Midnight Meme Of The Day!

by Noah

Whenever I encounter Republicans, they mouth a lot of fear-based nonsense in defense of their Putin-loving president and their hate for "others." One of the most common things I hear from such people is "Socialism never works." They don't like their money going to other people, especially "other" kind of people. They say this while approving of the fact that billions and billions of their (and our) taxpayer dollars are going to U.S. and multinational corporations in the form of socialistic subsidy handouts, corporations that, unlike us, pay little or no taxes and have fat cat executives giving themselves millions in bonuses with what essentially amounts to our money. Yes, Republicans love that! The same people have, for decades, also approved of large farms being paid socialist subsidies to not grow food in a country where too many people go hungry. Hey, I'll cut these people some slack. Maybe they raise their own chickens in the basement and grow their own veggies in pots on the windowsill.

These people who furtively approve of socialism for some but not for others will never see the irony or their own hypocrisy. Hell, they'll even keep driving on interstate highways built by Eisenhower's socialism and maintained by socialism, using the gas made possible by socialism. They'll even go home and shower using the water systems protected by the socialist funding of their tax dollars; unless they have their own private well in their backyard that is. Jeez, maybe I should just assume that if such people ever need to call the cops or the fire department, they'll be calling their own private police or fire department. I'd hate to think that they'd want the taxpayer funded municipal police or fire departments to come to their assistance!

Sometimes, I just ask these people if we should disband the FAA. I always get a blank look in response to that one. That's when the programming kicks in and something about Obama or emails comes out or they start chanting Benghazi Benghazi over and over again. Then I tell them that, throughout human history, their beloved fascism has never worked for long. They don't care, of course, as long as it will, they hope, work for them.

Yep, Foxconn Was A Con Job All Along-- You'd Expect Something Different From Trump, Walker And Ryan?

Wednesday morning, Reuters broke an explosive story about how Foxconn is reconsidering the bullshit deal they made with Scott Walker, Paul Ryan and Trump "to make advanced liquid crystal display panels at a $10 billion Wisconsin campus, and said it intends to hire mostly engineers and researchers rather than the manufacturing workforce the project originally promised."

Announced at a White House ceremony in 2017, the 20-million square foot campus marked the largest greenfield investment by a foreign-based company in U.S. history and was praised by President Donald Trump as proof of his ability to revive American manufacturing.

Foxconn, which received controversial state and local incentives for the project, initially planned to manufacture advanced large screen displays for TVs and other consumer and professional products at the facility, which is under construction. It later said it would build smaller LCD screens instead.

Now, those plans may be scaled back or even shelved, Louis Woo, special assistant to Foxconn Chief Executive Terry Gou, told Reuters. He said the company was still evaluating options for Wisconsin, but cited the steep cost of making advanced TV screens in the United States, where labor expenses are comparatively high.

...“In Wisconsin we’re not building a factory. You can’t use a factory to view our Wisconsin investment,” Woo said.

Earlier this month, Foxconn, a major supplier to Apple Inc., reiterated its intention to create 13,000 jobs in Wisconsin, but said it had slowed its pace of hiring. The company initially said it expected to employ about 5,200 people by the end of 2020; a company source said that figure now looks likely to be closer to 1,000 workers.

...Rather than manufacturing LCD panels in the United States, Woo said it would be more profitable to make them in greater China and Japan, ship them to Mexico for final assembly, and import the finished product to the United States.

During the 2018 congressional campaign, Foxconn became a hot topic between progressive Democrat Randy Bryce and Foxconn booster Paul Ryan. Most Republicans, though not all (see Justin Amash tweet above), bought into the corporate welfare plan Ryan, Walker and Trump were advancing. Bryce warned voters that this whole Foxconn deal was a con, a scam, and that it wouldn't work. I asked him about it when the news broke yesterday.

"When the Fox-conn deal was first announced," he told me, "it was not too long after we launched our campaign to take Paul Ryan out. Trump invited Ryan and Walker (who was also about to be taken out as well) to the White House where they all broke their arms frenetically patting themselves on each other’s backs. There was no doubt it was a politically motivated stunt to save their careers. The deal was practically agreed upon on the back of a napkin. Since then Walker promised over 4 BILLION dollars to the Taiwan-based company. This at a time when public education had been stripped of nearly 1 billion. Income inequality at it’s all-time worst. The Middle class leaving Wisconsin quicker than any other state in the country. Walker postponed infrastructure projects claiming we can’t afford to make our roads and bridges safe but at the same time vowed to widen lanes from Milwaukee’s airport to the Mt. Pleasant Foxconn location to be used for AUTOMATED trucks to deliver goods."

Bryce continued, "Now that we have a new governor-- Tony Evers-- the same old grifter network is at an end. It’s no surprise that we find out just how big of a scam it was. The sign welcoming people to Wisconsin used to read 'Open For Business.' Now that we’re 'open for everyone,' the corporate gravy train is over. It’s time to use taxpayer money to benefit the citizens-- not the corporations who see us as their servants."

Another Democrat who recognized the whole deal was bogus from the start was state Senator Chris Larson, who is eager to create good middle class jobs in the area he represents south of Milwaukee, but wasn't buying into the con-job the GOP was offering. "Wisconsin taxpayers shouldn't invest our future or our funds in a company that isn't invested in Wisconsin," he told me yesterday. "That will be the legacy of the failed FoxConn deal. In the meantime, we'll continue to have to put up with the tortured explanations as to why the jobs won't materialize, why they can't follow our environmental laws, why they choose to put all our money in a foreign corporation instead of in our kids' education, and today, why they don't actually want to build here anyway." And he was just getting started.

Beware Wisconsin Republican leaders promising job creation for handing out massive tax subsidies. As it so happens, taking an agreement written on a bar-room napkin as gospel is not the brightest idea former Governor Walker and legislative Republicans have had. Foxconn was never going to build a manufacturing plant, they were never going to invest $10,000,000,000 here, and they were never going to create 13,000 jobs. The Foxconn boondoggle was an election year fantasy designed to hide the fact that the extreme Republicans who have had a gerrymandered stranglehold on Wisconsin have never had a real economic development plan.

It is telling that despite having delivered a historic $1 billion cut to public education, having local roads and infrastructure in extreme disrepair, and being told that regional public transit is just “too expensive,” Republicans always find the tax dollars for their corporate buddies. Over the last eight years, Wisconsin had the opportunity to invest in ourselves but time and again Republicans chose to invest in millionaires and billionaires.

The sooner we ignore the snake oil salesman (and the politicians that ogle their cash) and instead start plotting our own way forward, the better off we'll be.

Yesterday, the Washington Post reminded Wisconsinites about a statement they got last November from Mark Maley, spokesman for Scott Walker's Wisconsin Economic Development Corporation. "The state of Wisconsin is investing in a once-in-a-lifetime economic development opportunity that will be transformational as the state will become home to the only LCD manufacturing facility outside of Asia." Maley (and the Walker administration-- since sent packing by the voters) lying? You bet they were, right along with Trump, Ryan, Ryan clone Bryan Steil and Sean Duffy. "Foxconn," reported the Post" has a history of walking back its hiring announcements. The company grabbed headlines in 2013 when it unveiled plans to invest $30 million and generate 300 jobs at a new high-tech factory in central Pennsylvania. The state’s governor applauded the news, and economists predicted Foxconn would lead a local manufacturing revival. But after the spotlight faded, Foxconn quietly dropped its plans in the state. Trump and Walker’s deal with the company also sparked criticism. Wisconsin’s nonpartisan Legislative Fiscal Bureau forecast the move wouldn’t bring profits to the state until 2042. Walker lost his race in November to Democrat Tony Evers, who has slammed the Foxconn deal a as a 'Hail Mary pass on the part of the governor.'...Wisconsin’s offer of economic sweeteners to Foxconn was unprecedented in scale, analysts say. The bundle of financial incentives was larger than what New York, Virginia and Tennessee collectively pledged to Amazon.com to win its new offices."

