Monday, April 25, 2016

Who Are the CongressCritters Who Follow the Koch Brothers 100% of the Time?

The 100% Club

Americans for Prosperity:  You've heard of them, right?


Americans for Prosperity and the Americans for Prosperity Foundation were both founded by and largely funded by the conservative libertarian Koch Brothers, David and Charles.  It is unclear how much input the Kochs have on the day-to-day work of AFP, which is now headed by a conservative named Tim Phillips, but HERE's a good overview from Factcheck org.  Americans for Prosperity is considered to be a major vehicle for the Kochs and their lobbying efforts on behalf of conservative libertarian causes and government policies.

100% Koch Congress People
This photo taken from the homepage of the Americans for Prosperity scorecard found HERE

But this article is about how members of Congress fare according to the ranking and rating systems of Americans for Prosperity.  AFP puts out a rating and ranking system for members of the US Congress, both the House and the Senate.  In these ratings, if you favor more liberal and progressive postions, LOW scores are good and HIGH scores are bad.  Members of Congress get ratings by the session and over their lifetimes.  The AFP ratings go back to 2007-2008 Congressional session.     

In summary:

To summarize these ratings, there is very little cross over between the Democrats and the Republicans in the Americans For Prosperity ratings.  Almost all Democrats get very low scores (Remember, low is good!).. .and almost all Republicans get very high scores (High scores = bad!)

Bernie Sanders?  Hillary Clinton?

In terms of lifetime averages from the Americans for Prosperity people, Independent Senator Bernie Sanders has a measly 5% lifetime score.  (Remember, low = good.)  Nope, he is certainly not a Koch puppet.  

Hillary Clinton?  Her lifetime score from her years in the Senate was even lower than Senator Sanders:  She had a 4% lifetime score....  which makes Charles Koch's tepid statement about Hillary Clinton perhaps being "better" than a Republican Presidential candidate very, very strange indeed.

So.. Who does well according to Americans for Prosperity?

Which CongressPeople are busy doing the bidding of the Koch Brothers and Americans for Prosperity?  Thirty-one (31) Senators, including current and former Presidential candidates Ted Cruz, Marco Rubio, and Rand Paul have voted the AFP/Koch way 100% of the time.  Seventy-eight (78) Representatives have voted with the Kochs 100% of the time.   

Below, in order by "current score", meaning the current legislative session, are the current Senators and Representatives who have received 100% ratings from Americans for Prosperity in the current Congressional (2015-2016) session.  (We'll be looking at the CongressPeople who have very low scores later today.)

Notice that these 100% Koch CongressCritters are all Republicans?

