Finally, Some Intestinal Fortitude From Progressives on the Supreme Court

Dana Milbank

Opinion Writer

Sotomayor, Kagan ready for battles

By Dana Milbank,

Feb 27, 2013 11:43 PM EST

The Washington PostPublished: February 27

For a quarter-century, Antonin Scalia has been the reigning bully of the Supreme Court, but finally a couple of justices are willing to face him down.
As it happens, the two manning up to take on Nino the Terrible are women: the court’s newest members, Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan.

The acerbic Scalia, the court’s longest-serving justice, got his latest comeuppance Wednesday morning, as he tried to make the absurd argument that Congress’s renewal of the Voting Rights Act in 2006 by votes of 98 to 0 in the Senate and 390 to 33 in the House did not mean that Congress actually supported the act. Scalia, assuming powers of clairvoyance, argued that the lawmakers were secretly afraid to vote against this “perpetuation of racial entitlement.”
Kagan wasn’t about to let him get away with that. In a breach of decorum, she interrupted his questioning of counsel to argue with him directly. “Well, that sounds like a good argument to me, Justice Scalia,” she said. “It was clear to 98 senators, including every senator from a covered state, who decided that there was a continuing need for this piece of legislation.”
Scalia replied to Kagan, “Or decided that perhaps they’d better not vote against it, that there’s nothing, that there’s no — none of their interests in voting against it.”
Justice Stephen Breyer defused the tension. “I don’t know what they’re thinking exactly,” he said, changing the subject.
The styles of the two Obama appointees are different. Sotomayor is blunt and caustic, repeatedly interrupting. In an opinion this week, she harshly criticized a Texas prosecutor for a racist line of questioning. She has been on the interview circuit publicizing her memoir.
Kagan is choosier about when to interject herself, but she’s sardonic and sharp-witted. (“Well, that’s a big, new power that you are giving us,” she said, mockingly, when a lawyer tried to argue that the justices should overrule Congress’s discrimination findings.)
Both are more forceful than the Clinton appointees, the amiable Breyer and the frail Ruth Bader Ginsburg. The two new justices are sending a message to the court’s conservative majority: You may have the votes, but you’re going to have a fight.
Wednesday’s voting rights case was typical. Surprisingly, the five conservative justices seemed willing to strike down a landmark civil rights law (the provision that gives extra scrutiny to states with past discrimination) that was renewed with near-unanimous votes in Congress. Conservative jurists usually claim deference to the elected branches, but in this case they look an awful lot like activist judges legislating from the bench.
Sotomayor allowed the lawyer for the Alabama county seeking to overturn the law to get just four sentences into his argument before interrupting him. “Assuming I accept your premise — and there’s some question about that — that some portions of the South have changed, your county pretty much hasn’t,” she charged. “Why would we vote in favor of a county whose record is the epitome of what caused the passage of this law to start with?”
Moments later, Kagan pointed out that “Alabama has no black statewide elected officials” and has one of the worst records of voting rights violations.
Scalia and Justice Samuel Alito tried to assist the Alabama county’s lawyer by offering some friendly hypotheticals, but Sotomayor wasn’t interested in hearing that. “The problem with those hypotheticals is obvious,” she said, because “it’s a real record as to what Alabama has done to earn its place on the list.”
Sotomayor continued questioning as if she were the only jurist in the room. “Discrimination is discrimination,” she informed him, “and what Congress said is it continues.”
At one point, Justice Anthony Kennedy tried to quiet her. “I would like to hear the answer to the question,” he said. The lawyer got out a few more sentences — and then Kagan broke in.
Sotomayor continued to pipe up, even when Solicitor General Donald Verrilli was defending the Voting Rights Act — at one point breaking in as Alito was attempting to speak. Chief Justice John Roberts overruled her. “Justice Alito,” he directed.
Scalia was not about to surrender his title of worst-behaved justice. He mocked the civil rights law as he questioned the government lawyer. “Even the name of it is wonderful,” he said. “The Voting Rights Act: Who is going to vote against that?” (Verrilli cautioned him not to ignore actual votes of Congress in favor of “motive analysis.”)
But Scalia’s mouth was no longer the loudest in the room. When the Alabama county’s lawyer returned for his rebuttal, he managed to utter only five words — “Thank you, Mr. Chief Justice” — before Sotomayor broke in.

Medicare for All Would Save $Billions| NationofChange

Froma Harrop

NationofChange / Op-Ed

Published: Thursday 28 February 2013

The concept of Medicare for All was pushed by a few lonely liberals. And it would have been, ironically, the most conservative approach to bringing down health care costs while maintaining quality.

