Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
Bill USA
Bill USA's Journal
Bill USA's Journal
April 10, 2013
Using Americans for Prosperity to “stimulate” the Tea Party
When the Koch-created Citizens for a Sound Economy split into two organizations— FreedomWorks and the Americans for Prosperity Foundation—David Koch remained chairman of the Americans for Prosperity Foundation and the organization continues to receive funding from the Koch brothers. The Americans for Prosperity Foundation and its sister organization, Americans for Prosperity, work to educate and mobilize conservatives on a range of issues, from the budget to health care and workers’ rights.
Americans for Prosperity holds rallies and events across the nation and spends millions of dollars on television advertising and voter mobilization efforts. Last year, it spent roughly $45 million for the midterm elections. And its membership is growing. In April 2009, there were roughly 23 state chapters, but now Americans for Prosperity touts chapters in 32 states (see map at right).
Charles and David Koch used Americans for Prosperity to “stimulate” the Tea Party movement that arose over the past two years. Americans for Prosperity was one of the organizations that helped plan dozens of the first national Tea Party rallies back in April 2009. Americans for Prosperity staffers organized events from making reservations, to providing talking points and signs, to calling activists
to encourage them to participate. One employee said their role was to “educate” Tea Partiers and give them “next step” training at their rallies.
Think of Americans for Prosperity as the voter-organizing arm of the Koch empire—a formidable political machine that plays a role in all the key electoral states. They have the ability to organize events, mobilize voters, and run television ads. These ads promote their right-wing agenda and force elected officials to respond. This is but one way the Koch brothers use their considerable finances to influence elections. Another way is through direct contributions to candidates at the national and state level, which is the subject of our next section.
the report includes a list of groups supported by the Koch bros. here The Koch Brothers Influence Empire
Here's the top 5...
Cato Institute—$13,887,640
Citizens for a Sound Economy2—$12,356,712
George Mason’s Mercatus Center—$9,674,500
Americans for Prosperity Foundation—$5,610,781
Heritage Foundation—$4,115,571
Here's a report from Mother Jones on how much the Koch brothers spent on the 2012 election (to the extent that this figure can be determined)
Charts: How Much Have the Kochs Spent on the 2012 Election?
[font size="3"] The Koch Brothers have played a very large part in the rampant insanity [/font]we've been witness to in the political sphere since the Conservatives pet theology of Trickle Down Supply-side Econocomics exploded in their faces with the Great Recession (let's not call it the Great Depression II). During the Bush administration they got everythng they wanted, everything they had been chanting for and it produced the worst economic catastrophe since the Great Depression. The conservatives have been pretending their policies didn't create the disaster and just upped the tempo and volume of their babbling.
"Park Avenue: Money, Power & the American Dream" and the Koch brothers (aka the Tea Party)
I just saw a rerun of the excellent PBS documentary "Park Avenue: Money, Power & the American Dream" -
http://www.democraticunderground.com/1017111119
the documentary is loaded with facts and spends some time on the Koch brothers buying influence and basically creating the Tea Party "grass roots" movement - a fact which I've NEVER heard anybody in Corporate media mention.
I just thought I would share a link to a great report on the brothers Koch fromthe Center for American Progress. It lists all the various 'grass roots' organizations and anti-think tanks they have contributed to or created (CATO Institute (for the insane))..
http://www.americanprogressaction.org/wp-content/uploads/issues/2011/04/pdf/koch_brothers.pdf
[div class="excerpt" style="width:auto;float:right;"]
The Koch brothers are this centuries incarnation of Jay Gould, the 19th century financier, who is the God-Father of the modern Republican Party and who summed up their operating principle of divide and conquer when he said: [font color="red"]"I can hire half the working class to kill the other half."[/font]
The Koch brothers are doing the same thing by convincing millions of poor bastards to vote against their own (and the country's) self interest and in the process dispatch their livelihoods and their standard of living.
Using Americans for Prosperity to “stimulate” the Tea Party
When the Koch-created Citizens for a Sound Economy split into two organizations— FreedomWorks and the Americans for Prosperity Foundation—David Koch remained chairman of the Americans for Prosperity Foundation and the organization continues to receive funding from the Koch brothers. The Americans for Prosperity Foundation and its sister organization, Americans for Prosperity, work to educate and mobilize conservatives on a range of issues, from the budget to health care and workers’ rights.
Americans for Prosperity holds rallies and events across the nation and spends millions of dollars on television advertising and voter mobilization efforts. Last year, it spent roughly $45 million for the midterm elections. And its membership is growing. In April 2009, there were roughly 23 state chapters, but now Americans for Prosperity touts chapters in 32 states (see map at right).
