ALEC’s Influence over Lawmaking in State Legislatures

ALEC and State Legislatures

Saturday, 07 December 2013

ALEC’s Influence over Lawmaking in State Legislatures

The goal of this article is to begin to fill the gap in our knowledge. Given the pervasive gridlock in Congress, key legislative change is occurring predominantly in the states.  It is, then, all the more important to know who is affecting which bills are introduced in the state legislatures, and which bills pass.  Using text analysis, I find where bills based on ALEC model legislation are introduced in the statehouses during the 2011-2012 session and track their progress in the legislative process.
My findings are threefold.  First, ALEC model bills are, word-for-word, introduced in our state legislatures at a non-trivial rate.  Second, they have a good chance – better than most legislation – of being enacted into law.  Finally, the bills that pass are most often linked to controversial social and economic issues.  In the end, I argue that this is not good for ALEC, its corporate partners, or for the democratic process.

About ALEC

The American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC) is a national policy organization that “provides a constructive forum for state legislators and private sector leaders to discuss and exchange practical, state-level public policy issues.” (ALEC website). ALEC members, including state legislators and corporate representatives, meet in task forces on specific issue areas (i.e., environment and energy, worker’s rights, etc.) and collaborate to write model legislation. Once the task force completes a model bill it is approved by the ALEC membership and governing board.  Once bills clear those hurdles, they become official ALEC “model policies,” which are disseminated to state legislators.
ALEC is notoriously secretive about the process by which members draft and approve model legislation. A recent Washington Post article by Dana Milbank detailed the closed-door policy at ALEC’s annual policy summit.  My own attempts to contact ALEC staff in order to understand the model bill drafting process were unsuccessful.
ALEC does list on its website all official ALEC policies (though it does not say – and representatives claim not to have collected – information on where those policies have been introduced in the states).  However, there is reason to believe that the list is incomplete. The ALEC board reviews the status of every piece of model legislation every five years, and adds and removes model bills from the website periodically.  It is not surprising, then, that the Castle Doctrine (a.k.a. Stand Your Ground) was removed from the ALEC website following the public scrutiny that arose during the Trayvon Martin trial.
Thus, obtaining a complete list of ALEC model bills and their rates of introduction and success in the U.S. statehouses requires a nuanced data collection strategy.

Methodology:

As discussed in the previous section, ALEC’s public list of model bills is not complete – and may include some of their most controversial and influential bills.  Rather than relying on the organization’s own list, I turned to a third party website: ALEC Exposed.  ALEC Exposed, a subsidiary of PR Watch, tracks all ALEC activity and keeps a list of the most significant ALEC model legislation approved between 2010 and 2013.  From the ALEC Exposed database, I collected information on the 169 model bills that they tag as most significant, covering each of the nine ALEC task force areas.
Using the text from those169 model bills, I used Boolean string searches in LEXIS to find bills with the same language that were introduced in the 2011-2012 legislative session. In total, I recovered 132 bills.  I then coded a variety of features of those bills including their state and chamber of origin, sponsors’ party identification and connections to ALEC, and legislative history.

ALEC Bills Introduced

During the 2011-2012 legislative session, 132 bills based on ALEC models were introduced in the states.  Democrats sponsored nearly 18% of those bills, while Republicans sponsored more than 81% (one bill was introduced by a joint committee, and, thus, does not have a single sponsor).  Nearly two-thirds of those bills were introduced in state lower chambers, while only 34% were introduced in upper chambers.  Of those legislators who sponsored ALEC model legislation, 57% can be explicitly connected to ALEC.  However, that does not necessarily preclude the other legislators from having ALEC ties; ALEC does not disclose the names of their legislative members, so this figure is based primarily on information from leaked documents.
ALEC model language appeared in bills in 34 states (see Figure 1).  Those bills were most common in West Virginia, where legislators introduced 10 bills based on ALEC model legislation.  Both the Oklahoma and Mississippi legislatures considered nine ALEC bills, Arizona eight, and Kansas and Montana saw seven apiece.

One feature that separates ALEC from other lobbying ventures is that it partners with corporations whose interests span the space of conservative issues.  This is reflected in the fact that legislation introduced based on ALEC models covers a variety of seemingly-unrelated subjects (see Figure 2).

Most common were bills pertaining to immigration and the environment, followed by those relating to guns and crime.  The now-infamous Castle Doctrine Act was introduced in nine chambers and was, thus, one of the more common pieces of ALEC legislation to appear in the statehouses.  The five most common ALEC model bills introduced in the state legislatures include:

Table 1: Top 5 ALEC Model Bills Introduced in the States
ALEC Model Bill	# of States Introduced	Description
No Sanctuary Cities for Illegal Immigrants Act	23	Closely resembles Arizona’s SB1070 law in that it mandates local law enforcement of federal immigration law, and allows private citizens to sue their local government if they feel the law is not being fully enforced. In addition, it further criminalizes the employment of illegal immigrants, and creates a crime of “trespassing” on state land without immigration status, and a crime of having an illegal immigrant in one’s vehicle, among other provisions.
The Disclosure of Hydraulic Fracturing Fluid Composition Act	10	Requires the disclosure of fluid used in the production of natural gas through hydraulic fracturing. It would also allow operators not to disclose any materials that are considered a “trade secret” or present incidentally in the hydraulic fluid, and would limit the ability of individuals to challenge a the operator’s claim to trade secret protection.
Castle Doctrine Act	9	Also commonly referred to as “Stand Your Ground” legislation, this act authorizes the deadly use of force against an intruder in a residence or vehicle. It declares that a person has a right to stand his or her ground under reasonable fear of great bodily harm. It also reduces the grounds under which law enforcement may investigate the use of deadly force under these circumstances.
ALEC State Withdrawal from Regional Climate Change Initiative	9	Declares the lack of benefit to reducing carbon emissions in the state that would adopt it, and would provide that state reasonable cover to withdraw from a regional climate initiative.
Consistency of Firearm Regulation	9	Prohibits local jurisdictions from independently enacting restrictions on the possession of firearms. This bill would also preempt the right of local jurisdictions to bring certain civil actions against firearms or ammunition manufacturers, trade associations, and dealers.

