Follow The Money

In a discussion about money's corrupting influence on politics, I told my friend that it affects both parties, not just the Republicans.  He said, "Follow the money."  With little effort, I was able to find some very good data from OpenSecrets.org.

The following lists show the All-Time Top Donors, and the Top Individual Contributors in the 2010 election cycle and the percentage given to Democrats and Republicans.  The links on the headings will lead to more information.

All-Time Top Donors:
# 1. ActBlue - 99% Dems; 0% Rep
#2. AT&T -  43% Dem; 55% Rep
#3. AFSCME - 92% Dem, 1% Rep
#4. Nat. Assoc. Of Realtors - 45% Dem; 47% Rep
#5 NEA - 74% Dem; 5% Rep
#6. Goldman Sachs - 57% Dem; 39% Rep
#7. Service Emp. Intl - 75% Dem; 2% Rep
#8. American Assn for Justice - 88% Dem; 8% Rep
#9, IBEW - 96% Dem; 2% Rep
#10. American Fedn of Teachers - 87% Dem; 0% Rep.


Top Individual Contributors (2010 Election):
#1. Stephen Bing - 100% Dem; 0% Rep
#2. Haim & Cheryl Saban - 100% Dem; 0% Rep
#3. Fred Eychaner - 100% Dem; 0% Rep
#4. Steve & Michele Kirsch - 100% Dem; 0% Rep
#5. Bernard & Irene Schwartz - 100% Dem; 0% Rep
#6 Jon S & Joanne D Corzine - 98% Dem; 0% Rep
#7. Melvin & Brenda J. Simon - 100% Dem; 0% Rep
#8. Peter G & Georgia K Angelos - 99% Dem; 0% Rep
#9. John M. O'Quinn - 100% Dem; 0% Rep
#10. Roland E. & Dawn Arnall - 34% Dem; 66% Rep

Funny, Koch doesn't appear until #54, under a lot of heavy weight Democratic donors...though the Left would have you believe that all political evil originate from Koch Industries.

God Bless America

Nothing needs to be added.  Happy Independence Day!

President Reagan's Address to the Nation on Independence Day - 7/4/86

Obama Care and the Death of a Republic

Today's Supreme Court ruling on the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, aka Obama Care, is a huge disappointment for anyone who cares for the Constitution and the rule of law.  This law was shoved through Congress against the will of a strong majority of the people in this country.  It gives unprecedented power to the central government to control the lives of individual citizens.   This has been done over the objections of several States.  It also gives the central government control over approximately one-seventh of the economy...in effect socializing a  whole segment of the private industry.

One of the most troublesome aspects of this law, the so-called "individual mandate," which forces individual citizens to purchase health insurance, whether they want to or not, under the penalty of being fined, was held to be constitutional under Congress' taxing power.  Chief Justice Roberts found, in writing the majority opinion, that "In this case, however, it is reasonable to construe what Congress has done as increasing taxes on those who have a certain amount of income, but choose to go without health insurance. Such legislation is within Congress's power to tax."  This flies directly in the face the wording of the act and of what was continually claimed by Obama and his minions.  He claimed that the individual mandate was "absolutely not" a tax.

Rather than interpreting the law, as is the mandate of the Supreme Court, Justice Roberts and the other assenting members have legislated from the bench.  The mandate language in the law did not call for a tax, but rather a penalty.  Roberts and the others changed the law by judicial fiat.  In writing for the dissenting members,  Justice Kennedy explains that, "In a few cases, this Court has held that a 'tax' imposed upon private conduct was so onerous as to be in effect a penalty. But we have never held—never—that a penalty imposed for violation of the law was so trivial as to be in effect a tax. We have never held that any exaction imposed for violation of the law is an exercise of Congress’ taxing power—even when the statute calls it a tax, much less when (as here) the statute repeatedly calls it a penalty. When an act adopt[s] the criteria of 'wrongdoing' and then imposes a monetary penalty as the “principal consequence on those who transgress its standard,” it creates a regulatory penalty, not a tax."  But that's what the majority clearly did in this case...they interpreted a penalty as a tax.

