This is a portion of an article originally posted at God’s Own Party on March 31, 2012.  The introduction by another person has been left out and some of the content changed.  These changes do not effect the total content, so if you are still with me still, read on…

If you were to go to the website Alec.org, you would find a benign site that tells you how the group American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC) was founded to “advance the Jeffersonian principles of free markets, limited government, federalism, and individual liberty”.  They will tell you they do this through a “nonpartisan public-private partnership of America’s state legislators, members of the private sector, the federal government, and general public”.  Then they further tell you they are doing this for us by “developing policies that ensure the powers of government are derived from, and assigned to, first the People, then the States, and finally, the Federal Government”.  Further they will do this by “enlisting state legislators from all parties and members of the private sector who share ALEC’s mission”.  But wait, I thought this was for we the people but now they tell us only “we the people” who agree with their mission?  I wonder what else they are going to do for we the people?  Well, they tell us in a further statement: They will “conduct a policy making program that unites members of the public and private sectors in a dynamic partnership to support research, policy development, and dissemination activities”.  And according to them, if we trust them, “they will prepare the next generation of political leadership through educational programs that promote the principles of Jeffersonian democracy, which are necessary for a free society”.  That sure sounds like something we can all get behind, but not so fast.

I am sure that little part about agreeing with their mission is just an oversight, right?  I suppose if you were to peruse their site and not dig any further, you could walk away with that impression.  The problem comes into play IF you do dig further because what you will find out is that ultimately ALEC is looking after Corporations and not we the people, in any respect.  They dress it up to lull the public while in the background they work to ensure legislation is geared toward the benefit of Corporations alone and while  we may realize some crumbs they deign to throw at us, make no mistake they are in it to win it for themselves and their corporate masters alone.

A quick note for those of you new to this particular area of semi-secretive activity: the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC) is a 501 (c) (3) tax-exempt not-for-profit organization that bills itself as being the nation’s largest “bipartisan” public-private legislative partnership. As such, ALEC consists of more than 2,000 state lawmakers and more than 300 of the nation’s leading corporations, lobby firms and ‘think tanks.’  Some of those leading coporations are: Bayer, Glaxco,Smith.Kline, Centerpoint360, Exxon/Mobil, Phrma, Kraft Foods, Walmart and Koch Enterprises to name a few.  Of course it would be difficult to name them all here, but you get the general idea. To give you a good idea of the stealthness, watch Real Time with Bill Maher sometime.  You will see a gentleman from time to time named Stephen Moore on the show.  Bill introduces him as a senior economics writer for various publications, mainly the WSJ.  Never once does he say anything about Mr. Moore’s connection to ALEC.  I don’t know about you but it makes me question Bill Maher’s due diligence in investigating his guests’ backgrounds and HBO’s decision to hire someone who would portray this gentleman as just another economics scholar, never mentioning his seat on ALEC’s Board of Scholars.  But then again, perhaps that is intentional.

So you are probably wondering exactly what it is that ALEC does and I am ready to tell you.  ALEC has members in nearly every state of the union in Congress, State Legislatures, State Assemblies, Governorships, perhaps even in the White House either in the past or currently.  That is not to say our President is aware of it, just that it could happen.  It is hard to determine all the areas they cover but knowing these people are the ones determining legislation in your state and country is chilling enough.  You can email your representatives all you want expressing your views on a particular piece of legislation, if it is not in line with ALEC’s mission, your representative is not going to vote for it, especially if they are Republican.  So you can see where their mission, not your needs, comes into play because they and their corporate board members have the money, you do not.  You will also probably not be too surprised, at this point, to know most members belong to the Republican party.  I have found a few Democrats but not nearly enough to consider them truly “bi-partisan”.  Understanding that, you have another problem because who do you think they are going to favor in legislation and at the voting booth?  You guessed it, Republicans.

