All posts by Editor

2020 Democratic Primary, Democrats

Bernie Sanders sets up the world’s richest man, Jeff Bezos, as a foil with the Stop BEZOS Act — and gets clobbered by policy wonks

Poor Bernie Sanders has fallen victim to the hack gap. – Kevin Drum

A decade ago, Mark Kleiman noted a basic advantage of the right, which Matthew Yglesias dubbed, ‘the hack gap.’ Yglesias:

Just like Mark, “I don’t really wish that we behaved like our wingnut opponents, but their capacity to work up and sustain outrage has to be counted among their structural advantages.”

In brief (generalizing beyond the examples Kleiman and Yglesias discuss): rightwing proposals and theories, even those only tenuously – if at all – linked to facts, are reliably repeated by Fox News Channel, talk radio, and other outlets in the conservative media bubble and readily embraced by conservative foundation reps, policy analysts, and legislators. The goal is less to advance understanding or actual policy, than to repudiate opponents on the left – regarded as enemies of conservatism – who serve as foils to rev up the Republican base at election time.

In contrast, among mainstream liberals, there is a commitment to reality-based analysis and advocacy. Truth and accuracy are highly valued. Why? Because liberals are committed to crafting legislative and administrative solutions to real-world problems. The ideas advanced must be empirically well-grounded or there is no point to implementing them.

The failure of Congress to repeal and replace the Affordable Healthcare Act in 2017 is illustrative of the dynamic on the right: there was no Republican member of the House or the Senate with a deep understanding of the ACA and the healthcare market, of pragmatic conservative alternatives, and of the trade-offs and costs involved in making changes. No one, in other words, who had anything resembling a replacement on hand – even after many years of election promises to repeal and replace. That practical focus was nowhere on the Republican agenda.

On the liberal side, the dynamics are different. When Democrats passed the ACA in 2010 they did so to solve a genuine problem in plain sight – millions of Americans without access to affordable healthcare; the Democratic majority passed the ACA to reduce the number of people without health insurance. Among the practical goals were improving people’s health – especially among people living in poverty, with preexisting conditions, and lacking employer-based insurance – in measurable ways, and ensuring that catastrophic illness would not result in bankruptcy and financial ruin for families.

Demagoguery may help win elections; it is not a reliable route to sound public policy. Hacks are useful for rousing up the Republican base, but not for fixing problems among folks who work for a living.

Stop BEZOS

This past week, Senator Bernie Sanders (and Representative Ro Khanna) proposed the Stop BEZOS Act (Stop Bad Employers by Zeroing Out Subsidies Act), a title suggestive of a simple, enticing meme, replete with moral outrage and demonization – ingredients unhesitatingly embraced daily by Fox News. The idea itself is equally beguiling: the legislation would require large companies to pay back, dollar for dollar, the cost of public benefits (such as, food stamps, Medicaid, rental subsidies, and school lunch aid) that support their low-wage employees.

“At a time of massive income and wealth inequality, when the 3 wealthiest people in America own more wealth than the bottom 50 percent and when 52 percent of all new income goes to the top one percent, the American people are tired of subsidizing multi-billionaires who own some of the largest and most profitable corporations in America,” Sanders said in a statement.

Sanders cited a report by the nonprofit New Food Economy suggesting that a third of Amazon employees in Arizona — and thousands in other states — rely on food stamps.

Since analysts on the left are more highly committed to getting the details right, than scoring points against conservatives, Sanders’ proposal was met with  a chorus of objections.

The Center on Budget and Policy Priorities – the preeminent liberal research shop focused on how public policy affects poverty and inequality – while praising the act as well intentioned, offered a devastating critique: “It seeks to induce large firms to raise the wages they pay, which is an important goal after decades of stagnant or falling wages for millions of hard-working Americans. But the legislation likely won’t meet that goal, and it would have a series of adverse unintended consequences. Moreover, we have better ways to induce or require firms like Amazon and Walmart to raise their wages and bear more of the costs of core government functions, including basic nutrition assistance and health coverage for struggling families.”

The problems included creating perverse incentives to hire fewer low-income and disabled workers; promoting corporate lobbying to reduce assistance programs; requiring complicated and expensive administrative procedures; and failing to do what it sets out to do – to raise wages and living standards.

Other analysts on the left, while praising Sanders’ intentions, added another criticism: that by stigmatizing people receiving benefits, it was antithetical to sustaining a healthy social safety net.

Ryan Cooper: “Now, I understand what Sanders is driving at. Amazon workers are underpaid. And it is important to note that Amazon has been directly subsidized …

But the way to wage class war on Jeff Bezos is with broad taxes, unions, and regulations, not schemes to punish him for his employees being on public programs.”

Jared Bernstein: ‘”My concern is that there is already a political movement afoot to vilify public benefits and even though I know for a fact that the main sponsors of this bill — Sanders and Ro Khanna — don’t feel that way, I worry that this idea unintentionally provides the hard right with another argument,” Bernstein told Business Insider.’

Dean Baker at the Center for Economic and Policy Research and  Mike Konczal at the Roosevelt Institute also offered critical perspectives on the proposal.

Michael Hiltzik takes exception to the criticism as misguided.

One would think that Democrats and progressives would praise Sanders for this legislative initiative. After all, Amazon’s employment of low-wage workers, its baleful influence on communities and the punishing working conditions in the warehouses from which its merchandise is shipped to customers have been amply documented. Instead, they’ve turned their fire hoses full-blast on Sanders himself. The drawbacks of his proposal have been picked apart to a fare-thee-well by some of the nation’s leading progressive think tanks, including the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities.

