![Tennessee state Sen. Joey Hensley (R) [Chattanooga Times Free Press]](https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/blogger_img_proxy/AEn0k_uM5Lvm6DfQFWvWjRIFEqU2NTB99wKVQlcVCVPuoqv2RcY0spMFk4ziR1r4PX2bLNprPzK-jdbCMdc-h3wtFVLPfrHpXe1NjgJm7KyDApt33c3dCEIypB5LnDMNEtJeyOHwbDRCmJmotHJw1xsyYbnNjI8yDuUO5BYIw_OCjmKmBVrzAHwYx7Ym6aJm6x0YkVnWqgWAhX6qVXFOpoaD-U8RYWnRs-GI=s0-d)
Wednesday, March 11, 2015
Tennessee’s ‘Don’t Say Gay’ Republican hit ex-wife with his car — twice
One Simple Way to Save American Democracy: Get Serious About Taxing the Mega-Rich
The Founding Fathers were very clear that they didn't want America to ever degenerate into an oligarchy.
This week, Forbes Magazine released its list of the 20 richest people on the planet—and tied for number six were Charles and David Koch. Right now, it is easy to call out the billionaire brothers as a threat to our democracy (after all, they have promised to spend nearly a BILLION dollars in the 2016 election), but there are 18 other people on that list.
It's Bizarre: Libertarians Are Clueless About the 'Free Market' That They Worship
The challenge now: redeeming effective and democratic government.
SC Supreme Court: magistrates must be able to tell time and read
An order from the South Carolina Supreme Court dictates that those seeking to serve as magistrate judges must pass a rudimentary test of critical thinking skills.
As with many laws and rules, the most interesting thing about this is what isn't stated: that there must be a problem with SC's magistrates lacking extremely basic literacy, critical thinking skills, and the ability to reason -- to pass the test, you need to have a "sixth grade reading level, knowledge of basic mathematics, how to tell time, days of the week and months of the year, and a basic knowledge of the U. S. monetary units and the U. S. Customary System of weights and measures."
I hasten to add that these are minimum requirements, or as the court puts it, the requirements to become a "successful examinee." Successful applicants, it goes on to say, "will not only demonstrate a suitable level of learning ability, but also a mastery of fundamental basic skills." So this should not be interpreted as a suggestion that, say, just being able to make change for a dollar would cut it if you wanted to be a magistrate judge in South Carolina. You would probably need to be able to make change for bills of several different denominations, at a minimum.
***
Now, if we can get them to be able to walk and chew gum at the same time maybe we'll really be getting somewhere.
McDonald's sues to block Seattle's minimum wage
But what about the equal protection rights of the people who work in these businesses? Our historical research has found that the drafters of the Fourteenth Amendment were very interested in employer-employee relations, and in particular, whether workers could earn "fair, living wages." That phrase doesn't come from some union organizer or activist in Seattle: it comes from Senator Jacob Howard, a staunch Republican who was the Fourteenth Amendment's Senate floor manager back in 1866, and whose statements on the concerns motivating the Fourteenth Amendment are a little more important than the legal opinions of Grimace and Captain Crook. And during the Congressional hearings documented in the official report of the committee that proposed the amendment, Senator Howard asked over and over whether employers would pay "fair, living wages." Of course, a living wage wasn't the only concern behind the Fourteenth Amendment. But, unlike protection of the franchised business model, it was definitely part of the overall goals.
Given how important the idea of "fair, living wages" was to the authors of the Fourteenth Amendment, it's shameful for the McNugget Buddies to claim that the Constitution's Equal Protection Clause should protect them, rather than real human workers with families to feed. But it's not surprising. Ever since the Fourteenth Amendment was passed, corporate lawyers have tried to leverage it into a racket to strike down laws like Seattle's. In 1938, a frustrated Supreme Court justice complained that "of the cases in [the] Court in which the Fourteenth Amendment was applied during the first fifty years after its adoption, less than one-half of 1 percent invoked it in protection of the negro race, and more than 50 percent asked that its benefits be extended to corporations." Just this past year, we've seen the Equal Protection Clause invoked on behalf of coal companies and multinational agribusiness conglomerates. And now, the Fry Kids.
Nine Myths Wingnuts Love To Believe About Welfare
The Internet at its best is a treasure trove of information,
better than a thousand libraries. At its worst, it is a means of
spreading falsehoods unlike anything the world has ever seen. This is
especially true in social media, which the right wing has discovered to
be the perfect platform to spread misinformation on political subjects.
Of course, one of the right’s favorite targets is the American social safety net. Americans who receive welfare benefits or food stamps are regular targets of right wing memes and attacks on Facebook or other social media. Not only are most of these memes way off base, virtually every one of them plays on the public’s complete ignorance of how the programs we know as “welfare” function. What do you know about welfare? Most likely you know more than your right wing uncle. But, in case you are in need of some facts and figures, here is some information about some of the right’s favorite welfare myths that will certainly drive that uncle crazy at the next family dinner.
Myth: “People on welfare are lazy and sit at home collecting it while the rest of us work to support them.”
Fact: The welfare reform law that was signed by President Clinton in 1996 largely turned control over welfare benefits to the states, but the federal government provides some of the funding for state welfare programs through a program called Temporary Assistance For Needy Families (TANF). TANF grants to states require that all welfare recipients must find work within two years of first receiving benefits. This includes single parents, who are required to work at least 30 hours per week. Two-parent families are required to work 35 to 50 hours per week. Failure to obtain work could result in loss of benefits. It is also worth noting that, thanks to the pay offerings of companies such as Walmart, many who work at low wage jobs qualify for public assistance, even though they work full-time.
During the recession, the Obama administration allowed states to request a temporary waiver of the work requirement, due to the scarcity of jobs. That move gave the right an opening to claim that President Obama was removing the work requirement for welfare. First, conservatives claim that those on welfare don’t want to work, then they claim that the president is “gutting welfare reform” by allowing states to request a waiver of the work requirement.
Myth: “People who go on welfare stay on it forever.”
Fact: According to statisticbrain.com, the vast majority of TANF recipients, 80.4 percent, receive benefits for five years or less. Nearly 25 percent of all recipients receive benefits for less than a year. (The site still refers to the program by the old name of Aid To Families With Dependent Children. AFDC is the old name for the program, that was replaced by TANF in 1996. The site’s statistics are current, however.)
Myth: “There’s a woman in Chicago. She has 80 names, 30 addresses, 12 Social Security cards. … She’s got Medicaid, getting food stamps and she is collecting welfare under each of her names. Her tax-free cash income alone is over $150,000″ – Ronald Reagan
Fact: Ah, the “welfare queen.” Ronny loved to tell his stories, and his welfare queen story is one of the most popular. The only problem is the woman he talked about didn’t exist. There is some evidence that elements of this story may have been based on facts, but the descriptions of abuse by an actual woman were wildly exaggerated by Reagan.
Myth: “Welfare recipients keep having more kids so they can get more benefits.”
Fact: According to a 2010 report, which is the most recent data available, released by the federal Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), the average family receiving TANF benefits has 1.8 children, which is about the same as the national average. Half of the families receiving TANF benefits only have one child. In fact, the average size of families receiving welfare benefits has declined from 4.0 in 1969 to 2.4 in 2010. Also, some states, such as Delaware and Georgia, make it clear to those who sign up for TANF benefits that their benefits will not increase if they have additional children. Taken from the Delaware Department of Health and Human Services website:
Myth: “Where Is The U.S. Headed If More Than 100 Million People Get Welfare?” – Headline of August 2012 column by CNN’s Jack Cafferty
Fact: One hundred million Americans on welfare? Cafferty apparently gets his information from a biased source, the Center For Immigration Studies, which is connected to identified racist John Tanton. According to the 2010 federal HHS report, 1,084,828 adults and 3,280,153 children received TANF benefits that year, a far cry from 100 million.
