VAWA: Jumping off the Racial Cliff?

Let me hear that part about the Congressional Republicans NOT being tainted with the stain of racism?  Let me hear the tautological complaint once again that accusing members of the Republican Party of racism is racism.  And, then let me hear why members of the Republican Caucus in the Congress of the United States of America aren’t taking action to extend the protections of the Violence Against Women Act to Native American women? What situation would prevent the Senate version of the bill from a quick passage?

Did you read this on the NRDC Blog?

“Today on Indian reservations, the local governments don’t have the ability to respond to domestic violence crimes in their community if the perpetrator isn’t Native. Without this ability, non-Native offenders often go unpunished on tribal land because the only ones who can bring them to justice are federal prosecutors who are often hundreds of miles away and lack local resources to properly investigate and prosecute these crimes. The result, according to a recent National Institute of Justice (NIJ)-funded report, the offenders become emboldened, and the violence escalates to rape and in some cases homicide. On some Indian reservations, the homicide rate of Native women is 10 times the national average.”  (emphasis in original)

This isn’t rocket science, it certainly isn’t the stuff of which neurology lectures are composed.  Local law enforcement officers don’t have jurisdiction on tribal lands and federal officers are (1) physically located some considerable distance from the localities, and (2) understaffed and under-resourced to enforce the law on tribal lands.   The situation was discussed here, in some detail.

We’ve also heard from Nevada 2nd District Congressman Mark Amodei:

“I heard from tribes in my district, including the Washoe Tribe of Nevada and California, the Reno-Sparks Indian Colony Tribal Council, the Fort McDermitt Paiute and Shoshone Tribe, and the Fallon Paiute Shoshone Tribe about this issue and I can assure them that this bill would not only provide increased funding for federal law enforcement and prosecutors to pursue these cases, it would also empower Indian victims to seek protective orders in U.S. District Courts against abusers.”  [Amodei] (emphasis added) [Link]

So increased funding for federal law enforcement is the “answer” to the jurisdictional issue?  No.  And, seeking a protective order from the U.S. District Court in Reno is going to be convenient for assault victims in Duck Valley? No. Again.

So, why would Representatives like Mark Amodei (R-NV2) and Eric Cantor (R-VA) resist giving tribal courts jurisdiction over crimes committed against Native American women on tribal lands?

“Cantor and other Republicans continue to stall the VAWA Reauthorization because of baseless constitutional concerns for those accused of abusing Native women.”  [NRDC] And, who are those accused of abusing Native women?  Who would be in this category, and not be subject to the jurisdiction of tribal courts?  Non-tribal people.

Of Representative Cantor, “…his staff has said they’re willing to try to come up with other solutions to responding to violence against women on tribal lands, as long as the solution doesn’t give tribes jurisdiction over the matter. But proponents of the Senate bill see the limited jurisdictional change as the only realistic way to address the problem.” (emphasis added) [HuffPo] What’s the problem?  The only logical conclusion a sentient person can reach is that Representative Cantor he doesn’t want to see white men hauled into tribal courts for assaulting Native American women.   Heaven forefend non-whites might have jurisdiction over white men?

Thus far, Representative Cantor and Representative Amodei seem to be on the same page — VAWA authorization would be just fine and dandy — BUT we can’t have non-white people facing justice in tribal courts.   And, the question does, indeed, drill right down to “protecting the rights” of non-Native rapists, as explained by Rep. Tom Cole (Chickasaw) R-OK:

“There are 535 members of Congress, and 534 of them could go on the Sioux Reservation, commit a crime, and not be subjected to local jurisdiction,” Cole added. “If I did it, though, I would be, because I’m an Indian. We trust tribes to have jurisdiction over Native Americans. As long as you give people the right to appeal, they ought to be subject to tribal jurisdiction.… Most American communities have local jurisdiction; Native Americans do not. It’s not right. I will vote with the Democrats on this if an amendment or recommit is offered. I hope we can get it done this year.” [Indian Country] (emphasis added)

OK, if “we” trust Native Americans to dispense justice to other Native Americans without comment or complaint, then why are the tribal courts — which must follow the same federal regulations regarding the rights of defendants as any other Section III courts — not to be trusted to dispense justice to non-Native people, most often men.

The answers are provided by a paper authored by Bethany Berger of Wayne State University and the University of Connecticut: (pdf)

“Federal Indian Law scholars agree that U.S. Supreme Court decisions regarding tribal jurisdiction over non-members are not dictated by judicial precedent. I believe that these decisions are based instead on two assumptions:
• First, the justices assume that nonmembers will be placed at a disadvantage in tribal courts, which they portray as unfamiliar, biased, and ultimately inferior places. The justices, for example, repeatedly refer to “intrusions on personal liberties” if non-members are subject to tribal jurisdiction, the fact that nonmembers do not vote in tribal elections, that tribes are not fully bound by the U.S. Constitution, and that tribal law is “unfamiliar” and will be “unusually difficult for an outsider to sort out.”
• Second, the justices assume that jurisdiction over outsiders has little to do with tribal self-government, because tribal self-government only concerns things that the justices think of as “uniquely tribal,” such as hunting and fishing and traditional practices untouched by time. Taxation, zoning, criminal jurisdiction over non-Indians are all outside what the justices imagine really matters to tribes. In Strate v. A-1 Contractors, for example, the Court held that a tribe did not have jurisdiction over lawsuit arising from an accident on a highway running through the reservation saying that it was not crucial to tribal self government for the tribe to exercise  jurisdiction over a “commonplace state highway accident claim.” Tribal government, somehow, does not involve the “commonplace” stuff that all governments do.”

The first argument is not supported by the actual results of the actions of tribal courts.   So, local justice of the peace courts, or municipal courts, are “competent” but tribal courts are assumed to be “inferior,” “unfamiliar,” or “biased?”  Now, what kind of thinking could automatically revert to those assumptions?  The second argument is equally absurd.

It’s acceptable for tribal courts to do Indiany-Things like take care of Mother Earth, or to protect their hunting and fishing rights — like Native Americans don’t hold construction jobs and exceed the speed limit on highways through tribal areas.  But, Heaven Forbid they’d be interested in things like zoning, contract fulfillment, and child custody?  In short, they are assumed competent to  take care of Mother Earth but not their earthly mothers.