Midnight Meme Of The Day!

-by Noah

Republicans love to dole out that corporate welfare. They do it knowing that some of it will come back their way at election time and when there's a vote in Congress on something that might help grow the corporate offshore bank accounts or end the corporate welfare itself. Republican politicians also like to lie about how their corporate CEO benefactors need more and more tax breaks. It's never enough and it never will be. Their media hacks repeat the same tired crap. Just a few days ago, the so-called president was whining in his rose garden about how other countries offer lower tax rates to corporations. It was amazing that those rose bushes didn't just keel over and die. He even lied about Ireland planning on lowering their much criticized corporate tax rate from 12.5% to 8% which is something they are not doing. We shouldn't be surprised. If Señor Trumpanzee manages to put 10 semi-coherent sentences together (highly unlikely), 9 of them will consist of blatant pathological lies. He is, after all, the pathological liar-in-chief.

What CEOs, politicians and their media slaves don't tell you about the dirty little secret regarding U.S. corporate tax rates is that, although, they seem high at the code-written 35%, give or take, U.S. corporations enjoy so many tax loopholes and deduction privileges that that 35% ends up being roughly equal to the rate that most other countries offer. That's called the Effective Tax Rate, in other words, what they actually pay when you strip away Republican lies on the subject. Señor Trumpanzee wants to lower our corporate tax rate to a starting point of 20% which would be lower than the other leading industrialized nations. If the existing U.S. tax loopholes and deduction privileges are left in place, as would be likely after the graft is handed out... well, you do the math. We will end up with a tax system that features corporations paying no taxes at all.

Already, Secretary of State and Putin Best Bud Rex Tillerson's company, EXXON makes billions in profits every year and yet, often pays no taxes at all. Kinda makes you feel real sorry for them, doesn't it? I'm sure it also makes you feel bad that that means we are also subsidizing poor the bonuses of the poor starving EXXON executives. General Electric and others enjoy a similar tax position. On top of that, Congress has been paid to even give EXXON and other oil companies millions in subsidies very year; subsidies that come from our hard-earned taxpayer dollars. I guess there's just not enough prime rib and caviar in the company cafeteria. We pay at them at the pump and we pay them every April 15th. They soak us twice. Señor Trumpanzee approves of this system but thinks subsidies to insurance companies so that Americans can have cheaper healthcare are wrong. Of course, that one is all about his psychopathis desire to inflict pain and suffering on as many non-filthy rich Americans as possible. Goons like Trump and Hannity and their party call subsidies socialism, but only when it suits their psychopathology. Bottom line: If subsidies for insurance companies are socialism, why not call subsidies for companies like EXXON what they are even more so?

Republican voters support this farce. Same for independent and any democratic voters who naively go along. They are so easily manipulated to vote against their own self interests due to not having one single ounce of critical thinking ability. This is a prime example of how not all voters are the same. Manipulated fools look at the top two points of this meme, the ones about food stamps and safety net programs and their bigotries come roaring to the surface as they start whining about minorities getting "free stuff" and "handouts," never mind that the larger percentage of food stamps got to poor rural caucasians. The key, of course, is how they always love to point fingers and look for a group to focus their hate and anger upon, while never having the common sense to point at the douchebags in suits. It's so easy to lead such voters around by the nose; so easy that they have no idea of the contempt in which they are held by those who get over on them. Welfare to billionaires doesn't bother them at all, if only because they maintain their ignorance willfully. But, damn those non-existent welfare queens driving around in Cadillacs that they're told about about! Suckers born to be suckered.

Sanders to Trump: Force Rehiring ALL Carrier Employees. Commit to Passing Outsourcing Prevention Act of 2017

This clip contains the viral Carrier Indianapolis plant video (also available here), then includes a discussion of why this is so bad, and why this was entirely discretionary by United Technologies (UTC), the company's owner. (Uygur fails to mention the $172 million "golden parachute" given to the UTC CEO in 2014.)

by Gaius Publius

"They don't know what to do with all the money they have, and they're still firing American workers."
     –Cenk Uygur in the clip above.

I think by now most people know the story of the Carrier plant layoffs that sparked such anger (discussed in the video above; to view the Carrier clip only, click here). A group of workers at a Carrier plant in Indianapolis were being told by management that their jobs were being eliminated and the plant moved to Mexico. The clip, shot by one of the workers at the meeting, shows their reaction. There's no doubt that the clip going viral had an influence on both the primary and the general election. It perfectly captures the state of working in American, and workers' reaction to it.

During the campaign, Trump said he'd fight, as president, to restore all of the Carrier jobs lost in Indianapolis. From the New York Times (my emphasis):

Carrier’s decision to move the factory to Monterrey, Mexico, will eliminate 1,400 jobs by 2019. Mr. Trump quickly made the factory Exhibit A in his argument against the trade policies of Republicans and Democrats alike.

He cited Carrier again and again on the campaign trail, threatening to phone executives at the company and its parent, United Technologies, and to hit them with 35 percent tariffs on any furnaces and air-conditioners they imported from Mexico. To the cheers of his supporters, he predicted at rallies that Carrier would call him up as president and say, “Sir, we’ve decided to stay in the United States.”

Here's video:

The writer added:

Now his supporters expect action. “If he doesn’t pass that tariff, I will vote the other way next time,” warned Nicole Hargrove, who has worked at Carrier for a decade and a half and is not certain what she will do if and when her job goes to Mexico.

"I will vote the other way next time." This is exactly the leverage the Sanders wing of the Democratic Party needs to bring non-racist Trump voters back to the Sanders camp. (Do the Democrats want to be part of that camp? We'll find out soon.)

As it turns out, Trump may be backing down. First, there's this:

In order for Trump to place a tariff on heating and cooling products made in Mexico coming to the US, first, he’d have to withdraw from NAFTA, the North American Free Trade Agreement between the US, Canada and Mexico. The treaty was formally signed into agreement by President Bill Clinton in 1994, but it was negotiated by Republican President George H.W. Bush.

He could do that — and in fact, he promised to renegotiate NAFTA in the first 100 days of his presidency. But will he do either — save all Carrier jobs in Indianapolis, plus renegotiate NAFTA? Many are doubtful, including the president of the union representing Carrier's workers (notice, Carrier's Indianapolis workers were unionized; their Mexican workers won't be).

The Indianapolis Star:

Union president would be 'shocked' if Donald Trump convinces Carrier to stay in Indianapolis

The president of the union that represents 1,400 Carrier Corp. workers in Indianapolis is not optimistic that a last-ditch effort by President-elect Donald Trump can save their jobs.