Charles and David Koch used Americans for Prosperity to “stimulate” the Tea Party movement that arose over the past two years. Americans for Prosperity was one of the organizations that helped plan dozens of the first national Tea Party rallies back in April 2009. Americans for Prosperity staffers organized events from making reservations, to providing talking points and signs, to calling activists
to encourage them to participate. One employee said their role was to “educate” Tea Partiers and give them “next step” training at their rallies.
Think of Americans for Prosperity as the voter-organizing arm of the Koch empire—a formidable political machine that plays a role in all the key electoral states. They have the ability to organize events, mobilize voters, and run television ads. These ads promote their right-wing agenda and force elected officials to respond. This is but one way the Koch brothers use their considerable finances to influence elections. Another way is through direct contributions to candidates at the national and state level, which is the subject of our next section.
the report includes a list of groups supported by the Koch bros. here The Koch Brothers Influence Empire
Here's the top 5...
Cato Institute—$13,887,640
Citizens for a Sound Economy2—$12,356,712
George Mason’s Mercatus Center—$9,674,500
Americans for Prosperity Foundation—$5,610,781
Heritage Foundation—$4,115,571
Here's a report from Mother Jones on how much the Koch brothers spent on the 2012 election (to the extent that this figure can be determined)
Charts: How Much Have the Kochs Spent on the 2012 Election?
[font size="3"] The Koch Brothers have played a very large part in the rampant insanity [/font]we've been witness to in the political sphere since the Conservatives pet theology of Trickle Down Supply-side Econocomics exploded in their faces with the Great Recession (let's not call it the Great Depression II). During the Bush administration they got everythng they wanted, everything they had been chanting for and it produced the worst economic catastrophe since the Great Depression. The conservatives have been pretending their policies didn't create the disaster and just upped the tempo and volume of their babbling.
April 9, 2013
Just saw a rerun of one of the best documentaries I've ever seen. It's about the degreee to which money, in particular coming from billionaires (the Koch brothers are discussed in spefically: e.g. Paul Ryan gets the most Koch money of anybody in D.C.).
At the link are transcripts of all the interviews in the film. OF particular interest is the interview of Jack Abramoff and of Bruce Bartlett (formerly a senior advisor to Reagan - who now sounds like a consummately pragmatic liberal (really "liberal" is the Fascists term for someone who is a pragmatist, who just wants what works best for our society).
here's the link to the video and all the interview transcripts: http://www.pbs.org/independentlens/park-avenue/film.html
If you saw it the first time, it's still worth another viewing. ... (loaded with quite a few facts).
Park Avenue: Money, Power & the American Dream
Just saw a rerun of one of the best documentaries I've ever seen. It's about the degreee to which money, in particular coming from billionaires (the Koch brothers are discussed in spefically: e.g. Paul Ryan gets the most Koch money of anybody in D.C.).
At the link are transcripts of all the interviews in the film. OF particular interest is the interview of Jack Abramoff and of Bruce Bartlett (formerly a senior advisor to Reagan - who now sounds like a consummately pragmatic liberal (really "liberal" is the Fascists term for someone who is a pragmatist, who just wants what works best for our society).
here's the link to the video and all the interview transcripts: http://www.pbs.org/independentlens/park-avenue/film.html
If you saw it the first time, it's still worth another viewing. ... (loaded with quite a few facts).
April 4, 2013
is DU under cyber-attack or something. I had a terrible time finishing a comment and
getting it to post. Extreme delays waiting for site to accept typed in text. I know the fascists over at GOP hate this site. Would they try to slow down response or take it down with a Denial of Service attack? Wouldn't put anything past them.
(interesting the title I put in is not the one showing in the post title listings)
April 4, 2013
As I reported a couple of weeks ago, a recent Senate bill came with a nice bonus for the genetically modified seed industry: a rider, wholly unrelated to the underlying bill, that compels the USDA to ignore federal court decisions that block the agency's approvals of new GM crops. I explained in this post why such a provision, which the industry has been pushing for over a year, is so important to Monsanto and its few peers in the GMO seed industry. (You can also hear my talking about it on NPR's The Takeaway, along with the senator who tried to stop it, Montana's Jon Tester, and see me on Al Jazeera's Inside Story.)
Which senator pushed the rider into the bill? At the time, no one stepped forward to claim credit. But since then, Sen. Roy Blunt (R-Mo.) has revealed to Politico's ace reporter David Rogers that he's the responsible party. Blunt even told Rogers that he "worked with" GMO seed giant Monsanto to craft the rider.
