Category Archives: Uncategorized

People Are Legal Fictions

Used to be that corporations were legal fictions and people were real. Now we’ve already established that corporations are people (Mitt told us so specifically). But now it’s also clear that people have become the legal fiction. Mitt claims that his continuing to be listed as CEO, chairman of the board, and sole stockholder of Bain Capital from 1999 (when he “left” the company) to 2002, and being paid an annual 6-figure sum is some sort of legal fiction, some bureaucratic device necessary to keep the lights on and the buyouts continuing while a team of lawyers took the few years necessary to untangle the interlocking web of holding companies so that Mitt’s “retirement” from the company would be in order and his name wouldn’t need to keep being plastered all over the paperwork filed on behalf of the company that he had absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with in any shape or form or anything, no, not my job man, I wasn’t there, it must’ve been somebody else. (dang, that’s a long sentence—gotta watch the coffee)

And of course Mitt is insulted, he’s outraged, that Democrats would suggest that he might continue to have had even the tiniest bit of interest in a company he was listed as CEO, chairman and sole owner of. How dare they insinuate that he would dream of paying the slightest attention to what the people running the show at Bain were doing to a company he was listed as “owning 100%” of. No diligent and responsible businessman would ever, you know, make a few calls, exchange a couple emails to see that the great corporate benefactor Bain Capital had decided to start looting pension plans. Heck, that would be like Bob Evans retiring from his sausage company and then caring that the new guys started stuffing the links with sawdust and selling them with his name on the package. What sensible businessman would spend 5 minutes worrying about something like that? No, the best businessman knows when to pull back; “Do whatever you want guys, it’s only my money and reputation. Ha Ha!”

So “CEO, chairman of the board and 100% owner” was just a necessary fiction for Mitt to take off and run the Olympics. What kind of fiction will the US presidency be for Mitt? Maybe we could just skip the presidency phase and let him go straight to running another Olympics. The 2014 Winter Games are in Sochi. Know where that is? Me neither. Sounds like a good place for Mitt.

Free Fire Zone

Fourth of July Fire Sale! Yes, indeed, all the fire you want, and more! Free! The Colorado wildfires have been particularly nasty:

Red Zone: Colorado’s Growing Wildfire Danger | I-News Network.

waldo canyon fire

One of the many untoward consequences involved conservative commentator Michelle Malkin having to listen to government orders to evacuate her Colorado home in one of the danger areas. She seemed, though, to have recovered from the trauma of socialist (or is it fascist?) intervention in time to take the opportunity to reiterate the message that this had nothing to do with that mythical global warming, the climate is just fine thank you, and please pay no attention to the dead, dry trees and the melting asphalt in your street. I’ve been waiting to see Grover Norquist and all the politicians who signed on to drown the government in the bathtub lined up in the streets blockading the firefighters so that they don’t spend any more government money helping homeless people (or really-soon-to-be homeless people). After all, aren’t people free to live wherever they can afford to build (whatever the downstream costs born by the rest of us)? And build they are. According to an analysis of housing records by I-News in the link above, in the past 20 years, a quarter-million people moved into one of Colorado’s red zones, areas at highest risk for the most dangerous wildfires. That means there are now over 1/2 million homes with over 1 million people in the red zones. Just to compound the problem, Colorado is having more wildfires. In the 1960s, Colorado averaged about 460 fires/yr, burning about 8000 acres. In the last 10 years, they’ve averaged about 2500 fires/yr, burning about 100,000 acres. In some areas, the fire season is 2 months longer than it used to be. Why? Warmer. Dryer. Climate change. (ooh, I said a bad word).

Grover’s Gonna Gitcha, Mitt

First, I guess a shout out to Chief Justice John Roberts for his completely out of character decision to step away from the side of the knuckle-dragging apologists for the plutocracy and do the right thing by upholding Obamacare*. And if you disagree that this was uncharacteristic of him, show me a Republican who was not surprised by it. Good on him. Won’t hold my breath waiting for a repeat performance, but I’m willing to be pleasantly surprised. One more like this and maybe Scalia will have an actual seizure, rather than just simulating one in his dissenting opinion.