 

 

When folks pan the Affordable Care Act for being nearly 3,000 pages long, here's a sensible response: It could have been done in a page and a half if it simply declared that Medicare would cover everyone.
The concept of Medicare for All was pushed by a few lonely liberals. And it would have been, ironically, the most conservative approach to bringing down health care costs while maintaining quality.
Medicare bringing down health care costs? "Ha, ha, ha," says the program's foes, citing the spending projections for the government health plan serving older Americans.
Unfortunately, the critics confuse spending levels with costs. Total Medicare spending is bound to rise as more older Americans live longer.
Sure, you can curb that increase through a voucher system limiting how much taxpayers will subsidize each beneficiary. But that's not the same as curbing the cost of treating a heart attack or cancer. Without Medicare's cost controls, the size of the bill for each course of care would be larger. Which is exactly what the medical-industrial complex wants.

NationofChange fights back with one simple but powerful weapon: the truth. Can you donate $5 to help us?

A Time magazine piece by Steven Brill is must-reading on this subject. For all the waste and perverse incentives in Medicare, the federal program remains an oasis of cost-control in a desert of price-gouging by medical institutions, many parading around as "nonprofits."
Brill writes of Sean Recchi, a 42-year-old Ohioan with lymphoma. Suffering chills, pains and sweats, he rushed off to the famed MD Anderson Cancer Center in Houston. Anderson wouldn't accept the Recchis' bare-bones insurance plan and required $83,900 upfront for an examination and initial doses of chemotherapy. (His mother-in-law wrote the checks.)

How did the bill get that high? Shameless overcharging. For example, the hospital charged Recchi $283 to have a simple chest X-ray for which Medicare would have paid $20.44.
Recchi was billed more than $15,000 for blood and other lab tests. Medicare would have paid only a few hundred for the same thing.
"Why does simple lab work done during a few days in a hospital cost more than a car?" Brill asks rhetorically.
Recchi was charged $13,702 for a round of the cancer drug Rituxan. Researching how much hospitals pay for Rituxan, Brill estimated that Anderson had marked up the price 400 percent. And so on.
Janice S., age 64, felt chest pains and took herself to Stamford Hospital in Connecticut. While there, she was given three troponin tests to measure proteins in the blood. She was charged $199.50 for each troponin test. Had she been a year older and on Medicare, the hospital would have been paid only $13.94 for each test. The heart-attack false alarm ended up costing her $21,000.
Where does all this money end up? In the pockets of hospital administrators, doctors and makers of equipment and drugs on which the medical profession can multiply the markups.
Hospitals gripe that they lose money on Medicare patients, but that isn't true. As Jonathan Blum, deputy administrator of the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, told Brill: "Central Florida is overflowing with Medicare patients, and all those hospitals are expanding and advertising for Medicare patients. So you can't tell me they're losing money."
Many Republicans and some Democrats want to cut Medicare spending by raising the eligibility age. That makes minus-zero sense. If anything, the age should be lowered.
This is not to say that Medicare doesn't waste money. Under current rules, for example, it must cover treatments that work, even when another, cheaper means of care does just as good a job.
But the economics of medicine in the private sector bears little resemblance to a real free market. Hospitals routinely put on a magic show designed to bilk ordinary Americans, especially — and tragically — the underinsured

- See more at: http://www.nationofchange.org/price-gouging-free-market-medicine-1362057130#sthash.unXmZZKO.dpuf

Former Insiders, Flynt and Hillary Leverett, Criticize Iran Policy as US Hegemony

Former Insiders Criticize Iran Policy as US Hegemony

What Did the Glass-Steagall Act Do and What Happened to It?

        It's time to stop propping up the banks, and end "too big to fail."
One way to do that is to bring back the Glass-Steagall Act. Under Glass-Steagall, we had two kinds of banks. One, like your neighborhood bank, did checkbooks, home loans, and savings accounts. Their technical name was "commercial banks."
       The second kind of bank was what were called "Investment Banks," places like Merrill Lynch used to be, where you bought and sold stocks, bonds, and commodities. Betting banks.
Glass-Steagall said that these two types of banks had to be different and separate, couldn't even be owned by the same people, and couldn't get into each others' business. So you always knew that your bank wasn't gambling in the back room with the money in your checking or savings account, and wasn't out hustling your mortgage to some foreign investment fund.
       But Republican Senator Phil Gramm and his banker buddies didn't like that at all. So in the final year of the Clinton Administration, they put an end to the Glass-Steagall act that had been protecting us ever since the Great Depression.
The result, just like in 1929, was predictable. The banks gambled, lost, and crashed. And took us all down with them.
It's time to put back into place that firewall between commercial and investment banks, and end banks that are too big to fail. And to stop big bank crony CEOs like Jamie Dimon from padding their wallets at our expense. Let's make banking back into the boring and safe industry that it was before Phil Gramm and his Republican buddies came along.