The non-Native man who assaults, batters, rapes or abuses a Native woman is a batterer, an abuser, and/or a rapist.  Think that doesn’t put a Native woman in a place that’s confusing? Unfamiliar? Unpleasant?  Evidently, the constant conservative complaint that we don’t pay enough attention to Victim’s Rights, doesn’t apply to Native women?  What else could explain the devotion of Representatives Cantor and Amodei to the rights of the defendants?

What indeed?

Romney, Adelson, and the Mega-Money Mindset

Dirty money will buy you dirty politics.   Princely benefactor of ultra-right wing causes, Nevada’s own Sheldon Adelson, is the subject of a probe into whether he violated the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act. [LVSun/ProPublica] Some of Mr. Adelson’s donations should raise eyebrows as well.

The Newt Gingrich PAC, “Winning our Future,” received two major contributions; one of $5 million, and another for $2.5 million in the first quarter of 2012. [FundRace]  The Sands CEO’s willingness to pour millions, once reported at $21.5 million, [HuffPo] down the pipe into Newt Gingrich’s book promotion tour and sometime presidential campaign should make it clear to all but the most ethically challenged that he meant it when he said his pockets were bottomless when it comes to supporting the Romney Campaign.   So, whatever is raked in from the Golden Bamboozle in Macau could easily fill the coffers of the First Financialist in Chief.

Evidently, all Mr. Romney had to do was promise to make the pilgrimage to Israel, be as hawkish about Iran as the Bush era Neo-Cons, and make statements saying President Obama has thrown Israel under the bus. [NYT] Oh, and a hug for right wing Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu gets bonus points.

However, failure to grant Mr. Adelson his million$ of wi$he$ reveals a less lamb-like corporate executive; an explanation from a Sands executive is illustrative: “Weidner recalled struggling to explain Adelson’s style to the Chinese, once comparing his boss to a famous emperor who became angry with China’s scholars and buried them alive with their books. “I would tell them: ‘He is brilliant. Sometimes, like the emperor, he is brutal.'”  [LVSun]

Governor Romney, apparently unwilling to be buried alive with his tax returns, has bent his knee to our Megalomaniacal Mogul.  It’s also nice to know that Mr. Adelson could be willing to spend as much as $100 million to have a Financialist occupying the White House. [HuffPo]

Governor Romney is not the only recipient of Mr. Adelson’s recent largess.  Rep. Eric Cantor (R-VA7) sponsored the Young Guns PAC which limped into the campaign season with $55,ooo in the first quarter.  Getting a $5 million boost from the Adelson’s was a lifeline for Cantor’s campaign chest, from which future and current adherents to Cantor’s brand of obstructionist politics will receive donations.

The Adelson’s have also funneled $5 million into the Boehner/Cantor Congressional Leadership Fund. [LVSun]  The Adelson money now mingles with donations from AFLAC PAC, AT&T, the Koch Brothers, Home Depot, Valero, and the Nuclear Energy Institute in the CLF. [OS]

The Mega-Money Mindset

There’s a legalistic mindset at play in the political money games.  Only the ultra-rich have the resources to work at the edges of the legal system.  Consider for a moment Governor Romney’s carefully phrased comments about his income taxes:  “I pay all the taxes that are legally required and not a dollar more. I don’t think you want someone as the candidate for president who pays more taxes than he owes.” [WaPo]

Governor Romney paid “all the taxes that are legally required and not a dollar more.”  This is more easily accomplished with a battalion of accountants and tax law professionals generally unavailable to members of the American middle class.   Most people fill in the blanks on the EZ form, put a stamp on it, and mail it in, with a “what the heck, it’s as close as I can get” mentality.   A mind-set unfamiliar to the top 1% of the top 1%.

Compare this philosophical bent to Mr. Adelson’s comments on campaign finance:  “I’m against very wealthy people attempting to or influencing elections,” he said. “But as long as it’s doable, I’m going to do it.” [Forbes]

Governor Romney is going to take every deduction, every dodge, and every tax haven possible because he will do only what is legally required of him. Mr. Adelson will attempt to influence elections because it is legally “do-able.”   There is no internal moral compass directing their actions; only external restraints.

In one case there is no perception that parking money in off-shore accounts in the Cayman Islands, Bermuda, or in Swiss banks, isn’t “right” or might be held ethically questionable for someone who is running for the presidency of the United States.

In the other case there is a man worth approximately $25 billion, who in the absence of any external legal restraints on his donations will seek to buy an election — or multiple elections — if it’s black letter legal.  Mr. Adelson has admitted it’s the wrong thing to do, but if it advances his personal interests and it’s isn’t strictly illegal, then there is no internal restraint on his actions.

Morality Matters

Morality “refers to a code of conduct that applies to all who can understand it and can govern their behavior by it. In the normative sense, morality should never be overridden, that is, no one should ever violate a moral prohibition or requirement for non-moral considerations.” [Plato/Stanford]

The very definition of morality requires internal controls, or the application of moral principles by self-governing individuals who are capable of understanding the accepted code of conduct.  In the realm of campaign and personal finance, it seems neither Governor Romney, nor Mr. Adelson, wishes to apply generally accepted codes of conduct as part of their own self-governance.  Governor Romney will seek every edge he can pertaining to his taxes, while Mr. Adelson will do anything not explicitly forbidden — even though their actions give every appearance of dodgy behavior from a public morality perspective.

Small wonder neither man is fond of any restraints on their financial empires.  For such men “freedom” equates to a lack of legal restrictions on their actions.  They are not “free” as long as the rest of society restricts their behavior.  Thus, Mr. Romney calls for the repeal of the Dodd Frank Act regulating the financial sector.  It impinges on his “freedom.”  Mr. Adelson would rather the Justice Department not look too closely at his operations in Macau. That would impinge on his “freedom.”

Therefore, former Governor Romney may, indeed, not understand the commotion about his opportunistic flipping and flopping on issues like women’s rights, or abortion, or global climate change, or support for the policies of the Reagan Administration, [Politifact] and leave the electorate holding the view that he is a hollow man without fundamental political principles.  If all one’s principles are a function of external control, then it’s no wonder the former Massachusetts Governor is a “well lubricated weather vane” revolving as the wind direction changes.

Perhaps neither would understand:

“Then, when the clouds are off the soul, When thou dost bask in Nature’s eye, Ask, how she view’d thy self-control, Thy struggling, task’d morality — Nature, whose free, light, cheerful air, Oft made thee, in thy gloom, despair.”  — Matthew Arnold.

