Reality-based tax breaks

By now you’ve heard the bitter, widespread debate over whether giving the wealthiest Americans fat tax breaks will ever create jobs.

But everybody agrees on one thing – we shouldn’t just give rich people tax breaks so they can have even more money to do whatever they like with.

Don’t we?

That’s why I was intrigued by this proposal that would tie tax breaks to the actual creation of jobs.

The proposal was floated by Benjamin Barber, a Democratic theorist writing on Huffington Post.

Barber suggests a system of vouchers to make sure they’re creating jobs with their tax breaks.

“Conservatives should certainly welcome the principle of vouchers, which they have been proffering for a long time to the poor for education, groceries and housing – and now, courtesy of Mr. [Paul] Ryan, for Medicare too,” Barber writes, referring to the Republican vice-presidential candidate’s proposal to have the government give future Medicare recipients cash to buy insurance instead of health care. “The premise has been that a voucher prevents "irresponsible behavior" by those being helped, like buying drugs instead of groceries or a golf caddy instead of private schooling for the kids. It's a way to prevent the poor from getting all that "free stuff" Mitt Romney thinks they are always conniving to acquire.

Basically, it’s so simple I’d be surprised if someone hasn’t suggested it before: If you create real jobs, you get a tax break. No job creation, no tax breaks.

While Barber appears to suggest granting the tax cuts first and taking them away if the tax break doesn’t lead to jobs, I’d flip it: base the tax cut on hard proof that the jobs have been created.

Proponents of this latest version of the trickle-down theory should have no problem with the wealthy actually having to prove they’re creating real jobs to earn their tax breaks.

Because nobody wants to give away money for nothing, right?

I think the proposal could be refined to link the quality and number of jobs to the size of the tax cut.

For example, buy a yacht: no tax cut. Enjoy your yacht.

But prove you created a significant number of high-wage jobs with health care benefits and pensions, get a bigger tax cut.

Extending the logic of Barber’s idea, if you outsource jobs, shouldn’t your taxes increase?

Barber has hit on an issue that extends beyond just tax cuts – government officials have been extending all kinds of subsidies to business owners for creating jobs without ever requiring proof that the business owners actually create the jobs, or requiring that the subsidies be returned if the jobs are destroyed.

The very notion that we’ve allowed these huge tax cuts for the wealthy without demanding proof that they lead to real, not just theoretical, job creation, suggests how far we’ve moved away from the sensible fact and data-based world into a realm based on wish fulfillment for the wealthy who dominate our politics. The notion that proponents of the tax cuts want to pay for their extension by eliminating tax breaks that help the middle class, like the home mortgage tax break, also suggest how far our political debate has gone astray. Barber’s proposal suggests a way to get it back from fantasyland.

 

 

 

 

 

Martin Column / Mitt Romney / Paul Ryan / Tax breaks - 08/27/2012

Will the Supreme Court Split the Difference on Health Care and Immigration?

"The High Court" (c) Charles Bragg

Last November, the U.S. Supreme Court announced it would hear one of many lawsuits by conservative officials challenging the new federal health care reform law championed by President Obama. At the time, you will recall, very few observers thought there was a serious chance that the high court would invalidate the legislation.

I was among them –until three weeks later, when the Supreme Court announced it would hear the federal government’s challenge to Arizona’s immigration law, which bars illegal immigrants from trying to get a job and gives state cops the power to arrest people suspected of being illegal immigrants. The Obama Administration argues the Arizona law interferes with federal authority to control the nation’s borders.

When I heard that the Court took the immigration case, I was pretty sure I saw a trade-off in the works.

Here’s how I reckoned it: extreme conservatives loathe universal health care (and the President) and want to stop it now, before it takes effect and becomes one of those successful federal programs, like Social Security, that becomes wildly popular and hence impossible to privatize or repeal.  Liberals, by contrast, aren’t crazy about the sorely compromised product that President Obama signed, but they believe that everybody should receive the health care they need, and that the government ought to at least mandate fair rules in the marketplace. Overturning the new law would set liberals ablaze, and give President Obama a powerful campaign issue – activist judges – in the Fall.