Myth: “I see these guys all the time, hanging out and drinking, and doing drugs, collecting welfare instead of working.”
Fact: The able-bodied single male with no dependent children who collects welfare in the United States is extremely rare, since the primary goal of most welfare programs is to provide temporary support for children and families. Single males can receive certain benefits, such as Supplemental Security Income (SSI) if they are disabled. The rare, able-bodied male who does qualify for benefits is still subject to the program’s work requirements.
Myth: “Most welfare recipients are drug users.”
Fact: In recent years, several states have tried requiring drug tests of welfare recipients. The number of applicants who tested positive for drugs was not enough to make the programs cost effective in every state where it was tried. Even Florida’s governor, Rick Scott, one of the early proponents of the idea has given up on it after his plan was ruled unconstitutional by two federal courts.
When Florida tried drug tests for welfare in 2011, only about two percent of all applicants tested positive for drug use. According to the New York Times, federal statistics show that the rate of drug use among welfare recipients is about the same as it is for the public at large.
Myth: “Most welfare recipients are minorities and illegal immigrants.”
Fact: TANF benefits were paid out to roughly the same percentage of white and black recipients in 2010, according to the HHS report. In fact, the percentage of black families receiving welfare benefits has declined by almost 7 percent since 2000. It’s popular among conservatives to claim that illegal immigrants are getting welfare. But that is not the case. Those who are in the United States illegally are ineligible for benefits other than emergency Medicaid.
Myth: “People collect welfare instead of work, and they get rich. They all have iPhones, drive new cars, have widescreen tv’s, etc. I work and I can’t afford any of that!”
Fact: Since welfare payments vary by state and by the size of the family, it’s hard to provide all the pertinent numbers here, but here are some ranges:
One final fact about welfare: Would anybody like to guess who makes up the single largest group on welfare in the United States? It’s children. One out of every four children in the United States receives welfare benefits.
“Everybody’s gotta have somebody to look down on, who they can feel better than at any time they please.” — Kris Kristofferson
That seems to be the story when it comes to welfare and the attitudes of conservatives. “There but for the grace of God go I” isn’t a consideration. Ask any conservative what problems they have with welfare, and they are likely to start their reply with “I know somebody who…” and then launch into a narrative about someone they know who they don’t believe deserves benefits. But, in a nation of 300 million, it is impossible to know enough “somebody’s who” to reach a valid conclusion. Not that that matters to conservatives, who largely base their ideas on contempt for their fellow man.
Since the year 2000, over three million jobs have been lost to China. Most of those jobs were lost during the Bush administration. If we even had a fraction of those good paying jobs back, maybe so many people wouldn’t need to rely on welfare. But you can’t confuse conservatives with facts, when they would prefer to just blame the welfare recipients…and Obama.
Of course, one of the right’s favorite targets is the American social safety net. Americans who receive welfare benefits or food stamps are regular targets of right wing memes and attacks on Facebook or other social media. Not only are most of these memes way off base, virtually every one of them plays on the public’s complete ignorance of how the programs we know as “welfare” function. What do you know about welfare? Most likely you know more than your right wing uncle. But, in case you are in need of some facts and figures, here is some information about some of the right’s favorite welfare myths that will certainly drive that uncle crazy at the next family dinner.
Myth: “People on welfare are lazy and sit at home collecting it while the rest of us work to support them.”
Fact: The welfare reform law that was signed by President Clinton in 1996 largely turned control over welfare benefits to the states, but the federal government provides some of the funding for state welfare programs through a program called Temporary Assistance For Needy Families (TANF). TANF grants to states require that all welfare recipients must find work within two years of first receiving benefits. This includes single parents, who are required to work at least 30 hours per week. Two-parent families are required to work 35 to 50 hours per week. Failure to obtain work could result in loss of benefits. It is also worth noting that, thanks to the pay offerings of companies such as Walmart, many who work at low wage jobs qualify for public assistance, even though they work full-time.
During the recession, the Obama administration allowed states to request a temporary waiver of the work requirement, due to the scarcity of jobs. That move gave the right an opening to claim that President Obama was removing the work requirement for welfare. First, conservatives claim that those on welfare don’t want to work, then they claim that the president is “gutting welfare reform” by allowing states to request a waiver of the work requirement.
Myth: “People who go on welfare stay on it forever.”
Fact: According to statisticbrain.com, the vast majority of TANF recipients, 80.4 percent, receive benefits for five years or less. Nearly 25 percent of all recipients receive benefits for less than a year. (The site still refers to the program by the old name of Aid To Families With Dependent Children. AFDC is the old name for the program, that was replaced by TANF in 1996. The site’s statistics are current, however.)
Myth: “There’s a woman in Chicago. She has 80 names, 30 addresses, 12 Social Security cards. … She’s got Medicaid, getting food stamps and she is collecting welfare under each of her names. Her tax-free cash income alone is over $150,000″ – Ronald Reagan
Fact: Ah, the “welfare queen.” Ronny loved to tell his stories, and his welfare queen story is one of the most popular. The only problem is the woman he talked about didn’t exist. There is some evidence that elements of this story may have been based on facts, but the descriptions of abuse by an actual woman were wildly exaggerated by Reagan.
Myth: “Welfare recipients keep having more kids so they can get more benefits.”
Fact: According to a 2010 report, which is the most recent data available, released by the federal Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), the average family receiving TANF benefits has 1.8 children, which is about the same as the national average. Half of the families receiving TANF benefits only have one child. In fact, the average size of families receiving welfare benefits has declined from 4.0 in 1969 to 2.4 in 2010. Also, some states, such as Delaware and Georgia, make it clear to those who sign up for TANF benefits that their benefits will not increase if they have additional children. Taken from the Delaware Department of Health and Human Services website:
You will get information on family planning. Your check will not increase if you have a baby 10 months or more after you sign up for this program. [Emphasis added]A Government Accountability Office report (page 45), shows the amount of TANF benefits paid in each state for one to three children. Even in states where having additional children will result in a benefit increase, that increase is, in most cases, $100 a month or less.
Myth: “Where Is The U.S. Headed If More Than 100 Million People Get Welfare?” – Headline of August 2012 column by CNN’s Jack Cafferty
Fact: One hundred million Americans on welfare? Cafferty apparently gets his information from a biased source, the Center For Immigration Studies, which is connected to identified racist John Tanton. According to the 2010 federal HHS report, 1,084,828 adults and 3,280,153 children received TANF benefits that year, a far cry from 100 million.
Myth: “I see these guys all the time, hanging out and drinking, and doing drugs, collecting welfare instead of working.”
Fact: The able-bodied single male with no dependent children who collects welfare in the United States is extremely rare, since the primary goal of most welfare programs is to provide temporary support for children and families. Single males can receive certain benefits, such as Supplemental Security Income (SSI) if they are disabled. The rare, able-bodied male who does qualify for benefits is still subject to the program’s work requirements.
Myth: “Most welfare recipients are drug users.”
Fact: In recent years, several states have tried requiring drug tests of welfare recipients. The number of applicants who tested positive for drugs was not enough to make the programs cost effective in every state where it was tried. Even Florida’s governor, Rick Scott, one of the early proponents of the idea has given up on it after his plan was ruled unconstitutional by two federal courts.
When Florida tried drug tests for welfare in 2011, only about two percent of all applicants tested positive for drug use. According to the New York Times, federal statistics show that the rate of drug use among welfare recipients is about the same as it is for the public at large.
Myth: “Most welfare recipients are minorities and illegal immigrants.”
