The Pardu

The Pardu
Watchful eyes and ears feed the brain, thus nourishing the brain cells.
Showing posts with label Congress. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Congress. Show all posts

Monday, July 30, 2018

Kochs Turning On Trump? (Video)







Koch Freedom Partners ad as an appetizer



Surrounding himself with civilian and military “yes” people so he can overthrow government and become dictator. Are you ready to “Hail, Feuer Trump!”

In 2015, The New York Times published an article related to Koch brothers plans for Election 2016 Spending.

We actually have no idea the extent of Koch spending on placing Trump in the White House and moneyed support to the GOP holding two houses of Congress. The figures are without question exorbitant and it was such without consideration of potential continuous from the Koch brothers "Donors Club of wealthy conservatives who commonly contribute along with the Kochs

If we look back at David Koch's part in the 1980's Libertarian Party Platform, we find a few items which stand out like a Fly in your Ice Cream.  Even as far back as 1980, at least one Koch has been active in Paleozoic Era (regressive) policies.  Noticeable in its absence from the Libertarian Party Platform were bullets related to federal spending.  

Image result for libertarian party platform 1980

The Koch brothers since 1980 have not developed from their socially regressive ideology. But, they have been loquacious regarding federal spending. Their support for the GOP includes a history of well-documented support for cutting federal spending while openly espousing tax cuts (hence the 1980s platform).

We also remind you, the Kochs benefited mightily from Trump's early term approval of the Keystone XL Pipeline. While Snopes rates reports of potential profit for the Kocks via the pipeline project as Pants of Fire, I find it impossible to believe with major land holdings of the Canadian Tar Sands, the Koch aren't garnering enormous additional wealth from Trump's signature pen. Another Koch victory via Trump is the tax cut for the nation's wealthy.

The tax cuts guarantee the Kochs billions per year in tax savings. it should be noted after the tax law was signed, reports circulated the Kochs gave Paul Ryan $500,000.

The Kochs are in no way friends of the people nor do they work towards advancing social reforms. They are longstanding social regressives who are instrumental in the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC), which focuses on developing law drafts for handoff to eager state and local politicians.

As time has passed and the reality of Koch support for yet another Oval Office 'loser' comes to light like a devil with a comb-over, it appears the Kochs are flip-flopping on their conservative party head. 



Politico recently published a piece centered around Charles Koch's possible split with His brother David on matters of post-Trump election politics.  Maybe the time is right along with growing evinces Trump is losing his mind while the GOP Congress moves the nation back to Pre Word Was II policies.  

Well, wouldn't you know Trump's ill-advised Tariff strategies and practices; have touched the Kochs?  As David Koch moves ever so close to "retirement" his Wichita based brother, Charles, is turning and aiming his vast wealth and behind the scenes political maneuvering against Trump's tariff policies.

Multiple intentional media are reporting Charles Koch is turning into a tariff Chameleon. He is turned his colors from Trump red to a facade of possible false (or opportunist) liberal blue. Maybe the public reports are only related to tariff policy, but any Koch against Trump won't bode well for the GOP going forward.

Time 

Koch Brothers' Network Pushing to Curb Trump's Tariff Powers | Time

BBC

CNN (June 2018)

While self-serving regarding the Koch business empire, the Charles Koch sniffing of liberal ideology (regarding tariffs) brings thoughts of the image below.
Related image
Bring him in and suffer greatly, or and more apropos, never trust a smiling Spider.

How did Trump react to the Koch news?  Linked here.

StumbleUpon

Sunday, May 14, 2017

YOUR GOP: Trump And His Congress (Breakfast Polls)



LINK

How about your GOP Congress?

Gallup

Americans' Approval of Congress Unchanged in May

Americans' Approval of Congress Unchanged in May

NBC News/WSJ Poll
Comey: "You're fired."



NEWSWEEK
How popular trump latest approval rating white supporters flee president 607478
Excerpt
Perhaps even more troubling for the president: The folks who made up his base in November's election appear to be growing weary. White voters are fleeing. 
Forty-seven percent of white voters with no college degree approved of Trump's job performance, while 46 percent disapproved, the survey found. That's a steep drop in support from last month, when 57 percent approved of Trump, and compare that to exit polls in November that found 67 percent of non-college-educated whites voted for Trump, the highest such figure for any candidate since 1980.



Well, the surely put the man in office. And, now it is time to succumb to post-election dissonance. How pathetic. StumbleUpon

Tuesday, October 15, 2013

Fitch Issues a Credit Rating Warning! Ameircans Know Who Is Driving The Train Wreck




The GOP keeps pushing.  

