RSN Fundraising Banner
FB Share
Email This Page
add comment
Politics
The GOP's Real Agenda Print
Thursday, 14 March 2013 14:28

Dickinson writes: "The reactionary impulses of the Republican Party appear unbowed. Across the nation, the GOP's severely conservative agenda ... is moving forward under full steam."

Dickinson: 'Republican elites have been talking a brave game about reforms.' (illustration: Victor Juhasz)
Dickinson: 'Republican elites have been talking a brave game about reforms.' (illustration: Victor Juhasz)


The GOP's Real Agenda

By Tim Dickinson, Rolling Stone

14 March 13

 

Since last fall, Republicans have pretended to be more moderate - but their politics are harsher and more destructive than ever.

fter watching voters punish the GOP in the 2012 elections, Republican elites have been talking a brave game about reforms that would make the party less repulsive to Latinos, women and gay-friendly millennials. Florida Sen. Marco Rubio, the GOP's hip-hop-quoting young standard-bearer, is pressing conservatives to back an amnesty for undocumented immigrants. Dozens of party stalwarts, headlined by former Utah Gov. Jon Huntsman, renounced their opposition to gay marriage in a Supreme Court brief. GOP bigwigs have even launched New Republican - a group modeled after Bill Clinton's centrist Democratic Leadership Council - which seeks to rebrand the party as "colorblind," "not anti-government" and dedicated to "ending corporate welfare."

Don't be fooled. On the ground, a very different reality is unfolding: In the Republican-led Congress, GOP-dominated statehouses and even before the nation's highest court, the reactionary impulses of the Republican Party appear unbowed. Across the nation, the GOP's severely conservative agenda - which seeks to impose job-killing austerity, to roll back voting and reproductive rights, to deprive the working poor of health care, and to destroy agencies that protect the environment from industry and consumers from predatory banks - is moving forward under full steam.

The hardcore rump of the party is even working to punish moderate outliers like New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie - the party's most popular leader - who was denied a speaking role at the conservative movement's annual convention, CPAC. Today's GOP may desperately need to remake itself as "culturally modern, environmentally responsible and economically inclusive," argues David Frum, a veteran of the George W. Bush White House, but it remains, he says, in the throes of a "Tea Party tantrum."

As it works to lock in as many retrograde policies as possible before it finally chooses to either modernize or die, the Republican Party is like a wounded beast: Rarely has it been more dangerous.

THE DEFICIT: HYSTERICAL AUSTERITY

In the Tea Party narrative, president Obama is a reckless socialist spending America into oblivion. In reality, the president has governed like an old-school Republican. Despite having taken heroic measures to rescue the economy in 2009, Obama has presided over the slowest expansion of federal spending since Eisenhower - and repeatedly offered to help Republicans slash the social safety net as part of a "grand bargain" that would restore the nation to fiscal balance.

Thanks to a rebounding tax base and the nearly $1 trillion in budget cuts that both parties agreed to in the first phase of the debt-ceiling deal, the deficit, entering 2013, was shrinking at a faster clip than at any time since the peace dividend after WWII. Federal outlays on both guns and butter were on a path to hit postwar lows as a percentage of gross domestic product by the end of Obama's second term.

But for anti-government Republicans, simple belt-tightening isn't enough. Since 2009, the party has fetishized the kind of draconian cuts to social services that have been practiced in Europe in recent years - and that have failed spectacularly to revive economies there. And today, with the imposition of the sequester - $1.2 trillion in across-the-board budget cuts divided between domestic and military expenditures - the Republicans have finally succeeded in bringing shock-and-awe austerity to America.

The sequester was born of Republican recklessness - a fixture of the debt-reduction package that the House GOP secured in 2011 after threatening to push the United States into default. In theory, neither party wanted these cuts. They were designed to be so politically toxic that lawmakers would be forced to work out a smarter mix of new revenue and targeted spending reductions.

During the "fiscal cliff" negotiations that opened 2013, President Obama laid out a fix to the sequester mess, limiting domestic and defense spending cuts to $200 billion. He sought to make up the difference by leveraging government purchasing power to reap $400 billion in health-care savings and banked another $200 billion by ending waste in farm subsidies and other "mandatory" spending. Obama rounded out his proposal by demanding sacrifice both from the wealthiest - limiting tax deductions and loopholes for the rich - and from future retirees, trimming Social Security payouts by adjusting the way Washington measures inflation. Twenty years ago, this is the kind of self-negotiated proposal that might have been floated by Republican Sen. Bob Dole. But the party of Eric Cantor and John Boehner reacted as if it had been proposed by Hugo Chávez.

