Someone criticizes a system that they have seen from the inside.
It’s like the old “he complains about the campaign finance system but he raises money to run for office.”
Someone criticizes a system that they have seen from the inside.
It’s like the old “he complains about the campaign finance system but he raises money to run for office.”
So Texas Governor Greg Abbott and Senator Ted Cruz are trying to “calm” Texans who think the US government is planning a “military takeover” of the state. They say people’s fear is based on distrust of Obama.
Here is a way to help “calm” Texans. Lets close all of those US military bases in Texas. They cost a tremendous amount to keep open, and they cause Texans to worry that the United States is going to “take over” Texas.
One would think that the media would be mentioning this in light of the recent attacks on computers… Sony … North Korea … hackers …
NYT, August 2, 2012, Cybersecurity Bill Is Blocked in Senate by GOP Filibuster, (BARF WARNING — there is big picture of Joe Lieberman.)
A cybersecurity bill that had been one of the Obama administration’s top national security priorities was blocked by a Republican filibuster in the Senate on Thursday, severely limiting its prospects this year.
The bill would have established optional standards for the computer systems that oversee the country’s critical infrastructure, like power grids, dams and transportation.
The next paragraph says everything you need to know about Democrats in recent years:
In the hopes of winning over Mr. McCain and the other Republicans, the bill had been significantly watered down in recent weeks by its sponsors, led by Senator Joseph I. Lieberman, who made the standards optional. Original versions of the bill said the standards would be mandatory and gave the government the power to enforce them.
They watered it down hoping to get Republican votes, made the rules optional, etc — and it was filibustered anyway.
As for the media silence about this right now, this is sort of like how two police officers were killed by two people who had been at the Bundy Ranch, and they laid a Tea Party flag on one of the officers and … nothing in the news about that. But the killings of two cops in NYC, we have wall-to-wall coverage blaming protesters, liberals, Obama, etc…
My favorite scary but silly right-wing propaganda ever is still “Chevy Volt Runs Out Of Juice In Lincoln Tunnel.”
1) I say silly to contrast with deadly propaganda that tries to start wars, etc., or toxic conservative propaganda that tries to make people hate Muslims, blacks, Hispanic or poor or sick people, public schools, government, Europe (especially France), etc.
2) The Volt’s gas engine kicks in to charge the battery when it runs low — something that is hard to even notice. The car certainly didn’t stop in the tunnel or anything like that.
Second is the scare that “electric cars are a fire hazard.” As compared to cars that have big tanks full of gasoline!
Question: Why does conservative propaganda so often line up with things the generate profits for oil companies, Wall Street, or other billionaires?
Problem: Your right-wing brother-in-law is plugged into the FOX-Limbaugh lie machine, and keeps sending you emails about “Obama spending” and “Obama deficits” and how the “stimulus” just made things worse.
Solution: Here are three “reality-based” charts to send to him. These charts show what actually happened.
Government spending increased dramatically under President Bush. It has not increased much under President Obama. This is just a fact.
Note that this chart starts with Clinton’s last budget year for comparison.
Republicans aren’t for things. Instead they run from one hysterical anti-something scream to the next. They have shifted from the “noun-verb-911″ of the Bush years to “Obama said you didn’t build this” road and bridge, then to “Obamacare failed” and after Obamacare succeeded it was “Bundy” then it was “Oops” and now it’s “Benghazi, Benghazi, Benghazi” all the time. So what is Benghazi about?
First, you have to sift through all the wild conspiracy theories. Many Republicans say that Obama ordered the military to “stand down” and allow the attack to take place. Some Republicans say the attack was a “hit job” ordered by Obama to kill our ambassador. Others say Obama is having Benghazi witnesses and even investigators killed.
Now Speaker Boehner is setting up a Spanish inquisition special committee to “investigate” and deliver anti-Obama conclusions just in time for the election. Boehner said the committee will look into why the administration is “obstructing the truth about Benghazi.”
