Cut Military Pensions To Cut Our Deficit, And Other Nighttime Fairy Tales From Washington

In the latest round of Deficit Idiocy, our wondrous Deficit Reduction Panel has decided that it might be a good idea to end lifetime pensions for members of our military who have served more than twenty years, and replace it with a system that resembles a 401k plan.  Beyond the fact that “offering” a 401k type of plan would expose our service members retirement to the risks and idiots on Wall Street (hey, what’s the worst that could happen with that?) is this demographic really the one you want to piss off?  After ten years of war, one of your options for cutting the deficit is to crap on Veterans?  Again?  Really?  Talk about out of touch.  This isn’t a Republican or Democrat issue.  This is simply a Washington elitist attitude toward those they consider to be less than themselves.

Here’s a link to Military.com, The Military Advantage.  The article they wrote on this issue is filled with information.  Therefore, I offer it up to you.  It’s complete with links to the actual proposals made for ending Military Pensions.  Go…read them…and decide for yourselves.  Then, do what you must.  If that includes calling up your Senator or Congressperson and exposing them to expletives the likes of which have never been heard in Washington, then so be it.

In other news, I’m still waiting for the first Senator or Congressperson to stand up and say, “You know, we ought to review our own pay, and cut our own benefits,,,after all, temporary employees in the Private sector don’t get benefits…why should we?”  Naive, I know.

Is there no one in Washington who will suggest this?  Not even one?

If it’s a budget deficit and the growing National Debt that you name as one of your major concerns, a REAL leader starts by looking in the mirror and asking himself what he can do to make a difference, before he asks anyone beneath him to make that same sacrifice.  A real leader would be the first to offer a cut to his own salary and benefits.  Small business owners all over America are doing it.

By their silence, it is clear that in Washington, there is not even one leader.  Not one.

Pathetic.  But, hey, according to their latest campaign slogans, they got a plan to raise employment and cut the deficit.  Make sure you vote for each and every last one of them.  They’re gonna save you!   Ω

If I were President

I’ve been having discussions with  a number of political people recently.  Let’s say that they’re political junkies.  Many, like me, are avowed Independents.  There are those remaining few who are brave enough to admit that they are a party hack…ahem…Republican or Democrat.  Those brave few are always the few who argue most vociferously for their obsolete ideology.

I can’t really recall one argument I’ve had with an Independent.  Maybe the Hacks are right; we don’t argue because we don’t stand for anything, except maybe fence-sitting.

Perish the thought.  Here’s what I stand for, and here’s what I would strive for if I were President:

* End the Bush tax cuts.  Anyone who believes we can solve our debt problem by cutting spending alone is naive, or reasonably insane.  There is no argument one can make against raising revenues when all we’re talking about is less than four percent in tax rates.

* Reform the estate tax.  Yes, there needs to be an estate tax.  Money “won” in an estate is income…and almost always, unearned income.  Being a member of a wealthy family doesn’t give you a pass to perpetual wealth without taxation.  If I earn $5,000,000 in one year, I get taxed on it.  So should you.  Especially since you probably DIDN’T earn it.  America wasn’t built on inheritance, and Capitalism isn’t based on inherited wealth.  It’s not a death tax; it’s an income tax.  We’re not taxing the dead guy.  We’re taxing the income that the living recipients receive free of charge or labor.  Husbands and wives, of course, would pay no estate tax, as our government views the rights of the surviving spouse to be an equal owner of the estate, and still living.

* Extend Congressional Terms to four years, and limit the number of terms to two.  No more career politicians.

* Reduce Senatorial terms to four years, and limit the number of terms to two.

*  Write a Free Trade Equity Act.  Simply put, demand that in any trade agreement that our nation makes or currently holds, an equal number of jobs have to be created between the two parties.  If American factories move overseas and create 1000 jobs in that foreign nation, that nation must reciprocate in kind.  No deviation is to be allowed.  Free Trade isn’t free if the results are as lopsided as they have been for the last twenty years.

