By NELSON D. SCHWARTZ and CHARLES DUHIGG
WASHINGTON — Even as Apple became the nation’s most profitable technology company, it avoided billions in taxes in the United States and around the world through a web of subsidiaries so complex it spanned continents and went beyond anything most experts had ever seen, Congressional investigators disclosed on Monday.
The investigation is expected to set up a potentially explosive confrontation between a bipartisan group of lawmakers and Timothy D. Cook, Apple’s chief executive, at a public hearing on Tuesday.
Congressional investigators found that some of Apple’s subsidiaries had no employees and were largely run by top officials from the company’s headquarters in Cupertino, Calif. But by officially locating them in places like Ireland, Apple was able to, in effect, make them stateless — exempt from taxes, record-keeping laws and the need for the subsidiaries to even file tax returns anywhere in the world.
“Apple wasn’t satisfied with shifting its profits to a low-tax offshore tax haven,” said Senator Carl Levin, a Michigan Democrat who is chairman of the Senate Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations that is holding the public hearing Tuesday into Apple’s use of tax havens. “Apple successfully sought the holy grail of tax avoidance. It has created offshore entities holding tens of billions of dollars while claiming to be tax resident nowhere.”
Thanks to what lawmakers called “gimmicks” and “schemes,” Apple was able to largely sidestep taxes on tens of billions of dollars it earned outside the United States in recent years. Last year, international operations accounted for 61 percent of Apple’s total revenue.
Investigators have not accused Apple of breaking any laws and the company is hardly the only American multinational to face scrutiny for using complex corporate structures and tax havens to sidestep taxes. In recent months, revelations from European authorities about the tax avoidance strategies used by Google, Starbucks and Amazon have all stirred public anger and spurred several European governments, as well as the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, a Paris-based research organization for the world’s richest countries, to discuss measures to close the loopholes.
Still, the findings about Apple were remarkable both for the enormous amount of money involved and the audaciousness of the company’s assertion that its subsidiaries are beyond the reach of any taxing authority.
“There is a technical term economists like to use for behavior like this,” said Edward Kleinbard, a law professor at the University of Southern California in Los Angeles and a former staff director at the Congressional Joint Committee on Taxation. “Unbelievable chutzpah.”
While Apple’s strategy is unusual in its scope and effectiveness, it underscores how riddled with loopholes the American corporate tax code has become, critics say. At the same time, it shows how difficult it will be for Washington to overhaul the tax system.
Over all, Apple’s tax avoidance efforts shifted at least $74 billion from the reach of the Internal Revenue Service between 2009 and 2012, the investigators said. That cash remains offshore, but Apple, which paid more than $6 billion in taxes in the United States last year on its American operations, could still have to pay federal taxes on it if the company were to return the money to its coffers in the United States.
John McCain of Arizona, who is the panel’s senior Republican, said: “Apple claims to be the largest U.S. corporate taxpayer, but by sheer size and scale, it is also among America’s largest tax avoiders.”
In prepared testimony expected to be delivered to the Senate committee by Mr. Cook and other Apple executives on Tuesday, the company said it “welcomes an objective examination of the U.S. corporate tax system, which has not kept pace with the advent of the digital age and the rapidly changing global economy.”
The executives plan to tell the lawmakers that Apple does not use tax gimmicks, according to the prepared testimony.
Mr. Cook is also expected to argue that some of Apple’s largest subsidiaries do not reduce Apple’s tax liability, and to press for a sweeping overhaul of the United States corporate tax code — in particular, by lowering rates on companies moving foreign overseas earnings back to the United States. Apple currently assigns more than $100 billion to offshore subsidiaries.
Atop Apple’s offshore network is a subsidiary named Apple Operations International, which is incorporated in Ireland — where Apple had negotiated a special corporate tax rate of 2 percent or less in recent years — but keeps its bank accounts and records in the United States and holds board meetings in California.
Because the United States bases residency on where companies are incorporated, while Ireland focuses on where they are managed and controlled, Apple Operations International was able to fall neatly between the cracks of the two countries’ jurisdictions.
Apple Operations International has not filed a tax return in Ireland, the United States or any other country over the last five years. It had income of $30 billion between 2009 and 2012. By shuttling revenue between international subsidiaries, Apple was able largely to sidestep paying taxes, Congressional investigators said.
In the prepared testimony, Apple executives disputed the characterization of Apple Operations International. “A.O.I. performs important business functions that facilitate and enhance Apple’s success in international markets,” the testimony states. “It is not a shell company.”
The Senate investigators also found evidence that the company turned over substantially less money to the government than its public filings indicated.
While the company cited an effective rate of 24 to 32 percent in its disclosures, its effective tax rate was 20.1 percent, based on the committee’s findings. And for a company of Apple’s size, the resulting difference was substantial — more than $8 billion in 2009, 2010 and 2011.
Because of these strategies, tax experts say, Washington is forced to rely more and heavily on payroll taxes and individual income taxes to finance the government’s operations. For example, in 2011, individual income taxes contributed $1.1 trillion to federal coffers, while corporate taxes added up to $181 billion.
As companies’ earnings have accumulated offshore, many executives have been pushing more aggressively for a tax holiday that would allow them to bring back funds at lower tax rates. Apple has recently announced that it will return $100 billion to shareholders over three years through a combination of dividends and purchases of its own shares. Though Apple has enough cash on hand to pay for those initiatives, the company recently announced it would take on $17 billion in debt, rather than bring overseas money back to the United States to avoid paying repatriation taxes on those returning funds.
“If Apple had used its overseas cash to fund this return of capital, the funds would have been diminished by the very high corporate U.S. tax rate of 35 percent,” Mr. Cook is planning to testify, according to the prepared text. Apple “believes the current system, which applies industrial era concepts to a digital economy, actually undermines U.S. competitiveness.”
