In 2012, the U.S. Supreme Court will rule on the constitutionality of
the Obama Health Care Plan (OHCP), officially the Patient Protection and
Affordable Care Act (2010). [1] Is OHCP constitutional? What is a
defensible and prudent green position on this question?
Read the whole story by Jane Anne Morris
Friday, February 3, 2012
Health Insurance, Banking, Oil Industries Met With Koch, Chamber, Glenn Beck To Plot 2010 Election
In 2006, Koch Industries owner Charles Koch revealed to the Wall Street Journal’s Stephen Moore that he coordinates the funding of the conservative infrastructure of front groups, political campaigns, think tanks, media outlets and other anti-government efforts through a twice annual meeting of wealthy right-wing donors. He also confided to Moore, who is funded through several of Koch’s ventures, that his true goal is to strengthen the “culture of prosperity” by eliminating “90%” of all laws and government regulations.
Read the whole story on ThinkProgress.
Read the whole story on ThinkProgress.
Who’s Financing the ‘Super PACs’
The Times tracked donors to “super PACs” as they filed reports on Tuesday detailing their activities in the final three months of 2011. Unlike candidates, who can raise a maximum of $2,500 per person for each election, super PACs are independent from candidates and can raise unlimited amounts from individuals, corporations and labor unions, and spend unlimited amounts to support or oppose a candidate. Here's the whole story in the NYTimes.
Monday, January 30, 2012
FBI probe should worry Walker
With new arrests every week, the FBI probe of Scott Walker's closest aides and supporters is continually uncovering stories that would be front-page news in any other political era.
How strained are things around the governor's mansion, where Walker's own spokesman, Cullen Werwie, now has immunity in the FBI probe? No wonder the governor says he wants to hurry up the recall election.
So serious are the charges against some of the people closest to Walker, corruption is rapidly becoming a major issue for the coming recall campaign, eclipsing union-busting, budget-cutting, and the fact that, despite massive corporate tax breaks for "job creators," our state continues to hemorrhage jobs.
But stealing money from the widows and orphans of Wisconsin's fallen soldiers? That is truly a new low.
Read the whole story: The Isthmus
How strained are things around the governor's mansion, where Walker's own spokesman, Cullen Werwie, now has immunity in the FBI probe? No wonder the governor says he wants to hurry up the recall election.
So serious are the charges against some of the people closest to Walker, corruption is rapidly becoming a major issue for the coming recall campaign, eclipsing union-busting, budget-cutting, and the fact that, despite massive corporate tax breaks for "job creators," our state continues to hemorrhage jobs.
But stealing money from the widows and orphans of Wisconsin's fallen soldiers? That is truly a new low.
Read the whole story: The Isthmus
Tuesday, January 24, 2012
The War on Political Free Speech
Source: Bradley A. Smith via WSJ Opinion
Two years ago the Supreme Court upheld the right of an incorporated
nonprofit organization to distribute, air and advertise a turgid
documentary about Hillary Clinton called, appropriately enough, "Hillary:
The Movie." From this seemingly innocuous and obvious First Amendment
decision has sprung a campaign of disinformation and alarmism rarely seen
in American politics.
From the start, reaction to Citizens United v. Federal Election
Commission has bordered on the hysterical. Rep. Alan Grayson (D., Fla.)
called it the "worst decision since Dred Scott"—the 1857 decision holding
that slaves could never become citizens. In his State of the Union message,
within days of the ruling, President Obama lectured Supreme Court justices
in attendance that they had "reversed a century of law" to allow "foreign
companies to spend without limit in our elections." Neither statement was
true.
In 1907, Congress passed a law—the Tillman Act, named for segregationist
South Carolina Sen. "Pitchfork" Ben Tillman—prohibiting corporations from
contributing to political campaigns. This law was extended to unions in
1943, and in 1947 a provision of the Taft-Hartley Act extended the
prohibition to cover spending done independently of campaigns.
