Category Archives: Corporations

Demanding A 50 Year Cover-Up For Doing Your Job?

Posted on by

Our nation was built on representative government.  But our representatives are so concerned with re-election that many are now afraid to do what’s best for our nation. So much so, that they try to hide their actions from the very people they represent.

The on-going debate over the federal tax code is a case in point.

Before many senators were willing to venture opinions on the tax code, they needed to be assured by Senators Max Baucus (D-MT) and Orrin Hatch (R-UT) that any suggestions would be kept secret for 50 years! Exactly what, or who, are they afraid of?

In a word, you.

Thanks to the Baucus-Hatch declaration, senators may now solicit favors from the K Street lobbyists without fear of repercussions. They are now free to recommend tax loopholes for their largest campaign contributors and special interests without fear of discovery by the people they are supposed to represent. By the time anyone finds out, they’ll be dead and forgotten.

Not exactly representative government, is it?

In one declaration, Baucus and Hatch have exposed everything that’s wrong with our government. And it’s not just a problem with the federal government. Such secrecy and tricks are used and abused by governments at all levels…city, county and state.

Those with money can buy access to those who make the laws. After all, it takes money to run for office these days…lots of it. So defense contractors, the American Medical Association, health insurance, Big Pharma, Big Oil, Wall Street, multinational corporations, billionaires, the NRA and others write our laws. They write the very regulations that will govern them, and because they write them, they feel free to break them.

No money.  No access.

Only a very few politicians have demonstrated through their actions that they are immune to such power.  Senators Elizabeth Warren, Al Franken, Amy Klobuchar, Bernie Sanders and a very small number of others have stood on priniciple. They seem willing to do the right thing and explain their decisions to those who elected them.

Far too many others say one thing in public and do something far different behind closed doors. The Baucus-Hatch declaration…along with Senators Baucus and Hatch…needs to go.

Another Debt Ceiling Debacle?

Posted on by

Teapublicans are always fond of relating government budgets to your household budget. It’s a lousy analogy. But let’s use it for the purposes of the debt ceiling debate.

Imagine if your family, concerned about its spending and debt, had a meeting and decided that you no longer wanted to pay any debts above…let’s say, $10,000.  And let’s say that your family couldn’t agree on spending cuts. For example, the father just doesn’t want to stop collecting expensive guns and driving luxury cars, the mother doesn’t want to give up health insurance and the 401K, and the kids don’t want to give up school and food.  So your family agrees to stop paying the mortgage, the utilities and the credit card companies.

What do you think would happen?

The mortgage company would foreclose on your home, the utilities would cut off electricity, water and gas, and the credit card companies would cut off any new purchases in addition to adding large penalties and interest to your outstanding balance.  Moreover, your family would be unable to borrow money from anyone else. And, if someone else was willing to risk loaning your family money, it would be at exhorbitant interest rates.

Does that sound like something you want to intentionally do to your family? No? Then why would you want to do that to your country?

What we have is a Republican Party that doesn’t want to give up the world’s most lavish military budget or tax cuts and welfare for our largest corporations. The Democratic Party doesn’t want to give up Social Security, Medicare, and access to health care and food stamps for the working poor. And the Tea Party parasites don’t want to spend anything because they don’t like the government anyway.

During the 2012 presidential election, we had a national debate about the direction of our nation and its budget. On these issues, the voters overwhelmingly supported the Democratic Party.  The results of that election should direct the conversation about government spending. Most important, there should be a conversation with all parties sitting down together and having an adult conversation about our nation’s future.

Unfortunately, the Tea Party parasites don’t want to do that, and the gutless Republican leaders are kowtowing to them.

Marketing Addiction.

Posted on by

The development of e-cigarettes was a good thing. It provided an opportunity for those addicted to nicotine and the act of smoking to replace tobacco cigarettes with something less harmful…not only less harmful to themselves, but everyone around them.

Of course, some greedy corporations can’t settle for a good thing. They have to find ways to turn a positive into a negative and, in the process, make millions.

Not content to sell e-cigarettes as a replacement for tobacco, companies like Lorillard have decided to create a whole new generation of buyers by marketing e-cigarettes in a variety of candy flavors and using celebrities to make their products seem cutting-edge “cool.” It’s a strategy right out of the playbook of tobacco cigarette brands from the fifties through the eighties. (Remember Joe Camel?) And, though tobacco companies have been forced to diversify, they have continued the same marketing strategies in Asia and other countries that lack regulations.

Unfortunately, the tobacco and e-cigarette industries are not alone. It’s well-known that the largest brewers in the US aim their advertising at males aged 30 and younger… the younger the better. The idea is that, if brewers can capture the attention of males who are younger than drinking age, those males will have already established brand preferences by the time they’re old enough to buy beer.  That explains the preponderance of TV commercials with girls in bikinis and adolescent humor.

Such tactics, while not illegal, are certainly unethical. But given the rampant greed of corporations, they’re unlikely to change.

Arizona’s Right Wing “Job Creators.”

Posted on by

When Gov. Janet Napolitano was replaced by the finger-wagging Jan Brewer following Napolitano’s appointment to become Director of Homeland Security in 2009, the last check on Arizona’s right wing-dominated legislature was eliminated. That led to such bills as the anti-immigrant SB 1070; bills that made it legal to carry guns in bars; bills that protected guns, not people; bills that cut tens of millions from public schools while cutting taxes for corporations.

All the while, the right wing legislators claimed that their top priority was job creation.

Therefore, it seems fair to judge their efforts by looking at the jobs created in Arizona compared to the rest of the nation. Since the end of the Great Recession, the US has regained 77 percent of the jobs lost according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS). Over the same period, Arizona has recovered just 46 percent of the jobs lost. Despite being one of the states hardest hit by the recession, Arizona ranks just 44th in job creation since February 2010.

The statistics show that Arizona has recovered just 66 percent of jobs lost by the information industry, 40 percent of those lost in professional and business services, 34 percent in other services, 32 percent in trade, transportation and utilities, 29 percent in government, and just 27 percent in manufacturing.

How can that be?

According to Teapublican legislators, the best way to create jobs is to cut taxes. Yet Arizona’s corporate taxes are among the very lowest in the nation. They also claimed that SB 1070 would allow Arizona citizens to reclaim jobs from undocumented workers. Somehow, they believed that chasing tens of thousands of immigrants from the state who rent homes, purchase cars, buy groceries and buy clothes would improve the state’s economy.

Apparently they also believe that outlawing a Latino studies program in the Tucson school district, eliminating the poor from Medicaid, attacking the federal government, cutting school budgets, redirecting money to private schools and private prisons, closing rest stops, closing state parks, demanding further proof of Obama’s citizenship, and telling the world that Arizona is unsafe, would entice tourists and sophisticated corporations to come here.

Maybe, just maybe, the right is wrong.

When US Jobs Are Shipped Offshore, It’s In A Shipping Container.

Posted on by

Since Malcom McClean invented the modern shipping container in the late sixties, no individual item has had a greater impact on the US and world economies.  These large, steel and aluminum boxes can be filled with products, carried by truck to the nearest port, and loaded by crane onto a ship specifically designed to carry them.  Then, upon reaching the next port, the containers are stacked onto a rail car and carried across country, loaded onto another truck and hauled to a warehouse before being unloaded and the products distributed to stores.

Shipping containers have not only revolutionized shipping.  They have revolutionized manufacturing and distribution.  More than any other single factor, they have enabled and defined globalization.

In the process, they have eliminated jobs of dock workers and merchant mariners.  They nearly destroyed our railroads.  And they have allowed manufacturers to export jobs to countries with the lowest salaries and least regulations.  Indeed, the equipment from manufacturing plants in the US was likely shipped to new manufacturing plants in China and other parts of Asia in shipping containers.

True, these containers also bring us cheaper products.  But, following the loss of high-paying manufacturing jobs, an increasingly smaller percentage of Americans are able to afford them.

During a recent interview on National Public Radio, Rose George, author of Ninety Percent Of Everything; Inside Shipping, The Invisible Industry That Puts Clothes On Your Back, Gas In Your Car, Food On Your Plate, explained that the efficiency of the shipping container has impacted virtually every industry on every part of the planet.  For example, she noted it is now cheaper for Scotland’s fishing industry to load fish caught in the North Atlantic into containers and ship them to China to be filleted then shipped back than to have workers fillet them in Scotland!

This is good for the companies, good for China, and good for the consumer.  It’s bad for Scottish workers and bad for the environment.  For even though maritime shipping is, in itself, fuel efficient, such unnecessary shipping adds to the carbon emissions that accelerate climate change.  Ships and their sonar also create noise that disrupts communications of sea life, such as dolphins and whales.  And there is the inevitable pollution of waste from the ships.

There are other negative aspects of shipping containers.  Since they have overwhelmed ports around the world, there are far too many to be checked by customs and law enforcement, making it easier for smuggling rings to operate.  They have even been used to smuggle humans into the US.  The increased maritime traffic has also rejuvenated the once-dying pirate trade.  And increased shipping has accelerated the transfer of invasive species.

Often the shipping containers used to bring finished products to the US are filled with our toxic e-waste and shipped to countries that have few environmental regulations for the heavy metals to be reclaimed, damaging the environment and risking the health of low-paid workers in the process.

George’s book and another, The Box: How the Shipping Container Made the World Smaller, by Marc Levinson examine the scope of the container shipping industry and all of its impacts, both positive and negative, on our society.

Both books are fascinating reads.  But they could just as well have been titled How the Shipping Container Destroyed the American Middle Class.

Today’s Corporate CEO No One To Look Up To.

Posted on by

The CEO of a corporation is supposed to act as the rudder of the ship; a leader; someone that sets an example for the rest of the corporation’s employees. But, increasingly, CEOs set an example of greed and unethical, even criminal, behavior.

According to a recent study by the Institute for Policy Studies (IPS), in 2012 the CEOs of large corporations were paid approximately 354 times as much as the average American worker. Worse, about 40 percent of the CEOs were fired for cause, paid fines or settlements for fraud, or resorted to asking the government to bail out their companies.

Some leadership!

The IPS study also found that about 30 percent of corporations led by the highest-paid CEOs were subsidized with taxpayer money. By taking advantage of a variety of tax deductions and loopholes, CEOs have been able to increase corporate profits while reducing or eliminating corporate taxes. And since most of these corporations are multinational, many have created P.O. Box “headquarters” in offshore tax havens to shelter corporate profits. By “gaming” the tax codes, the CEOs are able to pocket the savings for themselves.

Moreover, most CEO compensation is based on share price. That may seem like a good idea that encourages CEOs to work for the benefit of stakeholders. But the real reason for such compensation plans is self-interest. It’s easy for a CEO to make decisions that will increase sales and share prices over the short term, yet mortgage the company’s future. Unfortunately, many CEOs simply don’t care about the future because they don’t plan to be with the company more than 2-3 years. That’s all the time they need to be set for life.

But many want even more.

Unwilling to settle for multi-million dollar salaries, stock options, perks and a long list of benefits, some corporate CEOs create what amount to elaborate Ponzi schemes and a variety of high stakes gambling schemes using investors’ money. When their schemes fail, they seldom face charges and, even when they’re indicted, they’re seldom subjected to jail time. On those rare occasions when they are, “jail” often looks more like a country club and their sentences are often reduced or commuted.

Worse, when unscrupulous CEOs are fired, resign or are forced out, they almost always receive “golden parachutes” consisting of full retirement benefits and large lump sum payments allowing them to walk away with tens of millions in ill-gotten gains subsidized by investors and middle class taxpayers.  Meanwhile a high school dropout from the inner city who steals $50 can serve years of hard time.

It makes one wonder whatever happened to the nation that once proudly proclaimed “all men are created equal.”

Beware The Pendulum.

Posted on by

As a creative director for ad agencies and as a part-time college instructor, I used to teach that social trends and fashions responded like a pendulum with a 360-degree axis. The pendulum freely swings, but never back to exactly the same place twice.

I was reminded of that description while watching the ceremonies marking the 50-year anniversary of the March on Washington. In 1963, the US seemed hopelessly racist. In the Jim Crow South, blacks were segregated from whites. African-Americans were denied the right to vote. Peaceful civil rights demonstrators were met with fire hoses, police dogs, beatings and murder.

The Voting Rights Act of 1965 began to change that.

In the last two presidential elections, African-Americans voted in record numbers helping to elect the first US president of African-American heritage. (I’ve always marveled that his Irish-American heritage is seldom mentioned because of the color of his skin.)

Obviously, the pendulum has swung a long way from 1963. But it seems to be swinging back.

Since the election of President Obama, numerous states in both the North and the South have passed restrictive voting laws to make it more difficult for minorities to vote. No other US president has been subjected to such angry derision. No other president has been repeatedly asked to show his papers to prove that he is a citizen. No other president has been interrupted during a State of the Union speech by a “Congressman” calling him a liar. No other president has been met by such congressional obstruction.

Racism did not disappear in the sixties. It is just more subtle. There are fewer racist killings, beatings and other hate crimes. Today, the racism is economic and institutionalized. Unemployment for African-Americans is roughly double that for whites. Many of those who do have jobs are not paid a living wage. Schools in African-American communities are grossly underfunded compared to those in white communities. African-Americans are not only three times more likely to be arrested as whites, they receive longer sentences for similar crimes.

Indeed, young African-American and Latino males are seen as a source of profit for the private prison industry. They are also disproportionately represented in our military and asked to fight wars to protect the economic interests of large corporations that are almost exclusively owned and managed by wealthy white Americans.

News organizations, once again, insert race into stories of crime. Media commentators feel comfortable talking about the disintegration of African-American families while ignoring the disintegration of white families. When minorities bring up discrimination and other issues of race, white political pundits refer to it as “playing the race card.” They would like us to believe that racism no longer exists. (Of course, it doesn’t for them.)

Most disturbing is the fact that the conservative majority of the United States Supreme Court has voted to weaken the Voting Rights Act and to undermine affirmative action.

On the anniversary of Martin Luther King’s iconic “I Have A Dream” speech, we should all take a moment to celebrate how far we’ve come. But only a moment. It’s time to get back to work to make sure the pendulum swings in the right direction again.

Do NSA Revelations Actually Surprise Anyone?

Posted on by

Ever since Edward Snowden announced that the National Security Agency is collecting phone and email records of US citizens before skipping the country, many in the media and in Congress have expressed surprise and outrage.

Really? How could anyone be surprised at this invasion of privacy?

Since the late nineties, there has been an explosion of surveillance cameras on city streets and in public buildings across the country. Large firms have been working on various forms of customer recognition since at least the mid-eighties. First, we saw the “smart” card – a credit card with a computer chip containing a wealth of personal information about the person carrying it. Then we saw efforts to “read” the magnetic strips on credit cards as you enter a store. And, following 9/11, Congress passed the Patriot Act giving the government sweeping powers to prevent terrorism.

Now, according to a story on CBS’ 60 Minutes, we are nearing an era of facial recognition which will allow governments, retail stores and other institutions to use security cameras to identify people from mug shots, driver’s licenses, passports and other forms of identification. Add to that the information already being collected by the three major credit agencies, along with the GPS feature in your cell phone and your car, and almost no aspect of your life will be private. Even your activities in the bedroom are potentially vulnerable to hackers through your computers, cell phones and smart TVs.

By comparison, that makes the activities of the NSA seem a lot less threatening doesn’t it?

The Government Of Me.