But given the reasoning behind the court’s decision, to wit, that the individual mandate was constitutional because it is technically a tax (and of course Congress does still retain the power to tax), I’m really wondering about the effect of this on Mitt. Why? Because Mitt established a similar insurance mandate in Massachusetts, and that means he’s in violation of his pledge to Grover Norquist not to raise taxes. Now that evil, ankle-biting gnome is going to have to run honking after his party’s standard bearer like an angry goose, demanding penance (or perhaps one of Mitt’s overseas bank accounts).

Which reminds me. All these Congresspeople who signed Grover’s pledge. How, exactly, does a pledge to a someone who doesn’t even live in your district somehow take priority over your responsibilities to your job? “Oh, I promised!” Oh, right, like your other promises ever meant squat. And what sense does it make to promise to anyone that you’ll never, ever do anything? I mean, I’m about as anti-war and anti-foreign-misadventure as it gets, and I’d certainly like my leaders to promise to try to avoid war, but I wouldn’t for a minute think it was sensible to promise never, ever to go to war no matter what.

Oh, and when Grover drowns the government in his bathtub, if Mitt is president then, will he go swirling down the drain along with Social Security and Medicare? Or will those 2 good programs reject his presence and allow him to float to the surface like water was supposed to reject a witch in medieval times?

*As per a previous post, I think President Obama should get full credit for this very important (but still preliminary) step in reforming American health care. Let his name stay attached so everyone who now has access to health care and wouldn’t’ve before knows exactly who to thank.

We’re All People Now

Before the Civil War, the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) helped perpetuate slavery and thus ensure that people were property. Now they’re working the other side of the street and ensuring that property is people. SCOTUS yesterday mended the last tiny hole in the fence separating people from corporations when it issued its ruling on the Montana Supreme Court case.

This is the case about the legitimacy of a Montana law written 100 years ago to keep the copper barons from overtly buying (essentially free market, auction block buying) of politicians. Actually worked pretty well, all things considered. Worked well enough to get the attention of the lawyers pimping for the oligarchy, so a challenge was issued in the state courts. The Montana Supreme Court, evidently the offspring of this law, in that they actually don’t appear to have been bought off, amazingly upheld Montana law and said No, corporations are NOT allowed to buy politicians.

Well, our corporate masters couldn’t let this ride. Enter the SCOTUS, black robes flapping like the ravens come to pluck the liver from Prometheus for daring to bring sunlight to a dark world. Their decision in the case was 1 paragraph long—or one paragraph short. Brief by any legal standard but probably pretty representative of the amount of time they took to think about it. Here’s the gist:

“A Montana state law provides that a “corporation may not make…an expenditure in connection with a candidate or a political committee that supports or opposes a candidate or a political party”…The question presented in this case is whether the holding of Citizens United applies to the Montana state law. There can be no serious doubt that it does.”

Yep, just in case anyone was wondering whether the SCOTUS had any second thoughts about Citizens United after seeing the real-world results, the answer is in and it’s a resounding “NO.” Now we and the corporations are all just one big happy people family. And we know who gets to be the daddy.

Mitt and Bain

There’s been a fair amount of ink and electrons expended in regards to the topic of Mitt Romney and Bain Capital. Most of it has been of the nature of a sporting activity, either “boo, vulture capitalist” or “yaay, job creator.” Although this vague attempt to envision the consequences of a candidate’s principles is theoretically a slight improvement on the “Horse Race Journalism” I railed against in a previous post, it continues the chattering class’s insistence on confusing labeling with rational analysis. Hence my surprise today to encounter a reference in a NY Times editorial today to an article actually looking deeper into the fortunes of 77 companies acquired by Bain Capital during Romney’s tenure. The article appeared in the Wall Street Journal 1/9/12.

Now, overall, Bain produced about $2.5 billion for its investors on about $1.1 billion invested. Ok, 250% is not a bad return compared with, say, the fraction of 1% I’m getting on my bank savings account now, but hey, I guess Mitt’s just a really good manager. But take a look at the specific gains. Not too surprisingly, 10 of the 77 deals produced over 70% of the gains (see figure). How gainful were these gains? Well, you can see that Bain invested $5.1 million in American Pad & Paper in ’92, took them public in ’96, and pocketed $102 million—a 20 fold return (2000%). Oh, and Bain made AP&P so profitable and successful that AP&P went bankrupt  4 years later, in 2000. Even better was Wesley Jessen VisionCare, which turned a $6.4 million investment in ’95 into a $302 million (47x) profit after going public in ’95.