Critics, however, say these so-called repatriation holidays, which bring back funds at lower tax rates, do virtually nothing to stimulate the economy and benefit only corporations, their executives and shareholders. Congress enacted a repatriation holiday in 2004, allowing corporations to bring back about $300 billion from overseas and pay just 5.25 percent rather than the regular 35 percent corporate rate.
But a study by the National Bureau of Economic Research found that 92 percent of the repatriated cash was used to pay for dividends, share buybacks or executive bonuses.
“Repatriations did not lead to an increase in domestic investment, employment or R.&D., even for the firms that lobbied for the tax holiday stating these intentions,” concluded the study, which was conducted by a team of three economists that included a former Bush administration official. Tuesday’s hearing on Capitol Hill, along with the disclosures about Apple’s tax policies, are likely to make lowering repatriation taxes a more difficult proposition for lawmakers to stomach, Congressional staff members said.
On Capitol Hill Monday, legislators made plain their fury over what they called Apple’s “egregious” and “outrageous” conduct.
While other companies have taken advantage of loopholes, Mr. Levin said, “I’ve never seen anything like this and we don’t know anybody who’s seen anything like this.”
Nelson D. Schwartz reported from Washington and Charles Duhigg from New York. David Kocieniewski contributed reporting from New York.
Tuesday, May 21, 2013
Monday, May 20, 2013
Eric Cantor's con would steal workers' overtime pay
Posted by Jim Hightower
Little Eric Cantor, the prancing political prissy who serves as the GOP's House majority leader, apparently thinks he's too slick to get caught in an outright legislative lie – or maybe he thinks we rubes are too dumb to figure out that he's trying to slick us.
Either way, a crude deceit is at the very heart of his "Working Families Flexibility Act," which he recently slid through the House. It eliminates a central piece of America's middle-class framework, namely the 8-hour workday and 40-hour week. Under the 1938 Fair Labor Law, bosses can make hourly employees work extra, but only by paying an overtime wage for the added hours.
Cantor claims his bill would improve this New Deal protection by letting corporate managers require extra hours on the job without overtime pay by offering "comp time" to the employees. In other words, work more hours now in exchange for taking-off those same number of hours later on.
With a wink at corporate lobbyists, Eric slyly refers to this switch as "women-friendly," allowing working moms the flexibility to decide when to take time off. Therein lies the lie.
It's not workers who get to decide, but bosses. Note that Cantor's bill does not guarantee employees the right to use the time-off they would earn by giving up extra pay. They can use the comp time only if and when the employer says it's okay – which might be never. Also, even if employees are granted time off, bosses can require them to be on-call during their "free" time.
Cantor's bill is a con. It hands workplace flexibility to corporations, not to "moms," while also stealing the hard-won right of workers to be assured of an 8-hour day, or extra pay.
For more information, contact the National Partnership for Women and Families: www.nationalpartnership.org.
"Now They Want to Take Away the 8-Hour Day and 40-Hour Week," www.alternet.org, May 9, 2013.
"House GOP Advances Fake Pro-Working-Mother Bill," www.motherjones.com, May 7, 2013.
Listen to this Commentary
Little Eric Cantor, the prancing political prissy who serves as the GOP's House majority leader, apparently thinks he's too slick to get caught in an outright legislative lie – or maybe he thinks we rubes are too dumb to figure out that he's trying to slick us.
Either way, a crude deceit is at the very heart of his "Working Families Flexibility Act," which he recently slid through the House. It eliminates a central piece of America's middle-class framework, namely the 8-hour workday and 40-hour week. Under the 1938 Fair Labor Law, bosses can make hourly employees work extra, but only by paying an overtime wage for the added hours.
Cantor claims his bill would improve this New Deal protection by letting corporate managers require extra hours on the job without overtime pay by offering "comp time" to the employees. In other words, work more hours now in exchange for taking-off those same number of hours later on.
With a wink at corporate lobbyists, Eric slyly refers to this switch as "women-friendly," allowing working moms the flexibility to decide when to take time off. Therein lies the lie.
It's not workers who get to decide, but bosses. Note that Cantor's bill does not guarantee employees the right to use the time-off they would earn by giving up extra pay. They can use the comp time only if and when the employer says it's okay – which might be never. Also, even if employees are granted time off, bosses can require them to be on-call during their "free" time.
Cantor's bill is a con. It hands workplace flexibility to corporations, not to "moms," while also stealing the hard-won right of workers to be assured of an 8-hour day, or extra pay.
For more information, contact the National Partnership for Women and Families: www.nationalpartnership.org.
"Now They Want to Take Away the 8-Hour Day and 40-Hour Week," www.alternet.org, May 9, 2013.
"House GOP Advances Fake Pro-Working-Mother Bill," www.motherjones.com, May 7, 2013.
Oklahoma Senators Jim Inhofe, Tom Coburn, Face Difficult Options On Disaster Relief
By Christina Wilkie
WASHINGTON - As frantic rescue missions continued Monday in Oklahoma following the catastrophic tornadoes that ripped through the state, it appeared increasingly likely that residents who lost homes and businesses would turn to the federal government for emergency disaster aid. That could put the state's two Republican senators in an awkward position.
Sens. Jim Inhofe and Tom Coburn, both Republicans, are fiscal hawks who have repeatedly voted against funding disaster aid for other parts of the country. They also have opposed increased funding for the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), which administers federal disaster relief.
Late last year, Inhofe and Coburn both backed a plan to slash disaster relief to victims of Hurricane Sandy. In a December press release, Coburn complained that the Sandy Relief bill contained "wasteful spending," and identified a series of items he objected to, including "$12.9 billion for future disaster mitigation activities and studies."
Coburn spokesman John Hart on Monday evening confirmed that the senator will seek to ensure that any additional funding for tornado disaster relief in Oklahoma be offset by cuts to federal spending elsewhere in the budget. "That's always been his position [to offset disaster aid]," Hart said. "He supported offsets to the bill funding the OKC bombing recovery effort." Those offsets were achieved in 1995 by tapping federal funds that had not yet been appropriated.