On immigration, many liberals are uncomfortable with the harsh and arguably unconstitutional provisions of Arizona’s law. And they remember how the “state’s rights” movement was once a thinly veiled euphemism for maintaining state laws that discriminated against African Americans. But conservatives strongly support the right of Arizona to take extraordinary measures to stop illegal immigration. Overturning the Arizona statute would anger the conservative base.

See where I’m going here?

By taking both cases within a few weeks of each other, the Republican majority on the Supreme Court gave itself the kind of political cushion it didn’t have when it handed the presidency to George W. Bush in Bush v. Gore.  The high court can grant conservatives the massive victory they seek by invalidating federal health care reform, and then disappoint them by ruling in favor of the federal government in the Arizona case.

“See! Impartial!” the pundits will trumpet;  “this proves that Supreme Court ‘judges are like umpires,’” as now Chief Justice John Roberts put it during his confirmation hearings on Capitol Hill in 2005.  “Umpires don't make the rules; they apply them. The role of an umpire and a judge is critical. They make sure everybody plays by the rules,” he said at the time, and it sounded reassuring.

“Split the difference” maneuvering is a common feature in American politics. I've seen it in action ever since I first worked on Capitol Hill in the Seventies. The lawmaker votes against a bill – disappointing some – only to vote for a different bill a few days later, pleasing them. All is forgiven, or maybe not; either way, it's portrayed as proof of "independence": “If both sides are mad at me,” the politicians’ old saw goes, “I must be doing something right.”

That may fool some of the people some of the time, but such tactical machinations are of course completely improper in the judicial branch, where justice is supposed to be blind and decisions made based on the merits of the case, not whether “the base” will be thrilled or disappointed, or both.

As a lifelong student of the law, I hope I’m wrong about the U.S. Supreme Court. Those who devote their lives to justice, as most lawyers one way or another must, can only rue the public’s distrust of the judicial process.

That’s growing, and no wonder. Some conservatives indiscriminately berate “judicial activists” on the bench. Meanwhile, corporations spend increasingly vast sums of money belittling judges, juries and lawyers in the quest to pass legislation repealing the average American’s right to hold wrongdoers accountable in a court, which they call "tort reform."

And in a little noticed part of its infamous Citizens United decision, the Supreme Court granted corporations the First Amendment right to campaign for or against judges as if they were politicians. Super PACs are now targeting justices whose rulings aren’t pro-business enough – as if “pro-business” is a constitutional imperative unto itself.

I checked the Constitution – it’s not in there.

Unfortunately, what’s transpired since last winter gives me little reason to believe that the current Supreme Court will put respect for precedent over politics. During three days of hearings last month, the notion that the Supreme Court would invalidate the federal health care law went from being a right wing fantasy to a possible, even likely, outcome based on the questions and comments of the Republican justices.

In fact, after the hearing on the immigration law last week, it looked to many like the Supreme Court was prepared to rule in favor of Arizona.

The Conventional Wisdom now has the Court dumping heath care reform and upholding the immigration controls, making it a clean sweep for the anti-federal government conservatives. After all, members of the Supreme Court cannot be held accountable for their actions, short of impeachment. So why would they care whether they look like they’re “balanced”?

So much for my theory.

On the other hand, a political version of one of the laws of quantum physics may be at work on the Court at this very moment. The Heisenberg Principle posits that the mere observation of atomic particles changes their course. Since its astounding determination that the Constitution protects corporate money, the Supreme Court has come under a nearly unprecedented degree of criticism. Perhaps the public scrutiny is beginning to have an effect.

At least two members of the Court itself have said they want to reconsider it (PDF). Justice Anthony Kennedy, the “swing vote” on the bench, may end up unwilling to join in a wholesale re-engineering of constitutional law.  Some experts suggest that Chief “Umpire” John Roberts might be sensitive to how history will view his stewardship of the institution.

So I still wouldn’t be surprised to see a “split the difference” strategy play out in June, when the Supreme Court is expected to issue its decisions on both cases, just five months from the election.

