Skip to content

Only in America

Here's a question. Has there ever been a time in our national history when so many people have been so crazy?
The immediate impetus for this question? This:

Glenn Beck plans to bring soccer balls and hot meals to migrant children this month, his career be damned.

“I’ve never taken a position more deadly to my career than this — and I have never, ever taken a position that is more right than this,” an emotional Beck said Tuesday on his show on TheBlaze TV.

“Everybody is telling me I’m seeing subscriptions down; I’m seeing Mercury One donations down,” he added. “I’m getting violent emails from people who say, you know, I’ve ‘betrayed the Republic.’ Whatever.“

via Talking Points Memo

That's right. We live in a country in which Glenn Beck is not crazy enough for a large number of people. Think about that.

Of course, you have to actually be immersed in a society in order to fully appreciate how crazy it is, so it is difficult for us to compare. We have very often, if not always, been a country plagued by cognitive dissonance. If you are a history buff, as I am, you have no doubt read the complaints by thankfully now-dead Americans, usually from the South, that one or more actions of the British or, later, the American, government threatened to reduce them to slavery. These statements were made with no apparent appreciation for the irony, coming as they did from slaveholders. So, that's some crazy right there, and that's only scratching the surface of the irrationality of the slaveowners. Then again, at no previous time in our history would any Supreme Court have ruled that a corporation can have a religion. That is some sort of crazy, so we are definitely in the running for craziest ever.

Anyway, my heart's not bleeding for Glenn, liberal though I am. For truly was it said, (disregarding the part about God):

Be not deceived; God is not mocked: for whatsoever a man soweth, that shall he also reap.

Yet another modest proposal

I've written in the past about the H1-B visa program (e.g. here), a device used by American corporations to replace American workers with short term “guest” workers, who themselves are often exploited by the companies who bring them over here. There is no economic justification for this program. The companies claim that there are not enough skilled people here willing to to do the job. But the facts on the ground have always put the lie to that, as the typical process is as follows: Company decides to hire cheap foreign labor to replace its current work force; it then forces that work force to train their replacements, after which they are fired, though they are in fact ready, willing and able to do the jobs the companies say they can't fill. Well, it's good to see that some American workers are fighting back:

Kelly Parker was thrilled when she landed her dream job in 2012 providing tech support for Harley-Davidson's Tomahawk, Wisconsin, plants. The divorced mother of three hoped it was the beginning of a new career with the motorcycle company.

The dream didn't last long. Parker claims she was laid off one year later after she trained her replacement, a newly arrived worker from India. Now she has joined a federal lawsuit alleging the global staffing firm that ran Harley-Davidson's tech support discriminated against American workers — in part by replacing them with temporary workers from South Asia.

The firm, India-based Infosys Ltd., denies wrongdoing and contends, as many companies do, that it has faced a shortage of talent and specialized skill sets in the U.S. Like other firms, Infosys wants Congress to allow even more of these temporary workers.

But amid calls for expanding the nation's so-called H-1B visa program, there is growing pushback from Americans who argue the program has been hijacked by staffing companies that import cheaper, lower-level workers to replace more expensive U.S. employees — or keep them from getting hired in the first place.

Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg is among the high-profile executives pushing for more H-1Bs. The argument has long been that there aren't enough qualified American workers to fill certain jobs, especially in science, engineering and technology. Advocates also assert that some visa holders will stay and become entrepreneurs.

Critics say there is no across-the-board shortage of American tech workers, and that if there were, wages would be rising rapidly. Instead, wage gains for software developers have been modest, while wages have fallen for programmers.

The liberal Economic Policy Institute reported last year that only half of U.S. college graduates in science, engineering and technology found jobs in those fields and that at least one third of IT jobs were going to foreign guest workers.

via CNBC

The last two paragraphs tell the true story, at least they do if the law of supply and demand works for the rest of us like the John Galts claim that it works for them. If, in fact, these skills were in such demand the price of them should rise.

We already know that the Silicon Valley 1%ers were conspiring to keep wages down by agreeing not to hire one another's employees. It takes a leap of faith higher than even a Republican can leap (well, that's probably not true) to believe that there are no Americans willing to work at these jobs. No, the fact is that these companies want to repeal the law of supply and demand when it comes to them; slavery has been outlawed, but there's always the next best thing.

Here's an idea. CEO's in Asia, and even in Europe, are willing to work for far less than our home grown types. Wouldn't it make sense for Mark Zuckerberg and his ilk to bring some over on these visas and let them run our American companies for a fraction of what we pay our CEOs, even the ones that drive their companies into the ground? Just asking. (I'm sure that Mark could train his replacement admirably. It's not that hard to be a total asshole.)

