Civil Right Olmos
June 24, 2012
Armando Olmos
Comments Off on Chicano Documentary PBS The Stealing Of Mexico Land Legally By The USA
Justice John Paul Stevens had seen a lot of precedent overturned by the time the Supreme Court ruled on Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission in January 2010. Appointed to the court by Gerald Ford after a career as a distinguished Republican jurist, he’d been there for contentious cases on abortion, the death penalty, Gitmo, you name it. But none had prepared him for the way the court’s new conservative majority, led by John Roberts, seized on an obscure campaign finance case expected to produce a narrow ruling and used it to shred nearly four decades of federal law.
The majority opinion in Citizens United takes up 57 pages, but it’s pretty efficiently boiled down as follows: (1) Money is speech; (2) corporations are people; (3) therefore, under the First Amendment, the government can’t stop corporations from spending money on politics pretty much however they choose.
Stevens penned an impassioned 90-page dissent lambasting the "glittering generality" of this construction. "Although they make enormous contributions to our society, corporations are not actually members of it," he wrote. "Our lawmakers have a compelling constitutional basis, if not also a democratic duty, to take measures designed to guard against the potentially deleterious effects of corporate spending in local and national races."
Stevens wasn’t the only one appalled. Citizens United set off a torrent of outrage, culminating in the high drama of the president (a constitutional law professor, lest we forget) condemning the court in the State of the Union for opening "the floodgates for special interests—including foreign corporations—to spend without limit in our elections." Anger spanned the political spectrum (80 percent were opposed shortly after the ruling, 65 percent "strongly") and helped spark the Occupy movement.
The right "recognizes something that few on the left recognize: that campaign finance law underlies all other substantive law."
But Americans’ disgust didn’t stop the bagmen, on both sides of the aisle, from seizing the opportunity. Just ask Dan Maffei, a Democrat in upstate New York’s 25th District who led Ann Marie Buerkle, a pro-life activist with scant political experience, by 12 points two weeks before the election. Then Karl Rove’s American Crossroads buried him with $400,000 worth of attack ads—and Buerkle won by a mere 648 votes.
So how to put elections back in the hands of voters? Here are the four options:
Constitutional amendment: Okay, it takes two-thirds majorities in both houses of Congress and ratification by three-fourths of the state legislatures. Nevertheless, we did just that to bring about Prohibition in 1919 and then to overturn it in 1933, and to lower the voting age to 18 in 1971. That last one wrapped in a mere five months; then again, the 27th Amendment, which regulated congressional raises, was in the works for 203 years. And recall the Equal Rights Amendment: "Men and women shall have equal rights throughout the United States." No-brainer, right? The ERA passed Congress in a landslide in ’72 (354 to 24 in the House, 84 to 8 in the Senate). It was endorsed by Richard Nixon, included in the Republican Party platform, and ratified by 30 state legislatures within another year. And then Phyllis "Stop Unisex Bathrooms!" Schlafly whipped up a major froth, got enough culture war firebrands elected to state legislatures, and stopped it cold.
So yes, it’s technically possible to pass an amendment clarifying that corporations are not quite the same as people and money is not quite the same as speech. (Several organizations, including People for the American Way and a new outfit called Move to Amend, are pushing for this.) But there’s also a lot of dark-money groups waiting to underwrite a Schlafly-like play.
SCOTUS deathwatch: How about waiting for a conservative justice or two to die while Democrats hold the White House and the Senate? Yeeaah. Absent the plot devices of a John Grisham thriller, don’t hold your breath. Then again, know who’s been the master of this kind of waiting game? The folks who brought you Citizens United. When he started flooding the docket with anti-campaign-finance-regulation cases in the 1980s, conservative lawyer James Bopp Jr. was facing a hostile court. But he kept at it until the majority shifted—and slammed the ball he’d teed up.
Let the sun shine in: In the nearer term, there’s the option the Roberts court expressly invited in Citizens United—full-monty disclosure. Not long after the ruling, Rep. Chris Van Hollen (D-Md.) introduced the DISCLOSE Act with 114 cosponsors, just two of them Republicans. It would have banned most secret donations, forced companies to report their giving to shareholders, and shut foreign corporations out of electioneering. The bill’s life was brief and full of ironies (among the clauses tacked on in the House was one exempting the NRA); it passed the House in an anemic 219-206 vote—36 Dems voted nay—and died, as all good legislation must, when the Senate fell one vote short (RIP Ted Kennedy) of a filibuster-proof 60 votes. Van Hollen has reintroduced the legislation, and with Sen. John McCain back in the reform business, it might just stand a chance.
But Congress is not the only game in town. Court after court has come down squarely on the side of disclosure, and in May, the DC court of appeals ruled that nonprofits like Rove’s Crossroads GPS and the US Chamber of Commerce must reveal their donors’ names. In another promising step, the IRS has made noises about revoking the tax exemption of dark-money groups.
Taxpayer-financed campaigns: No one likes big money in politics—least of all, perhaps, members of Congress who toil in the Hill’s drab call centers, dialing donors to beg for cash. That’s why public financing was key to the post-Watergate reforms, and until billionaire Steve Forbes opted out in 1996, every major presidential candidate took it. But the system failed to keep up with the cost of elections; this year, candidates could hope to get about $90 million in public financing, whereas Obama expects to raise up to $1 billion. Nevertheless, public financing can still make a big difference in down-ballot races, from the statehouse all the way to obscure but critical judicial elections. And keep in mind, today’s state legislator is tomorrow’s US senator.
As the rich get richer, throwing six-figure sums at presidential campaigns is just like tipping for good service.
In the end, all these avenues need to be pursued, and here’s why: As Paul S. Ryan of the Campaign Legal Center told MoJo‘s Andy Kroll, the right "recognizes something that few on the left recognize: that campaign finance law underlies all other substantive law." In other words, no matter what you care about—climate change, abortion, taxes, net neutrality—it all comes back to who pays for our elections. Need a more selfish reason? Because the 1 percent have bent the system to their advantage, America’s median household income—your income—is $40,000 lower than it would have been had incomes continued to keep pace with economic growth. Conversely, as the rich get richer, throwing six-figure sums at presidential campaigns is just like tipping for good service. Snake, meet tail.
So yes, we might agree with Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.), no stranger to campaign rainmaking, that Citizens United is the court’s worst decision since it upheld segregation in Plessy v. Ferguson. But bad law is not without redress—if voters shame reluctant representatives into getting off the dark-money teat. "At bottom," wrote Justice Stevens, the court’s opinion is "a rejection of the common sense of the American people, who have recognized a need to prevent corporations from undermining self-government since the founding…While American democracy is imperfect, few outside the majority of this Court would have thought its flaws included a dearth of corporate money in politics."
Ready to explore for yourself? Here’s choose-your-own adventure guide to the options, with plenty of links to more resources.
<p>Sadly, in order to play, you must have javascript enabled.</p>
Monika Bauerlein
Editor in Chief
Monika Bauerlein is co-editor of Mother Jones. For more of her stories, click here. You can also follow her on Twitter. RSS | Twitter
Clara Jeffery
Editor in Chief
Clara Jeffery is co-editor of Mother Jones. For more of her stories, click here. You can also follow her on Twitter. RSS | Twitter
If You Liked This, You Might Also Like…
Monika Bauerlein and Clara Jeffery Talk Dark Money With Bill Moyers
On the war for Wisconsin, the work of "journo-detectives," and the law that underlies all other law.
The Dark Money Behind the Wisconsin Recall
Some startling stats about the $63.5 million election to decide the future of Gov. Scott Walker.
Will One of These Cases Be the Next Citizens United?
Four campaign finance lawsuits that could speed—or stem—the flow of unlimited election cash.
Follow the Dark Money
The down and dirty history of secret spending, PACs gone wild, and the epic four-decade fight over the only kind of political capital that matters.
Get Mother Jones by Email – Free. Like what you’re reading? Get the best of MoJo three times a week.
Glad you liked it. Would you like to share?
Sharing this page …
Thanks! Close
Showing 62 comments
Sort by Popular nowBest ratingNewest firstOldest first
Subscribe by email
Subscribe by RSS
Jacqueline D. Reyes
06/17/2012 09:28 AM
This comment was flagged for review.
RudyTwoShoes
This is a scam/spam link and has been flagged.
Marcus_from_the_North and 4 more liked thisLikeReplyReply
RudyTwoShoes
"Corporations are people and money is speech" yet corporations can commit fraud, slander and treason without prosecution. We the People need the same freedom and access (and most certainly the same level of freedom from taxation, the ability to purchase a Toyota directly from Japan without import tax and the ability to purchase drugs, food and anything from Canada or anyplace we want).
Free trade and free "speech" for everyone.
Ronnie Waters
This is the only intelligent point made here. Thanks Rudy
Won Word
One upon a time, corporations received the death penalty for egregious acts. 200 years ago, corporate charters could be–and were–revoked by the state. When was the last time that happened?
Two+ perfect candidates: BP for their flagrant disregard for personnel and environmental safety, and JP Morgan/Bank of America/Wells Fargo for their engineered destruction of the economy.
