From the office of Congressman Andy Harris:
Today, Rep. Andy Harris announced that he is endorsing Former Speaker Newt Gingrich for President of the United States and co-chairing Maryland’s Gingrich team. “I believe the United States urgently needs new leadership in the White House. We need a proven leader who will create jobs and reduce the nation’s debt. The Republican Party is fortunate to have many well-qualified candidates who can do just that. I am supporting Newt Gingrich because I believe he is the best candidate with the critical experience to turn this economy around and resolve our nation’s debt crisis,” commented Harris.
The early list of Maryland endorsements for the Gingrich campaign includes:
– Delegate Warren Miller District 9A Howard County
– Delegate Tony McConkey, District 33A Anne Arundel County
– Delegate Ron George, District 30 Anne Arundel County
– Delegate Steve Hershey, District 36 Caroline, Cecil, Kent & Queen Anne’s Counties
Rep. Andy Harris is currently in his first term representing Maryland’s 1st Congressional District which includes Maryland’s entire Eastern Shore and parts of Anne Arundel, Baltimore and Harford Counties. Previously, Harris served in the Maryland State Senate from 1998-2010. Dr. Andy Harris, MD is also an anesthesiologist who practiced medicine at Johns Hopkins Hospital for over three decades.
“The Republican Party is fortunate to have many well-qualified candidates who can do just that.”
Are you serious, the party may have had good candidates but they aren’t running and frankly have been drowned out by the last two years of dog and pony show. Newt Gingrich is the best only because when you look at the lackluster group of candidates running I am frankly sick. This is the best field, really. Or are we just going with the lesser of the evils. Unfortunately its the later…and I predict many will just stay home. Frankly Ron Paul is the man, but we all know your lobby hugging groups go bye bye if he gets elected so there is a concerted effort to mute him and his CONSISTENT message. Please don’t sell my intelligence short by throwing you hat behind which pony is front and center on the carousel this week. There are great conservatives which no longer are even are heard because of the bs and lack of direction in the party. Guys like Chuck Hagel, McCain, Graham (SC). Your all a bunch of DO NOTHINGS for the past two years, and now your left with either a check engine light or a seized engine on this automobile. Either way it gonna cost and eventually get nowhere. What a waste in putting the best minds forward in the party. This should be a winnable election for conservatives but unfortunately you got nothing but a side show complete with rodeo clowns using the same old song an dance.
Dammit I wish Bob Dole was still in politics. Bring on an sensible independent please..pathetic. Rep Harris Newt is just whats for dinner tonight…come a month from now he’ll just be leftovers with no other options in the pantry. No thanks I’ll pass. Will the real conservatives please come forward.
Newt as the Republican nominee, are you serious? As a registered Republican, I get sick at the thought of Newt running again. Let us not forget that in 1997, The House voted overwhelmingly to reprimand him as House Speaker, and ordered him to pay an unprecedented $300,000 penalty, the first time in the House’s 208-year history it has disciplined a speaker for ethical wrongdoing. He was accused of using tax-deductible charitable donations to fund a non-charitable college course that he taught, and of giving false information about this to the House Ethics Committee. The House voted 395-28 against him, which he paid as part of a settlement to avoid a full hearing. Since he resigned from the House, Gingrich became a highly paid political consultant. Thus, he is the consummate Washington insider. During his career as a politician, Newt Gingrich voted for higher taxes on numerous occasions, crammed NAFTA down the throats of the American people and flipped flopped on issues almost as much as you know who. While he was Speaker of the House, the amount of taxes collected by the federal government from the American people increased from $1.001 trillion to $1.511 trillion. Been to Tiffany’s lately?
Please do some research on your own and you will find there are better candidates.
Is this who we want or need to represent the Republican Party?
I agree, but please don’t say Ron Paul is the answer!
Of all the nominees, he goes with Newt?!?!?! Nothing says family values more than cheating on your wife and embezzlement! Way to go Mr. Harris, you just lost my vote next year!
Wow. So it only took Andy Harris a year in Washington to suddenly start thinking it’s OK to
1) cheat on your wife (and second wife)
2) sleep with lobbyists
3) run up unpaid charge accounts at luxury good stores
4) cheat on taxes
5) lie to ethics investigators
6) ignore and actively subvert federal campaign finance laws
7) assert that not getting caught doing something illegal for a long time should make it legal
Looks like that dork we sent to Congress is all grown up now. Time goes by so quickly.
Plain and simple — Andy climbed on board the Newt Train because no other campaign will be playing as fast and loose with their money (and probably women). It’s part of the Andy Harris master plan of ignoring his constituents and drive the economy off a cliff while selling his office to the highest bidder.
Good ole Andy
Hmmm…..Newt?…..really?
It can be argued that he’s a great orator and can leave you feeling dazed and confused with his dizzying replies to questions, but that’s not too far removed from what we’ve got now in our current POTUS. The only exception being one needs a teleprompter and one does not.
Ron Paul is the only candidate who does not need to “clarify” or “change his position” on issues. Look at his voting record. He’s been consistent.
Newt Gingrich!? Harris has shown his lack of judgment once again.
• Sleazy Newt: Newt Gingrich was dating and basically living with Callista Bisek, a “willowy blond Congressional aide 23 years his junior.” Biske, 33, had been spending nights at Gingrich’s apartment near the Capitol and had her own key. In an amazing act of hypocrisy, Gingrich was apparently dated Bisek all during Clinton-Lewinsky adultery scandal, even as he proclaimed family values and bitterly criticized the President for his adultery.
