Category Archives: Corporations

Teapublican Lie #25.

Posted on by

“Climate change is a figment of Al Gore’s imagination.”

When Al Gore produced his highly successful An Inconvenient Truth, Republicans dismissed the movie as a liberal lie concocted to push renewable energy and to undercut the federal subsidies to the oil and gas industries. They also feared that increased environmental concerns would reduce the profits of their corporate masters.

Republicans claimed there is no evidence of climate change, and even if there were there is no proof that it is caused by human activities. Every time there was a large snowfall, they mocked climate change by saying, “Where’s your global warming now?”

Oil companies cited conflicting studies to raise questions about climate change. And Teapublican contributors even commissioned their own studies to refute the opinions of most of the world’s climate scientists. One such study was commissioned in part by the Charles Koch Foundation, whose founder has contributed large sums to conservative causes, has confirmed the findings of mainstream climate scientists. The study by a long-time skeptic of climate change, Richard Muller, found that the earth’s surface is 1.6 degrees warmer than in the 1950s – numbers which match those of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration and NASA.

“There is no reason now to be a skeptic about steadily increasing temperatures,” Muller wrote in The Wall Street Journal. Although Muller’s research did not address the cause of global warming, he said it makes sense to reduce the carbon dioxide created by the burning of fossil fuels such as oil and coal. He said that greenhouse gases could have a disastrous impact on the world.

Indeed, the World Meteorological Organization just released a report showing that global warming gases have hit record levels in the world’s atmosphere, with concentrations of carbon dioxide up 39 percent since the start of the industrial era in 1750. The report shows that CO2 levels have increased from about 280 parts per million to 389 parts per million. And WMO Deputy Secretary-General Jeremiah Lengoasa said, “…even if emissions were stopped overnight globally, the atmospheric concentrations would continue for decades because of the long lifetime of these greenhouse gases in the atmosphere.”

The WMO report cites fossil fuel-burning, loss of forests that absorb CO2 and use of fertilizer as the main culprits for the increase. And carbon monoxide may be the least of our worries. The methane being released by the thaw of the Arctic’s permafrost is potentially 23 times as powerful as carbon dioxide when it comes to global warming. This is why many climate scientists refer to a cascading effect that will cause irreversible changes that include the flooding of major cities and entire islands that will result in the displacement of millions of people.

The Teapublican refusal to acknowledge the possibility that humans have played a significant role by burning fossil fuels may already have taken us so far down the climate change road that our very existence is threatened.

Penn State Merely Reflects Our Culture.

Posted on by

Whatever the legal outcome of the charges against former Penn State defensive coordinator, Jerry Sandusky, one thing is clear. The reaction of Penn State students to the firing of Joe Paterno reveals seriously twisted values. When the students filled the streets in protest, they were, in effect, saying we don’t care about the victims. Winning is more important.

We’ve seen this bankruptcy of values for many years in sports; particularly football. In places like Auburn, Iowa, Oklahoma, Ohio State, Nebraska, and USC, the institutions are expected to win at any cost. Athletes are allowed to assault, rape and rob with little consequence as long as they perform well on gameday. Boosters are allowed to make illegal payments under the table without fear. Coaches earn millions for finding ways around the NCAA’s rules. If they’re caught, they take the money and leave knowing they will be able to continue their careers at another school with the same values.

Before you think sports are unique in their lack of ethics, consider that the same kind of behavior is rewarded in politics. Politicians can lie and cheat without repercussions. They can pad their bank accounts and earn large pensions just by getting elected.

Business leaders are rewarded with multi-million-dollar salaries, stock options and bonuses for cutting employees and shipping jobs off-shore. The long-term health of their companies, or even our nation, mean little. After all, the executives can make enough in a year to retire comfortably.

This win-at-any-cost, ends-justify-the-means attitude permeates virtually every aspect of our society. For generations, the Catholic Church has swept child abuse under its sacramental rug then acted shocked by the outcry. Evangelical churches believe that it’s acceptable to lie to obtain new converts, to increase donations, or to rally adherents to their political causes. At the same time, they deny their political motivations and cover up their excesses.

Even worse than the excesses, themselves, is the fact that we all have been aware of them for decades. But we have done little to speak out or to try to change them. We not only accept that entertainers, sports stars and CEOs make millions a year while demanding even more. We admire them. We turn them into celebrities. And if they are caught for misbehaving or abusing their power and wealth, we turn on them. We vilify them. And we ask ourselves how we could have been so easily fooled.

