May 23, 5:29 PM EDT | FCC chief wants cell phone cancellation fees regulated | By JOHN DUNBAR | Associated Press Writer
WASHINGTON (AP) -- The head of the Federal Communications Commission said Friday he wants to regulate fees charged to cell phone users who cancel their wireless contracts early.
At a news conference, FCC Chairman Kevin Martin would not say whether he endorses an industry plan to help consumers avoid "early termination fees" as detailed by The Associated Press earlier this week.
...
Martin said industry and consumer groups were negotiating to reach an agreement to ease the fees, which have infuriated consumers. But so far, they have been unable to reach a consensus.
...
Verizon Wireless, the nation's No. 2 cell phone company, has offered a plan that would give consumers a break on fees charged when they quit their service early. But it also would let cell phone companies off the hook in state courts where they are being sued for hundreds of millions of dollars by angry customers.
...
Wireless companies say cancellation fees are necessary to recover the cost of cell phones, which they subsidize under long-term service contracts, and to defray their costs for signing up new customers. Consumer groups said the fees are unreasonable and intended to discourage customers from switching among providers. ...
Sunday, May 25, 2008
Saturday, May 24, 2008
[Bush Legacy] War Abroad and Poverty at Home : Information Clearing House -dollar down 60% in Euros, 80% in oil, Oil imports soar from $100B to $500B
War Abroad and Poverty at Home : Information Clearing House - ICHBy Paul Craig Roberts | 23/05/08 "ICH"
...
The “world’s only superpower” is so broke it can’t even finance its own wars.
Each additional dollar that the irresponsible Bush Regime has to solicit from foreigners puts more downward pressure on the dollar’s value. During the eight wasted and extravagant years of the Bush Regime, the once mighty US dollar has lost about 60% of its value against the euro.
The dollar has lost even more of its value against gold and oil.
Before Bush began his wars of aggression, oil was $25 a barrel. Today it is $130 a barrel. Some of this rise may result from run-away speculation in the futures market. However, the main cause is the eroding value of the dollar. Oil is real, and unlike paper dollars is limited in supply. With US massive trade and budget deficits, the outpouring of dollar obligations mounts, thus driving down the value of the dollar.
Each time the dollar price of oil rises, the US trade deficit rises, requiring more foreign financing of US energy use. Bush has managed to drive the US oil import bill up from $106 billion in 2006 to approximately $500 billion 18 months later--every dollar of which has to be financed by foreigners.
...
The disappearing value of the US dollar, which pushes up oil prices and raises the trade deficit, then pushes up heating subsidies and raises the budget deficit.
If oil was the reason Bush invaded Iraq, the plan obviously backfired. Oil not merely doubled or tripled in price but quintupled.
America’s political leaders either have no awareness that Bush’s wars are destroying our country’s economic position and permanently lowering the living standards of Americans or they do not care. McCain says he can win the war in Iraq in five more years and in the meantime “challenge” Russia and China. Hillary says she will “obliterate” Iran. Obama can’t make up his mind if he is for war or against it.
The Bush Regime’s inability to pay the bills it is piling up for Americans means that future US governments will cut promised benefits and further impoverish the people. Over a year ago The Nation reported that the Bush Regime is shedding veteran costs by attributing consequences of serious war wounds to “personality disorders” in order to deny soldiers promised benefits.
...
The Republican Party is willing to fund war, but sees everything else as an extravagance. The neoconized war party is destroying the economic prospects of American citizens. Is “war abroad and poverty at home” the Republican campaign slogan for the November election?
Paul Craig Roberts wrote the Kemp-Roth bill and was assistant secretary of the Treasury in the Reagan administration. He was associate editor of the Wall Street Journal editorial page and contributing editor of National Review. ...
...
The “world’s only superpower” is so broke it can’t even finance its own wars.
Each additional dollar that the irresponsible Bush Regime has to solicit from foreigners puts more downward pressure on the dollar’s value. During the eight wasted and extravagant years of the Bush Regime, the once mighty US dollar has lost about 60% of its value against the euro.
The dollar has lost even more of its value against gold and oil.
Before Bush began his wars of aggression, oil was $25 a barrel. Today it is $130 a barrel. Some of this rise may result from run-away speculation in the futures market. However, the main cause is the eroding value of the dollar. Oil is real, and unlike paper dollars is limited in supply. With US massive trade and budget deficits, the outpouring of dollar obligations mounts, thus driving down the value of the dollar.
Each time the dollar price of oil rises, the US trade deficit rises, requiring more foreign financing of US energy use. Bush has managed to drive the US oil import bill up from $106 billion in 2006 to approximately $500 billion 18 months later--every dollar of which has to be financed by foreigners.
...
The disappearing value of the US dollar, which pushes up oil prices and raises the trade deficit, then pushes up heating subsidies and raises the budget deficit.
If oil was the reason Bush invaded Iraq, the plan obviously backfired. Oil not merely doubled or tripled in price but quintupled.
America’s political leaders either have no awareness that Bush’s wars are destroying our country’s economic position and permanently lowering the living standards of Americans or they do not care. McCain says he can win the war in Iraq in five more years and in the meantime “challenge” Russia and China. Hillary says she will “obliterate” Iran. Obama can’t make up his mind if he is for war or against it.
The Bush Regime’s inability to pay the bills it is piling up for Americans means that future US governments will cut promised benefits and further impoverish the people. Over a year ago The Nation reported that the Bush Regime is shedding veteran costs by attributing consequences of serious war wounds to “personality disorders” in order to deny soldiers promised benefits.
...
The Republican Party is willing to fund war, but sees everything else as an extravagance. The neoconized war party is destroying the economic prospects of American citizens. Is “war abroad and poverty at home” the Republican campaign slogan for the November election?
Paul Craig Roberts wrote the Kemp-Roth bill and was assistant secretary of the Treasury in the Reagan administration. He was associate editor of the Wall Street Journal editorial page and contributing editor of National Review. ...
Big Oil's Ballot Bets ... [funding the Republican party]
Big Oil's Ballot Bets in the Presidential Race:
#1 Rudolph W. Giuliani Republican $678,258
#2 John McCain Republican $515,486
#3 Mitt Romney Republican $469,544
#4 Hillary Clinton Democrat $353,723
#5 Barack Obama Democrat $266,097
Congressional Contributions:
#1 Kay Bailey Hutchison Senate (R-TX) $300,161
#2 Joe Barton House (R-TX) $184,300
#3 John Cornyn Senate (R-TX) $180,000
#4 Bob Corker Senate (R-TN) $173,700
#5 Mary Fallin House (R-OK) $162,450
#6 Heather Wilson House (R-NM) $144,000
#7 Dennis Hastert House (R-IL) $134,600
#8 Jon Kyl Senate (R-AZ) $133,700
#9 Steve Pearce House (R-NM) $121,578
#10 Barbara Cubin House (R-WY) $119,150
#1 Rudolph W. Giuliani Republican $678,258
#2 John McCain Republican $515,486
#3 Mitt Romney Republican $469,544
#4 Hillary Clinton Democrat $353,723
#5 Barack Obama Democrat $266,097
Congressional Contributions:
#1 Kay Bailey Hutchison Senate (R-TX) $300,161
#2 Joe Barton House (R-TX) $184,300
#3 John Cornyn Senate (R-TX) $180,000
#4 Bob Corker Senate (R-TN) $173,700
#5 Mary Fallin House (R-OK) $162,450
#6 Heather Wilson House (R-NM) $144,000
#7 Dennis Hastert House (R-IL) $134,600
#8 Jon Kyl Senate (R-AZ) $133,700
#9 Steve Pearce House (R-NM) $121,578
#10 Barbara Cubin House (R-WY) $119,150
Friday, May 23, 2008
Justice Dept appointed 30+ former prosecutors as well-paid monoitors so companies avoid criminal prosecution ...
