The building’s address: 610 South Blvd., a designation found on the financial disclosure forms of countless political committees in Florida and all over the country. The unassuming building nestled in an unassuming neighborhood is a veritable political action committee mill, churning out millions of dollars and influencing elections all over the country.

The kicker: What is happening at 610 South Blvd. is completely legal.

Chiles — who eventually dropped out of the race and endorsed Democratic candidate Alex Sink — was echoing the thoughts of millions of Americans who feel that too much money goes into our country’s political system, and we know way too little about where it comes from.

610 South Blvd. provides insight into a commonly overlooked aspect of campaign financing: Because so few people understand the nuances of campaign money, politicians and activists have a limited number of places to turn to when starting a committee. That leads to a high concentration of candidates and committees at a few select addresses, none more infamous in Florida political circles than 610 South Blvd.

Nancy and Robert Watkins together run Robert Watkins and Co., the accounting firm located at 610. Thirty-nine political committees are currently registered under the address with the Federal Election Commission (FEC). The committees registered there have conservative leanings and ties exclusively to Republican politicians.

The organizations range from leadership PACs, 501(c)4s and 527s to campaign committee PACs and even a handful of Super PACs — a new and controversial type of PAC that allows groups to raise unlimited funds from corporations, individuals and unions. And these groups tend to bring in big money. In 2010, one of the Super PACs at 610 raised more than $4 million.

Watkins and Co. also has 19 state PAC clients filed with the Florida Division of Elections.

Nancy Watkins says her firm’s impressive number of clients exists because she has been in the business for more than 25 years. According to her, 610 South Blvd. is an “official address” for many groups “for a lot of reasons.” Mostly, she says, the firm provides a reliable and “durable mailing address” for all her clients.

Meredith McGehee — the policy director for The Campaign Legal Center, a nonpartisan, nonprofit organization that works in the area of campaign finance and elections — tells The Florida Independent there are no rules against multiple PACs sharing an address.

According to McGehee, as long as the groups do not coordinate with each other in a way that violates FEC laws, they can communicate, work together and share an address. She calls the FEC’s rules for what passes as coordination among these groups “ridiculous,” and says that even if groups follow FEC rules, their activities would probably not “pass a smell test for regular people.”

“The rules are so loose,” she says. “So there is a lot they can do. They can coordinate in common sense terms — just not legal terms.”

McGehee says these groups, for example, can share an office and “talk about general strategy” and still not violate FEC coordination rules.

Watkins says the fact that all her clients share her address “does not create a relationship between them.” She says everything done at her business is ethical, and that she does not talk to one client about another.

Federal policy-makers from all over the country turn to Watkins and Co. for their services. Former Sen. Mel Martinez and Reps. Katherine Harris, Rick Renzi and Pat Roberts are among those with ties to 610 South Blvd. In 2008, Mike Huckabee registered his Florida presidential campaign committee with the firm.

Most have created their own leadership PACs with the company. Leadership PACs are political action committees that “can be established by current and former members of Congress as well as other prominent political figures,” according to the Center for Responsive Politics.

The Center, a nonpartisan research group, explains that “leadership PACs are designed for two things: to make money and to make friends. In the rough and tumble political game, elected officials know that money and friends in high places are very important to winning elections and leadership positions.”

Watkins and Co., however, are not only providing leadership PAC services for folks in D.C. The firm also houses the paperwork for a number of state PACs, or committees of continuous existence, associated with GOP members of the Florida Legislature. Steve Precourt, Ellyn Bogdanoff, Jack Latvala, Miguel Diaz de la Portilla, Anitere Flores, Steve Crisafulli and Kevin Ambler, to name a few, all run campaign finance activity through 610 South Blvd.

Furthermore, these state PACs associated with Florida legislators have raked in a lot of money. In the year 2011 alone, these committees have brought in about $400,000. Latvala’s PAC has raised about $230,000 this year.