Yet another map

Well, this one is a no brainer, but yet more proof that the Old South, and the red states in general, have a virtual lock on the bottom half of any continuum you want to suggest. This, from the Daily Kos, maps out the poverty rate for the country as a whole. No surprises here:

20140707-200401-72241733.jpg

My only criticism: the states should get redder as they get poorer.

Let’s get it right this time

Regular readers of this blog know that I have been a semi-tongue in cheek advocate of secession by the rational states. It is coincidentally the case that the rational fringe contains all the states (or nearly all, Indiana can be a problem, as can West Virginia) that fought for the North last time the issue came up. I'm not greedy, though, and I would gladly accept a union of the six New England states, assuming the Mainers could get Ron LePage into a good nursing home.

Well, it turns out that we might not have to be the ones that take this awesome step. The League of the South is passionately advocating that the stupid states secede yet again.

I say, let's grab this chance while we can. Is there a way for us to proactively surrender this time? They can have five members of the Supreme Court into the bargain.

This could happen here

As anyone who follows Connecticut politics knows, Jonathan Pelto is either running for governor or thinking about running for governor.

I sympathize with a lot of what Pelto has to say. I do fear that Malloy is out to destroy the public schools. I suspect that in Malloy's case his motivation is a lifetime of resentment against teachers that failed to catch his own learning disabilities, but the reason doesn't really matter. His actions speak for themselves, and no one who looks at them objectively can come to any other conclusion than that he and his minions are undermining public schools at every step, with the apparent ultimate goal of handing our schools and our kids over to a bunch of corporate rent seekers. Truly abominable, and none of the good things that Malloy has done (and there are some) can outweigh the harm he is doing to the schools.

Pelto has no chance to win, but he does have a chance to hand the governorship to Foley. That he realizes that, and that he relishes the prospect, is proven by his dalliance with Chris Healey.

Even if he had a chance, it would be too big a chance to take. Our system is designed around the two party system. That's a bug, not a feature. It leads to anomalous results, such as those so common in the state of Maine, whose proud, independent minded voters consistently elect loons and eccentrics to office as a result of three cornered elections. Witness Ron LePage, current Maine governor, despised by 66 percent of the population, but supported by 34 percent, elected by a little more than a third of the populace last time around, with a reasonable chance of doing it again this year. The article to which I've linked describes his links to the “sovereign citizen” movement; it must be read in full, but here's one little takeaway that gives a bit of the flavor.

Why would a governor value the support of such a group when an association with their violent, antigovernment, anti-Semitic conspiracy theories could damage him politically? How could he think that discussing how best to arrest and execute his political opponents with a group of Sovereign Citizen extremists was a good idea?

via Talking Points Memo

Is Foley as crazy as LePage? Well, probably no living and breathing New England politician is as crazy as LePage, though he's par for the course in the South. But Foley's right wing enough, and we don't need him installed in office by a purported progressive. What we need to do is pressure our Democratic representatives to push back against Malloy on education issues. With a little effort we can save the public schools without handing the executive, not to mention judicial appointments, to Foley. As for Pelto, if he doesn't like the incumbent governor of his own party, well, that's what primaries are for.

Addendum:

A commenter points out that I got the Maine governor’s first name wrong. It’s “Paul” not “Ron”. I don’t know where that came from. My apologies, particularly to anyone whose actual name is Ron LePage.

Shades of Bush v. Gore

Well, we knew this was coming. Corporations are not only people, they have religions, and their right to practice that religion trumps the rights of their employees.

Except, maybe not.

When I was in law school I learned, or thought I learned, that when a court, particularly an appellate court, ruled on a case, it was implicitly ruling on like cases as well; i.e., offering guidances to other courts as to how a similar case should be decided. But that was jurisprudence from the 20th, 19th, 18th, 17th, 16, 15th, 14th, 13th, 12th, and 11th century. Times have changed.

Some might have thought that Bush v. Gore was an anomaly. In that case, you will recall, the court announced a new rule of 14th Amendment jurisprudence, but hastened to add that it only applied in the case at hand, and no one should presume that the rationale of the decision should ever be applied in any other case. (The truth is that the lawless decision in Bush v. Gore might, if followed in other contexts, have led to decisions with which our right wing genetic relatives would be distinctly uncomfortable.) But the new jurisprudence is now firmly embedded (to the extent anything can be considered embedded in the context of a court that lacks all intellectual honesty), for how else can one interpret this quote, culled from the Hobby Lobby decision:

This decision concerns only the contraceptive mandate and should not be understood to mean that all insurance mandates, that is for blood transfusions or vaccinations, necessarily fail if they conflict with an employer's religious beliefs.