——-

For an insightful piece on the issue, from a different perspective, read “Pay no attention to the billionaire behind the curtain”  Las Vegas City Life, July 6, 2012.

The 112th Congressional Agenda

Via UTAustinLiberal:

Feel free to share.

Market Based Solutions in a Messed Up Market

Senator Dean Heller (R-NV) and Representative Eric Cantor (R-VA) are fond of “market based solutions.”  Translation: A market based solution is simply the new GOP word for the discredited term PRIVATIZATION.  The market to which they refer is the financial market. When all features of American life are privatized, then the corporations offering the services (social security, Medicare, toll roads, prisons, police protection, etc.) will be successful, or not, according to the price of their shares in the Financial Markets.  It’s a lovely theory.  However, one of the problems with it is that The Financial Market is often irrational and sometimes incompetent.  Sometimes it’s hard to discern the difference.

Example:  JPMorganChase and the London Whale. After having been bailed out of the mess they made circa 2008, the bankers were ready to explain to the American public that they had learned their lessons about risky proprietary trading, and hence would be more responsible custodians of the nation’s financial wealth.  Surely, they said, we can now be trusted to regulate ourselves.  Not. So. Much. When CEO Jamie Dimon announced back in May 2012 that JPMorgan had lost $2 billion on a credit derivatives bet he was being rather optimistic — the losses are now estimated at some figure closer to the $6 billion to $9 billion range. [NYT Dealbook]

“More than profits are at stake. The growing fallout from the bank’s bad bet threatens to undercut the credibility of Mr. Dimon, who has been fighting major regulatory changes that could curtail the kind of risk-taking that led to the trading losses. The bank chief was considered a deft manager of risk after steering JPMorgan through the financial crisis in far better shape than its rivals.”  [NYT Dealbook]

In other words, the banking industry, as personified by Mr. Dimon, assured us that the provisions of the Dodd-Frank Act were unnecessary, and then proceeded to offer a classic living example of why they were.

Example: The Barclay Blunder.  Barclays Bank drew fire from members of the British Parliament and the FSA for manipulating the interest rates comprising the LIBOR.   The bank settled with officials, paying a $453 million fine.  The U.S. Department of Justice has offered that while the bank may not be the subject of criminal prosecution, such actions against individual bankers aren’t out of the question. [USAT]

The northern Atlantic Ocean isn’t going to protect us from the fall out from this blunder because also under investigation for the same financial ploys are Citigroup (USA), UBS (Switzerland), HSBC (UK), and the Royal Bank of Scotland.  [USAT]

Once again, we have the specter of a banker denigrating the necessity of banking regulation — “There was a period of remorse and apology for banks and I think that period needs to be over. We need our banks willing to take risks … so we can create jobs.” Bob Diamond Barclays CEO, 17 months ago. [Daily Mail] — and then providing a real world example of why more oversight is absolutely required.  One reaction:

“Just when you thought bankers could sink no lower in public regard, they’ve done it. News that Barclays has been found guilty of repeatedly falsifying the interbank rate – sometimes for the personal gain of traders, sometimes to make the bank itself seem more creditworthy than it really was – tops off another calamitous week in the seemingly never-ending litany of banking misdemeanours. ” [Telegraph]

The examples haven’t quite stopped coming.

Example:  The Interest Rate Swaps Sale.   Again, Barclays, HSBC, RBS, and Lloyds are facing official scrutiny for selling interest rate swaps to small business owners who were then “offered an umbrella and then when it stopped raining, the bank grabbed it back.” British authorities have been investigating these questionable deals for about two months:

“Poor sales tactics were uncovered including failing to provide sufficient information on the hefty exit costs involved, failure to gauge the customers’ understanding of risk and found rewards and incentives were a driver of these practices.” [Indpt]

Not to put too fine a point to it, but the polite paragraph above says that small business owners were sold financial products detrimental to their best interests because bankers wanted to earn better bonuses and compensation.   Worse still, business owners were threatened with a loss of credit if they didn’t participate in these swaps deals:

Aberconwy MP Guto Bebb claimed thousands of businesses lost large amounts of money after being mis-sold the complex products by their banks, and many were told that without signing up they risked being refused credit. He said many business people did not understand the deals but trusted their bank manager. In other cases, he said, businesses were offered only one product and the bank made no effort to provide a choice.

A survey by Bully Banks, which has been set up by alleged victims of swap mis-selling, found nearly three quarters of its members claim to have been forced to buy a swap by their lending bank as a condition of their loan.  [Indpt]

The British Bankers Association has issued the standard, “We Are Cooperating With The Investigation” press release.   Thus much for “creating jobs” and “benefiting small businesses,” amid the mess created by the “interest rate protection products” being hawked by the bankers.

It wouldn’t be amiss to ask if major banks in the United Kingdom and Germany are facing the wrath of small business owners and investors over the flogging of “interest rate protection products,” should American businesses and investors be looking to see if similar tactics were promoted by U.S. bankers?

Another reasonable question may have found an answer — Why do these scandals keep cropping up?

Why do we have such phenomena as the Flash Crash, May 6, 2010? Is all well now? Maybe not. [Forbes] Add to this the not soon to be forgotten failure of the Facebook IPO.   Sallie Krawcheck, former President of Merrill Lynch Wealth Management, may be on to something when she commented on the JPMorganChase mess:

“There’s no doubt,” said Krawcheck, “that these banks have taken more risk that we as a nation and we as an industry would like them to.” The amount of risk, she went on to say, is a problem because it seems no one can track it. “The size of the JP Morgan loss in some ways is no big deal, but the fact that they didn’t know about it…”  [BusInsider]

Let’s think about this statement for a minute.  For the sake of argument let’s assume that the Powers That Be at JPMorgan were unaware of some practices in the London offices.  That, in itself, is disturbing.  If we have “risk” in the financial structure no one can track, and management which doesn’t understand what is going on, then does that not describe a recipe for more problems?

This conclusion also raises the prospect that if the bankers (financialists) can’t chew what they’re already eating properly, then why should we give them more?

Republican Mythology: Small Business Facts and Fantasies

Nothing is more predictable than the insertion of the Great GOP Myth that Republicans protect the interests of SMALL businesses into any political campaign.  First, let’s deal with some small business FACTS.