USA Today is reporting Fitch has issued a warning about the US AAA Credit Rating. As you read on, we ask that you keep in mind the federal government shutdown has been in the works for at least two to three years. Our research indicates it has genesis in uber wealthy plutocrats who sue political contributions (and only heaven knows other forms of enticements) to influence right-wing politicians.

Fitch issues warning on U.S. credit rating


Fitch Ratings said Tuesday it has placed its top rating on U.S. government's long-term debt on review for a possible downgrade, citing the drawn-out debate over raising the nation's debt limit. 
"Although Fitch continues to believe that the debt ceiling will be raised soon, the political brinkmanship and reduced financing flexibility could increase the risk of a U.S. default," the ratings agency said. 
The Treasury Department has said the emergency measures it has been using to manage the nation's finances under the existing debt limit will run out Thursday.


The signs are there and it appears the US House of Representatives (House Republicans) do not care. Boehner, Cantor and their tea party caucus are busily working to deflect their shutdown on Democrats and the president. Their failure in defunding the ACA has turned into an international embarrassment and has pushed the middle class to a cliff over and abyss of financing ruin.

If we look back a couple of days and a couple of news reports on the GOP Shutdown, the GOP mantra of "The American People" fizzles like most GOP presidential campaign.

Martin Bashir, MSNBC video segment. Linked

HuffPo
Nearly three-quarters of Americans disapprove of Republicans' handling of the budget crisis, according to an ABC/Washington Post poll released Monday. 
Disapproval of the GOP, which has risen steadily since just before the government shutdown began, is now at 74 percent, up 11 points from late September. 
A majority of Americans are also discontented with Democrats' role in the budget negotiations. But disapproval ratings for Democrats in Congress and for President Barack Obama, both of which started at a lower level than disapproval of Republicans in Congress, have remained largely unchanged in the past two weeks. Sixty-one percent of Americans now dislike congressional Democrats' handling of the crisis, while 53 percent dislike Obama's. Those are rises of only 5 points and 3 points, respectively, from before the shutdown began.
Republicans themselves are increasingly negative about their lawmakers. In the latest survey, Americans who identified as Republican were about evenly split on congressional Republicans' performance, with 47 percent giving them a thumbs-down. Sixty-three percent of "very conservative" Republicans, however approve
Other surveys have found similarly bleak results for the GOP. A Gallup poll last week showed the party's rating at a record low, while an NBC/Wall Street Journal poll, also released last week, found that Americans assigned Republicans far more blame for the shutdown. The latter survey also found evidence of an "ideological boomerang” against the GOP, with support rising for a Democratic-controlled Congress, Obama's health care law and an expanded role for government.
Suicide is ugly whether committed by a person or a political party.  
StumbleUpon

Friday, September 27, 2013

Open Secrets: Men Contribute More Than Women On US Politics!





Open Secrets is an encyclopedia (or modern contemporary data and information repository) of money in politics.  We regularly select articles to publish here on the TPI. If you are truly interested in money in politics, do not simply read pieces we place here. Visit the site, link to the site, establish Facebook Notifications, maybe even setup a Twitter notification.  "High Information" people will find the time spent on Open Secrets invaluable.   Warning, based on site content you will grow even more contemptuous of "low information" people who ignore facts and pose arguments straight out of Fox News, Hannity Limbaugh and Beck bag of circus barking.

We feel the issue is critical for reasons additional to points delineated by Open Secrets. Example, of the Fortune 500 CEO's less than eight percent are women.  Do you do see the relevance? Think in terms of the Good Ol Boy network.  Do you see the relevance now?  Men hire, promote and mentor men far more than women. Thus, we see clear discrimination and workplace disparity in earnings.  

While men donors may be more inclined to donate for "best return on investment," rest assured gender will become a secondary factor as men open their wallets. Now if you will simply factor a does of conservatism to the mix, guess what?  Good Ol Boy white male candidates indebted to their money-brokers.  

Open Secrets, enjoy!

________________________

Responsive Politics report on women as donors and candidates
by Sarah Bryner and Doug Weber, Sept. 26, 2013
The Center for Responsive Politics

Introduction


In 1989, a gallon of gas cost 97 cents. The USSR was still a formidable world power, Germany was not yet a united country, and Madonna's Like a Prayer was one of the most popular pop songs of the year. And, in the lead-up to the 1990 elections, 31 women were serving in Congress.

How much things change, and yet, how much they stay the same.

