Tag: foster friess
Trump Contradicts Himself On Gun Control

Trump Contradicts Himself On Gun Control

In the wake of the shooting at Orlando’s Pulse gay nightclub, Donald Trump ignored the gun debate, then caved to the Democratic effort to widen regulations on purchasing guns.

After calling for a complete ban on immigration from “areas of the world where there is a proven history of terrorism against the United States, Europe or our allies,” Trump tweeted that he would be meeting with the National Rifle Association “about not allowing people on the terrorist watch list, or the no fly list, to buy guns.”

The NRA, seemingly a bit surprised, tweeted back that they were looking forward to Trump’s surprise lecture, though they’ve never endorsed such a reform in the past, including notably when such a proposal was put forward after the San Bernardino shootings last year.

This is the same National Rifle Association whose members were appropriately skeptical of Trump’s promises to them when he promised just weeks ago that “We’re going to nourish [the Second Amendment], we’re going to take care of it.”

In 2000, Trump wrote that “The Republicans walk the NRA line and refuse even limited restrictions.”

Not his campaign! The reality TV star claims to be a billionaire, and though his claims of self-funding his campaign were untrue, it seems the donors who have managed to keep his limp campaign alive are similarly split on guns.

Multimillionaire mutual fund investor Foster Friess, one of several wealthy GOP fundraisers enlisted to fundraise for the Trump campaign, contains content on his website strongly opposing any affront to the Second Amendment.

Friess’ website, which includes policy viewpoints on “key issues” such as “enduring values” and “helping peaceful Muslims,” also includes blog posts about “standing up to gun control demagoguery in the wake of the 2012 Sandy Hook shooting.

“Those who don’t put much stock in the Second Amendment have been working to use that heinouos [sic] event to strip law abiding citizens of some of their gun rights,” the post says.

Friess also stood with Trump on his racist comments regarding federal judge Gonzalo Curiel, adding that it would be “difficult” for a Muslim to assume the same post.

But another wealthy Trump backer — one of the few to make his views known — is more critical regarding the U.S.’s lack of gun control.

Conservative media mogul Rupert Murdoch, who is also reportedly backing Trump, expressed his support for gun control legislation on Twitter following the 2012 Sandy Hook shooting.

It’s worth noting that Murdoch’s own Fox News has been criticized for failing to report accurately or fairly on issues of gun control following mass shootings like the one in Orlando.

Like most other Trump donors, oil tycoon Harold Hamm has rarely spoken out on guns, but New York Times coverage of his high-profile divorce reveals that — if nothing else — Hamm is a gun owner: He made a last-minute request to the judge presiding over his case for some guns and shotguns left in a house his ex-wife had won in the divorce.

Photo: Media mogul Rupert Murdoch leaves his home in London, Britain March 4, 2016. REUTERS/Stefan Wermuth  

The Politics Gap Between The Rich And The Rest

The Politics Gap Between The Rich And The Rest

The super rich really are different from most Americans, and not just because they have more money. They are also more political — a gap that is as disturbing as the wealth gap, and a major contributor to its growth.

In his new book, Billionaires: Reflections on the Upper Crust, Darrell West, director of governance studies at the Brookings Institution, analyzes the careers, personalities and politics of the world’s wealthiest. “You have a lot of people trying to convert economic power into political power,” West told me. “I wrote the book to inform people about all of the political activism, so at least they are aware of all that’s going on.”

The clear message is that non-billionaire Americans need to get their cynical and harried selves to the polls. A few of the many reasons:

  • The very rich are not all that interested in altruism or the public good. In a 2013 study cited by West, they were twice as likely to support cuts in Medicare, education and highways; less than half as likely to favor government help for education or the unemployed; less inclined to believe the government should regulate markets, and less willing to pay higher taxes to finance universal health coverage.
  • The very rich understand that politics carries “huge consequences” for their lives and businesses, so they invest heavily in politics and are much more active than Joe Citizen. They vote at twice the rate of other Americans, they make political contributions at five times the rate, and they frequently run for office. And why not — they can afford it. In Florida’s 18th congressional district this year, for instance, four Republican primary candidates were between 70 percent and 80 percent self-funded.
  • The very rich are very savvy. West illustrates this with what he calls the “get a senator” strategy. The elites know that because any single senator can put a “hold” on any vote, they only need one senator to stop a nomination or policy they don’t like. Compare that to the quotes people often give reporters about how their vote won’t make a difference (even when elections are so often decided by a few or a few dozen votes) or how Democrats and Republicans are all alike (tell that to a minimum-wage worker, a woman who needs an abortion or a business owner dealing with the Affordable Care Act).

A particularly annoying characteristic of some super rich is their self-regard. Many seem to have little understanding of how and why they got to be where they are. West paraphrases Harvard economist Gregory Mankiw, a former Mitt Romney adviser, as attributing the achievements of rich people to their vision, creativity and innovation. Of course, that leaves out a few tiny factors, such as a good start in a loving, verbal home; elite social networks that facilitate and magnify success; government investments in education, research, infrastructure and a stable business environment; tax and inheritance policies that enable the wealthy to keep and grow their money, and the government subsidies, tax breaks, regulations and contracts that help their companies and industries.

“In many cases it takes a village to make a fortune, ” as West writes. “Wealth creation is not a one-person act, despite the myth that some billionaires peddle.”

The wealthy are highly visible players today on both the left (Michael Bloomberg promoting gun control, Tom Steyer focusing on climate change) and the right (the Koch brothers spending lavishly on this year’s midterms, and the tens of millions Sheldon Adelson and Foster Friess spent fruitlessly in the 2012 presidential campaign). They don’t always get what they want, but it’s not for lack of energy, money or headlines.

The least public political activism by the rich, their lobbying for policies that preserve and increase their wealth, is often their most successful. Yet it is also the most counterproductive from a societal standpoint. West argues that the wealthy should promote opportunities for others for the same reason Henry Ford paid his workers well, to create more customers. He also prescribes greater transparency and accountability to tame “a Wild West of political activism,” and Senate reforms that would make it harder for small groups of people to work their will.

What are the chances we could achieve these shifts through our political system? The states are the key, West told me. But he hasn’t given up on Washington, and neither should we. It’s worth trying. Anything is.

Follow Jill Lawrence on Twitter @JillDLawrence. To find out more about Jill Lawrence and read features by other Creators Syndicate writers and cartoonists, visit the Creators Syndicate website at www.creators.com.

Photo via Wikimedia Commons

Want more political news and analysis? Sign up for our daily email newsletter!

LOL Of The Week: Billionaires Go Shopping For ‘Not Totally Crazy’ Republicans

LOL Of The Week: Billionaires Go Shopping For ‘Not Totally Crazy’ Republicans

Billionaire Sheldon Adelson thinks he’s learned something from the 2012 GOP primary.

His sudden cash infusion into a Newt Gingrich SuperPAC in late 2011 helped finance the King of Bain “documentary” that made Mitt Romney’s private equity background an issue — in a Republican primary. This assault on the way Bain did business not only propelled Gingrich to a win in South Carolina, extending the primary, it provided Democrats the predicate to make an argument that Romney’s callous attitude — perfectly exemplified by his “47 percent” confession — was proof that the GOP nominee would actually gut the safety net while cutting taxes on the rich, as Paul Ryan’s budget promised.

Essentially, Adelson spent millions to help re-elect a Democrat.

The casino mogul says he wants to actually try to elect a Republican in 2016, and he has a plan. “He doesn’t want a crazy extremist to be the nominee,” Adelson associate Victor Chaltiel told TheWashington Post. “He wants someone who has the chance to win the election, who is reasonable in his positions, who has convictions but is not totally crazy.”

LOL.