If Sandusky actually did what he is accused of doing, he deserves our wrath. At the same time, we all need to look into the mirror and ask ourselves why his actions and similar actions of others are allowed to continue for so long.

The Planned Destruction Of Our Two-Party System.

Posted on by

If you wanted to destroy the opposing political party – not just defeat it – what would you do?

You’d probably look to take away its source of funding while finding ways to dramatically increase yours, such as destroying labor unions while legalizing unlimited corporate contributions as “free speech.” You’d try to marginalize and delegitimize its leader by claiming he was not born in the US. You’d try to destroy its local organizers (ACORN). And knowing that most disputes will end up in court, you’d try to stack the courts with your own appointees while blocking the other party’s.

When the other party is in power, you’d try to block any attempts to improve the economy through filibusters. You’d try to destroy confidence in any media outlets that don’t support your point of view by eliminating the Fairness Doctrine and defunding public broadcasting. You’d try to eliminate as many regulations as possible, so when you regained power you could do whatever you want. And you’d try to destroy public confidence in a government run by the other party.

When your party is in power, you’d try to change the rules to favor your candidates. You’d try to redraw the congressional and legislative districts so you could get more candidates elected. And you’d try to suppress voting blocs that tend to vote for the other party’s candidates through voter suppression efforts such as those being pushed through Michigan, North Carolina, Pennsylvania, Ohio and Wisconsin.

Finally, to ensure your party’s future dominance, you’d try to control our schools so you could teach your own version of history and pseudoscience by rewriting textbooks such as those published in Texas.

If you think that I’m being paranoid, that these events are coincidental, or that both parties do the same things, you simply haven’t been paying attention.

How Did We Get Here?

Posted on by

Once upon a time, the most distinguishing characteristic between Republicans and Democrats was a difference in opinion on how to solve social problems and improve our nation.

For example, Presidents Franklin D. Roosevelt, Richard Nixon, Bill Clinton and presidential candidate Robert Dole all agreed to the need for universal healthcare. They simply offered different means of accomplishing it. Indeed, the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act signed into law by President Obama was actually based upon ideas by Nixon, Dole and Mitt Romney – all Republicans.

Contrary to current party ideologies, it was a Republican senator who authored the first anti-trust act. It was a Republican president, Theodore Roosevelt, who most aggressively enforced it to break up large corporate monopolies such as Standard Oil. And contrary to the Republican Party’s conservative heritage, it was Republican presidents, Ronald Reagan and George W. Bush, who created most of our national debt.

Similarly, it was a “liberal” Democratic president, Bill Clinton, who most aggressively controlled revenue and spending resulting in annual budget surpluses.

Unfortunately, the subtle gap between the ideologies has turned into an ever-expanding gulf.

Even as the Democratic Party has moved to the center right, the Republican Party has lept to the way-off-the-map extreme right. Republicans no longer talk about merely limiting government. They now talk about “starving the beast” and declare the government as the enemy. Indeed, they have set their sights on eliminating entire departments and agencies.

They demand an end to the intrusion of government into their lives. At the same time, they want to tell women what they can and cannot do to their own bodies.

They protect the incomes of millionaires and billionaires while rewarding corporations for sending middle class jobs overseas. They rail against class warfare as they continue to redistribute wealth upward. They approve of billionaires paying a lower percentage of their incomes than working people.

They praise the Founding Fathers while denying the very principles they fought for. Though the Founding Fathers declared that “all men are created equal,” Republicans deny equality to gays, blacks, latinos and anyone else who is different. Thanks to Republican appointments to the Supreme Court, corporations now have the rights of people. And since the same Republican-appointed members of the Court ruled that money equals free speech, large corporations have more rights than people.

The differences between the parties are abundantly clear. The question is how on Earth did we ever get here?

Teapublicans Are A Disgrace To The Term “Redneck.”

Posted on by

Many Teapublicans, especially those in the South, are fond of referring to themselves as Rednecks. They interpret that to mean that they are common sense, down-to-earth people. They take pride in the fact that they’re relatively uneducated in contrast to the “pointy-headed liberals.”

Not surprisingly, it’s a false pride.

In fact, most of these people are diametricly opposed to the priniciples of the original Rednecks. You see, the term Redneck actually stems from the organized labor movement. In the early 1900s, West Virginia coal miners were fighting for better pay and better working conditions. The mine owners convinced the local law enforcement authorities to fight their battle for them. In late August and early September 1921, 10,000-15,000 coal miners confronted an army of police and strikebreakers. They met on Blair Mountain where they battled for days. More than a million rounds of ammunition were fired. The fighting only stopped when the US Army intervened following a presidential order.