The 2012 congressional elections saw a record number of women elected to both the House and Senate. And even though most of his large campaign donations came from men, Barack Obama relied more heavily on female campaign contributors than any general election presidential candidate since at least 1988.

But many patterns have remained remarkably consistent. In the 1990 campaign cycle, 22 percent of all itemized federal contributions came from women. So far in this election cycle, 25 percent of all contributions have come from women. This 3 percent increase, substantially smaller than the increases seen in the numbers of female elected officials, is one telling component in a much more complex story about how women campaign donations by women have changed over time.

In this special report, we'll detail trends in contributions to women candidates, and from women donors. Some takeaways:
As candidates, female Democrats rely most heavily (and male Republicans, the least) on the support of female contributors. That's been the case since 1990. 

Of the top 100 contributors in 2012, 11 were women; that's down from the 21 who fell into that elite group of donors in 1990. 

As politics has become more polarized, so too have the patterns of donations from women. They donate more consistently to congressional Democrats. But women who have outside employment (as compared to homemakers) have moved to the left, while those who self-identify as homemakers have moved to the right. 

Even though women are more evenly represented in Congress than ever before, the “donor gap” between men and women is still real, and remarkably steady.

Women as Candidates


The number of high-profile female politicians continues to creep up. But, in the 30 years that Opensecrets.org has been monitoring campaign finance and elections, the political landscape for female candidates hasn't shifted as much as one might guess.

Certainly, there are more women in Congress than there were in 1990. Then, 7 percent of all winning House candidates were women. By 2012, nearly 18 percent of victorious House candidates were women. Although this may seem like a major increase, not all candidates win at the same rate. There are more Democratic female candidates and more winners, whereas the number of Republican female candidates, as well as the number of winners, has stayed static. In fact, the 2012 congressional elections led to a decrease in the number of House Republican women -- 20 GOP women won, down from an all-time high of 23 in 2008. Even since the election, one of those women (JoAnn Emerson, a Missouri Republican) left office and was replaced by a man (Jason Smith).


The parties have not always been so dissimilar in this area. In 1990, 10 percent of the Democrats' general election House candidates were women (38), compared to 7 percent of Republican general election House candidates (28). However, in 2012, the Democrats fielded 116 female candidates (28 percent of the party's candidate pool) while the Republicans ran only 48 women candidates (11 percent of their pool). As candidates, female Democrats seem to be slightly more likely to win their contests than female Republicans -- about 50 percent of female Democrats won in 2012, compared to 41 percent of female Republicans (although many other factors contribute to election success).


Generally, some candidates are more likely than others to receive money from women donors. Female Democrats receive the highest proportion of their money from women, and Republican men receive the lowest. This trend can be seen just by scanning the list of the members of the 113th Congress who received the highest proportion of their money from women. Of the top 10 members from each chamber, only one, Bernie Sanders, is not a female Democrat. Similarly, of the members who received the lowest percentage of their money from female donors, only three -- Ed Markey, Gene Green, and Mark Pryor -- are not Republican men. The sitting member who received the least amount of money from women is Rep. Howard Coble (R-NC), who took in only 9.5 percent of his total itemized contributions from women.

Highest Percent of Campaign Donations from Women

Senate
MemberTotal Gender CodedTotal from Women% from Women
Barbara Boxer (D-Calif)$5,964,690$2,698,95245.3%
Tammy Baldwin (D-Wis)$17,411,227$7,620,48243.7%
Jeanne Shaheen (D-NH)$10,586,560$4,492,95542.4%
Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass)$1,231,254$498,35640.5%
Claire McCaskill (D-Mo)$2,613,188$1,018,46939%
Kay R. Hagan (D-NC)$10,468,423$3,977,45938%
Bernie Sanders (I-Vt)$3,042,583$1,153,74937.9%
Patty Murray (D-Wash)$9,480,395$3,581,24637.8%
Amy Klobuchar (D-Minn)$3,713,972$1,394,80037.6%
Heidi Heitkamp (D-ND)$3,844,184$1,381,04435.9%
House
MemberTotal Gender CodedTotal from Women% from Women
Jan Schakowsky (D-Ill)$686,044$445,90065%
Julia Brownley (D-Calif)$1,077,108$550,87251.1%
Chellie Pingree (D-Maine)$533,925$271,32050.8%
Jackie Speier (D-Calif)$443,479$222,72450.2%
Donna Edwards (D-Md)$241,234$118,10049%
Betty McCollum (D-Minn)$253,436$122,67748.4%
Lois Capps (D-Calif)$1,472,863$709,95148.2%
Carol Shea-Porter (D-NH)$587,046$280,63447.8%
Ann Mclane Kuster (D-NH)$1,524,411$717,31447.1%
Robin Kelly (D-Ill)$222,405$103,15046.4%