Chuck Jones, president of United Steelworkers Local 1999, said Friday he has not been briefed on talks between the incoming Trump administration and Carrier. But he doesn't see any chance for Trump or Vice President-elect Mike Pence to reverse Carrier's plan to move its west-side furnace operations to Monterrey, Mexico.

"If in fact (discussions) do materialize into something, I would think they'd have to include us at some point in time," Jones said.

Trump announced his administration's talks with Carrier on Twitter, writing that he was "working hard, even on Thanksgiving, trying to get Carrier A.C. Company to stay in the U.S." Trump said he was "making progress" in keeping the heating and air conditioning giant in Indianapolis.

CNBC on Friday reported Pence is leading those talks, citing unnamed sources. Marc Lotter, a spokesman for Pence's vice presidential campaign, said in an email he had no comment beyond what Trump said. Spokespersons for Pence's office did not respond to requests for comment.

Carrier issued a statement via Twitter that confirmed it has been in touch with the Trump administration, but did not describe the nature of those communications. ...

Jones worries that campaign promise might be driving Trump to offer false hope.

"I think it's all a PR move," Jones said. "Trump said what he said when he was campaigning. We've been calling him out, that he made promises Carrier wouldn't move. In order to do something, I think he came up with this."

I hope you can see what's brewing — a classic bait-and-switch by Trump. After all, as Uyger points out above, all the government needs to do is threaten to cancel the lucrative United Technology (UTC) defense contracts — $6 billion worth of them — or refuse to grant new ones, until the plant, with its full complement of union workers, is restored.

Even I could make that deal. The government has all the aces. It just has to play them. Will Donald Trump play his aces and keep his very high profile promise to Carrier workers and American workers through the nation?

Bernie Sanders on Trump and Carrier Outsourcing

Will Trump keep his promise to Carrier workers? Perhaps he needs a nudge. Enter Bernie Sanders. Via his press office we find this (my emphasis):

Sanders Statement on Carrier and Outsourcing

BURLINGTON, Vt., Nov. 26 – U.S. Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) issued the following statement Saturday:

“During the campaign, Donald Trump made a 100 percent commitment to prevent United Technologies from shipping 2,100 jobs from Indiana to Mexico. All of us need to hold Mr. Trump accountable to make sure that he keeps this promise.

“Let’s be clear: it is not good enough to save some of these jobs. We cannot rest until United Technologies signs a firm contract to keep all of these good-paying jobs in Indiana without slashing the salaries or benefits workers have earned.

“United Technologies is not going broke. Last year, it made a profit of $7.6 billion and received over $6 billion in defense contracts. It has also received more than $50 million in corporate welfare from the Export-Import Bank and very generous tax breaks.

“In 2014, United Technologies gave its former CEO Louis Chenevert a golden parachute worth over $172 million. Last year, the company’s five highest paid executives made over $50 million. The firm also spent $12 billion to inflate its stock price instead of using that money to invest in new plants and workers.

“I call on Mr. Trump to make it clear to the CEO of United Technologies that if his firm wants to receive another defense contract from the taxpayers of this country, it must not move these plants to Mexico.

“We need to send a very loud and very clear message to corporate America: the era of outsourcing is over. Instead of offshoring jobs, the time has come for you to start bringing good-paying jobs back to the United States of America.

“If United Technologies or any other company wants to keep outsourcing decent-paying American jobs, those companies must pay an outsourcing tax equal to the amount of money it expects to save by moving factories to Mexico or other low-wage countries. They must pay back all of the tax breaks and other corporate welfare they have received from the federal government. And they must not be allowed to reward their executives with stock options, bonuses or golden parachutes for outsourcing jobs to low wage countries.

“I will soon be introducing legislation to make sure that Donald Trump keeps his promise to prevent the outsourcing of American jobs. For the sake of American workers, this is a promise that cannot and must not be broken.”

That's just the first half of the Sander challenge to Donald Trump — restore all Indianapolis Carrier jobs. The second half of his challenge is even stronger, both politically and in terms of policy. Look at the last paragraph in the press release again, the part that mentions the legislation.

The Outsourcing Prevention Act of 2017: "We need to send a very loud message to corporate America: the era of outsourcing is over."

Legislation like this is exactly what the Sanders and the Sanders wing needs to be doing — it's what Sanders would have done as president — and it's excellent to see them doing it. The "Outsourcing Prevention Act" that Sanders will introduce is described below. Read it for the pleasure it gives you.

Note that just introducing it will do three things at once:

1. Put Trump on a very public and long-drawn-out hook to prove he actually stands for workers
2. Put the corporate wing of the Democratic Party on the same hook, to prove they actually stand for workers
3. Begin (perhaps) to redefine the Democratic Party as the true party of workers, not the corporate elite

Introducing the bill challenges both Trump and the Democratic Party to show where it stands — out loud and in public. Points 2 and 3 interlock. If the corporate wing of the Party publicly blocks this bill, point 3 will be made in reverse — the Democratic Party will be outed as being no better than Trump when it comes to jobs and the economy.

Challenging the Carrier promise is a great first move, but if Trump does successfully negotiate to get those jobs back, the critical (to the nation) issue of job loss via outsourcing disappears for a while. Having a bill that works its way through Congress (a) keeps the conversation going for quite a while longer, and (b) represents a systemic fix to a systemic problem. Again, kudos to Sanders and his team for this strong move.

Here are the details of the bill, from the Sanders press release quoted above:

Summary of the Outsourcing Prevention Act

In February, Carrier and UTEC [sic] announced that it would be closing two plants in Indianapolis and Huntington, Indiana shipping 2,100 jobs to Monterrey, Mexico, where workers are paid just $3 an hour. Both of these plants are owned by United Technologies. This legislation will provide a comprehensive solution to address this problem. United Technologies is not an outlier; it is representative of how so many multi-national corporations are taking advantage of our rigged economic system to pad their profits while hurting American workers. President-elect Trump made a promise during the campaign that he would prevent all of these jobs from being shipped overseas. The Outsourcing Prevention Act would make sure that Donald Trump keeps this promise by:

1. Preventing companies that outsource jobs from receiving federal contracts, tax breaks, grants or loans.

Last year, United Technologies received over $6 billion in federal contracts, making it the seventh largest recipient of federal contract funds. Over the past 15 years, this Fortune 500 company has used loopholes in the tax code to shelter more than two-thirds of its $38 billion in profits from federal taxation. It has also received over $50 million in corporate welfare from the Export-Import Bank. Under this legislation, companies would be barred from receiving future contracts, tax breaks, grants or loans from the federal government if they have announced plans to outsource more than 50 jobs overseas.

2. Clawing back federal benefits from companies that outsource jobs have received over the last decade.

This legislation would require all companies that outsource more than 50 jobs in a given year to pay back all federal tax breaks, grants and loans they have received from the federal government over the last decade.

3. Establishing an outsourcing tax on companies that move U.S. jobs offshore.

This legislation would impose a tax on all companies that outsource jobs. The tax would be equal to the amount of savings achieved by outsourcing jobs or 35 percent of its profits, whichever is higher. United Technologies estimated that it would save $65 million a year by moving its jobs in Indiana to Mexico. Under this legislation, the company would be required to pay a tax of no less than $65 million a year.

