Patriotic Rich People Deserve Credit

Here is the text of an open letter that a group of millionaires is sending to President Obama:

We are writing to urge you to stand firm against those who would put politics ahead of their country.

For the fiscal health of our nation and the well-being of our fellow citizens, we ask that you allow tax cuts on incomes over $1,000,000 to expire at the end of this year as scheduled.

We make this request as loyal citizens who now or in the past earned an income of $1,000,000 per year or more.

We have done very well over the last several years. Now, during our nation’s moment of need, we are eager to do our fair share. We don’t need more tax cuts, and we understand that cutting our taxes will increase the deficit and the debt burden carried by other taxpayers. The country needs to meet its financial obligations in a just and responsible way.

Letting tax cuts for incomes over $1,000,000 expire, is an important step in that direction.

So far, millionaires from all over the country have joined in this patriotic gesture. They have even set up a website that makes it easy for millionaires to add their name to the letter. If you happen to be a millionaire reading this blog you must do two things right away: 1)click on the paypal "donate" button towards the top right of my blog, and 2) visit the "Patriotic Millionaires for Fiscal Strength" website and sign this letter!

A tough winter ahead

House Democrats, under an arrangement that requires a two-thirds majority for passage, were unable to extend jobless benefits for millions of Americans. As Arthur Delaney reports:

The House of Representatives on Thursday voted down a measure that would have reauthorized extended unemployment insurance for another three months, leaving no clear path forward to prevent the benefits from lapsing as scheduled on Nov. 30.

Without a reauthorization, the Labor Department estimates that two million long-term unemployed will prematurely stop receiving benefits before the end of the year.

"I think it's a sad moment," said Rep. Alan Grayson (D-Fla.) after the vote. "It appalls me that the Republicans keep pitching and pitching and pitching the tax cuts for the rich and won't join in a bill to help people keep their homes and not have to live in their cars."

The bill was brought to the floor under a "suspension of the rules," meaning it required approval from two-thirds of the House. It failed 258 to 154, with mostly Democratic support. Twenty-one Republicans voted in favor and 11 Democrats voted nay.

I guess it shouldn't be any surprise that Heath Shuler was one of the 11 so-called "Democrats" who voted against continuing to help millions of jobless Americans survive. Nancy Pelosi should tell all of the families in his district, that will be hurt, to set up a "tent city" in Rep. Shuler's fancy neighborhood.

Alan Grayson gets real

It is a real shame we're losing Alan Grayson in Congress:

An easy choice

Robert Reich points out how sound economic policy and basic decency both demand the same response:

Republicans are still spouting nutty Social Darwinism. Cutting taxes on the rich is better than helping the unemployed, they say, because the rich will create jobs with their extra money while giving money to the unemployed reduces their desire to look for work.

Rubbish. The Bush tax cuts on the top never trickled down. Between 2002 and 2007 the median wage dropped, adjusted for inflation. And job growth was pathetic.

Jobless benefits don’t deter the unemployed from finding work. In most states, unemployment benefits are a fraction of former wages. And as long as unemployment remains sky-high, there are no jobs to be had anyway.

Besides, the economic downturn was hardly their fault. If anyone is to blame it’s the high-flyers on Wall Street who gambled away other people’s money, and the rich denizens of corporate executive suites who have sliced payrolls in order to show higher profits (and get more money from their stock options).

So why reward the people at the top with an extension of the Bush tax cut that will blow a hole in the budget deficit? And why fail to extend jobless benefits to hardworking Americans who got the boot?

Quick action is needed. Jobless benefits begin to lapse in just two weeks. Two million unemployed workers will be affected. If Congress fails to act, another 1.2 million will stop receiving benefits by the end of December. Most of the rest of those who now receive federal emergency extended benefits will gradually lose them.

Don’t extend the Bush tax cuts to the wealthy. Give unemployment benefits to people who need them.

Secretary Reich was always my favorite face in the Clinton administration. He has an admirably direct and forceful style, while at the same time possessing a healthy respect for reality. I can't help wondering if President Obama might have had better economic success if he had chosen to heed Robert Reich's words more often.

Does it matter who's in charge?

