Category: Transcripts

We Won The First War On Poverty

President Lyndon Johnson declared a war on poverty and America, unlike Vietnam, won that war. World War One and Iraq remind us that some wars, even though we triumphed, have to be fought again. Such is the case with LBJ’s war on poverty. We won it, but now there’s a new war and we’re losing it thanks to the enemy within, a fifth column of Republican extremists who don’t want to pay their fair share.

For more on this we talked with Greg Kaufmann one of America’s leading voices for the poor.

Greg Kaufmann is the former poverty correspondent to The Nation and a current contributor. He serves as an advisor to the Ehrenreich Hardship Reporting Project and the Half in Ten Campaign. Through his writing he seeks to increase media coverage of poverty, share new research, elevate the voices of people living in poverty and offer readers opportunities to get involved with organizations working to eradicate poverty. Melissa Harris-Perry calls Greg “one of the most consistent voices on poverty in America.” Greg has spoken at numerous conferences and been a guest on Moyers & Company, MSNBC’s Melissa Harris-Perry, Tavis Smiley on PBS, NPR’s Radio Times with Marty Moss-Coane, Here & Now, Your Call, The Thom Hartmann Program, Stand Up! with Pete Dominick and The Matthew Filipowicz Show, as well as various local radio programs. His work has also been featured on CBSNews.com, NPR.org, WashingtonPost.com, and BusinessInsider.com. He serves as an adviser for Barbara Ehrenreich’s Economic Hardship Reporting Project. He graduated from Dickinson College and studied creative writing at Miami University (Ohio). He lives in his hometown of Washington, DC, with his wife, son and two daughters.

Greg is a frequent guest on Bill Moyers' show. As a press spokesman for L.B.J. Moyers was on the front lines in the war on poverty.

Greg is a frequent guest on Bill Moyers’ show. As a press spokesman for L.B.J. Moyers was on the front lines in the war on poverty.

We spoke with Greg about poverty in America.

David: You know, you’re a terrific writer, and before we start, I want everybody who’s listening to read your piece on “The Nation’s Website.” It’s up right now. It’s entitled “Confronting Congressional Hunger Games,” and I want to congratulate you on this piece. I’ll post the link to it on our website. Everyone has to read this article. It’s called “Confronting Congressional Hunger Games.” It’s up on The Nation’s website right now. It’s loaded with hyperlinks, just so you know that Greg Kaufmann doesn’t make things up.

Folks, you can decide not to pay attention to hunger in America, but read this article, because nobody can say you didn’t know. You can think whatever you want about people on food stamps, but you need to read this article so at least nobody can ever say you didn’t know. It is a great article, and if you’re on the right side, our side, this article will provide you with pretty much all the ammunition you’re going to need to change minds. People need to know. And so, again, Greg, I thank you for this article. I can’t wait to talk to conservatives because of this article. It’ll be like shooting fish in a barrel. Unfortunately, we can’t eat those fish, and people are starving.

Greg Kauffman: Yeah, David, well, thank you very much.

David: We’re out of time. Thanks for being on the show. Bye-bye.

Greg: I understand, your lordship. No, I thank you for that nice intro, and, yeah, I get sad and angry, too. I think it’s a particularly frustrating time. I mean, covering the poverty beat’s not great for morale anyway most of the time. Yeah, the SNAP food stamp votes and the farm bill votes of late have definitely made for some trying times, mostly for the people who need that assistance, of course.

David: Yeah. Before we dig into this and roll up our sleeves and talk about the farm bill . . .

Born into great wealth Senator Robert Kennedy spent the last years of his life learning about and speaking up for America's poor.

Born into great wealth Senator Robert Kennedy spent the last years of his life learning about and speaking up for America’s poor.

Greg: Yeah.

David: . . . if I were a Muslim and somebody told me the United States is a Christian nation, I’d say, “Good, let your religion take the brunt of this. Let your religion take responsibility for this,” because this is embarrassing.

Greg: Right.

David: This is really embarrassing, so if people want to call this a Christian nation, knock yourself out, have at it, because I would be ashamed to associate any religion with our country.

Greg: It’s obscene! Before we had the food stamp program, back in the late ’60s, or mid ’60s, there were childrenwith bloated bellies in Mississippi and Appalachia. You know, Bobby Kennedy, Peter Edelman went down there, Marion Wright, who’s now Marion Wright-Edelman, showed them around towns where they met these kids with the kind of hunger and malnutrition that we associate with third world countries now, and we say, “Well, we don’t have that in the States.” And, yeah, we don’t have that, and that’s because we created a federal food stamp program. Yeah.

David: I’m told the federal government can’t do anything right, that if it’s left to the federal government, everybody’s just going to fail.

Greg: Yeah.

David: What was the poverty rate in America before Lyndon Johnson declared a war on poverty, and what was the poverty rate after his war on poverty?

Greg: The impact of public policy from 1964 to 1973, the poverty rate fell by 43 percent. I’m not a numbers guy, actually, but I keep a list of numbers, because I’m not a numbers guy.

David: Right. And by the way, it’s in your article. That’s why I asked you.

By all accounts President Johnson's war on poverty was a success. Unfortunately Republican attempts to undermine that victory has also been a success.

By all accounts President Johnson’s war on poverty was a success. Unfortunately Republican attempts to undermine that victory has also been a success.

Greg: Yeah. And at the end of my article, I keep something called vital statistics that’s part of the end of my blog every Friday, and part of the reason I do that is for myself to keep those numbers present, but more it’s because people have no idea. I mean, I didn’t before I started working this beat and the statistics about poverty. So when they say the war on poverty failed, they should look at how the poverty rate fell during the war on poverty.

And further, even more recently, if you look at 2010, Arloc Sherman, who’s a great policy analyst at the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, looked at the impact that the safety net programs had on poverty in 2010. We had a 15 percent rate of poverty that year. Your listeners should know that the poverty rate and the poverty level is just $18,000 for a family of three, so we’re talking about people who lived on less than $18,000, and it was 15 percent that year. I think that’s like 45 million Americans, 46 million Americans, and it would’ve been almost double, 28 percent, without the safety net.

So Congressman Ryan says quite frequently, “We’re not looking at the results of our programs. We’re just looking at how much money we spend.” Baloney. He’s looking just at how much money we spend. He’s not looking at the results. He’s complaining about the money we spend. He’s not looking at the fact that poverty would be twice as high without the programs we have in place, and when you talk about getting angry, I mean, those are the kinds of moments where, yeah, anybody who believes in sort of rational analysis, not to mention the kind of values you were talking about, Christian, Jewish, Muslim, humane values, that should make you pretty angry.

Read More »

Ukraine, A Backgrounder

Facing bankruptcy, Ukraine, in the autumn of 2013, turned its back on the west by allowing Russia to purchase $15 billion worth of government bonds. The purchase was intended to prevent Ukraine from defaulting on its loans in 2014. The deal also included Moscow lowering the price of gas sold to the Ukraine by one-third. Now that deal is in shambles as Vladimir Putin’s Russian Army occupies Crimea once part of Ukraine.

For more on this, we go to Moscow where Alec Luhn is standing by. Alec is “The Nation” magazine’s Moscow correspondent and he has just returned from Kiev.

David: Alec, thank you for joining us.

Alec Luhn: Thanks for having me.

David: Kiev is the capital of “The Ukraine?” Can I call it “The Ukraine” or “Ukraine?”

map-ukraine

Ukraine technically speaking is Europe’s second biggest nation.

Alec: I would call it Ukraine. It’s actually an interesting linguistic difference historically in Russia, they often called Ukraine with a word in front of it that would be loosely translated as “The Ukraine,” but now after the independence of Ukraine, after the breakup of the Soviet Union, it is more politically correct, at least from the Ukrainian point of view to say “Ukraine.”

Although not all Russians…some Russians continue to say “The Ukraine.”

David: Is Ukraine a European country?

Alec: Ukraine is a very divided country and I don’t think you can call all of it a European country. There is definitely European leaning, the western half of Ukraine has a lot of not just etiological ties with Europe but also some definite European cultural things that appear. Everything as simple as coffee shops and things like this that aren’t as popular in the eastern part of Ukraine, to just having a more open or friendly manner that is different from the Russian leaning Eastern half of Ukraine, which very much resembles Russia and is dominated by Russian speakers and people who see their country as strongly linked to Russia.

It’s really split, I would say, between a more European half and or more Russian half.

