Archive for the 'Meet the Corporate Speaking Fees' Category

Pat Buchanan KO’s Luis Gutierrez Meet the Press Immigration Debate

June 24, 2007

Pat Buchanan demolished Luis Gutierrez in an immigration debate on Meet the Press:


After that, the usual suspects gather round to ask for corporate speaking fees by defending immigration.

Tim Russert

Host of Meet the Corporate Spokespeople

Columnist, Washington Post, speaking fee info here.

Wall Street Journal
Chief Washington Correspondent, CNBC

Moderator, PBS’s “Washington Week”

Syndicated Columnist

Tim Russert Speaking fee from Arianna Huffington at Huffington Post:

But, according to the Washington Speakers Bureau, which exclusively handles Russert’s speaking engagements, his standard speaking fee is $60,000 plus first class travel for two for west coast appearances, and $50,000 and first class travel for two for east coast locales — although, they say, private planes are strongly preferred.

Please, please, is there not a corporation to fly them out on the corporate jet this week for a 50,000 luncheon talk for one hour and then fly them back, after they do shopping. They earned it today. Fly their family members out with them. Better yet, fly them out, give the talk and have them fly back and do another talk on the way back. They really earned it this Sunday on Meet the Corporate Speaking Fees.

Journalist speaking fees here.

Buchanan had the facts on what immigration is doing to Americans. Gutierrez made it clear, it was intentional.

Immigration has killed wage progress.

Men’s median wages are flat since 1973, despite productivity rising. Buchanan himself combined these together in the debate pointing out that wages are flat and productivity is going up. That was a key point to get spoken on TV. This is one of the first times it has been said.

Men’s median wages in the US are flat since 1973. See graph page 18 at census:

Income, Poverty, and Health Insurance Coverage in
the United States: 2005

Worker Productivity Graph and info

Productivity never stopped growing, except possibly during some recessions or odd years from 1947 to present.

1947 to 1973 worker productivity up 2.7 percent per year.

1973 to early 1990’s 1.4 percent per year

1995 to 2004 2.9 percent per year increase in worker productivity.

Yet men’s median wages are lower than in 1973, and the other groups, women, blacks, etc. are lower than all men in 1973.

The workers became more productive, but wages stayed at or below the level of men in 1973.

What changed is that the top 1 percent get 20 percent of every 100 dollars we make now but only got 10 dollars per every 100 before the 1965 Immigration Act.

Scroll down (in link below) for graph:

U Shaped Income Inequality Timeline

The U shaped timeline on the graph shows that the top 1 percent got 20 percent of each 100 dollars created by Americans before immigration restriction in the 1920’s, got 10 dollars during restriction from the 1920’s to 1960’s, and now are back up to 20 percent with immigration.

Note that in the 1960’s it was still headed slightly lower at the time of the 1965 Immigration Act. Congress and the wealthy were in a panic. If it went to 1 percent that would mean perfect income equality. It got as low as 9 percent before turning back up. Immigration change is what explains the 2 turning points in the U shaped pattern. No other fact can explain both turning points.

For a more detailed discussion of this see

National Data, By Edwin S. Rubenstein
It’s Official: Immigration Causing Income Inequality

Northwestern University economists Ian Dew-Becker and Robert J. Gordon pointed out this U shaped pattern and that it can only be explained by immigration. Rubenstein discusses this in his article linked to above.

The authors of the graph state:

“NEW DATA SHOW EXTRAORDINARY JUMP IN INCOME CONCENTRATION IN 2004″ By Aviva Aron-Dine and Isaac Shapiro for a graph of income share of top 1 percent from 1913 to 2004.

U Shaped Income Inequality Timeline

—-Senators Vote their Stock Portfolios

7 of the top 8 wealthiest Senators voted for S. 2611, amnesty, affirmative action, non-deportable crime, and a pathway for the top 1 percent of households to continue to enjoy 20 percent of each year’s income, compared to 10 percent before Kennedy’s 1965 Immigration Act. The only 1 of the top 8 who didn’t vote for S. 2611 didn’t vote, Jay Rockefeller. McCain is 7th and Kennedy 8th in wealth.