The admission shines a light on Blunt's ties to Monsanto, whose office is located in the senator's home state. According to OpenSecrets, Monsanto first started contributing to Blunt back in 2008, when it handed him $10,000. At that point, Blunt was serving in the House of Representatives. In 2010, when Blunt successfully ran for the Senate, Monsanto upped its contribution to $44,250. And in 2012, the GMO seed/pesticide giant enriched Blunt's campaign war chest by $64,250.
Blunt is also a magnet for PAC money from the agribusiness industry as a whole, OpenSecrets data shows. In 2012, agribiz PACs gave him $51,000—more than any other industry save for finance, insurance, and real estate (FIRE). In 2010, the year of his Senate run, agribiz PACs handed him over $243,000, more than any other besides the FIRE and energy industries.
(more)
Sen Roy Blunt (the man behind the 'Protect Monsanto act') Monsanto's man in Washington - MotherJones
Sen. Roy Blunt admits to Politico that he was the perpetrator who anonymously inserted the "Monsanto Protection provision" into H.R. 933: Consolidated and Further Continuing Appropriations Act, 2013 - the appropriations bill needed to keep the Government funded through the end of this fiscal year. The provision was inserted anonymously and apparently NOBODY KNEW IT WAS IN THERE when Pres. Obama signed it (although, isn't someone supposed to know what is in a bill before it is voted on in Congress or before a President signs it? - perhaps lack of time was an element here.) in order to keep the Government from shutting down.
Note that this was the same technique used by the shifty Phil Gramm to get his infamous Commodities Futures Modernization Act (which played such a crucial role in creaating the Trickle Down - Deregulation Disasster) passed. He slipped it in as a rider to the Omnibus Funding bill - 2000 (an 11,000 page document) - a veto proof funding bill needed to keep the Government from shutting down. This bill was huge and had to be passed in a matter of a few days in Dec 2000. virtually nobody knew the CFMA was in there either.
This seems to be becoming a technique used by Republicans to get noxious legislation passed that would not stand up to an open vote in Congress.
http://www.motherjones.com/tom-philpott/2013/04/sen-roy-blunt-monsantos-man-washington
As I reported a couple of weeks ago, a recent Senate bill came with a nice bonus for the genetically modified seed industry: a rider, wholly unrelated to the underlying bill, that compels the USDA to ignore federal court decisions that block the agency's approvals of new GM crops. I explained in this post why such a provision, which the industry has been pushing for over a year, is so important to Monsanto and its few peers in the GMO seed industry. (You can also hear my talking about it on NPR's The Takeaway, along with the senator who tried to stop it, Montana's Jon Tester, and see me on Al Jazeera's Inside Story.)
Which senator pushed the rider into the bill? At the time, no one stepped forward to claim credit. But since then, Sen. Roy Blunt (R-Mo.) has revealed to Politico's ace reporter David Rogers that he's the responsible party. Blunt even told Rogers that he "worked with" GMO seed giant Monsanto to craft the rider.
The admission shines a light on Blunt's ties to Monsanto, whose office is located in the senator's home state. According to OpenSecrets, Monsanto first started contributing to Blunt back in 2008, when it handed him $10,000. At that point, Blunt was serving in the House of Representatives. In 2010, when Blunt successfully ran for the Senate, Monsanto upped its contribution to $44,250. And in 2012, the GMO seed/pesticide giant enriched Blunt's campaign war chest by $64,250.
Blunt is also a magnet for PAC money from the agribusiness industry as a whole, OpenSecrets data shows. In 2012, agribiz PACs gave him $51,000—more than any other industry save for finance, insurance, and real estate (FIRE). In 2010, the year of his Senate run, agribiz PACs handed him over $243,000, more than any other besides the FIRE and energy industries.
(more)
April 3, 2013
Another day, another mind-blowing fact about the staggering difference between the haves and the have-nots.
Incomes for the bottom 90 percent of Americans only grew by $59 on average between 1966 and 2011 (when you adjust those incomes for inflation), according to an analysis by Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist David Cay Johnston for Tax Analysts. During the same period, the average income for the top 10 percent of Americans rose by $116,071, Johnston found.
To put that into perspective: if you say the $59 boost is equivalent to one inch, then the incomes of the top 10 percent of Americans rose by 168 feet, Johnston explained to Alternet last week.
Tax Analysis - Johnston’s full Tax Notes column:
http://www.taxanalysts.com/www/features.nsf/Articles/C52956572546624F85257B1D004DE3FC?OpenDocument
Johnston’s long-distance analogy is one way to look at the huge gap between the rich and everyone else, and there are many ways to think about and compare income growth and inequality across various segments of the population. Incomes for the bottom fifth of Americans, for instance, grew about 20 percent between 1979 and 2007, according to a 2011 study from the Congressional Budget Office. During the same period, members of the top 1 percent saw their incomes grow by 275 percent.
