SMALL GOVERNMENT - LOW TAXES FOR THE RICH = BIG DISASTERS

Leave it to Republicans to take control of state governments who will then; with almost near certainty, create a disaster.

The governor who poisoned Flint: The GOP’s Rick Snyder thought he might be president.  

In the world according to Richard Dale Snyder, everyone should have spent more time in the private sector (like him) learning how to get things done.

Working in ‘Dog Years’

Naturally, Snyder had little patience for the lumbering speed of government, vowing to work in “dog years.”

Only later would we come to realize just how much disdain our governor had for the entire concept of government –– crystallized in his congressional testimony on St. Patrick’s Day 2016, when he brazenly blamed “government bureaucrats” for the Flint water crisis. Then a few days later, Snyder bragged to a friendly audience of business executives, “I hope they appreciate the fact I took responsibility for some of the people that worked for me, the tragic mistakes they made, and I’m focused on fixing the problem.”

I’m sure the people of Flint, who still don’t have safe drinking water, were deeply comforted by the governor’s humble response.

HILLARY SUFFERS FROM "POLI-SPEAK"

Hillary like most tried and true politicians has a bad case of what I call "poli-speak" or in plain English, political BS.  Say what people want to hear, take the money and run.  Oh! And hope it's all forgotten before the next news cycle.

The author of the following piece is one of those big-hearted, politically naive media buffs who want's to paint this practice as just being part of the political landscape; no big deal. People spend big bucks on "celebrities" just because their celebrities.

The $250,000 speeches are just hyped up celebrity pitches; nothing more. That, sadly, misses the point when it comes to politics;much different from the "Hollywood celebrities" they are compared to.

Governing as a form of entertainment is far too common in America which is why the country is in the sorry mess that it is in.  Maybe it's time to get serious.

          I have personally been to a closed door corporate Clinton speech. This is what I experienced.

Hillary Clinton’s (and to some extent Bill Clinton’s) paid speeches have become a major talking point in this campaign. Everyone wondering what Hillary possibly could have said in 30 minutes that was worth 250K is missing the point. These people are celebrities. They are booked to deliver paid speeches, because it benefits those who book them in some way. You might as well ask what Kanye West could possibly say in 45 minutes at Madison Square Garden that would be worth 250K to the promoter.

I have no doubt that Hillary does not want to release the transcripts of those speeches because those pouring through them for a gotcha news story or to prove a point, will surely find praise for the institutions she was speaking on behalf of. In this political climate, that would be a bad news cycle for her. I also have no doubt that she also showered glowing praise on the countless colleges whose commission speeches she spoke at, as well as praised the accomplishments of whatever non-profit she spoke on behalf of. Does anyone really think her speech to the US Green building council in 2013 was fair and balanced about negative aspects of what the Green building council has done? No. These are performances for a purpose.

HILLARY; YOU CAN'T HANDLE THE TRUTH!

                            

After losing her temper and suddenly lashing out against a Greenpeace activist on Thursday, Hillary Clinton accused Sen. Bernie Sanders of lying about political contributions that she currently receives from the fossil fuel industry. Instead of reverting to childish insults, Sanders’ campaign supported their claims with evidence that Clinton has accepted more than $4.5 million from lobbyists and super PACs within the fossil fuel industry.

During a rally in New York on Thursday, Greenpeace activist Eva Resnick-Day asked Clinton if she would reject future fossil fuel donations to her campaign. Aggressively shoving her finger in Resnick-Day’s face, Clinton irritably responded, “I have money from people who have worked for fossil fuel companies. I have never… I am so sick of the Sanders campaign lying about me. I am sick of it.”

On Friday, Sanders’ campaign responded to her false allegations by pointing to evidence that she has received more than $4.5 million from lobbyists and individuals within the fossil fuel industry. At least 57 oil, gas, and coal industry lobbyists have contributed to Clinton’s campaign. And according to the Center for Responsive Politics, the Clinton campaign has accepted over $160,000 from employees of fossil fuel companies.

“It is disappointing that Secretary Clinton has leveled an accusation that just isn’t true,” Sanders’ campaign manager Jeff Weaver announced on Friday. “It’s very clear from research done by Greenpeace that she’s not just receiving money from ‘individuals’ who happen to work in the oil, coal, and gas industry. Fifty-seven lobbyists from the industry have personally given to her campaign and 11 of those lobbyists have bundled more than $1 million to help put her in the White House. If you include money given to super PACs backing Clinton, the fossil fuel industry has given more than $4.5 million in support of Clinton’s bid.”

Weaver continued, “Bernie believes it is critical that the next president acts to curb the worst effects of climate change by acting boldly to move our energy system away from fossil fuels. He also believes you cannot take on an industry if you take their money. If the Clinton campaign wants to argue that industry lobbyists giving thousands of dollars to her campaign won’t affect her decisions if she’s elected, that’s fine. But to call us liars for pointing out basic facts about the secretary’s fundraising is deeply cynical and very disappointing.”

According to the video of the incident, Clinton clearly lost her temper when questioned by the Greenpeace activist and ended up launching false accusations against Sanders. Ironically, Resnick-Day is a self-proclaimed undecided voter who was not supporting Sanders when she questioned Clinton’s stance on climate change while continuing to accept money from the fossil fuel industry.

Clinton was reportedly rattled a few minutes before the encounter with Resnick-Day when she heard roughly 20 Bernie supporters shouting, “If she wins, we lose!”