30 Former Officials Became Corporate Monitors | By ERIC LICHTBLAU and KITTY BENNETT | Published: May 23, 2008
WASHINGTON — The Justice Department has appointed at least 30 former prosecutors and other government officials as well-paid corporate monitors in arrangements that allow companies to avoid criminal prosecution, according to government data released Thursday by Congress.
In the last few years, the Justice Department has turned more and more often to “deferred prosecutions” to get companies suspected of wrongdoing to pay fines and change their practices without being charged criminally. Often, a corporate monitor is brought in to check on the company’s progress and ensure compliance.
The practice drew attention this year after it was disclosed that John Ashcroft, the former attorney general, had been selected by Christopher J. Christie, the United States attorney for New Jersey, as a corporate monitor for a medical supply company. The job, assigned without competitive bidding, would pay Mr. Ashcroft’s consulting firm up to $52 million. Mr. Ashcroft said at a contentious Congressional hearing in March that there was nothing improper about the arrangement.
Since then, Democrats in Congress have been pressing for more information about the use of deferred prosecutions, and the Justice Department responded Thursday by releasing documents showing that it had turned to the corporate agreements 85 times in recent years. (Congressional investigators said they had identified 12 agreements that were not included in the Justice Department’s list, for a total of 97.) ...
WASHINGTON — The Justice Department has appointed at least 30 former prosecutors and other government officials as well-paid corporate monitors in arrangements that allow companies to avoid criminal prosecution, according to government data released Thursday by Congress.
In the last few years, the Justice Department has turned more and more often to “deferred prosecutions” to get companies suspected of wrongdoing to pay fines and change their practices without being charged criminally. Often, a corporate monitor is brought in to check on the company’s progress and ensure compliance.
The practice drew attention this year after it was disclosed that John Ashcroft, the former attorney general, had been selected by Christopher J. Christie, the United States attorney for New Jersey, as a corporate monitor for a medical supply company. The job, assigned without competitive bidding, would pay Mr. Ashcroft’s consulting firm up to $52 million. Mr. Ashcroft said at a contentious Congressional hearing in March that there was nothing improper about the arrangement.
Since then, Democrats in Congress have been pressing for more information about the use of deferred prosecutions, and the Justice Department responded Thursday by releasing documents showing that it had turned to the corporate agreements 85 times in recent years. (Congressional investigators said they had identified 12 agreements that were not included in the Justice Department’s list, for a total of 97.) ...
Thursday, May 22, 2008
... so-called “climate-ready” crops will be used to drive farmers and governments onto a proprietary biotech platform
Corporations Grab Climate Genes - CommonDreams.org Tuesday, May 13, 2008 by Foreign Policy in Focus | by Hope Shand
First the biotech industry promised that its genetically engineered seeds would clean up the environment. Then they told us biotech crops would feed the world. Neither came to pass. Soon we’ll hear that genetically engineered climate-hardy seeds are the essential adaptation strategy for crops to withstand drought, heat, cold, saline soils and more.
After failing to convince an unwilling public to accept genetically engineered foods, biotech companies see a silver lining in climate change. They are now asserting that farmers cannot win the war against climate change without genetic engineering. According to a new report from ETC Group, the world’s largest seed and agrochemical corporations such as Monsanto, BASF, DuPont, Syngenta, Bayer, and Dow — along with biotech partners such as Mendel, Ceres, and Evogene — are stockpiling hundreds of patents and patent applications on crop genes related to environmental stress tolerance at patent offices around the world. They have acquired a total of 55 patent families corresponding to 532 patents and patent applications.
In the face of climate chaos and a deepening world food crisis, the Gene Giants are gearing up for a PR offensive to re-brand themselves as climate saviors. The companies hope to convince governments and reluctant consumers that genetic engineering is the essential adaptation strategy to insure agricultural productivity. In the words of Keith Jones of CropLife International, an industry-supported non-profit organization, “GM foods are exactly the technology that may be necessary to counter the effects of global warming.” But rather than an effective way to confront climate change, these so-called “climate-ready” crops will be used to drive farmers and governments onto a proprietary biotech platform. ...
First the biotech industry promised that its genetically engineered seeds would clean up the environment. Then they told us biotech crops would feed the world. Neither came to pass. Soon we’ll hear that genetically engineered climate-hardy seeds are the essential adaptation strategy for crops to withstand drought, heat, cold, saline soils and more.
After failing to convince an unwilling public to accept genetically engineered foods, biotech companies see a silver lining in climate change. They are now asserting that farmers cannot win the war against climate change without genetic engineering. According to a new report from ETC Group, the world’s largest seed and agrochemical corporations such as Monsanto, BASF, DuPont, Syngenta, Bayer, and Dow — along with biotech partners such as Mendel, Ceres, and Evogene — are stockpiling hundreds of patents and patent applications on crop genes related to environmental stress tolerance at patent offices around the world. They have acquired a total of 55 patent families corresponding to 532 patents and patent applications.
In the face of climate chaos and a deepening world food crisis, the Gene Giants are gearing up for a PR offensive to re-brand themselves as climate saviors. The companies hope to convince governments and reluctant consumers that genetic engineering is the essential adaptation strategy to insure agricultural productivity. In the words of Keith Jones of CropLife International, an industry-supported non-profit organization, “GM foods are exactly the technology that may be necessary to counter the effects of global warming.” But rather than an effective way to confront climate change, these so-called “climate-ready” crops will be used to drive farmers and governments onto a proprietary biotech platform. ...
[Three] Firms Seek Patents on 'Climate Ready' Altered Crops - to control two-thirds of climate-related controls ...
Firms Seek Patents on 'Climate Ready' Altered Crops - washingtonpost.comBy Rick Weiss | Washington Post Staff Writer | Tuesday, May 13, 2008
A handful of the world's largest agricultural biotechnology companies are seeking hundreds of patents on gene-altered crops designed to withstand drought and other environmental stresses, part of a race for dominance in the potentially lucrative market for crops that can handle global warming, according to a report being released today.
Three companies -- BASF of Germany, Syngenta of Switzerland and Monsanto of St. Louis -- have filed applications to control nearly two-thirds of the climate-related gene families submitted to patent offices worldwide, according to the report by the Ottawa-based ETC Group, an activist organization that advocates for subsistence farmers.
The applications say that the new "climate ready" genes will help crops survive drought, flooding, saltwater incursions, high temperatures and increased ultraviolet radiation -- all of which are predicted to undermine food security in coming decades.
Company officials dismissed the report's contention that the applications amount to an intellectual-property "grab," countering that gene-altered plants will be crucial to solving world hunger but will never be developed without patent protections. ...
A handful of the world's largest agricultural biotechnology companies are seeking hundreds of patents on gene-altered crops designed to withstand drought and other environmental stresses, part of a race for dominance in the potentially lucrative market for crops that can handle global warming, according to a report being released today.
Three companies -- BASF of Germany, Syngenta of Switzerland and Monsanto of St. Louis -- have filed applications to control nearly two-thirds of the climate-related gene families submitted to patent offices worldwide, according to the report by the Ottawa-based ETC Group, an activist organization that advocates for subsistence farmers.
The applications say that the new "climate ready" genes will help crops survive drought, flooding, saltwater incursions, high temperatures and increased ultraviolet radiation -- all of which are predicted to undermine food security in coming decades.
Company officials dismissed the report's contention that the applications amount to an intellectual-property "grab," countering that gene-altered plants will be crucial to solving world hunger but will never be developed without patent protections. ...