So what is some of the legislation they have sponsored and won?  Voter ID laws for one and in the mid-term elections of 2010 you could also guess they were behind the majority Tea Party and Republicans gaining control of the House of Representatives.  They knew if they won the house and local elections, they would gain the upper hand in re-districting and that is exactly what happened.  Remember the Koch brothers are members and it was the Koch brothers who bankrolled the “grassroots” Tea Party Patriots and by association their candidates.  I saw where a person referred to the Koch brothers as the Kochanostra and I happen to think that label is appropriate when you keep turning over the layers to see how much they try to influence laws, the environment and our elected offices.  Isn’t that what the Mafia did and isn’t some of that activity exactly what resulted in Rico charges against them?

The “Stand Your Ground Law” is another piece of legislation that was sponsored (always in the background) by ALEC. I am sure you have all heard about the tragedy that befell the Martin family in Florida.  In case you have not heard, the shooter(George Zimmerman) of Trayvon Martin, a 17 year old high school senior, is claiming he should be protected by Florida’s stand your ground law.  In short, he was a self imposed “neighborhood watchman”, who, despite being advised by 911not to follow a “person of interest” in his gated community, did so anyway.  An altercation occurred and George Zimmerman (the watchman) shot and killed Trayvon Martin claiming the young man accosted him as he was returning to his vehicle.  The “Stand Your Ground Law” protects citizens if they need to use deadly force in the process of defending themselves.  In short, it makes you or I a vigilante and it may be coming to a state near you thanks to ALEC.

But where does the encouragement of vigilante (in) justice fit into this picture? It is the same old story, the long-standing exploitation of public fears.  Republicans have done this again and again.  During the Bush administration they even had a color-coded chart to tell us exactly how afraid we should be, red was terrified and green meant to go out shopping.  It should come as no surprise that the NRA and ALEC have been allies for a long time as well.  Who benefits from lax gun laws?  The NRA and the manufacturers and retailers of weapons.

Many ALEC-drafted bills pursue standard conservative goals: union-busting, undermining environmental protection, tax breaks for corporations and the wealthy. ALEC seems, however, to have a special interest in privatization — that is, on turning the provision of public services, from schools to prisons, over to for-profit corporations. And some of the most prominent beneficiaries of privatization, such as the online education company K12 Inc., EdisonLearning and the prison operator Corrections Corporation of America, are, not surprisingly, very much involved with the organization.

What this tells us, is that ALEC’s claim to stand for limited government and free markets is misleading. To a large extent the organization seeks not limited government but privatized government, in which corporations get their profits from taxpayer dollars, dollars steered their way by friendly politicians. In short, ALEC isn’t so much about promoting free markets as it is about expanding crony capitalism.

And in case you were wondering, the kind of privatization ALEC promotes isn’t in the public interest; instead of success stories, there are a series of scandals. Private charter schools take tax money to operate and seldom show increased educational achievement.  In fact, EdisonLearning is being funded by the Florida Teacher’s Pension and the funding was done while Jeb Bush, as governor/trustee, agreed to use the funds to help Liberty Partners prop up the company which, in it’s history, has consistently lost money.  And like Bain Capitol, Liberty Partners is in the business of LBO’s.  If things go wrong again, they will file Bankruptcy once again and most in the Pension fund will never know.  These people, who love to stir up the Islamaphobia, have entrusted a man who is a devout Muslim to run some of these Charter Schools.  Now I do not have a problem with this as the evidence is very shady, but if these people and their followers realized that I just wonder how they would deal with it.  A friend of mine inadvertantly gave me the answer.  Of course they would blame it on President Obama, thank you Sally.  The link to the website is below.

