GOP House Candidate Jesse Kelly Says ‘It’s Our Job To Protect Ourselves’ From Salmonella Outbreaks
GOP House Candidate Jesse Kelly Says ‘It’s Our Job To Protect Ourselves’ From Salmonella Outbreaks
Although there are a diverse set of political beliefs in the United States, there are currently two major political philosophies clashing for control of the American body politic. One, the progressive view, believes in a society where a democratically elected government plays an active role in helping all people achieve the American Dream, no matter who they are. The other, the conservative vision, believes in the on-your-own-society that favors the wealthy, big corporations, and other privileged sectors of society.
GOP House candidate Jesse Kelly, who is running in Arizona’s 8th congressional district, championed this second vision a week ago at a campaign rally hosted by the Pima County Tea Party Patriots. During a question-and-answer period, a voter asked Kelly about the recent salmonella outbreak, which led to recall of more than half a billion eggs.
The voter asked if Kelly, if elected, would he help pass a law that would allow the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and other government agencies to shut down companies that have too many safety violations, such as the companies that allowed millions of eggs that sickened people to be sold to the public. Kelly responded that he doesn’t “believe what we’re lacking right now is more regulations on companies,” complaining that “you could probably spit on the grass and get arrested by the federal government by now.” When the voter followed up by asking, “Who’s protecting us?” Kelly responded, “It’s our job to protect ourselves.” The exasperated voter asked once more, “Am I supposed to go to a chicken farmer and say I’d like you to close down because all of your birds are half dead?” Kelly once more answered, “There’s a new thing that comes along every day. But I know this: Every part of our economy that is regulated by the government doesn’t have fewer disasters, it has more”:
QUESTIONER: Given the salmonella outbreaks that we have seen every three weeks, with the chicken industry, with pesticides and what not that they put onto spinach in order to get the salmonella. We have rules and regulations. However there is no rule mandating that they be enforced. Is there some way when you’re in Congress that you’ll have a bill passed that says instead of having companies voluntarily change, mandate that they must change or give them the ability to shut ‘em down and that goes for mining companies or anyone who has hundreds of violations against ‘em.
KELLY: Here’s the thing with that point, that’s the first time I’ve ever had that question. Congratulations on being unique. First shot out of the box, no ma’am. I do not believe that what we’re lacking right now is a lack of regulations on business. [...] You could literally go spit on the grass and get arrested by the federal government if you wanted to right now. [...] More regulation, more federal control, giving Nancy Pelosi more power, is not the solution right now.
QUESTIONER: Who’s protecting us?
KELLY: That’s the thing, ma’am, it’s our job to protect ourselves. Because no one else is going to look out for your best interests except for you. [...]
QUESTIONER: Am I supposed to go to a chicken farmer and say I’d like you to close down because all of your birds are half dead?
KELLY: I’ve not heard a lot about that recently, obviously there’s a new thing that comes along every day. But I know this, every portion of our economy that is heavily regulated doesn’t have fewer disasters, it has more.
Watch it:
Unfortunately, this is not the first time that Kelly attacked the FDA and advocated that people would be better off if no one was helping protect them from security hazards like diseased eggs which are very difficult for the average person to detect.
At a Rotary Club meeting earlier this month, the candidate said he wanted to “reduce the [FDA] as much as humanly possible,” claiming that we want to “blame the evil pharmaceutical companies” because drugs cost too much, and that we shouldn’t “spend our time blaming big business” (ignoring that the drug industry’s political clout over the FDA is the real problem).
- Comments
- View Comments
Right-Wing ‘Journalists’ At Secret Koch Meeting Make A Living Defending Unlimited Corporate Political Money
Right-Wing ‘Journalists’ At Secret Koch Meeting Make A Living Defending Unlimited Corporate Political Money
Earlier this week, ThinkProgress revealed documents pertaining to a secret election-planning meeting convened by the right-wing billionaires David and Charles Koch of the $120 billion dollar conglomerate Koch Industries. The Koch Meeting included powerful executives from the health insurance, coal, manufacturing, banking, and pharmaceutical industry, as well as the top lobbyist from the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, which represents large corporations like AIG and Wal-Mart. One of the most startling revelations about the June 2010 event, as Salon’s Joe Conason noted, was the fact that conservative media stars “Krauthammer, Ponnuru, Barone, Moore and Beck were flown out to Aspen, lodged in luxury accommodations, and presumably paid a handsome honorarium by Koch to entertain and enlighten the would-be saviors of the Republic.” Conason asked, “So where are the guardians of media integrity, who made so much noise about the innocuous jawing of the liberals on Journolist?”
Not only did Koch invite many prominent right-wing media stars, he also invited supposedly objective journalists to his political strategy confab. Many of the journalists at the Koch Meeting have actually made a living for themselves accepting large sums of money from Koch Meeting participants, then parroting talking points promoting corporate control of American democracy:
“Journalist” Michael Barone
– Barone’s Koch Meeting Money: Barone is a Resident Fellow at the American Enterprise Institute — a think tank/trade association well represented at the Koch Meeting — which according to its 990 tax forms, compensates fellows in the $100,000-range. Right-wing billionaire Phil Anschutz, a Koch Meeting participant, owns and subsidizes the Washington Examiner, where Barone is a paid contributor. Earlier this year, Barone was given the “Bradley Prize,” a $250,000 no-strings-attached gift just for being a loyal conservative. Several Koch Meeting businessmen are active with the Bradley Foundation, and Koch Meeting participant Dennis Kuester, a retired bank executive, helped select Barone for the gift. The Bradley Foundation, managed by former Republican National Committee counsel Michael Grebe, is endowed with nearly $500 million dollars from the wealth of deceased industrialist Harry Bradley, a proud John Birch Society member who came under fire for systematically discriminating against African Americans and women in his factories.
– Barone’s Reflexive Defense Of Koch, Secret Corporate Money: Barone enjoys wide distribution of his views through a paid punditry position at Fox News and a syndicated column through Human Events, the Washington Examiner, National Review, and other publications. And Barone has used his media platform to willingly distort ThinkProgress’ investigation of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce’s foreign fundraising, while also praising the influence of secret corporate money in the 2010 elections. Dismissing the influence of secret corporate cash (like his own), Barone scoffed at “Obamaites” for conjuring a “19th-century caricatures of fat cats.” Barone often uses his columns to mock the poor, and assists his benefactors by sliming financial and clean energy reform.
