What Is Thy Bidding, My Master?

“ My friends, we have to drill off shore. We have to do it. It's out there and we can do it. And we can do that. The oil executives say within a couple of years we could be seeing results from it. So why not do it?

— John McCain - July 22, 2008

Exhibit #88491 why McCain shouldn't be president. John McCain takes his energy advice directly from the rich oil executives, no questions asked. Get that? We have to drill, because the oil executives told him it was the right thing to do.

And as for the results, read this for the real story on oil drilling.

Plutocracy

“ We can have democracy in this country, or we can have great wealth concentrated in the hands of a few, but we can't have both.

— Supreme Court Justice Louis D. Brandeis (1856 - 1941)

Fight Offshore Drilling

Read my blog on the Republican lies about offshore drilling, which would take decades to reap any benefits, and even then wouldn't do anything to lower prices, and would only make oil companies richer.

Then sign Sen. Barbara Boxer's petition to the Democratic Congressional leadership urging them to maintain the offshore drilling moratorium.

The bottom line is that offshore drilling is a false solution, one that will put the environment at risk, and only exacerbate global warming. The only people offshore drilling would help are rich oil CEO's, which is why the Republicans are trying so hard to exploit high gas prices (which they created) to fool Americans into letting oil companies drill the hell out of our coastal waters.

So like I said, read my past blog on offshore drilling, and sign the petition. Gracias!

The Corporate Welfare State

It is ironic that conservatives have demonized terms like "socialism" and "welfare state" for decades, turning the philosophy that the state should look out for the welfare of its citizens, especially those less fortunate, into some fiery source of evil. Yet instead of socialism, they promote unbridled greed, pure capitalism without bounds (if they had their way, luckily the Democratic Party has prevented them from giving corporations 100% free reign, instead they are stuck at maybe 90% free reign), and no matter how much damage that does to the planet, to society, to all the values Americans profess to hold sacred, somehow they've managed to keep up the charade that the private sector is the answer to everything, and the public sector is the worst thing since Saddam, you know, after we were done supporting him and giving him chemical weapons.

What is even more ironic though as they can parade their market fundamentalism around, and condemn anything even remotely aimed at promoting social good as "socialism", yet the second big corporations need any help (and often times even when they don't need any help), you can count on the Republicans to come running to their aid. Somehow it is weak, "bleeding heart", and horrible when liberals want to help out people who can't pay for gas, or pay their rent, or their bills or for food or education. God forbid we raise the minimum wage. Yet when Republicans dump billions of dollars in corporate welfare into the private sector, that is OK. Somehow helping people is an attack on the sacred rules of market fundamentalism, yet when the government subsidizes failed corporations (which they do constantly), that is somehow just. The best part is, the CEO's and shareholders of these corporations get to keep their profits and giant paydays, while their loses are "socialized", meaning taxpayers get stuck with the bill.

Now I'm a firm believer in Democratic Socialism, and I think it is a great thing for taxpayers to pool their resources to lift everyone up, to provide great benefits for the society as a whole. In other countries they may pay a bit more in taxes, but they get free universal health care, they get free college education, they get taken care of, and the government makes sure no one gets neglected. THAT is worth it. In that system everyone gives some, and everyone gets back a lot in return. In the conservative "corporate welfare state", everyone gives some, and corporations get to pocket it, whether it be in the form of corporate bailouts for irresponsible lenders, subsidies for corporations that shouldn't be subsidized, or the ever-popular hugely wasteful no-bid contracts to defense contractors like Halliburton that actually make more profit the more taxpayer money they waste.

Isn't it ironic that they have fooled us into believing that the government helping us is "evil socialism", while the government bending over backwards to give our money to the already rich and powerful is macho capitalism at its finest? I think much in this country would change if people had a deeper understanding of the economy, and how screwed up our national priorities really are when we have a disintegrating middle class, and ever-expanding lower class, while the rich get richer and corporations enjoy record profits, all while they ignore (and profit from) huge crises like global warming. It is just amazing that they have done such a great job at convincing so many voters to vote against their own best interest. This is of course where wedge issues like abortion (even though Republican policies actually increase abortions), gay marriage, and immigration. And that is also why John McCain won't focus on the issues, because the issues are against him, and indefensible, so you'll continue to see him attacking Obama's patriotism, and his wife, and his faith, and his race, and anything else that will distract voters from how the Republican Party has been playing them for fools for decades.

Let's hope it doesn't work this time, but it won't be easy, because the corporate-owned media would love nothing better than to see the status quo continue, so they hype up the non-stories, they focus on the wedge issues, they focus on everything but real issues like the fundamental flaws in our economy, or the environment, or any of that.

Anyway, read Robert Borosage's piece on "Wall Street Socialism".

McCain's Top Economic Advisor: Americans Are Whiners

A couple days ago McCain's top economic advisor (and likely pick for Treasury Secretary) former Sen. Phil Gramm said:

"You've heard of mental depression; this is a mental recession," he said, noting that growth has held up at about 1 percent despite all the publicity over losing jobs to India, China, illegal immigration, housing and credit problems and record oil prices. "We may have a recession; we haven't had one yet."

"We have sort of become a nation of whiners," he said. "You just hear this constant whining, complaining about a loss of competitiveness, America in decline" despite a major export boom that is the primary reason that growth continues in the economy, he said.

"We've never been more dominant; we've never had more natural advantages than we have today," he said. "We have benefited greatly" from the globalization of the economy in the last 30 years. ...

"Misery sells newspapers," Mr. Gramm said. "Thank God the economy is not as bad as you read in the newspaper every day."

Wow. Really? McCain's top economic advisor is telling Americans that all of the problems they are facing are psychological?? It's all in their heads? They aren't actually having trouble making ends meet, it's a figment of their imaginations? They aren't really paying over $4/gal for gas while oil companies make record profits? And the record number of home foreclosures is just imaginary! Yeah, it's just like The Matrix, you think your home is about to be taken away, but that's just because you believe that's what is happening (probably because the bank told you), but if you really just realized that it was all fake and in your head, the foreclosure process would just stop, and gas would cost $1.50/gal again, and we wouldn't be losing millions of jobs, and you could fly, and know kung-fu, and you could stop bullets with your mind! Woah. Isn't life wonderful when reality is just all in your head?? It must be great to live in a fantasy world where Americans aren't saving the lowest amount since the Great Depression (next to nothing). It's all in our heads! But hell, don't take my word for it, or the economic data, or all the Americans that are just trying to hang on, let's hear it from an expert:

The United States has already slipped into a deep recession that could be the most serious since World War II, said Martin Feldstein, president of the Cambridge group that is considered the official word on economic cycles.

"The situation is bad, it's getting worse, and the risks are that the situation could be very bad," Feldstein said in a speech yesterday at a financial industry conference in Boca Raton, Fla.

Feldstein, president of the National Bureau of Economic Research and a professor of economics at Harvard University, said the chief causes of the shrinking economy are sinking housing prices, months of job losses, and turmoil in the financial markets.

Yeah, and that was back in March. The DNC responds:

What John McCain, George Bush and Phil Gramm just don't understand is that the American people aren't whining about the state of the economy, they are suffering under the weight of it -- the weight of eight years of Bush-enomics that John McCain and Phil Gramm have vowed to continue. How dare John McCain and his advisers so callously dismiss the challenges the American people face. No wonder voters feel John McCain is out of touch, he and his campaign don't even understand the everyday issues Americans are dealing with.

