Six Portraits of Mitt

Steve Brodner

Read The Full Article:
http://prospect.org/article/six-portraits-mitt

Add to del.icio.us   Digg this   Post to Furl   Add to reddit   Add to myYahoo!

DNCC and Host Committee Announce Diversity
Contracting Policy

Democratic National Convention Committee and Charlotte in 2012 Host Committee Announce Diversity Contracting Policy

CHARLOTTE— The Democratic National Convention Committee (DNCC) and the Charlotte in 2012 Host Committee today announced that they have adopted a diversity contracting policy for the 2012 Democratic National Convention that represents unprecedented progress toward both the inclusion and use of diverse businesses.  The diversity contracting policy is in addition to practices that have been operational since the inception of both organizations to increase the participation of diverse businesses. 

The policy states that the DNCC has a goal of spending at least one third of its aggregate dollars with Minority Business Enterprises (MBEs), Women Business Enterprises (WBEs), Disability-Owned Businesses, LGBT-Owned Businesses and Veteran-Owned Businesses for its contracts and projects.
 
“I am proud of the major steps we are taking to further strengthen our commitment to diversity at the DNC and 2012 convention,” said Democratic National Committee Chair Debbie Wasserman Schultz.  “Our party values economic inclusion and shared prosperity and I believe that this groundbreaking effort will increase opportunity for all.” 
 
“Never before has a host committee or a convention committee dedicated the resources and effort to diversity contracting at the levels we see here,” said Charlotte Mayor Anthony Foxx, Co-chair of the Charlotte in 2012 Host Committee.  “Not only will the 2012 Democratic National Convention stand as a model for the inclusion and utilization of diverse businesses, but it will have a lasting impact on this community and the surrounding region for years to come.”
 
“The DNCC is committed to ensuring the growth and success of underrepresented entrepreneurs,” said Steve Kerrigan, CEO of the DNCC. “We believe our diversity policy and practices are consistent with our mission and they reflect the importance that our stakeholders place on the development of minority-owned, women-owned, veteran-owned, LGBT-owned and disability-owned businesses in their communities.”
 
In October, the Democratic Party hired a Chief Diversity Officer (CDO) to advise the party and the convention on diversity staffing and procurement.  One of the CDO’s first tasks was to work with the convention committee and the host committee on a diversity contracting policy. 
 
In addition, the DNCC and the Charlotte in 2012 Host Committee put tools and systems in place early on to maximize the inclusion and utilization of diverse businesses.  They include:

• A robust vendor directory, established in August 2011, that is the sole source for 2012 Democratic National Convention contracts and subcontracts.  It allows businesses to self-identify as certified MBEs, WBEs, Disability-Owned Businesses, LGBT-Owned Businesses or Veteran-Owned Businesses.  All companies that wish to do business with the Host Committee or the DNCC must register through the vendor directory.
• Business outreach program and staff to implement adequate sourcing mechanisms for convention contractors to assist in identifying MBEs, WBEs, Disability-Owned Businesses, LGBT-Owned Businesses and Veteran-Owned Businesses.
• Regional outreach and public information forums to inform and prepare businesses for economic opportunities around the convention. 
• Fully integrated efforts toward diverse spending.  Vendors are asked to help the DNCC meet its goal in the RFP and contract process through:

1. Diverse spending plans—Vendors must develop and provide a diversity utilization plan that would maximize the participation of MBEs, WBEs, Disability-Owned Businesses, LGBT-Owned Businesses and Veteran-Owned Businesses (including subcontractors where applicable) in the provision of goods and services for which the vendor will be responsible.  The DNCC considers the plan submitted by vendor as an important factor in evaluating responses to RFPs and awarding contracts with the DNCC.
2. Efforts Toward Diverse Spending—Each contract awarded will require the vendor to make efforts to contract with MBEs, WBEs, Disability-Owned Businesses, LGBT-Owned Businesses and Veteran-Owned Businesses for the provision of goods and services for which the vendor is responsible as a means of assisting the DNCC to meet its one third diverse spend goal.
3. Diverse spending reporting—Each contract awarded by the DNCC will require vendors to provide bi-weekly reports to the DNCC detailing participation by MBEs, WBEs, Disability-Owned Businesses, LGBT-Owned Businesses and Veteran-Owned Businesses as a means of assisting the DNCC to meet the one third diverse spend goal. 

DNCC Diversity Contracting Policy after the jump:

DNCC DIVERSITY POLICY
 
Since its inception, it has been the practice of the DNCC to provide equal opportunity to all business enterprises to participate in all aspects of the DNCC’s contracting and purchasing programs without regard to race, creed, age, sex, national origin, ethnic identity, physical or mental disability, veteran status, marital status, economic status, religion, sexual orientation, gender identity, or any other legally protected basis. The DNCC has and will continue to conduct outreach and informational programs with constituent groups, businesses, and trade associations to prevent discrimination against any person or business enterprise on the basis of any of these factors.
 