In 2011, both senators opposed legislation that would have granted necessary funding for FEMA when the agency was set to run out of money. Sending the funds to FEMA would have been "unconscionable," Coburn said at the time.
Hart said Coburn had "never made parochial calculations" about Oklahoma's disproportionate share of disaster funds, "as his voting record and campaign against earmarks demonstrates." Hart added that Coburn, "makes no apologies for voting against disaster aid bills that are often poorly conceived and used to finance priorities that have little to do with disasters."
A representative for Inhofe could not immediately be reached for comment. Inhofe earlier tweeted: "The devastation in Oklahoma is heartbreaking. Please join me and #PrayforOklahoma. Spread the word."
Coburn also put out a message on Twitter, writing, "My thoughts and prayers are with those in Oklahoma affected by the tragic tornado outbreak."
Oklahoma currently ranks third in the nation after Texas and California in terms of total federal disaster and fire declarations, which kickstart the federal emergency relief funding process. Just last month, President Barack Obama signed a disaster declaration for the state following severe snowstorms.
And despite their voting record on disaster aid for other states, both Coburn and Inhofe appear to sing a different tune when it comes to such funding for Oklahoma.
In January of 2007, Coburn urged federal officials to speed disaster relief aid after the state faced a major ice storm.
A year later, in 2008, Inhofe lauded the fact that emergency relief from the Department of Housing and Urban Development would be given to 24 Oklahoma counties. "The impact of severe weather has been truly devastating to many Oklahoma communities across the state. I am pleased that the people whose lives have been affected by disastrous weather are getting much-needed federal assistance," he said at the time.
The cost of the recovery effort for this week's tornadoes is likely to be high. After a spate of tornadoes in the state in 1999, Oklahomans requested and received $67.8 million in federal relief funds.
Sam Stein contributed.
This article has been updated to include the comments of Coburn's spokesman.
WASHINGTON - As frantic rescue missions continued Monday in Oklahoma following the catastrophic tornadoes that ripped through the state, it appeared increasingly likely that residents who lost homes and businesses would turn to the federal government for emergency disaster aid. That could put the state's two Republican senators in an awkward position.
Sens. Jim Inhofe and Tom Coburn, both Republicans, are fiscal hawks who have repeatedly voted against funding disaster aid for other parts of the country. They also have opposed increased funding for the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), which administers federal disaster relief.
Late last year, Inhofe and Coburn both backed a plan to slash disaster relief to victims of Hurricane Sandy. In a December press release, Coburn complained that the Sandy Relief bill contained "wasteful spending," and identified a series of items he objected to, including "$12.9 billion for future disaster mitigation activities and studies."
Coburn spokesman John Hart on Monday evening confirmed that the senator will seek to ensure that any additional funding for tornado disaster relief in Oklahoma be offset by cuts to federal spending elsewhere in the budget. "That's always been his position [to offset disaster aid]," Hart said. "He supported offsets to the bill funding the OKC bombing recovery effort." Those offsets were achieved in 1995 by tapping federal funds that had not yet been appropriated.
In 2011, both senators opposed legislation that would have granted necessary funding for FEMA when the agency was set to run out of money. Sending the funds to FEMA would have been "unconscionable," Coburn said at the time.
Hart said Coburn had "never made parochial calculations" about Oklahoma's disproportionate share of disaster funds, "as his voting record and campaign against earmarks demonstrates." Hart added that Coburn, "makes no apologies for voting against disaster aid bills that are often poorly conceived and used to finance priorities that have little to do with disasters."
A representative for Inhofe could not immediately be reached for comment. Inhofe earlier tweeted: "The devastation in Oklahoma is heartbreaking. Please join me and #PrayforOklahoma. Spread the word."
Coburn also put out a message on Twitter, writing, "My thoughts and prayers are with those in Oklahoma affected by the tragic tornado outbreak."
Oklahoma currently ranks third in the nation after Texas and California in terms of total federal disaster and fire declarations, which kickstart the federal emergency relief funding process. Just last month, President Barack Obama signed a disaster declaration for the state following severe snowstorms.
And despite their voting record on disaster aid for other states, both Coburn and Inhofe appear to sing a different tune when it comes to such funding for Oklahoma.
In January of 2007, Coburn urged federal officials to speed disaster relief aid after the state faced a major ice storm.
A year later, in 2008, Inhofe lauded the fact that emergency relief from the Department of Housing and Urban Development would be given to 24 Oklahoma counties. "The impact of severe weather has been truly devastating to many Oklahoma communities across the state. I am pleased that the people whose lives have been affected by disastrous weather are getting much-needed federal assistance," he said at the time.
The cost of the recovery effort for this week's tornadoes is likely to be high. After a spate of tornadoes in the state in 1999, Oklahomans requested and received $67.8 million in federal relief funds.
Sam Stein contributed.
This article has been updated to include the comments of Coburn's spokesman.
Eric Holder Must Go NOW
Posted on May 15, 2013 by Gary Bentley
Ring of Fire co-hosts Mike Papantonio and Sam Seder discuss the troubled legacy of Eric Holder, and how his presence threatens to bring down the entire Obama presidency.
Ring of Fire co-hosts Mike Papantonio and Sam Seder discuss the troubled legacy of Eric Holder, and how his presence threatens to bring down the entire Obama presidency.
IRS Apology for Tea Party Racists?
If any other group called for the government's demise, the GOP would have a fit.
Posted: May 20, 2013 at 12:58 A.M.
(The Root) -- The confederacy of dunces that makes up the Republican Party leadership and Fox News want you to believe that liberal operatives at the IRS abused power - for political purposes - by scrutinizing conservative Tea Party affiliates applying for tax-exempt 501(c)(4) status. What has been missed in the mainstream debate on the topic is the fact that the Tea Party should have been scrutinized. Race, money, political power and extremist ideology are the smoking guns - and it's time to follow the money trail.