Wednesday, May 21, 2008
A tax break for horse owners was included by Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky
Think Progress » McConnell’s Farm Bill Priority: Tax Breaks For Thoroughbred Race Horse Owners May 14th, 2008
... the bill “contains something for everyone” — including the following important project tucked within the massive bill:
... the bill “contains something for everyone” — including the following important project tucked within the massive bill:
A tax break for horse owners was included by Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky.
Politico’s Crypt explains:
The measure would essentially allow race horse owners — who pay millions for Triple Crown contenders — to write down their investment over four years. … Senate aides say it will cost between $60 million and $70 million.
McConnell’s measure is a shameless ploy for votes in Kentucky. His spokesman claimed, “it’s the largest agricultural product in Kentucky.” But the tax break would most likely apply only to the very wealthy; after all, the average cost of training and racing one racehorse is $30,000 per year — which does not include purchase price of the horse, anywhere from $12,000 to millions.
The millionaire-only earmark is just McConnell’s latest attempt to have it both ways on pork barrel spending. After securing nearly $195 million in earmarks for FY2008, he voted in favor of a one-year earmark moratorium in March. Yet his “eleventh hour” decision earned him criticism that he was “playing both sides by not lobbying for the measure, which ensured that it failed, while voting for the amendment in order to insulate himself from attacks on the right.”
Lobbyists: This is our thanks? - Jeanne Cummings - Politico.com
Lobbyists: This is our thanks? - Jeanne Cummings - Politico.com
By JEANNE CUMMINGS | 5/21/08 4:29 AM EST
More than a few Republican lobbyists in Washington are scratching their heads these days, asking: So this is the thanks we get?
It was a small band of loyal lobbyists who stood by presumptive Republican presidential nominee John McCain last August when his campaign went broke and his White House aspirations seemed doomed.
They raised money for him under impossible odds and kept him company in budget hotels during his darkest days.
Now they are under siege as McCain purges active lobbyists from his campaign team in a quest to wrest the reformist title from Democrat Barack Obama, his likely opponent in this fall’s general election. ...
By JEANNE CUMMINGS | 5/21/08 4:29 AM EST
More than a few Republican lobbyists in Washington are scratching their heads these days, asking: So this is the thanks we get?
It was a small band of loyal lobbyists who stood by presumptive Republican presidential nominee John McCain last August when his campaign went broke and his White House aspirations seemed doomed.
They raised money for him under impossible odds and kept him company in budget hotels during his darkest days.
Now they are under siege as McCain purges active lobbyists from his campaign team in a quest to wrest the reformist title from Democrat Barack Obama, his likely opponent in this fall’s general election. ...
Thursday, May 15, 2008
Michael Medved: istinctive, unifying, risk-taking American DNA ... except for slaves [Hee'l be back on TV without questions! ed.]
Pharyngula: Michael Medved says something dumbPosted on: May 14, 2008 12:34 PM, by PZ Myers
But, he hastens to add, modern African-American genetics have been leavened with the genes of recent, self-selected immigrants from the Caribbean and Africa, so their unfortunate stay-at-home genes have a "less decisive influence". ...
Did someone declare this National Flaming Racist Idiot week, and I just didn't notice until now? You have got to read Michael Medved's latest foray into pseudoscience: he has declared American superiority to be genetic, encoded in our good old American DNA. Because our ancestors were immigrants, who were risk-takers, who were selected for their energy and aggressiveness. Oh, except for those who are descended from slaves.
The idea of a distinctive, unifying, risk-taking American DNA might also help to explain our most persistent and painful racial divide - between the progeny of every immigrant nationality that chose to come here, and the one significant group that exercised no choice in making their journey to the U.S. Nothing in the horrific ordeal of African slaves, seized from their homes against their will, reflected a genetic predisposition to risk-taking, or any sort of self-selection based on personality traits. ...
But, he hastens to add, modern African-American genetics have been leavened with the genes of recent, self-selected immigrants from the Caribbean and Africa, so their unfortunate stay-at-home genes have a "less decisive influence". ...
Payday loan law loophole swallows borrowers whole -- -- chicagotribune.com
Payday loan law loophole swallows borrowers whole -- -- chicagotribune.com By Stephen Franklin | Tribune reporter | 12:46 AM CDT, May 12, 2008
He emptied his family's insurance policies and retirement savings, borrowed from family and friends, and went short of food.
Why? To keep up with $2,000 in loans he had taken out without realizing that the 701 percent annual interest rate meant he would have to repay $5,848 in 4 1/2 months.
...
The 2005 law capped rates on one type of loan: short-term "payday" loans taken out for up to 120 days are limited to 403 percent annual interest. The law also imposed protections aimed at keeping borrowers from falling into debt traps, such as limiting the number of loans to two and allowing borrowers to work out a repayment plan.
Soon after the law took effect, however, many lenders began directing borrowers to loans of 121 days or longer that did not include such safeguards, consumer advocates say. State officials acknowledge they have received complaints from consumers who claim they were shifted to the costlier loans.
...
Money to politicians
A February report from the Illinois Campaign for Political Reform indicated that the industry gave $1.8 million to incumbents and candidates for statewide and legislative offices since 2001, and top industry donors have given $862,600 since 2005.
Three of 4 sitting state senators have reported contributions since 2005 and 4 of 5 sitting state House members reported contributions, according to the reform organization's report. ...
He emptied his family's insurance policies and retirement savings, borrowed from family and friends, and went short of food.
Why? To keep up with $2,000 in loans he had taken out without realizing that the 701 percent annual interest rate meant he would have to repay $5,848 in 4 1/2 months.
...
The 2005 law capped rates on one type of loan: short-term "payday" loans taken out for up to 120 days are limited to 403 percent annual interest. The law also imposed protections aimed at keeping borrowers from falling into debt traps, such as limiting the number of loans to two and allowing borrowers to work out a repayment plan.
Soon after the law took effect, however, many lenders began directing borrowers to loans of 121 days or longer that did not include such safeguards, consumer advocates say. State officials acknowledge they have received complaints from consumers who claim they were shifted to the costlier loans.
...
Money to politicians
A February report from the Illinois Campaign for Political Reform indicated that the industry gave $1.8 million to incumbents and candidates for statewide and legislative offices since 2001, and top industry donors have given $862,600 since 2005.
Three of 4 sitting state senators have reported contributions since 2005 and 4 of 5 sitting state House members reported contributions, according to the reform organization's report. ...
Wednesday, May 14, 2008
The belief that governments were being run by "a few big interests" was particularly pervasive ... United States (80 percent)
POLITICS: Gulf Seen Between Democracy in Theory and Practice | By JimLobe
WASHINGTON, May12 (IPS) - The basic democratic principle that "the will of the people should be the basis for the authority of government" is supported by overwhelming majorities throughout the world, according to a major new survey of more than 17,000 adults in 19 countries released here Monday.
...
And an average of 63 percent of respondents say their country is being run by a "few big interests looking out for themselves," rather than "for the benefit of all the people."
The belief that governments were being run by "a few big interests" was particularly pervasive in Ukraine (84 percent), Mexico (83 percent), the United States (80 percent), Nigeria and South Korea (78 percent), and Argentina (71 percent).
"The perception that governments are not responsive to the popular will appears to be contributing to the low levels of confidence in government found around the world," noted Steven Kull, who directs both the WPO and its parent organisation, the University of Maryland's Programme on International Policy Attitudes (PIPA). ...
WASHINGTON, May12 (IPS) - The basic democratic principle that "the will of the people should be the basis for the authority of government" is supported by overwhelming majorities throughout the world, according to a major new survey of more than 17,000 adults in 19 countries released here Monday.
