ThinkFast: October 29, 2010
ThinkFast: October 29, 2010
Halliburton and BP knew that the Deepwater Horizon rig was facing serious structural problems before the April 20 blowout, according to the presidential commission investigating the accident. The commission staff determined that Halliburton conducted tests indicating that the cement at the rig was not up to industry standards, but did not take action.
According to the Pentagon’s DADT survey findings reported yesterday, a majority of service members “would not object to serving and living alongside openly gay troops.” The survey’s results will be included in the Pentagon’s report for President Obama on December 1 regarding how the military would end the DADT policy.
The EPA has again delayed a decision on whether to adopt tougher smog standards, a proposal that was opposed by oil refiners, manufacturers, and some Democrats running for office. The decision, scheduled for Sunday, has been put off indefinitely, and an EPA spokesman said the department was “working to ensure we get it right.”
Unemployment claims dropped sharply last week, by 21,000 claims — the biggest drop in unemployment claims in any week since July.
Court documents unsealed yesterday in the case surrounding naturalized U.S. citizen Farooque Ahmed’s plan to bomb Washington, DC Metro stations revealed that the tip that led to his arrest came from a source in the Muslim community. However, the Justice Department refused to give details of the tipster’s identity.
Yesterday, the government announced it had spent a record $80.1 billion on intelligence activities in the last year, an increase of nearly 7 percent over the previous year. In its first disclosure of both the civilian intelligence agencies and military budgets, the Defense Department said “no program details will be released.”
Colorado gubernatorial candidate Tom Tancredo said this week that President Obama is a greater threat to the U.S. than al-Qaida. Speaking with voters in a local coffee shop, Tancredo said, “It’s not al-Qaida, it’s the guy sitting in the White House.”
Former Alaska governor Sarah Palin opened the door slightly to a run for president in 2012, telling Entertainment Tonight that she would put her hat in the ring “if there’s nobody else to do it.” She said she’ll take a “real close look at the lay of the land” to see “whether there are already candidates out there who can do the job and I’ll get to be their biggest supporter and biggest helpmate if they will have me.”
And finally: Early yesterday morning while Rep. Jason Chaffetz (R-UT) was driving, Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood called him with an urgent message: “You shouldn’t be on the phone while you are driving.” Actually, LaHood — who has launched a major campaign to urge people not to use cell phones while driving — was calling to say that Chaffetz’ district had been awarded a $500,000 federal grant for an airport, but he would only deliver the news after Chaffetz put in his hands free Bluetooth device.
- Comments
- View Comments
How The ‘US’ Chamber Uses Its Money To Pay Pundits, Manipulate Google, And Create Fake News Outlets
How The ‘US’ Chamber Uses Its Money To Pay Pundits, Manipulate Google, And Create Fake News Outlets
Earlier this month, ThinkProgress published an exclusive series of investigative pieces into the fundraising program of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, the far right corporate lobbying juggernaut. We uncovered millions from corporations like Procter and Gamble, outsourcing giant CSC, and Microsoft, but also discovered that the Chamber has been actively fundraising from foreign corporations like the Bahrain Petroleum Company and the State Bank of India. We provided documentation for over 80 foreign corporations donating at least $885,000 to the same Chamber 501(c)(6) general account the Chamber is now using to run an unprecedented $75 million attack campaign against Democrats.
Responding to our posts, the Chamber launched a massive smear campaign using its large in-house communications staff and a network of well funded public relations firms:
– Manipulating Google And Blogs: The U.S. Chamber of Commerce retains public relations giant Fleishman-Hillard for much of their online communications work. Fleishman-Hillard VP Pat Cleary posts on the Chamber’s blog, and says he works closely with conservative bloggers through RedState. Other Chamber lobbyists collaborate routinely with conservative bloggers through the Heritage Foundation’s Bloggers Briefing to help get the message out for business lobbyists. As Cleary has told conferences of business lobbyists, he helps trade associations like the Chamber buy AdWords to promote the business lobby’s message. For example, when anyone Googles the words “US Chamber” and “foreign,” they see a link to the Chamber’s false response that it receives only $100,000 from foreign affiliates.
– Paying For Television Pundits: GOP lobbyist John Feehery has appeared on cable television to attack ThinkProgress’ reporting, taken to Twitter call President Obama a “business-hating socialist” for calling attention to this story, and even penned an article in The Hill newspaper to defend the Chamber and lie about our investigation. Feehery never mentioned the foreign corporate direct donations to the Chamber’s 501(c)(6). But more importantly, neither The Hill nor any of television outlets Feehery appears on disclosed the fact that Feehery’s public relations firm, The Feehery Group, counts the U.S. Chamber of Commerce as one of its clients. Shortly after our story broke, Feehery was hired by another public relations/lobbying firm, Quinn Gillespie, which is also a client of the Chamber. Moreover, Fox News’ parent company is an active member of the Chamber, and hate-talker Glenn Beck met with the Chamber’s second in command earlier this year to plot the 2010 election. While Fox hosts and Beck have endlessly defended the Chamber’s secret money, there has been no disclosure of the network’s financial ties to Chamber lobbyists.
– The Chamber Owns Fake News Sites: As the Nieman Journalism Lab at Harvard reported, the Chamber owns a variety of news websites in West Virginia, Illinois, and elsewhere, while also maintaining a wire service called Legal Newsline. All of these websites posture as independently owned and objective journalism outfits, and do not disclose that they are fully owned subsidiaries of Chamber lobbyists.
Unfortunately, the Chamber’s sophisticated smear campaign deceived many reputable media organizations into distorting our reporting. Reporters from the New York Times (Eric Lichtblau), the Associated Press (Alan Fram, Jim Kuhnhenn), McClatchy (David Lightman), Time (Mark Halperin), and other outlets misrepresented ThinkProgress’ reporting by refusing to acknowledge any of our key revelations about the Chamber’s foreign fundraising (the fundraising documents we published, the Bahrainian or Indianian corporate donations). None of these reporters directly contacted ThinkProgress, and instead opted to only interview Chamber lobbyists.
In many cases, these traditional reporters reprinted the Chamber’s lie that it only fundraises from foreign affiliates called AmChams, and that AmChams are composed of only American companies (this has been thoroughly debunked). Ignoring ThinkProgess’ reporting, these journalists reprinted the Chamber’s unproven assertion that it only accepts $100,000 from foreign affiliates. In other cases, these reporters reprinted the Chamber’s false claim that its political operation is equivalent to labor unions. In fact, labor unions face double disclosure because they must reveal their donors to the public through both the Department of Labor and the Federal Election Commission. The Chamber, on the other hand, refuses to disclose both its American and foreign donors to anyone. Although ThinkProgress has demonstrated that the Chamber receives at a minimum of $885,000 in foreign cash every year to its primary 501(c)(6) campaign account, few journalists have bothered to cover the thrust of our story.
Corker Says Defense Cuts Have To Be ‘On The Table,’ Because ‘There’s A Lot Of Waste There’
Corker Says Defense Cuts Have To Be ‘On The Table,’ Because ‘There’s A Lot Of Waste There’
This past Friday, Sen. Bob Corker (R-TN) guest hosted CNBC’s Squawk Box. The senator covered a variety of topics while hosting the show, including his belief that Republicans should and will alter the recently passed health care bill instead of simply repealing it.