It has become a “truth” on the right that the IRS “targets” conservative “political” groups. Here is what is going on.
Sea Of Smear Ads From Anonymous Donors
Who is providing the sea of anonymous money behind the nasty smear-campaign ads in local, state and national elections? You might (not) be surprised to find out that these ads are from “social welfare” organizations! These organizations don’t have to disclose their donors because they are tax-exempt nonprofits that, according to the Internal Revenue Service (IRS), “must be operated exclusively to promote social welfare.”
That’s right, your community, state and nation elections are being flooded with nasty, political, smear-campaign ads from organizations that claim to “further the common good and general welfare of the people of the community” and have no involvement with political campaigns.
Social Welfare Organizations
Here are the technical details. A 501(c)(4) charity is a group that does not have to disclose its donors to the public. The law says these groups must operate “exclusively” as “social welfare” organizations and not political organizations. They “must operate primarily to further the common good and general welfare of the people of the community.” (Disclosure: The Campaign for America’s Future operates as a 501(c)(4) organization; its sister organization, the Institute for America’s Future, is a 501(c)(3) organization.)
But government agencies have to “interpret” laws when it comes to their own day-to-day operating rules, and there are grey areas between activities that could be seen as “social welfare” and activities that could be seen as electoral politics. Is voter-registration a general social welfare activity or a political activity? Is issuing a well-researched policy paper on the effect of a higher minimum wage on poverty a social welfare activity or a political lobbying activity?
So years ago the IRS decided that these social welfare groups could spend “up to 49%” of their efforts in politically related activity.
“Congressman Bob Bobson Eats Babies” Is Not A Political Ad?
Obviously these groups are not supposed to be running campaign ads. But a smear ad appearing a week before an election that says “your member of Congress Bob Bobson eats babies” but not “vote against Bob Bobson for eating babies” has been “interpreted” to be a social welfare activity and not a political ad.
Because of this huge, vast, gaping loophole a number of (mostly Republican) political election campaign-related organizations that wanted to hide their donors figured out they could become “social welfare” organizations to run these campaign ads. Then “the Republican majority” on the Supreme Court as E.J. Dionne calls them, allowed billionaires and corporations (even foreign-owned corporations) to put unlimited sums of money into politics. This opened the floodgates of influence-buying – the more money you put into politics, the more tax breaks, contracts, subsidies, monopoly protection, etc. you get back – and a race was on.
Keeping Campaign Donors Secret
Corporations and billionaires that wanted to keep their influence-buying secret could put money into these “social welfare” organizations (and the people running these organizations could make themselves a fortune), so there was a flood of applications to the IRS to start conservative, tax-exempt, “social welfare” nonprofit organizations.
At the same time, Senate Republicans also filibustered the DISCLOSE Act that would let the public know who was funding all of these smear ads.
The Phony IRS “Scandal”
Republicans charge that the IRS is “targeting” conservative “political” groups when they look to see if “social welfare” groups are actually illegally engaging in election-related politics. It has become a “truth” on the right that “the government” is “harassing” conservatives for their politics. They say the IRS is “intimidating” them by looking into “their political activities.”
This all feeds into the Republican/Fox News/Wall Street Journal/talk radio/blog “scandal machine.” For example, the Wall Street Journal today has this “story” today, “GOP Report on IRS: Only Tea Party Groups Received ‘Systematic Scrutiny’.” The party issues a “report” and the conservative media machine blasts the “findings” around the wingnutosphere, and the “outrage” ensues.