Citizens United / Harvey Column / Supreme Court - 04/30/2012

Main Street talks back

Inside the D.C. bubble, Wall Street’s titans continue to have their way.

Their Republican allies in the Senate helped the titans kill the Buffet Rule, which would have required those who made more than $1 million a year to pay at least 30 percent in taxes, double what investors pay on capital gains income.

Wall Street has continued to stifle efforts to regulate risky derivatives like the ones that led to the financial collapse, while most of the Dodd-Frank financial reform enacted in the wake of the financial crisis has yet to be implemented.

In the Wall Street Journal (no link), columnist David Weidner asserted Wednesday that Wall Street has gotten some of its swagger back. “Big financial interests,” Weidner wrote, “are beating back every broadside with a vigor not seen since the financial-bubble days.”

But outside Washington it is a different story.

Voting for the first time on the CEO compensation of a too-big –to-fail bank, Citibank shareholders rejected a $14.9 million annual compensation for its top executive.  The “say on pay” vote, mandated as part of Dodd-Frank, is strictly advisory. Citibank officials can ignore it if they want.

For years, the company’s executives had promised that their pay would be strictly tied to performance. The CEO, Vikram Pandit, had been making $1 a year since the bailout during which time the bank performed miserably. But this year, the bank’s directors decided that Pandit deserved to get back on the gravy train with the rest of the industry’s CEOs.

The following day, shareholders at another smaller regional bank, FirstMeritCorp of Akron, Ohio, rejected the compensation package for their CEO in another “say on pay” vote. Directors of that bank wanted to raise the CEO’s pay $1 million to $6.4 million a year, after the bank’s stock had fallen 20 percent during the past year.

They’re just a couple of non-binding votes. But I found it striking that when Main Street voters had the opportunity to express their opinion directly on one aspect of Wall Street’s practices, the voters voiced disapproval.

Wall Street can’t dismiss their shareholders as a bunch of Occupy Wall Street types out to destroy the system, or marginalize their rejection as mere envy. These are hardnosed investors who would like nothing better than for Wall Street banks to get on solid footing and make money. But these voters realize that despite all the administration’s happy talk about how well the bailouts have worked, the banks still aren’t sound, and that the outrageous pay for top executives who haven’t delivered is a big part of the problem because it encourages focus on short-term profit, loading up on risk and relying on continuing government help to prop up their businesses.

According to Weidner, polls show that most voters have moved on from anger at Wall Street. That may be so. But if ordinary citizens, rather than Washington insiders beholden to Wall Street, were making decisions, I think they would coolly, calmly and rationally favor the wealthy paying their fair share of taxes, and sensible regulation that would keep the titans from getting too carried away with themselves and their schemes.

 

Congress / Derivatives / Executive Pay / Financial Reform Legislation / Martin Column - 04/20/2012

Corporations Gone Wild

It’s a magnificent time to be alive – if you’re a giant corporation, that is.

Spring is here, and after a deep chill, the mighty mega-businesses are not merely reborn, but blossoming. “Big U.S. companies have emerged from the recession more productive, more profitable, flush with cash and less burdened by debt,” swoons the Wall Street Journal.  The seductively sweet smell of speculation – in mortgages, derivatives, oil, wheat – once again fills the air. Amidst the giddy exuberance of the stock market, why dwell on the dreary conditions among the human population, where one out of every six Americans lives below the poverty line, one of every ten is out of work, and one of every five homes are worth less than the loans that secure them?

Oh to be young, free and incorporated – preferably in an island like Bermuda.

Being a Big Business wasn’t always so much fun. For a long time, corporations had to obey the same rules as the rest of us. And after Wall Street drove America into a ditch four years ago, Corporate America was hurting, too. True, many of us never really thought of inanimate objects as capable of suffering. And come to think of it, I never did meet a homeless corporation (though I’ve encountered many a crooked one). But with bailouts, special tax breaks, and the ability to borrow taxpayer money from the Fed at .05% interest, that painful period didn't last very long.