...
And an average of 63 percent of respondents say their country is being run by a "few big interests looking out for themselves," rather than "for the benefit of all the people."
The belief that governments were being run by "a few big interests" was particularly pervasive in Ukraine (84 percent), Mexico (83 percent), the United States (80 percent), Nigeria and South Korea (78 percent), and Argentina (71 percent).
"The perception that governments are not responsive to the popular will appears to be contributing to the low levels of confidence in government found around the world," noted Steven Kull, who directs both the WPO and its parent organisation, the University of Maryland's Programme on International Policy Attitudes (PIPA). ...
Some 83 detainees have died in, or soon after, custody during the past five years.
System of Neglect | As Tighter Immigration Policies Strain Federal Agencies, The Detainees in Their Care Often Pay a Heavy Cost | by Dana Priest and Amy Goldstein | Washington Post Staff Writers | Page A1; May 11, 2008
...
The cellmate yelled again. Another guard came by, looked in and called the nurse. This time she wanted Osman brought to the clinic. Forty minutes passed before guards brought a wheelchair to his cell. By then it was too late: Osman was barely alive when paramedics reached him. He soon died.
...
Osman's death is a single tragedy in a larger story of life, death and often shabby medical care within an unseen network of special prisons for foreign detainees across the country. Some 33,000 people are crammed into these overcrowded compounds on a given day, waiting to be deported or for a judge to let them stay here.
...
Some 83 detainees have died in, or soon after, custody during the past five years. The deaths are the loudest alarms about a system teetering on collapse. Actions taken -- or not taken -- by medical staff members may have contributed to 30 of those deaths, according to confidential internal reviews and the opinions of medical experts who reviewed some death files for The Post.
According to an analysis by The Post, most of the people who died were young. Thirty-two of the detainees were younger than 40, and only six were 70 or older. The deaths took place at dozens of sites across the country. The most at one location was six at the San Pedro compound near Los Angeles. ...
...
The cellmate yelled again. Another guard came by, looked in and called the nurse. This time she wanted Osman brought to the clinic. Forty minutes passed before guards brought a wheelchair to his cell. By then it was too late: Osman was barely alive when paramedics reached him. He soon died.
...
Osman's death is a single tragedy in a larger story of life, death and often shabby medical care within an unseen network of special prisons for foreign detainees across the country. Some 33,000 people are crammed into these overcrowded compounds on a given day, waiting to be deported or for a judge to let them stay here.
...
Some 83 detainees have died in, or soon after, custody during the past five years. The deaths are the loudest alarms about a system teetering on collapse. Actions taken -- or not taken -- by medical staff members may have contributed to 30 of those deaths, according to confidential internal reviews and the opinions of medical experts who reviewed some death files for The Post.
According to an analysis by The Post, most of the people who died were young. Thirty-two of the detainees were younger than 40, and only six were 70 or older. The deaths took place at dozens of sites across the country. The most at one location was six at the San Pedro compound near Los Angeles. ...
Friday, May 02, 2008
Behind TV Analysts, Pentagon’s Hidden Hand - New York Times ... consultants and military contractors ...
Behind TV Analysts, Pentagon’s Hidden Hand - New York TimesMessage Machine | By DAVID BARSTOW | Published: April 20, 2008
...
The administration’s communications experts responded swiftly. Early one Friday morning, they put a group of retired military officers on one of the jets normally used by Vice President Dick Cheney and flew them to Cuba for a carefully orchestrated tour of Guantánamo.
...
Hidden behind that appearance of objectivity, though, is a Pentagon information apparatus that has used those analysts in a campaign to generate favorable news coverage of the administration’s wartime performance, an examination by The New York Times has found.
The effort, which began with the buildup to the Iraq war and continues to this day, has sought to exploit ideological and military allegiances, and also a powerful financial dynamic: Most of the analysts have ties to military contractors vested in the very war policies they are asked to assess on air.
Those business relationships are hardly ever disclosed to the viewers, and sometimes not even to the networks themselves. But collectively, the men on the plane and several dozen other military analysts represent more than 150 military contractors either as lobbyists, senior executives, board members or consultants. The companies include defense heavyweights, but also scores of smaller companies, all part of a vast assemblage of contractors scrambling for hundreds of billions in military business generated by the administration’s war on terror. ...
...
The administration’s communications experts responded swiftly. Early one Friday morning, they put a group of retired military officers on one of the jets normally used by Vice President Dick Cheney and flew them to Cuba for a carefully orchestrated tour of Guantánamo.
...
Hidden behind that appearance of objectivity, though, is a Pentagon information apparatus that has used those analysts in a campaign to generate favorable news coverage of the administration’s wartime performance, an examination by The New York Times has found.
The effort, which began with the buildup to the Iraq war and continues to this day, has sought to exploit ideological and military allegiances, and also a powerful financial dynamic: Most of the analysts have ties to military contractors vested in the very war policies they are asked to assess on air.
Those business relationships are hardly ever disclosed to the viewers, and sometimes not even to the networks themselves. But collectively, the men on the plane and several dozen other military analysts represent more than 150 military contractors either as lobbyists, senior executives, board members or consultants. The companies include defense heavyweights, but also scores of smaller companies, all part of a vast assemblage of contractors scrambling for hundreds of billions in military business generated by the administration’s war on terror. ...
Sowing Disaster: Why We Need a New Farm Bill - CommonDreams.org
Sowing Disaster: Why We Need a New Farm Bill - CommonDreams.org Friday, April 18, 2008 | by Christopher D. Cook
Congress passes its share of boondoggles, but there’s a real doozy on the docket April 18. If the nearly $300 billion Farm Bill passes in its current form, the American public will pay billions of dollars to large-scale farmers and food corporations for the following end results: an oversupply of unhealthful junk food that worsens our national obesity epidemic; severe depletion of soil and air through overuse of pesticides and destructive farming practices; and the hastened removal of small farms from the land, eroding the spirit and finances of rural communities across the U.S.
...
Consider just a few numbers. Seventy-five percent of subsidies go to a handful of commodities (mostly wheat, corn, and oilseeds) used as food additives, making highly processed junk food cheap — while fruits and vegetables and whole foods get no payments at all. Nearly 70 percent of farm payments go to the top ten percent of the country’s biggest growers — while America loses one farm every half an hour, 15,000 per year. This form of corporate welfare encourages the ongoing consolidation of farming and food production into fewer hands while removing small and mid-sized farmers who can no longer compete in this unlevel playing field. Meanwhile, by skewing payments toward large-scale farming, these subsidies promote ecologically damaging intensive pesticide use and severe depletion of precious topsoils — while organic foods, often exorbitantly expensive, get no supports at all. As a nation we dump nearly half a million tons of toxic pesticides on the land, polluting the air, often sickening nearby residents, and tainting rivers and streams, to say nothing of our food supply which is covered in pesticide residue. ///
Congress passes its share of boondoggles, but there’s a real doozy on the docket April 18. If the nearly $300 billion Farm Bill passes in its current form, the American public will pay billions of dollars to large-scale farmers and food corporations for the following end results: an oversupply of unhealthful junk food that worsens our national obesity epidemic; severe depletion of soil and air through overuse of pesticides and destructive farming practices; and the hastened removal of small farms from the land, eroding the spirit and finances of rural communities across the U.S.
...