The GOP House's counterproposal lurched into even greater Tea Party extremism. A budget bill passed in December by the House would have protected defense contractors by restoring all Pentagon spending and delivered the $1.2 trillion in deficit reduction on the broken backs and empty stomachs of low-income Americans - hollowing out social programs, decimating food-stamp benefits, even abolishing Meals on Wheels for hundreds of thousands of hungry seniors. Speaker Boehner praised his caucus for endorsing these "common-sense cuts."

Underscoring the priorities of today's GOP, their plan also contained a huge giveaway to reckless Wall Street speculators by eliminating the funding necessary for the government to shutter huge financial institutions. The bill also would have given Congress the ability to zero out the budget for the hated Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, the watchdog agency brought to life by Elizabeth Warren that protects homeowners and credit-card holders from the abuses of predatory lenders.

As a result of the GOP's refusal to negotiate in good faith, America is now being subjected to austerity-by-a-thousand-cuts. Budgetary sadists like Paul Ryan will delight in the sequester's blows to vital anti-poverty programs: $285 million a year from heating assistance to keep the poor from freezing to death in their own homes. Another $543 million will be cut from nutrition assistance - throwing as many as 750,000 at-risk kids and moms out of the WIC program. California and Texas alone likely will be forced to lay off more than 2,000 teachers - leaving some 350,000 students in the lurch. Tens of thousands of preschoolers will be kicked out of Head Start.

Yet for all the pain they cause, these cuts will do little to balance the budget. As Fed chairman Ben Bernanke testified to Congress, "If you slow the economy, that hurts your revenues, and that means your deficit reduction is not as big as you think it is." Worse for a nation still mired in eight percent unemployment, Bernanke said, "This will cost a lot of jobs in the short run." The impact is particularly brutal for jurisdictions whose economies are dependent on federal and military contracts. Virginia, Maryland and Washington, D.C., are poised to lose a combined 450,000 jobs - double the losses projected for a megastate like California.

Some Republicans have attempted to blame the president for the pain caused by the "Obamaquester." But for the big bosses of the conservative movement, the true problem is that its cuts don't go far enough. Pointing to a right-wing think tank slamming the sequester as "insignificant," the GOP's anti-tax Svengali, Grover Norquist, snarked, "Ouch. Ouch. I cannot stand these 'meat cleaver' cuts in sequestration. Chain-saw massacre stuff."

TAX CUTS: STARVE THE STATES

Controlling only one-half of Congress, the Republicans can do little more than play defense by creating a deadlock in Washington. But with 24 statehouses now run by Republican governors and GOP-majority legislatures, the party is turning the states into laboratories for radical conservative governance.

In recent years, the GOP has sent talent from Congress back home to pursue its cruel economic agenda. From Louisiana to Kansas to Indiana, Republican governors with congressional pedigrees are working to slash state income and corporate taxes that hit the wealthiest - often calling on the working poor to make up the difference by paying higher sales taxes. In Indiana, Gov. Mike Pence - until 2010 the number-three Republican in the House leadership - has asked the legislature to squander a rare surplus by passing an "across-the-board tax cut" that heavily favors the rich: Twenty-eight percent of benefits would go to the top five percent of earners. One in three low-income Hoosiers would see no tax cut at all.

In Louisiana, Gov. Bobby Jindal wants to abolish income and corporate taxes - financing the giveaway by increasing the flat tax on purchases. Jindal claims the proposal "will put more money back into the pockets of Louisiana families." That's a lie. Taxes on the poorest 20 percent would rise nearly $400 a year in order to lower taxes on the top one percent by $25,000.

In Kansas, Republican Gov. Sam Brownback, a former U.S. senator, is trying to pull off the same boondoggle with the backing of powerful allies - the billionaire Koch brothers, whose Koch Industries is based in Wichita, and the American Legislative Exchange Council, ALEC, a corporate front group that pushes right-wing policy across state legislatures. Brownback began his tax-cutting in 2012 by eliminating the state business tax and slashing the state income tax, promising that these cuts would act like "a shot of adrenaline into the heart of the Kansas economy."

Instead, the state is on track to pile up $2.5 billion in debt by 2018, yet Brownback is still calling on the legislature to whittle away at income tax rates - which he declares are on a "glide path to zero" - even if that requires higher sales taxes. Thanks to the Koch brothers, Brownback enjoys a rubber-stamp legislature. Koch campaign cash in the past election put hardcore conservatives in control of both chambers; a board member of ALEC is now speaker of the Kansas House. If Brownback's latest cuts go forward, Kansas' $6 billion general fund will have been slashed by $1.1 billion a year, giving millionaires a tax cut of $28,000. "The magical growth model that the governor talks about only exists for the wealthiest Kansans who benefit from his tax plan," said Terry Forsyth, president of the Working Kansas Alliance.

