What's A Booz Allen Hamilton?

(Editorial cartoon by Mike Luckovich and published 6/13/13 in the Atlanta Journal-Constitution.)

So, we seem to know an awful lot about Edward Snowden (except for where he's actually heading), and we're gradually learning a little bit about the domestic spying done under the Patriot Act, but most of us are unfamiliar with the civilian contractor at the center of this all.  With that in mind, I paid a visit to the corporate web page (located here) and learned some interesting stuff.  First, the corporate "mission statement":

We focus in many arenas, including national and international security, economic well-being, health, environment, and public infrastructure. Our deep expertise in technology, engineering, and analytics helps us serve a broad constituency of clients, ranging from cabinet-level departments of the U.S. government to corporations, institutions, and organizations.

Booz Allen’s major clients include global corporations in the health, energy, and financial services sectors, as well as nearly all departments and agencies across the U.S. federal government. These clients face a wide range of complex and pressing challenges such as combating global terrorism, improving cyber capabilities, transforming the healthcare system, improving energy usage, and protecting the environment. ...

As the needs of our clients have grown, Booz Allen Hamilton has responded and expanded beyond the traditional management consulting foundation to meet and exceed those needs.
In civil government, we serve several key areas and clients:

    Financial sector
    Health and human services
    Environment and sustainability
    Infrastructure (transportation, energy, telecommunications)
    Law enforcement and homeland security
    International funding institutions (World Bank, USAID)
    Non-governmental organizations (NGOs)

In Defense, we serve several key areas:

    U.S. Armed Services
    Department of Defense
    Joint Commands
    Intelligence agencies
    Foreign military programs of U.S. allies

In the commercial market, we serve these key sectors:

    Energy
    Health
    Financial Services

[Emphasis added]

That's a pretty wide range of clients.  Oh, and they also do "pro bono" work for charitable organizations and they are consistently voted a great place to work.

With that range of clients, you'd expect that the corporation would be doing pretty well.  Oh, the share prices have dropped since Snowden's bomb shell, but according to the financial pages at the site, their revenues are quite healthy. First, fiscal year 2012:

Over the past year, despite a challenging and unpredictable marketplace, Booz Allen’s revenue increased 4.8 percent to $5.86 billion.  In addition, Booz Allen was recently named by Fortune magazine to its list of the “World’s Most Admired Companies,” which complements numerous other awards the firm received last year in recognition of its high standing as a business, employer, and community supporter. The approximately 25,000 people of Booz Allen are proud of these achievements, but even more proud of the trust clients place in the firm, year after year, to help them with their most important missions.   [Emphasis added]

Next, fiscal year 2013:

Booz Allen Hamilton’s Annual Report for fiscal year 2013, “Excellence at Work,” recounts the important role we play helping the federal government and commercial enterprises accomplish their most important work—work that protects our nation and drives our society and economy forward—as well as our thought leadership and corporate citizenship initiatives.   [Emphasis added]

Note:  you can download the full financial reports in pdf format at the sites.

So, there's a brief snapshot of the company which is grinding out the meta data on each and every one of us.

And we're paying for that honor.

A Somewhat Surprising Outcome

(Editorial cartoon by Jack Ohman and published 6/20/13 by the Sacramento Bee.  Click on image to enlarge and then return.)

As I noted on Monday, there were lots of reasons to expect the House to pass its version of the Ag bill, not the least of which is that some of the congress critters personally benefit from farm subsidies.  There is also the fact that House Speaker Boehner has been adhering to the "Hastert Rule", bringing bills to a vote only when their passage is assured.  That's why I am somewhat surprised by the defeat of the bill this week.

From the Los Angeles Times:

A revolt among rank-and-file Republicans helped kill the farm bill in the House on Thursday, the latest vote to reflect the influence of conservative groups that have often been at odds with the chamber's GOP leadership.

More than a quarter of the Republicans joined with most Democrats to defeat the nearly $1-trillion bill to reauthorize farm subsidies and nutrition programs, legislation that has traditionally been bipartisan.

House Speaker John A. Boehner (R-Ohio) said last week that he supported the measure despite a few objections because it would institute some needed reforms.

But prominent outside forces, including the Club for Growth and Heritage Action for America, urged Republicans to defeat it. Both groups oppose farm subsidies, but focused their objections on the cost of the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, or food stamps, which made up most of the price tag. ...

"The food stamp program is out of control," said Rep. Mick Mulvaney (R-S.C.), who rode the tea party wave to election in 2010. "It has grown 430% since 2001. And this bill did little if anything to curtail that out-of-control spending."

The Club for Growth has achieved considerable sway over the rank and file because it has spent money to support conservatives in primary challenges. Incumbent Republicans, many in districts that are more conservative since redistricting, now increasingly fear the threat of a primary challenge more than the general election. Both conservative groups said they would use Thursday's vote in considering whether to support incumbents in Republican primaries.

At the same time, fewer Democrats remain in the House who represent districts with sizable rural populations. Just 24 Democrats supported the farm bill. Most Democrats protested the measure, saying that cuts to the food stamp program, known as SNAP, were too deep and would hurt low-income families.   [Emphasis added]

Yes, the wackaloons don't want the poor to eat on the government's dime, even though many of them are poor because of the Great Recession helped along by the government's inaction/misaction since 2001.  But the rest of the GOP shouldn't have minded:  many of its biggest supporters would get their own welfare from the subsidies.  And what about those 24 Democrats?

Well, you can go here and see just how each member of the House voted. And then you can go here and see just how pervasive the Ag-business money is on both sides of aisle.

Of course, the Senate Bill is only slightly better:  the cuts to SNAP are there, they just aren't as deep.

I suppose the failure of the House to pass the bill is a blessing in disguise.  Sorta.  Kinda.

This Little Piggy Had Roast Beef

Michael Hiltzig took aim at the pigs who would slash food stamp funding but add to the pockets of agricorps in his latest column.

As a member of Congress, Rep. Doug LaMalfa (R-Richvale) is proud to stand up for the principles of limited government and individual responsibility.