The Federal Reserve Continues Bailing Out Huge Banks!

Don't Blink, or You'll Miss Another Bailout

Obama's State of the Union Speech Wasn't What You Think It Was!

What the 1% Heard During Obama's State of the Union Speech

Smart Talk; The Case For Progressive Tax Reform

NUMBER 13 | February 25, 2013

Are you finding Smart Talk useful? Tell us: smarttalk@ourfuture.org

Make The Case for Progressive Tax Reform

The Challenge	We need tax reform. Not because of any phony debt crisis, but so we can raise the necessary revenue to provide opportunity for all, reduce staggering inequality, grow the economy and end the jobs crisis. Conservatives peddle the fiction that America has a “spending problem” and there is no need for more tax revenue. The reality is the current tax code is still rigged for the 1 percent. Many billionaires are paying lower tax rates than their secretaries. Profitable multinationals are exploiting loopholes and oversea tax dodges to avoid taxes altogether. Instead of taxing what we don’t need, like Wall Street gambling, we tax what we require, like good jobs. The glaring flaws and gaps in the tax code are easy to spot, if the spotlight is actually put on them.
Make the Case	America’s number one priority is to end the jobs crisis. We need massive public investment not only to fully recover the 8 million jobs lost to the Great Recession, but to fix an economic foundation that was already disintegrating before the 2008 crash: an infrastructure that’s crumbling, a social safety net in tatters, an unsustainable dependence on fossil fuels and a public education system starved of resources, from preschool to affordable college. Yes, there is lots of waste, fraud and abuse in the federal budget. Powerful interests rake of billions in unneeded subsidies. Perverted priorities squander too much. But even with that, we still have a revenue problem. Fortunately, we can solve our revenue problem without kicking the middle class when it’s down or stifling the ability of businesses to create jobs. We can raise much of the revenues we need if we close wasteful loopholes, remove perverse job-killing tax incentives and fill the gaps that have allowed the richest Americans to escape contributing their fair share to America’s future. For example, Americans for Tax Fairness proposes: Closing tax shelters for the wealthy, which would bring in as much as $167 billion a year. Ending the ability of U.S. corporations to delay paying taxes on foreign profits, which would save $61 billion a year. Terminating destructive corporate tax breaks, including those regarding executive compensation, stock options and fossil fuel production; that would raise $16 billion a year. Taxing Wall Street trading to discourage reckless speculation, which would produce $35 billion a year. Placing a surtax on income above $1 million, which would collect $45 billion a year. These proposals would begin to close the loopholes in the tax code that serve to benefit the wealthiest American households that do not need the help. In the two years after the crash, the multimillionaires in the top 1 percent saw their average incomes rise 11 percent while the average income of everybody else shrank. Stunningly, American inequality is worse today than it was in 1774, even when you factor in slavery, according to new research from Harvard and the University of California. These tax reforms would also help generate jobs here at home. The financial speculation tax would help reduce the Wall Street gambling that helped blow up the economy. Ending incentives for outsourcing would help deter companies from moving jobs abroad. We don’t need a tax code that fosters staggering inequality. We need a fair tax code so we can rebuild America, put people back to work and make investments vital to America’s future.
The Winning Argument	We have a jobs crisis. We are failing to make the investments vital to a competitive economy and a vibrant middle class. Our infrastructure is crumbling. Our education system inadequate, with what everyone agrees is vital -- pre-school and college increasingly unaffordable. We need new spending priorities, and we need tax reform. Our tax code is fundamentally unfair, chock full of wasteful loopholes and perverse job-killing incentives that only benefit the top 1 percent and worsen staggering inequality. We need to shut down the loopholes and ripoffs in the tax code to strengthen the economy and to raise the necessary revenue to make investments vital to America’s future while helping to put people back to work.
Counterpoint	They say: We already raised taxes on the rich. Now it is time to address the real problem: spending. We say: Since 2011, the president and Congress have locked in more than $2 trillion in deficit reduction, with more than two-thirds of that from spending cuts. We’ve cut deeply enough – in fact, too deep – and more austerity would kill jobs. The fact is we have a revenue problem. Many billionaires are paying lower tax rates than their secretaries. Profitable multinationals are exploiting loopholes and oversea tax dodges to avoid taxes altogether. We aren’t raising enough revenue to invest in what we need to grow: jobs, infrastructure, education and homegrown clean energy. They say: We can’t punish success. It will destroy the incentives for job creators to invest in America’s growth. We say: We applied that conservative logic during the Bush presidency, slashing taxes on the wealthy and waiting for the jobs to come. They never did. The Wall Street Journal found the Bush record on jobs was the “worst on record.” We didn’t get jobs. We got growing inequality, a declining middle class, and the biggest economic downturn since the Great Depression. It’s time to go back to what works: a fair tax code that funds the investments we need to rebuild America and put people back to work. They say: 47 percent of Americans don’t pay any federal income tax. We don’t need to further burden the successful. We need everyone to contribute. We say: Now we know the truth. Conservatives don’t want to cut taxes for everybody. Conservatives only want to cut taxes for the rich and raise them for the poor. In fact, every working American pays taxes – payroll taxes, sales taxes, state and local taxes. Middle-class Americans are paying taxes at a higher rate than billionaires. Small businesses pay at a higher rate than multinationals that hide profits abroad. It’s not the poor who have gamed the tax code; it’s the rich and the powerful. Tax reform starts at the top.
Public Pulse	Even after the fiscal cliff deal, 66 percent of voters say the richest 2 percent should pay higher taxes. Only 9 percent say they should pay less. (Hart Research Associates for Americans for Tax Fairness) More than three out of four respondents agree that federal budget deficits should be addressed through a combination of tax increases and budget cuts. Only 19 percent agree with the Republican leadership position that the deficit should be reduced by budget cuts alone. (Pew Research Center) 64 percent of voters say that large corporations should pay more in taxes.(Hart Research Associates for Americans for Tax Fairness) 66 percent of voters say revenue from closing loopholes should go toward public investments and deficit reduction. Only 23 percent say revenue from closing loopholes to go toward paying for lower tax rates.(Hart Research Associates for Americans for Tax Fairness)
Hot Facts	For every dollar in new revenue raised through tax increases since 2011, we’ve cut $2.50 out of federal government programs: $1.5 trillion in spending cuts versus $600 billion in tax increases. (Center for Budget and Policy Priorities) The top 1 percent of households saw their average federal tax rate fall 17 percent between 1979 and 2009. (Congressional Budget Office) Corporations are paying a fourth of what they paid 60 years ago as a share of federal revenues. (Americans for Tax Fairness ) Federal taxes as a share of the total economy haven’t been this low since 1950. The last time we had a balanced budget (1998-2001), revenues were 20 percent of gross domestic product; now revenues are just 15.4 percent of GDP. (Ezra Klen, The Washington Post, via Americans for Tax Fairness)
Tweet This	Since 2009, income of top 1% is up, income of bottom 99% down. End the rigged tax code. Make rich pay fair share http://goo.gl/vXJRD @ourfuture Conservatives: Raise taxes on bottom 47%, cut them for rich. Progressives: Raise taxes on top 2%, invest in jobs http://goo.gl/vXJRD @ourfuture
Learn More	“Policy Options to Raise Revenue,” Citizens for Tax Justice National Priorities Project Sen. Bernie Sanders' Progressive Budget Americans for Tax Fairness fact sheet Financial Accountability and Corporate Transparency Campaign

