...And Justice for All

California's Proposition 16 Makes a Corporate Mockery of the Democratic Process

Behind the ostensible government sits enthroned an invisible government owing no allegiance and acknowledging no responsibility to the people -  Theodore Roosevelt

In a time of 527s and corporately funded political groups disguised as grass roots organizations, it really comes as no surprise that 'public' initiatives such as California's Proposition 16 are being funded directly by major corporations.  We're used to the 'golden rule' of politics - he who has the gold makes the rules.  Many of us are weary of hearing how the Big Money has shaped our once democratic landscape and, quite honestly, want little to do with it anymore.  Money influences politics.  It's as simple as that.  Maybe we should all just get over it.  However, when a corporation turns out the be the sole financial supporter and spokesperson of such proposed legislation, even the most jaded political expatriate is forced to take notice.  And Proposition 16 - a monopolistic giveaway to Pacific Gas & Electric Company - will directly affect the lives of millions of Californians. 

The proposition - which will be voted on in a statewide election today - calls for a two-thirds majority public vote any time a California municipality wants to get involved in a public utility.  In other words, if a local government found a cheaper, cleaner form of electrical power - perhaps solar or wind - to supply its citizens, it would be forced to put the issue to a vote before it spent one penny on creating that value.  The initiative is even called the "Taxpayers' Right to Vote Act".  A vote on how to spend taxpayer dollars sounds eminently democratic on the face of it.  However, this not-so-subtle deception attempts to thwart the democratic ideal of majority rule.  Like so much legislation that continues to cripple California's economic future, PG&E is counting on the fact that getting a 67% majority in almost any election is nigh impossible - especially if the opposition puts enough money into the 'no' vote.

So what?  Government shouldn't be running businesses anyway, not matter how good of a deal it is for its citizens or how sustainable it may be.  It ruins choice and puts people in the thrall of Big Brother.  At first glance, this might seem to be the case.  But there's more to it than that.  The two-third vote would have to pass any time a municipality attempted to even loan money to or subsidize a business that was competing with PG&E.  In other words, PG&E would have a democratically imposed monopoly on northern California's energy industry.  They would finally be free to ignore the innovation of sustainable alternatives currently being developed by smaller energy operations and could raise their prices at any time to increase profits and satisfy growing shareholder greed.  So what's worse?  A government that can be hired and fired by the will of the people, or a single massive corporation that answers to no one but the bottom line?  

The issue, in fact, revolves around Marin County, CA - just north of San Francisco - and its desire to get more of its energy from renewable resources - as much as 25%.  This would require doing business with suppliers other than PG&E.  Marin is not asking to take over the entire energy industry, just partner with alternate vendors.  PG&E has taken exception to such challenges to its virtual monopoly in northern California.  So, by utilizing California's often abused ballot initiative system, a PG&E is trying to secure its stranglehold on the state's citizens and hoping no one is paying attention.

But this is still taxpayer money, right?  Shouldn't there be some sort of vote to ensure the proper stewardship of tax dollars?  A reasonable question.  However, according to SF Public Press, this belief that large amounts of tax revenue will be involved is mistaken:

There is an important distinction to be made between “taxpayer” and “ratepayer.” Many Community Choice Aggregation programs, like San Francisco’s, would not be run through the municipality’s general fund. Instead, they would be funded by the consumers, who would pay for the electricity as they do with any other provider.

To get an idea of how serious PG&E is about pushing this legislation through to protect their virtual monopoly, just take a look at all the stakeholders involved:

Yes on 16 is almost entirely funded by PG&E. The organization has received a total of $44,206,358.17, according to campaign finance documents on the California secretary of state’s website. All of this came from PG&E, except for $91,258.17 from the CA Business PAC, which in turn is paid for by the California Chamber of Commerce. One of the board members of the Chamber is Christopher P. Johns, the president of PG&E.

Basically, this is PG&E's baby.  Just about every last bit of it.  There is no voter uprising demanding that Marin or any other locality put the use of these monies to a vote.  There are no grass roots efforts to claim that government implementing energy alternatives is a misuse of funds.  In fact, not one consumer protection group in California supports this obvious ruse to solidify PG&E's position as the only provider of energy in the region.  This is why the "Taxpayer's Right to Vote Act" makes such a mockery of the democratic process.  Much like the deceptively named Clear Skies Act of 2003, Proposition 16 will do just the opposite of what it claims, effectively locking consumers into a system in which they have no choice.

Proposition 16 will likely not pass, though we'll find out soon enough.  It should, however, serve as a cautionary tale for the rest of the country.  The "floodgates" are open.  The Supreme Court has ruled that corporations have the inalienable right to free speech in the form of money.  And that money cannot be limited regardless of how many congress people it buys or what elections it tips in favor of corporate interests.  This is just the beginning.  It might not be long before we see constitutional amendments proposed by a consortium of industry leaders, devoid of the will of actual citizens, consumers, employees...human beings.  But the corporation will never stop framing its interest in clever branding and catchy sound bites.  It will, at every opportunity, attempt to deceive us into believing that what's good for Big Business is good for America.  It falls to us as citizens to recognize those fallacies.

By the way, does it disturb anyone else that it requires only a simple majority vote to pass a law that requires a two-thirds majority vote.  But hey, that's California.

Image Source

Slavery is the legal fiction that a person is property.  Corporate personhood is the legal fiction that property is a person.

Unlike Today's 'Tea Party', Wall Street Protesters Resemble Historical Revolutionaries

"Unless you become more watchful in your States and check this spirit of monopoly and thirst for exclusive privileges you will in the end find that the most important powers of Government have been given or bartered away, and the control of your dearest interests have been passed into the hands of these corporations." --President Andrew Jackson, Farewell Address, March 4, 1837

If this has become a time of renewed patriotism, it's of a fractured sort.  As the TEA Party, in its various forms, protests the encroachment of 'big government' on American life, an entirely different group of patriots has descended upon major financial institutions in New York and the K Street lobbyists in Washington, DC.  According to Mother Jones, protesters backed by the Service Employees International Union (SEIU) and the organizing group National People's Action (NPA) recently made their voices heard outside Bank of America and JP Morgan Chase.  They were demanding to meet with CEO's from those financial organizations.

These protesters aren't the odd mix of libertarians, neo-conservatives and traditionalists that make up the corporately supported TEA Party movement.  They aren't the new patriots of the Reagan Revolution, indoctrinated by the cult of 'government is the problem', taught to believe that corrupt governance is the disease and not just the symptom of rampant corporate dominance.  Neither are they the tools of corporate lobbyists who would use their well-meaning ire to distract from the legalized bribery that controls our Congress, the White House and even influences the Supreme Court. 