ALEC Bills Enacted
Of the 132 ALEC model bills introduced, 12 were enacted.  One additional bill passed the New Hampshire legislature only to be vetoed by the governor.  Now, a success rate of 9% may not seem high upon first glance.  However, consider the fact that, in the 112^th session of the U.S. Congress, less than 2% of introduced bills passed.  That means that bills based on ALEC policies have a survival rate nearly 5 times that of the average bill in Congress.
Table 2 summarizes the ALEC policies that were passed in the 2011-2012 session.  Republicans sponsored all of the enacted bills, and 7 of those sponsors have explicit ties to ALEC.  Two states – Pennsylvania and Oklahoma – passed the Castle Doctrine.  Though the modal ALEC bill introduced in the states was the No Sanctuary Cities for Illegal Immigrants Act, only Alabama passed it.

Table 2: ALEC Bills Enacted
Enacting State		ALEC bill	Sponsor	Known ALEC Tie?	Description
|Alabama	2011 H.B. 56	No Sanctuary Cities for Illegal Immigrants Act	Rep. Micky Hammon (R)	-	See Table 1.
Arizona	2011 S.B. 1546	Eminent Domain Authority for Federal Lands Act	Senator Al Melvin (R)	Yes	Increases the state government’s ability to appropriate federal lands (such as wilderness areas or national parks)
Arizona	2012 H.B. 2503	Regulary Compliance Congruity with Liability Act	Rep, Kimberly Yee (R)	Yes	Increases protection for corporations in product liability suits, and adopts a presumption in favor of the corporate defendant when it can show compliance with governmental standards.
Kansas	2011 S.B. 9	Discovery of Electronically Stored Information and Limitations on Waiver of Attorney-Client Privilege	Judiciary Committee	-	Limits the ability to produce electronically-stored information during discovery.
North Carolina	2011 H.B. 542	Regulatory Compliance Congruity With Liability Act	Rep. Johnathan Rhyne (R)	Yes	Increases protection for corporations in product liability suits, and adopts a presumption  in favor of the corporate defendant when it can show compliance with governmental standards.
North Carolina	2011 H.B. 650	Consistency of Firearms Regulation Act	Rep. Mark Hilton (R)	-	See Table 1.
Oklahoma	2011 S.B. 704	Class Actions Improvement Act	Senator Constance Johnson (R)	Yes	Limits individual’s ability to bring class action suits against large companies by specifying that class action suits cannot seek any monetary relief, and restrict the ability to bring a class action suit with plaintiffs from multiple states.
Oklahoma	2011 H.B. 1439	Castle Doctrine Act	Rep. Steve Vaughan (R)	Yes:Yes	See Table 1.
Pennsylvania	2011 H.B. 40	Castle Doctrine Act	Rep. Scott Perry (R)	-	See Table 1.
Tennessee	2011 H.B. 1030	Virtual Public Schools Act	Rep. Harry Brooks H (R)	Yes	Requires “virtual” or online schools be recognized as public schools and given equal resources as other public schools in the state.
Texas	2011 H.B. 3328	The Disclosure of Hydraulic Fracturing Fluid Composition Act	Rep. James Keffer (R)	Yes	See Table 1.

Conclusion
This research shows that the American Legislative Exchange Council wields considerable influence in state legislatures.  The bills that it writes find their way into the majority of state legislatures.  Moreover, the percentage of those bills that pass is strikingly high compared to the dismal rate at which all other bills are enacted into law.
In the midst of this success, recent controversy over particular ALEC-inspired bills – such as  the Castle Doctrine Act (a.k.a. Stand your Ground) – has caused the organization to come under increased scrutiny from journalists, transparency groups, and voters. As a result, almost 400 legislators and 60 corporations have cut ties with ALEC in the last two years, with some now publicly repudiating the organization’s methods.
Many of ALEC’s prominent (former) corporate partners, such as Wal-Mart, General Electric, and McDonald’s, were almost certainly displeased with the negative publicity and media criticism sparked by ALEC’s foray into hot-button issues like gun control.  That involvement damages ALEC’s reputation, hindering their typical (corporate-friendly) efforts surrounding manufacturing regulations, court procedures, and environmental laws.  ALEC’s corporate partners are paying to influence legislators over those issues, which they want introduced and passed quickly and quietly.  Dirtying its hands with social issues undermines ALEC’s ability to exercise influence over fiscal ones.
This has broader implications for how we think about lobbying.  Consolidation of lobbying groups into broader organizations of legislators and corporations increases their reach but also creates significant hazards. Attempting to tie together such a wide range of interests undermines the ability of the umbrella organization to achieve any of its objectives.  The bigger you get, the more likely it all is to fall apart.  ALEC’s Napoleonic reach may turn out to be its undoing.
This article was researched and written by The Brookings Institute.  Both CMD’s Sourcewatch and Firedoglake identify Brookings as a once-liberal now-conservative think tank, with FDL stating “it has become the Alan Colmes of think-tanks, fake liberals who meekly accept conservative mythology on every major point, but says we should at least think of the misery we are causing.”
The author credits ALECexposed for a lot of the information used in the article.  I want to note that ALECexposed is still the source I use regularly to verify and cross-check information that I have researched.  Its Sourcewatch articles are, IMHO, the best.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
This article is written by Molly Jackman with research assistance from Grace Wallack and Brian Boessenecker.  It is posted by the Brookings Institute at http://tinyurl.com/mw5bog6

McDonald's can afford to triple their CEO's salary. Do you want lies with that?

McDonald's can afford to triple their CEO's salary. Do you want lies with that?

by MinistryOfTruth

We can't afford to raise the minimum wage?
But we can always afford a big pay increase for the CEO. Always. Even when sales are down for the year.

   McDonald's Corp. more than tripled the pay packages last year for its new CEO Don Thompson and the man he replaced, Jim Skinner. ~snip~
    McDonald's, based in Oak Brook, Ill., gave Thompson a package worth $13.8 million, up from the $4.1 million he received in 2011, according to a regulatory filing made Friday.
    Skinner's pay meanwhile rose to $27.7 million from $8.8 million the year before, reflecting a $10.2 million payment as part of his retirement under his contract agreement.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/...

   McDonald's gave a $9 million dollar raise recently to their new CEO. $9 million dollars that didn't "Trickle Down", $9 million dollars that didn't help workers at McDonald's unless they have a second, better paying job as a waiter at the nicer restaurants the CEO of McDonald's goes to. McDonald's can't afford paying their workers enough to climb out of poverty but just happened to find $9 million lying around to give to their CEO. The golden arches are actually golden parachutes too.     Over the last 40 years this has been the trend. Worker's wages stagnate but for some reason CEO salaries go through the roof. The result is growing poverty. No one who works full time should be poor. No one.
And yet these CEO's then proceed to lecture us about being lazy and how they can't afford raises this year, maybe next year, and the stock markets rise and the CEO salaries rise but the rest of us will just have to wait.
But the CEO never has to wait. He always gets his raise. Always.
Over the last few decades the CEO's of corporate America have made themselves filthy rich by paying themselves instead of labor. The boss gets a raise, you don't. You are lucky just to keep your job. Any profit made goes straight to the wealthiest 1% and stays there.
And if you complain they call you a socialist.
If you notice the 800 lb CEO in the room, they say you hate capitalism.
We all have to ignore how rich the rich have become in order for the never ending austerity brigade's working class death march to make any sense.
Because you must suffer so that record corporate profits can live.