Consider just a few numbers. Seventy-five percent of subsidies go to a handful of commodities (mostly wheat, corn, and oilseeds) used as food additives, making highly processed junk food cheap — while fruits and vegetables and whole foods get no payments at all. Nearly 70 percent of farm payments go to the top ten percent of the country’s biggest growers — while America loses one farm every half an hour, 15,000 per year. This form of corporate welfare encourages the ongoing consolidation of farming and food production into fewer hands while removing small and mid-sized farmers who can no longer compete in this unlevel playing field. Meanwhile, by skewing payments toward large-scale farming, these subsidies promote ecologically damaging intensive pesticide use and severe depletion of precious topsoils — while organic foods, often exorbitantly expensive, get no supports at all. As a nation we dump nearly half a million tons of toxic pesticides on the land, polluting the air, often sickening nearby residents, and tainting rivers and streams, to say nothing of our food supply which is covered in pesticide residue. ///
incidence of banking crises ... as high since 1980 as in any period since 1800 ... self-regulation [impossible]
Why Financial Regulation is Essential | By Robert Johnson | April 17th, 2008
By Martin Wolf, Financial Times
Published: April 15 2008
...
The Financial Times article by Martin Wolf illustrates that a man who has alway been pro market can see the problems with no regulation and self policing of markets. While Wolf is right to point out that regulation and enforcement are also human activities that can generate their own follies, the work of the society is to set rules to protect people from the excesses of a given segment of society while maintaining the maximum freedom of those within the sector to be creative.
All agree now that:
- Risk management is appalling.
- Executive Compensation Incentives matter.
- Enhancing transparency is vital.
- Leverage is extreme.
What is not envisioned yet is how these changes will be made by a political system that is so dependent upon the campaign contributions from Wall Street. Self regulation is not viable. Having the market participants make the rules for themselves through legislative proxies who they fund is not much better. What is essential to this process is citizen scrutiny and participation. Citizens must blast through the tyranny of expertise that is used to intimidate them from participating in that which impacts their lives profoundly. They should also recognize that after the election the influence of voters will diminish for a couple of years.
Why financial regulation is both difficult and essentialBy Martin Wolf, Financial Times
Published: April 15 2008
...
In an interim report on “market best practices”, the Institute for International Finance, an association of bankers, offers devastating self-criticism.* Here then are some of the weaknesses it identifies: “deteriorating lending standards by certain originators of credit”; a “decline of underwriting standards”; an “excessive reliance on poorly understood, poorly performing and less than adequate ratings of structured products”; and “difficulties in identifying where exposures reside”. Would you buy a voluntary code from people who describe their own mistakes in this brutal manner? I thought not. There are two powerful additional reasons for not doing so
First, in such a fiercely competitive business, a voluntary code is almost certainly not worth the paper it is written on. When they can get away with behaving irresponsibly, some will do so. This puts strong pressure on others. That is what Chuck Prince, former chief executive officer of Citigroup, meant when he told the FT that “as long as the music is playing, you’ve got to get up and dance”. So, as Willem Buiter of the London School of Economics remarks: “Self-regulation stands in relation to regulation the way self-importance stands in relation to importance.”
Second, the industry has form. The IIF itself was founded in 1983 in response to the developing country debt crisis. At that time, big parts of the west’s banking system were in effect bankrupt. Now, many upsets later, we have reached the “subprime crisis”. The IIF was created not only to represent the industry, but to improve its performance. It is clear that this has not worked.
Do not just take my word for it. Last month, Carmen Reinhart of the University of Maryland and Kenneth Rogoff of Harvard published an extraordinary paper on the long history of financial crises.** The chart shows that the incidence of banking crises (measured by the proportion of countries affected) has been as high since 1980 as in any period since 1800; that the incidence of crises is correlated with liberalisation of capital flows; and that there was, until 2007, a decline in the incidence of crises in the 2000s. ...
Thursday, May 01, 2008
Merck Wrote Drug Studies for Doctors ... raised broad questions about the validity of much of the drug industry’s published research
Merck Wrote Drug Studies for Doctors | By STEPHANIE SAUL | Published: April 16, 2008
The drug maker Merck drafted dozens of research studies for a best-selling drug, then lined up prestigious doctors to put their names on the reports before publication, according to an article to be published Wednesday in a leading medical journal.
The article, based on documents unearthed in lawsuits over the pain drug Vioxx, provides a rare, detailed look in the industry practice of ghostwriting medical research studies that are then published in academic journals.
The lead author of Wednesday’s article, Dr. Joseph S. Ross of the Mount Sinai School of Medicine in New York, said a close look at the Merck documents raised broad questions about the validity of much of the drug industry’s published research, because the ghostwriting practice appears to be widespread.
...
The drug maker Merck drafted dozens of research studies for a best-selling drug, then lined up prestigious doctors to put their names on the reports before publication, according to an article to be published Wednesday in a leading medical journal.
The article, based on documents unearthed in lawsuits over the pain drug Vioxx, provides a rare, detailed look in the industry practice of ghostwriting medical research studies that are then published in academic journals.
The lead author of Wednesday’s article, Dr. Joseph S. Ross of the Mount Sinai School of Medicine in New York, said a close look at the Merck documents raised broad questions about the validity of much of the drug industry’s published research, because the ghostwriting practice appears to be widespread.
...
Combing through the documents, Dr. Ross and his colleagues unearthed internal Merck e-mail messages and documents about 96 journal publications, which included review articles and reports of clinical studies. While the Ross team said it was not necessarily raising questions about all 96 articles, it said that in many cases there was scant evidence that the recruited authors made substantive contributions.
One paper involved a study of Vioxx as a possible deterrent to Alzheimer’s progression.
The draft of the paper, dated August 2003, identified the lead writer as “External author?” But when it was published in 2005 in the journal Neuropsychopharmacology, the lead author was listed as Dr. Leon J. Thal, a well-known Alzheimer’s researcher at the University of California, San Diego. Dr. Thal was killed in an airplane crash last year.
The second author listed on the published Alzheimer’s paper, whose name had not been on the draft, was Dr. Ferris, the New York University professor. Dr. Ferris, reached by telephone Tuesday, said he had played an active role in the research and he was substantially involved in helping shape the final draft.
“It’s simply false that we didn’t contribute to the final publication,” Dr. Ferris said. ...
Trent Lott had nearly $1.3 million in political donations ... doling it out to lawmakers who hold sway over his clients
Apr 24, 6:45 PM EDT | Lobbyist Lott takes advantage of old Senate campaign cash | By BEN EVANS | Associated Press
Writer
WASHINGTON (AP) -- Trent Lott had nearly $1.3 million in political donations left over when he quit the Senate to become a lobbyist. Now the former majority leader is doling it out to lawmakers who hold sway over his clients.
...
More than 40 former members of Congress who are registered as lobbyists still have open campaign accounts or political action committees, some of them more than a decade after leaving office, according to a review of campaign finance records by The Associated Press. ...
Writer
WASHINGTON (AP) -- Trent Lott had nearly $1.3 million in political donations left over when he quit the Senate to become a lobbyist. Now the former majority leader is doling it out to lawmakers who hold sway over his clients.
...
More than 40 former members of Congress who are registered as lobbyists still have open campaign accounts or political action committees, some of them more than a decade after leaving office, according to a review of campaign finance records by The Associated Press. ...
Sunday, April 27, 2008
Monsanto's Harvest of Fear: Farmers call them the “seed police” and use words such as “Gestapo” and “Mafia” to describe their tactics
Monsanto's Harvest of Fear: PoliticsInvestigation | Monsanto’s Harvest of Fear | by Donald L. Barlett and James B. Steele May 2008
Monsanto already dominates America’s food chain with its genetically modified seeds. Now it has targeted milk production. Just as frightening as the corporation’s tactics–ruthless legal battles against small farmers–is its decades-long history of toxic contamination.