Open Secrets

Rank Name Minimum Net Worth Maximum Net Worth

1 Herb Kohl (D-Wis) $219,098,029 to $234,549,004 Voted Yes S. 2611

2 John Kerry (D-Mass) $165,741,511 to $235,262,100 Voted Yes S. 2611

3 Jay Rockefeller (D-WVa) $78,150,023 to $101,579,003 Not Voting S. 2611

4 Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif) $43,343,464 to $98,660,021 Voted Yes S. 2611

5 Lincoln D. Chafee (R-RI) $41,153,105 to $64,096,019 Voted Yes S. 2611

6 Frank R. Lautenberg (D-NJ) $38,198,170 to $90,733,019 Voted Yes S. 2611

7 John McCain (R-Ariz) $25,071,142 to $38,043,014 Voted Yes S. 2611

8 Edward M. Kennedy (D-Mass) $19,189,049 to $93,043,004 Voted Yes S. 2611

More data here

Free fax to Congress on hot immigration bills:


Labor Day is almost upon us, and like some of my fellow graybeards, I can, if I concentrate, actually remember what it was that this holiday once celebrated. Something about America being the land of broadly shared prosperity. Something about America being the first nation in human history that had a middle-class majority, where parents had every reason to think their children would fare even better than they had.
The young may be understandably incredulous, but the Great Compression, as economists call it, was the single most important social fact in our country in the decades after World War II. From 1947 through 1973, American productivity rose by a whopping 104 percent, and median family income rose by the very same 104 percent. More Americans bought homes and new cars and sent their kids to college than ever before. In ways more difficult to quantify, the mass prosperity fostered a generosity of spirit: The civil rights revolution and the Marshall Plan both emanated from an America in which most people were imbued with a sense of economic security.

That America is as dead as the dodo. Ours is the age of the Great Upward Redistribution.

Since 1973 productivity gains have outpaced median family income by 3 to 1.

from Devaluing Labor By Harold Meyerson
Wednesday, August 30, 2006; Page A19

Even WaPo knows its true.


Labor force participation rates of men (especially black men) have fallen since 1984:

and even from 1965 (requires excel, but you can get a viewer for free)

Black men have fallen from about 80 percent in 1965 to 66 percent in 2005, and are projected to fall further by 2014 because of continued legal immigration and illegal immigration and amnesty. Black and white men both had labor force participation rates of 80 percent in 1965. Whites are down to 74 percent.

BLS projects that Hispanic, black, white and Asian men will see their labor force participation rates fall from 2004 to 2014.

==Buchanan’s comment on wages and productivity

MR. BUCHANAN: OK, that means 86 percent of construction workers are American citizens or people here legally whom the illegal aliens are competing with, and they say the Americans won’t do their jobs. That’s nonsense.

Secondly, the congressman talks about working folks. In the nonmanagerial, 80 percent of American workers, or something like 93 million, their wages and the Bush boom, so-called, have been arrested. They are not going up. Productivity goes up, but wages aren’t going up.

It defies common sense to say you can bring in 36 to 40 million legal immigrants and 12 to 20 million illegal and not have those huge number of uneducated, unschooled folks, who many of whom don’t speak the language not drive down the wages of working Americans. That is prosperous. The Wall Street Journal—I don’t know what the editorial is—but The Wall Street Journal has been an open borders, pro-NAFTA, transnational newspaper for a long, long time.

REP. GUTIERREZ: The fact is that they do jobs. Every time you go to the grocery store and you get grapes, any agricultural…

The response of Gutierrez doesn’t address the point that productivity has gone up and median wages have stayed flat since 1973.

Gutierrez goes on to say:

REP. GUTIERREZ: …This population will need to be replaced.

This replacement is accomplished by taking jobs for lower wages. This is replacement economics.

Patrick Cleburne sums this exchange up nicely at Vdare: “Hispanic Congressman boasts: Illegals undercut American wages.”

Big Immigration, Low Employment
By Steven Camarota
The Center for Immigration Studies | June 25, 2007

Camarota documents that native unemployment or dropping out of the labor force in Georgia has matched immigration since 2000. He has a set of bullet points and a table at the end that document this in detail. This is direct substitution at lower wages and lower working conditions. This is exactly what Gutierrez is selling, as Patrick Cleburne points out. This is exactly what the US Senate is buying.

Free fax to Congress on hot immigration bills:

Also David Broder’s speaking fee is only 10 to 20,000 dollars.  David Broder has a folksy grandfather charm, sort of like Lee Hamilton.  This makes him trusted by ordinary folks who think he looks out for them.

David Broder has been a loyal voice for corporate immigration interests.  If you believe his speaking fee needs to go up to reflect that you can register at Washington Post and comment on how he needs to be rewarded.

David Broder homepage at WaPo 


Columnist, Washington Post, speaking fee info here.

%d bloggers like this: