Is Congress drinking Grover Norquist koolaid? (or will it fund IRS appropriately

from Angry Bear - Financial and Economic Commentary by Dan Crawford (Rdan) by Linda Beale

  Is Congress drinking Grover Norquist koolaid? (or will it fund IRS appropriately)


IRS Commissioner Doug Shulman testified before the House Appropriations Financial Services and General Government Subcommittee on President Obama’s proposed 2013 budget for the IRS. Shulman wants Congress to provide adequate funding to the IRS to support its enforcement function. The IRS has 5000 fewer employees this filing season than in 2011, and Shulman is worried about the impact of that decline in enforcement capability on compliance and collections. See Rubin, IRS Eliminated 5,000 Jobs in past year amid budget cuts, Bloomberg (Mar.21, 2012).

Now, those "starve-the-beast" types that drink the Grover Norquist koolaid are generally just eager to kill all government, and particularly government programs that help ordinary people, are concerned with the general public good, or help ensure the vitality of important government programs. 

• So it seems that the right has no trouble talking about a need to return the US's dismal health care system back to what it was before the little bit of progress accomplished in the Obama health reform legislation--they talk about eliminating government interference, but what they mean is letting health care profit centers, doctors, and insurers continue to rip off the American public that can least afford it with rentier profits.
• And the right has no trouble with unfunding the EPA or enacting foolish laws restricting the agency's ability to protect ordinary Americans' health, livelihood, and simple quality of life through much needed environmental regulations that protect, air, water, land, and natural resources for the future. Two examples--the right's push to "drill, baby, drill" with the claim that a trickle more of US oil will dent world prices (nope); and the right's push for the Keystone Pipeline no matter what the cost in aquifers or natural environments, even though the benefits are likely to be miniscule (VERY few jobs; no real impact on world energy prices).
• The right wants to privatize Medicare--that means that it would take a program that has proven it can deliver health care more affordably to all its participants than privately financed "competitive" health care, and make it into its poorly functioning cousin. One suspects that the goal here is to bury a government program that is working as intended, so that it will be even harder to move to the obvious solution for health care that the rest of the developed world recognized decades ago--Medicare for all, or a "single payer" system that has clout, provides portability and fairness.

And a component of the "starve-the-best; no-tax-increases-ever" koolaid package seems to be a desire to let the rich (the natural constituents of the right) get richer by continuing to be let off the hook on paying their fair share of taxes, while the overwhelming majority of Americans slip back into a much less hospitable context of just barely getting by. Taxes, of course, are one of the ways that is done, because it is so easy to hide the real purpose under a facade of caring about deficits (cut "entitlement" programs to save money) or growth (expand subdidies for the rich, to "grow" the economy).

So the IRS suffered from budget cuts that reduced its enforcement personnel. The result, of course, means fewer trained government officers to audit taxpayers and to investigate scandals like the wealthy millionaires and billionaires hiding their wealth overseas to avoid paying their fair share of taxes. And the danger is that criminal and civil tax evasion will be missed, because there are so few audits (only 1% audited annually) or that even compliant taxpayers will start to take their chances with the audit lottery once they realized that the IRS is part of the beast that the right is starving to death.

So Shulman is worried, he says, that budget cuts will erode voluntary compliance. He wants $12.8 billion for the IRS for the new fiscal year, an 8% increase. Rubin, IRS Eliminated 5,000 Jobs in past year amid budget cuts, Bloomberg (Mar.21, 2012).

He should get it. Every dollar spent on enforcement brings in multiples of revenues, so the cost-benefit analysis clearly favors adequately funding the IRS enforcement budget so that it can do its job. That helps in two ways--it produces revenues that reduce the deficit, and it reminds people that our voluntary compliance system is backed up by enforcement of the laws--they can't just cheat and play the audit lottery with high hopes of getting by.

And cutting the IRS does "long-term damage". Jose Serrano, Id.

So will Congress keep swallowing the Norquist Koolaid, or will it buckle down and make decisions that support the wellbeing of our nation and of our people? We will see.

crossposted with ataxingmatter

How Grover Norquist Anti-Tax Pledge Could Foil GOP’s Latest Obamacare Repeal Push | TPMDC

How Grover Norquist Anti-Tax Pledge Could Foil GOP’s Latest Obamacare Repeal Push | TPMDC

How Grover Norquist Anti-Tax Pledge Could Foil GOP’s Latest Obamacare Repeal Push

Grover Norquist

share

Brian Beutler November 9, 2011, 3:28 PM 12003 150

Here’s one example of how Grover Norquist’s Taxpayer Protection Pledge boxes in Republican members, even on issues near and dear to the GOP base.
The details here were first reported by Inside Health Policy but it illustrates a point Republicans on the deficit Super Committee are all too familiar with. Starting in 2014, the health care law will automatically start providing tax credits for individual market health care policies — the subsidies that will help uninsured people buy coverage.
Republicans want to stop the money from going out before it starts, so they’ve introduced legislation to repeal the subsidies. Except, since these are tax credits and not direct spending, repealing them could count as a tax increase as far as the taxpayer protection pledge is concerned.
At a Tuesday meeting Norquist’s top tax guy Ryan Ellis and aides to Rep. Denny Rehberg (R-MT) — the chair of the House Appropriations Health Subcommittee — met to chew this over. Now Ellis is writing to clarify that Norquist’s group Americans for Tax Reform hasn’t taken a position on the issue yet.
“In my capacity as Tax Policy Director at Americans for Tax Reform, I met yesterday with members of Congressman Rehberg’s staff to discuss their bill,” Ellis acknowledged. “As with any legislation that impacts the tax code, I was interested to confirm that the bill would not score out as a net tax increase. Congressman Rehberg’s staff told me that while they do not have a score from CBO or JCT, they are confident that their bill will not score out as a net tax increase. Should they be supervised by a score, they committed to improving the bill to ensure that no net tax increase occurs…. Given that ATR does not pre-judge this latter question before a score is obtained, ATR has no issues with H.R. 3243. Reports that we did were premature at best and irresponsible journalism at worst.”
Repealing the whole law would obviously score as a big tax cut (even though it would also score as a significant deficit booster). But focusing on the subsidies on their own might require fancy footwork by Republicans, Norquist, or both.
Republicans on the Super Committee are struggling with a similar issue. Though they’ve refused to raise tax rates they’ve largely conceded that new tax revenues will have to be part of the broader package. To square this, they’re eying credits, deductions and other “spending in the tax code” for elimination. But that’s a no-no as far as Norquist is concerned. Yesterday he chided Republican lawmakers for even considering such a breach of the pledge. And perhaps he’ll prevail — but as Democrats have made clear, that’s a recipe for Super Committee failure.