Interesting; Florida Atlantic University Football Stadium Named After Private Prison Company Blurs Line Between Correction and Recreation

Football Stadium Named After Private Prison Company Blurs Line Between Retribution and Recreation

Stacking the Deck: The Phony 'Fix the Debt' Campaign | The Nation

Stacking the Deck: The Phony 'Fix the Debt' Campaign | The Nation

Here's the Reason Why The Country is in Dire Straits; It's Not Social Programs!

Hedge Fund Billionaires Lower Taxes by Sending Cash on a Bermuda Vacation

Keystone Pipeline Oil Won't Help US Gasoline Prices Because It Will Be Sold on the Open Marke, Not Directly to Us

FAIR BLOG

Feb

19

2013

Friendly Oil–Not the Venezuelan Kind

By Peter Hart 17 Comments

Photo: Jiri Rezac/Greenpeace

With the Keystone climate protestsin Washington bringing climate change back into the media, we're hearing a lot about how the Keystone pipeline will, at the very least, mean that we'll be getting our oil from a nice country.  On NPR'sAll Things Considered(2/17/13) environment correspondent Elizabeth Shogren explained:

There's a benefit from this oil that comes from Canada. That means that oil won't be coming from the Middle East. And there are lots of reasons why the president wants to have oil from a friendly nation instead of from someplace far away.

Right wing pundit Charles Krauthammer (Fox News Special Report, 2/18/13) made the same point:

The Keystone issue is the most open and shut case I have ever seen. Not only will it reduce dependence on Hugo Chavez and the Middle East if we get it from Canada, and not only would it be an insult to slam the door on Canada, our closest ally, but refusing the pipeline and not building it would have absolutely zero effect on the environment.