Democrats who listen to the mainstream media may well be demoralized. They're being told that the U.S. has taken a hard turn to the right and that trying to do anything in this lame-duck session is pointless. Well, this interpretation of the midterm election results is wrong. Here's the latest from a CNN poll:

Asked if Republicans would do a better job of running the House, 44 percent said it would make no difference, 33 percent said they'd do better and 21 percent said worse. In 2006, 46 percent believed the newly-enabled Democratic majority would do a better job of running the House than the Republicans, 14 percent said they'd do worse and 39 percent predicted there'd be no difference.

Forty-one percent also said they don't think Republican control will make much difference when it comes to getting things done, while 32 percent believe more will get done and 26 percent predict less will get done.

The problem isn't that there's a major new groundswell of support for Republicans and their ideas. Only 33% expect positive change from Republican control of the house. This is likely the same third of the population who stood by the Republicans-- even after George W. Bush had done his worst damage to the party's reputation in his second term. The problem is that for many years most Americans have seen both parties as too deeply flawed to do a good job of running the country. In 2006 many Americans were completely fed up with Republican rule. Yet only 46% were convinced the Democrats could do a better job. Nearly as many (39%) felt that it didn't matter who was in charge. Now that "plague on both their houses" point of view is shared by 44% of survey respondents.

Now is a moment where the discouraged indifference of the public could be challenged. A vigorous defense of the "other 98%," leaving the Republicans no quarter, might give people something to recall, with fondness, as the plutocrats further destroy our freedoms and prosperity over the next couple of years. Are you ready, Harry Reid?

Lame Duck Blues

So Congress is back in town for a little while before the current members are finished with their term. My fantasy would be to see departing Blue Dogs join with more progressive Democrats to do as much good as possible before their time is up. After all, why should they do any favors to the Republicans who are taking their place? My fear is that most Blue Dogs, and some of the more timid among the rest of the Democrats, will go out of their way to "compromise" with Republicans and prove to the corporate overlords they aren't any sort of threat. While Nancy Pelosi seems primed for a good fight, many wimps in the White House, and both houses of Congress, don't show signs of standing firm beside her. On tax-cuts for billionaires, extension of unemployment, the DISCLOSE Act, and other key issues the choice is clear-- act now or lose credibility with the people. While getting legislation passed out of the Senate is obviously the best outcome, sending popular bills to the Senate is a good thing by itself. The key is to shine the spotlight on those Senators who are so eager to shovel more money to those who already have most of it. Force them to justify the cuts, while insisting that there's no money available for extending unemployment. If the Senate obstructionists win the immediate battle for their billionaire friends, they'll lose a lot of ground in the war for public support.

A fundamental misunderstanding

One reason that the Republicans, and their big-money backers, still find support for cutting taxes on millionaires and billionaires is that the super-wealthy have been branded as "job-creators." The problem is that the description doesn't match the reality. Sure, sometimes the big corporations and super-wealthy create jobs. For example, a new Home Depot may be built in a suburban shopping plaza. People can get jobs there (albeit with low-wages and little or no benefits). Dig a little below the surface, however, and the picture is less straightforward. Home Depot is a huge chain with powerful purchasing power. They have used this power to force suppliers into cutting production costs on tools, lamps, lawnmowers and thousands of other items. Many of these suppliers have responded to this pressure by outsourcing jobs to low-wage countries. I can remember a revealing conversation I had with a Home Depot clerk who explained he used to work for the company that made the saw I was examining. "It was nice getting good pay to make a good product. Now I'm making peanuts selling stuff made overseas." So many working people have lost decent jobs that they'll even take crap jobs, often with their hours deliberately limited to fall just shy of receiving benefits. Of course we shouldn't forget that Home Depot won't be re-investing its profits in the local community, unlike the four small, family-owned businesses it will push into bankruptcy.

But what of the individual plutocrat, doesn't his spending stimulate the local economy? Consider the heir of an industrialist fortune, who conspires with Wall Street looters to move production overseas and sell off the family firm's assets for a quick profit. He may move to a tropical island, but even if he decides to maintain a country estate near the old factory town, so what? Are the thousands of people devastated by the collapse of local industry supposed to cheer because Phineas Bigbucks employs a half-dozen domestics to staff his mansion?

