Now we are going to explain how the Fed and the banks basically colluded to rob us.
Imagine you have a friend who comes to you and tells you that he is in dire need and that he needs $10,000. Because he is your friend, you give it to him and you tell him that you won’t charge you interest because he is a friend.
But at some point you need the money back so you go back to your friend and say give me the money back. And he says, all right, but I’ll loan it to you at 3%. And you say, hey, wait a minute. I gave you the money in the first place. What do you mean you’ll loan it back to me at 3%. Now what would you think of that guy? At the very least, he’s a jerk, right? I don’t think you would talk to him again.
But that’s what banks did on a gigantic scale to all of us. A newly released survey from the Congressional Research services shows that the banks borrowed from the Fed at nearly 0% and then lent it back to us around 3%. For example, Bank of America borrowed from the Fed at .25% to .5%, and then lent it back to the Treasury at 3.5%! They did this for at least $15 billion. Do you know how much you would make if you ran the same scam? About $450 million…free! It pays to know someone at the Fed. And this is all done on your dime.
And again, J P Morgan borrowed from the Fed at .3% and lent it back to the Treasury at 2.1%. They did that with about $20 billion that they borrowed from you. And the list of banks and financial institutions doing this goes on and on. At one point the Fed was lending out money to these banks at .0078%. That’s free money. And they lent out about $3 trillion that way. If you take that $3 trillion and multiply it by 3%, that’s possibly as much as $90 billion of our money being scammed by these big banks.
Do you know what the banks were supposed to do with that money? They were supposed to lend it to you, the consumer, and small businesses. Did they? No. Over the same time in 2009, outstanding credit to U.S. households went down $234.5 billion. And for non-corporate businesses, outstanding credit went down $296.1 billion.
These banks did not give you the money, they didn’t lend it to you, they just took it. You should be really mad about that. If someone did it to you in your personal life, you know you would be mad, but they did it to you and virtually all of you didn’t even know about it, since our government allowed them–in fact, gave them the money–to do such.
The banks have operated a gigantic scam on all of us. A newly released study from the Congressional Research Services says that the banks have borrowed the Fed at nearly 0% and then lent it back to us at around 3%. Bank of America borrowed from the Fed at .25% to .5%, and then lent it back to the Treasury at 3.5%! They did this for at least $15 billion. Do you know how much you would make if you ran the same scam? About $450 million…free! It pays to know someone at the Fed. And this is all done on your dime.
And again, J P Morgan borrowed from the Fed at .3% and lent it back to the Treasury at 2.1%. They did that with about $20 billion that they borrowed from you. And the list of banks and financial institutions doing this goes on and on. At one point the Fed was lending out money to these banks at .0078%. That’s free money. And they lent out about $3 trillion that way. If you take that $3 trillion and multiply it by 3%, that’s possibly as much as $90 billion of our money being scammed by these big banks.
Do you know what the banks were supposed to do with that money? They were supposed to lend it to you, the consumer, and small businesses. Did they? No. Over the same time in 2009, outstanding credit to U.S. households went down $234.5 billion. And for non-corporate businesses, outstanding credit went down $296.1 billion.
These banks did not give you the money, they didn’t lend it to you, they just took it. You should be really mad about that. If someone did it to you in your personal life, you know you would be mad, but they did it to you and virtually all of you didn’t even know about it, since our government allowed them–in fact, gave them the money–to do such.
Today we saw 10 billion reasons why the oil companies‘ rigged game in Washington is not working for the American people. Exxon Mobil reported $10.65 billion in profits through just the first three months of this year. That‘s up 69 percent from last year.
These obscene profits were fueled by rising gas prices. Regular hit $3.88 a gallon today. The earnings make a mockery of oil industry claims that they need $4 billion in corporate welfare checks handed out to them each year by the federal government.
President Obama says these tax breaks and subsidies add up to a massive redistribution of wealth with taxpayers on the losing end.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
BARACK OBAMA, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: For $4 billion, we could do an awful lot. And you know where we could get $4 billion? By ending taxpayer subsidies we give to oil companies and gas companies.
(APPLAUSE)
That‘s profits coming from your pocket into their pocket. They‘re making enough profit.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
UYGUR: Here-here. Preach it. Teach it.
Now, the Republican response? Drill, baby, drill. Oh, for God‘s sake. Come on, man.
So, next week, they‘re going to start working on bills to fast-track drilling permits in the Gulf of Mexico and expand leasing areas off the coast, all with an eye toward doubling oil production in the Gulf over the next five years. That way, oil companies can make even more money.
Hey, by the way, have they shared benefits with you guys? I mean, since they are making so much in profits, they must have given you a break on gas prices. Right?
They haven‘t? That‘s weird. I thought the Republicans told me that if we give the largest corporations in the world huge tax breaks, somehow you would benefit.
Instead, you got incredibly high gas prices. Hmm. Strange.
Unsurprisingly, people are furious about these subsidies, and now Republicans are facing real pressure to roll them back. Remember, for one magical moment this week even John Boehner seemed to be in favor of ending the subsidies. Of course, he quickly backpedaled on that when his staff reminded him who signs his checks.
Now, none other than Paul Ryan is also feeling the heat. Check him out today at a town hall in this video from Think Progress.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: The subsidies for the oil companies that the federal government gives, they‘ve got to stop.
REP. PAUL RYAN ®, WISCONSIN: Sure.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: End the oil company subsidies.
RYAN: I agree.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: You will gain a lot of that money in the red back.
RYAN: Right.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
UYGUR: You agree? That‘s strange. Why did you vote against ending the oil subsidies twice then?
Ryan says he agreed, but he also went on to talk about tax loopholes and shelters, not subsidies. So, is he playing word games here? Probably, because you know who he works for. He works for the oil companies.
Now, a similar thing happened to GOP Congressman Denny Rehberg, who was grilled on the subject at a town hall on Tuesday.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
REP. DENNY REHBERG ®, MONTANA: Everything is on the table as far as I‘m concerned, and that would be—the subsidies for oil companies would be one of them.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
UYGUR: Now, Rehberg also voted twice this year to extend the tax breaks for big oil. Now he‘s having second thoughts all of a sudden. He doesn‘t like how those town halls are going. People are on to his game.
So are several other GOP lawmakers, including Georgia‘s Tom Graves and South Carolina‘s Mick Mulvaney. All of a sudden, they‘re all having second thoughts. Fascinating, how that works.
Now, Democrats in both the Senate and the House are now fighting to schedule votes on these subsidies and force Republicans to go on the record once again defending big oil. I like that strategy, because if I was them, I would tell the Republicans, go ahead, do it. I dare you.
Tell us why the American people need to give $4 billion in welfare to these gigantic oil companies. I double dare you.
Well, joining me now is Congressman Peter DeFazio. He‘s a Democrat from Oregon. He‘s part of the people daring them. He‘s a member of the Natural Resources Committee and a member of the Progressive Caucus. Also with us former labor secretary Robert Reich, now an economics professor at Berkeley and the author of “Aftershock,” which, lucky for you, is just out on paperback.
All right.
Congressman DeFazio, let me start with you. What‘s your reaction to these gigantic oil profits? There‘s nothing wrong with profits, but at the same time, $4 billion of our money going to them, how is it in any way justifiable?
REP. PETER DEFAZIO (D), OREGON: Well, it‘s extraordinary manipulation, essentially extortion. Their volume is only up 10 percent, but their profits are up 69 percent.
Now, how does that work? Did they become incredibly more efficient?
No.
They are hand in glove with the OPEC people, with the market speculators, who are driving up prices unnecessarily over this panic about, well, what about Libya? What about the three percent of oil that they produce? Which OPEC is, of course, replacing.
And Exxon Mobil says, well, we don‘t set prices. They‘re set in the world market. And, on the other hand, they say, but if we had more domestic drilling, prices would be lower. Well, wait a minute. Prices are set in the world market, and if we added a little bit here in the U.S., the world market would change? No.
So, basically, they are kind of boxed in here. And I believe that this is—they‘re profiting in numerous ways here.
But all the way up their integrated supply chain, they are saying, well, our refineries are doing better, our distribution is doing better. And we‘re only making a little bit of money at the gas pump. Yes, because they are taking huge profits before the gas gets to the pump.
UYGUR: Well, Secretary Reich, you know, the Republican philosophy is, if we help the giant corporations, eventually it will trickle down to you. But Exxon‘s profits went up 69 percent and the GDP climbed only 1.8 percent. That‘s very low.
Is it possible that, actually, these big oil company‘s profits and the high gas prices are actually dragging the economy down?
ROBERT REICH, FMR. LABOR SECRETARY: Yes, they are dragging the economy down, Cenk, because, obviously, when Americans are paying almost $4 a gallon for gas, that means less money in their pockets to buy everything else that is produced in the United States by American workers. That means more layoffs. That means a slowing economy.
So it‘s very difficult for the oil companies to argue, as they have tried to argue even today, that the high prices and the high profits are justified and responsive to a growing economy, when in fact they are slowing the economy.
UYGUR: Well, let me stay with you for a second, Secretary Reich, because Mitch McConnell and the other Republicans say, hey, if we do more drilling, at least that will bring down the price of gas.
Is there any truth to that?
REICH: Absolutely not. First of all, it is a world market. That is, if we were to drill and create even 300 billion more barrels of oil, which is kind of the maximum anybody expects we could possibly get, that would bring down gas prices only a tiny bit because it goes all over the world. I mean, it replenishes gas and oil all over the world.
But, secondly, Cenk, it takes a very long time for oil, even more oil, to find its way through refiners and to gas stations, which means that it would be a year or more before gas prices would actually decline.