And Obama:



And this from his campaign:

One of Senator McCain's top economic advisors may think that when people are struggling with lost jobs, stagnant wages, and the rising costs of everything from gas to groceries, it's merely a 'mental recession'. And Senator McCain may think it's sufficient to offer energy proposals that he admits will have mainly 'psychological' benefits. But the American people know that our economic problems aren't just in their heads. They don't need psychological relief - they need real relief - and that's what Barack Obama will provide as President.

And McCain's response:

Phil Gramm's comments are not representative of John McCain's views. John McCain travels the country every day talking to Americans who are hurting, feeling pain at the pump and worrying about how they'll pay their mortgage. That's why he has a realistic plan to deliver immediate relief at the gas pump, grow our economy and put Americans back to work.

And that response is weird, because earlier McCain's own campaign said that Gramm was speaking on behalf of McCain on his economic policy:

The McCain campaign is working hard to distance itself from statements made by economic adviser Phil Gramm describing the current economic downturn as a "mental recession" and saying America had "sort of become a nation of whiners."

But in an initial statement published by Politico and then, seemingly, removed from its site, a McCain campaign aide actually stood by Gramm's remarks, saying the interview as a whole was merely meant as a preview of the Senator's economic agenda.

"Mr. Gramm was simply saying that we are laying out the economic plan this week," the piece quoted a "McCain official" as saying. "The plan is comprehensive, providing immediate near-term relief for Americans hurting today as well as longer-term solutions to get our economy back on track, secure our energy future and deliver jobs, prosperity and opportunity for the next generation. We're laying out that plan this week with an emphasis on the critical importance of job creation, and it's been a great success so far."

Only after the fallout from Gramm's statement did the McCain campaign fully backtrack.

And then the Washington Post:

Speaking today from New York, where he was meeting with the Wall Street Journal Editorial Board on McCain's economic policies, Gramm said the nation's economy was initially thought to have grown by an anemic 0.6 percent in the first three months of the year.

What is funny is that McCain can even claim that the views of his top economic advisor, who drafts McCain's economic policy (in addition to Bush of course), and speaks for McCain on the economy, wasn't providing McCain's view of the status of the economy. In fact....:



And that's the thing that the media doesn't seem to understand (or want to report), that these comments are directly in line with not only McCain's views, but the views of all conservatives. It is shocking how out of touch Republicans are with the American people, and how indifferent they are to their suffering. But how is this a surprise coming from the party that through administration after administration cuts taxes for the rich, while cutting social services for the not-rich. Almost every single choice they make can be broken down to "Does this help the rich while screwing the poor?", and if the answer is yes, you can be sure that the Republicans support it. And the sad thing is, I'm not even exaggerating. The problem is we never have a honest discussion of the policies and ideology of the Republican Party, even after it has devastated our economy and the lives of so many Americans for the last 8 years, and then decades before that. Don't expect that discussion to come from the media, it is owned by rich Republicans.

And that's the sick part about the Gramm thing, the media briefly picked it up, but not because his insistence that the recession was all in our heads, but because he inartfully called Americans "a nation of whiners". That is why it got a little bit of coverage, not because of how messed up and out of touch Gramm, McCain, Bush and all Republicans are, or how horrible their policies have been for this country.

Why can't we have that candid discussion in this country? If people woke up and just had some basic understanding of politics, current events, and the economy the Republican Party would be dust, because a party with such greedy and worthless (for everyone but the rich) policies and priorities could not survive if it weren't for extreme ignorance and apathy, which are the only renewable resources we have a limitless supply of in this country.

Update: I should also note that the "nation of whiners" comment was a thousand times more offensive than Obama's "bitter" comment, which was actually the exact opposite, as Obama was actually acknowledging that people are hurting financially, and are sick of being left behind by Washington year after year. Obama caught hell for weeks over those empathetic comments. Yet McCain's repeated comments showing how completely, callously out of touch he is with the plight of everyday Americans results in next to no coverage.

"Health Care For America Now" Abandons Real Solutions For Universal Health Care

A slew of progressive organizations including MoveOn and Campaign for America's Future just launched a new health care coalition, called Health Care for America Now (HCAN), which basically pushes the mainstream Democratic proposals for health care reform, or namely, incremental bandaid solutions that completely miss the point. I hate to say it, but Obama's plan fits this category. Now I'm sure most, if not all, of these groups know single payer universal health care (the kind run by the government) is the best solution, but, like Obama, just don't believe it is politically feasible, so they support this half-solution. They propose leaving the private insurance companies largely in control of our health care system, with a little added regulation, and they add some public plans to compete.

Is this better than what we have now? Yes, certainly. Most significantly it prohibits insurance companies from denying coverage based on preexisting conditions, which is a large part of how they screw people now (although I'm not at all convinced that the insurance companies won't find new ways of screwing people). It is also a hell of a lot better than McCain's plan, which isn't really a plan at all, it is just a continuation of the status quo, but it is actually worse because he takes the burden for benefits from employers, and dumps it on individuals, leaving them to the mercy of the private insurance companies. Read the AFL-CIO's analysis for more details.

But just because it is better than really bad, doesn't make it good. The root of the multitude of problems in our health care system is the insurance companies. They, like all corporations, have one concern, one legal responsibility, and that is to their shareholders, and profit. They look out for the bottom line, period. If it isn't good for business, if it doesn't give them more profit, they don't do it. And nothing makes more profit than cutting corners and screwing customers. Do you notice something missing? I'll give you a hint: It's HEALTH CARE! Simply put, GREED is at the core of our health care system, and it will continue to make private insurance companies look for new, more inventive ways to screw over customers. The preexisting conditions exception is one of the many ways they screw people over, but even if that is closed, they still have many more ways to screw you, and they will never stop finding new loopholes.

The private insurance industry is a cancer in our health care system. It is malignant. The HCAN plan is to try to stunt the cancer's growth, responding to new growths with targeted chemotherapy and radiation, but never actually trying to attack the main tumor. They leave it there to spread and continue to kill the system. What we need is to cut it out, completely, for the health of everyone.

The funny thing is, a completely public universal system is so much simpler than trying to tape together and regulate a private-public hybrid. Remember all that "mandates vs no mandates" debate during the Democratic primary? All the crap about enforcement and fears of people cheating the system? If the plans were public and truly universal, none of that would have been an issue, because that system would cover EVERYONE, period. Those debates and regulations and clauses to try to eliminate all of these problems, and the anticipation of future problems, all those issues were symptoms of trying to piece together a broken, bleeding system with spare body parts and duct tape. Our health care system is dead, and HCAN's plan is to give it life, by turning it into Frankenstein. What we need is a rebirth, from scratch, WITHOUT the tumor of greed. The government needs to take the lead in making sure everyone has access to health care. The government's job is to look out for its citizens, and it is accountable to those citizens. The government could administer health care just like it administers Social Security and Medicare, with a goal of helping people, not screwing them over for a profit. The role of corporations is to look out for their shareholders, to make them rich. Corporate America is incompatible with public health--the goal of corporations is not the same goal as the health care system, in fact it is directly opposed. Greed is incompatible with public health. We will never have a good system of health care with the insurance companies in the middle, exacting their pound of flesh.