Wall Street Journal, 1/9/2012

Wiley business strategies? Absolutely. I wish I made 250%, or 2000% or 4700% on my money—then I’d be rich and you all would have to listen to me (or at least run me for president). But is this investment success evidence that Mitt knows how to manage businesses out of a jam, solve the problems that are keeping them from being profitable? That’s the narrative the Republicans want, because that shows he’s the man to fix America’s problems, too. Well, let’s think about it. Take American Pad & Paper. How do you fix and manage your way to 2000% profit? Even if Mitt went in and found that Tom on the 3rd shift had mistaken the office supplies coming off the production line for scrap paper and was throwing them all out, you couldn’t make an extra $100 million. Not even if Mitt personally invented a new, cheaper glue for Post-it notes. Now I’m sure that many management improvements were made, but that is how you go to 20% profit, not 2000%—and fixing management problems doesn’t put you in bankruptcy a few years later. Without further digging into these private deals than even the WSJ did or could do, we can’t say for sure what happened (gee, how about that) but there doesn’t seem to be any way to avoid the conclusion that Mitt’s success was all due to leveraged buyouts and sucking money out of IPOs rather than any particular ability to run a business (other than a vulture capital business, which is what he should stick with). There is zero carry-over to managing the USA.

My Marriage is in Danger!

Yes it is. Ann Hathaway smiled and winked at me from the tv last week…least I’m pretty sure it was me. Who else could it have been? And now, my marriage is in danger because, when Ms. H. wants someone, she cannot be denied. Surely my wife will understand.

Of course my running off with Ann Hathaway is just a product of my fevered imagination, but it’s no more imaginary than the desperate fear-mongering conjured up in response to President Obama’s recent statement in support of gay marriage.

Now I’ve always found this right wing mouth-frothing puzzling. Although it’s pretty obvious how Ann Hathaway flirting with me could endanger my marriage, I just can’t come up with any causal chain, even a convoluted Rube Goldberg one, by which gay people marrying hurts my marriage (or me, or pretty much anyone or anything except maybe the jilted boy/girl friend in a gay love triangle). And the homophobes haven’t produced any rational argument about how gay marriage harms them either.

But you know, let’s leave that aside a moment. Convincing people that things they think are bad are not, in fact, bad is a nigh-unto impossible uphill slog. I mean, 50 years after Vatican II there are still some elderly Catholics who wont eat meat on Fridays, and the Pope himself said that it was ok. So let’s just for the sake of argument grant the bigots their prejudices and irrational beliefs; we’ll all suppose for a minute that gay marriage is in fact a Bad Idea (by which I mean all manner of things unhelpful, hurtful, unethical, immoral or just plain stupid—sort of like the Republican Party’s legislative agenda). Ok, fine. But what no one ever addresses is the question “What bad ideas need to be made illegal?” When does the state (whether as Big Brother or Nanny Mary Poppins) need to intervene and stop people from implementing Bad Ideas?

Well, the right-wingers knee jerk response would be “always!” If it’s a Bad Idea, it should be illegal! They think there’s a simple one-to-one correspondence: Bad Idea = Illegal. Off with their heads! Simple thoughts for simple minds, I guess. But a moment’s reflection generates a number of Bad Ideas that are not illegal (the list is enormous, so for the sake of space, I’ll leave out ones like unclogging your lawnmower while the engine is running, smoking in bed and buying at the top of the market, and stick to Bad Ideas that are also immoral).

Bad Ideas That Are Not Illegal

  • Having an affair
  • Cheating at cards
  • Being rude to your mom on Mother’s Day (or any day)
  • Bragging to friends about false accomplishments 
  • Ignoring your children

(and note that these are all Bad Ideas that cause some degree of harm to others not just oneself). I’m sure you can come up with others.

So it’s not enough for conservatives to say that gay marriage is “wrong,” they have to provide some rational arguments as to why this particular wrong thing needs to be forbidden by the power of The State, why 2 people who want only to commit themselves to a single life-partner, through sickness and health, richer and poorer, etc. etc. must be kept from doing so! And this argument has to be something more than “I don’t like it,” or “The invisible galactic overlord doesn’t like it.” So far I’ve heard nothing. Time to stop using the law to enforce bigotry and prejudice.