With Wall Street and corporate profits at record highs we should be swimming in trickle down goodness right freaking now.
But we are not. Because trickle down is bullcrap.
So the boss gets a raise and you don't. The boss gets a bigger raise than he would have otherwise by not giving you a raise. Scrooge gets to count coins, Cratchet gets a piece of coal, maybe. If he is lucky.
And Tiny Tim? Humbug!
Overpaid CEO's can not be the end-all-be-all of our economy, sneering Mitt Romney types who think you are lazy and want to be dependent on food stamps, because working to death being dependent on the kindness of a heartless millionaire wasn't good enough.
I could understand maybe if NO ONE at McDonald's was getting a raise this year. If they were cutting executive salaries and that sort of thing, but McDonald's isn't, nor is WalMart or the other big box stores that wiped out your local Mom and Pop stores. All those businesses are still chugging out profits and raises for executives, but the workers are ass out in the deal, No raise for you, Cratchet! Because the CEO's of these huge corporations have decided they would rather steal your raise so they can get a bigger raise themselves. That's the only way we get record profits AND growing, record poverty at the same time, the rich are making the poor even poorer for their own profit. It's that simple.
The rich are getting richer by PREVENTING "trickle down" from happening.
And they don't even bother lying to you about how it will "Trickle Down" anymore, do they? It's all austerity all the time now, and if you even mention that it isn't "Trickling Down" conservatives get mad at you for even bringing it up. The say you are engaging in class warfare if you dare mention that the "Trickle Down" isn't working. The Right Wing's plan for the poor is basically "Don't Ask, Don't Tell", meaning the right wing has nothing to offer the poor other than animosity and Republicans would rather you not ask since they don't like to talk about the poor anyway.
So you get pushed into whatever low wage job you can get and you struggle to survive and your measly pay isn't even enough to get by on and here comes your local Republican to make things harder for you if you ever need food assistance or unemployment insurance. We can't have you being dependent on anything other than your credit card, can we? In Republican America paying taxes is slavery and working for poverty wages until you die is freedom so quit complaining.
The next time you hear some meathead tell you that we can't raise the minimum wage or prices will go up ask them if that means ANYBODY should ever get a raise again? I mean, if rising wages means rising prices doesn't that mean that all wage increases are bad, or is that just wage increases for poor people? Does that mean that giving huge pay increases to the already rich might drive up the price of certain things like oh say housing? This logic says that paying poor people more is a bad thing, but paying rich people more is good because "trickle down".
Try as you might to make sense of this you can't. There is no logic to talking points against raising the minimum wage. It is just rooted in poor people = bad/lazy and rich people = Randian Supermen who must be coddled at all times and told how awesome and brilliant they are. The same crap Mitt Romney embodied that the GOP breathes on a daily basis, open hostility towards the poor and working class, is embedded in this notion, that poor people have it too good and should just try harder. Because if poor people aren't kept in constant misery they may get lazy and stop contributing, unlike rich people who shit pure rainbows.
McDonald's can afford to pay their workers better, they just don't want to. They refuse to. McDonald's, WalMart and all of these other big box stores has created a class of poor people stuck in dead end jobs who will always be poor and they call them "Associates". McDonald's and these other corporations will not pay their employees decent wages until they are forced to. The rich will lie and lie and say they can't afford to pay their employees, they will lie and say raising wages will force them to raise prices, it's a lie, a lie to keep you poor so they can continue to make themselves rich.
They will say anything to justify not paying their employees a better wage. And this is the basis for our entire economy. The rich are getting richer BECAUSE they are keeping the poor as poor as they can. Keeping you from getting a raise means my CEO compensation might triple this year. Some businesses like CostCo might do the right thing and pay their workers a good wage, but others will not, and that is why we need laws to set a fair floor for wages so that people don't get trapped having to work until they die just to stay poor. Poor people wouldn't need food stamps if they just got paid better, and if some CEO's weren't as grossly overpaid as they are maybe there would be a little money leftover to pay everyone else a raise.
Justifying greed is what conservatives live for. Hating the poor is just a bonus. The people who nominated Mitt Romney as their Presidential candidate a year ago bristle with hostility whenever you mention the poor. Resentment is a dish best served buffet style at the RNC convention. But at the heart of it is this, when conservatives say they are against raising the minimum wage they are admitting that trickle down is not supposed to help "those people". Conservatives are admitting that helping the poor simply isn't in the trickle down plan. Nope, the plan is bigger tax cuts for the rich. The better to eat you with.
So let's give a big round of applause to the people who are marching against McDonald's and WalMart and all the big box stores that make huge profits by keeping their workers underpaid, and remember, they always have money to give their CEO's a big pay increase each year, so when they say they can't afford to pay better wages they are just lying to you.
My apologies for not having written much lately, getting adjusted to life with my newborn daughter Janis has made it difficult for me to sit down and think, let alone write. I will be on the Ed Schultz show tonight on MSNBC. Hopefully you catch me there.
Peace and love to all,
Cheers

Originally posted to MinistryOfTruth on Fri Dec 06, 2013 at 08:13 AM PST.

Also republished by In Support of Labor and Unions.

Cato Institute suggests an ‘overthrow’ of U.S. Government is needed

David PhillipsLas Vegas Democrat Examiner

December 5, 2013

Testifying before a Congressional hearing Tuesday on the President’s Constitutional powers, Michael Cannon the Cato Institute’s Director of Health Policy Studies, suggests that as a last “resort” the U.S. Government should be “overthrown” because President Barack Obama overstepped his executive powers implementing the Affordable Car Act. And Congressman Trey Gowdy (R-SC) who was questioning Mr. Cannon, agreed.

“There is one last thing to which the people can resort if the government does not respect the restrains that the constitution places on the government,” Cannon said. “Abraham Lincoln talked about our right to alter our government or our revolutionary right to overthrow it.”
“That is certainly something that no one wants to contemplate,” he continued. “If the people come to believe that the government is no longer constrained by the laws then they will conclude that neither are they.”