Citizens United overturned only the 1947 independent-spending
restriction, not the earlier prohibition on corporate contributions to
campaigns. Not until 1990 did the Supreme Court uphold a prohibition on
corporate political expenditures independent of campaigns. Citizens United,
therefore, overturned not "a century of law," but a precedent 20 years old.
Moreover, the court specifically noted that it was not ruling on the
viability of the prohibition on foreign political spending—and earlier this
month it summarily upheld a lower-court ruling finding that the prohibition
on foreign political expenditures was constitutional.
Meanwhile, regardless of the 1947 federal law, the majority of
states—including many of the best governed, scandal-free states such as
Virginia, Utah, Oregon, Florida and Washington—have long allowed unlimited
corporate spending in state elections.
None of this has slowed the decision's critics. Then-Senate Judiciary
Committee Chairman Patrick Leahy (D., Vt.) began a committee hearing in
September 2010 by arguing that in his small state, "it's easy to imagine
corporate interests flooding the airwaves. . . . The rights of Vermonters .
. . to be heard should not be undercut by corporate spending." Vermont has
never prohibited corporate spending in state elections, yet it survived
with its citizens' rights intact.
Mr. Leahy, at least, limited himself to foolish remarks. His junior
colleague, Bernie Sanders (I., Vt.), proposed a constitutional amendment
last month that would not only prohibit corporations from speaking on
political elections, but would prohibit any group of citizens organized "to
promote business interests" from speaking about elections. Presumably, this
could extend to everyone from the Heritage Foundation and the National
Federation of Independent Business to the Republican National Committee and
local citizens organizing against a sales-tax referendum.
Because most newspapers are incorporated, UCLA law Prof. Eugene Volokh
believes that the Sanders Amendment and a companion bill in the House would
even authorize the government to prohibit newspaper editorials about
elections.
A national coalition, Move to Amend, seeks a constitutional amendment
providing that "artificial entities, such as corporations, limited
liability companies, and other entities . . . shall have no rights." The
coalition seems oblivious to the fact that this would apply to campaign
committees and nonprofits such as the NAACP and the Sierra Club, and would
allow legislatures to make the advocacy of Move to Amend's goals illegal
for most of the coalition's "endorsing organizations" (which are themselves
corporations).
These amendments are based on the leftist cry that "corporations aren't
people," but the Supreme Court has never said that they are. "Corporate
personhood" is a legal fiction that allows natural people to sue and to be
sued, to own and transfer property, and to carry on their affairs as a
group. Corporations have rights because the people who own them have rights.
As Chief Justice John Marshall explained nearly 200 years ago in Dartmouth
College v. Woodward, corporations allow "a perpetual succession of many
persons . . . to manage [their] affairs and to hold property without the
perplexing intricacies, the hazardous and endless necessity, of perpetual
conveyances for the purpose of transmitting it from hand to hand." The
legal concept of a corporate "person" has been with the United States since
its founding, recognized in literally hundreds of Supreme Court decisions.
If Move to Amend got its way, police could search businesses, unions, clubs
and nonprofits at will, without a warrant. The state could seize business
property without due process or just compensation, leaving pension funds
and individual shareholders holding worthless stock. Partnerships and
corporations would have no legal rights in court. Incorporated churches
would have no right of worship.
The absurdity should be obvious. Yet city councils around the country,
including New York and Los Angeles, have passed resolutions calling for
such an amendment.
Super PACs have become the latest villain du jour of the anti-speech crowd,
which plays off the general public distaste for the political rancor that
surfaces every election year. Critics including Mr. Sanders say that Super
PACs don't disclose their donors and rely on "secret" money. This is simply
not true. Super PACs, like the traditional political action committees that
have existed for decades, disclose all expenditures and all donors over
$200.
