possible path out of this crisis is to pay teachers more.

But, across the country, proposals to boost pay or give teachers merit pay have stalled or been scrapped altogether.

An analysis just out (http://edunomicslab.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/02/PayBestTeachersMore_FINAL.pdf) from Georgetown's Edunomics Lab (http://edunomicslab.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/02/PayBestTeachersMore_FINAL.pdf) argues that boosting class size for great teachers would save money that could then be funneled into bonuses for
those educators taking on a larger load. The savings would come largely from a reduction in the overall teaching force, angering teachers unions and their allies.

Riley says his group, Deans for Impact, is all for giving teachers a raise — if it's tied to better training that leads to higher graduation rates and other improved student outcomes.

"If we could really take control of the profession and increase the rigor such that teachers are effective from Day 1, I think that will prove to the public at large that this is an investment worth making, and one worth increasing."

In spite of all the noise and politics, surveys show (http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2013/02/25/poll_finds_teacher_satisfaction_but_reports_skew_r esults_117148.html) that public school teachers still believe it's an incredibly satisfying job helping children learn.

http://www.npr.org/blogs/ed/2015/03/03/389282733/where-have-all-the-teachers-gone?utm_source=npr_newsletter&utm_medium=email&utm_content=20150308&utm_campaign=mostemailed&utm_term=nprnews

The VRWC/Repug non-trashing trashing of schools, teachers, teacher unions, shitty pay, very high churn rate (TX teachers career averages 5 years), blaming teachers EXCLUSIVELY for failing schools and failing students, firing teachers, refusing pay raises, cutting pay and benefits, increasing class size, and making the teachers EXCLUSIVELY for bad test results, why would anybody want to be a teacher?

boutons_deux

03-24-2015, 04:49 AM

First Amendment, ‘Patron Saint’ of Protesters, Is Embraced by Corporations

These days, a provocative new study (http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2566785) says, there has been a “corporate takeover of the First Amendment.” The assertion is backed by data, and it comes from an unlikely source: John C. Coates IV (http://hls.harvard.edu/faculty/directory/10170/Coates), who teaches business law at Harvard and used to be a partner at Wachtell, Lipton, Rosen & Katz (http://www.wlrk.com/), the prominent corporate law firm.

“Corporations have begun to displace individuals as the direct beneficiaries of the First Amendment,” Professor Coates wrote. The trend, he added, is “recent but accelerating.”

Professor Coates’s study was only partly concerned with the Supreme Court (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/organizations/s/supreme_court/index.html?inline=nyt-org)’s recent decisions amplifying the role of money in politics.

“Once the patron saint of protesters and the disenfranchised, the First Amendment has become the darling of economic libertarians and corporate lawyers who have recognized its power to immunize private enterprise from legal restraint,”

s a detailed history of the transformation of First Amendment law. In his account, “the American right discovered the First Amendment” in the early 1970s.
“An expansive conception of free speech became attractive to Republican justices,” he wrote, “both because robust free-speech protection fit neatly into the right’s skeptical, deregulatory approach to government generally, and because it encouraged vigorous transmission by powerful speakers of the right’s newly energized collection of ideas.”

broad coalitions of justices also voted to protect the powerful.

the court shielded both unrestricted election spending (http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=424&invol=1) by rich people, “giving the 1 percent a tangible reason to celebrate a muscular First Amendment,” and commercial advertising (https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/425/748), “giving corporate management a strong stake in the First Amendment.”

“the bipartisan coalition had generated an enormously powerful body of precedent establishing an imperial free speech clause.”

Before 1976, First Amendment challenges from corporations generally involved companies in the business of free expression, like newspapers, book publishers and film producers. More recently, companies have filed free-speech challenges to laws regulating how ordinary products may be marketed or advertised.

“businesses are growing steadily more aggressive in their use of the First Amendment.” Court dockets these days are full of free-speech challenges from pharmaceutical firms, tobacco companies, miners, meat producers and airlines.

pernicious consequences for both free enterprise and the rule of law. Corporations are diverting resources from research and innovation to litigation, he wrote.

“Concentrated, moneyed interests, represented by those in control of the country’s largest business corporations,” he wrote, “are increasingly able to turn law into a lottery, reducing law’s predictability, impairing property rights, and increasing the share of the economy devoted to rent-seeking rather than productive activity.”

the regulation of virtually all forms of speech and all kinds of speakers is treated with the same heavy dose of judicial skepticism, with exceptions perversely calculated to expose particularly vulnerable and valuable sorts of expression to unconvincingly justified suppression.”

trend toward protecting the powerful

“There is truth in the proposition that a number of recent First Amendment victories in recent years have been on behalf of the ‘haves’ — some of them corporations, some individuals,” he said. “But that is no basis for concluding that the decisions were wrongly analyzed or wrongly decided.”

http://mobile.nytimes.com/2015/03/24/us/first-amendment-patron-saint-of-protesters-is-embraced-by-corporations.html

boutons_deux

03-26-2015, 10:22 AM

Secretive group destroys candidates' chances, leaves few fingerprints

The Law Enforcement Alliance of America (http://www.leaa.org/) once had offices in a nearby office park, but it abandoned them more than a year ago. It hasn’t filed required IRS reports in two years, and its leaders, once visible on television and incongressional hearings (https://web.archive.org/web/20021014151857/http:/leaa.org/2480testimony.htm), have all but vanished.

But the nonprofit that calls itself (https://news.yahoo.com/law-enforcement-alliance-america-refutes-claim-child-sex-200500796.html) “the nation's largest coalition of law enforcement professionals, crime victims and concerned citizens” still has teeth. It has succeeded in helping knock out 12 state-level candidates in 14 years (http://www.publicintegrity.org/2015/03/23/16971/sights-law-enforcement-alliance-america), including an Arkansas judicial candidate last year. In doing so, the group helped launch the current governors of Texas and Nevada to their stepping-stone positions as state attorneys general.

The LEAA uses brute tactics — parachuting into otherwise small-dollar races (http://www.publicintegrity.org/who-calls-shots/state-ad-wars-tracker)close to the end and buying up TV ads that accuse candidates of siding with “baby killers” and sexual predators.

“They can put out some sort of horrible attack ad on any judges that they want and really influence an election with a fairly small amount of money,” former Mississippi Supreme Court Justice Oliver Diaz (http://www.oliverdiazlaw.com/about/) said. “They're buying seats on supreme courts in states all around the country."

How the LEAA pays for the campaigns is a mystery that political opponents, state officials and advocacy groups have fought unsuccessfully for years to unravel. The group, which has ties to the National Rifle Association (http://home.nra.org/) but no public connections to official law enforcement agencies, has repeatedly gone to court to fend off such efforts. A dispute over whether the group violated Texas campaign laws is expected to wrap up this month, but the group’s donor list has so far remained a closely guarded secret.

In the sights of the Law Enforcement Alliance of America (http://www.publicintegrity.org/2015/03/25/16971/sights-law-enforcement-alliance-america)

The nonprofit Law Enforcement Alliance of America’s aggressive campaigning (https://www.publicintegrity.org/2015/03/25/16941/secretive-group-destroys-candidates-chances-leaves-few-fingerprints) has helped knock out 12 candidates from 15 state-level races in 14 years. The group also attacked four congressional candidates starting in the 1990s.

2001
A. Donald McEachin
Virginia attorney general race

TV ads attacked McEachin, then a Democratic legislator in the House of Delegates, as being soft on crime when it came to “sexually violent predators” and “drug kingpins.” He lost.
Current status: Virginia state senator

2001
Kate Ford Elliott
Pennsylvania Supreme Court race

TV ads painted Ford Elliott, a Democrat, as soft on crime (http://old.post-gazette.com/regionstate/20011025supremereg4p4.asp). The ads cost at least $300,000. She lost the race, giving Republicans control of the state supreme court.
Current status: president judge emeritus at the Pennsylvania Superior Court

2002
David Adkins
Kansas attorney general race

The LEAA spent an estimated $250,000 on ads attacking Adkins, then a state senator, in the Republican primary. Adkins lost.
Current status: executive director/CEO of the Council of State Governments

2002
Kirk Watson
Texas attorney general race

TV ads said the Democrat "made millions suing doctors, hospitals and small businesses, hurting families and driving up the cost of healthcare." The LEAA spent more than $1 million, Watson claimed in a lawsuit he filed (http://www.documentcloud.org/documents/1691953-leaa-texas-court-case.html). Watson lost to now-Gov. Greg Abbott, a Republican.
Current status: Texas state senator

2002
Lisa Madigan
Illinois attorney general race

The LEAA spent an estimated $1.3 million (http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2002-10-28/news/0210280195_1_police-officers-mike-madigan-claim) on TV ads attacking the Democrat and supporting her opponent. Yet she won anyway.
Current status: Illinois attorney general

2002
Michael Madigan
Illinois state representative race

TV ads attacked the House speaker (http://www.google.com/url?q=http%3A%2F%2Farticles.chicagotribune.com%2F2 002-10-04%2Fnews%2F0210040298_1_ads-campaign-manager-assault-weapons&sa=D&sntz=1&usg=AFQjCNGMxxOFfi3M8arf01aemFAH-D9v-w)over an FBI investigation into whether he abused public funds to help his daughter, Lisa Madigan, win her bid for attorney general. The Democrat won despite the attacks and was never charged (http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2005-01-19/news/0501190232_1_madigan-prosecutors-federal-investigation)with a crime.
Current status: speaker of the Illinois House of Representatives

2002
Mike Head
Texas state representative race

Postcards sent to residents in Head's district accused the Democrat of siding with "convicted baby killers and murderers." He lost, then, together with state Sen. Kirk Watson, sued the LEAA for campaign finance violations.
Current status: attorney

2002
C.P. “Chuck” McRae
Mississippi Supreme Court race

TV ads attacked McRae for voting to overturn (http://www.brennancenter.org/sites/default/files/analysis/Buying_Time/MS_LEAA_Dickinson_McRae.pdf) a murder conviction. He lost the nonpartisan race. “That's been one of the biggest travesties around — that you can go behind an organization like this and put in hundreds of thousands of dollars and the people don't know who really is supporting that ad," McRae said.
Current status: attorney

2002
John Hunt
Nevada attorney general race

The Democrat lost his bid to now-Gov. Brian Sandoval, a Republican, after the Law Enforcement Alliance of America spent an undisclosed amount on TV ads attacking Hunt.
Current status: attorney

2003
Jim Hood
Mississippi attorney general race

The Law Enforcement Alliance of America spent an estimated $800,000 on ads attacking Hood. Yet the Democrat won. "If you attempted to try to identify anybody at the LEAA, if you tried to call the office, nobody ever answered the phone. It was always the answering machine," said Jonathan Compretta, who helped run Hood’s 2003 campaign.
Current status: Mississippi attorney general

2008
Oliver Diaz
Mississippi Supreme Court race

TV ads accused Diaz, an incumbent, of siding with a "baby killer" (http://www.brennancenter.org/sites/default/files/analysis/Buying_Time/10-21-08%20STSUPCT_MS_LEAA_DIAZ_PROTECT_OUR_FAMILIES.MOV ) and a man who raped an elderly woman. Diaz, a former Republican lawmaker, lost the nonpartisan race. “Judges aren't, for the most part, seasoned politicians, and sometimes they're limited in their ability to respond,” Diaz said. “Therefore, they can put out some sort of horrible attack ad on any judges that they want and really influence an election with a fairly small amount of money in the grand scheme of things.”
Current status: attorney

2010
David Leyton
Michigan attorney general race

TV ads attacked Leyton (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5Ep_27LtFDY), a prosecutor, for making plea deals with murderers and other violent criminals. The Democrat lost.
Current status: prosecutor in Genesee County, Michigan

2010
Denise Langford Morris
Michigan Supreme Court race

TV ads attacking Langford Morris (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nPerCz2_ajo&feature=youtu.be)cost the Law Enforcement Alliance of America an estimated $800,000 to air. The Democrat lost.
Current status: circuit court judge in Oakland County, Michigan

2012
Richard “Flip” Phillips
2012 Mississippi Supreme Court race

TV ads that cost at least $450,000 (http://www.brennancenter.org/analysis/buying-time-state-state-spending-2012)to air portrayed Phillips (http://www.google.com/url?q=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.brennancenter.org%2Fsites%2 Fdefault%2Ffiles%2Fanalysis%2FBuying_Time%2FSTSUPC T_MI_LEAA_PHILLIPS_TRIAL_LAWYER%2520%25281%2529.MO V&sa=D&sntz=1&usg=AFQjCNEilIhcMdxmTQN4KL200ppM5IkrkA) as a greedy trial attorney (http://www.publicintegrity.org/2013/06/13/12793/dc-based-groups-bombarded-state-high-court-races-ads). He lost the nonpartisan race.
Current status: attorney

2014
Tim Cullen
Arkansas Supreme Court race

TV ads attacking Cullen (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CR2C6XN8Yhg&feature=youtu.be) and supporting his opponent cost at least $320,000 to air. He lost the nonpartisan race. “The core problem of it is it's anonymous. You typically don't know who's behind these things, so there's no accountability, and that's uniquely troubling in a judicial setting,” Cullen said.
Current status: attorney

Sources: TV station records, court filings, The Washington Post, The Austin American-Statesman, Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, Chicago Tribune, Justice at Stake, Brennan Center for Justice.

The LEAA and its current leader, Chief Operating Officer Ted Deeds, did not respond to repeated calls and emails. Lawyers representing the group said they were not authorized to speak on its behalf, and the LEAA’s accountant referred questions back to the group. In the past, its leaders have argued that its anonymously funded activities are protected under the right to free speech.

The group is an extreme example of a growing cadre of political organizations (http://www.publicintegrity.org/2014/12/17/16516/secretive-nonprofits-flourished-and-succeeded-2014-state-elections) — from the conservative Crossroads GPS (http://www.crossroadsgps.org/) to the environmental advocate League of Conservation Voters (http://www.lcv.org/) — that insert themselves into elections, flood the airwaves with attack ads and often tip the scales in favor of the candidate they prefer. All the while, voters have no idea who is behind the effort and what their motives are because of a gap in disclosure laws.

The LEAA is among the most mysterious and successful, coming into races like a stealth assassin, then all but disappearing when the race ends.

http://www.publicintegrity.org/2015/03/25/16941/secretive-group-destroys-candidates-chances-leaves-few-fingerprints?utm_source=email&utm_campaign=watchdog&utm_medium=publici-email&goal=0_ffd1d0160d-0307c2a30a-100106293&mc_cid=0307c2a30a&mc_eid=3b8f64cce8

America is so fucked and unfuckable.

DarrinS

03-26-2015, 11:00 AM

Four years and only 13 pages? You need to pick up the pace, boo.

boutons_deux

05-01-2015, 09:42 AM

Chief Justice Roberts Accidentally Reveals Everything That’s Wrong With Citizens United In Four Sentences (http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2015/04/30/3653023/supreme-court-reveals-everything-thats-wrong-citizens-united-four-ridiculous-sentences/)

"Politicians are expected to be appropriately responsive to the preferences of their supporters.

Indeed, such “responsiveness is key to the very concept of self-governance through elected officials.” "

the implication of the passage quoted above is that members of Congress, state lawmakers, governors and presidents should provide such consideration to their supporters and to their donors. The President of the United States is the president of the entire United States. A member of Congress represents their entire constituency.

Yet Roberts appears to believe that they should “follow the preferences” of their supporters and give “special consideration” to the disproportionately wealthy individuals who fund their election.
http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2015/04/30/3653023/supreme-court-reveals-everything-thats-wrong-citizens-united-four-ridiculous-sentences/

Giving Roberts the benefit of the doubt that as a lawyer, he chooses he words carefully, he is blatantly using "preferences of ... supporters" rather than "voters".

boutons_deux

05-04-2015, 07:00 PM

The Five-Step Process to Privatize Everything

Law enforcement, education, health care, water management, government itself -- all have been or are being privatized. People with money get the best of each service.

At the heart of privatization is a disdain for government and a distrust of society, and a mindless individualism that leaves little room for cooperation. Adherents of privatization demand 'freedom' unless they need the government to intervene on their behalf.

These privatizers have a system:

1. Convince Yourself that "I Did It On My Own"

The people in position to take from society seek to rationalize their actions, and many have accomplished this through the philosophy of Ayn Rand, the author of The Virtue of Selfishness (https://www.aynrand.org/novels/virtue-of-selfishness). She rejected community values, saying "Any group...is only a number of individuals...If any civilization is to survive, it is the morality of altruism that men have to reject."

Post-Ayn-Rand, in the growing era of neoliberalism, with Ronald Reagan blurting "government is the problem" and Margaret Thatcher proclaiming "There is no such thing as society," once-respected institutions like public education (http://www.nationofchange.org/obscenities-capitalism-1373888196) and public transportation (http://www.commondreams.org/news/2013/02/14/gop-rep-renews-push-privatize-amtrak) were demonized as "socialist" and "Soviet-style." The message has been repeated so often by the business-backed media that the general public began to believe it. Said The Economist (http://www.economist.com/node/21553017) with regard to product development, "Governments have always been lousy at picking winners, and they are likely to become more so, as legions of entrepreneurs and tinkerers swap designs online, turn them into products at home and market them globally from a garage. As the revolution rages, governments should stick to the basics...Leave the rest to the revolutionaries."

But as Mariana Mazzucato points out in The Entrepreneurial State (http://marianamazzucato.com/the-entrepreneurial-state/), "In reality it is the State that has been engaged on a massive scale in entrepreneurial risk taking to spur innovation." There is much evidence (http://www.commondreams.org/views/2015/03/30/you-owe-us-corporations-four-reasons-why-and-one-way-pay) for this, in a multitude of disciplines, especially in technology and pharmaceuticals, both of which have seen corporate research labs diminishing if not entirely disappearing.

In the burgeoning new field of nanotechnology, says Mazzucato, industry cannot justify applications that require 10 to 20 years of development and which demand a coordination of physics, chemistry, biology, medicine, engineering, and computer science.

2. Insist that the Removal of Government Will Benefit All People

The removal of government is equated to a vague demand for "freedom" which is hyperbolic if not meaningless. It gained momentum with Milton Friedman (https://bfi.uchicago.edu/post/milton-friedman-his-own-words), who said: "Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself." The Cato Institute (http://www.cato.org/sites/cato.org/files/serials/files/cato-journal/2011/5/cj31n2-1.pdf) went on to preach that "Free markets create a future promoting integrity and trust." And Forbes Magazine founder Steve Forbes (http://reason.org/about/) blustered: "You can't create prosperity without freedom!"

Despite the fact that this 'freedom' has generated the greatest inequality in nearly 100 years, apologists try to convince us that somehow we're all prospering. From the Wall Street Journal (http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2015/01/09/the-upbeat-economy-spurs-a-political-fight-for-credit-but-little-else/): The U.S. economy is on a tear. From a Moody's analyst (http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/12/23/us-economy-gdp-idUSKBN0K111Y20141223): Our economy is firing on most cylinders.

Some libertarian "lovers of freedom" go to even greater extremes to defend the benefits of inequality (http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/how-income-inequality-benefits-everybody/2015/03/25/1122ee02-d255-11e4-a62f-ee745911a4ff_story.html) for all of us, claiming that income inequality is Good For The Poor (http://thefederalist.com/2014/11/05/income-inequality-is-good-for-the-poor/), and even that "Income inequality in a capitalist system is truly beautiful (https://books.google.com/books?id=mXoyBgAAQBAJ&pg=PT46&lpg=PT46&dq=%22income+inequality+in+a+capitalist+system+is+ truly+beautiful%22)."

3. Ensure that Government Isn't Removed Until You Get Rich

As the well-to-do have complained about government, they've also made sure that government has continued to help them, with a mind-boggling array of deductions, exemptions, exclusions, and loopholes.

At least $2.2 trillion (http://www.commondreams.org/views/2013/01/07/tax-avoidance-rise-its-twice-amount-social-security-and-medicare) per year in tax expenditures, tax underpayments, tax havens, and corporate nonpayment go mostly to the very rich, the most brazen of whom make the astonishing claim that their hedge fund income (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/sarah-anderson/yes-we-can-taxes_b_2505621.html) should be taxed at a much lower rate than a teacher's income.

Their tax breaks are augmented by the payroll tax (http://thinkprogress.org/economy/2012/11/16/1208701/democratic-senator-introduces-bill-to-lift-social-securitys-tax-cap-extend-its-solvency-for-decades/) rate limit, which allows multi-millionaires to pay a tiny percentage compared to middle-income earners; by high-risk derivatives (http://www.webofdebt.com/articles/baliin.php) that are the first to be paid off in a bank collapse; and by a bankruptcy (http://thinkprogress.org/economy/2014/09/11/3566194/senior-citizens-student-loan-debt-social-security/) law that allows businesses, but not students, to get out of debt.

4. Defund Government Until Privatization Seems Like the Only Option

This has happened most notably in education, with a simple formula, according to The Nation (http://www.thenation.com/article/181751/what-happens-when-your-teacher-robot): "Use standardized tests to declare dozens of poor schools 'persistently failing'; put these under the control of a special unelected authority; and then have that authority replace the public schools with charters." And, of course, cut funding. According to the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities (http://www.cbpp.org/cms/?fa=view&id=4135), forty-eight states — all except Alaska and North Dakota — were spending less per student in 2014 than they did before the recession.

It's happening to Social Security, perhaps the most efficiently run system, public or private, in our nation's history. As Richard Eskow (http://www.nationofchange.org/invisible-social-security-cuts-now-you-see-them-now-you-don-t-1397393536) notes, "Congress has cut 14 out of the last 16 SSA budget requests. There’s only one rational explanation for that: a hostility toward government itself, combined with the determination to place more public resources in corporate hands through 'privatization.'”

It's happening to police forces (http://www.washingtonpost.com/local/crime/private-police-carry-guns-and-make-arrests-and-their-ranks-are-swelling/2015/02/28/29f6e02e-8f79-11e4-a900-9960214d4cd7_story.html), which are going private in neighborhoods and on corporate campuses as public money is disappearing.

5. Remain Ignorant of Any Troublesome Facts

Facts abound of failing private systems, including:

Education: A private system that pays a charter CEO 350 times more per student (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/alan-singer/charter-school-executive-profit_b_5093883.html) than the corresponding public school chancellor.

Health Care: The most expensive system in the developed world, with the price of common surgeries (http://www.commondreams.org/view/2012/02/01-4) anywhere from three to ten times higher than in much of Europe, and with 43 percent (http://www.upi.com/Health_News/2013/04/26/43-percent-of-US-working-age-adults-cant-afford-doctor/UPI-37621367028447/) of sick Americans skipping (http://www.commonwealthfund.org/Newsletters/Washington-Health-Policy-in-Review/2011/Nov/November-14-2011/Sickest-Adults-in-US.aspx) doctor's visits and/or medication purchases in 2011 because of excessive costs. Medicare, on the other hand, which is largely without the profit motive and the competing sources of billing, is efficiently (http://www.cahi.org/cahi_contents/resources/pdf/CAHIMedicareTechnicalPaper.pdf)run (http://healthaffairs.org/blog/2011/09/20/medicare-is-more-efficient-than-private-insurance/), for all eligible Americans.

Banking: Thanks to private banks, interest claims one out of every three (http://ellenbrown.com/2012/11/08/its-the-interest-stupid-why-bankers-rule-the-world/) dollars that we spend, and by the time we retire with a 401(k), nearly half (http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/retirement-gamble/) of our money is lost to the banks. But the public bank of North Dakota (BND) had an equity return of 23.4% (http://www.publicbankingpa.org/index.php/21-news-events/national-news/56-wall-street-journal-reports-bank-of-north-dakota-outperforms-wall-street) before the state's oil boom. The normally privatization-minded Wall Street Journal (http://www.wsj.com/articles/shale-boom-helps-north-dakota-bank-earn-returns-goldman-would-envy-1416180862) admits that the BND "is more profitable than Goldman Sachs Group Inc., has a better credit rating than J.P. Morgan Chase & Co. and hasn’t seen profit growth drop since 2003."

Law Enforcement: As public money for police protection is depleted, our communities are being subjected to law enforcement officers who are insufficiently trained (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/heather-ann-thompson/rescuing-americas-inner-c_b_5526012.html), poorly regulated (http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2171409), and often unaccountable (http://www.revealnews.org/article/shootings-by-security-guards-rarely-reported-let-alone-investigated/) to the public (http://www.salon.com/2015/04/15/blood_money_killer_cops_how_privatization_is_fundi ng_the_racist_logic_of_americas_police/) for their actions.

Water Management: A water security expert suggested (http://www.nytimes.com/2015/04/01/opinion/water-pricing-not-engineering-will-ease-looming-water-shortages.html?_r=0) that "One promising solution is to create water markets that allow people to buy and sell rights to use water." But a 2009 analysis of water and sewer utilities by Food and Water Watch found (http://documents.foodandwaterwatch.org/doc/MoneyDownDrain.pdf) that private companies charge up to 80 percent more for water and 100 percent more for sewer services.

The Environment: According to former World Bank Chief Economist Nicholas Stern (http://neweconomist.blogs.com/new_economist/2006/10/stern_review_2.html), climate change is "the greatest market failure the world has seen." Yet Bloomberg (http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-03-07/investors-embrace-climate-change-chase-hotter-profits.html) reports that "Wall Street firms are investing in businesses that will profit as the planet gets hotter."

Government Itself: In a study of outsourcing, the Project on Government Oversight (http://www.pogo.org/our-work/reports/2011/co-gp-20110913.html) found that in 33 out of 35 cases "the average annual contractor billing rate was much more than the average annual full compensation for federal employees."

Great Individuals Emerge from Cooperative Efforts

Privatization is closely connected to the demand for individualism over cooperation. But the belief that self-centeredness will benefit everyone is backwards. As George Lakoff (http://blogs.berkeley.edu/2012/08/23/romney-ryan-and-the-devils-budget-will-america-keep-its-soul/) summarizes: "The Public provides freedom...Individualism begins after the roads are built, after individualists have had an education, after medical research has cured their diseases..."

http://www.commondreams.org/views/2015/05/04/five-step-process-privatize-everything

boutons_deux

06-03-2015, 06:35 AM

VRWC, BigCorp division

Did John Oliver just shake and bake the poultry industry? (http://grist.org/list/did-john-oliver-just-shake-and-bake-the-poultry-industry/?utm_source=syndication&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=feed)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X9wHzt6gBgI

boutons_deux

06-12-2015, 04:02 PM

VRWC obtained the SCOTUS majority they purchased

8 Ways the Supreme Court Has Been Destroying American Democracy

Most people have little idea how badly the U.S. Supreme Court has damaged American democracy.

