Remember back in 2009 when Claire McCaskill and Russ Carnahan refused to hold town halls because the Teahadists were screaming at them? Me neither. The Democratic electeds soldiered on, listening to purple faced right wingers scream about liberty. Now the Tea Party darling, Todd Akin, not only refuses to hold town halls–ok, I get it, it’s the post-Gabby-Gifford era–he is keeping little old ladies at parking-lot’s-length. Damn their First Amendment rights for “redress of grievances.” When the old folks brigade arrived one day last week to complain about Republican attacks on Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security, so did five cop cars and a van. The citizens didn’t so much as make it onto the parking lot. What, did Akin’s staffers think one of the ladies had a grenade launcher stashed in her handbag?

Tuesday night, in front of the St. Louis County Council, Susan Cunningham and Carl Peterson wondered aloud–but politely–if that kind of police presence was really necessary. All Peterson had wanted that day was a chance to point out that Paul Ryan’s budget, which House Republicans passed, proposed to save money in the federal budget by “eliminating taxes on interest, capital gains, and dividends.” That’s how the government could, wait … save … money? No, not exactly, but it does save the rich a lot of money. It reminds me of: “In order to save the city of Hue U.S. government, we had to destroy it.”

PoliticMo reports that Roy Blunt is up in arms about reports that a portion of the disaster relief funds promised to aid the Joplin recovery might be delayed so that the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) can address the devastation caused by Hurricane Irene. Where Senator McCaskill, for her part, expresses resolve to “fight to make sure” that Joplin gets its due, Blunt directs his rhetorical attack directly at FEMA:

If FEMA can’t fulfill its promise to our state because we have other disasters, that’s unacceptable, and we need to take a serious look at how our disaster response policies are funded and implemented.

The situation in Joplin is serious and we all expect both McCaskill and Blunt to do their best to insure that it is adequately addressed. Nevertheless, the focus of Blunt’s pugnacious response does prompt a few questions:

— Why is Blunt questioning implementation? The issue here seems to be one of funding pure and simple. If nature persists in dumping one disaster after another on the United States, we will have to ration relief funds if they aren’t adequate. But when it comes to implementation, the consensus of reasonable people seems to be that the current FEMA, as opposed to the bad old Bush FEMA, seems to be doing an excellent job and can be expected to continue to so so as long as sufficient funds are available.

— In view of the primacy of the funding issue, what does Blunt have to say to GOP party leaders, like Eric Cantor, who are willing to continue to hold the well-being of Americans hostage, this time by making disaster relief contingent upon ideologically driven spending cuts, cuts that in many instances make us less able to respond to disasters in the first place?

— What does he say to those of his GOP confrères, such as Ron Paul, who are loudly trumpeting their desire to do away with or seriously weaken FEMA?

Given these facts, the real question is whether Blunt is huffing and puffing about FEMA in order to gain political points at home while undercutting the excellent job that the Obama administration has done in rehabilitating the agency, or whether he’s really willing to blow down the GOP House that is proposing to pull the legs out from under the agency at a crucial time. How can we know the answer? Easy – when Blunt shows that he can stand up to the Tea Party brigade and support strings-free funding of FEMA, we’ll know just how sincere he really is.

Curious.

Yesterday, at the Missouri Ethics Commission:

CONTRIBUTION OF MORE THAN $5,000.00 RECEIVED BY ANY COMMITTEE FROM ANY SINGLE DONOR – TO BE FILED WITHIN 48 HOURS OF RECEIVING THE CONTRIBUTION

C031260 DOOLEY FOR ST LOUIS COUNTY [pdf] 8/30/2011

Rex Sinquefield

244 Bent Walnut

Westphalia, MO 65085

Retired

8/30/2011

$5,001.00

[emphasis added]

Today, at the Missouri Ethics Commission:

CONTRIBUTION OF MORE THAN $5,000.00 RECEIVED BY ANY COMMITTEE FROM ANY SINGLE DONOR – TO BE FILED WITHIN 48 HOURS OF RECEIVING THE CONTRIBUTION

C031260 DOOLEY FOR ST LOUIS COUNTY [pdf] 8/31/2011

Rex Sinquefield

244 Bent Walnut

Westphalia, MO 65085

Retired

8/31/2011

$5,001.00

[emphasis added]

What’s with the two identical contributions twenty-four hours apart? Or was it a reporting system glitch?

Nice touch, the $1.00, so it’ll have to show up on the forty-eight hour report. Making sure everyone knows who’s writing the checks as they happen? Just asking.