* Write an Amendment to the Constitution that guarantees the Bill of Rights only to Natural Persons.  Corporations may be an assembly of natural persons, but they aren’t a natural person in and of themselves, and therefore, do not have the same rights that Natural Persons have; such as Free Speech.  This ought to end the debate about whether corporations or special interests (such as unions) can contribute big money to our campaigns.  While the people within those corporations or special interests may have an individual vested interest in the outcomes of elections and deserve their voices to be heard, the  entity of corporations and special interests do not have vested interests and shall have no voice in our system of government.  The Bill of Rights pertains to the individual, not to groups of individuals.  The right to worship as one sees fit, for example, is an individual right, not a corporate right.  Individuals have the right to organize according to their method of worship, but the organization itself has no say, no free speech with regards to our system of government.  Our Founders didn’t write a Corporate Bill of Rights; they wrote a natural person’s Bill of Rights, and defined what that Natural person is within it.

* A Tax code that is simple, equal, and fair, without loopholes for the wealthy.  What that tax rate may be would need to be determined, but whatever it ends up being, no one except the very poor would escape its full effect.  If we can find a rate near 17-19% that helps us maintain our budget and our social programs, that would be optimal.  But for the time being, if that rate needs to be one or two percent higher to help us pay down our debt and balance our budget, I think most Americans will be accepting of it.

* A program of employment for the long term unemployed.  We cannot pay unemployment benefits perpetually without return.  Our nation has massive infrastructure deficiencies, and employing the long unemployed toward this end would go a good way toward solving this need, while paying a fair wage and giving the newly employed a sense of contribution to their society.

 

To be continued

S&P Credibility Rating Downgraded

From 2000 until the third quarter of 2007, if you wanted to sell a mortgage backed security, and you wanted that security to get a higher rating than it deserved, you packaged decent mortgages together with crap, and called on S&P’s rating service to make shit look like gold.

From Wikipedia, The Financial Crisis Inquiry Commission reported in January 2011 that: “The three credit rating agencies were key enablers of the financial meltdown. The mortgage-related securities at the heart of the crisis could not have been marketed and sold without their seal of approval. Investors relied on them, often blindly. In some cases, they were obligated to use them, or regulatory capital standards were hinged on them. This crisis could not have happened without the rating agencies. Their ratings helped the market soar and their downgrades through 2007 and 2008 wreaked havoc across markets and firms.”

I’m am saddened to announce that in light of S&P’s long history of rating securities they clearly had conflicts of interest over, we have decided to downgrade their credibility rating from a DD- to an FF+, with a negative outlook.

In case you’re wondering why the negative outlook, it’s due to our uncertainty that S&P can be trusted at all.  An FF+ rating is the twenty-eighth lowest possible rating but still implies a modicum (the slightest bit of it) of credibility, but believe it or not, we’re not certain S&P has earned even that.  Their ratings of mortgage backed securities stretched for nearly a decade; a record of dishonesty that has even North Korea wondering how any group of people could be so cavalier with the truth.

In fact, our downgrade of S&P came after seconds of painful deliberation, when it was discovered that executives of the firm may have received bonuses based on the amount of ratings their division pushed through the “mill”.

But nothing compares to our outrage over S&P’s insistence that these shit sandwiches earned S&P’s highest safety rating, a rating few American companies enjoy, along with the full faith and credit of the United States of America.

Yes, that’s right.  S&P rated these mortgage backed securities to be on equal footing in terms of investor safety with the government of the United States; not on much lower footing, not even on slightly lower footings.  Nay, S&P rated these securities to be exactly as safe as debt issued by the USA.

For that alone, we recommend that S&P ratings be avoided at all costs.

 

 

 

Usama bin Laden; Profile of a Coward

He’s dead.  Enough said.

Except for this.  Osama Bin Laden lived in a well stocked “compound” (that’s military for “mansion”) for the last five years of his life, sipping on Coke and Pepsi, whiling away his time on what I am sure was state of the art computer equipment.