Fact: TANF benefits were paid out to roughly the same percentage of white and black recipients in 2010, according to the HHS report. In fact, the percentage of black families receiving welfare benefits has declined by almost 7 percent since 2000. It’s popular among conservatives to claim that illegal immigrants are getting welfare. But that is not the case. Those who are in the United States illegally are ineligible for benefits other than emergency Medicaid.
Myth: “People collect welfare instead of work, and they get rich. They all have iPhones, drive new cars, have widescreen tv’s, etc. I work and I can’t afford any of that!”
Fact: Since welfare payments vary by state and by the size of the family, it’s hard to provide all the pertinent numbers here, but here are some ranges:
- A family of four can expect up to $500 a month in food stamp benefits. A single person can expect an average of $200 a month.
- The average monthly allowance under TANF/AFDC is $900 for a family of four. For a single person the average is about $300.
One final fact about welfare: Would anybody like to guess who makes up the single largest group on welfare in the United States? It’s children. One out of every four children in the United States receives welfare benefits.
“Everybody’s gotta have somebody to look down on, who they can feel better than at any time they please.” — Kris Kristofferson
That seems to be the story when it comes to welfare and the attitudes of conservatives. “There but for the grace of God go I” isn’t a consideration. Ask any conservative what problems they have with welfare, and they are likely to start their reply with “I know somebody who…” and then launch into a narrative about someone they know who they don’t believe deserves benefits. But, in a nation of 300 million, it is impossible to know enough “somebody’s who” to reach a valid conclusion. Not that that matters to conservatives, who largely base their ideas on contempt for their fellow man.
Since the year 2000, over three million jobs have been lost to China. Most of those jobs were lost during the Bush administration. If we even had a fraction of those good paying jobs back, maybe so many people wouldn’t need to rely on welfare. But you can’t confuse conservatives with facts, when they would prefer to just blame the welfare recipients…and Obama.
Tuesday, March 10, 2015
The Daily Drift
The Truth Be Told is read in 201 countries around the world.
The pipes are calling all Liberals to rise against wingnut tyranny... !
Today is - International Bagpipe Day
Don't forget to visit our sister blog Carolina Naturally
Some of our readers today have been in:
The Americas
Hamilton, Bermuda
Fortaleza, Poaco De Pedras, Rio De Janeiro, Sao Paulo e Vitoria Da Conquista, Brazil
Quebec and Toronto, Canada
Bogota, Colombia
San Jose, Costa, Rica
Azcapotzalco, Mexico City y Tijuana, Mexico
Boaco, Nicaragua
Ayacucho y Lima, Peru
Catano y Ponce, Puerto Rico
The Bottom, Sint Eustatius-Saba
Europe
Vienna, Austria
Sarajevo, Bosnia-Herzegovina
Aksakovo, Silistra и Sofia, Bulgaria
Zagreb, Croatia
Stare Mesto, Czech Republic
Lancaster and London, England
Cerny, Grenoble et Velizy-Villacoublay, France
Hamburg und Nuremberg, Germany
Athens, Marousi, Greece
Milan, Palermo, Terlizzi e Torino, Italy
Koknese, Riga, Latvia
Amersfoort, Amsterdam en Roosendaal, Netherlands
Arendal, Norway
Biala Podlaska, Poland
Porto, Portugal
Botosani, Bucharest și Saschiz, Romania
Vladivostok, Russia
Belgrade, Serbia
Bratislava, Slovakia
Madrid y Valencia, Spain
Dnipropetrovsk, Ukraine
Asia
Tungi, Bangladesh
Beijing 和 Guangzhou, China
Bhubaneshwar, Calicut, Patna, Pune ਅਤੇ Ranchi, India
Pacarkeling, Indonesia
Tehran, Iran
Alor Setar, Kajang, Kota Bharu, Kuala Lumpur, Kuching, Papar dan Victoria, Malaysia
Islamabad এবং Rawalpindi, Pakistan
Colombo, Sri Lanka
Khon Sawan, Thailand
Africa
Cotonou, Benin
Nairobi, Kenya
Monrovia, Liberia
Lagos, Nigeria
The Pacific
Homebush and Sydney, Australia
The month that killed the middle class: How October 1973 slammed America
From the Arab oil embargo to the auto
workers strike, one month more than 40 years ago changed this nation
forever
by Edward McClelland
Protesters gather in front of the White House calling for the impeachment of President Richard Nixon, Oct. 22, 1973.
Early
in 1974, Don Cooper, an autoworker at an Oldsmobile plant in Lansing,
Michigan, was demoted from his coveted job in the crankshaft department
to the final assembly line, where he had started out as a rookie nine
years earlier. Cooper hadn’t done anything wrong. Rather, he was a
victim of events 6,000 miles away.
The
previous October, Egypt had invaded Israel. When the United States
provided military aid to the Jewish state, Saudi Arabia retaliated by
cutting off oil exports to Western nations. The Arab Oil Embargo raised
the price of gasoline from 36 to 53 cents a gallon — when drivers could
get it. To prevent hours-long lines, filling stations sold to cars with
odd-numbered license plates on Mondays, Wednesdays and Fridays, even
plates on Tuesdays, Thursdays and Saturdays.
Oldsmobile,
known for burly, dynamic cars powered by its eight-cylinder Rocket
engine, was offering its usual stable of bad-ass American iron: a
Cutlass with a 270-horsepower engine; a 98 that measured 19 feet 4
inches from chrome bumper to chrome bumper.
But suddenly, customers weren’t buying those gas guzzlers. And when
cars weren’t selling, Oldsmobile didn’t need as many crankshafts. So
thanks to the latest Arab-Israeli War, Cooper was back on the line.
“That
was a rude awakening to go back to final assembly,” Cooper recalled. “I
was back on the frame line. I had to ground a radio strap to a
firewall, and tighten a brass nut on an air conditioning unit. It was
torture to go back.”
October 1973 was a
rude awakening for the entire United States. It was a watershed month
for the American middle class. The Arab Oil Embargo would lead to the
downfall of the American auto industry, whose generous wages and
benefits set the standard for the entire economy. It was also the month
of the Saturday Night Massacre, which made inevitable the downfall of
Richard Nixon. The Watergate scandal resulted in changes to the American
political system that put more power into the hands of lobbyists,
political action committees and wealthy, self-funded candidates. Cooper
didn’t know it at the time — nobody knew it — but the moment he started
grounding those radio straps and tightening those nuts was the moment
the upward fortunes of the American worker hit a wall. From the 1947 to
1973, the golden postwar quarter-century, hourly earnings grew at an
average of 2.2 percent a year. Since 1973, they’ve been stagnant, barely
keeping up with inflation, even as productivity has boomed.
For
the first generation after World War II, American life was defined by
one word: “more.” Not just bigger cars and bigger houses, but two cars
and two houses. The nation’s standard of living increased dramatically —
on a pace to double every 33 years — with much of it generated by the
auto industry. In 1949, America’s automobile fleet stood at 45 million.
By 1972, it was 116 million — more cars than we could fill up from our
own wells. The alpine graph of American prosperity had reached a
plateau, and cutting off our supply of foreign oil was all it took to
push it downhill.
As the auto industry
was a bellwether for the American economy, autoworkers were a bellwether
for American labor. In 1970, Cooper, had taken part in the United Auto
Workers’ last great nationwide strike. More
than 400,000 workers walked out and stayed out for 67 days, until GM
gave them everything they wanted: a 19.5 percent wage hike over three
years, plus a one-cent an hour raise for every 0.3 percent increase in
the consumer price index, and the right to retire after 30 years, at age
58, with a full pension. As he walked the picket line, Cooper was
jeered by passing drivers, but as he saw it, he was striking for every
worker.