At one point, the Squawk Box co-host Joe Kernen explained that the show received e-mails asking them to ask Corker “what he wants to cut” in order to reduce the budget deficit. Corker responded that “everything need to be on the table.” Kernen followed up by asking, “Everything’s on the table? Defense? Entitlements?” Corker once again replied, “Everything! I mean look, Secretary Gates will tell you there’s a lot of waste there. We need to streamline it”:
KERNEN: We get e-mails coming in saying, “You’re going to have Corker on. For once ask a Republican what he wants to cut.” [...] The rap is all you say is cut but you’ve got no idea what to cut. What would you specifically cut?
CORKER: Well, first of all I think everything needs to be on the table.
KERNEN: Everything’s on the table? Defense? Entitlements?
CORKER: Everything! I mean, look, Secretary Gates will tell you there’s a lot of waste there. We need to streamline it.
KERNEN: Other than waste, though?
CORKER: Well, obviously that’s going to be more difficult, let’s face it. Because it’s our national security, that’s the most important thing we do in Washington, but everything we do needs to be looked at. So I would say nothing’s off the table, nothing.
Watch it:
Corker’s sentiments are in line with at least five Republicans running for Senate this year. Last week, Oregon nominee Jim Huffman called for defense cuts, citing the “vaste amount of money wasted in defense.” Earlier that week, Pennsylvania candidate Pat Toomey criticized Congress for voting for “programs the Pentagon doesn’t even want.” The week before, Illinois candidate Mark Kirk said we need “across the board” reductions in defense spending. Earlier this month, Sen. Johnny Isakson (GA) told a local news station that reducing the deficit “begins with the Department of Defense.” A few days later, Kentucky candidate Rand Paul criticized Republicans for exempting the military from waste-trimming, telling PBS’s Gwen Ifill that cutting defense spending “has to be on the table.” All of these candidates are stating positions in direct opposition to the GOP’s much-touted “Pledge To America,” which explicitly exempts the Department of Defense from waste-cutting.
If these Republicans are really serious about reining in the defense budget, they can look to The Sustainable Defense Task (SDTF) report released earlier this year. The SDTF — which comprises Rep. Barney Frank (D-MA) and some of the nation’s leading defense and budget experts — identified nearly $1 trillion in waste that can be cut from the defense budget over the next ten years simply by eliminating outdated Cold War-era programs. They could also reference a recent report by CAP experts Lawrence Korb and Laura Conley that lays out $108 billion in defense cuts in the current 2015 budget forecast.
Crossroads GPS’ One-Size-Fits-All Ad Falsely Claims North Dakota’s Booming Economy Is ‘Reeling’
Crossroads GPS’ One-Size-Fits-All Ad Falsely Claims North Dakota’s Booming Economy Is ‘Reeling’
With veteran GOP operative Karl Rove at its back, and a little help from the Citizens United decision, the conservative PAC American Crossroads and its 501(c)(4) counterpart Crossroads GPS bombarded the airwaves with over $16 million in attack ads this campaign season. With 5 days to go until the election, American Crossroads announced $6 million worth of ad buys yesterday in its final blitz to defeat Democrats. But, while a GOP victory might be the Crossroads groups’ top priority, one ad proves that accuracy is certainly not.
This season, Crossroads created a one-size-fits-all ad slamming targeted Democrats for supporting the Recovery Act. Running in different races across the country, the ad claims that while whichever state’s “economy is reeling,” whoever the Democrat happens to be is “making [the economy] worse” by supporting the “stimulus boondoggle.” Confident that this “fill-in-the-blank” issue ad fits every state, Crossroads ran the ad against Rep. Earl Pomeroy (D) in North Dakota. “North Dakota’s economy is reeling and Congressman Earl Pomeroy is making it worse,” the ad warns.
Watch it:
The ominous ad, however, fails to mention one important detail: North Dakota’s economy is not reeling. In fact, it’s booming. This summer, North Dakota saw employment rise from 362,100 in December 2007 to 371,300 last month — a record in job creation for the state. Indeed, along with Alaska, North Dakota is the only state “to have created jobs since the onslaught of the Great Recession.” And with the highest rate of personal income growth and the nation’s lowest unemployment rate of 3.7 percent — well below the 9.6 percent national average — this state’s economy “sticks out like a diamond in a bowl of cherry pits.”
But truth in advertising isn’t exactly Crossroads’ modus operandi. According to Factcheck.org research, American Crossroads regularly makes “false and misleading claims” in their “blizzard” of attack ads in states like Colorado, Illinois, Ohio, Nevada, Missouri, and New Hampshire. And while American Crossroads must disclose its donors, Crossroads GPS is a 501(c)(4) organization and therefore does not have to. Thus, like its “kissing cousin” the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, Crossroads GPS can take advantage of legal loopholes to inject massive funds into this year’s election without ever having to disclose its funders.
Pomeroy’s campaign ripped into Crossroads today for the “phony,” “cookie-cutter” ad. “Next time Karl Rove wants to funnel secret money to North Dakota to influence our elections, he ought to visit our state first or at least pick up one of our newspapers,” said Pomeroy’s spokesman Brenden Timpe. “If he did, he would know that North Dakota’s economy is doing quite well thank you very much, and Earl has been a strong partner in that progress.”
Peter King Claims American Muslim Communities ‘Do Not Cooperate’ To Combat Terrorism
Peter King Claims American Muslim Communities ‘Do Not Cooperate’ To Combat Terrorism
Fox News’ Bill O’Reilly has been on an Islamophobic tear lately. O’Reilly initially took heat for saying that “Muslims attacked us on 9/11″ and he has since defended that claim, saying that “there is a Muslim problem in the world.” After receiving criticism for that statement, O’Reilly defended himself again, claiming that there is a “Muslim problem” because “good” Muslims don’t combat extremism — a point radio host Don Imus told O’Reilly was not “accurate.”
Rep. Peter King (R-NY) seems to have picked up on O’Reilly’s spurious reasoning, telling Imus yesterday that leaders in the Muslim community “do not cooperate”:
KING: It’s not just people who are involved with the terrorists and extremists, it is people who are in mainstream Islam, leaders of mosques, leaders of Muslim organizations who do not come forward and denounce, officially denounce, officially cooperate with the police against those extremists and terrorists. So, it goes beyond the terrorists and the extremists and also includes those in what others call mainstream Muslim leadership.
Watch it:
King didn’t provide any evidence that Muslims aren’t cooperating with authorities. While many Muslim leaders have complained of a heavy-handed FBI presence in their communities, American Muslims have been integral in combating domestic terrorism. As Rep. Keith Ellison (D-MN) said at an event sponsored by the Center for American Progress, according to the Muslim Public Affairs Council, “About a third of all foiled al-Qaida-related plots in the U.S. relied on support or information provided by members of the Muslim community.” Indeed, a Senagalese Muslim immigrant who works as a vendor in Times Square was the first to bring the smoking car that was part of the failed Times Square bombing plot to the police’s attention. And the father of Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab — who failed in his attempt to blow up an airplane over Detroit last year — alerted U.S. authorities of his son’s “extreme radical views” months before he tried to carry out the attack.
Moreover, a recent academic study found that American contemporary mosques are serving as a deterrent to the spread of extremism and terrorism. The New York Times noted that the study found that “many mosque leaders had put significant effort into countering extremism by building youth programs, sponsoring antiviolence forums and scrutinizing teachers and texts.” “Muslim-American communities have been active in preventing radicalization,” said study co- author David Kurzman. “This is one reason that Muslim-American terrorism has resulted in fewer than three dozen of the 136,000 murders committed in the United States since 9/11.”
