|
FOCUS | Elizabeth Warren Takes Off the Gloves |
|
|
Saturday, 30 March 2013 11:17 |
|
Wagstaff writes: "Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts ran for the Senate as a populist hell-bent on reforming Wall Street. And after starting her tenure as something of a wallflower - much to the consternation of her fans - it appears she's ready to do just that."
Is there a new Sheriff in town? (photo: AP)

Elizabeth Warren Takes Off the Gloves
By Keith Wagstaff, The Week
30 March 13
The freshman senator is on a roll, taking on Wall Street at every opportunity.
lizabeth Warren of Massachusetts ran for the Senate as a populist hell-bent on reforming Wall Street. And after starting her tenure as something of a wallflower - much to the consternation of her fans - it appears she's ready to do just that.
Her most recent target was HSBC, which recently settled money laundering charges to the tune of $1.9 billion.
"If you're caught with an ounce of cocaine, the chances are good you're gonna go to jail. If it happens repeatedly, you may go to jail for the rest of your life," Warren said, according to The Associated Press. "But evidently if you launder nearly a billion dollars for drug cartels and violate our international sanctions, your company pays a fine and you go home and sleep in your bed at night."
That sounds a lot like Elizabeth Warren the candidate, who once said that if the Senate Banking Committee did not pass strong consumer protections, it better leave "plenty of blood and teeth on the floor." After taking office, some of her supporters wondered where that fiery consumer advocate had gone. Politico ran a story that featured her ducking the press, and pleading, "I'm new to the Senate and I confess I don't get this."
Lately, however, she hasn't hesitated to go for the jugular. Shortly after that Politico piece was released, a video of her lambasting top regulators for settling with big banks instead of taking them to trial went viral on YouTube. Then she grilled Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke over a Bloomberg report that calculated that big banks essentially each receive an $83 billion subsidy from the government, because their too-big-to-fail status acts as a guarantee against insolvency. Next, she attacked Attorney General Eric Holder for admitting he was hesitant to prosecute big banks, arguing that his "testimony that the biggest banks are too-big-to-jail shows once again that it is past time to end too-big-to-fail."
Why the change? The Boston Globe's Joshua Green points out that unlike in Hillary Clinton's time, keeping a low profile isn't always in a freshman senator's best interest:
In the days of yore, a newcomer like Warren could bide her time, gradually win the respect of her colleagues, and then, maybe, after years of diligent effort, put together a coalition large enough to succeed. Today's Senate doesn't operate that way. Public pressure, often driven by outrage and anger, is the only force that reliably brings results. [Boston Globe]
The left, predictably, loves it. Daily Kos gleefully announced, "Oh yeah, there's a new sheriff in town." David Sirota at Salon hopes that Warren's rise "will prove that quiescence is not a virtue and that good things do not come to those who wait."
The banking industry has, at least in public, been very polite concerning Warren. But it's not hard to imagine James Ballentine, chief lobbyist for the American Bankers Association, saying the following through clenched teeth: "She is as advertised. She came in and concentrated on being a strong advocate for consumers, and she has certainly done that and a little more."

|
|
Big Corporations Are Unpatriotic |
|
|
Written by <a href="index.php?option=com_comprofiler&task=userProfile&user=23303"><span class="small">Ralph Nader, The Nader Page</span></a>
|
|
Friday, 29 March 2013 14:05 |
|
Nader writes: "Other than profiteering from selling Washington very expensive weapons of mass destruction, many multinational firms have little sense of true national security."
Ralph Nader being interviewed during his 2008 presidential campaign, 08/01/08. (photo: Scrape TV)