And then, in 2010, the U.S. Supreme Court decreed in the infamous Citizens United case that under the U.S. Constitution, corporations are the same as people and spending money is a form of free speech. So when corporations write checks, it’s the same as you and me speaking. And corporations have the right, under the First Amendment, to use money to buy public officials and purchase elections.

Corporate America’s been partying like its in Ft. Lauderdale on Spring Break ever since.

As you might expect from a climate of unrestrained corporate debauchery, there’ve been some ill-fated hook-ups, like AT&T and T-Mobile (the annulment cost $4 billion). But don’t worry about a newly rejuvenated Ma Bell not having any BFFs. Its 100 million customers literally cannot dump the company, at least not without paying a massive “early termination fee.” AT&T’s allies on the Supreme Court ruled last year that the company can strip you of your right to take it to court, leaving you no way to sever the relationship if your service fails, your “unlimited” data plan gets throttled, or you get overcharged.

Big businesses were screwing people way before Citizens United and Concepcion v. AT&T, of course. But those decisions fundamentally altered the balance of power between citizens and corporations in the courts, Congress and the executive branch.

Philosophers, scientists and science fiction writers have long predicted that the moment would come when artificial creatures, created by humans, would become more intelligent than humans – a technological "singularity" projected to arrive later this century. But no one would have guessed that 2010 would become the date of the political singularity – the year in which a legal construct – a corporation – would become more politically powerful than humans.

That corporations don’t yet have all the benefits of personhood misses the point. Justice Stevens’ dissent in Citizens United  warned: “Under the majority's view, I suppose it may be a First Amendment problem that corporations are not permitted to vote, given that voting is, among other things, a form of speech.” But corporations don’t need to vote. Corporations decide who gets elected simply by dumping vast quantities of cash into elections on behalf of candidates who will do their bidding.

As a student of American civic life named Tony Montana once explained, “In this country, you gotta make the money first. Then when you get the money, you get the power.”

Citizens United / Harvey Column / Uncategorized - 04/12/2012

Muppets v. Goldman

It’s been a rough couple of months for the Muppets. First Fox News anchor Eric Bolling denounces their new movie as dangerous left-wing propaganda because it portrays a villainous oil company executive.

Then Goldman Sachs executive Greg Smith quits his job and discloses in a scathing hatchet job of the firm’s culture that his fellow bailed-out bankers refer to their clients in a derogatory way as Muppets.

And what do they mean by that?

Hmmm. Maybe they think Muppets are puppets that are manipulated by their handlers. Maybe Goldman Sachs bankers imagine us to be lifeless sacks of cloth and yarn without spirit and voice, but we’re not.

And no self-respecting Muppet would put up with the shenanigans of Goldman Sachs (though I suppose their corporate owners, the Walt Disney Co., might).

The Muppets have always had a strong populist streak – they articulate sharp critiques of the Greed-is-Good Wall Street culture that Goldman appears proud to embody.

Check out the song “Money,” co-written by comedian Stan Freberg and Ruby Raskin. Performed by Dr. Teeth, it ridicules the rampant desire for more, more, more money at the expense of everything and everyone else.

At the end of the song, Dr. Teeth yanks a slot-machine handle on the side of his piano – which pays off.

If you have any doubt about whether the Muppets would side with the 1 percent or the 99 percent, check out their version of a “A Christmas Carol.”

In his farewell exposé—beyond his Muppet revelation— Smith merely confirms what we’ve already known: Goldman Sachs and the other powerful too-big-fail institutions believe they can get away with screwing their clients by protecting themselves with high-level political clout, bought with political contributions and cemented with interlocking relationships between the government and the firms.

As Robert Scheer points out, it was just a day before Smith unloaded on Goldman that a former top aide to Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner, Jake Siewert, became the managing director and global head of Goldman’s corporate communications. Siewert is just the latest of a long line of public officials to cash in at the big banks.

How perfect that a high-level member of the Obama administration, which has chosen to align itself with the interests of the big banks time and time again, will now be the one to design Goldman’s defense against the bad publicity stemming from Smith’s oped.

