Showing posts with label RightWing. Show all posts
Showing posts with label RightWing. Show all posts

Saturday, March 29, 2014

Hobby Lobby"s Secret Agenda: How It"s Quietly Funding a Vast Right-Wing Movement

At Alternate Viewpoint, the privacy of our visitors is of extreme importance to us (See this article to learn more about Privacy Policies.). This privacy policy document outlines the types of personal information is received and collected by Alternate Viewpoint and how it is used.


Log Files


Like many other Web sites, Alternate Viewpoint makes use of log files. The information inside the log files includes internet protocol (IP) addresses, type of browser, Internet Service Provider (ISP), date/time stamp, referring/exit pages, and number of clicks to analyze trends, administer the site, track user"s movement around the site, and gather demographic information. IP addresses, and other such information are not linked to any information that is personally identifiable.


Cookies and Web Beacons


Alternate Viewpoint does use cookies to store information about visitors preferences, record user-specific information on which pages the user access or visit, customize Web page content based on visitors browser type or other information that the visitor sends via their browser.


DoubleClick DART Cookie


  • Google, as a third party vendor, uses cookies to serve ads on Alternate Viewpoint.

  • Google"s use of the DART cookie enables it to serve ads to users based on their visit to Alternate Viewpoint and other sites on the Internet.

  • Users may opt out of the use of the DART cookie by visiting the Google ad and content network privacy policy at the following URL - http://www.google.com/privacy_ads.html.

These third-party ad servers or ad networks use technology to the advertisements and links that appear on Alternate Viewpoint send directly to your browsers. They automatically receive your IP address when this occurs. Other technologies ( such as cookies, JavaScript, or Web Beacons ) may also be used by the third-party ad networks to measure the effectiveness of their advertisements and / or to personalize the advertising content that you see.


Alternate Viewpoint has no access to or control over these cookies that are used by third-party advertisers.


You should consult the respective privacy policies of these third-party ad servers for more detailed information on their practices as well as for instructions about how to opt-out of certain practices. Alternate Viewpoint"s privacy policy does not apply to, and we cannot control the activities of, such other advertisers or web sites.


If you wish to disable cookies, you may do so through your individual browser options. More detailed information about cookie management with specific web browsers can be found at the browser"s respective websites.



Hobby Lobby"s Secret Agenda: How It"s Quietly Funding a Vast Right-Wing Movement

Thursday, February 27, 2014

6 Truly Unhinged Right-Wing Reactions to Jan Brewer"s Veto of AZ"s Anti-Gay Bill

At A Political Statement, the privacy of our visitors is of extreme importance to us (See this article to learn more about Privacy Policies.). This privacy policy document outlines the types of personal information is received and collected by A Political Statement and how it is used.

Log Files

Like many other Web sites, A Political Statement makes use of log files. The information inside the log files includes internet protocol (IP) addresses, type of browser, Internet Service Provider (ISP), date/time stamp, referring/exit pages, and number of clicks to analyze trends, administer the site, track user"s movement around the site, and gather demographic information. IP addresses, and other such information are not linked to any information that is personally identifiable.

Cookies and Web Beacons

A Political Statement does use cookies to store information about visitors preferences, record user-specific information on which pages the user access or visit, customize Web page content based on visitors browser type or other information that the visitor sends via their browser.

DoubleClick DART Cookie

  • Google, as a third party vendor, uses cookies to serve ads on A Political Statement.
  • Google"s use of the DART cookie enables it to serve ads to users based on their visit to A Political Statement and other sites on the Internet.
  • Users may opt out of the use of the DART cookie by visiting the Google ad and content network privacy policy at the following URL - http://www.google.com/privacy_ads.html.

These third-party ad servers or ad networks use technology to the advertisements and links that appear on A Political Statement send directly to your browsers. They automatically receive your IP address when this occurs. Other technologies ( such as cookies, JavaScript, or Web Beacons ) may also be used by the third-party ad networks to measure the effectiveness of their advertisements and / or to personalize the advertising content that you see.

A Political Statement has no access to or control over these cookies that are used by third-party advertisers.

You should consult the respective privacy policies of these third-party ad servers for more detailed information on their practices as well as for instructions about how to opt-out of certain practices. A Political Statement"s privacy policy does not apply to, and we cannot control the activities of, such other advertisers or web sites.

If you wish to disable cookies, you may do so through your individual browser options. More detailed information about cookie management with specific web browsers can be found at the browser"s respective websites.


6 Truly Unhinged Right-Wing Reactions to Jan Brewer"s Veto of AZ"s Anti-Gay Bill

6 Truly Unhinged Right-Wing Reactions to Jan Brewer"s Veto of AZ"s Anti-Gay Bill



"Tyranny is on the march," and "Now, we"ll all have to bake penis cakes."








Right-wingers in media, politics and so-called “think-tanks” wasted no time in becoming apoplectic about Arizona Governor Jan Brewer"s reluctant decision to veto her state"s blatantly discriminatory law which would allow businesses to refuse service to gay customers. 


Here are some of the most ridiculous immediate reactions. Expect plenty more idiocy and hate in the coming days:


1. Tucker Carlson on Fox News. Just before the veto, Carlson opined that Arizona"s anti-gay bill promotes “tolerance.” Then he argued that it"s “fascism” to require individuals and business owners to provide equal service to gay people. “If you try to force me to bake a cake for your gay wedding, that"s fascism,” Carlson said. Might we suggest another visit to your dictionary, Tucker?


2. Todd Starnes, Fox News “Business” host tweeted, just after the veto: “AZ Gov. Jan Brewer makes Christians in her state second-class citizens.” So, to be clear, not being allowed to discriminate legally is the definition of discrimination. Surely, all the Christians will flee Arizona. But where will they go? To the promised, homophobic land?


3. Rick Lowry of the National Review tweeted: “The Brewer veto shows that poorly informed hysteria works.” He means, of course, that Brewer caved to the hysteria from the business community who argued, fairly rationally, that the proposed law would hurt business and tourism in the state. But wait, we thought conservatives were pro-business. Are we to understand that they are only pro-business when it does not clash with their desire to discriminate against gays? It"s a lot to keep straight.


