Republicans have a bridge that they want to sell you

Visit NBCNews.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

Two Million People Worldwide Protest Against Monsanto

By Abby Miller

On May 25th, millions of people gathered in cities all over the world to “March Against Monsanto,” protesting both the genetically modified crops they create as well as their unethical business practices. The media barely noticed.

Just a few short months ago, a Facebook page popped up which made a simple plea:

I’m tired of the poisoning of our food supply. Will you help me organize a rally in your area? May 25th, 2013. Spread the word, Please!!

March Against Monsanto Facebook page. Despite the large turnout all over the world, very little of substance is being reported through the mainstream media. Las Vegas resident Andrew Garcia, who attended yesterday’s march in the heart of Sin City joined by his girlfriend and her sister, noted that he didn’t see a single reporter or news truck at the event.

There were at least 2,500 people there, and not one of them was a reporter. To actually see with my own eyes how much they are trying to cover up makes me sick.

Many media accounts that are available are based largely on one Associated Press article. The Washington Post, The Huffington Post, USA Today, and others all report on the marches with the same AP article, adding little to no actual reporting. ABC News didn’t even bother with the entire article, but just small snippets of it. One has to wonder at the reasons for not properly covering an event this widespread. Further, the article makes Monsanto sound like a saint of a company, saving the world one genetically modified crop at a time, eradicating hunger in the face of constant adversity from lunatic activists who are making a big deal out of nothing.

So what exactly is the purpose of protesting Monsanto?

Garcia says that what brought Monsanto to his attention was the 2003 documentary “The Corporation,” which tells the story of Jane Akre and Steve Wilson, reporters for a Fox news station in Tampa, Florida. In the late 1990s, Akre and Wilson began work on a story investigating Monsanto’s use of recombinant bovine human growth hormone (or rBGH), an additive that increases a cow’s milk supply. There had been controversy surrounding rBGH, and the two reporters found that despite the FDA approval, the technology was believed to be the cause of various health concerns in both cows and humans. ”The reporters were silenced by Monsanto, forced out of business and their image destroyed,” said Garcia.

On top of that, he says, the treatment of small farmers by Monsanto has left behind a vile taste, referring to the lawsuits Monsanto has filed against small farmers for theft of intellectual property; that is, their seeds. Each Monsanto seed is encoded with patented gene technology that makes it resistant to their pesticides, for which Monsanto charges a royalty. Their dominance of the market makes it practically impossible to find seeds that haven’t been affected by such a gene. If a farmer doesn’t pay the royalty, even if it was used by no intention of their own, such as in the case of pollination, Monsanto takes them to court. Often, the court costs alone put the small farmer out of business, regardless of whether or not they win their case.

As good a reason as all the above is to protest against Monsanto, many people cite the harm created by genetically modified crops as their main motivation for bringing awareness to the issue. On the March Against Monsanto website, the group gives the following reasons under the title “Why do we march?”:

• Research studies have shown that Monsanto’s genetically-modified foods can lead to serious health conditions such as the development of cancer tumors, infertility and birth defects.
• Monsanto’s GM seeds are harmful to the environment; for example, scientists have indicated they have contributed to Colony Collapse Disorder among the world’s bee population.
• For too long, Monsanto has been the benefactor of corporate subsidies and political favoritism. Organic and small farmers suffer losses while Monsanto continues to forge its monopoly over the world’s food supply, including exclusive patenting rights over seeds and genetic makeup.

On their Facebook page, March Against Monsanto estimates that two million people in fifty-five countries joined in the protest, and it is certain that many others would have joined but were, for whatever reason, unable. But, what now, after the march has passed? The protest doesn’t end, say the group organizers, just because the march has.

 Taking care to look at what you eat, demanding local food, and growing a garden are all wonderful ways of keeping the fight against Monsanto alive. And for those of you who are so technologically inclined, don’t forget about that ‘Buycott’ app.

How to not get your ass kicked by the police

Really funny video from the Chris Rock show on how to not get your ass kicked by the police.

Tax Attacks

What kind of person would name their child Reinhold Reince Priebus? dlevere.

Visit NBCNews.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

Remember When Rush Limbaugh Got Punked By A Liberal On His Show?

