There is much justifiable outrage over the bonuses paid by AIG, a company which only exists because of taxpayer bailouts. As well placed as this sentiment is, it is but a subset of a much larger problem. We, the American taxpayers, subsidize the excessive executive compensation packages in all companies, not just those receiving direct Federal financial assistance. How? Thorough a direct subsidy in the tax code.
The tax code does two basic things. It establishes the process for collecting revenues and it provides subsidies to the activities the government thinks are worthy of support. As currently written, if a company provides bonuses and other "performance based" compensation of $10 million to an executive we, the taxpayers, give the company a tax break worth $3.5 million.
Congress has previously considered a bill, the Income Equity Act which would end this abuse, but it has never been given serious consideration. Now is the time to enact this legislation
First, a little background. Businesses are only taxed on their profit, which is computed by taking their gross income and subtracting the expenses of running the company. Prior 1993 to all of the money a company paid to its employees, including multimillion dollar salaries to executives, were fully deductible as a business expense. Since the corporate tax rate is 35%, that meant that for every million dollars a company paid an executive the company would receive a tax break worth $350,000 to partially offset the cost.
There were many negative effects to this system. First, income to the government was reduced which increased our deficit. Second, because the company and its shareholders were not bearing the full cost of executive greed there was less of an incentive to control it. Finally, we established a public policy, through the tax code, of increasing the income gap between working Americans and the super rich.
In 1993 Congress passed and President Clinton signed legislation designed to curb this abuse. Section 162(m) of the Internal Revenue Code was enacted which stated that a company could not deduct more than $1 million of compensation to an employee unless it was performance based.
That was when you started seeing all these CEOs with $1 million salaries and many millions more paid out in non-salary compensation that was papered up to look like it was performance based. Here is an excellent Business Week article that discusses the abuses. By 1997 it was clear that section 162(m) was not working as intended. That year, and repeatedly until 2007, a bill entitled the Income equity Act was introduced in an effort to curb the abuses. Representative Barbara Lee was in the forefront of the effort to enact the Income Equity Act in the last Congress, but the bill went nowhere.
The Income Equity Act would close the bonus loophole in the Internal Revenue Code by covering virtually all remuneration including salary, wages, bonuses and non-cash compensation. But it would go beyond that. Rather than the $1 million limit it would prohibit a company from deducting executive compensation paid to an individual that exceeded "25 times the lowest compensation for services performed by any other full-time employee during such taxable year."
By enacting this legislation, Congress could finally send the right messages. It would finally put some teeth into the words, "the party is over." It would say that as a matter of policy, if business want to provide lavish levels of compensation they are going to have to pay for it. The taxpayers will no longer subsidize greed. It will also give company executives an incentive to raise their employee salaries, since those executives could also benefit from such raises. Lastly it will make shareholders more vigilant since they will know that one hundred cents of every dollar of executive compensation is coming out of their pockets.
Now is the time to enact this legislation. We need to channel the indignation about the bailout baby bonuses to the larger effort of returning fairness to our country. We must stop subsidizing corporate greed at the expense of working Americans.
Friday, March 20, 2009
Friday, December 05, 2008
The Auto "Bailout" Debate Is Prologue To What Obama Faces In The Next Congress
The Detroit auto company "bailout" is the beginning of the debate Obama will be facing in the next Congress. We are in a recession and possibly heading to a depression. The questions we face now, and in the coming months, revolve around what, if anything, the Federal government should do in response to this economic crisis.
The battle lines involve some familiar themes. Should the Government spend money? If so should it be through Republican favored tax cuts, for both wealthy individuals and corporations, or should the pump be primed directly with spending on projects and programs that create or preserve employment? Second, should the government actions promote well paying jobs, including unionized jobs, or should we go for the cheapest labor possible, with the secret hope of busting the union movement? Lastly, do we want to help people in this time of crisis or fiddle around enough so that the economy continues to slide with the hope of regaining lost seats in the next election and in the 2012 Presidential race?
These issues are at the core of the current debate and will be front and center when President Obama proposes new spending on Infrastructure, health care, and other priorities and revisions to the existing tax policies that favor wealth, capital, and the wealthy.
I don't carry any brief for Ford, Chrysler and GM. Many of their past actions have created the vulnerabilities they now face. But they are charting a new course. More importantly, they are an integral part of our manufacturing base. One can argue the outcome of one or more going into Chapter 11 bankruptcy. But these things are inarguable. The union contracts will be gone and with them the hope for revitalizing the union movement. That will be the sweetest victory long hoped worked for by Republicans for decades. More importantly, it will accelerate the race to the bottom for all wage earners in our country. Make no mistake, this is a source of the major divide in the current debate. And when the infrastructure debate occurs next year there will be a big push for the projects not to be built with people in unions or earning union prevailing wages.
I need to digress a little by mentioning two points. Labor costs are not the issue. The companies and the UAW agree that labor costs represent only about 10% of the cost of a new car. That said, the average UAW wage is not $70. It is about $30 and is only about $5 higher than the wages paid by foreign transplants. The real differences are these. UAW health coverage is better than in the transplants and union retirees are not thrown onto the national trash heap in their old age. Those things do cost more money and are built into the cost structure of the big three. But consider the alternative. If bankruptcy occurs and the pension obligations are dissolve, the Pension Benefit Guarantee Corporation will have to pick them up. PBGC payments are lower and since it is currently underfunded, taxpayers will end up having to cough up more money.
