BAAAA HUMBUG!!

 When I worked in Congress, budget time brought out great creativity as government agencies tried to defend their turf.  The Interior Department would engage in an annual ritual.  If they faced cuts, they would issue a press release announcing the closing of the Washington Monument to visitors due to lack of funds.  The "Washington Monument drill" got everyone's attention and, since no member of Congress wanted to hear from constituents about why they couldn't visit the monument on vacation, the maneuver was quite successful.

     Such is the nature of the terrorism defense trotted out in front of a House committee recently.  Arguing the ends justify the means, the head of the N.S.A. (National Security Agency) testified the massive government spying on Americans, revealed by whistleblower Edward Snowden, is proper and correct because it has foiled a number of terrorist plots.  He, and the Obama administration, are counting on the sheep-like tendencies of Americans, frightened by the specter of anonymous terrorists, to be easily stampeded into trading their privacy for the illusion of security.  (do I need to repeat Ben Franklin's admonition on this point, or have I used it enough previously?)

     Of the thousands of people killed by terrorists worldwide, how many can you name who were Americans?  Two, five, maybe ten?  At the same time, there were 30,000 gun-related deaths just in the last year in this country.  Yet, Americans can be convinced to abandon the 4th amendment, and their right to be free in their homes and papers, but if anyone were to suggest the government should know who owns a gun, all hell would break loose.  Why does the word "terrorism" evoke such irrational fear while even modest attempts to regulate guns is politically anathema?

     It was predictable the government would march out a spymaster to remind us how only by giving up our privacy can we hope to fight terrorism.  The vacuuming up of billions of phone calls, emails and internet searches by average Americans is legal and justified because it helped stop a couple of amateurish plots to attack us.  Is it really this easy?  Are we really this gullible as a people?  Congress can't even pass a law requiring universal background checks for gun purchases, (saving thousands of American lives?), but can pass the Patriot Act, virtually unanimously, which effectively eliminates 1/10th of the Bill of Rights.  30,000 dead Americans doesn't even dent the 2nd amendment, or generate irrational fear, but 3 dead in Boston justifies government intrusion into our private lives which creates the greatest authoritarian big brother in history.  How is this possible?

     Granted, being able to catalog everything we do in our cyber-lives has stopped some terrorist attacks.  However, you will notice there are no claims to have had much of an impact on Al Qaida, Al Shabob, or terrorists in Mali, Libya, most of Africa or the Middle East.  Al Qaida is wreaking havoc in Iraq and Syria and our intelligence agencies can't tell one group from another, as they attempt to arm the good rebels and not the bad ones, but they are very good at spying on us for our own protection.

     Imagine a knock on your front door, opening it to find uniformed police who announce they are going to search your home from top to bottom taking anything they wish into evidence including your computer, cell phones, letters and family pictures.  They have no warrant...no probably cause...no suspicious actions on your part.  They can do this any time they wish, as often as they wish and you cannot object or stop them.  When complaints flood into the A.C.L.U.'s offices, local politicians and police point to the fact these random, warrantless searches have caught some thieves and drug dealers and violent criminals keeping you safe.  You should feel grateful.  Do you?  Of course such a law could never pass nor could the arrest of some crooks persuade people to allow police to rampage through your house any time they wish.  Yet, this is exactly what Obama and Congress authorized to happen when they put on their dog and pony show, complete with general's stars and epaulets, and tell Americans they are safer from terrorists when they give up all expectations of privacy.

     Obama bristles when he is compared to George Bush on national security policy.  He touts how his reforms have created checks and balances to prevent abuse.  These are the same checks and balances which prevented the I.R.S. from targeting some non-profit groups...the same ones which prevented the Justice Department from seizing the records of more than 20 phone lines in the offices of the Associated Press...the same checks which kept them from naming a Fox journalist as a criminal co-conspirator of leaked secrets...the same ones which stopped the A.T.F. (Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms) from selling guns to Mexican gangs and then losing them and being unable to track what happened to them.  The F.I.S.A. (Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act) court received over 39,000 requests to spy on Americans in the last years and rejected 11 of them.  A rubber stamp is not a check.  Congress, and Obama, do not provide any check or balance either.  Congress members, including Diane Feinstein, admit knowing about this spying for years without raising any objections.  (Oregon Senator Ron Wyden did raise some objections, but had to do so in private, out of public view, since all of this information is top secret...again no check or balance)