In short, creating jobs is something the super wealthy will do if, and only if, it suits their own interests. High unemployment rates mean lower wages, so these "job-creators,' actually have very little interest in creating many jobs. Of course genuine small-business owners (not billionaires) do have an interest in restoring American prosperity. A car-dealer, or furniture store owner, needs gainfully employed customers. Paying a slightly higher rate on the income earned over a quarter-million dollars would not hurt these people in the least. In fact, if anything, this modest raise on profits kept as income could spur people to re-invest more money into new hiring and business development.

Drowning in a sea of corporate cash

The recent midterm elections make this call for action, against unlimited corporate political spending, more important than ever:

Joe Miller is no Al Gore

The Tea Party- endorsed Joe Miller shocked everyone in Alaska when he defeated Lisa Murkowski in the Republican primary race for U.S. Senate. Then Murkowski stunned observers by deciding to run for Senate as a write-in candidate, offering an alternative to the Republican and Democratic choices on the ballot. This whole drama became even more interesting when Miller finished second in the voting to the write-in total. Despite Sarah Palin's support, Miller had lost to Murkowski. Yet Miller and his lawyers clung to one shred of hope. Murkowski is a lot harder to spell than Miller! Without a doubt, some of the hardy Alaskans writing in her name might spell it Murcowski, or even Murkowsky. Miller and his lawyers would insist on throwing out all misspelled write-in ballots. Why? Well, while a rational vote counter might want to count a vote for Murkowsky as a vote for Murkowski, this procedure

makes no provision for the many voters who cast protest votes. Prior to the election, people commented on radio stations and in the comment sections in blogs and newspaper stories that they would deliberately incorrectly write-in a variation of "Murkowski" as a protest. They did so knowing that Murkowski was spending hundreds of thousands of dollars on a "spelling bee" campaign, replete with wrist bands, pencils and tattoos, all to educate the voters on proper spelling. Why was this done? Because even Murkowski had read the law and knew that it required proper spelling -- "No exceptions." So protest voters were trying to send a message to the candidate. The state has failed to create any guideline or standard that would account for the intent of the voter who intentionally cast a protest vote. To the contrary, the state is indicating that it will now count a protest vote, deliberately cast with a misspelling as a vote for Murkowski. This effectively nullifies the protest and falsely inflates the vote for the write-in candidate. In short, the state has become a super-voter and will override voter intent and recast the votes for the candidate the state chooses. This is at core a fraudulent abuse of the electoral process and severely undermines our democratic process. It makes a mockery of the voting process -- allowing voters to believe they cast a protest vote, but then overriding that vote by state fiat.

Miller and his lawyers seem to inhabit some strange parallel universe. There were indeed Alaskan voters who protested against Murkowski's candidacy. They voted for Miller, or even the Democrat Scott McAdams. There may have been a handful of protesters who wrote in "Mickey Mouse," or "Al Capone." What certainly did not happen was any sort of movement to "send a message through misspelling." Not even Joe Miller's supporters are that moronic. Still, our nation remains entertained by the continued adventures of this bizarre man.

Thank you, Patrick Kennedy

From Patrick Kennedy's official House website:

A profound obstacle to public understanding of mental health stems from the artificial, centuries-old principle of separation of mind and body. Yet, breakthrough discoveries in brain science show that this antiquated split between mind and body is simply inaccurate. As emerging technologies make it increasingly possible for researchers to demonstrate the extent to which mental disorders and their treatment are connected to physical changes in the brain, public policy must follow suit by eliminating the historical discrimination in insurance coverage for mental health compared to physical health care.

That is why Congressman Kennedy was proud to introduce The Paul Wellstone Mental Health and Addiction Equity Act. This landmark legislation became law in 2008. On that day, a monumental victory was achieved for the over 25% of Americans who no longer have to face discrimination from their insurers when it comes to their mental health care. That day was a victory for Americans everywhere, as a civil rights gap was closed in this country, and a long standing form of discrimination was ended. The Paul Wellstone Mental Health and Addiction Equity Act ensures that mental health benefits are offered at parity with medical benefits, providing access to mental health services for approximately 113 million Americans.

