...................................................................................................................................................................
6 Reasons Charles Koch is Full of Crap
By Kevin Mathews, April 5, 2014
This past week, Charles Koch, one half of the infamous Koch brothers, penned an op-ed for The Wall Street Journal. Unsurprisingly, Koch believes (or at least wants us to believe) that his selfish, capitalist ways represent the true American spirit and that he should be championed as a protector of liberties.
Go ahead and read his essay, and then when you’re done pounding your head against the wall, let’s take a look at some of the quotes that make the rest of us so angry:
1. Koch resents being labeled “un-American,” saying that his personal principles are the most American of all. “I have devoted most of my life to understanding the principles that enable people to improve their lives.”
You see, the reason that Koch is so successful is because he understands what it means to be an American better than the rest of us. More accurately, he has exploited the American system’s weakness to hoard billions of dollar. The idea that being an American means taking everything that one possibly can without regard for how others fare is bleak, and a sentiment that I bet most Americans would reject.
2. Koch claims that he only started meddling in politics to uphold America’s cherished principles. “It was only in the past decade that I realized the need to engage in the political process.”
As PolitiFact points out, this claim is decidedly false. In the 1990s, Koch and his PAC gave millions of dollars to influence the political system. Koch seems to make some harebrained distinction where the act of lobbying should be considered an “educational effort” even though what it really entails is throwing money at politicians to attain a specific outcome.
3. Koch just wants you to be free. “The central belief and fatal conceit of the current administration is that you are incapable of running your own life, but those in power are capable of running it for you.”
Okay, except that Charles Koch should be the #1 example of a person in power trying to run your life for you. At this point, government officials are not in control of our lives so much as the 1 percent that bankroll and influence these politicians are actually calling most of the shots.
Koch hides behind the idea that he’s a private citizen just like the rest of us. Theoretically, you are free to do the same as Koch, which is what supposedly makes it fair. Practically speaking, however, you’ll never have the resources to pull off what the Koch brothers do. That kind of wealth and power isn’t even attainable given the union-busting measures he’s put forth, the wage increases he’s suppressed and the equal tax rates for the wealthy that he’s eliminated.
4. “Instead of encouraging free and open debate, collectivists strive to discredit and intimidate opponents. They engage in character assassination. (I should know, as the almost daily target of their attacks.)”
Oh, boo hoo. People are being mean to Mr. Koch. Add him to the list of rich jerks who want all your money AND your respect, too.
I would agree that Koch should know all about character assassination because he’s usually on the side of discrediting and intimidating opponents. His money goes directly toward commercials that serve as smear campaigns against people who stand in his way. These days, you’re more likely to see a political commercial that distorts the facts and compares a candidate to a rat than takes an honest look at the issues.
5. The Koch industry does not deserve to be labeled anti-environment, after all they’ve earned a lot of environmental awards, “many of them from the Environmental Protection Agency.”
Even if this claim were entirely valid (it’s really barely true), all it does is prove how ineffective the EPA is when it comes to caring for the environment and how the government is in cahoots with individuals who give it money.
Ask any independent environmental group and it’ll tell you how destructive the Koch brothers are. They fund climate change denial and block attempts to bring clean energy into communities.
6. Americans are stupid for impeding on capitalism “instead of fostering a system that enables people to help themselves.”
At least Koch is consistent in this respect. He has certainly made it his life’s work to focus on helping himself, and he will continue to help himself moving forward.
Unfortunately, the problems that Americans face are too large for all of us to go it on our own. Looking out for ourselves and no one else will only exacerbate the problems, though a fortunate few like Koch might profit off others’ misfortunes.
The reason that Koch poo-poos on “collectivism” is because he’s managed to succeed without it – not because it can’t work for the rest of us.
...................................................................................................................................................................
Saturday, April 5, 2014
“Selecting Pompeo creates an unholy alliance between Monsanto and Koch Industries, two of the most reviled corporations in America.”
...................................................................................................................................................................
Koch Industries and Monsanto Team up to End Your Right to Know
Apparently it wasn’t an April fool’s joke. Three months after news outlets revealed the Grocery Manufacturers Association’s (GMA) plan to pursue federal legislation to block states from enacting “right to know” laws, they finally have a sponsor: Representative Mike Pompeo (R-KS).
According to news reports, Congressman Pompeo plans to introduce legislation to prevent states from enacting laws requiring the labeling of genetically engineered (GE) food. The bill would instead codify a failed 13-year old voluntary labeling standard for GE foods.
“GMA’s selection of Congressman Pompeo as their champion shows how extreme the proposal really is,” said Colin O’Neil, director of government affairs for Center for Food Safety. “Selecting Pompeo creates an unholy alliance between Monsanto and Koch Industries, two of the most reviled corporations in America.”
Congressman Mike Pompeo was the single largest recipient of campaign funds from the Koch Brothers in 2010. After winning election with Koch money, Congressman Pompeo hired a Koch Industries lawyer to run his office. According to The Washington Post, Congressman Pompeo then introduced bills friendly to Koch Industries while Koch hired outside lobbyists to support them.
Koch Industries’ subsidiary, Georgia-Pacific, is a member of the Grocery Manufacturers Association which donated more than $7 million against the recent Washington State ballot initiative to label GE foods. Monsanto, another GMA member, was the single largest contributor to that campaign. Between Washington State and California, Monsanto, GMA (including Georgia-Pacific), and others, have contributed over $67 million to keep consumers in the dark about GE foods.
“With Vermont, Oregon and other states poised to take action this year, it is clear that GMA is scared of what’s ahead,” added O’Neil. “They know that the food movement’s power is growing and that labeling is not a matter of if but when. They are afraid of state action and now they’re trying to steal away consumer choice in Congress.”
Background on State Labeling:
Connecticut and Maine have already passed GE labeling legislation. Alaska passed a bill requiring the labeling of genetically engineered fish and fish products. Vermont’s bill has already passed the state house and a senate committee. It is expected that nearly 30 states will introduce GE labeling laws or initiatives in the 2014 legislative session and Oregon is already planning a ballot initiative on the issue.
Background on National Labeling:
Building on public demand for information, in 2013, Senator Barbara Boxer and Congressman Peter DeFazio introduced legislation that would require mandatory labeling of GE foods at the federal level. The common sense legislation would compel the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) to implement a mandatory labeling policy. FDA has the authority to require food companies to disclose the presence of these novel food ingredients, and the agency has already required labeling for more than 4,000 ingredients, additives and food processes.
Source: http://www.centerforfoodsafety.org
...................................................................................................................................................................
Koch Industries and Monsanto Team up to End Your Right to Know
Koch-Backed Congressman to Introduce GE Labeling Preemption Bill; “An Unholy Alliance between Monsanto and Koch Industries”
April 3, 2014Apparently it wasn’t an April fool’s joke. Three months after news outlets revealed the Grocery Manufacturers Association’s (GMA) plan to pursue federal legislation to block states from enacting “right to know” laws, they finally have a sponsor: Representative Mike Pompeo (R-KS).
According to news reports, Congressman Pompeo plans to introduce legislation to prevent states from enacting laws requiring the labeling of genetically engineered (GE) food. The bill would instead codify a failed 13-year old voluntary labeling standard for GE foods.
“GMA’s selection of Congressman Pompeo as their champion shows how extreme the proposal really is,” said Colin O’Neil, director of government affairs for Center for Food Safety. “Selecting Pompeo creates an unholy alliance between Monsanto and Koch Industries, two of the most reviled corporations in America.”
Congressman Mike Pompeo was the single largest recipient of campaign funds from the Koch Brothers in 2010. After winning election with Koch money, Congressman Pompeo hired a Koch Industries lawyer to run his office. According to The Washington Post, Congressman Pompeo then introduced bills friendly to Koch Industries while Koch hired outside lobbyists to support them.
Koch Industries’ subsidiary, Georgia-Pacific, is a member of the Grocery Manufacturers Association which donated more than $7 million against the recent Washington State ballot initiative to label GE foods. Monsanto, another GMA member, was the single largest contributor to that campaign. Between Washington State and California, Monsanto, GMA (including Georgia-Pacific), and others, have contributed over $67 million to keep consumers in the dark about GE foods.
“With Vermont, Oregon and other states poised to take action this year, it is clear that GMA is scared of what’s ahead,” added O’Neil. “They know that the food movement’s power is growing and that labeling is not a matter of if but when. They are afraid of state action and now they’re trying to steal away consumer choice in Congress.”
Background on State Labeling:
Connecticut and Maine have already passed GE labeling legislation. Alaska passed a bill requiring the labeling of genetically engineered fish and fish products. Vermont’s bill has already passed the state house and a senate committee. It is expected that nearly 30 states will introduce GE labeling laws or initiatives in the 2014 legislative session and Oregon is already planning a ballot initiative on the issue.
Background on National Labeling:
Building on public demand for information, in 2013, Senator Barbara Boxer and Congressman Peter DeFazio introduced legislation that would require mandatory labeling of GE foods at the federal level. The common sense legislation would compel the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) to implement a mandatory labeling policy. FDA has the authority to require food companies to disclose the presence of these novel food ingredients, and the agency has already required labeling for more than 4,000 ingredients, additives and food processes.
Source: http://www.centerforfoodsafety.org
...................................................................................................................................................................
One down.... how many to go?
...................................................................................................................................................................
Gov. Deal faces political fallout from ethics verdict
By Greg Bluestein, April 4, 2014
Gov. Nathan Deal’s camp has been trying to distance itself from the problems facing the ethics commission for months. The jury’s verdict on Friday makes it a lot harder to do that.
Deal’s political opponents pounced minutes after the jury sided with Stacey Kalberman, the former head of Georgia’s ethics agency. Kalberman claimed that she was forced from office because she aggressively investigated complaints stemming from Deal’s 2010 campaign.
First came word from former Dalton Mayor David Pennington:
“I think that the judicial system handles issues like this very well, that’s what we have the courts for,” adding that he doesn’t think it would have a political impact. “They try to drag me into it, I have no involvement whatsoever.”
Deal spokesman Brian Robinson offered a bit more after the verdict was announced:
Expect to hear more – plenty more – from Deal’s rivals about this ethics trial in the months to come. Two other similar lawsuits from former ethics officials mean the story likely won’t soon fade. Democrat Greg Hecht is calling on his rival, Republican Attorney General Sam Olens, to appoint an independent counsel to probe the agency. And then there’s the question of where the $700,000 will come from.
Senate Minority Leader Steve Henson floated this idea:
Gov. Deal faces political fallout from ethics verdict
By Greg Bluestein, April 4, 2014
Gov. Nathan Deal’s camp has been trying to distance itself from the problems facing the ethics commission for months. The jury’s verdict on Friday makes it a lot harder to do that.
Deal’s political opponents pounced minutes after the jury sided with Stacey Kalberman, the former head of Georgia’s ethics agency. Kalberman claimed that she was forced from office because she aggressively investigated complaints stemming from Deal’s 2010 campaign.
First came word from former Dalton Mayor David Pennington:
“Nathan Deal’s abuses of power, ethics flaws, and strong arm, good old boy politics no longer have a place in our state. If we, Republicans, actually want to defeat Jason Carter this November, we must ensure an ethical conservative is on the top of the ticket. I am the proven Conservative who can defeat Carter.”Then Democrat Jason Carter chimed in with a statement and later a fundraising appeal:
“This whistle-blower trial opened a new window into the unethical culture of Gov. Deal’s administration,” Carter said. “Between this trial, the ongoing federal grand jury inquiry, and the new revelations that the governor used his official taxpayer-paid staff to advance his private business dealings, it is clear that this governor doesn’t think that the rules apply to him.Superintendent John Barge goes the farthest.
“The Governor is in the middle of all this mess. This is yet another example of the reason why Georgia ranks dead last in the nation in public integrity. It is time for the Governor to step aside, settle for one term, and let us get Georgia back on track.”We grabbed Deal on the subject earlier this morning, and he mostly dodged questions about the pending verdict by saying he wasn’t following the case closely.
“I think that the judicial system handles issues like this very well, that’s what we have the courts for,” adding that he doesn’t think it would have a political impact. “They try to drag me into it, I have no involvement whatsoever.”
Deal spokesman Brian Robinson offered a bit more after the verdict was announced:
Today’s verdict involved an internal dispute between former employees and former commissioners of the Georgia Government Transparency and Campaign Finance Commission, which is a body that operates independently of elected officials. There’s a reason no member of the governor’s staff was called to testify: because there’s no connection to this office.
After the most exhaustive review of such a case in Georgia history, commissioners last year ruled that the charges levied against Deal for Governor lacked merit. Those decisions are rendered by the commission members, not commission staff, after exhaustive study. As such, who the commission employed as staff had no relevance to the Deal for Governor case.On Robinson’s point about no Deal staffers being called to testify, it’s not for lack of trying. Deal was subpoenaed to take the witness stand, but prosecutors objected and a judge quashed it.
Expect to hear more – plenty more – from Deal’s rivals about this ethics trial in the months to come. Two other similar lawsuits from former ethics officials mean the story likely won’t soon fade. Democrat Greg Hecht is calling on his rival, Republican Attorney General Sam Olens, to appoint an independent counsel to probe the agency. And then there’s the question of where the $700,000 will come from.
Senate Minority Leader Steve Henson floated this idea:
“Not only should the current chair of the ethics commission step down, but Governor Deal should pay the $700,000 jury award to Stacey Kalberman from his campaign account.”...................................................................................................................................................................
Are Republicans simply furious that millions of Americans finally have health insurance? Sure seems so
...................................................................................................................................................................
IRRATIONAL HATRED OF OBAMACARE IS HARD TO FATHOM
By Cynthia Tucker, April 4, 2014
My friend Isatou has just received an invoice from Kaiser Permanente, testament to her new coverage through the Affordable Care Act -- usually called "Obamacare." She's thrilled to finally have health insurance so she can get regular checkups, including dental care.
A reasonably healthy middle-aged woman, she knows she needs routine mammograms and screenings for maladies such as hypertension. But before Obamacare, she struggled to pay for those things. She once had to resort to the emergency room, which left her with a bill for nearly $20,000. (She settled the bill for far less, but it still left her deeply in debt.)
She is one of more than 7 million people who have signed up for health insurance through the ACA, stark evidence of the overwhelming market demand. Despite a badly bungled initial roll-out, a multimillion dollar conservative media campaign designed to discourage sign-ups, and a years-long Republican crusade against it (50 votes to change the law), millions got health insurance.
That hardly means Obamacare is a raging success. It's much too early to know how it will affect health outcomes for the previously uninsured. But it's abundantly clear that the ACA has already made great strides in improving access to health care. And that alone is quite an accomplishment.
Now, young adults can stay on their parents' health insurance policies until they are 26 years old -- a boon in an economy where many young folks are struggling to find decent jobs. Now, patients with previously diagnosed illnesses ("pre-existing conditions," in insurance lingo) can't be denied coverage. Now, the chronically ill don't have to worry about hitting a lifetime cap that would deny them essential procedures or pharmaceuticals. Now, working folks who don't get insurance through their employers can purchase affordable policies.
Factoring in the Medicaid expansion, the ACA has extended health care coverage to an additional 9.5 million people, according to the Los Angeles Times, which gathered data from national surveys. Needless to say, millions more would have been covered if so many Republican governors, mostly located in Southern states, had not callously refused to accept the Medicaid expansion despite the fact that it is largely paid through federal government funds.