VOTING RIGHTS: RIG THE SYSTEM

Republicans are painfully aware that a demographic tide has turned against them and that even turnout-suppressing voter-ID laws couldn't block the re-election of a Democrat to the White House in 2012. So party officials have become even more audacious in their plans to steal elections - this time by rigging the Electoral College itself.

The Electoral College is almost exclusively winner-take-all: The top popular vote-getter in Florida, for example, receives all 29 electoral votes. To benefit future GOP nominees, however, Republicans from blue-trending battleground states are seeking to divvy up their states' Electoral College bounty. These ploys are nothing more than dirty politics - and even GOP leaders admit it. "It's something that a lot of states that have been consistently blue that are fully controlled red ought to be looking at," said Republican National Committee chairman Reince Priebus, making clear that the strategy to reapportion Electoral College votes is appropriate only for strategically important swing states, not for Texas or Georgia.

In Pennsylvania, Republicans have introduced a bill to split Electoral College votes proportionally - a plan that would have robbed Obama of eight of the state's 20 votes in 2012. In Michigan, the state GOP has endorsed a plan to award an electoral vote to the winner of each congressional district. Because those districts were themselves gerrymandered by Republican politicians, this plan would have awarded Mitt Romney a majority of the Electoral College votes from Michigan - a state he lost by nearly 10 percent.

These state measures pale in comparison with a case now being weighed by the Supreme Court. Conservatives are hoping to nullify a bedrock provision of the Voting Rights Act, the law that brought democracy to the American South. "Section 5" of the 1965 law - renewed almost unanimously by Congress in 2006 - gives the Justice Department oversight of elections and redistricting in nine mostly Southern states. The suit is backed by the Koch-founded Cato Institute, which declared in a friend-of-the-court brief that "three generations of federal intrusion have been more than enough to kill Jim Crow.?.?.?. Without the threat of federal interference, would state legislatures feel free to engage in mischief? It seems wildly improbable, even in the Deep South."

During oral arguments in February, the hard-right majority on the Supreme Court appeared receptive to this line of attack - which is not surprising. As a young attorney in the Reagan Justice Department, the current chief justice, John Roberts, wrote legal briefs challenging the constitutionality of the VRA. And in the February proceedings, Reagan appointee Antonin Scalia slammed the law that guarantees the franchise to all Americans as a "racial entitlement."

The recent history of the Deep South proves that racially discriminatory mischief is still with us. In Texas, where Gov. Rick Perry decries Section 5 as having been "unconstitutionally extended," the Justice Department used the provision to block a voter-ID law that could have disenfranchised some 600,000 duly registered voters - most of them black and Latino. (The law endorsed a conceal-carry gun permit as acceptable ID for voting but deemed student and even state worker IDs invalid.)

The Lone Star State also violated the Voting Rights Act in its congressional redistricting. A panel of three federal judges decried the "discriminatory intent" displayed by state legislators who had carved job-creating commercial centers out of majority African-American districts and redrawn the lines of at least one Hispanic-dominant district to "strengthen the voting power of?.?.?. Anglo citizens."

GLOBAL WARMING: DENY, DENY, DENY

The Republican party also remains committed to violence against the environment. The House Science, Space and Technology Committee, which has jurisdiction over global-warming research, has been stacked with hardcore deniers like California Rep. Dana Rohrabacher, who once blamed climate change on "dinosaur flatulence," and Georgia Rep. Paul Broun, a creationist who blasts science - "all that stuff I was taught about evolution, embryology, big-bang theory" - as "lies straight from the pit of hell."

The committee is chaired by Texan Lamar Smith, who has taken more than $500,000 in oil money during his political career and recently received a $10,000 check from Koch Industries. In one of his first moves as chairman, Smith planned a hearing about giving global-warming skeptics a congressional platform in a House "review" of climate science - only to have it postponed because of a severe storm.

In the states, Kansas is poised to join Louisiana, Oklahoma, Tennessee and Texas in passing ALEC-sponsored legislation mandating that schools teach the "scientific controversies" of climate science. In South Carolina, conservatives have suppressed publication for more than a year of a study predicting dire global-warming impacts in the state - which reportedly include flooded homes, shriveling wetlands, ocean dead zones, and an invasion of piranhas and Asian swamp eels. For his part, Sen. Rubio in Florida doubts whether humans are driving climate change and believes we should just let it ravage the planet in any case: "We can pass a bunch of laws that will destroy our economy," he said, "but it isn't going to change the weather."