As of 2007 there were 27,757,676 firms in this country.   21,708,021 of these were non-payroll companies.   6,049,655 were firms with payrolls.   The firms operated 29,413,039 establishments.   The firms with payrolls operated 7,705,018 establishments.  [Census]

As of 2008 there were 21,351,320 non-employer firms in the United States, and another 5,930,132 firms which had people on payrolls.  [Census]   If we make a pie chart of establishments and employment numbers it looks like this:

The pie chart makes it obvious that most of the business establishments in this country employ from 0-4 employees.    It also makes it perfectly clear that any legislation which exempts companies with fewer than 500 employees from taxation or otherwise gives them a break will affect a preponderance of the business establishments in this nation.  So far so good for the GOP mythology.  However, if we stop at this point and simply characterize American small business solely in employment and establishment figures  we’re leaving out an important part of the overall picture.   Business revenues or receipts.

Let’s put those back into the picture.

Here’s the point at which not all tax breaks are created equally.  Most firms in the U.S. are bringing in less than $500,000 in receipts annually.  Formulas based on the number of employees alone will necessarily benefit those establishments which may hire fewer than 500 persons, BUT which may also be generating receipts well over the common $500,000 threshold for receipts.   Consider the lobby shops for example.

Patton Boggs LLC leads the pack with retainers of $47,710,000 for 2011, Akin Gump pulled in $37,930,000, Podesta Group $27,300,000, and Van Scoyoc $24,830,000.  [OpenSecrets] Some 110+ lobbyists may be employed, plus support personnel, but the major lobby shops will still be classified as “small” business if the number of employees is the sole definition of what it means to be a small business.   We can get another illustration by looking at hedge fund employment.

Hedge funds tend to hire based on AUM (assets under management) figures and as of 2008 there tended to be 1 employee for every $54 million under management.   The Hedge Fund Review (2008) described employment and staffing as follows:

Employee numbers more than doubles to 36 on average when the management company reaches the $1-$5 billion rage. Efficiency increases on average 47% to $84 million per employee.

“The biggest leap in organisational size occurs when AUM grows to $5-$11 billion. Employee numbers tends to triple to 120 while managing on average $82 million per employee. The report concluded there was no one reason for this change, unless it could be attributed to the fact that most companies managing these amounts tend to be platforms or multi-strategy funds. A full 90% of funds surveyed in the $5-$11 billion range were platform or multi-strategy compared with 55% of the $1-$5 billion funds.”

Again, if the number of employees is the exclusive definition for what constitutes a small business then the “average” hedge fund fits the categorization, and as of October 2003 there were approximately 6,000 to 7,000 hedge funds operating in the United States. [SEC] The old radio show disclaimer may be modified and applied here, “any resemblance between a small retail business and a hedge fund is purely coincidental.”

And yet… The Republicans continue to claim that to allow the Bush Tax Cuts to expire for those earning more than $200,000 annually would “hurt” small business.”  Not really.  Only about 3% of “small business” operations would be affected. [Politifact] [Gavel]

And yet… The Republican controlled House of Representatives was pleased to pass a “small business” bill (H.R. 9) with a $46 billion loophole for the 1%.

“Under Rep. Cantor’s bill, in general, all businesses with fewer than 500 employees are eligible for the tax deduction on their active domestic income.  The term “small business” evokes images of mom-and-pop stores or startups hoping to expand, but in fact a very wide range of enterprises owned by extremely wealthy people have fewer than 500 employees. These businesses and their owners would reap a giant windfall from the Cantor bill.
An exchange during the House committee’s consideration of the bill between Rep. Xavier Becerra (D-CA) and Thomas Barthold, who heads Congress’s nonpartisan Joint Committee on Taxation, underscored that Rep. Cantor’s tax cut could potentially provide large windfalls to the owners of a host of enterprises that are a far cry from the image Cantor tries to evoke of the struggling small-business owner.”  [CAP]

Again, this is what happens when the number of employees is the sole factor in defining a “small business.”  76% of the businesses in the United States have annual incomes below $200,000 but this group would see only 16% of the benefits of H.R. 9.  55% of small business employers have incomes of less than $100,000, but that group will secure only 6% of the bill’s benefits.  [CAP]  The Republicans offered no “payfor” to cover the costs of H.R. 9.

And yet… the presumptive GOP candidate for the presidency is offering an economic plan that “can’t be scored” and to date can’t seem to be specified.  The Tax Policy Center explains: “Because Gov. Romney has not specified how he would increase the tax base, it is impossible to determine how the plan would affect federal tax revenues or the distribution of the tax burden. ”  At one point the former Governor suggested that he might close the loophole on mortgages for vacations homes for those in the upper income brackets, but (as has been a rather common practice for the Romney excursion into presidential politics) he quickly walked that suggestion backward.  [TP] [WSJ] [TO]

To date the Romney Campaign has relied upon generalities — Glittering and Otherwise — to attract voters.  “Gee, Mr. Romney wasn’t making a policy statement about eliminating the vacation home mortgage deduction, he was just tossing out an idea,” from an economic plan that “can’t be scored.”

The “plan” assumes that lowering taxes will mean faster economic growth, although the statistics demonstrate the reverse.   [AngryBear] [Kimel: Angry Bear] [Lynch: EPI] “The claim that the plan’s large tax cuts would be financed in significant part by greater economic growth is one that proponents of tax cuts often make, but that Congress’ official scorekeeper of tax proposals — the Joint Congressional Committee on Taxation (JCT) — and most other mainstream analysts do not accept. The claim is also inconsistent with the historical evidence.”  [CBPP]

The “plan” assumes that lowering taxes for the ultra-rich won’t have a significant impact on federal revenues, even though it is obvious that lowering tax rates create lower revenues.   There is evidence to the contrary:

“…a close reading of the document from the Romney campaign about the plan, as well as Governor Romney’s February 23 op-ed in the Wall Street Journal and statements by Romney campaign advisor Glenn Hubbard, suggest that the plan is not, in fact, intended to be revenue neutral. Neither the campaign document nor the Romney op-ed actually says it is. Instead, both state: “Stronger economic growth and reductions in spending will help to ensure that these tax cuts do not expand deficits.” In other words, along with scaling back unspecified tax expenditures, the plan relies in substantial part on “dynamic scoring” — an assumption that tax cuts will boost economic growth and, in turn, federal tax revenues — and very deep budget cuts to avoid expanding the deficit.”  [CBPP](emphasis added)

This all sounds perilously close to the Wall Street penchant for adopting the precepts of the “mark to mythology” school of accounting.