Big Corporations Are Unpatriotic
By Ralph Nader, The Nader Page
29 March 13
any giant profitable U.S. corporations are increasingly abandoning America while draining it at the same time.
General Electric, for example, has paid no federal income taxes for a decade while becoming a net job exporter and fighting its hard-pressed workers who want collective bargaining through unions like the United Electrical Workers Union (UE). GE's boss, Jeffrey Immelt, makes about $12,400 an hour on an 8-hour day, plus benefits and perks, presiding over this global corporate empire.
Telling by their behavior, these big companies think patriotism toward the country where they were created and prospered is for chumps. Their antennae point to places where taxes are very low, labor is wage slavery, independent unions are non-existent, governments have their hands out, and equal justice under the rule of law does not exist. China, for example, has fit that description for over 25 years.
Other than profiteering from selling Washington very expensive weapons of mass destruction, many multinational firms have little sense of true national security.
Did you know that about 80 percent of the ingredients in medicines Americans take now come from China and India where visits by FDA inspectors are infrequent and inadequate?
The lucrative U.S. drug industry - coddled with tax credits, free transfer of almost-ready-to-market drugs developed with U.S. taxpayer dollars via the National Institutes of Health - charges Americans the highest prices for drugs in the world and still wants more profits. Drug companies no longer produce many necessary medicines like penicillin in the U.S., preferring to pay slave wages abroad to import drugs back into the U.S.
Absence of patriotism has exposed our country to dependency on foreign suppliers for crucial medicines, and these foreign suppliers may not be so friendly in the future.
Giant U.S. companies are strip-mining America in numerous ways, starting with the corporate tax base. By shifting more of their profits abroad to "tax-haven" countries (like the Cayman Islands) through transfer pricing and other gimmicks, and by lobbying many other tax escapes through Congress, they can report record profits in the U.S. with diminishing tax payments. Yet they are benefitting from the public services, special privileges, and protection by our armed forces because they are U.S. corporations.
On March 27, 2013, the Washington Post reported that compared to forty years ago, big companies that "routinely cited U.S. federal tax expenses that were 25 to 50 percent of their worldwide profits," are now reporting less than half that share. For instance, Proctor and Gamble was paying 40 percent of its total profits in taxes in 1969; today it pays 15 percent in federal taxes. Other corporations pay less or no federal income taxes.
Welcome to globalization. It induces dependency on instabilities in tiny Greece and Cyprus that shock stock investments by large domestic pension and mutual funds here in the U.S. Plus huge annual U.S. trade deficits, which signals the exporting of millions of jobs.
The corporate law firms for these big corporations were the architects of global trade agreements that make it easy and profitable to ship jobs and industries to fascist and communist regimes abroad while hollowing out U.S. communities and throwing their loyal American workers overboard. It's not enough that large corporations are paying millions of American workers less than workers were paid in 1968, adjusted for inflation.
Corporate bosses can't say they're just keeping up with the competition; they muscled through the trade system that pulls down on our country's relatively higher labor, consumer and environmental standards.
Corporate executives, when confronted with charges that show little respect for the country, its workers and its taxpayers who made possible their profits and subsidized their mismanagement, claim they must maximize their profits for their shareholders and their worker pension obligations.
Their shareholders? Is that why they're stashing $1.7 trillion overseas in tax havens instead of paying dividends to their rightful shareholder-owners, which would stimulate our economy? Shareholders? Are those the people who have been stripped of their rights as owners and prohibited from even keeping a lid on staggeringly sky-high executive salaries ranging from $5,000 to $20,000 an hour or more, plus perks?
Why these corporate bosses can't even abide one democratically-run shareholders' meeting a year without gaveling down their owners and cutting time short. To get away from as many of their shareholder-owners as possible, AT&T is holding its annual meeting on April 26 in remote Cheyenne, Wyoming!
Pension obligations for their workers? The award-winning reporter for the Wall Street Journal Ellen E. Shultz demonstrates otherwise. In her gripping book Retirement Heist: How Companies Plunder and Profit from the Nest Eggs of American Workers, she shows how by "exploiting loopholes, ambiguous regulations and new accounting rules," companies deceptively tricked employees and turned their pension plans into piggy banks, tax shelters and profit centers.
Recently, I wrote to the CEOs of the 20 largest U.S. corporations, asking if they would stand up at their annual shareholders' meetings and on behalf of their U.S. chartered corporation (not on behalf of their boards of directors), and pledge allegiance to the flag ending with those glorious words "with liberty and justice for all." Nineteen of the CEOs have not yet replied. One, Chevron, declined the pledge request but said their patriotism was demonstrated creating jobs and sparking economic activity in the U.S.
But when corporate lobbyists try to destroy our right of trial by jury for wrongful injuries - misnamed tort reform - when they destroy our freedom of contract - through all that brazenly one-sided fine print - when they corrupt our constitutional elections with money and unaccountable power, when they commercialize our education and patent our genes, and outsource jobs to other countries, the question of arrogantly rejected patriotism better be front-and-center for discussion by the American people.