Patrick Kennedy did important work, on many issues, during the 16 years he served my Rhode Island district in Congress. Of all his accomplishments, the one that may have the greatest impact is his successful advocacy for mental health parity. We are lucky here in the 1st district to have a true public servant, honest and courageous, to represent our interests. I'm thankful that we were just able to elect David Cicilline, who can continue this good work and bring new interests and abilities to the job.

Hit and run

A friend sent me word of this outrageous case out in Colorado:

EAGLE, Colorado — A financial manager for wealthy clients will not face felony charges for a hit-and-run because it could jeopardize his job, prosecutors said Thursday.

Martin Joel Erzinger, 52, faces two misdemeanor traffic charges stemming from a July 3 incident when he allegedly hit bicyclist Dr. Steven Milo from behind then sped away, according to court documents.

Milo and his attorney, Harold Haddon, are livid about the prosecution's decision to drop the felony charge. They filed their objection Wednesday afternoon, the day after prosecutors notified Haddon's office by fax of their decision....

Erzinger, an Arrowhead homeowner, is a director in private wealth management at Morgan Stanley Smith Barney in Denver. His biography on Worth.com states that Erzinger is “dedicated to ultra high net worth individuals, their families and foundations.”

Erzinger manages more than $1 billion in assets. He would have to publicly disclose any felony charge within 30 days, according to North American Securities Dealers regulations.

Milo wrote in a letter to District Attorney Mark Hurlbert that the case “has always been about responsibility, not money.”

“Mr. Erzinger struck me, fled and left me for dead on the highway,” Milo wrote. “Neither his financial prominence nor my financial situation should be factors in your prosecution of this case.”

Hurlbert said Thursday that, in part, this case is about the money.

“The money has never been a priority for them. It is for us,” Hurlbert said. “Justice in this case includes restitution and the ability to pay it.”

Hurlbert said Erzinger is willing to take responsibility and pay restitution.

“Felony convictions have some pretty serious job implications for someone in Mr. Erzinger's profession, and that entered into it,” Hurlbert said. “When you're talking about restitution, you don't want to take away his ability to pay.”

Driving carelessly and causing serious injuries to a bicyclist demands that the driver do something to make up for his actions. If Mr. Erzinger had stopped, and called an ambulance, then maybe the prosecutor would be justified in declining to pursue felony charges in the case. Yet this wasn't like that. Mr. Erzinger tried to evade responsibility, fleeing the scene without any consideration for the fate of his victim. If a felony conviction would derail Mr. Erzinger's lucrative career, so what? Why this special consideration for a man of wealth? If a poor window-washer commits a felony, would this prosecutor let him off the hook because of the financial devastation a felony conviction would cause? The poor man doesn't have as far to fall, but he'll fall all the same. I can remember in legal history learning about the different values placed on the life of a serf or a noble. Killing the former would trigger the payment of a small fine, killing a lord was a capital offense. Is our society slipping back to a place where equality before the law is no longer the ideal?

Tax cuts: a line in the sand?

The Democrats in Washington D.C. are at a real crossroads: they must choose whether to play offense or defense. The corporate lobbyists and mainstream media will try to convince the President and lawmakers on Capitol Hill that compromise with Republicans is the only sensible path to follow. What the monied interests really want is to be handed what they want right now, with the Democrats as co-conspirators in their schemes to defraud the American people. If the Democrats go along with this they will see themselves increasingly rejected by Americans outside the Beltway. On the other hand, Democrats could choose to offer reasonable policies and force Republicans to argue against them. On tax cuts, Democrats could propose the following: "We have no desire to impose an excessive tax burden on any American. We are happy to extend tax cuts for all Americans on the first quarter-million dollars of income. For most Americans, then, the tax cuts will not expire as called for in the original legislation passed by Republicans and signed into law by President Bush. There are some Americans who enjoy incomes of more than a quarter-million dollars. They will still see their tax cut extended on the first quarter-million dollars of income. We cannot ignore the national debt, however. In order to avoid exploding the debt, we will do as provided for in the law passed by Republicans and signed by President Bush-- we will allow the cuts to expire on income in excess of a quarter-million dollars per year. But we offer this compromise: if unemployment falls below 3%, national infrastructure is largely rebuilt, all Americans enjoy quality health care, and poverty is eliminated, then we'll take a look at giving another tax cut to millionaires and billionaires."