The GOP's relentless opposition has been puzzling. Republicans have resorted to extreme measures to try to derail Obamacare, including an implicit threat to prevent the National Football League from participating in a marketing campaign to encourage people to sign up.
Oh, did I mention 50 votes to repeal or alter the law?
Even acknowledging that our politics have become bitterly polarized, I don't understand this one. Even taking into account the GOP's irrational hatred for President Obama, I don't get it. Even though I know that Republicans believe in less government, I don't understand their approach to Obamacare.
First off, the ACA adheres to market-based ideas, many of which were first suggested by conservatives. Instead of a single-payer system like, say, Medicare, the ACA relies on private insurance companies. It adopts the individual mandate that was supported by many Republicans, including Newt Gingrich, back in the 1990s and later adopted by Mitt Romney in Massachusetts.
Second, Republicans are free to offer up a health care scheme that is more in keeping with conservative principles. But the "repeal and replace" mantra is rarely heard anymore since it has become increasingly clear that the GOP has no intention of coming up with a plan to replace Obamacare. While there are various counter-proposals floating about, none has garnered the support of a majority of Republicans in Congress.
Is the ACA perfect? Absolutely not. There is much in the law that needs to be worked on, refined, improved. But the GOP doesn't seem interested in that. Instead, its members have taken to engaging in increasingly ridiculous criticisms, including the charge that the White House has made up the number of successful enrollees.
It's strange. Could it be that Republicans are simply furious that millions of Americans like Isatou finally have health insurance?
...................................................................................................................................................................
IRRATIONAL HATRED OF OBAMACARE IS HARD TO FATHOM
By Cynthia Tucker, April 4, 2014
My friend Isatou has just received an invoice from Kaiser Permanente, testament to her new coverage through the Affordable Care Act -- usually called "Obamacare." She's thrilled to finally have health insurance so she can get regular checkups, including dental care.
A reasonably healthy middle-aged woman, she knows she needs routine mammograms and screenings for maladies such as hypertension. But before Obamacare, she struggled to pay for those things. She once had to resort to the emergency room, which left her with a bill for nearly $20,000. (She settled the bill for far less, but it still left her deeply in debt.)
She is one of more than 7 million people who have signed up for health insurance through the ACA, stark evidence of the overwhelming market demand. Despite a badly bungled initial roll-out, a multimillion dollar conservative media campaign designed to discourage sign-ups, and a years-long Republican crusade against it (50 votes to change the law), millions got health insurance.
That hardly means Obamacare is a raging success. It's much too early to know how it will affect health outcomes for the previously uninsured. But it's abundantly clear that the ACA has already made great strides in improving access to health care. And that alone is quite an accomplishment.
Now, young adults can stay on their parents' health insurance policies until they are 26 years old -- a boon in an economy where many young folks are struggling to find decent jobs. Now, patients with previously diagnosed illnesses ("pre-existing conditions," in insurance lingo) can't be denied coverage. Now, the chronically ill don't have to worry about hitting a lifetime cap that would deny them essential procedures or pharmaceuticals. Now, working folks who don't get insurance through their employers can purchase affordable policies.
Factoring in the Medicaid expansion, the ACA has extended health care coverage to an additional 9.5 million people, according to the Los Angeles Times, which gathered data from national surveys. Needless to say, millions more would have been covered if so many Republican governors, mostly located in Southern states, had not callously refused to accept the Medicaid expansion despite the fact that it is largely paid through federal government funds.
The GOP's relentless opposition has been puzzling. Republicans have resorted to extreme measures to try to derail Obamacare, including an implicit threat to prevent the National Football League from participating in a marketing campaign to encourage people to sign up.
Oh, did I mention 50 votes to repeal or alter the law?
Even acknowledging that our politics have become bitterly polarized, I don't understand this one. Even taking into account the GOP's irrational hatred for President Obama, I don't get it. Even though I know that Republicans believe in less government, I don't understand their approach to Obamacare.
First off, the ACA adheres to market-based ideas, many of which were first suggested by conservatives. Instead of a single-payer system like, say, Medicare, the ACA relies on private insurance companies. It adopts the individual mandate that was supported by many Republicans, including Newt Gingrich, back in the 1990s and later adopted by Mitt Romney in Massachusetts.
Second, Republicans are free to offer up a health care scheme that is more in keeping with conservative principles. But the "repeal and replace" mantra is rarely heard anymore since it has become increasingly clear that the GOP has no intention of coming up with a plan to replace Obamacare. While there are various counter-proposals floating about, none has garnered the support of a majority of Republicans in Congress.
Is the ACA perfect? Absolutely not. There is much in the law that needs to be worked on, refined, improved. But the GOP doesn't seem interested in that. Instead, its members have taken to engaging in increasingly ridiculous criticisms, including the charge that the White House has made up the number of successful enrollees.
It's strange. Could it be that Republicans are simply furious that millions of Americans like Isatou finally have health insurance?
...................................................................................................................................................................
Hey, people, just leave it alone, OK?
...................................................................................................................................................................
Democratic Congressman Mocks GOP Mistrust Of Obama With Birther Joke
By Ryan J. Reilly, April 4, 2014
Rep. Chaka Fattah (D-Pa.) made a birther joke on Friday after a Republican colleague suggested that a lack of trust in the Obama administration was preventing the GOP-controlled House from passing immigration reform.
"I think the problem with our side and many people in America is there's a lack of trust in the administration," Rep. Frank Wolf (R-Va.) said.
"I mean some people don't think he was born in America, but we still have to run the most important country in the world, whether we agree with who got elected president or what," Fattah responded.
The comments came as Attorney General Eric Holder was testifying on the Justice Department's budget during a House Appropriations Committee hearing.
Fattah said that immigration reform should be allowed to come up for debate and a vote on the House floor after Rep. John Carter (R-Texas) had said he was worried the administration wasn't enforcing current immigration law.
Holder declared that the administration remains firmly committed to passing immigration reform this year. "Our immigration system is, no question, broken," he said.
...................................................................................................................................................................
Democratic Congressman Mocks GOP Mistrust Of Obama With Birther Joke
By Ryan J. Reilly, April 4, 2014
Rep. Chaka Fattah (D-Pa.) made a birther joke on Friday after a Republican colleague suggested that a lack of trust in the Obama administration was preventing the GOP-controlled House from passing immigration reform.
"I think the problem with our side and many people in America is there's a lack of trust in the administration," Rep. Frank Wolf (R-Va.) said.
"I mean some people don't think he was born in America, but we still have to run the most important country in the world, whether we agree with who got elected president or what," Fattah responded.
The comments came as Attorney General Eric Holder was testifying on the Justice Department's budget during a House Appropriations Committee hearing.
Fattah said that immigration reform should be allowed to come up for debate and a vote on the House floor after Rep. John Carter (R-Texas) had said he was worried the administration wasn't enforcing current immigration law.
Holder declared that the administration remains firmly committed to passing immigration reform this year. "Our immigration system is, no question, broken," he said.
...................................................................................................................................................................
Friday, April 4, 2014
The Kochs and their imitators are leading us to oligarchy
...................................................................................................................................................................
Slouching toward oligarchy
America is not yet an oligarchy, but that's where Charles and David Koch and a few other billionaires are taking us.
American democracy used to depend on political parties that more or less represented most of us. Political scientists of the 1950s and 1960s marveled at American "pluralism," by which they meant the capacities of parties and other membership groups to reflect the preferences of the vast majority of citizens.
Then around a quarter century ago, as income and wealth began concentrating at the top, the Republican and Democratic parties started to morph into mechanisms for extracting money, mostly from wealthy people.
Finally, after the Supreme Court's Citizens United decision in 2010, billionaires began creating their own political mechanisms, separate from the political parties. They now give big money directly to political candidates of their choice, and mount their own media campaigns to sway public opinion toward their own views.
So far in the 2014 election cycle, Americans for Prosperity, the Koch brothers' political front group, has aired more than 17,000 broadcast TV commercials, compared with only 2,100 aired by Republican Party groups.
Americans for Prosperity has also been outspending top Democratic super PACs in nearly all of the Senate races Republicans are targeting this year. In seven of the nine races, the difference in total spending is at least 2-to-1, and Democratic super PACs have had virtually no air presence in five of the nine states.
The Kochs have spawned several imitators. Through the end of February, four of the top five contributors to 2014 super PACs are now giving money to political operations they themselves created, according to the Center for Responsive Politics.
For example, billionaire TD Ameritrade founder Joe Ricketts and his son, Todd, co-owner of the Chicago Cubs, have their own $25 million political operation called Ending Spending. The group is now investing heavily in TV ads against Republican Rep. Walter Jones in a North Carolina primary. (They blame Jones for too often voting with President Obama.) Their ad attacking Democratic Sen. Jeanne Shaheen of New Hampshire for supporting Obama's health-care law has become a template for similar ads funded by the Kochs' Americans for Prosperity in Senate races across the country.
Last week, casino magnate Sheldon Adelson (worth an estimated $37.9 billion) interviewed potential Republican candidates whom he might fund in what's being called the "Sheldon Primary."
"Certainly the 'Sheldon Primary' is an important primary for any Republican running for president," Ari Fleischer, former White House press secretary under President George W. Bush, told the Washington Post. "It goes without saying that anybody running for the Republican nomination would want to have Sheldon at his side."
The new billionaire political bosses aren't limited to Republicans. Democratic-leaning billionaires Tom Steyer, a former hedge-fund manager, and Michael Bloomberg, the former New York Citymayor, have also created their own political groups.
But even if the two sides were equal, billionaires squaring off against each other isn't remotely a democracy. When billionaires supplant political parties, candidates are beholden directly to the billionaires. And if and when those candidates win election, the billionaires will be completely in charge.
In his much-talked-about new book, "Capital in the Twenty-First Century," economist Thomas Piketty explains why the rich have become steadily richer while the share of national income going to wages continues to drop. He shows that when wealth is concentrated in relatively few hands, and the income generated by that wealth grows more rapidly than the overall economy -- as has been the case in the United States and many other advanced economies for years -- the richest receive almost all the income growth.
Logically, this leads to greater and greater concentrations of income and wealth in the future -- dynastic fortunes that are handed down from generation to generation, as they were prior to the 20th century in much of the world.
The trend was reversed temporarily in the 20th century by the Great Depression, two terrible wars, the development of the modern welfare state and strong labor unions. But Mr. Piketty is justifiably concerned about the future. A new Gilded Age is starting to look a lot like the old one.
The only way to stop this is through concerted political action. Yet the only large-scale political action we're witnessing is that of Charles and David Koch and their billionaire imitators.
...................................................................................................................................................................
Slouching toward oligarchy
The country's billionaires are even more in charge today now that candidates look directly to them for funding
By Robert B. Reich, April 2, 2014America is not yet an oligarchy, but that's where Charles and David Koch and a few other billionaires are taking us.
American democracy used to depend on political parties that more or less represented most of us. Political scientists of the 1950s and 1960s marveled at American "pluralism," by which they meant the capacities of parties and other membership groups to reflect the preferences of the vast majority of citizens.
Then around a quarter century ago, as income and wealth began concentrating at the top, the Republican and Democratic parties started to morph into mechanisms for extracting money, mostly from wealthy people.
Finally, after the Supreme Court's Citizens United decision in 2010, billionaires began creating their own political mechanisms, separate from the political parties. They now give big money directly to political candidates of their choice, and mount their own media campaigns to sway public opinion toward their own views.
So far in the 2014 election cycle, Americans for Prosperity, the Koch brothers' political front group, has aired more than 17,000 broadcast TV commercials, compared with only 2,100 aired by Republican Party groups.
Americans for Prosperity has also been outspending top Democratic super PACs in nearly all of the Senate races Republicans are targeting this year. In seven of the nine races, the difference in total spending is at least 2-to-1, and Democratic super PACs have had virtually no air presence in five of the nine states.
The Kochs have spawned several imitators. Through the end of February, four of the top five contributors to 2014 super PACs are now giving money to political operations they themselves created, according to the Center for Responsive Politics.
For example, billionaire TD Ameritrade founder Joe Ricketts and his son, Todd, co-owner of the Chicago Cubs, have their own $25 million political operation called Ending Spending. The group is now investing heavily in TV ads against Republican Rep. Walter Jones in a North Carolina primary. (They blame Jones for too often voting with President Obama.) Their ad attacking Democratic Sen. Jeanne Shaheen of New Hampshire for supporting Obama's health-care law has become a template for similar ads funded by the Kochs' Americans for Prosperity in Senate races across the country.
Last week, casino magnate Sheldon Adelson (worth an estimated $37.9 billion) interviewed potential Republican candidates whom he might fund in what's being called the "Sheldon Primary."
"Certainly the 'Sheldon Primary' is an important primary for any Republican running for president," Ari Fleischer, former White House press secretary under President George W. Bush, told the Washington Post. "It goes without saying that anybody running for the Republican nomination would want to have Sheldon at his side."
The new billionaire political bosses aren't limited to Republicans. Democratic-leaning billionaires Tom Steyer, a former hedge-fund manager, and Michael Bloomberg, the former New York Citymayor, have also created their own political groups.
But even if the two sides were equal, billionaires squaring off against each other isn't remotely a democracy. When billionaires supplant political parties, candidates are beholden directly to the billionaires. And if and when those candidates win election, the billionaires will be completely in charge.
In his much-talked-about new book, "Capital in the Twenty-First Century," economist Thomas Piketty explains why the rich have become steadily richer while the share of national income going to wages continues to drop. He shows that when wealth is concentrated in relatively few hands, and the income generated by that wealth grows more rapidly than the overall economy -- as has been the case in the United States and many other advanced economies for years -- the richest receive almost all the income growth.
Logically, this leads to greater and greater concentrations of income and wealth in the future -- dynastic fortunes that are handed down from generation to generation, as they were prior to the 20th century in much of the world.
The trend was reversed temporarily in the 20th century by the Great Depression, two terrible wars, the development of the modern welfare state and strong labor unions. But Mr. Piketty is justifiably concerned about the future. A new Gilded Age is starting to look a lot like the old one.
The only way to stop this is through concerted political action. Yet the only large-scale political action we're witnessing is that of Charles and David Koch and their billionaire imitators.
...................................................................................................................................................................
Thursday, April 3, 2014
Yes, of course it is.... how can it not be?
...................................................................................................................................................................
Is buying political influence corrupt?
April 2, 2014
Look out. We're in for a rough ride. Promoting a clean, fair election system just got harder. The U.S. Supreme Court's 5-4 decision Wednesday on campaign-finance rules is bound to turn our system upside down.
While conservatives are proclaiming the ruling in McCutcheon vs. Federal Election Commission as a victory for the First Amendment and liberals are warning it means the imminent takeover of democracy by the billionaire Koch brothers, the country is left with a system that is barely working and likely will become even more dysfunctional.
The McCutcheon decision ruled that current caps on the total amount of federal election donations were unconstitutional. It is seen as a companion decision to the 2010 Citizens United ruling that allowed unlimited corporate spending. For the time being, limits to individual federal candidates are still in effect. But a number of observers predict it is only a matter of time before they are challenged as well.
The Wednesday decision was along ideological lines. The court's conservatives voted for it. The liberals voted against it. This battle will continue in the court, in Congress and in living rooms across the country. At bottom, our society is still trying to figure out how our election system should work.
Chief Justice John Roberts, in his majority decision, said the government's interest is in preventing corruption, but that does not prevent the individual's right to give money to as many candidates as he wants. That, of course, sounds good. But his definition of corruption in politics was limited. A number of critics called it naive.