Revoke their charters, see off their assets to pay for cleaning their messes, and prosecute their officers. Done and done.
eps62 and 18 more liked thisLikeReplyReply
melinda_jobs
corporation are about "protection their bottom line" with all causes or by any mean.
LikeReplyReply
slave2liberty
And you’re not about protecting your bottom line?
"all causes or by any mean" – wow, that’s amazing – i didn’t realize that all corporations and all people whom they consist of use any and all means necessary to protect what is rightfully theirs (money or right to associate).
If this is true, then why am i not tripping on dead bodies in the streets daily, or receiving a visit from Guido of ABC Corporation, and being told i have to buy their products, or else? Seems like, you demagogue just a little.
Ironically, i have been visited on occasion from Guido of the State apparatus, telling me how much soda i can drink, how much salt i can put on my steak, what type of bicycle helmet to wear, and how much of my own money is rigthfully some else’s who makes less than me, or that i must pay for programs which encourage ILLEGAL immigration (or straight out amnesty), so that Democrats can increase their voter rolls.
LikeReplyReply
slave2liberty
So, is it really as simple as lefists make it out – that corporations deserve no protections which are afforded to the individuals whom they consist of?
Should a corporation not be afforded protections against illegal search and seizure? Or taxation without representation? Or freedom of political speech?
On the flip-side – if corporations (a collection of individuals) are not to be held to the same laws as the individuals, what laws are they accountable to? In other words – what legal parameters are their actions judged against?
Me thinks, that the ONLY reason leftists get their panties in a bunch on this issue, is because they don’t like the resulting effectiveness that occurs by having many people pooling their resources to speak out against the left’s beloved statists.
LikeReplyReply
Phoenix Woman
"Many people"? Nah, just a handful of very rich people who have used the brainwashing techniques of Fred Bernays, coupled with skillful and amoral "Southern Strategy" manipulation of race hatreds cloaked in the mantle of deficit hawkery ( http://my.firedoglake.com/phoe….
In the meantime, the left is outgunned and outfinanced by these new high-tech feudal overlords whose butts you love kissing for the tiny crumbs they give you.
Why not skip the parasitical overlords and go for economic democracy instead? You know, where the people who do the work — not commissars, not boards of directors, not third-generation trustafarians whose cosseted lives are so different from ours that they think Ayn Rand’s flatterings of them as the master race are sober truth — actually get the proceeds therefrom.
FromtheGreatWhiteNorth
The cynicism embodied by Citizens United defies belief. The notion that corporations are citizens is so offensive. Once again, we privitize profits (bought politicians) and social risk (prosecution for illegal actives = fine. Just add it to the price). We might be able to have a conversation about things when a ‘corporation’ is jailed for malfeasance (e.g., suspended from doing ANY business for the length of the sentence). Those of us older feel helpless. Those of us younger feel nothing – they’re excluded forever.
Jim Sylvester and 15 more liked thisLikeReplyReply
talktoo
..or buried in Arlington
Won Word
As a former servicemember, I council young people to avoid military service like the plague. Patton had it right: let "the other poor dumb bastard die for his country."
SpectateSwamp and 2 more liked thisLikeReplyReply
Steven Deering
I couldn’t agree more.
Lately, I seem to be getting into more arguments with friends/family/coworkers about immigrants and minorities being the problem ("They get free health care, food stamps!") as if they have any political clout. Meanwhile, corporations are handed subsidies after posting historic revenues. Why? Because, job creators. Or something. It is really confusing… But then I look at Florida and see a voter purge to combat nonexistent fraud and it becomes slightly clearer.
Phoenix Woman and 5 more liked thisLikeReplyReply
slave2liberty
Those are some great ethics you live by – if they don’t have political "clout", then just let them do as they want, taking resources from LEGAL citizens, making the rule of law arbitrary, ignoring US sovereignty, and giving politicians fiat power to ignore immigration policy.
Regardless of your accomodations and lack of principle, the truth is, ILLEGAL aliens have plenty of political clout which is aimed at undermining US Sovereignty. You never heard of MALDEF, The Congressional Hispanic Caucus, The National Council of La Raza (THE race!), or MECHA?
As for the specious attacks on Florida and every municpality for attempting to ensure the integrity of our election system, it seems that you would prefer to look the other way as long as those illegal votes sway in your favor.
Do you honestly believe that there should be no auditing or oversight of the voter records? That people should be able to vote in multiple districts (as is sometimes the case with college students, by accident), or that widowers should be able to mail in their deceased partner’s ballot? Or that ILLEGAL aliens should be able to vote?
Besides, if there is no fraud (or…
LikeReplyReply
Phoenix Woman
If "illegal aliens" had clout, they wouldn’t be working starvation wages.
Which is of course why, contrary to your protestations, Republicans love the current situation: You use undocumented workers as a club with which to force documented workers to accept starvation wages, too.
3 people liked this.LikeReplyReply
dustime8
The (misnomer) dark money makes me almost laugh at those who chose the word to cover the correct term "corruption" in the money used by corporate America they launder into political donations. I guess this falls under the term political correctness which is another corruption to cover up unfettered mis-use of power by elected officials voted into office. We are allowing our country to be pilfered and destroyed by powers within and think nothing of it. People seem more interested in their next stash of marijuana or legalization of this crap than the direction America is headed. What do you think? Mother Jones, am I wrong here?
Steven Deering and 8 more liked thisLikeReplyReply
Won Word
People seem more interested in
their next stash of marijuana or legalization of this crapwhatever entertainment garbage is on TeeVee than the direction America is headed.Fixed it for you.
Steven Deering
I think Orwell would have really enjoyed the pizza = vegetable idea.
LikeReplyReply
Marc Grober
No mention of Montana’s perspective? For shame…..
Won Word and 1 more liked thisLikeReplyReply
Speaking as a 10th and 12th generation Yankee gun-owner, and 6th generation college grad who was born a Republican, I think it will take a class war to return our legislative system to some semblance of moral equity. Our Supreme Court is dominated by people who simply don’t have any skin in our national game, except to make themselves and their cronies rich and powerful. We need term limits on Supreme Court seats, perhaps 14 years, so that no president could appoint more than one, under normal circumstances, and we need a list of qualifying prerequisites, including having at least either a graduate degree not only in law, but also in American History with several juried publications, and service in uniform in combat whenever other Americans are deployed in combat, otherwise demanding public service in uniform at low pay for at least 4 years. Scalia is a cowbird whose loyalties are to wealth and the Vatican, and Alito is right in there with him. Thomas’s qualifications are so minimal they could be stenciled on the head of a pin, and Roberts is most qualified to be a billionaire’s chauffeur.
phraser_X and 25 more liked thisLikeReplyReply
B E Pratt
While term limits is an intriguing idea, the whole idea behind appointment for life was to keep politics out of the Supreme Court. It worked very well up until recently. It used to be that when a Justice was appointed, one never really knew what they would do until some decisions came down. You could guess fairly well, but you could never be sure.
Holiday0 and 3 more liked thisLikeReplyReply
Won Word
How about setting congressional, presidential and SCOTUS salaries to minimum wage, with no benefits, such as healthcare and pensions, just like the majority of Americans? Any raise they vote themselves must be matched by an equivallent dollar increase in minimum wage.
Yeah, I know. Happy fantasy.
DebbieSmith1956
American election laws set very specific limits to the size of donations that individuals and Political Action Committees may make to Presidential campaigns. Unfortunately, as shown here, it is very difficult to track the trail of a donation as funds are moved from one PAC to another to ensure that the limits are being followed:
http://viableopposition.blogsp…
1 person liked this.LikeReplyReply
tiredoftea
Another victory for the right, activist judges, of the right temperament, at the SCOTUS level. Wake up Dems! You have lost most of the battles and the war. Will your convictions and backbone ever show up?
Won Word
Dems have no spine, and Repubs have no heart.
Such is the way of the world.
DTaggert
I’m still wondering what makes the 1st amendment so difficult to understand:
“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech…”
No law, means exactly nothing. Congress can’t do anything at all regulating what we talk about or how we choose to say. We can talk individually, anonymously, using any media, including those not known at the time.
We can choose to talk as a member of a group – a neighborhood association, a professional organization, as a Tea Partier, as a stockholder in a corporation.
Even the states have a very limited ability to control speech due to the incorporation doctrine that started with the 14th amendment.
This freedom of speech allowed the Tea Party movement to spring up spontaneously and conclusively stop the slide of this country toward collectivism, so now, free speech is being viscously attacked
Citizens United merely affirmed the first amendment. The Supreme Court ruled that “Congress shall make no law” meant exactly what it says. It doesn’t matter if you speak anonymously, it doesn’t matter if you choose to speak as a member of…
1 person liked this.LikeReplyReply
middleclassman1
the tea party did not spring up spontaniously, it was created by the likes of the koch brothers who deceived some gullible citizens that their lives would somehow be better by taking our country back for the rich and greedy.
mcsandberg
I have personal experience with the Tea Party. I was at the very first one that we had in Denver and I can assure you – the Tea Party movement is real, and it happened long before we got any professional help! You had to be there to appreciate the incredible enthusiasm and determination to get this country back on track. Check out http://www.lloydmarcus.com/ to see just how genuine the Tea Party is!