And finally, there‘s no evidence at all that additional drilling in the United States or on the Continental Shelf is actually going to bring down gas prices. It‘s actually—given the monumental profits that oil companies are now making, there‘s no reason that those oil companies have to actually use those additional leases.
In fact, they have been sitting on leases. They haven‘t even been using the leases they now have. They just want to show higher balance sheets because they can show that they have more land on which they could potentially drill.
UYGUR: Now, Congressman DeFazio, I want to show you some of the numbers here.
Oil company PAC donations in just the last three months is $285,000.
Of course, John Boehner has gotten a nice chunk of that. He got $15,000. Other Republicans like Senator Barrasso, Representative McCarthy, Representative Upton, Representative McKinley, they are all cashing in.
When you look at the overall numbers, oil and gas contributions to John Boehner in his career, for example, is over $346,000. So when I say they pay his checks, that‘s exactly what I‘m talking about. And overall, in 2010, the oil and gas companies spent over $146 million in lobbying.
So, do these Republicans care about the policy whether the gas prices go up, they go down, the drilling makes a difference, it doesn‘t make a difference, or is it simply that they are bought by the oil companies and that‘s why they do their bidding?
DEFAZIO: Well, there‘s certainly a lot of evidence that there‘s undue influence that comes with those contributions from the oil industry. We aren‘t doing things that make sense for the American people.
Remember, the other big factor here is market speculation. Part of the financial reform was to limit position limits in trading of oil by speculators, financial speculators. That hasn‘t happened yet because of pressure by the Republicans—they, in fact, want to undo that reform—pressure from Wall Street and, yes, the oil companies.
Guess what? Exxon Mobil trades, too. And they make a pile of money because they know where the prices are going.
So, we have both speculation, market manipulation, and undo influence on the policymakers. It‘s a very bad combination for consumers.
Consumers have got to get mad about this and push back and demand. I mean, insult to injury.
Give them a subsidy? Come on. That‘s a no-brainer. If we can‘t do away with that by next Tuesday at midnight, when we go back in session, I think then the Republicans are just silly.
UYGUR: Deep trouble. Yes.
Look, people are starting to get really mad about it. Giving away our money is crazy.
Now, Secretary Reich, let‘s talk about that speculation, because Congressman DeFazio brings up a good point here.
We know the drilling, at most, creates a three-cent difference, as you pointed out. That might or might not happen within a year from today. But some are saying the speculation costs are as much as 70 cents a gallon.
Is that really true? Is that part of what‘s driving up the gas prices here?
REICH: Well, you know, the thing is, Cenk, we don‘t know very much. A lot of this market is shrouded in secrecy. We don‘t know how much of it is speculation. That‘s why we do need to know more.
Undoubtedly, when you see prices going up like this, when you see prices responding to potentially the tumult in the Middle East, other people‘s and other buyers‘ expectations that prices are going to go up, you have every reason to believe that speculation is going on. And that‘s why, as the congressman says, Republicans have been pushing back on financial reform. What we need to do is make sure that this kind of speculation is prohibited and fully transparent.
UYGUR: And I want the audience to understand one of the reasons that they don‘t want to end this speculation, which seems crazy to you and I, is because, again, they get paid by the bankers. They get paid to protect the banks and to protect the oil companies, who are both getting incredibly rich off of those high gas prices that they‘re killing you and me. Right.
So, Congressman DeFazio, the last question goes to you in terms of what are we going to do about it?
Now, is it possible that the Democrats can say, hey, listen, we‘re not going to get any budget deal, we‘re not going to budge on your spending cuts, et cetera, et cetera, until at the very least, you take away this $4 billion a year in oil subsidies that is just nothing but corporate welfare?
DEFAZIO: Well, that‘s a minimal starting point. That should be a no-brainer from what—the Republicans running from this issue now.
We shouldn‘t even have to ask for that. We should ask for something a little bigger.
Maybe we have a speculator tax to try and rein in speculation, and we also move the Commodity Futures Trading Commission—move their proposed limits forward now, and we could do it legislatively. We have got to stop this speculating on the market that is adding so much to the price that is dragging down our economy, as the secretary pointed out.
If the Republicans, if they really care about the American people and about our consumers, and about the future of our economy, they will join with Democrats here. We‘re certainly going to offer those sorts of things when we come back. And I‘ve been offering them for a number of years.
Remember, the Enron loophole is not yet closed. Ken Lay is dead, Enron is bankrupt. But we‘re still allowing the speculation that Enron muscled through during the Bush years to go on.
UYGUR: And you know that question to Congressman Ryan came from a conservative area in his district. So I think a lot of the voters are getting it.
And if you‘re a conservative, why don‘t you ask your Republican congressman, why do you continue to protect the banks and the oil companies? It‘s a great question. And I love that they are doing that in the town halls.
But tonight, Congressman Peter DeFazio and Secretary Robert Reich, thank you both for joining us. Really appreciate it.
UYGUR: All right. Now, backlash against Republicans is growing. They‘re having to answer for Paul Ryan‘s radical plan to destroy Medicare. Now, Speaker Boehner is backing away from Ryan. Didn‘t take too long to throw him under the bus. And Congressman Ron Paul is going to speak out on that. And he‘s got a very unique take. That‘s coming up next.
UYGUR: Republicans can run but they can‘t hide from Paul Ryan‘s plan. We‘ve seen angry outbursts from voters at town hall meetings in a state after state. Now, some Republicans are resorting to prescreening questions to avoid the wrath of those who don‘t want to privatize Medicare and give more tax breaks to the rich. The Sun Sentinel reports staffers from Florida Republican Alan West tried to block unscripted questions last night, but it didn‘t work out.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
(CROWD BOOS)
(INAUDIBLE)
(END VIDEO CLIP)
UYGUR: Did you see what happened to that last woman? She was escorted out by security. No, no, no. Democrats are actually concerned citizens don‘t get to ask questions in town halls, that‘s only for Republicans shouting about health care. But something tells me that he‘s not going to put out the fire anyway. Here‘s freshman Republican Dan Webster of Florida, and he‘s duking it out with constituents in Orlando.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
REP. DAN WEBSTER ®, FLORIDA: Not one senior citizen is harmed by this budget.
CROWD: What? You‘re a liar. You‘re a liar. Everyone under 55 is screwed.
UNIDENTIFIED WOMAN: What insurance company is going to insure me?
WEBSTER: I promise you, not only will Medicare not go broke which it will under the present.
UNIDENTIFIED WOMAN: I won‘t have it, what does it matter?
WEBSTER: I understand, in nine years, it‘s going to go broke.
UNIDENTIFIED WOMAN: Who cares? I don‘t have it.
WEBSTER: You will have it, if this plan‘s adopted. You will.
(INAUDIBLE)
(END VIDEO CLIP)
UYGUR: And the architect himself, Paul Ryan, the man whose budget plan set off all this anger in the first place, is getting hit yet again with tough questions.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
REP. PAUL RYAN ®, WISCONSIN: We‘re taxing our employers, our businesses a lot more than our foreign competitors are taxing theirs. The international average for the corporate tax rate is 25 percent. Ours is 35 percent. Hey, come on, everybody, let‘s—all right. If you‘re yelling, I just want to ask you to leave. If you‘re just going to scream like that, it‘s just not polite to everybody.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
UYGUR: He also took extra precautions, left out from a different exit. Ron, Ron, Ron, Ron. And guess what? All of a sudden, we‘ve got republican back pedals. Even House Speaker John Boehner is suddenly walking away from Ryan‘s plan, saying he‘s not wedded to it.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
JOHN BOEHNER, HOUSE SPEAKER: I voted for it. I‘m for it. I‘m for it. It‘s our idea. It‘s Paul‘s idea. Other people have other ideas. I‘m not wedded to one single idea, but I think it‘s—we have a plan.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
UYGUR: Oh, I love that. Me, did I vote for it? It‘s always Paul‘s idea. It‘s Paul‘s idea. I‘m not wedded to it. But did I vote for it? Did I lead everybody off that cliff? Remember, that‘s the same plan that all but four House Republicans voted for just this month. And now all of a sudden of course, Boehner is not wedded to it. He led everybody off that cliff. Now, they‘re in mid fall and he‘s asking how do we get here? That was Paul‘s idea, right, ahhhh! All right. And you know, what? The Democrats smell blood. You know, what that? That‘s why Harry Reid said today that he‘ll hold a vote in the Senate on Ryan‘s plan forcing Senate Republicans to go on the record.
Now that they‘ve seen the blowback, I wonder whether those Republicans Senators are going to stand on this. It‘s going to be an interesting question. Now, here‘s a guy who doesn‘t often back pedal right or wrong. He‘s known for sticking with his positions, with me now is one of the Republicans who actually voted against Paul Ryan‘s plan, Texas Congressman Ron Paul. But wait, you‘re going to find out why in a second. And this week, Congressman Paul also announced he‘s setting up a presidential exploratory committee. So, Congressman Paul, why did you vote against the Ryan plan?
REP. RON PAUL ®, TEXAS: It didn‘t cut anything. I mean, this noise that I just heard, it‘s just a representation of the bankruptcy of the country, and to blame Republicans is wrong. I think you have to blame both parties. You know, both parties have driven this country into bankruptcy. And just the noise and the screaming that you just released there is an indication of what‘s coming to our streets, because we won‘t admit what bankruptcy is. Sure, I‘m concerned about people losing their medical care and all these problems. But believe me, the further bankruptcy of this country is going to be everybody, the whole system is going to collapse. And that‘s what a dollar crisis is all about.
So beware, this is only the beginning. And to say that one side is more guilty, both sides have been spending too much. The Democrats spent all this money on the welfare programs and the Republicans spent all this money on warfare. It was totally bankrupt. The dollar is crashing, this inflation. And believe me, this is only the beginning. But if you don‘t understand why, you‘re in trouble, we‘re in trouble and you‘re not helping us to figure it out because there is an explanation to this.
(CROSSTALK)
The middle class gets wiped out when you destroy the dollar and that‘s what you‘re seeing here.
UYGUR: Right. I hear you. I hear you.
PAUL: It‘s getting wiped out and the corporations are ripping you off but you‘re misleading the people by saying.
UYGUR: No, no, no, hold on, hold on.
(CROSSTALK)
PAUL: Somebody is trying to cut.
UYGUR: No, look, the dollar is an interesting question. And, you know, your views on the Fed are very interesting. You got something really great done in auditing the Fed. You work with Alan Grayson. And I‘m giving you credit for that over and over. But look, that was not the issue here. You said people are angry about bankruptcy. No, those people were very specifically angry about the possibility of their Medicare being cut. And when you look at the national polls.
PAUL: Well.
UYGUR: No, hold on now. When you look at the national polls, people are very striding on this. You‘ve got 76 percent saying that Medicare cuts our unacceptable. You‘ve got 67 percent saying Medicaid unacceptable to cut. Social security, 77 percent to cut. I mean, doesn‘t that show you that people are justifiably angry about this and they don‘t want to cut?
PAUL: Oh, yes, they are. But they have to understand why. And I think you‘re misleading them. I‘m concerned too, but it‘s going to get worse if we don‘t understand this. Now, I—my own personal opinion is that most of this stuff is all unconstitutional, but that‘s not going to come about because we don‘t live in that age. But if we made common sense all this, yes, I would cut all this militarism and not cut people off for medical care.
But what‘s happening now is since there will not be a consensus, there‘s an agreement in Washington, you vote for welfare, we vote for military. And it continues and we keep printing this money. But the problem isn‘t somebody getting something cut short on Medicare, it‘s the ending of it, it‘s the ending of the program. You have to understand when the dollar goes, there‘s nothing left. There‘s runaway inflation. And now, this was the whole thing about the Bernanke hearings today. He admitted, you know, that there‘s inflation coming and its here. And there‘s not a lot he can do about it except print more money and the dollar was further devalued.
UYGUR: But Congressman, look.
PAUL: And that‘s the key issue.
UYGUR: I have massive issues with Ben Bernanke. I have massive issue with Tim Geithner, who are republican leftovers for him, that the Obama administration which is the democratic administration has taken on for reasons that no one can really found them. So, I agree with your points on that. But you‘re running for president, and you just said Medicare and Medicaid and Social Security are all unconstitutional. So, if you become president, would you phase those programs out?
PAUL: Well, you have to start where you are. I think it‘s all going to end, it‘s not going to end because of me or anybody else, it‘s going but because of the bankruptcy. But I have an idea of what we can do. I would cut massively on this overseas spending, hundreds of billions of dollars and work our way out of it. But no, you can do this. I mean, when I go to the college campuses and I get large crowds out, I say, do you think you‘re going to get anything out of Medicare and Social Security? They say no. I said, I‘m going to let you out. Just get out of the program, opt out. Restore your freedom, demand your right to take care of yourself and then take care of the elderly who are dependent, don‘t put them out on the streets, and then you could do that, and you could work a transition but…
(CROSSTALK)
UYGUR: So, I just want to get clarity. Transition. So, if you became president, you would transition completely out of Social Security and Medicare?
PAUL: Well, you know, if I can get the people to agree and the Congress to agree, yes, that would be my program to transition out because this one has failed and you‘re going to have riots in the streets, the food riots will come. They‘re all around the world because this is a worldwide phenomenon. That‘s why the governments are breaking down around the world, because prices are going up. Because we have the reserve currency. Everything is based on the dollar. Other countries are already suffering, and it will come here. So you have to make a choice. You want to continue this and argue over where the cuts are coming or are we going to get together and make some cuts?
I‘m just suggesting that the most popular way, political way, even though most Republicans disagree with me, is I would cut the military and the overseas spending and quit pretending we can run the world because we can‘t.
UYGUR: Right.
PAUL: And then we could have a transition and the young people know this. This is why I get support from the young people. They‘re willing to take care of themselves and we don‘t have to throw anybody out in the streets and we don‘t have to get rid of Medicare. But Medicare will be destroyed if the two sides don‘t get together and say, we‘ve got to get our house in order. You just can‘t spend your way out and borrow the money and print the money.
UYGUR: Right.
PAUL: That is total destruction to the whole system.
UYGUR: Right. Congressman Ron Paul, I agree with you on militarism, as well. That‘s why you‘re a very interesting person to have in the House of Representatives. Thank you for your time this evening. We really appreciate it.
UYGUR: Well, we‘ve got Democrats finally fighting back against that rigged game and leaders in Congress are off and running with President Obama‘s call to get rid of big oil tax subsidies. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid announced today that he will hold a vote on the issue as early as next week. And House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi is calling on Speaker Boehner to schedule a vote, as well. So here come the Democrats.
My next guest has been at the forefront of the fight to eliminate taxpayer subsidies for big oil and gas companies, Congressman Ed Markey of Massachusetts. He‘s the ranking member of the House Natural Resources Committee and also serves on The Energy and Commerce Committee. Congressman, great pleasure to have you here.
REP. ED MARKEY (D), MASSACHUSETTS: Thank you. Thanks for having me on again.
UYGUR: Great to see you. So, John Boehner looks like all of a sudden he‘s flip-flopping a little bit, can‘t decide if he‘s in favor or against these oil subsidies. It looks like you guys got him on the run. How do you force a vote on this? How do you get people to concentrate on this issue above all others?
MARKEY: Well, I think it‘s not going to be that hard. I think as the oil companies report the largest profits of any companies in the history of the world over the next week, which they‘re doing right now from BP through ExxonMobil through all of them. I think there‘s going to be an outrage that is pointed towards these oil companies who continue to ask for tax breaks to stay on the books. So, I think that subsidizing an oil company to drill for oil right now, as consumers are being tipped upside down at the gas pump would be like subsidizing a bird to fly or a fish to swim. You just don‘t have to do it. And I think we are going to find a way of forcing a vote on this issue in the very near future.
UYGUR: Yes. When I go to get gas now, and it cost me 60 bucks to fill up my wife‘s tank, and I think we‘re giving away $4 billion of our money to these oil companies, it‘s insanity, right? But look, the reason you are is because the Republicans keep blocking it, right? That‘s just the reality of it. They do it over and over again. Some Democrats, as well, but the entire Republican Party. So, I‘m asking, does John Boehner work for the oil companies?
MARKEY: Well, you know, historically, GOP has stood for gas and oil party. And today is no different than any other time over the last couple of generations. Moreover, the republican budget cuts the wind and solar and clean energy budget by 70 percent. And cutting the CFTC budget to be able to go after speculators, find these bad guys out there who are jacking up the price by just, you know, playing games in the market, they‘re cutting that budget in half, so you have cops on the beat in the financial market place. And they are also opposed that appointment of this strategic petroleum reserves. So, if you put it all together, you don‘t need to be Dick Tracy to realize that it is the Republican Party which sides with big oil and as a result with OPEC, keeping us on this agenda of oil and stopping us from moving to a new generation of clean technologies that would, over the long-term, make it possible for us to tell OPEC we don‘t need their oil anymore than we need their sand.
UYGUR: Congressman, you know, the oil subsidies drive me crazy, that‘s why we do the whole ring game thing given away the four billion. I got that. But as far as reducing gas prices, what‘s the best way to attack that issue?
MARKEY: That‘s a good point. The Saudi Arabians took 800,000 barrels of oil off of the market in the last couple of weeks. We‘ve lost 1.2 million barrels of oil from Libya. The price of gasoline has a result is skyrocketing. The best thing we can do to speak to the Saudis, to speak to the speculators, to speak to Libya would be to deploy the strategic petroleum reserve. That‘s why we have the 730 million barrels of oil.
UYGUR: Right.
MARKEY: If there was ever a time for us to deploy it, to scare the living daylights out of the speculators, to tell the Saudis and to tell those who have banking on Libya continuing to be a mess, that‘s the best thing that we can do and we should do it as soon as possible because our economy is in jeopardy if we don‘t.
UYGUR: All right. Congressman Ed Markey. Thank you so much.
CENK UYGUR, HOST: Good evening, everybody. I‘m Cenk Uygur.
President Obama is ramping up the fight against oil companies today, and he is calling them out for how they rigged the game in Washington, which is excellent news. Today, the president sent a letter to congressional leaders, calling on them to end the $4 billion in tax breaks handed out to big oil every single year.
The White House is betting it‘s an issue that will resonate with voters.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
JAY CARNEY, WHITE HOUSE PRESS SECRETARY: To then tell them that, actually, we need to spend $4 billion a year of their money to subsidize oil companies who, this week, are reporting massive profits, is just not a credible argument.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
UYGUR: There you go, baby. There you go. That‘s on message. That‘s exactly the right way to go.
Now, even some Republicans are starting to waiver on this. Speaker John Boehner shocked the GOP establishment by suggesting he supported ending the oil subsidies.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
REP. JOHN BOEHNER (R-OH), HOUSE SPEAKER: Everybody wants to go after the oil companies. And frankly, they have got some part of this to blame.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: So would you be in favor of seeing some of these subsidies that are going to big oil at times of record profits—
BOEHNER: It‘s certainly something that we ought to be looking at.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Doing away with these subsidies?