4. Judson Phillips, president of Tea Party Nation had a predictably measured reaction: “Tyranny is on the march!” he ranted. Business owners who are not allowed to discriminate against gays and lesbians are “slaves” to the “great liberal state,” which now has a handservant in “French Republicans” like Jan Brewer. Also, now business owners are going to be forced to bake cakes with “a giant phallic symbol on it,” yes, the dreaded penis cake; or possibly a cake with another “shape of genitalia,” might invade. Still other businesses will be forced to “photograph a homosexual wedding where the participants decide they want to be nude or engage in sexual behavior.” And what"s really weird is that, obviously, all businesses are going to be forced to do these things, whether they are bakers or photographers, or not. Bet you didn"t read that in the fine print.  


5. Rush Limbaugh: Jan Brewer got bullied by corporate America, says Rush. But wait, some kinds of bullying are okay, just not when I disagree. Naturally, the right-wing shock jock unleashed his usual mish-mash of incoherent thoughts on the matter. Examples: “Religious beliefs can’t be used to stop anything the left wants to impose, unless they’re Muslim religious beliefs and then we have to honor those.” 


Exactly. Leftists, Muslims, one and the same, led by Muslim-in-chief, Obama, all of them love the gays. Then there is poor Jan Brewer being bullied so:


“She’s being bullied by the homosexual lobby in Arizona and elsewhere,” Limbaugh said. “She’s being bullied by the nationwide drive-by media,she’s being bullied by certain elements of corporate America in order to advance the gay agenda. I guess in that circumstance bullying is admirable. In fact, this kind of bullying is honorable.”


Spoken like a true bully..


6. Michelle Bachmann: Brewer “eviscerated free speech.”  What was funny was that Michelle Bachmann was doing her level best to sound balanced and reasonable in her interview with CNN"s Wolf Blitzer on the topic.  “Just like we need to observe tolerance for the gay and lesbian community, we need to have tolerance for the community of people who hold sincerely held religious belief,” she said. But, just to be clear, Bachmann did not think Brewer should veto the bigoted bill, and did not think that discriminating against gays means “intolerance.”


“Oh in fact, it’s just the opposite,” Bachmann patiently explained to Wolf. “This is a decided level of intolerance — it’s effectively eviscerating the rights of freedom of speech, expression and religious expression for the people of Arizona, and it sets a terrible precedent.”


We can only imagine the other “terrible precedents” Bachmann sees: The Voting Rights Act? Emancipation Proclamation? Scary indeed.


 

Related Stories


AlterNet.org Main RSS Feed



6 Truly Unhinged Right-Wing Reactions to Jan Brewer"s Veto of AZ"s Anti-Gay Bill

Saturday, January 25, 2014

5 Right-Wing Myths About Raising the Minimum Wage, Debunked



The corporate/conservative machine is grinding out propaganda against raising the minimum wage.








If the 1968 federal minimum wage had kept pace with inflation it would be $ 10.75 today. But it is only $ 7.25, an amount so low that many full-time workers need government assistance such as food stamps, Medicare, etc., just to get by.


There is a bill before Congress and endorsed by President Obama that will raise the minimum wage to $ 10.10 an hours and “index” it to inflation in the future. That means the wage will increase as inflation increases so it never falls behind again. Meanwhile there are reports that President Obama is considering using executive action to raise the minimum wage for employees of federal contractors.


Corporations like Walmart and McDonalds like the current situation of really low wages at the bottom because it puts more into the pockets of those at the top. So the corporate/conservative machine is grinding out propaganda against raising the minimum wage. Here is a look at six of the most common propaganda points they’re trying to trick us with.


1. Myth: Only teenagers make the minimum wage. 


A common conservative myth, repeated endlessly, is that only teenagers earn the minimum wage; that it"s a “starter wage” and people quickly move up to a better wage as they gain experience.


There may once have been a time when most people who earned the minimum were teenagers in starter jobs. But times and the structure of our economy have changed for the worse. According to the Economic Policy Institute, “87.9 percent of those affected nationally by increasing the federal minimum wage to $ 9.80 are 20 years of age and older. The share of those affected who are 20 or older varies by state, from a low of 77.1 percent in Massachusetts to a high of 92.4 percent in Florida (and 93.9 percent in the District of Columbia).” Also, “more than a third (35.8 percent) are married, and over a quarter (28.0 percent) are parents.”


Notably, 49% of people making the minimum wage are adult women.


2. Myth: A minimum wage is “government interference” that just distorts the market. If there are lots of people looking for work, then wages should fall.


The problem with this myth is that we live in a consumer economy and a consumer economy does better when more people and businesses have more money to spend. In other words, the economy rises and falls based on how much demand there is for the goods and service that our companies provide.


When the economy slows and people are laid off this increases the supply of people looking for jobs which causes wages to fall. As wages fall, demand falls because people have less to spend and the economy slows even more. So even more people get laid off, putting even more downward pressure on wages. This can become a death spiral for an economy.


This is why government action is so important. A minimum wage provides a floor to how low wages can fall. Every business watches out for itself and lowers wages when they can. But when every business is lowering wages it hurts every business. So while all businesses are engaged in the task of watching out for themselves government has to be there to watch the big picture and step in when necessary.


A second problem with this short-term market thinking is that it gives businesses a financial incentive to use their influence to push policies that keep unemployment high, thus forcing down wages. Senate Republicans filibustered the Bring Jobs Home act and the American Jobs Act as just two of more than 400 filibusters in recent years, helping to keep unemployment high. Companies that are fighting what they call “government interference” so they can continue to pay low wages are cutting their own throats because they are really causing their own customers to have less to spend. 


3. Myth: Raising the minimum wage costs jobs. 


This is one place where conservative ideology is clearly refuted by looking at what actually happens. When you have states next to each other, and one raises the minimum wage while the other does not, you can compare the results.


It might seem obvious to people that raising wages will cause companies to hire fewer people. But not when you think it through. Well-run companies employ the right number of people to handle the demand for the goods or services they produce. They don’t just have extra people sitting around reading the newspaper, who they will lay off if they have to pay a couple dollars more an hour.  


Picture a store with only one cashier and 20 people in line. Pretty soon people get impatient and leave. A sensible manager is going to put the right number of cashiers at the checkout lanes to handle the number of customers in the store.


In Australia the minimum wage is $ 16.68 and the unemployment rate is 5.8%. In the U.S. the minimum wage is $ 7.25 and unemployment is down to 6.7%, but is falling largely due to people leaving the labor force because they just can’t find work. This is not to say that the unemployment rates in Australia and the U.S. are different because of the difference in the minimum wage, but it does show that the high Australian minimum wage has hardly crashed Australia"s economy.


4. Myth: Raising the minimum wage hurts blacks, Latinos, fill in the blank.


Many conservatives play a propaganda trick by claiming that raising the minimum wage hurts the very people liberals want to help. Fox News" Art Laffer called the minimum wage the “Black Teenage Unemployment Act.” At far-right Townhall, Walter E. Williams claimed that “increases in the minimum wage at both the state and federal level are partially to blame for the crisis in employment for minority young adults.”


This claim uses a core misconception as its underpinnings, that increasing the minimum wage costs jobs. Since (fill in the blank) group faces high unemployment, raising the minimum wage shows you are a hypocrite because all you are doing is costing (fill in the blank) jobs. But this is as false as saying that raising the minimum wage takes away jobs.


5. Myth: Raising the minimum wage hurts small businesses.


Conservatives like New Jersey Governor Chris Christie say that raising the minimum wage would hurt small business owners. The truth is that most minimum-wage workers do not work for small businesses. According to Think Progress: “The majority (66 percent) of low‐wage workers are not employed by small businesses, but rather by large corporations with over 100 employees.” Also “The three largest employers of minimum wage workers [are], Walmart, Yum! Brands (Pizza Hut, Taco Bell, and KFC), and McDonald’s.” 


Last February, BusinessWeek debunked the “hurts small business” claim, writing, “a growing number of small business advocates support a hike.”


“That includes dozens of business groups and networks composed primarily of small business owners such as the Main Street Alliance, the National Latino Farmers & Ranchers Trade Association, and the Greater New York Chamber of Commerce. "Our women [business owners] who pay a living wage have an advantage over their larger counterparts who don’t," says Margot Dorfman, chief executive officer of the U.S. Women’s Chamber of Commerce, an organization with 500,000 members, three-quarters of whom are small business owners. "Whether Obama’s proposal is high enough or the time frame is fast enough is the question."”



The should-be-obvious reason? “If the customer base is undermined because wages are so low, they feel it directly.”


Job Fear Drives Terrible Policies


Jobs are scarce so people are afraid. Worried people fall victim to myths like these. Robert Reich writes about this, describing the “benefit to the business class of high unemployment, economic insecurity, and a safety-net shot through with holes. Not only are employees eager to accept whatever job they can get. They are also unwilling to demand healthy and safe environments.”


Except this does not just apply to people in red states, it applies across the country.


Reich continues,


“The wages of production workers have been dropping for thirty years, adjusted for inflation, and their economic security has disappeared. Companies can and do shut down, sometimes literally overnight. A smaller share of working-age Americans hold jobs today than at any time in more than three decades.


People are so desperate for jobs they don’t want to rock the boat. They don’t want rules and regulations enforced that might cost them their livelihoods. For them, a job is precious — sometimes even more precious than a safe workplace or safe drinking water.”



Raise the Minimum Wage


Here are a few points about a higher minimum wage that aren’t myths.


The minimum wage of $ 7.25 isn’t even the real minimum wage. Most people do not know that tipped employees work for a minimum wage of $ 2.13 an hour, where it has been stuck since 1991. This means that the tips you give are not really a little extra to take home, they make up the wage these workers live on.


The National Low Income Housing Coalition studied how many hours minimum-wage employees have to work per week in each state just to rent an apartment and still be able to survive. West Virginia was lowest at 63 hours. Hawaii was 175 hours. California, Maryland, New Jersey, New York and Washington, D.C. were all over 130 hours. (See this chart.)


Raising the minimum wage boosts employee productivity and retention, which lowers the costs associated with employee turnover. Boosting employee morale also boosts customer satisfaction. This is one more reason that raising the minimum wage helps businesses.


Raising the minimum wage increases the buying power of low-wage workers. It puts more money in the pockets of people who can then buy things at local stores, which increases demand, which drives businesses to hire more workers. This is a beneficial cycle that lifts everyone. and it"s the opposite of the death spiral described above.


Raising the minimum wage lowers government safety net costs because fewer people will need food stamps, etc. It is estimated that lifting the minimum wage to $ 10.10 would lift 4.6 million people out of poverty.


A lower minimum wage is actually bad for business and our economy in the long term. Cutting wages eats up the seed corn of an economy. So why do so many businesses fight raising the minimum wage? Because in the short term, cutting wages can boost quarterly profits a bit, which can increase the pay and bonuses of executives. It doesn’t necessarily matter to them if this eats away at employee morale, increases retention costs and erodes the customer base over the longer term. In the long term they’ll be rich and they’ll be gone.


 

Related Stories


AlterNet.org Main RSS Feed



5 Right-Wing Myths About Raising the Minimum Wage, Debunked

Monday, December 30, 2013

Media Matters staff: Eric Boehlert On MSNBC"s Disrupt : Right-Wing Media Thrive On "Phony Outrage" Over Benghazi

At Those Damn Liars, the privacy of our visitors is of extreme importance to us (See this article to learn more about Privacy Policies.). This privacy policy document outlines the types of personal information is received and collected by Those Damn Liars and how it is used.

Log Files

Like many other Web sites, Those Damn Liars makes use of log files. The information inside the log files includes internet protocol (IP) addresses, type of browser, Internet Service Provider (ISP), date/time stamp, referring/exit pages, and number of clicks to analyze trends, administer the site, track user"s movement around the site, and gather demographic information. IP addresses, and other such information are not linked to any information that is personally identifiable.

Cookies and Web Beacons

Those Damn Liars does use cookies to store information about visitors preferences, record user-specific information on which pages the user access or visit, customize Web page content based on visitors browser type or other information that the visitor sends via their browser.

DoubleClick DART Cookie

  • Google, as a third party vendor, uses cookies to serve ads on Those Damn Liars.
  • Google"s use of the DART cookie enables it to serve ads to users based on their visit to Those Damn Liars and other sites on the Internet.
  • Users may opt out of the use of the DART cookie by visiting the Google ad and content network privacy policy at the following URL - http://www.google.com/privacy_ads.html.

These third-party ad servers or ad networks use technology to the advertisements and links that appear on Those Damn Liars send directly to your browsers. They automatically receive your IP address when this occurs. Other technologies ( such as cookies, JavaScript, or Web Beacons ) may also be used by the third-party ad networks to measure the effectiveness of their advertisements and / or to personalize the advertising content that you see.

Those Damn Liars has no access to or control over these cookies that are used by third-party advertisers.

You should consult the respective privacy policies of these third-party ad servers for more detailed information on their practices as well as for instructions about how to opt-out of certain practices. Those Damn Liars"s privacy policy does not apply to, and we cannot control the activities of, such other advertisers or web sites.

If you wish to disable cookies, you may do so through your individual browser options. More detailed information about cookie management with specific web browsers can be found at the browser"s respective websites.


Media Matters staff: Eric Boehlert On MSNBC"s Disrupt : Right-Wing Media Thrive On "Phony Outrage" Over Benghazi

Thursday, November 14, 2013

Right-Wing Media Use Provocative Insurance Ads To Slut-Shame Women

Right-wing media figures capitalized on provocative advertisements for Obamacare from non-profit groups in Colorado to attack a woman who uses free birth control as a “slut,” “whore,” and “prostitute.”


Colorado-Based Groups Release Series Of Insurance Ads Targeting Young People


Business Insider: Colorado Non-Profits Try To Promote Obamacare By “Crafting Ads They Hope Will Go Viral.” Business Insider reported on the “Got Insurance?” ad campaign from non-profits Colorado Consumer Health Initiative and Progress Now, which encourage young Americans to sign up for insurance on the new health care exchanges with references to beer, celebrities, and birth control, and explained that the ads were intended to be provocative:


The “Got Insurance?” campaign, which was launched by the Colorado Consumer Health Initiative and Progress Now, has three targets: young adults, women, and minority groups. And to encourage those groups to sign up for health insurance under the Affordable Care Act, they are creating ads they hope will go “viral” on social media.


[...]


So far, the ads are working at getting attention — even as the reaction has been mostly negative among commentators. The latest ads released Tuesday are aimed at young women, including a couple that feature actor Ryan Gosling[.]


“It’s been fun to watch how it all plays out,” Adam Fox, the director of strategic engagement for the Colorado Consumer Health Initiative. “We’ve seen both positive and negative reactions, but if people are seeing the ads and purchasing health insurance, that’s a good thing.”


It does appear to be working, at least in that sense. Traffic to the site that features the ads exploded so much on Tuesday that the site went down for a few minutes. [Business Insider, 11/12/13]



Right-Wing Media Respond To Ads By Slut-Shaming Women Who Use Free Birth Control


Rush Limbaugh: Obamacare Ads Tell Young People, “If You Like Being A Prostitute, Then Have At It.” Discussing the ads on his radio show and falsely claiming they were produced by the Obama administration instead of Colorado-based non-profits, Rush Limbaugh claimed that the ads promoted a “risky, promiscuous lifestyle”:


LIMBAUGH: What these ads are really promising: if you like your risky, promiscuous lifestyle, you can keep it. That’s what Obama’s promising. If you like being promiscuous, you can keep on being promiscuous. If you like being a prostitute, then have at it. If you like your risky, promiscuous lifestyle, you can keep it. That’s what Obama is promising in these ads. [The Rush Limbaugh Show11/13/13, via Media Matters]



Fox News’ Laura Ingraham: Colorado Ads For Obamacare Encourage “Promiscuity.” On her radio show, Fox News contributor Laura Ingraham claimed that the ads encouraged “promiscuity” and “unsafe sex,” while Laura Ingraham Show contributor Raymond Arroyo suggested that women who use birth control will “get cancer.” [Courtside Entertainment Group, The Laura Ingraham Show11/13/13


Fox News’ Katie Pavlich: Keep “Hoeing Yourselves Out Ladies, Obamacare Depends On It!”  Fox News contributor Katie Pavlich tweeted, “Keeping hoeing yourselves out ladies, Obamacare depends on it!” [sic] and included a picture of one of the ads, which featured a woman holding birth control pills:


 


[Twitter.com, 11/12/13]


Washington Times‘ Emily Miller Calls Women Depicted In Ads “Cheap Sluts.” Washington Times senior opinion editor Emily Miller claimed that the ads which featured women using birth control depicted “young women like cheap sluts,” and pointed out that neither the man nor woman depicted in one of the ads “is wearing a wedding band.” [The Washington Times11/12/13]


Fox News’ Michelle Malkin: “Floozycare!” Fox News contributor Michelle Malkin tweeted a picture of one of the ads with the caption, “FloozyCare!”



[Twitter.com, 11/12/13]


The Blaze Host Dana Loesch: “The ‘You’re A Whore’ Ad For Obamacare.” Blaze contributor and conservative radio show host Dana Loesch tweeted an image of one of the ads, writing, “So basically, hosurance,” and labeling it ”the ‘you’re a whore’ ad for Obamacare.”




[Twitter.com, 11/12/1311/12/13]



Media Matters for America – Research Items



Right-Wing Media Use Provocative Insurance Ads To Slut-Shame Women

Sunday, October 13, 2013

Health Experts Takedown Right-Wing Study Claiming Obamacare Hurts Young People

health, experts, takedown, right wing, study, claiming, obamacare, hurts, young, people,

Health Experts Takedown Right-Wing Study Claiming Obamacare Hurts Young People




A new study purporting to show that young people will pay significantly more for health insurance under Obamacare has been met with resounding criticism from health policy experts.


The study, conducted and released by the right-leaning American Action Forum (AAF), paints a stark picture for young people hoping to purchase insurance under the new law.


“Due to the ACA’s sweeping market reforms,” the study finds, “rates for low-premium plans have increased exponentially between 2013 and 2014. In fact, on average, a healthy 30-year-old male nonsmoker will see his lowest cost insurance option increase 260 percent.”


Chris Holt, Director of Health Care Policy at the AAF, discussed the study’s findings with PolicyMic via e-mail.


“Our study, at the American Action Forum, found a staggering increase in premium costs for a healthy 30-year-old man. With price increases in every state and an average increase of 260% it demonstrates a real challenge for the administration, as they seek to lure young adults onto the exchanges. They need those young adults to help subsidize the older and sicker individuals who will be purchasing health insurance. Ultimately the success or failure of the president’s signature legislative achievement could depend on his ability to convince young people to purchase health insurance despite having created financial incentives for them to do just the opposite.”


The study’s findings, however, have been met with fierce criticism from many in the health policy community. Dr. Christine Eibner, Senior Economist at the RAND Corporation, disputed many of the study’s assertions in comments to PolicyMic.


“First, it’s important to keep in mind that this analysis if focused on a specific subset of individuals — young, non-smoking men — and does not represent the change in premiums for all Americans.”


Dr. Eibner also added that, “in comparing the individual’s expected premium spending to the individual mandate penalty, the AAF analysis does not account for the fact that enrollees get something for their money when they buy health insurance — namely lower out-of-pocket costs for medical services and reduced risk of experiencing a catastrophic health-related expenditure. In contrast, paying the penalty has no benefit to the individual.”