Recognizing that some individuals, groups and business enterprises, including Minority Business Enterprises, Women Business Enterprises, Disability-Owned Business Enterprises, LGBT-Owned Businesses and Veteran-Owned Businesses, have not historically received opportunities to participate equally in contracting opportunities and to ensure and reaffirm the DNCC’s continuing commitment to progress and success in achieving the goal of equal opportunity, the DNCC adopts the following diversity policy:
 
“Disability-Owned Business” means a business enterprise which is Owned and Operated by one or more persons with disabilities.
 
“LGBT-Owned Business” means a business enterprise which is Owned and Operated by one or more gay, lesbian, bisexual or transgender (“LGBT”) persons.
 
“Minority Business Enterprise” or “MBE” means a business enterprise which is Owned and Operated by one or more of the following ethnic minority groups: African American, Hispanic/Latino, Asian American / Pacific Islander and Native American.
 
“Owned and Operated” means (1) the business enterprise is at least 51% owned by one or more of the respective diversity groups, or in the case of any corporations, limited liability companies or partnerships, at least 51% of the voting stock or interests, as applicable, is owned by one or more of the respective diversity groups and (2) the management and daily business operations of the business enterprise are controlled by one or more of the respective diversity groups.
“Women Business Enterprise” or “WBE” means a business enterprise which is Owned and Operated by one or more women.
 
“Veteran-Owned Business” means a business enterprise which is Owned and Operated by one or more veterans.
 
An MBE, WBE, Disability-Owned Business, LGBT-Owned Business or Veteran-Owned Business may establish its qualification by providing to the DNCC:

• Its certification status from a federal, state or local governmental agency; or
• Its certification from a third-party certifier (e.g. the Minority Supplier Diversity Council, National Women Business Owners Corporation, US Business Leadership Network, etc.); or
• Documentation that would enable the Chief of Staff of the DNCC to verify that the vendor qualifies. This third method is designed to cover those vendors who are easily verifiable, such as sole proprietorships, small partnerships, closely-held corporations and small company that do not engage in significant government business or do not have the resources to seek a governmental or third-party certification.

The DNCC has a goal of spending at least one third of its aggregate dollars with MBEs, WBEs, Disability-Owned Businesses, LGBT-Owned Businesses and Veteran-Owned Businesses for its contracts and projects.
 
It is the policy of the DNCC to provide minorities, women, persons with disabilities, LGBT persons and veterans equal opportunity to participate in all aspects of contracting and purchasing programs, including but not limited to participation in procurement contracts for materials, supplies and equipment, and contracts for construction.
 
It is further the policy of the DNCC to prohibit discrimination against any person or business enterprise on the basis of race, color, ethnic identity, sex, creed, age, national origin, physical or mental disability, veteran status, marital status, economic status, religion, sexual orientation, gender identity, or any other legally protected status, and to conduct its contracting and purchasing programs so as to prevent such discrimination.
 
It is the policy of the DNCC in concert with the Host Committee or other local, state and federal agencies and with the assistance of minority, women, persons with disabilities, LGBT and veteran groups and agencies, actively to seek and identify qualified MBEs, WBEs, Disability-Owned Businesses, LGBT-Owned Businesses, and Veteran-Owned Businesses, and to offer them the opportunity to participate, and to encourage them to participate, in contracting and purchasing programs.
 
It is not the policy of the DNCC to provide information or other opportunities to MBEs, WBEs, Disability-Owned Businesses, LGBT-Owned Businesses, or Veteran-Owned Businesses that will not be available to all other business enterprises. It is the intent of this policy to establish procedures designed to assure MBEs, WBEs, Disability-Owned Businesses, LGBT-Owned Businesses, and Veteran-Owned Businesses access to information and opportunities available to other business enterprises. It is the intent of this policy to widen opportunities for participation, to increase competition, and to reduce costs.
 
The DNCC will award contracts without regard to race, religion, color, ethnic identity, creed, national origin, sex, age, physical or mental disability, veteran status, marital status, economic status, sexual orientation, gender identity, or any other legally protected status. The DNCC will award contracts to the bid that best meets the requirements of the DNCC.  Neither the DNCC nor the Host Committee is bound to accept the lowest offer or any tender submitted.

Read The Full Article:
http://www.DemocraticConventionWatch.com/diary/5212/dncc-and-host-committee-annou
nce-diversity-contracting-policy

Add to del.icio.us   Digg this   Post to Furl   Add to reddit   Add to myYahoo!

Halftime

• At The Washington Post, Brad Plumer challenges the notion that higher gas prices will sway the 2012 election.
• Just because the Republican Party is about to nominate Mitt Romney doesn?t mean that it has somehow become reasonable.
• I completely agree with Jonathan Bernstein that a blow-out is still likely in November, even if the odds for Obama?s reelection (or Romney?s election) are 50-50.
• Alexander Hoffman has a nice take on why Apple dropped its numbering scheme for the new iPad.
• The new trailer for Game of Thrones season 2 is appropriately epic and, if I?m not mistaken, gives us a glimpse of Melisandre:

 

The More You Love Trailer

 

Read The Full Article:
http://prospect.org/article/halftime-11

Add to del.icio.us   Digg this   Post to Furl   Add to reddit   Add to myYahoo!

Mitt Romney embraces the big Republican Medicare
lie

If it's Monday, Mitt Romney is lying about something. (Joshua Lott/Reuters)Mitt Romney is taking a page from the 2010 Republican playbook and trying to position himself to the left of President Obama on Medicare, while at the same time lying not just about Medicare under the Affordable Care Act, but about Rep. Paul Ryan's plan which he has embraced. Greg Sargent has the Romney campaign's statement on Medicare issued today.

?There are two proposals on the table for addressing the nation?s entitlement crisis. Mitt Romney?along with a bipartisan group of leaders?has offered a solution that would introduce competition and choice into Medicare, control costs, and strengthen the program for future generations. President Obama has cut $500 billion from Medicare to fund Obamacare and created an unaccountable board with rationing power ? all while America?s debt is spiraling out of control and we continue to run trillion-dollar deficits.

?If President Obama?s plan is to end Medicare as we know it, he should say so. If he has another plan, he should have the courage to put it forward.?

Putting aside the fact that Sen. Ron Wyden is hardly a leader, and his working with Ryan hardly makes their idea for Medicare bipartisan, there's not an honest sentence in this statement. As Sargent points out, the $500 billion referenced is trimmed from Medicare providers, not from beneficiaries?it does not affect the Medicare recipients' benefits or access to care. The rationing board is a figment of Romney's imagination. As Sargent says, the Independent Payment Advisory Board (which is confirmed by the Senate, and thus accountable) is set up to find cost savings, and is forbidden by the law from making "rationing" kinds of decisions. There is nothing in the health law that ends Medicare, as we know it or any other way.

Of course, at the same time, Romney is backing the Ryan plan which absolutely could lead to the end of Medicare as we know it. The alterations made to Ryan's original voucher plan with the addition of Wyden's ideas still don't "save" Medicare; Medicare enrollees would still be diverted into private plans, lessening Medicare's bargaining power and allowing it to do exactly what Republicans want it to: wither on the vine.

Substance aside, this is as fundamentally dishonest as Romney has been on any policy issue. He's smart enough, and has a sophisticated enough grasp of health care policy (Romneycare and all that) to know that this statement is nothing but flat out lies. Which gives a very simple answer to Sargent's basic question: "Is there any limit to Mitt Romney?s dishonesty?"

No.

Read The Full Article:
http://feeds.dailykos.com/~r/dailykos/index/~3/1OUKZNzLe6Y/-Mitt-Romney-embraces-
the-big-GOP-Medicare-lie-

Add to del.icio.us   Digg this   Post to Furl   Add to reddit   Add to myYahoo!

Mitt Romney embraces the GOP's big Medicare lie

If it's Monday, Mitt Romney is lying about something. (Joshua Lott/Reuters)Mitt Romney is taking a page from the 2010 Republican playbook and trying to position himself to the left of President Obama on Medicare, while at the same time lying not just about Medicare under the Affordable Care Act, but about Rep. Paul Ryan's plan which he has embraced. Greg Sargent has the Romney campaign's statement on Medicare issued today.

?There are two proposals on the table for addressing the nation?s entitlement crisis. Mitt Romney?along with a bipartisan group of leaders?has offered a solution that would introduce competition and choice into Medicare, control costs, and strengthen the program for future generations. President Obama has cut $500 billion from Medicare to fund Obamacare and created an unaccountable board with rationing power ? all while America?s debt is spiraling out of control and we continue to run trillion-dollar deficits.

?If President Obama?s plan is to end Medicare as we know it, he should say so. If he has another plan, he should have the courage to put it forward.?

Putting aside the fact that Sen. Ron Wyden is hardly a leader, and his working with Ryan hardly makes their idea for Medicare bipartisan, there's not an honest sentence in this statement. As Sargent points out, the $500 billion referenced is trimmed from Medicare providers, not from beneficiaries?it does not affect the Medicare recipients' benefits or access to care. The rationing board is a figment of Romney's imagination. As Sargent says, the Independent Payment Advisory Board (which is confirmed by the Senate, and thus accountable) is set up to find cost savings, and is forbidden by the law from making "rationing" kinds of decisions. There is nothing in the health law that ends Medicare, as we know it or any other way.

Of course, at the same time, Romney is backing the Ryan plan which absolutely could lead to the end of Medicare as we know it. The alterations made to Ryan's original voucher plan with the addition of Wyden's ideas still don't "save" Medicare; Medicare enrollees would still be diverted into private plans, lessening Medicare's bargaining power and allowing it to do exactly what Republicans want it to: wither on the vine.

Substance aside, this is as fundamentally dishonest as Romney has been on any policy issue. He's smart enough, and has a sophisticated enough grasp of health care policy (Romneycare and all that) to know that this statement is nothing but flat out lies. Which gives a very simple answer to Sargent's basic question: "Is there any limit to Mitt Romney?s dishonesty?"

No.

Read The Full Article:
http://feeds.dailykos.com/~r/dailykos/index/~3/1OUKZNzLe6Y/-Mitt-Romney-embraces-
the-big-GOP-Medicare-lie-

Add to del.icio.us   Digg this   Post to Furl   Add to reddit   Add to myYahoo!

Women Obama’s Line Against Gas Prices
Taking Him Out

Nearly two-thirds of Americans say they disapprove of the way the president is handling the situation at the pump, where rising prices have already hit hard. Just 26 percent approve of his work on the issue, his lowest rating in the poll. Most Americans say higher prices are already taking a toll on family finances, and nearly half say they think that prices will continue to rise, and stay high. – Obama?s momentum stalls as gas prices spike – Washington Post

Obama’s 50% approval rating sure didn’t last very long. Blame gas prices, everyone else is.

However, when asked who cares more about issues that matter most to women, Pres. Obama beats Republicans 55 to 30, which is a massive shift from the 2010 midterms.

I’ll let you extrapolate the lessons for yourselves.

It goes to what I wrote over the weekend, that now isn’t November. Once a nominee is picked, if Republicans are smart, and they’ve got nowhere to go but up, they’ll turn on a dime and make November a referendum on Pres. Obama.

Voters are fickle and people will start moving on how they feel, which is what voting is about. It’s very seldom fueled by what’s in a voter’s actual best interest, as Rush Limbaugh has proven over many years through his gullible audience, most of whom the Republican Party sells out yearly by stacking the economic deck against them.

Presidential elections are about how people feel about their own lives and the prospects the future holds. We know people like Pres. Obama, but that only goes so far, especially when you’re paying $5/gallon for gas, which is very hard on the psyche in America.

Experts believes gas prices are headed even higher as summer approaches.

So, it’s no wonder Obama reelect is launching a major offensive to target female voters. Women may be Obama’s only line against a very nervous Election Day.

However, no one should kid themselves. Women aren’t one-issue voters, with economic issues driving their reality more than ever before. The White House will have to stay diligent on fronts well beyond “women’s issues”, with the renewed efforts to tap into female voters revealing they know it.

Read The Full Article:
http://taylormarsh.com/blog/2012/03/women-obamas-line-against-gas-prices-taken-hi
m-out/

Add to del.icio.us   Digg this   Post to Furl   Add to reddit   Add to myYahoo!

Northern District Public Service Commissioner
Brandon Presley endorses Rep. Bennie Thompson

In a display of party unity that sometimes eludes Mississippi Democrats, Northern District Public Service Commissioner Brandon Presley (D) encouraged folks voting in tomorrow's Democratic primary to vote for Rep. Bennie Thompson (D).  Here's the tweet:

Read The Full Article:
http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/blogspot/GsAJ/~3/gYzq3nQoWnQ/northern-district-pub
lic-service.html

Add to del.icio.us   Digg this   Post to Furl   Add to reddit   Add to myYahoo!

Deadline coming Thursday for passing bills out of
originating chamber

Expect a busy week over at the Capitol as a Thursday deadline approaches for passing bills out of their originating chamber.  This means that House Bills must clear the House and Senate Bills must clear the Senate before midnight Thursday.  There will be bills that die this week after escaping death at the committee deadline two weeks ago.


Some hot topics to look out for include legislation dealing with the Personnel Board, the Senate's version of the "Sunshine" Act, a Senate bill that would de-fund state-supported SuperTalk Radio, and immigration legislation. Should be a busy week.  The House gavels in at 2:00 p.m., and the Senate starts at 3:00 p.m.

Read The Full Article:
http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/blogspot/GsAJ/~3/P3DrLXA2oIA/deadline-coming-thurs
day-for-passing.html

Add to del.icio.us   Digg this   Post to Furl   Add to reddit   Add to myYahoo!

Is turning homeless people into wi-fi hotspots
hideous or brilliant

A sampling of Austin's current homeless hotspots
At first I read this article and thought, yeesh what a bad idea.  Then I got curious.  Then I thought yeesh again.  Then I started getting confused.

At the South by Southwest conference this week, a PR firm is working with local homeless advocates to help homeless people in Austin make some money by carrying around their own personal mi-fi boxes that they use to sell a few minutes of wireless access to people on the street.  Mi-fi is a kind of portable wi-fi emitter that creates a small bubble of wi-fi that you can use on the go (basically the same way that people can use their cell phones to create a small bubble of wifi for their ipads or their laptops).  It's a small electronic box, maybe the size of a cigarette box but thinner, and it can pick up an Internet signal via the air and emit it as wi-fi for up to 20 or 30 feet or something.  A number of the homeless are walking around Austin with these emitters, and charging people to get the password for 15 minutes or whatever.

So here's the dilemma.  Is this a brilliant way to help the homeless earn a living or is it some sickening Brave New World where homeless people have been turned into computer hardware for the benefit of the rich?

For all those who are mortified by this - and the overall reaction to this by people online has been mortification - is this really the moral equivalent of dwarf tossing?  I.e., are we really taking advantage of the homeless?  How is selling wi-fi more demeaning than janitors cleaning our toilets, or blue collar garbagemen having to pick up the refuse of the rich?

I think part of the problem with this idea is the name of the project, "Homeless Hotspots."  That right there makes you think they've turned these people into machines for our benefits.  The second problem is the income divide.  These homeless are becoming hotspots to help some very wealthy people get online while walking down the sidewalk, something in and of itself a bit of a luxury.  Is that why this project offends some people?  Would it be less offensive if a group of homeless people thought, hey, let's get some mi-fis and sell wi-fi access to all the rich people at the conference, without the help of a PR firm - would we have then praised the ingenuity and spunk of those homeless people?

When I saw this story last night, I thought this was some PR stunt to advertise a mi-fi service.  But it appears not to be.  It's quite literally a project to help homeless people.  Does that change your impression?

And one last question.  Shouldn't it be up to the homeless themselves to decide whether they think it's too humiliating to their personal dignity to make a few bucks by selling wi-fi access?  While all of us are poo-pooing how "awful" this is, clearly several homeless people don't agree (then again, the dwarf being tossed agree to it too, but I'm not sure that changes the ethics of the moment).  And if I were desperate for money, I'd do it - though again, my desperation doesn't mean people aren't using me.

Are we in fact being elitist by thinking that this is somehow elitist?  Aren't we actually hurting the homeless by judging this beneath them, and trying to take away a much-needed source of income for the next few days?

I don't know.  Curious what you guys think.

Read The Full Article:
http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/Americablog/~3/clZbL3LUITU/is-turning-homeless-peo
ple-into-wi-fi.html

Add to del.icio.us   Digg this   Post to Furl   Add to reddit   Add to myYahoo!

Two Sons Of Illinois: David Gill For The 99% And
Kenneth Griffin For The 1%

Tim Johnson (R), David Gill (D), Matt Goetten (in between)
Last Wednesday we wondered aloud what the hell is wrong with Steny Hoyer. The DCCC makes a big show about how they never-- oh, never, never, never (not us, never) interfere in primaries. But whenever they think they can get away with it, they always do-- and always on the side of self-funders (millionaires) and conservatives, never on the side of progressives or working class candidates. It horrifies me that the party that claims to represent the interests of working families is led by a bunch of effete elitist insiders who hate actual working class people as much as any garden variety Republican does.

So far this year Hoyer's leadership PAC, AmeriPAC, has doled out $450,000, primarily to conservative, corporate-friendly Democrats. Aside from giving thousands to the candidates who have been endorsed by the Blue Dog caucus-- like Clark Hall (AR) and Brenden Mullen (IN)-- in every race that pits a conservative or corporatist against a progressive, Hoyer donated to the conservative. He gave $5,000 to Brad Schneider, a rich GOP-light Illinois punk running against progressive icon Ilya Sheyman, $5,000 each to conservatives Tim Holden (Blue Dog-PA), Ann Kirkpatrick (AZ) and Dan Maffei (NY), each of whom has a strong progressive opponent, respectively, Matt Cartwright, Wenona Baldenegro and Brianne Murphy. and on and on from one sleazy worst-of-the-Democrats to another. He also gave $5,000 to Luis Garcia, former head of Democrats for Jeb Bush, who turned out to be such a terrible candidate that the DCCC is trying to dump him for the man Al Gore called "the single most treacherous and dishonest person I dealt with during the campaign anywhere in America." No doubt Hoyer will soon be embracing him as well.

