Pages

Tuesday, February 22, 2011

Indiana Democrats flee state

  -  

Matt Detrich/AP
Bueller... Bueller...
Illinois is the new hot-spot for runaway Democratic lawmakers. Taking a lead from nearby officials, House Democrats from Indiana fled state lines to stop a vote on anti-union legislation. Some Dems also reportedly took off for Kentucky.
Only three of the 40 Democrats showed up this morning, according to The Indianapolis Star. With only 58 people present, there wasn't a quorum to get anything done on the books.
Democrats are fighting against a GOP-backed bill that would limit collective bargaining for private-sector unions. This is the latest instance of a major push-back across the country (there's probably some spreadable cheese joke in there).
Back where it all started in Wisconsin, the stand-off continues. Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker warned today that state employees could start receiving pink slips as early as next week if 

Status Quo: Senate Democrats Can’t Find Any Government Spending to Cut



Posted by Don Seymour on February 22, 2011
The federal government is on track to run up the largest one-year deficit in history and the third consecutive deficit above $1 trillion, creating more uncertainty for small businesses and threatening job growth. That’s why the House passed legislation over the weekend that would keep the government funded through October while also makingthe largest spending cut in history.
But so far, Senate Democratic leaders would rather shut down the government than bring the House-passed bill to a vote. Just like their counterparts in the HouseSenate Democrats can’t seem to find any spending they’d cut.
Instead, Senator Chuck Schumer (D-NY) says keeping government spending at current levels for now is “the most logical thing to do.”
By that he means the bloated levels of the failed “stimulus” spending binge. Analysis by the House Budget Committee found that since 2009 Democrats have “increased non-defense discretionary spending by nearly 25 percent – an 84 percent increase when you include the stimulus.” The Democrats who run Washington want to lock in that bloated level. Here’s a chart from the Budget Committee:
Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) also insists on keep governing spending at these bloated levels in order to “avoid a shutdown.” But why do we have to keep spending money we don’t have – borrowing and adding more debt onto the backs of our kids and grandkids – in order to “avoid a shutdown?” Republicans passed a bill that would “avoid a shutdown” and cut spending to create a better environment for job growth – all Senator Reid has to do is bring it to a vote.
Speaker Boehner said, “Senate Democratic leaders are insisting on a status quo that has left us with a mountain of debt and a stalled economy with unemployment near 10 percent.” Instead of “creating more uncertainty by spreading fears of a government shutdown,” Boehner says Democrats should “start telling the American people what – if anything – they are willing to cut.”

“A Very Big Change,” “Gets Results”: What They’re Saying About the Open Debate on Spending Cuts