“We used to get stoned in the
newspapers every time we’d get something in our contract,” said Cooper,
whose father was vice president of his UAW local. “‘Well, the
autoworkers drove the price up because they got a raise.’ But then
everybody else started getting raises, too.”
In
1973, after a brief strike against Chrysler, the UAW won even more
generous perks: a dental plan, a longer holiday break between Christmas
and New Year’s and the opportunity to retire on a full pension after 30
years of service at any age. Cooper, who had hired in three months after
his high school graduation, as General Motors was ramping up for its
bounty of Vietnam War contracts, could now retire at 48.
The
day that strike was settled — Sept. 23, 1973 — was the day the American
middle class peaked. Cooper knew even then that the labor movement had
finally achieved all its goals.
“The
union got to a point where we ran out of things to negotiate for,” he
said. “What more could we ask for? We had a good wage, we had good
health care, we had good pension. Everything was there.”
Less
than two weeks later, it all began to unravel. On Oct. 6, the Jewish
holiday of Yom Kippur, Egypt and Syria attacked Israel in an attempt to
regain territory lost in the Six-Day War of 1967. As Israeli forces
retreated, Golda Meir begged the United States for help. Reluctantly,
Nixon sent ammunition, helping Israel repel the Arab attack — and
inspiring King Faisal to declare a retaliatory embargo.
The
effect on the American economy was twofold: First, the embargo
contributed to a recession in which the gross national product fell 2.1
percent, unemployment reached 10 percent, and inflation hit 12 percent.
Not even the UAW contract could keep up with those prices. Second, as
Don Cooper was learning during his tortuous return to the assembly line,
Americans stopped buying American cars. The percentage of disposable
income spent on new cars dropped from 4.8 percent to 3.8 percent — the
lowest since the Korean War — and a lot of the purchases were
fuel-efficient Fiats, Hondas and VW Beetles, which were less expensive
to fill up than those street yachts the Lincoln Continental and the
Chrysler New Yorker. The Big Three found themselves in a bind, which
they soon figured out how to make worse. GM, Ford and Chrysler didn’t
want to build small cars, because only ginormous cars provided the
profits necessary to pay the wages and benefits they had just lavished
on their workers.
“We don’t believe the
market is large enough for our own subcompact,” soon-to-be retired
Chrysler chairman Lynn Townsend said in 1974. “The Valiant and Dart are
the cars people want to buy.”
Forced
into the subcompact business by the marketplace, and by the first
Corporate Average Fuel Economy standards, which mandated a fleet-wide
average of 27.5 miles per gallon by 1975, Detroit engineers
passive-aggressively designed some of the crappiest cars ever to explode
or crack a head gasket on an American roadway: the Plymouth Horizon,
the AMC Pacer,
the Chevy Chevette, the Ford Escort. These epically damaged the
American automakers’ reputations because they were starter cars,
purchased for young people by parents who weren’t over World War II
enough to buy Japanese. The classic pattern was for drivers to climb the
Chevy-Pontiac-Oldsmobile-Buick-Cadillac brand ladder as they became
older and more prosperous. But after the floors of their Chevettes
rusted out, Baby Boomers bought Corollas with their own money. In 1970,
GM produced 45 percent of all vehicles sold in the U.S., while foreign
manufacturers produced 7 percent. Now, foreign auto companies produce
half, while GM makes a fifth.
The
collapse of the domestic auto industry had serious political
consequences for the labor movement — and serious economic consequences
for the middle class. Harry Truman, Adlai Stevenson, John F. Kennedy and
Lyndon Johnson all kicked off their presidential campaigns at Detroit’s
Labor Day Parade, in recognition of the UAW’s status as labor’s
flagship union. By 2012, the UAW was so depeopled it could not prevent
the Michigan legislature from passing a right-to-work law. Republicans
candidly admitted the bill would have stood no chance when the UAW had
1.5 million members — three times its current strength. Factory closings
cost unions their political clout, giving Republicans an opportunity to
finish them off.
October 1973’s second
blow to the middle class occurred on the 20th, when President Nixon
refused Watergate Special Prosecutor Archibald Cox’s demand for the Oval
Office tapes. When Cox wouldn’t back down, Nixon ordered Attorney
General Elliot Richardson to fire him. Richardson resigned. So did
Deputy Attorney General William Ruckelshaus, leaving Solicitor General
Robert Bork to fire Cox. The so-called Saturday Night Massacre was an
act of presidential lawlessness that marked the beginning of the end of
Nixon’s presidency.
“Until last night,”
the Washington Post reported on Oct. 21, “Congress had appeared
extremely reluctant to even consider the impeachment step seriously.”
After
that night, even Republicans began calling for Nixon’s removal from
office. “The House of Representatives should consider to begin
impeachment proceedings,” said Sen. Edward Brooke of Massachusetts. The
next week, Rep. Jerome Waldie, a California Democrat, introduced a
resolution calling Nixon’s “obstruction of justice” grounds for
impeachment.
A politician who called his
ideal voter a 47-year-old machinist’s wife outside Dayton, Nixon was a
working man’s president. According to Herbert Stein, a member of his
Council of Economic Advisers, Nixon was “allergic to unemployment.”
In announcing his 1971 budget, he called himself a Keynesian. The
following year, he proved it, ordering his Cabinet to increase spending
to reduce unemployment. Nixon’s solution to inflation was wage and price
controls — “a radical departure from conservative, free market
philosophy” — not the job-killing interest rate hikes later imposed by
Jimmy Carter and Ronald Reagan. Part of it was a political strategy, to
lure white working-class voters away from the Democrats, but part of it
was his own hardscrabble upbringing on a California lemon ranch.
But
the changes Watergate wrought on the American political system have
been more enduring than the dismissal of a labor-friendly president with
only two-and-a-half years left in office. The Watergate Babies — young
Democrats elected to the House in the wake of Nixon’s resignation — took
advantage of their numbers and of popular revulsion against The Way
Things Are Done in Washington to break the power of long-serving
committee chairmen who had controlled the flow of congressional
legislation. The House became more democratic, but the nation didn’t.
Money replaced seniority as the most important factor in moving a bill.
Lobbyists and political action committees began showing up in greater
numbers to make sure members cast the correct votes, rewarding those who
did, punishing those who didn’t. The cost of campaigns increased.
“From
an institution dominated by 20 or so powerful leaders, Congress has
evolved into a collection of 535 independent political entrepreneurs
with their individual interests uppermost — i.e., to get re-elected,”
wrote Fareed Zakaria in his book “The Future of Freedom.”
“Among the most consequential reforms of the 1970s was the move toward
open committee meetings and recorded votes. Committee chairs used to run
meetings at which legislation was ‘marked up’ behind closed doors. Only
members and a handful of senior staff were present. By 1973 not only
were the meetings open to anyone, but every vote was formally recorded.
Before this, in voting on amendments members would walk down aisles for
the ayes and nays. The final count would be recorded but not the stand
of each individual member. Now each member has to vote publicly on every
amendment. The purpose of these changes was to make Congress more open
and responsive. And so it has become — to money, lobbyists and special
interests.”
“Most Americans have neither
the time, the interest, nor the inclination to monitor Congress on a
day-to-day basis. But lobbyists and activists do, and they use the
information and access to ensure that the groups they represent are well
taken care of in the federal budget and the legal code.”
Since
1976, the first election following the Watergate Babies’ arrival, the
price of getting elected to Congress has quadrupled, to $1.4 million. In
such an environment, wealthy candidates have a huge advantage.