It’s not just watching a handful of billionaires drive the Republicans’ 2016 presidential contest from the inside out, as a result of the Court’s Citizens United ruling in 2010 and others that followed. There’s been a long line of anti-democratic rulings going back decades that have narrowed who can—and cannot—participate in politics, from citizens to candidates to parties and reformers.

These maddening problems and their source fill the pages of a striking new book about the First Amendment and what the Bill of Rights is really about from New York University legal scholar Burt Neuborne. It’s called Madison’s Music (http://thenewpress.com/books/madison%E2%80%99s-music) [3], named after the Bill of Rights’ author James Madison. Neuborne explains how core democratic rights have been shredded by decades of narrow-minded rulings that intentionally ignore Madison’s tapestry envisioning a populist, people-centered, activist politics.

What follows are a list of eight gigantic problems caused by decades of misreading the founding document of American democracy. These don’t just include how the rich have more influence, but how the big political parties have suppressed competitive elections, and how the system’s mechanics discourage millions of people from participating.

“We’ll never do Madison full justice until we revere him as a great poet—not a literary poet like Wallace Stevens, but a political poet like Abraham Lincoln,” Neuborne said. “The fact is that for more than fifty years Supreme Court justices operating inside doctrinal silos have shaped the quality of American democracy without once asking what kind of democracy they were building,”

“The justices do not ask why the ten amendments constituting the Bill of Rights open with the protections listed in the First Amendment or why the forty-five words and six ideas in its text are ordered as they are,” he said, launching the discussion.

1. First big mistake: making free speech the top right.

The First Amendment reads, “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.” What makes this declaration so brilliant is that it isn’t only about free speech, Neuborne said, but about protecting ideas and beliefs as they arise in one’s conscience and make their way into the political world and democratic government.

“The Bill of Rights opens with a blueprint for an ideal ‘city on a hill’—a place of respect for individual conscience, robust political discussion and democratic self-government,” he explains. It starts with acknowledging that freedom begins in the individual spirit and goes into the world as people speak. But lone voices need to be amplified so others can hear, which is where the press comes in. And for people who cannot speak as well as others, it permits peaceful protest and the right to petition the government for change.

But what’s happened is the Supreme Court has elevated the free speech clause to be the most important part of this process, Neuborne said.

Then the Court gave that elevated right to the rich, by ruling that spending money is the highest form of speech: not having a right to hear ideas, not organizing, nor protesting nor petitioning government. What has that wrought?

2. Giving the rich disproportionate political power.

This isn’t a new trend, but it has gotten worse. In the mid-1970s, Congress passed a law limiting campaign spending by wealthy individuals—and the Court tossed it out. A few years later, corporations were given rights to spend money in ballot campaigns. Most recently, its rulings have deregulated spending limits on corporations and the wealthy, yielding the 2016 landscape where a handful of billionaires and super PACs have super-sized roles in picking presidential candidates—at least for the GOP—and voters are an afterthought. Here’s how Neuborne puts it:

“Supercitizens of both parties set the national political agenda, select the candidates, bankroll the campaigns (virtually all campaign contributions and expenditures come from the top 2 percent of the economic ladder), and enjoy privileged postelection access to government officials (Whose telephone call does a busy senator take?). Membership in the supercitizen tier is neither defined by law nor confined to the wealthy. It is possible to be a supercitizen on the basis of talent, fame, good looks, family status, inheritance, or sheer persistence. But money gets you in no questions asked.”

3. Thwarting efforts to balance big money.

The simplest solution to the private financing of politics and the outsized influence of the wealthy after Election Day is to have taxpayer-funded campaigns. Many states, even some red ones such as Arizona, have tried to do exactly that to help underfunded candidates. But the current Court “said no, ruling that matching campaign subsidies unconstitutionally ‘penalize’ the free-speech rights of rich candidates,” Neuborne writes, giving one of many examples where a narrow-minded ruling ultimately eviscerates Madison’s plan for a democracy.

4. Giving corporations more political power.

A century ago, corporations were seen as having too much power and were banned from spending money in elections. “Congress, following the advice of Teddy Roosevelt, sought to wall off the vast trove of corporate wealth from our elections,” Neuborne wrote, referring to that achievement, which the Court’s right-wing majority has since undone.

“The suffocatingly strict Supreme Court said no, ruling that unlimited corporate electioneering is protected by the Free Speech Clause because, according to five justices, an unlimited diet of corporate propaganda is actually good for us.”

5. Ensuring the two major parties are monopolies.

To make matters worse, over the decades the Court has allowed the two major political parties to act like elite private clubs—where real challenges to party orthodoxy cannot get off the ground.

It starts with who is allowed to run for office. “Excessive deference to local party bosses erodes democracy at the nominating stage,” he said, referring to how

the Court treats the process of choosing candidates as a private activity.

The Court also has limited who can vote in a primary.

The parties not only have “a right to protect themselves from ‘raiding’ by hostile outsiders,” he said, but can impose waiting periods on its newest members before they can vote in nominating contests.

“The Court’s insistence on treating major parties as private associations for the purpose of the nominating process even casts doubt on whether political parties can be forced to nominate through primaries at all, instead of allowing the political bosses to choose the candidate in a ‘smoke-filled room.’”

6. Weakening effective third parties.

As you might expect, there have been many efforts by the major parties to undermine competition from third parties. Several of these have resulted in cases that came before the Court, where the majority ruled against these efforts “to pump democracy into the nominating process,” Neuborne said. Oklahoma, for example, banned minor parties from inviting Democrats and Republicans to vote in their primaries—which “six justices upheld.”

“So major parties have a constitutional right to open their primaries to independents and possibly to defecting members of the other major party.

But ideological protest parties, seeking to challenge the electoral status quo, can be forbidden from inviting members of the two major parties to vote in their primaries,” he said.

“From a democracy standpoint, it’s hard to imagine anything worse.”

7. Makes elections uncompetitive via redistricting.

The common thread that runs through Neuborne’s analysis is that the Court will grab one seemingly democratic tenet under the First Amendment and apply it in a way that yields anti-democratic results. For example, when allowing the rich to pay the operating costs of elections, the Court ignored how that “undermine[s] the independence and integrity of the men and women who govern us by turning them into political beggars.”

The same dynamic is true with another big concept that’s embraced more in theory than reality: one person, one vote. This standard has led to states redrawing the boundaries of electoral districts in ways that are numerically equal, but lock in incumbents and make most elections uncompetitive.

The Court has allowed that practice, Neuborne said, and only spoken out when efforts to produce fairer elections were challenged. For example, “North Carolina drew legislative lines to help racial miniorities recover from centuries of political exclusion,” he writes.

“The suffocatingly strict Supreme Court scolded state officials and said no, insisting that drawing electoral lines in an effort to help racial minorities secure fair political representation is a dangerous form of racism.”

8. Allowing the governing class to suppress the vote.

Here, Neuborne is referring to mix of barriers that discourage voting, which the Court’s right-wing majority does not see as violating the First Amendment’s vision of an inclusive democratic process.

“A century ago, political participation was legally rationed by formal denial of the vote to women, the poor, and newcomers, as well as de facto prohibitions that prevented Blacks and Latinos from voting,” he said.

“Today participation in the democratic process is rationed by the operation of our system of voter registration, election administration, legislative apportionment, and campaign finance, with its capacity to skew available information in favor of the rich. The political rationing system may be less visible to the naked eye, but the effect on the poor and less educated is almost as effective.”

Neuborne notes that it’s important to pay attention to what the Court doesn’t do. A “tier of spectator citizens” is the “predictable result of the

Supreme Court’s toleration of cynical obstacles to voting, including obsolete equipment in poorer areas, incompetent and Balkanized election administrators beholden to the two major parties, pre-election voter registration requirements, prevention of weekend voting, and requirements for photo ID and proof of citizenship that disproportionately limit electoral participation by weak and unsophisticated spectator citizens.
In fact, the Supreme Court has tolerated or perpetuated virtually every antidemocratic practice that currently burdens American democracy—disenfranchising ex-felons, upholding cynical efforts to suppress the vote, permitting ruthless partisan gerrymandering, and allowing the nominating process to be controlled by political bosses and thr campaign process by the superrich.”

Ignoring history and destroying democracy

There are so many examples where the Supreme Court’s has taken a selectively edited, narrow-minded view of the Constitution to issue right-wing edicts.

The Second Amendment rulings expanding gun ownership rights have nothing to do with that clause’s purpose, Neuborne said, noting that Madison placed it after the democracy creating First Amendment—and before the series of amendments that establish a judicial process protecting the rights of the accused—because the Founders understood “that subversion or overthrow by force of arms is the fate of most democracies.”

When it comes to democratic rights, what the Court did to disenfranchise former felons is appalling. After the Civil War, the Fourteenth and Fifiteen Amendments were passed to ensure former slaves could vote. But in 1974, Chief Justice William Rehnquist grabbed a phrase from those amendments where the right to vote could be revoked “for participation in rebellion, or other crime.” As Neuborne writes,

“Rehnquist twisted the words ‘rebellion or other crime’ …to grant affirmative power to states to disenfranchise convicted felons, even though the prison population is—and was—disproportionately Black and Latino as the result of systemic racial discrimination in the criminal justice process. So a constitutional amendment designed to help freed slaves has been hijacked as a device to disenfranchise their descendants.”

Neuborne, who has been a First Amendment lawyer and scholar for more than four decades, is not without hope. He has distilled and placed a lifetime of insight and thought about the First Amendment and American democracy into Madison’s Music (http://thenewpress.com/books/madison%E2%80%99s-music) [3]. He would not write such a book if he thought that American democracy were fatally wounded and could not recover. But what’s needed is a new Supreme Court majority that understands Madison's vision and is not hostile to a broad and inclusive democracy.

“The result has been and is an accidental, highly dysfunctional political system cobbled together by judges wearing blinders," he wrote.

"Properly read, Madison’s great First Amendment poem to democracy

would never accept a judicially imposed president [George W. Bush in 2000],

the cynical disenfranchisement of the weak,

the elimination of contested legislative elections, or

the rule of ‘one dollar, one vote.’”

http://www.alternet.org/civil-liberties/8-ways-supreme-court-has-been-destroying-american-democracy?akid=13202.187590.KC5aeu&rd=1&src=newsletter1037665&t=1

boutons_deux

07-02-2015, 08:28 AM

Billionaires making govt policy in the USA's corporatocracy

Export-Import Bank's expiration a victory for billionaire Koch brothers

The Export-Import Bank, created by President Franklin Delano Roosevelt to help foreign customers buy U.S. goods, has been reauthorized 16 times, usually with little fuss and often with strong Republican support.

But Congress let the bank's charter expire this week, halting any new loans.

Even more surprising than the rare event of a government program being wound down was

the force behind the shutdown: the billionaire Koch brothers. Their network of groups turned what was once routine reauthorization of a lesser-known financing entity into a litmus test for conservatives — and they scored a major victory.

The ability to make the bank a Capitol Hill priority and even a presidential campaign issue highlights the growing power of the Koch network within the GOP. It also spotlights some of the internal divisions complicating the Republican effort to recapture the White House in 2016.

"This is a really interesting case in how battles are won," said Veronique de Rugy, a senior research fellow at the Mercatus Center at George Mason University in Virginia and an expert on the bank.

Without the involvement of the Koch network of conservative groups they fund, "we wouldn't be where we are," she said.

The bank's demise may yet prove temporary because Republican leaders have vowed to again consider reauthorizing it when Congress returns from its Fourth of July recess.

The bank's charter currently allows $140 billion in annual activity, and much of its lending ends up helping big businesses — facilitating the sales of Boeing airplanes and General Electric power plants abroad.

Supporters, who include many business groups typically aligned with the GOP, say the bank is vital to fill the gap when private lending lags and to counter aid that rival countries provide for their exporters. They point to many smaller American firms and export suppliers that rely on the bank.

Opponents argue that it creates an uneven playing field, with taxpayers shouldering risks for big business.

For the Kochs and the groups they fund, the campaign against the bank provided a way to prove that their small-government campaign extended beyond reducing programs for poor people, such as food stamps and Medicaid.
Their network of organizations seized on the Export-Import Bank late in 2013 as a prime example of what they labeled "crony capitalism." The campaign against the bank also provided a way of proving their clout within the party by defeating a priority of long-established GOP powers in the business community.

Brent Gardner, vice president of government relations at Americans for Prosperity, a nonprofit group heavily financed by Charles and David Koch and their allies, said that for the billionaire brothers, the bank is "the perfect symbol for what they've talked about — a more free society." :lol :lol :lol

"This little never-heard-of bank, it became kind of a litmus test for people who wanted to prove their potential free-market bona fides," Gardner said.

Republican presidential hopefuls, anxious to curry favor with the Kochs, have made ending the bank part of their campaign platforms. Jeb Bush, Scott Walker and other leading GOP candidates have all come out against it.

Last week, Sen. Marco Rubio of Florida gave an entire talk in the early primary state of New Hampshire not on the economy or national security, but on why the Export-Import Bank needs to shut down. Sen. Ted Cruz of Texas said he switched his vote on the trade bill in June because he feared that it included a backroom deal to save the bank.

The campaign to close the bank started after the Republicans won control of the House in 2010 as conservative groups, including Heritage Action for America and the Club for Growth, began organizing opposition to the bank on and off Capitol Hill.

They viewed the goal as attainable because it did not involve getting Congress to pass legislation; simply doing nothing would accomplish the goal.

The effort truly took off when Americans for Prosperity got heavily involved, tapping its list of 2 million members to contact their representatives. The group held town hall events across the nation and pounded the halls of Congress. Its government relations team met with more than 150 lawmakers or their staffs, including all the freshmen.

Andy Roth, vice president of government affairs at Club for Growth, said a turning point came a year ago after House Majority Leader Eric Cantor (R-Va.) suffered a stunning primary loss to a tea party challenger who had made the bank one of his issues. Cantor's successor as majority leader, Rep. Kevin McCarthy (R-Bakersfield), quickly made clear that the bank's charter should expire.

"It was no longer us shouting from the cheap seats," Roth said. "Leadership was echoing."

This year, the Koch-aligned Freedom Partners began running ads that called the bank a "bad deal" and asked, "Will Congress follow Hillary Clinton or free market champions?"

Clinton, in turn, has positioned her support of the bank as an example of moderation, in contrast to what she terms Republican extremism.

But more than the grass-roots campaigns and the ads, the involvement of Koch-aligned groups gave the campaign against the bank the imprimatur of a political force whose support can make or break candidates' futures.

That power could be seen earlier this year as Republican presidential hopefuls addressed the Club for Growth's annual membership conference in Florida. One by one, each announced support for letting the bank expire.

The GOP's conventional allies in the business community scrambled to salvage the bank, but they were late to recognize the threat they faced. "It caught a lot of people off guard," said Ron Kirk, a former U.S. trade representative in the Obama administration.

"Maybe I put too much value in the fact that you have all of those interests saying, 'Wait a minute, this is critically important to us,'" Kirk said. "I don't think anyone believed it would grow to this extreme."

Tony Fratto, a strategist hired by a coalition led by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, lamented that the business community had been lax in defending the bank as the political climate changed.

"That created the opportunity for critics to walk in and attack and present this to staff and members who didn't have bedrock of knowledge," said Fratto, a former official in the George W. Bush administration.

The two sides dispute some basic facts about the bank. The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office said that by one measure, the bank doesn't add to the nation's deficit but has contributed $14 billion over the decade in revenue; but using a different accounting model, the bank costs the government $2 billion.

Export-Import Bank Chairman Fred P. Hochberg warned that halting the bank's loans would cost hundreds, if not thousands, of U.S. jobs.

"All because Congress won't move to get this done — all because of a vocal minority here in Washington has put ideology ahead of American workers," he said at a trade summit last week.

Many believe that the bank's expiration will be temporary. Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) recently suggested a vote to reauthorize the bank could be part of a highway package that will be debated when Congress returns this month.

"It's not that there's some big groundswell," Fratto said about the opposition.

Even if Congress agrees to reauthorize the bank this summer, however, those who have been leading the fight against it believe that it's only a matter of time before they finish the job.

"If you're going to be successful in reforming entitlements, you don't have moral credibility if you don't take on corporate welfare — and you can't do better than Ex-Im," said Michael A. Needham, chief executive of Heritage Action. :lol

http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-export-import-bank-20150701-story.html#page=1

but the Kock Bros are "entitled" to operate govt to their advantage.

Heritage STINK TANK? :lol "moral credibility" ? :lol

boutons_deux

07-08-2015, 10:16 AM

Koch Brothers Are Ramping Up To Eliminate National Parks And Seize Federal Lands

Most Americans, whether they complain about the government or not, have at least a passing interest in it remaining in existence for a variety of benefits they seldom bemoan receiving.

What that means is that most Americans are in conflict with Republicans and their masters the Koch brothers who have made no secret they want the government eradicated with extreme prejudice from the top down.

Republicans have duly served the Kochs’ interests by taking every opportunity to destroy every aspect of the government, except the military-welfare complex, by starving it of funding just to bolster their “government does not work” agenda.

A favorite target of Koch-Republicans is the National Park system that Republicans have so drastically underfunded that a Koch and ExxonMobil-funded organization is calling for an end to national parks and privatization of all federally-owned land. The argument being put forward by the executive director of Koch fossil fuel organization, Reed Watson, is that since the National Park system is hurting for funding, the only option is to first stop (http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2015/07/03/3676816/happy-fourth-no-more-national-parks/)creating national parks and then cheaply sell off those already in existence.

Why?

Because according to the Koch brothers’ organization calling to sell off all public land and national parks, “True conservation is taking care of the land and water you already have; we can protect it properly.” :lol

The group pushing to sell off (privatize (http://www.perc.org/articles/how-and-why-privatize-public-lands)) the national park system to the fossil fuel industry, and indeed, sell off all public land to the highest corporate bidder, is the Koch (http://www.greenpeace.org/usa/en/campaigns/global-warming-and-energy/polluterwatch/koch-industries/property-and-environment-resea/) and ExxonMobil (http://www.exxonsecrets.org/html/orgfactsheet.php?id=62)-funded Property and Environment Research Center (PERC).

PERC, Exxon-Mobil, the Koch brothers, and Republicans across the nation contend that no state, federal, or local government has any right to own any land within America’s borders; it is precisely the same argument trumpeted by seditious anti-American rancher Cliven Bundy.

Although Bundy’s contention is that he, Cliven Bundy, retains “sole stewardship rights over government-owned land,” he clearly fails to comprehend that the Kochs have a different vision of what their stewardship as private corporate owners will entail. Unless Cliven Bundy owns monumental drilling, mining, or lumber operations, he should make no mistake that when the Kochs own all government land, he will have no stewardship rights, grazing rights or input into how the land is managed whatsoever.

The Kochs and ExxonMobil have already committed PERC to publicly call for an end to the Land and Water Conservation Fund (LWCF) because it is one of America’s most successful parks programs.

LWCF is not in financial jeopardy yet because Republicans have failed to end its budget-neutral status (https://www.americanprogress.org/issues/green/news/2014/09/02/96057/infographic-the-land-and-water-conservation-fund-how-americas-best-parks-program-works/).

LWCF is budget-neutral as a result of using funds from offshore oil and gas development fees to fund projects across the country at the federal, state and local levels.

The LWCF program supports some of nation’s “most iconic” national parks such as Grand Canyon and Yellowstone. It has also created (http://www.nps.gov/ncrc/programs/lwcf/history.html) tens-of-thousands of outdoor projects the general public uses regularly such as local parks and baseball diamonds in all 50 states.

The Kochs want those local parks, like national parks, wilderness areas, and all federal land transferred to corporate ownership because “It just kills the fossil fuel industry and its allies that there’s any scrap of land that they can’t get their hands, or drilling rigs, on.” However, it is not for a lack of Republican efforts.

For example, last year as part of the ongoing Koch-funded and driven initiative (http://www.politicususa.com/2014/09/16/bundy-republicans-campaign-seize-federal-land-sell-kochs.html) to seize control of public lands from the federal government, Colorado Republicans, like Utah Republicans, introduced legislation (https://trackbill.com/bill/CO/2015/SB39/concurrent-jurisdiction-over-federal-land) calling for jurisdiction over federally-owned national forests, wilderness areas, national parks, and all Bureau of Land Management land.

Now with PERC’s blatantly public involvement and push to privatize National Parks and federal lands, it appears the concerted effort (http://www.americanprogressaction.org/issues/green/news/2014/09/03/96058/the-members-of-congress-and-congressional-hopefuls-who-want-to-sell-or-seize-public-lands-in-your-state/) is fully underway to seize government property to satisfy the greed of the Kochs and Exxon-Mobil by exploiting all federal land, including federally-protected wilderness areas and national parks, for fossil fuel profits.

Three years ago Utah Mormons passed a law demanding that the federal government cede its ownership, and immediately turn over the titles of all federal lands in Utah including all wilderness areas and national parks the state planned to sell to the Koch brothers to “manage” as “owners” exempt from federal environmental regulations and oversight.

The concept of selling off federal land to the fossil fuel, mining, and lumber industry began in earnest in 1999 when the Kochs’ PERC complained publicly that “fully a third of the land area of the United States is owned by the federal government. Although many Americans support the preservation of those lands, the failure of socialism in the realm of resource economics is as evident as other areas of the economy.”

Resource economic failure in Koch parlance means they cannot yet drill, mine, or log wherever they want and without being held to environmental regulations.

So PERC offered some Koch reform criteria to convince the American people and disabuse the United States government of the idea it has any right to own any land in America. PERC asserts that, “land should be allocated to the highest-valued use, transaction costs should be kept to a minimum because auctioning off all public lands will enhance environmental quality and economic efficiency through private rather than public ownership.”Americans should seriously start worrying, and pushing back against, these vile attempts by the Koch brothers and Republicans to sell off what is effectively the American people’s public land; particularly the 282 million (http://parkadvocate.org/park-service-releases-most-visited-national-park-data-for-2012/) Americans who visited the National Parks in 2011 alone.

That figure does not include visits to state and regional parks, wilderness areas, or the many, many national monuments around the country or in and around the nation’s capital that are owned and operated by the people’s government; the government the Kochs and Republicans want eliminated.

It is true that on their own, the Koch brothers are incapable of taking over all federal, state, and local government land and properties, but with Republicans doing their bidding in Congress and state legislatures, and Koch-funded groups like PERC, Americans for Prosperity, the Heritage Foundation and many others openly calling for the end of government land ownership, the concept of public land, national parks, or wilderness areas free of drilling, mining, and logging operations is in jeopardy.

It is not enough for the Kochs to take Americans’ government, workplace protections, pensions, healthcare, safe roads, schools, and bridges to privatization and eventual ruin, they are jockeying even now to take over Americans’ public land with little to no outrage or push-back from the people.

http://www.politicususa.com/2015/07/08/koch-brothers-ramping-eliminate-national-parks-seize-federal-lands.html?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+politicususa%2FfJAl+%28Politi cus+USA+%29

VRWC, Kock Bros, Repugs, conservatives! What's NOT to HATE?

boutons_deux

07-13-2015, 10:23 AM

Christian Taliban getting organized

Jesus camp for adults seeks to impose Christianity on the US by converting 1,000 pastors into politicians

Some 300 evangelical pastors convened in Orlando on Friday with a single goal in mind: To learn how to adapt their preaching and outreach skills for the pursuit of political office. Former Arkansas governor Mike Huckabee, himself a former Southern Baptist minister, was slated to the give the keynote address.

The event, part of a national workshop series, is an effort to encourage and mobilize at least 1,000 evangelical pastors to seek governmental office in 2016 order to promote conservative ideals and traditional Biblical values.

Founded by conservative activist David Lane, who describes himself as an evangelical "political operative," the workshops are called Issachar Trainings (http://issachartraining.org/), named after an Israelite tribe described in the Bible as one comprised of men "who understood the times and knew what Israel should do." The workshops are just one prong of Lane's American Renewal Project (http://americanrenewalproject.org/), which aims to inject American politics with a dose of conservatism through various routes.

"Somebody's values are going to reign supreme" in the United States, Lane told National Public Radio (http://www.npr.org/2015/07/10/421684410/evangelical-pastors-gather-to-learn-another-calling-politics). "We want people with our values to represent our values and interests in the public square, be elected to office, and represent our issues."

http://www.rawstory.com/2015/07/jesus-camp-for-adults-seeks-impose-christianity-on-the-us-by-converting-1000-pastors-into-politicians/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+TheRawStory+%28The+Raw+Story% 29

"represent our issues"

:lol

nope, impose your fantasy interpretation of the Bible's fairy tales of ethics, morals on everybody else.

DarrinS

07-13-2015, 11:43 AM

Do you hear that?

It's the sound of no one giving a shit.

boutons_deux

07-13-2015, 11:49 AM

Do you hear that?

It's the sound of no one giving a shit.

Did we hear that? The sound of Darrin's empty posts.

boutons_deux

07-14-2015, 08:44 AM

Investor-owned utilities, screwing customers

Residents Fight Back Against Pittsburgh's Privatized Water Authority

Over 42,000 people, based on an estimate (http://www.pghcitypaper.com/Blogh/archives/2015/05/26/pwsa-hit-with-lawsuit-over-billing-issues) from the Pittsburgh Water and Sewer Authority (PWSA), have received inaccurate and/or delayed water bills for months on end, about 14 percent of the population.

In addition to shutting off residents' water even after payment was proffered, bills that did come in from the PWSA were sometimes outrageously expensive, occasionally 600 percent higher than normal, Wade claims. Residential Properties was soon inundated with calls from angry tenants who were inexplicably charged hundreds of dollars for water. Triple-digit bills even came in for empty homes where water had been shut off for decades.

By the time water bills stopped coming in to Residential Properties' Millvale households between March and late June, Wade realized that homes affected by billing errors were the same homes the PWSA was installing new automatic rate readers (http://apps.pittsburghpa.gov/pwsa/AMI-FAQ.pdf) that are supposed to instantaneously send accurate information on water usage back to the PWSA.

Pupich says that the billing errors, though egregious, aren't the most sinister thing about the PWSA's billing mess. It's that the authority and the company overseeing it know there is a problem, but still hound customers for payments and shut their water off anyway.