     Ultimately, the entire argument for this privacy neutron bomb is if we didn't do it, something bad is going to happen.  Be afraid, be very afraid because without all this spying there could be another Boston.  (Oh wait, we were being spied on for years and Boston happened anyway)

     Recently, in USA Today, three NSA whistleblowers offered up a viable compromise which could leave the 4th amendment still relevant.  It's called "two degrees from Bin Laden".  They conceive of two zones of inquiry...if someone from Yemen or an Al Qaida-like organization or affiliate, is communicating with someone in America, or if Americans are visiting and viewing terrorist websites, suck up everything you can on them, their communications, and everything on whoever they are communicating with in this country.  This is one degree from Bin Laden.  It would also be allowed to go after anyone associated with someone in this country who was involved or communicating or searching or talking about someone or some group in another part of the world.  This is two degrees from Bin Laden.  However, outside these two zones, leave everyone else alone.

     Will Americans be stampeded into giving up even more of their civil liberties by playing the "terrorist" card?  Will we once again bend over and take whatever the government proposes because we are scared?  Are we really more scared of a random act of terror than we are the attacks resulting in over 30,000 dead Americans every year?  Trotting out the N.S.A. general was as predictable as the Washington Monument drill.  Will it be as effective?

HERO OR VILLAIN?

Edward Snowden, told the world, via the British newspaper the Guardian, the United States was spying on its own citizens...  covertly raiding search engines by Google, Microsoft, Yahoo and others...using a net so wide it rendered the 4th amendment moot...and all of this known to terrorists but unknown to everyone else.  A new Gallup poll say 56% of Americans support what Snowden leaked and the debate is on as to whether he is a hero or villain.

     He is neither.  He is a whistleblower.  Whistleblowers are both heroes and villains depending on your perspective and whether or not the information helps or hurts you.  From the Congressional and Executive branch positions, he is a traitor.  He has to be.  The President, and Congress, have been sucking up your electronic activities for at least 7 years, (more like 13) and they approved this spying.  They re-authorized the Patriot Act and the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act.  They watched as the National Security Agency and F.B.I. demanded the telecom companies, and big search engines, turn over billions of call logs and search requests...years of web surfing and inquiries...location and subject information from every American who used a computer or smart phone.  Diane Feinstein, Barack Obama, Harry Reid, John Boehner et.al. publically support all this spying and peeping and their defense is it's legal...we approved it all.  Of course they felt no compunction to inform their constituents how naked they were in the face of government voyeurs.  This legal, patriotic, prudent destruction of privacy was nothing to lose sleep over in Washington, but let's not tell anyone else because they might not understand.  To them, Snowden is the worst kind of miscreant.  He has to be crushed just like Bradley Manning and Daniel Ellsberg and anyone else who attempts to inform the electorate of actions their government doesn't want them to know.  New York Congressman Peter King, always good for outrage and taking umbrage inappropriately, not only wants Snowden thrown into the Florence, Colorado Super Max, he wants reporters like Glenn Greenwald of the Guardian behind bars too.  (we can’t have the press finding out what the government is doing)  This is the same King who for years championed the cause of the Irish Republican Army's actions in Britain and Northern Ireland as it was committing terrorists acts against innocent people.  This is the same King who welcomed leaks about British abuses in Northern Ireland and British covert surveillance.  The hypocrisy in Washington about national security, and what the people should know, is causing a run on hip boots and waders.

     If you are an average citizen, who foolishly and naively thought the 4th amendment protected you from warrantless searches and gigantic fishing expeditions by your government into your private life, Snowden has to be a hero.  He is throwing himself on the proverbial grenade in order to save you...alert you...protect you...inform you...outrage you...in the hope the electorate will rise up and demand the government actually read and follow the Constitution.

     When I worked with whistleblowers, on issues about weapons procurement in the Pentagon, the first thing we told them is if they stick their head up to tell the truth, someone in government is going to try to blow it off.  They had to know the consequences of their actions so they could make an informed choice.  We weren't kidding.  I watched many an honest civil servant, government worker or contractor "commit truth" only to lose their job, their pension and sometimes their freedom.  Snowden knew all of this and yet did what he did anyway.  Only someone truly horrified by what they know becomes a whistleblower.  There is no glory...There is only pain and recrimination.