President Obama chose to get ahead of the scandal, saying that targeting of conservative groups was "inexcusable." Heads are already rolling after the official inspector general's report, which forced the acting IRS commissioner to resign. Analysis on the political left and center has proven equally appeasing of GOP critics, with many liberals buying into Republican talking points. But what is being ignored is a critical truth that, from its inception, the Tea Party movement has resembled an activist organization driven by white supremacist ideology - its sole organizing purpose being to oppose the nation's first African-American president.
What is different about the Tea Party (as opposed to more blatant radicals) is that it morphed into a pseudo-policy force whose expressed concerns were excessive government spending and debt. This gave it legitimacy among the Beltway chattering classes and, as such, the Tea Party is a well-oiled, well-funded machine that has now been surreptitiously co-opted by the Republican establishment, and used to swift-boat the president on every issue from the debt ceiling to sequestration to judicial and Cabinet appointments and the jobs bill.
What does this have to do with the IRS?
If the majority of Tea Party members had been Muslim - arriving at rallies with concealed weapons and signs depicting the U.S. president as Hitler and reading, "Don't tread on me" or "Take back our country" - House Republicans would readily build a bipartisan coalition requiring the CIA, FBI and IRS to investigate its members and their financial backers. No stone would be left unturned. The Patriot Act would be used as justification, and if questions arose, the official answer would be "no comment" in the name of "national security."
Beginning as early as 2007 and 2008, the FBI, Secret Service and Department of Homeland Security all reported increases in white supremacist activity -- in direct response to the ascendency of Barack Obama. A special DHS report in 2009 showed that many extremist and self-proclaimed neo-Nazi organizations were encouraging younger members to join the U.S. military as a way to provide weapons training for subsequent militia activity. There was a backlash to the report - critics claimed soldiers should not be targeted as suspects by the very government they served.
DHS Secretary Janet Napolitano defended the research, saying in an official statement, "The document on right-wing extremism … is an ongoing series of assessments … on the phenomenon and trends of violent radicalization in the United States." Napolitano was sure to express appreciation to loyal veterans but concluded, "Let me be very clear: We monitor the risks of violent extremism taking root here in the United States. We do not have the luxury of focusing our efforts on one group; we must protect the country from terrorism whether foreign or homegrown, and regardless of the ideology that motivates its violence."
This past January, Mother Jones magazine revealed that James B. Taylor, a prominent conservative leader who once ran a white supremacist group, also had ties with the Tea Party Express -- one of the largest and most influential of the Tea Party groups. Prior to his Tea Party affiliations, Taylor was vice president of the innocuously named National Policy Institute - a tax-exempt group whose aim is to lobby for white Americans. It is that kind of exemption that lies at the heart of the supposed IRS scandal.
This begs an uncomfortably obvious question: Should the kind of tax-exempt status given to religious organizations and charities be conferred upon groups with strong anti-government ideologies and who have ties to white supremacists?
A 2011 article by Eve Conant for the Daily Beast showed that a number of white-nationalist groups were instrumental in fueling the anti-Obama sentiment that helped Republicans win the House of Representatives in the 2010 midterms. More importantly, some of the individuals involved had expressed ties to the Tea Party. Conant spoke with Don Black, the founder of Stormfront, the nation's largest white-supremacist website, who said, "Many of our people are involved in the Tea Party." The strategy was to enter conservative politics at the local and state levels - while tapping into national fundraising resources.
Quoting Black, Conant writes, the aim was to start from the ground up, "where we have a chance of winning." Black admitted the Tea Party's success sparked hope among his ideological soul mates, but he expressed doubt that a vocal white nationalist could capture a seat in the U.S. Senate. Enter Rand Paul. Though not a registered white nationalist, Paul achieved victory in Kentucky while unapologetically expressing opposition to the 1964 Civil Rights Act - an obvious dog whistle to disgruntled whites. (He has since claimed he always supported the bill.) Paul remains a Tea Party favorite and is touted as a possible presidential candidate in 2016.
In a 2011 piece for Salon, Michael Lind explored data showing that members of the Tea Party Caucus were overwhelmingly white and from former Confederate states. Lind opined that the Tea Party agenda wasn't based on traditional American conservatism but in eccentric Southern conservatism - hell-bent on dismantling programs that promote egalitarian values and aid to the poor, the black and brown.
The IRS, it seems, had reason to question the motives of Tea Party organizations seeking 501(c)(4) status - especially since those groups are allowed to raise unlimited funds and engage in political campaigning. The Federal Elections Commission is normally charged with monitoring the financial limitations and undue political influence of donors, but the rise of (c)4s and unlimited donations has rigged the game such that IRS and FEC roles are muddled. It is particularly troubling that (c)4 rules allow donors to remain conveniently anonymous.
The rise of super PACs was widely debated during the 2012 election, but not on the basis that they were engaged in anti-American activity or had ties to possible terrorist extremists. Yet that debate should have occurred.
Far too many Tea Party groups promote anti-government, "Patriot Movement" dogma, reliant on conspiracy theories that see the federal government as the primary enemy. (Hence, the myth of a national gun registry surrounding the Fast and Furious program and the debate over universal background checks, and "Obama as Hitler" hysteria.)
Julian Bond, chair emeritus of the NAACP, told MSNBC in an interview that it was "legitimate" for the IRS to target "admittedly racist" Tea Party groups, which he said reflected the "Taliban wing" of American politics. Bond also noted that the NAACP was unfairly targeted by IRS officials in 2004, after Bond gave a speech criticizing then-president George W. Bush. (The NAACP was subsequently cleared of any wrongdoing.)
It's interesting to note that Douglas Shulman, the IRS commissioner at the time of these Tea Party probes was himself an appointee of George W. Bush.
Rep. Darrell Issa (R-Calif.), whose tactics as head of the Oversight and Government Reform Committee have proven him to be more crazed pitbull than a reliable watchdog, will certainly find a way to blame even that on President Obama.