David: Geographically speaking though, it borders Poland. It could join NATO and if it were perceived as a European nation, it would be the second largest European nation in the EU.

images

Ukrainian protestors succeeded in toppling its Russia friendly government only to lose Crimea the next week.

Alec: Absolutely. It’s got I think about 48 million people is the population so it’s a fairly large nation. It has borders with yes, Poland, Hungary, and definitely there is a strong trend within Ukraine, especially right now, that sees its destiny as linked with Europe’s destiny and sees the country as a part of Europe.

But again, in the East and the South of the country, is a very different view of what Ukraine is, and I’ve been to those parts of the country as well and there, people not only speak Russian, many of them, and not only have a culture and a way of life that more closely resembles Russia, but they definitely see their country as strongly linked both historically and culturally and economically to Russia.

David: So there’s nationalism. There’s the Ukrainian identity, or is that up for grabs? I mean what is the Ukrainian identity? When people sing the national anthem, what are they singing to?

Alec: That is still a big question and actually that’s one of the most important questions. One of the most important issue that’s been raised right now with the giant street protest in Kiev, which are known as “Euro Maidan.”

“Maidan” is allegedly the square where they are taking place in central Kiev. There is definitely a movement to continue to basically create a Ukrainian national identity because for the last 20 years before the Soviet Union broke up, Ukraine underwent a strong process of Russification. It had a Soviet leader of the country who was beholding to Moscow and who engaged in a process to Russify Ukraine.

images-1

Ukrainian police died in the protests as well as civilians.

It had very little chance in the past to develop its own nationality. Even before Soviet times, Ukraine, the Western half that was part of the all so Hungarian Empire. It was also ruled by Poland for a while. The Eastern part was ruled by Russia for a long time. It really hasn’t had a chance except for the past 20 years to develop a nationality identity as Ukraine within its current borders.

That’s been happening in the past 20 years and now, it has really kicked into high gear I think with these protests in the center of Kiev.

Let me just add quickly too to really highlight this “split country” idea. You can look at electoral results in Ukraine, especially for Presidential elections, and almost every time it’s split straight down the middle where the Western half of the country will vote for the more European leaning candidate, and the Eastern half of the country will vote for the more Russia leaning candidate.

The Presidents have actually flip-flopped and have switched in that manner where at first it was a pro-Western President, then a more pro-Russian President, then Viktor Yuschenko was more pro-European President, and now Viktor Yanukovych, the current President who was elected in 2010, is definitely a more Russian leaning President, which he has proved beyond all doubt by signing the deal of Putin.

Read More »

Nader Says Raising Minimum Wage Is Good For Business

Ralph Nader has been lobbying Walmart for years to voluntarily raise their minimum wage, reminding the corporation that it’s in their best financial interests.

This week we’re seeing that the retail sector is slowly waking up to the sobering reality that when Americans don’t earn enough money they can’t shop. Walmart, America’s largest private sector employer, finally seems to get it. The retail behemoth announced last week it might support President Obama’s efforts to increase the federal minimum wage from $7.25 an hour to $10.10.

Meanwhile The Gap says it is voluntarily raising their minimum wage to $10 an hour. 

Ralph Nader has shaped public policy for nearly five decades and has been the single greatest force in progressive politics since Teddy Roosevelt. His new book is Told You So. We talked about why raising the minimum wage is actually good for business:

Listen to original broadcast

David: What role does a higher minimum wage play in higher prices? If Walmart, for example, paid a livable wage to its workers, how much more expensive would all those shoddy items we never needed in the first place actually be?

Ralph: Well, here’s one study that will startle you. And that is, if Walmart took all its workers up to $12 or more an hour, and there’s a million Walmart workers making less than 1968 Walmart workers made adjusted for inflation, it would increase the average Walmart visit by a consumer and what the consumer buys by $0.43, that’s all. These are highly automated companies and that’s assuming Walmart wants to transfer it all to the consumer, not take it out of Mike Duke’s salary and others. Mike Duke, the CEO, makes $11,000 an hour plus benefits, not take it out of other things in the company, other than the workers’ hides. Even if they transfer everything to the consumer, it’s $0.43 a visit. Of course it’s a great stimulus plan too because tens of billions of dollars are rising out of restoration of the minimum wage to 1968 inflation adjusted levels would produce a lot of purchases and that creates jobs.