Meanwhile back in the real world…

What we probably ought to be requiring of any economic plan set before the American voting public this campaign season are some basic concepts such as:

1. Any economic plan involving government expenditures and tax proposals should at least be revenue neutral.   And, that’s real revenue, not conveniently redefined revenues, which beset the Hubbard analysis.  [Goolsbee][TP]

2. Any economic plan should  reduce the federal deficit.

3. Any tax reform plan should reduce corporate incentives for overseas investment, and encourage domestic investment.

4. Any tax reform plan should not exacerbate the already alarming level of income inequality, and should be based on progressive taxation within the classic definition of the term.   It’s fine if the rich get richer, but if this is accomplished by diminishing the resources of the Middle Class then our consumer based economy is in serious trouble.

5. No plan should plan should reduce our capacity to care for our children, our elderly, our veterans, or our infrastructure.

Small business owners throughout the nation need a well maintained and improved physical infrastructure, assistance educating and caring for their children, security for their parents and grandparents, revenues generated from the capacity of their customers to pay for their goods and services, assistance with complex matters like dealing in foreign markets, and a level playing field with competitors.

They could probably do with a bit less highly generalized ideological gibberish about “no more taxes,” and “less is more.”   They could certainly do with an economic plan that isn’t “pie-in-the-sky-mark-to-mythology” generalities that are here today and walked back tomorrow.   Speaking specifically to Governor Romney’s plan — if it can’t be scored, then how is it to be trusted?

Additional Reading:  See “Six Tests for Corporate Tax Reform,” CBPP 2/24/12.   “Statistics about Small Businesses,” Census. “Did Hubbard Mean To Raise That? Austan Goolsbee, 4/25/12. “Taxes and Economic Growth,” Crawford, Angry Bear, 5/2/2012. “Over There: Euro Zone Unemployment rises to 10.7%, Calculated Risk, 5/2/2012. “Tax Cuts and Job Growth: They’re Just Not That Into Each Other,” Bernstein, 5/1/12.

A Coherent Agenda: Compared to the GOP, Occupy Wall Street Looks Rational

House Majority Leader Rep. Eric Cantor (R-VA) makes himself clear: “House Majority Leader Eric Cantor flatly rejected President Obama’s call for the House and Senate to hold a vote on his jobs bill by the end of the month, saying Monday the full bill, called the “American Jobs Act,” won’t get a vote in the House of Representatives.” [CNN]  This from the Party for whom Karl Rove’s American Crossroads is airing advertising [Politico] attacking President Obama’s economic leadership. [CNN]

There seems to be a slight smell to all this, emanating from a strategy wherein the minority party in the Senate and the majority party in the House deliberately obstruct any and all proposals intended to improve economic conditions — and then attacks the incumbent for his failure to make progress on unemployment.

But, wait — Cantor’s not finished: “Cantor criticized the President for continuing to press for a vote on the entire package, saying at his weekly session with reporters on Capitol Hill, “This all or nothing approach is unreasonable.” [CNN] Since when has “All Or Nothing” been anathema to the Republican bloc in Congress?  Granted my memory may not be as acute as it once was, but I distinctly recall a recent Budget Battle and a Debt Reduction Fight wherein the Republicans didn’t appear to be able to take Yes for an answer.

Cantor continues: “Instead Cantor announced the House will take up several measures this month that he believes House Republicans and the White House agree on, including the three pending free trade agreements with Korea, Colombia, and Panama.” [CNN] Oh, so instead of taking up the American Jobs Act, the House Majority Leader wants to have a vote on the Korean FTA, a measure projected to cost a net 159,000 American jobs.  [DB]

The theme of the day is that the Occupy Wall Street movement has no coherent agenda. [OTB]  However, the same might be said of the Republican prescriptions for economic policy.  The strand holding the GOP proposals together are the narrowly focused and tightly drawn positions  supporting the interests of the top half of the top 1% of American income earners. This platform engenders all manner of incoherent positions.

The Republicans tell us that they can create jobs by promoting the very policies that have off-shored and outsourced jobs since 1993.  Someone may need to explain once again precisely how this is a coherent economy policy statement.   High flying conservative think tank rhetoric won’t make the numbers go away:

“Since the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) was signed in 1993, the rise in the U.S. trade deficit with Canada and Mexico through 2002 has caused the displacement of production that supported 879,280 U.S. jobs. Most of those lost jobs were high-wage positions in manufacturing industries.” [EPI 2003]

The U.S. Chamber of Commerce has a response in regard to the Korean FTA:

“Failure by the United States to implement its trade agreement with Korea will cost related exports, output and jobs. Specifically, failure to implement the U.S.-Korea FTA while our trading partners go forward with their FTAs with Korea would lead to a decline of $35.1 billion in U.S. exports of goods and services to the world and U.S. national output failing to grow by $40.4 billion. We estimate that the total net negative impact on U.S. employment from these trade and output losses would total 345,017 jobs.”

Remember the concept from yesterday’s post — pointing solely to the export side of the equation is like speaking of a bank account only by referring to the deposits and ignoring the withdrawals.

Experience should have taught us that we need to take trade deficits into account when discussing so-called Free Trade Agreements, and in the instance of the Korean version we can expect a projected $16.7 billion increase in our trade deficit with Korea, and the net loss of 159,000 jobs.  [EPI]  And, we do have some experience with these things:

“In 1999, it [USITC] estimated that China’s entry into the World Trade Organization would increase the U.S. trade deficit with China by only $1.0 billion, and have no significant impact on U.S. employment.  In fact, the U.S. trade deficit with China increased by $185 billion between 2001 (when China entered the WTO) and 2008, and 2.4 million U.S. jobs have been displaced or lost.  The U.S. trade deficit with Mexico also rose rapidly after the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) took effect in 1994.”  [EPI 2010] (emphasis added)

A copious amount of imagination is required to believe that enacting a self-destructive economic policy will yield constructive employment results.  However, rationality hasn’t been a hallmark of Republican policies in the 112th Congress.

