{"product_id":"hostile-takeover-isbn-9780307237354","title":"Hostile Takeover","description":"Do you ever wonder if there’s a connection between the corruption scandals in the news and the steady decline in the quality of life for millions of Americans?  \u003cbr\u003e\u003cbr\u003eDo you ever wonder what corporations get for the millions of dollars they pour into the American political system? \u003cbr\u003e\u003cbr\u003eDo you ever think the government has been hijacked by forces hostile to average Americans?  \u003cbr\u003e\u003cbr\u003eDo you ever want to fight back? \u003cbr\u003e\u003cbr\u003eMillions of Americans lack health care and millions more struggle to afford it. Politicians claim they care, then pass legislation that just sends more cash to the HMOs. Wages have been stagnant for thirty years, even as corporate profits skyrocket. Politicians say they want to fix the problem and then pass bills written by lobbyists that drive wages even lower and punish those crushed by debt. Jobs are being shipped overseas, pensions are being cut, and energy is becoming unaffordable. And our government, more concerned about maintaining its corporate sponsorship than protecting its citizens, does nothing about it.  \u003cbr\u003e\u003cbr\u003eIn \u003ci\u003eHostile Takeover\u003c\/i\u003e, David Sirota, a major new voice in American politics, seeks to open the eyes of ordinary Americans to the fact that corporate interests have undermined democracy, aided and abetted by their lackeys in our allegedly representative government. At a time when more and more of America’s major political leaders are being indicted or investigated for corruption, Sirota takes readers on a journey that shows how all of this nefarious behavior happened right under our noses—and how the high-profile scandals are merely one product of a political system and debate wholly owned by Big Money interests. Sirota considers major public issues that feel intractable—like spiraling health care costs, the outsourcing of jobs, the inequities of the tax code, and out-of-control energy prices—and shows how in each case workable solutions are buried under the lies of lobbyists, the influence of campaign cash, and the ubiquitous spin machine financed by Big Business.\u003cbr\u003e\u003cbr\u003eWith fiery passion, pinpoint wit, and lucid analysis, \u003ci\u003eHostile Takeover \u003c\/i\u003ereveals the true enemies of reform and their increasingly sophisticated—and hostile—tactics. It’s an essential guidebook for those of us tired of the government selling us out—and determined to take our country back. \u003cbr\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\u003cbr\u003eAlso available as an eBook“\u003ci\u003eHostile Takeover\u003c\/i\u003e makes a strong case that American democracy is under attack. Every politically engaged citizen who wants to know what challenges we face and how we can rebuild our country’s democracy should read this book.” —Al Gore, former vice president of the United States \u003cbr\u003e\u003cbr\u003e“Here are the horrifying facts about how our government works today—and for whom it works—delivered in a tone of outrage that is not only merited but appropriate. Read it and scream.” —Thomas Frank, author of \u003ci\u003eWhat’s the Matter with Kansas?\u003c\/i\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\u003cbr\u003e“David Sirota is a genuine American hero: he speaks the truth—forcefully, courageously, straightforwardly—with no apologies, and with thorough documentation. This book is an invaluable guide to how the hostile takeover of our government affects you, and what you can do about it.” —George Lakoff, author of \u003ci\u003eDon’t Think of an Elephant!\u003c\/i\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\u003cbr\u003e“A blunt, two-fisted attack that pulls back the covers on the cozy canoodling between corporations and our government. Sirota ferociously indicts politicians of both political parties for their shameless peddling of corporate PR.” —Arianna Huffington, author of \u003ci\u003ePigs at the Trough\u003c\/i\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\u003cbr\u003e“A precious handbook for citizens living in the country of anger and disgust. Read it and you will no longer feel powerless. You may begin to believe it’s possible for the people to reclaim their democracy. You may even decide to join the fight.” —William Greider, author of \u003ci\u003eWho Will Tell the People\u003c\/i\u003e and national affairs