“Journalist” Tim Carney
– Carney’s Koch Meeting Money: Carney, a “libertarian” writer who defends the right of the fossil fuel industry to emit carbon pollution for free, has attacked ThinkProgress for highlighting his role at the Koch Meeting. In a piece this week, Carney gave full “disclosure” that he only occasionally speaks at Koch-funded dinners at the Koch-funded Institute for Humane Studies, and that his presence at the Koch Meeting was merely to scold the corporate executives about America’s bailout culture. In fact, in addition to being gainfully employed by billionaire Koch Meeting industrialist Phil Anschutz, Carney has received $50,000 from the Koch-funded ISI Enterprise Award, $50,000 from the Koch-funded Phillips Foundation, and was previously a fellow at the Koch-funded Competitive Enterprise Institute, an aggressive front group that defends polluters.
– Carney’s Reflexive Defense Of Koch, Secret Corporate Money: Carney has vigorously defended Koch’s political giving, and the right for corporations to exploit Citizens United for unlimited, undisclosed political contributions. Although he postures as an enemy of bailouts and government subsidies, Carney ignores the fact that his Koch Industries benefactors used their conservative “movement” donations to encourage the Bush Justice Department to largely dismiss $350 million in fines for leaking carcinogenic benzene, or that Koch leveraged its relationship with the Bush administration to take control of the Strategic Petroleum Reserve, or that Koch begged the Alaskan government for a bailout of one of its refineries.
“Journalist” Stephen Moore
– Moore’s Koch Meeting Money: Moore is subsidized through “fellowships” and “senior fellow” positions at a number of Koch-funded groups, including the Cato Institute and the Goldwater Institute, while actually leading Koch Meeting-aligned groups like the Free Enterprise Fund. In an interview with Charles Koch for the Wall Street Journal, Moore disclosed that Koch has underwritten organizations Moore is involved in, although he did not specify which ones.
– Moore’s Reflexive Defense Of Koch, Secret Corporate Money: Moore, who also serves as a pundit on CNBC and Fox News, is best known for his role as an editorial board member of the Wall Street Journal. The Wall Street Journal editorial board has been a constant defender of Koch Industries and of unlimited, secret corporate money in American elections.
Other journalists at the meeting are also on the Koch Meeting payroll. The Washington Post’s Charles Krauthammer — who spoke at the Koch Meeting’s mountaintop dinner on “What’s Ahead for America?” — is also a recipient of the $250,000 Bradley Prize gift and sits on the board of other groups funded by the Koch Meeting network. While no one outside the 9/12 “movement” views hate-talker and Koch Meeting participant Glenn Beck as a serious journalist, will the media scrutinize the ties of Barone, Moore, or Carney to their corporate benefactors?
‘U.S.’ Chamber Of Commerce Is Fueled By Foreign Oil
‘U.S.’ Chamber Of Commerce Is Fueled By Foreign Oil
The United States Chamber of Commerce is running an unprecedented $75 million campaign to unseat progressives from Congress, in defense of a big-oil agenda. As a ThinkProgress investigation has learned Chamber’s donors — who send their checks to the same account from which the political campaign is run — include multinational oil corporations, and even oil companies owned by the Kingdom of Bahrain. The oil-fueled Chamber has hammered candidates who voted to limit our dependence on oil, falsely claiming they supported a “job-killing energy tax” (like Rep. Paul Hodes (D-NH), Rep Joe Sestak (D-PA), Rep. Betsy Markey (D-CO), Rep. Alan Grayson (D-FL), and Rep. Harry Teague (D-NM)).
The Chamber has repeatedly questioned the science behind climate change, even calling for a “Scopes monkey trial” in 2009. Numerous companies, including Apple, Exelon, PNM Resources, PG&E, and PSEG, quit the Chamber because of their reactionary opposition to climate legislation, determined by right-wing board members like coal giants Massey, Peabody, and Consol. Multinational oil companies BP, Chevron, ExxonMobil, Hess, and Shell Oil fund the Chamber of Commerce through its Business Civic Leadership Council. The Chamber’s anti-clean-energy agenda serves not only domestic coal barons and oil majors, but also the following foreign oil and coal companies, who are some of the dozens of foreign corporations that pay member dues to the Chamber of Commerce’s 501c(6) account, which is used to fund its political ads:
– Avantha Group, India (at least $7,500 in annual member dues): power plants
– The Bahrain Petroleum Company, Kingdom of Bahrain ($5,000): state-owned oil campany
– Gulf Petrochemical Industries Company, Kingdom of Bahrain ($5,000): state-owned oil company
– Essar Group, Mumbai, India ($7,500): oil & gas, coal power
– GMR, Bangalore, India ($15,000): coal power, mining
– Hinduja Group, London, UK ($15,000): the Gulf Oil group
– Jindal Power, New Delhi, India ($15,000): coal power
– Lahmeyer International, Frankfurt, Germany ($7,500): power plant engineering
– Punj Lloyd, Gurgaon, India ($15,000): offshore pipelines
– Reliance Industries, Mumbai, India ($15,000): oil and gas, petrochemicals
– SNC Lavalin, Montreal, Canada ($7,500): mining, power plant, and oil & gas engineering
– Tata Group, Mumbai, India ($15,000): power plants, oil & gas
– Walchandnagar Industries, Mumbai, India ($7,500): power plant, oil & gas engineering
– Welspun, Mumbai, India ($7,500): oil & gas exploration
“To secure America’s long-term energy security, America must reexamine outdated and entrenched positions, become better informed about the sources of our fuel and power, and make judgments based on facts, sound science, and good American common sense,” the Chamber argues. America will be insecure as long as the Chamber is spreading lies about science and energy supported by foreign polluter cash.
Cross-posted on The Wonk Room.
Local Connecticut Chamber Weighing Whether To Break With ‘U.S.’ Chamber
Local Connecticut Chamber Weighing Whether To Break With ‘U.S.’ Chamber
The Greater Mystic Chamber of Commerce in southern Connecticut is currently in discussions about whether to break from the ‘U.S.’ Chamber over disagreements about the national Chamber’s involvement in politics.
Chamber Executive Director Tricia Cunningham said her organization, which currently pays dues to the national Chamber, has disagreements over the U.S. Chamber’s use of millions of corporate dollars this election season to lobby and advertise on national issues:
“At a recent board meeting,” Cunningham said, “we did have a conversation about the U.S. Chamber after learning of their recent political advertisements, and we are evaluating our relationship with the organization. We do not necessarily condone or support the views of the U.S. Chamber.”
That lack of transparency can be confusing, said Cunningham. “Because we are a small local chamber, sometimes people assume our views would be the same” as the national chamber, when they’re not, she said, adding, “But we’re happy to clarify that.”
Tony Sheridan, president and chief executive officer of the Chamber of Commerce of Eastern Connecticut, said his organization broke off its relationship with the U.S. Chamber last year. Sheridan said plainly, “My issue with the national chamber is their willingness to take a very narrow slice of a piece of complicated legislation – and it’s generally the most negative spin they’re taking, like health care, when we all know that the health-care system is broken – and claim that the sky is falling, instead of using the money to educate people.”
