With Bin Laden dead, can we have our rights back?

On Sunday, May 1, President Obama announced the death of Al Qaida leader Osama bin Laden, the notorious terrorist who spearheaded the 9/11 attacks against the U.S. While the predominant reaction from around the world has been one of relief and joy, bin Laden’s death reminds us of just how big an impact the 9/11 attacks had on us and the way we perceive and treat each other.

While the U.S. was already grappling with the immigration issue, 9/11 triggered a major overhaul of legislation that imposed stringent restrictions on immigration and gave the government much greater power to infringe on the rights of citizens and visitors to this country. The U.S had essentially gone into lock-down mode domestically, and U.S. foreign policy became more aggressive. At the time of the attacks, Barack Obama was an local politician only known in Chicago, and largely unknown to the world. He wrote a short article for his local newspaper, the Hyde Park Herald, in which he reacted to the tragic events of that day and suggested a cautious approach to its repercussions. He stated-

The essence of this tragedy, it seems to me, derives from a fundamental absence of empathy on the part of the attackers: an inability to imagine, or connect with, the humanity and suffering of others. Such a failure of empathy, such numbness to the pain of a child or the desperation of a parent, is not innate; nor, history tells us, is it unique to a particular culture, religion, or ethnicity….

We will have to make sure, despite our rage, that any U.S. military action takes into account the lives of innocent civilians abroad. We will have to be unwavering in opposing bigotry or discrimination directed against neighbors and friends of Middle Eastern descent. Finally, we will have to devote far more attention to the monumental task of raising the hopes of embittered children across the globe—children not just in the Middle East, but also in Africa, Asia, Latin American, Eastern Europe, and within our own shores.

Obama’s emphasis on steering clear of blind rage and discrimination, as a way of blaming certain groups for the attacks, seems prophetic now. Over the last ten years, we have witnessed increasingly stringent immigration enforcement, and a steady dissolution of civil rights and attitudes towards immigrant communities, especially Muslim-Americans and South Asians. This view was echoed by Chris Hedges, a senior journalist and war correspondent who witnessed 9/11 and was plunged into its aftermath. In an address at a fundraising event on Sunday night as news of bin Laden’s death was creeping in, Hedges remembered-

When I was in New York, as some of you were, on 9/11, I was in Times Square when the second plane hit. I walked into The New York Times, I stuffed notebooks in my pocket and walked down the West Side Highway and was at Ground Zero four hours later. I was there when Building 7 collapsed. And I watched as a nation drank deep from that very dark elixir of American nationalism … the flip side of nationalism is always racism, it’s about self-exaltation and the denigration of the other.

The risks and backlash that both Obama and Hedges referenced have materialized over the last decade and placed the U.S. at a crucial crossroads where the decisions we take now will significantly impact the America of the future. In its fifth week, Breakthrough‘s human rights Facebook game America 2049 takes players to their mission in Phoenix, Arizona, which has been in someway the epicenter of the immigration debate.  In Phoenix, players confront heightened debates around severely restricted immigration policies. Players are also confronted with a scenario where ethnic celebrations and festivals have been outlawed for fear that “they promote dissent and unnecessarily emphasize differences between populations.” The game presents players with choices for how to address such a situation in the future, and by referencing historical artifacts, shows how our present could very well lead to the dytopic future that the game depicts. One example of this historical reference is a 1920s songbook – “O! Close the Gates.” (see photo) – that demonized immigrants in popular culture.

In Level 5 of America 2049, players also meet Cynthia Espinoza. Watch her testimonial about the need to preserve America’s multicultural heritage:

America 2049 addresses the rights of immigrants, including forced immigrant workers, in a country that has struggled to reach a rational solution to the “foreign threats” amplified by the attacks of 9/11. The attacks changed the immigration issue in America dramatically, sparking off a wave of new legislation or a tightening of existing ones. In an intriguing article, the Southern California Public Radio (SCPR) outlined five ways in which Osama bin Laden — and the 9/11 attacks he masterminded — altered the immigration landscape in the U.S. These include, perhaps most notoriously, the establishment of the Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), which has been responsible for a growing number of deportations each year, as well as the now-canceled Secure Border Initiative network (SBInet) or the “virtual fence” that was planned for the entire stretch of US-Mexico border. The erosion of basic rights accelerated with the Patriot Act, which considerably expanded the government’s ability to conduct surveillance over Americans.

The calls for comprehensive immigration reform have intensified over the past few years, making it even more pressing to address the rights of immigrants who have no criminal records and are working hard to become part of American society. Another aspect of the immigration debate that is brought up in America 2049 is the degradation of immigrant worker rights and forced migration. While the tragedy of 9/11 caused the government to enforce stricter anti-immigrant legislation, one of the side effects has been the neglect of immigrant worker conditions. In America 2049, players discover an actual account by a Puerto Rican laborer at Camp Bragg, Rafael F. Marchan, who protested against his deplorable working conditions in the early 1900s. Unfortunately, such situations still exist today, as reported by the New York Times about a story of “500 Indian men hired by Signal International of Alabama for rebuilding after Hurricane Katrina were confined in squalid camps, illegally charged for lodging and food, and subject to discrimination and abuse.” The fact that such forced servitude of immigrant workers continues a hundred years on from the example in America 2049 proves that prompt action must be taken to restore basic human rights for everyone.