Oh, boy. Pass the popcorn. It looks like Missouri State Auditor Tom Schweich (r) probably won’t assimilate this lesson.

@tonymess Tony Messenger

Post-Dispatch: Editorial: Auditor’s lawsuit values his budget over victims of Joplin tornado bit.ly/pVskRn 7 hours ago

Evidently the State Auditor doesn’t understand the optics. In today’s St. Louis Post-Dispatch:

Editorial: Auditor’s lawsuit values his budget over victims of Joplin tornado

Say this for Missouri Auditor Thomas Schweich: His audacity knows no bounds.

On Friday, Mr. Schweich, a Republican, sued Gov. Jay Nixon, a Democrat, over how Mr. Nixon has chosen to balance the state’s budget.

On its surface, the action might seem like just another example of a politician who equates governance with campaigning, a typical attempt at blatant partisanship wrapped up in legal arguments weaker than a first-year law student’s paper written after an all-night bender….

…Missourians should be grateful that our constitution and our Legislature gave the governor the flexibility to respond to disasters. That same constitution gave Mr. Schweich a legitimate avenue to protest Mr. Nixon’s decisions: He could run for governor.

Good luck getting votes in Joplin.

[emphasis added]

@tonymess Tony Messenger

Did Schweich really hold presser to demand retraction on editorial about lawsuit he refused to talk about? Really? Good luck with that. 3 hours ago

Yep, there you have it, the best State Auditor money could buy.

@tonymess Tony Messenger

Schweich is right about the need for an apology on the editorial. I apologize to post-bender first-year law students. bit.ly/ocK2iq 3 hours ago

Okay, that left a mark.

Otto West: Don’t call me stupid.

Wanda: Oh, right! To call you stupid would be an insult to stupid people! I’ve known sheep that could outwit you. I’ve worn dresses with higher IQs. But you think you’re an intellectual, don’t you, ape?

Otto West: Apes don’t read philosophy.

Wanda: Yes they do, Otto. They just don’t understand it. Now let me correct you on a couple of things, OK? Aristotle was not Belgian. The central message of Buddhism is not “Every man for himself.” And the London Underground is not a political movement. Those are all mistakes, Otto. I looked them up.

Apparently, the dark lord has written a book and is hawking it.

“No blood for oil.”

@democracynow Democracy Now!

Ex-Bush Official Col. Lawrence Wilkerson: “I Am Willing To Testify” If Dick #Cheney Is Put On Trial owl.li/6gAjV @ggreenwald 2 hours ago

“….This is a book written out of fear, fear that one day someone will ‘Pinochet’ Dick Cheney,” says Wilkerson, alluding to the former Chilean dictator Augusto Pinochet, who was arrested for war crimes. Wilkerson also calls for George W. Bush and Cheney to be held accountable for their crimes in office. “I’d be willing to testify, and I’d be willing to take any punishment I’m due,” Wilkerson said….

That’s some book review. Damn, in the coming days and weeks we’re all gonna need garlic if we stroll past the remainder bin at our favorite bulk shopping venues.

Previously:

Okay, this is really funny in a schadenfreude kind of way (August 18, 2011)

Kinder losing brownie points with major donor (August 19, 2011)

Campaign Finance: somebody’s still raising big bucks for 2012 (August 23, 2011)

Peter Kinder sent a lengthy communication to his e-mail list today. Let’s see, God, guns, gays, abortion, and Obamacare. Check, check, check, check, and check. Did we mention Obamacare? Yes, and check. Oh, and Democrats are mean and everything. Jay Nixon, too.

Curiously, there was no mention of family values.  

From: Team Kinder (team@teamkinder.com)

To: [….]

Sent: Mon, Aug 29, 2011 [….]

Subject: Message from Lt. Governor Peter Kinder

Fellow Missourian:

I am communicating directly with you so you don’t have to sort through all the spin by the press and bloggers whose agenda have replaced the truth and facts….

Bloggers? Who, us?

…While my opponents’ operatives have taken advantage of a situation you may have heard of, I accept complete responsibility and apologize to you for my actions of almost 17 years ago as a single man.

With that being said, I strongly oppose the notion that Republicans should allow Democrat dirty tricks or media bias to disqualify or choose the Republican nominee for Governor.

Who should be the Republican nominee for Governor in 2012?

I believe that question should be answered by Republican voters and activists, not the media, and certainly not the self-described kingmakers, nor the special interests and insiders.  

There are 15 months until the election. I have not announced for Governor. I have not filed nor have I been nominated to be the Republican candidate; yet, some insiders and media pundits are calling for me to bow out of a race I have not even entered.

In my entire career nothing has been given to me.  I have never had an easy race. I first ran for state Senate in 1992. My opponent was a former First Lady of our state who had been her Party’s gubernatorial nominee four years earlier. With the help of hundreds of volunteers, I came from behind to win making me the first Republican ever to represent any Bootheel counties in the Missouri Senate.

I have had to fight and work hard to win every battle.  After almost 20 years of service, I am not going to quit now without letting the rank and file of our Party be part of the process. Part of that process is letting you and others know the REAL RECORD and the REAL REASON the Democrats supporting Jay Nixon have orchestrated these early personal attacks.

In the Missouri Senate, I sponsored, passed and worked to override the governor’s veto of Missouri’s first ban on partial-birth abortion.

I sponsored legislation defining marriage as a union between one man and one woman.

In 2001, I led Republicans to their first Senate majority in over 50 years. Upon my election to Senate President Pro Tem, I immediately bucked senior members of the party by instituting reforms, eliminating corruption, and cutting the budget by almost 20 percent.

As President Pro Tem, I sponsored and won approval for the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, a measure that restores the highest constitutional protections for the fundamental right to worship.  Under my leadership we passed Missouri’s Conceal and Carry Law, which gave law abiding citizens the right to carry a firearm.

I took on Jay Nixon when he was Attorney General, uncovering insider contracts where he paid trial attorneys over $20,000 an hour for work on the state’s tobacco settlement which robbed taxpayers of tens of millions of dollars.

I worked to pass legislation establishing a sales-tax holiday in Missouri giving families relief from sales tax for a three-day period to assist them with buying clothes and supplies for school. My innovative tax relief is helping Missouri’s economy by increasing retail sales at the same time it helps Missouri families.

For over almost two decades I have fought and successfully sponsored the creation of Charter schools that give urban children and parents a choice for the first time, and more importantly, a chance of succeeding.

In 2004, I faced the popular former Secretary of State and came from behind.  I was the first Republican to be elected Lt. Governor in nearly 30 years. In 2008, when Republicans across the country lost in the Democrat landslide election, I was the only Republican to win statewide.

As Acting Governor in 2005, I signed into law the Missouri Military Family Relief Fund.  The Fund makes grants available to families of persons who are members of the Missouri National Guard or Missouri residents who are members of the reserves and have been called into active duty as a result of the terrorist attacks on September 11, 2001.

Since being elected your Lt. Governor, I have returned money to taxpayers every year.  Last year alone I returned almost 10 percent of my budget to the state treasury.

Last August, Missourians rejected the Obama-Pelosi-Reid Healthcare Bill by passing Proposition C by over 70 percent. Despite this result, Governor Nixon refused to act on behalf of Missouri Taxpayers.  In-fact Nixon continues to spend your tax dollars to prepare for the implementation of the federal mandates required by Obamacare. I acted by raising private money and have financed a constitutional challenge against the federal mandate requiring individuals to carry health insurance. Twenty-one states and executive and legislative officials in four other states have signed on to support my constitutional challenge which is likely to end up in the Supreme Court.  

I have always been a team player. Four years ago, I chose not to run for Governor to preserve party unity and commited [sic] myself to helping other Republicans. Last year alone, I raised and donated over $300,000 for Republican candidates, raised money for the Republican Party and attended over 50 fundraisers for legislative candidates.

Today we are at a crossroads.  Missouri’s economy is languishing in ruin and the current Governor has done nothing. Missouri had the third worst job loss rate in the country last year and ranks 49 out of 50 states in monthly employment growth

since January 2009. No state has suffered a longer drought in employment growth than Missouri. From January 2009 to March 2010, Missouri saw 14 consecutive months of decline in employment. Nearly 83,000 jobs have disappeared since Jay Nixon became Governor.

What can a Governor do to help create jobs?  In Missouri, we have looked to other states with innovative Governors to find an answer.  Our current Governor continues to embarrass our state by showing Governors across the country what not to do.  A defining example of Jay Nixon’s dereliction of duty occurred in 2009.  While Governors from other states were meeting with Harley Davidson to try and lure jobs to their states, Governor Nixon cancelled his appointment with the company choosing to spend the day at the State Fair.  This inexcusable behavior contributed to a major loss of what could have been nearly 1,300 good paying jobs.  Another example is Jay Nixon’s refusal to return calls from the official in his administration tasked with helping create Missouri jobs.  For this reason, Governor Nixon’s Director of Economic Development resigned in frustration stating she had been “unable to meet” the governor “to discuss and reconcile our different views on how to move the state… forward.”  You deserve better.

I believe in our state, and I believe the people of this state have an untapped greatness. I am committed to waging a winning campaign as I have done 5 times befor
e.

But before I make my decision, I will begin a statewide tour and visit every corner of the state and meet with conservatives, grassroots activists and all Missouri voters, while listening to you and your concerns. I will share the details of my plans of how we can restore Missouri’s greatness by creating new higher paying jobs, cutting waste and fraud of taxpayers’ dollars, improving schools, and rebuilding our communities.

Before I make my final decision, I want the chance to earn your trust so together we make the difference you deserve. Together we can chart a course to win in November 2012. Without your support I cannot succeed, and I will not run if I cannot win. The decision should reside in your hands, not a few powerbrokers or the media.  If I were not a real threat to their politics as usual and out of control spending, they would not be attacking me so viciously and falsely.

I cannot express enough my appreciation for your friendship and support.  I look forward to seeing you on the campaign trail soon!

Your friend,

Peter D. Kinder

[….]

Paid for by Friends of Peter Kinder, Ernie Lee, Treasurer

This message was sent to [….] from:

Friends of Peter Kinder | PO Box 712

| Jefferson City, MO 65102-0712

“…Missouri had the third worst job loss rate in the country last year and ranks 49 out of 50 states in monthly employment growth

since January 2009. No state has suffered a longer drought in employment growth than Missouri. From January 2009 to March 2010, Missouri saw 14 consecutive months of decline in employment. Nearly 83,000 jobs have disappeared…”

And which party controlled both houses of the General Assembly during that period? Anyone? Anyone?

So, if we have really low taxes and our employment numbers suck and other states have higher taxes and better employment numbers what does that tell us? Maybe that continual investment in public infrastructure and services attracts development and employers? Go figure.

“…The decision should reside in your hands, not a few powerbrokers or the media…”

Are bloggers powerbrokers or media? Just asking.

Since declaring for the presidency a few weeks ago, Rick Perry, the GOP Texas Tornado – a blast of hot air with a lot of destructive potential –  has been amusing those of us with a taste for political absurdities with almost every utterance. By now, almost everyone in the civilized world has heard that Perry is convinced that not only is Social Security unconstitutional, but it is actually a big government “Ponzi scheme.”  As Jonathan Bernstein observes, such an assertion means only that “Perry either doesn’t understand Social Security, doesn’t understand Ponzi schemes or is simply not telling the truth.”  

Perry may not understand what a Ponzi scheme really is, but the underlying meme – that the Social Security reserve will be exhausted before today’s young workers reach retirement – is a staple of GOP rhetoric. It rears its ugly head right away in a scheme to “reform” Social Security that Missouri Senator Roy Blunt proposed on July 12:

Blunt doesn’t talk about Ponzi schemes explicitly – maybe because, unlike Perry, he actually knows what one is. He does, however, press the case that because the ratio of those paying into the system to those drawing benefits will continue to decrease for some years (he claims, falselly,that it is a permanent situation), it will not be able to support future retirees. Blunt’s argument is that half a loaf is better than none, and that we must cut the benefits of future retirees in order to ensure that they get anything at all.  

 

Problem is, the story about a soon-to-be bankrupt Social Security is pure fiction:

The Social Security trustees project now that payroll taxes will fall below benefit payments in 2010 and 2011, exceed benefit payments from 2012 to 2014, and then continuously exceed benefit payments through 2015 [14]. The interest and principal from the bonds in the trust funds will help to cover the cash shortfall after 2015 through 2037 [15]. The date of final trust fund exhaustion has not changed from the trustees projections made in 2009. The program can pay on average 78 percent of its promised benefits with its tax revenue from 2037 to 2085, if nothing changes

Let’s see – twenty four years down the road Social Security will have to pay out somewhat less to beneficiaries if nothing is done. So why is Blunt claiming that we have to cut future retirees’ benefits when that will happen automatically if we do nothing? And he’s not even telling the whole story about the damage he wants to do. He’s also proposing to calculate cost of living adjustments (colas) according to a chained CPI index that will cost current retirees at least $18,000 in benefits – although he explicitly claims that his proposal will not touch anyone 55 or older. Wonder why he wants to hide that particular fact? You think maybe he wants to be reelected? Or is he just blindly glomming onto the chained CPI index that happens to be popular among the GOP political set right now.