By Leslie Salzillo

This is classic. It’s a classic video, and even more, a delightful earful of classic Rush Limbaugh getting punked – by a liberal. As Limbaugh is stumped, he phooeys, fumbles, snorts and sniggers, searching for answer, or some kind of reason. I LOVE IT!

Now, when I say classic, I also mean in age. The video was uploaded to YouTube in 2011, yet ironically, much of the conversation is still relevant today. Majority Report host, Sam Seder, guides us through the fun-filled audio of ‘Limbaugh v. Liberal.’

In the video, caller Mike Stark, grills Limbaugh on Reaganomics, Social Security, Guantanamo, The Greenspan Commission, Iran… and Limbaugh is flailing. Somehow the screening process of callers must have failed the producers and Limbaugh was caught off guard and busted. These days, Rush takes no such chances. You will rarely hear a caller argue with him about anything, unless it’s a Limbaugh ‘plant’ to help him with one of his fabrications. Most of the time Limbaugh is ‘his own show’ with no one to challenge or ague his lies, and right-wing propaganda.

For me, the very best part about this audio/video is listening to Limbaugh try to bullshit his way out the entire conversation. And I enjoy watching Sam Seder do his impressions of Limbaugh as he gleefully interprets the discourse between Stark and Limbaugh.

Towards the end of the video, it’s obvious that Limbaugh/his producers have muted our lovable liberal. Limbaugh then rambles on, into a place called nowhere, as he awaits pertinent information from his producers in order to debate Stark. You can almost hear when that information is given to Rush. Meanwhile, the audience is led to believe Stark is still on the line listening to Limbaugh’s pearls of renewed wisdom – without objection.

Sit back and enjoy… here is the video:

This is one instance when I can handle listening to Limbaugh. His voice rings high on the cringe-factor scale for me much like the voices Beck, Hannity, Gingrich, and George W. Okay, let’s add Palin, Ryan, Bachmann, Paul, McConnell and Boehner… you know what I mean. For several months last year, after Rush Limbaugh’s verbal attack on Sandra Fluke where he called her a ‘slut’ and ‘prostitute,’ I had to listen to his show three hours a day, five days a week. Why would I do that? Why would anyone do that? As it turns out a good many liberal volunteers did the same. We were tracking ads/sponsors, helping to create the Limbaugh boycotts that do thrive today.

The video above is lightweight and amusing. To truly appreciate it, one would have to be aware of Limbaugh’s continuous and blatant sexism, racism, and gay-hating bigotry. The protests against his smut are massive. Consumers, activists and every-day people have joined and are contacting his sponsors to let them know they will no longer buy from companies that support Rush Limbaugh. And it’s working.

Women’s rights organizations like NOW and UniteWomen.org, as well as other large groups like AddictingInfo.org, Daily Kos, Being Liberal, and Media Matters have been fully supportive and contributed much to the movement. 95% of Cumulus Radio Network advertisers are requesting No-Rush clauses when buying airtime. Power to the people.

To become involved: 

Check Out/Sign This: Petition To Clear Channel and 40 Limbaugh Sponsors
Join: Boycott-Rush-Limbaughs-Sponsors-to-SHUT-HIM-DOWN
Visit: The StopRush Database

Meanwhile, I’m wondering what kind of rating Rotten Tomatoes would give this film. Bye, bye, Rush.

(The author, Leslie Salzillo, is an activist, political commentator, diarist and visual artist. Salzillo often writes diaries in Daily Kos, and began contributing to AddictingInfo.org in March 2013.)

The Elder Scrolls Told of Their Return

Winner of more than 200 Game of the Year awards, experience the complete Skyrim collection with The Elder Scrolls V: Skyrim^® Legendary Edition. The Legendary Edition includes the original critically-acclaimed game, official add-ons – Dawnguard^™, Hearthfire^™, and Dragonborn^™ – and added features like combat cameras, mounted combat, Legendary difficulty mode for hardcore players, and Legendary skills – enabling you to master every perk and level up your skills infinitely.

• Live Another Life, In Another World - Play any type of character you can imagine, and do whatever you want; the freedom of choice, storytelling, and adventure of The Elder Scrolls comes to life in one legendary experience complete with added weapons, armor, spells, and shouts from all three official add-ons.

• Dawnguard - The Vampire Lord Harkon has returned to power. By using the Elder Scrolls, he seeks to do the unthinkable - to end the sun itself. Will you join the ancient order of the Dawnguard and stop him? Or will you become a Vampire Lord? In Dawnguard, the ultimate choice will be yours.

• Hearthfire - Purchase land and build your own home from the ground up - from a simple one-room cottage to a sprawling compound complete with an armory, alchemy laboratory, and more. Use all-new tools like the drafting table and carpenter’s workbench to turn stone, clay, and sawn logs into structures and furnishings. Even transform your house into a home by adopting children.

• Dragonborn - Journey off the coast of Morrowind, to the vast island of Solstheim.Traverse the ash wastes and glacial valleys of this new land as you become more powerful with shouts that bend the will of your enemies and even tame dragons. Your fate, and the fate of Solstheim, hangs in the balance as you face off against your deadliest adversary – the first Dragonborn.

 Available 06.04.2013 on Xbox 360, PS3 and PC

 

Alex Jones Claims Tragedy In Oklahoma Caused By Tornado Created By Super Villain Obama

By Nathaniel Downes

Alex Jones and reality have not been on speaking terms for years. This time, the right-wing whackadoodle who earlier claimed the Boston marathon bombing was a false-flag operation until it was revealed that the bomber was a fan, has come out and claimed that Obama is a super villain, with the power to control the weather! And to demonstrate his power, the president decided on using it on poor, helpless Oklahoma:

Now, this is not the first time that Alex Jones and other conspiracy theorists have claimed that the government has the ability to create weather. We can all recall a similar claim made last year, that Obama created a hurricane to disrupt the Republican National Convention. Now it is that Obama, and the “evil government” are out to destroy random citizens in Oklahoma. This is a plot right out of a super villain handbook.

At least with the hurricane, it actually had a purpose, to these conspiracy theorists. This time, it is pure villany. No reason is given, no logic behind the operation, it is being done just for pure evils sake. But for Alex Jones and his audience, it is the proof of their idea that the government is evil.

Proof, who needs proof? They know it has to be the government, because who else would be so evil?

What do you mean that tornado’s happen? This one hurt people, that has to be the government, you understand! They are super villains, out to destroy “the American way of life” by doing… something? The leap of logic Alex Jones needs to make this claim is so vast, it dwarfs the imagination even contemplating it.

It is a tragedy, and it is of no surprise that Alex Jones is seeking to exploit it in order to fill his own coffers. Now he will seek to exploit this tragedy to push his latest books, podcasts, feeding the paranoia of those like Tamerlan Tsarnaev who then act out as lone wolves, carrying out terrorist attacks against the very government which Alex Jones is wishing to bring down.

---

Nathaniel Downes is the son of a former state representative of New Hampshire, now living in Seattle Washington.

Feel free to follow Nathaniel Downes on Facebook.

Oklahoma should fire its senators for voting against federal disaster relief

Cenk Uygur, political reporter Joe Williams, and Mediaite's Noah Rothman debate whether Oklahoma should receive federal disaster relief funding when the Republican senators for Oklahoma, Tom Coburn and Jim Inhofe, have historically voted against aid for other states.

Cenk says they shouldn’t be given funds but will be because Democrats are nicer. Williams says, “That’s the issue, isn’t it? Government is always your enemy until you need a friend.”

Rand Paul outraged, but not entirely sure why

By Hunter

The Republican Party needs to pour themselves a stiff drink and contemplate how it came to be that Rand Paul, unaccomplished scion of a man the old party hands tried their level best to ignore, became one of the big party names, and a leader of whatever-the-hell-passes-for-a-movement-these-days.

I know this much about what I'm talking about.

CNN:

Sen. Rand Paul claimed Sunday there was a "written policy" floating around the agency that said IRS officials were "targeting people who were opposed to the president." "And when that comes forward, we need to know who wrote the policy and who approved the policy," the Republican senator from Kentucky said on CNN's "State of the Union."

Except that he apparently pulled this particular memo from deep inside his own colon, because he doesn't actually know if the "written policy" he's talking about really even exists:

Pressed for more precise details about the memo he was referring to, Paul said he hasn't seen such a policy statement but has heard about it.

"Well, we keep hearing the reports and we have several specifically worded items saying who was being targeted. In fact, one of the bullet points says those who are critical of the president. So I don't know if that comes from a policy, but that's what's being reported in the press and reported orally," he told CNN's chief political correspondent Candy Crowley. "I haven't seen a policy statement, but I think we need to see that."

Unless Paul is privy to a Magic Memo that the rest of us haven't seen (and he says he himself hasn't seen, thus complicating things further), he seems to be misrepresenting things at best: What bullet point we do know of was to focus on nonprofit applications critical of the government, not the president—and again, the apparent goal was to filter out primarily political groups in an application process that was supposed to specifically disqualify, by law, political groups. The "scandal" part of the "scandal" would be that certain groups were targeted by name, e.g. "Tea Party", which would focus on one certain narrow part of the political spectrum.

That apparently political groups were targeted for extra scrutiny when seeking nonprofit status, however, is exactly what was supposed to happen—or what was supposed to happen if we still had any pretense that our election law wasn't caught somewhere between ineptitude and outright crookedness.

Part of the problem Republicans have in their efforts to tar the administration with various scandals is that they're such shameless fabricators they can't even hold together their own narratives. By the time they've gone through their various iterations of the old "telephone" game, nobody can quite figure out what they're going on about, much less how much of it is real and how much of it is people like Darrell Issa and Rand Paul and Peggy Noonan just making things up.

Coburn already demanding offsets for tornado relief

By Joan McCarter

The dust in Moore, Oklahoma had barely settled, the search and rescue operations still active, on Monday evening when Sen. Tom Coburn declared that his own state will only get aid if money is taken from someone else.

Sen. Tom Coburn, ghoul

 

CQ Roll Call reporter Jennifer Scholtes wrote for CQ.com Monday evening that Coburn said he would “absolutely” demand offsets for any federal aid that Congress provides.

Coburn added, Scholtes wrote, that it is too early to guess at a damage toll but that he knows for certain he will fight to make sure disaster funding that the federal government contributes is paid for.

It’s a position he has taken repeatedly during his career when Congress debates emergency funding for disaster aid.
 

At least he's consistent. He was one of 36 senators to vote against Sandy relief, and both he and his Oklahoma colleague, Jim Inhofe, supported an amendment that would have slashed the $60 billion Sandy relief to just $23 billion. Coburn said Sandy relief was "wasteful spending," and his buddy Inhofe called it a "slush fund." He's changing his tune on disaster relief, though, now that it's his state.

Sen. Inhofe to @JansingCo: his labeling of Hurricane Sandy bill as a "slush fund" is "totally different" than Okla tornado relief.
— @kasie via Twitter for iPhone

Inhofe apparently won't go along with Coburn on this one, and he's not the only one. The sheer scope of the destruction Monday appears to have shaken some sense into House Republicans. Speaker John Boehner told reporters: "We’ll work with the administration to make sure they have the resources they need." Appropriations Chair Hal Rogers added:

Approps Chair Rogers on OK disaster $: "don't think disasters of this type should be offset. We have an obilgation to help these people"
— @deirdrewalshcnn via TweetDeck

On this one, Coburn might be on his own, and might not be able to get 39 other Republicans on his side to block a disaster relief bill in the Senate. It's too early to know what the need is going to be in Oklahoma, but the price tag for tornado-ravaged Joplin, Missouri two years ago was more than $200 million.  

Washington police arrest 17 in Occupy Justice foreclosure protests. Actions continue today

 By Meteor Blades

They knew some of them would be arrested Monday and 17 of them were. They were homeowners from across the nation demonstrating outside the Department of Justice offices in Washington, D.C., against the government's years-long failure to take legal action against banks. Some of the protesters were tazed. A coalition made of Occupy Wall Street, Occupy Homes, the Home Defenders League and the Campaign for a Fair Settlement, among others, the crux of demonstrators' message was that shielding the banks that are too big to fail is cowardly and unjust:

Five years after Wall Street crashed the economy, not one banker has been prosecuted for the reckless and fraudulent practices that cost millions of Americans their jobs, threw our cities and schools into crisis, and left families and communities ravaged by a foreclosure crisis and epidemic of underwater mortgages.