|
|
|
Drug-Sniffing Dogs and the Fourth Amendment |
|
|
Friday, 29 March 2013 13:57 |
|
Excerpt: "The Supreme Court correctly ruled this week that using a drug-sniffing police dog on a suspect's property without a warrant violates the Fourth Amendment's protection against unreasonable searches."
The US Supreme Court decided Tuesday that police are not allowed to use drug sniffing dogs inside a private residence without a warrant. (photo: Oli Scarff/AFP/Getty Images)

Drug-Sniffing Dogs and the Fourth Amendment
By The New York Times | Editorial
29 March 13
he Supreme Court correctly ruled this week that using a drug-sniffing police dog on a suspect's property without a warrant violates the Fourth Amendment's protection against unreasonable searches. The ruling was not surprising; the split among the justices was.
The majority included conservative Justices Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas and three of the court's more liberal members (Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan). The four dissenting justices were: Samuel Alito Jr., Anthony Kennedy and Chief Justice John Roberts Jr., all on the conservative side; and Stephen Breyer, a moderate liberal.
Even though the drug-sniffing dog in his case got no further than the suspect's front porch, Justice Scalia, writing for the majority, said that Fourth Amendment protection extends not only to a house but to its surroundings.
In a concurring opinion, Justice Kagan agreed that this dog-sniffing was an unconstitutional search, but because of the right to privacy as well as trespass. A person's home, she said, is not only his castle but "his most intimate and familiar space."
In 2001, the Supreme Court held that a person has a "minimal expectation of privacy" in his home that the police had violated when they conducted a search for marijuana using a thermal imaging device from outside the home. The Kagan concurrence points the way for a future court to emphasize this important principle again: In an era of sophisticated technology, the Constitution must keep police from using it to invade privacy - whether it is lawful for them to be on private property or not.

|
|
FOCUS | Monsanto Teams Up With Congress to Shred the Constitution |
|
|
Friday, 29 March 2013 11:36 |
|
Simon writes: "Without any hearings on the matter, the Senate included language that would require the U.S. Department of Agriculture to essentially ignore any court ruling that would otherwise halt the planting of new genetically-engineered crops."
The Monsanto Protection Act is being criticized for its lack of government checks and balances. (illustration: Occupy Monsanto)