Unlike those who protested health care reform as nothing more than a 'government takeover', these patriots standing up against the financial terrorism of 'too-big-to-fail' banks have more in common with Thomas Jefferson than Ronald Reagan.  Their revolt against the power of the corporation is akin to the original Boston Tea Party, an event that most Americans don't realize was more about the oppression of corporate monopoly than actual taxation.  Though they might not know it, this is the point of which the SEIU and NPA were reminding the American people.  When the government of the United States was first conceived, it was not taxation that frightened the founders but the economic slavery of corporate exploitation; the absence of self determinism imposed by a corporate charter not regulated by individual states, but allowed to grow until it enveloped an entire nation and - potentially - the world.   

With the rain now pouring down, the two-day stand by SEIU and NPA culminated around midday when upwards of a thousand protesters rallied in McPherson Square, then occupied the nearby intersection of 14th St and K Street. In the intersection, under a large cardboard cutout of a Lloyd Blankfein-esque Wall Street executive controlling a politician on a string like a marionette, SEIU president Mary Kay Henry and others spoke to the soaked crowd. "The American people have a deep desire to fix what’s broken with our economic and political system,” Henry said. "That’s why a movement is building across this country to challenge the toxic influence Wall Street and corporations have on our democracy."

In 1773, the colonists in Boston were willing to stand up against monopoly, despite actually paying lower prices for their tea.  Today, we as Americans live for the lowest price.  We will drive those extra miles and buy from giant, job-killing big box stores just to save a buck.  We, as Douglas Rushkoff notes in his eye-opening Life, Inc., have adopted the corporate mentality after centuries of programming, test marketing and social engineering.  Unlike our revolutionary forebears, we are used to monopoly as a way of life.  But the colonists knew something we've forgotten; that free enterprise is only free on a level playing field.

Today, the free market is little more than a myth conjured by the corporate oligarchy to keep the lower and middle classes both hopeful and in their place.  We still believe that we can one day be like Bill Gates, despite all evidence to the contrary.  Americans are still protesting the oppression of government, willfully ignoring the true power behind 'the throne', the artisans of the carefully messaged social constructs that control their lives.  At the dawning of the American Revolution, our founders understood the dangers of corporatism and the economic slavery it would impose on would-be free people.  Today, we're far too willing to accept monopoly as just another sign of success, and that tax breaks and government subsidies to multi-national corporations are well deserved as long as we - the consumers - are assured the lowest prices.

Now, billions of taxpayer dollars, 30% interest rates on credit cards and stock market manipulations have finally opened the public's eyes to the same oppression that Jefferson and the other founders once feared.  This time, however, the corporate mindset and its promises of the 'ownership society' will likely make the rebellion against monopoly an arduous slog.  It may literally take hundreds of demonstrations on Wall Street and the Capitol Mall, tens of thousands of letters and calls to elected officials and several election cycles before Americans reclaim their inalienable right to a government of, by and for the people, instead of the corporation.  Most importantly, though, it will take a change in our own thinking.  We will be forced to look at our nation and the world as citizens instead of consumers, taking that first frightening step toward the actual stewardship of our own lives. 

Until then, here's to the patriots that are at least making their voices heard to the giant banks and hedge funds that dominate the financial landscape.  At least we know that history is on their side. 

Image Source

Slavery is the legal fiction that a person is property.  Corporate personhood is the legal fiction that property is a person.

The British Still Have a Lot to Teach America About Democracy

Historically speaking, the situation is a bit ironic.  For years, American colonists were taught the hard lessons of oppression and tyranny by Great Britain.  Our fore bearers saw the effects of empire; how millions could be considered subjects but not truly citizens, forced to pay taxes that would benefit England but not their own people.  They were paralyzed by royal monopolies like the East India Tea Company, making economic self-determination a criminal offense.  In truth, King George III and the British Parliament were exporting the suppression of democracy around the world.  So how is it that all these years later Great Britain - unlike the US - seems to understand that democracy isn't just another commodity for sale?

Last week, British citizens went to the polls to elect members of the House of Commons and their next Prime Minister.  There were three major political parties involved; the Conservatives, Labour and the Liberal Democrats led by David Cameron, Gordon Brown and Nick Clegg respectively.  The entire election cycle officially lasted only 1 month.  There were no inane advertisements on television or radio.  The only air time candidates received was a five minute slot to explain their positions and policies, not counting a short series of televised debates.  They were allowed to buy ad space on billboards, but in this age of multi-media immersion, billboards seem positively quaint.  The parties were expected to reach out directly to the people, touring the country, shaking hands and meeting everyday Brits.  Most importantly, each party was allowed to spend no more than $30 million on the campaign, with not one penny coming from corporate donations.  

By contrast, US voters are looking forward to 20 months of campaign stops, endless sound bites, an influx of corporately backed 527 groups and little real substance.  It has already started with the upcoming 2010 midterm elections.  By early 2011, presidential primary candidates will be jockeying for position, making 'unofficial' campaign stops all while the media comments on their electoral war chests and cites ridiculously early poll numbers from dubious sources.  Both network and cable television will dedicate hours of 'news' to the 'conflicts', 'struggles' and epic political 'battles' among candidates.  The Supreme Court's recent ruling on Citizens United v. FEC all but guarantees a deluge of campaign commercials before, during and after the most popular television programs right up until election day 2012.  The ad departments of local radio stations will, in effect, be owned by corporate and special interests pounding their political messages and good ole' fashioned mud slinging into the American psyche.  By the end of it all, pundits will already be looking to the next election and exhorting the losing side to 'take our country back'.  Sadly, our upcoming election cycle promises to be a partisan circus complete with pandering pachyderms and performing jackasses.

To be fair, the British electoral system is not without its challenges.  The recent election resulted in a 'hung parliament'.  That is, no party won a big enough majority to take control of Parliament by itself.  It hasn't happened in over a generation, and the event seemed to catch the Brits off guard.  However, instead of bemoaning the situation and allowing the process to dissolve into a cesspool of partisan bickering, the reigning prime minister resigned and the leaders of the Conservative and Liberal Democrat parties vowed to work together to form an effective coalition government.  There were, of course, tense moments, but it appears that the UK is already moving on.  The chance of a group of American politicians acting with such grace is likely too tiny to measure with existing technology.  Again, it's important to note that Great Britain has managed this without any corporate money involved.  It's a beautiful sign to the rest of the world that a dollar - or pound - is not the same as a vote.  It's also a lesson that the US needs to learn soon if we want democracy to survive. 

For those who still believe that the corporate largess should be considered free speech, profligate spending by candidates does more than just influence elections.  In fact, according to a Center for Responsive Politics report on the elections in 2008:

In 93 percent of House of Representatives races and 94 percent of Senate races that had been decided by mid-day Nov. 5, the candidate who spent the most money ended up winning, according to a post-election analysis by the nonpartisan Center for Responsive Politics. The findings are based on candidates' spending through Oct. 15, as reported to the Federal Election Commission.

A similar trend occurred in the 2006 midterms and the 2004 elections.  In other words, it's not necessarily the campaign or leadership or ideas that win elections.  It's money.  And money keeps our elected officials toeing the corporate line instead of working for the American people.