Apparently, the chief justice sees corruption in politics as merely a quid pro quo arrangement: Something given for something in return. But we know that the people who run our political system and the people who seek their help are too smart for that.
If that were the way politicians worked, the problem would not be so challenging. Many of them would be caught. But actual quid pro quo exchanges are enormously hard to prove. The operators in our system are simply too smart for that.
However, these smart donors still give money to candidates, and they don't give it out of the goodness of their hearts. They expect something in return. Remember, they didn't get all that money by accident. They are buying access. They get face time. They get phone calls returned.
That is the way power operates. It is part of human nature. However, even if we can't eliminate it, we should be able to do something about limiting it.
We now have a system where corporations and unions can pour unlimited amounts of money into an election. They can anonymously put money in campaign funds that promote an issue as long as it does not specifically endorse a candidate. These vehicles can be destructive of our democracy and our election system.
If that is not a form of corruption, what is?
...................................................................................................................................................................
Is buying political influence corrupt?
April 2, 2014
Look out. We're in for a rough ride. Promoting a clean, fair election system just got harder. The U.S. Supreme Court's 5-4 decision Wednesday on campaign-finance rules is bound to turn our system upside down.
While conservatives are proclaiming the ruling in McCutcheon vs. Federal Election Commission as a victory for the First Amendment and liberals are warning it means the imminent takeover of democracy by the billionaire Koch brothers, the country is left with a system that is barely working and likely will become even more dysfunctional.
The McCutcheon decision ruled that current caps on the total amount of federal election donations were unconstitutional. It is seen as a companion decision to the 2010 Citizens United ruling that allowed unlimited corporate spending. For the time being, limits to individual federal candidates are still in effect. But a number of observers predict it is only a matter of time before they are challenged as well.
The Wednesday decision was along ideological lines. The court's conservatives voted for it. The liberals voted against it. This battle will continue in the court, in Congress and in living rooms across the country. At bottom, our society is still trying to figure out how our election system should work.
Chief Justice John Roberts, in his majority decision, said the government's interest is in preventing corruption, but that does not prevent the individual's right to give money to as many candidates as he wants. That, of course, sounds good. But his definition of corruption in politics was limited. A number of critics called it naive.
Apparently, the chief justice sees corruption in politics as merely a quid pro quo arrangement: Something given for something in return. But we know that the people who run our political system and the people who seek their help are too smart for that.
If that were the way politicians worked, the problem would not be so challenging. Many of them would be caught. But actual quid pro quo exchanges are enormously hard to prove. The operators in our system are simply too smart for that.
However, these smart donors still give money to candidates, and they don't give it out of the goodness of their hearts. They expect something in return. Remember, they didn't get all that money by accident. They are buying access. They get face time. They get phone calls returned.
That is the way power operates. It is part of human nature. However, even if we can't eliminate it, we should be able to do something about limiting it.
We now have a system where corporations and unions can pour unlimited amounts of money into an election. They can anonymously put money in campaign funds that promote an issue as long as it does not specifically endorse a candidate. These vehicles can be destructive of our democracy and our election system.
If that is not a form of corruption, what is?
...................................................................................................................................................................
"Chief Justice John Roberts Jr., showing insincere naïveté, doesn’t consider that purchase of access to be corruption, which he apparently detects only in bribery. But the donors know that American politics is now for sale, and they are ready to buy."
...................................................................................................................................................................
How to Squeeze the Political Parties
The Campaign Finance Ruling Helps Big Donors
By The Editorial Board, April 3, 2014
Reince Priebus, the Republican Party chairman, was practically giddy on Wednesday imagining the riches he can squeeze from big private bank accounts as a result of the Supreme Court decision that knocked down yet another campaign finance limit. “We are grateful and we are excited,” he said, explaining that donors will now be able to “max out” in giving to more party committees, at far higher levels than previously allowed.
But actually, it is the big donors who will be squeezing the parties, not the other way around. They now have far more power to dictate terms to politicians, and will soon begin issuing demands to benefit their special interests.
Why? Donors will now have a wide array of choices in where to spend their political dollars, thanks to the Supreme Court. The 2010 Citizens United decision, combined with lower-court rulings, opened the door to giving unlimited amounts of money to “super PACs” and nonprofit political groups, money that was spent on electing and defeating specific candidates. The court’s McCutcheon decision on Wednesday allows donors to give as much as $3.6 million to joint fund-raising committees set up by the parties, which can be used to benefit individual candidates.
That makes the parties players in the big-money race for the first time, since an individual’s contributions to party committees had been limited to $74,600 per election cycle. But the parties will be competing with the super PACs for those six-figure checks, and the check writers know it. For that kind of money, donors expect something beyond a nice table at a fund-raiser and a photo with a party leader. And the parties, which are controlled by the top lawmakers, are in a position to provide it — tax benefits, special clauses in regulatory bills, spending that helps a particular industry.
Donors, of course, have differing needs and demands. Some, like the Koch brothers, seek broad ideological change, knowing that reducing the overall power of government will give their widely scattered industries more freedom and higher profits, unburdened by pesky environmental and financial regulations. Others, like Tom Steyer, a billionaire investor, are more narrowly focused on specific issues, like reducing man-made climate change.
Industries and their executives often have even more closely tailored demands of government, and are willing to pay to make those demands in person. A cable company wants approval of a merger. Wireless companies and broadcasters want pieces of the frequency spectrum. Banks and payday lenders want less regulation and oversight. Medical device makers want to get rid of a tax. All of them spend fortunes on lobbying, and now their executives can dangle the prospect of millions before the parties to get the access they need. (The companies themselves can’t write those checks, but they can give whatever they want to super PACs and nonprofits.)
A memo by Covington & Burling, a legal and lobbying firm, explains to its corporate clients how giving post-McCutcheon will work. “The difference here is that, unlike with super PACs, elected politicians are able to request the contributions directly from the high-net-worth donor,” the firm wrote. The decision will “allow power to collect around any member [of Congress] who can command a national or regional base of wealthy donors, such as a prominent Tea Party or environmental advocate.” In other words, lawmakers who are the most responsive to special interests and ideologies will reel in the biggest donations to their parties, thereby gaining more power.
Chief Justice John Roberts Jr., showing insincere naïveté, doesn’t consider that purchase of access to be corruption, which he apparently detects only in bribery. But the donors know that American politics is now for sale, and they are ready to buy.
...................................................................................................................................................................
How to Squeeze the Political Parties
The Campaign Finance Ruling Helps Big Donors
By The Editorial Board, April 3, 2014
Reince Priebus, the Republican Party chairman, was practically giddy on Wednesday imagining the riches he can squeeze from big private bank accounts as a result of the Supreme Court decision that knocked down yet another campaign finance limit. “We are grateful and we are excited,” he said, explaining that donors will now be able to “max out” in giving to more party committees, at far higher levels than previously allowed.
But actually, it is the big donors who will be squeezing the parties, not the other way around. They now have far more power to dictate terms to politicians, and will soon begin issuing demands to benefit their special interests.
Why? Donors will now have a wide array of choices in where to spend their political dollars, thanks to the Supreme Court. The 2010 Citizens United decision, combined with lower-court rulings, opened the door to giving unlimited amounts of money to “super PACs” and nonprofit political groups, money that was spent on electing and defeating specific candidates. The court’s McCutcheon decision on Wednesday allows donors to give as much as $3.6 million to joint fund-raising committees set up by the parties, which can be used to benefit individual candidates.
That makes the parties players in the big-money race for the first time, since an individual’s contributions to party committees had been limited to $74,600 per election cycle. But the parties will be competing with the super PACs for those six-figure checks, and the check writers know it. For that kind of money, donors expect something beyond a nice table at a fund-raiser and a photo with a party leader. And the parties, which are controlled by the top lawmakers, are in a position to provide it — tax benefits, special clauses in regulatory bills, spending that helps a particular industry.
Donors, of course, have differing needs and demands. Some, like the Koch brothers, seek broad ideological change, knowing that reducing the overall power of government will give their widely scattered industries more freedom and higher profits, unburdened by pesky environmental and financial regulations. Others, like Tom Steyer, a billionaire investor, are more narrowly focused on specific issues, like reducing man-made climate change.
Industries and their executives often have even more closely tailored demands of government, and are willing to pay to make those demands in person. A cable company wants approval of a merger. Wireless companies and broadcasters want pieces of the frequency spectrum. Banks and payday lenders want less regulation and oversight. Medical device makers want to get rid of a tax. All of them spend fortunes on lobbying, and now their executives can dangle the prospect of millions before the parties to get the access they need. (The companies themselves can’t write those checks, but they can give whatever they want to super PACs and nonprofits.)
A memo by Covington & Burling, a legal and lobbying firm, explains to its corporate clients how giving post-McCutcheon will work. “The difference here is that, unlike with super PACs, elected politicians are able to request the contributions directly from the high-net-worth donor,” the firm wrote. The decision will “allow power to collect around any member [of Congress] who can command a national or regional base of wealthy donors, such as a prominent Tea Party or environmental advocate.” In other words, lawmakers who are the most responsive to special interests and ideologies will reel in the biggest donations to their parties, thereby gaining more power.
Chief Justice John Roberts Jr., showing insincere naïveté, doesn’t consider that purchase of access to be corruption, which he apparently detects only in bribery. But the donors know that American politics is now for sale, and they are ready to buy.
...................................................................................................................................................................
"... the volume of your voice is determined by the amount of money you have, but no matter how loud that voice, you are exempted from any direct criticism"
...................................................................................................................................................................
The Koch brothers, the Supreme Court, and a new kind of liberty
By Paul Waldman, April 3, 2014
In a way, it’s fitting that Charles Koch’s much discussed op-ed in today’s Wall Street Journal appeared less than 24 hours after the Supreme Court’s McCutcheon decision was announced. At bottom, the Court’s decision — which delivered yet another blow to America’s teetering structure of campaign finance regulations — and Koch’s op-ed are parts of the same effort.
It’s easy to ridicule Koch and place him alongside other super-rich Americans who have wailed at their oppression lately (occasionally with ill-considered Nazi analogies). But we should take Koch’s op ed seriously, as a statement of belief from one half of America’s most politically important pair of brothers that, along with the Court’s decision and the efforts of other megadonors, constitute key components in a broader project: Nothing less than the construction of a new version of liberty.
Koch is particularly perturbed that he has been the target of personal criticism, when all he’s doing is trying to create a better America:
The system of “free and open debate” Koch envisions is one in which the volume of your voice is determined by the amount of money you have, but no matter how loud that voice, you are exempted from any direct criticism. That would be a privilege only the wealthy would want or need.
Think about it this way. Nobody is going to run an ad saying, “Barack Obama got a ten dollar contribution from Betty Lundegard of Sioux Falls, South Dakota. Just how much do we know about Betty Lundegard? What’s her agenda?” The reason is that it couldn’t possibly matter, so no one cares. But if you pour $400 million into a campaign, then it does matter, and people will care. Betty Lundegard isn’t affecting very many people’s votes, elected officials won’t jump to take Betty’s calls. Furthermore, Betty won’t have the luxury of publishing op eds in the Wall Street Journal defending herself.
So freedom from criticism over your political spending is a freedom only the wealthy would need. Yes, there have been issues in the past about the privacy of non-profit groups’ donors. In one key case from the civil rights era, the Supreme Court ruled that the state of Alabama’s effort to get access to the NAACP’s donor list was invalid, because the donors would likely be subject to intimidation and even violence. But Charles Koch isn’t worried for his personal safety. He wants to wield maximal influence with minimal criticism.
Similarly, the five conservatives on the Supreme Court are deeply, deeply concerned about the ways that ”speech” rights, i.e. the right to use your money to influence politics, are restricted at the upper end. In yesterday’s decision, they continued to weaken those restrictions.
With the McCutcheon decision, there is a way in which the sum total of liberty in America has been expanded. But do you feel freer? Unless you’ve got a few hundred million in the bank, the answer is certainly no.
In a strict sense, Charles Koch and I both have the “freedom” to donate a few million dollars directly to candidates. But in the actual world, only one of us has that freedom. Both John Roberts and the Kochs are doing everything they can to create a zone of freedom that keeps growing upward, with new kinds of liberty that only the wealthiest Americans can access.
...................................................................................................................................................................
The Koch brothers, the Supreme Court, and a new kind of liberty
By Paul Waldman, April 3, 2014
In a way, it’s fitting that Charles Koch’s much discussed op-ed in today’s Wall Street Journal appeared less than 24 hours after the Supreme Court’s McCutcheon decision was announced. At bottom, the Court’s decision — which delivered yet another blow to America’s teetering structure of campaign finance regulations — and Koch’s op-ed are parts of the same effort.
It’s easy to ridicule Koch and place him alongside other super-rich Americans who have wailed at their oppression lately (occasionally with ill-considered Nazi analogies). But we should take Koch’s op ed seriously, as a statement of belief from one half of America’s most politically important pair of brothers that, along with the Court’s decision and the efforts of other megadonors, constitute key components in a broader project: Nothing less than the construction of a new version of liberty.
Koch is particularly perturbed that he has been the target of personal criticism, when all he’s doing is trying to create a better America:
Instead of encouraging free and open debate, collectivists strive to discredit and intimidate opponents. They engage in character assassination. (I should know, as the almost daily target of their attacks.) This is the approach that Arthur Schopenhauer described in the 19th century, that Saul Alinsky famously advocated in the 20th, and that so many despots have infamously practiced. Such tactics are the antithesis of what is required for a free society — and a telltale sign that the collectivists do not have good answers.What, exactly, is this “character assassination” of which he speaks? I haven’t seen anybody arguing that Charles Koch has weird sexual proclivities, or was a terrible father, or has poor personal hygiene. All the criticism he and his brother get concerns their enormous business (the second-largest privately held company in America) and their involvement in politics. In short, it’s about their public life, not their private life.
The system of “free and open debate” Koch envisions is one in which the volume of your voice is determined by the amount of money you have, but no matter how loud that voice, you are exempted from any direct criticism. That would be a privilege only the wealthy would want or need.
Think about it this way. Nobody is going to run an ad saying, “Barack Obama got a ten dollar contribution from Betty Lundegard of Sioux Falls, South Dakota. Just how much do we know about Betty Lundegard? What’s her agenda?” The reason is that it couldn’t possibly matter, so no one cares. But if you pour $400 million into a campaign, then it does matter, and people will care. Betty Lundegard isn’t affecting very many people’s votes, elected officials won’t jump to take Betty’s calls. Furthermore, Betty won’t have the luxury of publishing op eds in the Wall Street Journal defending herself.
So freedom from criticism over your political spending is a freedom only the wealthy would need. Yes, there have been issues in the past about the privacy of non-profit groups’ donors. In one key case from the civil rights era, the Supreme Court ruled that the state of Alabama’s effort to get access to the NAACP’s donor list was invalid, because the donors would likely be subject to intimidation and even violence. But Charles Koch isn’t worried for his personal safety. He wants to wield maximal influence with minimal criticism.
Similarly, the five conservatives on the Supreme Court are deeply, deeply concerned about the ways that ”speech” rights, i.e. the right to use your money to influence politics, are restricted at the upper end. In yesterday’s decision, they continued to weaken those restrictions.
With the McCutcheon decision, there is a way in which the sum total of liberty in America has been expanded. But do you feel freer? Unless you’ve got a few hundred million in the bank, the answer is certainly no.
In a strict sense, Charles Koch and I both have the “freedom” to donate a few million dollars directly to candidates. But in the actual world, only one of us has that freedom. Both John Roberts and the Kochs are doing everything they can to create a zone of freedom that keeps growing upward, with new kinds of liberty that only the wealthiest Americans can access.