Nobody from DOJ came outside to talk with the protesters. Read below the fold for more on what sparked the protests:

The government worked out a $9.2 billion deal with the banks, with $3.3 billion meant to go to some four million eligible homeowners who had been foreclosed on in 2009 and 2010. Although the original plan was to have an independent review of how much each homeowner was owed, ultimately the decision was made to let the banks themselves decide. As an inevitable consequence of this ludicrous approach, many of those seeking foreclosure relief say they were unfairly compensated. For instance, Eric Krasner of Frederick, Maryland, was foreclosed on in 2010:

Krasner figured he was owed $62,000 from the settlement, but when his check came, he received only $2,000. Many in his situation received as little as $300 in compensation. "Until Eric Holder does his job and puts bankers in jail, this is going to continue," Krasner said.

A new report from Home Defenders League, Alliance for a Just Society and New Bottom Line Wasted Wealth: How the Wall Street Crash Continues to Stall Economic Recovery and Deepen Racial Inequity in America, points out the continuing impact on individuals and the economy from the foreclosure crisis. Some highlights:

The foreclosure crisis continued to destroy wealth on a large scale in 2012: Three years after the reported end of the Great Recession, the foreclosure crisis continued to destroy wealth on a large scale in 2012, with192.6 billion in wealth lost due to foreclosures across the U.S., an average of1,679 in lost wealth per household for each of the country’s 114.7 million households.

The most devastating impacts of the ongoing foreclosure crisis were in majority communities of color and racially diverse communities: ZIP codes with majority people of color populations saw 16 foreclosures per thousand households with an average of2,200 in lost wealth per household. In sharp contrast, segregated White communities experienced only 10 foreclosures per thousand households and an average wealth loss of1,300 per household.

More than 13 million homes are still underwater and at risk of foreclosure and more lost wealth: For reporting ZIP codes, there are at least 13.2 million underwater mortgages (when a homeowner owes more than the home is worth) on the books.1 The Congressional Budget Office estimates that 13% of underwater homeowners are already “seriously delinquent” on mortgage payments — they are foreclosures-in-waiting.2 If action is not taken to prevent these mortgages from going into foreclosure, Americans stand to lose nearly221 billion in additional wealth from these mortgages alone.

A strategy of principal reduction would save money for homeowners, boost the economy, and create jobs: Principal reduction—writing down underwater mortgages to current market values—would create significant savings for underwater homeowners. It would also generate new economic activity and create jobs in local economies. Using 2012 data, a principal reduction program could produce average annual savings of7,710 per underwater homeowner nationwide, boost the U.S. economy to the tune of101.7 billion, and create 1.5 million jobs.

Unemployment and underemployment contribute to the widening racial wealth divide. Median wealth ratios measure White wealth for every dollar of wealth for people of color. In 1995, the ratio of White to Black wealth was 7-to-1. In 2004, it was 11-to-1. By the reported end of the Great Recession 2009, it had ballooned to 19-to-1. For Latinos, the White-to-Hispanic wealth ratio was 7-to-1 in 2004. Five years later, it was 15-to-1. Wealth was lost across the board from the Great Recession, but significantly more so for people of color. From 2005 to 2009, White median net worth fell 16% to113,149. But net worth fell by 66% for Latinos to 18,359, and 53% for Blacks to 12,124.

The protesters' chief goals sound like an echo: prosecute Wall Street bankers; end the foreclosure crisis by resetting mortgages to their current value (“principal reduction”); restore and rebuild wealth stolen from communities of color that have been the hardest hit.
Meanwhile, they get tazed and arrested while the bailed-out bankers have returned to collecting their gargantuan bonuses with no fear that anybody in authority is going to give them any grief.

Originally posted to Meteor Blades on Tue May 21, 2013 at 08:01 AM PDT.

Also republished by Daily Kos.

How Apple Used Shell Companies to Save $44 Billion in Taxes

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.

Batman Arkham Origins Trailer

Can Obama weather the storm?

Visit NBCNews.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

Eric Cantor's con would steal workers' overtime pay

Posted by Jim Hightower

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.

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.

IRS Apology for Tea Party Racists?

If any other group called for the government's demise, the GOP would have a fit.

By Edward Wyckoff Williams
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

100 Reasons Why President Obama Is NOT The Same As President Bush

By Stephen D. Foster Jr.

President Obama and President Bush should never be compared to one another. Ever. These men couldn’t be more different when it comes to policy, personality, and decision-making. In fact, let us count the 100 different ways in which the two men governed; differences that will remind us all why we should be glad that Bush is not still in the White House.

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.