REPRODUCTIVE RIGHTS: DECLARE WAR ON WOMEN

In Republican politics, limited government ends at a woman's vagina. Early this year, the GOP-controlled legislature of Arkansas passed a bill outlawing abortion after just 12 weeks' gestation, a law "designed to dial the clock back 40 years," said Nancy Northup, president of the Center for Reproductive Rights. The measure was vetoed by Democratic Gov. Mike Beebe, who decried it as "blatantly" unconstitutional - under Supreme Court precedent a woman has the right to terminate a pregnancy before at least 22 weeks. But in March, the state legislature voted to override the veto, enacting the most restrictive abortion law in the nation - and setting up a certain court challenge that may tempt the Roberts court to reconsider Roe v. Wade.

Republican legislatures across the country are also pushing bills that would force a woman to be penetrated by a dildonic-ultrasound wand before she can legally terminate her pregnancy. A similar bill in Virginia last year became synonymous with the Republican party's "War on Women" - a PR fiasco that contributed to the loss of at least two Senate seats. But state Republicans are unabashed in supporting ultrasound mandates: "This bill is a priority," said Scott Fitzgerald, Republican state senate leader in Wisconsin. "It is long overdue."

In Indiana, lawmakers have sought to punish women seeking access to the abortion pill RU-486 by forcing them to undergo not one but two ultrasound penetrations. Public outcry forced the legislature to reduce the ultrasound mandate to one. "This bill is about politics, not women's health or safety," said Betty Cockrum, president of Planned Parenthood of Indiana. "Statehouse politicians need to get out of our doctors' offices."

THE SAFETY NET: SCREW THE WORKING POOR

The Supreme Court's decision to uphold the constitutionality of Obama-?care last year also gave states the right to opt out of an expansion of Medicaid - the joint state-federal insurance program - to cover the working poor.

A few high-profile Republican governors, including Rick Scott of Florida and Christie in New Jersey, have embraced this Medicaid expansion as a sweetheart deal: The federal government will pay all costs for new enrollees for three years, ponying up 90 percent thereafter. But other GOP leaders who despise government are content to put the health of millions at risk rather than sacrifice ideology.

Rick Perry in Texas - who calls Social Security a "disease" - is refusing to expand Medicaid, claiming it would "threaten even Texas with financial ruin." In fact, Perry is looking a gift horse in the mouth. The feds would give the state $100 billion over a decade to cover nearly 2 million residents, while requiring just $15 billion in state matching funds. Perry's prominent peers include Govs. Tom Corbett of Pennsylvania, Nikki Haley of South Carolina and Scott Walker of Wisconsin, who count among the nearly 20 GOP leaders who so far have refused to expand coverage.

Even the Republicans' best efforts to demonstrate that the party is moving forward have backfired. The Violence Against Women Act expired in 2011, and Republican obstructionism blocked its reauthorization. After the election, GOP leaders were desperate to put the issue behind them. But to pass VAWA in February, Speaker Boehner had to suspend normal House rules, which require a majority of the majority party to pass a bill, and team up with Nancy Pelosi and the Democrats to reauthorize the law. In all, 160 House and Senate members voted against the act - all of them Republicans.

If this is the "new" Republican party, it looks even more radical than your father's, or even your grandfather's. A leading new face on the party's right flank - Sen. Ted Cruz of Texas - recalls a famous 1950s Republican right down to the crook in his nose. Channeling Sen. Joseph McCarthy, Cruz has declared Barack Obama to be "the most radical" president in our history, adding that Obama was educated at Harvard Law School by "Marxists" who, Cruz insists, "believed in the Communists overthrowing the United States government."

It may be tempting to believe that danger posed by the GOP's lunatic fringe is cabined off in the House and the states of the Great Flyover. But 2014 is already looming, and vulnerable Democrats will be contesting Senate seats in red states from Alaska to Arkansas and Louisiana to South Dakota, as well as in hotly contested battlegrounds like Virginia and North Carolina. Flip just six seats, and the GOP will control Congress - and set the agenda of the last two years of the Obama administration. Here's hoping that when the next wave of Todd Akins or Richard Mourdocks charge onto the scene - mouthing off about "legitimate rape" or the latest Tea Party cause célèbre, that the American body politic has the good sense to shut that whole thing down.


e-max.it: your social media marketing partner
 
Why You Should 'Lean In' to Sheryl Sandberg's New Book Print
Thursday, 14 March 2013 14:23

Chang writes: "To get a sense of how I reacted to Facebook COO Sheryl Sandberg's new book ... look no further than the stars and exclamation points that fill the margins of my review copy."

Sheryl Sandberg's book discusses female leadership in the workplace.  (photo: unknown)
Sheryl Sandberg's book discusses female leadership in the workplace. (photo: unknown)


Why You Should 'Lean In' to Sheryl Sandberg's New Book

By Alexandra Chang, Wired

14 March 13

 

o get a sense of how I reacted to Facebook COO Sheryl Sandberg's new book, Lean In: Women, Work and the Will to Lead, look no further than the stars and exclamation points that fill the margins of my review copy.