No indeed, for there is a distinction between contraceptives and vaccinations, in that men get vaccinations. I haven't read the entire decision, but I'm morally certain that the five male authors would go on to explain that the courts must distinguish between medical devices and procedures that the state has a compelling interest in fostering, and those in which its interest is less than compelling. It just so happens that the only medical procedures or devices that are less than compelling are those that primarily affect women. Funny about that.

But, perhaps I am wrong. In the interests of total fairness, I would venture to say that if the proper case came along, even this Supreme Court would feel the need to be somewhat consistent, so if any religiously inclined employer feels compelled to deprive its male employees of Viagra, the five flaccid old men on the court would probably reluctantly allow it. After all, they have government provided insurance, so, like their other rulings (think buffer zones around abortion clinics and around the Supreme Court) it won't affect them.

Oh, wait, after writing this, I see I was wrong about something. The court did find that the government had a compelling interest in providing contraceptive coverage, it just wasn't compelling enough.

Yet another book report

For a number of reasons, blogging has been infrequent here lately. I offer my humble apologies for depriving the world of my reactions to such events as the Cochran victory. Amazingly, the world appears to be getting on, but I know how much I've been missed.

In those snatches of time I've had available to me, I have managed to read James K. Galbraith's The Predator State. It's not a new book, but it's well worth reading. The subtitle tells much about the basic theme:

How Conservatives Abandoned the Free Market and Why Liberals Should Too

The last book I reviewed on this illustrious blog was Piketty's Capital in the 21st Century. The contrast between the two books puts me in mind of an aphorism that I first heard applied to Jefferson and Hamilton back in my college days:

The fox knows many things, but the hedgehog knows one big thing., first uttered, apparently by a Greek philosopher named Archilochus. Jefferson was the hedgehog by the way.

The “but” in the quote implies that the hedgehog's knowledge is somehow superior, but one must question that. There's something to be said for knowing a lot of little things, since if you know but one big thing, you tend to be led astray if you run into a situation where you come up against something new. And again, if I had to bet, I'd guess that the fox is more able to think his way out of a fix than a hedgehog.

Anyway, back to my book report. The one big thing that Piketty knows, at least for purposes of his book, is that inequality is growing and it's inherited wealth that we most must fear. That is a very big thing, and it is well worth documenting, even though most of us foxes knew it instinctively, though we might not have had the data on hand to prove it.

But Galbraith's book is about many little things, though there is an overarching theme, and it should be required reading for every Democratic politician, and every Democrat for that matter. The overarching theme is that Republicans have propagated a meme to the effect that “free markets” are the answer to all questions. The corollary to this is the equally evidence free assertion that governments are always and everywhere incompetent to do anything that a private actor with his snout to the trough offers to do in its stead. They have created an environment in which any deviation from “free market” ideology in our public discourse is easily squelched. Liberal politicians (if not liberals themselves) have, after years of being beaten with this stick, largely bought into the premise that the role of government is to enable markets to do their magic. They are afraid to utter the obvious truth that “free markets” don't always work, and, in many areas, don't even exist. Meanwhile, while conservatives pay lip service to free markets they have abandoned the idea in practice. The system they have created consists of rent seeking and diversion of money from the general populace to the corporations. An example: Free market ideology suggests that a purchaser in bulk (think Walmart) can negotiate for lower prices. And, that's precisely what Walmart does (See also, Amazon). But the government has, at the behest of conservatives, tied its own hands when it comes to the Medicare prescription drug benefit. The drug companies get retail prices for their goods, thus transferring our money to the drug companies in a way that should shock free market ideologues. But, surprisingly, it doesn't. And, of course, there's the implied government guaranty of “too big to fail” banks, that Republicans are so eager to protect.

Fox that he is, Galbraith gives multiple examples of the ways in which the “free market” is anything but, and goes on to give examples of instances in which modern Democrats feel compelled to find solutions to social problems that are “market based”. The book was written before Obamacare, but it makes an obvious point that, despite the “success” of that program, cannot be denied: that any market based (i.e., insurance company subsidizing) approach to the provision of health care will be more expensive and less efficient than one simply provided by the government. In the case of health care he makes the same point that I've made on occasion: that the basic math of insurance is well known, that there are no efficiencies that can be introduced into the system by “competition”, and that the only innovations that today's insurance companies can possibly come up with would involve new ways of rejecting claims, and that a “market based” health care system amounts merely to a government subsidy to insurance companies and their overpaid CEOs..

