A Time For Action

Meet the 45 Senators Who Blocked Background Checks
—By Dana Liebelson Wed Apr. 17, 2013 5:25 PM PDT

President Obama said that “there was no coherent argument for why we wouldn’t do this. It came down to politics.”

An amendment proposed by Sens. Joe Manchin (D-W.Va.) and Pat Toomey (R-Pa.) to require background checks for commercial gun sales (but not for sales between “friends and neighbors”) was shot down Wednesday afternoon in a 54-46 vote, failing to capture the 60 votes it needed to advance. The bill would have been a modest victory for gun control advocates, while ceding numerous concessions to the gun lobby (the NRA initially called it a “positive development.”) Nevertheless, only four Republicans voted for the proposal, with 41 voting against it. Five Democrats rejected the proposal as well (Reid was a special case; see below). Standing with families of Sandy Hook victims, President Obama said that “there was no coherent argument for why we wouldn’t do this. It came down to politics.”

More MoJo coverage of the Senate’s failed background check bill.

Here’s Why the NRA Won and Gabby Giffords and Mike Bloomberg Lost
“Shame On You!”: Senate Rejects Gun Background Check Compromise
Why Did These 4 Democrats Vote No on Gun Background Checks?
Have You Seen Mitch McConnell’s Facebook Page?
10 Reasons the Background Check Bill Means Victory for the NRA
Map: Most Americans Support Background Checks for All Gun Buyers

Also read our special report on gun laws and the rise of mass shootings.

Here’s a list so you can see how your Senator voted:

Republicans Who Voted for the Proposal
◾Susan Collins (R-ME)
◾Mark Kirk (R-IL)
◾John McCain (R-AZ)
◾Pat Toomey (R-PA)

Democrats Who Voted Against the Proposal
◾Max Baucus (D-MT)
◾Mark Begich (D-AK)
◾Heidi Heitkamp (D-ND)
◾Mark Pryor (D-AR)
◾Harry Reid (D-NV) (Voted “no” as a procedural move to preserve option to reintroduce the bill.)

republicans Who Voted Against the Proposal
◾Lamar Alexander (R-TN)
◾Kelly Ayotte (R-NH)
◾John Barrasso (R-WY)
◾Roy Blunt (R-MO)
◾John Boozman (R-AR)
◾Richard Burr (R-NC)
◾Saxby Chambliss (R-GA)
◾Dan Coats (R-IN)
◾Tom Coburn (R-OK)
◾Thad Cochran (R-MS)
◾Bob Corker (R-TN)
◾John Cornyn (R-TX)
◾Mike Crapo (R-ID)
◾Ted Cruz (R-TX)
◾Michael Enzi (R-WY)
◾Deb Fischer (R-NE)
◾Jeff Flake (R-AZ)
◾Lindsey Graham (R-SC)
◾Chuck Grassley (R-IA)
◾Orrin Hatch (R-UT)
◾Dean Heller (R-NV)
◾John Hoeven (R-ND)
◾Jim Inhofe (R-OK)
◾Johnny Isakson (R-GA)
◾Mike Johanns (R-NE)
◾Ron Johnson (R-WI)
◾Mike Lee (R-UT)
◾Mitch McConnell (R-KY)
◾Jerry Moran (R-KS)
◾Lisa Murkowski (R-AK)
◾Rand Paul (R-KY)
◾Rob Portman (R-OH)
◾James Risch (R-ID)
◾Pat Roberts (R-KS)
◾Marco Rubio (R-FL)
◾Timothy Scott (R-SC)
◾Jeff Sessions (R-AL)
◾Richard Shelby (R-AL)
◾John Thune (R-SD)
◾David Vitter (R-LA)
◾Roger Wicker (R-MS)

