NPR recently had a human interest piece discussing a Bank of America program invovling the donation of foreclosed homes to veterans. Clearly this is great for veterans receiving a home and good PR for Bank of America but there are a number of things that NPR failed to discuss.
While Bank of America is planning on donating 2,500 homes to veterans, NPR never mentioned that over 20,000 veterans were foreclosed on in 2010. Bank of America is essentially stealing homes from some veterans and giving them away to other veterans.
Of course NPR also failed to mention that Bank of America illegally foreclosed on veterans and that these illegal foreclosures resulted in a lawsuit which Bank of America lost. As part of the settlement they get to lower the amount of money they owe by donating homes.
Obviously the idea of including a donation provision in the settlement is to get some of these people who were illegally foreclosed on back into a house but institutions that handle mortgages already routinely donate homes for a variety of reasons. Typically they would do this for the tax break that donating the house affords them.
But thanks to this settlement they now get to donate a home reducing what they owe for their illegal activity while simultaneously dumping a home they can't sell.
Bank of America motivation here is not altruism, its profit and PR and NPR took the bait.
Friday, August 24, 2012
Thursday, August 23, 2012
Mitt Romney vague on details
Mitt Romney has put in his application to be the leader of the free world. The question now is what is the plan if he wins? What are his legislative priorities? What does Mitt Romney believe?
Well we know he thinks taxes should be cut for the rich but as far as his tax rate is concerned - you don't need to know.
We know he made his money at Bain Capital but how would that translate to his presidency - Mitt would rather not talk about it. Bain should be off the table.
We know he is a man of faith but what his views are or how they might influence his presidency - Mitt would prefer to keep that to himself.
We know he made changes the health care system in Massachusetts which were the basis for the Affordable Care Act but what is his plan for a the Federal Health care system - It is not the same as the ACA nor is it the same as his running mate, Paul Ryan's plan but the two are on the same page, but it is not the time to discuss specifics.
We know he has a budget that claims to make deep cuts to some programs, expand some programs, cut some taxes, and cut the deficit but what specifically will be cut and expanded - details aren't important, just trust Mitt.
We know he blames Obama for everything that is wrong in the country but what will he do differently - all of the things you like and none of the things you don't.
We know he thinks immigration is an issue that needs to be addressed. His policy - he'll "find a long term solution".
We know from his interview on the Today Show that he likes to read. When asked what newspapers and magazines he reads he said "all of them".
I understand that Mitt Romney would rather run against Barack Obama than on his own ideas but I find it odd that a group that hated the idea of "passing the bill so you find out what's in it" support the candidate that stands for nothing in particular until you elect him.
Well we know he thinks taxes should be cut for the rich but as far as his tax rate is concerned - you don't need to know.
We know he made his money at Bain Capital but how would that translate to his presidency - Mitt would rather not talk about it. Bain should be off the table.
We know he is a man of faith but what his views are or how they might influence his presidency - Mitt would prefer to keep that to himself.
We know he made changes the health care system in Massachusetts which were the basis for the Affordable Care Act but what is his plan for a the Federal Health care system - It is not the same as the ACA nor is it the same as his running mate, Paul Ryan's plan but the two are on the same page, but it is not the time to discuss specifics.
We know he has a budget that claims to make deep cuts to some programs, expand some programs, cut some taxes, and cut the deficit but what specifically will be cut and expanded - details aren't important, just trust Mitt.
We know he blames Obama for everything that is wrong in the country but what will he do differently - all of the things you like and none of the things you don't.
We know he thinks immigration is an issue that needs to be addressed. His policy - he'll "find a long term solution".
We know from his interview on the Today Show that he likes to read. When asked what newspapers and magazines he reads he said "all of them".
I understand that Mitt Romney would rather run against Barack Obama than on his own ideas but I find it odd that a group that hated the idea of "passing the bill so you find out what's in it" support the candidate that stands for nothing in particular until you elect him.
Mitt-lib
Mitt Romney is 100% committed to being uncommitted.
The strategy is to appeal to everyone and offend no one. With this in mind the Romney campaign has come out with a new policy agenda which I have listed below.
If elected President I will cut federal spending by (number) trillion dollars. These cuts will come from (government program), (entitlement program), and (program for the poor). Additionally I will secure our borders by (adverb) changing things to give (local law enforcement) the ability to do as they see fit. This will help keep our (plural noun), (plural noun), and (plural noun) safe.
To promote jobs I will (cut or increase) the top tax rate to (number) percent and remove the regulations from (largest Romney donor corporation industry), (second largest Romney donor corporation industry), and (any industry not producing green energy). I will also (verb) at the chance to reduce our dependence on foreign oil by expanding our efforts in (energy producing industry) industry.
To preserve and strengthen Medicare I will repeal (juvenile name for the Affordable Care Act) and replace it with (leave blank).
To assure our safety I will expand our commitment to national defense with an (increase or decrease) in spending. Additionally we will work (with or without) the support of the global community and exercise our solemn duty to prevent (Muslim country) from attaining (nuclear weapons or chemical weapons).
After four (verb) years of Barack Obama’s (verb) policies it’s time to consider a new direction. Mitt Romney considers (your top concern) his top concern and will move (adverb) to address this issue.
So if you believe in America like Mitt Romney does commit (money, time or your vote) to Mitt Romney today!
To see if Mitt Romney is the right choice for you just fill in the blanks as instructed.
The strategy is to appeal to everyone and offend no one. With this in mind the Romney campaign has come out with a new policy agenda which I have listed below.
If elected President I will cut federal spending by (number) trillion dollars. These cuts will come from (government program), (entitlement program), and (program for the poor). Additionally I will secure our borders by (adverb) changing things to give (local law enforcement) the ability to do as they see fit. This will help keep our (plural noun), (plural noun), and (plural noun) safe.
To promote jobs I will (cut or increase) the top tax rate to (number) percent and remove the regulations from (largest Romney donor corporation industry), (second largest Romney donor corporation industry), and (any industry not producing green energy). I will also (verb) at the chance to reduce our dependence on foreign oil by expanding our efforts in (energy producing industry) industry.
To preserve and strengthen Medicare I will repeal (juvenile name for the Affordable Care Act) and replace it with (leave blank).
To assure our safety I will expand our commitment to national defense with an (increase or decrease) in spending. Additionally we will work (with or without) the support of the global community and exercise our solemn duty to prevent (Muslim country) from attaining (nuclear weapons or chemical weapons).
After four (verb) years of Barack Obama’s (verb) policies it’s time to consider a new direction. Mitt Romney considers (your top concern) his top concern and will move (adverb) to address this issue.
So if you believe in America like Mitt Romney does commit (money, time or your vote) to Mitt Romney today!
To see if Mitt Romney is the right choice for you just fill in the blanks as instructed.
Thursday, August 16, 2012
Nitpicking the winners and losers
Conservatives love the free market and when in power they make policy decisions meant to expand the role of the free market. In particular they extol the virtues of the stock market. George W. Bush and Paul Ryan wanted to allow citizens to invest some of their Social Security money in the stock market because as then President Bush explained "Here’s why the personal accounts are a better deal. Your money will grow, over time, at a greater rate than anything the current system can deliver"
Also tied to this idea is the dogma that investing in the stock market creates jobs. This is the theory behind ending capital gains tax supported by Newt Gingrich, Paul Ryan and Jon Huntsman. During the GOP presidential debates Huntsman stated “We will also eliminate taxes on capital gains and dividends, which will lower the cost of capital and encourage investment in the economy".
And investment in the stock market is so important that should you lose money the government will give you a tax break, assuming you made enough to itemize in the first place.
On a related note the White House just reported that their investment in GM, of which the government still holds 500 million shares, looks a little worse than it did a few months ago because the stock price fell. And to conservatives this investment in GM stock proves that Obama wants to end capitalism.
Never mind that the investment in GM created jobs just like conservatives suggest the buying of stocks will do.
Never mind that typically the stock market has one of the higher returns on investment.
Never mind that the government hasn't realized a loss on their holdings yet because they are still holding these stocks.
Never mind that George W. Bush actually started the loans to the automotive industry.
Never mind that the US has a long history of bailing out private companies which includes both President Bush 41 and Bush 43.
Never mind that even Reagan invested government money in a flailing industry, gave loans to the renewable energy industry, and gave kickbacks to big donors.
Conservatives hate this because they hate Obama.
As cover for their hate they will claim they don't want the government picking the winners and the loser while simultaneously supporting unlimited corporate money in the election process even though this money ends up picking the winners and losers. Subsidies for the oil, ethanol, and farm industries all enjoy broad support from Republicans and are also examples of the government picking the winners and losers. As governor Mitt Romney made a litany of choices that favored certain industries and individuals as he picked the winners and losers.
Just because you don't like the man, the party or the industry doesn't make the loans and investments made under the Obama administration any different than the ones given out by the darlings of the Republican Party. Acting like Republicans have a moral high ground to stand on here due to GM and Solyndra ignores the history of Presidents investing in America for the good of the people despite the unfounded paranoia of a socialist takeover.
Also tied to this idea is the dogma that investing in the stock market creates jobs. This is the theory behind ending capital gains tax supported by Newt Gingrich, Paul Ryan and Jon Huntsman. During the GOP presidential debates Huntsman stated “We will also eliminate taxes on capital gains and dividends, which will lower the cost of capital and encourage investment in the economy".
And investment in the stock market is so important that should you lose money the government will give you a tax break, assuming you made enough to itemize in the first place.
On a related note the White House just reported that their investment in GM, of which the government still holds 500 million shares, looks a little worse than it did a few months ago because the stock price fell. And to conservatives this investment in GM stock proves that Obama wants to end capitalism.
Never mind that the investment in GM created jobs just like conservatives suggest the buying of stocks will do.
Never mind that typically the stock market has one of the higher returns on investment.
Never mind that the government hasn't realized a loss on their holdings yet because they are still holding these stocks.
Never mind that George W. Bush actually started the loans to the automotive industry.
Never mind that the US has a long history of bailing out private companies which includes both President Bush 41 and Bush 43.
Never mind that even Reagan invested government money in a flailing industry, gave loans to the renewable energy industry, and gave kickbacks to big donors.
Conservatives hate this because they hate Obama.
As cover for their hate they will claim they don't want the government picking the winners and the loser while simultaneously supporting unlimited corporate money in the election process even though this money ends up picking the winners and losers. Subsidies for the oil, ethanol, and farm industries all enjoy broad support from Republicans and are also examples of the government picking the winners and losers. As governor Mitt Romney made a litany of choices that favored certain industries and individuals as he picked the winners and losers.
Just because you don't like the man, the party or the industry doesn't make the loans and investments made under the Obama administration any different than the ones given out by the darlings of the Republican Party. Acting like Republicans have a moral high ground to stand on here due to GM and Solyndra ignores the history of Presidents investing in America for the good of the people despite the unfounded paranoia of a socialist takeover.
Wednesday, August 15, 2012
Solutions for the failed War on Drugs
For 40 years the US government has been fighting the War on Drugs and for 40 years the American tax payer has been asked to pay a higher and higher price for a completely ineffective program. Even Republican darling Chris Christie has called the War on Drugs a failure.
While the goal of eliminating drugs is admirable, the tactics used by the government have been too focused on punishment and inadvertently escalated the crisis we set out to prevent by creating an environment that lead to massive profits for the drug lords. These profits were used to increase the sophistication of the drug cartels which in turn required additional investments in the preventative measures necessary for law enforcement to fight the drug war.
This never ending cycle costs taxpayers over $55 billion in 2011 which is equal to the budget for all of homeland security. Aside from the monetary costs the War on Drugs has also cost tens of thousands of lives.
At this point it is fair to say we are not winning the War on Drugs and that alternative ideas should be considered. Over a decade ago Portugal decided to make a radical shift in policy and has experienced remarkable results.
According to a report by the Cato Institute Portugal moved to decriminalize drugs and focus on treatment programs with the following results:
"In certain key demographic segments,
drug usage has decreased in absolute terms in the
decriminalization framework, even as usage across
the EU continues to increase, including in those
states that continue to take the hardest line in
criminalizing drug possession and usage."
Chris Christie, who supports a similar program for New Jersey, recently stated "It costs us $49,000 a year to warehouse a prisoner in New Jersey state prisons last year." "A full year of inpatient drug treatment costs $24,000 a year."
So we have an option that cuts the cost to the American tax pay while simultaneously reducing drug usage that some Republicans, Democrats and Libertarians agree works yet politicians including the president insist that the War on Drugs is working.
This is partially due to polling that shows support for legalization of marijuana topping opposition for the first time in recent history, but it also has a lot to do with the privatization of the prison industry. Private prisons have poured millions of dollars into maintaining the status quo because the War on Drugs is good business.
As more and more people become aware of the advantages of shifting our drug policy and it becomes politically advantageous the laws will change but the thrust for increased privatization and the increased influence of corporations in politics will make that change increasingly difficult.
While the goal of eliminating drugs is admirable, the tactics used by the government have been too focused on punishment and inadvertently escalated the crisis we set out to prevent by creating an environment that lead to massive profits for the drug lords. These profits were used to increase the sophistication of the drug cartels which in turn required additional investments in the preventative measures necessary for law enforcement to fight the drug war.
This never ending cycle costs taxpayers over $55 billion in 2011 which is equal to the budget for all of homeland security. Aside from the monetary costs the War on Drugs has also cost tens of thousands of lives.
At this point it is fair to say we are not winning the War on Drugs and that alternative ideas should be considered. Over a decade ago Portugal decided to make a radical shift in policy and has experienced remarkable results.
According to a report by the Cato Institute Portugal moved to decriminalize drugs and focus on treatment programs with the following results:
"In certain key demographic segments,
drug usage has decreased in absolute terms in the
decriminalization framework, even as usage across
the EU continues to increase, including in those
states that continue to take the hardest line in
criminalizing drug possession and usage."
Chris Christie, who supports a similar program for New Jersey, recently stated "It costs us $49,000 a year to warehouse a prisoner in New Jersey state prisons last year." "A full year of inpatient drug treatment costs $24,000 a year."
So we have an option that cuts the cost to the American tax pay while simultaneously reducing drug usage that some Republicans, Democrats and Libertarians agree works yet politicians including the president insist that the War on Drugs is working.
This is partially due to polling that shows support for legalization of marijuana topping opposition for the first time in recent history, but it also has a lot to do with the privatization of the prison industry. Private prisons have poured millions of dollars into maintaining the status quo because the War on Drugs is good business.
As more and more people become aware of the advantages of shifting our drug policy and it becomes politically advantageous the laws will change but the thrust for increased privatization and the increased influence of corporations in politics will make that change increasingly difficult.
Projections have no bearing on effectiveness of legislation
In a recent post regarding the stimulus a number of commentors referenced the Obama administrations claim that the stimulus would keep unemployment under 8% as proof that the stimulus was a failure.
First it should be noted that President Obama never "promised" that unemployment would remain under 8%. That was a projection which turned out to be incorrect but whether this prediction was correct or incorrect has no bearing on the overall effectiveness of the stimulus.
For example in 2000 President Bush predicted that the economy would see an additional 3.4 million jobs and a budget deficit of $14 billion dollars by 2003. These projections were partly based on the 2001 tax cuts championed by George W. Bush. The actually tally was a loss of 1.7 million jobs and a $521 billion budget deficit.
Does that mean that the tax cuts failed simply because he failed to meet his projections? No. To determine the actual cause of the job losses and increase in budget deficit you would need a thorough analysis of all of the data not some amateur examination of anecdotal evidence.
Not surprisingly both men took the same tact when addressing these failures by blaming outside forces yet to many conservatives when these justifications came from George W. Bush they were rational examples of how projecting economic data is a tricky business while when they come from Barack Obama they are just excuses for his failed policies.
The reality is projecting the future of the economy is an extraordinarily difficult endeavor and no policy is ever judged before it has a chance to be fully executed. Hindsight has given us plenty of time to review both of these policies and at no point in any study regarding the overall effectiveness of either piece of legislation are educated guesses preceding their implementation considered.
First it should be noted that President Obama never "promised" that unemployment would remain under 8%. That was a projection which turned out to be incorrect but whether this prediction was correct or incorrect has no bearing on the overall effectiveness of the stimulus.
For example in 2000 President Bush predicted that the economy would see an additional 3.4 million jobs and a budget deficit of $14 billion dollars by 2003. These projections were partly based on the 2001 tax cuts championed by George W. Bush. The actually tally was a loss of 1.7 million jobs and a $521 billion budget deficit.
Does that mean that the tax cuts failed simply because he failed to meet his projections? No. To determine the actual cause of the job losses and increase in budget deficit you would need a thorough analysis of all of the data not some amateur examination of anecdotal evidence.
Not surprisingly both men took the same tact when addressing these failures by blaming outside forces yet to many conservatives when these justifications came from George W. Bush they were rational examples of how projecting economic data is a tricky business while when they come from Barack Obama they are just excuses for his failed policies.
The reality is projecting the future of the economy is an extraordinarily difficult endeavor and no policy is ever judged before it has a chance to be fully executed. Hindsight has given us plenty of time to review both of these policies and at no point in any study regarding the overall effectiveness of either piece of legislation are educated guesses preceding their implementation considered.
Thursday, August 9, 2012
Rehasing the stimulus debate
This presidential election cycle has turned into a sound bite debate. We no longer discuss actual solutions and policy but instead play on people's prejudices with exaggerations and misrepresentations of slanted rhetoric.
One example of this is Mitt Romney’s efforts to deflect attention from his tax plan that runs counter to the preferences of the American people and raises taxes on the middle class and poor while simultaneously lowering taxes for the rich. The Romney camp has decided rather than defend their plan, they would attack the presidents record - more specifically the stimulus package. Mitt Romney's basic take is that the stimulus failed and he references a "number of empirical studies" as proof.
One big problem for Romney is that some of the authors of the studies he references suggest that the Romney camp is misinterpreting their studies. Another problem for Romney is that fact that the two largest provisions and over a third of the total cost of the stimulus were tax cuts. So if the stimulus failed as Romney claims then it seems that tax cuts are not as stimulative as conservatives like to think yet tax cuts are the basis for Romney's economic recovery plan.
But perhaps the biggest problem for Romney is the fact that there are considerably more empirical studies that show that the stimulus worked. And the paper that Romney is really hanging his hat on was authored by these men:
Kevin Hassett - Senior Fellow at the conservative think tank AEI, Chief economic advisor to John McCain in 2000, and economic advisor to George W. Bush in 2004 and John McCain again in 2008.
John Taylor - Under Secretary of the Treasury for International Affairs and member of the President's Council of Economic Advisors for George W. Bush.
Greg Mankiw - Chairman of the Council of Economic Advisers for George W. Bush and current economic advisor to Mitt Romney.
Glenn Hubbard - Visiting scholar at AEI, Chairman of the Council of Economic Advisors under President George W. Bush, and economic advisor to Mitt Romney for both his 2008 and 2012 presidential campaigns.
If bias is a reason to distrust information then people should be skeptical of this report given that all of the authors are clearly supporting Mitt Romney and have a vested interest in making sure Barack Obama and his policies look bad.
The good news for Mitt Romney is that bias doesn't inherently prove that a study and its conclusions are inaccurate. Having said that, the American people should be suspicious of a politician that uses a study authored by members of his own staff combined with misrepresentations of other studies, to prove that his conclusions are facts.
One example of this is Mitt Romney’s efforts to deflect attention from his tax plan that runs counter to the preferences of the American people and raises taxes on the middle class and poor while simultaneously lowering taxes for the rich. The Romney camp has decided rather than defend their plan, they would attack the presidents record - more specifically the stimulus package. Mitt Romney's basic take is that the stimulus failed and he references a "number of empirical studies" as proof.
One big problem for Romney is that some of the authors of the studies he references suggest that the Romney camp is misinterpreting their studies. Another problem for Romney is that fact that the two largest provisions and over a third of the total cost of the stimulus were tax cuts. So if the stimulus failed as Romney claims then it seems that tax cuts are not as stimulative as conservatives like to think yet tax cuts are the basis for Romney's economic recovery plan.
But perhaps the biggest problem for Romney is the fact that there are considerably more empirical studies that show that the stimulus worked. And the paper that Romney is really hanging his hat on was authored by these men:
Kevin Hassett - Senior Fellow at the conservative think tank AEI, Chief economic advisor to John McCain in 2000, and economic advisor to George W. Bush in 2004 and John McCain again in 2008.
John Taylor - Under Secretary of the Treasury for International Affairs and member of the President's Council of Economic Advisors for George W. Bush.
Greg Mankiw - Chairman of the Council of Economic Advisers for George W. Bush and current economic advisor to Mitt Romney.
Glenn Hubbard - Visiting scholar at AEI, Chairman of the Council of Economic Advisors under President George W. Bush, and economic advisor to Mitt Romney for both his 2008 and 2012 presidential campaigns.
If bias is a reason to distrust information then people should be skeptical of this report given that all of the authors are clearly supporting Mitt Romney and have a vested interest in making sure Barack Obama and his policies look bad.
The good news for Mitt Romney is that bias doesn't inherently prove that a study and its conclusions are inaccurate. Having said that, the American people should be suspicious of a politician that uses a study authored by members of his own staff combined with misrepresentations of other studies, to prove that his conclusions are facts.
Friday, August 3, 2012
I challenge Stephen Colbert to a children's book-off
There is a long history of politicians and their families penning books for children. This list includes Presidents like Teddy Roosevelt, Jimmy Carter, and Barack Obama as well as family members like Laura and Jenna Bush, Meghan McCain, and Callista Gingrich. But the book in this genre I am most interested in is the book authored by well known conservative newsman Stephen Colbert titled "I Am a Pole (And So Can You)" which tells the story a poll looking for its true calling in life.
With this in mind I decided to write my own book as a response to Stephen's Colbert's attempt at children's literature.
If I can tool, anyone can.
I am a tool I just don’t know what kind
I must be important in more than my mind
Perhaps I’m a tool for a sly sneaky Fox
The kind with great hair that just talks, talks, talks, talks
Or maybe I’m a tool for a giant corporation
Convincing the world their greed’s good for the nation
Maybe I’m a tool for a big Papa Bear
With a temper, a big mouth and a nice comfy chair
How about a tool for more military might
Outspending the world but still it’s too light
Clearly I’m a tool that fits any program
But I’d still like to know the type of tool that I am
I could be a tool for the top one percent
To make sure everyone thanks them for the money they’ve spent
It’s possible I’m a tool for a gun organization
Warning people about the impending gun confiscation
It’s conceivable that I’m a tool for a rogue Elephant
To give her a hand remembering things that she can’t
Or perhaps I’m a tool for a pretty tea party
To help take back this country from the truly foolhardy
But I’ve finally realized everyone uses me
And I think I discovered what tool I must be
It’s clear that so far I’ve have been thinking too small
I’m a misinformed voter – the biggest tool of all
With this in mind I decided to write my own book as a response to Stephen's Colbert's attempt at children's literature.
If I can tool, anyone can.
I am a tool I just don’t know what kind
I must be important in more than my mind
Perhaps I’m a tool for a sly sneaky Fox
The kind with great hair that just talks, talks, talks, talks
Or maybe I’m a tool for a giant corporation
Convincing the world their greed’s good for the nation
Maybe I’m a tool for a big Papa Bear
With a temper, a big mouth and a nice comfy chair
How about a tool for more military might
Outspending the world but still it’s too light
Clearly I’m a tool that fits any program
But I’d still like to know the type of tool that I am
I could be a tool for the top one percent
To make sure everyone thanks them for the money they’ve spent
It’s possible I’m a tool for a gun organization
Warning people about the impending gun confiscation
It’s conceivable that I’m a tool for a rogue Elephant
To give her a hand remembering things that she can’t
Or perhaps I’m a tool for a pretty tea party
To help take back this country from the truly foolhardy
But I’ve finally realized everyone uses me
And I think I discovered what tool I must be
It’s clear that so far I’ve have been thinking too small
I’m a misinformed voter – the biggest tool of all
Thursday, August 2, 2012
The double standard of crime
When we talk about reducing crime there is a belief that the laws we have in place act as a deterrent to would be criminals. This article from the Heritage Foundation talks in some depth about the idea.
If this idea is true for individuals it should also be true for companies which are just a collection of individuals. Yet many of those who want more and stricter laws for individuals are many of the same people who argue against adding any regulations to industry.
The standard argument against this is that regulations cost jobs. While this may be true it is also true that not having regulations can cost jobs and sometimes lives. The BP oil spill, for example, was caused by corporations cutting corners and ignoring regulations and it cost lives, jobs, and economic activity.
As a result the BP CEO in charge when these decisions occurred spent zero days in jail and paid no fine but he did receive an $18 million dollar severance package - not much a deterrent for other CEO's contemplating a similar avoidance of rules and regulations.
Similarly the excessive risks taken by the banking industry cost millions a jobs when the housing bubble burst. A bubble which was seen by many well before it occurred yet nothing was done to avoid this crisis and no one was held accountable for the actions that resulted in the great recession.
If more and stricter laws work to prevent crimes then it should be used to prevent all crimes. As Supreme Court Justice John Marshall Harlan stated "But in view of the constitution, in the eye of the law, there is in this country no superior, dominant, ruling class of citizens...all citizens are equal before the law."
Holding one segment to a different moral standard than the rest is un-American and unjust no matter the rationalization.
If this idea is true for individuals it should also be true for companies which are just a collection of individuals. Yet many of those who want more and stricter laws for individuals are many of the same people who argue against adding any regulations to industry.
The standard argument against this is that regulations cost jobs. While this may be true it is also true that not having regulations can cost jobs and sometimes lives. The BP oil spill, for example, was caused by corporations cutting corners and ignoring regulations and it cost lives, jobs, and economic activity.
As a result the BP CEO in charge when these decisions occurred spent zero days in jail and paid no fine but he did receive an $18 million dollar severance package - not much a deterrent for other CEO's contemplating a similar avoidance of rules and regulations.
Similarly the excessive risks taken by the banking industry cost millions a jobs when the housing bubble burst. A bubble which was seen by many well before it occurred yet nothing was done to avoid this crisis and no one was held accountable for the actions that resulted in the great recession.
If more and stricter laws work to prevent crimes then it should be used to prevent all crimes. As Supreme Court Justice John Marshall Harlan stated "But in view of the constitution, in the eye of the law, there is in this country no superior, dominant, ruling class of citizens...all citizens are equal before the law."
Holding one segment to a different moral standard than the rest is un-American and unjust no matter the rationalization.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