The Tea Party is the result of lots of people reading the classics of liberty – Atlas Shrugged, The Road to Serfdom and others are always among Amazon.com best sellers. The people I meet at the Tea Parties are far from ignorant. Some have even read Von Mises "Human Action"!
You can ONLY pick up 63 house seats, 6 house seats and most incredibly 695 state house seats with a true grass roots movement.
Eric Vought liked thisLikeReplyReply
Won Word
Ayn Rand’s work is as much a "classic of liberty" as "Grapes of Wrath" is about the benefits of unregulated Agriculture, "The Jungle" is about the benefits of unregulated meat packing, and "Uncle Tom’s Cabin" a classic of liberty of plantation owners.
7 people liked this.LikeReplyReply
mcsandberg
Atlas Shrugged is a description of a country moving from liberty to collectivism. The reason its so compelling, is that its based on what Ms. Rand observed as Russia turned into the USSR. So, its very much a classic of liberty. Its the novel that introduces people to the library of liberty. Most of the Tea Partiers I’ve talked to mention it as the book that explained what’s happening to this country.
LikeReplyReply
Of the welfare state, the conservative philosopher and author Ayn Rand once wrote, “Morally and economically, the welfare state creates an ever accelerating downward pull.” As it turns out, however, toward the end of her life, Rand ended up relying quite heavily on its help.
According to the new book An Oral History of Ayn Rand, faced with lung cancer after a life spent smoking, and without the wealth needed to combat that cancer, Rand adopted an assumed name to seek government funds for her treatment.
An interview with Evva Pryror, a social worker and consultant to Miss Rand’s law firm of Ernst, Cane, Gitlin and Winick verified that on Miss Rand’s behalf she secured Rand’s Social Security and Medicare payments which Ayn received under the name of Ann O’Connor (husband Frank O’Connor).
As Pryor said, “Doctors cost a lot more money than books earn and she could be totally wiped out” without the aid of these two government programs. Ayn took the bail out even though Ayn “despised government interference and felt that people should and could live independently… She didn’t feel that an individual should take help.”
This calls to mind another famous Rand quote: “A building has integrity just like a man. And just as seldom.”
photo via Wikimedia Commons
Previous
Why Ted Haggard Deserves Your Respect
Next
Not Safe for Work: PETA’s About-to-Be Rejected Super Bowl Ad
- Tags
- politics,
- culture,
- art,
- conservatism,
- medicare,
- welfare,
- ayn rand,
- social security
More GOOD stuff
Why Conservatives Love Jon Stewart
Conservatives Won’t Be “Nudged” to Conserve Energy
Half of Americans Getting Government Aid Swear They’ve Never Used It
Comments
Use my avatar from…
No avatar
My computer
Gravatar email
Login
Login with:
My GOOD Account
Login required, click here to begin
Share
Share with:
This Page
This Page
Follow
Echo 25 Items
Admin
Log In
Follow
Moderation
General Settings
Admin Notices
–
MagneticMan
Ayn Rand was a Futurist, Visionary. The Truth is…I am sure she understood in the context of the Universe that everything about life should be free. Food, Shelter, Clothing and a roof over your head. Unfortunatly we live in an over popuated world. I am sure she also believed in Compassion, Love and the persuit of Happiness. Another unfortunate thing is we live in a world where Governmental Overlords think they have the right (Which they do not) to interfare in all areas of everyones life. But soon the Tyrannical Dictators will soon have to turn in their Keys, for they have been bad Stewards over things that do not belong to them!!!Sunday, November 20, 2011, 9:19:09 PM
– Flag – Like – Reply – Delete – Edit – Moderate
Ayn Rand was a Futurist, Visionary. The Truth is…I am sure she understood in the context of the Universe that everything about life should be free. Food, Shelter, Clothing and a roof over your head. Unfortunatly we live in an over popuated world. I am sure she also believed in Compassion, Love and the persuit of Happiness. Another unfortunate thing is we live in a world where Governmentla Overlords think they have the right (Which they do not) to interfare is all areas of everyones life. But soon the Tyrannical Dictators will soon have to turn in their Keys, for they have been bad Stewards over things that do not belong to them!!!Sunday, November 20, 2011, 9:17:49 PM
– Flag – Like – Reply – Delete – Edit – Moderate
Old age ailments and compulsion changes human’s lifelong perception. Ayan rand’s contribution is too great to be undermined by such petty compulsion of lifeThursday, February 03, 2011, 12:05:29 PM
– Flag – Like – Reply – Delete – Edit – Moderate
@Liberals Cann All Leave Then
WHAT? I CAN’T HEAR YOUR ORIGINAL THOUGHTS OVER THE WHINING ABOUT PEOPLE WHINING. COULD YOU TURN OFF THE RHETORIC SO I COULD HEAR YOU? HELLO? Aw crap, he just keeps *talking*Thursday, February 03, 2011, 5:13:56 AM
– Flag – Like – Reply – Delete – Edit – Moderate
If, as many liberal commenters believe, that one cannot use a government road if they decry the taxes that paid for it, then all liberals who whine and cry about the United States policies, such as immigration, can follow their own advice and leave to another country. Goodbye. Either leave or stop being hypocrites, whining and crying about others when you yourself do the very same thing. Although, I profoundly believe that it is anathema to a liberal not to whine and cry.Wednesday, February 02, 2011, 3:11:34 PM
– Flag – Like – Reply – Delete – Edit – Moderate
I can’t say I blame her for trying to get her money’s worth. OK, I’m being facetious. Whether she liked it or not, she still had to pay taxes by force of the law of the land.Tuesday, February 01, 2011, 9:40:21 AM
– Flag – Like – Reply – Delete – Edit – Moderate
@John Galt: Any proof about her legal name? I prefer a long form birth certificate which I can view with my own eyes and touch with my own fingers. Otherwise, I’ll continue to believe the rumor about her being born in Great Britain.Tuesday, February 01, 2011, 1:28:25 AM
– Flag – Like – Reply – Delete – Edit – Moderate
@JohnHarrington:
So if you diagree with the politics / government of the country you live in, your only option is to flee the country, otherwise you are a hypocrite?Tuesday, February 01, 2011, 1:20:44 AM
– Flag – Like – Reply – Delete – Edit – Moderate
I would like to note, however, that this is a common argument made against libertarians. Somehow, the argument goes, we are hypocrites for benefiting from government programs. This is a pretty simplistic argument. It is not at all inconsistent to decry government healthcare and simultaneously accept government healthcare benefits. If the government totally socialized healthcare, and I got sick, then I would use government doctors because the only alternative is death. I would rather use private insurance in a capitalist healthcare market, but the government’s monopoly would make that impossible. Anyway, as a tax payer, I would be paying twice for healthcare if I sought private insurance and rejected the government handout.
This same line of argument applies to roads, socialized retirement programs (social security), police, firefighters, public schools, etc. When you break it down, the situation proceeds thusly:
Step 1: We socialize X (where X can be education, healthcare, roads, etc.)Step 2: Since we can force people to pay for socialist X whether they want to or not, we drive all other producers of X out of business (sometimes leaving premium markets remaining at dramatically higher prices: think private schools)Step 3: Now, the only X that is reasonably available is socializedStep 4: Even staunch liberty-loving people are forced to buy X from the government (remember, if they are still paying taxes it is a sale, not a handout)Step 5: Self-righteous progressive statists sneer and giggle at the marvelous hypocrisy of those backwards libertarians
So, Rand’s acceptance of government healthcare benefits and social security is not surprising or against her credo. In a perfect world, she would be able to get affordable insurance after the age of 65 in a free market. Likewise, she would not have a chunk of her income confiscated every year for social security, and she would have had the right to invest her savings as she saw fit.Monday, January 31, 2011, 8:01:49 PM
– Flag – Like – Reply – Delete – Edit – Moderate
Her real name was Ann O’Connor and her pen name was Ayn Rand. She wouldn’t have been allowed to file under Ayn Rand if she tried. Her birth name was Alissa Rosenbaum, from the USSR, and was never legally Ayn Rand.Monday, January 31, 2011, 4:59:45 PM
– Flag – Like – Reply – Delete – Edit – Moderate
“Are you a hypocrite if you drive on a government road when you advocate the privatization of roads?”
Yes, you are.
If I believed, as did Ayn, that taxation was slavery, I would not participate in it at ALL. I would flee across the border to whatever tax haven I could find where taxation was either nonexistent or at least minimized as much as possible.
Anyone who truly believes that taxation is slavery and who remains within a country that is taxing its citizens is not only a hypocrite, but, as a beneficiary of “slavery”, they are immoral.Monday, January 31, 2011, 3:28:49 PM
– Flag – Like – Reply – Delete – Edit – Moderate
Well we could start by attacking her “philosophy” as being nothing but bad retreads of other people’s ideas.