The CEO of Walmart, Mike Duke, earns $11,000 an hour plus benefits according to Ralph Nader.

The CEO of Walmart, Mike Duke, earns $11,000 an hour plus benefits according to Ralph Nader.

David: According to Goldman Sachs, the quintessential champion of the working man, they issued a new report saying American workers’ wages are growing at two percent per year, as you said, the slowest rate since 1965. Is this a new phenomenon where even people like Goldman Sachs are finally acknowledging income disparity? It seems to me as recently as three years ago people on the right, at least, were not admitting to a chasm between the very wealthy and the very poor. We’re now seeing that both sides are acknowledging it.

Ralph: That’s right, that’s the recent effort. We’ve been at this really vigorously now for five years, so we know the pulse as it grows. We’re trying to push the sluggish AFL-CIO, AFL-CIO has helped with getting demonstrators in front of McDonald’s and others, but it’s been really a slow push until about nine months ago when you see a quickening.

And one of the reasons is that the plutocrats are getting worried about reduced consumer expenditures, they’re saying, “Hey, if we don’t raise these minimum wage salaries, we’re not going to get the sales.” Even Walmart is starting to worry about that. And I think, and we’ve met with Walmart reps about two years ago, and I think that they’re about to come out with a support of the minimum wage. Maybe not as high as $10.90, but maybe they’ll support the $10.10 over three years that’s backed by George Miller and Nancy Pelosi, the leading Democrats that happen come from the one city, San Francisco, that has the highest minimum wage in the country which is, I think, about $10.50 per hour.

Ralph Nader has shaped public policy for nearly five decades and has been the single greatest force in progressive politics since Teddy Roosevelt. His new book is Told You So.

Listen to original broadcast

What do you think about raising the minimum wage? I’d like to know. Please join the conversation below.

 

Read More »

The NFL Is An Extortion Racket

The producers of House Of Cards are threatening to stop filming in Washington DC unless the city gives them a special tax break. This is the type of extortion perfected by the NFL. Build us a stadium, or we’ll leave. Cities build the new stadiums convinced they’re creating new jobs. But, as you’ll see in this interview, new stadiums create low paying jobs that never offset the gigantic tax breaks NFL teams are able to coerce from politicians too afraid to take on the fans.  

Patrick Hruby writes for SportsOnEarth.com. His most recent article in Politico is entitled ‘The National Freeloader League.’

David: You write that the NFL is a 501(c)6 and that back in 1966, Congress rewrote the tax code so that a 501(c)6 would be tax exempt. So what is a 501(c)6? The NFL is a 501(c)6, what is a 501(c)6?

Despite its incessant calls for patriotism the NFL pays surprisingly little in taxes.

Despite its incessant calls for patriotism the NFL pays surprisingly little in taxes.

Patrick Hruby: Congress, like a lot of times, they had a decent idea here. A 501(c)6 is supposed to be basically a trade association. So like a local chamber of commerce or maybe the pistachio council for pistachio nuts or something like that, where it’s an association of businesses and it exists essentially to promote that product. But when the NFL and the AFL merged in the ’60s, somehow they had the 501(c)6 language changed to specifically include professional football leagues. Now, the NFL doesn’t generically promote football. It promotes its member clubs. It’s promoting NFL football. All you have to do is put on an NFL game or see an NFL advertisement to realize that that’s what we’re talking about here. They really don’t compare to other trade associations. They’re nothing like your local chamber of commerce, promoting general business welfare. As Senator Tom Coburn has been arguing for a while, and now has legislation to this effect, the NFL doesn’t deserve to have this sort of designation, the law should be changed.

David: Does Senator Coburn represent Oklahoma?

Patrick: He does, which conveniently enough, does not have an NFL team. Quite a coincidence.

David: Yes. And Linda Sanchez? Congressman Linda Sanchez.

Patrick: Linda Sanchez is somebody who is from California who has actually taken on the NFL a lot over head trauma. And, again, right now, California does have NFL teams but not in her district. She’s in Southern California and not in San Diego. She’s in the LA area. So the NFL has not had a team in the LA area for 15, 20 years now.

David: Right.

70% of the money going into new stadiums comes from taxpayers.

70% of the money going into new stadiums comes from taxpayers.