• Family Values? Pressing Wife for Divorce in the Hospital: “He walked out in the spring of 1980…. By September, I went into the hospital for my third surgery. The two girls came to see me, and said, “Daddy is downstairs. Could he come up?” When he got there, he wanted to discuss the terms of the divorce while I was recovering from my surgery.” – Jackie, his first wife.
• Dead-Beat Dad: The hospital visit wasn’t the end of it, either. Jackie had to take Newt to court to get him to contribute for bills, as utilities were about to be cut off.
• Draft Dodger: Though he relentlessly pushes military spending and talks like a bigtime hawk, Gingrich avoided the Vietnam War through a combination of student and family deferments. (He married one of his teachers at age 19.)
• House Banking Scandal: Newt Bounced 22 Checks Remember the House Banking scandal, where so many congressmen wrote rubber checks on government money? Newt hopes you don’t, because he bounced 22 himself, which almost cost him reelection in 1992. His vote for the secret House pay raise, and the chauffeur who drove him around Washington in a Lincoln Town Car, didn’t help.
• The 1995 Murdoch Deal You probably heard something about Newt’s book scandal. He was offered first $2.5 million, then $4.5 million by Harper Collins, a publishing company owned by Rupert Murdoch, who also owns the Fox TV network and newspapers and TV stations around the world. Murdoch has been having problems with a complaint by NBC that Fox is a foreign owned TV network, which is against US law.
• The 1984 Book Deal Murdoch’s book deal wasn’t the first lucrative and controversial book deal Newt engineered. In 1983 he established a limited partnership in Atlanta called COS Limited, which pulled together about two dozen of his biggest campaign contributors to finance his book. The former administrator of his congressional offices in Georgia, Dolores Adamson, resigned over the deal. “The manuscript was put together in the district office using office equipment,” she said. “He would just come in and say ‘This is what I want to do.’ I would say, ‘This is not ethical,” but after a while he didn’t listen.” That office equipment, of course, was paid for by US taxpayers including you.
• GOPAC sleaze: Taxpayer subsidies for his partisan campaign course. Newt in his poltical career was the king of using tax-payer subsidized donations for his personal and political purposes. He stooped so low as to hijack not one but two charities for poor inner city kids and use their donations for his personal goals. GOPAC, Newt’s longtime political action committee, was the centerpiece of a complex network of non-profit, and mostly tax exempt organizations that Newt has used to support himself and other conservative candidates. In an act of incredible hypocrisy, this crusader against taxes obtained taxpayer subsidies for his personal and political goals, by misusuing these tax-exempt groups.
• Corporate reward: $2,500/month to Newt’s wife According to the Wall Street Journal, a company hired Marianne Gingrich (Newt’s wife) for $2,500 a month plus commissions in September 1994 after he announced support for a free trade zone in Israel that they are trying to build. Her “job” for Israel Export Development Co. is to find tenants for the trade zone. Gingrich’s spokesman said that since her job did not involve working with the US government, there was no conflict of interest.
• Fannie and Freddie But it’s his post-Speaker days as a high-paid GOP consultant for Freddie Mac that are proving the biggest threat so far. Newt Gingrich racked up between $1.6 million and $1.8 million from Freddie Mac through the years for, the former speaker maintains, essentially doing nothing.
Oh, come on PTB Liberal, enough about your buddy Newt. If he his really all of that, why are you so afraid of him running against your pal Obama?
Newt running would be a gift from heaven.
@PTBL Draft dodger, eh? You rate that as a disqualification of Newt after eight years of Slick Willie? You never cease to amaze me.
OBSERVER: Did you read this:”…Though he relentlessly pushes military spending and talks like a bigtime hawk….”? Don’t you find that a bit hypocritical? It is akin to him “Gingrich was apparently (living with) Bisek all during Clinton-Lewinsky adultery scandal, even as he proclaimed family values and bitterly criticized the President for his adultery.”
The man is a scum bag.
Yes, he has many of Clinton’s qualities. Probably why they worked so well together. Both scum-bags! Bill doing one in the oval office, and Newt doing one in his apartment.
There is another difference between Newt and the Slickster; Newt didn’t knowingly lie in a court of law. Bill probably didn’t know the difference, having been an Attorney General, Governor and chief law enforcement guy for the US. It doesn’t make adultery right for either of them but I think Bill has one up on poor Newt.
Hey Retired, how about doing us all a favor? Stop using the “scumbag” name for anyone. Look up it’s definition and then think about what yo are saying. It detracts from your message.
Dave Yensan: I was using the term in reference to Proud To Be Liberal’s comments above mine referring to Newt as a Scum Bag. PTBL no doubt believes Newt to be one, however, he does not apparently feel that Clinton deserves the title for doing the same thing. And yes it is vulgar slang for “a mean despicable person.”
http://www.borowitzreport.com/2011/11/29/as-cain-drops-out-proadultery-voters-shift-to-gingrich/
PTBL, do you believe in heaven, just as those right wing conservatives do? You may get your gift, and if Newt is the candidate against Obama and Newt wins, it will indeed be a special gift!! From a Barack to a Newt, now that would be special!
You are sounding like our neoconservative brethren who would like to see this country fail – just to prove a point. How narcissistic is that?
I wouldn’t call President Obama’s economic policies successful or helping the US succeed. He is a promoter of shared misery and the socialization of America.