The critics aren’t wrong about the proposal, exactly. They’re just allowing themselves to be distracted by the details of a legislative proposal that on the gonna-happen scale is a “not.”

So, should we take Sanders seriously, but not literally? Well, something like that. Hiltzik again:

The truth is that proposals like Sanders and Khanna’s serve a very clear purpose in our political system. They’re not designed to end up as the law of the land, but as prompts for debate.

Matt Yglesias argues that Sanders, whose 2016 policy proposals on Medicare-for-all, free college, and a $15 minimum wage have been widely embraced by Democrats in this cycle, intends to separate himself from the pack. So, while other Democrats would be unhappy to see their proposals dismissed as unworkable, “Sanders almost certainly won’t care, and part of the core of his appeal is a sense that this is the correct and appropriate way to think about politics.”

September 7, 2018 update – Jared Bernstein tips his hat to Senator Sanders: “When Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), scourge of the top tenth of the top 1%, and Bezos, denizen of that privileged niche, are exchanging loving tweets, attention must be paid. Sanders, along with Rep. Ro Khanna (D-Calif.), has long called out Amazon for its labor practices, and they recently introduced a bill, subtly entitled the Stop BEZOS Act. While I share their goal of pushing for higher pay for low-wage workers, I thought their bill, which charged companies for the public benefits its workers received, was misguided in that it would vilify legitimate benefit receipt and lead firms to discriminate against hires they thought might draw such benefits. But I have no question that their pressure was instrumental in driving this change.”

Photo: Wikimedia Commons.

 

2020 Democratic Primary

Cory Booker Profile*

U.S. Senator (Democrat – New Jersey)

Elected in 2013 in a special election for the seat of Senator Frank Lautenberg, who died in office; reelected to a full term in 2014.

Previously served as Mayor of Newark (2006-2013) and Newark City Council (1998-2002); lost his first race for mayor in 2002.

Born on April 27, 1969 (age 49) in Washington D.C. Grew up in a suburb of Newark.

Education: Stanford University (BA, MA); Rhodes Scholar at Oxford (MA); Yale (JD)

He has been generally viewed as a moderate Democrat. For instance, when George Norcross – insurance executive and hospital chairman, and a powerful player in the New Jersey Democratic Party – offered his support for Booker’s run for the Senate, he put it this way:

“I believe he’s a winner,” Norcross said of Booker. “And he’s representative of a new Democrat — a Democrat that’s fiscally conservative yet socially progressive. He’s a fighter and not afraid of taking on a tough battle.”

A year earlier, as Barack Obama ran for reelection, then-Mayor Booker criticized the president’s campaign attacks on Bain Capital (the private equity firm founded by Mitt Romney) in an interview with Meet the Press: “It’s nauseating to the American public.” He later walked back the comments.

At a time when increasing concerns among Democrats with the growing gap between rich and poor, a middle class struggling to keep up, and the political dominance of corporations, it will be interesting to see how Senator Booker – who is well acquainted with Wall Street, right in his backyard – positions himself going forward.

At this stage – with his self-declared “I am Spartacus” moment – he is definitely playing to the anti-Trump Democratic base.

*At one point I was tempted to do profiles of each of the Democratic candidates. This was a dry run, which helped me decide this wasn’t something I wanted to continue.

Democracy, Democrats, Donald Trump, Republicans, Tribalism

“You need to vote because our democracy depends on it.” Barack Obama sounds alarm, implores students to step up to restore American values

In the twenty-two months since leaving the White House, Barack Obama has kept quiet. He broke his silence on Friday in a speech at the University of Illinois, making it clear he believes the country is in crisis, having strayed from our values, and urgently needs to get back on track:
“I’m here today because this is one of those pivotal moments when every one of us, as citizens of the United States, need to determine just who it is that we are. Just what it is that we stand for. And as a fellow citizen, not as an ex-president, but as a fellow citizen, I’m here to deliver a simple message, and that is that you need to vote because our democracy depends on it.”

Obama painted a picture of “fitful progress, uneven progress” throughout American history, as our country moved nearer our ideals, while describing “a darker aspect to the American story.”

Each time we’ve gotten closer to those ideals, somebody somewhere has pushed back. The status quo pushes back. Sometimes the backlash comes from people who are genuinely, if wrongly, fearful of change. More often it’s manufactured by the powerful and the privileged who want to keep us divided and keep us angry and keep us cynical because it helps them maintain the status quo and keep their power and keep their privilege. And you happen to be coming of age during one of those moments.

It did not start with Donald Trump. He is a symptom, not the cause. He’s just capitalizing on resentments that politicians have been fanning for years, a fear and anger that’s rooted in our past but it’s also born out of the enormous upheavals that have taken place in your brief lifetimes.

The former president reminded students of the financial crisis at the time he took office and the progress he made in setting things right – but the fear remained.

So we pulled the economy out of crisis, but to this day, too many people, who once felt solidly middle class, still feel very real and very personal economic insecurity. Even though we took out bin Laden and wound down the wars in Iraq and our combat role in Afghanistan, and gotten Iran to halt its nuclear program, the world’s still full of threats and disorder that come streaming through people’s televisions every single day.

And these challenges get people worried. And it frays our civic trust. And it makes a lot of people feel like the fix is in and the game is rigged and nobody’s looking out for them, especially those communities outside our big urban centers.

And even though your generation is the most diverse in history, with a greater acceptance and celebration of our differences than ever before, those are the kinds of conditions that are ripe for exploitation by politicians who have no compunction and no shame about tapping into America’s dark history of racial and ethnic and religious division. Appealing to tribe, appealing to fear, pitting one group against another, telling people that order and security will be restored if it weren’t for those who don’t look like us or don’t sound like us or don’t pray like we do, that’s an old playbook. It’s as old as time.