The first of these appears next to a paragraph where Sandberg details the divergent cultural messages directed at boys versus girls. Girls are often, blatantly, encouraged to be "pretty," Sandberg explains, while smarts and leadership are left to the boys.

"When a girl tries to lead, she is often labeled bossy," she writes. "Boys are seldom bossy because a boy taking the role of a boss does not surprise or offend." This small remark had me spinning. Not because I didn't agree, but because, as someone who, like Sandberg, has been called bossy her whole life, I was shocked I hadn't realized this before.

This is Lean In's virtue. Sandberg's "sort of feminist manifesto," released on Monday, is at its best when it shines a light on sexism's shadowy, more hidden nooks. Another key strength is the advice Sandberg offers, informed by her indisputably remarkable rise through the ranks of politics and business, that you can actually act on.

To be sure, the book is absolutely not a one-size-fits-all commentary on contemporary gender dynamics, and Sandberg says as much in the book's introduction. Honestly, it would be silly to expect that from Lean In, or any one individual's personal take on gender issues, for that matter. What Lean In does provide is a broad gloss on how women, mostly in America, fare in the workplace - depressing statistic after depressing statistic - along with insight into how Sandberg reached her current position and her takeaways from her journey to the top.

Take the much-discussed case out of Columbia Business School, recounted by Sandberg, that measured "likability" among men versus women in business. Some students were told of an aggressive, successful venture capitalist named Heidi; others were told the same story except that the VC's name was changed to Howard. Even though no other details were changed, students found Howard the more likable of the "two." Just knowing that this type of thinking remains in our culture, however mild or entrenched it may be, can give a woman a new perspective on her career (as it did for me). For highlighting all of these studies alone, Sandberg's book is worthwhile.

But Sandberg goes beyond studies to anchor her narrative with personal stories. She describes watching both women and men demean successful women as "too aggressive" or "a bit political." And she admits to an epiphany when a female superior turned out to be unhelpful. That she took it so personally, Sandberg writes, was due to her then-unexamined expectation, fostered by the same unequal assumptions about gender in the workplace decried by her book, that this woman ought to be more helpful and nurturing than her male counterparts.

The backlash women face when they succeed has hurt the way women approach their career, according to Sandberg. We've internalized the fear of being disliked. She opens up about hiding achievements to be better liked by her peers.

Most working women will find Sandberg's stories incredibly relatable. What woman hasn't wrestled with self-doubt? With fear of sitting at the table or raising her hand? I can't even count the number of times I've entered a big meeting room only to sit along the edge of the wall - and not because I was late and there was nowhere else to sit. Or how often I've listened to female friends bemoan their position at work, only to scoff at the idea of asking for more responsibilities or a promotion.

But don't just take my word for it. Sandberg has data on just how common these experiences are for working women. She points out that men apply to jobs when they meet merely 60 percent of the listed requirements, while women wait until they meet 100 percent. Men also negotiate for higher salaries far more often than women. For example, of a graduating class of Carnegie Mellon students, 57 percent of the men initiated negotiations, compared to 7 percent of women.

The only, truly cringe-inducing section of Sandberg's book is the advice that follows on how women should negotiate. It involves a lot of smiling, using the word "we" instead of "I," expressing appreciation to your bosses, and more such lady-like behavior. And did I mention, more smiling?

Sandberg is aware of the contradictions: "No wonder women don't negotiate," she says. In response to this kind of self-defeatism, Sandberg continues to advise women to "lean in." She, too, is learning just how to shift the landscape that exists for today's working women. As AllThingsD's Kara Swisher smartly puts it, "as it turns out, leaning in turns out to mean a very bumpy ride for those who do."

But Sandberg's approach is far from tough-love, victim-blaming. She acknowledges the many historical, social and political barriers that women face. "Leaning in" for Sandberg means women trying to overcome their internal barriers, informed by a broader awareness of all the external landmines history and culture have placed in their way.

Sandberg has come under attack from critics who say her advice is all well and good for anyone in the privileged position of a billionaire executive but fails to address the realities faced by the rest of us. I read Lean In before the onslaught of Sandberg bashing began in February with Jodi Kantor's New York Times story, followed by Maureen Dowd's column and the many, many more reviews and columns that later appeared. The criticism didn't necessarily surprise me, but some of it seemed incredibly sad. Most of the attacks centered on Sandberg's persona rather than the content of the book, and some alleged that the Lean In was more about building up the "Sheryl Sandberg" brand than starting a genuine a conversation about women at work. What was so, so disappointing, as Anna Holmes notes at The New Yorker, is that several of the writers lashing out at Sandberg hadn't even read the book.

