Who benefits from a discredited and dysfunctional government?
Profiteering corporations that would like not to be regulated. For example,

* profiteering corporations that would increase profits by dumping toxic waste into rivers and streams, the ocean, the air, the soil.
* profiteering corporations that would jam toxic chemicals into the earth and ground water to unlock natural gas – for profit.
* profiteering corporations that would increase profits by endangering their workers – mine operators, for example.
* profiteering corporations that would increase profits through predatory lending.
* profiteering corporations that would increase profits by using tricky and complicated contracts.
* profiteering corporations that would increase profits by selling low quality food-like products that cause chronic illness.
(This is certainly not the complete list).

Who profits from paying bribes (and rewards) to politicians?
All those corporations that enjoy weakened or non-enforced regulations.
All those corporations that receive subsidies and targeted tax breaks – corporate jets, oil companies, corporate farms, etc.

Who would benefit from privatizing social security?
Financial institutions and profiteering brokerage houses.

Who would benefit from killing social security?
All those companies that have to pay the employer’s share.

Who would benefit from raising the age of Medicare eligibility?
Profiteering medical insurance companies.

Who benefits from killing city services?
Big money investors who would like to profit from owning cities and city services.
Having had ever increasing amounts of money rolling in for 30 years, they now have more money than they know what to do with. They need to find someplace to invest it.

Who benefits from tax system loop holes?
Wealthy persons who can afford clever lawyers.

And this!

Why did the debt ceiling debate produce so much dysfunction? It was the intransigence of corporate originated Tea Parties and corporate owned Republicans. The downgrade of U.S. Treasury bonds increases the relative desirability of corporate bonds.

From Think Progress:

"Shortly after helping to elect Gov. Scott Walker (R-WI), Koch Industries opened a new lobbying office in Madison near the state capitol. However, little has been disclosed about the Koch lobbying agenda in Madison. The New York Times reported that Koch political operatives privately pressured Walker to crush public employee unions. But Walker’s major payback to Koch relates to environmental deregulation.

ThinkProgress has learned that the Walker administration, along with state Supreme Court judge David Prosser, has quietly worked to allow Koch’s many Georgia Pacific paper plants to pollute Wisconsin by pouring thousands of pounds of phosphorus into the water."

http://thinkprogress.org/2011/04/13/walker...

According to a Koch Industries web site, Georgia-Pacific LLC is a Koch company. This looks like the best Koch target for boycott. BOYCOTT THESE PRODUCTS:

Quilted Northern
Angel Soft
Brawny
Sparkle
Soft n'Gentle
Mardi Gras
Vanity Fair,
Dixie

There are also brand names in Europe.
Perhaps we could solicit their help.

Having a plan seems to be one of the political hoops that presidential candidates must jump through, at least if they are Democrats. I do not see the same emphasis among Republicans. Hillary has fought hard to distinguish her health care plan from Barack’s health care plan. However, since laws are passed by the legislative branch, why should a presidential candidate bother with developing a specific plan for solving something like health care? Sure, the president can send his or her plan to Congress and ask them to pass it, but the legislators are going to redesign it as they see fit.

I think presidential candidates should present plans for solving problems they actually have control over. For example, Barack’s plan for getting things done is to motivate people to work together to solve problems. This is the kind of plan that matters. I am not sure what Hillary’s plan is for accomplishing things. As far as I can tell, her plan is to sound strong and talk tough, like George Bush. I never want to see another George Bush in or near the White House.

What is Hillary’s plan for rolling back the Bush-Cheney power grab? I have doubts that she has very much interest in rolling back that power. Barack has addressed this briefly, but not enough.

What is Hillary’s plan for answering the red phone at 3 a.m.? Bill Clinton once said it is better to be wrong and strong than right and weak. Hillary obviously agrees. Not only did she vote to make war in Iraq, but she got in front of cameras to declare her support for making war. I want someone who is more likely to be right. And, I detest power freaks.