Lowest Percent of Campaign Donations from Women

Senate
MemberTotal Gender CodedTotal from Women% from Women
Thad Cochran (R-Miss)$1,172,839$145,73112.4%
David Vitter (R-La)$6,349,395$1,023,16316.1%
Ed Markey (D-Mass)$446,615$75,25016.9%
James M. Inhofe (R-Okla)$3,183,135$541,42417%
Tom Coburn (R-Okla)$1,016,514$184,67518.1%
Mike Crapo (R-Idaho)$1,495,767$274,85518.4%
Richard C. Shelby (R-Ala)$3,618,554$669,78318.5%
Mark Pryor (D-Ark)$2,683,647$499,41918.6%
Lindsey Graham (R-SC)$4,414,776$922,69220.9%
John A. Barrasso (R-Wyo)$2,985,542$632,68921.2%
House
MemberTotal Gender CodedTotal from Women% from Women
Howard Coble (R-NC)$118,275$11,2409.5%
Steve Scalise (R-La)$676,295$69,15010.2%
Mike D. Rogers (R-Ala)$431,035$44,53510.3%
Gene Green (D-Texas)$150,550$16,45010.9%
Mike Simpson (R-Idaho)$282,333$33,03011.7%
Tom Cole (R-Okla)$455,181$54,30011.9%
Chris Collins (R-NY)$393,910$51,90013.2%
Frank D. Lucas (R-Okla)$408,694$54,00013.2%
Adrian Smith (R-Neb)$332,086$44,24213.3%
Rob Bishop (R-Utah)$102,404$13,65013.3%

Of course, just receiving more or less money from women does not mean that the lawmakers are likely to behave any differently from each other once elected, nor does it mean that those members are receiving less money from women for any specific reason. However, access is often granted to deep-pocketed campaign donors, and if those campaign donors are predominantly male (or female), this may be an indication that the politician is more likely to grant access to men.

Women as Contributors


Women are actually slightly better represented among large campaign donors than they are among members of Congress, but not among the very deep-pocketed donors. In 2012, women contributed just under 30 percent of all of the money given that cycle, but they only contributed 19 percent of all money to outside spending groups, which are allowed to receive unlimited contributions. And, if we remove contributions by the top woman donor (Miriam Adelson) from the list, women contributed only 11 percent of all money to outside groups. In fact, women tended to give, per capita, smaller donations than did male contributors. Of the 100 most generous campaign contributors in 2012, only 11 were women.

Looking only at the amount of money coming from women can be deceptive. The candidates who get the most money, as a percentage, from women are almost entirely female Democrats, but the average female contributor is not necessarily donating to female Democrats. Fewer Republican women run for Congress, and so -- naturally -- more money tends to flow from women to Democratic women, compared to Republican women.

However, as a proportion of the overall amount of money given, women only marginally tend to prefer Democratic candidates. In fact, in 1996, women favored Republican congressional candidates. Substantially more money was delivered from women to George W. Bush than to Al Gore in 2000, although Bush refused matching funds and had no limit on his primary fundraising, leading him to receive much more money than Gore.

Barack Obama, however, received 70 percent more campaign money from women than did John McCain in the 2008 presidential contest. In 2012, Obama was also more dependent on female contributors than any general election presidential candidate since 1990. More than 44 percent of his itemized campaign money came from women, while only 28 percent of Mitt Romney's money was provided by women.

Contributions to Federal Candidates from Women

CycleAmount from women to CandidatesAmount from Women to DemocratsPercent of women's money to Democrats
1990$36,337,893$18,870,40451.9%
1992$55,960,955$33,003,71459%
1994$64,321,090$32,931,02551.2%
1996$77,716,390$37,379,47448.1%
1998$77,960,548$40,314,85651.7%
2000$109,592,551$57,215,45952.2%
2002$113,102,129$62,241,69155%
2004$149,905,777$80,788,62053.9%
2006$189,249,525$108,892,72757.5%
2008$181,868,319$106,516,62458.6%
2010$222,570,178$117,140,30852.6%
2012$231,810,103$120,895,90352.2%
2014$33,800,926$18,981,16656.2%

Women are not a monolith, of course. They represent different interests and industries, and come from different backgrounds. In 1990, homemakers donated similarly to women who work outside the home, based on party preferences. In fact, homemakers were very slightly more likely to support Democrats in 1990 than were women who reported outside employment. That reversed itself and the gap has widened since 1990, and in 2012, 56 percent of the donations from women who reported outside employment went to Democrats, compared to 37 percent of the donations from women who self-identified as homemakers.