The first-term congressman expresses skepticism about such safety-net programs as food stamps, regarding them as the handiwork of an "oppressive" government that snatches wages from the hands of working people. Helping the poor is better left to individuals and churches, he said at a recent committee hearing in Washington, because then "it comes from the heart, not from a badge or from a mandate."

As a rice farmer from California's fertile Central Valley, however, this same Doug LaMalfa has done pretty well by the "oppressive" federal government. From 1995 through 2012, according to USDA figures compiled by the Washington-based Environmental Working Group, the farm he co-owns with other family members has collected $5.1 million in government crop subsidies. ...

The question for Rep. LaMalfa and his fellow food stamp hackers on the agriculture committee is: Why is it important for government to skip out on aid for families, but pony up for farmers like him?   [Emphasis added]

Why indeed?

At a time of high and prolonged unemployment, programs like SNAP are keeping body and soul together for a lot of Americans, those without access to cushy benefits like members of Congress have.  I guess that doesn't bother Rep. LaMalfa.  It sure bothers me.

What bothers me just as much is the sneaky snaky way he and his confreres have accomplished this.  Go read all of Hiltzig's column to see the details of the maneuvers executed.  It will amaze and disgust.

Gah!

A pox on all their houses.

Still At It

(Editorial cartoon by Joel Pett / Lexington Herald-Leader (June 3, 2013) and featured at McClatchy DC.  Click on image to enlarge and then please come back.)

Well, the House is up to its usual tricks, this time with a bill guaranteed to make its bankster and 1%  friends happy.  It may have cost our owners a little money, but, hey!, they got what they wanted. 

From Open Secrets:

Banking industry lobbyists helped members of the House Financial Services Committee craft a bill loosening regulators' oversight of various types of trading, with lobbyists from Citibank playing a large role in the process, according to a report in today's New York Times. Seventy-one of the 80 lines in a bill recently approved by the panel were written with the assistance of lobbyists for major banks, said the report, which is based on emails reviewed by the paper's reporters; two paragraphs were copied from the lobbyists nearly word-for-word.

According to Center for Responsive Politics data, in the first quarter of 2013, members of that committee received more than $1.3 million in donations to their campaigns and leadership PACs from the securities and investment industry and commercial banks. ...

Although the New York Times article cites a growing friendliness between the banking industry and congressional Democrats, the money going to the members of the committee this year overwhelmingly tilted towards Republicans. Seventy percent of the $1.3 million went to GOP lawmakers. Republicans control the House, and thus the committee, and it is not unusual to see the majority party pick up more cash from donors, regardless of the topic or committee.   [Emphasis added]

$1.3 million in just three months:  not bad, eh?  Especially since it is designed to save the "donors" billions. 

Oh, and our Dems on that committee weren't too shy about accepting their share.  I'm looking at you, Maxine Waters.

And people wonder why we can't have nice things.

Happy Memorial Day

(Editorial cartoon by Kevin Siers / The Charlotte Observer (May 22, 2013) and featured at McClatchy DC. Click on image to enlarge and then kindly return.)

It's Memorial Day, a day in which we remember and honor those men and women who died in the military service of this country.  It's a day I mourn my brother who died of Alzheimer's hastened by the chemical exposures he sustained in Viet Nam.  It's a day in which other families mourn the deaths of their lost soldiers, some dying as recently as a week or so ago.

And for what?

To say they died to preserve our democracy just doesn't cut it with me anymore.  The last ten years I've come to realize that what my brother and others died for was to keep the 1% fat and happy and, unfortunately, in control.

That democracy has been sold to the highest bidders, from the White House right on down to the local dog catchers.  Our Congress can't get even the tiniest bit of gun control passed, although an overwhelming majority of Americans want at the very least background checks for those who would purchase guns.  Our president has continued the shredding of those rights guaranteed by the Constitution carried out by his predecessors.  And our courts have tilted, nay careened, to the right to protect corporate interests to the detriment of we-the-people.

And I don't see an end to any of that.

So I mourn.

First Class

(Click on image to enlarge and then return.)

It appears that the United States Post Office, an agency mandated by the Constitution, is on its way out.  This week the Post Office announced that it will be discontinuing Saturday mail delivery.  With that cut in service, the end appears in sight.  David Horsey considers how we got to this point, and I think he got it right.

Sure, most people have not mailed a real letter for months, if not years, and prefer to send messages via email or text. And, yes, companies such as UPS and FedEx have stolen the more lucrative shares of the market from the venerable old post office. But the USPS might be in less dire straits if Republicans in Congress were not trying to kill it outright.

In 2006, the GOP Congress passed a bill that required the Postal Service to fully fund future retiree health benefits for the next 75 years and to accomplish this within a 10-year period. Republicans are always insisting that the USPS be run like a good capitalist enterprise, but few, if any, private businesses could bear the burden of funding three-quarters of a century of retired employees’ medical costs over just one decade.

In truth, the Republicans who crafted the bill were not interested in turning the Postal Service into a better business; they were seeking to run the post office out of business. With all those unionized employees working for a quasi-governmental operation that competes with private sector enterprises, the Postal Service is an affront to those who hate government, hate unions and hate to think that there is anything that government can do better than the private sector. The post office may be mandated by the United States Constitution, as clearly as freedom of religion or the right to bear arms, but it does not fit with modern Republican dogma and, therefore, has been targeted for extinction.

About the only thing that has saved the Postal Service is the fact that nobody else wants to serve rural areas. No one but the dutiful mail carriers deliver to America’s remote addresses because it is a money-losing proposition. The congressmen and senators who represent those rural constituents have fought against further cuts and may well block the elimination of Saturday delivery, as they have in the past.   [Emphasis added]

What is so maddening about this bit of chicanery by the GOP is that the USPS is cheaper by far than either FedEx and UPS for both domestic and international delivery.  A letter mailed first class across the country with the post office arrives (usually) within two days.  Does one day make a difference in most mail?  And what will UPS and FedEx charge to deliver to rural areas.  Will UPS and FedEx set up centers for people to register to vote?  To pick up income tax forms?  Change of address forms?  I doubt it.