So while the world celebrates the end of a tyrant, we must remember that more than celebrating a death, we must take this opportunity to work towards lasting peace and respect for basic rights for everyone, regardless of race, ethnicity, religion or background. Osama bin Laden caused much havoc around the world and claimed countless innocent lives, but letting his actions be used as a reason for the dissolution of respect and rights for hard working, innocent people can simply not be justified. As a statement that circulated virally soon after bin Laden’s death was announced said- “If Osama Bin Laden is dead, can we have our rights back?” Ten years on, let’s make that our main goal.

http://restorefairness.org/2011/05/%E2%80%9Cwith-osama-bin-laden-dead-can-we-have-our-rights-back%E2%80%9D-%E2%80%93-how-the-effects-of-911-could-lead-to-america-2049/

$4 Gas: Get Used To It

by Jacob Goldstein

Get in line.

In China, there's one car or truck for every 14 people. In the U.S., the ratio is nearly one to one.

But China's catching up. The country is now the world's biggest car market, and the the number of civilian vehicles in the country grew by an astonishing 19 percent last year.

As a result of this kind of growth, demand for oil is shooting up in China and other developing countries. And it's likely to keep rising in the years years to come.

But the world's big oil-producing regions may be unable or unwilling to increase production fast enough to keep up.

The combination of long-term increases in demand and sluggish growth in supply means we should get used to higher prices for oil — and, by extension, higher gas prices.

It's true that the most recent spike in oil prices was precipitated by unrest in the Middle East and North Africa. So if things settle down in the region, the price of oil and gasoline will likely fall in the short term.

In fact, just today, oil prices fell sharply.

But those longer-term trends aren't going away.

 

Saudi Arabia, the world's largest oil supplier, has historically increased production when demand rose. But, lately, it hasn't been doing that. The country is now producing less oil per day than it was in 2005.

Saudi Arabia hasn't publicly explained the change , according James Hamilton, an economist and oil expert.

It's possible that the country has decided its economic interest is best served by producing less oil. It's also possible that the country just isn't able to increase output.

"Their main field, the world's largest producing field, has been in production since 1951," Hamilton told me. "Sooner or later, that's going into decline. A lot of people think it's now."

Other big fields, including those in Mexican waters and the North Sea, are also in decline, he said.

Hamilton said that two common complaints about higher oil prices — that they're caused by publicly traded oil companies, and that they're caused by speculators — don't hold up in the long term.

Publicly traded oil companies account for a minority of global oil production; most oil is supplied by state-owned oil firms. Those countries try to regulate oil production via OPEC, but they often fail to stick to predetermined targets. In other words, the cartel often doesn't function very well.

And speculators can't affect the price of oil in the long term. If they bid up the price higher than the market can bear, oil stockpiles will increase, which in turn will put downward pressure on prices.

"There's an underlying reality on the ground, which is the people consuming the oil and the people producing the oil," Hamilton said.

Even as growth slows from Saudi Arabia and other big producers, other regions around the world may pick up the slack. Iraq, Central Asia, and parts of Africa, Canada and the U.S. all may increase output, according to Hamilton.

That could drive down prices for a while. But, in the medium term, there's a good chance that supply just won't be able to keep up with demand.

"The demand is pretty darn sure," Hamilton said. "Even if we get through a few years here, we're going to be right back in the same boat soon."

For a look at what that might mean, Hamilton cited the years leading up to the financial crisis.

Between 2005 and 2007, he said, China's oil consumption increased by 1 million barrels a day. But global oil production didn't increase at all. So other countries wound up consuming less oil.

A key lesson from those years, Hamilton says: "It takes an awfully high price of oil to persuade us to reduce consumption."

http://www.npr.org/blogs/money/2011/05/05/135995528/-4-gas-get-used-to-it?sc=fb&cc=fp

Kids, Seniors, Disabled, Others Would Feel Sting of Ryan’s Medicaid Cuts

by January Angeles
May 5, 2011 at 1:58 pm

Converting Medicaid to a block grant and cutting its federal funding nearly in half over the next two decades, as House Budget Committee Chairman Paul Ryan’s budget would do (see graph), would carry serious consequences for some of the most vulnerable Americans, as I explain in a recent report.  Here are just a few examples of how different groups could be affected:

• Seniors: An overwhelming majority of Medicare beneficiaries who live in nursing homes rely on Medicaid for their nursing home coverage.  Because the Ryan plan would require such deep cuts in federal Medicaid funding, it would inevitably result in less coverage for nursing home residents and shift more of the cost of nursing home care to elderly beneficiaries and their families.  A sharp reduction in the quality of nursing home care would be virtually inevitable, due to the large reduction that would occur in the resources made available to pay for such care.


• People with disabilities: These individuals constitute 15 percent of Medicaid beneficiaries but account for 42 percent of all Medicaid expenditures, mostly because of their extensive health and long-term care needs.  Capping federal Medicaid funding would place significant financial pressure on states to scale back eligibility and coverage for this high-cost population, many of whom would be unable to obtain coverage elsewhere because of their medical conditions.