Posted by Don Seymour on February 22, 2011
Early Saturday morning, the House passed H.R. 1, an historic $100 billion spending cut and the first “continuing resolution” in history to be debated under an open process where lawmakers from both parties could offer and debate amendments. Both the spending cut and the process used to pass it are key parts of the Pledge to America– and instrumental to the Republican efforts to reform Congress and create a better environment for job growth. Here’s what lawmakers and pundits are saying:
  • “Democracy”: “In sharp contrast to his recent predecessors, Speaker John Boehner is sticking to his vow to make the chamber more open and accountable. ... ‘Chaos,’ ‘a headache,’ ‘turmoil,’ ‘craziness,’ ‘confused,’ ‘wild,’ ‘uncontrolled’ are just a few of the words the Washington press corps has used to describe the ensuing late-night debates. There’s a far better word for what happened: democracy.” (Congress Finally Earns Its Pay,Wall Street Journal, 2/18/11)
  • “Epic Spending Fight”: “The new speaker turned loose his legion of tea-party freshmen for an epic spending fight and gave Republicans free rein to go after all aspects of government operations.” (The education of John BoehnerPolitico, 2/19/11)
  • “Open Process Gets Results”: “The continuing resolution that passed the House just before dawn on Saturday was the final product of more than 60 hours worth of freewheeling, at times chaotic, debate on the House floor. ... The additional measures reduce spending by an additional $620 million...” (Open Process Gets ResultsNational Review, 2/20/11)
  • “Refreshing”: “Rep. Howard Berman (D-Calif.), who is serving his 15th term, praised the open process. ‘There’s a refreshing aspect to it,’ Berman told The Hill.” (Dems like openness in GOP HouseThe Hill, 2/17/11)
  • “Encouraging”: “Rep. George Miller (D-Calif.), a confidant of Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.), said the amendment process is ‘encouraging.’ ‘It’s rather retro. We haven’t operated this way in probably a decade. Butit’s rather encouraging,’ he said on MSNBC.” (Dems like openness in GOP HouseThe Hill, 2/17/11)
  • “A Very Big Change”: “Even some veteran Democrats praised what was the most open and sprawling floor fight the House had seen in years. ‘After as little openness as we’ve had, it’s a very big change. It’s refreshing, and I think it’s a good thing,’ said Rep. John Dingell (D-Mich.), the dean of the House and a member of Congress since 1955.” (The education of John BoehnerPolitico, 2/19/11)
  • “Reflects What Americans Expect”: “Speaker Boehner’s approach, though, reflects what Americans expect of Congress by giving rank-and-file lawmakers greater input into drafting legislation.” (Open House policyThe Daily News, 2/22/11)
  • “Unmatched”: “[T]he House can only control what the House can control. And in less than a week it has shown a level of fiscal seriousness and fidelity to limited government that is unmatched in our time.” ($61.5 billion Sign of SeriousnessCommentary, 2/21/11)
  • “Delivering On a Promise”: “As much as anything, the wide-open consideration of this spending bill reflected the institutional values of Boehner, who is delivering on a promise to restructure the House to favor spending cuts, empower the rank and file rather than party leaders to drive policy, and give the public clearer insight into the priorities of their elected officials.” (The education of John BoehnerPolitico, 2/19/11)
Comments
The opinions expressed below are those of their respective authors and do not necessarily represent those of this office.
  • Michael Szczekot commented on 2/22/2011
    Awesome just awesome!
  • James Aberdeen commented on 2/22/2011
    It's refreshing to see that the process works. Unlike his predecessor, Speaker Boehner has my full faith that he will deliver all that he promised. Maybe we can get this runaway train wreck back on the correct track.
  • Lori Gibson commented on 2/22/2011
    Speaker Boehner 's leadership has restored fiscal responsibility & accountability back to Congress , that has mada a definite turn to address the urgent financial state of the country! Those other elected leaders/members who DO NOT vote with Speaker Boehner and against the will of the people , will be voted out of office ASAP! Thank You Speaker Boehner for steadfastly keeping Republican Pledge promises to dillegently stop the very harsh bleeding Barack Obama has inflicted on America !!!!!!
  • Gildersleeve Katie commented on 2/22/2011
    60 Billion is a good start, but it is not enough. Hard choices have to be made and all non essential government departments and spending has got to go. So take away the scalpel and get out the machete and balance this budget. We need to pay back China and quite borrowing money, please pass a bill that we can no longer borrow money. China is taking us into an abyss we will never get out of. We need to pass legislation that will stop our US companies from outsourcing labor and manufacturing to foreign countries and put our own people back to work
  • Jenna Lusby commented on 2/22/2011