Porter, I would not label our status as a country as “failed” during Newt’s service in Congress. Would you say our country is currently on its way to success or failure? I wouldn’t brand the current status of our country, after three years of Obama, as successful.
RETIRED: It will take more than three years to pull this truck out of the ditch the Bush and GOP drove it into. Just remember they inherited an economy that was booming, a surplus in the bank and no wars.
PTB LIBERAL: Yes I remember when Obama became President. Since then unemployment has increased, more people are on welfare, our national debt has increased even more than it did under Bush, and I for one don’t feel that we are better off today than we were three years ago.
I agree, Obama got a full plate when he became President. Problem is, he took us further into the ditch.
Your Mr Bush gave away the surplus we had in 2000 by telling you that it was your money and you didn’t have to pay down your debt. He also engaged in one war that was being done on the cheap until he chose to begin nation building which was stated early on we do not do. And did we finally root out that mastermind that attacked us in 2002? No, we didn’t do that but instead: “Look over there – Saddam could have a bomb!” and we spent money OFF BUDGET to fight a second war because gosh darn it Shock and Awe is what we do best. So then Katrina slams New Orleans, and as little attention as we paid to it coming ashore we bent over backwards to appropriate $60 Billion to help rebuild in the most disorganized restoration project this side of the Euphrates. And by the way, in 2002 the big story I was listening to was corporate malfeasance and accounting irregularities that were commonplace throughout corporate America but that would never come back to haunt us as CEOs and board members did everything they could to maximize short term profits at the expense of long term viability. And golly, those two wars were now being fought off budget and the regular deficit was now running $400 billion unlike a few years before when we weren’t showing people how mighty we were to wage two prolonged wars with not enough boots on the ground. And then all of a sudden just before the housing market implodes the home I bought in Bel Air in 2002 for $226,000 was sold in 2005 for $341,000 in a bidding war. And no one thought the market could go anywhere but up. And then if those mortgage backed securities didn’t just demand $700 billion or all those poor banks would send us into a recession. Oh yeah. Then Obama got elected and the silliness of keeping the actual cost of two wars off budget was ended. And now we don’t take in enough money to pay for the things that we really never planned to pay cash for. But you go ahead and blame him for all the denial that occurred during the previous 8 years. We were told how great we were, and everyone believed it.
So, according to Porter, no matter how long Obama is President, and no matter how ineffective he his as a leader, it will always be Bush’s fault. When Obama campaigned for the job, he said all of the things that Porter has stated above. He said that if he were elected he would change all of that. Now we are in worse shape than before, and don’t we understand, IT’S NOT OBAMA’S FAULT… IT’S THAT MEAN INCOMPETENT BUSH!!!
Retired: You forget that the Tea Party/GOP controls the House. I would look to them for this mess we are in. They are the party of NO and will do anything to win back the Whitehouse even if that means you will lose your pension and millions of us are put into the streets as long as your billionaire masters make a profit. You are a tool of the very people who will destroy your way of life and you don’t even know it. No its not all Bush’s fault, but he was a tool as well.
PTB LIBERAL: The interesting thing about billionaires is that they are smart enough to know that taking away my pension and the pension from millions like me, along with putting millions in the street does not produce more money for them. Billionaires need people to spend money in order for them to have money. Fewer people spending money, less profit for the billionaires. Your scenario is the last thing billionaires want to see happen.
The elephant had diarrhea. Of course it’s going to take a lot to clean it up and it won’t be pretty and it’s going to leave a smell that lasts a long time.
Retired: You are making an assumption based upon logic and common sense. Most rational people would do the same thing. Unfortunately you, as most tea partiers, are mistaken. The more money the middle class makes, the less money billionaires make.
For example, unions have created the middle class because they have worked for a living wage for their members. “Union membership had been steadily declining in the US since 1983. Union membership in the private sector has in recent years fallen under 9% — levels not seen since 1932.” Corporation union busting has caused this decline in membership (as well as a decrease in worker safety). Just look at coal mines.
The effect of this is that the American workers’ income has proportionally decreased. “With the release of today’s consumer price index for December (2008)—up 0.3% for the month and 4.1% for 2007—we can now examine how real hourly and weekly earnings did over the course of last year (comparing this December to last December). As shown in Figure 1, both hourly and weekly earnings fell in 2007.” “The past decade has largely been one of erosion for the U.S. economy: jobs lost, homes foreclosed on, gains in equality erased. And according to a new report from Policy Matters Ohio, wages too have declined in no less than 10 states, once adjusted for inflation.” During this same time frame the income for billionaires increased by some 35%.
If you do some research yourself, you will see that billionaires care for short term increases in their own incomes and not in your long-term advantage. “Tax progressivity was highest in the decades after World War II, when the rich were taxed a stratospheric 88 percent for nearly two decades. This was also an era in which the U.S. economy was a juggernaut, and the American Dream was indisputably alive and well. Because of this, most economists do not believe that high tax rates on the rich are bad for the economy.”
While we will never go back to taxing anyone at 88%, I do think the very wealthy should pay at least the same rate as you do. Do not be a stooge for the ultra-rich and stand up for your own best interests.
“While we will never go back to taxing anyone at 88%”
PTBL – You are the most disingenuous liberal on the Dagger.
When marginal income tax rates were at their peaks north of 80% from 1940 – 1963 no one paid an effective rate even close to those marginal rates. Back in those days you could deduct passive losses, sales and use tax and an array of legal tax shelters existed.
