Are we ready for King Koch?

Charles Koch is laughing at us. He thinks democracy is a crock. The free market should make all decisions about the future, he says. It's only coincidental that he funds dozens of conservative think tanks and corporate front groups that are trying to bend the nation to his will. Thanks to the Supreme Court and their Citizen's United ruling, Koch can pretend he is enthusiastic about the free market while he is actually undermining it.

Koch is trying to set himself up as the one person who makes decisions about economic policy and foreign affairs in this country. He's going to spend $100 million in 2016 to keep control of the House and Senate. There's a word for someone who make all the decisions for a country. King. All hail King Charles I!

Without mentioning global warming King Charles told a recent interviewer at Politico that he opposes all renewable energy sources, not because he makes money by burning coal and oil in the atmosphere, but because these renewable, "green", sources are not competitive. They need subsidies to be competitive with already existing sources of energies.

King Charles takes us all for fools. That's why he's laughing at us. You see, he knows that every single industry in the US today began with a federal subsidy. What about railways, without which King Charles could not ship his coal to China where it pollutes the air and promotes lung cancer and other diseases of the lungs?

The railway industry in the US was heavily subsidized by Abraham Lincoln during the Civil War. Lincoln was looking for a way to get silver and gold back East to pay for Union arms.
So Lincoln arranged to give a subsidy to the Union Railroad of ten square miles of land and $48,000 for every mile of track they laid. The land became invaluable as soon as the railroad was built to carry produce back from the West to Eastern agricultural markets. So King Charles is currently benefitting from government subsidies to the railroads. But that's not all.

Koch also receives an oil depletion allowance to finance exploration for oil, and other benefits as well that amount to $5 billion each year delivered from US taxpayers to the oil industry.  Koch receives this check from the federal government, presumably cashes it, but claims he's against all such subsidies. Yes, he's against them, but he's happy to take the check. I'm sorry, but if you don't like living on the federal dole, why don't you try finding a business that doesn't force you to do that?

Koch has been lobbying for various things to help his business, though he's not saying what they are. This makes it difficult to argue with the man, because most of what he does is hidden from the public. One thing that's almost certain he has been lobbying for is the Keystone Pipeline XL. Koch stands to make a lot of money from his interests in tar sands oil.

Fossil fuel companies also receive a subsidy because the US does not charge them enough for leases on federal lands. The federal government could make $500 million more if it charged the same for oil leases as some of the states. http://bit.ly/1NDHbNm

King Charles can't have it both ways. He can't profit enormously from government the way it is today and also claim he wants to do away with it. No one is that stupid. But King Charles thinks we are.

Charles Koch spills his guts in WSJ Op-Ed

Charles Koch believes that everything he does is good. Other people are not to be trusted to make decisions that he disagrees with. He is the most conceited, self-righteous, and misguided person in the headlines today.

Koch makes several dubious claims in his Wall Street Journal Op-Ed. Koch claims he has spent his life studying the principles that enable people to improve their lives. This statement is demonstrably false. Koch has spent his entire life running a multi-national corporation. This occupation has left him little time for reflection.

Koch lists these principles as dignity, respect, equality before the law, and personal freedom. These are not the principles listed in our founding documents, where the authors discuss life, liberty and the the pursuit of happiness. The Constitution includes a bill of rights that nowhere mentions dignity or respect. Those principles are too vague and ill-defined to serve as the cornerstone of any philosophy. Dignity is an attribute of authority. A judge has dignity, a king has dignity. Respect is a two-edged sword: Respect is earned as well as granted.

Koch lists equality before the law as a fundamental principle, but he has not spent his life donating to legal services for the poor, to ensure that everyone is equal before the law. He lists personal freedom as another fundamental principle, but he runs an organization, a corporation, which tells each employee exactly what he or she should do. Each corporate employee has a written job description that describes exactly what the corporation expects the employee to do for 40 hours a week. There's not much personal freedom there.