correspondent for \u003ci\u003eThe Nation \u003c\/i\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\u003cbr\u003e“\u003ci\u003eHostile Takeover\u003c\/i\u003e is not for the Powers That Be, but for the Powers That Ought to Be—the ordinary grassroots people of our country. Use this book as a lesson plan and action plan for taking our government back.” —Jim Hightower, author of \u003ci\u003eThieves in High Places\u003c\/i\u003eDavid Sirota is a campaign strategist, political operative, and writer. Sirota has served as the press secretary for Independent Rep. Bernie Sanders of Vermont and was recently a senior strategist for Brian Schweitzer, Montana’s first Democratic governor in sixteen years. He is a senior editor at \u003ci\u003eIn These Times\u003c\/i\u003e, a regular contributor to \u003ci\u003eThe Nation\u003c\/i\u003e, the blogger for Working Assets, and a twice-weekly guest on the \u003ci\u003eAl Franken Show\u003c\/i\u003e. Sirota is also the co-chairperson of the Progressive Legislative Action Network. He lives in Helena, Montana, with his wife.CHAPTER 1\u003cbr\u003e\u003cbr\u003e    Taxes\u003cbr\u003e\u003cbr\u003e    In the spring of 2003,1 American soldiers began massing on Kuwait's   border with Iraq, preparing for what some experts feared could be a   horrendous Iraqi counterattack2 should President Bush order an   invasion. It was a tense time in a nation both on the verge of war and   strapped for resources to defend itself against terrorism thanks to   massive budget deficits.\u003cbr\u003e\u003cbr\u003e    Every day, it seemed, there was a reminder of how serious the situation   was. Color-coded alerts warned that another 9\/11 could occur at any   moment, as police and fire departments reported severe budget   shortfalls; more than a year after the World Trade Center attacks, air   marshals were still protecting only a fraction of the 35,000 daily   flights in the United States;3 in an urgent plea to the White House,   federal officials warned that budget shortfalls were leaving the   nation's nuclear material dangerously unprotected from al Qaeda;4 and   possibly worst of all, many soldiers awaiting the command to invade   Iraq did not have adequate body armor to protect them.5\u003cbr\u003e\u003cbr\u003e    So when House Majority Leader Tom DeLay (R-TX) gave a major speech on   March 12-just weeks before the invasion-the average onlooker might have   expected a demand for national sacrifice, a patriotic call to make sure   the country was protected and our troops were safe. Instead, we got a   glimpse of just how far our political leaders will go to reward the   wealthy.\u003cbr\u003e\u003cbr\u003e    \"Nothing is more important in the face of a war than cutting taxes,\"   DeLay proudly declared.6 Nothing? Not securing our country, not   preventing another 9\/11, not protecting American troops heading into   battle? No, to DeLay, the impending violence was just another excuse to   reward the rich donors who fund political campaigns.\u003cbr\u003e\u003cbr\u003e    You might think this comment was the strange babbling of an unhinged   lunatic and was greeted with outrage or at least dismissive scorn. You   would be half right: the source of the comment was, in fact, a babbling   fool-Tom DeLay is the same slime who, according to his hometown paper,   justified dodging the draft during Vietnam by claiming he really wanted   to join up but was unable to find a spot because too many poor   minorities were enlisting.7\u003cbr\u003e\u003cbr\u003e    But in today's Washington, the absurd notion that cutting taxes is the   noblest and most important mission of the government-even in a time of   war-is so commonplace that few reporters thought DeLay's comments   newsworthy enough to write about. Big Money's Hostile Takeover of our   political system has made DeLay's logic the rule, rather than the   exception.\u003cbr\u003e\u003cbr\u003e    Look, no one likes paying taxes, and everyone wants them lowered. But   at the end of the day, we have to pay for things we need-things like   roads, bridges, schools, police, firefighters, national security, and   the military. The ever-present question, then, is not whether taxes   need to be paid, but how they should be paid and by whom.\u003cbr\u003e\u003cbr\u003e    By the beginning of the twentieth century, America seemed to have   reached a consensus answer. As Christian Science Monitor columnist   David Francis noted in 2003, the United States opted to \"rely on a   simple rationale: the well-to-do pay a larger share of their income in   federal taxes than the rest of Americans, because the rich can afford   it.