     Snowden didn't do any harm to the national security of this nation.  We know the C.I.A. found Bin Laden by following one of his couriers.  Al Qaida, any relatively sophisticated terrorist organization, abandoned all phones, email, the Internet or any electronic signature long ago.  They already knew what the U.S. was up to and they changed their tactics accordingly.  Snowden's revelations just confirm what they knew and they already avoided most of theses forms of communications.  This data mining may stop amateurs on occasion.  (Feinstein and others say these programs stopped an attempt to attack the New York subway system)  The questions is at what cost?

     The President says he welcomes a full-throated debate on the relationship between privacy and security.  Ok, let's give it to him.  What Snowden revealed shows there is no privacy in this nation.  Your turn Mr. President.  Justify that.  The 4th amendment prohibits unreasonable searches or seizures, warrantless searches, and requires probable cause to invade someone's privacy and these prohibitions have been ignored...struck down...left in shambles...without average Americans knowing such a constitutional tsunami has hit and without being asked for their permission.  The President wants a debate he wasn't interested in before Snowden stepped up to reveal the emperor has no clothes.

     Section 215 of the Patriot Act only allows for the gathering of private information from Americans in connection with a specific investigation.  Sucking up billions of calls, emails, web searches, and all online activity, makes a laughing stock of this provision.  The government's actions would be similar to passing a law allowing the police to stop you any time they wish and search your person and papers.  Eventually, they would catch some bad guys, but at what cost to your freedom of movement, speech or association?

     No one in government is saying the tactics Snowden revealed have been effective against Al Qaida, Iran, terrorists in Mali or Libya or Afghanistan.  Their claim is this privacy rape has caught some amateurs and small fish.  Snowden thought the price was too high in a democratic nation which values transparency in government.

     Snowden allegedly had access to lots of other secrets.  He could have given some beauts to Iran, China, Russia or various terrorist networks if he truly wanted to harm national security.  It is said he could have revealed names of covert agents.  Instead, he chose to reveal again, most of this had been reported by USA Today in 2006, how cavalierly this government takes constitutional rules and protections.

     Snowden is a typical whistleblower.  His actions will be considered folly if the status quo remains unchanged.  He will have stuck his head up only to see it blown off, if the government is allowed to close ranks...sight national security...frighten easily stampeded Americans...into doing nothing to rein in government spying on its own citizens which renders the 4th amendment not worth the parchment it was written on.

     Snowden didn't harm national security.  He alerted Americans to what the government was doing supposedly in their name...in their best interests...because Washington knows what's best.  He has afflicted the comfortable and Congressman King and all his cronies don't like it because they have been caught with their pants down and a huge paw in the nation's cookie jar.  What you do now with the information will determine if Snowden ends up a hero or goat.  Ellsberg's leaks, also called treason at the time, helped to end the Vietnam War and he is a hero today.  Manning's fate is still hanging by a thread.  Snowden, if his actions lead to meaningful reform, will be seen as a patriot who was willing to sacrifice himself for the benefit of his fellow citizens.

     Which way do you think this will go?

SLIPPERY WHEN WET...

People dismiss conspiracy theorists as crazy, whack-jobs or daffy and thus pay them little heed.  However, even a paranoid can have people out to get them.  Ever since the passage of the Patriot Act, civil libertarians have been voicing concerns about the breadth and depth of surveillance being used by the government against its citizens.  Two responses have become ubiquitous..."if you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to fear," or there are plenty of checks and balances to prevent abuse."  It is clear now both answers are inadequate at one level and a lie the deeper you probe the circumstances.

     The British newspaper, the Guardian, revealed the federal government served a subpoena on Verizon for three months worth of phone logs for "every" customer.  This isn't news.  (we have known for years the N.S.A., the National Security Agency, and the F.B.I. had set up secret spy rooms adjacent to telecom switching equipment.  One was set up in San Francisco at A.T.& T's offices to spy on every phone, email or Internet activity by A.T.&T. customers.)  The Washington Post reported on a secret program known as Prism,  which allowed the government to go in a back way to Google, Apple, Facebook, Twitter, Microsoft, Yahoo and who knows how many others, to vacuum up every scrap of information regarding online activity, web searches, instant messaging, Skyping and anything else in cyber land.  When you add these two programs together, that sucking sound you hear is George Orwell, through dead pursed lips, gasping in amazement at how prescient he was, but how even he couldn't imagine the scope of government intrusion now possible with the arrival of the internet.