Cannon goes on to say that it's “very dangerous” for the President to “ignore the laws” by imposing an “obligation upon the people”

“That is a very dangerous sort of thing for the president to do, to wantonly ignore the laws,” Cannon concluded, “to try to impose obligation upon people that the legislature did not approve.”

There have been several calls for a revolution to overthrow the U.S. Government because of President Obama and the Affordable Care Act by right wing activists, and they have received some support from Republicans in Congress.
Last month right wing activists held a rally in Washington D.C., promoted by Larry Klayman a far right wing activist, along with Larry Pratt, Bob Barr, Pamela Geller, Alan Keyes, Bradlee Dean, Joseph Farah and Zeeda Andrews. All of these people are right wing activists who say that President Obama is either a Muslim terrorist or worse.
Klayman had suggested that there may be a violent revolution if his Nov. 19 rally failed, he even went as far as issuing a new Declaration of Independence to promote his rally, which did turn out to be a massive failure. During the promotion of the rally, Klayman said that he expected upwards of 1 million people, but only about 100 people showed up.
You can view the C-SPAN2 video clip of Michael Cannon testifying at the Congressional hearing attached to this article above.
Don't miss any of the Las Vegas Democrat Examiner articles: Click the Subscribe button and enter your E-mail address. You’ll be alerted to the latest column when it's published. You can also follow on Facebook, Twitter and Google+.

Foreign Press Says What America’s Won’t: Sarah Palin is a Traitor

Foreign Press Says What America’s Won’t: Sarah Palin is a Traitor

 

 from: Sarah Jones
 

Sarah Palin has made it to the big time; she’s been called out by international media. Three years ago, the Russian newspaper Pravda (this same paper has been quoted in numerous Right Wing publications when it criticized President Obama, and was considered a paper of merit at such time) eviscerated Sarah Palin for her unrelenting attacks upon the democratically elected President, at a time when America needs to stand together, united. When members of the International Press call Sarah Palin out for her lack of American patriotism, it’s time for the American Press to pay attention. It’s about time someone did. Timothy Bancroft-Hinchey wrote in Pravda:

“By attacking the democratically elected President of the United States of America at a sensitive time in her country’s history, she shows the tact of a boorish drunkard bawling obscenities at a funeral….
And now she turns not only against the fibre and backbone of her country, but against its democratically elected President, accusing him of being incompetent for not stopping Wikileaks. Where was she and where was her GOP before and during the 9/11 attacks? She accuses President Obama of not taking “steps” to assure the leaks were not published. What “steps”?……
If anything is a threat to the national security of the United States of America, it is this screaming, unrefined oaf with as much class as a searing release of flatulence followed by hysterical giggling at a state banquet. Is this what the people of the USA deserve?
To attack the President of the country at a time when the USA needs to close ranks and stand together to consolidate the enormous strides his (President Obama’s) intelligent and respectful approach has achieved in building bridges, when her party’s period in government bombed them, Spankin’ Sarah Palin comes across as a pitifully inadequate anachronism from the times of the Far West.”

Bancroft-Hinchey has been proven correct by the way MSNBC handled Martin Bashir. Palin was engaging in more treasonous talk when she compared the national debt to slavery. Her comments were more of Palin reminding everyone that the president is black, and in her view that is a very bad thing.
Bashir saw through her latest barrage of hate speech gibberish, and called her out in the most graphic way possible. The media responded by bowing to the imaginary power, and very real privilege of Sarah Palin.
The American Press won’t say what the International Press will for a variety of reasons, but suffice it to say that there are many agendas at play here, causing truth to take a back-seat to dollars. As a noted US media critic once said, “everything to sell and nothing to tell.” And what a shame, because this isn’t about partisanship or even elitism; it’s about patriotism and who better to cover this issue than our domestic press?
Ms Palin cloaks her myth in her flag, but one has to question just what that symbol represents to Ms Palin, given that she won’t stop attacking this country’s sitting President during each crisis that presents itself. The word patriotism derives from the Greek patriōtēs meaning “fellow countryman”; that would include all of us, even President Obama. I’m afraid Ms Palin and her followers conflate their false community of nationalism with patriotism, and under the guise of said nationalism, justify harming America’s standing in the world along with the very unity of our nation. One can’t help but question Ms Palin’s true motives, along with her jingoistic, tabloid-driven patriotism, since she beats this drum of division in each public appearance she makes.
One wonders, can Sarah Palin can see what the Russians see: a shrill, desperate demagogue more interested in making money and getting famous than in the best interests of her country; a woman so jealous of a sitting President that she takes every blow her country faces and exploits it, turning it into an even more negative, frightening moment while distracting from the real work – never once stepping into the debate to lead, to soothe, to unite.
Never once has Ms Palin shown her love for this great country by standing by it and her President in a time of need. Instead, she views each crisis as a cynical opportunity to sow the seeds of division among fellow countrymen. During the oil spill crisis, she took to Fox News to spew nonsense about the Dutch not getting their phone calls received, claiming she knew how to fix the leak if only the President had called on her. Of course, since she was on Fox News, no one bothered to ask her why, then, she did nothing to stop the oil spills that took place during her brief tenure as Governor of Alaska.
When she went to Hong Kong for a speaking engagement, Ms. Palin attacked her President on foreign soil during a time of war. On her first book tour, Palin and her entourage of hit men (aka, her father, et al) attacked the Commander in Chief on military bases. In times of major decisions regarding the war in Afghanistan, Palin has mocked the President when he followed the course of action recommended by his Generals. On 9/11, Palin bashed the President. In her speeches, Ms Palin is sure to remind her followers that Obama’s foreign policy is weakening America while she accuses the President of not loving his country. During the WikiLeaks crisis, Palin blamed the President instead of calling for a united front for our country.
Ms Palin and her followers justify this unpatriotic behavior by claiming the President is “un-American”. We all know what that’s about but if we’re left with any doubt, we have only to listen to Ms Palin assure her listeners that they have every right to ask for the President’s birth certificate:
And here she is just weeks ago suggesting that the failure to vet the President and his associations has harmed our democracy. Talk about projection.
Ms Palin’s heavily moderated Facebook page was just months ago full of comments calling for the death of our President, sedition, and the overthrowing of the Obama administration as being God’s will. Those comments were left standing while comments questioning Ms Palin in any way were scrubbed. Ms Palin stands for a level of vitriolic, simmering revulsion so steeped in delusions of self-righteousness, it’s tough to swim to sanity once you’ve been washed in the blood of her particular lamb.
We are at war, facing a global economic crisis, still reeling from a devastating oil spill and now facing the challenges brought on by the WikiLeaks dump. Yet, on every issue of importance, Palin has inserted herself with jarring accusations against the President, offering nothing but malicious hate fueled by a failure to understand what she doesn’t understand.
Ms Palin’s particular brand of tabloid patriotism leaves out anyone who disagrees with her, beats her in a contest, dares to question her, or has the temerity to actually read and debate important issues. She’s become an international embarrassment:
“If Sarah Palin is not some kind of a massive political joke in the USA, wheeled out to liven up the political scene from time to time with nonsensical and pastiche (one hopes) displays of sheer and utter ignorance, then it is worrying.”
Sarah Palin is the figurehead for an unpatriotic movement here in the United States of America. A movement so bereft of love for this country that they would go to any means to see it fail, in order to elevate themselves into power. A movement which just yesterday met with the democratically elected President of this fine country and then immediately stabbed him in the back in their post-game press conference.
And nestled into this web of traitors is one particularly odious senator, Senator John McCain, upon whose shoulders the blame for this national embarrassment rests. Ms Palin is the front-runner of this group for Presidential candidate in 2012 according to polls. This makes sense, given the Republican Party’s current gamesmanship of our political system, wherein their only goal is to destroy the President – not to lead, not to govern – but to destroy. At any cost necessary.
When the Russians are calling you out for failing to support your country in a time of need, for attempting to bring her to her knees with petty attacks on the President, you have seriously jumped the patriotism shark. Sarah Palin is the traitorous figurehead of the GOP, whose only purpose seems to be to assist them in their goal to bring down President Barack Obama.
So while a scant few of them (Rove, Scarborough, and a few of the “elites” who are not elected officials; the elected officials are quivering in the corner rather than standing up to the myth of Palin lest they alienate what little remains of the Republican Party base) make the rounds distancing themselves from her now, do not forget how they set her into motion in 2008 to do exactly what she’s doing now. And do not forget that even as they take a slight step away from the noxious whiff of disgust that follows in Ms Palin’s wake, they’re not silencing her; they’re not calling her out for her attacks on the President. No, the most they can muster from their cowardly bunkers of fear from which they wage their war on America is mild outrage that she would insult the Bushes or Reagan.
Nary a word about her outrageously destructive actions toward our current President. And why is that? Because Ms Palin is doing the dirty work for the Republican weaklings; sowing seeds of division, suspicion, hatred, and rage against a sitting President.
And those, my friends, are not the actions of a patriot. True Glasnost has arrived when the International Press says what the American Press will not. Sarah Palin is no patriot.
(Note: The original version of this story was first published on December 1, 2010. It has been updated to reflect recent events.)