Since ThinkProgress first reported on the Chamber’s receipt of foreign funds (which go into the same general account that funds the Chamber’s right-wing partisan attack ads), a number of local chambers have publicly broken from the national organization.
Last week, the Greater Hudson Chamber of Commerce in New Hampshire announced it is leaving the U.S. Chamber because it does not want to be associated with the national Chamber’s political ads in favor of Republican candidates. And in Virginia, the local Charlottesville Regional Chamber of Commerce has refused to endorse the political attack ads that the national Chamber is running in its area to defeat Rep. Tom Perriello (D-VA).
Conservative defenders of the Chamber like to intentionally conflate the local chambers with the national Chamber, hoping the popularity of the independent locally-run Chambers will disguise the national Chamber’s right-wing activities. The U.S. Chamber also attempts to present itself as an organization the represents mom and pop local businesses. In reality, as the New York Times noted this week, it is funded mostly by a small number of large multi-national corporations.
GOP House Candidate Mike Kelly: ‘There’s Stuff To Be Cut. What Is It? I Can’t Tell You.’
GOP House Candidate Mike Kelly: ‘There’s Stuff To Be Cut. What Is It? I Can’t Tell You.’
ThinkProgress filed this report from Meadville, PA.
During a debate Thursday night, Pennsylvania House GOP candidate Mike Kelly was asked by the moderator to name “specific” cuts he would make to the federal budget. Kelly clearly understood the question, since he repeated the word “specific” in his response no less than 8 times.
But despite mentioning the word “specific,” there was nothing actually specific in Kelly’s response. Eight times Kelly rebuffed his own insistence that he would address the issue “very specifically.” His excuses ran the gamut, from “let me get there and I’ll figure it out” to “I can’t tell you,” and from “the specificity is in the process” to “I’d tear it apart”:
MODERATOR: Projections suggest that our national debt is approaching $14 trillion. Recent media reports suggest candidates across the country, from both parties, have been very vague about what they would do about the debt. Let’s break that trend and look at some specifics here. […] Could you please tell us what specific savings; where would you find massive cuts in the federal budget?
KELLY: Sure, I’ll address that, and I’ll address it very specifically. The specifics – the specificity – is in the process. When Gov. Christie got elected in New Jersey, they asked him the same question; he says “let me get there and I’ll figure it out. Let me just do this.” Because as a businessperson, you have to look every month at what you do. You have to look at the things that work and the things that didn’t work. You have to determine whether that’s the right course to be on or not be on.
And I’m always intrigued when people say, “specifically, what would you do?” Here, specifically, what would I do? I’d tear it apart. I’d tear it apart. I would want to look at every bit of our spending budget. Does it work or does it not work? Is it something we can improve on? Is it something we should redeploy those funds? Absolutely, there’s stuff to be cut. What is it right now? I can’t tell you. [...]
So I think we have the wrong point of view here. Specifically what would you do? Specifically, what I would do? I would be the most responsible legislator who’s out there. I would measure twice and cut once. I would look at every expense and is it performing the way it’s supposed to perform, or this just another one of those government programs that has an endless life that we just keep adding and adding and adding. So the specificness of it is getting people there that are responsible, that have skin in the game and that have sweat [inaudible], that understand what it means to make payments out of your own pocket, not the taxpayer’s. That’s a very sacred duty, that’s the way we would approach this.
Watch it:
Of course, Kelly is not alone in his refusal to give specific ways he would cut the federal budget. Just last week, California Senate nominee Carly Fiorina (R) was asked by Chris Wallace seven separate times which expenditures she would cut, only to rebuff the Fox News Sunday host each time. As ThinkProgress has noted, decrying the federal budget deficit while simultaneously offering no specific solutions to reduce it has quickly become a rite of passage for GOP candidates this election.
West Complains About Number Of District’s Uninsured Yet Wants To Deny 60,000 Residents Health Insurance
West Complains About Number Of District’s Uninsured Yet Wants To Deny 60,000 Residents Health Insurance
Earlier this month, GOP congressional candidate Allen West spoke at an outdoor rally to voters in Florida’s 22nd congresional district. He covered a number of issues, including his opposition to tax increases on the wealthiest Americans, his desire to reduce the federal deficit, and what he views as the progressive attack “on the values of this nation.”
At one point, West cited Census Bureau numbers that show that Florida’s 22nd congressional district has the second-highest number of uninsured residents in the country. West then asked the audience, “Are you going to send Ron Klein back to give you more of that?”:
WEST: The Census Bureau put out statistics this week that said congressional district 22 has the highest number, second highest number of uninsured Americans in the country. Are you going to send Ron Klein back to give you more of that? That’s the question you have to ask.
Watch it:
West is rightly outraged about the number of uninsured people in his district. The truth is, the United States lags significantly behind other industrialized countries in access to quality health care and serious reforms continue to be needed.
The problem with West’s statement is that he is actively advocating policies that would increase the number of uninsured people in the district he seeks to represent. On his campaign website the candidate proudly proclaims his desire to repeal the new health care reform law, complaining that it is a “government takeover of healthcare, complete with an exploding bureaucracy and massive tax increases.” In doing so, he offers no meaningful alternative, with health care not even listed as an issue on his campaign site. Congress’s health care bill will extend coverage to 60,000 of the district’s uninsured residents when it is fully implemented, meaning that West is effectively advocating for kicking tens of thousands of his district’s own residents off their health insurance while complaining about the high number of uninsured there.
Support For Veterans Shows Sharp Partisan Divide
Support For Veterans Shows Sharp Partisan Divide
According to an analysis by the nonpartisan Iraq & Afghanistan Veterans of America Action Fund, Republicans in Congress have dramatically failed to support our troops after they come home. IAVA’s 2010 Veteran Report Card, based on the key veterans’ legislation that came to a vote during the 111th Congress, exposed a sharp partisan divide on the level of support for Iraq and Afghanistan veterans, as MSNBC’s Rachel Maddow tabulated yesterday. Of the 94 elected officials that earned an A or A+ rating from IAVA, 91 were Democrats. Of the 154 officials who received a D or F, 142 were Republicans:
Maddow also noted that U.S. Senate candidates Sharron Angle (R-NV) and Ken Buck (R-CO) have called for the privatization of the Veterans Affairs hospital system, even though it provides the best quality of care in America, as our veterans deserve. Watch the segment:
Revealed: More Corporate Donations To The U.S. Chamber’s Partisan Attack Fund
Revealed: More Corporate Donations To The U.S. Chamber’s Partisan Attack Fund
Today, the New York Times builds on research published by ThinkProgress by noting that the U.S. Chamber of Commerce is mostly funded by a small group of large corporations. The Chamber has tried to lie about its identity for years, absurdly telling the media that it represents 3 million businesses. Then after being caught with no proof of such membership, it modified that number to 300,000 — but then claimed small businesses were the true driver of the Chamber’s member rolls. But the Times correctly points out that in 2008, the Chamber received the bulk of its donations from only 45 companies, including firms like Goldman Sachs, Edward Jones, Alpha Technologies, Chevron Texaco and Aegon.