Scheer, along with Matt Taibbi—another astute reporter/commentator on the financial collapse and its aftermath—are full of praise for Smith’s stepping out so publicly.

For myself, I wish that Smith had been willing to step up and connect Goldman’s policies to the financial collapse, not to mention the role Goldman has continued to play in rigging our political system to escape the consequences of its devastating greed and fraud.

That may be too much to ask of somebody on his first day out of the protective Goldman bubble. Make no mistake, it’s not just clients the firm has manipulated for its own gain.

Goldman and the other to-big-to-fail banks have turned us all into puppets, holding over our heads the specter of fear, and pulling the strings to secure a hefty back-door bailout for themselves.

As for the Muppets, I’m sure they’ll weather their current troubles with aplomb. Hopefully their creators are busy at work on a scheme for revenge.

I’ve never seen a Muppet either shut up or stand still while someone ties her hands behind her back. It’s the rest of us I’m worried about.

Goldman-Sachs / Martin Column / Too Big To Fail - 03/17/2012

No-fault settlement fuels never-ending bailout

Two striking details reveal the true nature of the highly touted national foreclosure settlement.

The first is that the banks admit no wrongdoing.

Here’s a sample of the illegality and the misconduct with which the federal authorities and the 49 state attorneys general charged the banks. It goes way beyond robo-signing, the banks’ widespread practice of using forged or unverified documents in the foreclosure process:

▪                Providing false or misleading information to borrowers,

▪                Overcharging borrowers and investors for services of dubious value,

▪                Denying relief to eligible borrowers,

▪                Foreclosing on borrowers who were pursuing loan modifications,

▪                Submitting forged or fraudulent documents and making false statements in foreclosure and bankruptcy proceedings

▪                Losing or destroying promissory notes and deeds of trust,

▪                Lying to borrowers about the reasons for denying their loan modifications,

▪                Signing affidavits without personal knowledge and under false identities,

▪                Improperly charging excessive fees related to foreclosures

▪                Foreclosing on service members on active duty

▪                Making false claims to the government for insurance coverage

But the feds and the state attorneys general want to let the banks off the hook without having to admit to any of it.

This is the kind of no-fault settlement for which the Securities and Exchange Commission has increasingly come under fire, [but which companies agree to as a cost of doing business. For example, the national foreclosure settlement only costs the banks about $5 billion in real money, a drop in the bucket compared to their profits. It’s not enough to actually deter the banks from future bad conduct.

The rest of its estimated $25 billion value is supposed to be determined by a complex series of credits that the bankers get for what they should be doing anyway – modifying mortgage loans and offering principal reductions to underwater homeowners.

The authorities still have to get a judge in Washington, D.C. to sign off on it.

Too bad the settlement wasn’t presented to U.S. District Judge Jed Rakoff in New York, who’s been adamant in questioning no-fault settlements and refusing to rubber stamp them.

His comments, though directed at the SEC, are relevant to the national foreclosure settlement.

Rejecting an SEC no-fault settlement with Citigroup last November, Judge Rakoff said that such settlements are “hallowed by history, but not by reason” and create the potential for abuse because they ask “the court to employ its power and assert its authority when it does not know the facts.”

Rakoff questioned what government officials would get from the settlement “other than a quick headline.”

Though he was talking about an SEC settlement with Citigroup, he could have been describing the national foreclosure settlement, which exacts too little a price from banks for their wrongdoing and offers too little to homeowners.

The settlement provides that banks will spend $17 billion on principal reductions and another $3 billion on refinancings. But according to an analysis by the Brooking Institute’s Ted Gayer, less than 5 percent of the nation’s 11.1 million homeowners will qualify for help under the settlement.

It also presents the general laundry list of wrongdoing without any specificity – it names no names or specific facts. One of the big criticisms of the foreclosure settlement is that the authorities didn’t do a real law-enforcement style investigation to assemble a case before sitting down to “negotiate” the settlement, weakening their hand with the banks.

The second aspect of the foreclosure settlement that reveals its weakness is how the authorities are suggesting they’re going to monitor whether the banks will comply. Just exactly how are we going to make sure that the big banks deliver even the relatively small number of loan modifications and principal reductions they’ve promised?