No, Both Parties are NOT the Same!   
NAMESTATEDISTRICTPARTYCURRENT GRADELIFETIME GRADE
Rep. Marsha BlackburnTN7R100%88%
Rep. Michael BurgessTX26R100%90%
Rep. Rob BishopUT1R100%90%
Rep. David BratVA7R100%50%
Rep. Brian BabinTX36R100%100%
Rep. Rod BlumIA1R100%100%
Rep. Ken BuckCO4R100%100%
Rep. Steven ChabotOH1R100%94%
Rep. John CulbersonTX7R100%88%
Rep. John CarterTX31R100%85%
Rep. K. ConawayTX11R100%90%
Rep. Jason ChaffetzUT3R100%89%
Rep. Mike CoffmanCO6R100%96%
Rep. Doug CollinsGA9R100%87%
Rep. Jeffrey DuncanSC3R100%97%
Rep. Scott DesJarlaisTN4R100%89%
Rep. Ron DeSantisFL6R100%96%
Rep. Trent FranksAZ8R100%97%
Rep. John FlemingLA4R100%95%
Rep. Blake FarentholdTX27R100%79%
Rep. Bill FloresTX17R100%78%
Rep. Scott GarrettNJ5R100%97%
Rep. Louie GohmertTX1R100%93%
Rep. Tom GravesGA14R100%94%
Rep. Paul GosarAZ4R100%92%
Rep. Trey GowdySC4R100%96%
Rep. Jeb HensarlingTX5R100%93%
Rep. Andy HarrisMD1R100%93%
Rep. Tim HuelskampKS1R100%98%
Rep. Bill HuizengaMI2R100%87%
Rep. Robert HurtVA5R100%85%
Rep. Richard HudsonNC8R100%81%
Rep. Jody HiceGA10R100%100%
Rep. Sam JohnsonTX3R100%86%
Rep. Jim JordanOH4R100%99%
Rep. Steve KingIA4R100%89%
Rep. Doug LambornCO5R100%97%
Rep. Robert LattaOH5R100%86%
Rep. Raul LabradorID1R100%97%
Rep. Barry LoudermilkGA11R100%100%
Rep. Mia LoveUT4R100%100%
Rep. Jeff MillerFL1R100%89%
Rep. Kenny MarchantTX24R100%91%
Rep. Kevin McCarthyCA23R100%86%
Rep. Tom McClintockCA4R100%100%
Rep. Mick MulvaneySC5R100%97%
Rep. Alex MooneyWV2R100%100%
Rep. Randy NeugebauerTX19R100%94%
Rep. Richard NugentFL11R100%88%
Rep. Pete OlsonTX22R100%88%
Rep. Tom PriceGA6R100%93%
Rep. Bill PoseyFL8R100%97%
Rep. Mike PompeoKS4R100%98%
Rep. Scott PerryPA4R100%85%
Rep. Robert PittengerNC9R100%85%
Rep. Gary PalmerAL6R100%100%
Rep. Dana RohrabacherCA48R100%89%
Rep. Ed RoyceCA39R100%89%
Rep. Paul RyanWI1R100%84%
Rep. Todd RokitaIN4R100%83%
Rep. Dennis RossFL15R100%87%
Rep. Keith RothfusPA12R100%89%
Rep. John RatcliffeTX4R100%100%
Rep. F. SensenbrennerWI5R100%93%
Rep. Lamar SmithTX21R100%83%
Rep. Adrian SmithNE3R100%88%
Rep. Steve ScaliseLA1R100%96%
Rep. Aaron SchockIL18R100%82%
Rep. David SchweikertAZ6R100%97%
Rep. Marlin StutzmanIN3R100%93%
Rep. Austin ScottGA8R100%87%
Rep. Chris StewartUT2R100%77%
Rep. Scott TiptonCO3R100%84%
Rep. Tim WalbergMI7R100%87%
Rep. Brad WenstrupOH2R100%96%
Rep. Roger WilliamsTX25R100%89%
Rep. Mark WalkerNC6R100%100%
Rep. Ted YohoFL3R100%77%
Sen. Roy BluntMOR100%86%
Sen. John BoozmanARR100%88%
Sen. John BarrassoWYR100%93%
Sen. Michael CrapoIDR100%91%
Sen. Shelley CapitoWVR100%67%
Sen. John CornynTXR100%95%
Sen. Bob CorkerTNR100%87%
Sen. Bill CassidyLAR100%80%
Sen. Tom CottonARR100%100%
Sen. Ted CruzTXR100%98%
Sen. Steve DainesMTR100%89%
Sen. Jeff FlakeAZR100%98%
Sen. Deb FischerNER100%88%
Sen. Cory GardnerCOR100%88%
Sen. Orrin HatchUTR100%85%
Sen. James InhofeOKR100%96%
Sen. James LankfordOKR100%90%
Sen. Mike LeeUTR100%99%
Sen. Mitch McConnellKYR100%92%
Sen. Rand PaulKYR100%93%
Sen. David PerdueGAR100%100%
Sen. Jim RischIDR100%92%
Sen. Marco RubioFLR100%98%
Sen. Richard ShelbyALR100%84%
Sen. Jeff SessionsALR100%90%
Sen. Ben SasseNER100%100%
Sen. Dan SullivanAKR100%100%
Sen. John ThuneSDR100%87%
Sen. Patrick ToomeyPAR100%96%
Sen. Thom TillisNCR100%100%
Sen. David VitterLAR100%100%
Posted by at No comments:
Labels: , , , , , , , , , ,

Thursday, April 14, 2016

Bernie Denounce Those SuperPACs Part 2

More SuperPac expenditures for Bernie to denounce:


Last week I wrote that Republican and right-wing funded SuperPACs are spending millions of dollars against Hillary Clinton in the primaries.  I pointed out that, in the primary season, her opponent Bernie Sanders is the biggest beneficiary of those SuperPAC expenditures, not the Republican presidential candidates.



To date, based on FEC SuperPAC disclosure filings for this election season, Republican and right-wing SuperPACs have spent over 7 million dollars opposing Hillary Clinton.... and only about $600,000 opposing Bernie Sanders. 