He continued, “And in a healthy democracy, it doesn’t work.” The old playbook falls flat. When, however, “the better angels of our nature” are eclipsed, things go awry.

But when there’s a vacuum in our democracy, when we don’t vote, when we take our basic rights and freedoms for granted, when we turn away and stop paying attention and stop engaging and stop believing and look for the newest diversion, the electronic versions of bread and circuses, then other voices fill the void. A politics of fear and resentment and retrenchment takes hold and demagogues promise simple fixes to complex problems. No promise to fight for the little guy, even as they cater to the wealthiest and most powerful. No promise to clean up corruption and then plunder away. They start undermining norms that ensure accountability and try to change the rules to entrench their power further. And they appeal to racial nationalism that’s barely veiled, if veiled at all.

He indicted the Congress of the United States for its failures:

This Congress has championed the unwinding of campaign finance laws to give billionaires outside influence over our politics. Systematically attacked voting rights to make it harder for young people, the minorities and the poor to vote. Handed out tax cuts without regard to deficits. Slashed the safety net wherever it could, cast dozens of votes to take away health insurance from ordinary Americans, embraced wild conspiracy theories, like those surrounding Benghazi or my birth certificate, rejected science, rejected facts on things like climate change, embraced a rising absolutism from a willingness to default on America’s debt by not paying our bills, to a refusal to even meet, much less consider, a qualified nominee for the Supreme Court because he happened to be nominated by a Democratic president. None of this is conservative.

I don’t mean to pretend I’m channeling Abraham Lincoln now, but that’s not what he had in mind, I think, when he helped form the Republican Party. It’s not conservative. It sure isn’t normal. It’s radical. It’s a vision that says the protection of our power and those who back us is all that matters even when it hurts the country. It’s a vision that says the few who can afford high-price lobbyists and unlimited campaign contributions set the agenda. And over the past two years, this vision is now nearing its logical conclusion.

He denounced the lack of checks and balances, passage of $1.5 trillion tax cuts for the richest Americans with resulting skyrocketing deficits, carte blanche to polluters and dishonest lenders, repudiation of the global climate change agreement, eroding our relationships with allies, cozying up with Russia, and sabotaging the Affordable Healthcare Act. He also criticizes, in passing, the infamous Anonymous op-ed:

In a healthy democracy, there’s some checks and balances on this kind of behavior, this kind of inconsistency, but right now there’s nothing.

Republicans who know better in Congress, and they’re there, they’re quoted saying, yes, we know this is kind of crazy, are still bending over backwards to shield this behavior from scrutiny or accountability or consequence, seem utterly unwilling to find the backbone to safeguard the institutions that make our democracy work. And, by the way, the claim that everything will turn out okay because there are people inside the White House who secretly aren’t following the president’s orders, that is not a check. I’m being serious here. That’s not how our democracy’s supposed to work.

These people aren’t elected. They’re not accountable. They’re not doing us a service by actively promoting 90 percent of the crazy stuff that’s coming out of this White House. And then saying, don’t worry, we’re preventing the other 10 percent. That’s not how things are supposed to work.

This is not normal. These are extraordinary times. And they’re dangerous times.

Finally, Obama urged his listeners to participate in the political process  – and, especially, to vote – to change the country’s direction:

Thirty minutes, 30 minutes of your time, is democracy worth that? We have been through much darker times than these and some how each generation of American’s carried us through to the other side. Not by sitting around and waiting for something to happen, not by leaving it to others to do something but by leading that movement for change themselves.

And if you do that, if you get involved and you get engaged and you knock on some doors and you talk with your friends and you argue with your family members and you change some minds and you vote, something powerful happens.

The complete speech, annotated by Amber Phillips, is available at the Washington Post.

Democracy, Donald Trump

Amid deep background reporting and anonymous bravado, the overall picture is unchanged: a train wreck of a presidency

In a week when Bob Woodward’s “Fear” paints in chilling detail a portrait of a White House engulfed in conflict, chaos, and covert insubordination, and an anonymous op-ed in the New York Times attests to the derisive views of President Trump by those closest to him and persistent workarounds to keep him from getting his way, what have we learned?

Conflict in presidential administrations is commonplace. Appointees often represent wings of a political party with different priorities than the president. Directives are often ignored by cabinet members. Aides try to protect the president from his worse impulses. This is all normal.

“But,” Jonathan Bernstein writes, “what we’re hearing about in these Trump stories is sort of a radical version of standard operating procedure for White House staff and the executive branch when faced with a president who is utterly unfit for the job.”

Donald Trump is impulsive, indulges in reckless rants and incoherence, has a short attention span, is easily distracted, lacks intellectual curiosity, is ignorant of history and policy, and reveals an irrepressible narcissism. We already know all this (which touches only on Trump’s mental capacity, not on his prejudice, avarice, or lack of principle) from watching the public Donald Trump and, for anyone who reveres democratic government, this is frightening. In Bernstein’s words:

What’s really scary is that Trump’s ineptitude at his job means that the normal constraints that keep presidents from doing terrible things may simply not apply. Normal presidents care about their professional reputation among those they work with, and about their popularity among the nation at large, and so they attempt to do the sorts of things that would enhance their reputations and make voters like them. Because he’s unable to even try to do those things — because he has apparently has no sense at all of how the job works — Trump doesn’t see the clear warning signs and then back off things that damage himself and the nation.