David concludes his column by urging citizens to contact their congress critters and the White House and urge them to do whatever is necessary to save the office.  I would only add that we should demand that the law requiring the USPS to fully fund retiree benefits for 75 be repealed.

DO IT!

Picking Their Fights

Doyle McManus had an interesting op-ed column this weekend, one that made sense to me and gave me a little hope that maybe this Congress will actually get something done.  He used the metaphor of "an orderly retreat," and I think it works beautifully.

Astonishingly, for perhaps the first time since they won the majority in 2010, Boehner's House Republicans were seized by a sudden fit of pragmatism. That debt ceiling that couldn't be lifted as a matter of sacred principle? It was "suspended" until May with only perfunctory debate.

Boehner's sometimes fractious lieutenants, Eric Cantor of Virginia and Paul D. Ryan of Wisconsin, fell into line. Tea party firebrands including Michele Bachmann of Minnesota voted no, but they remained uncharacteristically quiet.

Score one for Boehner.

It may seem painfully obvious that a political party needs to seek favorable ground on which to wage its battles — to choose "smart fights" and avoid dumb ones.
But until last week, Democrats could pretty much count on House Republicans to ignore that rule. Only three weeks ago, the same Republicans had dared President Obama to take the country over a fiscal cliff of brutal tax increases and spending cuts — only to retreat in disarray when they noticed that the country wasn't behind them.

The logic of Boehner's gambit last week was straightforward: A debt ceiling showdown looked like another dumb fight. The speaker wants to change the subject to federal spending, an issue on which conservatives think they have more public support. On March 1, deep automatic cuts in both domestic and military spending are scheduled to take effect. And on March 27, the federal government will have to shut down unless Congress passes a new spending bill. Both of those events, Republicans say, will let them push for new spending cuts without the hair-raising dangers of a debt-ceiling crisis.   [Emphasis added]

First, apparently Speaker Boehner is getting better at herding cats.  Maybe he got some coaching from Nancy Pelosi, or maybe House Republicans finally figured out that they actually took quite a hit in November and might want to change their mode of operating.  Their obstructionism in the last Congress led to their actually losing ground in both houses.

Secondly, and more importantly, the manufacturing of crises to get their way just didn't work the way they thought it would.  The President isn't playing nice any more, and he's making them look bad.

I'm not suggesting that congressional Republicans will turn into nice guys who will voluntarily cut the entitlements to oil companies, banks, large farm corporations, and wealthy investors.  Not hardly.  They've still got their knives out for Social Security and Medicare/Medicaid.  At least, however, they are now meeting with Democrats to start on the broad outlines for an immigration reform bill, something that has been totally off the table with them.  That's a start.

With a little more pressure from the public, they might even consider cutting the Pentagon budget, lopping off a few of the more ridiculous programs and cheating contractors.

I sure hope so, even though I know hope is not a plan.

Popcorn futures are up.

Corporate Welfare

(Editorial cartoon by Mike Luckovich and published 12/11/12 by the Atlanta Journal-Constitution.  Click on image to enlarge and then return.)

It always amazes me that the first thing people want to cut when it comes to government budgets (federal, state, local) are safety nets for the poor and vulnerable.  "Welfare" has somehow become a dirty word and refers to needless spending on those too lazy to pull themselves up out of whatever hole they're in.  It never refers to spending on those who don't need it:  you know, professional sports franchises who want a new stadium or they'll go elsewhere; large corporations who expect tax breaks and subsidies to keep the wheels of commerce spinning; agricorps who want crop subsidies to keep them growing food to ship across and even out of the country.

The New York Times recently published a three-part series on corporate welfare and what it costs the country.  The gateway to that series is located here.  The articles are well worth the read.  Tom Eblen reflects on those articles in a commentary originally published in the Lexington Herald-Leader and featured at McClatchy DC.

When a poor person gets a government handout, it's called welfare. When a rich corporation gets one, it's called an economic development incentive.

With local, state and federal government budgets tighter than ever, social programs are getting a hard look. But what about corporate welfare?

The New York Times started a good conversation last week with a three-part investigative series called the United States of Subsidies. Reporter Louise Story spent 10 months analyzing corporate tax breaks, gifts and other incentives in all 50 states, which she figured add up to at least $80 billion in annual taxpayer subsidies to business. ...

...Incentives redirect billions of tax dollars to corporate bottom lines instead of to improving education, health, safety, infrastructure and making other public investments that will create genuine, long-term economic development. ...

The incentive system favors large corporations over small businesses — often the employers who are already in a community and aren't looking to leave. Officials have responded by coming up with some incentives for them, too, which just further drains government coffers.

How do we stop this racket, where cities and states compete to steal jobs from one another? It would be great if Congress could pass a law, but it probably can't. Still, with about 20 percent of state and local government budgets coming from federal dollars, somebody needs to be looking out for the national interest.

 Amen.

A Bump In The Road

(Click on image to enlarge and then be kind enough to return.)

I have to admit, I am not too terribly worked up about the looming, dooming "fiscal cliff" so many people are concerned about.  Yes, yes, I know:  if Congress doesn't act by the end of the year, there will be drastic cuts to some of the programs I would just love to see cut, but also to programs I don't want to see cut any further.  And I appreciate that some of those cuts will add to the economic problems we currently face.  It just seems to me that it's about time Congress and the President face the music for their joint refusal to take care of business, and the rest of us face the music for letting them get away with it.

David Horsey's cartoon and column makes the same point, although he is far more concerned than I am.

The reason we are where we are is because our elected leaders put us here. The fiscal cliff -- a set of automatic draconian budget cuts and tax increases that will start taking effect on Jan. 1 -- was purposely created as a way to force the squabbling Congress and president into a budget deal. It is part of the Budget Control Act of 2011 that grew out of the near-disastrous debt ceiling showdown between President Obama and House Republicans.

