Why 69 is obscene.

According to a new report by Pew Charitable Trusts, the median length of the list of disclosures that you will be presented when you open a new checking account is 69 pages.

ƒFinancial institutions do not summarize important policies and fee information in a uniform, concise, and easy-to-understand format that allows customers to compare account terms and conditions. The median length of bank checking account disclosure statements has decreased, but is still cumbersome at 69 pages. For credit unions, the median length is 31 pages. Although shorter, credit union disclosures often do not include information that would allow a customer to compare account fees, terms, and conditions.

On a related note, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) will be making its complaint database public today. The Washington Post indicates the importance of this data:
Complaints are the primary way that most consumers interact with the new agency. The CFPB said it has received more than 45,000 in the year since the bureau was launched. How it handles those complaints — and how much it makes public — has been a source of tension between the agency and financial industry groups.

Continue ReadingWhy 69 is obscene.

Chris Hedges discusses the all-encompassing meaning of war

I just finished reading War Is A Force That Gives Us Meaning, a 2003 book by Chris Hedges. This is a deeply emotional book, but also a highly abstract treatise. Hedges has worked as a reporter in more than a few war zones, and he draws upon those personal experiences to illustrate his analysis of the instant and all-encompassing meaning of war. This is an extremely well-written work, that offers timeless observations. These are observations that are desperately needed by Americans and the many politicians that, perhaps unwittingly, mislead them. After reading Hedge's work, I am more convinced than ever that for many people war is an almost irresistible intoxicant. As Hedges repeatedly points out, war intoxicates news reporters too, and then the vicious cycle revs up. I'd highly recommend reading this entire book to anyone who wants to better understand warmongering, its cheerleaders and its victims. What follows, though, is a set of some of my favorite passages from War Is A Force That Gives Us Meaning:

The enduring attraction of war is this: Even with its destruction and carnage it can give us what we long for in life. It can give us purpose, meaning, a reason for living. Only when we are in the midst of conflict does the shallowness and vapidness of much of our lives become apparent. Trivia dominates our conversations and increasingly our airwaves. And war is an enticing elixir. It gives us resolve, a cause. It allows us to be noble. And those who have the least meaning in their lives, the impoverished refugees in Gaza, the disenfranchised North African immigrants in France, even the legions of young who live in the splendid indolence and safety of the industrialized world, are all susceptible to war's appeal.

Continue ReadingChris Hedges discusses the all-encompassing meaning of war

No lessons learned

Glenn Greenwald points out that we've apparently learned nothing at all:

Here we have almost half of the U.S. Senate — liberals, moderates and conservatives — jointly demanding an escalation with Iran and all but endorsing a war before the U.S. Government even proposes one. Has the American political and media class learned a single lesson from the Iraq debacle?

Continue ReadingNo lessons learned

Lawrence Tribe offers a promising new amendment to the U.S. Constitution

At Slate, Lawrence Tribe has offered a new innovative approach to amending the U.S. Constitution with regard to election reform. Tribe's proposed amendment is especially valuable, because it doesn't obsess over neutralizing Citizens United and it doesn't simplistically demonize corporations (to the exclusion of other people and organizations that warp the election -- especially super-rich individuals and shell organization that hide the identities of the donors). Tribe takes serious aim at expenditures, rather than focusing only on contributions. Here is the text of Tribe's proposed amendment:

Nothing in this Constitution shall be construed to forbid Congress or the states from imposing content-neutral limitations on private campaign contributions or independent political campaign expenditures. Nor shall this Constitution prevent Congress or the states from enacting systems of public campaign financing, including those designed to restrict the influence of private wealth by offsetting campaign spending or independent expenditures with increased public funding.
Tribe proposed language focuses on a critically important point. The vast pools of unregulated money flowing into the system don't merely distort the natural outcomes of elections; they also distort access to politicians between elections:
Expenditures to support or oppose political candidates, however nominally independent—and lately, the purported independence of super PACs has become a national joke—in practice afforded wealthy people and corporations grossly disproportionate access to holders of public office.
Therefore, anyone worrying only about the outcome of elections is missing much of the story. Tribe also argues that proposed amendments declaring that money is not speech miss the mark:

I am not prepared to abandon all First Amendment scrutiny of regulations imposed on financial backing of political expression. What’s crucial is that regulations treat content neutrally, regardless of whether they address speech itself or the funding of speech, and regardless of the speakers at which they aim.

Additionally, as I reported here, the United States Supreme Court has, in Arizona Free Enterprise Club’s Freedom Club PAC v. Bennett, prohibited states from leveling the tilted playing field with public funding. Tribe's proposed amendment also addresses this huge problem. It's not likely that the U.S. Supreme Court will reverse Citizen's United, not when Justice Anthony Kennedy "infamously claimed in Citizens United that 'independent expenditures, including those made by corporations, do not give rise to corruption or the appearance of corruption.'" Tribe points out the lunacy of this belief, recognizing that big money buys special access. He urges that it is time for a new groundswell of united citizens to demand "commitment to equality of political influence."

Continue ReadingLawrence Tribe offers a promising new amendment to the U.S. Constitution

Who is buying the upcoming election for President?

Bill Moyers reports:

And that’s how the wealthy one percent does its dirty business. They are, by the way, as we were reminded by CNN’s Charles Riley in his report, “Can 46 Rich Dudes Buy an Election?” almost all men, mostly white, “and so far, the vast majority of their contributions have been made to conservative groups.” They want to own this election.

Continue ReadingWho is buying the upcoming election for President?