...................................................................................................................................................................
Kochs are calling Reid a collectivist
...................................................................................................................................................................
Reid: I'm Getting Under Koch Brothers' Skin
By Andrew Rafferty, April 3, 2014
Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid boasted Thursday that an op-ed penned by Charles Koch is proof he is getting under the skin of the conservative mega-donors.
Reid has made it a habit of harshly critiquing the Koch brothers and their group, Americans for Prosperity, which has given millions to support conservative candidates and causes. The Nevada Democrat has previous called the duo “un-American” and accused them “buying America.”
“I think I must be getting under their skin,” Reid said during a rally Thursday to raise the minimum wage. “They wrote an op-ed in the Wall Street Journal telling everybody I was a collectivist, which is code word for you-know-what.”
Charles Koch’s op-ed defended both himself and his brother, David, against critics who are attempting to “intimidate opponents” rather than “understand my vision for a free society.”
...................................................................................................................................................................
Reid: I'm Getting Under Koch Brothers' Skin
By Andrew Rafferty, April 3, 2014
Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid boasted Thursday that an op-ed penned by Charles Koch is proof he is getting under the skin of the conservative mega-donors.
Reid has made it a habit of harshly critiquing the Koch brothers and their group, Americans for Prosperity, which has given millions to support conservative candidates and causes. The Nevada Democrat has previous called the duo “un-American” and accused them “buying America.”
“I think I must be getting under their skin,” Reid said during a rally Thursday to raise the minimum wage. “They wrote an op-ed in the Wall Street Journal telling everybody I was a collectivist, which is code word for you-know-what.”
Charles Koch’s op-ed defended both himself and his brother, David, against critics who are attempting to “intimidate opponents” rather than “understand my vision for a free society.”
...................................................................................................................................................................
"Imagine how few people can afford to give that much. Imagine how grateful party leaders will be for those contributors." Imagine how much corruption will now follow!
...................................................................................................................................................................
Big political donors score again: Our view
By The Editorial Board, USA Today, April 2, 2014
For decades, often after huge corruption scandals, state and federal lawmakers have tried to limit the dangerous effect of big money in politics. Now, one by one, the Supreme Court is dismantling those restrictions.
In 2010, the court's Citizens United decision allowed corporations and labor unions to spend unlimited amounts to advocate for or against the election of individual candidates.
On Wednesday, it was individual contributors' turn. In a 5-4 decision in McCutcheon v. FEC, the court lifted the $123,200 "aggregate" limit on how much donors can give to federal candidates and party committees every two years.
If that doesn't sound worrisome, consider how much power and influence the ruling hands to a tiny number of people. In 2012, just 646 donors "maxed out" their federal contributions. The new limit for individual contributors who give to every possible candidate and committee will be $3.5 million every two years.
Imagine how few people can afford to give that much. Imagine how grateful party leaders will be for those contributors.
As troubling as that development is, the more important question is whether the court — after two decisions eroding post-Watergate reforms that the court had approved in a landmark 1976 case, Buckley v. Valeo — is poised to wipe away limits entirely.
Wednesday's opinion by Chief Justice John Roberts crimped Buckley without reversing it. The court left intact a limit of $2,600 in donations to any individual candidate in a single election but, as in Citizens United, it seemed to retreat from the core principle Buckley established: that while the First Amendment protects people's right to support candidates and causes of their choice, the public is also free through its representatives to set limits to deter corruption.
Roberts and the conservative majority showed admirable respect for free speech but managed to convince themselves that corruption is not really much of a problem. The opinion declared that the only legitimate target for campaign-finance limits is direct, "quid pro quo" corruption in which a donor gives money to a politician to buy a specific outcome.
In the real world of contemporary politics, however, such explicit bribery is rarely necessary. Only the densest politicians or party leaders don't grasp what their biggest contributors' interests are, or what it takes to make sure those contributions continue.
The cumulative effect of the court's decisions is to give these big donors greater and greater influence. "If the court in Citizens United opened a door," Justice Stephen Breyer wrote in his dissent, "today's decision may well open a floodgate."
As the big money flows, maybe the inevitable excesses will anger citizens enough to make the available fixes — public financing of campaigns, or a constitutional amendment to limit the role of money in politics — more likely than they seem today.
...................................................................................................................................................................
Big political donors score again: Our view
By The Editorial Board, USA Today, April 2, 2014
For decades, often after huge corruption scandals, state and federal lawmakers have tried to limit the dangerous effect of big money in politics. Now, one by one, the Supreme Court is dismantling those restrictions.
In 2010, the court's Citizens United decision allowed corporations and labor unions to spend unlimited amounts to advocate for or against the election of individual candidates.
On Wednesday, it was individual contributors' turn. In a 5-4 decision in McCutcheon v. FEC, the court lifted the $123,200 "aggregate" limit on how much donors can give to federal candidates and party committees every two years.
If that doesn't sound worrisome, consider how much power and influence the ruling hands to a tiny number of people. In 2012, just 646 donors "maxed out" their federal contributions. The new limit for individual contributors who give to every possible candidate and committee will be $3.5 million every two years.
Imagine how few people can afford to give that much. Imagine how grateful party leaders will be for those contributors.
As troubling as that development is, the more important question is whether the court — after two decisions eroding post-Watergate reforms that the court had approved in a landmark 1976 case, Buckley v. Valeo — is poised to wipe away limits entirely.
Wednesday's opinion by Chief Justice John Roberts crimped Buckley without reversing it. The court left intact a limit of $2,600 in donations to any individual candidate in a single election but, as in Citizens United, it seemed to retreat from the core principle Buckley established: that while the First Amendment protects people's right to support candidates and causes of their choice, the public is also free through its representatives to set limits to deter corruption.
Roberts and the conservative majority showed admirable respect for free speech but managed to convince themselves that corruption is not really much of a problem. The opinion declared that the only legitimate target for campaign-finance limits is direct, "quid pro quo" corruption in which a donor gives money to a politician to buy a specific outcome.
In the real world of contemporary politics, however, such explicit bribery is rarely necessary. Only the densest politicians or party leaders don't grasp what their biggest contributors' interests are, or what it takes to make sure those contributions continue.
The cumulative effect of the court's decisions is to give these big donors greater and greater influence. "If the court in Citizens United opened a door," Justice Stephen Breyer wrote in his dissent, "today's decision may well open a floodgate."
As the big money flows, maybe the inevitable excesses will anger citizens enough to make the available fixes — public financing of campaigns, or a constitutional amendment to limit the role of money in politics — more likely than they seem today.
...................................................................................................................................................................
Wednesday, April 2, 2014
"It's time [Republican naysayers] recognized that the rhetoric about Obamacare's failure has gotten them nowhere"
...................................................................................................................................................................
Obamacare numbers coming in huge: Here's a guide to GOP excuse-making
By Michael Hiltzik, March 31, 2014
Against all odds and expectations, enrollments in health plans qualified under the Affordable Care Act are surging Monday toward -- and maybe beyond -- the 7-million figure projected by the Congressional Budget Office before Oct. 1, when the open-enrollment period began. The deadline for starting enrollment applications for 2014 plans is midnight Monday.
The surge is creating a big problem for the "train wreck" narrative of Republican opponents of the ACA, who have been holding out hope for Obamacare's utter failure. So the excuse-making has begun.
Before we examine those excuses: You will recall that the budget office reduced its projection of enrollments on individual insurance exchanges to 6 million earlier this year to account for the botched launch of healthcare.gov, the federal enrollment website. Enrollments blew past that mark days ago. If exchange enrollments meet or exceed the original projection of 7 million despite the loss of some six weeks in website functionality in October and November, that would be a testament to the public's latent desire for effective healthcare coverage.
We won't know the final March 31 tally for days, possibly weeks, but that indispensable enrollment tracker Charles Gaba is projecting 6.78 million exchange enrollments, with a chance of topping 7 million.
That figure covers enrollments in private healthcare plans via healthcare.gov and the individual websites offered by 14 states and the District of Columbia. As my colleague Noam Levey is reporting, the Rand Corp. estimates that another 4.5 million previously uninsured adults have signed up for Medicaid in states that expanded that program under the ACA. And about 3 million young adults have obtained coverage through an ACA provision allowing them to stay on their parents' employer plans until age 26.
For Obamacare critics, consequently, the enrollment numbers demand debunking. Here's a bestiary of their arguments for why the figures shouldn't be believed, and explanations of why they're off-base.
"How many have paid?" (Also known as "The statistics are full of deadbeats"): We examined this argument a few days ago. We observed that the concern is probably exaggerated and certainly premature, since many people who enrolled late in the cycle, including those in the March surge, may not have payments due for as much as six weeks after enrollment. Many haven't even received their first monthly premium bill yet.
Figures from states that track this metric, including California and Vermont, show that 85% to 90% of enrollees have paid on time, which secures them the coverage they applied for.
"Most of them were already insured": The argument here is that if we've just moved people from one insurance plan to another, we've just been wasting Americans' time and subjecting them to an onerous bureaucratic procedure as well.
The claim is based primarily on a survey in January from McKinsey and Co., which concluded that only 11% of exchange enrollees had been previously uninsured. A McKinsey survey a month later raised that figure to 27% -- still low, compared to expectations.
The major problem with the McKinsey survey is that doesn't say what its hawkers claim. The survey combines on-exchange enrollments and off-exchange enrollments; the latter are likely to heavily skew figures toward the previously insured because those are most likely people signing up again with their existing carriers. The goal of the exchange marketplaces, however, is to reach uninsured Americans. The McKinsey surveys don't break out on-exchange signups, but it's probably that the share of previously uninsureds in that group is higher than the combined total.
The few states that do break out their own numbers reinforce that expectation. Kentucky says that some 75% of its exchange enrollees were previously uninsured. New York says that about 60% of its exchange enrollees were previously uninsured. That number has been rising over time, raising the prospect that the March surge will include an even higher ratio of uninsured customers; Gaba, who has calculated a time series of New York enrollments based on the state's monthly news releases, calculates that of enrollees in mid-February, at least 92% had been uninsured.
"'Young invincibles' aren't signing up": This is related to the oft-mentioned threat of a "death spiral" in the insurance market -- if the enrollees are predominantly older and sicker consumers, they'll drive up premiums, which will discourage younger and healthier people from enrolling, which drives up premiums, which discourages, the young, etc., etc.
Federal officials have set an informal target of 40% of enrollments in the 18-34 age range. The latest figures from various states put the enrollment rate at the mid-20% level. But it was always expected that younger people would be among the last to enroll, and reports from the states suggest that's happening.
Even if the statistics remain fixed in the mid-20s, however, the death spiral won't be happening. The Kaiser Family Foundation estimated that even if the young enrolled at only 50% of expected levels, premiums for 2015 would have to be raised a couple of percentage points. That's nowhere near enough to set off a death spiral.
Moreover, as we explained way back in October, the ACA has a corrective to the death spiral written in. It's called risk adjustment, and it works by paying a subsidy to insurance companies that end up with older or sicker customer bases than they anticipated. The money comes from payments made by carriers that end up with favorable customer profiles. Republicans know this arrangement will keep Obamacare stable. How do we know? Because in a majestically cynical move spearheaded by Sen. Marco Rubio, R-Fla., they tried late last year to kill it, calling it an insurance "bailout."
"More people got cancellations than signed up": The numbers never supported this claim, and the latest estimates make it even more of a fantasy. It's based on the wave of reports late last year of insurance companies canceling old policies that didn't meet ACA standards, which led to hysterical claims that as many as 17 million Americans were being left uninsured.
Rand's figures support earlier estimates that fewer than 1 million people who had health plans in 2013 are now uninsured because of cancellations. Insurance companies that issued the cancellation notices say they've retained "the vast majority" of their old customers, mostly by moving them into new, compliant, plans.
"The White House is 'cooking the books'": This is the last refuge of scoundrels like Sen. John Barrasso, R-Wyo., who made the claim this weekend on Fox News Sunday while the slack-jawed host, Chris Wallace, sat silently by.
What makes this claim particularly fatuous is that the most encouraging figures don't come from the federal government at all, but from states with their own enrollment programs. The eight states with the best records of signing up their eligible citizens in exchange plans (actually seven states and D.C.), all have their own exchanges and websites. Vermont leads the parade at 83% enrolled. California, which leads all states in number of exchange enrollees at more than 1 million, ranks fourth with a 41% outreach rate.
If the feds are cooking the books, they've cooked them to look worse, not better -- the 36 states that dumped their enrollment responsibilities on the federal government are clustered at the bottom of the list, most of them with enrollment rates of 20% or less of eligible citizens. Many of these are states that actively discouraged or interfered with enrollments of their citizens in health insurance plans -- behavior that should be grounds for impeachment or recall of their governors and legislators.
Of course, even the enrollment of 7 million Americans in ACA exchanges doesn't mean Obamacare is a certified success. There's a lot of work to be done to fix the inevitable flaws in any law as far-reaching as this one. As Noam Levey reported, it amounts to the largest expansion of health coverage for Americans since the enactment of Medicare half a century ago, but many more people need to be signed up in coming years.
The apparent success of the first annual open enrollment period, however, should show Republican naysayers that this law is here to stay, with all its customer-protection provisions intact. It's time they recognized that the rhetoric about Obamacare's failure has gotten them nowhere. It's gotten the country nowhere. It's time for them to get behind the law, to help get their fellow citizens the coverage they need, and to help fix what needs to be fixed.
...................................................................................................................................................................
Obamacare numbers coming in huge: Here's a guide to GOP excuse-making
By Michael Hiltzik, March 31, 2014
Against all odds and expectations, enrollments in health plans qualified under the Affordable Care Act are surging Monday toward -- and maybe beyond -- the 7-million figure projected by the Congressional Budget Office before Oct. 1, when the open-enrollment period began. The deadline for starting enrollment applications for 2014 plans is midnight Monday.
The surge is creating a big problem for the "train wreck" narrative of Republican opponents of the ACA, who have been holding out hope for Obamacare's utter failure. So the excuse-making has begun.
Before we examine those excuses: You will recall that the budget office reduced its projection of enrollments on individual insurance exchanges to 6 million earlier this year to account for the botched launch of healthcare.gov, the federal enrollment website. Enrollments blew past that mark days ago. If exchange enrollments meet or exceed the original projection of 7 million despite the loss of some six weeks in website functionality in October and November, that would be a testament to the public's latent desire for effective healthcare coverage.
We won't know the final March 31 tally for days, possibly weeks, but that indispensable enrollment tracker Charles Gaba is projecting 6.78 million exchange enrollments, with a chance of topping 7 million.
That figure covers enrollments in private healthcare plans via healthcare.gov and the individual websites offered by 14 states and the District of Columbia. As my colleague Noam Levey is reporting, the Rand Corp. estimates that another 4.5 million previously uninsured adults have signed up for Medicaid in states that expanded that program under the ACA. And about 3 million young adults have obtained coverage through an ACA provision allowing them to stay on their parents' employer plans until age 26.
For Obamacare critics, consequently, the enrollment numbers demand debunking. Here's a bestiary of their arguments for why the figures shouldn't be believed, and explanations of why they're off-base.
"How many have paid?" (Also known as "The statistics are full of deadbeats"): We examined this argument a few days ago. We observed that the concern is probably exaggerated and certainly premature, since many people who enrolled late in the cycle, including those in the March surge, may not have payments due for as much as six weeks after enrollment. Many haven't even received their first monthly premium bill yet.