Employed Women vs. Homemaker Contributions

CycleEmployed Women
% to Dems
Female Homemakers
% to Dems
Difference between
% to Democrats
199042%42%0%
199257%45%12%
199452%43%9%
199649%35%14%
199854%40%14%
200050%38%12%
200254%44%10%
200459%44%15%
200659%44%15%
200866%57%9%
201060%45%15%
201256%37%19%
201462%42%20%

The overall number of homemakers, as a proportion of overall donations, is still a small share of the overall pool, with these women only contributing between 7 percent and 9 percent of all money since 1990. From this data, it appears that even though a similar proportion of the overall pool is composed of homemakers, those homemakers are becoming more conservative, or the women who enter the workforce are becoming more liberal.


Just as not all women have outside employment, not all women who have outside employment are in the same kinds of jobs. Women report employers from many different industries, but substantial variation exists in how large a share of these industries' contributions come from women. For example, only 16 percent of contributions from the defense sector came from women in 2012. More than 43 percent of contributions from the “ideological” sector came from women.

These numbers do not necessarily suggest that fewer women work in the defense sector than in the ideological sector. What they do suggest is that candidates who receive substantial amounts of money from the defense sector are less likely to receive money from women.

Certain industries are also more likely to see more money flowing from female donors to federal candidates. So far this cycle, more than 63 percent of all money from the nonprofit sector has come from women. Other industries that tend to see a larger percentage of their contributions from women include miscellaneous services, education, and religious institutions. Those industries that lean more on men making contributions include casinos and gambling, defense aerospace, special trade contractors, and mining.

Limits & Legal Reform

In the last 24 years, there have been dramatic shifts in the ways individuals can donate money. Until 2002, individuals could give essentially unlimited amounts of money to political parties, which could then distribute those funds to state parties and candidates which could spend that money on issue ads that were permitted to mention federal candidates. This "soft money" system allowed individuals to circumvent contribution limits.

In 2002, Congress passed the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act, which banned unlimited soft money. But in 2009, legal developments allowed individuals (and organizations) to begin donating unlimited sums of money to "independent expenditure only" committees. These committees provided deep-pocketed individuals with the opportunity to spend large amounts of money again.

What do these legal changes have to do with women's donation habits? Women tend to make up a larger percentage of the donor pool when contribution amounts are limited by law -- although the overall percentage of women donating tends to be no higher than 35 percent. In the 2004, 2006 and 2008 cycles, which were the only three since 1990 with strict donation limits restricting the amount of money a single individual could give, the percentage of women as a portion of the donor pool increased.


Breaking out the percentage of women donating to the various types of political recipients reveals some other trends. Women tend to be a larger portion of the donor pool to presidential candidates, and a smaller proportion of the donors to PACs. After 2002, when soft money donations to parties were banned, the proportion of money contributed to the parties by women, compared to men, increased. These trends suggest that when campaign limits are enforced and effective, women tend to make up a larger share of the donor pool.

The Polarization of Women Donors

More women are giving more money to politicians and parties now than they were 20 years ago, and Democrats are growing increasingly dependent on their support. This map shows counties where women have given at least $25,000 in an election cycle. Darker-colored counties are those where contributions to candidates are most polarized, by party.

Women Donors Drift to Left

Men Still Rule in Political Donations

How do we identify contributor's sex?
We use an algorithm developed by Melissa Data (and available here) to decompose a contributor's name into Firstname, Lastname, Prefix, Suffix, and Sex. The software recognizes contextual clues (including identifiers like “Mrs.” or “Mr.”) as well as known sexes for names like John and Mary to sort names into one of four categories: male, female, unknown, or ambiguous. OpenSecrets.org staff members reconcile any conflicting sexes for individual contributors, and manually identify sex for some of the largest contributors.

Methodological Notes

Importantly, this study examines only contributions from individuals who donated at least $200 to an individual candidate, party, PAC, or super PAC. Individuals making contributions of less than that amount are not included in the Federal Election Commission's downloadable file, and are therefore not included in our analysis. There is no reason to believe that individuals who donate more than $200 are a representative sample of all Americans, or even a representative sample of all Americans who donate to federal campaigns. However, these large contributions consistently come to more than 60 percent of the total money received by campaigns, so the impact of individuals who make these contributions is magnified.




The Center for Responsive Politics 
StumbleUpon