Dr. Eibner is not the only expert in the field to take issue with the study’s findings. Dr. Claire Brindis, Director of the Philip R. Lee Institute for Health Policy Studies at the University of California-San Francisco, also expressed her reservations about the study.


“I am very concerned about the report’s approach, which suggests the purpose is to scare rather than inform. For example, the title asserts that a premium spiral is ‘impending,’ even though the text of the article acknowledges that predicting how young adults will respond to the individual mandate is an ‘inexact science.’”


“The statement that premiums for a healthy 30-year-old male will rise by 260% is misleading,” she continued, “because it does not take into account subsidies that will be available to many young adults through the exchange, nor the catastrophic health plans that some young adults will be eligible to purchase. Nor does it take into account that some young adults will be newly eligible for Medicaid in states that choose to expand it.”


All of the attention on these sorts of ACA studies may be moot, however. The importance of these studies may not lie in their individual findings, but rather their cumulative effects on public opinion. Dr. Robert Blendon, the Richard L. Menschel Professor of Public Health and Professor of Health Policy and Political Analysis at Harvard University, rejected the importance of individual studies and instead placed more emphasis on the impression that such studies create in the public’s mind.


“At the end of the day the question is, ‘What’s the overall picture an average voter in Lousiana and Illinois and Indiana’s going to have of this bill?’ And so it’s going to be a picture of all the things that come out and how the media covers it. And that’s really important. If I read on the front page of the Indianapolis Star this study, and that’s all I see, I’m going to say this is very harmful to young people. If I see another study and it says they’re getting it for $ 50 a month or something, it’s something else.”


“This is going to be part of the campaign, but it’s not a one-month campaign,” he added, noting the importance of the 2014 midterm elections in determining the law’s fate. “What’s building up over between now and November is the picture that the various groups want in the public’s mind…[T]he campaign’s going to run between now and November 2014, where both sides are going to try to get the picture.”




PolicyMic



Health Experts Takedown Right-Wing Study Claiming Obamacare Hurts Young People

Tuesday, October 8, 2013

Meet The Right-Wing Leaders Of "TruthRevolt"

Conservatives have launched TruthRevolt, a website which aims to “unmask leftists in the media for who they are, destroy their credibility with the American public, and devastate their funding bases.” The history of two main TruthRevolt figures, Ben Shapiro and David Horowitz, suggests the site won’t prioritize accuracy or refrain from smears.


David Horowitz Launches TruthRevolt As The “Anti-Media Matters”


TruthRevolt Wants To “Unmask Leftists In The Media For Who They Are, Destroy Their Credibility With The American Public, And Devastate Their Funding Bases.” From the mission statement posted on its website:


The media win elections for the left. It’s not the left’s competence in office; leftists have demonstrated none. It’s not the left’s ideas; leftist ideas have failed everywhere they have been tried. The left wins for one simple reason: leftists control the information distribution system in the United States. And they use that system to pillory conservatives heartless bigots intent on harming the poor and targeting minorities.


The media must be destroyed where they stand. That is our mission at Truth Revolt. The goal of TruthRevolt is simple: unmask leftists in the media for who they are, destroy their credibility with the American public, and devastate their funding bases.


TruthRevolt focuses on high-profile media members, and holding them accountable. But TruthRevolt does not stop there. TruthRevolt understands that all politics is local, and therefore looks to fight leftist propaganda at the local level, monitoring local newspapers, television and radio. TruthRevolt also seeks to stop the left dead in its tracks when it comes to training the next generation, our college campuses.


TruthRevolt works to make advertisers and funders aware of the leftist propaganda they sponsor – and bringing social consequences to bear to create pressure on such advertisers and funders. [TruthRevolt.org, accessed 10/7/13]



TruthRevolt Bills Itself As The “Anti-Media Matters.” From an article about an interview with TruthRevolt editor-in-chief Ben Shapiro:


Appearing on Breitbart News Sunday on Sirius XM Patriot channel 125 with Breitbart News Executive Chairman and host Stephen K. Bannon, Shapiro said those who “bankroll” and enable the mainstream media to lie and “push their agenda” must “be made aware that the American public is not going to stand for this bullshit.”


He simply said there has to be a “price to pay for that.”


Shapiro said TruthRevolt will be billed as the “anti-Media Matters.” He emphasized that Media Matters has tried to destroy the careers of conservatives who are truth-tellers and TruthRevolt will “turn that around and go after the liars of the left-wing” and the mainstream media. [Breitbart.com, 10/7/13]



TruthRevolt Is A Project Of The David Horowitz Freedom Center. From a post on the David Horowitz Freedom Center website:


Today, the David Horowitz Freedom Center is launching TruthRevolt, a much-needed campaign to expose the hypocrisies and mendacities of the leftwing media. A brainchild of Ben Shapiro, TruthRevolt is a groundbreaking initiative to engage in investigative journalism about the leftwing media figures who produce radical ideology masquerading as “news” and feed it to the American public as objective journalism. 


TruthRevolt differs from other organizations in its action orientation. It is determined not only to confront the leftwing media, but also to impact their profits. By enlisting thousands of conservatives to aggressively call on these media sponsors of leftwing propaganda to cease their sponsorship of destructive views and radicalized demagogues, TruthRevolt will put pressure on the advertisers who support such programming to pull their sponsorship.


“The far left site Media Matters,  run by self-confessed liar David Brock, has achieved enormous success by using the power of astroturfed boycotts and campaigns against conservative media figures, targeting their funders and advertisers,” commented Freedom Center Chairman David Horowitz. “TruthRevolt will fight fire with fire, working to make advertisers and funders aware of the malicious propaganda they sponsor and create.” [HorowitzFreedomCenter.org, accessed 10/7/13]



Ben Shapiro, TruthRevolt’s Editor-in-Chief


Shapiro Credulously Reported That Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel Received Money From Non-Existent “Friends Of Hamas.” Citing “Senate sources,” Shapiro claimed that then-nominee for Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel may have received money from a group called “Friends of Hamas.” It was later revealed that “Friends of Hamas” does not exist. [Media Matters, 3/3/13; Daily Beast, 10/7/13]


Shapiro: “Of Course Hitler Was A Left-Winger.” [Premiere Radio, The Sean Hannity Show, 3/7/13, via Media Matters]