According to the settlement, the banks themselves are going to self-report on their progress.

Then an “independent” monitoring committee is going to check these reports, and then levy fines if the banks aren’t hitting certain targets. But the monitors consist of the same regulators who have already facilitated the banks’ earlier failed foreclosure mitigation efforts, and have touted this current settlement as a “landmark.” Having already proved their reluctance to get tough on the banks so far, how much incentive do they have to get tough with banks later on?

It sounds flaky to me.

The whole robo-signing scandal stems from banks use of forged, false or unverified documents, poor recordkeeping and the inability of anybody in the courts or government to get the banks to follow the law or hold them accountable.

On top of that, when it comes to keeping their previous commitments to deliver loan modifications in earlier attempts to address the foreclosure crisis, the banks have failed miserably.  The investigative journalism outfit Pro Publica has assembled reams of data about the shortcomings of previous government-sponsored loan modification efforts.

So now we think it’s a good idea for them to police themselves?

The entire settlement looks more like the government’s latest efforts to prop up the nation’s floundering too big to fail banks than a real attempt at either law enforcement or robust help for homeowners and the housing market.

Where is Judge Rakoff when we really need him?

 

Foreclosure / Martin Column / Outrage / Too Big To Fail - 03/14/2012

Freakout in the Bonus Bubble

Did you hear the one about the hedge fund employee complaining that he’s got to scrape by on $350,000 this year because of his lower bonus?

This is not an anti-banker joke, it’s a Bloomberg News story.

In the story, reporter Max Abelson gets finance industry workers to open up about their feelings about their financial sacrifices in the wake of a reduction in bonuses this year.

One hedge fund marketing director acknowledges that he is “freaking out, like a rat in trap on a highway with no way out” because he will be unable to keep up with his kids’ private school tuition, summer rental and the upgrade to his Brooklyn duplex.

Bonuses were down about 14 percent across the financial industry last year in the wake of a second annual plunge in profits of more than 50 percent.

Noting that profits plunged a lot more steeply that the bonuses, the New York Times Dealbook column, which often takes the Wall Street view, couldn’t summon much sympathy. Reporter Kevin Rose sniffed, “It is apparently going to take more than shrinking bank profits to put a big dent in Wall Street bonuses.”

Wall Street bankers remain by any measure well paid, with an average annual compensation, including bonuses, of $361,180 in 2010, the last year for which averages are available. That’s 5 ½ times the average pay for Americans.

So to help put the bankers’ problems in perspective for the rest of us who might be having a hard time working up any empathy, Bloomberg rustles up a high-priced accountant.

“People who don’t have money don’t understand the stress,” said Alan Dlugash, a partner at accounting firm Marks Paneth & Shron LLP in New York who specializes in financial planning for the wealthy. “Could you imagine what it’s like to say I got three kids in private school, I have to think about pulling them out? How do you do that?”

What a load of malarkey.

What the Bloomberg report neglects to mention is that the financial industry actually compensated for the lower bonuses by raising bankers’ salaries.

While some bank defenders claim the brouhaha over bonuses is just envy, a report from New Bottom Line earlier this year puts the bankers’ bonuses into sharp focus. It found that bankers’ total compensation at the six biggest banks amounted to $144 billion last year – second only to the total paid out in 2007 before the meltdown.

Since the 2008 financial collapse, the banks we bailed have paid out a total of half a trillion dollars in compensation.

According to the report, if the bankers let go of just half of their compensation packages, banks could afford to underwrite principal on all the underwater mortgages in the country.

If bankers chose to forgo just 72% of their bonuses, they could fill the nearly $103 billion budget gap plaguing the nation’s city and states.

The bankers aren’t getting this money because they have contributed so much to the well being of the country. They’re getting it because they’ve captured both the political system and their regulators, who continue to do the bankers’ bidding. We can’t expect them, the bankers or the politicians or the regulators, to stop on their own.

We’re going to have to do it.