And the USA Today editorial page (2/19/13) argues that

the pipeline would bring reliable new oil supplies to a U.S. that still imports 40 percent of its crude, 7.6 million barrels a day last year. And 40 percent of those imports come from OPEC nations such as Venezuela, Iraq and Nigeria. Keystone is expected to supply 830,000 million barrels a day, a key step toward the long-sought goal of North American energy independence, which suddenly seems attainable.

And from New York Times columnist Joe Nocera (2/19/13):

Like it or not, fossil fuels are going to remain the world's dominant energy source for the foreseeable future, and we are far better off getting our oil from Canada than, say, Venezuela.

One would hope by now that there's some understanding that this is not "our" oil. It would be sold on a global market, like any other oil. The fact that there is a massive pipeline being built to deliver the oil to refineries on the Gulf of Mexico could be a sign that the oil isn't, in fact, destined to stay in the United States, but will be exported and sold like any other petroleum. As a New York Times editorial (10/3/11) pointed out, "much of the tar sands oil that would be refined on the Gulf Coast is destined for export."

And it is worth mentioning that getting oil from Canada's tar sands will meanthe  destruction of boreal forests,  with severe consequences for wildlife and wetlands.  How on Earth the United States, or the world, is "better off" for having done this remains a complete mystery.

But at least it's not Hugo Chavez's oil.

 

 

FILED UNDER: CLIMATE CHANGE, ENERGY, FOX NEWS, MIDEAST, NEW YORK TIMES, NPR, USA TODAY, VENEZUELA TAGGED WITH: CANADA, CHARLES KRAUTHAMMER, ELIZABETH SHOGREN,JOE NOCERA

← FAIR TV: Minimum Wage, SOTU Punditry, Dorner DenialThe NYT's Problem With Leftist Presidents →

About Peter Hart

Activism Director and and Co-producer of CounterSpinPeter Hart is the activism director at FAIR. He writes for FAIR's magazine Extra! and is also a co-host and producer of FAIR's syndicated radio show CounterSpin. He is the author of The Oh Really? Factor: Unspinning Fox News Channel's Bill O'Reilly (Seven Stories Press, 2003). Hart has been interviewed by a number of media outlets, including NBC Nightly News, Fox News Channel's O'Reilly Factor, the Los Angeles Times, Newsday and the Associated Press. He has also appeared on Showtime and in the movie Outfoxed. Follow Peter on Twitter at @peterfhart.

Reports: Shale Gas Bubble Looms, Aided by Wall Street, Will Soon Crash

Reports: Shale Gas Bubble Looms, Aided by Wall Street

Fix the Debt Corporations - SourceWatch

Category:Fix the Debt Corporations - SourceWatch

Campaign to "Fix the Debt" a "Trojan Horse"

Portal:Fix the Debt - SourceWatch

Portal:Fix the Debt - SourceWatch

Portal:Fix the Debt - SourceWatch

A Financial Transactions Tax on Wall St. Would Raise $1Trillion a Year With No Sweat

How Congress Could Fix Its Budget Woes, Revisited: The Financial Transactions Tax Alternative

How the "Project for a New American Century" Brought Us into Endless War and Bankrupted America

The United States of Aftermath

The Lies and Liars That Led Us to War in Iraq; Must See!

Rachel Maddow: Politics of fear preserve Bush-era relic Guantanamo

The Great Tax-Cut Experiment; How's That Working Out?

The Great Tax-Cut Experiment

The Voting Rights Law; Will The Supreme Court Destroy Our Democracy?| TPMDC

Will The Supreme Court Neuter The Voting Rights Act? | TPMDC

An Intentional Fire! Police Use of Incendiary Tear Gas Criticized in Kil...

Fight Against Pollution Filled Keystone Pipeline Being Ignored by Corporate Media (NBC, ABC, CBS, CNN, MSNBC) — FAIR: Fairness & Accuracy In Reporting

Media and the Keystone March — FAIR: Fairness & Accuracy In Reporting

Banksters (Banking Gangsters) Rip Apart Spanish Health Care

Banksters Rip Apart Spanish Health Care

President Obam's Justice Department Gives Big Banks "Get Out of Jail Free Cards".

When Big Banks Like HSBC Are Not Prosecuted Criminally, It May Be Killing Us

Washington Post Pushing False Charges, Again? Iranian Magnets the New Aluminum Tubes?

Are Iranian Magnets the New Aluminum Tubes?

Can the Guns Status Quo Ever Be Changed?

Newtown. Columbine. Virginia Tech. Tucson. Aurora. Gun violence on a massive scale has become a plague in our society, yet politicians seem more afraid of having a serious conversation about guns than they are of the next horrific shooting. Any attempt to change the status quo, whether to strengthen gun regulations or weaken them, is sure to degenerate into a hysteria that changes nothing. Our attitudes toward guns are utterly polarized, leaving basic questions unasked: How can we reconcile the individual right to own and use firearms with the right to be safe from gun violence? Is keeping guns out of the hands of as many law-abiding Americans as possible really the best way to keep them out of the hands of criminals? And do 30,000 of us really have to die by gunfire every year as the price of a freedom protected by the Constitution? In Living with Guns, Craig R. Whitney, former foreign correspondent and editor at the New York Times, seeks out answers. He re-examines why the right to bear arms was enshrined in the Bill of Rights, and how it came to be misunderstood. He looks to colonial times, surveying the degree to which guns were a part of everyday life. Finally, blending history and reportage, Whitney explores how twentieth-century turmoil and culture war led to today’s climate of activism, partisanship, and stalemate, in a nation that contains an estimated 300 million guns––and probably at least 60 million gun owners. In the end, Whitney proposes a new way forward through our gun rights stalemate, showing how we can live with guns––and why, with so many of them around, we have no other choice. Living with Guns, is our gift to you for your monthly recurring pledge of $10/month or more. Support independent nonprofit journalism and explore the critical issue of gun violence today.

Decoding the President's SOTU Address About Climate Change, War and Civil Liberties | NationofChange

What Obama Said -- and What he Meant -- About Climate Change, War and Civil Liberties | NationofChange

"Fix the Debt" a Sham Front for Wall Street CEO"s, No Mention of Wall Street Sales Tax

Fix the Debt and a Wall Street Sales Tax

If President Obama is So Concerned About Climate Change, Why Doesn't He Stop the Southern Leg of Keystone XL?

Tom Weis: Why the Southern Leg of Keystone XL Must Be Stopped

Billionaire Banker Bandit Obama's Choice to Become Next Commerce Secretary; What the Hell is Going on Here?!

Billionaire Banker Bandit Likely to Become Next Commerce Secretary

The LAPD Got their Man How They Wanted Him: Dead | NationofChange

The LAPD Got their Man How They Wanted Him: Dead | NationofChange

Is the NRA's Policies Dictated By It's Members or Gun Manufacturers | The Nation

In Reversal, the NRA Embraces States' Rights | The Nation

Wanted: Dead, Not Alive: The LAPD is Afraid of What Renegade Cop Chris Dorner has to Say; the Beginning of the Police State | NationofChange

Wanted: Dead, Not Alive: The LAPD is Afraid of What Renegade Cop Chris Dorner has to Say | NationofChange

Corporate Unconcerned About the Rest of America!

 