Furthermore, the corporation has unwritten rules that restrict personal freedom. The employees must obey all the edicts imposed on them by the executives of the company. They must never question authority, since insubordination is grounds for immediate dismissal. In many ways, a corporation limits the personal liberty of its employees, in the clothes they wear, in the language they use, and in the opinions they must hold about the company and its place in the world.

Koch apparently finds it acceptable to control his employees in this way, but believes that the elected government should never make any rules that affect its citizens. The citizens of a country vote to choose the government and the laws they wish to follow. The citizens of this country choose representatives to make those laws and enforce them. Koch's corporation is a dictatorship. One man makes all the decisions for everyone.

The worst thing that our current government does, according to Koch, is tell people how to run their lives. It does this because it does not trust them to run their own lives, he says. It is Koch who does not trust the people, however. He does not believe a government should rule with the consent of the governed. According to him, no one should have to obey any law he or she disagrees with. This is not a prescription for any real-world government, and it is certainly not a description of how Koch runs his company.

Koch's most egregious lie is when he pretends that his company cares about the environment. The company has won environmental awards, it is true, but these are awards for such things as keeping their oil tankers from leaking. They are not awards for fighting against global warming, because Koch does not acknowledge that greenhouse gases are a problem that has anything to do with him.

Koch is concerned about rearranging deck furniture while the ship is sinking. His refineries only release low levels of greenhouse gases, he says. His company has a fine safety record. He argued for the demise of the ethanol tax credit. But Koch industries is fighting to stop conversion of our energy grid to renewable energy.

Koch has no sympathy for the plight of people all over the world who find their homes threatened by rising sea levels, or watch their crops wither in the ever-hotter sun. Instead, he claims that he is not his brother's keeper. He takes no responsibility for his own actions. He spends vast sums of money to defeat politicians who might be tempted to listen to their constituents and limit the influence of undemocratic corporations.

Charles Koch is the face of evil in our world today.

Koch Brothers: Liberals are conspiring against us!

Note: In keeping with the Koch brothers' love of anonymity, KochFacts.com consists of a number of anonymous posts. For convenience, this post assumes that all the articles are written by someone named Koch.

The Koch brothers are whining again. They claim to be misunderstood. Nice guys, really. Their libertarian views (which are a lot like Mitt Romney's views about the 47%) are good for everyone. Since Koch never did anything wrong, he assumes there much be a great liberal conspiracy to attack him and blacken his reputation.

KochFacts.com states that a conspiracy began in May 2010. The proofs he offers for this claim are few and those few are debatable.

1. Charles Lewis began a study with his students at American University that, says Koch, “repackages nearly every false and misleading attack leveled against Koch over the past couple of decades.”
2. Barack Obama began “calling out” conservative groups in his speeches.
3. The IRS began targeting tea party groups for special scrutiny, as well as groups that sought to educate the public about the Bill of Rights or desired to make the country a better place.
4. Austan Goolsbee publicly accused Koch of not paying taxes.
5. An internal Media Matters for America memo laid out that organization's and its allies' three-year plan “to initiate actions that promote progressive thinking and policies in the media.”
6. Democrats and other activist groups began fundraising efforts on the backs of Koch.

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof. None of these items suggests any secret plan or conspiracy to attack Koch.

1. The study by Charles Lewis and his students is thorough academic study of Koch Industries and its influence on Conservative organizations. The study uses public IRS forms to trace where Koch donations had been made. This is frequently difficult because Koch has set up an elaborate thicket of groups that conceal where contributions came from and where they went. The clear takeaway from this study is that Koch does not want the public to know what it is doing with its money. Koch attacks this study because it was funded by liberal organizations. The authors gave Koch notice of its publication, but Koch refused any comment.