What does that have to do with Rednecks?

Since those fighting did not have uniforms to identify friend from foe, the miners wrapped red kerchiefs around their necks. The term, Redneck, stuck.

Today, not only are the rights to collective bargaining once again under attack by corporate interests. The battlefield on top of Blair Mountain is also under assault by big coal. A coal company wants to remove the entire mountaintop to get at the coal below. To add insult to injury, the coal company owners are supported by modern day “Rednecks.”

Teapublican Lie #22.

Posted on by

“Welfare moms are worse for our economy than welfare CEOs.”

For years, you’ve heard Teapublicans rail against freeloading welfare moms. They portray them as lazy, drug-addled minority women who turn themselves into baby factories to scam the system and live in relative luxury. Right?

In fact, a Teapublican candidate for the Nebraska Unicameral recently compared them to racoons saying, “They’re going to do it the easy way if we make it easy for them.” And Florida Governor Rick Scott recently signed into law a bill that requires Floridians to submit urine, blood and hair samples before they can receive cash aid from the state.

However, according to the statistics, the majority of those who receive Aid For Dependent Children are white and receive benefits for 2 years or less. Half of all welfare recipients leave the program in the first two years.  Most have only one or 2 children.  And the majority are over 20 years old.

Many succumbed to the “if you really love me, you’ll…” line. But many are divorced and a few are widowed. Contrary to Gov. Scott’s expectations, very few are chemically dependent. And they’re hardly living in luxury.

For example, those who qualify for W-2 Transition (W-2 T) funds reserved for participants who have limited ability to work receive payments of $628 per month with a lifetime eligibility limit of 60 months. Not exactly what Teapublicans want you to believe about so-called “welfare queens” is it?

Now, let’s examine the “welfare kings” of corporate America.

We have given millions of acres to mining companies while requiring no royalties in return. We gave railroads millions of acres and millions of dollars in subsidies for construction. We built and maintain 340,000 miles of logging roads for the timber industry in addition to giving them subsidies of more than $111 million annually. Subsidies to oil and gas companies total more than $40 billion per year.

We provide billions to corporations for the research and development of new drugs and new weapons systems, even providing foreign aid to other nations to help them buy our weapons. We offer corporations insurance at below market rates to encourage overseas investments in high-risk nations. We provide farm subsidies to corporate farmers. State and city governments provide incentives to attract large corporations. They also provide millions to help billionaire owners of sports franchises to build new stadiums and sports arenas.

And, lest you think the Troubled Asset Relief Program was the first time we bailed out financial institutions, don’t forget that we forked over $500 billion to the savings and loan industry in the 1980s.

In short, we allow large corporations to privatize their profits and socialize their risks. Is it any wonder that in previous generations their owners were called “Robber Barons?”

Teapublican Lie #20.

Posted on by

“Teabaggers are patriots. Occupy Wall Street demonstrators are misguided thugs and revolutionaries.”

The Tea Party claimed to be a grassroots movement, but in reality, it was created by Republican strategists, financed by Republican think tanks and billionaires, and promoted and publicized by Fox News Channel, Rush-To-Judgement Limbaugh and the rest of the Republican megaphones.

The Occupy Wall Street movement, on the other hand, receives no money from millionaires and billionaires. It has no think tanks to fund it. And it has no media organizations under its control. The movement was created by a diverse group of young people fed up with the wealthy who control Congress and dictate public policy. And it’s growing.

So why are the Teapublicans now dismissing them as out-of-control rabble? Why are Teapublicans portraying them as dangerous and disrespectful? And why are Teapublicans saying “they ought to get a job?” Actually, that’s the question at the very heart of the movement. The Occupy Wall Streeters want to get a job, but feel that Teapublican policies dictated by the wealthy prevent them from any chance of success.

Instead of trying to initiate legislation that might create jobs to make the Occupy Wall Streeters go home, Teapublicans would rather spend their time denying tax hikes for millionaires and billionaires. And they are using their media megaphones to portray the movement as dangerous. On his daily radio diatribe, Glenn Beck even said, “They’re coming to kill you!”

Hmmm…think about it for a moment. Which group brought guns to their rallies and carried signs with overt threats against Congress and the President? Here’s a hint: It wasn’t the Occupy Wall Street demonstrators.

A Look Into The Future of Teapublican Budget Cuts.

Posted on by

Despite the fact that our $14 trillion debt was largely created by Teapublican presidents, now that we have a Democratic president, the Teapublican-controlled Congress is dead set on forcing enormous budget cuts at any cost.