Posted on by

As the Tea Party wing of the Republican Party continues to express outrage at our federal government, it becomes increasingly clear that the Tea Party simply does not understand the concept of a democratic republic. Its members ignore the fact that the Articles of Confederation were replaced by a Constitution that created a strong, centralized federal government. They ignore the fact that the power of the federal government versus the power of the states was thoroughly debated by our Founding Fathers, and the Federalists won. They quote the Constitution’s Tenth Amendment while ignoring all of its original Articles that gave the federal government sweeping powers to “provide for the general Welfare of the United States.”

Indeed, they even seem to ignore the “United” in United States!

At the heart of the Tea Party anger seems to be a misunderstanding of what constitutes a democracy. By its very nature, a democracy is based on majority rule. That means a minority, sometimes a significant minority, is often unhappy with the direction of our government. And, as the result of a quirk in our Electoral College, following the 2000 presidential election, a significant majority of our citizens were unhappy with the outcome, having voted for another candidate.

The Tea Party members refuse to acknowledge that President Obama was elected and re-elected by significant majorities of voters. They ignore the fact that the 2012 election was, in essence, a referendum on support for the middle class; for Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid; for the Affordable Care Act (aka Obamacare).

They continue to claim that Obama was born in Kenya and should, therefore, be disqualified from holding the office of president. They continue to howl that financial and environmental regulations are “job killers.” They consider his signature accomplishment of making health care affordable to all Americans a socialist government “takeover.” And, instead of accepting majority rule, they seem determined to take away the voting rights of African-Americans, Latinos, students, women, and the poor – anyone who might vote against the Tea Party agenda.

In other words, as they wave the American flag and their pocket copies of the Constitution with only the Second and Tenth Amendments highlighted, they are attempting to cut out the very heart of our democracy…that of majority rule.

The Tea Party refuses to accept that our nation is evolving; that the minorities of brown and black are the majorities of the future. The “I’ve got mine, you can’t have yours” crowd can’t bear the idea of change; of giving power to others. I believe that is what’s behind their animosity toward President Obama.

They can’t accept forward-thinking ideas such as investing in our failing infrastructure while interest rates are at all-time lows. They can’t understand that a tax policy that punishes greed and rewards corporate investment in our nation benefits the vast majority of our citizens. They can’t grasp that jobs paying a living wage are necessary to the health of our nation and benefit us all. They can’t see that an environmental policy that conserves the health of our planet benefits everyone. As long as they have theirs, they refuse to accept the notion that affordable health care and a comfortable retirement are rights, not benefits.

Our Founding Fathers had the wisdom to create a government “of the people, by the people and for the people” – the majority of people.

If you want a government “of the people, by the people and for me” you’re in the wrong place. You should find a remote, uninhabited island where you can become supreme dictator. Otherwise, it’s time you learned to accept majority rule.

Betrayal Of Public Trust.

Posted on by

Now that Michigan’s GOP governor has forced the City of Detroit into bankruptcy, it’s expected that retired city workers will have to settle for a fraction of the pensions they were awarded under contract.

As a result of the expected bankruptcy settlement, many of the retirees may be forced to file bankruptcy themselves and find jobs to make up for their lost pensions. The governor and his supporters responded to that news by saying that’s what bankruptcy does. It forces all creditors to settle for the same percentage of their claims.

This is a complete reversal of the GOP position regarding the failure of the too-big-to-fail banks. Back then, many GOP leaders argued that the very executives whose decisions led to the banks’ failure should not be denied the multi-million dollar bonuses that were written into their six and seven-figure contracts.

But many of those same GOP leaders now argue that city workers who had been paid salaries as little as $19,000/year should agree to voiding their contracts as part of the bankruptcy. These contracts were the result of negotiations with city managers during which they agreed to give up short-term salary gains in lieu of a secure retirement.

Indeed, long-term retirement benefits have always been the incentive for taking government jobs over equivalent jobs in the private sector. Taking away or reducing the pension payments after the fact is not only a violation of the workers’ contract. It’s a complete betrayal of public trust. The natural outcome of such a violation will be to make government workers at every level demand higher salaries knowing that they will no longer be able to trust governments to live up to their obligations.

We have long known that we can’t count on corporations and private companies to live up to their promises. But we should be able to count on our governments to live up to theirs.