democrats Who Voted for the Proposal
◾Tammy Baldwin (D-WI)
◾Michael Bennet (D-CO)
◾Richard Blumenthal (D-CT)
◾Barbara Boxer (D-CA)
◾Sherrod Brown (D-OH)
◾Maria Cantwell (D-WA)
◾Ben Cardin (D-MD)
◾Thomas Carper (D-DE)
◾Bob Casey (D-PA)
◾Christopher Coons (D-DE)
◾William “Mo” Cowan (D-MA)
◾Joe Donnelly (D-IN)
◾Richard Durbin (D-IL)
◾Dianne Feinstein (D-CA)
◾Al Franken (D-MN)
◾Kirsten Gillibrand (D-NY)
◾Kay Hagan (D-NC)
◾Tom Harkin (D-IA)
◾Martin Heinrich (D-NM)
◾Mazie Hirono (D-HI)
◾Tim Johnson (D-SD)
◾Timothy Kaine (D-VA)
◾Amy Klobuchar (D-MN)
◾Mary Landrieu (D-LA)
◾Frank Lautenberg (D-NJ)
◾Patrick Leahy (D-VT)
◾Carl Levin (D-MI)
◾Joe Manchin (D-WV)
◾Claire McCaskill (D-MO)
◾Robert Menendez (D-NJ)
◾Jeff Merkley (D-OR)
◾Barbara Mikulski (D-MD)
◾Christopher Murphy (D-CT)
◾Patty Murray (D-WA)
◾Bill Nelson (D-FL)
◾John Reed (D-RI)
◾Jay Rockefeller (D-WV)
◾Brian Schatz (D-HI)
◾Charles Schumer (D-NY)
◾Jeanne Shaheen (D-NH)
◾Debbie Stabenow (D-MI)
◾Jon Tester (D-MT)
◾Mark Udall (D-CO)
◾Tom Udall (D-NM)
◾Mark Warner (D-VA)
◾Elizabeth Warren (D-MA)
◾Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI)
◾Ron Wyden (D-OR)

independents
◾Angus King (I-ME): Yea
◾Bernie Sanders (I-VT): Yea

Front page image: Jay Mallin/ZUMA Press
Dana Liebelson
Reporter
Dana Liebelson is a reporter in Mother Jones’ Washington bureau. Her work has also appeared in The Week, TIME’s Battleland, Truthout, OtherWords and Yahoo! News. RSS | Twitter

EDITORS NOTE:

The article above by written by Denna Liebelson appeared in Mother Jones.

I strongly suggest that every one check where their Senator’s name is and ask you to please call, write or email then to tell them thank you for voting yes or shame on you for voting no and explain why you think they shooed not have voted the way they did.

I believe that the no votes were primarily bough  directly by the NRA, either in the form of promised campaign backing or threats against withholding support.

I strongly support the idea that it is time for us the American people to start taking back control of our government. For way to long groups, backed by and financed by, outside interest such as the Koch brothers, American Legislative Exchange Committee (ALEC), Americans for Prosperity, and high-priced Washington Lobbyist, to name just a few, have been calling the shots behind the scene.  It is time that We The People let our voices be heard loud and clear. It’s time to remind our elected officials who voted them into office and who at the next election can vote them out of office.

As ex Congress Women Gabby Gifford, a victim herself of gun violence  said “If our Senators refuse to act to prevent gun violence I think that it is time to get new Senators” If everyone reading this post takes just a few minuets to call, write or email their Senator to express there view on enhanced background checks for parching guns and encouraged at least one more person to do the same I think that we might start to see a change. as always please let me know your Senators reply. Thanks.

WHY DOS THE RICHEST COUNTEY IN THE WORLD HAVE THE SECOND HIGHEST CHILD POVERTY RATE?

America is home to a very active pro-life movement founded on the concept that all life is precious, and is synonymous with the concepts of right-to-life and culture-of-life the religious right and Republicans spend undue time on attempting to control women and protect single-celled organisms. However, at the end of gestation, the same movement spends unwarranted amounts of time and energy abandoning infants and children to poverty, hunger, and ill-health in a never-ending crusade to cut programs that ensure babies and children are mired in poverty and lack basic necessities of life making a mockery of their pro-life moniker.

Republicans have developed a stellar record of perpetuating poverty, and are renowned for cutting safety nets for the poorest Americans while taking particular delight in promoting their cuts as common sense and crucial to protect future generations from crushing deficits. However, at the rate poverty among children is rising, future generations will be hard-pressed to survive, much less contribute to paying off Republicans’ debts. In a new study from First Focus and the Urban Institute, there are 6.2 million children living in poverty where at least one parent is unemployed, and the number rises to 12.1 million when considering that most of the parents are underemployed. Obviously, when parents are under, or unemployed, children are bound to live in stark poverty and suffer the effects of hunger, ill-health, and the likelihood of never escaping poverty in their lifetime.