Justice Kennedy, also explained:

"As for the constitutional power to tax and spend for the general welfare: The Court has long since expanded that beyond (what Madison thought it meant) taxing and spending for those aspects of the general welfare that were within the Federal Government’s enumerated powers, see United States v. Butler, 297 U. S. 1, 65–66 (1936). Thus, we now have sizable federal Departments devoted to subjects not mentioned among Congress’ enumerated powers, and only marginally related to commerce: the Department of Education, the Department of Health and Human Services, the Department of Housing and Urban Development. The principal practical obstacle that prevents Congress from using the tax-and-spend power to assume all the general-welfare responsibilities traditionally exercised by the States is the sheer impossibility of managing a Federal Government large enough to administer such a system."

"The Act before us here exceeds federal power both in mandating the purchase of health insurance and in denying nonconsenting States all Medicaid funding. These parts of the Act are central to its design and operation, and all the Act’s other provisions would not have beenenacted without them. In our view it must follow that the entire statute is inoperative."

The truly frightening part of this decision is that it sets precedent that will likely allow the central government to control any activity or sector of the economy they wish through their seemingly unlimited power to tax. Rep. Jeff Landry, R-La. had it right when he spoke on the steps of the Supreme Court after the ruling,  “They basically have said Congress has no limit to its taxing power. This is the largest tax increase on the poor and the middle class in the history of this country . . . it was sold to the American people as a mandate and not a tax.”


The short-term solution is to vote Obama and all of his central planning, socialist cronies out of office and push the new president and Congress for a total repeal of this bad law.  But this is not enough.  The problem is systemic...the government given to us by the founders has rotted to the core.  The central government can not be trusted to act on the principles of the founding and the original intent of our bedrock legal document, the Constitution.  Neither can Supreme Court be counted on to take up the cause.  As I wrote in a previous post:

Where are the checks and balances that safe guard our liberty? The Supreme Court? This is only a small group of politically appointed lawyers, with tenure for life, who have a history of rubber stamping government expansion. No, the only real hope is to return to America's founding principles, and it is The People who must demand the changes necessary.

Notice that throughout this post, I have referred to the "central government" rather than the Federal government.  I do this with a purpose.  The founding fathers provided us with a federal republic form of government.  It was a republic in that ultimate power originated from "the People."  It was federal in that there was a small body that was to represent the interests of the federation of the sovereign United States of America.  This central government was to be very limited in scope and power and, derived it's power from the States and the People.  The chief check on the power of the Federal government was to be the sovereign States.  With this ruling, and many before it, we no longer have a federal form of government in practice, we have a national one with the States now being subservient to the central body.  This is why I will no longer refer to this body as federal.  There are no sovereign States, and soon, if we don't make a change, there will be no republic.

Because the central government has become so corrupted, we cannot hope to restore it from within.  We must return to the principles of federalism.  The States must retake their rightful role as the check against usurpation and aggression by the central government.  To do this, we must repeal the Seventeenth Amendment (see these post for more information on this topic: Repeal the 17th Amendment ; Like the 10th Amendment? Repeal the 17th!).  The states must then nullify unconstitutional laws and rollback the central government to it's rightful scope.  Without these steps, the republic is truly dead.

See the following posts for background on Federalism:

Balance of Power

The Utility of Federalism

The Road Back to Federalism - Part 1

The Road Back to Federalism - Part 2

The Road Back to Federalism - Part 3

The Road Back to Federalism - Part 4

That's Irresponsible. It's Unpatriotic.

By Bob Gorrell - June 14, 2012

In the video below, Candidate Barack Obama blasts President Bush, and rightly so, for adding $4 Trillion to the national debt.  He said, "...we now have over nine trillion dollars of debt, that we are gonna have to pay back.  Thirty thousand dollars for every man, woman and child."

Today, with less than one term in office, compared to Bush's two terms, the U.S. national debt is more than $15 Trillion.  That is more than $50,000 for every man woman and child.  This is a $6 Trillion increase over the debt level that candidate Obama railed against.

Once again, we should take President Obama at his word:

"That's irresponsible. It's unpatriotic."

