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

Your tax dollars at work fighting unemployment – in the Philippines

If you’re among the millions in the U.S. who are unemployed and need retraining for new work, you are, increasingly, out of luck.

But if you’re a major financial institution that wants to outsource jobs to the Philippines, until a couple of days ago, the Obama administration was spending about $36 million a year to improve the English language skills of your future workers.

Among those taking advantage of outsourced labor in the Philippines, in call centers and IT, are  a couple too-big-to-fail, bailed-out financial institutions, Citibank and JPMorgan Chase.

Last week, after a couple of congressmen got riled up about the outsourcing training, the U.S. Agency for International Development said it would “suspend” the program “pending further review of the facts.”

The program was set to expire at the end of the year in any case.

But the fact is that USAID has been offering training for future outsourcing workers for several years, from South Asia to Armenia, Information Week reported. In the Philippines, the U.S. contended it wasn’t just spending the money to subsidize Citibank and other would-be outsourcers; the government said it was actually using your tax dollars as part of an antiterrorism effort in a section of the country with a Muslim minority unhappy with its treatment by the central government.

According to the USAID scheme,  the would-be terrorists would be a lot happier once they learned a little English and were able to land a job in a Citibank call center.

Meanwhile the U.S. has been suffering through a staggering economic downturn and the highest unemployment since the Great Depression, as President Obama and other politicians promise to stem outsourcing and bring jobs back to this country.

Since 2007, 500,000 call center jobs have been outsourced from the United States, according to Rep. Tim Bishop, a New York Democrat, and Rep. Walter Jones, a North Carolina Republican, the congressmen who demanded a halt to the program. In 2010, USAID had suspended a similar $10 million initiative to train Sri Lankan workers after Bishop and Jones complained about it.

Despite high unemployment, job training programs and community colleges in the U.S., which also offer the opportunity for workers to learn new skills, have had to go begging. As the New York Times reported last week, “work force centers that assist the unemployed are being asked to do more with less as federal funds dwindle for job training and related services.”

Federal money available for retraining workers is 18 percent lower, in today’s dollars, than it was in 2006, even though there are 6 million more people unemployed, the Times reported.

While the debate over cuts to unemployment benefits has received wide attention, the cuts to the retraining programs have gone largely unnoticed.

While the president has proposed a $2.8 billion increase for job training over the next 10 years, Republicans’ budget proposals have suggested that federal funds for job training should be cut even further.

The USAID program is obviously at odds with the Obama administration’s stated intent to discourage outsourcing. Given all the other benefits  and bailouts that this administration has already showered on Citibank and AIG, would it be too much to demand that the administration stop using our tax dollars to pay for these companies’ job training when they want to move more employment from the U.S.?

 

AIG / Citibank / Jobs crisis / Martin Column / Outsourcing - 04/25/2012

Where have all the task forces gone?

President Obama announced a new task force today to investigate the disappearance of the mortgage fraud task force he appointed earlier this year as well as another one he appointed in 2009.

“When duly appointed task forces vanish into thin air without a trace, this administration will not accept it,” the president said. “We expect this new task force, which will be called the Task Force Task Force, to move forcefully to accomplish its task.”

The Task Force Task Force’s mission will be made easier, the president said, because he appointed as one of it’s co-chairs the New York state attorney general, Eric Schneiderman. The New York state attorney general was also appointed co-chair of the mortgage fraud task force, which has not been seen or heard from since the president announced it during his State of the Union speech January 24.

Schneiderman said he would move “quickly” to interview himself as soon as he had a chance to familiarize himself with the circumstances of the disappearance of the mortgage fraud task force.

“We will get to the bottom of this,” Schneiderman pledged.

To show his seriousness, the president said he was reconvening the band of Navy SEALS who worked on the mission to find and kill Ban Laden in Pakistan, and putting them at the service of the Task Force Task Force. “When a group of American citizens go missing in the service of their country, we take it very seriously,” the president said. “One task force vanishing is bad enough, but two?”

Schneiderman refused to be pinned down to a timetable for the investigation. He also refused to comment on his previous insistence that he would “take action” if the mortgage fraud task force was stymied.

Schneiderman also refused to answer specific questions swirling around the mortgage fraud task force, such as why the entire mortgage fraud task force had a mere 50 lawyers when the Enron task force, convened to investigate a previous financial scandal involving a single company, had more than 100 lawyers working on it and why the mortgage fraud task force apparently still doesn’t have office space.