The second point relates to Michael Moore's proposal to just buy up all their stock. Yes, that could be done for about $4 billion. But then what? The companies would still need the money they are currently asking for to service their current debt and continue operating. Yes, it would enable the Government to put in new management, but that can already be done under the current proposals by establishing an oversight board with the power to remove existing personnel.
There are those in Congress who are saying "no" to this proposal and will oppose President Obama's ambitious agenda to put this country back to work. Many of them simply do not believe that is the role of government. Others believe there is political advantage for them in this position. Generally, they will oppose anything.
There is another group will only support "supply side" actions. They cling to the failed dogma made popular by Reagan but still largely accepted. It holds the only way to increase national wealth is to cut taxes, which will spur economic growth and benefit all eventually. After almost thirty years of following this prescription the results are plain to see. The gap between the rich and the middle class has widened and the continual underfunding of public works has not only killed and endangered people, but is crippling our productivity with bad roads, clogged ports, drowned cities, and an electric grid and telecommunications system far behind many of our competitors.
The financial bailout was the most recent example of supply side at work, this time on steroids. Under the threat of impending doom we passed a law designed to pump money into the top of the economic pyramid in the expectation that it would trickle down and free up credit for average people. We're still waiting for that promised result. We have seen these institutions hoard the money or use it to acquire competitors. It is time to blow the whistle on the supply siders and say no more. Moving forward we need to inject money directly where it is needed.
The auto industry presents us with the opportunity to change course and lay the groundwork for future actions. Loans to these companies will do several things. It will directly benefit the current employees and retirees. It will give the government leverage to make the companies maintain their new focus on more energy efficient vehicles. This is especially important with oil prices declining since consumer memories have historically been short. It will be a leverage point for building a domestic industry that leads the world in alternative fuel vehicles. Lastly, the inevitable disruptions cause by bankruptcy of the companies which could accelerate a slide into a depression would be avoided.
The battle lines involve some familiar themes. Should the Government spend money? If so should it be through Republican favored tax cuts, for both wealthy individuals and corporations, or should the pump be primed directly with spending on projects and programs that create or preserve employment? Second, should the government actions promote well paying jobs, including unionized jobs, or should we go for the cheapest labor possible, with the secret hope of busting the union movement? Lastly, do we want to help people in this time of crisis or fiddle around enough so that the economy continues to slide with the hope of regaining lost seats in the next election and in the 2012 Presidential race?
These issues are at the core of the current debate and will be front and center when President Obama proposes new spending on Infrastructure, health care, and other priorities and revisions to the existing tax policies that favor wealth, capital, and the wealthy.
I don't carry any brief for Ford, Chrysler and GM. Many of their past actions have created the vulnerabilities they now face. But they are charting a new course. More importantly, they are an integral part of our manufacturing base. One can argue the outcome of one or more going into Chapter 11 bankruptcy. But these things are inarguable. The union contracts will be gone and with them the hope for revitalizing the union movement. That will be the sweetest victory long hoped worked for by Republicans for decades. More importantly, it will accelerate the race to the bottom for all wage earners in our country. Make no mistake, this is a source of the major divide in the current debate. And when the infrastructure debate occurs next year there will be a big push for the projects not to be built with people in unions or earning union prevailing wages.
I need to digress a little by mentioning two points. Labor costs are not the issue. The companies and the UAW agree that labor costs represent only about 10% of the cost of a new car. That said, the average UAW wage is not $70. It is about $30 and is only about $5 higher than the wages paid by foreign transplants. The real differences are these. UAW health coverage is better than in the transplants and union retirees are not thrown onto the national trash heap in their old age. Those things do cost more money and are built into the cost structure of the big three. But consider the alternative. If bankruptcy occurs and the pension obligations are dissolve, the Pension Benefit Guarantee Corporation will have to pick them up. PBGC payments are lower and since it is currently underfunded, taxpayers will end up having to cough up more money.
The second point relates to Michael Moore's proposal to just buy up all their stock. Yes, that could be done for about $4 billion. But then what? The companies would still need the money they are currently asking for to service their current debt and continue operating. Yes, it would enable the Government to put in new management, but that can already be done under the current proposals by establishing an oversight board with the power to remove existing personnel.
There are those in Congress who are saying "no" to this proposal and will oppose President Obama's ambitious agenda to put this country back to work. Many of them simply do not believe that is the role of government. Others believe there is political advantage for them in this position. Generally, they will oppose anything.
There is another group will only support "supply side" actions. They cling to the failed dogma made popular by Reagan but still largely accepted. It holds the only way to increase national wealth is to cut taxes, which will spur economic growth and benefit all eventually. After almost thirty years of following this prescription the results are plain to see. The gap between the rich and the middle class has widened and the continual underfunding of public works has not only killed and endangered people, but is crippling our productivity with bad roads, clogged ports, drowned cities, and an electric grid and telecommunications system far behind many of our competitors.
The financial bailout was the most recent example of supply side at work, this time on steroids. Under the threat of impending doom we passed a law designed to pump money into the top of the economic pyramid in the expectation that it would trickle down and free up credit for average people. We're still waiting for that promised result. We have seen these institutions hoard the money or use it to acquire competitors. It is time to blow the whistle on the supply siders and say no more. Moving forward we need to inject money directly where it is needed.