To her credit, Sandberg predicted the backlash in the very beginning of Lean In. "I have heard these criticisms in the past and I know that I will hear them - and others - in the future," she writes. "My hope is that my message will be judged on its merits." This awareness in itself doesn't make the book immune from criticism. But among its merits is the way Sandberg doesn't shy away from describing her own struggles to take risks at work, to ask for what she wants, to negotiate, to find an equal partner. We may not all enjoy Sandberg-level status or wealth. But so many of us can relate to the challenge of the climb, no matter where we're trying to get.


e-max.it: your social media marketing partner
 
American McJustice Print
Thursday, 14 March 2013 14:18

Love writes: "Sadly, five decades after Gideon, most courts ignore the constitutional right to counsel by inadequately funding equal representation for the indigent."

A detail of the West Facade of the U.S. Supreme Court in Washington.  (photo: J. Scott Applewhite/AP)
A detail of the West Facade of the U.S. Supreme Court in Washington. (photo: J. Scott Applewhite/AP)


American McJustice

By David A. Love, Guardian UK

14 March 13

 

Fifty years after the supreme court ordered states to provide legal counsel to all, Americans still only get the justice they can afford.

ith an historic vote in the state senate for repeal of that state's death penalty statute, Maryland is on track to become the 18th US state to abolish capital punishment. As much as such repeals are worth celebrating, though, they reform just one aspect of a criminal justice system in which poor defendants are provided shoddy, substandard legal representation, if any at all, and innocent people are convicted and imprisoned and, on occasion, may even have been executed.

Coincidentally, 18 March marks the 50th anniversary of the landmark US supreme court decision in Gideon v Wainwright, which ruled that states under the 14th amendment must provide counsel to criminal defendants who cannot afford a lawyer. The right to counsel already existed in federal criminal prosecutions under the sixth amendment, but the supreme court forcefully reiterated that.

Sadly, five decades after Gideon, most courts ignore the constitutional right to counsel by inadequately funding equal representation (pdf) for the indigent. In many cases, this right exists only on paper, as there is no public will or interest on the part of government to provide competent lawyers to poor people. Many courts administer cases quickly and with all the thoughtfulness and deliberation of a fast-food restaurant. What we have then is "McJustice", as one Minnesota judge described it.

Even a well-educated layperson charged with a crime knows little or nothing about the law, and "requires the guiding hand of counsel at every step in the proceedings against him", the supreme court concluded in Gideon. After all, what if the defendant is not properly charged, or the evidence is insufficient for a conviction? The average person lacks the proper knowledge and training to defend himself or herself. The court realized that there can be no equality before the law if the poor have no lawyers; what results is that justice is meted out on the basis of one's personal wealth.

According to Stephen Bright, president and senior counsel at the Southern Center for Human Rights, who has represented indigent defendants and argued cases before the supreme court, the representation that most people receive in the US criminal justice system falls far short of the standards set out in Gideon. And when judges, prosecutors and defense lawyers ignore the constitutional right to counsel, the entire system is lacking in integrity and cannot be trusted.

In an upcoming Yale Law Journal article, which he authored with Yale fellow Sia Sanneh of the Montgomery, Alabama-based Equal Justice initiative, Bright argues that most state, county and municipal governments fail to adequately fund legal counsel for the poor. These courts, which often allow inadequate lawyering for the sake of disposing of cases with expediency and efficiency, are responsible for 95% of the criminal prosecutions in the US.

The problem, according to Bright and Sanneh, is the adversarial legal system in the US, in which the prosecution and the defense are required to conduct investigations, examine the evidence and choose witnesses, and come before a neutral arbiter. In stark contrast, the majority of nations adhere to an inquisitorial legal system, in which a judge is in charge of investigations and establishing the facts of the case.

The adversarial system unravels when the prosecution possesses far more resources than the defense and holds all the cards. Free of regulation or oversight, prosecutors have absolute discretion regarding who is charged and how severely, and they can over-charge a defendant, even with death, as a bargaining chip. Many prosecutors have no obligation to disclose what they know about a case to the defense, and they seek plea bargains, in which they seek a lesser charge in exchange for a guilty plea from the defendant.

In other words, prosecutors play to win in a one-sided system stacked in their favor (pdf). Justice becomes that which is traded and bartered, rather than a matter of determining who truly committed the crime.

As the supreme court has noted, 94% of state court convictions are brought about by guilty pleas, and 97% of convictions in federal courts are secured through guilty pleas. Thousands of poor people are processed through the system without legal representation, spending months in jail awaiting trial, and many enter these pleas without speaking to a lawyer. Many court-appointed attorneys are overburdened with oppressively large caseloads: they lack the time, the resources, even the qualifications in some cases, to properly represent a criminal defendant.

The costs of maintaining such a dysfunctional system are clear. With roughly 2.5m people in prison and 5m on probation or parole, the US is the world's foremost jailer. Nearly 800,000 people work in a corrections industry worth $74bn a year. Those who are behind bars typically are poor and disproportionately members of racial minority groups. Unlike high-profile celebrities, politicians and corporate executives, they could not afford a legal dream team or the best justice money can buy.

Currently, the National Registry of Exonerations tallies 1,060 cases since 1989 in which someone was wrongfully convicted of a crime and exonerated of all charges. In 42% of these cases and 56% of homicide cases, official misconduct was a contributing factor. According to the Death Penalty Information Center, 142 death row prisoners have been exonerated over the past 40 years, each spending an average of nearly 10 years on death row for the crime of another.

America's failure to provide every person the "guiding hand of counsel" at trial takes a toll on individuals, their families and their communities. Until the US adheres to the Gideon decision in word and deed, the nation will continue to maintain a sham system of McJustice.


e-max.it: your social media marketing partner
 
FOCUS | The President Needs to Deliver Print
Thursday, 14 March 2013 11:01

Reich writes: "The biggest problems we face are unemployment, stagnant wages, slow growth, and widening inequality- not deficits. The major goal must be to get jobs and wages back, not balance the budget."

Portrait, Robert Reich, 08/16/09. (photo: Perian Flaherty)
Portrait, Robert Reich, 08/16/09. (photo: Perian Flaherty)



The President Needs to Deliver

By Robert Reich, Robert Reich's Blog

14 March 13

 

ur biggest problems over the next ten years are not deficits," the President told House Republicans Wednesday, according to those who attended the meeting.

The President needs to deliver the same message to the public, loudly and clearly. The biggest problems we face are unemployment, stagnant wages, slow growth, and widening inequality - not deficits. The major goal must be to get jobs and wages back, not balance the budget.

Paul Ryan's budget plan - essentially, the House Republican plan - is designed to lure the White House and Democrats, and the American public, into a debate over how to balance the federal budget in ten years, not over whether it's worth doing.

"This is an invitation," Ryan explained when he unveiled the plan Tuesday. "Show us how to balance the budget. If you don't like the way we're proposing to balance our budget, how do you propose to balance the budget?"

Until now the President has seemed all too willing to engage in that debate. His ongoing talk of a "grand bargain" to reduce the budget deficit has played directly into Republican hands.

As has his repeated use of the Republican analogy comparing the government's finances to a household's. "Just as families and businesses must tighten their belts to live within their means," he said of his 2013 budget, "so must the Federal Government."

Hopefully, he's now shifting the debate.

The government's finances are not at all like a household's. In fact, it's when American families can't spend enough to keep the economy going, because too many of them are unemployed or underemployed and have run out of money, that government has to step in as spender of last resort - even if that means taking on more debt. If government doesn't fill the spending gap, an economy can collapse into deeper recession or depression, pushing unemployment far higher. Look at what austerity economics has done to Europe.

In addition, it's perfectly fine for government to borrow and continue to borrow in order to invest in new roads or other infrastructure, or education, or basic research - when those investments pay off in higher rates of economic growth.

The notion that government spending "crowds out" private investment, keeping interest rates higher than otherwise, is obsolete in a global economy where capital sloshes across national borders, seeking the highest returns from anywhere.

Societies that invest in the productivity of their people attract global capital and create high-paying jobs. And since most big corporations are no longer dependent on the productivity of any one nation, the responsibility for making such  investments increasingly falls to government.

Not that we should disregard the debt altogether, but the best way to deal with it is to do so gradually, through economic growth. That's how we reduced the giant debt Franklin D. Roosevelt bequeathed America, and it's how the Clinton Administration (of which I am proud to have been a member) achieved a balanced budget in 1996.

Republicans want Americans to believe government budgets are like family budgets that must be balanced because the analogy helps their ideological aim to "drown the government in a bathtub," in the memorable words of their guru, Grover Norquist. As long as there's a debt and balance is the goal, shrinkage is the only option - if tax increases are ruled out.

At last the President wants to change the debate and focus on the real economic problem. In a Tuesday interview with George Stephanopoulos that got less attention than it deserved, he said "my goal is not to chase a balanced budget just for the sake of balance. My goal is how do we grow the economy, put people back to work, and if we do that we are going to be bringing in more revenue." Let the real contest begin.



Robert B. Reich, Chancellor's Professor of Public Policy at the University of California at Berkeley, was Secretary of Labor in the Clinton administration. Time Magazine named him one of the ten most effective cabinet secretaries of the last century. He has written thirteen books, including the best sellers "Aftershock" and "The Work of Nations." His latest is an e-book, "Beyond Outrage." He is also a founding editor of the American Prospect magazine and chairman of Common Cause.

e-max.it: your social media marketing partner
 
Our 'Government of Laws' Is Now Above the Law Print
Thursday, 14 March 2013 08:01

Heuvel writes: "The national security state, operating under the president's power as commander in chief, now claims the right to make war or peace, and to kill an American citizen even in America without a hearing."

US Attorney-General Eric Holder. (photo: J. Scott Applewhite/AP)
US Attorney-General Eric Holder. (photo: J. Scott Applewhite/AP)



Our 'Government of Laws' Is Now Above the Law

By Katrina vanden Heuvel, The Washington Post

14 March 13

 

he government of the United States," wrote Chief Justice John Marshall in his famous decision in Marbury v. Madison, "has been emphatically termed a government of laws, and not of men." This principle - grounded in the Constitution, enforced by an independent judiciary - is central to the American creed. Citizens have rights, and fundamental to these is due process of the law.

This ideal, of course, has often been trampled in practice, particularly in times of war or national panic. But the standard remains, central to the legitimacy of therepublic.

Yet last week Attorney General Eric Holder, speaking for the administration with an alarmingly casual nonchalance, traduced the whole notion of a nation of laws.

First, the attorney general responded to Sen. Rand Paul's inquiry as to whether the president claimed the "power to authorize a lethal force, such as a drone strike, against a U.S. citizen on U.S. soil and without trial." After noting that the United States has never done so and has no intention of doing so, Holder wrote that, speaking hypothetically, it is "possible to imagine" an extraordinary circumstance in which that power might become "necessary and appropriate."

This triggered Paul's now-famous 13-hour filibuster against the nomination of John Brennan to head the CIA, as Paul (R-Ky.) promised to "speak until I can no longer speak" to sound the alarm that "no American should be killed by a drone on American soil without first being charged with a crime" and being found guilty in a court of law.

In response to the growing furor, Holder sent Paul another letter, stating clearly that the president has no authority to use a "weaponized drone" against an American in the United States who is "not engaged in combat."

But that, of course, only begs the question. The country is waging a war on terrorism that admits no boundary and no end. Now Holder is saying that the president has the authority to kill Americans in the United States if they are "engaged in combat." No hearing, no review, no due process of law. For those who remember how the FBI deemed Martin Luther King Jr. a communist, and how the national security apparatus termed Nelson Mandela a terrorist, alarm is surely justified.

Then, the attorney general, while testifying before the Judiciary Committee, was challenged by Sen. Charles Grassley (R-Iowa) about the glaring absence of any indictments against leading bankers or big banks coming out of the financial collapse. Holder responded that, essentially, these banks were too big to jail.

"The size of some of these institutions becomes so large that it does become difficult for us to prosecute them when we are hit with indications that if you do prosecute, if you do bring a criminal charge, it will have a negative impact on the national economy," he said.

This astounding admission of what clearly has been administration policy helped spur newly elected Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) to grill regulators at a separate banking committee hearing. Asking why there was no indictment of the big British bank HSBC, which settled after after an investigation found that it laundered billions of dollars from Iran, Libya and drug cartels despite repeated cease-and-desist warnings, Warren expressed the public's exasperation.

"If you're caught with an ounce of cocaine, the chances are good you're going to go to jail. If it happens repeatedly, you may go to jail for the rest of your life," Warren said. "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 - every single individual associated with this. And I think that's fundamentally wrong."

Taken together, the attorney general's astounding claims undermine the whole notion of a nation of laws.

The national security state, operating under the president's power as commander in chief, now claims the right to make war or peace, and to kill an American citizen even in America without a hearing.

The 12 largest U.S. banks - "systemically significant financial institutions," in the words of the Dodd-Frank reform legislation - control 69 percent of all financial assets, according to the conservative president of the Federal Reserve Bank of Dallas, Richard Fisher. As we have seen, they have the capacity to blow up the economy from their own excesses. Yet they now can apparently trample the laws with impunity, confident that they risk, at worst, an infrequent fine that is the equivalent in relation to their earnings of a New Yorker paying a parking ticket.

The laws, Cicero wrote in the days of the Roman Republic, "are silent in time of war." But what if the war has no end, no defined enemy, no defined territory? How can markets work if the financial behemoths are too big to fail and too big to jail?

If the national security state has the power of life or death above the law, and Wall Street has the power to plunder beyond the law, in what way does this remain a nation of laws?

e-max.it: your social media marketing partner
 
<< Start < Prev 3141 3142 3143 3144 3145 3146 3147 3148 3149 3150 Next > End >>

Page 3147 of 3432

THE NEW STREAMLINED RSN LOGIN PROCESS: Register once, then login and you are ready to comment. All you need is a Username and a Password of your choosing and you are free to comment whenever you like! Welcome to the Reader Supported News community.

RSNRSN