Schneiderman acknowledged that there are some mysteries that may be too deep for the new task force to unravel.

Was the mortgage fraud task force, aka the Residential Mortgage-Back Securities Working Group, actually a part of the earlier Financial Fraud Task Force, established November 17, 2009? Was the mortgage fraud task force actually something new, or just a PR offensive that amounted to nothing more than a repackaging of already existing efforts?

Though U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder has touted the administration’s efforts in going after financial fraud as nothing less than “historic,” the administration has yet to bring a criminal prosecution against a single major executive of a too big to fail institution. Some have questioned whether the president, who received more money from Wall Street than his Republican opponent, John McCain, really has any desire to hold Wall Street executives accountable for their actions.

Schneiderman’s investigation into the vanishing task forces may lead him right into the Oval Office to the man who appointed them.

A month before President Obama announced his new mortgage fraud task force in the State of the Union speech, the president told 60 Minutes, “Some of the most damaging behavior on Wall Street — in some cases some of the least ethical behavior on Wall Street — wasn’t illegal. That’s exactly why we had to change the laws.”

 

 

Financial Crisis / Martin Column / President Barack Obama - 04/24/2012

Obama to Corporate Persons: And This is How You Thank Me?

Poor President Obama. Confronted with an economic catastrophe when he took office, he made a decision – well documented here and here, for example – to save the financial industry from its own misdeeds, foregoing the opportunity to obtain from the Wall Street CEOs any kind of quid pro quo for beleaguered taxpayers and homeowners. And what does he get in return?

Wall Street contributions to the President’s re-election campaign are down 68%, reports the New York Times.

There’s also been a drop in financial support from some of those who were all-in to elect him in 2008.  Some big-name progressive donors, dismayed by the President’s inability to hold the line on everything from foreclosures to a public health care option (which likely would have survived the Supreme Court’s widely expected invalidation of the health care reform law), are sitting this one out – at least for the moment.

Unfortunately, the worst is yet to come for the President, courtesy of the same Supreme Court. Freed from campaign spending restrictions by the court’s ruling in Citizens United, the highly-skilled right wing corporate apparatus is aiming to raise $500 million in “super PAC” money to beat Obama. Pro-Romney super PACs have already out-raised those supporting the President by a factor of eight.

This comes as no surprise to those familiar with the way big business behaves in public.

If corporations are people, as the Republican majority on the Supreme Court says, then the defining trait of the modern corporate personality is ingratitude. When all the federal bailout programs are totaled up (including indirect assistance like being able to borrow taxpayer money at super-low interest rates), Wall Street and many other firms got somewhere around $14 trillion in financial aid from Washington.

Had that money been put in the hands of the American people, it could have paid off every mortgage, credit card and car loan in the United States.

Like President Obama, we are still waiting for our thank you note from corporate America.

Instead, we get surging credit card interest rates, skyrocketing gas prices, outrageous health insurance premium increases and, adding insult to those injuries, the imposition of undisclosed inflated fees by cell phone, airline and other companies for the dishonest purpose of charging hapless consumers more than the advertised price.

Hence the need for parental supervision of corporate persons, also known as "regulation."

Corporate money had already eroded the democratic process under the patchwork of campaign finance laws that pre-dated Citizens United. Our report, “Sold Out: How Wall Street and Washington Betrayed America” (PDF) gets right to the bottom line. Between 1998 and 2008, Wall Street invested $5 billion in Washington, a combination of money for lobbying and campaign contributions that won deregulation and other policy decisions that enabled the Money Industry to do as it pleased. The ensuing orgy of unbridled speculation came to a halt in 2008 when the big banks threatened to shut down the system unless they got trillions of dollars in loans, tax breaks and other taxpayer bailouts.

But by deregulating corporate money in Citizens United, the U.S. Supreme Court has empowered a crime wave of corporate influence peddling that will dwarf anything this country has ever seen.

Take, for example, Sacramento – California's integrity-free zone.

$ A half-decade-long battle to force health insurance companies to open their books and prove they need rate increases was crushed by industry lobbyists, forcing angry consumers to mount a ballot measure of their own.

$ A package of bills backed by the state’s Attorney General to prevent banks from abusing the home foreclosure process – dubbed the “Homeowners Bill of Rights” – has been blocked by the banking industry, which spent over $70 million on lobbyists and lawmakers in California between 2007 and 2011.

$ A bill that will deregulate telephone service, sponsored by the state’s two biggest phone companies, AT&T and Verizon, is sailing through the state legislature, much as electricity deregulation did in 1998 – to disastrous consequences for California taxpayers.

Once upon a time, average citizens might have had a voice in these policy debates.  Now that corporate America is locked and loaded, we don't stand a chance.

Citizens United / Harvey Column / President Barack Obama / Supreme Court - 04/23/2012

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

Homeowners' rights face tough fight

California’s bankers have decided that the state’s homeowners don’t need any bill of rights after all, and state legislators show signs of going along with the banks.

In February, California’s attorney general, Kamala Harris, garnered publicity for packaging several modest foreclosure reform measures together as a homeowners’ bill of rights.

Harris was attempting to get state legislators to permanently outlaw several of the most noxious of the banks’ practices during the foreclosure process, which about a half a million Californians now face.

Among the measures was one that would have outlawed the widespread practice of “double-tracking,” in which banks foreclose on homeowners while they are in the process of working out loan modifications. Another measure would have banned the widespread practice of “robo-signing,” in which the bankers hired low-level employees to sign off on stacks of key foreclosure documents without reading them or verifying their accuracy – a practice which the big bankers have supposedly already agreed to stop as part of a 49-state settlement of foreclosure fraud charges against the biggest banks.

But the settlement apparently only requires the biggest bankers to quit their robo-signing ways for three years; Harris’ proposal would make the ban on robo-signing permanent and apply it to other financial institutions not covered by the settlement.

Other parts of the “bill of rights” package would have imposed a $25 fee on banks when they file a default and required banks to establish a single point of contact for homeowners seeking a loan modification.

Harris, a close ally of President Obama, has even been touted as a possible choice for a U.S. Supreme Court. But she’s been overmatched by the combined forces of the California Bankers’ Association and the California Chamber of Commerce, which has labeled some parts of the package “job killers.” They’ve also spread a lot of cash around the legislature over the past 5 years, more than $33 million, so they’ve got legislators pretty well trained.

It would hardly be the first time that California’s legislators have balked at enacting sensible measures to protect homeowners, as well as taxpayers, from bearing the costs of bankers’ misdeeds during the state’s foreclosure crisis. In recent years, legislators also failed to enact proposals that would have required bankers to mediate with homeowners before foreclosure, and another that would have required banks to post a $20,000 for each foreclosure they file, to cover the costs to communities of abandoned, bank-owned property.

Harris was scheduled to testify before a legislative committee on the bills earlier this week when the head of the committee, Assemblyman Mike Eng, a Democrat, withdrew the bills.

The Sacramento Bee reports that the legislation is now headed for a conference committee made up of legislators from the state Assembly and Senate.

According to the Bee, this is a maneuver to get a vote on the legislation without having to go through Eng’s committee, Assembly Banking and Finance, which is apparently split on it.

If you live in California, now would be a good time to call your legislator and remind them that they don’t work for the bankers and the chamber. They work for you.

 

 

 

 

 

Action / California Attorney General Kamala Harris / Foreclosures / Martin Column - 04/19/2012

No Lobbyist Left Behind

If we forced CNN commentators to wear the names of their clients on their sleeves like NASCAR drivers we might have a deeper, more honest debate over what’s going on in Washington.

Unless you live under a rock without any form of media, it’s hard to miss the nonstop frenzy over dumb comments made by CNN commentator Hilary Rosen about Ann Romney.

Rosen said Romney never worked a day in her life, which made her unqualified to comment on the economy. Republicans then attacked Rosen as another in a long line of Democratic elitists who have no respect for women who work in the home.

When she comments on CNN, the network labels Rosen a “Democratic strategist,” though they don’t disclose any particular strategy that she’s come up with.

CNN doesn’t mention her work representing many high-profile clients in Washington, D.C. with interests across a wide range of issues. Her firm, SKDKnickerbocker is filled with former government employees cashing in on their contacts on behalf of their corporate clients. The firm, which includes President Obama’s former communications director Anita Dunn as managing director, isn’t required to disclose clients because it doesn’t acknowledge that what it does is lobbying. In Washington-speak the firm is “political consulting and public relations firm.”