There is one thing these people do not like and that is sunlight. Sunlight for those sunflowers above make them flourish, not so for these people in fact you put sunshine on their activities they will fight back.    Sunlight on their organizations means trouble for them, whenever sunlight is brought to bear they need to refute it, if serious enough.  You may have heard of a new organization called Americans Elect.  They have positioned themselves as a grassroots organization which I find hard to believe.  First of all they were funded with Wall Street assistance and they have hired a CEO from the CFR(Council for Foreign Relations).  How can a member of the CFR possibly understand the everyday problems of the 99%?  Second, they have positioned a member of ALEC on their rules board.  So a member of ALEC is going to judge and make decisions in the nominating and voting rules?  You just finished reading this piece, don’t you just wonder how that could possibly go wrong?  Would you question the motives of the people in both organizations?  If so, then tell the world.  Don’t be quiet about it, that is what they count on – our silence.

http://libertylinked.com/posts/9722/u-s-house-trying-to-stop/View.aspx

Obama to blame for Charter schools

http://alecexposed.org/wiki/ALEC_Exposed

ALEC Exposed

http://www.alec.org/

ALEC Official Site

Referencing the suffrage movement in the 1920′s and civil rights supporters in the 1960′s, top Republican leaders are nearing a vote in the House of Representatives to pass a law that would give corporations the right of other citizens, to vote in elections.

Rep. Paul Ryan gave a passionate speech on the floor of the House on Friday in which he argued that since the Supreme Court has affirmed that corporations are people, denying them the right to vote which all other people enjoy, is unconstitutional. “Every person in America has a right to participate in our democracy and just because some may have prejudices against a minority of others, it doesn’t give them the right to deny them their inalienable rights.”

Republican Policy Committee Chairman, Rep. Tom Price argued for support of the Universal Voting Rights Act by challenging fellow Representatives to affirm American democracy and extend voting rights to the only people in America who are now refused them. “The world looks to America to set an example of  open democracy. How can we stand as a role model if we pick and choose which people can and can’t vote?”

House Democrats, surprised by the sudden appearance of this bill, were strongly outspoken against it. “Despite what the Supreme Court has ruled and the rhetoric of our friends across the aisle, corporations are not people and they absolutely are not entitled to vote in elections,” said Democrat and House Minority Leader, Rep. Nancy Pelosi. “They can’t walk into a voting booth, they shouldn’t be entitled to vote, it’s that simple.”

Republicans insist that by opposing this bill, Democrats are openly attacking the nation’s democracy by trying to suppress the votes of people they know are most likely to vote for Republicans.

“Such anti-democratic views, trying to prevent people from voting instead of seeking to have as many people as possible participating in our elections is a travesty and a betrayal of their positions as representatives of the public,” Republican Rep. Jeb Hensarling insisted in Friday’s debate.

The Universal Voting Rights Act is expected to pass in The House in a party line vote and stands a chance of passing in The Senate with several Blue Dog Democrats including Sen. Mary Landrieu, Sen. Ben Nelson and Sen. Joe Manchin breaking with their party and joining Republicans in supporting the bill.

President Obama is expected to veto the bill if passed by Congress but if Republicans win the White House in November, the bill is expected to be revived in 2013 when it could be signed into law.

Some Democrats have expressed concerns that their opposition to the bill will be used against them by the GOP in this year’s elections, to portray them as opposing democracy.

GOP Presidential  candidate Mitt Romney was asked about the bill today at a campaign stop in Milwaukee and affirmed that if he won the Presidency, he would sign it into law. “As I’ve said before and have been attacked for saying, corporations are indeed people and in America, the people choose their leaders. I would absolutely sign a law that granted  voting rights to all people, be they living or corporate,” Romney affirmed.

The House vote on this bill is scheduled for next week.

Sorry to have to share this outrageous story with you today…it being April Fools Day and all.

In the Supreme Court’s hearings this week on the constitutionality of the Affordable Care Act, a surprising variety of ridiculous and small minded thinking was put on display by some of the justices. Antonin Scalia who is for some reason described as an intellectual (just as Moon Unit Gingrich is…”intellectual” must be Republican for “crazy”), tried to argue that universal health care is a slippery slope to government enforced broccoli.