BOEHNER: We‘re at a time when the federal government is short on revenues. We need to control spending, but we need to have revenues to keep the government moving. And they ought to be paying their fair share.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
UYGUR: That was a surprising moment of clarity from Boehner, so you knew it wasn‘t going to last. Of course his people quickly walked it back. Here comes the backpedal.
His spokesman said, “The Speaker made clear in the interview that raising taxes was a nonstarter. And he has told the president that. He simply wasn‘t going to take the bait and fall into the trap of defending big oil companies.”
Except that‘s exactly what they do and that‘s exactly what that walkback is saying. Oh, no, no, no. Of course we will never, ever raise taxes on the oil companies. In fact, we will continue to give them subsidies because they are our boss. And so we reminded the Speaker who he works for and he said, of course, no, I will not be raising taxes on big oil, I will defend them.
Now, this debate is over subsidies because we have got tremendous gas price problems. Gas hit an average of $3.87 a gallon today. And that climb towards $4 a gallon is starting to have political effects, which is unsurprising.
A new “Washington Post” poll shows 71 percent of Americans say high gas prices are causing them financial hardship. And among Independents suffering from gas prices, just 28 percent approve of President Obama. That is a devastating number. And 60 percent say they definitely will not vote for him next year.
Oh. You have got to be concerned about that if you‘re the president –
and it appears he is.
Now, a clear sign from the president that he has got to shift the debate back to where it belongs, which is the big oil companies and the Republicans who absolutely adore them. And it‘s very encouraging today that he seems to have picked up on that fight.
Joining me now is Congressman Earl Blumenauer. He‘s a Democrat from Oregon where, today, gas prices unfortunately hit $3.88 a gallon. And he‘s introduced a bill to roll back subsidies to big oil.
So, now, Congressman, obviously you are on top of this. You‘re the one who introduced the bill. But does the rest of your caucus get the urgency of this? I mean, as far as political issues goes, this could not be any larger.
Is there a plan by the Democrats in Congress to say we‘ve got to focus on this and nothing else until we get this done?
REP. EARL BLUMENAUER (D), BUDGET COMMITTEE: Well, Cenk, we already did put this front and center during the debate on the budget two weeks ago. We offered up some amendments that would have taken away these unnecessary tax breaks to be able to restore some of the Draconian cuts.
And as you know, the president has put some of this in his budget proposals that he had already submitted. And I will guarantee you, my friends on the Democratic side of the aisle will continue to beat this drum. I—
UYGUR: So, Congressman, here is the thing. Look, I know obviously you‘re on the right side of this. You‘re the one who introduced the bill. The president has actually pushed for this every year he is in office, so you absolutely have to give him credit there.
The question is, how do we get it done, right? Because the American people are definitely behind you. What is it, 74 percent right now of Americans say that they want to end the oil subsidies?
So, how do you force the Republicans to vote on this? How do you actually get it to a point where they either say yes, I am absolutely with the oil companies and will continue to be every single day, or they say, all right, you win, you win, OK, we‘re not with the oil companies?
BLUMENAUER: Well, what is going to have to happen is that we are in the House, where revenue measures are supposed to originate, we have to get a crack on the side of the Republicans. What we saw with Speaker Boehner responding—and I thought it was very encouraging that he would say that. Remember, President Bush said that when oil prices hit $50 a barrel, they didn‘t need subsidies anymore.
I think you are seeing a perfect storm where we have gas prices going up again. This is an area we have been trying to work on. The president is ramping it up. I personally think that we have got some momentum here, and I think there‘s—I‘m optimistic that we can—
UYGUR: Right. But Congressman, I want to focus on, how do you use that momentum, right? Because you‘re right. I mean, obviously, 74 percent, and you‘ve got the gas prices going through the roof.
And we are giving away $4 billion of our money every single year to the most profitable companies in the world. That is why we keep pounding on it here on this show, and that‘s why you guys have brought it up.
But how? How do you do it? Is there a way that you guys can say, hey, you know what, we are not voting on any budgetary issues, we are not going to do anything else until we resolve this issue?
BLUMENAUER: Well, under the rules of the House, the Republican majority dictate what goes to the floor. We have opportunities with our motions to recommit, we have opportunities where we‘re going to be involved with negotiations between the House and the Senate on the budget to be able to focus on this with our colleagues in the Senate.
We don‘t have as many tools since we are not in charge. But I do think there are opportunities with the budget going forward, with the increasing public concern, with Speaker Boehner giving a little daylight to the issue. I think there may be opportunities for us to put this in as the budget process moves back and forth between the House and the Senate.
UYGUR: I want to ask you one more thinning, Congressman, but I actually want to show you a clip from John Boehner in that same interview where he actually talked about the debt ceiling. And there‘s a reason why I‘m going to show it to you, but let‘s watch it first and then I‘ll come and ask you about it.
BLUMENAUER: Sure.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
BOEHNER: What did the president do? He took exactly none of his own deficit reduction commission‘s ideas. Not one. Come on! It‘s time to grow up and get serious about the problems that face our country.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
UYGUR: I mean, when I watch that, that‘s incredibly disrespectful. Here he is telling the president, oh, you better grow up. Who is he to tell the president that?
The reason I run that for you is, look, these guys are always in your face. They‘re attacking you personally, whether it‘s you, it‘s the congressmen in general, whether it‘s the president, all the time.
Is it time for you guys to respond likewise, to call out people, name names and say, John Boehner works for the oil companies and we are not going to let him get away with it?
BLUMENAUER: Well, I mean, there has been a concerted effort to be able to move these things forward. We are having the ticking time bomb which is the Republican budget that is slowly unraveling before them. The president, as you know, has advanced a series of initiatives dealing with accelerating the savings under health care. He has put this particular item before Congress before.
From my vantage point, I don‘t think we want to get into a name-calling effort with Republicans.
UYGUR: I disagree.
BLUMENAUER: But I do think—well, that‘s fine. But I am personally working with my colleagues to be able to put this forward with the American public. I don‘t think name-calling actually does a lot of good.
UYGUR: Look, you know, Congressman—
BLUMENAUER: We are going to lose the name-calling contest with them.
UYGUR: No. No. You‘re wrong. Look, I love you, but you‘re wrong.
You know, here‘s why. Here‘s why I say that.
Look, they call you guys names all the time. That‘s why we just showed you the poll where people blame the president for the gas prices, because they did the stupid “Drill, baby, drill” bit and it worked.
And they say, oh, it‘s the Democrats‘ fault for the gas prices when it‘s not, because they are vicious in how they attack you. When you guys sit back and you‘re not as vicious, honestly, and you say well, you know, and the next thing you know, people blame you when it‘s not your fault at all. That‘s why I say there is a purpose behind the name-calling. It‘s not just to be, like, nah-nah-nah-nah-nah-nah.
BLUMENAUER: Well, I think we may agree to disagree. I‘m thinking of Harry Truman, who talked about the Republicans complaining about giving him — about him giving them hell, and he was saying no, I‘m just telling the truth and it will seem like hell.
UYGUR: All right.
BLUMENAUER: And I think our telling the truth, being focused and following through, is, I think, an appropriate response.
UYGUR: All right.
Congressman Earl Blumenauer, who definitely has the right bill on oil subsidies.
Thank you so much for joining us. Really appreciate it.
BLUMENAUER: Always a pleasure, Cenk.
UYGUR: All right.
Now let‘s bring in Katrina vanden Heuvel. She‘s the editor of “The Nation.” I want to get a progressive perspective here.
Katrina, what does the progressive community have to do, whether it‘s magazines like “The Nation,” it‘s the blogs, et cetera, to turn up the heat on this issue?
KATRINA VANDEN HEUVEL, EDITOR, “THE NATION”: Well, I think it‘s citizens of conscience who care about the future of this country, because a 21st century clean economy, clean energy economy, is what it‘s about.
But what interests me, Cenk, is, underlying all of this is, to me, the central issue of our time, which is corporate power. It is corporate power that has bought the oil and gas companies the ability to evade taxes. It has bought the oil and gas companies the ability to buy these subsidies, these senseless, wasteful subsidies, at a moment when the American people need reinvestment in their health care, their education. And those things are being slashed.
So, I think it‘s important for the congressmen, for the House, to call out what I might call the gas and oil party, the gang of polluters. Call a vote, expose them for what they are.
Democrats are taking money from oil and gas, but 75 to 80 percent of that money is going to the Gang of Polluter Party. It used to be the Grand Ole Party. Call them out.
And then propose smart legislation. I would go beyond rolling back the subsidies. I‘d talk about windfall profits tax.
You are about to see—the price of gas is going up, Cenk. But faster than the price of gas, what‘s going up, are the skyrocketing profits of the oil companies. Reinvest that money in a wise, smart way, because people, overwhelmingly, Cenk, not just progressives—Independents and others—think that corporations have too much power in this country, and they are not paying their fair share by any length of the imagination.
UYGUR: And the reason for that is what we just showed in the graphics there. They spent in 2010, alone, over $146 million in lobbying.
Look, the Democrats have to say these guys are bought. They‘re bought and paid for by these oil companies. And of course. That is who they work for. That‘s why they are funneling your money over to them.
But it has a huge political angle, too, and I want to talk to you about that, because let me show you an old poll about George W. Bush and his approval rating compared to gas prices. Right?
Now, there‘s a lot of issues here. Obviously, 2001 happened.
Obviously, the Iraq War happened. Katrina happened, et cetera.
But when you look at those two numbers—in red is Bush‘s approval rating; in blue is the gas prices—it‘s a stunning correlation.
VANDEN HEUVEL: But this has been part of our political history for decades. But I think what‘s important is not simply to redirect the political conversation, the economic conversation, but to do so in a grounded, realistic way, which President Obama is beginning to do.