The office building also serves as the home for four Super PACs, controversial independent expenditure-only committees. Super PACs are a new kind of political action committee created in the wake of the federal court case SpeechNow.org v. Federal Election Commission, which loosened up previous campaign finance regulations.

According to the Center for Responsive Politics, Super PACs “may raise unlimited sums of money from corporations, unions, associations and individuals, then spend unlimited sums to overtly advocate for or against political candidates.” Thanks to new rules, Super PACs can receive unlimited amounts of money from a corporation’s treasuries (i.e. profits), something that was previously illegal.

Super PACs do have to report their donors to the FEC on a monthly or quarterly basis; unlike traditional PACs, they cannot contribute money directly to political candidates.

As of Oct. 18, the Center for Responsive Politics reports that 156 committees are registered as Super PACs and have already “reported total expenditures of $2,596,787 in the 2012 cycle.”

The Super PACs listed under 610 South Blvd. include a conservative committee called the Coalition to Protect American Values; the Ending Spending Fund, a group that ran attack ads in Nevada against Harry Reid; the We Love USA PAC, a Super PAC famous for saying Obama is a “socialist” who “detests America”; and Dick Morris’ Super PAC for America.

The firm is also contracted by more traditional PACs, such as the American Issues Project. The group is known for spending $3 million on ads during the 2008 election tying the former founder of the Weather Underground Bill Ayers to Barack Obama. Most recently, the group focused on attacking the president’s stimulus legislation in 2010.

Also at 610: Florida Working Families, a PAC funded primarily by Big Sugar, notorious for its significant political reach in Florida and all over the country. Working Families launched negative ads against Jim Davis, attacking him for missing a vote in support of Israel, and successfully attacked Mary Barley, an environmental activist who ran in the Democratic primary for agricultural commissioner in 2002.

Watkins and Co. also provides services to a PAC funded by developers, lobbyists, builder’s groups and the Florida Chamber of Commerce called Floridians for Smarter Growth. The group was among the political forces opposing last election’s Amendment 4, known as the “Hometown Democracy” amendment. According to Ballotpedia, the amendment “proposed requiring a taxpayer-funded referendum for all changes to local government comprehensive land-use plans.” Floridians for Smarter Growth launched a successful attack against the amendment and coined (.pdf) the phrase the “Vote on Everything Amendment.”

In total, about 50 different PACs get their financial assistance and guidance from Watkins and Co.

According to the IRS’ records of tax-exempt groups, there are also four 527s using the address. 527s are advocacy groups that electioneer, and spend millions on a variety of positions and issues. While they may not explicitly tell voters to cast their ballots for a specific candidate, they clearly affect the way voters see a candidate or issue.

Watkins and Co. also handles the finances for a handful of tax-exempt nonprofits, including 501(c)4 organization. New rules now allow these types of groups to spend the money they raise anonymously, because their “primary activity” is lobbying.

McGehee says these sorts of details “reveal how the system really works” in elections.

Most people, she says, have little to no participation in this part of the political process. “About 12 .08 percent of the population will spend more that $200 in an election cycle,” McGehee says.

Echoing Watkins, McGehee says that only a select few have the campaign finance expertise that Nancy and Robert Watkins provide, which contributes to the high number of clients 610 South Blvd. works with.

According to McGehee, there is also “a desire among these groups to know what everyone else is doing.” She says that is why the firm works exclusively with conservative groups and GOP policy-makers. ”It is rare that someone is serving both sides,” McGehee says. “It’s not accidental.”

The high concentration of key players in campaign financing — whether it is contributors or accountants — has led to a situation in which the political process is dominated by very few people. McGehee says that people have noticed, even though new rules have done nothing to correct the situation.

“There has always been this populist strain, whether its the tea party or Occupy Wall Street,” McGehee says, “that knows — and is angry about — our political system being dominated by monied interests.”