Many corporations pay regular dues to the Chamber, but pitch in more during election cycles or particular lobbying campaigns. For instance, on top of its regular $100,000 commitment of yearly dues, health insurance giant Aetna joined other health insurers to funnel $20 million to the Chamber to kill health reform. Similarly, Fox News parent company News Corporation gave an additional $1 million to the Chamber for its attack campaign this midterm election. While ThinkProgress forced the Chamber to acknowledge that it receives foreign funds to its 501(c)(6) account used for attack ads, the Chamber refuses to disclose any of its other donors or how exactly it funds its nasty attack ads. Using public corporate records, ThinkProgress has found more dues-paying members of the Chamber. The numbers below reflect a bare minimum, and in many cases these corporations have paid ten times the amount of their regular dues to the Chamber in the past two years:
– Microsoft’s corporate disclosures state that the company paid the Chamber up to $999,999 in 2009 and up to $999,999 in 2010 in its minimum dues.
– Procter and Gamble paid the Chamber $3.2 million in 2009.
– Outsourcing giant CSC, which specializes in IT outsourcing, paid the Chamber at least $100,000 in 2009 and $100,000 in 2010.
– Intel paid the Chamber at least $100,000 in yearly dues ($100,000 in 2010, and what appears to be $100,000 in 2009).
– Drug company Merck paid the Chamber $234,000 in 2008, and still counts itself as a dues-paying member of the Chamber.
– Utility company Dominion Resources gave the Chamber $100,000 in 2009.
– On the Chamber’s Egypt Business Council website, Apache Corporation, British American Tobacco, The Blackstone Group, The Boeing Company, Cargill USA, CitiGroup, The Coca-Cola Company, ExxonMobil, Google, Microsoft Corporation, PepsiCo, Intel Corporation, Monsanto Company, Pfizer Inc, Philip Morris International combined committed an additional $375,000 to the Chamber for 2009-2010.
Earlier this year, U.S. Chamber of Commerce CEO Tom Donohue admitted to ThinkProgress that CitiGroup, a bailed out financial conglomerate that still has not paid back taxpayer TARP funds, is a dues-paying member of the Chamber. Many bailed out banks are in fact dues-paying members of the Chamber. A Huffington Post crowd-sourced study of the Chamber found that there are dozens of other large corporations that have indicated membership in the Chamber, but have refused to confess their level of involvement. The Chamber has shilled for BP, and Donohue said after BP’s spill that taxpayers should pay for the clean up. Indeed, BP admitted membership, but has not disclosed how much they pay to the Chamber.
As a ThinkProgress investigation found, at least 80 foreign businesses have been paying the Chamber at least $885,000 in yearly dues for the last two years. The money went directly to the Chamber’s 501(c)(6), the same account the Chamber is now using to run a $75 million attack campaign against Democrats. As we have shown, many of the foreign corporations have a direct stake in American public policy; for instance the Chamber has been the most vigorous lobbying operation in DC to promote outsourcing of American jobs. Of course, many other corporation join the Chamber to benefit from its right-wing corporate lobbying campaign, like keeping corporate tax loopholes open (Chamber members CitiGroup, ExxonMobil and Bank of America already paid no corporate income taxes last year) and maintaining the status quo on energy policy so the fossil fuel industry can emit carbon pollution free of charge.
Right After Calling For Social Security Privatization, GOP Senate Candidate Claims To Oppose Privatization
Right After Calling For Social Security Privatization, GOP Senate Candidate Claims To Oppose Privatization
A slew of Republican Senate candidates have recently tried to dress up their support for Social Security privatization as something else entirely, denying that they support privatization while continuing to advocate for the creation of private Social Security accounts that could be invested in the markets. Pennsylvania Republican Pat Toomey, Ohio Republican Rob Portman, Arkansas Republican John Boozman, and Colorado Republican Ken Buck have all said they oppose privatization, while simultaneously advocating for private accounts. Oregon’s Republican Senate nominee, law professor Jim Huffman, became the latest to join this club during a debate last night with Sen. Ron Wyden (D-OR), asserting that he hasn’t argued for privatizing Social Security, literally one sentence after calling for the creation of private accounts:
I have argued for allowing newcomers to the Social Security system to have the option of private accounts. I have not argued for privatizing the Social Security system. There’s nothing in the record that would uphold that argument.
Watch it:
This is all part and parcel of the concerted conservative campaign to change the terms — but not the policy prescriptions — of Social Security privatization. Privatization polls badly, so conservatives want to change the word, but not the idea. As the Wonk Room explained, the fact remains that creating private Social Security accounts would impose new risks on seniors, force new administrative costs and benefit reductions, and wouldn’t even set Social Security on a path to solvency.
Oregon GOP Senate Nominee Calls For Defense Cuts, Citing ‘Vast Amount Of Money Wasted In Defense’
Oregon GOP Senate Nominee Calls For Defense Cuts, Citing ‘Vast Amount Of Money Wasted In Defense’
Last night, Oregon’s U.S. Senate candidates Sen. Ron Wyden (D) and Republican Jim Huffman debated a variety of issues. Highlights from the debate include Huffman’s advocacy for extending all the Bush tax cuts and Wyden arguing in favor of ending tax breaks for companies that send jobs overseas.
At one point during the debate, the moderators asked the nominees about their stance on funding the National Guard and other defense programs. Both agreed that giving adequate funding to the National Guard was important to the state of Oregon. Interestingly, Huffman criticized members of Congress for “constantly lobbying to keep bases open or military installations open or [military] funding in their states just because it’s funding in their state.” He added that he has “no doubt there’s a vast amount of money wasted in defense” and advocated for taking “a very sharp pencil to looking at the defense budget,” because he believes “Dwight Eisenhower was right when he said there was a military industrial complex, and this continues to be a problem we have to deal with”:
HUFFMAN: I, too would be a strong supporter of the National Guard, I think it’s a very critical part of the community and of the state. As for funding I think it has to be part of a larger examination of military funding in this country. I think it’s a mistake as we found way back we found before the base closure act to have members of Congress constantly lobbying to keep bases open or military installations open or funding in their states just because its funding in their state, it needs to be part of a comprehensive national review of how we spend money in defense. I have no doubt there’s a vast amount of money wasted in defense, but at the same time I think it’s the most important thing the federal government does, and it has to be something it does all over the country. So I would be a very strong supporter of the National Guard but I’d also take a very sharp pencil to looking at the defense budget, because I think Dwight Eisenhower was right when he said there was a military industrial complex, and this continues to be a problem we have to deal with.