And I think he has stood for—there have been cuts, and the nuclear power stuff I think is a big mistake, particularly on this anniversary of Chernobyl, 25 years later. But there is a commitment to the a green energy economy, sustainable energy, efficiency.
This is a moment for Americans to realize they‘ve got to use—take the windfall profits tax that some legislators are proposing and reinvest that money into people‘s pockets who would then buy more efficient cars. We have been here before. It‘s deja vu all over again.
We need to wean ourselves and our addiction to this oil and gas. And, Cenk, I think related to that is you‘ve got to do the political reforms. At least the Democrats are pushing to get money out of our political system.
UYGUR: Right. Absolutely.
VANDEN HEUVEL: And at least they are doing lobbying reform. The Grand Old Polluting Party is in the pocket of big oil and gas. So, call them out.
UYGUR: Absolutely.
VANDEN HEUVEL: Call them out.
UYGUR: All right.
Katrina vanden Heuvel, editor of “The Nation.”
Thank you so much for joining us.
VANDEN HEUVEL: Thank you.
UYGUR: And let me just tell the audience one last thing.
Look, the president is definitely on the right path. OK? No question about it. What he did today was terrific.
I think he has got the to say there is no budget deal, there is no nothing until we stop giving away $4 billion of taxpayer money for no damn reason at all to the most profitable companies who are making all that profit from your high gas prices.
It‘s a huge win politically, and much more importantly, it saves us $4 billion a year. It is a huge win, policy-wise.
He has got to press on it. That‘s how you win. It‘s a good first step today. I hope they stay on that path.
RYAN: The international average for the corporate tax is 25 percent.
Ours is 35 percent. Hey, come on, everybody, let me, all right.
(PEOPLE SCREAMING)
If you‘re yelling, I just want to ask you to leave. If you‘re just going to scream out like that, it‘s not just polite to everybody. I mean, look, we got media here. Let‘s prove to this people that Wisconsinites can be cordial with one another, come on.
UYGUR: Look, I love that every time. Because they were so excited when the Democrats were getting shut shot it down on their town hall events. They‘re like, ha ha, you got shot it down—come on, come on. Please stop it. Now, look, Congressman Paul Ryan is planning his republican fly all the way to right with his plan to privatize Medicare. And his constituents are obviously not happy about it. That could be just hurdles from Ryan town hall meeting this afternoon, and that unrest continued.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
UNIDENTIFIED WOMAN: Being under 54 on Medicare, I already knew I‘m screwed.
RYAN: If you‘re already on Medicare, your grandfather is on the current system, that‘s the proposal. Even if your under 65.
UNIDENTIFIED WOMAN: Well, I don‘t, I already knew that I‘m screwed but my concern is.
RYAN: Definitely everything you read.
UNIDENTIFIED WOMAN: Or everything I heard.
RYAN: Sure.
UNIDENTIFIED WOMAN: Thank you.
RYAN: Not today though, believe that, yes.
(INAUDIBLE)
(END VIDEO CLIP)
(LAUGHTER)
UYGUR: I like that he‘s challenged on it. By the way, he‘s saying, no, no, no, if you‘re over 55, you‘re fine. If you‘re under 55 and not on Medicare yet, then you‘re screwed. Well, thank you very much. I really appreciate it. The Republicans of course have shifted the conversations so far to the right now.
Ezra Klein of the Washington Post argues that President Obama‘s now considered a liberal. Even though, he has many of the same uses a moderate republican from the 1990s. But has the GOP shifted the spectrum so far to the right that they form right wing clip? Look, that‘s what it looks like in their town halls across the country now? Whether its Ryan‘s district in Wisconsin or you just saw or in Orlando, Florida where Congressman Daniel Webster face outrage from his own constituents.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
(INAUDIBLE)
You‘re a liar. You‘re a good damn liar.
(INAUDIBLE)
(END VIDEO CLIP)
(LAUGHTER)
UYGUR: A lot of fun. For more, let me bring in Washington Post columnist Ezra Klein. Also joining us is Simon Rosenberg, the founder and executive director of the New Democratic Network.
All right. Guys, I want to talk to you about both things. If the Republicans have gone too far right, and if that has shift to the spectrum for Democrats. Ezra, I mention your article. I thought it was really interesting. I know because I was a moderate republican in the 1990s. And the president is way to the right of me now. And I have hardly changed any position. So, it tells why you think that that‘s true.
EZRA KLEIN, “THE WASHINGTON POST”: So, I have three examples and I‘m talking here about domestic and economic policy. The first Cap and Trade plan was George H. W. Bush, he says, it was a clean era of 1990 and it was about acid rain. As a late of 2007, Newt Gingrich voted for that plan. By the way, he was saying, Cap and Trade for carbon would be a great idea. He would quote, strongly support that idea. An individual mandate health care bill. That was the republican alternative to Clinton character, the employer mandate and the single payer. It was created by a guy named Mark Poly (ph) who is the conservative of the communist that—he told me. I did it because I was worried about single payer. As late as 2005, Mitt Romney was doing an individual mandate plan as late as 2009. Chuck Grassley was saying, individual mandates had bipartisan support. And of course, that‘s what Barack Obama‘s plan.
And then the final example is a budget deal to cut the deficit with both spending cuts and tax hikes which again George H. W. Bush in 1990, that was his plan. He said it was necessary and he did it, and it work. And so, I make two points in the—one is, we sort of shifted the policy debates such that always different things and moderate Republicans wants fought for, and now considered sort of wild life liberal ideas. And the second is, it‘s odd to see Republicans having abandoned so many of them because they actually work. The Cap and Trade did and the acid rain problem. The individual mandate did work in Massachusetts and George H. W. Bush did set the stage for balance budget in the ‘90s. So, they‘ve not only given up on their old policies, they‘ve given up on their successful policies too.
UYGUR: Look, I think that point is inarguable, it‘s the point I always make. This spectrum has obviously shifted before our eyes. So, Simon, let me ask you about that. I mean, when you put in several liberties too, that‘s even worst. God, right now, we‘re authorizing, dropping bombs on top of the United States citizens without a trial from predator‘s strikes. I mean, if Reagan did that, people would have gone ballistic, it would have been crazy, would have been unthinkable, right? I mean, so the hold spectrum has shifted. Do you think it‘s a mistake for the Democrats to just keep moving further and further right along with the Republicans?
SIMON ROSENBERG, NEW DEMOCRAT NETWORK: Yes, of course it is. And I think that Ezra has great analysis here because I think the Republicans, what he‘s saying is that it‘s not just—to the right. But there have been things that work, and if you look at all the major challenges that we face today, clean energy. How are we going to get wages and income up again? How are we going to dealt with the health care crisis in the United States? The Republicans are not really coming to the table, with anything meaningful. And what we have is, a political party has become very reckless, very irresponsible, you know, proposing kind of cockamamie ideas at a time of great national challenges.
And I think the challenge that the Democrats is to not, you know, find equal distance between a bunch of bad ideas that are out of the mainstream. But to stand their ground and to make sure that they—and I think the president did, I want to get to the president more credit than I think that he‘s gotten on in some quarters, is that I think he‘s drawn a very bright line recently between an economic agenda that‘s focus on investment and people and the future and the republican agenda that is really more—austerity in denial of many of these great problems. I think the president has created a brighter line here.
UYGUR: Right.
ROSENBERG: And I think that that‘s where we‘ve got to go. That‘s where the Democrats need to go forward.
UYGUR: So, Ezra, now let‘s look at the other side of the corner, right? So, we think the Democrats have move too far to the right, I certainly believe that fervently, but you know where to match, and the republican have gone even further right, and to your point of rejecting the original proposals and going with more right wing proposals. But now, look at him, they look like they just ran against the breakwater right there. I mean, people hate their Medicare plan. And idea that what happened in Orlando was because people, he‘s like, oh, we‘ve got to give tax cuts to the rich, you know, and that‘s where we‘re to cut Medicare. People like oh, I got, no, no, don‘t do that. So, have the Republicans also made a terrible mistake here?
KLEIN: An argument—actually goes the other way that what happened is that Democrats moved and Republicans—because they needed way to oppose democratic ideas and moved as well. So, I don‘t know the date, I think it‘s gone in a very partisan direction as oppose to a sort of the thought to policy direction. Something interesting that happened when John Boehner was trying to defend the Ryan plan, as he said, you know, the Ryan plan is just like bringing the Obama health care plan to Medicare. And I thought, you know, John Boehner, I thought you hated the Obama health care plan. I—his head over and over and over and over again.
And so, more even than it‘s right or left, what‘s striking about what happened to the Republicans the last couple of years, is that, in their baited to oppose whatever Democrats have done. They‘re sort of given up on having solutions, or at least they‘ve given up having consistent solutions. In Ryan, they have a lot of the Obama-care principles, when it comes to Obama-care, they hate all the Obama-care principles, and that‘s going to make it I think very tough of them going forward because they‘ve left themselves, it‘s been easy to be an opposition party, being against everything. But when you win a house of Congress and then when you actually have to run in the presidential, he need to be force some things again. But they‘ve not let themselves a lot of good things they can before.
UYGUR: Right. Guys, unfortunately, we‘re out of time. I love this conversation. And, you know, the other thing I‘d love to know is when are we going to talk about the progressive budget? You know, Rachel Maddow has made that point, I made that point. I don‘t know why the president isn‘t bringing that up. But it‘s part of moving the spectrum. But look, Ezra Klein of “The Washington Post,” and Simon Rosenberg from the New Democratic Network. Guys, thank you for coming on. Great conversation.