King’s claim that Muslim organizations in the U.S. aren’t denouncing terrorism is simply false. For example, the Council on American-Islamic Relations, a leading American Muslim organization, unequivocally condemned terrorism and has launched numerous anti-extremism campaigns.
Deficit Fraud Pence Calls For Defense Cuts, But Refuses To Cut Program Pentagon Doesn’t Want
Deficit Fraud Pence Calls For Defense Cuts, But Refuses To Cut Program Pentagon Doesn’t Want
While conservatives have adamantly demanded spending cuts over the past two and half years, critics have pointed out that most Republican leaders keep defense and entitlements like Social Security and Medicare off the table — which together account for over 60 percent of federal spending — making their calls for belt tightening somewhat disingenuous.
Appearing on CNN’s Parker/Spitzer last night, House Republican Conference Chairman Mike Pence (R-IN) seemed to endorse defense cuts:
SPITZER: You said everything will be on the table, which I admire you, I agree with you, it’s got to be on the table. … Are you willing to consider any cuts in defense? [...]
PENCE: But you bet, Eliot, come on, I mean, we know there are inefficiencies in defense spending in this country. We have real challenges. There are rising threats around the globe far beyond the reach of the war on terror. We need to be preparing for, for the future. I think we can do that if we look for greater efficiencies and if we set into motion processes that will encourage efficiency and a better use of taxpayer’s dollars in providing for the common defense which of course is the first article of the federal government.
Watch it:
Pence’s rhetoric on defense cuts sounds good, but like many GOP promises to cut spending, it rings hollow. Earlier this year, Pence was presented with a great opportunity to cut “inefficiencies in defense spending,” and he passed. Defense Secretary Robert Gates has called for major cuts to a number of big-ticket weapons programs and chief among them is a proposed extra engine for the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter. Gates called the second engine — which costs $560 million a year to develop — “costly and unnecessary,” and said, “Every dollar additional to the budget that we have to put into the F-35 is a dollar taken from something else that the troops may need.” Gates even urged President Obama to veto any funding for the engine.
After the House Armed Services Committee failed to strip the second engine from the Defense Authorization bill in May, Rep. Chellie Pingree (D-ME) offered an amendment to de-fund the superfluous project — Pence voted no and the amendment failed. In an interview with Bloomberg’s Al Hunt in July, Pence defended his vote. Seemingly knowing more about defense than Gates, Pence said, “I really do believe that it was in the interest of our national defense.” Not coincidentally, the company that would manufactures the extra engine has a large presence in Pence’s district.
If Pence refuses to cut funding for a program that the military adamantly does not want, what will he cut?
Steve King Says Children Will Be Raised In ‘Warehouses’ If Conservatives Don’t ‘Defend Marriage’
Steve King Says Children Will Be Raised In ‘Warehouses’ If Conservatives Don’t ‘Defend Marriage’
The Iowa Independent’s Lynda Waddington caught up with Rep. Steve King (R-IA) at the so-called “Judge Bus” tour — a campaign urging Iowa voters to oust three Iowa Supreme Court judges who overturned an Iowa statute banning same-sex marriage in April 2009. King has long argued that judges shouldn’t “legislate” from the bench, and said that he feared the court’s decision would turn Iowa into a “gay marriage Mecca.” Yesterday, at a bus stop in Cedar Rapids, IA, he told Waddington that if conservatives don’t restrict marriage to one man and one woman, children will be taken away from their parents and to be raised in warehouses:
“I think that if we can’t defend marriage, that it becomes very hard to defend life,” King said. “Marriage is the crucible by which we pour all of our values and pass them on to our children, and that is how the culture is renewed each time. So, if we lose marriage — for instance, if our children are raised in warehouses, so to speak. There have been civilizations that have tried to do that. The Spartans did that. They took the children away and taught them to be warriors. It’s a good way to defend a country, but not much of a way to run a civilization.
“So, I’m afraid if that happened — if we lose the marriage, we lose the home, we lose the nuclear family then we can’t teach our values. We won’t be able to teach our faith. We won’t be able to teach life. We won’t be able to teach our Constitutional values either. That’s why I’m afraid it’s going to be very, very difficult to defend life.”
As the Wonk Room notes, Washington, DC, Iowa and the remaining four states that have expanded marriage rights haven’t constructed child-only warehouses. All the research about same-sex parents suggests that their families are very similar to those with different sex parents. (HT: Right Wing Watch)
REPORT: 111 Republican Incumbents And Candidates Want To Eliminate The Department Of Education
REPORT: 111 Republican Incumbents And Candidates Want To Eliminate The Department Of Education
This is the third installment in a three-part series on legislation that may emerge from a GOP-controlled Congress. Click here for part one on ending birthright citizenship and here for part two on privatizing Social Security.
If Republicans win control of Congress on Tuesday, their anti-government zeal may soon focus on an old target: the Department of Education. As recently as 1996, the Republican Party platform declared, “The Federal government has no constitutional authority to be involved in school curricula or to control jobs in the market place. This is why we will abolish the Department of Education.” However, after multiple bills attempting to do so were stymied by sensible members of Congress, the Department appeared to have been spared. Now, a new wave of Republicans (along with many old hardline conservatives) are trying to number its days once again.
The last time the Republicans made a concerted effort to eliminate the Department of Education in 1995, they ran into a strong public backlash. Polling conducted by Hart Research Associates found that 80 percent of respondents in June 1995 wanted the Department of Education to be maintained, while just 17% wanted it eliminated. With a new New York Times/CBS poll finding that education funding is the last area respondents would like to see spending cuts, it’s no stretch to imagine that a strong majority of Americans still support the Department of Education.
Nevertheless, because there exists widespread support for eliminating the Department of Education in the Republican ranks, the issue could soon come to the forefront in a GOP-controlled Congress. A comprehensive review of the voting records and statements of Republican incumbents and candidates finds that there are 111 GOPers who support shutting down the Department of Education. Though a minority (35 percent) of sitting Republicans are on record supporting elimination, the anti-education bloc will undoubtedly swell in the next Congress due to the 36 new GOP candidates who favor shutting down the Department.