A One Term Proposition

"I will be held accountable, you know, I've got four years...A year from now, uh, I think people are gonna see, uh, that we're starting to make some progress, but there's still gonna be some pain out there.  If I don't have this done in three years, then there's gonna be a one-term proposition." ~ Barack Obama, 2009.

The economy is in such a bad way that we should certainly take Mr. Obama at his word, hold him accountable and make him a one-term president.  He hasn't gotten it done!  We can't afford to give him another shot at it, hoping that maybe, just maybe, this time he can improve things.

I am not a big Mitt Romney fan, and would rather see someone else running in opposition.  But he can not do worse than this current president has done.  If Romney doesn't get it done, he should likewise be a one-termer.  Then, maybe we will all get serious about voting for serious candidates...statesmen instead of politicians.  We should have this same attitude about our Senate and House candidates..and state and local candidates for that matter.  This is not a game, folks.  This is our lives, our future, our liberty at stake.



Thanks to VideoSeattle.

Defeat of Special Interests

(Updated: 6/8/12)

The victory of Governor Scott Walker in the recall election in Wisconsin was a resounding defeat of special interests.  That's right, one of the biggest special interest groups in the country was soundly rejected...labor unions, and public service unions in particular.  The People of Wisconsin, in large numbers, turned out to reject the ridiculous recall attempt waged by the unions in the state.

According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, only about 11.8 percent of all workers nationally belong to a union.  In Wisconsin, the number is about 13.3 percent.  Looking at union membership by sector, it is even more interesting.  The percentage of all private sector employees that belong to a union was only 6.9% in 2011 compared to 37% of all public sector workers.  Union membership has been falling for years.  In fact, The New York Times reported that union membership has fallen to "the lowest rate in more than 70 years."  The vast majority of Americans are not in a union and don't want to be in one.  And so, they really don't care about the unions.

Even the politicians, it seems, don't seem to see the union issues of key importance, as noted in an article in Mother Jones:

"In an interview, an official with the Democratic Party of Wisconsin downplayed the importance of the anti-union provisions in Walker's 'budget repair' bill in the Democrats' broader recall strategy. 'Collective bargaining is not moving people,' says Graeme Zielinski, a Democratic Party spokesman. And in the party's new strategy memo for defeating Walker, there's little mention of collective bargaining or organized labor in the Democrats' messaging plans."

But while unionism is on the decline, union special interest groups continue to be some of the largest donors to national political candidates.  According to National Review Online, "the biggest 'outside group' spenders in the 2012 elections aren't oil and gas companies, Sheldon Adelson, the Koch brothers, or hedge funds. No, as reported by the Associated Press, the biggest spender in the 2012 elections will likely be Big Labor."  In fact, according to OpenSecrets.org, the American Federation of State, County, and Municipal Employees (AFSCME), one of the biggest forces behind the Walker recall effort, is the third all time largest donor, with 92% of their funds going to Democrats and only 1% to Republicans.  In the 2008 election cycle alone, AFSCME was the 6th largest donor.  The National Education Association (NEA), another public sector union, was the largest.

What does this mean, in real terms.  Public sector workers contributing money to politicians is a conflict of interest.  Think about it.  If this happened in the private sector, it would be illegal.  If employees gave money to get their bosses promoted, then expect favorable treatment in return, everyone would be fired at least.  Steve Huntly of the Chicago Sun Times describes the issue this way:

"Collective bargaining for government employees can never survive much scrutiny. Their unions are by their nature in conflict with the interests of taxpayer. Unions use their numbers, their voting booth clout and their members’ dues to elect politicians who then return the favor in contract negotiations. Liberal good government types constantly advocate bans against government contracts for businesses that make significant campaign contributions to politicians. But they fall silent on the inherent conflict of interest in labor contracts negotiated by public employee unions and the politicians they help elect. Talk about a corrupt bargain — that’s the very definition of one.

Taxpayers have grown weary of financing generous benefits that most of them never see in their lives. President Barack Obama must recognize that voter attitudes on this are changing. Despite the appeals of Wisconsin Democrats for a big show of support, the closest Obama came to Wisconsin was flying over the state recently on his way to a fund-raising dinner in Minneapolis." 