While he sent men, women, and boys to die for God and the cause, he smoked pot (marijuana plants were found growing right near the wall of his compound).  While thousands of his devoted followers lived in poverty, Bin Laden was wallowing in privileged seclusion, in his own little gated community.  He asked his followers to live in caves and in the open fields, and all the time, the closest he got to roughing it was living without a phone line, which in my house would be considered a blessing.

Usama bin Laden was a hypocrite, a coward, and a charlatan.  He posed for the world as a holy man, but he was nothing more than a con man, swindling thousands out of hard-earned money, time, and even their lives.

I suspected that this was the case for years.  He hid for more than a decade while he sent young boys out to die fruitlessly against the strongest army this world has ever known.  There are claims that we had him pinned down at Tora Bora, but I’m guessing bin Laden was never there.  It just wasn’t his style.  I know we see all sorts of videos of him aiming guns and walking, but in those videos he’s always dressed differently than everyone else around him, and I’ve yet to see video of him actually conversing with a person.  He liked to preach, but you never see him smiling at a joke or just talking with a friend.  All we see are images of bin Laden holding court.

Court is adjourned, Mr. bin Laden.  You’ve been convicted, and your punishment is death.

Even now, there is a rumor that he shoved his wife at the SEAL who killed him in an effort to make her take his bullet.  I’m not sure if that rumor is true, but it would fit bin Laden’s profile.

The profile of a coward.

Stumbling on The Path To Prosperity

Call Paul Ryan’s budget the Path To Prosperity, The Roadmap for America’s Future, or whatever you want to.  Just don’t call it a plan that accomplishes anything, because it doesn’t, so far.

Studying his Roadmap, and his Path as I have, I am now armed with the facts I need to make an educated statement about his budget.  To use a pop-phrase, it’s wealth-redistribution.  It’s a plan that eliminates none of our debt, and none of our deficit, for the first ten years while cutting services for the Middle Class and giving the Upper Class another ten percent tax cut.  I call that wealth redistribution.  What do you call it?

The national media is calling his plan a serious attack on the deficit; yet his plan doesn’t balance the budget for twenty-nine years, according to Ryan’s beloved and non-partisan CBO.  Doesn’t any plan require that you actually balance the budget within a few years time before it gets the praise “serious!”?  And why is no one within the Republican party outraged that it takes so long to balance said budget?  Weren’t these the same people who won their elections in November on the strength of their “plans” to balance the budget and fix America’s fiscal mess?

There are several points of note within Ryan’s plan.  The first is the privatization of Medicare; yes, that same Medicare that Ryan and Republicans accused President Obama and Democrats of trying to cut or destroy two years ago.  Remember when they had Grandma’s and Grandpa’s go on TV and radio commercials?  Remember when Grandma’s and Grandpa’s went to Townhall meetings and begged Democrats to not touch their Medicare?  Remember how Republicans played upon our Senior’s fears?  Death Panels, anyone?  I don’t think ANYONE can forget that.  Yet here it is; Paul Ryan is going to privatize Medicare, literally change it from the Medicare that Seniors know…but not for ten years.  Anyone under 55 will not see Medicare as your elders knew it.  But you’ll get to pay for it as if you did; yours and theirs.  Instead, Ryan will give you under-55’s a “premium voucher”, so you can go out and get some of that great private health care insurance that Seniors love so much.  It’ll be great, because at a time of your life when you shouldn’t have to worry about your medical bills, that’s exactly what you’ll get to do under Ryan’s plan.  Private insurance companies are for-profit, and their bottom line contradicts yours.  That means whatever they can make you pay for, they will, and if they can’t, they are going to try anyway.  Seniors all over America are going to get busy answering claims letters, filling out claims forms, and making sure to send every form requested in on time in order to have their medical service paid.

The second major point is Ryan’s spending cuts.  He claims his budget will cut $6 Trillion in spending over the next ten years…from Obama’s proposed budget.  What that means is, his budget will be $600 Billion less than Obama’s budget, which is $1.6 Trillion more than the revenue we take in taxes.  In other words, Ryan’s serious budget, that seriously attacks the deficit, will leave us another $10 Trillion in debt after the first ten years.  But wait, that’s not all.