We all know that our country is bleeding to death and going down the toilet. Nearly all of our jobs have gone overseas, and continue to go, with no end in sight. Our trade deficit with China was $250 billion dollars last year, and will get worse in future years. Property taxes continue to increase on middle-class homeowners, while property values continue to decline. Health insurance costs are out of sight, and the price of gas is now $4 per gallon and may soon approach $5 per gallon. Our roads and infrastructure are in pitiful shape. And our cities resemble those of third world countries.
Is there anything we can do to fix our American economy and create jobs? Yes, there is. In fact, there is quite a bit that we can do. Fixing our economy is not rocket science. We are not splitting the atom here. And the Barefoot Accountant presents herein his nineteen steps on how we can salvage our economy and middle class America.
We need to undo at least thirty years (if not 50 years) of a tax policy that has been instrumental in the greatest transfer of wealth in human history. We need to raise the highest marginal tax rates on individuals; that is, the wealthy need to pay more taxes. The upper 10% of our citizens own 90% of our country’s wealth. So they should pay more in terms of maintenance fees. They are the primary beneficiaries of our country. A recent poll indicated that 72% of Americans are in favor of raising taxes on the rich, including 54% of the Republicans. This would provide the financial resources to the government to undertake bold fiscal policies and eliminate deficit spending. Of course, the estate tax needs to be raised back up to 55% from 35%, and the exclusion of property from estate taxation reduced to $1 million from as much as $10 million.
We need to eliminate the 15% capital gains tax rate on stock and bond sales, and subject them to ordinary income tax rates, while restricting the capital gains tax rate to investments in physical capital assets, from which real jobs would be created since this would induce more real investment and less speculation.
We need to uncap the limit on social security taxes. Presently those individuals earning more than $106,800 annually do not have social security taxes assessed on any income exceeding that threshold: that’s a 12.4% tax break on the wealthy, a tax break you do not get. Here’s a simple solution to the funding of social security without raising the retirement age to 69 years of age, when most of us will be almost dead anyway, if not already worm’s meat.
We need to break up those mammoth multinationals controlling our economy. Capitalism requires a free marketplace; however, with the concentrated power possessed by these conglomerates, competition and a free marketplace have been smothered, if not entirely suffocated already. President Theodore Roosevelt knew that when the Sherman Antitrust Act was passed in order to break up the monopolies and oligarchies of the robber barons. Well, the robber barons have returned but the Sherman Antitrust Act has departed long ago. What is the difference between a totalitarian government state and a corporate state? Or do we now simply have a government shell providing cover for a corporate state?
We need to get ALL money out of politics. Allow no campaign financing. Period. Our congresspeople and presidents are now “employees” of these multinational corporations since they need to raise millions and millions of dollars to run for office every other year.
We have to revamp our trade policies. How can American employees compete with Chinese laborers paid $.25/hour, without any employee benefits, including over-time pay? Let’s have free trade as long as it’s fair trade. Level the playing field so that we can compete fairly.
We can no longer afford to spend 20% of our budget on defense and billions of dollars on needless wars throughout the world. We are financing nearly one-half of the total world’s expenditures on defense and the military. Why? We are not being paid as an international police force by other countries. Let Exxonmobil, GE, and other multinationals pay for the protection of their investments and properties in hostile lands. And when we spend $1.5 trillion dollars on liberating the peoples of a country, do we ask those people to contribute to the cost of their own liberation? Not a chance: we pass the entire cost onto Americans, and primarily middle class America! Whatever happened to that assurance by President George W. Bush that the Iraqi oil would pay for cost of the Iraqi war, which will end up costing $1.5 trillion? The Iraqis got their liberation from a tyrant, new roads, new schools, new hospitals, new government buildings, prisons, etc.–many of which (approximately 1,500) will never be utilized–and the American middle class got stuck with the tab. What a great country…if you happen to be rich and own stock in Haliburton and other defense contractors.
We need a single-payer healthcare system allowing control of costs. Every year medical costs increase 15% to 20% on average. Pharmaceuticals, insurance companies, medical service providers, and others are raping the American taxpayer.
We need to control all immigration, not just illegal immigration. Institute huge fines and penalties on employers hiring illegals. Limit social benefits to aliens. Temporarily halt all immigration until unemployment decreases significantly. We have too many individuals unemployed here in America. Ask yourself where will immigrants find work? Will they take jobs from those presently unemployed and desperately looking for work, or, equally as worse, from those currently employed??? Mexico has a more stringent immigration policy than the United States. Go figure.
We need to tax all corporations, including those with fictitious corporate offices on the 19th floor of a building on the Cayman Islands. Make all corporations, domestic or foreign, pay taxes on income.
We need to award government contracts only to businesses employing American workers and buying American materials when available for purchase in this country.
We need to create jobs for every American desiring employment. With real unemployment approaching 20%, we are wasting our most valuable resource: the human resource. Jobs not only contribute to our country’s GDP, but would provide the much needed discretionary income to stimulate our economy through consumer spending. In addition, a job is the best social program, providing training and a sense of dignity to workers, as well as benefits. We need to create these jobs now: that might mean a CETA or WPA program or whatever it would take to attain full employment as soon as possible.
We need to tax all not-for-profit organizations, including Churches. Some of these organizations have amassed huge swaths of real estate and wealth. All benefit from being here in America; consequently, all need to contribute for these benefits and liberties. No exceptions.
We need to legalize all drugs and victimless crimes. We are wasting valuable resources criminalizing behavior that would be better spent on education, medical care, and rehabilitation programs.
We need to invest in new alternative energies. In 1973 we knew there was an oil problem, so what have we done about it over the forty years since then? Do you see any solar heating or fuel cells in the consumer marketplace? Why are battery cars just coming onto the market place at prices much higher than conventional automobiles? Wouldn’t this also address the greenhouse problem, too? In 2008, then-candidate Obama proposed $150 billion in federal funding for green technology, $15 billion a year for 10 years. Under budget pressures, the president pared the federal commitment to $10 billion a year in 2010. In the 2012 budget? Even less — maybe only $2 billion to $3 billion — will be spent after budget cutting negotiations for the Energy Department, Transportation Department, Pentagon, Agriculture Department, National Science Foundation, Environmental Protection Agency and others. We needed a new energy alternative forty years ago! Think of all of the new jobs that would be created by a significant investment in green technology.
We need to stop providing tax subsidies to multinational corporations. The oil companies–the richest companies in the world and those experiencing huge increases in profitability this year–receive billions of dollars of your money every year in the form of tax credits. You pay more taxes than they do!
We need to stop giving billions of dollars of your money from the Federal Reserve to banks like Bank of America and J P Morgan so that they can use those monies to buy treasury bills and earn 3% interest on our money by lending it back to us, instead of loaning out these monies to consumers and small businesses, so that they can pay their mortgages and keep their homes, and operate their businesses and meet payroll.
We need to provide the availability of advanced education to all qualified and serious students. A competitive marketplace requires evolutionary advances in science and technology. Tomorrow’s economy depends on today’s research.
We need to end the present system of collective bargaining of separate and multiple unions, including those of governmental employees. Municipalities and states are on the verge of bankruptcy and can no longer be held hostage to the self interests of any one group, including governmental employees. In its place for all working Americans we need a national department of labor or national union whose officers are elected directly by all of the working citizens of America. By having one labor voice directly accountable to its citizens, all Americans would be represented. Moreover, the American workers voice would be louder and more powerful. Under the present system of multiple unions, the American workers are divided and are pited economically against one another by the powers that be.
There are many other reforms that could be implemented to fix our American economy and create jobs. The list above was never intended to be complete and final. It awaits your invaluable insights and involvement. So please feel free to add your fixes. I need to get back to work and earn a living now.
ED SCHULTZ, HOST: Good evening, Americans. And welcome to THE ED SHOW tonight from New York.
Well, Republicans are waging a campaign of deceit to kill Medicare—so unlike them. If you don‘t believe me, just keep it right here. I‘ll tell you how they‘re doing it.
This is THE ED SHOW. Let‘s get to work.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
(MUSIC)
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
REP. PAT MEEHAN ®, PENNSYLVANIA: You asked if I voted to abolish Medicare.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Well, you did vote to abolish Medicare.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
SCHULTZ (voice-over): The vocal majority continues to fight Republicans all over the nation. We‘ll show you the tape.
As you get pinched at the pump—word today that big oil is expecting record profits this year. Good thing the Republican pals voted to extend their taxpayer funded subsidies.
Tonight‘s “Takedown”: A new low for Scott Walker. He‘s taking credit for jobs he didn‘t create. A new low for red headed Americans? My special commentary.
And tonight, Stephanie Miller attempts the impossible. She‘ll try and make me care about the royal wedding.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
SCHULTZ: And it‘s good to have you with us tonight.
This is the story that has me fired up first. How about this?
Campaign of deceit—so unlike the Republicans.
Once again they are trying to run and hide from the vote that they took on the Ryan budget last week. But last Thursday, the key question here, folks, I asked former RNC chair, Michael Steele, this question.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
SCHULTZ: Do you think the Republicans can win on what they voted on in the House and the Ryan budget?
MICHAEL STEELE, FORMER RNC CHAIRMAN: I do. I think—I think Republicans will have a very good case to take to the American people and ultimately, as you and I know, they will decide where they want this thing to come out.
SCHULTZ: OK.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
SCHULTZ: Oh, yes they will decide. Mr. Steele, good sport coming on the program, but he is completely wrong.
House Republicans are claiming a conference call for tomorrow to start the old damage control on the Ryan budget. A Republican source with knowledge of the call told “The National Journal” the call is intended to help swing district members who have been getting the crap kicked out of them.