    Cut . . .Love. . . . Pray. CUT the budget, even those things we LOVE like public television which is wonderful and educational. Then PRAY that the private sector will step up and fund the worthy causes established to help the less fortunate and to provide intelligent media content. Otherwise this debt will be our doom. Cut. Love. Pray. And work hard with integrity and creativity. We can do this. Thank you!
  • Dee Glover commented on 2/22/2011
    So far I have seen some very good work coming out and I thank God that "Speaker Boehner" has started to get us back on the right track....Now I ask "Speaker Boehner" to continue to cut where it is needed for Our Country to Survive......THANK YOU Speaker Boehner........GOD BLESS OUR COUNTRY USA
  • Jennifer Koehler commented on 2/22/2011
    Even without all of these glowing remarks, I am delighted, as an American, to see such consistency in stated purpose and action once elected. I LOVE seeing both sides lay it on the line. For too long, Dems have been able to pass their horrid bills without meaningful debate or challenge, and now all will be able to state their case. Americans will finally be able to see each side for who they are and see just who wants to preserve our country on sound principles vs. those who want to destroy us under vacuous pretenses. GO BOEHNER! You cannot cut too much! Government was made to protect our nation and uphold its laws--not redistribute wealth or become a nanny/welfare state. It's time we got back to the basics.
  • Yvonne Goersch commented on 2/22/2011
    Hello, I am here to let you know that the 99ers are in really big trouble we need Republican support we can't feed our families most of us are losing our roof over are head and we can't even put gas into our car (if we still have it)!!!!!!!!!!! You have the luxury of eating and sleeping while we have nothing I am tired of people saying we are lazy and we just want free money it makes me sick to my stomach and the Republicans have not helped us at all we aren't even on there minds and that is plain wrong, we are American People who still need the Governments help while jobs are being created. We are all so upset with Republicans that come term time all the Republicans will be voted out because they care about the rich and themselves only!!! We have nothing but you can give money to other Countries while we can't eat here in America it makes me so upset and we don't deserve that we need your support because we are getting up to the millions and lives will be lost because we will run out of options for ourselves and we won't know what to do with our lives can't eat, can't sleep no calls for interview but no gas anyway so we will think what do we have left and just give up. The Republicans have not supported us and haven't been out there for us because why do we need to live right? Your going to see how many millions we will turn into and you would let just die so you don't have to deal with us!!! I don't want to hear our deficit is to high this is a number one issue the most important to our Government and the worst part of it all is that this money would go right back into the economy but screw that and us right? I hope Republicans will care about there own people and support us before voters need to vote again. Please support us fast when you get back from your VACATION!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!1 Thank you!!!!!!!!!!
  • Jan S commented on 2/22/2011
    Speaker Boehner, You’ve passed your cuts impacting Americans and doing nothing about bringing jobs to the USA. You’ve cut helping your neighbors, educating children and could put another 1 Million Americans on Unemployment. Those cuts could also lead the way for making Americans homeless. You didn’t do anything to stop jobs from being outsourced. Indeed, last fall you gave bonuses to people and companies who outsource American jobs. And you gave yourself a tax cut. Now you want middle class and poor Americans to pay for them. Nice job! First you borrowed from other countries to fund outsourcing jobs. And now have a bill asking average Americans to pay for it. Sir, we need more good JOBS in the USA NOW. Jan
  • Jackie Messersmith commented on 2/22/2011
    @ Yvonne...really? I'm in the same position as you, but have sense enough to know that we need to address spending and the deficit in this country. Just like you and me, the government has to stop spending what they don't have. That's the path to financial and economic security. Do you think simply printing or borrowing more money will solve your problem? Not even. (BTW, foreign aid was reduced) I'm behind you Speaker Boehner, and encourage you to take the next hard step to tackle entitlements, including Obamacare. We're not going to get to where we need to be by passing the buck to the next congress or the next generation.
  • Brian Griffith commented on 2/22/2011
    DON'T BACK DOWN!!! If not now - when? If not us - who? Nobody likes the prospect of a government shutdown, but if it comes to that in order to drive this point home, then do it. Buckle up people. Time to take our medicine.
  • Jackie Messersmith commented on 2/22/2011
    @ Jan...I think you've confused the previous Congress of four years with Boehner.

Boehner: Keep the Government Running While Cutting Spending



“Senate Democratic leaders are insisting on a status quo that has left us with a mountain of debt and a stalled economy with unemployment near 10 percent.” 

Washington (Feb 22)
House Speaker John Boehner (R-OH) released the following statement today calling on Senate Democratic leaders to take up House legislation that will keep the government running while cutting spending:
“The House has passed legislation to keep the government running until October while cutting spending.  If Senator Reid refuses to bring it to a vote, then the House will pass a short-term bill to keep the government running – one that also cuts spending.  Senate Democratic leaders are insisting on a status quo that has left us with a mountain of debt and a stalled economy with unemployment near 10 percent.  That is not a credible position.  Republicans’ goal is to cut spending and reduce the size of government, not to shut it down. Senator Reid and the Democrats who run Washington should stop creating more uncertainty by spreading fears of a government shutdown and start telling the American people what – if anything – they are willing to cut.”

Rahm Emanuel wins Chicago mayoral race

Ex-White House chief of staff to replace city's 6-term Mayor Richard Daley


One of six people will be the new mayor: Rahm Emanuel, Gery Chico, Carol Moseley Braun, Miguel del Valle, William "Dock" Walls or Patricia Van Pelt Watkins. NBC's John Yang reports.

CHICAGO — Former White House chief of staff Rahm Emanuel was elected mayor of Chicago on Tuesday, easily overwhelming five rivals to take the helm of the nation's third-largest city as it prepares to chart a new course without the retiring Richard M. Daley.

With 86 percent of the precincts reporting, Emanuel was trouncing five opponents Tuesday with 55 percent of the vote to avoid an April runoff. Emanuel needed more than 50 percent of the vote to win.

The other major candidates — former Chicago schools president Gery Chico, former U.S. Sen. Carol Moseley Braun and City Clerk Miguel del Valle — had hoped to force a runoff but were no match for Emanuel.

Chico had 24 percent of the vote compared to 9 percent for both del Valle and Braun. Two other lesser-known candidates each got about 1 percent of the vote.

Emanuel, who takes office in May, thanked Chicago voters for welcoming him back from Washington. "You sure know how to make a guy feel at home," he said in his victory speech.

But, he said, the election was only the beginning of more tough work ahead. "My sense … is we have not won anything until a kid can go to school thinking of their studies and not their safety," he said.

Braun conceded the race for mayor of Chicago, telling supporter she "gave it her best." The election brings to an end Braun's attempt at a political comeback. She was elected as the country's first black female U.S. senator in 1992 and served one term before falling largely out of the public eye.

Emanuel's win caps off a campaign that included an unsuccessful legal challenge to try to keep him off the ballot.

The six candidates spent Tuesday morning still pushing for votes, shaking hands with surprised commuters and diner-goers and pleading their cases for why they should be picked to succeed the retiring Daley, who will leave office this spring after 22 years on the job.

"This is a critical election for the future of the city of Chicago. We're at a crossroads," Emanuel said as he greeted commuters at a South Side train station.

The campaign began last fall when Daley — with his wife ailing, six terms under his belt, and a future of fiscal challenges facing Chicago — announced he wouldn't seek re-election.

It was the city's first mayoral race in more than 60 years without an incumbent on the ballot and the first in more than two decades without Daley among the candidates. Daley and his father have led Chicago for more than 43 out of the last 56 years.Story: A look at Chicago's royal political family

Emanuel led in the polls and in fundraising since he announced he was running last fall, and his confident, no-nonsense style resonated with many voters. Chico finished second in most of the polls, ahead of Braun and del Valle but far behind Emanuel.

Emanuel would be Chicago's first Jewish mayor.

Justin Blake, a 42-year-old black general contractor who chatted with Emanuel on Tuesday, said voting for him was a no-brainer because of Emanuel's "knowledge of what's going on, not only here locally but worldwide.

"He's been right up there with the president; why wouldn't you vote for somebody who's got that much collateral behind him?" Blake said. Video: Illinois Supreme Court: Rahm can run (on this page)

Mark Arnold, 23, an auditor voting at a downtown polling place, said he is excited at the prospect of change.