There are organizations that spend on politics but don't disclose their
donors: traditional nonprofits such as the NAACP, the NRA and Public
Citizen. These groups have never had to disclose their donors—and the
Supreme Court, over 50 years ago, upheld their right to keep supporters
anonymous. But reformers intentionally seek to blur the lines between these
traditional groups and Super PACs in order to whip up criticism of Citizens
United.
The goal of this misinformation is clear. Reformers, who sit mainly on the
political left, and their Democratic Party allies hope to silence voices
that they perceive to be hostile to their political interests.
Two years after Citizens United, American democracy seems as robust as
ever. This may be what its critics fear most—a vibrant debate that they
cannot control and fear they will lose.
The U.S. government argued in Citizens United that it had the right to
ban the publication of books, pamphlets and movies that advocated the
election or defeat of a candidate if they were produced or distributed by
unions or corporations, such as Random House, Barnes & Noble and
DreamWorks. That position is the one that deserves scorn. Fortunately, no
new amendment was needed to defeat it—only the First Amendment and a
Supreme Court willing to uphold it.
Mr. Smith, who served as commissioner of the Federal Election Commission
from 2000 to 2005, is chairman of the Center for Competitive Politics and
professor of law at Capital University.
Two years ago the Supreme Court upheld the right of an incorporated
nonprofit organization to distribute, air and advertise a turgid
documentary about Hillary Clinton called, appropriately enough, "Hillary:
The Movie." From this seemingly innocuous and obvious First Amendment
decision has sprung a campaign of disinformation and alarmism rarely seen
in American politics.
From the start, reaction to Citizens United v. Federal Election
Commission has bordered on the hysterical. Rep. Alan Grayson (D., Fla.)
called it the "worst decision since Dred Scott"—the 1857 decision holding
that slaves could never become citizens. In his State of the Union message,
within days of the ruling, President Obama lectured Supreme Court justices
in attendance that they had "reversed a century of law" to allow "foreign
companies to spend without limit in our elections." Neither statement was
true.
In 1907, Congress passed a law—the Tillman Act, named for segregationist
South Carolina Sen. "Pitchfork" Ben Tillman—prohibiting corporations from
contributing to political campaigns. This law was extended to unions in
1943, and in 1947 a provision of the Taft-Hartley Act extended the
prohibition to cover spending done independently of campaigns.
Citizens United overturned only the 1947 independent-spending
restriction, not the earlier prohibition on corporate contributions to
campaigns. Not until 1990 did the Supreme Court uphold a prohibition on
corporate political expenditures independent of campaigns. Citizens United,
therefore, overturned not "a century of law," but a precedent 20 years old.
Moreover, the court specifically noted that it was not ruling on the
viability of the prohibition on foreign political spending—and earlier this
month it summarily upheld a lower-court ruling finding that the prohibition
on foreign political expenditures was constitutional.
Meanwhile, regardless of the 1947 federal law, the majority of
states—including many of the best governed, scandal-free states such as
Virginia, Utah, Oregon, Florida and Washington—have long allowed unlimited
corporate spending in state elections.
None of this has slowed the decision's critics. Then-Senate Judiciary
Committee Chairman Patrick Leahy (D., Vt.) began a committee hearing in
September 2010 by arguing that in his small state, "it's easy to imagine
corporate interests flooding the airwaves. . . . The rights of Vermonters .
. . to be heard should not be undercut by corporate spending." Vermont has
never prohibited corporate spending in state elections, yet it survived
with its citizens' rights intact.
Mr. Leahy, at least, limited himself to foolish remarks. His junior
colleague, Bernie Sanders (I., Vt.), proposed a constitutional amendment
last month that would not only prohibit corporations from speaking on
political elections, but would prohibit any group of citizens organized "to
promote business interests" from speaking about elections. Presumably, this
could extend to everyone from the Heritage Foundation and the National
Federation of Independent Business to the Republican National Committee and
local citizens organizing against a sales-tax referendum.