\" In return, \"the government protects their wealth and property.\"8   Thus, the birth of a progressive income tax structure. It seemed simple   enough-the Rockefellers and the Mellons would pay a higher tax rate   than their servants because they could afford to. In return, the   wealthy were the disproportionate beneficiaries of a safe, secure,   well-run national infrastructure.\u003cbr\u003e\u003cbr\u003e    The income tax on corporate profits was also established at the   beginning of the century-a simple way to make sure business does its   fair share. Then, in 1916, the estate tax was created.9 This one-time   levy on inherited wealth above a certain (very high) level fell almost   exclusively on the rich, raised money for social programs, and was   supposed to prevent the kind of hereditary aristocracy that had mutated   into corrupt governing royalty in so many other parts of the world.\u003cbr\u003e\u003cbr\u003e    The system was, in short, government intervention at its best-demanding   that everyone throw in what they can. Lower tax rates at the   bottom-which minimize the barrier to the middle class-were financed by   higher rates for those at the very top who had already made it.\u003cbr\u003e\u003cbr\u003e    And then, slowly but surely, arguments opposing this perfectly   functional system began to take hold. At first they were promoted only   by a small coterie of tax-cutting zealots who possess a cultish   devotion to the idea that allowing the superwealthy to accumulate more   wealth is the highest economic good. But soon this crusade to change   our tax code found converts in the highest levels of government. And   the result has been a tax structure flipped on its head.\u003cbr\u003e\u003cbr\u003e    Using everything from subtle loopholes to brazen cuts targeted at the   wealthy, moneyed interests have used huge campaign contributions and   lobbying resources to transform a once-progressive system into one with   one single goal: making the rich richer. During the Reagan era, the top   10 percent of the population saw its effective tax rates plummet, while   almost every other segment of the population saw an increase.10 During   the George W. Bush era, things got much worse. In Bush's first term, he   gave the top 1 percent of the population (those who make an average of   $1 million a year) more than a half-trillion dollars' worth of tax   cuts.11 Meanwhile, the bottom 60 percent of the population-who make   below about $42,000 a year-got about half of that.12\u003cbr\u003e\u003cbr\u003e    This kind of greed has been replicated at the state level. In 2005, for   instance, Texas Republican legislators pushed a bill that would raise   taxes by more than $1 billion a year on people earning less than   $100,000 a year, in order to finance a half-billion-dollar tax cut for   people earning more than $100,000 a year.13 As the Houston Chronicle   reported, the largest political donors to that cause were \"the   businesses [and individuals] that receive the biggest tax breaks.\"14\u003cbr\u003e\u003cbr\u003e    The elimination of corporate taxes has also been remarkable.   Corporations have used the courts to win many of the same rights to   free speech and legal protection as individual citizens. Yet they are   allowed to simultaneously shirk the responsibilities of   citizenship-especially that of paying taxes. Big Business argues that   corporate taxes must be eliminated in the United States to keep   American companies competitive with companies based in Third World tax   havens, as if we should blindly engage in a race to the bottom for   status as the world's biggest and best corporate banana republic.\u003cbr\u003e\u003cbr\u003e    In truth, the whole argument is designed to increase Big Business's   bottom line at the expense of individual U.S. taxpayers, who are forced   to shoulder an ever increasing and disproportionate cost of America's   economic infrastructure (roads, bridges, security, defense, energy,   patent enforcement, etc.)-much of which serves Corporate America.   