The auto industry presents us with the opportunity to change course and lay the groundwork for future actions. Loans to these companies will do several things. It will directly benefit the current employees and retirees. It will give the government leverage to make the companies maintain their new focus on more energy efficient vehicles. This is especially important with oil prices declining since consumer memories have historically been short. It will be a leverage point for building a domestic industry that leads the world in alternative fuel vehicles. Lastly, the inevitable disruptions cause by bankruptcy of the companies which could accelerate a slide into a depression would be avoided.
Tuesday, November 25, 2008
Hamdan Released- Even Bush Knows The Gig Is Up
As first reported last night and confirmed this morning Salim Hamdan has been flown back to Yemen. There was considerable concern that Bush would continue to hod him in Guantanamo even after he served his sentence but it seems that even Bush understands there are limits to his outrageous conduct.
Hamdan has been imprisoned in Guantanamo for seven years. He was the first to actually be tried by a Military tribunal. But the tribunal refused to convict him of most of the spurious charges against him, convicting him of only one count and, most importantly, sentencing him only to time served plus five months. This was widely seen as a rebuke to the prosecutors. But at the time, there was concern that Bush would continue to hold him past his sentence, based on his asserted authority to hold enemy combatants for the duration of the so-called war on Terror.
Well, for once Bush has thrown in the towel.
What was Hamdan's big crime? He worked as a driver for Osama bin Laden for a while. Now let's put this crime in perspective. Hitler had a driver named Erich Kempka. Unlike Kempka who was a high ranking SS officer who worked for Hitler for over a decade, Hamdan worked for a couple of years for OBL making $200 a month. Hamdan was a gofer. Kempka was in charge of Hitler's motor pool and was part of his inner circle, to the point that he was one of the men chosen to be with Hitler at the end. Kempka was not charged with anything by the Nuremberg court and, in fact, was called a defense witness in the trial of Martin Bormann.
But for Bush, Hamdan was one of the "worst of the worst." A man so dangerous that he had to be held in the hellhole of Guantanamo for seven years and eventually tried for things that are only crimes in Bushworld. This notwithstanding the fact that
The sentence of the court meant that Hamdan was to be released on December 27, 2008, two days after Christmas. The "leniency" of this sentence did not go over well with the Department of Defense.
Since then they have reconsidered the absurdity of that position. The outrage of holding people without trial is bad enough. But to assert that prisoners can continue to be held even after they have been tried and served any sentence they are given is so far beyond the pale that even these bozos had to relent.
Over five hundred Guantanamo prisoners have been released without charges. Of the 250 being held another sixty have been cleared for release. And just earlier this week, a District Court overturned the "enemy combatant" of Boumediene and four other prisoners, ordering their release "forthwith." We'll see if the decision to finally release Hamdan indicates that Bush will accede to the court's ruling in the Boumediene case or whether he'll drag that case out till he slinks away.
Hamdan has been imprisoned in Guantanamo for seven years. He was the first to actually be tried by a Military tribunal. But the tribunal refused to convict him of most of the spurious charges against him, convicting him of only one count and, most importantly, sentencing him only to time served plus five months. This was widely seen as a rebuke to the prosecutors. But at the time, there was concern that Bush would continue to hold him past his sentence, based on his asserted authority to hold enemy combatants for the duration of the so-called war on Terror.
Well, for once Bush has thrown in the towel.
What was Hamdan's big crime? He worked as a driver for Osama bin Laden for a while. Now let's put this crime in perspective. Hitler had a driver named Erich Kempka. Unlike Kempka who was a high ranking SS officer who worked for Hitler for over a decade, Hamdan worked for a couple of years for OBL making $200 a month. Hamdan was a gofer. Kempka was in charge of Hitler's motor pool and was part of his inner circle, to the point that he was one of the men chosen to be with Hitler at the end. Kempka was not charged with anything by the Nuremberg court and, in fact, was called a defense witness in the trial of Martin Bormann.
But for Bush, Hamdan was one of the "worst of the worst." A man so dangerous that he had to be held in the hellhole of Guantanamo for seven years and eventually tried for things that are only crimes in Bushworld. This notwithstanding the fact that
Hamdan had maintained his innocence of war crimes throughout his detention. Then, during sentencing, he apologized for any pain caused by his work as bin Laden's $200-a-month driver in Afghanistan.
He said he worked for money, not ideology.
The sentence of the court meant that Hamdan was to be released on December 27, 2008, two days after Christmas. The "leniency" of this sentence did not go over well with the Department of Defense.
Defense officials had argued they were under no obligation to free him after his sentence. Under a post 9/11 detention doctrine set up by the United States, the Bush administration argued that it could hold enemy combatants indefinitely, even after time served for war crimes.
Since then they have reconsidered the absurdity of that position. The outrage of holding people without trial is bad enough. But to assert that prisoners can continue to be held even after they have been tried and served any sentence they are given is so far beyond the pale that even these bozos had to relent.