Altogether he makes a powerful case for looking at issues from a new perspective, which is really an old liberal perspective of believing that there are some things government can do better than the private sector; indeed there are some things the private sector can't do at all without sinking into the type of corruption we see in our big banks and other entities such as the nascent charter school industry and for-profit colleges, which leads me, as a coda, to take note of this story in today's Times:

A decade ago, Corinthian Colleges was a Wall Street darling — a company that seemed to be able to coin money from the federal government and from desperate students. Now it is on the brink of collapse.

You may have never heard of Corinthian, but it is a principal beneficiary of federal student loans, taking in $1.4 billion a year from the government. It operates schools under the names Heald, Everest and WyoTech. A week ago it said it would be unable to finance its operations past the end of this month and disclosed that the Education Department had slowed the flow of federal money, pointing to what it said was admitted fraud at Corinthian in reporting both grades and job placements. But Corinthian persuaded the department to keep pumping in federal money, at least temporarily.

The department initially said it would hold up funding of student loans for as long as 21 days to give it time to check on whether the students were eligible for the loans. Corinthian responded that such a delay would be fatal and damage its 72,000 students on 107 campuses. It said its finances were so perilous that it could not operate for more than a few days without an inflow of cash.

Even before the government action, Corinthian had violated covenants on loans from Bank of America, leading the bank to reduce the amount it could borrow and to demand faster repayment. While the company’s financial statements showed it had a sizable net worth, a chief asset was the money it would save on taxes on future profits because of past losses, and it has been forced to write off much of that asset. Other assets included money owed by students who had already defaulted on their loans.

Confronted with warnings it would be responsible for hurting so many students, the department blinked. In negotiations over the last weekend, it agreed to pump in an immediate $16 million, with more expected to follow, even though Corinthian has not provided many of the documents the department demanded months ago.

via The New York Times

Those 72,000 students would be better off if the Department stuck to its guns. In any event, Corinthian College is yet another example of “market based” businesses whose true business plan involves diverting taxpayer money into its coffers while providing a “service” that could never survive in a real free market and which is far better delivered by non-profits or public institutions. To date, no one has ever accused a for-profit school of providing a quality education.

How to run an Empire

 

Senator Tim Johnson says we can't afford to provide good health care to vets:

 

. Johnson said that he couldn’t support the bill because of its cost—$35 billion the first two years and $50 billion per year after that, according to a preliminary estimate by the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office.

This is the same Sen. Johnson who said in a recent MSNBC interview that the current crisis in Iraq was caused because President Obama was not forceful enough about keeping troops in the country when the war ended. I am sure he would have found the money for that. I wonder if Senator Johnson would whine about the costs of the VA if just one of his three children had spent a year or more in some godforsaken hellhole like Afghanistan or Iraq.

 

via Daily Kos

Well, I hate to disagree with a Kosite, but Senator Johnson is right. In the entire history of the world, has there ever been a self respecting empire that wasted money on the men it chewed up and spit out to impose its will on its imperial subjects?

 

One of the reasons the U.S. has been unsuccessful at Empire is our insistence on paying lip service to democratic values and providing our soldiers with some modicum of economic security after we throw them away. Here's the proper way for an empire to operate:

 

 

Now, you didn't see the Romans providing medical care or benefits to their retired veterans, or the British either, when they were on top of their game. Let's face it, the British empire began its decline when the British Navy got rid of the cat'o'nine tails.

 

So, if you want to run an Empire right, ask yourself WWTRD (What would the Romans Do?). Senator Johnson could answer that question for you, and in suggesting we follow their example he's only doing his best to make sure our Empire is as long lasting and powerful as its predecessors. Of course, there was that inevitable decline, happening much faster here than in Roman times, but while times were good nobles like Johnson did very well indeed.

Pigs fly

There are moments in our national discourse that the narrative seems to change, and there are even moments when sanity, or as close to sanity as we can get, appears to have a chance of prevailing. We may have reached such a moment in the reaction to the reaction of the neo-cons to the events currently taking place in Iraq, events that war opponents predicted before the war even started.

A question is being asked of these people that they have never been asked before: “Why should we listen to you now, when you've been wrong about everything in the past?” This is a stunning development in a culture in which being wrong is usually a path to career advancement, no matter how many dead bodies one leaves in one's wake.

A slight diversion now, but I will get back to my point. I have always assumed that the people on Fox are smarter than the people they play on television. They are amply rewarded for saying very silly and stupid things, but, so far as I know, aren't required to believe anything they say. After all, they can turn on a dime anytime it suits the anti-Obama purpose, so intellectual honesty, not to mention consistency, is not a job requirement. Nonetheless, they know from whence their paychecks come, and what they are being paid to do (hint: journalism optional). So, it is always a surprise when one of them strays off the reservation. When one does it two times (three if you count a takedown of convicted criminal Dinesh D'Souza), it starts one must take notice.