It's not just where the money comes from, but the shear magnitude of spending that also separates the UK and the US.  According to the World Bank, there were an estimated 61, 414,000 people in the entire United Kingdom in 2008.  There are about 5 times that many people in the US.  Yet, the US  spent almost 60 times more than the UK on its most recent federal elections.  It's estimated that a sitting US senator must raise between $5000 and $10,000 per day just to give themselves a chance at re-election.  And the $5.3 billion spent in 2008 is expected to be dwarfed by the now unregulated spending that will occur in 2012.  The echo chamber will be louder and more partisan than ever.  So, at what point do we address the question, "Couldn't some of this money be spent in better ways?"  Limiting the election season as the British have done would go a long way to saving hundreds of millions of dollars.

Critics of the British system claim there's not enough information available for citizens to make good electoral decisions.  That more money - especially from corporations - should permeate the process.  However, the onslaught of unfiltered political noise across the airwaves for months at a time often serves to confuse voters, actually making them less informed about the facts.  In the US, the media is no help.  They latch on to the strongest sound bite and repeat it until it becomes virtual truth.  No one challenges the allegations made by candidates or their toadies, so both sides appear to be right and wrong and the same time.  It was this kind of lazy, corporately run journalism that led up to the Iraq War.  In time it becomes almost impossible to discern fact from fiction, and discriminating voters are forced to visit sites like FactCheck.org just to begin making sense of it all.  

The British appear to get it.  They understand that when elected officials spend all their time and energy worrying about getting elected and staying elected, they're not focused on being elected.  In other words, they're not doing their job.  The Brits have also come to realize that a 'battle' fatigued electorate is not a well-informed one.  There inevitably comes a point where citizens tune out.  That usually leads to bad leadership and even worse laws.  Above all, our neighbors across the pond are not afraid to pronounce that democracy is not for sale by limiting spending and excluding corporations from the electoral process.  The US would do well to follow the UK's lead and limit the time and spending in which candidates engage.  Not only would it keep the voters fresh and informed, but it would allow fewer opportunities for special interests to subvert the will of the people via the 24-hour political propaganda machine.  Are there instances of corruption in the British electoral process?  Of course.  It would be naive to think otherwise.  Compared to the legal bribery that is universal in US elections, though, said corruption is laughably insignificant.  

On a final note, if America still feels the need to spend billions on federal elections, consider this.  In 2008 there were approximately 155 million tax returns filed with the IRS.  If an average of $10 - just $10 per return - was donated to a public fund, there would be $6.2 billion available every four years for federal elections.  That's right, we could publicly and completely fund federal elections without corporate donations, special interests or large individual giving from wealthy donors.  Congress and the President would no longer be beholden to multi-national corporations and would be free to do their jobs without worrying about their next fund raiser with a cadre of hedge fund managers.  For the first time since Teddy Roosevelt, America might again experience democracy the way it was meant to be.  Moreover, the fund would soon pay for itself.  During those years without federal elections, that public money would earn millions in interest.

Better yet, let's just give the fund to Goldman Sach's to invest.  Those guys are wizards at playing the game with taxpayer dollars. 

Image Source   

Slavery is the legal fiction that a person is property.  Corporate personhood is the legal fiction that property is a person.

Economic Terrorists Attack Greece and the Euro, May Turn On the US Next

There's class warfare, all right, but it's my class, the rich class, that's making war, and we're winning. - Warren Buffett

When an individual burns down his own house to collect on the insurance policy, it's commonly called fraud.  Pushing one's car off of a cliff to get a payout from a comprehensive coverage plan will often result in jail time.  So, why is it perfectly legal for billionaires to take out insurance on a commodity they don't even own, then manipulate the financial markets until that policy pays off?  And at what point does manipulating the instability of global markets by encouraging fear and uncertainty become economic terrorism? 

In February, the Wall Street Journal reported that an 'idea dinner' made of up several hedge funds including SAC Capital Advisors and Soros Fund Management, LLC focused on investment ideas regarding the euro and the current Greek debt crisis.  The consensus was that the euro was going to fall in value relative to the dollar, and that billions could be made by placing the right bets...and applying proper pressure on the market.

The currency wagers signal that big financial players spot a rare trading opening driven by broader market gyrations. The euro, which traded at $1.51 in December, now trades around $1.35. With traders using leverage—often borrowing 20 times the size of their bet, accentuating gains and losses—a euro move to $1 could represent a career trade. If investors put up $5 million to make a $100 million trade, a 5% price move in the right direction doubles their initial investment.

"This is an opportunity...to make a lot of money," says Hans Hufschmid, a former senior Salomon Brothers executive who now runs GlobeOp Financial Services SA, a hedge-fund administrator in London and New York.

It is impossible to calculate the precise effect of the elite traders' bearish bets, but they have added to the selling pressure on the currency—and thus to the pressure on the European Union to stem the Greek debt crisis.

In other words, the richest investors in the world bet that the euro would drop in value in the face of an impending European debt crisis.  In truth, they were likely hoping for Greece to default on that debt.  The article goes on to note that, three days after the dinner, a massive sell off of the euro occurred causing it to fall again.  Coincidence?  Not likely where hedge funds controlling hundreds of billions of dollars are involved.  Billionaire George Soros, among others, openly stated that he believed the euro would continue dropping in value.  The market is, if anything, one giant self-fulfilling prophesy.  When one of the richest men in the world says he's bearish on a currency, you can bet the financial world will follow his lead and start dumping it as well.  Of course, this just perpetuates the problem and causes the value of the euro to drop even further.    

This market manipulation doesn't just affect Greece.  The downward pressure on the euro has forced the European Union to fight back against a potential cascade of financial failures across Europe.  The falling euro and a Greek bankruptcy will have deleterious effects on the national debts of Spain, Portugal, Ireland and Italy.  To combat such a catastrophe, the EU has created an 'unprecedented' loan package worth at least $645 billion to help Greece and the other struggling European nations.  According to Bloomberg.com:

Jolted into action by last week’s slide in the currency to a 14-month low and soaring bond yields in Portugal and Spain, the 16 euro governments sketched out plans to make 440 billion euros ($570 billion) available, with 60 billion euros more from the EU’s budget, according to three officials at the talks in Brussels. An additional, unspecified sum may come from the International Monetary Fund, the officials said.

“We are going to defend the euro,” Spanish Economy Minister Elena Salgado told reporters as she arrived to chair the meeting yesterday. “We think we have a duty for more stability for our currency. We will do whatever is necessary.”

Those soaring bond yields were a direct result of the S&P 500's downgrade of Greek debt to 'junk' status brought on by the falling Euro.  In effect, instead of owing just $45 billion, the new 'junk' interest rate could force Greece to repay hundreds of billions in the long term.  Now, even the Federal Reserve is getting involved, sending as much as $30 billion to Europe in support. 