Chicago
Mayor Richard J. Daley was the cartoonists’ model of the pot-bellied,
streetwise, inarticulate back-room ward boss overthrown by the telegenic
young New Politicians of the 1970s. But he believed his Machine was a
vehicle for upward mobility: “The party permits ordinary people to get
ahead,” he once said. “Without the party, I couldn’t be mayor. The rich
guys can get elected on their money, but somebody like me, an ordinary
person, needs the party.”
In telling the story of a Pennsylvania steel mill foreman elected to Congress in 1974, the Washington Post wrote,
“it wasn’t nearly so unusual for a person with few assets besides a
home to win and serve in Congress. But from 1984 to 2009, the median net
worth of a House member increased from $280,000 to $725,000, in
inflation-adjusted dollars,” while the median net worth of the average
citizen remained stuck at around $20,000.
Politicians
so far removed from the financial struggles of the middle class are
less likely to govern with its interests in mind. The current holder of
Richard J. Daley’s job is Rahm Emanuel, who earned $18 million as an
investment banker. (In 2011, I dubbed him Mayor 1%,
an epithet since adopted by his enemies.) The newly inaugurated
governor of Illinois is Bruce Rauner, a venture capitalist who is trying
to prevent public-sector unions from collecting dues, and has proposed
cutting pensions for state employees. This is the cynical end game of
economic libertarians’ war on labor: After reducing private sector
unions to a fraction of their old membership, they direct the resentment
of the newly impoverished working class at public-sector employees
getting a “sweet deal” at the expense of struggling taxpayers no longer
earning that kind of money.
GOP In Chaos
‘We Really Don’t Have 218 Votes To Determine A Bathroom Break Over Here On Our Side’
We’ve known for years that the Republican Party was being overwhelmed
by rabid fanatics. Now establishment Republicans are starting to admit
it out loud.
Koch-Funded Professor Publicly Calls For Less Democracy
A university professor funded by the Koch brothers
has very publicly and openly called for less democracy to reduce the
power of the majority.…
Over the past six years Republicans have been on an
absolute tear to restrict participation in democracy to voters who are
hardline Christian Republicans, and by all appearance the purpose was
more than just electing conservative extremists. No matter how one
attempts to frame the GOP’s voter suppression crusade, it is beyond
refute that Republicans just cannot countenance democracy. Based on the
organizations driving and writing voter suppression legislation across
the nation, it is obvious the Koch brothers hate democracy nearly as
much as they hate government. Now, a university professor heavily funded
by the Koch brothers has very publicly and openly called for less
democracy to reduce the power of the majority.
The professor from George Mason University, the
college where students protested the Koch Foundation’s largest-ever
donation to the school, gave a speech this week straight from Koch’s
vision for America. The gist of the speech was typical Koch-ALEC
ideology; “we need less democracy.” The professor of Economics
and the Study of Capitalism at the Mercatus Center at George Mason
University, Dr. Garrett Jones, gave a lecture
targeting what is arguably the core value America is founded upon;
democracy. Jones argued that the reason America needs less democracy is
because “it leaves power to the majority,” and that there is a better
form of governance based on ‘epistocracy.’ Epistocracy, according to the
Kochs, leads to better governance “by the knowledgeable” whose only
concern is long term economic growth borne of unrestricted free market
capitalism. Jones did not call for the immediate elimination of the
democratic process, but he did say that a good start is to reduce
democracy by 10 percent for the sake of governing according to “the knowledgeable,” and not “we the people” with complete focus on economic growth.
The reason the Kochs, and obviously Republicans,
hate democracy is that as the Founders intended, it leaves power in the
hands of the people instead of a small cabal of the wealthy elite.
Obviously, it is something the Kochs did not share with teabaggers when
they funded their rise to power; but it is woefully too late even for
the “don’t tread on me crowd” now that Kochs own two-thirds of the
government. What the Kochs want, and paid handsomely for, is a
government founded on epistocracy that grants unrestricted power to rule
on free market capitalists the Kochs have deemed “the knowledgeable.”
In the Koch’s vision, “the knowledgeable” are those
laser focused on long term economic growth for the filthy oligarchs; not
the people and certainly not the sustained existence of the nation. The
Koch professor’s perverted sense of democracy assumes that politicians
are errantly inclined to work for their constituents and therefore they
are disposed to neglect long-term policies that work for the rich simply
because “they are elected through the democratic process” and not “installed to govern” by the rich; something the Kochs have spent a fortune to see reach fruition.
A prime example of the Koch’s installing “the knowledgeable”
to govern according to epistocracy is the new director of the one-time
non-partisan Congressional Budget Office. The Koch House’s Budget
Chairman, Tom Price, said appointing
a new trickle-down devotee as head of the CBO “is just part of the
change the Koch-GOP wants to see established to govern; particularly to
advance their failed trickle down economic policy featuring austerity
and deregulation. The new Koch acolyte was George W. Bush’s chief
economist and will dutifully do the bidding of the Kochs because as
Price said, “the answers that we get from the Congressional Budget
Office aren’t the answers we think are correct.” Translation: they were
honest answers borne of the facts.
Republicans are intent on “modernizing the rules”
that govern and outline government finances; including rewriting rules
the CBO uses to evaluate tax cuts for the rich as always “good for long
term economic growth” and spending on domestic programs as wrong
because it is what “the people” want. Only a comatose American would not
know what Koch Republicans think is good for long term economic growth;
greater tax cuts for the rich, and slashing spending on domestic
programs whether it is infrastructure repair and maintenance or
providing healthcare for disabled Veterans.
Republicans were giddy about having “the
knowledgeable” govern according to the Koch idea of ‘long term economic
growth’ for their benefit. Republican Representative Price boasted that
Bush’s former chief economist, Doug Hall, “Brings great experience. He
was in President Bush’s council of economic advisers, and served also
dealing with how to explain these sometimes difficult economic issues in
ways that members of Congress are able to grasp, and sometimes that’s a
challenge.” Americans already lived through a devastating Bush economic
disaster, and so did members of Congress, and regardless how well “the
knowledgeable” explain the difficult trickle down scam, it is still
giving away everything to the rich and will not benefit anyone but the
wealthy elite. The Kochs understand that most Americans are not going to
be fooled again, so the only way to install “the knowledgeable” to
govern according to Koch economic ideology is to reduce democracy.
Although it is astounding that the Kochs are
allowing their acolytes to publicly call for less democracy, it is not a
novel concept. Over a year ago the Koch’s primary legislative arm in
the states, the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC), publicly refused
to sign a pledge supporting democracy; particularly after being the
driving force behind every voter suppression law in the nation. Merely
nine months later, every Republican politician was openly criticizing
as patently wrong any measure making it easier for Americans to
participate in democracy including thwarting efforts to register
Americans to vote. Only a fool is surprised that the Kochs and
Republicans want democracy gone, but it is stunning that they are saying
it within public earshot.
Now
that the Kochs have fairly reduced democracy by more than 10% and have
started installing “the knowledgeable” to govern over ‘we the people’ it
appears that once again President Obama is Americans’ last great hope
if for no other purpose than to veto Koch legislation. Americans have to
come to grips with the disparaging revelation that their right to vote
is not long for this world unless they are white Christian extremist
conservatives. It is likely that few Americans would have thought they
would live to see a time when they would hear a public call for less
democracy, but that is the price they pay for not participating in
democracy when they had the chance.
Like Diogenes ...
Like Diogenes seeking an honest man, he has a long hard road ahead of him
(Just remember Liberals - you have to explain classic references to wingnuts and even then they still won't understand)
(Just remember Liberals - you have to explain classic references to wingnuts and even then they still won't understand)
The Issue for the Supreme Court Is Not Obamacare, But Obama
by Earl Ofari Hutchinson The case is far more than just another of the never ending challenges to the act. It's a politically loaded challenge to President Obama. The GOP and conservatives bank on its four trump cards on the court, Clarence Thomas, Antonin Scalia, Samuel Alito, and yes Roberts, to gut the act.