     The response to these revelations has been equally breath taking.  Senate majority leader Harry Reid says calm down, there is nothing new here, this has been going on for at least seven years and all senators knew about it...Sen. Diane Feinstein says this is all legal and if it fights terrorism its fine with her...Georgia Senator Saxbee Chambliss says during the entire time this spying and data mining has been going on, not a single constituent has ever complained about it to him...(can't complain about what you don't know I guess).  Along with the Obama administration, they have all adopted the strategy that massive spying, invasion of privacy and destruction of the fourth amendment is not news nor anything to get your panties in a bunch about.  At least one dissenting voice, that of Oregon Senator Ron Wyden, tried to raise questions and objections about all of this activity, but since all of this is classified, his letters of protest had to be done in secret...no I'm not kidding,  Wyden says, "When law abiding Americans call their friends...who they call, when they call, how long they talk, where they call from is private information.  Collecting this data...would be a massive invasion of privacy” The Obama administration defends all of this as perfectly legal and assures us no one is listening to our phone calls or reading our emails.  It is an assurance which now requires the ingesting of large amounts of salt taken with it.

    Wyden, and some others, have been raising objections for years.  You and I don't know this because everything is secret and classified.  The debate, which should have occurred before this incineration of the 4th amendment began, about when and where Americans were willing to sacrifice their privacy never happened because average Americans had no idea a program of such massive scope and scale existed.  This isn't how democracy is supposed to function and this is a huge black eye on Obama for his abandonment of basic constitutional principles.  (it should not be lost on anyone Obama taught constitutional law)

     So many Americans subscribe to the...if you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to fear school... and they couldn't be more naive or short sighted.  You call a therapist or maybe an AA counselor...you call your best friend's wife or husband at odd hours...you call a company rival or a live-in rehab center...when you have every call ever made and when there are programs which can piece together intimate, private details about your life, family, movements and health, which no government has a right to know, whatever the founders thought the fourth amendment stood for, it no longer exists.

     If you add to this the very real possibility this cyber net can also reel in location information for every call or email you make and now the government can track your movements...whose houses you visit...where you have traveled...when and for how long you are in any location.  If this were a movie, it would be easy to portray the governments of Iran or China or Russia as implementing such programs to keep an eye on their restive constituencies, but his is our government, our republic, our "representatives” doing this without our consent, or at least without giving us an ability to object.

     We are told the Prism program is only targeting foreigners.  Yet, common sense tells you as all of the activity on Google et.al goes on, those foreigners are interacting with Americans over and over again.  The "justice" department says no American is "intentionally" targeted.  It is a distinction without a difference.

     The dirty little secret this new information reveals is the "justice" department's interpretation of Section 215 of the Patriot Act.  215 gives the government authorization to collect records and other "tangible things" only if they are relevant to an authorized investigation.  Government lawyers, in both the Bush and Obama administrations, interpret that to mean they have the right to collect information on "all" calls and internet activity in America and then sift through the meta data to find patterns of possible illegal activity.  This is analogous to passing a law allowing the police to search anyone's home anytime they wish, without a warrant, and if they happen to find something, they can then go to a judge with probable cause to continue searching.  How many of you would support such a law?

     We are a constitutional nation based on checks and balances.  Despite Sen. Feinstein's claims, there are virtually no checks or balances on this system.  The executive branch appoints the judges who compose the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court.  The judges act in secret and the latest data shows they approve over 90% of all requests by the government.  (so judicial review is now a blank check)  There is no ability by the side to be investigated to appeal a decision by this court.  (courts are never wrong)  The subpoenas are issued in secret ...carried out in secret...the companies must keep their cooperation secret...our representatives can't raise objections except in secret...the person investigated can't object even in secret...does this sound like something a democracy should tolerate?  Secret lawyers, secret judges, secret courts, secret warrants, all you need is Joe Stalin and it would make perfect sense.

     For seven years your privacy has been gutted and spread all over the floor and you had no chance to object.  Seven years of data mining, data tracking, location monitoring and you have no idea it's going on.  (btw, how did all this mining work in stopping the shoe bomber, Times Square bomber or Boston's bombers?)  There is no debate...no opportunity to say yea or nay...no attempt to let the American people have their say and all defended because the end justifies the means.  Terrorists are bad, therefore, whatever we have to fight them is good, even if it destroys the basis upon which this nation was built.

     For those of you still wedded to the quaint notion if you haven't done anything wrong, you have nothing to fear from government, let me remind you of over 5,000 federal laws and regulations which carry prison sentences and which do not require you to even know you broke them or that what you did was wrong. (remember it is the government which defines what is wrong or right in the first place and then you find out afterwards)  Federal law no longer requires "intent" for you to be found guilty.  In other words, the government makes something illegal, you don't know and they get to decide whether to prosecute you or not.  It is the perfect definition of fascism.