By contrast, the Occupy Wall Street people want to draw attention to the role played by major banking and investment houses in the 2008 financial collapse. [LAT] The reminder is cogent, considering the lobbying effort major banking institutions are putting forth to water-down or outright repeal the financial sector reforms included in the Dodd-Frank Act.  Those wonderful folks who brought us the implosion of Lehman Brothers would like nothing better than to re-open the doors of the Wall Street Casino and make profits selling “creative” financial products like the “good old days” of 2006.

What may appear to be a fragmented and amorphous set of concerns to corporate media reporters and associated pundits (racism, corporate greed, global climate change) all stem from a single source — the discomfort with a political and economic system in which multi-national corporations and their political allies have obstructed progress on several fronts: (1) The creation of a more just and equitable society; (2) The regulation of banks and investment houses that created the false prosperity of the early 2000s; (3) The persistent opposition from corporations to any regulation of polluters and their coterminous opposition to developing alternative energy sources.

A more just and equitable society is not created by de-funding public education, cutting funds for post-secondary job training programs, and reducing public services like community colleges and public libraries.  The Wall Street Casino will continue to create bubbles so long as it is in the interest of a few, well insulated, investors to profit from stock market volatility instead of accepting lower immediate returns for more productive investment of capital resources.  Denying global climate change because it is in the interest of the Oil Giants to do so doesn’t move America ahead in the 21st century.  We already lag behind Germany and China in investment in Green technologies and transportation systems.  Chanting “We’re Number Three” is hardly an expression of American exceptionalism.

So, the pundits may muse about the disparate groups merging across the country, and decry the lack of sound bite ready phrases pre-packaged for cable TV viewing — but, the essential message is really rather clear:  This is a nation of the people, by the people, and for the people — not of the corporations, by the corporations, and for the corporations.  Citizens United not excepted.   The message is far more sentient than the self-defeating, self-destructive, and self-immolating posturing coming from House Republican leadership.

Update: for additional information see Occupy Las Vegas

Protecting the Rich, Deferring for the Rest: Educational Infrastructure and the Jobs Bill

In 2010 VFA Inc. did a study (pdf) for the Clark County, Nevada School District and observed that the district’s maintenance department had to keep 352 schools, more than 1,000 buildings, and some 1,870 “portables” in functional order.  Of the total buildings approximately 20% are over 40 years old, while 32% are less than 10 years old.  VFA reported that during one week the maintenance department received 1,107 work orders ranging from HVAC and plumbing issues to carpentry needs and asphalt repairs.  The bottom line is that in the near future the CCSD will need to spend about $200 million to retain its district wide facility condition index, while only 1/3rd of that funding may be available.

The reported average age of school buildings in Douglas County is 36 years, and counting.  The District has cut back on maintenance procedures to save money, but this hasn’t addressed the $300,000 worth of deferred maintenance that needed to be done in 2008.  [NVASB pdf]

The impact of budget cuts in Mineral County caused the Nevada Association of School Boards to report that as of 2008 the county had not been able to do such basic maintenance as painting, and other fundamental tasks.  Some buildings were described as “embarrassments” to the community.  [NVASB pdf]

The Washoe County School District includes 228 buildings of which 93 are schools, and spends approximately 11.38% of its budget on school maintenance and repair.  An attempt to pass a bond issue for school repair and maintenance secured 54.6% of the voters in 2008, but failed when 45.3% of the voters rejected the idea. [Blltpedia]  Opponents of the bond issue described it as a “tax grab” by the school district.  Meanwhile, the small rural high school in Gerlach is aging (1956) and the elementary schools in the Vaughn Middle School area are in the 50 year old range.  [WCSD pdf]

Aging buildings and deferred maintenance are a recipe for more serious problems since Father Time Marches On whether a school building has had weatherization renovations or not, whether the plumbing has been upgraded or not, whether the potholes in the parking lot threaten to consume small vehicles or not.

In terms of public infrastructure our school districts are hallmarks of an attitude permeating the public consciousness that the legacy of construction from 40 to 50 years ago is “enough,” and further expenses are “tax grabs” and “wasted tax payer dollars.”  It is as though we were given fine houses by our parents or grandparents, and then parsimoniously refused to fix the plumbing, repair the roofs, upgrade the painting, replace the windows, or refinish the floors.  Worse still, it never seems to have occurred to us that at some point we may have to move out.

The deferral of maintenance and the lack of public pride in our local public architecture give credence to the notion that when it comes to children, we’re all talk and very little action.  Their “lives are precious,” but we can’t seem to find the funds to construct new classrooms for them.  Their “lives are our future,” but we can’t seem to find the money to upgrade their computer labs.  They are our “most valuable assets,” but we can’t dig deeply enough into our pockets to renovate their classrooms and weatherize their schools.

There is now a plan which would allow us to put our money where our mouths have been.  The new Jobs Bill includes approximately $25 billion to renovate approximately 35,000 schools.  [UPI] That’s $25 billion for contractors and subcontractors in the hard pressed construction sector of our economy.  That’s renovation and repair of crumbling classrooms in which our children are trying to learn their lessons.

And, wouldn’t you know it — the House Republicans are against this:  “Anything that is akin to the stimulus bill I think is not going to be acceptable to the American people,” Cantor said. He added that Obama should focus instead on cutting federal regulations that he says kill U.S. jobs and that any extension in jobless benefits should be tied to reforms in the unemployment program.”  [Reuters]

Not “acceptable to the American people?”  There are approximately 97,000 school buildings in this country, and depending on how one interprets the data there is a backlog of maintenance on those buildings that ranges from $270 billion to $500 billion.

“The current backlogs of school maintenance and repair projects are worth between $270 billion and $500 billion—at a time when state and local governments and school districts are facing unprecedented budget crunches.  At the same time, the U.S. is facing an unemployment crisis; within the construction industry alone, 1.5 million workers are unemployed.  Maintenance and repair of school buildings and facilities would provide students with an educational environment both safer and more conducive to learning and enable school districts to attract and retain quality teachers while simultaneously enabling hundreds of thousands of unemployed workers to find good-quality jobs in their communities.” [EPI]

The Los Angeles Unified School District reported in 2008 that it had a $5 billion backlog in that district alone.  [EPI 2008 pdf]  Is Representative Cantor really offering that Americans would be opposed to having better classrooms for their children — and more construction jobs in their communities?