I'm not alone in seeing HCAN's plan as a complete cop-out. Take it from experts, like Rose Ann DeMoro, executive director of the California Nurses Association (CNA):

Why is Health Care for America Now giving up on real reform?

The big splash of news and internet coverage for the new Health Care for America Now coalition of labor, progressive and liberal groups is a reminder of the critical importance of health care reform. And a reminder that partial solutions, such as those proposed by the coalition, will only perpetuate, not end the health care crisis.

The groups behind the new coalition are working in concert with the Obama campaign and Democratic leaders in Congress to build "consensus" around a plan that would presumably be introduced in the first days of the next administration, and pushed through to a quick vote before opponents can mount a "Harry and Louse"-style counter attack.

But, in search of a supposedly politically viable plan, the advocates of this approach have surrendered in advance on the only overhaul that will actually cure the disease, a single-payer, expanded and improved Medicare for all reform.

Their good intentions will leave the same failed system in place, and will not even blunt the political opposition from those on the right and corporate interests who will continue to challenge anything that looks like even modest reform.

They create a false hope of systemic change that won't be, squandering the opportunity to achieve the fundamental reform so desperately needed with so many lives in the balance.

They've also missed one of the most important lessons of the failure of the Clinton plan of 1993-94 which collapsed in part due to the absence of a broad, grassroots, activist movement needed to counter the insurance industry. Only single payer engenders such a movement, the very reason the single payer bill now in Congress, HR 676, has more co-sponsors than any other reform bill with tens of thousands around the country already working to enact it.

Health Care for America Now has identified the main culprit and obstacle to genuine reform. As their inaugural ad proclaims, "Will health insurance companies ever put your health ahead of their profits? We can't trust insurance companies to fix the healthcare mess."

There's just one problem -- the coalition's proposal does nothing to end the actual practice of insurance companies putting their profits ahead of your health. Nor does it fix the two central components of the health care morass -- insurance company denials of care and the financial squeeze facing American families due to ever skyrocketing healthcare costs which is exacerbated by the escalating credit crisis.

Consider the four healthcare questions posed by families in the first 30-second ad: "Will they pay for his inhaler? Is my surgery covered? Can I choose my child's doctor? Will they cover the chemo?"

All are the direct result of care denials and price gouging by the insurers -- and none would be solved by the HCAN "statement of common purpose."

How does the HCAN coalition propose to crack down on the insurance pirates? With a "watchdog role" on the plans "to assure that risk is fairly spread" and that "insurers do not turn people away, raise rates or drop coverage based on a person's health history or wrongly delay or deny care."

You can watch someone rob your bank, but unless you stop them, the vaults are still going to be stripped bare. If you're looking for the hammer or any enforcement mechanism in the HCAN proposal, don't bother, it's not there.

The insurers don't care if we know they are thieves, they will continue to deny and delay care because it's in their DNA. It's how they are set up to operate, it's how they make money for their shareholders, it's how they generate plush pay packages for their executives, and it's how they compete with the other insurance giants.

Nor does the HCAN proposal contain any effective cost controls on the insurers. Their commitment to basing pricing on "ability to pay" is a recipe for merely getting the healthcare you can afford, not what you need. It also fails to assure real choice of providers beyond the limited network established by all private insurance plans.

The bone the coalition sponsors throw to single payer advocates is the false promise of a public plan side by side with private insurance. The public plan, they contend, will be so much more attractive that the private plans will just wither away. Don't count on it.

The insurance companies will always be able to lower their prices with cut rate plans with lower standards that they can aggressively market through massive advertising, tele-marketing, even door to door salesmen (as some do now) with a marketing campaign that the public plans will not have the funding to be able to match.

The private plans can then continue to cherry pick the younger and healthier patients while the sicker and older patients are dumped in the public plan, wrecking the whole idea of a risk pool and driving up the costs for the public plan to operate. The competition won't starve the private plans and cause them to wither away, they'll starve the public plan.

There's only one way to stop the insurance industry abuses -- it's to actually stop them. The rest of the world has figured this one out -- see the study in Britain earlier this year that found that the U.S. ranks last in preventable deaths among 19 industrialized nations even though we spend twice as much on healthcare as anyone else. Isn't it time we figured it out here as well?

Or Dr. David Himmelstein with his response "A Policy Response to Health Care for America Now" (worth the read), as well as Dr. Don McCanne's "What is 'Health Care for America Now' Doing?". They all point out what should be obvious to everyone, HCAN is missing the point, and totally fails to cure (remove) the root cause of the health care crisis.

Like I said before, I believe these groups know that single payer universal coverage is the best solution, but they just don't think it is politically possible, so they are starting out by conceding meaningful reform. That isn't how you negotiate. You start with what you really want, and if it is impossible, you make concessions. You don't concede reform before you even try. There is a movement for single payer health care. People want real solutions and they want the government to lead the way. We just have to put pressure on our representatives so they realize truly universal health care is popular, and should be pursued. We are going to be in a perfect position to push meaningful reform next year, with Democrats controlling the White House and having large majorities in both houses of Congress. Who knows how long this position will last, or when we'll be in this position again? We can't squander this historic moment of great opportunity on bandaid solutions and piecemeal change. We must FIGHT for REAL health care reform. I intend to focus on this quite a bit going forward, especially after the election, because the debate can't be allowed to end with pseudo-reform, if it does the Republicans and private insurance companies have already won.

With that I have nothing left to say, except that I am really disappointed that so many progressive organizations have essentially given up on meaningful reform, and abandoned their mission to push the progressive agenda forward. They have left us hanging, and now it is our job to pick up the slack and pressure those who usually do the pressuring. It won't be easy, but it isn't impossible. So please, do everything you can to push single payer universal health care. And check out the Physicians for a National Health Program website to stay informed and get involved.

And even if you are cynical and pessimistic and don't think we can win this fight for truly universal health care, remember the Overton Window, and help us push it in the right direction, because that will ensure we'll get there eventually, even if we lose the battle (which hopefully we won't).

For The Republicans And War Profiteers

♫
Come you masters of war
You that build all the guns
You that build the death planes
You that build the big bombs
You that hide behind walls
You that hide behind desks
I just want you to know
I can see through your masks

You that never done nothin'
But build to destroy
You play with my world
Like it's your little toy
You put a gun in my hand
And you hide from my eyes
And you turn and run farther
When the fast bullets fly

Like Judas of old
You lie and deceive
A world war can be won
You want me to believe
But I see through your eyes
And I see through your brain
Like I see through the water
That runs down my drain

You fasten the triggers
For the others to fire
Then you set back and watch
When the death count gets higher
You hide in your mansion
As young people's blood
Flows out of their bodies
And is buried in the mud

You've thrown the worst fear
That can ever be hurled
Fear to bring children
Into the world
For threatening my baby
Unborn and unnamed
You ain't worth the blood
That runs in your veins

How much do I know
To talk out of turn
You might say that I'm young
You might say I'm unlearned
But there's one thing I know
Though I'm younger than you
Even Jesus would never
Forgive what you do

Let me ask you one question
Is your money that good
Will it buy you forgiveness
Do you think that it could
I think you will find
When your death takes its toll
All the money you made
Will never buy back your soul

And I hope that you die
And your death'll come soon
I will follow your casket
In the pale afternoon
And I'll watch while you're lowered
Down to your deathbed
And I'll stand o'er your grave
'Til I'm sure that you're dead.