They may get their wish this time with Roberts. Despite his momentary defection in upholding the law three years ago, he and the other three justices, along with Anthony Kennedy, have turned the number 5 to 4 into a fine art. That's their reflexive vote against any and every Obama administration position, initiative, or piece of legislation that's challenged and winds up before the court.
In the Hobby Lobby ruling they, and Kennedy, ruled that privately-held corporations can refuse on religious grounds to cover the cost of contraceptives for its employees was typical. It was a blow to the Act. The ruling, though, was the standard template for Robert and the others war on Obama. They, and Kennedy, have ruled more than a dozen times that Obama has allegedly badly abused his constitutional authority in decisions, appointments, and court appeals. They undergirded the GOP's relentless gripe that Obama is a serial constitutional usurper.
In a majority of cases, Roberts and the other conservatives have ruled against the Obama administration's position on the big ticket issues of voting rights, affirmative action, corporate and property rights, and union and environmental protections. Their assault has had little to do with the law, and everything to do with politics and ideology. Their decisions put bluntly against him are blatant partisan political pandering. Roberts and the other three justices were appointed by Republican presidents. The other four justices that almost always back the Obama administration in their votes on court cases were appointed by him or other Democratic presidents.
On the presidential campaign trail in 2000, George W. Bush was asked if elected what kind of judge he'd look for and nominate. He didn't hesitate. He pledged to appoint "strict constructionists" to the court and specifically named Thomas, Antonin Scalia and William Rehnquist as the judges that perfectly fit that description. By then the three had already carved out a hard line niche as three of the most reflexive, knee jerk, reactionary jurists to grace the court in decades.
In the King vs. Burwell case, the ultra-conservative American Enterprise Institute and the litigious Competitive Enterprise Institute are running the point on the case. They bank on two things to get the court to hack saw the act. One is the inherent partisan political bias of Roberts and the other three judges. The other is that they will adhere unbendingly to the narrow of narrowest strict constructionist reading of the law. They will hold that the four words "established by the states" which is in the wording of the act makes no mention of the federal government establishing buyer exchanges complete with subsidies. The Obama administration correctly argues that the court should follow the plain sense text of the law and prior precedents which clearly permit tax credits to individuals whether the exchanges are state established or established by the federal government.
If the judges, joined by Kennedy, indeed act according to the expected script, it will be another notch in the GOP's hit plan on Obamacare. Beyond that it will stand as yet another in the long train of crude, cynical political ploys to inflame millions of Americans and stoke hostility to Obama and the Democrats. This could sharpen the already considerable political edge the GOP got when it grabbed the Senate and tightened its grip on the House in the 2014 midterm elections. A court victory on Obamacare could give it even more momentum in the run-up to the 2016 presidential elections.
The big loser in this cynical knock at Obama will be the millions who potentially could lose their coverage in the 34 states with federally established exchanges. That's of little importance to the GOP and their reliable four justices who have waged ruthless war against Obama. The issue for both in this case as always is not Obamacare, but Obama.
Darrell Issa Humiliates Himself On CNN While Calling For Criminal Charges Against Hillary Clinton
During an interview on CNN, Rep. Darrell Issa
embarrassed himself by first admitting that Hillary Clinton didn’t break
a law for which there was a penalty, but he called for criminal charges
against Clinton anyway.
Video:
During the same CNN interview, Rep. Issa (R-CA) first admitted that Hillary Clinton committed no crime:
So did she comply with the public integrity requirement? No, she didn’t. Did she break a law for which there is a penalty? Not really. But there’s a big difference between being open, transparent, honest and having public integrity and only when you get caught do you turn in documents. And I think, Michael…
Later, Issa suggested that Clinton could face
criminal charges related to the Republican subpoena for documents that
they already had:
Michael, Trey — Trey — Trey Gowdy, the chairman, and Adam Schiff have one thing in common. They both served in U.S. attorney’s office. And they both know that voluntary cooperation does not guarantee that it’s a crime not to deliver all.A subpoena which Trey Gowdy issued is so that in fact it will be a crime if she knowingly withholds documents pursuant to subpoena. He needed to do that because she wasn’t forthcoming two-and-a-half years ago. She, in fact, hid the very existence of this until she was caught. And the fact that they knew in August..
In typical Issa fashion, the California Republican
admitted that Hillary Clinton hadn’t committed a crime, but he warned
that in the process of not committing a crime she could face criminal
charges based on a subpoena that was issued for documents that already
exists.
At some point, CNN needs to stop giving Darrell Issa
airtime. The man manages to embarrass himself while making no sense
every time they put him in front of the camera. Issa’s answers
highlighted the main problem with Republican scandal. How can Hillary
Clinton be not guilty of committing a crime, but at the same time guilty
of crimes that Republicans imagine that she committed? The more that
Republicans talk about Hillary Clinton’s emails, the faster this
“scandal” falls apart.
Republicans
are a party in search of a scandal. If a scandal doesn’t exist,
Republicans like Darrell Issa will make one up while humiliating
themselves in the process.
Republican Colin Powell Deals a Death Blow to Hillary Clinton Email Scandal
On ABC’s This Week, former Sec. of State Colin
Powell admitted that he used a private email account for public
business. Powell’s explanation of why he used a private email account
amounted to a death blow for Republicans who are trying to build a
scandal out of Hillary Clinton’s emails.
Video:
Transcript via ABC’s This Week:
STEPHANOPOULOS: But I do want to ask you one final question on this Hillary Clinton e-mail controversy. Which, of course, put you back in the news a bit this week, as well.
STEPHANOPOULOS: But I do want to ask you one final question on this Hillary Clinton e-mail controversy. Which, of course, put you back in the news a bit this week, as well.
You were secretary of State during the early days of
e-mails. You were one of the first secretaries, I believe, to set up a
personal e-mail account. And you pushed to modernize the State
Department’s system.
Based on your experience, what do you make of these revelations this week and what would you recommend that she do now?
POWELL: I — I can’t speak to a — Mrs. Clinton and what she should do now. That would be inappropriate.
What I did when I entered the State Department, I found an antiquated system that had to be modernized and modernized quickly.
So we put in place new systems, bought 44,000
computers and put a new Internet capable computer on every single desk
in every embassy, every office in the State Department. And then I
connected it with software.
But in order to change the culture, to change the
brainware, as I call it, I started using it in order to get everybody to
use it, so we could be a 21st century institution and not a 19th
century.
But I retained none of those e-mails and we are
working with the State Department to see if there’s anything else they
want to discuss with me about those e-mails.
STEPHANOPOULOS: So they want…
POWELL: (INAUDIBLE) have a stack of them.
STEPHANOPOULOS: — they’ve asked you to turn them over, but you don’t have them, is that it?
POWELL: I don’t have any — I don’t have any to turn
over. I did not keep a cache of them. I did not print them off. I do not
have thousands of pages somewhere in my personal files.
And, in fact, a lot of the e-mails that came out of
my personal account went into the State Department system. They were
addressed to State Department employees and the State.gov domain. But I
don’t know if the servers the State Department captured those or not.
And most — they were all unclassified and
most of them, I think, are pretty benign, so I’m not terribly concerned
even if they were able to recover them.
Powell’s description of his own emails as pretty
benign matches up with Rep. Adam Schiff’s description of the Hillary
Clinton emails that the Benghazi committee has read. According to Sen.