"The problem is the administration of the problem," Pupich told Truthout. "You have a collection agency shutting us off. A collection agency has no power to shut your water off. But they do. [The PWSA] says, 'This is how we do it.'"

He pulled out a 10-day PWSA disconnect notice to prove his point. In it, a homeowner is informed they must immediately pay their delinquent water balance to an entity called Jordan Tax Services, which bills for the authority, to avoid a shut off. The notice not only includes the balance, but also two "restoration of service" fees that together nearly exceed the original bill.

http://www.truth-out.org/news/item/31830-residents-fight-back-against-pittsburgh-s-privatized-water-authority

boutons_deux

07-31-2015, 09:19 PM

Nevada’s New Voucher Plan Is Designed to Bankrupt Public Schools

.Starting next school year, any parent in Nevada can pull a child from the state’s public schools and take tax dollars with them, giving families the option to use public money to pay for private or parochial school or even for home schooling… Nevada’s law is singular because all of the state’s 450,000 K-12 public school children—regardless of income—are eligible to take the money to whatever school they choose.” A child must be enrolled in a public school for at least 100 days in order to qualify.

Layton and Brown report that the new Nevada voucher bill was developed with the assistance of the Foundation for Excellence in Education, the foundation Jeb Bush launched in 2008, but from which he resigned at the end of 2014 to prepare for his presidential run. The Foundation’s chief executive Patricia Levesque describes Nevada’s new voucher bill: “This is the wave of the future. In all aspects of our life, we look for ways to customize and give individuals more control over their path and destiny…. This is a fundamental shift in how we make decisions about education.”

The Education Law Center recently circulated an analysis of Nevada’s new school vouchers from Educate Nevada Now (http://www.educationjustice.org/news/july-21-2015-new-esa-law-vouchers-will-worsen-educational-opportunities-for-nevada-kids.html), a statewide organization that promotes public education:

“The ESA (Education Savings Account) law requires the ‘statewide average basic support per pupil’—$5,100 per student and $5,710 for low-income and students with disabilities—be deposited into each ESA (Education Savings Account) from local district budgets, a process that

will divert, over time, substantial resources from the public schools. Studies have shown that Nevada substantially underfunds K-12 public education…

ESAs will trigger an outflow of funds from already inadequate school district budgets, beginning in the 2015-16 school year… As children leave public schools with ESA funds, some of the costs to educate those students will leave with them.

But ESAs will cause a deficit for the local district, given the fixed costs of operating the school system for all children… ESAs also create instability in district and school budgets. Districts will not know how many students will exit and how much money will be taken out of the budget during the school year.

This unpredictability will make it difficult to manage public school budgets, as local administrators won’t know how many teachers and staff to hire… or how to allocate funds to provide sufficient resources to schools throughout the school year.”

http://www.alternet.org/education/nevadas-new-voucher-plan-designed-bankrupt-public-schools

... other states will follow this VRWC strategy of destroying public schools and school teacher unions. VRWC doesn't give shit about education, only in transferring taxpayers $Ts to the 1%/BigCorp.

boutons_deux

08-03-2015, 11:11 AM

Charles Koch compares work of his political network to civil rights movement

DANA POINT, Calif. — Charles Koch on Sunday compared the efforts of his political network to the fight for civil rights and other “freedom movements,” urging his fellow conservative donors to follow the lead of figures such as Frederick Douglass, Susan B. Anthony and Martin Luther King Jr.

“History demonstrates that when the American people get motivated by an issue of justice that they believe is just, extraordinary things can be accomplished,” Koch told 450 wealthy conservatives assembled in the ballroom of a lavish oceanfront resort here.

“Look at the American revolution, the anti-slavery movement, the women’s suffrage movement, the civil rights movement,” he said. “All of these struck a moral chord with the American people. They all sought to overcome an injustice. And we, too, are seeking to right injustices that are holding our country back.”

“If we cannot unite the majority of Americans behind the vision, then we’re done for,” he added. “So that, to me, has to be our number one objective. But to do so, we’ve got to do a much better job of understanding what matters most to people and then to demonstrate that a free society gives them the best opportunity of achieving that.”

http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-politics/wp/2015/08/02/charles-koch-compares-work-of-his-political-network-to-civil-rights-movement/

Kock Bros don't gave shit about The American People or the environment.

boutons_deux

08-06-2015, 01:54 PM

The Assault on America’s Unions Continues (http://www.counterpunch.org/2015/08/06/the-assault-on-americas-unions-continues/)

Proving that the Domino Theory is alive and well, one more domino fell last week when the Michigan Supreme Court ruled, 4-3, that public sector employees could continue to bask in the superior wages, benefits and working conditions that their union contract provided, but weren’t required to pay their “fair share” of union dues. Not one penny of it.

Previously, taking a perfectly reasonable “no freeloaders allowed” stance, the courts had ruled that workers in an agency shop (where employees aren’t required to join the union representing them) still had to pony up full or partial union dues to defray the costs of the collective bargaining process—the very process that yielded the attractive wages and benefits that caused them to seek employment in a union shop in the first place.
But with the Michigan Supreme Court’s decision, that sense of fair play and “agrarian justice” has been totally blown out of the water. Not only are freeloaders no longer vilified or scorned as slimy opportunists, they’re being presented as champions, as “patriots,” as Free Market heroes.

One could argue that the Michigan Court’s screwball decision is tantamount to the Roman Catholic Church being forced to accept lemon-sucking atheists into the priesthood on the grounds that rejecting them would be a violation of their civil rights.

But you say that because union jobs provide better wages, benefits and working conditions than non-union jobs, you chose to work in a union shop? Fine. Then pay your fair share of the freight. Not only does it cost money to negotiate and administer a union contract (collective bargaining, adjustment of grievances, arbitrations, etc.), but most people readily understand the “strength in numbers” argument.

Again, if you’re one of those pilgrims who has a philosophical problem with the notion of workers’ collectivism—if you take the view that management can be depended upon to “do the right thing” when it comes to your personal welfare—that’s fine. By all means, follow your dream and avoid labor unions. Best of luck to you.

But don’t think you can have it both ways. Don’t try to undermine a century of accomplishments by organized labor by couching your naked self-interests in phony libertarianism. It’s time to grow up, folks. With the middle-class continuing to shrink, the stakes are simply too high to tolerate this level of game-playing.

Next year the U.S. Supreme Court (in “Friedrichs vs. the California Teachers Association”) will rule on whether or not to uphold the landmark “Abood” decision, which requires agency shop employees to pay their fair share. It’s no exaggeration to say that for the American worker, “Friedrichs” could be as significant as Dred Scott.

http://www.counterpunch.org/2015/08/06/the-assault-on-americas-unions-continues/

boutons_deux

08-08-2015, 03:15 PM

Charles Koch Admits He Needs More Power To Control The Government

Most Americans are unaware, tragically, that America is dangerously close to becoming a fully-fledged plutocracy and although corporations, religion, and the financial sector exert a fair amount of influence over government, the true oligarchs running two-thirds of government are the Koch brothers.

Now, one thought they would never hear it directly from one of the brothers, but last weekend Charles Koch claimed (http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-politics/wp/2015/08/04/charles-koch-on-the-2016-race-climate-change-and-whether-he-has-too-much-power/) that he did not yet have enough, or completely, control over the government because, “if I had all this power, why aren’t the many things I want changed getting changed?”

In fact, Koch said it was “ludicrous” that he had too much power because there is no such thing in his mind, and to achieve his goal the Kochs are willing to spend nearly a billion dollars to achieve the level of power he demands

http://www.politicususa.com/2015/08/08/charles-koch-admits-power-control-government.html?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+politicususa%2FfJAl+%28Politi cus+USA+%29

boutons_deux

08-20-2015, 09:09 AM

Koch Brothers Are Ramping Up To Eliminate National Parks And Seize Federal Lands

Republicans have duly served the Kochs’ interests by taking every opportunity to destroy every aspect of the government, except the military-welfare complex, by starving it of funding just to bolster their “government does not work” agenda.

A favorite target of Koch-Republicans is the National Park system that Republicans have so drastically underfunded that a Koch and ExxonMobil-funded organization is calling for an end to national parks and privatization of all federally-owned land.

The argument being put forward by the executive director of Koch fossil fuel organization, Reed Watson, is that since the National Park system is hurting for funding, the only option is to first stop (http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2015/07/03/3676816/happy-fourth-no-more-national-parks/)creating national parks and then cheaply sell off those already in existence.

Why?

Because according to the Koch brothers’ organization calling to sell off all public land and national parks, “True conservation is taking care of the land and water you already have; we can protect it properly.”

The group pushing to sell off (privatize (http://www.perc.org/articles/how-and-why-privatize-public-lands)) the national park system to the fossil fuel industry, and indeed, sell off all public land to the highest corporate bidder, is the Koch (http://www.greenpeace.org/usa/en/campaigns/global-warming-and-energy/polluterwatch/koch-industries/property-and-environment-resea/) and ExxonMobil (http://www.exxonsecrets.org/html/orgfactsheet.php?id=62)-funded Property and Environment Research Center (PERC).

PERC, Exxon-Mobil, the Koch brothers, and Republicans across the nation contend that no state, federal, or local government has any right to own any land within America’s borders; it is precisely the same argument trumpeted by seditious anti-American rancher Cliven Bundy.

Although Bundy’s contention is that he, Cliven Bundy, retains “sole stewardship rights over government-owned land,” he clearly fails to comprehend that the Kochs have a different vision of what their stewardship as private corporate owners will entail.

Unless Cliven Bundy owns monumental drilling, mining, or lumber operations, he should make no mistake that when the Kochs own all government land, he will have no stewardship rights, grazing rights or input into how the land is managed whatsoever.The Kochs and ExxonMobil have already committed PERC to publicly call for an end to the Land and Water Conservation Fund (LWCF) because it is one of America’s most successful parks programs.

LWCF is not in financial jeopardy yet because Republicans have failed to end its budget-neutral status (https://www.americanprogress.org/issues/green/news/2014/09/02/96057/infographic-the-land-and-water-conservation-fund-how-americas-best-parks-program-works/).

LWCF is budget-neutral as a result of using funds from offshore oil and gas development fees to fund projects across the country at the federal, state and local levels.

The LWCF program supports some of nation’s “most iconic” national parks such as Grand Canyon and Yellowstone.

It has also created (http://www.nps.gov/ncrc/programs/lwcf/history.html) tens-of-thousands of outdoor projects the general public uses regularly such as local parks and baseball diamonds in all 50 states.

The Kochs want those local parks, like national parks, wilderness areas, and all federal land transferred to corporate ownership because “It just kills the fossil fuel industry and its allies that there’s any scrap of land that they can’t get their hands, or drilling rigs, on.”

http://www.politicususa.com/2015/07/08/koch-brothers-ramping-eliminate-national-parks-seize-federal-lands.html

boutons_deux

08-27-2015, 03:02 PM

Charles Koch Says its Undignified for the President to Tell the Truth About The Kochs

Likely because they are pathological liars, Republicans and their various conservative and religious cohort basically cannot understand why any human being, much less a politician, would ever utter the truth when they can lie; especially when the truth can be so brutally hurtful.

On Monday while in Nevada, President Barack Obama spoke the truth about the dirty filthy energy industry during an energy speech and it obviously hurt poor beleaguered Charles Koch’s feelings and the White House could not care less and was unafraid to tell Koch he is a liar.

“You start seeing massive lobbying efforts backed by fossil fuel interests, or conservative think tanks, or the Koch brothers pushing for new laws to roll back renewable energy standards or prevent new clean energy businesses from succeeding — that’s a problem.”

It is difficult to discern if Charles Koch’s feelings were hurt because he personally identifies with fossil fuel interests, conservative think tanks, or “the Koch brothers” even though all three are the Kochs, but he lashed out at the President for daring to tell the truth about the Kochs et al (fossil fuel industry, conservative think tanks).

Koch said (http://www.politico.com/story/2015/08/charles-koch-blasts-obama-121746.html) that it was a low blow for the President to speak the truth and also that he was absolutely “flabbergasted” that a politician had the temerity to speak honestly about the Kochs. He said, “It’s beneath the president, the dignity of the president, to be doing that.”

By doing that Koch means President Obama told an audience what they are very well aware of; not only are the Kochs waging war on clean and renewable energy, they are the “problem” and fund the “massive lobbying efforts to eliminate renewable energy standards and obstruct new clean energy businesses from even starting, much less succeeding.

http://www.politicususa.com/2015/08/27/charles-koch-its-beneath-dignity-president-dirty-truth-kochs.html?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+politicususa%2FfJAl+%28Politi cus+USA+%29

Damn, Obama singling out the Kock Bros for the dirty bitches they are. Shoulda been doing that since Jan 2009.

boutons_deux

09-05-2015, 05:10 PM

one key reason why the Roberts VRWC court was assembled: screw employees, protect/enrich employers

A Labor Day Worry: The Court’s Right-Wingers Are Sharpening Their Knives

If the U.S. Supreme Court’s dominant Republican majority has its way when the panel’s new term commences in October, we might as well dispense with the holiday altogether, or at least drop the term “labor” from its title. Among the most important cases the court will consider when it reconvenes is Friedrichs v. California Teachers (http://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/friedrichs-v-california-teachers-association/), which poses what some observers have called an “existential threat” to public unions (http://www.latimes.com/nation/la-na-supreme-court-teachers-unions-california-20150630-story.html) and by extension to the entire labor movement.

At issue in Friedrichs is the right of public sector unions to collect limited “fair-share” fees in lieu of full formal dues from nonunion workers to defray the costs of collective bargaining that benefits all employees.

A decision against the teachers association would have the potential to bankrupt government employee unions and turn the nation’s
entire public sector into one enormous “right-to-work” (http://www.aflcio.org/Legislation-and-Politics/State-Legislative-Battles/Ongoing-State-Legislative-Attacks/Right-to-Work) jurisdiction.

Even before agreeing to hear Friedrichs, the Supreme Court under the leadership of Chief Justice John Roberts had amassed a staggering résumé of anti-worker decisions.

As astudy published in January (http://www.thenation.com/article/how-roberts-supreme-court-has-strengthened-powerful-and-screwed-everyone-else/) by The Nation explains, the Roberts court has issued rulings that have restricted gender-based discrimination (http://www.oyez.org/cases/2000-2009/2006/2006_05_1074) and class-action lawsuits (http://www2.bloomberglaw.com/public/desktop/document/WalMart_Stores_Inc_v_Dukes_131_S_Ct_2541_180_L_Ed_ 2d_374_2011_Cou)against corporations; curbed age discrimination claims (http://articles.latimes.com/2009/jun/19/nation/na-court-age-bias19); limited the availability of overtime pay; redefined the term “supervisor” to allow employers to avoid liability for harassment (http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/12pdf/11-556_11o2.pdf); and made it more difficult for employees to prosecute workplace retaliation grievances (http://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/university-of-texas-southwestern-medical-center-v-nassar/).

Over the past few years, the court’s conservative majority has expressed a special animus against public employee unions, displayed not just in its interpretation of state and federal labor statutes but in a novel and twisted interpretation of the First Amendment. It’s complicated, but in a nutshell, the conservative legal theory works like this:

Under current law, no one can be forced to join a union, even one that has been elected by a majority of workers to negotiate on their behalf. In non-right-to-work states, however, unions nonetheless can collect mandatory fair-share fees (http://www.nrtw.org/a/a_1_p.htm) from workers who want to keep their jobs without becoming union members.

Typically, dissenting nonunion workers are billed for full regular union dues, but they have the right to “opt out” of making full payments, remitting instead only the fair-share fees that are needed to help the union meet expenses for collective bargaining.

Fair-share fees (also called “agency” fees in reference to the union’s status as the sole agent authorized to act on bargaining) cannot be used to pay for other union expenses, such as contributions to political campaigns and most lobbying.

In a landmark 1977 decision dealing with government unions, one handed down during a more labor-friendly era in the court’s history—Abood v. Detroit Board of Education (https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/431/209/case.html)—the justices upheld the constitutionality of fair-share fee systems.

But the Roberts court, operating in a new era of hostile anti-worker judicial activism, has steadily chipped away at the Abood rule.

Starting in 2012 with its opinion in Knox v. SEIU (http://www2.bloomberglaw.com/public/desktop/document/Knox_v_Service_Employees_No_101121_2012_BL_154555_ US_June_21_2012) and continuing with its 2014 decision in Harris v. Quinn (http://www.bloomberglaw.com/document/public/subdoc/26835773219143703?imagename=opn161212.pdf), the court’s five Republican appointees have emphasized that the payment of union dues by public employees is a form of political speech subject to the constraints of the First Amendment because public unions negotiate contracts with governmental entities and such contracts by definition affect public policies and the spending of taxpayer money.

...

http://www.truthdig.com/report/item/a_labor_day_worry_the_courts_right-wingers_are_sharpening_20150905?utm_source=feedbur ner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%253A+Truthdig+Truthdig%253A+Dril ling+Beneath+the+Headlines

boutons_deux

09-29-2015, 02:39 PM

Cell phone lobby win means 'more people will die'

The FCC says more than 10,000 people die every year when calling 911 from a cellphone because dispatchers can’t get quick and accurate information on them. SHARE THIS FINDING:

Industry influenced an FCC plan to improve 911-location technology. The rules that eventually passed were based on a plan written by wireless carriers and were called ‘watered-down’ by insiders. SHARE THIS FINDING:

The telecommunications industry influenced the new rules through heavy lobbying and cozy relationships with trade groups representing emergency dispatchers. SHARE THIS FINDING:

Better location technologies exist that telecoms say would be too expensive to implement. One estimate puts the cost at $25 million per carrier. That’s 0.4 percent of AT&T's 2014 net income. SHARE THIS FINDING:

The new rules needed support from two key trade groups representing dispatchers. Both received financial support from the wireless industry.

The failure is that the technologies used by wireless carriers — like industry giants AT&T Inc. and Verizon Communications Inc. — fail repeatedly to locate indoor callers.

The real tragedy, say emergency workers and cellular engineers, is that this doesn’t have to be: Technical solutions exist that can locate people calling on cellphones within seconds. But tough rules proposed by the FCC in February 2014 aimed at requiring more accurate indoor locations of callers to 911 were weakened through a nearly year-long lobbying campaign by wireless carriers.

Wireless carriers said the new rules relied too heavily on expensive proprietary technology that was untested and that accuracy claims were overhyped. They argued that commercially available technology already widely deployed, such as Wi-Fi and Bluetooth devices found in almost every business and most homes, promised to provide better location accuracy because it would give a specific street address with an apartment, floor and room number.

But more than a dozen associations representing firefighters, police, emergency medical technicians, the elderly, the deaf and technology companies said the commercial technology wasn’t developed for the demands of a 911 system and would fail during major disasters when electricity was lost. The industry’s proposal, many of the groups said, allowed the carriers to shift the cost and responsibility of locating 911 callers from the carriers to the public, making it impossible for the FCC to enforce.

But more important, many of the groups said the carriers ignored them when developing their alternate rules, relying instead on associations the carriers had lavished with hundreds of thousands of dollars of support.

“[This] … is a perfect example of how big money and big corporations can make it appear there’s been a democratic and open process, but in fact they’ve corrupted the science and bought off the very organizations that are supposed to be a watchdog in protecting the public,” said a former senior FCC official who asked to not be identified in order to speak more candidly. “And in this case, the result means more people will die.”

http://www.publicintegrity.org/2015/09/29/17935/cell-phone-lobby-win-means-more-people-will-die?utm_source=email&utm_campaign=watchdog&utm_medium=publici-email&goal=0_ffd1d0160d-a763d3717d-100106293&mc_cid=a763d3717d&mc_eid=3b8f64cce8

BigCorp, 1%, VRWC, Repugs crapify everything they can, for profit.

boutons_deux

10-04-2015, 01:23 PM

KocK Vrothers Backing Misleading Anti-Solar Campaign in Florida

The Koch brothers and utility giants are bankrolling a ballot initiative in Florida to block the development of home solar and to protect the utilities' continuing oligopoly on energy generation in the Sunshine State.

State law even prevents homeowners from installing solar panels by restricting the leasing of equipment by consumers.

challenging the pro-solar amendment is a group calling itself "Consumers for Smart Solar" (CSS). Despite the innocuous sounding name, the group was created with cash from the utilities and groups tied to the billionaire Koch brothers - Charles and David Koch, whose vast wealth has grown from their refinery and pipeline business.

CSS is pushing Floridians to support a rival amendment that would actually prevent homeowners or businesses from contracting with solar companies that can install solar for no upfront cost.

The Utilities Have an Oligopoly in Florida, and They're Fighting to Keep It

Eyeing home solar energy as a growing threat to their control of the market, Florida utilities have spent $12 million since 2010 on state political campaigns, according to reporting by the Florida Center for Investigative Reporting. (http://fcir.org/2015/04/03/in-sunshine-state-big-energy-blocks-solar-power/)

In just two months, Consumers for Smart Solar has received more than $473,750 from outside groups, including some that have ties to the Koch brothers, plus$325,000 from Florida utilities, according to an analysis of campaign finance data reviewed by the Center for Media and Democracy and the Energy and Policy Institute.

Here are some examples of the big money at play:

Electric Utility Companies Funding to Consumers for Smart Solar:

Duke Energy – $60,000
Florida Power and Light Company – $80,000
Gulf Power Company – $80,000
Tampa Electric Company – $75,000
Powersouth Energy Cooperative – $30,000

Outside Group Funding to "Consumers for Smart Solar":

National Black Chamber of Commerce (NBCC) – $50,000
60 Plus Association – $100,000
Energy & Social Justice Project – $15,000
Energy Equity Alliance – $1,000
The Partnership for Affordable Clean Energy – $51,000
Florida State Hispanic Chamber of Commerce – $50,000
Florida Faith and Freedom Coalition Inc – $125,000
Florida Council for Safe Communities – $20,000
Floridians for Government Accountability – $61,750

Among the list of contributors to "Consumers for Smart Solar" is NBCC, which gave $50,000. The group has a long history of receiving funding from fossil fuel interests and advocating on their behalf.

Since the early 1990s, the organization has received (http://www.climateinvestigations.org/national-black-chamber-of-commerce-fossil-funders-revealed) $950,000 in grants from ExxonMobil.

http://www.truth-out.org/news/item/33084-koch-brothers-backing-misleading-anti-solar-campaign-in-florida

boutons_deux

10-10-2015, 02:58 PM

Just 158 families have provided nearly half of the early money for efforts to capture the White House.

http://graphics8.nytimes.com/newsgraphics/2015/10/06/donors/5cf20dae74901e8003fea9c29796b55c28a885d9/party-600.png

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2015/10/11/us/politics/100000003961847.mobile.html

For the Billionaire Boy Toys extremist of the "freedom caucus" Repugs, these are "the people back home" :lol

boutons_deux

10-12-2015, 09:58 AM

Koch Republicans Advance Plan To Eliminate America’s National Parks

There is a Koch brother mindset (http://www.politicususa.com/2015/10/02/utah-republican-introduces-koch-legislation-eliminating-national-parks.html) that Republicans willingly embrace that the United States government has no legal right to own land, and that the National Parks system and wilderness areas are abominations to the fossil fuel, mining, and logging industries’ profits.

Without success in forcing the federal government to cede its ownership and protection of the American people’s National Parks, wilderness areas, and cultural heritage sites to the Koch brothers, Republicans did the next best thing and defunded the Land and Water Conservation Fund (LWCF).

Now that the Kochs own Congress and were able to install a willing anti-government Republican as Chairman of the House Natural Resources committee, they were thrilled to learn they succeeded (https://www.hcn.org/articles/congress-lets-sun-set-on-land-and-water-conservation-fund) in killing the LWCF in yet another step toward turning over government to corporate control.

It is irrefutable that the LWCF is one of the most successful conservation programs in America’s history with no cost to taxpayers, and it is why it was crucial for the Koch brothers to score a win for themselves and jeopardize America’s national parks.

The Koch’s victory was in spite of alleged broad bipartisan support (http://lwcfcoalition.org/) to keep the LWCF in operation, but since they own the entire Congress, the Kochs’ anti-government acolytes refused to reauthorize the program effectively killing it.

What that means for the offshore oil and gas production fees funding LWCF is that Koch Republicans will shift LWCF funding into their favorite special interests such as partisan political campaigns against Hillary Clinton, subsidies for the fossil fuel industry, tax cuts for the rich and corporations, and of course the military industrial complex and Israel.As head of the Natural Resources Committee, the Mormon Bishop marshaled support (http://hcn.org/articles/political-sparring-over-the-land-and-water-conservation-fund) from other Koch sycophants on the far right who believe that the federal government is criminal in thinking it can own or preserve federal land for the American people.

Bishop, like his Mormon cohort Cliven Bundy, is very anti-federal government and contends that like federally-owned land and national parks, any money collected from oil and gas producers belongs to his state to do with as it pleases.

This in spite of Congress eliminating a bizarre requirement in 1970 that funding from offshore drilling goes to state projects that Republicans typically hand directly to the wealthy and corporations in the form of greater tax cuts.

Since its creation in 1964, the LWCF has accomplished (http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/science/2015/09/land_and_water_conservation_fund_is_out_of_budget_ and_will_expire.html), without using even one penny of taxpayer money, “pumping almost $17 billion into federal, state, and local parks, protected more than 500 million acres of land, paid for almost two-thirds of the Appalachian Trail.”

LWCF also funded over 90 percent of the Flight 93 National Memorial in Pennsylvania without using one penny of taxpayer money.

LWCF is wholly-funded by revenues from gas and oil companies’ fees for drilling offshore in water owned by the American people; another atrocity according to Republicans and the Koch brothers.

The Mormon doing the Koch brothers’ bidding, Utah Representative Rob Bishop, said that any legislator, including any Republican, who fought to preserve the LWCF for the American people are “special interest traitors seeking to hijack LWCF to continue to expand the federal land holdings and divert even more monies away from localities.”

Bishop is a typical lying Mormon; LWCF money could not possibly be “diverted” from localities because it was never theirs to begin with.

Further, when Bishop cites “localities” he means areas that the Kochs want under the purview of the fossil fuel, mining, and logging industries.