The report shows that instability of home life accompanying long-term unemployment, and the inability to stay situated in one place very long predicts children have poor school attendance, lower math scores, and increased chances of being held back in school by 15%, and are unlikely to pursue or afford higher education. The pro-life Republicans exacerbate children’s plight by perpetually cutting funding from safety nets that are the worst in the industrialized world, and it has reached a point that more families qualify for the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP – food stamps) than unemployment insurance.

SNAP benefits average $278 per month per household, and the average unemployment benefits are $299 per week ($1,286 month). In at least eight states with the highest child poverty rates, they have cut or reduced the length of unemployment programs from 26 down to 12 weeks according to a new report from the National Employment Law project. Unfortunately for children with unemployed parents, federal benefits are dependent on a state’s unemployment offerings that prevent the poor from having access to federal programs. In 2011, between federal and state unemployment insurance programs, 2.3 million Americans avoided falling into poverty, but when red states slash unemployment programs, the unemployed lose federal unemployment insurance that all but assures a drastic rise in children living in poverty. Cutting unemployment benefits also has a deleterious effect on the economy and other Americans because according to the Congressional Budget Office, cuts to unemployment benefits cost Americans at least 300,000 jobs in a year leading to more children living in poverty.

As it is now, America has the second highest child poverty rate in the developed world behind Romania, and the rate will only increase as Republican sequestration cuts keep 70,000 children out of the Head Start program as well as tens-of-thousands more losing access to healthcare coverage. The Republican budget slashes billions from anti-poverty programs and it leads one to wonder how Republicans claim to be pro-life when their policies are detrimental to children living in poverty’s lives. They are pro-life as long as life is a zygote, embryo, or fetus in a poor mothers’ womb for nine months, and then their culture of life becomes a culture of hunger, ill-health, and eventually death

Republicans could improve the lives of children and lift them and their parents out of poverty if they spent one tenth the time creating jobs as they do protecting zygotes, embryos, and fetuses. It has been two years and three months since Republicans took control of the House promising to focus on creating jobs, and yet they began the 112th Congress protecting zygote-life and cutting assistance to real live children and killing jobs ever since. They rejected all of President Obama’s jobs plans at the same time they deliberately killed jobs, and rejected raising the minimum wage that would keep some Americans just above the poverty line. Just their sequester cuts alone will kill a million jobs and send tens-of-thousands of middle class Americans into poverty with mandatory unpaid furlough days.

In the poorest red states, 20-32% of children live in poverty, and nationwide the rate is over 23% and climbing, and integral to high poverty rates are the lack of decent jobs. Many Americans who are fortunate enough to find jobs are offered part-time work at minimum wages at corporate-owned businesses, and even if they worked full-time at minimum wage they could not afford a place to live in any state in the Union. Many, many American families are nearly homeless and bounce around between shelters, motels, and live in cars to save what little they have to feed their children. There are millions of Americans who were in the middle class, but because of outsourcing and public sector layoffs slipped into poverty, and as their unemployment benefits run out and Republicans cut spending on safety nets, they have little opportunity of ever returning to the middle class in their lifetimes.

Republicans in Congress and statehouses have made every attempt to create a permanent underclass living in poverty, and they are unfazed at the devastation they are creating for children whose parents cannot find a job, or are severely under-employed at part time, minimum wage jobs. The key to lifting Americans and their children out of poverty, growing the economy, and reducing the deficit is creating jobs that generate a vibrant economy and a culture of life all Americans deserve, even children. If Republicans cared a fraction about children’s lives as they do a zygote’s, maybe they could wear the pro-life label with pride, but they care about children’s lives about as much as they do jobs, and as they are killing Americans’ jobs, they are killing America’s children; and they are barely getting started.

Editors Note:
The above article was taken from "Politicus U.S.A." and I am posting it to further illustrate my article above conserving how the Republican Party, and some of their supporters in general, seem so willing to restrict a women’s right to have an abortion by passing legislation making it almost impossible for healthcare providers to operate but then after the child is born they are more willing to let that child grow up in poverty.
As always I encourage my readers to respond to any of my articles, good or bad, by using the comments section attached to this blog. Thanks.

The GOP Abortion Strategy.

 It seems strange to me that the Republican Party and a majority of their  supporters work so hard to make it next to impossible for a woman to obtain an abortion but then after the child is born they try to legislate a reduction of what they refer to as “entitlements” which is such things as Food Stamps,  Welfare, Housing Assistance, Funding for Public Education, Child Welfare and Protection Services, Foster Care and Adoption Services to name a few.