Chuck Schumer, Clinton’s private email system was based on the system that Powell used.The technology available in most federal agencies is woefully outdated. It isn’t surprising that appointees would use technology that is available in the private sector because it is better. Powell’s emails from his personal account went into the State Department system because they were addressed to employees in State. The same is the case with the Clinton emails. Powell’s discussion of his own experience with his personal email account adds credibility to the claim that there is nothing to see here.
If Hillary Clinton broke the law, as some Republicans are claiming, then Colin Powell also broke the law.
The
more that is revealed about the use of private email, the more it looks
like Republicans are trying to make something out of nothing. It has
been a bad day for the Republican Clinton email scandal, and it is only
going to get worse for the Republican Party as they continue to go down
what looks like a dead end.
Republican Senators Write To Leaders Of Iran, Attempt To Sabotage Nuclear Deal
by Igor Volsky
Arguing that the Senate must ratify a treaty by “a two-thirds vote,” the senators argue that they “will consider any agreement regarding your nuclear-weapons program that is not approved by the Congress as nothing more than an executive agreement between President Obama and Ayatollah Khamenei.” “The next president could revoke such an executive agreement with the stroke of a pen,” they warn.
The letter, which was organized by Sen. Tom Cotton (R-AR), was first reported by Bloomberg’s Josh Rogin.
Administration officials could also argue that Congress will have a hard time derailing any agreement that is reached by the United States and its international partners — Britain, France, Russia, China and Germany — particularly if the Iranians comply with nuclear inspections. Doing so could jeopardize America’s relationships with its allies and be seen as internationally provocative towards a military conflict with Iran.
The ongoing negotiations are seeking to limit Iran’s ability to enrich weapons-grade uranium, reduce its number of operating centrifuges and advanced centrifuges, and lower its low-enriched uranium stockpiles. The emerging agreement would allow Iran to retain some parts of its nuclear infrastructure but delay the “breakout” period for developing a weapon by more than a year.
Cotton, a freshman senator from Arkansas, has a long record in trying to scuttle any deal with Iran. In 2013, Cotton labeled an interim agreement that froze Iran’s nuclear program “humiliating defeat” for the U.S. and a “total victory” for Iran and pressed for additional sanctions. He pressed Congress to supply Israel with bunker buster bombs to aid Israel in a military strike against Iran and introduced legislation to punish the family members of people who violate Iran sanctions, a measure that he later withdrew after legal experts called it unconstitutional.
Iran and its negotiating partners must agree to broad principles on limiting Iran’s nuclear capabilities no later than March 24 and reach an agreement on the technical aspects of the deal by June 30.
Illinois Republican Facing Numerous Ethics Violations
by Randa Morris
This week the US Justice Department announced
that it intends to charge Democratic Senator, Bob Menendez. Menendez is
accused of accepting gifts, including lavish vacations, in return for
political favors. Good. If Menendez is corrupt, and I’ve no doubt he is,
then he needs to be removed from office and held accountable for his
crimes. My only question is, why is it taking the Justice Department so
long to bring charges against Illinois Congressman Aaron Schock?
Schock is currently serving his third term in Congress. Yet, the first allegations of corruption against him surfaced in 2009. That year he used money from his election campaign to pay for things like a flight on a sea plane and an expensive hotel in Greece. While travel expenses can be covered with campaign funds, those expenses must be related to official campaign activities. Unless Schock was attempting to recruit foreign voters or solicit foreign donations to his election campaign, there’s no way spending money on travel to Greece was legal.
Schock repaid the money he spent on his trip to Greece, but questions about his ethics have only compounded since then.
In 2012, an ethics complaint filed against Schock by Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW) alleges that Schock attempted to solicit a $25,000 contribution from House Majority Leader, Eric Cantor. The money was to go to a super PAC backing Schock’s campaign. The only problem is that it is illegal for federal officeholders to solicit donations over $5,000 on behalf of a super PAC.
Following a review by the Office of Congressional Ethics (OCE ) the House Ethics Committee also began an investigation. In December of 2014, the investigation was extended.
More recently, Schock again made headlines in February, after unveiling his newly remodeled ‘Downton Abbey’ style office. The lavish furnishings and extravagant interior redesign was valued at $40,000.
According to CREW:
Menendez will soon be facing federal charges, all of which appear to relate to undisclosed in-kind gifts of travel from a long-time friend, Salomon Melgen.
According to the Associated Press, Schock has a long list of questionable travel expenses, including trips to Saudi Arabia and London, where he enjoyed the horse races and attended events at both Windsor and Buckingham Palaces. Additionally, it seems as if taxpayers may have picked up the tab for a whole lot of other outlandishly extravagant stuff, from expensive personal cigars to Taylor Swift concert tickets.
Additionally, Schock has spent a shockingly large amount of taxpayer money on expenses paid to some of his largest campaign contributors. The Associated Press found that between 2011 and February of this year, Schock had spent more than $40,000 for travel on private planes, owned by donors to his campaign. Prior to January, 2013, House rules prohibited representatives from using office funds to pay for travel on private air craft at all. Yet the AP reports that the majority of Schock’s payments were made before that date. For details on individual expenses, who was paid and how much, click here.
CREW has also asked the OCE to investigate a real estate deal, in which Schock was paid more than $100,000 over market value, for a property he sold to another of his campaign donors.
Schock is currently serving his third term in Congress. Yet, the first allegations of corruption against him surfaced in 2009. That year he used money from his election campaign to pay for things like a flight on a sea plane and an expensive hotel in Greece. While travel expenses can be covered with campaign funds, those expenses must be related to official campaign activities. Unless Schock was attempting to recruit foreign voters or solicit foreign donations to his election campaign, there’s no way spending money on travel to Greece was legal.
Schock repaid the money he spent on his trip to Greece, but questions about his ethics have only compounded since then.
In 2012, an ethics complaint filed against Schock by Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW) alleges that Schock attempted to solicit a $25,000 contribution from House Majority Leader, Eric Cantor. The money was to go to a super PAC backing Schock’s campaign. The only problem is that it is illegal for federal officeholders to solicit donations over $5,000 on behalf of a super PAC.
Following a review by the Office of Congressional Ethics (OCE ) the House Ethics Committee also began an investigation. In December of 2014, the investigation was extended.
More recently, Schock again made headlines in February, after unveiling his newly remodeled ‘Downton Abbey’ style office. The lavish furnishings and extravagant interior redesign was valued at $40,000.
According to CREW:
The redesign featured lavish accoutrements, including a crystal chandelier, a gold wall sconce, and arrangements of pheasant feathers. The redesign was provided by Anne Brahler, an interior decorator from Illinois, and her firm, Euro Trash. A member of Rep. Schock’s staff told the Post Ms. Brahler “offered her services for free.” Ms. Brahler also redesigned Rep. Schock’s previous congressional office.If you’ve been following the case against Senator Menendez, you’re probably already aware that it is illegal for federal officeholders to accept gifts valued at more than $50.00.
Menendez will soon be facing federal charges, all of which appear to relate to undisclosed in-kind gifts of travel from a long-time friend, Salomon Melgen.
According to the Associated Press, Schock has a long list of questionable travel expenses, including trips to Saudi Arabia and London, where he enjoyed the horse races and attended events at both Windsor and Buckingham Palaces. Additionally, it seems as if taxpayers may have picked up the tab for a whole lot of other outlandishly extravagant stuff, from expensive personal cigars to Taylor Swift concert tickets.
Additionally, Schock has spent a shockingly large amount of taxpayer money on expenses paid to some of his largest campaign contributors. The Associated Press found that between 2011 and February of this year, Schock had spent more than $40,000 for travel on private planes, owned by donors to his campaign. Prior to January, 2013, House rules prohibited representatives from using office funds to pay for travel on private air craft at all. Yet the AP reports that the majority of Schock’s payments were made before that date. For details on individual expenses, who was paid and how much, click here.