Watch it:
Huffman’s statement makes him at least the fifth Republican running for Senate who has gone on the record as saying that defense cuts are necessary in order to deal with the budget deficit and tackle waste in government. Earlier this week, Pennsylvania candidate Pat Toomey criticized Congress for voting for “programs the Pentagon doesn’t even want.” Last week, Illinois candidate Mark Kirk said we need “across the board” reductions in defense spending. Earlier this month, Sen. Johnny Isakson (GA) told a local news station that reducing the deficit “begins with the Department of Defense.” A few days later, Kentucky candidate Rand Paul criticized Republicans for exempting the military from waste-trimming, telling PBS’s Gwen Ifill that cutting defense spending “has to be on the table.” All of these candidates are stating positions in direct opposition to the GOP’s much-touted “Pledge To America,” which explicitly exempts the Department of Defense from waste-cutting.
If these Republicans are really serious about reining in the defense budget, they can look to The Sustainable Defense Task (SDTF) report released earlier this year. The SDTF — which comprises Rep. Barney Frank (D-MA) and some of the nation’s leading defense and budget experts — identified nearly $1 trillion in waste that can be cut from the defense budget over the next ten years simply by eliminating outdated Cold War-era programs. They could also reference a recent report by CAP experts Lawrence Korb and Laura Conley that lays out $108 billion in defense cuts in the current 2015 budget forecast.
Rove In 2004: Influence Of ‘Billionaires Who Write The Checks Give Me Some Concern’
Rove In 2004: Influence Of ‘Billionaires Who Write The Checks Give Me Some Concern’
Last night on NBC’s Nightly News, Michael Isikoff reported that a network of special interest money led by Karl Rove is “expecting to raise $250 million to flood the airwaves in these last few weeks of the election.” Rove has been able to raise all of this money from millionaires and billionaires by promising them anonymity.
In 2004, Rove benefited from a similar avalanche of outside money in his quest to help secure President Bush’s re-election. The Swift Boat Veterans for Truth were funded in part by Texas homebuilder Bob Perry, who is now funding Rove’s new group. The Swift Boat group, which operated as a 527, received over $20 million in donations to air television ads that smeared the war record of Sen. John Kerry (D-MA).
After the 2004 election concluded, Rove was asked how he felt about the impact of outside groups spending millions of dollars to shape the outcome of elections. Echoing a line offered by many Democrats today, Rove said the potential for a few wealthy contributors to tip the electoral balance was a concern and could potentially undermine democracy:
Rove said the 527s — named for the section of the tax code they are formed under — potentially undermine democracy by allowing a few wealthy individuals to spend tens of millions of dollars under less stringent disclosure requirements than before campaign laws were overhauled more than two years ago. These groups, first exploited by Democrats and later joined by Republicans, existed because of a huge loophole in the new law.
Democratic donors, led by at least $27 million from billionaire George Soros, funded such anti-Bush groups as America Coming Together and the Media Fund. Republican leaders originally thought these groups would be prohibited by the Federal Election Commission but when they were not, GOP activists joined the 527 parade late in the campaign. The Swift Boat Veterans for Truth, which ran ads attacking Kerry’s Vietnam War service and anti-war activities, were the most notable of these groups on Bush’s side.
Rove condemned them all.
“I am a firm believer in strong (political) parties, and things that weaken the parties and place the outcome of elections in the hands of billionaires who can write checks and political consultants who can get themselves hired by billionaires who write the checks, give me some concern,” Rove said.
Of course, these days Rove isn’t as big a believer in strong political parties, as he works to build a “shadow RNC.” He also isn’t as concerned about the subversion of democracy at the hands of a few wealthy donors. Instead, when President Obama makes the argument that Rove did in 2004, the Rove of 2010 slams him for having an “enemies list” and engaging in a “desperate political ploy.”
O'REILLY: OK. Do you think the swift boat vets' charges against Kerry are unfair? BUSH: I think that these ads -- first of all, I said clearly, all these ads, these 527s, with billionaires funding campaigns, ought to be gone.
ROVE: Look, I'm against all the 527 ads and activities. I don't think they're fair. I don't think it's appropriate. They're misusing the law. They all ought to stop.
After Chamber Spends Big On His Behalf, Mike Kelly Announces Support For Corporate Tax Loopholes
After Chamber Spends Big On His Behalf, Mike Kelly Announces Support For Corporate Tax Loopholes
ThinkProgress filed this report from Meadville, PA.
Last night, Rep. Kathy Dahlkemper (D) and Mike Kelly (R) sparred for 70 minutes in a debate held at Allegheny College. One of the major issues raised was the abundance of outside expenditures in Pennsylvania’s third congressional district, largely in support of Kelly and against Dahlkemper. Indeed, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce has spent approximately $250,000 attacking Dahlkemper on Kelly’s behalf.
It is little surprise then that when asked about his vision for the role of government, Kelly vehemently defended tax loopholes for corporations that outsource American jobs, an issue near-and-dear to the Chamber’s heart. Despite the fact that over 12,000 jobs in PA-03 have been shipped overseas since 1994, Kelly gave his full-throated support for corporate tax loopholes that encourage outsourcing:
MODERATOR: I have a simple question, but it’s very direct. What do you believe the role of government is? [...]
KELLY: I would say the role of government is to [inaudible]. I really think that when we talk about what’s happening in this country, a government – and I really mean this because this is the problem – a government that is so overregulating, so intrusive, so overtaxing. And then by the same token, you say, “well, we just want to eliminate the tax loopholes.” Why do you think these businesses are leaving this country? They’re being penalized to stay here! We have to level the playing field. [...]
Watch here (Kelly begins at 0:44):
Dahlkemper, who has been on the receiving end of the Chamber’s attack ads, was incensed that the group could play such a major role in the race without disclosing its sources of funding, especially after it was revealed that some of that money comes from foreign companies. The congresswoman decried the fact that “foreign interests [were] trying to influence our elections” and called for an FEC investigation into the Chamber’s funding. Dahlkemper is joined by many others who support a formal investigation, including Sen. Al Franken (D-MN), Reps. Steve Driehaus (D-OH) and Mary Jo Kilroy (D-OH), and OH-18 GOP nominee Bob Gibbs. Watch it:
Juan Williams Admits His Fear Of Muslims On Airplanes Is Irrational
Juan Williams Admits His Fear Of Muslims On Airplanes Is Irrational
A lot of media noise has resulted from news that NPR fired Juan Williams for making a bigoted remark that he gets “worried” and “nervous” when he sees Muslims in their “garb” on airplanes. Williams’ defenders have blown the issue way out of proportion, with some falsely claiming he was either taken out of context or that the situation somehow mirrors Andrew Breitbart’s gross mischaracterization of comments made by former USDA employee Shirley Sherrod, a comparison that, as Media Matters noted, “just doesn’t make sense.”