"I think Daley's done a lot of good things, but at the same time I just feel like the city right now, it's kind of like a good old boys' club," Arnold said, saying the election would bring in "someone with new ideas who's been in other places."

Daley has been criticized for allowing the city to spend beyond its means, and Chicago's finances were further damaged by the economic downturn of the last few years. The new mayor will have to quickly decide on a politically unpalatable strategy for improving city finances that may well involve raising taxes and cutting services and public employee benefits.

The five-month campaign took many unusual turns, even for a city where voting from six feet under is part of election lore. But after a race that included a challenge of Emanuel's right to call himself a Chicagoan going all the way to the Illinois Supreme Court and Braun accusing another candidate of being strung out on crack cocaine, some voters complained they had not heard enough about where the candidates stood on the issues.

Some said they were focused more on the candidates' resumes and influence.

"Daley had connections," said Terrence Trampiets, 66, a North Side resident intending to vote for Emanuel. "You have to have that to get things done."

Daley's lock on City Hall had left many voters complacent. His decision at age 68 not to run again unleashed a sudden flurry of potential interest in running from nearly two dozen politicians, including the county sheriff, congressmen, state lawmakers and members of the City Council.

But the campaign focus quickly shifted from City Hall to the White House when Emanuel announced he was interested in the job — weeding many lesser-known candidates in the process.

That was followed by a sometimes weird tussle over whether Emanuel was a city resident and therefore even eligible to run because he had not lived in Chicago for a full year before the election, as required by law. He had lived in Washington working for Obama since soon after giving up his North Side congressmen's seat in 2008.

The residency challenge turned into a spectacle that saw Emanuel on a Board of Elections witness stand in a makeshift courtroom in the basement of a downtown building being grilled for a dozen hours by regular Chicago residents with some very irregular questions, such as one from a man who asked if Emanuel had been involved in the 1993 Branch Davidian siege at Waco, Texas, when he worked for the Clinton administration.

Several tense days followed when an appellate court ordered Emanuel's name thrown off the ballot, before the state's Supreme Court stepped in and definitively ruled that Emanuel was a resident and could indeed run for mayor. Until then, Emanuel's rivals had painted him as an outsider.

Meanwhile, a group of African-American leaders, including the Rev. Jesse Jackson, decided that their best hope of electing a black mayor was to convince all but one of the major black candidates to drop out of the race. Both U.S. Rep. Danny Davis and State Sen. James Meeks, the pastor of a megachurch on Chicago's South Side, ended their candidacies and threw their support behind Braun. Video: Daley faces big challenges

The city's first black mayor was Harold Washington, who was elected in 1983. The first woman mayor was Jane Byrne, elected in 1979.

The black consensus effort marked a return to the spotlight for Braun, who last won election in 1992 when she became the first African-American woman to win a U.S. Senate seat. She had largely been out of the spotlight since she announced a longshot bid for the Democratic nomination for president in 2004.

But Braun made headlines when, after rival Patricia Van Pelt-Watkins wondered aloud at a debate about Braun's absence from public life, Braun shot back that the reason Van Pelt-Watkins didn't know what she'd been up to was that she had been "strung out on crack."

Van Pelt-Watkins said afterward she'd had a drug problem years ago, but denied ever using crack, and Braun later apologized. But she often showed sharp elbows during the campaign, in particular during exchanges with Emanuel. Some polls had her stuck in single digits or the teens while Emanuel scored well above 40 percent.

The other two main candidates, Chico and del Valle, have throughout the campaign struggled to get media attention, in large part because the fight over Emanuel's residency took center stage. A sixth candidate, William "Dock" Walls, was also running.

Memories of 1995 shutdown haunt GOP

Budget impasse helped President Clinton reverse his falling fortunes



Budget battles at the state and federal level continue, with pressure building in Wisconsin and some Democrats predicting a government shutdown when current funding runs out March 4. NBC’s Kelly O’Donnell reports.
See other videos

WASHINGTON — Few memories haunt Republicans more deeply than the 1995-96 partial shutdown of the federal government, which helped President Bill Clinton reverse his falling fortunes and recast House Republicans as stubborn partisans, not savvy insurgents.