     Now that you know, what will you do?  Will you use your phone less?  Will you turn it off and remove the battery to protect from being tracked?  Will you disable the GPS chip in all new smart phones?   Will you get Onstar or some other system so your car can be followed?  Will you use an EZ pass anymore?  Will you use anonymous sites for email and other online activity and seek out ways to thwart the data miners?  Does this make you a terrorist?  How about going back to writing letters as it appears the Post Office actually protects your privacy better than the feds.  How about his...will you demand this stop until there is an open, full-throated, public debate about privacy vs. government spying...the 4th amendment against the National Security Agency...the constitution vs. those who would eviscerate it in the name of protecting you?  Will you tell Feinstein it isn't ok...the White House about how Obama has let you down...your representatives about how you want real "public" oversight and no more secrets?

     Many years ago I warned the Patriot Act was the start of a slippery slope for the civil liberties of Americans.  It appears for seven years, with the aid of Republicans and Democrats, we have been slip-sliding away from the Bill of Rights which made this nation unique.

IN MEMORIAM...

 Three new blogs from The Lion:

I sat with all of them...argued, sometimes at high volumes, with them.  I appreciated their intelligence and most were pretty funny.  Pete Wilson, Duane Garrett, Lee Rodgers and now Gene Burns, provided thousands of hours of entertainment, analysis, discussion and a forum for the Bay Area unmatched by any other radio station or area of the nation.  I miss them, and the passing of Gene adds to this feeling of loss.

     Gene was the living definition of a "gentle-man".  He was courtly and courteous as well as funny and acerbic.  I should have resented him, or been jealous, since his tenure at KGO involved him getting every plum assignment I desired.  He was the morning host while Ronn Owens wasn't around and when Jim Eason left, he was given his slot.  He was able to be so successful because he had the perfect radio voice, temperment and an ability to inform while he entertained.  He was the consummate professional.

     Long before he was a talk show host, Gene was a newsman.  He was a reporter and news director at a number of stations in New York and he understood how news was collected and reported.  It would give him a perspective on the news he would use for the rest of his talk career.  Gene owned Boston.  He also loved Boston.  He took a risk by syndicating his show and eventually got an offer from KGO he could not refuse.  We were the lucky recipients of his opportunity.  Oh, he killed here too.

     Gene had the best racket in radio.  He hosted a weekday talk show just so he could do what he truly loved the most, a weekly food and wine show on Saturdays.  Gene was the real deal.  He was a good friend of Julia Child.  He was a friend with the top chefs and vintners in the world.  He was a James Beard award judge.  He had forgotten more about cooking and wine than most "experts" knew.  The Saturday show was his pride and joy.  It was also a great deal for him.  KGO paid Gene to eat out.  He would go out and try new restaurants and report and review them.  He publicized the incredible wineries of Northern California, many small and unheralded at the time, that soon would be household names.

     Going out to dinner with Gene was a treat.  Unfortunately, I didn't get too many opportunities.  He was a raconteur and could wax on about histories and characters of both the food and wine being served.  He introduced me to Pecorino cheese and Pinot Grigio wine, and I had my first sip of Grappa because of Gene.

     Gene was proud to be a libertarian.  He didn't like the Democrats or the Republicans.  He ran for president on the Libertarian ticket and his politics were about getting government out of our lives and leaving us free to live as we wished.  Social and political issues were all filtered through this perspective.  At a time of heightened nationalism and uber-patriotism, after September 11th especially, Gene was not afraid to take a stand in opposition to the Bush administration's actions in Afghanistan and Iraq.  He clearly articulated the false logic, failed arguments and tragic consequences these policies caused.  He was not a bleeding-heart liberal.  He was a thoughtful critic of a government out of control.

     One of my favorite memories of Gene was when we all gathered for an All-star remote from the Flint Center in Cupertino.  The place held about 1,500 people and it was filled to the gunwales with hundreds still waiting outside.  Tensions were running high as the debate would be about the U.S. policy in Iraq.  Five people with very strong personalities, big egos and loud voices sat on the stage.  As the rhetoric and heat increased, time after time, Gene's comments were trenchant, but always tinged with some humor or a quick line.  He was at his best.  It was so much fun.