PTB LIBERAL: Who is being a stooge for the ultra rich? The ultra rich already have a higher tax rate than the middle class. They also have tax loopholes, which if they qualify, will lower their effective tax rate. I know all of this, and I concur. I am all for closing loopholes in the tax code, as are a majority of republicans in the house, including TEA Party supported republicans. What they are not for is raising the tax rate. If you close loopholes, you require the ultra rich to pay their tax rate, rather than escaping to a lower effective rate. You are right that the rich had very high tax rates many years ago, but so did the middle class. The rates have been lowered for all, not just the rich.
I was commenting on your statement that billionaires want to take away my pension, and place millions of people in the street. I do not concur with that premise in any way. Do I understand that Obama is traveling around the country spreading class warfare talk, rich against the rest of us. Sure I do. It is his only hope of diverting our attention from his failure as a leader. Who knows, it may work, and he may get reelected. Wouldn’t be the first time American voters fell for something that was smoke and mirrors. President Obama and his team have apparently decided that the economy will not improve enough to support a positive voter response in 2012. They know that high unemployment, people losing their homes, along with uncertainty on our foreign policy is not a good scenario for reelection.
When all is said and done, the basic question is; are you better off now than you were three years ago? If the answer is yes, then you should consider reelecting your current leader. If the answer is no, you should consider a change in leadership. In my view the answer is no, and I will be considering a change.
I hear all of this talk about the party of NO. What I don’t hear is Obama saying; the House has passed bills designed to improve our economy, balance our budget, and reduce our deficit, but these bills have not been brought to a vote in the Senate or failed in the Senate, and here are the reasons why they were not good bills. This kind of rhetoric from our President tells me that he is more interested in his reelection than our country’s welfare.
PAUL: …and you are the most obtuse. We cannot improve the economy without just and fair tax rates for all Americans. The economy will not improve unless the government reduces spending and INCREASES REVENUE. I do not have a problem with allowing Bush’s giveaway tax decrease for billionaires to lapse. I do not have a problem with closing loopholes. If fact, I would support lowering general taxes on corporations in return for closing loopholes and requiring that they be based in the US. Only the most wanting person could support the present system. Don’t be tool for people who do not care about you.
@ptbl,
What marginal income tax rate and long term capital gains tax rate should there be for the wealthy?
CLARA:
“Head of Household Filing Status
[Tax Rate Schedule Z, Internal Revenue Code section 1(b)]
• 10% on taxable income from $0 to $12,400, plus
• 15% on taxable income over $12,400 to $47,350, plus
• 25% on taxable income over $47,350 to $122,300, plus
• 28% on taxable income over $122,300 to $198,050, plus
• 33% on taxable income over $198,050 to $388,350, plus
• 35% on taxable income over $388,350.
Tax Rate on Long-Term Capital Gains
Capital gain income from assets held longer than one year are generally taxed at a special long-term capital gains rate. The rate that applies depends on which ordinary income tax bracket you fall under.”
RETIRED: Your position is akin to pounding your head with a hammer and repeating, “FOX told me this is good for me, harder, harder…feels good, feels good.”
PTBL: And yours would be akin to watching Matthews, Sharpton, Madow, and Schultz.
Perhaps you are better off today than you were three years ago. If so, good for you. Most people are not in a better position. Like I said in my last post, if you are better off since Obama became President, then cast your vote for no change. If you are like most Americans, worse off than three years ago, time to think about making a change. If that school of thought is banging my head with a hammer, then so be it!
@ptbl,
I asked you how much should wealthy individuals be taxed?
CLARA: and I answered you.
Gingrich’s ego exceeds the nation’s current GDP and any potential recovery prospects in GDP. That in and of itself equates to future deficits.
I hope one remember’s the actual expenses caused by the government shutdown. If, he was that reckless as speaker of the house just think what he’ll do as president.
One should also think about the guy promoting him and the office he’s in.
It seems as if Newt will be as successful as Hannibal.
Ahhh,…and isn’t it a good thing that Scipio defeated Hannibal.
LOL 🙂
Amazing how many people do not want Newt as the GOP candidate. Does anyone know Andy Harris well enough to have a cup of coffee with him and tell him he’s way off base. Hopefully the GOP can break away from the religious right and Tea Bagger mentality and start collecting the middle of the road votes.
BLISSFUL: I would that it was posible.
Andy Harris just isn’t a very bright man. Sort of a Forest Gump. I would vote for anybody-but-Andy Harris. Like Tom Hanks! At least he is nice.
You may disagree with him, but do you have an education equivalent to a BS, MPH, and MD degrees from Johns Hopkins? Argue with his positions but don’t try to say that he “just isn’t a very bright man.”
A bunch of letters after your name is not a requirement to be effective. Obama has advanced degrees too that does not make him smart or effective either. Andy Harris is out of touch with reality and his future consituents. He will not survive redistricting. THe MD-1 may still prefer a republican but not one bought by club for growth who only meets with his consituents at libraries a stones throw from his house at hours that working people can’t make.
The statment was “Andy Harris just isn’t a very bright man.” The statement is wrong. Your comments about him not being effective or being out of touch have nothing to do with the statement or my response.
Both Harris and Gingrich are intelligent men. Intelligence does not always translate into holding to correct principles. Gingrich is a flip flopping washington insider, and Harris endorses him. Neither are worthy of elected office.