…Yeah, I’m the Taxman

Well, it’s that day again folks. The Republicans’ least favorite day of the year. Tax day. Not only do they have to pay money to the government (gasp), but, as impossible as it may sound, on this day their hypocrisy becomes even more exposed than usual. Tax day reminds everyone that these super-patriots, this love-it-or-leave-it, wave the red white and blue, God Bless America crowd are people who love their country so much they’ll do anything for it—except help pay for it. April 15 reminds everyone that the Republicans’ money aint where their mouth is, their bullshit walks while real patriots’ money talks.

To show where Republicans’ true allegiance lies (for those who still might have doubts), this week they appear ready to bring up H.R. 9, the Small Business Tax Cut Act which lets businesses deduct up to 20% of their income in 2012 (at a cost of $46 billion). Of course, in true Republican fashion, it’s set up so that nearly half the cut goes to benefit people making over $1 million/year, and over 80% to those making over $200,000—in other words, Republican donors.

So isn’t this going to help the economy? Well, it’ll help the economy of the well-to-do, but it wont help the economy of the country. In addition to worsening the deficit (hey, don’t Republicans think that’s supposed to be bad?) it wont help employment because cash availability is not the limiting factor for businesses right now, it’s lack of demand. Nick, a commenter to one of today’s NY Times editorials said it well:

I own a small business with 7 employees. Let me very clear – I have never made a hiring decision based on tax policy, and never will. It makes absolutely no sense. I hire the number of people I need to accomplish the work that needs to be done. No less, and no more. In other words, it is all driven by the demand for the goods and services my business provides…These Republicans who say that tax policy drives hiring decisions are either morons or bold faced liars, probably both…There is no tax policy in the world that would get me to hire more people than I need to meet the current demands of my business, and that is driven by my customers and their spending levels, not tax policy.

More money in the hands of the middle class is the only thing that will give a real economic recovery. The 1% spend a much lower proportion of their income on goods and services, and concentrating wealth in their hands only slows our climb out of our current hole. And what do they say is the first thing to do when you’re in a hole? Stop digging.

I know, we need LESS money!

The principles behind Paul Ryan’s recent budget proposal should be mandatory for personal finance too—at least for Republicans. Here’s the Cleaver family:

Ward: June, you know that cough I’ve been having?

June: You means the one that’s been leaving those nasty blood stains on the sheets? You ought to get that checked out, Ward.

Ward: I did. Doc Hibbert says I need x-rays and a CT scan!

June: So just do it, honey. Find out what it is.

Ward: Well there’s a little problem. We don’t have health insurance anymore. Mr. Burns decided our company’s profits weren’t high enough so he canceled health coverage. Now the hospital wont do anything unless I pay cash up front! And between our Middle-Eastern vacation cruise and buying that big pack of guard dogs, we’re in debt to our eyeballs. We can’t borrow another cent.

June: Come on, Ward, that cruise was fun (well except for the part when the Beaver fell off the mast and got a concussion) and we have to keep our home safe—the dogs are great at keeping the Mexican kids next door out of the yard. Wont your mom give us some money?

Ward: Now June, you know it takes everything she has to pay for her own rent and all her doctor visits.

June: So what are we going to do?

Ward: Well, I was looking at Paul Ryan’s budget proposal last night, and I realized we just have to do the same thing our Republican leaders suggest when the country doesn’t have enough money to pay its bills.

June: Invade someone? Well, I suppose we could use the dogs…

Ward: No! You know how the only answer to Obama’s deficit is to cut taxes?

June: Of course, dear.

Ward: Well, obviously then the answer to our family deficit is for us to cut our income! I’m going to ask Mr. Burns to immediately decrease my salary by 50%!

June: Oh, ok! So then we’ll qualify for the government Medicaid program! That’s my Ward, always one step ahead.

Ward: No, no! Newt says Medicaid is evil…besides, we’d still make too much to qualify.

June: So wait a minute. How does us taking in less money help the problem that we can’t afford to pay our bills?

Ward: It’s easy. Now, see, the way Paul Ryan explained it is my salary comes from Mr. Burns… So if I take less money from Mr. Burns, then he’ll have more!

June: Well, duh. And then we’ll have less and be in an even worse hole! How exactly does it help us to let Mr. Burns have more? He’s already the richest man in town.

Ward: Umm, let me think…It made sense when Paul explained it. Ah, it’s like this. Mr. Burns will have more money and then he’ll make a bigger factory and make even more money!