Now, the source is telling us this that this is what they‘re going to be talking about.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIPS)
FEMALE CONSTITUENT: You did not run on any—you said nothing in the campaign about I‘m going to change Medicare. Now, you voted for a plan that will destroy Medicare.
REP. LOU BARLETTA ®, PENNSYLVANIA: Well, I won‘t destroy Medicare.
Medicare would be destroyed by itself.
FEMALE CONSTITUENT: I have a great way for you to pay for it.
FEMALE CONSTITUENT: If you vote today abolish Medicare, how will you explain that to people who are in their 50s, who are out of work, that they will have not the Medicare that I have?
MEEHAN: You asked me if I vote today abolish Medicare, but I did not vote to—
FEMALE CONSTITUENT: But you did vote to abolish Medicare.
MEEHAN: No, ma‘am. I did not vote to abolish Medicare.
FEMALE CONSTITUENT: That‘s what this vote is.
MALE CONSTITUENT: Show me how the Ryan budget that you just vote ford brings down the deficit.
REP. SEAN DUFFY ®, WISCONSIN: I don‘t have the chart.
MALE CONSTITUENT: You don‘t have the chart here?
DUFFY: Well, do you want me to send to your e-mail? Give me your email address.
MALE CONSTITUENT: I know what chart you used, it came from the Heritage Foundation.
(END VIDEO CLIPS)
SCHULTZ: Is this the crowd they voted for last November? Callers to my radio show tell me that Paul Ryan is going to get the same kind of treatment and questions at four separate listening sessions in Wisconsin tomorrow around the state.
Now, Ryan and other members of his caucus—basically what they need is a different strategy to convince 80 percent. I love this number. I told I was going to show it to you a lot. Egypt percent of Americans who want Republicans to keep their mitts off Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, the big three.
Republicans don‘t care if they win on the issue. See? Right now, the strategy is just to muddy the waters. Republican Party officials told “The Washington Post,” Republicans don‘t want to be talking about Medicare everyday for the next year and a half. Well, guess what? But if they keep the conversation on boarder issues of spending and taxes, they can win.
The official went on to say the Republicans, quote, “can fight the Medicare issue to a tie by muddying the waters.”
In other words, Republicans are openly admitting they are going to flat out lie about Medicare. They just took the vote.
House Democrats, they ought to be and are finally jumping all over Republicans for lying about this issue. The DCCC put out this commercial today. I‘m happy.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
REP. DAN BENISHEK ®, MICHIGAN: Social Security and Medicare are a promise we have made to our seniors. And I will keep that promise.
REP. SCOTT TIPTON ®, COLORADO: I‘ll never put our seniors‘ future at risk. No cuts. No privatization. And no scaring our seniors.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Turning Medicare into a voucher program, privatizing social security. The agenda that he hopes to put into power.
MEEHAN: That‘s the agenda I‘m not voting for.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
SCHULTZ: Now, let‘s not forget the Republicans lied about Medicare before the election and now, their constituents basically are making them look foolish at their own town hall meetings. Watch how a great Wisconsin voter made freshman Congressman Sean Duffy squirm. Here it is.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
MALE CONSTITUENT: The Ryan budget proposes to turn Medicare into a voucher program.
DUFFY: No, it doesn‘t. No, it doesn‘t.
MALE CONSTITUENT: Yes, it does.
DUFFY: No, it doesn‘t. There‘s no voucher.
MALE CONSTITUENT: That‘s what my understanding is. The Congressional Budget Office thinks that‘s the case because they calculated the extra cost to seniors if it goes into a voucher program and it‘s going to be trillions of dollars for those young men like this fellow up here in front who will have to pay more.
DUFFY: First of all, it‘s a premium support. It‘s not a voucher. The bottom line is, if we do nothing, if we do nothing, you can all say listen I may come and tell you this is all fine and dandy, it‘s all going to work and you know you can get it and I know, any young people here? You all can get this program.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
Advertise | AdChoicesAdvertise | AdChoicesAdvertise | AdChoices.SCHULTZ: You can get it, Congressman. You can get it. You can get it, but the voters can‘t get it. Premium support? No, Congressman. That‘s what you have.
See? The constituents don‘t have premium support. That‘s what they‘re calling it now. Premium support.
Now, come on, folks. You mean to tell me that the Ryan budget has in it that it is going to be a $6,000 cut on average to seniors across this country and they‘re out there on the campaign trail trying to sell this 80 percent crowd that there is something premium about that? That‘s how dumb the Republicans are right now. That‘s how dis-focused they are right now.
Can we go back to that picture of those folks in that crowd? The guys that are sitting out there talking to this congressman—I mean, I just thought this is a typical Wisconsin crowd.
Look at this. There is not a lot of diversity there. These are rural Americans who pay attention to what‘s going on in the news and they‘re being told by this congressman that their cut is premium coverage and the Republicans think that they can jargon their way around this? These good old boys in the heartland, they‘re not going to be buying that stuff. That‘s kind of comical, isn‘t it?
Well, let‘s get back to the budget because Congressman Pat Meehan, Republican from Pennsylvania, gets questioned on his vote and what does he do? He calls it a blueprint.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
MEEHAN: You made a comment that I vote today abolish Medicare and that‘s factually wrong.
FEMALE CONSTITUENT: How is that wrong?
MEEHAN: Wait a second, ma‘am. Let me answer the question.
FEMALE CONSTITUENT: I will.
MEEHAN: Thank you. I voted for the Ryan plan. Let‘s be clear right from the outset. If you talk about what was in the proposal. Now this is a blueprint. What Paul Ryan has put out is a blueprint, a sense of what we would like to do, a direction that we‘d like to go in looking at a variety of issues.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
SCHULTZ: It‘s just a blueprint. That‘s all it is. It‘s a blueprint.
We got a blueprint of this house we want to build. Here it is.
No, no, no. You decided what kind of house you want to build, Congressman, and you have voted on it.
So, here‘s the best play for the Democrats right now. Harry Reid, Senate majority leader, put this baby on the table in the Senate and let‘s have a vote. Let‘s go to the Republicans in the Senate and ask them if they‘re onboard with this radical budget.
That‘s what the president called it. He said it was radical. We asked the Republican National Committee and House Republican conference committee members to come on this show and defend why 235 members of the House voted for Paul Ryan‘s plan even though it was just a blueprint and, of course, they declined. Hopefully, they‘ll change their mind after their conference call tomorrow because they‘re reeling.
They didn‘t expect to get this earful in the heartland. They didn‘t think that those folks followed the news, but they do.
Get your cell phones out, I want to know what you think. Tonight‘s question: Will Republican lies about Medicare work? Text “A” for yes, text “B” for no to 622639, you can always go to our new blog at Ed.MSNBC.com. We‘ll bring you the results later in the show.
Joining me now, my favorite senator, independent, from Vermont, Bernie Sanders.
I‘ve never said you were my favorite senator before, or when I was doing the 6:00. But you are—and I want to announce that tonight. You are my favorite senate because you stand up to what is wrong with this country and you always have a solution on what we need to do to make things better for the middle class and I respect that, Senator. Great to have you with us.
Now, I want to know—should Harry Reid bring this to a vote to get all of these Republican senators on record in the Senate? What do you think?
SEN. BERNIE SANDERS (I), VERMONT: Absolutely. This is the most right wing extremist piece of legislation I have ever seen in my life. It is a massive transfer of wealth from the middle class and working families to the very wealthiest people in this country.
Ed, what we have to understand, this is not about deficit reduction. These guys want to give $1 trillion of tax breaks to the wealthiest people in this country when they convert Medicare into a voucher program and make savage cuts in Medicaid and they also want to move toward the privatization of Social Security.
So, what you‘re talking about now is the Robin Hood proposal in reverse. We‘re taking from the poor and working families and give to the very wealthy. If the Republicans like this idea, let‘s have that vote on the Senate floor and let them vote for it.
SCHULTZ: I agree. I mean, this is really some great theater to see these Republican senators out there after what the House members got out on the road the last few days. Make them come back and pony up to it or distance themselves from it.
Here‘s the other thing—what does muddy the waters mean in your opinion? What do you think their strategy is right now?
SANDERS: Well, to deflect attention from what they are doing in going on the counter attack. That‘s really what it means. What is most interesting, Ed, is every poll that I have seen suggests that the Republicans now are doing exactly the opposite of what the American people want.
SCHULTZ: Sure.
SANDERS: Poll after poll says you know what? When the rich are getting richer and the middle class is disappearing ask the wealthy to pay a little more in taxes so we can move to deficit reduction in a fair way. What do the Republicans say? No way. More tax breaks for the very rich.
You just indicated there are polls that say, hey, don‘t cut Medicare.
Don‘t cut Medicaid. That‘s exactly what the Republicans are doing.
We now have the opportunity believe, if we‘re tough, if we‘re strong, if we‘re focused, of putting these guys on the defensive and making everybody in America understand what their agenda is.
SCHULTZ: Now, Senator Coburn yesterday on record saying that he would go along with the tax increase if it was revenue neutral or the net effect of the taxes. Look, you‘re either going to raise revenue on rich people or you‘re not. Do you think the Republicans will ever do that in what they are calling a budget crisis?
SANDERS: Well, this is a lot of hocus pocus. What they are saying is, well, we‘re willing to do away with some of these loop holes and we just announced a couple weeks ago a list of 10 major corporations who made billions and billions in profits, why they paid nothing in taxes were actually got a rebate from the IRS.
Advertise | AdChoicesAdvertise | AdChoicesAdvertise | AdChoices.So, what the Republicans are saying is, we‘re willing to take a look at some of those outrageous loop holes, maybe the tax havens in the Cayman Islands and Bermuda. But, on the other hand what we want to do is lower the corporate tax rates. So, it‘s revenue neutral.