Edward Wyckoff Williams is a contributing editor at The Root. He
is a columnist and political analyst, appearing on Al-Jazeera, MSNBC,
ABC, CBS Washington and national syndicated radio. Follow him on Twitter and Facebook.
Like The Root on Facebook. Follow us on Twitter.
Veterans Blast Shinseki For Disability Claims Backlog
WHITE HOUSE PETITION: www.MillionVetBacklog.com
End the #MillionVetBacklog & relieve Secretary Shinseki
Four years ago, both President Obama and VA Secretary Shinseki vowed to fix the VA disability claims backlog. Instead, it has increased by 2,000% — and is projected to soon reach one million veterans. A tragic milestone.
Military commanders are not allowed to fail for four years and keep their job. Nor should Secretary Shinseki. It's time for new VA leadership, and a bold vision for reform.
It is time for the White House to stop making excuses and start delivering results. Only Presidential leadership can end the #MillionVetBacklog. We urge the President to act now.
SIGN OUR WHITE HOUSE PETITION and JOIN THE MOVEMENT TO END THE #MILLIONVETBACKLOG. www.MillionVetBacklog.com
Sign up for email updates from Concerned Veterans for America, HERE: http://bit.ly/QXtuct
Stay connected...
http://www.ConcernedVeteransforAmeric...
http://www.Facebook.com/ConcernedVets...
http://www.Twitter.com/ConcernedVets
Sunday, May 19, 2013
100 Reasons Why President Obama Is NOT The Same As President Bush
1. Bush started the war in Iraq and Obama ended it.
2. Bush lowered taxes on the wealthy and Obama raised taxes on the wealthy.
3. Bush tried to give Social Security to Wall Street and Obama protected it.
4. Bush left office with a $1 trillion deficit and Obama has lowered it.
5. President Bush ignored the War in Afghanistan and Obama made it his focus.
6. Bush didn’t kill Osama Bin Laden; Obama did.
7. Bush sanctioned torture and Obama ended torture.
8. Bush opened the Gitmo prison and Obama is trying to close it.
9. Bush instituted the failed No Child Left Behind education program and Obama ended it.
10. Bush relied on military force while Obama has relied on diplomacy.
11. Bush nominated mostly men to the Supreme Court and Obama has focused on nominating women. (Bush nominated one woman, but she was totally unqualified for the position.)
12. Bush nominated white men to the Supreme Court while Obama has nominated a white woman and a Latina.
13. Bush was placed in office by a conservative-leaning Supreme Court in 2000 while Obama won each of his elections legitimately.
14. Bush took unilateral action in foreign policy while Obama has worked more with our allies.
15. Bush responded poorly to natural disasters like Katrina, while Obama has responded more than adequately to disasters like Irene and Sandy.
16. Bush detained terrorists without due process and Obama has had terrorists prosecuted successfully with due process.
17. Bush deregulated big banks and Obama reinstated some of those regulations.
18. Bush never signed an Equal Pay for women bill while Obama did. It was the first piece of legislation he signed.
19. Bush tarnished America’s reputation around the world and Obama is restoring it.
20. Bush invaded a country illegally while Obama has done no such thing.
21. Bush had a cooperative Congress for most of his administration, while Obama hasn’t.
22. Bush used fear to control the American public while Obama has not.
23. Obama instituted healthcare reform that covers millions of people; the topic was not on Bush’s agenda.
24. Obama ended ‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell’. President Bush continued it.
25. Obama supports marriage equality and Bush does not.
26. Bush supported anti-union policies while Obama supports unions.
27. Obama has expanded land and water conservation programs more than Bush.
28. Obama has provided generous subsides to alternative energy producers. Bush didn’t do this.
29. Obama instituted tough emissions standards for cars and factories. Bush did no such thing.
30. Obama believes in climate change and that mankind has played a big role in that change. Bush is a climate change denier.
31. Under Obama, the stock market has eclipsed 15,000 points. It never got that high under Bush.
32. Obama created the Consumer Financial Protection Agency to protect consumers from unfair banking practices. Bush allowed the banks to use unfair practices at will.
33. Obama is pursuing gun control laws in response to tragic mass shootings while Bush took a hands-off approach.
34. Obama has cut defense spending while Bush only increased it.
35. Obama is bringing clean energy to the armed forces. Bush did not.
36. Obama has created more private sector jobs than Bush did.
37. Obama is for reducing and eliminating all nuclear arsenals. Bush withdrew America from the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty which is the opposite of Obama’s stance.
38. Obama supports Planned Parenthood while Bush did not.
39. Obama supports a woman’s right to choose while Bush does not.
40. Obama and Bush both support fighting the AIDS epidemic, but only Obama supports the use of condoms as part of the fight.
41. Obama hasn’t landed on an aircraft carrier to falsely declare mission accomplished. Bush did.
42. Obama has taken far less vacation days than Bush.
43. Obama has written personal checks to Americans in need. Bush never did that.
44. Obama isn’t being used as a puppet by his Vice-President. Bush kinda was.
45. Obama hasn’t used 9/11 as a political tool. Bush did that for nearly eight years.
46. Obama signed the American Recovery Act, also known as the stimulus, to save the economy. Bush chose to save the banks.
47. Obama is working to end the War in Afghanistan. Bush began the war and could have ended it sooner had he not focused on Iraq.
48. Obama did more to save the auto industry than Bush did.
49. Obama toppled Moammar Gaddafi without placing soldiers on the ground in harms way. Thousands of soldiers were killed in Bush’s quest to topple Saddam Hussein and he never got Bin Laden.
50. Obama kicked banks out of Federal Student Loans, something Bush never did.
51. Obama expanded Pell Grants for low-income students, which is another thing Bush didn’t do.
52. Obama created Race To The Top to reward states for education reform, something else Bush didn’t do.
53. Obama increased fuel efficiency standards for vehicles. Bush didn’t.
54. Obama signed a new GI bill for returning veterans. Bush didn’t.
55. Obama also expanded the budget of the Department of Veteran’s Affairs more than Bush did.
56. Obama tightened sanctions on Iran while, if Bush were still in office, America would probably be embroiled in another war in the Middle East.