This report was produced as part of a collaborative investigative effort to expose the influence of corporate money on the political process by members of The Media Consortium, in partnership with the We the People Campaign. To read more stories from this series, visit CampaignCash.org or follow #CampaignCash on Twitter. Sign up for our Campaign Cash email newsletter by clicking here.

The Washington Post reports that in an Oct. 5 letter, Reid told Secretary of State Hillary Clinton:

“The proponents of this pipeline would be wiser to invest instead in job-creating clean energy projects, like renewable power, energy efficiency or advanced vehicles and fuels that would employ thousands of people in the United States rather than increasing our dependency on unsustainable supplies of dirty and polluting oil that could easily be exported.”

Because the proposed pipeline would cross the U.S. border, the Dept. of State is in charge of recommending whether it should be allowed. President Obama will have the final say on the matter and he is expected to issue a decision before the end of the year.

Some Democrats are lobbying in favor of the project — this week Rep. Gene Green (D-TX) led 20 House Democrats in asking the president to approve the pipeline. These lawmakers claimed that the project will create jobs and reduced dependency on oil from the Middle East and Venezuela.

A State Dept. analysis found that construction of the pipeline would involve 5,000-6,000 temporary jobs.

In the video a narrator asks, “Who supports Governor Perry’s decision to give in-state tuition to illegal immigrants?” Photos of President Barack Obama, former House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid enter the frame before the video centers on footage of Vicente Fox, former president of Mexico, praising the decision by Gov. Rick Perry and Texas lawmakers. The praise was offered by the Mexican official during a 2003 luncheon in Texas.

Perry’s controversial debate statement that those who do not agree with the state’s decision to offer tuition breaks to undocumented migrants to attend universities aren’t sympathetic enough also makes an appearance. “If you say that we should not educate children who have come into our state for no other reason than they’ve been brought there by no fault of their own, I don’t think you have a heart,” Perry said.

The final frames of the video provide Romney’s debate statement that the undocumented in Texas are being lifted above U.S. citizens because they are offered a better discount on an education in the state than those in other states.

A copy of the video is embedded below.

Angie’s Subs, which is owned by a passionate tea party local, was packed to capacity during the event. Protestors holdings signs that read, “Save the American dream, no Tea Party” gathered outside, but the crowd in support of Bachmann outnumbered them by the dozen. Flanked by her husband, Dr. Marcus Bachmann, and local tea party powerhouse Billie Tucker, Bachmann spoke out against “ObamaCare” and promised to “turn out the lights and lock the doors” at both the Environmental Protection Agency and the Department of Education. #

Aside from one minor gaffe (she called Angie’s, a local sub shob, “Subway”), Bachmann was poised and confident during her Jacksonville visit. #

Joking that underneath her black shirt was a “titanium spine,” she boasted that she had stood up to President Obama, Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid and “even [her] own party’s leadership.” #

“We wrote the bill to repeal ObamaCare,” she proclaimed, “and I was the first member of Congress on the floor, introducing that full repeal and as president of the United States, I will fulfill that promise to you.” #

Bachmann had harsh words for the EPA, which she called the “job-killing agency of America.” #

“I intend to bring back true change, true hope, by repealing the tax code and dramatically cutting spending and I’m going to start with the Environmental Protection Agency,” she said, eliciting cheers from her tea party audience. “I am so happy you agree, because I intend to turn out the lights and lock the doors.” #

She spoke similarly of the Department of Education, which she said then-President Jimmy Carter created as a “payoff to a union”: #

So this is what I would do. I would pass a mother of all repeal bills for education, get rid of all of the unfunded mandates that the federal government puts on our local schools — making it very difficult for schools to be effective. … I would have a very busy day, a very busy day. ‘Cause I first have to make a trip to the EPA and after that, I have to go to the Department of Education because I also have to shut the lights off and lock the doors over there, as well. #