Check out our constitutional amendment to undo U.S. Supreme Court’s Citizens United ruling, which opened the gates wide for bankers and other corporate titans to influence our government with an unlimited and anonymous tidal wave of cash.

 

Bonuses / Martin Column - 03/06/2012

Capital Punishment by Corporate Proxy

There are two kinds of death penalty in this country. One of them I bet you’ve never really thought about.

First there’s the death penalty imposed by the state for particularly heinous crimes. This one’s been churning for decades – we all know about it, and many of us have strong feelings about it. In 1978, for example, California voters passed an initiative authorizing capital punishment for an expanded list of crimes. A few days ago, a coalition of organizations announced they had collected enough signatures to put a measure on the November ballot that would ban the death penalty in California.  Make no mistake: this is one of those social issues that inspire passions of biblical proportions. Whichever way voters go on this, it’ll be an intense, high visibility campaign... over the fate of 719 people on California's Death Row. In 2011, California executed two people; three in 2010.

Then there’s the death penalty almost nobody ever mentions, but claims many more victims – all of them innocent.

I’m talking about the one carried out on a daily basis by corporations that put profits over people’s lives. Consider the death toll that results when insurance companies refuse to sell a health insurance policy at a reasonable price. A study by Harvard researchers concludes that nearly 45,000 Americans die each year because they lack health insurance and go without the care they need. About 5,300 of those are in California – more than the number of homicides and suicides in the state combined.

Deaths due to malpractice by medical personnel in hospitals alone are estimated at 195,000 annually.

Water, air and soil pollution is reported to be responsible for forty percent of all deaths worldwide.

Most of the corporate policies reflected in these statistics on fatalities are based on a simple financial calculus of profit v. loss. The prototypical example is the decision by Ford executives in the 1970s to manufacture a car with a known fatal defect: a gas tank that could explode in the event of a moderate car accident. The company’s engineers were aware of the flaw, but the cost of the repair – $11 per vehicle – was deemed too expensive. Ford decided it’d be cheaper to pay the medical and court costs of the victims and their next of kin. You can read Ford’s cost/benefit analysis here.

Who knows how many Americans have died an early death after losing their jobs, their homes and their life savings in the financial collapse engineered by Wall Street speculators four years ago?

Why isn't there more discussion of this form of capital punishment? As I explained in a book on medical malpractice years ago, mayhem perpetrated behind closed doors in the suites isn’t as accessible, nor as easily translated into graphic videos and television news stories, as is crime in the streets.

“Corporations are people,” Mitt Romney candidly explained to an angry American last year. The U.S. Supreme Court’s 2010 decision in Citizens United indisputably granted these inanimate creatures the freedom of speech that once belonged to humans only. Abetted by government incompetence or deliberate inaction, some corporations have gained even greater power: the power to make life or death decisions for many Americans.

I don’t mean to diminish the importance of the debate over the death penalty here in California; the point made by the supporters of the new initiative to ban capital punishment is that a relatively small number of prisoners are costing everyone else a ridiculous amount of money. But we citizens ought to pay at least the same amount of attention to the de facto death penalty that corporate greed can impose.

Citizens United / Harvey Column / Supreme Court - 03/05/2012

Busting Wall Street, by the numbers

How many FBI agents does it take to bust one Wall Street crook?

This isn’t the beginning of a joke. It’s one way to measure how serious the Obama’s administration latest highly touted financial fraud task force is about tackling its beat.

The task force is staffed with 10 FBI agents, according to U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder.

You can get some idea of whether that’s an adequate number by comparing it to the law enforcement effort in the wake of the Savings and Loan crisis in the 1980s, a major but vastly smaller financial collapse.

It only cost the taxpayers a mere $150 billion in bailout money, compared to the 2008 banking collapse, which cost us trillions.

Bill Black, a former S&L regulator turned white-collar criminal law expert and law professor at University of Missouri at Kansas City, has been one of the sharpest critics of the administration’s sharpest critics.

Black makes the point that regulators investigating S&L fraud two decades ago made thousands of criminal referrals, and the FBI assigned 1,000 agents to follow up on those referrals. Black says the referrals led to more than 1,000 felony convictions, including the executives of the S&Ls.