Republicans in the House of Representatives have been holding hearings intended to drive this idea of IRS “harassment” out to their followers. Rep. Darrell Issa (R-Calif.) has his Oversight and Government Reform Committee holding televised (FOX) “hearings” that haul people before them to be yelled at by various Republicans. One person, threatened by Republicans with prosecution and jail, was advised by her attorney to assert her Fifth Amendment rights, so Republicans made her appear for hours, repeating again and again that she was “pleading the Fifth.” Now Republicans plan to vote to hold her in “contempt” for asserting her constitutional rights, and have even created a logo advertising the contempt vote:
Here’s The Thing
The IRS is required by law to look at all applicants to see if they are engaged in impermissible political activity. If they are engaged primarily in political activity, they are neither “charities” nor “social welfare” organizations and, by law, are not supposed to receive special tax status allowing them to keep their donors secret. That alone should tell you that something is fishy with the corporate/conservative accusation that the IRS is “targeting” conservative “political” groups. The IRS is required by law to see if groups are “political.”
This is really about Republicans trying to stop the IRS from policing the big right-wing political groups that are using special tax status to mask their donors. This is an intimidation tactic; it’s an attempt to keep the IRS from seeing if these groups are engaged in political campaign activity and shut down the ones that are, all in an effort to mask their billionaire/corporate and foreign corporate donors.
NY Times today, A Lieutenant Governor, an Artist and a Portrait of a Smear. It describes one case of Republicans using smears to make people think government is wasteful and corrupt, and the way the smears hurt people.
In her first year in office, Lt. Gov. Kim Guadagno opened a frontal attack on an unlikely target, the New Jersey State Council on the Arts.
Its contracting was “inexcusably” flawed, she said. Its practices were “unethical” and too cozy. Its director had to go.
Like Joe McCarthy, they needed a target.
In spring 2011, she began a new offensive. She went before legislative committees and pilloried a man doing work on an Arts Council contract, building a 9/11 timeline at Liberty State Park in Jersey City. His contract was no-bid, she said, the money unclear.
OK, there’s your waste, fraud and abuse. You’ve got to read the details.
Just like that, Mr. Aubrey fell into reputation’s ditch, and the Christie administration piled dirt atop him. Except — and this is not incidental to our story — Mr. Aubrey did nothing wrong.
Again, read the details, he really, really did nothing wrong.
“None of it was true,” the newspaper noted in a December 2011 editorial. “The state could find no evidence of wrongdoing.”
But wait, there’s more.
It was, in fact, worse than that. The lieutenant governor and Department of State, it turns out, had control of the Arts Council’s spending all along. Her divisions signed off on every payment.
So not only did these Repubicans smear a good man who had done nothing wrong — who in fact was practically donating his time — the Lt. Gov. office was the responsible party all along.
Think about that the next time you hear a Republican run down things like Arts Councils and other things government does to make our lives better – also known as “government spending.”
Republicans. They just lie.
Today’s ridiculous attack on teacher unions is one that accuses them of supporting sexual predators in schools. Let’s see if we can figure out what’s behind it.
In a Wall Street Journal hit-piece, Campbell Brown – you may remember her as a former television news personality – accuses teacher unions of trying to block a bill to keep sexual predators out of schools. In the op-ed “Keeping Sex Predators Out of Schoolrooms,” subtitled “Congress is considering better background checks for teachers. Why won’t unions support the bill?” Brown describes the bill and asks, “These are sensible measures that are overdue. Yet the two most powerful teachers unions in the country have voiced objections to the bill.”
Of course, the objections that teacher unions have voiced are not objections to protecting kids against sexual predators. The teacher unions want to strengthen the bill, not stop it. (See the full letter to Congress from American Federation of Teachers (AFT) President Randi Weingarten here.) But no matter; the bill is a set-up. While it is about stopping “sexual predators,” it is used here as a honey-trap to elicit objections that can be used against unions. Then ANY objection to a bill that supposedly is about stopping sexual predators is described as an effort to help sexual predators. This is one of the oldest propaganda techniques in the book.
The “Tea Party” was started and funded by Koch Oil and its owners. But now the Tea Party in Georgia supports free market alternatives to oil monopolies, and Koch Oil is fighting them.