(more)
Income Growth For Bottom 90 Percent Of Americans Averaged Just $59 Over 4 Decades: Analysis
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/03/25/income-growth-americans_n_2949309.htmlAnother day, another mind-blowing fact about the staggering difference between the haves and the have-nots.
Incomes for the bottom 90 percent of Americans only grew by $59 on average between 1966 and 2011 (when you adjust those incomes for inflation), according to an analysis by Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist David Cay Johnston for Tax Analysts. During the same period, the average income for the top 10 percent of Americans rose by $116,071, Johnston found.
To put that into perspective: if you say the $59 boost is equivalent to one inch, then the incomes of the top 10 percent of Americans rose by 168 feet, Johnston explained to Alternet last week.
Tax Analysis - Johnston’s full Tax Notes column:
http://www.taxanalysts.com/www/features.nsf/Articles/C52956572546624F85257B1D004DE3FC?OpenDocument
Johnston’s long-distance analogy is one way to look at the huge gap between the rich and everyone else, and there are many ways to think about and compare income growth and inequality across various segments of the population. Incomes for the bottom fifth of Americans, for instance, grew about 20 percent between 1979 and 2007, according to a 2011 study from the Congressional Budget Office. During the same period, members of the top 1 percent saw their incomes grow by 275 percent.
(more)
April 3, 2013
The automatic budget cuts that went into effect on March 1 will soon begin to affect a new subset of Americans: the long-term unemployed who have been out of a job for more than six months and are dependent on the federal government’s unemployment assistance program.
The federal Emergency Unemployment Compensation program aids workers after they exhaust their state-level unemployment benefits, which typically last 26 weeks. The benefits are modest — about $300 a week on average — and will become even more so this month and later, when sequestration forces cuts of up to 10.7 percent on all benefit checks, as National Journal reports:
The cuts, as National Journal explains, will come at different times based on how they are implemented by states. But in some states, the cuts will carry an even bigger punch to the guts of jobless workers. Eight states have recently made substantial cuts to their own unemployment compensation programs, shortening the amount of time jobless workers are eligible for benefits. That, in turn, reduces the amount of time they are eligible for federal benefits as well, since the federal program is tied to state programs.
The average unemployed worker has been out of work for 35 weeks; 40 percent have been jobless for 27 weeks or longer, meaning they rely on the federal program. But instead of stimulus programs to help create jobs, Congress has focused on cutting the budget, and given that unemployment insurance is good for both workers and the overall economy, these cuts are another misguided policy that won’t just make it harder to be unemployed, but harder to find a job too.
Sequestration Cuts Soon To Hit Long-Term Unemployment Insurance
... the God Father of the modern GOP is Jay Gould, 19th century financier (really), who said: "I can hire half the working class to kill the other half."
http://thinkprogress.org/economy/2013/04/02/1810621/sequester-budget-cuts-unemployment-insurance/
The automatic budget cuts that went into effect on March 1 will soon begin to affect a new subset of Americans: the long-term unemployed who have been out of a job for more than six months and are dependent on the federal government’s unemployment assistance program.
The federal Emergency Unemployment Compensation program aids workers after they exhaust their state-level unemployment benefits, which typically last 26 weeks. The benefits are modest — about $300 a week on average — and will become even more so this month and later, when sequestration forces cuts of up to 10.7 percent on all benefit checks, as National Journal reports:
These checks—which average $300 a week, without the cuts—go to roughly 2 million people who have already exhausted their regular unemployment benefits, meaning they’ve been out of work for a while. The Bureau of Labor Statistics defines the long-term unemployed as people who have not held a job for 27 weeks.
Moreover, they are people whom the political establishment has largely forgotten. There are no new stimulus programs on the horizon for the long-term unemployed, nor is there anything new to help train them or connect them to jobs. Those still receiving benefit checks will see them whacked by as much as $450 in total between now and the end of the fiscal year in September, according to Labor Department estimates—all due to spending cuts that both parties consider ill-advised and indiscriminate.
The cuts, as National Journal explains, will come at different times based on how they are implemented by states. But in some states, the cuts will carry an even bigger punch to the guts of jobless workers. Eight states have recently made substantial cuts to their own unemployment compensation programs, shortening the amount of time jobless workers are eligible for benefits. That, in turn, reduces the amount of time they are eligible for federal benefits as well, since the federal program is tied to state programs.