Denny Rehberg, Grover Norquist, Health Care, Obamacare, Super Committee, Tax Cuts, Taxes, tcot

Brian Beutler

Brian Beutler is TPM's senior congressional reporter. Since 2009, he's led coverage of health care reform, wall street reform, taxes, the GOP budget, the government shutdown fight, and the debt limit fight. He can be reached at brian@talkingpointsmemo.com.

Grover Norquist's Eerie Influence, Continued | Mother Jones

Grover Norquist's Eerie Influence, Continued | Mother Jones

Norquist’s group won’t remove names of House members disavowing tax pledge - The Hill's On The Money

Norquist’s group won’t remove names of House members disavowing tax pledge - The Hill's On The Money

Norquist’s group won’t remove names of House members disavowing tax pledge

By Russell Berman and Bernie Becker - 11/09/11 04:21 PM ET

Grover Norquist’s group, Americans for Tax Reform, says it will not remove the names of House members who have disavowed its pledge to oppose tax increases.
Several Republican lawmakers and one Democrat have told The Hill they no longer feel bound to uphold Norquist’s Taxpayer Protection Pledge, which many of them signed more than a decade ago.
But Norquist is not letting them off the hook, insisting that all candidates were told at the time they signed the pledge that it bound them for the duration of their time in office, and not simply for a single term, as some lawmakers have contended. He said that candidates are sent the pledge and an accompanying question-and-answer sheet, which states that pledge-signers do not have to affirm the pledge when they seek reelection and that they “are bound for the duration of their tenure in the office to which they are elected.”

“A politician who says he or she did not know that the Taxpayer Protection Pledge was a commitment to voters for the duration of his/her time in office is not telling the truth,” Norquist said Wednesday.
Reps. Steven LaTourette (R-Ohio), Mike Simpson (R-Idaho) and Robert Andrews (D-N.J.) are all listed on ATR’s website as signers of the pledge but told The Hill they considered the promise good for one term and accused the anti-tax group of deceptively suggesting they were signers “in the 112th Congress.” Andrews, who signed the pledge in 1992, is asking that his name be removed from the list. Several other House Republicans listed as signers also indicated they did not currently feel bound by the pledge.
Asked if ATR would remove those lawmakers, spokesman John Kartch said: “Any congressman who wants to tell his constituents that he lied his way into office is free to do so at any time. They were elected and re-elected promising their voters they would never raise taxes. ATR cannot change the facts or history.”

RELATED ARTICLES

• House GOP lawmakers want out of pledge

Earlier Wednesday, Norquist took Andrews to task on Twitter, writing in a pair of posts that “the tax pledge is promise [sic] to oppose tax hikes as long as one is in Congress. Not, until you change your mind. … but you know this because it was written down in Questions and Answers attached to pledge you signed.”

The centrist group No Labels on Wednesday applauded the GOP lawmakers who renounced the pledge. “No Labels commends lawmakers with the courage to cut ties to hyper-partisan interest groups and focus

Grover Norquist fires back at Rep. Andrews over Twitter - The Hill's Blog Briefing Room

Grover Norquist fires back at Rep. Andrews over Twitter - The Hill's Blog Briefing Room

Grover Norquist: The Billionaires' Best Friend

How the anti-tax activist hijacked the GOP on behalf of the rich

Read more: http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/grover-norquist-the-billionaires-best-friend-20111109#ixzz1dEHhtRJe

Comment 1

By Tim Dickinson

November 9, 2011 7:00 AM ET

Grover G. Norquist during an interview in his office

Scott J. Ferrell/Getty

Grover Norquist has never held elected office. He's not a political appointee or a congressional staffer, and few voters know his name. Yet this anti-tax lobbyist wields immense power over the Republican Party, enforcing a hard-line position that compels the GOP to protect tax breaks for the rich and billions in federal subsidies for America's wealthiest corporations. "It all comes from a single guy," says Alan Simpson, the former Republican senator. So how does Norquist do it?

Norquist's influence over the GOP began in 1985, when Ronald Reagan tapped the little-known staffer at the Chamber of Commerce to head up Americans for Tax Reform, a pressure group organized to push a comprehensive tax package through Congress. With backing from the Chamber, Norquist – a Harvard MBA and former head of the College Republicans – challenged GOP candidates to take a two-part pledge: that they would never raise taxes, and that they would only close tax loopholes if the additional revenue was used to pay for further tax cuts. Before long, he had 102 congressmen and 16 senators signed up.

Over the past 25 years, Norquist has received funding from many of America's wealthiest corporations, including Philip Morris, Pfizer and Micro­soft. To build a farm team of anti-tax conservatives, Norquist shrewdly took the pledge to state legislatures across the country, pressuring up-and- coming Republicans to make it a core issue before they're called up to the big leagues. "We're branding the whole party that way," Norquist says. "The people who are going to be running for Congress in 10 or 20 years are coming out of state legislatures with a history with the pledge."