Ben Eisenberg Friends of Bernie Sanders A Choice For Corporate America: Are You With America Or The Cayman Islands By Senator Bernie Sanders February 9, 2013 When the greed, recklessness, and illegal behavior on Wall Street drove this country into the deepest recession since the 1930s, the largest financial institutions in the United States took every advantage of being American. They just loved their country - and the willingness of the American people to provide them with the largest bailout in world history. In 2008, Congress approved a $700 billion gift to Wall Street. Another $16 trillion in virtually zero interest loans and other financial assistance came from the Federal Reserve. America. What a great country. But just two years later, as soon as these giant financial institutions started making record-breaking profits again, they suddenly lost their love for their native country. At a time when the nation was suffering from a huge deficit, largely created by the recession that Wall Street caused, the major financial institutions did everything they could to avoid paying American taxes by establishing shell corporations in the Cayman Islands and other tax havens. In 2010, Bank of America set up more than 200 subsidiaries in the Cayman Islands (which has a corporate tax rate of 0.0 percent) to avoid paying U.S. taxes. It worked. Not only did Bank of America pay nothing in federal income taxes, but it received a rebate from the IRS worth $1.9 billion that year. They are not alone. In 2010, JP Morgan Chase operated 83 subsidiaries incorporated in offshore tax havens to avoid paying some $4.9 billion in U.S. taxes. That same year Goldman Sachs operated 39 subsidiaries in offshore tax havens to avoid an estimated $3.3 billion in U.S. taxes. Citigroup has paid no federal income taxes for the last four years after receiving a total of $2.5 trillion in financial assistance from the Federal Reserve during the financial crisis. On and on it goes. Wall Street banks and large companies love America when they need corporate welfare. But when it comes to paying American taxes or American wages, they want nothing to do with this country. That has got to change. Offshore tax abuse is not just limited to Wall Street. Each and every year corporations and the wealthy are avoiding more than $100 billion in U.S. taxes by sheltering their income offshore. Pharmaceutical companies like Eli Lilly and Pfizer have fought to make it illegal for the American people to buy cheaper prescription drugs from Canada and Europe. But, during tax season, Eli Lilly and Pfizer shift drug patents and profits to the Netherlands and other offshore tax havens to avoid paying U.S. taxes. Apple wants all of the advantages of being an American company, but it doesn't want to pay American taxes or American wages. It creates the iPad, the iPhone, the iPod, and iTunes in the United States, but manufactures most of its products in China so it doesn't have to pay American wages. Then it shifts most of its profits to Ireland, Luxembourg, the British Virgin Islands and other tax havens to avoid paying U.S. taxes. Without such maneuvers, Apple's federal tax bill in the United States would have been $2.4 billion higher in 2011. Offshore tax schemes have become so absurd that one five-story office building in the Cayman Islands is now the "home" to more than 18,000 corporations. This tax avoidance does not just reduce the revenue that we need to pay for education, healthcare, roads, and environmental protection, it is also costing us millions of American jobs. Today, companies are using these same tax schemes to lower their tax bills by shipping American jobs and factories abroad. These tax breaks have contributed to the loss of more than 5 million U.S. manufacturing jobs and the closure of more than 56,000 factories since 2000. That also has got to change. At a time when we have a $16.5 trillion national debt; at a time when roughly one-quarter of the largest corporations in America are paying no federal income taxes; and at a time when corporate profits are at an all-time high; it is past time for Wall Street and corporate America to pay their fair share. That's what the Corporate Tax Dodging Prevention Act (S.250) that I have introduced with Rep. Jan Schakowsky (D-Ill.) is all about. This legislation will stop profitable Wall Street banks and corporations from sheltering profits in the Cayman Islands and other tax havens to avoid paying U.S. taxes. It will also stop rewarding companies that ship jobs and factories overseas with tax breaks. The Joint Committee on Taxation has estimated in the past that the provisions in this bill will raise more than $590 billion in revenue over the next decade. As Congress debates deficit reduction, it is clear that we must raise significant new revenue. At 15.8 percent of GDP, federal revenue is at almost the lowest point in 60 years. Our Republican colleagues want to balance the budget on the backs of the elderly, the sick, the children, the veterans and the most vulnerable by making massive cuts. At a time when the middle class already is disappearing, that is not only a grossly immoral position, it is bad economics. We have a much better idea. Wall Street and the largest corporations in the country must begin to pay their fair share of taxes. They must not be able to continue hiding their profits offshore and shipping American jobs overseas to avoid taxes. Here's the simple truth. You can't be an American company only when you want a massive bailout from the American people. You have also got to be an American company, and pay your fair share of taxes, as we struggle with the deficit and adequate funding for the needs of the American people. If Wall Street and corporate America don't agree, the next time they need a bailout let them go to the Cayman Islands, let them go to Bermuda, let them go to the Bahamas and let them ask those countries for corporate welfare.

In Australia, Wind Power is Already Cheaper Than Fossil Fuels and Solar is Right Behind. Why Not in America? | NationofChange

In Australia, Wind Power is Already Cheaper Than Fossil Fuels and Solar is Right Behind | NationofChange

You Should be Outraged by What is Being Done to Our Post Office | NationofChange

You Should be Outraged by What is Being Done to Our Post Office | NationofChange

Obama’s Shakedown of Health Care: After Insurance Mandate Will Medicare Sellout Make It Complate?

Obama’s Shakedown of Medicare

Why Did a Republican Controlled Congress Put a Burden on the US Postal Service That No Business Could Possibly Bear?| NationofChange

Thanks To Congressional Incompetence, Saturday Mail Delivery Is History | NationofChange

Are Regulators Too Cozy With Wall Street?

‏

 

 

Even if you don't actively trade on Wall Street, chances are you have money in a pension, 401(k), or some sort of savings account that invests in the stock market. You, I and all our friends and family members rely on financial regulators to protect us from unscrupulous predators. But what happens when financial regulators get too cozy with the companies they regulate? A report we published this morning attempts to answer that question. Our investigative team looked at thousands of records and interviewed dozens of current and former staff of the Securities and Exchange Commission. What we found is troubling. There were many examples where the line between regulator and industry was blurred. In one case, several former SEC staffers were part of the successful lobbying effort last year to block tightening of regulations for money market funds. I urge you to read and share our report: http://www.pogo.org/our-work/reports/sec-revolving-door.html Best, P.S. If you are reading this on a tablet, you can download our report in e-book form here: http://pogoarchives.org/ebooks/20130211-dangerous-liaisons-sec-revolving-door.pdf Danielle Brian Executive Director