Set aside for a moment that their primary agenda is to end regulations for their corporate masters and to starve only those departments that are contrary to their ideology (primarily the EPA and the Dept. of Education). The real concern is what such draconian cuts will do to our economy.

If you want to see a preview of the consequences, you need only to look to Greece.

As you likely know, the Greek government is in danger of default. To “cure” its ills, Germany along with the other nations that are part of the European Union, agreed to bail out Greece. But only if Greece would enact drastic spending cuts and large tax hikes.

The result? It would seem that the “cure” is in danger of killing the patient. Indeed, the cuts have put the entire European Union in recession. And the symptoms have spread to the US. Every time the European Union sneezes, our markets react.

The problem is that the new austerity measures have resulted in more Greeks losing their jobs. And without jobs, the Greeks are unable to pay the increased taxes. Many have been forced to pay taxes out of their savings (if they have savings). Many can’t pay their taxes at all. That only results in more deficits, more spending cuts, more tax increases, and so on.

Although Greece is the most extreme example of an economy in trouble, it’s not alone.

Ireland’s economy is also particularly weak. You may remember that before the global recession, Ireland was called the “Celtic Tiger” having built its reputation by luring foreign corporations (many from the US) through some of the lowest corporate taxes in the world. Indeed, Teapublicans have repeatedly cited Ireland as a model for reforming our own corporate tax structure.

One would hope that our nation could learn from these examples of what not to do. But, since Teapublicans mostly ignore anything beyond our borders (except for oil deposits), I’m not hopeful.

Teapublican Lie #19.

Posted on by

“Solyndra is an example of the Obama administration’s runaway spending.”

Yes, the Obama administration provided a federally-backed loan of $535 million to help Solyndra create thin film solar cells. Yes, the company went bankrupt. But before you join the Teapublican-led lynch mob to hold the administration accountable, ask yourself: How much more money has been wasted on government loans and subsidies for oil companies? Have you ever heard Teapublicans complain about wasting taxpayer money on a dry well? Have you ever seen a House panel investigate loans or subsidies to carbon-based fuel companies?

But that’s different you say. There’s no certainty in finding oil.

Well, there’s no certainty that a new product will succeed, either. Fact is, the Energy Department took a chance on a company that wanted to build state-of-the-art solar cells in the US, instead of China. The Energy Department took a chance that a government-backed loan would result in more US-based jobs, less dependence on foreign oil and lower carbon emissions. Unfortunately, Solyndra failed as the result of increased competition from foreign manufacturers which are heavily subsidized by their governments. And because Congress failed to pass a comprehensive energy bill that includes alternative energy sources.

Oil production is heavily subsidized through tax breaks at virtually every stage of the exploration and extraction process. So, if the US is willing to risk hundreds of billions in exploration for gas and oil with great risk to our environment, why is it a problem for the federal government to risk taxpayer money to develop clean energy alternatives?

Could it be that the solar and wind industries don’t have lobbyists which heavily contribute to Teapublican election campaigns?

Teapublican Lie #14.

Posted on by

“Immigrants steal our jobs.”

That’s been a common accusation since the very beginnings of our nation. Previous generations despised the Irish, Italians, Germans, Scandinavians, Eastern Europeans, etc. for simply trying to eke out a living. Nothing has changed in the present day, except that now the charge is leveled against Latinos.

In discussing her book, They Take Our Jobs! and 20 other myths about immigrants, Avi Chomsky, historian, teacher, and coordinator of Latin American studies at Salem State College says, “When people claim that immigrants take our jobs, underlying the statement are some flawed ideas of how our economy works. They don’t understand that the world economy is extremely integrated.”

“In the US, there is a dual labor market,” she says. “One category consists of good jobs that offer security, benefits, decent pay and safe working conditions. The second category consists of jobs that are dangerous and unpleasant with no security and low wages. The jobs in the second category have always been done by those who are politically excluded, such as undocumented workers. By politically excluding workers, employers are able to exploit them. And others in our society rely on people doing these jobs.”

In reality, the number of jobs taken by immigrants is a very small percentage of the jobs shipped overseas by our corporations. Moreover, immigrants actually create jobs because they purchase food and automobiles, and they rent or buy homes. They also pay sales taxes, property taxes, income taxes, even Social Security and Medicare payroll taxes. (In 2010, it’s estimated that illegals paid $12 billion into Social Security. Yet they are not eligible for any of the government services provided by those taxes.)

As Chomsky states, “The debate on immigration is a way of creating a scapegoat for very real problems, like the economy, even the environment.”