Now, any right wing brain-damaged ideologue would agree that the national health insurance market is identical to a supermarket in that each have the word “market” in them. Otherwise, for those of us not required to take anti-psychotic medication, the idea that having universal health insurance (as nearly all other western nations have) is comparable to or a slippery slope to a vegan tyranny, is quite insane. It would be fascinating to hear Scalia’s explanation of how European countries, Japan and other nations throughout the world have been able to provide health care to all while somehow avoiding the natural progression to broccogeddon.

Poor Samuel Alito, he had such high hopes for his inanity taking the gold medal for the Conclusion High Jump in this Special Session Olympics but Scalia’s years of petrifying his brain into a hard and impenetrable substance similar to a stale Abba Zabba bar, forced him to settle for the silver.

Alito did try his best though when he said:

“I don’t see the difference. You can get burial insurance. You can get health insurance. Most people are going to need health care. Everybody is going to be buried or cremated at some point. What’s the difference?”

His unreasoned question is hard to argue against…unless one has a high school education or better (i.e. “elitist”). As Alito points out, the burial industry, like the health insurance industry, is a crucial part of our economy and its rapidly rising costs are responsible for plunging the nation into trillions in deficits and endangering the nation’s future.

I can’t tell you how many people have been bankrupted and have lost their homes having to pay for their own sudden burial and the ongoing costs of remaining dead which could grow into hundreds of thousands and even millions of dollars. Really, I can’t tell you.

In fact, the argument Alito advances, that the burial industry could be bankrupted by people only paying for burials AFTER they die, does hold water…like the Titanic. Using Alito’s logic, if universal health care was upheld, then wouldn’t government have the power to insist that burials be paid for by people who are alive so that those who have been more responsible and died first, don’t have to deal with higher burial costs on top of being dead?

Samuel Alito isn’t taking his loss to Scalia on moronic rationalizing lying down. In fact, anticipating that the US may eventually pass an Affordable Casket Act, he has invested in his own new startup, “Caskets R’ Us!”.

Putting a fresh spin on the burial business, Alito’s Caskets R Us creates custom caskets for the deceased, in the shapes of objects most associated with the deceased. Here are a few samples from their brochure that use well known Republican figures as potential clients:

Rush Limbaugh’s Casket

Mitt Romney’s Casket

 Antonin Scalia’s Casket

The Koch Brothers’ Caskets

John Boehner’s Casket

If you have any casket suggestions, Sam Alito and Caskets R Us invite you to post them below and you’ll be entered in a drawing for your own custom casket (free custom casket certificate expires in 90 days so act now!).

(BTW, props or blame go to Chernynkaya for encouraging me to write this post!)

The Core of this challenge is whether the Mandate that everyone have health insurance is constitutional. There are secondary issues, but this is the heart of the matter.

If the Court upholds the mandate, the ACA goes forward as planned to the continued objections of many conservatives. Getting everyone into the pool sharing the costs of the entire system is seen as the only way to keep costs down and maintain the insurance system. Jurists across the country are leaning slightly in favor of this as the likely outcome based on previous efforts to regulate commerce.

If the Court finds the mandate unconstitutional, do they find it severable from the rest of the law? If not, that will strike the whole ACA down. This according to the jurists seems like the least likely outcome.

If, on the other hand, they do invoke severability, the ball is back in the White House’s court. At that point the White House will have to answer this question: Can health care reform be successful without the individual mandate?

Why is the Mandate essential? First, if we don’t require everyone to buy insurance, then insurance will be disproportionately purchased by those who need it, the likely sick, making it more expensive/unaffordable. This would lead many to discontinue coverage in a continuous cycle that drives the price higher and higher until no one but the very rich can afford insurance any more and the system collapses.

Second, if a person is not covered by health insurance then any bills he/she accrues must be paid by the individual. If he/she cannot pay the bills, then civil suits are one remedy. If there are insufficient assets for a suit to be successful, then the cost is either covered by the care giver (as a loss) or by the government (in direct aid to care givers).

However, if the entire system is under-financed then the ability to continue bearing losses or covering expenses via government subsidy is at risk.