As Rinehart would recall, the man began verbally attacking him, saying he had proof that Rinehart had planted Monsanto’s genetically modified (G.M.) soybeans in violation of the company’s patent. Better come clean and settle with Monsanto, Rinehart says the man told him—or face the consequences.
Rinehart was incredulous, listening to the words as puzzled customers and employees looked on. Like many others in rural America, Rinehart knew of Monsanto’s fierce reputation for enforcing its patents and suing anyone who allegedly violated them. But Rinehart wasn’t a farmer. He wasn’t a seed dealer. He hadn’t planted any seeds or sold any seeds. He owned a small—a really small—country store in a town of 350 people. He was angry that somebody could just barge into the store and embarrass him in front of everyone. “It made me and my business look bad,” he says. Rinehart says he told the intruder, “You got the wrong guy.”
When the stranger persisted, Rinehart showed him the door. On the way out the man kept making threats. Rinehart says he can’t remember the exact words, but they were to the effect of: “Monsanto is big. You can’t win. We will get you. You will pay.”
Scenes like this are playing out in many parts of rural America these days as Monsanto goes after farmers, farmers’ co-ops, seed dealers—anyone it suspects may have infringed its patents of genetically modified seeds. As interviews and reams of court documents reveal, Monsanto relies on a shadowy army of private investigators and agents in the American heartland to strike fear into farm country. They fan out into fields and farm towns, where they secretly videotape and photograph farmers, store owners, and co-ops; infiltrate community meetings; and gather information from informants about farming activities. Farmers say that some Monsanto agents pretend to be surveyors. Others confront farmers on their land and try to pressure them to sign papers giving Monsanto access to their private records. Farmers call them the “seed police” and use words such as “Gestapo” and “Mafia” to describe their tactics. ...
Monsanto already dominates America’s food chain with its genetically modified seeds. Now it has targeted milk production. Just as frightening as the corporation’s tactics–ruthless legal battles against small farmers–is its decades-long history of toxic contamination.
As Rinehart would recall, the man began verbally attacking him, saying he had proof that Rinehart had planted Monsanto’s genetically modified (G.M.) soybeans in violation of the company’s patent. Better come clean and settle with Monsanto, Rinehart says the man told him—or face the consequences.
Rinehart was incredulous, listening to the words as puzzled customers and employees looked on. Like many others in rural America, Rinehart knew of Monsanto’s fierce reputation for enforcing its patents and suing anyone who allegedly violated them. But Rinehart wasn’t a farmer. He wasn’t a seed dealer. He hadn’t planted any seeds or sold any seeds. He owned a small—a really small—country store in a town of 350 people. He was angry that somebody could just barge into the store and embarrass him in front of everyone. “It made me and my business look bad,” he says. Rinehart says he told the intruder, “You got the wrong guy.”
When the stranger persisted, Rinehart showed him the door. On the way out the man kept making threats. Rinehart says he can’t remember the exact words, but they were to the effect of: “Monsanto is big. You can’t win. We will get you. You will pay.”
Scenes like this are playing out in many parts of rural America these days as Monsanto goes after farmers, farmers’ co-ops, seed dealers—anyone it suspects may have infringed its patents of genetically modified seeds. As interviews and reams of court documents reveal, Monsanto relies on a shadowy army of private investigators and agents in the American heartland to strike fear into farm country. They fan out into fields and farm towns, where they secretly videotape and photograph farmers, store owners, and co-ops; infiltrate community meetings; and gather information from informants about farming activities. Farmers say that some Monsanto agents pretend to be surveyors. Others confront farmers on their land and try to pressure them to sign papers giving Monsanto access to their private records. Farmers call them the “seed police” and use words such as “Gestapo” and “Mafia” to describe their tactics. ...
A Developer, His Deals and His Ties to McCain
A Developer, His Deals and His Ties to McCain | By DAVID D. KIRKPATRICK and JIM RUTENBERG | Published: April 22, 2008
Donald R. Diamond, a wealthy Arizona real estate developer, was racing to snap up a stretch of virgin California coast freed by the closing of an Army base a decade ago when he turned to an old friend, Senator John McCain.
...
... When he appealed to a nearby city for the right to develop other property at the former base, Mr. Diamond submitted Mr. McCain’s endorsement as “a close personal friend.”
Writing to officials in the city, Seaside, Calif., the senator said, “You will find him as honorable and committed as I have.”
...
A longtime political patron, Mr. Diamond is one of the elite fund-raisers Mr. McCain’s current presidential campaign calls Innovators, having raised more than $250,000 so far. ...
Donald R. Diamond, a wealthy Arizona real estate developer, was racing to snap up a stretch of virgin California coast freed by the closing of an Army base a decade ago when he turned to an old friend, Senator John McCain.
...
... When he appealed to a nearby city for the right to develop other property at the former base, Mr. Diamond submitted Mr. McCain’s endorsement as “a close personal friend.”
Writing to officials in the city, Seaside, Calif., the senator said, “You will find him as honorable and committed as I have.”
...
A longtime political patron, Mr. Diamond is one of the elite fund-raisers Mr. McCain’s current presidential campaign calls Innovators, having raised more than $250,000 so far. ...
[Monsanto] Genetically Modified soya produces about 10 per cent less food than its conventional equivalent ...
Exposed: the great GM crops myth - Green Living, Environment - The IndependentMajor new study shows that modified soya produces 10 per cent less food than its conventional equivalent | By Geoffrey Lean, Environment Editor |
Sunday, 20 April 2008
Genetic modification actually cuts the productivity of crops, an authoritative new study shows, undermining repeated claims that a switch to the controversial technology is needed to solve the growing world food crisis.
The study – carried out over the past three years at the University of Kansas in the US grain belt – has found that GM soya produces about 10 per cent less food than its conventional equivalent, contradicting assertions by advocates of the technology that it increases yields.
...
He grew a Monsanto GM soybean and an almost identical conventional variety in the same field. The modified crop produced only 70 bushels of grain per acre, compared with 77 bushels from the non-GM one. ...
Sunday, 20 April 2008
Genetic modification actually cuts the productivity of crops, an authoritative new study shows, undermining repeated claims that a switch to the controversial technology is needed to solve the growing world food crisis.
The study – carried out over the past three years at the University of Kansas in the US grain belt – has found that GM soya produces about 10 per cent less food than its conventional equivalent, contradicting assertions by advocates of the technology that it increases yields.
...
He grew a Monsanto GM soybean and an almost identical conventional variety in the same field. The modified crop produced only 70 bushels of grain per acre, compared with 77 bushels from the non-GM one. ...
Thursday, April 17, 2008
Airline executives and regulators often switch places
Apr 17, 10:15 PM EDT | Airline executives and regulators often switch places | By RITA BEAMISH and SHARON THEIMER | Associated Press Writers
WASHINGTON (AP) -- What the airline industry wants from Washington it often gets, and no wonder. The people who regulate airlines on one day can become company executives the next - and the other way around.
Industry leaders who were once under the Federal Aviation Administration's authority now sit in top positions at the agency. Many former FAA officials and congressional aides have found lucrative jobs in the air travel industry or with its lobbying groups. One top official left the FAA two years ago to become the airline industry's top lobbyist.
Just Thursday, the law firm Jones Day announced that former FAA attorney Andrew Steinberg, until recently the Transportation Department's assistant secretary of aviation and international affairs, will join the firm's government regulation practice as a partner.
Throw in millions of dollars in campaign and lobbying money, and factor in the airlines' importance to lawmakers' home cities and states, and it adds up to a powerful industry that even some of the nation's most frequent fliers - members of Congress - can be reluctant to tackle. Broad deregulation and multibillion-dollar government bailouts are among the industry's major victories in recent decades. ...