4. Prohibiting executives from profiting off of the outsourcing of U.S. jobs.

This legislation would prohibit companies that offshore jobs from enriching executives through golden parachutes, stock options, bonuses, or other forms of compensation by imposing stiff tax penalties on this compensation. In addition, companies that outsource jobs overseas would be prevented from buying back its own stock. In 2014, United Technologies gave its former CEO a golden parachute worth over $172 million. Last year, the company’s five highest paid executives made over $50 million. The firm also spent $12 billion to inflate its stock price instead of using that money to invest in new plants and workers.

If you don't want to read the whole piece above, read just the four major points. Very nicely done. Again, exactly what Sanders would have done as president, and exactly why all those thousands showed up in all those stadiums to see and hear him.

The only difference now is, he has to do it all from his Senate seat instead of the Oval Office. Pity that. Still, he's doing it, and we should be continuously grateful.

Yes.

Just thought I 'd throw that in. Remember, it didn't have to be this way.

GP
 

Why Chuck Schumer Fought To Give Rob Portman Such A Weak Opponent

One of the great (so far) untold stories about the battle for the Senate involves Schumer's very explicit threat to Bernie Sanders to not interfere in primaries against his hand-picked candidates in 4 key states. The threat was loss of a good Senate committee chairmanship in 2017 if Bernie did anything to help progressives against Schumer's Wall Street-friendly picks in Pennsylvania, Florida and Ohio. I saw polling yesterday-- that apparently was also seen by a Huff Po writer last night-- showing that Joe Sestak would be beating Toomey by a higher margin right now if he were the nominee instead of Schumercrat, Katie McGinty, who's in a neck-and-neck race with the odious Pat Toomey. Travis Marketing found that with McGinty ahead of Toomey 46-45%, Sestak would be ahead 48-44% right now. I don't know if Grayson would be beating Rubio now had Schumer not spent millions in Florida on Patrick Murphy's behalf (only to abandon the state as soon as Grayson was "safely" knocked out of the race and I don't know if PG Sittenfeld would be doing better than the flailing and failing Schumercrat Ted Strickland, whose campaign not got off the ground against another GOP boob, Rob Portman. I know for certain that Grayson and Sittenfeld would have run far better and more robust campaigns than either Murphy or Strickland.

Over a year ago, Jon Schwarz, writing for The Intercept pointed out a confluence of interests between Schumer and Portman to screw domestic business and regular Americans. "In today’s bitter, poisonous political environment," noted Schwarz, "there’s still one place where Democratic and Republican leaders find common ground: an abiding devotion to multinational corporations." He went on to explain the then just-proposed plan to give "corporations something they’ve always wanted: a so-called 'territorial' tax system in the U.S."

A territorial tax system would only tax U.S.-based multinationals on their profits earned within the United States-- which sounds like it makes sense, except that it’s incredibly easy for big corporations to use financial trickery to sell to a big market like the U.S. but say their profits were earned in another country. Another country that always happens to have a much lower tax rate than here. For instance, in 2010 U.S.-based multinationals claimed that so much of their profits were earned in Bermuda that these profits were 1578 percent the size of Bermuda’s economy.

According to the current law, though, U.S.-based corporations are taxed on those profits at U.S. rates if they ever bring these profits back home. So they just leave them overseas-- right now they have about $2.1 trillion stashed in other countries.

The Schumer-Portman plan would impose a tax on corporate profits purportedly earned in other countries whether they came back to the U.S. or not. But it would do so at a far lower rate than the current standard corporate tax rate of 35 percent-- President Obama has proposed 14 percent, and while Schumer and Portman haven’t come up with a specific number, Portman says 14 percent is much too high.

The obvious consequence if the Schumer-Portman scheme becomes law is that businesses based solely within the U.S. would be at a permanent disadvantage. Multinationals could earn profits in the U.S., get their armies of lawyers and accountants to make these profits appear to have been “earned” in the Cayman Islands, and get taxed at the overseas profit rate. Meanwhile, purely domestic companies would either have to pay the higher domestic rate, or turn into multinationals themselves.

There is a much simpler, fairer, more efficient way to run the tax system for international corporations, called “formulary apportionment.” With formulary apportionment, it wouldn’t matter how many subsidiaries and departments corporations had scattered all over the globe, and which “earned” their profits where. Instead, a formula (based on a combination of a corporation’s sales, payroll and capital stock) would determine what proportion of the corporation “belonged” to each country. Then the corporation’s overall profits would be allocated according to that proportion, and the corporation would pay that country’s tax rate on that proportion.

This would be good for the U.S. overall, given that we’re a huge market that accounts for a large proportion of most multinationals’ sales. It would be good for domestic business, making it possible to raise the same amount of revenue at a lower corporate tax rate. And it would make companies compete based on who made the better product, not who has the better lawyers and accountants. But it would make it far more difficult for multinational corporations to play governments off each other and evade taxes, so don’t look for it anytime soon.

A Democratic campaign staffer told me this week that this was why Schumer was so rough with Bernie about the Ohio race and why he was adamant that a tough candidate like Sittenfeld be given no oxygen against a weak and doddering Strickland who would have zero chance to beat Portman. Portman has spent $21,341,755 to Strickland's $9,537,702. (As of October 19's FEC reporting deadline Portman had $5,144,370 cash left and Strickland had just a tenth of that, $598,658.) Another $28 million has been spent of behalf of Portman by the NRSC and right-wing allies. The DSCC and it's allies have spent far less than half of that on Strickland and gave up on his race almost instantly after he won the primary against Sittenfeld. The RealClearPolitics polling average shows Portman beating Strickland with a 15.6 point spread, 50.3% to 34.7%. The most recent poll, by Quinnipiac last week, is even worse for Strickland, who Portman is beating 56-38%, an 18 point margin.

Maybe the DSCC-- and especially Chuck Schumer-- should get out of the primary business and concentrate on defeating Republicans, not progressive Democrats. This kind of tape drives Schumer insane... and the Democratic Party is made to suffer because of that insanity.

Warren, Sanders Sponsor Bill Going After TurboTax, Complexity of Tax Filing

The government could do most of this for you for free, then let you fill out the rest online. The makers of TurboTax are keeping that from happening (source).

by Gaius Publius

“During the term of this agreement, the IRS will not compete with the Consortium ["of tax software companies"] in providing free, on-line tax return preparation and filing services to taxpayers.”
     –IRS and Free File Alliance, LLC, Free On-Line

In the FDR-liberal world, the function of government is to provide services to citizens and protection from predators in the private sector. In the neo-liberal world, the function of government is to manage government services so the private sector is given the most profit opportunities possible. This is why the ACA, the brainchild of our neo-liberal president and his party, is written the way it is. It provides a public service — guaranteed (mostly) health care coverage — in a way that supports and insures the profits of the predatory health insurance industry. These cooperative agreements and policies, in which government serves up its citizens to private-sector profiteers, are often called "public-private partnerships."

In the FDR-liberal world, the function of government is called "promoting the general welfare." In the neo-liberal world, the function of government is called "wealth creation."

Another way to say it is this: In the neo-liberal world, citizens are the product whose money is delivered to corporations in exchange for government services. It's quite a lucrative scam.