One Democratic candidate I don't expect to see Hoyer embracing anytime soon is Dr. David Gill, the movement progressive who twice ran in the district when it was hopelessly red and deserves a shot now that it's been redistricted to make it competitive for a Democrat. But conservative Democrats have recruited Matt Goetten to represent the pro-1% faction of the party. A new poll from PPP shows that Democrats in the 13th aren't buying it. The results (February 28):

Gill 30%
Goetten 18%
undecided 52%

Dr. Gill's prescription for Congress isn't for conservative consensus hacks like Hoyer or anyone in the Establishment... but grassroots voters like it. His plan to limit the influence of cash on politics is the last thing corrupt politicians like Hoyer want to hear about. Selling himself to the highest bidders and making himself into a middleman between sleazy special interests and campaigns is how he's built his career. Imagine what he thought when he saw Dr, Gill's plans to limit the influence of campaign donations on congressional action:

? Ban Congressmen from accepting PAC/lobbyist money from industries directly regulated by committees they serve on.

? Ban registered lobbyists from campaign contributions to federal candidates.

? Ban government contractors and prospective contractors from lobbying Congress or donating to campaigns and federal committees.

? Ban Too Big To Fail/bailed out banks from lobbying Congress or donating to federal candidates or PACs/SuperPACs

In a letter to supporters Dr. Gill suggests that "the large lead my campaign enjoys and the strength of my progressive support has obviously shaken the Goetten campaign."

Matt's handlers have chosen not to release their own internal polling numbers and have now sounded the alarm with an expensive district-wide mail program and a major TV buy beginning today. Meanwhile, Goetten continues to duck debates and forums and is taking his direction from political advisors in Washington, DC. Wednesday, Matt told the Decatur Herald & Review that he "hesitated" to take a position on reproductive rights and access to contraception for American women. He wouldn't clearly state where he stood on the War in Afghanistan, either.

Now that Osama bin Laden has been killed, I believe it's time to end our involvement in Afghanistan and bring our troops home.

As you know, I'm the only candidate in this race who won't take a cent from corporate PACs and Wall Street lobbyists. And I'm the only candidate in IL-13 who is 100% pro-choice and will protect women's access to contraception.

Matt Goetten is raising a fortune from wealthy lawyers and politicians. I'm funding my campaign from a thousand individual donors like you who are ready to change things in Congress. We can prove the pundits and the politicians wrong. The polling shows that voters want a strong progressive as their Democratic nominee.

Please consider contributing to Dr. Gill's campaign on our ActBlue page. Notorious Chicago hedge fund predator Ken Griffin is generally thought of as an extreme right Republican-- which he is-- but there's a certain brand of Democrats he supports as well. The ones who call themselves Democrats and vote-- on economic and fiscal matters-- like Republicans. He just loves Rahm Emanuel for example. And while he's best known for the more than a million dollars he's spent trying to elect reactionary Republicans like Mitt Romney, Paul Ryan, George W. Bush, Marco Rubio, David "Diapers" Vitter, Eric Cantor and Miss McConnell, he has also contributed generously to right-wing Democrats who serve the interests of the one percent-- from Max Baucus, Evan Bayh and Mark Pryor to Rahm Emanuel and Melissa Bean. And, yes, he gave then-Senator Barack Obama $4,600 in 2007, just a little taste compared to the $550,000 in checks he wrote to Karl Rove's neo-fascist PAC, American Crossroads. Over the weekend the Chicago Tribune profiled Griffin and let him air his grievances that billionaires don't have enough power in America. The 43 year old founder of the Citadel hedge fund, he's a dangerous sociopath who society needs to protect itself against... but thanks to self-serving "Democrats" like Emanuel, never will. He doesn't like government protecting consumers or society from financial predators like himself. And that's what's driving his political contributions. He's given $1.5 million to Koch-backed initiatives over half a million to the Republican Governors Association and more money than anyone else to Republicans running for Illinois legislative seats. Here are excerpts from Melissa Harris' interview with him. You can read the whole thing at the link above.

Q. You've supported both Republicans and Democrats in the past. How do you decide which candidates to support?

A. Country before party.

Q. Explain.

A. Who's going to be our best leader ... That's first and foremost.

...Q. What about the amounts? Is it based on what the candidate asks you for? They vary a lot. You and Anne gave $200,000 to (Mayor) Rahm (Emanuel), for instance.