In fact, Williams stood by his remark while discussing his sacking on Fox News yesterday. He complained that he got fired for being honest and that his comments were not bigoted. But what seems to be getting lost in the clamor is that — regardless of the intent of Williams’ conversation about Muslims — his comments about Muslims on airplanes are misplaced and bigoted. As the Washington Post’s Greg Sargent correctly observed, “The problem…is that in his initial comments he didn’t clarify that the instinctual feeling itself is irrational and ungrounded, and something folks need to battle against internally whenever it rears its head.” But today on ABC’s Good Morning America, Williams finally acknowledged that his comments were indeed “irrational”:
GEORGE STEPHANOPOULOS: I guess some people are wondering, should you have gone the extra step and said, “Listen, they’re irrational, they are feelings I fight?”
WILLIAMS: Yeah, I could have done that. In fact, I think it’s very important to sort of parse this. What I said was, that if I’m at the gate at an airport and I see people who are in Muslim garb who are first and foremost identifying themselves as Muslims and in the aftermath of 9/11, I am taken aback, I have a moment of fear and it is visceral, it’s a feeling and I don’t say, “I’m not getting on the plane.” I don’t say, “You must go through additional security.” I don’t say I want to discriminate against these people, no such thing occurs. So to me, it was admitting that I have this notion, this feeling in the immediate moment.
Watch it:
Last night, MSNBC’s Rachel Maddow cut through the distorted media chatter on Williams’ firing to put it in the right context. Maddow noted that targeting Muslims “has been a Fox News specialty for a long time now,” and that the other important side of this story is that Fox News handsomely rewarded Williams with a $2 million contract for his Islamophobia. (Ironically, in abetting O’Reilly’s conspiracy theory that George Soros may have been behind his firing at NPR, Williams said, “Money talks. He is a puppeteer.”)
Maddow then knocked down the right-wing canard that Wiliams’ free speech rights have been violated:
MADDOW: Let’s be clear here. This is not a First Amendment issue. … The First Amendment does not guarantee you a paid job as a commentator to say what you want. Your employment as a person paid to speak is at the pleasure of your employer. In this case, it displeased Juan Williams’ employer, at least one of them, for him to have reassured the Fox News audience he too is afraid of Muslims on airplanes and that’s not a bigoted thing. … And so, Juan Williams lost that job. This is not a First Amendment issue. This is an issue of what your employer is OK with.
Watch the segment:
Read more about the story behind Juan Williams firing in today’s Progress Report.
Republican House Candidate Calls For Violent Government Overthrow If GOP Loses Election
Republican House Candidate Calls For Violent Government Overthrow If GOP Loses Election
Stephen Broden, a “constitutionalist pastor” from Texas who won the Republican nomination for Texas’ 30th Congressional District, made a vaguely threatening statement at a Tea Party event last year. He described the federal government as “tyrannical” and said that “we have a constitutional remedy. And the Framers say if that don’t work, revolution.”
Yesterday, a political reporter for WFAA in Dallas-Fort Worth asked Broden to explain whether he was actually calling for violence against the federal government. After a “prolonged back-and-forth,” Broden said a violent overthrow is “on the table”:
“If the government is not producing the results or has become destructive to the ends of our liberties, we have a right to get rid of that government and to get rid of it by any means necessary,” Broden said, adding the nation was founded on a violent revolt against Britain’s King George III.
Watson asked if violence would be in option in 2010, under the current government.
“The option is on the table. I don’t think that we should remove anything from the table as it relates to our liberties and our freedoms,” Broden said, without elaborating. “However, it is not the first option.”
Watch it:
Broden’s comments were chastised by local Republican officials, but they continue to endorse his run for office. Jonathan Neerman, head of the Dallas County Republican Party, said “it is a disappointing, isolated incident,” and that he planned to “discuss” it with the campaign. Ken Emanuelson, a leading tea party organizer in Dallas, said he did not disagree with the “philosophical point” that people had the right to resist a tyrannical government, but added, “do I see our government today anywhere close to that point? No, I don’t.”
Republicans and the national press already made a great deal of commotion over this race, when Broden’s opponent, Eddie Bernice Johnson, became involved in a scandal over the distribution of scholarship money. Broden’s stunning comments seem to deserve at least as much attention.
Running For Congress On Opposition To ‘Failed’ Stimulus, Tim Walberg Acknowledges His Son Got A Stimulus Job
Running For Congress On Opposition To ‘Failed’ Stimulus, Tim Walberg Acknowledges His Son Got A Stimulus Job
Former Rep. Tim Walberg (R-MI), who is running for Congress against incumbent Rep. Mark Schauer (D-MI), has campaigned by attacking the stimulus as a failure. Walberg has claimed the stimulus only killed jobs, and claimed that funds were spent on “socially conscious puppet shows” instead of infrastructure. As Political Correction noted, the puppet show claim is absolutely false. But Walberg has debunked his own claim that the stimulus failed to create jobs in a public forum he attended early in September. Speaking with community members, Walberg acknowledged that his son is employed by a contractor doing projects funded by the stimulus. Walberg’s son is among the 3 million people who gained jobs through the stimulus:
WALBERG: My son works for a cement-cutting contractor. They’re getting some overtime now. You know why? Because of the stimulus, doing government contracts. My son makes $10-an-hour, but when he works on a government contract, he makes $28-an-hour.
AUDIENCE MEMBER: It’s always been that way.
Watch it:
This week, the Center for Public Integrity released an explosive report detailing how dozens of lawmakers, including Rep. Michele Bachmann (R-MN) and Sen. John McCain (R-AZ), privately requested hundreds of millions of dollars of stimulus money for their districts. The report added increased scrutiny to the stimulus hypocrisy first highlighted by ThinkProgress. While Walberg was not in Congress to request extra stimulus money, his family certainly benefited from a program his campaign pegs as a failure.
ThinkFast: October 22, 2010
ThinkFast: October 22, 2010
Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) responded to the latest revelations about the millions of dollars behind the Chamber political attack ads. “They give new meaning to the term ‘Buy American’…they want to buy these elections,” she said on MSNBC. “[I]f they were to win, it would mean that we are now…a plutocracy and oligarchy. Whatever these few wealthy, secret, unlimited sources of money are can control our entire agenda.”
NBC’s Michael Isikoff reported last night that Karl Rove’s coalition of right-wing groups is “expected to raise as much as $250 million.” Most of this money “is coming from big fat cat donor” and undisclosed “secret money pouring into American elections,” Isikoff said, adding that “many $20 million-plus checks have come in from hedge fund moguls and other big business executives.”