Patrick: So it’s definitely something to keep in mind here is that the NFL does have a lot of sort of soft power in Washington and in the halls of Congress. A lot of that isn’t just that, you know, they spend a good amount on lobbying. They spend $1 million to $2 million a year on lobbying. I think they’re up to now four K Street firms that represent them. They’ve increased their lobbying efforts a lot in the last decade to half decade. But they have a soft power, in terms of if you’re an NFL front office, if you’re an NFL owner, it’s very easy to invite a congress person or an important government person up to your owner’s box for a game. You’ve kind of got that sort of schmoozing factor. You’ve got that access factor. You don’t have to necessarily make a big campaign donation to get the ear of somebody. You sort of have this other glamorous way of doing it.

David: It can cost you a lot of money if you’ve got Governor Chris Christie in that skybox, stomach stapling not withstanding. I mean that guy can eat through a lot of your profits. Let’s turn to local pride. Was that funny?

Patrick: I laughed.

David: OK.

Patrick: I’m here.

David: All right. I don’t… Let’s turn to local pride. In the past two decades, you say about 80 stadiums have been built in America. What does your average stadium cost and who pays for it?

Patrick: The costs can vary so wildly, depending on what kind of sport we’re talking about, the size of the stadium, how sort of Taj-Majal-esque you want the stadium to be. But, you know, we’re talking everything from maybe $300 million, $400 million, $500 million, which is a ton of money, to over $1 billion, which is an even bigger ton of money. Let’s put it that way. And people that have studied this, one woman in particular, Grant Judith Long, at Harvard has studied this extensively. The majority of cases, the majority of the money is being paid for by local taxpayers. State and municipal taxpayers. They’re picking up the tab, so we’re talking hundreds of millions of dollars.

Study after study reveals that NFL teams do not create high paying jobs for the local economy.

Study after study reveals that NFL teams do not create high paying jobs for the local economy.

David: You write that 70% of the capital costs in NFL stadiums is provided by taxpayers. Is that through actual tax or is that through bond issues mostly?

Patrick: Well, that’s the sneaky thing here. It’s that and more. I mean, when we’re talking about the actual total cost, we’re not just talking about construction bonds, which are a huge part of the expense, we’re also talking about tax subsidies. So a stadium is built and then the ownership of the team doesn’t have to pay property tax at all. Or they pay very small property tax. Or much less than what a normal business would pay. We’re talking about all kinds of infrastructure that is built around these stadiums. Everything from roads, sewers, electricity, all that stuff. The public almost always picks up the tab for that. Public transportation to the station. A metro stop is built next to the stadium. The public picks up that cost. We’re also talking about how these bonds funded. I mean, generally, it’s things like hotel taxes, rental car taxes, sometimes there are lottery taxes. The lottery was actually used to help pay for the stadium in Baltimore. For the Baltimore Ravens. As any economists will tell you, lottery taxes are incredibly aggressive. That’s essentially taxing poor people more than rich people. So there’s almost something being morally more offensive about that.

David: Yeah. The taxpayers are subsidizing the building of the stadiums, the teams don’t have to pay property taxes?

Patrick: In a lot of cases, they don’t have to pay property tax or they pay a very reduced rate. There’s a federal layer to all this, by the way. These construction bonds that are issued by the local and state governments to pay for these stadiums? They are also exempt from federal taxes. Again, Congress had a good idea making these kinds of bonds generally exempt because they wanted to encourage states and cities to build schools and roads and hospitals. But stadiums also are kept under this sort of umbrella of being tax exempt. In a Bloomberg News report on this, they estimated that this is costing the federal treasury something like $140 million a year. Which, again, is a significant amount of money.

David: How much? How much?

Patrick: $140 million a year is what Bloomberg estimated.

David: That’s the, just so our listeners understand this and so I understand, local and state bonds, for the most part, if you buy a local and state bond, the interest on it that you collect is exempt from federal taxes. But that’s to encourage the building of bridges and highways and schools?

Patrick: Exactly.

David: Okay.

Patrick: And somehow stadiums are being kept under that same umbrella.

David: Well, they’re kept under that umbrella, Patrick, because stadiums are good for local business. When a team owner threatens to leave, aren’t we going to lose great jobs?

Despite its incessant calls for patriotism the NFL pays surprisingly little in taxes.