The idea was that Republicans and Democrats would finally put differences aside and reach a budget compromise because both sides would be motivated by dread of automatic across-the-board cuts and tax hikes that would almost certainly hit the U.S. economy like a wrecking ball. ...

Many folks who claim to be political experts say this is mere posturing and that both sides will give up something to get a deal done -- with Republicans giving up more because the president is in a commanding negotiating position having just won reelection. Perhaps they are right, but the kind of hardheaded political calculation that used to get deals done in the days of Lyndon Johnson or Tip O’Neill has given way to ideological purity.

Congress is now filled with people like tea party cheerleader Michele Bachmann who has said that maybe it would not be such a bad idea to let the country go over the fiscal cliff. Boehner will have a tough enough time cajoling Ryan into any kind of compromise; he is unlikely to ever get crusaders like Bachmann and her hyper-conservative compatriots to give him an inch or a vote.

Hard-line liberals will also be difficult to move, especially if a proposed deal threatens the status quo in Social Security or Medicare. What is needed in the House and Senate is a bipartisan effort of folks in the center. That's where all the work used to get done in the old days, but it has been a long time since anyone has pulled together a coalition of rational compromisers.

While I agree that it is lamentable that our elected officials cannot seem to get any kind of deal done, I disagree with Horsey that it's because both far ends of the spectrum are to blame.  I mean, c'mon, David:  the "hard-line liberals" haven't had any kind of voice for over 20 years at least.  Our two parties keep moving further and further to the right thanks to the DLC, Blue Dog, and Third-Way Democrats who are perfectly happy keeping our owners perfectly happy.  The rest of us, all 99%, have been hung out to dry for a long time because we can't write the big checks come election time.

And it's not like THE DEFICIT is such a big deal.  Really.  It wasn't a big deal in 2000 when the GOP took power with the SURPLUS Bill Clinton handed it.  It didn't take long for the Bushies to run through that surplus in various ways, including fighting two wars off budget.  Deficits surely didn't matter then, and, truth be told, it really doesn't matter now.  Adjust a few things and we can offset a lot of the damage.

First of all, we should damned well take Social Security and Medicare off the table.  Social Security has absolutely NOTHING, zero, zip, nada, to do with the deficit.  It is a user-funded program which for too long has been used as an ATM by Congress.  If folks are so concerned that 35 years from now Social Security will go into red-ink, then raise the payroll tax from its current level.  Cap it at $130,00 or remove the cap entirely.  Medicare has the potential for being a drag on government spending, but there are ways to short-circuit that, including adding funds to the DOJ for slamming the fraudsters who are ripping the program off.

Next, end the Bush-era tax cuts for the wealthy.  It finally looks like President Obama and the Dems got the message from the election that the rest of us are tired of that 1% getting more breaks than they are entitled to.  Michele Bachmann and Paul Ryan may throw a snit-fit, but both had a harder time than expected in returning to Congress.  And the rest of the GOP, smarting from the last election, is hardly in any position to object too vigorously if it wants to continue as a viable party.

I'd also end the "middle class" payroll tax break.  All that did was undercut Social Security and Medicare funding.  Instead, provide real tax breaks for those of us with incomes below, say $250,00.  Avedon Carol has an excellent idea, one that hadn't occurred to me: raise the standard deduction from the laughable $3,800.  Go read what she has to say about that.  And then put real money into people's pockets by lowering rates.

Then tax all income, regardless of the source and regardless of the recipient.  Make corporations actually pay taxes.  To those who say that would affect job creation I would reply "Bovine Excrement!"  I didn't see any jobs being created by those tax breaks.  All I saw was outsourcing and offshoring.  The only "trickle down" we've seen has been of the decidedly urine-based  fluids raining down on all of us.  Those corporations who object and threaten to move out of the country can pay for their own damned security.  I'm sure Eric Prince and whatever his mercenaries are called these days will be happy to oblige.  We, then, can apply tariffs to the imports.

And that's just for openers.  I don't have any hard and fast rules for cutting "the fat" out of government programs, but, then, neither does the GOP beyond killing Big Bird and FEMA.  I do think cutting the junk contracts of the Pentagon is long over-due, as are outsourced programs in Homeland Security and the State Department.  Let government do the job the Constitution gave to it.

But I'm not sure we have enough stiff-necks and strong spines to accomplish this.  If not, there's always 2014.

Why We Can't Have Nice Things

(Editorial cartoon by Kevin Siers / The Charlotte Observer (August 14, 2012) and featured at McClatchy DC. Click on image to enlarge and then be kind enough to return.)

Yesterday I commented on the Romney-Ryan campaign as being more suitable for 1912 than 2012 because it seemed to be geared to the new breed of Robber Barons. I'm more convinced than ever that Horsey's analysis was apt after reading this AP article:

Twenty-six big U.S. companies paid their CEOs more last year than they paid the federal government in tax, according to a study released Thursday by a liberal-leaning think tank.

The study, by the Institute for Policy Studies, said the companies, including AT&T, Boeing and Citigroup, paid their CEOs an average of $20.4 million last year while paying little or no federal tax on ample profits, according to regulatory filings.

Some companies cited in the study said it was misleading. They also said they took advantage of tax deductions and credits designed to free up money for companies to spend in ways that stimulate the economy. ...

Among the "kingpins" it criticized was CEO James McNerney Jr. of Boeing. It said he got $18.4 million in pay last year while his company received a tax refund of $605 million.

The study also laid into Citigroup for paying CEO Vikram Pandit $14.9 million while the bank received a net $144 million in tax benefits.

Eighteen of the 26 companies received cash back or credits to apply against tax in the future, according to the report.

The study, a 45-page attack on the corporate tax code, said deductions and credits are allowing companies to lavish big pay packages on executives so they can cut their tax bills while Washington gets less money in a time of trillion-plus deficits.

"Our nation's tax code has become a powerful enabler of bloated CEO pay," the study said. [Emphasis added]

Of course, AP felt compelled to note that the study was done by "liberal-leaning think tank" and to offer the excuses of the companies as "balance." Those excuses are laughable, yet are offered with great seriousness.