Or, as my Bloomberg Opinion colleague Timothy L. O’Brien puts it, “he generally doesn’t care about the long-term damage he might inflict on himself or those around him as long as he’s the center of attention.” That’s truly scary because the entire political system, as those who have read Federalist 51 will recognize, depends on politicians who care deeply about avoiding damage to themselves.

Federalist 51, generally attributed to James Madison, describes the features of the Constitution intended to “furnish the proper checks and balances between different departments” of government, such as constraints on personal ambition and buffers against encroachment of one branch on another. As remarkable as Donald Trump’s incapacity is, equally remarkable is the implacable abdication of the Republican majority in Congress to provide oversight over the executive branch.

Two of the President’s ‘critics’ in the majority party – both of whom have chosen not to seek reelection, which would require them to face the GOP voter base (still in lockstep with Trump) – find no grounds for disputing the devastating portrait of their leader.

Senator Bob Corker: “This is what all of us have understood to be the situation from day one… I understand this is the case and that’s why I think all of us encourage the good people around the President to stay. I thank General Mattis whenever I see him…”

Senator Ben Sasse: “It’s just so similar to what so many of us hear from senior people around the White House, you know, three times a week. So it’s really troubling, and yet in a way, not surprising.”

Neither Senator proposed any activity by Congress to remedy the situation our nation finds itself in. Congressional investigations of the executive branch are commonplace, even when the same party controls both Congress and the White House. Yet taking a closer look at what is going on is not in the cards for this Congress.

There is ample evidence, dating back to Newt Gingrich’s first days as Speaker of the House, of Republicans paring back the capacity of Congress to do its job. The inability to repeal the Affordable Healthcare Act (aka Obamacare) is the most glaring example of this failure in the current Congress (in part because no one on the Republican side of the aisle had developed the policy expertise to understand the ACA or to craft a plausible alternative, and no one in the leadership or among committee chairmen cared enough to do so).

Nonetheless, Speaker Paul Ryan and his team, which encouraged investigation after investigation of Benghazi (while boasting that it would harm Hillary Clinton’s 2016 election prospects) hasn’t simply forgotten Congress’s investigative role. Republicans have actually catalogued scandals and controversies that Congress could be investigating, if it had the will to do so (which is anticipated if Democrats regain the majority in the House this fall). A partial list from Axios, which obtained a copy of a document prepared by House Republicans:

  • President Trump’s tax returns
  • Trump family businesses — and whether they comply with the Constitution’s emoluments clause, including the Chinese trademark grant to the Trump Organization
  • Trump’s dealings with Russia, including the president’s preparation for his meeting with Vladimir Putin
  • The payment to Stephanie Clifford — a.k.a. Stormy Daniels
  • James Comey’s firing
  • Trump’s firing of U.S. attorneys
  • Trump’s proposed transgender ban for the military
  • Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin’s business dealings
  • White House staff’s personal email use
  • Cabinet secretary travel, office expenses, and other misused perks
  • Discussion of classified information at Mar-a-Lago
  • Jared Kushner’s ethics law compliance
  • Dismissal of members of the EPA board of scientific counselors
  • The travel ban
  • Family separation policy
  • Hurricane response in Puerto Rico
  • Election security and hacking attempts
  • White House security clearances

Things aren’t normal in either the executive or legislative branches of government. (I’ll set aside for the moment consideration of the judicial branch, which will be transformed for at least a generation as Brett Kavanaugh takes a seat on the Supreme Court and the U.S. Senate continues to approve ideologues to district and appellate courts nationwide.)

Things aren’t normal because the Republican Party has become an outlier, trashing traditional governing norms whenever it has glimpsed a partisan advantage, while ignoring – and diverting attention from – the resulting harm to the country.

September 9, 2018 update: Barack Obama reentered the political fray on Friday, decrying the course our nation is on, the absence of checks and balances, and the urgency of changing direction.

“This is not normal. These are extraordinary times. And they’re dangerous times.”

Image: Dr. Richard Kimble (Harrison Ford) running for dear life in “The Fugitive.”

 

Democrats, Donald Trump

The status of the labor movement on a Labor Day when the President of the United States attacks the leader of the AFL-CIO

The headlines on Labor Day highlight the President’s twitter attack (and retweets with spelling corrected) on AFL-CIO President Richard Trumka. The Washington Post story of the skirmish reports on the decline of labor unions in recent decades: “Union membership nationwide has fallen markedly from the 1970s, with the percentage of American workers in a union dropping from about 25 percent in the 1970s to less than 11 percent in 2017, according to survey data. But among the general public, popular support for unions has risen steadily, to a 61 percent approval rating, a high point in more than a decade, according to Gallup polling.”

The good news, for working men and women, union members, and the Democratic Party (which relies on organized labor for vital support) is that steadily rising approval rating (from the Gallup organization’s graph presented in the image over this post). When asked, “Do you approve or disapprove of labor unions?” a rising 62% of respondents surveyed approved, while only 30% disapproved.

The bad news is found in more detailed questions deeper in Gallup’s survey. For instance, this question and the most recent (August 2016) results:

Overall, do you think labor unions mostly help or mostly hurt workers who are not members of unions?

Mostly help Mostly hurt No opinion
38% 54% 8%

Organized labor has been under attack by conservatives for decades. The most recent body blow was the Janus ruling in June 2018. John Cassidy comments on the decision: “It marks the culmination of a decades-long anti-union campaign by conservative groups and billionaires tied to the Republican Party, such as the Koch brothers, the Uihlein family, and their allies. By funnelling money through tax-exempt organizations like the National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation, the Liberty Justice Center, and the Center for Individual Rights, these ultra-wealthy people have helped to finance a series of legal attacks on labor unions that represent ordinary working people who earn modest wages. Faced with the formidable challenge of overturning what most experts regarded as settled law, the well-funded union haters persisted, and eventually they found a court that was willing to overturn precedent: the John Roberts–Neil Gorsuch high court.”