2. Barack Obama began calling out conservative groups that opposed Democratic candidates and ideas in an election year. There has never been any evidence that Obama orchestrated any sort of conspiracy. Many of these groups had been making personal attacks on Obama for years, forcing him to distance himself from longtime associates, calling him a socialist, claiming he was unwilling to accept conservative ideas, questioning his birth certificate. It would have been remarkable if Obama had not called out conservatives for baseless and irrelevant attacks. Koch was one of the primary funders of such attacks through its numerous charities/front groups. Social Welfare Groups (501(c)(4)s), which are supposedly non-political, gave $254 million in political contributions in 2012. Much of the money was funneled through Koch's Americans for Prosperity Group.¹

3. One IRS officer targeted political groups for audits, but these were not just conservative groups. The IRS also targeted progressive groups. While none of the conservative groups failed to achieve tax-exempt status, two progressive groups did. The right-wing noise machine has morphed this problem into a bigger deal by claiming that all investigations of 501(c)(4) groups are politically motivated, but the IRS has an obligation under the law to determine whether a group is primarily political in nature or not. The right-wing has an issue with the IRS about how it should apply its regulations, but the problem is a bureaucratic one, not a political one. No evidence has ever connected the White House with these investigations.

4. Austan Goolsbee did not, apparently, have access to information about Koch's taxes. His comments indicated that Koch paid no corporate taxes because it is organized as a pass-through entity, such as a limited liability corporation (LLC) or a partnership. He was only guessing about this,however, and Koch subsequently revealed that it was organized as a regular corporation. Koch here implies that Obama was using confidential tax information to attack his political enemies. The only proof of this is an off=hand remark by an employee.²

5. The great power at the heart of this conspiracy is a relatively small non-profit called MediaMatters.org. Koch states that MediaMatters engages in politically motivated attacks against groups that the left and its allies disagree with. He publishes an internal memo from MediaMatters that describes its mission to “initiate actions that promote progressive thinking and policies in the media.” But the MediaMatters memo describes no illegal methods. Their primary method is to take video clips from right-wing spokespersons and post them on a web site. They do not use ad campaigns against them, although they do ask advertisers to stop sponsoring these persons or programs. MediaMatters takes their own words, which may be inflammatory, or bigoted, or merely false, and publishes them. This method has made MediaMatters the object of Koch's anger, but it is not contrary to the First Amendment. These spokespersons have access to microphones and tv cameras. Their problem is that their words themselves are toxic. Furthermore, Koch appears to believe that MediaMatters plan “to initiate actions that promote progressive thinking and policies in the media.” is somehow insidious. I don't get it. Koch has been saying how much he loves free speech, yet here he attacks his rivals for speaking in defense of their own values.

6. Koch is whining again. Democratic groups are raising funds on “Koch's back”. He makes it sound like he suffers personal pain whenever someone raises a dollar by invoking his name. He doesn't understand that his opinions and actions are actually hateful to progressives. His environmental views are considered by many a major threat to the survival of the planet. He blithely comments that he doesn't feel one way or the other about global warming. But failure to take actions to limit global warming is not an option. Not believing that global warming is happening and that his companies are having a big effect on it is not an option.

Koch has proven nothing about any liberal conspiracy to attack him in his article. He attempts to do so by associating the times of the events in the story with each other. Things that happen at the same time are not causes of each other. Furthermore, several of the events—IRS investigations, Charles Lewis study, Media Matters—have little or no relationship with the President or the Democratic Party. One of these “conspiracy” events consisted of an off-hand remark by a Cabinet member.

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.

Koch wants us to believe there is a vast anti-Koch conspiracy. He has to provide some evidence for that if he wants us to believe it.

An alternative explanation is that Obama recognized the nature of his opponents and began attacking them. People hate and fear the Kochs both because of their words and actions and because their secrecy is troubling. For the most part, the Kochs actually did the things they are accused of. People have easily seen through their attempts to deny responsibility by claiming that some other “unrelated” group was responsible.

Make no mistake about it, the Kochs are the one percent. They fear and loathe the 99 percent and will attack them whenever they can. Many of the problems that beset America right now can be traced to the no-compromise, no-prisoners attitude of the Kochs.

1http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2013/05/10/the-irs-was-wrong-to-target-the-tea-party-they-shouldve-gone-after-all-501c4s/

2http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2010/10/goolsbee-koch-industries-irs-scandal

Libertarian fantasies: Life without the Constitution

You can have your own theories but you can't have your own facts.

Charles Koch doesn't seem to agree with this maxim. He wants to have his own theories and back them up with his own facts as well. In 2012, Koch stated that only countries with economic freedom can create widespread prosperity. He says the poorest people in the most-free societies are 10 times better off than the poorest in the least free.

This is probably true, but there's no way to prove that the poor are better off because of economic freedom. The most-free economic societies, as determined by a subjective formula, are also among the richest, including Hong Kong, Singapore and Australia. The poorest countries are countries truly devoid of economic assets of any kind: North Korea, Zimbabwe, Eritrea, Cuba. The poor in the most wealthy countries are undoubtedly better off than those in the poorest. For one thing, the richest countries have a social safety net that cares for the poor.

Koch also fails to note that the Heritage Foundation, which makes up this list of most-free countries annually, has received support from Koch of up to $500,000 a year. So Koch is able to buy a think tank to support his controversial views. He hasn't received a good return on his investment, however, since the theory of most-free economies proved nothing at a cost of over a million dollars.

Koch claims that the U. S. government, by its subsidies, has forced the cost of energy up. Energy from wind energy, he says (without attribution), has been pushed up 5 times. The U.S. Energy Information Agency (EIA), on the other hand, estimates the cost of wind-generated energy from new plants at approximately the same as energy from new coal plants. EIA's estimate includes subsidies for wind and the cost of building the power plants.

Koch is just flat wrong about what he calls “cronyism”, which is where the government picks winners in the economic marketplace. He's wrong because many of the most important U.S. industries were started by “cronyism”. The railroads were started by government subsidies in the decades after the Civil War. The demand the railroads created for steel and coal boosted those industries as well. WWI gave great impetus to the airline industry, which went from the fragile biplanes built by the Wright Brothers to planes that could fly higher, faster, and with greater maneuverability. These planes were financed by the government.

The jet engine, rocket-propelled flight, and advanced telemetry came out of WWII, along with the electronic computer, which was developed by the government to help target powerful, longer ranged cannon shells. During the Cold War, the U.S. developed guided missiles and miniaturized guidance systems that put a man on the moon. These miniaturized systems were refined into silicon chips that made America the world leader in computers and electronic technology for decades. The internet was designed by government projects to keep communications open during a nuclear attack. In fact, one could easily argue that the problem with American technology after the development of the world-wide web was that the government was not spending enough money on research and development of the kind that Koch calls crony capitalism.

Koch ignores the pollution caused by coal, here as elsewhere. He apparently believes that air pollution, not to mention greenhouse gas production, should not be considered as a factor in choosing between wind or fossil fuels. The fact that Koch Industries buys petroleum coke, a particularly dirty fuel, and sells it to China, proves that China's air pollution problems are less important to Koch than company profits. Koch insists in the same post that trouble begins when “companies take their eyes off the needs and wants of consumers”. Koch Industries hasn't considered the “needs and wants” of Chinese consumers when it sells dirty fuel to them, or the health of residents of Detroit and Windsor, Ontario, when Koch Industries dumps a heap of petroleum coke 40 feet high on a city block beside the Detroit River.

Koch's agenda is astonishing. He wants to abolish the federal government.

Subsidies and mandates are just two of the privileges that government can bestow on politically connected friends. Others include grants, loans, tax credits, favorable regulations, bailouts, loan guarantees, targeted tax breaks and no-bid contracts. Government can also grant monopoly status, barriers to entry and protection from foreign competition.¹

Two of the powers Koch mentions (tax credits, targeted tax breaks) rely directly on the government's ability to tax, granted by Article I, Section 8, of the U.S. Constitution. One of the main reason the Constitution was ratified in the first place was that the central government under the Articles of Confederation had no power to tax. Without the power to tax, the federal government will be powerless to do anything. Even a standing army would be out of the question. All the powers would devolve to the states.

The sovereign states would have much more power, of course, if they chose to use it. Those states which choose to follow the libertarian principles of Koch will likely have very weak governments. Government services would be minimal. Social safety nets would be nonexistent. These states would most likely be the southern and mountain states that currently vote reliably Republican.

The other states would continue to have strong governments with social services. They would be wealthier, because they would not have their federal taxes redistributed to the poorer states, as they do now.

Koch would also repeal the commerce clause of the Constitution, which permits the government regulation of business. This clause was used to prevent private businesses from discriminating against minorities. Repeal of the commerce clause would end civil rights in this country, or rather, in the new countries that would be organized from the former red states.

Koch would not oppose such a move, even though it would mean the return of segregation and Jim Crow laws. Koch gives tens of millions of dollars to his various charities, he has seldom, if ever, given a dime to a charity that benefits minorities or supports civil rights. His views on this subject are clear.

Koch ends his post on “corporate cronyism” by announcing that

If America re-establishes the proper role of business in society, all kinds of benefits will accrue. Our economy will rebound. Our liberties will be restored. And when President Obama tells an entrepreneur “You didn’t build that,” everyone will know better.

If Koch's plan to suppress the taxation and commerce clauses of the Constitution were successful, only giant corporations could afford to conduct business in America because they are the only ones that could afford to build the roads, pipelines, and electrical lines that would be necessary to build anything. We are indeed fortunate that Koch's array of fake grassroots organizations with their phony statistics and well-paid shills has not yet succeeded. Do not believe this man. He wishes us all ill.

1Charles Koch, Corporate Cronyism Harms America, Wall Street Journal, Sept. 9, 2012, http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10000872396390443847404577629841476562610.html?mod=WSJ_Opinion_LEADTop.

Kochfacts debunked: Exposing a Koch whopper

In 2012, Kochfacts.com attacked Jacqueline Palank for a line in an article she wrote for the Wall Street Journal.¹ In this line, Palank wrote that Koch was “funding an ad campaign criticizing the Obama administration's support for the bankrupt solar company, Solyndra LLC.”

KochFacts.com wrote that Koch was among the tens of thousands of contributors to Americans for Prosperity, but that Koch had no control over the campaign and had not directed funding toward it.

Koch provided 84 percent of the funding ($13 million) for the predecessor to Americans for Prosperity (AFP), Citizens for a Sound Economy, before 2003. Koch also provided $1 million to AFP through the Claude R. Lamb Charitable Foundation, a Koch front group, which represented about a tenth of AFP's total income for that time period 2006-2008. In 2010, AFP received $2 million in contributions from a Koch-funded organization, Protect Patients Rights, that spent $55 million attacking Democratic candidates in 2010.

Someone who donates $16 million to an organization is not just one among thousands of contributors. Furthermore, Koch has a history of attacking projects he opposes. Koch has been chairman of the board of AFP. They will spend his donations as he recommends.

A strong inference can be made from these facts:

1. Koch donated at least $15 million to AFP.
2. Koch has elsewhere written against Solyndra.
3. AFP ran an ad campaign against Solyndra.
4. Therefore, Koch funded the ad campaign against Solyndra.

This inference might not be convincing in a court of law, but it is strong enough to support Palank's assertion.

Koch could settle this argument by releasing his income tax records (including all the front groups he has set up to conceal his political activities) for the years 2004-2012, when he is believed to have donated millions to AFP. But Koch has not done that. Until he does, his attacks on Palank cannot be believed.

1 Exposing a Factual Error by the Wall Street Journal's Jacqueline Palank, KochFacts.com, Feb. 13, 2012, http://www.kochfacts.com/kf/errorbypalank/.