Corey: What really makes a flip-flopper? Is a flip-flopper one who changes positions? Or, is a flip-flopper one who changes positions to one you don’t agree with? Lets say Gingrich did not believe in global warming, but he changes his position to now believe, as apparently you do, is he a flop-flopper, or someone who has seen the light, and now takes a correct position. I guess flip-flopper is defined as someone who takes a position not in agreement with yours.
It is a shame there isn’t a Hippocratic Oath for public office. It isn’t that Dr. Harris isn’t bright, but that he has not the integrity needed for public office. He has sold out to the Tea Party who have but one goal: screw the middle class so that the rich (as is Harris) can get richer. He has nothing in common with his constituents and I trust they will realize this in 2012.
I’m a moderate Democrat, but really….who was insane enough to vote for Harris?!
Proud To Be Liberal,
You talk as if the tax “loopholes” are a thing that the Republicans/Conservatives gave to their friends in corporate America over the violent objection of the Democrat/Progressives/Liberals. And by doing that you seem always to couch your posts in an “us and them” way.
My friend, the Dem/Libs are just as guilty as the Conservatives. You very well know that is true because you are neither stupid nor are you uninformed. Can we agree that far too many tax breaks have been given out to far too many organizations (whether they are rich people or corporations or financial institutions or whatever) by many of our elected rporesentatives of all persuasions? And for them to actually receive those benefits the enabling legislation had to be approved by a majority of both houses plus the president.
Just be very, very careful what you take away because some of the very causes that you support will be hurt in the process. But I do agree that some are ‘no brainers’ that even you and I could agree on.
A lot of rich people get their ‘tax breaks’ from ‘investing’ in stuff you suppport. A lot of rich people get tax breaks because they support not-for-profit organizations and they find ways to save on their income, capital gains and estate taxes by donations. A lot of needy people benefit and you should be very careful when you paint with such a large brush. A lot of tax breaks stimulate investment in areas that ultimately makes the live of all people better and provide jobs for Americans. Especially Americans that have been fortunate enough to take advantage of an education.
As I have said before I believe that many of the issues that you point to have come about because our elected officials have long been been showered with money and other benefits by organizations of all stripes and persuasions thru lobbying. I refer to it as legal bribery. And I mean elected representatives of all parties. For every Republican you can find I can find a Democrat with an equally egregious track record.
That, in my view, has to stop. When it does then perhaps we citizens will have the primary attention of those we elect rather than the big contributors.
ALEX R: “Can we agree that far too many tax breaks have been given out to far too many organizations (whether they are rich people or corporations or financial institutions or whatever) by many of our elected representatives of all persuasions?” Yes we can!
“I believe that many of the issues that you point to have come about because our elected officials have long been showered with money and other benefits by organizations of all stripes and persuasions thru lobbying. I refer to it as legal bribery.” We concur.
However, there is an inconsistency as to the breadth and scope between our parties. There are 18,000 lobbyists and Lobbying forms. I find that they are skewed to the right.
Some of the more grievous examples of socially conservative and profit motivated examples are:
• “All across America, many Republicans signed a pledge with a group called Americans for Tax Reform, headed by Grover Norquist, to never raise taxes. Never. So that is why Congress cannot agree. The Democrats want to raise the taxes for the 1 percent of Americans who are millionaires. Not for small business, or the 99 percent of the rest of us, just the millionaires. But since that would violate their pledge to the Tax Reform group, Republicans can’t raise the millionaires’ taxes.”
• “Part of the reason healthcare costs keep skyrocketing is the near unrestricted power of the pharmaceutical lobby. Drug makers, for instance, hired an army of lobbyists to pass President Bush’s drug benefit expansion, known as Medicare Part D, with a provision that restricted the government from negotiating for lower prices. Efforts to import cheaper drugs have been similarly squashed by K Street firms working on behalf of pharmaceutical corporations. “
• “Goaded by battalions of corporate lobbyists, members of Congress are working to give a select group of U.S. multinational firms like Apple, Oracle and Pfizer a lavish tax break on a trillion dollars stashed offshore.”
• “…lobbying expenditures by the U.S. financial industry were directly associated with how legislators voted on key bills in the years before the crisis—and that bills proposing regulation that the industry considered unfavorable were far less likely to pass than bills proposing financial deregulation.”
• “Religious groups have increasingly spent money over the past four decades on lobbying in Washington, DC, according to The Pew Forum on Religion & Public Life… By far the biggest lobbyist was the right-wing American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC), which spent $87.9 million in 2008. In second place was the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops at $26.7 million in 2009. Third place went to another conservative group, the Family Research Council, with $14.3 million in 2008.”
• “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.”
• “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.”
• “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.”
But the scourge of Democracy in our country will be the Super PACs. “Super PACs, unlike traditional political action committees, can collect an unlimited amount of money from any source — corporations, labor unions, individuals — but are barred from coordinating with a particular campaign, although they can advocate for a candidate.” And they can remain secret because “they can collect unlimited funds from anonymous donors”. That is due to the recent Supreme Court ruling: Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission.
Lastly, as I researched this I cannot but say liberal groups also lobby, but I cannot find that they do it neither to the extent that conservatives do nor to the benefit of profits at the expense of regular people. You are welcomed to gainsay me on this.
Of course Unions, Moveon.org, NAACP, PETA, Code Pink, Sierra Club, LBGTers, Environmentalist groups, etc… are not lobbyists.