Monsanto Teams Up With Congress to Shred the Constitution
By Michele Simon, Reader Supported News
29 March 13
ur founding fathers, white-maleness aside, did get a few things right. One of them was the concept of "separation of powers," to ensure a system of checks and balances among the three branches of government: executive, legislative, and judicial. But a dangerous provision snuck into the budget bill passed last week in Congress upends that system. Without any hearings on the matter, the Senate included language that would require the U.S. Department of Agriculture to essentially ignore any court ruling that would otherwise halt the planting of new genetically-engineered crops. Here is how Capital Press explains it:
The rider pertains to transgenic crops that have been deregulated by the USDA but then had that approval overturned by a judge -- a scenario that has occurred with genetically engineered alfalfa and sugar beets.
In such a situation, the agency "shall" immediately issue permits or a partial deregulation order that would temporarily allow farmers to continue growing and selling the crop until USDA is done re-evaluating its environmental effects, according to the rider. Why is this such a big deal? The court system is often our last hope, with Congress, the White House, and regulatory agencies deep inside industry's pocket. Several legal challenges have resulted in court decisions overturning USDA's approval of new GMO crops, for example, sugar beets.
Why is this such a big deal? The court system is often our last hope, with Congress, the White House, and regulatory agencies deep inside industry's pocket. Several legal challenges have resulted in court decisions overturning USDA's approval of new GMO crops, for example, sugar beets.
So the biotech industry, unable to make its case to a judge, figured why not just rewrite the Constitution instead, with the help of a Democratic Senate led by Senator Barbara Mikulski, chair of the Senate Agriculture Committee. Despite Montana Senator Jon Tester's best attempts to stop the so-called biotech rider, the measure was pushed through. (Industry had tried to get a similar measure passed more than once last year.) Tester minced no words, in a recent article in POLITICO about this and other industry power grabs such as weakening small farmer protections:
These provisions are giveaways, pure and simple, and will be a boon worth millions of dollars to a handful of the biggest corporations in this country. They deserve no place in this bill. We simply have got to do better on both policy and process.
If President Obama signs the budget deal with this provision, it could have long-lasting and serious consequences. This list of pending petitions to USDA to approve genetically-engineered crops includes new versions of corn, soybean, canola, and cotton. Once these crops get planted, it will be too late to do much about it. That's why groups such as the Center for Food Safety file lawsuits when USDA turns a blind eye to the potentially harmful environmental consequences of these unique crops. ?
Here is how Andrew Kimbrell, executive director of the Center for Food Safety, described the situation:
In this hidden backroom deal, Senator Mikulski turned her back on consumer, environmental, and farmer protection in favor of corporate welfare for biotech companies such as Monsanto. This abuse of power is not the kind of leadership the public has come to expect from Senator Mikulski or the Democrat Majority in the Senate.
The biotech industry, with the help of Congress, is attempting an end-run of the judicial system. Since judges can't get be bought off, just go to your friends in Congress instead.
Unfortunately, most of the mainstream media have not picked up on this unprecedented Big Biotech power grab, and in the case of NPR, has even spread misinformation about the rider's effects:
But a closer look at the language of the provision suggests it may not be granting the USDA any powers it doesn't already have.
"It's not clear that this provision radically changes the powers USDA has under the law," Greg Jaffe, director of the Biotechnology Project at the Center for Science in the Public Interest, tells The Salt.
This interpretation was echoed, unsurprisingly, by the biotech industry, in Capital Express:
"It doesn't require the USDA to do anything it wouldn't otherwise have the authority to do," said Karen Batra, communications director for the Biotechnology Industry Organization. "The language is there to protect farmers who have already made planting decisions."
But as Kimbrell of the Center for Food Safety explains, the new language makes what is currently discretionary or optional on USDA's part, mandatory, a huge difference:
The word "shall" forces the USDA to continue allowing biotech crop cultivation even if its commercialization was overturned. They've taken away the discretion of the secretary of agriculture. Its real not-so-hidden purpose is to take away the ability to effectively vacate the approval of a crop that's been approved illegally.
If there is any good news, it's that the continuing resolution the provision hitched a ride on is only valid for six months. But industry seems confident it can make the workaround permanent. Likely what will follow is a protracted court battle over the policy's constitutionality; remember that whole separation of powers thing? Still, any such legal challenge will likely take years to be resolved. Even USDA thinks the provision is unconstititional. Secretary Vilsack's office told POLITICO that he has asked the Office of General Council to review the language, "as it appears to pre-empt judicial review of a deregulatory action which may make the provision unenforceable."
Meanwhile, the grassroots movement continues to grow to demand labeling of foods containing genetically-engineered ingredients. While important, we cannot let labeling distract us from pro-biotech policies at the other end of production. The fewer GMO crops that are allowed to be planted in the first place, the fewer end-products containing GMOs.
But it's not too late. You can still demand that President Obama refuse to sign the budget bill into law unless the biotech rider (aka Monsanto Protection Act) is removed. Food Democracy Now! has already gathered more than 175,000 signatures demanding Obama do the right thing. From that organization's action alert:
By sneaking Section 735 into a federal appropriations bills, Monsanto has successfully planted a dangerous provision in U.S. law that strips judges of their constitutional mandate to protect American's health and the environment while opening up the floodgates for the planting of new, untested genetically engineered crops.
Even if their new GMO crops are ultimately proven to be harmful to human health or the environment, Section 735 allows them to be planted the minute the USDA approves them!
Even more alarming, currently 13 new crops are awaiting approval at the USDA and AquaBounty's GMO salmon is on the verge of being approved by the FDA. This new provision opens the door wide open for these approvals.
If the biotech industry can so easily override our court system, which is our last resort in stopping these dangerous crops from being planted, we will have no place left to turn. And Monsanto will have completed its hostile takeover of the U.S. government.
Take action now by calling and emailing the White House here.

|
|