Shapiro: “Arabs Like To Bomb Crap And Live In Open Sewage.” Shapiro tweeted about the Israeli and Palestinian conflict: “Israelis like to build. Arabs like to bomb crap and live in open sewage. This is not a difficult issue. #settlementsrock.” [Twitter, 9/27/10, via Media Matters]


Shapiro: Obama Administration Is “Openly Anti-Semitic” And Rahm Emanuel “Is A Kapo.” Shapiro claimed in a syndicated column that the Obama administration was “openly anti-Semitic” and called Rahm Emanuel, then-White House chief of staff, a “kapo,” a term that refers to Nazi concentration camp prisoners who aided the Nazis. [Media Matters, 4/28/10]


Shapiro: Obama Was “An Ideological Muslim” And Hillary Clinton Was “An Ideological Lesbian.” In a post on Breitbart.com, Shapiro claimed that Obama was not an actual Muslim but “an ideological Muslim in the same way Hillary Clinton was an ideological lesbian in her college days.” [Breitbart.com, 9/21/11, via Media Matters]


David Horowitz, Freedom Center Chairman


Horowitz Claimed There Was A Muslim Brotherhood “Infiltrat[or]” At CPAC. At the 2011 Conservative Political Action Conference, Horowitz attacked conservative activists Suhail Khan and Grover Norquist, claiming that Khan, with Norquist’s aid, “infiltrat[ed]” CPAC, the Bush White House and the conservative movement on behalf of the Muslim Brotherhood. [David Horowitz"s CPAC speech, 2/12/11, via Media Matters]


Horowitz: It’s A “Fact” That Clinton Aide Huma Abedin Is Connected To “Nazi Organization” Muslim Brotherhood. The allegation that Abedin is connected to the Muslim Brotherhood has been disproven and also condemned by both Republican and Democratic leaders. [Fox News, America Live, 9/19/12, via Media Matters; Media Matters, 7/31/12]


Horowitz Claims He’s Proven “That There Are Only A Couple Of Degrees Of Separation Between Anybody On The Left And The Terrorists.” [The Washington Times, 3/24/05, via Media Matters]


Horowitz: “Blacks Are The Human Shields Of The Democratic Party.” Horowitz called President Jimmy Carter an “anti-Semite” and said “blacks are the human shields of the Democratic Party.” [Fox News, Glenn Beck9/16/09, via Media Matters]


Horowitz: Professors “Are Recruiting For Radical Parties, Terrorist Supporting Parties, No Question.” Horowitz claimed that university professors are “recruiting for radical parties, terrorist supporting parties, no question.” [Fox News, Hannity9/03/10, via Media Matters]


Horowitz’s Book The New Leviathan Was Filled With Numerous Errors, Distortions, And Falsehoods. [Media Matters6/11/12]


Horowitz’s Book The Shadow Party Featured Doctored Quotes And Factual Errors. [Media Matters8/2/06]



Media Matters for America – Research Items



Meet The Right-Wing Leaders Of "TruthRevolt"

Sunday, February 24, 2013

4 Bogus Right-Wing Theories About Poverty, and the Real Reason Americans Can’t Make Ends Meet (Hard Times USA)

When is a secret not at all secret? Consider the fact that one in three Americans are poor, if we define it as struggling to cover the basic necessities of life. That"s according to a Census Bureau analysis, and it was reported in the New York Times, but I have yet to hear a politician or pundit make reference to this eye-opening reality of our vaunted “new economy.”

In 2011, the Census Bureau took a new look at the “near-poor” – Americans with incomes between 100 and 150 percent of the poverty line. They found that this group, most of whom earn paychecks and pay taxes, represented a whopping one in six U.S. households – a figure that was almost twice as high as had previously been thought.

When those under the poverty line are added, Census found that a stunning 33 percent of the population was struggling to make ends meet in 2010. Analyzing the Census data, the Working Poor Project suggested that the number of near-poor, which they define as those making between 100 and 200 percent of the poverty line, continued to inch up in 2011 as many returning to work in this sluggish recovery have been forced to settle for lower-paying service jobs.

Nearly four years after economists tell us the “recovery” began, almost half of all American households lack enough savings to stay above the poverty line for three months or more if they should find themselves out of work. Another third are living paycheck to paycheck, teetering on the brink with no savings at all.

It would require a lengthy sociological treatise to fully explain why this isn"t considered a huge national crisis. But one part of the equation is the existence of a long-standing and ideologically informed project by the right to portray the burden of living in or near poverty as a liberal delusion. In these narratives, which come in a variety of forms, the poor have it pretty darn good – good enough that we really shouldn"t spend much time thinking about them.

For these conservative think-tankers, pundits and politicians, obscuring America"s grinding poverty and spiraling inequality is an exercise in service of a status quo that works pretty well for them, but not for most families.

1. But the poor have color TVs.

Consider the boilerplate conservative column about how many wondrous household appliances the average low-income household owns. Back in the 1930s, this argument goes, poor people didn"t have running water, but now they have color TVs, so life is good.

As I write this, my local Craigslist offers multiple televisions, a dining set, several treadmills, a mountain bike, an oven (with hood), a blender, a coffeemaker, a slew of couches and beds, a piano, a hot-tub (needs repair) and a complete stereo system, all free to anyone who will pick them up. We live in a consumer economy that creates an abundance of surplus and rapidly obsolete goods, and people who struggle to put food on the table can nonetheless get their hands on all manner of electronics for nothing.

2. The poor have lots of room to enjoy poverty.

A similar argument holds that in the United States, poor people have more living space, on average, than low-income households in other developed nations. As the Wall Street Journal was eager to point out, “The average living space for poor American households is 1,200 square feet. In Europe, the average space for all households, not just the poor, is 1,000 square feet.”

Perhaps that"s true, but it"s also divorced from context. There is a simple matter of population density at work: in the core states of the European Union, there are 120 people per square kilometer; in the United States, we only have 29 people per kilometer. And the average is a bit misleading as it includes the rural poor – low-income households in tightly packed urban centers don"t tend to have 1,200-square-foot apartments.

3. The poor are actually rolling in money.

A new and equally distorted argument entered the conservative discourse just recently. It holds that poor families receive $ 168 per day in government benefits – more than the median weekly income in this country. If that were true, low-income households in the United States would enjoy quite comfortable living standards.