— Bob Dylan - Masters of War (1963)

Obama Vs McCain (Economy Edition)

Obama's campaign delivered a smackdown, memo-style, against McCain on his economic policy, or lack thereof. Essentially McCain's "economic policy", for those who aren't familiar with it, is a nice mix of do-nothing, and continue and expand on Bush's horrible policies that landed us in the mess we are in right now. Basically, when McCain finds himself in a hole, he calls on Americans to dig faster. Check out the memo (its a good read):

Earlier this year, Senator John McCain said that the nation had made "great progress economically" under the leadership of George W. Bush. On the eve of John McCain’s "Jobs First" economic tour this week, one thing is clear: the McCain economic plan represents a continuation of the same economic policies we have seen for the past eight years.

As currently constructed the McCain plan does not address the immediate challenges facing our economy, like the 438,000 jobs that have been lost in the past six months, the 400 percent increase in the cost of gas at the pump, and a massive contraction in the housing market. The McCain plan offers no hope of relieving burdens for middle-class families struggling with wages that have been stagnant for a generation and household incomes that have fallen $962 in this economic "expansion." Instead, the McCain plan would continue the economic policies of the last eight years that have added $4.0 trillion to the deficit, primarily with tax cuts for the wealthiest 2 percent of Americans who did not need and did not ask for them. Indeed, McCain’s plan proposes to double down on these policies, with tax cuts that are more expensive and stacked against average Americans than anything President Bush has ever proposed.

According to the Wall Street Journal, the McCain campaign plans to spend the week "repackag[ing] proposals he has already outlined" rather than improving on their economic plan. But no amount of repackaging can alter three basic facts about the McCain plan:

1. Senator McCain has no plan for immediate fiscal stimulus to help struggling families or jumpstart our economy. In January Senator McCain said the economy was not slipping into recession and said he was "skeptical" about the stimulus measures being considered. His top economic adviser said stimulus plans were typically unnecessary "junk." That same month Barack Obama proposed a fiscal stimulus plan centered on rebates to workers and seniors, a package similar to what was ultimately passed on a bipartisan basis. At the same time, Senator Obama warned that if the economy worsened further another round of stimulus would be needed. On June 9th, Senator Obama called for a second stimulus, with at least $50 billion in immediate measures to help jumpstart our economy. On July 3, in the wake of news that our economy has now lost jobs for six straight months, Senator Obama asked Senator McCain to join him in passing an immediate stimulus plan. However, since January when John McCain announced during a debate that he thought Americans were better off because of George Bush’s economic policies, he has failed to propose any immediate measure to give our economy shot in the arm by putting more money in the pockets of Americans hit hardest by the downturn.


2. The McCain tax cut plan completely leaves out 101 million households – including those working and middle-class Americans hardest hit by this downturn. In contrast, Senator Obama’s plan benefits 95 percent of workers and their families. The principal middle class tax cut proposed by John McCain is an increase in the dependent exemption that will not be fully in effect until 2016. Most households without children would see nothing under the plan – a total of 101 million households, including 67 million households currently paying income taxes but who would not benefit because they have no dependents, and 34 million low-income households with no income tax liability but generally paying payroll taxes. Nearly all seniors (37 million out of 38 million) would be left out. Even for families with children, the increase in the dependent exemption provides only a modest tax cut. In the first year of the plan, it would be worth about $125 to a middle-class family with two children. That same family would eventually see their taxes increase under the McCain plan, because his health care plan would raise taxes on middle-class families over time. This is completely inadequate, and will not help the very people whose reduced spending is contributing to our slowing economy. The Obama plan offers more generous tax relief for middle class families, including a "Making Work Pay Credit" that would benefit 95 percent of workers and their families, providing $1,000 for a typical working family. Obama’s plan would also expand tax credits to help families save, send a child to college, pay for childcare, and afford their mortgage, while eliminating income taxes for all seniors making less than $50,000.


3. McCain’s plan continues the Bush policies of tax cuts that are not paid for, which will push our deficits higher and further weaken our economy. His plan continues giving tax cuts to those who need them least and didn’t ask for them, including the wealthiest 2 percent of households and large corporations – including big oil which gets $4 billion in new tax breaks from John McCain. Although economists generally agree that short-run stimulus measures should not be paid for, it is critical that sustained policies like middle-class tax cuts be paid for in order to avoid economic damage in the short run and inevitable tax increases in the future. Currently, McCain’s budget plan "will add $200 billion to $300 billion or, depending on his voluntary tax system, even more" annually to the deficit according to the New York Times. If McCain cut back on his more than $100 billion in annual corporate tax cuts – including $1.2 billion for Exxon-Mobil alone – plus other tax cuts for the most affluent, he could afford to pay for more tax cuts for middle class families.

1. Senator McCain does not have an immediate plan to jumpstart our economy, and has failed to support Barack Obama’s fiscal stimulus plan.

In this campaign, Senator McCain and I are having a robust discussion about our different visions for what we’ll do as president. But when it comes to creating jobs and brokering relief for families who are struggling, we can’t wait six months for the next president, and that’s why today I’m calling on Senator McCain and all members of Congress, to come together and support this 50 billion dollar stimulus package. Let’s show the American people that we can come together, Republicans and Democrats, to ease the burden on working families let’s not wait another 6 months for more bad news.

- Barack Obama in Fargo North Dakota, July 3, 2004

The economy is facing a serious downturn: Our economy has lost 438,000 jobs in 2008, six straight months of job loss. In May, the unemployment rate jumped from 5.0 percent to 5.5 percent – the largest once month increase in more than 22 years. Our housing market continues to deteriorate and consumer expectations for the future have fallen to the lowest levels ever recorded. Experts from Lawrence Summers to Robert Shiller agree that another round of fiscal stimulus is warranted.

John McCain missed the chance to push for the first stimulus: John McCain already missed the chance to push for the first round of stimulus. In a debate on January 10th, McCain said "I don’t believe we’re headed into a recession. I believe the fundamentals of this economy are strong, and I believe they will remain strong" and went on to argue that spending reductions were needed to help the economy. That same month, top McCain economic adviser Kevin Hassett said that McCain was "firmly" opposed to sending out fiscal stimulus rebate checks, likening it to "borrowing money from the Chinese and dropping it from helicopters." At about the same time top economic adviser Douglas Holtz-Eakin said, "that for short-term fluctuations in the economy, the best course of action is to let the Fed handle it" and called the stimulus plan emerging from the President and Congress "junk." John McCain himself said he was "skeptical" about the fiscal stimulus measures being proposed. In fact, while McCain eventually voted for the final version of the stimulus package, McCain failed to show up for a key vote to expand the relief in the package to 20 million seniors and 250,000 disabled veterans. That expansion was defeated by one vote, and McCain was the only Senator absent. At the time, he explained that he was "too busy" and "focused on other stuff."