Vice President Joe Biden told Bloomberg’s Al Hunt that he has been “amazed” by the amount of money flowing into outside campaign groups advertising against Democratic candidates. The only thing preventing Democrats from maintaining a majority in the House “is how much impact” the outside secret money has, Biden said.
Reintroducing a tactic used during the anti-ACORN spectacle, radical right-wing Sen. Jim DeMint (R-SC) said he plans to introduce a bill in Congress today that would defund NPR in the wake of Juan Williams’ firing.
Rep. Darrell Issa, who would become chairman of the House Oversight Committee if Republicans regain the majority, accused President Obama of “playing faster and looser with the rules” than former Republican President Bush. And yet, Issa maintains he “won’t pepper the Obama White House with subpoenas and showboat hearings.”
The Obama administration will refuse to train or equip a group of Pakistani military units found to have been involved in human rights abuses. “I told the White House that I have real concerns about the Pakistani military’s actions, and I’m not going to close my eyes to it because of our national interests in Pakistan,” said Sen. Pat Leahy (D-VT), who wrote a law requiring ending aid to military units that abuse human rights.
Adding to the legal confusion surrounding the status of Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell, Defense Secretary Robert Gates issued a directive yesterday “that appeared to be a near moratorium on discharges of openly gay service members.” The memo stated that only five top civilian DOD officials will have authority to approve DADT discharges “until further notice.”
“College seniors who graduated in 2009 had an average of $24,000 in student loan debt, up 6 percent from 2008,” according to data collected by the Project on Student Debt. The unemployment rate for “college graduates ages 20 to 24 was 8.7 percent in 2009 — the highest annual rate on record and a substantial rise from 5.8 percent in 2008.”
The FBI is investigating a toxic substance that was mailed to the office of Rep. Raul Grijalva (D-AZ), the co-chair of the House Progressive Caucus. Staffers found the envelope containing the powder and two hand-drawn swastikas; this is the third security issue at Grijalva’s office this year.
And finally: Responding to a right-wing ad by Citizens Against Government Waste claiming America’s financial future is owned by China, Campus Progress has created a remixed version of the spot, mocking the xenophobia of the original and pointing out some inconvenient truths.
ThinkProgress is hiring! Details here.
Polluter-Funded Groups Spending Almost $70 Million On Anti-Clean Energy Ads
Polluter-Funded Groups Spending Almost $70 Million On Anti-Clean Energy Ads
Amid an unprecedented surge in mostly secret money into this year’s election campaign, a new report released yesterday by the Center for American Progress Action Fund details how 13 right-wing groups — including large secret money groups like American Crossroads, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, and American Action Network — have spent more than $68.5 million this year on “misleading and fictitious televisions ads designed to shape midterm elections and advance their anti-clean energy reform agenda.” In addition to the anti-clean energy ads polluting our airwaves, an earlier CAPAF report outlined an astonishing $242 million in spending on lobbying by the 20 biggest oil, mining, and electric utility companies.
The New York Times reports this evening that “nearly half” of the Chamber’s $149 million in contributions in 2008 came from just 45 donors. (The Chamber claims to have 300,000 members.) “Many of those large donations coincided with lobbying or political campaigns that potentially affected the donors.”
With no end in sight to such dramatic spending in order to protect polluters’ profits, a new ThinkProgress exposé published yesterday suggests that the level of coordination between secret money political groups, ultra-rich conservative donors, and polluters may be even deeper than previously thought. ThinkProgress obtained a memo detailing a secretive gathering held by the Koch brothers this past June, at which the Koch brothers plotted their 2010 election strategy with 210 attendees from the oil industry, coal companies, health insurers, banks, right-wing media (including Glenn Beck), the U.S. Chamber, and others. The June meeting was merely the latest in a series of similar gatherings held twice annually by the Kochs in order to coordinate the funding of the conservative infrastructure of front groups, political campaigns, think tanks, media outlets and other anti-government efforts.
The list of attendees obtained by ThinkProgress shows that there is considerable overlap between the groups that have been running tens of millions in anti-clean energy ads and those who attended the Koch confab, including:
- U.S. Chamber of Commerce: The Chamber has run more than $3.8 million in energy-related ads in eight states, the bulk of which came after its Executive Vice President and Chief Operating Officer David Chavern attended the Koch meeting.
- American Petroleum Institute: API and a variety of Koch-funded entities teamed up for the past two summers to launch anti-clean energy tours across the country. What’s more, one of the Koch meeting’s attendees, Karen Wright of the Ariel Corporation, was a speaker at an API-Koch-backed September rally in Canton, Ohio, where she questioned the science of global warming and attacked clean energy jobs. The Koch gathering was also attended by more than a dozen figures in the oil, gas, and energy industries, including inviduals affiliated with API members Fluor Corporation, BHP Billiton (via its BHP Petroleum subsidiary), Devon Energy, True Oil, and the aforementioned Ariel Corporation.
- Americans for Prosperity: AFP, which is of course itself a front group for the Koch brothers, has run more than $1 million worth of energy ads. In addition to its inherent ties to the Kochtopus, AFP officials Jeff Crank and Phil Kerpen attended the meeting.
- Yes on 23: The ballot campaign to derail California’s clean energy law has spent more than $1 million on energy ads, after receiving a $1 million donation from a Koch subsidiary and considerable additional support from Koch-funded Americans for Prosperity.
- American Action Network: The secret money group has spent a little under $175,000 on energy ads (though is flooding the airwaves with tens of millions more in other advertising) is chaired by “unethical” Nixon operative Fred Malek, who attended the Koch gathering.
- American Crossroads GPS: The Karl Rove and Ed Gillespie-fathered secret money group rents space to American Action Network and Rove and Gillespie regularly coordinate with AAN’s Malek. Crossroads GPS has spent just over half a million dollars on energy ads, but it and its sister Super PAC, American Crossroads, are expected to spend some $65 million on this year’s election.
- American Coalition for Clean Coal Electricity: The well-known and scandal-plagued coal industry front group has spent over $16 million on energy ads this year. Executives from two of its member companies—Alpha Coal Sales Company (a subsidiary of Alpha Natural Resources) and Alliance Resource Partners were in attendance at the gathering.
- Club for Growth Action: The anti-tax group has spent just over $1 million on energy ads. John Childs, who attended the meeting, donates to the Club for Growth and is on its Leadership Council.
Having spent almost $70 million on energy ads this year (and much, much more on other political attack ads), successfully derailed national climate legislation, and launched a war against the Clean Air Act, it’s clear that this secretive group of plutocrats, polluters, and other corporate special interests will have much to do discuss at their next gathering — to be held in January at a resort in sunny Palm Springs.