CREW has also asked the OCE to investigate a real estate deal, in which Schock was paid more than $100,000 over market value, for a property he sold to another of his campaign donors.
Watch Bill Maher Let Loose On ‘Blatant, Bald-Assed Liar’ Bill O’Reilly
by Mark NC :
The heat is being turned up on pathological liar Bill O’Reilly and
his enablers at Fox News. The numerous accounts of his deliberately falsifying his resume
with self-aggrandizing tales of journalistic heroism continue to be the
source of deserved criticism and ridicule. The latest dishonorable
mention for O’Reilly comes from comedian Bill Maher, who was
characteristically candid on his HBO program last night (video below).
Maher was puzzled about the lack of attention that O’Reilly has
received from much of the press for his obvious embellishments and
outright lies about his experiences as a reporter. So Maher let
O’Reilly’s own words bury him by merely reading the things that O’Reilly
said that have been proven to be false.
Indeed, O’Reilly’s ratings are quite good for a cable news program. But that’s nothing to brag about when your product is unmitigated bullcrap. By failing to hold O’Reilly accountable, Fox News is embracing and condoning his moral and professional transgressions and conceding that their network proudly employs liars and engages in unabashed deception. It is an insult to their viewers who they presume will accept any heaping portion of steaming shitola that’s put in front of them. Well, on that note Fox may be right. After all, their viewers have been eating up O’Reilly and Sean Hannity and Sarah Palin and Donald Trump for years.
The mindset of Fox was perfectly framed by Maher’s conservative panelist, Genevieve Wood of the ultra-rightist Heritage Foundation. She excused Fox’s failure to sanction O’Reilly because, unlike Williams who acknowledged and apologized for his embellishments, O’Reilly stubbornly denies that he misrepresented anything in his past, the facts notwithstanding. In a state of severe delusional panic, Wood said…
Consequently, it is time that the rest of the media acknowledge that Fox is not in any way, shape, or form a news enterprise. They are purveyors of propaganda and disseminaters of deception. They have no journalistic principles or respect for their audience. They are comfortable with liars like O’Reilly because lying doesn’t violate their standards, it upholds them. And for those who say that O’Reilly’s malfeasance is different than Williams’ because O’Reilly is an opinion commentator and not a journalist, they need to remember that he was, in fact, a journalist when he did the things about which he is lying today. Also, when discussing factual events there is no exemption from truth-telling for opinion commentators.
Finally, for those who say that catching Fox News lying isn’t newsworthy because everyone knows they do it, that is a cop-out. It remains the obligation of legitimate news operations to report the sort of serious departures from the truth that O’Reilly has demonstrated. And any news organization that condones such dishonesty must not be treated as a credible news source. The media cannot continue to pretend that Fox has anything to do with news.
“These are out-and-out lies. Now, I understand why Fox News backs him because they’re not really a news service. They’re like, ‘You expect the truth? That’s not what we do here.’ But why isn’t the mainstream media going after him with the same ferocity – the supposedly ‘liberal media’ – as they did to Brian Williams?”Good question. At this point the evidence of O’Reilly’s dishonesty is overwhelming. His resorting to overt threats aimed at reporters covering the story is typical of his bullying tactics. His cowardly refusal to address the substance of the allegations proves that he has no defense other than to shout and stamp his feet and brag about his ratings.
Indeed, O’Reilly’s ratings are quite good for a cable news program. But that’s nothing to brag about when your product is unmitigated bullcrap. By failing to hold O’Reilly accountable, Fox News is embracing and condoning his moral and professional transgressions and conceding that their network proudly employs liars and engages in unabashed deception. It is an insult to their viewers who they presume will accept any heaping portion of steaming shitola that’s put in front of them. Well, on that note Fox may be right. After all, their viewers have been eating up O’Reilly and Sean Hannity and Sarah Palin and Donald Trump for years.
The mindset of Fox was perfectly framed by Maher’s conservative panelist, Genevieve Wood of the ultra-rightist Heritage Foundation. She excused Fox’s failure to sanction O’Reilly because, unlike Williams who acknowledged and apologized for his embellishments, O’Reilly stubbornly denies that he misrepresented anything in his past, the facts notwithstanding. In a state of severe delusional panic, Wood said…
“Fox is going to defend him as long as he’s saying ‘I did what I said I did,’ and nobody else is really able to challenge it.”Huh? Everybody else is able to challenge it. And it isn’t just people who have different recollections of the distant past. There are contemporaneous videos and tape recordings of O’Reilly himself that contradict his present day mythologies about his grand adventures. But Wood’s justification neatly fits the Fox view of news. They regard it as a mutable commodity that can be molded to whatever serves their agenda. And Fox will indeed continue to defend O’Reilly because he is doing what they pay him to do – which is to lie.
Consequently, it is time that the rest of the media acknowledge that Fox is not in any way, shape, or form a news enterprise. They are purveyors of propaganda and disseminaters of deception. They have no journalistic principles or respect for their audience. They are comfortable with liars like O’Reilly because lying doesn’t violate their standards, it upholds them. And for those who say that O’Reilly’s malfeasance is different than Williams’ because O’Reilly is an opinion commentator and not a journalist, they need to remember that he was, in fact, a journalist when he did the things about which he is lying today. Also, when discussing factual events there is no exemption from truth-telling for opinion commentators.
Finally, for those who say that catching Fox News lying isn’t newsworthy because everyone knows they do it, that is a cop-out. It remains the obligation of legitimate news operations to report the sort of serious departures from the truth that O’Reilly has demonstrated. And any news organization that condones such dishonesty must not be treated as a credible news source. The media cannot continue to pretend that Fox has anything to do with news.
McConnell’s Message To Minorities On Selma Anniversary: Your Vote Won’t Count
When asked about the Voting Rights Act on Face The
Nation, Sen. Mitch McConnell’s message to minority voters was that he
has no interest in making sure that their votes will count.
Video:
Transcript via Face The Nation:
SCHIEFFER: Yesterday, down in Selma, the president made an impassioned plea to Congress to restore Voting Rights Act. Will you support that?MCCONNELL: Well, the Voting Rights Act is still intact. It prevents discrimination in the voting behavior all across America based on race.The Supreme Court took out a portion of it. We are taking a look at that. Certainly, this is an important, important occasion. Bob, just interestingly enough, I was a young man in 1965 visiting one of my senators from Kentucky, and he took me over to the Rotunda, and I actually saw Lyndon Johnson sign the Voting Rights Act.And that was, of course, four or five months after Bloody Sunday. It has been an extraordinarily important piece of legislation. It prevents discrimination in voting on the basis of race all over America. And we all revere the changes that have been brought in our country as a result of this important legislation.
That was a big no on restoring The Voting Rights Act
from Sen. McConnell. Mitch McConnell has repeatedly dodged any
questions about the Voting Rights Act. His answer on Face The Nation was
to claim that the law is still intact. The problem is that the Voting
Rights Act is not intact. It was gutted by the Supreme Court. The shell
of what remains is called the Voting Rights Act, but it a law with no
teeth.
McConnell tried to dodge the question after the Supreme Court decision, but he gave away his position when he said,
“Well, I haven’t read [the decision] yet. Obviously, it is an important
bill that passed back in the sixties, at a time when we had a very
different America than we have today. […] I think I’m just going to have
to read it first, but I would say that I do think America is very
different from what it was in the 1960s.”
In
Mitch McConnell’s America, billionaires like the Koch brothers get
unlimited power while minorities and others have to fight to have their
votes counted. The message in McConnell’s statements on Face The Nation
was that voting rights aren’t a priority, and unless you are a rich Koch brother, Sen. McConnell doesn’t care about your role in the democratic process.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)