After six months of consecutive job loss, Senator McCain’s economic plan still includes no near-term strategy to help our economy create jobs and provide relief for struggling families. Instead, his "stimulus," originally announced in late January, is focused on a permanent reduction in the corporate tax rate that would not even be fully effective until 2015. Experts across the political spectrum agree that such a permanent corporate tax cut would do next to nothing to jumpstart our economy in the near-term. The Congressional Budget Office recently found that a cut in the corporate tax rate was among the least cost effective, least fast-acting and least certain approaches to stimulate the economy available to policymakers. Ruth Marcus of the Washington Post graded McCain’s "stimulus" plan as a D+, explaining that McCain "proposes permanent tax cuts – cutting corporate rates, increasing investment breaks, eliminating the alternative minimum tax – masquerading as a stimulus plan." Since the first stimulus package passed, Senator McCain has not presented any new or additional plans to jumpstart the economy. In April, he told Bloomberg TV that we had made "great progress economically" under the leadership of George W. Bush.

Senator Obama championed the first stimulus and is calling for a second one: In contrast, Senator Obama first proposed a fiscal stimulus centered around sending checks to workers and senior citizens on January 13th. A plan along these lines was agreed to on a bipartisan basis and enacted in February. Obama’s original plan included a contingency that should the jobs situation deteriorate a second round of stimulus would be triggered. On June 9th Obama explicitly called for a second round of stimulus, including at least $50 billion for:

• An additional round of rebate checks for working families to help offset the impact of $4.00 a gallon gas and skyrocketing food, health and college costs;


• A $10 billion Foreclosure Prevention Fund to provide struggling homeowners with pre-foreclosure counseling and refinancing assistance to help them stay in their homes; and
• $10 billion in relief for state and local governments hardest hit by the housing crisis to prevent cuts in services such as health, education and infrastructure.

2. The McCain tax cut plan completely leaves out 101 million households – including virtually all seniors – and provides only $125 in the first year to a family with two children. Eventually the McCain health plan would raise taxes on families. In contrast, Sen. Obama’s plan benefits 95 percent of workers, and provides the typical working family with at least $1,000 in tax cuts.

I will reform our tax code so that it’s simple, fair, and advances opportunity instead of distorting the market by advancing the agenda of some lobbyist or oil company. I’ll shut down the corporate loopholes and tax havens, and I’ll use the money to help pay for a middle-class tax cut that will provide $1,000 of relief to 95 percent of workers and their families. I’ll make oil companies like Exxon pay a tax on their windfall profits, and we’ll use the money to help families pay for their skyrocketing energy costs and other bills. We’ll also eliminate income taxes for any retiree making less than $50,000 per year, because every senior deserves to live out their life in dignity and respect.

- Barack Obama in Raleigh, North Carolina on June 9, 2008

Families are struggling in the economy: We have just gone through the first economic "expansion" on record where typical household income actually fell, by $962 from 2000 to 2006 (the most recent year for which data are available, incomes have likely dropped further since 2006). During this period, the cost of healthcare has increase by 67 percent in inflation adjusted terms, college costs are up 23 percent and the price of gas at the pump has increased by 400 percent. As middle class families have watched the value of their largest financial asset – their homes – plummet by record amounts, they have been left with little margin for error.

John McCain’s "middle class" tax cut leaves most families behind: To put our economy back on track, we must ease this intense financial squeeze on middle class families. Yet John McCain’s tax plan would provide an extraordinarily small amount of upfront relief for middle class families – and would eventually raise their taxes. John McCain’s corporate tax cuts would provide no direct benefit for middle-class families, they would have to hope that a small portion of the benefits trickle down to them. McCain’s plan to repeal the Alternative Minimum Tax (AMT) would provide very little benefit for middle-class families beyond what they are getting from the tax law in place in 2008. Essentially the only tax cut McCain is proposing that would directly benefit middle-class families is his proposal to increase the dependent exemption by $500 a year until the exemption reaches $7,000 in 2016. That proposal would:

• Provide $0 in tax relief to 101 million households. Senator McCain’s dependent exemption increase only benefits taxpayers who can claim dependents on their tax forms (e.g. parents with dependent children). Therefore, single workers or married couples without dependents would receive no benefit from the proposal. Based on an analysis of IRS data, 101 million households would receive $0 in relief under the McCain proposal in 2009. Those households include:
  • 67 million households paying income taxes but with no dependents. More than two-thirds of income taxpayers get no benefit.
  • 34 million households struggling with low income incomes and in many cases paying payroll taxes.


• Provide $0 in tax relief to nearly every senior citizen in the United States – 37 million out of 38 million would be left out. Senator McCain’s proposal would not benefit the vast majority of elderly households because they generally do not have children or other dependents. As a result 37 million individuals over 65 would get zero tax relief from the McCain middle-class tax cut.


• Provide $125 in tax relief to a middle-class family with two children in the first year of his plan. The McCain plan promises to increase the dependent exemption that a married couple could claim for each of their two children by $500. However, the dependent exemption would rise by about $90 per year anyway, because the exemption is already indexed to inflation. Therefore, the McCain plan reduces that married couple’s taxable income by about $410 per child –or $820 overall – in the first year of the plan. For a family in the 15 percent income tax bracket, that translates into a $125 tax cut (i.e. $820 multiplied by 0.15).


• Taken as a whole, the McCain plan would raise taxes on middle class families in future years. While the McCain plan increases the dependent exemption between 2010 and 2016, middle class families would actually face higher taxes in later years of the plan. This is because the McCain health care plan finances its new tax credits by requiring individuals to pay taxes on the health insurance premiums they pay. As premiums grow the tax increase that pays for this plan would grow as well. As a result, by 2013 the typical family would pay $1,100 more in taxes from the health plan according to an analysis by the Center for American Progress – more than offsetting any benefit they get from Senator McCain’s middle class tax cut.

Barack Obama is proposing a tax cut for virtually all middle class families: In contrast, Senator Obama has proposed broad middle class tax relief that would provide at least ten times the benefit for typical families in the first year of his plan (see Table 1 below). When the two plans are fully in effect, and ignoring the tax increases Senator McCain proposes to finance his health plan, the nonpartisan Tax Policy Center found that the tax cuts under Obama’s plan are three times larger than the tax cuts under McCain’s plan for families in the middle quintile.

Senator Obama’s Making Work Pay tax cut will provide a tax credit of up to $500 per person, or $1,000 per working family to offset the payroll taxes they pay. This tax cut is fully available in the very first year of his plan. His universal mortgage credit will provide an average tax cut of $500 to 10 million homeowners who do not itemize their taxes. His Automatic Workplace Pension program will expand the existing Savers Credit to match 50 percent of the first $1,000 of savings for families that earn under $75,000, and he will make the tax credit refundable. And he will provide a fully refundable $4,000 tax credit to make college affordable for working families.

Given the record high energy costs, high health care costs and stagnant wages that middle class families face, Senator McCain’s plan to leave out 101 million households, and to provide only $125 a year in tax relief for middle-class families with two children, is simply insufficient to relieve their financial burdens.

Table 1: Middle Class Tax Cuts Under the Obama and McCain Plans

Married couple without children making $60,000

Obama Plan: $1,500
[includes $1000 Making Work Pay tax cut and $500 universal mortgage credit]

McCain Plan: $0

A 70 year-old widow making $35,000

Obama Plan: $1,900

McCain Plan: $0

Married Couple making $90,000

Obama Plan: $1,000

McCain Plan: $125

Married Couple making $60,000 with two children, one of whom is in college.