The average unemployed worker has been out of work for 35 weeks; 40 percent have been jobless for 27 weeks or longer, meaning they rely on the federal program. But instead of stimulus programs to help create jobs, Congress has focused on cutting the budget, and given that unemployment insurance is good for both workers and the overall economy, these cuts are another misguided policy that won’t just make it harder to be unemployed, but harder to find a job too.
April 1, 2013
- U.S. corporations pay one of the highest tax rates in the world. There's little debate about that.
Still, some argue the difference in the overall tax burden for U.S. companies isn't nearly as great it appears.
In fact, the United States collects less corporate tax relative to the overall economy than almost any other country in the world.
And that's a more objective measure of tax burden. Different accounting rules around the world means what's counted as income in one country isn't counted in another -- that makes comparisons of tax rates misleading.
U.S. corporate tax collections totaled only 1.7% of GDP in 2009, the most recent year for which complete data is available, according to the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development.
(more)
The Corporate Tax Myth - CNN
http://money.cnn.com/2012/02/23/news/international/corporate_taxes/index.htm?iid=EL- U.S. corporations pay one of the highest tax rates in the world. There's little debate about that.
Still, some argue the difference in the overall tax burden for U.S. companies isn't nearly as great it appears.
In fact, the United States collects less corporate tax relative to the overall economy than almost any other country in the world.
And that's a more objective measure of tax burden. Different accounting rules around the world means what's counted as income in one country isn't counted in another -- that makes comparisons of tax rates misleading.
U.S. corporate tax collections totaled only 1.7% of GDP in 2009, the most recent year for which complete data is available, according to the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development.
(more)
April 1, 2013
[div class="excerpt" [div class="excerpt" style="box-shadow: 10px 10px 5px #888888;"]
According to the Center for Budget and Policy Priorities (CBPP) , Corporate tax revenues as a share of GDP have fallen to near historic lows.
At 1.7% of GDP in 2009, the US has the third-lowest effective corporate burden in the world. according to the latest OECD analysis (for 2011 revenues), based on corporate taxes as percentage of GDP.
Meanwhile America’s corporations aren’t suffering too much from being “less competitive.” Corporate profits are the highest ever, as a share of GDP.
Finally, are these supposedly “high taxes” even being paid, thereby making the giant multinationals “less competitive?” The CTJ/ITEPstudy also found that 78 of 280 of the nation’s largest and most profitable companies paid no federal income taxes in at least one of three years.
(more)
Tell President Obama he shouldn't be overcome with a burst of unilateral bipartisanship and give in to Corporate Fuedalists' demands for even lower taxes for the new Lords in the Corporate Feudalist society we are heading for.
White House contact the President page: http://www.whitehouse.gov/contact/submit-questions-and-comments
and tell your Congressmen to tell President Obama to not fold on this issue.
Congressional email addresses: http://www.contactingthecongress.org/
or find your senators here: http://www.senate.gov/pagelayout/senators/f_two_sections_with_teasers/states.htm
and representatives here: http://www.house.gov/representatives/find/
Obama Shouldn’t Buy The Lower-Corporate-Taxes Line
http://blog.ourfuture.org/20130401/obama-shouldnt-buy-the-lower-corporate-taxes-line?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=obama-shouldnt-buy-the-lower-corporate-taxes-line[div class="excerpt" [div class="excerpt" style="box-shadow: 10px 10px 5px #888888;"]
According to the Center for Budget and Policy Priorities (CBPP) , Corporate tax revenues as a share of GDP have fallen to near historic lows.
At 1.7% of GDP in 2009, the US has the third-lowest effective corporate burden in the world. according to the latest OECD analysis (for 2011 revenues), based on corporate taxes as percentage of GDP.
Meanwhile America’s corporations aren’t suffering too much from being “less competitive.” Corporate profits are the highest ever, as a share of GDP.
Finally, are these supposedly “high taxes” even being paid, thereby making the giant multinationals “less competitive?” The CTJ/ITEPstudy also found that 78 of 280 of the nation’s largest and most profitable companies paid no federal income taxes in at least one of three years.
(more)
Tell President Obama he shouldn't be overcome with a burst of unilateral bipartisanship and give in to Corporate Fuedalists' demands for even lower taxes for the new Lords in the Corporate Feudalist society we are heading for.
White House contact the President page: http://www.whitehouse.gov/contact/submit-questions-and-comments
and tell your Congressmen to tell President Obama to not fold on this issue.
Congressional email addresses: http://www.contactingthecongress.org/
or find your senators here: http://www.senate.gov/pagelayout/senators/f_two_sections_with_teasers/states.htm
and representatives here: http://www.house.gov/representatives/find/
Profile Information
Member since: Wed Mar 3, 2010, 05:25 PMNumber of posts: 6,436