Over five hundred Guantanamo prisoners have been released without charges. Of the 250 being held another sixty have been cleared for release. And just earlier this week, a District Court overturned the "enemy combatant" of Boumediene and four other prisoners, ordering their release "forthwith." We'll see if the decision to finally release Hamdan indicates that Bush will accede to the court's ruling in the Boumediene case or whether he'll drag that case out till he slinks away.
Friday, November 21, 2008
The Guantanamo Decision-A Stark Truth Revealed
November 20, 2008 was a long awaited but still historic day. For the first time, a US Court has heard and decided on Habeas Corpus petitions of Guantanamo prisoners. Guess what? It held that Bush had no evidence to detain five of the six men in question.
This decision, Boumediene v Bush, reveals again, in starkest terms, the total injustice that has been done in our names in the so-called War on Terror. Not only have almost five hundred prisoners who Rumsfeld once called the "worst of the worst" already been released without charges, but here we have an impartial court saying that five of the ones that Bush has refused to release are being held illegally. The evidence against them is so flimsy that it does not justify holding them for trial.
In this ruling the Bush Administration was ordered to release five Algerians who have been held at Guantanamo for seven years. Unlike so many other cases in the past that have involved interpretations of the Constitution and various statutes, this case was decided on the facts. In these Habeas Corpus cases, the question was not whether these prisoners were guilty or innocent, but rather whether there was sufficient evidence to justify their continued detention until they could be tried at a later date. The court's decision is a resounding "no."
Lakhdar Boumediene was one of the six prisoners who filed habeas corpus petitions. Earlier this year the Supreme Court ruled that he had a right to seek Habeas Corpus review of his detention even though he had been declared an "enemy Combatant" under the Military Commissions Act. That decision, which was the latest in a string of defeats for Bush, was hailed by all people who believe in our Constitution and who seek a return to long held American values. Six months later Boumediene and the others received their day in court and the injustice of their detention was laid bare for the world to see. Following is some background and the gist of the court's ruling.
The six prisoners are Algerians who were arrested in Bosnia for an alleged plot to blow up the US embassy. A Bosnian court looked at the charges and threw the case out. That didn't stop the US from arresting them on the same charges. Eventually, even Bush dropped the Embassy charges and held them instead on charges that they were planning on traveling to Afghanistan to fight the US.
The Government blew a cavern full of smoke in this case, introducing 650 pages of exhibits and 53 pages of narrative. To counter this barrage of baloney, the prisoners presented 1650 exhibits and over 200 pages of narrative. The question before the court was simply whether these men could be classified as "enemy combatants," as defined by the MCA. The standard of proof was as low as you can go. It's called "preponderance of the evidence" and is essentially a 51% to 49% test. Is it more likely than not that they are enemy combatants?
When all was said and done, Judge Leon said the whole case boiled down to the evidence of one unnamed source contained in a single classified document. The whole case was built on what this one person said. Since no person, let alone a judge, can simply take any statement at face value, Judge Leon tried to look further into the veracity of this witness and the truthfulness of what he said. Analyzing the entire record, the Judge concluded that there was no evidence presented regarding the credibility of the witness or the reliability of what he said. Beyond that, there was no other evidence corroborating the allegation that the prisoners had any plan to fight in Afghanistan.
Think about that a minute. Five people were imprisoned in the hellhole of Guantanamo for more than seven years on the testimony of a single unnamed person, whose truthfulness could not be verified and without a single bit of evidence to corroborate what he said. To call this a miscarriage of justice is a gross understatement. And to put the travesty of Bush's concept of justice into starker relief, one of his Military Commissions had already held that this was sufficient evidence to continue the imprisonment of these men. If anyone doubted that the commissions are little more than kangaroo courts this case should resolve those doubts.
Judge Leon was sufficiently moved by the injustice done these men that he asked the government not to appeal the case. As noted by SCOTUSBLOG,
Amen to that.
There continues to be handwringing in some quarters about the closing of Guantanamo, particularly what to do with detainees. This case again demonstrates that the detainee issue is overblown. Almost five hundred have already been released. To the extent the case against these five is any indication, it is probable that there are only a handful of remaining prisoners who should continue to be held and prosecuted.
This decision, Boumediene v Bush, reveals again, in starkest terms, the total injustice that has been done in our names in the so-called War on Terror. Not only have almost five hundred prisoners who Rumsfeld once called the "worst of the worst" already been released without charges, but here we have an impartial court saying that five of the ones that Bush has refused to release are being held illegally. The evidence against them is so flimsy that it does not justify holding them for trial.
In this ruling the Bush Administration was ordered to release five Algerians who have been held at Guantanamo for seven years. Unlike so many other cases in the past that have involved interpretations of the Constitution and various statutes, this case was decided on the facts. In these Habeas Corpus cases, the question was not whether these prisoners were guilty or innocent, but rather whether there was sufficient evidence to justify their continued detention until they could be tried at a later date. The court's decision is a resounding "no."
Lakhdar Boumediene was one of the six prisoners who filed habeas corpus petitions. Earlier this year the Supreme Court ruled that he had a right to seek Habeas Corpus review of his detention even though he had been declared an "enemy Combatant" under the Military Commissions Act. That decision, which was the latest in a string of defeats for Bush, was hailed by all people who believe in our Constitution and who seek a return to long held American values. Six months later Boumediene and the others received their day in court and the injustice of their detention was laid bare for the world to see. Following is some background and the gist of the court's ruling.