57. Obama issued new EPA regulations that will cut Mercury and other toxic pollution. Bush weakened the EPA.
58. Obama signed a major overhaul of the food safety system which desperately needed it after the Bush years.
59. Obama expanded national service by tripling the size of AmeriCorps, more than Bush ever did.
60. Obama has protected more wildlife areas than Bush.
61. Under Obama, the FDA now approves of making the morning after pill available over-the-counter to women as young as 15. Bush never did that.
62. Obama is pushing to make the federal government more energy-efficient. Bush didn’t.
63. Obama cut the Reagan-era missile defense budget, something Bush never did.
64. Obama is increasing programs to combat cyber warfare more than Bush did.
65. Obama is pushing for a new space shuttle and manned mission to Mars, whereas Bush wanted to go back to the moon where we have already gone before.
66. Obama is improving school nutrition despite Republican attempts to classify pizza as a veggie.
67. Obama is encouraging a national push to get fit and eat right to cut healthcare costs and prevent diseases. Bush didn’t do that.
68. Obama has expanded hate crime protections, especially for the LGBT community, something Bush largely ignored.
69. Obama has avoided scandal despite petty attempts by the GOP to make up scandals. Bush, on the other hand, was involved in scandal after scandal.
70. Obama forced BP to quickly compensate and set up a fund for victims of the Gulf oil spills, again proving he is better than Bush at responding to disaster.
71. The Obama Administration is more transparent than the Bush Administration.
72. Obama is spearheading a movement to bring broadband internet to every corner of America, also something Bush did not do.
77. Obama’s EPA declared carbon dioxide a pollutant for the first time in American history. Bush could have done this, but didn’t.
78. Obama supports funding of stem cell research and lifted the Bush ban on the research.
79. Obama aided South Sudan in declaring their independence. Bush didn’t.
80. Obama saved Americans $4 billion dollars by ending the F-22 program. Bush didn’t.
81. Obama has aided African-American and Native American farmers, something Bush didn’t do.
82. Obama dared to slash the salaries of bailed out bank executives, whereas Bush didn’t.
83. Obama hasn’t started any wars since becoming President. Bush involved America in two of the longest wars in our history.
85. Obama has lowered taxes on the middle class more than Bush.
86. Outsourcing skyrocketed under Bush; Obama is reversing this and now jobs are coming back to America.
87. Obama has been cool under pressure while Bush was more reactionary and indecisive.
88. Obama established a credit card bill of rights to better protect card holders. Bush did no such thing.
89. Obama established the White House Council on Women and Girls. There was no such council during the Bush Administration.
90. Obama ordered financial agencies to establish Offices of Women and Minorities to promote more diverse hiring. Again, Bush didn’t.
91. Obama increased minority access to capital, thus helping minorities in ways Bush never did.
92. Obama negotiated a deal with Swiss banks to permit the US government to gain access to records of tax evaders and criminals. Meanwhile, tax evaders had a field day under Bush.
93. Obama extended benefits to same-sex partners of federal employees, which Bush never did because he is anti-LGBT.
94. Obama protected gay and lesbian partners’ visitation/healthcare decision-making rights, which Bush also never did because he is anti-LGBT.
95. Bush was a child of privilege who had every advantage that money and social position could provide. Obama was a self-made man who crafted his success from his own efforts and abilities.
96. Obama is extremely strategic in his thinking and planning and seems able to look past the immediate moment and defer gratification to achieve a greater future good. Bush had no such skills or vision.
97. Obama understands the true personal and economic costs of warfare, unlike Bush, who involved us in two wars while deeply cutting taxes.
98. The 9/11 attacks occurred under Bush’s watch, not Obama’s.
99. Obama has a Nobel Peace Prize. Bush does not.
100. Bush is a conservative Christian and his decisions and actions were largely faith-based while Obama’s decision-making has a rational, scientific basis resulting from a consideration of facts, data, and logic.
Two men, two very different presidencies. Due to Republican obstruction in the Senate and Republican control of the House, Obama has been unable to dismantle much of the Bush legacy that has nearly destroyed this country. If Obama had a cooperative Congress like Bush had, they would be even more different from each other.
In fact, it’s likely a more liberal agenda would have been pursued by the Obama Administration, meaning the country would be stronger, healthier, and better than the nightmare that reigned during the Bush years.
It will take many more years to clean up the mess conservatives left for Obama. And if Americans turn Congress blue in 2014, the clean up effort will go a whole lot quicker.
All Three GOP Manufactured Scandals Falling Apart
By Egberto Willies
To be sure, there are problems with this administration in many areas. But, sadly, those areas like “support” for the Keystone pipeline, support for some sort of austerity, however minimal, and policies in general that are not progressive enough have not been the cause of GOP ire as much as those are the things they actually support.
I have been waiting for a real assessment on the scandals. Lo and behold, Lawrence O’Donnell finally did it: The IRS scandal did not occur in this President’s administration. It occurred in 1959. As explained by O’Donnell:
I stated from the beginning that all of the current scandals (Benghazi, IRS,
AP) afflicting the President at this time have been manufactured;
manufactured through lies, deception, and misinformation by the GOP.
Most importantly, the President and many liberals have found it
expedient to accept more responsibility than is necessary in the attempt
to “stop the bleeding.” This is no different from an innocent person
pleading guilty in order to get a deterministic sentence instead of an
unknown sentence that could be more or less than warranted.
To be sure, there are problems with this administration in many areas. But, sadly, those areas like “support” for the Keystone pipeline, support for some sort of austerity, however minimal, and policies in general that are not progressive enough have not been the cause of GOP ire as much as those are the things they actually support.