I am not a Republican, as most of my regular readers have probably guessed by now, but to my way of thinking if they are so concerned with preventing abortions by making it almost impossible for a woman to obtain one they should work just as hard to help a mother in need to support that child for the next 18 years.

As always if anyone has any comments or strong opinions about what I said above please feel fee to use the comment section provided in this blog and I will try to publish them and answer them in print in this blog.

Demand Action. Demand A Vote.

Image

Save Social Security and Medicare from Budget Cuts and Chained CPI

Image

Obama to offer budget that cuts Medicare and Social Security

AP Images. Obama budget: Obama to offer Social Security and Medicare cuts in new budget. IMAGE

President starts where he left off during "fiscal cliff" fight, offering big entitlement cuts in exchange for new revenues in bid to cut deficit by $1.8 trillion.

WASHINGTON — President Barack Obama’s proposed budget will call for reductions in the growth of Social Security and other benefit programs by including a proposal to lower cost-of-living adjustments to government social safety net spending, a senior administration official says.

The proposal attempts to strike a compromise with congressional Republicans on the fiscal 2014 budget by combining the president’s demand for higher taxes with GOP insistence on reductions in entitlement programs.

The official, who spoke on a condition of anonymity to describe a budget that has yet to be released, said Obama would reduce the federal government deficit by $1.8 trillion over 10 years.

A key feature of the plan Obama is proposing for the federal budget year beginning Oct. 1 is a revised inflation adjustment called "chained CPI." This new formula would effectively curb annual increases in a broad swath of government programs, but would have its biggest impact on Social Security.

Economists generally agree that the "chained" consumer price index is a more accurate way to measure the cost of living than the traditional CPI, but it faces opposition from groups on both the left and the right because of its impacts on both entitlement payouts and tax bracket calculations., FactCheck.org reported in a December story explaining the chained CPI proposal.

Obama’s budget proposal also calls for additional tax revenue, including a proposal to place limits on tax-preferred retirement accounts for wealthy taxpayers. Obama has also called for limits on tax deductions by the wealthy, a proposal that could generate about $580 billion in revenue over 10 years.

More from MSN News: Kerry, Lew latest to follow Obama’s salary lead Obama to return 5 percent of salary to Treasury FAA-funded airport towers may not be necessary

The inflation adjustment would reduce federal spending over 10 years by about $130 billion, according to past White House estimates. Because it also affects how tax brackets are adjusted, it would also generate about $100 in higher taxes and affect even middle income taxpayers.

Obama’s budget, to be released next week, comes after the Republican-controlled House and the Democratic-run Senate passed separate and markedly different budget proposals. House Republicans achieved long-term deficit reductions by targeting safety net programs; Democrats instead protected those programs and called for $1 trillion in tax increases.

Obama’s budget proposal essentially picks up where he left off with his "final offer" to House Speaker John Boehner in negotiations to avoid the "fiscal cliff" late last year. Those talks ultimately failed but Congress did agree to increase tax rates on the wealthiest Americans.

The reductions in growth of benefit programs, which would affect veterans, the poor and the older Americans, is sure to anger many Democrats. Labor groups and liberals have long been critical of Obama’s offer to Boehner for including such a plan. Critics on the left also suggest that in using a proposal already rejected by the GOP as his starting point means Obamas plan is likely to lurch still further to the right, with deeper cuts to social programs and perhaps fewer revenues.

In fact, Boehner almost immediately rejected the proposal, saying that the spending cuts should not be "held hostage" to tax increases.

The budget will also include an expansion of pre-K education that the president first proposed in the State of the Union, Politico reports

Editors Note:

The above article was MSN.

Cuts to Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid were and still are major sticking points in ratifying a new budget.

President Obama reluctantly put Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid, which the Republicans continue to refer to as entitlement programs, on the budget cutting block only after Republicans steadfastly refused to negotiate with him on any budget deal until he did. As for Social Security Seniors will still receive their benefits as they have but with the chained CPI they will receive a much lower annual cost of living annual increase than what they now receive. As per Medicaid and Medicare The scope of the programs will be moderately reduced with more out of pocket expenses passed on to the participants. In return President Obama wants to raise the tax rate on the wealthy and reduce the amount of deductions that the wealthiest of Americans can deduct from there Federal Income Tax.