• Children: Currently, state Medicaid programs must provide children with health care services and treatments they need for their healthy development through the Early Periodic Screening, Diagnostic and Treatment (EPSDT) aspect of Medicaid, which provides regular preventive care for children and all follow-up diagnostic and treatment services that children are found to need.  A block grant would likely permit states to drop EPSDT coverage, meaning that children, particularly those with special health care needs, would not be able to access some care that medical professionals find they need (because Medicaid would no longer cover certain health services and treatments for children, and their parents wouldn’t be able to afford to pay for that care on their own).

• Working parents and pregnant women: Many state Medicaid programs already have extremely restrictive eligibility criteria for parents.  In the typical state, working parents are ineligible for Medicaid if their income exceeds 64 percent of the poverty line (or $14,304 a year for a family of four), and unemployed parents are ineligible if their income exceeds 37 percent of the poverty line ($8,270 a year for a family of four).  Under a block grant, states could cut these already low eligibility levels even further, cap enrollment, and/or require low-income parents to pay more for health services.  States could do the same for low-income pregnant women who rely on Medicaid for their prenatal care, resulting in them forgoing services that are critical to ensuring a healthy pregnancy.

Unfortunately, that’s not all.  The Ryan budget, which the House passed on April 15, would also repeal the health reform law’s Medicaid expansion.  Health reform will result in some 17 million more people gaining coverage through Medicaid by 2021, according to the Congressional Budget Office.  If it’s repealed, millions of low-income parents and childless adults would remain uninsured.

http://www.offthechartsblog.org/kids-seniors-disabled-others-would-feel-sting-of-ryan%E2%80%99s-medicaid-cuts/

Five Biggest Recipients Of Corporate Tax Breaks Spent $8 Million In 2010 Elections (UPDATED)

Amanda Terkel
First Posted: 05/ 3/11 03:30 PM ET
Updated: 05/ 4/11 11:09 AM ET

This story has been updated.

WASHINGTON -- The top five recipients of large federal corporate tax breaks in 2009 are also among the biggest spenders in the U.S. political system -- they shelled out a combined $7.86 million in campaign contributions during the 2010 elections (in political action committee and individual employee contributions), according to analysis from the New York City Public Advocate's office. Bill de Blasio, the public advocate, is now calling on these companies to verify that no taxpayer dollars will be used in future election spending, warning such a move could "carry financial risk to the [companies'] bottom line."

De Blasio, a Democrat, has aggressively gone after campaign finance accountability and successfully used his bully pulpit to convince several Wall Street firms not to spend any corporate dollars on political advertising.

According to the analysis by de Blasio's office, ExxonMobil, Bank of America, General Electric (GE), Chevron and Boeing had combined profits of $77.16 billion in 2010 but paid $0 in current federal income taxes in 2009. [ExxonMobil's spokesman contacted The Huffington Post and disputed this figure. See below.] It should be noted, however, a Chevron spokesman said the company paid current taxes of $1.5 billion and deferred taxes of $162 million for 2010.

At the same time, these companies gave a combined $7.86 million in political contributions during the 2010 election cycle -- a 7 percent jump over their 2008 political spending.

Charts via the Office the Public Advocate:

According to the Center for Responsive Politics, all five of these companies ranked among the top 100 biggest political spenders between 1989 and 2010, with Chevron and ExxonMobil giving more heavily to Republicans, and the other three corporations generally balancing donations between the two parties.

In 2010 alone, Boeing ranked 28th in political giving ("on the fence" in political leanings), GE ranked 30th ("leans Democratic"), Bank of America ranked 37th ("leans Republican") and ExxonMobil ranked 93rd ("strongly Republican"). Chevron was not in the top 100 overall donors for the year.

"[Corporate] tax breaks were put in place to promote growth and create jobs, not bankroll the political causes of corporate executives," said de Blasio in a statement. "The unencumbered and anonymous spending in elections let loose by the Citizens United ruling has opened the door for a gross misuse of taxpayer dollars. No company that can afford to spend millions of dollars to influence our elections should be pleading poverty come tax time."

The Supreme Court's landmark ruling in Citizens United cleared the way for a federal court's decision in Speechnow.org v. FEC, which opened the floodgates for unlimited election spending by certain independent political groups, as long as they do not coordinate their activities with political candidates or party committees. These groups can raise unlimited funds from individuals, corporations and unions. Thanks to the ruling, the five companies could have contributed even more than the $7.86 million than was disclosed in 2010.

De Blasio sent letters to the heads of each of the corporations, expressing concern over the use of their federal tax credits. He urged each company to "ensure full disclosure of its political spending to demonstrate that these funds and other corporate treasury dollars are not being used for political spending and electioneering." He also asked all of them except GE to adopt policies that prohibit their trade association dues from being used for political contributions and electioneering.

His office is also launching a campaign to ask the public to email ExxonMobil and urge the company to "adopt the proposed shareholder resolution on disclosure of political spending," which will be considered at the company's May 25 shareholders meeting.

In response to de Blasio's statement, ExxonMobil spokesman Alan Jeffers told The Huffington Post in an email that the company complies with all tax laws and disclosure requirements. He also addressed some criticism of ExxonMobil's federal taxes.

"Recent media reports have highlighted efforts by lawmakers to end economy-wide tax deductions for U.S. oil companies that were established to support manufacturing jobs in the United States and prevent U.S. companies from paying double taxation on income earned outside the country," Jeffers wrote. "ExxonMobil is one of the largest taxpayers in the United States," he added. "During the first quarter of this year, on earnings of $2.6 billion in the United States, we incurred U.S. tax expenses of $3.1 billion."

Boeing held its shareholders meeting on Monday and according to a spokesman, 67 percent of shareholders voted with the management against publishing amounts contributed to trade associations. The company already publishes its other political contributions online.

"Like most of its competitors, Boeing does not publish amounts contributed to trade associations or otherwise mandate disclosure of funds spent for non-political purposes that are later used by the third parties to support political activity," reads the Board of Directors' statement in opposition. It cites problems with potentially revealing corporate strategy to competitors through this information and problems in compelling third parties to reveal whether they used Boeing-contributed funds for political purposes.

GE spokesman Andrew Williams sent a statement that, like Exxon's, did not address the issue of political contributions and also took exception to media reports on the company's tax liability.

"We will file our 2010 tax returns by September," he wrote to The Huffington Post. "We expect to have a small federal income tax liability. In 2010, GE paid significant federal income taxes for prior years. We also paid about $1 billion in 2010 in other state, local and federal taxes in the U.S." Williams said the company's federal tax rate was low in 2010 because the company "lost billions of dollars in GE Capital, our financial arm, as a result of the global financial crisis. Similarly, in 2009 GE Capital's losses were so large that the total company lost money on its U.S. operations." He added that GE expects its tax rate will be higher in 2011 as GE Capital recovers.

In March, however, GE told shareholders that the company expected to get back a $3.2 billion tax benefit from the federal government.

Last year, Bank of America agreed to begin publishing a summary of its political donations online.

"We comply with all state and federal campaign regulations," said Bank of America spokesman Jerry Dubrowski. "Our policy is not to make corporate contributions to candidates for public office."

In a statement, Chevron wrote, "Chevron is committed to adhering to the highest standards of ethics and transparency in engaging in any political contributions. We have strict policies and internal approval processes so that decision making and reporting on political contributions comply with the letter and spirit of all applicable laws. A list of corporate contributions made during 2010 is available on Chevron.com." It also defended its taxes, stating, "Between 1998 and 2008, the oil and gas industry paid $1 trillion in total income taxes. ... In 2010, Chevron, as an example, paid $12.9 billion in taxes on pretax income of $32.1 billion, or an effective tax rate of 40 percent."

Large corporations that won't be paying any federal income taxes have faced fierce bipartisan criticism in recent weeks.

Former Wisconsin senator Russ Feingold, who now runs the Progressives United political action committee, launched a campaign pressuring GE CEO Jeffrey Immelt on the issue. And in April, there were massive protests in Washington state over the Democratic-controlled legislature proposing cuts to public programs over closing corporate tax loopholes.

For the past month, Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) has been publicly shaming what he calls the "worst corporate income tax avoiders" in an effort to share the burden of deficit reduction more equally, rather than letting it fall more on programs that assist low-income and middle-class individuals. The top five federal corporate tax break recipients have been particular targets of Sanders' campaign.

UPDATE: 10:41 p.m. -- ExxonMobil spokesman Alan Jeffers disputes the $156 million 2009 federal tax benefits figure, arguing the company paid $500 million in US income taxes in 2009. De Blasio's office based its number on ExxonMobil's publicly available SEC filing documents (form 10-K filed in 2010). Politifact has a longer analysis of ExxonMobil's taxes here.

This article has also been updated to include a statement from Chevron.

The chart originally provided by de Blasio's office incorrectly identified 2009 federal income taxes as being from 2010. Federal 2009 taxes are the most recent taxes paid by all corporations listed. The 2010 profits are the most recent profits reported. De Blasio's original chart can be viewed here.

The story was also changed to include Chevron's 2010 tax filings.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/05/03/recipients-corporate-tax-breaks-elections_n_856630.html?view=print

Gov. Walker signs bill blocking communities from passing sick leave ordinances

Governor says the new bill removes another barrier to creating jobs

11:11 AM CDT, May 5, 2011

MADISON (AP)

Gov. Scott Walker has signed a bill that prohibits local governments from passing ordinances guaranteeing workers' paid sick and family leave.

The Republican measure came after a state appeals court upheld a Milwaukee ordinance requiring employers to give workers paid sick leave. Milwaukee voters overwhelmingly approved the ordinance by referendum two years ago but it's been tied up in the courts ever since.

The bill declares that statewide employee leave provisions trump local ordinances and prohibits cities, villages, towns and counties from adopting their own.

Walker, a Republican, says in a statement the bill removes another barrier to creating jobs. Milwaukee Mayor Tom Barrett, a Democrat who ran against Walker for governor, opposes the bill, saying it could drive jobs out of the city.

http://www.fox6now.com/news/politics/witi-20110505-sick-leave-bill,0,2257310,print.story

GOP Chooses Big Oil at the Expense of Granny

By Jim Hightower, AlterNet
Posted on May 4, 2011, Printed on May 5, 2011
http://www.alternet.org/story/150833/gop_chooses_big_oil_at_the_expense_of_granny

Now, let's check today's sports scores: 4, 10.7 and 21-and-a-half.