A. I was really proud to support Rahm. He is really one of the brightest men I've ever spent time with. And I've known Rahm for maybe 15 years. I believe our city and our state has some real challenges ahead of it, whether it's educating our children, whether it's dealing with the fiscal irresponsibility of past leaders. And I don't want to cast aspersions on anyone in particular. It's just where we are today. We're going to need to make some very important decisions about how to put our fiscal house back in order. And I think Rahm has the intellectual capacity to understand the issues and to make trade-offs and decisions that are going to have to be made. He and I are not on the same side of the aisle per se. We're not on the same side of a couple of different things. But the insights that he has and the determination he has are really important to solving the problems we face as a city.

Q. Where are you on the same page? Where are you not on the same page?

A. I actually spent some time with Rahm in the last couple weeks. He showed me around his new office. There were two photographs that he had on his wall. One was of him with Bill Clinton when he signed NAFTA (North American Free Trade Agreement). That was a really bold thing for a Democratic president to do. And, if you think about the North American trade bloc, the United States, Canada and Mexico could not be more close, more cooperative, more unified. You don't even think about. You take it for granted every day. It's really one of the great accomplishments of post-World War II North American relationships.

The other photograph he had on the wall was when he was in the room when Bill Clinton signed a balanced budget for the U.S. government. Unemployment was 4 percent at the time. It was a great day in American history. I think Rahm and I share a lot of common interests in those accomplishments. I much prefer to sort of think about those moments than to find things to differ over.

Q. What were you there talking to Rahm about?

A. Rahm has done a fantastic job of engaging the business community in Chicago. I believe that he understands the fundamental importance of this city needing to create jobs. So he has been very solicitous for advice on what it would take for us to bring more jobs to Chicago, and for Chicago-based employers to create more jobs here.

...Q. What, if anything, have you specifically asked of a politician in the past? What did you ask of (former) Mayor (Richard) Daley?

A. Not putting a casino in downtown Chicago has been an ask of Mayor Daley and Rahm.

Q. Do you talk to Governor Quinn?

A. No. But I wrote a letter to him saying we shouldn't have casinos in Chicago.

Q. Anything else (you've asked for)?

A. The great thing about Rahm is he understands the fiscal issues, and he's going to work really hard to address those in a thoughtful way. Rahm knows clearly my passion around education, and he shares that passion. Rahm knows that for our city to break the cycle of poverty that exists, for prosperity to be part of the life of every citizen, our kids have to graduate from high school with a set of skills that will make them successful in a 21st century jobs market.

...Q. What do you think in general about the influence of people with your means on the political process? You said shame on the politicians for listening to the CEOs. Do you think the ultrawealthy have an inordinate or inappropriate amount of influence on the political process?

A. I think they actually have an insufficient influence. Those who have enjoyed the benefits of our system more than ever now owe a duty to protect the system that has created the greatest nation on this planet. And so I hope that other individuals who have really enjoyed growing up in a country that believes in life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness ? and economic freedom is part of the pursuit of happiness ? (I hope they realize) they have a duty now to step up and protect that. Not for themselves, but for their kids and for their grandchildren and for the person down the street that they don't even know ...

At this moment in time, these values are under attack. This belief that a larger government is what creates prosperity, that a larger government is what creates good (is wrong). We've seen that experiment. The Soviet Union collapsed. China has run away from its state-controlled system over the last 20 years and has pulled more people up from poverty by doing so than we've ever seen in the history of humanity. Why the U.S. is drifting toward a direction that has been the failed of experiment of the last century, I don't understand. I don't understand.

I started my career with myself, two employees and a one-room office. Nothing was given to me per se, except for a great education ? my college degree ? and a country that allows somebody to just go for it. (Griffin's grandmother paid his way through Harvard University.)

Look at Chicago. Look at all the shared celebration of the success of Groupon. We need in Chicago 10 more Groupons, 10 more Citadels, each creating thousands of jobs and tremendous value for their stakeholders. Groupon saves people billions of dollars a year. Citadel provides pension plans with the financial means to make retirement payments to their beneficiaries.

Q. How much do you think your influence comes from the size of your donations? Do you think you should be able to make unlimited donations? Should you be able to donate $500,000 to a super PAC?

A. In my opinion, absolutely. Absolutely. The rules that encourage transparency around that are really important. And I say that with a bit of trepidation.

Q. Why with trepidation?

A. Target made a political donation and there was a huge boycott organized.

Q. So do you or don't you think the public should know if you're giving this money?

A. My public policy hat says transparency is valuable. On the flip side, this is a very sad moment in my lifetime. This is the first time class warfare has really been embraced as a political tool. Because we are looking at an administration that has embraced class warfare as being politically expedient, I do worry about the publicity that comes with being willing to both with my dollars and, more importantly, with my voice to stand for what I believe in.