Bachmann will next stop in Poinciana for a town hall Saturday morning and end her tour of Florida at a GOP rally in Sarasota on Sunday. #

View a portion of Bachmann’s speech: #

President Obama reaffirmed his commitment to the legislation, which would give undocumented minors who have grown up in the U.S. a path to citizenship, on Tuesday in El Paso. #

According to the statement released today by the NLIRH, the act is an important step for Latina rights. #

“Equality for immigrant women can only be attained when immigrant women can live free from discrimination, oppression and violence in all their forms. We believe it is imperative that organizations advocating for comprehensive immigration reform also support fair and just immigration policies that protect the rights of immigrant women. #

Educational attainment is one way that Latinas can have access to information, resources and services that will help them make informed and autonomous decisions. NLIRH extends its support to the DREAM Act and the young immigrant activists and legislators who have worked to bring this bill to the forefront.” #

According to the National Campaign to Prevent Teen and Unplanned Pregnancy (NCPTUP), Latinas have the highest rates of teen pregnancy and the lowest rates of contraception use. A recent NCPTUP survey reported that 52% of Latina teens get pregnant at least once before the age of 20 – twice the U.S. average. Latinas also have “the highest teen pregnancy rate and teen birth rate of any major ethnic/racial minority in the country, according to the most recent data available.” #

According to the NCPTUP, the birth rate among Latina teens decreased from 2007 to 2008, but only about half as much as non-Hispanic white and non-Hispanic black teens. #

In 2004, the Population Resource Center reported that Latinas are getting less help from the state than other young and impoverished mothers, because of their immigrant status. “More than 80 percent of teens who become mothers receive welfare during the 10 years following the birth of their first child, 44 percent of them for more than 5 years,” says the report. “Latino groups are less likely to receive welfare, in part, because a large proportion of Latinas are immigrants who are ineligible for welfare.” #

The Population Resource Center also said that, according to a 1995 study, “almost half of Latina teens aged 15-19 did not use any form of contraception the first time they had sex, compared to 29 percent of all teens.” Contraceptive use for the first instance of sexual intercourse for teens “increased from 65 to 71 percent during the early 1990s, [however,] the percentage actually decreased from 55 to 53 percent for Latino teens.” #

Here is the full report from the National Campaign to Prevent Teen and Unplanned Pregnancy: #

Teen Pregnancy and Childbearing Among Latino Teens #

In an interview with ABC News’ Jonathan Karl, Boehner had this to say:

It’s certainly something we should be looking at. We’re in a time when the federal government’s short on revenues. They ought to be paying their fair share…Everybody wants to go after the oil companies and frankly, they’ve got some part of this to blame.

A Boehner spokesman quickly characterized his boss’s comments as an attempt to avoid a trap sprung by ABC’s Karl:

The Speaker made clear in the interview that raising taxes was a non-starter, and he’s told the president that. He simply wasn’t going to take the bait and fall into the trap of defending ‘Big Oil’ companies. Boehner believes, as he stated in the interview, that expanding American energy production will help lower gas prices and create more American jobs. We’ll look at any reasonable policy that lowers gas prices. Unfortunately, what the president has suggested so far would simply raise taxes and increase the price at the pump.

The dial-back didn’t stop President Obama from firing off an arch letter to Boehner, writing that he “was heartened that Speaker Boehner yesterday expressed openness to eliminating these tax subsidies for the oil and gas industry.”

Meanwhile, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) has said that, after Boehner’s comments opened a crack in the Republicans’ armor, Democrats will waste no time in pursuing legislation to end the subsidies. In a Wednesday press conference, he said that his party will push consideration of President Obama’s proposal to repeal Big Oil tax breaks as early as next week. “There’s no necessity for these subsidies,” he said. “The companies have broken all records for profits.”

Oil industry insiders have lashed out at the Democrats’ attempt to end oil subsidies as job killers. Reuters reports:

“This is a tired old argument we’ve been hearing for two years now. If the president were serious about job creation, he would be working with us to develop American oil and gas by American workers for American consumers,” the American Petroleum Institute’s chief economist John Felmy said.