Now, as Congress careens toward a budget impasse, government insiders wonder if another shutdown is imminent — and whether Republicans again would suffer the most blame.

Leaders of both parties say they are determined to avoid a shutdown. But they have not yielded on the amount of spending cuts they will demand or accept. Meanwhile, shutdown talk is rippling through Washington and beyond.As shutdown threat looms, Reid digs in

"It's good for political rhetoric to talk about a government shutdown. But I don't know anybody that wants that to happen," Republican Sen. Tom Coburn said on "Fox News Sunday."

Behind the scenes, Senate officials are spending Congress' President's Day recess week pouring over the spending proposal passed by the House early Saturday, according to one Democratic leader.

"We are prepared to negotiate right away," Democratic Sen. Chuck Schumer said on CNN's "State of the Union."

The Obama administration is warning that workers who handle Social Security benefits might be furloughed. Almost hourly, top Democrats and Republicans accuse each other of pushing the government to the brink by being inflexible.

"So much is at stake if this great government shuts down," said House Democratic leader Nancy Pelosi. "I would hope that instead of having ultimatums, we go forward with an approach that talks about how we keep government open."

The House Republican campaign committee said Democrats are "shouting for a shutdown."

For all the political drama and rhetoric, the actual stakes of a shutdown are not so dire for ordinary Americans. The military would stay active, interstate highways would remain open and government checks would be issued, although new applicants for benefits under programs such as Social Security might have their sign-ups delayed.

In fact, the federal government has had more than a dozen "shutdowns" since 1981. Some lasted only hours, and few are remembered.Story: House passes bill to cut $60 billion in spending

The exception is the two-stage partial shutdown of 1995 and 1996. Then, as now, a Democratic president clashed over spending priorities with a recently installed Republican House majority. Then, as now, Congress had failed to fund the government for a full fiscal year, so agencies depended on a series of "continuing resolutions" to keep them in businesses while lawmakers feuded.

When Clinton in late 1995 vetoed a Republican-crafted spending bill — he called it insufficient for health care, education and other programs — parts of the government closed for six days.

After a brief truce, the parties clashed again. Hundreds of thousands of "non-essential" federal workers were furloughed for three weeks, from mid-December to early January. (Some workers eventually received back pay for missed days). National parks, museums, passport offices and other agencies closed.

Each party blamed the other. But public opinion soon swung toward Clinton and the Democrats. House Speaker Newt Gingrich didn't help himself by suggesting he had triggered the shutdown out of pique because Clinton had made him ride in the back of Air Force One. Friends called it the biggest mistake of Gingrich's career.

Republican lore portrays the 1995-96 shutdown as a political disaster. Lawmakers who lived through it have vowed: Never again.

"There's absolutely no way" House Republicans will allow a shutdown, said Rep. Jerry Lewis of California, first elected in 1978. "It was a big mistake when Newt did it."

"There's not going to be one!" echoed Rep. Pete Sessions of Texas, who heads the House Republicans' campaign committee.

Some political insiders are not convinced that a new shutdown would play out like the last one, or that Republicans would take nearly all the blame. Public alarm over the federal debt has grown dramatically in the past decade and a half. And Republicans regained control of the House last fall largely because of candidates backed by the conservative, limited government tea party movement who ran on promises to slash spending.

The latest congressional showdown centers on spending for the current fiscal year, which is one-third over. House Republicans have promised to cut $60 billion from "discretionary non-security" programs. Those programs comprise only 12 per cent of the entire budget, and they exclude items such as the military, Social Security and Medicare, the government program that provides health care coverage for the elderly.

President Barack Obama and congressional Democrats say such cuts would be reckless and damaging at a time when the economic recovery remains fragile. They want to freeze discretionary, non-security spending at current levels for five years. That would slow or halt the typical annual climb, but Republicans say it's not enough.