Public-Private Partnerships & the Cost of Tax Filing

The following is another instance of the difference between neo-liberal governance and FDR-liberal governance. At present, tax filing — filling out and sending in a prepared multi-page tax return — is complicated and in most cases requires third-party software to complete. The government could do this for you, by filling in your forms with the information they have already, making those forms available online at a secure government web site and letting you add the rest of the data yourself.

But under our current neo-liberal government, the IRS doesn't do that. Instead, the IRS has agreements with vendors in the software industry, including the TurboTax giant Intuit, not to cut into their profit by "competing" with them in "providing free, on-line tax return preparation and filing services to taxpayers." Even though, as you'll see below, the IRS is compelled by law to do just that.

Consider that point for a moment, as you (perhaps) scramble to complete your own return for this year. What if you could go to a U.S. government website (instead of a third-party corporate website) and complete your tax filing online without filling out a complicated paper or PDF "return"? Would you prefer that? Would you mind not buying tax-filing software each year, year after year?

At present, you don't have that choice. Even though, since 2002, the government has been legally required to develop and offer such a service, it won't. Capture of government by industry, including in this case the tax-preparation industry, has delayed that implementation.

Warren, Sanders and Others Introduce Law Mandating "Free, Online Tax Preparation and Filing"

Elizabeth Warren, plus a number of senators including Bernie Sanders, has introduced legislation to change that. From Warren's eye-opening press release (my emphasis below).

As Tax Day Nears, Extensive Report Examines Industry Capture of the Filing Process, Efforts to Block IRS Reforms

Apr 13, 2016

Bill Text, Fact Sheet
Tax Report

Washington, DC - United States Senator Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) today introduced the Tax Filing Simplification Act of 2016 to simplify and decrease the costs of the tax filing process for millions of American taxpayers. This year, taxpayers will spend an average of 13 hours preparing and filing their returns, and will pay $200 for tax preparation services - a cost equal to almost 10 percent of the average federal tax refund.

The legislation introduced today would direct the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) to develop a free, online tax preparation and filing service that taxpayers can use to prepare and file their taxes directly with the federal government, if they choose to do so, and would prohibit the IRS from entering into agreements that restrict its ability to provide free online tax preparation or filing services. The Act would give all taxpayers the right to download third-party-reported tax information that the IRS already has, and would provide those with simple tax situations with a return-free option.

In conjunction with the introduction of the Tax Filing Simplification Act, Senator Warren released a staff report that describes how - for decades - the tax preparation industry has blocked the IRS from implementing laws that would make tax preparation and filing easier for taxpayers. Corporate capture of the filing process means that taxpayers have to absorb billions of dollars in costs and share their personal information with third parties just to file their taxes.

The legislation has been endorsed by dozens of law professors and economists including Austan Goolsbee of the University of Chicago, Emmanuel Saez of the University of California - Berkeley, and Joe Bankman of Stanford University. The Act was introduced with original cosponsors Senators Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), Sheldon Whitehouse (D-R.I.), Tom Udall (D-N.M.), Jeanne Shaheen (D-N.H.), Al Franken (D-Minn.), Tammy Baldwin (D-Wis.), and Edward J. Markey (D-Mass.)

"Congress should be making it easier for Americans to file their taxes each year, not bowing to the interests of the tax prep industry," said Senator Warren. "The Tax Filing Simplification Act is a commonsense bill that would help taxpayers all across this country file their taxes with less stress and fewer costs, and it would push the IRS to use the authority it already has to simplify Tax Day for all Americans."

"Tax Day has become an opportunity for corporations to profit off of confusion over our complicated tax code. That is wrong. The Tax Filing Simplification Act would end the absurdity of Americans having to pay private companies hundreds of dollars to pay their taxes. We must make tax filing as easy as possible, not direct profits to private companies at the expense of working families," Senator Sanders said.

"Families with simple returns should be able to prepare and file their taxes online without paying fees to private companies," said Whitehouse. "This bill will save those families money and time and protect their private information."

"I regularly hear from New Mexico taxpayers - especially those who are self-employed - who say that the overly complicated tax filing process costs them valuable time and hard-earned money," said Senator Udall. "The commonsense changes in this bill would make Tax Day easier on millions of dutiful, taxpaying Americans, cut down on fraud and save families money by enabling them to file taxes for free. I urge Congress to act quickly on this long-overdue reform."

"Every year, Americans spend far too much time and money filing their taxes," said Senator Franken. "This bill will save Americans money by simplifying an unnecessarily complex process. The IRS should be working to make this process as easy for taxpayers as possible."

"American taxpayers are forced spend too much time and money filing taxes when it doesn't have to be that way," said Senator Baldwin. "If Congress would simply act on commonsense reforms at the IRS, we can simplify tax filing and make it less expensive for taxpayers."

Simplifying the tax code and preventing companies like Intuit from soaking tax filers year after year in contravention of U.S. law would seem to be a bipartisan winner. I do expect some Republicans to balk at it. It will be interesting to see which Democrats balk as well.

Reread the start of this piece about the goal of neo-liberal government as opposed to FDR-liberal government. Pro-tax industry neo-liberals will identify themselves immediately by their response to this bill. Some Democrats, for example, who say they support it now, may not support it vigorously later.

From Warren's Report...

I want to offer a few paragraphs from the Executive Summary of Warren's report (pdf), to give some detail on what the IRS and the industry are doing to you. Warren's bottom line is at the end of the section I quote below. I'm putting it here as well so you don't miss it:

...this report finds that vehement and longstanding opposition by the tax preparation industry and anti-tax groups has prevented the IRS from meeting its statutory requirement to develop procedures for return-free filing and has denied American taxpayers the many benefits of this system. [emphasis mine]

That sentence appears in the following, from the report (bolding below is in the original):

In 1998, a Republican Congress passed — and Democratic President Bill Clinton signed — the IRS Restructuring and Reform Act, which required the Treasury Department to develop, by 2008, procedures for the implementation of a “return-free” filing system that would compute an individual’s tax liability by using information already reported to the IRS each year. Such a system would save taxpayers time and money, and would result in more accurate tax returns.3 For many taxpayers, it would take minutes instead of hours to complete their taxes.

But almost a decade after the law’s required 2008 implementation date, the Treasury Department has failed to fulfill its legal obligation to establish procedures for return-free filing. Sen. Warren requested that her staff determine why. This report finds that:

• Despite its legal obligations, the IRS has surrendered to industry pressure and other efforts to block access to free and accurate return-free tax filing. Instead of implementing the return-free filing requirements in the 1998 IRS Restructuring and Reform Act, the IRS has time and again acquiesced to industry demands that it avoid developing return-free filing options. The agency has repeatedly yielded to industry demands to administer the “Free File” Program — a public-private partnership between the IRS and the tax preparation industry that offers low-income taxpayers free, industry-prepared electronic tax preparation services. The tax preparation industry exerts powerful influence over the design and administration of this program; year after year, the IRS has signed Free File agreements with these tax preparation companies, in which the IRS pledges to “not compete…in providing free, online tax return preparation and filing services to taxpayers” despite the fact that current law requires the Treasury to develop programs to do exactly that.4 The tax preparation industry-run Free File program has failed. It is currently used by only 3% of eligible filers and is described as a “maze of offerings” that can trick taxpayers into purchasing unnecessary products.5 Furthermore, the IRS has failed to implement commonsense tax simplification programs, like the Real Time Tax Initiative, instead bowing to industry complaints that such efforts would be precursors to return-free filing, which the industry opposes.