Is he saying that the “American people” would rather have the EPA forbidden from testing air quality in public school buildings?  Or, would parents in Florida prefer to have mold contamination identified and eliminated in their schools?  Would parents of children in poorly ventilated, aging, “sick” buildings prefer renovations that would decrease the incidence of asthma and related respiratory problems in Washington, D.C?

Representative Cantor’s thinking is indicative of a mind-set which automatically reverts to ideological intransigence whenever a suggestion is made that government should work for the people — and their children.  Evidently, for Representative Cantor is it enough that government should work for the bankers, the hedge fund managers, and the top half of the top 1% — those “job creators” whose interests must be asserted and protected before all others — even before the interests of six year old children and their parents.

Representative Cantor and some of his cohorts have been free with the term “Class Warfare” when it is suggested that the top income earners in the United States pay a more equitable share.  However, the real Class Warfare is — as investor Warren Buffett famously argued — between the economic elites and their representatives such as Representative Cantor and the rest of the country.

It was on behalf of this ultra-economic elite that Cantor and the Tea Party caucus in the House of Representatives was ready and apparently willing to bring down the entire government of the United States of America during the so-called “debt crisis.”  Rolling Stone reporter Matt Taibbi phrased this more dramatically:

“This was a form of violence, and a serious escalation even from the days of George W. Bush, when the party was mostly limited in its willingness to use human beings as pawns in homicidal ploys for political power. Bush and Rove were willing to sacrifice Iraqi lives, and the lives of American servicemen, for oil and votes. But this current crew of Republicans shook canisters of kerosene over the entire American population and threatened to light a match if it didn’t get what it wanted. “

Taibbi also highlights the tenor of the conflict between the likes of Representative Cantor and the rest of us.

“But for the new GOP, compromise of any kind defeats their central purpose, which is political totale krieg. This party’s entire reason for being is conflict and aggression. There is no underlying patriotic instinct to find middle ground with the rest of us, because the party doesn’t have a vision for society that includes anyone outside the tent.”  […]

“But the time is coming when we are all going to be forced to literally take sides in a political conflict far more serious and extreme than we’re used to imagining. The situation is such a tinderbox now that all it will take is some prominent politician to openly acknowledge the fact of a cultural/civil war for the real craziness to begin.”

For all intents and purposes, Representative Cantor gives every appearance of firing one of the first shots to which Taibbi refers — in the land of totale krieg wherein there is no common ground, only No Man’s Land, the Virginia Representative has made it abundantly clear that it’s the Top 0.5% versus every other American, from construction contractors to school board members, from the aged to every kindergartner in the country.

The Politics of Preparedness and Compassion

It was a tragic night for Denning, Arkansas [NWS] yet another long night of suffering for Joplin, Missouri [LAT] and the residents of Tuscaloosa, Alabama are no doubt jolted by new wave of storms. [DailyRec] If their nerves seem a bit raw, that’s to be excused under the circumstances.   What is not to be excused are attempts to play political games with people’s safety.   If the Constitutional prologue “provide for the general welfare” means nothing else, it must mean that our government has a responsibility to do all it can to keep people safe from harm.

In order to keep people as safe as humanly possible a government needs to be watchful.  If we are talking about attempting to extend warning times and locate with as much precision as the technology will bear what kind of weather phenomena is headed in the direction of a vulnerable community, then we are necessarily speaking of weather satellites.   We have two in orbit as of now which were launched back in 1997.  [LEO pdf]  Half of our weather satellites will have outlived their design life in the next eight years. [WaPo]

The weather satellite programs have had problems extending back to the Clinton Administration when cost cutting measures resulted in combined civilian and defense needs in ways that weren’t all that efficacious for either side of the equation.  The situation didn’t improve during the Bush Administration when the programs were continued in tandem in spite of the very different priorities of the civil and military components.  The Obama Administration finally separated the programs and budgets for the weather satellites, and budgeted accordingly. [WaPo]

Now, politics has intervened again.  It seems that not only do the satellites help keep track of weather patterns — some  gather climate data.  Gathering climate data is anathema to  climate change deniers, especially those in thrall to the American Petroleum Institute, the Koch Brothers, and Big Oil.  Little wonder, then, that the House of Representatives voted (H.R. 1) to slash the budget for replacing our aging “fleet” of weather/climate satellites.

The Obama Administration budget called for $700 million to upgrade NOAA’s weather satellite programs.  H.R. 1 eliminated $1.2 billion in total  NOAA funding.  [CProg]

There is no small amount of irony in the fact that Congress balked at eliminating $4 billion dollars per year in Big Oil subsidies, but was only too pleased to cut $1.2 billion from the NOAA appropriations. [roll call 147] H.R. 1689, ending Big Oil subsidies, sits in the House Ways and Means Committee.  Senate Republicans successfully filibustered S. 940 to end the subsidies to the oil giants. [roll call 72]  Senator Dean Heller (R-NV) voted to sustain the filibuster, Senator Harry Reid (D-NV) voted for cloture.

One of the consequences of diminishing the resources of NOAA to gather data which might tend to confirm global climate change, is that those self-same resources might also have been applied toward improving our weather forecasting capabilities.  Surely, the House Republicans and their allies in the U.S. Senate do not intend to allow our satellite system to deteriorate further merely to satisfy the demands of oil industry lobbyists who fear more data might further our understanding of our global climate?  Which do we fear more — That we might find out more precisely how human activities may contribute to climate change? Or, that eventually we’ll see only through a darkened lens a destructive weather system approaching one of our cities and towns?

And, once the terror arrives, how do we meet the needs of the afflicted and suffering?  To say that Representative Eric Cantor’s (R-VA) comments on the expressed need to offset emergency aid for those stricken in Joplin, Missouri with yet more budget cuts,  [Politico] are politically tone deaf would be too little; the comments are more humanely tone deaf.  Even Cantor’s cohort, Senator Roy Blunt (R-MO) was moved to offer a mild challenge. [Politico]  However, we probably ought to recall that this isn’t Cantor’s first foray into insensitivity — during the health care reform debate Cantor told a woman with cancer to “find an existing government program, or find a charity…”  [HuffPo]

Unfortunately, the Republicans on Capitol Hill are so narrowly focused on the spending cut side of the revenue/deficit equation that they can’t see that most of the problem could be addressed by simply allowing the Bush Tax Cuts to expire, by phasing out operations in Iraq and Afghanistan, and rebuilding the U.S. economy while implementing safeguards to insure as best we can that the Wall Street casino doesn’t run rampant once again.   There must be some point at which preparedness trumps politics and compassion takes precedence over profits.

