Biggest corporate tax dodger – unbelievable

Subject: Biggest corporate tax dodger – unbelievable

Hi,

It’s crazy, but the New York Times reported that while GE made over $14.2 billion in profits last year, they didn’t pay any federal tax. In fact, they got $3.2 billion in taxes back, from all of us taxpayers. I can tell you, as I sit down to do my taxes now, that really had me steamed.

And the tax loopholes that GE spent millions lobbying for keep their profits and jobs overseas, while they cut health care and retirement benefits for American workers. That had me absolutely sick.

The worst part is, GE’s CEO, Jeff Immelt, was appointed chair of President Obama’s Jobs Council—to advise the President on things like American workers and corporate tax. It’s just perverse. 

That’s why I signed a petition to get America’s Chief Executive Tax Dodger, Jeff Immelt, off the President’s Job Council. Can you join me at the link below?

http://pol.moveon.org/immelt_must-go/?r_by=26713-18149278-xXQXgxx&rc=confemail

Thanks!

Advertisements

NARAL Pro-Choice America Foundation Fact Sheet

NARAL Pro-Choice America Foundation Fact Sheet:

Take Action: Defend NPR & Join the “Muppet Lobby”

Take Action:  Defend NPR & Join the “Muppet Lobby”

Well, we’re only a few weeks into the 112th Congress, and already Republicans are trying to pull the plug on public media.  They’ve announced a budget plan to ZERO out all funding for the Corporation for Public Broadcasting (CPB), the nonprofit responsible for funding public media including NPR, PBS, Pacifica and more.

Fortunately, we’re working with our friends at CREDO and a number of other allies to fight back.  And over 400,000 people have already signed our petition to Congress to fully fund NPR and defend public service media.  Wow! 

Join them: Take action, spread the word (forward this email, share on FB, tweet it, etc.), and fight back.

National public broadcasting is remarkably cost effective, providing local news and information free of charge for millions of viewers — while only receiving about .0001% of the federal budget (that’s right — less than one ten-thousandth of a percent).

Oh, and not only is the Republican leadership trying to gut funding, they are openly mocking supporters of NPR and PBS.  Senator Jim DeMint of South Carolina not only vowed to pursue the cuts, he derieded supporters of PBS as the “Muppet lobby.”  

Well, we’ve got our own message for Senator DeMint:  Muppet Lobby?  You BET we are!  If we have to choose between “Big Bird” and “Big Oil,” we know where we stand.  

And you can tell him that yourself:  Take action at Left Action, sign our petition, and tell Senator DeMint, “I Stand with the Muppet Lobby!” 

And a reminder, if you want to get even more involved with Left Action, here are other steps you can take:

Thanks again.

Sincerely, 

John Hlinko and the Left Action team

http://LeftAction.com
http://Facebook.com/LeftAction
http://Twitter.com/LeftAction

12 Things You Need to Know About the Uprising in Wisconsin

12 Things You Need to Know About the Uprising in Wisconsin

 
Public workers and supporters picketing the mansion of Governor Scott Walker of Wisconsin, February 13, 2011

What’s happening in Wisconsin is not complicated. At the beginning of this year, the state was on course to end 2011 with a budget surplus of $120 million. As Ezra Klein explained, newly elected GOP Governor Scott Walker then ” signed two business tax breaks and a conservative health-care policy experiment that lowers overall tax revenues (among other things). The new legislation was not offset, and it turned a surplus into a deficit.”

Walker then used the deficit he’d created as the justification for assaulting his state’s public employees. He used a law cooked up by a right-wing advocacy group called the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC). ALEC likes to fly beneath the radar, but I described the organization in a 2005 article as “the connective tissue that links state legislators with right-wing think tanks, leading anti-tax activists and corporate money.” Similar laws are on the table in Ohio and Indiana.

Walker’s bill would strip public employees of the right to bargain collectively for anything but higher pay (and would cap the amount of wage hikes they might end up gaining in negotiations). His intentions are clear — before assuming office, Walker threatened to decertify the state’s employees’ unions (until he discovered that the governor doesn’t have that power).

But he’s spinning the measure as something else — a bitter pill state workers must swallow in order to save Wisconsin’s government. So the first things you need to know are:

1. Wisconsin’s public workers  have already “made sacrifices to help balance the budget, through 16 unpaid furlough days and no pay increases the past two years,” according to the Associated Press. The unions know their members are going to have to make concessions on benefits, but they rightly see the assault on their fundamental right to negotiate as an act of war.

2. There are already 13 states that restrict public workers’ bargaining rights and it hasn’t helped their bottom lines. As Ed Kilgore notes,  “eight non-collective-bargaining states face larger budget shortfalls than either Wisconsin or Ohio,” and ” three of the 13 non-collective bargaining states are among the eleven states facing budget shortfalls at or above 20%.” 

3. This isn’t just about public employees. What even a majority of the protesters don’t know is that Walker’s law would also place all of the state’s Medicaid funding in the hands of the governor.  State senator Jon Erpenbach, D-Middleton — one of the Dem law-makers who fled the state to block a vote on the bill — told local media that this amounted to “substantial Medicaid changes” that put “the governor, all of a sudden… in charge of Medicaid, which is SeniorCare, which is BadgerCare …and he has never once said what he intends to do” with those programs. But the provision led journalist Suzie Madrak to conclude that “the end game for all this is to defund state Medicaid programs and make it impossible to serve as part of the new health care safety net.”

4. Health-care costs, rather than workers’ greed, are what has driven up the price of employees’ benefits. But generally speaking, those public sector health-care costs have grown at a slower clip than in the private sector.

5. Public employees’ pensions account for just 6 percent of state budgets.

This has nothing to do with the state’s fiscal picture. Aside from potentially undermining Wisconsin’s public health-care system, it’s really about destroying the last bastion of unionism in the American economy: public employees. As Addie Stan wrote on AlterNet’s front page:

 

Walker is carrying out the wishes of his corporate master, David Koch, who calls the tune these days for Wisconsin Republicans. Walker is just one among many Wisconsin Republicans supported by Koch Industries — run by David Koch and his brother, Charles — and Americans For Prosperity, the astroturf group founded and funded by David Koch. The Koch brothers are hell-bent on destroying the labor movement once and for all.

Consider these facts:

6. Last year, more working people belonged to a union in the public sector (7.9 million) than in the private (7.4 million), despite the fact that corporate America employs five times the number of wage-earners.  37 percent of government workers belong to a union, compared with just 7 percent of private-sector employees.

7. Whether in the public or private sector, union workers earn, on average, 20 percent more than their non-unionized counterparts. They also have richer retirement and health benefits — the “union compensation premium” rises to almost 30 percent when you include those bennies.

That workers can still negotiate from a position of strength somewhere in the US is simply unacceptable to the right, and that’s what this is about. As you might expect, the tool they’re using in their campaign is a pack full of lies and distortions about public employees. Here are some answers to those falsehoods:

8. Public sector workers have, on average, more experience and higher levels of education than their counterparts in the private sector (they are twice as likely to have a college degree). 

9. When you adjust for those factors, they make, on average, 4 percent less than their private-sector counterparts.

10. Like any group of workers with a high union density, they have better benefits, on average. But even including those benefits,   state and local employees still make less in total compensation than they would doing the same work in the private sector.

11. In 2007, the average pension for a public sector worker was $22,000. Not exactly caviar dreams.

12. Many public employees are not eligible for Social Security — those pensions, and whatever they can put away on their own, is all that they’ll have in their golden years.

(Unless otherwise indicated, you can find links to the data for all of the above in my piece, “Right-Wingers Using Public Employees as 21st-Century Welfare Queens.”)

The Right has made great political progress getting Americans to ask the question: “How come that guy’s getting what I don’t have?” It’s the crux of the politics of grievance. Progressives need to get Americans to ask a different question: “What’s keeping me from getting what that guy has?” At least part of the answer is the Right’s decades-long assault on private sector workers’ ability to organize, and the latest battle is being waged in Wisconsin.

 

By Joshua Holland | Sourced from AlterNet

Posted at February 18, 2011, 1:12 pm

submit to reddit
17diggsdigg

2663Share

See more stories tagged with: union-busting, alec, kochs, walker, unions, wisconsin

Public workers and supporters picketing the mansion of Governor Scott Walker of Wisconsin, February 13, 2011

PROGRESSIVE WIRE
 
  
 
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
10 States With the Worst Eating Habits
Charles B. Stockdale, Douglas A. McIntyre, Michael B. Sauter, 24/7 Wall St.
Chomsky: Uprising in the USA?
Amy Goodman, Noam Chomsky, Democracy Now!

 

America’s Food Sweatshops and the Workers of Color Who Feed UsUS Vetoes UN Resolution Condemning Illegal Israeli Settlements — Will the Palestinians End Up Benefiting From the Move?Are We Headed For Massive Oil Price Spikes? Leaked Cables Claim Saudi Oil Reserves Grossly OverstatedWhy Are Some Pundits and Politicans Hell-Bent on Underminig Social Security, in Spite of Its Success and Strength?Hope Deferred: Life Under Zimbabwe’s Cruel DictatorWhat the Right-wing Assault on Women, Unions, the Environment, Health Care and PBS Is All About The Real Reason Glenn Beck Hates Google12 Things You Need to Know About the Uprising in Wisconsin

How To File A Complaint With GLAAD

How to Report an incident  to GLAAD:

info@glaad.org

Report Media Defamation

GLAAD communicates with many editors, reporters and producers about media coverage both problematic and commendable. GLAAD needs your help in ensuring we are able to respond to the greatest number of important instances of media defamation.

Please report unfair or defamatory coverage by emailing incident@glaad.org with the information below.

Your name and email address
The city and state you reside in
Your phone number (optional)
Date of the incident
Detailed description of the incident (please include web addresses/URLs if possible)
We thank you for your help in fighting defamation in the media.

Are you reporting an incident on Facebook?
If you find words or images that violate Facebook’s terms of service , please take the following actions before reporting it to GLAAD:

1. Click “Flag” under the comment or photo.
2. Click “Report” to report it as abusive.
3. Choose “Contains hate speech or attacks an individual”, then choose “Targets based on gender or orientation” (or choose another category if appropriate).
Your reports will be sent to Facebook’s monitoring team, and they will remove violations of the terms of service–which include threats of violence and graphic photos. After you have reported the incident to Facebook using their reporting tools, please wait 24 hours to see if the offensive content has been removed. If it has not, please report it to facebook incident@glaad.org with the information below.

Your name and email address
The city and state you reside in
Your phone number (optional)
Date of the incident
Web address (URL) of incident
Please see Facebook’s Network of Support  for more information.

Thank you

Tell the U.S. Supreme Court to Condemn NOM’s Abhorrent Tactics in Iowa

The National Organization for Marriage (NOM) set its political bulls-eye on three Iowa Supreme Court justices who were part of the unanimous 2009 decision which found that same-sex couples have a constitutional right to marry. All three lost on Election Day.

This was a cruel and calculated warning shot to judges nationwide: Either rule according to our radical, anti-gay ideology or we’ll come get you.

Please add your name to our open letter calling on U.S. Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts to condemn NOM and its allies – and declare that judges must not be intimidated into ruling based on biased special-interest politics.

After you sign the letter, you’ll be able to share this on Facebook and Twitter.

Dear Chief Justice John Roberts,

As you know, three of Iowa’s Supreme Court justices lost their seats last week in the judicial retention election. All three were aggressively targeted by a cynical political campaign run by the Washington, D.C.-based National Organization for Marriage (NOM) and its allies because of a single, unanimous ruling. In 2009, the full court ruled that same-sex couples have a constitutional right to marry in Iowa.

You might also know that the three justices, who faced a barrage of television ads, refused to mount a counter attack because of the message it might send to litigants who appear before them. The judicial retention election, established in 1962, was designed to address gross misconduct, not punish judges for one ruling. In fact, only four other judges have lost their seats and, until last Tuesday, none of them from the state’s highest court.

NOM’s non-stop campaign made voters believe that ousting the justices would destroy same-sex marriage in Iowa. Of course, same-sex marriage remains law in Iowa and will not be impacted by whomever the new governor selects for the bench.

In fact, NOM admits its Iowa campaign had nothing to do with Iowa. This one judicial retention election, the organization said, would “send a clear signal to the Supreme Court and other judges that they don’t have the right to make up the law out of thin air. If the people of Iowa… remove these judges, there will be reverberations throughout the country all the way to the United States Supreme Court.”