Last year, Bloomberg Business week reported that the firm coordinated an army of lobbyists unleashed by a coalition led by Google, Apple and Cisco pushing for a tax holiday.

The Republic Report compiled a partial list of clients, including big railroads, agricultural interests, PepsiCo and General Mills and for-profit education companies.

In addition, the Washington Free Beacon reported that Dunn pitched SKDKnickerbocker’s services as part of a team that offered to restore hedge funds’ sullied reputations, though apparently nobody swung.

Rosen’s poke at Ann Romney may have stirred up media frenzy, offering just the excuse for a jive revival of jive working mom v. stay-at-home brawl that sheds no light and offers no insight to anybody.

It’s also not the kind of controversy that’s likely to upset Rosen’s clients, who will recognize it for the sideshow it is compared to their free-flowing access to the White House. It’s more likely that it will provide Rosen with an opportunity for some good-natured self-deprecating humor to grease her way as she makes the rounds through the corridors of power.

The Obama administration has made a big deal about how it holds itself to a higher standard by not taking money from lobbyists. But that doesn’t mean lobbyists don’t have a strong presence in the White House, as the New York Times reported Saturday. “Many of the president’s biggest donors, while not lobbyists, took lobbyists with them to the White House, while others performed essentially the same function on their visits,” the Times reported.

Several years ago, GOOD magazine came up with the idea of making politicians wear suits with the names of their biggest contributors, like NASCAR drivers advertise their sponsors. Politicians have been reluctant to embrace the idea. They’re perfectly happy to keep us focused on the sideshow provided by Rosen and those like her, who babble phony nonsense on TV but profit from their access to the real game off-screen.

Lobbying / Martin Column / Mitt Romney / President Barack Obama - 04/17/2012

President aims to take the money and run

Here’s what President Obama wants you to believe about his relationship to the Supreme Court’s Citizens United ruling and the toxic torrent of corporate cash polluting our politics: “it’s complicated.”

In their ruling, the justices determined that corporations had a free speech right to anonymously contribute as much as they wanted to third-party political action groups that worked in support of candidates, as long as those PACs had no formal connection to the candidate.

On the one hand, the president blasted the court’s ruling less than a week after it was issued, with the justices seated right in front of him, in his January 2010 State of the Union speech, for opening “the floodgates for special interests – including foreign companies – to spend without limit in our elections.”

On the other hand, his campaign decided two years later to “level the playing field” with Republicans and encourage Super PAC support for the president, by allowing cabinet members and senior White House officials to cooperate with a Super PAC that supports their boss.

On yet another hand, the president insisted he would support a constitutional amendment to undo Citizens United.

And on yet still another hand, when the president had the opportunity to actually do something to shed some sunlight on the secretive stash of corporate donations unleashed by Citizens United, by issuing an executive order requiring government contractors to reveal all their political spending, he balked.

When you follow the president’s actions, rather than listen to his words, it’s not complicated at all.

The president and his Democratic Party colleagues are determined to “take the money and run.”

For nearly a year, President Obama had floated the idea of issuing an executive order requiring government contractors to disclose all their political contributions – including contributions to PACs and organizations like the US Chamber of Commerce – when they submit a bid.

The biggest contractors, for the most part, are defense contractors like Lockheed Martin, which smother the politicians in contributions to keep the weapons contracts flowing. In the 2012 cycle, Lockheed’s PAC has spent more than $2 million in contributions that we know of, 59 percent to Republicans and 41 percent to Democrats.

Its contributions go beyond an attempt to win a single weapons contract. What they and the other contractors have been able to do is to purchase the country’s entire debate over defense spending, so that few of our representatives ever raise a peep about whether the expensive defense systems are necessary.

Republicans howled at the President Obama’s proposal, accusing him of attempting to politicize the bidding process. President Obama wanted to know who had made the contributions, the Republicans charged, so he could award bids to the highest-contributing bidders.

While President Obama stewed, the Republicans passed measures in May 2011 to block[m1]  an executive order if it was issued.

The venerable Public Citizen organization made a suggestion that would sidestep the Republicans’ stated objection.

Why not, Public Citizen said, limit the disclosure requirement to the winning bidder?