Prominent O’Donnell Backer Has Extremist Ties, Believes Obama Isn’t An American
Prominent O’Donnell Backer Has Extremist Ties, Believes Obama Isn’t An American
Reuters has a story today about Tea Party-backed Delaware Senate candidate Christine O’Donnell’s fundraising, noting that almost all of her support among GOP donors has dried up. The story notes that, failing that support, “the mainstays of O’Donnell’s campaign appear to be local activists associated with the Tea Party movement.” In particular, a group called the 9-12 Patriots and its leader, Russ Murphy, are generating significant support for O’Donnell’s campaign.
During her primary night victory speech, the 9-12 Patriots were the first group O’Donnell thanked, saying “I can‘t thank everyone by name because we would be here until midnight….but I specifically want to thank the 9/12 Patriots for laying the foundation and stirring things up in Delaware.” After her speech, she invited Murphy up to the podium to speak, gave him a hug, and told the crowd: “You’ve got to hear the story about how he started the 9-12 Patriots.” Watch it:
Murphy went on to talk about Karl Rove, but he did not share with the audience or the cameras his views on President Obama — that he believes Obama is not a U.S. citizen, and did not even win the popular vote in the 2008 presidential election. For his book “The Backlash,” author Will Bunch “traveled America looking for the heart of the so-called Tea Party movement” and interviewed members, and sat down with Murphy and two “lieutenants” in the 9-12 Patriots. They explained their opposition to Obama:
The trio led me through a long and mostly fact-free explanation of how Obama only won in 2008 because of the Electoral College, and they even tried to deny his 100,000-vote landslide win in Delaware, finally telling me it was only because of “the handout people” in Wilmington, with its large minority population. Murphy went further, telling me that Obama is “not American” and insisting he hasn’t presented “the documentation” to prove he’s eligible to be commander in chief. The second factor that empowered their movement was the blend of news and misinformation they receive from the popular Fox News Channel and especially from Glenn Beck, whose televised call for the creation of a 9-12 movement is what inspired Murphy to launch his band of “patriots.”
In September, the blog Political Chili outlined some of Murphy’s views that are even more disturbing. He was a “delegate” to the “Continental Congress” held in St. Charles, Illinois in November 2009. The “Articles of Freedom” the delegates produced there called for, among other things, abolition of the Department of Homeland Security, the establishment of 50 state militias, and they declared that President Obama “was not born on U.S. soil” and called for the U.S. Congress to investigate the “citizenship status of the President,” with impeachment as an eventual recourse.
As Heidi Beirich of the Southern Poverty Law Center reported, the “Continental Congress” documents implied violence against the government, saying that “any infringement on the people’s liberty as laid out in the Constitution is ‘an act of WAR’ that ‘the People and their Militias have the Right and Duty to repel.’”
O’Donnells open embrace of Murphy has not yet been questioned by the national or local press in Delaware, but his involvement in the “Continental Congress” and his views on President Obama are disturbing and deserve further scrutiny.
GOP Candidate Hartzler Wants ‘Government To Leave Us Alone’ Yet Has Taken $774,325 In Federal Subsidies
GOP Candidate Hartzler Wants ‘Government To Leave Us Alone’ Yet Has Taken $774,325 In Federal Subsidies
Yesterday, GOP congressional candidate Vicky Hartzler, who is angling to replace Rep. Ike Skelton (D-MO), appeared on conservative Mark Levin’s radio show. Levin probed Hartzler’s view on a variety of issues, including why she, the owner of a small farm business with her husband, wanted to run against Skelton.
Hartzler explained that she’s a “lifelong farmer and a small town girl” and that she decided to run for Congress to get the government off her back. “We just want the government to leave us alone here in Missouri’s 4th,” she told Levin:
LEVIN: Now, tell us a little bit about yourself.
HARTZLER: Sure, I’m just one of the people of the 4th district, lifelong farmer and a small town girl, went to school here my whole life. My husband and I are small business owners. We sell farm equipment, we have three stores. I was a teacher for several years, was a state rep for six years, a wife and a mom. We just want the government to leave us alone here in Missouri’s 4th.
Listen to it:
The problem with Hartzler’s self-righteous invocation for the government to “leave us alone,” is that it has done anything but that with her farm business. According to data collected by the Environmental Working Group, Hartzler and her husband’s farm outside Harrisonville, Missouri, has “received $774,325 in federal subsidies from 1995 to 2009.”
On Hartzler’s campaign website, these subsidies aren’t listed anywhere. On the page dealing with agriculture, the candidate explains that “agriculture is a large part of my life, and that it is vital that our farmers and ranchers have a level playing field as they market their products world wide. They should be able to pass on the farming legacy without the devastating death tax and be able to operate without onerous government regulations.” Yet it appears that Hartzler is completely fine with taking hundreds of thousands of taxpayer dollars to operate the aforementioned farms.
GOP House Candidate Keith Rothfus Threatens To Defund Supreme Court Decisions (Updated)
GOP House Candidate Keith Rothfus Threatens To Defund Supreme Court Decisions (Updated)
ThinkProgress filed this report from Cranberry Township, PA.
Yesterday, Keith Rothfus, the Republican nominee in Pennsylvania’s 4th congressional district, attended a house party in Cranberry Township and discussed his political views for about an hour. At first, he echoed the views of most GOP candidates: if Republicans don’t succeed in repealing the new health care law, they would take the unprecedented step to defund the reforms. Rothfus was categorical in his opposition to supporting any aspect of the law, pledging that he “will not fund one Obamacare office.”
However, Rothfus took his defund-mantra a step further. When asked by a constituent whether or not Congress can override the Supreme Court, Rothfus argued that Congress could simply strip funding from the Supreme Court if it makes a decision he disagrees with. Said Rothfus, “if the Supreme Court rules you have to do something, we’ll just take away funding for it”:
CONSTITUENT: Keith, I have a question concerning the courts. It seems that the courts are having the final say on these matters, the Supreme Court. But isn’t it the Congress that can ultimately override the Supreme Court, the checks and balances?
ROTHFUS: Yeah, there are different checks and balances you can do. Congress’s ultimate weapon is funding. If the Supreme Court rules you have to do something, we’ll just take away funding for it. You can always pass a constitutional amendment. I myself have several amendments I’m thinking of. One is to tell the Supreme Court that when you consider American constitutional principles, American constitutional rights, you cannot rely on foreign law to adjudicate those. We have certain members of the Court who want to draw from Europe, and draw from Europe, Europe, and Europe. They’ll never want to draw from Saudi Arabia or something. They talk about these international evolving standards of decency, and they’re always talking about western Europe, which is dying. They want to incorporate really socialist principles into our constitutional regime.
Listen here:
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog Roll