If Democrats were to keep repeating this line, and ignore the indignant howls of the plutocrat-enablers, the people would start to think that maybe someone in Washington cared about them after all.

U.S. Chamber of Commerce hypocrisy and greed

Very nice piece exposing some of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce's shenanigans:

Keith Olbermann suspension at MSNBC

It's still not clear to me if Keith Olbermann violated a policy he thought only applied to straight news personnel at NBC. Why the star of an opinion/commentary show, on MSNBC, would be prohibited from making small, publicly disclosed donations to candidates is a puzzle. In any case, the words of oicnow at Huffpost sums up my own feelings on the whole affair:

Keith should have Incorporated himself, then he could give UNLIMITED secret donations to anyone he likes. Apparently only big corporations have Free Speech in this country.

Anyone interested in calling for KO's speedy reinstatement can sign a petition here .

Throw 'em in the slammer!

Nobel Prize winning economist Joseph Stiglitz points out how we don't have credible deterrents to prevent the big-money folks from engaging in criminal behavior that harms us all. In an interview with Sam Gustin @ DailyFinance, Stiglitz argues that serious jail time for these white collar crooks could help the situation:

Legal penalties for financial fraud in the U.S. have become "just a cost of doing business," Stiglitz said. "It's like a parking fine. Sometimes you make a decision to park knowing that you might get a fine because going around the corner to the parking lot takes you too much time."

"We fine them, and what is the big lesson?" said Stiglitz. "Behave badly, and the government might take 5% or 10% of what you got in your ill-gotten gains, but you're still sitting home pretty with your several hundred million dollars that you have left over after paying fines that look very large by ordinary standards, but look small compared to the amount that you've been able to cash in."

Taken together, Stigliz said, this system of widespread fraud, lax regulation and non-deterrent enforcement, created a system of skewed incentives that rewarded criminality, gambling and other bad behavior, and left American workers, investors and homeowners holding the bill.

Meanwhile, the astonishingly disproportionate influence of the big banks and corporations on the American political system has allowed powerful executives to exert their will on the U.S. government at the expense of the people, Stiglitz said.

"Look at the regulatory reform that got passed," said Stiglitz. "It was an intense battle. And you had on one side a few banks. And on the other side you had 300 million people, American people. And it was really right in balance. Five or six banks equal to 300 million people. And in the end we got what you might call an unsatisfactory compromise."

"Corporations are a legal entity," Stiglitz explained. "We create them. And when we create them we create all kinds of rules. They can go bankrupt. And that means they owe more money and they get away scot-free. They can create an environmental disaster, and then go bankrupt and again go away scot-free. So, as legal entities we have the right to make the rules that govern them."

"As individuals we have certain basic rights," Stiglitz continued. "We aren't created by the law. We exist by nature. But corporations are man-made. They are supposed to serve our interest, our society's interests. And we are creating them with powers that are not serving our society's interests."

"A Vicious Cycle"

Unfortunately, he continued, we now have a situation where the owners of major American corporations, the shareholders, have virtually no say in compensation, the very thing that created many of the skewed incentives that led to the bad behavior.

"If you're going to rob your shareholders, shouldn't they have the right to say I don't like this?" asked Stiglitz. "It's basically a vicious cycle in which we've gotten ourselves, because the corporate executives control the corporations. The corporations have the right to give campaign contributions. So basically we have a system in which the corporate executives, the CEOs, are trying to make sure the legal system works not for the companies, not for the shareholders, not for the bondholders -- but for themselves."

"So it's like theft," said Stiglitz. "These corporations are basically now working for the CEOs and the executives and not for any of the other stakeholders in the corporation, let alone for our broader society."