But as I noted last month, that number is inflated by around eight-fold. The claim originated with Robert Rector at the Heritage Foundation and then underwent some revisions on its journey to Republican congressional staffers, and finally to the conservative media. It gets to that number by counting things like federal aid to rebuild communities after natural disasters as “welfare,” including programs that assist the middle class and the wealthy and then dividing the costs of all these programs by the number of households under the poverty line, despite the fact that many more families benefit from them.

4. It’s just how they are.

And then there are the ever-popular cultural explanations for poverty. This is a storyline based on confusing correlation with causation – a rookie mistake in any introductory college class.

The Heritage Foundation, for example (it"s Robert Rector again), sees a lot of poor, single-parent households, and would have you believe that “the main causes of child poverty are low levels of parental work and the absence of fathers.”

But this gets the causal relationship wrong. The number of single-parent households exploded between the 1970s and the 1990s, more than doubling, yet the poverty rate remained relatively constant. In fact, before the crash of 2008, the poverty rate was lower than it had been in the 1970s. So, as the rate of single-parent households skyrocketed, poverty declined a little bit. Saying single-parent homes create poverty is like claiming the rooster causes the sun to rise.

As I"ve noted in the past, this is an essential piece of the “culture of poverty” narrative, and it is nonsense. Jean Hardisty, the author of Marriage as a Cure for Poverty: A Bogus Formula for Women, cited a number of studies showing that poor women have the same dreams as everyone else: they “often aspire to a romantic notion of marriage and family that features a white picket fence in the suburbs.” But low economic status leads to fewer marriages, not the other way around.

In 1998, the Fragile Families Study looked at 3,700 low-income unmarried couples in 20 U.S. cities. The authors found that 90 percent of the couples living together wanted to tie the knot, but only 15 percent had actually done so by the end of the one-year study period. And here’s the key finding: for every dollar that a man’s hourly wages increased, the odds that he’d get hitched by the end of the year rose by 5 percent. Men earning more than $ 25,000 during the year had twice the marriage rates of those making less than $ 25,000.

Writing up the findings for the Nation, Sharon Lerner noted that poverty itself “seems to make people feel less entitled to marry.” As one father in the survey put it, marriage means “not living from check to check.”

Why People Are Really Poor

During a period of less than 20 years beginning in the early 1980s, the American economy underwent dramatic changes. It was a period of policy-driven de-unionization and the offshoring of millions of decent manufacturing jobs. The tax code underwent dramatic changes, as CEO pay sky-rocketed and the financial sector came to represent a much larger share of our economic output than it had during the four decades or so following World War II.

And our distribution of income changed dramatically as well. During the 35 years prior to Ronald Reagan"s election, the top one percent of U.S. households had taken in an average of 10 percent of the nation"s income. When Reagan left office in 1988, those at the top were grabbing 15.5 percent of the pie, and by the time George W. Bush took office in 2000, they were taking over 20 percent of the nation"s income.

We can either believe that this shift was a result of changes in public policy (combined with new technologies), or that in just two decades there was some sort of rapid cultural decline among everyone but those at the top of the economic heap.

All of the false narratives are intended to distract from the structural causes of poverty and inequality, and they ignore two simple and indisputable truths. First, contrary to popular belief, we don"t all start out with the same opportunities. The reality is that in the United States today, the best predictor of a newborn baby"s economic future is how much money her parents make.

It also ignores the fact that living in an individualistic, capitalist society carries inherent risk. You can do everything right – study hard, work diligently, keep your nose clean – but if you fall victim to a random workplace accident, you can nevertheless end up being disabled in the blink of an eye and find yourself in need of public assistance. You can end up bankrupt under a pile of healthcare bills or you could lose your job if you"re forced to take care of an ailing parent. Children – innocents who aren"t even old enough to work for themselves – are among the largest groups receiving various forms of public assistance.

The reality, despite the spin from the conservative movement, is that poverty in America is very real, and it"s anything but fun.

Tue, 01/22/2013 – 14:35

 
AlterNet.org Main RSS Feed


4 Bogus Right-Wing Theories About Poverty, and the Real Reason Americans Can’t Make Ends Meet (Hard Times USA)

Tuesday, February 19, 2013

Meet Donors Trust: The Little-Known Group That Lets the Wealthy Secretively Fund Right-Wing Causes

Editor"s note: The following is a transcript of a Democracy Now! segment on Donors Trust, a little known group funding the Right"s agenda. 

When it comes to the wealthy funders of right-wing causes, the big names are well known: billionaires like the industrialist Koch Brothers and the casino magnate Sheldon Adelson, super PACs like Americans for Prosperity and Karl Rove’s Crossroads GPS. Now, through them, hundreds of millions of dollars have poured into right-wing causes and candidates. But now it turns out this web of dark-money donations is even more secretive than we previously thought. That’s because the operations of a largely unknown group have now come to light. They’re called Donors Trust, a nonprofit charity based in Virginia.

Since 1999, Donors Trust has handed out nearly $ 400 million in private donations to more than 1,000 right-wing and libertarian groups. The fact Donors Trust has been able to quietly do so appears to explain why it exists: Wealthy donors can back the right-wing causes they want without attracting public scrutiny. Donors Trust is classified as a “donor-advised” fund under U.S. tax law, meaning its funders don’t have direct say in where their money goes. That in turn allows them to remain largely anonymous.

AMY GOODMAN: But the most detailed accounting to date shows Donors Trust funds a wish list of right-wing causes, prompting Mother Jones magazine to label it, quote, “the dark-money ATM of the right.” Donors Trust recipients include the American Legislative Exchange Council, or ALEC, a mechanism for corporate interests to help write state laws; the Franklin Center for Government and Public Integrity, a media outlet that unabashedly promotes right-wing causes; and the State Policy Network, a number of right-wing think tanks that push so-called “free-market” policies.

But the major focus of Donors Trust appears to be funding the denial of global warming. More than a third of Donors Trust donations—at least $ 146 million—has gone to think tanks and other groups that challenge the science of climate change. Later in the broadcast, we’ll take a closer look at that funding of climate change denial, but first we turn to an overview of Donors Trust and look at why it’s been able to evade public scrutiny until now.

Joining us from Washington, D.C., is John Dunbar, politics editor at the Center for Public Integrity, worked on the group’s months-long investigation into Donor’s Trust. We did ask Donors Trust to join us, but they declined our request.

John Dunbar, lay out just what Donors Trust is.