Wisconsin was on the verge of insolvency.  Scott Walker said he was willing to do what was necessary to fix the problem.  He was elected by the people of Wisconsin.  He did exactly what he said he would do...stand up against the outrageous demands and costs of the public unions.  The economy and budget have begun to improve.  The unions did not like the results of the election because it threatened their power in the government.  They organized the recall effort with much wailing and gnashing of teeth about how terrible Walker was for the working men and women of Wisconsin.  But, those same working men and women turned out to reject their special interest, class warfare rhetoric.

 Neither labor unions or crony capitalists should have undue influence on government through their ability to buy favor.  The American people are waking up.  They are seeing through the media fog.  Scott Walker's victory was a clear blow against the public sector union special interests.  Let's hope this trend continues and voters continue to look past the special interests and vote for the best interest of their States and Country.

A Spending Problem

Revenue - Spending = Deficit 

It is a simple equation, really...why does Washington not seem to understand it?  Our country's debt problem is simply a matter of spending more than the available revenue.

Government revenue historically averages about 18% of Gross Domestic Product (GDP).  This seems to be the level that the voting public and the economy will stand.  But, tax revenue per household, adjusted for inflation, as Professor Davies explains in the video below, has risen, by about 300% since the 1950s.

So, if revenue continues to grow over the years, but we also continue to have deficits, what is the problem?  I'll wait a little while for some of you to catch up...That's right, it's spending!  Our rate of spending continues to grow at an even faster rate than revenue.  Professor Davies explains the issue very clearly and succinctly in the video below.



Related Posts:
Federal Spending and the Economy

Sold Out...Again

General Motors, that too-big-to-fail American auto maker that was bailed out in 2009 with billions of taxpayer dollars, maybe isn't so American after all.  While GM posted a record profit last year, according to this article on CNN Money, the taxpayers are still waiting on $25.5 billion back from GM on the bailout according to this article.  And though Virg Bernero. Democratic mayor of Saginaw, Michigan said, "I just gotta say 'I told you so' to all the naysayers like Mitt and those Republican southern senators who tried to kill off the domestic auto industry," it seems that GM has been moving more and more production to communist China.

I understand that we live in a global economy and that China is a growing market, but is this really what we paid for?  Is this really good for America and our labor force?  How long will it be until we start importing those vehicles back into the US? How long will it be until "Government Motors" becomes "China Motors?"  How's that for Hope and Change?

Watch this very enlightening video and decide for yourself.

Eroding Rights

We the People have largely fallen asleep at the wheel over the last hundred years or more.  Instead of driving the ship of state to serve our interests as citizens, we have allowed government at all levels to supplant the People's interests with their own.

At almost every turn, the government has been allowed torture and twist the Constitution to accrue more and more power to themselves.  Though the Constitution and the records left behind by those who ratified it is very clear that the powers of the Federal are very few and narrow, the power mongers in government seem to be able to find almost any power they wish to wield in this foundational document.  They have done this in the past by twisting and reinterpreting the word used and ignoring the clear "original intent."

In recent years, however, the statist usurpers have made more and more direct assaults on our power and rights.  Where they once at least made an attempt to cover their power grabs with heady, legalistic explanations about how they really do have constitutional authority to do x or y, Now, they simply laugh and scoff at the mere question of constitutionality.

To help overcome the last vestiges of resistance, the statists have begun to target the Constitution directly through the amendment process.  Representative Jim McGovern (D-MA) along with House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) and 26 other democrats and a one RINO have introduced the populist sounding People's Rights Amendment to the Constitution.  In this amendment, McGovern attempts to precisely define the "words people, person, or citizen as used in this Constitution..."It goes on to say that these words do not apply to "corporations, limited liability companies or other corporate entities established by the laws of any State, the United States, or any foreign state."

Okay...so far, nothing earthshaking, right?  We all know that corporations are not people.  I don't think anyone was believing that they were.  It is the next part that is the problem: "such corporate entities are subject to such regulation as the people, through their elected State and Federal representatives, deem reasonable and are otherwise consistent with the powers of Congress and the States under this Constitution."  In other words...government can do to corporations whatever they want to do because they are not "people."

In an article dated May 4, 2012, columnist George Will points out that the "proposed amendment is intended to reverse the Supreme Court’s Citizens United decision, which affirmed the right of persons to associate in corporate entities for the purpose of unrestricted collective speech independent of candidates’ campaigns."  The problem they had with Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission case is that the Supreme Court ruled that the First Amendment did not allow government to restrict independent political spending by corporations or unions, as required by the McCain-Feingold Act of 2002. In writing for the majority opinion on this case, Justice Kennedy points out that "[t]he First Amendment provides that 'Congress shall make no law...abridging the freedom of speech.'"

He continued:

"The law before us is an outright ban, backed by criminal sanctions. Section 441b makes it a felony for all corporations—including nonprofit advocacy corporations—eitherto expressly advocate the election or defeat of candidates or to broadcast electioneering communications within 30days of a primary election and 60 days of a general elec-tion. Thus, the following acts would all be felonies under §441b: The Sierra Club runs an ad, within the crucial phase of 60 days before the general election, that exhorts the public to disapprove of a Congressman who favors logging in national forests; the National Rifle Association publishes a book urging the public to vote for the challenger because the incumbent U. S. Senator supports a handgun ban; and the American Civil Liberties Union creates a Web site telling the public to vote for a Presidential candidate in light of that candidate’s defense of free speech. These prohibitions are classic examples of censorship." [emphasis added]

The so-called People's Rights Amendment, then, is an attempt to circumvent that nasty First Amendment restriction on Congress's power to control speech...one of our most cherished rights on the Left and the Right.  In his article, Will rightly point's out that this amendment would increase "the power of incumbent legislators — to write laws regulating, rationing or even proscribing speech in elections that determine the composition of the legislature and the rest of the government."  While they try to portray this amendment as a tool needed for election reform, it is in fact a naked power grab.

Amendment 1 - Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

While corporations and other organizations are not people, they are made up of people...citizens who have implicit freedom of speech rights.  They also have a right to freely assemble into groups to address government.  This is also known as freedom of association, which the SCOTUS held in NAACP v. Alabama (357 U.S. 449) that:

"It is beyond debate that freedom to engage in association for the advancement of beliefs and ideas is an inseparable aspect of the 'liberty' assured by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, which embraces freedom of speech...it is immaterial whether the beliefs sought to be advanced by association pertain to political, economic, religious or cultural matters, and state action which may have the effect of curtailing the freedom to associate is subject to the closest scrutiny."

This type of aggression...and that is truly what this is...toward our rights as citizens can not stand, and should not go unanswered.  Representative McGovern, Leader Pelosi and all of the other sponsors of this amendment should be censured...they should be soundly defeated in their next elections...and possibly recalled.  This is not simply a partisan maneuvering on their part.  This amendment would greatly restrict everyone's rights, no matter where they stand on the political spectrum.  And, it could easily lead to further aggression.  No, this is not a Right or a Left issue.  This is truly an American issue...and these usurpers are clearly UNAMERICAN.

Are You Getting It Yet?

In several past posts, I have given information on the size and scope of the federal debt.  I have supplied some very good videos from others...and some of you still think that it's just not that bad.  Some think, like multimillionaire, hypocrite Michael Moore, that America is awash with money and if we just take it from the evil rich, we would all be okay.

In this video, self-described independent, and motivational speaker Tony Robbins uses information originally compiled by blogger IowaHawk and updates it for 2012.  This takes a look at what would happen if we did soak the rich.

This should be a real eye opener.  It is abundantly and mathematically certain that we cannot tax our way out of the mess our politicians have gotten us into.  We must CUT SPENDING...DRASTICALLY.  And if we don't, we will have a collapse of our economy.  It's not too late...I think...but that time is quickly coming.  Are you getting it yet?  We can't tolerate the status quo.  We cannot continue to allow our elected officials to use OUR MONEY to buy votes, power, and influence.    We cannot take care of everyone...cradle-to-grave.  We have to cut the size and scope of government dramatically!

Are You Getting It YET?