Norquist also built the anti-tax pledge into the DNA of the GOP by hosting weekly Wednesday meetings that enable activist groups representing everyone from gun nuts to home-schoolers to mix with top business lobbyists and conservative officials. The meetings, which began shortly after Bill Clinton was elected, turned Norquist into the Republican Party's foremost power broker – and gave him a forum to enforce the no-new-taxes pledge as the centerpiece of the GOP's strategy. "The tax issue," he says, "is the one thing everyone agrees on."

Norquist cemented his influence by forging an early alliance with Karl Rove and setting himself up as a gatekeeper to George W. Bush's inner circle. Then, after Obama was elected, this ultimate Washington insider positioned himself as a leader of the anti-establishment Tea Party, complete with financial support from the billionaire Koch brothers. "These Tea Party people, in effect, take their orders from him," says Bruce Bartlett, an architect of the Reagan tax cuts. "He decides: This is a permissible tax action, or this is not a permissible tax action. And of course, anything that cuts taxes is per se OK."

Today, GOP politicians who have signed Norquist's anti-tax pledge include every top Republican running for president, 13 governors, 1,300 state lawmakers, 40 of the 47 Republicans in the Senate, and 236 of the 242 Republicans in the House. What's more, the GOP's Tea Party foot soldiers are marshaled by House Majority Leader Eric Cantor – a veteran of Norquist's farm team, who first signed the pledge as an ambitious member of the Virginia legislature. Under Cantor's leadership, Norquist's anti-tax pledge was directly responsible for last summer's debt-ceiling standoff that wrecked the nation's credit rating by leading the nation to the brink of default. "Congress was willing to cause severe economic damage to the entire population," marvels Paul O'Neill, Bush's former Treasury secretary, "simply because they were slaves to an idiot's idea of how the world works."

This story is from the November 24, 2011 issue of Rolling Stone.
Related
• How the GOP Became the Party of the Rich
• The Enablers: Democrats on Board With the Party of the Rich

Read more: http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/grover-norquist-the-billionaires-best-friend-20111109#ixzz1dEHscvQa

Some GOP lawmakers distance themselves from tax pledge By Gregory Korte, USA TODAY

WASHINGTON – At least two Republican congressmen say they don't remember signing it. One signed it, but has since disavowed it. A half dozen have bucked pressure from within their own party and never signed it.

• 
  Eric Francis, for USA TODAY
  Rep. Jeff Fortenberry has informed Norquist's Americans for Tax Reform that he no longer wishes to be associated with the pledge.

Enlarge

Eric Francis, for USA TODAY

Rep. Jeff Fortenberry has informed Norquist's Americans for Tax Reform that he no longer wishes to be associated with the pledge.

And a few others say they support the Taxpayer Protection Pledge in principle but would sooner violate the pledge than turn their back on a deal to reduce federal spending.

For more than two decades, the pledge written by activistGrover Norquist has been essential job application paperwork for any conservative Republican seeking a seat in Congress.

But a small number of GOP House members are joining Senate colleagues in distancing themselves from the pledge, as Congress works on a compromise to reduce the deficit.

That distance has taken a number of forms, from amnesia to outright disavowal:

•Not constrained: Rep. Jeff Fortenberry, R-Neb., has informed Norquist's Americans for Tax Reform that he no longer wishes to be associated with the pledge, though his name still appears on the group's website. "When you look at something like ending the ethanol subsidy, if that's considered a tax increase, I can't be constrained by that," he told USA TODAY. "Things have to be on the table."

•Agree in principle, if not in practice? Rep. Dennis Ross, R-Fla., stands behind the "spirit" of the pledge, but "does not believe that the pledge prevents him from supporting tax reform that includes tax increases in some instances or closing loopholes," said his chief of staff Fredrick Piccolo Jr. If raising some taxes to solve the debt crisis means angering Norquist, Piccolo said, "he'll anger Grover Norquist."

A spokesman for Rep. Sean Duffy, R-Wis., said Wisconsinites are interested in revenues in general, not the specifics of the Norquist pledge. "That's why Congressman Duffy has voted to get rid of loopholes and deductions in an effort to make the corporate tax code fairer and flatter and more competitive," said his chief of staff, Brandon Moody. Does that mean Duffy could support a deal that ends tax breaks for some people? "He'll take each vote as they come and make an informed decision based on the specifics of the proposal or bill," Moody said.

•Don't remember: At a town-hall-style forum last month, a constituent challenged Rep.Lee Terry, R-Neb., about his signing of the pledge. "I did?" Terry responded. "The list I've seen doesn't have my name on it."

In an interview afterward, Terry said he may have signed the pledge as a candidate in 1998, but wouldn't do so today. "I am so anti-pledges," he said. "At some point, I have to be able to say, 'Look at my record.' And my record shows I have never voted for a tax increase."

Rep. Elton Gallegly, R-Calif., also "doesn't sign pledges," said spokesman Tom Pfeifer. But after retrieving a signed copy of the pledge from Norquist's office, Pfeifer said: "Whether or not he remembered signing something 19 years ago. … after reading the pledge it's clear he has stuck to it."

Thirteen members of Congress — including six in the House of Representatives— have never signed the pledge. One is Rep. Frank Wolf, R-Va.

With increasing amounts of Treasury debt being bought by China, the deficit is a national security and human rights issue so important that "everything has to be on the table," Wolf said — especially tax breaks favoring special interests. "Tax earmarks ought to be eliminated."

Rep. Rob Woodall, R-Ga., also never signed the pledge, saying it "simply reinforces our existing, broken tax code—the same tax code that's laden with 60,000 pages of deductions, exemptions and exclusions designed to curry favor from special interests," he said in a statement. He supports abolishing the income tax and replacing it with a national sales tax.

Norquist's group says 236 congressmen have signed the pledge, agreeing to oppose tax increases for as long as they hold their current office. That's up from 173 congressmen just a year ago, before Republicans took control of the House.