We can actually avoid the unappealing but far from dire benefit cuts predicted for 2035 very easily. Along with cutting benefits via chained CPI and raising the retirement age, Blunt proposes means testing. However, there would be little or no need to cut benefits if the cap on income subject to Social Security taxes were to be lifted in accord with any of several scenarios that have been put forward.  Instead of means testing, which weakens Social Security, make it stronger and let the wealthy pay their fair share – which, currently, is not the case:

The cap also means that higher-income individuals pay a smaller share of their income in Social Security taxes than middle-class employees. Including the employee and employer shares of Social Security and Medicare taxes, earners in the middle fifth of the income distribution pay an average effective payroll tax of about 11 percent. In contrast, the top 1 percent of earners pay just 1.5 percent on average.

At any rate, it doesn’t sound like today’s 20 and 30 year old workers really need to worry about whether or not Social Security will be there for them – as long as politicians like Roy Blunt keep their hands off the program. Nevertheless, a 2010 Gallup poll showed that 76% of Americans between 18 and 34 do not believe that they will receive Social Security benefits when they retire.

Their misapprehension is not really surprising. Listen to Blunt spin the story about how Social Security will be all gone if we don’t hand the program over to folks like him to fix, folks who, like Rick Perry, think it’s unconstitutional, or, more likely in Blunt’s case, an affront to the sensibilities of their Wall Street cronies, and it’s easy to understand why young Americans are so skeptical about the future of their benefits. Since George Bush opened the war on Social Security with his call to privatization in 2005, we have been bombarded with talk of the coming Social Security crisis. Even Democrats like Claire McCaskill are glad to join in the chorus. In such circumstances, who wouldn’t believe that Social Security will soon be moribund?

Unfortunately, this particular story is not only false, but intellectually corrupt. Speaking of Perry’s Ponzi scheme allegation, Bernstein concludes that:

In my view, saying that Social Security is a deliberate fraud – a Ponzi scheme – is about as irresponsible as truther or birther conspiracy thinking.

As far as I’m concerned, misleading rhetoric and outright falsehoods about the status of Social Security is just as irresponsible – even without the simple-minded insinuation that it’s a conscious fraud – and ultimately far more pernicious.

Addenda:  Here’s what Ezra Klein has to say about Social Security vs. Ponzi schemes. Note that the only thing they have in common is GOP politicians who persist in erroneously comparing them.  

Missouri State Senator Victor Callahan (D) can no longer run for the Senate due to term limits.

Yesterday, at the Missouri Ethics Commission:

CONTRIBUTION OF MORE THAN $5,000.00 RECEIVED BY ANY COMMITTEE FROM ANY SINGLE DONOR – TO BE FILED WITHIN 48 HOURS OF RECEIVING THE CONTRIBUTION

C031152 CALLAHAN FOR MISSOURI [pdf] 8/28/2011

Simmons, Browder, Gianaris etal – Attorneys at Law

One Court Street

Alton, IL 62002

8/27/2011

$15,000.00

[emphasis added]

Uh, yep:

CANDIDATE Date Established: 8/12/2003

Date Terminated:

COMMITTEE: MECID:C031152

CALLAHAN FOR MISSOURI

CANDIDATE: VICTOR CALLAHAN

OFFICE SOUGHT: STATEWIDE OFFICE

Date of Election:8/7/2012

Political Party:DEMOCRAT

[emphasis added]

$15,000.00 is a good start.

Previously:

Rep. Vicky Hartzler (r): frankly, it looks like a campaign mailing (July 7, 2011)

Rep. Vicky Hartzler (r) wants to kill Medicare… (April 6, 2011)

We received another franked campaign style mailing today from Representative Vicky Hartzler (r). This time it’s propaganda trying to sell Representative Paul Ryan’s (r) republican House majority plan to kill Medicare.

From Representative Hartzler’s (r) mailing:

UPDATE FOR SENIORS

…Medicare is one of our nation’s most valued programs, and we need to protect it for the millions of seniors that currently rely on Medicare for their health insurance…

That’s interesting, this appears to be at odds with House Majority Leader Eric Cantor’s (r) view of Medicare:

…As Cantor sees it, the existing Medicare program simply must be eliminated for fiscal reasons, replaced with a privatized system. In other words, the Paul Ryan plan that was soundly rejected by voters and policy experts alike is still the preferred model for the House Republican leadership…

…Also note the rhetoric the oft-confused House Majority Leader uses: the United States has made promises to the public, and as far as Eric Cantor is concerned, “many” Americans will simply have to accept that those promises “are not going to be kept.”