Now these SuperPACs ARE independent organizations and Bernie can't stop them from spending money that benefits him.

I'll repeat:  He can denounce these PACs.  But I would not put any money on it...


BUT.... he can admit that he is benefitting from these Republican, right-wing expenditures, and he can denounce them.  He can suggest that they stop spending money against Hillary Clinton during the primaries, money that benefits him. After all, he doesn't like SuperPACs and he has said that doesn't want any SuperPAC money supporting him.

Is this another example of Bernie Sanders' hypocrisy?

It's clear that he is certainly indirectly being funded by these nasty SuperPACs that, for whatever reason, want to demolish Hillary Clinton-- even if that means temporaily promoting Bernie Sanders.

Of course, nobody really expects Bernie Sanders the "Pure" to look a gift horse in the mouth, do they?  And Bernie supporters are quick to say that there is nothing that Bernie can do about this AND this is perfectly legal.  However, the essence of the disastrous hated Citizen's United Supreme Court decision was money spent AGAINST Hillary Clinton in 2008.  So Bernie is condemning out-of-control campaign finance, complaining that Hillary Clinton has too many organizations giving money either directly to her campaign or to PACs which support her... but at the same he benefits from that out-of-control campaign finance.  And he refuses to condemn this form of out-of-control campaign finance.

April 2016
So what's up this month?  (I am working on a summary of money spent against Hillary and against Bernie in this election to date, but, in the meantime, I don't want to fall behind.)

Let's look at a quick summary of money spent AGAINST Hillary Clinton vs. money spent AGAINST Bernie Sanders in April 2016:

Money spent against Hillary Clinton in April 2016:
  • $11,430 reported on April 14 by American Crossroads (Karl Rove et al) for "Web Ad Production and Online Advertising".
  • $28,600  reported on April 13  by the Council for Citizens Against Government Waste for various aspects of creating a direct mail package. 
  • About $7,000 reported on April 10 by the Virgin Islands Republican Party for "Voter Contact Mail".
  • $35,000 reported on April 4 by the Stop Hillary PAC for online advertising, Facebook advertising, "external deployment costs", and "rental fees".  (External deployment?  What might that be?) 
  • About $11,500 reported on April 1 by the Virgin Islands Republican Party for "Voter Contact Mail". 

So far, through April 14, 2016, SuperPACs have reported spending about $95,000 AGAINST Hillary Clinton.  

Money spent against Bernie Sanders in April 2016:
  • ZERO.  Yes, that's right. ZERO.  Crossroads, the Council for Citizens Against Government Waste, and the Virgin Islands Republican Party so far don't seem to want to bother spending money against Bernie Sanders-- at least not now.  Perhaps they want to get Hillary out of Presidential contention.  
So far, through April 14, 2016, SuperPACs have reported spending about ZERO AGAINST Bernie Sanders.

Bernie's SuperPACs roll on in early April:  $95,000 against Hillary and ZERO against Bernie.
Posted by at No comments:
Labels: , , , ,

Saturday, April 9, 2016

Bernie, It's Time to Denounce Those SuperPacs!

Bernie Sanders, It's Time to Denounce Those SuperPacs!


Bernie Sanders' campaign for the Democratic nomination as President has been helped by seven million dollars in Republican/right-wing leaning SuperPAC money during this primary season.  That's just what has been reported by those SuperPACs to date; that is, through April 8th.  That seven million dollars has been spent by the likes of the well-known Citizen's United, and some lesser known cartels with names such as the "Freedom Defense Fund" and "Future45".

You can see the name of the PAC on the left, the candidate the PAC supports or opposes in the second column, and the word "Oppose" or "Support" in the third column.  There are 91 pages of expenditures AGAINST Hillary Clinton for this campaign, which is still in the primary season.  The is less than one page against Bernie Sanders.
From the FEC:  A shot of a few lines of  SuperPac money opposing Hillary Clinton

 Now, these SuperPACs aren't giving money directly to Bernie Sanders (such as the money he gets through the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee).  Instead, they are helping Bernie by spending money that's being reported to the FEC (the Federal Election Commission) as "opposing Hillary Clinton".

Who benefits from the money spent opposing Hillary Clinton?