Those tallies are from the oil league, and the winner, of course, is the league's powerhouse, ExxonMobil.

Four, as you might have guessed, is the $4 that Exxon is siphoning out of your wallet these days for 1 gallon of its petrol.

Next comes 10.7. That's the $10.7 billion in profits that this oil giant has soaked up in just the first three months of this year -- a new record, not achieved by any managerial genius, increased productivity or improvement in customer service, but solely by the jack-up in gasoline prices.

Finally, 21-and-a-half. This is the big score made by Rex Tillerson, Exxon's CEO. The chief pulled down $21.5 million in personal compensation last year, making him the highest paid executive in the oil league and one of the most richly paid CEOs in the entire country.

Wait ... this late-breaking score is just in: 0. That's from the special tax game that ExxonMobil consistently wins in Washington. Last year, ExMo powered through loopholes created by its slick lobbying team to pay an income tax of zero on the $19 billion it had racked up in profits the year before. But, wait again, here's a surprising update on that score: Exxon's taxes were actually less than zero! How's that possible? Because Big Oil's lobbyists have so skewed the tax system that Exxon was able to extract a $156 million rebate from us taxpayers last year.

So Exxon is soaking us at the gas pump and sacking our public treasury to gain record profits for itself, while bestowing a royal fortune on its CEO. It wins, we lose.

With a record like that, you wouldn't think the oil league would need more handouts from government -- but then, you're not a Republican congressperson.

The GOP recently pushed its appropriations priorities through the House, touting the bill as a revolutionary, politically responsible, tax-saving piece of legislative art.

Well, art is in the eye of the beholder. The Repubs "saved" money by essentially killing Medicare and drastically slashing Medicaid, Head Start, EPA, food stamps, and dozens of other popular and effective programs that Americans overwhelmingly support. Having taken their blunt budget ax to these programs that support our nation's notion of the common good, GOP leaders then scampered to save one of the least popular and least effective federal programs on the books: the annual taxpayer subsidy for Big Oil.

As gasoline prices were rising toward $4 a gallon and higher, House Republicans voted unanimously to let the oil giants continue siphoning $4 billion a year out of our public treasury. All 241 of the Republican/tea party House members -- with not even one dissenter in the bunch -- declared that in this time of a supposed budget "crisis," the neediest among us are not the elderly and the poor, but the little waifs of Big Oil.

As Casey Stengel once asked of the bumbling New York Mets team he was managing, "Can't anyone here play this game?"

Meanwhile, ExxonMobil just announced a 69 percent leap in profits this year, while Chevron, ConocoPhillips and others are enjoying similar jumps in theirs. Guess what percentage of those enormous profits the corporations are likely to pay in taxes?

Zilch. Last year, ExxonMobil, Chevron and ConocoPhilips each banked multibillion-dollar profits, yet far from paying even a dime in taxes, all three worked the loopholes to get multimillion-dollar refunds from us.

Republican lawmakers had a clear choice in dealing with the deficit. So why did they choose to cut off your granny's health care, while helping these corporate billionaires make off like bandits? I guess it's a matter of who you really love.

Jim Hightower is a national radio commentator, writer, public speaker, and author of the new book, "Swim Against the Current: Even a Dead Fish Can Go With the Flow." (Wiley, March 2008) He publishes the monthly "Hightower Lowdown," co-edited by Phillip Frazer.

http://www.alternet.org/news/150833/gop_chooses_big_oil_at_the_expense_of_granny?utm_source=feedblitz&utm_medium=FeedBlitzRss&utm_campaign=alternet

GRAPH: Income Inequality In U.S. Worse Than Ivory Coast, Pakistan, Ethiopia

By Zaid Jilani
May 4th, 2011 at 12:55 pm

As ThinkProgress has repeatedly noted, crucial services and public investments for Main Street America are being gutted as taxes on the richest Americans are the lowest they’ve been in a generation. Yet many Americans may not know exactly how unfair this is, as the country has grown increasingly unequal at the same time. Using data from the CIA Factbook based on the Gini coefficient — a measure of income inequality within a society — ThinkProgress has assembled the following graph, which demonstrates that the United States is now about as economically unequal as Uganda and more unequal than countries like Pakistan or the Ivory Coast:

Income inequality in the United States is actually higher than at any other time in modern history since the Great Depression. There is also a tremendous amount of inequality even in life expectancy, with the American Human Development Index reporting in 2010 that there is now a 6 year gap in average life expectancy between Mississippi, in the Deep South, and Connecticut, in prosperous New England.” As ThinkProgress previously reported, one of the major factors in this hike in income inequality has been the decline of unionization in America.

http://thinkprogress.org/2011/05/04/us-unequal-uganda-pakistan/

With Liberty and Justice for…Corporations?

Posted on May 5, 2011 by Rania Khalek

On April 27, 2011, the Supreme Court of the United States once again ruled in favor of big business.  In the highly anticipated case of AT&T Mobility v. Concepcion, the Roberts led conservative block of the Supreme Court ruled 5-4 that federal law trumps state law in allowing companies to use arbitration clauses to prohibit consumers from joining class actions against the companies.