“Not totally crazy” is the low bar set for the GOP presidential nomination, and who will decide on it? Sheldon Adelson, a man who said that negotiations with Iran should begin with the United States dropping a nuke on the Persian country.

But he wants to do it in the middle of a desert, so only the nuclear fallout kills people. See, that’s crazy. But “not totally crazy.”

Okay, it is totally crazy… if you aren’t a billionaire who has proven you will donate $93 million to Republican campaigns in one year. If you are that billionaire, you’ll be guaranteed an audience with nearly all the Republican Party’s presidential frontrunners.

“Not totally crazy” Republicans Jeb Bush, Governors Chris Christie (R-NJ), Scott Walker (R-WI) and John Kasich (R-OH) all visited Adelson at his prime spot in Las Vegas, the Venetian, this week for the “Sheldon Primary.”

“There’s going to be a lot more scrutiny,” Andy Abboud, Adelson’s top political advisor, said.

Not only will these candidates have to prove their not total sanity and willingness to go to war with Iran, they’ll likely have to stake their ground on crucial issues for the future of this nation, like online gambling, which Adelson hates — unless he’s profiting from it.

The timing of the Sheldon Primary is extremely convenient for Christie, who is in the process of exonerating himself after a scandal hit just as he was besting Hillary Clinton in 2016 polls. Now he’s trailing the former Secretary of State by double digits and is solidly in the middle of the GOP pack. But he hasn’t lost the support of his key billionaire supporter, Ken Langone — the Home Depot co-founder who has threatened to cut off the pope for talking about inequality and recently made at least one terrible Nazi analogy… that we know of.

So Christie is still a contender. But he’s now apparently trailing Jeb Bush in the “not totally crazy” category. The brother of the worst president of the last century now seems to be seriously considering a run for the presidency, which will conveniently begin right about the time the wars and financial crises his brother left the country with are finally mopped up.

You’ve probably noticed who isn’t on the “not totally crazy” list: Senators Rand Paul (R-KY), Ted Cruz (R-TX) and Marco Rubio (R-FL).

Ironically, Rand Paul is on Adelson’s “totally crazy” list for the senator’s singular sane stand.  

Adelson would love Paul’s plot to gut Social Security and Medicare while lowering taxes on billionaires with a flat tax that would starve the government. The billionaire wouldn’t mind the Tea Partier’s desire to ban abortion and some forms of birth control.

The dealbreaker is Paul’s willingness to negotiate with Iran — without nuking it first. 

But the senator has inherited a solid campaign infrastructure from his father’s two presidential runs and announced on Thursday that he’s launched a 50-state effort to be taken seriously by the party’s other billionaires, despite Adelson’s snub.

Ted Cruz’s willingness to blow up the economy to get his way apparently isn’t very appealing to the guys who own huge chunks of it. And Marco Rubio’s transformation into Diet Ted Cruz, following his attempt to help the GOP win in 2016 with immigration reform, didn’t garner him an invitation.

That 2012 GOP primary runner-up Rick Santorum also wasn’t on Adelson’s guest list points to what an unusual vacuum there is in the Republican presidential primary, where the number-two finisher in the last contested primary typically ends up as the frontrunner to be the next nominee. But there is no frontrunner now, which means Santorum is a serious contender — as long as Mike Huckabee doesn’t run and the former senator still has the support of his patron billionaire, Foster Friess.

Of course, both major parties rely on support from the richest .01 percent, who use their enormous wealth to weigh in on elections in a environment that money unleashed by Citizens United is continually reshaping our politics. But the billionaires on the right are fighting like their tax breaks and their ability to pollute without consequence depend upon it. Because they do.

In 2014, the Koch brothers’ network is outspending Democratic groups 10-1. That, along with low turnout, may allow the GOP to keep and expand their House majority and possibly take the Senate — even though their unwillingness to help the long-term unemployed or raise the minimum wage runs contrary to the desires of most Americans.

Because if the billionaires are on your side, who else do you need?

Photo: East Coast Gambler via Flickr