Figures from states that track this metric, including California and Vermont, show that 85% to 90% of enrollees have paid on time, which secures them the coverage they applied for.
"Most of them were already insured": The argument here is that if we've just moved people from one insurance plan to another, we've just been wasting Americans' time and subjecting them to an onerous bureaucratic procedure as well.
The claim is based primarily on a survey in January from McKinsey and Co., which concluded that only 11% of exchange enrollees had been previously uninsured. A McKinsey survey a month later raised that figure to 27% -- still low, compared to expectations.
The major problem with the McKinsey survey is that doesn't say what its hawkers claim. The survey combines on-exchange enrollments and off-exchange enrollments; the latter are likely to heavily skew figures toward the previously insured because those are most likely people signing up again with their existing carriers. The goal of the exchange marketplaces, however, is to reach uninsured Americans. The McKinsey surveys don't break out on-exchange signups, but it's probably that the share of previously uninsureds in that group is higher than the combined total.
The few states that do break out their own numbers reinforce that expectation. Kentucky says that some 75% of its exchange enrollees were previously uninsured. New York says that about 60% of its exchange enrollees were previously uninsured. That number has been rising over time, raising the prospect that the March surge will include an even higher ratio of uninsured customers; Gaba, who has calculated a time series of New York enrollments based on the state's monthly news releases, calculates that of enrollees in mid-February, at least 92% had been uninsured.
"'Young invincibles' aren't signing up": This is related to the oft-mentioned threat of a "death spiral" in the insurance market -- if the enrollees are predominantly older and sicker consumers, they'll drive up premiums, which will discourage younger and healthier people from enrolling, which drives up premiums, which discourages, the young, etc., etc.
Federal officials have set an informal target of 40% of enrollments in the 18-34 age range. The latest figures from various states put the enrollment rate at the mid-20% level. But it was always expected that younger people would be among the last to enroll, and reports from the states suggest that's happening.
Even if the statistics remain fixed in the mid-20s, however, the death spiral won't be happening. The Kaiser Family Foundation estimated that even if the young enrolled at only 50% of expected levels, premiums for 2015 would have to be raised a couple of percentage points. That's nowhere near enough to set off a death spiral.
Moreover, as we explained way back in October, the ACA has a corrective to the death spiral written in. It's called risk adjustment, and it works by paying a subsidy to insurance companies that end up with older or sicker customer bases than they anticipated. The money comes from payments made by carriers that end up with favorable customer profiles. Republicans know this arrangement will keep Obamacare stable. How do we know? Because in a majestically cynical move spearheaded by Sen. Marco Rubio, R-Fla., they tried late last year to kill it, calling it an insurance "bailout."
"More people got cancellations than signed up": The numbers never supported this claim, and the latest estimates make it even more of a fantasy. It's based on the wave of reports late last year of insurance companies canceling old policies that didn't meet ACA standards, which led to hysterical claims that as many as 17 million Americans were being left uninsured.
Rand's figures support earlier estimates that fewer than 1 million people who had health plans in 2013 are now uninsured because of cancellations. Insurance companies that issued the cancellation notices say they've retained "the vast majority" of their old customers, mostly by moving them into new, compliant, plans.
"The White House is 'cooking the books'": This is the last refuge of scoundrels like Sen. John Barrasso, R-Wyo., who made the claim this weekend on Fox News Sunday while the slack-jawed host, Chris Wallace, sat silently by.
What makes this claim particularly fatuous is that the most encouraging figures don't come from the federal government at all, but from states with their own enrollment programs. The eight states with the best records of signing up their eligible citizens in exchange plans (actually seven states and D.C.), all have their own exchanges and websites. Vermont leads the parade at 83% enrolled. California, which leads all states in number of exchange enrollees at more than 1 million, ranks fourth with a 41% outreach rate.
If the feds are cooking the books, they've cooked them to look worse, not better -- the 36 states that dumped their enrollment responsibilities on the federal government are clustered at the bottom of the list, most of them with enrollment rates of 20% or less of eligible citizens. Many of these are states that actively discouraged or interfered with enrollments of their citizens in health insurance plans -- behavior that should be grounds for impeachment or recall of their governors and legislators.
Of course, even the enrollment of 7 million Americans in ACA exchanges doesn't mean Obamacare is a certified success. There's a lot of work to be done to fix the inevitable flaws in any law as far-reaching as this one. As Noam Levey reported, it amounts to the largest expansion of health coverage for Americans since the enactment of Medicare half a century ago, but many more people need to be signed up in coming years.
The apparent success of the first annual open enrollment period, however, should show Republican naysayers that this law is here to stay, with all its customer-protection provisions intact. It's time they recognized that the rhetoric about Obamacare's failure has gotten them nowhere. It's gotten the country nowhere. It's time for them to get behind the law, to help get their fellow citizens the coverage they need, and to help fix what needs to be fixed.
...................................................................................................................................................................
“The Kochs are getting desperate”... they're touting a guy who could clear up his own confusion with a simple phone call
...................................................................................................................................................................
There are some great comments on this article! For example:
Where in the HELL does AFP dig these people up at? First they get caught using people that turn out to be local political hacks, then the ones that outright liars, then ones that can't add, then ones that openly deny reality, all the way down to the ones that don't have enough brains to even call their insurance company to ask a simple question.....You know why Obamacare is hurting people? Because it's forcing them to actually use their brains to think...and for some, that's a really painful affair. -- Thure W.
...................................................................................................................................................................
Koch Brothers' New Obamacare Attack: An Arkansas Trucker Is Confused
By Michael McAuliff, Arpil 1, 2014
After a number of ads run by the Koch brothers-backed Americans for Prosperity have been hammered for making false charges against Obamacare, the outfit has a new spot in Arkansas that offers a less-daring claim: A truck driver is confused about his insurance.
"It's like living in a haze," says Jerry Buckley in the ad, which AFP will spend $540,000 to run. "You don't know whether you're going to have insurance or whether you're going to be able to afford your insurance. It was taken away from us. Or it was given back to us," says Buckley, adding in apparent frustration, "We don't know what it's been now."
As Buckley notes, the Arkansas state insurance commissioner has announced that old plans like his that are not Obamacare-compliant can continue to be offered until 2017. So while Buckley says he hasn't received any letters from his insurer since one in October 2013 warned that his plan would be canceled, he might clear up his own confusion with a call to the company.
The Huffington Post wrote about the extension after Jerry's wife, Wanda Buckley, did a similar ad for AFP that was found to be misleading. In fact, while it is likely true that many people are still confused about the Affordable Care Act, Jerry Buckley has been engaged in trying to sort it out at least since October, when he took the trouble to post about his insurance woes on the campaign website of Rep. Tom Cotton (R-Ark.), who is running against Sen. Mark Pryor (D-Ark.) this year.
The AFP ad is clearly targeting Pryor's reelection: It ends by urging viewers to tell the senator that Obamacare "hurts Arkansas families."
But in some ways, the spot might be good news for Pryor -- even though it brings AFP spending against him to about $2 million in 2014 alone -- because it suggests that the most damning charge against him currently is that a law he backed is causing some confusion. This isn't your death panel-level attack.
The ad does appear to contain one misleading statement. Buckley says "there's just a silence" from Pryor about Obamacare's implementation, but an Arkansas News story about his case describes Buckley's communications with Pryor's office on the subject.
“The Kochs are getting desperate,” said Pryor campaign spokesman Erik Dorey in a statement. “They’re throwing millions at Congressman Cotton to reward his reckless votes against Medicare, student loans and equal pay for women, but Arkansans just aren’t buying these misleading attacks.”
AFP President Tim Phillips sees it differently, of course.
"Instead of bringing peace of mind about health care, ObamaCare is wreaking havoc on Americans from all walks of life," Phillips said in the press release accompanying the ad. "Jerry's story is not unique; millions of Americans all across the country have been frustrated and let down by a law that was sold on a foundation of broken promises. It is disappointing that Senator Pryor has chosen -- time and time again -- to stand by a barely-functioning piece of legislation rather than the people of Arkansas he represents."
Watch the ad above.
...................................................................................................................................................................
There are some great comments on this article! For example:
Where in the HELL does AFP dig these people up at? First they get caught using people that turn out to be local political hacks, then the ones that outright liars, then ones that can't add, then ones that openly deny reality, all the way down to the ones that don't have enough brains to even call their insurance company to ask a simple question.....You know why Obamacare is hurting people? Because it's forcing them to actually use their brains to think...and for some, that's a really painful affair. -- Thure W.
...................................................................................................................................................................
Koch Brothers' New Obamacare Attack: An Arkansas Trucker Is Confused
By Michael McAuliff, Arpil 1, 2014
After a number of ads run by the Koch brothers-backed Americans for Prosperity have been hammered for making false charges against Obamacare, the outfit has a new spot in Arkansas that offers a less-daring claim: A truck driver is confused about his insurance.
"It's like living in a haze," says Jerry Buckley in the ad, which AFP will spend $540,000 to run. "You don't know whether you're going to have insurance or whether you're going to be able to afford your insurance. It was taken away from us. Or it was given back to us," says Buckley, adding in apparent frustration, "We don't know what it's been now."
As Buckley notes, the Arkansas state insurance commissioner has announced that old plans like his that are not Obamacare-compliant can continue to be offered until 2017. So while Buckley says he hasn't received any letters from his insurer since one in October 2013 warned that his plan would be canceled, he might clear up his own confusion with a call to the company.
The Huffington Post wrote about the extension after Jerry's wife, Wanda Buckley, did a similar ad for AFP that was found to be misleading. In fact, while it is likely true that many people are still confused about the Affordable Care Act, Jerry Buckley has been engaged in trying to sort it out at least since October, when he took the trouble to post about his insurance woes on the campaign website of Rep. Tom Cotton (R-Ark.), who is running against Sen. Mark Pryor (D-Ark.) this year.
The AFP ad is clearly targeting Pryor's reelection: It ends by urging viewers to tell the senator that Obamacare "hurts Arkansas families."
But in some ways, the spot might be good news for Pryor -- even though it brings AFP spending against him to about $2 million in 2014 alone -- because it suggests that the most damning charge against him currently is that a law he backed is causing some confusion. This isn't your death panel-level attack.
The ad does appear to contain one misleading statement. Buckley says "there's just a silence" from Pryor about Obamacare's implementation, but an Arkansas News story about his case describes Buckley's communications with Pryor's office on the subject.
“The Kochs are getting desperate,” said Pryor campaign spokesman Erik Dorey in a statement. “They’re throwing millions at Congressman Cotton to reward his reckless votes against Medicare, student loans and equal pay for women, but Arkansans just aren’t buying these misleading attacks.”
AFP President Tim Phillips sees it differently, of course.
"Instead of bringing peace of mind about health care, ObamaCare is wreaking havoc on Americans from all walks of life," Phillips said in the press release accompanying the ad. "Jerry's story is not unique; millions of Americans all across the country have been frustrated and let down by a law that was sold on a foundation of broken promises. It is disappointing that Senator Pryor has chosen -- time and time again -- to stand by a barely-functioning piece of legislation rather than the people of Arkansas he represents."
Watch the ad above.
...................................................................................................................................................................
The GOP is "willing to do just about anything, including subverting democracy, to maintain that fiction" that it speaks for the "real American majority"
...................................................................................................................................................................
The GOP's new voting laws are nothing less than a war on democracy
The Grand Old Party has all but admitted that it no longer represents America's "silent majority"
By Damon Linker, April 1, 2014
Can someone please explain to me why the New York Times' top story from this past Sunday hasn't provoked nationwide outrage?
Allow me to provide a handy summary: Having spent the last several years trumping up unsubstantiated charges of voter fraud in order to justify new laws and regulations making it more burdensome to vote in poor and minority (read: Democratic-leaning) districts around the country, the Republican Party has now changed tactics. In the name of enforcing the "uniformity" of voting rules, Republican governors and legislatures in a number of swing states have begun to increase the obstacles to voting still further. Some states are requiring that would-be voters show birth certificates or passports (which many poor people don't possess), while others are curtailing the days, times, and places available to vote (which is particularly onerous for poor people who have little workplace flexibility and often lack transportation).
Let's leave aside the spectacle of Republicans, usually our most fulsome champions of local control, suddenly banging on about the need for statewide uniformity in voting rules.
What's far more noteworthy (and frankly pathetic) about these moves is that they're a tacit acknowledgement by the Republican Party that it's in dire demographic straits — and that one of the key pillars of its ideology over the last half-century is crumbling right before our eyes.
Ever since Richard Nixon claimed to speak for the "silent American majority," the GOP has identified itself with the real America, the true America, the America of morals and faith and common sense, as opposed to the ersatz America of secular liberalism made up of judges, professors, journalists, and other elites who control the commanding heights of culture from decadent enclaves in New York and Hollywood. These elites have a pernicious influence and do a lot of damage, Republicans have maintained, but they're vastly outnumbered by the real Americans who find their natural home in the GOP.
This ideology of righteous majoritarianism received intellectual validation from the first generation of neoconservatives, who wrote during the 1970s about the emergence of a "new class" of liberal professionals whose moral outlook differed from that of the rest of the country. Then, the ideology contributed to the rhetorical populism of the Reagan Revolution. Later, in a purer, high-octane form, it fueled the rise of right-wing talk radio, Fox News, and the rest of a conservative media infrastructure that exists to continually feed the flames of partisan fury through a potent mixture of flattery, demonization, and identity politics. "YOU are the real and righteous Americans," these outlets tell their loyal listeners and viewers day after day, year after year, "and THEY are illegitimate, immoral imposters who have usurped political power."
The story was always an exaggeration, but it once had a certain plausibility. Reagan won re-election in 1984 with 58.8 percent of the vote. Millions of his supporters were lifelong New Deal and Great Society liberals who jumped parties to become the fabled "Reagan Democrats." It seemed for a time like the silent American majority had finally found its voice.
But then the numbers started heading south. George H.W. Bush succeeded Reagan with a softer 53.4 percent of the vote, and then went on to lose his bid for re-election in 1992. His son notoriously made it to the White House in 2000 despite losing the popular vote; four years later he won a majority — though, with only 50.7 percent of the vote, just barely. And it's been downhill ever since.
The grassroots of the GOP and its media cheerleaders like to attribute the party's losses in 2008 (McCain, 45.7 percent) and 2012 (Romney, 47.2 percent) to the party's foolish decision to go with presidential candidates who were compromised conservatives. If only they'd chosen real Republicans!
But this is a self-serving fantasy. As John Judis and Ruy Teixeira have been arguing for years, with each election cycle providing confirmation of their thesis, the Republican Party faces a possibly intractable demographic problem — with its core voters (older white men) becoming an ever-smaller proportion of the electorate. This means that in the country's only national election contest (the presidential vote), the popular margin is likely to swing increasingly in the direction of the Democratic Party. Unless, of course, Republicans can keep Democrats from voting.
But what about the GOP's success at holding on to the House of Representatives in recent years? That, too, is a product of anti-democratic manipulation. The Democrats actually received more overall votes in House races in 2012 but failed to win control of the chamber because the GOP has used state-level redistricting to cram ever-greater numbers of Democrats into smaller numbers of districts, effectively decreasing their political power relative to their raw numbers.
Charming, isn't it?
But also pitiable. Having built an ideology around the conviction that it speaks axiomatically for the real American majority, the Republican Party has become incapable of coping with evidence to the contrary — and willing to do just about anything, including subverting democracy, to maintain that fiction.