The Republicans do not like this plan because they want deeper cuts to Social Security, Medicaid and Medicare with no raise in the Federal Income Tax rate for the wealthy and no reduction of the amount of deductions that the wealthiest of Americans can take. They also object to the Chained CPI that the President has suggested because along with the reduced cost of living yearly increase that Seniors would receive it would also slightly increase the tax rate. This would be almost negligible for the Seiners and the Poor because of their reduced income. Where it would be felt the most is in the higher income brackets. In short the less income you have the less tax you have to pay but the more income you have the more tax you will have to pay and we all know how the Republicans feel about raising taxes on the rich. The republicans also support The Ryan Budget plan which will turn the Federal Medical Assistance Program for the Poor into a voucher program. What this means that around the fist part of the year each poor family would be allotted so much in vouchers depending on a number of factors including family size. When a family member receives medical care the cost would be deducted from the vouchers. The problem with that is when you have exhausted your allotment of vouchers that’s it. You will receive no more government medical assistance for you or your family until the beginning of the next year and any medical bills you or your family accrue after the vouches have run out means you will be responsible for paying out of your own pocket. The Ryan Budget Plan also calls for massive tax reductions and brakes for large Corporations and large Businesses. Of course the lost Federal Revenue caused by these tax reductions and tax breaks would have to be made up by increasing taxes, remember that the Republicans are stead fast again raising taxes on the rich so the burden would be placed squarely on the shoulders of the Poor, Middle Class and Elderly who can least afford it.

What I strongly suggest is like in the article above. Please consider contacting your U.S. Congressional Members in both the U.S. House and Senate, especially if they are Republican, by Phone, Letter or Email and let them know how you feel. The Republicans keep talking about changing there image and making themselves more appealing to the voters so as votes let them know what you feel and want. I don’t know if it will help or not but it’s worth a try. Don’t threaten them just explain to them your feelings and thoughts and as a voter what you would like them to do. That’s all we can do besides remembering not only what they say but also what they do when go to vote in the midterm elections in 2014 and the Presidential elections in 2016. And please most of all don’t forget to register to vote and to show up at the poles on election day. If you would be so kind as to let me know what response you get if any and I will gladly publish a sampling hear on my blog. Thanks.

The Lobbyists

Gun Owners of America: For when the NRA hasn’t ‘gone far enough’

Getty Images: Scott Olson. Gun rights: Anthony Santor helps a customer select a rifle at Freddie Bear Sports, a sporting goods store in Tinley Park, Ill. IMAGE

1 hr. ago By MSN News Gun Owners of America has far fewer members and much less money than the better-known NRA, but the group is emerging as an influential voice in Washington.

A gun rights group working feverishly to prevent the passage of several gun control bills in Congress has apparently caught the ear of several lawmakers. No, it’s not the National Rifle Association.

Gun Owners of America, a lobbying organization that’s been around since 1975, doesn’t get nearly as much media attention as the larger, better-funded and better-known NRA, but its voice is increasingly being heard on Capitol Hill.

The group recently blitzed Sen. Tom Coburn, R-Okla., with emails and calls after learning he was talking with Democrats about a bill to expand background checks for gun buyers, The New York Times reported. The result: Coburn, a gun rights advocate, backed away from negotiations with Sen. Charles E. Schumer, D-N.Y., deeply damaging the prospects of the bill.

The organization is led by Executive Director Larry Pratt, 70, a former Virginia state legislator who has long been active in Republican politics. Coburn said he backed off because he didn’t like a provision that would have required private gun sellers to keep records. But Pratt believes his group’s campaign contributed to Coburn’s decision.

"His staff admitted that it kind of irritated the senator," Pratt told The New York Times. "We were told, ‘He’s getting tired of this.’ But when we hear complaints like that, we know we are close to success. We are happy he changed his mind."

Gun Owners of America’s mission is to "preserve and defend the Second Amendment rights of gun owners." It has about 300,000 dues-paying members, compared with 5 million for the NRA. The group spent $1.3 million last year to lobby Congress, while the NRA spent nearly $3 million, according to the Times.

Pratt told MSN News his group is "totally separate" from, and often at odds with, the NRA.

"Each of us determines our own policies. If it happens they take same position we are, we will be acting in parallel fashion. But we don’t have meetings (with them) to decide what we’re going to do."

Despite being dwarfed in size and war chest, GOA has become an influential voice as a series of gun control measures heads to the Senate floor.