     With Gene working 7-10 pm and me working 10p-1am, we saw each other allot.  He was always kind and open and funny and we exchanged ideas about topics and the news of the day.  It was also clear Gene had health issues nearly his entire time at KGO.  I don't know how he maintained the joy for life he had given the various parts of his body which failed him over the years.  A fall, in the stateroom of a cruise ship, almost killed him and I don't think he was ever fully recovered.  I also think the summary and compassionless way he was let go from KGO hurt him a great deal.

     I will always remember a number of disparate things about Gene.  I will remember his Christmas cookie drive where listeners sent in their favorite cookie recipes and he picked the best and showcased them on KGO.  The cookies were so good.  I will remember Gene in heated, intense arguments with a caller only to end the call not with an attack on the caller's ancestry or intellect, but rather with Gene summarizing the encounter by saying, "...that's why God invented chocolate and vanilla ice-cream."  When Gene did criticize a public figure or someone in the news, he would mention their lack of "testicular fortitude" which was one of the worst pronouncements he could hurl.  It's a phrase I love to this day.  It is so elegant and genteel a way to talk about someone lacking the balls to do the right thing.

     I had hoped to re-connect with Gene when I came home.  I would loved to have discussed this experience...share what I have learned...describe the scandal which this system is and the billions of tax dollars wasted each year on this prison/industrial complex.  He would have understood and it would have been a fascinating exchange.  I also thought how amazing, after years of food which has no taste, is of the lowest quality with incompetent preparation, it would be to go out with Gene to the restaurant of his choice and luxuriate in the food choices he would have made.  Alas, this is not meant to be.

     There is no higher compliment, than to refer to someone as a "gentle-man".  Gene Burns left this world better than he found it.  He fought for his principals, but never lost sight of the humanity of the people he opposed or disagreed with.  His class and intellect and heart will be sorely missed.

     Eternal rest grant unto him oh Lord and let perpetual light shine upon him.  May he rest in peace.  May his soul and the souls of the faithful departed rest in peace.

                                                                        AMEN

THE MYSTERY OF THE CINCINNATI OFFICE...

  Sherlock Holmes, seated in a plush velvet chair, smoking his pipe, turns to Dr. Watson and explains the case.  "The question no one but I can answer, Watson, is why the Internal Revenue Service workers in Cincinnati targeted certain groups to be investigated?  It is roiling all of Washington, but the answer is so elementary."

     While the current I.R.S. scandal seems to be a mystery to some, and a cause celeb for others, what happened is simple to explain and even simpler to understand.  Between 2010-2012, non-profit groups wishing to qualify for a 501 (c)(4) designation went from 1,200 applications to 3,400.  A 501(c)(4) designation is a marvelous creature.  It allows a non-profit organization to use "unlimited" amounts of money on issue ads, advocacy activities aimed at swaying voters on a specific issue or series of issues.  As long as this political activity is not the "primary" purpose of its actions, the organization can independently target any race or any issue with no restrictions on how much someone can donate and no limits on how much is spent.  The real gold of a 501(c)(4) is they can accept unlimited donations, but can keep their donors identities secret.  Do you see it yet?  Holmes does.

     Ever since the Supreme Court ruled in 2010, the Citizens United case, that there are no limits on political donations.  Super PACS rose up all over the land.  Karl Rove's Super PAC raised and spent over $300 million in 2012.  However, Super PACS have to release their list of donors.  Regressive billionaires like the Koch brothers, Sheldon Adelson, Foster Freiss and others didn't like the publicity.  They want to push their regressive agenda in secret and so they let it be known they would now give to (c)(4)'s in the future.

     In 2010, the group responsible for regulating (c)(4)'s inside the I.R.S. was in shambles.  Congress had not spelt out the definition of what constitutes "primary political engagement".  Suspicions were raised that these new (c)(4) groups were really Super PACS in different wrapping and were subverting the law.  Without a clear definition of what constitutes "primary political activity", I.R.S. workers were left to come up with ways to try and see if these applications were for genuine "social welfare" objectives.  (the reason for the existence of (c)(4)'s to begin with)  Could these applications be part of a stealth campaign to launder political donations and engage in political activity all without any scrutiny?  The workers made a poor, but understandable, decision...if you had Tea Party, good government, Patriot or other terms in your organization's name, it was highly likely you were far more interested in politics than "social welfare".  (in fact, can you think of a single project sponsored by one of these targeted groups which promoted genuine social welfare?)  They were wrong to take such a short cut, but it's easy to see why they did it.