Obama Plan: $3,700
[includes $1000 Making Work Pay tax cut; $500 universal mortgage credit; and $4,000 college credit net of current college credits]

McCain Plan: $125
Source: Campaign calculations based on IRS Statistics of Income. Obama tax savings does not account for up to $500 in savings from expanded Savers Credit and the $2,500 in savings per family from the Obama healthcare plan.

3. Senator McCain’s tax plan provides a $1.2 billion tax cut for Exxon-Mobil and additional tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans that will drive up the deficit by the at least $200 billion to $300 billion per year.

[McCain] hasn’t detailed how he would pay for this new give-away. There is nothing fiscally conservative about this approach. It will continue to drive up deficits, force us to borrow massively from foreign countries, and shift the burden on to working people today and our children tomorrow. Meanwhile, John McCain will shortchange investments in education, energy and innovation, making the next generation of Americans less able to compete. That’s unacceptable. It’s time to make tough choices so that we have a smarter government that pays its way and makes the right investments for America’s future.

- Barack Obama in Flint Michigan, June 16, 2008

The Bush tax cuts have added to the deficit and inequality is growing: Over the last eight years, we have witnessed the most dramatic deterioration in our nation’s finances in history. In January 2001, the Congressional Budget Office projected a $635 billion surplus in 2008. Instead, CBO is now projecting a $357 billion deficit – a nearly $1 trillion swing in a single year. Bush’s tax cuts are the single largest cause of this fiscal deterioration, contributing twice as much as increased defense and homeland security spending. In total CBO data show that policies signed into law by President Bush have added $4.0 trillion to the deficit from 2001 through 2008. Over this period, workers’ wages have stagnated and typical families’ income has fallen by $962. We are experiencing levels of income inequality unrivaled since the 1920s.

The McCain plan would provide tax cuts that work against average, working Americans and add to the deficit: Senator McCain, by his own campaign’s estimates, includes close to $400 billion annually in new tax cuts. But the same candidate who in 2001 said he could not "in good conscience" support the Bush tax cuts because "so many of the benefits go to the most fortunate among us, at the expense of middle-class Americans who most need tax relief" has now proposed a new set of tax cuts that are twice as regressive as what President Bush signed into law. Likewise, Senator McCain criticized President Bush for abandoning fiscal discipline by failing to show how he would pay for his tax cuts, explaining "[w]e Republicans, I think, were for balanced budgets and lock boxes." Yet now, Senator McCain has taken a page out of Bush’s fiscally irresponsible playbook by promoting regressive tax cuts without any credible explanation for how he would pay for them. McCain has repeatedly refused to identify specific spending cuts or tax increases he would support to offset his tax plans ; his top economic advisor recently justified this lack of detail by explaining "it’s just June."

Although experts agree that a stimulus plan should not be paid for in order to provide the maximum short-run boost for the economy, Senator McCain cannot responsibly scale up his middle-class tax cuts without also scaling back his tax cuts for corporations and the most affluent. Even then, the plan would still leave a large increase in the deficit to be paid for by unspecified future tax increases and reductions in critical programs like Social Security and Medicare.

Some of the current, expensive tax cuts in the McCain plan:

• A $1.2 billion annual tax cut for Exxon-Mobil, $4 billion for the five largest U.S. oil companies combined, and $2 billion for America’s largest health insurance companies;
• More than $100 billion per year for corporations;
• An average tax cut of more than $269,000 per year above and beyond the Bush tax cuts for the top 0.1 percent of households – that is families making over $2.8 million annually.
• Less than one-quarter of the benefits go to the 80 percent of households who make up the bulk of the middle class in America.

In total the New York Times estimated that these proposals "will add $200 billion to $300 billion or, depending on his voluntary tax system, even more" annually to the deficit. Although full details of the McCain tax cuts are not available and there are inconsistent and contradictory descriptions and cost estimates put out by the campaign and others, Table 2 below outlines some illustrative examples of proposals that have been supported by Senator McCain and posted on his website over the course of the campaign.

Barack Obama would pay for his proposals for middle class tax relief: In contrast, Barack Obama has made it a priority throughout this campaign to show how he would pay for all of his proposals without increasing the deficit. He will achieve this by ending the war in Iraq, reducing unnecessary and wasteful government spending, closing corporate and international tax loopholes, and repealing the Bush tax cuts for those making more than $250,000. Independent analyses like the Wall Street Journal has confirmed that Obama’s numbers add up – that his plan will generate enough revenue to pay for his middle class tax cuts, healthcare plan, and other key domestic investments while bringing down the deficit significantly from its current record levels.

Table 2: Estimated Cost of Selected McCain Tax Proposals

Annual Cost: Corporate tax cut $100 billion Source: Wall Street Journal, 3/3/08: "the 71-year-old candidate would slash the corporate income-tax rate from 35 percent to 25 percent at a cost to the Treasury of $100 billion a year, estimates Mr. Holtz-Eakin."

Annual Cost: Complete Elimination of the AMT $60 billion Source: McCain Economic Plan: "Repealing this onerous tax will save middle class families nearly $60 billion in a single year." http://www.johnmccain.com/Informing/Issues/4dbd2cc7-890e-47f1-882f-b8fc4cfecc78.htm

Annual Cost: Increase the dependent exemption $18 billion Source: Tax Policy Center, 6/25/08, http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/UploadedPDF/411693_CandidateTaxPlans.pdf, p. 13.

Annual Cost: Eliminate expensing At least $200 billion Source: The U.S. Department of Treasury estimates that a partial expensing proposal under which businesses would be able to expense only 35 percent of new investment would cost $1.3 trillion over ten years. ("Approaches to Improve the Competitiveness of the U.S. Business Tax System for the 21st Century," December 20, 2007, p. 50, http://www.ustreas.gov/press/releases/reports/hp749_approachesstudy.pdf.

Annual Cost: Gas Tax holiday $10 billion Source: McCain campaign estimate, http://www.johnmccain.com/Informing/News/NewsReleases/1460e6aa-fbb6-4cf5-9241-e5df4f303c8a.htm

McCain's Tax Plan Gives Top Corporations $45 Billion In Tax Cuts

You can tell a lot about a society by its taxes, and how it allocates money. Our society throws an incredible amount of money into sustaining our ability to kill people, while putting very little into education.

Our society also used to have a much more progressive tax code, yet the tax burden has shifted from the rich to the middle and lower classes over the last couple decades. At the end of World War II the top tax bracket was 94%. Then from 1964 until Reagan took office the rate was in the 70-80% range. Then Reagan came into office, bringing with him the new Republican philosophy of helping the rich and screwing the rest. In 1982 the top tax bracket was cut to 50%. In 1987 it was 38.5%. In 1988 it was cut again to 28%. Today it is at 35%. Over the years corporate taxes have been cut as well, to say nothing of the countless loopholes that let corporations evade the vast majority of their taxes. Taxes are about giving back to society, they are about the common good. When we cut taxes for the rich, we aren't just saying we think the rich aren't rich enough, we are saying that the rich being richer is more important than society having that money to invest in education, or health care, or alleviating poverty, or program that money had supported before. The modern Republican Party is about three things, helping the rich get richer, leaving the poor to fight for survival against the market, and cutting government revenue to the point where the government can't function properly. They achieve most of this through taxation, and the rest they achieve through stuffing the only part of government they care about, the part that kills people, with as much money as possible (which then gets transferred to corporations like Halliburton and Lockheed Martin, to make them and their CEOs/shareholders wealthier--do you see a pattern here?).