According to the Times, the group has succeeded in freezing some senators, particularly Republicans, who have appeared to be on the fence about supporting bills to expand background checks and increase penalties for illegal gun purchases.

More from MSN News: Conn. gun law seen as model for Congress, states NRA-funded proposal calls for armed personnel in schools After Newtown shootings, pro-gun measures also gain ground States with weakest gun laws lead in deaths, study shows

Pratt told MSN News his group will continue to lobby lawmakers to keep gun-control legislation from coming up for a vote. "We hope we are going to be able to keep it bottled up in the Senate, and if we do that’s probably going to be the end of it," he said.

Also on the GOA’s legislative wish list is passage a bill sponsored by Rep. Steve Stockman, R-Texas, to repeal the ban on "gun-free school zones," though Pratt admits that’s an uphill battle.

GOA makes it a point to differentiate itself from the larger NRA. Pratt told the Times that part of the group’s mission is to stay on top of the NRA "when we don’t think they’ve gone far enough."

Ron Paul, the libertarian congressman from Texas, has called the GOA "the only no-compromise gun lobby in America."

m"We believe that, because of the strength and fervor of our membership, we are very close to winning this battle — but it would be so much easier if we were both singing off the same page," GOA said.

In an appearance on a conservative radio talk show in February, Pratt spoke about why he thinks Obama is pushing for stricter gun control policies. Pratt argued that the president is building his own private army and will send his agents "door to door" to "confiscate guns," all to provoke a "violent confrontation" with gun owners, according to a,n article in the Huffington Post.

Pratt told MSN News: "The reason we why we oppose the background checks, the measure currently at the top of the wish list of other side, is that all evidence points to it becoming a national gun registry."

He added: "That’s what the background check would be the predicate for," to confiscate people’s guns.

Editors Note:
I believe that this article taken from MSN News is a perfect example of how some politicians pay more attention to the Washington Lobbyists than they do to the voice of the people who elect them.
It is also an example of why you should let your voice be heard. If you feel strongly about an issue, as in this case Gun Control, you should take a few minuets to write, call or email your Reprehensive and or Senator, no matter if a matter in your State Legislature or the U.S. Congress, and let them know how you feel about the subject and encourage your family and friends to do likewise. Don’t let the voice of the Lobbyist be the only one your Legislator hears.
You can find out the names of your State and Federal Representatives and Senators by contacting your local city or county Clerk’s office. Then it’s a simple task to enter their name in your browser and hit the enter button to find out what there office address, phone number and email address is.
Sometimes if a politishion gets a lot of input from the voters back home the voice of the lobbyists isn’t quite as strong as it use to be.

The Power of One

Image

Tax Haven’s and Off Shore Bank Accounts Cousting Majority of U.S. Tax Payers.

This Article below was taken from the Huff Post Business Report: Study Posted 04/04/2013 3:15 pm

“Tax Haven Use Costing Americans $150 Billion Per Year.

Worried about the federal deficit? Then you’re worried about foreign tax havens, the use of which is costing the U.S. $150 billion per year in the form of lost tax revenues, according to academic studies cited by a recent report from U.S. PIRG, a left-leaning consumer group. To break it down, corporations account for $90 billion of the lost revenue, and individuals make up the other $60 billion.

Offshore tax evasion has become a hot-button issue of late, after a September Senate report alleged Apple, Google and Microsoft moved profits overseas in an aim to dodge taxes. Overall, U.S. companies are now holding a record $1.9 trillion of their profits abroad, according to a recent Bloomberg report.

Corporations aren’t the only ones keeping their money overseas, however. A Center for Public Integrity report released Wednesday found that the list of people dodging taxes through foreign havens include:

American doctors and dentists and middle-class Greek villagers as well as families and associates of long-time despots, Wall Street swindlers, Eastern European and Indonesian billionaires, Russian corporate executives, international arms dealers and a sham-director-fronted company that the European Union has labeled as a cog in Iran’s nuclear-development program.”

Editors Note.

This is also a very good example of how the upper 1% of Americans continue to get richer while the remaining 99% of us pay higher taxes to make up for the lost tax revenue. As stated above this article was taken from today’s, 4 April 2013, Huff Post Business Report. Please feel free to check it out and if it makes you as mad as it dose me I suggest you may want to make your own copy and send it to your member of the U.S. House of Representive and Senator, as I am doing, and ask them what they plan to do to fix the problem.