Then we could go on to the fact that her books are awful and unreadable as fiction. They’re just political polemics dressed up as novels, and she seems to love having her male characters rape women. What’s that about?
Then we can progress to this. It’s completely hypocritical to rail against the state with one side of your mouth and then take the state’s aid from the other. Utterly hypocritical. If you can’t see that, you’re silly (or Rep. Michelle Bachmann).
She was entitled to claim Medicare and social security, just like everyone else, but claiming this wasn’t hypocrisy is stupid. Clearly she didn’t want people to find out, since she used her married name and not her pen name.Monday, January 31, 2011, 3:18:20 PM
– Flag – Like – Reply – Delete – Edit – Moderate
Ragnard, the fact that Rand saw the need to use a fake name tell you all you need to know. She didn’t think it was consistent with her values.Monday, January 31, 2011, 10:44:42 AM
– Flag – Like – Reply – Delete – Edit – Moderate
“Government hasn’t made the cost of healthcare astronomical – business and the profit motive has. Fact. Single payer would have helped – but you didn’t support that, did you?”
BS. Health insurance companies’ profit margins run about 3%. It’s one of the lowest of any industry in America. The only way the government can lower costs significantly is by fixing prices, which can only have the effect of lowering the quantity and quality of the care provided. That means waiting lists, death panels, and careless doctors who are pissed off that they went to school for 8 years to make a measley $50,000/year.Monday, January 31, 2011, 10:42:59 AM
– Flag – Like – Reply – Delete – Edit – Moderate
I agree Ayn Rand was not a hypocrite. The government owns and operates about 99.9% of the roads, highways, bridges and other such vehicle infrastructure. Are you a hypocrite if you drive on a government road when you advocate the privatization of roads? Are you a hypocrite when you go on public television or public radio to advocate the abolishment of these government programs? The answer is no you are trying to change a system within the system. The government takes 30% of your money regulates your health care and health insurance as to raise the price of the good or service and then when you want back a little bit of the money it stole from you calls you a hypocrite. I think those opposed to Ayn Rand don’t have anything philosophical to attack her with so they make stuff up and come up with the lamest arguments and rumors. Try attacking a premise of Ayn Rand’s philosophy of Objectivism.Monday, January 31, 2011, 10:21:52 AM
– Flag – Like – Reply – Delete – Edit – Moderate
STEVO: here’s a memo for you.
Government hasn’t made the cost of healthcare astronomical – business and the profit motive has. Fact. Single payer would have helped – but you didn’t support that, did you?Monday, January 31, 2011, 8:51:00 AM
– Flag – Like – Reply – Delete – Edit – Moderate
this is like Hemingway blowing his brains.Monday, January 31, 2011, 8:48:53 AM
– Flag – Like – Reply – Delete – Edit – Moderate
Actually, she wasn’t a hypocrite, and if you had a f’n clue you wouldn’t have to make such a fool out of yourself. Rand thought that state-funded redistribution programs were essentially theft (she was right), and as such, a person has the full right to take advantage of those programs that they paid into, in the same way that a victim of a robbery has the right to have what was stolen returned to them.Monday, January 31, 2011, 8:02:57 AM
– Flag – Like – Reply – Delete – Edit – Moderate
Remember she had to pay an onslaught of approximately 50% of her earned income to yearly taxes. So, of course she needed some assistance at the end of her life. Stop the welfare state and those of us that actually work get to keep more of their earned income.Monday, January 31, 2011, 6:22:07 AM
– Flag – Like – Reply – Delete – Edit – Moderate
I’m sure Rand had some great ideals about independence of a person, but in the end, one has to rely on one’s government to a degree, at least. I live in Canada and while we have a lot of socialized programs, like our health care, I seek not to abuse our system and use it when I have a cold. No doctor can do anything for a cold. I fight it out with teas and honey and lemon, and that’s that. Socialized systems can work when you have a reasonably educated populace that knows better than to abuse it.Monday, January 31, 2011, 4:50:20 AM
– Flag – Like – Reply – Delete – Edit – Moderate
If she wasn’t a hypocrite then why did she apply under another name?Monday, January 31, 2011, 2:43:11 AM
– Flag – Like – Reply – Delete – Edit – Moderate
If the U.S. is a socialized state, then what in Christ’s name is a well-functioning welfare state like Finland called? Ignorance is apparently not bliss, it’s jackassery to the highest degree.Sunday, January 30, 2011, 4:39:05 PM
– Flag – Like – Reply – Delete – Edit – Moderate
when you live in a socialized state like the us, you can’t afford healthcare because government has made the cost astronomical.Sunday, January 30, 2011, 2:10:58 PM
– Flag – Like – Reply – Delete – Edit – Moderate
Ayn Rand was in no way a hypocrite. See http://www.newclarion.com/2011/01/sanction-of-theft/ for more refutation than this garbage deserves.Sunday, January 30, 2011, 12:26:39 PM
– Flag – Like – Reply – Delete – Edit – Moderate
What a hypercritical woman. She has ably illustrated the need for the welfare state, but just because of politics she could not acknowledge its positive effects. Just like the current Con\Dem government – bringing the nation to it’s feet just to say that there values are better than other parties. Shame on her and on them.Sunday, January 30, 2011, 4:35:10 AM
– Flag – Like – Reply – Delete – Edit – Moderate
1Gridbid: Auction Off Your Sunny, Unused Roof Space
2Young People Are Driving Less—And Not Just Because They’re Broke
3Let There Be Light: An Affordable, Solar-Powered Lantern Beams in Off-Grid Communities
4Why Supporting Your Local Library Is the Ultimate Homage to Ray Bradbury
5Interactive Infographic: Foreign Language Enrollments in Higher Education
1Why Supporting Your Local Library Is the Ultimate Homage to Ray Bradbury
2IUDs Are 20 Times As Effective As the Pill, So Why Aren’t More Women Using Them?
3How ‘Nature-Deficit Disorder’ Is Making Us Fat, Sick, and Depressed
4How to Start an Urban Farm in a Post-Industrial City
5A Geodesic Dome Promises Fish from the Sky
1Foodies Unite: Get Cooking with a Grant from GOOD Maker
2Space Shuttle Gardening For Your Small Space
3Gridbid: Auction Off Your Sunny, Unused Roof Space
4Interactive Infographic: Foreign Language Enrollments in Higher Education
5Infographic: What’s the Cost of Getting Into Congress?
Get the Daily GOOD
One good thing a day.
Good Elsewhere
today’s top stories from our friends at TresSugar
- 1Prince William Close to Celebrating the Big 3-0 – See His Cutest Moments in Uniform
- 2A Behind-the-Scenes Look at Our “Brave” Trip to Scotland
- 3“How Do I Tell Him I Am a Virgin?”
- 4Summer Romance Movies to Stream on Netflix
- 5Sugar Shout Out: See the Cities That Inspired Woody Allen’s Films
Good Magazine
Join GOOD+ and get the magazine.
Sponsored by University of PhoenixRelated posts
News
Is this Rand Paul Guy Really a Racist?
Rand Paul, the son of Ron Paul, just won the Republican primary in Kentucky for the U.S. Senate race. He’ll face the Democratic nominee, Kentucky…
by Andrew Price
Lifestyle
Conservative Darling Ayn Rand Died Loving Government Handouts – Culture – GOOD
Labor leaders say that allowing workers to opt out of paying any money to the union that represents them weakens unions’ finances, bargaining clout, and political power.
Graphic by McClatchy Newspapers
(SAN FRANCISCO) – In February this year, Indiana became the 23rd state to enact a right-to-work law (RTW), the only RTW law passed in the last decade. Republicans generally favor RTW laws while unions and Democrats do not. RTW laws are geographical too. RTW states are clustered in the Southeast, covering every state from Virginia to Florida and west to Texas, and then north through the Great Plains to the Dakotas and into the Rockies. The West Coast and Midwest-to-Northeast Rust Belt, both traditional union strongholds, have remained non-RTW states. RTW states generally vote Republican while non-RTW states generally vote Democrat.
RTW is also a potent political symbol, causing serious adverse financial consequences for unions. The Democratic Party receives significant support from organized labor, who supply a great deal of the money, grass roots political organization, and voting base in support of the party. Thus, RTW is not only an assault on unions, but also on the Democratic Party, who rely on labor for support.
Section 14(b) of theTaft-Hartley amendments to the Labor Management Relations Act, 29 U.S.C §141, permits a state to pass laws that prohibit unions from requiring a worker to pay dues, even when the worker is covered by a union-negotiated collective bargaining agreement. Thus, workers in RTW states have less incentive to join a union and to pay union dues and, as a result, unions have less clout vis-à-vis corporations. In other words, RTW laws prohibit union contracts at private sector workplaces from requiring employees to pay any dues or other fees to the union. In states without such laws, workers at unionized workplaces generally have to pay such dues or fees.
RTW laws tend to diminish union power and influence. Labor leaders say that allowing workers to opt out of paying any money to the union that represents them weakens unions’ finances, bargaining clout, and political power.
According to Steven Greenhouse of the New York Times (www.nytimes.com/2012/01/03/business/gathering-storm-over-right-to-work-in-indiana.html?pagewanted=1&_r=1&ref=business), Henry Farber, a labor economist at Princeton, said RTW laws, by allowing “free riders,” shrink union treasuries. (RTW advocates say such employees have been forced into unions, but organized labor calls them "free riders.") One study found that the portion of free riders in RTW states ranged from 9 percent in Georgia to 39 percent in South Dakota.
Greenhouse cites another study by David T. Ellwood, the dean of the Kennedy School of Government at Harvard, and Glenn A. Fine, a former Justice Department official, who found that in the five years after states enacted RTW laws, the number of unionization drives dropped by 28 percent, and in the following five years by an added 12 percent. Organizing wins fell by 46 percent in the first five years and 30 percent the next five. Over all, they found, RTW laws, beyond other factors, caused union membership to drop 5 percent to 10 percent.
Proponents of RTW laws claim that states with such laws grow faster and their citizens are better off. But with their faster growing populations, RTW states had unemployment rates averaging 8 percent in April of 2011, just below the 8.2 percent average in non-RTW states.
In The Compensation Penalty of "Right-To-Work" Laws by the Economic Policy Institute (www.epi.org/page/-/old/briefingpapers/BriefingPaper299.pdf?nocdn=1), economists Elise Gould and Heidi Shierholz examined the differences in compensation between RTW and non-RTW states. (The Economic Policy Institute is a labor-backed research center.) Controlling for the demographic and job characteristics of workers as well as state-level economic conditions and cost-of-living differences across states, they found that in 2009 wages were 3.2 percent lower in RTW states versus non-RTW – about $1,500 less annually for a full-time, year-round worker; the rate of employer-sponsored health insurance was 2.6 percentage points lower in RTW states compared with non-RTW states; the rate of employer-sponsored pensions was 4.8 percentage points lower in RTW states. And, in 2008, the rate of workplace deaths was 57 precent higher in RTW states than non-RTW states, while the 2009, poverty rate in RTW states averaged 15 percent, considerably above the 12.8 percent average for non-RTW states.
Gould and Shierholz concluded, "RTW legislation misleadingly sounds like a positive change in this weak economy, in reality the opportunity it gives workers is only that to work for lower wages and fewer benefits. For legislators dedicated to making policy on the basis of economic fact rather than ideological passion, our findings indicate that, contrary to the rhetoric of RTW proponents, the data show that workers in “right-to-work” states have lower compensation – both union and nonunion workers alike."
And according to Gordon Lafer (www.epi.org/publication/working-hard-indiana-bad-tortured-uphill), an economist at the University of Oregon’s Labor Education and Research Center, there is no evidence that RTW laws have any positive impact on employment or bringing back manufacturing jobs. Commenting on Oklahoma’s passage of a RTW law in 2001, Lafer, noted that rather than increasing job opportunities, the state saw companies relocate out of Oklahoma. In high-tech industries and those service industries "dependent on consumer spending in the local economy" the laws appear to have actually damaged growth. At the end of the decade, 50,000 fewer Oklahoma residents had jobs in manufacturing. Perhaps most damning, Lafer could find no evidence that the legislation had a positive impact on employment rates.
In May 8, 2011, Senator Jim DeMint (R. SC) introduced the National Right-to-Work Act S-504), a bill to preserve and protect the free choice of individual employees to form, join, or assist labor organizations, or to refrain from such activities. S-504 has no chance of passage in the Senate and even if it did, President Obama would likely veto it. However, if the Republicans retake the White House and Senate, and retain the House, you can bet a National RTW Act will be high on the Republican to do list.
Why do we need unions anyway? Because they are essential for America. Unions are the only large-scale movement left in America that persistently acts as a countervailing balance against corporate power. They act in the economic interests of the middle class. But the decline of unions over the past few decades has left corporations and the rich with essentially no powerful opposition. You may take issue with a particular union’s position on an issue, but remember they are the only real organized check on the power of the business community in this country. RTW laws are anti-union, pro-business
___________________________________
Salem-News.com writer Ralph E. Stone was born in Massachusetts. He is a graduate of both Middlebury College and Suffolk Law School. We are very fortunate to have this writer’s talents in this troubling world; Ralph has an eye for detail that others miss. As is the case with many Salem-News.com writers, Ralph is an American Veteran who served in war. Ralph served his nation after college as a U.S. Army officer during the Vietnam war. After Vietnam, he went on to have a career with the Federal Trade Commission as an Attorney specializing in Consumer and Antitrust Law. Over the years, Ralph has traveled extensively with his wife Judi, taking in data from all over the world, which today adds to his collective knowledge about extremely important subjects like the economy and taxation. You can send Ralph an email at this address stonere@earthlink.net
——————————-
Right-To-Work Laws: A GOP Assault on Unions – Salem-News.Com
Times editorial on how his country’s political system wasted years of prosperity and put the euro at risk. Read more at Counterparties
- Why newspapers were doomed all along
- Food workers’ terribly low pay
- Get Counterparties delivered to your inbox!
More Reuters Results for:
"maurice greenberg ceo aig"
- Ex-General Re, AIG execs may settle criminal case
Fri, May 25 2012- UPDATE 1-AIG ex-CEO Greenberg eyes reversing NY fraud case
Mon, May 14 2012- AIG ex-CEO Greenberg eyes reversing NY fraud case
Mon, May 14 2012- AIG ex-CEO Greenberg eyes reversing NY fraud case
Mon, May 14 2012Follow Reuters
Read
- Saudi Crown Prince Nayef, heir to throne, dies
3:11pm EDT
1
- Saudi Prince Salman seen as likely heir to throne
10:49am EDT
2
- Egypt makes stark choice for president
5:22pm EDT
3
- Secret military mini-shuttle lands in California
11:11am EDT
4
- Central banks prepare for turmoil after Greek vote |
12:13pm EDT
5
Discussed
Watched
U.S. Morning Call: Greek stocks soar; Nokia job cuts Thu, Jun 14 2012
Bodies found after Peru avalanche Thu, Jun 14 2012
New NASA telescope a black hole hunter with X-ray eyes Wed, Jun 13 2012
AIG ex-CEO Greenberg eyes reversing NY fraud case
- inShare0
- Share this
Related News
- Honda wins appeal over Civic hybrid fuel economy
Wed, May 9 2012
- Fraud case versus AIG ex-CEO Greenberg cleared for trial
Tue, May 8 2012
- Buffett plays down health concern, mulled megadeal
Sat, May 5 2012
- U.S. SEC fraud lawsuit vs Morgan Keegan revived
Wed, May 2 2012
- Law firm Dewey dumps executive; talks with rival end
Sun, Apr 29 2012
Analysis & Opinion
- New York kosher law is kosher, not against religious freedom, court rules
- Murky U.S. bribery law gets a dose of clarity
Related Topics
Former American International Group (AIG) CEO Maurice Greenberg testifies before a House Oversight and Government Reform hearing on “The Collapse and Federal Rescue of A.I.G. and What It Means for the U.S. Economy” on Capitol Hill in Washington April 2, 2009.
Credit: Reuters/Kevin Lamarque
By Jonathan Stempel
Mon May 14, 2012 6:03pm EDT
(Reuters) – Former American International Group Inc Chief Executive Maurice "Hank" Greenberg said New York’s attorney general should be barred from invoking a 91-year-old state law in a fraud case over two suspect reinsurance transactions.
Greenberg and co-defendant Howard Smith, AIG’s former chief financial officer, sought permission on Monday to appeal to the state’s highest court, the Court of Appeals, a May 8 appellate ruling letting Attorney General Eric Schneiderman pursue civil fraud claims against them under the state’s Martin Act.
That ruling by the Manhattan appeals court cleared the way for the 7-year-old case to go to trial.
Investigators claim a transaction with General Re Corp, a unit of Warren Buffett’s Berkshire Hathaway Inc, helped AIG inflate loss reserves by $500 million without transferring risk, while a transaction with Capco Reinsurance Co helped AIG hide more $200 million of losses. Both transactions took place more than a decade ago.
Unlike under federal law, the Martin Act does not require investigators to prove intent in order to prevail on a securities fraud claim.
According to David Boies, a lawyer for Greenberg, a key issue is whether Schneiderman may use the Martin Act "to pursue a de facto securities class action" on behalf of shareholders, despite conflicting federal laws designed to promote "uniformity and certainty" in regulating securities.
In a court filing, Greenberg and Smith said that power would make "every executive of a New York company or a company with shares traded on the New York Stock Exchange potentially liable – personally – for substantial damages for misstatements" by their companies, even absent proof of intent or reliance.
Granting such power would have "far-reaching implications for New York’s continuing role as an economic and financial capital," they added.
James Freedland, a spokesman for Schneiderman, said: "We are confident that their latest attempt to reverse decades of settled law to escape responsibility for their misconduct will be rejected."