GOP voted to cut NOAA forecasting, now proposes trading more budget cuts for emergency aid

While we’re focused on tornadoes — this might be an appropriate time to recall that the House Republicans promoted a budget which cut funding for the NOAA satellite programs used to predict and track weather phenomena.  [CPB]  The House Republicans were all for cutting some $700 million from these “extravagances.”  Not to put too fine a point to it, but it ought to be quite clear that it is more important to members of the GOP to retain the Bush Tax cuts for the wealthiest 2% among us, and to give Big Oil $4 billion per year in tax breaks than it is to replace aging weather satellites.

The cuts were contained in H.R. 1.  On February 19, 2011 the House voted 235-189 in favor of this bill.   Then Representative Dean Heller (R-NV2) and Representative Joe Heck (R-NV3) voted in favor of these cuts; Representative Shelley Berkley (D-NV1) voted against them.  [roll call 147]

As if Joplin, Missouri didn’t have enough problems at the moment — Representative Eric Cantor (R-VA) said that before Congress would authorize emergency aid to the stricken region, the extra money would have to be cut from some other government programs.  [TP]  “If there is support for a supplemental, it would be accompanied by support for having pay-fors to that supplemental,” Mr. Cantor, Virginia Republican, told reporters at the Capitol. The term “pay-fors” is used by lawmakers to signal cuts or tax increases used to pay for new spending.”  [WashTimes]

The shorter version of the Republican message appears to be (1) It’s too expensive to maintain our satellite surveillance system for catastrophic weather systems, and (2) If you get ‘hit’ with something icky like a hurricane or tornado — it’s more important to maintain those Bush tax cuts and Oil Corporation subsidies than it is to keep average Americans safer or help them when they are in desperate need.

**  The American Red Cross could certainly use donations to help victims of the latest rash of tornadoes in Alabama, Georgia, and Missouri.  **

Just in case you weren’t convinced

In the unlikely event someone mistook the Republican Party for a political institution motivated by concern for average Middle Class Americans,  Representative Eric Cantor (R-VA) has clarified the matter.   During his speech to the CME group (Chicago Mercantile Exchange, now working out of  Prague, Czech Republic) [CFTC]  Cantor told the members that the House Republicans would be working diligently to obstruct any CFTC reforms regarding derivative trading in the Dodd-Frank Financial Reform Act.  [Think Progress]

Pause a moment and think about what this means.  For one thing Rep. Cantor is speaking on behalf of House Republicans who while decrying the effects of high oil prices on the American economy, and enacting specious Drill Baby Drill legislation, absolutely refuse to contain any enthusiasm on the part of oil speculators for creating commodity bubbles.  Oil included.   The casino mentality, so obvious during the late Housing Bubble, is to be unmolested as oil speculators add from $20 to $24 to the price of a barrel of crude oil. [NTC]

But wait, there’s more.  Representative Cantor isn’t confining his remarks to oil speculators: “ It’s not just financial services where federal bureaucracy has rum amok. So the Republicans and our growth agenda are very focused on stopping regulations that negatively impact people who want to create growth and value. Whether it’s the EPA, the FDA, the FCC, the SEC, the CFTC, you name it, there’s an acronym for a federal agency causing harm right now. We’re trying to pull that in.”  [ThinkProgress]

Note that the Virginia Representative has added the Securities and Exchange Commission to the Pull Back List.   Perhaps Rep. Cantor would have us ignore WorldCom, HealthSouth, Galleon, Allan Stanford’s Ponzi Scheme, and the criminal machinations of Bernie Madoff?   How about Tyco International?  And, how could we not remember the implosion of Enron?

There is one way to insure that the public has little confidence in regulatory agencies — starve them of funds such that they can barely perform their missions, and then when they miss one, such as the Madoff Morass, blame the regulators, and cry, “Oh Look! Federal regulation doesn’t work.”  The American public should be well past the point at which this charade would work.   In addition to the SEC and the CFTC, note the forces looming behind the other agencies on Cantor’s GOP hit list.

The EPA, has long been a target of the oil and energy corporations.  The corporations operating coal fired power plants have long sought to blunt the force of the requirements of the Clean Air Act, nor do they want to comply with regulations regarding clean drinking water.  These cut into their profits.  What’s a little Silent Spring, or LA Smog, or Acid Rain, when it comes at the risk of reducing revenues?  Who needs birds? Or clean air to breathe?  If you have to get a new paint job on the family wagon because pollutants have pitted the finish — just move to the crystal clean suburbs into a new McMansion.  After all, it was “your” choice to live in an area subjected to acid rain — or chemical groundwater pollutants, or toxic emissions.

The FDA?  Now why would the Virginia Congressman add this one to the hit list?  Why not? — the pesky folks at the Food and Drug Administration are now authorized to regulate tobacco products.  The Altria Group and R.J. Reynolds have for years sought to push back against state and federal regulations, and have financed everything from think tank policy publications to supposedly grass roots anti-government activities.

The Food and Drug Administration is also in charge of approving prescription medication for use on real live people.  In the optimized profit world of the pharmaceutical industry the FDA would take industry studies at face value, even if independent studies questioned the efficacy or even the safety of the medication in question.   Cutting the funds and the authority of the FDA to regulate pharmaceuticals would be a grand way for the GOP to reward its drug industry patrons.

The FCC?  It doesn’t require much imagination to understand why this agency is on the hit list.   One of the things the FCC is charged with doing is to see that major broadcasters don’t have a monopoly on broadcast communications in any given part of the country.   The media conglomerates would be pleased to wake up one fine morning to discover that the FCC would no long enforce rules stating that a single conglomerate could not control all the newspapers, radio stations, and television broadcasters in one major or even minor metropolitan area.

So, average Middle Class American — if your gas prices are draining the family coffers, if your mutual funds are being managed by a crook, if your air is no longer fit to breathe and your water no longer fit to drink, if the drugs you are taking are of questionable efficacy or safety, and if you aren’t hearing about all this because there’s only one media outfit in town — you are on your own.

The Republicans have now waved their banner, at the head of their own legions — Big Oil, Big Speculators, Big Banks, Big Coal, Big Pharmaceuticals, and Big Media.