AT&T is so busy trying to screw its union employees that those employees have had to go on strike to get some reasonable negotiations started. And other employers are still laying off workers: yesterday's new unemployment figures show an increase over last week's figures.

Meanwhile, the CEOs are making out like bandits, or like Mitt Romney, who yesterday announced that he has in fact been paying taxes the last ten years, at the frighteningly high rate of 13%.

Yeah, that's impressive. The rest of us (at least those of us lucky enough to have a job and an income) are paying at 35%.

But that's not good enough for Romney and Ryan: they want to cut taxes even further for our elite.

To which I say, "Fukkem. With a rusty chain saw. Sideways."

Covering All The Bases

An amazingly detailed and lengthy primer on how to buy a state government appeared in yesterday's Los Angeles Times. It appears that AT&T has all the bases covered quite successfully.

The Speaker's Cup is the centerpiece of a corporate lobbying strategy so comprehensive and successful that it has rewritten the special-interest playbook in Sacramento. When it comes to state government, AT&T spends more money, in more places, than any other company.

It forges relationships on the putting green, in luxury suites and in Capitol hallways. It gives officials free tickets to Lady Gaga concerts. It takes lawmakers on trips around the globe and all-expenses-paid retreats in wine country. It dispenses millions in political donations and employs an army of lobbyists. It has spent more than $14,000 a day on political advocacy since 2005, when it merged with SBC into its current form.

A handful of labor unions and trade groups have spent more on a combination of lobbying and direct political giving, but state records show that in the last seven years, no single corporation has spent as much trying to influence lawmakers as AT&T. At the same time, a tide of consumer protections has ebbed and the company has been unshackled from the watchful eye of state regulators. ...

Many of the company's victories have come at the California Public Utilities Commission, a five-member panel appointed by the governor that oversees the telecommunications industry. Its members have waved through mergers, limited regulations on cellular service and helped AT&T rebuild itself into a telecom behemoth almost 30 years after it was split apart in the wake of a federal antitrust case.

The rest of AT&T's wins come at the state Capitol, where the company focuses most of its lobbying efforts. There, lawmakers have passed bills that have translated into millions of dollars for the firm's bottom line and stopped dozens of measures that AT&T has opposed.

And all of this money is in addition to campaign contributions, which, of course, are the the staples of corporate influence.

From 1999, when the state began keeping electronic records of lobbying activity, through the end of 2011, AT&T spent more money trying to influence public officials than any other single corporation. In those 13 years, according to records from the California secretary of state, AT&T and its affiliates spent more than $47 million on lobbying — more than twice the figure for the next biggest corporate spender, Edison International, which shelled out about $21.9 million.

In addition, AT&T hands out, on average, more than $1 million in political contributions each year. Every current member of the Legislature has received at least $1,000; chairmen of the committees that oversee the telecommunications industry get far more.

But wait! There's more. AT&T also uses another canny tool: charitable contributions.

Charitable giving has long been entwined with AT&T's political strategy. The firm has given $145,000 to two charter schools in Oakland founded by Gov. Jerry Brown, $50,000 of that since Brown was elected governor. It gives to a range of other groups, and many AT&T representatives serve on their boards. The organizations often back the company's priorities.

And you wonder why your AT&T bill gets higher, more complicated, almost impossible to figure out? All part of the "never give a sucker an even break" approach that the company has refined so well.

The article is long, but well worth the time spent reading it, and I urge you to do so.

And, I must say that even though I grouse a lot about the Times, this is a superb effort in investigative reporting. It exemplifies what our free press should be doing to educate us so we can raise holy hell when our government is subverted by the corporatocracy.

Well done. And more like this, please.

Some Unsurprising News

Some times I just want to crawl back into bed, pull the covers over my head, and stay there until somebody I trust delivers some good news. This is one of those times and involves Rep. Virginia Foxx (R-N.C.) and her most recent moralizing.

Representative Virginia Foxx (R-N.C.) has been attracting a lot of attention on the Web -- in large part because of the comments she made over the weekend in a radio interview that she has "very little tolerance" for people who graduate from college with huge student loans. ...

First of all, Foxx's opinion on student loans does matter -- she's a member of the House's Education and Workforce Committee and chairwoman of the Subcommittee on Higher Education and Workforce Training. It's not one of the powerhouse committees known for helping its members attract a lot of campaign cash, but since Foxx was named committee chair in January 2011, she has become a magnet for campaign contributions from for-profit universities - a recent hot topic on the Hill. ...

In her first year on the subcommittee, Foxx picked up at least $48,668 from PACs or individuals affiliated with for-profit colleges. We counted 22 companies or trade associations in the for-profit college industry on the list of her top contributors, including: Bridgepoint Education, the Association of Private Sector Colleges and Universities, the Apollo Group (which owns the University of Phoenix) and student loan lender NelNet Inc. [Emphasis added]

So, Congress finally begins to realize what a staggering problem student loans have become and decides to at least talk about it. It lands in Rep. Foxx's committee and suddenly ... only the sound of crickets. The 'for-profit' colleges moved in quickly and Rep. Foxx was one of the recipients of their largess. And then Ms. Foxx has the audacity to diss those students who have that student debt, many because of the scamming done by those for-profit schools.

For a more complete list of contributors to Rep. Foxx, check out this list compiled by Open Secrets.

Finally, Open Secrets has been nominated for a Webby. If you appreciate the critical work they do, please consider taking a moment and voting for them.

Why We Can't Have Nice Things

There are times I wish I could go back in time to grab the country's founders by their necks and to shake them until their eyes spun. This is one of those times. Their idea of a "Senate" to offset the whimsy of the House just hasn't worked out of late.

The Senate has more Democrats than Republicans. That doesn't mean much, and hasn't for quite some time. The Republicans seem to always get their way, whether they have the majority or not. Case in point: the recent vote on getting rid of government tax breaks for oil companies whose profits are through the roof once again. Paul Whitefield had some rather brief but certainly pertinent comments on on the process.