Right now it's the primary season.  Who is benefitting from those 7 million bucks reported to date as being used to "oppose" Hillary Clinton?  Well, we know it is not Republican Presidential candidates like Ted Cruz or even Donald Trump.  Not now.  Not during the primaries.  Those men aren't running against Hillary during these primaries and caucuses.  (To be fair, there are a couple of groups that are "opposing" Bernie Sanders.  But they've only spent about $600,000 against him.)

If Sanders is really so concerned about "big money", he needs to take on these GOP PACs and tell them to stop spending money opposing Hillary during the primaries.. money that he benefits from. As long as he isn't doing this, he is a hypocrite.



Bernie and many of his supporters insist that one of the big things they don't like about Hillary Clinton is that SuperPACs raise money for her.  Yet, at the same time, those same people aren't screaming to the heavens about the vast sums of money being spent AGAINST Hillary Clinton during the primaries; SuperPAC money that directly benefits Bernie Sanders!

No, he can't stop them, but....

 I know; Bernie and his supporters will say, well, those are SuperPACs; they are Republican SuperPACs; we can't do anything about them. But Bernie can denounce them in very strong terms.

He can denounce the fact that Citizens' United is helping him at the expense of Clinton. There is nothing holding him back from making it clear that he opposes those expenditures against Hillary during the primary campaign.  He can make it clear that he realizes that he benefits from them, and he doesn't want to rely on millions of dollars from Republican-slanted SuperPACs to help him win Democratic primaries.

He can't make them stop spending that money, but I'll repeat:  He CAN denounce them.  (He can also make the point that Clinton may need more funds than he does because she has these Republicans spending 7 million against her during the Democratic primaries.) 

But, no, he won't do that. No, his supporters, who complain about campaign finance, will continue to say NOTHING about the huge sums being spent AGAINST Hillary in the primary. As long as Bernie Sanders doesn't raise the money himself, apparently, it is just quite fine with all of the "get money out of politics" people that Republican SuperPACs toss those bundles against her and not against Bernie.

Stop with the hypocrisy!


Come on, Bernie, and your supporters.. Make it clear that you, Bernie, are benefitting from Republican SuperPAC money. Denounce those SuperPACs that are helping you at Hillary's expense.  I dare you, Senator Sanders!  I dare you, Bernie's supporters!
Posted by at 5 comments:

Tuesday, April 5, 2016

Hillary is NOT a Republican: The Minimum Wage

(Originally written March 8, 2016)
I'm quite tired of people calling Hillary a "Republican".


I'm tired of people saying that there is no difference between Trump and Hillary Clinton.  I'm tired of these same people whining when someone calls them on their idiocy and calls them... an idiot.


From Media Matters


For the record, Hillary Clinton voted right down the middle with the Democrats when she was a Senator.  According to various measures, she was either the 5th, 9th, 11th, or 32nd most progressive Senator when she was in the Senate.

She received very low ratings from the right-wing/Republican raters such as the US Chamber of Commerce and the Koch Brother's Americans for Prosperity.  In fact, in 2007, her rating from the "corporate" US Chamber of Commerce was lower than that of Bernie Sanders (which should be considered a good thing.)

And, to top it off, she and Bernie voted the same way 93% of the time when they were in the Senate together.

But, despite all of this, I just came across an article in the Huffington post (not surprising) in which the author, a man named Russ Belville, lists 25 reasons why he doesn't vote for Republicans.. and then complains that he won't vote for Hillary (assuming she is the Democratic nominee) because she fits his profile of a "Republican" and he hits her with his 25 reasons.

Hillary isn't as progressive as the author insists a Democrat should be. 

On the whole, his list is absurd.  Hillary isn't as progressive as he wants a candidate to be on these items, so he lumps her in with people who are Regressives, namely Republicans and conservatives.  It's pretty clear that Hillary is probably with the majority of the Democrats on his list of 25.  I would take this to mean that he doesn't vote for Democrats either.  Then the guy complains when Chet Panieza of the Daily Banter calls him an "idiot".

I never think of progressives as, by definition, being close minded, but after seeing so many senseless complaints about Hillary Clinton, I've had to change my mind.

The Minimum Wage

So let's look at just one of his 25 points.  Perhaps I will examine the rest later, one by one, or a few at a time.

9) I don't vote Republican because they think a $15 minimum wage is too high and at best it ought to only be $12.