Republicans should be ashamed of themselves — and the rest of us should be disgusted.
...................................................................................................................................................................
The GOP's new voting laws are nothing less than a war on democracy
The Grand Old Party has all but admitted that it no longer represents America's "silent majority"
By Damon Linker, April 1, 2014
Can someone please explain to me why the New York Times' top story from this past Sunday hasn't provoked nationwide outrage?
Allow me to provide a handy summary: Having spent the last several years trumping up unsubstantiated charges of voter fraud in order to justify new laws and regulations making it more burdensome to vote in poor and minority (read: Democratic-leaning) districts around the country, the Republican Party has now changed tactics. In the name of enforcing the "uniformity" of voting rules, Republican governors and legislatures in a number of swing states have begun to increase the obstacles to voting still further. Some states are requiring that would-be voters show birth certificates or passports (which many poor people don't possess), while others are curtailing the days, times, and places available to vote (which is particularly onerous for poor people who have little workplace flexibility and often lack transportation).
Let's leave aside the spectacle of Republicans, usually our most fulsome champions of local control, suddenly banging on about the need for statewide uniformity in voting rules.
What's far more noteworthy (and frankly pathetic) about these moves is that they're a tacit acknowledgement by the Republican Party that it's in dire demographic straits — and that one of the key pillars of its ideology over the last half-century is crumbling right before our eyes.
Ever since Richard Nixon claimed to speak for the "silent American majority," the GOP has identified itself with the real America, the true America, the America of morals and faith and common sense, as opposed to the ersatz America of secular liberalism made up of judges, professors, journalists, and other elites who control the commanding heights of culture from decadent enclaves in New York and Hollywood. These elites have a pernicious influence and do a lot of damage, Republicans have maintained, but they're vastly outnumbered by the real Americans who find their natural home in the GOP.
This ideology of righteous majoritarianism received intellectual validation from the first generation of neoconservatives, who wrote during the 1970s about the emergence of a "new class" of liberal professionals whose moral outlook differed from that of the rest of the country. Then, the ideology contributed to the rhetorical populism of the Reagan Revolution. Later, in a purer, high-octane form, it fueled the rise of right-wing talk radio, Fox News, and the rest of a conservative media infrastructure that exists to continually feed the flames of partisan fury through a potent mixture of flattery, demonization, and identity politics. "YOU are the real and righteous Americans," these outlets tell their loyal listeners and viewers day after day, year after year, "and THEY are illegitimate, immoral imposters who have usurped political power."
The story was always an exaggeration, but it once had a certain plausibility. Reagan won re-election in 1984 with 58.8 percent of the vote. Millions of his supporters were lifelong New Deal and Great Society liberals who jumped parties to become the fabled "Reagan Democrats." It seemed for a time like the silent American majority had finally found its voice.
But then the numbers started heading south. George H.W. Bush succeeded Reagan with a softer 53.4 percent of the vote, and then went on to lose his bid for re-election in 1992. His son notoriously made it to the White House in 2000 despite losing the popular vote; four years later he won a majority — though, with only 50.7 percent of the vote, just barely. And it's been downhill ever since.
The grassroots of the GOP and its media cheerleaders like to attribute the party's losses in 2008 (McCain, 45.7 percent) and 2012 (Romney, 47.2 percent) to the party's foolish decision to go with presidential candidates who were compromised conservatives. If only they'd chosen real Republicans!
But this is a self-serving fantasy. As John Judis and Ruy Teixeira have been arguing for years, with each election cycle providing confirmation of their thesis, the Republican Party faces a possibly intractable demographic problem — with its core voters (older white men) becoming an ever-smaller proportion of the electorate. This means that in the country's only national election contest (the presidential vote), the popular margin is likely to swing increasingly in the direction of the Democratic Party. Unless, of course, Republicans can keep Democrats from voting.
But what about the GOP's success at holding on to the House of Representatives in recent years? That, too, is a product of anti-democratic manipulation. The Democrats actually received more overall votes in House races in 2012 but failed to win control of the chamber because the GOP has used state-level redistricting to cram ever-greater numbers of Democrats into smaller numbers of districts, effectively decreasing their political power relative to their raw numbers.
Charming, isn't it?
But also pitiable. Having built an ideology around the conviction that it speaks axiomatically for the real American majority, the Republican Party has become incapable of coping with evidence to the contrary — and willing to do just about anything, including subverting democracy, to maintain that fiction.
Republicans should be ashamed of themselves — and the rest of us should be disgusted.
...................................................................................................................................................................
The Republican hero search is harder with none in the current crop measuring up: put simply, the GOP needs an adult
...................................................................................................................................................................
Few U.S. heroes, none in politics: Farmer
By John Farmer, March 30, 2014
It’s not the first time things have been this bad — when not a single institution or individual in politics, business or industry enjoys widespread approval in the country. Other than our military men and women, there’s not a hero in the lot.
It’s not a casual condition. We have problems at home and in the wider world with Vladimir Putin. We could use a hero, someone or something to rally around and capable of igniting a policy consensus the country might support. But no one and nothing fills that role.
Certainly government in Washington doesn’t. Deservedly or not, Washington is under fire — from the conservative right for sure, but also, if less noticed, from the liberal left as well.
President Obama’s poll numbers have been on a four-month plunge to a toxic 43 percent, last I looked, primarily reflecting liberal disenchantment with him. But Congress fares worse. You’d need a mine shaft to reach its approval numbers, now barely above single digits.
You’d think at least one party would eke out a bit of an edge. But not so. In this hold-your-nose climate, Democrats and Republicans are about equally in disfavor; only the ranks of independents are growing.
Hillary Clinton seems to be doing all right in the premature presidential run-up to 2016. But her standing could owe more to the absence of credible, well-financed Democratic challengers, and maybe even more to her husband’s incredibly durable popularity, than to any real clamor for Hillary herself.
Among Republicans, the presidential lineup resembles another parade of flawed pretenders — Rand Paul, Ted Cruz, Chris Christie, Paul Ryan, Bobby Jindal, et al. Texas Gov. Rick Perry, who buffooned his way through the 2012 GOP primaries, is reassessing his prospects, something only a totally hapless GOP could welcome.
One theory insists tea party support is key to the Republican presidential nomination. Could be. But its approval ratings are in the toilet, too.
What our politics needs is new blood, some say. You’d certainly think that might help. But look what’s happened to the latest "new blood," New York Mayor Bill de Blasio. Elected last November with more than 70 percent of the vote, de Blasio has plummeted to the mid-40s. Liberals are tough to tranquilize when disappointed.
Everywhere it’s buyer’s remorse, and not just in politics.
The media get a bad rap all around; nobody’s happy with us. We’re too liberal or too conservative; withhold the facts; or publish more than is good for national security or the nation’s psychic well-being. Even the media are beating up the media.
Wall Street’s on a tear and corporate profits have hit new highs, but neither bankers nor business barons rate a standing ovation. And that’s understandable when week in, week out one big bank after another gets fined for one misdeed or another, and cash-rich corporations are mostly keeping the cash for themselves rather than investing and hiring.
And all the while the middle-class incomes stagnate.
How’d we get in this fix? It’s been some time in the making and, truth to tell, we’ve been there before. Recall the disarray of late 1960s and ’70s, with assassinations, urban riots, Watergate and the great oil crisis, when it seemed the country was spinning out of control with no one in command.
We were in the grip of events beyond anyone’s control in those days. But the disarray and disgust we’re experiencing today is something of our own making.
As the political arts have changed — becoming more technologically sophisticated and awash in money and hit men-style consultants — they’ve become darker, flooding the airwaves, particularly cable TV, with hourly ads demonizing the opposition.
Obama is foreign-born, a European socialist or too eager to surrender to our enemies. Mitt Romney was a serial tax evader who despised the poor. House Speaker John Boehner is a buffoonish pawn of the tea party. No one has a good word for anyone, which makes it hard for voters to find a figure to rally around.
We’ll get out of this leadership vacuum as we did in the ’60s and ’70s. Democrats will rally around someone in time, maybe even Obama — but not before the midterm elections — or more likely Hillary Clinton as 2016 approaches. For Republicans, their hero search seems harder. None in the current crop measures up. Put simply, the GOP needs an adult, which ultimately could fix the focus on a seemingly reluctant Jeb Bush.
...................................................................................................................................................................
Few U.S. heroes, none in politics: Farmer
By John Farmer, March 30, 2014
It’s not the first time things have been this bad — when not a single institution or individual in politics, business or industry enjoys widespread approval in the country. Other than our military men and women, there’s not a hero in the lot.
It’s not a casual condition. We have problems at home and in the wider world with Vladimir Putin. We could use a hero, someone or something to rally around and capable of igniting a policy consensus the country might support. But no one and nothing fills that role.
Certainly government in Washington doesn’t. Deservedly or not, Washington is under fire — from the conservative right for sure, but also, if less noticed, from the liberal left as well.
President Obama’s poll numbers have been on a four-month plunge to a toxic 43 percent, last I looked, primarily reflecting liberal disenchantment with him. But Congress fares worse. You’d need a mine shaft to reach its approval numbers, now barely above single digits.
You’d think at least one party would eke out a bit of an edge. But not so. In this hold-your-nose climate, Democrats and Republicans are about equally in disfavor; only the ranks of independents are growing.
Hillary Clinton seems to be doing all right in the premature presidential run-up to 2016. But her standing could owe more to the absence of credible, well-financed Democratic challengers, and maybe even more to her husband’s incredibly durable popularity, than to any real clamor for Hillary herself.
Among Republicans, the presidential lineup resembles another parade of flawed pretenders — Rand Paul, Ted Cruz, Chris Christie, Paul Ryan, Bobby Jindal, et al. Texas Gov. Rick Perry, who buffooned his way through the 2012 GOP primaries, is reassessing his prospects, something only a totally hapless GOP could welcome.
One theory insists tea party support is key to the Republican presidential nomination. Could be. But its approval ratings are in the toilet, too.
What our politics needs is new blood, some say. You’d certainly think that might help. But look what’s happened to the latest "new blood," New York Mayor Bill de Blasio. Elected last November with more than 70 percent of the vote, de Blasio has plummeted to the mid-40s. Liberals are tough to tranquilize when disappointed.
Everywhere it’s buyer’s remorse, and not just in politics.
The media get a bad rap all around; nobody’s happy with us. We’re too liberal or too conservative; withhold the facts; or publish more than is good for national security or the nation’s psychic well-being. Even the media are beating up the media.
Wall Street’s on a tear and corporate profits have hit new highs, but neither bankers nor business barons rate a standing ovation. And that’s understandable when week in, week out one big bank after another gets fined for one misdeed or another, and cash-rich corporations are mostly keeping the cash for themselves rather than investing and hiring.
And all the while the middle-class incomes stagnate.
How’d we get in this fix? It’s been some time in the making and, truth to tell, we’ve been there before. Recall the disarray of late 1960s and ’70s, with assassinations, urban riots, Watergate and the great oil crisis, when it seemed the country was spinning out of control with no one in command.
We were in the grip of events beyond anyone’s control in those days. But the disarray and disgust we’re experiencing today is something of our own making.
As the political arts have changed — becoming more technologically sophisticated and awash in money and hit men-style consultants — they’ve become darker, flooding the airwaves, particularly cable TV, with hourly ads demonizing the opposition.
Obama is foreign-born, a European socialist or too eager to surrender to our enemies. Mitt Romney was a serial tax evader who despised the poor. House Speaker John Boehner is a buffoonish pawn of the tea party. No one has a good word for anyone, which makes it hard for voters to find a figure to rally around.
We’ll get out of this leadership vacuum as we did in the ’60s and ’70s. Democrats will rally around someone in time, maybe even Obama — but not before the midterm elections — or more likely Hillary Clinton as 2016 approaches. For Republicans, their hero search seems harder. None in the current crop measures up. Put simply, the GOP needs an adult, which ultimately could fix the focus on a seemingly reluctant Jeb Bush.
...................................................................................................................................................................
The Koch "brothers are abusing their wealth to push their self-described radical ideologies that value profit over all else"
...................................................................................................................................................................
Koch Brothers Already Accused Of Corruption In 2014 Elections
They lurk in the shadows, manipulating many of the gears that make America move, but most Americans don’t even know who they are.
By Katie Rucke, March 31, 2014
Robert Greenwald, filmmaker and founder of Brave New Films, recently announced a sequel to his 2012 film “Koch Brothers Exposed.” He said the new film will focus specifically on the duo’s efforts to buy the 2014 election, as well as how detrimental their support for Citizens United has been to the state of democracy in the United States.
While Charles and David Koch remain largely unknown figures to the majority of the American public, with 52 percent recently reporting they have never heard of them, the reality is that the brothers are arguably the most powerful and influential people in Washington — and they’ve never even been elected to office.
Americans may not recognize the men, but they’re probably familiar with the brothers’ business, Koch Industries, and its oil refineries in Alaska, Texas and Minnesota, as well as its products such as Brawny paper towels, Dixie cups, Georgia-Pacific lumber, Stainmaster carpet and Lycra, among others.
Recognizable businesses and brands aside, the public is largely unaware that the Koch brothers are doing everything they can to suppress voter rights, re-segregate public schools, weaken Environmental Protection Agency regulations and privatize Social Security.
As of March 2014, the duo, who are among the richest men in America, have spent at least $30 million this election season to prevent Senate Democrats from being re-elected.
Part of the reason the Koch brothers can spend vast amounts of money but still remain largely unknown public figures is because the Libertarians work to lower personal and corporate taxes, remove social services and limit oversight for industries, especially environmental regulations, through think tanks and generic-sounding advocacy groups such as Americans for Prosperity.
“The Kochs are on a whole different level. There’s no one else who has spent this much money,” said Charles Lewis, the founder of the Center for Public Integrity, a nonpartisan watchdog group. “The sheer dimension of it is what sets them apart. They have a pattern of lawbreaking, political manipulation, and obfuscation. I’ve been in Washington since Watergate, and I’ve never seen anything like it. They are the Standard Oil of our times.”
PUPPETMASTERS
The Koch brothers initiated their influence on U.S. politics by forming and funding think tanks such as the first-ever Libertarian think tank the Cato Institute and electing those who shared their political ideology to local-level positions such as school boards. In recent years, though, the oil barons have used their wealth to influence public policy on a national level.
For example, in the 2000 presidential election campaign, Koch Industries reportedly spent around $900,000 to support George W. Bush and other Republicans. In 2004, the Koch brothers-founded group Citizens for a Sound Economy’s Oregon chapter was accused of working to get Ralph Nader on the presidential ballot, in a bid to weaken Democratic support for John Kerry and ensure a re-election for the Bush-Cheney White House.
After Bush was ultimately re-elected, Koch Industries and other fossil fuel companies enjoyed tremendous kickbacks such as the 2005 energy bill, which Hillary Clinton referred to as “the Dick Cheney lobbyist energy bill,” since it provided enormous subsidies and tax breaks to U.S. energy companies.
The Koch brothers also helped Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker, who has been called a test-case and puppet of the Koch brothers, take down unions and their fight for a reasonable wage and collective bargaining, as well as win a special election that was held after the constitutionality of the governor’s actions were questioned. And the brothers currently own the Republican-led U.S. House of Representatives.
As they push to take over the Senate and the White House, some Democrats like Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) are coming forward and asking their colleagues to not let the Koch brothers buy their votes in order to preserve and protect democracy.