Paul: It would seem that PTBL’s position is that members of Unions, Moveon.org, NAACP, PETA, Code Pink, Sierra Club, LBGTers, Environmentalist groups, etc., are “regular people”, who would, of course, only lobby for “regular people”. Unlike the PAC’s PTBL is talking about. You know, like TEA Party people, they’re not regular people!!
Retired: At least you understand. Good job!
Retiredawhile – Proud To Be Liberal is for big government and confiscatory and punishing taxation of the folks that produce in our country.
Proud thinks that there is a finite pie that needs to be allocated to the non-producers. He is economically and financially illiterate and he chooses to ignore the failures and evils of progressive liberal collectivism in all its forms.
PAUL: I guess if you say so, it must be true. You must be omnipotent to be able to read my mind. Can you see what I’m thinking now? “…pompous, insufferable, uncompromising, tool for the wealthy…”
Proud – Actually, I read you as perpetually self-hating, loathing of America and jealous of anyone who has one more dollar than you do.
You are the worst kind of liberal zealot whose desire is to spread misery and promote contempt for success.
PAUL: Perhaps you missed my last paragraph: “Lastly, as I researched this I cannot but say liberal groups also lobby, but I cannot find that they do it neither to the extent that conservatives do nor to the benefit of profits at the expense of regular people.”
Allow me to explain that to you as it seems to have escaped you. Progressive groups do indeed lobby, but they are trying to help ordinary people instead of screwing them. Is that any clearer?
Proud, you are clearly wrong!
PTBL,
You said that the liberal lobbying groups are trying to help ordinary people instead of screwing them. Well, I’m an ordinary person. You will have to trust me on that one. (Maybe a middle aged white person who believes in equality, hard work, privae generosity toward the needy and education isn’t ordinary in this country anymore.) Nevertheless, I can tell you that the liberal lobbying groups aren’t helping me a bit so please, please, tell them to stop. They are your friends and they might listen to you.
My friend, the lobbying groups, conservative and liberal, are out to help no one but themselves. No one. Including you.
Hey all,
Been a while since I have been around, with work, school,and the holidays. I am glad to see things haven’t changed much..:)
Proud,
“However, there is an inconsistency as to the breadth and scope between our parties. There are 18,000 lobbyists and Lobbying forms. I find that they are skewed to the right.” – from http://nakedlaw.avvo.com/2011/05/follow-the-money-top-10-industries-by-lobbying-dollars/ – I found the following tidbit of information:
For 2010, the top 10 for lobbying dollars totaled $152,459,339. Of that, $87,499,246 or 57.39% went to Dems while $64,960,093 or 42.61%.
Also, according to http://www.opensecrets.org/lobby/lobby_contribs.php?cycle=2010&type=P in the 2010 cycle, of the top 10 receiving contributions, 7 are Democrats, including the top 3 and these include the only 3 receiving over $600K. In 2008, 6 of the top 10 were Democrats, including 2 of the top 3.
Now, between 1989 and 2012, according to http://www.opensecrets.org/orgs/list.php?order=A of the top 20 all time donors, 15 of the 20 lean Democrat, 4 donate significantly to both, meaning only 1 leans Republican. (The NRA is 44th on the list)
As for your list, I am going to assume you got some of that information from http://www.thechristianleftblog.org/1/category/rightwing%20extremism87eeb2aef6/1.html which is a bit of a biased source. I am assuming this as what you quoted were direct quotes from this site.
Overall, I would say, based on facts, the Democrats actually receive more from lobbying.
The Open Secrets web site has tons of information on it, including more on individual donors which is very useful.
With all that being said, I too agree that tax loopholes should be closed. I believe that all should pay taxes, including corporations (with exceptions made for companies that are completely in the United States). I think everyone should pay the same percentage, which would, in effect, make the wealthy pay their fair share.
Anyways, have a nice day.
PAUL Mc: I went to your site and found
Real Estate
Tenth on the list for lobbying dollars spent in 2010 is the real estate industry with $9,003,035 spent. Apparently the real estate industry is nonpartisan, because almost equal percentages went to Democrats and Republicans.
Consumer Banks
Close behind real estate at number nine is consumer banks, which spent $9,011,959 in 2010 lobbying dollars. They skewed farther to Republicans, though, with 61% of that total supporting Republican candidates. Both real estate and consumer banks are part of the overall category of “Finance, Insurance, & Real Estate,” which spent a cumulative total of $62,905,312. Suddenly the reasoning behind the bailout makes so much more sense.
Oil & Gas
Everyone loves to hate the oil and gas companies—except Republicans, that is—and it’s clear why, since the oil and gas industry spent $10,490,239 in 2010, 73% of which went to Republican candidates.
Electric Utilities
And speaking of energy, electric utilities spent $13,105,686 in 2010. You might think at least half of that targeted Republicans, but the electric utility PAC skewed slightly Democrat at 55%. Then again, solar and wind still make electricity.
Building Trade Unions
Sixth on the list of top 10 lobbying industries is building trade unions. Now we really start to see political lines drawn in the sand—of the $15,046,146 the building trade unions spent in 2010, 93% went to Democrats. In fact, in the Labor Union category, which includes industrial, transportation, and public sector unions, 93% of the cumulative $63,665,882 went to Democrats.