Between 1996 and 2000, ten large companies raked in $50 billion in   corporate tax breaks. These run the gamut from tax breaks for stock   options, to abusive offshore tax shelters, to specialized tax breaks   for certain idiosyncratic activities granted by bought-off   politicians.15\u003cbr\u003e\u003cbr\u003e    Hundreds of millions of dollars in taxes are dodged by other companies   through smaller loopholes. By 2004, Big Business did not even try to   hide the mockery it was making of the tax code. A bill that year   designed to fix a small export tax problem was seized on by Congress as   a prime opportunity to pass scores of narrow special-interest tax   breaks for politicians' corporate donors: $92 million for NASCAR track   owners, $189 million for Oldsmobile dealers, and $64 million for those   who sell horses.16 There was even a $25 million break for the dog and   horse track gambling industry.17 Meanwhile, American companies and   individuals are being allowed to buy mailboxes in offshore tax havens,   claim they are thus no longer \"American\" companies even though their   operators are here, and then avoid paying up to $70 billion they owe in   taxes.18\u003cbr\u003e\u003cbr\u003e    Politicians fuel this bonanza because they have a stake in it. Major   donors to both political parties tend to be very wealthy individuals or   very wealthy corporations. These are the same people and interests who   stand to gain the most out of a tax policy rigged to reward the   wealthy. Thus, a politician knows that if you give the rich or a   corporation a new tax break, some of that cash will likely make it back   into that politician's own campaign coffers. Just ask George W. Bush:   his tax policies gave a total of $1.6 million in new tax cuts to his   six top money men, and they returned the favor by raising him more than   $1.4 million.19\u003cbr\u003e\u003cbr\u003e    On some issues, lawmakers actually have an even more personal interest   in soaking the rich: their own bank account. Take the recent proposal   to repeal the estate tax. Because the current law exempted the first $1   million of assets, repealing it would exclusively reward the richest   one-half of 1 percent of America with billions of dollars-and would   give almost nothing to everyone else. But repealing it also would give   a huge chunk of change to about one in five elected officials in   Washington, as roughly a hundred members of Congress are   multimillionaires. The president and vice president, who aggressively   support the proposal, would save their families roughly $6 million and   $10 million, respectively.20\u003cbr\u003e\u003cbr\u003e    And then, of course, there are the lobbyists who game the process.   According to the Center for Responsive Politics, there are 4,000   registered lobbyists in the nation's capital21 who list taxes as one of   their specialties. In terms of sheer manpower, this army could rival   many \"coalition\" countries' forces in Iraq. These sharks are armed with   the best propaganda and the fattest checkbooks to intimidate and cajole   lawmakers into doing their bidding. In Washington's corporate feeding   frenzy, lobbyists now jokingly equate their manhood with how big a   loophole they are able to weave into tax bills. \"Any lobbyist worth his   salt has something in this [tax] bill,\" one lobbyist told the   Washington Post, as Congress was passing a $136 billion corporate tax   cut. The shakedown, he bragged, had \"risen to a new level of sleaze.\"22\u003cbr\u003e\u003cbr\u003e    It is this sleaze, however, that is packaged in populist rhetoric and   myth-all designed to force average Americans to pay an ever-increasing   tax burden to sustain the lifestyles of the rich.\u003cbr\u003e\u003cbr\u003e    myth: Tax cuts mean lower taxes for average Americans.\u003cbr\u003e\u003cbr\u003e    During the 2000 election campaign, George W. Bush knew that in order to   sell his tax cuts, he would have to convince working-class Americans   they would be getting most of the benefits. \"By far the vast majority   of [my tax cut] goes to people at the bottom end of the economic   ladder,\"23 he said during the second presidential debate.\u003cbr\u003e\u003cbr\u003e    This turned out to be a straight-up lie. According to the nonpartisan   Citizens for Tax Justice, when Bush's tax cuts are fully implemented in   2010, the top 15 percent of income earners will have received roughly   two-thirds of the tax cuts, with the top 1 percent of Americans   receiving almost $600 billion in tax cuts. The bottom 60 percent of   Americans will receive less than 18 percent of the total benefits.24\u003cbr\u003e\u003cbr\u003e    President Bush, we later found out, knew all his talk of tax cuts   helping the average Joe was malarkey. According to journalist Ron   Suskind, White House aides started pushing a new round of tax cuts for   the wealthy in 2002. \"Haven't we already given money to rich people?