• The tax preparation industry has vehemently opposed return-free filing. Rather than sift through a complex tax code on their own, the majority of Americans hire tax professionals, or use tax preparation software, to prepare their returns. The tax-filing burden is an essential part of the tax preparation industry’s business model, and the industry sees return-free filing as a fundamental threat to its operations. As a result, the industry has devised numerous ways to oppose a return-free filing system, spending millions of dollars lobbying Congress against return-free filing and mounting fake “grassroots” campaigns against return-free filing.

• While some simplification approaches would be consistent with their goals, anti-tax groups have nevertheless also opposed return-free filing. Anti-tax groups frequently raise concerns about the complexity of the tax code and the substantial burdens imposed by the current tax filing process: the mission of Americans for Tax Reform, for example, includes creating “a system in which taxes are simpler,” while the National Taxpayers Union rails against the “over 6 billion hours each year for individuals and businesses to comply with the Code.”6 A voluntary return-free filing program would address these concerns, simplifying filing, strengthening taxpayers’ right to know the information the IRS had received on them from third parties, and substantially enhancing taxpayer freedom to choose how to file their taxes. But the same anti-tax groups that champion a simpler tax system have worked closely with the tax preparation industry to oppose free filing.

Return-free filing offers the chance to make tax filing for Americans significantly cheaper, faster and more accurate. But this report finds that vehement and longstanding opposition by the tax preparation industry and anti-tax groups has prevented the IRS from meeting its statutory requirement to develop procedures for return-free filing and has denied American taxpayers the many benefits of this system.

By the way, with the closure of IRS offices across the country, some tax forms, like 1099 and 1096, are now most easily available at ... places like Office Depot, for a price. Another public-private partnership at work.

(Blue America has endorsed Bernie Sanders for president. If you'd like to help out, go here. If you'd like to "phone-bank for Bernie," go here. You can volunteer in other ways by going here. And thanks!)

GP
 

TPP: Why Obama's New Best Allies on the Hill Are CEOs

Obama’s Presidential Library as envisaged by the Chicago firm HOK (view 1). Like Star Fleet Academy, but with corporate funding.

by Gaius Publius

The TPP wars are heating up on the corporate side. As the piece linked below states:

“The history of the business lobby is that it arrives late,” says Bill Reinsch, president of the National Foreign Trade Council, which advocates for free trade. “But when it does, it arrives in full force.”

TPP, the "trade" deal known as the Trans-Pacific Partnership, is the next NAFTA, and "full force" time is now. The piece I'm going to quote is from Bloomberg, and it's meant to bolster and rally the "business" (corporate CEO) community to continue their frontal assault to get Fast Track legislation, and then TPP, passed. But there's good analysis and information here as well. Note as you read this the list of corporate names (which I've highlighted).

First, some background from the writer, in case TPP has been off your radar:

Why Obama's New Best Allies on the Hill Are CEOs

Before President Obama leaves office, he wants to complete two major free-trade agreements, one with Asian nations and the other with the European Union. To do it, he says he needs a guarantee from Congress that it will simply vote yes or no on any deal the White House offers, without trying to amend it. “I’m asking both parties to give me trade promotion authority to protect American workers with strong new trade deals from Asia to Europe that aren’t just free, but fair,” Obama said in his State of the Union address.

New Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell has pledged, uncharacteristically, to push for a vote to give Obama the negotiating authority he wants, known as fast track. “It’s an enormous grant of power from a Republican Congress to a Democratic president, but that’s how much we believe in trade,” McConnell told reporters in early January. “This is an area where we can make progress.”

Without Fast Track, nicely framed as "trade promotion authority," the treaty is dead, since if the treaty itself were published long enough ahead of a vote for the public to understand it, no Congressperson with eyes on the next election would touch it. TPP is job-killing NAFTA on steroids, and more.

Now look who's for it, and also for Obama for being for it:

A group of cabinet members led by Jeffrey Zients, director of Obama’s National Economic Council, meets weekly to plan ways to bring recalcitrant Republicans and moderate Democrats on board. “We now have the whole cabinet involved,” says Michael Froman, the U.S. Trade Representative. “Everyone understands that it’s now an administration-wide effort.”

The White House is also enlisting help from the leaders of major corporations including ATandT, Caterpillar, and IBM. Under the leadership of the Business Roundtable, an association of U.S. CEOs, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, and other organizations—a major donor to Republican candidates in national elections—business leaders have launched a new group, Trade Benefits America, to mount a national campaign to give the White House more trade negotiating authority. In some ways, it reprises the push business groups made more than 20 years ago to persuade congressional Democrats to vote for the North American Free Trade Agreement [NAFTA] under President Clinton. “The history of the business lobby is that it arrives late,” says Bill Reinsch, president of the National Foreign Trade Council, which advocates for free trade. “But when it does, it arrives in full force.”

In recent weeks, top officials including Froman, Commerce Secretary Penny Pritzker, and Treasury Secretary Jacob Lew have met with dozens of executives to outline the administration’s strategy. “They demonstrated a very strong commitment,” says Tom Linebarger, chief executive officer of Cummins, a diesel engine manufacturer based in Columbus, Ind., who met with Obama adviser Valerie Jarrett at the White House in early January.

This is the neoliberal "Money First" project in high gear. You'd expect Penny Pritzker, holder of great wealth and hater of unions, to be for it; also Treasury's (and Wall Street's) Jacob Lew. But Valerie Jarrett has some of that Michelle Obama–cares about people credibility. I guess it's time to spend that credibility on something that will pay off big, like a down-the-road Obama legacy library and speaking tour.

There's a version of that library at the top of this post. Think this will come cheap? Think taxpayers will fund it? But I'll bet you can think of people who will — people like the ones listed above.

CEOs Are the Corporation; Without Them, Companies Are Just Buildings

Notice that Bloomberg focuses on CEOs as people in its headline, and in large part in the story as well. That's because Bloomberg understands two facts not widely known:

1. CEOs and their peers, as individuals, as persons, are the corporation — they have all the control and reap almost all of the benefit. The modern corporation is likely the largest single reason we have such wealth inequality in America. Corporations are just the force-extenders; CEOs are the drivers of that force and the most hugely rewarded by it. Their take out of corporate coffers is almost predatory.
    
2. If corporate CEOs ever developed real consciences, modern corporations would be 180° versions of themselves. The pathological-seeming Koch Brothers control Koch Industries, literally. They are their own stockholders. What would Koch Industries act like if you inherited total control? How fast, for example, would Koch Industries divest itself of all extractable carbon and start selling 100% renewable energy under your control?

Obama and the CEO class — always natural allies, especially when there's something they both want badly. Corporate CEOs are worth anywhere from $50 billion each (the Koch Bros) to hundreds of millions each. You know what they want. What does Obama want? We can only speculate, but we know what post-electoral Bill Clinton has — $200 million by some estimates. He also has a nice, well-financed library.

I'm sure Obama wants, at least, the library. Here's another look:

Obama’s Presidential Library as envisaged by the Chicago firm HOK (view 2)

Just like Star Fleet Academy, but with corporate funding. I wonder if Boeing will buy naming rights. They're certainly near the front of the Thank You line. (And again, not snark; just transactional politics as big people play it.)