Because most newspapers are incorporated, UCLA law Prof. Eugene Volokh
believes that the Sanders Amendment and a companion bill in the House would
even authorize the government to prohibit newspaper editorials about
elections.
A national coalition, Move to Amend, seeks a constitutional amendment
providing that "artificial entities, such as corporations, limited
liability companies, and other entities . . . shall have no rights." The
coalition seems oblivious to the fact that this would apply to campaign
committees and nonprofits such as the NAACP and the Sierra Club, and would
allow legislatures to make the advocacy of Move to Amend's goals illegal
for most of the coalition's "endorsing organizations" (which are themselves
corporations).
These amendments are based on the leftist cry that "corporations aren't
people," but the Supreme Court has never said that they are. "Corporate
personhood" is a legal fiction that allows natural people to sue and to be
sued, to own and transfer property, and to carry on their affairs as a
group. Corporations have rights because the people who own them have rights.
As Chief Justice John Marshall explained nearly 200 years ago in Dartmouth
College v. Woodward, corporations allow "a perpetual succession of many
persons . . . to manage [their] affairs and to hold property without the
perplexing intricacies, the hazardous and endless necessity, of perpetual
conveyances for the purpose of transmitting it from hand to hand." The
legal concept of a corporate "person" has been with the United States since
its founding, recognized in literally hundreds of Supreme Court decisions.
If Move to Amend got its way, police could search businesses, unions, clubs
and nonprofits at will, without a warrant. The state could seize business
property without due process or just compensation, leaving pension funds
and individual shareholders holding worthless stock. Partnerships and
corporations would have no legal rights in court. Incorporated churches
would have no right of worship.
The absurdity should be obvious. Yet city councils around the country,
including New York and Los Angeles, have passed resolutions calling for
such an amendment.
Super PACs have become the latest villain du jour of the anti-speech crowd,
which plays off the general public distaste for the political rancor that
surfaces every election year. Critics including Mr. Sanders say that Super
PACs don't disclose their donors and rely on "secret" money. This is simply
not true. Super PACs, like the traditional political action committees that
have existed for decades, disclose all expenditures and all donors over
$200.
There are organizations that spend on politics but don't disclose their
donors: traditional nonprofits such as the NAACP, the NRA and Public
Citizen. These groups have never had to disclose their donors—and the
Supreme Court, over 50 years ago, upheld their right to keep supporters
anonymous. But reformers intentionally seek to blur the lines between these
traditional groups and Super PACs in order to whip up criticism of Citizens
United.
The goal of this misinformation is clear. Reformers, who sit mainly on the
political left, and their Democratic Party allies hope to silence voices
that they perceive to be hostile to their political interests.
Two years after Citizens United, American democracy seems as robust as
ever. This may be what its critics fear most—a vibrant debate that they
cannot control and fear they will lose.
The U.S. government argued in Citizens United that it had the right to
ban the publication of books, pamphlets and movies that advocated the
election or defeat of a candidate if they were produced or distributed by
unions or corporations, such as Random House, Barnes & Noble and
DreamWorks. That position is the one that deserves scorn. Fortunately, no
new amendment was needed to defeat it—only the First Amendment and a
Supreme Court willing to uphold it.
Mr. Smith, who served as commissioner of the Federal Election Commission
from 2000 to 2005, is chairman of the Center for Competitive Politics and
professor of law at Capital University.
Sunday, January 22, 2012
Should We Feel Sorry for the Wealthy?
Ari Fleischer, the former White House Press Secretary for U.S. President George W. Bush , has been trying to make the case on Twitter that the wealthy are taking on more of the tax burden than ever.