The switch from Anthony Kennedy to Brett Kavanaugh will only intensify the SOCTUS majority’s assault on labor unions.

Although Donald Trump was elected with critical backing from the white working class (few of whom are unionized or even especially sympathetic to unions), he has done little to advance the interests of American workers. As Eric Levitz puts it (“15 Ways President Trump Has Hurt the American Worker”):

Donald Trump loves the working class as a mascot, but despises it as a class. The president will gladly take the side of the archetypal working man in his (largely imaginary) conflicts with environmentalists, welfare cheats, immigrants, and liberal elites — but never that of actual working people in their material conflicts with their bosses.

 

2020 Democratic Primary

Okay, since she is mentioned as a 2020 candidate for president, how do you pronounce ‘Kirsten Gillibrand’ …?

First, a somewhat tangential question: How would you – yes, you, dear reader – answer the question posed in the headline? If you were a New Yorker, you might call her office and ask. What could be easier? But, that direct method aside, you – and most of us – would probably seek the answer to the question on the internet. That’s what I did.

Of course while the internet is a source of much information, it is also – alas – a source of much misinformation. So, I didn’t want to rely on a how-to-pronounce website (though several got it right for Senator Gillibrand). But I found two sources, which I was more confident that we could rely on in this instance and were in agreement: the New York Times and New York Magazine – their reporters apparently called the office of the Empire State’s junior senator.

First name first (courtesy of NY Mag):

It’s KEER-sten, not KUR-sten, and definitely not KRI-sten. An easy way to remember it: “KEER-sten drinks BEER.” (Legal note: We don’t know if she drinks beer.)

Last name (NY Times):

“It’s a sibilant G,” an aide in her office in Hudson said, with the air of someone who has had a lot of practice. “JILL-uh-brand.”

So there. Ignore any variations to the contrary.

Image: screen grab of a how to pronounce website featuring an aptly characteristic quotation from Dale Carnegie  (the pronunciation of whose name fails to generate a consensus among the competing sites).

2020 Democratic Primary, Democracy

Whether or not she’s running for president, Elizabeth Warren is picking a fight by introducing the Anti-Corruption and Public Integrity Act

The first line of the Boston Herald ’s story about Elizabeth Warren’s introduction of the Anti-Corruption and Public Integrity Act begins, “Warren will announce an ‘anti-corruption’ initiative tomorrow at the National Press Club in Washington, D.C. – a move political operatives say looks like another blatant push toward a 2020 run.” (That would be a run for president.)

The Nation ’s opening sentence is, “Elizabeth Warren’s proposed sweeping anti-corruption legislation—which would, among other things, ban members of Congress and White House aides from owning individual stocks—has generated speculation about her plans for 2020.”

The Washington Post doesn’t mention such speculation until the fourth paragraph: “The speech also emphasized Warren’s clout at a time when Democratic bills have little chance of passage but media attention is beginning is beginning to turn to the 2020 presidential race. Reporters sprawled from chairs to the walls of a midsize room, including next to TV cameras that were capturing a six-part government reform agenda.”

Will she run or won’t she? Who knows. What’s clear is that Elizabeth Warren has long been a passionate advocate for shifting the power balance from corporations to consumers, from the abundantly wealthy to folks who work for a living, from richly paid lobbyists to voters stretching to make ends meet. This is a woman who has never forgotten her working-class roots.

The Anti-Corruption and Integrity Act isn’t a campaign ploy; it’s a timely expression of an enduring commitment.

The bill, as Senator Warren describes it, would:

  • Padlock the Revolving Door and Increase Public Integrity by eliminating both the appearance and the potential for financial conflicts of interest; banning Members of Congress, cabinet secretaries, federal judges, and other senior government officials from owning and trading individual stock; locking the government-to-lobbying revolving door; and eliminating “golden parachutes”.
  • End Lobbying as We Know It by exposing all influence-peddling in Washington; banning foreign lobbying; banning lobbyists from donating to candidates and Members of Congress; strengthening congressional independence from lobbyists; and instituting a lifetime ban on lobbying by former Members of Congress, Presidents, and agency heads.
  • End Corporate Capture of Public Interest Rules by requiring disclosure of funding or editorial conflicts of interest in rulemaking comments and studies; closing loopholes corporations exploit to tilt the rules in their favor and against the public interest; protecting agencies from corporate capture; establishing a new Office of Public Advocate to advocate for the public interest in the rulemaking process; and giving agencies the tools to implement strong rules that protect the public.
  • Improve Judicial Integrity and Defend Access to Justice for All Americans by enhancing the integrity of the judicial branch; requiring the Supreme Court follow the ethics rules for all other federal judges; boosting the transparency of federal appellate courts through livestreaming audio of proceedings; and encouraging diversity on the federal bench.
  • Strengthen Enforcement of Anti-Corruption, Ethics, and Public Integrity Laws by creating a new, independent anti-corruption agency dedicated to enforcing federal ethics laws and by expanding an independent and empowered Congressional ethics office insulated from Congressional politics.
  • Boost Transparency in Government and Fix Federal Open Records Laws by requiring elected officials and candidates for federal office to disclose more financial and tax information; increasing disclosure of corporate money behind Washington lobbying; closing loopholes in federal open records laws; making federal contractors – including private prisons and immigration detention centers – comply with federal open records laws; and making Congress more transparent.

The sweep of these proposals is breathtaking. One is tempted to argue that they may go too far. Here are three reasons to push back on that notion.

First, there is a strong presumptive case for the proposals.

Consider one of the most far-reaching ideas: “banning Members of Congress, cabinet secretaries, federal judges, and other senior government officials from owning and trading individual stock.” What if, for instance, a corporate titan decided to run for Congress? I am highly unlikely to be enamored of any such candidates, but my fellow citizens might beg to differ. If, say, Mark Zuckerberg decided he wanted to represent the Silicon Valley in Congress, or California in the U.S. Senate – should we insist that he give up his stock in Facebook in order to serve?

It only takes a moment’s thought to decide: Why, yes! This makes perfect sense if we want to root out corruption, self-dealing, and the failure to represent voters who can’t afford to contribute enough money to ensure ‘access’ and a respectful hearing from their Member of Congress. If the man’s ego or fortune is so closely tied to a corporate stock that divesting himself of it, and settling for investing in mutual funds (or another sound alternative), represents an obstacle to serving in Congress – then he should dismiss the idea of running for public office. He could never be expected to put aside his financial self-interest, or his pride of ownership, to focus on doing his job. The conflicts of interest would virtually ensure that he would forever be doing the wrong things for the wrong reasons.

And Zuckerberg isn’t the exception; he’s the rule.  Conflicts of interest – between the public good and individual self-interest – are at the heart of corruption in government. Money infects the process. We need tough rules to change this.

Getting rid of these conflicts is essential for responsive representation and meaningful democracy.

Second, the ‘goes too far’ argument looks much shakier when we look at where we are today.

The system is corrupt. Warren’s unforgiving vision is far and away better than the ugly situation we find ourselves in now.  Donald Trump was never serious about “Drain the swamp” (as he acknowledges in this video). He didn’t like the expression, had no interest in what it conveyed, but consistently got huge cheers whenever he said it. So he said it again and again. His voters – and not just fans of an outspoken woman representing the Commonwealth of Massachusetts in the U.S. Senate – recognized the endemic corruption in Washington.  With all our tribal divisions, with Red America on one side and Blue America on the other, this is something that Americans have in common: disdain for a corrupt political system.

Once in office Trump, of course, turned to crooks and grifters to staff the White House and fill his cabinet. That’s the ugly situation we find ourselves in. Deeper in the swamp than any time in memory.

In Warren’s words:

There’s no real question that the Trump era has given us the most nakedly corrupt leadership this nation has seen in our lifetimes. But they are not the cause of the rot — they’re just the biggest, stinkiest example of it.

Corruption is a form of public cancer, and Washington’s got it bad. It’s time for treatment, time to isolate and quarantine the ability of big money to infect the decisions made every day by every branch of our government.

This problem is enormous – but we’ve dealt with enormous problems before. We just need some big reform ideas and a willingness to fight for real change.

Finally, Warren’s proposals are a good place to begin the discussion. In an up or down vote in Congress today, this legislation wouldn’t come close to passing in either House (or getting a presidential signature). But – if there are Democratic majorities in the future (won with pledges to usher in reform), and a Democrat in the White House – then we can begin a discussion. That’s the first step. Whatever is deemed to ‘go too far’ can be trimmed back, if that’s what it takes to get something done.

There is general agreement – outside of Washington – that something needs to be done. There is little political will – inside Washington – to do anything. Elizabeth Warren just picked a fight on behalf of the folks on the outside.

 

2020 Democratic Primary, Democrats

Companies shouldn’t be accountable only to shareholders – Elizabeth Warren aims to fix what’s wrong with American corporations

“Corporate profits are booming, but average wages haven’t budged over the past year. The U.S. economy has run this way for decades, partly because of a fundamental change in business practices dating back to the 1980s. On Wednesday I’m introducing legislation to fix it.” – Senator Elizabeth Warren, August 14, 2018

The Financial Times Lexicon offers this definition of corporate responsibility: “Corporations have a responsibility to those groups and individuals that they can affect, i.e., its stakeholders, and to society at large. Stakeholders are usually defined as customers, suppliers, employees, communities and shareholders or other financiers.”

During the 1950s, 1960s, and 1970s in the United States, this precept represented the mainstream view embraced by big business. Although, “What’s good for General Motors is good for the country,” is a misquotation of GM’s CEO, this phrase aptly summed up a paradigmatic theme: when GM – and other big companies – did well, everyone benefited. And the broad benefits were direct and tangible, unlike the phantom ‘trickle down’ prosperity we’ve been promised repeatedly since Ronald Reagan became a Republican icon. In the post-World War II era (which stretched over three decades), the American economy was guided by an economic consensus: from the offices of CEOs and other executives to the factory floor – everyone should share the wealth. They all helped build it; they would all benefit from it. Communities with corporate headquarters and factories would also benefit. We were all in it together. Even government had a critical role in encouraging investment, research, education, health and safety, among other elements of a healthy thriving economy.

In Capitalism and Freedom, Milton Friedman’s 1962 offensive against the economic view of the era, he argued that corporations have only one responsibility: to maximize profits for stockholders. He argued against a broader, more inclusive view of corporate responsibility (Chapter VIII – Monopoly and the Social Responsibility of Business and Labor, Social Responsibility of Business and Labor):

“This view shows a fundamental misconception of the character and nature of a free economy. In such an economy, there is one and only one social responsibility of business—to use its resources and engage in activities designed to increase its profits so long as it stays within the rules of the game, which is to say, engages in open and free competition, without deception or fraud.”