You can also tell a lot about a politician by their priorities.

John McCain is no exception. He wants to double Bush's tax cuts for the rich, which have contributed to the largest budget deficit in history (also began with Reagan) and led to a starving of public services (you may recall the bridge collapse in Minneapolis, this is a direct result of this conservative pro-rich, anti-government ideology). Think Progress exposes McCain's warm embrace of Bush's corporate-loving policies that have done so much to screw up the country for the last 8 years:

If you’re a CEO of one of America’s largest corporations and have enjoyed the Presidency of George W. Bush, a contribution to the McCain campaign is looking like a pretty good investment.

A new report from the Center For American Progress Action Fund finds that a key piece of John McCain’s tax plan — cutting the corporate tax rate from 35% to 25% — would cut taxes by almost $45 billion every year for America’s 200 largest corporations as identified by Fortune Magazine.

Eight companies — Wal-Mart Stores Inc., Exxon Mobil Corp., ConocoPhillips Co., Bank ƒƒof America Corp., AT&T, Berkshire Hathaway Inc., JPMorgan Chase & Co., and Microsoft Corp. — would each receive over $1 billion a year.

The following table shows the tax savings to America’s five largest firms. See a full list of all 200 companies and their savings under McCain here:



These giveaways are just one part of McCain’s doubling of the Bush tax cuts for corporations and the wealthy which would create the largest deficits in 25 years and drive the United States into the deepest deficits since World War II.

A recent analysis by the Public Campaign Action Fund found that John McCain’s campaign has received $5.6 million from the PACs and executives of the Fortune 200.

Over the past eight years, under George W. Bush, American workers have seen their wages stagnate as corporate profits have skyrocketed. John McCain’s misguided priorities show he’s more of the same: the same $45 billion in tax cuts for America’s 200 largest companies could be used to lift over 9 million Americans out of poverty.

How exactly does McCain intend to fool Americans into believing that he isn't planning 4-8 more years of Bush's failed greedy conservative policies? You also have to realize what this means for our country. We have a record budget deficit, we waste over $400 billion on paying interest on our national debt every single year, and McCain wants to take more money from the government and give it to rich corporations and their rich CEOs. And which public programs are going to be cut because of McCain's $45 billion corporate tax gift? Is it going to be Head Start? Medicare? Investment in alternative energy? All of the above? McCain also voted against raising the minimum wage, and a bill that would have increased educational benefits for veterans. McCain opposed health care for children because he said it cost too much ($35 billion over 5 years, or just about 15% of his tax cut to the rich). Now what does that say about John McCain's priorities? We have enough money for a $45 billion dollar a year tax cut for the richest corporations, yet we can't spare 15% of that for uninsured children to get health care. It is disgusting. But that is John McCain, and that is Bush, and that is the Republican Party.

It's all about priorities.

And clearly McCain doesn't care about the national debt or programs that help millions of people, especially those who weren't born with a whole dining set of silver spoons in their mouthes. He is just like Bush. All his talk to the contrary is nothing but more lying to voters, also just like Bush.

Update: Oh yes, and that GI Bill McCain opposed? He is now taking credit for it on the campaign trail, isn't that interesting?:

I'm happy to tell you that we probably (probably? does he not know?) agreed to an increase in educational benefits for our veterans that not only gives them increase in their educational benefits, but if they stay in for a certain period of time than they can transfer those educational benefits to their spouses and or children. That's a very important aspect I think of incentivizing people of staying in the military.

Yes, a bill he actively spoke out against. How shameless.

Put CEOs On Trial

Finally, someone who gets it:

James Hansen, one of the world's leading climate scientists, will today call for the chief executives of large fossil fuel companies to be put on trial for high crimes against humanity and nature, accusing them of actively spreading doubt about global warming in the same way that tobacco companies blurred the links between smoking and cancer.

[...]

"When you are in that kind of position, as the CEO of one the primary players who have been putting out misinformation even via organisations that affect what gets into school textbooks, then I think that's a crime."

[...]

"The problem is not political will, it's the alligator shoes - the lobbyists. It's the fact that money talks in Washington, and that democracy is not working the way it's intended to work."

It is shocking how many problems in the world can be traced directly back to corporate greed. The war in Iraq was in large part a direct result of corporate greed. Skyrocketing cancer rates are almost certainly a direct result of corporate greed (filling our food, environment, bodies full of toxic chemicals free from regulation). The tainted food and toys, corporate greed (and again, corporations fighting against government regulation, with Republican help). Our broken health care system? Corporate greed. The crippling poverty in the third world, and the billion people in the world who are slowly (or quickly) starving to death, greed greed greed. Do you think there isn't enough food in the world? There is enough food in the world for every person on the planet to eat over 2,700 calories per day, that is enough for everyone in the world to be overweight. And yet we have a large percentage of the world starving. Greed, and in large part corporations are responsible when you really look at the way food is distributed globally. And virtually every single environmental problem on the planet can be traced back to corporate greed--deforestation, pollution, waste, global warming, all of it. And yes, just like tobacco companies knowingly made a ton of money while slowly killing millions with products they knew were dangerous and addictive, corporations like Exxon are complicit, criminally negligent, responsible for global warming denial and for stonewalling every single attempt to combat global warming. When big species like polar bears go extinct because their habitat has been destroyed, it will be the oil companies and climate change deniers (including the politicians who fought against the solutions) who will bear responsibility. When sea levels rise and the billions of people in the world who live in coastal areas are displaced and disease and overcrowding cause a global crisis, it will be these people and their greed that let it happen. When more Katrina-like hurricanes and unprecedented extreme flooding and droughts occur due to the changes global warming produces in our weather, it will be the corporations who profited off the death and destruction.

So hell yes, these people are criminals. If stealing a car is a felony, I'd say covering up and exacerbating climate change for decades all for corporate profit is a crime to say the least. Yes, it is a crime against humanity. Sure, it isn't as directly evil as what Hitler, Stalin, Suharto or Bush have done, and it effects our felt much more subtly, but the end result is still death, the end result it still destruction, poverty, pain and ruined lives. And the motivation is greed, these CEO's and lobbyists knowingly advocating against critical changes that would reverse global warming and spare us all of its grave impacts, speeding us toward the point of no return, all to pad their pockets with cash they don't even need.

That's criminal. That's theft of lives. That's a silent slaughter. They shouldn't be allowed to do this for decades and then retire comfortably with their millions keeping them safe and happy while billions upon billions of less-fortunate people around the world suffer for their greed.

Update: Check this out for more of Hansen's take on the immediate necessity of action to combat global warming.

Republicans Protect Record Oil Profits, Stop Investment In Alternative Energy, While Oil Companies Screw Over Americans

So you know how gas prices are at record numbers while oil companies are getting rich with record profits (Exxon made $1,287 in pure profit every single second in 2007)? The Democrats in Congress were trying to tax these excess profits and invest that money toward wind, solar and other alternative energy development. These windfall profits taxes would discourage oil companies from screwing over motorists with excessive prices at the pump, as would provisions that would have given the federal government more power to address oil market speculation that has been driving up prices, but the Republicans, as usual, have come to the rescue of their corporate big oil friends, to defend their disgustingly enormous profits that they are making at the expense of everyday Americans.