Summary: Georgia Power wants to expand its use of solar energy as the price of solar goes down. Georgia’s Tea Party likes the idea because it means consumers will get free-market choices. Of course Koch Oil has been fighting solar, wind, high-speed rail, electric cars and efforts to fight climate change because all of those hurt their lucrative oil business, and their front group Americans For Prosperity — the group behind the Tea Party in the first place — has launched a typical misleading smear campaign.
Think Progress has the story, in Koch Brothers Fund Effort To Undermine Tea Party Support Of Solar Energy in Georgia,
Tea Party members supporting the solar expansion see it as a simple free market issue. They believe consumers have the right to choose where their electricity comes from and shouldn’t be forced to remain dependent on a single source, especially in light of the rapidly declining cost of solar.
Despite the Tea Party’s support, Americans For Prosperity, a conservative group funded by the Koch brothers, came out against the proposed solar measure last week — launching what it calls “a multi-pronged, grassroots driven initiative” urging activists to pressure members of the PSC to reject the solar expansion.
In an email to its 50,000 members across the state, AFP Georgia director Virginia Galloway asks, “What if I told you something you’re not even hearing about in the news is about to raise your electricity bill by more than 40 percent and reduce the reliability of every appliance and electronics gadget in your home? That’s what will happen when your Georgia Public Service Commission (PSC) votes on July 11th if you don’t take action today!”
Go read the rest…
I have been writing about the so-called IRS “scandal.” It turns out the whole thing was a set-up from the start. Republicans told the Inspector General to make it look like only conservative groups received scrutiny from the IRS, but all groups received the normal scrutiny. And no one was “targeted” for “extra scrutiny.”
In the post The Latest Lie: IRS Targeted Conservatives I noted that the original IG report only focused on the use of names like “Tea Party” and did not say if “progressive”-sounding names were checked.
According to the report, the swamped IRS group involved in this came up with ways – “criteria” – to identify groups that really needed to be checked further because it was possible they might be engaged in the kind of political activity that would exclude them from getting the special tax status. … Some groups were chosen to receive the required scrutiny because they had “political-sounding” names. Some of the “political-sounding names” included the words “tea party.” Others included “We the People” and “Take Back the Country.” (The inspector general’s report does not disclose if or which other “political sounding names” were also used as criteria.)
And now we know that groups with “liberal-sounding names” were also checked. NY Times, Documents Show Liberals in I.R.S. Dragnet,
The instructions that Internal Revenue Service officials used to look for applicants seeking tax-exempt status with “Tea Party” and “Patriots” in their titles also included groups whose names included the words “Progressive” and “Occupy,” according to I.R.S. documents released Monday.
The documents appeared to back up contentions by I.R.S. officials and some Democrats that the agency did not intend to single out conservative groups for special scrutiny.
Again, the whole scandal was because the name “Tea Party” was one of the names used to identify potential political groups, meaning they should not get special tax status. “The inspector general’s report does not disclose if or which other “political sounding names” were also used as criteria.” But what really happened was that all groups applying for special tax status are supposed to be checked. The IRS was swamped with applicants after Citizens United, and underfunded, so they had to let some groups off from the usual scrutiny, and came up with shortcuts to look for potential political groups that should not receive the special tax status. That’s the whole “scandal” — not that some groups received “extra” scrutiny or were “targeted” but that some groups didn’t receive normal scrutiny while political-sounding groups got the normal scrutiny.
Here is why the inspector general’s report did not disclose whether other groups were scrutinized (never say “targeted.”):
The Treasury inspector general whose report helped drive the IRS targeting controversy says it limited its examination to conservative groups because of a request from House Republicans.
A spokesman for Russell George, Treasury’s inspector general for tax administration, said they were asked – by House Oversight Chairman Darrell Issa (R-Calif.) – “to narrowly focus on Tea Party organizations.”
Got that? Republicans told the IG to limit it to conservaitve sounding names, and then when the IG report only mentioned conservative-sounding names, they blasted out this “scandal” to the media.
It was a set-up from the start. And the media completely fell for it. If you hear anyone say that “the IRS targeted conservatives” please let them know this is not what happened — not at all.