Greenberg and Smith were first sued in 2005 by Eliot Spitzer, then New York’s attorney general. Spitzer’s successors Andrew Cuomo and Schneiderman have continued to pursue the case.
Greenberg, 87, left New York-based AIG in March 2005 after nearly four decades at the insurer’s helm.
AIG’s transaction with General Re led to five convictions and two guilty pleas of former officials of those companies. A federal appeals court threw out the convictions in August and a new trial has been scheduled for January 2013. Buffett was not accused of wrongdoing.
The U.S. government still owns 61 percent of AIG, following $182.3 billion of taxpayer-funded bailouts.
Greenberg’s company, Starr International Co, once AIG’s largest shareholder, has sued the government for $25 billion over the bailouts, which it has called unconstitutional.
The case is New York v. Greenberg et al, New York State Supreme Court, Appellate Division, 1st Department, No. 5297.
(Reporting by Jonathan Stempel in New York; editing by Andre Grenon)
Related Quotes and News
Company
Price
Related News
American International Group IncAIG.N
$31.48
+0.45+1.45%
Berkshire Hathaway IncBRKa.N
$123,375.00
+775.00+0.63%
Berkshire Hathaway IncBRKb.N
$82.57
+0.85+1.04%
- Tweet this
- Link this
- Share this
- Digg this
- Reprints
After reading this article, people also read:
Sponsored links
Videos you may like:
Chris Brown, Drake in fight; Lucy Lawless pleads guiltyThu, Jun 14 2012
Berkshire Hathaway execs see modest growth, cost ch…Wed, May 09 2012
Eliot Spitzer says Wall Street wins, investors lose with J…Fri, Apr 13 2012
From around the web:
Video: Can’t Find a Job? Elite CFOs Are Looking for Talent in These Low Unemployment States
(Bank of America Merrill Lynch)
10,000 Americans are Retiring Every Day
Comments (0)
This discussion is now closed. We welcome comments on our articles for a limited period after their publication.
ADS BY MARCHEX
Get a FREE Risk Management Guide today!
With your guide you’ll also receive personal advice from an experienced broker!
www.rjofutures.com
APMEX® – Where Investors Buy Gold
Buy Gold & Other Precious Metals Online. Over 5,000 Products Available 24/7!
www.APMEX.com
New Wind Tech Launches Low Cost Electric
Mass Megawatts Wind (stock ticker MMMW) launches product to lower electric cost
www.massmegawatts.com
Wells Fargo Advisors Estate Planning
Get your free estate planning toolkit from Wells Fargo Advisors.
WellsFargoAdvisorsInfo.com
Full Text of Progress Report and Scorecard (1.2 MB PDF)
Infographic Scorecard (785K PDF)
Publisher Council on Foreign Relations Press
Release Date June 2012
8 pages
In his blog post, CFR Senior Fellow and Renewing America Director Edward Alden introduces the Renewing America Progress Report and Scorecard series, which is intended to highlight—in both a visually compelling fashion and in a more detailed narrative—the challenges the United States faces in rebuilding the foundations of its economic strength.
The first installment of the series, "Road to Nowhere: Federal Transportation Infrastructure Policy," provides a critical assessment of federal transportation policy.
Just a generation ago, the United States invested heavily to create one of the world’s best transportation infrastructure networks. But now, with real investment stagnating even as much of the infrastructure is reaching the end of its useful life, global economic competitors are leaving the United States behind. Along with a description of major policy initiatives, the report analyzes what’s needed to get U.S. transportation infrastructure back on track.
More on… United States, Infrastructure, Organization of GovernmentShare
This report was prepared by Rebecca Strauss, associate director of Renewing America Publications at the Council on Foreign Relations.
The Renewing America initiative explores the major domestic challenges facing the United States that have significant consequences for national security and foreign policy.
More From the Renewing America Initiative
Ideas and initiatives for rebuilding American economic strength.
Receive Blog Posts by EmailSubscribe to the Blog Feed
Iran: The Nuclear Challenge
In what may be the clearest picture of Iran’s nuclear program to date, CFR scholars map the objectives, tools, and strategies for dealing with one of the most vexing issues facing the United States and global community today.
Available in Kindle, Nook, Sony Reader, iBook, Kobo, and paperback versions
Countering Criminal Violence in Central Americaby Michael Shifter
The author assesses the causes and consequences of the violence faced by several Central American countries and examines the national, regional, and international efforts intended to curb its worst effects.
Complete list of Council Special Reports
No One’s Worldby Charles A. Kupchan
A renowned scholar maps out the twenty-first-century world, providing a detailed strategy for reconciling the West with the "rise of the rest." More
The US-South Korea Allianceedited by Scott A. Snyder
A new volume explores the possibilities for enhanced U.S.-South Korea cooperation in both traditional and nontraditional spheres. More
U.S.-Turkey Relations
This Independent Task Force asserts that Turkey is an increasingly influential regional and economic power and calls for the United States and Turkey to forge a new partnership.
U.S. Education Reform and National Security
This Independent Task Force report asserts that fixing the nation’s underperforming K-12 public schools is critical for strengthening the country’s security and increasing its economic competitiveness.
To request permission to reprint or reuse CFR material, please fill out this permissions request form (PDF), referring to the instructions on page 1.
June 14, 2012Audio
Speaker: Scott Thomasson
Presider: Irina A. Faskianos
May 9, 2012
Scott Thomasson, president of NewBuild Strategies LLC, discusses policy and legislative issues affecting state investment in infrastructure,…
Apirl 15, 2012
The Wall Street Journal comments that Americans don’t want to live in Ray LaHood’s car-free utopia; moreover, top-down transportation…
Author: Scott Thomasson
April 2012
At a time when the country’s infrastructure needs are more pressing than ever, Scott Thomasson offers pragmatic solutions for working around…
Road to Nowhere: Federal Transportation Infrastructure Policy – Council on Foreign Relations
CNN|Added on June 13, 2012
JPMorgan Chase CEO Jamie Dimon is confronted by angry protesters at a Senate Banking Committee hearing.VIEW DESCRIPTION 
#/video/politics/2012/06/13/dimon-jp-morgan-chase-heckler.cnn
The way casino magnate Sheldon Adelson remembers it, he and his wife, Miriam, met then-House Speaker Newt Gingrich in 1995 in the majestic Capitol Rotunda as they made their way through the building while lobbying for a bill to move the U.S. Embassy in Israel from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem.
Nearly two decades later, Gingrich, on the campaign trail, has promised that his first executive order as president would be the embassy move, long a priority of ardent Israel supporters such as the Adelsons.
Graphic
Watch the latest campaign ads and track ad spending
Gallery
The former House speaker is seeking the Republican presidential nomination.
It would also be a sweet jackpot for the Adelsons, who are the biggest patrons of Gingrich’s political career.
Perhaps no other major presidential candidate in recent times has had his fortunes based so squarely on the contributions of a single donor, as Gingrich has on Adelson, who has spent millions in support of Gingrich and his causes over the past five years. In a primary season dominated by the mega-spending of super PACs, Adelson’s efforts on Gingrich’s behalf provide a window into the expanding influence of the super-rich on American politics.
After putting up the seed money and ultimately $7.7 million between 2006 and 2010 for a nonprofit group that served as a precursor to Gingrich’s presidential campaign, Adelson, 78, an irascible Las Vegas billionaire, doubled down this month, giving $5 million to a political action committee run by former close aides to Gingrich.
“My motivation for helping Newt is simple and should not be mistaken for anything other than the fact that my wife Miriam and I hold our friendship with him very dear and are doing what we can as private citizens to support his candidacy,” Adelson, who is listed by Forbes as the eighth-wealthiest American, with a net worth of $21.5 billion, said in a prepared statement e-mailed to The Washington Post. He declined interview requests.
The most recent donation to Winning Our Future, a Gingrich-linked super PAC, fueled Gingrich’s resurgence before Saturday’s primary in South Carolina and bankrolled ads and a half-hour film painting rival Mitt Romney as a job-killing corporate raider. Adelson told associates that he will consider more donations if Gingrich fares well Saturday.
For Gingrich, the check links him even more closely to Adelson (pronounced ADD-el-son), an outspoken businessman known for aggressive tactics. His net worth has increased at least ninefold in the last decade. (The FBI and Securities and Exchange Commission are investigating his company, Las Vegas Sands, in connection with allegations that Adelson ordered an executive to bribe Chinese officials by putting them on the payroll. Adelson and company officials deny the allegations, which they say were first made by a disgruntled former employee.)
Adelson said the check to Gingrich was about fidelity. “Our means of support might be more than others are able to offer,” he said, “but like most Americans, words such as friendship and loyalty still mean something to us.”
Friends said Adelson and Gingrich share views on Israel, labor and free enterprise. In December, when Gingrich was riding atop the national GOP polls, Adelson was delighted.
Discussion Policy | FAQ | About Discussions | About Badges
7
Comments
ramseytuell
1/27/2012 2:11 PM MST
At present we are sending 33% of our work to other countries. If we were to keep 18% of that here it would put most of that 14 million back to work. It is very important that we do it now. Workers feed our money Supply, pay taxes, and pay the wages of all those that have jobs in our government.