WASHINGTON (AP) -- What the airline industry wants from Washington it often gets, and no wonder. The people who regulate airlines on one day can become company executives the next - and the other way around.
Industry leaders who were once under the Federal Aviation Administration's authority now sit in top positions at the agency. Many former FAA officials and congressional aides have found lucrative jobs in the air travel industry or with its lobbying groups. One top official left the FAA two years ago to become the airline industry's top lobbyist.
Just Thursday, the law firm Jones Day announced that former FAA attorney Andrew Steinberg, until recently the Transportation Department's assistant secretary of aviation and international affairs, will join the firm's government regulation practice as a partner.
Throw in millions of dollars in campaign and lobbying money, and factor in the airlines' importance to lawmakers' home cities and states, and it adds up to a powerful industry that even some of the nation's most frequent fliers - members of Congress - can be reluctant to tackle. Broad deregulation and multibillion-dollar government bailouts are among the industry's major victories in recent decades. ...
Thursday, April 10, 2008
study of roughly 117,000 trades in 10b5-1 plans by 3,426 executives at 1,241 companies: trades inside the plans beat the market by 6% over six months.
Whistleblower exposes insider trading program at JP Morgan | KEVIN WILSON, MARIA CHRISTINA PADRO, JULIAN ASSANGE & staff | Monday March 17, 2008
...
Documents obtained earlier this month by Wikileaks from JP Morgan Private Bank, which subtitles itself as "World class solutions for wealthy individuals and families", show the firm has a dedicated '10b5-1 Selling program,' along with a 'dedicated 10b5-1 team' to help its clients take advantage of the loophole.
...
Documents obtained earlier this month by Wikileaks from JP Morgan Private Bank, which subtitles itself as "World class solutions for wealthy individuals and families", show the firm has a dedicated '10b5-1 Selling program,' along with a 'dedicated 10b5-1 team' to help its clients take advantage of the loophole.
Here's how it works:
1. An insider client transfers all or a portion of their company stock into a JP Morgan Securities Inc. brokerage account.
2. The insider then develops, in conjunction with the 10b5-1 team, a 'phased, pre-planned sales program to be executed at either market or specified prices'.
3. Depending on the information available to the insider (but not the public), the insider can decide whether to execute the sale or not.
By gaming the system this way, JP Morgan teaches insiders how to use their knowledge to create a rigged market, one in which it is the "house" that always wins, and the small investor that always loses.
Alan D. Jagolinzer, an assistant professor at Stanford University Graduate School of Business, completed a study of roughly 117,000 trades in 10b5-1 plans by 3,426 executives at 1,241 companies. He found that trades inside the plans beat the market by 6% over six months. By contrast, executives at the same firms who traded without the benefit of plans beat the market by only 1.9%.http://businessweek.com/magazine/content/06_51/b4014045.htm
One can only guess at how many insiders profited under JP Morgan's "insider trading program," leaving small investors holding the bag. ...
Bear Stearns Cos. Chairman James Cayne dumped his entire stake in the embattled investment bank for $10.84 / share ... then it sells for $2 / share ..
Bear Stearns' Cayne Sells Once-$1 Billion Stake For $61 Million | JOE BEL BRUNO | March 28, 2008
NEW YORK — Bear Stearns Cos. Chairman James Cayne dumped his entire stake in the embattled investment bank for $61 million as it appears closer to a takeover by JPMorgan Chase & Co.
Cayne sold 5.66 million shares for exactly $10.84 a share on March 25, according to a filing with the Securities and Exchange Commission. His stake was once valued at about $1 billion when the stock was trading at $171.50 per share.
The filing was disclosed Thursday.
...
[Bear Stearns was sold for $2 / share a few days later. ed.]
NEW YORK — Bear Stearns Cos. Chairman James Cayne dumped his entire stake in the embattled investment bank for $61 million as it appears closer to a takeover by JPMorgan Chase & Co.
Cayne sold 5.66 million shares for exactly $10.84 a share on March 25, according to a filing with the Securities and Exchange Commission. His stake was once valued at about $1 billion when the stock was trading at $171.50 per share.
The filing was disclosed Thursday.
...
[Bear Stearns was sold for $2 / share a few days later. ed.]
Justice Department ... has put off prosecuting more than 50 companies suspected of wrongdoing over the last three years ... then pays John Ashcroft
In Justice Shift, Corporate Deals Replace Trials | By ERIC LICHTBLAU | Published: April 9, 2008
WASHINGTON — In 2005, federal authorities concluded that a Monsanto consultant had visited the home of an Indonesian official and, with the approval of a senior company executive, handed over an envelope stuffed with hundred-dollar bills. The money was meant as a bribe to win looser environmental regulations for Monsanto’s cotton crops, according to a court document. Monsanto was also caught concealing the bribe with fake invoices.
A few years earlier, in the age of Enron, these kinds of charges would probably have resulted in a criminal indictment. Instead, Monsanto was allowed to pay $1 million and avoid criminal prosecution by entering into a monitoring agreement with the Justice Department.
In a major shift of policy, the Justice Department, once known for taking down giant corporations, including the accounting firm Arthur Andersen, has put off prosecuting more than 50 companies suspected of wrongdoing over the last three years.
Instead, many companies, from boutique outfits to immense corporations like American Express, have avoided the cost and stigma of defending themselves against criminal charges with a so-called deferred prosecution agreement, which allows the government to collect fines and appoint an outside monitor to impose internal reforms without going through a trial. In many cases, the name of the monitor and the details of the agreement are kept secret.
Deferred prosecutions have become a favorite tool of the Bush administration. But some legal experts now wonder if the policy shift has led companies, in particular financial institutions now under investigation for their roles in the subprime mortgage debacle, to test the limits of corporate anti-fraud laws.
...
Legal experts say the tactic may have sent the wrong signal to corporations — the promise, in effect, of a get-out-of-jail-free card. The growing use of deferred prosecutions also suggests one road map the Justice Department might follow in the subprime mortgage investigations.
Deferred prosecution agreements, or D.P.A.’s, have become controversial because of a medical supply company’s agreement to pay up to $52 million to the consulting firm of John Ashcroft, the former attorney general, as an outside monitor to avoid criminal prosecution. That agreement has prompted Congressional inquiries and calls for stricter guidelines.
...
WASHINGTON — In 2005, federal authorities concluded that a Monsanto consultant had visited the home of an Indonesian official and, with the approval of a senior company executive, handed over an envelope stuffed with hundred-dollar bills. The money was meant as a bribe to win looser environmental regulations for Monsanto’s cotton crops, according to a court document. Monsanto was also caught concealing the bribe with fake invoices.
A few years earlier, in the age of Enron, these kinds of charges would probably have resulted in a criminal indictment. Instead, Monsanto was allowed to pay $1 million and avoid criminal prosecution by entering into a monitoring agreement with the Justice Department.
In a major shift of policy, the Justice Department, once known for taking down giant corporations, including the accounting firm Arthur Andersen, has put off prosecuting more than 50 companies suspected of wrongdoing over the last three years.
Instead, many companies, from boutique outfits to immense corporations like American Express, have avoided the cost and stigma of defending themselves against criminal charges with a so-called deferred prosecution agreement, which allows the government to collect fines and appoint an outside monitor to impose internal reforms without going through a trial. In many cases, the name of the monitor and the details of the agreement are kept secret.
Deferred prosecutions have become a favorite tool of the Bush administration. But some legal experts now wonder if the policy shift has led companies, in particular financial institutions now under investigation for their roles in the subprime mortgage debacle, to test the limits of corporate anti-fraud laws.
...