But the president backed off – either because he didn’t want a fight with Republicans or because his fundraisers reminded him he had a tough campaign ahead and the little people they dote on with their solicitation emails weren’t going to be able to foot the bill.

On the most critical issue facing our political system, the president of the United States is incapable of leveling with the American people.

President Obama may want to do the right thing, but he is trapped in a system controlled by big money that is bigger than he is.

The first step to fight back against that system won’t come from Washington. It will come from building a grassroots movement to undo Citizens United. Read more about it, and our proposed constitutional amendment, which is easy to understand and will withstand any legal challenge, here.

 

 

Citizens United / Congress / Martin Column - 04/13/2012

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

Doing the minimum for the 99 percent

From both left and right, commentators have been heating up the Internet with proposals to raise the minimum wage from $7.25 an hour.

It’s not just Ralph Nader beating the drum for the Occupy movement to spearhead a movement to raise the wage, which hasn’t been increased since 2009.

Ron Unz, commentator at the American Conservative, has proposed an increase as part of a new Republican immigration strategy, and he’s has been pleading for Mitt Romney to adopt an increase in the minimum wage as part of his campaign.

Romney has yet to heed Unz’s plea, which force the candidate to fight some ingrained Republican dogma that preaches against the minimum wage, let alone increasing it. According to this old dogma, the minimum wage discourages small business from hiring.

It was President Obama’s chairman of his council advisers, Alan Kreuger, wrote a study, back when he was a Princeton economics professor, who debunked that notion.

In the past, Romney has shown some willingness to discard the customary Republican disdain for the minimum wage, speaking in favor of increases pegged to increases in the consumer price index.

Then last month, after the Wall Street Journal and others beat up on Romney’s minimum wage position, the leading Republican contender backed down. “There’s probably not a need to raise the minimum wage,” Romney told CNBC.

On this issue, the Wall Street Journal and the Republican base is way out of step with voters across the country, who consistently support an increase. According to one recent poll, 67 percent of voters favor an increase.

Which brings us to the other candidate: the president. He’s always said he favors an increase.

Back in 2007, when he was just a contender in Bettendorf, Iowa, Barack Obama gave a speech on “Reclaiming the American Dream,” in which he promised:  “I won’t wait 10 years to raise the minimum wage, I’ll raise it every single year. That’s the change we need.”

After Obama was elected, during his transition to the presidency, Obama’s team promised to raise the minimum wage to $9.50 an hour by 2011, with future raises pegged to inflation “to make sure that full-time workers can earn a living wage.”

But the only increase during Obama’s administration was the one in 2009 from $6.55 to $7.25, which was mandated by a law passed during a previous administration.

The president had nothing to do with it.

Last year, when his labor secretary, Hilda Solis, was asked about the need for a minimum wage hike, Huffington Post reported that she “largely ducked the questions.”

Maybe keeping his campaign promise and improving the economy are not good enough reasons to recharge the president’s enthusiasm for launching a campaign to boost wages for the lowest paid workers.

Fortunately, there are plenty of other reasons that should convince him to do what he said he would.

For one, it’s simply the right thing to do.

As the president himself pointed out just four months ago in a speech with a broad populist message in Osawatomie, Kansas, income inequality is the “defining issue of our time.”

In 1968, the federal minimum wage was $1.60 an hour. Gasoline was 34 cents a gallon and an average new car cost $2,800 dollars.

So the worker on minimum wage could buy nearly 5 gallons of gas for an hour’s wage.  Now that minimum wage worker can buy less than 2 gallons of gas for an hour’s wage.

If you adjust that 1968 wage for inflation, it would be $10 an hour – far more than today’s $7.25 minimum wage.

As the New York Times pointed out Sunday, the average corporate CEO made $14.4 million last year, compared to the average annual U.S. salary of $45,230. A fulltime worker paid the minimum wage makes far less – $15,080 a year.

Correcting for inflation, those with the least income have seen their incomes reduced over the past decade.

Another good reason for Obama to get with it– his base, which has been frustrated with his compromises with Republicans and cave-ins to bailed-out bankers, strongly supports an increase. And so do independent voters. Obama needs both of those groups to win re-election. So doing the right thing is also smart politics.

Income inequality / Martin Column / Mitt Romney / President Barack Obama - 04/11/2012