TWO MORE REASONS TO NOT VOTE FOR HILLARY

There are two Democrats whose resignation from office right now would do their party and country a service.

Their disappearance might also help Hillary Clinton convince skeptical Democrats that her nomination, if it happens, is about the future, and not about resurrecting and ratifying the worst aspects of the first Clinton reign when she and her husband rarely met a donor to whom they wouldn’t try to auction a sleepover in the Lincoln Bedroom.

In fact, while we’re at it, and if Secretary Clinton really wants us to believe she’s no creature of the corporate and Wall Street money machine — despite more than $44 million in contributions from the financial industry since 2000 and her $675,000 in speaking fees from Goldman Sachs, not to mention several million more paid by other business interests for an hour or two of her time — she should pick up the gauntlet herself and publicly call for the departure of these two, although they are among her nearest and dearest. And we don’t mean Bill and Chelsea.

No, she should come right out and ask for the resignations of Chicago Mayor Rahm Emanuel and Democratic National Committee Chair — and Florida congresswoman — Debbie Wasserman Schultz. In one masterstroke, she could separate herself from two of the most prominent of all corporate Democratic elitists.

Time for These Two Democrats to Go - BillMoyers.com

HILLARY "SICK AND TIRED" OF BEING BUSTED

The problem Hillary has is simply that she is part and parcel representative of the corrupt political Establishment and, in that sense, not different than any of her Republican counterparts with the exception of Donald Trump. 

Reality is politicians fund their campaigns with money from people who they then pander to. That's just a fact and, with the exception of Bernie Sanders and Donald Trump every other politician in this race is bought and paid for by big money interests who bankroll their campaigns.  

Bernie is the one and only candidate who is bankrolled by the voters while Trump has more than enough cash to self fund his campaign. 

Has Sen. Bernie Sanders really been lying about Hillary Clinton's donor base?

That's the accusation Clinton made during a testy exchange March 31 with a Greenpeace activist when Clinton was asked while shaking hands with people if she would start rejecting fossil-fuel money in her campaign.

"I do not have," Clinton said, then stopping herself and beginning again. "I have money from people who work for fossil fuel companies. I am so sick. I am so sick of the Sanders campaign lying about me. I’m sick of it."

Clinton wasn't specific about the alleged lie she was talking about, and her campaign didn't give a specific answer when we asked.

Neither Clinton nor Sanders — or any other presidential candidate, for that matter — can accept money from fossil fuel companies (or any other corporation). That would be illegal under federal campaign finance laws.

So all the money in the coffers comes from individuals. The limit is $1,000 per candidate per election (the primary and general election count separately). Political action committees can donate $5,000 per election to a candidate.

In fact, people in the fossil fuel industry have given to both campaigns, though they’ve donated more to Clinton.

According to the latest tallies from Center for Responsive Politics, Clinton's campaign has received $307,561 from people who work for oil and gas interests so far in the presidential race. Sanders has received nearly six times fewer dollars — $53,760.

For Clinton, that's 0.2 percent of the more than $159.9 million her campaign committee, Hillary for America, has raised. For Sanders, it's 0.04 percent of $139.8 million.

Super PACs supporting Clinton have directly given an additional $25,701. Sanders does not have a super PAC.

So far, 97.7 percent of donations from people connected the oil and gas industry have gone to Republicans.

But in Clinton’s case, that doesn't include "bundlers," a fancy name for fundraisers who collect money from individual donors and bundle the money together for a campaign.

A bundler might, for example, arrange to have each executive from an oil company, along with each adult member of his or her family, give $1,000 per person, which is bundled together and given to the campaign. It's legal because the individuals aren't violating the per-person limit.



Sorting out Hillary Clinton’s fossil fuel contributions 

Meet the Fossil Fuel Lobbyists Raising Money for Hillary Clinton

During a campaign stop and fundraiser in New York yesterday, Hillary Clinton was asked by a young woman if she’d stop taking money from the fossil fuel industry. It was a simple question, one she could have easily answered with a "yes," or, perhaps because of the way she funds her campaign, responded with a "no."


Instead, she said she was "sick of the Sanders campaign lying" about the donations she receives.


Now, here’s the truth — the hard numbers don’t lie. And it’s something everyone should know as this video spreads online and is covered in the news:The fossil fuel industry has given more than $4.5 million to Hillary Clinton’s campaign and her top super PAC, including 11 lobbyists who have bundled more than $1 million to her put her in the White House.


Earlier in this campaign, Bernie Sanders and Martin O’Malley signed a pledge to refuse money from fossil fuel interests. No Republican added their name, which isn’t surprising given that they don’t believe climate change is real. But neither did Hillary Clinton. It’s time for her to distance herself from the Republicans on this issue and add her name.


Ask Hillary Clinton to sign the pledge launched by Greenpeace USA and 20 other organizations asking all presidential candidates to reject fossil fuel contributions, because you cannot be expected to take an industry on while you’re taking their money.

Meet the Fossil Fuel Lobbyists Raising Money for Hillary Clinton

Nearly all of the lobbyists bundling contributions for Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton's campaign have at one time or another worked for the fossil fuel industry.

A list of 40 registered lobbyists that the Clinton camp disclosed to the Federal Election Commission on Wednesday revealed a number of Democratic Party lobbyists who have worked against regulations to curb climate change, advocated for offshore drilling, or sought government approval for natural gas exports.

The Late Show Wheel Of News IV (with Bernie Sanders)