Legal experts say the tactic may have sent the wrong signal to corporations — the promise, in effect, of a get-out-of-jail-free card. The growing use of deferred prosecutions also suggests one road map the Justice Department might follow in the subprime mortgage investigations.
Deferred prosecution agreements, or D.P.A.’s, have become controversial because of a medical supply company’s agreement to pay up to $52 million to the consulting firm of John Ashcroft, the former attorney general, as an outside monitor to avoid criminal prosecution. That agreement has prompted Congressional inquiries and calls for stricter guidelines.
...
Thursday, April 03, 2008
"we simply dismantled the old one[financial framework]-aided by a legal but corrupt bargain in which campaign money all too often shaped policy "
March 29, 2008 by MotherJones | It’s The Deregulation, Stupid | by James Ridgeway
... Obama depicted the current economic crisis as a consequences of deregulation in the financial sector. “Our free market was never meant to be a free license to take whatever you can get, however you can get it,” he said. “Unfortunately, instead of establishing a 21st century regulatory framework, we simply dismantled the old one-aided by a legal but corrupt bargain in which campaign money all too often shaped policy and watered down oversight.”
...
Deregulation has been the mantra on both sides of the aisle since the late 1960s. Long gone are Democrats like Michigan’s Phil Hart who, as chair of the Senate Antitrust Subcommittee, held hearings on the concentration of economic power in the United States, and proposed expanded government regulation of everything from the oil and auto industries to pharmaceuticals to professional sports. Hart believed that because wealth and power were concentrated in the hands of such a small number of corporations, the market economy had become no more than a facade. In this context, what would bring about lower prices and greater productivity and innovation was more government intervention and regulation, not less.
...
Even more damaging, in light of today’s economic crisis, was the sweeping deregulation of the banking and financial services industries that took place in the 1990s. What makes this enterprise particularly confounding is not only the fact that it took place under a Democratic president with support from a majority of Democrats in Congress, but that it followed so closely on the heels of the savings and loan crisis, which ought to have served as a cautionary tale on the dangers of deregulation in the banking sector. The Depository Institutions Act of 1982, another Reagan initiative, was supposed to “revitalize” the housing industry by freeing up the S&Ls to make more loans. Instead, the regulation rollback led to what economist John Kenneth Galbraith called “the largest and costliest venture in public misfeasance, malfeasance and larceny of all time” as they engaged in a fury of high-risk lending. The collapse that followed cost taxpayers an estimated $150 billion in government bailouts, and contributed to the recession of the early 1990s.
...
The Glass-Steagall Act was, in fact, a primary target of the Clinton-era deregulation effort. An early piece of New Deal-era legislation, the act was passed in response to speculation and manipulation of the markets by huge banking firms, which most liberal economists believed had brought on the crash of 1929. Glass-Steagall imposed firewalls between commercial banking and investment banking, and between the banking, brokerage, and insurance industries. According to the Center for Responsive Politics, which tracks lobbying and campaign contributions, “Eager to create financial supermarkets that peddle everything from checking accounts to auto insurance, the three industries for years have lobbied Congress to streamline regulatory hurdles that bar such operations.”
Despite Bill Clinton’s announcement that “the era of big government is over,” it took the better part of his administration for him to push these initiatives through Congress. In 1999, Treasury Secretary Robert Rubin, always a good friend to Wall Street, finally brokered a deal between the administration and Congress that allowed banking deregulation to move forward. Shortly after the compromise was reached, Rubin took a top position at Citigroup, which went on to embark upon mergers that would have been rendered illegal under Glass-Steagall. As the New York Times put it, Rubin would be leading “what has become the first true American financial conglomerate since the Depression”-a conglomerate that could exist only because of legislation he had just shepherded through Congress.
...
With his speech in New York, Obama is clearly trying to show himself to be a man who isn’t afraid to bite the hand that’s feeding him. He is also putting space, on this issue, between himself and Hillary Clinton, in part by reminding voters of the outcomes of Bill Clinton’s policies. He denounced both “Republican and Democratic administrations” for regulatory failures leading to the current crisis, and, as the New York Times reported, “handouts supporting the speech” noted that “the banking and insurance industries spent more than $300 million on a successful campaign to repeal the 1933 Glass-Steagall Act in 1999.” ....
... Obama depicted the current economic crisis as a consequences of deregulation in the financial sector. “Our free market was never meant to be a free license to take whatever you can get, however you can get it,” he said. “Unfortunately, instead of establishing a 21st century regulatory framework, we simply dismantled the old one-aided by a legal but corrupt bargain in which campaign money all too often shaped policy and watered down oversight.”
...
Deregulation has been the mantra on both sides of the aisle since the late 1960s. Long gone are Democrats like Michigan’s Phil Hart who, as chair of the Senate Antitrust Subcommittee, held hearings on the concentration of economic power in the United States, and proposed expanded government regulation of everything from the oil and auto industries to pharmaceuticals to professional sports. Hart believed that because wealth and power were concentrated in the hands of such a small number of corporations, the market economy had become no more than a facade. In this context, what would bring about lower prices and greater productivity and innovation was more government intervention and regulation, not less.
...
Even more damaging, in light of today’s economic crisis, was the sweeping deregulation of the banking and financial services industries that took place in the 1990s. What makes this enterprise particularly confounding is not only the fact that it took place under a Democratic president with support from a majority of Democrats in Congress, but that it followed so closely on the heels of the savings and loan crisis, which ought to have served as a cautionary tale on the dangers of deregulation in the banking sector. The Depository Institutions Act of 1982, another Reagan initiative, was supposed to “revitalize” the housing industry by freeing up the S&Ls to make more loans. Instead, the regulation rollback led to what economist John Kenneth Galbraith called “the largest and costliest venture in public misfeasance, malfeasance and larceny of all time” as they engaged in a fury of high-risk lending. The collapse that followed cost taxpayers an estimated $150 billion in government bailouts, and contributed to the recession of the early 1990s.
...
The Glass-Steagall Act was, in fact, a primary target of the Clinton-era deregulation effort. An early piece of New Deal-era legislation, the act was passed in response to speculation and manipulation of the markets by huge banking firms, which most liberal economists believed had brought on the crash of 1929. Glass-Steagall imposed firewalls between commercial banking and investment banking, and between the banking, brokerage, and insurance industries. According to the Center for Responsive Politics, which tracks lobbying and campaign contributions, “Eager to create financial supermarkets that peddle everything from checking accounts to auto insurance, the three industries for years have lobbied Congress to streamline regulatory hurdles that bar such operations.”
Despite Bill Clinton’s announcement that “the era of big government is over,” it took the better part of his administration for him to push these initiatives through Congress. In 1999, Treasury Secretary Robert Rubin, always a good friend to Wall Street, finally brokered a deal between the administration and Congress that allowed banking deregulation to move forward. Shortly after the compromise was reached, Rubin took a top position at Citigroup, which went on to embark upon mergers that would have been rendered illegal under Glass-Steagall. As the New York Times put it, Rubin would be leading “what has become the first true American financial conglomerate since the Depression”-a conglomerate that could exist only because of legislation he had just shepherded through Congress.
...
With his speech in New York, Obama is clearly trying to show himself to be a man who isn’t afraid to bite the hand that’s feeding him. He is also putting space, on this issue, between himself and Hillary Clinton, in part by reminding voters of the outcomes of Bill Clinton’s policies. He denounced both “Republican and Democratic administrations” for regulatory failures leading to the current crisis, and, as the New York Times reported, “handouts supporting the speech” noted that “the banking and insurance industries spent more than $300 million on a successful campaign to repeal the 1933 Glass-Steagall Act in 1999.” ....
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)