The current market strongly suggests that Europe will not be the only target for these global raiders.  Unless serious global financial reform occurs in the near future, no nation or state with considerable debt will be safe.  There is some hope for the financial future of Europe, though.  The EU is looking to regulate hedge funds and how they trade in the European market, an attempt to limit future financial catastrophes brought on by short-selling investors.  According to Reuters:

"We want to have clear rules that these managers have to stick to," said Udo Bullmann, a German Socialist member of the European Parliament who plays a central role in deciding the law. "The hedge funds played a role in the Greek crisis."

Bullmann said the rules would include curbs on pay such as an end to "golden handshakes", as well as strict limits on private equity investors trying to extract dividends from companies within the first four years of ownership.

"There are good private equity companies," he said. "But there are others that do no more than buy companies, bulk up their debts and then asset strip. We want to restrict that."

There are, of course, the usual detractors to this proposed legislation.  Britain - home of most of Europe's hedge funds and almost all of the private equity firms - is worried that strict rules will discriminate against companies operating in that country, causing them to move their operations to places like Dubai or Asia.  The United States, under the ever-so-dubious lead of Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner, is concerned that new laws would make it difficult for New York funds to find investors in Europe.  Both arguments have merit, but only from a cynically plutocratic point of view.  The crony capitalism that has infected the US and Britain seems to blind our governments to any substantial understanding of the cataclysmic economic damage that can be done by a determined cabal of rich speculators.  In fact, it's almost as if the stock market crash of 2008 never even happened.  If strong hedge fund rules are enacted in Europe, it's likely Europe itself will have to do most of the heavy lifting.

The fallout from groups of hedge funds short selling entire markets is the logical conclusion of an unregulated 'free' market system.  Instead of identifying real economic opportunities, creating businesses, providing employment and helping these nations grow their way out of debt just as the US did after WWII, these hedge funds are content to make money the easy way by destroying national economies.  Their actions lead to massive unemployment, the paralysis of needed public services, the dissolution of pension funds and 401k's and the ruination of the middle class.  And there are always bigger financial challenges.  Regardless of their US ties, there is nothing legal to stop them from focusing on our nation next.  Large states in considerable debt like California and New York could find themselves easy targets.  These people have already proven they're willing to watch entire economies fail in order to make another billion.  So, what's a little treason when so much money can be made?

It's difficult to talk about these issues without being accused of engaging in hyperbole.  However, there is no way to 0verestimate the influence that these multi-billion dollar hedge funds can and do have on the manipulation of our world economy.  Millions of everyday people invested in pension funds and 401k's, families worried about unemployment, government employees; all are victims of the hedge fund ideology.  So, what's the difference between currency manipulation that leads to the bankruptcy of an entire nation and exploiting a weakness in our national computer network?  Why do we call one 'the free market at work' and the other 'cyber-terrorism'?  Fundamentally, there is no difference.  However, we seem to excuse one in the name of higher profits, still clinging to some infantile hope that self-interested plutocrats will deign to shine a bit of their financial grace on the rest of the world.  This, as most clear thinking people know, will never happen.  In fact, in a 'free' market, it's not designed to.  Where money is a factor, though, we seem to lose any and all concepts of reality. 

Europe's efforts notwithstanding, there is very little to make one believe the rules of this game will change any time soon.  Until the world's governments decide that rule by an oligarchy of billionaires is no longer in their peoples' interests, this kind of global terrorism will continue.  But the issue goes much deeper than that.  Talk to Americans on the street and you'll hear similar stories.  So many of us dream of winning the lottery, selling some lucrative invention or making a billion dollars on Wall Street.  It is such a ingrained part of our culture, we often give deference to the rich and powerful no matter how they made their money.  In a very real way, we worship these people.  If a man can get filthy rich without creating a single job or any actual wealth, we honor him with a lower tax rate (capital gains) and incredible influence over our federal government.  Our President invites him to private meetings, he becomes a celebrity and a household name like Warren Buffet or George Soros.  He is nothing less than a superstar. 

So, if he eventually becomes a terrorist, will we even bother to notice?  

Image Source

Slavery is the legal fiction that a person is property.  Corporate personhood is the legal fiction that property is a person.

Obama Nominates Solicitor General Elena Kagan to the Supreme Court

Earlier today, President Obama announced Solicitor General Elena Kagan as his next n0minee for the United States Supreme Court.  Kagan was confirmed as Solicitor General last year with the help of seven Republican votes. 

Kagan brings very little judicial baggage for Republicans and Democrats alike to scrutinize during the confirmation process.  She has never been a judge and would be the first person confirmed in almost 40 years without that experience.  William Rehnquist was appointed in 1971 with no prior judicial background and eventually spent nearly 19 years as Chief Justice of the Court.  Kagan was a law professor for 10 years and was Dean of Harvard Law School.  She also worked as White House Counsel to President Bill Clinton.

Republicans will likely attack her lack of experience while Democrats may worry about her political ideology.  However, her career appears to be well grounded in the law.  She, to this point, does not seem to have an agenda beyond a strong constitutional interpretation.  This would be a welcome change from the current majority's corporatist agenda.  It's thought that Obama wants Kagan to find a way to build consensus - a skill she has demonstrated throughout her career - on the Court.  Also, he's hoping she'll have a strong influence over the swing vote, Justice Kennedy, who has been an effective tool for the conservative majority.

As long as Kagan interprets established law and avoids any legal fictions supported by the right wing of the Court, she should do fine.  Assuming the Republicans don't decide to filibuster her nomination, of course.

Image Source

Slavery is the legal fiction that a person is property.  Corporate personhood is the legal fiction that property is a person.

White House Releases Its "10 Most Wanted Lobbyist Loopholes" List

Want to know why government costs so much?  Ask a lobbyist - And Justice for All

Yesterday, the White House Blog featured an article by Dan Pfeiffer entitled: 10 Most Wanted Lobbyist Loopholes.  The post is a stunning piece of transparency that probably hasn't been seen from the Oval Office in close to a decade.  Its both a beautiful and simple effort to inform the American people, under no uncertain terms, what the financial corporatists are looking for in new regulation.  This, in effect, shows us the game plan that the big banks and investment firms will use to ensure that they can continue on with business as usual.  Unfortunately, having several members of Congress in their pockets is working to their advantage.  It will take a herculean effort on the part of the American people to get our elected officials to ignore these 'suggestions' and create legislation on behalf of we, the people. 

1) Ok, Consumer Protection Rules are Fine… Just Don’t Enforce Them.  The current bill would apply the same rules to providers of consumer financial services or products, whether the provider is a bank or a non-bank financial provider.  The bill would also allow State Attorneys General to enforce those rules.  Lobbyists are pushing hard to amend the bill so that Attorneys General lose their enforcement authority.  Why does that matter?  Because the Bureau would only supervise larger market participants.  Without state AG enforcement authority, the citizens of their states will have much less protection against illegal conduct. If you want to weaken consumer protections, that’s one way to do it.

2) Letting Non-Banks Play by a Weaker Set of Rules.  We know this is coming, so keep an eye out: attempts to give car dealers that make car loans and other major providers of financial services a big exemption from the consumer protection rules.  Now be aware: some people try to scare small businesses by saying that the consumer financial protection bureau will regulate main street businesses like orthodontists and florists.  That is not true.  But if a car dealer makes loans, or if a big department store sets up a financial services center, it’s doing what banks and credit unions do, and it should play by the same rules.