I have been waiting for a real assessment on the scandals. Lo and behold, Lawrence O’Donnell finally did it: The IRS scandal did not occur in this President’s administration. It occurred in 1959. As explained by O’Donnell:
Ezra Klein did one better. In his piece “The Scandals Are Falling Apart,” he goes through the autopsy of each scandal. His basic conclusion is as follows:The law defines such groups as “civic leagues or organizations not organized for profit but operated exclusively for the promotion of social welfare.” Since 1959, the IRS has been reading “exclusively” as “primarily.”
[Source]
On Tuesday, it looked like we had three possible political scandals brewing. Two days later, with much more evidence available, it doesn’t look like any of them will pan out. There’ll be more hearings, and more bad press for the Obama administration, and more demands for documents. But — and this is a key qualification — absent more revelations, the scandals that could reach high don’t seem to include any real wrongdoing, whereas the ones that include real wrongdoing don’t reach high enough.America’s corporate-controlled mainstream media continues to allow the GOP and the right wing to distract Americans. They continue to run stories that are pushed by this faction in order to have Americans dissuaded from looking at real issues that materially affect their lives. They are then able to affect their will with policies that further pilfer the middle class without any political cost.
[Source]
Saturday, May 18, 2013
World-class political nincompoopism
Posted by Jim Hightower
Listen to this Commentary
My state of Texas seems to have an inordinate share of nincompoops in public office. But it's only fair that office holders from other states be considered before deciding which one is the nincompoopiest of all.
Give credit to Pennsylvania, for example, whose GOP governor, Tom Corbett, recently scored big nincompoop points by explaining why his state ranks 49th in job creation. "Many employers," the guv grumbled, during a radio interview, "say 'we're looking for people, but we can't find anybody that has passed a drug test'." Yes, the old my-constituents-are-a-bunch-of-drug-addicts dodge! That's world-class nincompoopery. Did I mention that Tom's voter approval rating is down to 38 percent?
But compare Corbett to one of the Lone Star State's congress critters, Steve Stockman. Steve's re-election campaign has put out a bumper sticker with this uplifting thought: "If babies had guns, they wouldn't be aborted." Wow – that's two nincompoopisms in only eight words!
Still, even Steve can't hold a candle to Rep. Louie Gohmert, the mouth that never shuts. Vice-chair of a House homeland security sub-committee, Gohmert recently revealed an astonishing piece of intelligence on the terrorist threat to the US of A. Al Qaeda, he informed the whole world, has set up radical Islamist camps on the "other side" of the Texas-Mexico border. Really? No. But the Islamist alarmist proceeded to tell us that Mexican drug gangs are teaching al Qaeda infidels how to cross the border into Texas, and they're also being trained "to act like Hispanics."
Hmmm, wondered many Latinos on "this side," how does Louie think one would "act" Hispanic? Sing "La Cucaracha," drive a low-rider, dress up as landscapers?
But "think" is not part of Gohmert's shticks. Which is what puts him atop the world of political nincompoops."
Listen to this Commentary
My state of Texas seems to have an inordinate share of nincompoops in public office. But it's only fair that office holders from other states be considered before deciding which one is the nincompoopiest of all.
Give credit to Pennsylvania, for example, whose GOP governor, Tom Corbett, recently scored big nincompoop points by explaining why his state ranks 49th in job creation. "Many employers," the guv grumbled, during a radio interview, "say 'we're looking for people, but we can't find anybody that has passed a drug test'." Yes, the old my-constituents-are-a-bunch-of-drug-addicts dodge! That's world-class nincompoopery. Did I mention that Tom's voter approval rating is down to 38 percent?
But compare Corbett to one of the Lone Star State's congress critters, Steve Stockman. Steve's re-election campaign has put out a bumper sticker with this uplifting thought: "If babies had guns, they wouldn't be aborted." Wow – that's two nincompoopisms in only eight words!
Still, even Steve can't hold a candle to Rep. Louie Gohmert, the mouth that never shuts. Vice-chair of a House homeland security sub-committee, Gohmert recently revealed an astonishing piece of intelligence on the terrorist threat to the US of A. Al Qaeda, he informed the whole world, has set up radical Islamist camps on the "other side" of the Texas-Mexico border. Really? No. But the Islamist alarmist proceeded to tell us that Mexican drug gangs are teaching al Qaeda infidels how to cross the border into Texas, and they're also being trained "to act like Hispanics."
Hmmm, wondered many Latinos on "this side," how does Louie think one would "act" Hispanic? Sing "La Cucaracha," drive a low-rider, dress up as landscapers?
But "think" is not part of Gohmert's shticks. Which is what puts him atop the world of political nincompoops."
Lawrence O'Donnell reminds politicians of the real IRS scandal
House Speaker John Boehner wants to know “who’s going to jail” over the recent IRS scandal, in which agents targeted Tea Party-related groups with unequal scrutiny. A far as MSNBC’s Lawrence O’Donnell is concerned, “That may be the single stupidest thing ever said by a Speaker of the House.”
As O’Donnell has been saying since Monday, the so-called IRS scandal is only the consequence of an older and more basic problem with the organization’s reading of the tax code–specifically, with its reading of Section 501(c)(4), which exempts social welfare groups from paying taxes.
The law defines such groups as “civic leagues or organizations not organized for profit but operated exclusively for the promotion of social welfare.” Since 1959, the IRS has been reading “exclusively” as “primarily.”
“By doing that they made IRS agents judges of political activity, investigators of political activity,” O’Donnell explained in the Rewrite Thursday. “IRS agents were then forced to evaluate just how political a given 501(c)(4) organization might be. And it is very clear that if the words “Tea Party” or the name of any political party at all appears in the title of your 501(c)(4) you absolutely do not qualify for 501(c)(4) status under the law.”
Some politicians, however, still don’t seem to understand the interplay between this law and how it’s enforced.
“We must pass a law that makes it much clearer that the so-called social welfare organizations must make their priority promoting social welfare rather than engaging in politics…From my standpoint they should not have any political purpose, and I would hope we could change the law on that,” said House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi Thursday.
“Now, I don’t expect Nancy Pelosi to be watching this show,” O’Donnell said, “but someone on her large staff should have picked up what I’ve been saying about this by now, and whispered something in her ear about it.”
O’Donnell said he hopes someone at Friday’s Ways and Means Committee hearing on the IRS scandal will bring up the actual law defining 501(c)(4)s. His bet is Rep. Sander Levin (D-Mich.), older brother of Sen. Carl Levin (D-Mich.), who has questioned the IRS about the exclusively/primarily discrepancy in the past.
Obama's record on civil liberties ‘has been worse than the Bush administration'
Guest host Mark Thompson, author David Cay Johnston, “The War Room”
contributor Brett Erlich, Ana Kasparian, and Jayar Jackson debate whether Barack
Obama’s time in office has been a “lost presidency” for protecting the civil
rights of American citizens. Kasparian says, “He was a constitutional law
professor, and his record on foreign policy and his record on civil liberties
has been a complete and utter disaster.”
Friday, May 17, 2013
Thursday, May 16, 2013
On-call shifts: The latest corporate shame
Posted by Jim Hightower
Step right up, folks, and take your chances in the Amazing New American Workplace. Constantly high unemployment! Low wages always! No employee bargaining power! A corporate paradise!
This paradise has enriched the already-rich investor elite and rewarded top executives with multimillion-dollar pay packages. It also lets corporations treat the masses of people in today's workforce like Kleenexes: Just use 'em and toss 'em – after all, they're cheap, plentiful... and disposable.
Indeed, taskmasters-in-suits have now redefined the term "hired" to mean that you're tethered to a corporation full-time, but you actually work and get paid for only the few hours a week when the boss calls.
This nefarious practice, known as "on-call shifts," is all the rage among national retail chains. Such giants as Abercrombie & Fitch, Gap, and Urban Outfitters require employees to work without set schedules and to be available to have their strings yanked at any time, day or night, even on weekends, with as little as two hours' notice.
Likewise, if customer traffic in a store is slow, retail workers who got dressed up, battled the morning commute, and reported on time, can simply be sent away after an hour or so – with no pay for their lost hours.
A recent survey of some 400 retail employees in New York City found that only 17 percent have a set schedule. Those with no set hours, also have no set income – and no life. If you're at the beck and call of the boss, what do you do with your children, how do you make a doctor's appointment, what if you're taking a class or trying to work a second job?
This shameful "on-call" practice says that the corporation owns you and that abuse of workers is a legitimate business practice in America. To help stop it, contact the Retail Action Project: www.RetailActionProject.org
Step right up, folks, and take your chances in the Amazing New American Workplace. Constantly high unemployment! Low wages always! No employee bargaining power! A corporate paradise!
This paradise has enriched the already-rich investor elite and rewarded top executives with multimillion-dollar pay packages. It also lets corporations treat the masses of people in today's workforce like Kleenexes: Just use 'em and toss 'em – after all, they're cheap, plentiful... and disposable.
Indeed, taskmasters-in-suits have now redefined the term "hired" to mean that you're tethered to a corporation full-time, but you actually work and get paid for only the few hours a week when the boss calls.
This nefarious practice, known as "on-call shifts," is all the rage among national retail chains. Such giants as Abercrombie & Fitch, Gap, and Urban Outfitters require employees to work without set schedules and to be available to have their strings yanked at any time, day or night, even on weekends, with as little as two hours' notice.
Likewise, if customer traffic in a store is slow, retail workers who got dressed up, battled the morning commute, and reported on time, can simply be sent away after an hour or so – with no pay for their lost hours.
A recent survey of some 400 retail employees in New York City found that only 17 percent have a set schedule. Those with no set hours, also have no set income – and no life. If you're at the beck and call of the boss, what do you do with your children, how do you make a doctor's appointment, what if you're taking a class or trying to work a second job?
This shameful "on-call" practice says that the corporation owns you and that abuse of workers is a legitimate business practice in America. To help stop it, contact the Retail Action Project: www.RetailActionProject.org
Why are homeless veterans in LA being blocked from using Brentwood land donated for their shelter?
Jon Wiener, contributing editor for The Nation, tells Current TV’s John
Fugelsang about an ACLU lawsuit involving a plot of Brentwood, Calif. land
donated to the Veterans Administration specifically to house disabled veterans
more than 100 years ago. The land is now used for a variety of purposes — the
site includes both a parking lot and a dog park —while more than 6,300 veterans
remain homeless in Los Angeles according to a Dec. 2012 Housing Department
report.
“The VA says that while they have an obligation to provide medical care for veterans, they have no obligation to provide housing even though this lawsuit is about severely mentally ill vets who are unable to get the medical treatment they need unless they’re provided with housing on site, basically,” Wiener says.
“It seems like the main reason the VA doesn’t want to house homeless vets on the Brentwood campus is that it’s a very upscale neighborhood – these are multimillion homes sort of down the block, around the corner, and in L.A. the homeowners groups have immense power.”
“The VA says that while they have an obligation to provide medical care for veterans, they have no obligation to provide housing even though this lawsuit is about severely mentally ill vets who are unable to get the medical treatment they need unless they’re provided with housing on site, basically,” Wiener says.
“It seems like the main reason the VA doesn’t want to house homeless vets on the Brentwood campus is that it’s a very upscale neighborhood – these are multimillion homes sort of down the block, around the corner, and in L.A. the homeowners groups have immense power.”
Wednesday, May 15, 2013
Tuesday, May 14, 2013
Bakersfield police seize eyewitness footage after allegedly beating a man to death
Mark Thompson, Ana Kasparian, Jayar Jackson, and The Young Turks producer Hermela Aregawi
break down the allegations that Bakersfield, CA police officers beated a man to
death, and forced witnesses to surrender recorded evidence.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)