We rely on people like you to spread the word about our work. Tell a friend about POGO! POGO :: 1100 G Street, NW, Suite 500 :: Washington, DC 20005 :: (202) 347-1122

Unsubscribe

nonprofit software

Divestment Movement of Universities and City Governments Gaining Momentum | NationofChange

US ‘Divestment’ Movement Gaining Momentum | NationofChange

Safety Group Blows Lid on ‘Secret Virus’ Hidden in GMO Crops | NationofChange

Safety Group Blows Lid on ‘Secret Virus’ Hidden in GMO Crops | NationofChange

Why the Republican Arguments Against CFPB Are Wrong

Why the Republican CFPB Arguments Are Wrong

New Study By Bloomberg New Energy Finance Shows UNsubsidized Renewable Energy Much, Much Cheaper Than Subsidized Fossil Fuels

A New Manhattan Project

Time for a A New Manhattan Project in America

A New Manhattan Project

US Fiscal Debate Could Learn From Norway

US Fiscal Debate Could Learn From Norway

How the GOP Plans to Subvert, Buy and Obstruct the Vote in 2016

How the GOP Plans to Subvert, Buy and Obstruct the Vote in 2016

USPS Problem: Click on Link at Bottom of Page Letter From Postmaster General

The post office isn't broke — it's being robbed. The petition reads: "Repeal the pre-funding mandate of the Postal Accountability and Enhancement Act, implement common sense postal service reforms, and stop undermining the USPS with needless and unfair legislation." Automatically add your name: Dear James, The United States Postal Service has just announced that due to budget shortfalls, mail will no longer be delivered on Saturdays starting in August. It's true the post office faces financial challenges. But the financial problems are in large part a direct result of an onerous and ill-considered 2006 law called the "Postal Accountability and Enhancement Act" (PAEA) that mandates pre-funding the postal service retiree health care and pension benefits for 75 years — something that no other government agency or private company is forced to do. The vast majority — 85% — of the budget red ink comes from this pre-funding mandate despite the fact that, according to the post office Inspector General, the pension is over-funded and reserves for retiree health care are far higher than the federal government as a whole, the military and almost all Fortune 1000 companies.1 Tell Congress: Don't let Republicans kill the post office. Click here to sign this petition automatically. Even with the declining levels of "snail mail," the post office still manages to deliver to every household in America a total of 563 million pieces of mail for an incredibly low cost. It does it efficiently, and without a penny of taxpayer money.2 But it's that very self-sufficiency that drove Congressional Republicans to hatch a long-term plan to destroy the agency by starving it of the ability to maintain services. By forcing the USPS to save an outrageous and unneeded nest-egg, the agency has been increasingly removed from revenues which would help it keep pace with the innovation of FedEx and UPS. As a result, the post office has closed branches in some of the most rural areas, where it was the only government-affiliated location for miles around. Rural post offices in particular are important institutions. Closing them, especially in areas with little or no access to broadband internet service, could have a major impact on the communities they serve. And closing them won't save much money. Tell Congress: Don't let Republicans kill the post office. Click here to sign this petition automatically. Undermining public services is exactly what Republicans have been doing since the Reagan-era, by cutting off normal, healthy revenues for any reason they can find — even if it requires doing something that in any other circumstance would be branded as total lunacy. FedEx and UPS would never be required to meet the same savings requirements as the USPS. By making the public believe that government services are underfunded and poorly managed, Republicans can force more cuts, and eventually privatize services altogether, handing over public goods to private corporations that enrich a select few at the expense of many. And if the USPS dies, FedEx and UPS will have been delivered an entire, centuries-old industry at wholesale cost. But all of this can be avoided by making simple and popular reforms to the postal service like those proposed last year in a bill by Delaware Senator Thomas Carper. His bill would have allowed the USPS to stretch out payments for future retirees for the next 40 years, while recouping $11 billion the government has overcharged the postal service.3 If Congress can't get its act together and implement these necessary and simple reforms, the postal service will be forced to continue cutting staff and services. Legislators must act now to repeal the PAEA and put the post office back on equal footing. Tell Congress: Don't let Republicans kill the post office. Click the link below to sign this petition automatically. http://act.credoaction.com/r/?r=6996482&p=usps_sat_delivery&id=54475-2360864-O9vVhux&t=5 Thank you for standing up for the post office. Jordan Krueger, Campaign Manager CREDO Action from Working Assets Automatically add your name: Learn more about this campaign 1. Letter from United State Post Office Inspector General David C. Williams to Senator Bernie Sanders, dated 02-06-12. 2. Brianna Lee, "The U.S. Postal Service." PBS, September 13, 2011. 3. "Reforming the Postal Service." Senator Tom Carper.