Pharmaceuticals
Pharmaceutical companies come in fifth out of our top 10, lower than you might expect given their reputations. “Big Pharma” spent $15,116,923 in lobby money in 2010, with a surprising 54% going to Democrats. It wouldn’t be surprising if that had something to do with President Obama’s health care plan.
Construction
The overall construction industry, which does not include labor unions, is fourth on the list, having spent $15,534,354 to lobby in 2010. If you consider the recession and the industries hit hardest—construction, banking, and real estate—it’s no wonder that these industries fall easily into our top 10. Construction spent slightly more money (59%) lobbying Republicans.
Public Sector Unions
Public sector unions protect government workers, including teachers, postal workers, and firefighters, and are the third biggest lobbying industry. Interestingly, the National Education Association and the American Federation of Teachers make up $12,320,913 of the $17,610,966 spent lobbying in 2010. Like other unions, the public sector union lobbies heavily skew Democrat, at 92%.
Insurance
As the biggest piece of the “Finance, Insurance, and Real Estate” category, the insurance industry spent a massive $21,189,648 on lobbying in 2010, 53% of which went to Republicans. Given what the insurance industry stood to lose as a result of healthcare reform, it is unsurprising that they threw everything they had into their lobby. It was probably one of the most important political years ever for this industry.
This leads us to the number one industry by lobby dollars in 2010:
Heath Professionals
Healthcare professionals lobbied to the tune of $26,350,343 in 2010, 56% to Democrats, which is very telling with regard to that political year. We have to think healthcare reform, which finally passed at the end of March 2010, was a large part of that effort.
Total spent $201,079,035
GOP $100,539,519
Dem $100,539,516
It looks pretty even to me. However, you must include in this the money spent by secret Super PACs like the ones the Koch brothers run.
Hey Proud,
I saw your response and decided to double check my numbers. Here is what I got:
Industry Total %D Amount Dem % R Amount Repub
Real Estate 9003035 50 4501517.5 50 4501517.5
Consumer Banks 9001959 39 3510764.01 61 5491194.99
Oil and Gas 10490231 27 2832362.37 73 7657868.63
Elec Utils 13105686 55 7208127.3 45 5897558.7
Build Unions 15046146 93 13992915.78 7 1053230.22
Pharmaceuticals 15116923 54 8163138.42 46 6953784.58
Construction 15534354 41 6369085.14 59 9165268.86
Public Unions 17610966 92 16202088.72 8 1408877.28
Insurance 21189648 47 9959134.56 53 11230513.44
Health Prof 26350343 56 14756192.08 44 11594150.92
TOTAL 152449291 57.5 87495325.88 42.5 64953965.12
Now, I was wondering, what happened and how did you get your numbers and I think I figured it out. Under the second catergory, Consumer Banks, there are two numbers. Re-read the statement and you will see, the second number, the 62,905,302 number is actually composed into a lager sector. It states, “Close behind real estate at number nine is consumer banks, which spent $9,011,959 in 2010 lobbying dollars. They skewed farther to Republicans, though, with 61% of that total supporting Republican candidates. Both real estate and consumer banks are part of the overall category of “Finance, Insurance, & Real Estate,” which spent a cumulative total of $62,905,312. Suddenly the reasoning behind the bailout makes so much more sense.” As you can see, it plainly states the 9,011,959 number is the correct number for the Consumer Bank catergory for which the Republicans have the 61% of. The Real Estate was already used and the Insurance is used later. Can’t double dip the numbers.
As for the super secret PACs. The Koch brothers and the rest of the private donors are listed on the other web site I stated.
Anyways, have a nice day.
The number chart came out a bit goofy looking. The totals were:
Total Amount – 152449291
Percent Democrat – 57.5
Amount Democrat – 87495325.88
Percent Republican – 42.5
Amount Republican – 64953965.12
Anyways, have a nice day.
PAUL Mc: I’m sorry, I deleted the Excel spreadsheet I used to do my figures and I do not want to recreate it. But no matter what the proportion is, there is too much money spent on special interests at the expense of ordinary citizens.
Hey Proud,
There is too much money spent on both sides. Also, both sides have ordinary citizens, even though they may disagree on how the country is being handled.
Anyways, have a nice day.
Here’s what I have to say. If we want to get this country back on the right track, we have to stop playing the blame game and stop playing parties. We have to stop agreeing or disagreeing with people just because of their party association. And stop focusing on what’s past. Bush screwed up. Then, Obama screwed up. Stop looking at who did it, and start looking what what we have to do to fix it. The next president needs to be someone who can do what’s best for the country and its people. It needs to be someone who cares about the country more than re-election.
Hear Me Out – Your Kumbaya, Rodney King “Why Can’t We All get Along”, we’re all in this together approach is never going to work. The US has had since its beginning a brutal political process.
So any notion that you might have that there was a “Golden Age” in American politics where the leftists and the conservatives worked together in harmony never existed. The left has waged a 70 year agenda of incrementally moving us toward progressivism.
Hear Me Out: Paul’s answer to you explains why the GOP/Tea Party cannot “stop playing the blame game and stop playing parties.” That’s all they know. They are so twisted by hate and greed that they cannot stop themselves.
Proud – Liberals like you have cornered the market on greed and hate.
Facta Non Verba Paul
If it walks like a duck, talks like a duck, flies like a duck…it’s a duck.