And yet, if first quarter trends continue through the rest of the year, Exxon alone stands to net ten times as much in profits as the entire industry receives in subsidies. From January to March, despite skyrocketing gas prices for consumers, Exxon made $10.65 billion in profits. This is the highest quarterly profit Exxon has reported since it made $14.83 billion in the third quarter of 2008.

The Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee responded to the flare-up by capitalizing on the media hype over the impending British royal wedding, snatching up the domain roilwedding.com (“R-Oil wedding,” an admirably reaching pun on “royal wedding”). The DCCC is using the site as a tongue-in-cheek online petition congratulating the “marriage” of Boehner and other Republicans to oil interests.

Until 2009 the District had been operating under a Congressional ban that prevented local money being used for elective abortion procedures. That ban was reinstated recently as part of the deal made by President Barack Obama, House Speaker John Boehner and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid to prevent a federal government shutdown.

“I will give you D.C. abortion. I’m not happy about it,” Obama said during the final hours of negotiations, according to The Washington Post. The compromise, which was ultimately accepted by Boehner and House Republicans, allow the White House and Senate Democrats to fend off a GOP proposal that would have placed severe limits on numerous nonprofit groups, including Planned Parenthood, that provide abortion services throughout the country.

But while most of the nation celebrated that a government shutdown had been averted, District residents, including Gray and other officials, saw the move as one more strike against their limited autonomy as provided in the Home Rule Act.

“Yesterday (April 11), I had the honor of being arrested for demonstrating my outrage at how my hometown, the District of Columbia, is being treated by Congress. I am outraged because are being told — no, being forced — to spend our own money that way someone else sees fit. That someone is Congress,” Gray said.

“We are being told what to spend and what not to spend, whether the programs are beneficial to the District or not. This is a travesty.”

Although the federal Hyde Amendment prohibits any federal dollars being used for elective abortion procedures, states have always been able to decide for themselves — through their own legislative process — if their dollars would be used to fund such medical expenses. The District remains under the total jurisdiction of the U.S. Congress. Although residents have been allowed to choose their own local leaders since 1973, Congress can overturn any decision made by local officials.

The District has no elected U.S. Senators, nor does it have a voting member of the U.S. House. Despite this, however, the District must adhere to all federal laws, and must abide by Congressional decisions made on its behalf. In conjunction with 2011 income tax day, District leaders noted that their residents are expected to pay nearly $3.9 billion in federal income taxes before the end of the year, “while being denied the democratic rights enjoyed by other taxpaying Americans.”

The bicameral letter to Gray signed by Latham and King not only calls attention to the fact that a rider removing the abortion allowance was included in recent budget negotiations — something that they “trust you will act immediately to respect and faithfully implement” — but demands “detailed information about abortion funding in the District during the period in which the D.C. Hyde amendment was not in place.”

(Emphasis original to document) …We are also disappointed that repeated requests for information about public funding for abortion in the District of Columbia (D.C.) have been ignored by the D.C. government including your administration. Multiple letters (attached) by members of Congress have been sent asking whether the city had begun funding elective abortion and requesting information about abortion funding activities. While these questions have gone unanswered, your Director of the Department of Health Care Finance Wayne Turnage was “kind enough to offer a detailed answer” to a Washington Post blogger. According to Turnage, the D.C. Department of Health Care Finance has paid for “117 elective abortions totally about $62,000.” We again ask for a prompt reply to all of the questions posed in the attached letters and request that your answers include information regarding the entire time period during which the D.C. Hyde amendment was not in effect. …

A press release from the Mayor’s Office dated April 12 states that since the District began paying for elective abortion procedures in August 2010 “an estimated total of 117 elective abortions and 73 therapeutic abortions were provided, as reported by the District’s Managed Care Organization for Medicaid and Alliance beneficiaries. Presently the cost to the District for elective abortion services provided after August 1, 2010 is an estimated $62,300. The estimated cost of therapeutic abortions is $125,200.”