Bishop’s crusade is, without any possible doubt, furthering the Koch brother agenda (http://www.dailykos.com/story/2015/07/06/1399603/-Koch-backed-group-calls-for-end-of-national-parks) to put an end to the government owning land, creating or maintaining the National Park system, and particularly to eliminate public use of government land they think just might have what Bishop contends are “extractable resources under it.”

http://www.politicususa.com/2015/10/12/koch-republicans-eliminate-national-parks.html?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+politicususa%2FfJAl+%28Politi cus+USA+%29

VRWC and their Repug whores FUCKING UP AMERICA for BigCarbon profits.

boutons_deux

10-12-2015, 02:10 PM

Billionaire Charles Koch: Our goal is 'to fight against special interests' (http://www.dailykos.com/story/2015/10/12/1431004/-Billionaire-Charles-Koch-Our-goal-is-to-fight-against-special-interests)

"Listen, if I didn't think it was healthy or fair, I wouldn't do it.

Because what we're after, is to fight against special interests."

"Some people would look at you and say you're a special interest."

"Yeah, but my interest is, just as it's been in business, is what will help people improve their lives, and to get rid of these special interests.

That's the whole thing that drives me."

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2015/10/12/1431004/-Billionaire-Charles-Koch-Our-goal-is-to-fight-against-special-interests?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+dailykos%2Findex+%28Daily+Kos %29

:lol

And Kock suckers go wild! :lol

boutons_deux

10-13-2015, 01:13 PM

Koch Political Network Expanding 'Grassroots' Organizing

The political network led by billionaires David and Charles Koch is building what's meant to be a seamless system of grassroots groups, designed to advance the network's conservative and libertarian goals year in and year out, while also helping like-minded politicians.

This strategy could have come straight out of a labor union's handbook, or an Obama campaign memo: community organizing.

"This isn't just about an election cycle," Pete Hegseth, CEO of Concerned Veterans for America, told a group of activists at an August conference. "What makes this network different ... is that we've been in these communities now for three, four years and we're going to be in them in 2017, 2018, 2019."

Concerned Veterans is one of the Koch grassroots groups, and Hegseth was speaking at a session titled "Community Organizing — Life Past November."

It's a stark contrast to media campaigns that have absorbed millions of dollars from the Koch network. In 2012, the network spent nearly $400 million overall, including extensive TV attack ads. Other big-budget outside groups, including Crossroads GPS and American Action Network, have also favored TV. They are aiming to spend more than double that (http://www.nytimes.com/2015/01/27/us/politics/kochs-plan-to-spend-900-million-on-2016-campaign.html?_r=0)for the 2016 election.

Joining Hegseth at the community organizing session were representatives of the broad-based Americans for Prosperity; Generation Opportunity (https://generationopportunity.org/), targeting millennials; and the Libre Initiative (http://thelibreinitiative.com/), which is working to build ties in Latino communities.

Libre Executive Director Daniel Garza said his organization is putting down roots in neighborhoods where progressive groups have been active for years. "They're embedded," he said. "I mean, they run the institutions in the community. They've gained the trust of the Latino community."

The session was part of the 2015 Defending the American Dream Summit, sponsored by the Americans for Prosperity Foundation (http://americansforprosperityfoundation.org/) in Columbus, Ohio. NPR obtained audio of the session from a liberal activist who bought a ticket to the conference. The activist said the recorder was in plain view as the participants spoke.

"The strategy has not changed since Day One," Garza told NPR in a phone interview of his group, which was founded in 2011 and which Garza says now has 15,000 supporters in nine states. "Control the message in media, both in Spanish and English language. Second, was working with the communities, at the community level. And third, was to mobilize an army of advocates and activists and volunteers who could drive our message at the community level."

http://www.npr.org/sections/itsallpolitics/2015/10/12/447999852/koch-political-network-expanding-grassroots-organizing?sc=17&f=1001&utm_source=iosnewsapp&utm_medium=Email&utm_campaign=app

aka, Kock Bros Fuck America, Fuck Americans, Fuck Environment Organization

boutons_deux

10-21-2015, 01:04 PM

The People vs. the Koch-Funded Asbestos Industry

No Americans are at greater risk of asbestos (http://ecowatch.com/?s=asbestos) disease than veterans, first responders and teachers.
Veterans account for just eight percent of the population but roughly a third of Americans who suffer from mesothelioma—an extremely painful and always-fatal form of cancer (http://ecowatch.com/?s=cancer) caused only by asbestos.

Many Navy veterans were intensely exposed for decades to asbestos in shipyards, where asbestos coatings were used to fireproof ships, buildings and other military equipment

Teachers face a special threat because most schools built before 1980 almost certainly contain asbestos-based construction materials. In recent months, news organizations have reported potential asbestos exposures at more than 50 schools in at least 13 states. Locations where children may have been recently exposed to the lethal material include public schools inPhiladelphia (http://www.phillytrib.com/news/state_and_region/controller-report-finds-unsafe-conditions-in-public-schools/article_1cff2242-1bfb-5e1c-a3ab-3ac863f202b0.html), Kirksville, Missouri (http://www.heartlandconnection.com/news/story.aspx?id=1195350#.Va-uE5NVhHx), Huntsville, Alabama (http://www.wtvm.com/story/29138842/huntsville-city-schools-working-to-removed-asbestos-containing-materials-from-school), Hayward, California (http://thepioneeronline.com/27197/metro/asbestos-present-in-hayward-schools/) and Cedar Rapids, Iowa. (http://muscatinejournal.com/news/state-and-regional/iowa/asbestos-concerns-lead-to-closure-of-iowa-school-building/article_b7a9ee10-bfe0-5c10-b17f-efa86f2cd530.html)

That’s why national organizations that represent these groups strongly oppose the so-called FACT Act (http://www.asbestosnation.org/badfellas/), sponsored by Rep. Blake Farenthold (R-TX) and Sen. Jeff Flake (R-AZ).

This bill would deplete the resources of already-dwindling trust funds set aside to compensate asbestos victims. Trust officials estimate that complying with the bill would require each trust to expend up to 20,000 additional hours a year—slowing claims processing and payment distribution and exhausting scarce funds meant to compensate victims.

The bill would also require public disclosure of victims’ personal information, including medical information and partial Social Security numbers. It would put sick people at heightened risk of identity theft. (http://www.asbestosnation.org/analysis-identity-theft-for-asbestos-victims-looms-under-congressional-proposal/)

The legislation is backed by the anti-worker, anti-environment and the anti-health American Legislative Exchange Council, better known as ALEC (http://ecowatch.com/?s=ALEC), and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and by a number of corporations—including Koch Industries and Honeywell—that still use asbestos or have significant asbestos liability from past use and their insurance companies. These companies and their political action committees have spent millions of dollars lobbying and contributing (http://ecowatch.com/2015/07/16/koch-brothers-exposed-asbestos/) to political campaigns to build support for the FACT Act.

Opponents include:

American Veterans (http://cqrcengage.com/ausn/file/PzxbIvqNkpv/FACT%20Act%20Letter%20-%20House%20and%20Senate%20-%206-25-2015.pdf) or AMVETS, 250,000 members

Association of the U.S. Navy (http://cqrcengage.com/ausn/file/PzxbIvqNkpv/FACT%20Act%20Letter%20-%20House%20and%20Senate%20-%206-25-2015.pdf), 22,000 members

Military Order of the Purple Heart (http://1yllvogavjh3f7wbx11bxebx.wpengine.netdna-cdn.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/10/MOPH-FACT-Act-Letter.pdf), serves 90,000 veterans and family members

International Association of Fire Fighters (http://1yllvogavjh3f7wbx11bxebx.wpengine.netdna-cdn.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/10/First-Responders-Teachers-Letter-re-FACT-Act-1.pdf), 300,000 members

National Education Association, 3 million members

American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees, 1.6 million members

AFL-CIO (http://1yllvogavjh3f7wbx11bxebx.wpengine.netdna-cdn.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/10/AFL-CIO-FACT-Act-letter.pdf), 5 million members

Ironically, Farenthold recently wrote an op-ed in The Hill (http://thehill.com/blogs/congress-blog/judicial/255623-asbestos-reforms-needed-to-protect-first-responders-and-veterans), “Asbestos Reforms Needed to Protect Veterans, First Responders,” where he argues his legislation is meant to help those vets and first responders who suffer from asbestos-related disease.

Here’s a little taste of what veterans, first responders and other communities who often come face-to-face with deadly asbestos dust think about Rep. Farenthold’s bill he claims he wrote to “protect” them and their families:

“Forcing our veterans to publicize their work histories, medical conditions, social security numbers and information about their children and families is an offensive invasion of privacy to the men and women who have honorably served,” AMVETS and Association of the U.S. Navy wrote Congress recently (http://cqrcengage.com/ausn/file/PzxbIvqNkpv/FACT%20Act%20Letter%20-%20House%20and%20Senate%20-%206-25-2015.pdf).

“Our nation’s first responders and teachers dying of asbestos diseases deserve more respect and better treatment from Congress,” the International Association of Fire Fighters, the National Education Association and the municipal employees union wrote members of Congress (http://1yllvogavjh3f7wbx11bxebx.wpengine.netdna-cdn.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/10/First-Responders-Teachers-Letter-re-FACT-Act-1.pdf).

http://ecowatch.com/2015/10/20/koch-alec-asbestos-industry/

boutons_deux

10-31-2015, 10:09 AM

BigCorp/1%/VRWC taking over, corrupting state judiciaries

Money Flooding State Court Elections Threatens the Promise of Equal Justice

Special interest money is flooding into our state Supreme Court elections, gravely threatening the impartial justice that our Constitution promises -- and raising troubling questions about whether courtroom decisions are for sale.

This fast-growing trend in American politics, spurred in part by the U.S. Supreme Court's Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission ruling in 2010, puts our system of justice at risk. When judges are pressured to answer to deep-pocketed special interests, disillusioned citizens may perceive them as little more than politicians in robes.
And when special interest groups air grisly TV ads accusing judges of being soft on crime or attacking them for decisions in controversial cases, those judges may find themselves especially vulnerable to election pressure.

Consider the startling transformation of state Supreme Court elections in recent years. Traditionally sleepy and low-cost affairs, these high court elections have become politicized, expensive, and dominated by powerful special interests.

In 2011-12, the first full election cycle after Citizens United, interest group spending in judicial races rose dramatically. Interest groups alone pumped a record $15.4 million into TV ads and other electioneering in these high court races, more than 50 percent higher than the previous record.

Another record fell in 2013-2014, when interest groups seeking to shape courts to their liking accounted for more than 29 percent of total spending. That surpassed the previous record level of 27 percent in the previous cycle, according to Bankrolling the Bench: The New Politics of Judicial Elections 2013-14 (http://newpoliticsreport.org/), a recently released study from the Brennan Center, Justice at Stake, and the National Institute on Money in State Politics.

When spending by political parties is included, outside spending as a portion of total spending rose to 40 percent, a record for a non-presidential election cycle. Our research found that more than $34.5 million was spent on state Supreme Court elections in 19 states, with such national groups as the Republican State Leadership Committee, Americans for Prosperity, the Law Enforcement Alliance of America, and American Freedom Builders among the special interest spenders.

State Supreme Courts are attracting this deluge of money in part because they have become a major battleground in the hard-fought tort wars that pit business interests against plaintiffs and their lawyers. But these groups' agendas aren't always apparent when voters see brass-knuckle TV ads -- especially when the ads attack judicial candidates for issues unrelated to tort law. In 2013-2014, a record 56 percent of TV ad spots discussed the criminal justice records of judges and candidates. Many of these ads were sponsored by business interests and plaintiffs' lawyers with little apparent interest in criminal justice reform.

Has the politicization of state Supreme Court elections actually skewed justice? A growing body of research suggests that intense politicking in judicial elections around criminal justice issues may in fact be influencing decision-making on the bench.

http://www.commondreams.org/views/2015/10/31/money-flooding-state-court-elections-threatens-promise-equal-justice

boutons_deux

10-31-2015, 07:33 PM

Conservative education policies brought by Koch-backed board polarizes Colorado county (http://www.dailykos.com/story/2015/10/31/1442719/-Conservative-education-policies-brought-by-Koch-backed-board-polarizes-Colorado-county)

An all-out war has broken out in Jefferson County, Colorado,—or JeffCo, as it's called—as residents ready to

vote on whether to eject three conservative school board members who have

"championed charter schools,

performance-based teacher pay and

other education measures supported by conservatives."

Supporters of the recall vote have drummed up $250,000 ($15,000 of it from a teachers' union) while the drive to save their jobs, led in part by the Koch-backed group Americans for Prosperity, has already spent around $500,000 on TV ads and plans to spend hundreds of thousands more on print ads and mailers favoring the conservative trio. Jack Healy reports (http://www.nytimes.com/2015/10/29/us/school-board-recall-vote-in-colorado-tests-conservative-policies.html?src=me) on the Nov. 3 school board election that has grown increasingly nasty.

Voters here are almost evenly divided among Democrats, Republicans and independents. In November 2013, voters broke with union-supported candidates to elect a slate of school board hopefuls running as conservative reformers.

But as those members passed new measures giving money to charters and hired a new superintendent, a backlash grew.

Critics accused the board of secrecy and of trying to turn the 86,500-student district into a petri dish for conservative educational ideas.

Board meetings turned into shouting matches. Upset parents spliced the live-streamed meeting video — an innovation of the new board — into outrage highlight reels. ...

In September of last year, thousands of students walked out of school when [Julie] Williams [one of three conservatives] proposed shifting the focus of the Advanced Placement United States history course toward patriotism and away from “civil disorder” and “social strife.”

It was a moment when festering disputes among parents, students, teachers and the board leapt into the national news. Even though the curriculum was never changed, many voters around the district say they are still upset.

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2015/10/31/1442719/-Conservative-education-policies-brought-by-Koch-backed-board-polarizes-Colorado-county?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+dailykos%2Findex+%28Daily+Kos %29

VRWC won't stop until education is fucked, judiciary is fucked, voting rights are fucked, until ALL America and Americans are fucked into indoctrination, poverty, insecurity.

boutons_deux

11-03-2015, 12:57 PM

They're conservatives/VRWC, so they're LYING:

Koch Brothers Say They Are 'Largely Failures' at Influencing US Politics

http://www.alternet.org/news-amp-politics/koch-brothers-say-they-are-largely-failures-influencing-us-politics

They've put their whores into many levels of local, state branches, including the judiciary and SCOTUS. Their whores in the House and Senate are fucking up everything.

But that's not enough for the whiney asshole Kock Bros, they want the White House and the full Exec.

boutons_deux

11-03-2015, 01:39 PM

Dems trying to undo the nasty work of the VRWC's whores on SCOTUS

Congressional Democrats Launch a New Strategy to Restore the Voting Rights Act

The 2016 election is a year away, and many states are holding local elections today, but not everyone will be able to vote.
The 2016 election will be the first presidential election in 50 years without thefull protections of the Voting Rights Act (http://www.npr.org/2015/08/10/431238980/block-the-vote-a-journalist-discusses-voting-rights-and-restrictions). Twenty-one states have put new voting restrictions in place since the 2010 election, with voters in 15 states facing these obstacles for the first presidential cycle in 2016, including in crucial swing states like North Carolina and Wisconsin.
Legislation has been introduced in Congress to restore the Voting Rights Act (VRA) following the Supreme Court’s 2013 decision gutting the law (http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2015/08/john-roberts-voting-rights-act-121222), but neither the modest Voting Rights Amendment Act (http://www.thenation.com/article/members-congress-introduce-new-fix-voting-rights-act-test/) of 2014 or the more ambitiousVoting Rights Advancement Act (http://www.thenation.com/article/congressional-democrats-introduce-ambitious-new-bill-to-restore-the-voting-rights-act/) of 2015, which both have bipartisan support, have moved legislatively.

http://www.thenation.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/11/unnamed1.png

http://www.thenation.com/article/congressional-democrats-launch-a-new-strategy-to-restore-the-voting-rights-act/
Slave states, red states dominate voter suppression, naturally.

Voter Fraud! :lol just another huge REPUG LIE.

boutons_deux

11-04-2015, 06:12 AM

Robert Reich: Everywhere You Look Huge Cartels Are Jacking Up Prices, Gouging You However They Can

The only way to stop them is to prevent big corporations and Wall Street banks from rigging the market

Much of the national debate about widening inequality focuses on whether and how much to tax the rich and redistribute their income downward.

But this debate ignores the upward redistributions going on every day, from the rest of us to the rich. These redistributions are hidden inside the market.

The only way to stop them is to prevent big corporations and Wall Street banks from rigging the market.

For example, Americans pay more (http://theweek.com/articles/583337/brief-guide-big-pharma) for pharmaceuticals than do the citizens of any other developed nation.

That’s partly because it’s perfectly legal in the U.S. (but not in most other nations) for the makers of branded drugs to pay the makers of generic drugs to delay introducing cheaper unbranded equivalents, after patents on the brands have expired.

This costs you and me an estimated $3.5 billion (https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/media-resources/mergers-and-competition/pay-delay)a year – a hidden upward redistribution of our incomes to Pfizer, Merck, and other big proprietary drug companies, their executives, and major shareholders.

We also pay more for Internet service than do the inhabitants of any other developed nation.

The average cable bill in the United States rose 5 percent in 2012 (the latest year available), nearly triple the rate of inflation.

Why? Because 80 percent (http://finance.yahoo.com/news/robert-reich--why-your-cable-bill-is-so-high-130034408.html) of us have no choice of Internet service provider, which allows them to charge us more.

Internet service here costs 3 and-a-half times more than it does in France (http://www.publicintegrity.org/2015/04/01/16998/us-internet-users-pay-more-and-have-fewer-choices-europeans), for example, where the typical customer can choose between 7 providers.

And U.S. cable companies are intent on keeping their monopoly.

It’s another hidden upward distribution – from us to Comcast, Verizon, or another giant cable company, its executives and major shareholders.

Likewise, the interest we pay on home mortgages or college loans is higher than it would be if the big banks that now dominate the financial industry had to work harder to get our business.

As recently as 2000, America’s five largest banks held 25 percent of all U.S. banking assets. Now they hold 44 percent (http://blogs.wsj.com/moneybeat/2014/01/03/snl-top-5-banks-own-44-of-industry/) – which gives them a lock on many such loans.

If we can’t repay, forget using bankruptcy. Donald Trump can go bankrupt four times and walk away from his debts, but the bankruptcy code doesn’t allow homeowners or graduates to reorganize unmanageable debts.

So beleaguered homeowners and graduates don’t have any bargaining leverage with creditors – exactly what the financial industry wants.

The net result: another hidden upward redistribution – this one, from us to the big banks, their executives, and major shareholders.

Some of these upward redistributions seem to defy gravity. Why have average domestic airfares risen 2.5% over the past, and are now at their the highest level since the government began tracking them in 1995 – while fuel prices, the largest single cost for the airlines, have plummeted?

Because America went from nine major carriers ten years ago to just four now. Many airports are now served by one or two.

This makes it easy for airlines to coordinate their fares and keep them high – resulting in another upward redistribution.

Why have food prices been rising faster (http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2015-07-16/why-falling-food-prices-around-the-world-aren-t-helping-u-s-consumers) than inflation, while crop prices are now at a six-year low?

Because the giant corporations that process food have the power to raise prices. Four food companies control 82 percent (http://www.foodandwaterwatch.org/reports/the-economic-cost-of-food-monopolies/) of beef packing, 85 percen (http://www.foodandwaterwatch.org/reports/the-economic-cost-of-food-monopolies/)t of soybean processing, 63 percent (http://www.foodandwaterwatch.org/reports/the-economic-cost-of-food-monopolies/) of pork packing, and 53 percent (http://www.foodandwaterwatch.org/reports/the-economic-cost-of-food-monopolies/) of chicken processing.

Result: A redistribution from average consumers to Big Agriculture.

Finally, why do you suppose health insurance is costing us more, and co-payments and deductibles are rising?

One reason is big insurers are consolidating into giants with the power to raise prices. They say these combinations make their companies more efficient, but they really just give them power to charge more.

Health insurers are hiking rates 20 to 40 percent (http://www.nytimes.com/2015/07/04/us/health-insurance-companies-seek-big-rate-increases-for-2016.html?_r=0)next year, and their stock values are skyrocketing (the Standard & Poor’s 500 Managed Health Care Index recently hit its highest level (http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2015-01-21/obamacare-pays-off-for-insurers-who-fought-it-as-stocks-hit-high)in more than twenty years.)

Add it up – the extra money we’re paying for pharmaceuticals, Internet communications, home mortgages, student loans, airline tickets, food, and health insurance – and you get a hefty portion of the average family’s budget.

Democrats and Republicans spend endless time battling over how much to tax the rich and then redistribute the money downward.

But if we didn’t have so much upward redistribution inside the market, we wouldn’t need as much downward redistribution through taxes and transfer payments.

Yet as long as the big corporations, Wall Street banks, their top executives and wealthy shareholders have the political power to do so, they’ll keep redistributing much of the nation’s income upward to themselves.

Which is why the rest of us must gain political power to stop the collusion, :lol bust up the monopolies, :lol and put an end to the rigging of the American market. :lol
http://www.alternet.org/economy/robert-reich-everywhere-you-look-huge-cartels-are-jacking-prices-gouging-you-however-they

Repugs are paid to block ANY attempt to correct the above wealth-sucking, re-distribution-upwards disasters for Americans.

Americans are so fucked in so many ways, and unfuckable.

boutons_deux

11-04-2015, 09:45 AM

Koch Brothers Hit the Airwaves in Support of Wisconsin Corruption Measures

The Koch-backed measures (http://www.prwatch.org/news/2015/10/12951/kochs-wisconsin-money-government) to eviscerate Wisconsin's limits on money in elections and neuter the state's election watchdog hit a stumbling block (http://www.wkow.com/story/30367433/2015/10/27/wkow) in the state senate recently, with a handful of Republican senators expressing concern that the measures go too far.

So the Kochs are going on the offensive.

David Koch's Americans for Prosperity is up with ads (http://v6mx3476r2b25580w4eit4uv.wpengine.netdna-cdn.com/wisconsin/files/2015/10/GAB-infograph-2.jpg) targeting constituents of GOP Senators Rob Cowles of Green Bay, Luther Olsen of Ripon, Sheila Harsdorf of River Falls, and Jerry Petrowski of Marathon, who have expressed reservations about the measures. The ads portray (http://v6mx3476r2b25580w4eit4uv.wpengine.netdna-cdn.com/wisconsin/files/2015/10/GAB-infograph-2.jpg) the nonpartisan Government Accountability Board (GAB) as a cold war-era agency "silencing free speech" and "raiding conservative's (sic) homes." AFP Wisconsin's director Eric Bott also said (http://host.madison.com/ct/news/local/govt-and-politics/conservative-groups-push-republican-senators-to-support-wisconsin-elections-board/article_49e07197-c985-5a43-b233-1a406824abe4.html) the group would be mobilizing its activists recently. AFP is the only group registered to lobby in favor of dismantling the GAB.

Wisconsin Club for Growth also launched a robocall campaign (http://www.wispolitics.com/index.iml?Article=358628) on Tuesday, with a recording of the Club's director Eric O'Keefe urging the wavering senators' constituents to demand the senators vote "yes" on the bill.

Wisconsin Club for Growth and Scott Walker were part of a $20 million scheme (http://www.prwatch.org/news/2015/07/12884/scott-walker-john-doe-assault-campaign-finance-law) during the recall elections to evade the state's campaign finance laws and disclosure requirements, prosecutors believed.

The GAB assisted in that investigation, sparking a legal and media counter-assault (http://www.prwatch.org/news/2015/07/12884/scott-walker-john-doe-assault-campaign-finance-law) from the Club, with O'Keefe as its most visible proponent.

The Wisconsin Supreme Court, whose majority was elected to the bench with at least $10 million in spending (http://www.newsweek.com/can-you-buy-justice-wisconsin-it-appears-you-can-357809) from the Club and other groups under investigation, shut down an investigation into the scheme earlier this year.

The Club has previously coordinated with Walker to support his legislative agenda. In 2011, for example, the Club ran ads supporting Walker's controversial union-busting Act 10 just days after it was introduced, and targeting moderate Republicans who were wavering in their support.

http://www.truth-out.org/news/item/33477-koch-brothers-hit-the-airwaves-in-support-of-wisconsin-corruption-measures

VRWC's $Bs in action.

Kock Bros intimidating REPUGS! who don't show fealty to the VRWC policies.

WI is as big a corrupt shit hole as TX and other slave states

boutons_deux

11-07-2015, 01:33 PM

The scary lessons of Matt Bevin: What we can learn about American politics from the right wing’s destructive anti-Medicaid crusade

Study 2: The Koch brothers go to the statehouse

Another new study from Alexander Hertel-Fernandez, Theda Skocpol and Daniel Lynch examines how interest group lobbying affected passage (http://www.scholarsstrategynetwork.org/content/gop-civil-war-over-medicaid-expansion-states). They find (http://scholar.harvard.edu/files/ahertel/files/bizconsmedicaid.pdf) that:

“GOP-leaning or dominated states have been most likely to embrace the expansion when organized business support outweighs counter pressures from conservative networks.”

Hertel-Fernandez, Skocpol and Lynch find a major divide in conservative organizations, with more mainstream business organizations often supporting (http://www.scholarsstrategynetwork.org/content/debunking-myths-about-medicaid-and-its-expansion) the Medicaid Expansion. They cite a lobbyist who tells them that the Chamber of Commerce was almost “leading the charge” for the Medicaid expansion, out of fear that the state would leave money on the table.

On the other hand, strongly ideological groups, like Americans for Prosperity (a Koch group) and ALEC (American Legislative Exchange Council) and the State Policy Network (an association of far-right policy organizations) universally opposed the Medicaid expansion. What they find is that where the business organizations were stronger, the Medicaid expansion would pass, even in a Republican-dominated state (Michigan). On the other hand, in many cases the more ideologically extreme activists dominated, like in Virginia, which despite having a Democratic governor, did not expand Medicaid because of strong opposition from Americans for Prosperity and the American Legislative Exchange Council (even though the expansion would have benefited the state immensely (http://www.scholarsstrategynetwork.org/content/unfinished-debate-over-expanding-medicaid-virginia)).

After years of researching the Koch organizations for a similar research project, Hertel-Fernandez and Skocpol find that they now rival the Republican Party (http://www.scholarsstrategynetwork.org/content/making-sense-koch-network) in spending power (see chart). Skocpol writes that (http://www.scholarsstrategynetwork.org/content/making-sense-koch-network), “the Koch network parallels, rivals, and leverages the Republican Party itself, both nationally and in most states.” As the chart below shows, the national GOP committees are now far weaker than they were in the past, while extra-party organizations, particularly those funded by the Kochs, are far better funded.
http://media.salon.com/2015/11/Salon31.2.png (http://media.salon.com/2015/11/Salon31.2.png)

The result is that in the 2016 election, the Koch network may well spend more than the GOP to influence the election.