GP

Not Too Late For Ted Cruz To Win The Republican Nomination?

Last year I was certain that Ted Cruz's ruthlessness and willingness to pander to the most extreme factions of the neo-fascist right would trump the big money Establishment Republicans who, at the time, were lining up behind Jeb Bush and Chris Christie. Christie is no longer a factor, Bush hasn't caught fire and Cruz could still pull it off-- but right now the front-runner has got to be ridiculous Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker. The most recent Quinnipiac poll-- March 5-- shows Walker a nose ahead of Bush among GOP voters.

• Scott Walker- 18%
• Jeb Bush- 16%
• Chris Christie- 8%
• Mike Huckabee- 8%
• Ben Carson- 7%
• Ted Cruz- 6%
• Rand Paul- 6%
• Marco Rubio- 5%

Everyone else was 2% or less-- and in a general election matchup, Hillary Clinton beats each one of them. Cruz, in fact, only manages 38% against her, the worst of any Republican contender. Clinton also has the highest favorability rating among all voters.

Over the weekend, the Republicans were at the Iowa Ag Summit (AKA- King Corn Summit) where they found themselves on uncomfortable ground. Everyone in this crowd can agree that the EPA is Satan and that there should be no regulations air and water quality-- but the Iowa farmers aren't voting for anyone who isn't supporting the renewable fuel standard (and its subsidies). National right-wing ideologues are looking for a candidate who will put his foot down and say "no" to what they see as corporate welfare. For them, it's become a character issue. The ethanol industry is very powerful in Iowa and Republican candidates are loathe to cross them.

In an interview before the summit, Iowa Gov. Terry Branstad said “it’s doubtful” that a candidate who opposed the fuel standard could win the caucus. “It could be a very decisive issue,” he said. Mr. Branstad’s son, Eric, is leading what’s described as a multi-million dollar “naughty and nice” campaign to pressure candidates to promote the fuel standard.

Most of the candidates took their cue from Branstad and went full-tilt pander, particularly Scott Walker, Chris Christie, Mike Huckabee and Rick Perry. Jeb Bush gave a weasel word answer that tried to appease both sides. But Ted Cruz had his eye on the national extremist base.

“The answer you’d like me to give is, ‘I’m for the RFS.’ Darn it, that would be the easy thing to do. But I tell you, people are pretty fed up, I think, with politicians that run around and tell one group one thing and tell another group another thing, and then they go to Washington and they don’t do anything that they said they would do. And I think that’s a big part of the reason we have the problems we have in Washington, is there have been career politicians in both parties that aren’t listening to the American people and aren’t doing what they said they would do.””

The National Review applauded Cruz's strategy and said he won the point and got the biggest applause. He's trying to paint himself as the guy who tells the truth no matter what it costs politically. He even defended New Jersey Senator Bob Menendez, who, claims Cruz, is the victim of a vendetta by Obama for his stands against administration policies in Cuba and Iran.

Cruz made the allegations to a throng of reporters jammed into the corner of a tent outside the Iowa Ag Summit in Des Moines without even having been asked about the Menendez criminal charges.

“The announcement this week by the Justice Department that they were bringing charges against Bob Menendez-- I will point out that the timing seems awfully coincidental that … in the very week that Bob Menendez showed incredible courage to speak out and call out President Obama for the damage that his policy is doing to our national security … the Justice Department announces they’re moving forward with the criminal prosecution,” Cruz said.

“It raises the suggestion to other Democrats that if you dare part from the Obama White House, that criminal prosecutions will be used potentially as a political weapon against you as well,” he added.

Still, Cruz's dismal showing at CPAC, supposedly the kinds of committed activists and extremists who were going to propel him into the nomination, can't be looked at as auspicious for the nomination. Instead, he came in third behind Rand Paul and Scott Walker. If he can't win the CPAC straw poll... he's still got a very long way to go.

Why Do Conservatives Hate Small Business And The Entrepreneurial Spirit?

Gwen Graham, first 2015 freshman to earn her clown outfit

Yesterday, the House passed Steve Chabot's Small Business Regulatory Flexibility Improvements Act of 2015 (H.R. 527), every single Republican plus 19 conservative Democrats-- overwhelmingly New Dems and Blue Dogs-- making up the 260-163 majority for what they're calling a "bipartisan bill." Two of the worst congressmen from the Republican wing of the Democratic Party-- Collin Peterson (Blue Dog-MN) and Henry Cuellar (Blue Dog-TX)-- were co-sponsors. These are the Democrats who crossed the aisle to vote with the GOP:

• Pete Aguilar (New Dem-CA)
• Brad Ashford (Blue Dog/New Dem-NE)
• Ami Bera (New Dem-CA)
• Sanford Bishop (Blue Dog-GA)
• Jim Cooper (Blue Dog/New Dem-TN)
• Jim Costa (Blue Dog-CA)
• Henry Cuellar (Blue Dog-TX)
• Pete DeFazio (OR)
• John Delaney (New Dem-MD)
• Gwen Graham (Blue Dog/New Dem-FL)
• Ron Kind (New Dem-WI)
• Ann Kirkpatrick (New Dem-AZ)
• Patrick Murphy (New Dem-FL)
• Ed Perlmutter (New Dem-CO)
• Scott Peters (New Dem-CA)
• Collin Peterson (Blue Dog-MN)
• Kurt Schrader (Blue Dog/New Dem-OR)
• Kyrsten Sinema (Blue Dog/New Dem- AZ)
• Tim Walz (MN)

The legislation was designed to pad the bottom line of big political campaign contributors in Big Business. Using "Small Business" in the title is typical Beltway subterfuge meant to mislead the public. Chabot's bill is more in line with GOP priorities-- further deregulating Wall Street, for example-- which are harmful to small businesses. Chabot's bill also seeks to help Big Business get around EPA regulations and to undercut regulations that protect consumers and workers from excessive greed from capitalist sociopaths. The three Democratic freshmen most blatantly in the pockets of Big Business-- Pete Aguilar, Brad Ashford and Gwen Graham-- all backed the bill, signaling the K Street lobbyists their offices are open for business.

Amit Narang of Public Citizen’s Congress Watch Division wrote that Chabot's bill is vague by design. "The SBRFIA is designed to mislead lawmakers and the public into believing they are helping small businesses, while giving large corporations a free pass on rules designed to hold them accountable and protect the public."

Wisconsin Congressman Mark Pocan was one of the progressives urging his colleagues to defeat the proposal. "This bill," he told us, "is what America has come to expect from House Republicans-- nothing more than a deregulation bill for Wall Street and big corporate polluters disguised as a small business bill. It would delay or block environmental safety, food safety, workplace safety and consumer product safety regulations even when those regulations don’t apply to small businesses."

Wasted Taxes/Happy Lobbyists-- Subsidizing Billion Dollar Corporations Through The Export-Import Banks

Once there was a time… when we knew what it meant to be a Democrat. I remember it. It was the party of the working and middle classes, not another party of Big Business and Wall Street. I can't pinpoint the exact change but one inflection point was when George H.W. Bush was unable to pass NAFTA and Bill Clinton went to Wall Street and said he could do it for them-- the political birth of Rahm Emanuel… and the beginning of a downward spiral for Democrats.

Friday, David Sirota pointed out that there was a time when the Export-Import Bank was supported by Republicans and opposed by most Democrats. We came to similar conclusions here at DWT last month by where we mostly castigated corrupt Republicans, he has an equally bad set of villains. He suggests that following the money-- i.e., the corruption in the Republican wing of the Democratic Party-- will explain the shift. He begins with Bernie Sanders' failed 2002 amendment to reform the Export-Import Bank, supported by 111 Democrats but only 22 libertarian-leaning Republicans. Sanders correctly explained how what was once a good idea had morphed into "one of the most egregious forms of corporate welfare."

The first lesson may be the most jarring because American politics is typically portrayed as a principled battle between two ideologically divided parties. But as the Export-Import Bank debate proves, money often trumps those purported principles to the point that parties will suddenly trade ideologies based on their perception of short-term interests.

In this case, the Republicans see an opportunity to humiliate Obama, and so they are momentarily ignoring their business benefactors who benefit from taxpayer subsidies. Meanwhile, Democrats are dropping their populist platitudes in favor of a chance to attract fundraising support from  GOP-leaning business interests. As New York’s Democratic Senator Chuck Schumer told National Journal about his efforts to use the Export-Import debate to court cash from the Chamber of Commerce: “I’ve said this to [chamber President] Tom Donohue and others: In many ways mainstream Democrats are closer to you than many Republicans.”

But, then, as dizzying as all these opportunistic partisan shifts may be, what hasn’t yet changed is the power dynamic. If in fact the Export-Import Bank debate ends up with the same results as years past (read: no reform), then it will be a reminder that the corporate lobby still calls the shots in a principle-free legislative arena.

It will be a reminder, in other words, that Big Business is still able to shape party politics to make sure its permanent interests remain Washington’s permanent interests-- regardless of what is the best policy for the country as a whole.

Corporate shills on both sides of the aisle-- Democrats like Steny Hoyer, Steve Israel, Jim Himes, Debbie Wasserman Schultz, all the sleazy, corrupt New Dems and Blue Dogs plus the Chamber of Commerce Republicans are hoping progressives and libertarians can't cobble together a coalition with teabbaggers to derail this. This week, The Hill covered the bipartisan corporate push led in the Senate by Big Coal puppet Joe Manchin (D-WV) and Chamber of Commerce whore Mark Kirk (R-IL). Their 5-year reauthorization increases the bank's credit exposure limit from the current $140 billion to $160 billion and-- thanks to Manchin-- reverses restrictions that Ex-Im officials passed in December preventing the bank from financing overseas power plants that won't adopt greener technology.

Progressives are opposed because the proposal exacerbates Global Warming and because it is pure crony capitalism, granting all kinds of rotten loans on projects American taxpayers are not in favor of funding, particularly ones that ship U.S. jobs overseas. Big very profitable companies-- with executives who pay out massive bribes to politicians in the form of campaign contributions-- like Boeing and big energy companies, get the bulk of the benefits. It really is primarily a Big Business subsidy fund with corrupt politicians getting a cut in the form of kickbacks. The bank invests in coal mining projects all over the world, including environmentally sensitive sites like the Great Barrier Reef and they routinely invest in companies with terrible employment and civil rights practices, including in government-sponsored companies where the governments benefitting are terrible human rights violators. I asked Alan Grayson why he was opposed to the Manchin/Kirk proposal and he said "The Export-Import Bank subsidizes foreigners who buy American products. Why don’t we take exactly the same money, and use it to subsidize Americans who buy American products?"

Republican On Republican-- Stephen Lee Fincher, Bible Thumpin' Tennessee Hypocrite-- And Welfare Queen

Earlier I was criticizing Beltway Democrats for hypocrisy. Maybe I just should have said Beltway politicians. It was hard to watch Tennessee Republican Stephen Fincher, a Methodist gospel singer aside from the congressman for the 8th district (Jackson, Germantown, Dyersburg and the whole western part of the state minus Memphis), voting to cut $40 billion from the food stamp program for the neediest American families. Why was Fincher harder to watch then any of the 217 House Republicans who backed this travesty (all but 15 of them)? Well, there's a special little place in hell for the gospel-singin' Fincher from Frog Jump? Fincher, it turns out, has gobbled up nearly $9 million in farm subsidies from Uncle Sam over the last decade, mostly for his cotton crop. Congressman Fincher also received a $13,650 grant to help buy grain hauling and storage equipment from the state Department of Agriculture in 2009 as part of the Tennessee Agricultural Enhancement Program. Yes, teabagger Stephen Fincher is a welfare queen. And a hypocrite. A pious hypocrite eager to starve poor families who can't get jobs because of economic policies his party used to crash the economy.


And it gets worse, according to Forbes magazine. Remember when we were talking about how so many wealthy congressmembers on the House Agriculture Committee were all gung-ho to shave billions of dollars off the food stamps program? That's Fincher's committee. (No conflict of interest there, right?)

Armed with an array of proverbs and quotes from the Holy Bible, Congressman Fincher is pressing his fight to dramatically curtail the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP)-- better known to most Americans as food stamps-- relied upon by 47 million Americans for some or all of their daily sustenance.

Why?

Because the Bible tells him so.

Appearing this past weekend at a gathering at a Memphis Holiday Inn, Fincher explained his position on food stamps by stating, “The role of citizens, of Christians, of humanity is to take care of each other, but not for Washington to steal from those in the country and give to others in the country.”

The Congressman’s remarks come on the heels of his taking the biblical route when responding to Representative Juan Vargas’ (D-Calif.) somewhat different take on the teachings of Jesus. During a recent House Agriculture Committee debate over the Farm Bill (which contains the food stamp budget), Vargas, citing the Book of Matthew, noted, “[Jesus] says how you treat the least among us, the least of our brothers, that’s how you treat him.”

Vargas also noted that  Jesus directly mentions the importance of feeding the hungry.

Not to be outdone by a Godless Democrat, Congressman Fincher responded with his own Bible quote taken from the Book of Thessalonians-- “The one who is unwilling to work shall not eat.”

Nicely played, Congressman.

While the biblical back-and-forth is interesting, I wonder if Congressman Fincher would be good enough to refer me to the part of the Bible revealing to us how providing adequate food stamp assistance to those in need violates the teachings of Christianity but venerates accepting government hand-outs in the guise of farm subsidies?

Maybe the Congressman can instruct heathens such as I on how pocketing huge sums of taxpayer money in the guise of farm subsidies is a righteous act, while accepting government subsidies to feed one’s family is an act of-- to use Fincher’s own words-- stealing from those in the country to give to others in the country?

I don’t ask these questions of Congressman Fincher indiscriminately. I ask them because of Fincher’s unique qualification to provide us with the appropriate proverb intended to instruct.

You see, Representative Fincher happens to be the second largest recipient of farm subsidies in the United States Congress-- which might explain why Mr. Fincher would like to decimate the food stamp budget in order to do the Lord’s work when “supporting a proposal to expand crop insurance by $9 billion over the next 10 years.”

How much money are the taxpayers forking over to Congressman Fincher via farm subsidies?

While Fincher may only come in second amongst his congressional peers when it comes to pocketing huge sums of taxpayer money, he has the distinction of being one of the largest recipients of subsidies in the history of the great State of Tennessee.

Farmer Fincher Is A Gospel Singer-- And A Crook