Why not? Because Republicans say so. Promises to Grover Norquist are sacrosanct, but promises to senior citizens are not…

Again, from Representative Hartzler’s (r) mailing:

…I support a plan in Congress that will help protect Medicare for current seniors and preserve it for generations to come. The proposal is similar to Medicare Advantage in that it would enlist health insurance companies to offer insurance for future seniors that would be subsidized by the federal government…

[emphasis in original]

Really? Medicare Advantage will save money? Really?:

The Cost of Privatization: Extra Payments to Medicare Advantage Plans-Updated and Revised [pdf]

ABSTRACT: The Medicare Modernization Act of 2003 sharply increased payments to private Medicare Advantage plans. As a result, every plan in every county in the nation was paid more in 2005 than its enrollees would have been expected to cost if they had been enrolled in traditional fee-for-service Medicare. The authors calculate that payments to Medicare Advantage plans averaged 12.4 percent more than costs in traditional Medicare during 2005: a total of more than $5.2 billion, or $922 for each of the 5.6 million Medicare enrollees in managed care. This issue brief updates an earlier analysis of Medicare Advantage payments in 2005 previously published by The Commonwealth Fund; the updated estimates in this report are based on final 2005 enrollment figures that were not available at the time the previous estimates were developed, and they include the effect of policy decisions that were not reflected in the previous estimates….

[emphasis added]

Representative Vicky Hartzler (r) must think her constituents are stoopid.

Yep, it’s a franked mail piece. Any idea what it cost taxpayers? Just asking.

It gets even better, on the B side of the mailing:

From Representative Hartzler’s (r) mail piece:

No changes to medicare for Americans 55 years and older

[emphasis in original]

It’s just the people 54 and younger who are gonna get screwed so that the top 1% can continue receiving their tax break windfalls.

…In Congress, I’m fighting to:

Protect Medicare and ensure doctors receive fair compensation for treating Medicare patients…

Because Medicare is all about increasing payments to doctors rather than making access to affordable health care a reality for all seniors, right?

Bragging on that nice plaque from a republican astroturf organization paid for by corporations. Here’s to looking after the little people.

The 60 Plus Association honored Representative Vicky Hartzler (r) for her work? Really?

The 60 Plus Association: A Corporate Assault in “Good-for-Seniors” Clothing

The 60 Plus Association, a pharmaceutical industry front group, claims it is a “nonpartisan senior advocacy group,” but it really operates counter to elderly citizens’ best interests. 60 Plus advocates positions on issues that benefit big corporations but that stand to harm seniors….

A Scary Primer on the 60-Plus Association

The “60-Plus Association” was AstroTurf before AstroTurf was cool. These kinds of right wing phony groups are a dime a dozen now. 60-Plus is a DC outfit mostly made up of longtime Republican operatives that pretend to be concerned about senior issues. In reality they appear to exist for little more than to help Republicans win elections and to scare the elderly….

….The 60-Plus Association fancies itself as a right-wing version of the AARP but its IRS filings show that it derives zero dollars from actual membership dues, even though it lists over $1.8 million in revenues. So if they are not getting their money from their nonexistent “membership” then how are they paying to scare… seniors? [60-Plus Association 2008 IRS Form 990]

Some of that question was answered when AARP hired an independent investigator to thoroughly research the phony group and they found that the pharmaceutical industry is actually paying a lot of the bills. The report revealed that in 2001 alone, 60-Plus got hundreds of thousands of dollars from some of the following: the Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America (PhRMA); drug companies like Merck, Pfizer and Wyeth-Ayerst, and even from Hanwha International Corp.; which is the U.S. subsidiary of a Korean conglomerate with chemical and pharmaceutical interests. For this reason a Public Citizen report described 60-Plus as being part of “PhRMA’s Stealth PACS” [pdf]. [AARP Bulletin Today, “Pulling Strings from Afar”, 2003]….

Carrying water for corporate interests gets you a plaque and screws the seniors in your district, but you shouldn’t be bragging about it in your taxpayer paid for mail pieces. Yep, Representative Hartzler (r) thinks her constituents are stoopid.

Does anyone think that private insurance companies are going to insure seniors with credible health insurance at a cost less than Medicare? Anyone? Anyone?