As government gets bigger every single day, how does my willingness to stand up for what I believe is right become eclipsed by my dependency on institutions that are ultimately controlled by the government? Remember I live in financial services, and every bank in the United States is really under the thumb of the government in a way it's never been before. And that's really worrisome to me, as someone who's willing to say, 'Wait, we need to step back and try to push government outside the realm of every dimension of our lives.'

Q. When you said that any industry that harms innocent people should be regulated. I think that's what people view the financial crisis as, as a moment when an industry hurt innocent people.

A. I think there are a lot of things about '08 that are worth discussing. Every time there's been a bubble in asset prices, people get hurt. I think it's very unfortunate that as a culture we were so encouraged by both the past stability of home prices and a litany of government programs to buy homes, to view them as a safe place to put a significant amount of our net worth, so that as a society we pushed home prices way above where they should have been. When that bubble burst, a lot of people got hurt.

Q. So you don't think Wall Street played a role?

A. I didn't say that. The biggest role: Fannie (Mae) and Freddie (Mac). Look at the issue of economic freedom that I spoke to earlier. The GSEs provided more fuel to the housing bubble than any other entity in the world. And by the way, they had their own dedicated regulator. And, by the way, we're all going to pick up the tab of several hundred billion to a trillion dollars in cleaning up the losses at Fannie and Freddie. The primary source of fuel to that bubble was policies that came out of Washington. And, by the way, why were Fannie and Freddie so above reproach for all those years? They put so much money into local congressional seats in one way or another. No congressman wanted to touch them.

Wall Street had a role in this. The development of mortgage-securitization technology, like every other form of technology, had both good and negative attributes. The biggest negative attribute is that we failed to encourage the end lender of money to be as disciplined as we should have been. And (the rating agencies) didn't call it right. But I'll leave you with a thought on this. It's very hard to know you're in a bubble until it's gone. The housing bubble hit a lot of people. The dot-com bubble hit a lot of people. And until it burst ? and you look back and go, 'What were we thinking?' ? it's often really hard to know you're in a bubble.

Discipline broke down among lenders. Discipline broke down among mortgage brokers. And discipline broke down among consumers.

Q. Is there anything you've done in the last month that's going to pop on the pages of the national press?

A. We sent $100,000 in to Romney.

Q. How much time overall do you spend on politics?

A. I spend way too much of my time thinking about politics these days because government is way too involved in financial markets these days. QE2. ('QE' stands for quantitative easing. That's when the Federal Reserve pumps money, created out of thin air, into the economy.) Will there be QE3? The Volcker Rule. Dodd-Frank. Part of my sensitivity to these issues is that I now live in the middle of a hyper-regulated industry, where not only is government affecting how capital markets work, or how banks work, but (the government) is punishing savers.

If you're 68 years old and you've saved your whole life for retirement, the Federal Reserve's policies are punishing you. At the same time, the policies of the Federal Reserve are punishing people who don't have means. The very low interest-rate environment has encouraged commodity speculation around the world. It's driven up the price of energy. It's driven up the price of food. Unfortunately, I think a lot about these issues these days. I'm seeing the manifestation of an over-involved government in every dimension of what we do here at Citadel. It is really brutally unfair what it's doing to large segments of our population. I'm not really sure who the winners are.

Q. How would you try to convey to someone on the street, that you and your ilk are not evil? How would try to explain to them that you're not just acting out of self-interest? What would you say to them to make them trust you?

A. (45 second pause.) I think if you look at the realm we're discussing, which is the political realm, I think it would be impossible to find an action by any politician intended to specifically favor either my firm or myself. That's not the driver of my involvement. And with respect to the role my firm plays, I'm proud that we've created well over 1,000 high-paying jobs in Chicago, and I'm very proud of the involvement of my leadership team in the city.

I know the people in these four walls here have put more than $100 million into institutions, whether it's education, the arts, programs to combat poverty. This is a group of people who are really invested in the community.

We got through the financial crisis in '08 without a single dollar of taxpayer support. All we've done since '08-- since we saw the government pick winners and losers in our industry, which was really distasteful to watch play out-- is that we've continued to stay true to our moral compass. We're going to fight for what we believe in, and we're going to support the city and the country we're a part of.

Some people go through an experience like '08 and say, you know, 'The world's not fair.' And they just pull into their shell. I don't believe that's the case. I believe it's time for those of us who believe in the values that have made this great nation to continue to exemplify those values every chance we get.

Read The Full Article:
http://downwithtyranny.blogspot.com/2012/03/two-sons-of-illinois-david-gill-for-9
9.html

Add to del.icio.us   Digg this   Post to Furl   Add to reddit   Add to myYahoo!