As Time staff writers Lisa Mascaro and Christi Parsons reported Thursday: “The Senate blocked an effort to end billions of dollars in tax breaks for the oil industry, brushing aside President Obama's argument that the five big oil companies were doing ‘just fine’ while consumers were struggling with painfully high gasoline prices.”

Of course, on Capitol Hill, "consumers" are those people who need to be pandered to whenever an election rolls around. Big oil companies, on the other hand, are "providers" -- of lots of campaign contributions.

So I guess that’s how we got to this “free market,” the one in which oil companies are free to charge whatever they want for gasoline, Congress is free to keep giving tax breaks to an industry making huge profits, and you and I are free to walk, or bike, or scrimp on other things so we can put 87-octane into old Bessie. [Emphasis added]

That article by Mascaro and Parsons to which Whitefield refers is also illuminating.

The measure to kill the industry tax preferences failed on a 51-47 procedural vote Thursday. It needed 60 votes to overcome a Republican-led filibuster that was supported by some Democrats from oil-rich states. [Emphasis added]

Because, of course, the "consumers" in oil-rich states aren't getting gouged by the oil companies, and aren't being affected by the slash-and-burn cutting of other federal programs (such as education, food stamps, Medicaid, Medicare, student loans, and so on) so that we can get our deficit under control rather than ending these billion dollar giveaways to the big five oil companies.

The "providers," also known as the "1%" or "our owners," wouldn't have it any other way. And our senators are only too happy to comply.

I swear, one of these days I'm gonna take a hostage.

Easily Bought

I had thought about titling this post "Cheap Whores", but then it occurred to me that such a title would be unnecessarily insulting to decent sex workers everywhere. They at least work hard and provide a service. Some of our congress critters clearly don't do either.

It’s the steal of the century. For the price of buying a condo in Washington, D.C., you can support the political campaigns of members of Congress who support your trillion-dollar program. Talk about return on investment!

On November 9, Reps. Kay Granger (R-Texas) and Norm Dicks (D-Wash.) announced the formation of a Congressional Joint Strike Fighter (JSF) Caucus that they are co-chairing. The F-35 Joint Strike Fighter is the most expensive program in Pentagon history, and it has been plagued by delays, cost overruns and defects that have raised eyebrows at the Pentagon and in Congress (the latest official report on JSF problems was made public by POGO yesterday). As of its announcement, the JSF Caucus had 48 members of the House on its roster. ...

The primary contractors building the JSF -- Lockheed Martin, Northrop Grumman, BAE Systems and Pratt & Whitney -- have contributed $326,400 to members of the JSF Caucus in the first year of the 2012 election cycle, according to a joint analysis of campaign finance data by the Center for Responsive Politics and the Project on Government Oversight (POGO). These firms’ political action committees (PACs), which distribute campaign contributions to promote the contractors’ political goals, gave the average member of the JSF Caucus $6,094 -- nearly double what they gave to the average representative not in the caucus ($3,077).

And, it’s not just the corporate PACs that are funneling money to these legislators; individuals working for these firms also disproportionately direct their campaign contributions to these representatives.

In fact, thus far in the 2012 election cycle, the average member of the JSF Caucus has received nearly twice as much money ($706) from employees of the top four JSF contractors as the average House member who is not in the JSF Caucus ($387).

The F-35, years late and still deeply flawed, is turning out to be one of the greatest boondoggles in Pentagon history. Many in the military are so disgusted that they've made it clear that they don't even want the fighter jet, especially with the latest problems which will cost about $1 million per plane to fix, thereby adding to the cost over-run.

So why are members of the Joint Strike Fighter working so hard to keep the plane in production? The official reason is the program provides jobs in their respective district. I tend to think the "donations" from the contractors and their employees have a great deal to do with it.

What surprises me is how little money it takes to buy off members of Congress. I guess that the corporate cookie jar I mentioned yesterday has all sorts of goodies in it.

Nothing new here; move along, move along.

Employment Insurance

You needn't feel sorry for former Minnesota Governor Tim Pawlenty. His campaign for the GOP presidential nomination never took fire, so he dropped out, but he still has a pretty decent future.

After keeping a mostly low profile the past two months, Pawlenty was named Tuesday to the board of directors of RedPrairie, an international Atlanta-based supply chain company. The company has an office in Eden Prairie. ...

Pawlenty is also joining the board of Miromatrix, medical company, the company announced this week. ...

The company noted that it had "enjoyed significant support and cooperation from both the State of Minnesota and the University of Minnesota."

According to Minneapolis- St. Paul Business Journal, Minnesota loaned Miromatrix $250,000 in 2010 when Pawlenty was governor. [Emphasis added]

And that, my friends, is how politicians line up their next job. Make nice to business interests while in office and then accept a cushy job on their boards of directors at a pretty nice salary. It's a career path, one trod by our elected officials on both sides of the aisle. Is it any wonder that our owners continue to rake in the dough while the rest of us suffer through bad times?

Preach It, Brother Bernie!

Senator Bernie Sanders (Vermont) has a remarkably detailed post up at the Daily Kos. In it, he excoriates Wall Street and the federal government, and then provides some good sense solutions to the problems caused by the banksters and their style of doing business.

More than three years ago, Congress rewarded Wall Street with the biggest taxpayer bailout in the history of the world. Simultaneously but unknown to the American people at the time, the Federal Reserve provided an even larger bailout. The details of what the Fed did were kept secret until a provision in the Dodd-Frank Act that I sponsored required the Government Accountability Office to audit the Fed’s lending programs during the financial crisis.

As a result of this audit, the American people have learned that the Federal Reserve provided more than $16 trillion in low-interest loans to every major financial institution in this country, huge foreign banks, multi-national corporations, and some of the wealthiest people in the world.

In other words, when Wall Street was on the verge of collapse, the federal government acted boldly, aggressively, and with a fierce sense of urgency to save our financial system from collapse with no strings attached.