So….What happens if the Supreme Court strikes down the individual mandate but rules that severability applies? Two options. The Obama administration washes its hands of health reform, proclaiming that it can’t be done without the individual mandate because costs will rise too rapidly and the insurance system will collapse. Or the Obama Administration forges onward with a modified system.

Option one is terrible politics with the President and his Democratic allies admitting defeat on one of the defining aspects of the Obama presidency. Moreover, it would have tremendous negative implications for the future of health reform initiatives generally.

Option two looks good politically but it could destroy the health insurance market and hurt Americans in the process. If it shapes up that way it would be an example of very bad leadership and be incredibly painful.

But, could it be done in a way that demonstrates sound leadership and minimizes the pain. New evidence suggests that the pain might not be as great as many fear. Simulation models from the Kaiser Foundation and John Sheils and Randall Haught of the Lewin Group have found that health reform without the individual mandate would result in fewer people being covered and insurance premiums increasing, but things would still be better than if we did nothing at all.

According to their findings, without reform 51.6 million remain uninsured. With mandate based reform 20.7 million remain uninsured. Without the mandate but with reform continuing 28.5 million remain uninsured. Premiums without reform rise by 15.9%. Premiums with reform (but without the mandate) rise by 12.6%.

However. the CBO is not nearly as optimistic with many more uninsured and the costs much higher but there would still be some improvement. The CBO expects that axing the individual mandate will mean 44 millon insured persons and a premium increase between 14 and 16%

If the Court finds the individual mandate unconstitutional, the White House will have more actuaries and health economists crunching numbers than you can imagine and the political pressure on the GOP will increase tremendously.

How so?

If the Supreme Court finds the ACA unconstitutional in any way THEN the Obama campaign will launch an Information Campaign that will feature all the features immediately endangered by the decision. The following, the campaign would say, are now on the chopping block—-

1) …insurance companies are prohibited from imposing annual and lifetime dollar limits on essential coverage.

2) …job-based health plans and new individual plans aren’t allowed to deny or exclude coverage for children (under age 19) based on a pre-existing condition including a disability.

3) …children under age 26, covered by their parent’s insurance if it covers dependent children at all.

3) …if income is less than the equivalent of about $88,000 for a family of four today, and employment doesn’t offer affordable coverage, families may get tax credits to help pay for insurance. (THIS IS 28.6 MILLION AMERICANS, by the way)

4) …pregnancy and newborn care, along with vision and dental coverage for children, is covered in all exchange plans and new plans sold to individuals and small businesses.

ALL OF THAT GONE?

DONE AWAY WITH BY A SUPREME COURT DECISION?

And then the White House will push what WOULD HAVE BEEN IN PLACE by 2014 when public exchanges and subsidies would have expanded the number of insured tremendously, health insurance premium oversight would increase and the protections now applied to children would be expanded to cover everyone. NONE OF THAT HAPPENS IF THE LAW IS STRUCK DOWN.

IT WILL EMPHASIZE THE IMPORTANCE OF HAVING APPOINTMENTS TO THE COURT WHO ARE NOT FIRST AND FOREMOST AGENTS OF THE GOP. IT WILL EMPHASIZE THAT THE GOP HAS NO PLAN TO DEAL WITH HEALTH CARE NEEDS.

Two likely results? If that info campaign is successful, the Obama campaign will be lifted as Americans suddenly realize ALL they have lost and turn on the GOP in large numbers. The White House, buoyed by public response will push ahead with reform without the mandate demanding that Congress find a way to fund the program fully. And the Health Care Reform debates begins again.

Sources:
http://www.kevinmd.com/blog/2011/11/supreme-court-strikes-individual-mandate.html
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/03/26/supreme-court-health-care-reform-affordable-care-act-obamacare_n_1379805.html
http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/affordable-care-act-provisions-get-historic-review-by-supreme-court/2012/03/26/gIQAVKNBcS_story.html
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/03/25/opinion/sunday/a-moment-of-truth-for-health-care-reform.html?_r=1&ref=affordablecareact

Back in the golden era of the Bush Presidency, we were outraged by the Republican propaganda campaign to drag us to war in Iraq, oil companies collaborating with Cheney on drafting US energy policy, Halliburton given no-bid sweetheart deals to rip off the American Taxpayer, science being ignored and Republicans in Congress trying to take over a family’s decision on allowing a woman in a vegetative state to die with dignity.