Here are the 111 Republicans who support eliminating the Department of Education (leadership in bold):
Senate (12)
| John McCain (AZ) | Saxby Chambliss (GA) | Mike Crapo (ID) |
| Sam Brownback (KS) | Pat Roberts (KS) | Jim Bunning (KY) |
| Roger Wicker (MS) | Richard Burr (NC) | John Ensign (NV) |
| George Voinovich (OH) | Tom Coburn (OK) | Lindsey Graham (SC) |
House of Representatives (63)
| Spencer Bachus (AL-06) | Don Young (AK-AL) | John Shaddegg (AZ-03) |
| Jeff Flake (AZ-06) | Wally Herger (CA-02) | George Radanovich (CA-19) |
| Elton Gallegly (CA-24) | Buck McKeon (CA-25) | David Dreier (CA-26) |
| Ed Royce (CA-40) | Jerry Lewis (CA-41) | Ken Calvert (CA-44) |
| Dana Rohrabacher (CA-46) | Brian Bilbray (CA-50) | Doug Lamborn (CO-05) |
| Cliff Stearns (FL-06) | John Mica (FL-07) | Bill Young (FL-10) |
| Ileana Ros-Lehtinen (FL-18) | Lincoln Diaz-Balart (FL-21) | Jack Kingston (GA-01) |
| John Linder (GA-07) | Paul Broun (GA-10) | Tom Latham (IA-04) |
| Donald Manzullo (IL-16) | Steve Buyer (IN-04) | Dan Burton* (IN-05) |
| Todd Tiahrt (KS-04) | Ed Whitfield (KY-01) | Hal Rogers (KY-05) |
| Roscoe Bartlett (MD-06) | Michele Bachmann (MN-06) | Pete Hoekstra (MI-02) |
| Vern Ehlers (MI-03) | David Lee Camp (MI-04) | Fred Upton (MI-06) |
| Frank LoBiondo (NJ-02) | Chris Smith (NJ-04) | Scott Garrett (NJ-05) |
| Rodney Frelinghuysen (NJ-11) | Walter Jones (NC-03) | Howard Coble (NC-06) |
| Sue Myrick (NC-09) | Peter King (NY-03) | John Boehner (OH-08) |
| Pat Tiberi (OH-12) | Steven LaTourette (OH-14) | Frank Lucas (OK-03) |
| Bob Inglis (SC-04) | Sam Johnson (TX-03) | Ralph Hall (TX-04) |
| Joe Barton (TX-06) | John Culberson (TX-07) | Mac Thornberry (TX-13) |
| Ron Paul (TX-14) | Lamar Smith (TX-21) | John Duncan (TN-02) |
| Zach Wamp (TN-03) | Bob Goodlatte (VA-06) | Frank Wolf (VA-10) |
| Doc Hastings (WA-04) | Jim Sensenbrenner (WI-05) | Tom Petri (WI-06) |
Senate candidates (9)
| Joe Miller (AK) | Ken Buck (CO) | Linda McMahon (CT) |
| Rand Paul (KY) | Eric Wargotz (MD) | Sharron Angle (NV) |
| Rob Portman (OH) | John Raese (WV) | Mike Lee (UT) |
House of Representatives candidates (27)
| Jesse Kelly (AZ-08) | John Dennis (CA-08) | Gary Clift (CA-10) |
| David Harmer (CA-11) | Mark Reed (CA-27) | Robert Vaughn (CA-38) |
| Mike Yost (FL-03) | Allen West (FL-22) | Rob Woodall (GA-07) |
| Austin Scott (GA-08) | Ray McKinney (GA-12) | Brad Zaun (IA-03) |
| Andy Harris (MD-01) | Robert Broadus (MD-04) | Tim Walberg (MI-07) |
| Joe Heck (NV-03) | Frank Guinta (NH-01) | Charlie Bass (NH-02) |
| Anna Little (NJ-06) | Chris Gibson (NY-20) | Ashley Woolard (NC-01) |
| Bill Randall (NC-13) | Steve Chabot (OH-01) | Bill Johnson (OH-06) |
| James Lankford (OK-05) | Bob Hurt (VA-05) | Keith Fimian (VA-11) |
*- Burton, LaTourette, and Hastings were members of “The New Federalists,” which advocated for shutting down the Department of Education.
Foreign-Funded U.S. Chamber Of Commerce Advocates For Weakening Law Against Bribing Foreign Governments
Foreign-Funded U.S. Chamber Of Commerce Advocates For Weakening Law Against Bribing Foreign Governments
As ThinkProgress has documented, the “U.S.” Chamber Of Commerce has for years received at least hundreds of thousands of dollars from foreign-owned corporations. While the Chamber claims that the foreign funds it receives do not fund its $75 million in partisan attack ads, it would be highly unusual for these foreign corporations to be donating to the organization without expecting some sort of political activity on their behalf. Now, a new Chamber paper advocating for a change in a U.S. law intended to crack down on American-based multinational corporations bribing foreign governments may provide an answer as to why these foreign firms are doling out cash to the right-wing lobbying group.
Yesterday, the Chamber kicked off its U.S. Chamber Institute For Legal Reform Legal Reform Summit 2010, where it is advocating for its pro-corporate “legal reform” agenda. As a part of the agenda, the Chamber is presenting a paper at its summit titled “Restoring Balance: Proposed Amendments to the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act.”
Since 1977, when it was first enacted, the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (FCPA) has been the government’s main enforcement mechanism to stop American-based multinational firms from bribing foreign governments in order to win special business advantages. The anti-corruption law has been especially strong during the Obama Administration, during which FCPA-related fines collected by the Department of Justice (DOJ) and Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) dramatically increased — in just the first two months of 2010, they totaled $1.2 billion, far more than the measly $87 million collected in all of 2007 by the Bush Administration.
Therefore, it makes sense that, now, with the “likelihood of a Republican wave in midterm elections” being increasingly high, the Chamber would release a paper proposing amendments to the law that would serve to gut many of its core provisions:
– Limiting a company’s successor criminal FCPA liability for prior acts of a company it has acquired: The Chamber’s paper advocates for restricting the amount of liability a company can take on from a firm it merges with that is guilty of FCPA violations. This would allow companies to engage in corrupt practices and then merge with other businesses and reduce the penalties they face. (page 14)
– Limiting a parent company’s civil liability for the acts of a subsidiary: This amendment would restrict the ability of the SEC and DOJ to hold American companies accountable for the actions of their foreign subsidiaries as long as the American parent firms could reasonably prove that they were not aware of the actions of their foreign subsidiaries. The problem with changing the law in this way is that it could greenlight corruption abuses by foreign subsidiaries that the parent company would profit from but not be held accountable for. (page 22)
– Clarifying definition of “foreign official”: The Chamber complains about a 2009 case by the Obama DOJ and SEC where they fined Control Components, Inc. for bribing state-owned companies in China, Malaysia, South Korea, and the UAE. The government defined bribing state-owned companies as the same as bribing foreign governments. The Chamber seeks to limit this definition, which it believes is too broad. Overly restricting the government’s ability to hold firms accountable for bribing state-owned companies just as if they were bribing foreign governments would potentially open up new channels of corruption. One of the Chamber’s cited cases of supposed abuse of this government authority is for fining defense contractor KBR for bribing a company that is 49 percent owned by the Nigerian government. Presumably, 49 percent is not a high enough threshold for the business lobby to consider it corrupt influencing of a foreign government. (pages 24-26)
In trying to weaken the FCPA so as to allow corporations greater leeway in engaging in corrupt practices, the Chamber is not simply acting out of ideological solidarity with the big business interests it champions. Numerous members of — and donors to — the Chamber have engaged in FCPA violations or are currently under investigation. Here is a short but far from comprehensive list:
– Dow Chemical: Dow, which donated $1.9 million to the Chamber last year, paid a $325,000 settlement with the SEC in 2007 for FCPA violations.
– Shell: Petroleum giant Shell is a dues-paying member of the Chamber that refused to quit the organization despite its climate change denialism last year. The company is currently nearing a settlement with the DOJ and SEC over an FCPA violation related to bribing Nigerian officials. Analysts expect it to pay at least $30 million.
– General Electric: Chamber member General Electric (GE), while denouncing its climate change denialism, also refused to quit the organization over it. GE settled with the SEC with a $23 million settlement earlier this year for FCPA violations related to the Iraqi oil-for-food scandal.
– Halliburton: Halliburton, a proud member of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, had a record-breaking settlement with the SEC in 2009, paying $800 million for an FCPA violation related to bribery in Nigeria.
While the Chamber of Commerce continues to use the slogan “Fighting For Your Business,” it is increasingly apparent that the people it fights for above all else are its funders — multinational corporations whose loyalty is not to American consumers or transparency and good governance, but rather to their own bottom lines.
NPR Reports On ThinkProgress’ Investigation Of Prison Industries’ Role In Crafting Anti-Immigrant Laws
NPR Reports On ThinkProgress’ Investigation Of Prison Industries’ Role In Crafting Anti-Immigrant Laws
In September, ThinkProgress published an investigation into the prison industry’s role in helping enact SB1070, the anti-immigrant racial profiling law passed in Arizona. We charted the role of the private prison company Corrections Corporation of America, which builds and manages immigrant detention centers, in assisting SB1070 sponsor State Sen. Russell Pearce (R-AZ) and how lobbyists from the company work closely with Gov. Jan Brewer (R-AZ), who signed the bill into law. Private prison companies have funneled money to legislators sponsoring SB1070 copycat bills across the country, and the industry is using a corporate front group called the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC) to help lawmakers in Tennessee, Florida, Colorado, Oklahoma, and Pennsylvania to create anti-immigrant laws to encourage police to arrest more immigrants and people of color. Today, NPR followed up with a story about the role of the prison industry-funded ALEC in crafting Arizona’s law, and how ALEC appears to be continuing its strategy in states like Maryland:
Four months later, that model legislation became, almost word for word, Arizona’s immigration law. They even named it. They called it the “Support Our Law Enforcement and Safe Neighborhoods Act.” “ALEC is the conservative, free-market orientated, limited-government group,” said Michael Hough, who was staff director of the meeting. Hough works for ALEC, but he’s also running for state delegate in Maryland, and if elected says he plans to support a similar bill to Arizona’s law.
Asked if the private companies usually get to write model bills for the legislators, Hough said, “Yeah, that’s the way it’s set up. It’s a public-private partnership. We believe both sides, businesses and lawmakers should be at the same table, together.” Nothing about this is illegal. Pearce’s immigration plan became a prospective bill and Pearce took it home to Arizona.
As ThinkProgress’ investigation revealed, detention numbers in private-run immigrant jails have sank in the past few years. If the private prison industry, along with their allies in the Republican Party, is successful in passing new SB1070-like laws in other states, private prisons may see a boost in their profits when greater numbers of people are sent to prison.
GOP Leaders Tell Obama: There Will Be ‘No Compromise’
GOP Leaders Tell Obama: There Will Be ‘No Compromise’
Rep. Darrell Issa (R-CA), who is in line to become a powerful committee leader should Republicans take control of the House of Representatives, made some waves last week when he said he wanted to work with President Obama after the midterm elections. “We have a real opportunity to get some things done,” he told the Wall Street Journal. Issa quickly refined his position, however, later telling ABC’s Top Line that “the word ‘compromise’ has been misunderstood.” He clarified that his job will be “getting America back to the center right where it exists.”
It seems the Republican leadership agrees with Issa — there will only be compromise if the President agrees to everything it wants. According to a Washington Post profile published yesterday, Minority Leader John Boehner (R-OH) “let out a long sigh when asked where he would look to work with Obama,” and then said “I came here to fight for a smaller, less costly and more accountable government, and to the extent that [Obama] wants to work with us in terms of where we’re going, I would certainly welcome it.” On Sean Hannity’s radio show yesterday, he made it much more explicit: “This is not a time for compromise, and I can tell you that we will not compromise on our principles,” he said.
Rep. Mike Pence (R-IN), appearing on CNN’s Parker Spitzer last night, was equally as strident, saying that in 1994 when the Republicans took control of Congress “there was altogether too much compromise,” and promised that “there will be no compromise” if Republicans take control after the midterms, specifically on issues like “repealing ObamaCare lock stock and barrel.” Watch it:
Polls show Americans want Republicans and Democrats to work together in order to achieve progress on major issues, and at a meeting with some progressive bloggers at the White House yesterday, President Obama said he was willing to do that:
THE PRESIDENT: Look, the — I’m a pretty stubborn guy when it comes to, on the one hand, trying to get cooperation. I don’t give up just because I didn’t get cooperation on this issue; I’ll try the next issue. If the Republicans don’t agree with me on fiscal policy, maybe they’ll agree with me on infrastructure. If they don’t agree with me on infrastructure, I’ll try to see if they agree with me on education.
So I’m just going to keep on trying to see where they want to move the country forward.
If Obama “wants to see where they want to move the country,” GOP leaders are making clear they’re less interested in moving it than in defeating him.
Utah Senate GOP Candidate Mike Lee: A Government Shutdown ‘May Be Absolutely Necessary’
Utah Senate GOP Candidate Mike Lee: A Government Shutdown ‘May Be Absolutely Necessary’
Last week, Roll Call reported that the “campaign rhetoric of tea party-inspired Republicans is on a collision course with the federal debt limit, which could make the threat of a government shutdown an early order of business in a new Republican majority.” Indeed, a number of leading Republicans have endorsed the idea of a government shutdown, from Rep. Lynn Westmoreland (R-GA) to Alaska GOP Senate nominee Joe Miller, despite RNC Chairman Michael Steele’s claim that there aren’t “any candidates” proposing one.
In an interview with NPR today about what tea party-backed candidates would do if they gain seats in Congress, Utah GOP Senate nominee Mike Lee explicitly said he would refuse to vote to raise the debt limit, even if it leads to a government shutdown:
“Our current debt is a little shy of $14 trillion. And I don’t want it to increase 1 cent above the current debt limit and I will vote against that,” he says.
Even if it leads to government default and shutdown?
“It’s an inconvenience, it would be frustrating to many, many people and it’s not a great thing, and yet at the same time, it’s not something that we can rule out,” he says. “It may be absolutely necessary.”
Listen here:
As the Wonk Room’s Pat Garofalo noted yesterday, this is not the first time Lee — who is almost guaranteed to win Tuesday — has endorsed the idea of a government shutdown. At a recent town hall meeting, Lee went even further than on NPR, threatening a government shutdown if President Obama doesn’t agree to an immediate 40 percent reduction in the federal budget, outside of defense and Social Security.
Lee’s dismissal of a shutdown as a mere “inconvenience” shows a startling lack of sensitivity or understanding about what a shutdown would actually entail. As Newsweek’s Andrew Romano notes, satisfying Lee’s 40 percent cut demand “would require slashing every government program that’s not defense or Social Security” — including Medicare, veterans affairs, education, the FBI, and the border patrol — 89.6 percent.” Considering that the FBI just foiled a potentially major terrorist plot against the Washington, DC Metro system, a 90 percent reduction in their budget may not be the soundest policy idea.
But even beyond Lee’s absurd demand for a 40 percent cut, a government shutdown is far more than a mere “inconvenience.” Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich’s government shutdown in 1995 was disastrous; it ended up costing taxpayers over $800 million in losses for salaries paid to furloughed employees, delayed access to Medicare and Social Security, and caused a “[m]ajor curtailment in services,” including health services, to veterans.
ThinkFast: October 28, 2010
ThinkFast: October 28, 2010
House Minority Leader John Boehner will campaign this weekend with Ohio House GOP candidate Rich Iott. Iott gained notoriety after Bill Maher’s show highlighted the fact that that he enjoyed performing as a Nazi reenactor and dressing up as an SS officer. Boehner has not sought a refund of the donations he made to Iott’s campaign.
An assessment of the fallout from the Citizens United decision shows the Supreme Court majority was wrong when they promised that the “public would know – almost instantly – who was paying for” election campaign ads. According to election law experts, corporate donors can hide their contributions despite the opposition of shareholders and customers because of tax law loopholes and a weak FEC.
Appearing on “The Daily Show” last night, President Obama said the Senate filibuster process “needs to be changed” because the GOP minority’s “unprecedented” use of the filibuster “deters Democrats from working across the aisle” and drives the parties further apart. Noting the number of his nominees still awaiting confirmation, Obama said the GOP’s abuse of the filibuster is “just not in the Constitution.”
In an interview with the UK’s Daily Telegraph, former Bush adviser Karl Rove questioned if former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin has the “gravitas” to be president. “With all due candor, appearing on your own reality show on the Discovery Channel, I am not certain how that fits in the American calculus of ‘that helps me see you in the Oval Office’,” Rove said.
Despite a record of gaffes and embarrassments during his tenure as RNC Chairman, Michael Steele is reportedly eyeing a second term. Steele has “already has picked two current RNC staffers to help run his re-election campaign.”
Federal law enforcement authorities arrested a Virginia man yesterday who was allegedly plotting to bomb the Washington, DC Metro system. Farooque Ahmed, a naturalized American citizen, “conspired with people he thought to be al-Qaeda operatives,” who were actually federal agents, and spent six months casing the Metro system. Authorities say the public was never in danger.
Sen. David Vitter (R-LA) admitted “serious sins” during a candidate forum last night, presumably a reference to the prostitution scandal which ensnared the senator in 2007. “Obviously, I’ve stumbled in my marriage. Obviously I’ve committed serious sins, which I’ve talked about in the past,” Vitter said.
The Justice Department assured voters yesterday that it will thwart any voter intimidation efforts at the polls next week, and that all voters will have easy access to the voting booths. Conservative activists aim to challenge the eligibility of voters at polling stations, which many say amounts to intimidation, often of minority voters.
And finally: Fans of neon spandex and leather masks fear not, for a federal judge in Connecticut has ruled that the state must allow voters to dress up in pro wrestling garb at polling places on Tuesday’s election. Linda McMahon, the former CEO of the WWE (and occasional fighter) is running for Senate in the state.
ThinkProgress is hiring! Details here.
Arkansas School Board Member Wants ‘Fags’ To ‘Commit Suicide’ And To ‘Give Each Other AIDS And Die’
Arkansas School Board Member Wants ‘Fags’ To ‘Commit Suicide’ And To ‘Give Each Other AIDS And Die’
Last week, the Gay and Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation (GLAAD) asked people to “Go Purple” to call attention to the suicides of six teenagers who were victims of homophobic bullying. In response, a myriad of high-profile figures “jumped at the opportunity” to voice their support as part of YouTube’s “It Gets Better” campaign, including 40 Broadway actors, Google, Inc., Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, and President Barack Obama. Yesterday, Obama’s Secretary of Education Arne Duncan sent new official guidelines on school-bullying to 15,000 school districts and 5,000 colleges and universities as a message that “bullying is not acceptable” and could violate federal civil rights laws.
Despite a chorus of support, GLAAD’s anti-bullying message is falling on deaf ears in Arkansas. Specifically, the ears of Arkansas District School board member Clint McCance. In response to GLAAD’s appeal to wear purple, McCance, an elected member of the Midland school board, unleashed a tirade of anti-gay bigotry on his facebook page. In a series of posts, McCance actually encourages “fags” and “queers” to kill themselves and says that, if his kids were gay, he’d “run them off“:
McCance wrote the following message on his Facebook page: “Seriously they want me to wear purple because five queers killed themselves. The only way im wearin it for them is if they all commit suicide. I cant believe the people of this world have gotten this stupid. We are honoring the fact that they sinned and killed thereselves because of their sin. REALLY PEOPLE.”
Initially, six people “liked” McCance’s message. He also received supportive comments, though some challenged his statement. A commenter wrote, “Because hatred is always right.” That led McCance to write, “No because being a fag doesn’t give you the right to ruin the rest of our lives. If you get easily offended by being called a fag then dont tell anyone you are a fag. Keep that shit to yourself. I dont care how people decide to live their lives. They dont bother me if they keep it to thereselves. It pisses me off though that we make a special purple fag day for them. I like that fags cant procreate. I also enjoy the fact that they often give each other aids and die. If you arent against it, you might as well be for it.”[...]
“I would disown my kids they were gay. They will not be welcome at my home or in my vicinity. I will absolutely run them off. Of course my kids will know better. My kids will have solid christian beliefs. See it infects everyone.”
While schools across the country are clamping down on this kind of bigotry, it is appalling that McCance, a school official, would champion this extreme level of hatred. Particularly when Arkansas enacted an anti-bullying law in 2003 to “prohibit bullying while on school property, at school-sponsored activities, and on school buses.” Not only does the law require school employees to report bullying to the principal, but it even calls on local school board to provide opportunities to “develop the knowledge and skills to prevent and respond” to acts of bullying. McCance’s comments, however, are the antithesis of knowledge.
Still, as the Daily Kos diarist Michael Hendricks notes, “the man is a disgusting individual but sadly he has the freedom to say what he says. He cannot be fired. He is an elected official. Short of him resigning only the people of the community can fire him the next time he is up for re-election.” But, should efforts like the “Fire Clint McCance” facebook page raise enough awareness, Arkansans may have the last word.
Rand Paul Refuses To Return Head-Stomper’s $2,000 Donation
Rand Paul Refuses To Return Head-Stomper’s $2,000 Donation
Kentucky GOP Senate nominee Rand Paul has “disassociated” himself from Tim Profitt, his former Bourbon County campaign coordinator who stomped on a progressive activist’s head Monday night, but the Paul campaign is now refusing to return the $1,950 Profitt has contributed to the campaign. Democratic nominee Jack Conway, among others, have called on Paul to return the money, along with another $600 Profitt’s wife contributed. But a campaign spokesperson told the Louisville Courier Journal today that that would not be happening:
“The Paul campaign condemned the incident far before Conway’s camp ever addressed it and decisively severed all ties with the supporter in question,” said Jesse Benton, Paul’s campaign manager. “To suggest otherwise is nothing but a desperate attempt to distract voters from the issues facing Kentucky.”
But Benton said the campaign would not return Profitt’s contributions.
It’s odd that Paul would refuse to return the relatively insignificant $2,000 donation — he raised over $1 million in the last quarter alone — considering that rejecting the money would send a clear signal that the campaign wants nothing to do with Profitt. Moreover, this seems to be a reversal for the Paul campaign. The Washington Post’s Greg Sargent notes that last night Fox reported that the campaign said it would return Profitt’s donation. (HT: Barefoot & Progressive)
Tea Party Nation Founder Judson Phillips: ‘I, Personally Have A Real Problem With Islam’
Tea Party Nation Founder Judson Phillips: ‘I, Personally Have A Real Problem With Islam’
The Rachel Maddow show blog reported this week that the Tea Party Nation — founded by Tennessee lawyer Judson Phillips — sent out an email to supporters on Saturday urging them to support the Republican candidate in Minnesota’s 5th congressional district because the incumbent — Rep. Keith Ellison (D) — is too…Muslim. “Ellison is one of the most radical members of congress. … He is the only Muslim member of congress. He supports the Counsel for American Islamic Relations, HAMAS and has helped congress send millions of tax to terrorists in Gaza,” the email said. ThinkProgress noted that Rep. Andre Carson (D-IN) is also Muslim. The Daily Caller reports today that Phillips has corrected his false claim that Ellison is the only Muslim member of Congress, but he refused to apologize, saying that he has a problem with Islam:
“I am not going to apologize because I’m bothered by a religion that says kill the infidel, especially when I am the infidel,” Phillips wrote on the Tea Party Nation website Tuesday. “Should we vote out Keith Ellison just because he is a Muslim? No. But his beliefs define his character and his character is a central issue.”
“A majority of Tea Party members, I suspect, are not fans of Islam,” Phillips said. “I, personally have a real problem with Islam. With Islam, you have a religion that says kill the Jews, kill the infidels. It bothers me when a religion says kill the infidels. It bothers me a lot more when I am the infidel.” [...] When asked if he would vote for a Muslim candidate who was a conservative, he replied, “I don’t know.”
Ken Buck Can’t Explain How Government ‘Goes Too Far’ In Separating Church And State
Ken Buck Can’t Explain How Government ‘Goes Too Far’ In Separating Church And State
Yesterday, ThinkProgress noted the anti-Constitution stance taken by the Republican Senate candidate in Colorado Ken Buck, who said that “I disagree strongly with the concept of separation of church and state.” The story quickly gained mainstream media attention.
Spokespeople for the Buck campaign insist that the comments were “taken out of context,” and Buck gave an interview to CNN yesterday to defend his comments:
BUCK: My problem isn’t with separation of church and state. It is with how far we have gone in that area. I think when you have a soup kitchen for example that is run by the Salvation Army which has religious ties in town and you have another soup kitchen in town which is purely secular. For the federal government to give one organization money but not the other because one has ties with a religious group is wrong. The idea is that we need to have compassionate programs for people. And if religious organizations are performing some of those functions without proselytizing then I think the federal government should include both.
Buck’s comments were not taken out of context. The original post included the entirety of his comments on the separation of church and state. A video of his entire answer — which was not about the First Amendment, but rather the government’s role in preserving culture — can be found here. As Denver Post columnist Mike Littwin observed, noting Buck’s recent attempt to take back comments he made about global warming, the campaign’s “default position” is “that whenever Buck is quoted as saying something he wished he hadn’t said, he must not have actually meant it.” (As the Wonk Room noted, Buck also said he wanted to privatize Social Security, then insisted that he didn’t.)
Moreover, much like the deceit in his original comments, which falsely suggested that Obama renamed the White House Christmas tree, Buck is completely wrong with his Salvation Army example. According to their 2010 Annual Report, the Salvation Army received over $392 million in government funds last year. They are simply not allowed to use that money to proselytize, exactly as Buck recommends should be done, but certainly can use it to provide “compassionate programs” for people.
Buck has consistently said that the government has “gone too far” with the separation between church and state, yet he’s been unable to give a valid example. Perhaps he’s misinformed about current federal policy and would find it satisfactory. Alternately, perhaps he would like the government to get much more actively involved in promoting religion, but is afraid to give real examples of what that would look like.
AFP’s Phil Kerpen Accuses ThinkProgress Of Being A ‘Conspiracy Theorist’ For Citing Facts On AFP Website
AFP’s Phil Kerpen Accuses ThinkProgress Of Being A ‘Conspiracy Theorist’ For Citing Facts On AFP Website
On Monday night, ThinkProgess hosted a film screening of Astroturf Wars followed by a panel discussion featuring the Washington Post’s Dana Milbank, (Astro)Turf Wars filmmaker Taki Oldham, Americans for Prosperity’s Phil Kerpen, the Wonk Room’s Brad Johnson, moderator and ThinkProgress editor Faiz Shakir, and myself. Responding to the vitriolic racism openly aired at tea parties and captured in Oldham’s film, an audience member asked Kerpen why he refused to acknowledge the possibility that dangerous propaganda could spur life-threatening violence. Kerpen said he opposed racism and hate in the Tea Parties, but admitted that racists “might find a more receptive audience [at Tea Party rallies] because of all the paranoia and concern out there about government.”
In addition to the problem that Tea Parties are often open forums for neo-Nazis and white supremacists holding racist signs, I pointed out that Americans for Prosperity itself organizes events with proud bigots like Tom Tancredo and Jerome Corsi. Kerpen interjected, calling me a “full time conspiracy theorist,” and claimed that Americans for Prosperity had never held an event with Corsi and has no presence in South Carolina:
KERPEN: There is no problem we have a problem with extremism in this country. We have a problem with racism in our country, it goes back to our founding. Unfortunately, some of these people look at these Tea Party gatherings with all this concern about big government and think, this is where I ought to go to recruit. And perhaps they might find a slightly more receptive audience there because of all the paranoia and concern out there about government. That said, the overwhelming majority of Tea Party folks condemn racism. [...]
FANG: I applaud Kerpen for denouncing racism now, but it’s a problem when Americans for Prosperity funds, organizes rallies and their primary speakers are people like Jerome Corsi, who has written an entire book and has made a career out of accusing Obama of being a Kenyan, or — [Kerpen interrupts] Yes, you did in South Carolina.
KERPEN: We don’t have a chapter in South Carolina.
FANG: We can send this around to anyone who would like to see.
KERPEN: Full time conspiracy theorist here.
FANG: I think it was like April 19th of this year, you had an event with him. But also you’ve invited Tom Tancredo, had him as an official speaker. He says he wants to deport Obama, says he’s an illegal immigrant. A lot of these folks. [...]
Watch it:
According to the Americans for Prosperity website, there is a South Carolina chapter of the group, and it indeed helped sponsor a rally with both Tancredo and Corsi in Greenville, South Carolina on April 17th of this year (view a screenshot here). At this particular Americans for Prosperity rally, Tancredo called Obama a lying, taxing, foreign-born, anti-American socialist, who should be sent back to his “homeland” of Kenya. At the Americans for Prosperity rally, Corsi declared, “we have an undocumented president in the White House.” In fact, Americans for Prosperity has sponsored multiple events with racist figures like Tancredo and Glenn Beck. For example, earlier this year Americans for Prosperity leader Tim Phillips hosted another Tea Party rally with Tancredo in Arizona to support “Americans for Prosperity Hero of the Taxpayer” State Sen. Russell Pearce (R-AZ), the sponsor of the racial profiling law SB1070.
A report, sponsored by the NAACP, chronicles the close relationship between racist hate groups and the Americans for Prosperity-supported Tea Party.
REPORT: 104 Republicans In Congress Want To Privatize Social Security
REPORT: 104 Republicans In Congress Want To Privatize Social Security
This is the second installment in a three-part series on legislation that may emerge from a GOP-controlled Congress. Click here for part one on ending birthright citizenship.