Long story short: during the following decades this view took root. Friedman’s vision, which blossomed during the Reagan years, is the economic regime of 21st century America. And actions have consequences. Few Americans – apart from the richest 1% – have reason to celebrate this outcome, as Warren notes:

That shift has had a tremendous effect on the economy. In the early 1980s, large American companies sent less than half their earnings to shareholders, spending the rest on their employees and other priorities. But between 2007 and 2016, large American companies dedicated 93% of their earnings to shareholders. Because the wealthiest 10% of U.S. households own 84% of American-held shares, the obsession with maximizing shareholder returns effectively means America’s biggest companies have dedicated themselves to making the rich even richer.

In the four decades after World War II, shareholders on net contributed more than $250 billion to U.S. companies. But since 1985 they have extracted almost $7 trillion. That’s trillions of dollars in profits that might otherwise have been reinvested in the workers who helped produce them.

Before “shareholder value maximization” ideology took hold, wages and productivity grew at roughly the same rate. But since the early 1980s, real wages have stagnated even as productivity has continued to rise. Workers aren’t getting what they’ve earned.

Accountable Capitalism Act

Her solution – to ensure that “giant American corporations should look out for American interests” – is strikingly simple in concept: The Accountable Capitalism Act would require all corporations with more than one billion dollars in annual revenue to get a federal charter. Currently, companies are incorporated by the states, which creates a ‘race to the bottom’ landscape featuring a surfeit of corporate privileges and a dearth of social responsibilities. With this requirement, we could level the playing field.

Second, the legislation would require that corporate boards consider the interests of all principal stakeholders in making decisions.

Senator Warren notes that ‘benefit corporations,’ authorized in 33 states and the District of Columbia, provide a rough working model for her plan. (Some readers may be familiar with B-Corps, closely related – though not identical – to benefit corporations.) The prevailing approach (as articulated by Friedman) excludes consideration by corporate boards of any goals apart from maximizing shareholder value. As a Silicon Valley attorney explains on the American Bar Association website:

This real or perceived duty to maximize stockholder welfare often becomes the core guiding principle.

The benefit corporation changes the game because it turns the corporation into a dual-purpose entity with the twin purposes of optimizing stockholder welfare and creating general public benefit. It expressly authorizes corporations to provide a material positive effect on society and the environment while pursuing profits as usual. The legal architecture of the benefit corporation allows ethical corporations to put the full power of corporate law behind their social and environmental values and higher purposes.

Essentially, benefit corporations broaden the fiduciary responsibilities of corporations beyond stockholder value; our experience with benefit corporations demonstrates that the model Warren proposes has a measure of practical grounding.

Worker participation

Warren’s proposal provides for two significant changes in corporate governance – relating to worker participation and political spending – that would amplify the voices of rank and file corporate employees:

“My bill also would give workers a stronger voice in corporate decision-making at large companies. Employees would elect at least 40% of directors. At least 75% of directors and shareholders would need to approve before a corporation could make any political expenditures.”

The first change would put one of the principal stakeholder groups at the table when corporate decisions are made. Employees – who have a strong stake in the success of the company they work for – would have a voice in the company’s decisions.

Matthew Yglesias cites evidence that worker participation (‘codetermination’) in corporate decision-making has positive effects in Germany, where it is well established:

“Studies from Germany’s experience with codetermination indicate that it leads to less short-termis in corporate decision-making, and much higher levels of pay equality, while other studies demonstrate positive results on productivity and innovation.”

Those are broad, significant benefits, though the presence of employee directors undoubtedly would lead to lower share prices and much less generous compensation for CEOs – hardly welcomed by everyone.

Political reform

The second change, requiring 75% approval for the use of corporate dollars to fund political messages, would have far reaching effects on our political environment. Corruption in Washington is rampant. The Trump administration has brought a wrecking crew to environmental and financial regulation. And ideologues forming a growing majority on the Supreme Court have ushered in a political epoch where corporate dollars – given in secret, often without accountability to candidates or parties, much less to voters – can flood into political campaigns and, after candidates beholden to big business are elected, ensure ‘access’ to elected officials who craft legislation and who can impede enforcement of rules and regulations.

Recall Friedman’s comment about a corporation maximizing profits “so long as it stays within the rules of the game, which is to say, engages in open and free competition, without deception or fraud.” This prerequisite is phony if corporate money – shielded from public view – sways elections and buys access. Corporations – and rich stockholders – are rigging the rules of the game.

This simple 75% rule could be a game changer.

Persons under the Constitution

Though Mitt Romney said, “Corporations are people, my friend,” they are not. They were created by government to advance a public purpose. As Teddy Roosevelt put it: “The great corporations which we have grown to speak of rather loosely as trusts are the  creatures of the State, and the State not only has the right to control them, but it is duty bound to control them wherever the need of such control is shown.”

Louis Brandeis suggested, “We must make our choice. We may have democracy, or we may have wealth concentrated in the hands of a few, but we can’t have both.” Dissenting in a 1933 case before the Supreme Court, he endorsed the race to the bottom theory and argued that corporations were created by the state and the state could regulate them to ensure public benefit. Large corporations threaten to monopolize free markets, to infringe on individuals’ liberties and opportunities, and to quash workers’ rights. Most dangerous of all: “Through size, corporations, once merely an efficient tool employed by individuals in the conduct of private business have become an institution—an institution which has brought such concentration of economic power that so-called private corporations are sometimes able to dominate the state.”

Senator Warren asserts the right to make corporations accountable. This is long overdue.