June: Ok…I’m waiting for the part where this helps the Cleaver household.

Ward: Well, if Mr. Burns makes enough money, then maybe someday he’ll give me back some of the pay cut I took! There, see!

June: So if Mr. Burns is feeling generous, someday years from now our income might just end up back where it started but minus the extra debt we need in the meantime to cover your salary cut (if we can borrow anything)? Hmm…Wouldn’t it be better just to ask Mr. Burns right now for a raise? Instead of a salary cut? I mean, you’re worth it, and we need the money to see about your chest problem now, not later. And don’t forget we have to take care of your mom.

Ward: Oh no, I wouldn’t dare ask for a raise. I couldn’t expect Mr. Burns to raise salaries. Then he wouldn’t have as much money. That wouldn’t be fair.

June: No, you’re right, that would make Mr. Burns very unhappy.  All right, go ahead with your salary cut. Mom probably doesn’t need all those doctor visits.  And since the Beaver hit his head, I’m sure he wont need college—maybe he can get a job mowing Mr. Burns’ lawn once the dogs finish chasing the Mexicans away. Plus, Rick Santorum does say that college is overrated, which he should know, since he went for so long. And let me take a look in the garage, there’re probably still a few things left to sell. Oh Ward, I’m so proud of you and Paul Ryan!

Children’s Right to Know Act

I love Republican euphemistic names for bills, don’t you? You know, like the “Healthy Forests Initiative” that encouraged logging in national forests. In Pennsylvania this week, we have the “Women’s Right to Know Act.” Now, from the title, you might think this has something to do with, say, women being entitled to know what salary men doing the same job make, or where their husbands really were when they went on that “Appalachian Trail hike.”  But of course, what this bill is really about is women’s “right to know” that anti-abortion legislators want to poke them in the privates with an ultrasound wand and then harangue and shame them about wanting an abortion.

So, in the same Republican spirit of limited government intervention and individual freedom (and carried out by forced mandates on private doctors), I propose the Children’s Right to Know Act. This legislation will require pediatricians to identify parents’ political leanings at all office visits of school-aged children. Children of Republican parents will be shown videos of people with no teeth living in trailers, soup kitchens, crowded prisons, oil-covered beaches, closed factories and collapsed bridges. It will end by the magic of technology with a shot of the child’s face (taken from her mandatory ID card) superimposed on that of a soldier in a squad attacking a group of dark-skinned people in a desert village. The pediatrician must then inform the children that these are the consequences of voting Republican. I mean, they have a right to know, don’t they?

Stop the Impostors!

The PA State Senate voted Wednesday to pass Republican-inspired House Bill 934, which requires all voters (not just first-time voters) to show approved photo ID at the polling place in order to be allowed to vote. This will clearly stop the horrible epidemic of people pretending to be their neighbors and sneaking in to vote for them. Ha! That’ll be a good trick on Porter, someone will come to the polling place, say they’re me and vote Republican! Of course, I’m one of the election inspectors who signs people in to vote (and matches their signature with the one in the log of registered voters) so that might not work too well. But they could pretend to be someone else in Chadds Ford—unless of course we knew the person, or the impostor was the wrong age or had the wrong signature. Impostor voting is the kind of thing that wouldn’t be very secret because it would be immediately apparent when the real person came in to vote. But I’ve never heard anyone describe this—not even the right wingers who rail about “voter fraud” (the issue there is registering voters).

 So what’s the deal with what appears to be a solution in search of a problem? Well the “problem” is pretty clear. Who doesn’t have photo ID? I mean, does anybody not have photo ID these days? Well, about 10-15% of the very youngest and the very oldest registered voters do not, and about 25% of the voting poor lack such ID. Except for the elderly, these people skew Democratic. If the Republicans can put up some barriers to them voting, they’ll get an edge. Huge difference? Not really, but when 51%-49% is considered a solid election victory, then a couple percent fewer Democratic votes is well worth gunning for.

Now the argument is that people who don’t have photo ID can go get a non-driver photo ID from the DMV. Of course if you don’t drive, getting to the DMV is your first issue. Then you need (per  http://www.dmv.com/pa/pennsylvania/apply-id-card) :

  • One form of acceptable identification (birth certificate with raised seal, valid passport, certificate of citizenship or naturalization)
  • 2 proofs of residency
  • Your social security card
  • $10

 Barrier to voting, anyone?