Archive for billionaires

“Romney sees people who work as ‘suckers.’ He can’t go away quickly enough.”

Today’s L.A. Times letters to the editor, because our voices matter:

Re “Romney blames loss on Obama ‘gifts,’ ” Nov. 15

Will somebody please let Mitt Romney know that the election is over and he lost? He had many, many months to present his vision for the future, and America (which he might not realize includes women, minorities and young people) rejected it. He should have let his eloquent concession speech serve as his final words.

Instead, he spewed a fictitious, bigoted and condescending view of why he lost: It wasn’t because he was poised to roll back women’s healthcare rights, give tax breaks to the rich or dismiss 47% of the country as takers; it was because young people, minorities and the working class were bribed with gifts and blindly made their decision based on free stuff.

In reality, the only gift they received was not getting stuck with a president who thinks access to healthcare, control over your own body and reproductive choices, and the chance at an affordable college education are handouts.

Eric Cook
Redondo Beach

***

I guess I’m one of the “takers” Romney was talking about.

And he was right; I do want “stuff.” I want stuff like affordable healthcare for my family, affordable college loans for my children, a Social Security system that won’t be privatized and a Medicare system that won’t be “voucher-ized.”

I want stuff like a woman’s right to choose what happens to her body, and a country that rewards hardworking immigrants rather than punishes them. Those are the reasons I voted for President Obama.

Eric Gardner
Redondo Beach

***

Romney’s conclusion that people voted for Obama because he was giving them gifts only demonstrates how completely out of touch he is with the American electorate.

If anyone was offering gifts, it was Romney, who promised his wealthy donors and supporters that they would receive yet another tax cut.

I would have personally profited from a reduction in capital gains, but I am more interested in saving the country from becoming an oligarchy.

The gift Obama is giving to me is his intellect, his good judgment and his support of the middle class, who built this nation. That’s quite enough for me.

Barbara H. Bergen
Los Angeles

***

To Romney: If you really want to see political gifts in action, please remember your support of multibillion-dollar Big Oil tax credits, tax breaks for wealthy Americans on capital gains/ordinary income, and deregulation of Wall Street after it brought the world economy to its knees in 2008.

Don Mackay
Torrance

***

I’m neither young nor unemployed. I get no gifts from Obama. I do work 60 hours a week to annually earn less than 5% of what Romney makes without working at all.

Yet for 2011, I paid a greater percentage of my income in taxes to the federal government than Romney.

Romney sees people who work as “suckers.” He can’t go away quickly enough.

Bill Serantoni
Thousand Oaks

***

Would Romney have us believe that the Koch brothers and businessman Sheldon Adelson were total altruists who didn’t expect multimillion-dollar tax breaks and other gifts in return for their multi-figure donations to his campaign?

The wonder isn’t that Romney lost but that he got as many votes as he did.

David Riley
Laguna Woods

Citizens United problems also stem from a U.S. Court of Appeals case

The Supreme Court could tell us this month on why they were right about Citizens United, the case that has changed this country for the worse, as the Wisconsin recall election made very clear, and as those in November are shaping up to do the same. Or they could hear the case in the fall and decide whether or not they screwed up.

Unlimited use of private wealth to influence election outcomes is giving a handful of political billionaire sugar daddies more clout than the candidates themselves.

An article in today’s L.A. Times drives the point home while it illuminates. For example, all that money that’s been given to campaigns isn’t as corporate as you’d think. An entirely different case was decided by a U.S. Court of Appeals after the Citizens United ruling that affects super PAC campaign ads, not necessarily corporate ones.

The rise of “super PACs,” which may raise and spend unlimited amounts so long as they do so independently of a candidate, has allowed close aides to candidates to set up supposedly independent committees that have raised huge amounts, primarily from wealthy individuals. The PACs have spent most of their money on negative ads attacking the opposition. That unlimited fundraising was set in motion by Citizens United, but came to full flower after the subsequent Court of Appeals decision.

So, as the L.A. Times reports, we have a two-track campaign funding system: “One features small donors and strict regulation; the other exists for the very wealthy, who are largely freed from regulation.” A twofer!

And SCOTUS decided that the 1st Amendment protects independent spending on campaigns and that “more public speech and debate on politics is a plus, not a minus.”

And by public speech and debate they mean secret money.

As I mentioned earlier, the problem is that control went from candidates and political parties to outside groups.