Of course, the argument is incomplete without knowing how the share of income changed over these years. He uses the CBO as a source, so I'll use the same same data to respond to his claims:
What about the middle of the distribution? As noted above, the share of total federal tax paid by middle income taxpayers dropped from 21 percent in 1979 to 16.5 percent in 2007. However, over the same time period the share of income for this group went from 51.1 percent to 43.5 percent. When the fact that the share of income for the middle income group has fallen is accounted for, it's no surprise that the share of taxes has fallen as well. On net, the two roughly cancel -- the fall in income and the fall in taxes are roughly proportional. Thus, the notion that the rich are paying more, and middle income families are paying less -- that income is being redistributed from the rich to the middle -- does not hold up to further scrutiny. The rich are doing better than ever, tax rates are at historic lows for this group, and their share of taxes has not risen by as much as their share of income.
What about the bottom of the income distribution? First, it's highly misleading to just look at federal taxes for this group. The federal tax burden is relatively low for this group, but when state taxes, sales taxes, and the like are factored in the burden is relatively high. For example:
Ari Fleischer is trying to make you believe that taxes on the wealthy have risen, and that the increase in taxes is being used to fund tax reductions for lower income classes. However, when income gains are factored in the numbers tell a different story. This graph shows what has actually happened to the tax rates for the wealthy:
The next time Ari Fleischer or any other political operative tries to make the case that the wealthy have experienced an increase in their tax burden, keep this graph in mind.
Of course, the argument is incomplete without knowing how the share of income changed over these years. He uses the CBO as a source, so I'll use the same same data to respond to his claims:
CBO finds that, between 1979 and 2007, income grew by:Let's take the top 1% first. Between 1979 and 2007 income for this group grew by 275 percent, and the share of income doubled from around 10 percent to around 20 percent of total income. However, the share of taxes for this group less than doubled. Thus, a doubling of income resulted in less than a doubling of taxes. Given that income growth outpaced tax growth, it's hard to see how we can describe this as an increase in the tax burden for the top 1%.
The share of income going to higher-income households rose, while the share going to lower-income households fell.
- 275 percent for the top 1 percent of households,
- 65 percent for the next 19 percent,
- Just under 40 percent for the next 60 percent, and
- 18 percent for the bottom 20 percent.
- The top fifth of the population saw a 10-percentage-point increase in their share of after-tax income.
- Most of that growth went to the top 1 percent of the population.
- All other groups saw their shares decline by 2 to 3 percentage points.
What about the middle of the distribution? As noted above, the share of total federal tax paid by middle income taxpayers dropped from 21 percent in 1979 to 16.5 percent in 2007. However, over the same time period the share of income for this group went from 51.1 percent to 43.5 percent. When the fact that the share of income for the middle income group has fallen is accounted for, it's no surprise that the share of taxes has fallen as well. On net, the two roughly cancel -- the fall in income and the fall in taxes are roughly proportional. Thus, the notion that the rich are paying more, and middle income families are paying less -- that income is being redistributed from the rich to the middle -- does not hold up to further scrutiny. The rich are doing better than ever, tax rates are at historic lows for this group, and their share of taxes has not risen by as much as their share of income.
What about the bottom of the income distribution? First, it's highly misleading to just look at federal taxes for this group. The federal tax burden is relatively low for this group, but when state taxes, sales taxes, and the like are factored in the burden is relatively high. For example:
Data from the Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy show that the poorest fifth of households paid a stunning 12.3 percent of their incomes in state and local taxes in 2010
When all federal, state, and local taxes are taken into account, the bottom fifth of households paid 16.3 percent of their incomes in taxes, on average, in 2010.Mitt Romney pays 15 percent, or thereabouts (probably a bit more when state and local taxes are accounted for), while this group pays more than 15 percent in taxes even though their incomes are very low. Enough said about who faces a larger tax burden.
Ari Fleischer is trying to make you believe that taxes on the wealthy have risen, and that the increase in taxes is being used to fund tax reductions for lower income classes. However, when income gains are factored in the numbers tell a different story. This graph shows what has actually happened to the tax rates for the wealthy:
The next time Ari Fleischer or any other political operative tries to make the case that the wealthy have experienced an increase in their tax burden, keep this graph in mind.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)