     Yes, it's a scandal some groups were targeted for extra scrutiny while others were not.  Yes, all applications for (c)(4) status should be treated equally.  However, the I.R.S. is under staffed, due to Congress and the regressives, and trying to grapple with a law that screams for subjectivity in how it is administered.  It is under pressure to ferret out the crooks and liars (the name Rove keeps coming to mind) while processing applications in a timely manner.  It is an impossible task.

     The bigger question is why (c)(4)'s even exist?  Why should you and I subsidize these groups with our taxes?  We do not benefit in any way.  Regressives constantly scream for a new simpler tax code.  Ok, get rid of (c)(4)'s.  End the charade.  Eliminate the tax deduction for donating to those groups.  Even better, require total transparency by mandating all such organizations publish a list of their donors.  If you do that, their usefulness to the 1% ceases to exist.  If donations aren't secret, they might as well give to a Super PAC.

     Oh, BTW, the hypocrisy of regressives knows no bounds.  When the I.R.S. audited and investigated the NAACP in 2004, after its president criticized President Bush for being the first president since Herbert Hoover to fail to address the organization, no regressive voice was raised in protest.  When pressure from Exxon and other groups resulted in the targeting of Greenpeace by the I.R.S. in 2006, regressives were silent as church mice.  In 2004, the pastor of All Saints Episcopal Church in Pasadena made an anti-Bush sermon the Sunday before the presidential election.  The I.R.S. threatened to revoke its tax-exempt status.  At the same time, regressive churches all over the nation were handing out voting guides, congressional report cards and advocating for regressive candidates from the pulpit and the silence from the I.R.S. was deafening.  The crocodile tears now being shed over the shabby treatment of Tea Party and other groups is embarrassing.

     It's simple.  It's elementary.  Pass a law so all political donations are reported...total transparency.  Have someone other than the I.R.S. enforce it.  End the 501(c)(4) forever or define the terms of its use more clearly.

     The I.R.S. workers may have broken the law, but Congress and the 1% are at least accessories to the crime.

RACE TO THE BOTTOM...

 The United States Chamber of Commerce is the most evil organization in this nation.  It has led a 50-year effort to water down, dilute, eviscerate and eliminate wage and labor protections, hourly wage benchmarks, occupational safety regulations as well as paid vacation and health insurance for workers.  They have done this, in concert with regressives in Congress, to turn back all the advances workers achieved, from the New Deal through the Great Society, by pressure on both presidential and congressional elections and through legislation passed to level the playing field between bosses and workers.  A weak labor movement has allowed the bosses to take away or weaken most positive provisions workers fought for.

     The most recent example is a story in the Wall Street Journal about how employers have found a way around Obama's new healthcare law...a way to offer watered-down, ineffective and useless health insurance plans to their employees and not face any penalties for doing so.  If a firm refuses to offer health care benefits to employees, it could face a $2,000 per worker penalty under the new law.  (the money would then be used to help pay for insurance for the workers)  The Journal reports employers have discovered if they offer an insurance plan that lacks basic benefits like hospital care, they can avoid any penalties.  Brokers are offering plans to employers which cover some doctor visits and preventative care, but cap how much they will pay, don't offer any mental health coverage and surgery and hospital stays would not be covered.

     When Obama's plan was developed it was thought employers would offer good plans for their workers.  The failure to do so will force workers into state exchanges and drive up costs.  Obama's plan is predicated on bringing in the healthy and the sick to keep costs under control.  However, businesses are working hard to undercut this idea.  You gotta love 'em.

     Along with trying to game the new health care laws, and leave the workers hanging out to dry, America's corporations and businesses continue to race to the bottom in almost every other category.  USA Today reports the United States is the only industrialized nation that does not mandate paid vacation for all workers.  Only 1 in 4 American workers have paid vacation.  (and few of them actually take it all out of fear of being fired, rendering the benefit moot)  The benefits of vacation are obvious.  Not only is it good for mental and physical health, family dynamics and morale, vacating workers consume more and spend more thus helping the economy grow.  The "chamber" doesn't care.  Add to this the failure to provide paid sick days and American workers, particularly women with children, find themselves overworked and losing money all to the benefit of their company’s bottom line.