Foreign Press Says What America’s Won’t: Sarah Palin is a Traitor was written by Sarah Jones for PoliticusUSA.

© PoliticusUSA, Fri, Dec 6th, 2013 — All Rights Reserved

 

Revealed: Conservative think tank SPN coordinating right-wing assault on education, healthcare and the environment in 34 states

By Suzanne Goldenberg, The Guardian
Friday, December 6, 2013 2:57 EST

Conservative groups across the US are planning a co-ordinated assault against public sector rights and services in the key areas of education, healthcare, income tax, workers’ compensation and the environment, documents obtained by the Guardian reveal.
The strategy for the state-level organisations, which describe themselves as “free-market thinktanks”, includes proposals from six different states for cuts in public sector pensions, campaigns to reduce the wages of government workers and eliminate income taxes, school voucher schemes to counter public education, opposition to Medicaid, and a campaign against regional efforts to combat greenhouse gas emissions that cause climate change.
The policy goals are contained in a set of funding proposals obtained by the Guardian. The proposals were co-ordinated by the State Policy Network, an alliance of groups that act as incubators of conservative strategy at state level.
The documents contain 40 funding proposals from 34 states, providing a blueprint for the conservative agenda in 2014. In partnership with the Texas Observer and the Portland Press Herald in Maine, the Guardian is publishing SPN’s summary of all the proposals to give readers and news outlets full and fair access to state-by-state conservative plans that could have significant impact throughout the US, and to allow the public to reach its own conclusions about whether these activities comply with the spirit of non-profit tax-exempt charities.
Details of the co-ordinated approach come amid growing federal scrutiny of the political activities of tax-exempt charities. Last week the Obama administration announced a new clampdown on those groups that violate tax rules by engaging in direct political campaigning.
Most of the “thinktanks” involved in the proposals gathered by the State Policy Network are constituted as 501(c)(3) charities that are exempt from tax by the Internal Revenue Service. Though the groups are not involved in election campaigns, they are subject to strict restrictions on the amount of lobbying they are allowed to perform. Several of the grant bids contained in the Guardian documents propose the launch of “media campaigns” aimed at changing state laws and policies, or refer to “advancing model legislation” and “candidate briefings”, in ways that arguably cross the line into lobbying.
The documents also cast light on the nexus of funding arrangements behind radical rightwing campaigns. The State Policy Network (SPN) has members in each of the 50 states and an annual warchest of $83m drawn from major corporate donors that include the energy tycoons the Koch brothers, the tobacco company Philip Morris, food giant Kraft and the multinational drugs company GlaxoSmithKline.
SPN gathered the grant proposals from the 34 states on 29 July. Ranging in size from requests of $25,000 to $65,000, the plans were submitted for funding to the Searle Freedom Trust, a private foundation that in 2011 donated almost $15m to largely rightwing causes.
The trust, founded in 1998, draws on the family fortune of the late Dan Searle of the GD Searle & Company empire – now part of Pfizer – which created NutraSweet. The trust is a major donor to such mainstays of the American right and the Tea Parties as Americans for Prosperity, the American Legislative Exchange Council (Alec), the Heartland Institute and the State Policy Network itself.
SPN’s link to Searle, the Guardian documents show, was Stephen Moore, an editorial writer with the Wall Street Journal. Moore, who advises Searle on its grant-giving activities, was asked by SPN to rank the proposals in two halves – a “top 20″ and “bottom 20″. It is not known how many of the 40 proposals were approved for funding, nor which may have been successful.
Moore told the Guardian that he is an unpaid adviser to the Searle Foundation, having been a lifetime family friend to Dan Searle. He said the grant decisions were made by Searle’s sons and grandsons based upon the late businessman’s “commitment to the advancement of free enterprise and individual rights”.
The proposals in the grant bids contained in the Guardian documents go beyond a commitment to free enterprise, however. They include:
• “reforms” to public employee pensions raised by SPN thinktanks in Arizona, Colorado, Minnesota, Missouri, New Jersey and Pennsylvania;
• tax elimination or reduction schemes in Alabama, Arkansas, Georgia, Maryland, Nebraska and New York;
• an education voucher system to promote private and home schooling in Florida;
• campaigns against worker and union rights in Delaware and Nevada;
• opposition to Medicaid in Georgia, North Carolina and Utah.
SPN’s president, Tracie Sharp, told the Guardian that “as a pro-freedom network of thinktanks, we focus on issues like workplace freedom, education reform, and individual choice in healthcare: backbone issues of a free people and a free society.”
In its grant bid, the Maine Heritage Policy Center asked for $35,000 to support a “research and demonstration project” that would “release residents from extreme government dependency”. It would turn the state’s poorest area into what the Portland Press Herald describes in its report from Washington County as “a gigantic tax-free zone”.
Dubbed “FreeME”, the initiative would eliminate state income tax and sale taxes from residents and businesses until the economic conditions in the county rise to the statewide average. The hole in the county’s income from lost tax revenues – estimated at $35m a year by the think tank – would be filled through budget cuts.
Medicaid is the target of a grant proposal coming from the Texas Public Policy Foundation (TPPF), an influential thinktank funded largely by rightwing foundations and corporations including the energy tycoons the Koch brothers, tobacco company Altria and the telecoms giant Verizon. The Texas Observer has investigated the contents of the document and points out that in its request for $40,000 from Searle, TPPF claims credit for blocking Medicaid expansion in the state.
“[S]topping Medicaid expansion is just the first step,” the proposal says, adding that the “missing piece to complete our message is an economic forecast” showing how block-granting Medicaid would “bring significant savings” to the state. That information would then be used to garner attention from the media.