“The truth is, the Koch brothers are willing to do anything – even exploit Americans suffering from cancer – to advance their campaign of distortion,” Reid said on the Senate floor in early March. “These two multi-billionaires may spend hundreds of millions of dollars rigging the political process for their own benefit. And they may believe that whoever has the most money gets the most free speech. But I will do whatever it takes to expose their campaign to rig the American political system to benefit the wealthy at the expense of the middle class.
“Republicans are willing to defend the Koch brothers on the floor of the United States Senate. But are they willing to defend the Koch brothers’ radical policy agenda as well? If Republicans don’t support the Koch brothers’ survival of the richest philosophy, all they have to do is say so,” Reid said.
As the Koch brothers have more than enough money to fund an election campaign, some have wondered why they don’t run for office instead of buying and influencing lawmakers on Capitol Hill and in all 50 states. In fact, Charles did convince David to run for office in 1979 as the vice-presidential candidate for the Libertarian Party against Republican candidate Ronald Reagan.
David Koch may have lost the election, but according to Brian Doherty, an editor of the Libertarian magazine Reason and the author of “Radicals for Capitalism,” the experience changed the way the duo looked at politicians. The Koch brothers saw them not as lawmakers, but merely as “actors playing out a script,” and reportedly said they wanted to “supply the themes and words for the scripts.”
How they planned to influence public policy was going to be where policy ideas originate: academia and think tanks.
ABUSE OF WEALTH
Though there are several other wealthy individuals in the U.S. who found and fund private organizations, higher education institutions and super PACs, the difference between the Koch brothers and Democratic supporter George Soros, or even Republican supporter Sheldon Adelson, is that the brothers are abusing their wealth to push their self-described radical ideologies that value profit over all else. Donations made by Soros and Adelson are also much less significant than those made by the Koch brothers, raising concerns about the true intent of the Koch brothers’ donations.
Even David Koch has admitted that the family “exerts tight ideological control” over its interests.
“If we’re going to give a lot of money, we’ll make darn sure they spend it in a way that goes along with our intent,” he told Doherty. “And if they make a wrong turn and start doing things we don’t agree with, we withdraw funding.”
But since the spokespersons for about 45 public and private universities who receive funding from the Koch brothers have continued to deny that the Koch brothers manipulate the curriculum, the Koch brothers’ influence on academia continues to occur without alarming the American public.
Even groups such as Americans for Prosperity are “micromanaged by the Kochs.” That tight control seems to have paid off for the brothers, since during the Obama administration, the president’s public support has dropped to historic lows and his Democratic colleagues have been unseated by Republicans, some of whom are increasingly aligning with Libertarian views.
As the 2014 election season heats up and radical, anti-democratic ideology such as voter ID laws makes its way back into the political realm, the only thing the American public can be sure of is that the Koch brothers are not only funding smear campaigns against politicians whose political ideologies do not help their bottom line, but they are also funding the campaigns of Republican politicians who are pro-big-oil, pro-Wall Street and pro-segregation.
Since the Koch brothers have been successful in manipulating the American political system for a number of decades, even though they hide in the shadows, it’s more important than ever to look at who is funding the think tanks and higher education institutions the media enlists this election season to explain the policies that are at the center of the political debate and will ultimately affect us all.
If we fail to pay attention now, it’s evident from the Koch brothers’ record that only a few of us will continue to be allowed to actively participate in our democracy.
...................................................................................................................................................................
Koch Brothers Already Accused Of Corruption In 2014 Elections
They lurk in the shadows, manipulating many of the gears that make America move, but most Americans don’t even know who they are.
By Katie Rucke, March 31, 2014
Robert Greenwald, filmmaker and founder of Brave New Films, recently announced a sequel to his 2012 film “Koch Brothers Exposed.” He said the new film will focus specifically on the duo’s efforts to buy the 2014 election, as well as how detrimental their support for Citizens United has been to the state of democracy in the United States.
While Charles and David Koch remain largely unknown figures to the majority of the American public, with 52 percent recently reporting they have never heard of them, the reality is that the brothers are arguably the most powerful and influential people in Washington — and they’ve never even been elected to office.
Americans may not recognize the men, but they’re probably familiar with the brothers’ business, Koch Industries, and its oil refineries in Alaska, Texas and Minnesota, as well as its products such as Brawny paper towels, Dixie cups, Georgia-Pacific lumber, Stainmaster carpet and Lycra, among others.
Recognizable businesses and brands aside, the public is largely unaware that the Koch brothers are doing everything they can to suppress voter rights, re-segregate public schools, weaken Environmental Protection Agency regulations and privatize Social Security.
As of March 2014, the duo, who are among the richest men in America, have spent at least $30 million this election season to prevent Senate Democrats from being re-elected.
Part of the reason the Koch brothers can spend vast amounts of money but still remain largely unknown public figures is because the Libertarians work to lower personal and corporate taxes, remove social services and limit oversight for industries, especially environmental regulations, through think tanks and generic-sounding advocacy groups such as Americans for Prosperity.
“The Kochs are on a whole different level. There’s no one else who has spent this much money,” said Charles Lewis, the founder of the Center for Public Integrity, a nonpartisan watchdog group. “The sheer dimension of it is what sets them apart. They have a pattern of lawbreaking, political manipulation, and obfuscation. I’ve been in Washington since Watergate, and I’ve never seen anything like it. They are the Standard Oil of our times.”
PUPPETMASTERS
The Koch brothers initiated their influence on U.S. politics by forming and funding think tanks such as the first-ever Libertarian think tank the Cato Institute and electing those who shared their political ideology to local-level positions such as school boards. In recent years, though, the oil barons have used their wealth to influence public policy on a national level.
For example, in the 2000 presidential election campaign, Koch Industries reportedly spent around $900,000 to support George W. Bush and other Republicans. In 2004, the Koch brothers-founded group Citizens for a Sound Economy’s Oregon chapter was accused of working to get Ralph Nader on the presidential ballot, in a bid to weaken Democratic support for John Kerry and ensure a re-election for the Bush-Cheney White House.
After Bush was ultimately re-elected, Koch Industries and other fossil fuel companies enjoyed tremendous kickbacks such as the 2005 energy bill, which Hillary Clinton referred to as “the Dick Cheney lobbyist energy bill,” since it provided enormous subsidies and tax breaks to U.S. energy companies.
The Koch brothers also helped Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker, who has been called a test-case and puppet of the Koch brothers, take down unions and their fight for a reasonable wage and collective bargaining, as well as win a special election that was held after the constitutionality of the governor’s actions were questioned. And the brothers currently own the Republican-led U.S. House of Representatives.
As they push to take over the Senate and the White House, some Democrats like Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) are coming forward and asking their colleagues to not let the Koch brothers buy their votes in order to preserve and protect democracy.
“The truth is, the Koch brothers are willing to do anything – even exploit Americans suffering from cancer – to advance their campaign of distortion,” Reid said on the Senate floor in early March. “These two multi-billionaires may spend hundreds of millions of dollars rigging the political process for their own benefit. And they may believe that whoever has the most money gets the most free speech. But I will do whatever it takes to expose their campaign to rig the American political system to benefit the wealthy at the expense of the middle class.
“Republicans are willing to defend the Koch brothers on the floor of the United States Senate. But are they willing to defend the Koch brothers’ radical policy agenda as well? If Republicans don’t support the Koch brothers’ survival of the richest philosophy, all they have to do is say so,” Reid said.
As the Koch brothers have more than enough money to fund an election campaign, some have wondered why they don’t run for office instead of buying and influencing lawmakers on Capitol Hill and in all 50 states. In fact, Charles did convince David to run for office in 1979 as the vice-presidential candidate for the Libertarian Party against Republican candidate Ronald Reagan.
David Koch may have lost the election, but according to Brian Doherty, an editor of the Libertarian magazine Reason and the author of “Radicals for Capitalism,” the experience changed the way the duo looked at politicians. The Koch brothers saw them not as lawmakers, but merely as “actors playing out a script,” and reportedly said they wanted to “supply the themes and words for the scripts.”
How they planned to influence public policy was going to be where policy ideas originate: academia and think tanks.
ABUSE OF WEALTH
Though there are several other wealthy individuals in the U.S. who found and fund private organizations, higher education institutions and super PACs, the difference between the Koch brothers and Democratic supporter George Soros, or even Republican supporter Sheldon Adelson, is that the brothers are abusing their wealth to push their self-described radical ideologies that value profit over all else. Donations made by Soros and Adelson are also much less significant than those made by the Koch brothers, raising concerns about the true intent of the Koch brothers’ donations.
Even David Koch has admitted that the family “exerts tight ideological control” over its interests.
“If we’re going to give a lot of money, we’ll make darn sure they spend it in a way that goes along with our intent,” he told Doherty. “And if they make a wrong turn and start doing things we don’t agree with, we withdraw funding.”
But since the spokespersons for about 45 public and private universities who receive funding from the Koch brothers have continued to deny that the Koch brothers manipulate the curriculum, the Koch brothers’ influence on academia continues to occur without alarming the American public.
Even groups such as Americans for Prosperity are “micromanaged by the Kochs.” That tight control seems to have paid off for the brothers, since during the Obama administration, the president’s public support has dropped to historic lows and his Democratic colleagues have been unseated by Republicans, some of whom are increasingly aligning with Libertarian views.
As the 2014 election season heats up and radical, anti-democratic ideology such as voter ID laws makes its way back into the political realm, the only thing the American public can be sure of is that the Koch brothers are not only funding smear campaigns against politicians whose political ideologies do not help their bottom line, but they are also funding the campaigns of Republican politicians who are pro-big-oil, pro-Wall Street and pro-segregation.
Since the Koch brothers have been successful in manipulating the American political system for a number of decades, even though they hide in the shadows, it’s more important than ever to look at who is funding the think tanks and higher education institutions the media enlists this election season to explain the policies that are at the center of the political debate and will ultimately affect us all.
If we fail to pay attention now, it’s evident from the Koch brothers’ record that only a few of us will continue to be allowed to actively participate in our democracy.
...................................................................................................................................................................
Tuesday, April 1, 2014
Hobby Lobby "... is a case of religious power at war with secular power in a battle for how to morally distribute goods"
...................................................................................................................................................................
The Hobby Lobby case is all about power, not religious liberty
By Elizabeth Stoker, April 1, 2014
Last week, arguments closed in the Supreme Court case Sebelius v. Hobby Lobby Stores Inc., but the debate over the legitimacy of the case has raged hotly since. While Hobby Lobby argues that it should be exempt from portion of ObamaCare due to its owners' Christian beliefs, what is at stake here isn't freedom of religion. It's about power.
At issue for Hobby Lobby, a business run by conservative Protestant Christians, are the portions of the Affordable Care Act that would require it to provide insurance coverage that includes forms of abortifacient birth control, i.e. birth control that can end extremely early term pregnancies. Hobby Lobby's core argument is that by paying for insurance that provides such coverage, it would thus be morally responsible on some level for procedures, medications, and/or devices it objects to, which would violate the owners' religious beliefs.
Yet it's not so cut and dry.
Let's breakdown the process by which Hobby Lobby "pays" for birth control: Under the Affordable Care Act, Hobby Lobby is required to pay money to an insurance company in exchange for insurance coverage for its employees. A Hobby Lobby employee could then go to her pharmacy and request one of the contested forms of contraception, which would then be paid for by the insurance company hired by Hobby Lobby. By the judgment of the owners of Hobby Lobby, this would mean that its own money would be channeled toward the purchase of potentially abortifacient materials.
On the surface, this seems to make sense, but look at it from a different angle and the logic breaks down. What exactly would appease Hobby Lobby and other businesses with similar objections? Ostensibly Hobby Lobby would merely like to pay money to an insurance company in exchange for a coverage plan that does not extend to the contested forms of birth control. But this could still open the company up to identical hazards if that insurance company provided other customers with plans that did extend to those forms of birth control. This is because when a business pays an insurance company, the money the insurance company goes into a "pool" — this is, after all, how insurance works. When Hobby Lobby pays its bill to an insurance provider, its money becomes indistinguishable from other money paid by other corporations, and all of it forms a block of identical money, some of which will be used, so long as the insurance company offers plans extending to contraception, to pay for it.
Thus it looks like an exemption from particular types of plan isn't really what Hobby Lobby needs, but rather an exemption from particular types of companies. But that itself isn't clearly a solution: After all, woman employees of Hobby Lobby are not prohibited from paying for those very contraception options out of their own pocket — which is presumably filled with money that comes directly from Hobby Lobby. If Hobby Lobby cutting a check to an insurance company doesn't transfer responsibility, why is Hobby Lobby cutting a check to a woman any different? It's difficult to say.
Even more challenging is imagining a world per Hobby Lobby's frame that's truly pluralist — in which female employees in disagreement with their employer can remain employed and access the legal forms of contraception they desire without infringing upon any sincerely held religious belief. Single-payer health care, in which the state pays all health expenses similar to a system like the United Kingdom's much-beloved National Health Service, would perhaps push this argument a little down the road — but given early reactions to the considerably weaker Affordable Care Act, arguments over whether or not "tax payer money" should fund contraception and/or abortion would come along at a good clip.
In other words, why is Hobby Lobby objecting to this specific insurance plan and not the entire insurance company's practices? And why not protest female employees spending Hobby Lobby-earned money on those very same contraception types? If this is a hard-line moral case about preventing culpability of any kind in the use of abortifacient birth control, then Hobby Lobby really should be scouring each of those eventualities to extricate itself totally from blame. Instead, it's opting for the very mild, ambiguously helpful "solution" of removing itself only from payment of one particular type of plan.
In short, Hobby Lobby is settling for that option because it can win it. This is because the Hobby Lobby case is not so much about culpability or religious liberty as it is about the degree to which individuals and businesses can wield the power that they have — however limited and bracketed by law and societal norms — to create the kind of world they find moral. Even if Hobby Lobby wins, it is not a clear-cut solution to their money being used to buy objectionable birth control; still, it's a swipe at the practice, however muted, however insubstantial. They want to use the strength they have as a corporation to allocate resources in the most morally perfect way they can envision, even if that turns out to actually be only very slightly different in practice than the current world. It's an act, in other words, with symbolic significance.
The most major claim being made here is, therefore, that societies should allocate resources in accordance with moral goods. Hobby Lobby's objection and widespread support from religious communities demonstrates that it's not enough to defer to law or societal expectations to determine which allocation of resources is just; rather, it suggests we must defer to more authoritative moral standards yet. A laissez-faire attitude won't do. Rather than the possibility of religious practice being infringed (as is usually the interpretation of "religious liberty") this is a case of religious power at war with secular power in a battle for how to morally distribute goods. Therefore so long as secular and religious powers differ on what constitutes the good — which I suspect will always be the case — cases like Sebelius vs Hobby Lobby won't ever do much more than kick further skirmishes down the road.
...................................................................................................................................................................
The Hobby Lobby case is all about power, not religious liberty
By Elizabeth Stoker, April 1, 2014
Last week, arguments closed in the Supreme Court case Sebelius v. Hobby Lobby Stores Inc., but the debate over the legitimacy of the case has raged hotly since. While Hobby Lobby argues that it should be exempt from portion of ObamaCare due to its owners' Christian beliefs, what is at stake here isn't freedom of religion. It's about power.
At issue for Hobby Lobby, a business run by conservative Protestant Christians, are the portions of the Affordable Care Act that would require it to provide insurance coverage that includes forms of abortifacient birth control, i.e. birth control that can end extremely early term pregnancies. Hobby Lobby's core argument is that by paying for insurance that provides such coverage, it would thus be morally responsible on some level for procedures, medications, and/or devices it objects to, which would violate the owners' religious beliefs.