If tax increases are to be part of a deal to decrease the deficit by the end of this year, 19 will have to find a way out of the pledge.

The pledge takes several forms depending on the office. In its simplest version, politicians oppose "any and all efforts to increase taxes."

The pledge for members of Congress is more specific. Congressmen pledge to: "One, oppose any and all efforts to increase the marginal tax rate for individuals and businesses; and TWO, oppose any net reduction or elimination of deductions and credits, unless matched dollar for dollar by further reducing tax rates."

Despite questions about the definition of a tax increase, Norquist has little patience for any equivocation. "Everybody knows what the pledge means. It's very simple. If it raises taxes, it's a tax increase," he said.

Politicians trying to wiggle out of their promise don't have to answer to him, Norquist said. "The commitment is not to Americans for Tax Reform. It's to their constituents."

That's good enough for Sen. Tom Coburn, R-Okla., who has been feuding with Norquist since leading a group of 34 GOP senators — including 31 pledge-signers — to eliminate ethanol subsidies in June.

"Most of us agree with Grover on most of the stuff," Coburn said. "But he's not the one who gets to determine what a tax increase is. We are, and the American people are.

"The more media he gets, the more false power he has, which is more intimidating to people," Coburn said.

If more House members are showing their independence from Norquist in going after tax "earmarks," that could bode well for future deficit reduction efforts, he said.

The Grover Nordquist Hall of Shame - Minnesota Chapter

The Grover Nordquist Hall of Shame - Minnesota Chapter

These members of the legislature have signed a pledge to Grover Norquist to:

"solemnly bind themselves to oppose any and all tax increases"

MINNESOTA

12 Senators of 67

Chris Gerlach (S-37)

David Hann (S-42)

Mike Jungbauer (S-48)

Warren Limmer (S-32)

Geoff Michel (S-41)

Julianne Ortman (S-34)

Claire Robling (S-35)

Charles Wiger (S-55)

Dave Brown (S-16)

Roger C. Chamberlain (S-53)

Paul Gazelka (S-12)

Dan D. Hall (S-40)LR

 

25 House members of 134

Jim Abeler (H-48B)

Bruce Anderson (H-19A)

Mark Buesgens (H-35B)

Matt Dean (H-52B)

Bob Gunther (H-24A)

Tom Hackbarth (H-48A)

Mary Liz Holberg (H-36A)

Larry Howes (H-4B)

Mary Kiffmeyer (H-16B)

Ann Lenczewski (H-40B)

Mary Murphy (H-6B)

Paul Marquart (H-9B)

Bud Nornes (H-10A)

Gene Pelowski (H-31A)

Joyce Peppin (H-32A)

Steven Smith (H-33A)

Torrey Westrom (H-11A)

Kurt Zellers (H-32B)

King Banaian (H-15B)

Bob Dettmer (H-52A)

Sondra Erickson (H-16A)

Carolyn McElfatrick (H-3B)

Linda Runbeck (H-53A)

Chris Swedzinksi (H-21A)

Bruce Vogel (H-13B) 

 

http://sundisinfect.blogspot.com/2011/07/grover-nordquist-hall-of-shame.html

The Enemies Within: The 20 Most Dangerous Conservatives And Their Organizations

August 4, 2011
By Stephen D. Foster Jr.

America has enemies. Not just abroad, but within our shores as well. And our domestic enemies, as it turns out, are MORE dangerous and destructive than the terrorists could ever hope to be. Because while the terrorists want to destroy us, the following people and their organizations are doing far more damage.

1. Roger Ailes: The President of Fox News keeps the right-wing mouth piece biased and unbalanced. He literally proposed a right-wing news network as a propaganda tool to use during the Nixon Administration. And now, Fox News makes every effort to slander Democrats, lie to the public, and support conservative groups, activists and politicians at all costs.
Want to tell Ailes what you think of him? Feel free to contact Fox News Channel by mail, phone, or email.

FOX News Channel
1211 Avenue of the Americas, 2nd Floor, New York, NY 10036
Phone: 212-301-3000
Web: www.foxnews.com

2. The Koch Brothers: Yes, there is more than one Koch brother, but rather than jotting down the same paragraph twice, it makes more sense to combine the two. Charles and David Koch are the owners of Koch Industries, a private oil and chemicals company. They have spent big money in elections and have pretty much bought and paid for all of Republicans that sit on the energy committee. They also have ties to The John Birch Society, of which their father was a founding member, and several other conservative think tanks and organizations including, Americans For Prosperity which David Koch leads as chairman, the Heritage Foundation, the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC), and the Cato Institute. They helped create and fund the Tea Party and have been very influential in the watering down of environmental laws and the destruction of unions. If you really want to see the scope of their influence look at what is happening in Wisconsin and in the U.S. House of Representatives.
I know you must be dying to contact Koch Industries to give them your opinion, so here’s how you can do that.

Koch Industries, Inc.
P.O. Box 2256
Wichita, KS 67201-2256
Phone:316-828-5500
Fax:316-828-5739
info@kochind.com

3. Dick Armey: His FreedomWorks organization helped to create the Tea Party and he has worked closely with the Koch brothers. Armey’s organization seeks to deregulate and tear down reform. He opposed health care reform and is largely responsible for hatred, paranoia and anti-government sentiments displayed at town halls during the health care debate.

FreedomWorks
400 North Capitol Street, NW
Suite 765
Washington, DC 20001
Toll Free Phone: 1-888-564-6273
Local Phone: 202-783-3870
Fax: 202-942-7649

4. Tom Donohue: The US Chamber Of Commerce President gained a hell of a lot more power in the wake of the Citizens United ruling. The Chamber is the largest conservative lobbying group in the country. Representing big corporations more than small businesses, the Chamber opposed health care reform and Wall Street reform. The group is in favor of tearing down any and every law designed to protect the American worker. Donohue once stated that “there are legitimate values in outsourcing — not only jobs, but work….” and once told unemployed people in Ohio to “stop whining”. So, not only is he for deregulation, he supports job killing policies. That is a double dose of dangerous.

U.S. Chamber of Commerce
1615 H Street, NW
Washington, DC 20062-2000
Main Number: 202-659-6000
Phone: 1-800-638-6582

5. Tony Perkins: Perkins is the President of the Family Research Council, a hate group according to the Southern Poverty Law Center. The Council opposes abortion for any reason, believes homosexuality should be against the law, believes in teaching “intelligent design” in schools, and believes global warming is a hoax. FRC was listed as a hate group after it falsely linked gay males to pedophilia. It basically lobbies the government to make laws that govern our personal and private lives. The Council is a Christian Right-wing organization that has a heavy influence on the Republican Party, hence all the abortion laws being proposed by them.

Family Research Council
801 G Street, NW
Washington DC 20001
Phone: 1-800-225-4008

6. Pat Robertson: Robertson founded the Christian Coalition in 1989 and claims to be non-partisan. The problem with this claim is that it’s a bunch of crap. The Christian Coalition passes out “voter guides” in churches and yet is granted tax exempt status. It clearly supports a conservative agenda and is associated with Christian fundamentalism. It is yet another group that believes that America should be a Christian state. They are a threat to the Constitution.

Mailing address:
Christian Coalition of America
PO Box 37030
Washington, DC 20013-7030
Phone: 202-479-6900

7. Edwin Feulner, Jr.: Feulner is the President of the Heritage Foundation, a conservative think tank that took a leading role in the conservative movement during the 1980′s and continues to push conservative ideals today. The Foundation has strong ties to many Republican politicians, and many Heritage personnel members have gone on to serve in senior governmental roles. Not only does it stand by supply side economics and tax cuts for the rich and corporations which led to the current economic crisis, it also believes in a strong defense which has become more and more expensive. Heritage Foundation is also a part of the Koch Foundation Associate Program and is perhaps the most powerful public policy think tank on this list. Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas has taken money from the organization. It has far too much influence on American policy and that influence must be brought to an end.

The Heritage Foundation
214 Massachusetts Ave NE
Washington DC 20002-4999
Phone: 202-546-4400

8. Arthur Thompson: Thompson leads the radical right-wing John Birch Society, which is yet another organization that has Koch family connections. Founded in 1958 by Robert Welch, Jr., the John Birch Society is an anti-communism group that has pretty much denounced every liberal person and policy as socialist. It opposes the Civil Rights Act, the United Nations, and believes in immigration reduction. It aims to dismantle the Federal Reserve System and wants to return to the gold standard. The group is a sponsor of CPAC and is no longer exiled from the mainstream. Another interesting fact is that Fred Koch, father of the aforementioned Koch brothers, was a founding member.

John Birch Society
770 N. Westhill Blvd
Appleton, Wisconsin 54914
Phone: 920-749-3780

9. Rupert Murdoch: Known as “the man who owns the news”, Murdoch controls a vast media empire around the world including Fox News, The New York Post, and the Wall Street Journal here in America. Advertising his media outlets as “fair and balanced” Murdoch and his News Corporation relentlessly push conservative talking points and provide campaign donations to many Republicans running for various positions. News Corporation now has to answer for hacking cell phones and impeding investigations. Long the mouthpiece for Republican propaganda, Murdoch is a threat to Freedom of the Press and the foundations that keep America free.
If you want to contact News Corporation and tell them what you think of them, here is their contact information.

News Corporation
1211 Avenue of Americas
New York, New York 10036
Phone: 212-852-7000
Web: www.newscorp.com

10. Grover Norquist: Norquist is an especially dangerous individual. In fact, at the moment, he has the most influence on Republican congressmen. Republicans in the House and Senate refuse to raise taxes on corporations and the wealthy and Norquist and his group, Americans For Tax Reform, have made sure Republicans continue to do so. 235 members of the House and 41 Senators signed the Norquist pledge to not raise taxes and now our economic future hangs in the balance. Norquist is basically calling the shots and holding America hostage on behalf of the rich. And he isn’t even an elected official.

Americans for Tax Reform
722 12th Street, NW
Fourth Floor
Washington, DC 20005
Office: 202-785-0266
Fax: 202-785-0261

11. David Bossie: Citizens United isn’t just a bad Supreme Court ruling. Citizens United is the conservative organization that the conservative majority of the Supreme Court ruled in favor of in 2008. Founded in 1988, located near Capitol Hill, and led by President and Chairman David Bossie, Citizens United’s goals include withdrawal from the United Nations, and defeat of campaign finance laws, among others. They also produce “documentaries” that serve the conservative agenda. The group is mostly a threat because of their fight to allow corporate ownership of elections. The Koch brothers, and many conservative think tanks and organizations have flooded elections with cash since the ruling. The Supreme Court decision alone is enough to put this dangerous organization and Bossie on the list.

Citizens United
1006 Pennsylvania Ave SE
Washington, DC 20003
Office: (202) 547-5420
Fax: (202) 547-5421

12. Tim LaHaye and Kenneth Cribb: Once again, you’ll notice that two people occupy this spot. After some thought, I decided this was necessary to avoid repetition. Tim Lahaye founded, and Kenneth Cribb is the current President of, the Council for National Policy. The CNP is a conservative organization for social conservative activists. Described by The New York Times as a “little-known group of a few hundred of the most powerful conservatives in the country,” the organization is perhaps the most powerful group on this list. Members include many who are already on this list such as James Dobson, Pat Robertson, Tony Perkins, Phyllis Schlafly, and Edwin Feulner Jr. What makes this group particularly dangerous is that they support theocracy and Dominionism as national policy. They are also incredibly secretive and that’s scary all by itself.