Although abortion remains a heated topic throughout the nation, it is hardly the only portion of the budget negotiations that have cause residents of the District angst. Gray was joined by a host of educational and civil rights organizations on April 14 in voicing displeasure with a school-voucher provision included in the deal. The provision revives a program that provides government-funding scholarships that a handful of D.C. students can use to attend private and parochial schools.

“I acknowledge that people of goodwill can and do disagree about vouchers. What is unconscionable to me, however, is what this program’s continuation represents,” Gray said. “And what it represents is the use of the District and her 600,000 residents, once again, as bargaining chips in political negotiations and guinea pigs for the favorite social experiments of important congressional leaders.”

The bicameral letter to Gray, obtained by the National Review Online, appears below:

bicameral-letter-to-gray-04192011

The group members say that the relatively small amounts of money they would be asked to pay to the government in a system that established more equitable tax rates would be a boon to the country– a much greater and direct benefit than any supposed “trickle down” that comes of their keeping the tax money.

“These patriotic millionaires are willing to put duty to the country first. They hope the president and the leaders in the House and Senate will do the same thing,” said Erica Payne, founder of the Agenda Project, which is behind the millionaires campaign.

The group sent a letter this week to the President, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid and House Speaker John Boehner.

We are writing to urge you to put our country ahead of politics.

For the fiscal health of our nation and the well-being of our fellow citizens, we ask that you increase taxes on incomes over $1,000,000.

We make this request as loyal citizens who now or in the past earned incomes of $1,000,000 per year or more.

Our country faces a choice – we can pay our debts and build for the future, or we can shirk our financial responsibilities and cripple our nation’s potential.

Our country has been good to us. It provided a foundation on which we could succeed. Now, we want to do our part to keep that foundation strong so that others can succeed as we have.

Please do the right thing for our country. Raise our taxes.

Members of the group include hedge funder Michael Steinhardt, high-profile trial lawyer Guy Saperstein, Ben & Jerry’s Ben Cohen, Bourne Identity Director Doug Liman, actress Edie Falco, the founder of Esprit, the founder of Ask.com, the founder of the Princeton Review, and more.

The group has gained attention in part (as millionaire novelist Stephen King did earlier this year) because it points to what many see as the class war that has been raging for decades in U.S. politics, where Wall Street has dominated Washington policy-making, where Depression-era “New Deal” anti-poverty programs have been devalued and where a post-war economic philosophy that centered on strengthening the middle class has given way to a free-market ideology that mainly benefits major corporations, creating the widest income disparities in modern U.S. history.

In a piece for Newsweek on the Tea Party movement and the Ryan budget plan, Senior Editor of the New Republic Jonathan Chait says Ryan’s plan represents a sort of culmination of the “war on the weak” in U.S. politics. Outside of the context of that war, it’s hard to make sense of the plan. Chait, like many other analysts, points out that the plan would expand not contract the deficit because the spending cuts proposed would come with even larger tax cuts for corporations and millionaires.

[T]he two streams—the furious Tea Party rebels and Ryan the earnest budget geek—both spring from the same source. And it is to that source that you must look if you want to understand what Ryan is really after, and what makes these activists so angry.