“The American People will take Socialism, but they won’t take the label. I certainly proved it in the case of EPIC. Running on the Socialist ticket I got 60,000 votes, and running on the slogan to ‘End Poverty in California’ I got 879,000. I think we simply have to recognize the fact that our enemies have succeeded in spreading the Big Lie. There is no use attacking it by a front attack, it is much better to out-flank them.”
Upton Sinclair
I thought they worked pretty well together in the 90’s.
Yes when we had the great President Clinton. How I miss him!
And he misses you too Proud!
It takes more then one side to work together. The GOP House also worked together to help make it all possible. There was also a civility and not just screaming at each other and refusing to work together.
Yes that was before the Tea Party, FOX and Koch.
It took the Contract with America, shutting down the government and impeachment proceedings to move Clinton to center-right.
Revisionist history is a specialty of the Tea Party.
No, their specialty was defeating extreme left wing liberals in the 2010 elections. Seems they were very successful throughout the country.
RETIRED: Don’t count your 2012 eggs before they hatch my friend. I doubt that will happen again as the people are waking up to your extreem right-wing oligarchic views.
extreme
PTBL: My extreme right-wing oligarchic views! Really? I’m a middle-of-the-road guy/girl. I’m a conservative, don’t care for the far-right, or the far-left.
RETIRED: Well my friend you could have fooled me. I’d hate to see what a right winger was like.
According to Wikipedia, Mr Clinton vowed to end welfare as we know it in his 1992 campaign. The legislation was signed into law in 1996. I realize this is the internet where you can still find pages devoted to the DoD conspiracy that flew a radio controlled A-3 Skywarrior into the twin towers but you have to start somewhere with your research.
Without a Republican congress Clinton could not have reformed welfare.
And without Clinton your Republican congress would be as effective as the current one is. Gingrich and Clinton were willing to compromise for the good of the country. What we have now is a bunch of people willing to compromise to get exactly what they want without sacrificing anything in return.
Porter: Are you making a case for Gingrich as President?
Nope. I don’t trust him. He’s a bigger scoundrel than many of you think Clinton was. He was fine as a congressman (sort of) but as a President I’m not exactly sure what is ego will demand from the rest of us. He might be the second coming of Bush/Cheney and I use the two of them because Bush was a patsy to Dick Cheney’s selfishness and arrogance. I gained substantial respect for Mr Bush after he left office – principally because I think he grew in the office. Coming by humility late in life is not what you want in a President though.
Porter: In my opinion, you will never be President without a big ego. That said, if Gingrich is willing to compromise for the good of the country, why should we let his ego concern us. They all have big egos, and as you said, the current bunch is unwilling to come to agreement unless they get exactly what they want.
Maybe a big ego is one of the qualities of people that seek office. He does not need my vote to endorse his false opinion of his importance. I despise people that hate. I dislike people that would seek to isolate groups of us and diminish them. The direction the Republican party has gone in in the last two decades disturbs em and I voted for Reagan because I found Mondale equally lacking. But the only candidate I would have voted on the Republican side was John McCain in 2000. That was when he was his own man, before he drank the Koolaid. Anyone that seeks office by choosing to set us against ourselves and belittle us because of “Liberal” leanings or simply uses it as a pejorative inline with the terrorists is not someone I want to associate with. And if anyone had any sense, the next time they saw a candidate that expressed themselves similarly, they wouldn’t want to join something so vile, they should shun them and say so.
And Retired… the name is David… and I was told along time ago by a Kindergarten teacher that using someone’s last name is a sign of disrespect. Another person comments here with the name Porter only, and I disagree with him often. Make the distinction.
David it is. No disrespect intended.
Rep. Harris’ endorsement of Newt Gingrich tells me all I need to know about Harris. Gingrich is a true insider: constantly changing his positions in according to the changing winds of the political climate. He supported Romney Care but now opposes Obama Care. He believed in global warming, but now he does not to satisfy conservatives. He criticized Clinton during the Lewinsky scandal, while having an affair of his own. What about the millions of $ Gingrich made from Fannie May and Freddie Mac? Not only will Gingrich not get my vote — neither will Harris for his welcoming of the status quo.
Hey Proud: Better be careful with a term like “gift from heaven”. Your Godless lefty whackadoodle chums just might kick you out of the commune. Free Mumia!
OTTO: I guess my comment went over your simplistic minded head: he would be a gift because he could not win.
PTBL. Otto is not a threat except possibly for the gene pool. Anyone that believes building wider roads spontaneously generates traffic is merely a nuisance. Although I grant you a persistent nuisance. The Gingrich (that stole Christmas) likewise is not a threat. Anyone carrying as much morality challenged baggage as he does makes Mitt Romney look like a boy scout; in fact I’m starting to think he is the lesser and more intelligent of all Republican Evils.
The problem with Gingrich and the other candidates vying for the GOP nomination is that they are pandering to the ultra-conservative fringe base and they have scared the moderate Republicans who may be willing to compromise (not to mention realize not all voters are white, straight and Christian) away, apart from maybe Jon Huntsman. All we’re left with are contenders who spout off untruths and extremely offensive assumptions about certain members of the American population that sound crazier than inmates at a mental hospital. That’s not the kind of President I want for this country and I know a lot more will agree with me either. Maybe not on the Dagger, but they’re out there.
@HDG – We need a multicultural transgender man who used to be a women former Buddhist irreligious neo-social justice champion president and then we can have balance and harmony in the White House.
Hmmmmm!
Are you volunteering?
Little snip snip or a little add add and it could be you PTBL.
No No it is you