Despite its incessant calls for patriotism the NFL pays surprisingly little in taxes.

Patrick: That’s the other part of the myth here. I mean, every economic study that has not been paid for by a league or a team owner has concluded that there is no economic positive effect from building a stadium. A stadium is not like building roads. It is not like building schools. You are not investing in your future. You are not getting an economic multiplier effect. You are not juicing the economy in any way. You might create a few low paying jobs in terms of food service and parking attendants and things like that. But, for the most part, what you’re doing is putting money into an owner’s pocket. You’re putting it into their pocket in terms of increasing their franchise value. These cities don’t even ask that, if the team is moved or sold, they get a cut of that equity. So they’re not even making good deals on here. And in terms of the return on investment, one economist I talked to, Dennis Coates, over here at University of Baltimore, he told me he looked at local incomes in places where multiple stadiums had been built and that had multiple pro sports franchises. He said that the net effect was a slight reduction in local income, which is astonishing.

David: This is great. Patrick, we have a new mayor in New York City. I think his name is de Blasio. Am I pronouncing that right?

Patrick: You’re right.

David: Mayor de Blasio wants to fund preschool for all by putting an extra tax on the richest 1% and it’s intimated that some Wall Street executives will take Wall Street someplace else. That’s the way cities are always threatened. If you tax us, we’ll move. If you won’t build us a stadium, we’ll move. In 1999, you write that the Senate had a solution for this. What would it be called? Greenmail? Or what would you call this? Blackmail?

Patrick: Yeah, for this, basically this is a form of civic extortion. Right. So, you’re right. I’m glad you brought up Wall Street. This doesn’t just happen in sports, but sports are a great way to look at it. So, essentially, the owner of the team says, ‘Build me a new stadium, or I’m going to move to Los Angeles. Or I’m going to move to Portland. Or I’m going to move to Washington D.C. Or wherever it is that I can get a deal for a stadium.’ It’s been termed, basically, the war of the states or the war of cities, where we’re tripping over ourselves to give out corporate welfare, essentially. And, like I said, it’s not just for stadiums. This Senate bill, what it would have done, it’s brilliant. It would have slapped a 100% federal excise tax on any state or local spending that was designed to benefit a single industry or a single company. So, if the Seattle Seahawks or UPS said to the city of Seattle or said to the city of Tacoma or wherever, I don’t know, wherever UPS is located, if they said, ‘Look, give us a new building. Give us a tax break or we’re leaving.’ The city could have said, ‘Well, fine, but you’re going to have to pay 100% excise tax on whatever benefit you’re getting from us.’ Therefore, the team owner would have no incentive to ask for that money. Instantly, all this sort of pitting cities against each other, pitting states against each other, it would’ve been defused.

David: What is an excise tax?

Patrick: It’s just basically slapping a tax on that kind of transaction. So it’d be like, if you do this then you automatically have to pay this tax to the federal government. It’s almost more of a threat than something you expect to carry through with, in a way.

David: Suppose Microsoft says, ‘We want to build a factory in Texas.’ and they go shopping around for tax breaks.

Patrick: Right. Whatever tax break they would’ve gotten, they would then have to pay 100% of the break they got back to the federal government. So, essentially, they would have no incentive to move in the first place.

David: Patrick Hruby writes for SportsOnEarth.com, his most recent article in Politico is entitled, ‘The National Freeloader League’. Patrick, thank you for joining us.

Patrick: Thanks for having me on.

Listen to the original broadcast

What do you think? I’d like to hear. Please join the conversation below:

 

Read More »

How The NFL Steals From America

The NFL isn’t just stealing from America by charging too much for tickets, it’s stealing high paying jobs while not paying its fair share of taxes.

Patrick Hruby writes for SportsonEarth.Com and his most recent article in Politico is entitled, ‘The National Freeloader League.’ Patrick not only accuses the NFL of paying zero taxes, he also says football teams drain our economy, creating low-paying jobs while tax payers subsidize stadiums they can’t afford to step foot in. Patrick says the NFL socializes the risk and privatizes the profits. 

Listen to the original broadcast

David: Patrick, I watched the Superbowl yesterday. Why do you hate our troops?