This helps us understand national politics (for instance the rise of Paul Ryan over John Boehner) but the results are even more disturbing at the state level.

The power of the Kochs has led more and more Republican governors to ignore the desires of their constituents in order to serve the Koch agenda.

As the Kochs grow even more powerful, it will be difficult for even the very conservative, yet pragmatic politicians to be able to govern (like Ohio Gov. John Kasich, for instance).
http://www.salon.com/2015/11/07/the_scary_lessons_of_matt_bevin_what_we_can_learn_ about_american_politics_from_the_right_wings_destr uctive_anti_medicaid_crusade/

boutons_deux

11-18-2015, 12:47 PM

The Koch brothers have a surveillance programand staff—to spy on liberals (http://www.dailykos.com/stories/2015/11/18/1451536/-The-Kochs-have-a-surveillance-program-and-staff-To-spy-on-liberals)

The Koch brothers are really going to have to kick their public relations efforts into high gear now to make the latest revelation about their nefarious efforts to acquire the U.S. system of governance in a hostile takeover look like politics as usual. They have a "secretive operation that conducts surveillance and intelligence-gathering on its liberal opponents, viewing it as a key strategic tool in its efforts to reshape American public life." No, it's not April Fool's Day. They're really doing this (http://www.politico.com/story/2015/11/the-koch-brothers-intelligence-agency-215943#ixzz3rqvE8zuH).

The operation, which is little-known even within the Koch network, gathers what Koch insiders refer to as "competitive intelligence" that is used to try to thwart liberal groups and activists, and to identify potential threats to the expansive network.

The competitive intelligence team has a staff of 25, including one former CIA analyst, and operates from one of the non-descript Koch network offices clustered near the Courthouse metro stop in suburban Arlington, Va.

It has provided network officials with documents detailing confidential voter-mobilization plans by major Democrat-aligned groups.

It also sends regular "intelligence briefing" emails tracking the canvassing, phone-banking and voter-registration efforts of labor unions, environmental groups and their allies, according to documents reviewed by POLITICO and interviews with a half-dozen sources with knowledge of the group.

The competitive intelligence team has gathered on-the-ground intelligence from liberal groups' canvassing events in an effort to assess the technology and techniques of field efforts to boost Democrats, according to the sources.

And they say the team utilizes high-tech tactics to track the movements of liberal organizers, including culling geo-data embedded in their social media posts.

"While the Republican Party focuses on winning elections, the Kochs want to realign American politics, government and society around free enterprise philosophies that they hope to spread more broadly." They want to remake American society in their own image. Which, by the way, would be pretty fucking profitable for them. So it's really nothing for them to drop several hundreds of millions to do so.

Koch surveillance team "tracks people deemed suspicious outside the offices of Koch network groups, circulating be-on-the-lookout photos to internal network email lists, while keeping an eye on the network's own ranks for possible leakers or disloyal employees."

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2015/11/18/1451536/-The-Kochs-have-a-surveillance-program-and-staff-To-spy-on-liberals?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+dailykos%2Findex+%28Daily+Kos %29

boutons_deux

11-19-2015, 04:56 AM

Join Occupy the SEC in Urging the Congress to Oppose H.R. 4002 (“Criminal Code Improvement Act of 2015”)! (http://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2015/11/join-occupy-the-sec-in-urging-the-congress-to-oppose-h-r-4002-criminal-code-improvement-act-of-2015.html)

Congress is currently considering several bills that would overhaul and improve our criminal justice system by reducing mandatory minimum sentences and promoting rehabilitation instead of punishment. The push for criminal justice reform enjoys both bipartisan support and popular support among the American populace.

Unfortunately, the Koch Brothers and their cronies are trying to latch onto this momentum for their own purposes. The House is currently considering the Koch-backed H.R. 4002 (sponsored byRep. James Sensenbrenner [R-WI-5]), a bill that which would serve as a “Get Out of Jail Free” card for white collar criminals.

The bill would require federal prosecutors to prove that a white collar defendant acted with intent in cases where federal law does not currently specify a required mental state. This means that white collar criminals would be able to evade punishment for a host of crimes, EVEN IF they acted with negligence, gross negligence, or recklessness.

H.R. 4002 would make it even more difficult for prosecutors to punish white collar crime. And criminals would be emboldened to take further advantage of shareholders, employees, consumers, and the public.

Even the Department of Justice, which has been notoriously lax in prosecuting white collar criminals, has lambasted H.R. 4002, observing that the bill would weaken countless federal statutes that currently protect the public from dangers like unsafe food and medicine.

http://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2015/11/join-occupy-the-sec-in-urging-the-congress-to-oppose-h-r-4002-criminal-code-improvement-act-of-2015.html?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+NakedCapitalism+%28naked+capi talism%29

Kock Bros got one of their WI (aka Kockistan) hatchet men to do their dirty work in another attack in the Kock Bros coup d'etat takeover of US govt.

boutons_deux

11-20-2015, 02:41 PM

another take on letting white collar criminals escape punishment

Take a Wild Guess About Why Koch Brothers Got So Interested in 'Criminal Justice' Reform

A high-profile bipartisan effort contains fine print for helping corporate America face even less legal scrutiny.

House Republicans are ensuring that corporate America also will get what it wants: tougher legal hurdles for prosecutors to go after white-collar crimes.
An early draft (http://judiciary.house.gov/_cache/files/75116271-c347-4589-9c47-4fe06859c638/criminal-code-improvement-act-rp-003-xml.pdf) of one bill in the House Judiciary Committee’s package of reforms would raise the legal threshold needed to prove a person committed a white-collar offense. In most instances today, a person cannot claim he didn’t know what he was doing was illegal. But the House’s proposal would require government to “prove that the defendant knew, or had reason to believe, the conduct was unlawful.”

“The House language violates the basic precept that ‘ignorance of the law is no defense,’” Robert Weissman, the president of Public Citizen, told (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/white-collar-crime-prosecution_564a2336e4b06037734a2f84?fspxpqfr) the Huffington Post. “There is absolutely no reason for the otherwise laudable criminal justice reform bill to contain any measure to weaken already feeble standards for corporate criminal prosecution.”

the anti-regulation (http://www.charleskochinstitute.org/justicesummit/overcriminalization-nr-greg/) Koch brothers have been doing what they’re paid to do—issuing papers urging Congress to toughen the requirements to get a white-collar conviction.

John Malcolm, Heritage Foundation’s judicial and legal studies director, wrote (http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2015/09/the-pressing-need-for-mens-rea-reform#_ftn7) this fall. “However, if somebody or some entity unwittingly does something that results in harm, say, to the environment or to another person, there is no reason why it cannot be dealt with (even harshly) through the administrative or civil justice systems. This would help to remedy the problem and compensate victims without saddling morally blameless individuals and entities for life with a criminal conviction.”

Making it harder for prosecutors to obtain convictions by changing the standard of proof required for governmental action is a strategy seen in many right-wing political fights. That tactic was exactly how the conservatives on the U.S. Supreme Court gutted the Voting Rights Act—they changed and raised the standard of proof that would justify federal intervention in new state laws curbing voting rights.

It “would create confusion and needless litigation, and significantly weaken, often unintentionally, countless federal statutes,” including “those that play an important role in protecting the public welfare... protecting consumers from unsafe food and medicine,” Carr said.

That is exactly the goal of the Heritage Foundation (http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2015/09/the-pressing-need-for-mens-rea-reform#_ftn7) and the Charles Koch Institute (http://www.charleskochinstitute.org/justicesummit/overcriminalization-nr-greg/).

http://www.alternet.org/election-2016/it-suddenly-makes-lot-sense-why-koch-brothers-got-so-interested-criminal-justice?akid=13678.187590.wD01YV&rd=1&src=newsletter1046053&t=2

boutons_deux

11-30-2015, 11:13 AM

A Wealthy Governor and His Friends Are Remaking Illinois

Last year, the families helped elect as governor Bruce Rauner, a Griffin friend and former private equity executive from the Chicago suburbs, who estimates his own fortune at more than $500 million. Now they are rallying behind Mr. Rauner’s agenda: to cut spending and overhaul the state’s pension system, impose term limits and weaken public employee unions.

The rich families remaking Illinois are among a small group around the country who have channeled their extraordinary wealth into political power, taking advantage of regulatory, legal and cultural shifts that have carved new paths for infusing money into campaigns. Economic winners in an age of rising inequality, operating largely out of public view, they are reshaping government with fortunes so large as to defy the ordinary financial scale of politics. In the 2016 presidential race, a New York Times analysis found last month, just 158 families (http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2015/10/11/us/politics/2016-presidential-election-super-pac-donors.html) had provided nearly half of the early campaign money.

Many of those giving, like Mr. Griffin, come from the world of finance, an industry that has yielded more of the new political wealth than any other. The Florida-based leveraged-buyout pioneer John Childs, the private equity investor Sam Zell and Paul Singer, a prominent New York hedge fund manager, all helped elect Mr. Rauner, as did Richard Uihlein, a conservative businessman from the Chicago suburbs.

Most of them lean Republican; some are Democrats. But to a remarkable degree, their philosophies are becoming part of a widely adopted blueprint for public officials around the country: Critical of the power of unions, many are also determined to reduce spending and taxation, and are skeptical of government-led efforts to mitigate the growing gap between the rich and everyone else.

“There was never so much money behind these efforts,”

It’s about social insurance, the social compact — who’s responsible for whom?”

“They’re not what you would call the traditional corporate world,” said William M. Daley, a Chicago hedge fund executive and former chief of staff to President Obama, who served on Mr. Rauner’s transition team. “They come with a very political and philosophical bent.”

Mr. Daley added, “I think they believe philosophically in that business mentality and that strong public unions are a root of all evil in governing places like Illinois or Chicago and New York and California.”

Freed of the restraints, supporters of Mr. Rauner poured millions more into his campaign, breaking state records. About half of the $65 million he spent through last year’s election came from himself and nine other individuals, families or companies they control. Mr. Quinn, the incumbent, spent about $32 million, with many unions making mid-six-figure contributions.

“He didn’t have to play by the same rules as other candidates,” said Bill Hyers, the chief strategist to Mr. Quinn. “He just kept on spending.”

On the last day of December, shortly before inauguration, Mr. Rauner, Mr. Griffin and Mr. Uihlein poured an additional $20 million into Mr. Rauner’s campaign committee. The money was intended to help Mr. Rauner beat back union pressure on state lawmakers during the legislative session ahead.

All told, the Griffin family’s contributions to Mr. Rauner through the end of 2014 came to $13.6 million — more than the combined sum donated to Mr. Quinn by 244 labor unions.

an increase in the state’s minimum wage, something Mr. Rauner had told a candidate forum (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H8sxfmlTRAU) he was “adamantly, adamantly against raising.”

Another urged lawmakers to amend the Illinois Constitution to allow a millionaires-only income tax increase, something Mr. Rauner had campaigned against (http://www.sj-r.com/article/20150412/NEWS/150419904).

Only by disempowering the unions and making the state more hospitable to business, they have argued, can revenue grow fast enough to fix its financial problems.

“I’ve been one who thought he misread his mandate,” said David Yepsen, the director of the Paul Simon Public Policy Institute. “People were ready for a change, but the emphasis on attacking the labor movement, that really poisoned the water here.”

The unexpected rift between Mr. Rauner and his constituents echoes a greater divide between the political views of the very wealthy and those of the broader public, one that has taken on new significance as the rich invest more time and money in politics.

http://mobile.nytimes.com/2015/11/30/us/politics/illinois-campaign-money-bruce-rauner.html?_r=0

Destroy the unions, destroy their pension contracts, etc, etc. Rauner and his friends essentially bought themselves Illinois as plaything.

America's 99% is fucked by the 1%/BigCorp/VRWC, and is unfuckable.

boutons_deux

12-08-2015, 12:56 PM

totally fucked TX extremist racist Repugs appear to be losing in challenging the Constitution to suppress voters and rig elelctions.

U.S. justices question Texas 'one person, one vote' challenge

The U.S. Supreme Court on Tuesday appeared skeptical toward a conservative challenge to the method Texas uses to draw state legislative districts in a case that could diminish the clout of Hispanic voters and boost the power of rural, often Republican voters.

During oral arguments in the case, a clear majority of the nine justices did not indicate how exactly the court will rule.

The plaintiffs, Texans Sue Evenwel and Edward Pfenninger, contend that the current process for counting voters, based not on the number of eligible voters but rather on total population, violates the long-established legal principle of "one person, one vote" endorsed by the Supreme Court in the 1960s.

At issue is whether state legislative districts should contain the same number of people or whether they instead should contain the same number of eligible voters.

It was unclear how conservative Justice Anthony Kennedy, who often casts the deciding vote in close cases, would vote. Both he and conservative Chief Justice John Roberts questioned whether states could bridge the gap between using total population and the number of eligible voters when drawing districts.

The court’s liberals appeared eager to keep the existing system, with several questioning whether drawing districts based on eligible voters as the challengers argue would lead to non-voting residents getting proportionally less representation in the legislature.

Counting everyone and not just eligible voters magnifies the electoral influence of places, typically urban, with sizable populations of people ineligible to vote, including legal and illegal immigrants as well as children. Hispanic advocates say a broad win for the challengers would reduce Hispanic influence in elections and boost the power of rural, often Republican voters.

Hispanic U.S. voters tend to vote Democratic.

http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-court-election-idUSKBN0TR25A20151208?feedType=RSS&feedName=domesticNews

boutons_deux

12-11-2015, 08:58 PM

Defense Contractors Laud Themselves for Steering Candidates Toward Militarism (https://theintercept.com/2015/12/11/defense-contractors-laud-themselves-for-steering-candidates-toward-militarism/)

A group formed (https://theintercept.com/2015/05/09/military-contractors-form-group-pressure-2016-candidates-adopt-hawkish-positions/) this year by executives and lobbyists for the defense contracting industry is taking credit for “driving the national debate on foreign policy during the 2016 presidential election,” and in particular for getting Republican presidential candidates to call for escalating military action in Syria.

In an email to supporters over the weekend, Mike Rogers, the founder of Americans for Peace, Prosperity, and Security, hailed the group for “pushing candidates on national security.”

He illustrated the group’s impact with “highlights from many of our Iowa, South Carolina, and New Hampshire forums showcasing the candidates’ views on defeating ISIS.”As we’ve previously reported (https://theintercept.com/2015/05/09/military-contractors-form-group-pressure-2016-candidates-adopt-hawkish-positions/), APPS was formed by current and former officials from Raytheon, BAE Systems, SAIC, and other major defense contractors. Lobbyists who represent (https://theintercept.com/2015/05/22/americans-peace-prosperity-security-south-carolina/) the defense industry are also involved. Rogers, the former House Intelligence Committee chairman who retired from Congress last year, also represents private clients, though he has refused (https://theintercept.com/2015/03/19/former-house-intelligence-chair-mike-rogers-quiet-trip-revolving-door/) to disclose them.

To “help elect a president who supports American engagement and a strong foreign policy,” the group spends money on public events in primary states and encourages presidential candidates to take hawkish positions.

https://theintercept.com/2015/12/11/defense-contractors-laud-themselves-for-steering-candidates-toward-militarism/

Like grifter pastors "saving souls for Christ", America's wars are above all a business, shifting taxpayer $Ts to the MIC and its investors.

boutons_deux

12-16-2015, 05:53 PM

Report: Sheldon "Gollum" Adelson Behind Secret Purchase Of Nevada's Largest Paper

http://a3.img.talkingpointsmemo.com/image/upload/c_fill,fl_keep_iptc,g_faces,h_365,w_652/gprsubqxf4pzj5iod2yv.jpg

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/adelson-las-vegas-review-journal?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+tpm-news+%28TPMNews%29

boutons_deux

12-27-2015, 05:46 PM

Repugs providing evidence beyond a doubt that they are as pro-corruption as they are anti-woman

Political Dark Money Just Got Darker

As untold millions of dollars pour into the shadowy campaign troughs of the presidential candidates, voters need to be reminded of the rosy assumptions of the Supreme Court’s Citizens United decision that legitimized the new spending frenzy.

In allowing unlimited spending on candidates by corporations and unions, the court’s decision, (http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/09pdf/08-205.pdf) in 2010, blithely pronounced, “A campaign finance system that pairs corporate independent expenditures with effective disclosure has not existed before today.”

In the new budget bill, Republicans inserted a provision (http://www.nytimes.com/politics/first-draft/2015/12/17/spending-bill-to-block-limits-on-outside-political-groups/)

blocking the Internal Revenue Service from creating rules to curb the growing abuse of the tax law by thinly veiled political machines posing as “social welfare” organizations.

These groups are financed by rich special-interest donors who do not have to reveal their identities under the tax law. So much for effective disclosure (http://www.nytimes.com/2015/12/17/opinion/a-new-budget-for-a-new-year.html) at the I.R.S.

In another move to keep the public blindfolded about who is writing big corporate checks for federal candidates, the

Republicans barred the Securities and Exchange Commission from finalizing rules requiring corporations to disclose their campaign spending to investors.

It was Citizens United that foolishly envisioned a world in which:

“Shareholders can determine whether their corporation’s political speech advances the corporation’s interest in making profits, and citizens can see whether elected officials are ‘in the pocket’ of so-called moneyed interests.” :lol

In acting to seal that pocket and hobble the I.R.S., congressional Republicans are advancing what has become the dark age of plutocratic money in campaign spending. At every turn, they are veiling the truth about the special-interest ties they have with rich donors shopping for favors. Since the Citizens United decision in January 2010, politicians have collected more than $500 million in dark money from phantom donors,

For two years, President Obama has dithered and withheld the one blow he could easily strike for greater political transparency: the signing of an executive order requiring government contractors to disclose their campaign spending.

http://mobile.nytimes.com/2015/12/26/opinion/political-dark-money-just-got-darker.html

Repugs are the most serious threat to America. America is fucked and unfuckable.

boutons_deux

12-27-2015, 07:17 PM

Donald Trump’s Run Has Spooked Billionaires — So Now One Has an Insane Plan to Rig the Election System

One of those people is billionaire T. Boone Pickens, who has thrown money at Jeb Bush (http://www.nytimes.com/politics/first-draft/2015/05/07/t-boone-pickens-with-cash-backs-jeb-bush/) and other Republican candidates only to see them wither in the face of the Trump onslaught. This is not the return on investment that Pickens was looking for, so he’s written a LinkedIn post or blog or whatever (https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/big-idea-2016-lets-find-better-way-elect-our-t-boone-pickens) laying out his “big idea” for making sure that in the future we don’t just allow any old person to run for president: a bipartisan committee that will pre-approve acceptable candidates for the presidency:

Certainly we can do better than what we’re doing. We now have a presidential election process that penalizes success and accomplishment and rewards those without battle scars from business or politics.You don’t have a record of achievement? Well, then the media shies from tough scrutiny.

My big idea for 2016 is to put together a bipartisan screening committee that vets presidential candidates like we do anyone else applying for a job and recommends the best candidates possible. We have people running for president now who don’t even have experience running a lemonade stand.

http://www.alternet.org/donald-trumps-run-has-spooked-billionaires-so-now-one-has-insane-plan-rig-election-system

The govt isn't a (profit-making) business so successful business experience is irrelevant.

boutons_deux

01-06-2016, 03:11 PM

The Most Chilling Political Appointment That You’ve Probably Never Heard Of

Unless you’re unusually familiar with libertarian legal activists (or you are a Republican presidential candidate) you probably have never heard the name “Clint Bolick.” But Mr. Bolick has spent the last quarter century working — at times quite successfully — to make the law more friendly to anti-government conservatives. Thanks to an appointment, announced Wednesday by Arizona Gov. Doug Ducey (R), Bolick will now bring this agenda to his state’s supreme court (http://azgovernor.gov/governor/news/2016/01/governor-doug-ducey-announces-first-arizona-supreme-court-appointment).

For people who care about the rights of workers in the workplace, this should be a chilling development, not just because of what incoming Justice Bolick is likely to say in his opinions, but because of what his appointment portends if Republicans have the opportunity to make appointments to the federal bench and, ultimately, the Supreme Court of the United States.

In 1991, Bolick co-founded the Institute for Justice (IJ) (https://newrepublic.com/article/122645/rehabilitationists-libertarian-movement-undo-new-deal), possibly the most savvy anti-government litigation shop in the country. One of IJ’s core strategies is to find genuinely sympathetic plaintiffs (http://ij.org/pillar/economic-liberty/?post_type=case)who are harmed by economic regulations that sound ridiculous on their face, and then use them as vehicles to push sweeping changes to legal doctrine that mirror limits on state power repudiated during the New Deal. As Bolick notes in his not-so-subtly named book Death Grip: Loosening the Law’s Stranglehold over Economic Liberty (https://books.google.com/books?id=JM1UXba7YukC&pg=PA81&lpg=PA81&dq=death+grip+bollick&source=bl&ots=l3pPh61uxa&sig=AAG9OYI-e8a_su6wBHn_toau2YE&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwj_ydiBtZXKAhUCmR4KHWmEAd0Q6AEIQzAG#v=on epage&q=death%20grip%20bollick&f=false), one of his early cases involved a businessman who tried to start a cab company that served a low-income neighborhood, but then got tripped up by licensing regulations that are hard to defend as good policy.

Yet these sympathetic plaintiffs are often cat’s paws for a much more sweeping agenda seeking to invalidate much of American law. In Death Grip (which, it’s worth noting, Bolick published after leaving IJ), the incoming justice praises the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in Lochner v. New York (https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/198/45/case.html), a 1905 case that is often taught in law schools as an example of how judges should never behave (http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2013/03/07/1684111/rand-paul-all-laws-protecting-workers-are-constitutionally-suspect/). “Lochner,” Bolick writes, “is a celebration of freedom of enterprise and freedom of contract, and a repudiation of government paternalism and excessive regulation. It reflects a careful and proper balancing of freedom and the state’s power.”

Lochner struck down a New York state law limiting bakery workers’ hours to 10 hours a day — prior to that law, the average workday was 13 to 14 hours (http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2015/07/13/3679558/george-will-canary-american-democracys-coal-mine/), and some bakers worked even longer hours.

The majority opinion in Lochner claimed that the Constitution protects an implicit “right of contract between the employer and employes [sic],” and thus there are strict limits on the state’s power to enact laws regulating the workplace. If a worker agrees to work 16 hour days in a sweltering basement bakery, that is their “right,” under Lochner, regardless of whether they had the bargaining power to seek better working conditions. Later decisions relied on Lochner‘s so-called right to contract to strike down minimum wage laws and laws protecting the right to organize (http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2015/01/16/3611729/if-you-want-to-understand-whats-happened-to-the-supreme-court-you-need-to-listen-to-rand-paul/).

http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2016/01/06/3736505/the-most-chilling-political-appointment-that-youve-probably-never-heard-of/

boutons_deux

01-06-2016, 05:01 PM

Repugs doing the dirty work for BigCorp by screwing citizens, just like they were hired, elected by BigCorp to do.

from a Public Citizen email:

Delivering big favors for Big Business is apparently how House Speaker Paul Ryan rings in the New Year.

This week, the Republican-led U.S. House of Representatives is expected to vote on bills that are a direct attack on the public’s power to combat predatory corporations.

Don’t let Congress weaken consumer rights.

Tell your representative to VOTE NO on H.R. 1927 and H.R. 712. (http://qz.salsalabs.com/dia/track.jsp?v=2&c=INdbAtCKVx1bd6dIFh3nMw4Usp3OMFe5)

Both bills are a high priority for lobbyists seeking to radically expand corporate power and undermine the rights of the American people.

The Fairness in Class Action Litigation and Furthering Asbestos Claim Transparency Act (H.R. 1927) is a mashup of two extremely dangerous policies.

The first part of the bill would impose new limitations on class actions to eviscerate their effectiveness for challenging corporate wrongdoing.

The second part could stall compensation that asbestos poisoning victims might receive to offset medical or funeral expenses. It also would invade these victims’ privacy by publicizing claim amounts and waste funds meant to compensate victims on pointless additional paperwork.

The Sunshine for Regulatory Decrees and Settlements Act (H.R. 712), meanwhile, is an attempt by right-wing lawmakers to block organizations like Public Citizen from spurring foot-dragging federal agencies into action.

When federal agencies miss congressionally mandated deadlines for releasing new health and safety regulations, Public Citizen or another organization can file a lawsuit to help push the agency to do the work it is required by law to do.

Agencies typically settle these suits simply by proceeding with the regulation. But H.R. 712 would add additional delays to our already delay-ridden regulatory system — where rules can sometimes take 10 or even 20 years to complete!

Congress should focus on addressing the real issues that the American people care about instead of pushing these bogus policies that are so beloved by the likes of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce.

boutons_deux

01-06-2016, 05:06 PM

Wall Street Journal Says $19,000 a Year Is Adequate Middle-Class Retirement Income

The right-wing war on Social Security increases.

in a Wall Street journal column (http://www.wsj.com/articles/new-evidence-on-the-phony-retirement-crisis-1451952646) by Andrew Biggs, an economist at the American Enterprise Institute and former Deputy Commissioner of the Social Security Administration under President George W. Bush.

Biggs looks at some recent evidence, most notably a new study from the Congressional Budget Office (CBO), and dismisses the idea that there is a retirement crisis. At the center of this assertion is the CBO projection that a typical household in the middle quintile, born in 1960, can expect to get $19,000 a year from Social Security. Biggs sees this $19,000 as replacing 56 percent of pre-retirement income and says this is not far from the 70-80 percent usually viewed as adequate. He then touts data on total retirement savings and pronounces everything as okay.

If we step back from replacement rates, we can ask a rhetorical question, is $19,000 a year a middle class income? Odds are that most people would not consider $19,000 a reasonable income for a middle class household, hence the basis for the claim about a retirement crisis. Biggs does point to the record amount of retirement savings. This is indeed good news for those who have these savings, but unfortunately most middle class households don't fall into this category.

According to the Federal Reserve Board's 2013 Survey of Consumer Finance (http://cepr.net/documents/wealth-scf-2014-10.pdf), the average net worth outside of housing equity for the middle quintile of households between the ages of 55 and 64 was less than $55,000. This includes all IRAs, 401(k)s and other retirement accounts. This will translate into roughly $3,000 a year in additional retirement income, bringing this middle income household's income up to $22,000 a year.

Biggs looks at this and says everything is just fine and we should be looking to cut Social Security.

Those raising concerns about a retirement crisis do not see $22,000 a year as a middle class income. We are just arguing about adjectives here, there is not much disagreement on the situation.

http://www.alternet.org/economy/wall-street-journal-says-19000-year-adequate-middle-class-retirement-income?akid=13855.187590.b7MaTP&rd=1&src=newsletter1048519&t=8

boutons_deux

01-16-2016, 01:22 PM

Now in the Republican privatizing crosshairs: Air traffic control (http://www.dailykos.com/stories/2016/1/16/1469479/-Now-in-the-Republican-privatizing-crosshairs-Air-traffic-control)

From schools to prisons to parking meters, the horror stories (http://www.dailykos.com/story/2013/12/30/1265472/-Parking-meters-and-prisons-Top-six-privatization-horror-stories) are hurting services, cutting jobs, and failing to deliver the cost savings the privatizers always promise. Now,as a new Federal Aviation Administration reauthorization comes up (http://thehill.com/policy/transportation/264711-feds-tout-year-of-safety-in-aviation) at the end of March, congressional Republicans have the air traffic control system in their crosshairs. Seriously, the system that keeps you safe when you fly. The largest and safest system of its kind in the world.

At issue—besides your general privatization fever—is the Federal Aviation Administration being slow to deliver NextGen, a satellite-based air traffic control system to replace the existing radar system. It’s true! The FAA has been slow. But could this have something to do with it (https://www.americanprogress.org/issues/economy/report/2015/05/05/112406/4-essential-questions-about-air-traffic-control-privatization/)?

First, in 2011, the authorization for FAA programs lapsed for two weeks due to a fight over the Essential Air Service program. [...] In the end, Congress would enact 23 short-term extensions before finally passing the FAA Modernization and Reform Act of 2012.

Second, in 2013, the budget deal known as the sequester—which forced automatic spending cuts to programs that receive money from the general fund of the U.S. Treasury—disrupted aviation manufacturing, construction, aircraft registry and certification, and some aspects of safety oversight.

It’s a classic Republican strategy to break the government and then advocate for cutting or privatizing said government because it’s broken, so no surprises there.

And what about the funding for this big new NextGen system? According to Kevin DeGood at the Center for American Progress:

Privatization represents a bold attempt by the aviation industry to carve out operations and procurement activities along with most or all of AATF funding, while dumping responsibility for remaining FAA functions onto taxpayers. [...] In short, privatization would provide the aviation industry with the operational control it wants while also offloading a major funding responsibility.

Surprised? Don’t be.

The airlines, which would substantially control the new Air Navigation Service Provider, don’t intend to pay for this. They intend for us to pay for it even though they’ll control it and reap the benefits.

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2016/01/16/1469479/-Now-in-the-Republican-privatizing-crosshairs-Air-traffic-control?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+dailykos%2Findex+%28Daily+Kos %29

boutons_deux

01-18-2016, 07:27 AM

How Republicans Convinced White America That Government Was Out to Get ThemThey howl about the overreach of the federal government, but they are among the biggest beneficiaries of government programs. For 150 years, their brand of logic has pitted individuals against an activist government, Western cowboys against black Americans, and the West against the East. Behind their protest is a uniquely American story that welds racism to anti-government sentiment. It comes from a peculiar coincidence of timing: that Reconstruction after the Civil War coincided with U.S. expansion into the American West.

Real “patriots,” the Bundys claim, stand against a behemoth government that has grasped their lands and their rights. America, after all, is made by ambitious individuals working their way up. A government that promotes social welfare or regulates business destroys the American system because it both limits a man’s ability to make money and requires tax revenue. Those taxes strike at the very heart of individualism because they redistribute money from hard workers to lazy people.

http://www.alternet.org/tea-party-and-right/how-republicans-convinced-white-america-government-was-out-get-them

boutons_deux

01-20-2016, 02:07 PM

How Illinois’ millionaire GOP governor plans to bust Chicago’s largest teacher union

http://2d0yaz2jiom3c6vy7e7e5svk.wpengine.netdna-cdn.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/01/17357797721_a1a7ccbb13_z-800x430.jpg

iLlinois Republicans, led by multi-millionaire Governor Bruce Rauner, are pushing a state takeover of Chicago’s public school system.The Chicago Tribune reported (http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/politics/ct-illinois-republican-cps-bankruptcy-met-20160120-story.html) that “Republican legislative leaders on Wednesday proposed a state takeover of Chicago Public Schools [CPS] and permitting the troubled district to declare bankruptcy to get its finances in order”. According to the paper, officials describe the drastic move as a “lifeline”.

Chicago Mayor Rahm Emanuel has presided over the closure of numerous schools that were mostly in black and brown neighborhoods. However, he opposes Rauner’s plan. A spokesperson for Emanuel said (http://chicagotonight.wttw.com/2016/01/19/sources-lawmakers-introduce-legislation-allowing-bankruptcy-oversight-city-and-cps), “The mayor is 100 percent opposed to Gov Rauner’s ‘plan’ to drive CPS bankrupt. If the governor was serious about helping Chicago students, he should start by proposing – and passing – a budget that fully funds education and treats CPS students like every other child in the state.”

Rauner has vowed to take on the city’s teachers union in his effort to seize control of CPS, which is grappling with a $1 billion budget deficit. Currently, the Chicago Teachers Union (CTU) is negotiating a new contract with the city, and Rauner hopes to damage CTU in the process. Last year the governor accused CTU of having “dictatorial powers (http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/politics/ct-bruce-rauner-says-chicago-teachers-union-shouldnt-have-dictatorial-powers-over-systems-finances-20150810-story.html)” over such negotiations.

Chicago Public Schools, the fourth largest in the country, serves nearly 400,000 students.

http://www.rawstory.com/2016/01/how-illinois-millionaire-gop-governor-plans-to-bust-chicagos-largest-teacher-union/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+TheRawStory+%28The+Raw+Story% 29

boutons_deux

01-24-2016, 10:54 AM

Kocktopus news

The Kochs' secret agenda not so secret anymore as even local media starts investigating (http://www.dailykos.com/stories/2016/1/23/1472641/-The-Kochs-secret-agenda-not-so-secret-anymore-as-even-local-media-starts-investigating)

A Western Carolina University professor with ties to the ultra-conservative Koch brothers political network worked behind the scenes with outside donors to devise a coordinated strategy that would influence the hiring of professors and use WCU to further conservative economic theory in society, according to a review of university email communications.

"lf things do go the faculty's way with these hires, then WCU would be poised to emerge as a powerhouse of student development and research in the areas of economic freedom and free market policy analysis," wrote Dr. Ed Lopez, an economics professor, in an email to the Koch Foundation in July.

At the time, Lopez was laying the groundwork for a $2 million gift from the Koch Foundation. In exchange, the Koch Foundation could advance its own mission of cultivating "a pipeline of students" trained in free enterprise theory and seeing free-enterprise "thought-leaders," Lopez wrote in the email. […]

[S]trategy communications between Lopez and the Koch Foundation—obtained through a public records request by The Smoky Mountain News—suggest part of Lopez's goal is to stack the economics department faculty with professors who support conservative economic theory. Lopez described what he called "the hiring possibilities and my proposed strategy for successfully navigating them" in the planning document sent to the Koch Foundation in July.

The goal is clearly not just Lopez's. He's the puppet for the Koch brothers and this is just one example of the network the Kochs have created throughout universities in the country loosely based on the Nazi model (http://www.dailykos.com/story/2016/01/19/1471781/-Charles-Koch-s-decades-long-plot-to-overthrow-the-government) for indoctrinating the next generations of leaders.

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2016/01/23/1472641/-The-Kochs-secret-agenda-not-so-secret-anymore-as-even-local-media-starts-investigating?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+dailykos%2Findex+%28Daily+Kos %29

boutons_deux

01-28-2016, 03:42 PM

Trade groups to top corporations: Resist political disclosure

U.S. Chamber and allies say transparency efforts 'used to attack companies'

Three of the nation’s leading trade associations have a message for their member corporations: Resist activists who demand you disclose more details about your politicking than the law requires.

“The strategy of pressuring companies to voluntarily disclose the details of their spending on public policy engagement for the purpose of reducing that engagement is, in fact, their ultimate goal,” wrote U.S. Chamber of Commerce (https://www.uschamber.com/about-us/about-the-us-chamber) President and CEO Tom Donohue, Business Roundtable (http://businessroundtable.org/about) President John Engler and National Association of Manufacturers (http://www.nam.org/About/) President and CEO Jay Timmons in a letter dated Oct. 13 (https://assets.documentcloud.org/documents/2697724/U-S-Chamber-Letter.pdf) and obtained by the Center for Public Integrity (http://www.publicintegrity.org/).

They added: “As these activists continue efforts to silence the business community’s voice, we will continue to engage on your behalf.”

The trade association leaders reserved particular criticism for the Center for Political Accountability (http://politicalaccountability.net/about/about-us) and the Zicklin Center for Business Ethics (http://www.zicklincenter.org/) at the University of Pennsylvania’s Wharton School, which in early Octoberpublished an annual index (https://www.publicintegrity.org/2015/10/08/18266/corporations-improve-reporting-political-activity-exceptions) ranking large companies on their political disclosure practices and policies.

Companies earn points on more than two-dozen measures, such as revealing money spent to influence state-level ballot initiatives and voluntarily disclosing contributions to politically active trade associations and other nonprofit groups.

Such politically active nonprofit groups — including the U.S. Chamber itself — sometimes directly advocate for and against political candidates and may spend into the millions of dollars to do so.

http://www.publicintegrity.org/2016/01/27/19185/trade-groups-top-corporations-resist-political-disclosure?utm_source=email&utm_campaign=watchdog&utm_medium=publici-email&goal=0_ffd1d0160d-6b6fbb6563-100106293&mc_cid=6b6fbb6563&mc_eid=3b8f64cce8

Corporate-Americans want to keep their dirty spending secret as they spend $Bs to buy politicians and disenfranchise Human-Americans.

boutons_deux

02-08-2016, 11:06 AM

The Conservative Playbook for Keeping ‘Dark Money’ Dark

In internal memos, groups opposing tighter state campaign finance rules coach their local supporters on how to battle disclosure of political donors.

How do you stop states and cities from forcing more disclosure of so-called dark money in politics? Get the debate to focus on an “average Joe,” not a wealthy person.

Find examples of “inconsequential donation amounts.” Point out that naming donors would be a threat to “innocents,” including their children, families and co-workers.

And never call it dark money. “Private giving” sounds better.

These and other suggestions appear in internal documents from conservative groups that are coaching activists to fight state legislation that would impose more transparency on the secretive nonprofit groups reshaping U.S. campaign finance.

The documents obtained by ProPublica were prepared by the State Policy Network, which helps conservative think tanks in 50 states supply legislators with research friendly to their causes, and the Conservative Action Project (CAP), a Washington policy group founded by Edwin Meese, a Reagan-era attorney general.

Dark money is the term for funds that flow into politics from nonprofit groups, which can accept donations of any size but, unlike political action committees, are not required by federal law to reveal the identities of their donors. The anonymity has been upheld by courts that cite as precedent a 1958 Supreme Court ruling that the state of Alabama could not demand that the NAACP turn over a list of its members.

Since 2008, dark money groups have spent more than $690 million in federal races, according to the Center for Responsive Politics. A single group aligned with Republican presidential hopeful Marco Rubio helped buoy his standing in Iowa before Monday’s caucuses with $1.3 million in ads (http://www.bloomberg.com/politics/articles/2016-01-28/dark-money-dominates-political-ad-spending).

The same story is playing out on the state level. During the 2014 election cycle, 40 nonprofits spent $25 million on TV ads about state races, according to an analysis by theCenter for Public Integrity (http://www.publicintegrity.org/2014/12/17/16516/secretive-nonprofits-flourished-and-succeeded-2014-state-elections). That represented 3 percent of total ad buys, almost double the proportion that dark money paid for in 2010.

This year, 38 states are considering bills relating to disclosure, according to a database compiled by the National Conference of State Legislatures. Some have already adopted rules. In 2014, California began requiring nonprofits that engage in campaign activity to live by many of the same disclosure regulations as traditional political committees. Montana decided last year that politically active nonprofits would have to disclose donors, and report any electioneering communications within 60 days of votes being cast.

A memo distributed by CAP in January to conservative activists highlighted new disclosure rules being considered in Minnesota, Missouri, New Mexico, Pennsylvania, Tennessee, and Washington, as well as ethics bills in South Carolina and Texas that contain disclosure provisions.

Groups that are throwing their resources behind stricter campaign finance regulation include Common Cause, which has offices in 36 states, and the Democracy Alliance, an invitation-only organization composed of wealthy liberal donors. According to CAP, though, the initiatives to require disclosure not only pose a threat to free speech but also to the very existence of the nonprofits.

https://www.propublica.org/images/ngen/gypsy_image_630/20160204-dark-money-flyer.jpg

A flyer distributed to members of the State Policy Network, which helps conservative think tanks in 50 states supply legislators with research friendly to their causes.

“This well-coordinated, well-funded effort to require conservative nonprofits like yours to divulge the names and addresses of your donors is all part of a plan to choke off our air supply of funding,” the group said in the memo.

The memo was signed by many leading voices on the political right, including anti-tax advocate Grover Norquist; top officials at Americans for Prosperity, an advocacy group backed by the Koch brothers political network; the Family Research Council; the Council for National Policy; and Heritage Action for America. It describes conservatives as “a persecuted class” and compares labeling private donations “dark money” to calling private ballots “dark voting.”

The State Policy Network, which on its website calls pro-regulation activists "enemies of debate," distributed its documents at a conference held last fall in Grand Rapids, Michigan. The material includes a map of cities and states considering measures to “force disclosure of charitable giving” and a set of “questions that help people see the consequences of public disclosure.” Among them: “Do you think the government should be able to take down names and addresses of Americans and who they donate to? Do you think people should be targeted for expressing their opinions?”

The organization also urges its supporters to choose the right phrases to color the debate, shunning terms such as “activist,” “anonymous” or “dark money” in favor of “private giving,” “censor” and “silencing dissent.” Under the header “Framing the Issue,” a man is pictured with tape over his mouth.

Other documents give conservative activists tips on where to look for “efforts to stifle free speech,” for example in bills that deal with corruption or ethics, or that define electoral activity. “More than a dozen states have considered or passed legislation that changes the definition of electioneering communications to include the everyday activity of non-profit groups, like issuing a non-partisan voter guide,” one briefing says.

Meredith Turney, a spokeswoman for the State Policy Network, said in an interview that along with the materials provided to members, the organization is alerting nonprofits regardless of political orientation that the proposals would interfere with privacy and free speech.

“These laws will impact groups from Planned Parenthood to The Heritage Foundation and start-up movements like Occupy Wall Street and Black Lives Matter,” Turney said.

Arizona Democratic state senator Martin Quezada, who has been pushing dark money disclosure legislation since last year, said his goal is to let voters know which special interests might have influence over a candidate.

“My bill in no way limits anyone’s free speech. It doesn’t say they can’t spend that money. They’re free to spend that money all they want. It only requires that if you’re going to spend that money, you have to tell us who you are,” Quezada said.

The CAP memo also warns activists to snuff out a burgeoning alliance in some states between liberal groups seeking more disclosure and Tea Party-like conservatives who often oppose the Republican establishment. “The Left has turned the transparency concept on its head to dupe conservative legislators and well-meaning Tea Party groups to help advance their initiatives,” the memo said, citing a 2014 Tallahassee voter campaign finance initiative that capped contributions in city races at $250 and established an ethics office.

“Transparency is for government,” the group reminded conservative activists. “Privacy is for people.”

Dan Backer, a lawyer who signed the CAP memo, said the group’s organizing should be a warning to advocates of stricter campaign finance rules that his side will use “a variety of means” including litigation to preserve the privacy of donors.

Backer helped bring the 2014 McCutcheon case in which the U.S. Supreme Court removed aggregate limits on direct contributions, which along with the 2010 Citizens United decision set the stage for a new flood of money into politics.

https://www.propublica.org/article/the-conservative-playbook-for-keeping-dark-money-dark

Of course! It's a conspiracy, VRWC aka "movement conservatism", nothing but the ancient capital versus labor

boutons_deux

05-27-2016, 04:53 PM

Peter Thiel’s Revenge Campaign Is a Wakeup Call

The multibillionaire is spending a fortune to destroy Gawker in court. It will be catastrophic to democracy if he gets away with it.

This week, the world learned of Thiel’s latest expensive, crazy idea: destroying Gawker Media. As Forbes first reported (http://www.forbes.com/sites/ryanmac/2016/05/24/this-silicon-valley-billionaire-has-been-secretly-funding-hulk-hogans-lawsuits-against-gawker/#679f82f78057), Thiel secretly bankrolled a lawsuit against Gawker Media brought by the wrestler Hulk Hogan, spending a reported $10 million on his plot, in addition to the funding of other lawsuits.

(In 2012, Gawker posted an excerpt of a homemade sex tape featuring Hogan (http://gawker.com/5948770/even-for-a-minute-watching-hulk-hogan-have-sex-in-a-canopy-bed-is-not-safe-for-work-but-watch-it-anyway)—who from 2005 to 2007 starred in a reality TV series called Hogan Knows Best (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hogan_Knows_Best) that portrayed him as a devoted family man—in flagrante with a woman who was not his wife.)

The lawsuit has been successful: In March, a jury handed down a $140.1 million verdict (http://gawker.com/the-hogan-verdict-1766460791) that will bankrupt Gawker Media if it stands.

On Wednesday, a Florida judge upheld that verdict (http://www.capitalnewyork.com/article/media/2016/05/8600124/judge-upholds-1401m-verdict-against-gawker).

And on Thursday, multiple outlets reported (http://nypost.com/2016/05/26/gawker-founder-looking-to-sell-after-losing-hogan-judgment/) that Gawker Media founder Nick Denton may be seeking to sell the company—though it’s unlikely that anyone would want to buy the company before the Hogan suit is ultimately resolved.

What made Thiel so upset with Gawker Media? In 2007, the Gawker Media siteValleywag ran a story reporting that Thiel “is totally gay, people (http://gawker.com/335894/peter-thiel-is-totally-gay-people).”

http://www.slate.com/articles/technology/technology/2016/05/peter_thiel_wants_to_destroy_gawker_it_will_be_cat astrophic_if_he_does.html

Combined with the militarized, unrestrained police/NatSec state, a compliant judiciary, billionaires, I expect, will follow Thiel's example to use their $Bs to intimidate, to death, any media they don't like.

How is theb stopped? It's not stoppable. Americans, America, America's long-dead democracy are fucked and unfuckable.

boutons_deux

05-31-2016, 08:40 AM

Business Makes Senate Push

U.S. Chamber of Commerce hopes to keep the GOP from losing control of the Senate in November

By KRISTINA PETERSON

May 30, 2016 7:27 p.m. ETWASHINGTON—The country’s biggest business lobby will launch an initiative Tuesday to deploy influential Republicans to raise funds for tight Senate races, hoping to keep the GOP from losing control of the chamber in November.

http://www.wsj.com/articles/business-makes-senate-push-1464650851?ncid=newsltushpmg00000003

...BigCorp wants to keep those Citizen-United decisions coming, and continue strict obstructionism

boutons_deux

07-20-2016, 03:39 PM

The far-right’s 50-year project to transform American values with a clandestine ‘counterrevolution’

Since the 1970s, presidential candidates running under the Republican ticket have successively shifted further and further to the political right. How many times have we heard—or said—that George W. Bush made Richard Nixon look like a liberal?

The rightward political shift is no accident. Since the end of World War II, far-right conservatives and libertarians have patiently laid the groundwork for a national climate receptive to their ideals of weak government and a strong corporate presence.

In the 1950s, a time when Congress had recently made affordable housing the law of the land, when expansion of Social Security and creation of federally-funded health care were on the table, and when unionized workers made up a third of the U.S. workforce, the conservative agenda appeared moribund.

Yet just beneath the surface of a seemingly ever-expanding social welfare state, far-right conservatives and libertarians were strategizing what some of them called a “50-year project” to take the country back.

Initially coined by conservative intellectual Frank Chodorov in 1950 to describe the effort to uproot “socialism” from college campuses, the “50-year project” moniker became a far-right conservative mantra describing the effort to undo what Chodorov called “the socialization of the American character”—that is, New Deal-era laws and regulations that prioritized the welfare of consumers and workers.

Mid-century Milwaukee foundry owner William Grede is emblematic. Before the Koch brothers, William Grede was among a core of far-right economic conservatives around the country who sought, in short, to Make America Great Again.

In a 1955 letter, Grede congratulated a fellow Milwaukee businessman on his efforts to promote among his employees the philosophy of far-right radio broadcaster Clarence Manion.

“As someone said to me recently,” Grede wrote, “ ‘The revolution of 1933 was possible only because of the revolution that took place among the so-called intelligentsia at the turn of the century.’ Our job is to start a revolution in the other direction, like that of the early 1900s and hope that in the next 50 years we can swing it back.”

Across the country, an array of wealthy business leaders and industrialists like Grede—who took national stage in numerous roles, including as president of the National Association of Manufacturers, director on the Chicago Federal Reserve and head of the YMCA—financially supported an array of far-right and libertarian endeavors.

Along with his peers, some of whom, like Fred C. Koch, joined him as founding members of the John Birch Society, Grede’s goal in funding far-right organizations was not to create a new political party but to turn the political winds slowly their way.

“There is nothing more autocratic than majority rule,” Grede asserted. “There are people in our country who would like to establish a true democracy—where majority rules. But majority rule would destroy our society of personalities and the dynamic spirit that has made us great.”

Grede and others like him sought to create a nation that reflected their beliefs. The tactics they used to do so were a forerunner of those employed today by those like Fred Koch’s sons.

They raised vast amounts of money for extreme conservative causes. They used public forums to win Americans’ hearts and minds. They utilized the media. And they specifically targeted impressionable young people.

When Manion sought to make the leap from radio to television, Dallas Bedford Lewis, the millionaire president of Lewis Food Company, which manufactured Skippy brand pet foods, was there to support him. From Texas, multi-millionaire oilman Haroldson Lafayette (H.L.) Hunt bankrolled a media operation, Facts Forum, which included a nationally distributed newspaper and television and radio broadcasts.

More than 600 radio stations and 50 television stations carried Facts Forum programs in the mid-1950s, with a regular listening and viewing audience of at least 5 million. Facts Forum encouraged its audience to form neighborhood discussion groups, and gave cash incentives to those writing letters to the editor of their local newspapers on Facts Forum topics, such as repealing the income tax.

Popular education outreach involved endeavors like the Colorado-based Freedom School, launched in 1957 by former radio host and anti-New Dealer Robert LeFevre. The school provided short-term courses steeped in economic conservatism, and business executives funded attendance by college students and middle managers. The school attracted deep-pocketed textile industrialist Michael Milliken, who rejected LeFevre’s $5,000 training fee in favor of a check for $100,000 (the equivalent of $850,768 today).

The Freedom School’s libertarian curriculum promoted opposition to all government, including publicly funded police, firefighters, schools, and even national defense. The Freedom School flew only its own flag—and not that of the United States.

Contemporary observers did not dismiss these individuals and movements and, in fact, pinpointed a trend toward far-right extremism they found deeply disturbing. Classifying 20 percent of the population as “radical right extremists” or “extreme conservatives,” the Anti-Defamation League in 1964 asserted that between 20 percent and 25 percent of the U.S. public strongly opposed such extremists, with “the remaining 50 percent or 55 percent of American citizens the prize to be won.”

The intervening social upheaval of the 1960s, LBJ’s Great Society and Barry Goldwater’s trouncing in the 1964 presidential elections seemingly confirmed the New Deal revolution and further muffled the voices of William Grede and his fellow travelers. But the far-right had laid the groundwork in the 1950s.

These progenitors of today’s far-right had the patience—and the foresight—to undertake the slow process involved in reorienting an American public away from its support of the programs and goals of the New Deal. They sought to create an environment in which a presidential candidate like Ted Cruz became a 2016 frontrunner with a platform promising to eliminate the IRS, the Department of Education, the Department of Energy, the Department of Commerce, and the Department of Housing and Urban Development.

As journalist Thomas Stokes perceptively stated in 1948: “We went through a peaceful revolution in this country in 1933. We are now in the counterrevolution.”

http://www.rawstory.com/2016/07/the-far-rights-50-year-project-to-transform-american-values-with-a-clandestine-counterrevolution/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+TheRawStory+%28The+Raw+Story% 29 (http://www.rawstory.com/2016/07/the-far-rights-50-year-project-to-transform-american-values-with-a-clandestine-counterrevolution/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+TheRawStory+%28The+Raw+Story% 29)

The VRWC conspiracy is a synonym for Capital vs Labor. The VRWC is winning, fucking America into unfuckability.

boutons_deux

07-27-2016, 02:05 PM

ExxonMobil Top Sponsor at ALEC's Upcoming Annual Meeting

The agenda of the corporate-backed group includes discussion of a new “model” bill, designed to block implementation of the Obama administration Clean Power Plan

ExxonMobil (http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Exxon_Mobil), facing multiple state investigations connected to its funding of climate change denial, is listed as a top corporate sponsor of the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC) annual meeting, taking place this week in Indianapolis, Indiana.

ALEC has long promoted climate change denial to state legislators, and promotes a legislative agenda of “model” bills designed to protect the interests of its oil, gas and coal funders.

The ALEC meeting agenda includes discussion of a new “model” bill, designed to block implementation of the Obama administration Clean Power Plan aimed at reducing carbon pollution.

Republican Vice-Presidential nominee, Mike Pence is due to speak at the ALEC event on Friday.

Exxon is represented on the ALEC corporate board, and has funded ALEC since as early as 1981 (http://www.prwatch.org/news/2015/11/12977/Exxon-ALEC-climate-denial-investigation-new-york), providing at least $1,730, 200 between 1998 and 2014 based on publicly available disclosures.

http://www.vox.com/2016/7/27/12298658/donald-trump-hacks-clinton-emails-dnc-nixon-watergate

boutons_deux

07-28-2016, 04:32 PM

Mike Pence Set To Strengthen Ties To ALEC And Corporate-Driven Education Reform

http://cloudfront.mediamatters.org/static/uploader/image/2016/04/27/ALEC_(1).png

http://mediamatters.org/blog/2016/07/28/mike-pence-set-strengthen-ties-alec-and-corporate-driven-education-reform/211995?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+MediaMattersForAmerica-CountyFair+%28Media+Matters+for+America+-+Blog%29

boutons_deux

08-03-2016, 11:16 PM

Koch Brothers Move to Influence Congressional and State Races

Charles Koch, joined by at least 300 donors who had each committed at least $100,000 annually to the network, reportedly (https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/koch-network-seeks-to-defuse-donor-frustration-over-trump-rebuff/2016/08/01/7247b8c2-579a-11e6-831d-0324760ca856_story.html) outlined plans to get those with similar political ideologies elected to office and to “cultivat[e] conservative leaders at the state level,”

“The resources and the breadth of the organization make it singular in American politics: an operation conducted outside the campaign finance system, employing an array of groups aimed at stopping what its financiers view as government overreach,” explained (https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/koch-backed-political-network-built-to-shield-donors-raised-400-million-in-2012-elections/2014/01/05/9e7cfd9a-719b-11e3-9389-09ef9944065e_story.html) Gold in another article. “Members of the coalition target different constituencies but together have mounted attacks on the new health-care law, federal spending and environmental regulations.”

the Koch network is nevertheless on track (http://www.cnn.com/2016/07/30/politics/koch-retreat-paul-ryan/) to spend almost $750 million this election cycle, with about $250 million going to politics and the Koch groups that work on policy issues, including Americans for Prosperity and the Freedom Partners Action Fund.

https://reujq2sar5z38mfxc343rf51-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/08/koch-funded-states-660x418.png

https://rewire.news/article/2016/08/03/koch-brothers-move-influence-congressional-state-races/

boutons_deux

08-03-2016, 11:34 PM

Koch Brothers Are Behind a Plot to Open Up the Grand Canyon Watershed to Toxic Uranium Mining

calls are out to President Obama to make the “greater” Grand Canyon a national monument. This would encompass approximately 1.7 million acres of public lands surrounding the park.

Why? It is a response to potential encroachment on the gateway to the Grand Canyon.

Unsurprisingly, the issue at hand involves revenue, big power brokers, ramifications of Citizens United (https://www.publicintegrity.org/2012/10/18/11527/citizens-united-decision-and-why-it-matters), and a familiar actor in the anti-environmental space—the Koch Brothers (http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2015-02-06/koch-brothers-worth-100-billion-lead-oil-moguls-on-rise).

“These efforts are being driven by wealthy, ultra-conservative industrialists who are committed to rolling back over a century of land protections across the American West, including at the Grand Canyon.

Mining at the gateway of the Grand Canyon remains incredibly unpopular among Arizonans and Americans alike, but it’s not stopping these individuals from undermining our outdoor legacy.”

A poll of Arizona residents who expect to vote in November 2016 confirmed Zimmerman’s assertion of support for monument status.

The numbers showed that statewide, 80 percent favored the establishment of the Greater Grand Canyon National Heritage Monument.

When asked if a candidate’s stance on the issue would impact their choice, they answered in the affirmative by a “three times as likely” ratio.

http://www.alternet.org/environment/koch-brothers-are-behind-plot-open-grand-canyon-watershed-toxic-uranium-mining

boutons_deux

08-07-2016, 10:43 PM

Kochs are pouring big money into AG races to fight clean energy (http://www.dailykos.com/stories/2016/8/7/1557841/-Open-thread-for-night-owls-Kochs-are-pouring-big-money-into-AG-races-to-fight-clean-energy)

[The Republican Attorneys General Association (RAGA (http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2014/07/31/3466357/colorado-ag-energy-koch/))] is a Washington, D.C.-based political organization dedicated to (http://d35brb9zkkbdsd.cloudfront.net/wp-content/uploads/2014/07/RAGA8871.pdf) electing and re-electing Republicans across the nation to be state attorneys general — and to supporting their efforts to fight “federal encroachment” and to promote “free markets.”

RAGA has already spent hundreds of thousands of dollars this election cycle in support of Utah Attorney General Sean Reyes (R) and, through its Mountaineers Are Always Free (http://www.republicanags.com/raga_launches_west_virginia_spending) state PAC, West Virginia Attorney General Patrick Morrisey (https://cfrs.wvsos.com/#/ieec_list/8) (R), though the group claims (http://www.republicanags.com/4_states_have_competitive_attorney_general_races_i n_2016) both races are “safe for the incumbent party.”

Thus far in the 2015-2016 cycle, RAGA has disclosed about $19 million in contributions received.
So where did RAGA get its money?

More than $2.4 million — about 13 percent — came from

Koch Industries,

Murray Energy,

the American Petroleum Institute,

Exxon Mobil,

the American Coalition for Clean Coal :lol :lol Electricity,

and other fossil fuel interests.

Another nearly $1.4 million came from the

U.S. Chamber of Commerce,

which receives a significant amount (http://thinkprogress.org/economy/2010/10/23/126082/chamber-foreign-oil/) of its funds from fossil fuel companies (http://www.citizen.org/documents/disclosed-corporate-contribtutions-us-chamber-2012.pdf) and Koch-backed nonprofits (https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/koch-backed-political-network-built-to-shield-donors-raised-400-million-in-2012-elections/2014/01/05/9e7cfd9a-719b-11e3-9389-09ef9944065e_story.html). [...]

At the moment, several state attorneys general are fighting the EPA's Clean Power Plan (http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2015/11/04/3719099/interveners-file-motion-in-defense-of-cpp/), a rule that seeks to limit emissions from the electricity sector. It is expected to be one of the country's strongest tools to help meet goals under the Paris Agreement and avoid the catastrophic implications of a 2°C rise in global temperatures.

There are also state-led lawsuits again the Waters of the United States (http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2015/06/29/3675363/state-lawsuit-epa-clean-water-rule/) (WOTUS) rule, which is expected to protect drinking water for one out of every three Americans, and against a rule to limit methane emissions (http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2016/08/03/3804612/methane-rule-epa-states-lawsuit/) from the oil and gas industry.

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2016/08/08/1557841/-Open-thread-for-night-owls-Kochs-are-pouring-big-money-into-AG-races-to-fight-clean-energy?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+dailykos%2Findex+%28Daily+Kos %29

Fuck the VRWC, BigCarbon, Fuck the Repugs

boutons_deux

09-07-2016, 04:41 AM

Big Business Is Still Dominating State Supreme Courts

The U.S. Chamber of Commerce, the billionaire Koch brothers, and their bigbusiness allies have engaged in a decades-long effort to elect pro-corporate judges to state courts.

In 1971, a corporate lawyer named Lewis F. Powell Jr. wrote a secret memo to the chamber arguing that big business was under attack from institutions he perceived as liberal: academics, the media, college students, and politicians.

He also cited the public’s support for legislation to protect consumers and the environment.

Powell lamented that “few elements of American society today have as little influence in government as the American businessman, the corporation, or even the millions of corporate stockholders.” Powell suggested a solution:

The Chamber . . . should consider assuming a broader and more vigorous role in the political arena. American business and the enterprise system have been affected as much by the courts as by the executive and legislative branches of government.

Under our constitutional system, especially with an activist-minded Supreme Court, the judiciary may be the most important instrument for social, economic and political change.

Later that same year, Powell joined the U.S. Supreme Court following his nomination by President Richard M. Nixon.

By the early 1990s, the Supreme Court had a clear conservative majority.

The Chamber of Commerce and its state affiliates then began shifting their attention to state courts.

In 2000, the chamber launched a $10 million effort to elect judges “with strong pro-business backgrounds” in five states.5 A law review article published around the same time by John Echeverria, a professor at Vermont Law School, reported that

“a little known Oklahoma-based group with close ties to Koch Industries . . . has organized a nationwide program to promote the election of state judges sympathetic to business interests in environmental and other cases.”

Echeverria said the group operated under the name “Citizens for Judicial Review” during the 1996 election, and he called it “a kind of nationwide franchising operation for pro-business advocacy in state judicial elections.” Since that effort began,

big business has spent millions of dollars to elect pro-corporate judges who tend to vote for corporate defendants and against injured workers or consumers.

The same pro-business groups have also aggressively argued for laws that limit the rights of injured individuals to sue corporations, health care providers, or anyone whose negligence contributed to the injury.

These so-called tort reform laws not only make it harder to file a lawsuit but can also limit the amount of money that juries can award to severely injured plaintiffs.9 Many courts were targeted by big business after they struck down tort reform laws for violations of state constitutional rights. The legal battles over tort reform helped to escalate the political battle for control of state supreme courts.

https://www.americanprogress.org/issues/civil-liberties/report/2016/09/01/143420/big-business-is-still-dominating-state-supreme-courts/

boutons_deux

09-09-2016, 07:28 AM

The Shackling of the American City

copies were handed out (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/mary-bottari/alec-paid-sick-leave_b_3007445.html) at the annual meeting of the American Legislative Exchange Council, or ALEC, a 43-year-old organization that brings together state legislators and corporate representatives to write cookie-cutter laws for statehouses across the country.

Its members include many of the nation’s largest companies, a quarter of state legislators, one-fifth of the U.S. Congress, and seven sitting governors.

Since its distribution in the ALEC committee room, along with a U.S. map (http://www.prwatch.org/files/ALEC%20Labor%20Business%20Reg%20Subcttee%20Annual% 20Mtg%202011.pdf#8) designed by the National Restaurant Association, versions of the sick leave policy have been adopted in Alabama, Arizona, Florida, Indiana, Kansas, Louisiana, Michigan, Mississippi, Missouri, Oklahoma, and Tennessee. Cities in those states no longer have the right to decide whether the people who work there ought to receive a guarantee of sick time with pay.

Founded in 1973, the organization has paired lawmakers with businesses and special interests ranging from Google to the AARP to Exxon Mobil.

Over the years, this collaboration has produced hundreds of “model policies” that have made their way into state codes.

More than a few of those have been intended to void local laws, which would seem to undermine a central conservative tenet, one that Walker articulated last summer (http://archive.jsonline.com/news/statepolitics/scott-walker-touts-local-power-but-doesnt-always-defer-to-local-government-b99548286z1-320447482.html):

“When you send power back to the local level, the level closest to the people is generally best.” :lol

(The paid sick leave law wasn’t technically an ALEC model policy, but its Wisconsin sponsor is ALEC’s 2016 national chairman, and the bill was sponsored by legislators with ties to ALEC in statehouses in Alabama, Arizona, Florida, Indiana, Mississippi, and elsewhere.)

http://www.slate.com/articles/business/metropolis/2016/09/how_alec_acce_and_pre_emptions_laws_are_gutting_th e_powers_of_american_cities.html

1973?

VRWC stink tanks Heritage, Cato, and other VRWC orgs were all created around that time.

"movement conservatism" aka VAST RIGHT WING CONSPIRACY, with the Kock Bros financing a lot of it.

boutons_deux

12-26-2016, 04:21 PM

Rendezvous with destiny: Newt Gingrich’s long war against FDR and the New Deal enters its final stage

Don't take Newt lightly: He sees Donald Trump as the final stage of his long campaign to undo the New Deal

All that our parents and grandparents achieved, however, is now in jeopardy.

For the past 40 years the GOP right and reactionary rich, abetted by neoliberal Democrats, have laid siege to the promise of the Four Freedoms and the legacy of FDR and those we have rightly come to call the Greatest Generation.

In the wake of November’s election, they seem poised to renew their campaigns.

Just last week, former Republican speaker of the House Newt Gingrich, a fervent ally of Donald Trump, took to the stage at the Heritage Foundation (http://www.heritage.org/about) to rally the right’s forces around the president-elect in favor of launching a final assault on what remains of the New Deal and the Great Society.
Utterly disregarding the fact that Trump lost the popular vote by nearly 3 million, and haughtily dismissing the fact that his Electoral College victory may be due to Russian interference in our electoral process, Gingrich spoke of Trump (http://www.heritage.org/events/2016/12/gingrich) in the most fantastic terms.

Gleefully noting that politicians and pundits other than himself had completely underestimated the real estate mogul; bluntly assailing the media (http://www.salon.com/2016/12/19/newt-gingrich-ramps-up-attacks-on-propaganda-media-if-youre-not-with-trump-youre-the-enemy/) as “the propaganda media” and calling it a bunch of “idiots” (which is truly startling in light of how the “MSM” had helped to “normalize the Donald” to the public); and unashamedly hawking his own new e-book “Electing Trump (https://www.amazon.com/Electing-Trump-Newt-Gingrich-Election-ebook/dp/B01MXX1ZYC),” Gingrich celebrated Trump’s business and political savvy, his salesmanship and showmanship, and his determination to “drain the swamp” and “kick over the table.”

But the real message Gingrich was bringing to Heritage was that right-wingers should stop worrying about whether they could trust Trump and start recognizing him as one of their own (notably, the editors of both the classically conservative National Review and the neoconservative Weekly Standard had distanced themselves from Trump’s campaign and candidacy).

Portraying Trump as their new champion, Gingrich assured them that the president-elect was someone they could count on, someone who was seemingly prepared to lead them against the left and the Roosevelt legacy.

Gingrich began by announcing that Trump’s impending presidency represents “the third great effort to break out of the Franklin Delano Roosevelt model.”

The first, Gingrich stated, was Ronald Reagan’s 1980 election victory and ensuing two-term presidency (aka “the Reagan Revolution”) and

the second, Gingrich proudly recalled, was the 1994 Republican takeover of Congress (the so-called Gingrich Revolution that briefly shut down the Federal government).

Gingrich then really took off. And his smarminess knew no bounds.

Professor Gingrich the historian — yes, he has a Ph.D. in history, and they don’t call it “piled higher and deeper” for nothing — referred to

“Trumpism” as a set of ideas and practices worthy of serious study. :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol

http://www.salon.com/2016/12/26/rendezvous-with-destiny-newt-gingrichs-long-war-against-fdr-and-the-new-deal-enters-its-final-stage/

America is fucked and unfuckable.

boutons_deux

01-11-2017, 10:14 PM

VRWC/BigCorp getting 1000% return on the their corruption of Repugs

Republicans pass sweeping bill to reform 'abusive' U.S. regulation

Republicans on Wednesday passed a bill in the House of Representatives that touched on nearly every step U.S. agencies take in creating and applying new rules, continuing their blitz to radically reform "abusive" federal regulation of areas from the environment to the workplace.

In a 238-183 vote, the House passed the "Regulatory Accountability Act," which combined eight bills aimed at changing how the vast government bureaucracy runs. Only five Democrats voted for it.

The legislation would give President-elect Donald Trump tools "to wipe out abusive regulation," said Bob Goodlatte, the Judiciary Committee chairman who is among the many House leaders calling for lighter regulation and saying the costs to comply with federal rules are too high.

Republicans say there is little accountability for regulations that apply to almost every aspect of American life because

they are created by appointed officials and not elected representatives. :lol that's how govt has worked forever.

Federal agencies operate either independently or under the president's authority.

As House Republicans push for reform - last week they passed bills

requiring Congressional approval of major rules and

giving Congress power to kill dozens of recently enacted ones - Democrats are fighting back.

Democrats have said the many extra procedures required by the reform bills would

stall agencies' work,

making it impossible to create needed regulations on the environment, financial markets and other areas.

Democrats contend that

slowing down rulemaking is intended to help big businesses escape oversight.

The accountability act would jeopardize the government's capability "to safeguard public health and safety, the environment, workplace safety and consumer financial protections,"

"Worse yet, many of these new requirements are intended to facilitate the ability of regulated entities - such as well-funded corporate interests - to intervene and derail regulatory protections they oppose,"

http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-congress-regulations-idUSKBN14W02N?feedType=RSS&feedName=politicsNews&utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+Reuters%2FPoliticsNews+%28Reu ters+Politics+News%29

VRWC/BigCorp/Repug essentially stopping govt from functioning.

America is fucked and unfuckable, for as far as the eye can see.

Expect red/slave states to follow suit.

boutons_deux

01-28-2017, 09:26 AM

Frightened by Donald Trump? You don’t know the half of it

Yes, Donald Trump’s politics are incoherent. But those who surround him know just what they want, and his lack of clarity enhances their power. To understand what is coming, we need to understand who they are. I know all too well, because I have spent the past 15 years fighting them.

Over this time, I have watched as

tobacco, coal, oil, chemicals and biotech companies have poured billions of dollars into an international misinformation machine composed of thinktanks, bloggers and fake citizens’ groups.

Its purpose is to portray the interests of billionaires as the interests of the common people, to wage war against trade unions and beat down attempts to regulate business and tax the very rich.

Now the people who helped run this machine are shaping the government.

I first encountered the machine when writing about climate change. The fury and loathing directed at climate scientists and campaigners seemed incomprehensible until I realised they were fake: the hatred had been paid for (https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2006/sep/19/ethicalliving.g2). The bloggers and institutes whipping up this anger were funded by oil and coal companies.

the names of Trump staffers who have emerged from such groups: people such as

Doug Domenech (http://www.texaspolicy.com/experts/detail/doug-domenech), from the Texas Public Policy Foundation, funded among others by the Koch brothers (http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Texas_Public_Policy_Foundation), Exxon and the Donors Trust;

Barry Bennett, whose Alliance for America’s Future (https://ballotpedia.org/Barry_Bennett_%28Virginia%29) (now called One Nation (https://www.opensecrets.org/news/2015/05/roves-new-group-isnt-new-and-that-could-be-the-point/)) refused to disclose its donors when challenged; and

Thomas Pyle, president of the American Energy Alliance, (http://americanenergyalliance.org/staff/thomas-pyle/)funded by Exxon and others (http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/American_Energy_Alliance).

This is to say nothing of Trump’s own crashing conflicts of interest. Trump promised to “drain the swamp” of the lobbyists and corporate stooges working in Washington. But it looks as if the only swamps he’ll drain will be real ones, as his team launches its war on the natural world.

Don’t imagine that other parts of the world are immune. Corporate-funded thinktanks and fake grassroots groups are now everywhere.

the constant feed of confected scares about unions, tax and regulation drummed up by groups that won’t reveal their interests.

A few billion dollars spent on persuasion buys you all the politics you want.

Genuine campaigners, working in their free time, simply cannot match a professional network staffed by thousands of well-paid, unscrupulous people.

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/nov/30/donald-trump-george-monbiot-misinformation?CMP=fb_gu

boutons_deux

03-26-2017, 10:41 AM

Is a billionaire-funded coup to rewrite the Constitution on the verge of happening?

http://2d0yaz2jiom3c6vy7e7e5svk.wpengine.netdna-cdn.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/08/Scott-Walker-at-the-RNC-800x430.gif

A “Convention of the States” has never been invoked before, but Republicans and Koch-backed organizations like Citizens for Self-Governance (http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Citizens_for_Self-Governance) have been salivating over the possibility for years, even holding dress rehearsals in Washington, D.C., with representatives from across the country.

With the federal deficit presently hovering just below $20 trillion, their ostensible plan is to add a balanced budget amendment.

This alone would likely shred the country’s meager social safety net, but as Assembly Minority Leader and Kenosha Democrat Peter Barca warns the Wisconsin State Journal (http://host.madison.com/wsj/news/local/govt-and-politics/wisconsin-gop-moving-to-call-for-constitutional-convention/article_747bffa7-9290-5d07-9c6a-21b50124b57d.html), a constitutional convention could put citizen’s very rights “up for grabs.”

“The balanced budget talk is a fig leaf to let them change America into a right-wing alternative universe.”

Imagine if the U.S. Constitution barred the EPA and Department of Education from existing.

All union protections are dead, there are no more federal workplace safety standards, and even child-labor laws are struck down, along with a national minimum wage.

Imagine that the Constitution makes it illegal for the federal government to protect you from big polluters, big banks and even big food and pharma—

all are free to rip you off or poison you all they want, and

your only remedy is in state courts and legislatures, because the Constitution prevents Congress from doing anything about any of it.

The federal government can’t even enforce voting or civil rights laws.

To add injury to insult, the federal government has to shut down Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid, because all of these programs (along with food stamps, housing supports and any programs that help the middle class,

the less fortunate or disabled) are “beyond the reach” of what the federal government can do.

If passed, Wisconsin would become the 29th state to call for a constitutional convention; just 34 are needed for it to become a reality.

The 2016 elections have left Republicans in control of 33 state legislatures.

According to the Associated Press (http://bigstory.ap.org/article/21dbd1254fea4738b662a12612c5fbf1/obama-accomplished-policy-goals-his-party-floundered), the Democratic Party has lost more than 1000 governorships, state legislative and Congressional seats combined since 2008.

http://www.rawstory.com/2017/03/is-a-billionaire-funded-coup-to-rewrite-the-constitution-on-the-verge-of-happening/

One way or the other, the wealthy class is going to fuck EVEN MORE the non-wealthy class, esp the poor non-whites (and poor whites).

boutons_deux

05-17-2017, 12:12 PM

the billionaire oligarchy wins big in war to destroy public education

Charter backers win their first L.A. school board majority

Thhe Los Angeles Unified School District (http://www.latimes.com/topic/education/schools/l.a.-unified-school-district-ORGOV000940-topic.html) underwent a dramatic political shift Tuesday night, as the curtain dropped on what has been the most expensive school board election in the nation’s history.

The election has been a proxy war between wealthy charter school advocates and public employee unions.

Charter supporters appeared to secure their first-ever majority on the seven-member Los Angeles Board of Education (http://www.latimes.com/topic/education/schools/los-angeles-board-of-education-ORGOVV000382-topic.html), a move that could accelerate the already-rapid expansion of charter schools across the city.

Election day brought to an end a more than $14-million campaign

fueled by outside spending.

The latest figures show charter supporters outspent their union opponents. But union spending, mainly under the banner of United Teachers Los Angeles, also reached into the millions.

http://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-edu-school-election-20170516-story.html

boutons_deux

06-15-2017, 10:51 AM

The Koch Brothers Want To Rewrite The Constitution. They May Succeed

According to Article V (https://www.archives.gov/federal-register/constitution/article-v.html) of the Constitution, just two thirds (34) of the 50 state legislatures need to call for a convention for the purposes of “proposing constitutional amendments” (no governor’s signature is required). Those amendments would then need to be ratified by three quarters of the states, currently 38, to become law. But beyond those very basic requirements, nobody knows what the rules for a convention would be, since one hasn’t occurred since the original in 1787.

bill would call a convention to pass constitutional amendments that would require the federal government to balance the budget

“It’s not just about a balanced budget,” said Wisconsin Democratic Rep. Chris Taylor. “Mostly I think they are going at the social safety net, they are going to go after Social Security and Medicare because it’s so unpopular to cut those programs, and this is how they do it.”

ALEC has drafted model Article V legislation (https://www.alec.org/model-policy/article-v-convention-of-the-states/) and nearly identical legislation passed the state legislature in Missouri (http://www.senate.mo.gov/17info/BTS_Web/Bill.aspx?SessionType=R&BillID=57611591) at the end of May; it called for a convention to “impose fiscal restraints on the federal government, limit the power and jurisdiction of the federal government, and limit the terms of office for its officials and for members of Congress.” Texas (http://www.legis.state.tx.us/BillLookup/History.aspx?LegSess=85R&Bill=SB21) also passed Article V legislation last month,

The senator said the bill was not inspired by ALEC or other corporate interests :lol

‘A Very Real Threat’

Even though such a convention would be unprecedented, with no clear rules on how it would work, Constitutional law experts admit it could happen.

“I think it is very possible,” David Super (http://www.latimes.com/opinion/op-ed/la-oe-super-constitutional-convention-20170315-story.html), a law professor at Georgetown Law, told IBT. “It’s a very real threat.”

the total number of states calling for a constitutional convention is at 27 (http://www.prwatch.org/news/2017/06/13254/koch-convention-rewrite-constitution-roadblocks). As Super points out, given that Republicans control Congress, the Executive and the legislatures in 32 states, it’s not hard to imagine a scenario where the “fuzzy math” is enough.

“There’s nothing in the Constitution that provides for a limited purpose convention,”

“There is absolutely no referee,” Super said. This could open up the convention to a flood of special interest money. And there is no rule stating the convention would have to be open to the public. “We wouldn’t know if everybody with big money was working over the delegates… There are absolutely no rules at all.”

But the one rule that is clear in the current Constitution, a rule which some warn could be rewritten at a convention, is that 38 states, or three-quarters of the states, would have to ratify whatever came out of the convention.

“There is a risk of a runaway convention,” Michael Gerhardt, a constitutional law professor at the UNC School of Law told IBT. However, he said, “you could come up in theory with a relatively bizarre amendment, but you would need three-quarters of the states to ratify. That’s the presumed protection against a rogue amendment.”

The amendments passed would:

Require a vote of two-thirds in both houses of Congress to increase the public debt for one year.
Restrict Congress’ powers to regulate goods to only “the sale, shipment, transportation, or other movement of goods, articles or persons” across state lines. Congress would not have the power to “regulate or prohibit any activity that is confined within a single state regardless of its effects outside the state.”
Limit members of the House to six terms and senators to two terms.
Give the collective states the power to void any law, statute, executive order, or regulatory rule issued by Congress, the president or regulatory agencies if three-fifths of the states vote against the federal action.
Repeal the 16th Amendment and require a three-fifths vote by the House and Senate to increase or implement new taxes.
Implement a mechanism that would allow a quarter of the House to declare opposition to any federal regulation. If that happened, it would trigger a congressional vote on the regulation and would require a majority of the House and Senate to affirm the regulation.

It’s hard to begin to untangle the myriad consequences of those amendments, but what’s clear is they

would drastically reduce the power and scope of the federal government and radically realign the federalist system.
“This is very much abandoning everything our country has been,” Super told IBT.

“This is not tweaking or improving — this is abandoning it.”

http://www.nationalmemo.com/koch-brothers-want-rewrite-constitution-may-succeed/

boutons_deux

06-25-2017, 01:07 PM

The oligarchy makes, writes policy, and blocks all social progress away from American misogyny and brutality towards a humane, civilized America

Bradley Foundation Fueled "Independent Women's Forum" Campaign Against Paid Sick Leave Laws and More

The Bradley Files provide new insights into who underwrote recent efforts to undermine popular public policies that help women and families, such as paid sick leave laws. The Bradley Foundation did, through funding the controversial Independent Women's Forum.

The files indicate that Bradley gave the Independent Women's Forum more than one million dollars over the years.

That includes nearly half a million dollars in the past three years in response to its proposals for a campaign against public support for requiring paid sick leave, providing better child care policies, addressing the wage gap, and ensuring Americans can access life-saving medical treatment through the Affordable Care Act, known as "Obamacare."