The Observer describes TPPF as “one of the most influential state-level thinktanks in the nation”. One of its former executives was Ted Cruz, now US senator for Texas, who today is the keynote speaker at the national conference in Washington of SPN’s sister organisation, the American Legislative Exchange Council (Alec).
Several hundred miles to the north east in Massachusetts, the Beacon Hill Institute requested $38,825 from Searle to weaken or roll back a five-year effort by states in the region to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. The institute said it would carry out research into the economic impact of the cap-and-trade system operating in nine states known as the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative.
BHI appeared to have already arrived at its conclusions in advance, admitting from the outset that the aim of the research was to arm opponents of cap-and-trade with data for their arguments, and to weaken or destroy the initiative. “Success will take the form of media recognition, dissemination to stakeholders, and legislative activity that will pare back or repeal RGGI,” the funding proposal says.
The Beacon Hill Institute, technically an affiliate rather than a full member of the SPN, operates out of the economics department of Suffolk University in Boston. David Tuerck, its executive director, denied the group had engaged in lobbying. “There is never any lobbying,” he told the Guardian. “Maybe I need to look up the definition again, but lobbying consists of buttonholing legislators and other policymakers to get a particular result on a particular issue, and we never do that.”
But Suffolk University, which hosts the Beacon Hill Institute as a research arm of its economics department, sharply criticised the research proposal to the Searle Foundation. In a statement to the Guardian, the university said the grant bid had not been submitted to the university, as required, and that the university would never have approved the proposal. “The stated research goals, as written, were inconsistent with Suffolk University’s mission.”
Watchdogs that monitor the work of SPN and other conservative networks in the US said that the centralised coordination of state-level campaigns showed a significant attempt to build local activism into a nationwide movement. Lisa Graves, executive director of the Center for Media and Democracy, which issued a recent report on SPN, said that the local identity of the network’s members belied a larger purpose. “They appear to be advocating purely local interests but what they are promoting is part of a larger national template to radically remake our government in a way that undermines public institutions and the rights of workers,” she said.
The SPN said that its co-ordinating role was justified because local and state issues were increasingly impinging on national politics. “There’s no mystery here,” Sharp said. “The whole idea of a state policy network is that individual thinktanks can be in communication, share best practices and analysis, and combine their efforts when they see a benefit from doing so.”
Some of the grant bids to Searle focus specifically on prominent local politicians the thinktanks hope to influence. The grant bid that emanated from New Jersey, from the Common Sense Institute (CISNJ), another tax-exempt “research and education organization”, floats the idea of a campaign to support the efforts of the Republican governor Chris Christie in ending the ability of public employees to claim untaken sick days and vacation leave in their retirement packages.
“Governor Chris Christie has been waging a war to eliminate this practice; and CSINJ would like to provide ammunition,” the proposal says. The thinktank plans to produce a “research study” which it would call “Busting the Boat Checks” – an allusion to the phrase Christie uses to denote the watercraft retirees are claimed to buy on the back of sick and holiday leave payments.
The institute conceives a “media campaign” with its aim being the “full elimination of unused sick and vacation leave payouts”.
“We believe our study can be used to sway public sentiment further and be used as a brandisher for reform in Trenton,” it says.
CSINJ’s president, Jerry Cantrell, denied that the grant bid involved any element of lobbying, insisting instead that his group was providing a service that in the past might have been done by the decimated local media.
“CSINJ is an education organization focused on providing the public with facts and the truth. We don’t represent any interest besides the folks who are burdened by this practice – the taxpayers,” he said.
He said the proposal was focused on the “abusive practice of accumulating sick or vacation day payments over an entire career and using them as retirement bonus. We’ve seen too many instances of high level individuals working out the door with $500,000-$750,000 claiming to have never missed a day in 30 years of employment.”
The proposal from the Illinois Policy Institute for a campaign to deal with Chicago’s government worker pensions crisis by switching to 401(k)-style retirement plans similarly focuses on a politician – in this case Mayor Rahm Emanuel. The proposal says that “Mayor Emanuel has privately expressed the need for 401(k)-style changes to truly achieve reform.”
The institute plans to “leverage the leadership potential of Mayor Emanuel … as the spark for wider pension changes in Illinois.” It adds that “friendly legislators would be welcome to draft legislation modelled on our policy work and work in tandem with Mayor Emanuel to move it forward in the legislative process.”
John Tillman, CEO of the Illinois Policy Institute, told the Guardian that Emanuel had been “an outspoken proponent of pension reform that includes moving to a 401(k)-style, defined contribution system.” He saw no problem with the lobbying that the think tank undertakes.
“We are not allowed to do any campaigning or electioneering, and we don’t. We are allowed to spend a significant percentage of our expenditures on lobbying and we are very proactive in lobbying for liberty-based policy, including the urgently needed pension reform. We report our activities accordingly.”
© Guardian News and Media 2013

How the Christian Right Plays Victim While Imposing Its Ideology on America

How the Christian Right Plays Victim While Imposing Its Ideology on America

Telling Grandma she's going to lose her church is a great way to get her to sign her Social Security check over to your organization. 

AlterNet / By Amanda Marcotte

 

December 5, 2013  |  

Religious freedom and separation of church and state have always been hated concepts to the religious right. Indeed, it’s fair to say that the religious right exists to fight any legal or cultural support for people who don’t want their narrow definition of Christianity foisted on them. From objecting to gay marriage to trying to wedge creationism in schools, the religious right exists as a political movement for the purpose of stripping away religious freedom and establishing their religious beliefs as the dominant organizing force in law, politics and culture.
So why then are we hearing all these people who live their lives attacking religious freedom complaining all the time that “religious freedom” is under attack from liberals? Why does every religious-right publication and event echo the claim that right-wing Christians are somehow being stripped of the very right to religious freedom the right has worked tirelessly to take from everyone else for decades?
The simple answer is they’re lying. Claiming the mantle of victimhood is so politically potent that religious-right leaders are going to do it, no matter how untrue it is, because, to be blunt, they’re not held back by any moral interest in honesty. Getting Grandma to think she's going to lose her church is a great way to get her to sign her Social Security check over to your organization.
The longer answer is that the religious right has concocted a new strategy to squelch religious freedom: By redefining “religious freedom” to mean its opposite. The hope is that by repeatedly using the term “religious freedom” when they mean “giving the Christian right power to impose their faith on others,” they can eventually drain the phrase of all its meaning and finally, after decades of fighting secularism, make it easier for the religious right to strip away individual protections for religion. In other words, they hope by saying that up is down long enough, the public and the courts will finally believe it.
This attitude—that their “religious freedom” can only be protected if they get to foist their faith on everyone else—is nakedly obvious every year when the whining about the mythical “war on Christmas” begins. Needless to say, there is no war on Christmas. There is no effort whatsoever to prevent anyone from celebrating Christmas, buying Christmas presents, going to mass on Christmas, or playing that Manheim Steamroller record until you want to claw your ears out. Without fail, every example the right comes up with to prove there’s a war on Christmas is, in fact, something else: An attempt to recognize that not everyone is a Christian and respect that there are multiple holidays people may be celebrating in lieu of, or in addition to, Christmas.
This belief that Christians, particularly right-wing Christians, are entitled to be acknowledged at the exclusion of everyone else and entitled to have their holidays held out as more important than everyone else’s cropped up immediately after Thankgiving, right on schedule this year. The National Republican Congressional Committeetweeted out a picture of a T-shirt they’re selling that says, “’Happy Holidays’ is what liberals say,” in Comic Sans font, of course. On the back it reads, “Merry Christmas.” The “joke” doesn’t make sense unless the viewer agrees with the premise that conservative Christians are better than everyone else, and in order to honor how much more important they are, all other holidays and faith traditions need to be hidden away, as if they’re shameful.

Now the belief that “religious freedom” actually means the religious right gets to impose its beliefs on you is going to be tested by the Supreme Court. While many think the case of Hobby Lobby suing to avoid having to offer insurance benefits that cover contraception is primarily about reproductive rights, the real question at the center of the case is how much is your boss allowed to impose his religion on you, just because you work for him? 

The employee/employer relationship should be simple: You work for a company, and they pay you with a combination of cash and benefits in compensation. Since you earned it, your cash and benefits belong to you to use as you see fit. But Hobby Lobby—and many other companies run by Christian conservatives—isn’t happy with that way of doing things. They want to claim that your compensation package still belongs to them after you’ve earned it and should be tailored to fit their religious beliefs, even if you, the rightful owner of the compensation package, do not share their beliefs. In their lawsuit, they claim that they should be able to determine how you use your insurance plan, and that they should be exempt from the federal government’s mandatory minimums in how they compensate you because they claim to have religious objections.
If Hobby Lobby wins its case, the precedent will create a massive incentive for corporations to sue to have all sorts of rights to use the fact that you work there as an excuse to force their religious beliefs on you. If your boss can force you to use your earned benefits according to his religious dictates, why not the rest of your compensation? Since he signs your paycheck, will he be able to sue and say that you shouldn’t be able to spend it in ways he believes violate his religion? Being able to claim that their “religious freedom” exempts them from all sorts of labor laws will be a massive boon to the religious right, and they will certainly start looking for ways to expand the ways they can force you to live by their religious rules, beyond how you use your insurance.
Unsurprisingly, Hobby Lobby’s owner is a big fan of ignoring the First Amendment and demanding that the government endorse religion, as well. Not just any religion, but specifically the conservative interpretation of Christianity. The owner of Hobby Lobby has spent a fortune trying to get Bible study into public classrooms. He thinks by making it an “elective” course, that creates enough cover, but the Constitution is clear that the government cannot endorse any religion. Having a Bible study course is a clear endorsement of religion, something conservatives would immediately grasp if a school tried to start a Koran study course. But part of the religious right’s new definition of “religious freedom” is the belief that conservative Christianity is special and that its followers are entitled to foist their religion on people in ways no other religious believers get to do.
That’s what the religious right means by religious freedom: The removal of your right to have your own beliefs, free from interference by people who have power over you. The right dearly wants religious freedom to mean the right of conservative Christians and only conservative Christians to foist their beliefs on you through your job and through the government and squelch any cultural attempts to be inclusive of all the diverse belief systems in America. The only way to fight back is for liberals to reclaim the term “religious freedom” for what it really means: The right to choose for yourself what you believe without having the law or your boss trying to tip the scales.

Amanda Marcotte co-writes the blog Pandagon. She is the author of It's a Jungle Out There: The Feminist Survival Guide to Politically Inhospitable Environments.

ALEC spokesperson retreats after Ted Cruz advises, ‘Stand your ground’

ALEC spokesperson retreats after Ted Cruz advises, ‘Stand your ground’ (via Raw Story )

The reeling right-wing American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC) backpedaled quickly after remarks by Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX) seemingly linking it more explicitly to Florida’s heavily-criticized “Stand your ground” law. CNN reported on Thursday…

---

20 Things the Poor Really Do Everyday That the Rich Never Have to Worry About

Just staying alive is a struggle.

December 5, 2013  |  

 

This post first appeared on Ben Irwin's blog. 

Financial advisor and evangelical Christian Dave Ramsey probably wasn’t expecting this much pushback when he shared a piece contrasting the habits of the rich with those of the poor. In her response on CNN, Rachel Held Evans noted that Ramsey and Corley mistake correlation for causality when they suggest (without actually proving) that these habits are the cause of a person’s financial situation. (Did it never occur to them that it might be the other way around?)

Ramsey fired back, calling the pushback “immature and ignorant.” This from a guy who just made 20 sweeping assertions about 47 million poor people in the US — all based on a survey of 361 individuals.

That’s right. To come up with his 20 habits, Corley talked to just 233 wealthy people and 128 poor people. Ramsey can talk all he wants about Corley’s research passing the “common-sense smell test,” but it doesn’t pass the “research methodology 101” test.

To balance the picture a bit, I wanted to take a fact-based look at 20 things the poor do on a daily basis…

1. Search for affordable housing. 
Especially in urban areas, the waiting list for affordable housing can be a year or more. During that time, poor families either have to make do with substandard or dangerous housing, depend on the hospitality of relatives, or go homeless.
(Source: New York Times)

2. Try to make $133 worth of food last a whole month. 
That’s how much the average food stamp recipient gets each month. Imagine trying to eat well on $4.38 per day. It’s not easy, which is why many impoverished families resort to #3…
(Source: Kaiser Family Foundation)

3. Subsist on poor quality food. 
Not because they want to, but because they can’t afford high-quality, nutritious food. They’re trapped in a food system that subsidizes processed foods, making them artificially cheaper than natural food sources. So the poor are forced to eat bad food — if they’re lucky, that is…
(Sources: Washington Post; Journal of Nutrition, March 2008)

4. Skip a meal.
One in six Americans are food insecure. Which means (among other things) that they’re sometimes forced to go without eating.
(Sources: World Vision, US Department of Agriculture)

5. Work longer and harder than most of us.
While it’s popular to think people are poor because they’re lazy (which seems to be the whole point of Ramsey’s post), the poor actually work longer and harder than the rest of us. More than 80 percent of impoverished children have at least one parent who works; 60 percent have at least one parent who works full-time. Overall, the poor work longer hours than the so-called “job creators.”
(Source: Poverty and Learning, April 2008)

6. Go to bed 3 hours before their first job starts. 
Number 15 on Ramsey and Corley’s list was, “44% of [the] wealthy wake up three hours before work starts vs. 3% of [the] poor.” It may be true that most poor people don’t wake up three hours before work starts. But that could be because they’re more likely to work multiple jobs, in which case job #1 means they’re probably just getting to bed three hours before job #2 starts.
(Source: Poverty and Learning, April 2008)

7. Try to avoid getting beat up by someone they love. 
According to some estimates, half of all homeless women in America ran away to escape domestic violence.
(Source: National Coalition for the Homeless, 2009)

8. Put themselves in harm’s way, only to be kicked to the streets afterward. 
How else do you explain 67,000 63,000 homeless veterans?
(Source: US Department of Veterans Affairs, updated to reflect the most recent data)

9. Pay more than their fair share of taxes. 
Some conservative pundits and politicians like to think the poor don’t pay their fair share, that they are merely “takers.” While it’s true the poor don’t pay as much in federal income tax — usually because they don’t earn enough to qualify — they do pay sales tax, payroll tax, etc. In fact, the bottom 20% of earners pay TWICE as much in taxes (as a share of their income) as do the top 1%.
(Source: Institute on Taxation & Economic Policy, January 2013)

10. Fall further behind. 
Even when poverty is the result of poor decision-making, often it’s someone else’s choices that make the difference. If you experience poverty as a child, you are 3-4 times less likely to graduate high school. If you spend your entire childhood in poverty, you are 5 times less likely to graduate. Which means your future has been all but decided for you.
(Sources: World Vision, Children’s Defense Fund, Annie E. Casey Foundation)

11. Raise kids who will be poor. 
A child’s future earnings are closely correlated to their parents’ earnings. In other words, economic mobility — the idea that you can claw your way out of poverty if you just try hard enough is, more often than not, a myth.
(Sources: OECD, Economic Policy Institute)

12. Vote less. 
And who can blame them? I would be less inclined to vote if I didn’t have easy access to the polls and if I were subjected to draconian voter ID laws that are sold to the public as necessary to suppress nonexistent voter fraud.
(Source: The Center for Voting and Democracy)

13. When they do vote… vote pretty much the same as the rest of us. 
Following their defeat in 2012, conservatives took solace by reasoning that they’d lost to a bunch of “takers,” including the poor, who voted for Democrats because they want free handouts from big government. The reality is a bit more complex. Only a third of low-income voters identify as Democrats, about the same for all Americans, including wealthy voters.
(Sources: NPR, Pew Research Center)

14. Live with chronic pain. 
Those earning less than $12,000 a year are twice as likely to report feeling physical pain on any given day.
(Source: Kaiser Health News)

15. Live shorter lives. 
There is a 10-14 year gap in life expectancy between the rich and the poor. In recent years, poor people’s life expectancy has actually declined — in America, the wealthiest nation on the planet.
(Source: Health Affairs, 2012)

16. Use drugs and alcohol pretty much the same as (or less than) everyone else. 
Despite the common picture of inner city crack houses, drug use is pretty evenly spread across income groups. And rich people actually abuse alcohol more than the poor.
(Source: Poverty and Learning, April 2008)

17. Receive less in subsidized benefits than corporations. 
The US government spends around $60 billion on public housing and rental subsidies for low-income families, compared to more than $90 billion on corporate subsidies. Oil companies alone get around $70 billion. And that’s not counting the nearly $60 billion a year in tax breaks corporations enjoy by sheltering profits offshore. Or the $700 billion bailout banks got in 2008.
(Source: Think By Numbers)

18. Get themselves off welfare as soon as possible. 
Despite the odds, the vast majority of beneficiaries leave the welfare rolls within five years. Even in the absence of official welfare-to-work programming, most welfare recipients enroll in some form of vocational training. Why? Because they’re desperate to get off welfare.
(Source: US Department of Health and Human Services)

19. Have about the same number of children as everyone else. 
No, poor people do not have loads of children just so they can stay on welfare.
(Source: US Department of Health and Human Services)

20. Accomplish one single goal: stay alive.  
Poverty in America may not be as dire as poverty in other parts of the world, but many working poor families are nonetheless preoccupied with day-to-day survival. For them, life is not something to be enjoyed so much as endured.

These are the real habits of the poor, those with whom Jesus identifies most closely.