3) If You Can’t Kill Consumer Protection Now, Starve it to Death Later.  One of the keys to effective consumer protection is having a consumer financial protection bureau that is independent.  And one of the keys to independence is having an independent source of funding.  So be prepared for attempts to take away the bureau’s source of funds.  And also watch out for broader attempts to restrict the bureau’s independence or chip away at its ability to establish clear rules of the road for a fair and transparent consumer financial marketplace.

4) Preventing States from Protecting Their Own Citizens.  Under the current bill, the Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection would set minimum standards for the consumer finance market, but states would still be allowed to adopt additional protections.  In other words, federal consumer protections would set a floor, not a ceiling.  There’s likely to be a fight about that provision.  Citing the doctrine of “preemption,” big banks will try to take away states’ ability to supplement federal consumer protections.  Why is this a problem? Because state officials are often the first to learn of new abuses and new problems in the marketplace, and we should not get rid of that canary in the coal mine.  Federal law can overrule or “preempt” state law when a state law would significantly interfere with national banks’ business of banking, but states should otherwise have the right to protect their citizens as they see fit. 

5) Removing the Derivatives Trading Requirement to Protect Wall Street Profits.  Under the current bill, standard derivatives would have to be traded on exchanges or other electronic trading platforms.  Expect amendments to eliminate this trading requirement.  Why?  Because not everyone likes transparency.  Today, the big derivatives dealers make big profits by charging end-users extra spreads and hidden fees, and they don’t want that to change. 

6) Stretching the Derivatives “End-User” Exemption into a Hedge Fund Loophole.  Under the current bill, there is a narrow exemption from the derivatives clearing and trading requirement for commercial firms that are not financial companies, not major participants in the derivatives market, and that are using derivatives to hedge their real risks – not taking one-way bets like AIG.  Be on the lookout for attempts to stretch this exemption into a loophole – for example, by saying that the exemption should apply hedge funds and other financial companies. 

7) Creating an “AIG Loophole.” Under the current bill, the Financial Services Oversight Council would have the ability to designate a very large “non-bank” financial company – like AIG, for example – for tougher supervision by the Federal Reserve.  Since one of the key principles of financial reform is that firms should be regulated according to the risks they pose, not according to their corporate form, this is an important provision.  But rest assured, there are large “non-banks” out there who would rather not be scrutinized quite so closely.

8) Who Needs to Know What’s Happening at Insurance Companies? Insurance is regulated by the states, not the federal government – and this bill doesn’t change that.  But this bill would give the Treasury Department the ability to collect information from insurance companies so that it can help identify emerging risks before they blow up the financial system – like AIG.   After so many insurance companies got into so much trouble that they needed government support to survive, you’d think that would be a no-brainer.  But not everyone agrees.  Keep an eye out for loopholes that would protect insurance companies from a number of provisions in the bill – including even basic information gathering.

9) Letting Firms Make Loans Without Skin in the Game. A key lesson of the crisis is that firms in the mortgage business should have a stake in the loans they sell or securitize.  Skin in the game gives strong incentives to make good quality loans.  Mortgage industry lobbyists are pushing hard to kill this idea. It’s cheaper for mortgage lenders and Wall Street to be in the mortgage business if they don’t have to worry about the borrower’s ability to pay – but it’s a lot more costly for Americans to perpetuate the same system that helped cause the housing crash.

10) Preserving “Too Big to Fail” While Pretending to Kill It. The key to preventing future bailouts is to end the problem of “Too Big to Fail.”  And the only way to do that is to make sure that we can shut down big financial firms in a swift, orderly way if they’re on the brink of failure.  Of course, not everyone wants to see “Too Big to Fail” disappear, since it lets the biggest firms borrow money at lower cost and avoid the consequences of excessive risk-taking.  But no one wants to be caught defending the status quo. So defenders of the status quo are using a sleight of hand: pushing to make the resolution process so unwieldy that it can never work.  By proposing amendments that look tough but that make the resolution process unworkable, opponents of reform will try to save “Too Big to Fail” while pretending to kill it.

It's often stunning how an industry that creates few jobs and no real wealth believes it deserves special treatment by government.  But as long as money is involved, there will always be someone who thinks they're above the law.

The White House should be commended for creating this mini-map for the American people.  Though plenty of financial lobby money has flowed into the Obama Administration, this list might just help foster the novel concept that our government is actually looking out for us.  Sure, it's politics.  Of course, the White House wants a big win for the Democrats on financial reform.  But we sometimes forget that politics that works for the average American citizen is good politics.   It's a concept that might take some getting used to again.

Remember, the fight for robust financial reform legislation doesn't just stop just because we know what the financial industry wants.  We have to be vigilant.  Call, write and e-mail your senators and congresspeople.  Remind them to do right by the American taxpayer.  Tell them you know some of the tricks that the financial lobby is trying to pull and that you'll be watching closely how our elected officials respond. 

Here's hoping that this little 'top ten list' is a precursor to ending the ignorance that so often clouds our political process.

Image Source

 

Slavery is the legal fiction that a person is property.  Corporate personhood is the legal fiction that property is a person.

Americans Call for Corporate Death Penalty After Massey and BP Debacles

“Money often costs too much.” - Ralph Waldo Emerson

There is no other way to frame it.  In the battle for democracy the corporatists are winning.  Under the 14th amendment, they believe the corporate 'person' shall not be discriminated against and should receive equal protection under the law.  Wal-Mart has argued this corporate position as it insinuates its 'always low prices' and 'always low wages' into inner-city neighborhoods.  The legal fiction of corporate personhood has allowed entities that never die and possess incredible resources to assert their own political will on almost every aspect of American life.  The US Supreme Court has all but handed the rights of individuals over to multinational conglomerates.  But with freedom comes responsibility, or so it does with human beings.  Within the same month, neglect on the part of two major corporations, Massey Energy and British Petroleum (BP), have caused the deaths of 4o people.  If a 'natural person' were responsible for these atrocities, our government would have them in chains awaiting a trial that might lead to their execution.  So why don't we treat the corporate 'person' the same way?  As progressive radio personality, Thom Hartmann, puts it:  It's time to bring back the corporate death penalty.

Hartmann wrote this on the subject:

President Barack Obama pretty much stated the obvious when he called the oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico "a massive and potentially unprecedented environmental disaster."