The Republicans, as usual, have threatened to filibuster the legislation because they think oil companies should be able to amass record profits on the backs of Americans, without any consequences. Yes, the poor poor oil companies. Meanwhile they don't give a shit about the financial plight of millions of Americans, the soaring health care costs, the soaring price of education, the soaring price of gas, the soaring price of food, the soaring rate of unemployment and the soaring rate of home foreclosures and bankruptcies. But hey, don't worry, they are looking out for big corporate CEO's and their record profits, as usual.

The most despicable part, however, may be that they would threaten to filibuster investment in renewable and alternative energy right in the middle of an energy crisis and a looming global warming catastrophe, both of which are only going to get worse in coming years. Our dependence on foreign oil (and oil in general) drives up oil prices and hurts Americans already struggling to get by financially. It exacerbates global warming, pollution and environmental degradation even as we rocket past the point of no return on the path to global ecological catastrophe. And it makes us less safe, as it puts us at the mercy of countries like Iran, Iraq and Saudi Arabia who have the vast majority of the oil. Developing alternative sources of energy is ESSENTIAL to keeping American families afloat, reversing global warming, and protecting ourselves from being controlled by OPEC, yet the Republicans in Congress stonewall these investments in alternative energy because it would compete with their precious oil profits.

It isn't just despicable, it is criminal.

VOTE THESE GREEDY CORPORATE BASTARDS OUT!

Update: As if this wasn't enough, when Democrats tried to eliminate the $17 billion in tax breaks Congress has awarded to oil companies in recent years, the Republicans stood together and killed the measure. No no, don't you DARE take taxpayer money that could be going to fund things like health care for kids or education or fixing crumbling bridges, that belongs to rich oil companies!

As Starvation Skyrockets Around The Globe, So Do Profits For Agri-Multinationals

If I had to point to one problem in our country as the most menacing, I'd say it is big corporations, which ruin basically everything, through their insatiable greed. Maybe greed is the more menacing problem in our country, in our society. Yes, I change my answer to greed, but greed's main vehicle of destruction is corporate America, and the Republicans (and corporate Democrats) it owns. Read:

Giant Food & Biotech Corporations Make Billions in Profit from Growing Global Food Crisis
by Geoffrey Lean, The Independent

Giant agribusinesses are enjoying soaring earnings and profits out of the world food crisis which is driving millions of people towards starvation, The Independent on Sunday can reveal. And speculation is helping to drive the prices of basic foodstuffs out of the reach of the hungry.

Wal-Mart Takes Everything From A Woman

[Reason #7114 why Wal-Mart is an absolute monstrosity. It also certainly gives a new, yet no better, meaning to the term "shanking". Indeed, Wal-Mart prospers by figuratively shanking everything from its employees and sweatshop labor overseas to local businesses and the environment. Read, and try not to gag:]

Brain-damaged Woman at Center of Wal-Mart Suit
by Randi Kaye, CNN

JACKSON, Missouri (CNN) -- Debbie Shank breaks down in tears every time she's told that her 18-year-old son, Jeremy, was killed in Iraq.

The 52-year-old mother of three attended her son's funeral, but she continues to ask how he's doing. When her family reminds her that he's dead, she weeps as if hearing the news for the first time.

Shank suffered severe brain damage after a traffic accident nearly eight years ago that robbed her of much of her short-term memory and left her in a wheelchair and living in a nursing home.

It was the beginning of a series of battles -- both personal and legal -- that loomed for Shank and her family. One of their biggest was with Wal-Mart's health plan.

Eight years ago, Shank was stocking shelves for the retail giant and signed up for Wal-Mart's health and benefits plan.

Two years after the accident, Shank and her husband, Jim, were awarded about $1 million in a lawsuit against the trucking company involved in the crash. After legal fees were paid, $417,000 was placed in a trust to pay for Debbie Shank's long-term care.

Wal-Mart had paid out about $470,000 for Shank's medical expenses and later sued for the same amount. However, the court ruled it can only recoup what is left in the family's trust.

The Shanks didn't notice in the fine print of Wal-Mart's health plan policy that the company has the right to recoup medical expenses if an employee collects damages in a lawsuit.

The family's attorney, Maurice Graham, said he informed Wal-Mart about the settlement and believed the Shanks would be allowed to keep the money.

"We assumed after three years, they [Wal-Mart] had made a decision to let Debbie Shank use this money for what it was intended to," Graham said.

The Shanks lost their suit to Wal-Mart. Last summer, the couple appealed the ruling -- but also lost it. One week later, their son was killed in Iraq.

"They are quite within their rights. But I just wonder if they need it that bad," Jim Shank said.

In 2007, the retail giant reported net sales in the third quarter of $90 billion.

Legal or not, CNN asked Wal-Mart why the company pursued the money.

Wal-Mart spokesman John Simley, who called Debbie Shank's case "unbelievably sad," replied in a statement: "Wal-Mart's plan is bound by very specific rules. ... We wish it could be more flexible in Mrs. Shank's case since her circumstances are clearly extraordinary, but this is done out of fairness to all associates who contribute to, and benefit from, the plan."

Jim Shank said he believes Wal-Mart should make an exception.

"My idea of a win-win is -- you keep the paperwork that says you won and let us keep the money so I can take care of my wife," he said.

The family's situation is so dire that last year Jim Shank divorced Debbie, so she could receive more money from Medicaid.

Jim Shank, 54, is recovering from prostate cancer, works two jobs and struggles to pay the bills. He's afraid he won't be able to send their youngest son to college and pay for his and Debbie's care.

"Who needs the money more? A disabled lady in a wheelchair with no future, whatsoever, or does Wal-Mart need $90 billion, plus $200,000?" he asked.

The family's attorney agrees.

"The recovery that Debbie Shank made was recovery for future lost earnings, for her pain and suffering," Graham said.

"She'll never be able to work again. Never have a relationship with her husband or children again. The damage she recovered was for much more than just medical expenses."

Graham said he believes Wal-Mart should be entitled to only about $100,000. Right now, about $277,000 remains in the trust -- far short of the $470,000 Wal-Mart wants back.

Refusing to give up the fight, the Shanks appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court. But just last week, the high court said it would not hear the case.

Graham said the Shanks have exhausted all their resources and there's nothing more they can do but go on with their lives.
advertisement

Jim Shank said he's disappointed with the Supreme Court's decision not to hear the case -- not for the sake of his family -- but for those who might face similar circumstances.

For now, he said the family will figure out a way to get by and "do the best we can for Debbie."

"Luckily, she's oblivious to everything," he said. "We don't tell her
what's going on because it will just upset her."

Update (3/27): Joseph A. Palermo of Huffington Post makes this relevant to the presidential campaign, for any of you junkies who only care about things politically-related (shame on you ;):

Hillary Clinton was on the Board of Directors of Wal-Mart for 6 years. Wal-Mart paid her $18,000 each year she was on the board and $1,500 for every meeting she attended. She accumulated at least $100,000 in