The Tea Party began early in 2009 after an improvised rant by Rick Santelli, a CNBC commentator who called for an uprising to protest the Obama administration’s subsidizing the “losers’ mortgages.” Video of his diatribe rocketed around the country, and protesters quickly adopted both his call for a tea party and his general abhorrence of government that took from the virtuous and the successful and gave to the poor, the uninsured, the bankrupt—in short, the losers. It sounded harsh, Santelli quickly conceded, but “at the end of the day I’m an Ayn Rander”…

Ryan’s plan does do two things in immediate and specific ways: hurt the poor and help the rich. After extending the Bush tax cuts, he would cut the top rate for individuals and corporations from 35 percent to 25 percent. Then Ryan slashes Medicaid, Pell Grants, food stamps, and low-income housing. These programs to help the poor, which constitute approximately 21 percent of the federal budget, absorb two thirds of Ryan’s cuts…

The class tinge of Ryan’s Path to Prosperity is striking. The poorest Americans would suffer immediate, explicit budget cuts. Middle-class Americans would face distant, uncertain reductions in benefits. And the richest Americans would enjoy an immediate windfall. Santelli, in his original rant, demanded that we “reward people [who can] carry the water instead of drink the water.” Ryan won’t say so, but that’s exactly what he’s doing.

Chait says the economic philosophy espoused by Tea Party icon Ayn Rand in her mid-century novels is an inverted Marxism: In her thinking, capitalists produce all of society’s wealth and workers are parasites.

President Obama has been labeled on the right as a socialist since he took office, even though he is no socialist and has never called himself one. Paul Ryan, though, is an unabashed “Randist,” and his “Path to Prosperity” should be viewed as a Randist utopian tract, not as a workable U.S. budget.

Got a tip? Story pitch? Send us an e-mail. Follow The Colorado Independent on Twitter.

The group members say that the relatively small amounts of money they would be asked to pay to the government in a system that established more equitable tax rates would be a boon to the country– a much greater and direct benefit than any supposed “trickle down” that comes of their keeping the tax money.

“These patriotic millionaires are willing to put duty to the country first. They hope the president and the leaders in the House and Senate will do the same thing,” said Erica Payne, founder of the Agenda Project, which is behind the millionaires campaign.

The group sent a letter this week to the President, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid and House Speaker John Boehner.

We are writing to urge you to put our country ahead of politics.

For the fiscal health of our nation and the well-being of our fellow citizens, we ask that you increase taxes on incomes over $1,000,000.

We make this request as loyal citizens who now or in the past earned incomes of $1,000,000 per year or more.

Our country faces a choice – we can pay our debts and build for the future, or we can shirk our financial responsibilities and cripple our nation’s potential.

Our country has been good to us. It provided a foundation on which we could succeed. Now, we want to do our part to keep that foundation strong so that others can succeed as we have.

Please do the right thing for our country. Raise our taxes.

Members of the group include hedge funder Michael Steinhardt, high-profile trial lawyer Guy Saperstein, Ben & Jerry’s Ben Cohen, Bourne Identity Director Doug Liman, actress Edie Falco, the founder of Esprit, the founder of Ask.com, the founder of the Princeton Review, and more.

The group has gained attention in part (as millionaire novelist Stephen King did earlier this year) because it points to what many see as the class war that has been raging for decades in U.S. politics, where Wall Street has dominated Washington policy-making, where Depression-era “New Deal” anti-poverty programs have been devalued and where a post-war economic philosophy that centered on strengthening the middle class has given way to a free-market ideology that mainly benefits major corporations, creating the widest income disparities in modern U.S. history.

In a piece for Newsweek on the Tea Party movement and the Ryan budget plan, Senior Editor of the New Republic Jonathan Chait says Ryan’s plan represents a sort of culmination of the “war on the weak” in U.S. politics. Outside of the context of that war, it’s hard to make sense of the plan. Chait, like many other analysts, points out that the plan would expand not contract the deficit because the spending cuts proposed would come with even larger tax cuts for corporations and millionaires.

[T]he two streams—the furious Tea Party rebels and Ryan the earnest budget geek—both spring from the same source. And it is to that source that you must look if you want to understand what Ryan is really after, and what makes these activists so angry.