After their attempt to privatize Social Security in 2005 was met with widespread public outcry, the GOP’s strategy on Social Security has been two-fold. First, Republicans deny they are interested in privatization. Rep. Kevin McCarthy (R-CA) recently told the Wall Street Journal that “no one has a proposal up to cut Social Security,” (his own book proposes doing so), while conservatives in the media have tried to argue that Republicans don’t actually want to privatize Social Security.
The second tactic has been to obfuscate their privatization plans by sugarcoating them in flowery, palatable language. President Bush’s privatization plan is a prime example. In his 2005 State of the Union, President Bush said we needed to “save” Social Security and give younger workers a “better deal” by having “voluntary personal retirement accounts,” the poll-tested language for privatization. Bush now says his greatest failure was not privatizing Social Security.
However, such rhetoric belies their record. A thorough review of the voting records and statements of Republicans in Congress reveals a critical mass of GOPers who have supported privatizing Social Security. In total, 47 percent of House Republicans and 49 percent of Senate Republicans are on record supporting the privatization of Social Security. Some, including Rep. Michele Bachmann (R-MN), want to go even further and “wean everybody” off of Social Security altogether.
As ThinkProgress noted yesterday, Republicans in Congress have long operated by the “majority of the majority” principle, whereby legislation is only advanced by a GOP Speaker if it is supported by a majority of Republicans. With many prominent GOP candidates in favor of privatizing or eliminating Social Security, including Rand Paul, Ken Buck, Dan Coats, Sharron Angle, Dan Benishek, Ben Quayle, Star Parker, and Jesse Kelly, it’s likely that a GOP-controlled Congress would have the necessary votes to revisit the issue.
Here are the 104 Republicans in Congress who support privatizing Social Security (leadership in bold):
Senate (20)
| Jeff Sessions (AL) | Richard Shelby (AL) | Jon Kyl (AZ) |
| John McCain (AZ) | Saxby Chambliss (GA) | Chuck Grassley (IA) |
| Richard Lugar (IN) | Pat Roberts (KS) | Sam Brownback (KS) |
| Mitch McConnell (KY) | Roger Wicker (MS) | Thad Cochran (MS) |
| Judd Gregg (NH) | James Inhofe (OK) | Tom Coburn (OK) |
| Jim DeMint (SC) | Kay Bailey Hutchison (TX) | Bob Bennett (UT) |
| Orrin Hatch (UT) | Mike Enzi (WY) |
House of Representatives (84)
| Jo Bonner (AL-01) | Spencer Bachus (AL-06) | Trent Franks (AZ-02) |
| Wally Herger (CA-02) | Dan Lungren (CA-03) | Devin Nunes (CA-21) |
| David Dreier (CA-26) | Jerry Lewis (CA-41) | Ken Calvert (CA-44) |
| Dana Rohrabacher (CA-46) | John Campbell (CA-48) | Darrell Issa (CA-49) |
| Duncan Hunter (CA-52) | Doug Lamborn (CO-05) | Jeff Miller (FL-01) |
| Ander Crenshaw (FL-04) | Ginny Brown-Waite (FL-05) | Cliff Stearns (FL-06) |
| Adam Putnam (FL-12) | Connie Mack (FL-14) | Ileana Ros-Lehtinen (FL-18) |
| Mario Diaz-Balart (FL-25) | Jack Kingston (GA-01) | Lynn Westmoreland (GA-03) |
| Tom Price (GA-06) | John Linder (GA-07) | Phil Gingrey (GA-11) |
| Tom Latham (IA-04) | Steve King (IA-05) | Judy Biggert (IL-13) |
| John Shimkus (IL-19) | Dan Burton (IN-05) | Mike Pence (IN-06) |
| Rodney Alexander (LA-05) | Roscoe Bartlett (MD-06) | Pete Hoekstra (MI-02) |
| Vern Ehlers (MI-03) | David Lee Camp (MI-04) | John Kline (MN-02) |
| Erik Paulsen* (MN-03) | Todd Akin (MO-02) | Roy Blunt (MO-07) |
| Virginia Foxx (NC-05) | Howard Coble (NC-06) | Sue Myrick (NC-09) |
| Patrick McHenry (NC-10) | Jeff Fortenberry (NE-01) | Lee Terry (NE-02) |
| Scott Garrett (NJ-05) | Peter King (NY-03) | John Boehner (OH-08) |
| John Sullivan (OK-01) | Tom Cole (OK-04) | Jim Gerlach* (PA-06) |
| Bill Shuster (PA-09) | Joseph Pitts (PA-16) | Joe Wilson (SC-02) |
| Gresham Barrett (SC-03) | Bob Inglis (SC-04) | Zach Wamp (TN-03) |
| Marsha Blackburn (TN-07) | Louie Gohmert (TX-01) | Sam Johnson (TX-03) |
| Jeb Hensarling (TX-05) | Joe Barton (TX-06) | Kevin Brady (TX-08) |
| Michael McCaul (TX-10) | Mike Conaway (TX-11) | Mac Thornberry (TX-13) |
| Ron Paul (TX-14) | Randy Neugebauer (TX-19) | Kenny Marchant (TX-24) |
| Michael Burgess (TX-26) | John Carter (TX-31) | Pete Sessions (TX-32) |
| Rob Bishop (UT-01) | Jason Chaffetz (UT-03) | Eric Cantor (VA-07) |
| Doc Hastings (WA-04) | Dave Reichert (WA-08) | Paul Ryan (WI-01) |
| Tom Petri (WI-06) | Shelley Moore Capito (WV-02) | Cynthia Lummis (WY-AL) |
*- Reps. Gerlach and Paulsen initially co-sponsored bills that would privatize Social Security before withdrawing their co-sponsorships.
GOP Congressional Candidate Popaditch: Living On 21 Dollars A Week In Food Stamps Is ‘Too Darn Comfortable’
GOP Congressional Candidate Popaditch: Living On 21 Dollars A Week In Food Stamps Is ‘Too Darn Comfortable’
Late last week, Rep. Bob Filner (D-CA) and his Republican opponent and retired Marine Nick Popaditch debated a variety of issues at the Imperial Valley Expo. Highlights from the debate include Popaditch’s view that all of the Bush tax cuts should be extended, even those for the wealthiest Americans.
At one point during the debate, a questioner asked Popaditch what he would do to make sure there “no further cuts are made to the food stamp benefits.” The Republican candidate responded by saying that, while he believes “in a safety net,” he certainly doesn’t think “we need to make it too darn comfortable down there on that safety net. I’m not a cruel man, but I think we need to make these systems not as comfortable as they are now”:
QUESTIONER: What would you do to make sure there are no further cuts are made to the food stamp benefits?
POPADITCH: What would I do to make sure no further cuts are made to food stamp benefits? Wow. Once again, I recognize there’s a difference between an entitlement and a promise. Now that would fall under the category of an entitlement. Now I believe in a safety net, but I certainly don’t think we need to make it too darn comfortable down there on that safety net. I’m not a cruel man, but I think we absolutely need to make these systems not as comfortable as they are now.
Watch it:
While food stamp benefits — administered through the federal SNAP program — are distributed on a sliding scale, they generally average out to $3 a day or $21 a week, hardly an amount that most Americans would consider “too comfortable.” It is worth noting that the United States has among the least generous social safety nets in the industrialized world, lagging well behind its neighbors in Western Europe in access to quality health care, child care, jobless benefits, and other welfare state features.
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog Roll