   It has been recently reported Apple Computer, along with most high tech and energy companies, paid no taxes on hundreds of billions of dollars in profit held in offshore shell companies, many located in Ireland.  Taxes they fail to pay have to be made up by you and me.  The taxes for everything from the military to infrastructure, all things which benefit Apple, have to be made up for by us because they have found ways around the law.  Apple recently announced it was going to give dividends for the first time.  It is going to borrow the money rather than bring any of that taxable profit home.  Instead of dividends, wouldn't it be something if Apple decided to take some of those billions and raise the salaries of its workers?  Workers in Apple stores are notoriously underpaid.  One of the reasons Apple has all these profits is because of these and other workers, yet it has decided to reward shareholders instead of the workers.  I know I'm being naive to suggest a company reward its workers...that is so 50's, but it is an example of how corporate America doesn't care a whit about the people who enable them to prosper.  The last thing a corporation or business wishes to do in this country is pay good wages.  Hourly wages have risen about 4% over the last 35 years while corporate profits have grown by over 300%.  American workers watch as their salaries fail to keep up with inflation and have to make a Hobson's choice between demanding a raise or increased health care costs, because as a nation we have failed to make health care available to everyone separate from where they work.  The result is the explosion of two working parent families necessary just to try to keep up with the basic cost of living.

     High tech companies are fighting to stop Congress from mandating they employ more Americans before they import cheaper foreign labor.  Hell, Yahoo doesn't even want people to be able to work at home, and save on commuting costs and maybe some daycare, and is forcing them back into the office grind.

     None of this assault on American workers would be possible without the war on unions.  From when Reagan busted the air traffic controller's union, to the use of strikebreakers and the spread of the hilariously insulting "right to work" laws which render unions impotent, this war has been a complete success.  While American productivity continues to improve every year, American workers have not seen any benefit due to the inability of individual workers to negotiate better salaries and the lack of union membership to engage in collective bargaining.

     Unions are anathema to capitalism.  Corporations, businesses, the "chamber" all hate unions.  Where unions still exist, their workers get better salaries, better pensions (unless the corporation goes to bankruptcy court...gets permission to abandon their contracts with workers to pay their pensions and health care costs...dump it all on the taxpayers and pay only ten cents on the dollar to people who worked for them for twenty or thirty years...God could they get any more immoral with help from the courts using laws written by a bought and paid for legislature?), better working conditions and they share in the profits they help to generate.  This drives the 1% to distraction.  The goal of capitalism is to make something for the cheapest cost possible thus creating more profit.  Unions are socialistic, communistic, un-American (at least in the salons and boardrooms of the Koch brothers and others) obstacles which have the gall to tell the capitalist some of the profit will have to be shared.  They hate it, and they have used Washington, and state houses, to beat workers and their organizations into the ground.

     Shangri-La for the U.S. Chamber of Commerce would be a nation with no minimum wage, no child labor laws, no collective bargaining, no mandated health benefits, no 40-hour workweek or 8-hour workday, no overtime, no safety regulations and certainly no worker compensation laws.  Paradise would be a return to the Gilded Age where government was weak, poverty rampant and the gap between the rich and everyone else resembled the Grand Canyon.  Nirvana for the 1% would be for America's workplaces to be totally and completely unregulated.  Wait, wait, I see it now...Heaven is Bangladesh.  If corporate America wins this race to the bottom, it isn't far off.

UPDATE...

 Recently, I wrote about two issues which were before the Congress or the executive and which you could and can still influence.

     In the immigration bill passed by the Senate Judiciary Committee, the tech robber barons enlisted the help of that great friend of the American worker, Sen. Orin Hatch, to introduce a number of amendments which would dilute or eliminate provisions requiring companies who want to use H1-B visas to advertise job openings for 30 days, offer the job to qualified Americans before they can be offered to a foreign worker and limit high tech visas for any company which fails to comply.  Hatched pushed amendments, which created exceptions to these rules.  The exceptions are so broad as to render this attempt to create jobs for Americans toothless.  The bill still can be amended on the Senate floor.  If this is of interest to you contact your senator and demand the original proposals prevail.  You can also contact Senator Richard Durbin's office.  (D. Illinois) who is the prime sponsor and encourage him to fight the Hatch amendments.

     There was also the issue of exporting natural gas.  The Obama administration has approved a proposal to build a natural gas export depot in Texas.  Proponents of exporting gas have as many as 13 other petitions for permits.  If you are worried this could drive up the price and hurt American companies and jobs, you should again contact your representatives to oppose efforts to build more export facilities.  You can also contact the new energy secretary's office and oppose any more permits for export.  He is on the record as skeptical about the benefits of exporting natural gas and wants the issue studied more and you want to pressure him to hold his ground.