Patrick: Well, I love Budweiser, can we find some common ground there? They love the troops. Even by NFL standards and Superbowl standards it was a weirdly flag-wrapping, overtly patriotic spectacle and you know what they say about patriotism and scoundrels and last refuges. Maybe it’s telling about the cultural place that the NFL is at right now. It’s almost defensive, in a way.

David: The commercial didn’t say that Budweiser loves our troops, they love one troop.

Patrick: Which was also, kind of, weird, and again, you know, there’s a fine line between trying to do something nice and celebratory and yes, even patriotic for our military. Almost everybody thinks it’s a good idea. And going over that line into using all of that for crass self promotion, wrapping yourself in the flag and using it as a way of deflecting legitimate criticism and I just sort of felt uncomfortable with it last night.

NFL Commissioner Roger Goodell earns $29 and a half million a year running a tax-exempt corporation.

NFL Commissioner Roger Goodell earns $29 and a half million a year running a tax-exempt corporation.

David: We had Andrew Bacevich, the military historian, on our show. He’s also a West Point graduate who served in Vietnam and he calls this spectacle ‘cheap grace.’ Americans get a false sense of patriotism and helping the troops by welling up when they see one soldier returning and some fireworks. And then they can get back to watching the game and being exploited by Budweiser. Patrick, you write that the NFL is going to make $9 billion this year.

Patrick: That $9 billion, and actually, it’s $9 and a half billion and by sum estimates, closer to $10 billion, it includes everything. So, what the teams are bringing in at the gate through ticket sales, what the league is bringing in through its various television contracts, which is really where the big money is and all the sort of ancillary money they make selling jerseys and licensing NFL logos for t-shirts and all those sorts of things. So, we’re talking about a pretty large industry and definitely the biggest in American domestic sports.

David: More than baseball?

Patrick: Yes, they’re bringing in more than baseball, though baseball has been going up for recent years but the NFL is still the juggernaut.

David: How much does NFL Commissioner Roger Goodell earn?

Patrick: The last reported year, which was the tax returns of the NFL in 2012, he brought in $29 and a half million.

David: A year.

Patrick: A year, which is a pretty significant sum. Now, if you get into what I talk about in the article how the NFL front office, which Roger Goodell is the head of, is a tax exempt organization, Roger Goodell’s salary dwarfs that of other CEO’s of tax exempt organizations, such as the United Way, Red Cross, things like that. You’re seeing maybe salaries in the $1 to $2 million range for most charitable non-profit organizations.

David: Right, but Roger Goodell pays taxes on his salary.

Patrick: Yes, he does pay taxes on his salary and something to be clear about, in terms of the tax exemption here, the NFL teams are paying taxes on the money they’re bringing in and the league is paying taxes on the for profit parts of the league, the TV deals and things like that they do. But the front office itself, the NFL headquarters, Park Avenue, New York, where they administer the league, they make the deals with the TV networks, they make the deals with the players’ union over the collective bargaining agreement, they oversee the on-field rules, all of that, that’s a non-profit.

David: Roger Goodell makes how much?

Patrick: $29 and a half million a year.

Former NFL Commissioner Paul Tagliabue has earned $50 million from the NFL while no longer working for the organization.

Former NFL Commissioner Paul Tagliabue has earned $50 million from the NFL while no longer working for the organization.

David: And the commissioner before him was Paul Tagliabue.

Patrick: That’s right.

David: Is he still earning money from the NFL?

Patrick: Amazingly, he is. I went back and I went through their tax returns, and basically since Tagliabue stepped down and was succeeded by Roger Goodell and this was in 2006, and Paul made close to $50 million in the last half decade from the NFL and its related organizations, essentially for not working. He works now at Covington and Burling, it’s a big law firm in DC, which has worked with the NFL for a very long time. So, just as there’s that revolving door in Washington on K Street and Congress, there seems to be a little bit of a revolving door between K street and the NFL.

David: And our justice Department, Eric Holder, comes out of that law firm as well.

Patrick: That’s right. And the head of the NFL Union, Dee Smith, he comes from Patton Boggs, another K street firm. The NFL’s top lawyer right now, Jeff Pash, is a former Covington guy. And for purposes of what we’re talking about, the NFL’s tax chief council, I found out he also works at Covington. So, there’s quite a connection there. The NFL’s well connected in D.C.

David: And Covington I believe also represents Goldman Sachs and some of the big names.