The oil well pouring a river of crude into the Gulf of Mexico didn't have the normal type of remote-control shut-off switch used in Norway and the UK as last-resort protection against underwater spills, largely because the oil companies themselves are responsible for "voluntary" compliance with safety and environmental standards. It was in 1994, two years into the Clinton administration, when this practice of putting the fox in charge of the henhouse was legalized, about the same time George W. Bush was doing the same thing in Texas, a program pushed hard in the previous administration by Dan Quayle's so-called "competitiveness council" charged with deregulating industry. The accident has led to one of the largest ever oil spills in U.S. water and the loss of 11 lives. Voluntary safety for oil wells, but you and I can get stopped by the police if we don't fasten our safety belts? Eleven people have died because Halliburton and BP wanted to save money. In the first hundred years of this republic it was commonplace for rogue corporations to get the corporate death penalty - being shut down, dissolved, and having their assets sold off. Through the 19th century, it averaged around 2000 companies a year that got the axe. If the Supreme Court now says that corporations are people - and they did - then these corporations should be eligible for the corporate death penalty. Time to break up and sell off the pieces of Halliburton and British Petroleum.

Hartmann says that the US should re-invoke the 'death penalty' for corporations by breaking up those negligent companies and selling off their interests.  If corporations want the same rights as people, their 'limited liability' should no longer apply.  It's a position that makes sense, especially considering the way the financial, energy and health care industries have operated with impunity over the past several years.  Is there any real force to this idea, though?

Massey Energy's Upper Big Branch Mine in West Virgina has been cited for 1342 violations and nearly $1.9 million in fines since 2005 alone.  Some were much more egregious than others.  For example, when rescuers finally got into the mine after 29 people had already lost their lives, they found the fans that were used to pump out methane gas were actually turned the wrong way.  The explosion is thought to be the result of high concentrations of methane.  Massey's CEO Don Blankenship has shown little remorse for the deaths and even less fear of facing criminal charges, though the violations and some communications between himself and mine management are quite damning.  From the outside it looks like pure criminal negligence.  In an industry as important as coal, however, will anyone really be held accountable?

Currently, the Deepwater Horizon oil rig in the Gulf of Mexico is dumping 5,000 barrels of crude oil per day.  The slick is quickly approaching the Gulf Coast and residents are preparing for an ecological disaster.  Eleven workers are dead after an explosion that some believe could have been avoided.  A simple mechanism could have been installed, but in the name of profit, safety again took a back seat.  It might not have saved the workers' lives, but it could have thwarted the oncoming environmental onslaught.  According to the Wall Street Journal: 

The U.S. considered requiring a remote-controlled shut-off mechanism several years ago, but drilling companies questioned its cost and effectiveness, according to the agency overseeing offshore drilling. The agency, the Interior Department's Minerals Management Service, says it decided the remote device wasn't needed because rigs had other back-up plans to cut off a well.

An acoustic trigger costs about $500,000, industry officials said. The Deepwater Horizon had a replacement cost of about $560 million, and BP says it is spending $6 million a day to battle the oil spill. On Wednesday, crews set fire to part of the oil spill in an attempt to limit environmental damage.

This is a classic example of American big business at work.  The perpetual quest for short-term profit clouds the better judgment of management.  Simply put, if it's not an immediate problem, why worry about it?  If it blows up in our face, we'll pay a fine and move on.  It appears that the larger a corporation gets, the more it takes on a casino style mentality, playing the odds with the house money because business has been so good for so long, why would it stop now?  BP's spill is rare in oil drilling, but might have been avoided by spending as little as 0.01% of their profit margin on an additional safety measure.  But the mindset is that it doesn't matter that the acoustic trigger is law in Brazil and Norway, if we don't have to use it, we won't.  Keep in mind, this attitude didn't appear out of nowhere.  It was developed over many years by the fantasy of nigh-limitless profits, lax government regulation and nominal fines that barely amount to a slap on the wrist. 

BP is, of course, unhappy it has to clean up what may be hundreds of thousands of barrels of oil.  However, the market will correct the problem when crude oil jumps $15 or $20 per barrel.  The increase in price will help BP recover its losses.  When the stock price of BP plummets, it will present as a golden opportunity for investors to buy a load of cheap stock that will only increase in value once BP is back pumping oil instead of cleaning hundreds of miles of shoreline.  The oil giant will simply write off its clean-up losses and live to fight - and pollute - another day.  And don't worry about civil damages.  BP's total liability is limited to $75 million thanks to a 1990 law passed when Big Oil lobbied our Congress immediately after the Exxon Valdez spill.

So why is it so unlikely that either of these companies will be found criminally negligent, resulting in the imprisonment of any or all of its officers?  Because, contrary to the popular TEA Party belief that big government controls our lives, it is actually the corporate candy of cheap goods and cheap energy that the American people can't live without.  Most of us have no idea how to even begin thinking of a world that doesn't revolve around billions of barrels of oil or miles of processed coal.  Big Energy knows it has us and our government wrapped around its greasy finger.  Year after year our leaders pay lip service to the idea of a new way, a green energy future.  But so little has come of it, thus far.  It takes catastrophes like these to remind us that the energy business is dirty in so many ways.  We can rely on fossil fuels as long as we're willing to pay the consequences; death, dismemberment, environmental disasters, terrorism, unstable nuclear states, all in the name of getting what we think we need.  Hartmann's call to reinstate the corporate death penalty, actually holding big business responsible for its actions, is novel and admirable.  In a world where money controls a government and its people, however, its only a pipe dream.  Unless we decide that enough is enough, we're left to sit around and wait for the next fossil fuel debacle over and over again.

Image Source

Slavery is the legal fiction that a person is property.  Corporate personhood is the legal fiction that property is a person.

America's Last Journalist Retires Tonight

In science, there is only physics.  All the rest is stamp collecting                                                                         - Ernest Rutherford

There are those touchstones in our lives that draw us in unexpected directions.  Words, ideas and events that cause us to re-assess our world and come to new realizations.  Some of these come in the form of people; those individuals that rouse us to the cause of democracy by pulling away the veils that have so long obscured our vision.  In journalism, there are names like Edward R. Murrow who's broadcasts battled the nationalistic fervor of Senator Joseph McCarthy.  Or Walter Cronkite, once regarded as the most trusted man in America, who exposed the true costs of Viet Nam and helped bring about the end of that tragic conflict.  There were those in power who disagreed with these men, of course.  Those who speak the truth are often harangued and ridiculed, or worse.  However, Murrow and Cronkite were members of a media that both honored their journalistic forebears and inspired younger generations of the fourth estate to steadfastly report the facts wherever they be found.  Today, that kind of commitment is in short supply.  There are very few places left in our multi-media world where one can actually learn the facts and the story behind them.  And the future of journalism in this country looks bleak, at best.  For in this age of 24-hour sound bites and ideological talking points disguised as news, the last American journalist is about to retire.  

Tonight, Bill Moyers will officially step away from nearly 50 years of public service.  The final broadcast of his program, Bill Moyers Journal, will air on PBS at 9 PST.  If you've never taken the opportunity to watch it before - or more likely have never heard of it - do.    But don't look for banal arguments between two opposing sides trying to see which can out-volume the other.  Forget all about the standard cable news fare and its sensationalist spin and partisan pablum.  There are no "Patriots & Pinheads" segments nor any "Worst Persons in the World" bits.  However, do be prepared to wake up to what journalism is supposed to be.   