The third major point is Ryan’s 10% tax cut for the upper class, and Corporate America.  He aims to cap our top tax rate at twenty-five percent.  But he insists that revenues will be higher, because he will be eliminating “certain” tax loopholes.  To date, no specifics on which loopholes he will eliminate, but if Ryan’s history is any indication, he will be eliminating the standard deduction that every American who earns less than $100,ooo a year gets.  Okay, that was a joke, but considering his budget, is it possible that Ryan could propose just that?

With “certain” loopholes being cut, Ryan’s budget is at best Revenue neutral.  That means no new revenues will be gained to offset the massive tax cut for Corporate America and the Upper Class.  Not only that, but I expect his tax cut will actually add to the deficit, making Ryan’s overall budget neutral in eliminating any deficit whatsoever.  That’s the best case scenario for Ryan’s plan.

Here’s the worst case.

Let’s say his budgeted tax cuts pass, as well as his RyanCare plan.  But what happens if Republicans buck his “plan” to close loopholes?  What happens to our deficit then?  You can imagine, as can I.  America’s budget deficit would skyrocket completely out of control.  Can you envision a circumstance where Republicans and even some Democrats would fight against closing certain tax loopholes?

How can you not?  These loopholes exist because Corporate America is good at what it does.  They are good at making their case, and our Elected officials are just crooked enough to trade a few loopholes for a fistful of campaign dollars.  That’s how we got here, remember?  Indeed, in what universe would you have to live in order to not see both Parties fighting tooth and nail against closing those tax loopholes for their Sugardaddies?

Mr Ryan’s Path stumbles right out of the gate.  It is shortsighted, and gives way too much credit to our elected Party officials for making things harder on their largest campaign contributors.  Remember that this is a group of politicians that, even as the vast majority of Americans suffered and sacrificed time and again in this latest Great Recession, refused to even approach the subject of cutting their own wages and benefits in a show of solidarity with average Americans.  Not even Ryan’s Path to Prosperity suggests that our Lawmakers ought to share in the pain…even a little bit.  Since they have shown themselves to be above the rest of us, I see no redeeming hopes within them that they’ll actually do the right things in order to make Ryan’s plan “work”, however ineffectual that plan has proven to be.

Am I being too hard on our elected Party officials?  You be the judge.  America has a real fiscal nightmare.  We have an ever-growing debt problem.  In the course of the last thirty years, we have gone from being a lender nation to a debtor nation.  Thirty years has been enough time for both political parties to place their fingerprints all over our troubles.  And now Ryan wants Americans to believe he is serious about eliminating the deficit?  With this plan?

Is this the same Paul Ryan who voted for Medicare Part D, the largest unfunded entitlement in the last twenty years?  Is this the same Paul Ryan who scoffed at President Obama’s health care plan as destroying Medicare as we know it, and as being filled with smoke and mirrors?  (okay, he was right about the smoke and mirrors, but even a blind squirrel finds a nut every now and then)

Here’s your chance, Mr. Ryan.  I’m mailing this article to you.  You can respond as you see fit, but be wise and respond to it at all.  If you don’t, your lack of response will be all over the internet before you can say “achoo!”.

How would I and the rest of America like you to respond?

We want details.  We want you to name names.  We want you to literally name the loopholes you’ll be closing; each and every one of them.  We want details about how your plan will bring manufacturing jobs back to America.  We want details about how your plan will overcome the massive tax , wage, and regulatory advantages that American companies have overseas as opposed to here.  We want details about how your plan will increase tax revenue by cutting tax rates.  Then, we want to sign your name to it, and stand by it.

The election is over.  Broad strokes got us into this mess.  So far, all you’ve offered is more broad strokes.  America needs that kind of plan like we need another 9/11.  Name the loopholes you have promises from all of your colleagues to close, and have the CBO score that.  We don’t just want details, we want written promises from your colleageus that they will help you close every loophole.  It’s the only chance your plan has; and even then, you’re still deficit neutral, unless you break records in job-creation.  And the only way to do that is to bring all of our jobs back home.

Thank you.   Ω

“There is one rule for the industrialist and that is: Make the best quality of goods possible at the lowest cost possible, paying the highest wages possible.” Henry Ford

“There is one rule for the industrialist and that is: Make the best quality of goods possible at the lowest cost possible, paying the highest wages possible.” Henry Ford

On January 5, 1914, Henry Ford introduced a minimum wage of $5 per day and Profit Sharing at his factories.  In all, some $10,000,000 in profit was distributed to 26,000 employees, or, an average of nearly $400 per employee.  Considering that the average wage in 1914 was approximately $592, that’s a hell of a bonus.  But the minimum wage actually doubled the average wage, sending it from $2.32 per day to $5.

The rest is history, or is it?

Why did Henry Ford make this change, and what impact did it have on the local economy, as well as the national economy?  One of the reasons Ford decided to increase wages substantially was an effort to reduce the high rate of turnover his plants were experiencing.  But another, less obvious and more mythical, but not less important reason, was to create a new market for the very product his employees were making.  If his workers wages increased, they might be able to afford to buy what they make, increasing the local economy substantially.

Republicans would say “poppycock” to this idea, and would cite rising inflation as a reason to keep wages artificially low.  They believe that when wages are increased, inflation increases, and thus, the economy is hurt.  But what if we had an actual historical example of a major, national increase in wages to guide us by?  Does such a moment exist?  Take a look at the following average wages:

1912:  $592

1914: $627

1916:  $708

Wages grew by 5% from 1912 to 1914, but by nearly 13% from 1914 to 1916.  What impact did this have on the national economy?  In short, it revived the American economy from a state of deep recession to that of a booming growth, and Fordism was born.  But let’s not forget the facts.  Henry Ford was called a socialist for paying his workers higher wages.  Sound familiar?

It should, especially if we recall what happens every time we try to raise the minimum wage in America.  The Republican argument is that rising wages is bad for the economy, because it causes inflation.  2/3 of our economy is consumer driven; in other words, the more consumers there are that are buying goods, the more the economy flows.  Historically, when the “masses” have more money to spend, America produces more.  Republicans argue that rising wages are a direct cause of inflation, and thus, a direct cause of economic retraction.

Our moment in time, where wages were significantly increased across America during a time of recession shows one result; the recession ended, economic growth ensued, and consumerism was born.  There is a myth surrounding Ford’s decision to increase wages; one that claims he foresaw what raising the wages would mean.  It isn’t true that he foresaw his wage increase allowing his workers to become his best customers, but he certainly capitalized on it once it started occurring.  So did every other business in America.  After the two World Wars, Fordism built the American Middle Class, the envy of the world.  Certainly there were times of recession, but none so deep as the Great Depression, where America was still weaning itself from the idea of an Upper Class driving the economy, as well as the current Great Recession, where yet again we find Republicans claiming that the American economy is a Supply side economy rather than a consumer driven one.

It’s hard to believe that we keep making the same mistakes.  It’s unfathomable that America would listen to a group of stodgy old men and women time after time whose sole purpose in life is to put money into the hands of the wealthy so that their economy will thrive.  Our economy is not recovering, unless you look at just one aspect of it.  Wall Street is booming, and the top 1%, as well as the top 10% are doing quite well.  Take a gander at the chart that follows:

 

 

 

 

ary, 1914…………….$627/year
average salary, 1916…………….$708/year

 

This chart shows that something disturbing was happening even before the Great Recession.  It’s even worse nowadays.  But in 2007, 87.8% of all wealth in the United States of America was owned by the top 10%, while only 12.2% was owned by the bottom 90%.  Of Financial Securities, 98.5% is owned by the top 10%, while the bottom 90% owns just 1.5%.  The next time you hear a Republican say that wealthy people pay too much in taxes, show them this chart, and ask them how it’s too much, when they own 90% of America?  In my book, if you own 90%, you should pay 90% of all taxes.  Is there a problem with my math?

