Senator Ted Kaufman stands out

Arianna Huffington has recognized the excellent work of Senator Ted Kaufman, who dares to comes out swinging against Wall Street.

In the last week alone, Kaufman has taken to the Senate floor to deliver two major -- and blistering -- speeches. The first was a masterful overview, offering chapter and verse on what led to the financial crisis and what, specifically, needs to be done to ensure that we "build a regulatory system that will endure for generations instead of one that will be laid bare by an even bigger crisis in perhaps just a few years or a decade's time." . . . . The great thing about Kaufman is that he isn't afraid to use direct, pointed language, saying that "fraud and lawlessness were key ingredients" in the financial collapse. And he's willing to name names: in his attack on derivatives, he called out Alan Greenspan, Robert Rubin, and Larry Summers as key cheerleaders for unregulated derivatives markets . . .
But why is Kaufman speaking out against dysfunctional/corrupt Wall Street banks while most other senators are timid? The absence of money as a factor in his decision making.
Kaufman didn't need to raise any money to become a senator -- he was appointed. And he doesn't need to raise any money for his reelection campaign -- he's not running. At 71, with a long, distinguished career in government under his belt, Kaufman is completely unencumbered by the need to curry favor and approach moneyed interests with his hat in his hand. So let's all take a good look at Ted Kaufman. This is what it looks like when our representatives are not beholden to special interests, and are only serving the public interest.

Continue ReadingSenator Ted Kaufman stands out

NASCAR Patches for Congressmen

I heard one new idea in last night's State of the Union. In response to the Supreme Court deciding that multi-national corporations should have all the rights of individual breathing citizens -- allowing them to spend whatever they want to influence elections (as reported here) -- Obama suggested that all contacts between lobbyists and public servants be publicly documented. This includes the identity of the client corporations and amounts of money and time involved. The applause were uneven. This morning a new FaceBook group appeared: 'Our Corporate Congress': Make NASCAR-type patches mandatory Congress-wear. I'm not much of a joiner, but I like this idea. Allow the Congressman from Exxon to proudly wear the oil patch right next to his Monsanto and Pfizer badges. Let the senator who filibusters public transit bills proudly show his AAA patch and Ford logo.

Continue ReadingNASCAR Patches for Congressmen

Corporations as persons? Pigs get fat; hogs get slaughtered. Or do they?

Today, five members of the United States Supreme Court had their fun pretending that their hands were tied and that they were forced by objective reasoning to rule that corporations have the same right to participate in the political process as natural persons. I strenuously disagree. Today's ruling of Citizen's United v. Federal Election Commission is extremely dangerous to our democracy. Many commentators are burning up the Internet with their written thoughts. I had previously posted on this case, citing to comments by the lawyers representing the two sides. I'll make some more comments today, based upon the written opinion. I have not read the entire opinion, but I have read enough to understand the basic contours of the ruling. What is the basis for today's ruling in Citizen's United? The majority argues that media corporations already had the practical power to say whatever they wanted, so it wouldn't be fair to deny this same power to other types of corporations. Time to throw upon the doors! The majority argues that corporations would get around campaign laws anyway, so why keep trying? The majority naively argues that independent expenditures, including those made by corporations, do not give rise to corruption or the appearance of corruption.

Continue ReadingCorporations as persons? Pigs get fat; hogs get slaughtered. Or do they?

How’s your water quality?

The debate over tap water vs. bottled water will probably go on for quite some time. Many people believe that by purchasing bottled water, they are consuming better quality water than that which comes from the tap. Others argue that the environmental impact of bottled water is massive, and that bottled water is no safer than tap water. A report earlier this year from the Government Accounting Office claims that because public water supplies are regulated by the Safe Water Drinking Act and those regulations are enforced by the EPA, they are therefore safer than bottled water, which is regulated by the FDA-- and we all know what a wonderful job the FDA has been doing. But a new investigative report by the New York Times calls this conclusion into question.

In the last five years alone, chemical factories, manufacturing plants and other workplaces have violated water pollution laws more than half a million times. The violations range from failing to report emissions to dumping toxins at concentrations regulators say might contribute to cancer, birth defects and other illnesses. However, the vast majority of those polluters have escaped punishment. State officials have repeatedly ignored obvious illegal dumping, and the Environmental Protection Agency, which can prosecute polluters when states fail to act, has often declined to intervene.

Continue ReadingHow’s your water quality?

Guess this author

The more things change, the more they stay the same, it seems. See if you can guess who authored this quotation on capitalism vs. socialism: (all emphases are mine)

The economic anarchy of capitalist society as it exists today is, in my opinion, the real source of the evil. We see before us a huge community of producers the members of which are unceasingly striving to deprive each other of the fruits of their collective labor—not by force, but on the whole in faithful compliance with legally established rules. In this respect, it is important to realize that the means of production—that is to say, the entire productive capacity that is needed for producing consumer goods as well as additional capital goods—may legally be, and for the most part are, the private property of individuals. For the sake of simplicity, in the discussion that follows I shall call “workers” all those who do not share in the ownership of the means of production—although this does not quite correspond to the customary use of the term. The owner of the means of production is in a position to purchase the labor power of the worker. By using the means of production, the worker produces new goods which become the property of the capitalist.

Continue ReadingGuess this author