So, to get back to my main point, it is more than emblematic of the media's extraordinary somewhat turnabout that Megyn Kelly, called out Dick Cheney, John Bolton, and D'Souza last week, while other somewhat journalists were piling onto Wolfowitz and others. Since she did it three times, it must be true. You can watch the video of Cheney here. Dick looks like a deer caught in the headlights about to get shot in the face. Remember, these guys are used to getting a free ride on Fox. They go on Fox precisely because they will not be asked the very obvious questions that Kelly put to Cheney. It's such an ironclad rule that Cheney may well have an action against Fox for breach of contract. I love when he insists that he wasn't wrong about weapons of mass destruction in spite of the fact that he was wrong about weapons of mass destruction because all his friends agreed with him at the time.

Why did Kelly slip the leash (at least for a while, she starts throwing softballs near the end)? It would be interesting to know. I'm not buying her claim that she's not an ideologue. That might very well be true, but most days she plays one on television. Has she had some sort of life altering experience? A crisis of conscience in which she realized that what she does has corrosive effects in the real world; that, in short, it matters? Perhaps someone she cared about (she probably does care about some people) was killed in Iraq. It would be interesting to know. Unfortunately, this media pushback on Iraq is likely to be an anomaly; fruit so low hanging that even Megyn Kelly can't resist. But, there's always hope.

License to cheat

The New York Times reports that the financial industry is upset that the Labor Department is considering making it illegal for them to cheat people out of their retirement savings.

Amid fierce pushback from the financial services industry, the Labor Department, which oversees retirement plans, recently delayed releasing a revised proposal that would require a broader group of professionals to put their clients’ interest ahead of their own when dealing with their retirement accounts. The department said it would release the proposed rule in January, according to its regulatory agenda, instead of this August. (Phyllis C. Borzi of the Labor Department, had signaled that it could miss the deadline.)

“They have really been stymied by the financial industry, which is spending millions of dollars to fight this rule,” said Karen Friedman, executive vice president and policy director at the Pension Rights Center, a nonprofit consumer group. “All the Labor Department is trying to do is modernize a rule that is out of date.”

The agency is trying to amend a 1975 rule, part of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act, known as Erisa, which outlines when investment advisers become fiduciaries — the eye-glazing legal term describing brokers who must put their customers’ interests first. The rules are stricter for fiduciaries who handle consumers’ tax-advantaged retirement money compared to fiduciaries under federal securities law.

But it is easy to avoid becoming a fiduciary under Erisa, consumer advocates say, because brokers must first meet a five-part test before they are required to follow the higher standard: If the advice is provided on a one-time basis, for instance, the rule does not apply. On top of that, the consumer and the broker must also “mutually agree” that the advice was the main reason for the investment decision.

They'll probably win this round; they always do. This brought to mind some cases I've had involving ERISA where this same industry adamantly maintains that it is a fiduciary.

For reasons I won't go into, employee's medical and disability benefits are subject to ERISA. The perverse, and I think unintended, consequence of this is that the administrators of the retirement plans-and this responsibility is often offloaded onto insurance companies- are considered “fiduciaries” when they decide whether an employee is or is not disabled.

Now, in the ordinary case of a privately purchased disability policy, the insured has certain advantages. If he or she is denied coverage, he or she can sue. The judge or jury will then decide the issue, and any ambiguity in the policy is construed in favor of the insured.

Enter ERISA. Because the insurance companies are considered “fiduciaries” of the employees retirement plan, their decisions prevail unless they have “abused their discretion”. In other words, instead of a tie going to the insured, as in the regular case, the umpire has to call the insured out in an ERISA case as long as the insurance company doesn't throw the ball out of the park.

Now, a few judges took the position that this couldn't possibly be the rule where the insurance companies had a built in conflict because their own money was on the line. So they ruled that the “abuse of discretion” rule applied only when the company was administering a plan funded by the employer, rather than a policy in which the employer merely paid premiums, and the company paid the benefits.

But the Supreme Court would have none of that. We must, it ruled, leave no employee un-screwed. The insurance companies maintained their fiduciary status, despite the obvious conflict, though the conflict could be considered as a factor in deciding whether the company had abused its discretion. But that requires proof that the conflict was a factor in the decision, something it is almost impossible to prove in any given case.

So now we have the same type of scum running from fiduciary status when it suits their needs. No doubt our Supreme Court will oblige them if the Labor Department won't.