The U.S. Court of Appeals in Washington, citing the 5-4 opinion, reasoned that since the 1st Amendment guaranteed the right to unrestricted “independent” spending on politics, PACs should have the right to collect unlimited sums, so long as they too were independent. [...]

A person who wants to contribute to the campaigns of President Obama or Mitt Romney, his Republican challenger, may give no more than $5,000 this election cycle. But those who have a million dollars to spend can send their money to a super PAC supporting Obama or Romney.

Super PACs have to disclose their donors, but those who prefer secrecy can use not-for-profit groups and trade associations that don’t disclose theirs.

The Supreme Court is being asked to hear a case to address some of this mess, in which the Montana Supreme Court refused to strike down its state ban on election spending by corporations. But you can bet that the wealthy will win, because their guys on the highest court in the land attend and/or headline fundraisers hosted by conservative groups filled to the brim with corporate donors.

It finally dawned on one Republican who is starting a new super PAC: Marriage equality is a winning issue

There is a very wealthy Republican by the name of Paul Singer who has donated nearly $10 million to gay-rights initiatives in three states. Now he’s helping to finance a super PAC called American Unity PAC with his billions. Their goal is to get GOP candidates to support marriage equality.

Welcome to our world.

Via the New York Times:

Now, Singer says, he’s providing $1 million to start a new “super PAC” with several Republican compatriots. Named American Unity PAC, its sole mission will be to encourage Republican candidates to support same-sex marriage, in part by helping them to feel financially shielded from any blowback from well-funded groups that oppose it.

Being motivated by fear is par for the course for Republicans, so blowbackaphobia is enough to prod many a rightie to acquire a taste for rainbow-hued wedding cake.

Singer is straight, but he has a gay son and son-in-law who were married in 2004 in one of Willard Romney’s home states, Massachusetts. Kudos to him for his efforts, regardless on whose side he’s on.

Per the Times, there is “a growing awareness among prominent Republicans that embracing marriage equality could broaden the party’s base and soften the party’s image in crucial ways.” Apparently they finally noticed the polls that show that more Americans are just dandy with men marrying men and women marrying women. Or to put it another way, Republicans looked at the calendar and were jolted into the reality that it isn’t the 19th century any more.

Missing: $16 billion

Think Progress has a short news item at their place, so I’ll give you a tease. Just know that when you click over, you’re sure to be as pissed off as I am right now.

Its ability to use a stock option loophole to zero out its U.S. tax bill, despite ample profits, makes no sense.

Hint: The top .000000000001%, give or take. Mostly take.

Never-before-seen VIDEO bombshell: WI Gov. Walker tells big donor/Koch strategist he’d use “divide and conquer” as strategy against unions

:

Documentary filmmaker Brad Lichtenstein videotaped this conversation in which Gov. Scott Walker says he would use “divide and conquer” as a strategy against unions. Video courtesy of Brad Lichtenstein.

Billionaire Diane Hendricks, who you see in the video, has given $510,000 to Scotty’s campaign, which makes her his single-largest donor and the largest known donor to a candidate in state history.

The video is from January 2011.

JSOnline fills us where the video left off:

“So for us,” the governor continues, “the base we get for that is the fact that we’ve got – budgetarily we can’t afford not to. If we have collective bargaining agreements in place, there’s no way not only the state but local governments can balance things out. . . . That opens the door once we do that. That’s your bigger problem right there.”

He goes on to talk about curbing liability lawsuits and government regulations. [...]

This is another colossal bait and switch that goes directly to his honesty,” [Milwaukee Mayor Tom Barrett, Walker's challenger in the June 5 recall election] said. “What he claims he is not in favor of publicly, to the person who has made the largest contribution in state history, he says exactly the opposite. You can’t trust him.”

Barrett has been hammering Walker on right-to-work legislation for weeks, frequently using the phrase “divide and conquer.” Barrett said he used that term because he believed that was Walker’s strategy, but did not know until Thursday that Walker himself had used it.

As Russ Feingold says in an email I just received:

This is the work of a dishonest governor and a national corporate agenda….

We all know Scott Walker didn’t tell the truth to the people of Wisconsin about his private plans for an ideological civil war.

But now there is never-before-seen footage of Walker talking to a Koch Brothers strategist that proves it.

Please contribute here and here to help beat Scott Walker.

Video- F&F Cherry-Picks Stats On Number Of Millionaires To Suggest Obama’s “Plan To Redistribute The Wealth Is Working”