Both parties say they have given as much ground as possible. If something doesn't change before March 4, when the current funding measure expires, a partial government shutdown could be unavoidable.

The big guessing game in Washington is: Who will blink first? In corridors and offices, they game out possible scenarios.

The Democratic-controlled Senate, which has begun a week-long recess, won't have time before the March 4 deadline to take up the $60 billion cost-cutting bill the House just completed.
In early March, senators will devise a short-term spending proposal likely to reflect the Democrats' demands to hold spending at current levels. Republican senators could use procedural maneuvers to block a vote on the Democrats' proposal, which probably would trigger a government shutdown.


In the event of a shutdown, some Republican strategists say deficit-weary Americans would blame Democrats for refusing deeper cuts. Democrats say voters would view Republicans as unreasonable obstructionists, as they did 15 years ago. Neither group, however, seems fully confident, and no one knows how much the political ground has shifted since Obama's election.

If Senate Republicans let a Democratic-crafted temporary spending bill reach the House, then a big decision will confront Speaker John Boehner and his sometimes unpredictable Republican caucus, particularly its dozens of tea party-backed newcomers.

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid pounced Thursday when Boehner said Congress must cut spending beyond the levels Democrats have embraced.

"We're terribly disappointed Speaker Boehner can't control the votes in his conference," Reid said. "They're going to shut down the government."

Boehner repeatedly has said he does not want a government shutdown.

"The only people in this town rooting for a government shutdown are Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid," he said Friday, speaking with reporters a few feet away from a crowded House floor. "There's not one Republican talking about a government shutdown. Our goal is to cut spending."