CNP is apparently so secret that no address or phone number is available, so you’ll have to email them.

info@cfnp.org

The Center for National Policy is a 501(c)3. Guidestar.org has its 990s. The address is:
1411 K St NW, Ste 601
Washington, DC 20005
EIN: 72-0921017
13. Steven J. Law: Law is President and CEO of American Crossroads, a conservative organization that has raised and spent tens of millions of dollars to defend and elect Republican candidates to federal office, and was very active in the 2010 U.S. midterm elections. Basically, Law and his group are listed because they have taken advantage of the Citizens United Supreme Court decision the most since the ruling. The Kochs and Karl Rove have connections with the group and are a major reason why the House is under GOP control.

American Crossroads
P.O. Box 34413
Washington, DC 20043
Phone: ( 202) 559-6428. info@americancrossroads.org

14. James Dobson: Dobson is the Family Talk radio personality and Family Research Council founder that contributes greatly to all the hate we see from conservatives. A frequent guest on Fox News, he is perhaps the most influential religious leader on the Christian-Right even though he has never been ordained. Dobson believes that women should only focus on mothering (and probably cooking too) and is totally against gay rights. He supports private schools and special tax privileges for religious schools. He opposes sex education and only supports abstinence as the only technique for pregnancy prevention. Dobson is on this list because he is the one that began all of the anti-gay, anti-women, and anti-education speeches that are now commonplace in the Republican Party.

Family Talk Radio
540 Elkton Drive
Suite 201
Colorado Springs, CO 80907
Phone: 877-732-6825

15. Phyllis Schlafly: She is the only woman on this list. Undoubtedly, you may have thought that Michele Bachmann or Sarah Palin would be, but they are not. I consider Palin and Bachmann mere pawns compared to Schlafly. As founder and President of the Eagle Forum, Schlafly opposes feminism and equal rights for women. Eagle Forum promotes a pro-life, anti-gay, anti-sex education, and anti-vaccination agenda that has contributed to the current wave of social conservative extremism in the Republican Party. She believes women should remain in the home and that there is no such things as marital rape. She is certainly the most influential woman in right-wing activism and as such, the most dangerous one too.

Eagle Forum
PO Box 618
Alton, IL 62002
Phone: 618-462-5415
Fax: 618-462-8909 eagle@eagleforum.org

16. David Keene: Up to now David Keene led the American Conservative Union, which is the oldest operating conservative lobbying organization in the country. The ACU runs the event known as CPAC and spends money on lobbying and political campaigns. Keene is still the current President of the National Rifle Association. Which is also a strong lobbying group that is virtually an arm of the Republican Party that glorifies guns and believes that people should be able to carry guns anywhere they go, even near the President of the United States. Keene is mostly on this list because of the NRA. The NRA used to actually serve a valid purpose but has since become a pro-Republican political organization that has mixed guns and politics. It makes them a danger to the political process.

The American Conservative Union
1007 Cameron Street
Alexandria, VA 22314
Phone: 703-836-8602
Fax: 703-836-8606

National Rifle Association of America
11250 Waples Mill Road
Fairfax, VA 22030
Phone: 1-800-672-3888

17. Tim Wildmon: Classified as a hate group by the Southern Poverty Law Center, the American Family Association is headed by Tim Wildmon. AFA is just like every other conservative Christian group. It opposes abortion and gay rights, as well as other public policy goals such as deregulation of the oil industry and lobbying against the Employee Free Choice Act. The group has actively boycotted just about any business that disagrees with them. In the wake of the Virginia Tech shootings, the AFA released a video in which “God” tells a student that students were killed in schools because God isn’t allowed in schools anymore and blamed the shootings on abortion and lack of prayer in schools. AFA is against all other religions and has an obsession with Christmas, often boycotting companies that do not mention Christmas in their advertising. AFA is here on this list because they represent one of the biggest threats to intellectual and personal freedom in America.
Want to boycott AFA? Send them a “friendly” letter.

American Family Association
P.O. Box 3206
Tupelo, MS 38803

18. David Barton: Despite not having any history or law credentials David Barton passes himself off as an expert in early American history. Most of his claims have been disputed and written off as false by real historians. Barton’s organization is Wallbuilders, which seeks to destroy one the basic foundations of American life: the separation of church and state. Barton’s mission is to revise history in an effort to turn America into a Christian state with Biblical law instituted as the law of the land. He has also created false quotes to justify his claims. Barton is a danger to the history of America, the Constitution, and education.

WallBuilders
PO Box 397
Aledo, TX 76008
Phone: 817-441-6044

19. Noble Ellington: American Legislative Exchange Council, also known as ALEC. The Council is basically a pay to play organization that carries the corporate agenda into state legislatures across the country. They work to end unions, end environmental and labor regulations, and end consumer protection laws. ALEC has been funded by the Koch brothers for two decades. The price for corporate participation is an ALEC membership fee of as much as $25,000. For that price, corporations are basically writing the legislation that you are currently seeing being proposed and implemented in Republican controlled states across the country.

American Legislative Exchange Council1101 Vermont Ave. N.W., 11th Floor
Washington, D.C. 20005
Phone: 202-466-3800
Fax: 202-466-3801

20. Edward H. Crane: Crane is the founder and current leader of the Cato Institute. While they have supported some liberal policies and claim to abhor neo-conservatives, the Cato Institute does push many objectives that should make everyone cringe. Among the various policies that Cato supports, privatizing Social Security, abolishing the minimum wage, abolishing affirmative action, and some environmental regulations, are among them. Of course, it’s understandable why Cato holds these positions considering Charles Koch is chairman of the board and a major funding source. Even Rupert Murdoch had a place on the board at one point which connects the Kochs and the right-wing media.