Moyers' knowledge and style are more than just refreshing.  His work is the antithesis of both the shout-fests of cable and the safe, corporately condoned reporting of network news.  Over the past 40 years, his journalistic zeal and integrity have helped establish PBS as both a credible and well-respected news source.  Whereas other so-called news commentators are little more than niche entertainers, Moyers has continued to work in the public interest, showing America the hidden realities that continue to restrain our people and limit our potential as a nation.  Moyers is, in truth, an anachronism; an investigative journalist who not only has a complete command of the facts, but is a masterful interviewer and an astute scholar of the human condition. 

Moyers left his home state of Texas in his late 20's to work in the Kennedy Administration.  He was instrumental in the creation of the Peace Corps.  He went on to be Lyndon Johnson's White House press secretary from 1965- 1967.  But Moyers left the Johnson Administration in 1967 to pursue his career in journalism, realizing he could not truly serve the public interest working as a Washington, D.C. insider.  His original version of the Bill Moyers Journal first aired in 1971. 

Always a visionary, Moyers became dissatisfied with the state of journalism standards in television.  With the help of his wife, Judith, he created the independent production company Public Affairs Television in 1986.  This gave him complete autonomy to produce groundbreaking work such as "Free Speech for Sale", "Trade Secrets" - a scathing expose' on the chemical industry - and "On Our Own Terms: Moyers on Dying".

He has written and co-written 11 books, including "Joseph Campbell and the Power of Myth".  A tireless advocate of independent media and - as many of his colleagues point out - a consummate professional, Moyers sets the standard for investigative journalism.  Eric Alterman of The Nation writes: 

Onetime CBS Morning News producer Jon Katz told me, "When you work with Bill, it ruins you for everyone else." Yes, Moyers would "drive the executives berserk with his agonizing over everything, and getting him on the morning news was like a three-month Kabuki dance every time. But the end result was the most brilliant stuff we ever had.

Not without his detractors, Moyers has spent his career speaking truth to the rich, the powerful and the tools of corporate media.  In 2004, Bush appointee Kenneth Tomlinson, made it his personal mission as a board member of the Corporation for Public Broadcasting to 'get' Moyers and his PBS program, NOW with Bill Moyers.  Tomlinson claimed that PBS had become too liberal and should be more 'fair and balanced'.  He pointed to Moyers as exhibit A.  Moyers left NOW, but was vindicated when Tomlinson was forced to resign for improper use of CPB funds - including a $10,000 investigation into NOW and multiple instances of over billing.  Moyers later defended NOW and explained why he'd been targeted:  "We were getting it right, but not right wing." 

Bill O'Reilly has called Moyers a 'liberal shill' because he dared question our country's involvement  in Iraq and Afghanistan.  However, Moyers was working in government, covering Watergate and exposing the Iran/Contra scandal long before O'Reilly was reporting celebrity gossip for "Inside Edition".  He didn't have the luxury of growing up in New York, as O'Reilly did, free to assume his world was the center of the universe.  As a young man in Marshall, Texas Moyers saw rampant prejudice and overt racism against blacks and Latinos while being indoctrinated by Texas History Movies.  He knew he had to evolve, to learn, to comprehend a world outside of his own.  Moyers realized early that history is written by the winners, and those who do the majority of the working, fighting and suffering can easily be written out it.  He understands a fundamental truth that O'Reilly and his cohort will likely never accept.  That stories of the poor and marginalized struggling against the lack of economic opportunity, the plight of migrant workers organizing for livable wages and the tale of human rights usurped by powerful corporate interests are liberal.  Our country's progression from a ragtag group of rambunctious dissenters into a nation of law, still yearning to somehow reconcile the Constitution's promise of 'we the people' with the realities of a growing corporate oligarchy is liberal.  For nearly 40 years he has shown us these stories, knowing that we cannot help but be changed by them.  This is why he does not cringe at O'Reilly's claim.  Unlike O'Reilly and others, Moyers' views have not evolved as a matter of ideology, but as a matter of facts.

Lest those unfamiliar with his work dismiss him as another liberal voice in the great echo chamber of contemporary political discourse, its worth noting that Moyers did not shy away from opposing points of view.  He interviewed such conservative luminaries as Richard Viguerie, co-founder of the Silent Majority, constitutional scholar Bruce Fein and libertarian Nick Gillespie of Reason Magazine. Moyers' recent work on 'the Journal' has revolved around several constitutional issues.  The Supreme Court's ruling in the Citizens United case is of particular concern.  Moyers has long been a proponent of publicly funded federal elections; a solution to what he calls the 'legalized bribery' running roughshod over democracy in Washington.  His in-depth discussions of Proposition 8's assault on the 14 Amendment and the reluctance of our corporately-owned Congress to pass effective financial reform are far and away more engaging and enlightening than any programming found on either cable or network news.

In his recent book, Moyers on Democracy, he laments the rapid decline of relevant media.  As multinational corporations strip down their newsrooms and decimate their reporting staffs in the name of profit, democracy suffers.  Americans are less informed, and the information vacuum is now filled with ideological gibberish masquerading as news.  It is the same situation Thomas Jefferson warned about when, in 1823, he said:

"The only security of all is in a free press. The force of public opinion cannot be resisted when permitted freely to be expressed. The agitation it produces must be submitted to. It is necessary, to keep the waters pure."

Moyers is hoping that the next generation of journalists take Jefferson's words to heart and 'keep the waters pure'.  But there is only one Bill Moyers.  He is, in the opinion of many professional journalists, irreplaceable.  There are flashes in the main-stream-media, but none that quite live up to his legacy.  Olbermann, Cooper, even fledgling investigators like Rachel Maddow, given time, have a chance to take up the mantle.  However, they'll never be free to honestly educate the public while constrained by the inherent bias of their corporate employers.  Unlike other broadcasters that seek to raise the audience's blood pressure through fear mongering and finely spun sound bites, Moyers is like listening to a favorite uncle sharing compelling stories about the way the world is while inspiring us to imagine how it could be.  He lays out all the relevant facts and lets us decide for ourselves that, as a society, "we can do better".  As the Washington Post puts it:

Bill Moyers is engaged in truth telling, saying what cannot be said, but must be said.

Remarkably, he's accomplished all this in a country that spends only $1.54 per person on public broadcasting.  Then again, Moyers was never interested in fame and fortune, just telling the stories that need to be told.

The quote from Rutherford at the beginning of this article applies aptly here.  He proclaims physics to be the epitome of science because it is the process that explains all other scientific disciplines.  Without it, we'd have no real understanding of the workings of chemistry, biology or zoology.  It is, in effect, the story of science that informs the world. 

In journalism, there is only Bill Moyers.  All the rest is, well, hopefully not beyond saving.

Image Source

Slavery is the legal fiction that a person is property.  Corporate personhood is the legal fiction that property is a person.

