boneyard bill
Veteran Member
Democrats have all kinds of problems these days what with Obamacare being so unpopular, the economy mired in the doldrums, the public having soundly thrashed Obama over even thinking about intervening in Syria, and now Putin having put him into an impossible corner over Ukraine; that they can't think of anything better to do than to put the blame on the Koch brothers who have been saying nasty things about Democrat policies and Democrat candidates, and they have the money available to make their opinions very widely known.
Of course, the Koch's aren't the only ones spending money on political campaigns and very likely not even the largest. Obama, after all, had the first billion dollar campaign in history.
At any rate, Charles Koch has finally decided to respond to his critics directly, and he did so on the pages of the Wall Street Journal:
http://online.wsj.com/news/articles...3978304579475860515021286.html?mod=hp_opinion
So Koch argues that he is fighting for liberty. He doesn't want government hand-outs or government protections for himself or his industries. But he doesn't want government running your life either.
Bingo! What arguments do we hear from liberals and Democrats constantly. People who oppose us are bad people. If you don' t like Obamacare, you want people to die. If you claim that women are making as much money as men for the same job, you are a sexist. If you opposed gay marriage ten years ago (when Obama publicly opposed gay marriage), you are a homophobe and therefore immediately disqualified from running a corporation. The list goes on and on. Don't defend the details of the proposal. No. Attack the character of the person making the criticism.
Wow! There's a program that should be tailor-made for Obama. Worried about income inequality? How about starting with corporate welfare? Republicans want to cut spending? Why doesn't Obama send them a bunch of corporate welfare programs to eliminate? If there's one thing that Obama and at least the libertarian wing of Republicans should be able to agree upon, it should be the elimination of corporate welfare.
The biggest corporate welfare boondoggle of them all is probably the Export-Import Bank. It amounts to little more that a huge subsidy to Boeing. Guess what? Republicans proposed to eliminate it, but it was voted down by the Democrat Senate. Then there are agricultural subsidies. Let's face it. Agribusiness gets the vast majority of the money spent on these subsidies. Again, Republicans proposed to slash agricultural subsidies, but the measure was blocked by Democrats.
But Obama at least favors free trade. He doesn't want to protect American consumers from lower prices for imports. That's why he has asked for "fast track" authority to negotiate more free trade agreements to help American consumers while opening up foreign markets for our producers. How's he doing? The measure passed the Republican-controlled House but is being blocked by Senate Democrats!
Let's also not forget TARP, the big bank bail-out. It was defeated by conservative Republicans in the House with help from a small band of liberal Democrats. But Obama rushed to Washington to lobby those Democrats to switch their votes, and it passed the second time around. And TARP was really small potatoes when you consider the trillions that the Fed has showered on the big banks with Obama's total approval.
It is pointless to listen to political rhetoric but especially so with respect to Democrats and liberals who rarely spout anything other than name-calling to defend their programs. LOOK AT WHAT THEY DO! Democrats will throw your money in any direction that they think will win them votes, but especially where they think it will win them campaign contributions.
Apropos of this Koch points out:
Of course, the Koch's aren't the only ones spending money on political campaigns and very likely not even the largest. Obama, after all, had the first billion dollar campaign in history.
At any rate, Charles Koch has finally decided to respond to his critics directly, and he did so on the pages of the Wall Street Journal:
http://online.wsj.com/news/articles...3978304579475860515021286.html?mod=hp_opinion
A truly free society is based on a vision of respect for people and what they value. In a truly free society, any business that disrespects its customers will fail, and deserves to do so. The same should be true of any government that disrespects its citizens. The central belief and fatal conceit of the current administration is that you are incapable of running your own life, but those in power are capable of running it for you. This is the essence of big government and collectivism.
More than 200 years ago, Thomas Jefferson warned that this could happen. "The natural progress of things," Jefferson wrote, "is for liberty to yield and government to gain ground."
So Koch argues that he is fighting for liberty. He doesn't want government hand-outs or government protections for himself or his industries. But he doesn't want government running your life either.
Instead of encouraging free and open debate, collectivists strive to discredit and intimidate opponents. They engage in character assassination. (I should know, as the almost daily target of their attacks.) This is the approach that Arthur Schopenhauer described in the 19th century, that Saul Alinsky famously advocated in the 20th, and that so many despots have infamously practiced. Such tactics are the antithesis of what is required for a free society—and a telltale sign that the collectivists do not have good answers.
Bingo! What arguments do we hear from liberals and Democrats constantly. People who oppose us are bad people. If you don' t like Obamacare, you want people to die. If you claim that women are making as much money as men for the same job, you are a sexist. If you opposed gay marriage ten years ago (when Obama publicly opposed gay marriage), you are a homophobe and therefore immediately disqualified from running a corporation. The list goes on and on. Don't defend the details of the proposal. No. Attack the character of the person making the criticism.
Far from trying to rig the system, I have spent decades opposing cronyism and all political favors, including mandates, subsidies and protective tariffs—even when we benefit from them. I believe that cronyism is nothing more than welfare for the rich and powerful, and should be abolished.
Koch Industries was the only major producer in the ethanol industry to argue for the demise of the ethanol tax credit in 2011. That government handout (which cost taxpayers billions) needlessly drove up food and fuel prices as well as other costs for consumers—many of whom were poor or otherwise disadvantaged. Now the mandate needs to go, so that consumers and the marketplace are the ones who decide the future of ethanol.
Wow! There's a program that should be tailor-made for Obama. Worried about income inequality? How about starting with corporate welfare? Republicans want to cut spending? Why doesn't Obama send them a bunch of corporate welfare programs to eliminate? If there's one thing that Obama and at least the libertarian wing of Republicans should be able to agree upon, it should be the elimination of corporate welfare.
The biggest corporate welfare boondoggle of them all is probably the Export-Import Bank. It amounts to little more that a huge subsidy to Boeing. Guess what? Republicans proposed to eliminate it, but it was voted down by the Democrat Senate. Then there are agricultural subsidies. Let's face it. Agribusiness gets the vast majority of the money spent on these subsidies. Again, Republicans proposed to slash agricultural subsidies, but the measure was blocked by Democrats.
But Obama at least favors free trade. He doesn't want to protect American consumers from lower prices for imports. That's why he has asked for "fast track" authority to negotiate more free trade agreements to help American consumers while opening up foreign markets for our producers. How's he doing? The measure passed the Republican-controlled House but is being blocked by Senate Democrats!
Let's also not forget TARP, the big bank bail-out. It was defeated by conservative Republicans in the House with help from a small band of liberal Democrats. But Obama rushed to Washington to lobby those Democrats to switch their votes, and it passed the second time around. And TARP was really small potatoes when you consider the trillions that the Fed has showered on the big banks with Obama's total approval.
It is pointless to listen to political rhetoric but especially so with respect to Democrats and liberals who rarely spout anything other than name-calling to defend their programs. LOOK AT WHAT THEY DO! Democrats will throw your money in any direction that they think will win them votes, but especially where they think it will win them campaign contributions.
Apropos of this Koch points out:
These falsehoods remind me of the late Sen. Daniel Patrick Moynihan's observation, "Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not to his own facts."