The six prisoners are Algerians who were arrested in Bosnia for an alleged plot to blow up the US embassy. A Bosnian court looked at the charges and threw the case out. That didn't stop the US from arresting them on the same charges. Eventually, even Bush dropped the Embassy charges and held them instead on charges that they were planning on traveling to Afghanistan to fight the US.
The Government blew a cavern full of smoke in this case, introducing 650 pages of exhibits and 53 pages of narrative. To counter this barrage of baloney, the prisoners presented 1650 exhibits and over 200 pages of narrative. The question before the court was simply whether these men could be classified as "enemy combatants," as defined by the MCA. The standard of proof was as low as you can go. It's called "preponderance of the evidence" and is essentially a 51% to 49% test. Is it more likely than not that they are enemy combatants?
When all was said and done, Judge Leon said the whole case boiled down to the evidence of one unnamed source contained in a single classified document. The whole case was built on what this one person said. Since no person, let alone a judge, can simply take any statement at face value, Judge Leon tried to look further into the veracity of this witness and the truthfulness of what he said. Analyzing the entire record, the Judge concluded that there was no evidence presented regarding the credibility of the witness or the reliability of what he said. Beyond that, there was no other evidence corroborating the allegation that the prisoners had any plan to fight in Afghanistan.
Think about that a minute. Five people were imprisoned in the hellhole of Guantanamo for more than seven years on the testimony of a single unnamed person, whose truthfulness could not be verified and without a single bit of evidence to corroborate what he said. To call this a miscarriage of justice is a gross understatement. And to put the travesty of Bush's concept of justice into starker relief, one of his Military Commissions had already held that this was sufficient evidence to continue the imprisonment of these men. If anyone doubted that the commissions are little more than kangaroo courts this case should resolve those doubts.
Judge Leon was sufficiently moved by the injustice done these men that he asked the government not to appeal the case. As noted by SCOTUSBLOG,
The judge, in an unusual added comment, suggested to senior government leaders that they forgo an appeal of his ruling on freeing the five prisoners. While conceding that the government had a right to appeal that part of his ruling, Leon commented that he, too, had “a right to appeal” to leaders of the Justice Department, Central Intelligence Agency and other intelligence agencies, and his plea was that they look at the evidence regarding the five he was ordering released. “Seven years of waiting for our legal system to give them an answer to their legal question is enough,” he commented.
Senior leaders of the government, he went on, will have “more than enough opportunity” to test the novel issues at stake in defending against an appeal of his ruling in the case of Bensayah. He said he was appealing to those leaders “to end this process” for the five.
Amen to that.
There continues to be handwringing in some quarters about the closing of Guantanamo, particularly what to do with detainees. This case again demonstrates that the detainee issue is overblown. Almost five hundred have already been released. To the extent the case against these five is any indication, it is probable that there are only a handful of remaining prisoners who should continue to be held and prosecuted.
Wednesday, September 10, 2008
Palin's Alaska - A State Unlike Any Other
[Before beginning, I give you these numbers - 1841, 1850, 1865, 1881, 1901, 1923, 1945, 1963.]
Many people have pointed out that the closest thing to foreign policy experience for Sarah Palin is when she eats Belgian Waffles at the Wasilla International House of Pancakes. Similarly, it has been noted that she has zero experience in the domestic issues facing the Federal government. But there is something arguably worse. She hasn't had the kind of experience faced by most State governors.
Sarah governs a state like no other. When you put aside all the little hot button issues, most decisions that state governors and legislatures face revolve around two sets of questions. First is the question of revenue. Who should be taxed and how much should they be taxed? Second is the question of expenditures. What programs should get the money and how much should they get? Well, when it comes to the first set of questions, the most difficult ones, Sarah's experience leaves her uniquely unqualified to be the governor of any other state let alone, heaven forbid, the United States.
Here is the resource book published by Alaska's Department of Revenue in the fall of 2007. It shows actual revenues and expenditures for 2007 and projections for 2008 and 2009. Let's look at the 2008 numbers.
For 2008 Alaska plans on collecting $13.2 billion. Half of that amount, $6.6 billion, comes from oil taxes. $3 billion comes from income on all the investment the state has. $2.5 Billion comes from the Federal government. The smallest category, $1.1 billion, comes from licenses, fees, royalties and taxes on mineral companies and the like.
Of the many things that jump out is the $3 Billion in investment income. The United States has almost $10 Trillion dollars in outstanding debt that will require us to pay more than $450 billion in interest on the national debt in 2008. The deficit for just this year is over $400 billion. And of that amount $2.5 billion is money that we borrowed so that we could give it to Alaska, a State that is so awash in cash that it earns $3 billion on its investments. The mind is past boggling.
Next, look at the oil revenue, $6.6 billion. This number is actually much lower than the actual number of $8.9 billion for 2008. That number grew so much because the Alaska's taxes are tied to the price of oil. As oil prices go up, oil company revenues go up and Alaska demands a piece of the action. Sounds an awful lot like a windfall profits tax, doesn't it. That's the kind of tax Obama wants to enact but Mccain opposes. McCain argues that such a tax would stifle new exploration. Of course, we know that is total baloney as made clear by the Alaska experience. Alaska's profits tax on oil hasn't stopped the oil companies from exploring in Alaska. I'd love to see Palin explain why something so good for Alaska is bad for the United States. But I digress.
The main thing this budget reveals is that Palin has never had to face the hard choices about who to tax and how much to tax that are faced in the other states and magnified a thousand fold for the Federal government. She has no knowledge of the complexities of the income tax code. Her experience has not exposed her to the concept of an individual income tax structure that is supposed to be progressive, one in which the tax burden is the largest on those most able to bear it. The Republicans have done their best since 1980 to whittle away at this concept, but it is an idea that is totally foreign to Alaska.
She doesn't have any exposure to the social security and medicare tax system and how they are integral to the welfare of our seniors. She doesn't really know anything about the corporate tax system, which has a marginal rate of 35% but results in an effective tax rate that is far less and in which two thirds of corporations pay no taxes
When you leave the foreign affairs realm, many of the most contentious debates a President face involve the budget. Where to get the money for Head Start, health care, education, environmental protection and on and on. No one wants to pay taxes, but someone must. Sarah lives in a state that is riding the type of gravy train that has immunized her from having to face these tough choices. It is hard to imagine anyone less qualified to serve as President of the United States.
Oh, yes, the numbers at the beginning. Those are the years in which a President has died in office. Eight Presidents have died in office. Every one of those events has been tragic. That tragedy is compounded immeasurably if the Vice President is unqualified to take the reins of government.
Many people have pointed out that the closest thing to foreign policy experience for Sarah Palin is when she eats Belgian Waffles at the Wasilla International House of Pancakes. Similarly, it has been noted that she has zero experience in the domestic issues facing the Federal government. But there is something arguably worse. She hasn't had the kind of experience faced by most State governors.
Sarah governs a state like no other. When you put aside all the little hot button issues, most decisions that state governors and legislatures face revolve around two sets of questions. First is the question of revenue. Who should be taxed and how much should they be taxed? Second is the question of expenditures. What programs should get the money and how much should they get? Well, when it comes to the first set of questions, the most difficult ones, Sarah's experience leaves her uniquely unqualified to be the governor of any other state let alone, heaven forbid, the United States.
Here is the resource book published by Alaska's Department of Revenue in the fall of 2007. It shows actual revenues and expenditures for 2007 and projections for 2008 and 2009. Let's look at the 2008 numbers.
For 2008 Alaska plans on collecting $13.2 billion. Half of that amount, $6.6 billion, comes from oil taxes. $3 billion comes from income on all the investment the state has. $2.5 Billion comes from the Federal government. The smallest category, $1.1 billion, comes from licenses, fees, royalties and taxes on mineral companies and the like.
Of the many things that jump out is the $3 Billion in investment income. The United States has almost $10 Trillion dollars in outstanding debt that will require us to pay more than $450 billion in interest on the national debt in 2008. The deficit for just this year is over $400 billion. And of that amount $2.5 billion is money that we borrowed so that we could give it to Alaska, a State that is so awash in cash that it earns $3 billion on its investments. The mind is past boggling.
Next, look at the oil revenue, $6.6 billion. This number is actually much lower than the actual number of $8.9 billion for 2008. That number grew so much because the Alaska's taxes are tied to the price of oil. As oil prices go up, oil company revenues go up and Alaska demands a piece of the action. Sounds an awful lot like a windfall profits tax, doesn't it. That's the kind of tax Obama wants to enact but Mccain opposes. McCain argues that such a tax would stifle new exploration. Of course, we know that is total baloney as made clear by the Alaska experience. Alaska's profits tax on oil hasn't stopped the oil companies from exploring in Alaska. I'd love to see Palin explain why something so good for Alaska is bad for the United States. But I digress.
The main thing this budget reveals is that Palin has never had to face the hard choices about who to tax and how much to tax that are faced in the other states and magnified a thousand fold for the Federal government. She has no knowledge of the complexities of the income tax code. Her experience has not exposed her to the concept of an individual income tax structure that is supposed to be progressive, one in which the tax burden is the largest on those most able to bear it. The Republicans have done their best since 1980 to whittle away at this concept, but it is an idea that is totally foreign to Alaska.
She doesn't have any exposure to the social security and medicare tax system and how they are integral to the welfare of our seniors. She doesn't really know anything about the corporate tax system, which has a marginal rate of 35% but results in an effective tax rate that is far less and in which two thirds of corporations pay no taxes
When you leave the foreign affairs realm, many of the most contentious debates a President face involve the budget. Where to get the money for Head Start, health care, education, environmental protection and on and on. No one wants to pay taxes, but someone must. Sarah lives in a state that is riding the type of gravy train that has immunized her from having to face these tough choices. It is hard to imagine anyone less qualified to serve as President of the United States.
Oh, yes, the numbers at the beginning. Those are the years in which a President has died in office. Eight Presidents have died in office. Every one of those events has been tragic. That tragedy is compounded immeasurably if the Vice President is unqualified to take the reins of government.
Wednesday, August 20, 2008
Court Rules That No Fly List Can Be Challenged
The Ninth Circuit ruled that a person can challenge the inclusion of their name on the government's no fly list. Sounds pretty obvious that you should have that right, but that isn't the Bush Administration's position.
The case is Ibrahim v Department of Homeland Security and it was decided by a two to one decision of the Ninth Circuit Court if Appeals.
Ms. Ibrahim was a Stanford student on a student visa from Malaysia, who also happens to be a Muslim. When she tried to fly home from San Francisco, she was blocked from boarding the flight, detained and handcuffed in front of her fourteen year old daughter, and taken to a police station. Two hours later she was released and she was permitted to fly home the following day after being subjected to "enhanced searches."
The suit was filed against numerous agencies and individuals alleging a range of violations, from Constitutional due process to violations of the Administrative Procedures Act. Basically all of her claims were denied in the District Court, which is the first level trial court in the Federal system. The Court of Appeals reversed two critical aspects of the trial court's decision. First, it held that the trial court did have jurisdiction to here the issue of whether her name was wrongly placed on the list. Secondly the court held she could pursue a claim against a TSA employee, John Bondanella, in his personal capacity, for his actions in connection with her detention.
This is a complex case involving questions of jurisdiction and statutory construction. (The Constitutional issues were not addressed.) The government was arguing that any challenges of this sort could only be filed in an appeals court. But the Ninth Circuit disagreed, holding that the statutory provision in question, 49 USC 46110, did not apply in this case because the no fly list is maintained by the Terrorist Screening Center, which is part of the FBI and therefore not covered by that statutory provision. Beyond the technical question, which is a close call, the Court looked at the practicalities of the case.
It remains to be seen what impact this decision will have and whether it will be appealed. But is once again puts at issue the entire question of whether there should even be these kinds of lists and if they are to be maintained how can it be done in a way reasonably consistent with civil liberties.
I believe a no fly list makes no sense. If someone is a real threat based on real evidence they should be investigated and prosecuted. If there is no evidence of wrongdoing they should be free to conduct their affairs like any other citizen. If the authorities have reason to believe someone is going to bomb a plane, they can be detained and prosecuted. But having a list of hundreds of thousands of names of people who might have talked to someone who talked to someone who read a book about terrorism is idiotic. It not only abuses the rights of innocent people but also diverts recourses from meaningful activity. It is all done in the interest of creating an illusion of security, nothing more.
The case is Ibrahim v Department of Homeland Security and it was decided by a two to one decision of the Ninth Circuit Court if Appeals.
Ms. Ibrahim was a Stanford student on a student visa from Malaysia, who also happens to be a Muslim. When she tried to fly home from San Francisco, she was blocked from boarding the flight, detained and handcuffed in front of her fourteen year old daughter, and taken to a police station. Two hours later she was released and she was permitted to fly home the following day after being subjected to "enhanced searches."
The suit was filed against numerous agencies and individuals alleging a range of violations, from Constitutional due process to violations of the Administrative Procedures Act. Basically all of her claims were denied in the District Court, which is the first level trial court in the Federal system. The Court of Appeals reversed two critical aspects of the trial court's decision. First, it held that the trial court did have jurisdiction to here the issue of whether her name was wrongly placed on the list. Secondly the court held she could pursue a claim against a TSA employee, John Bondanella, in his personal capacity, for his actions in connection with her detention.
This is a complex case involving questions of jurisdiction and statutory construction. (The Constitutional issues were not addressed.) The government was arguing that any challenges of this sort could only be filed in an appeals court. But the Ninth Circuit disagreed, holding that the statutory provision in question, 49 USC 46110, did not apply in this case because the no fly list is maintained by the Terrorist Screening Center, which is part of the FBI and therefore not covered by that statutory provision. Beyond the technical question, which is a close call, the Court looked at the practicalities of the case.
Our interpretation of section 46110 is consistent not merely with the statutory language but with common sense as well. Just how would an appellate court review the agency’s decision to put a particular name on the list? There was no hearing
before an administrative law judge; there was no notice-and- comment procedure. For all we know, there is no administrative record of any sort for us to review. See Florence, supra, at 2155-59 (the process of maintaining the No-Fly List is opaque). So if any court is going to review the government’s decision to put Ibrahim’s name on the No-Fly List, it makes sense that it be a court with the ability to take evidence.
It remains to be seen what impact this decision will have and whether it will be appealed. But is once again puts at issue the entire question of whether there should even be these kinds of lists and if they are to be maintained how can it be done in a way reasonably consistent with civil liberties.
I believe a no fly list makes no sense. If someone is a real threat based on real evidence they should be investigated and prosecuted. If there is no evidence of wrongdoing they should be free to conduct their affairs like any other citizen. If the authorities have reason to believe someone is going to bomb a plane, they can be detained and prosecuted. But having a list of hundreds of thousands of names of people who might have talked to someone who talked to someone who read a book about terrorism is idiotic. It not only abuses the rights of innocent people but also diverts recourses from meaningful activity. It is all done in the interest of creating an illusion of security, nothing more.
Wednesday, July 30, 2008
Three More "Worst Of The Worst" Are Freed, With An Orwellian Explanation
The Department of Defense announced today that three more Guantanamo detainees have been released. We don't know their names but one was sent to Afghanistan, another to the UAE, and the third to Qatar. These are three more of the five hundred prisoners who Donald rumsfeld labelled as the "worst of the worst" who have been released from Guantanamo without charges. According to DoD there are 265 left to go.
This announcement is good news for these prisoners but what is really remarkable is the language used by DoD in making the announcement. First, there is this,
Comprehensive review process? It's been six years. We prosecuted and won victory in WWII in three and a half years but it takes six years to finally figure out these poor schmucks shouldn't be in custody. If it gets any more comprehensive they'll be sending these guys home with walkers.
But not to rest on its laurels, the release goes on,
"No longer than necessary?" Who are they kidding? Everything they knew about these guys was made known soon after their capture. If they are like the typical Guantanamo detainee they were not captured on a battlefield. They were guys who were turned over by bounty hunting Pakistanis and Afghanis looking for a quick buck. Most of them were foreigners going to schools or passing through, and some were locals against whom Afghanis had familial or clan grudges.
But especially rich is the crowing about this wonderful process, which is claimed to be unprecedented in the annals warfare. Damn right it is unprecedented. We pay bounty hunters to round up people and gin up some "evidence" about their supposed misdeeds. We hold and torture them for a while before shipping them to Guantanamo where they get more of the same. They are isolated for long periods, interrogated endlessly, and after six years we say "OOps," you are no longer a threat.
The press release goes on to say that another 65 of the remaining 265 prisoners are eligible for release. And so far people have been released to the following countries,
What about the ones not yet cleared for release. Well, one is a guy named Hamdan who is currently on trial. Unlike the other 500, he actually had a connection to Al Qaeda, but his "crime" seems a little tenuous. He was nabbed for having been Osama bin Laden's driver. Here at the ACLU's website is an update on what happened at the trial today. Actually, they watched a movies prepared by the DoD which depicts the evils of AQ, but doesn't say anything about the actual case that is being tried.
If these prosecutors had any sense of history they would understand the true pathos and tragedy of this case against OBL's driver. In 1945 the US took the lead in prosecuting the surviving members of the genocidal Nazi regime. Anything OBL has done pales in comparison with what Hitler and his minions did. There was one person, though, who was not prosecuted — he was Hitler's driver. That man's name was Erich Kempka who, in addition to being Hitler's driver, was also an SS officer who was with Hitler from 1934 all the way to the last day in the bunker. Not only was he not tried at Nuremberg, he was a witness for the defense of Martin Bormann
In the words of the DoD press release our actions in Guantanamo truly are "unprecedented."
This announcement is good news for these prisoners but what is really remarkable is the language used by DoD in making the announcement. First, there is this,
These detainees were determined to be eligible for transfer following a comprehensive series of review processes.
Comprehensive review process? It's been six years. We prosecuted and won victory in WWII in three and a half years but it takes six years to finally figure out these poor schmucks shouldn't be in custody. If it gets any more comprehensive they'll be sending these guys home with walkers.
But not to rest on its laurels, the release goes on,
The transfer is a demonstration of the United States’ desire not to hold detainees any longer than necessary. It also underscores the processes put in place to assess each individual and make a determination about their detention while hostilities are ongoing — an unprecedented step in the history of warfare.
"No longer than necessary?" Who are they kidding? Everything they knew about these guys was made known soon after their capture. If they are like the typical Guantanamo detainee they were not captured on a battlefield. They were guys who were turned over by bounty hunting Pakistanis and Afghanis looking for a quick buck. Most of them were foreigners going to schools or passing through, and some were locals against whom Afghanis had familial or clan grudges.
But especially rich is the crowing about this wonderful process, which is claimed to be unprecedented in the annals warfare. Damn right it is unprecedented. We pay bounty hunters to round up people and gin up some "evidence" about their supposed misdeeds. We hold and torture them for a while before shipping them to Guantanamo where they get more of the same. They are isolated for long periods, interrogated endlessly, and after six years we say "OOps," you are no longer a threat.
The press release goes on to say that another 65 of the remaining 265 prisoners are eligible for release. And so far people have been released to the following countries,
Albania, Algeria, Afghanistan, Australia, Bangladesh, Bahrain, Belgium, Denmark, Egypt, France, Great Britain, Iran, Iraq, Jordan, Kuwait, Libya, Maldives, Mauritania, Morocco, Pakistan, Russia, Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Spain, Sweden, Sudan, Tajikistan, Turkey, Uganda, United Kingdom, United Arab Emirates, and Yemen.
What about the ones not yet cleared for release. Well, one is a guy named Hamdan who is currently on trial. Unlike the other 500, he actually had a connection to Al Qaeda, but his "crime" seems a little tenuous. He was nabbed for having been Osama bin Laden's driver. Here at the ACLU's website is an update on what happened at the trial today. Actually, they watched a movies prepared by the DoD which depicts the evils of AQ, but doesn't say anything about the actual case that is being tried.
If these prosecutors had any sense of history they would understand the true pathos and tragedy of this case against OBL's driver. In 1945 the US took the lead in prosecuting the surviving members of the genocidal Nazi regime. Anything OBL has done pales in comparison with what Hitler and his minions did. There was one person, though, who was not prosecuted — he was Hitler's driver. That man's name was Erich Kempka who, in addition to being Hitler's driver, was also an SS officer who was with Hitler from 1934 all the way to the last day in the bunker. Not only was he not tried at Nuremberg, he was a witness for the defense of Martin Bormann
In the words of the DoD press release our actions in Guantanamo truly are "unprecedented."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