Umm.... Most Republicans don't think the minimum wage should be anything close to $12.

CNBC summarizes:  One of the clearest distinctions to come out of the presidential debates so far has been around the minimum wage – specifically, the Democratic candidates' support for, and the Republican candidates' opposition to, raising the federal minimum wage.

And yet the "author" at Huffington Post thinks that not supporting raising the minimum wage as much as he thinks it should be raised is the same as being against the minimum wage, the same as being against raising it at all.
Now what do those Republicans.. real Republicans, not people that some silly "progressives" want to call "Republicans" like Hillary Clinton, want to do with the minimum wage?  (The following comments are from this link at OurFuture.)

Donald Trump says raising the minimum wage creates “a lot of problems.” (Like reducing poverty and creating jobs?) Trump supports creating two minimum wages, one for high school students and a slightly higher one for adults.In one of the debates, the moderator referenced  "Fight for $15" protests outside the debate venue and asked Donald Trump if he was sympathetic to the cause. Trump responded that he was not. He said, "…[with] wages too high, we're not going to be able to compete against the world. I hate to say it, but we have to leave it the way it is." 
Here's what Marco Rubio thought about the minimum wage before he dropped out of the Republican race: 
Marco Rubio believes a focus on the minimum wage is “a waste of time.”
“My problem with raising the minimum wage is not that I want to deny someone $10.10. I’m worried about the people whose wages are going to go down to zero because you’ve made them more expensive than a machine.” (Actually the minimum wage is so low, a boost would likely create jobs.)
But he has said “I’m not for repealing the minimum wage.”  (How charitable of him.)  He also called raising the minimum wage "a disaster."

Ted Cruz says:

"I think the minimum wage consistently hurts the most vulnerable.” (If you mean “hurt” as in “lift 5 million out of poverty.”) He has said $0 is the “real Obama minimum wage.”“If you raise the minimum wage, the inevitable effect will be, number one, young people will lose their jobs or not be able to get their first jobs.”“Unemployment among young people will go up if the minimum wage goes up as President Obama says. Unemployment among Hispanics, among African Americans, among those struggling to get their first job to climb the economic ladder, will go up.”

But Russ Belville believes that opposing a raise in the minimum wage or opposing the minimum wage period is the same as saying that the minimum wage should be raised to $12.00 (a 60% hike) instead of $15.00 (a 100% raise.)

What Democrats proposed in 2014

Most Democrats want the federal minimum wage to be raised, but not all of them are calling for it to be raised to 15 bucks.  The Fair Minimum Wage Act introduced by Democrats in the House of Representatives in 2014 proposed raising the federal minimum wage to $10.10 in three steps and then indexing the minimum wage to the rate of inflation.

$10.10?  So, according to the great "progressive" Russ Belville, that must mean that most Democrats are also Republicans.  And that bill not only didn't pass, but the REAL Republicans now in control of the House of Representatives (Thanks in part to "progressives" who didn't vote in 2010 because they were "mad at Obama" for not being able to get the public option into the Affordable Care Act.) didn't even bother to pull it out of committee. 

Yes, Belville, Chet Panieza is quite right to call you an idiot.

"You Don't Think $10/hour is good enough so she gets nothing."

Here's another take on the minimum wage; unfortunately I can't immediately find the source:

Think of it this way: Some Progressives are not happy with the $10.10 minimum wage that the Dems have proposed. They think it is not enough, and that it brings no real change to the whole corporate system. (I actually agree that it is not enough and doesn't impact the basic problem of inequality and control.)  But... would you tell a woman trying to raise her kids on minimum wage that, because the proposed increase isn't good enough, you will oppose it? 
"Miss, you really deserve a raise, but your raise should be at least $15/hour and all of the workers need some part of ownership of this corporation. Because I so strongly believe that $10.10 is not enough of a raise for you, I'm going to oppose it. Both these parties suck; $10.10 sucks. So because $10.10 is such a lousy deal, you can continue to work for $7.25/hour. How does that sound?" 
Because, friend, when you say that neither party is good enough, that's exactly what you are telling that young Mom trying to raise her kids on $7.25: You don't think $10/hr is good enough, so she gets nothing. 

That is unfortunately the way many "progressives" think these days.  So we are all stuck with less.


Posted by at No comments:
Subscribe to: Posts (Atom)
Related Posts Plugin for WordPress, Blogger...