Now that the middle class is collapsing and a record-breaking 46 million Americans are living in poverty, the Federal Reserve has failed to act with the same sense of urgency to make sure that small businesses receive the affordable loans needed to put millions of Americans back to work and prevent millions of Americans from losing their homes. [Emphasis added]

Those too wealthy to fail got the benefit of an extraordinary bailout by the feds, so extraordinary that our government tried to keep it secret from the rest of us and almost pulled it off. If the move was necessary to keep us from utter destruction, why hide it? Was the government afraid that the 99% of us who paid for that extra bit of corporate welfare might catch on too soon that we were being sold out yet again? Apparently so.

Sen. Sanders then issues six legislative proposals designed to put Wall Street back under control in a manner they should have been so as to avoid the catastrophe --the near catastrophe for them, the complete disaster for everyone else. Go read them and then forward them on to your congress critters. Explain to them that there's a reason the Occupy Wall Street protests are catching on with the 99%.

And Bernie has a few words about those protests in his conclusion:

The Occupy Wall Street demonstrators are shining a light on one of the most serious problems facing the United States -- the greed and power of Wall Street. Now is the time for the American people to demand that the president and Congress follow that light – and act. The future of our economy is at stake.

Preach it, Bernie!

Next Round Coming Up

On Saturday, I suggested that once Rick Perry announced his candidacy, his record as governor of Texas would be more closely examined, by the other candidates in the GOP race and (hopefully) by the media. That has begun to happen.

From the Wall Street Journal:

Gov. Rick Perry's presidential pitch goes something like this: During one of the worst recessions in American history, he's kept his state "open for business." In the last two years, Texas created over a quarter of a million jobs, meaning that the state's 8% unemployment rate is substantially lower than the rest of the nation's. The governor credits this exceptional growth to things like low taxes and tort reform.

It's a strong message. But one of the governor's signature economic development initiatives—the Texas Emerging Technology Fund—has lately raised serious questions among some conservatives.

The Emerging Technology Fund was created at Mr. Perry's behest in 2005 to act as a kind of public-sector venture capital firm, largely to provide funding for tech start-ups in Texas. Since then, the fund has committed nearly $200 million of taxpayer money to fund 133 companies. Mr. Perry told a group of CEOs in May that the fund's "strategic investments are what's helping us keep groundbreaking innovations in the state." The governor, together with the lieutenant governor and the speaker of the Texas House, enjoys ultimate decision-making power over the fund's investments.

Sounds like a pretty good idea, yes? The only problem is that Gov. Good Hair set that fund up with state money to benefit his buddies/campaign donors:

All told, the Dallas Morning News has found that some $16 million from the tech fund has gone to firms in which major Perry contributors were either investors or officers, and $27 million from the fund has gone to companies founded or advised by six advisory board members. The tangle of interests surrounding the fund has raised eyebrows throughout the state, especially among conservatives who think the fund is a misplaced use of taxpayer dollars to start with.

"It is fundamentally immoral and arrogant," says state representative David Simpson, a tea party-backed freshman from Longview, two hours east of Dallas. The fund "opened the door to the appearance of impropriety, if not actual impropriety." [Emphasis added]

Now, this story didn't appear in the "liberal" press, but in the Wall Street Journal. And Mr. Simpson isn't exactly a disgruntled liberal grousing about the rich getting richer while the poor are getting nothing, but a man backed by the Tea Party. And this is just the start of Gov. Perry's campaign.

What would be nice is if Team Blue, lead by Barack Obama, would also take note of the governor's record, pointing out some of these things. I don't see that happening any time soon. I guess they expect us to do that heavy lifting for them.

More popcorn, please.

Garbage!

There's nothing like a heavy dose of incoming self-serving tripe to add the taste of urine to one's Wheaties. Andrew Biggs, resident scholar at the American Enterprise Institute, provided today's outrageous garbage, hauled in and dumped on Angelenos' breakfast tables.

Mr. Biggs suggests that deficits could be reduced and the economy made better if we would just increase the retirement age. He suggests that "entitlements" such as Social Security need to be pared in these perilous times. And then he insists that everyone, including would-be retirees at age 62, would all be better off. Never mind that Social Security is funded by those who eventually expect to collect on all the premiums they paid over 40 years, and not by the government. Never mind that Social Security contributes not one cent to the federal deficit. Never mind that there are no fucking jobs for those over 62 who got laid off or terminated in the blood bath of the past three years, and for many of those who still are "employed", the work they are doing is only part time and their actual wages are lower in real dollars than they were only five years ago.

None of that apparently matters to our owners at AEI. All they care about is a ready reserve of drones who will labor on until they drop. And they have all sorts of "statistics" to back their demands:

Perhaps the best evidence that future Americans can work longer is that past Americans did: Despite poorer health, shorter lives and more strenuous jobs, in 1950 the typical individual did not claim Social Security until age 68.5. In 1950, more than 20% of Americans worked in physically demanding jobs; today only about 8% do. While today's technology-driven service economy places demands on older workers, it is hard to imagine that things were easier when Americans typically worked on farms or in factories.

One impediment frequently cited to Americans working longer is the shortage of jobs. Certainly unemployment is high at the moment, which is why any increase in the early retirement age should be phased in over time. But with 10,000 baby boomers leaving the workforce each day, businesses will need more employees as the economy recovers. And more affluent retirees are likely to spend more, which will in turn create jobs.

Yeah, that'll get it. And I'm the Queen of Rumania.

But here's the real kicker: he's got a cure for what ails us:

Several steps would make longer work lives easier while protecting those who can't work. To begin, the Social Security payroll tax should be reduced or eliminated for individuals over age 62, giving older Americans the incentive to work and employers the incentive to hire them. To protect individuals who cannot work longer, Social Security disability benefits should remain available and the eligibility age for Supplemental Security Income — a means-tested benefit for the poor — should be lowered from 65 to 62. Finally, Medicare should be made the primary payer of health costs for individuals over age 65, which would significantly lower employers' health insurance costs for older workers. [Emphasis added]

Hmmm...I was under the impression that Medicare was already the primary payer of health insurance costs for people over 65, whether they were working or not. If Mr. Biggs thinks that would lower employers' health insurance costs, where was he during the healthcare reform debate when many of us were suggesting that Medicare For All would have that effect across the board? Cowering in the corner, I suspect.