The President, in his state of The Union speech, addressed the fact that we are losing our skilled workers such as engineers, die makers, machinists, etc and along with them goes our ability to manufacture and build wealth in our country.
If I see any of the contenders for the Presidency, or the President and any of his staff, smiling and talking about rearranging the government offices to safe money, or shuffling papers and laws to improve the economy, I’m going to puke.
banicki
1/20/2012 1:33 PM MST
One dollar one vote.
Here is biggest problem of this years election. and no one is discussing it including the Times.
American politics is one of the few jobs where you are allowed to hunt for another job during 98% of normal working hours and continue to be paid for your present position. WE CANNOT LET THIS HAPPEN THIS TIME!
“Republicans hope Mr. Obama’s pronouncement that a full-year extension of the payroll tax cut was the last “must-do” piece of legislation for the White House will work in their favor, making them look as though they are trying to create jobs while Mr. Obama is busy campaigning.” Boehner Faces a Restive G.O.P. and New White House Attacks, Jennifer Steinhaurer, New York Times, January 14, 2011
In 2012 we have the following items that demand national attention: the presidential and congressional elections, the Afghan war, Iran building a nuclear weapon, high unemployment, a teetering economy and a national debt with no plan in place to solve it. These are just the items on the top shelf. Morehttp://goo.gl/mIWYc
Provincial
1/20/2012 9:13 AM MST
What is not mentioned in this article is the fact that Newt Gingrich did a 180 on his Israel v. Palestinians positions immediately after receiving the $1 million.
Newt sold himself to Adelson, he has been bought and paid for.Add your comment | Reply to a comment | Recommend a comment | Report an offensive comment
SuperFan Badge
SuperFan badge holders consistently post smart, timely comments about Washington area sports and teams.
More about badges | Request a badge
Culture Connoisseur Badge
Culture Connoisseurs consistently offer thought-provoking, timely comments on the arts, lifestyle and entertainment.
More about badges | Request a badge
Fact Checker Badge
Fact Checkers contribute questions, information and facts to The Fact Checker.
More about badges | Request a badge
Washingtologist Badge
Washingtologists consistently post thought-provoking, timely comments on events, communities, and trends in the Washington area.
More about badges | Request a badge
Post Writer Badge
This commenter is a Washington Post editor, reporter or producer.
Post Forum Badge
Post Forum members consistently offer thought-provoking, timely comments on politics, national and international affairs.
More about badges | Request a badge
Weather Watcher Badge
Weather Watchers consistently offer thought-provoking, timely comments on climates and forecasts.
More about badges | Request a badge
World Watcher Badge
World Watchers consistently offer thought-provoking, timely comments on international affairs.
More about badges | Request a badge
Post Contributor Badge
This commenter is a Washington Post contributor. Post contributors aren’t staff, but may write articles or columns. In some cases, contributors are sources or experts quoted in a story.
More about badges | Request a badge
Post Recommended
Washington Post reporters or editors recommend this comment or reader post.
You must be logged in to report a comment.
You must be logged in to recommend a comment.
Comments our editors find particularly useful or relevant are displayed in Top Comments, as are comments by users with these badges: . Replies to those posts appear here, as well as posts by staff writers.
All comments are posted in the All Comments tab.
To pause and restart automatic updates, click “Live” or “Paused”. If paused, you’ll be notified of the number of additional comments that have come in.
Comments our editors find particularly useful or relevant are displayed in Top Comments, as are comments by users with these badges: . Replies to those posts appear here, as well as posts by staff writers.
June 15, 2012
Armando Olmos
Comments Off on Sheldon Adelson and Newt Gingrich: One gained clout from friendship, the other funding – The Washington Post
In Friday’s Los Angeles Times, there was an opinion editorial titled “America Needs a Farm Bill That Works” — this title is precisely why I think members of Congress need to be committed to pushing forward a bipartisan piece of legislation.
A 2012 Farm Bill will help provide infrastructure, investment and economic certainty for American agriculture — things that are both important and critical for an industry that impacts all Americans, whether they live in big cities or small rural communities. But in order for the bill to be effective in providing these things, it must support small farmers and nutritional programs that are key components to the viability and health of an Agriculture economy.
Small farmers are often made the loving poster child of our rural landscape. They are a struggling, declining and aging population. According to the Economic Research Services in United States Department of Agriculture, during the last census there were over 2.1 million farms in the U.S., of which 75% earned less than $50,000 annually and had about 5% production while the very large farms, representing just 2% of all farms, made over $1 million dollars and had 47% production.
This is a problem when you consider small farmers generally produce more fruits, vegetables, nuts and sustainable food products, all of which are essential for proper nutritional sustenance. As our country continues to focus on the importance of a balanced and nutritious diet, Congress should focus on ensuring competitive opportunities for small farmers that will enable them to continue to grow the healthy food that we need. Hopefully, obesity and other health issues can be addressed through healthy food choices. Local farmers are key to producing healthy foods and it will also increase their income.
Similar to the focus that is put on educating students in science and math to fill voids in those growing fields, Congress should support programs to recruit future farmers and ensure a growing and diverse industry in the future. The average U.S. farmer is 57 years old and just 5% of all farmers are 35 years or younger. Not to mention, just 4.6% of all U.S. farms are minority-owned and run. To say that there is room for improvement would be a gross understatement — we need to find creative ways attract new entrepreneurial and innovative farmers from all demographics. Congress and the present Administration recently addressed the lingering discrimination cases initiated by black farmers. However, constant vigilance is required to overcome the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s (USDA) history of discrimination and to ensure equity for all farmers.
Additionally, upon examination of the payments to large farmers as compared to small farmers, the difference is vast. The commodity payments are tied to the production of specific commodities. These payments go primarily to large commercial producers. As a result, few of the smallest farms receive commodity payments.
In the 2008 farm bill, Congress did institute a number of new initiatives and expand other initiatives that encouraged local farmers to grow and sell food to various local vendors, including local school systems. For instance, in North Carolina, citizens are encouraged to buy locally and various grocery store chains, military bases and local schools are encouraged to purchase from local farmers. As a result, the local farm economy is benefiting and healthy foods are more accessible. We need to identify and expand smart and effective programs like this.
We also need to look for areas where we can improve. For example, the nutritional assistance programs under the farm bill are large and expensive and given the economic recovery, needed now more than ever. In September 2011, the USDA’s Economic Research Service reported that about one in every four Americans participates in at least one of the 15 domestic food and nutrition assistance programs of the USDA. These programs provide a nutritional safety net for millions of children and low-income adults. These programs also represent a significant federal investment, accounting for over two-thirds of USDA’s budget. A Moody’s study on the president’s stimulus impact noted that for every Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) dollar spent, it generated a $1.73 ripple effect in the economy.
The House Budget Committee, in an effort to reduce the federal budget deficit, proposed to cut SNAP significantly, possibly to its pre-2008 status — this is pennywise and pound foolish. This is not to suggest that there could not or should not be some reduction given to efficiency monitoring and other infrastructure upgrades. In addition to required financial resources, there needs to be greater use of Electronic Benefit Transfer (EBT) cards at farmers’ and fish markets where healthy foods are sold. Nutrition education is essential and should be integrated into each of the 15 food assistance programs.
