Americans for Finacial Reform

Rolling Stones writer, turned financial system truth-sayer, Matt Taibbi put it this way [1]:

There are about 1800 financial lobbyists wandering DC these days — I was physically bumping into these guys in DC this week in the halls of Hart and Dirksen — while the leading reform groups (like Americans for Financial Reform) have few if any. (AFR, as far as I understand, has no paid lobbyists and just a few dozen volunteers).

With the "Audit the Fed" legislation going to conference committee, where a one-time audit could be converted into a more routine process, now is a good time to support Americans for Financial Reform.

Sources:

1. Matt Taibbi blog post, "Balance in the Washington Post," May 8, 2010.

The Tea Party, the tea party and the "tea party"

Happy Tea Party Day!

OK, I'll admit a more succinct title would have been "The Many Faces of the Tea Party."

In response to the monopolistic power of the East India Company, incorporated by Britain, Bostonians took matters into their own hands... a foreshadowing of the American Revolution. As Thom Hartmann likes to say, the 1773 Boston Tea Party was a strike against the Wal-Mart of the colonial era.

Today, the "tea party" term has been adopted by anti-tax proponents. But the title of this post uses the term "tea party" three times. That's because the modern day "tea party" movement is of two faces. One face is of sincere, frustrated ordinary people who are looking for answers to explain why hard working people who play by the rules are suffering economic woes.

The other face of the "movemment", call it Tea Party 2, is summed up by "Americans for Prosperity (AFP)," the corporate-funded group that has been leading the cross-country tea party bus tour. Historically, AFP's "grass roots" organizing has been are paid for by cigarette corporations, climate change denying corporations and most recently by health industry corporations.

The relationship between Tea Party 1, the sincere Americans concerned with a corrupted government, and Tea Party 2, the corporate-sponsored part, is simple on one level, complex on another. It's simple in as much as I've just laid it out; corporations pay organizations like AFP to generate "grass roots" pressure on the Washington bureaucracy to maintain their interests.

But it's also complex. Tea Party 1 (the people), for the most part, is not aware of the role of Tea Party 2 (AFP). Many, I'd guess most, of the people of the movement don't realize that AFP, a Washington-based lobbying firm, is cut from the cloth of the Washington corruption they despise (click on the link to AFP above). Further, the people in Tea Party 1 don't realize that it was corporate abuse of power in 1773, as it is today, that is the root of the problem today; the movement's goal should not be so much about "less government," but more about "less corporate power." True, we want to maintain our privacy from prying government eyes, and other abuses of power, but if we could elect a government that represents we the people, rather than the corporate interests, we could make a more perfect union.

Of course, that goal is at odds with the interests of Tea Party 2 which operates on behalf of the corporations. So, part of the solution is for the "Tea Party" movement to evolve and attain its freedom from the corporate masters; the movement needs to secure it's independence as a movement of, by and for the people.

Tea Party and AFP

OK. I'm trying to find common ground with the right wing... civil liberties are good issues.

But, then there is this healthcare thing.

Granted, being forced to buy private health care, and enrich the insurance corporations rubs me the wrong way... there's some common ground. (Forget insurance pool size issues... like it doesn't work if the pool is too small).... Should probably have a single-payer system (cut out the corporate middleman... keep the money among we the people)... or turn people away from hospitals if they don't have insurance (they have the "individual right" not to be insured and not get treated... never mind the hippocratic oath... of course, sick people can spread their illness... ah, never mind... making it too complicated!!).

None of what follows deters from my original thesis about the great potential of principled people on the right and left working together on important issues.

The Tea Parties, in many cases, take their lead on healthcare from Americans for Prosperity (AFP) and it's president Tim Phillips? Not sure he fits the term "principled" when it comes to conservatives. He's more of a hired gun for corporations.

AFP got its start working for the cigarette corporations ... one can argue that cigarette smoking indoors is an "individual right," and maybe the rules shouldn't be set by government. But, one can also argue that breathing fresh air without someone's smoke in it is also an individual right... Fortunately, we have a representative democracy... we can vote to determine the outcome of such differences. It could be done in the work place if we don't want government involved, but it IS a government of, for and by the people... except when the corporate-sponsored AFP comes along it becomes of, for and by the corporations too; the smoker's "rights" become corporate sponsored "rights". Surely, AFP's involvement had nothing to do with corporate profits... right? It's all about "individual liberties"... or so the AFP pitch goes... personally, I don't believe AFP's pitch is sincere.. they're hired guns.

Aside: State governments realized they were paying health care for uninsured smokers' health problems, which justified the states getting involved in the smoking ban movement. Maybe states had an image problem with turning people away from hospitals. *shrug*

Before joining AFP, Phillips worked for Century Strategies. According to Phillips' Century Strategies biography, "Tim joined Ralph Reed in founding Century Strategies, parent company of Millennium Marketing, in 1997."

I presume you know Ralph Reed was Executive Director of the Christian Coalition 1989-1997 and is seriously tainted by the Jack Abramoff lobbying affair (not exactly principled IMNSHO). Phillip's relationship with Reed wasn't casual. They worked together for ten years before Phillips went to AFP; Reed is still at Century Strategies.

This isn't mere "guilt by association." These people operate at a sophisticated level in Washington and can't claim ignorance about what they and their associates are doing. Although AFP doesn't disclose its funding sources, it's pretty clear they are working for the health industry. I feel that this type of Washington operation is part of the problem. Principled people on the right should know in whose name they are speaking when asked to call their representatives and say they are members of AFP.

What you see is a modest salary (kinda looks "grass roots"):
Tim Phillips, AFP President - paid $60,646 in 2007

What you might not see:
Tim Phillips - AFP Foundation paid $185,843 in salary and $17,236 in benefits in 2007

Grand Total: $263,700 (who knows what he makes in speaking fees, etc.)

No law against making money. I just wonder how many people at the ground level realize exactly who and what is behind AFP?