Ah yes, those were the days. Back then, many folks probably thought confidently, “Well at least it can’t get worse,” which ironically, Republicans see only as a challenge.

As we all know now, in the sewer that is the Republican party, there’s always a “deeper” level of slime.

Today, high profile members of the Republican Party publicly call women “sluts” for participating in our democracy as men do, Republican judges send racist emails around saying the President’s mother had sex with a dog, women’s rights to their own life and body are an attack on religion, college is Satan’s workshop, people without health insurance should be left out on the sidewalk in front of a hospital to die, the list of extremist hatred and angry delusions go on and on.

At least it can’t get worse, right?

Well…imagine what a Republican caucus in Congress might come up with in five or ten years…

• The Women’s Total Freedom Act (WTF): In order to protect the total freedom of the unborn woman, no person, male or female, shall be permitted to use birth control or abortion to infringe on the freedom of the unborn woman. Once married, women shall have the freedom of their feet and toes being fully protected from the restrictions of shoes and women shall be mandated to be free from an unpregnant state at all times.

• The Benevolent Initiative to Generate Overt Tolerance (BIGOT): To foster greater tolerance between Americans, all Americans will be required to abide by the same set of religious and racial prejudices. In this way, Americans of all races, religions and creeds can come together in their hatred of anyone who isn’t white or believes in any other religion other than extremist fundamentalist Christianity. If an American is non-white or has different religious beliefs but recognizes that as being inferior, they will be given a federally issued gun and bible to clutch in each hand at all times so they aren’t mistaken as anti-American.

• The Shared Tax and Economic Advancement Legislation (STEAL): In pursuit of expanding job growth and income potential for 99% of Americans, they will pay all income taxes from now on. All of those wealthy enough to be in the top 1% will not have to pay any taxes on income, capital gains, inheritances, drug deals, money laundering, bribing of public officials domestically and internationally, payoffs to keep secret love children secret, male prostitutes, pyramid schemes, sexually exploiting pandas or buying politicians. From now on, under penalty of Defamation of Character, the top 1% shall be referred to in all cases either as “Job Creators” or “My Lord”.

• The Intellectual Determination and Just Independent Thought Act (IDJIT): Federal funding of education will now authorize school districts and parents to substitute classes in science for studying the blowing out of birthday candles making wishes come true as fact-based. To thwart the snobbery of insisting that every child have more than a high school diploma, all universities, community colleges and trade schools that take federal money will be transformed into shopping malls which will both provide low paid retail careers for high school grads and convenience for all their pretzel-buying needs.

• The Require Identification Guidelines Act (RIG): As a way of ensuring fair elections and preventing voter fraud, upon entry to a polling place, all American voters will first be asked which party they are voting for. If they respond that they are voting for a Republican, they will be handed a tropical drink, led to a special VIP area with a sumptuous all-you-can-eat buffet which includes lobster and handed two ballots so that if they make a mistake, they will be able to quickly correct it and submit their ballot(s). If they instead respond that they are voting for Democrats, they must provide two valid forms of identification, a blood and urine sample, certification from local law enforcement and the FBI that they are not wanted in connection with a crime, name the capitols of all 50 states, juggle three live porcupines, sing all the words without error to “Blinded By the Light”, eat 50 hot dogs in two minutes, perform a triple Lutz and Sow Cow and lift a Smart car over their head while Riverdancing. Upon completing these verification steps they will be given a ballot pre-marked with votes for Republicans and kicked in the balls/crotch.

You can’t lose by overestimating how low the GOP can go so you might want to think about voting in November…to prevent the RIG act from being passed.