Trampling individual rights

Citizens United unleashed corporate money into our political system with a shrug from Justice Anthony Kennedy that “independent expenditures do not lead to, or create the appearance of, quid pro quo corruption.” Hobby Lobby ruled that corporations can trample on the rights of women – that is to say, of human beings. As Adam Winkler notes, “the rights of employees have to give way to the rights of the corporation.” And, “the data show that the Roberts Court is the most business-friendly Supreme Court in nearly a century.”

Professor Winkler concludes:

So while a business corporation can’t go to church, fast on Yom Kippur, or travel to Mecca for Ramadan, it can still go to court and, on the basis of religious freedom, demand to be exempted from the law that applies to everyone else. Today, women are the victim. Tomorrow, it could be LGBT people. Indeed, after Hobby Lobby, every person is at risk. Everyone, that is, except the corporate person, my friend.

Republicans, Tribalism

GOPAC memo – Language: A Key Mechanism of Control – Gingrich’s declaration of war against civil debate and respect for opponents

Written by Newt Gingrich, poll tested by Frank Luntz, “Language: A Key Mechanism of Control” was distributed to Republican legislative candidates throughout the country in 1990. GOPAC, a political organization founded in 1978, provided video tapes to train Republican candidates how to run for office. The memo provides “contrasting words,” a grab bag of rebukes and insults, which can be directed at opposing candidates, and “optimistic positive governing words” to describe oneself and ones vision.

This memo comprises one element of the strategic plan Gingrich brought to Congress when he was first elected. He sought to characterize political opponents as though they were enemies, making both civil discussion and comity among law makers impossible to sustain. Gingrich openly embraced  this strategy as a means of undermining public trust in Congress and impairing the institution’s effectiveness. In this 1990 memo, he spread his divisive plan to the state and local level.

Many people, across the political spectrum, bemoan the lack of civility in our political discourse. And in survey after survey, public regard for Congress is at meager levels. Neither of these things is a result of happenstance. We did not arrive here due to an unfortunate, unforeseen turns of events. This was by design.

Here is the text of the memo (from a Wake Forest University archive):

As you know, one of the key points in the GOPAC tapes is that “language matters.” In the video “We are a Majority,” Language is listed as a key mechanism of control used by a majority party, along with Agenda, Rules, Attitude and Learning. As the tapes have been used at intraining sessions across the country and mailed to candidates we have heard a plaintive plea: “I wish I could speak like Newt.”

That takes years of practice. But, we believe that you could have a significant impact on your campaign and the way you communicate if we help a little. That is why we have created this list of words and phrases.

This list is prepared so that you might have a directory of words to use in writing literature and mail, in preparing speeches, and in producing electronic media. The words and phrases are powerful. Read them. Memorize as many as possible. And remember that like any tool, these words will not help if they are not used.

While the list could be the size of the latest “College Edition” dictionary, we have attempted to keep it small enough to be readily useful yet large enough to be broadly functional. The list is divided into two sections: Optimistic Pos[i]tive Governing words and phrases to help describe your vision for the future of your community (your message) and Contrasting words to help you clearly define the policies and record of your opponent and the Democratic party.

While the list could be the size of the latest “College Edition” dictionary, we have attempted to keep it small enough to be readily useful yet large enough to be broadly functional. The list is divided into two sections: Optimistic Pos[i]tive Governing words and phrases to help describe your vision for the future of your community (your message) and Contrasting words to help you clearly define the policies and record of your opponent and the Democratic party.

Please let us know if you have any other suggestions or additions. We would also like to know how you use the list. Call us at GOPAC or write with your suggestions and comments. We may include them in the next tape mailing so that others can benefit from your knowledge and experience.

Optimistic Positive Governing Words

Use the list below to help define your campaign and your vision of public service. These words can help give extra power to your message. In addition, these words help develop the pos[i]tive side of the contrast you should create with your opponent, giving your community something to vote for!

share, change, opportunity, legacy, challenge, control, truth, moral, courage, reform, prosperity, crusade, movement, children, family, debate, compete, active(ly), we/us/our, candid(ly), humane, pristine, provide, liberty, commitment, principle(d), unique, duty, precious, premise, care(ing), tough, listen, learn, help, lead, vision, success, empower(ment), citizen, activist, mobilize, conflict, light, dream, freedom, peace, rights, pioneer, proud/pride, building, preserve, pro-(issue): flag, children, environment; reform, workfare, eliminate good-time in prison, strength, choice/choose, fair, protect, confident, incentive, hard work, initiative, common sense, passionate

Contrasting Words

Often we search hard for words to define our opponents. Sometimes we are hesitant to use contrast. Remember that creating a difference helps you. These are powerful words that can create a clear and easily understood contrast. Apply these to the opponent, their record, proposals and their party.

decay, failure (fail) collapse(ing) deeper, crisis, urgent(cy), destructive, destroy, sick, pathetic, lie, liberal, they/them, unionized bureaucracy, “compassion” is not enough, betray, consequences, limit(s), shallow, traitors, sensationalists, endanger, coercion, hypocricy, radical, threaten, devour, waste, corruption, incompetent, permissive attitude, destructive, impose, self-serving, greed, ideological, insecure, anti-(issue): flag, family, child, jobs; pessimistic, excuses, intolerant, stagnation, welfare, corrupt, selfish, insensitive, status quo, mandate(s) taxes, spend (ing) shame, disgrace, punish (poor…) bizarre, cynicism, cheat, steal, abuse of power, machine, bosses, obsolete, criminal rights, red tape, patronage.

(End of memo text.)

Image (of pages one and three) from Internet Archive, which is also displays all four pages of the memo.