What should be done? "I think we ought to go do what we did in the S&L [crisis] and actually put many of these guys in prison," said Stiglitz. "Absolutely. These are not just white-collar crimes or little accidents. There were victims. That's the point. There were victims all over the world."

A Theory of Justice

Among the casualties of this whole mess, according to Stiglitz? Faith in the legal system itself. "The legal system is supposed to be the codification of our norms and beliefs, things that we need to make our system work," he said. "If the legal system is seen as exploitative, then confidence in our whole system starts eroding."

"When you say the Pledge of Allegiance, you say, with 'justice for all," Stiglitz said. "People aren't sure that we have justice for all. Somebody is caught for a minor drug offense, they are sent to prison for a very long time. And yet, these so-called white-collar crimes, which are not victimless; almost none of these guys, almost none of them, go to prison."

"Families are as important as corporations," he said. "Keeping kids in school, not forcing them out of their home, keeping the community together, is certainly as important as keeping a corporation alive."

President Obama, and the Democrats in Congress, need to stand up to these most predatory plutocrats. Failure to do so may well destroy whatever residual goodwill remains towards their party among the American people.

The time for giving

A friend just sent this heartwarming tale, that well illustrates the kindly spirit of your average "tax-cuts for millionaires & billionaires" Republican.

Generous lawyer
A local United Way office realized that the organization had never received
a donation from the town's most successful lawyer. The person in charge of contributions called him to persuade him to contribute.

"Our research shows that out of a yearly income of at least $500,000, you
give not a penny to charity. Wouldn't you like to give back to the community in some way?"

The lawyer mulled this over for a moment and replied, "First, did your
research also show that my mother is dying after a long illness, and has
medical bills that are several times her annual income?"

Embarrassed, the United Way rep mumbled, "Um ... no."

The lawyer interrupts, "or that my brother, a disabled veteran, is blind
and confined to a wheelchair?"

The stricken United Way rep began to stammer out an apology, but was
interrupted again.

"or that my sister's husband died in a traffic accident," the lawyer's
voice rising in indignation, "leaving her penniless with three children?!"

The humiliated United Way rep, completely beaten, said simply, "I had no
idea..."

On a roll, the lawyer cut him off once again, "So if I don't give any
money to them, why should I give any to you?"

Feel free to substitute "hedge-fund manager" for "lawyer" if it enhances your enjoyment of the story!

A matter of simple arithmetic

Rachel Maddow, and her guest Gail Collins, point out to Democrats that they have nothing to lose in opposing deficit-exploding tax-cuts for the super rich:

Watching a train-wreck

One of the most important consequences of this Republican takeover of the House is that the new majority party will now be expected to do more than merely obstruct the Democrats' attempts to move forward. We can be fairly certain they won't do anything except try to tear down the President, and do favors for their wealthy friends. The exposure of their true agenda will serve to alienate a fair number of those who voted Republican in these midterms. Just as important, many of the discouraged Democrats, who stayed home on Tuesday, will be eager to make up for their laziness when they see just how outrageous these new Republicans really are.

Outside of Rhode Island, not so happy

Oh sure, there were a few bright spots in last night's midterm elections. Tea Partiers Christine O'Donnell and Sharron Angle were rejected in Delaware and Nevada. But one of our most reliable progressives, Russ Feingold, was defeated in a night that saw a huge loss of Democratic seats in the House, with less shocking losses in the Senate. I'm too depressed right now to put together an objective analysis of this disaster. Here in Rhode Island, the GOP got excited when polls tightened late in the race. Our opponent, John Loughlin, saw his campaign literally swamped with cash. Big-name Republicans were eager to "take the other Kennedy seat," and visited our state with annoying frequency. Advertisements on radio and T.V. were non-stop. "Robo-calls" to voters were relentless. Even in a true-blue state like Rhode Island, people get pissed at the Democrats in charge when jobs are nowhere to be found. We won by six points, but could easily have lost the race without the strong GOTV effort our campaign put forward.

David Cicilline wins Patrick Kennedy's seat in Congress!

Here's the happy moment from the Democratic victory fest last night at the Biltmore Hotel in Providence. All of us who worked so hard were of course delighted with this result: