B3chtel Corporation is a "small business"

That's right.  According to the Republic Party [if they're going to call us the Democrat Party, I'm going to call them the Republic Party], the global engineering and construction firm B3chtel is a "small business." 

44,000+ employees + $31.4 billion in revenue = small business

Keith Olbermann says it better than I can:



I just cannot get over the fact that any working or middle class American would vote for this party.  They do not have your interests at heart, period.

And you call the COMPLAINT cynical?!

A news article for you:  Voter fraud in Arizona

A 30-second summary, in case you don't have time to read the article:

The Arizona Democratic Party has filed a complaint alleging that Republicans are recruiting "sham" Green Party candidates in an effort to split the Democratic vote.  They say the Rs are convincing people to switch their party registration to Green so that they can run as write-in candidates in the primary.  Under Arizona election laws, if they get just one write-in vote in the primary, they advance to the general election ballot in November.  All of the races they're running in happen to be competitive for the Democrats, so clearly they are hoping to split the Democratic vote with these fake Green candidates, and thereby hand the win to the Republican.

The Arizona Green Party has disavowed these new Green candidates.  The Democrats call the evidence "compelling," and say that it shows "an utter disregard for the voters of Arizona."  The Republicans have responded by pointing out that what they're doing is not illegal (true, but is it moral?), and call the accusations by the Democrats "cynical."

Who's really being cynical here?

Be afraid

You should really read Paul Krugman's column from yesterday.  It's scary.

How Dummies Protect Marriage

Target: The joke's on us

Many progressives refuse to shop at W@l-Mart. Some dislike the store's refusal to pay a living wage and provide adequate benefits for employees. Others believe that the store's "low prices" are a farce, and that we all end up paying for their shoddy employment and trade practices in the long run, through taxes that fund medicare, food stamps, environmental cleanups, and the like. So many progressives turned to Target. Target had all the convenience of its competitor, but was seen as a more progressive alternative.  It turns out Target has been laughing all the way to the bank for a long time now.

So let's clear up some misconceptions first.  Target did not give $150,000 to a conservative candidate this week.  That would be illegal, both under federal law and Minnesota law.  Rather, they gave the money to a group called MN Forward. MN Forward is an advocacy group that buys political ads favoring conservative candidates, including Minnesota Republican candidate for governor Tom Emmer. Emmer likes Arizona's approach toward immigration, and dislikes abortion rights and gays.  Sounds like a nice guy.  But anyway, MN Forward uses money from Target and other corporations to try to get guys like him elected.  That's where Target's recent $150,000 contribution went.

By the way, Best Buy gave this group $100,000 too, and Red Wing Shoes and Polaris Industries are other recent corporate contributors.  Just in case you were thinking about buying any electronics or snowmobiles in the near future.

But this is far from the first political contribution from Target, not by a long shot.  A couple of legal points first:

1) Under both federal and Minnesota law, it would be illegal for Target to give money directly to a candidate.

2) Under both federal and Minnesota law, Target can set up a political action committee that accepts voluntary donations from its executives and employees (but cannot contain any funds contributed directly from Targets corporate treasury) and give directly to candidates from that.  There are limits on both how much an individual can give to a PAC, and how much the PAC can give to a candidate.
 
3) Thanks to the Citizens United decision from earlier this year, Target may now use corporate treasury funds to buy ads for and against candidates.  They cannot coordinate with candidates in purchasing, designing, or producing the ads though, and they still can't give money directly to a candidate.  I imagine that by giving their money to MN Forward, Target was hoping to disguise their contribution a tiny bit and not attract as much attention for it as they would have gotten for just directly buying an ad themselves, under their own corporate name.  Oops.

4) Last but not least, individuals who work for corporations, including Target CEO Gregg Steinhafel, can contribute their own money to candidates in limited amounts.  Steinhafel can legally give a Minnesota gubernatorial candidate $2,000.  Or he could give $4,800 ($2,400 each in the primary and general elections) to a candidate for Congress.

This is where it gets interesting.  Target is crying foul at all the criticism they're getting, claiming they give to both political parties and support diversity, and in particular support the GLBT community.  Well, Gregg, I beg to differ.  See, the thing is, when you make a contribution above a certain amount, you have to disclose your name & your employer. This makes it fairly easy to track how much money is given by corporate executives to candidates.

If you visit opensecrets.org, you can view all the political contributions Gregg Steinhafel and his wife have made since early 2009.  Just type his name in the search box.  It adds up to $67,800. Here's where it went:

$18,100 - Republican Party of Minnesota
$10,000 - Freedom First PAC, run by Tim Pawlenty, Minnesota's Republican governor who has presidential aspirations
$10,000 - Retail Industry Leaders Association
$14,400 - Michele "crazy eyes" Bachmann, a Republican member of Congress from Minnesota who says Obama is making us a "nation of slaves" (Bachmann had to return $4,800 because Denise Steinhafel gave double the amount permitted by law)
$8,200 - Erik Paulsen, a Republican member of Congress from Minnesota
$2,400 - Eric Cantor, a Virginia Republican in Congress
$2,400 - Lisa Murkowski, a Republican U.S. Senator from Alaska; her daddy gave her his Senate seat when he got elected governor of Alaska and she's one of the oil industry's favorite members of Congress
$2,300 - Norm Coleman, the Republican who narrowly lost his U.S. Senate seat to Al Franken in 2008

One point to make before I blast this "diverse" list -- the Target Corporation's PAC (see #2 above -- Target executives can give their personal money to this PAC, but Target Corp. cannot) did give $30,000 to both the Republican and Democratic parties earlier this year.

So. I think that list of contributions displays about as much diversity as Arizona is going to have if they ever manage to get their anti-immigrant, brown-people-go-home policies fully enacted. In my opinion, Mr. Steinhafel's political contributions speak loudly and clearly of his moral values, which do not jive with mine. He wants to see elected people who oppose gay rights and a woman's right to choose. He favors low taxes for the wealthy. I could go on, but I think you get my drift. Call me unfair.  Accuse me of making assumptions about him based on this data. But why? Why would he give tens of thousands of dollars to these people if he didn't want them making decisions for the rest of us? And he is the leader of the Target Corporation too. His moral values have a big role in guiding the company.

Do you want to spend your money there? Do you want to help line his pockets so he can continue to support narrow-minded and intolerant candidates, not to mention a few total loons (Michele Bachmann, I'm talking about you here)?

And the new question, given Target's direct contribution to MN Forward out of its corporate treasury, do you want to give Target your hard-earned money so that they can attempt to undermine the well-being of your family by electing people whose policies and beliefs do not benefit the middle and working classes of America?  I don't.

Now where in the hell am I going to shop?!

I am a geek

Have you heard the new economists' rap?  It cracks me up.  Listen at NPR:  Fear the Boom and Bust.

Health care reform is a moral issue

This is what I was trying to say in this post (see point #4 in the "opinions" section).  He says it so much better than I did.  I fall on the side of security I guess, but I also believe that with security will come increased vitality.