This is clear intimidation meant to be heard hundreds and thousands of miles away from Waterloo, Des Moines or Dubuque. It’s meant to shatter judicial independence everywhere.

The Iowa State Bar Association had determined that each of the three justices was “well qualified,” meaning all three “avoid undue personal observations or criticisms [and they] decide cases on the basis of applicable law and fact, not affected by outside influence.” This was nothing short of a political ambush on our courts.

NOM bludgeoned the very foundation of the American jurisprudence court system on Election night. We urge you to condemn the National Organization for Marriage and its allies for this type of dangerous and unprecedented attack on an independent judiciary. We ask you to remind Americans that a judiciary attacked and brought down by such biased politics threatens our very democracy.

 

Add your name

*Required fields

Choose a Country United States Canada Mexico Afghanistan Albania Algeria American Samoa Andorra Angola Anguilla Antarctica Antigua and Barbuda Argentina Armenia Aruba Australia Austria Azerbaijan Bahamas Bahrain Bangladesh Barbados Belarus Belgium Belize Benin Bermuda Bhutan Bolivia Bosnia-Herzegovina Botswana Bouvet Island Brazil British Indian Ocean Territory Brunei Bulgaria Burkina Faso Burundi Cambodia Cameroon Cape Verde Cayman Islands Central African Republic Chad Chile China Christmas Island Cocos (Keeling) Islands Colombia Comoros Congo Cook Islands Costa Rica Croatia Cuba Cyprus Czech Republic Denmark Djibouti Dominica Dominican Republic East Timor Ecuador Egypt El Salvador Equatorial Guinea Eritrea Estonia Ethiopia Falkland Islands Faroe Islands Fiji Finland Former Czechoslovakia Former USSR France French Guyana French Southern Territories Gabon Gambia Georgia Germany Ghana Gibraltar Great Britain Greece Greenland Grenada Guadeloupe (French) Guam (USA) Guatemala Guinea Guinea-Bissau Guyana Haiti Heard and McDonald Islands Holy See (Vatican City State) Honduras Hong Kong Hungary Iceland India Indonesia Iran Iraq Ireland Israel Italy Ivory Coast (Cote D’Ivoire) Jamaica Japan Jordan Kazakhstan Kenya Kiribati Kuwait Kyrgyz Republic (Kyrgyzstan) Laos Latvia Lebanon Lesotho Liberia Libya Liechtenstein Lithuania Luxembourg Macau Macedonia Madagascar Malawi Malaysia Maldives Mali Malta Marshall Islands Martinique (French) Mauritania Mauritius Mayotte Micronesia Moldavia Monaco Mongolia Montenegro Montserrat Morocco Mozambique Myanmar Namibia Nauru Nepal Netherlands Netherlands Antilles New Caledonia (French) New Zealand Nicaragua Niger Nigeria Niue Norfolk Island Northern Mariana Islands North Korea Norway Oman Pakistan Palau Panama Papua New Guinea Paraguay Peru Philippines Pitcairn Island Poland Polynesia (French) Portugal Puerto Rico Qatar Reunion (French) Romania Russian Federation Rwanda Saint Helena Saint Kitts & Nevis Anguilla Saint Lucia Saint Pierre and Miquelon Saint Tome and Principe Saint Vincent & Grenadines Samoa San Marino Saudi Arabia Senegal Serbia Seychelles S. Georgia & S. Sandwich Isls. Sierra Leone Singapore Slovak Republic Slovenia Solomon Islands Somalia South Africa South Korea Spain Sri Lanka Sudan Suriname Svalbard and Jan Mayen Islands Swaziland Sweden Switzerland Syria Tadjikistan Taiwan Tanzania Thailand Togo Tokelau Tonga Trinidad and Tobago Tunisia Turkey Turkmenistan Turks and Caicos Islands Tuvalu Uganda Ukraine United Arab Emirates United Kingdom Uruguay USA Minor Outlying Islands Uzbekistan Vanuatu Venezuela Vietnam Virgin Islands (British) Virgin Islands (USA) Wallis and Futuna Islands Western Sahara Yemen Zaire Zambia Zimbabwe

1.  
  We’d like to know more about our members and supporters. Please take a moment to answer these quick questions. Your information is strictly confidential; it will not be shared with any third parties.
2.
Please select response Man Woman Woman/Transgender MTF Trans Man/Transgender FTM Genderqueer Prefer not to say
3.
Please select response Lesbian Gay Bisexual Heterosexual/Straight Queer Other Prefer not to say

You’ll receive email updates from HRC. You can unsubscribe at any time.