The Independent Women's Forum said the campaign -- dubbed "Working for Women" -- would cost at least $720,000 last year. Bradley staff recommended a gift of $200,000 in 2016 to cover more than a quarter of that budget.

In 2015, the group had sought $350,000 from Bradley for the precursor to that project. Bradley obliged by providing nearly half the amount requested, $150,000.

http://www.truth-out.org/news/item/41057-bradley-foundation-fueled-independent-women-s-forum-campaign-against-paid-sick-leave-laws-and-more

All pro-oligarchy LIES from the oligarchy-financed IWF

boutons_deux

07-07-2017, 11:32 AM

Trash and Gorsuch Have The Right Wing Thinking Big. REALLY Big.

Religious Right leaders have a half-century long grudge against the Supreme Court (http://www.pfaw.org/report/trump-attacks-on-judiciary-could-be-religious-rights-biggest-payoff/) over rulings

on church-state separation,

the right to privacy,

legal equality for LGBT Americans, and more.

Religious Right leaders were thrilled (http://www.rightwingwatch.org/post/the-religious-right-is-thrilled-about-neil-gorsuch/) when Trump nominated Neil Gorsuch. They rallied support for his nomination and celebrated (http://www.rightwingwatch.org/post/religious-right-celebrates-gorsuch-confirmation/) when he was confirmed.

They made it clear that they are counting on him

to undermine the separation between church and state (http://www.rightwingwatch.org/post/religious-right-counting-on-heaven-sent-gorsuch-to-undermine-church-state-separation/).

National Organization for Marriage President Brian Brown saw in him the first step toward overturning the Supreme Court’s 2015 marriage equality ruling (http://www.rightwingwatch.org/post/religious-right-celebrates-gorsuch-confirmation/).

Anti-abortion activists are dreaming of the day that Roe v. Wade will be overturned.

Much of the

Religious Right is also fully committed to the Tea Party’s radically restrictive view of the proper role of the federal government.

At Road to Majority, Trump adviser Steven Moore said the

government should get out of education and health care.

That stance draws on both a right-wing ideological view of the Constitution and a

Christian Reconstructionist worldview (http://www.politicalresearch.org/2015/04/21/biblical-economics-the-divine-laissez-faire-mandate/) that God did not grant government the authority to be involved in education or the alleviation of poverty,

A primary vehicle for reversing the “great progressive experiment” will be by

packing the federal courts with judges committed to a far-right view of the Constitution and laws.

Gorsuch was part of Trump’s list of potential justices pre-approved by the Heritage Foundation and the Federalist Society, which has been working for decades to achieve right-wing ideological dominance in the federal judiciary (http://www.pfaw.org/report/the-federalist-society-from-obscurity-to-power/).

getting Gorsuch on the Supreme Court is “something that is really going to change America.” Another Supreme Court nominee, he said, would let Trump create “epic, titanic shifts.”

McConnell has “a laser-like focus on judges

Suares celebrated the “100-plus” vacancies on the federal courts, acknowledging “a lot of that is because of what we did last year and the year before” with “slow-walking” Obama nominees.

McConnell himself said that he was looking forward to Trump nominating Gorsuch-like judges (http://www.rightwingwatch.org/post/mcconnell-excited-about-trump-filling-judiciary-with-gorsuch-like-nominees/) for every judicial opening, giving him an impact “far beyond his time.”

Gorsuch gave Religious Right leaders evidence that he will indeed be the far-right justice they have longed for. (http://www.pfaw.org/report/the-2016-2017-supreme-court-term-signs-of-the-storm-brewing/)

It’s OK, said Meadows, “to be of a faith as long as it’s not a Christian faith, in this city.”

There is an effort, he said, “to silence the pulpits and the pews across this country.”

Meadows urged attendees to pray for President Trump, who he said “is trying to do what he can do for the unborn and for marriage” and “Judeo-Christian values.” Meadows said

“the option of failure is not possible” because “our God still reigns over the affairs of nations.”

http://www.rightwingwatch.org/post/trump-and-gorsuch-have-the-right-wing-thinking-big-really-big/?utm_medium=email&utm_source=botb&utm_campaign=rightwingwatch

America is fucked and unfuckable.

The oligarchy and the Chrisitan Taliban supremicsts have not yet begun to REALLY fuck America

Trash's supporters, the $50K and below, will more fucked over by 2020.

boutons_deux

07-09-2017, 12:40 PM

John Oliver's Hilarious and Frightening Warning About the Next (and Worse) Fox News (https://www.dailykos.com/stories/2017/7/3/1677607/-John-Oliver-s-Hilarious-and-Frightening-Warning-About-the-Next-and-Worse-Fox-News)

the Sinclair Broadcast Group produces flagrantly conservative opinion segments for their affiliate stations. No other station group does this. They include commentaries by their chief political analyst, Boris Epshteyn. After advising Donald Trump's campaign, Epshteyn served as the White House assistant communications director for surrogate operations. He resigned after repeated complaints about his "terrorizing" (http://www.politico.com/story/2017/03/boris-epshteyn-television-networks-behavior-235787) his media hosts and colleagues. So Sinclair snapped him up.

On Sunday night John Oliver wrapped up his season with another of his brilliant TV essays. The subject of this one addressed a topic that is currently swirling around the news cycle. Donald Trump's furious hatred of the media and the free press spiked to new heights this weekend. His repulsive WWE themed tweet (https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/881503147168071680) is a thinly disguised incitement to violence against journalists. And he is continuing his attacks on what he calls "fake news," but is really just any news that doesn't worship him sufficiently.

Trump's anti-media crusade has been laser-focused on CNN lately. But his broader targets include MSNBC, the New York Times, the Washington Post, and virtually everything other than Fox News. However, John Oliver's show did some deep digging (video below) on an under-the-radar media company that may be even more of a threat to ethical journalism than Fox News.

Oliver's research found that the Sinclair Broadcast Group produces flagrantly conservative opinion segments for their affiliate stations.

No other station group does this.

They include commentaries by their chief political analyst, Boris Epshteyn.

After advising Donald Trump's campaign, Epshteyn served as the White House assistant communications director for surrogate operations. He resigned after repeated complaints about his "terrorizing" (http://www.politico.com/story/2017/03/boris-epshteyn-television-networks-behavior-235787) his media hosts and colleagues. So Sinclair snapped him up.

Oliver tagged the growing Sinclair empire as "The most influential media company you've never heard of."

And with its recent $4 billion bid to acquire the Tribune Company's stations, it will become even more influential. And that's a big problem. Because, while Fox News is known to be a purveyor of rabidly right-wing bullpucky, viewers are not as well informed about Sinclair's biases. But Sinclair's relative anonymity doesn't make it less dangerous. As Oliver observed:

"We did some math and we found out that when you combine the most watched nightly newscasts on Sinclair and Tribune stations in some of their largest markets, you get an average total viewership of 2.2 million households. And that is a lot. It's more than any current primetime show on Fox News.

"If the opinions were confined just to the commentary or to the ad breaks that would be one thing. But Sinclair can sometimes dictate the content of your local newscast as well. And in contrast to Fox News - a clearly conservative outlet where you basically know what you're getting - with Sinclair they're injecting Fox-worthy content into the mouths of your local news anchors."

the local anchors are required to read introductions to these segments written by the propagandists at Sinclair headquarters.

They are distributed to the stations as "must runs," so your local news editors have no editorial control.

Consequently, your friendly neighborhood TV anchor is feeding you pre-chewed conservative BS without disclosing it.

https://www.dailykos.com/story/2017/7/3/1677607/-John-Oliver-s-Hilarious-and-Frightening-Warning-About-the-Next-and-Worse-Fox-NewsAbout-the-Next-and-Worse-Fox-News (https://www.dailykos.com/story/2017/7/3/1677607/-John-Oliver-s-Hilarious-and-Frightening-Warning-https://www.dailykos.com/story/2017/7/3/1677607/-John-Oliver-s-Hilarious-and-Frightening-Warning-About-the-Next-and-Worse-Fox-NewsAbout-the-Next-and-Worse-Fox-News)

boutons_deux

07-09-2017, 12:42 PM

Misinforming the Majority: A Deliberate Strategy of Right-Wing Libertarianshttp://www.truth-out.org/opinion/item/41206-misinforming-the-majority-a-deliberate-strategy-of-right-wing-libertarians

America is being fucked into unfuckability, but the hyper-wealthy billionaire oligarchy, and most Americans have no clue.

boutons_deux

07-30-2017, 12:57 PM

Having locked up 30+ state govts for the VRWC...

ALEC plans to bring their brand of legislation-by-lobbyist to your own city council (https://www.dailykos.com/stories/2017/7/29/1684620/-Get-ready-ALEC-plans-to-bring-their-brand-of-legislation-by-lobbyist-to-your-own-city-council)

The group is now seeking to expand their reach into the nation's individual cities, which are considered entirely too liberal these days.

The model for how to do it remains the same: Have industry lobbyists write the legislation, wrap it with some conservative-sounding phrases, and see which suckers might bite (https://www.apnews.com/d0ce048058d343b28fc90382926636e2?utm_campaign=Soci alFlow&utm_source=Twitter&utm_medium=AP_Politics).

Though the group is still young, it’s notched some significant accomplishments - most prominently helping distribute model legislation to end the automatic deduction of union dues from paychecks that 12 Kentucky counties implemented in 2014 as a precursor to that state becoming the 28th “right-to-work” state.

The American City County Exchange also distributes model legislation on everything from a taxpayer bill of rights that would require a supermajority to raise property taxes to measures requiring that cities explore all available materials to build sewer pipelines.

An official at the city council project, Bruce Hollands, is head of the PVC pipe association.

At the Denver meeting, Hollands gave a presentation to the roughly three-dozen attendees on how cities often rely excessively on iron pipes without enough bidding from manufacturers of other types.

Representatives of telephone companies gave presentations on new types of cellular service - and the need for different cellular towers - coming online.

And lobbyists from Uber and Airbnb touted the virtue of the sharing economy and state legislation that would prohibit cities from regulating it.

https://www.dailykos.com/stories/2017/7/29/1684620/-Get-ready-ALEC-plans-to-bring-their-brand-of-legislation-by-lobbyist-to-your-own-city-council

America more fucked and unfuckable. The oligarchy is unstoppable and irreversible.

boutons_deux

07-30-2017, 02:38 PM

Kock Bros don't enough $10Bs already

KOCH BROTHERS ORCHESTRATE GRASSROOTS EFFORT TO LOWER CORPORATE TAXES, DOCUMENTS SHOW

THE BILLIONAIRE KOCH BROTHERS are well-prepared for the upcoming debate over tax reform, with allies arranging to plant questions at town hall meetings and efforts to orchestrate a grassroots army to demand lower corporate taxes.

A detailed timeline for the Koch strategy was laid out in a recent document prepared by a public relations firm that services the broad network of conservative advocacy groups controlled by the billionaire brothers’ political network.

The plan calls for action to take advantage of President Donald Trump’s pledges to reform the tax code.

Trump has called (https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/economy/trump-to-unveil-proposal-for-massive-tax-cut/2017/04/26/2097fe42-2a94-11e7-be51-b3fc6ff7faee_story.html?utm_term=.8fe85fe78371) for cutting the corporate tax rate by as much as 50 percent, and eliminating the estate tax on inherited wealth, creating a unique opportunity to propose legislation that would benefit business owners such as the Koch brothers.

“Comprehensive tax reform has been a long-standing priority for our network, and the election of Donald Trump,

coupled with pro-freedom majorities in the House and Senate,

offers us a once-in-a-generation opportunity to restore prosperity :lol :lol

by enacting reforms,”

the brothers pledged to raise $300 million (http://www.denverpost.com/2017/06/23/koch-brothers-retreat-colorado-springs/) for their network over the next year.

https://theintercept.com/2017/07/26/koch-brothers-tax-reform-plan-grassroots-document/
These venal, greedy, predatory motherfuckers got nothing but lies.

boutons_deux

08-09-2017, 11:02 PM

Conservative Media Just Broke Out In Rebellion Against Pro-Trump Plot To Take Over All TV Broadcasting

The big surprise in the wake of the tricky, underhanded deal allowing Trump-friendly Sinclair Broadcasting to swallow up Tribune Broadcasting – giving it local stations reaching an unprecedented 72 percent of U.S. TV homes – is the opposition by many of the hard core conservative media (https://www.nytimes.com/2017/08/08/business/media/sinclair-bid-to-acquire-tribune-media-draws-opposition.html)who until now supported the president.

Sinclair, already the largest owner of local TV stations in the U.S., proved its loyalty to Trump during the 2016 presidential election when it not only mandated every one of its more than 100 local stations run favorable news stories about his campaign – and negative stories about Secretary Hillary Clinton – but also agreed to air unedited interviews (http://www.politico.com/story/2016/12/trump-campaign-sinclair-broadcasting-jared-kushner-232764)with Trump and his campaign surrogates that amounted to free commercials in several key swing states just before election day.

Now Trump is repaying the favor.

His now Republican-dominated Federal Communications Commission is granting a highly unusual waiver to Sinclair that goes against an Obama-era dictum which would have made the Tribune deal impossible,

allowing Sinclair to acquire even more TV stations, bringing its total coverage above the 39 percent allowed every other station operator – by nearly double to broadcast on over 233 stations.

Sinclair’s $3.9 billion deal to add the 43 Tribune Broadcasting stations is huge for them because for the first time it would mean the backwater Maryland-based broadcaster

would have a presence in the largest American cities – the media capitals – including New York (WPIX), Los Angeles (KTLA), Chicago (WGN) and Washington, D.C. (WDCW).

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DGocCYIVYAED2HA.jpg

Once they are part of Sinclair, those

Tribune stations would be mandated to air certain segments created by the Sinclair Washington Bureau on their local news slanted toward a conservative point of view.

Each station’s news would also have to air controversial conservative commentaries by conservative pundits, including former Trump White House official Boris Epshteyn who is heard about nine times a week.

On CNN’s Reliable Sources, Baltimore Sun media writer David Zurawik (http://www.broadcastingcable.com/news/local-tv/sinclair-politicking-blasted-again-national-tv/167195) said

Epshteyn’s commentaries “come as close to classic propaganda as I think I’ve seen in close to 30 years covering local TV and national TV.”

http://washingtonjournal.com/2017/08/09/conservative-media-just-broke-rebellion-pro-trump-plot-take-tv-broadcasting/

the VRWC/oligarchy continues its push, mostly successful, for coup d'etat, turning USA in to a one-party autocracy.

boutons_deux

08-19-2017, 02:36 PM

The is why the Repug FCC is going to continue the bloodless VRWC/oligarchy coup d'etat and approve extreme right wing Sinclair propaganda network buying the lefty Tribune group

173 TV Station Networks Are Defending Trump’s Indefensible Statements on Race and Nazism: Are They in Your City?

The Sinclair Broadcasting Group is pushing unabashed propaganda across its 173 stations.
Epshteyn is the chief political analyst (https://www.mediamatters.org/blog/2017/08/03/pro-trump-outlet-sinclair-turning-local-news-trump-tv-heres-what-it-looks/217482) of Sinclair Broadcast Group, a conservative local TV giant (https://www.mediamatters.org/research/2017/05/08/sinclair-broadcast-purchasing-tribune-media-heres-short-history-its-right-wing-politics/216330) that currently owns and operates

173 stations in

33 states and the District of Columbia (http://sbgi.net/tv-stations/).

He produces several 90-second commentary videos each week, which

Sinclair dictates (https://www.mediamatters.org/blog/2017/07/18/don-t-be-fooled-sinclair-trying-bring-fox-news-model-your-local-news-station/217296) must be aired on all its stations nationwide.

Epshteyn may have reached a new low last night with his take on Trump’s chilling defenses of neo-Nazis and white supremacists who rallied in Charlottesville last weekend.

Epshteyn’s segment begins, “The sky is blue. Does the president have to repeat that fact day-in and day-out for us to believe it? No, he does not.”

The “Bottom Line with Boris” segment completely ignores Trump’s statements on Charlottesville aside from his Teleprompter-dependent, hostage video

Epshteyn ends the segment with a personal note,

explaining that he is Jewish and thus knows that Trump is not anti-Semitic. :lol

This analysis, however, does not account for years of Trump’s public footsie (https://www.mediamatters.org/blog/2016/11/16/updated-complete-history-donald-trumps-relationship-white-nationalist-movement/214491) with prominent white nationalists and anti-Semites, including former KKK grand wizard David Duke (https://www.mediamatters.org/blog/2017/08/15/white-nationalists-cheer-trump-assigning-blame-both-sides-charlottesville-violence/217643).

Sinclair’s other two right-wing “must-run” commentary segments --

“Behind the Headlines (http://behindtheheadlines.net/)”

with Mark Hyman and the

“Terrorism Alert Desk” --

have yet to address the terror in Charlottesville

http://www.alternet.org/media/173-tv-station-networks-are-defending-trumps-indefensible-statements-race-and-nazism-are-they

Coincidently, Boris E is 100% Russian :lol

boutons_deux

11-16-2017, 02:31 PM

The Koch Brothers may be plotting to take over Time Inc.

The conservative billionaires may be teaming with the Meredith Corporation to buy the media giant

Conservative industrialists and political donors the Koch Brothers (https://www.salon.com/topic/koch_brothers) are reportedly looking to expand their influence by backing the purchase of one of America's major media companies, Time Inc, with their considerable wealth. According to the New York Times, "Time Inc. is said to be in talks to sell itself to the Meredith Corporation," a deal backed by the Koch Brothers.

The Times reported (https://www.nytimes.com/2017/11/15/business/media/koch-brothers-time-meredith.html?_r=0) that

Time Inc., the publisher of Time, People and Fortune magazines, was in talks earlier this year to sell the company to the Des Moines-based

Meredith Corporation, the publisher of well over a dozen nationally distributed magazines and 13 local affiliate television stations.

The Times reports that early negations didn't lead anywhere, but have been renewed recently thanks the intervention of Charles and David Koch. Individuals involved in the discussions told the Times that a deal could be finalized quickly.

To strengthen the deal, the

Koch Brothers have reportedly offered to back Meredith’s proposal with a $500 million capital injection,

people with knowledge of the talks said. A spokesman for the brothers’ business, Koch Industries, declined to provide a statement to the Times.

Two Meredith executives denied that any negotiations were under way, according to the Wall Street Journal (https://www.wsj.com/articles/meredith-pursues-takeover-of-time-inc-1510808902?mg=prod/accounts-wsj).

The brothers have swayed U.S. politics for years through the nonprofit conservative advocacy group, Americans for Prosperity. The group spent an estimated $720 million ahead of the 2016 election to support conservative policies and candidates.

The Times could not say how much influence, if any, the brothers would have on Time Inc. if the deal does indeed go through. :lol

https://www.salon.com/2017/11/16/koch-brothers-time-inc-magazine/

the oligarchy will be America's de facto Ministry of Truth and Information

boutons_deux

12-03-2017, 06:33 PM

So who the fuck is Meredith and why is Kock Bros involved?

TIME INC. BUYER HELPED KOCH BROTHERS AIRBRUSH THEIR IMAGE ACROSS THE INTERNET (https://theintercept.com/2017/12/01/time-magazine-koch-brothers-meredith-corp/)

In the coverage of the Meredith-Time deal, little has been made of the fact that Meredith has worked as a social media marketing firm for Koch Industries.

In the early years of this decade, Meredith provided stealth marketing efforts to delete critical commentary about the Koch brothers and their political ventures.

New Media Strategies, a subsidiary of Meredith, was retained by Koch Industries to airbrush Wikipedia articles relating to Koch Industries, David Koch, Charles Koch, the Tea Party, and Richard Fink, a strategist for the Koch brothers’ political operation.

Like Ailes, the Koch brothers have long used private detectives, political operatives, and media consultants to lash out at perceived enemies and critical journalists. Koch Industries has long maintained (https://www.washingtonpost.com/lifestyle/style/billionaire-koch-brothers-use-web-to-take-on-media-reports-they-dispute/2013/07/14/6a0953a0-e5b5-11e2-a11e-c2ea876a8f30_story.html?hpid=z4) a website to lash out against critical reporters, and in 2011, hired a number of consultants (https://www.amazon.com/Dark-Money-History-Billionaires-Radical/dp/0385535597)to dig up dirt on reporters viewed as too adversarial.

The Koch brothers’ interest in shaping the media is nothing new. Foundations controlled by the conservative donors have showered donations (https://tytnetwork.com/2017/11/28/time-isnt-the-koch-brothers-first-foray-into-journalism-business/) to conservative news sites, such as the Blaze, the Daily Caller, and Reason magazine.

Americans for Prosperity, the Koch brothers’ premiere political organization, has also bestowed grants and awards to a wide array of far-right bloggers and provocateurs focused on influencing the mainstream media.

the executives involved in the media deal this week have claimed that Koch will have no board seats with the new company and will “have no influence on Meredith’s editorial or managerial operations,” :lol

https://theintercept.com/2017/12/01/time-magazine-koch-brothers-meredith-corp/ (https://theintercept.com/2017/12/01/time-magazine-koch-brothers-meredith-corp/)

boutons_deux

12-03-2017, 06:55 PM

Leaks Show How Super Wealthy School Privatizers Sought to Influence Hillary in Lead Up to Campaign

A leaked policy book captures the influence of billionaire donors looking to overhaul and privatize public education

Hillary Clinton’s education platform is afforded through an overlooked Wikileaks-published document (https://wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/emailid/47100). Entitled “Policy Book— FINAL,”

The education portion of the document runs 66 pages, mostly concentrated on K-12 policy, and captures specific input from billionaire donors looking to overhaul and privatize public education.

Hillary Clinton’s donors, dubbed “experts," also sought rapid charter expansion and market-based options to replace public schools.

the “experts” were calling for

new federal controls,

more for-profit companies and

more technology in public schools — but first on the menu was

a bold remake of the teaching “profession”:

“Elevating the Teaching Profession and Reforming Teacher Training.

Every single person from across the spectrum wrote about and talked about the need to improve our schools of education, entry into the teaching profession and our professionalism once teachers make it in . . .

there is consensus that you could offer a bold vision for reforming teacher training and professionalizing the teaching profession for those new to the profession.”

Clinton campaign manager John Podesta indicated that recruiting and grooming younger, more compliant teachers was the plan to overcome resistance to corporate education reform over the long term.

“New Orleans is an amazing story :lol —

when you make it possible to get political dysfunction and sick a bunch of talent on the problem — it’s the one place where grand bargain of charters has been kept the best.”

New Orleans' "amazing" story resulted in the firing of 7,500 mostly black school employees,

wiping out a substantial part of the city’s black middle class. Meanwhile, the “miracle” claims of boosters like Reed have fallen apart. A recent editorial (https://www.theneworleanstribune.com/main/faking-the-grade/) in New Orleans’ African American newspaper called out the false promises and lack of results from the charter experiment.

https://www.alternet.org/money-talked-leaks-show-input-wealthy-privatizers-clinton-education-policy

Avaricious billionaires don't give a FUCK about education, only about transferring $100Bs of taxpayer public school funds to their own pockets through non-unionized, shitty, unaccountable, failing for-profit charter schools.

boutons_deux

12-04-2017, 06:23 PM

These Dicks Are Buying Up Your Alt-Weeklies And Turning Them Into National Review Or Some Shit

the millionaires and libertarians who just bought LA Weekly and fired the whole staff, to be replaced by unpaid contributors*, (http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-la-weekly-20171201-story.html) or about ARMSTRONG FUCKING WILLIAMS licking his chops (https://www.washingtonpost.com/lifestyle/style/why-does-conservative-armstrong-williams-want-to-buy-the-liberal-washington-city-paper/2017/12/04/217db692-d5f9-11e7-a986-d0a9770d9a3e_story.html?utm_term=.cab5170250e4) at the chance to buy the noble and beloved Washington City Paper, and what this means for the mythic “alt weekly,”

Now a Claremont Institute douchebag is taking over LA Weekly to make it great again. Unfamiliar? Here’s the Claremont Institute’s scholarly and legal work on Messicans:

https://img.wonkette.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/12/Screen-Shot-2017-12-04-at-10.30.37-AM.png

They have sued to allow tax money for madrassas Jesus schools, (https://www.claremont.org/strategic-litigation/religious-liberty-and-freedom-of-conscience/) and to keep the dastardly gubmint from forcing poor gun owners to keep their weapons locked away from kids. (https://www.claremont.org/strategic-litigation/second-amendment/)

They are bad people on every topic, at every level, (https://www.claremont.org/) and their vice president dipshit will now be in charge of Los Angeles’s “counterculture.” Which I guess is to be expected, since “the counterculture” these days is MRAs and actual nazis.

https://wonkette.com/626585/these-dicks-are-buying-up-your-alt-weeklies-and-turning-them-into-national-review-or-some-shit

==========================

more shit by the Billionaires' Ministry of Truth

DNAinfo and Gothamist Are Shut Down After Vote to Unionize

A week ago, reporters and editors in the combined newsroom of DNAinfo (https://www.dnainfo.com/new-york/)and Gothamist (http://gothamist.com/), two of New York City’s leading digital purveyors of local news, celebrated victory in their vote to join a union (https://www.nytimes.com/2017/10/27/nyregion/dnainfo-gothamist-union.html).

On Thursday, they lost their jobs, as Joe Ricketts, the billionaire founder of TD Ameritrade who owned the sites, shut them down.

At 5 p.m., a post by Mr. Ricketts went up on the sites announcing the decision. He praised them for reporting “tens of thousands of stories that have informed, impacted and inspired millions of people.”

But he added, “DNAinfo is, at the end of the day, a business, and businesses need to be economically successful if they are to endure.”

All other articles promptly vanished from the sites; an official at DNAinfo said they would be archived online.

Mr. Ricketts wrote that he founded DNAinfo in 2009 “because I believe people care deeply about the things that happen where they live and work,” and he thought he could build “a large and loyal audience that advertisers would want to reach.”

DNAinfo and Gothamist, which Mr. Ricketts bought in the spring, attracted more than 9 million readers a month, in New York and other cities where they operate satellite sites, DNAinfo said.

The decision puts 115 people out of work, both at the New York operations that unionized and at those in Chicago, Los Angeles, San Francisco and Washington that did not.

They are getting three months of paid “administrative leave” at full salary, plus four weeks of severance, DNAinfo said.

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/11/02/nyregion/dnainfo-gothamist-shutting-down.html (https://www.nytimes.com/2017/11/02/nyregion/dnainfo-gothamist-shutting-down.html)