Look, there is absolutely nothing wrong with the Social Security system, even now as more workers are forced into an early retirement they hadn't anticipated or desired, that wouldn't be cured by raising or removing the cap on the payroll tax for Social Security.

Perhaps Mr. Biggs, if he really wants to reduce the federal deficit, should consider a more appropriate target, like the two, soon to be three, unnecessary wars we are engaged in. Or the bloated Pentagon budget itself. Or the corporate welfare that sucks out tax dollars without replacing them.

Fucking moron.

Who Could Have Imagined?

The privatizing of government functions has always struck me as foolish and dangerous in a democracy. We had plenty of evidence of that in the role of Blackwater/Xe in Iraq in which the private contractor and supplier of mercenaries to the war effort engaged in behavior contrary to the laws of military engagement while providing "security" for both the State Department and Defense Department. The theory behind this kind of privatization is that business can operate more efficiently (and therefor more cheaply) than government. Unfortunately, such contracts rarely provide the kind of oversight that does indeed reflect a cost savings to the taxpayer.

It's not just the federal government which has engaged in this kind of foolishness. Local governments, prompted by the push for better education, have turned over some public schools to private companies and then washed their hands of any involvement in the schools. At least one school district has now seen just how dangerous that can be.

Minnesota's alternative education schools need tough new rules and training programs to protect against conflicts of interest and other financial improprieties, State Auditor Rebecca Otto said Monday.

The auditor's report details allegations that the former president of an alternative learning center that had multimillion-dollar contracts with Minneapolis and Richfield public schools used his position to funnel almost $3 million to his own management firm. Otto said the board of directors for the Center for Training and Careers Inc. exercised inadequate oversight.

As a result, investigators found, Louis D. Gonzales shifted the money to his company, Little Feathers Group, between April 2003 and September 2007. ...

Otto's report arrives amid rising skepticism of management and financial practices at a range of nontraditional education providers, from charter schools to schools for dropouts.

Despite serving almost 150,000 full- or part-time students, the state's 300-plus taxpayer-funded alternative programs operate with little monitoring, and their finances face much less scrutiny than those of school districts and charter schools, she said. Alternative learning centers operate outside the conventional school system, and are designed to serve students who have been expelled or otherwise have trouble succeeding in conventional classrooms.

When the Legislature convenes in January, Otto said, she plans to recommend that lawmakers consider requiring school districts to oversee alternative education programs' finances, file management agreements and audited financial statements with the state Department of Education, and require conflict-of-interest rules and property lease restrictions. [Emphasis added]

Instead of saving money, the state's poor decision cost local districts a whole bunch more as yet another "businessman" found a way to increase his personal bottom line. But more is at issue here than simply a scam artist finding a way to milk the system. While no rational person would dispute the need for government programs to be as efficient and cost-effective as possible, the purpose of government is totally different than that of business. Governments are supposed to serve the public welfare. Businesses are supposed to make money, a benefit which goes only to the owners of the businesses, and not to the public at large.

Turning over one of the most important government functions to private contractors is a recipe for disaster, both for the government and for the citizens that government is supposed to serve. This is one experiment which had failure written all over it right from the start.

What Crabby Said

One of the blogs I visit daily is Ronni Bennett's Time Goes By. Her blog details "what it's really like to get older", and does so with humor, scathing commentary, and, on occasion, outrage. She has recruited a wonderful crew of elders to post with her, but my favorite posts are inevitably those written when Ronni dons the cloak of her "Crabby Old Lady" persona to skewer some situation or group which has mistakenly assumed that older people of our culture are easy targets.

Crabby made another appearance this past Thursday in a post titled Fear of Food. Written with the massive egg recall in mind, the post takes a good hard look at the food peddled for our consumption and the dangers of indulging in a past time we all, regardless of our age, indulge in: eating.

There are already a lot of things Crabby Old Lady doesn't eat. After E. coli was found in packaged spinach four years ago, she stopped using packaged vegetables – leafy ones, roots, herbs, anything. If they aren't loose, she doesn't buy them; those sealed plastic bags are perfect petri dishes for growing nasty, disease-bearing bacteria.

Crabby isn't much of a beef eater, but a couple of times a year she craves a big, fat hamburger with all the fixings on a toasted bun. No more; Crabby hasn't eaten one for years because it's not a burger to her if it's not medium rare and there are too many, regularly-occurring recalls due to E. coli. - just three weeks ago, one million pounds were recalled. ...

Whenever there is a new, widespread outbreak of food-borne illness, government agencies go all religious on us about inspections – for a short while. But imagine how long it takes for eight-foot piles of chicken manure to build up and where were the USDA, DOA, etc. - the agencies responsible for the safety of the food supply - during that time?

Could this be a political issue? Undoubtedly, giant agribusinesses have lobbyists in Washington, but even politicians who want to kill Social Security wouldn't trade food safety for campaign donations. Would they?

Crabby's question is clearly rhetorical, since we all know the answer to that one. Of course they would, but that's only half the problem. During the extended aftermath of 9/11, someone fussed that one target of the terrorists might be our food supply, and we would all be DOOMED! The terrorists needn't bother. Our own government is perfectly capable of doing the job without any further assistance.

It's not just the Congress critters who are on the payroll of the agribusinesses and other megacorps. Regulatory agencies (part of the Executive Branch) have been stocked by presidents eager to reward supporters with cushy jobs. Appointees to those agencies also see the job they've been hired to do as a mere stepping stone to an even more lucrative position with the companies they've been hired to keep an eye on, so that eye often blinks.

Evidence of those blinks (or winks) have piled up over the last decade, from mining disasters to oil spills and explosions on rigs and platforms, from automobile recalls to food recalls. In nearly every case, the disasters could have been prevented if the federal regulatory had done what they were designed to do, enforce the regulations composed to protect the American public.

I guess the concept that the government should "promote the general welfare" has gone out of fashion, which is both shameful and criminal.