The case involved a California couple, Vincent and Liza Concepcion, who were charged $30.22 sales tax on the full retail price of a cellphone that was advertised as “free.”  They filed a lawsuit against AT&T for deceptive practices on behalf of a class of consumers who had also overpaid.  But the couple, along with their fellow plaintiffs, had signed a contract with AT&T that contained a “mandatory arbitration clause” which required them to settle any disputes through arbitration (a private legal proceeding) and barred them from seeking class-action treatment with other consumers, whether through arbitration or in a lawsuit brought in a traditional court.

Initially, both a federal district court and the Ninth Circuit Court sided with the Concepcions, saying it was unfair under a 2005 California Supreme Court ruling, for contracts to ban class-action litigation.  However, this was overturned by the recent Supreme Court decision, which says federal law, specifically the Federal Arbitration Act of 1925, trumps state law.

Aside from the fact that the conservative Justices who purport to be staunch defenders of “states rights” abandoned their principles for corporate interests, this ruling has chilling implications for future corporate accountability.  Corporations are now free to legally bar victims of their abuse from collectively suing in a court of law if the abused have signed a contract that includes a mandatory arbitration clause, regardless of state laws to the contrary.  This could literally render companies immune from class actions and overall accountability.

At first glance, it seems reasonable to conclude that individuals should simply steer clear of these types of contracts in order to avoid waiving their rights.  But most people are unaware that mandatory arbitration clauses are commonly used in product and service contracts, and sometimes in employment contracts–usually found buried in the fine print of billing inserts, employment handbooks, health insurance plans, and dealership agreements.

In a statement after the ruling, Deepak Gupta, a lawyer with the public interest group Public Citizen who argued the case on behalf of the Concepcions, called the decision a “crushing blow to American consumers and employees, ruling that companies can ban class actions in the fine print of contracts. Now, whenever you sign a contract to get a cell phone, open a bank account or take a job, you may be giving up your right to hold companies accountable for fraud, discrimination or other illegal practices. Class actions are an essential tool for justice in our society. Brown v. Board of Education was a class action. The fate of class actions should not be decided through the fine print of take-it-or-leave-it contracts.”

Pro-Business groups, most notably the US Chamber of Commerce’s Institute for Legal Reform, argue that arbitration is an efficient, effective, and less expensive means of resolving disputes for consumers as well as businesses.  Of course, what they mean is that it’s efficient, effective and less expensive for corporations, since companies are far less likely to use arbitration clauses in contracts with each other than they are in contracts with consumers.   And if arbitration is truly superior to the courts, it should be up to consumers and employees to voluntarily choose their preferred method of redress should a dispute arise.

In reality, arbitration is a closed, private process often with little or no written record.  When California changed its law to require that arbitration results be publicly recorded, Public Citizen reviewed 34,000 California cases, and the results were stunning.  The study found that consumers had lost more than 94 percent of cases in an arbitrations plagued by conflicts of interest, with arbitrators benefiting financially from ruling in favor of businesses.  Overall, they found that forced arbitration creates a systemic bias in favor of businesses while offering few, if any, meaningful deterrents against negligence or even foul play.

Needless to say, these contracts are intended to undermine consumer protection, civil rights, and other laws that level the playing field between big business and individuals. And because arbitration clauses are presented on a take-it-or-leave-it basis, individuals are left with no choice but to waive their rights.  Given these circumstances, it’s no suprise that AT&T had the backing of the Chamber of Commerce, Comcast, Dell, and DirectTV.  A clear pattern of the Supreme Court’s conservative majority ruling in favor of corporations while stripping away the power of individuals has emerged, and AT&T Mobility is icing on the Chamber’s eight layer cake.

In an article that appeared in Mother Jones late last year, Stephanie Mencimer quoted Paul Bland, a lawyer with the public interest law firm Public Justice, who argued that “In Concepcion, AT&T and the Chamber of Commerce are asking the Supreme Court to do the same thing for consumer protection that Citizens United did for election law…the Chamber wants the Court to overturn a number of precedents and eliminate the most important safeguards that have limited corporate abuse in the past.”

Mencimer points out that the Chamber has been systematically fighting to limit consumers access to the courts for years, particularly through class actions.  She goes on to say, “In 2005, it finally succeeded in winning legislation that made it much harder to bring such cases in state courts, after investing more than $20 million in lobbying Congress. But it didn’t stop there. It has defended the right of big companies to use contracts to wipe out whatever legal rights for consumers remained.”

At the behest of their corporate overlords, the Supremes have stripped away consumers last remaining recourse against corporate wrongdoing: class actions.  Corporations are actively rigging our civil justice system to shield themselves from accountability for fraud, discrimination, and other illegal practices, and so far they have been successful.

If you believe the effects of these contracts are isolated to small dollar rip-offs, then think again.  There are a plethora of horror stories about individuals that have been victimized by forced arbitration.  Take the case of Jamie Leigh Jones.  She was 19 when she signed a job contract with Halliburton and went to work in Iraq, where she was drugged and gang raped by her co-workers.  After actively participating in the cover-up, Halliburton used the mandatory arbitration clause in her contract against her filing suit, eventually leading to legislation ordering the federal government not to work with contractors who force employes to sign arbitration agreements involving cases of sexual assault or Title VII violations.

In an article for the Boston globe, Beth Healy highlights the heart-wrenching plight of Philip Grossman, who committed suicide after his family lost much of their savings from its encounter with a Bank of America broker.  The family tried to sue Bank of America but was denied access to the court because of an arbitration clause in Mr. Grossman’s brokerage account documents.  As Healy observed, “The Grossmans’ case shows how entrenched arbitration has become in the financial industry, demonstrating that even in an extreme case alleging wrongful death, aggrieved clients have no recourse other than a system that critics say favors investment firms.”

Keep in mind these cases took place before the current ruling.  In the aftermath of AT&T Mobility, class action waiver provisions in arbitration agreements will almost always be found enforceable.  Except that now, these types of abuses are likely to be system-wide, since companies have no reason to fear potential class actions, and therefore little incentive to act ethically from the get-go.

Corporate attorneys recognize the significance of this ruling and are advising their clients to include class action bans in their arbitration clause.  This explains why companies, thrilled at the opportunity to avoid liability, are rushing to review and revise existing arbitration clauses in standard contracts to include class action bans.

The good news is efforts are underway to reverse this disgraceful Supreme Court ruling.  Senators Al Franken (D-MN) and Richard Blumenthal (D-CT), along with Rep. Hank Johnson (D-GA), have announced their plan to reintroduce the Arbitration Fairness Act. The bill, which was first introduced in 2007, would ban forced arbitration clauses in employment, consumer, and civil rights cases, and immediately faced heavy opposition from business interests, including the Chamber of Commerce.

Another ray of hope is Elizabeth Warren, head of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB).  According to Reuters, the Dodd-Frank law gives Warren’s consumer agency the power to regulate arbitration in consumer financial-services contracts, and the agency could conclude that class-action bans are harmful to consumers.  Given Warren’s vocal support of consumer safeguards, businesses are already nervously anticipating what her new agency may have in store.

In the meantime, I suggest you visit Fair Arbitration Now for ways to join fight against forced arbitration and end the abuse once and for all.

http://raniakhalek.com/2011/05/05/with-liberty-and-justice-for-corporations/

Senior Republicans: We could drop that whole Medicare abolishment thing

Joan McCarter for Daily Kos
Thu May 05, 2011 at 07:05 AM PDT

Rep. Paul Ryan's happy talk about how constituents are "overwhelmingly supportive" of his budget plan once it's explained to them apparently didn't convince all those members of Congress who got an earful from their constituents about his Medicare proposal. It can be dropped now, according to the Washington Post and "senior Republicans."

Senior Republicans conceded Wednesday that a deal is unlikely on a contentious plan to overhaul Medicare and offered to open budget talks with the White House by focusing on areas where both parties can agree, such as cutting farm subsidies.

On the eve of debt-reduction talks led by Vice President Biden, House Majority Leader Eric Cantor (Va.) said Republicans remain convinced that reining in federal retirement programs is the key to stabilizing the nation’s finances over the long term. But he said Republicans recognize they may need to look elsewhere to achieve consensus after President Obama "excoriated us" for a proposal to privatize Medicare.

That search should start, Cantor said, with a list of GOP proposals that would save $715 billion over the next decade by ending payments to wealthy farmers, limiting lawsuits against doctors, and expanding government auctions of broadcast spectrum to telecommunications companies, among other items.

In addition to hearing directly from constituents, they can read polls, too. And stories like this one in the Wall Street Journal.

Changes to Medicare and Medicaid remain wildly unpopular and more than two-thirds of registered voters want to repeal Bush-era tax cuts for households that make more than $250,000 a year, according to the latest Quinnipiac University poll.

More than twice as many voters oppose efforts to change Medicare than those who favor limiting benefits under the popular health-care program for seniors. And a distinct majority opposes new limits on Medicaid, the federal-state health program for the poor.

Of course, almost every single House Republican voted for that Republican budget, and for the abolishment of Medicare and decimation of Medicaid. That vote can't be undone, no matter how fast they run from it now. None of which is to say they won't argue for shredding as much of the rest of the safety net as possible. Or against raising taxes on corporations and the wealthy.

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2011/05/05/973206/-Senior-Republicans:-We-could-drop-that-whole-Medicare-abolishment-thing

GOP Increases Deficit for Wars, Bank Bailouts and the Wealthy, But Cuts Medicare, Social Security and the Safety Net

ROBERT CREAMER FOR BUZZFLASH AT TRUTHOUT
Submitted by buzzadmin on Wed, 05/04/2011 - 4:41pm.

GOP Plans to Demand Mandatory Cuts in Social Security, Medicare as Price for Debt Ceiling

It is increasingly clear that the Republicans will demand mandatory cuts in Social Security and Medicare as a price for increasing the debt ceiling later this spring.

Of course they won't say they are demanding mandatory cuts in Social Security and Medicare.

Over the Easter recess they've had a taste of just how strongly people feel about Medicare. Before they left the Capitol last month House Republicans voted - almost unanimously -- for the Republican budget that ends Medicare and replaces it with a privatized system of partial support for private insurance premiums. They ran into a town hall buzz-saw of opposition in every corner of the country.

The House Republican budget plan authored by Congressman Paul Ryan isn't going anywhere in the Senate.

If the "gang of six" Senators come up with a deficit reduction plan that is acceptable to its three Democrats and three Republicans, that may attract brief interest among the elite media. But such a budget deal would have to involve substantial increases in revenue - presumably from raising taxes on the wealthy - and that has exactly zero chance of being approved by the Republican House.

But the Republicans won't let the 70-plus percent opposition to cuts in Medicare and Social Security dissuade them. They've come up with a new plan that sugarcoats their attempts to eviscerate Social Security and Medicare. It's called a "mandatory global spending cap" and it's nothing more than the House Republican budget in disguise.

The Republicans like this plan because, when you ask everyday voters if they support a "mandatory global spending cap" they think it sounds pretty good. What better way to force the government to "live within its means"?

But support turns into solid opposition the moment people understand that the "mandatory global spending cap" would require mandatory cuts in Medicare and Social Security. In fact, this proposal isn't a way to make the government "live within its means" - it's really a way to cut Medicare and Social Security in order to give more tax breaks to millionaires. It's a way to reduce the "means" that normal people live on, and hand them over to the Donald Trumps and Paris Hiltons of the world.

Turns out that if you set a spending cap at a fixed level somewhere close to the average percentage of Gross Domestic Product that has gone to Federal outlays over the last couple of decades, it will inevitably force cuts in Medicare and Social Security. That's because the percentage of the population that is older and receiving Medicare and Social Security is going up. This will automatically increase the percentage of GDP going to Medicare and Social Security benefit - which, of course, Americans have paid for their entire working lives. In fact, the "mandatory global spending cap" is a trick intended to sucker ordinary people into supporting a proposal to cut their own Social Security and Medicare benefits.

But, you say, we may just have to renege on our commitments to pay Social Security and Medicare benefit because "we're broke" and the Federal deficit is soaring out of sight.

First, of course, we're not "broke." Big corporations and the wealthiest Americans are making more money - and a higher percentage of America's total income - than ever. The fact is that if millionaires and billionaires paid taxes at the same rate they did during the Reagan Administration - and the income they earn clipping coupons on investments were taxed at the same rates as people who work for a living - that would go a long way to eliminating the deficit.

And the experts tell us that Social Security would be solvent for 75 years if you required higher-income people to pay as much in Social Security taxes as their secretaries and janitors by eliminating the cap on income for which Americans pay Social Security taxes.

But if Moderate Democrats in the Senate need to support some deficit reducing measure at the same time they vote to raise the debt ceiling, there is actually also an elegant way to require that the Government eliminate its deficits that does not require mandatory cuts in Social Security and Medicare.

Instead of a "mandatory spending cap" you could pass a "mandatory deficit cap." This would require Congress to agree on a gradually-lower year-by-year dollar target for the deficit over the next ten years. Congress could achieve this target through any means - from raising taxes on the rich, to cutting spending, to eliminating tax expenditures like subsidies to oil companies. If it failed to do so that would trigger automatic reductions in spending - and tax expenditures. Social Security and Medicare would be excluded, since the benefits paid by these programs have been earned and paid for during people's working lives. The same would be true for the small percentage of Federal expenditures going to low-income programs that provide the critical social safety net.

That kind of "deficit trigger" is similar to -- though not exactly like -- the one proposed by President Obama in his budget speech. It would provide the discipline to force Congress to cut deficits over the next decade, without requiring cuts in Social Security and Medicare. It would also allow moderate Democrats in the Senate to support action that is responsive to voter concern about the deficit that doesn't run a foul of their rock-solid support for Social Security and Medicare.

Of course the problem with this proposal from the Republican point of view is that it actually addresses the deficit - and forces Congress to choose between tax breaks for the rich on the one hand, and Social Security and Medicare on the other. Since three-fourths of the voters choose cutting tax breaks for the rich, the Wall Street/CEO faction of the Republican Party (the dominate faction of the GOP) is not so wild about this approach. In fact, of course they don't really care about the "deficit." All they really care about are more and more tax breaks for themselves. They were perfectly happy, for instance, to massively increase the deficit last fall in order to continue the Bush tax breaks for the wealthy.

On the other hand, the Wall Street/CEO faction of the Republican Party is not about to allow the Tea Party gang to default on the Federal Debt and precipitate another financial market meltdown.

That's why, if Democrats frame the choice as a "global spending cap that will mandate cuts in Medicare and Social Security" versus a "deficit trigger" that will protect Social Security, Medicare and the social safety net - but also get the Federal Deficit under control - Democrats win.

But it's up to Democrats to affirmatively frame the debate in the upcoming budget battle. And it's critical that moderate Senate Democrats do not allow themselves to be stampeded into knee jerk positions that look good at first blush, but on closer inspection have horrific implications for their constituents on the one hand, and turn out to be politically unpopular on the other.

Robert Creamer is a long-time political organizer and strategist, and author of the book: Stand Up Straight: How Progressives Can Win, available on Amazon.com. Follow him on Twitter @rbcreamer.

http://blog.buzzflash.com/node/12664