Cato Institute
1000 Massachusetts Avenue, N.W. Washington D.C. 20001-5403
Phone: 202-842-0200
Fax: 202-842-3490


Americans For Prosperity
2111 Wilson Blvd, Ste. 350
Arlington, VA 22201
Phone: (703)-224-3200
Toll Free: (866)-730-0150
info@AFPhq.org
Read more: http://www.americansforprosperity.org/contact-us#ixzz1U6ju5Yui
And there you have it. All of these people and their organizations pose a serious threat to the American people. They target women, senior citizens, minorities, homosexuals, non-Christians, and American workers. So which person or organization is the most dangerous to democracy? The common thread throughout the list is the Koch brothers. They have ties to many of the people and organizations on the list and share many of the same goals. If one were to remove the Koch brothers from the equation an important source of funding and leadership would be eliminated from the conservative sphere. The Koch brothers are by far the biggest threat to American values and institutions. The truly evil thing about this group is that NONE of these monsters are elected by the people. Yet they have more power and influence over our elected officials and system of law and government, than we do.

The Social Security Cut Washington Does Not Want You to Understand

By Daniel Marans

Politicians often rely on a complacent press to enact a draconian agenda. Right now, the mainstream media are failing in their duty to inform Americans about the chained CPI, (Consumer Price Index), a cut to Social Security’s COLA (cost-of-living adjustment) that is likely to be considered by the bipartisan special committee charged with producing a $1.5 trillion deficit reduction package six months from now. This is unfortunate, because while the arguments for its adoption are dubious, the damage the chained CPI would inflict on seniors and disabled persons would be very real.

The chained CPI is a more modest measure of inflation. It increases 0.3 percent less on average than the CPI-W (Consumer Price Index for Urban Wage Workers and Clerical Workers), which is currently used to determine Social Security's COLA. The COLA is an annual increase in Social Security benefits that beneficiaries receive at the end of the year to ensure that those benefits do not lose value due to inflation. There is not a COLA every year; it is only provided when the CPI registers inflation. In fact, because of the recession, there was not a COLA for the past two years.

The chained CPI is seen as an attractive change in the current bipartisan deficit talks in Washington, because when applied government-wide, it both cuts spending and increases taxes. In addition to Social Security, when applied to several other programs that provide COLAs, such as Veterans Affairs benefits, federal employee pensions and other program's whose benefits are based on inflation (such as Supplemental Security Income), the chained CPI would dramatically reduce government spending. When applied to the tax code, it would slow the rate at which tax brackets and refundable deductions like the Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC) increase, thereby increasing revenue.

And the new CPI would work its magic through a technical change that both Democrats and Republicans can spin as not selling out their principles. In total, two-thirds--$145 billion--of the $217 billion in savings from the chained CPI would come from benefit cuts, and one-third--$72 billion--of the savings would come from revenue increases, according to CBO. From Social Security alone, the chained CPI would save $112 billion from benefit cuts--more than half of all savings from the measure.

Those Social Security cuts would save money, but they would also devastate seniors and disabled persons who depend on the program. The Strengthen Social Security Campaign, a coalition of over 300 national and state groups united in opposition to cuts in Social Security benefits for which I work, has run the numbers -- and they are not pretty. The average Social Security benefit is modest, averaging just $13,000 a year. While a 0.3 percent reduction in the index used to calculate Social Security's annual cost-of-living adjustment (COLA) may not seem big, it compounds over time, cutting benefits more with every passing year. That also means it hits Social Security beneficiaries hardest in late old-age when they are likely to have run through their savings.

For the average earner, the chained CPI would cut benefits by $560 at age 75 (a 3.7% cut), $980 at age 85 (6.5% cut), and $1,392 at age 95 (9.2% cut).

And the worst part is, unlike other proposed entitlement cuts, these cuts would hit current Social Security beneficiaries too.

The chained CPI's proponents claim it is more accurate because it accounts for "higher-level price substitution," which is a fancy way of saying that consumers trade down to cheaper products that serve the same purpose when prices go up. If beef goes up by 5 percent, our consumption of chicken goes up commensurately. The cost of living goes up more slowly as people substitute prices, and therefore, the thinking is, so should our measure of inflation.

But the logic of "higher-level price substitution" does not exactly hold up in the case of the elderly and disabled populations who spend a much larger share of their incomes on healthcare costs. "They buy fewer iPods and more medicines," as Rep. Barney Frank (D, Mass.), memorably put it. And medicines, or surgical procedures, are impossible to "substitute" with cheaper versions. As Rep. Peter DeFazio (D, Ore.) quipped in a speech last week, 

"If you need bypass surgery, you can't just opt for a hernia."

By all accounts, the chained CPI was part of the $4 trillion deal that House Speaker John Boehner nearly agreed to back in the first week of July. That deal may be dead, but the chained CPI is far from it. The president gave it his imprimatur when he embraced the Gang of Six plan, which included the chained CPI in its proposed $500 billion in immediate savings.

If the chained CPI does become law, it will be due in part to media coverage that has allowed claims that the chained CPI is "more accurate" to go unchallenged. This claim gives politicians the sacred Beltway cover of seeking "good policy," despite the political unpopularity. With rare exception, the only experts quoted in Beltway publications and talk shows have been budget hawks--often sponsored by Peter G. Peterson, the billionaire private equity investor who has devoted millions to evangelizing a particular center-right brand of deficit hysteria -- explaining that the chained CPI is a mere "technical change," that makes inflation more accurate, with no countervailing opinions. Here's a typical new story, from Bloomberg News, in which no fewer than four experts or lawmakers lauding the chained CPI's accuracy, and not one saying otherwise:

"There hasn't been any economist anywhere that says we shouldn't do that," said Senator Tom Coburn...

Advocates say switching index measures would be a technical change, not a tax increase.

"I don't see how anybody can argue against having accurate formulas," said Senator Mike Crapo, an Idaho Republican who was a member of the Gang of Six...

There is a "pretty widely held" consensus among economists that the bureau's methodology exaggerates inflation because it doesn't fully account for how individuals respond to rising prices, said Mark Zandi, chief economist of Moody's Analytics...

"It's a no-brainer," said Marc Goldwein, former associate director of the administration's deficit commission. "We're measuring inflation wrong now and it's obvious we should measure it right -- especially if it's going to reduce the deficit."

For a different take on the chained CPI's accuracy, all the reporters needed to do was interview someone from the Strengthen Social Security Campaign, the Economic Policy Institute, the National Women's Law Center or the Center for Economic Policy and Research. But they did not.

While it may be too late, the chained CPI has mobilized the opposition of a wide array of groups. To its credit, the AARP, which caused a stir in June when it came out in favor of Social Security benefit cuts, has publicly opposed the chained CPI, and even bought ads attacking the deficit talks.

For now though, the chained CPI's best hope may be the far right-wing of the Republican party, which opposes it on the grounds that it is a tax increase. As Grover Norquist, President of Americans for Tax Reform said, "This is one of those things invented by people who are trying to raise taxes and pretend they're not. If you change the law to get more money, that's a tax increase -- doesn't matter how you do it or what you call it."

I never thought I'd be saying this, but, Godspeed, Grover. Godspeed.

This article was updated to incorporate details of the debt deal announced by President Obama on Sunday July 31.

http://www.inthesetimes.com/mobile/article/the_social_security_cut_washington_does_not_want_you_to_understand/

Do it now dossier: Taxes are a Pandora's box

Despise tax dodging?  Here's the place to leave comment today .. 






C. Ford Runge is Distinguished McKnight University Professor of Applied Economics and Law at the University of Minnesota. This article reflects his opinions and not those of the university.

Taxes are a Pandora's box

• Article by: C. FORD RUNGE 
• Updated: July 31, 2011 - 7:14 PM

hide

Photo: Richard Tsong-Taatarii, Star Tribune

Buy Photos

Star Tribune photo galleries

view larger

The game of chicken between the White House and the Republican-controlled House of Representatives over deficit reduction and the debt ceiling has resembled Minnesota's earlier budget struggle and shutdown -- although it has global economic implications that the Minnesota imbroglio did not.

In both cases, Republicans have made opposition to new taxes their touchstone. In this they show little originality. Taxes have been unpopular since Rome was imperial.

But government services are not free, and taxes are the means by which they are made possible. The question is: How can taxes be structured in ways that are fair and efficient and create improved incentives?

To suggest that taxes will cease as an instrument of fiscal policy, or that they will not increase in the face of irresponsible deficits run up by the Congress and the administration, is delusional.

Nonetheless, Republicans claim that any new taxes will "kill jobs," because U.S. businesses are already overtaxed. If they had glanced at their own Congressional Research Service's report of March 31, "International Corporate Tax Rate Comparisons and Policy Implications," they would learn that the United States had an effective tax rate in 2008 of 27.1 percent, slightly less than the 27.7 percent weighted average among industrialized nations' as a whole.

Even stalwart Republican economists such as Martin Feldstein and Gregory Mankiw, according to the July 13 New York Times, favor raising taxes by closing loopholes.

Republicans' feigned horror at the prospect of new taxes masks a dirty secret. The trouble is not just about raising taxes but about opening them to discussion at all.

The old taxes are so skewed in favor of the already rich that to open them to scrutiny would reveal a box unnerving even to Pandora, and especially damaging to the vast majority of Republicans who have pledged fealty to Grover Norquist and his no-new-taxes manifesto.

At both the state and federal level, tax exemptions and special arrangements for favored corporations result not just in tax avoidance but in actual transfers from state and federal coffers to companies and individuals.

These "negative taxes" are subsidies paid to some of the biggest companies in the nation. No one likes paying taxes, but who wants an open discussion when the tax system pays you?

Let's get specific. In June, Citizens for Tax Justice, a Washington watchdog group, released a partial list from a major forthcoming study of effective tax rates paid by Fortune 500 companies.

The 12 corporations analyzed were American Electric Power, Boeing, Dupont, Exxon Mobil, FedEx, General Electric, Honeywell, IBM, United Technologies, Verizon, Wells Fargo and Yahoo. From 2008 through 2010, these companies together reported $171 billion in pretax profits, but as a group, their federal income taxes were a negative$2.5 billion. In other words, they were collectively subsidized.

Eight of these firms reported negative taxes, including Minnesota's Honeywell International, with three-year profits of $4.9 billion and federal taxes of a negative $34 million. Wells Fargo, with $49 billion in profits, received a net tax benefit of $681 million. GE was the largest net negative taxpayer from 2008-2010, with $7.7 billion in profits and $4.7 billion in negative taxes.

Forbes magazine (hardly the Socialist Worker) noted that the explanation is often that these corporations transfer tax liability across international operations, so that the final accounting shows U.S. divisions operating at a loss.

Christopher Helman, a Forbes financial analyst, noted in an April 2 article that General Electric has two divisions: General Electric Capital and everything else -- engines, power plants, etc.

Over the last two years, GE Capital's risky lending has generated major losses in the United States ($6.5 billion in 2009), while its overseas operations showed healthy profits ($4.3 billion in the same year). U.S. losses, according to Helman, both balance out overseas gains and allow GE to defer taxes on overseas income indefinitely.

Even so, if the domestic side of these companies is losing money, should they receive compensation from the U.S. Treasury?

At the state level, Minnesota companies can also transfer gains out of state, costing Minnesota taxpayers millions of dollars in annual revenues.

It is one thing to argue that taxes interfere with the capacity of businesses to grow and invest. This is undoubtedly true. Tax-free treatment would be blissful for businesses (and very bad for society).

But it is quite another thing to realize that growth and investment by already rich companies have been subsidized by taxpayers, many with modest incomes. This is because the tax system has become rigged to shift wealth and income from the bottom to the top, a fact that Grover Norquist and his minions would prefer that you not learn. Now you know.