JOHN DUNBAR: Well, they’re essentially a pass through. What they do is, is they act as a kind of a middleman between what are very large, well-known private foundations created by—mostly by corporate executives, like the Kochs, for example, and they direct the money of those contributions to a very large network of right-leaning, free-market think tanks across the country, including those that you’ve named. By doing—by running it through the middleman, it essentially obscures the identity of the original donors, of the folks who have provided the funds themselves. And the organization itself actually makes that clear on its own website, essentially saying people who give money to the organization can avoid being identified or being connected with potentially controversial issues.

AARON MATÉ: And John Dunbar, so the figure is $ 400 million since 1999. Why is it that all this is just coming to light now?

JOHN DUNBAR: Well, we kind of stumbled onto it, to be honest with you. We’ve been, at the Center for Public Integrity—that’s publicintegrity.org if you’d like to read our full report on it—we were looking at activities at the state level, and we were noticing a certain continuity. There was a certain sameness to what was going on in various states on these issues. And we have been looking at the American Legislative Exchange Council for quite some time, and we were looking for how these organizations were funded. And this Donors Trust organization kept popping up, and it seemed to be such an amorphously named organization. We couldn’t really figure out where it was. So we got to wondering, “Well, who’s funding Donors Trust?” And then we backed it up a step, and then we started looking at some of the more better-known right-wing, free-market foundations, particularly those run by the Koch brothers—the Searle Freedom Trust, for example, is another one; the Bradley Foundation—these are all very well-known right-leaning foundations—and found that an enormous amount of the funds that came into Donors Trust came from those—from those organizations.

AMY GOODMAN: John Dunbar, in your report, you speak with the Donors Trust president and CEO, Whitney Ball. She says much of the group’s focus is on the state level because of, quote, “gridlock” at the federal level of government means donors see, quote, “a better opportunity to make a difference in the states.” Ball also sits on the board of the State Policy Network. Can you talk about this focus on activity at the state level?

JOHN DUNBAR: Yeah, I think that—I don’t think anybody would argue with her point that it’s hard to get anything done in Washington these days. They have been a lot more successful at the state level. And I think that in Washington we have a tendency to sort of get tunnel vision: We don’t think that anything that happens outside of Washington really matters, when in fact the laws that are passed in the states are extremely important. Some of the focus of the Donors Trust recipients have been on specific state issues that, you know, affect all of us. You know, some of their favorite issues are right-to-work laws in the states; climate issues; renewable energy, as you’ll hear from Suzanne and The Guardian, which has done such great work on that; and as well as, you know, tax issues, etc. People tend to look at states and what’s happening in a particular state in isolation; they don’t look around and see that the same thing seems to be happening in other states. And it’s—this is clearly a coordinated effort to create state-based think tanks. There’s 51 of them that they’ve funded all across the country to push legislative issues. And then they created their own media empire to support—they even support the ideas behind those issues.

AARON MATÉ: Well, John Dunbar, if you could follow up on that, this media group, the Franklin Center for Government and Public Integrity. They receive 95 percent of their funding from the Donors Trust?

JOHN DUNBAR: Right, and that was kind of shocking, actually. You know, we—that is a foundation-financed reporting organization. I have to say that the Center for Public Integrity is also a foundation-financed reporting organization, so—however, we do not get 95 percent of our funding from any individual donor. Franklin does. The difficulty with that is that, first of all, you have to wonder what—whether the reporting is going to be influenced by that single donor. Secondly, they are a (c)3, which is—which means donations to them are tax deductible, and they don’t pay taxes themselves. That’s a public trust, by the way. That’s—the Donors Trust is in the same position. If they were not a publicly financed nonprofit, they would lose their nonprofit status. By getting all of their money or most of their money through Donors Trust, they’re able to maintain their (c)3 status as a, quote, you know, “publicly financed charity,” unquote. And if all that money came from one person, for example, they would lose that exemption, or they would be part of—they would have to be absorbed by whatever foundation it was that was funding them.

AMY GOODMAN: John, in 2009, Republicans, bloggers, conservative think tanks began to cite a report that the Obama administration had pumped billions of stimulus funds into phantom congressional districts, suggesting money intended to create jobs and shore up the economy had been misused or lost. One of the key websites to report this was newmexicowatchdog.org, which is almost entirely funded by Donors Trust. The story was picked up by Fox News, like in this report from Stuart Varney.

STUART VARNEY: Take a look at this map, please. The government is claiming jobs created in nine Oklahoma congressional districts; problem: There’s only five. Jobs in eight districts of Iowa; big problem: There’s only five. Jobs in eight districts in Connecticut; again, there’s only five. Jobs in three congressional districts in the Virgin Islands; there is only one. And as you point out, Bill, Puerto Rico, the government claims 17,544 jobs created or saved in six congressional districts; there is only one congressional district in Puerto Rico.

BILL HEMMER: I don’t know if we should be laughing or crying over this.

STUART VARNEY: No.

BILL HEMMER: I mean, Puerto Rico alone, 99th Congressional District, 98th Congressional District, a no-number congressional district.

STUART VARNEY: Yes.

BILL HEMMER: I mean, good lord!

STUART VARNEY: Yes, yes, yes. Raise your eyebrows, please. Look, it’s very bad, very unreliable statistics, and it really undermines all of these claims, these gross claims of job creation from stimulus.

AMY GOODMAN: That Fox News report was based on a report by newmexicowatchdog.org, one of the many so-called watchdog websites that are almost entirely funded by the Donors Trust. John Dunbar, your response?

JOHN DUNBAR: Well, I think that the implication of that report was that there were millions and millions of dollars that were being misspent, when the reality was it was data errors. I don’t think anyone would defend the government’s ability to create accurate databases. They clearly didn’t do a very good job on that front, at least on the Recovery Act. However, the implication that all of this money was going into a black hole was actually nonsense. It was kind of a phantom issue about phantom districts, as the Associated Press had reported. A lot of the reporting by these different watchdog organizations that are funded by Franklin has been called into question, including by the Nieman Center at Harvard that’s called it a lack in context and in some cases actually distortions of facts.

AMY GOODMAN: We’re going to break, John Dunbar, politics editor at the Center for Public Integrity, works on this months-long investigation into the Donors Trust called “Donors Use Charity to Push Free-Market Policies in States.” When we come back, Suzanne Goldenberg will also join us, of The Guardian, who’s been investigating the funding of climate denial groups. This is Democracy Now! We’ll be back in a minute.

Tue, 02/19/2013 – 09:35  
AlterNet.org Main RSS Feed


Meet Donors Trust: The Little-Known Group That Lets the Wealthy Secretively Fund Right-Wing Causes