A further check into statistics shows that only 1.6% of Americans will ever receive an inheritance larger than $100,000.  1.6%!  Sort of shows the so-called “death-tax” in a new light, doesn’t it?  Realistically, only 1.6% of Americans are affected by it, yet Republicans make it a major issue in every election.  Why?  Ask Paul Ryan.  Ask John Boehner.  Maybe they know.  I don’t.

The point is, Henry Ford’s instant increase of wages, and his sharing of his wealth with his employees sparked an economic growth for an entire nation during a time of deep economic retraction; a direct and lasting contradiction of Republican principles.  The economy is not now, nor has it ever been driven by the supply side.  History proves this, and Henry Ford proved it, even as his peers called him a socialist.  He became a Billionaire, not by hoarding more of his money, but by paying more.  He grew his wealth by growing that of his employees.

America needs to re-learn this lesson quickly.  If we don’t, you can expect a Depression that will make the 1930’s variety look like an economic boom.  The question is, what are you going to do about this?     Ω

 

 

 

 

 

While Americans Suffer A Depression, Political Parties Posture For Power

Is anyone else tired of this “Spending Plan” debate in Washington?  How about the tug-of-war for power between the Democrats and Republicans?

Our nation has serious financial problems, and the only ground taken over the past month by either party has been political power.  While Americans all over the land suffer from dwindling paychecks, or no paycheck at all, Republicans and Democrats posture in front of cameras.  While thousands live in Depression-like tent cities in places outside of cities like Nashville TN, and Lakewood, NJ, , the two parties grapple for position for the 2012 election.

Yes, you read that right.  Tent cities are popping up outside of many major American cities.  It’s something you won’t see on TV.  CNN won’t cover it, none of the major networks will, and you can, of course, rest assured that neither Fox News nor MSNBC will breathe a word of it.  But you can, if you are at all interested, read about it here, and here, and here.  You can read about it in a lot more places, too.  But I’ll bet you won’t really know the depth of this depression until you do.

Meanwhile, our two glorious old political parties are far more bent on positioning themselves for elections than solving real problems.  Even Paul Ryan’s “Path to Prosperity” ignores the real problems America faces, and instead cuts aid to most Americans in dire straights.  All of this, supposedly, to give the voters what they have asked for.  That’s like spoon-feeding your child poison, and telling him that yes, he really did ask to fed something deadly.

Ryan’s plan balances our budget in 29 years.  By my calculation, we now have about five years.  Will his plan save us?  You do the math.   Ω

TWENTY-NINE YEARS UNTIL THE GOP BALANCES THE BUDGET…AND…GO!

The Congressional Budget Office scored Congressman Paul Ryan’s budget plan, and came up with a date we can expect our budget to be balanced.  Are you ready for it?

2040.

That’s not a typo.

Twenty-nine years.

Seriously.   They are dead serious…super-duper-cereal.  They are going to balance the budget in twenty-nine years.

Nothing takes twenty-nine years, unless you’re simply not serious about accomplishing it.

Try again, Republicans.

Ω

The Supreme Court Knows Better Than Our Founding Fathers

The Citizens United Case in the Supreme Court changed everything.

No longer considered merely giving the appearance of bribery and special interests, big money can now claim that they are authentically natural persons, afforded the same rights as you and me…you know…natural persons; individuals.

Unions, big business, and more to the point, PACs and “Groups-in-favor-of-their-favorite-politican” can now throw money at elections without restraint.  That’s because these groups are individuals.  At least, that’s what the justices of the Supreme Court think.

The scales have been tossed away.  The fact that both Republicans and Democrats are owned by big unions and big business has been disclosed, and the Supreme Court said “Yay!”.  You don’t have to worry anymore that your union might be limited in the amount of ads they can buy prior to an election, or whether the bank you work for can, one more time just days before the election, replay that commercial with the demon-sounding voice telling America that the politician you hate fucks goats.  Nosiree.  Rest easy, young pilgrim.  All that money is now a citizen, just like you.