I think we want to do away with these loop holes, raise revenue, use it for deficit reduction, instead of slashing Medicare and Medicaid and Social Security.
SCHULTZ: Senator, great to have you with us tonight. I‘m sure it‘s going to change your career now that I said you‘re my favorite senator.
(LAUGHTER)
SCHULTZ: You are.
SANDERS: Thank you very much.
SCHULTZ: You know, look, you‘re a guy that has been consistent. You are a senator who has always put the people first and put the concerns of the middle class first. And if we had more Bernie Sanders in the Senate, we wouldn‘t have these little gangs of six out there that I have no clue what the heck they‘re trying to do, because I think the three Democrats that are on the gang of six, they‘re just buying into the Republican talking points and they are caving.
The big three should be off the table, nonnegotiable. Let‘s go down the road for a couple years of taxing the rich then come back and visit again and see where our treasury is. That‘s what I think.
Senator, great to have you with us tonight. I appreciate your time.
And what`s the best plan to reduce the deficit? The Ryan plan or the Obama plan? How about the people`s plan? Why isn`t anybody paying attention to the Progressive Caucus plan?
O`DONNELL: You`ve seen the Paul Ryan abolish Medicare and cut taxes Republican budget, and you`ve heard the president`s description of his counterproposal. So, which one do you like? If your answer is neither, you might want to consider the people`s budget, introduced by the Congressional Progressive Caucus, a group of 76 Democrats.
Joining me now for a guided tour of the people`s budget is Ezra Klein, columnist for “The Washington Post.”
Thanks for joining me, Ezra.
EZRA KLEIN, MSNBC CONTRIBUTOR: Happy to serve.
O`DONNELL: Ezra, I know Rachel has done some coverage of the people`s budget, but it has otherwise been largely ignored. Take us through the highlights of the people`s budget and what its selling points are.
KLEIN: Sure. So, the people`s budget is looking at how you would balance the budget if you were going to do it largely through tax increases and mostly for taxes on the wealthy.
So, it lets most of the Bush cuts expire, keeping a couple of the one from lower income folks. In that way, it goes a lot further than Obama does. It does a lot of — it creates new millionaire tax brackets. It taxes capital gains as normal income, taxes dividend income higher.
It raises a bunch of corporate taxes. It creates a tax on financial transactions. It cuts 1.8 trillion for the defense budget and invests $1.4 trillion in sort of new job, education, science, et cetera, initiatives.
So, it does a lot more on balancing the budget on the tax side, but also — and I think this is an important part of it, opens up a space for new investment, which just about none of the budgets currently on the table do.
O`DONNELL: And do they do anything about energy taxation in this plan?
KLEIN: No, they don`t.
O`DONNELL: Any gasoline tax, any environmental-based taxes?
KLEIN: No. And when I began to talk to tax experts about it, they said a couple of things. One, they said, one, there`s not enough tax reform in the plan. They`re just sort of stacking new taxes on top of one another. And in that way, they enhance a couple of the tax systems` worst tendencies right now.
The capital gains tax, the way they have, it wouldn`t work. People said.
And lot of these guys said the same thing to me. They said, look, this budget does a lot of very brave and a lot of very smart things. But what it needs to do is more tax reform and more creative taxation. So, taxing energy is something that would work a lot better. A lot of people brought up a value-added tax, which would work a lot better.
A lot of them liked the people`s budget, but they didn`t think they had gone quite far enough in terms of new thinking on taxes.
O`DONNELL: And this is the only budget that takes a serious look at defense spending. Something that says, OK, wait a minute, what are we really going to need to do going forward?
KLEIN: Well, let me go — let me give a couple other people credit here. There are five budgets on the table. Of them, the Obama and Ryan budgets are the two worst, on a lot of measures, but defense spending being one of them.
The fiscal commission, Simpson-Bowles, did twice as many defense cuts as Obama and, by the way, raised another $450 million in taxes. The odd thing about the Obama budget is to the right of the fiscal commission document, which was a compromise among Tom Coburn and Dick Durbin and others. And I don`t think people have really absorbed that.
And then there`s another budget by the Bipartisan Policy Center, which also went after defense spending. When you get to the people who aren`t worried about their passing their budgets tomorrow, there`s a broad agreement that the defense sector is bloated and we need very significant cuts in it.
But when you get to Obama and when you get to Ryan, they really sort of whiffed on it. They — they really stood down from that particular fight.
O`DONNELL: Now, and the real defense experts will tell you, we do have to change the nature of our defense posture, which happens to save us money, even if that isn`t our intent, when we look at what the threats are going forward. We`re no longer in that big Cold War posture.
Ezra Klein of “The Washington Post” — thank you very much for joining me tonight.
TRUMP TOLD THE AMERICAN PEOPLE THERE ARE THE SECURITY STATE AGENTS WHO THINK THAT THEY RUN THE GOVERNMENT AND HE STOOD UP TO THEM AND CHALLENGED THEIR ORTHODOXIES AND PIETIES AND SHOWED AMERICANS, ESPECIALLY PEOPLE IN THE REPUBLICAN PARTY ON THE RIGHT, THAT THESE INSTITUTIONS ARE NOT NOBLE OR BENEVOLENT BUT ARE HIGHLY PERNICIOUS. THEY […]
Joe Biden said, if you're fully vaccinated, the chances that you can get severely ill, not even die just get severely ill, are very low. And the statistic that he gave is, out of every 160,000 people who have been vaccinated, only one ends up going to the hospital with a serious illness. So the […]
Glenn Greenwald: "So you have huge number of journalists who believe that, they have the right to lie and even when they get caught, they don't care because they know their audience won't hold it against them." Continue reading →
THAT'S WHAT THEY ARE USING JANUARY 6TH. IT'S DEMENTED TO COMPARE 9/11 AND JANUARY 6TH BUT IT'S SO CENTRAL TO THE AGENDA OF THE SECURITY STATE, THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY, TO ESSENTIALLY INITIATE A SURVEILLANCE REGIME, A DETENTION REGIME, AGAINST PEOPLE ON THE RIGHT WHO ARE AGAINST THE ESTABLISHMENT. AND THEY’RE ALREADY DOING IT. AND THEY […]
Carlson: So now we’re arming the Taliban and marooning our own citizens in Afghanistan. Who could possibly have seen that coming. Glenn Greenwald is one of the few journalists who did see it coming. He writes for Substack where all … Continue reading →
And so that is what I call the birth of this woke industrial complex. It is a new leviathan, a new monster, that is far more powerful than what Thomas Hobbes might have envisioned 400 years ago, and it is the biggest threat to individual liberty today. It is not big government alone. Its conservatives […]
FBI CIA NSA are not only spying on American citizens but also are illegally unmasking their identities to journalists who support our fascist government Continue reading →
The government is instructing social media companies what should and shouldn't be allowed to be on the internet, these are the people least competent to judge what is misinformation. Continue reading →
Google, Facebook and Twitter should be treated as state actors under existing legal doctrines. Using a combination of statutory inducements and regulatory threats, Congress has co-opted Silicon Valley to do through the back door what government cannot directly accomplish under the Constitution. Congress is giving Big Tech immunity and more power in exchange for it censoring […]
THE SECURITY STATE HAS EXISTED SINCE THE END OF WORLD WAR II. THEY'VE BEEN OPERATING IN SECRET AND WITH NO DEMOCRATIC ACCOUNTABILITY FOR EIGHT OR NINE DECADES NOW. DWIGHT EISENHOWER WHEN HE LEFT OFFICE WARNED THE COUNTRY ABOUT THE DANGERS THAT THEY POSE. Continue reading →
Darryl Cooper, AKA @MartyrMade, is a podcaster who had a Twitter thread go viral with 13k retweets and 20k likes of the first Tweet alone. This one is 36-Tweets long. It makes very cogent arguments of not only why millions of Trump supporters believe the 2020 election was stolen, but also why we are justified […]
COVID-19 antibodies have been found in blood samples as early as September, 2019. China knew about the virus' transmission to humans months before it announced such to the world. Why has the media and our government not investigated this gross negligence, if not mass murder? Continue reading →
Democrats and elites are making straight white men the enemy of their new world order. Blacks, hispanics, gays are now the good guys; straight white men are the bad guys. Continue reading →
This ruling class of administrative state, big tech, corporations: all of these people think that they can get rid of Trump and we'll go back to normal. They're wedded to a broken system that has sold out the American people. And now they're going to try to sell out the American people and the middle […]
The real threat is collusion. When journalists strike secret alliances with the very people they're supposed to be holding accountable, we are in deep trouble. Lies go unchallenged. Democracy cannot function. And that's what we're watching right now. Continue reading →
The CIA from the very first days of the Trump administration, even before he was inaugurated, devoted themselves to sabotaging the administration because Donald Trump questioned just a few of their pieties. And that can't be done in Washington. Whoever does that must be destroyed. And so the CIA and the Deep State operatives became […]
The problem is the corruption that is absolutely pervasive in the U.S. news media. There are newsrooms all throughout New York and Washington DC, where top editors are explicitly saying they do not want this story investigated. And they're being clear that the reason that they don't want to investigate it is because they think […]
So Apple isn't fighting for diversity. They're doing exactly what they appear to be doing: they're trying to keep wages down and keep their workers compliant by importing labor from abroad.This isn't about diversity. It's about exploitation. It always is Continue reading →
Accountants CPA Hartford, LLC
Accountants CPA Hartford Connecticut is an accounting firm in Hartford, Connecticut offering a variety of accounting & tax services.
10
Accountants CPA Hartford, LLC