Billionaire Brothers’ Money Plays Role in Wisconsin Dispute

February 21, 2011

By ERIC LIPTON

Left, Robert Caplin For The New York Times; Dave Williams/Wichita Eagle, via Associated Press
David H. Koch, left, and Charles G. Koch have long used their wallets to promote fiscal conservatism and combat regulation.
WASHINGTON — Among the thousands of demonstrators who jammed the Wisconsin State Capitol grounds this weekend was a well-financed advocate from Washington who was there to voice praise for cutting state spending by slashing union benefits and bargaining rights.
The visitor, Tim Phillips, the president of Americans for Prosperity, told a large group of counterprotesters who had gathered Saturday at one edge of what otherwise was a mostly union crowd that the cuts were not only necessary, but they also represented the start of a much-needed nationwide move to slash public-sector union benefits.
“We are going to bring fiscal sanity back to this great nation,” he said.
What Mr. Phillips did not mention was that his Virginia-based nonprofit group, whose budget surged to $40 million in 2010 from $7 million three years ago, was created and financed in part by the secretive billionaire brothers Charles G. and David H. Koch.
State records also show that Koch Industries, their energy and consumer products conglomerate based in Wichita, Kan., was one of the biggest contributors to the election campaign of Gov.Scott Walker of Wisconsin, a Republican who has championed the proposed cuts.
Even before the new governor was sworn in last month, executives from the Koch-backed group had worked behind the scenes to try to encourage a union showdown, Mr. Phillips said in an interview on Monday.
State governments have gone into the red, he said, in part because of the excessively generous pay and benefits that unions have been able to negotiate for teachers, police, firefighters and other state and local employees.
“We thought it was important to do,” Mr. Phillips said, adding that his group is already working with activists and state officials in Indiana, Ohio and Pennsylvania to urge them to take similar steps to curtail union benefits or give public employees the power to opt out of unions entirely.
To union leaders and liberal activists in Washington, this intervention in Wisconsin is proof of the expanding role played by nonprofit groups with murky ties to wealthy corporate executives as they push a decidedly conservative agenda.
“The Koch brothers are the poster children of the effort by multinational corporate America to try to redefine the rights and values of American citizens,” said Representative Gwen Moore, Democrat of Wisconsin, who joined with others in the union protests.
A spokesman for Koch Industries, as well as Mr. Phillips, scoffed at that accusation. The companies owned by Koch (pronounced Coke) — which include the Georgia-Pacific Corporation and the Koch Pipeline Company — have no direct stake in the union debate, they said. The company has about 3,000 employees in Wisconsin, including workers at a toilet paper factory and gasoline supply terminals. The pending legislation would not directly affect its bottom line.
“A balanced budget will benefit Koch Industries and its thousands of employees in Wisconsin no more and no less than the rest of the state’s private-sector workers and employers,” said Jeff Schoepke, a Koch Industries lobbyist in Wisconsin. “This is a dispute between public-sector unions and democratically elected officials over how best to serve the public interest.”
Certainly, the Koch brothers have long used their wallets to promote fiscal conservatism and combat regulation, another Koch Industries spokesman said Monday.
But the push to curtail union benefits in Wisconsin has been backed by many conservative groups that have no Koch connection, Mr. Phillips noted.
Americans for Prosperity came to Wisconsin more than five years ago and has thousands of members, he said. The state chapter organized buses on Saturday for hundreds of Wisconsin residents to go to the Capitol to support the governor’s proposals.
“This is a Wisconsin movement,” said Fred Luber, chief executive of the Supersteel Products Corporation in Milwaukee, who serves on Americans for Prosperity’s Wisconsin state advisory board. “Obviously, Washington is interested in this. But it is up to us to do.”
Political activism is high on the list of priorities for Charles Koch, who in a letter last September to other business leaders and conservatives explained that he saw no other choice.
“If not us, who? If not now, when?” said the letter, which invited other conservatives to a retreat in January in Rancho Mirage, Calif. “It is up to us to combat what is now the greatest assault on American freedom and prosperity in our lifetimes.”
Campaign finance records in Washington show that donations by Koch Industries and its employees climbed to a total of $2 million in the last election cycle, twice as much as a decade ago, with 92 percent of that money going to Republicans. Donations in state government races — like in Wisconsin — have also surged in recent years, records show.
But the most aggressive expansion of the Koch brothers’ effort to influence public policy has come through the Americans for Prosperity, which runs both a charitable foundation and a grass-roots-activists group. Mr. Phillips serves as president of both branches, and David Koch is chairman of the Americans for Prosperity Foundation.
The grass-roots-activists wing of the organization today has chapters in 32 states, including Wisconsin, and an e-mail list of 1.6 million supporters, said Mary Ellen Burke, a spokeswoman. She would not say how much of last year’s $40 million budget came from the Koch family, but nationwide donations have come in from 70,000 members, she said, offering it as proof that it has wide support.
The organization has taken up a range of topics, including combating the health care law, environmental regulations and spending by state and federal governments. The effort to impose limits on public labor unions has been a particular focus in Ohio, Indiana, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin, all states with Republican governors, Mr. Phillips said, adding that he expects new proposals to emerge soon in some of those states to limit union power.
To Bob Edgar, a former House Democrat who is now president of Common Cause, a liberal group that has been critical of what it sees as the rising influence of corporate interests in American politics, the Koch brothers are using their money to create a façade of grass-roots support for their favorite causes.
“This is a dangerous moment in America history,” Mr. Edgar said. “It is not that these folks don’t have a right to participate in politics. But they are moving democracy into the control of more wealthy corporate hands.”
During a demonstration outside the Wisconsin Capitol Monday, one protester made a similar point, holding a sign saying: “Gov. Walker: Kick the Koch Habit.”
But Mr. Phillips and members of his group and other conservative activists, not surprisingly, see it very differently.
Just as unions organize to fight for their priorities, conservatives are entitled to a voice of their own.
“This is a watershed moment in Wisconsin,” Mr. Phillips said. “For the last two decades, government unions have used their power to drive pensions and benefits and salaries well beyond anything that can be sustained. We are just trying to change that.”
Steven Greenhouse contributed reporting from Madison, Wis.