The Tea Party began early in 2009 after an improvised rant by Rick Santelli, a CNBC commentator who called for an uprising to protest the Obama administration’s subsidizing the “losers’ mortgages.” Video of his diatribe rocketed around the country, and protesters quickly adopted both his call for a tea party and his general abhorrence of government that took from the virtuous and the successful and gave to the poor, the uninsured, the bankrupt—in short, the losers. It sounded harsh, Santelli quickly conceded, but “at the end of the day I’m an Ayn Rander”…

Ryan’s plan does do two things in immediate and specific ways: hurt the poor and help the rich. After extending the Bush tax cuts, he would cut the top rate for individuals and corporations from 35 percent to 25 percent. Then Ryan slashes Medicaid, Pell Grants, food stamps, and low-income housing. These programs to help the poor, which constitute approximately 21 percent of the federal budget, absorb two thirds of Ryan’s cuts…

The class tinge of Ryan’s Path to Prosperity is striking. The poorest Americans would suffer immediate, explicit budget cuts. Middle-class Americans would face distant, uncertain reductions in benefits. And the richest Americans would enjoy an immediate windfall. Santelli, in his original rant, demanded that we “reward people [who can] carry the water instead of drink the water.” Ryan won’t say so, but that’s exactly what he’s doing.

Chait says the economic philosophy espoused by Tea Party icon Ayn Rand in her mid-century novels is an inverted Marxism: In her thinking, capitalists produce all of society’s wealth and workers are parasites.

President Obama has been labeled on the right as a socialist since he took office, even though he is no socialist and has never called himself one. Paul Ryan, though, is an unabashed “Randist,” and his “Path to Prosperity” should be viewed as a Randist utopian tract, not as a workable U.S. budget.

Got a tip? Story pitch? Send us an e-mail. Follow The Colorado Independent on Twitter.

“We will cut $78.5 billion below the president’s 2011 budget proposal, and we have reached an agreement on the policy riders,” House Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) wrote in a joint statement.

Federal funding for Planned Parenthood was kept intact despite the deep cuts.

“We protected the investments we need to win the future,” said Obama. “At the same time, we also made sure at the end of the day this was a debate about spending cuts — not social issues like women’s health and the protection of our air and water. These are important issues that deserve discussion, just not during a debate about our budget.”

In addition to the larger budget deal, lawmakers quickly passed a short-term funding extension late Friday night (Senate) and early Saturday morning (House), which will allow the government to continue operations through Thursday, April 14. President Obama is expected to sign the measure later Saturday.

“Tonight, at the eleventh hour, House Republican leadership backed off of their threats to shut down the government over a policy that had nothing to do with budgeting – cancer screenings and other preventative health care for women,” said U.S. Sen. Tom Harkin (D-Iowa). “Now that this debate is over, Congress can refocus on the budget for the next fiscal year and the long term. It remains my hope that the next proposal will include spending cuts and necessary revenue increases, while making room for critical investments in education, job training, infrastructure, and research – things that are essential for jobs now and for economic expansion and job creation in the years ahead.”

U.S. Rep. Dave Loebsack (D-Iowa) also added his relief that the situation had not resulted in a shutdown.

“It’s unfortunate that politicians in Washington let their political game of chicken get to this point,” Loebsack said. “I am relieved that this temporary agreement was reached, and I am eager to review what I hope is a reasonable final compromise. Iowa families, businesses, and our troops shouldn’t have been caught in the middle of Washington’s political games, and I will continue to work to ensure that a budget is passed so that we can move on to the issues my constituents tell me are important to them: job creation and economic development.”

According to CNN Money, the temporary truce marks the seventh extension passed by Congress for this fiscal year and since Obama provided his first budget on Feb. 1, 2010.

… The latest stalemate had lawmakers veer toward the precipice as they argued over a few billion dollars and a set of contentious political issues — like abortion — that were inserted into the debate.

There were multiple White House meetings and hours in which earnest aides tried to reach an agreement.

What happens next? Congress has given itself another week to pass a budget and again avoid a shutdown. See you on Friday.