Yet it's not so cut and dry.
Let's breakdown the process by which Hobby Lobby "pays" for birth control: Under the Affordable Care Act, Hobby Lobby is required to pay money to an insurance company in exchange for insurance coverage for its employees. A Hobby Lobby employee could then go to her pharmacy and request one of the contested forms of contraception, which would then be paid for by the insurance company hired by Hobby Lobby. By the judgment of the owners of Hobby Lobby, this would mean that its own money would be channeled toward the purchase of potentially abortifacient materials.
On the surface, this seems to make sense, but look at it from a different angle and the logic breaks down. What exactly would appease Hobby Lobby and other businesses with similar objections? Ostensibly Hobby Lobby would merely like to pay money to an insurance company in exchange for a coverage plan that does not extend to the contested forms of birth control. But this could still open the company up to identical hazards if that insurance company provided other customers with plans that did extend to those forms of birth control. This is because when a business pays an insurance company, the money the insurance company goes into a "pool" — this is, after all, how insurance works. When Hobby Lobby pays its bill to an insurance provider, its money becomes indistinguishable from other money paid by other corporations, and all of it forms a block of identical money, some of which will be used, so long as the insurance company offers plans extending to contraception, to pay for it.
Thus it looks like an exemption from particular types of plan isn't really what Hobby Lobby needs, but rather an exemption from particular types of companies. But that itself isn't clearly a solution: After all, woman employees of Hobby Lobby are not prohibited from paying for those very contraception options out of their own pocket — which is presumably filled with money that comes directly from Hobby Lobby. If Hobby Lobby cutting a check to an insurance company doesn't transfer responsibility, why is Hobby Lobby cutting a check to a woman any different? It's difficult to say.
Even more challenging is imagining a world per Hobby Lobby's frame that's truly pluralist — in which female employees in disagreement with their employer can remain employed and access the legal forms of contraception they desire without infringing upon any sincerely held religious belief. Single-payer health care, in which the state pays all health expenses similar to a system like the United Kingdom's much-beloved National Health Service, would perhaps push this argument a little down the road — but given early reactions to the considerably weaker Affordable Care Act, arguments over whether or not "tax payer money" should fund contraception and/or abortion would come along at a good clip.
In other words, why is Hobby Lobby objecting to this specific insurance plan and not the entire insurance company's practices? And why not protest female employees spending Hobby Lobby-earned money on those very same contraception types? If this is a hard-line moral case about preventing culpability of any kind in the use of abortifacient birth control, then Hobby Lobby really should be scouring each of those eventualities to extricate itself totally from blame. Instead, it's opting for the very mild, ambiguously helpful "solution" of removing itself only from payment of one particular type of plan.
In short, Hobby Lobby is settling for that option because it can win it. This is because the Hobby Lobby case is not so much about culpability or religious liberty as it is about the degree to which individuals and businesses can wield the power that they have — however limited and bracketed by law and societal norms — to create the kind of world they find moral. Even if Hobby Lobby wins, it is not a clear-cut solution to their money being used to buy objectionable birth control; still, it's a swipe at the practice, however muted, however insubstantial. They want to use the strength they have as a corporation to allocate resources in the most morally perfect way they can envision, even if that turns out to actually be only very slightly different in practice than the current world. It's an act, in other words, with symbolic significance.
The most major claim being made here is, therefore, that societies should allocate resources in accordance with moral goods. Hobby Lobby's objection and widespread support from religious communities demonstrates that it's not enough to defer to law or societal expectations to determine which allocation of resources is just; rather, it suggests we must defer to more authoritative moral standards yet. A laissez-faire attitude won't do. Rather than the possibility of religious practice being infringed (as is usually the interpretation of "religious liberty") this is a case of religious power at war with secular power in a battle for how to morally distribute goods. Therefore so long as secular and religious powers differ on what constitutes the good — which I suspect will always be the case — cases like Sebelius vs Hobby Lobby won't ever do much more than kick further skirmishes down the road.
...................................................................................................................................................................
A “Republican trailblazer” has publicly embraced Obamacare
...................................................................................................................................................................
The One Republican Who Wants to Keep Obamacare
By Brianna Ehley, March 31, 2014
While Republicans continue waging war on Obamacare, one of their own remains adamantly supportive of the president’s healthcare law and is encouraging lawmakers to set aside politics and let health reform work.
Dr. Louis Sullivan, former Health and Human Services Secretary under President George H. W. Bush says he sees promise in the law, which has extended insurance to more than 9.5 million people since it took effect, the Los Angeles Times reported Monday.
Sullivan said that though the law has some issues that need to be worked out, it is “not fatally flawed.”
“I'm for the Affordable Care Act – it has some issues, but rather than working to try to dismantle it, we should really try and work together to make this work," Sullivan said. He noted that the more than 6 million who have signed up for coverage on the exchanges signals that the law is beginning to really take hold.
Bush’s former HHS secretary’s views are out of step with congressional Republicans, who have relentlessly targeted Obamacare since it took effect. They argue that the law, which will cost over $1.5 trillion according to the Congressional Budget Office, is both a debt increaser and a job killer.
So far, they have voted more than 51 times in the House of Representatives to repeal or dismantle the law. And as the midterm elections loom, the GOP is gearing up for another round of votes to carve away at Obamacare.
Sullivan says he strongly disagrees with using the health care law as a political strategy. “There should be less politics in addressing health care issues.”
He argued that several major provisions within the Affordable Care Act were part of a plan he helped craft under Republican President George H. W. Bush in 1991. That framework included the individual mandate—the provision most staunchly opposed by today’s Republicans, which requires Americans to have health coverage. Sullivan noted that the conservative Heritage Foundation lobbied in support of the individual mandate, which the organization now opposes. The Republican plan also included a concept similar to the health insurance exchanges, as well as subsidies to help make coverage more affordable.
“If they supported it then, why is it so hard to get it through now?” Sullivan asked at a health conference in Denver on Thursday. “Now the Republican Party is attacking that same concept… I’m not for that kind of political one-upmanship.”
Still, the GOP leadership is forging ahead with plans to repeal the law and replace it with their own alternative ahead of the midterm elections. Though no formal plans have been proposed, the Washington Examiner reports that the Republican framework will likely include provisions to reduce fraudulent malpractice lawsuits, allow consumers to purchase insurance across state lines and encourage small businesses to pool resources and lower the cost of insurance they offer to their employees.
“Repealing Obamacare is a prerequisite, but we will also share our alternative approach with working middle class families being harmed by that law,” said House Majority Leader Eric Cantor, who is spearheading the effort.
However, administration officials and health policy experts, including Sullivan, agree that repealing and replacing the law in the near future is likely unrealistic.
“If this were to be repealed my concern is that it would take a decade or more to replace,” Sullivan said. Adding that he hadn’t heard any real alternatives to the law.
Recent polls have shown that the majority of Americans would prefer to see the law fixed, instead of repealed.
Sullivan, who now serves as CEO and chairman of the Sullivan Alliance, a nonprofit that works to improve health care for low-income Americans, railed against the 21 Republican governors who did not expand their Medicaid programs under the law.
“I do not agree with these governors,’’ Sullivan said, adding that those states that did not expand coverage were leaving money on the table.
Under the law, the federal government fully funds states’ Medicaid expansion programs for three years, then at 90 percent thereafter. Most governors who did not expand the program say they feared their states would not be able to afford it down the road.
In Sullivan’s home state of Georgia, Gov. Nathan Deal rejected Medicaid expansion—which would have provided about 650,000 low-income people with health coverage- because of the long-term costs.
“I think that is something our state cannot afford,” Deal said to the Atlanta Journal Constitution. He added that it “is probably unrealistic to expect that promise (of federally funding) to be fulfilled in the long term, simply because of the financial status that the federal government is in.”
Sullivan, who chairs Georgia’s Grady Health System, said he was particularly disappointed with Deal and said his state couldn’t afford not to expand Medicaid.
The Congressional Budget Office previously estimated that states would spend just about 2.8 percent more on Medicaid with health reform than without it.
Sullivan said if Georgia decided to expand its Medicaid program, the federal money could go toward helping pay the salaries of health care providers at places like Grady hospital, which he said is always on a tight budget.
When asked if he thinks Georgia will expand Medicaid in the future, Sullivan seemed doubtful. “It is certainly my hope that it does happen …without expanding the program, we’re still left with this problem of uninsured people.”
Sullivan, who was recently named a “Republican trailblazer” by the National Republican Committee, is one of the only conservatives who has publicly embraced Obamacare. When asked whether he would advocate the law to his fellow Republicans, he said he did not wish to be a part of the political debate, and only views health reform through the eyes of a physician.
...................................................................................................................................................................
The One Republican Who Wants to Keep Obamacare
By Brianna Ehley, March 31, 2014
While Republicans continue waging war on Obamacare, one of their own remains adamantly supportive of the president’s healthcare law and is encouraging lawmakers to set aside politics and let health reform work.
Dr. Louis Sullivan, former Health and Human Services Secretary under President George H. W. Bush says he sees promise in the law, which has extended insurance to more than 9.5 million people since it took effect, the Los Angeles Times reported Monday.
Sullivan said that though the law has some issues that need to be worked out, it is “not fatally flawed.”
“I'm for the Affordable Care Act – it has some issues, but rather than working to try to dismantle it, we should really try and work together to make this work," Sullivan said. He noted that the more than 6 million who have signed up for coverage on the exchanges signals that the law is beginning to really take hold.
Bush’s former HHS secretary’s views are out of step with congressional Republicans, who have relentlessly targeted Obamacare since it took effect. They argue that the law, which will cost over $1.5 trillion according to the Congressional Budget Office, is both a debt increaser and a job killer.
So far, they have voted more than 51 times in the House of Representatives to repeal or dismantle the law. And as the midterm elections loom, the GOP is gearing up for another round of votes to carve away at Obamacare.
Sullivan says he strongly disagrees with using the health care law as a political strategy. “There should be less politics in addressing health care issues.”
He argued that several major provisions within the Affordable Care Act were part of a plan he helped craft under Republican President George H. W. Bush in 1991. That framework included the individual mandate—the provision most staunchly opposed by today’s Republicans, which requires Americans to have health coverage. Sullivan noted that the conservative Heritage Foundation lobbied in support of the individual mandate, which the organization now opposes. The Republican plan also included a concept similar to the health insurance exchanges, as well as subsidies to help make coverage more affordable.
“If they supported it then, why is it so hard to get it through now?” Sullivan asked at a health conference in Denver on Thursday. “Now the Republican Party is attacking that same concept… I’m not for that kind of political one-upmanship.”
Still, the GOP leadership is forging ahead with plans to repeal the law and replace it with their own alternative ahead of the midterm elections. Though no formal plans have been proposed, the Washington Examiner reports that the Republican framework will likely include provisions to reduce fraudulent malpractice lawsuits, allow consumers to purchase insurance across state lines and encourage small businesses to pool resources and lower the cost of insurance they offer to their employees.
“Repealing Obamacare is a prerequisite, but we will also share our alternative approach with working middle class families being harmed by that law,” said House Majority Leader Eric Cantor, who is spearheading the effort.
However, administration officials and health policy experts, including Sullivan, agree that repealing and replacing the law in the near future is likely unrealistic.
“If this were to be repealed my concern is that it would take a decade or more to replace,” Sullivan said. Adding that he hadn’t heard any real alternatives to the law.
Recent polls have shown that the majority of Americans would prefer to see the law fixed, instead of repealed.
Sullivan, who now serves as CEO and chairman of the Sullivan Alliance, a nonprofit that works to improve health care for low-income Americans, railed against the 21 Republican governors who did not expand their Medicaid programs under the law.
“I do not agree with these governors,’’ Sullivan said, adding that those states that did not expand coverage were leaving money on the table.
Under the law, the federal government fully funds states’ Medicaid expansion programs for three years, then at 90 percent thereafter. Most governors who did not expand the program say they feared their states would not be able to afford it down the road.
In Sullivan’s home state of Georgia, Gov. Nathan Deal rejected Medicaid expansion—which would have provided about 650,000 low-income people with health coverage- because of the long-term costs.
“I think that is something our state cannot afford,” Deal said to the Atlanta Journal Constitution. He added that it “is probably unrealistic to expect that promise (of federally funding) to be fulfilled in the long term, simply because of the financial status that the federal government is in.”
Sullivan, who chairs Georgia’s Grady Health System, said he was particularly disappointed with Deal and said his state couldn’t afford not to expand Medicaid.
The Congressional Budget Office previously estimated that states would spend just about 2.8 percent more on Medicaid with health reform than without it.
Sullivan said if Georgia decided to expand its Medicaid program, the federal money could go toward helping pay the salaries of health care providers at places like Grady hospital, which he said is always on a tight budget.
When asked if he thinks Georgia will expand Medicaid in the future, Sullivan seemed doubtful. “It is certainly my hope that it does happen …without expanding the program, we’re still left with this problem of uninsured people.”
Sullivan, who was recently named a “Republican trailblazer” by the National Republican Committee, is one of the only conservatives who has publicly embraced Obamacare. When asked whether he would advocate the law to his fellow Republicans, he said he did not wish to be a part of the political debate, and only views health reform through the eyes of a physician.
...................................................................................................................................................................
OK, Americans, continue supporting the ACA and show the Republicans that you are smarter than they are
...................................................................................................................................................................
More proof Republicans shouldn't hinge their election hopes on ObamaCare
By Jon Terbush, March 31, 2014
For the first time ever, a plurality of adults support ObamaCare, according to a new Washington Post/ABC News poll released Monday. In the survey, 49 percent of Americans said they supported the law, a hair more than the 48 percent who said the opposite.
The finding comes one week after the latest Kaiser Family Foundation tracking poll — the gold standard for health care polling — also found support for ObamaCare rising. Combined, those results should give the GOP some pause as they gear up for the 2014 elections. Since ObamaCare debuted in disastrous fashion last year, Republicans have pinned their election odds to the law, hoping that public anger would translate into big electoral gains for their party. In other words, they hoped the 2014 elections would be a sweeping referendum on ObamaCare, something that now seems less likely.
Republicans still have a sizable edge heading toward November because of the bum economy, Obama's terrible approval rating, and the fact that Democrats simply have more territory to defend. But they'll have to campaign on more than just opposition to ObamaCare if they want to fully cash in on those built-in advantages.
...................................................................................................................................................................
More proof Republicans shouldn't hinge their election hopes on ObamaCare
By Jon Terbush, March 31, 2014
For the first time ever, a plurality of adults support ObamaCare, according to a new Washington Post/ABC News poll released Monday. In the survey, 49 percent of Americans said they supported the law, a hair more than the 48 percent who said the opposite.
The finding comes one week after the latest Kaiser Family Foundation tracking poll — the gold standard for health care polling — also found support for ObamaCare rising. Combined, those results should give the GOP some pause as they gear up for the 2014 elections. Since ObamaCare debuted in disastrous fashion last year, Republicans have pinned their election odds to the law, hoping that public anger would translate into big electoral gains for their party. In other words, they hoped the 2014 elections would be a sweeping referendum on ObamaCare, something that now seems less likely.
Republicans still have a sizable edge heading toward November because of the bum economy, Obama's terrible approval rating, and the fact that Democrats simply have more territory to defend. But they'll have to campaign on more than just opposition to ObamaCare if they want to fully cash in on those built-in advantages.
...................................................................................................................................................................
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)