That’s the end result of the verdict in the Citizens United Case.  Businesses, Unions, PACs, and any other group that “donates” money to a political cause is now a natural-citizen of the United States of America.  The Supreme Court has decided that, yes, our Founding Fathers were idiots, and indeed, that they wrote the Constitution believing that an “organization”, a “union”, a “business interest”, or any other special interest was a natural born citizen of the United States, and therefore had the same rights to the Freedom of Speech as any other natural-born individual.

That’s how you have to read the Citizens United verdict.  You can’t read it any other way.  For personal rights of the Freedom of Speech to be protected, they have to pertain to a natural born citizen, an individual.  The Constitution is crystal clear on the definitions of a natural person, as well as where the Bill of Rights pertains to such.  Today’s Supreme Court, in its verdict in favor of the Citizens United Group decided that our Founding Fathers, all along, intended that special interests should have free reign to dominate our political landscape through money, which our founding fathers clearly said was a form of speech.

Except, our Founding Fathers never said any such thing.  Our Founding Fathers also never would have given a case like Citizens United the time of day.  They would have tossed it out of court, writing long memos reminding every American of why we broke with England in the first place, and of the dangers of giving one group or several groups within our states the status of natural-born citizens and too much power.  The mere thought of Thomas Jefferson agreeing with the Supreme Court’s decision in this case is ludicrous.  It’s clear that Jefferson would have had the Justices committed to an asylum.

If there is any Supreme Court Justice who can argue against that, please make yourself heard, and in the face of our Founding Father’s writings and what we knew about them, convince us, please, that they were morons just like you.

The Citizens United Case wasn’t a case about the Freedom of Speech.  At least it shouldn’t have been.  In order to determine whether any rights had been suppressed, a determination of whether any rights were present should have been determined first, and to do that, the Supreme Court needed to ascertain just who our Bill of Rights applies to, and what constitutes a natural-born citizen.  They most certainly did not do that, and in rushing to their judgment, they afforded special interests the status of natural born citizens, instead of calling these “groups” what they were, which are man-made organizations”.  Ludicrous.  Ω

Who Does Tom Petri Represent?

Congressperson Tom Petri (R-WI) sits on the leadership committees for Transportation and Infrastructure.

In 2010, all five of his largest supporters came from groups that would directly benefit from legislation that Petri had influence in.  Those largest industries were as follows:

Top 5 Industries, 2009-2010, Campaign Cmte

Industry	Total	Indivs	PACs
Air Transport	$108,450	$250	$108,200
Railroads	$47,500	$2,000	$45,500
Transportation Unions	$39,500	$0	$39,500
Construction Services	$38,500	$0	$38,500
Building Trade Unions	$23,000	$0	$23,000

At first glance, it would seem that the Republican distrust of unions is only relevant when unions are not giving them money.  Otherwise, unions are just fine.  Our second glance shows some very disturbing data.  First, of all of Petri’s fund raising efforts ($737,000 for 2010), over 70% of it comes from PACs.  That’s special interests, in case you were wondering.  Who would have a special interest in Petri?  Why, transportation and infrastructure, of course!  The very sector that he helps oversee.

Why would industries within the Transportation and Infrastructure be so “interested” in Petri?  Why would would they shower him with campaign money?  Is it because he’s a good guy?  Is it because they believe in his politics, and want to show their undying support of him?

Hardly.  They bestow these gifts upon him in an effort to influence legislation that he has oversight on.  Of course, Tom Petri would never admit that.  It’s amazing that Petri can hold a straight face while he tells Wisconsin that he’s going back to Washington to make sure we are well represented.  That list of owners…ahem…donors, indicates otherwise.  It indicates that powers outside of Wisconsin’s 6th District have more of Petri’s attention than the State that sent him to Washington.

Whatever shall we do about that?     Ω