Message

Appalling actions

Dear Human Rights Campaign,

Dear Chief Justice John Roberts,

As you know, three of Iowa’s Supreme Court justices lost their seats last week in the judicial retention election. All three were aggressively targeted by a cynical political campaign run by the Washington, D.C.-based National Organization for Marriage (NOM) and its allies because of a single, unanimous ruling. In 2009, the full court ruled that same-sex couples have a constitutional right to marry in Iowa.

You might also know that the three justices, who faced a barrage of television ads, refused to mount a counter attack because of the message it might send to litigants who appear before them. The judicial retention election, established in 1962, was designed to address gross misconduct, not punish judges for one ruling. In fact, only four other judges have lost their seats and, until last Tuesday, none of them from the state’s highest court.

NOM’s non-stop campaign made voters believe that ousting the justices would destroy same-sex marriage in Iowa. Of course, same-sex marriage remains law in Iowa and will not be impacted by whomever the new governor selects for the bench.

In fact, NOM admits its Iowa campaign had nothing to do with Iowa. This one judicial retention election, the organization said, would “send a clear signal to the Supreme Court and other judges that they don’t have the right to make up the law out of thin air. If the people of Iowa…remove these judges, there will be reverberations throughout the country all the way to the United States Supreme Court.”

This is clear intimidation meant to be heard hundreds and thousands of miles away from Waterloo, Des Moines or Dubuque. It’s meant to shatter judicial independence everywhere.

The Iowa State Bar Association had determined that each of the three justices was “well qualified,” meaning all three “avoid undue personal observations or criticisms [and they] decide cases on the basis of applicable law and fact, not affected by outside influence.” This was nothing short of a political ambush on our courts.

NOM bludgeoned the very foundation of the American jurisprudence court system on Election night. We urge you to condemn the National Organization for Marriage and its allies for this type of dangerous and unprecedented attack on an independent judiciary. We ask you to remind Americans that a judiciary attacked and brought down by such biased politics threatens our very democracy.

Signed,

A Message From the William J. Clinton Foundation

 

  View this email as a web page.
Clinton Foundation

Gail,

Last week, hundreds of people sent thought-provoking questions and thoughts about the world’s most pressing challenges. And now, in a special YouTube appearance, President Clinton has some answers.

Watch President Clinton answer questions in his new video about the challenges our world faces.

President Clinton
And it’s not too late to send us your thoughts about the issues confronting your community and your planet and have them answered by luminaries like Thomas L. Friedman of The New York Times; Lance Armstrong, Founder and Chairman of LIVESTRONG; President of Haiti René Préval; and more at this year’s Clinton Global Initiative plenary sessions.

You can even tune in to see these panels in action on Tuesday and Wednesday — and maybe even hear the answer to your question — online at www.clintonglobalinitiative.org.

President Clinton founded CGI in 2005 with the hope of finding real solutions to some of the most dire global problems. Every conference attendee — influential business leaders, heads of state, entertainers — is asked to make a commitment to solve a specific global challenge and then to deliver on that commitment.

Your question could be the one that inspires an entire panel of leaders as they make their own commitments to act.

Check out President Clinton’s YouTube video.

And then, send in your own write-in or video questions today.

For 5 years, the Clinton Global Initiative has been pioneering a new brand of international activism — the kind that goes beyond heady speeches and results in concrete solutions. But the best answers start with one common denominator: a good question. Please ask yours today.

Thank you!

The Clinton Foundation

P.S. Watch President Clinton answer some of Jon Stewart’s own questions in his Daily Show appearance last week.

Sign Up for Email UpdatesDONATE  TODAYForward To A Friend

Share on: Twitter   Facebook     Digg


The Clinton Foundation seeks to address some of the world’s more pressing challenges — from global climate change to extreme poverty — through collaborative and systematic effort.


William J. Clinton Foundation • 55 West 125th St. •  New York, NY 10027

This email was sent to . If you no longer wish to receive emails from us, please unsubscribe.

Previous Older Entries