Food security is generally recognized as an important goal for our country. Supporting good nutrition for our needy citizens is the right and moral action for our government to take, but it is also the economically and healthy action to take where small farmers will make a significant impact.Follow Eva M. Clayton on Twitter: www.twitter.com/evamclayton
FOLLOW FOOD
16k
Related News On Huffington Post:
Soda And Obesity: Lautenberg Introduces Farm Bill Amendment Requiring Feds To Study Link
Does soda seriously, truly, without a doubt make people fat? Senator Frank R. Lautenberg (D-NJ) hopes to settle the question once and for all. On…
Ron Wyden Introduces Industrial Hemp Amendment To Farm Bill
Senator Ron Wyden (D-Oregon) on Thursday introduced an amendment to the farm bill that would allow farmers to grow industrial hemp. The amendment, S.3240, would…
Farm Bill Clears First Hurdle In Senate
WASHINGTON — A five-year farm and food bill that would revamp the federal safety net for farmers and eliminate direct government payments for idle crop…
Kirsten Gillibrand Makes Emotional Plea To Preserve Food Stamps
WASHINGTON — Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand took to the Senate floor Wednesday in an emotional bid to stave off $4.5 billion in cuts to programs that…
More News Posts: « First Prev 1 2 Next Last »
Soda And Obesity: Lautenberg Introduces Farm Bill Amendment Requiring Feds To Study Link Ron Wyden Introduces Industrial Hemp Amendment To Farm Bill Farm Bill Clears First Hurdle In Senate Kirsten Gillibrand Makes Emotional Plea To Preserve Food Stamps Monsanto DroughtGard Corn ‘Doesn’t Outperform’ Non-GMO Alternatives, Report Claims Bitter Senate Primaries Undercut GOP Hopes In 3 States Mario Batali Food Stamp Challenge: Chef Spending $31 On Food For One Week
Soda And Obesity: Lautenberg Introduces Farm Bill Amendment Requiring Feds To Study Link
Does soda seriously, truly, without a doubt make people fat? Senator Frank R. Lautenberg (D-NJ) hopes to settle the question once and for all. On…
Ron Wyden Introduces Industrial Hemp Amendment To Farm Bill
Senator Ron Wyden (D-Oregon) on Thursday introduced an amendment to the farm bill that would allow farmers to grow industrial hemp. The amendment, S.3240, would…
Farm Bill Clears First Hurdle In Senate
WASHINGTON — A five-year farm and food bill that would revamp the federal safety net for farmers and eliminate direct government payments for idle crop…
Kirsten Gillibrand Makes Emotional Plea To Preserve Food Stamps
WASHINGTON — Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand took to the Senate floor Wednesday in an emotional bid to stave off $4.5 billion in cuts to programs that…
Monsanto DroughtGard Corn ‘Doesn’t Outperform’ Non-GMO Alternatives, Report Claims
* Report challenges effectiveness of Monsanto corn * Says no improved water efficiency * Monsanto says new corn mitigates risk of yield loss in drought…
Bitter Senate Primaries Undercut GOP Hopes In 3 States
TAMPA, Fla. — Mutual admiration was the rule for Democratic Sen. Bill Nelson’s listening session at the University of South Florida. School provost Ralph Wilcox…
Mario Batali Food Stamp Challenge: Chef Spending $31 On Food For One Week
NEW YORK — To much of the world, it was Monday. To Mario Batali, it was Day Four. The chef, his wife and their two…
Read more from Huffington Post bloggers:
John RobbinsJohn Robbins: Why Are Twinkies Cheaper Than Carrots?Wenonah HauterWenonah Hauter: Governor Canoodling With Agribusiness? What You Can Do About ItSen. Kirsten GillibrandSen. Kirsten Gillibrand: The Farm Bill Should Protect Hungry Kids, Not Subsidies for Insurance CompaniesMario BataliMargarette PurvisMario Batali and Margarette Purvis: Believe It or Not, You Need Food StampsRuth MessingerRuth Messinger: Our Current Global Food Crisis and How We Can Feed 17 Million More PeopleLiz NeumarkLiz Neumark: Littlest VoicesVicki B. EscarraVicki B. Escarra: When We Feed Children, We Feed Our Future
John Robbins: Why Are Twinkies Cheaper Than Carrots?
If you want to eat healthfully, you have to fight an uphill battle. Why are government subsidies pushing in the wrong direction?
Wenonah Hauter: Governor Canoodling With Agribusiness? What You Can Do About It
If you ever thought that the farm bill was just about agricultural subsidies and food stamps, think again. Not only does the farm bill dictate what we eat — it also establishes whom our nation’s leaders are listening to on issues far beyond food.
The fact is that food stamps are an effective investment. For every dollar that’s invested into the SNAP program, we get $1.71 back in return.
Mario Batali and Margarette Purvis: Believe It or Not, You Need Food Stamps
Living within a food stamp budget for one week was a challenge for both of us, but that challenge has ended. Unfortunately, the same cannot be said for millions of others.
Ruth Messinger: Our Current Global Food Crisis and How We Can Feed 17 Million More People
This year during Shavuot, the Jewish holiday which marks the end of the harvest, I am reminded of my commitment to alleviate hunger.
That is the story of our garden and our lives — open mouths (and minds) looking for something sustaining to eat.
Vicki B. Escarra: When We Feed Children, We Feed Our Future
There are 16 million children in the United States who are facing hunger. How many of those kids live in your community? How many…
Wenonah Hauter: Governor Canoodling With Agribusiness? What You Can Do About It
If you ever thought that the farm bill was just about agricultural subsidies and food stamps, think again. Not only does the farm bill dictate what we eat — it also establishes whom our nation’s leaders are listening to on issues far beyond food.
The fact is that food stamps are an effective investment. For every dollar that’s invested into the SNAP program, we get $1.71 back in return.
Mario Batali and Margarette Purvis: Believe It or Not, You Need Food Stamps
Living within a food stamp budget for one week was a challenge for both of us, but that challenge has ended. Unfortunately, the same cannot be said for millions of others.
Ruth Messinger: Our Current Global Food Crisis and How We Can Feed 17 Million More People
This year during Shavuot, the Jewish holiday which marks the end of the harvest, I am reminded of my commitment to alleviate hunger.
More Blog Posts: « First Prev 1 2 Next Last »
More in Food…
Spider Found In Chef Boyardee Beef Ravioli,…
Chain Food Showdown: The Best & Worst…
Review: Burger King Bacon Sundae
- Comments
- 1
- Pending Comments
- 1
- View FAQ
“The lifespan of any civilization can be measured by the respect and care that is given to its elderly citizens, and those societies which treat their elderly with contempt have the seeds of their own destruction within them.”
—Arnold J. Toynbee
The astounding, and potentially tragic, aspect of Washington’s three-plus-decade Social Security debate is that it carries on with little regard to the challenges facing the program’s participants. Politicians on the right and center-right feel free to decry resistance to even “modest cuts” in Social Security benefits while ignoring the vulnerability of seniors who are living the effects of reductions already mandated in the program’s last major overhaul, in 1983.
But the situation for seniors – and future retirees – is becoming alarming. A new, supplemental poverty measure introduced by the Census Bureau last November nearly doubled the official estimate of Americans over 65 living in poverty, to 15.9%, mainly due to medical costs not counted in the official numbers. More than 34% were either poor or near-poor—defined as having family income less than twice the poverty line. Half of all retirement-age persons who were no longer working—that is, who were receiving Social Security—had total yearly income of less than $16,140—only a fraction more than the federal minimum wage.
Even small reductions in benefits, or slower growth over a period of years, could tip many of these people into poverty. Countless others, who once believed their personal savings, 401(k)s, employer-sponsored pensions, or the equity in their homes made their retirements secure, are finding out that this isn’t the case either. Meanwhile, the White House, Republicans, and centrist Democrats are reportedly negotiating a Grand Bargain built on the deficit-cutting Bowles-Simpson proposals, which would include deep reductions to Social Security. And state and local governments are scrounging for ways to cut back the rest of the safety net for seniors—targeting Medicaid funds for nursing homes and home health care, housing subsidies, and other benefits.
A true retirement crisis is looming in the U.S., but politicians, obsessed with Social Security projections decades into the future, are disinclined to address it. Financially vulnerable older workers will be affected almost as soon as they retire; workers in their 20s, 30s, and 40s today will be hit much harder.
The Social Security “deficit”—the amount by which annual old-age and Disability Insurance benefits are expected to exceed revenues—was projected in 2011 to total about $6.5 trillion over the next 75 years. But for all the political attention focused on it, the economic impact of that shortfall will be quite moderate, equaling just .7% of GDP. Even the Baby Boom retirement wave wouldn’t make a very big dent in the economy, according to the Social Security trustees, whose 2011 Annual Report estimated that the annual cost of benefits will rise gradually to 6.2% of GDP by 2035, decline to about 6% by 2050, then stabilize at about that level.
By contrast, the U.S. faces a “retirement income deficit” of $6.6 trillion—larger than Social Security’s projected 75-year shortfall and five times the size of the current-year federal deficit. The Retirement Income Deficit is a new measure unveiled in fall 2010 by the Center for Retirement Research at Boston College. It lumps together all the resources that Americans in their peak earning years will have to retire on: Social Security and pension benefits, retirement savings, home equity, and other assets. It calculates the income people will need in retirement, based on tax scenarios as well as the income replacement targets that Americans at different income levels will likely need to meet.
Social Security and Medicare are perhaps the only ingredients in the Retirement Income Deficit calculation that the elderly can still rely upon. Nearly two-thirds depend on Social Security for more than half their income, and roughly one in five for all of it. Without Social Security, nearly half of Americans over 65 would be living in poverty. If anything, dependence on Social Security has increasing since the latest economic slump, thanks to the collapsed housing market, the recession, decades of stagnating wages, and the disintegration of other elements of the social safety net, among other factors.
Not that it’s a lot to lean on. Social Security only replaces 37% of the average worker’s pre-retirement income at 65. More than 95% of recipients get less than $2,000 a month from the program. Women average less than $12,000 a year in benefits, compared to $14,000 for retirees overall, thanks to the gender pay gap—partially explaining why 75% of old people living in poverty in the U.S. are women. While this seems to merit little discussion in deficit-obsessed Washington or on Wall Street, it draws an alarming picture for anyone familiar with what’s happening in the rest of the country, where a Gallup poll found 90% of people aged 44 to 75 agreeing that the country faces a retirement crisis.
Even before the economic slump, however, there were reasons to worry about the erosion of Social Security.
The Real Retirement Crisis » Counterpunch: Tells the Facts, Names the Names
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Armando Olmos
elmsprogressivemedia 
You must be logged in to post a comment.