Black is just one of many who have noticed that President Obama’s heart has not really been into the task of putting top bank executives in jail.

As recently as December 11, the president told 60 Minutes in an interview: “I can tell you, just from 40,000 feet, that some of the most damaging behavior on Wall Street, in some cases, some of the least ethical behavior on Wall Street, wasn't illegal.”

Black points out that this at best a non-answer; at worst it’s double-talk. The president says that “some of the most damaging behavior on Wall Street, in some cases some of the least ethical behavior on Wall Street, wasn’t illegal.”

So the reasonable follow-up question would be: where are the prosecutions, over the past 3 years, of the rest of the behavior, the part that was illegal?

The other aspect of Obama’s answer that I find worrisome is the president’s perspective – he acknowledges that he’s making a judgment based on a view from 40,000 feet.

That’s a distance of 7.5 miles. The president isn’t predicting the weather here; he’s talking about whether crimes were committed in the process of the worst financial disaster in almost a century.

Good prosecutors and FBI agents don’t investigate from 7.5 miles away. They get in a suspect’s face, and into their history, find out who their friends and associates are. They dig into their family lives if they need to.

That’s how they operate when their hearts are in it if they want to make the case.

But even when their hearts are in it, good law enforcement people can’t do their jobs without resources.

And that’s a decision the president can make. He doesn’t have to ask Congress.

Call the president today and let him know that we won’t be fooled by faux enforcement efforts, and the we know the difference between what 10 FBI agents can do and what 1,000 can do – even from seven miles away.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Financial Crisis / Martin Column / President Barack Obama - 01/29/2012

Fight Back Against Citizens United

On the second anniversary of Citizens United, the U.S. Supreme Court ruling that corporations are people, there’s bad news and good news.

The bad news: we’re seeing the full impact of the ruling, with the creation of PACs --- political action committees -- with innocuous Mom and apple pie-sounding names, like Make Us Great Again and Winning Our Future, funded by unlimited anonymous corporate contributions.

The good news is that the ruling has galvanized a grassroots backlash: if you’re mad as hell and want to join the fight to rid our democracy of toxic big money, there’s an explosion of grassroots opposition for you to plug into today, or whenever you’re ready.

First, a little history. Corporate political contributions have been stirring outrage for more than 100 years, since they helped elect Teddy Roosevelt in 1904. Once elected, the savvy Roosevelt got in front of a movement to outlaw those contributions, resulting in passage of the Tillman Act.

But the corporations didn’t just slink away in defeat; they developed ever more creative ways to skirt the law and influence elections.

In Citizens United, eight Supreme Court justices ruled in 2010 that while corporations couldn’t contribute to individual candidates they could give to political action committees that do not, supposedly, have formal ties to a particular candidate.

In their ruling, the justices took a flawed, too narrow view of the way in which money corrupts politics. First, they said that since the PACs aren’t linked to individual candidates, the contributions couldn’t be used to bribe the candidates, or extract a quid pro quo.

The court ignored the well-known fact that the monster PACs do establish informal but strong ties to individual candidates.

In addition, the court misstates the more insidious way massive corporate cash corrupts our government. As Harvard professor Lawrence Lessig points out, large corporate contributions ensure that only those candidates, regardless of party, who can collect those contributions, and espouse a corporate-friendly political agenda, stand any chance.

This creates a political system that thwarts goals of left and right.

If we don’t reverse Citizens United and confront corporate power, we can expect more corporate bailouts with no questions asked, and fewer consumer, environmental, employee and investor protections. We can expect more tax breaks for the 1 percent and more austerity for the 99 percent.

At WheresOurMoney, my colleague Harvey Rosenfield has proposed a constitutional amendment to overturn Citizens United that is easily understood and will withstand any legal challenge. You can read more about it here. There’s a great video with background and ideas about fighting Citizens United here.

You can find groups taking a variety of actions against Citizens United across the country here and here.

 

 

 

 

Action / Citizens United / Martin Column - 01/21/2012