\"   Bush asked, acknowledging that he knew exactly whom his policies were   benefiting.25\u003cbr\u003e\u003cbr\u003e    \"Not enough\" was the apparent answer. He soon introduced a bill   eliminating all taxes on dividend income (aka money made from stock and   bond holdings), an even bolder giveaway to his Big Money donors than   before. The White House repeatedly claimed \"92 million taxpayers would   receive, on average, a tax cut of $1,083\" under the legislation. The   key word was average. In reality, 80 percent of taxpayers will receive   less than $1,083, with most Americans getting an average tax cut of   just $226. The reason the average was so high was because those who   make $1 million or more will get more than $90,000 each.26 It was the   equivalent of putting Bill Gates and his $2 billion next to a broke   homeless person and claiming the average net worth between the two is   $1 billion. It is true-but it is also misleading.\u003cbr\u003e\u003cbr\u003e    It would have been just bad if ordinary people simply did not receive   tax cuts they were promised. But the story gets worse: many Americans   not only were cut out of the payday, they actually got a tax increase.   In 2004, the Christian Science Monitor analyzed the net effect of   Bush's tax policies and found \"millions of American individuals and   businesses face tax hikes\" that \"will shrink or even possibly wipe out   the savings\" that the White House had promised would come from its tax   cuts.\"27 A few months later, the Washington Post reported that in   Bush's first four years, the top 1 percent of income earners-those   making an average of more than $1 million a year-saw their share of   their federal tax burden drop substantially, while the middle tier of   income earners was forced to shoulder more.28\u003cbr\u003e\u003cbr\u003e    This reverse Robin Hood phenomenon was fueled by two things. First, the   \"tax-cutting\" Bush administration quietly raised federal fees to suck   billions out of ordinary citizens' pockets.29 In Washington-speak, fee   is another word for tax. These are all those charges you have to pay   when you enter a national park, or when you apply for your veterans'   medical benefits, or when you get on an airplane. And here's the   kicker: because fees are the same for everyone regardless of income,   they hit people with less money the hardest.\u003cbr\u003e\u003cbr\u003e    Second, Bush's policies forced states to raise taxes on the middle   class by almost $22 billion since he was elected.30 Here's what   happened: the huge deficits Bush's federal tax cuts created became a   justification for the White House to cut federal grants to states under   the guise of \"necessary belt-tightening.\" These cuts came at the very   same time the White House passed a slew of laws that forced states to   spend more money-without giving them the money to spend. According to   Stateline, the publication that tracks state politics, these \"unfunded   mandates\" cost states more than $50 billion from 2004 to 2005 and over   the coming decade will cost states another $300 billion.31 That money   doesn't just magically appear. It comes from state and local tax   increases,32 and not only in \"blue\" states headed by \"liberal\"   Democratic governors. In recent years, Republican governors in \"red\"   states like Arkansas, Idaho, Ohio, and Texas have raised taxes and fees   on their citizens to deal with budget shortfalls.33\u003cbr\u003e\u003cbr\u003e    At the same time, local property taxes-which fund priorities like   education and police-rose by more than 10 percent.34 Those increases   were making up for Bush's cuts to law-enforcement programs35 and   refusal to adequately fund his own No Child Left Behind education   bill-moves the White House said were necessary because of deficits,   deficits that Bush's tax cuts created.With a new epilogue by the author New York Times Bestseller","brand":"Crown","offers":[{"title":"Default Title","offer_id":46305303298277,"sku":"NP9780307237354","price":20.0,"currency_code":"USD","in_stock":false}],"thumbnail_url":"\/\/cdn.shopify.com\/s\/files\/1\/1842\/7735\/files\/9780307237354.jpg?v=1767729243","url":"https:\/\/k12savings.com\/es\/products\/hostile-takeover-isbn-9780307237354","provider":"K12savings","version":"1.0","type":"link"}