Patrick: I think they do and if you go back further, they also represented a lot of the big tobacco back in the bad old days of big tobacco telling everybody that cigarettes weren’t bad for your health.

David: Eric Holder, our Attorney General, comes from that law firm.

Patrick: Correct.

Listen to the original broadcast 

What do you think? Please join the conversation below:

Read More »

Marty Short Explains Mayor Rob Ford

Ask your typical American who Canada’s prime minister is and they would say, ‘What’s a prime minister?’ But ask an American who Toronto’s mayor is, and they would say, ‘Rob Ford.’ Joining us is Martin Short.

Listen to the original broadcast

David:  Marty, you’re a Canadian. Is crack cocaine legal in Canada?

Marty:  Yes, it is. And I think it’s wrong. No, it’s not remotely legal. There’s nothing that makes sense in this case. You know, the police chief has video of the mayor smoking crack. Often, that’s a detriment to a man seeking re-election. Somehow, this has helped this man. I don’t have the answers. I lived in Toronto for many years. I can’t explain the phenomenon of Rob Ford. This is a guy who does not care what happens to him. Justin Bieber threw eggs at his house, and Ford just ate them. When Ford goes to a casino buffet . . .

David: Yes?

Marty: The cook, upon seeing his arrival screamed, ‘I need backup’ So I can’t explain his popularity. I just can’t.

Toronto Mayor Rob Ford is running for reelection.

Toronto Mayor Rob Ford is running for reelection.

David: He’s running for re-election . . .

Marty: And he has a very good chance of winning.

David: So he’s done more than drugs. Is there a record he can run on besides his police record?

Marty: What I have been told is that he has kept his campaign promises. He has said he was going to cut taxes, was going to close libraries. Every decision wasn’t based on elegance or sophistication, but it was certainly based on his pledge, ‘I will cut taxes and I will help the suburbs more than the suburbs feel they’re being helped.’ And both those cases, his supporters would say he’s actually done that. There’s been no indication of graft or anything illegal other than personal behavior that the mayor has done. So that’s why he’s forgiven by many.

David: Well, you say that Mayor Ford kept his campaign promises. Some would say that President George W. Bush also kept his campaign promises.

Marty: I don’t think he promised to invade a country that hadn’t done anything to us.

David: You’re saying Mayor Ford didn’t campaign on promising to invade a foreign country, or President Bush?

Marty: Mayor Ford.

David: Mayor Ford said he would never invade a foreign country.

Marty: Unless they had crack cocaine. Then he would invade them. If Buffalo opened a crack cocaine manufacturing, there could be troops coming from Toronto into Buffalo. I’m just warning you. I’m not trying to be the doomsday guy.

Marty Short says Mayor Ford has a pretty good chance of getting reelected.

Marty Short says Mayor Ford has a pretty good chance of getting reelected.

David: Mayor Rob Ford has kept his promise to the people who put him in office, who wanted fiscal responsibility, not necessarily personal responsibility.

Marty: Correct. But there are other issues about Ford, you know, that can’t be forgotten. You know, he voted against AIDS funding because, and this is his quote, ‘If you’re not doing needles and you are not gay, you wouldn’t get AIDS, probably.’ This is a quote.

David: Which, to me, is more important than his smoking crack.

Marty: Right. He also solicited money from lobbyists on city letterhead for the Rob Ford Football Foundation, his private charity. Totally illegal. He proposed eliminating the city’s watchdog agencies after they targeted him for misconduct. And he said Oriental people are taking over Toronto because they work like dogs. Using the term ‘Orientals’, first, in this day and age.

Mayor Ford was videotaped recently smoking crack cocaine.

Mayor Ford was videotaped recently smoking crack cocaine.

David: Yeah.

Marty: I mean, it’s just like, you wonder, what, is he smoking crack?

It’s insane that this guy represents the fourth-largest city in North America. It’s not elegant. But I have one bit of advice to his wife.

David: Yes?

Marty: Get on top!

David: Martin Short, when were you honorary mayor of the Pacific Palisades?

Marty: I was, from 1999 to 2001, and then I was followed by Anthony Hopkins.

David: You were accused of overreach. You did implement a very strict, draconian stop-and-frisk policy as honorary mayor.

Marty: Mm-hmm. It was a little different. It was called stop-and-finger.

 Listen to the original broadcast

 

Read More »