Republicans and Democrats Actually Agree: Neither Party Wants Real Financial Reform

The Big Money goes around the world, the Big Money take control, the Big Money got a mean streak, the Big Money got no soul - Rush

It appears that Republicans and Democrats finally agree on something.  Normally, this would be a cause for celebration, given the ridiculous partisan bickering that usually accompanies even the slightest congressional move.  Except for the fact that, even in agreement, our elected officials continue to promote a corporate mentality at the expense of the American people.  Neither party wants anything to do with real financial reform.  In other words, they don't want to alienate their corporate campaign contributors by suggesting our government regulate the real culprits of the recent meltdown, faulty financial products. 

For the past few weeks the big dogs have been barking from one side or the other, but there's very little bite to any of it.  Senator Chris Dodd's (D-Massachusetts) proposal to create a consumer protection agency was great, except for Dodd's own lackluster assessment of it.  He basically said that it wasn't good but it was the best they could do at the time.  He also noted that new regulation wouldn't stop the next crisis from coming.  Perhaps, if the the agency were not housed by the very institution it's supposed to regulate, it might have a chance of doing its job.  But Dodd approaches the new regulation not like a Senator who has nothing to lose - he retires after this term - but a legislator who's looking for a lucrative deal as a lobbyist for big banks.  The fact that he's taken almost $14 million in campaign contributions from the financial and real estate industries only strengthens that perception.

Senator Mitch McConnell (R-Kentucky) has been quite vocal in his opposition from the Republican side of the issue.  His skill at ignoring facts and regurgitating talking points is not only an asset to his party, but will one day earn him a dubious place in the annals of political lore.  Almost every public statement McConnell makes is comprised of 60% truth and 40% lie.  When he states that the proposed financial regulation reform will not stop future bailouts, he's absolutely right.  The $50 billion proposed 'fund' paid into by large financial institutions will do nothing to stop our government from handing over billions of our tax dollars to distressed mega-corporations.  But McConnell would have the world think that he's blocking this legislation because the American people deserve better.  In fact, he's just stalling.  He's looking to scrap the legislation and make it more 'user friendly' for his corporate sponsors.  This is exactly why he attacked the bill immediately after meeting with a group of hedge fund managers. 

While both parties have been trying to sway public opinion to their side, they're hoping that the average taxpayer isn't paying attention to the underlying problem.  The real meat of reform has to come from regulating financial derivatives, specifically collateralized debt obligations and credit default swaps.  These complicated products were invented to not only minimize risk in the stock market, but also make huge profits in a casino-style betting process.  Unfortunately, the latter got out of control leading to the sub-prime mortgage meltdown.  In short, trading risk back and forth causes market bubbles and encourages even more risky behavior with billions of dollars of other people's money.  It seems unthinkable that new regulation wouldn't cover these issues.  But our corporately owned elected representatives don't see it that way.  They've been brainwashed by the massive profits inspired by de-regulation and the ridiculous horror stories of economic ruin if these instruments are subjected to any kind over cite.  They also know that the only way to keep their positions of power in government is to bow to the Big Money.

There are a few dissenters in all this sad, political lip-service to the rights of the American taxpayer; those who would actually like to see derivatives exposed to the light of day.  Senator Blanche Lincoln (D-Arkansas), though toeing the private health insurance industry's line a few months ago, has proposed an amendment that would give teeth to the financial regulation bill.  If accepted, bank holding companies such as Bank of America would no longer be allowed to speculate in the derivatives market.  In a nod to the Glass-Steagall Act - all but abolished in the 1990's - it would force banks to be more like, well, banks.  The idea even has bipartisan support.  Senators Olympia Snowe of Maine and Chuck Grassley of Iowa both appear to be on board.  Snowe signed a bipartisan letter to Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid asking that the Lincoln amendment be put into the reform bill.  Unfortunately, none of it mattered.  As refreshingly bipartisan as the amendment seemed, debate on the entire package was shut down yesterday by a vote of 57-41 with the Republicans presenting a united front of opposition.  So much for Snowe and Grassley's support.

Luckily for the corporate backed majority of these two parties, the vote may force the drafting of new bipartisan legislation.  Legislation unfettered by derivatives regulation or solid language that will finally end 'too big to fail'.  The perfect opportunity for Republicans and Democrats to craft a proposal on which the majority can agree.  The President will likely sign the new proposal regardless of his true feelings on the matter; he needs another political win.  At the end of the day, America will have a new law that sort of takes a slightly harder stance on how the government feels about the way Wall Street will continue to do business.  It will have little effect but will no doubt have some powerful sounding name to make the average citizen think their Congress accomplished something.  The American taxpayer will, again, be put in the crossfire of the next financial crisis and both political parties will continue living in the pockets of the largest corporations in the world.

Hey, no one ever said bipartisanship would be easy. 

Image Source

      

Slavery is the legal fiction that a person is property.  Corporate personhood is the legal fiction that property is a person.

Well Point Targets Breast Cancer Victims, Drops Their Insurance Benefits

When it comes to profit, there are no limits that some corporations will go to.  We've heard these horror stories before about the health insurance industry, but it never ceases to amaze us how callous and inhuman these practices have become.  According to a report from Reuters, the health insurance industry behemoth, WellPoint, created a computer algorithm to immediately investigate the policy of anyone diagnosed with breast cancer in an attempt to cancel their policy.  Reuters states that:

The software triggered an immediate fraud investigation, as the company searched for some pretext to drop their policies, according to government regulators and investigators.

Once the women were singled out, they say, the insurer then canceled their policies based on either erroneous or flimsy information. WellPoint declined to comment on the women's specific cases without a signed waiver from them, citing privacy laws.

But WellPoint...has specifically targeted women with breast cancer for aggressive investigation with the intent to cancel their policies, federal investigators told Reuters. The revelation is especially striking for a company whose CEO and president, Angela Braly, has earned plaudits for how her company improved the medical care and treatment of other policyholders with breast cancer.

Officials are concerned that the new health reform legislation won't do much to change tactics like this.  Health insurance companies will continue to find ways keep their rescission rates as high as possible.  Safeguards against rescission won't be implemented until at least 2013, and even then, enforcement of the law will likely require third party over cite from a governmental agency.  Over cite, which is exactly what the health insurance industry spent $1.4 million per day last summer trying to block.

There is no doubt that traditional free market solutions cannot solve America's health care crisis.  WellPoint's quasi-criminal behavior and the countless tragic anecdotes from across the private health insurance industry remind us daily about the consequences of leaving our health care in the hands of big business.  Private insurance actively searches for ways to avoid providing the service for which it has already been paid.  To continue working with this system is just another definition of insanity. 

In truth, the American people don't need health insurance.  They need affordable access to health care.  Whether that access comes through a public/private relationship such as a single payer hybrid or a nationwide move toward non-profit health insurers, doesn't really matter as long as it works.  Of course, we won't know until the private health insurance market finally implodes and we're forced to look at real solutions.  How many of us will have lost our own battle with private health insurance by then?

Image Source

Slavery is the legal fiction that a person is property.  Corporate personhood is the legal fiction that property is a person.